NO SCI-​​FI TECH FOR “FUTURE COMBAT”

Back in 1999, when the Army launched Future Combat Systems, its $117 bil­lion mod­ern­iza­tion pro­gram, “dis­cus­sions were dom­i­nated by visions of an all-​​electric, laser-​​firing fleet of fast-​​moving tank-​​like vehi­cles unbur­dened by the weight of con­ven­tional armor,” notes National Defense.
“Five years later, real­ity has set in,” the mag­a­zine sighs. “Industry experts con­sider it doubt­ful, how­ever, that the FCS will bring, in the near term, major break­throughs in power gen­er­a­tion, weapon lethal­ity or sur­viv­abil­ity.

Fuel-​​efficient tech­nolo­gies, such as hybrid engines, have improved, but they only will reduce fuel con­sump­tion by mod­er­ate amounts, experts said. FCS units, like todays brigades, will require a sub­stan­tial logis­tics re-​​supply tail of fuel and ammu­ni­tion…
On the weaponry side, the main­stay of FCS will be can­nons and mis­siles. These weapons will be more sophis­ti­cated than cur­rent sys­tems, but not a major depar­ture. Non-​​kinetic tech­nolo­gies, such as lasers and high-​​powered microwaves, are pro­gress­ing, but are not expected to be ready for oper­a­tional use for many years…
For sur­viv­abil­ity, it remains unclear what tech­nolo­gies FCS will employ. Conventional pas­sive armor is out of the ques­tion if the Army wants to keep the weight of the vehi­cles at less than 20 tons. We havent found magic armor, the pro­gram offi­cial said. The most promis­ing tech­nolo­gies so far are elec­tro­mag­netic armor and active pro­tec­tion sys­tems, which sense and defeat incom­ing rock­ets or mis­siles by deflect­ing or inter­cept­ing them… [But], accord­ing to sev­eral sources, there is a strong cul­tural bias in the U.S. Army against installing active defenses on vehi­cles, because they are per­ceived as unsafe…
The Armys top acqui­si­tion offi­cial, Lt. Gen. Joseph L. Yakovac, acknowl­edged that much uncer­tainty remains as to whether FCS can deliver what it promises.
Im not clair­voy­ant, he told reporters. As we look at the tech­nol­ogy, it may or may not mature at the rate we need.
The cur­rent pro­gram is only a reflec­tion of the best guess today…
Nevertheless, the Army has made a major finan­cial com­mit­ment to FCS, increas­ing its over­all esti­mated cost from $90 bil­lion to about $115 bil­lion, which will cover the entire 17 sys­tems and a command-​​and-​​control net­work, to be fielded to pos­si­bly 43 brigades by 2025. 

September 27th, 2004 | FCS Watch | Comments Off Both comments and pings are currently closed.