A 30-ton Abrams tank?

[Jacknola]

The following web site is one of the better sources for news on military developments around the world.

http://www.strategypage.com/default.asp


From that site, this article about developments in lightweight Armor. Is a 30-ton Abrams possible?

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20081203.aspx (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20081203.aspx)

The Miracle Tank Of Legend

December 3, 2008: The U.S. Army is carrying out an aggressive development program to produce a new, lightweight composite armor for its next generation tank. This vehicle, part of the FCS (Future Combat System) series of vehicles, will weigh under 30 tons. The current U.S. tank, the M-1, weighs 70 tons. Composite armor was invented in Britain during the 1980s. The British developers had found that layers of different metals and ceramics made the armor lighter, and more resistant to penetration by solid shot or HEAT shells. The U.S. added a layer of depleted uranium to its composite armor, and produced the most penetration resistant tank armor ever.

Now U.S. Army developers are betting that they can come up with breakthroughs in composite armor design that will produce protection equal to what the M-1 now has, but at less than half the weight. The army developers are doing it by trial and error, making some progress most months. It's still unknown if the new lightweight armor will be there in time for the new tank's debut date in 2015.

The army developers are encouraged by some of the work done during the current war, especially accidental discoveries. For example, troops in Iraq noticed that although EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) go through metal armor, often glass laminate armor (aka glass ballistic laminate armor) will stop them. Troops reported that the EFPs would not go through the bullet proof windows, which are made of glass laminate. However, the glass laminate only works once. When an EFP strikes the glass, the glass "spiderwebs" (shatters laterally and vertically) but it stops the penetrator. Of course it only needs to work once. Troops lives are saved and the stuff can be replaced.

At least one unit is experimented with mounting field improvised brackets outside the doors of vehicles to hold the three-inch thick glass laminate armor. Apparently the glass laminate armor destabilized the explosively forged projectile penetrator and redirected its kinetic energy laterally along the glass armor laminations. This is the principle behind the M-1 tanks chobham armor (a sandwich of metal and ceramic laminates). The ceramic armor is held in a metal armor matrix. As heavy metal "long rod" penetrator or high explosive shaped charge debris streams enter these armor matrixes, they are destabilized. The kinetic energy is diverted laterally ... [etc. more in linked article] ...

[benbach]

that would be awesome if they can pull it off. Tanks would have better acceleration and would be more efficient.

would anyone happen to know what type of "thick glass laminate armor" they speak of, because if its AlON (Aluminum OxyNitride) thats going to be extremely expensive?

[aimforthemedic]

that would be awesome if they can pull it off. Tanks would have better acceleration and would be more efficient.

would anyone happen to know what type of "thick glass laminate armor" they speak of, because if its AlON (Aluminum OxyNitride) thats going to be extremely expensive?

humvee window armor...

[Nansouty]

I am no expert, but at first sight, Uranium is a high density metal:



DU is used for its very high density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density) of 19.1 g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram)/cm3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_centimetre).
(from Wikipedia )

So, and it's just a layman's quetion, how can some lightweight armor be made with this ultraheavy stuff (more than twice iron density ) ?

[Hellfish]

The following web site is one of the better sources for news on military developments around the world.

http://www.strategypage.com/default.asp



A lot of people would disagree with you. It's got some good info, but a lot of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

As such, this is an interesting article. Thanks for posting.

[benbach]

I am no expert, but at first sight, Uranium is a high density metal:

(from Wikipedia )

So, and it's just a layman's quetion, how can some lightweight armor be made with this ultraheavy stuff (more than twice iron density ) ?

i think you read it wrong. The current armor system uses uranium.

[sergey31]

So, knocking down trees and going trough adobe houses will be reduced by some 55%.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Am I the only one who became involuntarily aroused after reading the term "heavy metal long rod penetrator" ? Yes? The only one? Nobody, ah, nobody else got a little tank wood over that one?

[signatory]

A Strategypage opinion piece followed by a wikipedia source....

[xav]

x2 Strategypage is definitly not the best source out there... they have posted their share of BS in the past.

I was convinced Leclerc was a 30 tons tank but I looked it up and found out no...

[Alpheus]

I am no expert, but at first sight, Uranium is a high density metal:

(from Wikipedia )

So, and it's just a layman's quetion, how can some lightweight armor be made with this ultraheavy stuff (more than twice iron density ) ?

The lightweight composite armor the article talks about won't include DU.

[LillaMy]

If a glass laminated 30-ton tank equals todays 70-ton M1..wouldn't a 60-ton glass laminated tank be quite effective... I mean there is progress made in penetrators as well. Todays protection level is probably not enough in 2030...

[The Dane]

Those tanks would cost a zillion dollars each.. :roll:
Active protection together with medium steel armour is the way forward.

Solution
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/landa_hagg_product_cv90120.html
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/cv90120t.jpg

[Nansouty]

The lightweight composite armor the article talks about won't include DU.

Indeed. A second read made it obvious, I was confused the first time.

[Hellfish]

Those tanks would cost a zillion dollars each.. :roll:
Active protection together with medium steel armour is the way forward.

Solution
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/landa_hagg_product_cv90120.html
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/cv90120t.jpg

Not American made or American designed. We'll never buy it. Think of all the R&D money that Boeing (FCS leads) will lose if we adopt something practical, affordable AND off the shelf??!?!

[The Dane]

Not American made or American designed. We'll never buy it. Think of all the R&D money that Boeing (FCS leads) will lose if we adopt something practical, affordable AND off the shelf??!?!

I know ; will never happen :|

[ex Strathcona]

Those tanks would cost a zillion dollars each.. :roll:
Active protection together with medium steel armour is the way forward.

Solution
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/landa_hagg_product_cv90120.html
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/cv90120t.jpg
I have to say this though...
That is one sweet looking ride!

[LazerLordz]

Those tanks would cost a zillion dollars each.. :roll:
Active protection together with medium steel armour is the way forward.

Solution
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/landa_hagg_product_cv90120.html
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/cv90120t.jpg

Would love for the SAF to get some of these as light tank replacements. :)

[KilRemgor]

Autoloader? Quick Kill development? Turret capable of firing missiles? More cost-effective engine - more power per fuel used? Soft-kill systems to suppress lasers/radio/explode IEDs?
So many things to consider that are IMO much more useful than said composite armor which is likely going to be insanely expensive.

However, if said armor gets deployed, we may get to see lasertanks. Soviets experimented with chemical lasers on T-64 chassis decades ago, but scrapped the working design (blasting targets quite well) due to high cost of operation and that regular turret was already sufficient while being far more reliable and capable of engaging various targets. Airborne laser is in development now in US, and working system exists in Israel.

The thing is, the said 'uberarmor' could be likely countered for fraction of its cost by using lasers or heavy missiles fired from other tanks even if regular solutions (APFSDS and HEAT) would be ineffective.

Laser tanks FTW! :)

[Ballistic]

Those tanks would cost a zillion dollars each.. :roll:
Active protection together with medium steel armour is the way forward.

Solution
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/landa_hagg_product_cv90120.html
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/cv90120t.jpg

Oh so true. That is a piece of art.

[BlackFlag]

Would a tank around 30 tons be deployable by air like the Sheridan? Or would it still be too heavy?

[Snoshi]

Those tanks would cost a zillion dollars each.. :roll:
Active protection together with medium steel armour is the way forward.

Solution
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/landa_hagg_product_cv90120.html
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/cv90120t.jpg

No, its not.. Having superior armour is always good.. This CV90 will catch fire after a sabot hit..

[WKD]

Problem with this idea is that momentum is still conserved. So a decrease in the target mass means that it will travel at a higher speed after the collision (sabot hit). It may not be a problem, but then again it may be.

[signatory]

No, its not.. Having superior armour is always good.. This CV90 will catch fire after a sabot hit..

According to the people who is leading the development of the Active armor concept, no it won't.



Babelfished.

More than 1,000 tests have previously been implemented with AAC, including with the Swedish fighter vehicle CV90

The result shows that AAC has great power even against heavy arrowprojectiles from 120 and 125 mm cannons, which will speed in the late 1800s meters per second and operates with kinetic energy.

-AAC reduce the impact from such a projectile to smash it and get it out of balance. It is not enough to protect a light vehicle as a truck, but the CV90 can handle such a result, "said Anders Nilsson.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/innovation/forskning_utveckling/article353922.ece

[Hellfish]

Would a tank around 30 tons be deployable by air like the Sheridan? Or would it still be too heavy?

Too heavy, at least for the C-130 (if you mean LAPES).

[eskachig]

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/7583/sprutsdl1mp8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A45_Sprut-B

Air droppable and amphibious.

None of these could replace the MBT though, that new armor better be phenomenal.

[Alfacentori]

Would a tank around 30 tons be deployable by air like the Sheridan? Or would it still be too heavy?

You can transport an Abrams in a C17, but thats air transportable, not deployable like your thinking, an Abrams would need a hell of a parachute :)

Alfa

[cbiwv]

This company develops both American and British weapons?

[The Dane]

No, its not.. Having superior armour is always good.. This CV90 will catch fire after a sabot hit..

Yes, it is... And no it will not. ;-)

[nemowork]

This company develops both American and British weapons? Its a British company that develops weapons and lots of other stuff for the international market, plus it has an American section that works exclusively for the US military.

[JoaMei]

Problem with this idea is that momentum is still conserved. So a decrease in the target mass means that it will travel at a higher speed after the collision (sabot hit). It may not be a problem, but then again it may be.

Please explain what you wanted to say. You are talking about the lower mass of the armor fragments after penetration?

[cbiwv]

Is that the future U.S. MBT that will replace the M-1?

[Hellfish]

The FCS is not an Abrams replacement. It's a Stryker replacement. Theoretically.

[cbiwv]

The FCS is not an Abrams replacement. It's a Stryker replacement. Theoretically.

How do you figure when the Stryker is brand new and they are talking about a lighter MBT?

[philbob]

The FCS is not an Abrams replacement. It's a Stryker replacement. Theoretically.

The Stryker is brand new :|

[Hellfish]

How do you figure when the Stryker is brand new and they are talking about a lighter MBT?


The Stryker is brand new :|

The Stryker program began as the Interim Combat Vehicle Program - interim meaning it was a temporary off-the-shelf solution to a medium weight deployable brigade structure. The FCS is the next medium weight deployable brigade structure, except it's specifically designed for it's mission.

Look at the missions the Stryker brigades have right now - they're identical to what the FCS brigades are supposed to be doing, for the most part.

The Army has already stated that the Abrams will be around until at least 2040. Hence, they're not replacing the Abrams. That said, maybe the FCS infantry combat vehicle will replace the Bradley, which is getting old and isn't getting better with age, per se.

I think the whole FCS program is stupid, and this is only one of the reasons for the program's stupidity.

[philbob]

so is one going to be deactiveated early? any US Army modernization program is useless without a dedicated MBT(R) but from what i understand there is still alot of upgrade and rebuild options for the M1's

[Hellfish]

I don't know if the FCS program will survive. I hope most of it dies. Some good things have come out of it, and some good things are in the pipeline, but overall it's WAY too expensive.

[philbob]

see im torn the other way i hope it pays it self off and is sucessful becuase of how much has been put into it

[Angelino]

Not American made or American designed. We'll never buy it. Think of all the R&D money that Boeing (FCS leads) will lose if we adopt something practical, affordable AND off the shelf??!?!
The Abrams already uses British-developed Chobham armor and a German (Rheinmetall AG) developed main gun.

[Hellfish]

The Abrams already uses British-developed Chobham armor and a German (Rheinmetall AG) developed main gun.

You want a cookie? Explain why we just don't use the Challenger or Leopard, then.

[vajt]

According to the people who is leading the development of the Active armor concept, no it won't.

Well with a few layers of light armor and active defenses, a smaller 30-ton tank can still be fairly formidable. You could add three layers if needed (similar to the German PUMA concept) to increase the protection level. First a base layer of new lighter composite armor. Then a layer of controlled explosive reactive armor (also called insensitive reactive armor) which is also capable of defeating KE and CE rounds. http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/news.aspx?FolderID=192&docID=1224
Finally the active armor. This should stop a large portion of the threats.

The CV90-120T concept is really very interesting and holds a lot of potential. I'm sure the Swedes managed to beat the US to the FCS not only in time but in millions of dollars saved!

-----JT-----

[kamaz]

in 15 years time, most armor will be radically different, more mobile, smaller and autonomous, without the need for human life support systems, operating in packs, with mixed anti-armor/anti-personnel units.

[DaGreatRV]

in 15 years time, most armor will be radically different, more mobile, smaller and autonomous, without the need for human life support systems, operating in packs, with mixed anti-armor/anti-personnel units.


concidering development times of recent military vehicles I'd figure that might be in 30 to 50 years.

[philbob]

the concepts will be more thought out and maybe a few working proto types...full scale intergration would be out in about 35 years