BLUF
Clive Williams writing ASPIs Strategist, argues that as battleships became redundant because of airpower, the same might be happening to tanks because of the development of cheap drones that appear to be able to stop an expensive tank.Summary
This article by Clive Williams in the Strategist makes the following points:
- Militaries rarely give up prestigious bits of kit, even if they no longer have a role.
- The 1941 loss of two British Battleships demonstrated the vulnerability of Major Surface Combatants to airpower.
- Surface vessels are expensive, and missiles to sink them are relatively cheap.
- The US Air Force plans fewer crewed combat aircraft supported by combat drones.
- An F-35 Lightning II (around $110 million each) can be knocked out by a $160,000 Stinger missile.
- In Iraq, $13.5 mill M1 Abrams tanks were destroyed by $100 projectiles.
- Australia’s Abrams will be upgraded for around $3.5 billion.
- Ukraine shows how effective a range of cheap anti-tank weapons can be.
References
Recent Runway Posts related to this topic:
- Now is not the time to buy lots of heavy armoured vehicles | The Runway (airforce.gov.au)
- Azerbaijan’s drones owned the battlefield in Nagorno-Karabakh—and showed the future of warfare | The Runway (airforce.gov.au)
- Finding the common ground in Australia’s tank debate | The Runway (govcms.gov.au)
References from the Web:
- JUN 2021 Australia’s new tanks are overkill and overweight- the Strategist
- JAN 2022 Australia orders new tanks and engineering vehicles- Janes
- JAN 2022 Australia, we’re getting new tanks. But do we really need them?- SBS News
Source The Strategist (ASPI):
- Link to Source: | The Strategist | ASPI’s analysis and commentary site (aspi.au)
- Media Check: About us | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI
- RAAF RUNWAY: RATIONALE, GUIDELINES, LEARNING OUTCOMES, ETC |
