The Abrams Tank cannot continue developing its capabilities without gaining weight and we must also shrink its logistical footprint, Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean said in explaining why the Army decided on a different modernization direction.
Its physical form was to be communicated by the engineered first public M1E3 Abrams prototype display in Detroit. It was no longer put forward as a complete fighting vehicle. It served as a prototype in which it was designed to test crew arrangements, controls, and the type of integrated systems the armored fleet needs in 2040s to confirm that it would work, prior to the actual production structure being solidified.
Even when uncovering the prototype, it still reads “Abrams.” The turret is the most consequential departure when it is viewed close. The turret, shown with an older M1A1 shell, seems to be deprived of crew hatches and old-fashioned viewing equipment, supporting a completely unmanned orientation. The crew concept moves all the three operators into the hull minimizing exposure and allowing a lower cleaner turret profile. There is a rear bustle, implying room to fit an autoloader to support the 120mm M256 family of guns, a design decision that eliminates the traditional loader location and motivates the four to three crew cut that has influenced several next-generation Abrams designs.
The relocation of the crews results in the hull adjustments that appear on the show car: two forward hatches instead of one driver hatch, more internal space to be filled with sheltered seating, and the assumption that cameras and sensors will substitute the direct-view blocks. The outcome is a visibility-treated tank, not a periscope-treated tank. The most prominent is the digital layer.
The crew stations of the prototype were described as software-programmable and reconfigurable, which is consistent with the Army transition to the standards of modular open systems architecture designed to reduce the time needed to upgrade the prototype. Practically, it implies that displays, controls and even role processes could be updated, without necessarily having to wait the vehicle redesigned. The fact that it was a commercially familiar controller in the driver position itself was a minor but significant clue as to the direction: controls and interfaces that are capable of being standardized between platforms, including a future robotic teammate.
The prototype also declared how the Army would live under the constant aerial surveillance on the roofline. One remote weapon station was demonstrated alongside EchoGuard radar to detect and provide cues to counter-drones, with an optics package capable of remote operation instead of scanning at the turret-station. The layout was focused on layering: the tank had its inbuilt devices, remote weapons, and space to be integrated protection instead of being attached to the vehicle at the end of its life.
The powertrain dialogue is lower beneath it. The exhibition car still has an Abrams turbine but the program focus has been directed towards mobility, signature control and electrical power development. Modernization plan of the Army has correlated M1E3 with a smaller footprint in sustainments and better operational mobility and, to a greater degree, has been discussed to the possibilities of diesel and hybrid-electric which in turn allow the Army to have a smaller footprint and more power on-board to build sensors and protection systems, plus what has been termed as “silent watch,” less heat production and more onboard power. The extended feature set being discussed under one of the policy summaries has also accommodated a hybrid electric drive, as well as, enhanced networking and integration with unmanned systems.
The test approach is also being constructed to base the urgency of the program. Four prototypes of M-1E3 have been declared by the Army to be operational in Army formations by 2026 bypassing a more gradual approach to upgrades as with traditional upgrade pathways soldier feedback would come earlier in the design process. This is aimed at gathering actual field feedback on the autoloader, gunnery control flow, seating, and software operation with key design decisions open to adjustment.
The tank that was on the Detroit floor was, however, not a “new tank,” but a new way: slow down weight increase, push protection inside, and make the software the platform that makes the platform up-to-date.
