Posted on 06/08/2004 6:20:51 PM PDT by VaBthang4
I have been wondering what if any MBT concept we have on the drawing board. I recall seeing a concept MBT with actual hydraulics that lifted the body in order to give it greater visibility.
Anyway...
Anyone have anything?
bttt
Just the one you mentioned. The FCS is the next generation of Strykers, hopefully it will be more effective.
Do you have any info on it?
Want to break the news?
Not a good idea to give a tank "greater visibility". If you can be seen, you can be shot. If you can be shot, you can be killed.
If you mean, however, giving your tank the ability to "see" better, there are better ways than hull hydraulic gimmicks to accomplish that goal.
The FCS seems to be a juiced up, high tech version of the Stryker. Supposedly it will have better armor, but similar weaponry. The biggest change according to the thing I read was much more digital communications involved in it. The AGS version of the FCS looked much more streamlined and appeared to have a turret.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/PROGRAMS/fcs.html
That's the link. Looks like it is supposed to work with the new Land Warrior system.
FCS is a Warfare system geared towards employing new and improved warfare capabilities, tactics/strategy. Not a Tank [I am not sure if you understood].
I looked at the first link but didnt find anything concerning MBTs. I wonder if the hand wringing over Heavy VS. Light has left a future MBT out of the planning.
I thought that the next MBT is supposed to be designed with the help of the Japanese. And when you get 5 of them together in the battlefield, you can have them join together to create a giant Robo, invincible in the battlefield! ;)
My mistake. Technically not a tank, FCS is an armored vehicle. As for MBT, I don't think there is anything on the boards to replace the M1. Sadly, I think the tankless-army people have gotten their way.
Not really, but will give a few hints of things to come. Remember that Future Combat System (FCS) is a System of Systems or SoS for short. The key is being netted together so that situational awareness is first and foremost. As an example, a dimounted patrol is in an urban area and encounters a armored vehicle. They are equipped to send a digitized report which then assigns a priority to the enemy. The priority is then assigned to either an indiret or direct fire weapon to engage. This might be rockets in a box, the Air Force or Navy with a fast mover, or conventional tube artillery.
Someday I will post some of the releasable information to hopefully satisfy the curious.
As far as a new "tank" is concerned, not on the horizon. The Abrams will be with us for the next several decades. How long has the B-52 or the C-130 been in service?
Agree. The United States has built its last MBT.
Semper Fi,
I pray we can make all of the electronics and wizardry work while the Abrams continues on. <p. ...and I pray they do not proceed with retiring the Abrams prematurely...we're going to need them.
June 2, 2004: The U.S. Army, while eager to design and build its new, twenty ton, FCS (Future Combat System) tank, it was reminded in Iraq that the current 65 ton M-1 tank still rules the battlefield. As a result, the current plan is now to keep the M-1 in service until at least 2030. This means that there will be more upgrades for the M-1, including anti-missile systems (using electronic signals, lasers, smoke and whatever works) and battlefield Internet capability. The FSC is seen as too ambitious, depending on too many technologies that are still in the lab, and may never make it to the battlefield, or at least not in the next decade or so.
First of all, Stryker is NOT related in any way to the FCS program. Next, we do not know right now which of the vehicles will be armored, which will be armed with what, which will be manned and which will be unmanned. In fact we are still not sure which will be ground based and which will be aerial or if they will be a hybrid. I know some of this does not make sense, but when you see it in progess it is sort of like a poetic dancer. Granted, there are problems (loose lips rule in place), but with each set of simulations we run the problems are fewer and fewer and of less and less importance to the overall success of the Unit of Action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.