It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's official, FCS planners opt for heavier vehicles

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

FCS planners opt for heavier vehicles

By Joshua Kucera JDW Staff Reporter
Washington, DC

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is close to making a final decision on whether to approve a design for the US Army's next-generation armoured vehicles. At issue are the manned ground vehicles of the army's Future Combat Systems (FCS), which were originally envisaged to be able to be transported by C-130 to land at unimproved airfields. However, Boeing, the lead systems integrator for FCS, has said that the vehicles will have to weigh 22,000 kg - about 5,000 kg more than the C-130 can carry - to meet all the army's lethality and survivability requirements.

US Army officials, including Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker and officials from Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), have recommended that the DoD accept that fact and aggressively pursue future transport options that might perform better than the C-130.

According to army documents obtained by JDW, service officials believe that would not slow down a build-up of forces in theatre.

, army officials studying the FCS transport problem have recommended aggressively pursuing next-generation airlift such as the Joint Heavy Lift aircraft and the AMC-X future cargo aircraft, according to the same documents.


Link to article

Thank god.



[edit on 2-7-2005 by NWguy83]




posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Thank God? I mean we do have to pursue better transports that can hold more vehicles. But I still think we should try and make them light, and strong. That was one of the major points of the FCS family of vehicles.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by blue cell]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Heck no this whole idea of lighter faster cheaper is insane. We need armor and big MTB’s I just don't see a 20ton main combat vehicle being as affective as an Abrams.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
A lighter tank wont be able to crush as many things as the heavier tanks and the psycological effect on the enemy will be decreased.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Think of the psycological effect on the enemy if they saw the thing in my pic driving towards them.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Or maybe.....Boeing, as the lead contractor want to start selling new improved Transport planes as well to replace the C-130.... so they purposefully make the FCS "heavier" than the C-130 can take....


Just a conspiracy spin on this....



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   


Think of the psycological effect on the enemy if they saw the thing in my pic driving towards them.


The thing in your pic does 5 mph though..... You could outwalk it even in your 80's!!



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I think it's more like 1-2 mph.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
When this whole Styrker /FCS debate started years ago, many of us pointed out that if instead spent even a portion of the planed FCS investment , on new medium haul transport with a 30-40 ton lift , then an improved Bradely chassie could be used as the basis of an effective 120mm gun medium tank with modern 10 ton applique armor. Then a familiy of SP Howitzers ; ICV & support vehilces could be included for the same cost.

With modern armors approaching 2.5 ME its possible to give a 20 ton tank the same protection of a steel armored 50-60 ton tank. If you further cut the internal volume in 1/2 [IE move to a 3 man crew with autoloader and low profile turret , like Russian tanks], you could reach the same protection level of the modern 60 ton tanks. Within 20 years modern state of the art armors should be offering 3-4 ME allowing such a design to remain competative into the 2040 period.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
interesting psteel, I agree.

in the short term however, wouldnt somthing like the LAV 105MM (Gen III)
fill that role. The C-130 can carry roughly 40,000 lb from memory, and a combat ready LAV 105MM (Gen III) weighs in at 32,000 lb. I understand its a Light Armoured Vehicle... But a slight upgrade in its armour, maybe with somthing like what they put on the M2 and you would still be under that 40,000 lb limit.

I dont agree with the polititions wanting to lighten the military. But a LAV on a C-130 would have benifits. ie rapid responce times, once on the ground you have a highly mobile vehicle that can dish out a pretty solid punch.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join