Dominant Logistics
A Bradley Medium Tank
Much discussion has been made over the years regarding the shortcomings of the Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks in their respective roles. These debates usually seem to focus on excessive weight, excessive fuel consumption, and excessive emphasis on anti-tank systems. Typically, a strong case is made that modernized M113s should be used instead of Bradleys. A myriad of proposals then ensue over what a proper future tank design should entail and I am often struck by how similar the proposals are to what a modified Bradley would actually be.
While the Bradley is not heavily armored compared to a tank, it is sufficiently armored for the types of roles that tanks are expected to be performing in the future. Moreover, the Bradley can already be equipped with ERA for extra defense against shaped-charge weapons like the RPG. Some have suggested developing command-detonated ERA for future scenarios and the Bradley would be an ideal platform for this concept. These tiles could even be linked to vehicle sensors to form an active defense system. It would also make sense to include the RPG-proof force field system currently undergoing testing in the U.K.
Another unique quality of the Bradley is its ability to not only include infantry inside the vehicle but to also allow those infantry to engage the enemy while remaining under armor through firing ports. Some have suggested using side-firing guns for urban engagements and this feature would fit that need to a tee. It also offers the advantage of adding scout/sniper teams to the mix or also allowing the vehicle to serve as an evac platform for missions like the tragedy in Somalia.
The Linebacker variant of the Bradley replaces the TOW launcher of the base model with a Stinger launcher that could serve in a variety of roles. For example, it could retain Stinger for dedicated air defense or it could carry the British Starstreak for a laser-guided, multi-mission option. It could also carry Hellfire for MBT or bunker-busting roles. If personnel are going to be the primary targets, the missiles could be replaced with a 19-round FFAR 2.75" arrangement using a mix of rocket types including laser-guided versions.
A single major upgrade should round out the capabilities of this vehicle - an autoloading high velocity gun of around 75mm or 76mm like the ARES turret with rounds using Bofors' digital fusing technology. This enables the fire control of the vehicle to program the fuse in the round to detonate at a specific time for a variety of effects. This would allow the same ammunition type to function in numerous ways to engage personnel, vehicles, and even aircraft. In urban warfare, you can program the fuse to detonate in a given building without passing through the building and killing friendlies on the other side. You can also set the fuse for delayed bursts to allow the round to penetrate walls and detonate inside the building. Or, with lighter buildings you could even fire through to engage a force hiding on the back side. This multi-purpose round could be replaced with dedicated anti-armor rounds in those situations where it is necessary.
A Bradley Medium Tank would be a far better vehicle for anti-personnel roles than the proposals for improved Abrams tanks. And even with the proposed add-ons, it would weigh in at 5 to 10 tons less than the M48 of Vietnam fame. It also is based on a diesel engine to overcome the problems associated with the gas turbine of the Abrams. There is also no problem with infantry following the vehicle as the engine is in the front of the vehicle. And as currently outfitted, the Bradleys are nominally amphibious using built-in inflatable pontoons; not as good as a true amphibian but a lot better than even a modified Abrams.
We can already air-drop up to 30 tons so we're really not that far from being able to air-drop a Bradley. Obviously, some modifications would be necessary to strengthen certain aspects of the vehicle for this role but these can be addressed with turret replacement. The tracks and roadwheels should also be modified for better mine survivability.
Another thought would be to bring back some of the old tank variants we used to employ that have been missing since fielding of the Abrams. The most conspicuous in its asbence is the dozer tank which would be quite useful for digging in on the defense or to clear obstacles and debris on the move. Hedge cutters were installed on many tanks in WWII and in Vietnam for cutting through heavy undergrowth. Most forces (but not the U.S.) also directly install anti-mine systems like rollers and rakes on some of their tanks to supplement their mine-clearing and combat engineering systems.
Would this system be the "ultimate" future tank? No, but there really is no such thing. Vehicle systems and designs are largely a matter of the personal opinions and preferences of the designers but most of the ideas floating around today could be easily and affordably incorporated into existing Bradleys. In most configurations, this Bradley Medium Tank would weigh about half as much as an Abrams, allowing for more effective deployment. It would also be able to carry more rounds and fuel, lessening the logistical load on the tactical side as well.
References
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm
http://www.oocities.org/futuretanks/lightfantastic.htm
http://www.oocities.org/futuretanks/armorsachillesheel.htm
http://www.oocities.org/armysappersforward/sappertanks.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bradley.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/panz.html