Register here

Author Topic: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution  (Read 43004 times)

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2007, 03:51:42 pm »
Now that it has been released, check out the latest issue of Defense News.  The US Army intendeds on retrofitting the M1A1 series to keep it viable through 2050 (good luck with that).  Many of the systems being worked for FCS will be retrofitted to both M1 and M2 series.  I applaud this decision, but hope that the Army will continue to develop a viable medium weight force.  Something the M1 and M2 will never  be.  While the Stryker family is a good capability, I do not think it will ever have the cross country mobility of a medium weight tracked system.  Ground pressure and California Bearing Ratio analysis proves this out.

Offline Rafael

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 128
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2007, 04:28:50 pm »
Great news!
And very instructive comments from all of you, gentlemen.

So is FCS definately aimed at filling a gap between light infantry and heavy armour?

Rafa

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11232
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2007, 04:36:15 pm »
Now that it has been released, check out the latest issue of Defense News.  The US Army intendeds on retrofitting the M1A1 series to keep it viable through 2050.

Damn, I should open a psychic hotline.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2007, 08:26:51 pm »

So is FCS definately aimed at filling a gap between light infantry and heavy armour?

Rafa

Yes that is the idea.  It will be something like the middle of the Century before all of the FCS Brigades are fielded, assuming the plan does not change over the course of 5 to 10 administrations.

Personally,  I am planning on jetting around in my "Jetson's" flying car around 2030.  Spending more time worrying about how George Steinbrenner's clone has muck'ed up the NewNew York Yankees starting line up, while letting the robots worry about foreign policy enforcement in the world.

The wine is exceptional tonight.  ;)

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2007, 01:33:37 am »
  Might interest a few people here.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 02:02:58 am by overscan »

Offline Rafael

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 128
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2007, 05:42:06 am »
Great footage, but is it an actual FCS equpment/concept on top of that LAV?
The capabilities shown are frightening.

Rafa

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2007, 08:44:42 am »
Its a modified LAV Air-defence vehicle - its the first time I've seen a Stinger used in an ground-to-ground role.  I think it is more a testbed of the various ideas, such as remote operation and networking.  The RPV is based I suspect on the Nulka hovering decoy, which is an Australian developed naval system.

jeffryfontaine

  • Guest
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2007, 08:03:21 pm »
I would have to agree with the reinvention of the wheel theory.  It seems to run in cycles within the military and about every twenty years or so, they come out with another "brilliant idea" that apparently everyone before them had forgot about. 

After having been part of the madness for a number of years as an intelligence analyst in the Army where I was tasked to interpret and analyse aerial photography and satelite image of denied areas.  Back when I was in uniform, I was swept up by the latest buzz words and such but now as a civilian I can say that it does look like there is a lot of monkeys running the show within the DoD. 

If the Army were serious about fielding a vehicle now that is capable of being carried internally by helicopters they should have considered the German Wiesel which comes in a variety of sizes as I recently discovered.  In addition to the better known and most commonly seen Wiesel Mk 1 armed with a 20mm Cannon and the Wiesel Mk2 fitted with the TOW ATGM (thank you AFV Club) there appears to be a lengthend version that was developed for medical evacuation.  This stretched Wiesel could very well be used for other applications not unlike the Russian BMD.  All of these vehicles are capable of fitting inside the current heavy lift helicopters such as the CH-47, CH-53. 

Some of the arguments for not buying the Wiesel would be that it is too small.  It is unable to carry a fire team or a rifle squad, there is room inside for three or four personnel.  Maybe this is where the Army needs to rethink their organization and structure for small infantry units and start thinking about using fire teams as maneuver elements with a separate vehicle for each fire team instead of stuffing your entire squad into one container, at least with two vehicles, you can do the lead and wingman technique that seems to be so popular with the aviation elements. 

Instead of a self propelled artillery piece, why not go back to towed systems?  If you want rapid deployment and the ability to deploy from a heavy lift helicopter, then towed artillery and mortars are the best solution to the problem.  Not to mention that when your prime mover goes down, you still have an artillery piece that can be hooked up to another prime mover if necessary and you are still able to perform the mission.  As far as the size of the weapons, it may be time to take another look at smaller artillery calibers such as a 105mm or 75-76mm size weapons.  If this is to be a rapid deployment force then artillery needs to be small and light as well.  Maybe it is time to look seriously at the old 75mm pack howitzer as a solution to the problem. 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 06:40:34 pm by jeffryfontaine »

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11232
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2007, 08:36:02 pm »
Okay start with an M-1 chassis, replace Javelin with CKEM, the 25mm with a GAU-8, Stinger with RAM. . .that oughta do it.  ;)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

jeffryfontaine

  • Guest
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2007, 01:28:35 pm »
Okay start with an M-1 chassis, replace Javelin with CKEM, the 25mm with a GAU-8, Stinger with RAM. . .that oughta do it.  ;)


Better to redesign the M1 and put the engine/transmission up front like the Merkava, that way you would have a rear entrance and space available for troops or other equipment. 

Offline Charles Gray

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2007, 03:04:12 pm »
Okay start with an M-1 chassis, replace Javelin with CKEM, the 25mm with a GAU-8, Stinger with RAM. . .that oughta do it.  ;)


Better to redesign the M1 and put the engine/transmission up front like the Merkava, that way you would have a rear entrance and space available for troops or other equipment. 

In the 1970's, I saw concepts for a MIAG (Mechanized infantry Assault Gun, AFAIK), that had a six man dismount team, with a vehicle that was armored to tank standards and had an external 105mm cannon. I wsa never able to find much more information on it then the picture and sadly lost that some years ago (so if anyone can help me there...), but the designed seemed very effective although It came out during the hysteria about the Russian introduction of Reactive armor where people were talking about the unstoppable red horde tanks laughing off TOWS on their march to France, so I'm not certain if there was any real work done on it or if it was a artist concept only.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8656
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 08:03:14 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Ranger6

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2008, 09:50:01 am »
Well,

I think a few comments from the resident FCS Skeptic (Heretic?) are in order here:

1. The technology demonstrators all look great and if the technology matures enough for some of these ideas to actually come to fruition, all the better.

2. That said, IMHO, we've been there and done that already -- during the 1950s and 1960s (the so-called Questionmark Conferences and so-forth). Lots of ideas were put forward to replace all the MBTs/APCs/Heavy combat vehicles in the Army's inventory, not a single one of these proposals actually reached fruition -- in most cases they never even cut metal.

3. By contrast, ideas worth looking into -- like ELKE, CVAST, and MIAG -- were never given sufficient attention or funding because they fit the mold that some technocrats decided was the wave of the future. Thus we never got the light tank we needed -- the T-92 wasn't amphibious (and was replaced by the M-551) -- nor the MBT we needed (we made do upgrading the basic M-47/48/60 chassis, hull, and turret).

4. Why in heaven's name would anyone want to put a 25MM -- or a GAU-8 for that matter -- on an Abrams hull?

5. Yasotay, I can only call 'em the way I see 'em -- read between the lines of most articles on transformation and FCS in Armor Magazine and, especially read carefully the incisive articles and letters by Major Korjo (the one in this issue is a gem) -- and I see a great deal of skepticism on the whole idea from the vrey people who should be its most ardent advocates.

6. To be honest, I wouldn't be so bull-headed on this issue if the Army would just call things by their "real" names. FCS Mounted Combat system (FCS/MCS) is a light tank. The Army has needed a proper light tank for years (possibly as many as sixty!) and thus FCS/MCS could be a useful vehicle. But, to make believe that a 20 ton vehicle is going to be as effective in tank-on-tank combat as the 60+ ton Abrams is lunacy, folly, self-delusion, or outright fraud. And, I'd hate to be the tanker who proves that point at the sharp end.

7. Finally, again to Yatosay: I repeat that the M-1 never ended up in Afghanistan because they weren't thought necessary, not because they weren't transportable. Recent reports mention that the Canadians have shipped Leaopard IIs to provide heavier fire support for their troops in Helmand Province. You tell me with a straight face that Canada has better air transport capabilities than the US!

Best to all!

Abraham

Offline Apophenia

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2055
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2008, 10:48:31 am »
...Recent reports mention that the Canadians have shipped Leaopard IIs to provide heavier fire support for their troops in Helmand Province. You tell me with a straight face that Canada has better air transport capabilities than the US!

The Leopard 2A6Ms were flown into KAF in Antonov 124-100s. Previously, Leopard C2s (ie: 1A5s) were flown to Manas AB onboard An-124s, then on to Kandahar in leased USAF C-17As.

So, no Canadian "air transport capabilities" involved at all (unless slapping down the Gold Card counts). For the record, the Canadian Forces do have four C-17s (CC-177s).

Offline Ranger6

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: FCS - Future Combat Systems - Evolution
« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2008, 09:35:13 am »
 "So, no Canadian "air transport capabilities" involved at all (unless slapping down the Gold Card counts)."

-- This is exactly my point: where there is a will or a perceived need, there's a way to transport even the heaviest AFV!

Abraham (R6)