Comments on: FCS Active Protection Is Troubled

By: Winford Gundy

Winford Gundy — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 21:34:51 +0000

I would highly advise NOT using this product. I had the worse experience of my life while using Mary Joy. At the time I felt as if no one could truly relate to the horror I felt until reading some of these comments. The night I smoked Mary Joy, I only took one hit. I had previously taken three shots of vodka, soon after I began to feel the most sickening pain I have ever felt in my life.

By: Peggy Fitsgerald

Peggy Fitsgerald — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:07:12 +0000

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time.Thank you so much

By: Ruth

Ruth — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:09:31 +0000

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Ruth

By: Recon-Team

Recon-Team — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:19:59 +0000

Out of ALL the programs included in FCS the development of “hard” and “soft” kill active defense systems is probably the most important and would even be useful on current vehicles. Even if the rest of FCS were to be cut, we must preserve the development of these systesm! We could buy some foreign designs for a short term solution but I remain convinced that we can develop superior systems.

By: Nick (atacms)

Nick (atacms) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:20:41 +0000

I’m disappointed with the progress too that the defense contractors are doing with the APS system.

If we are however going to limit discussion to anti-RPG systems, then Textron already has an asnwer with their anti-RPG that is eliminated via a airbag type of screen.

Also the Swedes and Germans seem to be having more luck eliminating not just heavy ATGM’s, but KE tank rounds! That system is the AMAP-ADS.

We should just buy off the shelf until our tech exceeds the current tech.

By: scathsealgaire

scathsealgaire — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:34:07 +0000

at Trophy.
I was definitely not blaming the journalist. Greg has written a fine article.
I was making a poor joke, with a slight serious overtone.
A journalist can be expected to write with excessive verbiage. An editor is supposed to hit them on the head and say…are you trying for a Pulitzer? this is a puff piece!!! Shorten it!!
All these modern day editors with their Internets and Twitters, in my day Editors made you march thought the snow in a blizzard because you forgot to get a third source for a fact. Now a days .….

As for Time and Fox…don’t get me started on them. :)

By: Trophy

Trophy — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:23:01 +0000

““Those missiles can penetrate up to 1,000 millimeters of steel armor.”

Someone needs to fire your editor, LOL. 1,000 millimetres is easier said as 1 metre. It is not as long winded.”

Sounds more dramatic when stated that way. Typical sensationalist tactics employed by Fox News/CNN/etc. masked as “journalism.” But this is a minor infraction on this journalist’s part, especially compared to the evils of Time Magazine.

By: Cole

Cole — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:10:39 +0000

Refer to Colin’s earlier article about Chobham– like armor which works differently and better than 1 meter of steel.

Every film I’ve seen of APS in action had shrapnel going vertical…not horizontal like a Claymore or shrapnel from an RPG exploding off thick armor. So your boys are essentially saying its OK to be be near a non-penetrating horizontally-exploding RPG…but not behind a vertically exploding APS? APS seems like the lesser threat to dismounts.

Suspect you don’t want lots of dismounts walking close to the front and sides of a tank to block the machine guns and get their eardrums blown out by the gun blast. There is a reason why the TUSK for the M1 has a phone in the rear…but wouldn’t it be better to be wirelessly connected to the tank? Shouldn’t the infantry be protecting from the rear or well to the front or side street flanks to stop rear, side street,and window shots?

Recall that during one of the Thunder Runs, an M1 tank caught an RPG from behind costing casualties of others employing far less armor who had to stop and help. So do the Armor boys propose to share the armor with the rest of the combined arms teams? Wonder how many fuel trucks would be required to support 300 BCT vehicles using 2 gallons per mile. Hmmm 600 gallons per mile?

The GAO doesn’t like a weapon’s system? Now there’s a revelation.;) So its OK to spend nearly two decades on systems like V-22 and F-22 to come to fruition but we expect immediate production results from a program that began in 2003? BTW, the FCS spin outs are going to the Infantry BCT first where they can support operations in Afghanistan. That buys more time to work on the Army’s most critical vehicles for the FCS BCTs…just as other services had time to work on theirs…

Rome wasn’t built in a day…nor did they cancel building because Caesar’s bean counters (who weren’t engineers or in harm’s way) expected more/faster…and barring that were willing to cancel the program adding risk to those who ARE in harm’s way.

By: Scathsealgaire

Scathsealgaire — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:34:56 +0000

“Those missiles can penetrate up to 1,000 millimeters of steel armor.”

Someone needs to fire your editor, LOL. 1,000 millimetres is easier said as 1 metre. It is not as long winded.