The current Abrams is everything: the Americans have refused to further modernize their tanks
Absolutely any military equipment has its own life cycle, which at a certain moment enters its final stage, when the modernization potential is virtually exhausted, and further operation is advisable only until the transition to new models. About the same thing is now happening with American tanks "Abrams", whose program to improve combat performance was unexpectedly curtailed in favor of the development of a new vehicle. Among the reasons: a special military operation in Ukraine, as well as an exorbitant increase in the mass of the tank.
Further modernization of the Abrams was canceled
In fact, the idea that one day the current version of the Abrams will have to be replaced with something new has been circulating in the minds of senior US military officials for quite some time and is periodically transformed into one or another development program. Still, the machine, as a platform for weapons, began to gradually become obsolete, as they say, yesterday, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to squeeze the last juice out of it.
However, such a serious step requires huge financial costs, which include not only design and production, but also re-equipment of military units, integration of the vehicle into the troops and training of operators. So until recently, it was believed that the implementation of such an idea was somewhere out there, in the very distant future, closer to the middle of the century.
Moreover, there are almost four thousand M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in stock in various versions, on which you can live for several decades. That is why in 2017 a contract was signed with General Dynamics for the development of a new modernization package for the Abrams M1A2 SEP v.4 (System Enhancement Package version 4), which was to become “fine finishing with a file” the previous version of the tank (SEP v.3) with the aim of bringing its capabilities to the maximum level with adoption by 2025.
M1A2 SEP v.4, which never reached mass production
But just a couple of weeks ago, the military announced that all work on the project would be closed, and efforts would be aimed at creating a fundamentally new product under the designation M1E3, which is a deep reworking of the M1 concept by the early 2030s. Whereas for the “Abrams” in today’s version, which in small batches will be brought up to the previous SEP v.3 standard, a “survival” period has been determined - with the introduction of the new vehicle into service, it will go into reserve.
The official press release states that the reason for this was actually the maximum mass of the Abrams with the corresponding problems, as well as observation of military conflicts, including a special military operation in Ukraine, which became a clear hint that the wars of the future will be strikingly different from doctrines adopted today.
M1A2 SEP v.3
Got too fat
Indeed, the American tank has been criticized for many years by experts of various calibers due to its large mass, which during the operation of the vehicle, thanks to constant modifications of the armor, grew from 54 tons (in the initial M1 version) to almost 67 tons for the M1A2 SEP v.3. But this fact also causes concern among the military, but the point is not in its potential to get stuck tightly on soft soils. Although it is worth recognizing that standard M88 ARVs, even the latest modifications, cannot always pull out and tow a broken or stuck heavyweight alone - often the support of a second vehicle is required.
The “excess weight” of the tank is primarily a problem with its delivery somewhere outside the United States. So, if the early modifications of the M1 were easily transported by the giant C-5 Galaxy aircraft two units at a time, then the new ones were transported only one at a time. And such newcomers to the US Air Force as the C-17 Globemaster III, although capable of transporting one M1A2 SEP v.3 without much difficulty, but with a relatively small payload reserve, limiting the ability to take something else with it.
Reinforced turret armor M1A2 SEP v.3 (bottom) compared to the older version M1A2 SEP v.2 (top)
Also, the mass of the new versions of the Abrams significantly reduces the choice of railway platforms in terms of carrying capacity for transportation by land, which in case of emergency situations and wartime can create logistical difficulties. For example, transportation of older versions of the tank could be carried out using common four-axle platforms with a lifting capacity of 70 short tons (63,5 metric tons), but for the new M1A2 tickets for such “reserved seats” are no longer sold.
However, even the replacement of the Marine Corps landing boat fleet with the new generation MSV(L) was largely due to the fact that old ships cannot carry heavy tanks.
In addition, the military’s fears are complemented by purely practical factors within the framework of a hypothetical war in Europe, the likelihood of which has increased with the start of the special operation. This is also the low load capacity of many bridges, which may not be able to withstand the passage of a heavy vehicle, which Americans began to think about very strongly since 2014, when the war in Donbass began. And the long “logistics tail” of supplying tank units with fuel, the consumption of which is affected by both the Abrams gas turbine power plant and the extra tons that it has accumulated over the years of modernization.
All of the above is summed up by the words of Major General Glenn Dean, who is the executive director of ground combat systems programs:
“The Abrams tank can no longer increase its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical impact.”
And it’s hard to disagree with this, since further improvement of the tank’s armor and its weapons to adequately respond to threats on the battlefield will in any case lead to an increase in mass even when using the most modern technologies. And given that there are plenty of real and potential problems with the vehicle’s tonnage already now, this trend will only intensify in the future, leading to unpredictable results.
Not only a single mass
Another major drawback of the Abrams, like many other production tanks in the world, is that at their core they are creations of the Cold War with conceptual shortcomings inherent in that time, which are manifested in current wars.
First of all, this concerns protection, which, according to the current laws of differentiated armoring, is distributed unevenly: in the forehead it is thick, and along the sides, roof and stern it is empty. Once upon a time, back in the last century, such a concept was relevant and fully fulfilled the tasks assigned to it in long-standing conflicts. But the wide distribution and development of anti-tank weapons, mostly wearable and transportable, makes us think about the need to protect the entire vehicle.
A special operation in Ukraine also added fuel to the fire, where all threats to tanks appeared in all their glory, from anti-tank systems to rampant drones of various kinds.
Installation diagram of KAZ Trophy on the Abrams turret. Shades of blue show batteries, radar and other equipment, as well as counterweights on the front of the tower
As the same Glenn Dean said about tanks:
“The war in Ukraine has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive soldier protection, built from the inside out rather than the superstructure.”
However, the design of the American tank does not imply such large-scale changes. Just as, for example, it did not initially provide for the installation of a “superstructure” in the form of active protection “Trophy”, which required the presence of massive batteries on the sides of the turret and heavy counterweights in its frontal part, making the tank wider and heavier by almost a ton and taking away from its on-board network a considerable amount of energy for its work. And, it must be said, according to reports in the Western media, the military is wary of such an exchange, although there seems to be an advantage in the form of increased protection from cumulative ammunition.
Abrams with Trophy active protection
The American military also prioritizes the modularity of tank components. And the meaning of this term is not in the usual complaints in the style of modular armor, which can be changed depending on the tasks or a quick change of the vehicle’s armament. The essence is the concept of modular electronics components: sights, communications and navigation equipment, on-board computer systems, etc., which can be replaced with more advanced ones or new ones introduced without reworking all the associated parts.
For example, when changing the sight, do not change the ballistic computer, stabilizers, and so on - the “plug and use” principle, which in the Abrams, which was not initially adapted to this, could not be fully implemented even in the latest modifications. Although this not only greatly simplifies and reduces the cost of upgrading the vehicle, but also in the future opens the way to the introduction of elements of artificial intelligence into the combat system.
Conclusions
Apparently, the future M1E3, which will replace the Abrams, will be significantly redesigned in layout - perhaps through the introduction of automated loading of the gun and an uninhabited or low-profile turret, which will redistribute the vehicle's passive armor and reduce its weight. Also, components such as active protection, anti-drone means, etc. will be initially built into the design, being its addition, and not a burden. And the electronics are based on a completely open modular architecture, facilitating ease of modernization and the introduction of various innovations in the future.
By the way, the Americans carried out an analysis of existing tanks, including our T-14 Armata, in order to determine the appearance of the future combat vehicle back in 2020, planning for 2021 to study the characteristics of the future tank with a reduced crew. The photo attached below just captures, but “blurred out” its models in different versions in the amount of four units.
Photo with blurred models of a promising US tank in 2020
It is not yet clear in what form all this will be implemented. In any case, according to some sources from General Dynamics, they are going to make the tank from scratch, using virtually nothing from the old Abrams. In this regard, there is a small probability that, if not a concept car, then at least the source of some developments will be AbramsX (we wrote about it here), presented last year.
AbramsX
As a technology demonstrator, this product combines a number of interesting innovations that may appeal to the US military. This is a relatively small weight of less than sixty tons, and high fuel efficiency due to a hybrid diesel-electric power plant, as well as good crew protection, an uninhabited turret with an automatic loader, built-in active protection and electronics, entirely mounted on a data exchange bus with an open architecture and modular replacement of components.
AbramsX
And the manufacturer’s advertisements for it are impressive:
With lethality, survivability, mobility, interoperability with unmanned systems and autonomous capabilities supported by artificial intelligence, AbramsX can become a key node in lethal combat networks.
Of course, we don’t know what they will ultimately adopt, but it’s important historical The Americans have already taken a step - the age of Uncle Abrams in its current form is gradually coming to an end.
Information sources:
The military is betting on the next generation M1E3.
US Army Public Affairs: Army Announces Plans for M1E3 Abrams Tank modernization.
Information