Future Combat Systems will undergo its first major field test beginning in October:
Experiment 1.1 will run through calendar year ’06, and will feature prototypes and “the first slice of the network,” leading into the first spin off of FCS technologies into the current force, Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing FCS vice president-general manager/program manager, told reporters in a program update last week.
Boeing and Science Applications International Corp. are the Lead System Integrator for FCS.
Software and the network have been identified by various reports, including one done by the Institute for Defense Analyses, as areas that could become strategic risks without risk mitigation efforts that the LSI is undertaking.
The field experiment will “allow us to look at the network inside of the formation down to the soldier level, and begin to link sensors in a direct way to soldiers,” Dan Zanini, SAIC senior vice president and FCS deputy program manager, said.
FCS is under fire from a lot of directions, as many of the various systems seem to be coming in overpriced, overweight, and under performance specs.
The October field exercise will follow a series of experiments in the system of systems integration lab that opened this year.
A series of stretched Humvees will be used as surrogate vehicles. “Those vehicles will be equipped with elements of the network, so they will include JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) radios,” Muilenburg said. Other network elements will include early System of System Common Operating Environment (SOSCOE) software and early elements of battle command software.
FCS is closely tied to JTRS Cluster 1, led by a separate area of Boeing, and Cluster 5, managed by General Dynamics. Cluster 1 is being restructured after a series of problems and show cause letter.
Defense Tech has been watching the Joint Tactical Radio for some time. See articles here, here, and here.
The field exercise will also include early prototype hardware for the unattended ground sensors (UGV) and potentially an early prototype launch system for the intelligent munition system. iRobot’s PackBot will also take part. Another potential participant is the largest FCS unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Northrop Grumman’s Fire Scout. The smallest UAV, the Micro Air Vehicle, under development by Honeywell and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a candidate FCS program, is also expected to take part in the tests.
Critics, no doubt, will get good mileage out of the Humvee-based FCS vehicle stand-ins. While the FCS vehicles certainly have a long way to go, detractors would also do well to remember that the German army began practicing blitzkrieg tactics with cardboard tank cut-outs mounted on cars. And one FCS vehicle, the NLOS-C self-propelled artillery, is getting fast-tracked.
So, while problems abound, the FCS program rolls onward.
–posted by Murdoc
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
This must be a set up,
Businessweek (this week July 4,2005) in their Ideas Editorials this week is titled “It’s Time to Protect The Pentagon from Itself”
This editorial attacks pentagon spending with such “Facts” as; in the pipe line now are 88 major wepons projects valued at $1.5 Trillion, the F-22 (dicussed last week) has a price tag of $362 Billion by itself. Then comes the FCS a $108 Billion dollar and still rising defense contract that has gone up 40% over origional cost estimates.
The GAO considers 52 of 53 new Techonlogies as “not mature in the FCS project(s). An example of this is the JTR. This system is attempting to use the same VHF and UHF bands that the military has used since WWII in the 21st. Century. The offender her is Harris Systems. It is very clear that Boeing and SAIC are not the right contractors for this project.
The article goes on to recomend sweeping changes in the way the DoD contracts out these these mega projects. No only is the DoD waisting money it can’t get critical equipment and supplies to our troops cruuently engaged in combat.
As some Marine who just came off partol near Qiam in western Iraq and has to swap out his ammo with a guy going out on patrol because of a shortage in theatre of 5.56 ammo would say “Fu** the F-22, get us more fu**ing bullets.” For you who have never laced up a pair of combat boots the prcedeing quote is in “Grunt Speak”.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
PS I’ve also read William B. Breuer’s “Top Secrets Tales of World War II” also. It’s a good value at under $10 Dollars.
I’ll have to echo Byron’s sentiment about the contractors. The concept of having your major future weapon system housed under a single contractor, in theory sounds like a good way to insure top to bottom compatability.
The flip side, a single contractor (prime contractor) is a monopoly. Thus you get higher prices and lower innovation.
A better model to look at is the Intel pentium chip concept. Yes, Intel is a monopoly, but a limited one. Intel sets the standards and other company’s produce the components.
Practical case in point, Land Warrior. The first version of land-warrior designed by Rathyon was a complete flop. It was only when the military steped back and let silicon valley make the program work, did land-warrior shine.
fwiw your photo is actually an american mockup used for maneuver training. Amazing what a tight (to the point of strangulation) budget will do.
While Desert Shield was in the process of heating up it wasn’t uncommon to see flocks of golf carts at the Ft Knox golf course conducting maneuvers. Radios in the cooler rack and map in hand… I thought someone should’ve gotten creative with some cardboard but alas, it wasn’t to be… would’ve been most picture-worthy.
The Ma Deuce was actually designed to be an anti-tank weapon, as apposed to anti-personnel. However, by the time it made it into production, tank armor had improved to the point that it was obsolete for it’s intended purpose, which is why it was fielded as an anti-personnel and anti-materiel weapon.
They began actively searching for a replacement for the Ma Deuce quite some time ago due to concerns that the caliber was not destructive enough to ensure that vehicles and equipment hit with it would be permanently and irretrievably disabled. At one point they were rushing development of a new 25mm round with an electronically fused warhead (and an accompanying weapon platform) to replace the Ma Deuce, but they had problems with it and it’s development stalled. In response, the Mk 211 (Raufoss) round was developed, which greatly improved the destructive potential of the Ma Deuce, and they say that round added at least twenty years to the useable service life of this classic weapon.
Great website,