I assume that GD's bet is going to be ASCOD 2 base, uparmored and upengined. Something like an AJAX with a unmanned turret

GD's offering it indeed based on AJAX, plus a turret derived from the M1A2 (not unmanned).  THe chassis has seen a lot of revision, though -- new suspension, new engine, new cooling system, etc.  First pass seems to have actually been an M1A2 turret minus the heavy armor package plus some applique armor instead. Subsequent versions seem to have revised that a bit (aluminum turret with applique armor on top of that, slightly smaller than the M1).  But it still has essentially the same fire control system as the current M1AS SEP V3.  At one point, they were looking at a 120mm gun, but it looks like they stepped back to 105mm. The weight figures seem to be fairly close hold.  I've seen anywhere from 32 to 38 tons for the GD MPF (2 on a C-17). 

The BAE version is still basically a refreshed  XM-8, which means more like 25 tons (3 on a C-17) even with the Level III armor package.  

Without the turret the hull would be sub 40 tonnes I expect, tank out a road wheel and add a crew pod and RWS and 40 tonnes is quite practical. 

Farmplinker said:

120mm breechloader mortar versions could be useful.

Again with the BL mortar. It has no useful ammo types (HESH, HEAT, wallbreaching) and ammo handling is very manual, so no autoloader. The 105 mm is the only gun with that ammo still in production. 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

40tons is in T64 tank territory so these days with 2 man crew and unmanned turret it should be a tank protected as well as M1 

Oh sure, but I'd still be more looking for a shortened hull Abrams with a crew pod and the armament in an RWS over a conventional 40 tonne tank.

I did some rough hacking up of a Abrams cutaway, and shortened by one roadwheel, there is room for a crew pod and about about a 1.5/1.7 metre turret ring. Probably need to increase the hull height to the engine deck for extra volume and mine protection. It would be a good time to go to hydrostatic suspension. 

1.5 metres is not going to work for a tank gun but for a 50 mm autocannon it should be practical. If they accept a limitation of plus/minus 140 degrees or so, very practical. 

They have shown AJAX with a 50mm turret as Griffin III.  So you definitely could fit the MPF chassis with that turret to make a companion vehicle to operate alongside the tank gun version.

It's hard not to automatically think of this as just another program to turn taxpayer dollars into contractor profits, with fielding any results secondary.

If they wanted results in a timely, efficient and cost effective manner then CV90120 is available off the shelf at around 35 tons, and they still have the XM8/Thunderbolt gathering dust.

 

We're in a Cold War 2 naval, air, missile, cyber, and space arms race with China. Note the absence of anything to do with 'land' in that conflict/competition.

Yet, here we are, buying more Tanks... 

XM8 is one of the two candidates for MPF, so it's hardly gathering dust. 

CV90 certainly could have been offered, but the right version would have to be CV90105, since MPF appears to have settled on a 105mm gun.  But BAE decided to bid XM8 instead.

But this whole "XYZ is available off the shelf" meme just shows that people don't understand how government procurement works.  Buying a major weapon system in a non-competitive procurement based on their brochure specs isn't even remotely legal.  Or wise.

With these high profile hulls and thin-skinned manned turrets they might just as well stick an MGS turret from a Stryker on a Bradley and be done with it ,it should make it inside 40 tons

ASCOD's hull height is 1.77 meters. Assuming AJAX/MPF hasn't changed that, it's all of 5 cm taller than an M1.  Horrible!