The following piece, written by Simon Jackson, first appeared on Warrior Maven, a Military Content Group member website.
“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 Ministry of Defence (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, and 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, worldwide instability, and increasing but constrained defense budgets, it is timely to look at what roles RCVs should have to make a difference in 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 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 defense 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 could RCVs best change battle outcomes and 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 defense industry salespeople and the defense 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 defense systems have been shown at defense 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 program (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 following piece, written by Simon Jackson, first appeared on Warrior Maven, a Military Content Group member website.
“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 Ministry of Defence (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, and 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, worldwide instability, and increasing but constrained defense budgets, it is timely to look at what roles RCVs should have to make a difference in 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 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 defense 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 could RCVs best change battle outcomes and 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 defense industry salespeople and the defense 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 defense systems have been shown at defense 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 program (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 emphasized 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.
Reconnaissance is also a high risk and dangerous task. Removing the warfighter should significantly improve the gathering of information and reduce casualties: reconnaissance vehicles will be smaller and less vulnerable – with no crew to protect and arguably less need for self-defense weapons; commanders will be more willing to take risk. But, and it is a big ‘but’, parallel investment will continue to be needed in navigation, automatic target detection, recognition and tracking, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning, sensors and data fusion.
Ukraine has demonstrated the vulnerability of Main Battle Tanks on the modern battlefield. But the need remains for ground-based systems to deliver ‘shock action’ and seize ground; countries continue to invest in tanks and the US Army Chief of Staff, Gen James McConville has emphasized their need, stating “you don’t need armor if you don’t want to win.” Robotic anti-armour weapon systems (cannons and/or missiles) can provide this key battle-winning capability – commanders will be more willing to commit these assets as they will be smaller and lighter (needing less armour), more difficult to target and potentially significantly cheaper than today’s tanks (12… 15 million US dollars a copy?).
The 4th battle-winning capability is re-supply in combat zones. The tactical supply of fuel and ammunition have always been battlefield constraints, emphasized in Ukraine. Robotic re-supply vehicles are likely to be the first uncrewed ground vehicles to be seen on the battlefield in significant numbers. GDLS are delivering 624 x Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport (SMET) vehicles to the US Army’s (dismounted) infantry brigade combat teams as logistic load carriers. And Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister has stated their focus is to move ammunition and supplies to infantry in trenches and to evacuate the wounded.
Given that these are the key RCV roles, there is still discussion to be had around 3 areas.
- Wheels or tracks? The debate justifies a separate article, but probably both. I suggest that the heavier the RCV, the more likely it is to be tracked – breachers and anti-armour RCVs will be tracked, recce RCVs could be either and the resupply vehicles will be wheeled. Just look at the size of a modern 8×8 wheeled APC needed to get a not-quite-as-good mobility as a tracked vehicle.
- Sacrificial or key asset to be protected? Inevitably, the answer is the enduring spiral of cost versus weight. More protection drives up weight and therefore cost. And if cost alone makes an RCV a “key asset” then the benefits of an uncrewed vehicle reduce.
- Fully autonomous or not? In the shorter term, fully autonomous operation remains an aspiration. The combat land environment is complex, unlike the air and maritime domains; it is unstructured and dynamic, often urban, and is a really, really tough backdrop for pure autonomy. Observers are saying that even in the commercial automotive sector “full autonomy in every kind of environment is still years, if not decades out” according to Kasper Sage of BMW’s venture capital fund BMW iVentures, as reported by Reuters. So, some form of remote control by a human, supported by AI and machine learning, will be the solution for some time to come – which also resolves, in the western world, the ethics issue of ‘robots’.
Is there any evidence to support this roles selection? Yes, and it is the US Army’s Robotic Combat Vehicle program that is leading the way. In addition to SMET for the resupply role, the US are focusing initially on their RCV-Light requirement with 4 contenders currently under test and evaluation – less than 10T, primarily for reconnaissance. This is likely to be followed by RCV-Medium (10-20T for combat and reconnaissance), and then RCV-Heavy for anti-armour (20-30T). But interestingly, I have seen no evidence of investment in RCV obstacle breachers.
There is no doubt that meaningful numbers of RCVs will appear on the battlefield over the next 10 years or so. The end game that armies’ planners and the defense industry should aim for are where removing the warfighter will deliver significant change to battle outcomes, namely: logistic resupply to units in combat and the high risk, high casualty tasks of obstacle breaching, reconnaissance and anti-armour. Commanders will be more willing to commit these uncrewed assets knowing that the probability of winning the battle will be optimized and thus changing the fundamental business of close combat. Robot wars? A subject for another day.
—
Simon Jackson is a former British Army officer having served on tanks and in the MOD and Army HQ on various future equipments and acquisition programmes. He has since worked for BAE Systems Munitions and Vehicles and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL); he now runs his own defence consultancy business, providing independent advice on winning new business.
