Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Future U.S. main battle tank.

  1. #1
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    507

    Default Future U.S. main battle tank.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZe8jOuGpo

    Looks like a smaller Abrams with a crew of only two.

  2. #2
    Senior Member MichaelF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Inside Ngati's OODA Loop...
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,412

    Default

    That's from the 90's. Long since dead and buried.

    Currently, apart from the TUSK kit, the only AFV program for the US Army is the FCS family. The MCS (Mounted Combat System) is more of a Tank Destroyer/Infantry Support Gun, and not an M-1 follow-on.

    There is no current program to develop a successor to the M-1 series.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ezekiel25:17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    20,573

    Default

    We're with the Abrams for a while.

  4. #4
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Legged Mac Daddy
    Posts
    2,444

    Default


  5. #5
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    507

    Default

    The FCS is still being developed.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vet View Post
    The FCS is still being developed.
    I thought the only thing still being researched was FCS for Infantry/Unmanned vehicles/Artillery/Navy.

  7. #7
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonH View Post
    I thought the only thing still being researched was FCS for Infantry/Unmanned vehicles/Artillery/Navy.
    They keep mentioning a thirty ton tank but I like the Abrams. It just needs to be continually upgraded.

  8. #8
    Senior Member MichaelF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Inside Ngati's OODA Loop...
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,412

    Default

    There is no tank for FCS. The MCS subsystem is not a tank. It's the FCS common chassis with a gun system and slightly better armor, similar to CV90120.

    It's meant to provide direct support for assaulting infantry, as well as general anti-armor duties. It does not replace or succeed the MBT.

  9. #9
    Senior Member click's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Pen
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,793

    Default

    Fail

    123456

  10. #10

  11. #11
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    368

    Default

    ohh ill put this next to my Commanche "file"


    *wink* *wink*

  12. #12
    Member kilroy1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOpposition View Post
    ohh ill put this next to my Commanche "file"


    *wink* *wink*
    which is next to crusader file...

    back to the topc: i dont think that there will be Abrams replacement anytime soon and i am afraid that tanks as we know them will disappear.. like WW2 battleships... This is probably the last generation of classic MBT... i think that future tanks will be lighter and stealthy vehicles with active protection (kinetic, ECM agains ATGM, maybe anti missile laser?), powered by fuel cells and using kinetc energy weapon - big calibre tank cannon (140mm?) or railgun? Probably this gun will have also indirect fire capability to replace howitzers or mortars...

  13. #13
    Senior Member Mormaeglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    East Prussia
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,101

    Default

    kilroy1911 I like Your concept but personally I would prefer Mechs (sadly such mobile weapon platform has no future or even sense at all)

  14. #14
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonH View Post
    I thought the only thing still being researched was FCS for Infantry/Unmanned vehicles/Artillery/Navy.

  15. #15

    Default

    thank god this program got dumped because having a 2-man crew places too much responsibility in the hands of the crewman.

    we all know how 3-man crewed tanks favored in the second world war... that is, with the exception of the earlier models of the T-34/76

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •