When will the abrams be replaced by a superior design? It's

>>35134468
>When will the abrams be replaced by a superior design
when a superior design proves itself.

>>35134468
>another mouthbreathing teenage armchair general detected
They'll do it when it's time, your opinion, along with ours, will never be valid.

>>35134498
we're all pimply armchair generals though

>>35134468
I think the plan is design work in the 20s, prototyping/testing 30s, low rate initial production 40s, broad replacement in 50s. I bet we'll have National Guard Abrams until 2070 or 2080.

>meanwhile the B-52 is being outfitted with Delta-VI rocket boosters to reach strategic targets on the moon and it's retirement date has been tentatively pushed back to 2150

When the Abrams is no longer able to be;
1. Issued better ammunition
2. Fitted with more advanced armor packages
3. Equipped with a more advanced gun
4. Swapped to a more efficient engine

Then, and only then, will we replace the thousands of tanks in service with a new design.

>>35134576
>tfw we'll be dropping bombs on Mars with B-52s in support of ground forces that are still using M2 machine guns

>>35134590
>live in new new york
>get shot

>>35134513
>pimply
Maybe you.

File: ttp3_485.jpg (81KB, 640x250px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x250px

>>35134468

Eventually OP, it's a pretty great design right now that keeps getting updated.

When a new design comes out that's just as tough, smaller, lighter, modular, more or equally reliable, and just as weapon capable you'll see the replacement come in.

Any better armor and gun can be made to work on abrams. Smaller, lighter, more efficient design will get the serious consideration. What does /k/ think about Arma's take on the future medium battle tank?

>>35134468
I have never wanted to see even less of a gif as much as this one.

>>35134584
>>35134823

Yes to when it will be changed

>>35134468
>When will the abrams be replaced by a superior design?
Never. US military is barely capable to finish complex programs now, MBT replacement became a thing that is outside their capability. Abrams will stay fro another 50 years till US dissolves.

>>35134468
>but in a decade or two...
try another 3 or 4 decades. it'll get another alpha revamp, but nothing more than that. there's no real competition that brings in a need for a complete redesign.

>>35135033
>there's no real competition that brings in a need for a complete redesign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-fVECu8LIk
>inb4 excuses
Fact is US lost its technological edge and can't provide their allies with advantage anymore. Even if US wishes it. During Soviet-Afghan War US supplied Stingers and this crashed soviet air support. In 2017 US has no "Stingers". Weapons that only they can supply to allies and provide them quality advantage over opponents armed with soviet and chinkshit.

>>35134590
>tfw we find that a martian colony sitting on an ocean of oil has tentative relations to terrorist cells and used to have WMDs

>>35135151
>anti tank missile against a tank
i "honestly" wondered which would win. come on dude. someone builds a bigger, better armored unit, someone else is gonna build a bigger, better anti armor rocket. at this point in time, there is no ARMOR that effectively competes with the ARMOR that is currently used. there's more need for revamping the air support and troop carriers than the current armor.

>>35135442
How it feels to have outdated military industry after been its own tier first?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQA4ecTD8wk

File: 1490500607887.png (202KB, 233x465px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 233x465px

>>35134468
OK so ignoring the memes, and shit posting.

Anyone know the more mundane facts about the Abrams?

Transmission speeds?
Compression ratios?
How does it work on other fuels?
How does the steering work, is it a wheel that's interpretated by a computer or system or is it a lever type ye Olde system?

Asking for purely autophillic reasons.

>>35135151
That's because we don't put ADS on our own tanks, let alone export models that the video shows. It's physically possible to install ADS. It's not the tank, it's the military.

>>35134823
The CSAT's future T-90 is A E S T H E T I C but kinda weak. The new tank is likely gonna be the Armata.

I wish BI did more than just took a Merkava 4 and made it faster but I also like how that motherfucker can shrug off most attacks. Still hoping the next NATO tank is more interesting.

>>35135619
That's the mundane-sounding but actually important shit that you likely won't find outside of talking to an Abrams driver with a really loose mouth.
That, or a current manual.

Good luck getting either of those on here.