|
|
|
Subject:
Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks
gf0012-aus
12/27/2003 3:47:15 AM
|
| There is a change in focus to replacing trucks with armoured versions (mainly as a result of the lessons learnt in Iraq)
This is separate to the COMBATT programme.
[January 2004
Army Wants Trucks That ?Survive? Combat
Competition under way for $42 million concept technology demonstration
by Sandra I. Erwin
Repeated attacks on truck convoys in Iraq have prompted the Army to revisit its requirements for future logistics vehicles. Notably, the conflict challenged the traditional notions of trucks as support vehicles that stay out of the line of fire. Many U.S. casualties in Iraq were drivers or occupants whose vehicles were struck by rocket-propelled grenades, road mines or other forms of explosive devices.
The fundamental question that Army vehicle developers are trying to answer is whether the next generation of battlefield trucks will be ?just trucks? hauling supplies in the rear, or whether they should be enhanced with protective armor, weapons, advanced electronics and communications systems, so they can serve in combat roles on the front lines.
The next question the Army faces is whether it can afford all these high-tech features, which would make a truck almost as pricey as a combat vehicle.
The Army finds itself in a bind today, because it has to assign expensive fighting vehicles, such as Bradleys and Abrams tanks, to protect the trucks and secure the supply lines from Kuwait into Iraq. The reason is that trucks never were designed for survivability?they have no ballistic protection (except for up-armored Humvees), no self-defense weapons and limited situational awareness. They lack the advanced electronics needed to connect with the combat force, and become part of an overall command and control network.
?Our trucks can?t handle what they are being asked to do,? said Nance Halle, who runs an Army program called Future Tactical Truck System. The FTTS is a five-year $42 million project to develop a replacement for the current light, medium and heavy trucks.
While fuel efficiency and mobility remain high priorities in the FTTS, survivability has moved to the top of the list, in light of what?s happening in Iraq, Halle told an industry conference in Dearborn, Mich., sponsored by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.
?The Army is sucking combat vehicles away from the fight to protect these convoys,? Halle said. ?It?s the reason the Bradleys are going through tons of track over there. They are running up and down the roads protecting supply convoys, instead of being in the front lines, like they are supposed to.?
If the Army doesn?t do something soon to make trucks more survivable, the price will be paid in human lives, she said. ?Truck drivers are getting killed more than the combat force.?
Although the Army is accelerating the production of armor kits for trucks and up-armored Humvees, in the long term, it will rely on the FTTS program to develop new technologies that can drastically improve the survivability and overall performance of the entire fleet.
Further, any vehicles coming out of the FTTS project would have to be compatible with new vehicles developed under the Future Combat Systems program.
In future brigades, called ?units of action,? equipped with FCS technology, the Army wants the combat vehicles to be able to directly request supplies from the trucks, which would require that the trucks be part of the command-and-control network.
?The truck will be operating with the unit of action, in the thick of the battle,? Halle said.
Under the FTTS program, the Army is considering developing an 11-ton ?maneuver sustainment? truck that can move ISO containers, and a 2.5-ton to 5-ton utility truck. The 11-ton vehicle (with payload) has to be transportable by C-130 cargo aircraft.
According to current plans, each unit of action will have about 300 combat vehicles, 375 trucks and 30 trailers. The question, said Halle, is ?can we afford it??
The unit of action is expected to fight for three to seven days without re-supply. ?The combat vehicles can?t carry all those supplies. They admit it,? Halle said. ?They are only giving us so many trucks. So they have to be capable.?
Future trucks also will have to be more reliable and require less maintenance than current vehicles, she said. ?We only have a fraction of maintainers in the unit of action, compared to what we had in the brigade.?
Continuing changes to the roles and functions of the FCS, additionally, translate into new requirements for the FTTS trucks. ?There are things that FCS is tossing over the fence to the combat service-support community?things they can?t deal with, so we?ll put it on a truck,? Halle said. One example is mine laying.
But while the FCS program is ?tossing over? requirements, ?they are not throwing money? into the FTTS effort, she said.
Most of the funds for the FTTS are in the Army?s budget. But a small percentage comes from the Defense Depar |
| |
|
|
|
