the new tank retriever is going to use the basic M1 hull design. They experimented with a bridge layer back in the eighties. A tank hull does not make a good SPG as it has too many variables built into it (fine example is to watch the Russian equipment during a fire mission) . It could be adopted for sure, but it’s going to need a lot of revisions built into it. Plus a new power pack. On the otherhand the seventy ton weight is a plus factor. Then there is the cost factor to deal with. The Abrams hull is expensive!
The other pieces you wrote of could well be done with the new 38 ton “light tank.” Then there’s another issue to look at. You really want a front engined hull for most of the items. TACOM would love to see a large family built off the M1 hull, but can’t see it happening even though it’s to their benefit.
**********************************************
Right now I see a lot of hard cash going into the HIMARS system and the NASAM system. They’ve proven to the skeptic that they really work well, and they probably are working on the next generation for both systems right now. I also think we’ll see another 8" SPG and maybe another 105mm SPG, as the learning curve is showing it’s needed.
gary
I thought of that and then realized that the tunnel exit might not be a good idea compared to the Namer that has the rear ramp in the center flanked by what I assume are fuel cell tanks. I think the Namer’s layout is better as it has a more direct access to the rear.
If the AbramsX is a totally new concept, then placing the engine in the front is possible for a heavy APC.
The AMPV already resists 30mm AP and has the ERA bolt-on option so an AbramsX HAPC would need additional features such as a RWS 30mm and perhaps Loitering Munitions launcher.
the engine is probably going to be in the rear like the M1a2, but also totally different. They are serious about it as they just cut the contracts for the new power pack last week. I have not spoken with my contacts at Cummins in quite awhile, but will have to put out some feelers to see where and what they are doing. They are not talking much about the Stryker replacement, but expect some inside news in the next forty five days.
Knowing the way TACOM works, this contract is for about 25 power packs. Seventeen for prototype testing and the rest will be divided between Yuma and Benning.
gary
Do you mean a hybrid-electric M1A2 engine? That would make sense.
Any comments on the AbramsX from the US Army? I asked the Army and Public Affairs said that the Army doesn’t comment on technology demonstrators.
The StrykerX is higher than the Stryker so I can see some benefit to more interior space. Perhaps USSOCOM would want it to replace the Pandur II as that would make logical sense.
The US Army and USMC should purchase the TRX though…MICLIC, excavator arm, unmanned robotic, rubber tracks, mine plow, and perhaps an UAV…what’s not to like?
That contract was for the Abrams X. I did hear that like the last time two tanks will not be TACOM property, but be reserved as test mules. They’ll have everything that TACOM buys in them, but that will only be for the electrical system. Then they will have U.S. Army people on the payroll (what a cush job!) to drive them and of course tear them up. Those power packs are already built and waiting for Lima to get their act together. Doing it this way; you never take an MBT out of service till you’re ready for the mod or upgrade in it’s final form. They’ve a;ready upgraded the battery packs, but have not actually got to test them yet in a tank (they have been tested all over Indiana and Michigan)
The Stryker X may well be built in Canada (actually assembled in Canada) where they build the LAV’s and some other stuff. There’s also another Stryker on the drawing boards that is longer and even more capable. I may have seen that hull once, as it really stands out when you know Strykers (I really don’t know all that much about them). Then there is another major issue jumping out in their faces. Where are you going to built it? (refering to the electrical system and power pack). Prior to this they had a good source for the electronics up in Anderson IN, but they’ve gone away. Alot of jobs involved there. Most places are not capable of doing this work, or worse yet not secure enough.
As for the old M1 power pack, it will still be in a limited production for at least ten more years. The GAO can’t screw that up like they seem to do everything else. But; they may instead tool up the second design as it will be cheaper to machine and build (the original was extremely labor intensive). The newer power pack has been tested in an Abrams test mule at Yuma, and did very well. TACOM probably had a half billion dollars in tooling alone for the M1 drive system (maybe more), and we all learned a lot from the original Army concept design that wouldn’t work. The Stryker uses a basic automotive design so it’s easy to tool (or already is tooled). The only real odd ball parts are the drop boxes that are attached to the out put of the automatic transmission. We never made them, and either Saginaw or Ingersol Rand built them (can’t remember). Reason they were so odd ball was the double out put from them for driving all eight wheels. Won’t have that with an electrical drive! Funny thing about the Stryker is that they build it where they used to make hybrid locomotive drive train parts! Now they are going back to a hybrid system again!
gary
I expect them to do both drive systems. The new light tank (38 tons) would be a near perfect size, and very modular. Trucks I can’t say as well only did the power packs. They might be from Stewart & Stephenson or Oshkosh, or maybe a new player. Even then the drive train for the truck will be 90% commercial parts. We may see a couple test mules in Speedway this summer or fall. The only thing we worry about is the weight of the whole thing ad calibration. With rocket launchers installed; we can’t calibrate them, so we simply add weight where needed (huge blocks of concrete)
gary
