In the USA: The possibility of replacing the Abrams tank with something equally heavy is not yet being considered

The US Army is considering a strategy to create the armored vehicles of the future. Fox News has released material highlighting the main focus of the new strategy. It aims to create relatively light armored platforms with a high degree of automation.

As noted by American journalists, part of the strategy for the design of light armored vehicles is associated with the use of active protection systems (KAZ), increasing speed, maneuverability, and "survivability."

From the material:

The idea for such armored vehicles is to detect the enemy before he detects you. This will allow him to be destroyed, preventing them from hitting.

The United States notes that the Pentagon currently has no plans to create a new generation of heavy armored vehicles:

They are not yet considering the possibility of replacing the Abrams tank with something in the future - to replace it with something equally heavy. Today "Abrams" provides high "survivability", but it lacks speed so as not to have problems against lightweight, progressive armored vehicles with effective means of destruction. Also Tanks Abrams cannot reach a number of points in the terrain as they are too heavy. For example, overcoming conventional bridges becomes a serious test for the crews of the Abrams tanks. The bridges may simply not be able to support the weight of this tank, so it is often necessary to adjust the route.

The new strategy involves the creation of new materials that would be lighter than modern armor and at least not inferior to it in terms of strength and protective functions. Several US research laboratories are working on the creation of such materials.

The Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) with a 50-mm automatic cannon and an engine with a capacity of about 1 hp is cited as an example of activities within the framework of this strategy. Such work is considered aimed at the production of armored vehicles to replace the Bradley armored vehicles.

Comments

[Victor_B]

As far as I understand, they will continue to finish Abram.
Abram is a very relevant tank today.
They screwed the Trophy, again, and began to use dynamic protection.

[Mavrikiy]

The opposite is true. is not relevant from the word at all, therefore there will be no replacement for it. Dead-end branch of development.

The US Army is considering a strategy to create the armored vehicles of the future. It aims to create relatively light armored platforms with a high degree of automation.

And it will stand while it will, when the requirements for their LGBT (light tracked battle tanks) are still born for cavalry regiments .

[Hydrography Bay Golden Horn]

What for? Good tank

[BDRM 667]

Quote: Hydrograph of the Golden Horn

What for? Good tank

Indeed, why change, and even modernize? And so it will come down

After all, this can still save money, and not small that will be needed to compensate American blacks (sorry - African Americans) ...

[Livonetc]

In the wake of black life, the metters decided to get rid of the charging negro.
And then how racial unrest will break out on board.
And the new, lighter technique can be used to disperse the armed protesters.

[unhappy]

After Tsushima, our admirals and designers created a Sevastopol-class dreadnought. Much later, the definition of "the project of the frightened" was assigned to it. Don't give a damn about armor, more speed and more guns.
History repeats itself, looking at the "carts" of the Barmaleevs, the mobility of gangs "experts" draw conclusions

[Crabong]

Normal tank. Demagoguery is being bred, but they strive to drink babyshka.

[Nikolaevich I]

The US Army is considering a strategy to create the armored vehicles of the future. Fox News has released material highlighting the main focus of the new strategy. It aims to creation of relatively light armored platforms with a high degree of automation.

Yes, the same was written in military journals of the last third of the last century! Oh, it’s not in vain that they say: "New ... this is well forgotten old!"

[Grazdanin]

They launch similar programs every 5-10 years. Progress does not stand still, perhaps there are technologies that are head and shoulders above the current ones. Based on the results, a decision is made to either modernize or change.

[5-9]

Megaraspil on FCS haunts .. I really, really want to repeat.

[rotmistr60]

Abrams cannot reach a number of points in the terrain as they are too heavy.

Yes, problems arose even on European roads, but what can we say about the roads on which they have been planning to drive for many years.

"Abrams" provides high "survivability"

Tanks from other countries, the most advanced in tank building, also provide high survivability. Therefore, this is not a merit, but at least a necessary characteristic laid down when creating a tank.

[Maks1995]

Ha. The division into realists in the comments is clearly visible. (they say, a heavy tank, it can be upgraded for a long time, it will withstand), and hurray-optimists. (dead-end branch and guano).

In fact, a bunch of countries are busy recreating light tanks. It is expensive to chase single bormalees with heavy ones

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Max1995

in fact, a bunch of countries are busy recreating light tanks.

Well, medium is more likely, 30-35 tons is not light weight. But yes, the trend is clearly visible. MBT is very expensive and there is a lot of fuss with it, and most importantly, there are no goals for it in the vast majority of modern wars. Modern medium tanks have mine protection at the MBT level, there is a KAZ from ATGM, a cannon is sufficient to penetrate tanks of the 60s ~ 80s, observation and detection means allow the first to fire.

[Maks1995]

Right. Average. But there are also lightweight, wheel-based, simpler.

[5-9]

You can also chase the barmaley on BMPs or even armored personnel carriers. The meaning of a "tank" that does not hold shots to RPGs or ATGMs younger than 1980-85? For the sake of fluff (most often about 105 mm) with cheap OFS?

[voyaka uh]

I see no way to design lightweight, but
reliably protected tank.
Only in an uninhabited version, when you can save
in place for the crew.
Bundle: leader with crew - wingman without crew.

[5-9]

Those. they do not need tanks, but Abrams, fattened up to 65 tons (with TASK and Veterok go and more).
KAZ is very expensive, and the one capable of intercepting the OBPS is very, very expensive ... and what will happen when meeting with the MBT of such a light tank, which MBT from one OBPS to death, and the MBT tank with a godfather is often needed to protect it ... and KAZ (intercepting ATGM) on MBT is already a reality.
Replacement MBT is not yet expected