Abrams X Vs M10 Booker

If the Booker is to be infantry support and the Abrams M1A2 is to be the heavy armor component, What roll is the Abrams X to fill?

1 Like

Will replace M1A1 and then M1A2 in due course.

The issue is the US has thousands of Abrams’ so you cant just replace them in one go with one platform. It will take many years to even build the requisite numbers of Abrams X.

What they’ll likely do is replace the M1A2s with Xs and move the A2s into reserve storage to replace the last of the A1s that are there. A lot of the parts for the reserve hulls can be reused as spares for the A2 fleet (likely the X will not share many components as it has a hybrid diesel electric engine, new tracks, totally new electronics, a new gun, new computers, new armour and so on) but some will probably go to Ukraine.

In my industry they call it cascading, where you use your new platform to replace your second newest which replaces your third newest which replaces your fourth newest, etc.

6 Likes

Saw this earlier:

Right now the Abrams X is just a concept i dont know where everyone on social media says its a production tank even General Dynamics Land Systems even said its not a production tank

As Nick says above, the Abrams X is only a demonstrator and will not go into production. The Army has announced they are developing the next gen Abrams, which will become the M1A3. The M1A3 will likely have some features of the Abrams X, but will more likely be more similar to an M1A2 than the X.

M1A3 Abrams: The U.S. Army’s New Tank That No Military Can Beat? | The National Interest

1 Like

There are certain features that i think wont be on the Prodution M1A3 such as those cameras and the 3 crew members in the hull
Not sure if it would be a hybrid powerpack as in the Abrams X or a straight diesel and as for the crew not sure if it be a 3 or 4 crew members

The Abrams X, as many have said here, is just a demonstrator by General Dynamics Land Systems on the possibilities of “What If?” for the M1 Abrams.

It is lighter, has 360-degree cameras, three crew in the hull, a remote turret, laser warning systems, Independent Thermal Viewers from the commander and gunner, and an autoloader.

But what I think is most unique about the Abrams X is that it has loitering munitions. No missile was ever developed to fire from the 120mm main gun, so the loitering munitions extends the range of attack beyond the range of the 120mm main gun. With loitering munitions, in theory, the Abrams X can also launch ISR drones as well. The 1/35 Abrams X model seems to show four loitering munition launchers.

Furthermore, the Abrams X has C-UAS drone defense. Outside of SHORAD missiles, the 30mm airbursting autocannon is the next best thing to drone defense (guided with or without radars). The 30mm can also double as anti-IFV, personnel, and anti-material gun. It can also attack troops in trenches if the rounds are airburst programmable.

Since all M1A3s will start with decrepit hulls, it’s anyone’s guess what the M1A3 will contain and how radical it will be. One thing is for sure, M1A3 has to reduce weight from the M1A2SEPv3.

My thoughts. Abrams X is light weight compared to the M1A2 system.
As a test bed, sure, makes since. I think (me personally) that the Army needs to make some tough decisions. 40 tons or 70 tons. That one question will be the guiding point for the next generation. The Russians are good with 40 ish tons. Smaller, more economical, quicker to produce. They can just conscript 3 new people so survivability and experience is not key. I think Mounting the crew in the forward hull of an M1A2, sealed from the turret would be good. The turret could be a lift off, set in arrangement with far less armor. Turret gets hit or damaged, just swap it out like you would the pack in an hour or so. Something like an M1A2 hull with the Abrams X turret.


2 Likes

You think they would opt for a hybrid power pack as in the Abrams x or a straight diesel or a new generation gas turbine?

Here is RFM M1A2 SEP V.2 hull with Amusing Hobbies Abrams X turret to give you a idea what it would look like

4 Likes

Abrams X and whatever the A3 becomes are intended to reduce weight and logistics burden and integrate new technology - sensors, robotics, protection etc. The M10 is a lighter platform with higher end lethality but able to be more rapidly deployed and support lighter forces- so able to make lighter forces, heavier and allow for faster deployment of armored capability. I believe that 105 is quite lethal against most threats. Along with the AMPV and M10 they are the replacements for M2, M113 (family) and can augment strykers. Cascading is correct, the force will be a big blend of platforms for some time.

you forgot the Bradly’s replacement the XM-30 IFV

I think the M1A3 might incorporate Active Protection integrated into the turret and not just tacked on. I also think that it will come with the (finally) Laser Warning Receivers that eluded the M1 Abrams for so long.

If the US Army were to redesign the entire turret, or even partially, then the side stowage bins and bustle rack might go in favor of more systems and uses. It’s akin to the AH-64 Apache in that the side cheek fairings got taller and larger to accommodate more electronics and computers. The same can be done with the Abrams turret. Anti-IED jammers and EW/ECM drone defense can also be incorporated, but cost and weight are limiting factors.

Now if the US Army decides to place the crew in the M1A3 hull, then the whole game changes, Abrams X proves that this is possible.

As for the 30mm autocannon on top, I think it’s too tall a profile and should be redesigned for a sleeker low profile appearance with RADA radars and perhaps an APKWS 2.75" rocket pod or Javelin missile.

Should the US Army produce Abrams X? The answers were tested and given to the Army and General Dynamics as to what the soliders like and dislike about Abrams X.

My thought was the M1A2 series hull is proven, plentiful, has a working maintenance, logistics and supply system in place, It is rugged and well armored. And paid for. The additional cost would be to relocate some crew to the forward hull and acquire a drop in lighter self loading turret off the Abrams X. Seems like you would save the cost of automotive development and for the most part only pay for half of a tank. The hull would be able to handle any future increases in weight as doo dads get added to the turret.

Yep forgot that one- part of the mix. I do wonder if we will be able to do all of this. I bet one of these programs will get delayed. For modelers though big options for the foreseeable future- I expect someone will crank out a line of AMPVs ( maybe Magic Factory?)

If the AMVP comes out ill get them i will prioritize on thr mortar carrier,command and the utility variants

AMPV is based on the Ajax- I have not seen any kit of the Ajax.

The M10 is based on the Ajax which started as a joint Austrian-Spanish project.

The AMPV is the turretless Bradley that is replacing M113s in the US Army.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) | BAE Systems

1 Like

Saw one at Ft. Stewart a few weeks ago.

1 Like

That is the AMPV, not the Ajax.

2 Likes