They are now running an early Black Friday Sale. Go to establishedtitles.com/TASKPURPOSE and get an additional 10% off on any purchase with code TASKPURPOSE. Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video!
They are trying to recycle old tech for the Abrams X I don't see them adopting everything The improved situation awareness, power pack and 30mm yes Everything else is very much Iffy
@@verdebusterAP the turret and autoloader are brand new, the controls are dramatically improved vs the TTB, the APS is Trophy based, the UAS is Switchblade 300, I suspect the tracks are not alone but it might have an external in arm suspension system. The ACE is also new with a new transmission. It’s based on ideas of the past but GDLS didn’t go around stripping old prototypes and bolting them on an Abrams hull. Though this hull itself is I think the same one GDLS showed with a conventional diesel about 10 years ago.
Thank you for pointing this out. Basically every advanced vehicle and weapon in the US military exists thanks to these "failed" concepts. Most of the time they don't even expect to adopt them. Many people even consider the commanche (the stealth helicopter prototype) one of the most important vehicles developed because of this.
I tried out this system in my service, and it's a game changer as a commander Works better than you'd expect as well Urban warfare becomes so much easier
@@coryhoggatt7691 it's not the same as the airforce version, which has a lot of other features, also not needed for every tanker, only the commander Still it's an investment that I personally think won't happen in the near future
It's good to see some of the good FCS tech reach maturity and make it on platform. It was a frustrating experience when testing FCS concepts, doctrine and prototype analogs in simulation back at Fort Knox.
Seems like the ideas of FCS were actually really good, but the technology just wasn’t ready. Now the technology has caught up with the vision and we are able to make it a reality.
@@jakelilevjen9766 unfortunately, when vision is a decade or two behind the tech, any money spent developing it is equivalent to burning so much paper.
So, back when my father was working at Boeing, he was on a FCS project. (I have a branded glass mug for FCS) I remember telling him that a Nintendo 3DS had most of the features their control system might need.
This is a consistent theme with military programs. The military puts out a request for a new weapons system that is highly advanced and ahead of its time. The defense industry manages to put together a functional (but not exactly combat ready) system in response. The military takes a look at it, sees that it’s doable, but the technology of the day just isn’t quite good enough to bring the system to combat readiness. They shelve the project only to revisit it a decade later to see that technology has advanced enough that not only can the system be combat ready, but is now much cheaper and easier to produce. It’s basically the military’s way of pushing the envelope one project at a time.
@@fnfdmgjfndf if they can make a good enough energy production system that’s also small it will be, with SpaceX (even before it actually) it would be easy to make a directed energy intercept system.
@@fnfdmgjfndf it still amazes me how clueless people are about space force with all the Star Wars jokes. They’re a bunch of tech nerds that deal with satellite operations
Since this new tank can communicate with the F-35 and other air assets, that means it can receive targeting data from the air. That ability, coupled with the tank's smart and precision ammunition, will be one heck of an advantage.
@@SomeJustice19k nearby enemies will still be able to see where you’re coming from and find you, being able to identify an enemy location while remaining hidden is a huge advantage
The hybrid system's fuel savings are pretty useful when you consider the logistics behind keeping a tank operational, that can be seen in Ukraine where otherwise fine tanks are being abandoned due to running out of gas.
In a non-military aspect, this is why my next vehicle will be a hybrid. Until there is better saturation of charging stations and the charging times are shortened, having the flexibility of a hybrid is more logical.
And the fact that Ukrainians have been known to engage in prolonged low-intensity skirmish operations in order to force vehicles to keep idling their engines. Especially during Operation Sitting Duck north of Kiyv it was sometimes just some TDF firing a few potshots or launching an NLAW at a range that can be described as 'optimistic' for the express purpose of making sure a large column wouldn't consider themselves to be 'outside of combat' with all the supply use and fatigue that entails. And whether that's coincidental or planned deliberately with knowledge of Russian 'push logistics', there's no disputing that it worked.
@@MimesAgainstHunmanity or better yet a plug in hybrid. I have both, wife has a plug in hybrid that gets about 55 miles then just switches over to gas at about 45 mpg. I also just bought a f150 hybrid but it is not a plug in and I wish it was. If I am careful I can get 28 mpg. and if I am not careful I can go from zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds. In a truck that can tow 12,000 lbs. and haul 2,200 lbs. from now on everything I buy will have some type of electric drive
Military R&D is rarely wasted. Even when it doesn't produce a product, it provides technical and scientific knowledge. You hit the nail on the head about the Future Combat System. It wasn't really failed. They came up with a concept they thought would be great, did a lot of research to see if and how it could be done, and then realized that the technology doesn't exist yet, but it will in the future. I will bet you money that there were people whose jobs were to keep on top of novel technologies, keep referencing the old designs, and submit a report when they thought it had become viable.
Lockheed/Martin: "Well, I want the F-35 jet project." General Dynamics: 'Sigh.' Fine, crybaby. You can have your nifty little, multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that is the F-35. But we want the new Abrams tank design, as long as you (the U.S. Military) promise to buy more of them. We got stock holders to think about! We won't even change the name!" U.S. Military: "Deal."
Agreed. Love the MIC, love my time in Iraq. Thousands of Americans did not die for nothing in the Middle East, they died for the advancement of weapons! Freedom First!
Biggest question remaining is survivability. In the first Persian Gulf, Abrams crews reported being hit multiple times by enemy armor units while retaining their combat abilities.
Not many direct Abrams hits overall and those few direct fire impacts from the Republican Guard T-55's, T-62's, T-64's, and even the T-72' during combat ops were firing old Soviet substandard tank ammo. My understanding from discussions with the targeted crews is those substandard rounds were deflected by the M1's armor at the time. I would imagine that current ammunition supplies have been updated to contend with the now old M1 armor. Additionally, much of the combat superiority was the fire control systems of the M1 allowing long-range target engagements out to 2K combined with nighttime thermal imaging systems. Despite the Iraqi tanks in a defensive position, the Abrams had every advantage for a night-time assault, as evidenced by the results and those if us that were there.
I would imagine that they'll use an updated armor system. The M1 Abrams already has a formidable armor system, so I think they'll make some improvements, implement it into the Abrams X, and go from there.
@@bryanjohnson5803look up Mcmasters(mcmastersen?) Raid. It was a failed recon mission turned into a face to face tank battle, 9 Abrams amd 13 bradley destroyed 70+ armored targets. Whether or not those targets were using new or old ammo doesnt change the outcome.
Something to remember: this is currently a proposal by General Dynamics. The army has not yet had any involvement. The specifications shown will probably not be the final specifications if it goes into final design and then service. However, I think this is potentially a better route for the army than running another high-dollar design competition. A relatively incremental improvement, to an extent, I think would be a better, less risky method of development than “complete revolution” competitions with absolutely cutting edge technology.
While I fully agree with your rationale, I do believe that the occasional ‘rocking of the boat’ as it were in terms of military design might become necessary in some weapons and equipment. The abrams itself was a completely alien concept when it came out because at the time tank design was still trapped in ww2 schools of thought. Still you make good points.
You know what's sad? It has no AA systems to take down drones. 'Sigh' When will we learn? We have idiots designing our trillion-dollar boondoggles, people.
One more great feature was not mentioned. Untill communication is not jammed (which is not easy) tank could be supported by additional remote crew (e.g. overseas). It gives commander more eyes to see, analise situation, quick react to multiple threat, and even drive tank when actual crew sleeps.
@@shepberryhill4912 I was sleeping in 12 meter boat during the storm on the sea. I read the memoirs of T-34 tanker - after hard work they slept during march deeply (not the driver of course) and that was much less comfortable tanks. Sleep is not a luxury but a necessity.
It seems like a potential for utter catastrophe, either by the remote controller malfunctioning, not being able to detect ground-level threats out of sight of long-range sensors, or being a hacking target for enemies.
As a former 19K, it brings a tear to my eye to see that the Army hasn't given up on our main battle tank! Here's to all the future generations of tankers to come! "Death before dismount"!!!
Tanks and attack helicopters are obsolete in a modern war. Unless youre staying back shooting from a distance, there's no rolling through streets or flying over towns anymore. Can't believe we're still waisting money on tanks while seeing how useless they've become.
Out of all the advances this tank showcases, I'm most impressed with the GPH improvements. Imagine sending 1000 of these tanks into battle and only needing a mere fraction of the tankers needing to follow for refueling. That alone is formidable and can be the deciding factor in future tank battles.
@@h8GW Bro...Oh...it's ALL about the logistics when fighting a war. It's amazing to me how many people believe it's simply a matter of transporting men and equipment to the battlefront and just letting them slug it out. If people only knew what was involved....Oppps I used my other account..sorry.
@@mrtrek64 As a restaurant owner and an avid fan of military history, I cannot tell people enough just how important having a good supply chain is in both the food industry and any kind of war effort.
@@DrBodyshot yup , having 100 tanks without fuel and ammo is as useful as 1 tank without fuel and ammo , doesn't matters how excellent the vehicle may be if it can't even start up
I was a 19K M1A1 tanker from 97-03. Many of my first TC's or at least Platoon Sergeants had been M60 tankers. My dad was a Sheridan tanker in the early 70's. I remember every one of them reminding me of how good I had it on the A1. I guess it's another changing of the guard. Pretty good pluses and minuses. Gotta focus on what can come from above more these days than what's in front.
87-91 19K here. My concern is the the more complex the system, the more opportunities for system failures. Even on the M1IP and M1A1 it wasn't uncommon for a tank to have to shoot Qual in degraded mode due to a crosswind sensor or something else being on the fritz.
I’m impressed about the contrast between your playful humility and your well researched and excellent presentation skills. As for the tank, the concepts seem promising though I think coordination among the tank’s capabilities will take time to master.
Not as long as you would think. By the time this goes into production and replaces the old one, the generation which will be using it will have grown up playing with computers, vr, and augment reality programs enough that it will seem like child's play, unless the design is completely counterintuitive.
Looking at developments on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems a bit more certain now that after 40 years of iterating on the products of the late cold war we've finally reached a technological crescendo whose full exploitation requires not just fresh tank designs, but a whole new paradigm of what a tank is, how it operates, and how it fits into the larger force.
In the same time period electronics have progressed so that your phone contains more computing power than a batallion worth of onboard computers of a tank, so a redesign of what we think a tank can do based on that is quite necessary. I've seen the ballistics computer for the Cheetah SPAAG that's known to be rapid, precise and advanced for it's time, but it's a pretty large box with loads of proprietory connectors that needlessly complicate spares. All of that can probably be fit into a fist-sized computer these days.
@@Bee-tj8gc done for different reasons, USSR/Russia did it because they had a massive tank force, far larger than NATO. The US is going to it to get everybody out of the turret and down low, with much higher survivability rates. Soviet doctrine was to replace tanks and crews. US uses much more highly trained crews, replacing the tank is far easier than replacing the crew.
@@cannonfodder6299 i dont think it's that surprising. an autoloader means you do not need a loader while also reducing the space for crew in a tank. add that digitalisation allows less people to do more and you can afford even less people, the rheinmetall panther has the option to be operated by one or two person less due to it's better controls. and there's also all the benefits of not having 4 people and specifically not having someone in the turret
I was a gunner on an Lt's tank (19k20c) and we pulled our maintenance essentially with a crew of 3 - The LT chipping in when he could but also off doing LT things.. Not as easy as having a full crew but doable. The biggest con to 3 I see is the loss of sleep. Someone always pulls security while the other crew rests.
@@jebes909090 …No there is not. As a driver you learn to defy physics by pissing in a water bottle while in a reclined position. The crew in the turret do the same minus the whole defying physics part bc they are standing or sitting.
I love it! The only thing I worry about is the possibility of the external cameras being damaged by incoming fire, rendering the capabilities of the tank unusable.
The external cameras have backup cameras, there is also the sensor systems, and datalink so it can recieve images from other units, like drones, or other tanks in it's unit. It should still be able to operate if the power is knocked out of the tank, might not even notice with the size of it's battery, while it also have retractable periscopes if everything else fails. But the old fashioned periscopes and viewports is more vulnerable to enemy fire then the camera's are, as they made of glass, the camera's are not. Probably very similar in design to many of the cameras you can find on nodern millitary aircraft, that they use to look over the horizon.
The Abrams X has several back up sites….We won’t be seeing any Abrams X’s on the battlefield, anytime soon. Reason? it’s really not needed…..USA has been making fun of, and Trolling Russian equipment for decades. If anyone notices….the Abrams X is designed like a T-14….the only difference is the Abrams X is a real tank, and the T-14 is a Russian lie. The T-14 doesn’t have…..anything up to date! The T-14 was built by hand In 2014’ And only a handful finished in 2016 nothing has changed on the T-14. It’s the same tank built in 2014….In short, it’s outdated as hell.
Just thinking of the Tesla fires FD have such a hard time putting out. In addition to new safety concerns, one must wonder how much these enormous batteries will increase the price of maintaining combat readiness. (Which could be a small price to pay, but worth considering).
Real time intelligence sharing between platforms and the ability to select the correct weapons system is game changing. Being able to remote operate for really risky objectives is the icing on the cake.
???? Thats what FBCB2 was supposed to do....except that processing power and the speed of wireless communications were not up to snuff....and they still likely are not because even if you speed up CPUs and MBs on data transfer, the limiting factor is the squishy human feeding it info.
Here's hoping the software is securely made and that foreign adversaries cannot hack and take over any of these systems. Some serious consequences can come about if there is any hole in the "cyber armor"
@@moose1442 here's something most civilians dont seem to know, defeating encryption is stupidly difficult. It requires a super computer to attempt and even then, needs a LOT of time to do. So our COMSEC encryption will be fine. When most people hear about nefarious groups "hacking" computer systems, what they are doing is either taking advantage of a security flaw in the operating system or more commonly, they took advantage of the greatest security flaw in any system; the squishy human users. Hacking is really just a nefarious person sending out feelers and those squishy meatbags click the link and give away information the nefarious can use to now gain access to the system. That or they datamine your online presence and piece together your personal info to gain access to your online systems. Thats why you should never participate in Social Media memes where you answer any questions about yourself regardless of how harmless you think the questions are.
@@inorite4553 I work in cyber security, when I referred to other nations hacking into military networks I certainly meant through means of exploiting flaws or people before breaking the military's standard of encryption. No feasible means exists to break that encryption. Other nation states are already in our nation's networks, even our government's. And while I'm sure a significant amount of effort has gone into securing these modern weapon and vehicle systems, as I'm sure you're aware, it only takes finding that one weak link or even a way to pivot into that network through different one. There are many capable adversaries that I'm sure are already trying to find ways into it that can one day feed false or altered data to our war fighters.
There was a lot of maintenance that went along with the M1A1. Every time you drove it, you had to grease it, walk track, check the torsion bar, etc etc.
You'd think serviceability and longer service intervals would be something prioritized when creating something as complex as a tank, or a fighter plane or other military equipment. But what seems like reasonable intervals when sitting at the desk in an office often turn out to be less reasonable when it's put into actual service. Also they add up. Greasing the bearings for one of the rollers the track rides on isn't a big thing, but it's not just one. And it's not just the rollers but just about everything that moves will have a service schedule. In the end you will spend a lot more time doing maintenance than what the designers initially aimed for. But bearings have improved a lot in the last 40 or so years. Just look at ordinary cars. It used to be that almost every car would leave an oil slick where they were parked. You checked the oil level regularly and often had to top it up. This was normal maintenance. Universal joints, ball end fittings and bushings used to all have grease fittings, and today that's more often omitted than not. Greasing all the joints were something you did at least once a year. Also looking back it was a lot more common to see cars having stopped on the shoulder because they broke down. Today that's a lot less common even though there's a lot more cars on the road. And that's still true after all the complaints about overly complex constructions, electronics and computers in modern cars. As much as we complain about not being able to service them and poor reliability they are still more reliable today than they were 40 years ago, or 30, probably even 20. So a new tank constructed today should be more reliable and require less maintenance than the old tanks simply by being constructed of better materials and improved engineering. But time and time again I feel the engineers has proved that any improvements in reliability and service intervals made by improved technology can be offset by added complexity.
@@blahorgaslisk7763 As weapons advance and get more expensive you want to make sure they are running smoothly. Also you want preemptive maintenance done. Aircraft though are crazy intensive though. You'd think we could design robots or tools that either did it themselves or severely cut the time. I still see videos of guys with just regular garage gear.
The FCS program really wasn't a waste at all, we just didn't have the refined versions of this technology at the time of the program to make it a viable effective option, the research initially put into it was worth it with the development of technology over this past decade or so allowing for these new things to be implemented effectively
being able to virtually see outside of the vehicle in any direction is a HUGE plus in my opinion. you can catch any movement without needing to be exposed, or it being known that you're actively looking for movement. it also is able to make the tank look like it's in standby, when it really isn't. that paired with being able to stay in auxilary for several hours without the engine on would be massive for defending positions. I'm not sure I understand the slogan of "they'll never hear us coming" though, unless it has the capability to travel under electricity only as well, it'll either be a really slow moving electric vehicle, or wont be able to travel very far distances on electricity alone.
AbramsX doesn’t use the carousel autoloader, it has a bustle autoloader, blowout panels on the turret wouldn’t effect an ammunition detonation much, flames would still barbecue the crew (unless they had panels on the bottom of the hull) The blowout panels on the turret are above the autoloader similar to the Japanese Type 90 or Korean K2 Black Panther
@@Dana-cb7vk Sorry didn't see where the crew is situated thought it was self contained and ammo positioned similarly to today's Abrams with the crew protection it has today. Would seem to be even safer.
That's actually insane because you will be able to see the enemy from all directions with the help of the new helmets that is also being used for the F-35 and the silent engine is the top of the cake amazing review for the tank keep it up👍
I actually tested FCS through the "Land Warrior" rage during the early oughts in Orlando Florida. I was part of the 511th PIR test company and the buzzword at the time was "Network Centric Warfare." We had a lot of fun on that TCS. I won't tell you exactly what my buddies bought with their per diem but we played a lot of games on it for those 3 months. We also tested the LOSAT (Lockheed Martin) and a few other black platforms like CROWS before they shut the unit down due to funding issues because of the war in Iraq. We got shuffled back to 18th Airborne Corp repo and ended up with 51st LRS as part of 525 MI, we deployed to Iraq in 04 shortly after passing our selection and mostly operated out of Mosul (my team at least). The whole story is more complicated but I spent most of my time with an enhanced THT team chasing down sources in Kurdistan and west toward Rabia.
People don't understand just how network centric things are today. We're using it in ukraine -- they have full access to collected data from US (targets / imagery, not raw data). The system is called palantir (the companies name) and the software is gotham. It's mind blowing. It's able to take real-time intel from EVERYTHING, and it does (even scrapes social media). All social media, etc. They built an app for citizens smart phones to take pics of missiles / jets / troops / etc flying overhead and do an easy classification of it. It takes the meta data and and within a few seconds tasks something to get it. It's why russia is getting blasted hard --- they're playing against the most advanced AI system nobody has seen. The system is insane what it's capable of. It watches build up of enemy troops and suggests action plans for dealing with. Palantir is quite spooky just how advanced that shit is. Skynet is already here.
@@mhamma6560 Lol civilian. An internet scraping bot is not a battle management system or an intel database. And if you say "imagery, not raw data", you're basically saying there's no acces. Not being able to share the raw data was the exact problem that was always existed. Intel guys have (had?) to manually redo inputs from other systems and from allies pretty much ad nauseam. And that flag on the map that says "Here be badguys" can mean "A reliable report from 1 day ago" or "A rumour by some farmer whose loyalties I find to be quite suspect, that's two weeks old", there's simply no way to convey the information at the time, and there still isn't because adding descriptors of intel quality would make it unreadable, and if you default-collapse it, nobody's going to read it.
Sounds great in theory. I like that quieter and more powerful engines. I know that in the real world, somebody is still going have to manually input the BFT (Blue Force Tracker) overlays. When the Army can figure out how to integrate BFT with CPOF, then this will be much more effetcive
That turret is pretty big too. With advandces in ballasitic CPUs I am wondering if you could use indirect fire as sort of "Enemy is that way just fire".
@@JanHoellwarth Ah okay no biggie we all do it. You know you had me double checking myself for a good minute haha. I'm suffering from liver failure and the toxins in the brain are effecting certain things and spelling is one of them. Some words just don't look right even when they are. In fact I have to reset my spell check because it has words spelt wrong and it's a real pain in my arse. I'd rather be called out so I can fix em. Aquifer is the last one I battled with(aquafer) Anyway cheers.
Perhaps an underrated, but no less important aspect of the engine's efficiency is the smaller logistical footprint it causes. Needing less fuel means it can travel further without needing resupply, both allowing for missions deeper into enemy territory while also keeping resupply vehicles in safer distances from the front lines.
As a tech demonstration, it’s interesting that this almost looks combat ready apart from a few things that might be adjusted. I’m sure that current talks are underway in how to future proof the X and it’s descendants based on Ukrainian combat info. I do wonder if the 30mm can be slaved to the gunner if they don’t wanna use the main gun for light armored targets while the commander is busy watching HoTD season 2.
I feel like everything people keep saying we need these days I find myself saying, we had that back in the FCS days, I'm sure they can build it better really quick now. I like seeing the fruits of that very stressful program show up.
The unmanned turret with autoloader would be far easier to upgrade to 130mm or 140mm than a manned turret that needs enough space for crew along with the larger gun, and with a human loader trying to load the larger and heavier rounds. And MRM, especially MRM-KE would possibly make upgrading the gun unnecessary as shots could be taken by any vehicle able to hit the side of an enemy even if that enemy tank was frtontally invulnerable to our tanks' guns.
I think it's important to keep in mind the Chieftains's Rule: Firing high velocity armor piercing ammo at the enemy is the most important single function of a main battle tank. Doing things like piloting and monitoring a drone can be done much more cheaply and even with greater survivability from a lighter and smaller vehicle, or even a man miles from the battlefield.
If you could integrate the software under the hood for the tank, and then have that same software running in other vehicles, if ever you need a drone - and all you got are tanks, you can use them. Or just eves drop on the feed of other drones piloted by others in real time. Imagine a google maps or waymo style application, but on the battle field, showing both friend and reported foe, in real time. Drone operators report on what they see. Tanks and Infantry vehicles can respond that - commanders can mark orders on the map, etc. I don't think the real point of this is to make tanks into drone carriers. But to create a platform that permits interoperability. This has the potential to become a battlefield internet and could be super useful. Logistics wins battles, but information win wars.
You forget that tanks have VERY little vision over all Even in modern day tank combat, convincing an inexperienced tank commander to stay inside and not peek outside takes effort Having a drone that can scout within even 500 yards of the tank, gives that tank a MAJOR edge Letting a tank commander see the entire battlefield, will 100% change any combat situation in favor of that commander No matter the tank Knowing where your enemy is before they know where you are, means you win before a fight has even started And actually no Firing a high velocity armor piercing round is not the primary function of a tank There is a reason why the Abrams carries the AMP ammunition 9/10 times, they arnt shooting at another tank But instead shooting a bunker, a fortified position, or a mg nest Tank on tank combat is rare, and something like only 15% - 20% of ammo that tanks field is actually APFSDS
Coaxial and pindle mounted mgs are also very good at dealing with infantry. The purpose of the rc 30mm is most likely because the improved targeting computer allows it to engage drones better.
And micro chips and semi conductors. These systems are gonna have to be considered part of defense spending cause everything runs on them and not a lot of places produce them
Along with the academics that accompany with it. So far, there are reports of a shortage of engineers and construction workers. In general now more than ever. We just need to pull away from China more than ever, decreasing the cost as we rely on other countries that aren't sanctioned, lowering prices, hopefully increasing population, and seeing a more motivated population to pursue essential sectors for the military defense complex.
Great segment! I joined in the Infantry in 07 an I remember getting exposed to the new virtual training. Using old mock m16’s connected on some cord. 10 or more of us would be in the prone; we laid there looking at horrible pixelated graphic of a scenario we supposed to engage. I hope that system has drastically improved.
Nope, good graphics aren’t a concern for the army. Graphics are a concern for civilians as that’s what computer gamers want but the concern for the military is simulated realistic controls over visuals,
I am sure that they are using full HD graphics now. But the new generation of recruits are used to looking at 4k TVs and will have the same complaints. "you can almost see the pixels from here, this is horrible!"
The carousel only carried the T-72's 'ready' ammo. A lot of ammo (about half the combat load) was carried up in the turret. THAT was what caused the turrets to pop when hit. The ammo down in the carousel is actually well-protected.
From the stuff going on in Ukraine, it's vulnerable to drone drop grenades. People have twisted off the HE 40mm from its shell, did some stuff to reduce arming time, attach it to a DIY shell with a tail. The whole set-up cost $1MM. If they don't destroy the tank, they can still damage the optics and rattle the crew, prompting retreat.
Just an FYI, General Dynamics did not announce that this tank would be replacing the current iteration of the Abrams tank. They very clearly stated that it is a "technology demonstrator" built to showcase technological developments that could be implemented into a future tank.
@@bighands69 I agree. The Army would never invest so greatly into a tank merely to showcase possible developments in future tanks. There will be indeed a line of these tanks in the not-so-distant future, even if they are a bit different from the original concept tank.
@@bighands69 it probably has to go through a lot more stress testing, improvements and reviews before it makes it into service, this is like a proof of concept more than anything
@@seasonedoilburnerrepair6932the army has had nothing to do with this tank. It is just a tech demonstrator meant to intrigue the army to try and get a contract.
Especially given the massive improvements in AI detection of people, it could easily alert operators to hostiles attempting to approach from the flanks and perhaps even those observing from windows attempting to get an elevated top armor shot
The hybrid Engine might also be able to significantly reduce or even mask the thermal signature of the tank - which along with acoustic reductions will make the tank genuinely stealthy at night.
As a tanker from the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that a 4th person is very important. Not only for maintenance but for LP/OP or many other assignments. We could fight in our vehicles in a degraded 3 man scenario without an auto loader. An auto loader just adds another mechanism that can break down. I like the new engine. The heat generated from our engines lifted dust and debri high I to the air allowing the enemy to see our signature and follow is to our next fighting position. Perhaps this new engine will help out.
Dude, I was a scout and the track lifted more dust into the air than the engine exhaust. The Bradley had a diesel engine and had just as bad a dust signature. The gas turbine engine was virtually undetectable until you hear the foot fall of the tracks at about 300 meters, well within the lethal zone of the tank... We were dead before we knew it when there was an alert tank crew at about 800 meters.
I worked on Abrams and Bradleys. Bradleys are just junk. Also they could have had an auto loader on the original Abrams but decided against it due to them not being as fast as a 19 year old and a 19 year old with a strong arm will not jam. I’ve also loaded and gunned an Abrams through lack of tank personnel we had and trying out adding a mechanic as tank crew for every four or five tanks to have a mechanic (not riding around in an 88) ready to do some fast mechanical work when needed. Not sure about going from the turbine engine to a straight up hybrid piston driven Diesel engine (they all use the same dry military diesel gas). The Abrams engine exhaust is a life saver in the winter. Especially after it rained. Wanna know how many infantry/recon units is hiding in the bushes? Turn in an Abrams and see them all come out to get warm behind one and dry out their gear real quick.
@@CaptHowdy-ym8px That was my understanding with why the Abrams didn't have an auto loader and why it was superior to the T-72 etc. 19 year olds don't jam and it is a lot quicker for a person to change out the munitions than the autoloader (think changing type of round while one is already in the tube).
Makes sense though, the fcs inception was following a massive armored heavy war in 1991, and before insurgency fighting following 9/11. Now that the threat has pretty much returned to that old initial reason, it makes sense to take from the fcs. Most successful projects take from failed or canceled ones. The leo 2 and Abrams both got their starts from the mbt70 that failed
There is an aspect of this that I can understand. I was in college in 2008 and our university took part in DARPAs automated driving contests and while I wasn't on the team, via my cogsci classes we were sort of of an auxiliary opinion piece. Not only was it considered a miserable failure, it led professors and "experts" to make wild and wildly inaccurate claims about the future of AI and machine learning. Yet, only 14 years later we are already in a world that those "experts" could have never imagined. One of the expert speakers from MIT stated (again, in 2008) that it is highly unlikely that we will develop in our lifetime computer learning that could drive autonomously, walk unassisted bipedally, or compete and the highest levels of the game of Go. So much for that expert advice.
To be fair to those professors, nobody really appreciated at the time that deep neural networks could be as powerful as they are, because they require so many data and CPU-hours to train well, and we just didn't have those kinds of resources.
Well we don’t have ai that can drive autonomously, not in any complicated situations, driving down a highway is easy. As for games AIs, that’s actually existed for decades. Not so much with neural networks, that’s a newer thing, but there were computers in the 90s that could beat top chess players with different kinds of algorithm
@@calvinpell1738 Chess, as complex as it is, is very different than Go. In thinking about Go, I believe a lot of scientists were relying on the Salesman problem as the ruling assumption as to why computers couldn't beat humans. Whereas now, it is unlikely that a human will ever even come close to beating the machine. Can machines "off-road" safely right now, not yet. However, yes, AI can drive as safely as humans on the road following the rules humans are meant to follow. It will be merely a few years before that has been replaced by AI being far more capable.
@@Sybaris_Rex As stated, the problem with Go was that we had no idea what constitutes a board position that looks good for white or black, and good minimax algorithms rely on having a good heuristic for speedup. Training a neural network on millions of self-play games gave us that heuristic.
I think the new tank design is great, but I couldn't help but notice there were no new implements to help the tank get unstuck. Besides the lighter weight inevitably helping.
@@Vune_GG I know they have systems to do such already, but I know it's a cumbersome process. I think having less hands to help could make it more challenging.
The R&D can do all the exploring they want too ,, the fact is any Vehicle wheeled or tracked at any weight is going to get stuck going over terrain ,, most of the time it comes down to Crew Experience as to how serious the vehicle gets stuck !!!!!!!! ...
Cappy, you should check out the new anti drone swarm system from Rheinmetal Its pretty neat seems to use a range finder and airburst munitions (doesn't take much to knock a drone out of the sky afterall) Though whilst in the video every round detonated; there's always that fear of some not exploding and potentially hurting someone years later
In the demonstration video, it looked like an excellent weapon. It seems like it would be a good idea to a vehicle into Ukraine for "real world" testing.
Rather the risk of unexploded ordnance left on the battlefield, than letting in an entire drone swarm - you stop it, because it is aimed at friendly troops and/or equipment. As long as we're using conventional explosives, there WILL be UO left after a war, no way to get 100% around it without switching to railguns, laserweapons, or other future tech.
You just do such an amazing job with these videos. Pack with Rich content, well organize, it flows, there's humor, you're just killing it consistently!
I was a former Tanker and stationed in a FCS unit, I'm glad to see that my time wasn't wasted. We all thought everything we were testing was junk and never going to work...I am now wondering about some of the gadgets I played with and if they work now.
@@The_ZeroLine we had some sensors that were cool on paper but just didnt work in the field. radios that were too freakin heavy. early variation of a drone we called it a flying trashcan because thats where it belonged
I was trained on the Carl Gustaf a decade ago that had very similar rounds as this new tank. Was also trained on the CROWS. Seems like they put the two together. Smart!
FCS was always ahead of its time but it was a necessary process to push the development of these combat systems. The equipment we use now is so far more advance than when I initially got in.
I wonder if it would be feasible to add that fourth crewman back as a drone operator that pilots something akin to a mule for screening, scouting, spotting and things like that. I see it working in a fashion similar to the terminator from the previous video.
I saw a video about future combat concepts. A 4 tank platoon was augmented by a Stryker like vehicle operating several tracked drones. One had rack of Javelins, one Anti Air capability and one or two antiarmor and personel.
My thoughts exactly add a fourth crew for ucavs and drones. That would offer huge information and data benefits that would be immediate and no need to go through other chains to gain that information. It would be a literal game changer.
From what I’ve heard, there is an option for a 4th man in the turret to act as a gunner in case the remote systems get disabled. So if they expand that position to be a permanent placement, then they will have a spare crew slot in the hull for this purpose.
more roles are added like electronic warfare and drones to planes and tanks, information input&output increases, but crew size gets smaller. i dont like the contradiction. f35 plane has 1 man and this tank has possibly just 3 guys. same in upcoming german Panther KF51. i wonder if the crew amount design is really based on the optimal function of the machine, or because future armies personnel is going to be smaller because of lower birthrate, people getting more fat, etc.
Chris: Don’t sell the Cummins/Achates OP Diesel short. It’s awesome! I don’t know about the “advanced combat transmission” but I suspect it trades peak power and top end for a few seconds in the quarter mile. (Probably OK)
Despite being a "failure" it's exciting to see so much of the doctrine and interconnectivity of the future warrior program manifesting. The information provided by the helmet, and automatic GPS population, will no doubt go hand in hand with with the sensor suites of the F-22, F-35 and soon to come B-21. This goes beyond the expected performance improvements for main battle tanks. I think its fair to expect that, with the detailed on ground information provided by the X, the precision and lethality of close air support or strikes will also see a huge improvement
I like the design a lot. I think it has a lot of potential or, at least, ideas that can be incorporated into future Abrams tanks. Or whole new tanks. The 30mm autocannon mounted in a CROWS is probably a good idea for anti-drone and urban defense, especially if it has a high firing arc.
It’s interesting, Western tanks originally included a pintle mounted machine gun for AA defense. Those guns were retained because they offered a tank crew tactical flexibility in dealing with infantry or lightly armored forces. Now it looks like those guns might prove useful as AA again to deal with drones
@@Mahbu I would reckon that it's capable of Anti-Missle operations as well. I can't see it being impossible that they didn't add some kind of missile detection system that can be turned on or off. It could be a negative as I've heard of plenty of times those anti missile systems have shot at friendlies.
Awesome sponsor today. Saw that on Kings and Generals. Awesome tank. But for some reason, it seems like way too many thing that could break down out in the field and could jeopardize the whole mission. Looks like you'd need an advanced degree just to fix it.
Oh man, hearing Future Combat Systems brings me back. My Dad worked FCS and I remember hearing him explain “System of Systems” and thinking it was an incredibly dumb name for it. Definitely recall hearing about all the concepts of the interconnected warfighter and thinking it was really cool… then hearing a ton about how none of the technology was mature enough and the program was a grossly mismanaged money pit. lol Also there’s a little hidden Easter Egg at 10:14 in the video. Notice the Switchblade 600 hanging out by the AbramsX.
I wonder what's that vehicle behind him. Multiple Switchblade launching platform with 28 tubes? Those things have a range of 40 km - could easily engage a whole division of enemy armor while the Abrams crew chill.
No disrespect,but all I could think of while reading ur comment was...so dad worked on at the time,top tech/top secret military equipment, but I guess made it the dinner time table "talk"everyday? .well not to spotlight jus that,I'm sure a lot of employees did it,after all it's why other countries (china) have a lot of our tech today I guess one positive thing about these ,wonna be companies spending our money was that the secrets that got out ,were about failed shit. Lol
@@MICHAELHOWARD9729 a lot of those programs overall concepts weren’t/aren’t classified, specific technology and specifications are, but the design philosophies aren’t
@@izoi24 ,I don't think ur reply to me is enuff,,but I'm not here to argue, but rather I'll say,,,should it of not been talked about only if it was/is labeled "classified?🤔🤔
@@MICHAELHOWARD9729 I used to date a woman engineer who worked on future combat systems they literally had mini dvd's with crazy high tech movies that were effectively advertisements. I have two of them in the desk I am sitting at right now. I think it's pretty safe to say there was a lot of information about FCS that was not classified. You obviously never held a security clearance because there's a ton of info you can talk about even on a classified project. The US Navy gives tours to foreign civilians in many ports and they discuss nearly every system on the ship in general details that include a lot of information about capabilities.
I see you didn't talk about how if something goes wrong with the autoloader the crew can climb inside and manually fire and use secondary optics, just like a regular tank setup. And it was specifically stated that it would not use a carousel ammo system as they have seen the drawbacks to them. The ammo is still located in the back of the turret shut behind a firebox just like the legaxy abrams
@@BrokeWrench Ithought it's because it jammed, or it might've been because if the tank cooks off, the turret piece gets yeeted into the stratosphere also the crew get cooked as well.
@@BrokeWrench the crew is basically sitting directly on top of potential explosives and a well placed shot in between the turret and the main body will ignite that ammo whereas in the legacy Abrams design the ammo if ignited gets blown through the roof sparing the crew.
For the tank gurus out there: would a recoil systems like the ones on the Cold War era XM204 Soft Recoil/"Fire Out of Battery" and Mandamus Hawkeye systems be good alternatives as well?
ABrams X is more of a tech demonstrator than a full Abrams replacement, more likely tech from this tank will be used in the more advanced Abrams upgrades, such as the new engine and cannon.
Awesome, and most future development programs are 10-20 years ahead of their time, so sound about right. The only problem is the Abrams, as it’s still one of the best tanks in the world, but nice to have a backup in case all hell breaks loose!
Over reliance on older hardware can leave one unprepared for the future, I'm not saying the Abrams is bad, but that not preparing for the future could leave the US at a distinct disadvantage.
Totally agree, and the army is currently playing catch-up due to bad project management over the last 20 years. They had too many development programs get canceled due to requirements overreach. Now they are being more realistic about requirements and as a result a number of new programs are in progress, including JLTV (Humvee replacement) - AMPV (M113 replacement) - MPF (Light Tank) - and OMFV (Bradley Replacement). They are planning on reopening the Abrams’ replacement program in 2023. Hopefully a proven, low cost (relatively) design like the Abrams X will be the right tank at the right time, and hopefully they will have the money to buy it, as they also need to fund the Future Verticle Lift program.
I like the concept that the Abrams X is bringing. Only thing I'm concerned about is the carousel ammo storage, but like you pointed out and from what general dynamics sees is that they have a solution for if the ammo cooks off. Biggest thing that I hope of this tank is that if it does get approved into service, the auto loading system is reliable, but really the only way to improve on the vehicle is to field test it. None the less the Abrams will be my favorite tank no matter what
It just so happens there’s a entire war going on where we are currently field testing some equipment. They get some experimental tech and vehicles and we get data to see what can be fixed and changed. May need to add scuttle charges.
My concern is the lowered turret armor. Sure: losing the turret will have a far less punishing consequence for the crew (seeing that we have no crew in the Abrams X) BUT we're still losing our primary and secondary weapons. Also: the autoloader isn't a huge concern for me personally... as long as you have properly designed blow out panels/systems you're probably fine... as long as you don't mind maintaining it plus all the other systems with just a 3 man crew.
I thought the ammo was kept in the traditional bussle mount on the back like the Abrams, but now with a more complex auto loader than the Russians have for there to be blow-out panels on the back of the turret. I could be wrong but that’s what I understood from this
I've been working on designing an AFV concept and it's kind of wild coming up with my own conclusions/ideas, looking them up, and finding some engineer had the exact same thought process as me, sometimes decades ago and sometimes very recently.
My last active unit was 1-66 AR. (Oldest Armer Battalion on the planet). I’m sure they would be excited to get a new toy. However, the fact that the M1A2 has a soldier as a loader allow a well trained crew to fire the main gun faster than any auto loader could dream to fire.
Your statement is not correct. A (very well trained) human loader can get the first 2-3 rounds off in under 4 seconds each. (Unless they are lap-loading which is really dumb. And even if they were, fatigue rapidly slows their time). The autoloader in AbramsX is designed to fire every 4 seconds until all the ammo is expended.
If it actually works as advertised it will be pretty awesome. That said, the amount of programming this thing is going to be running on is gonna need a lot of patching along the way.
Even if much of the aspects of this concept end up not getting adopted, it's all worth it for that new engine and power system alone. That thing is going to be an absolute game changer for Armored Vehicles, even if every other piece stays the same. Simply reducing the size of the logistics train thanks to better fuel efficiency will be much needed stress relief for armored operations.
I saw an interview where one of the guys from general dynamics was really emphasizing that this is a tech demonstrator. Basically general dynamics is saying here is what we can do and the army can pick and choose systems they like. Not sure how I feel about the unmanned turret, I think that’s a weird choice. The auto loader though I think is cool, I think that tech is finally reaching the point where it can match human loaders.
I think this was pretty underwhelming. I expected at least an ETC gun. The unmanned turret is a good choice, since the tank is supposed to be optionally manned anyway.
The tech outmatched human loaders 60 years ago, it just wasn't used everywhere due to it not being trusted by some countries' armies. The Russians, French, South Koreans and Japanese have been using them for decades. I think most of the bad rep they get is because of the carousel style autoloaders that the Russians use because their tanks are too small to fit safer systems, so everyone gets the impression that autoloader instantly means tank go boom really easily. In reality western style MBTs with autoloaders don't use such systems and are just as safe as tanks with human loaders (except the Abrams which stores all its ammo behind blast doors but that's nothing to do with the autoloader, Leo 2 doesn't have an autoloader either but still doesn't have that level of cookoff protection)
Given the fact that Russia is losing its most advanced tanks, having their turrets fly off, sometimes hundreds of feet into the air, because of the way autoloaders are unable to actually isolate the munitions from the rest of the vehicle, we have plenty of real evidence that anything other than a manned turret is a terrible idea in a main battle tank. The concept does need to die, once and for all.
Never mind quiet, I'll take the extended range for the win! I will also say that the "glass canopy" is very nifty, but I'm used to the situational awareness of the tank commander sticking their head out of the turret; so that's going to take some convincing. On the flip side, I always thought FCS got shafted a bit, though I was more familiar with the infantry programs. Still glad to see some of the tech finally seeing the light of day. Hope it all works out! Also, are you really sure you wouldn't be better off with that microchip ;D And yes, I'd pay good tax dollars to see the ED-209 marching down some enemy road!
Sorry, not likely to have any extended range. Yes, the diesel-electric will use half the fuel, but what do you think used to sit on either side of the driver, that has now been removed for the gunner and commander?
Working with those integrated systems before getting out in '01. Watching the progression over two decades of bureaucracy. Love this breakdown, good job. Veteran or just someone who studies better than most grunts?
The failed MBT-70 program lead to the Abrams and Leopard 2. See some influence here as well with the 30mm canon. I'd also be interested if US and Japan and/or Korean joint operations had any influence on deciding to switch to an autoloader.
A neat trick about the turret. The turret can be controled by conventional means because the design from what i know has enough space for a gunner and commander postion within the turret.
One thing to note about fuel savings is logistics. Yes, better torque which is a huge benefit, but it also can then take less from each fuel truck for every mile travelled, which means there are less fuel trucks needed to keep up with the vehicles. If Ukraine has shown one thing, it's the importants of a well maintained logistics system.
100% the future and impressive tech. Will be interesting to see the how the reduced manpower requirement effects battle effectiveness. Having an organic top cover is essential when dealing with troops on the ground in and around your position. Also, with all the requirement on sensors and tech, one well placed round to an array or sighting system would negate a lot of capability. Im sure theyve thought of this already, would be interesting to know what solutions they come up with. Great video and very impressive direction the new MBT's are going.
If you look, though, there are two identical sensor pods on top, so there is some redundancy there. And if you lose that stuff, well, you're back to how tanks operated before sensors.
I have one major concern with this tank, by giving it a wireless network you've opened it up to be hacked; my main concern is in the middle of battle the enemy might take control of your assets remotely
Jamming is a concern, hacking is not, encryption is a thing and unencrypting the thing will be impractical, also hacking means hijacking the connection...how can you do that on military hardware?
@@chaosagent_0106 that's what encryption breakers are for, everyone had them in WW2 and we still have them today in the ongoing world wide cyber war; if your enemy has such advanced and useful hardware why wouldn't you try to hijack one, if you can break the encryption then you can freely connect to the tank just like the squad who is remotely controlling it. Just like figuring out your neighbors Wi-Fi password, or when teenage hackers broke into NASA computers and took control of the mouse cursor to access files via screen sharing. Government encryption isn't always as secure as you might think and encryption/decryption is a constant arms race.
@@nerdlingeeksly5192 encryption that requires smart individuals that focuses their effort on one part, a tank, in an army... that's impractical, and encryption in WW2 was all about intelligence, getting important information that tells future enemy actions and status, much more important than hijacking a tank. And hijacking a tank, which has remote control and is fucking millions of dollars worth, you think some kid in a laptop can fucking decrypt, hijack and use the thing? It's the US military, dude. This isn't so simple as getting the WIFI password or getting in the NASA computers..when those computers aren't even military. This is like asking "Is this EMP proof? All those electronics will be vulnerable!" When you're not even asking how is it possible, is it practical and and not asking if there's countermeasures placed in.
@@chaosagent_0106 "you think some kid in a laptop can fucking decrypt, hijack and use the thing?" No I don't, I think the many hacking and computer experts the Russian government employs can; it might be hard and ya they might actually get no where with it (just like there is a good chance any hacker might get nowhere when trying the breech someone's security measures), but the potential reward is well worth at least an attempt. You honestly think Russia or china or any foreign power the US faces wouldn't want to try to hack this tank to either use it against the US or to drive it well behinds their lines to reverse engineer it? Yeah the US is the leading world military power but that doesn't mean all other militaries don't have good hackers or soldiers, expecting the US military to be impervious and to just steam roll every enemy it faces is naive.
I often heard people calling T14's ideas bad, the tank obsolete, etc., but when americans did the same thing years later it is suddenly groundbreaking? And the carousel problem isn't solved at all. The blow-out pannels make the turret stay in place, but the inside of the tank is still totally annihilated. If they are making the turret so long anyways, i think a much better solution would be a french-style autoloader. Idk if it is bias, lack of logic, or there is something i don't know, but it just drives me crazy.
France's Leclerc has an auto loader, and a three man crew, and from what I've read it's performed well in the middle east, better than the Leopard 2. I like that 30mm gun on the turret, definitely a cheaper way to take out UAV's.
As someone who has been involved with safety systems in aviation and nuclear energy, I wonder when I watch videos with such technological advances, what are the redundant systems in place to operate in legacy mode, if the battlefield conditions warrant it? Just as I am interested in seeing the advanced technologies, I am also curious in the mechanical redundancies that allow operations after complete technology failure.
Apparently in this case it would be a fuckton of traditional periscopes, ability to still access the autoloader to unjam it, and basically a way to continue running to get out of dodge
Having something that uses half the fuel is actually extremely useful ( not for aggeasing tree huggers ) it's increases the vehicle range of combat making it capable of fighting longer
The military has been looking at fuel consumption for some time now and they understand energy independence more than most people think. I remember they were looking into bio-fuel for the Air Force years ago. As for the Abrams X I look at it as more of a test bed platform and the maker said there will be things the Army likes and other things the Army will not like. But it looks like they are trying to incorporate as much of what they learned previously into the new platform as they can from what they learned in the past. It is now that technology, both physical and software, has caught up with the big dream they had back then.
As a former (and lowly) Air-Cav guy I've always been confused why we haven't developed a smaller, front-line tank with a smooth bore launched missile system (think Hellfire or equivalent) that was your primary weapon against other heavy armor / airborne threats, and a CTA 40mm style top-turret weapon that engaged the medium armor / mobile targets. With GPS guided artillery not sure why you need a 60T behemoth out there that provides less capability than a 155mm shell?
Its cool, and absolutely terrifying to be honest, i like a lot of the concepts, iffy about some and not liking others Like others have said, the engine is the most important thing here, quieter and more powerful while saving more fuel, absolute game changer, i can not tell you how often we have to fuel the abrams its ridiculous honestly, the unmanned cannon is a cool concept but theyre keeping the same millimeter cannon as before, while also still changing to autoloader, thats...weird, to me. the whole reason we havent changed to autoloaders yet is because humans can load a round faster than autoloaders, russian autoloaders take about 7 seconds to load a round, in basic training 7 seconds is the absolute max amount of time we should take to load a round, but on average its about 4-5 seconds for a human loader, so i can only assume these new autoloaders are as fast or faster. The 3 crew members, i dont like it, not in the slightest, you mentioned there would be less maintenance, i absolutely doubt that 100%, we'd still have daily maintenance and from what ive seen it doesnt look like it would be any easier even with the lighter build, infact im sure it'll become more difficult with all the automatic parts, not to mention that 30mm cannon is gonna provide even more work, unless theres a way to temporarily remove it kinda like the bradleys and their barrels. The 30mm itself is an absolute win to me, its bigger, more deadly, far more tactical maneuverability, its a beast in and of itself. Some people are complaining its overkill, please realize that this thing will rarely be used on troops, not because we dont want to, because oh how fun that would be, but because i doubt the amount of 30mm ammo we'll carry will be huge, for troops we'll use the co-ax, which i can only assume will be the 240., which we can carry a shit load of. not to mention the added safety of giving us (slightly) more protection against aircraft, the 120 can take one down, if we can hit it, but the 30 mm will give us a little bit of a bigger margin of error when it comes to aiming. the way they have the crew sitting is super interesting to me, all 3 of us sitting next to each other provides all kinds of benefits and downsides, on the one hand we're closer, theres more comradery, no longer will the driver be the loner of the tank and feel left out, im sure it would actually prove to be safer against chemical attacks, communication will be easier even if theres something wrong with the headsets, what one sees is what we all see, and with everyone together itll provide far more importance to add an extremely thick layer of armor to the front of the tank, this is not even mentioning how easier itll be to train everyone, the gunner and tank commander will provide far more easier to understand instructions to the driver, the driver will be able to actively see what the gunner and TC are doing preparing them down the line to take over their spots. On the otherhand, one lucky shot could take out the entire crew at once, with everyone together so closely i can only imagine how far more cramped it would be, how tighter the space would feel. the absolute stench of odor that will come off of everyone so closely together. but overall i'd say it would be a welcome addition and upgrade to the previous abrams. The abrams x is scary, and im glad for that, however its still in the prototype phase, many of these concepts may be changed, scrapped, or kept, nothing is for certain right now, but overall id be happy to see it come to fruition and into the field.
I could see how the new engine would make it easier to export the new Abrams as it would shrink the logistics train. From what I understand this is one of the hurdles that's keeping the current Abrams out of UKR
Weight, logistics and training are what keeps any western tank system out of Ukraine. Ukraines infrastructure, especially bridges were built for tanks used by the soviet armies, so 60-70 ton beats like the Abrams or Leo 2 often wouldn't be able to pass those.
Looks def. nice, but I like Rheinmetalls KF51 Panther a bit better when it comes to the overall program (of what we know so far) and also the idea of a crewless tank turret of the KF51 options seems to be an essential point.
KF51 is also a completley new Platform. The AbramsX is pretty much an Abrams with a bunch of new Tech. The Panther is completley new besides tracks and gearbox (Leopard 2 stuff that works well apperantly)
@@SlugsnetGames If I'm not mistaken, the KF-51 currently uses the Leo 2 chassis. Rheimetall has indicated that if the design attracts serious interest, they will likely design a new chassis. No mention of a hybrid engine yet, however this requirement might emerge eventually.
@@wmtford4043 correct. As far as im aware they mentioned that the only Thing that is taken from Leo 2 is engine, gearbox and Tracks. The Chassis itself is already new. I assume they will try something new with the engine considering its modular Design structure, the hull is already completley new aswell. I feel like the AbramsX is a bit weaker considering that hull and Chassis are completley copied and i feel like Abrams is more of a "quick Response" then anything serious really. And they have interest from some countries already. They didnt mentioned which countries.
@@SlugsnetGames AbramsX has more new stuff than the Panther. The hull in AbramsX, road arms and wheels, and most of the torsion bars are the only real carryover. (2 sets of torsion bars are replaced with hydro pneumatic suspension units to buy more room for the crew compartment). Practically, everything else is new and different.
Giving the soldiers a 360 degree angel of view seems like a great idea especially since they won’t have to stick their head out or look through a tiny strip of armored glass anymore
It will be interesting to see how they tackle the issue of camouflage. Having all those cameras will present problems if they are covered in scrim or foliage. The cameras on the F35 do not have this problem.
If I'm developing a assault vehicle system I'm going to make one chassis that can adapt to multiple configurations. One drivetrain with interchangeable uppers. Tank, troop carrier, rocket launcher, anti aircraft. Tires or tracks. Make everything interchangeable. Upgrade computer system, a direct plug in. Guns and armament, boostable add on armor. It's doable, but there's more money in being specialized.
0:30 These guys are pure scammers. They can't legally sell the land, and they don't give you any. Neither is land enough to become a lord. They also outsource the tree-planting they promise to another company. Stop promoting them.
R&D is not wasted. Technology becomes practical when SUPPORTING tech becomes practical. It's rare for solo technologies to thrive in isolation. Not that the procurement process isn't terribly managed or the Army frequently confused and subject to internal factionalism, but all the desirable features requested for FCS were seen as desirable globally because they're force effectiveness multipliers if they succeed.
Maybe check out the Rheinmetall KF51 Panther in comparison soon… btw. Kongsberg RS6/RWS is the name of the whole auto cannon turret. The chaingun itself is an M230LF afaik. The AH-64 Apache Helicopter also uses an M230.
I see two major issues going down the road, if adopted: 1) Firepower. Having been on both Bradleys and tanks, I can tell you that not directly manning the chain gun is going to be an issue. From training events early on as gunnery, to LFXs, and downrange. You'd have to leave your respective crew stations to even troubleshoot the issues. 2) The engine. More electrical components might mean you'd have to overhaul your parts logistics. Possibly opening up the door to more fabrication options, since existing parts logistics with GCSS-A is as optimal as it can get, with its frustrations and all. Definitely looking at way higher dollar numbers than would just concern the tank itself.
Missed out on the other big problem, that batteries don't work as well in the cold. When it's cold having a heating unit on for electric systems to work right. That's a whole other can of worms.
electric motors require alot less maintenance then turbine engines and the construction is alot simpler diesel is also better for this aplication as it is more widly available and alot more efficient. So the engine will not only work more silent its also alot easier to train crews to work on them it'll require less maintenence and it'll start up easier with high low end torque. So cheaper more efficient, less maintenance, less noise, alot of low and torque and self starting electric engines, hybrid diesel really is the best engine choice. The real mistake was using a turbine engine on the original abrams tanks.
@@MrVenturadog Different chemistry batteries handle cold better, e.g. LFP vs NMC/NMCA. Less energy dense, but should be ok on a tank. Make it modular, and in 10 years, switch to solid state batteries.
This engine may be the ACE Cummins/Achates opposed piston design. It's a rare configuration, so no reliability history. But it has many fewer moving parts than a traditional ICE motor, having no heads with valves, so in theory, should be high reliability. As far as electrical, it can be done reliably, see the massive off-road dumpers. But may be easier logistically in total not needing turbine parts
I think this is a solid direction the biggest advantage a soldier can have in my opinion is the element of surprise or the enemy not knowing where you are i agree the big thing here even if the prototype itself doesn't go into production at all is that engine it should definitely be put into new vehicles making them quieter and far easier to hide, though on one i hand i do think the 30mm cannon is overkill .50 cal while a new weapon could be developed is a in a sweet spot of effectiveness it's decently cheap to make in terms of ammunition and is powerful enough to punch through just about anything minus some hard targets like APCs or IFVs but even then AP rounds can be capable of punching through even some hard targets anti infantry capability is important and the 50 is perfect for that purpose in my opinion as well as keeping as much current infrastructure for ease of transition is important one less thing you need to train maintenance on for logistics. But i am a civilian so feel free to correct me.
Yes and no. 30mm is a little big but at the same time it affords greater versatility. I think we can both agree it's good for short range air defense. Specifically against drones and maybe helicopters. Heck, if it moves quick enough and has good computers behind it, it might even be effective at shooting down certain munitions. With the right ammo. But 30mm is also effective on lighter vehicles like APCs and armored trucks. Rather than waste the ammunition of the main gun, you can use that instead. There's one other benefit that I see and that's urban warfare. In that CROWS, it's highly likely that its firing arc is wide and tall. It can probably therefor engage enemies hiding in the upper floors of buildings. If you recall, after fighting in Chechnya, the Russians developed the Terminator to do just that. I think THIS, however, is a more elegant and cost effective solution.
While all that makes sense and are great point's the exact same thing can be done with the M2 minus perhaps the hard target capability (IFVs APCS ect.) drone while a threat can be taken out by assault rifles as has been demonstrated in Ukraine the only problem for them being it's a regular dude trying to hit a target about 200 meters up or so, an M2 equipped with advanced targeting sensors and computers can easily take care of most things including drones and helicopters, and possibly even munitions but again i am not a professional this is just how i see it.
The 30mm is all about the smart munitions. 50 cal just doesn't have the payload space for it. The programmable air-bursts are nasty as hell and similar smart canon rounds seem to be the next big thing for heavier vehicle firepower. Is it necessary along with a main cannon though? Maybe until an energy weapon is mature enough to do the anti drone work the cannon could do.
@@thebob5240 Don't get me wrong, the .50 is a powerful round and it will do damage, but on the modern battlefield the 30mm will probably have more bang for the buck. As the other poster points out, and I eluded to, you have a lot more space to do stuff. You can put in more explosive. You can make a stronger penetrator. You can also achieve smart munitions, such as the programmable airbursts. I'm also almost positive you have more range and greater velocity, too.
I love all of it, then immediately remember the technology. I'm no bleeding heart "anolog or die", I just know from experience that the more systems you have automated, the harder it dies when one decides it doesn't want to work.
They are now running an early Black Friday Sale. Go to establishedtitles.com/TASKPURPOSE and get an additional 10% off on any purchase with code TASKPURPOSE. Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video!
Could the next video be on the Georgian lazika
Pretty sure I had heard AbramsX was using a cassette automatic loader like that in other NATO spec tanks with automatic loaders.
They are trying to recycle old tech for the Abrams X
I don't see them adopting everything
The improved situation awareness, power pack and 30mm yes
Everything else is very much Iffy
@@verdebusterAP the turret and autoloader are brand new, the controls are dramatically improved vs the TTB, the APS is Trophy based, the UAS is Switchblade 300, I suspect the tracks are not alone but it might have an external in arm suspension system. The ACE is also new with a new transmission. It’s based on ideas of the past but GDLS didn’t go around stripping old prototypes and bolting them on an Abrams hull. Though this hull itself is I think the same one GDLS showed with a conventional diesel about 10 years ago.
@@terranempire2
They already have the Trophy. Like I said, its iffy on the rest
Most "Failed" weapons programs are not actually failures, they can be thought of as Test Beds / Proof of Concept
Even if they don't produce an effective weapon, it's still a good learning experience... albeit a very expensive one.
Thank you for pointing this out. Basically every advanced vehicle and weapon in the US military exists thanks to these "failed" concepts. Most of the time they don't even expect to adopt them. Many people even consider the commanche (the stealth helicopter prototype) one of the most important vehicles developed because of this.
I see the similarities of both the RAH-66 Comanche and the 1960s Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne in Raider X for example.
True. Just because it failed now, doesn't mean it can't be useful later.
I've long felt like DARPA's job is 'grab the biggest dumbest failed idea that would be awesome if it worked... and then make it work'
As a former tanker. The new helmet like the air force have is gonna be the biggest improvement for the crew outstanding
I tried out this system in my service, and it's a game changer as a commander
Works better than you'd expect as well
Urban warfare becomes so much easier
Yep basically War Thunder IRL probably even better and more terrifyingly deadly.
Before you get too excited, the Air Force version runs $400k each.
I don’t see them buying one of these for every Army tanker.
@@coryhoggatt7691 it's not the same as the airforce version, which has a lot of other features, also not needed for every tanker, only the commander
Still it's an investment that I personally think won't happen in the near future
The Israelis are manufacturing this system for thenewest version of Merkava begining this year
It's good to see some of the good FCS tech reach maturity and make it on platform. It was a frustrating experience when testing FCS concepts, doctrine and prototype analogs in simulation back at Fort Knox.
it's not unusual
e.g.
leopard2 used a lot of tech from several prior designs that never entered production
Seems like the ideas of FCS were actually really good, but the technology just wasn’t ready. Now the technology has caught up with the vision and we are able to make it a reality.
It’s still a tech demonstrator, we may still have to wait till 2030 for new production vehicles with the tech.
@@jakelilevjen9766 unfortunately, when vision is a decade or two behind the tech, any money spent developing it is equivalent to burning so much paper.
So, back when my father was working at Boeing, he was on a FCS project. (I have a branded glass mug for FCS) I remember telling him that a Nintendo 3DS had most of the features their control system might need.
This is a consistent theme with military programs. The military puts out a request for a new weapons system that is highly advanced and ahead of its time. The defense industry manages to put together a functional (but not exactly combat ready) system in response. The military takes a look at it, sees that it’s doable, but the technology of the day just isn’t quite good enough to bring the system to combat readiness. They shelve the project only to revisit it a decade later to see that technology has advanced enough that not only can the system be combat ready, but is now much cheaper and easier to produce. It’s basically the military’s way of pushing the envelope one project at a time.
What do they do when it is just not possible and the project is a failure.
@@jp3630 Wait even longer. I'm sure the Space Force is just dreaming of ressurecting the Star Wars program.
@@fnfdmgjfndf Good point.
@@fnfdmgjfndf if they can make a good enough energy production system that’s also small it will be, with SpaceX (even before it actually) it would be easy to make a directed energy intercept system.
@@fnfdmgjfndf it still amazes me how clueless people are about space force with all the Star Wars jokes. They’re a bunch of tech nerds that deal with satellite operations
Since this new tank can communicate with the F-35 and other air assets, that means it can receive targeting data from the air. That ability, coupled with the tank's smart and precision ammunition, will be one heck of an advantage.
And vice versa. The tanks can point out targets to the planes as well.
@@laytonmalmstrom1661 the Abrams already can....with Tracer rounds.
@@SomeJustice19k but wouldn’t that tell the enemy where the tank is?
@@SomeJustice19k nearby enemies will still be able to see where you’re coming from and find you, being able to identify an enemy location while remaining hidden is a huge advantage
Take that you Ruskies!
The hybrid system's fuel savings are pretty useful when you consider the logistics behind keeping a tank operational, that can be seen in Ukraine where otherwise fine tanks are being abandoned due to running out of gas.
Yep, a tank is only useful until it runs out of gas.
And tanks use a shit ton of gas.
Especially the cold war versions.
In a non-military aspect, this is why my next vehicle will be a hybrid. Until there is better saturation of charging stations and the charging times are shortened, having the flexibility of a hybrid is more logical.
And the fact that Ukrainians have been known to engage in prolonged low-intensity skirmish operations in order to force vehicles to keep idling their engines. Especially during Operation Sitting Duck north of Kiyv it was sometimes just some TDF firing a few potshots or launching an NLAW at a range that can be described as 'optimistic' for the express purpose of making sure a large column wouldn't consider themselves to be 'outside of combat' with all the supply use and fatigue that entails.
And whether that's coincidental or planned deliberately with knowledge of Russian 'push logistics', there's no disputing that it worked.
Take your meds. The hybrid system on a tank is good for a 2 mile range.
@@MimesAgainstHunmanity or better yet a plug in hybrid. I have both, wife has a plug in hybrid that gets about 55 miles then just switches over to gas at about 45 mpg. I also just bought a f150 hybrid but it is not a plug in and I wish it was. If I am careful I can get 28 mpg. and if I am not careful I can go from zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds. In a truck that can tow 12,000 lbs. and haul 2,200 lbs. from now on everything I buy will have some type of electric drive
Military R&D is rarely wasted. Even when it doesn't produce a product, it provides technical and scientific knowledge. You hit the nail on the head about the Future Combat System. It wasn't really failed. They came up with a concept they thought would be great, did a lot of research to see if and how it could be done, and then realized that the technology doesn't exist yet, but it will in the future. I will bet you money that there were people whose jobs were to keep on top of novel technologies, keep referencing the old designs, and submit a report when they thought it had become viable.
I definitely agree. Just imagine the wild weapons systems of tomorrow that are sitting on the back burner as we read this message now.
Lockheed/Martin: "Well, I want the F-35 jet project." General Dynamics: 'Sigh.' Fine, crybaby. You can have your nifty little, multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that is the F-35. But we want the new Abrams tank design, as long as you (the U.S. Military) promise to buy more of them. We got stock holders to think about! We won't even change the name!" U.S. Military: "Deal."
Agreed. Love the MIC, love my time in Iraq. Thousands of Americans did not die for nothing in the Middle East, they died for the advancement of weapons! Freedom First!
ruclips.net/video/J8Sa_q-Lz6g/видео.html
@@georgemartin1383 welcome to war, every tech we use today originated as a military research project
Biggest question remaining is survivability. In the first Persian Gulf, Abrams crews reported being hit multiple times by enemy armor units while retaining their combat abilities.
Not many direct Abrams hits overall and those few direct fire impacts from the Republican Guard T-55's, T-62's, T-64's, and even the T-72' during combat ops were firing old Soviet substandard tank ammo. My understanding from discussions with the targeted crews is those substandard rounds were deflected by the M1's armor at the time. I would imagine that current ammunition supplies have been updated to contend with the now old M1 armor. Additionally, much of the combat superiority was the fire control systems of the M1 allowing long-range target engagements out to 2K combined with nighttime thermal imaging systems. Despite the Iraqi tanks in a defensive position, the Abrams had every advantage for a night-time assault, as evidenced by the results and those if us that were there.
I would imagine that they'll use an updated armor system. The M1 Abrams already has a formidable armor system, so I think they'll make some improvements, implement it into the Abrams X, and go from there.
They are definitely working on that and improving upon old armor designs. A ton of time is put into Survivability.
@@bryanjohnson5803doesnt matter, at all actually. It still proved its armor durability.
@@bryanjohnson5803look up Mcmasters(mcmastersen?) Raid. It was a failed recon mission turned into a face to face tank battle, 9 Abrams amd 13 bradley destroyed 70+ armored targets. Whether or not those targets were using new or old ammo doesnt change the outcome.
They should have named the engine the ACME - the Advanced Combat Modular Engine. Both Wile E Coyote and Spare Parts Army approved.
There was a legit ACME device truck driving in my area 🚚. I thought they were Looney Toons fans.
MASSIVE missed oportunity.
THAT'S funny!
🤣🤣🤣
I third the motion. Beep--Beep!
Something to remember: this is currently a proposal by General Dynamics. The army has not yet had any involvement. The specifications shown will probably not be the final specifications if it goes into final design and then service.
However, I think this is potentially a better route for the army than running another high-dollar design competition. A relatively incremental improvement, to an extent, I think would be a better, less risky method of development than “complete revolution” competitions with absolutely cutting edge technology.
While I fully agree with your rationale, I do believe that the occasional ‘rocking of the boat’ as it were in terms of military design might become necessary in some weapons and equipment. The abrams itself was a completely alien concept when it came out because at the time tank design was still trapped in ww2 schools of thought. Still you make good points.
They gonna buy it %1000, miwitawy lob abrmms
@@anthony.3085 it’s only a name plate
Yeah, I think they said they just wanted to throw everything at it and see what peaks the military's interest.
You know what's sad? It has no AA systems to take down drones. 'Sigh' When will we learn? We have idiots designing our trillion-dollar boondoggles, people.
One more great feature was not mentioned. Untill communication is not jammed (which is not easy) tank could be supported by additional remote crew (e.g. overseas). It gives commander more eyes to see, analise situation, quick react to multiple threat, and even drive tank when actual crew sleeps.
Have you ever tried sleeping in a moving tank?
@@shepberryhill4912 I was sleeping in 12 meter boat during the storm on the sea. I read the memoirs of T-34 tanker - after hard work they slept during march deeply (not the driver of course) and that was much less comfortable tanks. Sleep is not a luxury but a necessity.
No.... as a tanker myself..... no one is controlling my tank from the outside while the crew sleeps.
It seems like a potential for utter catastrophe, either by the remote controller malfunctioning, not being able to detect ground-level threats out of sight of long-range sensors, or being a hacking target for enemies.
@@robertcasto8790 You could be in a Soviet era relic and still be a tanker 😂
A silent tank sounds like a nightmare for enemies in night time operations, both on the offensive and defensive side.
As a former 19K, it brings a tear to my eye to see that the Army hasn't given up on our main battle tank! Here's to all the future generations of tankers to come! "Death before dismount"!!!
Tanks still have a role on the battlefield.
You just gotta know how to use them right. Also known as not doing what Russia did in Ukraine.
11b is better loser
Tanks and attack helicopters are obsolete in a modern war. Unless youre staying back shooting from a distance, there's no rolling through streets or flying over towns anymore. Can't believe we're still waisting money on tanks while seeing how useless they've become.
@@Kaiserboo1871 yea cause that was dumb
@@404cheeseburgernotfound5 Why yes, let’s just command these tanks to enter cities completely unprotected. I’m sure nothing bad will happen.
Out of all the advances this tank showcases, I'm most impressed with the GPH improvements. Imagine sending 1000 of these tanks into battle and only needing a mere fraction of the tankers needing to follow for refueling. That alone is formidable and can be the deciding factor in future tank battles.
Ah, I see you're a professional in thinking logistics, as well.
@@h8GW Bro...Oh...it's ALL about the logistics when fighting a war. It's amazing to me how many people believe it's simply a matter of transporting men and equipment to the battlefront and just letting them slug it out. If people only knew what was involved....Oppps I used my other account..sorry.
@@mrtrek64 As a restaurant owner and an avid fan of military history, I cannot tell people enough just how important having a good supply chain is in both the food industry and any kind of war effort.
@@DrBodyshot especially a food supply chain haha
@@DrBodyshot yup , having 100 tanks without fuel and ammo is as useful as 1 tank without fuel and ammo , doesn't matters how excellent the vehicle may be if it can't even start up
I was a 19K M1A1 tanker from 97-03. Many of my first TC's or at least Platoon Sergeants had been M60 tankers. My dad was a Sheridan tanker in the early 70's. I remember every one of them reminding me of how good I had it on the A1. I guess it's another changing of the guard. Pretty good pluses and minuses. Gotta focus on what can come from above more these days than what's in front.
87-91 19K here.
My concern is the the more complex the system, the more opportunities for system failures. Even on the M1IP and M1A1 it wasn't uncommon for a tank to have to shoot Qual in degraded mode due to a crosswind sensor or something else being on the fritz.
Imagine getting sniped over, under, and around cover by a tank 5 miles away. Got to love the human ingenuity and propensity for killing each other.
I’m impressed about the contrast between your playful humility and your well researched and excellent presentation skills. As for the tank, the concepts seem promising though I think coordination among the tank’s capabilities will take time to master.
Not as long as you would think. By the time this goes into production and replaces the old one, the generation which will be using it will have grown up playing with computers, vr, and augment reality programs enough that it will seem like child's play, unless the design is completely counterintuitive.
Looking at developments on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems a bit more certain now that after 40 years of iterating on the products of the late cold war we've finally reached a technological crescendo whose full exploitation requires not just fresh tank designs, but a whole new paradigm of what a tank is, how it operates, and how it fits into the larger force.
In the same time period electronics have progressed so that your phone contains more computing power than a batallion worth of onboard computers of a tank, so a redesign of what we think a tank can do based on that is quite necessary.
I've seen the ballistics computer for the Cheetah SPAAG that's known to be rapid, precise and advanced for it's time, but it's a pretty large box with loads of proprietory connectors that needlessly complicate spares. All of that can probably be fit into a fist-sized computer these days.
Mechs come after this!
Interesting how USA decided to make thee person tank crews instead of 4.....
Like Russias tank crews
@@Bee-tj8gc done for different reasons, USSR/Russia did it because they had a massive tank force, far larger than NATO.
The US is going to it to get everybody out of the turret and down low, with much higher survivability rates.
Soviet doctrine was to replace tanks and crews. US uses much more highly trained crews, replacing the tank is far easier than replacing the crew.
@@cannonfodder6299 i dont think it's that surprising. an autoloader means you do not need a loader while also reducing the space for crew in a tank. add that digitalisation allows less people to do more and you can afford even less people, the rheinmetall panther has the option to be operated by one or two person less due to it's better controls.
and there's also all the benefits of not having 4 people and specifically not having someone in the turret
I was a gunner on an Lt's tank (19k20c) and we pulled our maintenance essentially with a crew of 3 - The LT chipping in when he could but also off doing LT things.. Not as easy as having a full crew but doable. The biggest con to 3 I see is the loss of sleep. Someone always pulls security while the other crew rests.
Perhaps the AI is the 4th crew person, for sentry duty, who doesn't need sleep just power...
Is there a bathroom in those things? Do you just stop the tank and go outside?
"Doing LT things"......sooooo golf!
@@jebes909090 …No there is not. As a driver you learn to defy physics by pissing in a water bottle while in a reclined position. The crew in the turret do the same minus the whole defying physics part bc they are standing or sitting.
@@bryangeist8608 pissing i could see, but having to shit must be a nighmare
I love it! The only thing I worry about is the possibility of the external cameras being damaged by incoming fire, rendering the capabilities of the tank unusable.
They probably have backup viewports to at least be able to see and retreat unlike the armata
The external cameras have backup cameras, there is also the sensor systems, and datalink so it can recieve images from other units, like drones, or other tanks in it's unit.
It should still be able to operate if the power is knocked out of the tank, might not even notice with the size of it's battery, while it also have retractable periscopes if everything else fails.
But the old fashioned periscopes and viewports is more vulnerable to enemy fire then the camera's are, as they made of glass, the camera's are not.
Probably very similar in design to many of the cameras you can find on nodern millitary aircraft, that they use to look over the horizon.
The Abrams X has several back up sites….We won’t be seeing any Abrams X’s on the battlefield, anytime soon.
Reason? it’s really not needed…..USA has been making fun of, and Trolling Russian equipment for decades.
If anyone notices….the Abrams X is designed like a T-14….the only difference is the Abrams X is a real tank, and the T-14 is a Russian lie.
The T-14 doesn’t have…..anything up to date! The T-14 was built by hand In 2014’ And only a handful finished in 2016 nothing has changed on the T-14.
It’s the same tank built in 2014….In short, it’s outdated as hell.
@@damaskusseraph6046 You can always breech sight it lol
Just thinking of the Tesla fires FD have such a hard time putting out. In addition to new safety concerns, one must wonder how much these enormous batteries will increase the price of maintaining combat readiness. (Which could be a small price to pay, but worth considering).
Real time intelligence sharing between platforms and the ability to select the correct weapons system is game changing. Being able to remote operate for really risky objectives is the icing on the cake.
???? Thats what FBCB2 was supposed to do....except that processing power and the speed of wireless communications were not up to snuff....and they still likely are not because even if you speed up CPUs and MBs on data transfer, the limiting factor is the squishy human feeding it info.
Here's hoping the software is securely made and that foreign adversaries cannot hack and take over any of these systems. Some serious consequences can come about if there is any hole in the "cyber armor"
@@moose1442 here's something most civilians dont seem to know, defeating encryption is stupidly difficult. It requires a super computer to attempt and even then, needs a LOT of time to do. So our COMSEC encryption will be fine.
When most people hear about nefarious groups "hacking" computer systems, what they are doing is either taking advantage of a security flaw in the operating system or more commonly, they took advantage of the greatest security flaw in any system; the squishy human users.
Hacking is really just a nefarious person sending out feelers and those squishy meatbags click the link and give away information the nefarious can use to now gain access to the system. That or they datamine your online presence and piece together your personal info to gain access to your online systems.
Thats why you should never participate in Social Media memes where you answer any questions about yourself regardless of how harmless you think the questions are.
@@inorite4553 I work in cyber security, when I referred to other nations hacking into military networks I certainly meant through means of exploiting flaws or people before breaking the military's standard of encryption. No feasible means exists to break that encryption.
Other nation states are already in our nation's networks, even our government's. And while I'm sure a significant amount of effort has gone into securing these modern weapon and vehicle systems, as I'm sure you're aware, it only takes finding that one weak link or even a way to pivot into that network through different one. There are many capable adversaries that I'm sure are already trying to find ways into it that can one day feed false or altered data to our war fighters.
@@moose1442 I will refrain as you appear to be at a higher level of expertise than I.
There was a lot of maintenance that went along with the M1A1. Every time you drove it, you had to grease it, walk track, check the torsion bar, etc etc.
Is there any heavy gear that doesn't require thorough maintenance?
You'd think serviceability and longer service intervals would be something prioritized when creating something as complex as a tank, or a fighter plane or other military equipment. But what seems like reasonable intervals when sitting at the desk in an office often turn out to be less reasonable when it's put into actual service. Also they add up. Greasing the bearings for one of the rollers the track rides on isn't a big thing, but it's not just one. And it's not just the rollers but just about everything that moves will have a service schedule. In the end you will spend a lot more time doing maintenance than what the designers initially aimed for.
But bearings have improved a lot in the last 40 or so years. Just look at ordinary cars. It used to be that almost every car would leave an oil slick where they were parked. You checked the oil level regularly and often had to top it up. This was normal maintenance. Universal joints, ball end fittings and bushings used to all have grease fittings, and today that's more often omitted than not. Greasing all the joints were something you did at least once a year.
Also looking back it was a lot more common to see cars having stopped on the shoulder because they broke down. Today that's a lot less common even though there's a lot more cars on the road. And that's still true after all the complaints about overly complex constructions, electronics and computers in modern cars. As much as we complain about not being able to service them and poor reliability they are still more reliable today than they were 40 years ago, or 30, probably even 20.
So a new tank constructed today should be more reliable and require less maintenance than the old tanks simply by being constructed of better materials and improved engineering. But time and time again I feel the engineers has proved that any improvements in reliability and service intervals made by improved technology can be offset by added complexity.
@@blahorgaslisk7763 As weapons advance and get more expensive you want to make sure they are running smoothly.
Also you want preemptive maintenance done.
Aircraft though are crazy intensive though. You'd think we could design robots or tools that either did it themselves or severely cut the time. I still see videos of guys with just regular garage gear.
The FCS program really wasn't a waste at all, we just didn't have the refined versions of this technology at the time of the program to make it a viable effective option, the research initially put into it was worth it with the development of technology over this past decade or so allowing for these new things to be implemented effectively
Basically they were limited by the technology of there time.
(Yes I know of the iron man 2 reference)
being able to virtually see outside of the vehicle in any direction is a HUGE plus in my opinion. you can catch any movement without needing to be exposed, or it being known that you're actively looking for movement. it also is able to make the tank look like it's in standby, when it really isn't. that paired with being able to stay in auxilary for several hours without the engine on would be massive for defending positions.
I'm not sure I understand the slogan of "they'll never hear us coming" though, unless it has the capability to travel under electricity only as well, it'll either be a really slow moving electric vehicle, or wont be able to travel very far distances on electricity alone.
Very much like this. The improved visibility, silent/diesel drive is really nice. Looks like they're salvaging a good part of the $18b that was lost.
It wasn't lost, just expended a decade in advance.
Similar thing happened with RAH-66 Comanche. All the materials manufacturing technologies (composites a big one) ended up in future Sikorsky products.
AbramsX doesn’t use the carousel autoloader, it has a bustle autoloader, blowout panels on the turret wouldn’t effect an ammunition detonation much, flames would still barbecue the crew (unless they had panels on the bottom of the hull) The blowout panels on the turret are above the autoloader similar to the Japanese Type 90 or Korean K2 Black Panther
Why?
@@gurugo666 the statement made says why ;)
@@Dana-cb7vk Sorry didn't see where the crew is situated thought it was self contained and ammo positioned similarly to today's Abrams with the crew protection it has today. Would seem to be even safer.
@@gurugo666 All good fam. Thats one reason I kept it respectful! Sometimes we miss stuff. (Atleast I know I do! Lol). Its life. ;)
There is a blast door between the crew and the ammunition. The crew would be fine.
That's actually insane because you will be able to see the enemy from all directions with the help of the new helmets that is also being used for the F-35 and the silent engine is the top of the cake amazing review for the tank keep it up👍
I actually tested FCS through the "Land Warrior" rage during the early oughts in Orlando Florida. I was part of the 511th PIR test company and the buzzword at the time was "Network Centric Warfare." We had a lot of fun on that TCS. I won't tell you exactly what my buddies bought with their per diem but we played a lot of games on it for those 3 months. We also tested the LOSAT (Lockheed Martin) and a few other black platforms like CROWS before they shut the unit down due to funding issues because of the war in Iraq. We got shuffled back to 18th Airborne Corp repo and ended up with 51st LRS as part of 525 MI, we deployed to Iraq in 04 shortly after passing our selection and mostly operated out of Mosul (my team at least). The whole story is more complicated but I spent most of my time with an enhanced THT team chasing down sources in Kurdistan and west toward Rabia.
I remember "Network Centric Warfare". I thought I was going to snap and go insane if I heard it one more time.
Thankfully, it seems I wasn't.
....But could it run Crysis? 😉
People don't understand just how network centric things are today. We're using it in ukraine -- they have full access to collected data from US (targets / imagery, not raw data). The system is called palantir (the companies name) and the software is gotham. It's mind blowing. It's able to take real-time intel from EVERYTHING, and it does (even scrapes social media). All social media, etc. They built an app for citizens smart phones to take pics of missiles / jets / troops / etc flying overhead and do an easy classification of it. It takes the meta data and and within a few seconds tasks something to get it. It's why russia is getting blasted hard --- they're playing against the most advanced AI system nobody has seen. The system is insane what it's capable of. It watches build up of enemy troops and suggests action plans for dealing with. Palantir is quite spooky just how advanced that shit is. Skynet is already here.
@@mhamma6560
Lol civilian. An internet scraping bot is not a battle management system or an intel database.
And if you say "imagery, not raw data", you're basically saying there's no acces. Not being able to share the raw data was the exact problem that was always existed. Intel guys have (had?) to manually redo inputs from other systems and from allies pretty much ad nauseam.
And that flag on the map that says "Here be badguys" can mean "A reliable report from 1 day ago" or "A rumour by some farmer whose loyalties I find to be quite suspect, that's two weeks old", there's simply no way to convey the information at the time, and there still isn't because adding descriptors of intel quality would make it unreadable, and if you default-collapse it, nobody's going to read it.
HUH?
Sounds great in theory. I like that quieter and more powerful engines. I know that in the real world, somebody is still going have to manually input the BFT (Blue Force Tracker) overlays. When the Army can figure out how to integrate BFT with CPOF, then this will be much more effetcive
That turret is pretty big too.
With advandces in ballasitic CPUs I am wondering if you could use indirect fire as sort of "Enemy is that way just fire".
@@dianapennepacker6854, "ballasitic"?
@@JanHoellwarth Yup. You know ballistics as in computing the flight of a projectile.
@@dianapennepacker6854, I know, you just wrote (and read it) wrong.
@@JanHoellwarth Ah okay no biggie we all do it.
You know you had me double checking myself for a good minute haha. I'm suffering from liver failure and the toxins in the brain are effecting certain things and spelling is one of them. Some words just don't look right even when they are. In fact I have to reset my spell check because it has words spelt wrong and it's a real pain in my arse. I'd rather be called out so I can fix em. Aquifer is the last one I battled with(aquafer)
Anyway cheers.
Perhaps an underrated, but no less important aspect of the engine's efficiency is the smaller logistical footprint it causes. Needing less fuel means it can travel further without needing resupply, both allowing for missions deeper into enemy territory while also keeping resupply vehicles in safer distances from the front lines.
@Adam Khan But almost never stated
Is it two stroke diesel electric yet?
I missed it and I don't wanna rewind anything today
Yeah...great. Hey, what's that thing in the sky coming at us? o_O Shoot it down! Oh wait. We don't have any AA!
Yeah but the guys in the tank want to feel like they have a snowballs chance in hell of making it alive for another day soooo....more armor please!
They specifically stated they wanted to keep a similar range on a full tank, yet cut the required fuel by something like 40% IIRC.
Bro they're turning the tank into an advanced warthunder sim setup
General Dynamics,
General Electric and
General Motors finally combining like the cards for Exodia
As a tech demonstration, it’s interesting that this almost looks combat ready apart from a few things that might be adjusted. I’m sure that current talks are underway in how to future proof the X and it’s descendants based on Ukrainian combat info. I do wonder if the 30mm can be slaved to the gunner if they don’t wanna use the main gun for light armored targets while the commander is busy watching HoTD season 2.
It could probably be linked to the aps radar for drone and limited aps function.
Your comment reminds me of when eMachines put stickers on their desktop computers back in the 90s that said “This computer will never be obsolete”.
Dude that muzzle break is going to be unbearable! You better not be within 100m of that thing
I feel like everything people keep saying we need these days I find myself saying, we had that back in the FCS days, I'm sure they can build it better really quick now. I like seeing the fruits of that very stressful program show up.
The unmanned turret with autoloader would be far easier to upgrade to 130mm or 140mm than a manned turret that needs enough space for crew along with the larger gun, and with a human loader trying to load the larger and heavier rounds. And MRM, especially MRM-KE would possibly make upgrading the gun unnecessary as shots could be taken by any vehicle able to hit the side of an enemy even if that enemy tank was frtontally invulnerable to our tanks' guns.
I think it's important to keep in mind the Chieftains's Rule: Firing high velocity armor piercing ammo at the enemy is the most important single function of a main battle tank. Doing things like piloting and monitoring a drone can be done much more cheaply and even with greater survivability from a lighter and smaller vehicle, or even a man miles from the battlefield.
If you could integrate the software under the hood for the tank, and then have that same software running in other vehicles, if ever you need a drone - and all you got are tanks, you can use them. Or just eves drop on the feed of other drones piloted by others in real time.
Imagine a google maps or waymo style application, but on the battle field, showing both friend and reported foe, in real time. Drone operators report on what they see. Tanks and Infantry vehicles can respond that - commanders can mark orders on the map, etc.
I don't think the real point of this is to make tanks into drone carriers. But to create a platform that permits interoperability. This has the potential to become a battlefield internet and could be super useful. Logistics wins battles, but information win wars.
You forget that tanks have VERY little vision over all
Even in modern day tank combat, convincing an inexperienced tank commander to stay inside and not peek outside takes effort
Having a drone that can scout within even 500 yards of the tank, gives that tank a MAJOR edge
Letting a tank commander see the entire battlefield, will 100% change any combat situation in favor of that commander
No matter the tank
Knowing where your enemy is before they know where you are, means you win before a fight has even started
And actually no
Firing a high velocity armor piercing round is not the primary function of a tank
There is a reason why the Abrams carries the AMP ammunition
9/10 times, they arnt shooting at another tank
But instead shooting a bunker, a fortified position, or a mg nest
Tank on tank combat is rare, and something like only 15% - 20% of ammo that tanks field is actually APFSDS
@@bornonthebattlefront4883 i certify this comment
Not really. Putting HE downrange is the role that is needed in most battles today.
@@jannuzijannuzicharlescharl3260 Someone doesn't know the main purpose of MBTs.
The 30mm canon on the top makes sense and I always wondered why they didn't opt for it before because it is well suited to shooting infantry
Coaxial and pindle mounted mgs are also very good at dealing with infantry. The purpose of the rc 30mm is most likely because the improved targeting computer allows it to engage drones better.
My grandfather retired as an engineer from benet labs about 10 years ago. Has his name on a patent for a part for the howitzer canon.
A "cannon" patent. Now that's pretty damn impressive. Think of the bragging rights that'd give you when out drinking with the boys.
China controls 80% of the rare earth processing for batteries. We need to change that. American lithium mines need to be the priority.
Wild exaggeration
And micro chips and semi conductors. These systems are gonna have to be considered part of defense spending cause everything runs on them and not a lot of places produce them
Elon musk is trying to change that hard
Along with the academics that accompany with it. So far, there are reports of a shortage of engineers and construction workers. In general now more than ever. We just need to pull away from China more than ever, decreasing the cost as we rely on other countries that aren't sanctioned, lowering prices, hopefully increasing population, and seeing a more motivated population to pursue essential sectors for the military defense complex.
Standard lithium is looking to change that buy stock
Great segment! I joined in the Infantry in 07 an I remember getting exposed to the new virtual training. Using old mock m16’s connected on some cord. 10 or more of us would be in the prone; we laid there looking at horrible pixelated graphic of a scenario we supposed to engage. I hope that system has drastically improved.
If you look at Arma 3, apparently the newer VR training system looks like that but with less vegetation and lower quality reflections/shadows
@@handlesarecringe957 Not really, at least not from 2013-2017. It was still pretty awful.
Nope, good graphics aren’t a concern for the army. Graphics are a concern for civilians as that’s what computer gamers want but the concern for the military is simulated realistic controls over visuals,
I am sure that they are using full HD graphics now. But the new generation of recruits are used to looking at 4k TVs and will have the same complaints. "you can almost see the pixels from here, this is horrible!"
Its still the same. Had to go through about a month ago
M2 browning: is it finnaly happening?
Are they finally going to start planning my retirement?
3:55 the ammo is stored in the bustle behind a blast door with blow out panels. This minimizes ammo explosions blowing up the tank when it's hit.
The carousel only carried the T-72's 'ready' ammo. A lot of ammo (about half the combat load) was carried up in the turret. THAT was what caused the turrets to pop when hit. The ammo down in the carousel is actually well-protected.
@@LeviBulger correct.
From the stuff going on in Ukraine, it's vulnerable to drone drop grenades. People have twisted off the HE 40mm from its shell, did some stuff to reduce arming time, attach it to a DIY shell with a tail. The whole set-up cost $1MM. If they don't destroy the tank, they can still damage the optics and rattle the crew, prompting retreat.
Just an FYI, General Dynamics did not announce that this tank would be replacing the current iteration of the Abrams tank. They very clearly stated that it is a "technology demonstrator" built to showcase technological developments that could be implemented into a future tank.
You can bet your boots that there will be a version in service in the not to distant future even if all the features do not make it in.
which kind of sucks tbh but also it makes sense i guess
@@bighands69 I agree. The Army would never invest so greatly into a tank merely to showcase possible developments in future tanks. There will be indeed a line of these tanks in the not-so-distant future, even if they are a bit different from the original concept tank.
@@bighands69 it probably has to go through a lot more stress testing, improvements and reviews before it makes it into service, this is like a proof of concept more than anything
@@seasonedoilburnerrepair6932the army has had nothing to do with this tank. It is just a tech demonstrator meant to intrigue the army to try and get a contract.
Being able to see through your own tank is so powerful, and the interlinked data will come in clutch too.
Especially given the massive improvements in AI detection of people, it could easily alert operators to hostiles attempting to approach from the flanks and perhaps even those observing from windows attempting to get an elevated top armor shot
The hybrid Engine might also be able to significantly reduce or even mask the thermal signature of the tank - which along with acoustic reductions will make the tank genuinely stealthy at night.
As a tanker from the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that a 4th person is very important. Not only for maintenance but for LP/OP or many other assignments. We could fight in our vehicles in a degraded 3 man scenario without an auto loader. An auto loader just adds another mechanism that can break down. I like the new engine. The heat generated from our engines lifted dust and debri high I to the air allowing the enemy to see our signature and follow is to our next fighting position. Perhaps this new engine will help out.
Dude, I was a scout and the track lifted more dust into the air than the engine exhaust. The Bradley had a diesel engine and had just as bad a dust signature. The gas turbine engine was virtually undetectable until you hear the foot fall of the tracks at about 300 meters, well within the lethal zone of the tank... We were dead before we knew it when there was an alert tank crew at about 800 meters.
I worked on Abrams and Bradleys. Bradleys are just junk. Also they could have had an auto loader on the original Abrams but decided against it due to them not being as fast as a 19 year old and a 19 year old with a strong arm will not jam. I’ve also loaded and gunned an Abrams through lack of tank personnel we had and trying out adding a mechanic as tank crew for every four or five tanks to have a mechanic (not riding around in an 88) ready to do some fast mechanical work when needed. Not sure about going from the turbine engine to a straight up hybrid piston driven Diesel engine (they all use the same dry military diesel gas). The Abrams engine exhaust is a life saver in the winter. Especially after it rained. Wanna know how many infantry/recon units is hiding in the bushes? Turn in an Abrams and see them all come out to get warm behind one and dry out their gear real quick.
@@CaptHowdy-ym8px That was my understanding with why the Abrams didn't have an auto loader and why it was superior to the T-72 etc. 19 year olds don't jam and it is a lot quicker for a person to change out the munitions than the autoloader (think changing type of round while one is already in the tube).
I get it but trust me nobody wants to manually load 130/140mm rounds
@@reddog19d Oh, you Scouts loved when we'd fire up that turbine engine in the winter didn't you? Nice place to get warm.
Makes sense though, the fcs inception was following a massive armored heavy war in 1991, and before insurgency fighting following 9/11. Now that the threat has pretty much returned to that old initial reason, it makes sense to take from the fcs. Most successful projects take from failed or canceled ones. The leo 2 and Abrams both got their starts from the mbt70 that failed
Failed projects are not failure just because it does not deliver an outcome now does not mean in the future in can't
There is an aspect of this that I can understand. I was in college in 2008 and our university took part in DARPAs automated driving contests and while I wasn't on the team, via my cogsci classes we were sort of of an auxiliary opinion piece. Not only was it considered a miserable failure, it led professors and "experts" to make wild and wildly inaccurate claims about the future of AI and machine learning. Yet, only 14 years later we are already in a world that those "experts" could have never imagined. One of the expert speakers from MIT stated (again, in 2008) that it is highly unlikely that we will develop in our lifetime computer learning that could drive autonomously, walk unassisted bipedally, or compete and the highest levels of the game of Go.
So much for that expert advice.
To be fair to those professors, nobody really appreciated at the time that deep neural networks could be as powerful as they are, because they require so many data and CPU-hours to train well, and we just didn't have those kinds of resources.
Well we don’t have ai that can drive autonomously, not in any complicated situations, driving down a highway is easy. As for games AIs, that’s actually existed for decades. Not so much with neural networks, that’s a newer thing, but there were computers in the 90s that could beat top chess players with different kinds of algorithm
@@calvinpell1738 Chess, as complex as it is, is very different than Go. In thinking about Go, I believe a lot of scientists were relying on the Salesman problem as the ruling assumption as to why computers couldn't beat humans. Whereas now, it is unlikely that a human will ever even come close to beating the machine.
Can machines "off-road" safely right now, not yet. However, yes, AI can drive as safely as humans on the road following the rules humans are meant to follow.
It will be merely a few years before that has been replaced by AI being far more capable.
@@Sybaris_Rex As stated, the problem with Go was that we had no idea what constitutes a board position that looks good for white or black, and good minimax algorithms rely on having a good heuristic for speedup. Training a neural network on millions of self-play games gave us that heuristic.
How much ''Merika'' do you want on your tank sir: US Government: Yes
Never too much
Autonomous lethal freedom
I think the new tank design is great, but I couldn't help but notice there were no new implements to help the tank get unstuck. Besides the lighter weight inevitably helping.
Trust me, they 10000% implemented something to help the tank get unstuck, they would not leave something like that out.
@@Vune_GG I know they have systems to do such already, but I know it's a cumbersome process. I think having less hands to help could make it more challenging.
The R&D can do all the exploring they want too ,, the fact is any Vehicle wheeled or tracked at any weight is going to get stuck going over terrain ,, most of the time it comes down to Crew Experience as to how serious the vehicle gets stuck !!!!!!!! ...
@@the-witness8811 this is also very true ..
@@Vune_GG I think you give the military too much credit lmao.
Cappy, you should check out the new anti drone swarm system from Rheinmetal
Its pretty neat seems to use a range finder and airburst munitions (doesn't take much to knock a drone out of the sky afterall)
Though whilst in the video every round detonated; there's always that fear of some not exploding and potentially hurting someone years later
Skyranger 30 & 35, and Oerlikon Ahead FTW!
A lot of munitions these days have auto destructs along with their normal fuses. Nothings perfects but it certainly helps
In the demonstration video, it looked like an excellent weapon. It seems like it would be a good idea to a vehicle into Ukraine for "real world" testing.
@@milton42083 If only.
Rather the risk of unexploded ordnance left on the battlefield, than letting in an entire drone swarm - you stop it, because it is aimed at friendly troops and/or equipment. As long as we're using conventional explosives, there WILL be UO left after a war, no way to get 100% around it without switching to railguns, laserweapons, or other future tech.
You just do such an amazing job with these videos. Pack with Rich content, well organize, it flows, there's humor, you're just killing it consistently!
No, he's anti-russian, and his propaganda gets on my nerves. He must get $$$ from the ukr beggars.
Cyka blyat, mouzhik.
I was a former Tanker and stationed in a FCS unit, I'm glad to see that my time wasn't wasted. We all thought everything we were testing was junk and never going to work...I am now wondering about some of the gadgets I played with and if they work now.
@@The_ZeroLine we had some sensors that were cool on paper but just didnt work in the field. radios that were too freakin heavy. early variation of a drone we called it a flying trashcan because thats where it belonged
@@The_ZeroLine there was other stuff
I was trained on the Carl Gustaf a decade ago that had very similar rounds as this new tank. Was also trained on the CROWS. Seems like they put the two together. Smart!
FCS was always ahead of its time but it was a necessary process to push the development of these combat systems. The equipment we use now is so far more advance than when I initially got in.
I wonder if it would be feasible to add that fourth crewman back as a drone operator that pilots something akin to a mule for screening, scouting, spotting and things like that. I see it working in a fashion similar to the terminator from the previous video.
where have i heard that...OH YEAH NEW GERMAN PANTHER TANK KF51
I saw a video about future combat concepts.
A 4 tank platoon was augmented by a Stryker like vehicle operating several tracked drones.
One had rack of Javelins, one Anti Air capability and one or two antiarmor and personel.
My thoughts exactly add a fourth crew for ucavs and drones. That would offer huge information and data benefits that would be immediate and no need to go through other chains to gain that information. It would be a literal game changer.
From what I’ve heard, there is an option for a 4th man in the turret to act as a gunner in case the remote systems get disabled. So if they expand that position to be a permanent placement, then they will have a spare crew slot in the hull for this purpose.
more roles are added like electronic warfare and drones to planes and tanks, information input&output increases, but crew size gets smaller. i dont like the contradiction.
f35 plane has 1 man and this tank has possibly just 3 guys. same in upcoming german Panther KF51.
i wonder if the crew amount design is really based on the optimal function of the machine, or because future armies personnel is going to be smaller because of lower birthrate, people getting more fat, etc.
Chris: Don’t sell the Cummins/Achates OP Diesel short. It’s awesome! I don’t know about the “advanced combat transmission” but I suspect it trades peak power and top end for a few seconds in the quarter mile. (Probably OK)
Despite being a "failure" it's exciting to see so much of the doctrine and interconnectivity of the future warrior program manifesting. The information provided by the helmet, and automatic GPS population, will no doubt go hand in hand with with the sensor suites of the F-22, F-35 and soon to come B-21.
This goes beyond the expected performance improvements for main battle tanks. I think its fair to expect that, with the detailed on ground information provided by the X, the precision and lethality of close air support or strikes will also see a huge improvement
I like the design a lot. I think it has a lot of potential or, at least, ideas that can be incorporated into future Abrams tanks. Or whole new tanks. The 30mm autocannon mounted in a CROWS is probably a good idea for anti-drone and urban defense, especially if it has a high firing arc.
It’s interesting, Western tanks originally included a pintle mounted machine gun for AA defense. Those guns were retained because they offered a tank crew tactical flexibility in dealing with infantry or lightly armored forces. Now it looks like those guns might prove useful as AA again to deal with drones
We also have a fear of Russia so we need the firepower asap
@@ravengrey6874 Indeed. It's almost like going full circle, though the 30mm still potentially offers that tactical flexibility and more.
@@Mahbu I would reckon that it's capable of Anti-Missle operations as well. I can't see it being impossible that they didn't add some kind of missile detection system that can be turned on or off.
It could be a negative as I've heard of plenty of times those anti missile systems have shot at friendlies.
Seems like it's going to have a high arc, look at the space below the gun. I bet it has a not a maneuver room.
Awesome sponsor today. Saw that on Kings and Generals. Awesome tank. But for some reason, it seems like way too many thing that could break down out in the field and could jeopardize the whole mission. Looks like you'd need an advanced degree just to fix it.
I love how technology is catching up with all these 80s concepts. It’s kick ass
Oh man, hearing Future Combat Systems brings me back. My Dad worked FCS and I remember hearing him explain “System of Systems” and thinking it was an incredibly dumb name for it. Definitely recall hearing about all the concepts of the interconnected warfighter and thinking it was really cool… then hearing a ton about how none of the technology was mature enough and the program was a grossly mismanaged money pit. lol
Also there’s a little hidden Easter Egg at 10:14 in the video. Notice the Switchblade 600 hanging out by the AbramsX.
I wonder what's that vehicle behind him. Multiple Switchblade launching platform with 28 tubes? Those things have a range of 40 km - could easily engage a whole division of enemy armor while the Abrams crew chill.
No disrespect,but all I could think of while reading ur comment was...so dad worked on at the time,top tech/top secret military equipment, but I guess made it the dinner time table "talk"everyday? .well not to spotlight jus that,I'm sure a lot of employees did it,after all it's why other countries (china) have a lot of our tech today I guess one positive thing about these ,wonna be companies spending our money was that the secrets that got out ,were about failed shit. Lol
@@MICHAELHOWARD9729 a lot of those programs overall concepts weren’t/aren’t classified, specific technology and specifications are, but the design philosophies aren’t
@@izoi24 ,I don't think ur reply to me is enuff,,but I'm not here to argue, but rather I'll say,,,should it of not been talked about only if it was/is labeled "classified?🤔🤔
@@MICHAELHOWARD9729 I used to date a woman engineer who worked on future combat systems they literally had mini dvd's with crazy high tech movies that were effectively advertisements. I have two of them in the desk I am sitting at right now. I think it's pretty safe to say there was a lot of information about FCS that was not classified. You obviously never held a security clearance because there's a ton of info you can talk about even on a classified project. The US Navy gives tours to foreign civilians in many ports and they discuss nearly every system on the ship in general details that include a lot of information about capabilities.
I see you didn't talk about how if something goes wrong with the autoloader the crew can climb inside and manually fire and use secondary optics, just like a regular tank setup. And it was specifically stated that it would not use a carousel ammo system as they have seen the drawbacks to them. The ammo is still located in the back of the turret shut behind a firebox just like the legaxy abrams
Happy to hear this, I was worried when he said they were still going forward with it
What was the problem with the carousel systems? Ive always wondered by they were not used
@@BrokeWrench Ithought it's because it jammed, or it might've been because if the tank cooks off, the turret piece gets yeeted into the stratosphere also the crew get cooked as well.
@@BrokeWrench the crew is basically sitting directly on top of potential explosives and a well placed shot in between the turret and the main body will ignite that ammo whereas in the legacy Abrams design the ammo if ignited gets blown through the roof sparing the crew.
For the tank gurus out there: would a recoil systems like the ones on the Cold War era XM204 Soft Recoil/"Fire Out of Battery" and Mandamus Hawkeye systems be good alternatives as well?
ABrams X is more of a tech demonstrator than a full Abrams replacement, more likely tech from this tank will be used in the more advanced Abrams upgrades, such as the new engine and cannon.
Awesome, and most future development programs are 10-20 years ahead of their time, so sound about right. The only problem is the Abrams, as it’s still one of the best tanks in the world, but nice to have a backup in case all hell breaks loose!
Over reliance on older hardware can leave one unprepared for the future, I'm not saying the Abrams is bad, but that not preparing for the future could leave the US at a distinct disadvantage.
Totally agree, and the army is currently playing catch-up due to bad project management over the last 20 years. They had too many development programs get canceled due to requirements overreach. Now they are being more realistic about requirements and as a result a number of new programs are in progress, including JLTV (Humvee replacement) - AMPV (M113 replacement) - MPF (Light Tank) - and OMFV (Bradley Replacement). They are planning on reopening the Abrams’ replacement program in 2023. Hopefully a proven, low cost (relatively) design like the Abrams X will be the right tank at the right time, and hopefully they will have the money to buy it, as they also need to fund the Future Verticle Lift program.
I like the concept that the Abrams X is bringing. Only thing I'm concerned about is the carousel ammo storage, but like you pointed out and from what general dynamics sees is that they have a solution for if the ammo cooks off. Biggest thing that I hope of this tank is that if it does get approved into service, the auto loading system is reliable, but really the only way to improve on the vehicle is to field test it. None the less the Abrams will be my favorite tank no matter what
It just so happens there’s a entire war going on where we are currently field testing some equipment. They get some experimental tech and vehicles and we get data to see what can be fixed and changed. May need to add scuttle charges.
My concern is the lowered turret armor. Sure: losing the turret will have a far less punishing consequence for the crew (seeing that we have no crew in the Abrams X) BUT we're still losing our primary and secondary weapons.
Also: the autoloader isn't a huge concern for me personally... as long as you have properly designed blow out panels/systems you're probably fine... as long as you don't mind maintaining it plus all the other systems with just a 3 man crew.
I think the biggest improvement is the APS, reduced fuel consumption and the 30mm autocannon.
So the yanks ended up copying the Russians. 😎
I thought the ammo was kept in the traditional bussle mount on the back like the Abrams, but now with a more complex auto loader than the Russians have for there to be blow-out panels on the back of the turret. I could be wrong but that’s what I understood from this
I've been working on designing an AFV concept and it's kind of wild coming up with my own conclusions/ideas, looking them up, and finding some engineer had the exact same thought process as me, sometimes decades ago and sometimes very recently.
My last active unit was 1-66 AR. (Oldest Armer Battalion on the planet). I’m sure they would be excited to get a new toy. However, the fact that the M1A2 has a soldier as a loader allow a well trained crew to fire the main gun faster than any auto loader could dream to fire.
7 seconds or less all day everyday.
And the loader does not jam from dirt.
Your statement is not correct. A (very well trained) human loader can get the first 2-3 rounds off in under 4 seconds each. (Unless they are lap-loading which is really dumb. And even if they were, fatigue rapidly slows their time).
The autoloader in AbramsX is designed to fire every 4 seconds until all the ammo is expended.
If it actually works as advertised it will be pretty awesome. That said, the amount of programming this thing is going to be running on is gonna need a lot of patching along the way.
This seems like a huge improvement, but it really needs a phased plasma rife in a 40 watt range.
I get the Terminator reference. Although 40 watt range reminds me of the microwave guns, they use to jam drones.
This is the most advanced and expensive gaming set up in the world!
Even if much of the aspects of this concept end up not getting adopted, it's all worth it for that new engine and power system alone. That thing is going to be an absolute game changer for Armored Vehicles, even if every other piece stays the same. Simply reducing the size of the logistics train thanks to better fuel efficiency will be much needed stress relief for armored operations.
My first thought! Logistical improvements!
I saw an interview where one of the guys from general dynamics was really emphasizing that this is a tech demonstrator. Basically general dynamics is saying here is what we can do and the army can pick and choose systems they like.
Not sure how I feel about the unmanned turret, I think that’s a weird choice. The auto loader though I think is cool, I think that tech is finally reaching the point where it can match human loaders.
If they go unmanned turret, they should probably just go full Merkava, slap the engine in the front, and move the crew to the back.
I think this was pretty underwhelming. I expected at least an ETC gun.
The unmanned turret is a good choice, since the tank is supposed to be optionally manned anyway.
The tech outmatched human loaders 60 years ago, it just wasn't used everywhere due to it not being trusted by some countries' armies. The Russians, French, South Koreans and Japanese have been using them for decades.
I think most of the bad rep they get is because of the carousel style autoloaders that the Russians use because their tanks are too small to fit safer systems, so everyone gets the impression that autoloader instantly means tank go boom really easily. In reality western style MBTs with autoloaders don't use such systems and are just as safe as tanks with human loaders (except the Abrams which stores all its ammo behind blast doors but that's nothing to do with the autoloader, Leo 2 doesn't have an autoloader either but still doesn't have that level of cookoff protection)
@@FNLNFNLN now there an idea 💡 I can actually see an argument for that
Given the fact that Russia is losing its most advanced tanks, having their turrets fly off, sometimes hundreds of feet into the air, because of the way autoloaders are unable to actually isolate the munitions from the rest of the vehicle, we have plenty of real evidence that anything other than a manned turret is a terrible idea in a main battle tank. The concept does need to die, once and for all.
Never mind quiet, I'll take the extended range for the win! I will also say that the "glass canopy" is very nifty, but I'm used to the situational awareness of the tank commander sticking their head out of the turret; so that's going to take some convincing. On the flip side, I always thought FCS got shafted a bit, though I was more familiar with the infantry programs. Still glad to see some of the tech finally seeing the light of day. Hope it all works out!
Also, are you really sure you wouldn't be better off with that microchip ;D
And yes, I'd pay good tax dollars to see the ED-209 marching down some enemy road!
Sorry, not likely to have any extended range. Yes, the diesel-electric will use half the fuel, but what do you think used to sit on either side of the driver, that has now been removed for the gunner and commander?
Working with those integrated systems before getting out in '01. Watching the progression over two decades of bureaucracy. Love this breakdown, good job. Veteran or just someone who studies better than most grunts?
This looks great. I hope it's not all hype. The idea of having a tank with this much capability and situational awareness is really exciting.
Its the same "show" tank like the new German Panther.
@@michaeld.uchiha9084 BS…we’ve already seen the Army in trials with it. It won’t come online for a couple more years, but it’s the real deal.
The failed MBT-70 program lead to the Abrams and Leopard 2. See some influence here as well with the 30mm canon. I'd also be interested if US and Japan and/or Korean joint operations had any influence on deciding to switch to an autoloader.
50 percent less fuel consumption should be less on the optics of placating tree huggers and more on how this really helps with logistics and supply.
True, though I would not be surprised that some of that military RnD in hybrid engines might trickle into civilian markets.
A neat trick about the turret. The turret can be controled by conventional means because the design from what i know has enough space for a gunner and commander postion within the turret.
Yeah, that was what i was hoping. Say an electrinic failure happens, you can still foght
One thing to note about fuel savings is logistics. Yes, better torque which is a huge benefit, but it also can then take less from each fuel truck for every mile travelled, which means there are less fuel trucks needed to keep up with the vehicles. If Ukraine has shown one thing, it's the importants of a well maintained logistics system.
Agreed. A tank is pretty useless if it has to drag a (figurative) fuel hose with it everywhere it goes.
That has always been the case. As Patton said: “My men can eat their belts, but my tanks have gotta have gas.”
100% the future and impressive tech. Will be interesting to see the how the reduced manpower requirement effects battle effectiveness. Having an organic top cover is essential when dealing with troops on the ground in and around your position. Also, with all the requirement on sensors and tech, one well placed round to an array or sighting system would negate a lot of capability. Im sure theyve thought of this already, would be interesting to know what solutions they come up with. Great video and very impressive direction the new MBT's are going.
If you look, though, there are two identical sensor pods on top, so there is some redundancy there. And if you lose that stuff, well, you're back to how tanks operated before sensors.
I have one major concern with this tank, by giving it a wireless network you've opened it up to be hacked; my main concern is in the middle of battle the enemy might take control of your assets remotely
Jamming is a concern, hacking is not, encryption is a thing and unencrypting the thing will be impractical, also hacking means hijacking the connection...how can you do that on military hardware?
@@chaosagent_0106 that's what encryption breakers are for, everyone had them in WW2 and we still have them today in the ongoing world wide cyber war; if your enemy has such advanced and useful hardware why wouldn't you try to hijack one, if you can break the encryption then you can freely connect to the tank just like the squad who is remotely controlling it.
Just like figuring out your neighbors Wi-Fi password, or when teenage hackers broke into NASA computers and took control of the mouse cursor to access files via screen sharing.
Government encryption isn't always as secure as you might think and encryption/decryption is a constant arms race.
@@nerdlingeeksly5192 encryption that requires smart individuals that focuses their effort on one part, a tank, in an army... that's impractical, and encryption in WW2 was all about intelligence, getting important information that tells future enemy actions and status, much more important than hijacking a tank. And hijacking a tank, which has remote control and is fucking millions of dollars worth, you think some kid in a laptop can fucking decrypt, hijack and use the thing? It's the US military, dude. This isn't so simple as getting the WIFI password or getting in the NASA computers..when those computers aren't even military. This is like asking "Is this EMP proof? All those electronics will be vulnerable!" When you're not even asking how is it possible, is it practical and and not asking if there's countermeasures placed in.
@@chaosagent_0106 "you think some kid in a laptop can fucking decrypt, hijack and use the thing?"
No I don't, I think the many hacking and computer experts the Russian government employs can; it might be hard and ya they might actually get no where with it (just like there is a good chance any hacker might get nowhere when trying the breech someone's security measures), but the potential reward is well worth at least an attempt.
You honestly think Russia or china or any foreign power the US faces wouldn't want to try to hack this tank to either use it against the US or to drive it well behinds their lines to reverse engineer it?
Yeah the US is the leading world military power but that doesn't mean all other militaries don't have good hackers or soldiers, expecting the US military to be impervious and to just steam roll every enemy it faces is naive.
I often heard people calling T14's ideas bad, the tank obsolete, etc., but when americans did the same thing years later it is suddenly groundbreaking? And the carousel problem isn't solved at all. The blow-out pannels make the turret stay in place, but the inside of the tank is still totally annihilated. If they are making the turret so long anyways, i think a much better solution would be a french-style autoloader. Idk if it is bias, lack of logic, or there is something i don't know, but it just drives me crazy.
Its just obvious bias, russia bad america good etc.
France's Leclerc has an auto loader, and a three man crew, and from what I've read it's performed well in the middle east, better than the Leopard 2. I like that 30mm gun on the turret, definitely a cheaper way to take out UAV's.
And helicopters.
I do wonder why they don't bolt a couple of Stingers and TOWs/Javelins on the side. Always good to have more options.
@@myne00 yes, always good to have options. The new German tank has pop up loitering munitions.
@@druid84115 And the 2A7A1 has APS that renders top attack weapons basically useless
As someone who has been involved with safety systems in aviation and nuclear energy, I wonder when I watch videos with such technological advances, what are the redundant systems in place to operate in legacy mode, if the battlefield conditions warrant it? Just as I am interested in seeing the advanced technologies, I am also curious in the mechanical redundancies that allow operations after complete technology failure.
I agree.
Apparently in this case it would be a fuckton of traditional periscopes, ability to still access the autoloader to unjam it, and basically a way to continue running to get out of dodge
Having something that uses half the fuel is actually extremely useful ( not for aggeasing tree huggers ) it's increases the vehicle range of combat making it capable of fighting longer
@@Lucas12v Well you'd be reducing the fuel logistics requirement for the same range so it's still an improvement in that regard.
The military has been looking at fuel consumption for some time now and they understand energy independence more than most people think. I remember they were looking into bio-fuel for the Air Force years ago. As for the Abrams X I look at it as more of a test bed platform and the maker said there will be things the Army likes and other things the Army will not like. But it looks like they are trying to incorporate as much of what they learned previously into the new platform as they can from what they learned in the past. It is now that technology, both physical and software, has caught up with the big dream they had back then.
As a former (and lowly) Air-Cav guy I've always been confused why we haven't developed a smaller, front-line tank with a smooth bore launched missile system (think Hellfire or equivalent) that was your primary weapon against other heavy armor / airborne threats, and a CTA 40mm style top-turret weapon that engaged the medium armor / mobile targets. With GPS guided artillery not sure why you need a 60T behemoth out there that provides less capability than a 155mm shell?
Its cool, and absolutely terrifying to be honest, i like a lot of the concepts, iffy about some and not liking others
Like others have said, the engine is the most important thing here, quieter and more powerful while saving more fuel, absolute game changer, i can not tell you how often we have to fuel the abrams its ridiculous honestly, the unmanned cannon is a cool concept but theyre keeping the same millimeter cannon as before, while also still changing to autoloader, thats...weird, to me.
the whole reason we havent changed to autoloaders yet is because humans can load a round faster than autoloaders, russian autoloaders take about 7 seconds to load a round, in basic training 7 seconds is the absolute max amount of time we should take to load a round, but on average its about 4-5 seconds for a human loader, so i can only assume these new autoloaders are as fast or faster.
The 3 crew members, i dont like it, not in the slightest, you mentioned there would be less maintenance, i absolutely doubt that 100%, we'd still have daily maintenance and from what ive seen it doesnt look like it would be any easier even with the lighter build, infact im sure it'll become more difficult with all the automatic parts, not to mention that 30mm cannon is gonna provide even more work, unless theres a way to temporarily remove it kinda like the bradleys and their barrels.
The 30mm itself is an absolute win to me, its bigger, more deadly, far more tactical maneuverability, its a beast in and of itself. Some people are complaining its overkill, please realize that this thing will rarely be used on troops, not because we dont want to, because oh how fun that would be, but because i doubt the amount of 30mm ammo we'll carry will be huge, for troops we'll use the co-ax, which i can only assume will be the 240., which we can carry a shit load of. not to mention the added safety of giving us (slightly) more protection against aircraft, the 120 can take one down, if we can hit it, but the 30 mm will give us a little bit of a bigger margin of error when it comes to aiming.
the way they have the crew sitting is super interesting to me, all 3 of us sitting next to each other provides all kinds of benefits and downsides, on the one hand we're closer, theres more comradery, no longer will the driver be the loner of the tank and feel left out, im sure it would actually prove to be safer against chemical attacks, communication will be easier even if theres something wrong with the headsets, what one sees is what we all see, and with everyone together itll provide far more importance to add an extremely thick layer of armor to the front of the tank, this is not even mentioning how easier itll be to train everyone, the gunner and tank commander will provide far more easier to understand instructions to the driver, the driver will be able to actively see what the gunner and TC are doing preparing them down the line to take over their spots.
On the otherhand, one lucky shot could take out the entire crew at once, with everyone together so closely i can only imagine how far more cramped it would be, how tighter the space would feel. the absolute stench of odor that will come off of everyone so closely together.
but overall i'd say it would be a welcome addition and upgrade to the previous abrams.
The abrams x is scary, and im glad for that, however its still in the prototype phase, many of these concepts may be changed, scrapped, or kept, nothing is for certain right now, but overall id be happy to see it come to fruition and into the field.
I could see how the new engine would make it easier to export the new Abrams as it would shrink the logistics train. From what I understand this is one of the hurdles that's keeping the current Abrams out of UKR
Weight, logistics and training are what keeps any western tank system out of Ukraine. Ukraines infrastructure, especially bridges were built for tanks used by the soviet armies, so 60-70 ton beats like the Abrams or Leo 2 often wouldn't be able to pass those.
Looks def. nice, but I like Rheinmetalls KF51 Panther a bit better when it comes to the overall program (of what we know so far) and also the idea of a crewless tank turret of the KF51 options seems to be an essential point.
KF51 is also a completley new Platform. The AbramsX is pretty much an Abrams with a bunch of new Tech. The Panther is completley new besides tracks and gearbox (Leopard 2 stuff that works well apperantly)
@@SlugsnetGames If I'm not mistaken, the KF-51 currently uses the Leo 2 chassis. Rheimetall has indicated that if the design attracts serious interest, they will likely design a new chassis. No mention of a hybrid engine yet, however this requirement might emerge eventually.
@@wmtford4043 correct. As far as im aware they mentioned that the only Thing that is taken from Leo 2 is engine, gearbox and Tracks. The Chassis itself is already new. I assume they will try something new with the engine considering its modular Design structure, the hull is already completley new aswell. I feel like the AbramsX is a bit weaker considering that hull and Chassis are completley copied and i feel like Abrams is more of a "quick Response" then anything serious really. And they have interest from some countries already. They didnt mentioned which countries.
@@SlugsnetGames AbramsX has more new stuff than the Panther. The hull in AbramsX, road arms and wheels, and most of the torsion bars are the only real carryover. (2 sets of torsion bars are replaced with hydro pneumatic suspension units to buy more room for the crew compartment).
Practically, everything else is new and different.
Giving the soldiers a 360 degree angel of view seems like a great idea especially since they won’t have to stick their head out or look through a tiny strip of armored glass anymore
It will be interesting to see how they tackle the issue of camouflage. Having all those cameras will present problems if they are covered in scrim or foliage. The cameras on the F35 do not have this problem.
If I'm developing a assault vehicle system I'm going to make one chassis that can adapt to multiple configurations.
One drivetrain with interchangeable uppers. Tank, troop carrier, rocket launcher, anti aircraft. Tires or tracks. Make everything interchangeable. Upgrade computer system, a direct plug in. Guns and armament, boostable add on armor.
It's doable, but there's more money in being specialized.
0:30 These guys are pure scammers. They can't legally sell the land, and they don't give you any. Neither is land enough to become a lord. They also outsource the tree-planting they promise to another company. Stop promoting them.
R&D is not wasted. Technology becomes practical when SUPPORTING tech becomes practical. It's rare for solo technologies to thrive in isolation. Not that the procurement process isn't terribly managed or the Army frequently confused and subject to internal factionalism, but all the desirable features requested for FCS were seen as desirable globally because they're force effectiveness multipliers if they succeed.
Maybe check out the Rheinmetall KF51 Panther in comparison soon… btw. Kongsberg RS6/RWS is the name of the whole auto cannon turret. The chaingun itself is an M230LF afaik. The AH-64 Apache Helicopter also uses an M230.
I see two major issues going down the road, if adopted:
1) Firepower. Having been on both Bradleys and tanks, I can tell you that not directly manning the chain gun is going to be an issue. From training events early on as gunnery, to LFXs, and downrange. You'd have to leave your respective crew stations to even troubleshoot the issues.
2) The engine. More electrical components might mean you'd have to overhaul your parts logistics. Possibly opening up the door to more fabrication options, since existing parts logistics with GCSS-A is as optimal as it can get, with its frustrations and all. Definitely looking at way higher dollar numbers than would just concern the tank itself.
Missed out on the other big problem, that batteries don't work as well in the cold. When it's cold having a heating unit on for electric systems to work right. That's a whole other can of worms.
electric motors require alot less maintenance then turbine engines and the construction is alot simpler diesel is also better for this aplication as it is more widly available and alot more efficient. So the engine will not only work more silent its also alot easier to train crews to work on them it'll require less maintenence and it'll start up easier with high low end torque. So cheaper more efficient, less maintenance, less noise, alot of low and torque and self starting electric engines, hybrid diesel really is the best engine choice. The real mistake was using a turbine engine on the original abrams tanks.
@@MrVenturadog Different chemistry batteries handle cold better, e.g. LFP vs NMC/NMCA. Less energy dense, but should be ok on a tank. Make it modular, and in 10 years, switch to solid state batteries.
This engine may be the ACE Cummins/Achates opposed piston design. It's a rare configuration, so no reliability history. But it has many fewer moving parts than a traditional ICE motor, having no heads with valves, so in theory, should be high reliability. As far as electrical, it can be done reliably, see the massive off-road dumpers. But may be easier logistically in total not needing turbine parts
@@MrVenturadog Wouldn't more heat ruin the material inside it as well in hot climates?
I think this is a solid direction the biggest advantage a soldier can have in my opinion is the element of surprise or the enemy not knowing where you are i agree the big thing here even if the prototype itself doesn't go into production at all is that engine it should definitely be put into new vehicles making them quieter and far easier to hide, though on one i hand i do think the 30mm cannon is overkill .50 cal while a new weapon could be developed is a in a sweet spot of effectiveness it's decently cheap to make in terms of ammunition and is powerful enough to punch through just about anything minus some hard targets like APCs or IFVs but even then AP rounds can be capable of punching through even some hard targets anti infantry capability is important and the 50 is perfect for that purpose in my opinion as well as keeping as much current infrastructure for ease of transition is important one less thing you need to train maintenance on for logistics. But i am a civilian so feel free to correct me.
Yes and no. 30mm is a little big but at the same time it affords greater versatility. I think we can both agree it's good for short range air defense. Specifically against drones and maybe helicopters. Heck, if it moves quick enough and has good computers behind it, it might even be effective at shooting down certain munitions. With the right ammo.
But 30mm is also effective on lighter vehicles like APCs and armored trucks. Rather than waste the ammunition of the main gun, you can use that instead.
There's one other benefit that I see and that's urban warfare. In that CROWS, it's highly likely that its firing arc is wide and tall. It can probably therefor engage enemies hiding in the upper floors of buildings. If you recall, after fighting in Chechnya, the Russians developed the Terminator to do just that. I think THIS, however, is a more elegant and cost effective solution.
While all that makes sense and are great point's the exact same thing can be done with the M2 minus perhaps the hard target capability (IFVs APCS ect.) drone while a threat can be taken out by assault rifles as has been demonstrated in Ukraine the only problem for them being it's a regular dude trying to hit a target about 200 meters up or so, an M2 equipped with advanced targeting sensors and computers can easily take care of most things including drones and helicopters, and possibly even munitions but again i am not a professional this is just how i see it.
The 30mm is all about the smart munitions. 50 cal just doesn't have the payload space for it. The programmable air-bursts are nasty as hell and similar smart canon rounds seem to be the next big thing for heavier vehicle firepower. Is it necessary along with a main cannon though? Maybe until an energy weapon is mature enough to do the anti drone work the cannon could do.
@@njuarin15 Agreed
@@thebob5240 Don't get me wrong, the .50 is a powerful round and it will do damage, but on the modern battlefield the 30mm will probably have more bang for the buck.
As the other poster points out, and I eluded to, you have a lot more space to do stuff. You can put in more explosive. You can make a stronger penetrator. You can also achieve smart munitions, such as the programmable airbursts.
I'm also almost positive you have more range and greater velocity, too.
The future will be tiny go karts with tons of rockets
I love all of it, then immediately remember the technology. I'm no bleeding heart "anolog or die", I just know from experience that the more systems you have automated, the harder it dies when one decides it doesn't want to work.