Strategypage notes a success on the lethality front for the FCS program:
The U.S. Army is trying to replace the 60 ton M-1 tank with a vehicle weighing half as much. Both will use a 120mm gun. But the one for the lighter FCS (Future Combat System) vehicle, the XM360, is a third lighter (two tons, versus three tons) than the one used in the M-1. The XM360 uses a lot of new materials and design innovations to cut the weight. But further tweaks have reduced the recoil from 70 tons to 43 tons. That makes it possible to mount the gun in a much lighter vehicle.
Yet the protection issue is hardly resolved:
Giving a lighter vehicle similar protection to the current M-1 tank is a major challenge, and most observers want to see it work before they buy into it.
And the tools to network this new family of vehicles so that a light FCS replacement for the MBT could survive by killing anything that might kill it before the enemy can take a shot are stalled:
The U.S. Army is in the early stages of developing the most expensive weapons program in its history, but the project could already be in jeopardy because it largely depends on three separate military programs that have been plagued by cost overruns, immature technologies and timetable delays.
Like I wrote in that 2002 article:
Building the FCS, however, is a high-risk venture. The Army should not spend whatever it takes attempting to meld multiple revolutionary technologies into one vehicle for all missions. The FCS should be different from the Abrams and Bradley but must be designed with near-term technology that incorporates modular improvements if the Army is to turn “gee whiz” ideas into actual hardware.
The M-1A3 we are developing will be needed for many years. At some point I hope the Army develops a Plan B for a Future Heavy System in place of the magical FCS that we hope will be as lethal and survivable as an Abrams yet small enough for a C-130 to carry. You know, just in case we can't build the wonder tank.
