Breaking News
US Army Tests Bullfrog Counter-Drone Turret on Abrams Tank and Bradley IFV for Combat Defense.
The US Army is testing Allen Control Systems’ Bullfrog counter-drone weapon station on Abrams tanks and Bradley IFVs. The move reflects an urgent push to give frontline armor its own defense against the fast-evolving drone threat seen in Ukraine and the Middle East.
On 30 October 2025, Allen Control Systems announced on X that the US Army had begun evaluating the integration of its Bullfrog autonomous counter-drone weapon station on Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, signaling a concrete step to shield frontline armor from the growing threat of small, fast and low-cost unmanned aircraft. The disclosure comes as mechanized forces draw lessons from Ukraine and the Middle East, where drones are routinely used like airborne IEDs against even heavily protected vehicles. It is relevant because the Army is not studying a distant concept but testing a system already mounted, even if in non-firing dummy form, on operational platforms. By making the trial public, Allen Control Systems indicated that the service wants a vehicle-level, not just brigade-level, response to drones.
The US Army is testing Allen Control Systems’ Bullfrog counter-drone turret on Abrams and Bradleys (Picture Source: Allen Control Systems)
The Army’s initial trials concentrate on integrating the system onto existing U.S. ground vehicles. Photographs released by the company show Bullfrog modules mounted on the rear roofline of a Bradley and on the upper surface of an Abrams turret, with the optronics offset to the side and the weapon cradle elevated. Even as mock-ups, these installations indicate the turret can be fitted without a heavy redesign, can clear current sights and hatches, and can be positioned to provide the crew a full arc of coverage with very steep elevation. That elevation capability is decisive because most legacy remote weapon stations on U.S. vehicles were intended to fight dismounted infantry and light vehicles, not quadcopters that descend almost vertically onto an engine deck. The Army is therefore assessing whether Bullfrog can be fielded as an add-on kit that line units could install and sustain with limited disruption.
Beyond simple fit, the trial seeks to quantify performance gains over standard machine-gun stations. Bullfrog centers on a 12.7 mm (.50 cal) weapon with an effective cyclic rate of roughly 600 rounds per minute, integrated with sensors and software designed to detect, classify and engage Group 1 to Group 3 UAVs out to approximately 1,500 m. That capability would give an Abrams or a Bradley a local hard-kill anti-drone envelope that can operate in autonomous or semi-autonomous modes and thereby reduce crew exposure in the hatch. Against drones used as loitering munitions, reaction time is critical: an automated, stabilized turret that is already tracking overhead targets will respond faster than a manually slewed CROWS. The approach also aligns with the U.S. Army’s current counter-UAS concept of dispersing small, mobile effects across platforms rather than concentrating protection in a handful of M-SHORAD vehicles.
How Bullfrog would sit alongside existing defensive suites and the likely cost of fielding it are also under scrutiny. Abrams equipped with Trophy and Bradleys trialed with Iron Fist enjoy robust protection against ATGMs and RPGs, but those active protection systems were not primarily engineered to pursue slow, erratic, low-signature quadcopters. Conventional CROWS mounts or locally fixed M2/M240s can engage such threats but remain fully dependent on the gunner’s situational awareness. Bullfrog seeks to close that capability gap by offering greater elevation, automated detection and a relatively light 165-lb architecture that could be adapted to allied platforms. Allen Control Systems did not announce a production-scale U.S. Army contract in its 30 October 2025 communication, indicating the effort remains in evaluation or rapid prototyping rather than a program of record.
The announcement signals that the U.S. Army now treats small drones as a persistent, platform-level threat to armored formations and is prepared to work with agile new suppliers to restore tactical control. If Bullfrog or a derivative passes live-fire trials, Abrams and Bradleys could gain an organic, always-available anti-drone layer that complements rather than replaces active protection systems and higher-echelon air-defense assets. For U.S. and allied mechanized forces operating in drone-saturated environments, that development would likely translate into improved survivability and greater freedom of maneuver without having to await external cover.
Written by Teoman S. Nicanci – Defense Analyst, Army Recognition Group
Teoman S. Nicanci holds degrees in Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, and International Relations and Diplomacy from leading Belgian universities, with research focused on Russian strategic behavior, defense technology, and modern warfare. He is a defense analyst at Army Recognition, specializing in the global defense industry, military armament, and emerging defense technologies.