I think another question would be if the 105mm MPF chassis will spawn any new variants. The M1 chassis struggled to produce offspring in the form of armored vehicle launch bridge and engineering vehicles that often got canceled or not funded.
If the MPF can spawn an armed APC variant, that would be so much better than the unarmored Infantry Squad Vehicles and offer better protection than the M113 and perhaps be more compact and tracked than the Strykers.
The AMPV might generate more offspring variants like the Stryker chassis being used for SHORAD and lasers.
the new tank retriever is off the M1 hull, and there was a bridge layer at one time. Plus a couple others.
The MPF hull may evolve into a new SPG, but will take a new power pack to get there. You could di it with an X300 or X400 prototype gear box modified with an internal lock up. The suspension lock up is easy. Plus always remember that the more hulls produced; the cheaper they are. Add to this the idea of if the hull can handle the recoil travel (length wise). The M109 travel was shorter, but the recoil was harder. Perhaps a completely different barrel and recoil system? For sure a 105mm SPG is doable, and most any rocket launching system will as well as long as the weight falls inline
gary
If the NLOS-C can field a 155mm at around 23-24 tons with around 20 shells of ammo, and the AbramsX Technology Demonstrator can place all the crew in the hull, then a 155mm SPH MPF should be possible. C-130 RO/RO will be out, but I would assume that the U.S. Army has settled on C-17s for air transport anyway…155mm SPH MPFX. This would sure beat mounting an open M777 155mm on the back of a 6x6 tactical truck and offering no armor and NBC protection.
remember that the power pack and suspension are very critical with an SPG. The internal lock up and internal braking are a must have to freeze travel under recoil. The locked up suspension is the other piece of the pie. A foot of movement really shows up down range. Others will say that can be overcame with the guided munitions, but that’s not going far at $100K a pop! The hull itself must be built to withstand the shock of a 155mm round. Bradley hulls are already failing (as of a year ago), and they are still moving all over the place. I honestly think they will (in the end) design a dedicated SPG, but use many existing parts from the MPF hull. They are not remembering lessons learned from the old M107, and shooting way over bore rounds
gary
General Dynamics Land Systems AbramsX technology demonstrator with 30mm remote weapon station chaingun on top, remote turret, autoloader, three crew in the hull, 360-degree “see through armor” camera system, hybrid-electric engine, and lightweight 120mm cannon.
the power packs are already going thru the 25,000 hour test on the dynos. I’m hearing fuel usage is roughly 60% of what it was before. There may well be a second power pack developed for the same hull. It’s primary use is for extreme cold weather.
gary
today’s battery packs are heated and also cooled, and that will go a long way in performance. The power pack used in a city transit buss will get the job done well, and come in at about one fourth the cost with about a 20% loss in performance due to the way the gear box works (they can get around this pretty easy). I’ve heard that they are looking at another much smaller gas turbine in combination with the electric drive. Hear that Roll Royce and Garrett are the interested parties, and the turbines are right out off the shelf military issue. Roughly 1200hp. and less than half the size of the Lycoming used in the Abrams tank. Thing is they will be much cheaper than the other one. Advantage is an instant light up at a minus forty degrees, and a virtually flat torque curve (ideal for the charging circuit). To this very day the best diesel engine for a hybrid circuit ever found is the old Cummins used in a Dodge pick up truck (they’ve played with hundreds of different engines over time, but this one has the right power curve). There is yet two other combos that would work, but also little interest in them right now.
I still think the auto loader will be dumped sooner than later as a human is much more reliable at loading the main gun, and lessons learned in the Ukraine have also shown us why. I also see the 120mm gun going away sooner than most would think, as the new power supply will lead you into better things. I also can see the advantage of the 30mm cannon, but still think they are better off with a couple good old 30 caliber machine guns for people
gary
I think that the 30mm should be retained for C-UAS, anti-AFV and anti-structure offense. However, I would mount a 12.7mm COAX to the 30mm if possible as not everything requires a 30mm bullet.
I think that they might still retain the autoloader, but I wonder if they should place a fourth crewman in the hull to man the 30mm. Having the TC man the CITV, command and issue orders, and communicate on the radios makes him busy enough to worry about manning a 30mm and constantly looking out for drones. The driver can man the 30mm, but he or she will be busy driving. So the workload is more for three crewmembers.
Having a human loader just to load the main gun makes him or her always a loader and not even one to man the 30mm that would require constant watch.
Keep in mind though that not all autoloaders are Soviet-style carousel systems. Consider the autoloaders on the Leclerc, Type 10, and Type 90, all of which feature blowout storage, and the latter of which features something ridiculous like a ~2s minimum reload time.
think of it this way. Everything fails; just the nature of the beast. With an auto loader you must have the barrel in a certain place. That also takes some time. I have no idea what the French are using to power their auto loading system, but would think it’s electric. Could be hydraulic or even pneumatic as well. Lots of parts to wear out and other things worse. With today’s case less ammo; I wouldn’t want a spark inside the turret. When the auto loader fails it will become a bear to load by hand. Plus a failure will not be fun to fix.
Of course you could simply go with a pneumatic system. Would work very well, but also doesn’t like dirt and dust. Not so much with the cylinders, but with all the valving. Hydraulic system gives you plenty of back up room, but it has it’s own issues to deal with. Nice thing about a hydraulic system is that it will run at less than 500psi. Probably the simplest system would be servo motors and ball screws, but the screws don’t like shock. In the end it’s pick your can of worms! They all will fail.
gary
I think that the AbramsX hull will be vitally important.
If the US Army accepts the AbramsX, having three crew in the hull can produce a wide range of AFVs besides a MBT if GDLS removes the turret such as Air Defense missile carrier, radar, 155mm unmanned turret howitzer, unmanned turret mortar, loitering munition carrier and launcher, drone carrier and launcher, microwave zapper, engineering and bridging unit, C5ISR, and maybe even an APC variant with the door out the rear like the IDF Namer. One can even place Hellfire Extended Range or JQL/JAGM VLS cells in the turret basket space for a bank of missile launchers out to 16 miles (25 KM).
Minor correction, I think you mean Achzarit not Namer; achzarit has engine turned 90 degrees at the rear, with a personnel tunnel exiting to the rear. Namer has the engine to the front and personnel exiting via door to the rear. I like the idea of an HAPC based on the M1 hull and wonder what that would look like.
