After Challenger 2: Britain’s Next Tank … Armed Robotic Combat Vehicle?

By Simon Jackson

“The British Army’s next tank to replace Challenger 2 in the 2020s is likely to be uncrewed”.  I wrote that in 1997 whilst working in the UK MOD.  Well, I got it wrong, but I was certainly not alone.  There are 1000s of air drones on today’s battlefields, robot wars on the TV, billions of dollars being spent on driverless cars…… but we are not seeing meaningful numbers of Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCVs) making impacts on land operations.  Given the threats in Europe, world-wide instability and increasing but constrained defence budgets, it is timely to look at what roles RCVs should have to make a difference to battle outcomes.

Clearly, the first question is “will RCVs become a battlefield reality or remain a research romance?”  Put simply, yes, RCVs will become the norm in the land battle.  Demand is high: there is a widely accepted need to remove the warfighter from dangerous combat operations and change the fundamental business of close combat; and it is acknowledged that robots can do the dull and dirty jobs, thereby releasing valuable human resources for other tasks.

And there is plenty of evidence to show that RCVs are inevitable.  Ukraine now has more than 160 companies building unmanned ground vehicles (according to state-backed defence accelerator Brave1, reported by Reuters) and “we need tens of thousands” of RCVs in 2025 according to Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov (again reported by Reuters).  The US Army has requested more than 1 billion US dollars for uncrewed/autonomous systems in FY25 (admittedly including drones), experimentation continues in many countries and the automotive industry continues to invest unimaginable quantities of money.

So, let’s bring some focus to this.  What should combat developers concentrate on; where could RCVs make a difference; how best could RCVs change battle outcome and change the way ground operations are conducted?

To start with, there are a number of roles where RCVs would NOT bring combat benefit, despite suggestions from defence industry sales people and the defence media:

• There is absolutely no point, in my view, of having uncrewed infantry fighting vehicles or personnel carriers – why have a driverless vehicle carrying 8 human warfighters in the back?
• Examples of uncrewed Air Defence systems have been shown at defence shows and uncrewed HIMARS have been tested by the US Army (Army Recognition, Aug 22). I see little combat benefit – removing the crew, I suggest, would not result in combat advantage and is unlikely to reduce equipment or people casualties.
• There has been much talk and investment about uncrewed trucks in out-of-combat areas Releasing soldiers for other tasks may be give marginal benefits but impacts on battle outcome will be minimal. And it is worth noting that the US Army has closed down its ‘leader-follower’ robotic truck development programme (Breaking Defense Jun 23).

There are, however, combat missions where uncrewed robotic vehicles will change battle outcome and change the way operations are conducted, fully acknowledging that all of these tasks are conducted by joint, all arms units and formations.

The obvious one to me Obstacle Breaching.  Crossing minefields, gaps and rivers and removing battlefield obstacles have always been high risk, high casualty, dangerous operations, clearly emphasised by experiences in Ukraine.  The technology is here today; the British Army’s Trojan breacher and Titan bridge layer and other similar vehicles can be remotely operated.  But this is not the normal method for operation.  So, change the thinking and invest.  Remote and near-autonomous operation is achievable today and would increase the likelihood of battle success.