This is the Army's third attempt to build a replacement for the M1. The Ford ended up billions over budget and years behind schedule. Often in military procurement the technologies are adopted before fully mature-for a recent example, look no further than the radar, catapult, and aircraft arresting gear on the Navy's latest carrier, the USS Gerald R.
Army has a "good, solid tank" today in the Abrams, the Army will need a new tank within the next 25 years.īreakthrough technologies, although full of promise, have their own problems. The chief of staff said that while the U.S. Milley commented on the new technologies in response to questions about Russia's T-14 Armata tank. Milley also wants a tank that could be driverless, allowing the remaining crew to concentrate on fighting the enemy, or even completely crewless. T-14 Armata at V-E Day parade practice, April 2017. An armor capable of shrugging off kinetic energy and shaped charge (high explosive, anti-tank) rounds would allow the new tank to shrug of main gun rounds, anti-tank missiles, and infantry anti-tank weapons. Lighter, better protecting armor, Milley said, would be the "Holy Grail" for a tank. A remotely controlled, crewless tank could go into hazardous situations too risky for human crews. A tank-mounted railgun could mean less bulk while providing even more tank-killing power. A bigger gun will be heavier, a more powerful conventional engine will be heavier, and heavier armor will be the heaviest of all.īreakthrough technologies, on the other hand, could be both smaller and more powerful, resulting in a more agile, more easily transportable tank. The Abrams tank began its career as a 58 ton tank with a 105-millimeter gun, and today is a 70 ton tank with a 120-millimeter gun. The problem with incremental technologies is they're just going to make a heavier, less mobile tank.
Play icon The triangle icon that indicates to play
0 kommentar(er)
