« Speaking Truth to Power | Main | Serenity »
September 28, 2005
FCS and Elementary Logic
Well, I probably should not call it elementary logic, since our elementary schools don't teach it, but...
Defensetech has an article on how the FCS (Future Combat Systems, intended to develop a smaller, lighter, faster-deploying Army force) are getting more expensive and heavier. Lots of cynicism, little common sense. (On the other hand, the planners at the Pentagon seem to have lots of optimism, and little common sense.)
There are two ways to evolve anything, including combat systems: evolutionary and revolutionary. An evolutionary change improves what exists. A revolutionary change starts from scratch to create something new. In military generations, the M-60 was an evolution of the earlier M-48 tank design, and the M-1 was a revolutionary tank design (using a gas turbine engine, blow-out panels over the ammunition storage, layered ceramic armor, advanced fire control, a new track design and lots of other innovations).
The M-1 was part of a wave of modernization that brought a host of revolutionary changes to the Army, including its first real IFV (the Bradley) and a new light utility truck (the HMMWV, or Hummer). This was possible because, while fighting in Viet Nam, we had skipped a generation of procurement. We have not done that since the 1980's upgrade (the Reagan defense build-up) to the Army; we have been procuring steadily and improving upon existing systems. We have not let technology advance to the point that FCS made sense for most systems. The Air Force upgrades (the "smart bombs" and GPS) and the computerization of the Army combat units together constitute a pretty hefty shift in capabilities, but the underlying vehicles the Army is depending on for FCS simply aren't ready for a big jump yet.
Consider: an IFV, like the Bradley, has two key characteristics; it carries troops and it mounts weapons sufficient to give those troops firepower support against anything except a heavy armored force. This requires an IFV to have sufficient armor to stand up to enemy infantry, IFVs and mines (including the IEDs used in Iraq, and earlier Chechnya, to such great effect). It requires sufficient mobility to keep up with tanks. And it requires sufficient space to carry infantry and their supplies. The size necessary for both holding, say, six armed and armored troopers and mounting a turreted weapons system including mid-sized guns and possibly anti-tank missiles, means that only a lightly-armored system can fit into the FCS vehicle weight limit of 19 tons. Or, we can develop an entire new generation of armor that does in 19 tons what now takes 25-30 tons. Since that's not likely in the near future, we either sacrifice armor, or we create two different vehicles (a troop carrier and an assault vehicle mounting infantry support weapons) that both have to be transported to make up an efficient team. Or, final choice, we scrap the weight limit.
But having scrapped the weight limit, there are still two choices: continue to deploy the Army by sea (slow but effective) or build a large number of larger transport aircraft (fast but expensive). It appears that the Army has, pragmatically, taken the sea-deployment approach.
So it's not likely that many of the big FCS systems will see service: we really aren't ready for that kind of leap yet. But it is likely that evolutionary changes will continue, and we will eventually see a big leap that takes ideas from FCS (as M-1 took ideas from MBT-70) wedded to new technology to create a truly revolutionary system.
In the meantime, people should stop getting hysterical about theoretical costs that will never materialize, and the Army should consider buying the Navy a round of drinks and about a dozen fast transports.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/489