M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

Moose said:
M1A2 SEPV4 has been cancelled, the M1 program is now moving to a more substantial and ground-up update they're calling M1E3.
www.defensenews.com

US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan

The service is now pursuing a more significant modernization effort to increase mobility and survivability on the battlefield.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Hrm. Not sure I like the stop in SEPV4 if it's going to take significant time to work out what's going into the M1E3.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. Not sure I like the stop in SEPV4 if it's going to take significant time to work out what's going into the M1E3.
Click to expand...
SEPv3 is still going ahead, at a slower rate and likely stopping when E3 is ready to shift into higher gear, so they're not fully walking away from upgrades to the existing fleet. If they're looking to move forward with E3 expeditiously then killing v4 makes sense. Money to do both would be a tall ask, especially with deficit hawks holding one of the houses of the Legislature.
 
Moose said:
SEPv3 is still going ahead, at a slower rate and likely stopping when E3 is ready to shift into higher gear, so they're not fully walking away from upgrades to the existing fleet. If they're looking to move forward with E3 expeditiously then killing v4 makes sense. Money to do both would be a tall ask, especially with deficit hawks holding one of the houses of the Legislature.
Click to expand...
The point is that SEPv4 is ready to start shipping, all the development money is already spent, they're not saving anything.

Now they're going to abandon that entirely and start over, which is going to cause at least a 5 year delay in delivery of the next upgrade after the SEPv3.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The point is that SEPv4 is ready to start shipping, all the development money is already spent, they're not saving anything.

Now they're going to abandon that entirely and start over, which is going to cause at least a 5 year delay in delivery of the next upgrade after the SEPv3.
Click to expand...
They absolutely are saving money, they're scrubbing the production award for v4 and (in theory) reprogramming those billions to support E3 development. The first production contract for v3 was $4.6bn, that was after all the development was done.
 
Moose said:
M1A2 SEPV4 has been cancelled, the M1 program is now moving to a more substantial and ground-up update they're calling M1E3.
www.defensenews.com

US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan

The service is now pursuing a more significant modernization effort to increase mobility and survivability on the battlefield.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Finally admitting it was a gas guzzler as half the reason for the termination of the program. Alarming the suggestion they didnt factor the Trophy into the baseline V4 design and its addition seriously compromised mobility, the addition of an active protection system was factored into the Challenger 3 upgrade (though a choice hadnt initially been made on which particular system to use).

Moose said:
They absolutely are saving money, they're scrubbing the production award for v4 and (in theory) reprogramming those billions to support E3 development. The first production contract for v3 was $4.6bn, that was after all the development was done.
Click to expand...

Though they are continuing low rate production of SEP v3 instead as a filler until the 2030's which previously would have switched over to v4 production 2023/24. Also saying they are going to recompete all the equipment and subsystems potentially duplicating development.
 
Moose said:
They absolutely are saving money, they're scrubbing the production award for v4 and (in theory) reprogramming those billions to support E3 development. The first production contract for v3 was $4.6bn, that was after all the development was done.
Click to expand...
All the development money they paid for SEPv4 is burned.
 
WatcherZero said:
Finally admitting it was a gas guzzler as half the reason for the termination of the program. Alarming the suggestion they didnt factor the Trophy into the baseline V4 design and its addition seriously compromised mobility, the addition of an active protection system was factored into the Challenger 3 upgrade (though a choice hadnt initially been made on which particular system to use).
Click to expand...
SEPv3/v4 didn't include any huge changes to the physical geometry of the vehicle so there wasn't much they could do with trophy.
Scott Kenny said:
All the development money they paid for SEPv4 is burned.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, the new thermals, displays, and laser warning receiver can just be reused in the E3. That's pretty much all sepv4 was. The big problem is that they're going to be stuck with older systems, 2nd gen FLIR in particular, until the 2030s.
 
njiiaf said:
Not necessarily, the new thermals, displays, and laser warning receiver can just be reused in the E3. That's pretty much all sepv4 was. The big problem is that they're going to be stuck with older systems, 2nd gen FLIR in particular, until the 2030s.
Click to expand...
That's my real problem with this decision. The current FLIR is great for seeing hot targets. It's not that hot (pun fully intended) for positive ID of targets.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's my real problem with this decision. The current FLIR is great for seeing hot targets. It's not that hot (pun fully intended) for positive ID of targets.
Click to expand...
I'm holding out hope that some of V4's features like the 3rd gen FLIR will be rolled into future V3 production without a name change.
 
Shusui said:
No, it was never intended to. the XM360 is an ETC compatible gun which is what the US aims to replace the 120mm M256 with in the future. There is no need for a 130mm gun.
Click to expand...
so glade a ETC is being reconsidered.
 
So if I can paraphrase the article “we were surprised by what we see happening on the battlefield of 2023 so we are changing our tank upgrade program for the threat in 2040?”

You were surprised in the present but predict 17 years into the future? I’m slightly skeptical.
 
I would not be worried about the US being "stuck" with 2nd gen IR until 2040... the Russians "3rd gen IR" so far looks worse than stuff tested on US tanks in 1980.
 
GTX said:
And yet the V3 is still in production and there is no mention re the propulsion so I hardly think this has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

They cited the heavy logistical footprint and logistic burden as half the decision as well as saying the AbramsX lower weight and 50% smaller fuel consumption (but the same range) was going to be their performance comparator for the M1E3.
 
WatcherZero said:
They cited the heavy logistical footprint and logistic burden as half the decision as well as saying the AbramsX lower weight and 50% smaller fuel consumption (but the same range) was going to be their performance comparator for the M1E3.
Click to expand...

This is the closest i have seen to an official media release on it - all other articles appear to be spin offs from this. I welcome if someone can provide Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean's or Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman's actual raw speech to help confirm.

www.army.mil

Army Announces Plans for M1E3 Abrams Tank modernization

The U.S. Army announced today the path forward for the M1E3 Abrams Main Battle Tank modernization program.
www.army.mil www.army.mil

No where do I see any comments from the Army referencing General Dynamics' Abram X Concept Demonstrator - note this last aspect. Abrams X using a hybrid propulsion system was/is not a US Army program. it is purely a concept/technology demonstrator funded by the company to show what is possible in terms of weight reduction, improved survivability and a more efficient logistics tail. Not it may well be that some of the features included here make it into the M1E3 but one also has to remember that it is not certain and also that doing wholesale changeovers is not a small undertaking. Any articles mentioning Abrams X are including it from the journalist's POV/speculation.
 
GTX said:
This is the closest i have seen to an official media release on it - all other articles appear to be spin offs from this. I welcome if someone can provide Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean's or Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman's actual raw speech to help confirm.
Click to expand...

I doubt there was a speech. The quotes in this press release are probably "from" the generals as drafted in email by their staffs. No doubt there was also email (probably quite a few) from their offices to the contractors involved but that's not public.
 
TomS said:
I doubt there was a speech. The quotes in this press release are probably "from" the generals as drafted in email by their staffs. No doubt there was also email (probably quite a few) from their offices to the contractors involved but that's not public.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
The Defense News story was actually published simultaneously with the army statement but including quotes from it so they must have had access and discussions with the PR team ahead of the announcement or maybe they learned ahead and when seeking comment from the Army agreed to embargo the story until the press release in return for more details.
 
WatcherZero said:
so they must have had access and discussions with the PR team ahead of the announcement or maybe they learned ahead and when seeking comment from the Army agreed to embargo the story until the press release in return for more details.
Click to expand...
More likely they were sent a media release with a date/time embargo on it and then used that as the basis for their own reporting - happens all the time. I have initiated quite a few that way.
 
donnage99 said:
so basically an entirely new tank which is good news. the ukraine war has provided valuable lessons. glad leadership is adapting quickly and decisively.
Click to expand...
Will it be an entirely new tank?

“We appreciate that future battlefields pose new challenges to the tank as we study recent and ongoing conflicts,” said Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team. “We must optimize the Abrams’ mobility and survivability to allow the tank to continue to close with and destroy the enemy as the apex predator on future battlefields.”

They just can’t break with Abrams.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Will it be an entirely new tank?

“We appreciate that future battlefields pose new challenges to the tank as we study recent and ongoing conflicts,” said Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team. “We must optimize the Abrams’ mobility and survivability to allow the tank to continue to close with and destroy the enemy as the apex predator on future battlefields.”

They just can’t break with Abrams.
Click to expand...
Still the basic Abrams chassis, but not much of the original Abrams left inside.

About like building a new computer and reusing the case from your old one.
 
As is the not much more you can do with chasis design.

The M1 was over built for this reason and no one has been able to design sonething that is completely better.

You can get some improvements from changing the chasis.

But is it enough to warrent a complete redesign?

That is a question that the answer largely ends up with a no.
 
Firefinder said:
As is the not much more you can do with chasis design.

The M1 was over built for this reason and no one has been able to design sonething that is completely better.

You can get some improvements from changing the chasis.

But is it enough to warrent a complete redesign?

That is a question that the answer largely ends up with a no.
Click to expand...
They sure were ready to move on throughout the 80s starting (sort of) with the Armored Family of Vehicles. Which ended as Armored Systems Modernization.

New suspension. Different turret ring size. Different layouts.

“get off your ass, motion creates emotion!”
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Warmed up leftovers. I guess the Abrams original designers were the ultimate US tank designers.
Click to expand...
There's a few places we can do better in now, that probably will show up with the Abrams Replacement and might show up in the M1E3.

  1. The hydropneumatic in-arm suspension units would allow for a V-hull to increase underbelly protection, but I don't expect to see the V-hull built. It'd take too much work to cut the bottom 10" off the hull sides and put a V there, then mount the suspension arms that much higher as a refit.
  2. Several different engine options, and I still lean towards a series hybrid setup with battery for my favorite. Not sure if that'll happen, since it's not an official program of record.
  3. A new turret design that incorporates whatever hard-kill APS they're using inside the armor as much as possible, instead of scabbed on outside. This one I suspect to be the most likely.
 
donnage99 said:
so basically an entirely new tank which is good news. the ukraine war has provided valuable lessons. glad leadership is adapting quickly and decisively.
Click to expand...

If it's "based on the lessons of Ukraine", it makes you wonder what lessons they're seeing, and why they think they can predict the needs of tanks in the 2030s, when they couldn't (apparently) predict the needs of tanks in the 2020s.

It's very bizarre considering DOD is simultaneously bleating about a new world war in the next 4 years, so you would think things that can be expeditiously built would be (i.e. few cancellations of ready to go programs), and things ready to go now would be increased (as has already been the case with JASSM, LRASM, and FGM-148, to name a few), but this isn't the case for Army ACQ apparently.

SEPv4 was a modest program that still took about 6 years to see through, and -E3 will likely be another 6-7 years, if not more. It would have been IOC in 2025, just in time for the war at least if you listen to DOD, or two years out hence which is a bit touch and go but probably fine. Of course, weapons won't change much in that time, so you can still do the "metal poles with chicken wire and camouflage netting" to stop Shaheds or Lancets and rubber welcome mats and super glue, like the SPz Puma has, will stop ICM bomblets. CUAS can be done with the M230LF and 30mm PABM on the M151 Protector mount, which is what JLTV is getting anyway. Boom, done. MLC 120 bridging can be constructed as needed using Bailey bridges, since offensives will be done at glacial paces to preserve materiel, just like in Ukraine!

Perhaps Army ACQ knows something the Navy and Air Force ACQ and the Congress don't, but I doubt it. It just seems like a really weird decision to make given what all the other organs of DOD are saying: more ships, more planes, more missiles, more shells. Fewer tanks is the odd one out.

Scott Kenny said:
All the development money they paid for SEPv4 is burned.
Click to expand...

Nah, they can still produce 3G FLIR B-kits for other vehicles like the OMFV.
 
Last edited:
One could only hope that GDLS is not allowed lead this "enhance the industrial base" effort as there are too many proprietary sub/components already even from non GD vendors. Is the predictive diagnostics which were never completed for M2 going happen. ..heard 10 k personal needed to maintain a M1 BCT..something insane.
 
njiiaf said:
If you've been around long enough, you've probably heard a million times that the army was developing an M1A3 all the way back in 2009. Finally, after 14 years we get to see what they were working on.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1699732092236828954
Click to expand...


"The US Army also proposed a new Abrams modernization program in 2009, called the M1E3 Abrams Evolutionary Design (AED). M1E3 AED utilizes the canceled FCS elements to upgrade platform, such as XM360 lightweight gun, Active Protection System, EOIR Mast-Mounted Sight and PS-MRS."

Quick Kill has been developed into a system that can stop main gun rounds? Or is this another APS?
 
First glimpse of the M1E3. From Sturgeons House's U.S thread, posted byClan_Ghost_Bear. Turret looks very interesting. It's pretty much confirmed to be unmanned IMO.
1694652602506.jpeg

Also, I decided to screenshot a slide from a presentation presented September 20, 2022, I mentioned it in my very bad last post here. ( https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2022/future/Tues_Grassano.pdf, search "Presented by: Mr. Chris Grassano" on DTIC if this link doesn't work. You should get the full 38 slide presentation if you don't already have it. Mentions ERCA, XM913 among other things).

This slide is the only info we have on the new LCAS unmanned turret that they've been working on for sometime now. I believe this shows that the recent decision has been in the works for at-least a year. I also found the presentation from somebody in the Sturgeons House U.S thread a year ago. Note that Senator Tim Ryan secured money to develop an unmanned turret Abrams in around 2021, way before AbramsX. I'm almost 100% sure this is what he was funding. This explains why the Army took no interest in AbramsX, they've been doing the same thing since at-least a year before it came out. That turret on the notional M1E3 might actually be LCAS ( or a further developed version ) and be the first image we actually have of it.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/def...d_turret_on_m1a2_abrams_main_battle_tank.html ( article talking about Tim Ryan's 65 million fund if you want a refresher )
firefox_6E3x5O6NQd.jpg
 
scrubhead said:
First glimpse of the M1E3. From Sturgeons House's U.S thread, posted byClan_Ghost_Bear. Turret looks very interesting. It's pretty much confirmed to be unmanned IMO.
Click to expand...
Is there a better picture of that slide? I'm having a hell of a time making out the shape of the E3 turret.

scrubhead said:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/def...d_turret_on_m1a2_abrams_main_battle_tank.html ( article talking about Tim Ryan's 65 million fund if you want a refresher )
View attachment 707754
Click to expand...
They've been trying to get ELOS munitions for 30+ years, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom