Latest Pentagon cuts and cancellations

[[R_H]]

What will the Abrams, Bradley and Stryker modernisation programs entail?

[CaptHawkeye]

For the Abrams I recall mention of a new main gun, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. The 120mm gun is more than adequate and once you get larger than that you seriously start to cut back on how much ammo you can hold.

A big problem with the Abrams though is the Turbine powerplant it uses is old as shit. They've been out of production since the early 90s and due to their high maintenance requirements they're quickly consuming the stockpile of spare parts. Initially all they'll probably be able to do is try to improve the AGT 1500 basic design so it's more efficient. The distant future will probably see a new engine entirely.

The Bradley and Stryker both have a similar need for more protection. Of which was partially achieve with the M2A3 Bradley. Though somebody should still probably try to fix the 175 gallon fuel tank on the bottom of the vehicle which has a nasty tendency to catch fire when the vehicle runs over a mine or IED. Like the Abrams, we're probably going to see lots of push for better logistics and easier maintenance requirements.

The Stryker still suffers from a case of the RPG blues though. There's a lot of push to immunize it against light infantry anti tank weapons. Though I doubt it'll happen since a lot of the propositions involve increasing the weight of the vehicle like 30 tons.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I I recall correctly, there was a DARPA program to improve the turbine used in the M1A1.

[Ritterin Sophia]

For the Abrams I recall mention of a new main gun, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. The 120mm gun is more than adequate and once you get larger than that you seriously start to cut back on how much ammo you can hold.

I haven't heard of any new gun for the Abrams that isn't just an L/55, the only difference between the L/55 and the Abrams L/44 is the L/44 is 44cal/5.28m/17.3ft long and the L/55 is as you would expect 55cal/6.6m/22ft long. The length allows it to tolerate higher pressures from the propellant, which increases the range by another 1.5km. The only thing you have to do is swap out the barrel and you're done.

[[R_H]]

For the Abrams I recall mention of a new main gun, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. The 120mm gun is more than adequate and once you get larger than that you seriously start to cut back on how much ammo you can hold.

A big problem with the Abrams though is the Turbine powerplant it uses is old as shit. They've been out of production since the early 90s and due to their high maintenance requirements they're quickly consuming the stockpile of spare parts. Initially all they'll probably be able to do is try to improve the AGT 1500 basic design so it's more efficient. The distant future will probably see a new engine entirely.

The XM291 something or other, the light(er)weight one? I remember reading something about an upgrade involving, can't for the life of me remember what it entailed (something to do with maintenance and fuel-efficiency maybe?) or where I read it.

I wonder if a new engine would be a turbine again?

Has the new APU replaced the batteries or is it still in development?

The Stryker still suffers from a case of the RPG blues though. There's a lot of push to immunize it against light infantry anti tank weapons. Though I doubt it'll happen since a lot of the propositions involve increasing the weight of the vehicle like 30 tons.

Maybe against run of the mill PG-7V(L), but barring really expensive armour, I too don't think they'll be able to give it much better CE protection.

[Steel]

For the Abrams I recall mention of a new main gun, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. The 120mm gun is more than adequate and once you get larger than that you seriously start to cut back on how much ammo you can hold.

I haven't heard of any new gun for the Abrams that isn't just an L/55, the only difference between the L/55 and the Abrams L/44 is the L/44 is 44cal/5.28m/17.3ft long and the L/55 is as you would expect 55cal/6.6m/22ft long. The length allows it to tolerate higher pressures from the propellant, which increases the range by another 1.5km. The only thing you have to do is swap out the barrel and you're done.

Well, not quite the only thing, as all your fire control will be totally wrong, so you'll need to adjust that if you want to avoid sending everything sailing over your intended targets.

[SCRawl]

* EFV is gone. Savings will be used to upgrade the AAV with more armor, better electronics and weaponry.

How's that supposed to work?

I recall that something like $13 billion had been budgeted for development of the EFV, which can now be used to fund other projects, since the EFV won't be developed any further. Someone will correct me, I hope, if my recollection is in error.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wonder if a new engine would be a turbine again?

Has the new APU replaced the batteries or is it still in development?

For a while the Army intended to use the LV100-5 turbine from Crusader to upgrade the M1 but that program seems to have been dead since about 2005. Other then that all efforts have focused on increasing the lifespan of the AGT-1500 between overhauls. The competition that choose LV100-5 faced off against several diesel engines, so certainly the Army would consider whatever the market could offer if it could come up with money for new tank engines.

The M1A2 and a very few M1A2 SEP tanks have an APU on the rear of the turret and under armor inside a fuel tank respectively. The SEP program lost funding for that item pretty quickly for whatever dumb reason. The current project for a under armor APU in place of part of the batteries is still in development as far as I can tell, but I can find no reference past 2009. Might be in field trials by now.

The Stryker still suffers from a case of the RPG blues though. There's a lot of push to immunize it against light infantry anti tank weapons. Though I doubt it'll happen since a lot of the propositions involve increasing the weight of the vehicle like 30 tons.

Just a few months ago actually, I read that the US Army has begun to accept certain modifications to the production of new Strykers, most of which come from the 'LAV-H' proposal made several years ago. That includes upgrading the base vehicle to support 55,000lb gross load for the infantry carrier version. Currently the standard is 38,000lb but the things roll around overloaded. The effective increase is about 10,000lb.

A lot of that extra load is going right back into a blast pan to stop bombs, but other armoring or maybe a heavier weapon (25mm RWS) should be possible. Slat armor isn't too bad against RPGs because it can break the fuses; but it would suck against more advanced weapons. Certainly though different and better armoring could be used in the future. Slat armor was basically a quick cheap solution that worked well enough to not need rapid replacement. Doesn't mean it never will be.