The NGAD was just a way to test out concepts. But the idea it would lead to a design mature enough for production was far fetched at best. Just like China developed the FC-31 in several iterations but now has to go for a new prototype for J-XY and who knows when will a final design which can enter production be available. For the concept the US talked about with NGAD to happen several changes would have to happen with the US MIC and I do not see any of them happening.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
They're really going ahead with this, I didn't think it would actually get built.
Basically the stats for this light tank are: 35 tons, 4 man no autoloader, 105mm main gun, 1100HP, front armour can withstand 30mm APDS, 12 million bucks each.
All you Type 15 haters can stop shitting on it now.
Basically the stats for this light tank are: 35 tons, 4 man no autoloader, 105mm main gun, 1100HP, front armour can withstand 30mm APDS, 12 million bucks each.
All you Type 15 haters can stop shitting on it now.
Last edited:
1100hp? Damn that’s a lot of power. Also 12 mill each??! That’s expensive for a light tank
There is plenty of time for it to get cancelled still, specially after a few billions more are poured into the project.
We can probably run run a bet on it. Winner gets paid in ukranian hryvnias
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Blah blah blah.
The US Army hasn’t had a light tank since the M551 Sheridan from 1969 to 1997. A lack luster vehicle that suffered due to the limitations of the 152mm Lv gun missile launcher and the Missile. Weak aluminum construction and all around issues.
As well as the eras perception that tank guns couldn’t be fitted on light vehicles. The US Army had experimented with some awesome ideas including a 75mm hv automatic canon. The system worked, it used CTA technology was partially developed by Eugene Stoner of AR15 fame. This was tested on the ACVT program and the XM274 with the HSTV-L. It even offered potential for use beyond anti armor. Though in testing it could chew up T55 and early T72 right up to T80 emerging Soviet armor upgrades made the Army skeptical that it was a future proof option. The gun also deemed lack luster vs bunkers. They looked at a 90mm iteration that atleast in theory offered 105mm power equivalent.
However this seems to have come to a dead end as conventional smooth bore guns had by that point been proven viable on lighter vehicles.
the Army began work on a number programs like the Mobile protected gun and eventually the Armored Gun System.
The AGS looked at a number of configurations including unmanned turrets and conventional tanks eventually leading to the adoption of the XM8 AGS from United defense. However by the time of selection it was 1996. The Soviets were gone The US DOD was fighting for every penny and the conventional wisdom for the Army was that force on force was over. The World’s only superpower was in the peacekeeping mission. The M8 AGS was killed in first by stand down of the 2ACR and then as the army started shifting to the Peacekeeping.
As part of peacekeeping doctrine Track were for the moment out. The Stryker was born with the longer term goal of the FCS vehicles which looked at a number of possible light tanks.
in the meantime the light tank role was filled. The Stryker MGS used technology from the Mobile protected gun program in the form of the Teledyne AGS an automatic loading 105mm turret.
However Stryker in hindsight had issues as the hull floor was easily defeated by mines. Not an issue if both sides of a conflict really don’t want to fight but in asymmetrical war a big problem. It also apparently skimped on the AC for early production. Clearly an issue in a vehicle that deployed heavier in the Middle East. The automatic loader was okay… the secondary replenishment system sucked. Enough that they replaced it shifting from two 5 round drums to one 10 round drum.
Anyway by the new millennium FCS was pitching a long term replacement in the form of the XM1202 Mounted Combat system a number of options were studied including a 105mm CTA gun. Eventually they pitched a configuration sporting the XM360 a 120mm light weight gun on a carousel loader in a light 25ton vehicle. Of course by 2006 FCS was stalled and scrapped. It was to reliant on emerging technology and not ready to go.
So down scaling of the Army in the “End of History era” and perceived mission shift with other vehicles constantly shifting into the position of the “Next American light tank” killed the AGS.
Of course in the era of low intensity conflict the Army really didn’t need a new light tank. the Stryker was okay. and with 142 procured matches as an analog to the MPF.
Like the Stryker MGS the MPF is built on established technologies and systems. The Hull, Turret and gun are proven or derivative of proven systems with a small number of about a hundred intended for procurement.
Wasnt it succesful last time?