Armored Systems Modernization

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) was a United States Army's armaments program that began in the mid-1980s and was discontinued after the end of the Cold War . It represents the Army's first attempt to simplify army logistics by introducing a common armored chassis. A number of advanced technologies should take into account the requirements for future combat vehicles. The successor program is the Future Combat Systems .

history

The beginnings

The ASM program began in a series of analyzes and studies by the US Army that lasted from 1979 to 1985. The focus of this work was to determine the existing deficits in ground combat systems and to develop proposed solutions. One suggestion that has been made frequently has been to develop a family of vehicles to achieve the greatest possible commonality between the vehicles. Although the idea was not new, it would be a departure from the traditional procurement policy of having a special vehicle for a specific purpose. For a long time, this challenge was considered impossible by the top of the US Army, but the army command and its logisticians were worried about the increasing expansion of the model range: in 1976 the army still had five different hulls, chassis and chains, three different engines and four different transmissions . For 1986, with the current procurement policy, 17 different tanks, eight different tracks, five different motors (with 14 drive configurations) and eight gearboxes were forecast. As each of the systems became more and more complex, the similarities gradually decreased. The development of a tank family would reverse this trend and simplify battlefield logistics. Because of this, the proposal to develop a family of vehicles eventually won the benevolence of the US Army leadership.

In 1985 the Defense Science Board (DSB) presented an armor / anti-armor study , which specified the basic strategy for the development of the systems. The study concluded that the US Army's ability to incorporate its research and development work into concrete projects was significantly worse than that of the Red Army . The Ministry of Defense of the United States and the Congress of the United States were held responsible. The study also criticized the lack of targeted work to use synergy effects. In addition, it was proposed to strive for a proactive procurement policy: Instead of developing weapon systems to combat existing threats, these should be able to combat anticipated enemy threats in the future. The Armor / Anti-Armor Study supported the idea of ​​a tank family and urged those responsible to move the project forward. At the same time, various threat analyzes also warned that the qualitative superiority of NATO could no longer offset the quantitative superiority of the Pact in the near future. In order to be able to better assess the threat situation, future Soviet main battle tanks (Future Soviet Tank, FST) were postulated during this period:

  • FST-1: Designated the T-80 U and the T-72 B, as a combat value upgrade of established models.
  • FST-2: Main battle tank with an unmanned turret and a crew of 2–3 men in the hull, blinding laser and immune to anti-tank ammunition from NATO (existing at the time). The potential threat later led to the introduction of the M1A1HA with uranium armor as an interim solution.
  • FST-3: The vehicle was intended to outclass existing main battle tanks such as the M1 Abrams. A cannon with a muzzle energy of 18 MJ was considered necessary to destroy the FST-3.

FST-1 and FST-2 were expected around 1990. As a countermeasure, a complete modernization of the US Army was recommended. In October 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army set up an Armored Family of Vehicles Task Force (AFVTF) with the task of working out a concrete concept. The aim was to reduce the life cycle costs of the vehicle fleet by 40%. The project was divided into two phases. The first discussed fundamental questions, for example whether only common components, or the same tubs with different towers, or tubs with specific mission modules should be used. The number of variants should be as small as possible. Technologies were also selected that were to be integrated into the platforms: These included a modular design, artificial intelligence and robotics, friend-foe recognition , advanced vetronics and protection against energy weapons. Over 30 different vehicles were proposed, including 14 for the Assault Forces , 10 for the Assault Support Force and 5 for the Battle Support Force . For this purpose, three driving modules (light, medium and difficult) should be developed and equipped with a version-specific mission module. In order to accelerate the procurement process, the prototype phase should be dispensed with and series production should begin immediately. Computer models and simulations should be used for this. The principle was also applied to the Light Helicopter - Experimental (LHX).

An invitation to tender was sent from September 1986 to August 1987 and four industrial consortia competed: Armored Vehicle Technologies Associated (AVTA), Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM), General Motors Corporation (GMC), PACCAR, and AAI Corporation. AVTA (General Dynamics), Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) and General Motors Corporation (GMC) ultimately won the tender.

Reduction of the platforms

U.S. Army Concepts for the ASM Program Heavy Platform (1991)

Before Phase II could begin, the project was subjected to a review. At the same time, new studies on the concept of the AirLand Battle were taken into account, which were finished in October 1987, which led to the adaptation of the performance requirements to the individual vehicles. Phase II finally began in September 1987 and ran until February 1989. Because of the high costs of having to develop 28 systems at the same time, an agreement was reached on an evolutionary procurement of the individual vehicles. In December 1987 the program was finally cut for the first time. In February 1988 there was another review (the first in November 1987 only led to a postponement of the schedule) in which the introduction of a HI / LO (new / old) mix was decided. The requirements for a lightweight platform have been dropped and the total number of vehicles has been reduced. Together, these measures should reduce costs. In March 1988, the Force Modernization Strategy Working Group (FMSWG) met to set procurement priorities. Since the introduction of the medium platform would take place later than 1994, it was considered to implement it on the basis of the M2 Bradley . However, the list of priorities was discarded in April with the third review. In May the following list of vehicles was finally decided:

  • HEAVY PROTECTION CHASSIS: CMV, LOS-AT, AFAS-C, FIFV, FACS
  • MEDIUM PROTECTION CHASSIS: FARV-A & F, RAMS, NLOSS-AD / AT, FC2V, NBCRS

New vehicles should only be introduced if they represented a noticeable improvement in skills. The FACS (Main Battle Tank) should be purchased first because of its complexity and the importance of its hull design. In the meantime, work was being carried out on increasing the combat value of the M1 Abrams to the A3 version, which should be equipped with an electrothermal-chemical gun or a railgun in order to counter future threats. When it became clear that this would remain a pipe dream in the near future, the Abrams' Block III upgrade was suspended. Since the M1A3 was to be developed almost completely from scratch, the M1A3 was abandoned in favor of the FACS, which was then also referred to as the Block III tank. In the summer of 1988 the following procurement priority was finally agreed:

  • Package I: FACS, FIFV, LOS-AT, FC2V, CMV, FARV-A & F, MARS
  • Package II: AFAS-C, FS / COLS, SV, MEV

As can be seen, the composition of the vehicles changed every month, only the main battle tank (FACS), the armored personnel carrier (FIFV), the rocket tank destroyer (LOS-AT), the command tank (FC2V), the self-propelled howitzer (AFAS-C) and the ammunition transport tank (FARV) -A & F) remained constants. The vehicles of Package II should be procured as soon as the budget would allow it. Since the M109 was no longer up-to-date back then, the AFAS-C was included in Package I in a further review. In August the new Package I was finally presented, which after the review in September 1988 looked like this:

  • HEAVY PROTECTION CHASSIS: FACS, AFAS-C, FIFV, CMV
  • MEDIUM PROTECTION CHASSIS: LOS-AT, FARV-A

The Armored Family of Vehicles program was then renamed the Heavy Force Modernization Program (HFM). The Secretary of the Army confirmed Package I in March 1989. In February 1990, the name was changed to Armored Systems Modernization Program (ASM).

Test vehicles and technologies

In August 1982 the US Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) started developing the Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) to create a new propulsion system for future battle tanks . The same drive power should be available as with the combination of AGT1500 gas turbine and X1100-3B gearbox, but with much more compact dimensions. The option of a diesel (AIPS-D) and a turbine drive (AIPS-T) was examined.

At the same time, the US Army started development programs for the main battle tank weapon system, which led to the TTB (Tank Test Bed) and CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Test Bed) prototypes. The 1985 TTB consisted of a revised hull of the M1 Abrams main battle tank . The tower was removed and replaced by a new, unmanned model with an automatic loader and magazine in the tower cage. The weapon system M256 in caliber 120 mm was retained. In the bow of the tub, the three crew members (driver, commander, gunner) sat next to each other in a separate compact combat area. The hull front armor has been heavily thickened to improve bullet resistance.

The Component Advanced Technology Test Bed (CATTB) was used from 1987 to 1988 and was intended to test some of the technologies that were to be installed in the Block III main battle tank. At the same time, an increase in combat value for the M1 Abrams should be shown. For this purpose, the diesel-powered Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS-D) was integrated into the tub, and additional dust aprons were attached to the side aprons. The turret front, sides and roof armor were massively reinforced, and the XM291 140 mm powder cannon with the XM91 automatic loader was built into the turret. A better fire control system was considered, but could not be implemented within the budget.

In the 1980s, the development of the Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS) began. The system was intended to warn the crew of threats and serve as a softkill system to increase the survivability of the platforms. A live demonstration of the VIDS took place with an M1 Abrams at Eglin Air Force Base in August 1992. The laser warning system and the smoke throwing systems proved to be reliable, the radar warning system and the non-imaging sensor (microphones) caused problems. When the program was discontinued, development came to an end here too.

The end

The project was already under fire from the congress in 1989, because it considered the program to be aimless, haphazard and overambitious. Other political problems arose in the same year with Operation Just Cause , which reminded Congress that the US Army had reported a need for an airborne tank for 12 years without actually making any effort to obtain it. As a result, threats were made to stop funding the ASM program if the Army did not include an airborne tank in the ASM program, which actually happened in February 1990. In order to give in to blackmail, an Armored Gun System (AGS) was introduced into the program, which led to the concept of a vehicle family being reduced to absurdity .

In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress doubted that the procurement would make sense without a preliminary prototype phase. The Army pointed out that building prototypes would put the schedule back by two years. Furthermore, it was doubted whether a new tank was even necessary after the collapse of the Soviet Union . The Defense Acquisition Board confirmed the need for the Block III tank in August 1990, and the demonstration phase of Package I was also approved. The troop introduction of the new battle tank should take place in 2002.

However, in September, Congress expressed concern about program costs and criticized the Block III tank as being the first vehicle. In the opinion of politicians, the AFAS-C self-propelled howitzer should be given a higher priority in order to eliminate the deficits of the armored artillery more quickly. The Army responded by giving AFAS-C the second highest priority in development.

In December 1990 the LOS-AT system was connected to a black project, which delayed development. In the same month, Congress finally released the money for the development, whereupon the Army awarded AVTA (General Dynamics) and Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) with development contracts. General Motors Corporation (GMC) received nothing and filed a lawsuit with the Government Accountability Office in March 1991 . Until the dismissal of the lawsuit in June 1991, the project stood still.

Although the self-propelled howitzer advanced to second place in development, which was not good enough for Congress. He proposed to outsource AFAS-C from the program and in return to cut the budget of the ASM program by 6%. Even after the good results of their own armored vehicles in the Second Gulf War, the need for a new acquisition was denied. Support for the program was now beginning to crumble, and the Army had to restructure once again to forestall a complete cancellation. The Block III tank and the other systems were therefore delayed, while the politicians' favorite toys, the AFAS-C self-propelled howitzer and its FARV-A loading vehicle, were to be further developed.

In early 1992, the Army's proposal was rejected by Congress. The ASM program was thus successfully administered dead after 13 years, only the AFAS-C and its loading vehicle FARV-A were pursued. Ironically, politicians' favorite projects, the AFAS-C and FARV-A , and the M8 Armored Gun System were not later procured. Instead, the follow-up project Future Combat Systems was launched.

technology

A consortium led by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) received an order from the US Army in December 1990 to develop a fourth post-war generation battle tank. In contrast to the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 , the vehicle, like the Swedish Strv 2000, was designed as a front-wheel drive vehicle with a three-man crew and a 140 mm powder cannon. In order to ensure adequate front protection despite the space required for the drive train , the hull front was inclined very sharply in order to increase the effective armor thickness. The driver was housed in the classic style in the left tub front, the commander and rifleman should sit in the tower cage. The Future Armored Combat System (FACS) was supposed to form the first vehicle of a tank family that was to be based on the common heavy-protection chassis (CHC) of the main battle tank. The maximum mass of the vehicles should be 70 tons (63.5 tons).

Survivability

By choosing a top-mounted cannon, the frontal silhouette could be significantly reduced compared to the M1 Abrams. Since the vehicle weight remained almost unchanged and the volume of the AIPS was 40% below that of the Abrams drive, the armor protection of the hull could be extremely reinforced. At the same time, by choosing a hydropneumatic chassis, 17 cubic feet (0.48 m³) could be saved in the vehicle floor in order to lower the tub. The vehicle was to use modular, easily interchangeable armor in order to better adapt to technical advances and battlefield needs. The target of the US Army was that the front protection against projectiles had to be increased by at least 35%, and the side protection by 48%. There should be the potential to increase armor protection by 50% at the expense of a higher vehicle weight. The target weight for the Block III tank was 57 to 62 tons (51.7 to 56.2 Mg). The modular arrangement should make it possible to optimize the protection package for RPG-7 threats in low-intensity conflicts in order to achieve a lighter vehicle mass, or to remove the armor for air transport.

The Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS) was planned as the central system for situational awareness and protection of the crew. This system consisted of several sensors and computers, which should improve the survivability of the vehicle through the automatic processing of battlefield information in real time. The sensors pre-processed the data before it was forwarded to a central computer for sensor fusion . The individual components of the system were linked by a MIL-STD-1553 bus. The type of sensors was specified on September 1, 1984 at the “Design Freeze”. It refers to:

  • Non-Imaging Sensor (NIS): An unknown number of microphones used to acoustically locate and identify targets. The NIS evaluated a sample every 250 ms and recorded the data for 10 targets with the highest priority (frequency and power). The emitters were identified and localized, with the localization consisting of the data azimuth, elevation and estimated distance, relative to the platform. The range was 15 km for the detection and 7 km for the identification of helicopters, with a 360 ° coverage.
  • Optics Sensor (OS): The AN / VLQ-7 Stingray system is used to disrupt ground and air targets by detecting and disrupting enemy optics. The OS consists of a laser (presumably Nd: YAG ) to scan the environment; Optics such as telescopic sights, CCD systems or corner mirrors are detected by the reflection. The system then initiates a fight process with a glare laser . Depending on the mode, the system works automatically, semi-automatically (manual release of the glare) or by manual control. The elevation, azimuth and distance data of the targets discovered during the raster scan were passed on to the central computer every 200 ms.
  • Laser Sensor (LS): The laser warner determined whether the tank was being targeted by a laser or whether it was being illuminated. The interface was based on the AN / ALR-69 radar detector . The bearing of the laser was determined and the pulse data was analyzed to determine the type of threat. The data (azimuth and type) were passed on to the central computer every 100–200 ms. Was later called the Laser Warning Receiver (LWR). The coverage was 360 ° in azimuth and -10 / + 40 ° in elevation.
  • Passive Missile Detector (PMD): Missile warning system, also known as Missile Warning System (MWS). Was later put into production by Honeywell as the AN / AAR-47 . At the time of the "Design Freeze" no precise information was available. The system works on an infrared basis. The intended readout speed was 250 ms and a location range of around 10 km. The azimuth, elevation, and range data should be reported along with the type of threat. The coverage is 360 ° in azimuth and -10 / + 40 ° in elevation, the range was later given as 6 km. The system is unable to track the weapon in flight.
  • Millimeter Wave Radar (MMW): A radar with millimeter waves , which would both also work actively as passive; should later be integrated into the VIDS. Was later called Future Armored System Radar (FAST). Was able to search, discover and classify targets. Officially, this was possible in a 90 ° sector, with a range of 200 to 5000 m. The coverage should be 210 ° in azimuth and only 0/10 ° in elevation.
  • NBC sensor (NBC): A sensor should still detect radiological, chemical, and biological hazards.
  • Tank Radar Warning Receiver (TRWR): Radar warning system for the tank, was only integrated later. The coverage was 240 ° in azimuth and -5 / + 80 ° in elevation. Was also able to determine the send mode (search, track, data link).
  • Muzzle Flash Detector (MFD): Sensor for detecting muzzle flashes, but could not determine whether one's own vehicle was being shot at. The coverage was 360 ° in azimuth and -10 / + 40 ° in elevation. The bullet was not tracked.

All data were fed into the data management system (DMS) , which carried out the multispectral sensor fusion , together with the crew's inputs . The DMS was programmed in Ada and worked on an adapted Motorola 68000 processor. If a target or an attacker was discovered, the central computer then worked out fully automatic countermeasures, which it could choose from a list of options:

  • Activation of a laser jammer against laser-guided weapons (laser decoy, LD). The device later called Laser Countermeasure Device (LCMD) projected a laser point 30 m away from the vehicle onto the ground. Was effective within 360 °.
  • An infrared jammer against SACLOS guided missiles (Missile Tracker Jammer, MTJ). The device later called Missile Countermeasure Device (MCD) had a coverage of ± 5 ° in azimuth and ± 18 ° in elevation. The system could move independently of the tower. The long-term integration of the AN / VLQ-6 was planned.
  • The Pedestal-Operated Multi-Ammunition Launching System (POMALS) from Israel Military Industries was used to deploy chaff, flares and fog. Two independently adjustable projectors, each with 180 ° coverage, were able to generate a 30 ° wide smoke screen within 4 seconds.
  • The Combat Protection System (CPS) is the name for the glare laser of the optics sensor (AN / VLQ-7). The system could be rotated independently of the tower. The glare laser covers 0 to 30 ° in elevation, the effective range is 700 to 8000 meters.
  • The alignment of the main weapon against the attacker (Main Weapon Counterfire, MWCF) with an accuracy of ± 5 °. Due to the weapon system, 360 ° in azimuth and -10 / + 20 in elevation could be covered, with an effective range of 3000 m.

In certain threats, the system also recommended driving under cover. According to some sources, a kind of hardkill system was installed at the TARDEC's operation and coupled with the active radar. At the same time, the threat was classified in a lethality index from 1 to 5 and presented to the commander on a flat screen. The system also warned the crew of the threat by voice output in order to improve situational awareness and to encourage the driver to take cover when instructed (man-in-the-loop). Announcements were for example:

  • During an air raid: “Aircraft 11 o'clock, jam, jam, cover!” The radar jammer was activated, the driver should take cover.
  • During the laser marking by an attack helicopter: “Helicopter 1 o'clock, decoy, 1 o'clock, decoy, cover, cover!” The laser jammer has been activated, the driver should take cover.
  • With a ground-based SACLOS guided missile on the vehicle: "Missile, missile, 3 o'clock, shoot, jam!" Infrared jamming transmitters and glare lasers were activated, the main weapon aimed at the attacker.
  • For a main battle tank: “Tank, tank, 1 o'clock, shoot, 1 o'clock, shoot!” The glare laser has been activated, the weapon is aimed at the target.
  • If optics were discovered: “Optics, Optics, 11 o'clock, 11 o'clock!” The blending laser was activated.
  • In the event of a helicopter attack: “Helicopter missile, 5 o'clock, decoy, cover!” The smoke device triggers and the driver should take cover.
  • In the case of a ground-launched Beamrider ATGM: “Laser missile, 9 o'clock, move, shoot, machine guns 9 o'clock!” Blinding laser was activated, recommendation to drive and point the weapon at the target.
  • During an RPG attack: "Missile Launch 4 o'clock, shoot, 4 o'clock, shoot!" Recommendation to point the weapon at the target.
  • When a ground surveillance radar is located : “Radar 11 o'clock, shoot, jam!” The smoke-throwing system is triggered, the weapon is aimed at the target.

There were a total of 39 different countermeasures, depending on how much the system knew about the threat (scout / combat helicopter, combat / armored personnel carrier, weapon steering mechanism, etc.). The VIDS could be operated in three modes: automatic, semi-automatic and manual. In semi-automatic mode, the commander had to give clearance before the countermeasures were triggered. The effectiveness of the VIDS was tested in 1995 in the Mounted Warfare TestBed in Fort Knox. For this purpose, four M1 tank crews (without loaders) were combined into a virtual train on the simulator , and various VIDS configurations were tested semi-automatically or fully automatically in virtual battles over several weeks. The result was that VIDS increased survivability: In comparison, VIDS platoons were less frequently attacked, hit and destroyed by main battle tanks, and the range of the enemy was reduced. Also, far fewer hits at short and long range were captured by anti-tank guided weapons . An increasing number of sensors on the vehicles increased the probability of survival of the train, but the self- fire of VIDS units was higher. The virtual enemy could be spotted a little earlier and destroyed a little faster. In the long term, the integration of friend-foe recognition was planned.

mobility

In August 1982 the US Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) started developing the Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) to create a new propulsion system for future battle tanks. The same drive power should be available as with the combination of AGT1500 gas turbine and X1100-3B gearbox, but with much more compact dimensions. The option of a diesel (AIPS-D) and a turbine drive (AIPS-T) was examined. As a stipulation, the TACOM demanded a net power on the drive wheel ( sprocket power ) of 1050 HP (150 m above sea ​​level at 30 ° C), which at 783 kW is below the net power of the M1 Abrams and the Leclerc with around 820 kW, but clearly higher than the Leopard 2 with 680 kW. The traction power should be a maximum of 1.2 times the vehicle weight, and 0.7 times for continuous power. The maximum speed was 75 km / h forwards and 30 km / h backwards. In order to be able to carry out a consumption comparison, a consumption cycle was set up over an average battle day, on which the participants had to be measured with the AGT1500 gas turbine. The target was to halve consumption. The most important criterion was that the space requirement could not exceed 194 cubic feet (5.5 m³) and that the unit had to be content with the installation dimensions in the rear of an M1. In July 1984, a consortium led by General Electric was awarded the contract for the AIPS-T, while Cummins was awarded the development contract for the AIPS-D.

  • AIPS-T : GE named its AIPS as LV100. The main components here are the turbine core, the gearbox with brakes, the recuperator, the cooler, the system for IR suppression, the fuel supply and the air filter. The high pressure turbine is based on the GE T700, while the low pressure part is derived from the MTU 7042. In order to reduce fuel consumption over a wide speed range, a number of technologies have been implemented: adjustable compressor blades, monocrystalline blades and modern injectors. The aim was to let the combustion process run at the highest possible temperature and to recover as much heat as possible in the recuperator. General Electric said it had reduced consumption by 45% over the cycle compared to the AGT1500. The AIPS-T requires less space than contractually guaranteed, and the fuel supply is housed in the front area of ​​the drive so that it can also be relocated to the chain shoulders or elsewhere in order to further reduce the overall depth. The complete unit with IR suppression, self-cleaning air filters and integrated auxiliary power unit (APU) weighs 5.5 tons (4.9 tons).
  • AIPS-D: Cummins called its AIPS the XAP-1000, with the diesel engine being called the XAP-28. The XAV-28 is a V-12 four-stroke engine with high boost pressure and low heat dissipation. The bank angle is 60 °. The bore is 150 mm, the stroke 130 mm. The displacement of 27.5 liters is about half that of the Leopard 2. The dry weight of the engine is 1891 kg, the consumption is slightly lower than that of the gas turbine. The XAP-28 is an almost adiabatic diesel engine, due to the low heat emission, there is no need for water cooling . The engine oil is sufficient to dissipate the heat. The greater energy of the higher exhaust gas temperatures is used to operate an auxiliary power unit (APU). While the challenge of a gas turbine drive is to reduce consumption, the difficulty with diesel engines is to reduce volume. In order to achieve sufficient power and responsiveness despite the small displacement, a turbocharger with variable blade position and a pressure ratio of 3.8 was installed with only one stage. With injection pressures of over 20 ksi (1389 bar), which are generated directly at the cylinder head, improvements could also be achieved. Although the XAP-1000 is also smaller than the AIPS requirements, the dimensions of the AIPS-T could not be achieved.

Both drives use the same Allison transmission with seven forward and two reverse gears. The XAP-1000 needs 175 ft³ of fuel for a day of combat, the LV100 is just a little less at 170 ft³. This volume advantage changes if fuel is required for two days of fighting. In this case the XAP-1000 is 205.1 ft³ and the LV100 is 206.8 ft³, the difference being meaningless. The gas turbine requires more filtered air, but the total air requirement of the diesel is higher due to the cooling. The air requirement in turn determines the size of the radiator grills, which represent a ballistic weak point and are three times heavier than normal armor for a given level of protection. The area of ​​the radiator grating is 20 ft² (1.85 m²) in the diesel, about twice as high as in the gas turbine. When these external factors are factored in, the XAP-1000 is approximately 1.7 tons (1.5 Mg ) heavier than the LV100, with fuel for a day of combat.

Consequently, on November 1, 1993, Cummins stopped developing the diesel, while GE made the race with the LV100. At that time, the turbine was already running successfully in a 200-hour sand suction test, with 99.995% of the granular substance being separated out. During this time, only 230 grams of sand passed the turbine, which was able to work without any loss of performance. TCM then selected the LV100 for the Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) common chassis.

The vehicle was to be equipped with a hydropneumatic chassis; variable height adjustment was provided as an option. An active chassis that adapts to the terrain in advance was not considered to be ready for series production. At least the chain tension should be regulated automatically. The chassis should have six castors on each side.

Armament

Due to the fear that the M1 main battle tank could be outclassed by the FST-3, development of the XM291 Advanced Tank Cannon (ATAC) began in 1985 in order to achieve the required destruction performance. The hysterical demands from the early days of development, when muzzle energies of over 18 MJ were required, gave way to a healthy pragmatism over time . Instead of demanding an increase in the muzzle energy of over 80% compared to the Rh120 (E 0 here approx. 10 MJ) with the same penetrator technology, the aim around 1990 was “only” an increase in the penetration capacity of 50% (E 0 approx. 15 MJ) Increase the effective range of the weapon by a third. Walter P. Wynbelt, the technical director of the ASM program, therefore saw a 120 mm cannon with electrothermal-chemical drive technology (ETC) as a possible option if there were technical advances in power electronics. For the planned introduction period of the Block III tank, however, the performance could only be safely achieved with a 140 mm powder cannon. The loading machine should increase the cadence compared to the M1 by 75%.

Stryker MGS with a 105mm cannon

The exact design of the loading machine is still subject to confidentiality, but the most likely structure can be found in a report in the ARMOR magazine of the US armed forces: In the rear of the hull there is a multi-storey tape loader that contains the ammunition supply. If the turret is in the 12 o'clock position, the tape loader can load a transfer piece with ammunition, which is located in the middle of the turret cage between the two soldiers. In the report, only two levers are shown which seems nonsensical, more likely an ammunition drum like the Stryker MGS. In any turret position, the drum can now turn so that the desired ammunition comes to a stop on the loading arm. For loading, the rear end of the cassette is raised and then pulled axially into the rear of the apex mount with the aid of a loading arm. There the front end of the cartridge pivots up to be in line with the barrel of the gun. Now the cartridge and the propellant charge are pushed into the chamber with a ram and the weapon is locked. The process is now reversed: the empty cassette tips over at the front and is then pushed axially into the drum by the loading arm, where the end of the cassette also swings away. The drum can now turn to the next cartridge and the cycle starts over. After the shot, the case stub is ejected over the stern.

The top mount of the Block III tank looks very similar to the Low Profile Turret of the Expeditionary Tank and the Stryker MGS , as all products are manufactured by GDLS. Presumably the same plans were used, as the M256 is compatible with the M68 cannon in the Abrams and the XM291 in turn had to cope with the installation dimensions of the M256. The Stryker Mobile Gun System uses an ammunition drum from Meggitt Defense Systems with 10 rounds instead of the tape loader in the rear of the hull. This can load the transfer drum when the tower is at 12 o'clock. The rest should be almost identical, except for the smaller ammunition. A machine gun in caliber 7.62 x 51 mm NATO was also planned as a coaxial weapon .

Platforms

Main battle tank

The Future Armored Combat System (FACS) should replace the M1 Abrams and counter the FST-3. It was supposed to be the first vehicle of a heavy tank family. Since the Army in 1991 specified an increase in frontal armor protection by 35–50% against KE projectiles, the hull front of the Block III tank should reach around 1190–1350 mm RHA with a protective effect of 880–900 mm RHA of an M1A1HA. It must be taken into account that the greatest likelihood of being hit is on the turret front with a turret armor, but on the upper hull front with a vehicle with a vertical carriage. The underside of the hull front can only be used to a limited extent for voluminous front armor due to the space requirements of the drive train Tanks here are definitely resistant to RPG-7 fire.

Engineer tanks

The Assault Breacher Vehicle firing demining cords

The Combat Mobility Vehicle (CMV) was intended to replace the outdated Combat Engineer Vehicle M728 and give the armored force the ability to overcome minefields and obstacles at high speed, which was crucial for the AirLand Battle concept. Since the M728 could not keep up with the M1, the CMV was of particular importance in order to be able to establish focal points quickly. The excavator arm was used to remove obstacles or fill trenches, a skill the US Army did not have then (and still does not have today). The mine plow should be controlled automatically in order to achieve a constant clearing depth. Both systems were tested on an M88A1 ​​in the mid-1980s. The crew should only consist of two men and the combat weight should be 52 tons (47 mg).

After the end of the ASM program, the Army developed the M1 Grizzly Pioneer Tank, which is based on the hull of the M1. It was designed because it became apparent that the Army lacked engineer tanks that could follow the M1A1 in the attack. Due to a lack of funds, further development of the two prototypes was stopped in 2000. Finally, the mine clearance tank Panther II (Army) and the Assault Breacher Vehicle (USMC) were procured in order to be able to cope with at least the basic task of mine clearance.

Armored personnel carriers

In principle, the Future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (FIFV) had the same armor protection as the FACS and could therefore always have followed it in battle. This was an important requirement of the US Army for the vehicle, which they made in the early 1970s, but failed with the concept at the Department of Defense and Congress, and therefore Bradley had to make do with. Now it was hoped that the realization that armor protection could not be compensated by tactics had reached those responsible. The tactical idea was that the Panzergrenadiers could also stay on board until the target was overrun, in order to then intervene directly on the spot without having to work their way to the enemy positions. Due to the high vehicle mass of up to 62 tons, the front armor would have been 1100% stronger than the M2 Bradley, and the side armor by 200%. In addition, the protective effect of the Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS) would be added. The armament was to be a 35–60 mm automatic cannon in an unmanned turret, and the penetration rate was to double that of the M242 Bushmaster . For the missile 150% more destruction performance was in discussion, but no specific type. The bullet shields and shooting hatches should be dispensed with in favor of an area effective system (e.g. fragmentation grenades) for defense against nearby infantry. The sitting strength was set at six people.

Self-propelled howitzer

XM2001 when shooting

The Advanced Field Artillery System (AFAS) should be the long-obsolete howitzers M109 replace, and was the only advocated by Congress vehicle. During the development, it was investigated whether the use of liquid propellants would make sense, or whether bag or stick propellants should be used as before. The aim of the development was to increase the range with standard projectiles to 40 km and to increase the rate of fire by 300% compared to the M109. When shooting with the MRSI method, four grenades should be able to hit the target at the same time. The demanding requirement to be able to fire at least 12 shells per minute, and this over 5 minutes, required a magazine with 60 rounds and a water-cooled gun barrel (see PzH 2000 with approx. 8 rounds / min). The automatic loading by the FARV-A should reduce the reload time by 2/3 compared to the M109 / M992 combination.

The crew should be housed separately from the ammunition and the drive compartment in a compact combat area. The charging process should take place fully automatically. The roof protection should protect against top attack ammunition and enemy counter fire. After the end of the ASM program, the project was continued separately as the XM2001 Crusader . The howitzer, the LV100-5 gas turbine and the compact combat area were taken over. As with the test vehicle TTB, the three crew members sat next to each other in the tub bow. The project was discontinued in favor of the NLOS-C of the Future Combat System .

Supply tanks

The Future Armored Resupply Vehicle - Artillery (FARV-A) was supposed to supply the AFAS with projectiles, propellant charge modules and fuel, and would have been implemented on the basis of the Common Medium-Protection Level Chassis (CMC). For cost reasons, this would have consisted of a modified tub of the M2 Bradley. Instead of a turret with a cannon, the loading vehicle should have a rigid structure with a "trunk". The “trunk” is inserted into the rear of the howitzer, through which fuel, grenades and propellant charge modules should be automatically transferred from the loading vehicle to the self-propelled howitzer. The concept would have made a supply possible under fire from artillery, small arms and NBC threat. For ammunition management, each grenade should be equipped with a chip that would be read automatically as soon as the projectile was pulled through the remote-controlled loading mechanism on board the AFAS. A loading vehicle that works according to this principle was later developed for the Crusader project.

Tank destroyers

The LOS-AT (line-of-sight antitank) was planned as a missile tank destroyer and should also be based on the Common Medium-Protection Level Chassis (CMC). The tank was supposed to replace the M901 ITV (improved TOW vehicle). The vehicle was to be armed with a Kinetic Energy Missile (KEM), which could accelerate a projectile to the speed of a tank cannon. One advantage would be that, compared to the TOW, twice as many missiles could be carried (24 instead of 12) and the range would increase to around 5000 m. The missile was later developed for series production as MGM-166 LOSAT , and test shots were carried out on modified HMMWVs . However, there was no introduction of troops.

useful information

The discontinuation of the ASM program can confidently be viewed as a stair joke of history : After the end of the Cold War , a vehicle mass of up to 63.5 Mg was no longer considered appropriate, and a lighter, air-transportable tank platform was required. The FCS program was started for this purpose, which began in 1996 as a tank concept and was expanded into a tank family in 1999 under Eric K. Shinseki . In 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled the program and launched the GCV program . Military load class , technologies (three-man crew, front engine, unmanned tower, active protection) and operational concept are practically identical to the ASM program. The lack of plan of politics thus cost about 30 years of delays and billions of dollars without a specific vehicle being introduced into the force. Nonetheless, the ASM program set the trend for a number of technologies and concepts that were also adopted by other countries:

  • The Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS), which the British referred to as the Tactical Reconnaissance Armored Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER), was developed in a US-British collaboration since 1998, and should include many sensor concepts such as microphones, lasers, etc. of the Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS) take over. The Manned Ground Vehicles of the FCS program relied almost entirely on active protection, presumably as a result of the euphoria over the achievements of the VIDS and the revolution in military affairs .
  • The Splitterskyddad Enhets Platform (SEP) developed from 1996 and the Multirole Armored Vehicle (MRAV) developed from 1998 adopted the idea raised in the ASM program of using version-specific mission modules on an identical driving module.
  • In 1995, the Bundeswehr stopped developing the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 in favor of a heavy unit platform . The underlying idea of ​​reducing costs was the same as that of the US Army. The development of a medium-sized unit platform was later started with the Multirole Armored Vehicle (MRAV). The full development of both projects also failed here because of politics.
  • The AN / VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasure Device (MCD) has been available to the armored forces since 1991 and can be mounted on the M1 Abrams or the M2 Bradley . In contrast to the VIDS, the “HardHat” is neither movable nor integrated into a sensor-computer network.
  • The AN / VLQ-7 Stingray was mounted on two Bradleys for test purposes in the Gulf War, but was never used according to official information. A very similar system has been installed in the Chinese Type 99 main battle tank since 1999 .
  • The initial range of vehicles in the ASM program included a Non-Line of Sight System - Anti-Tank / Air Defense (NLOS-AT / AD) vehicle, which was to combat air and ground targets alike. From this the Forward Area Air Defense (FAAD) program of the US Army developed, which was discontinued with the end of the Cold War. The universal missile contained the designation MIM-146, the vehicle was called ADATS .
  • The automatic loader and the compact combat chamber of the Advanced Field Artillery System (AFAS) were adopted for the XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon . The core crew was reduced to two men.
  • The automated charging process between the Advanced Field Artillery System (AFAS) and the Future Armored Resupply Vehicle - Artillery (FARV-A) was adopted for the South Korean K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer and its K10 supply vehicle.
  • General Dynamics Land Systems presented models of "Advanced Combat Vehicles" at the AUSA 2009 , the battle tank being practically identical to the Block III tank.

Web links

Information:
Pictures of the test vehicles:
Pictures of the Block III tank:

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Ross Dennis Boelke / NAVAL POST GRADUATE SCHOOL: A HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF THE ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM AND THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM ITS INTERACTION WITH THE ACQUISITION ENVIRONMENT , June 1992 ( Memento from October 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF file; 6.16 MB)
  2. ↑ ARMOR Magazine: The Resurrection of Russian Armor: Surprises from Siberia , Sept / Oct 1998 ( Memento from September 21, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 4.4 MB)
  3. ^ Defense Daily: Armored modernization needed to counter future Soviet tanks , April 26, 1990
  4. ↑ Orgorkiewicz, RM, Future Tank Guns, Part I: solid and liquid propellant guns, Janes International Defense Review, 12/1990, p. 1377
  5. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: A Simulation-Based Evaluation of a Force Protection System: Soldier Performance, Training Requirements, and Soldier-Machine Interface Considerations , February 1995
  6. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l ARMY Magazine: Armor's Future: From One, Many Eric C., Ludvigsen (Associate Editor); May 1991
  7. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o TARDEC: Development of the Vehicle Integrated Defense System Feasibility Demonstration Model , July 31, 1986
  8. ↑ a b Göran Sven Erik Pettersson / Naval Postgraduate School: An Illustrated Overview of ESM and ECM Systems , September 1993
  9. ^ A b c d e RAND: An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor / Anti-Armor Missions , June 27, 1991
  10. ↑ JANE'S INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW: GE / TEXTRON MAINTAIN LV100 MOMENTUM , November 1, 1993
  11. ↑ ARMOR Magazine: Ammunition Loading Systems for Future Tanks , March / April 1995 ( Memento from September 21, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 6.3 MB)
  12. ↑ Meggitt Defense Systems: Stryker Mobile Gun System 105mm Replenisher  ( page no longer available , search in web archives ) (PDF file; 691 kB)@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / mdswebmaster.com
  13. ^ FAS: AN / VLQ-7 Stingray , accessed December 31, 2012
  14. ↑ defense-update: General Dynamics Land Systems Unveils New Designs of Advanced Combat Vehicles at AUSA 2009 , accessed on December 31, 2012 ( Memento from January 6, 2010 in the Internet Archive )