Is the main battle tank tactically dead?

Is the MBT tactically irrelevant?  I ask because of all the weapon systems designed to kill it...just in US service check out the following...

Maverick Missile

A-10's Gun

DAGR 2.75 rocket noteworthy because it could revolutionize attack helicopters.  Instead of a heavy load of 16 antitank missiles you could carry a 'light' load of perhaps 32 DAGR's...don't laugh, an RPG-29 penetrated an M1 in Iraq.  These should be several times more powerful...just need the right warhead.

Brimstone (not US) but supposedly we have our own version under development...noteworthy because so many rounds can be carried by one airplane.

Hellfire (love this guys artwork)

All this and we haven't even started to look at GPS guided weapons that can be retrofitted for the precision work necessary to take out tanks...we haven't even talked about area denial weapons and bomblets designed to channel and destroy tanks...I haven't even talked about precision artillery shells.

I have been critical of our allies that appear to be destroying there heavy armor forces but perhaps in this area a 'holiday' can be taken.

History has shown that although artillery is still the biggest killer on the modern battlefield, most attention has been paid to destroying tanks.

Perhaps the threat to tanks has finally pushed it into the obsolete category...useful, but on a modern battlefield too heavily hunted to be able to hunt.

If the F-35 is getting the axe someone better tell MCAS Yuma!

via the Yumasun.com

The hangar, which costs $36 million and would normally take about 18 months to build, is expected to be completed in 10 months, and in use by March. McBee said that the air station is on a tight timeline to coincide with the first arrival of the first F-35s in Yuma.

As the future home of the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the country, MCAS Yuma will get five squadrons each with 16 aircraft, and one operational test and evaluation squadron of eight aircraft. The 88 aircraft will replace Yuma's four existing squadrons of 56 AV-8B Harriers.

Great news.

With infrastructure being built on both coasts to house the F-35 I just don't see how they can practically afford to cancel the program.

I also love how they're managing to plus up the B's, kill the F/A-18D's and keep the US Navy happy while maintaining the C's...

Soon the only aircraft that will be big carrier capable will be the F/A-18C's and I wonder how much good the Hornet will do with carriers filled with Super Hornets...a mix of similar looking aircraft but much different capabilities.

The inter-service politics could get really interesting.  The Hornet is faster than the Super...but has shorter legs....I wonder if it might be relegated to CAP and carrier defense?

Is this the beginning of Marine Air basically taking itself out of the big carrier business?

I mean seriously, the Commandant signed for the C model but the talk on the street is that the B model will come first. 

Yeah, this will get good on the manufacturing side...the procurement fight is all but won.

Pic of the day. 24 Nov 2011.

SAN DIEGO — A Marine assigned to the Marine Corps Training Division at Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Pacific jumps from a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, assigned to the “Knightriders” of Marine Medium Helicopter Training Squadron (HMMT) 164 during a training exercise. The exercise was the conclusion of the Infantry Company Small Boat Raid Course. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Tim Godbee)

Australia's Amphibious Re-birth.

The Australian Navy is going through a bit of an Amphibious renaissance.  You take a force that once operated elderly and decrepit Newport Class LST's to a capability that begins to rival that of the strongest navies in the region is nothing less than impressive.

Taking it by the numbers (at least as I understand them and AD has passed along to me...)...

1.  The decision to acquire the Canberra Class LHD.  While I would have personally preferred that the Aussies acquire a Makin Class LHD to maintain compatibility with the USMC, the Canberra Class appears to be quite formidable.

In the European fashion its built to mercantile standards rather than the combat standards that US amphibs are built to but it should be a quite servicable design.

2.  Next up would have to be the landing craft that the Aussie's are acquiring.  The LCM-1E is not your fathers landing craft.  Although it bears the classic lines, it can blaze through the water at 22 knots.  More than good enough to maintain a supply chain to the beach and yet has the capability to carry an M1 Tank.  The Australian's will be getting 12 of these.

3.  And then last but not least.  The British fire sale of the Bay Class LPD.  Barely used.  New car sent still in the ships.  And the Aussie's got them for a song.  As much as I can't understand the sale at least they sold them to good allies.  The Brits loss is the Aussie's and the Pacific's gain.  And the US' gain by extension too.

4.  We haven't even talked helo's, both cargo and attack...we haven't talked about the formation of a dedicated section to provide the Naval Infantry....we haven't even talked about the Australian Navy following the lead of other navies and having an amphib as the capital ship of the fleet!

Smart moves, great planning and a nice force in the making.  The Aussies could in a short time have an extremely robust force projection/response force second to no other nation of its size and population.

First International F-35 Rolls Out of the Factory

British fantasy vs. British reality.

The British military.

First from Think Defense on how some wish it to be...

Thank you everyone who commented, requested clarification and helped, I’m resubmitting with explanations, detail and the pound of flesh Jed demanded J
So here goes
I’d start, with the “war fleet”, of which we would have two, each one “active” for 6 months of the year, or 8 months, or 4 months, or whatever else makes everyone happy.
Active would be “ready to at short notice go and beat some unfortunate foreigners to a bloody pulp”.
Inactive would be everything else, overhaul, training, diplomacy, exercises ect.

	First Fleet	Purchase Cost	Operating Cost
Carrier	QE Class	3,700,000,000	400,000,000
24 Fast Air	Rafale	1,680,000,000	288,000,000
6 Infantry landing ships	Juan Carlos	2,940,000,000	600,000,000
24 Heavy Lift	Chinook	720,000,000	192,000,000
6 Armour Landing Ship	Bay Class	1,368,000,000	600,000,000
6 AAW Destroyers	T 45 Daring Class	3,900,000,000	420,000,000
6 Light Helicopter	Lynx	180,000,000	24,000,000
6 ASW Frigates	T46	4,500,000,000	420,000,000
6 ASW Helicopter	Merlin	180,000,000	48,000,000
3 Guided Missile Cruiser	T47	3,000,000,000	210,000,000
5 SSGN / Deterrent	Astute+	15,000,000,000	900,000,000

The Carrier and fast air is I hope fairly self explanatory, shoot down enemy aircraft, possibly bomb enemy targets, provide close air support and reconnaissance.
It’s the QE class, because that’s what we have, and the Rafale, because I believe thatFranceandGermanyare about to have a massive falling out, and we’ll buy it hoping to influence French opinion in our favour.
I assume some sort of ISTAR platform will also arrive, hopefully not that silly Sea King, but have no real idea whether we will end up with the Hawkeye, something funky based on the V22 or something else entirely.
This will also function as the flag ship, to what extent that means anything anymore
The Amphibs, the reasoning behind numbers simply being so that the entire force could be landed in a single group.  Well, obviously not quite, a single group, each ships group of four Chinook would need to make 5 trips to offload the ship “battalion” and even with 4 LCUs it would take 13 trips to deposit the 50 warriors of an armoured infantry battalion.  But we’re talking 11 hours rather than the 11 days Sutton took, or so I hope.  To my none military mind, that sounds like a smashing capability.  I’m wedded to neither Bay nor Carlos, feel free to suggest better ships, or just assume they are better.  I’d much prefer something with a much greater cargo handling capacity, but am open to a third heavy landing ship specifically to vomit ISO boxes onto a beach.
Why Chinook?  Again, its that realism (lol) bit, I’d prefer a bigger lift, I’m sure that there is something bigger than the CH53-k planned in the long term, but we have Chinooks.

Read the rest and especially the comments.  Its quite entertaining.

Now the British military as it really is from CDR. Salamander...

In any event - the Brits are walking a rather thin line methinks ....

Royal Navy officers said HMS Westminster was “dangerously under-defended” when it was called on to patrol close to the Libyan port city of Benghazi in March.
The warship can carry 32 Seawolf and eight Harpoon missiles but it is understood that military cutbacks left the Westminster and its crew of 190 with only a fraction of that capability.

As Seawolf missiles — which are used to intercept incoming missiles — are fired in pairs, sources said the Westminster had just two rounds to defend against missile attacks from Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

A hollow Navy defined. Nice E-Ticket part of the 1,000-ship Navy we have there.

The 1,000 ship Navy that CDR. Salamander is talking about is the plan that the Western Navy's of the world could combine (in times of intense crisis) to form a 1,000 ship fleet.

Reality is far different from the wishful thinking that is posted on TD's website.  From my view of things the Royal Navy will be lucky to equal our Coast Guard in size and firepower in a couple of years.

UPDATE & CLARIFICATION:

I need to make a couple of things clear.

1.  Think Defense has guest writers on his blog and the views expressed in that article are from one of them.
2.  The US is clearly on the same trajectory as Europe and the failed bipartisan committee illustrates the trouble that we are in.

CBO's analysis of Amphibious Warfare Ships...

11-18-AmphibiousShips


Major hat tip to Defense Talk.  Long story short.  Combatant Commanders want Marines and amphibs at a higher rate than the US Navy can provide.

Its a short read and well worth it.

Of particular interest is the "Demand for Amphibious Warfare Ships...." and "The Operating Cycle of Amphibious Warfare Ships".

We need more ships!