Our friends over at the Center for Defense Information have provided DT with an interesting primer on the Armys Future Combat Systems program.
Contributor Winslow Wheeler explains:
The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is central to the U.S. Armys vision of its transformation in response to perceived challenges in the post-Cold War world.
Since beginning in 2000, the program has encountered large cost increases, schedule delays and difficulties in developing the systems new and complex technologies. Some have challenged the fundamental concept of the FCS as an example of the failed, so-called Revolution in Military Affairs.
CDI Research Associate Ana Marte and Research Assistant Elise Szabo provide an overview of the FCS program and links to many additional sources.
(Photo from Boeing)
– Christian
As usual ego seems to be part of the weapons acquisition process. Ego and pork that is.
Anybody who knows anything about science knows that very rarely are there major breakthroughs. It’s usually done in small increments. A little here, a little there and it takes time to take all these small steps ahead and find a way to utilize them. Until there is that major discovery that changes things drastically it’s about taking small steps forward.
Our military wanted to take major leaps and it just doesn’t work, as we found out with the failed Star Wars program. You can’t just throw money at scientists and say make it happen. All that will happen is to waste of a lot of money.
We do not have the technology nor do we have cost effective ways to make the major leaps the DOD wants. They have to go back and do it the old fashioned way, one step at a time until someone comes up with a major leap.
As technologies mature and become cost effective not to mention actually usable we just have to slog along with what we have. Which by the way is some of the best in the world. That should be our goal, to give our fighting man the best in the world at every stage whether it’s boots or bombers.
Just keep on keeping on makes the most sense. Keep improving what we have and keep ahead of what the other countries have.
One day when we find out how to make certain things work then we can put them into our inventory. Until then a more logical realistic approach is necessary.
They look real useful for Iraq and Afghanistan. They will fit in well at the Anniston Depot with all the thousands of other IED destroyed vehicles. As long as it is made in some Congressperson’s district it will be justified.
man the army has its head so far up its ass its unreal. im in the army right now. its full of lazy careerist officers and CSM’s that only care about making it till retirement. they sit in ac offices telling you how to conduct missions without ever going outside the wire. then when we all get back from deployment they pin medals on each others chests for a job well done. the same people are making choices for the FCS. they think that the enemy is going to switch to fighting a cold war type of battle. these gutless general are scared to say anything but “yes sir” when a senator recommends some POS gear that is built in his district. these wars will be won with interpersonal skills not cutting edge tech. no insurgency has ever been defeated by some star wars bull shit. just ask the brits. it take time and will there are no easy short cuts.
Sure they do, more useful than sending out an M1 out on police duties. Anyways, Iraq and Afghanistan won’t always be the conflict.
Charges of bloat, pork, cost overruns, and spending on useless technology are nothing new for a government program. The programs that came in on time and under budget could probably be counted on one hand. Those criticism were levied against virtually every major weapons system deployed today. But if the critics had been listened to, the US military would still be fighting with M60s and M-16’s (well, um …). No M1 (too expensive, too unreliable, guzzles gas), no F-16 (not capable enough), no Raptor (too expensive, no mission), not to mention the major advances to computer and communications technology brought about by Star Wars.
And compared to Star Wars, FCS is not that major a leap in technology. Star Wars was a huge leap into the unknown. FCS is firmly grounded in technology that is increasingly commonplace. No risk, no reward. Sure we all wish the government worked more efficiently, but such is the nature of a democracy. Efficiency is not part of our lexicon.
I see a lot of proven weapons being scrapped while empty promises of new weapons have yet to materialize.The Future combat System gives a whole new meaning to the description “paper tiger.” The only FCS systems I have seen are on paper.The New F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? I’ve only seen that on paper. Here’s a question,with almost all of our war making factories out of business,who is going to make these shiny new weapons? The only people making money are the paper companies who produce the paper to print these shiny pictures.
Is that a real photograph of FCS vehicles or just a clever computer generated image?
And just how useful are all those MRAP vehicles going to be in a battle with a modern army? It’s too easy to focus on the war you’ve been fighting and forget about other contingencies. Western armed forces have been trying to shake off Cold War doctrines for the past 15 years, and have undergone similar experiences after WW1, WW2, and Vietnam instilled various lessons in the participants. You can’t stop thinking about tomorrow just because of what’s going on today.
“Some have challenged the fundamental concept of the FCS as an example of the failed, so-called
In contrast, with the capability to transport 3 FCS vehicles per C-17, the 8 C-17s that in OIF airlanded 5 M1 tanks and 5 Bradleys during those early 5 days could have instead deployed 24 FCS vehicles, i.e., nearly a company of Infantry carriers and a company of FCS-version tanks to augment the airborned brigade early in any conflict. That is the time when early defense of air and sea ports of entry may be most critical. Early sea-deployment aboard fast ships would also optimize theater entry with:
– fewer logistical trucks and supplies required early in the conflict
– less fuel required to be deployed to support initial OIF-like assaults
The same claim was made for the Stryker when it was originally bought and fielded, until they realized with add-on armor it was too heavy. It was supposed to weigh 20 tons, fly in a C-130, and be ready to fight in 15 minutes. Now with the added weight, the C-17 is the deployability measuring stick.
With 25 tons being the standard they’re looking at for the FCS vehicles, everything will depend on what they decide to put in/on these vehicles. Weapons, sensors, armor, engines, tracks, fuel, and whatever gizmos someone invents after initial fielding will all add extra weight beyond what was originally projected (as well as the cost already being felt now in the R&D stage). That reduction in fuel convoys will only become a reality if they can field the hybrid engines or new tracks they’ve been experimenting with. Otherwise we’re just buying more of the same and there will be little that is revolutionary about these vehicles.
I was in the army during the 9th Infantry Division experiment.They were pouring money into this “fiasco” to test mainly dune buggys because they never supplied the other armored wheeled vehicles.Well,after maybe 6–7 years,they switched 9th Infantry Division to a mechanized division,then they deactivated it & shrunk it into the 199th Infantry Brigade,then they reflagged it into the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment & moved it to Louisiana,then they made it into a stryker brigade & moved it to Germany,&.…wasn’t that what 9th Infantry Division was supposed to be in the first place?I do not see ANY active military unit equipped with any FSC vehicles.I see nothing but a promissory note from congress & the Pentagon saying they promise to replace the weapons,ships,planes,7 other equipment they retired,scrapped,let run down & fall into disrepair.They have been promising forever to replace the M16 with something better.They have been promising better body armor.“We promise to send you MRAPs.“Congress “promised” 60 more F-22 Raptors.Meanwhile we only currently have 2 fighter squadrons worth of F-22s.I personally believe that the new UCAVs,UAVs,UGVs both armed & unarmed,& even unmanned patrol boats will never leave our oceans shores.The men & women of our armed forces with their shoddy equipment will be sent out of country & our new “robots” will be used by a dictatorship to control an unarmed civilian public in country.
Not that it is a justification for the entire FCS program, but as is true with most DARPA projects– the FCS project has the potnetial for massive medical technology advancements
http://docinthemachine.com/2006/12/08/army-axing-high-tech-soldier-of-tomorrow-medtech-losses-predicted/
Max, detecting our build-up is irrelevant if we already have credible forces on the ground supported by tactical air elements before the enemy can react. In the same way we may instantly detect enemy cross-border incursions to seize potential air and sea ports of entry, yet have little ability to stop it when fast sealift ships and carriers are en route but are still days out of port. In Desert Storm, if Hussein had gone on to attack Saudi ports prior to our lengthy build-up, we would have had much greater difficulty introducing forces into theater.
Prepositioned and forward-deployed units in Europe shorten distance offering possibilities for more rapid air deployment to Middle East and other theaters. No, we can’t possibly air deploy everything. Sea and air deployment occur simultaneously thereby moving credible ground forces into theater more rapidly, supported by our air and sea-based brethren.
In the northern Iraq airlift example, the combat elements of a small battalion task force of 20 FCS-“tanks” and 16 Infantry carriers, and 3 NLOS cannons would require just 13 C-17 sorties compared to 29 C-17 sorties to carry 20 M1 tanks, 14 Bradleys, and 3 Palladin howitzers. Which force would we rather have on the ground if attacked after only 13 sorties have landed
Cole,
Many great arguments and I never said we don’t need all the new technology that we can get. My main beef is that a lot of the FCS technology is great, so why not make upgraded versions of PROVEN existing vehicles, like the M1 and Bradley that incorporate the new technology AND have the PROVEN armored toughness that the soldiers so desperately need? To retrofit existing vehicles would likely not work and newer versions would be required.
What I’m trying to say is that the so-called “Lighter, faster” idea of having 24 ton vehicles that REPLACE the 70-ton M1 (which was the whole idea to start with; I know because I was a System Engineer on the Crusader Project for over 3 years) is absolute foolishness. Trying to shoot down the M1 by saying that it can be penetrated too is a straw-man argument. Of course if you drop a nuclear warhead on any vehicle known to man, then that vehicle will obviously be destroyed. Using your argument, then, we shouldn’t be using any vehicles at all, because they might get destroyed. Nonsense.
I would be willing to bet that any soldier in the field would gladly exchange their thin-skinned 24-ton vehicle for an M1 anyday if they knew they were going to get hit. It’s a matter of increasing survivability, not invulnerability.
With all due respect, I don’t buy the argument that we need thinner-skinned vehicles that get blown up easier just so the Army can get to the fight faster. Our soldiers in Iraq have been paying THE price almost every day for the last 4 years because their vehicles were insufficiently protected. Now we’re paying through the nose to rush rolling bank vaults (MRAPS) to Iraq as fast as we can so that this problem will be reduced. At the same time, we’re paying mega-billions to make thin skinned vehicles that are supposed to replace the M1 and Bradley? Hello?! I don’t think someone in the Pentagon/White House has been paying attention, and the lives of thousands of soldiers in the future may be lost unnecessarily because of it.
New technology, YES. Thin-skinned vehicles, NO. The M1 and Bradley cannot possibly be replaced by 24-ton vehicles unless there is a miraculous new lightweight armor plate that has been invented recently and almost nobody outside of DARPA knows about it. I’m not in there, so I wouldn’t know.
But that is what is behind almost the entire rationale for scrapping the M1 and Bradley: they believe that by the time the FCS is deployed, there will be a new miracle armor available that will make replacing the M1 and Bradley possible with the SAME or better level of protection. Tell me if I’m wrong, but the last I heard, such armor doesn’t exist yet; therefore we shouldn’t shoot ourselves in the foot by scrapping the M1 and Bradley just yet.
Max,
Thanks for your comments. Feel your pain on the Crusader since Army Aviation (my background) lost Comanche…but it worked out better in the end. The Cold War is over, and we are likely to face fewer massed T-80 tanks in future wars.
But even those foes who own T-80s realize that 125mm rounds are unlikely to penetrate our M1 frontal armor. That’s why insurgents and our more capable foes will make every effort to strike heavy armor where it is thinnest. Since you can’t put frontal armor all over ANY vehicle, at some point, you seek alternative means of protection.
Crusader guys understood about top attack munitions and counterbattery fire so they, too, fell into the trap of bigger is better. But as fielding of the NLOS-cannon shows, you can take alternate approaches to the same problem. Shoot and scoot tactics along with an incredibly capable FCS and current counterbattery radar capability, provide an alternative to heavy armor on an artillery vehicle.
Sure it carries less ammo, too. But with Excalibur GPS 155mm rounds and more accurate target location for conventional ammo, you don’t need multiple vollies to adjust and walk rounds into target. You can get by with fewer rounds under armor with other PLS racks waiting at your next firing position. We also no longer indiscriminately throw artillery around the battlefield due to collateral damage risks.
Because NLOS-Cannon is going to be fielded…you are a long way to fielding other common manned ground vehicles (MGV). We talk about protecting personnel. Well many current 113-based C2, ambulance, and other vehicles provide current forces very little protection. C2 113s stick out like a sore thumb if you recall live feeds from OIF. Shoot me please..or create a common MGV that blends in with everything else! Bradley’s provide less protection than tanks and believe it or not, there is evidence that FCS vehicles will provide greater all around protection than Bradleys.
I hate to continue harping on the fuel issue but it is no small matter. Check out this link which has a questonable agenda, but nevertheless provides good information:
http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/06/military-oil-consumption-in.html
If we have expended 5 billion gallons of fuel between Iraq and Afghanistan as of March 2006, multiple that by $3 a gallon and then realize that it costs considerably more than that to get gas into those two areas.
If we are consuming 1.3–1.7 million gallons of fuel a day in Iraq, do the math on what it requires to get that much fuel to our Soldiers/airmen…in harms way the entire route.
I found this article interesting, too. It kind of encapsulates the arguments for and against FCS…but also conveys that the heavy force is NOT going away, and will benefit from FCS technology. It also illustrates the potential benefits in being able to mix and match heavy, FCS/Stryker, and light Army task forces and tailor the force to the threat you face:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/092006nj1.htm
Addressing your last point, I believe this article states that the common MGV will allow future armor as it’s developed to be mounted in place of existing armor without having to buy whole new vehicles…or continue to pile new armor on top of old.
Of course you may want to do the latter once in theater and sea-deployed add-on armor arrives for a long-haul war. Initial air-deployed forces will be more of a deterrence to enemy attack, and are more likely to defend from prepared defenses to make up for lack of armor. In such a defense against enemy counterattacks, the enemy MUST expose themselves…thus becoming vulnerable to long-range FCS and Joint fires.
The network architecture is similarly being designed to accomodate future upgrades (and software fixes)without starting over every few years. There are great advantages to being able to use common parts, common software, and common FIXES as we field an entire force at once.…rather than one completely different vehicle at a time which will also have problems and multiple separate fixes.
Gotta go help the wife. Have a good weekend.
Thanks for that linked article. It said a lot of the same things I’ve been trying to say, but did it better. I guess the best way to summarize the situation would be to say that FCS should never be thought of as a complete replacement for the M1 (but maybe the Bradley). Combined arms is the way to go; one size/vehicle does not fit all situations; fix up the M1’s with more fuel efficient engines and better technology and the Army will be better off.
And did you notice that as soon as Rumsfeld was out of the Pentagon, suddenly Iraq started to turn around? That parallels with the Rumsfeld brain-gas idea of “lighter, faster” with no M1’s needed. The sooner we eliminate THAT idea, the better off our soldiers will be too.
Imagine a war against Iran where the Iranians employ massive human wave assaults against our land forces just like they did against Iraq in the 80’s.Sounds laughable,they might as well employ a cavalry charge while they are at it.Now,lets tie the hands of our troops through stupid “politically correct” prohibitions.No anti-personnel land mines,thats just not politically correct.Lets go further,no napalm,no cluster bombs,no fuel air bombs,no daisy cutters or MOAB bombs to stop these human wave attacks.No shotguns or .50-caliber machine guns allowed.No Claymore mines allowed either.As far as I know,I have just shot down every weapon that could be used to stop human wave attacks.No TALON SWORDS robots to supplement & augment our ground troops against Iranian human wave attacks.Now lets really get ridiculous,No firing of weapons by our troops unless fired upon first & then written permission must be given to fire back by the chain of command all the way to the president.Now lets make it very interesting,while all of this is going on our President is in Texas clearing brush on his ranch.The Vice-President? He’s right there helping the President,along with the Defense Secretary & Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Centcom Commander,he’s probably on a world tour of Yemen,Saudi Arabia,& Egypt,or he’s maybe playing around in Tampa,heck,he just might be in Texas also helping to clear the brush.Oh,& they have given instructions not to be disturbed until they are finished clearing brush.Iranian human wave attacks don’t seem so stupid any more does it?
I say this because no matter how “modern” our fighting gear is,it can all be made of no importance or consequence if stupid orders like my scenario gives are in effect.
Personally,I don’t see why we need these weapon systems anyway when we are so close to World Peace & Safety,New World Order,One World Government,KUMBIYA!!!!
One more thing on the Crusader, Cole…
The last thing that the Army was worried about with that vehicle was top-attack munitions, because the whole idea at the time was “large army against large army” (Soviet vs US) with the Crusader posted far behind enemy lines (LOL). The army apparently never considered the possibility for a conflict like Iraq back in the 90’s when the Crusader was conceived (or was it the 80’s?). Anyway, the armor was so thin that it could only repel a 50-cal or “artillery fragments” bursting nearby (LOL again). It was never intended to be a vehicle going in harms way like in Iraq. Top attack munitions were never discussed that I know of.
Other than that, the “NLOS Cannon” is just a downsized (albeit more modern) version of the Crusader that can’t fire more than a handful of rounds before needing to be resupplied (with a mule?). In my opinion, the Crusader was a much superior weapon system to the NLOS cannon, because it carried a lot more rounds and could be resupplied very quickly with a special vehicle that didn’t require soldiers’ hands to get dirty. Heavier? Yup. So what? It was probably better protected than the NLOS whatever. And by the way, why call it a Non-line of sight cannon anyway? Why not just call it an old fashioned “Self-propelled Artillery/Howitzer”? O wait I remember, the Army needs the new product to sound extra racy so that Congress will cough up the billions needed, thinking it is something really different than what we already had…
Cole,
Very interesting. It sounds like they’ve continued on the same track as they had started with the Crusader, but just taken it to a whole new level of commonality and such with the entire suite of vehicles to reduce duplication in the supply stream. Ok, I’m good with that; I think those ideas are all things the Army would want to achieve SOMEDAY (I still think 24 rounds isn’t enough).
I would have to say, though, that with the pressing needs of our CURRENT fleet of M1’s, Bradleys, and other vehicles crumbling at an accelerated rate because of their duty in Iraq, the LAST thing we need right now is to be pushing the Army even harder with transformation on top of being maxed out in Iraq and elsewhere. I don’t know, but seems to me that the Army pace of operations needs to be brought down a few notches so they can rebuild and repair before doing anything else; not to mention the fact that the military budget only has so much room for massive new programs like FCS.
I’m also glad to hear that the Pentagon has finally ditched the bad idea of total replacement of the M1’s.
Great discussion! Thanks Cole.
Roy,
You make a great point in response to your comment on 11 August 2007. We have all the advantages money can buy. We have clearly the best electronics, weapons systems, trained soldiers, etc. If the soldiers are not allowed to engage the enemy without fear of career/freedom ending reprisals then we have nothing. The politically correct need to stand on the lines and get shot at awhile so that they understand the fight. The future force is bright with all the cutting edge tech gadgets and the robotic systems. I have seen monumental changes in equipment in my career. If we can utilize the equipment then I believe we have a shot at winning wars and deterring future enemies, if not the spending is pointless.
I can’t believe that they’re still funding this thing! Isn’t it cancelled YET? After all, it’s being developed by the same people who were the subject of “The Pentagon Wars”, and who also made a mess of developing Crusader. How many times does a defense contractor have to screw up before they’re identified as screwups???
The country can’t afford to waste any more money on pork-barrel projects like this one.
good luck