Future succesor to M1 Abrams ?

[Sarevok]

The M1 tank is currently the most advanced MBT in the world today. It has served with distintion in many conflicts. But it is getting old. The US airforce is already working on future aircraft like F22 and the JSF. But what about the army ? Do they have any plans for a tank good enough succed the mighty M1 Abrams ?

[Shinova]

Actually, I've heard this weirdo idea about some small, fast unit called the Future Combat-something something mumbo-jumbo-weirdo thingy.

Basically, they want to do away with the MBTs and go for something more like a humvee.

[Sea Skimmer]

Future Combat System will provide vehicles to replace just about everything armored in the current army.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/ ... flash.html
http://www.gdls.com/programs/fcs.html
A 500kb poster of what the vehicle will probably look like.
http://www.gdls.com/images/poster_02.gif


Somthing from the Army times:

Common to all:
*Ballistic protection: base vs. 14.5mm, applique to 30mm and AT mines
*Basic survivablity package: NBC, EMP hardening, smoke grenades
*Hybrid electric drive system, max speed 55mph, 0-30 in 8 secs, range 465 miles
*both tracks and wheels under consideration

Mounted Combat System:
3 crew, 24 tons
*dimensions shown: length 20.8 to 21.3 feet, width 8.3 feet, height 8.5 feet
*120mm cannon with automated ammunition handling
*C2 suite to include engagement operations, long wave infrared with aided-target identification, multifunction radar, laser rangefinder/target designator, battlefield target identification
*Advanced survivability package includes laser warning receiver, missile warning and flash detection, electronic countermeasures, Active protection system (the four barrel launcher on top)
*0.50cal or Mk.19 on roof (though it shows the XM307 OCSW)

C2 Vehicle:
*driver, commander, 4 operators
*22 tons
*0.50 cal or Mk. 19
*add on frontal armor
*advanced survivablitiy package (as MCS above)
*4 command and control workstations

Infantry carrier:
*driver, commander, 9 dismounts
*22 tons
*XM307 Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW)
*add on frontal armor
*advanced survivablity package
*extra stowage compartments for squad gear

NLOS mortar:
*driver, commander, 3 gun crew
*24 tons
*120mm mortar system, 0.50 cal or Mk. 19
*base armor package
*base survivablitiy package
*7 mile range with precision guided munitions

NLOS cannon:
*driver, commander
*24 tons
*155mm cannon, 0.50 cal or Mk.19
*add on frontal armor
*advanced survivablity package (minus APS)
*automated ammunition handling, range at least 20 miles

Recon/Surveillance vehicle:
*driver, commander, 4 dismout scouts
*22 tons
*0.50 cal or Mk.19
*add on frontal armor
*advanced survivablity package
*mast mounted sensor pod with day/night/all weather capability

Basically, they want to do away with the MBTs and go for something more like a humvee.

I wasn't aware there was a 24 ton tracked humvee.

[Beowulf]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/ ... flash.html http://www.gdls.com/programs/fcs.html

Don't forget the space...

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't forget the space...

Good, you've pass my test of how closely you read all your Great Leaders posts. Doing so is of course mandatory and his mighty wisdom must be committed to memory.

[Shinova]

I wasn't aware there was a 24 ton tracked humvee.

Well I wasn't aware the FCS were ~24 tons.


It's a big drop from 70 to 24. Their common theme seems to be, "Light, light, everything light."

[Sea Skimmer]

Well I wasn't aware the FCS were ~24 tons.

...Then don't comment on it. The lowest number ever thrown around was 16 tons, so that a C-130 could haul one 2000 miles. Now its up to 24 tons without appliqué armor.

It's a big drop from 70 to 24. Their common theme seems to be, "Light, light, everything light."

Yes it is a huge drop. Right now rapid deployment might get us a pair of light infantry division, a couple marine battalions and maybe one Army brigade anywhere in the world with a decent coastline after a couple weeks. It could then take a couple months to bring in more forces. FCS is meant to get us five mechanized divisions on top of the above forces in a month. To do that you have to be able to arilife your equipment. Thats not an option with M1's, heavy carog aircraft can only haul one at a time, but they'd never do so in any large numbers because the floors cant take the stress.

[Shinova]

I forgot to mention that by humvees, I mainly meant the mission purpose of a humvee: fast, good for recon, and mobile.

[Howedar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that a few heavy armored groups would continue to use the M-1 for the forseeable future?

[Sea Skimmer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that a few heavy armored groups would continue to use the M-1 for the forseeable future?

The plan appears to be to keep the M1 and M2 in service with the National Guard and possibly some Army units. However FCS isn't going to be in widespread service until around 2010 so who knows. The per unit cost will play a major part in any decision.

[Vympel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that a few heavy armored groups would continue to use the M-1 for the forseeable future?

A 'legacy' force will remain in being until at least 2020, though I personally doubt the M1/M2 force can be maintained for another 20 years without major, expensive maintenance investments.

[Stravo]

I understand the need for going lighter in some of our forces, perhaps some dedciated rapid deployment divisions. Currently I think only the 101st and 82nd can truly be considered rapid reaction forces. However, I would have thought that the second Gulf war would have taught the military the need for heavy forces.

Without the heavy M1's and such I wonder if we would have pentrated as far as quickly not to mention the M-1's shrugging off multiple RPG shots and still going. I don't know if these lighter vehicles could accomplish the same feat of protecting the crew from multiple RPG hits and still being able to fight effectively.

We will always NEED heavy armor in my opinion, so this whole sale going light thing makes me nervous. For instance, how would such a light force deal with a full scale land war in Korea??

[TrailerParkJawa]

I understand the need for going lighter in some of our forces, perhaps some dedciated rapid deployment divisions. Currently I think only the 101st and 82nd can truly be considered rapid reaction forces. However, I would have thought that the second Gulf war would have taught the military the need for heavy forces.

Without the heavy M1's and such I wonder if we would have pentrated as far as quickly not to mention the M-1's shrugging off multiple RPG shots and still going. I don't know if these lighter vehicles could accomplish the same feat of protecting the crew from multiple RPG hits and still being able to fight effectively.

We will always NEED heavy armor in my opinion, so this whole sale going light thing makes me nervous. For instance, how would such a light force deal with a full scale land war in Korea??

I pretty much feel the same way. Im also nervous about an autoloader. Its one less person to maintance the vehicle, what if it breaks, its one less person to be on the look out for enemies when in a convoy situation or when camped out.

What happens when these guys come up against someone who doesnt need to be deployable and has invested in MBT's. It is a match? I thought the Isreali's learned that armor protection was king in the desert and that's why they developed the Merkava? Any armor authorites out there got the scoop?

[Shortie]

The plan appears to be to keep the M1 and M2 in service with the National Guard and possibly some Army units. However FCS isn't going to be in widespread service until around 2010 so who knows. The per unit cost will play a major part in any decision.

2010? I know the Stryker was supposed to be interim, but it doesn't look like that'll be fully deployed till for a while yet, so is FCS really gonna take over so soon?

Anyway, I'm not absolutely convinced by this medium-weight stuff, the USCMC seems to do it well today by combining a light unit with a small heavy unit. Sure FCS is gonna have nice tech to make up for the weight-loss, but will that make them superior to cruder stuff thrice their mass?

[Traceroute]

Auto-loaders were one of the reasons the US kicked so much ass against the Iraqi armored divisions in the Gulf War (1). The Iraqi's surplus Russian tanks used auto-loaders, which tended to jam and also were slower than someone from Georgia that can move a shell into the breech.

Of course, it has been 12 years, they could be using auto-loaders now that are faster and more reliable than a human. That's likely the only way the Army would consider an auto-loader.

[Howedar]

Monkey-model T-72s did not have the best autoloaders.

[Sea Skimmer]

2010? I know the Stryker was supposed to be interim, but it doesn't look like that'll be fully deployed till for a while yet, so is FCS really gonna take over so soon?

No, it will easily take another ten years after that to fully equip all units with FCS. Strykers going to see some heavy use, and then could always be passed onto reserve and NG units to replace there extremely old M113's.

Anyway, I'm not absolutely convinced by this medium-weight stuff, the USCMC seems to do it well today by combining a light unit with a small heavy unit. Sure FCS is gonna have nice tech to make up for the weight-loss, but will that make them superior to cruder stuff thrice their mass?

FCS is going to handle things like tanks and artillery very easily, they can be identified fairly readily and then smashed with the vast array of guided anti armor weaponry we have. Its actually low-level threats like the current Iraqi guerrillas worse.

As for the USCMC, I don't know much about Aliens other then what I see in the movie. Now if you mean the USMC, that service also intends to replace its current M1's and worn out LAV-25's with lighter vehicles. Though there looking at the 30 ton ranges rather then the 20-ton range of FCS.

[Sea Skimmer]

Auto-loaders were one of the reasons the US kicked so much ass against the Iraqi armored divisions in the Gulf War (1). The Iraqi's surplus Russian tanks used auto-loaders, which tended to jam and also were slower than someone from Georgia that can move a shell into the breech.

Of course, it has been 12 years, they could be using auto-loaders now that are faster and more reliable than a human. That's likely the only way the Army would consider an auto-loader.

The autoloader of Iraqi T-72's represents a design that is closer to 25 years old. Modern autoloaders work and work very well. They have already been adapted by the Army for the XM-8 and now for Stryker MGS.

[Falkenhayn]

The US army seams to suffer from some kind of "Battlecruiser" mentality.

They are fixated on building them light and fast with as big a gun as possible. Then they are going to be shocked when and RPG-16 turns them into fireballs that an Abrams would laugh at.

[Howedar]

Except that an Abrams wouldn't laugh at most hand-held antitank weapons. Thats the whole point.

[Eleas]

Interesting discussion. The controversy seems to center around whether heavy tanks are still needed, and if so, in which theatre. Is that it?

[Sea Skimmer]

Interesting discussion. The controversy seems to center around whether heavy tanks are still needed, and if so, in which theatre. Is that it?

Basically. What it really comes down to is, will lighter forces be able to do the same job or not? If so then lets go for it, if not then where fucked if we do. This question has not been answered or resolved in any debate I've been part of. The Army seems to think so, though the original weight for FCS system was 16 tons, now that development has begun its 24 for most vehicles and might rise higher so they clearly are a bit less optimistic now that design work has actually begun.

Read follow on for in depth rambling that may or may not contradict its self due to lack of editing and Skimmers own divided opinions.

You also get arguments about just how much lighter should we go, if that is to be the course of action. The original FCS program that started more then ten years ago was just a 40 ton tank, that’s a big step down from a 70 ton Abrams but not that big from the 50 ton T-90. However the Army decided that its wanted airmobile forces. There is a lot of be said for that. In the recent invasion of Iraq it took the ships hauling the 4th Infantry division several weeks to sail from Turkey to Kuwait. Aircraft could have gotten the first troops there in a day flying from North America. Now you can airlift an M1A2 in a C-5 or C-17, but only one at a time and it overstresses the floors, they where designed for more evenly spread loads and lighter older armored vehicles. So that option really isn't viable. You don’t have many stress problems with a 40-ton tank and two would fit on a C-5. There aren't many C-5's, and have horrible readiness because of spare parts problems and old age. While the C-17 can haul 85 tons, evidently its range with this load is very poor so hauling two 40-ton tanks isn't an option because it would take up too many tankers. Anyway flying in armored vehicles one at a time is not particularly viable when the Army wants five divisions in with there vast fleets of trucks and other vehicles in theater in thirty days. That goal is going to be very hard to meet even with the lighter FCS.

So the Army knocked it down to 16-20 tons, and decided to have the program replace not only the M1 but also M2 and M113 variants. More recently since Crusader was canceled an M109 SP gun replacement is now part of it as well. There's also now Objective Force Warrior, which is meant to develop all new infantry equipment to go along with the new armor.

20 tons represents about the upper limit for a C-130 payload, is 38,000 pounds. But it can only fly 500 miles with that load. With a 16 ton load it can fly about 2000 miles. Either way at least two maybe three would fit on a C-17. Length would be the limit rather then weight.

However FCS is now has several 24-ton variants. There's no way a C-130 can haul that, so my and many other peoples question is why not go back up to something like 30 tons, two would still fit on a C-17 and the range should still be intercontinental.

At the end of the day. I do think 24 tons will work, its easy to protect against RPG rounds with light weight protection, a simple spaced armor plate really screws them over. Meanwhile high end threats like modern ATGM's and such can already destroy an M1 through its frontal armor so FCS shouldn't be any more venerable. Though it's suppose to mount some form of small guided missile launcher, which will fire interceptors to shoot down RPG rounds and incoming missiles. This will no doubt be absurdly expensive, to the point that it will make a flame thrower that sprays liquid gold seem cheep.

[Shortie]

No, it will easily take another ten years after that to fully equip all units with FCS. Strykers going to see some heavy use, and then could always be passed onto reserve and NG units to replace there extremely old M113's./quote]
Ah, right.

FCS is going to handle things like tanks and artillery very easily, they can be identified fairly readily and then smashed with the vast array of guided anti armor weaponry we have. Its actually low-level threats like the current Iraqi guerrillas worse.

The first sentence would apply equally to even lighter stuff. The latter is more peacekeeping than outright combat, and it seems a bit odd to dedicate your entire army to that.

As for the USCMC, I don't know much about Aliens other then what I see in the movie. Now if you mean the USMC, that service also intends to replace its current M1's and worn out LAV-25's with lighter vehicles. Though there looking at the 30 ton ranges rather then the 20-ton range of FCS.

I can't believe I put an extra C in there.
Anyway, will they still be light infantry with a medium to heavy add-on or are they becoming fully mechanised?


I know that air mobility would be nice, but leaving aside whether it;s a good thing to design ground vehicles around transports rather than the other way round, it's quite a payoff. Are serious wars that the US army wants to get into gonna take off that fast? The last two Gulf ones gave plenty of time, and smaller guerilla stuff shouldn't need your primary combat units anyway.

[Sea Skimmer]

The first sentence would apply equally to even lighter stuff. The latter is more peacekeeping than outright combat, and it seems a bit odd to dedicate your entire army to that.

I don’t know about even lighter stuff, you start to become venerable to heavy shell fragments and DPICM bomblets.

I can't believe I put an extra C in there.
Anyway, will they still be light infantry with a medium to heavy add-on or are they becoming fully mechanised?

Light infantry will remain in some numbers, the 82 and 101 Airborne at least. Probably one or two other light divisions. FCS is suppose to equip five regular divisions, with the current army strength that leaves five other divisions and a couple Armored Cavalry Regiments. Though there had been talk of cutting two divisions from that by 2010, but that never seemed like it was that serious a proposal nor will it have much support thanks to the demands of garrisoning Iraq.

I know that air mobility would be nice, but leaving aside whether it;s a good thing to design ground vehicles around transports rather than the other way round, it's quite a payoff.

Yes it is. But the thinking is better a hoard of FCS's then nothing but light infantry and maybe one propositioned army brigade for months.

Are serious wars that the US army wants to get into gonna take off that fast? The last two Gulf ones gave plenty of time, and smaller guerilla stuff shouldn't need your primary combat units anyway.

That’s another unresolved argument. Though taking Gulf I as an example, what would the US have been able to do if Iraq had kept going south or done so after the light infantry of the 82 Airborne had arrived? Basically we couldn't have done squat but try to bring in more air power. The US has the eight of the world's fastest cargo ships in the form of the SL-7's. Combine they can haul over 90% of a mechanized division and move it at 33 knots. Yet even they take 18 days to get from the US west coast to the Gulf. It took a week to unload them and many weeks more to move the 24th mechanized division to the docks and load it onto the ships in the first place. With FCS system and the planned transport aircraft buys the first mechanized division could have been on the ground within a week after Saddam rolled into Kuwait. Five divisions should under the plan be on the ground within a month.

That would allow for a counter attack before many of the Iraqi ground defenses where built, before they could lay there huge minefield and would have radically reduced the time the Iraqis had to tear apart the country. Meanwhile cargo ships can haul in prepackaged and propositioned logistics material, which unlike men can sit loaded in ships for some time. You can preposition tanks and such and the US Army has done this, but it means you must procure two sets of equipment for a unit and is thus very expensive. As a result there are only a couple brigades worth around the world and the ships some of its on could take two weeks or more reach where its needed. Though back in Gulf there was much less in the way of propositioned supplies and equipment.

One other factor to consider is that bring stuff in by sea requires that the place where you need to fight has either a port close at hand or decent roads inland from one. It is possibul to unload RO-RO vessels without a port using a bunch of oversized landing craft the US Army owns and powered causeways and other things the Marines keep around but it takes more then three times as long and requires a very good beach.

[Hasler]

The M1A2 is the ultimate tank. Yes it heavy but its fast. It has the world's best armor and survivbility rate. To knock it out you have to attack the tracks, get to within 800meters with a 135mm gun, or score a hit on its engine compartment or underside with a AT-2 or AT-3. Notice i didnt say RPG. The RPG is basically a hand grenade attached to a rocket. It will not penatrate an M2 let alone the Depleted uranium armor of the M1.

Light tanks are fesable to be used in conjuntion with a heavy tank or as support to light infantry units such as the 82nd which deployed the sheridan untill the cuts of the 90s. Light tanks take casualties. They are fine if you expect to overwhelm your oppents as in WW2 with the sherman but not if you have geared you military to be a smaller harder hitting force.