U.S' next Generation tank?

[F-15 Eagle]

It will be a sad day if this ends up being the case with our FCS program, some of the technology advances that we have made is nothing short of outstanding, including armor protection values. We have gained alot of useful information from this program that will help us in vehicle designs for at least a few decades to come.

I agree but this 2010 defense budget is not looking too promising, I'm not very hopeful that the FCS and F-22 will survive though I hope the Pentagon decides to keep them. The cost over runs do need to be taken care of though.

 

[FutureTank]

I agree but this 2010 defense budget is not looking too promising, I'm not very hopeful that the FCS and F-22 will survive though I hope the Pentagon decides to keep them. The cost over runs do need to be taken care of though.

I fear you are right. However, as an optimist I think that everything turns out for the best.

Reflecting on cost over runs, it seems to me that the US military very much reflects the society it serves. Americans love technology, and so do the military. However, until recently there was a culture in America which reflected a lifestyle with all mod-cons and on credit with the 'pay it off later' mentality. This recession will be a good lesson for a lot of people. Decide what you need, budget for it, pay for it, and make the most out of what you have. Military development programs can not continue to engage in scope/capability creep behaviour, hoping to come up with a breakthrough, and Congressional approvals, that can be integrated into the design at all cost.

It seems to me that a better FCS program strategy is to produce designs that have mid-life major upgrade capacity rather than a program deliverable that is an "ultimate" but final capability. IMHO this takes greater engineering flexibility, but is more cost-effective, and has would result in faster drawing board to unit delivery. It is in fact what happens with weapons platforms anyway. The original M1 touted to be the best tank at the time will probably no do well against the recent upgraded version, which is very much a different generation tank.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

Wrong!

explain instead of writing one stupid word without any thoughts. I didnt say no armour I said less armour. Subsitute it for countermeasures, jammers, counterdefence weapons.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

explain instead of writing one stupid word without any thoughts. I didnt say no armour I said less armour. Subsitute it for countermeasures, jammers, counterdefence weapons.

I agree with you a useless one liners does not say much. But how can less armor be substituted? How can a jammer stop an RPG or an IED? Sometimes high tech stuff can't stop or jam the lower tech stuff like an RPG where all you need to do is point the weapon and pull the trigger. Or what about another tank and jammer or counterdeffense can't stop a 120mm enemy tank round travling at hundreds of miles per hour.

 

[FutureTank]

I agree with you a useless one liners does not say much. But how can less armor be substituted? How can a jammer stop an RPG or an IED? Sometimes high tech stuff can't stop or jam the lower tech stuff like an RPG where all you need to do is point the weapon and pull the trigger. Or what about another tank and jammer or counterdeffense can't stop a 120mm enemy tank round travling at hundreds of miles per hour.

F-15, what Abraham meant is that he doesn't know, because that information is not found in that article he posted.

In fact one can have less armour, but more of it You just won't find that information in the English language. Its part of superdensity materials research, notably begun in Soviet Union when they were attempting to give their space vehicles better protection against perforation by particles while being extremely constrained in the payload weight. The research is about 50 years old and has resulted in consistent improvements in many different materials, even those used in household items now days.

One research facility that's working on this is the Russian http://en.misis.ru/

The problem is that creating superdense materials is incredibly expensive. Not only that, but it requires huge amounts of energy. If the US researchers have discovered how to increase molecular density of current materials used in tank armour, which, aside from metals, include silicates, crystalline materials, plastics, and others, by a factor of two without the reciprocal increase in costs, it would be truly a monumental breakthrough. I fear that this is not the case however.

What is the case seemingly is that the vehicle will have strap-on armour that will be added to the basic chassis and turret as required by the mission threat environment. The result will be a vehicle that can fit into a C-5 and a C-17, and one that is a lot lighter than the M1, maybe about 30ton or less, but very fast. In basic configuration it will have the armour to defeat aircraft cannon ammunition. For dealing with better armed adversaries it will rely on the very long range NLOS targeting, so will never get into a direct fire contest with a conventional Soviet-type medium tank if it can help it.

In the medium tank configuration it will be around 45ton in weight with much composite add on modules that will allow it to engage existing medium tanks all of which are based on the Soviet era designs. This is because it is not envisaged that a new tank will come out of Russia until 2020 at the earliest, and will not be exported in numbers until 2030 (probably). It means that there is still 20 years of materials development up the FCS sleeve in better armour.

The primary consideration behind all this is fuel expenditure, in terms of both cost and logistic burden. Probably we will see a hybrid engine also, which may save on weight, allowing more armour.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

I agree with you a useless one liners does not say much. But how can less armor be substituted? How can a jammer stop an RPG or an IED? Sometimes high tech stuff can't stop or jam the lower tech stuff like an RPG where all you need to do is point the weapon and pull the trigger. Or what about another tank and jammer or counterdeffense can't stop a 120mm enemy tank round travling at hundreds of miles per hour.

thats why i wrote counterdefence weapons in my post. autmomatic deployed munitions to incercept rounds that dont use laser, guided or frequency such as RPG. an less armour doesnt mean exposure. new materials can that provide more but weigh less and is more thin. remember back in industrial revolution, how people were using Iron and steel, but now Carbon Fibre comes out being lighter and thinner. Thats what im saying. Discovery of new materials with equal effects, but less armour.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

explain instead of writing one stupid word without any thoughts. I didnt say no armour I said less armour. Subsitute it for countermeasures, jammers, counterdefence weapons.

And less armour is: Wrong! What makes you think the XM1200 vehicles will have less armour than an M1? Because their gross vehicle weight will be less? Weight equals armour level is only intrinsically comparable if the design and technology are the same. So while this works as a method for comparing the armour level of a Patton tank and a Walker Bulldog light tank it does not work comparing the M1 to the XM1200.

The XM1200 vehicles in some of the configurations (the direct fire vehicles like the XM1202 MCS) will have more armour protection than the M1. They are specified to do so and are being successfully designed to do so. Current Block I add on armour array for the XM1200 has the same protection level as the M1A1/M1A2 HA yet the production vehicles will be delivered to combat units with Block III arrays.. They will also have far more protection overall with a range of other improvements. Armour is only one layer of the protective onion. An XM1200 equipped brigade will suffer 1/4 to 1/3 less casualties than a M1/M2 equipped brigade despite having twice the infantryman (who disproportionately suffer casualties).

As to the impoliteness of one word responses it isn't as bad as not reading through the previous posts. Just about everything I've said above was in a post on the page before you rolled in with a knowledge poor and factually incorrect contribution.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

And less armour is: Wrong! What makes you think the XM1200 vehicles will have less armour than an M1? Because their gross vehicle weight will be less? Weight equals armour level is only intrinsically comparable if the design and technology are the same. So while this works as a method for comparing the armour level of a Patton tank and a Walker Bulldog light tank it does not work comparing the M1 to the XM1200.

The XM1200 vehicles in some of the configurations (the direct fire vehicles like the XM1202 MCS) will have more armour protection than the M1. They are specified to do so and are being successfully designed to do so. Current Block I add on armour array for the XM1200 has the same protection level as the M1A1/M1A2 HA yet the production vehicles will be delivered to combat units with Block III arrays.. They will also have far more protection overall with a range of other improvements. Armour is only one layer of the protective onion. An XM1200 equipped brigade will suffer 1/4 to 1/3 less casualties than a M1/M2 equipped brigade despite having twice the infantryman (who disproportionately suffer casualties).

As to the impoliteness of one word responses it isn't as bad as not reading through the previous posts. Just about everything I've said above was in a post on the page before you rolled in with a knowledge poor and factually incorrect contribution.

oh so im not allowed to make post, and thoughts into this thread then. and i didnt even mention the XM1200. you were rude in your post so just admit it. depending on the ERA plate it gives equavalant to 1000-1200mm of steel armour yet, it isnt as thick, its less armour but the armour is more effective then constructing your armour out of 1200mm of steel, instead use ERA plates. I never refered to M1 if XM1200.

 

[Marsh Again]

Hi,

I think in terms of understanding the direct fire variant of the FCS, it makes more sense to think in terms of survivability rather than armour levels. After all, a 70 tonne class MBT devotes around 36 tonnes to structure and protection whilst in a 19+ tonne FCS class vehicle, only around 6.4 tonnes will be devoted to structure and protection.

I am not an advocate of the entire FCS project, I disagree with its assumptions and am a critic; however, I have been to several briefings and will try and describe TARDEC's (The U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center) point of view.

The FCS direct fire vehicle (the M1's "replacement"), is seen as part of a system of systems, involving remote sensors and rapid information exchange. The intended result is overwhelming superiority in situational awareness. This Netcentric style of fighting is intended to allow an FCS brigade to work inside a non-digitalised opponents decision making cycle, allowing it to designate and destroy target before they can react. In otherwords enemy heavy armour is intended to be engaged and destroyed beyond visual range.

If enemy MBTs get within range of FCS AFVs, then FCS relies on active defence systems to degrade incoming threats. The actual FCS shell itself is projected to offer protection against 30mm rounds over a frontal 60 degree arc. Add on modular armour will increase protection but to what level is classified as is the exact construction and composition of the modules themselves. It is likely that these modules will employ so called smart armour. Each module is packed with energetic material and fitted with a sensor and micrprocessor. These are linked to modules frontal plate by fibre-optics or a break wire. If this outside cover plate is hit by a projectile, then the sensor determines the exact impact location as well as the penetrator's size and velocity. The microprocessor then initiates a reaction within the energetic material which bulges forward into the incoming projectile. The impact of the energetic material deflects, rotates and fractures the projectile and defeats it. The exact instant when the energetic material is activated is set by the microprocessor and tailored according to the type, size and velocity of the threat. The problem is, even with cutting edge technology, the modules are currently only capable of defeating HEAT rounds and medium calibre kinetic energy rounds.

Two bold presumptions are being made by TADROC. Either materials technology will make a significant break through in ballistic protection or that the electrical armour demonstrated by the British on a Warrior IFV, will become a practicable and affordable alternative.

The main problem in my eyes is that a sophisticated foe will use a mixture of asymetric warfare tactics coupled to high tech weapons. High tech threats to FCS formations will include traditional MBTs and platforms, not necessarily tanks, capable of launching very high velocity kinetic energy penetrators. First, draw in and trap components of a FCS brigade in an urban jungle, thus degrading its superiority in situational awareness. In such a scenario, enough simple but effective RPG rounds will overwhelm any active defence system or advanced modular armour. Secondly snipe at the flanks of the FCS brigade with hyper velocity penetrators, or engage with heavy armour assets and it is in a world of hurt.

cheers
Marsh

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I am not an advocate of the entire FCS project, I disagree with its assumptions and am a critic; however, I have been to several briefings and will try and describe TARDEC's (The U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center) point of view.

This post encapsulates much of what is wrong even at a professional level of understanding the capability and in particular protection requirement of the FCS manned ground vehicles (MGV, aka XM1200). Primarily its based on a comparative assessment of imagining the XM1200s as similar to current vehicles. They are significantly different and are designed to operate completely in a networked environment. So the crew of the XM1200s will see and fight in the battlefield in a completely different way. More like a computer game with offboard view points and easy to assess SA and instant understanding of over perspectives than the legacy concept of mounted warfare.

On protection it is really divided into two arguments that I will deal with separately, one the criticism of the protective “onion” approach of multiple layers of defence and secondly the constantly held assumption that XM1200 physical armour protection will be lower.

On the armour level it is vitally important to understand that armour is directly related to surface area derived by internal volume. It is ridiculous to compare a 70 tonne main battle tank like the M1A2 or Merkava to the XM1200 because the internal volume requiring protection is hugely different. With their unmanned turrets and diesel electric drives the XM1200 vehicles require far less internal volume to be protected. Further because of the boxy arrangement of the hull the internal volume is efficiently encapsulated in external surface area. The last tank to remove the turret, the Swedish S-Tank (aka Strv 103) was able to provide the same level of RHA steel protection as a turreted Centurion (using same levels of technology providing a fair comparison) while weighing less than 2/3s. Because of the XM1200s use of hybrid propulsion and an unmanned turret it will take this volume reduction to the next level. And before people pipe up again with what’s the use of having an unprotected turret it isn’t unprotected it won’t be. However it won’t need to be protected to the level to save humans and the unmanned turret can be much better at accepting penetrating hits without significant degradation of operation compared to soft human crews.

There is also an issue of overall gross vehicle weight. The XM1200 vehicles will not be as limited to a particular gross weight because of their very high torque from the electric motor and modular suspension. Because of this the published overall weight levels (19 to 27 tonnes) should be treated with some scepticisms. While this will represent the weight of the vehicle without add on armour like the German Puma and Israeli Merkava the use of modular arrays will enable significant gross vehicle weight increases. This has already being made public through the anti very big belly blast IED lifted configurations proposed for the XM1200 that will provide the first combat vehicle able to drive over a ~100 kg blast and survive.

The armour technology being developed for the XM1200 has already demonstrated the same level of protection to the M1A1/A2. It will achieve this through the significant material advances already seen in the past few years as the Iraq war has hugely stimulated armour development. Improvements in computer modelling are also enabling much better array configurations to be developed. What will be interesting to see is in the next two blocks of XM1200 armour if they can develop a defence against large, multi stage penetrators.

 

[Marsh Again]

Hi Abraham,

I have no intention of getting into a p*ssing contest with you. Life is too short and I am too busy. We both attend similar briefings; we have different perceptions of how realistic the objectives of the FCS programme are. (Funnily enough, if you talk to some of the people presenting those briefings, off the record, they too think the timescale for FCS and its intended survivability perameters are unrealistic).

Two points.

Firstly the XM1200 will not be the first vehicle to go into service within which the crew is likely to survive a 100 Kg IED under the belly. Think of your visit to Tel Ha Shomer. (Its MANTAK, not MANTANK by the way).

Secondly re-your comment "More like a computer game with offboard view points and easy to assess SA and instant understanding of over perspectives than the legacy concept of mounted warfare" - war isn't a computer game. I understand perfectly the importance of superior situational awareness. However if you have an opponent who draws you in to his playground, you loose that advantage. If you have an opponent who is prepared to use his own civillian population as applique armour, you loose that advantage. I believe the FCS represents the wrong approach at both the tactical and operational level.

cheers
Marsh

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have no intention of getting into a p*ssing contest with you.

Then don't. Stick to discussing the points, if you want to. In light of that philosophy I will ignore the various stuff in your post that does not relate to the actual FCS program.

I do notice that FCS is not a flash in the pan US program, everyone else is trying to match it. Elbit's "see through armour" program is an Israeli example of providing part of the FCS capability to other armoured fighting vehicles.

If you have an opponent who is prepared to use his own civillian population as applique armour, you loose that advantage. I believe the FCS represents the wrong approach at both the tactical and operational level.

Since each XM1200 vehicle is equipped with multiple cameras linked together via SOSCOE the brigade PR team will be able to capture on video every human shield event by the enemy and broadcast it with an Oscar Night 60 second delay to the TV channels of the world without any intrusion into the fighting units. This will make the FCS briagde the most powerful information warfare force fielded to date. Every tank a combat camera...

The advantages the FCS unit provides for situational awareness (SA) also apply in urban combat. FCS provides a far more significant boost to SA for units in urban combat because it provides more than just conventional line of sight observation.

Plus of course you need to assess this based on a FCS equipped brigade compared to a conventionally equipped brigade. In the urban environment the FCS brigade will offer twice as many infantryman, unmanned ground vehicles for patrolling and lots more UAVs and unattended sensors. The XM1200 vehicles will also be far more mobile in urban environments providing quicker responses and concentrated force.

The use of active protection systems will be a great benefit because no matter how thick your armour is being hit by an ATGM or RPG is a pretty debilitating event. The XM1200 will be able to fight through such barrages with its onboard sensors identifying every launch point for immediate counter barrage.

The list goes on. FCS is a major battlefield changing system. It leverages the most important elements of combat - situational awareness and command and control. It also improves on the last resort elements like the last two layers of the protective onion: armour protection and reducing damage after penetrative hits. But unfortunately the over focus on the fairly limited but somehow seen as significant utility of air mechanised operations and lightweight vehicles has created the perception that the XM1200 vehicles will be thin skinned.

 

[FutureTank]

As to the impoliteness of one word responses it isn't as bad as not reading through the previous posts. Just about everything I've said above was in a post on the page before you rolled in with a knowledge poor and factually incorrect contribution.

Oh, Abraham means me I was impolite to contribute something different, so Abraham was understandably outraged...

However there was no mention of any "Block III arrays" in the previous article.

It did say that

These included early versions of the FCS armor that were bolted on to an aluminum inner hull, a fact that Col. Gregory Martin, chief of the Army’s J-8 director’s initiative group, told us was “revolutionary” because it would allow armor to be swapped on vehicles as the armor is improved instead of the current state of the art which only allows so-called appliqué armor to be put on top of the existing stuff.

which is funny because this was experimented with during the Second World War by everyone, including the US Army.

I saw a quaint little YouTube video (game) clip of the FCS 40ton tank. Low silhouette with two crew manning video game consoles One is going to be a commander/gunner...I wonder where I saw that revolutionary concept? Was it the "it will allow the Army to air-land its forces"? That's a capability the RDF screamed for in the late 1970s after watching the Soviets do it.

There are several FCS 'demonstration' clips there also.
One battles the North Koreans , mostly one North Korean with a bazooka type weapon. He is overcome by the FCS with a loss of just one million-dollar robot I wonder what the US Army did about that during the Koran War. Probably send in some GIs with carbines
Another looks like the US Army is going after either Thai or Columbian drug lords. Lots of HUMINT type activity followed by a short firelight conducted by about a squad...as the rest of the brigade watches?
In only one is it faced with a conventional threat of "two airborne divisions" that also have T-72 tanks. Where as in the earlier clips the US Army takes care to send in the robots, ensuring no civilians are hurt, here they just "do" the whole city block with bomblets to take care of the T-72, and every structure around it.
The rest looks like a map exercise with mean looking robots and sensors...available commercially now as we speak.

So what is this "Block III" Abraham is talking about?
As of 2005 the testing was for Block II armour as is explained in this article http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507042/posts which is intended to stop RPGs.

So far the entire program has faced several project blocks that had seen some end up on the chopping block.

Block III for the XM1202 will be (I think) what used to be called Objective Force Warrior for the infantry, and would be a similar qualitative upgrade to the vehicles, including the various active and passive countermeasures in addition to physical armour that will allow (as portrayed in the YouTube mini-movies) interception of guided and unguided missiles. Ultimately though the protection against penetration of the vehicle's armour by ballistic rounds is up to the physical armour. The intention is therefore to create a system that will prevent any T-64/72/80 type tank EVER firing on the XM1200 vehicles, except maybe frontally where the XM1200 may have armour as thick as that of the M1. This is because just like the T series, any tank weighing 40ton lacks the armour volume to do much more against the 120/125mm rounds as armour materials technology stands now.

Even substantial frontal armour is highly unlikely though because fully automatic gunnery installations on the FCS vehicles will in all likelihood (based on naval 127mm mounts, but in 'light' versions) weigh too much to allow substantial physical armour beyond what is already used on the Soviet T designs due to volume considerations (even with elimination of a crewed turret).

...but this is all a guess since I have no hard evidence of what the FCS program has produced so far of course.

This is where Abraham tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Oh, Abraham means me I was impolite to contribute something different, so Abraham was understandably outraged...

I didn't mean you at all; I was referring to Real Prolitz who hasn't contributed anything other than his own ignorance. Quite different to your brand of total nuttiness.

However there was no mention of any "Block III arrays" in the previous article.

“All these materials had apparently been used in the search to create the “B” armor for FCS. They are using what is called B-1 armor now and plan to come up with two more variants, using B-3 as the main armor once the FCS vehicles make it to LRIP in fiscal 2013.B-1 provides, a very careful public affairs officer told me, protection roughly equivalent to the Chobham armor on the Abrams tanks. The next variants should be much lighter and provide even greater protection.”

Any sensible reader would be able to translate B-1 armour being followed by two more variants including a B-3 armour for LRIP in FY13 as being the “third block” of armour array. But of course in FutureTank world anything else is possible.

This is where Abraham tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about

Too true. After your various wacky references to FCS vehicles mounting 127mm naval gun mounts and Soviet FCS two man crews in the 1970s and so on... Well I don’t think I have to spell it out to any reasonable reader.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

I didn't mean you at all; I was referring to Real Prolitz who hasn't contributed anything other than his own ignorance. Quite different to your brand of total nuttiness.



“All these materials had apparently been used in the search to create the “B” armor for FCS. They are using what is called B-1 armor now and plan to come up with two more variants, using B-3 as the main armor once the FCS vehicles make it to LRIP in fiscal 2013.B-1 provides, a very careful public affairs officer told me, protection roughly equivalent to the Chobham armor on the Abrams tanks. The next variants should be much lighter and provide even greater protection.”

Any sensible reader would be able to translate B-1 armour being followed by two more variants including a B-3 armour for LRIP in FY13 as being the “third block” of armour array. But of course in FutureTank world anything else is possible.



Too true. After your various wacky references to FCS vehicles mounting 127mm naval gun mounts and Soviet FCS two man crews in the 1970s and so on... Well I don’t think I have to spell it out to any reasonable reader.

how is my post of thoughts ignorant??? all you have done is misunderstood, critize and made rude post to people.

 

[StevoJH]

With regards to armour and weight, the actual weight of the armour depends on the materials used in producing that armour. For example an armour based around steel(Fe has an M.W. of 55.85) and uranium (M.W. 238.03) is going to weigh a lot more then an armour based around aluminum (M.W 26.98) and crystalised carbon (M.W. 12.01). Crystalised carbon being synthetically produced diamond.