Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Hello all,

I am making an ORBAT for the US Army, dates 1990 - 2020. Is there anyone who would like to help design some FCS icons? I prefer globalsecurity.org as a source, they have some pictures of what looks like small models of concept vehicles.

Kevin

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Hello Kevin,

I have nothing against new icons (except for the time it take doing), but are you sure something is doable from these pre-concept mockups? Apparently no one agrees yet if the thing will be tracked or wheeled. Oh, sorry, just checked, seems that the latest preview will be the ugly brown tracked box with Ratel-like driver post.
For good pics see:

http://www.jedsite.info/misc/foxtrot...cs-series.html

Hey, I guess the concept will go refining over the time, so I may give that a try when I am free from other icon-related obligations http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
That means, if you don't mind waiting, then, maybe...
Come on, I guess you can find someone else in between, or am I the only one still interested in icon design in here?

Besides not knowing what the final beast will look like, the FCS will pose another (big) problem, i.e. the networked communication and above all targetting, and the ground unmanned and above all remote-controlled units.
All things currently undoable with this game...

But stay tuned, apparently better info is bound to bubble up anytime now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Cheers,

Plasma

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Plasma,

Oh ye of little faith. One can simulate all the C2I mods somewhat easily.

1st --> Since the player has a "God's eye" view of the battle field, IVIS systems are not a problem

2nd --> Since the game does not simulate active radar detection, vision can be boosted to simulate UAV's, sensors, etc.

3rd --> We know from open sources FCS will be: 20 tons, less armored (than MBT), engage and kill targets at 6K meters, etc. There is a wealth of info if one digs.

The only things I'm missing are the desiginations.

Kevin

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

P.S. Thanks for the website info and the other icon mods.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

OK, let's discuss that
If you mean that the commander ("Lt Col Player") has an instant view of the whole batle field and collects the inf from every sensor at once, right.
Actualy, that is much easier to do in a video game than on the field. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
Boost vision of units to simulate other attached units? Sounds weird but might do the trick for now. Just not quite as good as what you could expect http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif. What about ground-launched one-shot UAVs/FOGMs? Maybe time for a new weapon class? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif
Alright, the global concept is not a problem, though it can still change until fielding time!
Besides, take a look in MOBhack, check ALL 20 tons, medium armour, KE gun vehicles, and dig out their icons.

See what I mean with unfinished design? I don't rely enough on my mediumnic skills to extrapolate an icons from such general info. That is why I would have personnally waited until release of the first prototype.
From this point it is easier to deduce the final result (i.e. more intricate, ugly and EXPENSIVE http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../firedevil.gif ).

And, can you put the FO logic far enough as to count as laser designators, unit-to-unit data link and so on? So one unit can do the FC and the othr one the firing? Remember Apache/Kiowa teams?

Well, do as thou willst, I personnally will wait and see [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon10.gif[/img]

Thank you, Kevin, for putting my feet back onto the right path...

Regards,

Plasma

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Hehe, Didn't we have this conversation recently Krab?

Something about FRES.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

C'mon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

But when you insist, that's just the same for your FRES! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../firedevil.gif

You bring yourself to no good end by modelling things from pre-project mockups and private venture advertising!

Particularly now all the governments have discovered about 3D design, you can publicize a project in no time, to get everyone in awe, before even thinking about the way of bolting the two first plates together! Fancy worn-off textures don't do for a CAD layout of the fuel circuitry, for one.

And take a look at the JED database, for example, and look at all the things that never, ever went into production, and never will.
http://www.jedsite.info/content/jed1.html

They're easy to spot, they're the ones with one single black&white pic and no user listing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
And such things are already clogging the oobs in the game: export versions, funny variants never to be funded, things that reached pre-prod stage and were found useless or not working...

We're not talkng WW2 when everyone fielded any old project, hoping at least to surprise the enemy!

Now that won't prevent me from having a look at these things for modelling purposes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
All I meant is that it is still too soon for the FCS.
But the FRES begins to pop up... Let's work on a hull, since no one knows what will be put on it, or for what purpose... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Cheers all,

Plasma

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

We do know, kinda whats going on it. It's basicly destined to replace the FV432's.

So that's a comand post, ambulance, Troop carrier and AT versions, plus a Recce version.

The ACAVP has a fox turret on it, so we can guess all thsoe spare fox turrets from the Sabre program will be lying around. The AT version will probaly either mount TOW, Swingfire or Javelin, I'd go with Javelin as it's an new program that's currently being brought, and it would help lower the logistics load on it's intended area of opperations.
The APC is faily easy.

The Other Version the Big gun tank destroyer.. Meh. I still don't think the hull will take something that huge.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Mmh, already ambulance and CP are out of sight for this game :pheew:
Do you really think they will put the Fox turret on an ACAVP chassis? The thingis nearly 40 years old!http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif
I gather the British MoD planners these days tend to be tight and have strange ideas, from what you told, but that pushing it quite far!

From the pics I saw the turret looked really Warrior-like to me. Then again, you may be in a better position to judge these things http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

What about the dnmaed TRACER thing? Are both program going to merge? They seem to be in nearly the same niche, and that's a bad thing for fundings!
Only one can survive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../firedevil.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Look at this turreted version: the Warrior is still worth its weight, the MRAV is coming soon, so there is no need for a third IFV. Therefore the thing must be for recon. So basis metal from Fox turret with delirious optoelectrical sensors plugged in?
Well, What about the MGS on a Piranha III hull? Seems to be working, except some rumors say better not fire 3 or 9 o'clock http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif got to check that, there's been so much lobbying on that thing...

Hey, what about an ATGM version with TRIGAT-LR? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif
I heard the program was up and about at last!

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

The ACAVP Does have a fox turret on it. It would make sense form financial point of view, which is what drives MOD policy these days, like the discussion on putting the Rheinmartel gun on the chally so it's cheaper.

Tracer is dead. However the US and UK are using some of the tech from TRACER in FRES and FCS.

Warrior is to heavy to ship by air, as is FMRAV. FMRAV is designed for use just outside of enemy direct fire ranges. FRES is designed to be air portable, for Airmobile forces to use, for all roles such as APC and Tank destroyer.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Will these pics help?

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

The MGS has finally arrived. According to press releases it goes from the good to the laughable.
The good:
The MGS will carry four types of ammunition: a depleted-uranium armor-piercing round, a high-explosive anti-tank round, a high-explosive plastic round for blowing through walls and barricades, and a canister round filled with 2,300 tungsten ball bearings for firing on enemy fighters.

The funny(this is an 18 round 105mm we're talking about):
The MGS packs "exactly the same, if not a little more enhanced" firepower as the much heavier 70-ton Abrams tank, but is not as sturdy defensively, Cooper said.

The first quote is good, the second one is hard to explain.
Take care
Will

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Here we go. This unbelievable spread of mis-information is the disease of our age. Who the hell is this "Cooper"? Packs maybe even more punch than a Abrams.. WHAT? I hate the press. They act like they know everything about everything, just because they´re the ones who spread info or act like a medium of information to the poor Jacks and Jills of modern western society.

In what way 18x105 is more than 44x120.. I don´t care if those guys are going to fight on toyotas or Devastators form the game Dune2. I care when this kind of ridiculous info meets the public, who can´t weigh the facts as they have little experience of such complex weapon systems, and are actually told lies (again).

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Here's another good one:
M1A2 SEP Hits a Moving T72 from 8km
In the first beyond line of sight mission test held at the U.S. Army's Yuma, Ariz., Proving Grounds on Sept. 25, 2006, the laser guided MRM-CE projectile fired from an Abrams M1A2 SEP (system enhancement program) tank scored an extended-range, guided direct hit at a moving T-72 tank at a range of 5.4 miles (8.7 km). The test demonstrated the laser-guided seeker's ability to successfully target, acquire and track a moving tank and guide the munition to intercept at the required range.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

So basicly an gun-fired ATGM did hit a target at 8 kliks. What a surprise..!! Not even a KEM munition, if MRM-CE means Medium Range Missile-Chemical Energy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Oh.. the tables have really turned now, revolutionazing ground warfare.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

8 kilometres is medium range???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Well.. I´m thiking of medium range. Since everything is improving all the time.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

I have no idea what this weapon / missile is. So I just tried my best making it sound just more than a M1A2SEP MRM-CE munition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

It's hard to get a good description of this round. It's been described as a JDAM for tanks by one guy, and as something completely new by another. It's called a chemical energy kinetic round, which seems to be a contradiction. It has small rocket motors, a GPS, and some other targeting sensors. BUT you are right, it is described as medium range.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Maybe some kind of EFP round? You could describe an EFP chemical energy formed kinetic round.. Then we´d be talking yet again of age-old tech, but who knows..

Funny, if you could use the speed exploding HEAT gases to propel some kind of kinetic round. If it could take the shock it would be fast. But then again, if it would be so fast that it would brake-up on impact, as some current APFSDS-rounds at hyper velocity..

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Question..
Who came out on top of that engament in the finacial exchange? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Plasma I am still doing icons here and there, so you're not alone. lol... Just thought I would let you know....lol

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

MRM-KE is designed for 105mm and 120mm cartridges and comprises an interchangeable sensor component using multi-mode Semi-Active Laser (SAL), GPS and MMW guidance, a common rocket motor and a kinetic penetrator packed into the warhead section. The MRM will be fired by a tank as a conventional round, as it starts it flight, the round will acquire GPS position followed by mid-course updates and at the peak of its trajectory, ignite the rocket motor to accelerating to achieve maximum lethality. The round will be able to maneuver by employing impulse thrusters to maneuver and hit at the target's center. It is designed for effective range of up to 7.5 km. MRM-KE was first tested in August 2004.

MRM CE - Raytheon, developing a CE version of the MRM fitted with a SAL seeker, performed a first successful test of the new projectile in June 2006, fired at a moving tank at a range of 8.7 km. The semi-active laser seeker projectile survived gun launch, then acquired, tracked and maneuvered toward the moving target. This was the first test shot in a planned series of SAL projectiles fired from a M1A2 SEP as Raytheon continues to mature its semi-active laser seeker capabilities. The MRM-CE will be able to engage battlefield targets at extended ranges, including beyond line of sight, autonomously or designated with external laser target designation. The MRM-CE is a key component of the Army's FCS (Future Combat Systems) vehicles and a potential spin-out to M1A2 Abrams SEP.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Most of the M1A2 ammo is designed by either Rheinmetall or Giat Industries, but information on this one is hard to come by.
As far as the financial exchange goes, it must be tremendous. No more shooting camels for target practice.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Correct me if I´m wrong but is this thing basicly still a gun-launched ATGM? With satellite / whatever guidance and a Chemical or Kinetic warhead. A hyper-speed ATGM in the Kinetic version? So VIRSS and ARENA etc. protective systems will work against it? Or is it too fast for them?

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Against MMW version of the MRM-KE, both ARENA and VIRSS would have no effect. While VIRSS might have an effect against the SAL version of the MRM-CE, but it wouldnt effect the MRM-KE.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Iron Fist though, is claimed to be able to deflect KE rounds. It use explosive projectile shot at the incoming rounds. Explosion should be able to deflect KE rounds.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Again basicly this Iron Fist works like ARENA. Improved target acquisition though. And tank caliber kinetic ammo can be anything from basic AP to APFSDS, so I am not investing any money on it.. yet

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

I don't know if either of you guys are still working on FCS icons and units but here is a somewhat recent update on FCS showing some good concepts of the vehicles on page 11.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007combatv...D/DavidOgg.pdf

The U.S. Army's site:

https://www.fcs.army.mil/systems/index.html

An article with a good photo of the latest NLOS-C prototype:

http://www.southernledger.com/ap/134...n_in_Minnesota

How often does the CIWS gear in WinSPMBT actually defeat an ATGM? Is it an 80% success rate? Anyway to get more than 2 shots?

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

So they are planning on scrapping the Abrams for that thing!? HAH! Nice! Man I miss the Russians.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Is it too late to change the program? All the vehicles look like ugly cheap tank toys, not like combat vehicles...

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Those are just the concept designs. I don't think a physical mockup has been built, and there aren't any functional prototypes. I honestly don't think you'll see any members of the FCS family in service prior to 2020. All you have to do is look at the intertwining of tech and requirements.

The Army keeps twisting things around trying to get them on schedule, and I doubt they'll succeed. The had planned for Objective Force Warrior soldier systems to be deployed in the 2010-2012 timeline, but they had also expected Land Warrior to be fielded in 2004. The second iteration of Land Warrior was scrapped last year, supposedly having its developed elements separated (Mounted Warrior and Airborne Warrior), and its developmental elements placed under a new program (the Ground Soldier System). So now you have these Land Warrior spinoffs, Objective Force Warrior, Future Force Warrior, and the FCS, all of which are planned to function together, plus a number of major weapons and equipment programs all designed to bring it together (JTRS and the "Objective" weapons programs, all of which seem to be in various stages of delayed).

Whatever the FCS looks like now, it won't look like that when eventually fielded. Just look at what the FCS program looked like 1999 and what it looks like the better part of a decade after. If I was understanding the news releases correctly the test unit stood up to experiment with FCS tech and tactics has actually been using Stykers, as they present the best available use of existing tech designed to be integrated (and are compatible with things like Mounted Warrior). The first FCS unit of action was not planned until 2014, and I doubt you'll see it in a final form by then. I expect you'll see some composite of existing and leveraged FCS tech into interim versions of the vehicles.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

From what I have read the Abrams and Bradleys (Legacy systems) will not be scrapped. Some will still be kept for heavy operations. I am not sure of the mix between the Legacy systems and the FCS units/OOB. But the M-1A1/2s will be kept for many years!

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

I think you are a bit out of date. The prototype for the
SPA unit is already here.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=25143

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

That post was made last week, so I assume that the article was similarly recent. So I'm a bit out of date, but not by too much heh. The NLOS-C is the variant that has been seeing the most development out of the entire family, so I guess I'm not surprised I was wrong. There was actually a prototype of the NLOS-C before this come to think of it, so there are no excuses hehe.

I stand by my original assertion though based on all the other factors that you won't see a complete FCS unit of action until after 2020. I typed a number of things and will admit that its probably wrong to say that certain variants won't possibly be integrated into the existing force before then.

I also find it amusing that the pundits there on Tanknet are bemoaning the fate of the Crusader because it somehow led to the demise of GPS guided munitions. Those munitions were fired against targets in Iraq, and are otherwise being developed, so I'm not entirely sure what they're worried about.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

I suspect that this whole thing won't survive the mother of all budget battles which is shaping up, so we won't see a "complete FCS unit of action" in 2020 or any other time (maybe a batch of NLOS cannons and various drones, bits and pieces).
I simply pointed out that the development is more advanced. The SPA is already at the prototype stage and since the others vehicles would share the same chassis they could not possibly turn out to be much different than envisaged, unless they wanted to go back and redesign it. Which, at this point, would mean a quick death for the program.

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

No, I fully admit I was wrong. As I said, no excuses, because I was even aware of the NLOS-C prototype that was in function testing well before 2008. The chassis has changed in small ways since the concepts, the original NLOS-C, and this current proto. I still think you're right that the current chassis is pretty much finalized (small changes won't affect things very much).

Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
 

Too expensive, too techy, too light. All you would need is one infantry man with a decent enough RPG and some guts and those vehicles are history, heat seaking smart shells or not.

Right now units are going into the combat zone under equipped in certain cases. This is no doubt due to cost cutting, either that or the logistics guys screwing up is a regular occurence. I can't help but wonder just how under equipped this show piece unit is going to be.

Going back to costs and things, I assume this stuff costs more than what is available at present (even though its all modular), right?

The USA foresees what kinds of engagements precisely?

That ,,Tank" (for want of a better word) of theirs seems designed for engagements at long ranges. I assume they are skrimping on armour to make the things lighter and more deployable, right?

How do they plan on fighting in an urban area with limited visibility, IEDs and Jihadis (or whatever) around every corner in vehicles that are so clearly designed for warfare on the flyß (That ,,tank", its a shoot and scoot afair, right?)

Or are they foreseeing a rapid deployment to Poland, the Ukraine or Baltic Republics to stop Vlad and his fleet of T-80s and T-72s from invading the EU?

Lighter mortars, although I assume they are heavier than the M113 etc variants available at present, makes sense. Heavier ambulances, that makes sense. More manoueverable and lighter Arty (as secondary support), again, quite clever. But scrimping on APCs and AFVs. Oh dear!