M1A3 MBT and LVS-False?
-
I have heard people saying that M1A2 is the last of the A line and only upgrades to SEP standard will only be announced.
However THERE are forums saying that M1A3 will be out, dont ask when, but there has been no design or prototype sketches of the A3.
M1A3 will have
*144 mm MBG(main battle gun)
*50 cal secondary gun
*system for defeating rockets and grenades
from frontlines:Futures of war
The replacement of the Humvee is still under development and as of today, US is quite tight lipped on either two
Will they pull off another F22A ,F35A genius that could re-envisage the future of modern warfare?
-
I seriously doubt that there will be an M1A3. The US is focusing on the Future Combat Systems program to eventually replace the likes of the M1s and M2s. At the moment however, the FCS program looks like a long way off from realizing its final objectives & in the meantime the M1 & other MBTs will soldier on with upgrades for probably the next 20 years.
However MBTs such as the M1A1 and A2 have more than proven their worth in the the recent ME wars even in urban warfare. But , they remain vulnerable if opponents have advanced weapons such as the latest ATGMs as shown by the Hizbollah against Merkavas. Of course active protection systems such as Trophy may be the solution, but they are still not proven or battle tested - only time will tell. But these systems will improve , but so will the AT weapons which will then be designed to defeat these systems.
-
LOL
Maybe you would like to try some of the M1A4 tanks in John Ringo's Posleen Wars universe, a variant of the Abrams upgraded to fight an invading alien horde that is intent on eating all the humans in the galaxy...
Well it's written by an American so try to take all the USA is best rah-rah with a pinch of salt:
The Abrams Main Battle Tank was originally designed for the sole purpose of killing other tanks, almost assuredly Soviet and ex-Soviet designs. It had advanced composite armor, a quick-firing, stabilized 120mm main gun, sophisticated targeting systems, nuclear, biological and chemical protection and an amazing turn of speed supplied by its Lycomings jet-turbine engine. Furthermore, on battlefields across the globe, it had proven itself the finest machine in the world for that task, able to both out-fight and outmaneuver any other tank on the planet, seventy plus tons of fast-rolling incredibly deadly meanness. But with the coming of the Posleen, changes in design were inevitable; the Posleen didn't really have anything worth hitting with a 120mm depleted uranium dart. Or, if they did, it was too large to care about being scratched by an Abrams.
However, the base tank was the finest piece of war machinery ever designed and it seemed a shame to simply throw all that engineering away. At first, when they turned out to be highly vulnerable to plasma and even 3mm railgun fire, the tanks seemed doomed. But technology came to their aid in the form of new, and lighter, armor materials. The M-1A4's turret and primary frontal armor was a layer of battle-steel, room-temperature superconductor, nano-tube composite and synthetic sapphire threading. The combination meant that frontally it could shed off the fire of anything but a direct and unlucky HVM hit.
From the side it was not so well armored but if the Posleen were on your flank you were screwing up anyway.
To reduce the possibility of being flanked, and to deal with the main problem of the Posleen, the fact that there were just way too many of them, the gunnery of the tanks was modified. On either side of the turret "add-on" weapons were installed. These were 25mm cannons like the main gun of a Bradley, but where a Bradley had one gun the Abrams were mounted with first two, one on either side, then four and finally eight. The .50 caliber TC gun was replaced with a 7.62 Gatling gun capable of hurling 8000 rounds a minute and the "coaxial" 7.62 machine gun mounted alongside the main gun was switched out for another. Even excepting their main gun, the "A4" Abrams could hurl an amazing mass of lead.
The main gun, however, remained a problem. It seemed a shame to pull the weapon, since it was about as good as it got from a cannon perspective. Finally, it was decided to leave the cannon in place and simply change the ammo mix. The ammo bin still carried a few "silver bullets" for old time's sake, but the majority of the rounds stored in an A4 were canister.
Unlike the complex depleted uranium or High Explosive Anti-Tank rounds, canister was simplicity in itself; in effect it was a giant shotgun shell. Each round held 2000 flechettes packed in ahead of a powerful firing charge.
-
-,- im not talking about games
but real life MBTs -,-
Although it may seem that the 144mm gun can be mounted on an A2 chassis, i reckon the chassis would have to be also equipped with up to date or futuristic weapons combat system and FCS. and with DU and Chobham armor , it is more of a match for the T-90 and Leo 2 in terms of armor.
I wonder why the Rhienmentall AG decided that a 122 mm gun is more than sufficient?
-
why upgrade to 144mm while 120mm can do the job ?
why replace the heavy armor with FCS while they can complement each other ?
why discuss abt Future while we dunno how to differentiate now and future ?
-
um, 144 is better in the sense that better strike percentage as in better penetration against the T-90, T95 ,LEO2 should any war in Europe arise
Heavy armor will be phased out soon enough in the future as more modern ATGMs, Sabot rounds , shoulder-fired RPGs and IEDs are deployed , We do not need to incur further loss of life should these penetrate the armor and kill the crew operating that tank and incurring monetary losses(A Abrams M1A1 costs about USD $2.5m-4.5m)
Forgive me as i do not know alot (im only Sec 4) but i am very interested in Military affairs and tanks
Hope to engage in friendly conversations with the pros here
-
Heavy armor will be phased out soon enough in the future as more modern ATGMs, Sabot rounds , shoulder-fired RPGs and IEDs are deployed , We do not need to incur further loss of life should these penetrate the armor and kill the crew operating that tank and incurring monetary losses(A Abrams M1A1 costs about USD $2.5m-4.5m)
And what exactly in your opinion is going to face those modern ATGMs, Sabot rounds , shoulder-fired RPGs and IEDs? They will still kill any lesser manned ground unit far easier and you'll still incur loss of life, as it stands the MBT is still the most protected thing on the ground. As long as troops are on the line and exposed to these weapons, there is no perfect solution.
Additionally, MBTs do not fight alone, they can be used to support infantry and are in turn supported by infantry and other units. This is especially true in network centric warfare. It's not such a simple issue of weapon versus weapon, how you play your cards is important as well.
At the end of the day I am not sure if the tank as we know it will survive, but the concept of it almost certainly will. There is always be a need for a mobile, protected space carrying a weapons system.
If we want to speculate on the future, I envision that barring breakthroughs in materials technology like the ability to manufacture carbon nanotubes for armour, eventually the emphasis on the tank of the future will be not to take hits, but rather to hide and not be hit in the first place. Also, active protection systems will start to become more popular and become the armour of the future. Mobility will be a factor.
Instead of engaging the enemy with direct fire, the tank of the future might rely on missiles instead, using network centric warfare to find targets that are out of its personal LOS, allowing it to engage targets that it cannot see. However these systems will be expensive so the good old gun will still probably see use, though they might be options for smart shells.
Also, we must consider the possibility of unmanned tanks, ie. souped up UGVs starting to take up roles alongside manned units. UGVs will be lighter, smaller, cheaper and easier to protect given they do not carry a crew and their applications will have potential.
MBT or not, the concept of the tank, which is the mobile, protected space carrying a weapons system will probably be around in warfare... in fact these concepts have long existed before the invention of the tank with ancient battering rams or siege towers.
-
well said
manned units have a better field advantage in engaging targets i agree .
even a recoiless rifle penetrated the Abrams and caused it to be set on fire
i believe that however wars can be fought by unmanned vehicles, these vehicles can and will be hacked .Such is the power of IT software that even front line Uavs are now being employed.
-
since heavy armor is going to phase out soon, why up-gun to 144 ?
shldnt the $$ goes to how to better protect the FCS fleet from modern ATGMs, FS rds, IEDs etc ?
IF FCS is going to replace Heavy Armor MBTs....
-
haha im confused.
144mm gun i think is only found on ATY
i think the max on the tank is 122-130?
-
unmanned, autonomous, remote control...
easier to say than done.
Manned Ground Vehicles still very much leading the way
Network Centric Warfare, sacrificing protection with greater awareness has only proved effective against poorly equipped aggressor
and not equal and capable aggressor...
but back to the topic.... drift liao
-
Originally posted by Beaten_And_Damned:
haha im confused.
144mm gun i think is only found on ATY
i think the max on the tank is 122-130?
haha ask TS...
anyway prototype of Leopard 2A5 KWS III has a 140mm gun
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
haha ask TS...
anyway prototype of Leopard 2A5 KWS III has a 140mm gun
u mean
-
oh TS haha
ya u put m1A3 has 144mm gun ma
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
oh TS haha
ya u put m1A3 has 144mm gun ma
speculative nature mah
but whether it comes to tech specs i dont think that M1A3 has the jet turbine engine as the M1A2?
-
deh, zun bo ?
from where u come across m1A3 ?
-
read some topics here on the M1A2 and inside there were rumors that M1A3 would be coming out
i googled it and M1A3 was in several forums in the US, but some say it wouldbr be coming out
-
even a recoiless rifle penetrated the Abrams and caused it to be set on fire
That was because the RR was fired into the rear compartment, where the armour on any MBT is thin. Actually an RR is overkill, even a LAW can seriously hurt most MBTs from the rear.
MBTs carry their heaviest armor on the front, where the threat is heaviest. To armour every side of the tank as heavily as the front would mean the tank will be too heavy to move.
The idea of armour is not to be totally immune to everything, but to be able to protect from a reasonable amount of threats so that the unit can carry out it's mission. No matter how well you built something, all somebody needs to do is to pack in more explosives in an IED to blow it up. In terms of protection, you probably don't want to be in anything else other then an MBT or a MRAP.
Network Centric Warfare, sacrificing protection with greater awareness has only proved effective against poorly equipped aggressor
and not equal and capable aggressor...
Erm wrong, Network Centric Warfare is not about sacrificing protection for greater awareness.
The push towards lighter units by the US, in their thinking, is to take full advantage of the SA that Network Centric Warfare provides in terms of having the mobility in order to exploit the knowledge.
However Network Centric Warfare can also be used for conventionally equipped forces.
I don't see how it can't be effective, if you can gather information and make sense of it faster then an agressor that is equal to you in everything but that aspect, you are bound to have a significant advantage over him in terms of being able to get within his decision-making loop.
-
understand...
but with equal network centric capable aggressor, is the advantage still there ?
All these while, the showcase of network centric warfare is on inferior aggressor.
What if my aggressor can gather info, decide as fast as me ?
I wont have that advantage already.
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
understand...
but with equal network centric capable aggressor, is the advantage still there ?
All these while, the showcase of network centric warfare is on inferior aggressor.
What if my aggressor can gather info, decide as fast as me ?
I wont have that advantage already.
Since when was it a free lunch to victory?
It's like saying spies offer our country an advantage in intelligence, but no point because other countries have spies can it'll just cancel out. But that hardly means you give up entirely on developing your own intelligence capacity.
The question is, in modern war can we afford to do without it?
Network centric warfare is just another step into the age old process of gathering information about the battlefield and making decisions better and faster then your enemy, it does not by any measure mean that just because you have it you'll have that advantage.
Obviously it would be silly for any military not to develop their abilities in this area and the military with the best ability in this area will have the upper hand. The way I see it, it's not just having the ability to go network centric, but how well you can spread and deploy your network to make sense of your battlespace and how well you can prevent your enemy from doing the same or to hamper him from doing it. Just because your enemy (or you) has the ability to go network centric does not mean that deploying that network is a given.
That would then be a matter of how you play your cards, but there's no denying that the battle quite obviously belongs to the force that can make quicker and better decisions.
-
We can say network centric is advantageous for forces who has it against those who doesnt.
This advantage could be gone when 2 forces with equal capabilities in network centric warfare 'rubbed shoulders' and how to regain this advantage is thru how they deploy and how they use and how they hamper each others network.
Right ? :D
-
This advantage could be gone when 2 forces with equal capabilities in network centric warfare 'rubbed shoulders' and how to regain this advantage is thru how they deploy and how they use and how they hamper each others network.
I don't think network centric warfare was designed with the intention to give any military an "advantage" over non-equipped foes, given so much of it is actually created from off the shelf equipment and what have you not.
I see it more as a progression of things due to technology that has matured, however yes it would be right to say that a network centric force has significant advantages over a old-style force, and how you play your cards against a similar enemy will determine if you can retain that advantage.
-
i dun agree that network centric warfare is a progression of things due to technology and wasnt designed to give any advantage.
i would say the idea behind NCW can be made possible by harnessing today's or future technology.
i also dun agree that the equipment used are off-the-shelf items
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
i dun agree that network centric warfare is a progression of things due to technology and wasnt designed to give any advantage.
i would say the idea behind NCW can be made possible by harnessing today's or future technology.
i also dun agree that the equipment used are off-the-shelf items
Most of the stuff assembled for network centric warfare are basically civillian technology and ideas that has been milspeced. Why reinvent the wheel when communications technology is being developed by the civillian sector?
When i say it wasn't designed to give any advantage, what I mean is that some dudes didn't just think up of this radical new idea. It was a pragmatic and natural progression given the internet era we are in now. What is truly radical about NCW is the speed at which information can flow and be shared by your units, but it's not really surprising for anybody who uses the net a bit and not really surprising that this technology will eventually go military.
-
haha dun agree again...
i think important equipment used for NCW goes beyond the screen, mouse and keyboard that we see on the outside.
dun agree that technology behind NCW is developed by the civilian sector also.
dun agree that $$$ spent on designing NCW is not with the objective of gaining advantage.
Since, internet is developed and used by the military before opening to the civilian sector, i would say the idea behind NCW is made possible by harnessing today's or future technology.
