Jump to content

M1A2 SEP V3


daskal

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, daskal said:

First prototypes to be shipped shortly:

 

http://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-to-Receive-First-New-Prototype-M1A2-SEP-v3-Abrams-Main-Batt-107426939

 

are they exchanging the engine on this one - no more jet engine sound?

 

M1A2SEPv3 will keep AGT1500, altough perhaps modified, this is uncertain, tough informations I have says, despite being much heavier than it's predecessors, M1A2SEPv3 weights 73 metric tons, it's much more reliable vehicle.

 

Engine replacement might come with ECP2 upgrade program sometime in future. M1A2SEPv3 = ECP1A, M1A2SEPv4 = ECP1B. With ECP2 designation might finally be changed to M1A3, as much more modifications are considered and planned, like new gun, autoloader etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

In before the politics and Abrams/US haters come along...

Huh?.....where does that come from? ....In the decade or so i have frequented this site, i cant recall ever having come  across anybody "hating" on the Abrams. Quite the contrary in fact, The M1 is often highlighted as the best modern tank design, and used as the gold standard against which all other tanks is measured. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2017 at 2:44 PM, Damian90 said:

 

M1A2SEPv3 will keep AGT1500, altough perhaps modified, this is uncertain, tough informations I have says, despite being much heavier than it's predecessors, M1A2SEPv3 weights 73 metric tons, it's much more reliable vehicle.

 

Engine replacement might come with ECP2 upgrade program sometime in future. M1A2SEPv3 = ECP1A, M1A2SEPv4 = ECP1B. With ECP2 designation might finally be changed to M1A3, as much more modifications are considered and planned, like new gun, autoloader etc.

 

Trying to understand how a new V3, that is just about to enter service, could be more reliable without a history in a maintenance world.

 

It seems to me, and others I'm sure, that any "more reliable" statement would be made after some time to prove/record such data.

 

Maybe the V3 is not subject to such criteria. I will did deeper.

 

But good on the US army for upgrading their MBT's :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.09.2017 at 8:45 PM, 12Alfa said:

 

Trying to understand how a new V3, that is just about to enter service, could be more reliable without a history in a maintenance world.

 

It seems to me, and others I'm sure, that any "more reliable" statement would be made after some time to prove/record such data.

 

Maybe the V3 is not subject to such criteria. I will did deeper.

 

But good on the US army for upgrading their MBT's :)

 

Because M1A2SEPv3 was tested by both GDLS and US Army? Like any kind of new equipment and was compared to currently used ones. Remeber that there was a lot of improvements added to the vehicle, it's entire electronics architecture replaced for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

Because M1A2SEPv3 was tested by both GDLS and US Army? Like any kind of new equipment and was compared to currently used ones. Remember that there was a lot of improvements added to the vehicle, it's entire electronics architecture replaced for example.

Well if you base your criteria on testing (5 years?)vs past history, of what 20 some years, and decide it is more reliable and the army accepts this method -super.  I would not, to me it sounds like a car salesman tell a customer that this new model is more reliable,  because like always it went through our testing, I don't buy it. But we are entitled to our opinions in this regard.

Time will be the deciding judge in the long run (no pun intended) :)

 

Hope it works out for the operators.

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 29.9.2017 at 8:19 PM, dejawolf said:

could be it has less parts which usually = more reliability. 

 

...unless the fewer parts have a higher likelihood of failue than the many parts combined that they may be replacing ;)

 

p(fail) = 1-((1-p1(fail)) x (1-p2(fail)) x (1-p3(fail)) x ... x (1-pn(fail)))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29.09.2017 at 8:51 PM, 12Alfa said:

Less parts I would Think suggest less weight, apparently not in this case. I'm not buying it, further data is required.

Also Meh!

 

The weight increase in majority of % comes from new armor package that replaces the currently used one. In fact M1A2SEPv3 by pure armor mass is the heaviest MBT curently in the world.

 

In case of other components, it actually should be lighter, for example new electronics are more compact, lighter and energy efficent. We can safely assume that in case of M1A2SEPv3, the primary reason why it weights 73 metric tons and not less than current 63.5 metric tons of M1A2SEPv2, is because of new armor.

 

Heck even new CROWS-LP RWS is around 50% smaller than M153 CROWS-2 RWS, which also means less weight for this component.

Edited by Damian90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

...unless the fewer parts have a higher likelihood of failue than the many parts combined that they may be replacing ;)

 

p(fail) = 1-((1-p1(fail)) x (1-p2(fail)) x (1-p3(fail)) x ... x (1-pn(fail)))

 

less parts means less parts that can break, which means less parts that needs to be kept in stock by maintenance personell, which means increased strategic reliability, because the parts are more likely to be kept in stock even if they break more often. 

less parts also means lower cost per part to manufacture, which means the army can buy more spare parts, which again means that the parts are more likely to be available when they break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damian90 said:

It is hard to not buy a facts... but I guess it's the same like with a people that do not buy that earth is not flat or a center of universe? ;)

The only

"fact" I'm not buying is reliability , this needs time to prove, I don't see this in testing, rather in years of operational use.

Also, would like some comments by the users on how the CROWS placement hinders their tactical viewing, good,bad, no change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

The only

"fact" I'm not buying is reliability , this needs time to prove, I don't see this in testing, rather in years of operational use.

Also, would like some comments by the users on how the CROWS placement hinders their tactical viewing, good,bad, no change?

 

New CROWS-LP is around 50% smaller improving visibility, also there were some other positive feedback I seen, like it's being more accurate due to lower height, and easier to use in manual mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

New CROWS-LP is around 50% smaller improving visibility, also there were some other positive feedback I seen, like it's being more accurate due to lower height, and easier to use in manual mode.

 Sry, was looking from operational commander who have used it in RL,  and not from published sources. Some of our USA players here, no offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...