“Id say weve done a reasonable job of managing the balance between risk and reward reward being the ultimate performance of the system,” said Dr. Thomas Killion, the Army’s chief scientist, of Future Combat Systems during a January interview in his Pentagon office. “And were very cognizant of the risk associated with the various systems.“
In recent months, the sprawling, ambitious FCS program — meant to equip a third of the Army’s 70 combat brigades with a family of new networked vehicles at a cost of around $300 billion — has taken a couple big hits. Several of the program’s airborne and ground robots have been deferred and more cuts are looming as the defense budget gets squeezed by war costs. FCS, with its delicate “system of systems” approach, remains a big technological risk in many lawmakers’ minds, making it vulnerable to gradual paring. Still, Dr. Killion remains optimistic:
Yes, weve gone forward with some risk, but I think were managing that risk in a reasonable fashion. Every time weve gone through an independent review where Ive put people together from outside to review the technology for FCS, theyve come back saying youre doing a reasonable job managing risk and we believe youll ultimately be successful. I know there are a lot of questions out there about [technology readiness levels] and FCS, but were doing a reasonable job when you go in and look at the details. …What a lot of people would like us to do is manage it as piece-parts, essentially like traditional acquisition programs: platform X, platform Y and so on, each one managed as a separate program. Personally, I think that that would add new risk and complication to fielding the next generation of systems to the Army.
Look at what FCS was intended to do that is, to achieve as much commonality as possible across platforms so that we have a common logistics tail, common sets of components which reduces production costs, and also (and I think the biggest thing) to ensure interoperability in software and subsystems cutting across those various platforms. What weve had in the past are things like the Abrams [tank] and the Bradley [fighting vehicle], where we spent a lot of time and effort in the digitization period in late 90s figuring out how to kluge together capabilities to make those platforms talk to one another. FCS, its designed in from the beginning that these systems will talk to one another and collaborate, because they share a common operating environment, common communications environments and common interfaces. We ensure from the beginning that all these platforms share the capabilities we want them to and can work together as a team, both manned and unmanned systems.
Read the whole interview in the new issue of Defense Technology International.
–David Axe, cross-posted at War Is Boring
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Good Morning Folks,
With Sec. of the Army Francis Harvey now gone is there any life left into the good intentions but really bad idea call the FCS?
May the next Sec. of the Army be less under the infulence of industry and more attuned to the Army.
If Bush wants to find some quick pocket change to fix the Military Healtcare System he might look to the FCS and the move on to the Missile Defense System for more nickles.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I know that every time when we initiate the modernization of our Army, there will be many voices against, and finding things to spend this money for. However, we need to prepare our country for the 3rd Millenium wars! We no longer can rely on the 50th technology to defend our country. This requires sacrifices, and we must do NOW, if we want to survive as a country. Otherwise, early or later the radical Islam will destroy us, no matter what pacifists will say. We are dealing with madmen, and with madmen, like mad dogs, there is only one way – destroy them, before they will destroy you without blinking. FCS is expensive, but it’s cheaper now, then later when we may not even have a chance to build one strong army.
I don’t agree totally in what the first commentator stated about how the FCS is going to stop the “madmen” as he calls them.
First off, FCS is still a program suited for a conventional war. What we are dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan is an unconventional war.
Second, technology only help you so far when dealing with insurgents. The best way to deal with such problem is, i apologize in bringing this back, win the peoples heart and minds, old fashion intelligence operations, and the use of special forces to hit small concentrated camps within hours of being discovered.
FCS doesn’t deal with any of those topics with its modernization capability for MBTs, APCs, Howitzers. But the networking capability is indeed a big thing for the future.
I’m not a critic of FCS, in fact it is needed if we are to advance into the future, but lets us not believe that FCS is the answer to the problems that we have today with insurgents.
In an unconventional warfare, history will teach you, it is not technology that wins in the end, but who is willing to sacrifice more to meet their goals.
Other than that, I hope they go ahead with FCS although a little short on money nowadays, but nonetheless an essential upgrade for our troops to keep the edge NOW THAT the chinese have formally increased 18% their military spending (we don’t know what the true number is).
CUT US Army DoD Hqs staff alone & CUT Army Dept DC staff & fund this FCS.
Move Out.
& Meet the needs of our forces in Iraq.
Must do.
NO politics
Save Lives & Time.