Army Seeks Short-Term Payoff From Future Combat Systems

The Army is redirecting priorities in the Future Combat Systems program, in an attempt to meet short-term needs for new technologies. This shift in emphasis means the program will be less about developing futuristic concepts and more about upgrading the current tanks, armored infantry vehicles and trucks.

Program officials assert that the chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, supports the FCS and intends to keep the $15 billion project on track to field a new family of vehicles by 2010. But the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly have forced the Army to reassess the program goals. While the FCS previously was viewed as a long-term modernization effort, now the chief wants FCS to begin delivering technologies as soon as possible.

The plan is to “spin off capabilities” out of FCS into the Abrams tank and Bradley infantry vehicle fleets, said Lt. Gen. John S. Caldwell Jr., military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition. But he cautioned that the FCS program is not being significantly restructured or downscaled. Rather, other programs will be “adjusted” to take advantage of the new technologies developed in FCS, Caldwell told National Defense.

Since the FCS got under way more than three years ago, the predominant message heard from senior officials has been the notion of FCS as a “network” or a “system of systems” that would usher the Army into the information age.

Each FCS brigade, called a unit of action, will run 30 million lines of software. More than half of the money in the program will be allocated to ground combat vehicles and C4ISR (command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems.

A seamless network of light ground vehicles and aircraft remains the essence of the FCS, but program officials now are stressing that FCS is first and foremost about putting technology in the hands of soldiers. During an industry conference last month sponsored by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, in Dearborn, Mich., the program manager for FCS, Brig. Gen. Donald F. Schenk, told contactors that they “need to work fast.”

Despite widespread skepticism that the program may not be able to deliver a new generation of vehicles to begin replacing tanks and Bradleys in less than a decade, Schenk said that the goals are achievable. But in his opening comments to the conference, he acknowledged that, with the Army at war, the focus has changed. The technologies of the FCS could “transition” to other programs “more quickly than most people think,” Schenk said.

Among the technologies that could “spiral” from FCS into the current force are wireless communications systems, active protection for vehicles, diagnostics devices to predict engine failures, hybrid-electric power units and advanced truck suspensions, said Albert Puzzuoli, deputy program executive officer for Army ground combat systems.

But for FCS to be successful, he stressed, the Army and its contractors must fix a vexing problem that affects today’s weapons systems: electronics obsolescence. The term refers to the difficulties in upgrading older weapon systems because the electronic components often are out of production and not available in the commercial market. This could pose serious hurdles as the Army figures out how to upgrade the Abrams and the Bradley, so they can remain in the fleet for at least 20 more years.

The Army’s ability to “spiral” technologies out of FCS into Abrams and Bradley depends on “how we attack our electronic obsolescence problems,” Puzzuoli told the TACOM conference. One solution would be to develop a new, less complex electronic architecture in the Abrams and Bradley that is “somewhat compatible” with FCS, he said.

Unless this matter is resolved, he added, “FCS, one day, will suffer electronic obsolescence issues.”

Puzzuoli suggested that one of the more pressing technology needs in the near future will be to equip the Abrams tanks with new or remanufactured engines. The Army had awarded a contract to Honeywell Corp. in 1999 to develop a new turbine engine, the LV100. The plan was to build 1,600 engines to be installed on all Abrams tanks and Crusader artillery vehicles. But the cancellation of Crusader and cutbacks in the Abrams upgrade program drove down the number of engines to fewer than 600. An expected higher price for the LV100 (as a result of a smaller order) and technical problems experienced in the program have prompted the Army to reassess whether it should cancel the project and start over.

“We are currently evaluating the status of that program and where the future lies,” Puzzuoli said.

The current engine, the AGT1500 turbine, is fuel guzzling, has poor reliability and high maintenance costs, he said.

In fiscal year 2004, the Army will need to overhaul more than 1,200 tank engines, a threefold increase over 12 months. The Anniston Army Depot, in Alabama, currently overhauls about 400 engines a year.

The commander of TACOM, Army Maj. Gen. N. Ross Thompson III, said he fears that shortages of key components could severely undermine the depot’s ability to deliver enough engines to meet the Army’s needs in Iraq.

The potential cancellation of the LV100 is not related to the increased need for AGT1500 engines, Thompson said in an interview. “If they don’t continue the program, we’ll have a competition to reengineer and increase the reliability and the durability of the AGT1500.”

Also of immediate need in the field is additional protection for Humvees and other trucks that are not armored. As U.S. forces in Iraq endure continuing attacks by rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and various explosive devices, TACOM officials are rushing to come up with “countermeasures,” such as armor kits.

Ideally, TACOM would like to build more of the up-armored Humvees, but the production line only can assemble 220 per month. The Army has asked for at least 3,500.

Until enough up-armored Humvees can be delivered, TACOM is providing interim alternatives, such as armor kits and a newly designed armor door that can be applied on existing Humvees. The Army’s depots will make 1,000 armor doors for immediate delivery to Iraq, Thompson said.

Armor kits also will be needed for medium and heavy trucks, he said. Future Army rotations in Iraq will see fewer Abrams and Bradleys, and more wheeled vehicles, including the new Stryker.

Contractors, meanwhile, await specific direction from the Army on how it will go about transitioning from the current force to the so-called Future Force, equipped with FCS technology.

Much of the technology the Army wants in FCS already exists, experts contend. Vehicle manufacturers are coming forward with unsolicited concepts that aim to prove that.

United Defense LP, for example, recently unveiled a 20-ton armored vehicle equipped with a 120 mm gun that was fired at a shooting range in California, according the UDLP officials. The demonstrator—powered by a hybrid-electric engine—is a modified armored gun that originally was developed in the early 1990s for Army light forces and subsequently was cancelled to fund other programs.

UDLP resurrected one of the six 105 mm prototypes and installed a 120 mm gun designed at the Army’s Watervliet Arsenal.

The company claims that the vehicle is not intended to meet FCS requirements, given that the Army selected General Dynamics as the provider of direct-fire vehicles for FCS. UDLP was designated the supplier for the artillery systems.

In what appears to be a tit-for-tat move, General Dynamics unveiled its own concept for a 20-ton 105 mm howitzer, which would be compatible with the Stryker family. Company officials said the Army has not yet settled on whether the FCS howitzer will be 105 mm or 155 mm, even though UDLP is developing a 155 mm non-line-of-sight cannon for FCS.

As far as FCS requirements are concerned, the Army has been “really vague,” said Dean Lockwood, combat vehicles analyst at Forecast International, a market research firm. For that reason, “contractors are showing what is possible and what is not.”

Lockwood believes that the Army is moving toward a hybrid force of light quick-reaction and heavy armored units. “With FCS, they want something in the middle.” Stryker, he said, is the “first incarnation of FCS. It’s the test-bed and interim program for it.”

Marine Lt. Gen. James Cartwright, of the Joint Staff, called FCS “the most transformational thing that is going on in the Department of Defense.”

Given the uncertainty about future conflicts and geopolitics, “the Army knows its goals are probably ambitious,” Cartwright said in a speech to the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement. The schedule may slip, “but they’ve got the right mindset,” said Cartwright. “They’ve got a heck of a challenge.”

O'Gara is the other half of the production along with American General if I'm correct. Civilian production isn't relevant unless modified to military spec unless they are substituted to allow military spec production to be exclusively sent to Iraq. Also I believe its a source of potential productive capacity that is currently untapped to meet a relatively straight forward production problem. 3500 vehicles isn't much to get out the door, but at current rates of betwen 80 and 220 per month its not enough and at that rate it seems likely that we will take 1000 for KIAs before the need is met. What a waste. We can do better.

Re your #167:

A hearty "Amen" for your suggestion to return to the good old .45ACP.

Any "soldier" too effeminate or limp-wristed to handle a real fighting sidearm needs to be back in the rear echelon behind a desk or on bedpan detail in the Hospital.

The 9MM is a study in military political correctness, and I have little doubt that it has already cost us some lives.

Although I'm not a big GLOCK fan, the plastic pistol in .45 would be pretty soldier-proof and weather-resistant I would imagine. And they can cast them in OD, which I'm sure the Army would like.

As to your rifle suggestion; we are on the same page there as well.

Have you seen the RobArms M-96, based on the STONER system?
Looks like a winner to me.

And we hear tell that the Army is experimenting with a new 6.85 X 43MM round that is way superior to the current 5.56MM.

Stay tuned!

Re your #133:

Very interesting post - thanks!

It's kind of a shame so many Iraqi tanks etc. got blown up, when we might be using a few of them to protect our troops over there.

Why can't the main gun of one of those Soviet-type tanks be replaced with a 7.62mm Mini-Gun for Convoy support missions?

Do they generate sufficient electrical current to run one?

And if wer'e going to be getting all these vehicles blowed up so frequently, at least it seems economical to use captured enemy vehicles to absorb the abuse rather than the ones us Taxpayers have to pay for.

When we turn the Country back over to the Iraqi authorities, they can have their toys back modified compliments of the good ol' USA, rather than having US foot the bill for brand new equipment.

Of course there is too much money to be made by politicians, beauraucrats and contractors alike to allow anything that makes too much sense to happen, isn't there?

BTW; In Nam, we were told once, they used to pack hot asphalt between the door panels and under the plywood floor boards of their vehicles, and apparently it didn't weigh much more than equivalent steel armor but was quite effective. I wonder if someone over there could test this theory on some junked vehicles just for hoots & hollers.

"Ever seen the muzzle flash from a cut-down FAL carbine, with 7.62x51?

I'm pretty sure that muzzle flash is produced by ammunition and not barrell length. So if it means that powder type or amounts have to be modified, so be it. If there are a lot of folks shooting, even with the 5.56mm then there is still going to be muzzle signature. In fact, on my M1 Abrams tank, it didn't matter if there was no shooting being done, because my thermal sight detected body heat, recently warm engines, you name it. I think in future war, muzzle flash is going to be a non-issue. Forget my tank for a moment, and the infantry weapons like the TOW anti-tank missiles that have thermals, but in straight on infantry fighting, it won't matter if there's a lot of muzzle flash because, to put it in terms of my old southern platoon sergeant: "Them that gets hot heavy lead in the air the quickest and most accurate is goin' to be whut is the winner." Do you see my point, here? Volume of accurate fire keeps heads down. It doesn't matter if that fire is bright or dim. If your head is in the dirt to keep it from gettin' blown off, the other elements can then manuever and finish the job. The four "F" principle in action: "Find 'em, Fix 'em FIGHT 'em and Finish 'em!"

>>I'm pretty sure that muzzle flash is produced by ammunition and not barrell length.

It's a combination of the two, in this case. All the powder isn't burnt yet, in a shorty barrel. And while you could adjust the powder, then you lose the ammunition commonality with the M240s and such.

I'm all for an alternative to the 5.56x45, was just pointing out an issue with the 7.62x51 carbine scenario. There's probably a 6mm or 6.5mm assault rifle waiting to be developed. And I still think OICW is a joke.

I really think where the Stryker platoons are headed is the right idea, where you've got a scoped 7.62x51-equipped guy at the squad level as a designated marksmen, plus a mix of SAWs, 203s, and M4s. If we need two/squad, that'll happen in the field, and then hopefully it'll get changed on the official TO&E. Gets away from the "one size fits all" idea, which was pretty much the concept back when the M-16 was introduced.

If there was but one sidearm I could carry into a combat zone, I'd have to choose a M30 Glock in 45ACP. Talk about sturdy and unjammable! Still, to it's credit, it's dishwasher safe! LOL I just sold my M30 to my nephew so I can buy a smaller 45 for a carry gun: A ParaOrdnance "Para Carry" or the C6 as it is known to the company.

The idea that the 9mm is somehow easier to shoot is laughable. First of all the Beretta M9 has a really l-o-o-o-o-n-g trigger pull, and lots of smaller fisted ladies and gents have a hard time making the first shot double action. Then the round itself is undersized and underpowered, especially when an FMJ rd rather than a JHP or frangible rd is used. I know all that BS about it being the one with the longest record of killing folks. But the fact remains it was designed for the first submachineguns and yes, when your target takes a fifteen rd burst, he's history. But for the proverbial "one shot stop" nothing beats the cross sectional density of the venerable 45ACP.

Maybe I have read so many archy posts I am beginning to sound like him.
Where is that old reprobate, anyway? Yo, archy, give the Russian hottie a break for a minute and come to the computer.

She got her deer, and she's back to work. And I'm back around, and catching up on old posts and pings- like this one.

FYI, of late, I've been paying attention tothe recent *light truck* purchase the Army's getting ready to make, which i hope is a little more than just a replay of the old CUCV and Dodge M880 pickup commercial truck buy.

I guess the armorable Humvees were thougfht to be too much of a threat to the Strykers....

-archy-/-

LOL My buddy was telling me that during first Gulf War, back in '91, when his SpecOps unit hit the desert the first thing they did was go over and buy about 70 Range Rovers and Toyota Land Cruisers for the SOF guys to do recons.

That's part of the story. The other half is that a Land Rover will fit the drive-in ramp of a CH47 Chinook helicopter, a HUMVEE is too wide to be carried aboard. For the same reason, the Army's Ranger battallions are going to the Landy as well.

Should American forces come to a bridgeless river, they come to a screeching halt. The Rangers, at least, may be able to get across with their vehicles; if regular Infantry units cross via Helo inserts, they do so as leg infantry without their vehicles.

And as for being accompanied by Strykers, forget it. They won't even fit in a C130, and only mount a .50 Browning MG.

The "LOG" side wasn't mentioned, although it makes perfect sense. Maybe since he knew I used to be a Log puke myself at the G-Staff level, he figured I already knew.... It was the fact that a Humvee is recognizable as purely AMERICAN and therefore becomes an "RPG" magnet, whereas a Land Rover or Cruiser might be a wandering sheik.

It was just the way he told it, with a bunch of SOF guys all loaded up fer bear hauling A$$ across the sands in this luxury vehicle, AC and stereo blasting.....well it made a funny mental image.

My nephew is leaving on Jan 14th for Ft Benning and basic training. My sister is having a farewell party for him and I have no idea what kind of a gift to bring for him. First of all, I don't know what kind of personal items recruits are allowed to have with them, secondly, what might he have use for during those weeks?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

First off: Never mind what he might take with him. Send him a reoccuring package every week, to include a couple of prestamped envelopes so that he can write who he chooses- but include at least one preaddressed to you so that HE can tell you what to continue sending, what to discontinue, and any useful additions and/or changes.

The US Postal Priority cardboard mailers, about a foot wide and a bit longer by about an inch and a half thick offer a good starting place, and the mailer and stamp will cost $3.80 no matter how much the contents you include weigh. I'd include hard candy such as lemon drops and grape, lemon, orange or lemon-lime kool aid, which helps kill the taste of field purified water, and if you can find whatever magazines he favors, that can be a worthwhile addition after about the first half of his training cycle, when things have settled down a bit. One strong suggestion: if you can be there for his unit's OSUT graduation do so. It's an experience he'll not forget.

-archy-/-

It was just the way he told it, with a bunch of SOF guys all loaded up fer bear hauling A$$ across the sands in this luxury vehicle, AC and stereo blasting.....well it made a funny mental image.

Most of the Range Rover and Discovery vehicles used by the Brits are painted not camo, but UN IFOR white for pretty much the same reason; at night, at least, they can slip by and pass for civvie vehicles, unlikely for a HUMVEE or a Land Rover Wolf with the MGs fitted.

But the troopies of the 14th Intel Coy, inheritors of the traditions and honours of the British Eighth Army's jeep-mounted *Popski's Private Army* as well as a few of the techniques get along in their *civvy-street* vehicles quite nicely, including motorbikes. It's also rumored that they also have a couple of Rolls-Royces at their disposal.

Right after graduation, he reports to Fort Gordon for his MOS training. That post seems to be the HQ for the Army Signal Corps. He is a 'computer nerd' who scored 94 on his ASVAB and they really want him to sit at a desk.

We are going to Benning for the graduation! We leave on the 23rd, he graduates on the 25th. I'm sooo proud of him!He is doing very, very well. He made top marksman in his company, and tops in grenade throwing! I told him he was going to be drafted into the infantry with scores like that, but he said he was disqualified from infantry for his eyesight! Right after graduation, he reports to Fort Gordon for his MOS training. That post seems to be the HQ for the Army Signal Corps. He is a 'computer nerd' who scored 94 on his ASVAB and they really want him to sit at a desk.

Ft Gordon info *here*. That's a whale of an opportunity for him to look at the possibilities of advanced Signal Corps branch training, with either OCS or a Army-paid college ROTC program leading to the butterbars of a 2nd lieutenant and the crossed flags of the signal corps branch.

Keep in touch with me about this possibility, and if he does happen to have in interest in such a career direction, let me know.

-archy-/-

Rhodesian Pookie

Rhodesian Leopard

Rhodesian Cougar

Rhodesian Rhino

Kudu

South African Casspir

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.