Does FCS mean the end of the M1

[enigmaticuk]

The FCS is a lighter more agile/mobile/deployable force designed to replace heavy armour BCT's. This allows them to be deployed more rapidly.. There has been a bigfocus in the reduction of weight in individual systems so that they can be c-130 transportable. Heavy armour is replaced with active protection systems and new technologys such as EM armour; also the increase in the network connectivity of all the sytems allows threat to be detected and neutralised more quickly, hence lowering the overall risk for each unit. This will be very effective in many scenarios however there are also many conditions i could forsee where a commander would very much need the heavy armour of an M1 tank. Would it be prudent to discuss the inclution of at least a samll contingent of heavy armour units into a fcs unit of action.

[Aussie Digger]

The FCS is a lighter more agile/mobile/deployable force designed to replace heavy armour BCT's. This allows them to be deployed more rapidly.. There has been a bigfocus in the reduction of weight in individual systems so that they can be c-130 transportable. Heavy armour is replaced with active protection systems and new technologys such as EM armour; also the increase in the network connectivity of all the sytems allows threat to be detected and neutralised more quickly, hence lowering the overall risk for each unit. This will be very effective in many scenarios however there are also many conditions i could forsee where a commander would very much need the heavy armour of an M1 tank. Would it be prudent to discuss the inclution of at least a samll contingent of heavy armour units into a fcs unit of action.

I've read various articles on the FCS and they mention that M1's won't be replaced until at least 2030. The on-going battle between armour designers and warhead designers isn't likely to end anytime soon and as such I don't see heavy armour going away.

As for any M1 replacement being transportable in a C-130 I VERY much doubt it. That would mean it would HAVE to be less than 15 tons in total weight and I just can't see how they'd get the necessary level of protection into a vehicle of that weight. I CAN see newer generation "tanks" weighing less than the current M1/Challenger II/Leopard 2A6 weights (all around 63 tons combat laden) but less than 15t? Seems like to big a leap to me...

[Todjaeger]

The FCS is a lighter more agile/mobile/deployable force designed to replace heavy armour BCT's. This allows them to be deployed more rapidly.. There has been a bigfocus in the reduction of weight in individual systems so that they can be c-130 transportable. Heavy armour is replaced with active protection systems and new technologys such as EM armour; also the increase in the network connectivity of all the sytems allows threat to be detected and neutralised more quickly, hence lowering the overall risk for each unit. This will be very effective in many scenarios however there are also many conditions i could forsee where a commander would very much need the heavy armour of an M1 tank. Would it be prudent to discuss the inclution of at least a samll contingent of heavy armour units into a fcs unit of action.

From what I've read, FCS is currently a concept, not an actual force. Also the GAO has been finding problems with the program, see the link below for the GAO report abstract.
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-478T

It's a quick, one page read without getting into the attached PDF for further info. Basically it finds fault with the FCS concept due to premature product development. The FCS concept is based on a reliance on new & emerging technology to replace existing technology and/or methods of operating. A light M1 MBT replacement vehicle, which would presumably rely on active protection systems and EM armour to replace the heavy composite armour used by the M1 and similar MBTs is an obvious example. It similarly can serve as an example of the problems the GAO has found with the program. If there are any cost or effectiveness issues with the new tech, the FCS vehicles in development might be too expensive, ineffective, or subject to significant delays in deliver, or any combination of the three.

For now I'd say scrap the FCS concept until the new technologies it would be relying on have emerged enough for accurate data to be available on them. Continue working on developing the technologies of course, but wait on product development. Otherwise, it could look like an attempt to design an internal combustion engine in 1850, before it has been resolved on whether petroleum can be refined into fuel.

[fylr71]

The FCS is a family of vehicles some of which like the IFV varient, the NLOS artillery system, or recon system have a worthwhile purpose and are certainly important for future conflicts. Having something that could be brought in entirely by C-17s is excellent for mobility. However, I think FCS was thought of for use in an Afghanistan type of environment or counter insurgency battle rather then a conventional open field battle such as desert storm. In that instance. The MBT simply cannot be replaced. By anything other then another MBT. As we have seen by the South Korean XK2 ,Japanese MBT-X, Chinese Type 99 Russian Black Eagle and T-95, MBTs are not going anywhere and new prototype tanks are being tested. As for the next generation of the MBT my best guess is that we will see a major emphasis on speen, stealth, and silence. As for the fact that they cannot really be transported by C-17s. I suspect that new super heavy cargo planes will be developed. Also, the work on high speed sealift will continue and new MBTs will be transported areound the world at speeds of over 50 knots on cargo ships based on the JHSV-2. :cool:

[Big-E]

From what I've read, FCS is currently a concept, not an actual force. Also the GAO has been finding problems with the program, see the link below for the GAO report abstract.
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-478T

It's a quick, one page read without getting into the attached PDF for further info. Basically it finds fault with the FCS concept due to premature product development. The FCS concept is based on a reliance on new & emerging technology to replace existing technology and/or methods of operating. A light M1 MBT replacement vehicle, which would presumably rely on active protection systems and EM armour to replace the heavy composite armour used by the M1 and similar MBTs is an obvious example. It similarly can serve as an example of the problems the GAO has found with the program. If there are any cost or effectiveness issues with the new tech, the FCS vehicles in development might be too expensive, ineffective, or subject to significant delays in deliver, or any combination of the three.

For now I'd say scrap the FCS concept until the new technologies it would be relying on have emerged enough for accurate data to be available on them. Continue working on developing the technologies of course, but wait on product development. Otherwise, it could look like an attempt to design an internal combustion engine in 1850, before it has been resolved on whether petroleum can be refined into fuel.

You do not understand the incorporation concepts of FCS. They don't just introduce it all at once. It is a component based system that is introduced incrementally. Much of FCS is already in active service. If you withdrew those components already on the battlefield there would be a riot. The beauty of FCS is that it is a constantly evolving concept. If one part doesn't fit it can be reshaped to fit the total force structure. Your selective M1 remarks do not implicate the total FCS structure and we would appreciate if you would not say the whole program is "premature" just because of one of a thousand elements in the program.

[Todjaeger]

You do not understand the incorporation concepts of FCS. They don't just introduce it all at once. It is a component based system that is introduced incrementally. Much of FCS is already in active service. If you withdrew those components already on the battlefield there would be a riot. The beauty of FCS is that it is a constantly evolving concept. If one part doesn't fit it can be reshaped to fit the total force structure. Your selective M1 remarks do not implicate the total FCS structure and we would appreciate if you would not say the whole program is "premature" just because of one of a thousand elements in the program.

By scrapping the FCS concept, I was referring to the areas the GAO has found fault with the programs. Specifically development work on future vehicles that would make use of immature technology or ongoing R&D to replace existing, know solutions. I'm all for developing the tech that can make FCS work, and even more so if it gets incorporated into existing designs. The problem I have with FCS is where plans are made to replace a 65ton MBT with an 18ton vehicle. It is possible to fit the same gun or firepower into the lighter vehicle, but not the armour protection given current technology. If anything, I think more existing technology, that is known and works should be incorporated into current equipment. Imagine for instance, a video camera mounted in every vehicle in Iraq (not unlike are found in some US police depts) If something happens, say the US is accused of firing on a hospital/mosque or other target normally exempt under the rules of warfare, and the US then says "But they were shooting at us," Then we could produce the video showing American personnel under fire.

[Big-E]

By scrapping the FCS concept, I was referring to the areas the GAO has found fault with the programs. Specifically development work on future vehicles that would make use of immature technology or ongoing R&D to replace existing, know solutions. I'm all for developing the tech that can make FCS work, and even more so if it gets incorporated into existing designs. The problem I have with FCS is where plans are made to replace a 65ton MBT with an 18ton vehicle. It is possible to fit the same gun or firepower into the lighter vehicle, but not the armour protection given current technology. If anything, I think more existing technology, that is known and works should be incorporated into current equipment. Imagine for instance, a video camera mounted in every vehicle in Iraq (not unlike are found in some US police depts) If something happens, say the US is accused of firing on a hospital/mosque or other target normally exempt under the rules of warfare, and the US then says "But they were shooting at us," Then we could produce the video showing American personnel under fire.

The final product of FCS will mostly be un-manned making 40 tons of armour unecessary. Keeping 65t vehicles TOTALLY destroys the concept of FCS. The whole point was to keep it light and mobile so most components can be air dropped. It is kinda silly to keep 65tns when a C-17 can only carry 1 tank, and a C-130 hasn't a prayer of lifting that. Our inability to quickly move large forces makes our response weak. FCS will double our firepower while quadripling our response time.

Your happiness with the status quo will leave our lumbering forces stuck in some distant base waiting for sea lift when Mobile Air Command can pick em up in 1/4th the time under FCS weight limits. If you want our technology to remain stagnant we will eventually be overtaken by our future foes and loose our advantage... I can't believe you would want that to happen. Remember we only have so much money to allocate to new hardware. We either get it right or were stuck, no reason to build something we already have.

[Todjaeger]

The final product of FCS will mostly be un-manned making 40 tons of armour unecessary. Keeping 65t vehicles TOTALLY destroys the concept of FCS. The whole point was to keep it light and mobile so most components can be air dropped. It is kinda silly to keep 65tns when a C-17 can only carry 1 tank, and a C-130 hasn't a prayer of lifting that. Our inability to quickly move large forces makes our response weak. FCS will double our firepower while quadripling our response time.

Your happiness with the status quo will leave our lumbering forces stuck in some distant base waiting for sea lift when Mobile Air Command can pick em up in 1/4th the time under FCS weight limits. If you want our technology to remain stagnant we will eventually be overtaken by our future foes and loose our advantage... I can't believe you would want that to happen. Remember we only have so much money to allocate to new hardware. We either get it right or were stuck, no reason to build something we already have.

Okay, I don't think you got the gist of what I'm advocating. To my understanding, parts of FCS are trying to design some of the future systems, without any clear understanding of what the future systems will be. To be content with the status quo would basically be saying "our tech is good enough, we don't need to research any more." This is not my point at all. I want us to continue developing the tech, and when the tech is reliable, use it on our current systems instead of waiting for some future vehicle to showcase it.

Something I would like to avoid is the usual tangled American development program. By this I mean the torturous 17 year long design, prototyping, redesign, re-prototype, etc. of the M2/M3 Bradley. There wasn't even a great deal of new technology going into the Bradley. Or the F-22 Raptor, which had the initial design work start circa 1982, and just now IOC for the first squadron was achieved some 24 years later. Another example in process now is the F-35 which is expected to start LRIP in 2012 or so, with decision on final configuration coming in 2015, 3 years after the start of LRIP.

If we can reasonably design a FCS vehicle with the existing tech we have now, then we should by all means do so. What the GAO apparently found was that with the current R&D done so far, we cannot reasonably design such vehicles or that configurations kept being charged to the point where a vehicle couldn't be built in the time between changes. Hence, my thinking that we should stop trying to design something we can't yet, and instead work on the subsystems so that we can in the future.

Addendum: I have no problem with us moving to light and/or unmanned vehicles that can be moved around rapidly by MAC, as long as the vehicles work. That is what I was getting at about trying to replace the M1 which is a known quantity, with a lightweight system that we don't know if it will actually perform.

[Big-E]

I don't understand what you mean by "designing a vehicel we can't make yet."
FCS is a shared chasis that has already been tested, approved and fielded.

[Aussie Digger]

The final product of FCS will mostly be un-manned making 40 tons of armour unecessary. Keeping 65t vehicles TOTALLY destroys the concept of FCS. The whole point was to keep it light and mobile so most components can be air dropped. It is kinda silly to keep 65tns when a C-17 can only carry 1 tank, and a C-130 hasn't a prayer of lifting that. Our inability to quickly move large forces makes our response weak. FCS will double our firepower while quadripling our response time.

Your happiness with the status quo will leave our lumbering forces stuck in some distant base waiting for sea lift when Mobile Air Command can pick em up in 1/4th the time under FCS weight limits. If you want our technology to remain stagnant we will eventually be overtaken by our future foes and loose our advantage... I can't believe you would want that to happen. Remember we only have so much money to allocate to new hardware. We either get it right or were stuck, no reason to build something we already have.

The same technology being applied to the "light" vehicle can just as easily be applied to a 65ton well armoured vehicle. I think that's the point he was trying to make.

M1's weigh 65t because that's what it takes to make a tank survivable against modern weapons. The light tank concept has been tried in the past and never made to work properly despite the most modern "technology" being applied to them.

As to C-130 transportability. That's a non-issue in my book. Anything more than 15t can only be moved a few hundred k's, perhaps a thousand at best. Unless you can seriously envision fleets of C-130's conducting short ranged hops across the world carrying your future light armoured divisions, it's hardly a realistic solution... :sick

I can see current heavy armour losing a lot of it's weight, but to suggest that 15 or 18 ton vehicles can replace 65 ton vehicles is ridiculous. The side skirts on an Abrams for instance weighs approx 6 tons each and side skirts are vital for ANY vehicle if you wish to be able to stand up to a credible anti-armour threat. Most wheeled vehicles can't carry skirts of any significance so they don't bother. They are essential for a tracked vehicle though and "Trophy" and electric armoured systems won't change this need.

[Big-E]

M1's weigh 65t because that's what it takes to make a tank survivable against modern weapons. The light tank concept has been tried in the past and never made to work properly despite the most modern "technology" being applied to them.

I don't recall the un-manned light tank concept being tried before. That's why I'm advocating the age of heavy MBTs will be over. The advent of more powerful weapons makes the process of keeping up with preventive armour ridiculous. It WILL come to an end. It has always been easier to blow something up than to protect it. Without the need of a crew (to protect) armour is not important but for basic functions. Historically when an MBT takes a serious hit she is rendered non-functional... all that matters is crew safety. With the family of light vehicles a serious hit will destroy the platform, but no big deal, no one is inside.


As to C-130 transportability. That's a non-issue in my book. Anything more than 15t can only be moved a few hundred k's, perhaps a thousand at best. Unless you can seriously envision fleets of C-130's conducting short ranged hops across the world carrying your future light armoured divisions, it's hardly a realistic solution... :sick

Is the C-130 the only aircraft that can pick up 15ts? Is the C-130 even a part of strategic airlift... no. That's why god made the C-17.


I can see current heavy armour losing a lot of it's weight, but to suggest that 15 or 18 ton vehicles can replace 65 ton vehicles is ridiculous. The side skirts on an Abrams for instance weighs approx 6 tons each and side skirts are vital for ANY vehicle if you wish to be able to stand up to a credible anti-armour threat. Most wheeled vehicles can't carry skirts of any significance so they don't bother. They are essential for a tracked vehicle though and "Trophy" and electric armoured systems won't change this need.

I guess this is the disconnect b/w us. You see manned vehicles being needed, besides C&C I don't.

[enigmaticuk]

I had a feeling this topic mught create some debate. Personally i agree that a lighter more deployable force is most desirable not only for its rapid deployability but also for the effect it has on your fuel logistical requirements. But im concerned that even with em armour and active protection you cant defend against artilley shells burried under the road? Yes it will be critical to put a BCT of FCS anywhere in the world in 96 hours but will these medium forces be enough to challenge a possible massed haevily armoured army. There has been no mention of the Cargo lifter lighter than air ships which could have the capability to transport many M1s over sea and land and deploy wothout a runway, perhaps in an area already secured buy a FCS medium BCT. What upgrades do we need to consider beyond SEP and TUSK for the M1 to maintain its battlefield superiority?

[Big-E]

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

[Waylander]

And once a new special armor is invented the railgun will be obsolete... :rolleyes: ;)

[Big-E]

And once a new special armor is invented the railgun will be obsolete... :rolleyes: ;)

By that time land combat will be obsolete.:D

[Waylander]

Just wait for the Battlemechs to take control.
They are going to show you who is obsolete. :D :finger

[Big-E]

You land forces guys need to look to the future. This status quo thing is indicitive of the Dark Ages.

[Waylander]

Ah, I really love how the guys with the wings on their chest think. :rolleyes: :D

[Todjaeger]

Just wait for the Battlemechs to take control.
They are going to show you who is obsolete. :D :finger

I'll take an Atlas 7-D thank you very much;)

Seriously, R&D needs to be done. The issue is whether or not some of the methods of operating the US wishes to switch to can be reasonably done given our currently available tech. At the same time, we need to be honest enough to realise if we have over reached ourselves.

For example, the Stryker vehicle, as I understand it, is supposed to be an interim vehicle until the US can get FCS vehicles (there are supposed to be around 18 different types of FCS vehicle)

With Stryker, the goal was to have a vehicle that could be transported in a C-130 Herc and be delivered combat ready. As has been found, that goal was not achieved. There are size issues with the Stryker fitting inside a Herc, something about aircrews not having the min. required space around the vehicle so that a waiver needs to be granted when a C-130 transports one (this might be a USAF req only). Also, the level of protection has been found inadequate so that uparmour kits need to be added one the vehicle is back on the ground, and usually 3 C-130 are needed to move 2 Stryker, the third transport carrying the uparmour kits.

I'll have more later, back to work...

[Waylander]

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. :D

[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. :D

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...)
:D :D :D :D

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?

[rjmaz1]

- 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.
My car can happily driven 10,000kms or 500hours without even touching it.



- 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.
Two soldiers in the tank could make the majority of tactical decisions themselves, just keeping track of friendly tanks can be done in a similar fashion to how the current tanks communicate.

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? I would have thought that the 2.75inch rocket would kill 99% of the targets excluding other tanks? Current tanks only have a big gun and a tiny gun, nothing in between. Rockets and a large cannon would provide the capability of targeting enemy soldiers all the way up to armoured vehicles. This is much more flexible even though you've reduce the ability to kill the heavy stuff, a second or third rocket could follow up to make the kill.

How do you want to place the 12x picture of the gun onto the same displays the driver uses?At 12x zoom the angle of site would be rather small so you could have a small square that sits overlayed ontop of the normal view and that small square contains the 12x zoom. The square is controled by headmovement by the gunner. Digitally you could even alter the size of the square and amount of zoom depending on the situation.

The amount of crew needed all depends on the amount of automation. If the enemy, friendlies and the terrain can all be display well enough to reduce the workload then 2 people could easily perform the role of the current tank.

Also external APU's add more weight and complexity. Another possible point of failure.

Also 12inch of Gel inside a battery would offer considerable protection. Atleast it would reduce the amount of conventional armour needed.

[Waylander]

Your car is for sure not tracked, engaged in combat and used in the same terrain.
What kind of experience do you have with maintenance of armored vehicles in the field?

The two soldiers are defenitely not able to make most of the tactical decisions by themselfes. During combat situation the driver and the gunner are totally fixed onto their business with none of them being able to do more than their main task.

A Hydra might be able to kill most targets but one of the main targets of tanks are other tanks.

And the MGs together with the different ammo for the main gun provide enough flexibility for a tank. Remember that there are not just KE penetrators but also HEAT, HE, HESH, HE-FRAG, MPAT, Canister rounds, etc. available.
And this is not a like in a video game were you loose health points.
If the Hydra is not able to penetrate the enemy tank on the front with its first hit than it is also not able to do so with its second, third or fourth round.
And as I mentioned before a Hydra does not even comes close to the range, speed, penetration capability and protection against jamming of a 120mm.

And I cannot say it often enough that the driver and the gunner are not able to do anything else than concentrating on their main task.

[Totoro]

A tank crew of just two seems possible only if the gunner can somehow be completely computerized. So we have a driver who does his job, keeping the tank on the move at all times, using the surroundings in a smart way, protecting/hiding the tank while at the same time listening to the commander's input when it comes to offensive movements. Commander looks for targets be that with his eyes or the list of targets given by the computerized sensors. Now, if somehow, anyhow, commander could just mark a blip on the horizon with a flick of a finger and move on searching for other targets and doing other tasks - then i imagine the benefits of a two man crew would outweigh the possible flaws. All that providing that the computerized targeting system can follow that mark on a blip, calculate the needed shot and take care of the target with the first shot.

Alternatively, one could try keeping a human gunner and computerizing the driver role though from what i know about current state of AI research, that'd be an even harder role for a computer to pull of than targeting. One thing is for sure: if the crew was just two people, they would both have to have exactly the same terminals, both being capable to do the same roles, if needed.

Idea of missiles versus big main gun is not necesarrily bad but: it'd have to be a big missile, sure to achieve instant kill no matter what, munitions stored would cumulatively cost literally more than the tank itself, and the tank would lose the seldolmy used but still somewhat useful supressive artillery fire support ability.

[Waylander]

Not to talk of the few ammunition you could carry in a small chassis while using a big missile.

And I am sure that there exists no computer program today which is able to identify a target and fire at hit with such a high accuacy and speed like a human gunner. This is not the airspace or sea were Radar and IR works much better than in a normal ground theater.

And you are right of you say that using a computer for driving is also very complicated. If I look at these competitions for unmanned ground vehicles in the last time I am sure that it takes much more years until a computer is able to use the terrain as good as a human driver.

[Aussie Digger]

My car can happily driven 10,000kms or 500hours without even touching it.

Two soldiers in the tank could make the majority of tactical decisions themselves, just keeping track of friendly tanks can be done in a similar fashion to how the current tanks communicate.

I would have thought that the 2.75inch rocket would kill 99% of the targets excluding other tanks? Current tanks only have a big gun and a tiny gun, nothing in between. Rockets and a large cannon would provide the capability of targeting enemy soldiers all the way up to armoured vehicles. This is much more flexible even though you've reduce the ability to kill the heavy stuff, a second or third rocket could follow up to make the kill.

The amount of crew needed all depends on the amount of automation. If the enemy, friendlies and the terrain can all be display well enough to reduce the workload then 2 people could easily perform the role of the current tank.

Also external APU's add more weight and complexity. Another possible point of failure.

Also 12inch of Gel inside a battery would offer considerable protection. Atleast it would reduce the amount of conventional armour needed.

With all due respect, it's quite clear you don't know a real lot about armoured vehicles.

Does your car have tracks and weigh over 50 tons? If not, it's not much of a comparison between maintenance requirements is it? Would you have 1 or 2 people at most "bashing track" for EACH armoured vehicle? You'd barely even get out INTO the bush...

The reason why GOOD tanks have at least 3 if not 4 crew is to DELIBERATELY increase reliability. A soldier's right arm is more useful and reliable than any auto-loader, for instance it can do more than 1 thing. Auto-loaders also take up considerable room within a tank that is better used to carry a useful extra soldier (one who can fire an external machine gun, assist with SA, maintenance or taking on someone elses job in case the vehicle suffers some damage) or any other role as necessary. An auto-loader can only do 1 thing.

A gunner is needed to precisely target the enemy and to act as the 2IC for the crew commander. The range of targets for an MBT is enormous and the main ones are other tanks and heavy bunkers. What do you think a relatively lightweight rocket designed to take out personel, soft skin and light armoured vehicles is going to do to these? Irritate it at best.

In addition, it is unlikely an armoured vehicle could carry as many ready to fire rockets as it does, gun projectiles and the range, lethality etc is significantly less for rockets over a main gun projectile.

12 inches of gel? You think that's an adequate replacement for a decent layered composite armour??? :confused:

[rjmaz1]

Everyone is bringing up maintenance when it wouldn't really be much for a 15 tonne 6 wheeled vehicle like a stryker. So far what i've seen is that the strykers require little to no maintenance in the field. A simplified hyrbrid vehicle with half of the moving parts will surely be very simple to maintain.

Most tanks designs date back to world war 2, look at the cars back then, they were lucky to drive 2,000kms before servicing, the engines required rebuilds and regular maintenance to keep running smooth. Now we have car and oil manufacturers claiming driving around Australia without any servicing.

In recent history tanks are best used for the initial thrust into enemy territory , then lighter armoured and more mobile vehicles take over. The M1 could have had no armour and would have still slaughtered Iraq tanks as the enemy could not even see the Abrams coming.

Targeting and tracking the enemy movement is the most important part of surviving on the ground. With the right equipment a Humvee could be just as good as a M1 tank in this department. Armour has been proven time and time again to be the least important part of the M1. It could have shed half of its armour and it would have performed just as good if not better, due to its increased mobility.

Its like stealth, u dont need speed or agilty when they enemy cant even see you.

12 inches of gel? You think that's an adequate replacement for a decent layered composite armour??? :confused:
The Gel would infact be made part of the composite armour. Just like soft aluminium honeycomb is used between layers of carbon fibre to increase stiffness. The Gel of the batteries would be placed between layers of composite armour.

Its well known that its not good to have 3inchs of metal but to have three seperate 1inch thick pieces of metal with space in between, same weight better protection. Thats where the Gel batteries come in. They fill up the space between layers of armour and are reasonably dense and serve a secondary purpose as well.

[Aussie Digger]

Everyone is bringing up maintenance when it wouldn't really be much for a 15 tonne 6 wheeled vehicle like a stryker. So far what i've seen is that the strykers require little to no maintenance in the field. A simplified hyrbrid vehicle with half of the moving parts will surely be very simple to maintain.

Most tanks designs date back to world war 2, look at the cars back then, they were lucky to drive 2,000kms before servicing, the engines required rebuilds and regular maintenance to keep running smooth. Now we have car and oil manufacturers claiming driving around Australia without any servicing.

In recent history tanks are best used for the initial thrust into enemy territory , then lighter armoured and more mobile vehicles take over. The M1 could have had no armour and would have still slaughtered Iraq tanks as the enemy could not even see the Abrams coming.

Targeting and tracking the enemy movement is the most important part of surviving on the ground. With the right equipment a Humvee could be just as good as a M1 tank in this department. Armour has been proven time and time again to be the least important part of the M1. It could have shed half of its armour and it would have performed just as good if not better, due to its increased mobility.

Its like stealth, u dont need speed or agilty when they enemy cant even see you.


The Gel would infact be made part of the composite armour. Just like soft aluminium honeycomb is used between layers of carbon fibre to increase stiffness. The Gel of the batteries would be placed between layers of composite armour.

Its well known that its not good to have 3inchs of metal but to have three seperate 1inch thick pieces of metal with space in between, same weight better protection. Thats where the Gel batteries come in. They fill up the space between layers of armour and are reasonably dense and serve a secondary purpose as well.

Looking at the past is hardly a great way to plan for the future. Yes, the US and it's allies have enjoyed an advantage with night vision capability in recent conflicts (what I guess you are referring to by stating the enemy couldn't "see" the M1's coming), but there's NO guarantee that advantage will remain as it currently stands.

The predominant use of armour in modern operations has been in urban terrain. In such close environments heavy armour is ESSENTIAL and will remain so until advances in active protection measure are FAR greater than present.

The much trumpeted TROPHY system for instance can DESTROY 1 threat (ie 1x single missile) per side of the vehicle it is mounted upon before requiring a re-load.

Given the massed volley attacks witnesses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and even Somalia) employing relatively crude RPG's will overwhelm any such system, unless it acquiries a magazine capacity MANY times greater than is currently the case. Likewise such systems will also need to display and advanced and sustainable anti-IED capability prior to being an adequate replacement for heavy passive armour on our primary fighting vehicles.

TROPHY and similar systems currently do NOTHING to protect a vehicle against IED or anti-tank mines. The problem is that these systems also have vulnerability against sniper system. Several hits from a 7.52mm sniper rifle on the radar panels, let alone the launch device and they are not going to work well, if at all.

The other problem is that such systems are not useful againt APFSDS (harden penetrator - Kinetic energy) rounds which do NOT rely on the detonation of a warhead to achieve armour penetration. These systems are yet to find a way to overcome the KE of these types of warheads. Only passive armour currently has any chance of doing so and HEAVY passive armour at that.

IN relation to wheeled vehicles, they do not require as much maintenance work as a tracked vehicle, but aby wheeled armoured vehicle requires significantly enhanced levels of maintenance over civilian vehicles because of the weight penalty typically involved. Even Stryker weighs 18t (heavier than a "medium truck") and they go through tyres and suspension components like "nobodies" business.

Particularly vulnerable parts of the suspension include "tie rods" which have been shown in Iraq to be extremely vulnerable as they are by necessity mounted outside the armour. If that is busted (and in Iraq they have failed to withstand small arms fire, let alone any significant explosive force) the wheeled vehicles vaunted "central tyre inflation system" (which wheeled proponents trumpet loudly) become irrelevant as the wheel can't turn or steer...

Add a few of things up and look at them from a reality POV, rather than a theoretical POV and the truth of the matter becomes quite different and people are FORCED to admit that things are like they are for VERY good reasons...

[Waylander]

I am sorry to say and I really don't want to soudn disrespectfull but you should start at least to read some books about modern warfare or ask some people who served in mechanized units.
I you look at how important the Abrams (With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun) has been to the army forces during Iraqi Freedome not to talk of the heavy mechanized battles during the gulf war of '91.
And than look at how light forces in relatively armour friendly terrain perform against heavy mechanized forces in maneuvers held by the US and other NATO forces.
You should not think that every opponent in the future is going to operate with old tanks (T-55, T-72M, etc) without any recon, artillery, intelligence or air support worth to talk of and with not much cover in open desert like the Iraq.

[Aussie Digger]

I am sorry to say and I really don't want to soudn disrespectfull but you should start at least to read some books about modern warfare or ask some people who served in mechanized units.
I you look at how important the Abrams (With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun) has been to the army forces during Iraqi Freedome not to talk of the heavy mechanized battles during the gulf war of '91.
And than look at how light forces in relatively armour friendly terrain perform against heavy mechanized forces in maneuvers held by the US and other NATO forces.
You should not think that every opponent in the future is going to operate with old tanks (T-55, T-72M, etc) without any recon, artillery, intelligence or air support worth to talk of and with not much cover in open desert like the Iraq.

What? Was that directed at me, or someone else? FYI, you are not the only former soldier here to have served in an Armoured Regiment as an Armoured crewman...

OR was that sarcastic? Surely you don't truely think the Abrams has useless armour and a "big ugly gun" whatever that may mean, or that a light formation would be able to operate on equal or greater terms than a heavy mechanised force, if terrain was not an issue?

That's the height of stupidity. Why has Germany produced so much fine heavy armour then?

[Waylander]

Ah my fault. I should have made it clearer for the readers.
My post was for sure not directed to you! I totally agree with your former posts in this thread. :)
And this "With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun" is sarcastic. I wanted to show that the US forces think that they wouldn't have been able to conduct operations like in the wars of '91 and 2003 without their heavy armor formations.
The example of the gulf wars AND the example of the US/NATO maneuvers are both meant to show that just light forces are not the best option.

I try to write my posts more clear in the future. :o

[Aussie Digger]

Ah my fault. I should have made it clearer for the readers.
My post was for sure not directed to you! I totally agree with your former posts in this thread. :)
And this "With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun" is sarcastic. I wanted to show that the US forces think that they wouldn't have been able to conduct operations like in the wars of '91 and 2003 without their heavy armor formations.
The example of the gulf wars AND the example of the US/NATO maneuvers are both meant to show that just light forces are not the best option.

I try to write my posts more clear in the future. :o

Cheers. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, I was stunned for a second. You'll barely find a greater supporter of heavy mechanised forces than myself on this or a couple of other boards...

Roll on the Abrams I say!!!