America's next-generation main battle tank: ABRAMSX
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 05. 2023
- The venerable M1 Abrams has been America’s core main battle tank for more than 40 years, thanks to a long series of incremental upgrades that have allowed it to remain one of the world’s most fearsome pieces of armor. But as foreign militaries roll out next-generation smart tanks that shoot, move, and communicate on a different plane than their predecessors, General Dynamics is premiering AbramsX: an Abrams for a new era of warfighting.
Special Thanks to Hope Hodge Seck for the original reporting this script was based on!
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
📱 Follow Hope Hodge Seck on social
Twitter: / hopeseck
Read more from Hope Seck on Sandboxx News:
www.sandboxx.us/blog/author/h...
Further Reading:
Original Article: www.sandboxx.us/blog/abramsx-...
Abrams in Desert Storm: www.sandboxx.us/blog/how-amer...
Citations:
- www.ausa.org/about-us
- nationalinterest.org/blog/reb...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/russia-h...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/ukraine-...
- www.rafael-usa.com/programs/t...
- www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/switchbl...
The thought of a goddamn _stealthy_ Abrams is something I find terrifying. This tank is insane, and I'm so glad it's on our side.
The XM360 is not just a lighter 120mm gun. It can also be modified to be an ETC gun, and it can fire higher velocity rounds.
Greetings . The ETC seems to be somewhat "parked". But together with RAMJET shells they can be an improvement in artillery.
@@arbelico2 Ramjet shells? Pinch me!
@@arbelico2 Had forgotten all about these. Read a story a few years ago about them being developed in Norway for 155 mm cannons. Thought they'd been shelved.
@@arbelico2 ETC guns? RAMJET shells? What kinda Halo shi* is that? XD
MRM-KE could be game changing as well allowing greater opportunity to attack from vulnerable angles or the mass to overwhelm APS if those technologies get good enough to threaten modern sabot Penetration.
The batteries enabling engine off operation is going to have a huge impact, and a lot of people still won't notice all of it. In addition to the tactical benefit of being able to keep the tank near ambient temperature and near enough silent to avoid detection, especially at night, the fuel savings will have a huge operational impact. One thing I consistently hear from people who have been in combat is that most of the time, absolutely nothing is happening, but soldiers need to be ready the whole time. Today, that means burning fuel to keep tanks running, but if the tank can run its systems, and ideally even move short distances on battery power while the engine starts, the real world flexibility and practicality of tanks increases massively. Whether commanders use this capability to operate at higher intensities for the same number of tanks, or run operations at the current level of intensity but with less vulnerability to fuel supply will depend on the situation, but any tank without this capability will be at a significant disadvantage.
Moving short distances on battery power while the engine starts would be huge. "Stealth tank" may not be a joke, it could be the real world initialization of the "stealth tank" concept. Would be really spooky. Hell, even the very NOTION of a "stealth tank" is spooky.
Hypothetically, this may also give an opportunity to install solar panels on the flatter top parts of the that are usually underutilized. Instead of just draining power during daytime, a little solar assistance may be helpful for that extra bit of juice. If those solar panels are designed well, they might as well function as "additional armor".
@@misot90 well tanks take so much energy to move, that the meager powers solar panels provide will probably be meaningless.
@@tsamuel6224 The M1 tank is already known as 'whispering death.' The engine is so quiet that it was discovered that the sound of the tracks was the only thing you could hear from over 100 meters. So, the Army developed 'silent' tracks for the M1.
And we regularly were able to sneak up on infantry positions at night (and if there was no dust - in the daytime as well). The next tank is going to have an APU just like the current M1s do, (Which also means that the fuel consumption issues everybody goes on about was solved 20 years ago.) And the APU brings up a question - will the added utility of the batteries be worth the fire risk and under-armor volume they take up? (Yea put lithium-Ion batteries on something that's intended to operate inside the enemy's kill zone. If the batteries take battle damage - they will burn. And you can't put the fire out. I wonder how many tanks will be destroyed by fires before the crews start taking out those batteries. And IMO - getting rid of the Gas Turbine is a bad idea. The gas turbine give the tank a level of agility no other tank in the world has. With the gas turbine I was able to pop up on a berm take 2-3 main gun shots - then back up, stop, and accelerate and turn until I was heading for the next firing position at 30 MPH - before the enemy return fire arrived. You can't do that with a diesel. With a gas turbine when you to full throttle - you get full power instantly. A diesel has inertia it has to overcome before it can start giving you that power.
Once I snuck my tank into the blue sides (I was part of the OPFOR - the "enemy" that's under order to kick the blue forces butt) bivouac area and stopped right next to a medium tent filled with sleeping soldiers. Didn't even wake any of them up - until I fired off a WSS (Weapon Signature Simulator) for the main gun. I guarantee that their ears were ringing. (The Observer/controllers ruled that we had just wiped out an entire brigade headquarters.) And we literally drove our tanks through the BluFor lines. (Up a gully that they didn't have anybody watching.)
Now this is an extreme case that was more epic level screwups on the other side than any brilliance on our part. But it does demonstrate that the gas turbine on the M1 makes the tank 'silent' out to relevant distances. (IE: the distance you open fire.)
The other side of electric motors for driving a tank can be seen in the choice of turbine engine for the M1 which was for faster acceleration vs a piston engine of the same horsepower. Electric drive generates maximum torque at any RPM which is even better as a tank powerplant. And with electric motors you could even split the tracks in two segments on either side so if you hit a mine it doesn't totally immobilize the vehicle.
I love that you give credit to your team, you all do a great job.
Survival of the crew should be your number one concern because you can fix or replace the tank but good crews a hard to come by in a war and it takes time to train a new crew so better armor is the key
Agreed. Making the turret just a firepower kill means that a lot of hits a tank might take will let the crew escape to fight another day.
Also children losing a parent is a major blow to the family. The more that happens, the worse off the civilian population back home you are fighting for suffers. It’s always best to make engineering designs based on minimizing casualties for a myriad of reasons.
Army tanks are always a tradeoff between 3 factors:
Mobility
Firepower
Protection
When you increase one you tend to decrease the other two. Firepower and mobility can increase your survival just as increased protection can. In a good quality modern tank, with a good crew, whoever shoots first tends to win. Also, there's the saying, "If you can be seen, you can be hit; if you can be hit, you can be killed." So things like less engine smoke, quieter/no engine noise, lower profile, lower thermal signature, and better maneuverability all come in to play.
It takes a couple days to replace a tank, it takes 21 years to replace a crew.
Yes, they had to scratch loader, less crew, less weight. With additional crew member you also carry additional armor to protect him.
T-72 goes airplane mode
Spring loaded turrets comrade! Greatest Soviet invention! Putting soldiers into space program! You need more vodka, then you understand!
Turret tossing champion of the 20th century.
That's the escape pod in the turrets of Russian tanks is one of the greatest invention of Russian military just needs to be tweeked a little bit but you have to admit it's a great idea of Mr Putin
Lol, best comment
Silly westoids, Russian engineering is clearly superior because the T-72 has a turret ejection system. We do a special turret ejection operation to own the Ukrainians 😎😎😎
My crew shot "Top Tank" in 2009 on a M1A1 with a 980/1000. That's 20 off a perfect gunnery. We did that by having a loader on crack. He was loading consistent 3-4 second rounds...half the time with a Monster in his other hand and a dip in. The loader plays a huge role, and I think that will effect the combat effectiveness of the Abrams. Watch...they will still keep at least the A2 platform in service for this reason. They need to take a M1A2 SEP v3, add a active protection system to it that works, make a more fuel efficient turbine engine, and you will have the perfect tank. The crew makes the tank
I'm not a tank expert, but I agree.
The M-1 is by no means "behind", and is so modular that it still has great growth potential.
I think there needs to be a radical breakthrough tech, one that _requires_ an all new chasis, in order to make a case for replacing the M-1. And I haven't seen that occur.
Abrams-X has the aroma of military industrial complex spending (something which is wildly blown out of proportion, but does exist).
Im fangirling over this tank and you cant stop me.
I drove the M1A1 and the Challenger and the Leopard tanks as with all armored vehicles it is hard to keep the infantry within range to protect the tanks. The systems in the tank help but in the end, it is the Infantry that protects the tanks. That being said the Bradley can not keep up on rough terrain and not at all in the woods where it might need to knock down a tree. I hope that we improve our infantry fighting vehicles to keep up
Problem is that the US military will go for the worse, american solution instead of choosing the KF41 Lynx or the CV90, because otherwise the US weapon industry would riot.
113 couldn't keep up with M-60s either, but that's on flat terrain and no combat.
Tanks don't just run flat-out all the time and Ukraine isn't the ME desert.
Im unsure theres a right answer here, you put an asset like a tank on the battleground, and give it some infantry, scattered air cover net and logistics, but IF theres a chopper/plane/suicide drone planning on hitting a target, id have to presume if it wasnt able to find a radar, it would go for a tank, noone should be too close to the most explosive thing on the battle field, im not sure what role the future tanks will be playing, they do seem like they are intended to be the frontline, but only after the place has been levelled by the air division. Cant send them into cities until they have been cleared either. Unless the idea is genocide, then tanks would be perfect
There is one IFV..... produced not only in huge numbers....but in just about any version or configuration to cover any possible job/mission imaginable....AND used very successfully in Iraq, because its 60+ mph speed, ability to carry a squad and all their gear, and remote station compatible with a variety of medium (called big guns in the Infantry) caliber weapons controlled from within the hull.....lstuff like MRK-19 grenade launchers or M2 .50 caliber....equipped with amazing FLIR and long digital zoom modes. They are lightly armoured compared to say the Bradley's....but it's amazing to witness a column of them pass you all blacked out almost silent/ stealthy until they go passed within 10 feet of you at HWY speeds....without seeing a single one of them...
The Stryker 8×8 wheeled vehicle was the fastest ground system by far.... even the MGS 105mm turreted version smoked the Humvees. They could also cover HUGE areas that had to be patrolled or when responding to a emergency quick, compared to utility truck just dropping you off somewhere and having to carry EVERYTHING needed for a mission on your back.
Versions like......Infantry, Mortars, Medic, Command, PhysOps, Mobile gun System 105mm, Intelligence + surveillance, anti-tank TOW, ect ect.....somecwith features I've never seen discussed anywhere...for obvious reasons.
Most tanks in Ukraine are being destroyed not by atgms, but by artillery guided by small drones. Infantry support for tanks is rapidly approaching irrelevance. You can't put em out there 15kms in front of the tanks. Tanks are gonna have to be able to survive on their own.
A doughnut vs a dome is wildly different.
Doughnut protects you 360°,
a DOME must protect you across 64,800°.
That's 64,440 more degrees to cover or
180 times greater!
Enormous difference!
The doughnut can protect more than a flat plane. They can fire upwards or downwards some so it really isn't too much extra
Something not mentioned is the Abrams suspension is an old design that makes the tank substantially taller. (Which means heavier, more to armor, easier to hit, etc.) There's a new suspension that is actually important, but this video doesn't address it.
Indeed most CZcams videos focus on flashy stuff like armor or guns but yep, it is these seemingly minor details that really make a tank effective or not.
The torsion bar suspension was chosen for reliability, weight, and simplicity. And for the fact that it can fit into the armored volume of a tank.
"The best part is no part."
@@colincampbell767 Yes, 50 years ago we couldn't make complex things be reliable. That was a long time ago, though. None of the MBTs introduced since the Abrams has used torsion bar suspension to my knowledge. I don't think they were a bad decision in the mid-70s, but I also don't think they're the best decision now.
@@lqr824 Hydro-pneumatic suspensions have become popular on tanks that have limited main gun elevation and depression. The T-14 uses one - but apparently this tank is never going to make it into service. And I've spent way too much time doing maintenance on tanks to have any interest on something else the crew is going to have to inspect, adjust and repair. And the next tank is going to be filled with unproven technology. More stuff that's going to need to be inspected, calibrated and fixed when it breaks.
And to make things worse - there will be one less person doing this additional work. In the field, tank crews are always functioning with some level of sleep deprivation. Adding to their workload isn't going to help. The switch to a three-man crew brings up serious issues about sleep rotation so adding to the 8 man-hours a day the crew has to put in just to keep their tank operational is not going to help. (And an autoloader adds one more complex system that the crew is going to have to inspect and calibrate.)
IMO - Battle Management Systems are a reason why - even with an autoloader - tanks need to retain a for man crew. The systems we have today add to the tank commander's workload (and the platoon leader and platoon sergeant already have a lot of additional tasks to perform). There are already situations where the TC has to ignore certain tasks and hope it doesn't bite him in the butt due to task overload. Having a crewmember who can operate the battle management systems and help maintain 360 degree observation is going to be a must.
@@colincampbell767this is why I think the US Army is going to reject it.
I'm kind of suspicious of the unmanned turret design. Not because of the autoloader, no. A good autoloader is safe, as long as the ammo is stored behind a blast door, with a vent to release pressure through the roof and not into the compartment where crew are.
What I am worried about, is redundancy. In a normal modern tank, like Abrams or Leopard, when the optics and cameras get hit by bullets, shrapnel, shock, or just malfunction, the crew still has periscopes to view out of and get a 360 view. If they get shot too, the commander can poke his head out of the turret and get a 360 view as the tank is driven back to base for repair.
However in an unmanned turret, the only hatch and viewport you can have as backup, is 180 degrees in front of the tank. Doesn't help much when you need to reverse out ASAP after getting hit by an RPG in an ambush. Maybe that RPG or mortar fire took out your rear camera suite that used to give you perfect situational awareness and spacial awareness around the tank.
I wonder if the plan is for a drone operator to give the crew directions in this situation? But what if that drone gets shot down, or EW disconnects the feed.
Another issue with unmanned turrets, is the issue with maintenance and field repair. In a crewed turret, a simple jamming of the gun can be often resolved in 10 seconds by a trained crew. Bigger maintenance might take a few minutes in the field, but still doable inside of the tank. But with an unmanned design, there is no easy access into the turret from inside the crew compartment. A simple jamming of the gun, will mean that the crew either has to get out of the tank, or even drive back to the base.
I see issues with reliability and redundancy. Basically, will this system handle the reality of the battlefield. Don't get me wrong, I'm no reformer. I 100% think that technology can give a huge edge. All these thermal sights, superior aiming devices, drone launchers, cameras around the tank, it will all give a huge advantage. You spot the enemy first and you win 9 times out of 10. However, there still has to be backups of backups. Because there will be situations where you lose the advantage, and you don't want to lose your equipment and troops every time they lose their advantage.
Chances are, if you're in enough trouble that all of your redundant optics get shot out, the same thing will happen to you if you pop out of the turret. Optics can be hardened to take direct hits from 20mm anti-material rifles, but humans can't. The best redundancy for a camera is another camera.
@@hailexiao2770 Not really.
well yeah it is.
But tank commander in Nato usually aren't fully hull down and unless it's a chemical attack will have the hatch in protected mode and often ride with their head out for better situational awareness.
Real life is not a video game, it's not as easy to shoot someones head who is poking out of a moving tank lmao
@@hailexiao2770 This makes sense. Except if you watch the conflict in Ukraine or just think about a real scenario.
You will not be the only tank. If your tank has the unlucky fortune of being hit with mortar fragments damaging your cameras, and drawing the fire... Your fellow soldiers might still destroy the enemy before they critically damage your tank. This actually happened many times to NATO tanks in the middle-east. One tank loses a track and takes 20 RPGs to the front. And after the battle they just put on a new track and drive it back to base with heads out of hatches.
And since war is really numbers and odds game to some degree. You will always have a few damaged vehicles and wounded soldiers after even a massively successful offensive operation.
So do you want your crippled tanks to be able to limp back home? Or do you want to spend precious recovery vehicles? Or do you want to assign dedicated people to help recover the vehicle by spotting for the driver with no rear cameras.
I don't claim that this design is doomed. People more professional than me, will do these calculations and estimates. And they will decide if this capability is worth that extra resource drain.
they'll find a way to solve that, they got cameras and sensors all around the tank, reinforced, and pretty hard to hit. shrapnel, bullets and small explosions wont do anything to it and if you get hit by something bigger than that, you got bigger problems to worry about
@@teaser6089 snipe them or ambush them with an anti tank gun aimed for the area near the commander
While traveling along I-94, through Wyoming & North Dakota this last week, I passed a couple of military convoys with what appeared to empty low boy semi trailers. But as I thought about it, I arrived at the conclusion they were really carrying the new AbramsX stealth tanks 😂😂😂
Or captured T14 Armata's and Su-57's Felons
@@mikedrop4421🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Nah, that was just my invisible bank account that was depleted due to the rising cost of our failed politicians.
@Atheos B. Sapien (Ubi dubium ibi liberatas) through Wisconsin all the way to Billings Montana
@@mikedrop4421 Bruh how would we capture a T-14 or Su-57?
You are the biggest military equipment geek on CZcams. That is why l anxiously await each new episode and always watch the aviation shows at least 2 or 3 times each. Following the Ukrainian war has stoked my interest in tanks and drones so l'm delighted that you are starting to include them now. From one geek to another thanks.
One thing you didn't talk about is the hydropneumatic suspension. They reduce weight and improve wheel travel.
But require Hella maintenance and a failure along one part of the system may disable the entire tank.
@@deven6518still much easier than trying to extract abrams' broken torsion bar suspension (torsion bar suspension system on abrams is simple and easy to maintain and replacing IF they're not misaligned or broken whenever you tried to do maintenance or replacement, but once they're misaligned or broken getting them out of abrams for replacement is a nightmare. In-arm Active Hydropneumatic Suspension System on the other hand might not be as proven and reliable as torsion bar and a bit more maintenance intensive, but at least they're not any more difficult to extract and replace if they're broken on the field compared the normal functioning one because the suspension system in one contained unit).
10 gallons per mile while idling?
Truth is 10 gallons per HOUR
That must have been a long downhill!
One thing for sure, AbramsX is very cool aesthetically. Feels like something from a sci fi.
I am so glad you say it is a demonstrator. GDLS has said there are things the Army will like and things they won't like. I have seen so many other videos where people think this is they a replacement for the Abrams when it isn't. Just like the K51 Panther isn't replacing any country's tank fleet right now. Both are very nice but right now no one, as far as I have seen or heard, is putting orders in. I did hear that Ukraine is looking to get the K51 at some point, but I don't know for sure.
No one is putting orders in because there really isn't any need to yet. For now, Abrams and Leopard do the job against legacy Russian armor just fine and any Russian or Chinese advanced armor systems are effectively non-factors for a whole host of reasons.
Abrams will eventually be replaced when the threat environment either changes all at once with the introduction of a true peer threat or when the number of add-on systems finally outpaces what the chassis is capable of carrying while remaining effective.
@@gingerlicious3500 You are correct. I would add the Challenger as well. All of them are more than capable of dealing with Russian tanks right now. The biggest difference maker is tank crews. Right now the Russian army's tanks crews are nowhere near what NATO tank crews are at. And the Ukrainian military is now having tank crews being taught how to use all three tanks. It helps that they have an idea of NATO doctrine because the Ukrainian army is like a Western/NATO-style military and not like the old Soviet-style military.
The only issue is the AbramsX is essentially just a concept vehicle built by General Dynamics, it's not an actual government program or prototype for actual fielding. The current M1A2 SEPv3 is still replacing SEPv2 in service, and the SEPv4 is in prototype testing and will begin to be fielded in the next couple years. So AbramsX itself will not be the next Abrams. That said, some of it's supcomponents could easily find their way into a future M1A3, especially the new digital architecture, third "dome" Trophy APS and the like. But unless the Army seriously decides it needs a 130mm cannon, they're not going to switch to an autoloader (and the threat tanks out there can be dealt with as is), if anything they'll be far more likely to change to the longer 55 caliber length barrel vs the current 44 calibers (the Leopard 2A6 uses the L/55)
IMHO the most interesting component is the power pack, if they can manage to make it so that it can be plugged into existing M1s that would be awesome
Initially when they revealed it, I was not a fan of the 30mm on the roof. But the more Ive thought about it, its grown on me. More useful for counter drone duty than the .50, more useful for trench/fortification clearing/suppression.
The only complaint I have left is the drone carriage. I still dont like the loitering munition inclusion. Its an indirect fire system, slapped onto a direct fire tank. I just dont see the point. Leave the drone option, but stick a tethered recon uav system. The ability to see over the tree line ahead of you, the hill/ridge line in front of you etc and not able to be jammed(its tethered) would be quite useful.
A fourth operator would be nice too. Extra brain power to handle all this new electronics/information being tossed at them. Also useful for sharing the physical workload.
Just to be clear, Im not against loitering munitions. I just dont see them being needed on an MBT. Its like sticking air defense missiles on your bridge layer. Just because you can doesnt mean you should.
I don't see the point either.
They never opperate alone and are all getting interconnected sensors like f35.
It makes more sense to just have these assets in a shared capacity and run by a drone unit.
Drone opperators are going to be added units anyway if you look at the ukraine war.
The switchblade also has recon abilities. And you aren't going to land the drone back to the tank during combat so why not expend them explosively?
I think of the Switchblades as a counter to "hard-to-reach" targets. You can know a target is there, but it may be too dangerous to attack due to it being on the lee of a ridge where planes or choppers can't effectively hit. Pop a Switchblade and the target is either dead dead or hurtin' enough that he gives up the fight
@@caelumvaldovinos5318 isn't that the job of artillery and company mortars?
America continuing its tradition of turning Russian tanks into their favorite pronouns: was/were
FUCK YEAHHH FOR THE THEY/THEM ARMY!
GLORY TO NATO!
French Leclerc : Ah Oui, please hold Ma BAGUETTE 🥖
I, for one, completely respect the russian armor's preferred form of address.
@@CptJistuce it's just dignity and polite
Those aren't pronouns...
Alex, thank you for putting this together, and Hope Seck for her in-depth study. Sounds like the X incorporates everything learned from the Abrams, recent experience by the Ukrainian's and of course a focus on logistics and sustainability. That Diesel Electric combo had me thinking freight train locomotives, so that technology, coupled with batteries should be very mature. Sounds like when a bid goes out, and pre-production evaluators hit the field, it will be something to see.
But the abrams x was in development way before the ukranian-russian conflict. Vehicles of this concept, of which this abrams x is very much a demonstrator concept, are more of a companies means to the government to show what can be done. In the end it will be the government that decides how every part is designed even if GDLS disagrees even if the disagreements are sound and proven.
I don't think this diesel electric setup is similar to a freight train. I would expect something closer to a souped up diesel car engine to get max revs, high efficiency and low weight. No variable RPM mode, only off, sleep, start, warm up from cold start, and full power. If they want something mature I would expect something closer to a large portable job site generator than to a freight train. Cutting weight is a big deal.
@@NomadicOneifyfacts!
@@NomadicOneify My bad, I conflated the vertical drone launch with "Cope Cage" experience.
What's Hope's channel?
Thank you for all of your hard work.
loving the firepower episodes along with the standard eps mate keep it up!
Needs a laser defense system like in Command and Conquer. 👍🏼
Well if you go there I'll follow and demand a Mirage Tank disguising itself as a full on, upright standing, singular tree on an open field😅
And Mind Control would be NICE
I wouldn't be surprised if the Army would want to keep the loader, just assign them as the remote weapons operator (UAV/Crows). The reasons for having a 4th crew member are still there (replacement crew for injuries, more hands for field repairs, manual operation of automated systems).
Agreed.
No space in the hull
@@williamwchuang Then they’ll make space. The X is a showpiece we might see some radical changes in time.
100% there will be a
DRONE OPERATOR.
just like thos in WW2 that eveey battleship is capable of launching seaplanes to recon.
MBTs having drones for the recon purpose would be also ideal now. Even just having a quadcopter is already an advantage in Tank-vs-Tank engagement.
Sure but there's no reason that 4th guy needs to be in the tank. You can put the 4th guys in a Bradley or something.
More importantly you can just buy more tanks. Cutting the weight from 70 to 60 tons also means the cost is 15% or so less than otherwise. Far less armor on the tank as you only need big armor on the crew capsule. Less weight then means less engine and fuel. You can keep the tread for an improvement in ground pressure, or cut back to less tread too. And having cut all that means you need even LESS engine, fuel, armor, treads, etc. etc. So rather than buy 6 tanks you buy 7 tanks and it's not quite as pressing to repair them, so you again don't need the 4th guy to do the repairs.
Daaang I found ya! Been listening to you for months on Tik Tok and love your content. Glad I found more thorough vids!
Great content in this video. Tha K you and the people you work with.
The F/A-18 program office was talking about taking the cannon out of their aircraft for space for avionics back in the mid-90s and the pilot community lost their minds. The pilots ultimately won their battle.
New aircraft did get the gun removed again didn't they? That was a problem with Vietnam aircraft, great planes that didn't have a gun.
Gun is dead and if you get to use it 0,001% the time then something went terribly wrong.
@@jesse8600it wasn’t a problem with Vietnam era aircraft it was a problem with Vietnam era protocols and tactics
@@jesse8600 If the pilots were allowed to engaged with radar only and didn't have to visually confirm identity, not having a gun would have been much less of a problem. Unfortunately the civilian leadership didn't trust the ability of radar to distinguish between, say, a MiG-19 and a civilian aircraft.
@@issadraco532 That, my friend, is the Vietnam War in a single sentence. It was a very bad thing done to our (US) warfighters.
Potentially, they could've installed auto-loaders in the Abrams decades earlier. However, I think they never did that for all these years because the tech at that time was still too much of a liability.
Installing an autoloader on a preexisting Abrams would be a large and costly retrofit.
Legacy autoloaders weren't nearly as fast either.
@@viper_7712 they experimented with adding one to the abrams
not really russian autoloaders are shit but that doesn't mean that all autoloaders are the french and Japanese leclerc and type 10 can fire a round pretty much every four seconds continuously and can remove a round in the breech unlike the russian ones also the US has been testing autoloaders since the 70s
Thank you Sandbox News Team!
Geez and wow and impressive. Thanks Alex.
We need a vehicle with no weapons that is just a land based drone carrier. Carries like 100 switch blades in vertical tube launchers and a but load of quad copters to swarm stacked on top of each other.
Likely so. But would such a design be deployed alongside artillery pieces and from a doctrine point of view be a rear echelon vehicle? Like a partner vehicle for HiMARS to provide ISR, correct fires , and have a quick response counter battery capacity? Maybe even some radar capabilities to detect enemy fires and UAVs? Anything expected to be frontline needs something to provide suppression fire right?
@@chriswilkerson4074 intermediate and very mobile. Some of the drones long range intel gathering,
Even if you use a modernized Ford Super Duty as launch vehicle, such drone swarms (if most of them can't be jammed) can take out dozens of new tanks. Very cost effective, manpower extensive, and mobile.
The AbramsX is one idea for the modern/future battle tank. Make it more lethal and survivable by making it bigger and sticking more things to it.
Sure, it is lighter, reduced in turret size, but higher and bulkier in other categories. The real question is if the role of the MBT still exists (it probably does) and if it does, should it be filled by a cheap drone vehicle, expensive drone/ai vehicle, a crewed tank as small as possible or one as big as possible.
Like the German KF51 Panther design, does it need more weapon stations? Does it need loitering munitions? Or does it need infantry and IFVs / anti air vehicles?
Great video as always!
Alex, one of the advantages about being a "mature chassis" is all that "spaced armour" you get on your upper and lower "glacis plate".
Interesting vid on the ABRAMSX. Nicholas 'Chieftain' Moran mentioned it in passing in a Q&A, so thanks for providing more detail.
I got a chance to talk to the GDLS team at AUSA. The three across configuration would problem not make it to DD250 handover. A more re-imagined interior would probably emerge, ideally with the someone in the turret for troubleshooting the gun and turret systems. I've got a video of one of the interviews with Reese on the page.
Are you saying that the turret on the AbramsX is inaccessible to the crew, if something needs troubleshooting?
@@roberthaines4221 yes, and that’s precisely the problem. Guns get dirty when firing and often require manual adjustment to engage. Hard to do that if it’s two meters away in a sealed turret you can’t reach.
@@roberthaines4221 Sort of. There is accessibility currently, but no one stationed in the turret. Ideally there would still be a Tanker in the turret to troubleshoot full time.
@@roberthaines4221 The turret is accessible to the crew and can be operated in degraded mode.
Awesome video bro. Kudos to you and Hope.
The ending animations were slick. Good job Hector!
I wanna know if it will be capable of taking a heavier hit or is going all in on trophy like systems.
Good question. There’s probably an upper limit on total weight for tanks, not just because of engine power, but ground pressure, bridges, rail transport, etc.
US doctrine promotes multi layer defense. There is probably some king of armor update that the military and manufacturers don't want people knowing the specks on.
i dont think APS is at the maturity level/scale level yet that it can replace passive armor, nor can it really deal with APFSDS as well as other munitions
@Hertz Wave APS are still in their infancy but limited by the amount of munitions it can carry. I'm not sure about countering APFSDS, though.
@@lostinpa-dadenduro7555 Hitler designed this 1000 ton tank/land battleship called the Ratte, and it was immediately cancelled by those in the know, for getting stuck everywhere,because nothing would be able to support it's weight.
Definitely enjoy seeing you cover a wider range of military equipment.
Take small steps. Test out the armament package on a standard hull, test the powerpack in a standard hull, put them through trials, "fire and adjust"
Great video! 🤜🤛
Great video, Alex. I'm an Airpower fan, but enjoyed learning about this tank demonstrator.
I’m only here for the voice! 😂
Approved by this old 19K! I like the Trophy system and the idea of a 30 Cal turret. No more carrying the M2 from the arms room or carrying 2 barrells and having to change it out or messing with headspace and timing and troubleshoot issues. I also like the see through tank tech. I would like to know if they fixed the heaters or are future 19K Tank Crewman going to request an extra sponson box for heater parts? Also, what is General Dynamics answer for protecting this hybrid tank in cold weather? Batteries don't do good in the cold. And where are these batteries stored for easy maintenance and what armor protection will they have from getting an equipment kill? I'd love to see powered aux USB-C ports for hooking up and charging encryption tough tablets for operations, digital sand tables, weapons and tank maintenance, operator manuals, operator videos covering everything for weapons, and equipment on the tank, maintenance records, parts requisition, Field Manuals, Training Manuals, first aid, SOIs, continuity books, etc. It would be nice if they could add a little more to the pioneer equipment such as explosive devices to help make a hasty for the tank or LP/OP. What about some materials to help the tank blend in with the environment? I mean BMW makes a car that you can change the paint color with a push of a button, why can't this be applied to a tank? Where is the cloaking tech? It might be a little tough to do these 2 things, but it's definitely possible and of done right worth the price. All of these are force multipliers. Oh and the dang thing ought to have a NBC system that warms and cools the Soldiers inside changing the ambient air inside. I always told people that a tank is like an oven in the summer and a freezer in the winter. We have pocket computers these days. Help future tankers out so they don't get heat exhaustion, heat stroke or freeze to death. Oh and have self cleaning V-Packs so you don't leave your tank vulnerable having to traverse the gun to get the V-Pack doors open and left open while you pull each V-Pack out to clean. There has to be a better way! 😂 What about air tags or similar tech that each Crewman has keyed with geo-fencing so that if an enemy combatant gets to close to the tank and no one is in it, an alarm goes off and all vital operating and weapon systems get shut off until the tank can be rekeyed with vetted tank crewman. Just some ideas to make it an even better smart tank.
Headspace and timing was done away with long ago with the flex 50. I had one all the way back in 2009
Dude he said 30mm turret much bigger than a .50 cal it's what the A10 and the Apache fire
Alex holy crap you guys did 52K+ views in 9 hours!! I think you got this defense journalism thing nailed down!
Nice video. I enjoyed watching it 👍
So I want to start off this message by saying that I LOVE your videos, they are some of my absolute favorite! It really dosnt matter what you call this new series, I am going to watch it regardless because it is awesome. I am not a fan of the Firepower name though, I dont know why, it just dosnt have the same ring as Airpower. Its still some of the best stuff around and its not even a terrible name. I understand why you made the name that, just hoping maybe you can pick something else lol
I dont have any suggestions for a good name too, wished I did.
Ah yes. Massive lithium ion batteries. In a tank. That gets shot at. By very big guns. No way that can go wrong.
As active protection systems aren’t particularly reliable or widespread yet I see this happening:
-AbramsX is deployed.
-Abrams X gets wrecked by anti-tank weapons and tactics designed to destroy something 10-15 tons heavier with lots more armor.
-DoD acts surprised.
-DoD starts ordering armor enhancement packages.
-Packages over stress the batteries and drive systems and/or suspension.
-DoD acts surprised.
-DoD orders a “mobility (engine) enhancement program” which severely reduces its fuel efficiency/range/lifespan or all three.
-DoD acts surprised.
-DoD decides to ditch most of the battery system to make room for a bigger engine/more fuel thereby having wasted all that time, effort and money.
On and on ad astra.
By the time all is said and done AbramsX matches or exceeds the weight of the current Abrams. DoD spends billions of dollars to move half a step forward if not break dead even.
How are lithium batteries different than all that ammunition stored in the tank that get shot at?
@@randomnickify Cell phones, tablets and teslas are all powered by various rare-earth batteries (usually lithium ion) that have a rather nasty habit of spontaneously swelling or catching fire and exploding. That’s during normal intended use.
A small car uses 600-1700 lb batteries, imagine how much they’ll have to stuff into the AbramsX to make it “economical.” To add to it: it’s an all terrain vehicle, carrying explosives and potentially get shot at/run over buried explosives.
Modern Abrams has the blowout hatches for ammunition cookoff, and it works. These batteries are already delicate enough so putting them in a thinly armored blowout section isn’t a good idea. It’s just one more thing to go wrong that isn’t efficient or common enough to be applied to something like a 60 ton tank. Edit: yet.
Great video! Good info.
FIRE POWER! love it, Alex!
They need a fourth crewman, You have radio watch at night, you need to put up camouflage, and take it down, perimeter watch, etc.....
Yup, loading the gun is the last important task for a loader when it comes to tanker duties outside of just combat. Need to break track? you can have one guy on watch while 3 guys get to work. Need someone on night watch? everyone gets 2 hour shifts a night instead of 2.6 hours. On top of all that, a loader is another set of eyes to scan for better situational awareness.
@@danielcervantes7826 and a pair of hands to fix what can go wrong, or at worst case, a man with a gun that can cover you in case you have to abandon tank.
@@danielcervantes7826 dud you do know we got AI systems n such?
Most of that can be replaced.
How about the french system, when each tank is paired with an armored car? You don't need those additional men inside the tank and waste several tons of armor for their protection
Now he can be a dedicated drone operator and supervise the APS. I'm sure they can find room for him somewhere, but it'll probably need a redesign.
As I was sat there and thinking, 'Hell the Abrams is as heavy as the Tiger II (King Tiger)'. As I ponder this thought Alex started talking about the engine and how quit it was compared to regular diesel engines. In a flash I thought don't say, don't....and he did. He used the 'S' word STEALTH. arg!
I was thinking Sneaky.
But yep...he said the other S word.
Good video!!
thanks Alex, I'll check her out as well!
anyone you recommend got to be great !
It may not be possible, but if they could somehow integrate AA within the tank layout, that would be the ultimate fighting vehicle.
Better to just make specialized AA vehicles to accompany tank units.
AA isn't something that needs to be incorporated into the tank itself, because if they did, it would probably close to double the size of the tank if they want anything remotely effective against 4th-5th gen, or worse, 6th gen
@@CrystallineFoxCF The simple addition of an autocannon (which is likely not gonna be enough to protect against aerial threats) adds a TON of weight, complexity, and takes up a load of space. There's a huge reason why the vast majority of MBTs rarely, if ever, implement a secondary gun of 20mm caliber or larger.
Not disagreeing, just expanding on what you're saying.
Nice to see it carrying at least a couple of spare wheels. While I was with Leopard 2s, I would be swapping out 1 to 3 wheels almost every 24hours while on exercise :)
The added benefit of the hydrid engine helps provide power overhead for future weapon systems.
One if the limitations of the aging US Navy is there isn't enough power to power additional weapon systems. The same principles apply for every other heavy hardware platform.
Since the Army hasn't ordered an open call for a replacement for the Abrams, the Abrams X is a great platform for marketing, to possibly inspire Army requirements when the competition comes down. And it's coming.
The US Army has chosen a replacement for the blackhawk, the m16/M4, the m249, added the JLTV and the light tank that isn't a light tank. They're still working to replace the Apache, and looking whether to replace the Bradley. The replacement for the Abrams is still easily 10 years away if even on procurement road maps.
Coverage for this a little late compared to other videos, but it's fun to see it pop up.
You're a fab boss. Good for you, and your team 🙂
AbramsX: Everything the T-14 Armata wishes it could be, and more.
And in 10 years' time another tank will come along & do the same to the X. What's your point?
@@paulg3216 That the T-14 is a vastly overrated parade queen, as demonstrated by the war in Ukraine. So here's the AbramsX casually sitting on the sidelines as a tech demonstrator, showing what the US is more than capable of achieving, but doesn't yet need to because said T-14 is just a parade queen.
M1 Abrams Sepv4 be like : Am I a Joke to you ❓
@@Evolution_Kills Well send them to the battlefield then
@ScorgRus Can you not read, or do you lack comprehension? Abrams X simply isn't needed yet, because there does not yet exist a threat it would be needed to counter that current Abrams cannot. So it remains a tech demonstrator, and the US had the good sense to not parade it about in literal parades as some Potemkim charade, because (again) it doesn't have to.
My biggest question is how does the commander and gunner get out if they have to evac? The only hatch I saw in all of that footage is the driver's and if you're relying on 3 people getting out of a single hatch (that is probably facing the enemy) then you are in for some bad times if the tank gets taken out.
theres 3 hatches on the top section on the frontal armor. its a 3 crew tank.
Kudos on giving credit where credit is due!
Thanks for this, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Challenger upgrades and development.
“Gaining additional weight will affect maneuverability.” I can relate.😂😂😂
I fell personally attacked! (JK)
Ten gallons to start took me out 😂😂
The best TANK video I have ever seen !!
This is Very Nice!
See through armor,reminds me of the tie fighter it used transparent metal as a windshield.
You need to start this series like you do with air power. I look forward to hearing you start that podcast with “this is allax Holley and this is air power”. It makes it sound like the podcast is going to blow your socks off.!!!
Good Presentation
I was a Marine tanker in Desert Storm and they need to name this tank after me.
Love the guys closing remarks. 🤣
Impressed
The frontal perimeter camera location looks like it's in a place that tends to get smeared with dirt by most tanks pretty quickly. Being able to "see through the hull" when all you see is dirt up close on your lens doesn't feel like an upgrade. Although having a giant fly take up 25% of your side view would probably make a bored tanker's day.
They do make high pressure water) air sprayer jets for exactly this purpose already. Hit a button and blast the lenses with a few hundred psi of water and air and the mud will disappear
Looks like unmanned MBT. Maybe next step. Thanks Alex! It goes to law!
A medium calibre gun with high angle as well as air burst capabilities is a must in my opinion.
There is a clear need to be able to swat low-flying drones down, one way or the other. The 30mm would make the tank a lot scarier in urban warfare too, where they currently hold great disadvantages.
Good work Hope!
You and Task do awesome work. Keep it up.
When the Abrams X fires it’s cannon it also has a speaker system that says, “Take that you savage!”.
Would be cool if the drones could lock on to an enemy and report back the GPS and targeting data to the tank for the main gun to fire on.
The Stacey Abrams tank is the ultimate tank. It eats the enemy's food supply and depletes their entire army.
It is an absolut beast and it looks great!
In Iran, as in WWII, tank advances usually stop at 200 miles. They then need to refuel, rearm and repair. It hasn't changed
What a lot of people don't seem to be noticing about the Abram-X is the use of supercapacitors in the hybrid powertrain. This not only allows the Abrams-X to use a smaller, less powerful diesel engine, but gives it the greater flexibility of the battery bank while still being able to match the original Abrams' performance. The original Abrams didn't need that powerful engine to do 45 mph on level ground. It needed that engine to do 45 mph on a level surface, then hit a steep slope and not have to slow down. Thus the American cavalry tank concept. Supercapacitors and electric motors let Abrams-X do the same job with a smaller and much more fuel efficient diesel engine. (As an aside, if you haven't read up on that engine, do by all means. It's not an ordinary diesel.)
If you think all that is spectacular, just wait until you see what the USAF does with supercapacitors and high energy lasers! It will literally be "SPECTACULAR". Not the sort you'd want to see if you're a bad guy.
So they could use the xm360 with ETC and not need bigger rounds
Imho, a programmable airburst round from an automatic secondary turret is just necessary for a new tank at this point for drone defence and is much more important than a machine gun. You need to be able to go from detecting a small drone to shooting at it within two seconds, otherwise it will be dropping a half pound shaped charge on you or allied vehicles
Programmable rounds are much more cost effective to deal with drones than the next layer of active protection, are arguably the single best non-ewar anti-drone countermeasure, and they also make enemy attack helicopters even less relevant. The machine gun secondary is something that should be left to IFVs or to accompanying infantry, but every vehicle needs airburst to defend itself and infantry against drones.
"10 miles per gallon idleing"?
This is a new unit of measurement for me lol
WaPo and Politico aren’t the bastions of truth and honesty in reporting. If you want to hang your hat on those credentials at least we know where you’re coming from.
One cannot help but wonder if ramjet shells will be added to the list of rounds. Boeing is working with NAMMO on the technology
Congratulations to Hope!
Alex, you stuck the "dismount"; your ending was a perfect "10".
A crewless turret has advantages in terms of crew protection but it would still need to be accessible from the inside in the case of a jam or malfunction. The T-14 has its crew in an armoured box with no ability to access any other part of the tank from the inside so something as simple as an autoloader malfunction would require it to leave the battlefield to remedy it. A former tabk crewman mentioned something before about workload on the crew, things like daily maintenance and upkeep being split between 3 crew members instead of 4 leading to more fatigue over time. Which would be increased by the additional electronics and autoloader. With top down attack anti tank weapons being so prevalent on the modern battlefield too you still need the top of the turret to be significantly armoured to protect the crew, even if there's no crew in the tureet itself. There's no right answer but I can definitely see the advantages of a tank that's able to do more with less crew, especially in a military the size and broad a scope as the US
How much were the R&D costs for the mount on the rear of the turret for the yellow igloo cooler, and will they be able to reuse the plans for the new turret?
Tanks are so cool man
As a mechanic, the biggest problem between the M-60 and M-1 was that the driver had no lower escape hatch.
Bad idea getting rid of MA DUESE or .50 cal -that has been the 4th ace on Tanks and Humvees as all around last protection if been overrun by hoards of troops and every soldier will back that up . Reliable ffective and flat out terrifying if you are charging any squad carrying that let alone a tank
very cool
@Sandboxx , can you do a video on FTUAS systems, the Army's replacement for the RQ-7 Shadow?
The future of tanks are remote control, robotic tanks. Smaller, lighter, faster. With redundant backup systems, it can look like Swiss cheese and still complete it's mission.
It is amazing how many different capabilities tanks need to be effective and survive these days... Will they have variations that are more support focused with more group defensive counter measures and drone launchers? Or use smaller, lighter support vehicles?
Thanks Alex....
Shoe🇺🇸