Next Generation AbramsX Tank

The General Dynamics Land Systems Abrams X is a main battle tank for the next generation, featuring reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability and delivering the same tactical range as the M1A2 Abrams with 50% less fuel consumption. The AbramsX’s hybrid power pack supports the U.S. Army’s climate and electrification strategies, enhances silent watch capability and even allows for some silent mobility. With a reduced crew size and AI-enabled lethality, survivability, mobility, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T) and autonomous capabilities, AbramsX can be a key node in lethal battlefield networks and serve as a bridge from Abrams SEPv3 and SEPv4 to a future tank.

The AbramsX technology demonstrator features reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability.

AbramsX has an ability to function at 60-tons which is 12-tons less than an existing 72-ton upgraded Abrams. This massively increases mobility, deployability and speed for combat maneuvers, yet the AbramsX architecture also allows for additional add-on heavy armor protection if a given threat circumstance requires it.

The C17 carries a maximum payload is 170,900lb (77,519kg) with 18 pallet positions. Three Bradley armoured vehicles comprise one deployment load on the C-17. The US Army M1A1 main battle tank can be carried with other vehicles. It would be easier to transport one 60 ton tank with 17.5 tons of ammo, supplies or other support vehicles and troops.

It will have a reduced crew size and AI-enabled lethality, survivability, mobility, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T) and autonomous capabilities.

They also showed off their StrykerX concept.

The StrykerX technology demonstrator brings to the Stryker family of vehicles capabilities such as silent movement, silent watch, exportable electric power and reduced fuel consumption via a hybrid diesel-electric power pack. StrykerX features a side-by-side crew compartment and more space for the infantry squad. Soldiers inside StrykerX are protected by an integrated Active Protection System and advanced electronic architecture with cyber defense. StrykerX’s array of sensors provide its occupants 360-degree situational awareness and see-through armor capability.

23 thoughts on “Next Generation AbramsX Tank”

  1. Ah, taking the sports car approach of improving performance, maneuverability and efficiency by lightening the load. I approve.

  2. My father fought in the battle of the bulge during world war two.under father said,Patton was meanest son -of – butch there was for a general.and the Germans was scared of dad told me our Sherman’s was no match against Germans father said each time a Sherman fire,the shell bounce right off.too bad we didn’t have a m1a2 back then.the Germans would be running instead of my dad said.patton old blood & guts.our blood and our father was my hero.he day died five years ago at 95.i want too add one more to my comment
    On my dad’s birthday,my daughter got him a world war two army veteran hat,for forty years he went too a live stock auction in Meadville pa.i saw people who new him very well came up too him,shook his hand and even gave him a we traveled home,I looked over too him I saw my dad with tears coming down his face.i ask him why are you dad said,when I wore my hat,nobody new I was a WW2 veteran.they all came up and said thank you for your service bill dad fought for this country.until this very day when I see a veteran,I go up to them and shank there hand,they fought for our freedom.

    • My father also fought at the battle of the bulge and had the same assessment of Patton. He received a bronze star for directing an artillery attack against German tanks. Blowing up bunkers on the Siegfried Line, he had all of his teeth broken at the roots by the concussions. We are lucky to have men like this fighting for democracy..

  3. Those criticizing the “hybrid” feature of this tank don’t realize that this isn’t a Prius-like hybrid. Rather the onboard battery allows the tank to operate its turret without running the engine for extended periods of time. Most tanks consume huge amounts of fuel at idle and cannot operate the turret without running the engine.

    • The M1A2 has an Aux. Power Supply to allow the tank to remain on station with AC/hydraulics/electrical power for extended periods. They’re up to about the third generation of APU now.

    • Sure, improved fuel efficiency is a worthwhile goal.

      But, you know quite well how electric vehicles achieve that: By giving up other things. There isn’t an electric vehicle on the market that couldn’t have better range and capacity if you ripped out the electric drive train and batteries, and swapped in an ICE and gas tank.

      Notice they’re bragging about it being 12 tons lighter, and “yet the AbramsX architecture also allows for additional add-on heavy armor protection if a given threat circumstance requires it.”

      IOW, they got it working by skimping on the armor. On a tank.

      • The Nazis thought that the more armour on the tank, the better, which is how we wound up with some true behemoths like the Landkreuzer P.1000 Ratte, which couldn’t negotiate some bridges. If a shoulder-mounted antitank weapon can penetrate the heaviest armour you can put on a chassis, then you might as well cut back on it so it stops just up to 12.7 mm and leave the rest to the accompanying infantry platoon.

        • Well, that’s fair. Perhaps they SHOULD just settle for being immune to low end anti-material rifles of the sort they used to advertise surplus in magazines when I was a kid, and go for the ability to dodge incoming fire bigger than that. Though I think that’s more moving away from the concept of a tank, rather than a better tank.

          I’ll give them credit for using the hybrid drive train to enable autonomous operation. That is the future for things like this, I think.

      • They’re not skimping. The Frontal Armor protection for the Commander and Drive is the same or better than past generations of Abrams Tank. The removed armor is for the turret which is not crewed. That’s where the weight savings in Armor is being achieved.

        • Since when is the turrent on any American tank not crewed? Just because they are removing the loader doesn’t mean the turrent isn’t crewed.

          • Since they decided to go with an Automated Turret. That’s one of the main reasons for the Weight savings. They have a Commander, Driver, and that’s it. The AI reduces the workload. It’s being said that the Tank can drive itself if required, hence the AI. This frees up the Driver to do other things. And much of the AI is also going to reduce the workload of the Commander. It’s not stated in this article, you can find other articles out there. I imagine the commander will still have his Commander’s Sight, and the other sight will look for targets and scan the horizon (AI), but the driver will likely be able to use that other sighting system as well. And yeah, they can’t perform immediate remedial actions on the gun, like misfires, etc. But that’s the trade off, to get a lighter tank, with the same crew protection, and further range. Hopefully, they select a very reliable automated loader. They will be going to a multipurpose round which is programmable. There are also articles out there on that as well. That is also a big deal as the autoloader will not have to select from multiple different types of ammunition, which is inherently going to make the automated system simpler and more reliable. No carousel, or separate compartments for different types of ammo. I”m speculating a little bit, but it’s really a simple connect the dots. It’s a really big deal to go from 80 plus tons (some versions) back to a 60 Ton Tank. I agree with you. I”m not a big fan of an uncrewed turret. But in this case, they are gaining quite a bit in mobility (bridges, muddy terrain) and range, while still maintaining full frontal protection for the crew. I’ve read a few pieces out there which have stated our full up Abrams tank would not be able to go to some places in UKraine for example. If you can’t get the tank there, you can’t fight it. Europe in general has some very small bridges and it’s a limiting factor in being able to deploy some of our hardware.

      • “Not an electric vehicle on the market…”

        Perhaps if you stop thinking about things like Toyota Prius, and start thinking about things like freight trains and mining trucks and even naval ships.

        Engineers were putting in electric drives into serious machinery as long ago as World War 2, not to protect the Dodo but because it gave more flexibility in design and control of big power through complex geometry.

  4. “The AbramsX’s hybrid power pack supports the U.S. Army’s climate and electrification strategies,”

    I would honestly prefer our military to have a “win wars” strategy, and leave it at that.

Comments are closed.