M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?

[OPSSG]

@Locarnus, for better or worse, force transformation is not done the way you suggest. It's more tied to concept of operations and an army usually evolves their concept of operations within particular organizational constraints. In other words, most times you improve what you have rather than adopt new because of the last mile support issues.

How an organisation changes is tied to how the leadership of the organisation think and solve problems - this includes the way of war. That's why I think the current discussion on inducting 1 to 2 unique Merkava tank battalions (as suggested by Locarnus) is moving to a dead end. I think the Americans def professionals can explain American organisational mindset better than me.

@ OPSSG: Singapore operates a number of Leopard 2s. Do you have numbers for your spending on tanks?

No. It's also the first time we admitted we have MBTs, so that should tell you that about our disclosure policy. There is no intent to disclose specific line items and all of Singapore's defence contracts have some form of confidentiality requirements.

 

[Locarnus]

Hm, I would have guessed a military of the size of the US would have something like "experimental" units/formations to try out new approaches/techs/whatever.

Too bad for the missing numbers.
I recall only a ~9mio $ per MBT number for Australian Abrams procuring, but including support vehicles/infra/logistics. Have to look up the details.
Maybe some Australian can help out here?

 

[eckherl]

Locarnus,

I admire your compassion inregards to this discussion but here are some things to consider;

IDF does not enjoy the fact that they have to rumble expensive Merkava tanks down urban streets for primary infantry support, they paid a hefty price for it in their last skirmish, this is one of the primary reasons why they are scrambling to get Namers fielded with at least one Namer fielded with a auto cannon per platoon.
Merkava was not designed initially for carrying infantry support, this was something that they stumbled upon for secondary use due to some of past conflicts and in the event of a major war all that extra space will be needed for projectiles, I think that some people do not realize how fast a tank can empty out a combat load.

M1 series tanks are good enough to get the job done in this type of setting, the losses due to our recent adventure has been overblown, with the amount of time our tanks spent in theater it is actually outstanding with the low numbers of complete write offs due to battle attrition. So no Merkava needed, it simply doesn't bring any gains to our way of fighting.

Merkava is not designed for high offensive continued engagements like most NATO tanks are geared for, the U.S Army is geared strictly for speed and shock effect and we are comfortable with maintaining that type of force structure. Our plans are to come out with a better infantry support vehicle period, vehicle weight is not the project killing option on this one, we want this vehicle due mainly because of lessons learned in urbanized warfare and the emphasis will be placed on high armor protection value, auto cannon which works best in a urbanized setting versus a maingun, and will be able to carry at least a infantry squad. We are looking at vehicle advancements from Germany and Israel, and yes we are looking at Namers for research purposes. This vehicle will come out alot sooner than most people think. Do you have the impression that Russia, Germany and a few others want to turn their primary ground shock weapon into moving targets in a urbanized setting, the answer should be no.

 

[Locarnus]

IDF does not enjoy the fact that they have to rumble expensive Merkava tanks down urban streets for primary infantry support, they paid a hefty price for it in their last skirmish, this is one of the primary reasons why they are scrambling to get Namers fielded with at least one Namer fielded with a auto cannon per platoon.
Merkava was not designed initially for carrying infantry support, this was something that they stumbled upon for secondary use due to some of past conflicts and in the event of a major war all that extra space will be needed for projectiles, I think that some people do not realize how fast a tank can empty out a combat load.

Afaik the reason for IDFs 2006 problems were, that they shifted their training almost completely to LIC, when their opponents just refused to be low intensity.
But on the other hand the Merk 4 protection proved its worth eg in Saluki.
With the ammo, thats the whole point. You have the ammo compartment for phases when you need it, and when you dont need the amount of ammo, you can use the platform differently.

But I understand the reasons why it is not done, so I rest my case.

For anyone interested I found the report on the Australian Abrams procurement (59 Abrams + infra/logistics/support vehicles):
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2007-08_Audit_Report_1.pdf

 

[Bonza]

OPSSG,

Thanks for the above post(s). Most informative.

 

[fretburner]

For anyone interested I found the report on the Australian Abrams procurement (59 Abrams + infra/logistics/support vehicles):
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2007-08_Audit_Report_1.pdf

Does anyone know why the US doesn't seem to want to upgrade every M1A1 to the M1A2 SEP?

 

[Waylander]

Because of budget constraints.
An upgrade to A2SEP standard is more expensive than an upgrade to A1AIMv2 standard.

Nevertheless an A1AIMv2 is a very good tank. And with all operational tanks becoming either A2SEPs or A1AIMv2s the whole fleet will finally be able to comunicate with each other. This is not the case as long as A2s and A1AIMv1s are in operational service, too.

 

[neeleyjo2]

Sloped Armor!!! Need to Compete with Germany!!!

The frontal armor needs to be sloped like the German Leopard II. With the upgraded armor, and sloping it to give the tank better protection, with a more fuel economic engine, the tank will perform almost as good as the British Challenger II. However, with the technological targeting advances in the F-35 Lightning II, placing that technology in the next generationAbrams, it would allow faster and more accurate targeting to beat the Challenger II's and Leopard II's. Keep the 120 mm main gun, however, place a stronger charge behind each depleted uranium round sabot rounds, it should be able to penetrate any armor in the world.

Just imagine if there were at least a handful of M1A3's in every armored division, they can easily protect the company commanders to hold ranks, and provide accurate and faster detailed information to the M1A2's they go to war with: Just like the Apache Longbow attach helicopter providing detail to the other Apache helicopters, as well as better armor and stronger firepower. This can be done to every Abrams tank waiting to be restored into the new M1A3 Abrams main battle tank, the "spearhead" of every American Expeditionary Forces.

 

[neeleyjo2]

Hi,

I've heard rumors that based on operational experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom and enduring Freedom on the continued utility of heavier armored vehicles (well, duh.) and the likely delays on the FCS development, the US Army has decided to begin work on another round of upgrades on the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley platforms. i.e M1A3 and M2/3A4. Has anyone else heard anything specfic on what's being considered?

Here's what I'd like to see....

M1A3:

New hybrid diesel-electric powerplant (love that gas turbine accelaration, but hate the gas guzzling. The ability to dry out a wet sleeping bag in 30 seconds was nice though.....)

Active protection system - hard or soft kill (I'd prefer hard kill - but I just like breaking things).

New low profile turret - possibly unmanned with crew in hull. Pros: Lowers vehicle's silhouette and weight, improves crew survivability. Cons: Loss of 4th crewman for autoloader makes maintenence & crew rest cycles more difficult. It might be possible to go with a remote turret w/autoloader, and still keep a 4th crewman in the hull... sort of like the old assistant driver/mechanic position in 5 man tanks.. just a thought.

Remote Commander's Weapon Station - similar to the CROWs on the M1A2 TUSK - but with the kinks worked out. I'd consider a MK19 or Mk47 40mm AGL instead of M2 .50 Cal - 40mm (especially new airbursting rounds) is better for supression of infantry/RPG teams/AGTM teams.

.50 Cal Coax machine gun - a co-ax that can take better advantage of the main gun sights and put effective fires out at long ranges. With SLAP ammo, useful for dealing with light armor (anlong with commander's 40mm HEDP).

Improved C4 and sensor technolgy. Replace vision blocks with digital video for 360 crew awareness. Makes tank more survivable in built up enviornments. Consider adding milimeter wave radar for target aquisition and guidance for "smart" main gun rounds.

New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, perhaps eventually an ET or EM gun. In addition to existing APFSDS-DU, HEAT-MP, canister and obsticle reducing rounds add a beyond LOS smart round and an airburtsing anti-personnel round (hi-tech version of old 105mm APERS).

Another nice goody would be to place the commander's independent thermal viewer or millimeter wave radar on an extendble mast - say 5m? - to allow the commander to scan for targets from a defilade or over vegitation.

Modular Amor capability like on the Israeli Merkava MBT for rapid repair and upgrades. I also like the Merkava IV's modular belly armor pack - good for dealing with large buried IEDs and AT mines.

M2/3A4:

Remote turret with upgraded gun - 35mm Bushmaster, 40mm CTWS, etc. Retain coax m240. Replace TOW-2 launcher with modular launcher on either side of turret for new ATGM (CKEM?) or 70mm HYDRA pods. Drop crew down to 2 men - driver and commander now both in the hull. Improves survivability, lowers weight and silhouette which has always been an issue with the Bradley.

Active protection system.

Modular Armor.

Enhanced Sensors and C4. Upgrade FCS with millimeter wave radar to allow gun engagements on attack helos using airbursting rounds. With light SAM (stinger or starsktreak) type missiles mounted instead of ATGM gives some SPAA capability without requiring a seperate dedicated platform.

For M3 cavalry version add extendable mast with millimeter wave radar/sensor pod, UAV control station, etc.

Just some ideas!

Adrian

*And...don't forget sloped frontal armor...

The frontal armor needs to be sloped like the German Leopard II. With the upgraded armor, and sloping it to give the tank better protection, with a more fuel economic engine, the tank will perform almost as good as the British Challenger II. However, with the technological targeting advances in the F-35 Lightning II, placing that technology in the next generationAbrams, it would allow faster and more accurate targeting to beat the Challenger II's and Leopard II's. Keep the 120 mm main gun, however, place a stronger charge behind each depleted uranium round sabot rounds, it should be able to penetrate any armor in the world.

Just imagine if there were at least a handful of M1A3's in every armored division, they can easily protect the company commanders to hold ranks, and provide accurate and faster detailed information to the M1A2's they go to war with: Just like the Apache Longbow attach helicopter providing detail to the other Apache helicopters, as well as better armor and stronger firepower. This can be done to every Abrams tank waiting to be restored into the new M1A3 Abrams main battle tank, the "spearhead" of every American Expeditionary Forces.

 

[SASWanabe]

if you need the reasons you were banned, look here http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/announcements/dt-hall-shame-ban-list-646-28/#post202412

 

[Feanor]

The Inventer personal attacks against forum moderators will not be tolerated. Your posts were not mature discussion, and the decision to delete your posts and to assign you a ban was a collective decision by the moderating team.

 

[THE INVENTER]

The Inventer personal attacks against forum moderators will not be tolerated. Your posts were not mature discussion, and the decision to delete your posts and to assign you a ban was a collective decision by the moderating team.

I am sorry

 

[SteelTiger 177]

For the Bradley I'd like to see the TOW missle replaced by the Javelin ATGM (this was considered for the U.S.MC.'s E.F.V. program when it started)As for the M1 I'd like to see loaders coaxial gun (namely the 7.62) be replaced by a gatling gun or the CSOW(or Crew Served Objective Weapon.)

 

[Waylander]

While being a good ATGM it lacks range in it's current version.
IMHO 2.500 meters is not enough if one wants to be able to perform the same ambush and fire support missions like today.
If they are able to bring the range up to Spike-LR levels I am all for it.
Although I think it's questionable if such a Bradley upgrade is really necessary. The money saved could be used for the GCV program (If they don't mess it up, too that is...)

Why would you like to see a gatling (I assume in 7.62mm) as the coax? It is bigger and eats up your ammo pretty quick.
So far I haven't heard of any problems with the current coax (M240/MAG).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Most of the M1A3 upgrade will focus on replacing like for like (new engine, new main gun, new cabling, etc) to improve reliability and reduce weight. The weight reductions (multiple tonnes) from such changes will be used to enhance armour. While the new systems will make it a better tank they won’t significantly change capability (except BTERM integration).

The major change in the tank’s operation is likely to be replacing the 40 round turret bustle magazine with a 34 round automatic loader. This Western Design loader will not impact much on internal volume and the M1A3 will keep the fourth crewman (loader/operator). Since this guy won’t have to load the main gun they will take over operating the main off axis weapon – a remote control weapon system – and act as a deputy tank commander.

This is an interesting area for evolving the tank’s secondary weapons. The 25mm OCSW is no longer a funded project so the only options are legacy and improved 30x113mm cannons, 40mm AGLs, 12.7mm HMGs and various 7.62mm MGs. The 12.7mm and 7.62mm both have roles to play in the tank’s armament. But I’m in favour of placing the 12.7mm in coax with the main gun because it is less suited to self defence against infantry (lack of rate of fire and over penetration problems in urban areas) and better as a substitute to the main gun depending on target (coax). The roof mounted 12.7mm is a legacy anti aircraft weapon which in this role is better operated via the main gun sight rather than the illusory benefit (in AA) of high angle fires.

The roof mounted RCWS should take over as the anti personnel weapon with a 7.62mm Minigun. The high ROF can be used in anti ambush situations and other wise at low ROF against dismount threats. The high mounting of this gun will enable close range depressed angle firing. Both roof hatches should be provided with secondary use flex mount 7.62mm MGs as a back up to the RCWS and for maximum anti personnel suppressive fires (with the gunner firing the RCWS).

 

[Waylander]

Shouldn't ammo supply also be a problem for a CIWS based minigun?
I remember reports from the Thunder Runs were the M1s nearly ran out of ammo. A minigun will need a good amount of ammo if one wants it to remain operational for some time.
A flexible CIWS which allows the use of a 7.62mm GPMG, 12.7mm HMG or 40mm auto-grenadelauncher might be more usefull.

It will also be interesting to see if 4th crewman can be retained. For some folk he might look like a good opportunity to save money (What? Salary and Pension for a 4th man while you already have an autoloader...).
I agree with you that modern battlefield management systems, a CIWS, maintenance, redundance and security stuff is defenitely enough to justify the 4th crewmember but will others think the same...?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Shouldn't ammo supply also be a problem for a CIWS based minigun?
I remember reports from the Thunder Runs were the M1s nearly ran out of ammo. A minigun will need a good amount of ammo if one wants it to remain operational for some time.
A flexible CIWS which allows the use of a 7.62mm GPMG, 12.7mm HMG or 40mm auto-grenadelauncher might be more usefull.

The ammo supply is only a problem if you hold the trigger down. The M134 minigun has a ROF of 3,000 rpm or 50 rps. But firing is electronically controlled and via an RCWS bursts can be controlled to the bullet. Sustained bursts of large numbers of rounds are only used in air to ground use and anti ambush use. Otherwise it is just like a normal MG but without concern for barrel heating and less belt jamming (electrical pull) and breech jamming (externally powered). Because it’s mounted on an RCWS the ready ammunition is a lot more than a 100 round belt on usual flex mounted MGs (500 or 1,500) so the mount needs reloading less than other roof MGs.

The RCWS available are inherently flexible with either Mk 19 40mm AGL, M2HB 12.7mm HMG, M134 7.62mm MG or M240 7.62mm MG being able to be mounted and software loaded. With a 12.7mm in coax the only other config I think will be useful will be the AGL. And this for a few vehicles in every sub unit specifically for roof top engagement and less than lethal fires.

It will also be interesting to see if 4th crewman can be retained. For some folk he might look like a good opportunity to save money (What? Salary and Pension for a 4th man while you already have an autoloader...).
I agree with you that modern battlefield management systems, a CIWS, maintenance, redundance and security stuff is defenitely enough to justify the 4th crewmember but will others think the same...?

The station will be in the tank and the person on the establishment, but… many M1s in Iraq after the invasion rolled with three or even two crew onboard. At least if only three crew are available for a patrol capability will not be as drastically degraded as M1A1/A2s.

 

[Volkodav]

What would make a good light weight anti ambush complement to a GPMG on a RCWS is a couple of Metalstorm stacked genade launcher barrels, very high fire power when you need it together with the option of firing single grenades as required to back up the MG. Another option could be a semi auto .338 similare to the set up that was trialed on the (I believe) Firescout, if it works on a UCAV it should work on an RCWS.

 

[Waylander]

One could ask if a mixture of AGLs and MG (of whatever kind) in a platoon doesn't serve the same purpose without overcomplicating the CIWS or making it more heavy.

A .50cal as a coax is interesting. The Leclerc went that way and I am not sure if such a solution is good or not.
Increased penetration against lightly armored vehicles, trucks, troops behind light cover etc. is defenitely an advantage but a coax also does some amount of spraying in order to pin down enemy dismounts, especially in the attack. With a .50 cal one is going to carry alot less ammo than with a 7.62mm GPMG.
Having the .50cal as the coax is also denying it the ability to engage enemies which are higher up, for example in urban and mountain warfare.
So putting the .50cal into the CIWS seems sensible, too.

In the end it is difficult to decide on the right weapons mix of a tank although this can be overcome by flexible CIWSs to some degree.

Modern HEs also lessened the pressure of the coax to be effective at long ranges.
A 120mm airburst HE is going to ruin the day of a dismount squad much more than a HEAT and some long range MG fire.

 

[eckherl]

Most of the M1A3 upgrade will focus on replacing like for like (new engine, new main gun, new cabling, etc) to improve reliability and reduce weight. The weight reductions (multiple tonnes) from such changes will be used to enhance armour. While the new systems will make it a better tank they won’t significantly change capability (except BTERM integration).

The major change in the tank’s operation is likely to be replacing the 40 round turret bustle magazine with a 34 round automatic loader. This Western Design loader will not impact much on internal volume and the M1A3 will keep the fourth crewman (loader/operator). Since this guy won’t have to load the main gun they will take over operating the main off axis weapon – a remote control weapon system – and act as a deputy tank commander.

This is an interesting area for evolving the tank’s secondary weapons. The 25mm OCSW is no longer a funded project so the only options are legacy and improved 30x113mm cannons, 40mm AGLs, 12.7mm HMGs and various 7.62mm MGs. The 12.7mm and 7.62mm both have roles to play in the tank’s armament. But I’m in favour of placing the 12.7mm in coax with the main gun because it is less suited to self defence against infantry (lack of rate of fire and over penetration problems in urban areas) and better as a substitute to the main gun depending on target (coax). The roof mounted 12.7mm is a legacy anti aircraft weapon which in this role is better operated via the main gun sight rather than the illusory benefit (in AA) of high angle fires.

The roof mounted RCWS should take over as the anti personnel weapon with a 7.62mm Minigun. The high ROF can be used in anti ambush situations and other wise at low ROF against dismount threats. The high mounting of this gun will enable close range depressed angle firing. Both roof hatches should be provided with secondary use flex mount 7.62mm MGs as a back up to the RCWS and for maximum anti personnel suppressive fires (with the gunner firing the RCWS).

Look out Abraham Gubler!

I hinted to everyone over a year ago what the new M1A3 would be sporting and how we would retain 4 crew members and some folks swore I was El Loco.

Sorry to say no M2 for the coax position, it is way too large along with ammuntion supply limitations, we will end up or keep leaning towards it being RCWS configured.

Main gun will sport a dual mechanism for two different calibers and yes you are spot on with the weight savings due to the use of certain metal alloys.

Sheesh, M829A4 is one heck of a round.:shudder extended gun ranges against future threats regardless of ERA package have been thrown into its design. I do not think a 140mm will be needed any time soon.

@Waylander

What do you think of the potential of Kalanit.