Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
The 'M1A2C' designation was withdrawn. All formal references to it are still as SEPv3.
But yeah, it's good we clarified the confusion.
But yeah, it's good we clarified the confusion.
Next Generation MBT Discussion and Concepts
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
So right now it is pretty much a mess. Sorry for the late answer.
MGCS isnt a KNDS project because it would mean it would be 50% French 50% German, but since the FCAS has a French leadership the tank has to have a German one, so in theory MGCS has 33% Nexter 33% KMW and 33% RHM.
Now if RHM leaves the MGCS does it means that the FCAS is dying and as a consequence all the cascade, MGCS is also following suit? No idea.
The Italian situation is the next one:
Everyone knows the Ariete probably, it is old, it was born old because of the peace dividend of the fall of the wall. We just didnt invest in it and we dont have the "critical mass" needed to keep it updated from a commercial point of view.
Regardless the very big problem isnt the Ariete it's the Dardo, our IFV. Dardo IFV - Wikipedia
Thats the most urgent problem we have to focus on, that thing must be replaced.
So unless we go the French way, we need a tracked IFV. Look at the difference of acceleration, wheeled wont be able to follow the tracked.
I really hope that Boxer/Freccia/Pirahna/etc.. etc... have better acceleration than that VCBI.
So we Italians really need to find a new tracked IFV.
Here comes OTO and Reihnmetall. The thing is that OTO is getting sold by Leonardo, and the best candidates are Fincantieri from one side and RHM on the other side, RHM already produces in Italy, they also invest and it is our bureaucracy fueled by NIMBY that stops the increase of armament production.
So in Italian minds all kind of speculations are getting formed, selling 51% OTO melara to RHM, getting a very good deal on the Lynx KF31 or getting some more integration with German industry(IMHO and pure speculation), more German electronics in Leonardo (we just bought 25% Hensoldt) or ,more of a dream, an integration between TKMS and Fincantieri since they have been wanting to sell the marine side.
So when the KF51 came out it shuffled a lot of cards.
From one side we have:
- a giant public debt,
-thanks to the Ukrainians the Russian land threat is going to take a decade or a bit less to form again.
-The longest economic cycle in the US coming to an end and a war that is wrecking our economies plus the post COVID economic unbalances.
On the other side we have:
-The French dont want us anywhere near the FCAS/MGCS and probably will drop from Euro Drone because GE Italian designed engine has been selected.
-If we buy the Lynx (highly probable) buying also the Panther will mean having just one family of logistics.
-The timing in respect to Russia is bad but the timing against the MGCS is good, we could push the french to do more errors and could probably steal clients from it, reducing its success chances. East Europe just sent their tanks to Ukraine, they will need to replenish their ranks.
-RHM is way bigger than KMW+Nexter, making an alliance with RHM better looking than with KNDS.
Also a bad technological timing since we are transitioning towards electric engines, and who knows what APS will be developed before MGCS comes out since from Ukraine it is clear that right now the Sword is way stronger than the Shield.
I think it is just a financial matter, we don't have the money right now, and our Army is literally in a coma state (Navy and Air-force are way more efficient) or we would jump immediately on the Panther project and try to kill the MGCS in its gestation.
I'm sorry for the wall of text, my bad syntax, and the animosity against the french, but this is an unionizing process, this always happens, north Italy industries killed south few ones, and the industrial defense panorama of the future Europe will be a bloodshed. I also understand the french they always went alone so any kind of collaboration means automatic compression of their industrial power, they just don't realize that it is a dead end/cul de sac and more time passes the more sunken cost fallacy is going to affect them.
I couldn't find a Topic on the Armee de Terre (French Army)
This report on European Armor (in the sense of IFV/Tanks etc.. etc..) it's a pearl.
It's very good, only negative side it is in french.
This report on European Armor (in the sense of IFV/Tanks etc.. etc..) it's a pearl.
It's very good, only negative side it is in french.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
<밀톡> 공상과학 영화 보는 듯… K2 ‘흑표’ 이을 국산 스텔스 전차 베일 벗었다
현대로템, 방위산업전시회서 영상 공개◇ DX코리아 전시회서 차세대 전차 CG 영상 공개스텔스 성능과 드론, 무인포탑 등을 갖춰 공상과학영화에 등......
bemil.chosun.com
Bemil Chosun shown article on what ROK Hyundai Rotem see as concept for Next Gen MBT after their K2. The context of developing and field this by next decade off course bit too optimist. Consodering the progress of MBT development globally.
Still as concept it is shown in line context with what most other next gen MBT concepts. Unmaned fully automated Turret and bigger gun (130mm vs 120mm), more stealthy shapes, etc. Will see if ROK wiling to invest on this soon (as timetable for next decade means they have get into development cycle within next couple of years). Personally bit doubt that as they are still more or less on maturing K2.
Perhaps after 2040 time table can be more realistics.
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
As it currently stands, there is no reason why the next-gen tank doesn't enter IOC before the 2030 mark.
The Carmel was first set for 2027, for example, and even after a 2 year delay due to COVID and government instability, is still set for 2029, which is before the 2030 mark.
The US is currently focusing on the OMFV, and does not give a date for the DLP.
Germany and France have set entirely different timetables for their respective versions of the same tank - MGCS. Germany's MGCS will enter service in the 2030's, and France's in the 2040's, but that is a voluntary delay due to the young age of its current fleet of AFVs.
The UK is a lost cause in this regard.
As for what the blog post says, it is interesting they mention the K2 cannot resist a 1,200mm penetrating warhead in its front armor, especially since North Korea cooperates with Russia a lot in military tech, and thus had potential access to such warheads for a very long time.
How they describe the future SK tank is odd. The form factor, being close to the PL-01, doesn't matter. It's just to show it will have some stealth tech. But stealth tech doesn't have to look that way.
ETC guns are a fantasy right now, and are not necessary. AFVs are only becoming even more energy demanding, and the demand/supply curve is only increasing as it is.
What a future MBT will need to be considered next-gen is not necessarily the systems, but the modular construction that is necessary to cope with an exponentially faster rate of upgrades than previous generations.
The 2nd gen M60 tanks could be upgraded to a 120mm gun and could get a bit more armor and a slightly stronger engine. But that was pretty much the peak of what it could get. The fact it necessitated a new engine shows it was already stretching it. And at the time, it was basically all that's needed anyway.
The 3rd generation tanks had varying levels of modularity of armor, and those fully digital were also electronically modular. Different upgrades have pushed them beyond their limits and now MBTs are struggling to find space to mount external systems and to supply power to them. The rate of upgrades has vastly increased.
The next gen will have to cope with replacing turrets and core automotive components at least once in their lifetimes before being considered "legacy", and main armaments at least several times.
By main armaments I mean not the main gun, but parts of the armament suit, as MBTs are already required to carry a large array of effectors like direct and indirect fires, loitering munitions, deployable recon, and other non kinetic effectors.
So what really defines the next gen is a construction modular enough to cope with all that, and technically that can be done today, and just add the systems as they are developed.
Therefore, whenever you see a date for IOC, know that it's completely arbitary and is solely to de-risk a program, or out of economical considerations.
The Carmel was first set for 2027, for example, and even after a 2 year delay due to COVID and government instability, is still set for 2029, which is before the 2030 mark.
The US is currently focusing on the OMFV, and does not give a date for the DLP.
Germany and France have set entirely different timetables for their respective versions of the same tank - MGCS. Germany's MGCS will enter service in the 2030's, and France's in the 2040's, but that is a voluntary delay due to the young age of its current fleet of AFVs.
The UK is a lost cause in this regard.
As for what the blog post says, it is interesting they mention the K2 cannot resist a 1,200mm penetrating warhead in its front armor, especially since North Korea cooperates with Russia a lot in military tech, and thus had potential access to such warheads for a very long time.
How they describe the future SK tank is odd. The form factor, being close to the PL-01, doesn't matter. It's just to show it will have some stealth tech. But stealth tech doesn't have to look that way.
ETC guns are a fantasy right now, and are not necessary. AFVs are only becoming even more energy demanding, and the demand/supply curve is only increasing as it is.
What a future MBT will need to be considered next-gen is not necessarily the systems, but the modular construction that is necessary to cope with an exponentially faster rate of upgrades than previous generations.
The 2nd gen M60 tanks could be upgraded to a 120mm gun and could get a bit more armor and a slightly stronger engine. But that was pretty much the peak of what it could get. The fact it necessitated a new engine shows it was already stretching it. And at the time, it was basically all that's needed anyway.
The 3rd generation tanks had varying levels of modularity of armor, and those fully digital were also electronically modular. Different upgrades have pushed them beyond their limits and now MBTs are struggling to find space to mount external systems and to supply power to them. The rate of upgrades has vastly increased.
The next gen will have to cope with replacing turrets and core automotive components at least once in their lifetimes before being considered "legacy", and main armaments at least several times.
By main armaments I mean not the main gun, but parts of the armament suit, as MBTs are already required to carry a large array of effectors like direct and indirect fires, loitering munitions, deployable recon, and other non kinetic effectors.
So what really defines the next gen is a construction modular enough to cope with all that, and technically that can be done today, and just add the systems as they are developed.
Therefore, whenever you see a date for IOC, know that it's completely arbitary and is solely to de-risk a program, or out of economical considerations.
Terran
Well-Known Member
2023 is the decision year on it. GDLS clearly wants to green light the next step.
General Dynamics Business Units to Participate in AUSA 2022
Four business units of General Dynamics will be among the exhibitors at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting & Exposition, scheduled for October 10 to 12, 2022, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.
www.gd.com
Abrams Sep V3 is already in service
Abrams SepV4 is said to be on the proving grounds with entry into service to start soon.
once that starts the Army will likely be looking at its next steps. As such 2030 doesn’t seem unrealistic.
OMFV is supposed to have full proposals due Nov1. Low rate for 2027 with IOC 2029.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
The AbramsX is a weird endeavor. Clearly a demonstration of what can be done on an existing platform is wanted, but it's not at all sure the Army would be willing to fund anything after the SEPv4 that isn't directly related to the DLP.
This could be useful for export customers, but it seems directed at the US Army, not any specific customer. Otherwise, IMO, they'd aim for a demonstration abroad, e.g. Poland which became a new customer.
This could be useful for export customers, but it seems directed at the US Army, not any specific customer. Otherwise, IMO, they'd aim for a demonstration abroad, e.g. Poland which became a new customer.
Terran
Well-Known Member
GDLS I think is trying to do for Abrams what Beretta tried to for the M9 pistol. Offer a Engineering Change proposal that meets the requirements of a replacement in hopes of getting a contract that would keep Abrams in house and in the army and not open the door to a replacement.
Edit::
I was wrong
If you have 2 hours to kill and are really interested.
The AbramsX is basically a concept car fro a technology demonstrator. It shows what is possible and what the Army/GDLS is thinking about for the next gen American MBT.
Edit::
I was wrong
The AbramsX is basically a concept car fro a technology demonstrator. It shows what is possible and what the Army/GDLS is thinking about for the next gen American MBT.
Last edited:
The Abrams X is interesting because it is looking at new technology from an American POV. The US Army definitely wouldn't be that keen on it straight away because they are somewhat conservative. However it certainly does have some interesting features, some that undoubtedly could be utilised in future Abrams upgrades or retrofitted. The use of the hybrid powerplant is great and if they are able to have that running with the bugs sorted out, maybe it could be retrofitted into current Abrahms. The unmanned turret is another interesting idea and it may lower the profile. The combined 30mm and 7.62mm RWS on top of the turret needs some work because at present it is vulnerable to damage, but I suspect that definitely is a WIP. But we'll see and if the US Army is interested, the way the US Army manages its procurement system, my youngest grandson will probably be collecting his old age pension by the time it enters service with the US Army in the 2080s.
The current standard is called M1A2SEPv3, which will be followed by M1A2SEPv4.
The references to M1A2C/D are no longer applicable. It’s a bit convoluted but it has to do with US DoD contracting regulations with respect to major upgrade programs. If they continued to call it M1A2C/D they’d have run head long into contracting issues that would have significantly delayed the program, so they stuck with M1A2SEPv3/4.
M1A2 Abrams SEPv3
M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 With each generation, the Abrams Main Battle Tank evolves. From new power generation to additional survivability, General Dynamics Land Systems is collaborating with our Soldiers to make sure the fleet is ready to go when danger threatens. New in the SEPv3 upgrade are...
www.gdls.com
AbramsX is a GDLS name for a concept demonstrator about to be unveiled at AUSA. It’s not a program of record at this stage and it’s not a US Mil designation.
This is Ed Nash's take on it.
Terran
Well-Known Member
now internally it looks like concepts from FCS, Griffin III or the Israeli Carmel Demonstrators. I would describe it as like the inside of a Startrek Shuttle.
I am somewhat disappointed that the "next gen" tanks is not more revolutionary. Ukraine clearly demonstrates the importance of tanks but also their vulnerabilities.
Perhaps some of the technologies being studied by BAE could be developed further and integrated into a more survivable "next gen" tank. A new BAE design uses a “serial” hybrid diesel-electric engine that’s “distributed” throughout the armored hull. The distributed power sources strongly reduce the IR signature of the vehicle. And of course, the electric drive makes it possible to stay silent for quite some time, which also helps.
A real-life Lego tank: BAE touts modular design for Army OMFV - Breaking Defense
I think further work should be done on making tanks more stealthy, also visually. There are some interesting technologies in some research labs that could be investigated and potentially developed further.
BAE Systems ADAPTIV Hexagonal Pixelated Thermal/IR (Infared)/Multispectral Adaptive Camouflage
Adaptive infrared camouflage | Nature Photonics
Perhaps some of the technologies being studied by BAE could be developed further and integrated into a more survivable "next gen" tank. A new BAE design uses a “serial” hybrid diesel-electric engine that’s “distributed” throughout the armored hull. The distributed power sources strongly reduce the IR signature of the vehicle. And of course, the electric drive makes it possible to stay silent for quite some time, which also helps.
A real-life Lego tank: BAE touts modular design for Army OMFV - Breaking Defense
I think further work should be done on making tanks more stealthy, also visually. There are some interesting technologies in some research labs that could be investigated and potentially developed further.
BAE Systems ADAPTIV Hexagonal Pixelated Thermal/IR (Infared)/Multispectral Adaptive Camouflage
Adaptive infrared camouflage | Nature Photonics
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I don't think you quite understand the current trajectory.
Yes, of the projects we could eyeball in the last 3 years, the Carmel appears to be the only one that incorporates deep stealth and hybrid-electric power as integral parts of the vehicle. But that is only because the Carmel is a statement for what's to come in 2030, when the next gen tank is deployed, whereas the AbramsX, KF51 and so on, are supposed to show what can be done TODAY.
And the OMFV? It focuses on low-risk, deliverable platforms today that are modular enough to accept radical changes by 2030 that will not eat into its growth potential.
So worry not, stealth and other "revolutionary" aspects are very much pursued.
Terran
Well-Known Member
The three “Next Generation MBT” that have made the circuit in the last few years are not finalized product they are Technology Demonstrations of a potential future vehicle concepts. To date a number of Existing MBT have been called Next Generation or Fourth Generation MBT Altay, K2, Type 90, T14 Armata. In various levels of production or preproduction however none of these I believe is a true “next generation” beyond marketing. More of a 3.5 to 3.75 generation. An Abridged step. Of the Three concepts they I would say are similarly half steps.
AbramsX might form the seed of an M1A3 if the US Army wanted it or it might just be the start of a completely new Decisive Lethality Platform.
Right now. Abrams X is a pitch by GDLS for a potential transitional vehicle between Sep V4 and a successor if not a test bed for successor technology, with the US Army believing Abrams will be rolling around for at-least another 27 years an overhaul to serve between 2025-2050 after Sepv4. CBO: Abrams to account for 40% of combat vehicle spending through 2050 | InsideDefense.com
As such an Overhaul of the Abrams to bridge the gap until a true next American Tank. Like how the M60A1 became the M60A2 which was supposed to lead into production versions of the MBT70. Of course the MBT70 would fail. M1 Abrams similarly bridged the gap using a 105mm gun until the 120mm ammunition had reached maturity.
EMBT would probably as it progresses be completely changed as they move to the MGCS and a true new tank as opposed to what it is today a internally reconfigured Leopard 2 hull with a heavily modified Leclerc turret. KF51 Panther is a technology demonstrator of a new turret on a heavily modified Leopard 2 hull. Which might become a competitive MGCS, I am not quite sure on the Hull in regards to KMW vs Rhinemetall rights regarding modernization and modifications.
As the three demonstrators are reusing an existing hull, the Drive train architecture is more or less fixed. To date AbramsX is the only one of the three that has openly stated to have moved away from the existing power pack. Kf51 is stated to have kept the MTU turbo diesel engines Leopard 2 already have the French haven’t made any statements.
Abrams X came on the scene with a Cummins Advanced Combat Engine 21.5 Opposed piston 6 cylinder (12 piston) 2 stroke 1500hp mated to a parallel hybrid electric drive.
::Tim Allen grunts::
This package is nice as it’s basically a drop in package. The US Army worked with Cummins to develop the ACE as a replacement for the Bradley’s power pack in a 4 cylinder 1000hp version and a 3 cylinder 700 version for heavy trucks and Stryker as well.
Despite what people might think the US Army has done a lot of work to try and improve the fuel economy of Abrams including atleast three previous studies into replacement for the ATG1500 with a more fuel efficient engines costs, technical limitations, added weight have come into play making AGT 1500 the workhorse it is for Abrams.
ACE is the latest and offers a virtually drop in replacement and modernization. In theory any Abrams would be convertible A1 or A2 Opfor, Aussie, Moroccan, Polish, Taiwanese. Iraqi… you name it. It’s also apparently being looked at to replace the power pack of the M88 Hercules ARVs
image source Twitter
Likely meaning it can be configured to drop in to any number of exiting vehicles. Using the old Continental AV1790. Potentially it may be able to drop into vehicles using the MTU 883 as that pack is known to fit in Abrams. An Abrams hull in 2013 on the AUSA had the MTU883 in it. Both the Continental AV1790 and a licensed 883 engine have been in Merkava variants.
Ace is likely to form the default power pack for OMFV bids as three of the five would be competitive teams GDLS, Team Lynx, Oshkosh AS21 Redback are built on modified existing Vehicles. ASCOD 2/Ajax Griffin, Lynx KF41, and Hyundai Rotem AS21 Redback. So the classic IFV/APC engine compartment front of the hull. BAE and wildcard Point blank are coming in with new vehicles.
BAE is working from a “Nearly” clean sheet here. They seem to have dropped their initial pitch of CV90 or a hot rod AMPV derivative for a concept out frowththey have been working with the US Army on since atleast 2004. And started work on by atleast 2000 for.
image Source File:Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles.png - Wikimedia Commons, Image origin US Army public domain circa 2009.
Note the central vehicle chassis is a series hybrid with duel engine on the sides.
BAE and it’s subsidiary have been working on a series hybrid fighting vehicle since the 2000 Tracked SEP vehicle for Sweden, this ran through the US Army Manned Combat Vehicles of the Future Combat System which is the image above. They updated and up weighted it for the GCV program.
They also were pitching this for the Polish PL01 in combination with Adaptiv. Well the series Hybrid is at a high level of maturity the Adaptiv isn’t. The real PL01 was basically a mock-up built on a CV90 chassis. They never progressed to development.
It’s clear that there is interest in “Stealthy” tanks. Hyundai Rotem who are selling MBT to Poland also showed this model off during theinternational defense exhibition MSPO in Poland. Poland home of the PL01.
However at this point that’s longer term future 2035 is what they are envisioning (not sure if demonstrator or Initial service objective. I would favor the latter).
Last edited:
Terran
Well-Known Member
The Carmel demonstrators seem more about the Control and fire control systems of future vehicles than actual vehicles themselves.
The videos seemed more like an IFV and so did the models.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
That is because Israeli companies can do the systems, while automotives are imported. The US takes the opposite approach, for example - choosing to focus on the platform first, and only then the systems.
This is because both have different industries with different capabilities.
It looking more like an IFV is also because there isn't much difference between the IFV and MBT in the future CONOPS, systems-wise.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Well I may be splitting hairs here but these are the concepts I recall.
IFV model shown AUSA 2019
Now the gun and turret on the model is big for an auto cannon clearly not a 30mm but it’s pretty small for an MBT gun,yet that’s not unheard of. The OMFV 50mm, K21’s 40mm, 40 CTA, the Russian 57mm. The Israeli experimental 60mm.
I mean if this is a tank replacement it’s possible I suppose. The US HSTV-L of the 1970-1980s tested a 75mm automatic cannon and was being looked at for a 90mm CTA gun so a big auto cannon tank isn’t beyond imagination
And this concept video from ages ago which shows 5 variants
The IFV, an APC with remote weapons station, What looks like a breaching version, a laser system presumably C-UAS and a reconnaissance vehicle with mast and antenna. Again seems the same vehicle as above just less defined. Now it’s not stated as an IFV or an MBT but the video clearly show a few more than 2 in the two man operated vehicle. Lending to the assumption of an IFV.
If there is another concept I have missed I would love to see it.
IFV model shown AUSA 2019
Now the gun and turret on the model is big for an auto cannon clearly not a 30mm but it’s pretty small for an MBT gun,yet that’s not unheard of. The OMFV 50mm, K21’s 40mm, 40 CTA, the Russian 57mm. The Israeli experimental 60mm.
I mean if this is a tank replacement it’s possible I suppose. The US HSTV-L of the 1970-1980s tested a 75mm automatic cannon and was being looked at for a 90mm CTA gun so a big auto cannon tank isn’t beyond imagination
And this concept video from ages ago which shows 5 variants
The IFV, an APC with remote weapons station, What looks like a breaching version, a laser system presumably C-UAS and a reconnaissance vehicle with mast and antenna. Again seems the same vehicle as above just less defined. Now it’s not stated as an IFV or an MBT but the video clearly show a few more than 2 in the two man operated vehicle. Lending to the assumption of an IFV.
If there is another concept I have missed I would love to see it.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
For the IDF specifically, an IFV, APC, and maneuver support vehicles (ARV, CEV, CP, GP etc) are more relevant, and the first planned date was 2027 for fielding first units (may have been unofficially pushed to 2029), while an MBT could come much later.
Whether MBT or IFV or anything else, the systems' architecture is the same, so they can show whatever platform they want.
Carmel is, after all, just a tech demonstrator program, not a full fledged AFV, and part of the program is also the Barak MBT which is a Merkava 4 modernization due to enter service by the end of this year or early 2023.
The video indeed shows a third person sometimes, but it's just a third person, not an infantry section, and he will also occassionally exist on MBTs.
The third person is not part of the crew, but could be a dedicated systems operator, a fires officer, or a platoon/company commander.
It's also important to understand that IAI is just presenting tech on some notional platform. The IDF will supply an independently developed platform, but core pieces like automotives are likely to be imported, like the Merkava 4 for example uses a German power pack.