The next generation of manned ground vehicles (MGVs) will represent the convergence of new operational concepts and advanced technologies, finally allowing the Army to achieve the elusive goal of commonality. A family of MGVs is evolving that will, for the first time, share operational capabilities and parts that will simultaneously revolutionize operations and logistics. The MGVs are eight of the 18 Future Combat Systems (FCSs) under development for the Army. (Four are pictured on the previous page.)
If you are a heavy brigade commander today, you lead a force with unmatched lethality but unequal operational capability, survivability and with logistical incompatibility. Your tracked vehicle fleet consists of M1A2SEP Abrams tanks, M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles, M88A2 recovery vehicles, a family of M113s, and M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers.
They all have different mobility, operational, diagnostic and repair procedures, levels of survivability, operational ranges and more. If you just consider propulsion and suspensions, each of these vehicles has different track, road wheels, road wheel arms, hub and bearing assemblies, final drives, sprockets, engines, transmissions and generators. There are innumerable line replaceable units, electronics boxes and circuit card assemblies (CCA) that provide this very capable and reliable fleet with its operational performance. Each current vehicle family contains many unique CCAs that are not only functionally different but also designed to different specifications and are totally incompatible between systems.
In the not-too-distant future, should you be fortunate enough to be a unit of employment (UE) commander, your Future Combat System MGV fleet will be radically different both operationally and logistically. All tracked vehicles will ride on the same suspension system, be powered by a single engine/generator combination, propelled by a single traction drive motor assembly and cooled by a common thermal management subsystem, making these systems true hybrid electrics. Power and energy for all vehicles will be an energy distribution and storage subsystem that has dual voltages (600/28 volts) with redundancy and is dynamically reconfigurable via software and/or soldier directed inputs.
All the forward driver/crewman's two stations will be identical in physical layout and driving operations but totally reconfigurable via flexible warrior machine interface software to meet specific mission functions. All vehicles will have the same on-board integrated computer systems, crew station displays, internal databus sub-systems and basic joint tactical radio systems, allowing each MGV to be a fully integrated component of the FCS Battle Command and Control network. All drivers will have the same day and night situational awareness sensors and be able to move their vehicles in the same terrain and environments as all other tracked vehicles in the UE with basically the same operational limits. Each vehicle will have the same levels of ballistic and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection for its crews. Endurance of the operators will be improved through ergonomic seating and uniform environmental heating and cooling in all variants.
The requirement for a new generation of C-130 deployable MGVs and the availability of technologies that allow design teams to reduce the parasitic weight of structures associated with survivability have led to this radical new way of configuring combat vehicles. The MGV team, led by the lead systems integrator team of Boeing and SAIC, has brought together the best and the brightest of America's combat vehicle makers-General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems (formerly UDLP)-to create a family of combat vehicles based on a common chassis that can be configured into at least eight variants within the single architectural design.
The common chassis and variant mission module design teams integrate, but do not develop under their vehicle contracts, the unique FCS network-centric common command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C^sup 4^ISR) subsystems. These are provided by the FCS-level C^sup 4^ISR integrated product teams (IPT). In the common chassis this includes the autonomous navigation system, integrated computer system and remote operations capability via a crewman's remote interface system and/or crewman's decision aid. For the variant mission modules there is an array of common components and subsystems from both the C^sup 4^ISR and MGV IPTs, including joint tactical radio system, multifunction radio frequency device, combat identification, close combat auxiliary weapon station, short-range and long-range active protection systems and short-, medium- and long-range electro-optical devices and infrared sensors. These are not necessarily common to all variants.
The key to the design success of the common chassis will bo the selection, development and integration of various components and subsystems in a physical and electronic architecture that serves the most demanding technical and performance needs of the variant mission modules. To do this, the General Dynamics/BAE common chassis team has evolved an initial design concept that includes:
* Single chassis design with reconfigurable armor.
* Power generation via a high density diesel engine and matched generator.
* Hybrid electric traction drive system.
* High voltage energy storage system.
* Thermal management subsystem.
* Band track.
* Hydro-pneumatic road arms.
* NBC/environmental control.
* Autonomous navigation drivers aids.
* Universal crewmen's forward stations and displays.
* Numerous other common subsystems and components.
The common chassis provides power and stored energy to meet the propulsion and electronic demands of all variants by dynamically managing its generation, storage and distribution to subsystems based on the priorities established by the states and modes software unique to each variant's operational needs and crewman's instructions. Thermal management, environmental control and NBC protection are handled in the same fashion. The subsystems are designed so that they can be altered both physically and via software to cool and protect the occupants of a vehicle.
Although a long way from design review, the concept above gives a clear indication of the design advances that have been made in achieving true commonality within the manned combat systems of the FCS program.
The goal of the commonality plan for the Future Combat Systems family of MGVs is to improve operational availability, reduce the logistics footprint and balance performance with life-cycle cost. The commonality approach is based on emphasizing maximum commonality from the beginning of the concept phase. The first 5 percent of program expenditure commits up to 70 percent of life-cycle cost of the program and this early stage is where commonality must be firmly established.
The approach is to adopt the strategy that everything in the vehicle is common until proven uncommon. Based on this strategy, for example, the nonmission-specific hardware starts out as common and must be justified to be uncommon by evaluating the impact of the suggested change on the key performance parameters, critical operational requirements and the program life-cycle costs. This evaluation highlights the true program benefit and burden associated with making the item uncommon, which will allow the standardization team (ST) to make an informed decision to balance performance with life-cycle cost. An example of this balance is the engine. Since the MGV family is composed of 24-ton class vehicles, a common engine type can provide adequate performance for each variant while minimizing the development, production, training and logistic program costs.
In evaluating whether an item can be unique, the ST requires that the integrated product team requesting a deviation substantiate the tangible benefits resulting from making the item unique and/or the unacceptable burdens that the use of a common item will cause. Parameters to substantiate consideration include:
* Development cost and schedule impact.
* Production cost (DTURC or design to unit rollaway cost) impact.
* Reduction in system space, weight, power and cooling.
* Elimination and/or consolidation of functions.
* Hardware and software interface control documents.
* Improvement in reliability, maintainability or operational/inherent availability.
* Manufacturing tools, processes and assembly procedures impact.
* Number of different spare part numbers.
* Extent of maintenance and diagnostic procedures required.
* Software lines of code required.
* Training support packages, equipment and procedures impacts.
* Operational and maintenance training impacts.
* Maintenance tools impact.
* Consumables (for example, lubricants, cleaning agents and oils) expended.
* Support equipment impact.
Data provided by the IPT will be entered into the life-cycle cost model, where applicable. This cost data will then be balanced against the improvement in performance (as well as other program impacts) to determine if the item should be granted uncommon status. The commonality customers and stakeholders have a key interest in the dynamic realm of cost and performance. Through their active role on the MGV ST, these individuals can ensure that the commonality vision for FCS is maintained.
Only those components that are absolutely mission specific and unique fall into the noncommon category. Such items as the 155 mm cannon for the non-line-of-sight cannon, the 120 mm cannon for the maneuver control system, the 30 mm autocannon on the infantry combat vehicle (which may also be used on the resupply vehicle) and the 120 mm mortar for the non-line-of-sight mortar are examples of unique items to meet specific mission requirements.
The driving technologies that have caused this level of commonality to be achieved are the changes in operational performance associated with the networked system of systems situational awareness and the introduction of advanced active and passive survivability suites in lieu of traditional heavy metal armor. What has happened is not the elimination of the protection afforded by the current Abrams and Bradley systems but instead the raising of the entire MGV fleet's level of protection to that of the next generation close-combat manned combat system and the infantry combat vehicle.
In effect, the entire FCS vehicle fleet will achieve equal protection, mobility performance and logistical supportability with the future close-combat systems. The true benefit of commonality will be in the operational and logistical advantages and flexibility it gives to the unit of employment commander.
[Author Affiliation]
By Col. Christopher V. Cardine
U.S. Army retired
[Author Affiliation]
COL. CHRISTOPHER V. CARDINE, USA Ret., is a scientist for tank technology, General Dynamics Land Systems. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Army War College.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий