It’s official: After $450 billion, the Army’s quick-moving force of the future will be just about as slow as the one that’s around right now.
As I noted in June, 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.
After dancing around the issue for a couple of months, the Army has now delcared that neither the Paladin replacement nor any other FCS vehicle is going to fit into a C-130, according to Defense News’ Greg Grant. And that “appears to abandon the fundamental rationale for FCS, which was intended to speed Army brigades to combat zones around the world within 96 hours.”
The Army created the FCS concept about five years ago, after long delays in deploying a small air-ground task force to the Balkans raised questions about the services strategic relevance. Under Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Armys former chief of staff, the service scrambled for lighter armored vehicles to replace heavy Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles…
[Army Secretary Francis] Harveys announcement appears to confirm that the Army does not have the technology to allow lighter vehicles to survive future anti-armor threats. This is in part a realization born of tough losses in Iraq, where 70-ton Abrams and Bradleys have been lost to roadside explosives and rocket-propelled grenades.
But more than FCS’ weight requirement has changed. As recently as last year, the program was slated to cost $92 billion. Then, suddenly, that estimate ballooned — first to $127 billion, and next to $145 billion. Finally, we were told that this gargantuan sum would only pay for transforming a third or less of the Army.
And what would be so different, after all that cash was spent? When the program first got started, the armored vehicles were not only going to be light — they were going to be electric-powered. And they were going to fire laser weapons. Now, all of that has been dropped, understandably.
But even the more basic changes have seemed near-impossible to pull off. The effort to get all soldiers on a common radio, for example, is facing massive restructuring, after the project’s main contractor, Boeing, seems to have flushed $5 billion and three years worth of work down the toilet.
“The government has not seen sufficient evidence of the contractor teams understanding of the scale of integration required to ultimately achieve the program requirements,” the Army told Boeing in an April letter. “Nor has the industry team displayed sufficient ability to estimate a cost and schedule baseline and rigorously manage to that baseline.“
In other words, the radio project has become slow and bloated. Just like the rest of FCS.
Maybe instead of designing whole new vehicles a low power point defense laser system could be mounted on existing vehicles and used to detonate RPGs before they hit. It could be made out of currently existing technology, certainly for less than those 450 billion. The complex part would be developing an automatic fire system that could react on time but i’m pretty sure with those kinds of funds it could be done.
The way I look at it, we are trying to solve a policy problem with a technological solution.
We want faster global deployment with less casaulties.
So the obvious solution is to rely on our strategic arsenal and punish the aggressors. When a conventional response is needed, hire some cheap local thugs/criminals and mercenaries and get it done on the cheap. Plus, these guys are totally disposable.….no need for “informational dominance”.
I will guarantee you it will be cheaper than $45B.
A military force should be used as a purveyor of death and destruction, no more, no less.
it sounds like we need my commander n chief-REAGEN.THE M-109 IS OLD AND OUT DATED.we need the CRUSADER.
We have a fast rapid response military force…it’s called the Marine Corps. Idk why the army is even trying to move into the Corps area of expertise. The Army’s job is to be the big slow lumbering force of “heavy infantry” and heavy armor units that go in and hold territory and launch large scale military actions against enemies. The Army is NOT our/should not be our quick response force. Forcing them into that role just creates a large, bloated, and redundant force. If we are to go through and make the Army a primarily light infantry force rather than a heavy mechanized force then we either need to fold them into the Marines or vice versa; it just becomes redundant and expensive to operate two services that will have basically the same mission plan If you want a rapid response force look no further than the Marine Expeditionary Force(s) that are deployed around the world. They are already lighter, & faster. Basically to sum it all up: Marines=Light Rapid Response force that can react quickly to hot spots around the world, but they can’t hold ground for indefinate periods of time…that’s where the Army comes in the big heavy force that moves in after the Marines have secured a foothold for the big hitters to move in and finish up. Marine=Light Army=Heavy why change a winning formula?
im sick of this army crap, ive never herd a soilder shut up with this “marines arent that good”. NO there better then army its all about speed and intensity which the army doesnt have, but dont get me wrong my dad was army special forces, he was a ranger and a real killer in paintball, but a marine fresh from basic put my dad to shame. basicly i dont hear marines talk crap cus they are marines, army talks crap cus they can never be marines, most amry soilders are rejected marines anyhow its not the other way around
Email me, i love to argue if you disagree
Justin Milam, either your daddy wasn’t Army SF or your just a fool. Army SF would pummel the living s#@% out of a marine any day. A marine fresh out of boot has limited experience in anything. Bootcamp is NOT combat training. In bootcamp you learn some fighting, and some shooting. But as an Army SF soldier you are an EXPERT in hand to hand combat, in weapons, and about 20 other items. So shut your mouth you ignorant fools. You are all around 15 years old and play too many video game SHUT YOUR MOUTHS!
first i dont hate on the army for god sake, the in there for the same reason as anyone in any branch second my father was a army sf iv seen him beet the living crap out of many before him and i see a lot of wisdom in him and third you are right about boot camp in marines its just basic skills not trying to stuff as much in themm and send them off to war, its said the only thing equall to a marine is an army ranger none are better then eachother but a regular army soilder fresh from basic and a marine fresh from basic easy pickn for that marine. so you can whine about it are you can suck it up (like a marine) and Acknowledge those marines and what they joined the marines for( if you think the army is so tough then why does the army have to compare there special forces to a normal marine{not that theres anything normal about them}that does not sound to tough)
I MUSS ZIB
I MUSS ZIB