MGV Death Spiral Begins

Cole July 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm

John said:“The notion that “holistic” survivability, including a network– enabled all-seeing, all-knowing picture of the battlefield, could overcome cheap kills was flawed from the start.“
==========================================
That was a bridge too far, especially if you are talking about all-seeing/all-knowing intelligence EXCLUSIVELY from satellites, or from Nevada Predators/Reaper/Global Hawk and the CAOC. But research Distributed Common Ground System-Army…a very powerful local tactical tool with access to higher level cueing from systems like JSTARS, etc.

But every small unit will still have FCS spin out unattended ground sensors and unmanned ground vehicles to act as mechanical observation posts (OP) for manned OPs, and advance scouts. Class I UAS will be available to respond when cued by other assets or as part of routine patrolling. The NLOS-Launch Systems provides local networked fire support with systems like Class I UAS and COLT teams laser designating for them. These items have not died.

At combined arms battalion level, FCS reconnaissance and surveillance vehicles WERE going to have telescoping sensors to make mobile similar telescoping sensors already being used in theater. Every FCS manned ground vehicle WAS going to have radar and exceptional EO/IR sensors. It was therefore very realistic that no major element or vehicle would sneak up on our troops. RPG teams are another matter but that was what active protection, advanced armor, and additional dismounted infantry was for.

At both BCT, battalion, and company level, both ground and aerial mine detection sensors are still planned. The Class IV UAS has ASTAMIDS capability. It’s still better to find an IED or mine rather than running over it.

If you recall, we already have Blue Force Tracker that depicts friendly icons on the Common Operational Picture (COP) display. Text reports from units can populate enemy icons on the COP as well.

FCS WAS going a step further to populate red threat icons more automatically based on automated sensor reports. This would have permitted small units to self-synchronize maneuver relative to other friendly elements and to avoid enemies or maintain standoff.

Not sure we will get that without the radar on future vehicles. Band tracks and temporary electric drive would have allowed our MGV troops to sneak up on enemy elements…but that is gone now unless it is included on the GCV.

I’ve seen no indication that Abrams or Bradley can provide the electricity required for advanced radar and EO/IR sensors, processing power, monitors, embedded training, and the network.

The network has been one of the more troubled aspects from the get go, giving up analog range in an effort to achieve digital connectivity. Yet we still seem to think that will work out. Hopefully it will because all the planned sensors don’t work well without it.
==========================================
John said: “Just prior to the start of FCS, TRADOC explored even lighter (~9T) combat vehicles that could be employed via heavy vertical lift aircraft (that also needed to be developed and which would be extremely costly). They could have gotten to the fight quickly, but would have died quickly. To fit on a C-130, the FCS MGV had to “fly” well under 22T to permit a reasonable reach. The C-130 “crucible” was too much to ask to get the needed combination of weight, protection and other capabilities. The Army leadership wanted to push the envelope and see what was possible. It turns out, a simultaneously C-130 transportable and survivable vehicle violated too many laws of physics.“
==========================================
That C-130 information is all very old. The target had been C-17 deployment for years now at around 27 tons…about the weight of a baseline Bradley, but even that was not enough. More FCS units WOULD have fit on Joint High Speed Vessels, RO/RO, and Fast sealift ships, too. Obviously most of a BCT would sea deploy but you could still air deploy self-sufficient battalion task forces early in the conflict as a deterrent.

That is more difficult with an Abrams that uses a C-17 by itself and gobbles up 2 gallons per mile instead of the 3 mpg and 3 vehicles per C-17 the MGV would have given us.
==========================================
Now, years later and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, we start again, and hope we can get the requirement right and finish the program before it becomes obsolete or overcome by events.
==========================================
We start again only on the MGV which is now the ground combat vehicle (GCV). Many lessons learned from the MGV will be retained on the GCV. Hopefully deployment will be one of them if they keep the GCV at around 80K lbs. Otherwise the Army becomes somewhat irrelevant sitting in stateside garrisons a month or more away from any conflict.

We also know that Secretary of Defense Gates wants to work the MRAP and M-ATV into current and future organizations. The Army also will field spin-outs of the unmanned equipment and NLOS-Launch System to infantry and other Stryker and Heavy BCTs.

There is an interesting comprehensive article about the follow-on to FCS…Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization…in National Defense Magazine which is accessible through defensetech​.org on the left hand side links.