The U.S. Army Has No Money to Develop a New Tank

Or it's a more (faux) noble reason of preserving America's economy and the global economic system dependent on it, perhaps, rather than just a few oligarchs protecting profits. America has to protect its phony economy or else possibly suffer a catastrophic collapse.

 

You know how you see Russian tanks with the turret blown off? That's why we don't use autoloaders. One hit and BOOM, everybody's dead. Ammo blows up in an Abrams it flames out to the rear and the crew is still alive.

US tank ammo explosion:
[video=youtube;Ay7bOG2nD6k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7bOG2nD6k[/video]

Russian tank ammo explosion:
[video=youtube;NVMRErjaelw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMRErjaelw[/video]

Profile comes from different fighting styles. While the Russians have low vehicles which are closer to the ground, the US has taller vehicles. This is so that US vehicles can use fortifications to hide everything except their turret, making them more difficult to hit in a defensive situation. Oh and please show me where an Abrams tank was destroyed with a machinegun. Honestly it sounds like you simply have no knowledge of armored vehicles. The US will get to development of a new tank when it needs to, but since the cold war died and we aren't fighting / competing with anyone who has tanks better than ours and deployed in numbers, we have no reason to update our tanks. When we need to move to the next thing, we will. Until there is an opponent with a vehicle we need to worry about though, we're going to contract a new tank design.

Seriously we have a military budget that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing huge. If you think we do not have the money to develop a new tank you are a fool.

 

The chart I had seen was slightly different, showing Saudi Arabia spending more than Russia and only behind the US and China. Not that their spending translates to any real military prowess on their part! Much of it seems more akin to protection money paid to US defense firms to keep Saudi Arabia in their good graces!

 

This is unquestionably a result over-funding the military in recent years where enough members of Congress insisted on spending money to produce more Abrams tanks than the US military wanted or could even use. They blew the money to to build weapons our military didn't want or need and so there's no money for future weapon systems. Now if I recall it's the Republicans that keep insisting on spending more and more money on the military so should we blame them for this? Republicans don't actually measure our military weapons capability when assessing our military but instead measure how much money we spend in determining our military capability.

 

We no longer call it a tank....this is the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and it will change the ways in which this type of combat is fought.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/why-armys-new-tank-so-heavy

 

Hmm ah yes all correct hmm say 15 years ago? 100% correct. But ah Russia is modernizing its enormous tank division in comparison to ours with a ah well the Abrams doesn't want to meet it on the field I think. Well yes of course the Abrams would show up but it was the GPS locating and electronic targeting capabilities of our tanks that blew even the best Russian tank in Saddams army the T-72 away and most were not that good T-54s and such and it turned into a duck shoot.

Russia has a new tank and it's making them very quickly the Armata T-14
It has none of the weaknesses you listed above and all the strengths and more than our Abrams. Russia will have almost 2500 of these things before 2020. It costs about 25% less to make than our last big batch of Abrams

Russia loves tanks and air defense which makes sense since we have twice as many literally of fighter jets and choppers than they do. I find the two countries military equipment/personnel ratios interesting.

Anyone that thinks tanks are useless is misinformed. Boots control winning a war and boots don't go anywhere without a tank in front.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/ar...14-tank-vs-america-s-m-1-abrams-who-wins.html

 

That is a troop transport with an itty bitty gun. A devastating itty bitty gun just perfect for chewing up naughty lil SUVs and other light armor with Islamists in them. It's a safe means of transport for squads for recon and what not but its no replacement for the Abrams. Simply due to gun range

I'd love too see us design a next gen big gun tank and of course we have the money

 

Whose side are Obama and his henchman John Kerry on?

Web article-
Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending necessary for our national security:
1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.

2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.

3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."

4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:
In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.
In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.
In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.
In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%
Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber
Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
Military hardware he felt we no longer need:
F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser
These weapons are now the core of our military might.

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88 )

7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)
http://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/Kerry3.htm

 

I guess they have improved munitions and figured out air support.

 

They do have a lot of tanks, lots of old ass tanks that can't do much to an Abrams but can be easily taken out by one. We saw how well the T-72 did in Iraq, and the majority of their tanks are those and earlier versions.They only ended up with a few hundred of their designs past the T-72. We'll see if they have the cash to field the new T-14, but I kind of doubt it. I don't even think their fielding that new rifle that defeats body armor due to budget. Also worth noting that the T-14 is another autoloader, so unless something changed it has the same issue as the other Russian tanks; if it gets hit and the ammo goes up everyone dies.

Finally, combat is all about combined arms. Yes you need infantry on the ground to control that ground, but if you own the air you can really screw things up for the enemy, especially armored vehicles.

 

I understand trimming some fat here and there considering we have almost about 3/4 trillion dollars in military spending 3x that of our nearest competitor but did he actually ever state we don't need all those weapon systems ? Wth does the man think we are going to perpetuate with arms his horrible diplomacy and foreign affairs threats he bandies about? His good looks?

 

You are absolutely right .... I think that the beginning of the false American economy was started in the 70s. I think that the latter is the real president of the USA (I'm not talking about good he was or bad) was Carter. ... Reaganomics was the beginning of the end.... Although many at the time thought otherwise.

It was he who set fire to the wick of a bomb economic. Through his policy was beneficial to trade in shares instead of the real production of goods. When it began to change the GDP calculation methodology (now it comes to the absurd. In some countries, to the GDP added prostitution and drug trafficking (such as Britain)).

Now things get even worse. For example.
Cut jobs in the productive sectors of the economy. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm
But a growing number of waiters and bartenders. Dog hair stylists and designers cards will not save the real economy....
However, even the clouds are gathering over the restaurants - visitors increase was observed only in 21% of restaurants, a reduction - in 59%, a massive reduction are delayed. http://nrn.com/blog/why-so-many-restaurants-are-filing-bankruptcy

Fans of mythology about "robotics", which has replaced allegedly workers, without prejudice to products - no, not replace, the release of US industrial production is now less than 2007 year. (See first link).....

And the consequence of the approaching collapse of the economy - an attempt to start a nuclear war. In order to write off all the debts, reset the economy and dispose of the population.

 

1. The fact that you have no money thinks General of the US Army. If you think the US military - fools, I will not argue with you.

2. GDP Indicator - an indicator for idiots. It is important to look at the structure of the economy. The US economy - a bubble.

I'll show you an example. In terms of US data - capitalization Facebook higher than for example, "Gazprom". It is obvious that these statistics are for idiots. Ask yourself the question - what will happen to the world if the company Facebook disappears? The answer is obvious - nothing. And what will happen to the world if company "Gazprom" disappears? The answer is obvious - the collapse of the world economy.

The US economy - this economy of canine hairdressers, waiters, Facebook and the like. In other words, the US economy - a fake. It is not surprising that in the US there is no money for actual production. Therefore, the United States live in debt.

 

The topic of the economy. Maybe you will be interested. Now it becomes clear the true reason for trying to start a third world war.

Orders for industrial products are reduced in comparison with the same month a year ago, 22 months in a row.
Double-digit casualty figures in the following areas - machinery for the oil industry, equipment for metallurgy, construction equipment, computers, equipment for home, commercial airplanes. electrical equipment, oil refining...



Goldman Sachs: The collapse of the car market in the US has begun - the build-up created during the "recovery" is subject to annihilation http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...auto-sector-cycle-has-peaked-downgrades-tesla

Orders for Class 8 trucks - the worst September since 2009. In the United States, where, in value terms trucks make about 70% of traffic, orders for trucks - a very important physical indicator. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trucks-idUSKCN1242CQ

Falling investment in construction. https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/c30index.html

Property Sales in the third quarter decreased by 20% compared with a year ago, while the number of active offers on the market increased by 53%. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ent-sales-plunge-20-as-homebuyers-get-pickier

For the first time since October 2010 decreased loans to commercial and US manufacturing companies (C & I Loans). In annual terms, the reduction was 3.8%. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H8/current/

in September of bankruptcy in the United States increased by 38% compared with a year ago. http://wolfstreet.com/2016/10/06/great-debt-unwind-business-commercial-bankruptcies-soar/

........ And so on..... Here you can add the collapse of the program, "shale oil" and shale gas "

 

Yes the Obama/Kerry "antichrist double act" is a disaster, they gave Iran permission to build nuke plants paving the way for WW3!

 

want to help us, destroy the drug war illusion of the right?

 

How about "ground effect battleships". Fusion (an energy with a future), can get us there.

 

Erasure of debt would at least be a silver lining Americans are up to their eyeballs in it.

 

You and your pro-Russia propaganda...how much do they pay you per post? It wouldn't suprise me if your next post was something about how inferior American Vodka is compared to Russian Vodka, how American vodka causes wars and Russian vodka raises the IQ, something along those lines...

 

YouTube can be a good thing.

I learned, you can filter vodka as much as you want, with a water purifier.

 

It's actually a job for Chrysler Defense and the Rest to make their products more enticing,
I do not know for the Armata, the US did not yet phased out their A-10 Warthogs perhaps it could still do the job pretty well.

 

The US economy most certainly has its own problems, however the fact that we can field new ships, new fighters, of which just one would provide multiple tanks, while bombing multiple nations, maintaining a global readiness force, maintaining global deployments shows that if the need for a new tank were to arise we could and would build one. As is we don't need to build a new tank. Neither Russia nor China have anything that can take on the M1 Abrams in number sufficient enough for us to look at designing a new tank. If that need were to arise we would. Also don't kid yourself about US military spending, it is absolutely nuts and well beyond any other nation.

As my final point I'd say that the fact that the US isn't developing a new tank is a good thing. It shows we aren't looking to fight anyone. On the other hand it may just be because we can pretty well take anyone from the air. That's why Russia has concentrated so much on SAMs. Personally, I'd rather we all be friends. Unfortunately that's not going to happen. So long as our politicians, all of them, play "the great game", we're just going to end up killing eachother for no real reason. At least we got rid of the monarchs and aren't the playthings of princes anymore.

 

You have an opinion .... Ostriches, for example, hiding their heads in the sand.

About your comments.
The pro-Russian propaganda - I do not. About American tanks and the financial ability wrote General of the US Army. Therefore, all pritenzii to the general of the US Army..... Maybe he agent of the KGB? And on his chest has a tattoo of Stalin?

I absolutely do not drink. Therefore, I can not tell you his opinion about Russian and American vodka. But my friends, and Russian and Americans, Europeans, and even the Japanese say that if you drink expensive vodka, then - yes, the best Russian vodka.

Once again, I do not drink alcohol. But if you claim that "American vodka causes wars and Russian vodka raises the IQ" - I will not argue with you. I believe your experience.

 

I completely agree...Yes, we got rid of the monarchs and are not the playthings of princes anymore, but now we are the playthings of oligarchs and transnational corporations.... Unfortunately.

 

That any Army is everywhere in developments making researching and tests and whatever else for the following of the current generation is normal and given. But this means nothing about rating or telling as Destroyer of Illusion did by digging out Propaganda BS again and presenting it as "truth" because fitting to his Anti West and USA mind.
Many of such things went into junk box or become at best a prototype. We have only too look on history of M1 development about and see that the in origin planned follower of the M60 tank did not become more as a prototype ... and this prototype went to become base of knowledge for development of M1 and Leopard 2 tank!

@ Destroyer

Who says A must accept B too, eh?

Suchoi T-50 plane?
Suchoi SU-37 plane?
Armata T-14 tank?

And the debate about self loading system in tanks is ages old! Until now the right arm of a loader in crew is quicker, more reliable and trouble-free as any self-loader ... and if you deny this, look on the current main tank of your so loved Russian Army: the T-90. How pleased are they again with it?
No, no miss-understanding! I never told and will tell that Russian military stuff is crap or underdog of Western stuff ... never! But your behavior to bash on all Western stuff, things and cases as being the evil and BS, but ignoring that the other are and do not better is only ridiculous and this is the point!
I remember when you was bashing on Leopard 2 tank together with M1A1/A2 because vulnerable against IDF and heavy mine explosions. Remembering how vulnerable ALL (!!!) Russian tank developments are same way? Of course as usual ignored by you!