The $87 billion Manned Ground Vehicle Program will probably be killed this week, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee Tuesday morning.
Army Secretary Pete Geren also clarified one point that is sure to raise the hackles of Sen. James Inhofe the Non Line of Sight Cannon was killed as well. Inhofe had the NLOC made a separate program in large part to protect it from any cuts made to FCS. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the decision that killing MGV also meant killing the NLOS-C, Geren said today.
An Acquisition Decision Memorandum should be out this week, splitting the Manned ground Vehicle from the rest of the FCS program and killing MGV, Casey told the subcommittee. He said they have already instructed Training and Doctrine Command to being drawing up new requirements. A new program outline for a new ground vehicle should be ready after Labor Day, Casey said. The military will consider foreign vehicles, though Casey seemed reluctant to commit to the idea of buying one should it look tempting. (While the Army has bought excellent equipment from overseas in the past, it has been badly burned before over buying from foreign suppliers remember those black berets made in China. ) The first vehicles should roll out of the plant within five to seven years.
Sec. Gates and his budget experts have made very clear they expect MRAP will be a major part of the new approach to FCS. Casey and Geren were very cautious in responding to reporters questions about this after the hearing. We are working to incorporate the MRAP into whatever approach the Army comes up with, Geren said. And Casey said the Army is already putting networked MRAPs with other FCS spinouts into testing at Fort Bliss.
One thing may stay the same with the new ground combat vehicle a single chassis, which Casey said had clear logistics payoffs.
Finally, one of my colleagues asked Casey whether he would provide an unfunded requirements list to Congress. Gates has made clear he does not want to be blindsided by the lists a perennial favorite of both Congress and the services since it allows the services to circumvent the budget process and OSD in asking for money and Casey expressed admirable frustration with the process. Im almost at the point where Im ready to kill that whole idea, Casey said. Almost? I asked. Almost, Casey said to appreciative laughter from the gaggle. Look for an unfunded requirements list from the Army, coming soon.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
“One thing may stay the same with the new ground combat vehicle
The 1st thing that comes to mind is that the MGV depends on lightweight armor & active defense systems that haven’t been made yet & may never be practical. There’s a lot less risk with vehicles that don’t have to be light enough to be flown in large numbers.
NLOS-C technology on a heavier chassis would allow you a 55 caliber barrel & be the best SP artillery gun in the world in every way.
Could the chassis of Crusader be used for a full range of vehicles?
Sounds like the requirements won’t change much.
So is starting over primarily a way to delay procurement by 5 years and save money?
Good question. Perhaps if you fire enough people you can get the same effect without throwing the design away.
Or perhaps we should just accept we are shooting for a vehicle that is too light and just stick to something more intermediate. Figure out what is adding excessively to the cost and decide whether or not it is required.
Curious though: is it mostly avionics, “digital networking” etc? Maybe the additional cost is the R&D cost associated with the electronics of FCS, not necessarily the vehicles themselves. Perhaps we could field without the advanced electronics, test the vehicles/concepts, and then purchase the upgraded electronics when they are mature.
Good Afternoon Folks,
The FCS MGV is DEAD, let bury it before it stinks the joint up any more. The FCS is not the future for the Army or the Marines.
The new word is “Ripsaw”, it’s not a theory, but a UTV that can do 60 MPH and go cross country with out throwing a track and the working prototype was made for about $725,000.00. That wouldn’t even cover the paint of one FCS vehicle.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
they expect MRAP will be a major part of the new approach to FCS.
____________________________
goodbye army. The moment you have an enemy which just fields an IFV a MRAP-typ thing is dead.
I don’t see how MRAP is gonna replace FCS. It’s like saying in the ’70s that those Vietnam-era guntrucks will replace the M1 Abrams. Ridiculous.
Maybe instead of making lighter tanks we can develop aircraft that carry more…
Also, bring back Crusader then!
From what I’ve read it sounds like Gates wants FCS — just with more armor and v-hulls. Doesn’t sound that different.
David:
He wants specs that are similar to FCS. However, it will probably involve another redesign when much of the design work for FCS is already done.
If you throw in additionals like V-hulls and other things you add in now, then additional time and costs are imposed. It’s easy to simply keep tweaking a design and add to the cost rather than push a good product to completion and then work on the next generation replacement immediately afterwards.
NLOS should be canceled. We already have something much better in the field right now that the soldiers love. It’s called GMLRS. That is the future of artillery. Not mass unguided artillery fire. Those days are long gone!
I believe we need a M109A7 Paladin, with FCS technology integrated. I hope that’s the objective of M109A6 PIM.
>It’s called GMLRS
No, it’s a matter of cost per round. If artillery rounds are more cost efficient than guided rocket, then there is still room for artillery. Why do you think many countries have both?
>FCS MGV designs are already far advanced, innovative, and working quite well. Why scrap them, >only to start all over again, with much the same goal?
That’s how I feel too. They are not just scrapping it, but demanding to build a different new vehicle. If the objective was to save money by cutting such projects, then it is a strange idea to build new vehicles aiming toward the same goal.
In my mind FCS was designed in the ’90s for the New Soviet Union, and then redesigned in the 2k’s, and worst-case scenario will be redesigned again!
I mean the current FCS may not have V-bottoms but is that really going to kill FCS? Also what stops them from rapidly fielding FCS units without waiting for all the electronics? I suppose there are a few critical ones, but if it can be fielded early to test concepts then it should be fielded asap. Spin off the electronics and digital stuff of FCS and field the vehicles as soon as possible.
What’s the problem with buying abroad? If you need a lightweight, highly modern incredibly transortable artillery system, check out the CEASAR system – type it into wiki or Janes Defense if you’re interested. Great weapon.
Brit: America is a political country. We try not to overtly buy foreign equipment…even though Carl Gustav is Swedish, AT-4 derived from Carl Gustav is Swedish and the M-249 comes from FN Herstal of Belgium and the barrel of the Abrams comes from Rheinmetal of Germany, and probably more I’ve forgotten.
Even with the above examples note that at best small arms come from other countries, but never big weapon systems.
I’d rather have PzH 2000, but I’m not Robert Gates. Congress would also huff and puff about buying a foreign artillery system, which would be more blatant than a German tank barrel.
If NLOS is up for grabs we should just buy Crusader again and call it a day.
V-hulls and tracked suspensions don’t work together.
Gates want MRAP to be a part of the next vehicle program?
WTF? MRAPs are glorified trucks and hardly combat vehicles like Strykers, Abrams, or Bradleys. We need to get working on a real replacement in the 50-60 ton range for the Abrams, Bradley, and Paladin on a common chassis. Possibly use the FCS hull to develop and field a light 25 ton cavalry vehicle.
Upgraded Strykers should be good for our “lighter” units for awhile.
Gates want MRAP to be a part of the next vehicle program?
WTF? MRAPs are glorified trucks and hardly combat vehicles like Strykers, Abrams, or Bradleys. We need to get working on a real replacement in the 50-60 ton range for the Abrams, Bradley, and Paladin on a common chassis. Possibly use the FCS hull to develop and field a light 25 ton cavalry vehicle.
Upgraded Strykers should be good for our “lighter” units for awhile.
Wes,
I was curious why you don’t believe a V-hull could work with tracks. After all, a tire is much taller, and the turning ones coupled with their height, seemingly would encroach much more on the V-hull than an 18″ wide low band track.
After brief research (google: Sappers Forward), I found a brief mention of several reasons why V-hulls and tracks are less compatible and currently are not fielded:
- low to the ground tracks do not allow much v-hull angle (is a 30 degree angle sufficient?)
- track metal road wheels would tend to trap the blast under the vehicle (wouldn’t 8 tire/wheels too?)
- torsion arm moment would increase substantially (couldn’t a tube frame external to the V-hull support the torsion arms?)
- hinged armored skirts would tend to hold blast pressure under the vehicle like road wheels (he mentioned shear pins)
- band tracks would be rendered immobile after a blast (wouldn’t most wheeled vehicles?)
Aren’t there other potential workarounds?
Hydraulic suspension to raise or lower the height? Just cannot envision going to a wheeled replacement of ANY HBCT. Even lightweight Stryker and LAV III get stuck easy and the more weight you add…the greater the getting stuck problem.
While the Army, Gates, Congress, etc. figure out the replacement for the M1 and until that replacement vehicle is fielded would it be correct to assume there will have to be M1A3 or 4 Abrams upgrades?
And if so how far along in development are they?
Any insider knowlege or thoughts on this?
Thanks
I don’t think the issue Gates had with FCS was the single chasis or what was built being poor, it was the alleged protection of the networking and what not as a counter to threats. The IED issue in Iraq changed thinking on what would be required in deployments as opposed to what the salesman bribing Congressmen were preaching. When he says MRAP I don’t think he is referring to just buying trucks with guns, he means vehicles that have the physical capability to withstand some level of IED attacks instead of relying networking providing some virtual safety, that’s all. Vehicles that we need for missions we are likely to be involved in. I’m sure whatever is designed will be able to deal with potential MBT and IFV threats, but the likliehood of us engaging in large conventional land battles isn’t likely.
Cole,
I can give you a few responses to some of the things you mentioned on V-hulls and tracks.
- low to the ground tracks do not allow much v-hull angle
(is a 30 degree angle sufficient?)
– It probably is.
- track metal road wheels would tend to trap the blast under the vehicle
(wouldn’t 8 tire/wheels too?)
– Any type of wheel or side skirt would tend to trap the blast. However there are more road wheels on tracked vehicles than there are wheels on something like a Stryker and they are spaced closer together. That means they are more of a barrier than the tires of a wheeled vehicle. Also, the actual bottom of the hull is generally closer to the ground on tracks than it is for wheel vehicles that need room for their running gear and suspension to project below the floor of the car. That means there is less space for the blast to expand into and therefore more force strikes the hull.
- torsion arm moment would increase substantially
(couldn’t a tube frame external to the V-hull support the torsion arms?)
Maybe it can, but adding the frame would increase cost and complexity. That does not seem to be all that big a deal to me, but I’m not the one who approves the design.
- hinged armored skirts would tend to hold blast pressure under the vehicle like road wheels
(he mentioned shear pins)
– Shear pins would help, but until the blast built up enough pressure to break the pins AND overcome the momentum of the skirts – which will almost certainly weigh several tons apiece – the blast would be trapped against the hull. Once again that increases the pressure that the hull must withstand.
- band tracks would be rendered immobile after a blast
(wouldn’t most wheeled vehicles?)
– The short answer is no. Any all-wheel drive vehicle can keep moving after loosing a tire. This is especially true of the eight wheeled Strykers. If you throw a track you stay right where you are until you either fix it or someone tows you away. This is one of the principle reasons that so few Strykers have been lost in ambushes. They are almost always able to drive out of the kill zone.
Aren’t there other potential workarounds?
– I’m sure there are. That goes back to cost and complexity.
If I recall correctly in the ’20s the Christie-type tanks could drive about on wheels and could be re-tracked for off-road mobility. Of course, since only one of the wheels is driven on a modern tank I question if this is possible nowadays.
what about refurbished M1 with some kind of hybrid?
I need to clarify something about my earlier response to Cole viz tracked vehicles and V-hulls.
I was just trying to provide more information about the points that he brought up. I was NOT trying to say that FCS-MGV designs are defective when it comes to IED protection. In fact I am sure that they are better than what we have in the field now.