Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Dollars and Sense

AbramsX: The Army’s New ‘Super’ Tank Should Make Russia Sweat

AbramsX.
AbramsX. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Key Points – The AbramsX technology demonstrator, a potential next step for the M1 Abrams tank, promises significant advancements but faces major cost questions, with unit estimates potentially exceeding $15 million.

-Designed by General Dynamics, it features a lighter chassis, a hybrid-electric engine for 50% fuel savings and silent mobility, an unmanned turret with an autoloader reducing crew to three, advanced armor with Trophy APS, AI integration, and drone coordination capabilities.

-While these features aim to ensure tank relevance against modern threats from peer adversaries, the high initial investment and technological risks present considerable hurdles for a program intended to keep US armor dominant.

The AbramsX Tank Question

The AbramsX is potentially the next step in the evolution of the M1 Abrams. Introducing a whole slew of innovative upgrades, the AbramsX takes the already successful platform and upgrades it to the furthest that current technology can go.

However, one issue that has yet to be addressed is the tank’s cost. If the tank is too expensive, only limited numbers of units can be produced, significantly limiting its battlefield impact.

How Much Does the AbramsX Cost?

The AbramsX is still a tech demonstrator, and no orders have been placed for the tank. Although the Army has not released a definitive total cost for the program, defense analysts estimate that development and procurement could run into tens of billions of dollars over the next decade. For context, a single M1A2 Abrams tank currently costs between $10 million and $12 million.

Given the advanced technologies that the AbramsX incorporates, unit costs could exceed $15 million. The tank was first revealed in 2022, with videos showing what the new machine is capable of. Since then, the Army has not made any announcements on potential procurement.

The question arises whether the AbramsX is worth its high cost. After the fiasco with the M10 Booker, the Army needs to ensure that every new piece of equipment meets its needs. From an operational standpoint, the AbramsX offers clear advantages. Its hybrid propulsion and AI integration provide a tactical edge, while its reduced fuel consumption and smaller crew size lower operational costs over time. The modular systems architecture also reduces the need for complete overhauls during upgrades, making the platform more sustainable in the long term.

Does the Army Need the AbramsX?

Strategically, the AbramsX and M1E3 enhance the U.S. Army’s ability to deter and, if necessary, confront peer adversaries such as Russia and China, who are also modernizing their armored forces. A modern, capable main battle tank remains a critical component of combined arms operations. The AbramsX’s design reflects a shift in military thinking, emphasizing mobility, survivability, and digital integration over sheer firepower and armor thickness.

However, the program does have some downsides. The high initial costs of development and procurement are significant, especially when the Department of Defense is balancing high-cost investments across all the other branches of the military. There is also technological risk involved in integrating cutting-edge systems like hybrid engines and AI, which could lead to delays and unforeseen technical issues. Additionally, introducing new systems requires retraining personnel and updating maintenance infrastructure, adding to the overall cost and complexity.

Some critics argue that in an era dominated by drone swarms and precision-guided munitions, heavy tanks may be increasingly vulnerable regardless of upgrades. They question whether investing in a new generation of tanks is the best use of defense dollars, especially when alternative platforms such as unmanned ground vehicles and loitering munitions are gaining prominence. While I don’t want to get into that discussion now, others have already voiced why they think the tank is not going anywhere anytime soon, thus necessitating the need for an upgraded platform.

Despite these concerns, the AbramsX remains a necessary evolution in American tank engineering. Today, warfare is changing rapidly, and legacy systems like the M1A2 SEPv3, while still good, are reaching the limits of their upgrade potential.

The hybrid-electric propulsion, AI integration, and modular design of the AbramsX and M1E3 offer a path forward that balances capability with adaptability. These features ensure that the U.S. Army remains prepared for future conflicts’ complex and dynamic nature.

Why the AbramsX Might be Worth the Cost

While the costs of the AbramsX are likely to be high, the benefits they offer in terms of operational effectiveness, strategic deterrence, and future-proofing justify the investment, in my opinion. Obviously, the program’s success will depend on effective cost control, timely delivery, and seamless integration into the broader force structure. If these challenges are met, the AbramsX could become a cornerstone of U.S. ground dominance for decades to come.

The AbramsX introduces several novel features. One of the most significant is its hybrid-electric propulsion system, which is designed to reduce fuel consumption by up to 50 percent and increase efficiency. This extends the tank’s operational range and reduces the logistical burden of fuel supply, a critical factor in sustained combat operations and one of the Abram’s most significant flaws. Additionally, the hybrid system allows for silent mobility, which can be a tactical advantage in stealth operations.

Another major innovation is the unmanned turret equipped with an autoloader (although the AbramsX is not the first tank with this feature). This design reduces the crew size from four to three and relocates the crew to a more protected compartment within the hull, enhancing survivability. The AbramsX also incorporates a modular open systems architecture (MOSA), which allows for rapid integration of new technologies and ensures the platform remains adaptable to future environments. This is a significant departure from legacy systems that often require extensive overhauls to accommodate upgrades.

The tank also has advanced armor and the Trophy Active Protection Systems (APS) designed to counter modern threats such as drones, loitering munitions, and anti-tank-guided missiles. These features are informed by lessons learned from recent conflicts, particularly the war in Ukraine, where traditional tanks have proven vulnerable to modern precision weapons.

The AbramsX also integrates artificial intelligence and advanced sensors to assist with threat detection and prioritization, and it can coordinate with unmanned aerial systems to enhance situational awareness.

About the Author:

Isaac Seitz, a Defense Columnist, graduated from Patrick Henry College’s Strategic Intelligence and National Security program. He has also studied Russian at Middlebury Language Schools and has worked as an intelligence Analyst in the private sector.

What Are Europe’s Best Weapons of War?

The Challenger 3 Tanks Could Be a Game Changer 

GCAP: The Stealth Fighter Better Than F-35? 

Isaac Seitz
Written By

Isaac Seitz graduated from Patrick Henry College’s Strategic Intelligence and National Security program. He has also studied Russian at Middlebury Language Schools and has worked as an intelligence Analyst in the private sector.

41 Comments

41 Comments

  1. Pingback: The Air Force's 'New' F-15EX Fighter Is A Flying Bomb Truck - National Security Journal

  2. Pingback: B-47 Stratojet Bomber Was Built for a Nuclear World War III - National Security Journal

  3. Pingback: The B-21 Raider Bomber Question Russia and China Don't Want to Ask - National Security Journal

  4. Pingback: Russia and China Have a New Reason To Fear the B-21 Raider Bomber - National Security Journal

  5. Pingback: K2 Black Panther: The Tank Built to Fight North Korea in a War - National Security Journal

  6. Pingback: The 'Super Tank' The Army Cancelled: Meet the M1A2 Abrams SEPv4 - National Security Journal

  7. Pingback: Russia's Old Bomber Force Is Now In a 'Window of Vulnerability' - National Security Journal

  8. Pingback: Putin Could Start a Nuclear War over Ukraine (But Won't...for Now) - National Security Journal

  9. Pingback: A 'Military Stalemate': Ukraine Could Become the New Afghanistan - National Security Journal

  10. Pingback: Russia Breaks Ukraine War Record With Giant Drone and Missile Strike  - National Security Journal

  11. Pingback: The F-35 Stealth Fighter Is Starting to 'Circle the Drain' - National Security Journal

  12. Pingback: J-20 'Mighty Dragon': A Deep Dive into the Arsenal of China's Stealth Fighter - National Security Journal

  13. Pingback: T-90M vs. T-14 Armata: Which Tank Is Russia's Best? - National Security Journal

  14. Pingback: Su-57E: Why India Might Buy Russia's New Stealth Fighter - National Security Journal

  15. Pingback: Convair Model 200: The 1970s VTOL Fighter That Influenced the F-35 - National Security Journal

  16. Pingback: Israel-Iran War: 'Dry Run' for a Future War with Turkey? - National Security Journal

  17. Pingback: Ukraine War Proves NATO's 'Perfect Weapon' Obsession Is a Mistake - National Security Journal

  18. Pingback: Iran Nuclear Program Should Be Destroyed. America Should Help - National Security Journal

  19. Pingback: Reviving U.S. Naval Giants: Multiple Navy Battleships Get 'Second Chance' - National Security Journal

  20. Pingback: The 2 Word Answer That Could Save the Zumwalt-Class Stealth Destroyer - National Security Journal

  21. Pingback: Iran's Air Force Belongs in a Museum - National Security Journal

  22. Pingback: Israel Is Destroying Iran's F-14 Tomcat Fighters on the Ground - National Security Journal

  23. Pingback: Iran and America Look Destined for War - National Security Journal

  24. Pingback: The U.S. Army's New AbramsX Tank Could 'Roll Over' Anything - National Security Journal

  25. Pingback: Iran Is Hitting Israel with 'Cluster Bombs' - National Security Journal

  26. Pingback: Inside 'Midnight Hammer': How B-2 Stealth Bombers Hit Iran Hard - National Security Journal

  27. Pingback: Russia's Economy Might Be Headed for 'Crash' Thanks to Ukraine War - National Security Journal

  28. Pingback: Iran's 'Retaliation Strike' for B-2 Bomber Attack Looks Like a 'Deliberate Dud' - National Security Journal

  29. Pingback: Iran vs. Israel War: Who Broke the Ceasefire First? - National Security Journal

  30. Pingback: M10 Booker: The US Army Cancelled the Frankenstein 'Light Tank' - National Security Journal

  31. Pingback: Iran's IRGC: How Powerful Is It? - National Security Journal

  32. Pingback: Russia's 'New' Su-75 Checkmate Is Now the 'Zombie' Stealth Fighter - National Security Journal

  33. Pingback: China's J-10CE Fighter Explained in 1 Word - National Security Journal

  34. SSQ-II 1000 Ship Navy 2018

    June 30, 2025 at 3:47 pm

    The big horizontal gun tank is obsolete due to the sheer size and weight of a weapon system that has restricted value to one subset of targets that can be defeated by literally dozens of other weapons on the modern battlefield. Even its APFSDS rounds can be significantly bettered by hypersonic rocket weapons like the CKEM that was planned to succeed the rather larger LOSAT developmental weapon, 6-8 warshot missiles equivalent to a 140mm+++ gun as opposed to around two dozen APFSDS rounds in a modern MBT. A primary 30-60mm gun would address the overwhelming majority of threats a MBT currently faces (missiles, drones, and artillery) and cut the required vehicle weight in half while still retaining improved ballistic protection.

  35. Pingback: Russia's Su-75 Checkmate Stealth Fighter Has a Message for NATO - National Security Journal

  36. Pingback: Russia's Lada-Class Submarine Is Offically 'Circling the Drain' - National Security Journal

  37. Pingback: The U.S. Navy's 'Stealth' Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Summed Up in 4 Words - National Security Journal

  38. Pingback: China's J-36 vs. America's F-47: The Race for a 6th-Gen Fighter Is On - National Security Journal

  39. Pingback: Collins-Class: The Story of Australia's $20 Billion 'Dud Subs' - National Security Journal

  40. Pingback: Russia Is Threatening War with America - National Security Journal

  41. Daniel G Quigley

    August 1, 2025 at 7:25 pm

    I always find it funny that rarely if ever have these so called Tank and Armor Experts have ever even served on a Tank. Until these so called Experts actually serve on a Tank they know very little about them. 1st by removing the Loader you remove Eyes from half of the outside surroundings. The Loaders main job other then loading is overwatch of his side of the Tank. So with the Main gun facing foward the loaders areas of responsibility are from the Left Front Fender to the Gun Tube Lock on the Rear Deck. The Loader also has the same area of Responsibility to the air above the Tank in those same areas. What they always seem to leave out is the Ongoing Threat of Electronic Warfare making their AI and Drones 100% Useless. Then you also have this New Warfare of Electronic Microbursts which would Destroy the Electronic Warfare Capabilities of their Mostly Electronic Tank. A Trained Tank Crew trains for those type events and can immediately begin to engage Targets where their Electronic Ladened Tank will hopefully return by itself to the Rear Area to have its Electronics Repaired so it can be Battlefield Ready again.So unless they have those Contingencies Pre-built-in you have a 15 million dollar target that cant do the 3 basic functions of a Tank and that’s Shoot,Move and Communicate!!! Every Human Tanker knows exactly what to do in the event of a electrical malfunction because the Tank itself is still very much usable. Not once was such Detail even mentioned. So let’s hear all you never been on or inside a Tank answer my questions. I served on the M60A1 and M60A3 in 3/68 Armor from Dec.76-Feb.80 Sullivan Barracks, Mannheim, W. Germany. I tend served on the M60A1& A3 and the M1 from Feb80- Dec82 with 5/33 Armor Ft. Knox and 83 in 1st Tank on the M48A3 Camp Casey, South Korea. I also trained National Guard Armor Units as well as as a Instructor at Ft. Knox.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – NASA’s X-43A proved an audacious idea: use a scramjet—a jet that breathes air at supersonic speeds—to fly near Mach...

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – China’s J-20 “Mighty Dragon” stealth fighter has received a major upgrade that reportedly triples its radar’s detection range. -This...

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – Russia’s Kirov-class (Project 1144) were nuclear-powered “battlecruisers” built to shadow and threaten NATO carriers, combining deep magazines, layered air...

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – While China’s J-20, known as the “Mighty Dragon,” is its premier 5th-generation stealth fighter, a new analysis argues that...