For combat platform design programmes, operator-level input is most commonly solicited in the decision-making and solution implementation phases. Military acquisitions processes can be broadly understood by applying the steps of a systems engineering framework known as the systems decision-making process: problem definition solution design decision-making and solution implementation.
The author has recently completed a month-long rotation to the US National Training Centre as the culmination of over 18 months as a tank platoon leader deployed and in garrison, so is well positioned to provide operator commentary on the complex challenges of future armoured combat platforms. One simple suggestion as these upgrade and acquisition processes begin: seek input and feedback from the operators early. Likewise, the UK is set to deal with a slew of Challenger 2 modernisation issues under austere army budget constraints. The US Army’s Future Capabilities Command will make a decision by 2023 on whether a new tank is necessary and how to proceed with its development. As the US Army shifts from years of counterinsurgency operations to a ‘new focus on large-scale ground combat operations,’ continuing to upgrade and develop armoured platforms ought to be a top priority and retaining a comparative MBT advantage is essential to that effort. Tasked with delivering effective firepower and manoeuvre, the MBT is the central platform of the US Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT). The US Army’s M1A2 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) is designed to last into the 2030s with sustained upgrades, and a RAND study on peer capabilities assessed that the Abrams ‘is still the best tank in the world given its degree of armour protection and antiarmor capabilities.’ Still the M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 2, the most widely fielded current variant, is ageing rapidly and the final two planned lifecycle enhancements will only provide marginal improvements.