[EDITOR’S NOTE: I have traveled out to Ft. Bliss to participate in a media event intended to outline the Army’s modernization effort for its brigade combat teams. I’ll be out in the field tomorrow shooting video taking some stills and doing interviews (and generally getting smart on the program) and will provide data dumps here as comms permit. The following article from our Av Week friends helps set the scene.]
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
By early October, the U.S. Army will have a new program executive office (PEO) in charge of its Brigade Combat Team Modernization (BCTM), a sweeping effort to restructure its controversial Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.
The new PEO will effectively act as the integrator for BCTM, looking across the board at how to integrate so-called capabilities sets into Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), according to Paul Mehney, associate director for BCTM. Additionally, a product manager role will be established in various sectors, including one for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), which will replace the cancelled Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV).
The Armys much-touted network, the backbone of FCS, could become a point of contention as the services Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) wrestles with how much information will go to whom and how it will get delivered. The MGVs were essentially the hub of the network, and without them, TRADOC will have to determine new requirements for hosting the network and how much information the new structure will relay to the field.
The fully equipped, 15-brigade FCS structure is off the table as well, forcing the Army to figure out how to incorporate Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and up-armored Humvees into the new BCT formations. All 73 Army BCTs will now be mobile and tailor-able, according to Mehney, capable of performing the full spectrum of operations — offensive, defensive and stability — no matter the brigades configuration.
Capability sets will replace so-called spin outs, with the BCTs benefiting from upgrades and improvements on a rotating basis every few years. That system may help the program avoid the technical maturity issues it faced over the course of development for FCS. Paul Francis of the congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified June 16 before the Senate Armed Services air-land subcommittee that he thought the requirements were set before we knew what was technically feasible. So I think theres been a lot of work to rationalize.
Still, the end-product may not be that far from the original vision, albeit adapted to new budget realities, one Washington think tank analyst says in an Aug. 26 report. Given the continued development of the network and a number of additional FCS components, it seems unlikely that the new modernization program will be substantially different from the previous one, says Evan Braden Montgomery of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The Army may need to be far more selective in its modernization efforts, replacing some but not all of the different types of vehicles in its armored fleet.
The new process will take longer, however. The Army will start with a first increment in 2011, but it will take until 2025 to completely field all the capability sets.
Read the rest of this story, see how the Iraqi air force is gaining planes, read about the dead Rendon contract and hear the generals roar from our Aviation Week friends, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
So how does this incorporate the current PEO GCS and it’s project offices of HBCT, Stryker Brigades and Robotics JPO. It seems there’s a large amount of overlap here.
What are the plans for the MULE autonomous ground robot? It was part of FCS, is it still alive? When will it be fielded?
Are they going to include small arms in the modernization?
What is the plan for dismounted comms? Is there even anything approximating a plan?
Any concepts for light mounted formations like light cavalry or anything along the lines of the old 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) or a lighter setup for the Stryker BCTs?
‘
All 73 Army BCTs will now be
I can see a need for some updating but I’d have to agree there needs to be more focus on what we are doing now. Quite frankly what we are doing now is what we are likely going to be doing in ten years.
There always seems to be a need for more air mobility. I also think more focus needs to be spent on making the dismounted infantryman more lethal and better protected than what he is mounted in. Ways to carry more ammo, bigger weapons, more accurate weapons, longer range weapons, better commo, etc.
Indeed, too much emphesis on vehicles and mounted warfare.
The Army needs to focus on true LIGHT INFANTRY.
Weapons and equipment needs to be improved, yes, but Light Infantry is above all a highly evolved skillset, so TRAINING is the key, not just more/better “stuff”.
I think the balance we’re looking for here is not “Jack of all trades, master of none,” but “jack of most trades, master of some.”
Whether we like it or not, we cannot simply say that brigade will be light infantry to the exclusion of everything else, and this brigade will be armored.”
Units are going to have to accept some flexibility to pivot from their core missions, because we don’t have numbers to have sufficient expertise in the number of personnel we have. The old Light Infantry, like 7th ID(L) when I was in it (I’m dating myself here) practiced primarily at humping up and down mountains and performing attack, defense, patrolling, and everything else we did dismounted. While we were very skilled at a lot of basic infantry stuff, and could do some pretty impressive things from LPC, we had difficulty operating with mechanized forces, and we didn’t have long range mobility or firepower. There’s going to have to be more cross training in the combat arms, to at least familiarize armor and artillery troops with the infantry mission, equipment, and capabilities and vice versa.
Either that, or we grow the army to three million men, and I don’t see that happening no matter who is president.
Why not all forces, save USAF which is always leading Edge.
Modernize ALL & upgrade.
Set designs now to replace BUFF?
B1B, Trident FBM.
Think outside the Box
I thinks it’s implied training is always a given. However the point of the article is equipment and in regards to what and how to upgrade. How we ride to the fight is interesting, but when we get there it isn’t always that useful in how we fight.
Much along the lines of not needing to over do it in the USAF with F22s, the same principal applies here. lt is highly unlikely we will be in some large set piece armor battle ever. ln particular in the next 10 to 20 years. We are going to be involved in the fights we’re in right now for prob 10 more years in Stan alone.