Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles
formerly proposed family of ground vehicles
The Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV) was a family of lighter and more transportable ground vehicles developed by Boeing and subcontractors BAE Systems and General Dynamics as part of the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The MGV program was intended as a successor to the Stryker of the Interim Armored Vehicle program.
The MGV program was set in motion in 1999 by Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki.
The MGVs were based on a common tracked vehicle chassis. The lead vehicle, and the only one to be produced as a prototype, was the XM1203 non-line-of-sight cannon. Seven other vehicle variants were to follow.
The MGV vehicles were conceived to be exceptionally lightweight (initially capped at 18 tons base weight) to meet the Army's intra-theatre air mobility requirements. The vehicles that the Army sought to replace with the MGVs ranged from 30 to 70 tons. In order to reduce weight, the Army substituted armor with passive and active protection systems.
The FCS program was terminated in 2009 due to concerns about the program's affordability and technology readiness.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles” as formerly proposed family of ground vehicles. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as formerly proposed family of ground vehicles. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q644093. The first chronological checks are 1999 and 2009.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles primary sources, Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles archive and Future research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.