FCS weight increase requires C-17

[ORAC]

So, will this read across to the ongoing FRES review and, if so, what are the implications for the RAF C-17/A-400M/C-130J mix? (A-400M range with 30-tonne payload: 2,400 nm)

Iraq War Drove Weight of U.S. Army’s FCS Vehicles (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2672608&C=america)

The Iraq war helped persuade U.S. Army planners to increase the weight of the Future Combat Systems Man-Ground Vehicle (MGV) from 18 tons to the current planned weight of 27 tons, FCS planners said.....

He and other planners had originally conceived 18-ton vehicles that could be flown aboard a C-130 airlifter, but “the physics were not there to meet our objectives,” Bush said.....

The 27-ton vehicles will be deployed aboard C-17 Globemaster IIIs, three to a plane. If need be, the cannon or mortar can be disassembled from a vehicle and the components flown to a location aboard two C-130s, Bush said.

A C-130 can land more places than a C-17, which needs a hardened landing strip, he noted, but a C-130 could only fly the vehicles about 500 nautical miles — and the vehicles would come off the C-17s ready to go.

[Ian Corrigible]

The baseline 20t FCS MGV weight goal was already being 'reviewed' in favor of a 24t vehicle by the fall of 2003, well before the scourge of IEDs had made itself felt in Iraq, so for the authors to blame FCS weight growth on the war is disingenuous at best. What the lessons of Iraq have done is to further stretch the vehicle's weight towards 27-28t.

The UK is in a little better shape with FRES - should it survive development - since FCS was initially constrained by a C-130J transportability requirement (later dropped). The pacing issue is whether you want to be able to drive a battle-ready AFV off of the A400M and into action, or whether you are willing to spend a couple of hours bolting on armor and mission equipment.

I/C

[ORAC]

My real interest was in the number of aircraft we might require. If you look here (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/02/britains-fres-program-has-a-full-february/index.php) the same weight growth is expressed for FRS:

"Concern was also expressed with respect to weight gains:

"Increasing the armour of the proposed FRES vehicle has increased the weight specification from 17 tonnes to between 20-27 tonnes.68 The increased weight specification in turn resulted in the MoD dropping its requirement that the Utility vehicle be transportable by a C-130J Hercules transport aircraft and instead specifying that it be transportable by the proposed C-130J replacement, the A400M.69 CDP told us that:

There is no nation in the world today that has a plan for being able to produce a vehicle that light which has the degree to be able to be transported in a C-130J and to be able to have the protective mobility when it is deployed and goes on operations.70"

In which case, is our projected procurement adequate for the expected task, or should we consider trading in/selling out C-130Js and expanding out A-400M/ and, especially, our C-17 buy before the line closes.

(We might get a good deal on the C-130J as, since the US army is in te same position, the C-130J hopes of more orders might die as they can't meet the required need.)

With a max A-400M payload of 37 tons, is there growth to carry 2 FRES/Stryker at 38-39 tons?

[Blakey875]

On the same thread I discovered in real life that when these armoured vehicles are evaluated for carriage by air they always just use the basic vehicle weights as a planning guide. In reality I have had a nightmare trying to dispatch a Herc loaded with a CVRT as the weight of it's ammunuition was not included. Even worse trying to lift the same types in Kosovo underslung under a Chinook as the basic vehicle was also carrying ammo, extra fuel, rations and gear for a 3 man crew for a weeks deployment. sadly the planners never take heed of this....

[GreenKnight121]

In other words, you believe the FCS will total ~30 tons fully equipped (Mission-ready)... and the FRES similarly equipped will be ~20 tons each?

[ORAC]

AJACS Load: US Begins (Another) Next-Gen Tactical Transport Project (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/ajacs-load-us-begins-another-nextgen-tactical-transport-project/index.php#more)

From "C-130J Acquisition Program Restructured" (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/11/c130j-acquisition-program-restructured/index.php):

"[The C-130J Hercules] has since been deployed into theater by the USAF, where its vastly improved performance in "hot and high" environments has come in very handy. Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, however, the C-130J doesn't solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs from the Stryker IAV to Future Combat Systems. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift's key bottleneck limitation."

A pair of recent contracts for something called the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) may - or may not - represent a first step toward addressing that issue. It may also represent a US aerospace effort to avoid a looming future in which the Airbus A400M would be the only available tactical transport for survivable armored personnel carriers.

With the light transport JCA made up of entirely foreign designs, the 20-ton transport market beginning to crowd, and the heavy-lift C-17 production line headed toward shutdown, the US aerospace industry risks a slip from a 1980-1990s position of market dominance in the military transport space into near-irrelevance by 2015........