NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link

GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store
Armor Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

The M-1E3 Of Legend

September 29, 2009: After two years of talking, and arguing, about it, the U.S. Army has decided that a major upgrade of the M-1 tank would probably not happen, because this would require some major (and expensive) changes. The money is not there now, and probably not going to be there for 5-10 years, if ever. The army wanted to get the weight (now 62 tons) under 60 tons. This would require something major, like a new turret. This seemed possible because it's been noted that the new French Leclerc tank has a 19 ton turret that offers about the same protection as the current 24 ton M-1A2 turret.

The impressive performance of the U.S. M-1 tank in Iraq prompted the U.S. Army to scrap plans to retire the M-1, and replace it with a radical new FCS (Future Combat System) design. None of the proposed FCS designs showed much potential, especially compared to how well the M-1 was doing. Recently the FCS program was abolished,  because it was too expensive, and didn't appear to be going anywhere.

So now there's an M1A3 (or M1E3) version of the M1 in the works. This effort has been under study for over two years. It proposes making the 62 ton M-1A2 a few tons lighter, perhaps installing an autoloader, using new fiber optic wiring, and new (and lighter) armor. A new engine and running gear could also save weight. The M-1E3 might get down to 55 tons, or less.

But the most important changes would be the new computers, communication, sensors and navigation gear intended for the unrealized FCS tank. The FCS vehicle was to use new heavy weapons, that fire guided projectiles to a range of 12 kilometers. These can also be mounted in the M-1E3.

The M-1E3 proposals mean that no new tanks built, just upgrades of existing ones. Nearly 9,000 M-1s were manufactured during the 1980s and 90s. The U.S. Army and Marines only use about 1,600 now, with foreign operators accounting for another 1,500. So there are plenty of older M-1s in storage, ready for upgrading. The M-1E3, or existing M-1A2s,  could remain in service for another forty years or more.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article FORCES: China Versus India


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
doggtag       9/29/2009 1:38:44 PM
..."using new fiber optic wiring"...
 
Something about this was discussed some time ago,
either here on who-knows-what thread, or elsewhere in another web forum.
 
The dilemma we "discovered" in utilizing fiber optics is,
they are only good for data transmission, not power.
A majority of the various umbilical wiring harnesses used in any given
AFV type aren't there just for sending data streams from one component to another,
but rather they also pass electronic signals that activate servo motors and countless other electromechanical bit and pieces (sush as sight units and stabilization systems).
 
For this reason, there isn't really a lot of weight to be saved (maybe a couple hundred pounds at most)
with the suggestion of replacing all those wiring harnesses with fiber optic "wiring".
 
There may be instances where we can use light signals via fiber to transmit commands to a given (software-driven) component,
but electricity is still needed to make it work
(in the course of AFV manufacture, there is no such thing as an "opto-mechanical" component, to the point it operates solely by light input/data without the need for additional wiring to pipe in electricity to make things "go").
 
No, replacing scores of insulation-coated metal wiring with fiber optics isn't going to be a big weight saver, because we need those metal wires to pass electricity to components, not just data streams.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/29/2009 11:31:14 PM
Need an Abrams heavily modified for COIN. I'm thinking same armour and defense systems, take out the nice but wasteful cannon and more weapons (including missiles). Could use the escort of a normal one or two though, in case the cannon is needed ;P...
 
I dunno, the big gun is probably useful for a lot, I'll have to study it.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/29/2009 11:32:11 PM

..."using new fiber optic wiring"...

 

Something about this was discussed some time ago,

either here on who-knows-what thread, or elsewhere in another web forum.

 

The dilemma we "discovered" in utilizing fiber optics is,

they are only good for data transmission, not power.

A majority of the various umbilical wiring harnesses used in any given

AFV type aren't there just for sending data streams from one component to another,

but rather they also pass electronic signals that activate servo motors and countless other electromechanical bit and pieces (sush as sight units and stabilization systems).

 

For this reason, there isn't really a lot of weight to be saved (maybe a couple hundred pounds at most)

with the suggestion of replacing all those wiring harnesses with fiber optic "wiring".

 

There may be instances where we can use light signals via fiber to transmit commands to a given (software-driven) component,

but electricity is still needed to make it work

(in the course of AFV manufacture, there is no such thing as an "opto-mechanical" component, to the point it operates solely by light input/data without the need for additional wiring to pipe in electricity to make things "go").

 

No, replacing scores of insulation-coated metal wiring with fiber optics isn't going to be a big weight saver, because we need those metal wires to pass electricity to components, not just data streams.



Yeah, it's a pretty mature technology.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Seventy Five Plus Years   9/30/2009 5:48:45 AM
The design of the M1 is about 35 years old now.  Advances in armor, engine, suspension, main gun, etc., mean better designs are available today.  It's not reasonable to except the M1 to retain it's edge for 75 years.
 
Moreover, the M109 and M2/3 will require replacement as well.  It would make a lot of sense to at least investigate a common chassis, engine, etc., to replace these as well as other heavy armored vehicles.  At that point it might then become more cost effective to field a new MBT vs upgrading the M1 to keep it in service the next 40+ years.
 
Frankly the whole thing is ridiculous.  The article mentions new suspension, engine, wiring, armor, computers, comms, sensors, navigation gear, etc.  A new tank would be cheaper and far easier on those involved to maintain especially given increased commonality with other new vehicles.  Betting nobody fields a significantly better tank over the next 40+ years is foolhardy.
 
Deciding this nation can not afford to replace 1600 M1's over say the next 20 years is dangerously short sighted.  Do we now also decide to keep the M109 and M2 around for 40 years as well?  
 
There is no question whatsoever that some nation will develop a better MBT than today's Leo 2, Challenger 2, and M1 if for no other reason than to generate foreign sales.  Germany has already replaced it's M109's with the far better PzH2000, the Marder 2 with the much better protected and armed Puma, and offers advanced models of the Leo 2A6 with among other things a 120mm L55 (M1 uses L44).  Germany has exported the Leo 2 to 16 nations vs the M1 being exported to 5 nations.  Does anyone believe Germany will not develop Leo 3 over the next decades to at least keep the export market?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I doubt   9/30/2009 10:29:12 AM
that Germany will develop a Leopard 3....Germany exported Leopards to mainly NATO nations.  Germany has a number of arms sales restrictions.  Germany exported the Leopards, in part, to reduce unit costs to the Bundeswehr for its domestic production and use.  The Bundeswehr is reducing its tank holdings as a result in a reduced threat.  The Bundeswehr is looking at more deployable systems, for operations outside of the Central European Theatre.  These are WORLDWIDE trends.  Ergo the number of new MBT's developed will be very small.  Sorry, geo-political and economic realities bite.
 
Bottom-Line: Leo 2, M1Ax, and the Challenger will be the ONLY MBT's fielded, by the West for a very extended period of time.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       9/30/2009 11:02:02 AM
The tank market is pretty much dead for new entries right now - there are thousands of low mileage cheap tanks for sale from various countries and there's no longer a feeling that an engagement the size of Kursk is likely.
 
 
New build is marginal, new *design* even more so - there's nothing out there to generate the threat either. The potential enemies have nothing on the board that can really threaten the M1/Leopard II/Challenger 2 etc. And there are some really interesting armour technologies coming up in the next ten to twenty years that could be incorporated if the existing tanks were simply stretched to last a bit longer.
 
As long as the factories are kept active with refresh activity I'm up with that.
 
Ian
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/30/2009 12:17:17 PM

 

The design of the M1 is about 35 years old now.  Advances in armor, engine, suspension, main gun, etc., mean better designs are available today.  It's not reasonable to except the M1 to retain it's edge for 75 years.

Yes, that is right, there is better stuff now, that is why they want to upgrade.

Moreover, the M109 and M2/3 will require replacement as well.  It would make a lot of sense to at least investigate a common chassis, engine, etc., to replace these as well as other heavy armored vehicles.  At that point it might then become more cost effective to field a new MBT vs upgrading the M1 to keep it in service the next 40+ years.
 

A common chassis for a 70 ton tank and a 30 ton howitzer? If you are talking about a 30 ton medium tank, yeah you could have a common chassis, but that isn't a replacement for the M1 MBT.
 

Frankly the whole thing is ridiculous.  The article mentions new suspension, engine, wiring, armor, computers, comms, sensors, navigation gear, etc.  A new tank would be cheaper and far easier on those involved to maintain especially given increased commonality with other new vehicles.  Betting nobody fields a significantly better tank over the next 40+ years is foolhardy.

How could a brand new tank be cheaper? The cost of just the bureaucratic wrangling to work out what kind of tank we want to build would cost more, let alone the development process of the actual vehicle, and there is a better than even-money chance it would go down the tubes. Ever hear of the MBT-70? The "Sgt. York" DIVADS? Heck, ever hear of FCS???
 
The simple fact is that the basic frame doesn't need to change--it is a solid basic design. Everything else can be replaced if needed without resorting to a new design that every bureaucrat under the sun is going to want to stick their fingers into. If we wanted a diesel engine with less acceleration but better fuel economy for more sustainability in COIN at the cost of effectiveness in a tank-on-tank battle, that could be done on the design we already have. If some advanced armor is developed that we want to take advantage of, the armor package has already been upgraded and can be upgraded again. The gun can be replaced with the prototype weapon designed for the FCS, or the L/55 version of the current gun. The electronics on the basic chassis can be upgraded. An APS can be added.
 
Starting from scratch is a last resort, and there is no reason at present to resort to it.
 
 
Deciding this nation can not afford to replace 1600 M1's over say the next 20 years is dangerously short sighted.  Do we now also decide to keep the M109 and M2 around for 40 years as well?  
 

I hate to tell you, the M109 was first fielded in 1963...

There is no question whatsoever that some nation will develop a better MBT than today's Leo 2, Challenger 2, and M1 if for no other reason than to generate foreign sales.  Germany has already replaced it's M109's with the far better PzH2000, the Marder 2 with the much better protected and armed Puma, and offers advanced models of the Leo 2A6 with among other things a 120mm L55 (M1 uses L44).  Germany has exported the Leo 2 to 16 nations vs the M1 being exported to 5 nations.  Does anyone believe Germany will not develop Leo 3 over the next decades to at least keep the export market?


I'd be really supriesed if Germany developed a Leopard 3 just for the sake of export. Weapons are not a cost effective export. Exports are, on the other hand, an effective way of spreading the massive cost of developing a new vehicle over a larger number of total vehicles.

Any upgrade from the M1 to a new tank is unlikely to be anywhere close to the degree of improvement seen between the M60 and M1. This is becasue the M60 wasn't simply old, but was based on a design dating back to the M26 pershing that was far less effective than the Soviet designs it was competing with as well as the German Leopard. The M26-M48-M60 family of tanks all had a considerably taller hull and turret than these designs, which meant that a larger frontal area needed to be armored, reducing the amount of armor that could be carried for a given weight. The M1 is about 2.4m tall which is typical for many post-WWII tanks such as the T-54, T-62 and Leopard I. While the T-90, T-80 and T-72 predecessors managed to better this at 2.2m, it does so at the expense of limited main gun depression, cramped interiors, and allowing crew members to be drawn from only a small percentage of the population, as opposed to the M1 which was designed to accomodate crew members of up to 95th percentile in height. There are always trade offs.
 
The M1 is a fundamentally sound design. Improvements could be made, but short of a radically re-thinking of the basic design such as making a medium tank, any needed developments can be implemented as equipment upgrades without the massive cost of a new procurement project.
 
Quote    Reply

Camp       9/30/2009 1:28:21 PM
My guess is... you could save a lot of weight by adopting something like the MGS style of turret. Even if you kept the current chasis, it would probably increase overall speed. Not to mention that 'bolt-on' armor kits could be added later. Halfing the current turret would get you to a 50-ton tank... although the magic numer might be 40-tons, so as to fit 2 on a C-17.

Fictitious 3D Model
 
Quote    Reply

LB    World Tanks   10/1/2009 12:32:29 AM
It's just rubbish to assume because the US is not going to build a new tank for the next 40+ years that other nations will not as well.  South Korea's K2 (and K9 SPH) are both now produced in Turkey.  China constantly puts out new tank designs.  Most of the tank producing nations have a 140mm gun ready to go including China.  At some point someone is going to put one in the field on a new tank with advanced armor and the market will open again. 
 
New SP 155mm howitzers are not 30 tons.  The K9 is 47 tons and 56 tons in Turkey.  The PzH2000 is 55 tons.   There is no reason a new family of MBT's, IFV's, SPH, etc., could not share a chassis, engine, etc.  Israel builds the Namer HAPC/IFV off a Merkava IV chassis and modified hull and prototyped a 155mm SPH as well.
 
There are many nations in the world that build cost effective MBT's, IFV's, SPG's, etc.  If the US can not manage a new armored vehicle program than exactly why it can manage a rebuild.  Moreover, at some point a rebuild will cost more than a new vehicle.  Anyone who has ever worked on cars is very much aware that the individual parts cost much more than simply buying the car up front.
 
It's also worth noting that the trend in tracked armored vehicles is that they are getting heavier.  IFV's are going from 30 or so ton Marder 2's to 40 tons or so Puma's.  Israel has a new built 60 ton HAPC/IFV.  All the tactical vehicles are getting heavier as well with added armor.  Note the increase in weight of SPH's.  All the combat experience in the world indicates one wants more armor- from the armored fighting vehicle down to the individual and including every single truck.  This whole notion of lighter weight combat vehicles is irrational.  Even were a 50 ton MBT built due to space age light weight armor the tank brigade is getting heavier.  Armored units are moved and supplied overseas by ships.  Requirements to move heavy armored units by air are beyond ridiculous.  
 
Quote    Reply

Camp       10/1/2009 11:07:43 AM
LB,

"Requirements to move heavy armored units by air are beyond ridiculous. " Ridiculous or not, it is done. In both Gulf Wars Abrams tanks were air-lifted, albeit in small quantity, into theater. Not to mention the Danish & Canadians have used Leopards in Afghanistan, which happen to have been flown in. Regardless of a persons desire to deride the issue. People win by overcoming obstacles, not by placating to them. You may not always have a friendly port, a passable route, or an accessible beach head with which to transit armor. And increasing in ones capability & capacity with which to reach an objective, is not ridiculous.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       10/1/2009 12:08:26 PM

New SP 155mm howitzers are not 30 tons.  The K9 is 47 tons and 56 tons in Turkey.  The PzH2000 is 55 tons.   There is no reason a new family of MBT's, IFV's, SPH, etc., could not share a chassis, engine, etc.  Israel builds the Namer HAPC/IFV off a Merkava IV chassis and modified hull and prototyped a 155mm SPH as well.

And the NLOS-C was under 20 tons. All a matter of what choices the nation designing the weapon chooses to make.

It's just rubbish to assume because the US is not going to build a new tank for the next 40+ years that other nations will not as well.  South Korea's K2 (and K9 SPH) are both now produced in Turkey.  China constantly puts out new tank designs.  Most of the tank producing nations have a 140mm gun ready to go including China.  At some point someone is going to put one in the field on a new tank with advanced armor and the market will open again. 
 

How does "not build a new tank" = "stand still with our heads in the sand"? Get it through your head -- upgrading works. Like the upgrade from 105mm rifled gun to 120mm smoothbore. Like the upgrade from the orginal Chobham armor to the HA version used on the A2. Adding an APS is probably a done deal. The gun could be upgraded again from L/44 to L/55 but will problably be upgraded instead to the FCS gun designed to fire the MRM. Going from direct fire munitions to MRM (note that Russian gun-launched missiles are beam-riding and hence direct fire) is a much bigger change than any conventionally upgunned option because it allows our tanks to leverage the concept of mass at the point of decision the way artillery does.
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       10/1/2009 10:12:17 PM
The possibility of using an autoloader to replace one crewman is interesting.. less people to protect translates into less armor and less overall weight.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Rubbish   10/2/2009 4:25:54 AM
Firstly one did not move purpose built medium weight air mobile tanks.  Normal MBT's are moved in small numbers by strategic air lifters.  This does not mean it makes sense to attempt to reduce the weight of MBT's in order to move an armored brigade by air.  One does not supply heavy armored units by air.
 
If one wishes to dispute this then talk to the US Transportation Command who have recent studies in support of my statements.   Also the FY2001 Rand study for the USAF on the Stryker Brigade is instructive and this is before every tactical started getting an armor package- you can find this study on the web.  Deploying a few MBT's from leased An-124's actually highlights the lack of available strategic airlifters by just about every nation on earth save the US and we do not have enough to deploy, much less support, heavy armored units by air.
 
The entire medium weight FCS concept was a US Army political response to it's heavy units not being able to deploy to the Balkans quickly enough.  Heavy armored units are deployed and supported overseas by ship.  This is not a matter of debate.  Moving a few MBT's by air does not an armored brigade make, much less supplied.
 
 
LB,



"Requirements to move heavy armored units by air are beyond ridiculous. " Ridiculous or not, it is done. In both Gulf Wars Abrams tanks were air-lifted, albeit in small quantity, into theater. Not to mention the Danish & Canadians have used Leopards in Afghanistan, which happen to have been flown in. Regardless of a persons desire to deride the issue. People win by overcoming obstacles, not by placating to them. You may not always have a friendly port, a passable route, or an accessible beach head with which to transit armor. And increasing in ones capability & capacity with which to reach an objective, is not ridiculous.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Bad Idea   10/2/2009 4:29:04 AM
No it's a bad idea.  Smaller crew size means less ability to maintenance, one fewer set of eyes, and one less manned machine gun.  Going from 4 to 3 crewman is a bad idea. 
 
The possibility of using an autoloader to replace one crewman is interesting.. less people to protect translates into less armor and less overall weight.

 
Quote    Reply

LB    Bad Idea   10/2/2009 5:11:48 AM
NLOS-C was cancelled.  All the modern nations on the earth buying new 155mm SPH are almost all buying 45+ ton 155 L52 systems.  It's not merely a choice.  There are little things like basic physics involved.
 
With all due respect but don't tell me to "get it through my head" when you clearly did not bother to read my posting enough to realize I agree upgrading works but rather that at some point it's ceases to be cost effective.  Add up the separate cost of all the upgrade programs and then you can demonstrate it's more cost effective than buying a new tank.
 
You do realize of course that the FCS gun you refer to is the XM291 originally designed as M1 upgrade that comes in 140mm with a barrel change.  In any case if you mean the lighter weight XM360 the whole "system of systems network" operating with "high density sensors" to make the BLOS MRM viable is a giant FCS fantasy.  However, in such a world what is the point removing a direct fire tank main gun round from the ammo load of the MBT when a target on the super network can be engaged by anything?  The entire concept is flawed.  Once upon a time the M60A2 made sense as well until of course it was noted that it did not.
 
If the M1 can be upgraded with a new engine, new armor, new wiring, new computers, new gun, new sensors, new suspension, and every other thing you can think of for less cost than buying a new MBT that's just great.  If it's close than perhaps the cost benefits of a common new chassis, engine, for a whole host of heavy and medium weight armored vehicle replacement programs might then tip the scales in favor of new tanks being cheaper.  What exactly is the objection in investigating this?  My apologies for not getting it through my head that analysis of facts to derive the most effective and cost effective solution to a specific system is not a good idea. 
 




New SP 155mm howitzers are not 30 tons.  The K9 is 47 tons and 56 tons in Turkey.  The PzH2000 is 55 tons.   There is no reason a new family of MBT's, IFV's, SPH, etc., could not share a chassis, engine, etc.  Israel builds the Namer HAPC/IFV off a Merkava IV chassis and modified hull and prototyped a 155mm SPH as well.





And the NLOS-C was under 20 tons. All a matter of what choices the nation designing the weapon chooses to make.






It's just rubbish to assume because the US is not going to build a new tank for the next 40+ years that other nations will not as well.  South Korea's K2 (and K9 SPH) are both now produced in Turkey.  China constantly puts out new tank designs.  Most of the tank producing nations have a 140mm gun ready to go including China.  At some point someone is going to put one in the field on a new tank with advanced armor and the market will open again. 

 




How does "not build a new tank" = "stand still with our heads in the sand"? Get it through your head -- upgrading works. Like the upgrade from 105mm rifled gun to 120mm smoothbore. Like the upgrade from the orginal Chobham armor to the HA version used on the A2. Adding an APS is probably a done deal. The gun could be upgraded again from L/44 to L/55 but will problably be upgraded instead to the FCS gun designed to fire the MRM. Going from direct fire munitions to MRM (note that Russian gun-launched missiles are beam-riding and hence direct fire) is a much bigger change than any conventionally upgunned option because it allows our tanks to leverage the concept of mass at the point of decision the way artillery does.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy