# Cancel FCS



## tomahawk6 (30 Apr 2006)

The US FCS program is a huge waste of money that need's to be scrapped. Due to the Iraq deployment our equipment is in need of major repair or replacement. The US Army needs to cut its losses and buy the CV-90 built by United Defense/Bofors. It wouldnt take much to build the family of vehicles in the US with some modifications that would allow the vehicles to operate in our netcentric force. The 40mm main gun of the IFV would be very formidable.

http://www.plasticwarfare.com/articles/strf90/index.asp?lang=eng


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Apr 2006)

tomahawk6:  

If you can convince your guys to buy the CV90, and our guys can be convinced to piggy-back on your buy, I think you would make a lot of people on this forum reallllllly happy.  Eh Arthur? .


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Apr 2006)

Sounds like a plan. ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (1 May 2006)

Some of the objectives looked really far fetched given the planned timeline in the FCS program. Do you think it will survive once Bush leaves in 2008?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 May 2006)

I guess it depends on which party win's in 08. If the Democrats win FCS will be scrapped or greatly scaled back. If the Republican's retain control I think FCS will be scrapped/cut back.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on which party win's in 08. If the Democrats win FCS will be scrapped or greatly scaled back. If the Republican's retain control I think FCS will be scrapped/cut back.



Jeez tomahawk, remind me to check the coin if we ever are reduced to a toss.  "Heads I win. Tails you lose."


----------



## TCBF (2 May 2006)

"I guess it depends on which party win's in 08. If the Democrats win FCS will be scrapped or greatly scaled back. If the Republican's retain control I think FCS will be scrapped/cut back."

- Depends who sits in the House/Senate seats where it is built.

- Still a big NMH (Not Made Here) lobby south of the 49.

Tom


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 May 2006)

Kirkhill, the reason I think that FCS will go no matter who sits in the White House is the pressure to reduce the defense budget. This is compounded by the urgent need to repair/replace equipment that has been through the mill in Iraq.The money has to come from somewhere and FCS is it. A big issue is that much of FCS requires technology that hasnt even been perfected yet.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2006)

I see that tomahawk6. I was just being facetious.

I gather the FCS project ultimately was a peace-time project set against variously defined threats and indefinite time-lines.  It served to give some focus to industry's activities as well as justification for spending the billions of procurement dollars.   Now the threats, time-lines and focus are all abundantly clear and there is no shortage of demand for those dollars.

I guess you can say that procurement has had to switch from dealing with what might happen to what is happening.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> tomahawk6:
> 
> If you can convince your guys to buy the CV90, and our guys can be convinced to piggy-back on your buy, I think you would make a lot of people on this forum reallllllly happy.  Eh Arthur? .



 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2006)

My understanding of the FCS program suggests there is a lot of "automation" and robotics involved, such as the SP howitzer having only a two man crew and lots of PowerPoint slides depicting TUAVs of various sorts and various robotic ground vehicles as well. Certainly watching results of the DARPA robotic challenge cross country race indicates that autonomous ground vehicles have a very long way to go.

My other understanding of FCS is the key component is a "tactical Internet" which allows the rapid transfer of data between units and up and down the COC. This sort of technology is much better developed, although after re reading "How Technology Failed in Iraq" http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13893&ch=infotech I wonder how many of the bandwidth issues have been solved (for OPSEC reasons no one has to enlighten me....).

The last issue which is often commented upon is the insistence that everything be packaged to fit a C-130. Armour technology and material science does not _seem_ to provide a means of protecting vehicles in that size/weight category to the level desired (look at the travails of the Stryker and LAV-MGS. The vehicles have to be stripped and two or more C-130s are needed to carry the vehicle, the crew and the various parts required to get into action).

As this is all from open source data, there may be "magic" solutions we don't know about, but this is rather hard to imagine. If I was in S_Baker's shoes (or in charge of the program), I would concentrate on the tactical internet side, field the terminals and nodes into existing vehicles (M-1, M-2, Apache helicopter gunships etc.) as the 70% solution. If getting a light weight vehicle family into action soon is a vital requirment, then buy the CV-90 family and install the data terminals and nodes in those vehicles for the 80% solution (sorry, no C-130s). The automation and robotics can be fielded as separate programs which can be integrated into Service Life Extension Programs (SLEPs) for exisiting vehicle and issued to units as they mature.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 May 2006)

OSD has already indicated that they could cut $32b from the program from FY07 out to FY11. The Army countered it would cut force structure - typical knee jerk reaction.

Ballistic armor is one area. To think a 19t vehicle can provide the same level of protection as a 72t Abram's is science fiction. In time electric armor or some type of composite armor might be able to do that, but that time is a decade away if at all.

Communications is another problem area but one that has a high liklihood of success. The core of FCS is the network linking all system's from the ground vehicle to the UAV and to the robotic vehicle. The whole system will run on a linux based network called Warfighter Information Network-Tactical.  Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) is designed to replace all current radios with one system. Bandwidth is going to be at a real premium. From GAO report.

- A first-of-a-kind network will have to be developed that will entail 
development of unprecedented capabilities—on-the-move 
communications, high-speed data transmission, dramatically increased 
bandwidth, and simultaneous voice, data and video.

- The design and integration of 18 major weapon systems or platforms has 
to be done simultaneously and within strict size and weight limitations; 

- At least 53 technologies that are considered critical to achieving FCS’ 
critical performance capabilities will need to be matured and integrated 
into the system-of-systems; 

- Synchronizing the development, demonstration, and production of as 
many as 157 complementary systems with the FCS content and schedule.


Frankly if FCS grabbed the CV-90 family and upgraded its technology we would be alot better off with a serious savings in time and money.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 May 2006)

The FCS vehicle (manned ground vehicles) models they have at the gdls web site look interesting. Are they mock ups? Or are they prototypes?


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 May 2006)

I would think they are mockups. Right now we are fielding Stryker family vehicles. FCS is no longer required to be light enough to be moved by C-130 which to my mind drives a stake through the rationale of FCS in the first place.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/nov/uf-for_army.htm


----------

