Meet the AbramsX, a savior or a sitting duck?

The M1 Abrams main battle tank series has been the mainstay of the United States Armored Forces for more than 44 years. It has been the undisputed King of the Battlefield through two wars in tank country.

The Abrams had much better range, effectiveness, and superior thermal imaging systems that allowed US crews to engage and destroy Iraqi T-72 Russian-built tanks at ranges before the Iraqis could even see the Abrams tanks. The Soviet-built tanks were simply outclassed.

The upgraded M1A1 Abrams boasted Chobham armor, an upgraded 120mm gun, and superior mobility. It has been upgraded so much that it has become a totally different tank. The current M1A2E3, which will be in production until 2027, has several upgrades, including improved lethality, survivability, reliability, and fuel efficiency. However, it is nearing 80 tons.

However, while our potential adversaries currently have no match for it with their main battle tanks, what has unfolded in Ukraine has opened eyes as to the drone threat. Is the tank a modern version of a battleship? Or can tanks survive and thrive in a modern battlefield with near-peer enemies?

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has designed a next-generation main battle tank for the future. The AbramsX is the latest upgrade with many next-generation enhancements, as the new variant is lighter, faster, and more expeditionary than its current namesakes.

The AbramsX weighs 60 tons, 10 tons lighter than current Abrams tanks. She’s still a heavyweight, But despite looking exactly the same from the outside, it is a completely different tank once you look under the hood.

General Dynamics has made several changes to the Abrams, including reducing the crew to three people seated shoulder to shoulder in the front of the tank. The turret is unmanned, and an autoloader loads the main gun.

The Abrams X can launch drones simultaneously on the move, the ability to fire course-correcting ammunition, the fielding of a new, lighter 120mm main gun, the XM360, the operation of 360-degree thermal sites, AI-enabled command and control capability, and new generations of sensor data processing and integration.

Electric drive cuts fuel consumption by a half

However, the most innovative and controversial enhancement is the hybrid electric drive propulsion system, which, according to GDLS, can enhance fuel efficiency by up to 50 percent and ensure greater survivability with lower thermal and acoustic signatures.

However, critics point out the perils of using the hybrid electric drive. It will require large lithium battery packs and present problems that don’t exist with the current Abrams. The battery packs would be placed on the bottom of the hull, which would make it vulnerable to exploding if hit by shrapnel from an exploding mine or IED. The hull would have to be reinforced on the bottom.

This system uses the “silent watch,” meaning the vehicles can operate at a forward location without emitting any thermal or acoustic signature that could compromise their position. “Silent watch” allows the sensors and electronics to operate without turning on the tank’s engine.

GDLS officials are naturally tight-lipped about proprietary innovations, but they are also confident that they can cut 10 tons off the tank’s weight without losing its survivability. This could mean they’re upgrading its current Chobham armor.

Related: How American Abrams tanks devastated Russian tanks in Iraq

The Abrams’ drone capability and AI systems

AbramsX tank concept. (Creative Commons)

The AbramsX also utilizes four launchers on the rear of the tank that fire Switchblade 300 munitions. These “kamikaze” or “suicide” drones are loitering unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) controlled by crew members in the vehicle’s hull.

The Switchblade also functions as a camera so that the tank can see what is up ahead. When the drone is targeted, the crew can see right up to the target via the camera.

The Was hington Post reported, “An artificial system on board could be used to spot dangers in the distance … [potentially] the software could alert soldiers that an enemy tank is a few miles away and has roughly 90 percent confidence it’s a threat. The tank can also communicate with unmanned aerial vehicles to scout dangers ahead.”

The AI software incorporates an IP protocol called “Katalyst” Next Generation Electronic Architecture, or NGEA, a modular open architecture developed independently by GDLS. It uses AI for object detection and recognition, automatic target prioritization, and navigation help, including path planning and obstacle avoidance.

The war in Ukraine has highlighted the vulnerability of armor from drones and missiles launched straight down on tanks’ roofs, where the armor is much thinner. GDLS is working on a defense system that will use three radars and launchers to give the crew 360-degree protection.

With the three-person crew in the hull, the turret is not manned and has the 120mm main gun and a 30mm that replaces the .50 caliber machine gun. But perhaps it should still incorporate a machine gun.

Another good part of the design is that the gunner and commander can scan the battlefield independently without rotating the turret.

The AbramsX is an intriguing design that could once again place US Armor at the pinnacle of combined arms strategy. However, the elephant in the room is the question of whether armor is survivable in the modern battlefield, or have drones rendered it obsolete like the WWII-era battleship?

Can tanks survive with the massive amount of drones used today?

Looking at things from thousands of miles away and far from all the information needed to make a definitive case, we may have misunderstood the results of some of the armor destroyed and skipped over the reasons why.

Are drones and anti-tank missiles the new “it” on the battlefield? Or is the tank still a viable, deadly weapon in the hands of our troops? One reason we can look to is how the armor is being used in Ukraine.

Early in the war, Russian tank losses were extremely heavy due to being stuck on roads due to weather, poor planning, worse execution, and a total lack of infantry support. The Russians preach combined arms, just like the US, but their political leaders were overconfident and overruled military leaders who knew better.

Another factor was of the nearly 1,000 tanks lost in the early phase of the war, over 34 percent were abandoned.

Ukraine has said what stopped the Russian advance cold wasn’t Javelin anti-tank missiles but Ukraine’s artillery.

NATO and US tanks are much better protected than Russian tanks. The era of the tank isn’t over just yet.

This article by Steve Balestrieri was originally published by 19fortyfive.com.

Feature Image: AbramsX technology demonstrator. (General Dynamics)

Read more from Sandboxx News

“SAS : Rogue Heroes” shows the kickass origins of the elite special operations unit and adds a lot of fun

America almost built its own version of China’s new stealth jet 20 years ago

5 of our favorite military nonfiction books (and nearly all are about one branch)

Video: The big problem that the Air Force’s NGAD has to overcome

The ships that take Marines to war are in really, really bad shape