"What Will The New U.S. Tank Look Like?" Topic

"Several images taken at a U.S. Army workshop show a very rough idea of a possible replacement for the long-serving M1 Abrams tank. The images seem to depict at least three concept tanks, including one behemoth that dwarfs the 70-ton Abrams. The Army plans to make a decision about if and how to replace the Abrams in 2023.

The event, a three-day workshop, was held in early October at the U.S. Army's Ground Vehicle Systems Center at Detroit Arsenal. According to the Army, the event paired soldiers "with a team of industrial designers and Subject Matter Experts" to explore topics "from crew size to unmanned and autonomous considerations." The team also "explored levels of desired lethality, mobility, and survivability applied to a number of concept platforms."…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

If history is a guide, in 2023, they will throw these plans out the window, add a few knick knacks to the current M1 design, adding weight, but not much else, and call it the M1A4 or M1A2SEP3.2eieio. Rinse, repeat until 2040 or so.

Let's go retro with the MBT-70 style design, and a 130mm cannon, just for fun.

Surely, the compressible running gear is due to make a comeback.

The images seem to depict at least three concept tanks, including one behemoth that dwarfs the 70-ton Abrams

Has to be "light" enough to be transported fairly easily, albeit they usually are sent by ship. I was told that is one of the reasons why the IDF's excellent Namer IFV was not adopted by the US Army[Plus the USMC does not have any MBTs anymore!]. Too big and heavy. BTW it is made in Lima, OH then shipped over to the IDF. link The IDF does not have to deploy anywhere. Just roll in the direction of a nearby border(s).

TGerritsen I think you are very much correct. High Tech costs … a lot. And if the reports are true the US Military is going to get at least a 10% budget cut, in the coming year. With the new incoming administration. "De ja vu all over again!" …

Surely, the compressible running gear is due to make a comeback.

That was a bit hard to maintain back then, IIRC. Our tech is better now. But it still is another high tech system that could deadline a vehicle.

And as I said high tech costs. With at least a 10% US Military budget cut looming over the horizon. "Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it" …

Maybe I'm crazy but a light tank with active protection, anti drone systems, AT missiles, and a lighter automatic cannon for light vehicles and aircraft would make a lot of sense in modern warfare. Guns are great. Missiles are better.

Generally yes, but main guns are easier to maintain and even use, IMO. Of course optimum would be similar to the M2 Bradley e.g. with a 25mm automatic main gun and TOW missile sponson. And generally you can carry more cannon rounds than missiles.

I suspect the M1 will be upgraded and kept in service until 2050. That would mean a 70 year life!

My reasoning is as follows.

I think we are at the peak with regard to the triangle of mobility/protection/firepower optimisation. Without some massive leap in innovation only marginal improvements are possible. Nobody AFAIK is planning to field an MBT that is significantly better than the M1 in its recent iterations.

Active protection upgrades, better ammunition, sensors etc can be added to the basic vehicle. The advantage of having quite large numbers of adequate vehicles will outweigh the value of far fewer moderately better vehicles.

Tanks are going to be important for decades to come, but other vehicles and systems will gradually supplant or augment them.

A replacement for the Bradley is more urgent, IMO, though the plan is I'm sure to replace everything in the next 10-20 years.

I wonder if a modular system of MBT/IFV on the same chassis, with modular armour and a range of weapons systems could work. Sometimes, you want a heavy infantry fighting vehicle – but sometimes you need to play an 'away game' and being able to get some armour on the ground rapidly could be pivotal.

So – maybe there could be merit in a suite of tracked Strikers with a range of turrets and the capacity to add significant passive armour?

Meanwhile you have to keep the M1s. High calibre, high velocity guns can't be defeated by active measures to the same degree as missiles.

I suspect the M1 will be upgraded and kept in service until 2050. That would mean a 70 year life!

I totally agree …

Nobody AFAIK is planning to field an MBT that is significantly better than the M1 in its recent iterations.

Yes at least at this time … Along with that will they have the numbers required to be a real threat.

Tanks are going to be important for decades to come, but other vehicles and systems will gradually supplant or augment them.

That is a reasonable assumption … yes …

A replacement for the Bradley is more urgent, IMO, though the plan is I'm sure to replace everything in the next 10-20 years.

Uparmoring it after getting rid for the M231 FPW system was a very good move, IMO. And with some other upgrades it will easily be around for a while. The 25mm and TOWs makes it pretty effective.

you want a heavy infantry fighting vehicle – but sometimes you need to play an 'away game' and being able to get some armour on the ground rapidly could be pivotal

We have that in the Stryker and LAV. But they had to be uparmored as well. And both have a number of variations with weapons mounts, turrets, etc.

Without some massive leap in innovation only marginal improvements are possible.

That is the X-Factor … something like that would change many things.