Army Future combat system get's funded

[Lonestar]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110200-8682r.htm

Army 'future combat system' secures OK from Pentagon

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Pentagon has approved a $15 billion project to build a network of high-tech tanks and surveillance drones as the heart of the Army's effort to transform itself into a faster, lighter, more lethal force.

The "future combat system" (FCS) would included remote-controlled drones to prowl the air and the ground, looking for enemies and carrying soldiers' gear. Lumbering tanks and armored troop carriers would be replaced by vehicles that, in some cases, would weigh less than a third as much as current models.

A computer system will link all the vehicles and other weapons with soldiers and their commanders to give the troops better awareness of an entire battle as it progresses.

"FCS will give our soldiers an overwhelming advantage in future operations because they will be able to see first, understand first, act first and finish the fight," said Lt. Gen. John S. Caldwell Jr., a top Army weapons-buying official.

The $14.9 billion phase of the project announced yesterday covers development and testing of the system. An initial decision on whether to build the system for the Army — which would mean tens of billions more for military contractors — is scheduled for 2008.

Boeing Co. and Science Applications International Corp. will team up to manage the "future combat system" project and will be paid about a third of the proceeds, or about $5 billion, said Dennis Muilenburg, a Boeing vice president in charge of the project.

The rest of the money will go to other defense contractors who will provide the armored vehicles, computer systems and other gear.

Plans call for an Army battalion — a unit of about 700 soldiers — to be fully equipped with the new system by the end of 2010. Another five battalions would be equipped with the system by 2015.

The system would replace 70-ton M-1 Abrams tanks with 24-ton tanks; the 33-ton M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles would be replaced by 22-ton armored vehicles. The new vehicles will be designed to be carried by the C-130, the military's ubiquitous propeller-driven cargo plane, which can land on short, unpaved landing strips. The vehicles would be built on a common chassis to make maintenance and repairs easier.

General Dynamics, which makes the Abrams tanks, and United Defense Industries, which makes Bradley vehicles, are part of a team that's designing the new family of vehicles. Contracts to make the new vehicles are among 23 subcontracts to be awarded by the end of September.

Army officials said Monday they hope to smoothly tie the Army's network into the rest of the U.S. military to avoid communication problems.

The Boeing team will help the Army decide which companies should get the contracts. The Pentagon and Boeing have set up a system to keep the overall management of the future combat system separate from other Boeing functions so the aerospace and defense giant can bid on subcontracts.

Mr. Muilenburg said Boeing had bid on some of the 23 subcontracts, but said he could not say which ones because all bids were confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------

The system would replace 70-ton M-1 Abrams tanks with 24-ton tanks; the 33-ton M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles would be replaced by 22-ton armored vehicles. The new vehicles will be designed to be carried by the C-130, the military's ubiquitous propeller-driven cargo plane, which can land on short, unpaved landing strips. The vehicles would be built on a common chassis to make maintenance and repairs easier.

Like a poster over at SD.net said...


Sound like a job for More Strykers!!!



I predict a grim future next time we need to fight someone that has Heavy Armor....

[Ned]

Well, Rumsfeld's vision has been successful to date. Why should we begin to doubt him now?

[Jaakko]

Hell, you'll have a tough time against people with HMGs...

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Rumsfeld's vision has been successful to date. Why should we begin to doubt him now?

MtG smackdown in 3...2...1...

[PLATO]

What happens when someone figures out a way to jam the computer systems' communications and the communications with the drones...and then they show up with 70 ton tanks?

[Cruddy]

Ah well, US taxpayers like paying for cool hardware. Even when it does turn out to be overpriced garbage.

6 whole battallions for $15 billion?

How do you resupply a drone armoured vehicle? Where are the drone fuel tankers and ammo carriers? It's not going to be terribly efficient at taking casualties either.

[Dinner]

This looks like a Soviet BRM to me or remakably like the amphibious APCs which the Sweds use. A bradley is still a much better troop carrier design since it's treds won't get stuck in the mud and it has a lower profile.

As I recall the Army asked for a vehicle just like this during the Reagon years and Congress balked at paying for both this APC and the Bradley thus making them choice one or the other. It seems for the last 20 years the Army has been trying to get this APC funded ars well.

It's really a waste of money.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Rumsfeld's vision has been successful to date. Why should we begin to doubt him now?

Actually Rumsfield has done next to nothing for the Army to date. And I truly mean that especially since all of those flashy gadgets used in the recent wars were the products of the Clinton or Bush I White Houses. The truth is people get promoted in the Army high command by thinking up "new and revolutionary" ideas so everyone wants their pet project funded so they can taute themselves as being the force behind our success.

What ever impact Rumsfield has will be well into the future after new hardware is added. Though the truth is we are really wasting money on 90% of the hardware the military is asking for. Instead we should force them to take care of the equipment they already have and pay the soldiers wages which are competetive with the civilian market.

[David Floyd]

This is crap. We don't need this **** - we need less hardware, not more.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Rumsfeld's vision has been successful to date. Why should we begin to doubt him now?

This isn't Rummy's vision, it predates him. Within the procurement REMF's in the army, there are two competing factions, one a bunch of no-**** soldiers who know what they're doing, the other a bunch of post-Vietnam, minimal combat experience wunderkind who think wheeled vehicles are all the rage. (Never mind this ****'s already been tried). Both sides are invoking the West Point Protective Association, and political infighting in and out of the Pentagon, but the candy asses have more political favor, and they're using their leverage to preferentially promote their own side to key procurement and staff positions.

The reason the ****ing things are drones now is that detailed studies and simulations have shown these things are too light and too roadbound (or hard ground) to be fully protected and fully maneuverable, so they are lucky to score 1 to 1 kill ratios against heavy armor, and sometimes they get slaughtered. This despite the wunderkind's being able to run their side of the tests and run their version of tactics.

1 to 1 won't ever be acceptable kill ratios for US forces. Spoofing drones will be easier for the enemy, and preventing fratricidal incidents will be harder, so integrating these things in close coordination with regular forces will be a pain in the ass. EMP weapons and active jamming would be far cheaper to employ than these things, so you're screwed there too - any time it's easier and cheaper for an enemy to develop a counter than it is for you to deploy a prime system, you may as well just ****can it.

What has worked since GW1 is a higher evolution of doctrine with standard forces. ****ing around with this sort of gee-whiz starship troopers horse****, and rewriting doctrine from zero, is not the way to go.

[Panag]

Originally posted by David Floyd
This is crap. We don't need this **** - we need less hardware, not more.

hi ,

please explain , .....

have a nice day

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This looks like a Soviet BRM to me or remakably like the amphibious APCs which the Sweds use. A bradley is still a much better troop carrier design since it's treds won't get stuck in the mud and it has a lower profile.

As I recall the Army asked for a vehicle just like this during the Reagon years and Congress balked at paying for both this APC and the Bradley thus making them choice one or the other. It seems for the last 20 years the Army has been trying to get this APC funded ars well.

It's really a waste of money.

It's just the wheeled vehicle pukes, but they wanted it to replace the M1/M2 combo. The army tried to get both funded as a way to kill the wheeled pieces of ****, but they're back.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Rumsfeld's vision has been successful to date. Why should we begin to doubt him now?

Because it was heavy Armor "Legacy" systems that one GW2, not "Light" stuff that Rummie lilkes.

A 24 ton MBT sounds great...until you realise it can't protect you that well.

[Panag]

Contra Costa Times May 01, 2003

Firm envisions high-tech combat

In-Depth Coverage

By David Whelan

Military men watch movies like John Wayne's "Sands of Iwo Jima" for inspiration. But as the work of Mountain View-based Pemstar Pacific Consultants progresses on the Army's futuristic Land Warrior system, new recruits may start finding movies like "Robocop" and "Terminator" equally relevant.

The cyborg-like Land Warrior program represents the Army's attempt to plug individual infantrymen into the same technology that pilots and submarine captains use in battle. It means incorporating functions like night vision, radio, protective clothing, navigation and positioning systems, weapons guidance and other sensors and gadgets into one piece of equipment that soldiers wear like a uniform.

If all goes well, soldiers may someday become half-man, half-machine. "What we're trying to achieve is the same level of overmatched capability that we have in the air, on the ground," said Bret Herscher, president and founder of Pemstar Pacific Consultants. "No air force would ever fly against the U.S. Air Force, not even our allies, like the British."

Pacific Consultants, a division of Minnesota-based contract manufacturer Pemstar, grosses about $25 million a year, according to the company, by performing high-level instrument design. Founded in 1995, it employs 90 engineers in Mountain View, most of whom hold Ph.Ds.

Typical projects involve designing a heart stent for a big pharmaceutical company or an electronic router for a telecom company. Four years ago, the company branched into the defense business when the Army came to Silicon Valley to update Land Warrior after the 40-pound prototype, produced by Raytheon, proved to be too bulky.

Menlo Park-based Exponent, a scientific consulting company, won the contract and brought in Pacific Consultants because of its experience designing wireless equipment. Now defense giant General Dynamics holds the contract for Land Warrior, which was just re-upped this year for $60 million. Pacific Consultants' role has increased so that they have a hand in updating all of Land Warrior's hardware, though Herscher said he can not say how much his company's piece of the contract is worth.

Silicon Valley ingenuity has always kept businesses, with their networks and computers, running smoothly. As the Army has gotten more sophisticated about using computing power in battle, it is also starting to hire private companies to upgrade its systems rather than rely on in-house technology.

"By using off-the-shelf technology we saved the Army money, as they didn't have to reinvent the wheel," said Angela Meyer, a vice president at Exponent, which first brought the project to Silicon Valley. In fact, the system itself is estimated to only cost about $30,000 per person, down from initial estimates of $60,000. The weight has fallen from 40 pounds to around 10 pounds.

While Raytheon spent over $100 million during the 1990s working on the first Land Warrior system, the Silicon Valley team produced its first prototype in six months for $2 million, using Windows software and computer chips anyone can buy at Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics.

Military decisions to buy existing technology is a controversial, decade-old trend, says John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy group in Virginia. The military on the one hand sees the benefits of private industry's technology, but worries it has less control over what gets developed.

Despite all the excitement and money spent, the Land Warrior remains in prototype form. Pacific Consultants' Herscher said it may be more than a year before soldiers can use it in battle.

The Army also has not been able to test other aspects of the "digitized infantry" programs in real life. The cutting-edge 4th Mechanized Infantry entered Iraq from Kuwait in early April, but the war ended before it saw real action, said Pike. If it had, it would have been able to try out Force XXI technology, which uses computers to digitally link together tanks, helicopters, and personnel carriers, so they are all on the same digital wavelength, as Pike described it.

If all goes well with the work of Pacific Consultants on Land Warrior, combat infantrymen will be on the same wavelength, too.

[Panag]

FCS Line-of-Sight (LOS)
Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS)
The Line-of-Sight / Beyond Line-of-Sight (LOS/BLOS) Vehicle is a FCS combat vehicle with 105-120mm cannon with LOS/BLOS capability. Also included is a Self Protection Weapon.

The Future Combat System (FCS) is a joint effort between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency intended to replace the Army’s current fleet of General Dynamics M1 Abrams tanks, United Defense M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other armored vehicles. According to Army officials, the Army should attain the technological innovations needed to create the objective force as projected. Key among these are the technologies required to produce the future combat system, which will be a replacement for the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank that will have the same lethality and survivability but will weigh only 20 tons.

The FCS Anti-Tank variant is a 20-ton vehicle with a 2-man crew and a direct fire ETC weapon capable of beyond-line-of-sight fires with the Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) round. The gun elevates up to 60 degrees to enable precision fires at elevated targets in urban environments with programmable levels of lethality. Survivability is enabled by enhanced situational understanding and long-range fires to avoid close combat with enemy tanks, signature management to avoid or delay detection, active protection against tank-fired and larger munitions, and passive armor to defeat all lesser threats. Ground mobility is enabled by a fuel-efficient hybrid-electric drive system, and at 20-tons, the vehicle can be inserted precisely via parasail.

It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the 20-ton FCS being considered in this study will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place. If the FCS is used in a manner that optimizes its capabilities and minimizes its operational weaknesses, the overall contribution of its ODFL capabilities to survivability will be relatively small.

Despite having an overmatching direct fire capability, the survivability of a 20-ton FCS will be severely threatened by close-in encounters with enemy main battle tanks. FCS survival will depend on vehicle capability to engage and defeat enemy targets at extended ranges outside the reach of enemy guns. The Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) program is directed toward providing that capability while retaining an overmatching direct fire capability as well. A variety of projectile concepts are being pursued. Contractor teams are being led by Alliant, Boeing, and Raytheon. The TERM program is structured to meet a First-Unit Equipped (FUE) goal of 2010. This date is compatible with the planned development cycle for FCS, set to begin in 2005.

Multi Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS)
The 105mm Multi Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS) is planned for use on the Future Combat System. MRAAS is designed to provide full spectrum lethality from a single lightweight gun. The system will equip the Army's next generation FCS and will also play a key role in other Army legacy programs.

The MRAAS, envisioned by the Army as a highly lethal capability to be in incorporated into the Future Combat Systems program, will provide Line of Sight, Beyond Line of Sight and Non-Line of Sight fire capability on a platform that can be carried on a C-130 aircraft. The Turret Mission Module Weapon Control (TMM-WC) system will provide the required weapon pointing control, accuracy and fires efficiency while operating in direct and indirect fire modes with new munitions and a new gun system.

Under the Future Combat System Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD), the U.S. Army s TACOM-ARDEC plans to demonstrate an integrated multi-role armament system providing lethality overmatch capability across a large range of targets and distances. A key enabler to the MRAAS s capabilities, Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) gun propulsion, is a hybrid propulsion concept that uses electrical energy, in the form of plasma, to initiate / augment / control the release of chemical energy from high-energy, high loading density propellants. ETC technology requires modest amounts of electrical energy (50 450 kJ, depending on application) in millisecond(s)-length pulses to replace the conventional powder ignition system. This technology provides for a more efficient and effective utilization of chemical gun technology enhancing system performance and lethality.

The Multi-Role Armament & Ammunition ATD objective is to demonstrate an integrated multi-role armament system providing lethality overmatch capability in the expanded "Red Zone" Close Fight and Tactical Deep Fight, enabling the Objective Force to dominate maneuver throughout the Full Spectrum of Conflict. The TRADOC community is redefining and dividing up the battlefield. The expression "Red Zone" is actually three zones - there's a Red Zone, 0-12 km; there's something called Tactical Deep that covers beyond the Red Zone - the 50 km; and then there's Operational Deep which is going out to the 300-500 km range. The Red Zone concept has been blessed all the way up to the Chief of Staff of the Army.

In late March 2002 the US Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command-Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (TACOM-ARDEC) awarded General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics Corporation, a $30 million contract for the development and demonstration of the Turret Mission Module Weapon Control (TMM-WC) system of the Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS).

In late March 2002 Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control was recently awarded a $2.9 million contract for Phase I of the Future Combat System (FCS) Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS). This award was the first increment of a contract worth approximately $6 million. Lockheed Martin is partnered with ATK Ammunition Systems and Draper Laboratory as one of two teams downselected to develop and initially test MRAAS as part of a two-phased Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) program. Lockheed Martin's MRAAS munition suite features three rounds: an anti-armor projectile, a guided extended range projectile and a guided medium range projectile.

ATK (Alliant Techsystems) is part of an industry team headed by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control that has been selected to develop a smart ammunition suite for the U.S. Army's Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS), which is a candidate armament system for Block 2 of the Future Combat System (FCS). ATK Ammunition Systems, Arden Hills, Minn., will develop the MRAAS precision-guided, kinetic energy projectile (MRAAS-KE) and support Lockheed Martin in the development of two other complementary rounds that comprise its MRAAS munitions suite. MRAAS-KE will be a derivative of the Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM), a gun-launched, precision-guided munition that is compatible with 105mm and 120mm gun systems. The MRAAS ammunition suite, which is designed to provide full-spectrum lethality, is also applicable to the Brigade Combat Team Mobile Gun System and the legacy force.

In April 2002 Raytheon Company was awarded a $6 million contract to develop the Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS) munition suite for the U.S. Army's Future Combat System (FCS). The contracting agency is the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny, Arsenal, N.J. The FCS MRAAS award is an important first step in Raytheon Company's plan to support the FCS. Work on this contract will be performed at the Raytheon Company's Missile Systems business unit in Tucson, Ariz., and will be completed by April 2003. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems is teamed with Raytheon Company on the MRAAS program.

Raytheon's suite will be an integrated family of munitions that provide full spectrum lethality capability to the FCS, from close combat to 50 km. Raytheon will do its part to ensure that FCS is fielded on schedule. Raytheon's MRAAS program will demonstrate key enabling technologies that allow the FCS to engage targets at extended ranges and in adverse weather. These technologies leverage off the Raytheon Common Missile, Excalibur and Javelin programs. MRAAS will also demonstrate new technologies that may be used by other Objective Force programs, such as the Precision Guided Mortar Munition and the Mid Range Munition for FCS Block I.