NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Armor Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

FCS Died For Our Sins

June 26, 2009: On June 23rd, the U.S. Army announced the official cancellation of its FCS (Future Combat Systems). This was a program of next generation weapons, vehicles and other equipment that was going to cost over $160 billion. The cancellation was no surprise. A year ago, the army dropped any pretence of trying to roll out its new FCS stuff as a complete package. That's mainly because the Department of Defense had ordered that FCS items be readied for combat use as soon as possible. The future will arrive piecemeal, as had been actually happening ever since September 11, 2001, and especially since early 2003.

When the Cold War ended in 1991, the army took stock and decided that its future combat vehicles would be smaller and lighter, relying more on missiles, better communications and lots of electronic gadgets. All this was called FCS, and it would change everything. Then came 2003, and three American divisions invaded Iraq and, within three weeks, had seized Baghdad and conquered the country. When the dust had settled, and the battles were carefully examined, it was discovered that the key to rapid victory were the "obsolete" M-1 tanks and M-2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, doing what they were designed to do.

This didn't faze the FCS developers, for the 20-30 ton FCS vehicles could have done the same thing. The key was being resistant to the RPG rockets, which the M-1 and M-2 were. But that got people thinking. We got all these M-1s and M-2s, and money is tight, and the FCS crowd are asking for over $100 billion to buy new armored vehicles that might not be as effective. Why not just keep upgrading the armor we got, and we know works? This bold idea, reeking of practicality and thrift, received a cool reception. The FCS proponents had spent years of effort to get enough political support for the money to start flowing. And now these retards, with their experience in Iraq, want to face the future with refurbs? The "retards", in the end, had the stronger argument.

The FCS was seen as a breakthrough system. Actually, it's over fifty systems (depending on how you count them), and a lot of technologies that haven't been invented yet. Many in the army were unsure about how FCS would do in combat. This "tried and true" crew responded with an offer to try out each of the new technologies as they become available. Whenever that might be. Eventually, the brass at the Pentagon agreed with this. Meanwhile, FCS faced a more formidable problem than reality checks after 2003; lack of money. Not only was Iraq reminding everyone how well existing armor works, but it sucked up the billions that FCS was hoping to feast on.

FCS was nothing if not ambitious, with its plan to militarize many new technologies before anyone else did, and give the army powerful armored vehicles that could be airlifted anywhere in the world in a few days, and then be easier to maintain because the FCS vehicles guzzled a lot less fuel. But that depends on the air force coming up with more transports (C-17s), something the air force has been reluctant to do. The air force has its own FCS (the F-22 and F-35), and that's where all their money is going.

What a lot of officers, and troops, began to see was a need for evolution, not revolution. There's no longer any big land army out there that needs to be shut down. The Red Army is gone, the Chinese army is largely obsolete and shrinking, the North Korean army is falling apart, and the Iranians are more concerned about another civil war. The few nations that are still building new tanks are trying to keep up with the M-1, not leap-frog it using unproven technologies. Continued efforts to keep FCS alive ended up becoming evolutionary as well, because the money just wasn't there for anything radically new. Thus the M-1, M-2, and Stryker rapidly evolved, and proved that, as weapons, they were far from dead. NLOS-C, a new self-propelled artillery system, was built from the wreckage of the cancelled Crusader system. While technically FCS, it was more of an evolved system, and it was the only FCS vehicle to survive.

But there was another factor at work in undermining FCS, and it was called RFI (Rapid Fielding Initiative). One of the little noticed after-effects of the Afghanistan campaign was the establishment, in early 2002, of the Rapid Fielding Initiative. This was an army program that recognized that American army troops did not always have the best weapons and equipment. RFI was intended to do something about that, and do it quickly.

You could see RFI coming. There were three existing trends pushing it. First, there was a lot more new technology coming on the market that troops could use. Some of it came from the companies that created equipment for the hiking and camping market (boots, rucksacks, all manner of outdoor clothing). Other stuff came from hunting suppliers (new gun sights). There was a flood of new electronic gear, like lighter and more reliable GPS receivers and computer gear.

The second trend was that the troops were all on the Internet, and like never before, were in touch with each other via military related message boards, listservs, Facebook pages and chat rooms. Troops have always been coming up with new ideas about how to use civilian gear for military purposes. But before the Internet came along, each soldiers discovery spread slowly. Now, information about new discoveries gets spread army wide within hours.

Finally, there was SOCOM (Special Operations Command), which had long possessed its own RFI powers, and budget to go with it. SOCOM could buy neat new weapons, as well as equipment. SOCOM could also afford to buy expensive stuff (night vision gear and satellite phones). SOCOM personnel were on the Internet as well. By 2001, thousands of soldiers were speculating on the Internet how much more effective they could be if they had SOCOMs freedom to quickly get new stuff that allowed them to do their job better.

When American troops went into Afghanistan in early October, 2001, it was several hundred SOCOM Special Forces operators that did most of the work. Once the media got to the Special Forces guys, stories started coming out about the non-standard gear they were using. American infantrymen being sent to Afghanistan saw those stories, as did people in the Pentagon. Connections started to get made. Among other things, someone in the Pentagon realized that the army would not look too good if too many journalists interviewed too many troops who had bought civilian equipment with their own money. Especially if the new equipment, from a civilian supplier, was obviously superior to the stuff the government was giving the troops. With this kind of incentive, the Rapid Fielding Initiative was quickly set up and became a big success. 

The Iraq campaign gave the RFI another workout. A typical incident involved all the raids troops had to make and the problems with getting through sturdy locked doors. Some troops knew of special equipment police departments used, others knew of special equipment fire fighters used to break into burning buildings. The proper equipment was soon in the troops hands, and many lives, both American and Iraqi, were saved. Stories came back from Afghanistan and Iraq about how great the RFI gear was and all was well with the troops and the brass in the Pentagon.

So eventually FCS became, in effect, a part of RFI. It's another example of what happens when carefully constructed plans encounter reality. Reality always wins. In this case, FSC as a program was killed by RFI, while FSC as a collection of good, or at least promising, ideas, lived on.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article IRAN: They Aim To Misbehave


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
LB    M1/M2   6/26/2009 9:07:34 AM
Great now can someone mention when the US Army is going to replace the M1/M2?  When the new magic armor gets developed that was going to allow a 20 ton medium tank to replace the M1 can we please put it on a new 50 to 60 ton MBT and new IFV so our troops have world class protection?  While we are at it can we please replace the M551 as we have not had a light tank in 20 years now.  Canceling the M8 in 1996 was another great example of US Army idiocy.  The 20 ton FCS magic tank sounds like a great light tank.
 
FCS really died because it was a huge program lacking in accountability.  It was partly designed to be too big to be killed and too complex to kill piece by piece so the whole thing was killed and the US Army will be lucky to get it's old vehicles replaced anytime soon and the revolutionary networked electronics it was counting on justify the whole thing really made everyone laugh as they have been networking their home computers now for years.  The electronics get cheaper, smaller, and more capable every year.  Locking in particular technologies to FCS was another key reason to kill it as the troops have already shown how much use they can get from their Ipods and other cheap equipment.

 
Quote    Reply

Headlock       6/26/2009 11:12:46 AM
"Chinese army is largely obsolete and shrinking"


Hold on a sec- almost every article I've read on this site (and many others) about the PLA suggests that it is becoming more professional, more modern and shedding a lot of the excess dross that weighs it down. 

Thus, it is becoming more modern, efficent, effective and thence..dangerous!

While I'd say the US would win any stand-up fight right now I'd guesstimate that ti would stil  take some casualties, possible a CV. Posit the state of the PLA 10 years from now, using the speed it has iupgraded in the alst decade, and Id ramp up US losses significantly, although still winning, eventually 

So, why call the PLA obsolote and shrinking? If anythign the "shrinking" part is the most dangerous!

Am I way off target here?
 
HDK
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       6/26/2009 11:48:14 AM
Whoever got the idea that the chinese army is largely obsolete and shrinking,
obviously doesn't pay attention to current geopolitcal and military affairs.
The chinese military has been on a spending spree, designing ever-more improving systems (better equipment capability can justify a reduction in sheer manpower) when they can't buy from someone who already designed them.
No matter the state of the chinese economy and the value (real or artifical) of its money: the chinese military machine isn't standing still and rusting in place, nor is it devolving.
Even if not on technical par with the US and numerous other countries, the chinese have been receiving, through legitimate business alliances and espionage, more and more technology improvements, which are rolling directly into their military machine.
 
Largely obsolete, maybe (in terms of being compared to first-rate western systems yes, but they aren't standing still in catching up).
But shrinking, they are not.
 
I'd be curious: in a war of attrition, will the chinese army (all chinese land military forces) run out of targets before the US, still wrapped in two conflicts,  runs out of enough munitions and weapons to destroy them?
 
There may be instances where the chinese military appear lax, but shrinking in capability they are not.
 
Quote    Reply

Julius II       6/26/2009 1:26:29 PM
FCS was doomed from the day DARPA came up with the idea of giving every vehicle in the army the same communications capability as a corps headquarters.   The vehicle became a tracked radio, with little armor or ammunition.
 
Pundits keep talking about this being the "Information Age" and how we are going to defeat the enemy with situational awareness.  They forget that weapon systems need to kill people and break things - you can't kill bad guys with situation awareness, nor will situation awareness stop a SABOT shot by an enemy tank that your sensors failed to detect. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Where will this PLA/USA   6/26/2009 1:44:38 PM
Armageddon play out?  Will we rent France?  I couldn't care less that the PLA has 1 million or 10 million troops...I don't see us fighting them.  I worry about the PLAN and the PLAAF and attacks on Taiwan, but somehow I don't really worry about the PLA, because unless it's going to swim to California or we're planning on driving to Beijng it's not really I fight I envision.
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    M1/M2, PLAN   6/26/2009 5:58:35 PM
"When the new magic armor gets developed that was going to allow a 20 ton medium tank to replace the M1 can we please put it on a new 50 to 60 ton MBT and new IFV so our troops have world class protection?"
 
Exactly.
 
"I couldn't care less that the PLA has 1 million or 10 million troops...I don't see us fighting them.  I worry about the PLAN and the PLAAF and attacks on Taiwan, but somehow I don't really worry about the PLA, because unless it's going to swim to California or we're planning on driving to Beijng it's not really I fight I envision."
 
I agree, and more specifically, I worry most about their gradual strides in their submarine force.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       6/26/2009 10:03:28 PM
FCS was killed by RFI. Watch for RFI to be killed by congress. It messes with their voting districts.
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitzathome    FCS was the right path to go!   6/27/2009 5:46:03 AM
Some years ahead the US army will have lost its superior tech advantage against most potential enemies. GI's will use 50 years old tanks and IFV against at least equally equipped opponents (in conventional combat). Don't tell me this nonsense of the M 1 and M2/3 succes story in Iraq. Iraqs army was not trained and after years of samctions/arms embargo no real enemy any more (not to mention US air dominance). The problems arised with the successive guerrilla war.
 
But with a tight defence budget noone can afford a large professional army. And without enough Raptors even the air superiority will be at risk. Any combat would cause heavy US casualties. Therefore the US would loose these wars politically. The public won'r accept this. Some years ahead even guerrillas may have working anti tank/helilcopter wapons (like hisbollah today). They would face US soldiers/marines riding in armorded trucks (MRAPS) or obsolete tanks/IFV. Same story. To much casualties.
 
Modern future war (both ground and air combat) will see none line of sight combat (like the navy does today). Situational awareness and long range PGM will decide who wins.
 
Now we know that politicans, the brass and the authors of strategypage will be surprised that a future war is different from the wars in Afghansistan and Iraq.
 
It is sad.No more western wizardness on the battlefield pof the future. Do you believe it is enough that Obama or his successor will give a speech? That is not the way the real world works.
 
Sincerly Clausewitz
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       6/27/2009 8:43:33 AM
Some years ahead the US army will have lost its superior tech advantage against most potential enemies. GI's will use 50 years old tanks and IFV against at least equally equipped opponents (in conventional combat).
 
You got that right! Under Obama we are going to continue the Clinton procurement holiday of the 90s for at least another four years. However, when things get bad enough the next Republician president will restore our military again like Reagan did.
 
Here a good artlicle on this issue from the American Spectator.
 

Modernize the Military Now

Advocates of military modernization have been largely silent even as the Obama administration pushes through the most significant weapon systems cuts since the Carter administration. This is in part because Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done a masterful job of public relations. He has wisely depicted himself as a "reformer" who is squaring off against allegedly greedy, Cold War-era defense contractors.

The media, moreover, have accepted this narrative hook, line and sinker and made it the analytical framework through which virtually all defense budget stories have been written.

In reality, the so-called military-industrial complex is timid, inarticulate, and politically and culturally clueless. The media-academic complex, by contrast, is bold, highly articulate, and politically and culturally savvy. Thus in possession of superior firepower, the media-academic complex has won this engagement without firing a shot.

That's a shame because advocates of military modernization have the better argument if only they were able to make it. That would require, however, that they do their homework, jettison old ways of thinking, and embrace new military and strategic realities.

Doing their homework means listening to U.S. military leaders and understanding U.S. military requirements in the 21st century. Jettisoning old ways of thinking means acknowledging that the Cold War is over, and that a full-scale conventional conflict involving set-piece battles is extremely unlikely. And embracing new military and strategic realities means recognizing that we are in an era of persistent military engagement which will span the full spectrum of conflict -- from counterinsurgency missions and nation building to traditional warfare and stability operations.

Yet too many advocates of military modernization have allowed themselves to be depicted as narrow-minded defenders of parochial interests. They have defended particular military systems that give jobs to their constituents; but they have failed to develop a coherent and persuasive narrative that links these systems into a more comprehensive and overarching 21st Century defense strategy.

Secretary Gates is absolutely right when he says that the military must reorient itself to fight and win 21st century conflicts. He also is absolutely right when he says that military engagements of the future will be defined by hybrid threats (which involve the full spectrum of conflict) and irregular tactics.

"The threat of the early 21st Century will not be the son of Desert Storm; it will be the stepchild of Chechnya," predicted then Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Charles C. Krulak in 1998 Congressional testimony.

"Our opponents," he presciently observed, "will not be doctrinaire or predictable. They will not try to match us tank for tank and plane for plane in an attempt to fight the kind of Industrial Age war to which we are accustomed.

"Instead, they will seek to fight us where we are least able to bring our strength to bear." And, Krulak added, "one thing is certain: this 21st Century threat will be far more difficult to manage."

The U.S. military absolutely requires new capabilities and new weapon systems to address new 21st century threats At the same time, however, the U.S. military must retain its ability to fight and win conventional wars precisely so that it can prevent such wars from ever happening. Military weakness, after all, is itself a provocation and an invitation to war.

This means that the U.S. military requires more money to modernize and more modern defense systems. Yet, for the most part, the Obama administration is subtracting, not adding, to America's military arsenal. And the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the burden in this long war, is being especially hard hit.

Indeed, the Army's Fiscal Year 2010 budget request is two percent less than what the service had requested in 2009. Army procurement accounts (which include modernization) are being cut even more dramatically, by some 14 percent or $3.5 billion.

More ominously, Gates canceled the Army's Future Combat Systems' vehicular modernization program. But as the Commander of the Joint Forces Command, Marine Corps General James N. Mattis has observed, future conflicts will almost certainly require an American ground presence.

"The idea that we are going to be able to fight future wars without having soldiers on the ground, or just having a few special forces -- I think that's a pipedream," Mattis said in a June 1 speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "High-performing small [ground combat] units are now a national imperative," he declared.

Yet American ground combat vehicles were designed decades ago for a different era and a different war: the 20th century Cold War. Thus, a truly reformed defense budget would have accelerated, not canceled, the Army's FCS vehicular modernization program. A truly reformed defense budget would have increased, not cut, the Army's modernization budget.

"A soldier fighting from a vehicle of any sort increases his chance of survival by about an order of magnitude," writes retired Army General Maj. Robert H. Scales, Jr., the former commandant of the Army War College. "Unfortunately," Scales notes, "Cold War armored materiel is optimized for wars on a European, not an irregular battlefield."

In short, Gates' defense budget fails its own test. However, it is not clear that either the Secretary of Defense or his (few and mostly ineffectual) critics understand this.  

John R. Guardiano served as a Marine in Iraq and once worked on the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization program.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Vulture       6/27/2009 2:33:39 PM
FCS - failure of combat strategy.
FCS was a fine R&D program, but most vehicle implementations have  freudian dreams of supremacy and have no physical science reality.   Magic armor and guns is the most accurate description I have heard for the FCS.
 
If you wanted a better vehicle for Afghanistan, you would have something other than the FCS IFV. 
If you wanted better arty then you would have gone for a unmanned airborne support platforms for solid precision ToT capability.
if you wanted  a better tank then why are you still designing a 20th century tank fighter instead just a mortar based tank killer munition.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

rammer       6/27/2009 11:39:33 PM
The FCS manned vehicle program would have brought a light tank and IFV with survivability that surpasses any current vehicle.  The related artillery and mortar systems would provide unprecedented fire support, and the medical vehicles would have brought a mobile hospital into the brigade.  Would it cost a lot, yes procurement would have been about $8 billion a year, but realize that the Army spent $17 billion in 2007 just to fix the old stuff it currently has (check GAO).  Replacing that old stuff with new stuff that doesn't break as often saves money the year it is purchaced and every year thereafter.
 
FCS manned vehicles would have given good value for the taxpayer and good capability to the soldier. 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Magic Armor   6/28/2009 1:10:36 PM
If we have the technology (not demonstrated) to make a light tank more survivable than any other current vehicle then we have the capability to make an MBT that is nearly untouchable.  Moreover, while we develop this type of light tank others will develop new MBT's that our light tank might not mount heavy enough weapons to take out while the new MBT will eat our light tanks alive.  Armor technology is not a US monopoly.
 
The entire notion of relying on a 20 ton tank was flawed from a physics 101 point of view.  The new German IFV is 43 tons and Israel's is 60 tons.  Put the magic armor from a 20 ton FCS IFV on a Puma or Namer and get back to me about comparative survivability.
 
The M1 is a world class MBT partly due to British developed armor and a German gun.  FCS was a wet dream revolving around the transformational effect of networked everything living in a fantasy bubble where weight of electronics, required electrical generation, and armor no longer had any relationship to basic physics.  
 
Moreover, like most other DOD programs it was not exactly a well run program even had it been a realistic one to begin with.  The US Army whether it knows it or not or wants to admit it or not requires a new MBT to eventually replace the M1 and a new heavy IFV to keep it's troops protected in a world where there will be more combat in urban or built up terrain.  Put the magic armor on a new chassis with a front mounted engine and it can be both MBT and IFV and generate some economy of scale.
 
The FCS manned vehicle program would have brought a light tank and IFV with survivability that surpasses any current vehicle.


 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Nlos-C   6/28/2009 6:40:38 PM
So does this mean 50 more years of the M109 Paladin, and no NLOS-C? Cant we buy the German Artillery piece?
 
Flyingarty
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Start Over   6/28/2009 7:52:08 PM
It means NLOS-C was canceled and the US Army told to start again.  Personally I'm glad they canceled it as an 18 ton SPH able to be carried by an C-130 is simply beyond ridiculous and required a 39 caliber gun when everyone is going to longer range gun and has been doing so for decades.  PzH 2000 is 5 million dollars (Crusader was $25 million) with a 52 cal gun and weighs 53 tons.
 
The entire problem is do you want adequate armor protection, even the PzH 2000 is being fitted with extra armor now as combat experience in Afghanistan has shown is required, and a long range gun or do you want something lightweight to fullfill some fantasy about moving and supporting armored forces by air?
 
The US Army should have a 155mm gun that outranges it's potential foes in an armored vehicle that protects our troops.  What it weighs should be a clear secondary consideration.  PzH 2000 was firing assisted projectiles out to about 60 km three years ago.  The US Army deserves a 54 to 60 cal 155mm howitzer.  If you want a light weight howitzer than tow it or buy a light SPH but the need for heavy forces to be properly supported is not going away.
 
The Taliban don't seem to like PzH 2000.  It's not perfect- the Dutch have numerious complaints.  There is no reason we can't develop something better or just modify it.  The issue is our stated requirements.  A self propelled 155mm howitzer designed to support US Army heavy brigades should NOT be required to be light enough to fit in a C-130.  It's in fact a ridiculous requirement.

So does this mean 50 more years of the M109 Paladin, and no NLOS-C? Cant we buy the German Artillery piece?

 

Flyingarty

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    That was the problem with FCS from the start.   6/28/2009 10:15:50 PM
A self propelled 155mm howitzer designed to support US Army heavy brigades should NOT be required to be light enough to fit in a C-130.  It's in fact a ridiculous requirement.
 
It was premised on flying the Army to war.  It made the necessary possible.:
 - "Well we're limited to a 20 ton chassis in the C-130." 
 
-"Well, then we'll develop an armour and a sensor and a c4 package that will provide the equivalent of a 60 ton MBT, in that 20 Ton package." 
 
-"REALLY?"
 
-"Well no but that's what we'll tell ourselves."
 
You want a 20 Ton N-LOS(C) the Israelis have produced one, with a 40 caliber barrel, it's called "Rascal", IIRC.  It may suck rocks, for all I know, but there IS an NDI available, right now, for purchase that gives you better than N-LOS(C) capacity...because N-LOS(C) was and IS merely a prototype and this thing really exists.
 
All this caterwauling about the loss of FCS is silly, it was a pipe dream of an idea...it's just more belly-aching from people that think Obama is "out to get us"...it was silly when it was conceived, it was silly when Rumsfeld backed it, and it is mercifully canceled.  The US Army isn't going to be flying to war....this is the same sort of doctrinal silliness that prevented the Army from fielding an MICV until the M2/3 series...then it was that it had to be air transportable AND amphibious....well guess what that really isn't possible, but the Infantry School demand that they be so, held up MICV development as the Army tried to create the impossible combat vehicle.  This time it was C-130 transportability....
 
Here's a news flash....30,000-plus troops and armoured vehicles, REAL armoured vehicles, in large numbers are going to HAVE to be transported by sea, for the near, and mid-term, most likely the Long-term too.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy