Does FCS mean the end of the M1

[enigmaticuk]

The FCS is a lighter more agile/mobile/deployable force designed to replace heavy armour BCT's. This allows them to be deployed more rapidly.. There has been a bigfocus in the reduction of weight in individual systems so that they can be c-130 transportable. Heavy armour is replaced with active protection systems and new technologys such as EM armour; also the increase in the network connectivity of all the sytems allows threat to be detected and neutralised more quickly, hence lowering the overall risk for each unit. This will be very effective in many scenarios however there are also many conditions i could forsee where a commander would very much need the heavy armour of an M1 tank. Would it be prudent to discuss the inclution of at least a samll contingent of heavy armour units into a fcs unit of action.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The FCS is a lighter more agile/mobile/deployable force designed to replace heavy armour BCT's. This allows them to be deployed more rapidly.. There has been a bigfocus in the reduction of weight in individual systems so that they can be c-130 transportable. Heavy armour is replaced with active protection systems and new technologys such as EM armour; also the increase in the network connectivity of all the sytems allows threat to be detected and neutralised more quickly, hence lowering the overall risk for each unit. This will be very effective in many scenarios however there are also many conditions i could forsee where a commander would very much need the heavy armour of an M1 tank. Would it be prudent to discuss the inclution of at least a samll contingent of heavy armour units into a fcs unit of action.

I've read various articles on the FCS and they mention that M1's won't be replaced until at least 2030. The on-going battle between armour designers and warhead designers isn't likely to end anytime soon and as such I don't see heavy armour going away.

As for any M1 replacement being transportable in a C-130 I VERY much doubt it. That would mean it would HAVE to be less than 15 tons in total weight and I just can't see how they'd get the necessary level of protection into a vehicle of that weight. I CAN see newer generation "tanks" weighing less than the current M1/Challenger II/Leopard 2A6 weights (all around 63 tons combat laden) but less than 15t? Seems like to big a leap to me...

 

[Todjaeger]

The FCS is a lighter more agile/mobile/deployable force designed to replace heavy armour BCT's. This allows them to be deployed more rapidly.. There has been a bigfocus in the reduction of weight in individual systems so that they can be c-130 transportable. Heavy armour is replaced with active protection systems and new technologys such as EM armour; also the increase in the network connectivity of all the sytems allows threat to be detected and neutralised more quickly, hence lowering the overall risk for each unit. This will be very effective in many scenarios however there are also many conditions i could forsee where a commander would very much need the heavy armour of an M1 tank. Would it be prudent to discuss the inclution of at least a samll contingent of heavy armour units into a fcs unit of action.

From what I've read, FCS is currently a concept, not an actual force. Also the GAO has been finding problems with the program, see the link below for the GAO report abstract.
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-478T

It's a quick, one page read without getting into the attached PDF for further info. Basically it finds fault with the FCS concept due to premature product development. The FCS concept is based on a reliance on new & emerging technology to replace existing technology and/or methods of operating. A light M1 MBT replacement vehicle, which would presumably rely on active protection systems and EM armour to replace the heavy composite armour used by the M1 and similar MBTs is an obvious example. It similarly can serve as an example of the problems the GAO has found with the program. If there are any cost or effectiveness issues with the new tech, the FCS vehicles in development might be too expensive, ineffective, or subject to significant delays in deliver, or any combination of the three.

For now I'd say scrap the FCS concept until the new technologies it would be relying on have emerged enough for accurate data to be available on them. Continue working on developing the technologies of course, but wait on product development. Otherwise, it could look like an attempt to design an internal combustion engine in 1850, before it has been resolved on whether petroleum can be refined into fuel.

 

[fylr71]

The FCS is a family of vehicles some of which like the IFV varient, the NLOS artillery system, or recon system have a worthwhile purpose and are certainly important for future conflicts. Having something that could be brought in entirely by C-17s is excellent for mobility. However, I think FCS was thought of for use in an Afghanistan type of environment or counter insurgency battle rather then a conventional open field battle such as desert storm. In that instance. The MBT simply cannot be replaced. By anything other then another MBT. As we have seen by the South Korean XK2 ,Japanese MBT-X, Chinese Type 99 Russian Black Eagle and T-95, MBTs are not going anywhere and new prototype tanks are being tested. As for the next generation of the MBT my best guess is that we will see a major emphasis on speen, stealth, and silence. As for the fact that they cannot really be transported by C-17s. I suspect that new super heavy cargo planes will be developed. Also, the work on high speed sealift will continue and new MBTs will be transported areound the world at speeds of over 50 knots on cargo ships based on the JHSV-2.

 

[Big-E]

From what I've read, FCS is currently a concept, not an actual force. Also the GAO has been finding problems with the program, see the link below for the GAO report abstract.
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-478T

It's a quick, one page read without getting into the attached PDF for further info. Basically it finds fault with the FCS concept due to premature product development. The FCS concept is based on a reliance on new & emerging technology to replace existing technology and/or methods of operating. A light M1 MBT replacement vehicle, which would presumably rely on active protection systems and EM armour to replace the heavy composite armour used by the M1 and similar MBTs is an obvious example. It similarly can serve as an example of the problems the GAO has found with the program. If there are any cost or effectiveness issues with the new tech, the FCS vehicles in development might be too expensive, ineffective, or subject to significant delays in deliver, or any combination of the three.

For now I'd say scrap the FCS concept until the new technologies it would be relying on have emerged enough for accurate data to be available on them. Continue working on developing the technologies of course, but wait on product development. Otherwise, it could look like an attempt to design an internal combustion engine in 1850, before it has been resolved on whether petroleum can be refined into fuel.

You do not understand the incorporation concepts of FCS. They don't just introduce it all at once. It is a component based system that is introduced incrementally. Much of FCS is already in active service. If you withdrew those components already on the battlefield there would be a riot. The beauty of FCS is that it is a constantly evolving concept. If one part doesn't fit it can be reshaped to fit the total force structure. Your selective M1 remarks do not implicate the total FCS structure and we would appreciate if you would not say the whole program is "premature" just because of one of a thousand elements in the program.

 

[Todjaeger]

You do not understand the incorporation concepts of FCS. They don't just introduce it all at once. It is a component based system that is introduced incrementally. Much of FCS is already in active service. If you withdrew those components already on the battlefield there would be a riot. The beauty of FCS is that it is a constantly evolving concept. If one part doesn't fit it can be reshaped to fit the total force structure. Your selective M1 remarks do not implicate the total FCS structure and we would appreciate if you would not say the whole program is "premature" just because of one of a thousand elements in the program.

By scrapping the FCS concept, I was referring to the areas the GAO has found fault with the programs. Specifically development work on future vehicles that would make use of immature technology or ongoing R&D to replace existing, know solutions. I'm all for developing the tech that can make FCS work, and even more so if it gets incorporated into existing designs. The problem I have with FCS is where plans are made to replace a 65ton MBT with an 18ton vehicle. It is possible to fit the same gun or firepower into the lighter vehicle, but not the armour protection given current technology. If anything, I think more existing technology, that is known and works should be incorporated into current equipment. Imagine for instance, a video camera mounted in every vehicle in Iraq (not unlike are found in some US police depts) If something happens, say the US is accused of firing on a hospital/mosque or other target normally exempt under the rules of warfare, and the US then says "But they were shooting at us," Then we could produce the video showing American personnel under fire.

 

[Big-E]

By scrapping the FCS concept, I was referring to the areas the GAO has found fault with the programs. Specifically development work on future vehicles that would make use of immature technology or ongoing R&D to replace existing, know solutions. I'm all for developing the tech that can make FCS work, and even more so if it gets incorporated into existing designs. The problem I have with FCS is where plans are made to replace a 65ton MBT with an 18ton vehicle. It is possible to fit the same gun or firepower into the lighter vehicle, but not the armour protection given current technology. If anything, I think more existing technology, that is known and works should be incorporated into current equipment. Imagine for instance, a video camera mounted in every vehicle in Iraq (not unlike are found in some US police depts) If something happens, say the US is accused of firing on a hospital/mosque or other target normally exempt under the rules of warfare, and the US then says "But they were shooting at us," Then we could produce the video showing American personnel under fire.

The final product of FCS will mostly be un-manned making 40 tons of armour unecessary. Keeping 65t vehicles TOTALLY destroys the concept of FCS. The whole point was to keep it light and mobile so most components can be air dropped. It is kinda silly to keep 65tns when a C-17 can only carry 1 tank, and a C-130 hasn't a prayer of lifting that. Our inability to quickly move large forces makes our response weak. FCS will double our firepower while quadripling our response time.

Your happiness with the status quo will leave our lumbering forces stuck in some distant base waiting for sea lift when Mobile Air Command can pick em up in 1/4th the time under FCS weight limits. If you want our technology to remain stagnant we will eventually be overtaken by our future foes and loose our advantage... I can't believe you would want that to happen. Remember we only have so much money to allocate to new hardware. We either get it right or were stuck, no reason to build something we already have.

 

[Todjaeger]

The final product of FCS will mostly be un-manned making 40 tons of armour unecessary. Keeping 65t vehicles TOTALLY destroys the concept of FCS. The whole point was to keep it light and mobile so most components can be air dropped. It is kinda silly to keep 65tns when a C-17 can only carry 1 tank, and a C-130 hasn't a prayer of lifting that. Our inability to quickly move large forces makes our response weak. FCS will double our firepower while quadripling our response time.

Your happiness with the status quo will leave our lumbering forces stuck in some distant base waiting for sea lift when Mobile Air Command can pick em up in 1/4th the time under FCS weight limits. If you want our technology to remain stagnant we will eventually be overtaken by our future foes and loose our advantage... I can't believe you would want that to happen. Remember we only have so much money to allocate to new hardware. We either get it right or were stuck, no reason to build something we already have.

Okay, I don't think you got the gist of what I'm advocating. To my understanding, parts of FCS are trying to design some of the future systems, without any clear understanding of what the future systems will be. To be content with the status quo would basically be saying "our tech is good enough, we don't need to research any more." This is not my point at all. I want us to continue developing the tech, and when the tech is reliable, use it on our current systems instead of waiting for some future vehicle to showcase it.

Something I would like to avoid is the usual tangled American development program. By this I mean the torturous 17 year long design, prototyping, redesign, re-prototype, etc. of the M2/M3 Bradley. There wasn't even a great deal of new technology going into the Bradley. Or the F-22 Raptor, which had the initial design work start circa 1982, and just now IOC for the first squadron was achieved some 24 years later. Another example in process now is the F-35 which is expected to start LRIP in 2012 or so, with decision on final configuration coming in 2015, 3 years after the start of LRIP.

If we can reasonably design a FCS vehicle with the existing tech we have now, then we should by all means do so. What the GAO apparently found was that with the current R&D done so far, we cannot reasonably design such vehicles or that configurations kept being charged to the point where a vehicle couldn't be built in the time between changes. Hence, my thinking that we should stop trying to design something we can't yet, and instead work on the subsystems so that we can in the future.

Addendum: I have no problem with us moving to light and/or unmanned vehicles that can be moved around rapidly by MAC, as long as the vehicles work. That is what I was getting at about trying to replace the M1 which is a known quantity, with a lightweight system that we don't know if it will actually perform.

 

[Big-E]

I don't understand what you mean by "designing a vehicel we can't make yet."
FCS is a shared chasis that has already been tested, approved and fielded.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The final product of FCS will mostly be un-manned making 40 tons of armour unecessary. Keeping 65t vehicles TOTALLY destroys the concept of FCS. The whole point was to keep it light and mobile so most components can be air dropped. It is kinda silly to keep 65tns when a C-17 can only carry 1 tank, and a C-130 hasn't a prayer of lifting that. Our inability to quickly move large forces makes our response weak. FCS will double our firepower while quadripling our response time.

Your happiness with the status quo will leave our lumbering forces stuck in some distant base waiting for sea lift when Mobile Air Command can pick em up in 1/4th the time under FCS weight limits. If you want our technology to remain stagnant we will eventually be overtaken by our future foes and loose our advantage... I can't believe you would want that to happen. Remember we only have so much money to allocate to new hardware. We either get it right or were stuck, no reason to build something we already have.

The same technology being applied to the "light" vehicle can just as easily be applied to a 65ton well armoured vehicle. I think that's the point he was trying to make.

M1's weigh 65t because that's what it takes to make a tank survivable against modern weapons. The light tank concept has been tried in the past and never made to work properly despite the most modern "technology" being applied to them.

As to C-130 transportability. That's a non-issue in my book. Anything more than 15t can only be moved a few hundred k's, perhaps a thousand at best. Unless you can seriously envision fleets of C-130's conducting short ranged hops across the world carrying your future light armoured divisions, it's hardly a realistic solution... :sick

I can see current heavy armour losing a lot of it's weight, but to suggest that 15 or 18 ton vehicles can replace 65 ton vehicles is ridiculous. The side skirts on an Abrams for instance weighs approx 6 tons each and side skirts are vital for ANY vehicle if you wish to be able to stand up to a credible anti-armour threat. Most wheeled vehicles can't carry skirts of any significance so they don't bother. They are essential for a tracked vehicle though and "Trophy" and electric armoured systems won't change this need.

 

[Big-E]

M1's weigh 65t because that's what it takes to make a tank survivable against modern weapons. The light tank concept has been tried in the past and never made to work properly despite the most modern "technology" being applied to them.

I don't recall the un-manned light tank concept being tried before. That's why I'm advocating the age of heavy MBTs will be over. The advent of more powerful weapons makes the process of keeping up with preventive armour ridiculous. It WILL come to an end. It has always been easier to blow something up than to protect it. Without the need of a crew (to protect) armour is not important but for basic functions. Historically when an MBT takes a serious hit she is rendered non-functional... all that matters is crew safety. With the family of light vehicles a serious hit will destroy the platform, but no big deal, no one is inside.

As to C-130 transportability. That's a non-issue in my book. Anything more than 15t can only be moved a few hundred k's, perhaps a thousand at best. Unless you can seriously envision fleets of C-130's conducting short ranged hops across the world carrying your future light armoured divisions, it's hardly a realistic solution... :sick

Is the C-130 the only aircraft that can pick up 15ts? Is the C-130 even a part of strategic airlift... no. That's why god made the C-17.

I can see current heavy armour losing a lot of it's weight, but to suggest that 15 or 18 ton vehicles can replace 65 ton vehicles is ridiculous. The side skirts on an Abrams for instance weighs approx 6 tons each and side skirts are vital for ANY vehicle if you wish to be able to stand up to a credible anti-armour threat. Most wheeled vehicles can't carry skirts of any significance so they don't bother. They are essential for a tracked vehicle though and "Trophy" and electric armoured systems won't change this need.

I guess this is the disconnect b/w us. You see manned vehicles being needed, besides C&C I don't.

 

[enigmaticuk]

I had a feeling this topic mught create some debate. Personally i agree that a lighter more deployable force is most desirable not only for its rapid deployability but also for the effect it has on your fuel logistical requirements. But im concerned that even with em armour and active protection you cant defend against artilley shells burried under the road? Yes it will be critical to put a BCT of FCS anywhere in the world in 96 hours but will these medium forces be enough to challenge a possible massed haevily armoured army. There has been no mention of the Cargo lifter lighter than air ships which could have the capability to transport many M1s over sea and land and deploy wothout a runway, perhaps in an area already secured buy a FCS medium BCT. What upgrades do we need to consider beyond SEP and TUSK for the M1 to maintain its battlefield superiority?

 

[Big-E]

Once the EM railgun is fitted on land chasis all manned vehicles will be obsolete.

 

[Waylander]

And once a new special armor is invented the railgun will be obsolete...

 

[Big-E]

And once a new special armor is invented the railgun will be obsolete...

By that time land combat will be obsolete.

 

[Waylander]

Just wait for the Battlemechs to take control.
They are going to show you who is obsolete. :finger

 

[Big-E]

You land forces guys need to look to the future. This status quo thing is indicitive of the Dark Ages.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, I really love how the guys with the wings on their chest think.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just wait for the Battlemechs to take control.
They are going to show you who is obsolete. :finger

I'll take an Atlas 7-D thank you very much

Seriously, R&D needs to be done. The issue is whether or not some of the methods of operating the US wishes to switch to can be reasonably done given our currently available tech. At the same time, we need to be honest enough to realise if we have over reached ourselves.

For example, the Stryker vehicle, as I understand it, is supposed to be an interim vehicle until the US can get FCS vehicles (there are supposed to be around 18 different types of FCS vehicle)

With Stryker, the goal was to have a vehicle that could be transported in a C-130 Herc and be delivered combat ready. As has been found, that goal was not achieved. There are size issues with the Stryker fitting inside a Herc, something about aircrews not having the min. required space around the vehicle so that a waiver needs to be granted when a C-130 transports one (this might be a USAF req only). Also, the level of protection has been found inadequate so that uparmour kits need to be added one the vehicle is back on the ground, and usually 3 C-130 are needed to move 2 Stryker, the third transport carrying the uparmour kits.

I'll have more later, back to work...

 

[Waylander]

The question is also for what type of engagement do you want to use your new light air lift compatible fcs?
You might be able to deploy bigger forces consisting of FCS vehicles but I doubt that even the US are able to support them with spare parts, fuel, ammo, food, medical equipment and the thousands of other thinks you need to keep a big combat force operational just by using planes.
So in the end there have to be sea lift or land transport assets to give the troops the support they need to fullfill their mission. And why should I try to limit my own forces to vehicles which are round about 20 tons while I transport their support by ship or train were no real weight restrictments exist.

BTW, I'll go with the Mad Cat.