Key Points: General Dynamics’ AbramsX technology demonstrator presents a vision for modernizing the M1 Abrams tank with features like a lighter chassis, hybrid engine, unmanned turret, autoloader, 3-person crew, and integrated drones.
While offering significant advancements, the final configuration chosen by the US Army might diverge.
Potential areas of difference include the Army possibly opting for a larger main gun, using the weight savings for increased armor rather than reduced mass, preferring dedicated drone units, and retaining a four-person crew over concerns about autoloader reliability and maintenance burdens.
These choices highlight ongoing debates shaping the future Abrams platform.
AbramsX In 5 Words: The Very Best Tank Ever?
The U.S. Army wants to field a major update to its fleet of M1A2 Abrams tanks, and a mockup presented by General Dynamics just might show the way. The AbramsX, unveiled in 2022, is advertised as a full update for the five-decade-old tank design. The update could allow the tank to continue to serve past 2050.
While the AbramsX is definitely the conversation starter its designers meant it to be, the final tank could differ in several respects from what the Army wants. AbramsX: A History
The AbramsX was introduced by defense contractor General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) at the 2022 Association of the U.S. Army conference. The mission this tank is clear: dominate any battlefield on Earth and prove the tank isn’t obsolete just yet.
GDLS was the original developer of the M1 Abrams in the late 1970s and oversaw the production of several thousand tanks into the 1990s. The company has also produced a range of variants, from the original M1 to the M1A1, M1A2, and today’s M1A2SEPv3 standard.
The Army and GDLS both have a lot to gain from modernizing the M1 instead of designing a new tank from the floor up. An entirely new tank would likely take at least a decade, with costs in the billions, and it would be the most expensive Army project other than missile defense. An M1 update would allow GDLS to substantially revamp certain elements of the tank, while leaving other aspects untouched. This saves time and money, and it gets a modern tank onto the field sooner.
The AbramsX includes a new XM360 120-mm gun, a lighter replacement of the same caliber as the older M256. A 30-mm XM813 autocannon replaces both the commander’s M2 .50-caliber machine gun and the loader’s 7.62-mm machine gun. An automatic loader replaces a human loader, reducing the crew size to three
. The crew is moved to the hull, making the new turret entirely unmanned. Smoke dischargers, the Trophy Active Protection System, and other features are incorporated directly into the turret. A hybrid engine system allows the tank to run on battery power, powering its sensors while keeping the heat-generating engine off. The new tank weighs 10 tons less than the M1A2SEPv3.
The Weapons Package
Firepower is one key area where the Army’s wishes might differ from what GDLS offers. The new XM360 is sound, but the Army might want a slightly longer barrel for a minor velocity boost, an important consideration for armor-piercing ammunition.
It might want an even larger and more powerful gun, like the 140-mm XM291, to ensure the tank could defeat future tank armor. The 30-mm autocannon is a good design choice, allowing a tank crew to engage lightly armored vehicles with a smaller-caliber weapon instead of the main gun, but the Army might want to retain a remotely operated .50-caliber machine gun for dealing with enemy infantry.
The AbramsX Can Take a Punch
Protection might be another category where the Army and industry disagree. While the Army is not exactly happy about the M1’s gradual weight increase over the decades—from a svelte 58 tons to the 70 tons of the latest platform—it has gotten used to the heavier tanks.
The service could be tempted to see the 10-ton subtraction from the M1A2SEPv3 to the AbramsX as money in the bank, to be spent on a combination of passive protection—actual physical plates of steel, ceramics, and depleted uranium; active protection in the form of more interceptor rounds for the Trophy system; and an uprated power pack to accommodate the weight gain.
A U.S. Army Tank with Drones
A built-in drone capability is another option the Army might not want to pick up. The AbramsX is armed with four Switchblade 300 loitering munitions, each packing the warhead of a Javelin anti-tank missile. While a beyond-line-of-sight attack capability is useful for ground forces, the Army might want to concentrate loitering munitions in their own, separate unit—one that operates its own vehicles.
A three-person tank crew has enough to do: following orders, engaging enemy targets by direct fire, avoiding drones and attack helicopters, dodging artillery, and keeping watch for enemy infantry and anti-tank weapons. That said, a Switchblade 300 can answer many of these threats, and the crew might appreciate having the munition as an option. The Army will have to decide.
The Gun Questions
Finally, the Army might not want an automatic loader for the main gun. Automatic loaders reduce vehicle weight, take up less room than a human loader, and cost less in the long run. The Army has traditionally resisted an automatic loader, even though the German, French, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Russian armies all use one, proving its viability.
In the past, the Army has expressed concerns about the autoloader’s reliability. Unlike a mechanical loader, a human loader always works.
A fourth crewmember, furthermore, reduces the maintenance burden on each individual in the crew and provides an extra soldier for security.
When Will It Fight?
The U.S. Army has the opportunity to load the trusted Abrams platform with new technologies that ensure its survival and efficacy into the mid-21st century. The service will have to carefully consider cost versus capabilities, weigh how much of a threat drones are to armored vehicles, and ponder other existential questions concerning the tank’s role on the modern battlefield.
It’s a tribute to the genius of the Abrams’ original design that the Army has the luxury of ordering new upgrades instead of needing to design a new tank—more than 40 years after the Abrams entered service.
About the Author: Kyle Mizokami
Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco. His work has appeared in Popular Mechanics, Esquire, The National Interest, Car and Driver, Men’s Health, and many others. He is the founder and editor for the blogs Japan Security Watch, Asia Security Watch and War Is Boring.
