User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:26:19 PM EST
[#1]
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/06/28/us-army-unveils-contract-to-build-new-light-tank-for-infantry-forces/
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.JPG) The U.S. Army on Tuesday selected General Dynamics Land Systems to build a light tank meant to improve mobility, protection and direct-fire capabilities for Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. The production deal is a key step forward for Army Futures Command, which has promised faster and more successful modernization programs through a competitive prototyping approach. GDLS will deliver 26 vehicles initially, but the contract allows the Army to buy 70 more over the course of low-rate initial production for a total of $1.14 billion, according to the Army. At least eight of the 12 prototypes used during competitive evaluation will be retrofitted to be fielded to the force, service officials in charge of the competition said. The first production vehicles are expected to be delivered in just under 19 months. The first unit will receive a battalion’s worth of MPF systems — 42 vehicles — by the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025. The Army plans to enter full-rate production in calendar year 2025, according to GDLS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:30:30 PM EST
[#2]
105mm MPF is a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:32:47 PM EST
[#3]
So Bradley AFV part 2.
Can we skip to the part when congress gets involved. Atleast it's on tv for entertainment at that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:37:38 PM EST
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:38:26 PM EST
[#5]
should have gone with the CV90-120
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:39:21 PM EST
[#6]
Welp. I'm gonna be busy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:50:43 PM EST
[#7]
Reminds me of the 113 MBTs we used at NTC.
 The idea to bring a new light tank into service is pretty terrible. We've been there done that, they weren't much good when they ran into other tanks. Why can't they use those Strykers they needed so bad that were supposed the change the way wars were fought?  Maybe they want them to swim for a beachhead? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 7:54:42 PM EST
[#8]
Stryker MGS was a turd that didn’t work well. MPF will be a turd because it can’t kill a tank from the front of it runs into one.
Industry and users had a meeting and thought that a C-130 capable tracked vehicle with a 50mm would do the job best but the good idea fairy got involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 8:01:57 PM EST
[#9]
Needs to be bigger, heavier, have a larger gun. That way it can do all the things, and we can still call it a light tank. Cause in 2022 words don't even need to mean a thang.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 8:16:36 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Needs to be bigger, heavier, have a larger gun. That way it can do all the things, and we can still call it a light tank. Cause in 2022 words don't even need to mean a thang. A medium tank is a legitimate idea. Might not be the right solution for this question but it’s a legitimate thing in 2022. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 8:53:28 PM EST
[#11]
Ukraine seems to be showing us that traditional armor isn't AS viable as it used to be, and perhaps a cheaper but still effective medium/light tank is the way to go, like the old concept of the tank destroyer, light armor, big gun, fast moving. Reboot the Hellcat with a real turret.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 7:09:49 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  I’m not aware of a single Abrams in 2nd or 4th Tank Bn that suffered destroyed engines due to sand during or immediately after ODS. We removed and blew the filters out with an air want connected to another tank (“buddy system”). Even that bit of operator level PMCS has been largely if not completely eliminated with the installation of the PJAS system back in the late ‘90s. Some of you sound like the last time you read about the Abrams was during the Reagan administration. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, what's wrong with the turbine? The only real weakness I know of is that it consumes a lot of fuel - but being a very multi-fuel capable engine in a time where they were expecting to be retreating with supply lines that would have been getting shorter (and the ability to scrounge fuel from wherever they happened to find it), the turbine made sense. Low coolant requirements and a small size helped too. It's too bad they didn't follow through with the re-engening that got canceled with the Crusader. Same power with a lot less fuel consumption and a seamless drop-in swap. High fuel consumption. They require a tremendous amount of air when operating and this poses problems longer term in desert/arid conditions. The fine sand particulate is sucked up and through the V-Packs and into the turbine, thus causing damage. In the case of my M1A1 in Desert Storm, total turbine destruction. I’m not aware of a single Abrams in 2nd or 4th Tank Bn that suffered destroyed engines due to sand during or immediately after ODS. We removed and blew the filters out with an air want connected to another tank (“buddy system”). Even that bit of operator level PMCS has been largely if not completely eliminated with the installation of the PJAS system back in the late ‘90s. Some of you sound like the last time you read about the Abrams was during the Reagan administration.  Lot of non Tankin bitches in these tank threads.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 7:17:00 AM EST
[#13]
Going with a 105mm gun, when there are lightweight 120s available, seems like a step back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 7:23:14 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i bet you this new tank is going to be 25 million a pop with little notable change in combat capability compared to a current Abrams It’s got a different mission than the Abrams. Note that it’s going to infantry brigade combat teams. It’s closer to a StuG than an MBT in terms of mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 8:12:03 AM EST
[#15]
The problem with armor in Ukraine is a lack of infantry support, not that tanks aren’t effective.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 8:15:50 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with armor in Ukraine is a lack of infantry support, not that tanks aren't effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 8:25:18 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i think people here overestimate infantry support protecting armor in a Ukraine type conflict. Infantry isn't going to stop attacks from drones or atgms fired from 3-4km away Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The problem with armor in Ukraine is a lack of infantry support, not that tanks aren't effective. This fight is highlighting a lack of synchronization of combat power, like EW of EA, using combat push instead of reconnaissance pull and poor discipline and intelligence preparation of the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 8:35:44 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. That stupid turbine is the best thing they could have done. it's a fraction of the weight of a diesel engine that powerful and can literally burn any hydrocarbon you can dump in the tank that is pumpable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 9:37:36 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That stupid turbine is the best thing they could have done. it's a fraction of the weight of a diesel engine that powerful and can literally burn any hydrocarbon you can dump in the tank that is pumpable. Remember too that the most important right the tank was built for was to be defensive, collapsing back on supply lines, burning civilian gas, kerosene, etc. as necessary. Wish they’d use diesel instead of JP though. More efficient. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 9:42:57 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i think people here overestimate infantry support protecting armor in a Ukraine type conflict. Infantry isn't going to stop attacks from drones or atgms fired from 3-4km away There are counters to both. Infantry keep the RPGs back though and that’s critical too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 9:43:48 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Going with a 105mm gun, when there are lightweight 120s available, seems like a step back. It is. Probably a decision made for cost and the availability of HEP/HESH for rifled guns. But if this think meets a tank it’s probably not going to be able to defend itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 9:57:45 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reminds me of the 113 MBTs we used at NTC. http://abload.de/img/11thacr07bjioi.jpg The idea to bring a new light tank into service is pretty terrible. We've been there done that, they weren't much good when they ran into other tanks. Why can't they use those Strykers they needed so bad that were supposed the change the way wars were fought? https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nk8nZEe-b9g/Wrc1Cse5YVI/AAAAAAAAA60/eHOosNBqmT8VVZNasnVMBy-XjxpwUgjfgCEwYBhgL/s1600/7885fa291ad26bc05f827fe195465d0d.jpg Maybe they want them to swim for a beachhead? Stryker MGSs are reserved for Stryker BCTs. If you try to field a Stryker to an Infantry BCT (because it's much cheaper to build one Stryker solution for some low density system than JLTV, AMPV, and Stryker with different capability sets) they cry about having the wrong mechanic MOSs, C130 transportable, fuel consumption, etc. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:00:19 AM EST
[#23]
Stryker MGS is leaving service this year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:01:50 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is. Probably a decision made for cost and the availability of HEP/HESH for rifled guns. But if this think meets a tank it’s probably not going to be able to defend itself. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Going with a 105mm gun, when there are lightweight 120s available, seems like a step back. It is. Probably a decision made for cost and the availability of HEP/HESH for rifled guns. But if this think meets a tank it’s probably not going to be able to defend itself. It’s an assault weapon, designed to apply fires to strong points to support light forces in maneuver, I don’t think the weapon system had a defined threshold or objective of being able to penetrate armor |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:01:53 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ukraine seems to be showing us that traditional armor isn't AS viable as it used to be, and perhaps a cheaper but still effective medium/light tank is the way to go, like the old concept of the tank destroyer, light armor, big gun, fast moving. Reboot the Hellcat with a real turret. Traditional armor is as viable as it’s been, once you make some adjustments. Russian losses in Ukraine, as a percentage, aren’t unlike American, German or British tank losses in WW2. But medium/light tanks are making a comeback for infantry support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:04:40 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s an assault weapon, designed to apply fires to strong points to support light forces in maneuver, I don’t think the weapon system had a defined threshold or objective of being able to penetrate armor Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Going with a 105mm gun, when there are lightweight 120s available, seems like a step back. It is. Probably a decision made for cost and the availability of HEP/HESH for rifled guns. But if this think meets a tank it’s probably not going to be able to defend itself. It’s an assault weapon, designed to apply fires to strong points to support light forces in maneuver, I don’t think the weapon system had a defined threshold or objective of being able to penetrate armor Yes. I think it ought to have, for self defense. The MGS carried two KE rounds for self defense now, though it’s questionable if they would work. If it can’t kill a tank, should they be using a 105 with a small magazine? Industry had a round table about this years ago and wanted to provide a 50mm auto cannon for this requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:33:34 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. I think it ought to have, for self defense. The MGS carried two KE rounds for self defense now, though it’s questionable if they would work. If it can’t kill a tank, should they be using a 105 with a small magazine? Industry had a round table about this years ago and wanted to provide a 50mm auto cannon for this requirement. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Going with a 105mm gun, when there are lightweight 120s available, seems like a step back. It is. Probably a decision made for cost and the availability of HEP/HESH for rifled guns. But if this think meets a tank it’s probably not going to be able to defend itself. It’s an assault weapon, designed to apply fires to strong points to support light forces in maneuver, I don’t think the weapon system had a defined threshold or objective of being able to penetrate armor Yes. I think it ought to have, for self defense. The MGS carried two KE rounds for self defense now, though it’s questionable if they would work. If it can’t kill a tank, should they be using a 105 with a small magazine? Industry had a round table about this years ago and wanted to provide a 50mm auto cannon for this requirement. Industry has been trying to sell the 50 as a has a replacement for the 30 or 30 stretch-40 for a while now with no takers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:41:06 AM EST
[#28]
It’s got 4x the projectile weight of a 30mm so it could be useful. The KE round for it penetrates almost twice as much too.
My prediction though is that it’s first customer will be a Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:44:44 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s got 4x the projectile weight of a 30mm so it could be useful. The KE round for it penetrates almost twice as much too. My prediction though is that it’s first customer will be a Navy. I was involved in the Mk38 mod 4 program, the selection was a 30 mm stretch Bushmaster II. It has the potential of up gunning to 40, if required. Since the Mk110 was already in service it would be a very hard sell to buy a 50 since there’s already a 57 in service |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:57:08 AM EST
[#30]
The 50mm can fit in many 30mm turrets depending on how they feed it, probably most if you’re talking about an OE modifying a design for production, and the whole thing would be a lot cheaper than a 57…but it’s being pushed as a 30mm replacement not a 57mm replacement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 11:09:06 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 50mm can fit in many 30mm turrets depending on how they feed it, probably most if you’re talking about an OE modifying a design for production, and the whole thing would be a lot cheaper than a 57…but it’s being pushed as a 30mm replacement not a 57mm replacement. It was looked at as part of the up-gun of the Mk38 from 25mm, the problem is most admirals lump all minor and medium caliber weapons and can’t differentiate intended use but will only fixate on the 7 mm difference between the two projectiles |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 11:35:08 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was looked at as part of the up-gun of the Mk38 from 25mm, the problem is most admirals lump all minor and medium caliber weapons and can’t differentiate intended use but will only fixate on the 7 mm difference between the two projectiles I’m consistently impressed at the things people don’t know about things they do for a living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 5:25:43 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was looked at as part of the up-gun of the Mk38 from 25mm, the problem is most admirals lump all minor and medium caliber weapons and can't differentiate intended use but will only fixate on the 7 mm difference between the two projectiles Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The 50mm can fit in many 30mm turrets depending on how they feed it, probably most if you're talking about an OE modifying a design for production, and the whole thing would be a lot cheaper than a 57 but it's being pushed as a 30mm replacement not a 57mm replacement. It was looked at as part of the up-gun of the Mk38 from 25mm, the problem is most admirals lump all minor and medium caliber weapons and can't differentiate intended use but will only fixate on the 7 mm difference between the two projectiles |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 6:03:25 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't the naval 57mm have a significantly larger case than the Bushmaster 50mm, meaning more velocity? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The 50mm can fit in many 30mm turrets depending on how they feed it, probably most if you're talking about an OE modifying a design for production, and the whole thing would be a lot cheaper than a 57 but it's being pushed as a 30mm replacement not a 57mm replacement. It was looked at as part of the up-gun of the Mk38 from 25mm, the problem is most admirals lump all minor and medium caliber weapons and can't differentiate intended use but will only fixate on the 7 mm difference between the two projectiles Yes The Mk110 is a now considered a ship’s main gun, while the Mk38 treated as a machine gun |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File