U.S. Future Combat vehicle sets tone for other nations.

The success or failure of the U.S. Future Combat System could, to a great extent, shape ground-vehicle spending decisions by other nations, experts said. The program is expected to have long-term repercussions on the procurement strategies of key U.S. allies.

"The FCS will mark the way for leading nations," said Gregory Fetter, senior land-warfare analyst at Forecast International/DMS.

The fundamental attribute that makes FCS different from previous vehicle programs is that it's designed as a "system of systems" operating in a network. Because this is a departure from conventional vehicle procurement practices, many countries will be watching the program closely, Fetter said in an interview. "We [the United States] are leading the world in this idea of developing armored vehicles in a systems concept, as a complete combat system.

Eventually, he said, "you will see the Germans, British, French, Swedes, even the Russians doing it." These nations more likely will adopt a "wait and see" attitude and "see which way it pans out for the United States, then adopt technology as it matures," Fetter said. "Not every country will need a complete FCS," but some countries may buy bits and pieces of it.

"Europe has yet to catch up to this," Fetter said, even though "they've done some studies." The reality is that "most European countries don't have the money to take on a development like this. Even Germany, considered the leading combat-vehicle nation in Europe, just does not have the money to develop a system of systems."

The U.S. Army also plans to spend $4 billion on the Stryker light armored vehicles, which will fill the gap until FCS is fielded. It's not clear yet how much the FCS will cost. But it will be expensive enough to force the U.S. Army to cancel other programs, said the Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane.

"To jumpstart Army transformation with Stryker brigades and to put FCS in [the research and development] program, to generate funds, the Army terminated 27 programs over the last three years," Keane said during a meeting with defense reporters.

In the future, he added, "We will do whatever is necessary to fund that program, [even if] that means we will terminate some other programs and restructure some."

In order to field the FCS by the Army's desired timeframe--in 2008--the program must be funded in the Defense Department's current budget blueprint, which extends from 2004 to 2009.

"The FCS starts to come out of R&D during that period," said Keane. "When we submit our POM [program objective memorandum] to the Defense Department, it will have in it a program that fully funds FCS."

An internal Army review next spring may slow down the FCS schedule, if the chief of staff determines that the technology will not be mature by 2008. "That technology decision will be either to continue on the current schedule or moderate that schedule based on the availability of technology," said Keane.

To the Army's credit, he said, the FCS is "trying to move the acquisition process faster than it has historically moved. ... Our track record is 15-20 years. We are trying to do something in less than 10. For the Defense Department, that's moving at warp speed."

Procurement Decisions

Until it's clear when and whether FCS will come to fruition, nations such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom will "continue to develop individual vehicles for individual requirements," said Fetter.

The dearth of new orders for main battle tanks worldwide, further, will leave combat vehicle suppliers more dependant on sales of light armored vehicles.

One of the programs that will be scrutinized in Europe is the MRAV, for multi-role armored vehicle. It's a tn-nation program funded by the U.K., German and Dutch governments and managed by the European armaments agency, OCCAR (Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation).

"The MRAV program is an indicator of the way the industry will be going with consolidation," said Fetter. "You'll have a contract for MRAV, and then you'll have an integration of the European defense industry following that, based on the work." The MRAV program is expected to produce between 1,000 and 2,000 vehicles.

Generally, in the military vehicle industry, "companies are getting so far and few that it's in every nation's interest to give each company a part of the program," he said.

It's ironic that the French originally established the requirement for MRAV but then left the program, Fetter noted. "The French said the Germans were pushing them out of the program and leaving France with a minimal share.;.. So the French decided to go on their own.

France started a new program, called the VBCI, which will include a wheeled infantry armored vehicle, along with a command-post variant. The French Army requirement is for 700 vehicles-550 troop carriers and 150 command-and-control platforms.

Christopher Foss, armor and artillery specialist at Jane's International, said that, even though the U.K. government remains in the MRAV program, officials also are looking at the Piranha III and IV, which are light armored vehicles made by General Motors of Canada. The Piranha III was adapted for the U.S. Army's Stryker program.

Foss said that financial commitments by several nations in vehicles such as MRAV and VBCI show that the Europeans view FCS with a skeptical eye.

In Europe, unlike in the United States, "we continue to invest in our tanks," said Foss. "What is happening in Europe is nowhere similar to what is happening in America with the FCS. ... Europeans don't think that the United States will achieve the FCS in the planned timeframe."

The closest to an FCS-type program now in the works in Europe is Britain's Future Rapid Effects System--a family of vehicles concept currently in its infancy. It will replace the U.K. main battle tank--the Challenger--and the Warrior infantry combat vehicles.

"We may procure as many as 1,500 FRES," said Foss. Like FCS, the FRES will have to be more mobile than a tank-light enough to fit on a C-130 Hercules or an A-400M mediumlift transport aircraft.

Fetter stressed that it's too early to try to figure out what FRES will look like. "It's like trying to grab a cloud of smoke," he said. The British Ministry of Defence announced that it would keep the Challenger II until at least 2020, Fetter said. "FRES is not really hardware oriented. It's just investigating different technologies."

--Sandra L Erwin

RELATED ARTICLE: Germany's Leopard Main Battle Tank Gets Top Ranking

By a slim margin, the Leopard beat the U.S. M1A2 as the world's best main battle tank, according to a study by Forecast International/DMS, in Newtown, Conn., a business intelligence firm.

Gregory Fetter, the author of the study, said that Germany's tank topped the chart for a second consecutive year, with a slight lead over the runner up, the U.S. M1A2 SEP (system enhancement package) tank.

The Leopard 2, made by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, "has been steadily improved over the years and the latest version, the A6EX, maintains the lead," said Fetter.

"The Leopard 2 just edged out the United States' M1A2 tank," said Fetter. "The deciding factor was the Leopard 2's 55-caliber version of the Rh 120 tank gun and its DM 53 long-rod penetrator ammunition," he said.

However, the M1A2 Abrams tank, built by General Dynamics Land Systems, outperforms the Leopard 2 in actual combat situations, he noted. In addition, "various ongoing improvements to the Abrams will further enhance its proven hunter-killer mode of fighting" Fetter said.

Third on Forecast International's best-tank list is Japan's Type 90, a technically sophisticated vehicle built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that draws heavily on German technology, including a 120 millimeter Rh 120 tank cannon. The Japanese tank has some features not found on the Leopard 2, such as an automatic loader and three-man crew, said Fetter.

Making a major advance in the 2002 tank rankings is Israel's new Merkava Mark IV, built by Israel Ordnance Corps. The Merkava ranks number four, above the French Lederc and British Challenger 2.

The Mark IV's main features include a further improved fire control system and an integrated active vehicle protection system, said Fetter. The Merkava is equipped with an upgraded automatic target tracking system. The fire control suite, he said, is "reportedly very flexible with a good degree of mission planning capability." The Merkava's power-to-weight ratio is "greatly improved over earlier models by the integration of the EuroPowerPack."

According to Fetter, the latest Russian and Chinese tanks still do fare well in comparison to Western tanks. Survivability and reliability concerns, as well as quality control issues, rank these tanks at the bottom of the top 10 list of the world's best tanks, he said.