• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

General Dynamics: Back in the Tank Business Again

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,659
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
General Dynamics: Back in the Tank Business Again

iu

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.


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.
 
General Dynamics: Back in the Tank Business Again

iu




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.
 
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.

Maybe they plan on doing that. I just repeated what I've read.
 
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?

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.
 
I would like more information on the "light weight" hull; was armor protection sacrificed to make it smaller, faster, and more maneuverable?


Think of it as an upgunned and better armoured Stryker
 
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.
 
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.

That’s why it’ll also have an APS equipped.
 
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?
 
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?

Not likely. The US doesn’t like designs that require track changes.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
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).

Use tanks to kill tanks. If you need this vehicle to have an emergency tank killing capability, give it mounts for a couple Javelins.

Autocannons have more utility to just about everything else but bunker busting, but that’s where the variant with the 120mm comes in.
 
Back
Top Bottom