Does FCS mean the end of the M1

[Big-E]

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.

The support concept is a key factor of FCS... take this excerpt from Rands FCS Self sufficiency requirements.

"The Army wants Objective Force concepts that will require combat pulse-self sufficiency without any maintenance personell in the manevuer force. To make such a concept feasable would require a very high FCS pulse reliability- such as 90 to 95 percent for a seven day high-tempo pulse... The M1A2's seven day pulse rate averages 58%... it needs to be increased fivefold in the MTBCF for M1A2s to achieve a 90% seven day pulse reliability operating at an NTC-like level of intensity."

So as you can see according to the design of FCS she will be 5 times more sustainable than a force of M1A2s. She will be self sustainable in high-tempo NTC levels for a week while supplies and reinforcements are brought up.

The FCS chasis has less need for refueling as her hybrid battery operation allows much more efficient use of fuel.

In total the net requirements for FCS are designed to be airlifted to replace the regular force generally used. It's just a matter of being more efficient with your space and resources.

 

[Waylander]

First I think that these goals are very optimistic.

And if you take them as a force which is able to conduct a big combat operation till the traditional forces arrive than I don't see them replacing heavier combat vehicles like MBTs but complement them and buy them the time they need to reach the theater of operations.

 

[Big-E]

First I think that these goals are very optimistic.

And if you take them as a force which is able to conduct a big combat operation till the traditional forces arrive than I don't see them replacing heavier combat vehicles like MBTs but complement them and buy them the time they need to reach the theater of operations.

FCS is going to have just as much firepower as conventional forces. I don't see what the M1 and other current platforms can do that they can't.

 

[Wooki]

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

ERR....Ummm, ... No. It would be more accurate to say that Non-US vehicles will be obsolete. I am very confident that if another nation fielded a railgun or "railgun-like" weapon we could sit them on their fanny.

I go by the rule that you are "never the fastest gun in the west". There is always someone smarter, faster. The trick is to keep learning and become smarter and faster yet.

This is also what befuddles me about other energy critical projects. Particularly AF projects and the money being spent on these types of projects. Everyone says we will have an advantage and that may be true, but (going by my axiom) if I were to invent something to defeat x project in less than 2 days that costs 14 USD and a Big Mac, then I am damn sure my Asian counterpart can as well.

People keep forgetting that people from different countries (cultures) think differently. They develop thoughts and rationalize differently and have a totally different perspective if confronted with the same problem. i.e. what may be, to one mind, the greatest weapon since a steel sword was made, might be old hat to another mind.

So, the really good thing about railgun tech is that it can be used for non railgun-non weapon tech. In other words you can enhance mobility (for example) with lessons learned from railgun tech and it makes the FCS-FOV that much more doable. Its kind of a win-win in R&D as advances made affect the whole project across the board. Not just the weapon.

Which I guess is what Rummy wanted to do in the first place before people started attacking us.

Anyway, what the US war fighter needs to know is that he/she has behind them a whole industry (tens of thousands) of very smart people trying their hardest to ensure that he/she has the very best hardware for the money spent. FCS ( as it currently stands) is just one of the manifestations of that can-do know how.

Cheers

W

 

[Big-E]

The point of that statement was to illustrate the futility of advancing armor technology when it will be so easy to destroy a target no matter how much armor is on it. Like I said, it's easier to blow something up than it is to protect it. Unmanned is the future, if I have to deal with UCAVs then you have to deal with tank drones. Robotics is changing the battlespace, Terminator style warfare isn't that far off.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The point of that statement was to illustrate the futility of advancing armor technology when it will be so easy to destroy a target no matter how much armor is on it. Like I said, it's easier to blow something up than it is to protect it. Unmanned is the future, if I have to deal with UCAVs then you have to deal with tank drones. Robotics is changing the battlespace, Terminator style warfare isn't that far off.

I guess FCS will make infantry obsolete too then, or do they not need protection either? I guess futuristic UCAV's and un-manned combat vehicles can seize and hold ground, so you're probably right...

 

[Big-E]

I guess FCS will make infantry obsolete too then, or do they not need protection either? I guess futuristic UCAV's and un-manned combat vehicles can seize and hold ground, so you're probably right...

The 2-3rd generation of FCS will make the initial assualt unmanned. Why couldn't the actual holding action combat be conducted by un-manned drones? I envision command and maintenance posts that will operate the drones from this central location making the risk of life uneccesary. Our sensor fusion by then will be insane. I see it as a strong possibility. Rather than scoffing at the idea I would like to hear your ideas of "why un-manned drones in an age of complete sensor-fusion can't hold ground without risking lives in combat? "

 

[Aussie Digger]

The 2-3rd generation of FCS will make the initial assualt unmanned. Why couldn't the actual holding action combat be conducted by un-manned drones? I envision command and maintenance posts that will operate the drones from this central location making the risk of life uneccesary. Our sensor fusion by then will be insane. I see it as a strong possibility. Rather than scoffing at the idea I would like to hear your ideas of "why un-manned drones in an age of complete sensor-fusion can't hold ground without risking lives in combat? "

I don't think that an unmanned force has the level of SA that a "man on the ground" does, irregardless of your sensor fusion. Furthermore your robot can't interact with the local population and build goodwill towards the particular force.

Your robot can't conduct the full array of operations that a man can do. As a pilot you probably don't see those sides of operations and that's no fault of your own, but the ideal of being able to conduct combat without risking ANY of our own lives seems moralistically wrong to me.

I'm hardly a lefty but the idea that a force can conduct combat operations against whomever they wish without any real possibility of suffering a loss of lives, seems to me that it will only encourage certain people to consider war as a matter of policy.

On a greater reality base the idea that vehicles can be lost without effect is also nonsense. Your force still needs a certain amount of mass (numbers not weight) irregardless of it's configuration. If a vehicle or x amount of vehicles can be lost without loss of life it's going to require extraordinary training levels and discipline on the part of your controllers to ensure that the vehicles are used appropriately and not indiscriminately...

Mastery of the use of force in military operations is just as important as a technical ability to pull a trigger if you want to succeed in the long run...

 

[Big-E]

I don't think that an unmanned force has the level of SA that a "man on the ground" does, irregardless of your sensor fusion. Furthermore your robot can't interact with the local population and build goodwill towards the particular force.

Your robot can't conduct the full array of operations that a man can do. As a pilot you probably don't see those sides of operations and that's no fault of your own, but the ideal of being able to conduct combat without risking ANY of our own lives seems moralistically wrong to me.

While I don't like to be a pessimist that goodwill concept doesn't seem to be working. I will bow to your operational experience of the matter and try to focus on this comment of the morality issue. I assume you are affraid that governments will use war as a matter of statecraft if domestic lives are not an issue. I find this to be close to the case today. If the war had been over after the initial invasion no one would have had a problem with the war. I see your point in retrospect. I think my nations quest for total dominance however might just lead to the very thing you fear.

 

[Aussie Digger]

While I don't like to be a pessimist that goodwill concept doesn't seem to be working. I will bow to your operational experience of the matter and try to focus on this comment of the morality issue. I assume you are affraid that governments will use war as a matter of statecraft if domestic lives are not an issue. I find this to be close to the case today. If the war had been over after the initial invasion no one would have had a problem with the war. I see your point in retrospect. I think my nations quest for total dominance however might just lead to the very thing you fear.

I am certainly not anti-war I just think that these sorts of issues need to be VERY closely looked at. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should.

It is an interesting issue and it certainly WON'T stop nations pursuing this sort of "Terminator" style of warfare where machines do all the fighting and human sit back and wait for the outcome, but I don't think it's in humanities best interest to make war that palatable...

 

[Todjaeger]

I am certainly not anti-war I just think that these sorts of issues need to be VERY closely looked at. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should.

It is an interesting issue and it certainly WON'T stop nations pursuing this sort of "Terminator" style of warfare where machines do all the fighting and human sit back and wait for the outcome, but I don't think it's in humanities best interest to make war that palatable...

I agree, though for the time being, it looks like humans will still be doing most of the fighting. And dying.

Take a look at the text of the GAO report to the US Congress
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06478t.pdf

In the report, the GAO discusses the business case for the FCS program and outlines a number of areas of significant concern. The report does not comment on the actual platforms, or their suitability, but gets into the development of the different systems in general terms. In my opinion, the two major areas of concern are the expected cost increase in the program, and the status of technologies needed.

Pages 8-12 of the report detail the expected cost increase of the program at a 76% increase beyond initial estimates. The report then goes in to detail that this is the Army's estimate, which the GAO thinks "the Army's latest cost estimate still lacks a firm knowledge base." In effect, the costs could go even higher, resulting in either a reduction in capability or quantity, or a major increase in cost. This is asside from any costs that would involve complimentary programs.

In terms of technology, this covered in pages 5-8. At present of 49 "critical" technologies, none are at a stage with a reliable prototype, and only 18 are at the expected stage before having a working prototype. At the start of the program it was expected that 87% of the tech would be at the pre-prototype stage by 2005, on review in 2005 of that estimate, it was expected that only 31% would be at the pre-prototype stage. At present, the all technologies are not expected to be mature to the pre-prototype stage until 2009. The program currently is expected to have Critical Design Review in 2010, with LRIP starting in 2012.

This is what has me on edge when people talk about FCS and being able to accomplish missions with FCS vehicles. When I read the GAO report what I get out of is that it vehicles will have been designed with critical elements not having been tested to see if they will work or not. Please correct me if this impression of mine is wrong.

This is a completely different issue from whether or not unmanned vehicles (air, ground, or underwater) would be able to replace manned vehicles or ground troops. I think unmanned vehicles could potentially work quite well against lower tech-level opponents. Against an enemy with near-parity in technology, I see vulnerabilities, namely in the communications between an offsite operator and the unmanned vehicle(s). If the enemy is able to disrupt communications between the two, the unmanned vehicle can be effectively disabled unless it is expected that an onboard AI would take over. I believe we are some distance away from the tech needed for such an AI.

 

[.pt]

Whatever will come out of those R&D programs, will take a very long time to make an efective diference on the batlefield. However i believe in 20 yrs time all this will change.
The point is, the US is developing these technologies now, today, and can mature them in the next years,staying ahead of other nations.
Eventually, the futures batlefield will be composed of unmanned vehicles and weapons of all sorts. Humans, will take a C&C role, or very specialised roles.
This makes sense, not only because of reducing drasticaly casualties, but also because with these vehicles, crew training and logistics can be reduced, i think.
Its just a question of the right technologies maturing to a degree where they can really useful. I remenber reading that the british thought in the 1950´s that all airplanes where to be unmanned very soon. That didn´t happen because the technology wasn´t there, but in 2025?
As for making war palatable with this concept, that won´t just happen, even if the batlefield is composed of robots, the consequences will be felt by humans in the end.
.pt

 

[Todjaeger]

As part of the same GAO report, the Army was/is expecting to have purchased 15 Brigades of FCS equipment by 2025, with initial purchases starting in 2012. That seems to be what the report takes issue with. Will the technology actually be working in 6 years time for the initial purchases? Will it be ready in 19 year time when the program is expected to cover to? Also, will the US be able to afford it in the quantities being discussed?

There is no question that R&D work should be done, needs to be done. The question becomes, can we predict what can be deployed, and when, based off of the research. What I think might be a better course for the US, given the uncertain performance of needed technologies, is to continue the R&D. Emphasis should be put on projects that can be incorporated with existing equipment, or added onto new hardware that makes use of available tech. By trying to add so many things under development together at once, FCS risks project failure if there are issues with R&D or integration.

 

[Wooki]

The point of that statement was to illustrate the futility of advancing armor technology when it will be so easy to destroy a target no matter how much armor is on it. Like I said, it's easier to blow something up than it is to protect it. Unmanned is the future, if I have to deal with UCAVs then you have to deal with tank drones. Robotics is changing the battlespace, Terminator style warfare isn't that far off.

Listen, I can't say much, but I can say it is definitely not futile. That is why I said

ERR....Ummm, ... No. It would be more accurate to say that Non-US vehicles will be obsolete. I am very confident that if another nation fielded a railgun or "railgun-like" weapon we could sit them on their fanny.

As to UCAVs, all emotive responses and analytical numbers aside, are you kidding me? The Brits have already developed a prototype G suit that will have you sitting pretty at 15Gs Big E and that is just a prototype of a system that is a hell of a lot cheaper to make that than a UCAV. Cost is a big factor, its the reason why the commanche was canned for the UAV and if the UCAV guys don't keep a lid on it it will can the UCAV as well.

Also the weakness of unmanned operations is that at the moment the pilot and operator are in fixed targets. They need to be mobile, so rather than UCAVs making pilots redundant, it makes more sense to have a pilot sitting in a combat capable platform who happens to be the node for a squadron of UCAV aircraft. i.e. mobile levels of redundancy.

As we all know, UGVs are exponentionally harder to make then a UAV because of the terrain factor. But I agree there is a definite need for them.

Yet at the same time, you are not going to see unmanned autonomous warfare because autonoumous warfare is war of attrition and everybody knows that is a dummies game that nets zero results.

2nd to last, you are forgetting about Nano technology which is developing faster than UAV, UGV, UUV tech and the FCS because it is commercially driven.

At the moment I can make a nanobot that injects O2 into the bloodstream to make a diver independent of SCUBA. Whats to say I can't do that for a pilot who is about to blackout from G? Nothing, apart from the moral question of should I make my pilot go through crushing pain, just to keep him functional.

Lastly Genetics; Although the USA is falling dangerously behind in this area its development is also rapid and you can do things like create new wound treatments. E.g. You get shot up, a bullet removes half your stomach, no pancreas, spleen, etc. You wake up and you are whole again as if nothing happened, because a doctor injected you with some juice that made everything lost grow back.

Pre Y2k their was a US study to do just that (as I read it) where a bypass patient was injected with the genetic building blocks to make a vein and 6 weeks later the vein had grown around the outside of heart and he didn't need a bypass.

Interesting world we live in, eh?

My point? Unmanned is great, lets develop it, lets use it, but there will always be a need for pilots, soldiers and sailors.

cheers

W

 

[Grand Danois]

Also the weakness of unmanned operations is that at the moment the pilot and operator are in fixed targets. They need to be mobile, so rather than UCAVs making pilots redundant, it makes more sense to have a pilot sitting in a combat capable platform who happens to be the node for a squadron of UCAV aircraft. i.e. mobile levels of redundancy.

Aaahh! Enter the F-35 as a node for a group of UCAV's. So no obsolescence for the F-35 when the UCAV's come around, as you'll need the loiter time, bandwidth and non-satellite comms and survivability. A standoff node for NCW and decisionmaking by a human.

(My thoughts on a discussion that has taken place elsewhere on DT...)

 

[Wooki]

Aaahh! Enter the F-35 as a node for a group of UCAV's. So no obsolescence for the F-35 when the UCAV's come around, as you'll need the loiter time, bandwidth and non-satellite comms and survivability. A standoff node for NCW and decisionmaking by a human.

(My thoughts on a discussion that has taken place elsewhere on DT...)

Well, I am bowing out of this one... My point is that it is best not to talk in absolutes, as there are a 100&1 ways to skin a cat.

( I mean 3 months ago, I would have agreed with Big E on the railgun thing, but,... not today)

I only cited a few examples of technology that are running in parallel with Unmanned technologies and could make unmanned tech so yesterday. You never know.

cheers

W

 

[enigmaticuk]

The one things that robotic platforms lack is the ability to understand human emotions and actions. Asuming they will be facing human controlled units in combat, shouldnt our unmanned units of the future actually be controlled by human operators in a virtual environment? The problem with a robotic force though is if something breaks or combat damage is sustained there is no one to get out and try and fix it. I understand that the idea is to make them so efficient that they do not break but in the real world that is hard to imagine. I believe that the strength of FCS will be its network. It will empower all units up and down stream with each others capabilitys. So that a single infantry soldier would be able to simply look at a target and call for fire from artillery/AF/satelite weapon.
There are some fears though that all this technolgical advance may eventually ebcome our achillies heel. In that if an enemy could find a way to penetrate our network and disable it we would be helpless. Kinda like when soldiers reply on FBCB2 so much that when it goes down they are not able to navigate with the stars and maps. This may be one argument of what an M1 has over FCS, it does not reply to heavily on technology to be combat ready. Yes i know it has much tech in it but it should still be able to function with the network degraded.

 

[tomahawk6]

I think that the GWOTwill force the FCS program to be canceled or severely cut back. The Army needs at least $9 billion to reset the force. The National Guard/Reserves will need an infusion of cash to replace equipment left in Iraq.

The problem with FCS is that it was designed to replace existing heavy forces so as to make the Army more deployable. The dirty little secret is that the USAF lacks the airlift to deploy a Styrker brigade in 96 hours. Bottom line an FCS brigade is going to war by sea just like our heavy force do. Technology doesnt exist to give a 20t vehicle the same armor protection of a 30t IFV or a 70t MBT.

Some aspects of FCS might be fielded like the robots [in fact we are]. We are already working to network our combat forces. Land Warrior is getting closer to being fielded. Information technology is the real force multiplier which will enhance our lethality. We dont need FCS.

 

[rjmaz1]

Intesting thread.. I've always thought of how tanks will evolve and i think i have a very good idea of what the future will hold.

It seems hyrbid power will be the way of the future.

One thing i also find amazing is that so many people are needed to control a tank, yet it is a pretty simple machine. A crew of 2 sitting side by side facing forward would be more than ideal.

In theory if you halve the cabin for the occupents the amount of armour will be a third of the weight while still offering the same protoection for that volume of space. So you've now gone from 60tone to 20tone while still offering the same protection.

The most progress i've seen is hybrid tanks. They have developed a stryker equivilent using hybrid technology, basically a diesel engine runs and charges up the batteries. The car is then driven off electric motors.

One advantage is that the Batteries provide armour. The Gel batteries would be mounted around the crew and would provide additional armour, no one has thought of using the batteries as armour. Wired in series/parallel would allow a few batteries to be hit and the tank would be perfect.

The second advantage is that you now eliminate a gearbox/clutch as the diesel engine would be connected straight to a generator/alternator to charge the batteries. The diesel would just run at a constant speed and would be very fuel efficient.

The third advantage is that electrical motors would be used to power the tank, you could have a small electric motor on each wheel of a stryker type vehicle, traction on rough terrain will be very good. Electric motors provide bursts of power much higher than any conventional engine this would allow the tank to reach 100km/h as quick as a sports car. The electric motors also elimate brakes, as when power is cut the motors would actually slow the tank very quickly. More weight saving here.

The fourth advantage is that when entering the combat zone the diesel engine can switch off and the tank runs entirely on batteries. A silent killing machine will now approach the enemy. This would encourage the use of additional batteries this in turn adds more protection. This also saves alot of fuel too, as the Abram tanks when stationary use ALOT of fuel and they cant turn the engines off as restarting them takes time.

The fifth advantage is that the tank could sit stationary for days with all sensors activated and remain silent, no need for external power as the batteries on board provide everything they need. Perfect for ambushing the enemy.

The 6th advantage, crew and systems cooling and heating could be replaced by electric devices as the cabin is now small much smaller. Peltier devices could use the armour as a giant heatsink, this saves even more weight.

This is why hybrid tanks would be ideal.

Reducing the amount of crew required would be similar to that used in the current generation aircraft. Look at the F-22 and JSF all information is provided in a fashion that reduces the work load of the pilot. The "tank commander" could easily be 10,000kms providing information over datalink to the tanks gunner and driver.

The hybrid tank could you LCD displays to show the cockpit a reallife view of their surrounds. Camera's with nigh visions capabilities looking outside the tank will feed the images to these LCD displays. The crew of 1 or 2 would then have excellent situation awareness. The Camera's would of course capture the footage through mirrored tubes so they are hard to destroy. The tank will now be as easy to drive as your average car.

Controlling the guns could be done using head movement using the same system that aircrafts use. The cross hairs of the gun would be displays over the live video on the screens that surround the crew.

Eliminating the 105-120mm gun on the top of tank will reduce the weight dramatically. Replacing this with a 30mm cannon and APKWS rockets would provide the same firepower with a fraction of the weight. The APKWS laser guided rockets would be ideal replacement for the main tank gun being able to attack ground targets from miles away with similar destructive power of a 120mm round.. The laser guided rockets could even be used for basic air defence. Apache or A-10 anti tank aircraft

The removal of the turret as well as the placement of crew would allow the tank to be as low as 1metre in height. It would be the Lamborghini of tanks. So low and fast that it be the most survivable vehicle ever made.

The end result is a silent tank, with the same protection and firepower as a 60tone class but light being able to be airlifted in a C-130 with a 15tone weight.

Not really fantasy as all the technology is there and different miliitary vehicles have used each of the technologies above just none of them have combined them into the one vehicle.

Personally i dont think unmanned tanks are the way to go. The main problem will be controlling a vehicle using a live video stream. It is nearly impossible due to bandwidth reasons, as u'll need multiple angles to give a good view of your surroundings.

Plus the tank mentioned above could easily be modified by adding a metre in height and reducing overall armour and you have a vehicle to carry troops in.

Opinions?

 

[Waylander]

Two persons are not enoug to operate a tank.
There are some reasons for that.
- A tank do not just returns to the Airbase after an engagement like a fighter. Maintenance has to be done primarily by the crew. And two people are not much do do this.
- It is good two have a small and quiet tank but what it is worth if the tank is sending signals all the time to provide its commander, which sits far away, with information. EMCON!
- I do not believe that you are ble to get the same level of situational awareness by just using cameras and sitting far away. There is a reason why tank commanders prefer to use their eyeballs mrk1 as often as possible.

You want to replace the 120mm smoothbore gun (Nobody who wants to kill a modern tank uses 105mm guns) with a 2,75 laser guided hydra? This rocket comes not even close to the capabilities of a 120mm (Not to talk of money). And so you need a certain amount of space to put a 120mm into your unmanned target.
Modern tanks also already use APUs to provide them with power during longer times in a fire position or rear area without using the engine.
I also do not think that these batteries provide you with much armor. A modern KE round would rip through them without loosing much power.

How do you want to place the 12x picture of the gun onto the same displays the driver uses?