Army "Future" vs. Insurgent Superbombs

The Army’s $120 $200+ billion Future Combat Systems – a light, networked family of vehicles intended to replace a third of the active tank and Bradley fleet — was conceived in the 1990s before Improvised Explosive Devices and
Explosively Formed Penetrators (insurgent "superbombs") started demolishing U.S. forces in Iraq.
So does the FCS concept still hold water?

No, according to Ana Marte and Elise Szabo in an August 2007 study for the Center for Defense Information:

Based on the deployment of prototypical [FCS] systems in Iraq since the beginning of the war there, analysts … are unaware that this concept has achieved even rudimentary feasibility. Indeed, the devastating success of enemy IEDs and [Explosively Formed
Projectiles] in Iraq has led to the deployment of heavier armor, not lighter, and an acknowledgement that the enemy rarely permits itself to be found and identified by sensor hardware.

Army officials disagree.
Program manager Major General Charles Cartwright insists that FCS is still the way to go, for it represents one way of breaking the endless cycle of “up-armoring” that has resulted in 15-ton “Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected” trucks replacing 7-ton Humvees in Iraq. “If all we’re doing is piling on armor, where does that stop?” Cartwright asks.

The key, officials say, is applying all the lessons learned in Iraq to make the FCS vehicles as survivable as possible in the event of a blast, while still counting on improved sensors and networks to spot and avoid bombs — in a sense, swapping some armor for more information.
Even after four years of dirty, low-tech war in Iraq, the network is still “the most important thing to come out of FCS,” says Brigadier
General James Terry, who’s responsible for developing FCS tactics.

The vehicles themselves have been redesigned in light of Iraq,
Cartwright says. “We’ve learned an awful lot about IEDs and EFPs.” The general won’t go into specifics, but angled hulls to deflect blasts and new layered armor for defeating EFPs both surely play a role. Plus, they’re heavier. Long gone is the 20-ton weight limit and the requirement to fly aboard C-130s. FCS vehicles will be transported by
C-17 and, more often, by ship.

The FCS brigades that actually deploy around 2015 won’t look at all like those in the original 1990s plan. In addition to the heavier FCS
vehicles and all the robots, FCS brigades will probably include MRAPs upgraded with network terminals, sensors and new armor kits. The Army and Marines are still studying the exact mix of MRAPs and FCS vehicles, but Cartwright assures that “there are going to be wheels inside an FCS
[brigade combat team].”

ALSO:
* New Name for Army "Future"
* Old-School Army "Future"
* Army "Future": Invade Azerbaijan
* Guess Which Country We Invade in Army's "Future"
* Boeing Defends Big Price Tag for Army "Future"
* More Bucks for Army "Future"
* Army "Future" Flickering Out
* Army's Future Combat System Going, Going, But Not Quite Gone
* Shady Contract for Army "Future"
* Army "Future" Pricier, Lamer by the Second
* Son of Crusader
* How to Salvage Army's "Future"
* Robo-Wingmen for Chopper Pilots
*General: reporters are a risk to MRAPs
* MRAP lawsuit!
* MRAP contenders whittled down
* How to build a bazillion MRAPs
* Bomb-Fighting Vehicles Bite the Dust
* Bomb-Resistant Vehicles' Long Road to Acceptance
* Picture This: MRAP Menagerie
* Armor-Makers "Risked Soldiers' Lives," Says Pentagon I.G.
* Manufacturers Can't Fill Bomb-Proof Vehicle Demand
* Which Ride Takes Bomb-Blasts Best?
* Military Dragged Feet on Bomb-Proof Vehicles
* Bomb-Proof Vehicles: Why the Delay?
* Army Junking Future for New Rides?