|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums
Equipment Guide
Vehicles & Weaponry
US Army Future Combat System Vehicles
Topic Closed|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
|
New Member |
All,
Was surfing the web today, looking for material on the future of the US Army's armored vehicle force, and came across these links. Sorry, treadheads, MBT follow-ons aren't in the Army's future. Smaller, lighter, faster, and more fuel efficient vehicles are. From http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/nlos_cannon.htm
Future Combat Systems White Paper: http://www.ws-wr.com/redwood_dev/content/BAE/NLOS_ipk_0...CT_White%20Paper.pdf US Army Website Covering FCS - Provides overview of proposed vehicles, and associated systems: http://www.army.mil/fcs/ System Benefits of NLOS-C: http://www.ws-wr.com/redwood_dev/content/BAE/NLOS_ipk_06/system_benefits.cfm Don't think all MGVs will be tracked either - wheeled vehicles will be included in the mix. |
||
|
|
Member |
The Yugo and Pinto were smaller, lighter, and mre fuel efficient too but no one wants them. The FCS program isn't the only future vehicle design that is in the chute. It gets some attention for the reasons you bring up. However, it isn't limited to that model. Just like what is going on now, we are planned to field a mixture of light, medium, and heavy units. We currently don't have a structure that we can define as "medium. The Slacker program is the closest and it's an intrim fix until the FCS is fielded.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm
|
|||
|
|
Member |
This is a good piece of propaganda but misleading. It is true that there are some "senior leaders" that reject an Abrams based future MBT. Amazingly it doesn't seem to be any that had them in a fight. Then again programs such as "Concept 2010" isn't an Abrams based MBT either. The board of Colonels and other official agencies seem to suggest otherwise as well. Every time a new vehicle needs top be sold it is labeled as "revolutionary". The LAVIII falls far short of that claim. Perhaps the real FCS vehicle will fit the bill; doubt it. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Last I heard, all the FCS stuff was being re-thought due to what worked and what didn't in Iraq.
Also, FCS was near and dear to Rumsfeld's heart. Now that he's gone, expect changes. |
|||
|
|
Member |
The FCS is a program and not a vehicle, yet. The reason it isn't a vehicle is because many, if not most, concepts haven't been decided on yet. There are several different "angles" that are being experimented with. The only thing thats is clear as mud is the doctrine the systems will support. There are many variblaes that are influencing such programs. A good example is from where are we going to get the money to R&D then produce such systems if we are spending the money on interim "fads"?
|
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Just 'bumping' this up, so the discussion is not lost during the next forum purge.
|
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Raytheon Delivers Radars for Vehicle Protection Device
(Source: Raytheon Co.; issued May 22, 2007) MCKINNEY, Texas --- Raytheon Company's Network Centric Systems has delivered the first two Multi-Function Radio Frequency System (MFRFS) radars for integration into the Quick Kill Active Protection System that Raytheon is developing for the U.S. Army. MFRFS is a state-of-the-art, electronically-scanned, solid-state phased array radar system that can detect and track a full spectrum of threats to current and future Army vehicles. These threats range from rocket propelled grenades fired at close proximity to more distant threats such as kinetic energy projectiles. In addition, MFRFS, the system selected as the common radar for Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicles, is capable of supporting a number of radio frequency functions including surveillance, high- band secure communications and combat identification. "Delivery of the MFRFS marks an important milestone in the development of Raytheon's Quick Kill Active Protection System," said Colin Schottlaender, president of Network Centric Systems. "MFRFS has achieved all milestones to date, and we are confident it will be integrated successfully on current force platforms." Raytheon's Quick Kill APS is capable of providing a "bubble" of coverage to protect current force Stryker, Abrams and Bradley vehicles, as well as FCS platforms, from a broad range of threats from any direction. With the MFRFS delivery and progress anticipated over the next few months, Raytheon's Quick Kill APS will be integrated on a Stryker for end-to-end system demonstrations and design verification testing beginning late this summer. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Check this out:
ATK MRM ammunition Press release ATK recently test fired this MRM ammo, 3 for 3 at 8,000 meters. It doesnt matter how big the tank is anymore. Lighter is better |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
| Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed
Military.com Forums
Equipment Guide
Vehicles & Weaponry
US Army Future Combat System Vehicles

