222 Abrams M1A1 SA for Morocco

Rappel du premier message :

Citation :

Moroccan officers experience US tanks

FORT HOOD, Texas-- Moroccan army officers visited 1st Bn., 8th Cav. Regt. during a field exercise on Fort Hood, Texas, Sept. 21

Tabrisius
merçi pour tes réponses

j'ai regardé un peu l'organisation blindée lourd en France .. : le découpage est de 50-60 chars lourds Leclerc par régiment blindé, ce qui fait au total 4 régiments VBT au total

chaque régiment blindée tourne autour d'un millier d'hommes soit au total entre 16 et 20 hommes (tous grades) par VBT.

si on applique le même ratio, çà fait environ 2000 hommes pour les 100 A1 et le double donc pour la dotation finale des 200 A1

al_bundy a écrit:

J'aurais plus tendance à douter de cette source mais comme on dis "wait and see". Même 100 abrahm's c'est très bien. Il me semble qu'un abrahm's dégomme à lui seul 6 ou 7 t-72. Il me semble, si mes souvenirs sont bon, que ce fut lors de la guerre du golf. Les abrahm's faisaient mouche à longue distance. Je peux me tromper bien sure mais il me semble que ce fut le cas. Il n y eut qu'une seule victoire de t72.

correction : 0 victoires de t-72 ni dans la premiere ni dans la seconde. les obus de t-72 ne parvenaient meme pas a eraffler la peinture du glassis (3 tirs direct sur le glassis d'un M1 et peinture a peine errafflee)

H3llF!R3 a écrit:

al_bundy a écrit:

J'aurais plus tendance à douter de cette source mais comme on dis "wait and see". Même 100 abrahm's c'est très bien. Il me semble qu'un abrahm's dégomme à lui seul 6 ou 7 t-72. Il me semble, si mes souvenirs sont bon, que ce fut lors de la guerre du golf. Les abrahm's faisaient mouche à longue distance. Je peux me tromper bien sure mais il me semble que ce fut le cas. Il n y eut qu'une seule victoire de t72.

correction : 0 victoires de t-72 ni dans la premiere ni dans la seconde. les obus de t-72 ne parvenaient meme pas a eraffler la peinture du glassis (3 tirs direct sur le glassis d'un M1 et peinture a peine errafflee)

c'est beau mais ya a remettre la chose dans le contlexe ! une coaalition qui a netoyé le pays avec des missile et des avion , des helicoptere plein le ciel en couverture, pour les irakien aucun radar, aucun information sur la position des m1a1 etc etc .

M1A1 messieurs uniquement

Citation :

Army brass to Congress: We don’t need new tanks

By Kate Brannen - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Mar 7, 2012 18:56:36 EST
Army officials are once again on Capitol Hill trying to convince lawmakers that they do not need new M1 Abrams tanks.

Not only does the Army not need new tanks, it doesn’t need to upgrade the ones it has for another few years, Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told lawmakers Wednesday during a hearing of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

It is one of the most modernized platforms in the Army and has an average age of two-and-a-half-years old, Army Secretary John McHugh said.

The Army plans to finish out its Abrams buy in 2014 and then not begin upgrading its current fleet until 2017.

The Army tried to make the same argument last year, but Congress did not agree. In the 2012 defense appropriations bill, it provided an additional $255 million to buy 42 more tanks. The money was intended to keep the General Dynamics Land Systems’ production line open in Lima, Ohio.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said that last year there was broad support on the committee to keep the Abrams production line open.

“Can you tell me how the Army sees this now?” he asked McHugh and Odierno.

McHugh said he just approved the execution of the 2012 Abrams funds. That money will buy between 42 and 44 tanks, which is fewer than needed to keep the production line going.

“In order to sustain the Abrams line at Lima, you have to produce at least 70 tanks a year. So, while the money provided is substantial, it will not fill the production gaps,” McHugh said.

Army analysis found that it would cost $600 million to $800 million to close and later reopen the production line versus the nearly $3 billion it would take to keep it up and running during that same time, McHugh said.

Not only does the Army not need the extra tanks now, it likely will have even less use for them once it completes a force mix study currently underway, Odierno said.

That study is determining how many infantry, Stryker and heavy brigades the Army will need in the future. The study could recommend further reductions in brigade combat teams — beyond the eight brigades the Army already plans to cut.

“As we go through this force structure review, we actually might reduce the requirement for heavy capabilities and that’s something that we have to make sure we take a look at,” Odierno said.

As for the other types of brigades, Odierno said, “I’ll tell you that right now the Stryker brigades are really not under consideration, because they’re found to be a very flexible capability that we want to sustain.”

Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., asked whether the Army should keep production lines open by buying the National Guard and Reserve more M1A2 System Enhancement Program tanks, a more advanced variant than the M1A1 model.

Odierno said it could be beneficial for everyone to have a SEP tank, but added that the M1A1 is a “very good tank.”

The M1A1 is not as technically complex, which can make it easier to operate and requires less training, a plus for the Guard and Reserve, who have less time to train, Odierno said.

“Again, we’re in the process of reducing force structure. My guess is we will reduce some of our heavy requirements, so there will be tanks moving from the active to the reserve component probably. We have to continue to do that analysis before we make the determination of whether we need more SEP tanks.”

Dicks asked if the Army’s analysis considered the industrial base implications and the knowledge and skills that could be lost by closing down that factory for three years.

“We are concerned about those high-end jobs,” McHugh said, adding that the Army is working to fill in some of those production gaps with foreign military sales.

Odierno said several countries are considering buying new Abrams tanks, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and “a few others.”

U.S.-Egyptian co-production of the M1A1 Abrams tank began in 1988. Some of the tank’s components are manufactured at an Egyptian facility, while the remaining parts are produced in the U.S. and then shipped to Egypt for final assembly.

Last July, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a potential sale to Egypt of 125 M1A1 tank kits for an estimated cost of $1.3 billion.

Saudi Arabia already has a large fleet of Abrams tanks.

Sales to both countries have come under increased scrutiny because of events related to the Arab Spring.

Members of Congress have expressed concerns about selling more tanks to Egypt while that country’s government is still in transition.

Last February, Saudi Arabia, along with the United Arab Emirates, led an armored intervention into neighboring Bahrain to help its government end growing popular unrest.

The German government faced widespread criticism last July when news broke that it planned to sell Saudi Arabia 200 German-made Leopard tanks, with critics citing Saudi Arabia’s actions to suppress protests in Bahrain.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/03/army-tells-congress-we-dont-need-tanks-030712d/

TACOM continue d'affirmer le chiffre de 200 Abrams pour l'année fiscale 2012
http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/future_buys/FMSWRN.cfm

remarquez le terme Enhanced configuration, ça vient de enhancement quand on cite AIM cest souvent overhauled

c'est pas le meme document qu'a posté YAKUZA il ya quelque temps?? car vu la date le 26 10 2011, c'est un peu old...

Spoiler:

EDIT : spoiler

26 octobre 2011 c'est récent pas OLD !!!

Correction pour Enhanced configuration on aura les Abrams M1A1 FEP



http://www.marines.mil/unit/pandr/Documents/Concepts/2001/PDF/CI%202001%20chapt%204%20part%202%20Firepower%20M1A1%20FEP.pdf

bienvue Famas

Citation :

M1A1 Abrams Tank Firepower Enhancement Program (FEP)

The M1A1 Abrams Tank Firepower Enhancement Program (FEP), a Marine Corps Systems Command initiative, is intended to increase the all weather, day and night target acquisition and engagement ranges and provide a far target location capability for the M1A1 Tank. The FEP system will include a scope of work that entails a suite of upgrades for the M1A1 Tank. These upgrades include a second-generation thermal sight and a north finding/target locating capability. The system will increase the tank crew's ability to detect, recognize, identify and accurately locate targets.

In the Fall of 2004, Marine Corps Systems Command signed the Milestone C Decision for full rate production of the M1A1 Tank Firepower Enhancement Program (FEP). Installed on the M1A1 Tank, the FEP will bring the MAGTF all weather, thermal, day or night, rapid and accurate target engagement capability. Additionally, it will couple extended engagement ranges with a new Far Target Locate (FTL) function. Overall, the FEP greatly increases tank lethality and extends the Marine Corps overmatch of current and expected threat systems beyond 2018.

The Firepower Enhancement Program is a suite of upgrades for the M1A1 tank that will be installed on all 403 existing platforms. The system includes a second-generation thermal sight, the Far Target Locate capability, and an eye-safe laser rangefinder. The second-generation thermal sight consists of upgrades to the M1A1's infrared optics, an infrared focal plane array, associated analog and digital electronics, display, and brackets and cables. The FTL consists of a North Finding Module (NFM), bracket, cables and inputs from the existing laser rangefinder, and a Precision Lightweight Global Positioning Receiver (PLGR). The FTL formulates a targeting solution using inputs from the laser rangefinder, the PLGR and the NFM. The eye-safe laser rangefinder will replace the current non-eye-safe rangefinder.

The FTL will initially be unique to the Marine Corps, providing tank crews with accurate target location out to 8,000m with less than 35m Circular Error Probable (CEP). Milestone C ultimately releases $121.5 million in procurement to begin full rate production, followed by install and Initial Operating Capability in FY '06. All 403 systems will be fielded and installed for Fully Operational Capability by end FY '09

Globalsecurity

je me demande l'upgrade intègre la CITV de raython, sa en fera une config très proche du M1A2

Apparement pas CITV, l'upgrade de la FLIR est destiné au Gunner mais les autres améliorations augmente les capacité du char.

Citation :

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
FEP Thermal Imaging System
The FEP Thermal Imaging System (TIS), is designed to give the USMC M1A1 Abrams gunner the capability to survey the battlefield and acquire and engage threats day or night in adverse weather conditions with the vehicle stationary or on the move. It provides greater target acquisition ranges than first generation thermal sights, providing dual opto-mechanical fields of view with two levels of electronic magnification for improved situational awareness while retaining or improving current hit probability. It includes a 2nd generation thermal sight based on the same detector (Standard Advanced Dewar Assembly Type II, SADA II) and optics used in the US Army Horizontal Technology Integration B-Kit (HTI B-Kit) program. To accommodate the higher performance imaging capability a new Biocular Image Control Unit (BICU) is provided. Although the BICU is similar to the unit in the US Army’s M1A2SEP vehicles this new BICU was required to be smaller and lighter for the M1A1s. A Far Target Location (FTL) capability is provided based on an inertial north finding module integrated with the FEP TIS, the laser range finder and a GPS receiver.

http://www.ndia-mich.org/downloads/GVSETS/GVSETSPapers/Vehicle%20Electronics%20and%20Architecture/Recent%20Integration%20of%202nd%20Generation%20Thermal%20Imaging%20on%20Armored%20Vehicles.pdf

FAMAS a écrit:

26 octobre 2011 c'est récent pas OLD !!!

Correction pour Enhanced configuration on aura les Abrams M1A1 FEP



http://www.marines.mil/unit/pandr/Documents/Concepts/2001/PDF/CI%202001%20chapt%204%20part%202%20Firepower%20M1A1%20FEP.pdf

comme disait bien Yak...

Yakuza Mar 15 Nov - 21:42 a écrit:

non Pegasus,seuls les entourés sont Morocco.
Boubou: aucune idée,ca sera claire quand ca sortira,soit une sorte de FEP ou AIM,wait and see
documentez vous ladessus les gars

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a1.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

https://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/t2993p300-abrams-m1a1-for-morocco

Il faudrait pas s'aventurer en disant FEP, AIM ou SA...ça peut bien étre une configuration propre et inédit pour nos besoin, mais dans tout ça, le plus important c'est si on aura le Datalink, Chobham et munitions APFSDS...etc.

Chobham c'est pas une question à poser ! qui a eu abrams sans ça ?!! filez une source pas paroles en l'air
avec qui les FAR s'entrainent lors de l'african lion ?!!.... les chars marocains seront pris du stock US déjà upgraded since 2005

Citation :

The only Egypt main battle tank’s difference was usage of multi-layered armor similar to M1 version. Egypt rejected additional used in M1A1 "Abrams" precipitant uranium increased armor.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1779

a sidi, all exported Abrams tanks are downgraded export versions with weaker armor, armor piercing ammo with smaller penetration values and other downgrades.

It's known worlwide this info...no DU armor, no APFSDS, and i don't wven know if the data link is existing in M1 operator's armies...

Thats the point with the Abrams, and if I'm wrong just prove it to me...

au moins prend le texte en entier

Citation :

In November 1998 there was made an agreement organizing in Egypt cooperation assemblage and serial production of 555 M1A1 main battle tanks for Egypt Armed Forces. The only Egypt main battle tank’s difference was usage of multi-layered armor similar to M1 version. Egypt rejected additional used in M1A1 "Abrams" precipitant uranium increased armor. Tanks were built in Egypt plant No.200 since year 1992. 40% of parts and equipments are made in this African republic while the other part is imported from USA. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait and a number of tanks are used by Egypt.

ça parle de Abrams assemblé en Egypte ! ça ne dit nul part que c'est downgraded tu tire des conclusions facilement ça reste à prouver
faut il rappeler que le Maroc est un allié majeur, que l'armement auquel nous avons eu droit sur F16 est bien plus sensible que ça...

Chér FAMAS, c'est connu, et je ne suis pas le seul a le dire:

H3llF!R3 a écrit:

Seguleh I a écrit:

Exactement Lemay, Khassna zrda, toi aussi Hellfire pas la peine de te cacher

Je ne me cache pas, mais j'attend de savoir s'il y aura du chobham ou pas. Ce n'est pas evident au vu que tous les exports se sont faits sans la magie de l'uranium appauvri, qui pour moi est l’ingrédient de base de la puissance de l'abrams.

https://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/t2993p210-abrams-m1a1-for-morocco

H3llF!R3 a écrit:

Il y a une raison pour laquelle on utilise des turbines dans les chards de combat lourds (M1AX et Leclerc) c'est que le puissance d'une turbine est de loin superieur a la puissance d'un moteur conventionnel (il faut toujours voir le couple et pas les chevaux), de plus on aura pas de probleme de carburant si les chars sont utilises de maniere defensive (ce qui pose problème aux américains c'est de déployer 6000 chars a 10 000 kms de la maison de faire importer du carburant des Etats Unis.

En ce qui me concerne j'attend de voir si il y a du DU ou pas, jusqu'a maintenant tres peu de pays (voir aucun) n'a pris de DU en armure.

https://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/post?p=198585&mode=quote

juba2 a écrit:

http://www.enotes.com/topic/M1_Abrams clickez ici l'article est tres long est detaille.

Citation :

Australia - Australian Army: 59 M1A1SA (hybrids, mix equipment used by US Army tanks and USMC tanks, without DU layers in armor) tanks were bought from the United States in 2006, to replace the Leopard AS1 in 2007.[57]
Egypt - Egyptian Army: 1,005 M1A1 (downgraded, without DU layers in armor), to be brought to M1A2SEP. Tanks co-produced by the USA and Egypt for the Egyptian army.[58]

Iraq - Iraqi Army has 140 M1A1Ms (downgraded, without DU layers in armor) on order, to be delivered by 2011. Currently 22 US.Army M1A1s are leased for training.[45][59][60][61] First 11 was delivered to the army in August 2010.[62]
Kuwait - Kuwaiti Army 218 M1A2s (downgraded, without DU layers in armor)[63]
Morocco - Royal Moroccan Army: 200 M1A1 AIM[64] An order was placed in 2010.[citation needed]

Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabian Army 315[65] eventually to be upgraded to M1A2S (without DU layers in armor)
United States - United States Army and United States Marine Corps have approximately 6,000 M1A1 and M1A2 variants combined in inventory.[35][66]
1,174 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants (Army inventory)[66]
4,393 M1A1 variants (Army inventory)[66]
403 M1A1s (Marine Corps inventory)[66]

https://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/t2993p255-abrams-m1a1-for-morocco

Comme tu vois, je ne suis pas l'uniqu a l'avoir dit...alors reste a voir ce qu'on aura...ça sera toujours "wait and see"

enotes = wikipedia = bullshit

et moi je te dis que les avions de chasses sont télécommandés crois le..........
sois que tu appui tes dires par de VRAIS SOURCES ! soit prière de garder le silence jusqu'à la fin de vos jours AMEN
ce forum a un règlement à respecter SVP

Citation :

http://www.tankopoly.com/M1A1_Abrams_Tank.htm

M1A1 Export variants, with the export armor package and different options (such as multi-fuel diesel engines) of the M1 Abrams are also used by the defense forces of:

* Australia (59 M1A1 AIM, to enter service in 2007).
* Egypt (777 M1A1)
* Saudi Arabia (315 M1A2)
* Kuwait (218 M1A2)
* Also tested but not adopted by Sweden, Greece and a number of other nations.

Citation :

The M1A2 is currently available for export, albeit with a different armor composition and communications package. Saudi Arabia has purchased 312 M1A2s, equipped with British Jaguar radios, and Kuwait has purchased 218 similarly equipped M1A2s.
http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/88735/m1a2-tank.html

Citation :

According to the Army and GDLS, export versions of the Abrams do not contain DU armor. They do, however, have another very effective armor package...

http://books.google.es/books?id=7ec-WH-4H3kC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=export+armor+package+M1&source=bl&ots=_tF75bllhE&sig=-no5lS-kAoty2li2rzcefX0L6OM&hl=es&sa=X&ei=cEZmT_iyBY-YhQfRnYCUCA&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=export%20armor%20package%20M1&f=false

Je crois que maintenant est assez claire...a votre service

Je connais le réglement, c'est pour ça que ça fait longtemps que je ne dit pas n'import quoi...merci

Tabrisius a écrit:

Citation :

According to the Army and GDLS, export versions of the Abrams do not contain DU armor. They do, however, have another very effective armor package...

http://books.google.es/books?id=7ec-WH-4H3kC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=export+armor+package+M1&source=bl&ots=_tF75bllhE&sig=-no5lS-kAoty2li2rzcefX0L6OM&hl=es&sa=X&ei=cEZmT_iyBY-YhQfRnYCUCA&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=export%20armor%20package%20M1&f=false

Je crois que maintenant est assez claire...a votre service

je retiens la dernière source qui me semble plus intéressante
tout ce qui touche à l'uranium appauvri que ça soit munitions ou autre releve de l'armement sensible
les pays arabes frontalier d'Israel subissent souvent des limitations en terme de transfert d'arme, les F16 Egyptiens sont dépourvus de AMRAAM, ils ont encore des AIM7 sparrow et versions dépassées du AIM9 sidewinder
http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1317730557.pdf

je me base sur les derniers contrats marocain avec les USA pour prévoir ce qui sera le abrams marocain
nous avons eu droit au AIM120C7 même pas encore entré en service chez l'US AIRFORCE, nous avons eu droit au AIM9-X2 qui à peine a fini ses tests et n'est même pas encore entré en service chez l'US AIRFORCE, et que Israel n'a même pas
même chose pour le HARM que l'Egypte ne peut rêver avoir....

le degré de transfert des technologies aux clients US ça dépend du degré d'alliance et de confiance, le statut MNNA du Maroc joue en sa faveur et lui permet d'accéder aux DU ammunition même de contribuer à certains programmes comme le JSF

Touché

FAMAS a écrit:

je retiens la dernière source qui me semble plus intéressante
tout ce qui touche à l'uranium appauvri que ça soit munitions ou autre releve de l'armement sensible

Le probléme du Chobham c'est que sa composition est secrette (classified), de memme pour les munitions APFSDS...

Moi je réste sceptique pour ce qui est la version et composition de nos futures M1, mais l'unique solution que je vois pour contourner cette affaire de Chobham, APFSDS, etc. c'est de ne pas prendre des M1 export version, c-a-d transfére de technologie et sistémes. Reste a voir ce que "enhanced configuration" signifie, ce qui me fait dire que ça sera une version M1A1MO (MO=Morocco), précis pour nos besoins.

Pour ce qui est le Datalink sur les export version, j'ai pas trouvé de sources pour le moment.

ça sera surrement pris du stock de l'USMC déjà enhanced c'est avec qu'eux d'ailleurs qu'on s’entraîne chaque année
wait and see

Bonne lecture..

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Citation :

Support Strong on Capitol Hill for Continued Abrams Buys
Apr. 24, 2012 - 03:53PM



Despite the U.S. Army’s insistence that its tank fleet is in good shape, congressional support for additional funding for the M1 Abrams tank is growing, with 173 members of the House of Representatives asking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to sustain tank production in the 2013 budget.

In an April 20 letter, lawmakers from both political parties say the new strategic guidance, which the Pentagon released in January, ignores the combat vehicle industrial base, which “is a unique asset that consists of hundreds of public and private facilities across the United States.”

For the M1 Abrams tank, the most important facility is the General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) production line in Lima, Ohio.

Every House member from the Ohio delegation, with the exception of Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, signed the letter.

The Army has told Congress that it would like to finish its Abrams buy in 2014 and then not begin upgrading its current fleet until 2017. Senior Army officials testified this spring that the decision was made to stop buying tanks it doesn’t need and instead to invest in higher priorities, such as aviation and providing a battlefield network.

The service made the same argument last year, but Congress was not convinced.

The 2012 defense appropriations bill provided an additional $255 million to buy 42 more tanks. With congressional support strong again this year, it looks like similar funding is likely to be added to the 2013 budget as well.

The House letter follows one from Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Robert Casey, D-Pa., and John Kerry, D-Mass., who wrote April 18 to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asking them to fund an additional 33 M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) tanks, enough to keep the line in Lima open.

GDLS has estimated that $181 million is needed to build 33 more tanks.

The senators’ letter makes clear that jobs are a top concern.

“This proposal will impact the industrial base to the point that the supplier base will wither, factories will close, and thousands of highly skilled manufacturing jobs will be lost,” the senators say.

In recent weeks, industry officials from the tank supplier base have taken their case to Capitol Hill.

On March 27, more than 200 representatives from the industrial base traveled to Washington to visit with lawmakers and explain why they believe it’s important to continue Abrams tank production.

Bruce Barron, president and CEO of Barron Industries, a metal casting and machining company, said his company has been supplying General Dynamics for 30 years and has been in business for 89 years.

“Because of the Abrams reductions, we took our workforce of 115 in October down to 80, and it will go down further as the buys decrease,” Barron said. “So my message is the capability that we have — and all the other suppliers — is unique. To believe that you can shut it down for three years and turn it back on is not a realistic statement.”

Army leaders have said they understand the industrial base concerns and are trying to attract foreign buyers to fill in some of the production gaps.

“We’re teamed with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in particular, to be able to continue to pursue some production of tank capability at Lima, Ohio,” Lt. Gen. William Phillips, military deputy to the Army’s acquisition executive, told lawmakers March 8.

He said there were some other potential buyers, but that nothing had been finalized. According to GDLS, Morocco also is looking to buy 100 M1A1s.

At a March 22 breakfast in Washington, Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, deputy chief of staff for Army programs (G-8 ), said the Army’s decision does not stem solely from fiscal pressures.

“We try to do what’s best for soldiers each and every day,” he said. “We know there are industrial base implications. This is a challenge for us and we understand there are jobs at risk. We don’t take that lightly. The challenge for us is not only the fiscal one, but also to understand the right technologies.

“I’ve used the example before that you don’t want to be in the position of, in 1939, where you say, ‘we’ve got to go out and protect the saber and the saddle industries, because our cavalry is going to need them for the future.’ We’ve got to make sure we’ve got the right industrial challenges for the future and those are the ones we’ve got to focus on. I know we won’t get it exactly right, but that’s what we’re trying to do.”

The Army also is nearing completion of a force mix study that may conclude that it can shed further heavy brigade combat teams.

“As we go through this force structure review, we actually might reduce the requirement for heavy capabilities, and that’s something that we have to make sure we take a look at,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said at a March 7 hearing of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120424/DEFREG02/304240006

Les APFSDS ce n'est pas le plus important, on les auras sans probleme, tout comme le data-link, ce n'est pas ce qui m'inquiete.

Ce qui est dans le doute, ce sont les technologies d'armure (chobham genIII + graphite) car ce serait carrément stupide de prendre un M1 a 12M$ qui serait pulverisé en un seul tir par un T-90S a 2.5M$.

Pour etre rentable le M1A1 devrait etre capable d'engager au moins 3-4 cibles sans mettre son equipage en danger, et a une distance superieure a la distance maximale d'engagement du T90.

Pour ce faire, le chobham genIII, l'apfsds et le FLIR genII sont tous necessaires.

Pour la FLIR il même possible qu'on ai accès à la 3ème génération.