M1A3 MBT coming?

[Paderborn]

While looking up information on the M1A2 TUSK MBT I came across some images of the prototype M1A3 Abrams displayed both on a flatcar and in an open field. It appears to follow the conventional turreted, large-caliber gun current design of the M1A2 Abrams but with a more massive, squarish turret. The only info on gun size was speculative in that a 120mm and 140mm tank gun are under consideration.
Hope to see this in a future SPMBT upgrade.
By the way. Thank you to all involved in the recent v7 patch and the ongoing improvement of an already outstanding game. You folks are great!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I would refer you to the MBT Thread Posts #249 & #250. Post #249 is the "cleaned up" version from the Patch Thread, note input A1. The ref used here is from an official USA source. In A1 you will see that the USA only operates what is now in order of modification from the newest back the M1A2 SEP V2, M1A2 SEP V1 and the M1A1 SA (Operated by the USAR and NG.) Currently the life cycle of the ABRAMs has been extended to 2050, with the V1 and then the SA ABRAMS to be brought up to the V2 standard. The SA conversions will take longer and be more expensive because you have to take an M1A1 > M1A2 > M1A2 SEP V1 > M1A2 SEP V2, they might skip a step or two to get there but the budget will be the main driver here. The other issue no one is publicly talking about is when will the USMC get theirs?
There is only speculation on the next name and after how many further modifications to the M1A2 SEP V2 will warrant that change. I would suggust with all due respect what the pictures show are the M1A2 SEP V2 that only became operational this past year.
From the second ref of Post #250 I leave you with the following...
This should be resolved in the congressional conference committee. (The lower figure would support 60 tanks per year; the higher figure, 70.) It is anticipated that, initially, remaining M1A2 SEP V1 tanks would be converted to M1A2 SEP V2 with conversion of the M1A1 SA tanks to follow. Cannon noted that such an annual conversion program “would keep the
industrial base moving while the Army decides how it wants to utilize the tank industrial base.” “What the Army’s reaction to the markup will be is yet to be determined,” he continued. “And I think congressional language encouraging them to continue that 70 tanks a year will help in a final decision of pure fleeting.”
And...
Cannon said that any future Abrams modernization strategy “would probably be in several increments—at least two but probably more—as we move to what could possibly be an M1A3 or an M1A2 SEP V3.”
Finally...
Noting that one possible element of a future Abrams modernization strategy could involve “re-engining” the tanks, Cannon pointed to an ongoing, company-funded effort to explore “reengining” the Abrams with the same MTU 883 engine that the company proposed for its ground combat vehicle
offering.
“That can offer significant operations and support cost savings, especially if you consider that the tank is going to be around until 2050,” he said.

Finally this is all game entered, though I haven't verified the status of tanks in the NG section of the USA OOB if it still exists there. Check the picture submitted for the M1A2 SEP V2 USA OOB UNIT #517 and see if it's the same as what you saw.

Regards,
Pat

[Paderborn]

Thank you for the detailed response.
The still shots and video of the "mystery tank" do not appear to be the same as the MBT shown in slot #517. The turret of the MBT at
http://defensetech.org/2011/01/27/na...-mystery-tank/ show what looks like a current M1A2 Abrams hull but with a much more elongated, massive turret and possibly a larger caliber main gun though the image perspective doesn't make that certain.
I've got to say that I'm surprised that the U.S. Army may be looking at any kind of improvement and maintaining of the heavy type MBT of the "legacy" armored formations as I thought the trend was towards smaller, lighter AFV types. Possibly the rise of the Chinese military and increased military spending by that country accounts for this. Thank's again!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First it should be understood that any new/prototype weapons system would not be riding around uncovered (The Russian T-95 is a perfect example of this. I followed that tank for about 3 yrs anticipating the first public showing of the successor to the BLACK EAGLE project. All I got was pictures of a covered tank on a transporter until the program was cancelled and I posted the pictures of the only one built. All of this is in the beginning of the MBT Thread.) if it were it would be all over the net in legitimate sites. That site actually provided all the clues to what was shown. I'll save everyone the time. First the M1A2 SEP V2 has benefited from this program, secondly so has our various ammunition and other associated programs that fell under the Future Combat System Program or FCS.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ound/fcs-t.htm

Under this umbrella falls the Advanced Tank Armament System or ATAC and the CATTB/or CATT-B Prototype Program to develop a platform to mount the weapon on. Many already exist see the pictures below however none to date got out of the prototype stage. Which is why I await the Russian ARMATA which still might only mount a 125mm vs. the anticipated 152mm. Why? Well that'll be at the end. First more on these programs...
Though "filtered" through an A+ site get beyond the source to get to the source please.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-F...Gun-System.pdf
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2...-gun.kruse.pdf
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=59
And finally AGAIN go back and READ the second ref from POST #250 in the MBT Thread.

What's the status? Well as I've posted the FCS Program is dead. It's in the MBT/APC Threads somewhere. Another vehicle program down the drain, did I mention the ABRAMS was going to be around to ~2050?
http://www.defense.gov/releases/rele...eleaseid=12763

I'm directing you and others back to those refs because ammo is now is the key, remember from the M1A2 SEP V2 submission, I quoted in my write up that the Army finally had a system that can keep up with the ammo (Paraphrased here of course.). Think about it we have a 120mm round that has an advertised kill rate of over 90% at over 4000 meters and as noted from Ref 2 Post #250 a newer Kinetic Round is in development WHICH MEANS BETTER. Also it was found those platforms weren't going to be cheap or capable of handling those weapons, to include other issues. So what you have in those pictures is a rusted prototype from a dead program. Seven were built (In the U.S.) and the debate is whether it's the first or last prototype that was built. And before I get sarcastic, I show pictures instead. The ATAC side of the program was an international one to counter the yes, Soviet threat against them rearming or developing tanks again of carrying a heavier caliber main gun.
Pics:


By way of an update since mentioned the new "ARMATA" 125mm will be mounted on the T-90AM/MS (Export) will submit changes to the game unit in the fall as requested earlier. Also sorry to say ARMATA is not looking good for WinSPMBT, real life dates are shifting. The FCS program replacement the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program is in critical condition hence the upgrades to the BRADLEY that also got in on the last patch.

Regards,
Pat