I really doubt the abrams will be upraded much more. It's

File: ULV.jpg (283KB, 1024x746px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1024x746px

>>34399977
I think it will be a huge ULV, 100% remote controlled, auto loading guns, latest engine, the whole bit.

>>34400031
As an MBT? I doubt that. There is room for something like that in the army though

>>34399977
MBT?
Probably something like a CV90120 with active protection systems. M8 Buford?
I'd also like to see an updated Bradley-type vehicle as an air and ground drone controller.

File: sepv3 (5).jpg (270KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 2048x1365px

>>34399977
>What does /k/ think the USA's next MBT will look like?

File: 1446965786945.gif (3MB, 250x188px)

3MB, 250x188px

>>34401324
I like it how it is basically the TUSK package without the ERA skirts.

Disclaimer: I am not stating this as fact, just observation.
A MBT for the US needs to be effective against anti tank manpads at most right?
It seems that US doctrine would rarely if ever put one of our tanks in a fight against other heavy weapons.
Wouldn't the US just bomb, tomahawk,brrrrrrt a majority of enemy armor and artillery before setting foot into the area?

>>34401324
a drone

>>34399977
>even the tanks with depleted uranium armor have become susceptible to antitank weaponry
You know those export saudi and iraqi models don't have uranium armor right?
>I really doubt the abrams will be upraded much more
Isn't up to you. Isn't up to the army or the DoD either. If congress wants more dakka on a tank it'll fucking happen for reasons such as: we actually need it, militaristic dick waving, jobs programs, no reason at all.
t. defense engineer

File: 1348271602359.png (555KB, 980x881px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 980x881px

>>34399977
why dont we have nuclear powered tanks by now?
never need refueling

File: mXWG7Na.jpg (214KB, 1148x856px)

214KB, 1148x856px

>>34401372
Most of the changes are 'under the hood'.

>>34401416
Funny enough, the army is going to do a MUM-T test this summer with an Abrams equipped with an autoloader and the loaders station configured to control UAV/UGV.

File: cb5.jpg (41KB, 680x689px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 680x689px

>>34401388
>Disclaimer: I am not stating this as fact, just observation. A MBT for the US needs to be effective against anti tank manpads at most right? It seems that US doctrine would rarely if ever put one of our tanks in a fight against other heavy weapons. Wouldn't the US just bomb, tomahawk,brrrrrrt a majority of enemy armor and artillery before setting foot into the area?
>A MBT for the US needs to be effective against anti tank manpads
>anti tank manpads
>anti tank man-portable air defense systems

>>34401534
>His tanks don't fly
I see you aren't a MI-24 fan.

>>34399977
Imagine an Abrams that doesn't have the unnecessary turbine engine, lighter and more protective composite armor, an unmanned turret, modern electronics, and can cross bridges.

File: 1447845079826-3.jpg (12KB, 241x241px)

12KB, 241x241px

>>34401507
>A Fucking Playstation Controller.

>>34399977
120mm+ Electrochemical main gun.
Semi automated RWS.
Diesel engine.
65,000kg
Torsion bar suspension.
Mine resistant hull armor plate (detachable).

>>34401693
Why don't they use mouse and keyboard? That always pisses me off. You can get way more precise shots.

>>34401693
RDECOM

I work there. It's R&D.

File: 17880735_1426890437361023_8526656002227911342_o.jpg (271KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 2048x1536px

>>34401671
>Imagine an Abrams that doesn't have the unnecessary turbine engine
>unnecessary

>lighter and more protective composite armor
Lighter means less protective unless there is a breakthrough in material sciences.

>an unmanned turret
Are you referring to the T-14, whose hull is nearly as tall as an Abrams?

>modern electronics
The SEPv2 is a standard bearer for electronics in modern tanks.

>and can cross bridges.
You gave up trying to come up with serious criticism?

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 480x287px)

1MB, 480x287px

>>34399977
>draws air from the bottom
>diesel engine
>more efficient

>>34401372
ERA is fucking awesome (admittedly, far from invincible), and wouldn't reason it away because of image/style, w/e,,,,

If we find something better, use it. Until then, ERA is more help than it hurt.

>>34402128
The efficiency argument is a valid but also slightly more complex one, in general turbines are great when you're actually doing work with them but worse when sat at idle. If you're jousting with the Soviet Union across europe it'd be awesome having the turbine, todays reality is that tanks spend a lot of time sat around doing nothing, while needing to be ready to go immediately, in which case the turbine becomes a bit of a liability in terms of fuel consumption vs a conventional diesel engine.

>>34399977

In reality, the gun is the next thing being upgraded.

The gun is the most important part of any tank. It's the whole reason the tank exists to begin with.

>>34401710
>Why don't they use mouse and keyboard? That always pisses me off. You can get way more precise shots.

1) Because nobody uses that shit you faggoty little nerd. 99% of young men today have a playstation or an xbox.

2) Having a mouse and keyboard inside a tiny cramped crew compartment that's rocking and shaking as you go over uneven terrain at 45 mph is fucking retarded.

Neck yourself immediately.

Next US MBT should have a remote control turret, front mounted engine, only enough base armor on the side/rear to stop autocannons, with a shit-ton of ERA covering it, and two Raytheon battleguard type things on top of the turret to mount MGs/Grenade launchers/autocannons/missiles.

>>34401693
The US airforce bought PS3s and used them as super computer back in 2010

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html

>>34401710
>You can get way more precise shots.

Not in real life, you can move your mouse from point to point faster than the turret can move the cannon from one point to another. A controller is more "accurate" in a real life situation.

The manned turrent weighs like 25 tons, its massive & heavy & totally not needed

Increase cannon size to 130 or 140 mm
Design the main gun to be able to elevate to 90 degrees, enable it to fire guided anti-aircraft/drone rounds + mortar rounds for indirect fire.

Quad tracks

>>34399977
>Gas turbines are inefficient, and in this case suck air form the bottom of the tank.
wat?

>>34406190
The turret is more than 20 tons because it is actually armored.

>>34406263
OP has no idea what he is talking about, the intake is under the turret bustle.

>>34406190
>literally described the Rhino tank from Halo Wars

>>34406743
>stop making up animals, Griff

>>34400082
Tank swarm!

>>34406190
whats a turrent?

Was there ever a diesel option for the Abrams?

More than just a idea. Something that was actually tested?

>>34406787
Yes. The M1 used diesel exclusively throughout the 80s. Or are you being stupid and don't know the difference between a turbine and conventional engine?

>>34406781
like a torrent, only heavier

>>34406818
That's a big file.

>>34406804
I'm not a tank person. I like flying things!

File: 1491779480719.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x600px

>>34406190
>The manned turret weighs 25 tons, its massive & heavy and totally not needed
Good luck cramming the whole crew and ammo into the hull of an Abrams.
>Increase cannon size to 130mm or 140mm
See first point
>Design the main gun to elevate to 90 degrees
There is literally no reason for this
>enable it to fire guided anti-aircraft/drone rounds
Fuck off with your weeaboo fantasy shit
>+ mortar rounds for indirect fire
You don't find mortar rounds from a high velocity gun, dumbass. You could give it a gun/launcher and do the same thing with missiles.
>quad tracks
That'll just increase ground pressure and make it bog down way easier off road
>inb4 muh articulation
Yes, let's take something simple and effective and make it retardedly complex.

>>34406804
Speaking of stupid, you are confusing diesel fuel with diesel engines.

>>34407064
>Speaking of stupid, you are confusing diesel fuel with diesel engines.

No mention of engines in the original post being quoted. Nice try, cuccboi

>>34405369
t. Autist who takes things too seriously

>>34405369
never go full retard

File: FMBT Bacon & Sharoni concept 1993.png (3MB, 1608x2752px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1608x2752px

>>34399977
>What does /k/ think the USA's next MBT will look like?

>>34406938
>You don't find mortar rounds from a high velocity gun, dumbass.

Literally nothing stops you from doing it, its just a tube at the end of the day

File: 1498843953223.jpg (395KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 2048x1536px

>>34401324

>>34407117
>don't know the difference between a turbine and conventional engine?

File: t90ms_rws1.jpg (41KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x400px

>>34401324
Why don't they just integrate the RWS with the CITV? The commander can only really control one at a time and the CROWS blocks the commander's hatch view

File: Raytheon BattleGuard.png (60KB, 279x250px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 279x250px

>>34407732

>>34407732
because the crows was added to the tank as an afterthought

>>34407636
realistically speaking, would 24 packs of beer cans, or any liquid really, be effective as tank armor? Liquids are usually pretty good at dissipating energy from projectiles

>>34407732
They want the commander to be able to manually operate the gun if needed, which is why it was moved from between the gunner and commanders sight to on top of the gunners sight.

The CROWS blocks the some of the commanders view because it was never designed with its current location in mind, hence the new CROWS-LP.

>>34403897

Hence why the V3 has an APU that draws significantly less fuel while providing power to essential combat systems, while maintaining a lower heat and audio signature than the turbine at idle.

>>34407775
>would 24 packs of beer cans, or any liquid really, be effective as tank armor?
yes if said liquid is high-explosive

>>34407921
So tanerite?

>>34407908
40 years onwards, the Abrams gets an APU, after consuming more than double the fuel of all contemporary tanks this whole time
US military procurement is such a shitfest

>>34408265
it's had an apu for years. the guy who implied it wasn't until the the SEP V3 is a dipshit

>>34408265
>fuel consumption is the only variable

Look at him and laugh.

>>34408303
The M1A1 SA/FEP has a bustle rack APU. The M1A2 SEP/SEPv2 have batteries. The SEPv3 replaces the batteries with an under armor APU.

>>34399977
What is your personal experience with turbines or do you just jerk off on the internet?

Sand isn't a huge deal for vehicle engines with modern filters. It's not even a huge deal for aircraft engines though it does lightly sandblast the fan and compressor sections. (t. USAF aircraft mechanic with many desert deployments)

Abrams is easy to modernize when it goes through Depot. Strip, blast, modify, install new internals, repeat as necessary. APS is a thing.

>It seems that US doctrine would rarely if ever put one of our tanks in a fight against other heavy weapons.

The enemy doesn't always get that memo to die before armor shows up. 73 Easting comes to mind.

>>34406190
>Quad tracks

Dumbfuck drooling retard who has never maintained a tracked vehicle.

>>34407576
> engine in front of tank
good idea genius, 1shot u ded

>>34406897
Then stop commenting stupidly and lurk more so you learn.

>>34408371
The army actually uses self cleaning air filters now.

>>34408371
>73 Easting comes to mind.
we are currently 1.5x farther away chronologically from 73 easting than 73 easting was from the end of us involvement in vietnam

>>34408429
something centrifugal?

>>34400031
ULV a cute!

>>34408464
Probably

>>34408464
pulse-jet

>>34407921
Nitroglycerin armor when?

>>34408564
>yfw ERA

>>34399977

Reaper drone costs $16 million. Hellfire missile $110,000. Zero human life cost.

There is no point to MBT anymore.

>>34399977

They need to just shitcan the fuckers all together, as the entire concept of a MBT was made obsolete with the advent of the attack helicopter and guided munitions.

They keep wasting money on the fuckers, though.

File: TXaIDVsO_1c.jpg (159KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1280x720px

>>34401372
Oh they do. It's just we don't bother with it. No reason for us to keep it on there durring training because it can get damaged and adds weight. They can put it on a tank in a few hours.

If you actually see crews start putting them on their tanks you know shit is about to hit the fan. Same thing with muti spectrum camo nets. We are handing out the ceaper ones out now so the crews can get used to them. The custom fit ones are in storage waiting for a rainy day.

>>34401507
Neat upgrade, makes use of the extra eyes to become THE eyes of the tank, while retaining a backup in case the autoloader shits the bed.

File: indir.jpg (6KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 210x240px

>>34401710
Ive always thought about the same thing too, here in turkey they use these fucking atari controller look alikes in the pic
>>34406066
I get that, but still it can be implemented into a system. Let the operator move the mouse as fast as he likes the turret will still move on its normal speed, only its the same direction.
I just want someone to at least try and fail.

>>34399977
Just wait for the railgun Abrams. It will last another 50 years.

Anybody have that screen cap of anon's APSFDS round that was lodged in like a telephone pole?

File: IMG_5854.jpg (59KB, 400x321px)

59KB, 400x321px

>>34401795
Reminder that americans made an abrams with sn unmanned turret and 140mm gun in the 90s

http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2015/05/m1-tank-test-bed-ttb-with-unmanned.html?m=1

>>34408394
Just because the military accepts vehicles that have catastrophic breakdowns every 1000 miles doesn't mean that is the only way it can be done

>>34408638
Tanks are and always have been infantry support weapons, they compliment each other excellently. Just because something can be destroyed doesn't mean it's obsolete, Jesus fuck. MBTs are a way huger problem for the enemy than they are for us, especially considering the US has manufactured thousands of top of the line tanks.

>>34411257
>Tanks are and always have been infantry support weapons

Right...except when they were first developed, nothing short of an artillery piece could knock them out, the helicopter had not been invented, and shoulder fired guided missiles didn't exist. Now, any skinny raghead can take out a MBT with an RPG round.

Infantry fighting vehicles offer better support than tanks due to the fact that they have great weapons systems, and they can actually deliver more friends with guns ready to join you in the fight on the ground, as opposed to the fat bastards that can't leave their obsolete tank.

Tanks are obsolete, but like the carrier, and the battleship, the west will continue to fucking waste money on them out of ignorance, political corruption, and "pride".

No when tanks where invented they could be taken out out by any jerry with a triple scale g98.

>>34411575
>when they were first developed, nothing short of an artillery piece could knock them out
besides armor-piercing bullets, and grenades, and planes strafing, and wet ground, and...

File: 1494181851890.png (109KB, 494x352px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 494x352px

>>34411575
>like the carrier
Opinion discarded.

>>34411638
>>34411714

Horseshit.

When the fucking tanks came out in WW I, the enemy had to adapt to them, and the infantry was always fucked without some kind of support, unless he was willing to close to point blank to deal with the things. Today, a grunt can hunker down in a hole and kill a tank from more than 2 k's away.

They're obsolete, and have been for decades, and the fact that so many U.S. MBT's were destroyed by sand niggers with fertilzer charges and EFP's demonstrates that fact quite succinctly.

>>34411772

Drones are the future, which means "carriers" don't need to be nearly as large and are just as much a waste of resources as MBT's.

>>34411885
>Horseshit
>t. someone who knows shit about ww1

File: 1498155614085.jpg (155KB, 700x729px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 700x729px

>>34411885
>tanks aren't invincible so they're bad REEEEEEEE
Also
>drone army
>shit gets hacked
>"all your army are belong to us"

>>34411885
>Well shit I mean a burst of radiation from our sun could kill everyone on earth in less than a second so it's obvious physical existence itself is obsolete. The future is obviously centered around attaining spiritual completion before the inevitable heat death of the universe, definitely not wasteful physical existence!

It's called combined arms you ignorant downie.

File: 1492634159799.jpg (220KB, 1000x863px)

220KB, 1000x863px

Put applique armor and a 125mm turret on the M113 Gavin. Redesignated the M113A4 Battle Gavin.

If turret too expensive, make it a 125mm casemate Assault Gavin. Optionally mount MANPADS and or ATGM on top for comprehensive cost efficient full spectrum combat solutions package.

>>34401442
It takes more than a good minute to adjust power output for a reactor

File: 1494615058653.jpg (35KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 570x570px

>>34405369
I enjoyed this post throughly