FEATURE ARTICLE

April 2005

Army Struggles With Weight Of Future Combat Systems

by Sandra I. Erwin

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.

Back To Top