Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Equipment Guide  Hop To Forums  Vehicles & Weaponry    US Army Future Combat System Vehicles

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
New Member
Posted
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

quote:
In 1999, the Army set its course for the future with a vision to transform into a fighting force more lethal, agile and rapidly deployable than any ground combat system in the world. The centerpiece of this dominating force is the Future Combat System (FCS), a system of unmanned and manned ground and aerial vehicles that will enable the Army to see first, understand first, act first and finish decisively on the battlefield of the future.

Included in FCS is a system of Manned Ground Vehicles (MGVs), including a non-line-of-sight cannon (NLOS-C). The MGVs will provide a network of eight vehicle types that integrate advanced technologies, and enhanced survivability into, 20-ton platforms. These vehicles will replace the army’s existing fleet of heavy armored vehicles.(Emphasis mine.) They will be the most lethal, best-networked and most responsive ground combat units in the world thanks to a number of common, digital command-and-control elements and advanced weapon technologies. The vehicles are scheduled to begin production by 2008, with full operational capability achieved by 2012.


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.
 
Posts: 147 | Registered: Sun 18 June 2006Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 366 | Registered: Wed 19 July 2006Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Imamikegolf2:
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.

From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm

quote:
The Future Combat System (FCS) is a revolutionary, "leap ahead" system to form the centerpiece of the Army's ground combat force to be fielded between FY2015 and FY2020. It will be a highly mobile, deployable, lethal and survivable platform, incorporating advanced technology components to enable a significant increase in combat effectiveness. Senior Army leaders explicitly rejected an Abrams-based evolutionary approach to a Future Main Battle Tank. (Emphasis mine.) Instead, the Army will invest in a leap ahead capability that will be the heart of mounted close-combat for the Army After Next. The FCS will blend the capabilities of several battlefield operating systems into a common platform that will reengineer the close fight.

The objective of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) effort is to develop lightweight (no individual element greater than 20 tons) (emphasis mine), overwhelmingly lethal, strategically deployable, self-sustaining and survivable combat and combat support force, systems and supporting technologies for the 2012-2025 timeframe and beyond. Additionally, it is anticipated that the aggregate force will be significantly (at least 50%) lighter than the existing force structure at equivalent force level. The Future Combat Systems will be a single multi-functional system (or system of systems) which optimizes performance of the force leveraging on the advanced technologies (with the capability to incorporate future advances).

The FCS will be light enough to permit two systems for transport on a C17. Full second generation digital systems will provide the nexus for combined arms operations, fully embedded training, and ease of system operation. The FCS will have the sensors and lethality to detect and destroy any target with a near perfect probability of hit/kill at ranges beyond an enemy's capability. It will have a non-line-of-sight capability that will dramatically increase the task force commander's battlespace and combat power. An embedded second generation integrated defensive system will make the FCS nearly immune to enemy weapons. The FCS propulsion system will provide speeds in excess of 100 kph and require significantly less fuel than the Abrams. The FCS-equipped force will require at least 50% less logistical support than the Abrams fleet.
 
Posts: 147 | Registered: Sun 18 June 2006Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Asa_Yam:
Senior Army leaders explicitly rejected an Abrams-based evolutionary approach to a Future Main Battle Tank.


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.
 
Posts: 366 | Registered: Wed 19 July 2006Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 199 | Registered: Sun 21 May 2006Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
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"?
 
Posts: 366 | Registered: Wed 19 July 2006Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Super Member
Picture of Sgt_Schlappy
Posted Hide Post
Just 'bumping' this up, so the discussion is not lost during the next forum purge.


 
Posts: 21032 | Registered: Mon 22 April 2002Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Super Member
Picture of Sgt_Schlappy
Posted Hide Post
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.


 
Posts: 21032 | Registered: Mon 22 April 2002Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
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
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: Tue 24 July 2007Edit or Delete MessageReport This Post
  Powered by Eve Community  

Closed Topic Closed

Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Equipment Guide  Hop To Forums  Vehicles & Weaponry    US Army Future Combat System Vehicles

© 2009 Military Advantage, Inc.