When the Army kicked off its largest-ever weapons modernization program in
1999, expectations were enormous.
The Future Combat Systems would bring revolutionary change to the Army in many
ways. It would, for the first time, connect every vehicle in the Army in a single
network. Most significantly, it would allow the Army to become gradually less
dependent on fossil fuels, gunpowder-based weapons and heavy armor.
The discussions were dominated by visions of an all-electric, laser-firing
fleet of fast-moving tank-like vehicles unburdened by the weight of conventional
armor.
Five years later, reality has set in, and the expectations are somewhat tempered,
although the fundamental nature of FCS—a family of 17 ground and air vehicles—has
not changed.
Out of those ambitious technology goals, the development of a command-and-control
network has a realistic chance of reaching fruition by the 2014 deadline now
set for the program, according to sources.
Industry experts consider it doubtful, however, that the FCS will bring, in
the near term, major breakthroughs in power generation, weapon lethality or
survivability.
“In 1999, there was an expectation that we could address those four areas,”
said an FCS program official speaking privately to a group of Army officers
and industry executives. “Now, the reality is more complex.”
Fuel-efficient technologies, such as hybrid engines, have improved, but they
only will reduce fuel consumption by moderate amounts, experts said. FCS units,
like today’s brigades, will require a substantial logistics re-supply
tail of fuel and ammunition. In the color-coded charts that track the maturity
of FCS technologies, many logistics areas are “amber” and “red,”
the official said. Military programs often use a green-amber-red color code
to measure the readiness of various technologies, with red indicating the highest
risk.
All the while, the Army is grappling with how to upgrade its fleet of medium
and heavy trucks to make them more mobile and survivable so they can keep pace
with the FCS maneuver force. When FCS first was conceived, the thinking was
that forces would take periodic pauses to refuel and restock supplies.
In light of the Iraq experience, the Army now wants a logistics force that
can sustain combat units around the clock and stay close to the frontlines,
which means that trucks will need to be better protected. The Army is working
through these issues as part of a “truck modernization plan” that
will get under way in fiscal year 2006, said Lt. Gen. Benjamin Griffin, Army
director of force development.
On the weaponry side, the mainstay of FCS will be cannons and missiles. These
weapons will be more sophisticated than current systems, but not a major departure.
Non-kinetic technologies, such as lasers and high-powered microwaves, are progressing,
but are not expected to be ready for operational use for many years.
FCS will have unprecedented amounts of reconnaissance and surveillance systems.
The technology is intended to enable soldiers to “see and understand”
before they move and act. But it is unlikely that even hundreds of sensors will
easily clear the much-feared fog of war that can create so much confusion on
the battlefield.
“Seeing is difficult,” said the FCS official. “We can see
objects reasonably well. But how do we identify humans? That’s a challenge
in FCS.”
For survivability, it remains unclear what technologies FCS will employ. Conventional
passive armor is out of the question if the Army wants to keep the weight of
the vehicles at less than 20 tons. “We haven’t found magic armor,”
the program official said. The most promising technologies so far are electromagnetic
armor and active protection systems, which sense and defeat incoming rockets
or missiles by deflecting or intercepting them.
Brig. Gen. Charles A. Cartwright, the Army’s program manager for FCS,
said active protection is a relatively mature technology, even though the U.S.
Army has yet to develop tactics to allow soldiers to operate safely around vehicles
that launch munitions autonomously in self defense. According to several sources,
there is a strong cultural bias in the U.S. Army against installing active defenses
on vehicles, because they are perceived as unsafe.
“You are going to have fragments out there as the munitions explode,”
Cartwright said. It will be up to commanders to develop the right tactics to
ensure soldiers are not injured by shrapnel.
More money was added to the FCS program in recent months to include active
protection on all eight manned vehicles. Previously, only two of the vehicles
had the technology, Cartwright said.
If the Army wants Abrams tank-like survivability in FCS vehicles, this goal
may not be met without passive armor. The weight of the armor would complicate
the transportability of 18.2-ton FCS vehicles aboard C-130 cargo aircraft. The
20-ton Stryker medium-armor vehicle technically fits on a C-130, but limits
the range of the aircraft to 500 miles; and the vehicle cannot travel with its
mission equipment ammunition and extra armor on the same load, according to
a recent Government Accountability Office report.
The report predicts the Army may run into similar problems with the FCS, which
also must be transportable by C-130, although, unlike Stryker, it must be able
to carry all its mission equipment and ammunition so it can roll off the airplane
ramp and engage in operations immediately.
The FCS program office has signed a “memorandum of understanding”
with the Air Force on the transportability of future vehicles aboard C-130s.
“We are doing it now, as opposed to ‘after the fact,’ as with
Stryker,” said an Army official.
The Army’s top acquisition official, Lt. Gen. Joseph L. Yakovac, acknowledged
that much uncertainty remains as to whether FCS can deliver what it promises.
“I’m not clairvoyant,” he told reporters. “As we look
at the technology, it may or may not mature at the rate we need.”
The current program is only a reflection of “the best guess today.”
Under a new strategy unveiled in July, the FCS will follow a “spiral
approach,” intended to move the program forward only as long as technologies
mature.
Nevertheless, the Army has made a major financial commitment to FCS, increasing
its overall estimated cost from $90 billion to about $115 billion, which will
cover the entire 17 systems and a command-and-control network, to be fielded
to possibly 43 brigades by 2025. The Army recently added $6.4 billion to the
$15 billion contract awarded more than two years ago to a team of Boeing and
Science Applications International Corp., which serves as the FCS systems integrator.
The initial spiral is scheduled for 2008. The first vehicle to emerge from
the FCS will be a non-line-of-sight cannon. Other systems expected to be ready
by 2008 are rocket- and missile-launchers that will fire smart munitions. Also
in the spiral will be a family of robotic ground sensors.
The second spiral, planned for 2010, will bring new communications systems
and unmanned surveillance aircraft. A third spiral in 2012 is expected to include
autonomous ground robots, and the final spiral in 2014 will see an FCS battle-command
network fully integrated into the Defense Department’s global information
grid.
Notably, the Army is pushing to at least 2014 the introduction of a manned
combat vehicle that would replace the Abrams tank. Critics view this decision
as confirmation that the FCS may be unable to deliver a vehicle that can compare
in performance and survivability to the Abrams.
The Abrams, Bradley and Stryker, meanwhile, will serve as test platforms for
the FCS network, known in Army parlance as a “system of systems common
operating environment.” The Army will create an experimental unit assigned
exclusively to test FCS technologies.
“The experimental unit will grow,” Yakovac said. The Army has not
yet made a decision on where to base that unit, he said. “We are assessing
several options.”