This is a discussion on FCS Cancelled?!? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I just read a Russian article that basically states that Gates wants to cancell the Future Combat Systems program, and ...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
FCS Cancelled?!?
I just read a Russian article that basically states that Gates wants to cancell the Future Combat Systems program, and instead wants to spend money on increasing the numbers of the Army and Marine Corps.
Spiegel said that it wasn't an all-out cancelling, but cutting down to 2-3 vehicles and saving about 85 billion at least. Some sub-projects, such as "Transformational Satellite" (26 billion planned), are to be cut completely
It seems to make sense, and I might add that I have always been sceptical about the cost effectivness of the program. Note that Gates himself seems to think that the FCS doesn't take into account the Lessons learned of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not share his interpretations fully, but there is certainly some truth in it.
The main point is that the strict peformance requirments coupled the very low weight did force the developers to search for very innovative and expensive solutions, resulting in driving the costs up very much. While the specific potential advantages of the FCS would have been great the greater part of their advantages were generic and can be apllied to most modern AFV. A light vehicle with the same capability of a heavier is certainly an advantage. But how a great one it is and how much should costs depends on the specific situation.
Money doesn't grow on trees and the US defense department will face more stringent times. IMHO upgrading IFV like the CV90 or PUMA or IMV like the Bushmaster are a more efficient and sensible approaches for most mid-term applications.
We will see how deep this new budget plan cuts into the FCS program.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
I heard all 8 of the new vehicles will be canceled. I think they need to replace the Paladin 155mm artillery with something newer but keep the M1A2 tank and M2A3 Bradley IFV.
I always thought that FCS was a waist on money and they should just keep buying the M1 and M2. Also the money saved should also go into replacing the M4 Carbine in the U.S. Military with a newer and better rifle such as the H&K 416 or the SCAR-L/H.
I don't know if the M16A4 in the USMC should be replaced or not though.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Hopefully they keep the, IMO, vital parts of the FCS running.
The whole US Army and USMC can benefit from the advances in active protection systems, sensors, drones, network capabilities, new armor tech, etc. the program comes up with.
These technologies can be used when one wants to develop evolutionary successors to the current vehicle fleet and to upgrade the existing vehicles.
Trying to go fully revolutionary while the project ruins the cost and requirement targets was a bad idea right from the beginning.
The FCS as a whole seems to have been conceived as a irrefutable and undividable opera d'arte of idealistic perfection which now has collided with the new but ever gritty and sober reality.
As Waylander said let us see how the advances it inspired or initiated will applied and how many fragments of the once grand project will make it into the armed forces.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
I heard all 8 of the new vehicles will be canceled. I think they need to replace the Paladin 155mm artillery with something newer but keep the M1A2 tank and M2A3 Bradley IFV.
I always thought that FCS was a waist on money and they should just keep buying the M1 and M2. Also the money saved should also go into replacing the M4 Carbine in the U.S. Military with a newer and better rifle such as the H&K 416 or the SCAR-L/H.
I don't know if the M16A4 in the USMC should be replaced or not though.
Due to the FCS program being shelved we very well may see the Crusader contender again due to M109A6 coming close to needing retirement.
As predicted, you very well may see a M1A3 sometime soon.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
A more mobile artillery system?
It's not like the countries using old style artillery there have no mobile assets which they could use there.
Be it British AS-90s or US Paladins.
The only mobile artillery systems used there are MLRS and PzH2000.
MLRS because there are no lighter systems which can fire GMLRS rockets and PzH2000 because the dutch thought it would be a nice additione to their troops in the field.
And the PzH is not doing alot of driving down there, too.
At least not even nearly like it would be used in a major clash between modern powers.
Getting a ready developed Crusader into service would be nice but not because of a theater like A-stan but because the NLOS-C is IMO just not as good as it should be.
Artillery in Afghanistan almost always shoots from fixed firebases and is hardly moved around that much.
IMHO the biggest drawback of the NLOS-C is the greatly reduced range compared to the 155/52 cannons. We will see what future SPH the USA will choose.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
Crusaders, M1A3s.... wow... As to NLOS-C being outshoot I think not. While a 155mm L52 can outshoot a L38 with conventional ammunition the dispersion is so high at those ranges that its basically worthless fires unless you are shooting at a Regiment (aka Battalion of 18-24 guns) or Div Arty (aka Brigade of 48-72 guns) level. Since the NLOS-C will shoot mostly Excalibur it will outgun the longer barrels.
Anyway I will refer to someone a bit more informed about what's happening with FCS now:
Quote:
Parts of the Army's Future Combat Systems program have already demonstrated their adaptability and relevance. For example, the connectivity of Warfighter Information Network will dramatically increase the agility and situational awareness of the Army's combat formations. And we'll accelerate its development and field it, along with proven FCS spinoff capabilities, across the entire Army.
I'm recommending that we cancel the existing FCS vehicle program, reevaluate the requirements, technology and approach in light of our combat and operational experience in two wars; and then re-launch a new Army vehicle modernization program. There will be substantial money in the FY '10 budget to get started and to make sure this happens. My hope is that we can be ready to move forward in FY '11. And I have directed that all of the money for FCS in the out-years be protected to fund the new vehicle modernization program.
I think the Army was a little concerned that if FCS was canceled, the money would go someplace else. And I told them that it would not. So I hope we can have a short delay, while we look at the requirements again, absorb the lessons, see if a common vehicle for multiple purposes really works and then move on quickly and have a competitive bidding process, which was not part of the FCS program. We had very little leverage to get cost efficiencies.
First, for a program that had been designed nine years ago, it was either Secretary Geren or General Casey who pointed out within the last 18 months or so, "Gee, the infantry fighting vehicle has a flat bottom and is 18 inches off the ground" -- reflecting no lessons learned. So they began to figure out how they could put a V-shaped hull on that.
Second, there was to be a common vehicle. And it was to be 30 tons. And we were going to start with a cannon. But as they began working on the infantry fighting vehicle and looking at the lessons learned, in Iraq and Afghanistan, they began adding armor to the infantry fighting vehicle. And all of a sudden, it was looking like 34 tons, 36 tons, 38 tons on a 30-ton chassis. That seems to me to be a problem.
And finally as I said in my remarks, I felt that the contract was not as good a contract as we could have, in terms of how we spend our money. And I guess I would say one other thing.
Quotes from US SecDef Robert Gates in a recent speech
From this you can take the following facts. The FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) has not been ‘cancelled’ it has been delayed so as to be reconfigured in both concept and contract.
The new concept will probably see a move away from a common MGV vehicle system to perhaps two vehicle systems with one being designed for at least the 30-40 tonne class and the other the original 20-30 tonne class. The MGV will also be redesigned for improved belly protection against mines and IEDs.
But most significantly and probably why this was done is the push back in spend saves a lot of money and the new contract model will probably be competitive. Currently FCS MGV involves all the major builders of tracked AFVs in the US (GDLS and BAES) in a non-competitive, cooperative model. No doubt Gates is hoping competition will lead to more savings.
As to NLOS-C being outshoot I think not. While a 155mm L52 can outshoot a L38 with conventional ammunition the dispersion is so high at those ranges that its basically worthless fires unless you are shooting at a Regiment (aka Battalion of 18-24 guns) or Div Arty (aka Brigade of 48-72 guns) level. Since the NLOS-C will shoot mostly Excalibur it will outgun the longer barrels.
True enough unless out of longer barrels come also things like SMart or Excalibur. The L38 has not intrinsic advantage over the L52 but an intrinsic disadvantage. To huge ranges of the latter were and are actually a main driving force for guided rounds.
Quote:
The new concept will probably see a move away from a common MGV vehicle system to perhaps two vehicle systems with one being designed for at least the 30-40 tonne class and the other the original 20-30 tonne class. The MGV will also be redesigned for improved belly protection against mines and IEDs.
It was the "light take" on passive armor which drove great part of the design and was subject to "heavy" criticism. We will see how things change
Quote:
But most significantly and probably why this was done is the push back in spend saves a lot of money and the new contract model will probably be competitive. Currently FCS MGV involves all the major builders of tracked AFVs in the US (GDLS and BAES) in a non-competitive, cooperative model. No doubt Gates is hoping competition will lead to more savings.
There are already huge sunken costs -not that all were cost-ineffective investments. We will see if and how Gates can realign the spending. Hopefully for the USA for the better.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
Last edited by Firn; April 20th, 2009 at 07:44 AM.
Crusaders, M1A3s.... wow... As to NLOS-C being outshoot I think not. While a 155mm L52 can outshoot a L38 with conventional ammunition the dispersion is so high at those ranges that its basically worthless fires unless you are shooting at a Regiment (aka Battalion of 18-24 guns) or Div Arty (aka Brigade of 48-72 guns) level. Since the NLOS-C will shoot mostly Excalibur it will outgun the longer barrels.
Anyway I will refer to someone a bit more informed about what's happening with FCS now:
Quotes from US SecDef Robert Gates in a recent speech
From this you can take the following facts. The FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) has not been ‘cancelled’ it has been delayed so as to be reconfigured in both concept and contract.
The new concept will probably see a move away from a common MGV vehicle system to perhaps two vehicle systems with one being designed for at least the 30-40 tonne class and the other the original 20-30 tonne class. The MGV will also be redesigned for improved belly protection against mines and IEDs.
But most significantly and probably why this was done is the push back in spend saves a lot of money and the new contract model will probably be competitive. Currently FCS MGV involves all the major builders of tracked AFVs in the US (GDLS and BAES) in a non-competitive, cooperative model. No doubt Gates is hoping competition will lead to more savings.
No Crusaders there, no M1A3s either...
The FCS program will be shelved due to technology limitations, ever changing vehicle requirements and due to cost. So either way we may see a resurrection of Crusader or we will continue to use the M109A6, most likely the latter. As far as a M1A3 goes you very well may see it within the next few years.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
A more mobile artillery system?
It's not like the countries using old style artillery there have no mobile assets which they could use there.
Be it British AS-90s or US Paladins.
The only mobile artillery systems used there are MLRS and PzH2000.
MLRS because there are no lighter systems which can fire GMLRS rockets and PzH2000 because the dutch thought it would be a nice additione to their troops in the field.
And the PzH is not doing alot of driving down there, too.
At least not even nearly like it would be used in a major clash between modern powers.
Getting a ready developed Crusader into service would be nice but not because of a theater like A-stan but because the NLOS-C is IMO just not as good as it should be.
Any more issues with PZH2000 barrel overheating in Afhganistan or did the remedy the issue.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
Best tank every built.
