Com-Central.net

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: More M1A2 Sep V2 in the works!

Hi Folks!

Ran acrossed a news article on further upgrades for the Abrams fleet.

First SEP Version 2 (V2) contract for $27 million to reset and upgrade 72 M1A2 SEP V1s.
Work was done between February and October 2007.
The 2nd CAB, 5th BDE, 1st AD here at Ft. Bliss has some of these.

Second contract of $278 million to reset and upgrade 240 more tanks in 2008-2009.

In Febrauary 2008, order for 435 M1A1s to be reset and upgraded to M1A2 SEP V2. This order will upgrade all the remaining M1A1s.

Sounds like the M1A1 maybe about to join the M1(105) and the IPM1 in the history books!

SEP V2 includes improved displays, sights, power (see note below) and a tank-infantry phone. These upgrades will "ensure compatibility with the Army's Future Combat Systems".

I guess this means the phone is no longer part of the TUSK package sense all Abrams will get one.

My Note: During the SEP V1 upgrades, an auxiliary power unit was installed in the left rear corner of the hull. It will be replaced by a back up type battery pack.

Now where are all those folks who where claiming that a 70 ton MBT was not needed anymore? Or could this be just another goverment waste of funds? I for one, am very glad to hear the news about these upgrades.

Now when is the Army going to stop adding letters to the M1 and just starting calling all those upgrades a M1A3? The M1 Abrams is starting to get as bad as the Sherman tank fleet.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Joe_D

Roy said;

My Note: During the SEP V1 upgrades, an auxiliary power unit was installed in the left rear corner of the hull. It will be replaced by a back up type battery pack.

Wonder what took them so long to come up with that idea. Hmm, Challeneger II has that and APU under armor last I recall (OIF I, 2003).

I guess this means the phone is no longer part of the TUSK package sense all Abrams will get one.

to all those short sighted Army individuals who said it was no longer neccesary in the late 80's.

Joe D

bsmart

- Joe_D

Roy said;

My Note: During the SEP V1 upgrades, an auxiliary power unit was installed in the left rear corner of the hull. It will be replaced by a back up type battery pack.

Wonder what took them so long to come up with that idea. Hmm, Challeneger II has that and APU under armor last I recall (OIF I, 2003).

Joe D

The way I interpreted Roys note was that the APU is being replaced by a battery backup pack. This seems like a bad idea to me. I thought the idea of theAPU was to allow running of the electronics without running the main engine. I wonder how many hours the batterybackup will run without needing to be recharged? and do you then need to start the main engine to recharge it? ( I hope there is some kind of circuit to keep you from draining the battery so far that you can't start the engine Rolling Eyes

)

Dontos

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

...Now when is the Army going to stop adding letters to the M1 and just starting calling all those upgrades a M1A3? The M1 Abrams is starting to get as bad as the Sherman tank fleet.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

'Back in the 80's/90's, there was the 'infamous' BLOCK 3. As I understood it, that was to be the M1A3.

More useless Abrams Trivia....

Don

Doug_Kibbey

- Joe_D

Roy said;

My Note: During the SEP V1 upgrades, an auxiliary power unit was installed in the left rear corner of the hull. It will be replaced by a back up type battery pack.

Wonder what took them so long to come up with that idea. Hmm, Challeneger II has that and APU under armor last I recall (OIF I, 2003).

I guess this means the phone is no longer part of the TUSK package sense all Abrams will get one.

to all those short sighted Army individuals who said it was no longer neccesary in the late 80's.
Joe D

Amen. Whatever individual(s) suggested that tanks should be built without infantry interphones should have their butts kicked. If they're deceased, they should be exhumed if necessary to get this accomplished.

Joe_D

Bob,

With the Challenger the battery back up was for the turret with a seperate set for the automotive. The Challenger turret is electric drive (No Hydraulics except recoil mech) so it would function the same with or without the engine running. COAX needs juice because it's a 7.62 chain gun, not gas operated like the M240.

M1 is a different beast. Dontos knows what it's like trying to operate an M1 Turret without the engine running. With that in mind, APU or Battery pack, same performance. I agree the Batteries have a finite amount of juice, unlike an APU which as long as you have fuel your good. I know from experience that an M1/M1A1 turret sucks electrons like crazy and if you don't have good batteries or monitor them closely you'll be needing a slave start quick. Maybe the battery pack is just to prolong the time between needed starts to charge up?

Doug,

Sometimes I like being able to say "I told you so". To bad I'm not in contact with the "NO PHONE NEEDED" followers I worked with anymore.

Joe D

MarkHolloway

The thing I didn't like about the APU in the left rear was that they lost about 55 gallons of fuel capacity. The cut down the left rear fuel cell to make room for it. The M1A2's at Knox had the smaller fuel cell. The funny thing was they didn't have the APU's installed. You can tell one of these vehicles because the left rear fuel filler cap is relocated.

Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

Sometime back, someone found a link to an interview with one of the early M1 project managers.

I remember he said that 55 gallon fuel tank, that Mark talked about, was installed into an area reserved for an APU. The reason the earlier models didn't have one was due to the cost ceiling congress had placed on the vehicle. The APU had to wait for an upgrade later when funds would be available. As Dontos pointed out there were plans for an A3 and the APU was scheduled for that upgrade. There was always a plan for an APU, there just wasn't any funds available to develope one and then install it until the A2SEP project which was an A3 lite type of upgrade.

From what little I have heard about the APU, it isn't working very well. Failure rate is very high and it's makes noise. By switching to large version of a computer UPS type of battery back up, the vehicle can remain silent with full electrical power and not drain the vehicle starting batteries.

I have nothing to base this on, but if I was going to install a UPS battery system in an AFV, I would try for something that would last 7 to 8 hours. Enough time to cover a fill night of darkness.

Dontos remembers the plan for an A3 version. Anyone remember there was also an A4 version to follow that one?

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Joe_D

One of the best ways to prolong battery life is to reduce power drain. Not sure if the newer A2 series addresses that but on the M1/M1A1 series there were a lot of systems you had on you really didn't need if you weren't running the pack. Always wished you could shut them off seperately. As far as A3 or A4's, I also wonder why they haven't used those ID's yet. It's getting kinda confusing now.

Joe D

MarkHolloway

Was the A3 the one with a three man crew located in the hull? The prototype is at Knox.

Dontos

- MarkHolloway

Was the A3 the one with a three man crew located in the hull? The prototype is at Knox.

No, at least not to my understanding. The TTB was a plan for gun over hull which was the 'HIMAG' design. (Although I may be wrong on this).

The 'Block 3' was a standard M1A1 with enlarged turret, housing the 140mm gun system. (At least that is what I had been told.) Tests were done at APG in the early 90's.

Budget cuts killed the 'block 3'. Never heard of functionability of the vehicle, other than live fire testing.

Don

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big