Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

The Army’s New AbramsX Tank Is Armed with Drones

AbramsX. Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot.
AbramsX NextGen Tank. Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot.

Just six months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, defense contractor General Dynamics introduced a new version of the iconic M1 Abrams tank. The tank, known as AbramsX, incorporated lessons from the ongoing war, specifically the importance of drones in modern conflict. Although just a mockup of an actual tank, AbramsX could form a starting point for a new, third generation of the longest-serving tank in American history.

AbramsX: The History and Backstory 

In October 2022 at the Association of the U.S. Army conference, General Dynamics unveiled a new version of the Abrams tank. Dubbed AbramsX, the tank reflected a quick pivot to lessons learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine the previous February.

AbramsX was not a working, operational tank but was intended to take lessons from the ongoing war, particularly the rise of drones, and use it to keep tanks not only relevant, but dominant on the modern battlefield.

AbramsX differs from the current M1A2SEPv3 Abrams in several ways. One is the reduction in crew size, from four to three. Finally, a main gun autoloader mechanism has been incorporated, eliminating the human loader. The tank commander and gunner are repositioned into the tank’s hull, where they sit in a row alongside the driver.

The new arrangement allows the three crew members to sit side by side, increasing communication and the ability to share information. The arrangement also means the entire turret is completely unmanned. 

AbramsX Gets New, Modernized Weapons 

AbramsX totally revamps and modernizes the M1’s armament. The German-designed M256 120mm main gun is replaced with the newer, lighter XM360 120mm gun. The coaxial M240 7.62mm medium machine gun is deleted, since the loader position no longer exists, as is the M2 .50 caliber machine gun operated by the tank commander. In its place is a Kongsberg Protector R6 remote weapon system (RWS) armed with the XM914 30mm chain gun, a derivative of the AH-64 Apache’s nose-mounted gun system. 

The XM914 RWS is a welcome upgrade over the older M2 machine gun. The M2 was originally meant to engage anti-tank teams,  infantry, unarmored vehicles like trucks, and lightly armored vehicles like the BTR-70 armored personnel carrier. XM914 allows AbramsX to take advantage of recent advances in sensors, fire control, and fusing technology.

The result is the ability to engage targets at night and through smoke screens, shower ground troops in trenches with 30mm shrapnel, deliver accurate fire while the tank is on the move, and penetrate the armor of next-generation armored vehicles like the Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle. The XM914’s proximity rounds can also engage incoming drones, detonating once they enter the round’s explosive kill radius, turning what would otherwise be a miss into a hit. 

Drone Protection Arrives 

Speaking of drones, the Trophy active protection system is a second layer of protection against drones.

Trophy, designed by Israeli defense contractor Rafael, was originally designed to destroy incoming anti-tank rockets and missiles. It uses millimeter-wave radar to detect and track incoming threats to the tank. The technology is identical to that used by self-driving cars to detect their surroundings.

Once Trophy determines the projectile is on course to hit the tank, it fires a kinetic energy interceptor to knock it down. Rafael recently adapted the system to work against drones, shooting them down before they can drop shaped charges or conduct a kamikaze-style direct impact attack. 

AbramsX Could Be a Drone Mothership 

AbramsX not only plays defense against drones, it can also play drone offense. The tank is fitted with four Switchblade 300 loitering munitions, drones combat-proven in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Switchblade has a range of up to 6 miles or a flight time of 15 minutes, whichever comes first, and sends a live video feed back to the drone operator.

Switchblade Drone

Switchblade drone. Image Credit: Company Handout.

If the operator locates a target, they can direct the drone to conduct a diving attack, using an explosive payload derived from the Javelin missile warhead.

This capability will allow AbramsX crews to conduct beyond line of sight attacks, hunting for enemy tanks and infantry and weakening the defense before launching a ground assault. 

Will the Army Go for It? 

AbramsX has not been officially adopted by the U.S. Army, but the window to adoption is there.

In 2023, the Army announced that the next minor update to the M1, the M1A2SEPv4, would be followed by the M1E3.

Each version of the M1 has been iterative, building on previous versions of the tank, incorporating new technology and capabilities. (The first “E” Abrams, the M1E1, was the first to feature the 120mm main gun instead of the original 105mm gun, and once type-classified became known as the M1A1.)

The “E”, according to the Army, “represents an engineering change to an existing platform that is more significant than a minor modification and serves to designate the prototype and development configuration until the vehicle is formally type classified and receives an ‘A’ designation.”

AbramsX. Image Credit: Screenshot.

AbramsX. Image Credit: Screenshot.

In other words, right about the same level of changes AbramsX makes. 

However, the SEPv4 has been cancelled, and many experts are casting doubt on the overall future of tanks

Here Comes DOGE

AbramsX is an intriguing concept and a step in the right direction for the M1 series of main battle tanks. Whether or not it will eventually become the M1A3 Abrams remains to be seen.

The Trump Administration’s directive to implement dramatic spending cuts at the Pentagon would almost certainly affect Army ground forces and the effort to upgrade the Abrams tank.

The direction America’s next tank should take is clear, but America must prioritize it first.

AbramsX

AbramsX Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami 

A 19FortyFive Contributing editor, 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.

Written By

A 19FortyFive Contributing editor, 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.

10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. Zhduny

    March 2, 2025 at 8:42 am

    Tanks rolling across the modern hi-tech each equipped with a cache of self-launched drones are a new approach in armored warfighting.

    But can such tanks survive a strike by aircraft employing glide bombs. Here, assuming these bombs pack a big wallop.

    There was some years back, a turk leopard 2 tank disabled by a truck jam-packed with explosives. Presumably the crew didn’t survive.

    In the future, wars will be fought with nuclear weapons.

    The world has now entered the Era of Thermonuclear Struggle.

    Many huge thanks to biden administration, the deep state and the RAND corp.

    The DoD’s new B61-13 nuke is expected to begin production in 2026, in time for pacific war, but the nov 5 2024 election result threw the whole DoD schedule haywire.

    Thus we have to wait until 2028 US presidential election before things can get going again.

  2. 3Onion

    March 2, 2025 at 10:06 am

    Nothing special to say. Just that Russia already has tanks with Drones.
    Sionists want the New World Order at any cost, maybe nothing will be left for them.

  3. pagar

    March 2, 2025 at 5:21 pm

    Tanks of tomorrow need to reduce their crew size to just two, with the tank headquarters acting as the third crewman.

    How.

    By having the tank constantly in contact (passively and actively) with the commanders at the center of operations.

    That would require use of very advanced and secure communications tech, but with rapid quantum communications advancements and satellite proliferation, it is entirely possible.

    Still, such newfangled very spanking new fighting vehicles can’t compare to battlefield nukes. Can’t compared at all.

  4. PseudoExpertent

    March 3, 2025 at 4:53 am

    The lightning ukrainian armored thrust into kursk (using brit, german and abrams tanks) last august or about seven months ago, showed nukes are extremely vital in stopping such steel behemoths.

    That was the gist of Joint nuclear ops or better known as the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations that surfaced after 9/11, believed to have been formulated by deep state reps during the final year of bill clinton’s administration.

    Today, those steel behemoths are still inside kursk. And creating all sorts of problems. So, the need for nukes just cannot be ignored.

    There’s no doubt now the deep state clearly foresaw the kursk situation a quarter century ago.

    Shows deep state did its homework.

    Neutron bombs would be good (excellent) at stopping kursk-type intrusions.

  5. Billy

    March 3, 2025 at 8:54 am

    Dang it. Got suckered into clicking on a Kyle Mizokami article.

  6. George

    March 3, 2025 at 9:00 am

    Now ask yourself: In what theater are you expecting to deploy this? If the answer is “overseas”, you’re preparing for more war. (In case you haven’t noticed, this thing is too heavy for the steppe) At what point do we spend on “National Defense?”

    You must want to protect your stock price.

  7. 1000 Ship Navy 2018 SSQII

    March 3, 2025 at 10:35 am

    Adding more complexity and cost to the tank is not applying lessons learned, nor is it a new concept, its a warmed over version of the testbed prototype dating from the late 1980’s. At half the cost and weight a 60mm revolver cannon tank with a rear hull 6-8 cell VLS with rapidly replenish weapons would achieve a superior result extending its range of influence out to 10km with superior urban warfare abilities and the potential for airmobile armoured operations. If a particular theater drove a demand for a big horizontal gun, a laser comm r/c sturmgeschutz alligator would achieve it on the same half weight hull, as would an auto-turreted 120mm mortar with a extended barrel/muzzle brake to hide muzzle flash and aid in cooling the barrel quickly to add an ambudance of HE direct fire punch.

  8. 1000 Ship Navy 2018 SSQII

    March 3, 2025 at 10:48 am

    The same formula as the T-14 Armata that has been a costly failure in the Ukraine War. What lessons learned?

  9. Bob Li

    March 3, 2025 at 3:41 pm

    The tank is DOA. Time to move on. Drone swarms and UAVs are the new order of the day. Before long low orbit platforms will replace everything.

  10. Dan Farrand

    March 3, 2025 at 3:42 pm

    Whats the proposed cost ?

    “Switchblade 300 loitering munitions, drones combat-proven in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict”

    I’ve seen no such proof. On the contrary, the Switchblade concept seems to have been a nothing burger. I’ve seen hundreds of videos of Lancets killing targets – those are launched with a rubber band. I wonder how much engineering effort and cost whent into makeing the Switchblade fit into a tube and launch like a mortar ?

    One positive sign is that they did not feel the need to move from a 120mm to a 140mm.

    Tanks on todays battlefield seem like essential consumables. Therefore cost is a key factor along with crew survival.

    A comment above called the T14 and expensive failure…I’m not sure to what degree it was a failure in actual combat, but it probably proved to costly given the disposable nature of tanks.

Leave a Reply

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

Advertisement