Game controllers and drone protection in the M1E3 tank "pre-prototype"
The first "pre-prototype" of the American tank The M1E3, which is expected to replace the current Abrams tanks, was received by the military late last year. This tank was recently unveiled to the public, providing an opportunity to examine some of the innovations that may be incorporated into the future production tank.
Instead of an introduction
When senior US military officials announced that the American Army would receive the first "pre-prototype" M1E3 tank by the end of 2025, some experts, both domestically and internationally, were skeptical of such optimistic plans. There were reasons for this, of course: the development of a concept for a future vehicle capable of replacing the classic Abrams had been shaky for some time, with no visible results beyond plastic models and the AbramsX demonstration vehicle from General Dynamics.
But, as it turns out, the overseas "partners" weren't lying. The first photos of the vehicle were published back in early January of this year, and just recently, one of the "pre-prototypes" was publicly demonstrated at an exhibition in Detroit. And, it should be noted, its appearance isn't all that different from the base M1—it doesn't have the futuristic look of the Abrams X. Which, in general, isn't surprising.
For now, this is just a "pre-prototype," meaning it's not even a prototype, as its appearance and technical specifications have already been largely finalized. In other words, it's a test rig on which the new features will be tested, and therefore, what was presented at the exhibition is almost 100% guaranteed to differ from the final product.
However, some solutions that have a very good chance of being transformed from design sketches into standard features of the future tank are already visible. We'll explore them.
Game manipulators in action
Several years ago, there was a story in the Russian media news That online tank game players can become good tank commanders—not virtual ones, of course, but real ones. They say that players who are experienced in computer shooters have basic knowledge and skills in tactics and unit interaction on the battlefield, and therefore, at least in terms of training, they will be much easier to handle than those who have never played games.
This assertion is, of course, completely absurd, but the gaming industry shouldn't be completely dismissed. And it's not just that games can actually impart any significant knowledge or experience. Far more valuable is the ergonomic component, namely, controls in the form of game controllers (gamepads and steering wheels), without which it's hard to imagine a gaming console.
At first glance, this may seem like sheer nonsense. But in fact, gaming controllers boast the highest level of ergonomics, from the comfortable grip of the gamepad to the anatomically comfortable button placement. After all, years of research into the ideal controller shape, the competition for customers, and other technical and economic considerations all play a role.
All of this led to the emergence of gamepad-like control panels even during the conceptual design phase of the future M1E3 tank's fighting compartment. They were also presented at the Detroit exhibition, where a Fanatec game controller for racing simulators was used as a control panel, most likely for the M1E3 tank's driver.
It's possible that similar devices will appear at the gunner and commander's workstations, which, firstly, would significantly improve ergonomics. Secondly, in the US, unlike in Russia, gaming consoles and gaming controllers such as gamepads and steering wheels are much more widespread, which could simplify the training process for tank crews, most of whom have been familiar with such devices since childhood.
Here's a quote from Colonel Ryan Howell, M1E3 program manager:
...Now, training a young soldier to operate this tank takes just 30 seconds—something that used to take us days, even weeks… I'll quote one of the soldiers who helped us in the early stages.
When we first put him in the crew seat, he was already in the process of being demobilized, but he still assisted us by participating in key design decisions. He told us, "If I'd known I could work on a platform like this, I would have stayed in the army."
When we first put him in the crew seat, he was already in the process of being demobilized, but he still assisted us by participating in key design decisions. He told us, "If I'd known I could work on a platform like this, I would have stayed in the army."
Panoramic sight/surveillance device and anti-drone protection
The future M1E3's unconventional layout was clear even when the Abrams tank upgrade project to the SEP v.4 standard was canceled. At the time, the US military stated that the tank, weighing nearly 67 tons, had become too burdensome in terms of logistics, fuel consumption, and cross-country performance, and that a lighter version, around 50 tons, was needed.
Designing something with a classic layout and heavy armor protection, given such a weight limitation, is simply impossible. Therefore, the only viable solution was to use an unmanned turret with the crew compartments relocated to the front of the tank. This was demonstrated on both the Abrams X and the current "pre-prototype."
However, there is a significant drawback: the crew's complete dependence on technical vision, which forces the adoption of proven solutions. That's why, at least in terms of the panoramic sight/observation device, the Americans didn't reinvent the wheel and equipped the M1E3 "pre-prototype" with the already familiar S3 sighting and observation system from Leonardo.
Depending on customer needs, the S3 can be equipped with either cooled long-wave infrared (LWIR) or uncooled medium-wave infrared (MWIR) thermal imagers with a resolution of 1280 x 960 pixels, ensuring reliable target detection in low-visibility conditions, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Additionally, all S3 variants are equipped with a color daytime TV camera with a resolution of 1280 x 720 pixels. This is complemented by a laser rangefinder and automatic target tracking system, which effectively engages both large targets such as tanks and small, stealthy drones.
Incidentally, it appears that the ability to detect and track UAVs was one of the main arguments in favor of choosing the S3, as this system has proven itself in this area and was used in the M-LIDS Inc 3 anti-aircraft self-propelled gun based on the Stryker combat vehicle.
As for protection (destruction) against unmanned aerial vehicles, the final tank will likely receive a modernized active protection system similar to the Trophy or a domestically developed American design—the inclusion of an active protection system has been mentioned several times. However, as is evident from the "pre-prototype," the Americans are not limiting themselves to this immediate capability, as the display model is equipped with an R400 Mk.2 combat module from Electro Optic System.
This module supports the installation of a wide range of weapons, from machine guns to small-caliber automatic cannons, and provides remote control (guidance) weapons On target. In its standard configuration, it has virtually the same functionality as other remote-controlled launchers on modern tanks and is primarily designed to engage ground targets.
True, in this case, an anti-tank missile launcher was also installed on the module. rocket Javelin system. If the module were installed on some light combat vehicle, such a solution would seem justified, but on a tank with an unmanned turret, that's questionable, of course. However, the ATGM isn't the issue.
The M1E3 R400 is complemented by a compact EchoGuard radar. It's certainly not a full-fledged anti-aircraft radar. However, its capabilities are sufficient for detecting small airborne targets at ranges of up to one and a half kilometers. Very small Drones It detects at a distance of about 500 meters, so with the presence of high-speed computing equipment, the “radar + cannon/machine gun” combination can become an extremely effective measure of protection against both UAVs operating to drop ammunition and drones-kamikaze.
Conclusions
As stated earlier, the M1E3 "pre-prototype" presented shouldn't be considered even an interim version of the future combat vehicle. It's truly a "raw" product with a huge number of flaws. Take, for example, the lack of optical observation devices for the crew and the inefficient installation of the R400 and S3 sighting and observation systems, which overlap each other's fields of view.
In other words, many components will be replaced more than once. But overall, the trend is clear: American tank designers are focusing on maximizing the ergonomics of the future tank and, having observed what drones are currently doing to tanks on the battlefield, are focusing on layered defense against these weapons.
So we'll continue to monitor developments and changes to the M1E3, especially regarding the unmanned turret, which is now a remnant of the M1A1 turret, and the controversial decision to install a hybrid powertrain in the tank, loading the vehicle with fire-hazardous batteries.
Information