Comments on: A New Look at FCS

By: av videolar?

av videolar? — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:14:58 +0000

good luck

By: Silas Dogood

Silas Dogood — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:29:57 +0000

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.

By: scott schulte

scott schulte — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:18:08 +0000

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.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:38:13 +0000

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.

By: Max

Max — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:09:31 +0000

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...

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:43:03 +0000

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!!!!

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:35:49 +0000

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.

By: Max

Max — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:02:11 +0000

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.

By: Cole2

Cole2 — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:43:04 +0000

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.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:05:18 +0000

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.