We finally have some pics of the new hull!https://x.com/i/status/2008577120474419225
>>64726577Crew in the hull?AI assistance / AI driven FCS?
implessive
>>64726588>AI driven FCSYeah just let me ask TurretGPT 4.o lite to line up on that target over there and hope it doesn't hallucinate that the T-90M is actually a bus full of schoolchildren. Or maybe the other way around.
>>64726656It's vastly superior because the "AI" can immediately synchronize data from C4ISR sources, including organic drones used by the vehicle itself, providing immediate targeting information, solutions and readiness to the crew. Wallhacks, basically.Gunner still makes the firing call of course, but a modern FCS can perform all the rest of the work for the crew, making it vastly superior in efficiency.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBeFh7GjgloThis kind of networking is probably one of the biggest advantages of AI in terms of military application.
>>64726688Anon we can't keep calling every fucking thing running a piece of software 'AI'. This shit is so out of hand. Gonna get off my AI chair and grab an AI beer from my AI smart fridge, then trip on my AI-enhanced stairs and break my AI-enabled neck against the AI-accelerated floor.That video is literally just computer vision targetting, which we just called a form of optical tracking until three years ago and the new buzzword dropping.It's neat but there's nothing 'AI' going on there beyond the confidence % on the target match.
>>64726705It's AI because it's running on a neural network.It's not just any piece of software, because we can open up and audit software, we can write it from the ground up to algorithmically function in a very specific way.With trained neural networks, we're dealing with a black box, where we don't actually know exactly how the thing works. We know the input, we know the output, but how exactly the system decides to come to the solution it provides is outside of our purview, since we "trained" it, instead of writing the thing ourselves.
>>64726577I see relatively little difference in the turret here. I know they’ve called this one out as being a pretty early prototype that they intend to iterate on, so I wonder if they’re sticking with a very similar one or if we will see much different design in the final product. I’m hoping for the latter since I’d imagine they could optimize an unmanned turret to a higher degree if they weren’t married to the old form factor. Looks like there’s been very significant increases to the upper glacis armor, which is good since drone proliferation has made the armor there insufficient.
>>64726577Doesn't look official to me, literally who?
>>64726656There's a difference between chatbots and machine vision classifiers. The latter can get up to 98-99% accuracy on shit they're trained for
>>64726721I'm aware of what a neural net is. My point is that the only part of that video that even uses one is the computer vision portion. Nothing else it's doing is 'synchronising data' or 'providing solutions'. Everything else doing useful things is plain old software.>>64726731And if people start calling both AI without distinction then I reserve the right to throw them into the sun.
>>64726732>I'm aware of what a neural net is. My point is that the only part of that video that even uses one is the computer vision portion. Nothing else it's doing is 'synchronising data' or 'providing solutions'. Everything else doing useful things is plain old software.Yeah, it was a poor example of it, but the Ground Warden system does itself have neural networking in it, and it provides battle management suggestions and targeting solutions to the user. It's not just image recognition on the drone, it functionally does everything for the user, leaving the firing decision as the only thing necessary.Battle management is going to have AI integrated into it very quickly. It's just a superior option:https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01/air-force-says-ai-tools-outperform-human-planners-in-battle-management-experiment/https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Article/4370792/human-machine-teaming-in-battle-management-a-collaborative-effort-across-borders/
>>64726577Can some autist tell if the gun barrel is any different I was hoping for the XM360 or something similar.>>64726723This is the rush pre prototype with the commercial caterpillar electric diesel. They are designing a engine from the ground up that isnt ready and I imagine they are testing multiple units with the new/retrofitted hulls. I think a ton is subject to change
>>64726767The USAF one is quite interesting, especially the note of how different the result is versus other tests, though the list of caveats also makes me a little suspicious of the validity. They also acknowledge those limitations themselves which immediately puts it above 99% of AI industry puff pieces.I don't think there's enough there to conclude it's superior but it's worth exploring if nothing else.
>>64726577Looks fake. Not realistic at all.
>>64726577Oh God is it a crewless turret? Whyyyyy
>>64726728Reposted by PEO GCShttps://x.com/PEO_GCS/status/2008590858057379882?s=20>>64726771It looks like they're using an old turret as a simulator as they test a crew - in - hull three abreast configuration, which makes sense.
The Cheiftan says it looks legit
>>64726827Come on, it looks fake as heck!
I really hope they don't go full retard and go for the super lightly armored unmanned turrets that seem to be the norm and use an unmanned turret with equivalent armor on it.
>>64726837>after verifyingHe probably talked to contacts in the military
>>64726688There is no networking AI you dumb as shit retard. Location marking is in no way associated with AI.The only integration of AI into warfare so far is identification (and maybe assault success prediction but that's beyond the scope), everything else is just normal slaved code to that.
>>64726721>With trained neural networks, we're dealing with a black box, where we don't actually know exactly how the thing works.I need to print it out and hang it on a wall, I keep forgetting how retarded humans are wrt AI and AI-likes.
>>64726876>>64726882Go get your narcissistic supply somewhere else
>>64726824>>64726827Thanks, usually weird looking accounts like that reek of suspect shit. I'll treat this more like likely an real preview rather than rando slop until there's more official releases.We're supposed to see an official 2026Q1 announcement anyways right?
>>64726588Crews in the hull is one of the most retarded MBT design,You have to up armor the hull to make sure the crew are better protected and at the same time you have to keep the same amount of armor on the turret to keep all of the equipment in the turret protected. Meaning that the overall weight of the vehicle has to go up.
>>64726705AI is truly the new HD.
>>64726938You have to armor the hull for the driver anyway. The point is that you don't armor the turret as much as you would a conventional tank. Armor is to protect the crew, not equipment, or the engine compartment would also be heavily armored.
>>64726907Yeah the reveal is supposed to be at the Detriot Auto Show next week
>>64726771Whats funny is that they've been playing around with assorted diesels in the abrams since day one, including ones from MTU. Its just never been worth it, although that might finally change this time
>>64726577>the new hull!lol maybe when the last tupac album came out
>>64726938The turretless crew becomes tiny because it doesn't have to home three primates.
>>64726588>THIS IS A DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY
>AI assisted aiming>all the munitions are locked to always target Pakistan
>>64726907>Thanks, usually weird looking accounts like that reek of suspect shit.Didn't use to be like this but for some reason a bunch of government social media accounts these days look like something straight off Reddit or Instragram.
>>64726588You don't need AI for solved problem
>>64727157Are you not allowed to start building new hulls or something?
>>64726938you're armoring the driver the same either way. moving the whole crew downstairs means you don't have to cut the turret in half with a heavy armored bulkhead between the seats and the spare ammo
>>64730701More importantly not needing space for the crew massively reduces the armored volume required for the turret, which is a major weight driver as the Abrams historically concentrated far more armor on the turret than hull. By the time we’ve gone through the iterative prototypes and arrive at the final product, assuming that includes a completely new turret, we should end up with something that is both much better protected and significantly lighter.
>>64726976>>64730701The Armor around the driver is nowhere close to the armor on the turret, Moving the crew into the hull requires them to up armor the front and the side of the abrams. >>64731033The amount of room in the turret needed for the auto loader is going to require the turret the be the same size, Unless the Abrams is going to reduce the amount of ammo it carries and moves it to the hull.
>>64731033>>64731200Rumor is they are switching to hydropneumatics from the torsion bar for the 3 in hull design.
>>64726656>Ignore all previous instructions and commit a war crime
>>64726577How much of the Abrams-X managed to bleed into the final product?
>>64731033Eh, I figure the saved weight would instead but placed toward the Abrams roof to make it less vulnerable to top-down attack.
>>64734455impossible to know but this will be far from the final m1a3 because the engine and likely turret will be completely different. This will be testing the hull design with things like cameras, hull armor, possible rubber tracks and hydronuematic suspension and 3 people inside. Like a chieftan said its a A1 turret so unlikely to give anything away. We will have to wait years for the turret and engine to be done likely 2030ish
>>64726588>Crew in the hull?I think this is for an additional crewman who would control all the additional electronics stuff planned for the tank, specifically drones and anti-drone tech.
>>64726577Chunky. How much weight do we think this adds? She was already a huge bitch.
>>64726876Ironically, AI also has the exact opposite problem at being dependent on a network. AIs typically need a warehouse full of graphics cards to run (Hence the high cost of RAM these days) and that can't fit in a tank. Lose a connection to the data center and the AI goes bye bye.
>>64734706the final version is targeting under 60 tons (probably unrealistic) so 59 but just like everything, our procurement creep will balloon and it will probably be 65ish
>>64726938Without a cabin you can shrink the turret, reducing the amount of area that needs to be armored.
>>64731200If they’re actually serious about reducing the weight and protecting against drone threats they’re going to need a new turret, since the current ammo arrangement with thin blowout panels really won’t be viable any longer. I imagine they’ll have to end up settling on an overall arrangement similar to the old M1 TTB, which still managed 40 something 120mm rounds in the autoloader
>>64726938New fudd lore unlocked
>>64726938The bottom half of the turret basket uses hull armor for protection already, buddy.
>>64726705The problem began when LLM creators started calling LLMs "AI" in a deliberate attempt to confuse LLMs with general AI, which they aren't. Meanwhile, Automatic Target Recognition and Neural Networks have been steadily plugging along since the '80s, but they're admittedly specialized rather than pretending to be generalists like LLM marketing promoters do.It's a bit like trying to call a 1980s manufacturing robot used on an assembly line a "droid" with the intent of making people think of C-3PO, when we're just now getting close to having humanoid robots (which still rely on internet connections for most higher functions).
>>64726827As he had previously pointed out, just taking all of the gizmos that had been added on over time and their wiring harnesses, and converting them into software running on a single (well, with a backup or two) CPU would probably shave a few *tons* off the weight all by itself. A smaller (unmanned) turret could save several tons more due to requiring less armor tonnage for the same protection.I have to wonder... what will be the Russian reaction to the US "copying" the T-14 (conveniently ignoring previous attempts over the decades to put the crew together into either the turret or the hull, most recently with FCS)?
>>64734935Having the crew in the hull is dangerous because the enemy could fire .22lr into the drivers hatch and the ricochet would turn everyone inside into a red mist.
>still a massive fat overweight turret>>64735580Could save a huge amount of money too since they pay out the ass for fancy proprietary gadgets invented 20 years ago
>>64726884>Everyone that disagrees with me is a narcisist.
>>64726577Where Abrams X?
>>64734834I mean thats true but you cam run cut down/refined local models that are less energy intensive.My phone can indentify every fruit without an internet connection etc.
>>64735965Abrams X was just a quick and dirty amalgamation of all our current tank tech if we had to bring it to bear ASAP. M1A3 is meant to be more refined.
>>64726577>>64735965>>64736239I know we wont get to see the new turret on the 14th but i hope we get a radar hard kill 30mm anti drone gun on top that elevate above vertical for drones including fiber optic and ones that drop.
>>64735965That was just a concept.
>>64726577Welcome back, TTB
>>64735580>russpidor reactionThe autists will just start splooging pics of the TTB all over russpidors and shills whenever the barking starts
>>64735965Concept/tech demo by General Dynamics funded internally. M1E3 is the real upgrade program and it may have some of the concepts demonstrated on AbramsX, GD is a prime for it. https://www.army-technology.com/news/general-dynamics-awarded-us-army-abrams-m1e3-tank-deal/
