9.4 C
Houston
Wednesday, October 28, 2020

U.S. Army eyes next-generation vehicle to dominate the battlespace: The drone tank

Armored tanks dominated the theater of war from the Battle of Kursk to Desert Storm and helped define combat in the 20th century.

But the mighty tank’s place in the battles of tomorrow isn’t entirely clear. Specialists argue that the changing nature of war could limit tanks’ effectiveness and mean a major demotion in how they are fielded in the face of more effective rocket fire, advanced radar systems that make it easier to spot and target the vehicles, and the proliferation of small, deadly drones that can rain destruction on armored columns.

Researchers stress that storied ground vehicles such as the M1A1 Abrams and the Leopard 2, along with models on the production line that stem from the Army’s groundbreaking “Next-Generation Combat Vehicle” program, will by no means disappear from the military landscape.

It has become evident, however, that the once-impregnable traditional tank has become vulnerable and that its future hinges on how military leaders and vehicle manufacturers adapt.

For tank skeptics, one of the world’s hottest war zones is providing fresh ammunition for their argument.

Military strategists are closely watching the Nagorno-Karabakh clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In barely three weeks of fighting, the Armenians have lost an estimated 80 battle tanks and its military claims to have destroyed more than 100 Azerbaijani armored vehicles.

Each side denies those figures, though videos posted on social media seem to confirm that tanks have suffered badly in the fight, largely because of the widespread availability of drones and other technologies that have proved effective at eliminating them or at least halting their advance.

In another sign of the times, the Marine Corps this year divested itself of its last three active tank battalions, ceding heavy ground armor capability entirely to the Army. Marine Commandant Gen. David H. Berger said in March that tanks are “operationally unsuitable” for the Corps’ main new mission: confronting “near peer” adversaries such as China, defending ships at sea and securing military control of contested coastlines.

But specialists say deeper issues are involved, including the fact that many militaries have failed to invest in defensive systems that could enhance the value of tanks on technologically advanced battlefields.

“If you’re going to spend your money today, it’s providing those layers of protections to make sure you can deploy those systems,” said Jack Watling, research fellow in land warfare at London’s Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies. “It’s not the tank. It’s the air defense system … the things that go around it.”

The Armenian military, he said, “didn’t have all of the components you needed to protect their force” and paid the price.

Analysts generally agree that most advanced militaries can easily defend ground combat forces from drone attacks. The U.S. armed forces and other militaries also are well-practiced and generally capable of fending off air assaults and weathering mortar fire as they move tanks and infantry forces into theater.

The problem, Mr. Watling said, is that opposing military leaders now understand that if they unleash enough firepower in quick succession — drones, traditional aircraft, long-range rocket fire, electronic attacks and other tools — they can slow ground vehicle formations and force them to expend so much ammunition that they become less able to defend themselves as the fight progresses.

At the same time, some traditional defensive tactics that have aided tank formations, such as camouflage and the use of decoy vehicles, are no longer effective.

“Historically, armored vehicles have been fairly difficult to find. Things like decoys have been quite effective at forcing the other side to waste a lot of their air support,” Mr. Watling said. “That is increasingly not the case.”

Major advancements in radar, electronic warfare, sensors and similar systems seem to have played a key role in Nagorno-Karabakh and allowed the Azerbaijani military to more easily and effectively target Armenian tanks.

But military strategists have written the tank’s premature obituary in the face of changing technology many times, and some say the iron laws of battlefield strategy mean the tank, or its functional equivalent, will always have a role to play.

“For as long as we continue to conduct ground operations with the purpose of physically seizing and holding ground, it is reasonable to assume that we will need protected mobility to transport troops from A to B and protected firepower to support infantry in achieving their objectives and to neutralize other armored vehicles,” former British officer and defense consultant Nicholas Drummond wrote recently in the journal U.K. Land Power.

Tomorrow’s tank

Analysts are by no means writing off the tank, particularly in areas where one could imagine the breakout of a large-scale ground war. A theoretical Russian move into Eastern Europe or a North Korean invasion of its southern neighbor are instances where major ground forces and the tanks needed to move and protect them would be crucial.

“We’ve seen tanks become more vulnerable in the modern era. Now, precision-guided rocket fire can do serious damage, too,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the book “The Future of Land Warfare.”

But, he added, “given the right terrain and flexibility and control of the skies, tanks can still be formidable as part of a combined-arms capability.”

“I certainly wouldn’t want to be without them — lots of them — in Korea, for example, or even the Baltics, depending on the scenario,” he said. “So basically, this is something we should continue to invest in, but within reason in terms of numbers of platforms, expectations for the technology and the centrality of big gas-guzzling chunks of steel in our core concepts for future war-fighting.”

The nation’s top fighting forces still retain huge stockpiles of tanks. The U.S. has more than 6,200 tanks in its arsenal, along with more than 39,000 armored vehicles, according to figures from GlobalFirepower.com, an online clearinghouse of nations’ military strength.

Russia has nearly 13,000 tanks and more than 27,000 armored vehicles. China has 3,500 tanks and 33,000 armored vehicles, according to the site.

Military leaders are keenly aware of the challenges facing those ground vehicles. At the Pentagon, Army leaders have fast-tracked a next-generation tank program that is expected to produce huge leaps in survivability and maneuverability, along with perhaps the most widely anticipated advancement: vehicles that are “optionally manned” and can be controlled remotely in settings where human operators would be at particularly high risk — a drone tank.

After the Marine Corps shift, American tank warfare will rest squarely with the Army.

Officials readily acknowledge that beyond the nuts and bolts, the advanced, cutting-edge systems surrounding the vehicle are crucial.

“The network is almost more important in some ways than building the combat vehicles,” Army Maj. Gen. Brian Cummings, program executive officer of ground combat systems, told the media outlet Defense News this week.

By the end of the year, the Army is expected to release its request for proposals for an eventual replacement of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which was put into service in 1981 and has played an integral role in virtually all U.S. ground campaigns since then.

Most observers agree that vehicles of that age are outliving their usefulness despite their effectiveness and huge contributions to American military superiority.

“The need for modernization is considered urgent, as many current Army ground combat vehicles … were developed in the 1980s or earlier,” a Government Accountability Office survey in August concluded.

Much of that modernization will center on networks and linking tanks in real time with aircraft, control centers and military personnel, all of which must have immediate access to all of the same data.

But at its core, analysts say, the next generation of combat vehicles will remain similar to their predecessors in many ways.

“The Army’s next-generation fighting vehicle should just be called its next tank,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “Nothing is advancing radically enough in the undergirding technologies for us to think that a system developed in the 2020s will be radically different than one from the 1980s. That’s a disappointment in some ways, but anytime the Army has tried to get too ambitious before … it’s found that its visions and ambitions tend to write checks that its technologies can’t actually cash.”



Washingtontimes

Latest news

Second Night Of Looting, Vandalism Escalates In Philadelphia Following Fatal Police Shooting

Philadelphia suffered another night of violence, looting, and chaos Tuesday, just a week before the presidential election. The first round of riots began on Monday...

WTI Extends Plunge After Big Crude Build, Production Rebound

Oil prices were hammered overnight, accelerating after API reported an unexpectedly large crude build. European lockdown fears has ignited demand concerns and inventory data...

Prepare Your Body for Time Change

On Nov. 1, we turn...

Uber Sued For Firing Minority Drivers Who Get Poor Service Ratings From Customers

The latest chapter in the ridesharing soap opera that continues to play out across the U.S. (and notably California, where a court just ruled...

Related news

Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs testify before Senate

The CEOs of three of the nation’s top tech firms — Google, Twitter and Facebook — are set to be grilled during a Senate...

Louisiana man killed 2, wounded siblings in gruesome machete attack

An illegal immigrant in a red devil mask butchered his girlfriend and her sister in Louisiana, wrapping the innards of one of his victims...

Walter Wallace had a long history of violent run-ins with cops

Walter Wallace, the mentally ill Philadelphia man whose death sparked riots in cities across the US, had a long history of violent run-ins with...

What is Section 230 and why was it created?

On May 28, President Donald Trump signed an executive order curtailing Section 230 of the Federal Media Decency Act, explicitly opposing a provision that...

South Africa may have achieved COVID-19 herd immunity: expert

A top vaccine expert in South Africa believes the country may have achieved herd immunity against COVID-19 following a major outbreak there over the...

Trending News

White House Blocks CDC ‘No Sail’ Order

The Centers for Disease...

DHS pushes back on reports lawyers can’t find parents of children separated at border

A Department of Homeland Security spokesman pushed back against a news story claiming that...

Secret Service Travel Logs Match Details in Alleged Hunter Biden Emails

Secret Service logs obtained earlier this year by Senate investigators include dates and locations matching those discussed in the emails allegedly belonging to Hunter...

Rasmussen poll says 46% of black voters approve of President Trump

A daily tracking poll of President Donald Trump's job approval released Friday showed an eye-popping surge in approval for Trump among black voters. According...

Joe Biden Boasts Of ‘Most Extensive’ Voter Fraud ‘In The History Of American Politics’

Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden recently bragged that Democrats have created the “most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American...

Joe Biden was the “Big Guy” Getting 10% of the Deal With Chinese Businessman Says Insider

  Among the second set of documents released by the New York Post last week were emails involving two different business schemes Hunter Biden is...

Cycle Threshold Value Missing in CCP Virus Case Numbers: Experts

News Analysis Since the beginning of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic, policymakers in the United States have relied heavily on the daily positive cases—confirmed by...

Former never-Trumper James Lindsay on why he just CAN’T vote for Joe Biden

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast"...