US Army plans to field M1 Abrams upgrade in 30 months

The US Army is working to expedite its modernisation of the M1 Abrams main battle tank and field the first upgraded vehicle in 24 to 30 months, according to an interview with the Army’s chief technology officer, Dr. Alex Miller, published by Defense News on the 14th April. 

The Army Chief of Staff, General Randy George entered his role around 18 months ago and was then told by the Program Executive Office (PEO) Ground Combat Systems that it would take 65 months for a new variant of the M1 Abrams, the M1E3, to be produced, Defense News reports. It is anticipated that a contract will be awarded to General Dynamics Land Systems in May 2025, allowing the company to rapidly procure parts and capabilities to start the upgrade work. 

Dr Miller and the PEO were given latitude to expedite that development timeline and the US Army now hopes to field a new variant of the M1 Abrams in 24 to 30 months, Dr Miller told Defense News. He added that many elements of the Abrams work well like the 120 mm gun and that the Army is working on exploiting new technologies available in the vehicle’s power train as well as its power management and integration of an active protection system. Other elements under consideration include an autoloader for the 120 mm gun, indicating a potential reduction in crew or unmanned turret. 

The US Army’s budget request for 2025 included $1.7 billion (approximately €1.5 bn/£1.28bn) for modernisation of the M1 Abrams, M10 Booker light tank, and XM30 – the replacement for the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. $774 million of that budget was allocated to the M1 Abrams, which includes funding to upgrade M1A1s to the M1A2 SEP v3 standard. Funding is also included for the new variant, according to Defense News. 

The SEP upgrades have been very comprehensive ranging from the initial SEP through to SEP v3, they have added digital mapping and enhanced processing capabilities as well as remote weapon stations, and increased survivability. More recently, the upgrades have included the infrastructure necessary to support the Trophy active protection system and in some cases ammunition datalinks enabling programmable munitions to be fired. 

Initially, the US Army had planned to proceed with a new System Enhancement Package (SEP) upgrade – SEP v4. However, the SEP v4 was cancelled in September 2024, the PEO for Ground Combat Systems at the time, Glenn Dean, stating: “The Abrams Tank can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint. The war in Ukraine has highlighted a critical need for integrated protections for soldiers, built from within instead of adding on.” 

Tanks have a weight problem

For reference, an M1A2 SEP v3 weighs 67 tonnes – the original M1A2 weighed 63 tonnes, and the original M1A1 weighed 57 tonnes, representing a growth of ten tonnes over the vehicle’s service life. The SEP v3 also required new heavy equipment transports to be introduced into service for transport around Europe. It is not the only tank family to undergo this change, the Leopard 2A4 weighed 55 tonnes in its combat configuration, and the Leopard 2A8 is expected to weigh around 67 tonnes. Perhaps the greatest growth is seen in the UK’s Challenger 3, widely reported to be 66 tonnes, some sources indicate that its combat weight will be closer to 70 tonnes. The Challenger 2 weighs 64 tonnes in its baseline configuration, but vehicles deployed to Iraq are reported to have reached 75 tonnes with their complete armour kits added on.

This has impacted mobility of the vehicles leading to changes to the drivetrain in a bid to try and restore the power to weight ratio. However, limits to what can be achieved in terms of cooling and power distribution mean that there are diminishing returns to be gained from making changes to the drivetrain. 

Other future tank designs from Europe, like the KF51 from Rheinmetall, Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 from KNDS Germany, Leclerc Evolution from KNDS France and Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) are all aiming to reduce those weights. The Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 is expected to weigh less than 60 tonnes, the Leclerc Evolution weighs in at 62 tonnes, the ambitious MGCS is shooting for a weight in the 50 tonne bracket. 

With all of this in mind, the reduction in weight planned for the M1E3 is in line with the driving trends across the defence industry. The changes focusing on an automatic loader and the drivetrain may help reduce the space that must be protected, which reduces weight, and the integration through design of an active protection system could also improve the configuration leading to a lower gross vehicle weight. The stated timeline indicates that we should expect to see the first variants in 2027 or early 2028. 

Calibre comment

The drive to reduce the weight of tanks is essentially based on a few different trade-offs around survivability. Survivability is broadly the ability of a tank to protect its crew and achieve its mission in the face of enemy threats. Consider an active protection system (APS), for example: Without an APS, a tank would have to be able to protect against the latest anti-tank guided missiles, some of which can penetrate up to 1.5 m of armoured steel. They are a serious threat, and even relatively unsophisticated weapons like an RPG-7 can penetrate 300 mm. This is no problem for the frontal armour of most tanks, but a major issue for the side and rear armour of a lot of them. An APS can provide a good level of protection against those threats without dramatically increasing the vehicle weight, allowing tank commanders to take their vehicles into the teeth of an urban operation or offensive, confident that they have the survivability to complete the mission. 

Generally, more weight means more armour, which means more survivability against frontline threats. However, that will come at a loss of mobility, and more importantly, greater logistics challenges. Heavier vehicles require more support and will have fewer routes that they can safely use to get to combat. It is often the case that an adversary is able to hold those routes at risk – as the Russians have found in Ukraine – which makes moving heavy armour difficult. The question, really, is whether the ten tonne reductions considered in most of the vehicles above will be sufficient to counteract those effects. 

By Sam Cranny-Evans, published on 15th April, 2025.