One of the big ideas behind the Army’s massive modernization effort, Future Combat Systems, was to make American troops more mobile able to get around the world in a matter of days or weeks, instead of the months that are needed now.
The first step: slim down the service’s cannon and armored vehicles. Today, it takes a gargantuan C-17 or C-5 transport plane to lug a single, 32-ton Paladin 155 mm howitzer. Army planners wanted the Paladin’s next-gen replacement to weigh in at 19 tons or less so one could fit inside a much smaller C-130 transport plane, instead.
But now, that’s not going to happen, Inside Defense reports. The site has gotten a hold of a draft Army press release which announces that Future Combat System’s Manned Ground Vehicles (MGVs) will weigh 24 tons, not 19.
The Army insists that the MGVs will still be able to be carried in a C-130, to “provide a wider range of crossable bridges; improve tactical mobility, enable the reduction of the logistics footprint; and facilitate greater strategic deployability.” But it doesn’t look like the vehicle will be “ready to fight when it lands,” explains Inside Defense editor Dan Dupont. A bunch of material including armor, perhaps will have to be added, first.
The add-on process will only take 30 minutes, the Army insists. But given that the Army was promising 19-ton MGVs not too long ago, I’d take that claim with about 5 tons of salt.
“If it’s 25 tons today,” Army Training and Doctrine Command chief Lt. Gen Kevin Byrnes told Defense News in February, “I guarantee it will be 30 tons next year, because when there’s no sizing constraint, we will have more good ideas and it will cause that thing to grow.”
|
“Future Combat” Fattens Up
« « Rapid Fire 6/13/05 | Biolabs Metastasize » »
Leave a Reply |
|
I feel the Army should downsize armored vehicles BUT add armor midflight or Ready to Roll mode.
& or use Russian Ekranoplans for shipping armor over the ocean at 60 knots mph.
But downsize for Rapid Deployment.
IE Mini M1A1 model?
Or revise Rolls Royce armored cars via the Hummer model for Ready Combat.
We need Rapid Deployment NOT Bulk Armor unless Ground/sea shipped.
Probe Ekranoplans from Russia.
Armor should fit C130s.
Or develop new Tac Airlift plane for replace C130?
The strategic deployability requirement is bogus and skews our equipment development philosophy.
The first Stryker Brigade in Iraq had there equipment sent by ship and deployed on commercial charter aircraft. First priority in any vehicle must be Tactical Mobility, Firepower, and Protection. 24T is more than acceptible if the new vehicles are better in these areas than our current hardware. If not they are unacceptible at any weight.
World’s best 155mm How has WHEELS & is made in SOUTH AFRICA! When will we break our own chains?
Whether we send Strykers or M1A2 Tanks, rapid deployability is the key, a tired structure would make that possible. Everything must be deployable by air, and the air assets should correspond. If we need mor C-5’s/C-17’s, to get there so be it. But, the tiered force needs a C-130 type deployable vehicle (Stryker/AGS?) that can carry just enough firepower/protection to take and hold the “air bridgehead” then the heavy follow-on needs to be on the ground as rapidly as we can get them there with heavy force to carry on the fight. The thought that tanks are a thing of the past in warfare is dangerous. Remember, to win is essential, to win without loss is much desired, How we acheive this should not be a matter of political expedience, but military necessity.
We all know the dangers of wheeled vehicles and I am not going to start another debate on that.
But just an idea, why can’t they use solid rubber tyres instead of air pressured ones?? That is going to be a lot more bullet/shock resistance?? I know solid rubber is going to be a cost lot, especially when tyres get worn out very easily and needed to be replaced all the time. But a snap-on, rubber strip can be strapped on the outer layer of the solid rubber core, which can last until too many bullets are stuck in them.
I don’t know, just a thought.
what i think is that they need to make a humvee or tanker that can take every type of IED shot at it. My hubby is in Iraq and just told me of a story he heard on the news, about a humvee getting split in half from a IED, 4 people died. They are not front lines but actually supporting the infantry division. No one ever hears of the guys behind or below Bagdad getting killed. We should focus on protection that actually is made to protect our soldiers, regardless of how damn much it weighs. I would rather ship the heaviest tank or humvee that is completly up-armored and ready to go that weighs 30 tons than have the little plastic toys they do now. We are spending alot of money on this war, we should be protecting our troops with the money, make things better, not lighter. =I am just a spouse but I would rather have my husband come home alive than to hear that his humvee wasn’t protected by enough armor to save him. We are at a loss of Billions of dollars supporting a third world countries fighting habits, why not make our guys over there feel comfortable fighting.
i’m ready to defend the flag of us army.I will wait for your respond by the post.
First of all, would slimming down the Aromor vehicle, take away from it the Aromor that is made to protect the Vehicle, and if so how much would it take away from the vehicle, then if it takes away at least 55% then can you put it back on, if not then why do it.
The trick is to find a balance between speed, mobility and armored capibilities; that means more research and development of lighter, stronger alloys or composites or combination of the two. This could be an expensive proposal however. War is expensive both in men and materials. The concept that hightech means bloodless is absurd. The American People have become soft and frail of mind and traditional American fighting spirit seems to have fallen victim to this frailty. War means death and destruction for both sides. In a conflict the object is to make the attrition unbearable for your enemies.
As long as Boeing and SAIC are the prime contractors for the Army’s FCS it will be nothing more then corporate welfare.
Even the DoD know this when, a few weeks ago they quietly ordered the production lines for the M-1 Abrams and the M-2 Bradely reopened at a cost of over $40 Million. December 31, 2005 is the contracted date for both lines to be ready.
Oh by the way don’t forgetthe Marines. A good read is a recent Boston Globe article on the 2ed. Marine Division. The only thing new of course is that “The Media” is finally picking up on this story. The 2ed. Marine Division is in much worse shape the the Boston Globe story lets on. I’m sure that will come out in the follow up piece.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
sorry bout my spelling I now realize armor is spelled wrong, heh woops, my bad.
I will be there in that tank one day or the MGV becuase i know i have what it takes to kick the iraqis asses and so do every other soilder out there so god bless america and god bless our troops bring them home to their familes safe and sound for the ones who died in the black hawk incident and the ones in all the hostage takings you will not be forgoten
thank you and good day
Becoming “light” has some long term effects that the strategic planners are forgetting. There are other more sophisticated potential conventional foes in the world who would delight in our continued efforts to field more units with less staying power.
The day of conventional artillery and indeed /armored vehicles/ is _over_.
We need to recognize that and develop systems which are ‘Air Mech’ capable of exploiting highway speed mobility instead. In this, the operating mode is not one of rolling into a COIN or SSC type scenario. Because that is purely an ‘in among them’ type response where there IS NO effective means of defense against planned ambushes in a mixed civillian/collaterals environment.
Short of the very Challenger MBT that you will likely have ‘plenty of time’ to ship in.
No. What you want to do is be able to put every man off the chopper or tiltrotor or even forced entry C-17 road strip inside /something/ that travels faster than 3-4mph marching pace he is going to manage hauling all his kit.
That in turn means that, rather than engage an enemy conventionally, with ‘occupational’ tactics. It is _wiser_ to go to COE or Contempt Of Engagement doctrine.
Using systems like the Eagle Eye UAV and the Netfire missile system (probably in a trailer) to shoot and scoot from distances approach 60-80km.
Not the pathetic 20–30 that a 155 can manage.
Tis better to get your enemy to come out and force you to run away than it is to go to him and eat his prepared defense. Not least when you can drive away from the LZ predictor and INTO the missile envelope at 40-50mph.
Because in the 10–20-30 miles you are looking at him in your rear view mirror, you can be just /eating him alive/ with guided shots that don’t need 2 tones of forged steel gun tube to contain the pressure of a 6″ propellant driven round.
All other missions, including those nominally ‘assault gun’ related, should be given to autoloading breach mortars in the 120-240mm range. GPS guided with optional antiarmor (Eryx etc.) special mission heads.
Mounted on M113A4 or later light-track (in the Future Scout category) these systems can both reduce obstacles directly and loft rounds out to 6–10,000m to /again/ _avoid by horizon overreach_ the MBT main gun threat.
Leaving the 20,000m plus ‘counter battery mission’ set to the missiles which themselves are not only able to outrange most enemies. But can do so from under the horizon of any Firefinder equivalent targeting.
The difference between the two being that a Netfire system doesn’t weigh the /tons/ that even a MARS based MLRS rocket does (like you want to squirt even one of those into a MOUT confrontation anyway).
While the automortar has low enough per-round cost to be able to (smoke and airburst or peentrating frag plus incapacitant) support those ‘patrol mission’ troops who suddenly find themselves subject to combined arms ambushes with everything from sniper rifles and knee mortars to RPG and HMG plus god knows what else in the various (and nefarious) ‘nation building’ commitments we have.
Zieg Heil Haliburton. KPl.
You know BAE systems formorly United Defense makes a 105MM Tank called the M8 AGS autoloader equiped that is not only C-130 Transportable but air droppable out of the C-130. Now if that isnt rapid response I dont know what is!
“World’s best 155mm How has WHEELS & is made in SOUTH AFRICA!“
One word for you…
ROADBOUND!
Tracks enable far better cross country performance and that is important for “shoot and scoot” arty. Counterbattery would be too easy if the moving guns are limited to roads only.
I think that the army should be more worried about protecting it’s troops than getting them there in a shorter amount of time. As it is, the United States military is one of the fastest deployable military forces in the world. Making elements of the military lighter, faster and more deployable should be the least of the governments concern. Instead of stripping down the protective gear and counter-measures of the military vehicles such as the Paladin to make it faster and easier to transport, I think that the military should research more ways of adding light armor and counter-attack technology to protect the troops operating the machines. As we all know, a fighting machine is only as good as the troops that operate it inside. If we can provide the feeling of safety and security to the troops operating in a hostile environment, they will preform their jobs better. If we get our troops and equipment to places faster by stripping down and lightening protective gear, we only insure that our troops will die faster.
There just isn’t a real tactical use for these gigantic fighting vehicles anymore.
The only time that these large fighting vehicles would probably be used is if a large scale war errupted.
With things going these days, it is very unlikely that will happen.
I don’t believe that the vehicles should be developed to be lighter, I believe they should become more efficent pieces of fighting material.
It is time for the armed serivces to start developing more urban warfare styled vehicles and stop wasting tax payers money on massive 30 or 40 ton fighting vehicles.
Wars of now, and of the future will be fought in urban battlefields. There is no need for more money spent on large tanks and other vehicles that will not serve as much a purpose as other, smaller urban fighting vehicles.
When I say that I dont mean to say that they should be ill equiped not protecting the crew. Im just merely saying that there is a higher need for vehicles we can use, so we can bring men and women home.
You want a lighter howitzer, read HAMMER’S SLAMMER’S by David Drake.
He describes a ROCKET HOWITZER with a 150+ mile range, we have the technology to build this howitzer now.
this howitzer and it’s ammo pack can be airlifted by one heavy chopper.
Narrow political vision and short sighted planning will get you killed.
We need a combonation of light and heavy armour and the means to swiftly move them about the planet. Since the USA is so deeply immersed in the New WOrld order, it is obvious that we have given up most of our strategic abilities to other nations.
We cant afford to airlift our military, it costs too much to build the transport aircraft, we have no capabilities to rapidly build sealift vessels.
Still we persist at being the savior of the worlds poor and downtrodden (assuming they have oil). Well now we have exported our jobs, our industies and mass production capabilities to the “new” China in the interest of globalization [translation: immense corporate profits].
Dont forget that the current ruling party is still by the old communist party and they consider us to be their sworn enemy along with most of the Arabic world.
The cold war may be over in western europe, but not in eastern asia. We best be prepared with the best weaponry we can produce.Asia needs oil, lots of oil to sustain their massive economic growth.
Its soon going to be east vs west for scarce resources. They are willing to acquire them by any means. We are worried about the weight of our armoured vehicles.Hmmm, maybe tactical nukes on cruise missles will work better than armour and we can fight a standoff war without leaving home.
Oh, by the way, get prepared for the draft of recruits to populate the dwindling military.Warfighting machinery is of no use without bodies to operate it.Fighting to sustain corporate profits doesnt generate many volunteers.
I stongly believe a simple fact. These people (tangos) believe they “know what lengths we’ll go to and no further”. The simple way to do this is to say for instance take a town like Fallujah, drop leaflets for two days that explain the following: “This is the US Military, Report to nearest Camp X. The town is surrounded, do not run or you will be shot. If you are an enemy, surrender, we will not kill you. The town will have a Neutron Bomb dropped on it and will kill all living things on the third day. Come to the camp, or die.“
Then drop a damned Neutron Bomb there. DO IT!!!
I’m for one, sick to death of letting our young men get slaughtered by snipers and IEDs. Let Us Swing The Hammer and Get ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF KILLING THE ENEMY!!! Sometimes I feel like I’m amongst cows chewing the cud, chomp, chomp.…..
As far as a long distance throwing cannon, it’s just stupid, outlived and pathetic (museum time)
I love my country and my TROOPERS!
What we need is an xray type system that can detect explosive charges that may be planted in ambush.
Then we need a close in rocket/rpg/mortar defense such as a digital imaging system with fire control system for countermeasure.
Then we need armor that can protect against the smaller ballistics like small and heavy arms.
Then we need radar that can detect and locate incoming rounds like artillery, mortars, missiles and rockets.
Then we need some kindof standoff defense against the artillery/rocket/mortar threats.
Then you need to protect outer space so noone puts lasers above your head. Because lasers travel at the speed of light and arent as easily defeated.
Then you need to put your own directed energy weapons in space.
Once you do all of these things you win war.
All that is left is homeland security, detecting nukes, surveiling to make sure people arent building and planting bombs, have sifficient defenses around your infrastructure like the missile defense and epxlosive detection systems.
THen the game is over, There is nothing left except the moon slamming into the Earth that could defeat you.
Lets just think for one minute…ya, I know it hurts, but none the less, think for the love of our country! Look at the movies, the futuristic ones, that is where we need to go, period! Send in the most hightly technical equipment that we can come up with. Remember that movie, “Total Recall”? Well about 7 years later, they were saying, “Hey we can do that!” So lets think big here, think out side the box, for the love of out men that are being disabled and dying!
Whatever it takes is what I say the ied is becoming more advanced and deadly I know first hand we need better protection plain and simple.
FCS is about more than just making a lighter force. It is about increasing situational understanding and situational awareness, so that we will be able to SEE FIRST and UNDERSTAND FIRST and ACT FIRST, therefore not needing the heavy force. We will be able to do these things BEFORE our enemy has a chance. I realize that nothing is perfect, but FCS is designing a network of C4ISR to do that. The new FCS technologies will save so many soldiers’ lives, if Boeing and SAIC can follow through!
I suggest that all who made comments read into FCS a little bit more. Obviously no one understands what the Army is trying to accomplish with FCS. Maybe if you actually read into it, you will find that FCS is doing so much more than just making a lighter force. And they are actually designing a MEDIUM weight force, and with all the new things they are designing, they can afford to build a lighter force. Do everyone a favor and read on before you comment any more…
http://www.army.mil/fcs
I see a lot of people saying wheeled vehicles, lose the tracks, etc.
Have you forgotten how we got into Iraq? We drove across thousands of miles of desert. Our tracked vehicles easily hit the 35–45 MPH range, which is about the same an uparmored Humvee can reach. Now, add in 2 ft of loose sand, and the tracked vehicle easily outruns the Humvee. Yes, the Humvee can get out of it, but it’s slow going. The tracked vehicle has it’s weight dispersed across a wider area, making it’s displacement of the sand less of a factor. It’s just like being in quicksand — they tell you to lay down flat and increase your the area your body is applying it’s weight to the sands.
Now, once we get into an area, and have a decent amount of control (like we did in Iraq, we took their airport), then yes — tracked vehicles are virtually useless. They are not as manuevarble in tight areas — way to large.
But, you can’t say go wheeled vehicles only, we’ll never make it to the war that way. Every vehicle has it’s purpose.
What we need is a well balanced force not a light force. We need both heavy and light vehicles. Once this war is over what type of enemy will we fight next? We have no idea. So instead of changing the force why not just be flexible? Will it cost more to keep both heavy and light vehicles. Sure it will. Think of the time it will save and the soldiers lives that will be saved as well. For instance, up-armored hummers. If we would have been prepared for the types of IEDs and such more lives would have been saved. We would have had the items needed for our soldiers quicker to protect them.
I think it fair to say that we all need balance in everything that we do. I think that the Forces need to keep the same. Make certain vehicles perform specific functions. If used in the right manner and tactics, then putting too many eggs in one basket can be avoided.
I served in OIF II and think that I have a pretty decent judgement of what would assist us in performing our mission.
Re Wheels vs Tracks and Heavy vs Light
I cannot agree more with Rolf M: An effective Army needs both sets of capabilities unless it can predict exactly and exclusively where it will fight. Very few armies have that luxury, and certainly not the US Army.
The SA Army go quite far down the line with a good combination of mobility and protection in the Rooikat armoured car, but money ran out before an ICV derivative could follow. That vehicle is nevertheless a good example of a middle weight type. The lower end of the SA scale were the Casspir and Mamba (today the RG-32 and RG-31, albeit only for export), which were simple, tough and cheap — and worked in the real world.
Two final comments:
1. Some light vehicles are better tracked if they are to be flown in and need a biggish gun — a tracked hull has more internal volume for any given size, unless you go skid-steer a la AMX-10RC, and that has its own problems.
2. Armies need to think about urban operations in developing countries — roads in shanty towns are likely to be easily mined, which would stop a tracked vehicle dead, quite probably in a narrow alley where it cannot be passed or easily repaired. Wheeled vehicles, on the other hand, have large turning circles (back to skid-steer), are not as good at crossing rubble unless they are 6x6 or 8x8, but are less vulnerable to mines.
Bottom line: Vehicles are like guns. Different ones are needed for different tasks.
The problem is The “Lighter, Faster, more Lethal” concept is a myth. It sound good in the corporate world like “More With Less” The key is Lessons Learned until some great technical advancement come you have to deal with reality. The reality is “You Need A Bigger Plane” This Aircraft would be be between the size of the C-130 and the C-17 with a 50,000 pound STOL capability.
Different vehicles are needed for different tasks. From my perspectiove over there in Iraq (where I have been) The armor boys looked better off in there track vehicles than I felt in my Plastic covered Humvee. Even when we recieved the Turtle Back, light armored Humvees I still envied armor.
BUT…I understodd that in convoy and escort operstions were not holding a position, or engaging to hold land, were in the buisness of getting from A to B with all our fingers and toes still connected to ourselves. And for that You do need speed and firepower. A hair more speed than firepower. I wish there was a hybrid humvee and NTV (Non Tactical Vehicle). An armored Landrover, like we see the Brits ridding around in only a little more armored, with turret addaption for multiple crew serve weapon systems. That would allow me to coast at 70 MPH and still allow me to hold some fire down lane when I had to stop for IED or breakdowns.
I just don’t see the need to focus on the heavy vehicles at this time. We do more work in the urban environment and Armor is good, and scary, but its too big and scary to effectively do what lighter and faster equipment can do. QRF teams with humvees and M2’s or MRK 19, can get there and deliever the same effect.
Armor is great and I love those guy, they are needed and they have a job. I feel that the lighter wheeled vehicles are where we need to go and are headed. Armor in this theater is like usong a sledge hammer to nail a finish nail on some molding, it will work, just not producing the effect you wanted. Just not the surgical equipment we need overhere.
Just an NCOs’ on the ground opinion,
Didn’t “Crusader” die a sudden death due to being “Overweight? Guess Politics are still alive. If we had continued with Crusader, it would have been in the field by now.….
Hey people I served in IRAQ and I think that our soldiers are doing a damn good job. We can’t turn back time to make the wrong right, but this is time and now to learn from our mistakes and stand correct the guys that planned this war in the pentagon. We should have from the start cut off all entry and exit from Syria,Iran, and Saudi Arabia and we wouldn’t have this major FUBAR in the first place. What good leader would send his troops to war without the proper planning, training and protection and equipement to a war. Answer “someone who has not ever fought in this type of urban tactical warfare., and a bunch of Intelligence geeks who don’t know their a– from —-. Assist, Protect and Defend MP CORP “REGULATORS” PROUD TO BE US ARMY
Light, Air-Deployable Tanks are useful for forced entry or in terrain that will not support heavy armor. However, in any match between heavy armor and light armor, the heavy armor wins hands down. Although there are technical improvements, there is no way to change the simple basic primise that heavy beats medium beats light. Our greatest strategic vulnerability is loss & injury of American life. Heavy armor protects soldiers. Period. Combined arms wins battles. Infantry unsupported by Armor gets shot up. Armor unsupported by infantry gets shot up. Armor and Infantry working together, supported by Artillery and Engineers wins. Air power is not a substitute. It is flying artillery or flying reconnaissance. Shock & Awe did not beat the Baathists in 2003. Tanks and Infantry with ample fire support did.
try using south african armoured vehicles they are cheap easy to handle and are built for any type of terrain,us forces humvees have a weakness, nam ely not enough sloping angles to deflect blast of explosions. another problem is that they are to close to the ground and flat sided allowing blast force to fully impact and that in itself is bone jarring, sa vehicles can withstand huge blasts simply due to design, what is wrong with usa, are ur troops just simply expendable dont think heavy, think angles and deflection it will save a lot of good guys lives.usa is a super power think like one