Posted on 11/19/2019 6:49:44 AM PST by Lowell1775
The U.S. Army’s newest tank in the summer of 2019 should enter service with the first large unit to use the type.
The Army in late 2017 accepted the very first M-1A2C Abrams tanks. Nearly two years later the service has enough of the new vehicles to equip an entire brigade.
“We’re in the throes of getting that together,” Hank Kennedy, a manager at General Dynamics’ tank plant in Lima Ohio, told Lima News.
The “first brigade is critical because we need to get [them] into the soldiers’ hands so they can get trained on it and everything else,” Kennedy said.
A U.S. Army armored brigade typically operates around 100 tanks. The Army has 16 armored brigades as part of a total force of 58 combat brigades.
The M-1A2C is the latest variant of Abrams to enter production. Congress in 2019 gave the Army $1.5 billion to buy 135 M-1s from General Dynamics, extending a program that began in the 1970s.
The Army’s budget proposal for 2020 asks for 174 new and upgraded tanks.
The new M-1A2C Abrams boasts new active and passive protection that could help to protect it from the latest enemy weaponry. The most obvious new features of the M-1A2C are the vehicle's Trophy active-protection systems and an additional slab of armor on the front of its turret.
Trophy uses a radar to detect incoming missiles and rockets then fires tiny projectiles to intercept the munitions. The Army also is back-fitting Trophy to some older M-1 models.
The first M-1 entered service with the Army in 1980. The original M-1 packed a 105-millimeter gun. The Army bought 3,300 of them. In 1984 the Army added thicker armor to a batch of new M-1s and called these 900 tanks M-1IPs. The U.S. military no longer uses these early M-1s.
A major upgrade in 1986 added a new 120-millimeter gun. This is the M-1A1. The Army and Marines bought 5,200 copies through 1992. Roughly a thousand M-1A1s still are in service with the Marines and Army National Guard. Another 3,000 or so are in storage.
There are a bewildering number of subvariants of the M-1A1, each boasting incremental improvements in drive-train, armor and electronics. The latest upgrade, the M-1A1SA, has a factory-fresh engine, digital electronics and a top-secret armor blend that includes a thin layer of uranium.
The Army plans to retire all M-1A1SAs by 2025.
The M-1A2 appeared in 1992. It’s pretty much a new tank, with better armor than the basic M-1A1 plus a new internal layout and fresh sensors that together allow the gunner and the commander independently to search for targets.
The Army has acquired around 1,500 M-1A2s and converted most of them to the System Enhancement Package Version 2 standard. The M-1A2SEPv2, which General Dynamics describes as a "digital tank," features high-end computers, a remotely-operated machine gun on the turret and a dozen batteries that allow the tank quietly to operate its sensors without turning on its engine.
The M-1A2C in essence is a better-protected M-1A2SEPv2 that's also easier to upgrade. In addition to Trophy and more armor, the new tank boasts more electrical power, better diagnostic systems and a data-link that's compatible with programmable ammunition types that are in development.
"The Abrams M-1A2C can host any mature technology the Army deems operationally relevant," the Army stated.
The latest version of the M-1 arguably is the best tank in the world. For now.
Russia and China both are developing new fighting vehicles. Russia's high-tech Armata tank has run into development problems. China successfully has fielded hundreds of new Type 99A tanks that roughly are similar to mid-generation, digital M-1s.
But China has struggled to adapt old-style doctrine to its new armor. In early 2019, the Chinese army's 81st Group Army, riding in Type 99As, lost a mock battle during a war game in Mongolia, Global Times reported, citing the state-run CCTV television news network.
"We rushed with the Type 99A too close to the frontline, which did not optimize the use of the tank's combat capability," CCTV quoted Xu Chengbiao, a battalion commander in the brigade, as saying.
"We only studied the capabilities of older tanks, but have not completely understood new ones," Zhao Jianxin, another battalion commander, reportedly told CCTV.
Anticipating the day when Russia resumes modernizing its tank corps and China figures out how to use its own new fighting vehicles, the U.S. Army already is planning a new M-1 variant to follow the M-1A2C.
The "cornerstone technology" of the M-1A2D is a new infrared sensor, according to the Army. The newest Abrams will also sport a new laser range-finder and will be compatible with artificial intelligence that could make the tank more autonomous, the Army stated.
The plant in Lima, the only factory in the United States that builds tanks, nearly is doubling its workforce in anticipation of large orders for new tanks.
Kennedy told Lima News the tank plant’s workforce has grown from around 500 to more than 600 since a hiring spree started in late 2018. He said he expects the workforce to expand to 700 by the end of 2019 and exceed 900 in 2020.
David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This article first appeared earlier this year.
Ok, so maybe you are suggesting that the engine be replaced with one using pre-1970’s technology. That might be a wise thing to do. The tank would then have the power to not only move but to fight. Assuming there is a backup targeting system installed.
I think you just described AUVs . . .
AUV is autonomous underwater vehicle.
Didn’t have much fuel economy, polluted like crap, were actually less reliable and required way more maintenance. And made way less power than modern counterparts.
Old joke - The advantage of an old points ignition system is that you can fix it by the side of the road. The disadvantage of an old points ignition system is that you will *have* to work on it by the side of the road.
Yes.
There isn’t a single pre-1970s tech engine that can fit in the Abrams that will be able to move the tank at the current speed and acceleration requirements.
The Honeywell/Lycoming AGT1500 used in an Abrams makes 1,500 hp and 3,950 lb-ft of torque.
Additionally, NO piston engine could meet the multifuel requirements. The British came closest to doing it, but their Leyland L60 turned out to be a giant disaster. Nobody else even tried.
typo shoulda been “UAV.”
I miss Keith Laumer ... and Retief!
“There isn’t a single pre-1970s tech engine that can fit in the Abrams that will be able to move the tank at the current speed and acceleration requirements.”
Okay, then we are back to square one as I doubt there is space on the tank to fit an pre-1970’s technology engine that is powerful enough to move the tank even at slow speed.
They do not have Computers. They do have electronics.
The condenser coil, the distributer, voltage regulator and the alternator are all vulnerable to an EMP.
Not to mention that the battery is likely to explode.
Absolutely. Guaranteed immunity to EMP. And in a pinch, when all of the other tanks are dead, you can still move. That is a huge plus.
And your basic engine hasn’t changed much in the years. Basic engine tech hasn’t changed at all. Still spark, explosion or glow plug, thermal expansion both via timing. An engine still goes bang.
So, fundamental systems that determine survivability must be able to continue to run and operate. This can be done through redundancy or default and drop to a simple state.
A high school friend of mine commanded a M60 in the 1980’s when they were just beginning to get the M1’s in Germany.
He got out on a medical before he could get in to a M1.
It is the sensitive gate channel of a mosfet that is vulnerable to the EMP blast. Not unlike an ESD hit. Probably other areas such as the substrate that interfere with the ICs function but it will continue to operate after the source is removed.
An EMP is simply a massive amount of fairly broad band noise that interferes with modern electronics.
According to post 86, that can’t be done.
That is when your check engine light turns on. But you can still drive the car to the garage although it may not run that well. Or maybe it will run okay and not be noticeable but it will not be operating optimally until you fix it.
Same idea.
If I were king of the world and designing a tank engine system, I would do exactly this. Besides, adding all of the electronic crap reduces the reliability of the tank even if you have redundant systems.
And if the important function, such as an engine, depends completely on this complicated computer system, then you are toast if there is an EMP plus the likelihood of the tank breaking down is greater as well.
As I stated earlier, there are advantages to having all of the electronic gizmos. And when they are operational, you may have huge advantage during a battle. Computer systems can bring together tons of information, coordinate that information, and help the operators make quick decisions. Plus, the precision will be greater.
The problem is when one of the system fails AND you ARE WORSE OFF if you didn't have it in the first place.
It is a trade off and decisions that engineers have to make when designing a tank or any system.
All those are there as the 3rd backup. Manual traverse and elevation. 105-D “choke” sight (optics) slaved to the main gun. Manual blaster to fire the gun. Its always been there and always will be.
I think the command has figured that out.
All that is required is a feeler gauge and screw driver. If you need new points, you keep a spare in the kit. Usually a 15 minute repair and $10 for the points.
The modern ignition systems require expensive equipment and mandatory actual trip to the garage to fix it.
Usually you have to limp along sputtering with a rough idle to a garage and a repair bill of $200 plus the inconvenience of not having the car for a day or so.
Plus your car with points is EMP proof should it ever happen.
“The art of simplicity.”
No, actually, it isn’t. Depending on strength, the EMP may kill your alternator, weld the points closed and explode the battery.
Yep, why my rifles "had" backup sights on them. Damn unstable kayaks.
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.