Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Seeks Short-Term Payoff From Future Combat Systems
National Defense Magazine ^ | December 2003 | Sandra I. Erwin

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.”


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: army; armytranformation; fcs; iraq; miltech; wheeledarmor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-257 next last
To: Ranger
Right now 4000 up armored humvees are immediately needed in Iraq. The army cannot produce 3500 of them in the next 18 months. This is ridiculous ...This is a clear indication to me that no effort has been made to put uparmored humvee production into a war production modality.

It's called JIT (Just In Time) planning or, more appropriately, last minute planning. The primary objective of this approach is to save money -not to build tactical or strategic fighting instruments. The best part you've yet to hear is that we're dependent on "other" countries to build or furnish some of the critical components we need to do this.

21 posted on 11/23/2003 7:01:16 AM PST by Chief_Joe (From where the sun now sits, I will fight on -FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
"Last September, American weapons manufacturer United Defense Industries demonstrated a new, cheaper and lighter self-propelled artillery piece to replace the cancelled Crusader system."

155mm? Also, what about ROF and tube heating issues? I know about the IMC gun. Does this new concept have a cooling system for the barrel?

22 posted on 11/23/2003 7:04:42 AM PST by sauropod ("Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Top speed would be an issue for slugging around a 70-ton vehicle with a diesel.
23 posted on 11/23/2003 7:05:43 AM PST by sauropod ("Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Diesel Tank Engines
24 posted on 11/23/2003 7:07:18 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chief_Joe; Ranger
"The best part you've yet to hear is that we're dependent on "other" countries to build or furnish some of the critical components we need to do this."

Bingo! Give this guy a donut.

DoD is not serious about new land combat weapon systems. They haven't been for some time.

25 posted on 11/23/2003 7:07:38 AM PST by sauropod ("Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
A Future Abrams Tank
26 posted on 11/23/2003 7:14:19 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Challenger 2 is diesel.

Over how much of the earth's surface can you really go 50 mph in a Main Battle Tank with out beating the crew to death like dried peas in a gourd?

I saw an M1 hit a dug in hull down position cross ways at high speed once. The rapid deceleration kept the plastic surgeons and dentists busy for awhile. Didn't hurt the tank much.

27 posted on 11/23/2003 7:21:03 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
The things that caught my eye was the autoloader and the electric drive for something that large. The autoloader reduces the size of the crew, turret and hull. The electric drive could possibly simplify the drivetrain. The juice put out by engine / generator is non-trivial to move a tank of any size.

If it's robust, you can slap this type of drive train into any vechile so there's commonality between trucks, jeeps (really fast ones) and tanks. The down side could be EMP protection but someone's taking a gamble that the T-guys WMD don't include that in the bag of tricks...

28 posted on 11/23/2003 7:23:40 AM PST by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C)

Maybe it will have a big water jacket like a Vickers machine gun.

United Defense Cannon Demonstrator Fires 6 Rounds Per Minute


29 posted on 11/23/2003 7:28:24 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SLB
Those prices are to modify a M998...the army buys a regular humvee, strips out its engine, transmission and suspension, then O'Gara replaces it all.

Having worked with M1114 in Bosnia and worked at the Directorate of Force Development for the Armor Center (the proponent of this program) I can firmly say that it is a foolish project.

The Scandanvians had the right idea with a SISU, the basically have a COTS bus engine, transmission and suspension and build an armor frame to make a wheeled APC...which is what the Army really needs and is trying to turn the humvee into. By the way, the 6X6 SISU, which has an armored machine gun turret has much more space, capacity and versatility, actually costs less than M1114 both to buy and maintain.

If we want a cheap wheeled APC, we ought to build one, not try to turn the Humvee into one.
30 posted on 11/23/2003 7:30:45 AM PST by blanknoone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Is this what used to be AGS? Yes

No it is not...the AGS was to be a light airmobile supplement to the Abrams fleet, with the same general and already in service. The FCS is supposed to be the replacement to the Abrams, and using next generation technology entering service in next decade. (Originally, it was supposed to be much further out, it keeps creeping closer)

31 posted on 11/23/2003 7:34:17 AM PST by blanknoone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
I don't know if I'm on the Treadhead list, if not could you put me on? Thanks.
32 posted on 11/23/2003 7:40:52 AM PST by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Thud
ping
33 posted on 11/23/2003 7:45:12 AM PST by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

Is this machine an improvement over the Stryker?

34 posted on 11/23/2003 7:46:34 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Isn't this part of the New Army Doctrine? Fast and lethal?

Am familiar with the Challenger 2 engine. Saw a couple of CV12s on the test stand.

BTW, the selection of that engine for Crusader was certainly political.

35 posted on 11/23/2003 7:49:11 AM PST by sauropod ("Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
Thunderbolt is United Defense's up-gunned 120mm version of their M8 Buford Armored Gun System.
36 posted on 11/23/2003 7:49:30 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4; archy; SLB; HiJinx; Chief_Joe
Here are some stats on the Uparmored Humvee deficiencies.

There are 8500 soft humvees in Iraq not. Less than 1700 armored humvees have ever been produced. The army believes it is deficient by 3500-4000 armored humvees in Iraq. Less than 3500 armored humvees will be produced between now and June 2005.

A very high proportion of our ground casualties are coming from IEM, RPG and small arms fire placed on trailing vehicles in convoy. Most casualties seem to be occurring in unarmored humvees.

Production rates remain suboptimal and even with current plant expansion planned, will not reach more than 200 per month by year-end. This is a ridiculous situation and I'm asking any freepers that have some ideas on this to help forward them to me as I am very active with congress on this matter. At the same time realize that 50,000 commercial grade hummers will be produced by GM along next year and those are subsidized with a small business tax deduction by $100K. Thus your local dentist gets a yellow hummer but your boy in Iraq rides around in essentially an open bed pickup taking RPG, machinegun and IED hits.

Anyone that has ideas or a means of resolving this issue, please contact me.

37 posted on 11/23/2003 7:49:35 AM PST by Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
My understanding of the FCS is that it is a family of vehicles a la "common chassis", not just a replacement for the Abrams.
38 posted on 11/23/2003 7:51:07 AM PST by sauropod ("Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
There are 8500 soft humvees in Iraq not

Should read 8500 soft humvees are in Iraq now.

39 posted on 11/23/2003 7:52:27 AM PST by Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tailback
Free Republic Treadhead Ping

archy; Gringo1; Matthew James; Fred Mertz; Squantos; colorado tanker; The Shrew; SLB; Darksheare; BCR #226; Imacatfish; Tailback

40 posted on 11/23/2003 7:53:11 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (CHAIRBORNE Death From Behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-257 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson