Comments on: Helos, Drones Up, FCS Down for Army

By: xman

xman — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:52:10 +0000

Why we do not need the Army FCS’s T-UGS? These sensors and its Gateway from a mesh network using zigbee at 2,4 GHz. In theory the Gateways are suppose to send back video via the JTRS WNW radio to a WIN-T node, which sends the video via a SATCOM link, for example The first problem is one is “tied” to the Gateways or Gateway with a short range wideband radio (WNW waveform), which will have a maximum range of less than 2 miles. Who will be with the radio or radios at each Gateway; relay node to send back video. Another problem will be the limited range of the sensors linking each other with the Gateways. Most likely the maximum range of this mesh network will be limited to 500 meters or less. This architecture does not make sense!

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:09:20 +0000

So new JLTV will be “bigger” than the Humvee? May need a new smaller vehicle to occupy low end of the vehicle charts, since I was under the impression that Humvee was borderline big for some applications.
Even so, there’s still a yawning size range between JLTV and Stryker. Stryker may be big for some applications; and I’m still wondering if there is room for a “Stryker lite”, perhaps scaling down LAV-3 material to a smaller six-wheel or four-wheel unit.

By: TB

TB — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:20:16 +0000

I’m sure they plan on the JLTV to split the difference between Strykers and humvees. The Strykers (and especially MRAPs) were sometimes too tall for Iraqi streets. The humvees could go just about anywhere in Iraqi cities, but we all know their limitations.

By: TB

TB — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:25:39 +0000

I just came out of a heavy recon squadron. They were designed for brigade-sized conventional fights and are almost entirely used as stand-in infantry in Iraq and A’stan except that they only have half the manpower of an infantry battalion. My squadron was used more like military police in 2007. The Strykers in our AO were great at putting lots of infantry somewhere in a hurry, but were limited in dense urban areas due to their size.
And like Byron said, while deployed I’ve seen brigades operate with only 3 of their 4 combat arms battalions and at least one operate with 7 that didn’t normally belong to them.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:24:48 +0000

Too lazy to track down the source, but the SecDef said he believed the Army doesn’t have enough people to man 48 BCTs. Don’t believe the Army would want the HBCT to have to maintain Strykers as well as M1 & Bradleys. What might work is to up-gun the Recon Squadron into a mix of M1, M113s & HMMVWs.
If NLOS-C is really dead, is it too late to bring back Crusader? Since there will be HBCT for the forseeable future, the weight of Crusader is no longer an issue.
You would have guessed without anyone telling you anyway: EADS is pushing the UH-72 as a replacement for the ARH.

By: sal

sal — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:27:45 +0000

The SBCTs are great at OIF/OEF operations, the structure of those elements leaves the HBCTs wanting. Ideally the HBCT need 1 more combined arms battalion in order to not have to use their ARS or artillery battalion as stand in Infantry. The MGS cannot be seen as a replacement for the Abrams and the Stryker is no replacement for the Bradley, but a wheeled vehicle that has the lethality/survivability that can be “good enough” should be incorporated into the SBCTs to make them truly multi roled. With the Army stopping at 45 BCTs, the active HBCTs should get that extra CAB they need. If the Army really wanted to change things up, replace the HBCT Recon Squadrons’ HUMMV/Bradley mix with all Strykers.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:22:14 +0000

I haven’t seen any mention of the M109 PIM modernization program which is interesting considering the fate of FCS including NLOS-C. I suppose the program could be rolled up into the rest of HBCT improvement programs since it has a realitvely small budget but I’ve never not seen it broke out like this. Where has this program gone?