Key Points and Summary – Ukraine’s drone-saturated battlefield has revived the “are tanks obsolete?” debate, with most of the 31 donated M1 Abrams reportedly knocked out and even one captured.
-The U.S. Army’s answer once looked robotic: the Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) family—Light, Medium, and Heavy—culminating in Textron’s Ripsaw M3 for the Light tier.
-But the program stalled as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prioritized missiles and counter-drone air assets.
-The author argues canceling RCV is shortsighted: unmanned armor can disperse risk, hold terrain, and shield infantry in contested ISR and loitering-munitions environments.
-With Russia fielding tanks and NATO borders at risk, robotic tanks may be essential.
After the Manned Tank Disappears, Bring in the Robots
You have likely noticed, in absorbing analysis of the war in Ukraine, that many observers see tanks as obsolete. The “cope cages” built on armored vehicles to protect against anti-tank missiles and loitering-munition drones have become ubiquitous, but these contraptions are no answer.
Is the tank finished? And if so, what could replace it?
The U.S. Army’s vaunted M1 Abrams tank has not performed well in Ukraine.
Of the 31 Abrams gifted to the stalwart defenders, nearly all have succumbed to Russian anti-tank efforts. The Russians even captured at least one of these tanks intact.
This does not bode well for the future of armored warfare.
I Would Miss the Main Battle Tank
Count me as a continued supporter of the tank in modern combat, though. I went to Army Basic Training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, at that time the home of the armored branch. I saw many tanks and was thrilled at their power and speed.
Type 100 Tank from China. Chinese Media Screenshot.
AbramsX Tank U.S. Army Image.
There definitely is a psychological component of armored warfare—tanks give a morale boost to dismounted infantry soldiers who would be easy pickings for enemy fire without protection.
Light Infantry Alone Cannot Win Wars
Later I served as a light infantry officer in South Korea. We had no vehicles to speak of, except a handful of HUMVEEs. The mission for us was to head for the hills and fight the North Koreans tooth and nail with our rifles, machine guns, and bayonets, if it came to that.
Fortunately, we were part of a brigade combat team equipped with Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and mobile artillery. Let me tell you that during alerts it was great to see those armored vehicles streaming toward their rally points, ready to depart and destroy the enemy.
But the armored combat team may be a thing of the past. Tanks might not be equipped to compete with modern threats on the battlefield. There could come a day when every enemy soldier is armed with a loitering first-person view drone, and these devices could dive down in swarms to destroy tanks. Meanwhile, anti-tank missiles will get even better.
What Will the Army Do With Its Tanks?
What can the U.S. Army do to replace the armored beasts? Robotic remote-controlled vehicles are one possible answer.
The Army was pursuing a Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) program. It was testing at least three new prototype robots meant to provide tank-like functions – but the program has lost momentum.
Military.com best summarized the effort:
“The sub-10-ton RCV-Light was intended to be an expendable front-line asset with limited defense capabilities that could be transported in rotary wing aircraft. The 10- to 20-ton RCV-Medium was intended to defeat enemy armored threats and fit inside a C-130. The 20-to 30-ton RCV-Heavy was intended to be capable of defeating ‘all known enemy armored vehicles,’ deploy by C-17 and be as survivable as a crewed tank,” the web site wrote.
France AMX-30 Tank in a Museum. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
The Army decided to only go with the RCV-Light version. What emerged from a four-vehicle competition was the Textron Ripsaw M3.
However, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is not enthusiastic about robot tanks on the battlefield.
Secretary of Defense Says Not So Fast
Since Hegseth wants to focus on developing new ballistic missiles and counter-drone capabilities, the RCV program may die on the vine. The secretary also places a greater priority on unmanned flight than ground-based robots. It is not clear how Hegseth plans to transition to what he sees as the future of warfare.
I don’t agree with Hegseth. Having three different robotic tanks would be intriguing
. Together they could perform more missions than the current armored pairings of the Abrams and Bradley. They could be distributed in depth on the battlefield, and commanders would not have to worry about losing soldiers.
Yes, counter-drone warfare capabilities are needed desperately. But armored maneuver warfare should not be left to fade into the past. Robots could help provide militaries’ need for better protection from drones.
Does this mean the Army’s tank force is doomed? The U.S. Marine Corps got rid of its tanks to focus more on ballistic missiles and quick, lethal amphibious warfare. They are getting back to their roots.
How will the Army hold ground without the tank? The Bradley cannot do the job. Self-propelled artillery is for the rear. Robotic tanks are the only option to find, fix, and destroy the enemy and create protection for dismounted fighters by seizing terrain and maintaining a presence to hold it.
Hegseth should know this as a former infantry officer. However, the bulk of Hegseth’s combat experience was in fighting insurgencies and counter-terrorism. The war in Ukraine has combined the old with the new. Conventional artillery attacks and dugout trenches like those that characterized World War One are joined by loitering drones and missiles capable of eliminating Abrams and Bradleys.
Surely, Hegseth understands that some form of armored warfare is still needed to win wars. NATO members are not giving up on tanks. The Russians are still building more T-90s. It is impossible to rule out that Russia would attack a NATO ally – look at the recent drone incursion into alliance member Poland. Tanks are needed to protect borders.
Russia may not be satisfied with simply carving off parts of Ukraine – it may want to challenge U.S. treaty allies in Europe. That means tanks are still needed, and remote-controlled models would be the best option.
We may never know if robotic tanks will ever transform the battlefield in the next 20 years. But canceling the unmanned tank program is a mistake that the Army could pay dearly for. This is a shortsighted decision that will have ramifications for future armored warfare.
Bring in the robots or risk losing future ground wars.
About the Author: Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for US Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former US Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
More Military
The F-35 ‘Ferrari’ Fighter Might Be ‘Coming Soon’ to a War Near You
The B-21 Raider Bomber Question We Keep Asking
KF-21: South Korea Wants Its Very Own F-35-Style Stealth Fighter
‘Go Home’: F-22 Raptor Flew Right Under Iran’s Old F-4 Tomcat (Unseen)
Jim Bush
September 15, 2025 at 9:56 am
Armor will come back when automated defenses catch up. It’s a tricky problem: identify a threat, line up on it with something appropriate for taking it down, and take it down, and ideally not end up shooting birds, deer, people, etc, in the process. But we’re in the age of AI. I think within 20 years you’ll see a fully autonomous tank that’s entirely capable of defending itself from drones. We do have some catching up to do in this regard, though.