The Army has opened a $1-million engine test facility for its $200-billion Future Combat Systems program amid Congressional concerns that the ambitious modernization program costs too much and fails to improve upon existing weapons.
The test facility at the Tank-Automotive Research and Development Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan, includes several bays where engineers from the Army and from General Dynamics — one of several major defense firms associated with FCS — can install prototype hybrid-electric engines and their associated generators and put them through power loads simulating use in combat. Hybrid engines are slated for installation in the FCS manned vehicles, the first of which would enter service around 2014.
Major Scott Tufts from the FCS mobility program office says an engine currently getting a workout at TARDEC will be fitted to a test model of the BAE Systems Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, the FCS howitzer, in August. A partial howitzer prototype mounted on an improvised, old-fashioned chassis is already undergoing firing tests at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona.
Before the 5.5-liter, five-cylinder engine can be installed on the howitzer prototype, engineers at TARDEC must map its performance across a wide range of power loads and in extreme environmental conditions. We can take the engine anywhere on the power map. We can do starting and backing up, says John Srodawa, a General Dynamics engineer. Plus TARDECs test bays can be heated to 160 degrees Fahrenheit in order to simulate high noon in the worlds hottest deserts.
The first engine to undergo testing has so far logged around 110 hours in the bay, in bursts no longer than three hours, according to Srodawa. But he says that testing will soon ramp up to full power for up to 10 hours at a time. The goal is to acquire enough data to map the engines efficiency. That, he adds, will help engineers answer the question, How do we optimize the engine and generator so that they give us the best fuel consumption?
Despite testing progress, Congress has questioned FCS schedule and goals. This month the House Armed Services Committee voted to cut $900 million from the programs 2008 budget, saying that war expenses and an Army-wide maintenance backlog were more urgent — and that FCS duplicates some existing Army capabilities. The proposed cut comes on the heels of the Armys decision last year to defer four of the 18 vehicles and robots planned for FCS in order to save money.
But even if the House cut sticks, FCS would still get nearly $3 billion next year. And Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) from the House committee says thats plenty for FCS to meet its 2008 goals, including full installation of the first hybrid engine.
– David Axe
A huge waste of money, in my view. We need a brand new fleet of M1’s, and Bradleys with updated armor, engines and weapons, but we don’t need all the latest gizmos the Army wants to tack onto them.
For example, when we were working on the Crusader Howitzer at United Defense (before it was canceled in 2002), the Army wanted the crew computer screens to be able to display all of the information from the vehicle, including ground speed, fuel on board, etc. The amount of money needed to create software to display that data in the format they wanted was just incredible, when all they really needed were old fashioned mechanical dials that would have cost a minuscule fraction and worked just as well. We have a bunch of people in the Pentagon that always want to have the latest and greatest, but never seem to sit down and think “Is this really necessary?”
My other objection to the FCS is that many of the ideas are straight out of Don Rumsfeld’s “smaller, faster, and lighter” army playbook. The FCS envisions tanks that weigh only 20-odd tons so they can be transported more easily.
Haven’t we learned anything yet from the disaster of another of Rumsfeld’s failed ideas, the Stryker rolling coffin? Yes, it’s smaller, faster and lighter, but it gets blown up faster too. The reality is that the technology for tank armor that deflects weaponry as well as the M-1 tank but enables the vehicle itself to weigh only 20 tons is fantasy right now. Certainly it’s a worthy goal to pursue for LONG TERM technology development, but completely unrealistic to imagine it happening anytime soon.
Rumsfeld had some fine ideas on paper, but he didn’t seem to realize that trying to make it happen in a handful of years was impossible.
We are going to need the good old Abrams for a long time to come, I’m afraid. Some of the better ideas in the FCS that should be immediately pursued with vigor are the rail-gun and solid-state lasers mounted in both aircraft and land vehicles.
Things that can save lives in the fcs are many. The Camera scopes to see around corners. The Blue force tracker to show you who are your guys and the commanders where all the guys are. And all the smart munitions and unmanned vehicles could really take soldiers out of harms way and make them more effective. Then the reports that the camera scope has a 1 second delay and the blue force tracker has a 1 minute delay. All workable but things we would want better. Also what is the proof you have that strykers are “rolling coffins” I thought they were doing well and I thought I even saw video of one taking an IED and getting rolled and they later rolled it back on it’s wheels and pulled it away with 1 broken arm from the crew.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/m1126-strykers-in-combat-experiences-lessons/index.php there is a lot of information as of dec 2005 about how well strykers are doing in iraq. 115 rpg strikes with no penetrations, 0 machine gun penetrations, speed that lets them chase cars. Of course is also states it is not a bradley or a m1a replacement but I just don’t see the reports that it is a “coffin on wheels.” Some thing about they need better seat belts or the gun needs to be stabalized maybe, but nothing on that bad a level.
What about all the Strykers that were blown up by roadside bombs lately in Diyala province? If I were a soldier, I would want to be in a Bradley or an M1 rather than a Stryker any day.
Listen, I worked on the crew interface design for the Crusader, which is being incorporated into the FCS. I know a little about the FCS, at least as of a few years ago. There is no doubt that there are a lot of technical advances that are good things to have, and that the Army needs. The question is, what do we need RIGHT NOW? We don’t need the FCS, because it isn’t ready for prime time and won’t be for years. We DO need a whole new fleet of upgraded M1’s and Bradleys with IED resistant-bottoms and armor overall, remotely operated 50-cals on top etc, RIGHT NOW. Spending BILLIONS on the FCS when we’ve got Army repair depots filled with damaged and worn-out tanks and vehicles is a national disgrace, in my opinion. These vehicles are badly needed RIGHT NOW by the Reserve units for training here at home and by the regular Army and Marines for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Priorities is the issue.