US ARMY next generation tank prototype

I was just watching the Military Channel (274 on Comcast) and there was a thing on about land warfare. After they finished talking about all the current MBTs they looked at a prototype of the FCS.

It looks like a *removed by mod* Ipod Nano. It is SO LOW TO THE GROUND.

Other notable features were a two man crew, in the hull, not the turret. Also, the gun had a sort of Diamond shaped barrel.

I dont have a pic, sorry, I was wondering if anyone had more information on this tank.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - the target wieght is 40 tons.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]

mod edit: removed profanity

Terms And Conditions Of Use
1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by UK Wizard]

i think this is the vid you're looking for



looks cool huh

Cool vid, thanks for posting it. Its an interesting looking prototype but i wish i knew more about its specs, gun size etc..

This is the film clip I referred to in my answer to a post I made in the thread Chally 2:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Toreishi has posted the clip that I was unable to find and I thank him for vindicating my post.

dont mention it man
i'm glad to have been able to assist you in that way.

this idea sort of reminds me of the Russian T-95 proposal, which also moves its crews to the hull

YES that is the EXACT video I saw.

Wicked looking tank. I notice that the barrel is longer. Similar to the L55 German gun? Just squarish? Or diamond shaped gun?

The 120 mm XM291 Gun used enhancements developed by Watervliet Arsenal (WVA) and Benet Laboratories to improve gun performance. Compatibility for refit to the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank was another design requirement. Gun enhancements include improved breech design, thermal shroud, modular recoil design, and improved firepower. The cannon can be increased in caliber, if required, to 140mm with a simple tube change.

www.globalsecurity.org...

For all you engineers out there, what advantages could a gun like that have over a circular one?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]

mod edit: added external quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 24-2-2007 by UK Wizard]

What is the possibilities of putting a rail gun on a tank? I know that the USN has a prototype rail gun that fires from zero to 13,000 MPH in 0.2 Seconds. It covers 300 nautical miles. Heres a thread about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.military.com...

Pretty cool stuff..

[edit on 102828p://1002pm by semperfoo]

Ooooo nice, low riders and plastic armor. You could park that tank under a raised house easily and then sneak out ninja style.

i wonder how it'll stack up against this wicked looking thing



is this already in service?

That looks like an IFV with ATGMs on it.

How would it stack up? The FCS will have APS, so that thing will be blown up quite quickly.

Wow that plastic tank looks interesting, it could be parachuted to the ground. lol imagine seeing hundreds of plastic tanks parachuting into your country.

I think that plastic "Tank" is wishful thinking. I cant see how plastic armor would stop things like KE penetrators or even grenades.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
I think that plastic "Tank" is wishful thinking. I cant see how plastic armor would stop things like KE penetrators or even grenades.

Some half way point between a full battle tank and an armored veh?

Least if they get knocked out you could put them in the recycle bin!

Originally posted by toreishi
i think this is the vid you're looking for

looks cool huh

that is a Swedish S Tank, proven inferior to a moving turret..

that is not a Swedish S Tank.
this, however, is the Swedish S Tank

From looking at the tank (the one we are supposed to be talking about) I can see SOME of the logic behind it but also several flaws:
Pros:
1: hull design on the turret (front) allows incomming projectiles to be DEFELCTED easily vs what we see now.
2: TURRET: The diamon shape DEFLECTS attacks, so if you get that chance hit on the turret no big deal, also the weight will add stability and be less likely to bounce around. Thus more accuracy.
3: Speed, lighter and faster
4: faster to produce from the metal standpoint.
5: smaller, harder to hit and see (heh)
Cons:
1: the two people are so close 1 anti-tank round would wipe them out. The cockpits being connected would be the best target for any aircraft (Heli or otherwise) and any smart anti-tank gunner or tank guy would fire on that one part and take 2 guys out with one shot. Two birds, one stone.
2: The tank is easy to distrupt, it relys HEAVILY on electronics, any EMP wave would fry the tank leaving them virtually blind and they loose all "advantages" they had.
3: Cost, those electronics are going to HURT when it comes to cost, the steel loss is probably an attempt at alleviation of the price.
4: Loss of all gunners, unless someone in the cockpit drives and runs a .50cal at the same time on top of the tank they lost that advantage. Current tanks have 2 guns on top to fight off people when they are low on ammo or cannot keep up the fire rate.
5: Less needed to blow it sky high, the tank is smaller true, but it lost the advantage of people being highly seperated, because of this critical hits are easier. Take one shot and put it square through the tail pipe, or put it from above and straight down since there are no longer any gunners. Also, you have the problem of there being LESS protection in the drivers area from what I saw, so it will be easier to blow up.
6: flaw in side design, as usualy the sucker is ment for HEAD ON attacks, hit it from behind or the sides and they are in serious trouble.
7: Turrent movement, unless they add more power to the turrent design it will be harder to move, thus slower turret movement. Remember they added A LOT of weight to the barrel. So unless they drop the caliber they are going to have movement trouble.
Ok that is off the top of my head, more cons than pros, and the cons far outweigh the pros.

Plastic tank: HAHHAHAAHAH! Wishful scientists who want to sock a huge price tag on cheap junk again. Give me steel over plastic anyday! Steel is easy to repair! Plastic you will have to take the whole tank appart at that rate! That or they have to hand out "gauze like pads" of plastic you weld on... Unless they come up with some kind of "super plastic" that sucker will pop faster than the current APC's. The enemy would die of laughter. 500 plastic toy tanks drop out of the sky and roll towards their armored battalions... oh yeah... big chance... Just think of what someone in an anti-tank heli would think... Or the guy with the anti-tank rocket... The only thing that plastic tank would be good for is SPEED. try and make a tank that hits 110mph or higher on the road. Due to plastic being lighter than steel that is.

Originally posted by Vekar
2: The tank is easy to distrupt, it relys HEAVILY on electronics, any EMP wave would fry the tank leaving them virtually blind and they loose all "advantages" they had.

Not any EMP, unshielded / poorly shielded trucks, buses etc used to play havoc with my reception in my old flat. That was electro magnetic interference - or a series of (small) EMP's! Any EMP would have to be HUGE, cos -hopefully- the electrickery in those things will be very well shielded.

But............. Here is one article on rogue "Made in China" chips! read this in a Varity of places.