Review of Army combat program challenges need for lighter vehicles

An independent analysis of the Army's Future Combat Systems concludes that the service will have no need to transport its future fleet of combat vehicles on a C-130 Hercules cargo plane, debunking a requirement set years ago by officials intent on creating a lighter, more easily deployable ground force.

In a recent congressionally ordered review of the $160 billion program, the Alexandria-based Institute for Defense Analyses found no operational scenario in which the service would need to airlift the vehicles on a C-130, which can hold just over 20 tons of cargo.

A Pentagon summary of the study, obtained by CongressDaily, was sent to Capitol Hill earlier this month, along with an independent cost estimate that put the total price tag to develop, build and operate the massive modernization program at $300 billion -- $175 billion more than initial projections.

The reviews delivered a double blow to FCS, a complex system of manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles linked by a high-tech network.

Lawmakers and Government Accountability Office officials have become increasingly wary of the program's management and its increased costs. The Army, too, is trying to restructure the program and remove any non-essential costs.

For the last several years, Army and industry officials have struggled to engineer a future vehicle, complete with new protection systems, that fits the stringent weight, height and width parameters for transport in the belly of a C-130. So far, the service has fallen far short of that requirement, with weight estimates for future vehicles projected at 24 tons to 28 tons.

Using armor and other technologies now available, the Army would have to sacrifice "too much lethality and survivability" to design a 20-ton FCS vehicle, a House Armed Services Committee aide said in a recent interview.

The study could help the Army ease its requirements a bit -- a move that could speed vehicle development and, ultimately, bring down program costs. The projected price tag for the so-called Manned Ground Vehicles, of which the Army intends to buy nearly 5,000, is $10 million each.

"If you're not constrained, if you take off an engineering constraint, you may be able to reduce some costs," a former senior Army official said.

The Institute for Defense Analyses also found that the military has an adequate number of C-17 Globemaster III and C-5 Galaxy, far larger cargo planes, to transport FCS. The Army will still depend heavily on ground and sea transport for FCS, easing demands for airlift.

"No additional investments above and beyond what is planned and programmed would be required for the air transport of MGV variants," according to the summary of the study.

Some top Army officials have long questioned industry's ability to design a 20-ton combat vehicle that meets all FCS requirements, stating that 24-ton variants are far more achievable.

But advocates of the requirement have argued that keeping the vehicles to 20 tons forces the service to design a platform for urban warfare -- one that can maneuver through narrow city streets and across bridges.

The Army has not altered plans for the size of the FCS ground vehicles.

"We will respond to Army requirements," said a spokesman for General Dynamics Corp., which is developing manned ground vehicles with BAE Systems. "Right now, the Army is providing requirements and we're moving ahead."

By comparison, the Abrams tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle, lynchpins of the Army's legacy armored force, top the scales at 68 tons and 33 tons.

The comparatively new Stryker vehicle, considered the precursor to FCS, weighs in at 38,000 pounds. But even at that weight, the Army can only transport Stryker on a C-130 under ideal circumstances. Hot weather, for example, can strain the aircraft, already burdened with the heavy load.

Additionally, the Army had to secure waivers from the Air Force in 2002 to fly the combat vehicles aboard a C-130 because the Stryker's height and weight dimensions did not meet requirements.

Still, the service can fly only a pared-down Stryker on a C-130. Heavy add-on armor packages, attached to the Stryker vehicles used in Iraq and Afghanistan, cannot accompany the vehicle in flight.