MBT AbramsX Tank- Pictures & Video's

[PakFactor]

First video of AbramsX main battle tank released - Task & Purpose (taskandpurpose.com)

Here’s your first clear look at the next-generation ‘AbramsX’ main battle tank​

Finally.
BY JARED KELLER | PUBLISHED OCT 8, 2022 6:30 PM

• TECH & TACTICS

The AbramsX main battle tank technology demonstrator. (General Dynamics Land System
After months of veiled teases, General Dynamics Land Systems has finally revealed its first clear look at its next-generation main battle tank concept.


In a video released Saturday, the defense contractor showed off the so-called “AbramsX” technology demonstrator trundling along at a testing facility, spotlighting the tank concept’s “transformational technology” ahead of the system’s full unveiling at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington D.C. next week.

Details on the Abrams X are scant at the moment, but according to GDLS, the new tank concept features “reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability,” allowing for a similar tactical range to the M1A2 Abrams variant currently in service with roughly half the fuel consumption and a significantly smaller crew.

As our colleagues at The War Zone reported when GDLS first started teasing the next-generation tank concept in previous months, the AbramsX will likely feature several new weapons systems and sensors, including a 30mm Kongsberg Protector RS6 Remote Weapon Station mounted on top of its main turret, what looks like an advanced 120 mm main gun, some variant of the Trophy active protection system that’s seen testing on the Army’s current M1 Abrams fleet in recent years and refreshed electro-optical and infrared turrets.

Not only is it deadly, featuring “AI-enabled lethality” based on the company’s Katalyst Next Generation Electronic Architecture for advanced mobility and target acquisition, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T), and various autonomous systems, but the AbramsX is silent too — sort of.


“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,” according to GDLS, suggesting that the new Abrams concept might achieve some level of relative stealth when moving across the battlefield compared to previous iterations.

According to GDLS, the AbramsX will function as a “key node in lethal battlefield networks” and serve as a bridge between the currently-fielded Abrams SEPv3 and the recently-unveiled SEPv4 iteration to some sort of “future tank,” whatever that might look like.

The SEPv3 upgrade to the Abrams “incorporates turret and hull armor upgrades, mine blast improvements, reactive armor tiles, lightweight belly armor, improved countermine equipment, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) jamming equipment, a Total Integrated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) engine, an upgraded transmission, an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), improved power generation & distribution, Ammunition Data Link (ADL) for smart munitions,” according to Army budget documents.


Meanwhile, the SEPv4 upgrades reportedly include “new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round,” as Army officials told Warrior Maven way back in 2016.

When soldiers can expect to get their hands on the AbramsX remains to be seen: the service only received its first half-dozen initial production versions of the SEPv3 back in October 2017 and started testing the SEPv4 this year.

 

[Oldman1]

First video of AbramsX main battle tank released - Task & Purpose (taskandpurpose.com)

Here’s your first clear look at the next-generation ‘AbramsX’ main battle tank​

Finally.
BY JARED KELLER | PUBLISHED OCT 8, 2022 6:30 PM

• TECH & TACTICS

The AbramsX main battle tank technology demonstrator. (General Dynamics Land System
After months of veiled teases, General Dynamics Land Systems has finally revealed its first clear look at its next-generation main battle tank concept.


In a video released Saturday, the defense contractor showed off the so-called “AbramsX” technology demonstrator trundling along at a testing facility, spotlighting the tank concept’s “transformational technology” ahead of the system’s full unveiling at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington D.C. next week.

Details on the Abrams X are scant at the moment, but according to GDLS, the new tank concept features “reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability,” allowing for a similar tactical range to the M1A2 Abrams variant currently in service with roughly half the fuel consumption and a significantly smaller crew.

As our colleagues at The War Zone reported when GDLS first started teasing the next-generation tank concept in previous months, the AbramsX will likely feature several new weapons systems and sensors, including a 30mm Kongsberg Protector RS6 Remote Weapon Station mounted on top of its main turret, what looks like an advanced 120 mm main gun, some variant of the Trophy active protection system that’s seen testing on the Army’s current M1 Abrams fleet in recent years and refreshed electro-optical and infrared turrets.

Not only is it deadly, featuring “AI-enabled lethality” based on the company’s Katalyst Next Generation Electronic Architecture for advanced mobility and target acquisition, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T), and various autonomous systems, but the AbramsX is silent too — sort of.


“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,” according to GDLS, suggesting that the new Abrams concept might achieve some level of relative stealth when moving across the battlefield compared to previous iterations.


According to GDLS, the AbramsX will function as a “key node in lethal battlefield networks” and serve as a bridge between the currently-fielded Abrams SEPv3 and the recently-unveiled SEPv4 iteration to some sort of “future tank,” whatever that might look like.

The SEPv3 upgrade to the Abrams “incorporates turret and hull armor upgrades, mine blast improvements, reactive armor tiles, lightweight belly armor, improved countermine equipment, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) jamming equipment, a Total Integrated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) engine, an upgraded transmission, an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), improved power generation & distribution, Ammunition Data Link (ADL) for smart munitions,” according to Army budget documents.


Meanwhile, the SEPv4 upgrades reportedly include “new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round,” as Army officials told Warrior Maven way back in 2016.

When soldiers can expect to get their hands on the AbramsX remains to be seen: the service only received its first half-dozen initial production versions of the SEPv3 back in October 2017 and started testing the SEPv4 this year.

Hope to see it in action demonstrating at the range.

 

[Sineva]

2 Panoramic sights AND a separate remote weapons station?
Wouldnt it have made a lot more sense to simply go for an integrated sight and weapons mount like this sort of thing?

 

[Oldman1]

2 Panoramic sights AND a separate remote weapons station?
Wouldnt it have made a lot more sense to simply go for an integrated sight and weapons mount like this sort of thing?

I'm sure they have their reasons. Right now they keep them separate but the Remote weapon station will have its own sensors. The demonstrator doesn't have all the bells and whistles shown like the APS system that should be on it.

 

[Super Falcon]

Specially a see through technology which integrated with the tank amazes me the most and with better range they can some how neutralizes man portable anti tank soldiers far away from their ranges to get on a lock on the tank

 

[CSAW]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579472895050481666

 

[Oldman1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579472895050481666

View attachment 886196

Even though the tank is just a tech demonstrator. I'm certain the gun and engine and powerpack would probably be implemented in the next Abrams upgrade like SEP V5. Lighter gun and better fuel economy.

 

[Beast]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579472895050481666

View attachment 886196

I though US always criticize auto loader compare to a manned loader. They resist it for many decades.

BTW, I don't think heavy MBT are worth investing anymore. What modern warfare needs is heavy infantry fighting vehicle to hold area not heavy and expensive MBT can be easily taken out by ATGM .

 

[jhungary]

I though US always criticize auto loader compare to a manned loader. They resist it for many decades.

BTW, I don't think heavy MBT are worth investing anymore. What modern warfare needs is heavy infantry fighting vehicle to hold area not heavy and expensive MBT can be easily taken out by ATGM .

US never criticise auto loader, in fact, the precursor of M1 Abrams the MBT-70 were made with Auto Loader. The reason why they "Dislike" it is the reason why they pull all the Mobile Gun System from service, because it is hard to service Auto-Loader, and they want 4 men in a tank in a platoon, that way you get 5 tanks per platoon.

And no, if you are gauging the war in Ukraine and come to that conclusion about tank is being obsolete, then you are probably wrong, there are stuff you can't do with light infantry alone, and the reason why Russian perform that badly is because of personnel and command issue, not the role of the tank. East Ukraine is a very obvious example why Tank is still needed.

 

[Beast]

US never criticise auto loader, in fact, the precursor of M1 Abrams the MBT-70 were made with Auto Loader. The reason why they "Dislike" it is the reason why they pull all the Mobile Gun System from service, because it is hard to service Auto-Loader, and they want 4 men in a tank in a platoon, that way you get 5 tanks per platoon.

And no, if you are gauging the war in Ukraine and come to that conclusion about tank is being obsolete, then you are probably wrong, there are stuff you can't do with light infantry alone, and the reason why Russian perform that badly is because of personnel and command issue, not the role of the tank. East Ukraine is a very obvious example why Tank is still needed.

Heavy IFV offer the decent protection needed while still offer the offensive punch in urban warfare.

Most of the tank destroyed in latest Ukraine war, isn't destroyed by tank to tank battle.

 

[jhungary]

Heavy IFV offer the decent protection needed while still offer the offensive punch in urban warfare.

Most of the tank destroyed in latest Ukraine war, isn't destroyed by tank to tank battle.

Well, you can't target anything outside 1500 yards with modern IFV, even with 105mm guns or ATGM Missile.

On the other hand, heavy armor are still needed to punch thru enemy hard defences. You could try for days if you want to do that with IFV, it takes take only hours to have a platoon of tanks firing 50 120mm rounds to reduce a fortification point to rubble.

And as I said, if you are using this Ukrainian war as a yard stick, your conclusion is almost certainly wrong.

 

[Beast]

Well, you can't target anything outside 1500 yards with modern IFV, even with 105mm guns or ATGM Missile.

On the other hand, heavy armor are still needed to punch thru enemy hard defences.

Who told u that? In fact ATGM can even hit further than most modern MBT could do. Heavy IFV can unload a bunch of infantries, acting as look out or ATGM team to ambush enemy tank fleet in urban set up. This is something MBT can't do it beside the Israel merkava. Which isn't really a MBT.

Heavy IFV are not light armed with machine cannon. They are fitted with 75mm - 105mm gun to take out heavy concrete fortify defence in urban set up. Anything beyond that usually leave it to arrty or support strike plane.

 

[jhungary]

Who told u that? In fact ATGM can even hit further than most modern MBT could do. Heavy IFV can unload a bunch of infantries, acting as look out or ATGM team to ambush enemy tank fleet in urban set up.

Heavy IFV are not light armed with machine cannon. They are fitted with 75mm - 105mm gun to take out heavy concrete fortify defence in urban set up. Anything beyond that usually leave it to arrty or suppott strike plane.

ATGM have the range to hit something is NOT the same as it WILL hit something, from the experience of all Russian ATGM in different war, (Yom Kippur to Syria) the sweet spot of ATGM is between 800-1000 yards. Because any further, the range would become an issue for the onboard lock on system (Between the heat signature and gravitational pull), that's the same downside we had with Portable ATGM, yes, technically you can "Hit" something with Javelin at 4 km range, but in reality, anything outside 1000 (or 1500 if you are a skilled operator) will be almost impossible to hit

Unlike a tank round, a missile is a lot heavier and a lot more unstable because of the rocket propulsion system.

As for who told me that? As a Tanker, I need to qualify for ATGM use, and I am qualifying for both AT-4 and Javelin because you can't use your tank gun in close range, that's who told me that.

75mm to 105mm cannot take out Hard Target, I don't know which 105mm you have in China, I know for a fact from a fire mission I had personally called, a dozen of 105mm rounds from an AC-130 cannot take out a fortified concrete bunker in Afghanistan. Dent it or chip it maybe, but not completely taken out. Muzzle energy is too small for the 105.

I don't know, maybe Chinese 105mm made of God metal?? Or can shoot over 1000ms??

 

[Beast]

ATGM have the range to hit something is NOT the same as it WILL hit something, from the experience of all Russian ATGM in different war, (Yom Kippur to Syria) the sweet spot of ATGM is between 800-1000 yards. Because any further, the range would become an issue for the onboard lock on system (Between the heat signature and gravitational pull), that's the same downside we had with Portable ATGM, yes, technically you can "Hit" something with Javelin at 4 km range, but in reality, anything outside 1000 (or 1500 if you are a skilled operator) will be almost impossible to hit

Unlike a tank round, a missile is a lot heavier and a lot more unstable because of the rocket propulsion system.

As for who told me that? As a Tanker, I need to qualify for ATGM use, and I am qualifying for both AT-4 and Javelin because you can't use your tank gun in close range, that's who told me that.

75mm to 105mm cannot take out Hard Target, I don't know which 105mm you have in China, I know for a fact from a fire mission I had personally called, a dozen of 105mm rounds from an AC-130 cannot take out a fortified concrete bunker in Afghanistan. I don't know, maybe Chinese 105mm made of god metal??

ATGM has propulsion and guidance. The fin will do the adjustment by the guided system to it's target. If ATGM are not far hitting and unreliable. Why would attack gunship carry them? Like HJ-8 are modify to be carry on many attack helo.

If 105mm can't take out the fortify position. Most likely the 120-125mm gun can't do the job too. You need to call in 155mm arty to hit from top.

Against standard urban setup of enemies hiding in abandon factory or high rise building. Tell me which wall of those can withstand a 75mm to 105mm rds?

 

[jhungary]

ATGM has propulsion and guidance. The fin will do the adjustment by the guided system to it's target. If ATGM are not far hitting and unreliable. Why would attack gunship carry them? Like HJ-8 are modify to be carry on many attack helo.

Attack Helo seldom hit armor over 2km...and that's different ATGM than Man Portable or Missile used in Tank or APC. In Bradley case, you can't even fire the TOW when you are moving. Not every ATGM are the same, and not every mode of engagement are the same. You have less noise and more clear contrast if you hit from the air, if you are at level, you will have a lot of obstacles and a lot of interference for your missile.

If 105mm can't take out the fortify position. Most likely the 120-125mm gun can't do the job too. You need to call in 155mm arty to hit from top.

You do know 105mm usually have muzzle velocity between 500-700, a 120mm gun would have muzzle velocity between 1500-1700......

You see the different??

Against standard urban setup of enemies hiding in abandon factory or high rise building. Tell me which wall of those can withstand a 75mm to 105mm rds?

You are assuming your opponent WOULD NOT Harden their site and use it as is.

It's not hard at all to harden a building with Concrete and Rebar. I mean, if you are to choose your target to engage, why not say your enemy is setting up their HQ in a brick house? Which you can literally destroy it by driving a truck into it.