Posted on 11/23/2003 5:19:13 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
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.
Upgrading Vehicles
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.”
Look, you can only put so much armor on a Hummer frame, even a reinforced one.
Most anti tank rockets can still penetrate one
Give you some protection against a small mine/IED. Something the size of an anti-tank mine will still total one and cause 100% crew casualties.
Restricts your field of vision and your ability to fire from the vehicle terribly (unless you're in the gunners position, in which case you're exposed and out of the armor, some new gunshields too. But nothing as good as the old TC position in an ACAV).
Hummers are loud on the inside, get inside a armored hummer and you cant hear
Just me? I take the opposite approach.
All doors and roofs off of Hummers
Seats rearranged to face out in different directions
Everyone with a sector of observation and a long gun, no more 9mm pistols as a primary weapon.
Reinforce the bottom with Kevlar and sandbag the floor in the passanger compartment to protect agains mines/IEDs but that's it.
No seatbelts, all they do is keep you in the vehicle to take the full blast of a mine/IED and prevent you from exiting in a hurry while you are in contact
Vehicles should be open with troops facing out able to use all their senses
Armored Hummers are a defensive reaction and they have their place.
Giving everyone an armored Hummer isolates you from what's going on. Might as well be in a Bradley
Thems my thoughts
Al the best
Qatar-6
Ranger might mention how enamored the Army has been with the gee whiz stuff while leaving the tried and true behind. If anyone thinks that FBCB2 is going to protect a vehicle from a rag head with an RPG who is hiding in a shed waiting for a vehicle to pass they are smoking dope. The C4ISR stuff is neat, shows commanders lots of great battlefield icons and supposedly has real time SA, but the reality of war is that lone guy with an RPG. We had them in Vietnam, they had them in Bosnia and Somalia and Afghanistan. Iraq is no different.
Another area that really gets my goat is the refusal for the leadership to let good old GI ingenuity to take over. It sounds like if something is not on the MTOE, then it doesn't happen. I had a heated argument in that venue in Germany once. There was an article in PS magazine on turning forklifts into snowplows. I wanted to order some new forks for a 10,000 RT forklift, modify a set into a snow plow and provide a service to both the military and German communities by removing snow from highways and streets. The commander would not approve the request, it was high dollar and needed his signature, so when the next snow hit we just suffered. The battalion commander asked why we had not modified the forklift as shown in PS magazine. I told him the commander had refused the request even though I had shown the article to him, you bet I dropped a dime on him, he got a but chewing and I got my forks. OBTW, he tried to screw me on an OER and when it got to the Bn Cdr, my senior rater, it was sent back at least twice.
I would think that a civilian armored truck (the kind the banks use to ferry cash) with a dual-.50 turrent bolted to the top would do fine for convoy protection and carrying troops on concentional roads. And we make a bunch of them per month anyway for the civilian market
I'd also put in an order for better constructed desert boots, and ditch the concept of the old "canteen" in favor of something like a "camelback" hydration system. Items like this are probably more "doable" than taking on the legal forces of Colt and Beretta. lol
Back in 1993, when I did my transition into the Abrams tank, I went through the TCPC (Tank Crew Proficiency Course) wherein all of us rotated through the positions which must be occupied in the vehicle: Gunner, driver, loader, and commander. When it came time for me to drive this sports car of armored vehicles, I was able to scream through the driving portion and was told by the instructors that at one time the tank went "airborne" with daylight visible under the treads all around. Inside, my fellow officer trainees, didn't notice the acrobatics, so smooth was the ride. The same thing happened on the gunnery course, except that time (I was loading as I recall) the main gun fired at the top of the arc and hit it's target over a thousand meters away. One shot, one kill.
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. An H-1 is the most recognizable piece of American battle equipment in the world. The feeling was at the time that a Range Rover or Land Cruiser tooling across the desert could be a wandering sheik instead of an American patrol and would therefore be less likely to become an "rpg magnet." But he was telling me they bought SUV's off the lot via "local purchase" and they were fully loaded. I just have this hilarious image of a bunch of SOF guys rolling across the sand with the AC blasting and the stereo pounding with (take your pick) Charlie Daniels or Steppenwolf.
Why is M1114 production so slow?
Why has the gov't not bought up all the Hummer H1's and had them armored and sent the to Iraq? There is a war on. Requisition.
There are many companies that apply armor to vehicles. If O'Gara-Hess cannot meet the demand, why does the Army not contract with these other armoring companies?
Why has the Armored Security Vehicle made by Textron been terminated?
Textron also makes the Dingo Mine Resistant Vehicle. Why has the Army bought none?
The Swiss company MOWAG makes the Eagle armored HMMWV. Have we tried to buy from them? If not, why not?
The Turks make a HMMWV-based armored vehicle called the Cobra. Have we tried to get any?
The old Iraqi Army and Republican Guard had several thousand wheeled armored vehicles. Where are they now and what use is being made of them? The Army went into Iraq with tanks for its tankers and Bradleys for its mechanized infantrymen and M113's for its combat engineers and self propelled howitzers for its artillerymen, then when they tried to turn all these soldiers into Army of Occupation Constabulary troopers they discovered they needed a patrol vehicle. The M1114 was already in the inventory, so that is what was demanded. They did not anticipate the high demand, and they have not been flexible enough in procuring substitute patrol vehicles.
Please comment on Unfit for Combat Humvees need armor to give them a fighting chance
BTW, here is an old thread: The stopping power of different handgun cartridges. According to this thread, a .40 is better than a .44 or a .45, in terms of stopping power. It seems that this would be the ideal for a new Army issue sidearm.
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.
