What's new

America’s next tank: US Army greenlights more aggressive M1 Abrams upgrade

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
WASHINGTON — The Army will pursue a more ambitious upgrade to its M1 Abrams main battle tank than previously planned — and could have soldiers inside it by early 2030, service officials announced today.

“The Abrams tank can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint,” said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems said in a press release. “The war in Ukraine has highlighted a critical need for integrated protections for soldiers, built from within instead of adding on.”

“We appreciate that future battlefields pose new challenges to the tank as we study recent and ongoing conflicts” wrote Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team. “We must optimize the Abrams’ mobility and survivability to allow the tank to continue to close with and destroy the enemy as the apex predator on future battlefields.”

General Dynamics Land Systems and the Army have been eyeing various paths ahead for the current tank fleet for several years. Existing plans called for an Abrams System Enhancement Package version 4 (SEPv4) but there was also consideration of a new overall design or more aggressive upgrade. Service leaders ultimately settled on closing out the SEPv4 program, giving the development announced today the title of M1E3 Abrams which will include improvements to sustain the fleet in 2040 and beyond.

As for the new path ahead, the service explained that the “E” designation represents an engineering change that is “more significant than a minor modification” and will serve as a designation for a prototype. Although the Army did not detail how that engineering change will play out, it noted that it plans to take the “best features” of the M1A2 SEPv4 and combine it with the latest modular open systems architecture standards. If done successfully, it will enable industry to quickly add in new technologies over time for “a more survivable, lighter tank.”

Last year, GDLS unveiled a lighter 59-ton Abrams X technology demonstrator to show the Army what an alternative path then the one it is on for the SEPv4. While that demonstrator will not be the final version the M1E3 takes, it did showcase options for a revamped tank — and likely ones the Army will consider with the final new design.

“[The Army has] been concerned about the weight class of the Abrams SEPv3… that is pushing 76 to 78 tons combat loaded,” Scott Taylor, the company’s director for US business development, told Breaking Defenseduring a March 21 interview. He noted that the new technologies for the SEPv4 will push that weight “slightly higher.”

“What 76 and 78 [ton] tanks do to the military is challenge its logistical supplies, its ability to get across bridging in many of the countries that we might be called upon to fight and, so, specifically [the] Abrams X was meant to stimulate the conversation about what the zone of the possible would be to lighten the tank, integrate hybrid-electric drive capability and technology to produce silent mobility and silent watch capability, substantially increasing the … lethality of that platform,” Taylor said.


 
.
WASHINGTON — The Army will pursue a more ambitious upgrade to its M1 Abrams main battle tank than previously planned — and could have soldiers inside it by early 2030, service officials announced today.

“The Abrams tank can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint,” said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems said in a press release. “The war in Ukraine has highlighted a critical need for integrated protections for soldiers, built from within instead of adding on.”

“We appreciate that future battlefields pose new challenges to the tank as we study recent and ongoing conflicts” wrote Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team. “We must optimize the Abrams’ mobility and survivability to allow the tank to continue to close with and destroy the enemy as the apex predator on future battlefields.”

General Dynamics Land Systems and the Army have been eyeing various paths ahead for the current tank fleet for several years. Existing plans called for an Abrams System Enhancement Package version 4 (SEPv4) but there was also consideration of a new overall design or more aggressive upgrade. Service leaders ultimately settled on closing out the SEPv4 program, giving the development announced today the title of M1E3 Abrams which will include improvements to sustain the fleet in 2040 and beyond.

As for the new path ahead, the service explained that the “E” designation represents an engineering change that is “more significant than a minor modification” and will serve as a designation for a prototype. Although the Army did not detail how that engineering change will play out, it noted that it plans to take the “best features” of the M1A2 SEPv4 and combine it with the latest modular open systems architecture standards. If done successfully, it will enable industry to quickly add in new technologies over time for “a more survivable, lighter tank.”

Last year, GDLS unveiled a lighter 59-ton Abrams X technology demonstrator to show the Army what an alternative path then the one it is on for the SEPv4. While that demonstrator will not be the final version the M1E3 takes, it did showcase options for a revamped tank — and likely ones the Army will consider with the final new design.

“[The Army has] been concerned about the weight class of the Abrams SEPv3… that is pushing 76 to 78 tons combat loaded,” Scott Taylor, the company’s director for US business development, told Breaking Defenseduring a March 21 interview. He noted that the new technologies for the SEPv4 will push that weight “slightly higher.”

“What 76 and 78 [ton] tanks do to the military is challenge its logistical supplies, its ability to get across bridging in many of the countries that we might be called upon to fight and, so, specifically [the] Abrams X was meant to stimulate the conversation about what the zone of the possible would be to lighten the tank, integrate hybrid-electric drive capability and technology to produce silent mobility and silent watch capability, substantially increasing the … lethality of that platform,” Taylor said.


Honestly I think they can shave of a few tons of weight just by replacing the hydraulics (going electric) and wires and cables as well as the gun, etc. And introduce the new engine and APU. They should stick to what they can do to make the Abrams lighter. Not try a very brand new generation tank that would most likely be canceled decades from now and tens of billions of dollars spent on it.
 
.
Honestly I think they can shave of a few tons of weight just by replacing the hydraulics (going electric) and wires and cables as well as the gun, etc. And introduce the new engine and APU. They should stick to what they can do to make the Abrams lighter. Not try a very brand new generation tank that would most likely be canceled decades from now and tens of billions of dollars spent on it.

The gas turbine engine in the Abrams is way too flimsy and sophisticated. Meaning unreliable. Too much electronics as well.

Possibly a way for the Army bigwigs to make more money from Honeywell.

For tanks you need a dog-ugly reliable-as-nails engine, possibly a Cummins/Volvo design diesel (with aluminum alloy head and engine) proven over tens of millions of miles of use (like in large Semi Prime movers).

I don't know why all the dithering - the solution is staring them right in the face.
 
Last edited:
.
The gas turbine engine in the Abrams is way too flimsy and sophisticated. Meaning unreliable. Too much electronics as well.

Possibly a way for the Army bigwigs to make more money from Honeywell.

For tanks you need a dog-ugly reliable-as-nails engine, possibly a Cummins/Volvo design diesel (with aluminum alloy head and engine) proven over tens of millions of miles of use (like in large Semi Prime movers).

I don't know why all the dithering - the solution is staring them right in the face.
Actually the turbine engine is good but consumes too much fuel, hence they installed an APU pack to compensate while tank was idle and not taking in gallons of fuel just sitting there. But at the same time its like the B-52 bomber where the U.S. Air Force keeps trying to maintain old engines that is not in production anymore and spending more and more on it until they decide to replace it with a modern fuel efficient but easy to maintain engine with tons of parts still in production. The Cummins engine tank or some hybrid version would be the way to go as long as it has the hp and torque to push the Abrams equivalent to the old 1500hp engine while still being very fuel efficient and easy to maintain. Problem is the War on Terror diverted their attention and didn't really need to prioritize upgrading the tank up to a point when Abrams were hardly in the fight since fighting insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Same for artillery. Now you have the U.S. Army looking at upgrading the M109s with longer barrels to autoloaders, etc.
 
.
Honestly I think they can shave of a few tons of weight just by replacing the hydraulics (going electric) and wires and cables as well as the gun, etc. And introduce the new engine and APU. They should stick to what they can do to make the Abrams lighter. Not try a very brand new generation tank that would most likely be canceled decades from now and tens of billions of dollars spent on it.
I don't think they give a shit about weight anymore, They'll make it 80 tons if it improves combat performance.
 
.
america lost ability to make a new modern MBT , they can only upgrade obsolete abrams hull.

there is zero innovation , including ability to counter drones
 
.
I don't think they give a shit about weight anymore, They'll make it 80 tons if it improves combat performance.
They definitely do care otherwise they wouldn't be constantly talking about it. Its just logistics when handling tanks on bridges to cargo planes to even on trucks to fuel consumption, etc.

america lost ability to make a new modern MBT , they can only upgrade obsolete abrams hull.

there is zero innovation , including ability to counter drones
Yeah sure.
 
.
They definitely do care otherwise they wouldn't be constantly talking about it. Its just logistics when handling tanks on bridges to cargo planes to even on trucks to fuel consumption, etc.

IF you are right we'll see an autoloading turret on M1A3.
 
. .
Honestly I think they can shave of a few tons of weight just by replacing the hydraulics (going electric) and wires and cables as well as the gun, etc. And introduce the new engine and APU. They should stick to what they can do to make the Abrams lighter. Not try a very brand new generation tank that would most likely be canceled decades from now and tens of billions of dollars spent on it.
In a few years, GDLS will cancel the AbramX (is it one word or 2) and then claim they put the new tech that made AbramX into M1A4 or M1E3 and sell it to Material Command. Which they are going to give them anyway, the fact that there is an AbramX means they already dump millions of dollars into this concepts.......
 
.
The gas turbine engine in the Abrams is way too flimsy and sophisticated. Meaning unreliable. Too much electronics as well.

Possibly a way for the Army bigwigs to make more money from Honeywell.

For tanks you need a dog-ugly reliable-as-nails engine, possibly a Cummins/Volvo design diesel (with aluminum alloy head and engine) proven over tens of millions of miles of use (like in large Semi Prime movers).

I don't know why all the dithering - the solution is staring them right in the face.
The reason they went with Gas Turbine is that you don't need to wait 7 hours for a Log Pack when you need one. You can basically just siphon from anywhere to get your fuel instead of waiting on 1,3,5 to deliver, which is going to take hours (ask any Patton guy in desert storm and you will know)

The idea is, you get refueled almost immediately, getting it from the chopper that deliver the log pack if you had to. But the trade off is 72 hours maintenance downtime to clean everything up, but then they would really care about that aren't they as you are in the rear when you do that.

I have yet to see one 91A who like their job, they all bitch about them, and 19B or 19K loved it,

IF you are right we'll see an autoloading turret on M1A3.
They will literally commit suicide before they allow Abram to use autoloader.

You are talking about taking a crew out of a 4 men tank crew, that a lot of adjustment you need to do. Either that or stick a chair in the tank for the 4th crewman you don't need nor wanted to begin with......
 
.
america lost ability to make a new modern MBT , they can only upgrade obsolete abrams hull.

there is zero innovation , including ability to counter drones
Really? General Dynamics demonstrated next generation AbramsX in 2022 - excellent design with state of the art capabilities (better and more innovative than any tank out there). Most of the features and components are well thought and some might be too radical for tank crews to accept soon.

Abrams hull design is spacious and provides considerable room for upgrades. It was built with this requirement in mind and continues to pay off. Russia did not give much thought to tank designs in comparison. Russian T-14 also borrow from American tank design concepts.

General Dynamics have demonstrated a number of new vehicles in various exhibitions including Griffin 2 light tank.
 
.
Really? General Dynamics demonstrated next generation AbramsX in 2022 - better and more innovative than any tank out there.

Abrams hull design is spacious and provides considerable room for upgrades. It was built with this requirement in mind and continues to pay off. Russia did not give much thought to tank designs in comparison. Russian T-14 also borrow from American tank design concepts.
What specific feature does it have that most latest tank upgrades does not already provide?
 
.
It is just spreading the butter over *** because they can, nothing new, nothing revolutionary.
 
.
IF you are right we'll see an autoloading turret on M1A3.

12 rounds per minute. Imagine this.

The Meggitt autoloader system is fundamentally different from how Russian autoloader system(s) work as shown in the video above. In AbramsX, ammo is NOT present in the autoloader compartment like in T-14. The ammo storage compartment is separate and located behind the autoloader compartment. This arrangement creates sufficient gap between the crew compartment and the ammo storage compartment for the crew to be SAFE in case of a mishap in the ammo storage compartment.

What specific feature does it have that most latest tank upgrades does not already provide?
You tell me. Let's start with your claims.

It is just spreading the butter over *** because they can, nothing new, nothing revolutionary.
You have any tank in mind that is revolutionary? Bosnia has developed one?
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom