| FCS Manned Ground Vehicles | |
|---|---|
 All variants of the Manned Ground Vehicles program, and the MGV common chassis | |
| Type | Trackedarmored fighting vehicles |
| Place of origin | United States |
| Production history | |
| Designer | BAE Systems andGeneral Dynamics |
| Designed | 2002–2009 |
| Variants | Reconnaissance and surveillance vehicle, mounted combat system, non-line-of-sight cannon, non-line-of-sight mortar, field recovery and maintenance vehicle, infantry carrier vehicle, medical vehicle, command and control vehicle |
| Specifications | |
| Crew | Varies from 2–4 depending on vehicle |
Secondary armament | Most vehicles armed with a machine gun |
| Engine | Detroit Diesel 5L890 |
TheManned Ground Vehicles (MGV) was a family of lighter and more transportable ground vehicles developed byBoeing and subcontractorsBAE Systems andGeneral Dynamics as part of theU.S. Army'sFuture Combat Systems (FCS) program. The MGV program was intended as a successor to theStryker of theInterim Armored Vehicle program.
The MGV program was set in motion in 1999 by Army Chief of StaffEric Shinseki.
The MGVs were based on a commontracked vehicle chassis.[1] The lead vehicle, and the only one to be produced as a prototype, was theXM1203 non-line-of-sight cannon. Seven other vehicle variants were to follow.
The MGV vehicles were conceived to be exceptionally lightweight (initially capped at 18 tons base weight) to meet the Army's intra-theatre air mobility requirements. The vehicles that the Army sought to replace with the MGVs ranged from 30 to 70 tons. In order to reduce weight, the Army substituted armor with passive andactive protection systems.
The FCS program was terminated in 2009 due to concerns about the program's affordability and technology readiness. The MGV program was succeeded by theGround Combat Vehicle program, which was canceled in 2014.
Initial Technology Demonstrator Vehicle by United Defense yielded both tracked and wheeled prototypes.[2] Only the tracked variant was pursued further.
FCS-Wheeled (FCS-W) was an early concept designed to demonstrate a hybrid-electric drive system and two-man cockpit workstations. A Technology Demonstrator Vehicle was built byUnited Defense and was unveiled in 2002.
FCS-W was designed to deliver a top road speed of 75 mph and a top cross-country speed of 40 mph. The vehicle's armor utilized armor similar to the tracked variant but was lighter. The vehicle would have also had some type ofactive protection system. The arrangement of the turbine and drive motor provided for a two-man, side-by-side cockpit and a sizable payload compartment.
In May 2000,DARPA awarded four contracts to four industry teams to develop Future Combat Systems designs and in March 2002, the Army choseBoeing andScience Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to serve as the "lead systems integrators" to oversee the development and eventual production of the FCS’ 18 systems.[3] In October 2002 United Defense (UD) and Boeing/SAIC signed a memorandum of understanding to bring the Objective Force non-line-of-sight cannon under the FCS umbrella.[4]
In January 2003, Boeing and SAIC reached an agreement withGeneral Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and United Defense LP (UDLP) to develop the MGVs. UDLP was responsible for leading development of five of the vehicles (including the NLOS-C) while GDLS took responsibility for leading development of the other three.[5]
In May 2003 the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) approved the FCS’ next acquisition phase, and in August 2004 Boeing and SAIC awarded contracts to 21 companies to design and build its various platforms and hardware and software.[3]
In December 2003, GDLS received a $2 billion MGV design contract from Boeing. Per the contract, GDLS would produce 8 Mounted Combat Systems, 6 command and control vehicles, and 4 reconnaissance and surveillance vehicle prototypes.[6]
In March 2005, the Army's acquisition chiefClaude Bolton told the House Armed Services subcommittee that getting the MGV's weight to under 19-tons was proving difficult.[7] In 2005 the Army relented on the vehicle's requirement for roll-offC-130 transportability. Relaxing the C-130 requirement to allow vehicles to be transported in a stripped-down configuration allowed the weight cap to be increased from 18 tons per vehicle to 24 tons.[8]
In August 2005, GDLS selectedDetroit Diesel's 5L890 to power the eight variants.[9]
The Department of Defense announced budget cuts in April 2009,[10] which resulted in the cancellation of the FCS Manned Ground Vehicles family.[11][12] The Army issued a stop-work order for MGV and NLOS-C efforts in June. In July the army terminated the MGV, but not the NLOS-C. In the news release the Army said cancelation would "negatively impact" NLOS-C development but said it was seeking a "viable path forward" for the NLOS-C.[13]
The DoD determined that the proposed FCS vehicle designs would not provide sufficient protection againstIEDs.[14]
The Army planned to restart from the beginning on manned ground vehicles.[15] The program's heavier successor, theGround Combat Vehicle, was cancelled in 2014.
In order to reduce weight, the Army substituted armor with passive andactive protection systems. This was hoped to provide a level of protection similar to the legacy armored vehicles being replaced.[16]
Most vehicles were protected with hard-killactive protection systems capable of defeating most threats.[17] The armor was a unique secret matrix that may be utilized by industry in theGround Combat Vehicle program.
The common MGV chassis was required to provide full protection from 30 mm and 45 mm cannon fire in a 60-degree arc opening towards the front of the vehicle. 360-degree protection from small arms fire up to 14.5 mm heavy machine gun and 155 mm artillery shell air-bursts was planned. Protection from higher caliber rounds as well as anti-tank guided missiles would be provided by an active protection system manufactured by Raytheon known as "Quick Kill".
Use of a common chassis was to reduce the need for specialized training of personnel and allow for faster fielding of repairs. The MGV platform utilized a hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system. The MGV also employed numerous weight-saving features, including composite armor, composite and titanium structural elements, and continuous band tracks.
The 30 mmMk44 Bushmaster II chain gun on the reconnaissance and surveillance vehicle and infantry carrier vehicle provided greater firepower, yet weighed 25% less than theM242 Bushmaster it would replace.[16]
Weight at full combat capability (FCC) was raised to 24 tons in June 2006, then to 27.4 tons in January. According to a former program official, MGV chassis weights entered a "death spiral," as any weight growth to the subsystems cascaded to the whole system (e.g. heavier armor required a stronger suspension to carry it). FCC weight was eventually raised to 30 tons.[18]
TRADOC was slow to update its expectations for the MGV. TRADOC recommended removing C-130 transportability requirements in 2007 and raising the weight limit to 27.4 tons in requirements drafted in 2007. However, TRADOC's essential combat configuration MGV weight remained capped at 38,000 pounds (19 tons) until the program's cancelation.[18]
MGVs in essential combat configuration were required to have all-around protection from 14.5 mm caliber ammunition, and30 mm from the front. This requirement was changed later that year to 14.5 mm protection withadd-on armor.[18]
In 2008, the Army added a requirement for an add-onV-hull kit.[18]
| Name | Developer[19] | Vehicle replaced[20] | Number per brigade[20] |
|---|---|---|---|
| XM1201 reconnaissance and surveillance vehicle (RSV) | General Dynamics (GD) | M3 Bradley | 30 |
| XM1202 mounted combat system (MCS) | GD | M1 Abrams | 60 |
| XM1203 non-line-of-sight cannon (NLOS-C) | BAE Systems (BAE) | M109 howitzer | 18 |
| XM1204 non-line-of-sight mortar (NLOS-M) | BAE | M1064 mortar carrier | 24 |
| XM1205 field recovery and maintenance vehicle (FRMV) | BAE | M88 Recovery Vehicle | 10 |
| XM1206 infantry carrier vehicle (ICV) | BAE | M2 Bradley andM113 | 102 |
| XM1207 andXM1208 medical vehicle (MV) | BAE | N/A | 29 |
| XM1209 command and control vehicle (C2V) | GD | M113 command variant | 49 |
The XM1201 reconnaissance and surveillance vehicle (RSV) featured a suite of advancedsensors to detect, locate, track, classify and automatically identify targets under allclimatic conditions, day or night.
The suite included a mast-mounted, long-rangeoptoelectronicinfrared sensor, an emitter mapping sensor forradio frequency interception anddirection finding,chemical sensor and a multifunction radio frequency sensor.
The RSV also features the onboard capability to conductautomatic target detection, aided target recognition and level-onesensor fusion. To further enhance the scout capabilities, the RSV was also to be equipped withUnattended Ground Sensors, aSmall Unmanned Ground Vehicle with various payloads and twounmanned aerial vehicles. It was to be armed with a 30 mmMK44 autocannon and a coaxial 7.62 mmM240 machine gun.
The XM1202 mounted combat system (MCS) was planned as a successor to theM1 Abramsmain battle tank.[16]
The MCS was to provide both direct and beyond-line-of-sight ('indirect') firepower capability and allowed for in-depth destruction of point targets up to 8 km (5.0 mi) away.[16]
As of 2009 the MCS was to have had a crew of two and to be armed with anautoloaded 120 mm main gun, a12.7 mm (.50) caliber machine gun, and a 40 mmautomatic grenade launcher.[21]
The MCS was intended to deliver precision fire at a rapid rate, in order to destroy multiple targets at standoff ranges quickly, and would complement the other systems in the unit of action. It would be capable of providing direct support to the dismountedinfantry in an assault, defeatingbunkers, and breaching walls during tactical assaults. It was also intended to be highly mobile, in order to maneuver out of contact and into positions of advantage; given the vehicle's light weight, this was especially important.
In May 2003, Army officials revealed a computer model of the MCS, allowing reporters to view the inside of the vehicle through aCave automatic virtual environment. This concept used a crew of three.[22]
ThePicatinny ArsenalXM360 tank gun had been selected by September 2006.[23] The gun underwent test firing atAberdeen Proving Ground beginning in March 2008.[24] General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products was awarded a $14 million contract in 2007 to develop the ammunition handling system.[25] In January 2008,Raytheon was awarded a $232 million contract to develop theXM1111 Mid-Range Munition. The munition had been test-fired from an M1 Abrams as early as March 2007.[26] The Army tested a 27-round magazine ammunition handling system atAberdeen Proving Ground by July 2008.[27]
This was considered the most complex of the three vehicles GDLS was contracted to build.[28]
.jpg)
TheXM1203 non-line-of-sight cannon (NLOS-C) was a155 mmself-propelled howitzer to succeed theM109 howitzer. This was the lead vehicle effort, and most far along when the program was terminated in 2009. The NLOS-C used technology from the canceledXM2001 Crusader project.
The NLOS-C incorporated the autoloader from the Crusader project.[29] The NLOS-C featured an improved fire rate over the M109. It was capable ofmultiple rounds simultaneous impact (MRSI), where the cannon fires a sequence of several rounds at different trajectories such that the rounds all hit the same target at the same time. The system had the ability to switch shell types quickly on a one-by-one basis.
Improvements in the refueling arrangements and automation of ammunition reloading reduced the amount of time spent on resupply and during which the gun would be unavailable for combat support. This also allowed the system to use a crew of two instead of five.
The NLOS-C had a high commonality with the NLOS-Mortar vehicle.[30]
The first NLOS-C prototype was rolled out in May 2008. Eight prototypes were delivered to the U.S. Army'sYuma Proving Ground in Arizona by 2009.[31]
Although Defense SecretaryRobert Gates ended the MGV program in April 2009, Congress had directed that the Army continue working on the NLOS-C as a separate initiative. The Pentagon directed the Army to cancel the NLOS-C in December.[32]
The XM1204 non-line-of-sight mortar (NLOS-M) was a turretedmortar carrier with a crew of four.[16]
The NLOS-M had a breech-loading, gun-mortar that fired 120 mm munitions including thePrecision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM). It had a fully automated firing control system and a manually assisted, semi-automated ammunition loading system.
The NLOS-M would carry an 81 mm mortar for dismounted operations away from the carrier.[16]
The NLOS-M provides fires on-demand to engage complex and simultaneous target sets. As part of an NLOS-M battery, individual NLOS-M vehicles would have provided precision-guided rounds to destroy high-value targets, protective fires to suppress and obscure the enemy, and illumination fires.
The FCS command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) network would have enabled the NLOS-M fire control system to conduct semi- to autonomous computation of technical fire direction, automatic gun lay, preparation of the ammunition for firing, and mortar round firing.
In January 2003 United Defense, now part ofBAE Systems, was selected by the Army and the FCS lead systems integrators (Boeing andSAIC) to develop and build the NLOS-M.
The NLOS mortar had high commonality with theNLOS cannon.[30]
The XM1205 field recovery and maintenance vehicle (FRMV) was thearmoured recovery vehicle and maintenance system for employment within both the unit of action (UA) and unit of employment (UE).
The recovery vehicle was designed to hold a crew of three with additional space for three additional recovered crew.[16]
Each UA would have a small number of 2–3 soldier combat repair teams within the organicForward Support Battalion to perform field maintenance requirements beyond the capabilities of the crew chief/crew, more in-depth battle damage assessment repair, and limited recovery operations.
The FRMV was armed with aclose combat support weapon (CCSW) and a 40 mmMk 19 grenade launcher.
The FMRV was deferred in 2003, then restored in July 2004.[33]
The XM1206 infantry carrier vehicle (ICV) was a set of similarinfantry fighting vehicles for transporting and supporting ground troops. The ICV featured a crew of 2 and space for 9 passengers.
It was armed with a 30 mm or 40 mm cannon[16] and a 7.62 mm machine gun.
The ICV family consists of four versions fitted for the specific roles of: acompany commander; aplatoon leader; rifle squad; and a weapons squad. All were visually similar to prevent targeting of a specific ICV versions.[16]
A platoon would consist of a platoon leader vehicle, three rifle squad vehicles and a weapon squad vehicle.[34]
The rifle squad ICV[16] and weapons squad ICV each carry a 9-person infantry squad into close battle and support the squad by providing offensive and defensive fire, while carrying the majority of the soldiers' equipment. The ICV can move, shoot, communicate, detect threats, and protect crew and critical components under all weather conditions, day or night.
The squad would have access to Army and joint fire delivery systems from external sources (e.g. the NLOS-Cannon) to enhance the squad's range, precision, or quantity of fire.FCS Networking with other components of the unit of action permits rapid identification of targets and improvessituational awareness.
The XM1207 and XM1208 medical vehicle was anarmoured ambulance designed to provide advancedtraumalife support within one hour to critically injuredsoldiers. The medical vehicle serves as the primary medical system within the unit of action (UA) with two mission modules: "evacuation" and "treatment".[16]
The XM1207 medical vehicle – evacuation (MV-E) vehicle allows trauma specialists, maneuvering with combat forces, to be closer to the casualty's point-of-injury and was to be used for casualty evacuation.[16]
The XM1208 medical vehicle – treatment (MV-T) vehicle enhances the ability to provide advanced trauma management (ATM)/advanced trauma life support (ATLS) treatments and procedures forward for more rapid casualty interventions and clearance of the battlespace.[16]
Both would have crews of four and the capability to carry four patients. Both medical vehicle mission modules were intended to be capable of conducting medical procedures and treatments using installed networkedtelemedicine interfaces:[16] Medical Communications for Combat Casualty Care, and the Theater Medical Information Program (TMIP).
The XM1209 command and control vehicle (C2V) was to provide for information management of the integrated network of communications and sensor capability within the unit of action and provide the tools for commanders to synchronize their knowledge with leadership.
The C2V was to have had a crew of two and carry four staff officers.[16]
It was to be located within the headquarters sections at each echelon of the unit of action down to the company level, and with its integrated command, control, and communications equipment suite, was to make command and control on the move possible.
The C2Vs were to contain all the interfaces required to enable the commander to use theC4ISR network. In addition, the C2Vs were meant to make possible the establishment, maintenance and distribution of acommon operating picture fused from the friendly, enemy, civilian,weather and terrain situations, while on the move. The crew was to use its integrated C4ISR suite (communication,computers and sensor systems) to receive, analyze and transmittactical information via voice, video and data inside and outside the unit of action.
The C2V was also planned to employ unmanned systems, such asunmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).[16]
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain. This article incorporatespublic domain material from websites or documents of theUnited States Army.
