Posted on 05/11/2016 4:43:53 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Raytheon is pitching a new upgrade for the venerable M60A3 Patton main battle tank that would turn the elderly design into a competitive force on the modern battlefield—all at a fraction of the cost of a new vehicle.
Named the Raytheon M60A3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), the upgrade is being offered for export to nations that need the performance to take on threats like a Russian-built T-90S, but can’t afford a top-of-the-line machine like the M1A2 SEP(v)3 Abrams or Leopard 2A7.
At the core of the upgrade is a new 950-horsepower diesel engine—which replaces the original 750-horsepower unit. As part of the deal, the engine would be reconditioned to a zero hour condition. Meanwhile, the old turret hydraulic controls would be replaced with new electrical systems, which are faster, more responsive and quieter than their predecessors.
Offensive firepower is exponentially improved by swapping out the old 105mm M68 rifled gun in favor of the Abrams’ German-made L44 120mm smoothbore cannon.
The addition of the new weapon would give the M60A3 the ability to engage enemy tanks as advanced as the T-90MS on a near equal footing. In fact, with the upgrade, the M60 probably outperforms older M1A1 variants.
That’s because in addition to the new cannon, the M60 would receive completely new digital fire-control and targeting systems—including day and thermal sights.
The system is comparable to the U.S. Army’s M1A1D standard. Indeed, the fire-control software was developed for the U.S. Army. While Raytheon does not specifically mention networking—it’s reasonable to assume the modernized tank would be compatible with the U.S. Army’s networks.
Raytheon says that the U.S. Army tested the M60A3 SLEP at the Aberdeen proving grounds, but the company does not provide any details about any survivability improvements that are being incorporated into the tank. However, a Raytheon video does imply some improvements to the armor package.
Indeed, there are a few visible improvements—such as the addition of side skirts. The configuration shown in the video does not seem to feature reactive armor—but it is fitted with slat armor. Nonetheless, reactive armor could likely be added as needed. In the future, it is possible that more even more advanced features like an active protection system—which are starting to proliferate around the world—could be incorporated into the M60A3.
In addition to much improved performance, Raytheon claims that one major side benefit of the SLEP is that training and maintenance cost would be lower than for new tank because crews are already familiar with the basic M60. That means that Raytheon is targeting the existing base of M60 users around the world—which is still a substantial market.
However, while the modernized M60A3 is cheap, it remains to be seen if it would be truly effective against modern enemy tanks like the T-90A—and especially the extremely formidable T-14 Armata. It is likely that the M60A3 SLEP would fair well against most T-72 variants that are found around the world.
The real test for Raytheon and the “M60” will be to convince potential buyers to forego a new machine in favor of a reconditioned one.
I forgot.....the most hated thing on the M60 was the damn M53 remote .50cal. that thing SUCKED!
It sucked so bad that someone should have gone to jail for it. In the USSR, the developer and tester would have been in the gulag or shot! Yes. It was that bad.
Wrong. I know thats a pic sheridan, but its the best pic of the missile I could find that would post and not give the red x pic.
Secondly, the M60a2 DID fire missiles. Trust me.
“RPTs are the future, manned tanks are the past.”
Imagine the infantryman’s reaction when he realizes his supporting armor has been hacked by the enemy.
You may have been a tanker but you sure did not learn to read. I was comparing the M60 to the M1 Abrams. Perhaps you were the "tanker" in our unit that never got dirty and came up on sick call every time we went to the field. Your claim is the BS here.
Looks like a Sheridan to me.
I was in M48A5s & M60A1s in the 1970’s. Not bone crushing if you didn’t drive stupid. The driver, gunner, & TC could always see what was coming & the loader rode chest high in the loader’s hatch so if column speed was around 22 mph, not so bad. Not a bad memory of those vehicles but I never got to ride in an Abrams which I hear has a radically different suspension.
Good to hear about the M60A3 upgrade. Broke my heart in the 1980’s when they started dumping M60’s in the ocean to make reefs (deconned first). What a waste if they need those hulls/turrets now.
How much fuel does it use?
From a stationary position the A3 could outshoot the XM1, but on the fly, the XM1 was way better.
Yes, I am that old to remember when it was the XM1. It even had a built in coffee maker. The congress said that was frivolous.
The M60A2 did fire the missile.
The suspension on the 60 series was nowhere near as good as the suspension on the 1 series.
We threw track a lot with the old 60s.
No man means no need for heavy armor. The entire idea of an armored tank is obsolete.
Then it’s not my knowledge that’s the problem, it’s your inability to write clearly.
I got to ride on and occasionally in M60A3’s (1/72d AR), though much more often in M113A2’s, and recently in M1A1 and M1A2SEP Abrams (and Bradley, Stryker, and pretty much everything else in development). The M60 is a FAR cry from the Abrams, but not so much different from the M113 from my recollection. In either case, if you are in rough terrain and drive very fast you will get bounced around A LOT. Overall though, I wouldn’t call it bone jarring, and no worse than other tracks from that era. I don’t see how you can do the engine/main gun upgrade with option for SLAT armor without suspension upgrade; you are adding a lot of weight that would exceed original design limits I’m sure.
OK. The M2 did fire missiles. I stand corrected. Was after my time. Still don’t know why you couldn’t find a pix of it though, they’re all over the net.
That’s because it is. ;-)
looks like those troopers are at Graf..
One of the local VFW posts has an M60 in the front yard.I have to wonder if the army still has any,if they’re giving them away like that.
Small phone screen and early morning of other people with stupid printer problems.
Always had a soft spot for the Sheridan.
Wasn’t there an engineer version of the M60 with a short barrel ma in gun? My memory is a bit vague there.
We’ve probably got some mothballed. If it made economic sense Obama could upgrade them and give to his “Civilian Fighting Force” to use against his fellow Americans.
Screw the cannon. Slap on a railgun:
Never understood why we don't have an Army version of the Davis Monathan AFB Boneyard. If the price of steel, or a national emergency pops up, we'd be glad to have it. Bottom of the ocean? Pfffttt....just as dumb as gun buybacks and destroying guns instead of giving them to the poor for self defense.
I mean Russia still has over 10,000 T34/85s T55s, T64bs etc. sitting in warehouses and boneyards "just in case". A Russian once told me when I asked about all the rusting hulks, and he said, "we throw nothing away. We either sell it, rebuild it, or reuse it. After WWII there was a severe shortage of steel. We will never be in that position again".
Wasn’t there an engineer version of the M60 with a short barrel ma in gun? My memory is a bit vague there."
Yes there was.
It was called a M728 combat engineer vehicle Got to see it shoot its main charge at a bunker...>HUGE explosion. We should have resurrected that gun and round to deal with caves in Afghanistan (but the range was limited). BG Weasel Clark at Ft Hood let the FBI and ATF use one at WACO.
Too bad that in a real war situation - like the upcoming one with Iran - that we won’t be able to get spare parts from China... for anything...
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.