Comments on: Army Moves Up FCS Program Schedule

By: Cole

Cole — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:11:14 +0000

Reason (voice of), there’s nothing dangerous or unstable about it. Terminator? The only “I’ll be back” associated with it are the U.S. Soldiers who may set it out after dark, monitor it, and returns to pick it up at dawn. The enemy will never know whether it is covered by direct fire, claymores, or artillery…or just is gathering information.
Lugs, false alarms are a possibility, but multi-mode sensors reduce and help identify those false alarms. Proper sensor placement also helps. There are tamper-proof aspects to it…and sensor capabilities themselves make it difficult to sneak up to steal it.
Yes, we had remote sensor systems back in Viet Nam. This will be far more localized and widely fielded to provide combat information for nearby using units rather than intelligence for higher echelons like systems of the past.
Early fielding in combat will allow Soldier ingenuity to figure out problems/successes and innovative means of employment…and hopefully save lives.

By: lugs

lugs — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:25:28 +0000

Isn’t it dangerous to field these systems prematurely on a battlefield where there are known cases of insurgents selling captured military tech/vehicles to other countries. How easy is it for a sensor to end up in foreign countries hands, broken down and counter measures created for it.
There is a case of a Apache being couriered to Russia escorted by Russian officials through Syria then Russia by truck, how easy is it to transfer this tech when the sensor is so tiny?
I never understood how these sensors would work, inevitably one will end up in enemy hands and it would be like the enigma code for Germany. The enemy can learn how the sensor work and create counter measures, everything from livestock with metal strapped to their sadles to trigger the metalic sensors in the T-UGS or hacking the transmitting service to create false alarms etc.

By: reason (voice of)

reason (voice of) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:58:02 +0000

let’s see… the army is being pressured by the civilians to speed up deployment of FCS. the urgency is understandable, especially given FCS’s share of the defense budget.
let’s keep in mind what we’re talking about here: autonomous or quasi-autonomous systems. let’s hope the rush to deploy doesn’t put systems in the field that are unstable and potentially dangerous to our troops or friendlies…
terminator comes to mind.

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

*Whistle* I dont’ know how common that sort of terrain is that he’s lying on, but when I looked at it, ACUPAT did its job! (In making it taking even a split-second longer to mark his outline, which in combat might be a lifesaver.) I’m impressed.
Better yet, it has nohting to do with the infamous “ACUPAT on a sofa” picture.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:50:37 +0000

Tactical Unattended Ground Sensor (T-UGS):
https://www.fcs.army.mil/systems/ugs/index.html
Can be used for unit perimeter defense or surveillance of battlefield areas of interest. Leave the urban version behind in a building you already cleared, for instance, in a room that a sniper might use, or a high traffic hallway. Use the T-UGS to detect insurgents attempting to lay IEDs on roads surrounding your combat outpost in Iraq, or along a mountain trail in Afghanistan.
I’m glad to see the Army being more proactive in selling the program and accomodating Sec of Defense Gates and key lawmakers.

By: JeremyF

JeremyF — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:06:16 +0000

They’re sensors

By: Jimbo Jones

Jimbo Jones — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:05:14 +0000

Whats the dude in the photo doing, looks like he’s putting up some sort of tiny rocket thing?