Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > On Future Combat Vehicles, Army Takes Pragmatic Approach
On Future Combat Vehicles, Army Takes Pragmatic Approach
By Sandra I. Erwin

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, USA

The Army for decades has been chasing the holy grail of land warfare: A combat vehicle that is light enough to travel by air but also has sturdy armor shielding to protect occupants against bomb blasts, and big enough guns to blow out the enemy.

The Army has poured billions of dollars into this pursuit over the past 15 years, and has failed every time. The latest effort, known as the infantry fighting vehicle, was terminated in 2014.

The lesson for the Army: It needs to set realistic goals and get on with modernizing the armor fleet before current vehicles become hopelessly outdated, said Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster Jr., deputy commanding general of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command for futures and director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center.

“We are downscaling expectations, based on what we know industry can deliver,” McMaster said Feb. 19 during a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C.

The plan is to start updating existing vehicles and gradually progress to a new design as technology and budgets permit, McMaster said. “We are working on a combat vehicle modernization strategy,” he added. The document is still under review. One of its tenets is that the Army can no longer afford to design armored vehicles in isolation from broader tactical and operational realities, said McMaster. “The U.S. Army is not a boutique force,” he added. “We want every formation in the Army to posses the appropriate combination of protection, mobility and lethality.”

The new modernization strategy makes it a priority to sustain the fleets that are now in service. It also states that every brigade in the Army — light infantry, Stryker and heavy armor — needs some type of combat vehicle support. “We can combine formations based on the threat,” McMaster said. “We want more firepower for all formations.”

Vehicle upgrades, which the Army calls “engineering change proposals,” will include major overhauls and replacement of key components like engines, weapons and sensors. The Stryker armored personnel carrier, for instance, could be equipped with a powerful cannon. The Abrams tank would receive new sensors and electronics.

In the wake of the termination last year of the infantry fighting vehicle — a program intended to build a replacement for the Bradley — the Army has gone back to the drawing board. The designs that had been proposed by General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems were technologically advanced but, at more than 70 tons, were too heavy and a huge logistics burden.

“We need a future fighting vehicle,” said McMaster. “The Bradley will be obsolete before we have a future fighting vehicle based on the long development cycle.”

The Army has requested $49 million in its fiscal year 2016 budget proposal to begin research work on a future fighting vehicle. It is also seeking $367 million in 2016 for main battle tank upgrades.

Combat vehicles, McMaster said, are “immensely important unless you are building a force to reenact World War I. They are part of our nation's asymmetrical advantage over enemies.”

As it prepares to roll out yet another modernization strategy, the Army wants to avoid repeating past missteps. “We have to inform the requirements based on a realistic understanding of what technologies are maturing,” said McMaster. The armor industry is offering new alloys that weigh less than traditional materials, for example. Other techniques for making vehicles lighter are to make them smaller and equip them with less bulky, more efficient engines. “There are all sorts of things you can do,” he said. The IFV required enough space to carry an Army squad. A future vehicle may only need to carry a fire team.

Also part of the combat vehicle strategy is to replace aging M113 personnel carriers with a new “armored multipurpose vehicle.” The current fleet is too old and unsafe, said McMaster. “It's a danger to our soldiers. We want to accelerate the armored multipurpose vehicle.”

The combat vehicle modernization plan bears the McMaster imprint of “collaborative requirements.” He has been hugely critical of the Army’s traditional hierarchical method for developing and producing weapon systems. The draft combat vehicles strategy has a section called "combat vehicle riddle,” he said. “It's about the thought process so we design vehicles to give us overmatch,” he said. “There will be tradeoffs. To say there will not be tradeoffs between protection, mobility and lethality is just not true.” Ground vehicle programs also have to be viewed through the prism of aviation and dismounted forces, he noted. “We want to make sure the infantry squad has firefight ending capability.”

The all-important “requirements documents” typically have been drafted by the Training and Doctrine Command in bureaucratic silos that McMaster characterized as “cylinders of excellence.” He wants to shift to a more inclusive process that involves TRADOC but also operational forces, technologists, logisticians and procurement officials. This approach was used in a new program called “mobile protected firepower,” an armored vehicle for infantry forces that come in close contact with enemy. “It’s collaborative from the beginning. … They have to stay together across the acquisition process.”

Photo Credit: Army


Re: On Future Combat Vehicles, Army Takes Pragmatic Approach

I think the Army really needs to go back and research all the Defense Expos it has attended because the "future" is already there, presented in all its grandeur with prototypes on the Expo floor looking for potential customers.  The idea of having to ask Congress for money (again) to develop something new (again) and hope that it will work and get produced (again) is getting kind of silly, especially when there are already 1:1-scale working prototypes already made on display and for sale right now.

Why, there is the Polish PL-01, a light 35 ton tank that has many of the hallmark requirements the US Army needs, and comes with an active protection system found in no current or future US Army vehicle.  With a frontal arc protection against 30-40mm rounds and the sides and rear protected against 14.5mm rounds, this is akin to the Stryker's protection.

There's the LAV III with Delco ATGM turret.  There's the M8 AGS with equal protection as the Stryker.  There's the French CRAB Recon vehicle, also protected against 14.5mm and carrying a 25mm autocannon.  There's the Cadillac Gage Stingray II.  All these could make for very good "combat support vehicles" with guns larger than MK-19s and M2HBs found on today's CROWS, Strykers, and MRAPs.

If the US Army cannot find the proper requirements for its future combat vehicle, then perhaps other nations have already met or exceeded this....presented again on the Defense Expo floor.
Peter at 2/19/2015 7:25 PM

Re: On Future Combat Vehicles, Army Takes Pragmatic Approach

McMaster is on the right track.  The Army needs to get real about combat and curb their technological appetite.  The key is use technology that's available instead of developing technology with program dollars.
Paladin at 2/20/2015 8:37 PM

Re: On Future Combat Vehicles, Army Takes Pragmatic Approach

To read between the lines of McMaster's comments, he'd rather have a 4-man fire team in a good, fast vehicle than an 9-man squad in a sloppy one. He may be right.

If that's actually true, however, then Germany's Puma is pretty much the solution.
SPDudley at 3/19/2015 5:02 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share