Foreign Tanks Now Match the M1 Abrams, US General Says

[pardus]

Interesting that this is being spoken about publicly. I'm very interested to see where tank development goes, less crew would be my first guess.
Interesting to see that the Leopard wasn't mentioned as being compatible, was that deliberate or a simple oversight?

These Foreign Tanks Now Match the M1 Abrams, US General Says

 

[Red Flag 1]

I

 

[pardus]

I wonder if any R&D has taken place in the last eight years regarding upgrades or replacements for the Abrams? If you are not looking to the future, you fall behind, and it looks like that has just happened. The specs on the Russian T-14 looks to have more than parity with the Abrams. The Israel Mark-IV has an anti-tank weapon technology that sounds pretty cutting edge. Have we done any tank R&D lately??

That was another question that I had. From reading that article, it doesn't seem so. I'd hope they are just keeping their cards close to their chest's though.

 

[RackMaster]

The omition of the Leopard 2 stuck out at me as well. It's a formidable hunk of metal and technology.

 

[Gunz]

It might have just been an oversight on the general's part, not deliberate. He's pitching new generation here, an enormously expensive pill for most senators to swallow...one that requires a concerted sell job and ample evidence that mere upgrades are insufficient to overtake the competition.

 

[CDG]

Interesting that this is being spoken about publicly. I'm very interested to see where tank development goes, less crew would be my first guess.
Interesting to see that the Leopard wasn't mentioned as being compatible, was that deliberate or a simple oversight?

These Foreign Tanks Now Match the M1 Abrams, US General Says

Less crew is one. Automated systems are the obvious facilitator of that. Reactive armor is another. Laser sensors that allow the tank to sense when it has a laser spot on it. That system will then either give a display to the crew for them to DF the designator, or the tank can be set up to automatically slew its turret onto where it calculates the designator at, and it can start launching rounds.

 

[DA SWO]

Less crew is one. Automated systems are the obvious facilitator of that. Reactive armor is another. Laser sensors that allow the tank to sense when it has a laser spot on it. That system will then either give a display to the crew for them to DF the designator, or the tank can be set up to automatically slew its turret onto where it calculates the designator at, and it can start launching rounds.

Data distribution system so you can pump data from JSTARs directly to the tanks.

 

[Gunz]

A little T-90 reactive armor porn.

 

[Teufel]

R&D costs money. Producing a cutting edge tank costs money. We are losing the technological edge in all domains. It was bound to happen. It's harder for us to innovate than it is other countries to copy, license, or steal.

We also waste gobs of money on developing questionable technology like the Littoral Combat Shop and Joint Strike Fighter. We dropped production of the F22, because they're expensive and the JSF was supposed to be better and more versatile but realize later we probably should have made a lot more when state competitors started putting out advanced aircraft of their own. These airframes don't touch the F22 in performance but it looks like they may equal or surpass the JSF. I can go on and on. We developed an expensive amphibious carrier with no well deck. We dumped tons of money on an AAV replacement that went nowhere.

 

[Teufel]

We are also tragically behind the power curve on anti ship cruise missiles. That to me is more worrisome than tanks. I think we are fielding reactive armor upgrades to tanks right now, which is a step in the right direction.

 

[Red Flag 1]

[Q

 

[DA SWO]

Having only one airframe, say the JSF, limits our ability to overlap. Until now, they have had to beat The F-18, F-15, F-16, F-22and the JSF. In the future, they only need to beat the JSF. Is it worth the expense for multiple aircraft designs? In my book it is.

We had no real growth in the last 8 years and everyone knows why. The last eight years nearly cost us the A-10 too. We are now in the era of parity, not strength. The cost to buy us out of parity will be steep, and no matter what we are behind the eight ball right now. Our only hope is to science our way out, and that takes brains, money, and vision, can we do it?

No real growth in the last 24 years, and you probably argue no real growth since the 80's.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I wonder if any R&D has taken place in the last eight years regarding upgrades or replacements for the Abrams? If you are not looking to the future, you fall behind, and it looks like that has just happened. The specs on the Russian T-14 looks to have more than parity with the Abrams. The Israel Mark-IV has an anti-tank weapon technology that sounds pretty cutting edge. Have we done any tank R&D lately??

There's been discussion a few times to for RFI's to be submitted to DoD Contractors for an A3 Program. We're currently undergoing A2 SEP V.3 Upgrades but those aren't crazy, the cool thing those is the field of two new rounds. There hasn't been too much out there about a whole new tank though. When it comes to mounting ERA, the Army began fielding the TUSK system in '06 and we had ERA on M60s back during Desert Storm.

Here's something that fully explains all of the SEP V.3 upgrades:
In Development: M1A2 SEP v3

The Marines however like their A1s so much they don't even want to field like new SEP V.2s. There is some good stuff behind that rationale, the Marine A1s have gone through upgrades but nothing like the SEP V.2. Here's some literature on the last USMC Abrams upgrade, recent but the difference are still vast:

Abrams Tank Upgrades Will Give Marines 'Killer Edge' | DoD Buzz

I would state that in their expeditionary nature they've kept most of their upgrades pretty simple. It's a bit like 2e REC when they deployed to Mali with their stocks of ERC 90s and then switched over to their AMX 10 RCs when they came off the boat.