Re: The US Army\'s 1990s AMS Program
From an interview with the program manager in the same issue (at least I think he was the PM)
Q. About the MBT weight issue, people were talking conceptually about 45 tons, 50 tons, 55 tons. Is there a weight objective for the Block III tank?
A. Yes. There is a desired weight, and there is a required weight. We have gone through weight study analysis and everything is a trade-off. When we looked at airlift, sealift, trains, the break point is 38 tons. Once you exceed 38 tons, it really does not make any difference until you get up to 65-66 tons, because then you get into ramp weights and decking weights for shipping. But that is combat weight. The objective is to get as much protection and lethality on the systems as we can at the most reduced weight. You really want to stay in the 60-ton arena because that is where all your bridging is and all of your support.
And Some elucidation on the 140 issue:
Q. Are you pretty much committed for Block III main armament to the gun that the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center is now developing? The 140-mm with automatic loader?
A. That is where we are going right now. The weapon of choice is a 140-mm gun. The key to the 140 is the gun mount and the breech. It has a capability with the breech design of being able to use the 120-mm [ammunition]. It is very attractive because we can maybe use the 120 for training, to save costs. We might initially field with the 120 —I don't know, this is out in the future—because you've got all those stocks procured, and it may be all you need at that point. But with the 140, we know the difference in lethality. We will use the same kind of technology that we used in the kinetic-energy rounds for the 120—more mass going faster.
|
Threaded Mode