FCS Cancelled?!?

[Feanor]

I just read a Russian article that basically states that Gates wants to cancell the Future Combat Systems program, and instead wants to spend money on increasing the numbers of the Army and Marine Corps.

http://www.arms-expo.ru/site.xp/049057054050124055054051051.html

I only have the Russian article. Does anyone else have any information on this? Is this true? Is this a finalized decision, or a proposition?

 

[kato]

Spiegel said that it wasn't an all-out cancelling, but cutting down to 2-3 vehicles and saving about 85 billion at least. Some sub-projects, such as "Transformational Satellite" (26 billion planned), are to be cut completely

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,617904,00.html
(In German)

 

[IPA35]

Increase size?!
Not really necessary I'd say.

But the FCS programm is (should) not really a priority for the US military I believe.

 

[Firn]

It seems to make sense, and I might add that I have always been sceptical about the cost effectivness of the program. Note that Gates himself seems to think that the FCS doesn't take into account the Lessons learned of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not share his interpretations fully, but there is certainly some truth in it.

The main point is that the strict peformance requirments coupled the very low weight did force the developers to search for very innovative and expensive solutions, resulting in driving the costs up very much. While the specific potential advantages of the FCS would have been great the greater part of their advantages were generic and can be apllied to most modern AFV. A light vehicle with the same capability of a heavier is certainly an advantage. But how a great one it is and how much should costs depends on the specific situation.

Money doesn't grow on trees and the US defense department will face more stringent times. IMHO upgrading IFV like the CV90 or PUMA or IMV like the Bushmaster are a more efficient and sensible approaches for most mid-term applications.

We will see how deep this new budget plan cuts into the FCS program.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I heard all 8 of the new vehicles will be canceled. I think they need to replace the Paladin 155mm artillery with something newer but keep the M1A2 tank and M2A3 Bradley IFV.

I always thought that FCS was a waist on money and they should just keep buying the M1 and M2. Also the money saved should also go into replacing the M4 Carbine in the U.S. Military with a newer and better rifle such as the H&K 416 or the SCAR-L/H.

I don't know if the M16A4 in the USMC should be replaced or not though.

 

[Waylander]

Hopefully they keep the, IMO, vital parts of the FCS running.

The whole US Army and USMC can benefit from the advances in active protection systems, sensors, drones, network capabilities, new armor tech, etc. the program comes up with.
These technologies can be used when one wants to develop evolutionary successors to the current vehicle fleet and to upgrade the existing vehicles.
Trying to go fully revolutionary while the project ruins the cost and requirement targets was a bad idea right from the beginning.

 

[Firn]

The FCS as a whole seems to have been conceived as a irrefutable and undividable opera d'arte of idealistic perfection which now has collided with the new but ever gritty and sober reality.

As Waylander said let us see how the advances it inspired or initiated will applied and how many fragments of the once grand project will make it into the armed forces.

 

[eckherl]

I heard all 8 of the new vehicles will be canceled. I think they need to replace the Paladin 155mm artillery with something newer but keep the M1A2 tank and M2A3 Bradley IFV.

I always thought that FCS was a waist on money and they should just keep buying the M1 and M2. Also the money saved should also go into replacing the M4 Carbine in the U.S. Military with a newer and better rifle such as the H&K 416 or the SCAR-L/H.

I don't know if the M16A4 in the USMC should be replaced or not though.

Due to the FCS program being shelved we very well may see the Crusader contender again due to M109A6 coming close to needing retirement.

As predicted, you very well may see a M1A3 sometime soon.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Due to the FCS program being shelved we very well may see the Crusader contender again due to M109A6 coming close to needing retirement.

As predicted, you very well may see a M1A3 sometime soon.

Yeah the Crusader is not an out dated system because it would have been very useful in Afghanistan to have a more mobile artillery peace.

Yes M1A3 FTW! Best tank every built.

 

[Waylander]

A more mobile artillery system?
It's not like the countries using old style artillery there have no mobile assets which they could use there.
Be it British AS-90s or US Paladins.
The only mobile artillery systems used there are MLRS and PzH2000.
MLRS because there are no lighter systems which can fire GMLRS rockets and PzH2000 because the dutch thought it would be a nice additione to their troops in the field.
And the PzH is not doing alot of driving down there, too.
At least not even nearly like it would be used in a major clash between modern powers.

Getting a ready developed Crusader into service would be nice but not because of a theater like A-stan but because the NLOS-C is IMO just not as good as it should be.

 

[Firn]

Artillery in Afghanistan almost always shoots from fixed firebases and is hardly moved around that much.

IMHO the biggest drawback of the NLOS-C is the greatly reduced range compared to the 155/52 cannons. We will see what future SPH the USA will choose.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Crusaders, M1A3s.... wow... As to NLOS-C being outshoot I think not. While a 155mm L52 can outshoot a L38 with conventional ammunition the dispersion is so high at those ranges that its basically worthless fires unless you are shooting at a Regiment (aka Battalion of 18-24 guns) or Div Arty (aka Brigade of 48-72 guns) level. Since the NLOS-C will shoot mostly Excalibur it will outgun the longer barrels.

Anyway I will refer to someone a bit more informed about what's happening with FCS now:

Parts of the Army's Future Combat Systems program have already demonstrated their adaptability and relevance. For example, the connectivity of Warfighter Information Network will dramatically increase the agility and situational awareness of the Army's combat formations. And we'll accelerate its development and field it, along with proven FCS spinoff capabilities, across the entire Army.

I'm recommending that we cancel the existing FCS vehicle program, reevaluate the requirements, technology and approach in light of our combat and operational experience in two wars; and then re-launch a new Army vehicle modernization program. There will be substantial money in the FY '10 budget to get started and to make sure this happens. My hope is that we can be ready to move forward in FY '11. And I have directed that all of the money for FCS in the out-years be protected to fund the new vehicle modernization program.

I think the Army was a little concerned that if FCS was canceled, the money would go someplace else. And I told them that it would not. So I hope we can have a short delay, while we look at the requirements again, absorb the lessons, see if a common vehicle for multiple purposes really works and then move on quickly and have a competitive bidding process, which was not part of the FCS program. We had very little leverage to get cost efficiencies.

First, for a program that had been designed nine years ago, it was either Secretary Geren or General Casey who pointed out within the last 18 months or so, "Gee, the infantry fighting vehicle has a flat bottom and is 18 inches off the ground" -- reflecting no lessons learned. So they began to figure out how they could put a V-shaped hull on that.

Second, there was to be a common vehicle. And it was to be 30 tons. And we were going to start with a cannon. But as they began working on the infantry fighting vehicle and looking at the lessons learned, in Iraq and Afghanistan, they began adding armor to the infantry fighting vehicle. And all of a sudden, it was looking like 34 tons, 36 tons, 38 tons on a 30-ton chassis. That seems to me to be a problem.

And finally as I said in my remarks, I felt that the contract was not as good a contract as we could have, in terms of how we spend our money. And I guess I would say one other thing.

Quotes from US SecDef Robert Gates in a recent speech

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4404

From this you can take the following facts. The FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) has not been ‘cancelled’ it has been delayed so as to be reconfigured in both concept and contract.

The new concept will probably see a move away from a common MGV vehicle system to perhaps two vehicle systems with one being designed for at least the 30-40 tonne class and the other the original 20-30 tonne class. The MGV will also be redesigned for improved belly protection against mines and IEDs.

But most significantly and probably why this was done is the push back in spend saves a lot of money and the new contract model will probably be competitive. Currently FCS MGV involves all the major builders of tracked AFVs in the US (GDLS and BAES) in a non-competitive, cooperative model. No doubt Gates is hoping competition will lead to more savings.

No Crusaders there, no M1A3s either...

 

[Firn]

A good take on the matter.

I think we already had the debate on this.

As to NLOS-C being outshoot I think not. While a 155mm L52 can outshoot a L38 with conventional ammunition the dispersion is so high at those ranges that its basically worthless fires unless you are shooting at a Regiment (aka Battalion of 18-24 guns) or Div Arty (aka Brigade of 48-72 guns) level. Since the NLOS-C will shoot mostly Excalibur it will outgun the longer barrels.

True enough unless out of longer barrels come also things like SMart or Excalibur. The L38 has not intrinsic advantage over the L52 but an intrinsic disadvantage. To huge ranges of the latter were and are actually a main driving force for guided rounds.

The new concept will probably see a move away from a common MGV vehicle system to perhaps two vehicle systems with one being designed for at least the 30-40 tonne class and the other the original 20-30 tonne class. The MGV will also be redesigned for improved belly protection against mines and IEDs.

It was the "light take" on passive armor which drove great part of the design and was subject to "heavy" criticism. We will see how things change

But most significantly and probably why this was done is the push back in spend saves a lot of money and the new contract model will probably be competitive. Currently FCS MGV involves all the major builders of tracked AFVs in the US (GDLS and BAES) in a non-competitive, cooperative model. No doubt Gates is hoping competition will lead to more savings.

There are already huge sunken costs -not that all were cost-ineffective investments. We will see if and how Gates can realign the spending. Hopefully for the USA for the better.

 

[eckherl]

Crusaders, M1A3s.... wow... As to NLOS-C being outshoot I think not. While a 155mm L52 can outshoot a L38 with conventional ammunition the dispersion is so high at those ranges that its basically worthless fires unless you are shooting at a Regiment (aka Battalion of 18-24 guns) or Div Arty (aka Brigade of 48-72 guns) level. Since the NLOS-C will shoot mostly Excalibur it will outgun the longer barrels.

Anyway I will refer to someone a bit more informed about what's happening with FCS now:



Quotes from US SecDef Robert Gates in a recent speech

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4404

From this you can take the following facts. The FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) has not been ‘cancelled’ it has been delayed so as to be reconfigured in both concept and contract.

The new concept will probably see a move away from a common MGV vehicle system to perhaps two vehicle systems with one being designed for at least the 30-40 tonne class and the other the original 20-30 tonne class. The MGV will also be redesigned for improved belly protection against mines and IEDs.

But most significantly and probably why this was done is the push back in spend saves a lot of money and the new contract model will probably be competitive. Currently FCS MGV involves all the major builders of tracked AFVs in the US (GDLS and BAES) in a non-competitive, cooperative model. No doubt Gates is hoping competition will lead to more savings.

No Crusaders there, no M1A3s either...

The FCS program will be shelved due to technology limitations, ever changing vehicle requirements and due to cost. So either way we may see a resurrection of Crusader or we will continue to use the M109A6, most likely the latter. As far as a M1A3 goes you very well may see it within the next few years.

 

[eckherl]

A more mobile artillery system?
It's not like the countries using old style artillery there have no mobile assets which they could use there.
Be it British AS-90s or US Paladins.
The only mobile artillery systems used there are MLRS and PzH2000.
MLRS because there are no lighter systems which can fire GMLRS rockets and PzH2000 because the dutch thought it would be a nice additione to their troops in the field.
And the PzH is not doing alot of driving down there, too.
At least not even nearly like it would be used in a major clash between modern powers.

Getting a ready developed Crusader into service would be nice but not because of a theater like A-stan but because the NLOS-C is IMO just not as good as it should be.

Any more issues with PZH2000 barrel overheating in Afhganistan or did the remedy the issue.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The FCS program will be shelved due to technology limitations, ever changing vehicle requirements and due to cost. So either way we may see a resurrection of Crusader or we will continue to use the M109A6, most likely the latter. As far as a M1A3 goes you very well may see it within the next few years.

So I guess you're Obama's new nominee for SecDef? You seem to be claiming a better knowledge of the acquisition intentions of the Secretary?

There may be an M1A3 but this is nothing new. PM HBCT have already talked publicly about sticking some FCS technology into the M1 to keep them effective over the life of type. Everything from less visible improvements to fire control and networking to an automatic loader (already designed). But this will not be a new build tank. It will simply be rebuilds of the existing vehicles.

There are no technology limitations with FCS. Most of the hard stuff has already been proven and is even in service - like the network. FCS is as maligned as the F-35 is... but I guess new technology and new ways of fighting and designing equipment thanks to this technology is difficult for some to understand.

 

[eckherl]

So I guess you're Obama's new nominee for SecDef? You seem to be claiming a better knowledge of the acquisition intentions of the Secretary?

There may be an M1A3 but this is nothing new. PM HBCT have already talked publicly about sticking some FCS technology into the M1 to keep them effective over the life of type. Everything from less visible improvements to fire control and networking to an automatic loader (already designed). But this will not be a new build tank. It will simply be rebuilds of the existing vehicles.

There are no technology limitations with FCS. Most of the hard stuff has already been proven and is even in service - like the network. FCS is as maligned as the F-35 is... but I guess new technology and new ways of fighting and designing equipment thanks to this technology is difficult for some to understand.

Mr. Robert Gates will have a tough time keeping this program on line for future U.S Army force structure due to cost and technology limitations, and yes I do know about some of these current real time limitations, not what I have picked up on different web sites or listened to the top brass or contractors attempt to shove down everyones throat, they always sound like a new car salesman, is it your assumption that I am still stuck in the old cold war days and that you cannot teach a old dog new tricks. I never stated to anyone that the M1A3 is a new tank design, the upgrade block has been around for quite some time now along with additional upgrade blocks that can be used, I have also stated many times that some of the FCS technologies is being used, including networking. It is also my hope and desire that we would continue with the FCS research and development program so that we will draw additional advancements that can be used, the future battlefield is ever changing and we need to be leaner and meaner with platforms that can take the fight to all future opponents and dictate the outcome to our advantage. Sh_t - I am starting to sound just like one of those generals or contractors.

 

[Waylander]

I think we already discussed the NLOS-C in length in some other threads.
Let's just say that we have a different opinion on this topic.

As for alot of good stuff coming out of the FCS program.
I always said that there will be alot of interesting new developments coming out of the program and that they will ultimately help the whole us ground forces as they can be integrated into many other vehicles apart from the FCS ones.
The research for critical areas like network capability, active protection systems, small UAVs, etc. should go on.
I also heard the same of nearly every critic of the FCS program.
The problem is not with all the new gizmos. I expect them to add many new capabilities to the US Army.
The problem is that the idea of a light family of vehicles on a common platform is not fullfilling the promises the sales managers made when the program was started.

Let's take the vehicle weight debate.
I remember huge debates with you about that and that these new light vehicles are the best thing since sliced bread while I stated that a more conventional approach to a new IFV and MBT vehicle maybe better. I stated that maybe 40-50 tons for an MBT and up to 40 tons for an IFV might be good. You denied the need for such a weight because new technologies allow for a much lighter design.

Now, the link you posted together with your comments now make a new IFV in the 40 ton range look much more possible.
As a sidemark this is as heavy as the Puma is which you also marked as being lightyears behind.

Sometimes it looks like you are jumping onto everything negative said about the FCS as if it would be a personal insult to you.
Let me tell you that this is not the case. At least not with me.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sometimes it looks like you are jumping onto everything negative said about the FCS as if it would be a personal insult to you.
Let me tell you that this is not the case. At least not with me.

I love it sooo much when someone puts words into my mouth. Thanks a lot!

Actually you would find that in every case I jumped down on someone it was because they were and are making ill informed comments about the FCS. Things like 'it is a lightweight vehicle with no armour' or 'it relies on new technology to avoid being hit and has light armor'... etc. All things that have beared little of no resemblance to the actual FCS MGV1 program since it was first conceptualized and sold to the media.

I remember huge debates with you about that and that these new light vehicles are the best thing since sliced bread while I stated that a more conventional approach to a new IFV and MBT vehicle maybe better. I stated that maybe 40-50 tons for an MBT and up to 40 tons for an IFV might be good. You denied the need for such a weight because new technologies allow for a much lighter design.

And even now you still don't get it. Have you actually read any information on the design of the MGV1s? I doubt it. As much as you haven't even paid any attention to what I was saying.

All along I have been saying things like the MGV1 is in a different class than conventional AFV (including the Puma) in the relation between its gross vehicle weight and its armour. This is because it doesn't follow the same design methodologies, technology level and components that can lead to a bench mark. Things like hybrid power, unmanned turrets, integrated systems. So one can't put the gross vehicle weight figures side by side and say this vehicle at 27 tonnes is less protected than this vehicle at 42 tonnes.

As to the increased weight of the new MGV2 and the high weights that MGV1s like the ICV have reached this was never to meet legacy armour levels like that of the Puma it was to exceed them. The high 30 tonnes ICV with the full add on armour suite would have had M1A1 HA level frontal armour protection along its flanks! It would rival and probably exceed Merkava/Namer levels of protection.

Yet once you have mentally classified the MGV1 as a 'thin skinned' vehicle then you begin a cycle of non-understanding that culminates in these statements.

The MGV2 will not be so different to the MGV1. It will be redesigned for a V Shape and layered armour bottom and no doubt split into two size categories (big and small) but will still be very similar to the MGV1. However since Gates has restarted the program the rest of you can catch up in your mental conceptualization of MGV and leave the old C-130 transportable concept behind. Well at least I hope...

 

[Firn]

Well as a ex-tanker Waylander seems to quite a bit about AFV. And he seems to know quite a bit about the FCS, at least according to his posts. That the internal space greatly influences the amount (and quality) of armour needed to achieve a certain level of protection is clear. History has a good deal of examples of effective AFV with a small internal space, overall relative light weight and yet relative high protection. I enjoy usually your posts, but there is a great difference in the style between you and other posters like Waylander.

Waylander

After having praised many aspects of the FCS he states the simple fact that he posted before that he felt that a heavier more "conventional" and flexible approach to vehicle weight was more sensible. And it seems that Gates and the planners give him right. Then:

Now, the link you posted together with your comments now make a new IFV in the 40 ton range look much more possible.
As a sidemark this is as heavy as the Puma is which you also marked as being lightyears behind.

Sometimes it looks like you are jumping onto everything negative said about the FCS as if it would be a personal insult to you.
Let me tell you that this is not the case. At least not with me.

Your answer sometimes in a quite rough fashion, it seems to me.

I love it sooo much when someone puts words into my mouth. Thanks a lot!

And even now you still don't get it. Have you actually read any information on the design of the MGV1s? I doubt it. As much as you haven't even paid any attention to what I was saying.

At least from my humble point of view it seems that you have a tendency to overreact a bit. Things like "even now you still don't get it" are IMHO bordering to an insult, especially when he shows seemingly good understanding of the issue. It is a shame because you usally provide a interesting POV