Posted on 03/20/2024 1:12:07 PM PDT by hardspunned
The AbramsX, an advanced variant of the M1 Abrams tank, represents a significant technological leap with its hybrid electric diesel engine, reduced crew requirement, and AI integration. While promising improved fuel economy and modernized capabilities, its adoption faces Pentagon skepticism over the relevance of tanks in future conflicts, particularly against China. The AbramsX's development underscores attempts to adapt to modern warfare's evolving landscape, balancing innovation with strategic considerations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Very likely. But a new version of an A-10 might be needed, maybe unmanned, cheap, and lots of them? Throwing money at tanks seems outdated and wasteful.
Tanks come to mind first as easy targets for drone attacks but even things like fighter planes seem vulnerable too.
Uh, Saddam, with no air force or air defense after the first day was not the 2024 Russians or Chicoms. You might want to reconsider your position or find an example that in some way reflects the reality of today.
Put a giant unbrella on it!
The anti-tank weapons keep changing, so the protection systems have to be constantly modified to keep up.
If the protection systems are just going to be constantly changing add-ons it doesn’t make any sense to build very expensive and complicated tanks, which still depend on survival for future updates.
Right now a T55 with a cage and top mount reactive armor is actually more survivable than an Abrams w/o that stuff.
As we have seen from some of the recent Abrams destruction videos.
Not surprising that the NeoCon supporters of eternal war, also love the MICs most expensive and useless weapons.
(maybe that’s who pays the bills)
Keith Laumer for the win.
Continental Siege Units, anyone?
In 2021 the Russians spent $61 billion on defense. In 2023 they spent $160 billion to humiliate NATO. That’s one of the reasons why the Russian national debt in 2024 is less than $300 billion.
“I don’t know what pinheads though a turbine engine in a tank would make sense”
Well, I can give you one reason, because they are designed to run on anything that’s combustible.
That way if the proper fuel isn’t available on the battlefield but something else is, at least the crew can hopefully keep the thing from being stranded and or captured.
I know that because I worked in a facility that produced the main fuel controls for the M1 Abrams back in the day.
Part of the testing was to simulate fuels with different viscosity for that very reason.
The new version of the A10 is the Russian su-25.
It’s basically been a death trap for the pilot.
Saying something “might be” is a license to say anything.
You “might be” a Russian agent.
You “might be” a Fed.
You “might be” a nice guy.
You “might be” a sitting Member of Congress.
True or false doesn’t apply to speculation.
Also, the Russians are not involved in a “life or death war”. If they quit this war no one is going to invade and conquer Moscow.
Ruzzian sensibilities might get hurt but no one is going to die over a bruised ego.
Interesting, my husband once mentioned running an M-1 on Kuwaiti gasoline. That never really registered until you made your comment. Thank you.
The Russian su-25 came out in 1975, so how is that the new version of the A-10? What’s new in the last 10 or 20 years?
“Right now a T55 with a cage and top mount reactive armor is actually more survivable than an Abrams w/o that stuff.”
Nope. The cage doesn’t help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXeYA6On2B8
Turbines have higher efficiency at full throttle, but are much less efficient than piston engines at part throttle.
Unlike airplanes, the gas turbines on tanks don’t seem to operate most of the time in the higher efficiency range.
No to mention the fact that if your tanks are just large diesels, like the Russian vehicles, people coming into the military in a general mobilization who are diesel mechanics have a big head start on how to repair that stuff.
I keep thinking about a directed energy type of laser weapon will be developed that counters all current threats.
Everything from drones, anti-tank missiles, RPGs, etc., combined with a type of electronic force field that screws up everything electronic coming at you.
I’ve read Israel is currently testing something called the Iron Beam which is a low cost laser capable of taking out drones and missiles but at short ranges, how effective it is I do not know.
The world is in love with weaponized drones, they are cheap and right now very effective, something that can counter them should be a high priority.
Prattle On, Prattle On.
Slightly better defense but nothing an experienced drone operator can’t handle.
I watched them dump the M-X Peacekeeper in favor of keeping the Minuteman III a system two generations older. And yes, in the USAF I did 9 years of Minuteman Maintenance (316X0H should mean something to some of you...)
Agree!
Or AI enabled counter-drones. Drones whose job is to take out attacking drones.
And yet I’m told here repeatedly, the US A-10 fleet that the Air Force has wanted to scrap for many years is absolutely useless to Ukraine and has been since the very beginning. Because in order to use it you must have absolute air superiority in the area you are deploying it from to where it would be used or it will immediately be shot down. Can anyone here weigh in on this again? That it is a great limited application aircraft but only by forces who command total air superiority throughout its use?
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.