Quick Tanks: The Best of Long-Form Defense Analysis, Briefly
A weekly review of the long-form content from the national security policy, defense policy, and related technology analysis community.
Good afternoon, keen readers.
In the final Quick Tanks newsletter of 2023, I have two insightful reports to share with you this week. The topics are:
How the B-21 Raider and its unique capabilities will bolster deterrence against China and Russia and provide assurance to US allies
How heavy armored forces like main battle tanks (MBTs) can still be effective on contemporary battlefields
Quick Tanks is a weekly collection and summary of the latest long-form analytic content on the topics of US defense, force structure, innovation, and policy considerations. We strive to aggregate all of the key sources of analysis and present brief, neutral summaries to help keep you informed. Should you feel inclined to learn more about any study, please reference the full report via the links provided.
The sponsor of the newsletter is the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts + Technology.
Tank you for sharing and subscribing, and happy reading.
America’s B-21 Raiders
Deterring and Assuring in the New Cold War
By Rebeccah L. Heinrichs, Mackenzie Eaglen, Dr. Jennifer Bradley, Dr. Christopher Bowie, Dr. Rebecca Grant, and Kari A. Bingen
Hudson Institute
Link to PDF; Link to Report Page
Focus: The report examines the role of the B-21 Raider bomber in contemporary US defense strategy, focusing on the B-21’s significance in deterring threats from Russia and China and in assuring US allies.Analysis: The report uses a combination of strategic analysis and expert commentary, relying on data from the Department of Defense and insights from defense analysts to assess the B-21's capabilities and strategic value.Argument: The B-21 Raider, with its advanced capabilities in stealth and payload flexibility, is crucial for maintaining US strategic deterrence and assurance in the face of evolving global threats.Insights: The B-21 Raider is a remarkable success story in defense acquisition, as it is both on time and on budget. Moreover, the B-21 stands out as the most visible element of the US nuclear triad, enhancing credibility and signaling US resolve to allies. Lastly, the B-21's advanced stealth coatings are easier and cheaper to maintain than past bombers, allowing it to operate more flexibly from allied airbases and on a lower budget.Recommendations: To strengthen deterrence, the report urges the Air Force to grow the buy size to at least 200 B-21s. Furthermore, Congress must appropriate additional funding to scale production. This expansion as essential for fulfilling the US's commitments to deterrence and assurance.Faced with major nuclear adversaries like Russia and China and the challenges posed by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, the United States is in a new Cold War-like scenario. This Hudson Institute report, featuring a compilation of expert essays, highlights the critical role of the B-21 Raider in this high-stakes environment. The report explains the B-21 will uniquely signal American technological capability and power projection, bolstering both deterrence and ally assurance efforts.
The report lauds the B-21 Raider's acquisition program as a rare success story in Pentagon procurement. Since the Pentagon awarded the contract to Northrup Grumman in 2015, it has maintained stability in timing, design, and funding, demonstrating a model for future major acquisition programs. Notably, active contract management and data-sharing agreements between Northrup Grumman and the Air Force have controlled overall expense risk and mitigated requirements creep. Moreover, Northrup Grumman touts various advances in the B-21 design, driving down the maintenance costs that have made past stealth aircraft so prohibitively expensive.
“Adjusted for inflation, the average procurement unit cost (APUC) of a single B‑2 was $1.38 billion, while the APUC of a B‑21 is an estimated $706 million, roughly half the price. While the exact operating costs of the B‑21 remain unknown, the program was designed to learn from past projects’ shortcomings. At the unveiling of the aircraft last year, Defense Secretary Austin proclaimed that the B‑21 would be ‘carefully designed to be the most maintainable bomber ever built.’ This appears to be true, as decades of innovation in stealth technology have made its coating easier and cheaper to maintain. Northrup Grumman has continuously improved on its radar absorbent material coating, and its latest development will allow the aircraft to be maintained and housed on the light line rather than in cooled hangers. The Air Force has also opted for an ‘open architecture’ approach for flexible hardware and software, which allows new technologies, capabilities, and weapons to be more easily incorporated into the aircraft. This is in conjunction with Northrup Grumman’s ‘digital engineering’ approach, which lets engineers run tests on computer simulations as opposed to real-world models. Both of these new models directly address key obstacles uncovered in making changes to the B‑2, where frequent and complex hardware and software modifications created steep additional costs.”
The report stresses how the B-21 Raider is distinguished by its stealth, long-range capabilities, payload flexibility, and open-architecture design. These features make it uniquely suited to address US nuclear deterrent requirements. Its ability to carry both nuclear and conventional munitions, combined with long-range penetrating strike capabilities, ensures it can hold at risk a wide array of targets deep in adversary territory. The report notes this flexibility in operations and mission planning offered by the B-21 significantly enhances its warfighting potential against sophisticated defenses and forces opponents into a paralyzing risk calculation regarding escalation.
“Importantly, the B‑21 gives the president strategic options. Today, the US relies largely on nuclear‑tipped, large‑yield intercontinental and sea‑launched ballistic missiles to hold at risk hard and deeply buried targets, missile launch sites, command and control (C2) nodes, and military infrastructure deep within adversary borders. Current US conventional strike aircraft and cruise missiles do not have the range or the ability to pierce sophisticated air defenses. A B‑21 delivering conventional munitions deep inland allows the president to target key military nodes while remaining below the nuclear threshold. It also provides nuclear options complementary to other legs of the nuclear triad.
Bombers have shown their flexibility in conducting a range of missions, including supporting those typically associated with other military services and platforms. The B‑21 creates tactical options for a theater commander. It could be used to disable air defenses, thereby creating access corridors for less stealthy tactical aircraft and other assets. The B‑52 and B‑1, which can both carry advanced radar systems and anti‑ship cruise missiles, retain a maritime surveillance and maritime strike mission, with crews still actively trained in finding and targeting enemy surface combatants. The B‑21 could follow suit.”
The authors also emphasize how the B-21 Raider plays a significant role in assuring allies, especially in the context of extended nuclear deterrence. Its global reach, relative visibility within the nuclear triad, and the potential for combined operations with allies enhance the credibility of US security commitments. The B-21's ability to operate from various locations, including those provided by allies for refueling or basing, demonstrates America's commitment to extended deterrence and strengthens alliances. This is particularly important in regions like the Indo-Pacific, where US allies face direct threats from nuclear-armed adversaries.
The report recommends that the US should prioritize the B-21 Raider to maintain its strategic edge. It suggests increasing the fleet size beyond the initially planned 100 aircraft to effectively deter two major powers simultaneously and address the growing target set. The report argues for acquiring at least double the original number of B-21s and calls on Congress to adjust funding and planning for additional production. In addition, allies should explore providing B-21 basing, refueling support, and other combined operations.
To fully appreciate the report’s analysis and recommendations, I encourage readers to consult the full report.
Heavy Armoured Forces in Future Combined Arms Warfare
By Nick Reynolds
Royal United Services Institute
Link to PDF; Link to Report Page
Focus: This report focuses on the role of heavy armored forces and main battle tanks (MBTs) in future combined arms warfare. It examines whether MBTs will remain relevant given emerging threats like precision strikes and debates over alternative force structures.Analysis: The analysis is rooted in historical and contemporary combat theories, technological advancements, and strategic policy reviews, pulling from a combination of literature surveys, expert interviews, military exercise observations, and fieldwork.Argument: Despite the vulnerabilities and evolving threats in modern warfare, heavy armored forces remain vital for credible warfighting capabilities, enabling operational momentum while under fire. However, adaptations around mobility, vehicle design, crew skills, and logistical support are essential.Insights: Mobility, rather than protection, will be the most important aspect of heavy armored forces in contemporary battlefields. Moreover, MBTs remain difficult to replace with unmanned systems due to the versatility and independence of human crews in complex situations. Thirdly, while aircraft, UAS, and precision fires are useful for the attrition of the enemy’s key capabilities, they cannot independently hold ground or control populations, whereas ground forces and MBTs can.Recommendations: The British Army should adapt its heavy armored forces by prioritizing mobility and embracing technological innovations. MBT interiors should be redesigned for ergonomics and system integration, and units must practice battlefield recovery and repair to manage attrition. Overall, the qualitative edge of competent crews is the key determinant, not just technology.Amidst the backdrop of the Russo-Ukrainian War which has been characterized by high losses of MBTs to new weapons, this RUSI report offers crucial insights into the continued utility of heavy armored forces. The author argues that MBTs remain an indispensable capability despite the vulnerabilities revealed by contemporary battlefields. At their core, MBTs uniquely combine mobility, protection, and substantial combat power, enabling ground forces to seize and hold terrain in ways aircraft cannot. However, retaining the credibility of heavy armored forces mandates major adaptations across logistics, operating concepts, and technology.
Addressing the challenges posed by pervasive ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance) and precision strike capabilities, the report identifies the significant logistical footprint of heavy armored forces as a vulnerability. To mitigate this risk, the author emphasizes the need for effective combined arms integration, ensuring that heavy armored units can operate effectively in the face of advanced surveillance and precision targeting by adversaries. This integration is critical for maintaining operational agility and reducing susceptibility to targeted attacks.
The report discusses the need for alternative ground force combat structures in response to evolving threats like ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles), which pose a significant risk to MBTs. It debates the merits of medium versus heavy armored forces, acknowledging that while medium armored forces might be more cost-effective, they are often outmatched in close combat by heavier forces. Thus, the report underscores the necessity for a balanced force structure that can effectively counter a range of threats on the battlefield.
“In the direct fight, increasingly capable ATGMs pose the most obvious threat to MBTs. While opposing MBTs can be armed with barrel-launched or tube-launched ATGMs, the fact that ATGMs do not rely on velocity means that they can be launched from a tube, and that in theory any light vehicle or dismounted soldier can thus be equipped with an effective anti-tank weapon. The technology continues to develop, and at present the lethality of modern systems such as Javelin, NLAW and Kornet is difficult for MBTs to counter directly. The most effective ATGMs, such as Javelin, have a top-attack function whereby the missile guides itself via an irregular trajectory to strike the weaker top armour of a targeted vehicle. Top-attack munitions also have the advantage of being difficult to counter with active protection systems (APS), as these must track and calculate the trajectory of the incoming missile in order to intercept it. However, ATGMs come at a high per unit cost, and top-attack munitions are the most expensive of all (and will require skilled operators until sensor and guidance technology improves). They are also bulky and heavy for dismounted infantry to carry, not to mention the difficulties of a dismounted unit carrying more than a handful of spare missiles with it, are slow to reload compared with the main gun of an MBT, and so have severe tactical constraints, even if they are more lethal in absolute terms. In a direct line-of-sight fight with MBTs and heavy armoured forces, the operators of ATGMs can be vulnerable, although if they are well-sited and implement good battlefield discipline to minimise their visual signature, they are very difficult to spot and can be used to conduct effective ambushes.”
In discussing logistics, sustainment, recovery, and reconstitution, the report emphasizes the importance of efficient management in these areas. It cites examples where the ability to quickly recover and reconstitute armored formations after suffering battlefield losses has been crucial for maintaining operational momentum and effectiveness, particularly in prolonged engagements.
“In terms of lessons learned from recent operations in Ukraine, the majority of Russian armor losses have still been the result of poor maintenance or logistics. In the case of the Ukrainian armed forces, the majority of repairs are carried out up to 300 km away from the frontlines in order to protect irreplaceable maintenance machinery and personnel from artillery fires. While the journey from the frontline to these facilities could be only five or six hours, an impressive feat of logistics in itself, this still constitutes a major endeavor. In the summer of 2022, Ukrainian tanks that had been destroyed on the battlefield, but recovered, were being repaired in Poland at a rate of 20–30 per month.”
The report advocates for significant changes in tank design, including the integration of UAS for enhanced situational awareness and the improvement of repairability to reduce operational downtime. In discussing Uncrewed Ground Vehicles (UGVs), the report views them as complementary to MBTs, suggesting that while UGVs can add valuable capabilities, they are not a substitute for the versatility of manned tanks. This balance between crewed and uncrewed assets is presented as crucial for the future effectiveness of armored forces.
Ultimately, the report recommends the British Army must evolve its heavy armored forces, with a focus on enhancing mobility and incorporating technological advances. The interior design of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) should be reconfigured to improve ergonomics and facilitate the integration of advanced systems. Additionally, it is crucial for units to regularly conduct exercises in battlefield recovery and repair, as a strategy to effectively handle attrition. Importantly, the decisive factor of the heavy armored forces lies in the proficiency and skill of the crews, rather than the technological capabilities alone. Thus, the British Army must invest in the training and development of personnel, ensuring they are adept at leveraging technology while also capable of critical thinking and innovation in dynamic combat scenarios.
I highly recommend that readers review the entire report to thoroughly understand its analysis and recommendations.
Stay tuned for the next Quick Tanks installment in January 2024!