Toward a Protected Future Force

Abstract

A significant challenge facing planners of America's future ground forces is the question of how to think about survivability. With a great deal of emphasis placed on strategic mobility--both in speed of deployment and in logistical efficiency--the manned ground vehicles of the US Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) will be considerably lighter than the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles currently fielded in Army units. This poses a problem: without the ability to wield the armor protection of the Abrams main battle tank, FCS vehicles (1) will have more inherent vulnerability to enemy direct-fire weapons than the vehicles that they will eventually replace. This problem is not just tactical and operational in nature; it has strategic implications, and if it is not addressed effectively, the ability of the Army to meet its required aims will be put at risk. The US Army plans to introduce its next-generation ground force quickly, starting with an experimental battalion by the end of the decade and a full brigade--called a Unit of Action--in 2014. (2) The Future Force, formerly called the Objective Force, is anticipated to be a highly mobile, light armored force with previously unheard-of intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, emphasizing maneuver and stand-off precision firepower to eliminate enemy forces from long range. The Army's plan does allow for a conventional armored counterattack corps based on existing tanks and fighting vehicles through at least 2030, but the centerpiece of the Army will be the FCS-equipped Units of Action. The FCS Family of Vehicles--Survivability without Protection? The survivability of the Future depends on two factors: the technological measures taken to protect the force and the methods of employment of the Units of Action. According to the Army's Concepts for the Objective Force white paper: The agility of our formations combined with the common operating picture is critical to maximize survivability. Ground and air platforms will leverage the best combination of low observable, reduced electronic signature, ballistic protection, long-range acquisition, early discrete targeting, shoot first every time, and target destruction every time we pull the trigger. Objective survivability will be linked to its inherently offensive orientation, as well as its speed and lethality. (3) The inherent protection of the 16- to 20-ton FCS manned ground vehicle will be relatively low, primarily the result of its light weight. Future Combat Systems vehicles will be equipped with a variety of technical countermeasures intended to enhance their survivability in the event of contact with the enemy, but the underlying basis for their ability to survive on the battlefield is their ability to locate the enemy in all terrain types and then kill of outmaneuver the enemy without being effectively engaged. The extent to which armor will play a role in FCS survivability was outlined in a presentation given at the 23d Army Science Conference in December 2002. (4) The presentation outlines the Army's vision of a holistic approach to survivability: it intends to employ methods of preventing American vehicles from being effectively engaged through a combination of technical defenses and creative employment of forces. For example, to avoid detection, the Army will maneuver its forces out of contact with the enemy, it will employ vehicles with reduced signatures, and it will attempt to blind the enemy through targeting its command and control and ISR assets. Similar methods will be employed at each of the other levels of engagement--once detected, methods will be used to prevent Army vehicles from being acquired, and then hit, and then penetrated, and then destroyed. This is typically given in a diagram with concentric circles, the outermost being Detected and the innermost being Killed. …