Posted on 11/12/2003 12:49:58 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
No, you can't hide behind that rock, it will still see you, and turn the rock into high velocity shrapnel.
. . . the Army is going to start building FCS prototypes in roughly a year.
How do you assess the chances of getting a Future Combat System Direct Fire Support System/Line Of Sight Tank Destroyer replacement for the Main Battle Tank anytime soon?
No, you can't hide behind that rock, it will still see you, and turn the rock into high velocity shrapnel.
Not quite. LOSAT works by driving a long-rod penetrator an hypervelocities, somewhere in the 5000-10,000 foot per second range. Accordingly. it's better suited to use against slow-moving or stationary targets- like your rock, expecially hollow ones like a tank, whose armor becomes that high velocity shrapnel when smashed away at Losat's circa 19,000,000 mile-an-hour impact speed. But behind light cover, or in a setting with civilian structures that offer cover, or against a fats, maneuverable target, LOSAT is not the choice, nor is it ideal for use against troops in the open. It may be that a better answer is a dual or multiple weapons platform that includes a single or twin LOSAT launcher, backed up by the availability of multiple tube dedicated tank killing LOSAT vehicles, after the fashion of the WWII Tank Destroyers. Even better, a platoon mix of about two LOSAT vehicles teamed with a pair of gun-howitzer vehicles, and an antitank/antiaircraft gun/missile combination, perhaps NOT LOSAT-derived would be an even better choice, so that a potential enemy who came up with a LOSAT-defeating countermeasure would still have good reasons not to pick on the vehicles with the big long *sewerpipes* on their roofs.
So far as a wheeled, non-amphibious version, it's real value would be its relative stealth and silence in operation, particularly at night, though Stryker's reported fuel consumption suggests that it'll have a heck of a heat signature problem to deal with. That means a more realistic role for the wheelies than as the 13-man *battle taxi* version so far advanced, and a whole lot more capable armament is going to be needed than a .50 machinegun system of dubious reliability.
But if I was one of those RPG gunners trying to sneak up on a troop transport, I'd be real concerned that it might not be the troop transport version, but a cousin like one of the following, particularly if they routinely accompanied the infantry transport versions. And that offers protection from attacks from both high-speed aircraft and helicopters, too, something a single .50 doesn't offer much defensive capability against.
Loose lips at the Washington Times.
Do you want the process or simply my opinion?
I assume you are asking for opinion - In that case I would not hold my breath. The Army has pretty much decided on what the FCS modules will look like and function. None that I have seen include a LOS tank destroyer type of system.
If you would want the process, the first step would be in developing a need. The folks at Ft Benning have been working that for some time, not sure where they are in getting it through all of the wickets.
OBTW, thanks for the link. Nice to see my place of employment making the news once every so often.
Scroll down to that entry. Interesting Canadian analysis.
You are welcome for the link. You are the first person I thought of when I came across it. The article led me to believe that the FCS is going to be designed with real imput from end users.
Is there anything open-source on the Web? I'm from Missouri, show me ;)
None that I have seen include a LOS tank destroyer type of system.
What I am curious about is what replaces the M1. Is there going to be some kind of highly mobile, well-protected, FCS fighting vehicle with some form of powerful direct fire weapon that people calling themselves tankers can use to close with and destroy the enemy by firepower, manuever and shock?
No Mounted Combat System?
November 14, 2003: There are daily news reports of American soldiers getting shot at in Iraq. Most of these are troops in trucks moving supplies. There is a 350 kilometer long MSR (Main Supply Route) going from Kuwait to Baghdad, plus hundreds of kilometers of branch supply routes going off to various U.S. bases. About 300 convoys a day roll up the highway from Kuwait. Hundreds of smaller convoys move troops and equipment around. About twenty convoys a day are attacked. The weapons used are AK-47s, RPG rockets and remotely controlled bombs on the side of the roads. On dirt roads, anti-vehicle mines will be used as well. Some two or three troops are killed or wounded each day. Most of the attacks fail. This is largely because the attackers are hired by Baath Party leaders with more cash than courage (to do it themselves.) Bonuses are paid when the attackers actually wound or kill someone. But the hired Iraqis are content to fire on a convoy and get away alive to collect they pay (from a few hundred to a thousand dollars or more). Some are paid to set up road side bombs. The troops running these convoys have had to get additional training to deal with these combat operations they never thought they would be involved in. The transportation, logistics and maintenance troops had to get religious about cleaning their weapons and taking turns standing up in the truck with a machine-gun (on a mount), looking for potential attackers. Some of the troops are clamoring for rifle range built so they can get some training using a machine-gun from a moving truck (it does take some practice get good at this.) The attackers are taking heavier casualties than the American troops, which is not much consolation to the stressed out GI truck drivers and machine-gunners. American troops have also been changing their tactics, moving convoys at high speed (80-100 kilometers an hour) up the middle of roads and having combat troops or helicopters in the area to chase after attackers. The relatively low incidence of attacks actually makes it worse, because it is harder to stay on alert all the time when you might go weeks without getting shot at. More of the supplies are being moved by civilian truckers, who get attacked rarely. But purely military equipment is moved by soldiers, to make sure nothing is stolen. Moreover, if there were no military convoys, the attackers would turn their attacks on civilian truckers.
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.