Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Army considers variants of Stryker, Abrams

The Army is considering new upgraded variants of the Stryker and Abrams main battle tank in coming years, despite the services’ overall spending plans which now call for a substantial reduction in modernization funds for the current force vehicles over the next five years, service leaders said.

The Army is now working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to decide how much money to continue investing in existing combat vehicles such as the Stryker and Abrams main battle tank, citing the need to increasingly put modernization dollars toward the services flagship Future Combat Systems program.

Overall, the Army’s 2010 to 2015 spending plan calls for adding up to $6.2 billion to FCS and reducing planned Stryker, Abrams and Bradley upgrades and procurement by several billion. Deliberations are ongoing, Army leaders said.

“One of the things we are looking at right now is how long do we keep the existing vehicles in the inventory. The Army turned in its budget and OSD is reviewing that right now. If you are going to modernize, eventually you begin to point to next generation planes, helicopters, man ground vehicles whatever it is,” said Army Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

“They [OSD] will not finish until November. What they typically do in the fall once the services turn in their budgets is they do a program review then a budget review. The program review is still ongoing,” he said.

Stryker

Meanwhile, the Army has built a prototype of a new Stryker maintenance vehicle variant built with a trailer and crane to recover battle-damaged vehicles in combat, said U.S. Army Col. Christopher Lockhart, TRADOC Capabilities Manager, Stryker.

“It would recover destroyed Strykers, even catastrophically destroyed Strykers with all the tires blown off. It works in conjunction with a trailer. It will be a new variant if we chose to go that way,” said Lockhart.

In addition, the Army has outfitted several Stryker vehicles with an armor kit along the lower sides of the vehicles designed to stop deadly shaped charges such as explosively formed penetrates.

“The Stryker modernization program will allow you to put more weight on the system. There is a hull protection kit, an armor package, that is being put on selective Strykers right now. It is on the lower part of the side. EFPs impact around the tire area,” said Lockhart.

The Army plans also call for full funding of the NBC (nuclear, chemical, biological) reconnaissance Stryker variant.

“We want more of the NBC recon vehicles to replace Fox vehicles that are out there. We had to address all of the manned-ground vehicles [FCS] issues in our planning. Once we did that there was a little bit of RDT & E [research, development, test and evaluation] money for the entire Stryker family. From an engineering perspective we will continue to modernize the Stryker family. They will continue to be reset and be operationally capable because they are in the hands of soldiers being used,” said Thompson.

Abrams

Thompson also said the Army might wind up upgrading the Abrams beyond the most advanced current model, the M1A2 System Enhancement Package V2 configuration, which have third-generation depleted-uranium armor with graphite coating, digital command-and-control architecture, digital color terrain maps and new sensors.

Last year, the Army reset 241 Abrams tanks, according to a November Army paper on the reset effort.

Thompson said that the Abrams will be modernized as long as it remains in the fleet.

“You don’t stop funding a program and drop it off a cliff. As long as you are going to have some number of those systems in the inventory, you’ve got to do the engineering and make sure you improve the components. We really do look at everything with a business perspective. We make tradeoffs all the time,” Thompson said.

“The question is do you go to a V3[new upgrade possibility] of the SEP. We’ll do the engineering get to a decision point then we will see where we are with the FCS program and make a decision,” he said.

FCS

Alongside these considerations for the Abrams and Stryker, the Army is unwavering in its support for FCS as a budget priority for the future.

“FCS is not one system, it is fourteen systems plus the network which is something we have never done before. We have developed individual systems now we are going to spinout these technologies to the infantry brigades by 2011,” Thompson said.

Army leaders believe the 27-ton FCS MGV, with lightweight armor composites, advanced sensors and an active protection system, will be just as survivable as the Abrams or a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.

“The armor development programs have a series of incremental improvements where you have an a-kit and a b-kit. Our design objectives [MGV] are to reduce the cost, reduce the weight and increase protection, Thompson said.

The idea with add-on armor is to make it possible for the MGV to accept new, lightweight armor composites as they become available, Army leaders said.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said the Army is continuing to evaluate FCS.

“We went through a detailed scrub of the program [FCS]. We are going through another one looking at those technologies and asking ourselves will they be ready on time? I am comfortable with where those technologies are going,” said Casey.

At the same time as they focus on priorities and detailed spending plans for the future, Army leaders recognize plans may change when a new administration arrives in January.

“The 2010 budget hasn’t yet been submitted, and there will be a new administration and Congress. I suspect there will be an amended budget by February. I do not know what the crystal ball is going to say when it comes to defense spending,” Thompson said.