WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Rumsfeld asked former Air Force chief of staff, retired Gen. Larry Welch, to lead a group of experts in an evaluation of FCS.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Maybe someone is see some light but only time will tell!

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... fm?Id=1098

May 2003
Army ‘Transformation’ Plans Could Be Revisited After War by Sandra I. Erwin
Conclusions from the conflict in Iraq could reopen the debate on whether the Army’s plans for “transformation” are heading in the right direction, said a U.S. congressman.
The pivotal role that heavy armored vehicles played in the war possibly means that “we have to seriously look at whether our heavy units are going to be adequate for the kind of battles like the one we are doing in Iraq,” said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., chairman of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.
“I don’t know that we need to restart the Abrams,” Weldon told National Defense. The Abrams main battle tank production line was closed in 1992, in the expectation that, after the Cold War, the Army no longer needed to buy new tanks and could keep the existing ones running until a replacement was developed.
What emerged as the next generation was the Future Combat System—an overarching effort to field by 2010 a family of up to 18 types of lightweight combat vehicles and robotic platforms, all linked under a common command-and-control network. The project is the cornerstone of the so-called transformation of the Army into a lighter and more mobile force.
“Gen. Shinseki’s [the Army chief of staff] plan for transformation is solid,” but the experience in Iraq should be taken into account, Weldon said. “I want to hear from the war fighters when the conflict is over on whether or not they need to rethink the whole future of where we are going in terms of transformation,” Weldon said. “It’s a question that is going to be opened after this war.”
“The FCS is exciting,” but the potential cost is worrisome, he said. The Army budgeted $13.5 billion for the project over the next five years.
FCS proponents received bad news in March when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed an independent review panel to study the program.
Rumsfeld asked former Air Force chief of staff, retired Gen. Larry Welch, to lead a group of experts in an evaluation of FCS. The timing of the appointment—only 60 days before the FCS program was scheduled to proceed into its next phase of development—is suspicious, sources said. Speculation also is rampant about Rumsfeld’s decision to probe the merits of the Future Combat Systems only three months before the retirement of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who conceived the FCS concept.
A number of retired Army officers who did not want to be quoted by name said that, at first sight, it appears that the review panel may be a retaliatory move against Shinseki, who had irked administration officials when he told Congress that “hundreds of thousands” of troops would be needed in Iraq to help stabilize the country after a U.S.-led campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.
Having a retired Air Force general in charge of reviewing the program is a source of great consternation among FCS advocates, particularly a cadre of lawmakers and staffers who have supported the transformation efforts not only with rhetoric, but also with hundreds of millions of dollars.
A senior staff member of the defense appropriations subcommittee described the situation as “scary.”
In the appropriations committee, he said, “there is great concern about the Welch report.” Further, he added, “the Welch panel scares us,” because it is being read as a sign that the FCS may be on shaky ground, and that the Army’s transformation may be slowed down as a result.
“We took the trip to transformation,” the staffer told a senior Army official recently. “We are still with you,” he said. “However, I don’t think what’s going on is a good thing for transformation.”
Nevertheless, the staffer stressed, the members of the appropriations committee are “in a partnership with the Army on transformation.”
One senior Army official closely involved in the FCS program said the review panel announcement was a shock to him. But the silver lining in all this, he said, is that Welch “is the right guy to do it.”
Welch led a review of the troubled Army Comanche helicopter program, so he is more knowledgeable about ground-combat issues than many may suspect. As the panel moves forward with the review, said the Army official, “We are going to do everything we can to provide the information [Welch] wants.”
He said the Army remains hopeful that the study won’t hold up the FCS Defense Acquisition Board review, scheduled for May 13. The DAB is a prerequisite for FCS to move into the next phase, called system design and development.

[quote]
[quote]Rumsfeld asked former Air Force chief of staff, retired Gen. Larry Welch, to lead a group of experts in an evaluation of FCS
Conclusions from the conflict in Iraq could reopen the debate on whether the Army’s plans for “transformation” are heading in the right direction, said a U.S. congressman.
The pivotal role that heavy armored vehicles played in the war -----------

We need some hard data from the War. How well did Marine Armor hold up to massive RPG attacks? Is their any armor that would protect those Strykers as well as the Abrams is protected now?

The other biggie is the phasing out of the Hog. It turned into the premier performer for CAS. IMO, start up a new Hog production line. It's not pricey to build and it performs well in the field.

Rumsfeld want's the lessons learned in Iraq to follow his ideas of transformation.

What they really need is input from the boots, support types, TacAir, etc.

Jack

The truth is you need a mix of heavy armor and light we cannot afford to take six months to deploy anymore. One concept I like would be some sort of modern 'spruce goose', basically a sea plane type cargo aircraft with enough payload to move 5 or six tanks at a time. The technology is there to do it. The reason it must be a sea plan is because on water you have unlimited run ways, and dont need airfields secured where you are going.

Well since the Army Chief, Gen. White, was just sacked by Rummy, i doubt it greatly.

Gen White was a highly voval supporter of Crusader, and a vocal critic of Stryker.

Coincidence?

I think not...

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>...start up a new Hog production line. It's not pricey to build and it performs well in the field.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes build more Hogs and soon!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Will since the Army Chief, Gen. White, was just sacked by Rummy, i doubt it greatly.
Gen White was a highly voval supporter of Crusader, and a vocal critic of Stryker.
Coincidence?
I think not...
Well since the Army Chief, Gen. White, was just sacked by Rummy, i doubt it ...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Good point!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One concept I like would be some sort of modern 'spruce goose', basically a sea plane type cargo aircraft with enough payload to move 5 or six tanks at a time. The technology is there to do it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<img src="http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/photos/Sept-Frontiers0050lg.jpg" border=0>


http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/ar ... /i_pw.html


BY WILLIAM COLE

It would be the biggest bird in the history of aviation.
Dwarfing all previous flying giants, the Pelican, a high-capacity cargo plane concept currently being studied by Boeing Phantom Works, would stretch more than the length of a U.S. football field and have a wingspan of 500 feet and a wing area of more than an acre. It would have almost twice the external dimensions of the world's current largest aircraft, the Russian An225, and could transport five times its payload, up to 1,400 tons of cargo.
Designed primarily for long-range, transoceanic transport, the Pelican would fly as low as 20 feet above the sea, taking advantage of an aerodynamic phenomenon that reduces drag and fuel burn. Over land, it would fly at altitudes of 20,000 feet or higher. Operating only from ordinary paved runways, the Pelican would use 38 fuselage-mounted landing gears with a total of 76 tires to distribute its weight.
The military, commercial and even space prospects for such a cargo plane—officially known as the Pelican Ultra Large Transport Aircraft, or ULTRA—are also huge.
"The Pelican can broaden the range of missions for which airplanes are the favored way to deliver cargo," said Boeing's Pelican program manager Blaine Rawdon, who is designing the plane with Boeing engineer Zachary Hoisington. "It is much faster than ships at a fraction of the operational cost of current airplanes. This will be attractive to commercial and military operators who desire speed, worldwide range and high throughput. We envision that the Pelican can multiply aircraft's 1-percent share in a commercial market now dominated by container ships."
John Skorupa, senior manager of strategic development for Boeing Advanced Airlift and Tankers, said, "The Pelican currently stands as the only identified means by which the U.S. Army can achieve its deployment transformation goals of deploying one division in five days, or five divisions in 30 days, anywhere in the world." If necessary, he said, the Pelican could carry 17 M-1 main battle tanks on a single sortie. Commercially, the aircraft's size and efficiency would allow it to carry types of cargo equivalent to those carried by container ships, at more than 10 times the speed.
"It is attracting interest as a mother ship for unmanned vehicles, enabling rapid deployment of a network-centric warfare grid, a likely future mode of operation for modernized U.S. forces as demonstrated in Afghanistan," Skorupa said. "And it is attracting interest as a potential first-stage platform for piggybacking reusable space vehicles to an appropriate launch altitude.
"Why would such a huge airplane be flown at such a low altitude?
By flying low, the Pelican, like its name-sake, exploits the aerodynamic benefits of a well-known phenomenon called ground effect. Flying close to water, the wing downwash angle and tip vortices are suppressed, resulting in a major drag reduction and outstanding cruise efficiency.
"It's an effect that provides extraordinary range and efficiency," Skorupa said. "With a payload of 1.5 million pounds, the Pelican could fly 10,000 nautical miles over water and 6,500 nautical miles over land.
"Flying in ground effect demands the latest flight control technology, conceded Skorupa. Reliable systems will provide precise, automatic altitude control and collision avoidance. Cruise altitude will be adjusted according to sea state, and if the seas get too rough, the Pelican can easily climb to high altitude to continue the flight.
When could the Pelican be flying? The answer may lie in the Army's Advanced Mobility Concepts Study, scheduled for release next April. The Pelican has been offered by Boeing as part of a system-of-systems solution that would include the C-17 Globemaster III transport, the CH-47 Chinook helicopter and the Advanced Theater Transport.
"A favorable report would set the stage for a possible codevelopment effort between Boeing, the U.S. military and interested commercial cargo carriers," Skorupa said.





Edited by - wayne2010 on Apr 28 2003 6:01 PM

A new candidate for the ugliest aircraft. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A new candidate for the ugliest aircraft.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

For sure! I bet this would cost about 4 to 8 billions each so I would like to see the money placed on 3 or 4 hundred C-5 or 747F! Oh and another 8 or 9 hundred Hogs! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

I just dont understand why they dont make it a sea plane, based on the following concerns. <ul><li>If you goto land in emergency on the sea you can </li><li> how many under developed countries will have enough runway space </li><li> flying at 20000 ft will be to fuel in efficient, especially if you can not find a run way to divert to for fuel </li></ul>

I was watching discovery wings and some concepts like these were talked about in the 50's and 60's but I dont think the technology was there. I will find some links and post them. The main problem is that these aircraft will be sitting ducks, so the carriers and land based f-22's will have to be deployed a head of them to protect them

Now for the hard part who will fly it army is prohibited from fixed wing. So that leaves the airforce and navy to fight it out. That will be a hoot.

Now for the hard part who will fly it army is prohibited from fixed wing. So that leaves the airforce and navy to fight it out. That will be a hoot.

It's going to be one of those,"you fly it, no you fly it, no you fly it" arguments. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

I think the real arguement is how much are you gonna pay me to fly it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I just dont understand why they dont make it a sea plane<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I may be overlooking something here but how in God's name are you supposed to deliver 17 M1 tanks (or even the 5-6 tanks you mentioned in an earlier post) to land once you land the amphibious aircraft in the water? Beach the plane? What if there is no friendly coast?

Don't all US Army vehicles have to be able to do certain things, such as climb a mountain on a certain angle, and wade in a certain amount of water? Besides, you bring in a couple ships, shell the shore and Walla! Instant Friendly Shore!

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -General George Patton

The Abrams is about as amphibious as the typical anvil.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

luke there were studies on very large sea based transports in the 50 and sixties. From what I read the technology was just not there at that point.

WE NEED IT ALL!!!!!!!

WE NEED HEAVY ARMOUR. UNTIL THE PRC OR DNK GO AWAY. I COULD JUST SEE THE US ARMY AND MARINES TAKE ON 1000 OF T-52'S AND T-72'S ETC... HELL WE PROBABLY WOULDNT HAVE ENOUGH TOWS TO TAKE THE OUT.
THEN THEY STILL GET CLOSE ENOUGH FOR A TANK BATTLE GOING UP AGAINST LIGHT ATTACK VECH. WE'RE BETTER BUT ALL IT TAKES IS ONE HIT!!!!

WE NEED THE NEW MOBILE HOWARD!
NEXT GEN HEAVY TANK.
AND BETTER ARMOURED LIGHT ATTACK TOO.WHEN SOME MULAH WITH A RPG CAN TAKE OUT A VECHICLE WE GOT PROBLEMS.WE ALL THE ADVANCES WE SHOULD HAVE A LIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC THAT CAN WITHSTAND A DIRECT HIT FROM A LARGE CAL ROUND OR SUB-MUNITION.
THEN BULID ARE NEW "LIGHT ARMOUR DIVISIONS OUT OF THESE." DONT CUT THE NUMBERS OR THE FIRE POWER BUT PUT IT IN A DIFFERENT PACKAGE.
A SPACE AGE PLASTIC OR COMPOSITE ARMOUR THAT YOU CAN BULID A TANK OUT OF. INSTEAD OF 50 TONS MAYBE ONLY 20 TONS.

MIGHT BE OFF THE WALL BUT WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS FIRST
















PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Goose, i agree.

When designing a new armored vehicle the formula should be Protection 1, Firepower 2, and mobility 3.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

I would prefer it to be a seaplane, but the beating the hull would take on takoff and landing would probly make it SO heavy(because of the re-enforcement) you would lose the heavy lift capability or at least the efficiency of the design. Who would fly it? Easy, if it's a seaplane the Navy, if not then the AF. There was a proposal in the 50s/60s for a large seaplane for cargo that had a drop ramp at the front like a landing craft it taxied up to the beach and dropped the ramp and the vehicles rolled out. I have only seen an artwork of it(looked kinda like a large PBY Catalina) and as I recall it was called the Mercator, but searches for this only found links for maps and the Neptune patrol plane variant. And remember the "Frogmen" of WWII were started for the the job of sneaking into enemy beaches, setting charges and making those beaches and reefs hospitable to landing craft. Seals would do that today(I belive the SEALs are direct descendants of those Frogman squads)

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Ground effect is good an all for landing, but I would feel wary flying in it all the time in such a big bird. Sounds like it would need a fly by wire terrain following AP to even stay off the ground. Seems really risky, even for US Mil standards.

Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Don't all US Army vehicles have to be able to do certain things, such as climb a mountain on a certain angle, and wade in a certain amount of water? Besides, you bring in a couple ships, shell the shore and Walla! Instant Friendly Shore!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

AHA! There you go! If we build it as a seaplane, WE NEED TO BRING BACK THE IOWA's! It's got my vote!

Ever look at a map of Korea? an awful lot of it is within 24nm of the coast! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

"The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> AHA! There you go! If we build it as a seaplane, WE NEED TO BRING BACK THE IOWA's! It's got my vote!
Ever look at a map of Korea? an awful lot of it is within 24nm of the coast!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes and my vote too we need light and heavy but I like the heavy! Plus an all nuke Navy! Even refitting the Iowa’s to nuke.

Wow Drez, i didn't know you were a BB junkie.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

New-build Montana BBGs...New-build Montana BBGs...Nuclear propulsion, chaubom armor, 16-inch scramshells with 1000 nm range, more SM-3s and TACTOMs than you'd ever need to sink the rest of the world's fleets, take out their air forces and ICBMs...COMBINED!...

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

LOL.... Sounds great....