Only weeks before a crucial Pentagon review, officials overseeing
the Army’s Future Combat Systems continue to search for ways
to lower the weight of new vehicle designs.
FCS
is envisioned as a family of high-tech combat vehicles intended
to replace current Army weapon systems. The FCS vehicles would be
connected to each other in a tactical network.
The complexity of the FCS and budget concerns prompted a restructuring
of the program last year, but Army and industry officials insist
that bumps along the way are to be expected in a project of this
magnitude. FCS is estimated to cost between $100 billion and $200
billion.
As the program approaches a Defense Acquisition Board review that
is scheduled for May, officials have raised concerns about the weight
of the vehicles. A key requirement in FCS is that all vehicles be
transportable by C-130 cargo aircraft, which limits the weight to
18 tons.
The prime contractors in the FCS program—Boeing and Science
Applications International Corporation—recently submitted
to the Army two concepts for the main combat vehicle, but neither
of the two concepts met the weight goals, said a senior Army official.
“The issue is still weight,” said Gen. Kevin Byrnes,
chief of the Army Training and Doctrine Command.
Byrnes said he was pleased by the two proposed designs, despite
the weight problem. “The concepts they provided to us make
sense. We still have to work through this.”
The Army does not plan to relax the weight requirements, Byrnes
said. But it is possible that, to make the weight goal, the Army
would allow for certain components of the vehicle to be stripped
before it gets loaded on the airplane.
If a 24-ton vehicle, for example, needs to be 18.5 tons to get
on a C-130, Byrnes said, “you take 5.5 tons, and you package
that into another aircraft.” Once in the combat zone, the
vehicle rolls off the aircraft, but it has to be put back together
before it can fight. Among the components that could be removed
to lower the weight are armor plates, ammunition and communications
gear.
The FCS concept now being evaluated would require specialized cargo-handling
equipment and significant logistics support. “One C-130 can’t
move one FCS,” Byrnes said. “It can move one stripped-down
FCS, but you need another C-130 to bring additional stuff. You need
a lot of additional transport capability, more time on site and
more support personnel.”
Eight FCS variants are being designed: an infantry carrier, a command-and-control
vehicle, a mounted combat system, a reconnaissance and surveillance
version, a non-line-of-sight cannon, a non-line-of-sight mortar,
a recovery and maintenance vehicle, and a medical treatment and
evacuation variant.
“Some are OK; some are too heavy and need to be stripped
down,” Byrnes said. “We are working on alternatives.”
Maybe some will go by C-17, a much larger transport.
Army officials, meanwhile, are considering whether to give up certain
components to help lower the weight.
Byrnes cautioned that it is too early to assume that FCS will not
meet its weight goal. “This is normal in the evolution of
a new system,” he said. However, the issue will not be settled
before the May review.
The Army, in fact, has considered doing away with the stringent
C-130 transportability requirement, but decided not to do so. “One
option is to forget the C-130. But when it goes unconstrained like
that, the weight starts to grow,” Byrnes said.
Heavier vehicles that only can be transported by C-17 would severely
limit the Army’s ability to access remote areas, where runways
are primitive or non-existent, he said. “Future operational
environments will deny access to large airplanes,” said Byrnes.
FCS officials also will be contending with a number of decisions
on vehicle components and weapons. The manager of the program, Brig.
Gen. Charles A. Cartwright, said the designs submitted to TRADOC
last November have hybrid-electric engines and, unlike any vehicle
in the Army today, run on “band track” made of synthetic
materials. The band track is much lighter than conventional steel
track, and allows the vehicle to move on rugged terrain much faster
than on wheels, experts said.
The band track technology, however, has not been approved for military
use, and it could take years before it meets the Army’s technical
specifications. “The question is whether it will be ready
on time,” before FCS is scheduled to enter service in 2014,
Cartwright said at a news conference. Of most concern, he said,
is whether the band track easily can be replaced in the field when
it breaks or wears out.