Future Combat Systems ---- USA

[thatguy96]

Marek_Tucan said:
Is it too late to change the program? All the vehicles look like ugly cheap tank toys, not like combat vehicles...

Those are just the concept designs. I don't think a physical mockup has been built, and there aren't any functional prototypes. I honestly don't think you'll see any members of the FCS family in service prior to 2020. All you have to do is look at the intertwining of tech and requirements.

The Army keeps twisting things around trying to get them on schedule, and I doubt they'll succeed. The had planned for Objective Force Warrior soldier systems to be deployed in the 2010-2012 timeline, but they had also expected Land Warrior to be fielded in 2004. The second iteration of Land Warrior was scrapped last year, supposedly having its developed elements separated (Mounted Warrior and Airborne Warrior), and its developmental elements placed under a new program (the Ground Soldier System). So now you have these Land Warrior spinoffs, Objective Force Warrior, Future Force Warrior, and the FCS, all of which are planned to function together, plus a number of major weapons and equipment programs all designed to bring it together (JTRS and the "Objective" weapons programs, all of which seem to be in various stages of delayed).

Whatever the FCS looks like now, it won't look like that when eventually fielded. Just look at what the FCS program looked like 1999 and what it looks like the better part of a decade after. If I was understanding the news releases correctly the test unit stood up to experiment with FCS tech and tactics has actually been using Stykers, as they present the best available use of existing tech designed to be integrated (and are compatible with things like Mounted Warrior). The first FCS unit of action was not planned until 2014, and I doubt you'll see it in a final form by then. I expect you'll see some composite of existing and leveraged FCS tech into interim versions of the vehicles.

[Randy]

From what I have read the Abrams and Bradleys (Legacy systems) will not be scrapped. Some will still be kept for heavy operations. I am not sure of the mix between the Legacy systems and the FCS units/OOB. But the M-1A1/2s will be kept for many years!

[Marcello]

Those are just the concept designs. I don't think a physical mockup has been built, and there aren't any functional prototypes. I honestly don't think you'll see any members of the FCS family in service prior to 2020.

I think you are a bit out of date. The prototype for the
SPA unit is already here.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=25143

[thatguy96]

Marcello said:

I think you are a bit out of date. The prototype for the
SPA unit is already here.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=25143

That post was made last week, so I assume that the article was similarly recent. So I'm a bit out of date, but not by too much heh. The NLOS-C is the variant that has been seeing the most development out of the entire family, so I guess I'm not surprised I was wrong. There was actually a prototype of the NLOS-C before this come to think of it, so there are no excuses hehe.

I stand by my original assertion though based on all the other factors that you won't see a complete FCS unit of action until after 2020. I typed a number of things and will admit that its probably wrong to say that certain variants won't possibly be integrated into the existing force before then.

I also find it amusing that the pundits there on Tanknet are bemoaning the fate of the Crusader because it somehow led to the demise of GPS guided munitions. Those munitions were fired against targets in Iraq, and are otherwise being developed, so I'm not entirely sure what they're worried about.

[Marcello]

I stand by my original assertion though based on all the other factors that you won't see a complete FCS unit of action until after 2020.

I suspect that this whole thing won't survive the mother of all budget battles which is shaping up, so we won't see a "complete FCS unit of action" in 2020 or any other time (maybe a batch of NLOS cannons and various drones, bits and pieces).
I simply pointed out that the development is more advanced. The SPA is already at the prototype stage and since the others vehicles would share the same chassis they could not possibly turn out to be much different than envisaged, unless they wanted to go back and redesign it. Which, at this point, would mean a quick death for the program.

[thatguy96]

Marcello said:

I suspect that this whole thing won't survive the mother of all budget battles which is shaping up, so we won't see a "complete FCS unit of action" in 2020 or any other time (maybe a batch of NLOS cannons and various drones, bits and pieces).
I simply pointed out that the development is more advanced. The SPA is already at the prototype stage and since the others vehicles would share the same chassis they could not possibly turn out to be much different than envisaged, unless they wanted to go back and redesign it. Which, at this point, would mean a quick death for the program.

No, I fully admit I was wrong. As I said, no excuses, because I was even aware of the NLOS-C prototype that was in function testing well before 2008. The chassis has changed in small ways since the concepts, the original NLOS-C, and this current proto. I still think you're right that the current chassis is pretty much finalized (small changes won't affect things very much).

[RecruitMonty]

Too expensive, too techy, too light. All you would need is one infantry man with a decent enough RPG and some guts and those vehicles are history, heat seaking smart shells or not.

Right now units are going into the combat zone under equipped in certain cases. This is no doubt due to cost cutting, either that or the logistics guys screwing up is a regular occurence. I can't help but wonder just how under equipped this show piece unit is going to be.

Going back to costs and things, I assume this stuff costs more than what is available at present (even though its all modular), right?

The USA foresees what kinds of engagements precisely?

That ,,Tank" (for want of a better word) of theirs seems designed for engagements at long ranges. I assume they are skrimping on armour to make the things lighter and more deployable, right?

How do they plan on fighting in an urban area with limited visibility, IEDs and Jihadis (or whatever) around every corner in vehicles that are so clearly designed for warfare on the fly� (That ,,tank", its a shoot and scoot afair, right?)

Or are they foreseeing a rapid deployment to Poland, the Ukraine or Baltic Republics to stop Vlad and his fleet of T-80s and T-72s from invading the EU?

Lighter mortars, although I assume they are heavier than the M113 etc variants available at present, makes sense. Heavier ambulances, that makes sense. More manoueverable and lighter Arty (as secondary support), again, quite clever. But scrimping on APCs and AFVs. Oh dear!