The success or failure of the U.S. Future Combat System could,
to a great extent, shape ground-vehicle spending decisions by other
nations, experts said. The program is expected to have long-term
repercussions on the procurement strategies of key U.S. allies.
“The FCS will mark the way for leading nations,” said
Gregory Fetter, senior land-warfare analyst at Forecast International/DMS.
The fundamental attribute that makes FCS different from previous
vehicle programs is that it’s designed as a “system
of systems” operating in a network. Because this is a departure
from conventional vehicle procurement practices, many countries
will be watching the program closely, Fetter said in an interview.
“We [the United States] are leading the world in this idea
of developing armored vehicles in a systems concept, as a complete
combat system.”
Eventually, he said, “you will see the Germans, British,
French, Swedes, even the Russians doing it.” These nations
more likely will adopt a “wait and see” attitude and
“see which way it pans out for the United States, then adopt
technology as it matures,” Fetter said. “Not every country
will need a complete FCS,” but some countries may buy bits
and pieces of it.
“Europe has yet to catch up to this,” Fetter said,
even though “they’ve done some studies.” The reality
is that “most European countries don’t have the money
to take on a development like this. Even Germany, considered the
leading combat-vehicle nation in Europe, just does not have the
money to develop a system of systems.”
The U.S. Army also plans to spend $4 billion on the Stryker light
armored vehicles, which will fill the gap until FCS is fielded.
It’s not clear yet how much the FCS will cost. But it will
be expensive enough to force the U.S. Army to cancel other programs,
said the Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane.
“To jumpstart Army transformation with Stryker brigades and
to put FCS in [the research and development] program, to generate
funds, the Army terminated 27 programs over the last three years,”
Keane said during a meeting with defense reporters.
In the future, he added, “We will do whatever is necessary
to fund that program, [even if] that means we will terminate some
other programs and restructure some.”
In order to field the FCS by the Army’s desired timeframe—in
2008—the program must be funded in the Defense Department’s
current budget blueprint, which extends from 2004 to 2009.
“The FCS starts to come out of R&D during that period,”
said Keane. “When we submit our POM [program objective memorandum]
to the Defense Department, it will have in it a program that fully
funds FCS.”
An internal Army review next spring may slow down the FCS schedule,
if the chief of staff determines that the technology will not be
mature by 2008. “That technology decision will be either to
continue on the current schedule or moderate that schedule based
on the availability of technology,” said Keane.
To the Army’s credit, he said, the FCS is “trying to
move the acquisition process faster than it has historically moved.
... Our track record is 15-20 years. We are trying to do something
in less than 10. For the Defense Department, that’s moving
at warp speed.”
Procurement Decisions
Until it’s clear when and whether FCS will come to fruition,
nations such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom will “continue
to develop individual vehicles for individual requirements,”
said Fetter.
The dearth of new orders for main battle tanks worldwide, further,
will leave combat vehicle suppliers more dependant on sales of light
armored vehicles.
One of the programs that will be scrutinized in Europe is the MRAV,
for multi-role armored vehicle. It’s a tri-nation program
funded by the U.K., German and Dutch governments and managed by
the European armaments agency, OCCAR (Organization for Joint Armament
Cooperation).
“The MRAV program is an indicator of the way the industry
will be going with consolidation,” said Fetter. “You’ll
have a contract for MRAV, and then you’ll have an integration
of the European defense industry following that, based on the work.”
The MRAV program is expected to produce between 1,000 and 2,000
vehicles.
Generally, in the military vehicle industry, “companies are
getting so far and few that it’s in every nation’s interest
to give each company a part of the program,” he said.
It’s ironic that the French originally established the requirement
for MRAV but then left the program, Fetter noted. “The French
said the Germans were pushing them out of the program and leaving
France with a minimal share. ... So the French decided to go on
their own.”
France started a new program, called the VBCI, which will include
a wheeled infantry armored vehicle, along with a command-post variant.
The French Army requirement is for 700 vehicles—550 troop
carriers and 150 command-and-control platforms.
Christopher Foss, armor and artillery specialist at Jane’s
International, said that, even though the U.K. government remains
in the MRAV program, officials also are looking at the Piranha III
and IV, which are light armored vehicles made by General Motors
of Canada. The Piranha III was adapted for the U.S. Army’s
Stryker program.
Foss said that financial commitments by several nations in vehicles
such as MRAV and VBCI show that the Europeans view FCS with a skeptical
eye.
In Europe, unlike in the United States, “we continue to invest
in our tanks,” said Foss. “What is happening in Europe
is nowhere similar to what is happening in America with the FCS.
... Europeans don’t think that the United States will achieve
the FCS in the planned timeframe.”
The closest to an FCS-type program now in the works in Europe is
Britain’s Future Rapid Effects System—a family of vehicles
concept currently in its infancy. It will replace the U.K. main
battle tank—the Challenger—and the Warrior infantry
combat vehicles.
“We may procure as many as 1,500 FRES,” said Foss.
Like FCS, the FRES will have to be more mobile than a tank—light
enough to fit on a C-130 Hercules or an A-400M medium-lift transport
aircraft.
Fetter stressed that it’s too early to try to figure out
what FRES will look like. “It’s like trying to grab
a cloud of smoke,” he said. The British Ministry of Defence
announced that it would keep the Challenger II until at least 2020,
Fetter said. “FRES is not really hardware oriented. It’s
just investigating different technologies.”