At a recent quarterly meeting of Army doctrine, acquisition and research officials in Detroit, \u201cwe all said, OK, we all have to agree that we can no longer get out of our existing combat vehicles what we\u2019re going to need in the foreseeable future,\u201d Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster<\/a> told an Association of the US Army conference<\/a> Tuesday. \u201cSo what we need to do is continue to improve what we have, certainly, but we need to really put a lot of energy into and look for opportunities to start a Next Generation Combat Vehicle as soon as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n Why start ASAP on a 2035 deadline? Given the technologies the Army wants to incorporate \u2014 from robotics to advanced armor materials \u2014 and the slow pace of defense procurement, it actually isn\u2019t a lot of time.<\/p>\n \u201cTo be fielding in \u201935, (we) have to have some decisions in \u201925-\u201926, which means we\u2019re late to need right now,\u201d\u00a0Maj. Gen. Eric Wesley<\/a>, commander of the Fort Benning Maneuver Center Of Excellence<\/a>, said at the conference.<\/p>\n \u201cThe majority of the hard work\u2026is going to have to be done before 2025, because it\u2019s going to take ten years for industry to actually build and field what we want,\u201d said Col. William Nuckols, who works for Wesley as director of mounted (i.e. vehicle) requirements. The plan calls for \u201cfour solid years of analysis\u201d from 2017 through 2020, he said, in parallel with \u201cvery focused\u201d research on the required science and technology.<\/p>\n \u201cHave we properly focused the S&T community up to this point?\u201d Nuckols said. \u201cMy opinion is, clearly not.\u201d<\/p>\n Why not? Frankly, armored vehicle development had become demoralized and directionless after two decades of failures<\/a>. The Crusader program tried to replace the Vietnam-vintage M109 howitzer<\/a>; it got canceled in 2002 for being too heavy. The ambitious Future Combat System<\/a> tried to pack the combat power of a 70-ton tank in a 20-30 ton platform; it got canceled in 2009 for being too light. The Ground Combat Vehicle<\/a> overcorrected in the opposite direction and proposed replacing the 30-40 ton M2 Bradley troop carrier with a 64-84 ton fortress on tracks<\/a>; it got canceled \u2014 for being too heavy \u2014 in January 2014. Ironically, just a month later, the Russians invaded Crimea<\/a> and the specter of armored blitzkrieg menaced Europe once again.<\/p>\n When GCV died, the Army started a new effort called Future Fighting Vehicle, but it was basically a placeholder. I rarely heard even a passing mention of it in all my interactions with the Army, its contractors, and the experts who study it. On paper, FFV was vaguely defined long-term R&D effort \u201ceventually replacing the Bradley,\u201d according to the 2015 Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy<\/a>, which also warned the program might not be affordable.<\/p>\n The new concept is less constrained. \u201cWe wanted to stretch people\u2019s minds beyond just an Infantry Fighting Vehicle\u2026that would follow the Bradley,\u201d said Wesley. (IFV is the military term of art for a well-armed and armored troop transport that can not only carry infantry but fight the enemy on its own, like the US Bradley, the German Puma<\/a>, or the Russian BMP).<\/p>\n \u201cThe Next Generation Combat Vehicle might be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but it might be a single combat vehicle that replaces the Abrams, the Bradley, potentially the MPF<\/a> (light tank) and even the Stryker<\/a> (wheeled armored vehicle),\u201d said Nuckols. \u201cIt could be a family of vehicles very similar to the original FCS program.\u201d<\/p>\n FCS, along with Crusader and Comanche, is a name of ill omen in the Army, and McMaster insisted the service would avoid its past mistakes. For one thing, FCS\u00a0bet on technological breakthroughs that failed to materialize on a tight schedule. The Next Generation Combat Vehicle plan is to mature technologies by 2025, 10 years before fielding.<\/p>\n Several promising technologies will be ready well before then,\u00a0Bryan Cheeseman<\/a>, materiel manufacturing and technology chief at the Army Research Laboratory, believes. New composite armor materials now in development should reach Technological Readiness Level 6 \u2014 i.e., having a prototype tested in a realistic environment \u2014 \u00a0\u201cin the next 18 months or so,\u201d he told the AUSA conference. High-efficiency transmissions and a drone-killing<\/a> 50 mm cannon should also be ready in 2019, he said.<\/p>\n Some new technologies can and will be retrofitted onto Abrams and Bradleys. Some can\u2019t. Protection is a great example, especially since anti-tank missiles<\/a> are becoming more powerful, more sophisticated, and more widely available<\/a> around the world:<\/p>\n Likewise, new weapons and engines can be retrofitted onto existing vehicles, but you only get the full benefit of such new systems if you design a new vehicle around them. New forms of gunpowder and explosives \u2014 known as energetics \u2014 allow heavy firepower from much lighter guns. Automatic ammunition loaders can replace human crew. New engines<\/a> can provide more power with less weight.<\/p>\n Combined with new armor materials, active protection, and blast-resistant design, these innovations create the potential for a vehicle at least as tough and deadly as the M1, but significantly smaller, lighter, and less fuel-hungry. While the 20-ton goal of the original Future Combat System is probably unobtainable, such a future vehicle could be harder to hit, more mobile, and easier to keep supplied than current armor.<\/p>\n At some point, as technologies evolve, the benefit of moving to an all-new design will outweigh the costs. That\u2019s assuming the Army has the money<\/a>: In current budgets, Wesley admitted, \u201cthere isn\u2019t any to speak of.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we do stop improving our current capital assets and put all of our effort into fielding the Next Generation Combat Vehicle?\u201d asked Nuckols. \u201cWe simply don\u2019t know what that\u2019s going to occur, yet.\u201d<\/p>\n But, for the first time in two years<\/a>, at least the Army knows where it wants to go.<\/p>\n![\"US](\"http:\/\/breakingdefense.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/11\/WESLEY-MG-ERIC-ARMY-Benning-MCOE-240x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"The](\"http:\/\/breakingdefense.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2011\/07\/fcs1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
![\"http:\/\/www.raytheon.com\/capabilities\/products\/aps\/\"](\"http:\/\/breakingdefense.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/03\/rms15_aps_hero_image-e1457548890118-300x201.jpg\")
<\/p>\n