Family of Future Combat Vehicles

[McG]

Wheels are a cheap alternative to the real thing.  Either do it right or don't do it at all.  I didn't see allot of wheeled Combat vehicle's during my time in then West Germany.

But, we are not fighting the Soviets in West Germany.

 

[EX COELIS]

Very true.  However, are we not fighting in a more dangerous environment?  Involved in more unpreditable deployments?  Living in a more complex world where there is no defined enemy?  Shouldn't we be better equipped to deal with todays unknown threats?

In the Cold War days we knew what we were up against; their equipment, tactics, strengths, objectives, doctrine etc.  We don't have that luxury or template to work from in today's hostile environment.  So can it be said that we should be better equipped in what can be decribed as a more dangerous threat than we, as a Western nation, have ever encountered in the past?

Are cheap, 8 wheeled, lightly armoured series of vehicles up to the tasks that lay ahead?  Are we prepared to pay the price in body bags to find out?

 

[McG]

Very true.  However, are we not fighting in a more dangerous environment?  Involved in more unpreditable deployments?  Living in a more complex world where there is no defined enemy?  Shouldn't we be better equipped to deal with todays unknown threats?

Yes, we should be properly equipped.  However, you've made an assumption that heavy tracked vehicles are universally better than medium wheeled vehicles & that this is simply a universal truth.  You are wrong.  Each comes with its own strengths & weaknesses.

Are cheap, 8 wheeled, lightly armoured series of vehicles up to the tasks that lay ahead?

Oooo!  You’ve called wheels cheap.  That’s sold me.

Are we prepared to pay the price in body bags to find out?

You are right.  We would be better to pay the price in body bags to determine if some other system is better simply because you’ve made an emotional plea that was completely devoid of any arguments linking the technical trade-offs to operational & tactical requirements.

Sorry if I seem blunt, but for such a tired debate as tracks vs. wheels, we typically expect a deeper level of argument than one’s emotional examination of what did or did not work when the two way range of the Cold War did not go live.

 

[ArmyRick]

I am going to back McG here.

Ex-ex coelis, do you have any idea the capability of the LAVIII with a 25mm chain gun, 7.62mm co-axial MG?
Do you not realize the body count would be much higher if they had been using grizzly or M113s?

Wheels aint the issue.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Roger that. Cheers
PS I was wondering where those M113's went to.  Buddy of mine said they sent them over.  Should have known they'd change the name to hide the fact that they're still using a 30 year old piece of kit.  I should have known better.   

Wrong again. About the only similarity to a M113, without going into specifics, is the shape.

 

[a_majoor]

The British also have some "Warrior" IFV's in theater, but they may have the same problem they had with the Warrior in Bosnia: crappy narrow roads and bridges which cannot support the weight of the vehicle.

There are numerous solutions to military problems, and really it is the human factor rather than wheels, tracks or weight of armour which makes a difference. In Iraq, the British used Land Rover 110's during the first Persian Gulf War for long range patrolling behind the lines, and are using them today along the Iran Iraq border, as well as in Afghanistan. Other nations use different systems, organizations and TTP's to deal with the situation in the way they deem most suitable. They are "light" while we have the ability to bring a complete mechanized combat team into the fight. On the other hand it is often more productive to bring a dentist along rather than a tank, due to the nature of the operation.

Going back to the FFCV; I am also of the opinion that the SEV can be the basis for most of our light and medium vehicle needs: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting piece of information from the UK. The youtube video is interesting in how the vehicle can "morph" to minimize IED damage, has on board UAV capability and attacks targets using "smart" munitions.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/uk-military-robot-plans.html

The MOD's research needs the plan also introduces five Capability Visions designed to stimulate new technologies and new uses of existing ones.

They are:

• Reducing the burden on the dismounted soldier – challenging industry to lighten the load on a soldier to 25kg while maintaining and improving personal protection levels

• Future Protected Vehicle – lightweight vehicles to achieve the effectiveness and survivability of a main battle tank. (Watch a computer animation of the Future Protected Vehicles in action in a simulated battle scenario.)

• Reducing operational dependency on fossil fuels – finding options for alternative sources of energy supply, management and use in future operations

• Novel Air Concept – a cost effective, reusable uninhabited air system that operates within the urban landscape

• Electronics Defeat – understanding the threats of and to sophisticated electronic systems and information technology and how they can be protected against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFbbc00jnbQ&eurl=http://nextbigfuture.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

 

[geo]

Amaazing what you can do with computer graphics..... doesn't always work out in real world though.....

Vaporware ?

 

[a_majoor]

True, I forgot to put in "proposed" or "conceptual". Still, an interesting look at what others are thinking about.

 

[geo]

I'm holding out for a "death ray"

 

[ArmyRick]

I am still in favor of getting on board with the US FCS Manned Ground Vehicle program.

 

[Mountie]

That would have been great.  I hate to burst your bubble but Defence Secretary Robert Gates just made a press release on the future budget.  FCS manned ground vehicles have been cancelled and they are rethinking the concept.  There is a post on this site, it was in the current events yesterday.  But its all over the internet.  Its hasn't happened yet, its just a budget proposal that the program be cut.  It may not get passed, but still.  A lot of wasted money if it does.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Gate’s has certainly attacked many a sacred cow, I suspect he knows that congress will grind him to get some reinstated, which likely he will be ordered to by his “Oneness”

 

[ArmyRick]

At this point it is a reccomendation. Here are my thoughts on cancelling the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the program.
1. How long will the US stretch out the usage for the Bradley, Abrams and Paladin series? These vehicles have been in service for 25-30 years.
2. They already cancelled the crusader SPH (under the previous Bush admin) and I beleive they were looking into a future MBT weighing 44 tons that also got cancelled. Is every administration simply going to cancel the previous governments programs? They will end up like the CF using vehicles for 40 years (Our M113s).
3. They want to cancel because the vehicle does not refelct the reality of the situation today in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK who actually knows what the reality of 2015 today? Will they be fighting in jungles again? Maybe in some mountainous regions? Maybe it will be an actual unifomred and recognized army. In the year 2000, nobody knew the US would be doing extensive ops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think preparing a general capable combat force is what you MUST do and then tailor the SOP and tactics to the threat as required.

I guess my big point here is either FCS MGV or a new family of armoured vehicles is needed for the US. They need to get on with it and start making these things so that come 2020 or 2025, the american troops aren't driving 45 year old relics that have been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

At this point it is a reccomendation. Here are my thoughts on cancelling the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the program.
1. How long will the US stretch out the usage for the Bradley, Abrams and Paladin series? These vehicles have been in service for 25-30 years.
2. They already cancelled the crusader SPH (under the previous Bush admin) and I beleive they were looking into a future MBT weighing 44 tons that also got cancelled. Is every administration simply going to cancel the previous governments programs? They will end up like the CF using vehicles for 40 years (Our M113s).
3. They want to cancel because the vehicle does not refelct the reality of the situation today in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK who actually knows what the reality of 2015 today? Will they be fighting in jungles again? Maybe in some mountainous regions? Maybe it will be an actual unifomred and recognized army. In the year 2000, nobody knew the US would be doing extensive ops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think preparing a general capable combat force is what you MUST do and then tailor the SOP and tactics to the threat as required.

I guess my big point here is either FCS MGV or a new family of armoured vehicles is needed for the US. They need to get on with it and start making these things so that come 2020 or 2025, the american troops aren't driving 45 year old relics that have been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.

Barring some breakthrough in technology I would expect to see the basic fleet of the US Army (especially the M1) serving for the next thirty years. I would expect that those vehicles would still be upgraded and rebuilt, and I am not sure what is wrong with that. A new design is not necessarily more capable just because it is new.

 

[ArmyRick]

What about the vehicles themselves? I am not an expert (far from it).
How many times can you re-build or do a life extension on an AFV before its simply too old?

Those in the know would appreciate your input (if you don't know, then don't speculate because I am capable of doing that on my own)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the equipment attached to the hull can be upgraded, the turret can be upgraded or replaced. The problem happens when the hulls beginning to crack. I wonder for the M1’s if they could restart a slow build of new hulls. The design works well and new hulls with slight changes to incorporate lesson learned might be worthwhile. I am not sure of the status of the production line. These decisions might effect sales of the tank to Iraq if there is no new production as the Army may decide they need to stockpile the hulls and turrets. They do currently have a program to rebuild armoured vehicles being brought back, I have seen pictures of trainloads of stripped hulls and turrets being transported to factories for repairs. Likely they do electronic/ X-ray type examination of the main components to determine which hulls are repairable. 

 

[Mountie]

I've been following the FCS program pretty closely.  From everything that I've read the weight of Manned Ground Vehicles was to be 24-28 tons.  They gave up the hope of transporting them in C-130 Hercules and chose to up the armour a little.  You also have to remember that some of the reduced weight is due to other factors than armour reduction.  The rubber tracks weigh less than the old steel tracks, the remote weapons turret weighs less the current turret, the hybrid-electric engine weighs less then a conventional engine, the lower fuel requirement saves weight.  So when you compare them to the vehicles that they are replacing they basically weigh the same and offer just as much protection.  They are to protect against 30-45mm cannon fire over the frontal 60 degree arc and agains 14.5mm and 155mm shell fragments on the whole vehicle.  That's pretty much the same or better than the vehicles that it is designed to replace, with the exception of the MCV variant vs the M1A2 Abrams.  Then the active protection system protects against higher calibre rounds and anti-tank missiles.

M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle 30 tons
M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle 30 tons
M109A6 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer 32 tons.
M113 Support Vehicles 12-13 tons (Command Post, Medical & Mortar Carrier)
M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank 70 tons
M88 Armoured Recovery Vehicle 70 tons (but the weight is only for recovering the M1 MBT not for protection)

So in the end the FCS ICV and RSV variants provide basically the same protection as the Bradley IFV and CFV variants they would replace.  But they carry more infantry (9 vs 6 in the Bradley), more scouts and recce equipment (4 vs 2 in the Bradley, plus various surveillance systems), they travel faster and quieter (90 km/h vs 66 km/h for the Bradley) and have a better unrefuelled range (750 km vs 483 km for the Bradley).

The support variants of the FCS: Command Vehicle, Medical Treatment Vehicle, Medical Evacuation Vehicle and NLOS-Mortar are actually much better protected and much better equipped then the M113 variants that they would replace. 

The NLOS-Cannon, which has already been completed, is equal in fire-power to the M109A6 Paladin, it is lighter but it has a crew of only 2 vs 4-5 on the Paladin and it is much faster (90 km/h vs 56 km/h) has a much longer unrefuelled range (750 km vs 350 km) and is much more digitilized, including an auto-loader capable of faster fire than the Paladin. 

The only big issue is the FCS Mounted Combat Vehicle that would replace the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank.  It weighs less than half the Abrams and completely relies on Active Protection to defeat enemy tank rounds and anti-tank missiles.  However, its still faster and quieter (90 km/h vs 68 km/h), it uses considerably less fuel (the biggest drawback to the Abrams is the massive fuel consumption) which gives it a bigger range (750 km vs 391 km) and its 120mm cannon is the same size as the Abrams but it has a non-line of sight range of 8 km vs a 4km for the Abrams' M256 cannon.  And of course the M88A2 Armoured Recovery vehicle has to weigh the same as the Abrams in order to recover it, but the FCS Mainteance Recovery Vehicle only needs to weigh 24-28 tons and has the same advantages in speed (90 km/h vs a very low 40 km/h for the M88) and carries more mechanics than the M88.

So when comparing the FCS MGVs to the vehicles and systems they would replace I don't think its such a huge mistake.  They seem to have similar protection other than the MCV/M1A2 Abrams.  So if the only issue is the MCV maybe only it should be re-evaluated?  The US Army claims that the new Stryker ICV is highly successful in Iraq and the Canadian Army has been successful with the LAV-III in Afghanistan and they are both lighter and have less protection than the FCS would.  So what is the huge problem?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I am sure that the FCS program will deliver capabilities whether it is cancelled or not. The work that has been done will have benefits regardless (especially with the network aspect). I am very skeptical, though, of their ability to deliver an M1 replacement at half the weight. I just don't think that one size fits all with combat vehicles. With the other systems they will have to decide if improvements are worth the cost.

 

[Mountie]

Agreed.  So maybe they should just re-evaluate the MCV variant.  Maybe the MCV should be much heavier than all the other variants.  The Leopard 1 weighed 40-42 tonnes when it was arguably the best tank in NATO during the Cold War.  The Leopard 2A6M weighs 62 tonnes.  Would a MCV variant weighing 48-54 tonnes (twice the weight of the other variants 24-28 tonnes) be more acceptable?  The other argument is that if the FCS MGV armour can defeat RPG and heavy machine gun fire with its armour is that good enough?  In the types of combat that would see the FCS vehicles slugging it out with enemy tanks would the Active Protection System protect the vehicles? 

Counter-insurgency operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the argument to cancel the FSC MGV program is being based, see the enemy using RPGs, mortars, heavy machine guns and small arms.  All of which the FCS MGV can protect against with its armour.  It only relies on its sophisticated Active Protection System to protect it against tank rounds and anti-tank guided missiles.  I don't think either of these weapons systems have been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan.  If they have, its been in very small numbers.  And in these rare cases the APS would defeat them.  Canada deployed the Leopard C2 very successfully in Afghanistan.  The Leopard C2 is basically a 'Medium Tank' weighing about 42 tonnes plus the MEXAS armour.  To my knowledge none of these tanks were lost to direct fire.  The problem was they were decades old, no air conditioning, lack of spare parts, etc.  But the actual armour protection I think was very adequate for a counter-insurgency operation. 

Tank rounds and anti-tank guided missiles would typically only be encountered in high-intensity warfare such as the original invasion of Iraq, or Operation Desert Storm, or a future conflict with North Korea, Iran, or another major nation.  It is this type of warfare that the Active Protection System was originally designed for.

So to conclude, the Stryker/LAV-III have been highly successful in counter-insurgency operations.  The FCS MCV variant has much better firepower than the Stryker Mobile Gun System and has much better protection.  Basically it has the protection of a Bradley with the firepower of an Abrams.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  So beef up the armour on the MCV a little to the size of a so-called 'medium tank' like the Leopard C2 and let the Active Protection System do the job when something larger attacks it.  This would give you a vehicle with the armour and weight of a medium tank but with the total protection capability of a main battle tank.

Comments?  Thoughts?