FCS And Light Armor Today

...although I have to research some lingo.

Thank you for your time and effort. It's refreshing to read your insight. Exciting and interesting material.

I am glad we are better arming our troops.

I only hope that they will be allowed to show what they can do instead of having to behave like the Peace Corps!

Thank you for coming by! You guys make it worthwhile!

It is awesome to see you back on your blog. And a military article to boot. Wonderful, interesting stuff. Do we have a nuclear bunker buster developed yet? Looks like we're gonna need 'em in Iran soon to take out their hardened nuke sites.

I was beginning to lose hope. How long did it take you to clear out the mothballs?

Excellent as usual. Is this issue a result of Bush's desire to skip a generation of military technology?

Great question...and way out of my security clearance, LOL! I would imagine that a small yield armoured penetrator has been devoloped by this point, but I cannot say for sure.

I believe that the trend toward FCS began back in the 1990's, but was given some impetus under SecDef Rumsfeld. That being said, I am at a loss to explain why the TROPHY system has not been deployed with the Stryker Brigade or any other unit in Iraq. It exemplefies the kind of next generation defensive technology that FCS will depend on. I would think we would want to employ it ASAP, and evaluate it under actual combat. The Israelis are moving forward with it now.

Glad to have you back on the blog! Hopefully with the coming semester break you'll be able to deliver more posts to us.

I have a question,though. You mentioned that the battlefields of tomorrow will be in urban areas, so why has the decision been made to try to develop a weapon that seems to be so defensive? I understand that it may require less logistical support than the Abrams fleet, but is it worth it? It seems to me that the Abrams fleet isn't all that bad in an urban environment and that maybe we could look at ways to adapt a system that is already battle tested.

Just my 2 cents, let me know what you think about that.

maybe that's the generation they're skipping. But I doubt it. More likely, it's business as usual.


P.S. How about doing a post on the downsizing of the Black Watch?

..I read your post once again and I have to state that you are a talented writer. Your work is very fluid and understandable even by a novice like me (after inquiring some terms).

Maybe you could be the military consultant for Townhall. I think you should persue some type of writing occupation.

You are such a relief from what the regular threads turn into.

Good Luck!

You hit on something that others in the Army have been pointing out, which is the need for an urban assault gun similar to the German Brumbar from WW II. The Abrams served in the capacity in the second round of fighting to take Fallujah where the ability to destroy reinforced walls and fortified houses at close range was necessary. One Abrams crew member told a repoter before the invasion "...you can put this tank on any street corner and I guareenf**kingtee you will own that street!!"

depressingly usual business, I'm afraid. I will look into the business with the Black watch! Thanks for the heads up!

here's a little info (and pics) of the Brumbar:

http://battletanks.com/sp_15cm_howitzer.htm

It's a pretty cool site.

Wow! Fantastic site! Check out the pix of the JagdPanther...one of my favorites!

Rather than TROPHY system the Army is using a surounding cage to explode incoming ordiance. Below is part of the survey for the OSD (Office of The Secretary of Defense)about its employment and defense and a website that shows the cage in place (scroll down to the end of the article to see it.)

"Critics of this new force design and this new vehicle have pointed out that the vehicle without advanced armor appliqués is vulnerable to medium-caliber weapons and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) that may be carried by insurgents and opposing infantry forces. These critics call into question the survivability of the Stryker vehicle against heavy armor opponents as well as enemy light infantry.
It is not the purpose or intent of this study to address these issues concerning the survivability of the Stryker vehicle. Here, we wish only to point out that the Army is working to reduce the vulnerability of Stryker vehicles to medium-caliber weapons and RPGs by adding
caging to the exterior of the vehicles to trap and detonate RPGs and by adding additional armor to the vehicles themselves. It is also important to point out that the SBCT was never designed to fight directly and alone against a heavy armor force for an extended period of time. It is designed for smaller-scale contingencies (SSCs) against smaller and lighter-weight opponents."

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Stryker,,00.html

Interesting piece. I can't help but think that the increased capabilities of helicopters and Warthog-type aircraft may obviate some of the task requirements of ground-based armor.

It's also interesting that some of the projected defense capabilities approach it from a Phalanx-style philosophy. I wonder how effective that can be at short ranges, or with heavy depleted uranium kinetic incoming rounds.

Very informative piece. Welcome back!

Yeah, I think that's why no one really cares that the system doesn't fare well against an MBT. Only an MBT could be partially survivable against an MBT on the ground, and a new MBT is not what they're going for here. MBT's are sitting ducks for American airpower, so they need not be factored in to our ground equation.

I'm with the Dragon on being skeptical of any claim that maneuvarability = survivability for a surface vehicle, even without the urban environment factored in. Maneuverability won't do squat for you if you must fire within range of your enemy.

"An embedded second generation integrated defensive system will make the FCS nearly immune to enemy weapons."

Lasers? It would be beautiful if the system could detect a high temperature or pressure exhaust plume vectored in its direction, direct a laser on it, and explode the target. This, of course, would do nothing to stop a sabot round, so the system needs to be deployed after long range elements take out the tanks from a comfortable distance.

I hope they're not referring to some magic reacive armor. Reactive armor can work, of course, but not twice in the same spot.

C-D, i am ex-armor, Ord 8 level maintenance on the M-48 MBT, with orders to Fort Ord and on to the 103 Armored in Germany in i954. In the repple depple in Fort Bliss, i had a chance to volunteer for the bran' new Nike Missile System and i took it, so i never was really operational. My training at Aberdeen was on the 3-D range finder on the M-48, a beautiful piece of work, copied from a German design, originally developed for shipboard use (memory). My switch to electronics eventually took me into software, but combat vehicles are of great interest. I was a subscriber to Jane's IDF for many years until my retirement meant i couldn't take that stiff subscription fee off my taxes.

is two kinds of war. Conventional battlefields where armor fights at long range in the open, and urban battle where combat is at short range.
Open warfare is dominated by the MBT. The MBT is mainly a compromise between mobility, Armor and firepower. The resulting vehicle is heavy and expensive, with a powerful long range gun. An MBT can be optimized for anti infantry(ie the US Sherman) or anti tank ( ie the German Tiger) or the best compromise of its day, the Russian T-34. All of thewe vehicles took nasty losses in urban combat.

of war has magnified the importance of urbgan warfare to the point it was obvious by Tet, that and urban armored vehicle would be a good idea. Some countries have made some pretty good attempts to develop them. No vehicle has come to my limited notice as outstanding. I have heard good reports of a South African vehicle, the French are using a light armored vehicle in Gabon (memory) and a couple outfits in California are fabricating vehicles they sell to security contractors in Iraq. Most of this stuff is suspect to better or corrector or more detailed information.

at close range makes even a Molotov cocktail a formidable weapon against multi-million dollar MBT. Mines and RPG's are ubiquitous, cheap and effective. Accordingly, an urban combat vehicle must be cheap to be cost effective. It should be unmanned and/or control unmanned cohorts to extend the attack range for manned vehicles or positions. Obviously it should be difficult to destroy with cheap weapons--mines, shaped charges and Molotov cocktails. Protection against high kinetic energy weapons may be neglected. These are rare in urban combat and fall prey themselves to cost effective factors and counter measures when used.

with all the mistrikes.

the jagdpanther was indeed a great weapon, loved by its crews and justly feared by any opposing vehicle. I remember reading an article by the German who designed the Leopard I. He said since Germany had no intention of fighting an offensive war, the Leopard would be better replaced by a self propelled gun on the Jagdpanther order. Give up the offensive flexibility for the upgunned, uparmored less expensive(more for the money) self-propelled gun tank killer.

It is a truism that the generals fight the last war. But that has broken down recently. It used to be that the generals were on the battlefields or close by. They could not sit at home and fight a political war while the men fought. Our generals did not learn from Vietnam, Desert Storm, Bosnia, or any of the other battles. Rumsfield made errors, but I wonder how much of the criticsm he got was from angry generals and admirals losing their pet WWIII Europe toys and how much really was warranted.

He was right that the military needs to be transformed into a force capable of projecting power rapidly and in small groups rather than in battle lines 1000 miles wide.

By the way, welcome back. And stop by. I have a new post on Welfare, my way.

did you read the articles on that site (there's two if I recall correctly). Interesting stuff.

Great comments! I appreciate the experience you bring to the discussion. I spent much of my time in the Cav, and as such I worked around tanks and with tank crew members very closely, although I was aviation. In 4/24 Aviation, I taught threat ID for other enlisted.
The problem you bring up regarding tanks in urban warfare is worth some analysis. As I have said, some observers in the Army have identified a need for an urban assault gun such as the stug III or Brumbar, but this does run counter to prevailing armour development trends. The vulnerability of such a weapons system in close confines does necessitate heavy armour protection, and must be closly accompnied by infantry.

but a cat can look at a king, and we are all entitled to at least one uh opinion. First, close infantry support is not merely a must, but really, the vehicle is supporting the infantry. The vehicle provides firepower too heavy to be man carried, and lowers exposure risks by (hopefully) shrugging of mines, rpg rounds and molotov cocktails. An anti armor missile like an old sagger or milan is too much to expect to resist(i don't know the names of the doubtless more modern varieties available), so ideally the eye function should be cheap and unmanned. The British Crocodile flame thrower tank was hated and feared for its gruesome short range (for a tank) effectiveness. The Brits quickly realized this and saved this limited edition tank for urban fighting. So, i see an urban squad of vehicles. A group of unmanned small observers turn the corner, backed up by larger but still small self propelled unmanned flame throwers and/or other self propelled ordinance. As this group of vehicles penetrates down a street, presumably with other groups advancing on parallel streets, any defenders are given some tough choices.

they expose themselves to counter fire and GPS directed artillery from rear echelon units. If they allow bypass, the groups will establish interlocking fire at intersections that make future retreat nasty. If they retreat in parallel, they are giving away ground without a fight. So they stay to fight, the winkling begins, people get hurt, but it will be very difficult for brave defenders to survive. As i understand it, versions of these types of UMV's and tactics are ongoing. Just stupidly late and specified to death.
A manned vehicle for mundane convoy duty is needed. The humvee is too big, too costly and too soft. Conventional armor and spaced systems to deter shaped charges are all that's needed against ied's and rpgs.

Yeah. It's those hobsons dilemas that make urban fighting such a deadly and tough prospect. Really dug in infantry can be a problem, though. The German experience at Stalingrad certainly verified that. The Russian vs Chechnyan fighting in Grozny in the 90's demonstrated that as well. Virtually every building in the city was damaged or desryed, and what was still standing at all was fortified into bunkers and redoubts.

The carnage at Stalingrad is exactly what a suite of urban fighting vehicles must deal with. In our curent situation, the defense would be somewhat hampered byproblems transporting big heavy stuff, but the principle is the same. I disagree STG III types are the ticket. What is needed is something hard to get close to, difficult to destroy when you do, and easy to replace when its killed.
Convoy vehicles are a whole nother subject since by definition they must be manned and have good transport capability. What are the latest choices out there? I'm going to have to check. I was grumbling about the idiots who didn't make much effort to replace the humvee even after Mogadishu,my brother a couple months ago. He asked me, well know-it-all, what would you build? Its a fun subject. Thank you for bringing it up.

with my brother

One of the gaps in US light armor is a light self propelled indirect fire vehicle. WWII saw the Priest, a 1-5 howitzer on the old m8 grant motor carriage. We have a SP 155, but nothing smaller i know of. The French make an SP breech loading mortar, 81mm (memory). Patton stated in his book he didn't want any artillery that was not behind an inch of armor. This would mean self propelled. Since this type of vehicle would not be expect4ed to deal with high KE projectiles, the armor could be designed to handle shaped charge warheads and small arms fire. With a reduced caliber, higher V round intended for direct fire, a vehicle like this would also be useful for convoy protection in urban warfare. I like the layout of 6 big wheels, skid steered. We also could use a
small vehicle like the old German schvimwaggon

Are you discounting the MLRS or are you talking about something smaller? During Vietnam we had the 81 mm mortar and the four-deuce mounted on PCs. Also, the Stryker has a variant called the mortar carrier.

Talking about something smaller, with major application to the type of urban combat against lightly armed irregulars like in Baghdad. All i know about the Stryker is good, and i notice in Iraq the vehicles seem to be fitted with some sort of standoff mesh or grid to prematurely detonate shaped charges like the RPG. The problem is numbers. Strykers are probably unnecessarily complex (aguess based on standard US procurement) and expensive, which reduces their availability. I also didn't know about the mortar variant, but it sounds useful to me. Did you read the stuff about unmanned robot observer and gun/flame thrower units?

I've seen info on several varients. One that is under consideration is equiped with a microwave non-lethal croed dispersal weapon.

The caging on the Stryker is called slat armor and you are correct about it being designed to explode incoming ordinance. Also, the Stryker is manufactured in modules, or, the ability to quickly replace components as needed. Is that the truth, I don't know for sure. Normally what our troops are facing in MOUT (military operations in urban/urbanized terrain) operations are more of the quick hit-and-run type tactics that the insurgents prefer and IEDs. If they remain too long, a bird or indirect fire (arty) came be brought to bear. However, collateral damage remains a concern. Granted the M203, 16s, and the SAW will not penetrate armor or fortified positions but a LAW will. Also, we used to use LAWs on bunkers in Vietnam, whoever was in them when the LAW hit came out of it. I've seen scout, bomb detonating, gun carrying, and experimental first aid recovery robots but not one with a flame thrower. As far as the mortar variant of the Stryker, has it been fielded? Don't know. I'm here at Fort Hood and there are no Strykers here. The 4th ID (just returned from Iraq) and 1st Cav (now in Iraq) are traditional heavy divisions with Bradleys.

Celtic-Dragon: You have to explain to me what the microwave would do other than making humans uncomfortable through - heat? I haven't heard of it. I guess if it made people evacuate from hiding places or buildings that would be very good. Kind of a recon by fire without firing.

Never made it to Ft Hood. After graduation from an ordnance school at Aberdeen Md, i was shipped to Fort Bliss, with orders for Hood, then on to Germany with an M48 outfit. At Bliss, i got a chance to volunteer for Nike missile fire control maintenance, which was a major break.

So long after Somalia, its malfeasance to put troops in a hostile urban environment in hummers, even with add on armor. The Stryker sounds great, but we need something simple and cheap so there are enough to go around and replace hummers. There is no good way to shoot from a hummer w/o exposing yourself, and that slat armor would seem to be impractical, given the layout, doors, etc. Add on armor won't stop an RPG, but heck, you know all this better than me. It seems to me that the mortar variant of the Stryker could be issued a shaped charge round intended for direct fire use. Shaped charge projectiles are light and one could probably be fired at twice mortar velocity. Be just as effective as a law and be fired from a protected turret. Collateral damage is a concern as a matter of current policy. We won WWII with no concern for collateral damage.
Thank you for your service and good luck at Fort Hood.

I inavertly mislead you. I retired from the Army in '92 after 23 years and now work on Fort Hood as a civilian. More people know about Fort Hood as opposed to Killeen. My son-in-law is an E-7 in the 4th ID. He works in aviation electronics and ordinance. I was infantry, armor (M60A1), and retired as medic. Like you, I try to stay abreast what the Army is doing. And, I used to catch as many rides in the newer vehicles that soldiers would offer to me. But those days are over.

There is an ongoing study about up-armoring the Abrams, Bradley, Stryker, HMMWV, etc... Celtic-Dragon and others were talking about one the Army rejected in September called Trophy Active Protective System (I included some of the report below and the website to read about it.) Pay particular note as to why it was rejected for FCS. Also, found the new and old mortar systems.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tusk.htm
(Tank Urban Survivability Kit)

http://www.defense-update.com/products/n/NLOS-mortar-FCS.htm (NLOS- non-line-of-sight, the new mortar, FCS= future combat systems)

http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/APS.htm
(final paragraph is about the Quick Kill system.)

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/feature-mortars.htm (PC with a 4.2 mortar in Baghdad)

You are right about collateral damage but today is a different story.


"During the test, Trophy detected, tracked and defeated an inert incoming RPG while the Stryker combat vehicle was on the move. Similar tests were successfully conducted in Israel in late February.

September 2006: The US Army opted to pursue a different system. Earlier in 2006, Raytheon received a development contract to demonstrate and develop the Quick Kill APS, to be integrated into the future FCS systems. The Army faced mounting criticism about not considering the Trophy system for the protection of its armored vehicles deployed in Iraq. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A, Sorenson, the Army’s deputy for acquisition and systems management explained the decision (AFPS) saying the Israeli system is not a “produceable item.” The Israelis have been working on the Trophy system for 10 or 11 years, Sorenson said. “If this thing was ready to go, my question would be, why wasn’t it on the particular tanks that went into Lebanon?” he said. No Israeli Merkava tanks carried the Trophy system, he said.

Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.

Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.” "

Here is a link to an article you will find interesting about Stryker-mounted DEW (directed energy weapons)

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/march/directed_energy.htm

invertly = inadvertently. Sorry about that, after a certain time I can't spell and never proof.

Although aware of non-lethal weapons I have not stayed abreast of the changes ongoing in the field. You are right, the article is interesting and I hope the weapons are developed to a level of usefulness. Somalia ("Blackhawk Down"), I am still angry about Les Aspin's decision to deny armor to our troops during that time. As I am with Rumsfeld for failing to complete envelopment with the 4ID in Northern Iraq. GEN Tommy Franks' book, "American Soldier," is a good read I you haven't done so.

Interviews I've read with people who volunteered to have had the microwave weapon tested on them say the pain is excruciating and instant. One description said it was like the upper half of your body is dipped in lava. The idea is to make you run away. Used correctly, the weapon does no actual damage, although second degree burns occured in one laboratory accident. Eye damage can only happen if the eyes are kept open by a speculem (tested on monkeys) and the damage healed. There are questions about ethics about using as a standard crowd control feature, especially if children are present or people are killed by trampling and panic.

I sent you an email to your rr account with my contact info. Call me.