by Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington DC) Putin has now deployed Russia’s highly touted T-14 Armata next-generation tank to Ukraine, a development of significance given that the tank has as of yet not been tested in combat.
Could these tanks have a decisive impact in Ukraine? It seems possible, although Russia is not likely to operate a large or very significant number of T-14s, as multiple public reports have indicated they may operate roughly 20 at the moment.
What would happen if the T-14 encountered the US Abrams in Ukraine? This scenario is now entirely realistic
Is the t-14 tank as superior as Russian media reports claim? There may certainly be a lot of unknowns, although the T-14 is reported in the Russian press to be faster, more mobile and more deployable than most existing tanks. The T-14 is reported to operate at speeds up to 55mph and weigh only 55 tons, according to a report from hotcars.com, This would make it more expeditionary and able to travel over bridges, urban areas or other places where a 70-ton tank might be challenged to operate.
While, quite naturally, the range and particular technical capabilities of the US Army’s emerging tank sights are not available for security reasons, several Russian news reports – such as GRU Pycckoe – report that the new Russian T-14 Armata’s thermal targeting sights are able to discern tank-size targets during the daytime at ranges out to 5 kilometers. The same reports state the nighttime sights can reach 3.5 kilometers.
A news report from Sputnik several years ago reported that tank-maker Uralvagonzavod has developed a “remotely-detonated” 125mm shell for the T-14 Armata.
A report in Popular Mechanics from several years ago says the T-14s new, now-in-development 3UBK21 Sprinter missile can hit ranges more than 7 miles,, according to the report. The Armata’s current round, the 9M119 Reflecks, has a range of 3.1 miles (roughly comparable to the current Abrams) and can penetrate up to 900 millimeters of armor, Popular Mechanics writes.
Yet another report cites a wide range of attributes of the Russian T-14, to include specific comparisons to the Abrams, yet much of its characterizations may lack context.
The report, from hotcars.com, presents a number of interesting technical facts about the Armata, to include its 1,500-2,000 horsepower diesel engine. The article argues that its engine is more powerful than a U.S. Abrams due to its having a better thrust to weight ratio, meaning that a 1,500-horsepower Armata engine drives a 55-ton tank, whereas an Abrams 1,500 horsepower turbo gasoline engine powers a heavier tank at 70-tons. However, while the hotcars report cites the Aramata’s Afghanit Active Protection System, claiming it is extremely advanced, it seems very unlikely that a 55-ton tank would in any way be comparable in terms of survivability compared with an Abrams.
The largest advantage of the T-14, however, may be its unmanned turret which of course greatly reduces risk otherwise associated with having a manned gunner on top of the tank. Unmanned turrets, perhaps using a high degree of automation, robotics and human controls from the main crew compartment, have been under development in the US for many years, so it is not clear how much of an advantage that might be, if any.
The most significant margin of difference may lie in the range, resolution and precision-targeting technology associated with the tanks thermal sights. Should a tank be in position to see and destroy an enemy target or tank from a safe standoff distance without itself being detected due to advanced sensing, then the platform would likely be in a position to prevail.
The newest variants of the US Army’s Abrams tanks, for instance, are upgraded with a 3rd-Generation FLIR – Forward Looking Infrared sensor better positioned to find and target enemy forces at safer ranges.
The US is also working intensely on innovations likely to rival or exceed the performance of the Russian T-14. General Dynamics Land Systems, for example, is offering its new Abrams X demonstrator variant to the Army for consideration, a next-generation variant of the tank with a host of new technologies. They include an unmanned turret, something similar to Russian claims about the T-14, as well as a silent watch hybrid electric drive, ability to launch drones and AI-enabled computing.
Controlling ground robots, unmanned platforms and attack drones, networking target data with stealth fighter jets and forward troops, destroying enemy vehicles with precision-guided, course-correcting ammunition and processing massive amounts of otherwise disparate streams of incoming data in seconds … are all things the Army’s future main battle tank will need to do against advanced enemies.
AbramsX
A new, 60-ton, AI-enabled, fuel efficient hybrid electric main battle tank armed with dual 360-degree thermal sights, next-generation ammunition and a lethal, unmanned turret has blasted onto the scene as a “demonstrator” offering for the US Army…just as the service surges forward with technological, conceptual and tactical analysis regarding the future of heavy armor.
The new AbramsX, recently unveiled by General Dynamics Land Systems at the Association of the United States Army Annual Symposium, blends key elements of combat-tested heavy armor with new, potentially paradigm-changing innovations designed to propel tactical and combat capabilities for the Abrams tank decades into the future.
The emergence of the new GDLS Abrams variant aligns closely with ongoing Army analysis and experimentation regarding how best to adapt technology, unmanned systems, maneuver formations and highly survivable heavy mechanized platforms such as the AbramsX to a new threat environment. While many questions, one clear thing the Army welcomes with great enthusiasm and resolve … is innovation.
“It’s too early to say what the future of the Army’s battle tank is going to be. What I can tell you is that, you know, we are looking down the road, you know, what, what are the investments that we need to make, you know, what is currently the art of the possible and I think, as AFC continues to do experimentation through the Next Generation Combat Vehicle CFT, and we will begin to extract some lessons learned,” Under Secretary of the Army Gabe Camarillo, told Warrior in an interview.
While the Army is often careful not to take a specific position on a particular industry offering such as the AbramsX, the service is intensely committed to the kinds of innovation presented by the AbramsX.
Part of the goal, and conceptual focus is centered upon what could be described as a need to find an optimal balance between survivability in heavy combat and the kinds of mobility, expedition
ary maneuvers, speed and lethality a main tank platform can provide. Where is this optimal blend which both captures the best available protections for heavy enemy attacks while simultaneously leveraging a host of new paradigm-changing technologies in the areas of lightweight armor composites, Active Protection Systems, AI-enabled computing, electronics, sensing and long-range lethality?
GDLS’ AbramsX is an effort to offer breakthrough pathways and answers to these questions, as it weaves critical heavy armor technologies into a new tank design built with a new generation of GDLS-driven innovations. As an open architecture platform built with a technical configuration using common standards and IP Protocol which GDLS calls “Katalyst”, the AbramsX is intended as a platform for continuous modernization in coming years, yet also engineered to bring paradigm-changing lethality to the current fight. This way, the AbramsX could address near term questions regarding the best technological mix for heavy armored platforms while also being positioned to evolve, mature and upgrade in coming years to adjust to a fast-changing threat environment.
While known for decades for building major combat platforms such as an Abrams or Stryker, GDLS has also, especially in recent years, stepped up its focus on innovation and internally-funded research, experimentation and analysis of “disruptive” or “breakthrough” technologies. Many of these are built into the AbramsX, senior GDLS weapons developers say, introducing new generations of combat possibilities. The same is true for the StrykerX tech demonstrator which GDLS also unveiled at the AUSA show.
“It’s lower weight, has a much more efficient hybrid electric power pack so you don’t burn as much fuel and it has an advanced electronic architecture that uses AI and machine learning regarding how the vehicles subsystems function together,” Tim Reese, Director, US Business Development, General Dynamics Land Systems, told Warrior in an interview. “This is our internal investment and that of our partners; it is not an Army program of record yet. It is a technology demonstrator. We are demonstrating technologies to the Army that we think solve a problem that we have now or provide them with new capability that they don’t have now.”
While many of the specifics regarding some technologies built into the AbramsX are likely not available for security reasons, Reese’s comment about lighter-weight is quite significant, as the AbramsX has an ability to function at 60-tons, roughly 12-tons less than an existing 72-ton upgraded Abrams. This massively increases mobility, deployability and speed for combat maneuvers, yet the AbramsX architecture also allows for additional add-on heavy armor protection if a given threat circumstance requires it.
“We think right now we will reduce the fuel consumption by about 50-percent,” Reese said.
A future battlefield is expected to operate at much faster speeds and across more dispersed, varied formations, circumstances which would require a heavily armored vehicle to improve maneuverability, speed, fuel efficiency and the ability to deploy across vast distances. Modular weight adjustability able to tailor protection to a threat, therefore, could prove extremely critical for a combat force needing to cross bridges, keep pace with tactical vehicles, require less fuel and a smaller logistical footprint.
“We think we can keep it at 60-tons with a certain level of armor or go higher if the Army wants. When you take the crew out of the turret and put it in the hull, you have this heavily armored turret without any people in it. That may be a place to save weight. What we are telling the Army is you let us know what level of protection you desire in an unmanned turret, and we will let you know what that weighs,” Reese said.
As part of this equation, it is certainly possible that next-generation innovations in the area of lightweight composites might enable extremely high levels of protection at lighter weights than may currently be possible. This kind of question, consistently being analyzed by Army scientists, may pertain to the promise or success of the AbramsX, yet senior officials understandably do not discuss technical specifics regarding the maturation or readiness of new, lighter-weight armor composites. Also, on the question of any use of breakthrough armor composites, something which has long been an ongoing focus for the Army Research Laboratory, the AbramsX does operate with an ability to “upscale” or “increase” its armor configuration as well as needed. The AbramsX is also built with an unmanned turret and only a three-man crew, a circumstance which Reese says could enable optimal functionality and survivability at a lighter weight.
“We have an unmanned turret so the crew is all down in the hull and they share a cockpit style arrangement of control screens which allow them to do that manned unmanned teaming with a ground vehicle or an aerial vehicle with that architecture that underlies all the electronics inside the tank.. The other innovation is an autoloader for the 120mm cannon. The hybrid electric power pack gives you a pretty good extended period of silent watch capability where the engine is not running and a little bit of silent mobility,” Reese.
Sensing and AI are also critical to the AbramsX, Reese added, because the vehicle is built with two independent thermal viewers on top of the tank so both the commander and the gunner have near a 360-degree camera with which to gather incoming targeting data which can then be analyzed and transmitted by an AI-enabled Katalyst vehicle electronic architecture.
“There are two independent day/night viewers on top of turret instead of one so now both the commander and the gunner each have their own 360 degree camera that they can scan the battlefield from and the turret does not have to move until they want to engage the enemy and then they can engage the turret controls so they are using a lot less of the battery power
As part of an effort to sustain and increase survivability and enable heavy protection on a lighter-weight vehicle, GDLS is working with partners to built a “hemispheric” Active Protection System able to sense, track and intercept incoming enemy RPGs and anti-tank missiles. Interestingly, the GDLS APS is built with an ability to protect the tank from top-down anti-armor attacks. While hemispheric APS has always been an ongoing goal for armored vehicles, events in Ukraine undoubtedly influenced or informed GDLS APS, as Ukrainians had great success destroying Russian tanks by firing top-down missile attacks at the more vulnerable “top” part of a tank.
“We are learning from operations around the world that the threat to anything on the ground increases every day, so we have collaborated with one of our partners to demonstrate how a current APS system can be used to provide coverage on the top of the donut by orienting its radar and launcher system skyword for defense against that top attack threat,” Reese said.
Army Optionally Manned Tank for 2040
The Army is also thinking beyond the Abrams X and T-14 Armata to engineer a new generation of tank-like armored capability to fight in coming decades.
The new “tank” will fight alongside and ultimately replace the Abrams tank, as part of an integrated effort to prepare the service for combat into the 2040s and beyond.
Senior service weapons developers refer to the project as the Optionally Manned Tank, a platform expected to fully emerge in the coming years. Currently, Army weapons developers say the work is primarily conceptual and focused on research, however an initial step forward in terms of co
nfiguration and design is expected in just the next few years.
It will likely fire lasers, control drones, move at high speeds, destroy enemy helicopters, penetrate hostile armored formations and perform highly-lethal robotic operations while facing enemy fire. The Army’s new and now underway Optionally Manned Tank, a nascent project intended to propel the Army into a new generation of Combined Arms warfare.
When it comes to the kinds of platforms, technologies and capabilities now being assessed by Army thinkers, the focus is primarily upon capabilities and what particular attributes, parameters and technical characteristics might be needed to achieve “overmatch” in land forward for decades into the future. Lt. Gen Ross Coffman, Deputy Commanding General of Army Futures Command, told Warrior last year that there are technical studies now underway at the Army’s Ground Vehicle Systems Center and with the Army Science Board.
“We are gathering information in the form of studies, maturing technologies and doing deep dives into what will be required from a decisive platform in the future. We are in the exploratory phases and do not want to take anything off the table when it comes to the best thing for our soldiers in the future. We are exploring characteristics and not requirements and looking at broad solutions to known problems,” Coffman told Warrior last year, while directing AFCs Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team as a Brig. Gen.
One idea which already has considerable traction is a plan to ensure the vehicle is engineered with robotic capabilities and a measure of autonomy as may be required for a particular mission. For instance, Coffman explained that part of the rationale in engineering this vehicle rests upon a broad realization that the Army will need to fight “outnumbered” and therefore achieve combat superiority with a smaller number of vehicles. This is part of why unmanned capability is likely to figure prominently, as there may be threat scenarios where manned crews need to stay at safer standoff ranges while making decisions.
The Army is also making rapid progress with unmanned-unmanned teaming, meaning robotic systems will increasingly be able to operate with greater levels of autonomy while still being operated by human decision makers performing command and control. Forward operating robotic vehicles can directly attack mechanized formations of enemy vehicles in close proximity, fire weapons, perform high-risk surveillance missions and deliver ammunition as needed.
Much of the ongoing experimentation and technological exploration is taking place in a virtual environment, service weapons developers explain. Steve Pinter, Program Manager for Warfighter Experimentation at GVSC, said “Upcoming experiments will provide further insights into the development of the OMT based upon refined learning objectives and lessons learned from previous experiments. The experiments will also be conducted against a simulated near-peer adversary in an operational environment to better understand and develop future vehicle requirements.”
“It will be manned or unmanned as required by the commander,” Coffman said.
As part of the OMT developmental process, the Army is closely monitoring the threat environment with a specific mind to great power rival nations.
Future Tanks to Use AI
When confronted with a large group of fast-approaching, unidentified enemy armored vehicles on attack, future Army tanks will need an ability to receive and organize incoming surveillance data, identify an enemy target and take the necessary defensive measures to include maneuver or counterattack. Perhaps a forward-operating drone captures surveillance videos of the approaching attackers, transmits the images directly to a tank engineered with AI-enabled computing able to instantly find moments of tactical relevance in the video, identify the threat and present organized information to human decision-makers in position to counterattack.
These types of anticipated future warfare scenarios are precisely the reason why the Army expects AI to be heavily incorporated into engineering designs for its emerging new Abrams replacement, the Optionally Manned Tank. Prototyping options or design configuration options will be presented to Army decision-makers in 2023, following several years of ongoing design study, virtual assessments, simulation and conceptual exploration into what the Army’s future tank should be.
The success of a mission of this kind naturally hinges upon speed .. the speed of data collection, analysis and transmission to truncate the time necessary to complete the sensor-to-shooter cycle. Maximizing the speed of coordinated, informed attack could clearly be identified as a major objective with the effort. Perhaps a machine, programmed to instantly bounce incoming information off of a vast existing database including a threat library, could for instance instantly identify that approaching armored vehicles are Russian tanks and therefore operate with an immediate understanding of the kinds of weapons, sensors and threats the approaching enemy platform might present. This computer-generated information including the results of nearly instant analysis can inform human decision makers in position to draw upon attributes unique to human decision-making and cognition to determine an optimal response.
“We will use AI to reduce the cognitive burden, but we allow human reason and decision making to assess those items not exactly tangible where there is not a ‘1s and Os’ solution,” former Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, Director, Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team, told Warrior in an interview. (Coffman is now Lt. Gen. Coffman and serving as the Deputy Commander, Army Futures Command.
Coffman’s reference to 1s and 0s seems particularly relevant, as it pertains to the reality that there are clearly certain factors less calculable by advanced computer algorithms, and therefore reliant upon human cognition. Coffman further specified certain more subjective cognitive phenomena unique to human decision-making and not calculable by mathematically engineered computer algorithms. Elements of human experience and less calculable variables such as intuition, emotion, intention or anticipation all represent characteristics which cannot be fully replicated, captured or analyzed by machines. Machines are nonetheless much faster when it comes to data aggregation, data analysis and data transmission, yet there are clear limits when it comes to the analysis of less quantifiable phenomena.
“Humans are better at game theory than machines,” Coffman said.
All of these advances in autonomy and AI pertain to longstanding ethical and doctrinal questions increasingly gaining attention at the Pentagon as technology changes quickly. While there is some ongoing discussion about the possible use of AI-capable autonomous weapons destroying targets without human intervention for purely defensive purposes, the existing DoD doctrine that humans must be “in-the-loop” when it comes to the use of lethal force.
“Our enemies shoot on ‘detect.’ We shoot on ‘identify.’ We must get our sensors to the point where we can identify as they detect, particularly with non line-of-sight factors, air-ground coordination, manned-unmanned teaming and shared situational awareness between platforms,” Coffman said.
Given the respective advantages known to both man and machines, many weapons developers and warfare futurists believe the optimal approach is to leverage and combine the best of both machines and humans, merging them together into an ideal, sought after blend. This concept provides the fundamental rationale for the Army’s pursuit of new levels of “manned-unmanned” teaming.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
