AUSA Global Force 2026

A slightly shorter and lighter-weight carbine version of the U.S. Army’s new 6.8x51mm M7 service rifle has now gotten its own designation: XM8. This choice of moniker is somewhat interesting, given that the service previously applied this designation to an abortive modular family of firearms designed to ape the looks of the guns in the 1997 movie Starship Troopers. The M7 had faced some significant criticisms of its own previously over its weight, ergonomics, and other aspects of the design, which the Army and manufacturer Sig pushed back strenuously against. At the same time, the design has continued to evolve and has been fielded more widely, as evidenced by the carbine version.

The Soldier Systems blog was the first to report on the new XM8 designation for the carbine variant of the M7 earlier this month. The Army subsequently confirmed this to Task & Purpose.

The Army chose what is now designated the M7 as its standard service rifle back in 2022. That year, the service chose Sig as the winner of its Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) competition. The NGSW also includes a new 6.8x51mm light machine gun from Sig, designated the M250, as well as a suite of accompanying ammunition types for both guns. The NGSW ‘system’ also includes computerized XM157 optics, which the Army is procuring separately from Vortex Optics.

What Is the New Army XM-7 Rifle Like? | GOARMY

“The XM8 is just over 32 inches long overall, compared to 37 inches for the M7, with a barrel length dropped from 13 to 11 inches and its suppressor from 7 to 6 inches,” according to Task & Purpose, citing Sig Sauer’s product manager for rifles and suppressors Joshua Shoemaker. “Without the suppressor, the XM8 weighs 7.33 pounds while the M7 weighs 8.36 pounds. The carbine’s suppressor shaves down to 1.31 pounds from the M7’s 1.46 pounds.”

“The carbine also comes with a fixed stock after soldiers said they preferred it to the M7’s folding stock,” Task & Purpose‘s piece adds. “The carbine also has a softer butt pad and a more rigid handguard for optics and other mounted equipment.”

The XM8 builds on what the Army had originally referred to as the product-improved or PIE version of the M7. This is one of two lighter-weight versions of the rifle that Sig had on display at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual symposium last September, both of which are seen in the picture at the top of this story.

“There’s basically two combined efforts going on within the M7,” Jason St. John, senior director of strategic products for the Defense Strategies Group at Sig Sauer, told TWZ at that time. “We have a carbine version, and then we have a lightened, improved version of the M7. And so when you look at the standard M7 that’s been issued to the troops, the overall weight of the firearm was 8.3 pounds. Now, the improved M7 is 7.6 pounds, and the carbine version weighs 7.3 pounds. So we’re getting closer and closer to [a] rifle weight system similar to the M4.”

The carbine variation Sig had previously presented then had a 10-inch barrel. Past reports have said that the PIE M7 had a 10.5-inch barrel. The baseline M7 has a 13.5-inch barrel. The 5.56x45mm M4A1 has a 14.5-inch barrel and weighs 8.63 pounds (including a sling and loaded magazine), according to the Army. It should be noted that optics and other accessories add appreciable weight to any firearm. The XM157 is heavier, as well as physically larger, than the types the Army has historically issued with M4A1s.

In terms of how the PIE M7 was lightened, “there’s the upper receiver, we’ve redesigned and taken some weight out of it. We’ve lessened the barrel profile slightly to get some weight out of it,” Sig’s St. John had also told us. “We’ve done some lightening efforts within the operating system, as well as remove the folding stock hinge. By removing that hinge, we save some weight.”

The XM8’s configuration could well evolve further as early testing by operational Army units gets underway, which Task & Purpose says could happen as soon as October.

Regardless, as noted, this is not the first XM8 ‘carbine’ the Army has tried to adopt. For a time in the early 2000s, the service looked set to replace all of its existing M16 rifles and M4 carbines with a new family of 5.56x45mm rifles and carbines known collectively as the XM8, developed by famed German gunmaker Heckler & Koch.

The previous XM8 had evolved from an earlier and more ambitious Army small arms program that envisioned future soldiers carrying a single weapon that combined a compact 5.56mm gun with a highly computerized 20mm grenade launcher firing programmable ammunition. That gun, called the XM29 Objective Infantry Combat Weapon, was beset by technical and other issues. In 2004, the Army decided to pursue the rifle and grenade launcher components as separate programs. The grenade launcher evolved into a 25mm design designated the XM25 and eventually nicknamed “the Punisher.”

XM29 OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) Prototype

The standalone XM8 family was based on Heckler & Koch’s G36, which the German armed forces had adopted as its standard infantry rifle in the late 1990s. However, U.S. Army officials specifically asked if the gun could be made to look “more Starship Troopers,” in reference to the 1997 film, which is a very loose adaptation of the 1959 Robert Heinlein science fiction novel of the same name, according to firearms researcher Ian McCollum, who runs the website ForgottenWeapons.com. As a result, the XM8 evolved to have a much sleeker and futuristic-looking appearance externally.

STARSHIP TROOPERS [1997]– Official Trailer (HD) | Get the 25th Anniversary 4K Ultra HD SteelBook Now

Testing of the XM8 proceeded relatively well by all accounts. Versions of guns also gained a foothold in popular culture, appearing in several video games in the 2000s. Replicas were also featured in the movies Children of Men and District 13: Ultimatum.

In the end, though, a future Army with soldiers carrying “Starship Troopers” rifles was not to be. The program was cancelled in 2005. Continually evolving requirements and domestic U.S. political factors, together with broad questions about whether the cost, not to mention the time and effort, of adopting a new standard infantry weapon was justified by the reliability and improvements the XM8 was expected to offer over the existing M16/M4 family, were key factors.

Work on the XM25 grenade launcher continued for more than another decade before that program was axed, as well. The Army is now pursuing a new futuristic grenade launcher through a program called the Precision Grenadier System (PGS).

In the late 2000s, elements of the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) and the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) evaluated the XM8. The Royal Malaysian Navy’s Pasukan Khas Laut naval special warfare unit, or PAKSAL, subsequently adopted multiple variants of the gun, but on a very limited level. The extent to which those guns remain in sevice today is unclear. There are no other known users anywhere else globally. You can read more about the full story of Heckler & Koch’s XM8 here.

Rare Unicorn Gun – H&K XM8 Compact PDW

The Army’s selection and fielding of the M7 have not been entirely smooth, either. As mentioned, the rifle has been the subject of criticism in the past. Army Capt. Braden Trent drew particular attention with a presentation that slammed the rifle at the annual Modern Day Marine conference last year. That assessment was based on the findings of a report written while he was a student at the Expeditionary Warfare School, which is part of the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. Both the Army and Sig had vehemently disputed his claims, as you can read more about here.

It still remains to be seen how widespread the adoption of any variation on the M7, including the XM8 carbine, might be across the rest of the U.S. military. In February, the U.S. Marine Corps notably told Task & Purpose that the service had no intention currently of adopting a version of the Army’s new 6.8mm rifle, and would instead stick with its 5.56x45mm M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR).

“We will continue to monitor development of the M7 [Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle] to inform future requirements,” a Marine Corps spokesperson told that outlet.

In the meantime, at least some Army soldiers now look to be in line to finally carry XM8 carbines, but not the “Starship Trooper” rifles they were once promised.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

With fielding of the Army’s highly anticipated MV-75 Future Long Range Assault tiltrotor aircraft not set to begin until next year under an incredibly aggressive schedule, the service is already building plans for the aircraft into training for mid-grade officers and putting soldiers through recently installed full-size simulators, officials said Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters at the Association of the United States Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, Gen. David Hodne, head of U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command, said that while some soldiers with special operations backgrounds had already experienced V-22 Osprey operations through work with other services, the Army Aviation Center of Excellence (AVCOE) was working to further socialize what the service is promoting as a radically different capability.

“[AVCOE Commander Maj. Gen. Claire Gill is] already introducing MV-75 planning factors into the Captains Career Course,” Hodne said, referring to a 21-week professional training program designed for officers with between four and seven years of service and split between general leadership principles and technical proficiency. “[You have] twice the range, twice the speed. So getting officers talking about that capability is the start.”

Army officials took delivery of two MV-75 FLRAA “virtual prototypes (VPs)” in June and July of last year at Redstone Arsenal and Fort Rucker, Alabama. Based on digital twins of the aircraft, the simulators highlight “the transformational power of digital engineering,” Brig. Gen. David Phillips, Program Executive Officer for Army Aviation, said last year.

“The VP replicates the cockpit design, mission software, and flight dynamics models of the MV-75; it allows RTC XPs to continue developing tiltrotor experience to prepare for future flight test activities,” Army officials said in a February release. “Additionally, the RTC team actively uses the VP to expose aviators to tiltrotor unique considerations, whether in the context of training and tactics development, Special User Evaluations (SUEs) or VIP demonstrations.”

With Gill at the helm for MV-75 integration, Mohan said the simulators will be a valuable familiarization tool.

“In terms of developing the right instructor base that can integrate this capability, he already has the capability to start that, with one of the simulators that’s already at Fort Rucker,” Mohan said.

Brent Ingraham, assistant secretary of the Army, described these early-delivery digital prototypes as critical to the service’s modernized fielding approach.

“That allows soldiers to get in, start the training, do a lot of the stuff up front, figure out all of the procedures and how they will execute the mission, right?” he said. “A lot of the stuff is being done now ahead of the first flight even occurring.”

Additional training on advanced composites is also beginning, according to Lt. Gen. Chris Mohan, head of U.S. Army Materiel Command, so soldiers can become proficient at skin and structural repair, “as well as all the digital engineering that goes into the integration end of a truly digitally engineered platform.”

During the roundtable, Army Under Secretary Mike Obadal pushed back on a reporter’s question about the service having to contend with the reputation of tiltrotor aircraft for “catching fire and falling out of the sky” as it sought to make its new tiltrotor a keystone for future Army aviation operations. The question referred to the V-22 Osprey, which entered service in 2007 and has sustained multiple deadly mishaps unique to its design, such as the ability of the prop-rotors to churn up brownout conditions during landing; “vortex ring state,” a condition in which the Osprey faces rapid descent into its own downwash; and most recently, a gearbox issue linked to a fatal 2022 crash that led to widespread flight restrictions.

But the Army has maintained that MV-75 is entirely a different aircraft and that the “1980s technology” that bedeviled the Osprey is nowhere to be found in the new Valor.

“I think we have to be very careful about making sweeping statements about tiltrotor technology, and especially when you look at what [manufacturers] Bell-Textron and the Army are doing, because it is the most advanced manufacturing and digital backbone that exists,” Obadal said. “So General Electric creates the digital backbone for all of the intercontinental airliners that Boeing makes, the 777 [and] 787, and they’re applying that experience and technology to our MV-75.”

The MV-75 design has the rotors rotate between forward and vertical flight modes independent of the engine nacelles, rather than the entire nacelles rotating, which occurs on the V-22, “dramatically reduces the technical complexity” of the plane, he said, while the digital systems and controls give it cutting-edge reliability.

“From a technical perspective, it’s far more advanced than anything that exists in the military inventory, because of its fly-by-wire systems and its digital backbone,” Obadal said.

Regarding cultural comfort-building with a tiltrotor aircraft given the V-22’s mixed reputation, Obadal said it was a nonissue.

“When I talk to [soldiers] about it, they say they want to fly it, and so do I,” he said.

In January, the Army confirmed to The War Zone that it planned to accelerate its timeline for the MV-75 by multiple years, fielding the first planes in 2027 versus 2031. The impetus came from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, who emphasized that the service needed the MV-75’s speed and range “very quickly,” especially due to the operational demands of the vast Pacific, and couldn’t wait until the next decade to integrate it.

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

The Army’s revamped system for getting gear and weapons to the fight faster has already been put to work in support of the war the U.S. is waging on Iran, a service leader said Tuesday.

Speaking at the Association of the United States Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Ala., Brig. Gen. David Phillips, deputy portfolio acquisition executive for Maneuver Air, revealed the Army was trying to innovate in real time as the conflict approaches the end of its first month.

“As I look back on the past 30 days in Operation Epic Fury, we had some immediate requests from the field in the first week,” Phillips said. “Those immediate requests in the field returned on a requirements document with the [Army Future Capabilities Directorate] and [Army Transformation and Training Command] in about 48 hours, who turned on a contract in about 72 hours. And I can say that we’ve had soldiers out training and testing the capabilities they’re going to deploy with in real time in the past 10 days. So we’ve got industry fully engaged.”

Phillips did not go into detail on what capabilities were sourced or needs identified in that short timeframe. Notably, the Pentagon has shown willingness to deploy new tech to the fight from day one, debuting the Low Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS), a reverse-engineered American version of the Iranian Shahed-136 kamikaze drone, in the initial barrages.

On Tuesday, the Army formally announced the creation of an “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Marketplace” in partnership with Amazon Web Services and the Army Enterprise Cloud Management Agency that purports to be a “digital one-stop shop” for procuring drones fast for Army units and their allies.

Phillips urged defense industry members, as well as academics and units currently in the field, to tell leaders what was working in the fight and what needed to change.

“We want your engagements. We want your feedback at PAE Expanded Maneuver Air, and we want to have you as a part of our team. Because we know we don’t bend the metal, we don’t really go out and talk to the sub-tier suppliers as much as you all do, but we need this to be a team sport,” Phillips said. 

In a panel discussion helmed by Phillips, Army leaders who have worked with Ukraine and with mobile brigade combat teams within the 101st Airborne Division did exactly that, discussing needs and vulnerabilities with rare candor. 

Col. Burr Miller, a former innovation advisor with the Army-led Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, warned that U.S. systems were sometimes not strong enough to sustain attacks on position, navigation and timing (PNT) capabilities. These are technologies that aid in navigation, like GPS, that are absolutely essential to modern warfighting. 

“The PNT environment is incredibly corrosive,” Miller said, adding that he had observed many U.S. systems that “did not survive first contact” with a Russian adversary. “… In the same kind of tenor, we do not test a representative environment in the United States; nowhere can we test what the representative environment is … That’s not only a government responsibility, vendors; that’s your responsibility.”

What Miller did find effective, but said he hadn’t seen much Army action on, was fiber-optic drones, which were largely impervious to electronic warfare defenses and, when moving fast to a target, were hard to bring down with a kinetic kill shot.

“The Russians and the Ukrainians use mass,” he said. “We have forgotten how to fight mass.”

Leaders with the 101st Airborne added concrete numbers to the picture. For a company to attack and defeat an enemy platoon, it had to be able to take down 20 attack drones per day; accordingly, a brigade needed to be able to take out 200, or 1,000 per week, said Col. Ryan Bell, commander of the 101st’s 3rd Mobile Brigade Combat Team. For that reason, he added, the Army was beginning to issue roughly 30 reusable drones to each company training at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, La., allowing them to simulate the mass they’d need to be competitive in a fight.

“We need drones that are good enough to work, but not exquisite,” Bell said. “We have to get them fast. They have to be cheap enough that they compete with artillery and economies of scale; that’s the challenge. I’m shooting 1,000 of these a day. I am looking at these munitions like they are artillery racks, and I have to resupply them like artillery racks, and that is a change in how we’ve been treating them.”

Bell said his units are also working to combine effects – for example, using Starlink-connected ground intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance robots for all-weather sensing to determine when best to employ AeroVironment Switchblade loitering munitions. 

A company commander, he said, might have his unit modify Skydio reconnaissance quadcopter drones to execute a breach before sending in ground robots.

“And he can also protect his rifleman, if he has to modify the [drone] to deliver a breaching charge, an aerial breaching charge,” Bell said. “And then using two ground robots as a tertiary mechanism with 28 pounds of C4 to open up the breach before that first rifle squad makes contact.”

Col. Duke Reim, commander of the 101st’s 2nd Mobile Brigade Combat Team, also described innovating in training by pairing the Army’s small medium-range reconnaissance (MRR) drones with loitering munitions in operations to shrink down the time lag between scouting a target and raining steel down on it.

“The battlefield today doesn’t have time for eventually, and what we’re doing now by pairing these systems is quickening the pace at a rate that we’ve never seen before,” he said. “Our enemy is adapting. They can move quicker, they can hide and, heaven forbid, they can shoot just as fast as we can. So we’ve got to be able to take this initiative and continue to evolutionize it.”

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

The Army’s Rhode Island-sized test range in Utah’s high desert has long carefully policed access and entry privileges. But as the service takes notes from industry on how to innovate faster and move more efficiently, access to Dugway Proving Ground, and other Army test ranges, are becoming an easier ticket.

“We want you on our ranges,” Maj. Gen. Patrick Gaydon, commanding general of Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), told a military and industry audience Wednesday at the Association of the United States Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Ala.

“Ranges are national treasures, and we need industry to iterate in our program offices, to be able to iterate and learn how, on these ranges, to do things you can’t do elsewhere.”

For years, Gaydon said, the Army evaluated range access requests with a priority structure of one to five, in which industry was five – the lowest priority. This effectively “blocked industry off the ranges,” he said, as did a permissions process that required him to personally approve visits.

“I looked at that for my first couple months in command, but about a year ago, we completely changed that,” he said. “Approval authority is at the tester or commander level – as long as you have a nexus to defense. If you have a car company wanting to use a track out there that has nothing to do with defense, I’ll still [have to] approve that.”

In December, ATEC announced another change it billed as an effort to “combine speed with rigor” to get new tools into the hands of soldiers faster. An overhauled safety release process waived an array of paperwork red tape for troops testing out “non-type-classified systems,” or commercial and prototype gear, on Army ranges. Particularly as the service accelerates drone and anti-drone weapons testing, emphasizing low-cost and commercial solutions, this has become a headache.

During three large Army experimentation events in Germany, Hawaii and Texas, ATEC officials had to issue nearly three dozen safety release forms for unmanned aerial systems, UAS payloads, and counter-UAS weapons, officials said in a release.

The new process allows for group safety releases for systems already on the military’s cleared UAS “blue list,” as well as higher-echelon release authority to extend permissions beyond individual requesting units. It also extends some safety release expiration dates and waives evaluation for systems previously deemed low-risk.

Col. Joseph Alexander, commander of the Army’s Redstone Test Center in Huntsville, highlighted recent efforts to build a UAS test range as an extension of the “UAS test operations campus,” or UTOC, that opened there years before. 

Test personnel, he said, “came to use and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got more space. We need to go faster, because that’s the accelerated testing, to be able to deliver capability.”

The range, he said, aims to bring UAS testing needs “within 48 hours” for “some of those smaller, maybe time-sensitive missions.”

As the service announced in February, Redstone will also be home to a Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) test facility ahead of the fielding of the Army’s MV-75 tiltrotor aircraft, set to begin as soon as next year. This will include a $59 million radio frequency test space and a nearly 13,000-square-foot anechoic, or echoless, chamber for precision instrumentation assessment.

“You should be able to put weapons systems purpose-built for FLRAA [in there],” Alexander said.

While leaders are reducing barriers to range testing, the Army is pinning greater and greater hopes on its live-virtual-constructive evaluation environments. Gaydon said ATEC’s “bumper sticker” is a strategy to reduce live testing by 30% as they front-load digital engineering and model-based testing and development.

“Yesterday, I was in a FLRAA virtual prototype,” he said of the two Alabama-based MV-75 simulators manufacturer Bell-Textron delivered to the Army last year. “We can’t quite use that to test. We can use it to prepare test pilots to fly FLRAA. But that’s another example … that will certainly drive down the amount of live testing if we get it right with digital engineering.”

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

The U.S. Army says it hopes to see production of a finalized version of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank begin next year. The exact timeline will depend on the performance of early prototype tanks in testing by operational units, which is slated to kick off later this year.

Brent Ingraham, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, discussed current plans for the M1E3 program with TWZ and other outlets at a media roundtable on the sidelines of the Association of the United States Army’s (AUSA) annual Global Force Symposium yesterday. The Army officially unveiled the first early prototype M1E3 at the Detroit Auto Show in January, which was delivered years ahead of the program’s original schedule.

“That will again be this summer, early fall,” Ingraham said when asked about the schedule for M1E3 early prototypes arriving at so-called Transformation In Contact (TIC) units. These are operational formations that have been given a test role as part of the Army’s larger TIC effort, which is intended to help accelerate the fielding of new and improved capabilities, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures to go with them.

Beyond that, the central goal for the M1E3 program is “to get to production as fast as possible,” Ingraham continued.

The Army’s top acquisition official added that “it’s going to depend on how well they [the early prototypes] perform,” but that “hopefully” production of the new tanks will then start “in the next 12 months or so.”

It also remains to be seen how the M1E3’s configuration may evolve between now and production start. Whether the next-generation tanks will be entirely new production vehicles is also not entirely clear. The early prototype shown at the Detroit Auto Show featured a substantially reworked hull and now uncrewed turret, but that was clearly still derived from the configuration of the latest M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 (SEPv3) Abram variant. Prime contractor General Dynamics Land Systems had previously rolled out an AbramsX next-generation demonstrator with a much more significantly evolved design.

AbramsX Technology Demonstrator on the Move

That being said, the M1E3 early prototype does differ in a host of other very important ways from the M1A2 SEPv3. At the top of that list is a new hybrid propulsion in place of the fuel-hungry gas turbine found on previous Abrams models. The new propulsion configuration includes a modified Caterpillar C13D six-cylinder diesel engine and an ACT1075LP transmission from SAPA. Army officials have previously said the M1E3 will be between 40 and 50 percent more fuel efficient compared to previous versions.

The M1E3 also has new lightweight tracks from American Rheinmetall and a hydropneumatic suspension system understood to have come from Horstman Group. In a post on X in January, the latter firm noted that switching “to external hydropneumatic suspension” helps “free up crew space by removing torsion bars,” but did not explicitly confirm its involvement in the program. A suspension system of this kind, which has been tested on Abrams in the past, also allows for the hull of the tank to be raised and lowered in ways that can help improve survivability and offer other operational benefits.

The M1E3 tank employs an external hydropneumatic suspension system developed by Horstman, a company headquartered in Bath, United Kingdom. A defining feature of this suspension is that it eliminates the need for torsion bars.

This design frees up a significant amount of internal… https://t.co/OPglnoWxxY pic.twitter.com/jQkGj0h7oq

— 笑脸男人 (@lfx160219) January 26, 2026

The M1E3’s crew configuration differs significantly from existing variants, as well. The next-generation tank’s turret is intended to be entirely remotely operated, with the truncated three-person crew (instead of the traditional four) moved down into the front of the hull. The loader role is eliminated, and an autolaoder is set to be utilized instead. Historically, the U.S. military, as well as many Western armed forces, have eschewed autoloaders in their tanks. Soviet and now Russian tank designs, along with Chinese ones, have more typically had this feature. In terms of the M1E3’s main gun, the Army otherwise looks to be sticking with the same 120mm smooth-bore type used on Abrams variants now.

Interestingly, what has been seen so far of the expected crew compartment for the M1E3 is also similar in many broad respects to the design of Russia’s T-14 Armata. Despite having made its public debut in 2015, the T-14 has, at best, seen very limited operational service. In addition, the M1E3’s driver will operate the tank via a controller that looks like one that might come with a video game console, which the Army has said is a deliberate choice.

M1E3 used Fanatec Gaming Controller. Colonel Ryan Howell, Program Lead for the M1E3, said:“It now takes just 30 seconds to train a young soldier to drive that tank—something that used to take us days, even weeks……I’ll share a quote from one of the soldiers who helped us early… https://t.co/6y3VGXmVzU pic.twitter.com/fWNGyZ8AtO

— 笑脸男人 (@lfx160219) January 15, 2026

“It now takes just 30 seconds to train a young soldier to drive that tank – something that used to take us days, even weeks,” Col. Ryan Howell, the program manager for the M1E3, told Fox News back in January in Detroit. “I’ll share a quote from one of the soldiers who helped us early in the process. When we first sat him down at the crew station, he was already in the process of transitioning out of the Army, but he was assisting us by informing key design decisions. He told us, ‘If I had known I could work on a platform like this, I would have stayed in the Army.’”

These various design elements are key to the Army meeting its goals for the overall weight of the M1E3. The service has previously said that it hopes the next-generation tank will tip the scales at around 60 tons. Weight creep has been a major issue for the Abrams since it first entered service in the 1980s, with the latest M1A2 SEPv3 variant coming in at 78 tons.

“This next-generation Abrams is designed to transform how armored units operate globally,” Michelle Link, the Army’s Deputy Capability Program Executive for Ground Combat Platforms, had said in a press release in January. “By streamlining its sustainment needs and increasing deployment speed, the M1E3 Abrams ensures faster movement from ports to the front lines, making it more agile and accessible in any environment.”

In terms of other capabilties, the M1E3 early prototype presented in Detroit had a Leonardo DRS Stabilized Sight System (S3), which features a mix of electro-optical and infrared cameras, and a remote weapon station (RWS) from EOS on top of the turret. The RWS was armed with a 40mm automatic grenade launcher, a 7.62x51mm machine gun, and a Javelin anti-tank guided missile. The M1E3’s complete armament package could still expand, including with the addition of launchers for loitering munitions.

The Army currently says the M1E3 will be fitted with a version of the Israeli-design Iron Fist active protection system (APS). The service is already fielding that APS, which it has now designated as the XM251, on the M2A4E1 variant of the Bradley infantry Fighting Vehicle. It is also expected to be integrated onto 8×8 Stryker wheeled light armored vehicles and the future replacement for the Bradley family, tentatively designated the XM30. Iron Fist’s prime contractor, Elbit Systems, notably just recently disclosed that the system has at least some capability to defeat incoming kamikaze drones, as well as anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor. The Army is also now pursuing add-on passive anti-drone armor for existing Abrams tanks and other armored vehicles, which could make its way onto the M1E3.

Iron Fist APS | Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles

In Detroit, other cameras were seen positioned at various points around the M1E3’s hull and turret, providing the crew with what looks to be a distributed vision system. This would allow the crew to ‘see’ through the hull of the tank while sitting nestled under its armor with all the hatches sealed. The camera feeds could be integrated into a helmet-mounted system and paired with augmented reality to create an overlay with various important data.

The next-generation tank is also expected to feature a variety of other advanced systems, including new targeting capabilities and other onboard sensors, as well as a networked communications suite.

The Army clearly expects the M1E3’s design to further evolve, at least to some degree, based on Soldier feedback and other data collected during testing that will start later this year. Time will tell how different the final configuration is from the early prototype the service unveiled in January.

If the core design performs well and the program otherwise keeps to its aggressive schedule, production of the Army next main battle tank could well start next year.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Lockheed Martin has developed a launcher called Grizzly that fires AGM-114 Hellfire missiles from within an otherwise unassuming 10-foot shipping container. Employed alone or in groups networked together, Grizzly presents a flexible and relatively low-cost means of bolstering point defenses against aerial threats, including drones, and targets on the surface. The launchers can also hide in plain sight, intermixed with regular containers, creating targeting dilemmas and uncertainty for opponents.

Grizzly has already successfully completed two live-fire tests, according to a press release Lockheed Martin put out today. The launcher took just six months to build, and makes heavy use of existing and often commercial off-the-shelf components. This includes leveraging the proven M299 four-rail launcher, which is in widespread use globally today, most commonly as a means for launching Hellfires from various types of helicopters.

In “one test we launched missiles vertically,” Chris Murphy, senior manager of Business Development for Integrated Air and Missile Defense Advanced Programs, told TWZ and other outlets during a call yesterday. “In another test, we launched them at an angle to prove out some of the flexibility of the system.”

The container itself has a roof that hinges open for firing. Lockheed Martin says the containerized launcher can be configured to be self-powered or make use of a tertiary power source.

Broadly speaking, “you might think of a depth of magazine as being a really large magazine,” Murphy explained. “Another way to achieve depth of magazine is to have several launchers. What we’ve tried to do is take a lot of the cost out of those launchers and use containers where possible.”

“The idea is that you can leave these somewhat unattended,” he continued. “Obviously, they would be in proximity to some support, but as opposed to having a full-on launcher sitting out someplace or moving around someplace, you’ll just have some ideas to have some containers available. And they protect the system from weather, but they also then allow rapid access and also rapid reload when the time comes. “

“The idea is to provide these [Grizzly container launchers] in multiple places and to… make the enemy uncertain of what is where,” Murphy added. “By using commercial materials and commercial launchers, it’s not obvious where you have protection capability, and it allows you to spread the protection out geographically. It allows it to be remotely operated.”

In general, containerized launchers are also inherently mobile and readily deployable via truck, as well as by cargo aircraft and ships. They also offer opportunities to be employed from any vessel with sufficient deck space, which we will come back to later on.

Lockheed Martin’s press release today otherwise says that Grizzly is “command and control and sensor agnostic” and can be utilized to “support any service or mission, anywhere.”

That being said, the fact that the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Advanced Programs division led the development of Grizzly points to a clear surface-to-air application for the launcher. The millimeter-wave radar-guided AGM-114L variant of the Hellfire has a demonstrated anti-air capability against various types of drones, which is a particular pressing threat. Loaded with AGM-114Ls and linked to air search radars and other sensors, the containerized launch system could offer a way to rapidly boost air defenses, especially at forward locations.

The current conflict with Iran provides a number of real-world instances where this could be valuable. In particular, Iranian-backed militias have launched repeated drone attacks on the U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad, Iraq. In line with the remote operation concept Lockheed Martin’s Murphy outlined, Grizzly launchers could be placed around the outer edge of the larger Green Zone in Baghdad, creating an outer layer of close-in defense.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is currently protected by Centurion counter-rocket, artillery, mortar (C-RAM) systems linked to Saab Giraffe-1X radars, as well as microwave counter-drone radars and other sensors, all of which Grizzly could also leverage. The Centurion is a ground-based version of the Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) used on warships.

Grizzly could be used to fire AGM-114Ls, along with laser-guided Hellfire variants, at targets on land or at sea. The picture Lockheed Martin included in its press release today notably shows the launcher firing a laser-guided Hellfire vertically during a test. As an aside, several countries already have or are developing ground-based launch systems for Hellfire that are designed to be employed in the coastal defense role against landing craft and amphibious vehicles. With assistance from the United Kingdom, Ukraine’s armed forces have also fielded a launch system for the Hellfire-derived Brimstone missiles concealed inside civilian-style trucks that has been used for more general surface-to-surface attacks.

The video below includes clips of a Hellfire launcher concealed inside a typical civilian truck now in development in Taiwan for coastal defense applications.

《國防線上-國防自主軍備研製》打造更堅韌有力的防衛力量

As noted, Grizzly has the potential to be employed from ships and locations on land in any role. Purpose-built launchers for the AGM-114L are already integrated onto some of the U.S. Navy’s Freedom and Independence class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) to provide extra protection against drones and swarms of small boats.

USS Detroit (LCS 7) Successful Missile Test Firing

“The idea behind Grizzly was for it to be a low-cost approach, and we believe that it’s appropriate for multiple customers,” Lockheed Martin’s Murphy said yesterday in response to a question about using the launcher in this domain. “The maritime environment may pose some challenges that you might have to rethink a couple of things, but the general concept is valid.”

Hellfire might not be the only missile Grizzly can fire, either. Murphy said that the launcher was designed to allow for the ready integration of additional functionality, including other missiles, down the line “without having to change much of anything.” One obvious candidate would be the AGM-179A Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), which is derived from the AGM-114R and can already be fired from many of the same launchers, including the M299. Conceivably, the overall concept could be expanded to a launch system in a larger container with more total missiles.

Containerized systems, in general, present particular benefits for expeditionary or distributed operations. Launchers like Grizzly could be particularly relevant for supporting operations in forward areas across the broad expanses of the Pacific during a future major conflict with China. As mentioned, having the additional benefit of being able to deploy them discreetly presents challenges for opponents.

“I think, again, it aligns to our ability to operate in multiple domains,” U.S. Army Gen. Ronald Clark, head of U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC), said in response to a general question about containerized launch capabilities at an event last year that the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) think tank in Washington, D.C. “Our ability to target our adversaries at scale and our ability to be able to be literally ubiquitous with boxes of rockets at different places, that look like boxes of something else, really gives our adversary pause, because it’s in real time providing deterrence.”

Lockheed Martin has also touted Grizzly simply as an example of its ability to rapidly produce a working prototype system, which could then be produced and fielded on at least a limited level without necessarily having to commit to large-scale production.

“There are many instances where you can develop a prototype, such as this Grizzly launcher, and maybe you only need a few of them, but maybe you need a couple 100. Those are still not numbers that you come up with – that you would come up with for a large-scale production line,” Lockheed Martin’s Murphy said. “We’ve got a couple other programs that we’re working through the same approach and are proving to ourselves and proving to our customers that this is a very good intermediate step between one or two prototypes versus dozens, or maybe even hundreds of early capability products, until you get to the point where you think that you’re ready for let’s go ahead and have a full-scale, full-rate production.”

Grizzly, in its current form, certainly offers potential anti-air and other capabilities that could be of interest across the U.S. military, as well as to foreign customers, especially armed forces that already have Hellfire variants in inventory.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

When it comes to understanding air and missile defense, especially in the Middle East, David Shank has few peers. The retired Army colonel served as Commandant of the Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and as the 10th Army Air Missile Defense Commander in Europe, back when Israel was defended by U.S. European Command. He also commanded a Patriot battery that deployed to Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan.

In an exclusive, hour-long, wide-ranging interview on Sunday, Shank offered some unique insights into the challenges faced by the U.S. and its partners in the region after four weeks of defending against Iranian missile and drone barrages. He is now a consultant for Orion 360 Consulting, his family-owned company which works with prime contractors on counter missile and drone capabilities.

Some of these questions and answers have been edited for clarity.

Q: Are you surprised with how many drones and ballistic missiles are getting through U.S. and allied defenses in the region?

A: I am not surprised based on Iranian overmatch with regards to the vast numbers of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long range rockets and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The only surprise to me were the attacks on Gulf nations’ population centers and the reported 1,500-plus [missiles and drones fired at] the UAE.

There’s no system that’s 100% guaranteed. As a former U.S. Army air defender, we’ve planned, we’ve studied, we’ve exercised against an Iranian threat, where we clearly understood that they possessed thousands of long range ballistic missiles, long range rockets, cruise missiles. And then, of course, in the last 10-plus years, the use of unmanned aerial systems. It’s not just the Iranians, but their proxies also, which are across the region from Iraq to Hezbollah and Lebanon to Hamas that we’ve seen recently, down to Yemen and the Houthis.

Q: There have also been a lot of drone attacks in Iraq from Iranian proxies there.

A: Yes, they’ve targeted some U.S. footprints in Iraq and across the region. And on that note, across the Middle East, we’ve had U.S. and coalition forces forward deployed for decades. They didn’t just show up there last week or two months ago. We’ve been occupying some of the same terrain for decades. And so this goes back to one of your initial questions of, why do we think Iran is able to penetrate the U.S. and Israeli and other coalition defenses. It is because 1.) they’re known targets for the Iranians, and 2.) because of the vast number of missiles and now drones and long range rockets they possess along with their proxies.

Q: What is your observation of how these systems and personnel are performing?

A: Well, you know, the American soldiers are the very best. And as a former air defender, yeah, I’m a little biased. I think they’re performing extremely well. From an Israeli perspective – and I’ve spent many, many days and weeks on the ground in Israel during my time as the 10th Army Air Missile Defense Commander from 2017 to 2019 while stationed in Europe. U.S. European Command at that time had the responsibility for the defense of Israel, and so I’ve made a number of trips in and out of Israel during that two-plus-year period. I’ve walked the ground. We exercised. We deployed Patriot capabilities. We deployed [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] THAAD capabilities during that time frame, primarily as an exercise, but it was a rehearsal for what’s taking place today. 

So while some of the war plans have changed and been adjusted, as we do over time, the outcome remains the same. That’s U.S. forces standing shoulder to shoulder with the Israelis in the State of Israel on ground. As for the rest of the region, we’ve had Patriot battalions and THAAD batteries rotating in and out for probably going back to the mid-to-late 2000s. I was a Patriot battalion commander in 2013. I deployed with my battalion to Qatar, Bahrain, and then was tasked to put Patriot capability in Jordan at the time, because of what the Assad regime was doing to the civilian population – those chlorine gas bombs. That was under the Obama administration. So this has been ongoing for decades.

Q: What makes you say these systems and personnel are performing well?

A: The Army has rehearsed this. We’ve exercised these requirements for decades. The Israelis fight every day against proxies who consistently lob or launch long-range rockets or some type of device, either from the north or from the south, or even by the Houthis. It’s been a constant. So it’s easily, if not every day, at least once a week. And Israel has been enduring this for decades.

And so we are a trained force. We’re a capable force. The forensics continues, battle-tracking continues, the number of interceptors launched, the number of hits to kill, what that battle damage looks like. And then, of course, when, when a ballistic missile or cruise missile or even a drone is able to penetrate the defenses, at least from an American perspective, we roll up our sleeves and we determine, ‘Okay, why did that happen’?

When a ballistic missile or cruise missile or even a drone is able to penetrate the defenses, we conduct these very detailed and sometimes challenging after-action reviews to do our very best to ensure that that doesn’t happen again. 

Q: Speaking of which, Israeli media outlets are reporting that a THAAD system failed to intercept ballistic missiles that attacked the southern Israeli cities of Arad and Dimona, the site of Israel’s unacknowledged nuclear weapons program. These claims are unverified, with suggestions that it could have been an Israeli David’s Sling system that missed, but what would the U.S. after-action investigation into a potential THAAD failure look like?

A: The investigators will try to determine whether it was a system malfunction. It starts with the network. It starts with the communications piece, both voice and data. All part of this integrated network. It starts with sensing. There are sensing radars for long range specifically, and how they’re interconnected on this network. And then, of course, passing those tracks to an effector. And then there’s the human in the loop, the decision maker. There’s a decision maker that ultimately directs a subordinate echelon to engage a specific target. So the investigation will look into all these aspects. It could be human error, or it could be a technical glitch. And they’ll determine that.

Q: What makes drones like the Shahed-136 so hard to target and successfully engage?

A: Radar cross section. Let’s look at one radar versus one Shahed-136. If you’re not looking for that size and that speed of a target, you’re not going to see it. And so you’ve heard the cliche, there’s no silver bullet, right? And this drives the importance of a layered defense, and that layered defense includes radars. So very elementary nonetheless, but it’s radar cross section. 

Q: What’s being done to calibrate sensors to be able to pick up these Shaheds? And is it working?

A: I think we’ve had a great deal of success against some of these Group-3 drones, specifically the Shahed-136s. From a technical standpoint, the industry is continuing to work and make adjustments to their sensors, especially those that are programs of record, but also sensing capabilities that are non-programs of record to the Department of War and U.S. forces. So yes is the answer. And again, it goes back to layering. 

And one other point worth mentioning – you can probably tie this into some of the other comments I made. From a U.S. air defense perspective, and really, probably any coalition or friendly force, we’re not defending dirt. If a ballistic missile is going to land somewhere in the desert – if it’s uninhabited – it’s not an area that we need to be concerned with defending. We’re going to let it impact. And so sometimes people get lost in those types of impacts. 

Now turn around, and we talked a little bit earlier about Dimona, right? Whether the Israelis have nuclear capability or not, when you know if a ballistic missile is targeting a population center – or, let’s say, an air base, a logistics center, or maybe even oil or naturl gas fields – those are deemed critical assets and would have some type of defensive capability to prevent any type of strike against those assets. Hope that helps.

Q: What Iranian ballistic missile technology have you seen during this conflict that is concerning in terms of Iran’s ability to penetrate even the best defense?

A: Well, I think that [attempted] strike against Diego Garcia got everyone’s attention because of the range. Reports were that there were two ballistic missiles, one broke up in flight. I think [the other missile reached a distance of] 3,800 kilometers [about 2,400 miles], and our expectation was that they had a ballistic missile they could travel 2,000 kilometers [about 1,240 miles]. Maybe they decreased the size of the warhead in order to travel further. I’m not an engineer. I own a set of post hole diggers, and that’s my PhD, by the way.

We’ve known for decades that Iranians have possessed thousands of ballistic missiles, long-range rockets and cruise missiles. And in the last 10 to 15 years, the evolution of drones has changed the character of war. It’s clearly evident that Russians are assisting the Iranians, not just with missile technology, but now with drone technology. And so the Russians have a lot of lessons learned. Ukrainians have a lot of lessons learned unless you’ve had your head in the sand. The Ukrainians are also assisting in the region to provide not just awareness but expertise in both offensive and defensive actions, using drones and defeating drones.

Q: The U.S. and allies are expending a large amount of interceptors, batting down a variety of missiles and drones. How concerned are you about America’s magazine depth of these critical defensive weapons? 

A: Very, very concerned. Clearly, I recognize the efforts, at least in the last several months, of increasing production, for example, of the Patriot interceptor. And we haven’t talked about the cost curve, but Patriot PAC-3 interceptors are not cheap. You know, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million each. That THAAD interceptor, I’ve heard numbers anywhere between $8 million and $12 million per and that’s just from a U.S. perspective. So not cheap at all, especially when you’re engaging potentially a $200,000 target. So you can recognize the cost curve very quickly.

And these munitions are limited, hence, the aggressive movement towards effectors that have an unlimited magazine, or a very deep magazine, such as directed energy. Are we moving fast enough to get to directed energy? Maybe, maybe not. There are some use cases and the one in El Paso was not so well coordinated. In fact, it wasn’t coordinated at all, in my opinion. And it showed a very concerning disconnect between departments here in the U.S. But, the US Navy possesses some directed energy capability.

Q: From what you’re seeing on this conflict, do you think the proper planning was in place in terms of magazine depth of defensive weapons?

A: My experience is the number of interceptors were always factored into the war plans, and so recognizing that based on the number of whether it’s Patriot or THAAD or both interceptors on hand, clearly, we would war game. We would rehearse. We would recognize, okay, through modeling and simulation, certain Patriot locations would go what we call Winchester (out of ammo in military parlance). You’re out of ammunition by a specific day in a conflict. That drives the importance of air power and nowadays, cyber strikes, and even the potential for ground warfare. All of that is factored in. I’m sure additional munitions, potentially from other combatant commands around the globe, were moved to the region to prepare for what’s transpiring now.

Q: In addition to interceptors, the U.S. has shipped a lot of air defense systems from Europe and the Pacific to the Middle East. How concerning is that for other regions, specifically Pacific? If a fight broke out in the Pacific tonight, do we have enough systems and munitions there to defend us assets?

A: It’s a really good question. And so hence the importance of our allies and partners possessing their own capability, because it alleviates some of the stresses on the U.S. force and other nations for that matter. And so to answer your question, if a second conflict were to take place today in another part of the world, there’d be some challenges, but there’d also be some reliance on our allies and partners. They provide their capability and become part of whether it’s a coalition or multilateral bilateral agreement, but it would definitely require additional capability from other nations.

Q: Pacific allies have expressed concerns about U.S. air defense assets heading to the CENTCOM region. How much does that concern you?

A: The State Department is heavily engaged when it comes to having those difficult conversations with some of our allies and partners and explaining why, for example, we need to move a Patriot from the Pacific to the Middle East. I’m sure they’re receiving push back. Because there is a concern, whether it’s PRC, or whether it’s the DPRK, there’s always that concern [about being properly equipped].

Q: You mentioned moving air defense assets. What does it take to move a Patriot battery, which can have up to eight trailer-mounted launchers, as well as an AN/MPQ-65 multifunction phased array radar and other fire control, communications, and support equipment, operators and maintenance personnel?

A: It’s very taxing on the airlift, the C-17s and C-5s. One Patriot battery would take eight to 10 C-17s, it’s a lot. And that was just for an initial deployment. So potentially not the full complement of launching stations. These are very large trucks, very large pieces of equipment. You ship the interceptors in a different airframe, because of the munitions aspect. So there’s some synchronization involved as you think through this. If you put a Patriot battery on the ground, and the radar comes in last, it’s no good. You’ve got to synchronize the flow. 

Q: How many flights would it take for a whole battalion, which includes a headquarters element, along with between three and five firing batteries?

A: I’d say about 70 to 75 aircraft. This is why the Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) stored at a number of locations around the world are so important.

Q: Based on the information at hand, it appears that Iran has been able to destroy one U.S. AN/TPY-2 radar in Jordan and damage the massive American-made AN/FPS-132 phased array radar in Qatar. Reportedly, Iran has hit 12 US and allied radar and SATCOM terminals since the start of the war. How difficult are they to replace and how do their losses affect the overall situational awareness, command and control, reaction time and the overall ability to identify and destroy threats?

A: It’s no different than what we do to an adversary. We conduct some type of air campaign. First thing we want to do is we want to blind, right? We want to take out their communications. We want to take out their air defenses radars so our aircraft can get deep into a country, and strike strategic-level targets initially. The Iranians are doing the same. 

If they can take out our sensing capability, or how we see air threats thousands of kilometers away, that’s one of their targets. A high payoff target for the Iranians is to destroy a THAAD radar like the  AN/TPY-2 you mentioned. The AN/FPS-132 that you mentioned. If they can destroy these types of long range sensors, that benefits the adversary. 

Patriot radars are a target. They emit a signal, and so it drives the importance that they’re not easy to move. It drives the importance of emissions control. When you turn on a radar, when you turn it off, how long is it operating for? Again, you’re not just going to pick up a Patriot, but this is very difficult for some – even American leaders – to understand. You don’t just move a Patriot battery on a dime. I mean, it’s not a tank. And so I know during my career, it was challenging to explain that to senior leaders who were not air defenders. 

Q: How difficult are these radars to replace how are these losses affecting the overall situational awareness, command and control, reaction time and ability to identify and destroy threats?

A: Well, you only have so many radars. There are no radars just sitting around in a motor pool, not being used, except at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where they do the training. That’s the first point. So they’re limited in number. If and when a radar is destroyed, it goes back to that integrated network where there’s potential, depending on proximity and range, that one Patriot battery could actually sense for another Patriot battery. For example, if a radar is destroyed or non-mission capable, say, a technical issue, depending on range, one radar could sense for another battery. 

Same at the battalion level. If you have loss of capability there’s capability where one battalion could provide sensing for another battalion’s launchers. And again, it’s all about being on the network as well – an integrated network of sensors. Coupled with what you’ve probably written and talked to people about – launch-on-remote, engage-on-remote – we have done a lot of that testing and experimentation within the last 10 years. So that is supporting the loss of sensors.

Q: Is there anything we can do to improve defending these systems?

A: Get more systems. We’ve learned so many lessons with what’s going on in Ukraine when it comes to a drone war. There’s persistent surveillance, 24/7. Now you can expect to have eyes on your location if you’re a Ukrainian soldier. Now bring that to the Middle East. You know Ukrainians are producing thousands of drones and counter system capabilities a month and now we’re seeing how that’s impacting the Middle East and the requirements for us and partner nations.

So that’s what we need. We need more capability. There’s always someone that says we need more Patriot. We need more THAAD, we need more Aegis, we need more SM-6s. We need more defensive counter air airframes. I do work in and out of the Middle East. And when you talk to those service members and their leadership, their greatest concerns are Group 3 drones, and we’re seeing it play out in real time.