- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,356
- Reaction score
- 82,730
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
7.23.22
Early last decade, worries over slackening demand for armored tanks put the fate of the General Dynamics tank plant in Lima, Ohio -- and the jobs of 900 workers -- at risk. More long-lasting good news for Lima and General Dynamics arrived last month when the U.S. Army announced it had awarded General Dynamics $1.14 billion to develop a new light tank under the latter's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. The MPF diesel tank, says General Dynamics, will be a "highly lethal, survivable and mobile direct-fire combat vehicle" featuring a lightweight hull, carrying a large-caliber cannon, and guided by an enhanced thermal viewer. It will be deployed to add punch to Army Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), rather than (as you might expect) the Army's Armored BCTs. As BreakingDefense.com points out, the MPF light tank "will be the Army's first new designed vehicle in over 40 years." The contract will therefore mean years of new business for General Dynamics as it first develops the product, then builds out hundreds of units of the new tank over time.
How many hundreds? The initial low-rate production contract for $1.14 billion hires GD to build 96 MPF light tanks, with the first one due by the end of next year. By 2030, GD is supposed to have built enough tanks to outfit four battalions (168 tanks) -- and even then the contract will only be one-third complete. Ultimately, the Army says it will need 504 MPF light tanks, and it plans to spend $17 billion on the program over its 30-year lifespan. Now, that sounds like a lot of money -- and it is. In fact, dividing 504 tanks into a $17 billion cost seems to imply that each tank will cost taxpayers as much as $33.7 million -- several times more than the purchase cost of a larger M1A2 Abrams main battle tank (also built by GD). That $17 billion figure, however, probably encompasses everything from developing and building to maintaining and servicing the tanks. Actual purchase costs are expected to be a more reasonable $12.7 million per unit for the initial lot of 28 light tanks that will begin arriving next year.
General Dynamics: Back in the Tank Business Again
The MPF diesel tank is likely more maneuverable than the M-1 Abrams and is more conducive than previous generations to combined arms maneuver. It will go wherever our infantry goes and over almost any terrian.
The tank is equipped with a 120mm smoothbore cannon, the 50 mm XM913 chain-gun system, the IMI Systems’ Iron Fist Active Protection System (APS), and AeroVironment’s Switchblade loitering munition system.
It’s either/or, not both. It can mount a 120 or a 50mm.
Really, they should have two versions: an infantry support vehicle mounting the 120mm, and a cavalry/reconnaissance vehicle mounting the 50mm.
I would like more information on the "light weight" hull; was armor protection sacrificed to make it smaller, faster, and more maneuverable?Maybe they plan on doing that. I just repeated what I've read.
I would like more information on the "light weight" hull; was armor protection sacrificed to make it smaller, faster, and more maneuverable?
I would like more information on the "light weight" hull; was armor protection sacrificed to make it smaller, faster, and more maneuverable?
When I was on my last tour in Iraq ( 2006-2008), in southern Baghdad during the surge, we saw less of the older RPG 7's, and more of the RPG 29's; these had a nasty tendency to defeat the ERA and birdcages on our Stryker's and other APC's...to the point that we no longer allowed the M113A3's off the FOB's.Yes. It can’t go toe to toe with a main battle tank, nor is it intended to.
But it’s armor will stand up to small arms, autocannons, and (with the addition of cage armor) RPGs.
When I was on my last tour in Iraq ( 2006-2008), in southern Baghdad during the surge, we saw less of the older RPG 7's, and more of the RPG 29's; these had a nasty tendency to defeat the ERA and birdcages on our Stryker's and other APC's...to the point that we no longer allowed the M113A3's off the FOB's.
They were even causing severe injuries and fatalities on M1 Abrams, Bradley's and the British Challengers.
I'll withhold judgement for now.
being a total novice to ground warfar (but getting one hell of an education over russian/uk war) it seems that there is always some version of a track tank with much faster highway wheels. Will this be one?I would like more information on the "light weight" hull; was armor protection sacrificed to make it smaller, faster, and more maneuverable?
being a total novice to ground warfar (but getting one hell of an education over russian/uk war) it seems that there is always some version of a track tank with much faster highway wheels. Will this be one?
don't you mean a 105 mm gun and not a 50 mm?It’s either/or, not both. It can mount a 120 or a 50mm.
Really, they should have two versions: an infantry su?pport vehicle mounting the 120mm, and a cavalry/reconnaissance vehicle mounting the 50mm.
don't you mean a 105 mm gun and not a 50 mm?
I'm not familiar with that weapon. Can you refer me to a source on it?No, it’s designed to take the Bushmaster III cannon modified to fire 50mm Supershot.
I'm not familiar with that weapon. Can you refer me to a source on it?
Thank you.
Very interesting. Can this gun disable a modern top-of-the-line main battle tank by hitting it in the rear (by way of example)?
A mobility kill at best.
But autocannons in the 40 to 50mm range are basically able to kill anything short of a MBT. Every APC, IFV, and AGS on the planet can be penetrated by 50mm Supershot, except the weird Israeli APC’s made out of tanks.
That's one reason I would prefer they be armed with 105 mm cannon (the M-68 IIRC). A 105 can get an engine kill on anything. (except for the Merkava's that put the engine up front of course).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?