Posted on 12/28/2003 10:21:18 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Repeated attacks on truck convoys in Iraq have prompted the Army to revisit its requirements for future logistics vehicles. Notably, the conflict challenged the traditional notions of trucks as support vehicles that stay out of the line of fire. Many U.S. casualties in Iraq were drivers or occupants whose vehicles were struck by rocket-propelled grenades, road mines or other forms of explosive devices.
The fundamental question that Army vehicle developers are trying to answer is whether the next generation of battlefield trucks will be “just trucks” hauling supplies in the rear, or whether they should be enhanced with protective armor, weapons, advanced electronics and communications systems, so they can serve in combat roles on the front lines.
The next question the Army faces is whether it can afford all these high-tech features, which would make a truck almost as pricey as a combat vehicle.
The Army finds itself in a bind today, because it has to assign expensive fighting vehicles, such as Bradleys and Abrams tanks, to protect the trucks and secure the supply lines from Kuwait into Iraq. The reason is that trucks never were designed for survivability—they have no ballistic protection (except for up-armored Humvees), no self-defense weapons and limited situational awareness. They lack the advanced electronics needed to connect with the combat force, and become part of an overall command and control network.
“Our trucks can’t handle what they are being asked to do,” said Nance Halle, who runs an Army program called Future Tactical Truck System. The FTTS is a five-year $42 million project to develop a replacement for the current light, medium and heavy trucks.
While fuel efficiency and mobility remain high priorities in the FTTS, survivability has moved to the top of the list, in light of what’s happening in Iraq, Halle told an industry conference in Dearborn, Mich., sponsored by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.
“The Army is sucking combat vehicles away from the fight to protect these convoys,” Halle said. “It’s the reason the Bradleys are going through tons of track over there. They are running up and down the roads protecting supply convoys, instead of being in the front lines, like they are supposed to.”
If the Army doesn’t do something soon to make trucks more survivable, the price will be paid in human lives, she said. “Truck drivers are getting killed more than the combat force.”
Although the Army is accelerating the production of armor kits for trucks and up-armored Humvees, in the long term, it will rely on the FTTS program to develop new technologies that can drastically improve the survivability and overall performance of the entire fleet.
Further, any vehicles coming out of the FTTS project would have to be compatible with new vehicles developed under the Future Combat Systems program.
In future brigades, called “units of action,” equipped with FCS technology, the Army wants the combat vehicles to be able to directly request supplies from the trucks, which would require that the trucks be part of the command-and-control network.
“The truck will be operating with the unit of action, in the thick of the battle,” Halle said.
Under the FTTS program, the Army is considering developing an 11-ton “maneuver sustainment” truck that can move ISO containers, and a 2.5-ton to 5-ton utility truck. The 11-ton vehicle (with payload) has to be transportable by C-130 cargo aircraft.
According to current plans, each unit of action will have about 300 combat vehicles, 375 trucks and 30 trailers. The question, said Halle, is “can we afford it?”
The unit of action is expected to fight for three to seven days without re-supply. “The combat vehicles can’t carry all those supplies. They admit it,” Halle said. “They are only giving us so many trucks. So they have to be capable.”
Future trucks also will have to be more reliable and require less maintenance than current vehicles, she said. “We only have a fraction of maintainers in the unit of action, compared to what we had in the brigade.”
Continuing changes to the roles and functions of the FCS, additionally, translate into new requirements for the FTTS trucks. “There are things that FCS is tossing over the fence to the combat service-support community—things they can’t deal with, so we’ll put it on a truck,” Halle said. One example is mine laying.
But while the FCS program is “tossing over” requirements, “they are not throwing money” into the FTTS effort, she said.
Most of the funds for the FTTS are in the Army’s budget. But a small percentage comes from the Defense Department Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program. ACTDs typically are intended to accelerate the development of technologies and get equipment into the hands of soldiers faster, bypassing the normal procurement cycle. The FTTS, however, will not be like any other ACTD, because the Army will be developing new technology, rather than just speeding up existing projects.
“The point of the exercise is to help the program office for combat service support produce vehicles for the units of action,” said Richard E. McClelland, program director at the Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center.
Under an earlier FTTS competition that was not part of the ACTD, four companies (Oshkosh, Stewart & Stevenson, United Defense and GPV) received contracts to develop concepts, and demonstrate hybrid propulsion, C-130 transportability and pit-stop maintenance.
The ACTD competition, scheduled to get under way in 2004, will be “full and open,” independent of the first round of awards, McClelland said. Companies that did not win in the first competition will be considered with “no prejudice.”
The winners of the ACTD will be asked to build 5-10 trucks that the program managers can test and send to the field for soldier feedback.
McClelland noted that the $42 million budget “may go up with congressional add-ons,” but he seemed skeptical about the prospect of FTTS delivering a truck with all the bells and whistles the Army wants.
In PowerPoint briefings, he said, “we see fancy trucks with lots of capabilities.” But if these trucks end up costing half-a-million dollars a piece, the Army will not be able to afford them, in which case FTTS may end up becoming an upgrade to a current truck, rather than a new one, McClelland said.
The wish list for the FTTS includes, for example, “intelligent load handling systems,” so soldiers can move cargo around without having to get out of the cab. Automated load handling would preclude the need for special K-loader equipment, used to lift cargo from aircraft ramps. “That eliminates a C-130 sortie,” Halle noted. A C-130 typically flies in the K-loaders, then flies a second sortie to bring in the cargo or passengers.
The trucks also would need command-and-control computers, not only to receive supply requests from the combat force, but also to be able to fire weapons remotely. “It would be nice to have 700 additional nodes looking out for bad guys,” said Halle. “That can’t be done with legacy trucks.” In the FCS unit of action, the trucks “would need more information than normally a truck driver would get.”
With C2 computers aboard, FTTS vehicles could transport, launch and control unmanned aircraft or ground robots, she said.
More importantly, the trucks will need to provide water and electric power for the FCS force. The Army is seeking technologies that can produce water from air or engine exhaust.
“They want to get rid of all the generators and get power off the truck,” Halle said. “Energy storage is huge—batteries are everyone’s Achilles heel.”
Hybrid-electric engines would help with fuel economy, but so far the Army is not convinced the price of the hybrid drives is worth the fuel savings, she added.
Vickers RG-12 multi-purpose armoured vehicle - over 700 are currently in services in eight countries worldwide.
With its Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of approx. 25 tons, the PIRANHA IV provides a payload carrying capacity of approx. 10 tons, and despite its low vehicle silhouette, has a spacious internal useable volume of approx. 12.5 m³.
Looks like a very early artist's rendering, but gives an idea of some of the concepts that are being kicked around.
Thanks for the ping. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of the above quote. My son Steve is hauling fuel to the Stryker Brigade. He might as well have a big bulls eye painted on the side of his tanker.
May be cheaper that giving the old tanks away and or developing new "hardened" vehicles. Red Ball express with balls per se !
Stay safe !
Personally, I think they need to make some copies of the M35 from Vietnam called the "Eve of Destruction" which was a gun truck outfitted with Browning M2 machine guns and other weapons. Have several of these escort the convoy's with maybe one or two heavier support vehicles and free up the rest of the heavies to do the fighting on the front.
Mike
I have yet to find anything that'll kill one o' these. ;-)
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.