The obituary of the main battle tanks has been written many a times before, ever since the ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Weapon) were fielded on the battlefield. The battle that gained prominence was the ambush of Israeli armour at El Firdan during the 1973 Yom Kippur War on October 8, 1973. Tanks have not only survived but have continued to be the prime offensive and defensive arm of militaries across the world. The tactics and groupings were suitably adjusted to counter the evolving battlefield threats posed by the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)’.

However, the evolving emerging and disruptive technologies present a new set of challenges in the battlefields of the future, glimpses of which were visible in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of September – November 2020 wherein the integrated use of drones, UAVs/UCAVs, artillery, and air fire by Azerbaijan succeeded in inflicting disproportionate casualties on Armenian tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery and air defence guns and other ground forces. The further evolution is being witnessed in the ongoing Ukrainian Conflict, wherein the ‘swarm tactics’, in use of drones, is being fine-tuned. Again, voices have arisen about the end of the tank in the battlefield, but this too shall pass.

Considering the increased need for protection for all arms, services, and systems in the future battlefield not only from increased firepower but the evolving multi-domain threat, which is provided by the armoured fighting vehicles and are hence here to stay. However, what would be their shape, size, structure, and what suite of systems, subsystems would it possess, to counter such emerging threats, is open to debate at present.

It is in this scenario that news came of a fresh RFI (Request For Information) for India’s FRCV (Future Ready Combat Vehicle), the MBT for the future, which could be the platform for other family of vehicles, including the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV). This is the 4th such call, starting with 2015, 2017, 2021 and now 2023. Is this the right way in the face of Disruption in Military Affairs (DMA), as the emerging and disruptive technologies would disrupt the way warfare is conducted?

This article aims to look at the evolving nature of warfare and try to present a differing perspective on India’s future family of Armoured Fighting Vehicles.

Evolving Nature of Warfare

The evolving and emerging technologies portend a disruption in the way warfares of the future would be fought. Currently the 5th generation of warfare is emerging, glimpses of which have been seen in Yemen, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine conflicts. Concurrently, various countries, like US, West, Russia, and China, are working towards technologies that would evolve to the 6th and 7th generation warfare. These are still nebulous but would emerge in some form in the coming decades.

Even as these technologies progress, there is an amorphous concept being worked upon that has been termed as the 8th generation warfare, some subsystems of which could get fielded in the coming decades. It conceptualises the use of advanced Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) and other such weapons to immobilise the enemy cognitively for a specified duration of time over a specified area, thereby disarming and overcoming them without a fight. Cognitive domain warfare is already being seen, by way of information warfare through various narratives, subversion, et al. This is an extreme extension of such warfare, attempting neural control via advanced DEWS rather than reflexive control, as hither-to-fore.

While some nations are adopting a parallel approach by developing future MBTs and upgrading existing fleets, India’s focus remains primarily on developing an entirely new family of armoured vehicles

These would disrupt the way warfare is likely to be conducted in future and is thus being termed as ‘Disruption in Military Affairs (DMA)’. It is difficult to visualise the systems and subsystems needed to counter such threats in an evolving battlefield.

The Future Main Battle Tanks of Others: A Parallel Approach

With the status of the future still rather blurred, the moot point is whether it is prudent to invest in an entirely new family of armoured vehicles? It would take minimum a decade to design and develop such a project and another decade or so to field it. What if by then the evolving threat has changed the battlefield milieu? Would you keep shifting or keep re-evaluating the General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQRs)? Where will the line be drawn? The repeated calls for India’s FRCV, and the change in parameters is a case in point. A look at the other tank producing nations shows a very different and pragmatic approach.

The US M1 Abrams, M1A2 is planned to be in service atleast till 2050 with necessary upgrades to face future threats in the evolving battlefield milieu, with improvements in its firepower, protection (active and reactive), and mobility, to face the emerging threats. This is even as the US Army is evaluating a replacement for the M1 Abrams and other armoured fighting vehicles as part of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) programme, notionally known as the Decisive Lethality Platform (DLP). Currently, only the XM30 Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle, formerly known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), part of this programme has seen some progress, the design for which has been made digitally by the contenders. It may be remembered that the M1 Abrams series was first fielded way back in 1980 and has seen a series of upgrades to counter the evolving threats.

Similarly, the Leopard series entered service in the German (then West German) Army in 1965, with its anticipated life is till 2030s. As its replacement is still on paper, titled Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), it will be preceded by incremental upgrades to the Leopard 2, including a new digital turret core system and situational awareness system and an active protection system (APS). The MGCS is a project launched in 2017 by Germany and France, aiming to replace their current Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks. The plan is for the initial fielding expected in 2035, with full operational capability (FOC) by 2040. As it stands there is considerable slippage in this project, but the upgrades to Leopard 2 (and Leclerc) have not been stopped.

Similar is the case with Israel that has recently fielded its Merkava Mk. 4 (Barak, some call it Merkava V) in June 2023, a further upgrade to the series launched in 1979, to cater for the emerging threats in the battlefield. The tank’s new elements include an active armour protection system, artificial intelligence, updated sensors, and VR capabilities. A main feature of the Barak, unveiled in July 2018, is the integration of the Iron Vision helmet-mounted augmented reality system, using high-resolution cameras arrayed around the tank to provide a 360° virtual reality view of a tank’s surroundings to crew members’ helmet displays while protected inside.

In a major step forward for Israel’s future ground warfare concept, the IDF has selected Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to develop its next-generation fighting vehicle. IAI beat out competitors for developing the concept and technologies for the future Armoured Fighting Vehicle for the IDF, known as the Carmel with a focus on urban warfare.

The competition was part of an across-the-table effort to shape the future ground concept used by the IDF. The goal is perhaps summed up best this way: to give Israeli’s military fast-moving ground forces equipped with multi-sensor, multi-weapon systems able to achieve control of the battle ground quickly and decisively. IAI successfully demonstrated a two-man, closed hatch armoured fighting vehicle equipped with autonomous systems that handle the central subsystems — mission planning and operations. Eventually, the IDF plans to build a hybrid vehicle, equipped with both diesel and electric motors. Electric propulsion will allow for quieter short-distance travel, but is also essential as a new source of power for a new weapon that may be integrated into the project: a high-intensity laser. While the Future Manned Combat Vehicle (FMCV) will be a fifth-generation vehicle as a follow-on to the Merkava Mk. 4, it will not be a replacement for the tank. The Merkava will remain in service for decades, while FMCV vehicles are to address entirely different operational requirements.

Lessons for India’s FRCV Programme

What is apparent from the above that most countries that make armoured fighting vehicles are taking a two-pronged approach. Even as they struggle to evolve a future family of fighting vehicles, upgrades to their existing fleet are progressing concurrently. Only Russia appears to have fielded a new MBT for the future MBT -the T14 Armata. What needs to be considered is that work on it had commenced in the in 1988 as the T-95/Object 195. When that was shelved due to lack of funds in early 2000s the project shifted to Object 148 based on the same platform and evolved into T-14 Armata of today. Its layout enables it to be continuously upgraded with the systems to counter evolving threats.

Whither India: The Need for a Parallel Approach

India has a mix of three tanks, T-72, T-90, and Arjun, but does not have the concept of upgrading the existing systems or subsystems. The only upgrade of value the T-72 received is the Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) panels. Despite it having over 60 per cent commonality with the T-90, no attempt has been made to incorporate many of the advanced systems and subsystems from T-90 into it. Further, through the design and development of the Arjun MBT, there are other advanced systems that have been developed in-house, but no attempt has been made at cross pollination –incorporating them to upgrade these tanks to a higher level.

Yet, India is looking at a whole new platform for future threats, which keeps evolving as the critical technologies mature. This results in reworking of its GSQR periodically, thereby pushing back the fielding of the new armoured platform. With no concept of a parallel approach of necessary upgrades to it existing fleet, it would put these platforms at risk in future wars.

Even as the work on FRCV is progresses, it is time to involve the Academia and Private players to upgrade the existing MBTs and other Armoured Fighting Vehicles with modern suites to provide for increase firepower, multi-domain protection, and mobility. These suites/their improved versions can then be fielded in the future armoured platforms whenever fielded. This needs to be the way ahead and not a singlepoint attempt to only get a new platform of vehicles for the future battlefields. The current fleet, with such periodic upgrades can be fielded in future battlefields atleast till circa 2040-45, or beyond. The FRCV and its family of vehicles can be gradually inducted into service as and when they are fielded and could work with the current fleet till their extended lives, since they would also be upgraded to face these evolving threats.

Conclusion

The suites needed to counter multi-domain threats of the enemy, and project multidomain threats to potential challengers would be very expensive – these emerging and disruptive technologies do not come cheap. Thus, the need for such a parallel approach, wherein even as the work is on for some future platform to cater for the DMA, as the systems and subsystems evolve, upgrades to the existing platforms should continue in the interim.

Such a joint parallel approach, which includes Academia and Private players would spread the costs and generate economy of scales.

Major General Rajiv Narayanan retired after over 37 years of distinguished service in February 2016, as the ADGMO, in Army HQ. He currently a Professor of Practise with IIT Madras, Senior Fellow with the Peninsula Foundation, a Member of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, and a Member of the Indus International Research Foundation.