They ate creating a new one ya knkw
They are, but I wouldn't be surprised that Congress deep-sixes it directly or indirectly. Largely because Congress is going back to its 'cut the military to the bone' antics again. That or have the same situation as what led to the Sheridan.
Don't IFV's arguably fill the light tank role on a modern battlefield? Also a lot of the newer MBT's like Japan and Korea's are extremely light now days like Japan's Type 10 is only 48 tons in its full loadout.
No. ATGMs are not as useful as they once were, especially as new composite and laminate armor start being deployed. Also, please note that M4 Shermans -at the end of their US life cycle- was about 30-38 metric tons in weight... and they simply had hell when it comes to opposed beach landings. Hell, the US Marines lost a good portion of their tank forces
in such assaults because they couldn't get around in the sand fast enough.
From my understanding of US light tank doctrine, light tanks are supposed to be part of 'recon by fire' operations, basically the equivalent of poking a hornet's nest with a stick. This, predictably, requires a punchy gun (note that the M41 Bulldog had a 76mm gun... similar to those used on Shermans), enough armor to survive against anything less than light cannon (so, essentially most autocannon and below), have plenty of range (because you need to have enough fuel to run around poking the enemy), and
speed to get the hell out of dodge when the enemy response in force.
Plus, with the new drone warfare paradigm, heavy armor is likely going to be going the way of the battleship; theoritically useful in limited circumstances, but effectively outmoded by advances in air power.
Better to focus on mobility, firepower, and active protection systems for things like Strykers or Bradley's than traditional 'armor' or 'armor tactics', along with getting new SPAAGs and SHORAD systems.
I disagree that those sorts of systems will be that effective at countering drones, at least competently handled drones, in the current state of affairs.
Now it we were to go full GDI and effectively create Mammoth Tanks with integrated anti-air capability and enough armor to shrug off anything below a GRAD or HIMAR, then I could see 'heavy armor' coming back into play.
But on a per unit cost basis, shit like that just doesn't fly with Congress.
This is false, I'm afraid. Even semi-competent enemies with some basic IADS and E-War can make drones
impudent rather quickly. That's why I'm foreseeing that drones' time as a weapon system is going to be very short-lived, as this level of competence will simply proliferate to the point that it won't work on anyone. We're getting to the point that for drones, you'll need AGIs to counter them... and we're out of AGIs.
Also, for those who would think SEAD/DEAD would help in these circumstances, please don't forget that history has told us that against anything resembling
semi-competent in terms of IADS doctrine and competence, the IADS can (and will) give the opposing airforce a literal hell (as shown in Vietnam and when Egypt took the Sinai in one of the many Israeli-Arab Wars) or complete their IADS objectives with minimal loss of material while making the opposing force look like they're having Yakity Sax as their motif and basically run out of ARMs (Serbia). Even
Arab-competent IADS can give a surprising fight against competent airforces (Gulf War 1).
That's with mid-Cold War tech and doctrine understanding, mind you. Not the 'SHORAD/AAA Systems are now bubbles of no ordinance zones' that have started to show up in every military able to buy the capability.