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.”
We have a Stryker Brigade Combat Team Tactical Studies Group (CHAIRBORNE) and a Free Republic Treadhead Ping List. Freepers who are interested in Strykers and tanks alert each other to good threads and generate discussion. There have already been several posts in which serving Freepers have asked for and received advice on how to solve some of the problems they are facing. Many of these problems have been dealt with before, on other battlefields, but the institutional memory has been lost.
A Free Republic Grunt Ping List could harness the collective wisdom of several hundred combat veterans, and help preserve the Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures developed in previous conflicts that may still be effective today.
From the article: told contractors that they “need to work fast.”
Do they never learn? The Army wants it fast, cheap, and good. They can only get two out of three...
Seriously, though...we're working right now to give 'em all 3. The company I work for does software. It's a bit easier to turn out a few thousand lines of code than it is to build an up-armored HMMWV, but...
O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Co., Fairfield, Ohio, was awarded on Nov. 4, 2003, a $35,675,000 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for 500 M1114 up-armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles with gun shields. Work will be performed in Fairfield, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by May 31, 2005. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole-source contract initiated on April 10, 2000. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (DAAE07-00-C-S019).
I thought the LV100 was dead altogether.
OSD got their wish in cancelling Crusader and have been diddling in Army affairs for some time. As a result there has been a dearth of development activities in engine and vehicle development, hence we have older platforms that have been streched and streched.
Witness Paladin.
i used to work on a number of these programs in the past and all this emphasis on C4 and "network-centric warfare" (that nobody knows actually what it is) means that the US is living on borrowed time wrt its heavy and medium armor fleets.
Question: "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.
Is this what used to be AGS?
Yes
November 21, 2003: Last September, American weapons manufacturer United Defense Industries demonstrated a new, cheaper and lighter self-propelled artillery piece to replace the cancelled Crusader system. A month later, they demonstrated the same 20 ton armored chassis with a 120mm gun (same as used on the M-1) in a tank turret (smaller than used in the M-1). The new system was called "Thunderbolt" and included an autoloader and an undisclosed number of rounds carried. The armor can only stop 30mm armor piercing shells in the front, and 14.5mm machine-gun bullets on the sides. Expensive composite armor was used to achieve this much protection. In other words, any tank in the world could knock out Thunderbolt with one shot. But the 120mm gun can also destroy any tank out there (except the M-1, from the front). United Defense Industries was quite proud of the fact that it only took them seven months to put all of this together (although a lot of work was shared with the self-propelled artillery project.) The big question is, if Thunderbolt were ordered into production, how long would that take? A "demonstration model" has not done any of the difficult and time consuming work to insure that the vehicle would stand up to field use. Another potential showstopper is the wear and tear the 120mm gun puts on the lighter (20 ton, versus 60 tons for the M-1) chassis. The stress and vibration problems can require major design changes (either a smaller weapon or a heavier chassis.) Then again, Thunderbolt is taking advantage of the fact that M-1s don't get hit much by large caliber guns in combat. Thunderbolts, being smaller, would probably get hit less. Thunderbolt also uses a novel electrical drive that allows for four hours of "silent operation" (moving just under electrical power.) This could be useful. But in Iraq, M-1s did get many hits (nearly all ineffective) by RPGs. Moreover, because the 120mm gun is a "one shot, one target destroyed" kind of weapon, you wouldn't have to fire many rounds in combat, so the smaller ammo capacity of the Thunderbolt would be less of a problem. But to train the crew, you have to fire that 120mm gun a lot. If you can't train the crew, might as well not take the vehicle into combat. Thus it is unclear exactly what Thunderbolt is trying to demonstrate.
Since the turbine's development, some fantastic things have happened with diesel tech, which might make a look at repowering with diesel a competitive option(?)Comments please.
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.