Buzz
A U.S. Army poster created to highlight the Future Combat Systems initiative.
Image provided by U.S. ArmyThe Future Combat Systems (FCS) project is an extensive overhaul of military technologies designed to ready the U.S. Army for modern combat. With expectations of being the most costly military venture in U.S. history, it is a long-term undertaking expected to span decades. The creation of the hardware, software, networks, and integration necessary for FCS is a highly intricate and challenging endeavor.
The Army's goal is to achieve dominance on the full-spectrum battlefield — covering land, sea, and air. To do this, it will need various specialized units. Additionally, the Army must integrate its operations with those of other military branches, as well as with potential coalition forces from allied nations.
FCS is referred to as a "system of systems," consisting of 18 distinct systems. Each system is a different type of unit, such as an unmanned artillery vehicle, a manned tank, or a command and control vehicle. FCS is sometimes called "18+1+1," where the +1s signify the network and the soldier who will operate the systems. If the Army were merely upgrading military hardware by adding 18 new units, it would still be a significant project. However, designing all 18 units from the ground up, alongside the integrated architecture to connect them all, makes FCS a groundbreaking and transformative undertaking.
Why is the Army embarking on such an enormous project? Military specialists argue that the nature of warfare is evolving. The large-scale territorial conflicts seen in World War II are expected to fade. Instead, the Army is likely to confront insurgencies and smaller, dispersed skirmishes across vast areas. The Army of the future needs the ability to deploy and redeploy rapidly. To achieve this, the Future Combat Systems (FCS) focuses on four primary objectives:
- Enhance strategic flexibility An Army with large, inflexible units that take months to mobilize cannot respond quickly or address the full scope of challenges. Some military experts describe this as "carrying a pocket full of $20 bills but dealing with many $5 problems" [ref].
- Minimize logistics footprint The logistics footprint refers to the support teams, fuel, parts, and ammunition necessary to keep a unit operational. Extensive supply lines, heavy refueling trucks, and the need for vast maintenance facilities hinder agility and make the attached forces more vulnerable.
- Cut operating and maintenance costs By standardizing unit designs, parts can be exchanged, and repair personnel can service a broader range of units with less specialized training. This also leads to a smaller logistics footprint and improved agility. The Army is focusing on smaller, lighter vehicles that are quicker and more maneuverable. Rather than relying on heavy armor, forces will use stealth tactics and smaller profiles to minimize casualties. Lighter vehicles are easier to move and consume less fuel. Collaboration with other branches of the military and allied nations is crucial for effective communication during future operations.
- Boost battlefield lethality and survivability Future soldiers must be able to neutralize targets and survive attacks more frequently. This will reduce the need for extensive reinforcements, lessen the burden on medical and repair teams, and lower the number of units required for each engagement.
Next, we will explore how the Army plans to address these challenges.
Meeting the Needs of Future Warfare
The network lies at the heart of Future Combat Systems. It enables every unit to exchange real-time data with others, synchronize movements, and respond to battlefield dynamics quickly and effectively. Network-centric warfare is a relatively novel concept that integrates the advantages of all the FCS components. For instance, a tank platoon that can be quickly deployed and move with agility offers no real benefit if their orders are delayed or vague, or if commanders lack sufficient information to make swift, accurate decisions. The network will facilitate rapid command execution.
Network-centric warfare reshapes how commanders view their forces. Rather than a numbers game (e.g., my 3,000 troops can overpower your 1,000), the U.S. Army becomes a unified force with various parts that can adapt and reconfigure to swiftly changing circumstances. Information flows seamlessly across the entire network.
The network consists of several key components. The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS, often called "Jitters") was created to eliminate the need for numerous bulky radio systems operating on different frequencies and encryption protocols. It enables all branches of the U.S. military—across land, sea, and air—to communicate using a unified system. However, critics argued that replacing older analog radios (many of which were recently acquired for Middle Eastern operations) with JTRS was an overly ambitious plan, difficult to implement. Currently, JTRS is still under development as an auxiliary communications platform, serving as a soldier's "gateway" to the broader FCS network [ref].
The System-of-Systems Common Operating Environment (SOSCOE) is a software solution that will allow all the various systems to function together without issues. It will require about 35 million lines of code to be fully developed [ref]. SOSCOE is based on a combination of Linux and a specialized Intel-based OS tailored for the Army's needs.
The WIN-T system serves as the data transport backbone connecting FCS systems. Utilizing lasers, satellites, and traditional ground-based networks, WIN-T is essentially a tactical Internet, ensuring continuous communication between rapidly moving units and operational commanders. WIN-T must provide the immense bandwidth needed to handle the vast data FCS will generate, while also withstanding the challenging conditions of the battlefield [ref].
Evolving Demands
The Army's need for greater tactical flexibility has driven a focus on designing lighter, faster combat vehicles. The current main battle tank, the M1 Abrams, weighs between 65 and 70 tons, depending on its specific configuration. Its front armor can withstand almost any anti-tank round currently in existence. However, with the emergence of next-generation ballistic weapons capable of delivering extreme force, the Army has chosen to focus on a design that weighs only 20 tons. These future tanks will incorporate cutting-edge technologies (some of which are still in development) to counter anti-tank weapons effectively.
New armor materials are part of the strategy, but the tanks will also feature a small signature—their reduced size will make them harder to detect and hit. An advanced suspension system will enable the tank to 'crouch' into a very low profile. In addition, the Army plans to implement active countermeasures, including smoke screens to obscure visibility and small rocket rounds capable of intercepting incoming enemy fire.
The M1 tank weighs between 65 and 70 tons and is equipped with front armor that can stop most anti-tank rounds. However, the Army's goal is to develop a much lighter, smaller tank capable of evading enemy forces without the reliance on heavy armor.
Image courtesy U.S. Department of DefenseA press release states, "The Army transformation requirements include the ability to deploy a combat-capable brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a full division in 120 hours, and five divisions on the ground within 30 days" [ref]. One approach to enhancing strategic agility is enabling fewer soldiers to accomplish more tasks. This trend has evolved over centuries. At the Battle of Gettysburg, the Union line spanned several miles and was guarded by about six corps. Today, a tourist could walk the length of that line in one afternoon. During the Cold War, a similar number of NATO troops (and corps) were tasked with securing the entire inter-German border, a distance that would certainly take more than an afternoon to cover [ref].
FCS will facilitate even greater dispersion of forces by incorporating unmanned vehicles, robotic weapon platforms, and robot sentries. Manned vehicles will require smaller crews—an FCS tank, for example, will only need two crew members, compared to the four required for the M1.
The prototype of the Warrior unmanned aerial vehicle is powered by diesel, which eliminates the need for specialized fuel on the battlefield.
Image courtesy U.S. ArmyThe Army aims to decrease fuel consumption by up to 30 percent. For instance, the M1 Abrams' gas turbine engine provides immense power and the ability to reach speeds near 45 mph, but it also consumes a tremendous amount of fuel. Future vehicles and tanks designed for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) initiative are expected to use hybrid electric engines, enhancing both torque and fuel efficiency.
The following section will delve deeper into these vehicles and other planned vehicles under the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.
Systems and Vehicles
The Swarmbot is an autonomous prototype UGS developed by iRobot in collaboration with DARPA. These robots can communicate amongst themselves and operate as a cohesive team.
Image courtesy iRobot CorporationThe FCS initiative involves designing and developing various types of both air and ground vehicles, many of which are unmanned and autonomous. Although most of these vehicles are still in development, some prototypes have been created and showcased by contractors. A few of them are already operational in Iraq, where they are used for explosive disposal and urban reconnaissance.
Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS)
These small sensor arrays resemble the droids from 'Star Wars', but they are less mobile. Once deployed by soldiers or robotic vehicles, they remain stationary to carry out their tasks. Their functions may include securing perimeter areas, detecting chemical or radioactive substances, aiding communication networks, identifying targets for other units to strike, and helping with crowd control by guiding people in specific directions. They can also be turned on or off, allowing friendly forces to pass through the area.
Non-line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS)
These systems come in compact packages that include a computer, a communication system to connect to the network, and 15 missiles. Soldiers can remotely send launch commands to the missiles and adjust their targeting mid-flight.
Intelligent Munitions System
Much like Unattended Ground Sensors, these robotic units are deployed in an area to provide security with suppressive weaponry. This helps to spread out troops, organize the battlefield, and direct enemy forces into predetermined positions.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
The FCS initiative also envisions four distinct types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):
- The Class I UAV will weigh under 15 pounds, be capable of vertical takeoff and landing, and perform intelligence, surveillance, and communications relay tasks. It will be remote-controlled and portable. Photographer Steve Harding. Image courtesy U.S. Army. An unmanned aerial vehicle operator prepares a Class I UAV for takeoff during the FCS demonstration on September 21, 2005, at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.
- Class II will be launched from a vehicle, remain airborne for 2 hours, and cover a range of around 10 miles (16 km). According to the Army's FCS Web site, the Class II UAV "supports the Infantry and Mounted Combat System Company Commanders with reconnaissance, security/early warning, target acquisition and designation."
- The Class III UAV will resemble a small, streamlined airplane. It will have the ability to take off and land without requiring a dedicated airstrip and will be capable of longer flights compared to the Class I and II UAVs.
- Class IV will be an unmanned helicopter capable of staying airborne for up to 24 hours, providing surveillance over a radius of 47 miles (75 km).
The Fire Scout Apache, an autonomous Class IV UAV, was developed by Northrop Grumman as part of the U.S. Army's FCS program.
Image courtesy Northrop Grumman CorporationArmed Robotic Vehicle (ARV)
One of the most groundbreaking elements of the FCS initiative is the introduction of robotic tanks. These units will be remotely operated and perform many of the tasks traditionally carried out by manned tank crews. They will provide support to troops through direct fire, anti-tank fire, and over-watch fire, while also enhancing troop dispersion.
Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV)
These units are already deployed in Iraq. Talon robots and Packbots have played a crucial role in explosive disposal and urban reconnaissance operations. Future models will be equipped with offensive capabilities.
On January 6, 2005, the 'Talon' was deployed by the 184th EOD Robotics Team based in Baghdad, Iraq.
Photographer: Spc. Jonathan Montgomery Image courtesy U.S. ArmyMultifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE)
The MULE will serve as the backbone of the FCS program. This two-and-a-half-ton truck can be operated remotely or follow a controlled vehicle autonomously. Aside from transporting equipment, the MULE will feature a mine-sweeping configuration and an armed light assault setup.
Crusher, an autonomous unmanned ground vehicle developed by Carnegie Mellon University, essentially acts as a prototype MULE. It has the capability to carry weapons and scale a 4-foot vertical wall while transporting 8,000 pounds of cargo. To find out more, visit How Crusher Works.
Mounted Combat System (MCS)
The MCS is arguably the most critical piece of equipment in FCS, aside from the network itself. Replacing the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the MCS will ensure a similar survivability rate by utilizing speed, situational awareness, and an exceptionally long-range 120-mm weapon to avoid close combat. Weighing 20 tons, many MCS units can be transported by C-130 planes or, if necessary, deployed via parachute.
To enhance fleet versatility while reducing operational and maintenance costs:
- Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) This vehicle, operated by a crew of two, will carry nine additional soldiers along with their equipment to the battlefield. It will also maintain a network connection and be armed with a 40-mm weapon for protection.
- Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) This vehicle is a mobile long-range artillery unit designed for precision strikes.
- Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M) Similar to the NLOS-C, this vehicle replaces the cannon with a mortar, providing close support for infantry and offering precision firepower against highly dangerous targets. Image courtesy U.S. Army The Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar
- Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle (RSV) The RSV is a cutting-edge scout vehicle, equipped with various sensors, radio frequency interceptors, chemical detectors, and communications systems.
- Command and Control Vehicle (C2V) The C2V serves as the mobile headquarters for military commanders, offering network connections and tools for real-time decision-making.
- Medical Vehicle – Treatment (MV-T) and Evacuation (MV-E) These vehicles enable medical personnel to work alongside combat units, providing quick treatment for the wounded and safe evacuation. Image courtesy U.S. Army FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV)
- FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV) FRMVs are designed to carry repair and maintenance crews, with a limited capability to recover damaged equipment from the battlefield.
The Future Force Warrior
The individual soldier completes the FCS picture. Equipped with advanced personal body armor, onboard computers, and integrated networking, future soldiers will enjoy exceptional situational awareness on the battlefield and be able to perform military tasks more efficiently. To learn more, check out How the Future Force Warrior Will Work.
Next, we'll examine some of the potential challenges the FCS might face.
How FCS Might Not Work
This illustrates the U.S. Army's vision of how the FCS network will connect various systems together.
Image courtesy U.S. ArmyThe Army is employing a spiral development approach for the FCS. Instead of completing the entire project before deploying any units, contractors are developing systems step by step. As each subsystem is finished, it will be deployed for testing. Any issues found will be addressed as the Army continues to add new systems, with ongoing improvements and upgrades to earlier units.
The Army is constantly advancing the launch date for the FCS to get the technology in the field as quickly as possible. A test unit is expected to be deployed in 2008, with additional systems rolled out every two years until 2014. By then, 32 FCS-equipped brigades will be operational. The goal is to be able to fully equip any brigade with an FCS system by 2016, although it will take several more years to complete the full Army deployment.
As with any large-scale project, the FCS is not without its issues. Critics highlight several concerns:
- Cost Every military research and development initiative faces scrutiny regarding its expenses. Initially, the FCS was estimated to cost under $100 billion. However, by 2003, this estimate rose to $175 billion [ref]. The most recent projections suggest the total cost could reach around $300 billion, making it the priciest military project in U.S. history. Despite Congress considering cuts to the FCS budget, contractors have strongly advocated for the program's necessity, with the demonstrations seemingly successful. As a result, Boeing's FCS budget was only reduced by a modest $236 million over four years in 2006 [ref]. However, the threat of future budget reductions still looms.
- Cost-plus pricing Government contracts typically use a cost-plus pricing model, where the contractor charges the government for the materials, personnel, and other direct costs, and then receives a percentage-based fee. This pricing structure can incentivize contractors to inflate costs to increase their profit margins, as higher costs lead to a higher fee.
- Reliance on light armor Some critics argue that the 20-ton replacement for the M1 Abrams tank, designed as a lighter vehicle, will be vulnerable to heavy armor during close-range combat. They express concern that transitioning away from heavier tank designs could create a significant gap in the Army's defense capabilities. In response, there may be a need to retrofit older M1 tanks to ensure the Army maintains sufficient heavy armor support.
The FCS program is so ambitious that some of the required technologies do not yet exist. The failure or revision of the JTRS system, for instance, demonstrates that certain elements of the project have outpaced current technological capabilities. Advanced ballistic armor, robotic control systems, automated sensors, and high-bandwidth networks all present challenges. It is possible that some systems within the FCS will never fully function as intended, and older technologies may need to be adapted and upgraded to integrate into the overall plan.
