# US Army Future Combat System vs the current Heavy Force



## MAJOR_Baker (29 Jun 2005)

I thought about putting this topic in armor, but then decided it dealt more with US Army doctrine than just new armor technology......

Active defense vs Armor? 

To be more deployable, the FCS family of vehicles is going to have to give up a lot of defensive armor protection.  At first the FCS Armor debate seems counterintuitive less armor better defense; but really I think the FCS family of vehicles is better for the following reasons:

1. Development of active defense systems that can counter kinetic energy weapons from RPGs to 120 mm main gun threats.  Hitting a â Å“bulletâ ? with a â Å“bulletâ ?

2. Development of active Jamming of laser guided weapons

3. NET Fires (networked fires) warfighters would have access to all systems capable of engaging a target

4. New armor technologies

5. Capable of forced entry operations 

6. Joint and Coalition force interopability

Even with some of the reasons I listed above I see a lot of angst among tankers that like to have a few inches of armored protection between them and the bad guys.  On a whole though I am glad to see that someone is doing something about replacing aging platforms.


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Jul 2005)

I have started other threads on FCS, few seem interested in discussing the issue or maybe people on army.ca do not understand the intent of the US Army FCS and Marine Corps transformation.

Its force structure changes and technology changes rolled together. The FCS videos are interesting and it would be interesting to see if they see it through.

Remember at one time, military leaders refused to hear the idea of removing horses from the battlefield.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Jul 2005)

I attended a briefing on FCS in 1998 down at Ft Knox, although then it was dealing with the scout version (and it was envisioned that it would be a joint venture with the UK).  FCS certainly looks interesting, but I guess I'm one of those angst-ridden tankers who like the idea of armour over active defences.

The firepower, comms and mobility bits are achieveable and can be applied to any platform.  Indeed, the CV90 family shows what can be done with a common platform as does the LAV to an extent.  The protection piece is the tough bit.  Active armour sounds neat, but I wonder about how it will work in the field.  The ability of 70 ton tanks to withstand direct fire has, in my opinion, given US forces a huge advantage in two wars (among other advantages of course).  

If a 30 ton platform can take the same punishment then great.  If they can make a 30 ton vehicle with the M1's capabilities then of course the ability for the US (or anyone with the same type of gear) to rapidly project power will be increased.  Until then, I say stick with what works.  I recognize that technology keeps moving forward.  Perhaps the guys in lab coats can make lighter armours that give the same protection as today's tanks.  The gun/armour race is not new, but to me it looks like the trend for AFV weights during periods of conflict has been to increase.  The real weight limiters to me are powerpacks, rail cars and bridges, not airplanes.  Still, I am neither a scientist or a predicter of the future.  


Cheers,

Iain


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jul 2005)

FCS is a waste of money in my opinion. Money that can be better spent on other things.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2005)

The big thing with FCS is wrapping our heads around a new warfighting paradigm: *shaping the battle through the application of information*. While it seems pretty airy fairy right now, the hope and dream of the FCS supporters is that collecting , organizing, controlling and using information will reduce the ability of the enemy to strike at "our" forces. True, a 30 tonne FCS will brew up in a spectacular fashion when hit, but this is supposed to be an infrequent occurrence.

My opinion is the FCS is the cart before the horse, the actual collection, collation and dissemination of information is key, once you have an organization that can do that quickly and accurately and under combat conditions, then you can start changing the hardware to take full advantage of these capabilities. In 1940, France had more tanks than Germany, and in general, French tanks were better armed and armoured than the German models. German soldiers had very different ideas about how tanks and tank formations were used in battle, and the material advantages of the French Army were rapidly neutralized and France was quickly overrun. An American Brigade with a reorganized command and control structure will be the most formidable fighting formation on the planet with M-1s, FCS or magic carpets, not because the vehicles are better, but because they can use them better.


----------

