Comments on: FCS Not Killed: Casey

By: BSGreene

BSGreene — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:05:44 +0000

Just an idea… How about basing a future force on the CV90. There are versions of this vehicle that can fill all of the combat roles from tank to IFV, to mortar, to APC, and engineering and air defence variants as well. You could incorporate some of the FCS spin-outs such as hybrid drive, band tracks, and active protection into an already battle proven vehicle while decreasing logisitics burdens with the common vehicle. In addition you could also reuse the m242s from the decommisioning bradleys in an ows25 turret for the Stykers and move the Protector systems to the MRAPS thus increaing the available firepower up and down the various brigades. Just an idea…

By: Timhogs

Timhogs — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:38:52 +0000

If you read between the lines of all the comments, you begin to see what went wrong with FCS MGV, as well as most major procurements — too many people expect it to solve all the problems. The simple (and to bureaucrats, unfathomable) truth is that there is no single vehicle that will do the job in all environments.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:56:24 +0000

29 May, still waiting.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:25:05 +0000

Has anyone heard if the Acquisition Decision Memo has come out yet?

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:14:56 +0000

Wow FCS is great’n all, but why can’t we just get this over with..

By: Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:40:46 +0000

In my opinion FCS should define the network interface and let weapon developers build to that interface. This will encourage corporations to do some work on their own nickle and will result in a large number of solutions. If we are always trying to chase the latest “lessons learned” via the standard acquisition process we will never catch up. By the time the “new” MGV is fielded conditions will change.

By: Decisions

Decisions — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:42:44 +0000

wtpworrier,
Don’t shoot the messenger. There were several sources that reported that FCS was entirely cancelled. It came from a direct quote. Anyway, FCS as we know it is being cancelled. It’s being restructured and will probably not even be referred to as FCS in the future.

By: wtpworrier

wtpworrier — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:03:32 +0000

I think it’s funny that somebody lied about the whole program being canceled. Check your source of information first.

By: JP

JP — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:49:08 +0000

Boeing = Over-promise and Under-Deliver

They were peddling that same SOSCOE foolishness to SBINET and it didn’t work there either. Based on past experience with Boeing, I would be surprised if the SOS test results are as good as advertised.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:18:17 +0000

The thing y’all are overlooking in focusing on the vehicles is the SOFTWARE. Boeing rejected using COTS middleware solutions already industry-proven to go their own way. They’re stitching together all kinds of open source dogs and cats, and spending tons of engineering dollars on integration and new code. The worst part is that their maintenance costs going forward will be completely borne by the FCS program, without being able to leverage any industry/commercial investment. Expect to see software cost costs soar and capabilities be limited.

By: Jawaralal Bernstein

Jawaralal Bernstein — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:56:26 +0000

I love Gen. Casey’s “I supported it; I did not agree with it.” Such pure Army thinking and expression and sincerity. That’s the Army I remember, flat-bottomed vehicles and all.

By: jason

jason — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:54:59 +0000

cvn and jim, you ought to open a comedy act for the RNC. It’s a shame you can’t see the obvious, that it was Rumsfeld and Gates who killed the FCS concept, not any “lefties” or Obama campaign promises. The Army aimed too high, let the program costs get away from them, and Gates is hell-bent on giving the ground forces as many MRAPs as they can handle, so they can waddle through towns and not go cross-country for fear of bogging down. Get a grip.

By: jim

jim — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:30:26 +0000

Killing the EFV for fear of IEDs seems extremely short-sighted, probably purposefully so.

As to FCS, FCS got gutted for one simple reason — Obama. Obama made a campaign pledge to hobble FCS to satisfy the Left … and he fulfilled that pledge.

Back to the EFV, for lefties like Obama, reducing the Marines ability to kick down doors is a feature, not a bug. Obama and the American Left thinks the world would be a lot better place if the US wasn’t quite so good at kicking down doors.

By: cvn

cvn — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:45:49 +0000

Gates has received his marching orders from obama – create a force that can be a meals on wheels delivery service for people like obama’s brother who lives in a hut, but eliminate any power projection capability that might be useful for America’s national interest such as an expeditionary force which could defend the Georgians, Poles or Taiwanese against obama’s Marxist allies….

Who exactly is the enemy that requires FCS to survive against IED’s without a 12 km mid-range tank munition that would devastate T-80 — BMP class vehicles ?

Barry is the problem….

By: Curt

Curt — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:24:02 +0000

jimbo,
You miss the point of the post. I was saying the current artillery is good enough. They are less at risk of attack from IEDs (and for that matter air attack, counter battery, etc) because of the nature of their employment (and total US air dominance) so protection from IEDs (and counterbattery, etc) is usually a lower priority. Most of them are currently either in storage (since you don’t need as much fire support) or in a protected firebase. In a fashion, since they don’t move around a lot, yes, they are less at risk from IEDs than vehicles and personnel that do routinely travel along the roads. Can you give me any instances when M198/M777s have been lost due to IEDs? If what you have today is good enough, then the imperative to get something better, right now at increased cost, is reduced and the benefit of having a common vehicle (and having increased resources available for other programs) outways the increased risk of not fielding NLOS-C for a few more years.

By: Decisions

Decisions — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:15:24 +0000

Armywonk,

I hear that Acquisition Decision Memorandum could be coming tomorrow???

By: jimbo

jimbo — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:10:03 +0000

so your telling me trucks pulling artillary are less likely to be targeted by IED’s? give me a break!

By: Curt

Curt — Wed, 20 May 2009 12:20:56 +0000

The real issue comes down to what you assume is your biggest threats and most likely future scenarios and the trade offs made for armored vehicles you purchase. For instance, the USMC rightly in my mind, believes that the amphibious capability of the EFV is paramount. So the fact that it has only 16″ of ground clearance and a flat bottom is weighed against its ability to rapidly build up combat power ashore. Since the EFV is designed to support amphibious assault, it is unlikely to face IEDs. The ability to meet Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM) requirements (like fitting on the ships!) are more important than COIN requirements. When it may face IEDs (later in a conflict), you either add on kits (which are admittedly not as effective as a dedicated vehicle) or you change out your equipment (perhaps to the 1000s of left over M-ATVs and MRAPs in astorage somewhere). For the future USMC Amphibious mission (STOM), the EFV (or something like it) reflects the trade-offs they are willing to make. The same argument could be made for the NLOS-C. In a conventional or even hybrid warfare scenario, the NLOS-C will be at, hopefully, secure fairebases (i.e. no IEDs) or behind the lines, I am not sure of the logic of not proceeding with at least that part of FCS ground vehicle program except that the Army clearly feels the currently deployed guns, perhaps with the new fire control network, are good enough so that the argument for a standard ground vehicle is more important than deploying the NLOS-C system today. Last I checked, the M-109s and M198/M777s (which are towed by TRUCKS!) were not being destroyed by IEDs (or anything else) in great numbers in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Remember, better is the worst enemy of good enough.
Clearly, the army has decided that its future armoured vehicle needs to be more capable in COIN scenarios then what they could develop into the existing FCS ground vehicle, so it makes sense to cancel that part of the program and work on something else that better meets your requirements. The important thing to note is that the Army is not throwing the baby out with the bath water. The networked sensors and other advanced concepts under development will be deployed to all brigades and they will still work fine on the new, more COIN friendly, vehicle (assuming they can make the radios work correctly). Feel free to argue that the priorities are wrong, but if you assume that the Army/DoD was correct in the nature of future conflicts, then it is hard to argue that they didn’t make the correct choice. To quote the former SECDEF, “You go to war with the Army that you have”. It reflects the all the trade-offs you have made over the years in protection, tactical mobility, firepower, strategic mobility, sustainability, affordability, producability, and a whole slew of other –ility buzzwords to best meet your projected threats in the future.

By: Armywonk

Armywonk — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:59:26 +0000

Until OSD issues an Acquisition Decision Memorandum, the Army is obligated to continue the FCS program of record. The review that was conducted “snaps the chalk line” on all FCS designs, meaning that they are ready to continue on the road to the Critical Design Review and a Milestone C decision. All of this effort now was done to reduce risk LATER in the program. This is the opposite of all other acquisition programs. All the work to date will inform the new Ground Combat Vehicle effort that the Army is beginning as well as the expansion and acceleration of the FCS Spin Outs to all Army brigade combat teams.

What seems to have escaped the author’s sarcasm is that was validated not just by Army acquisition and FCS team but by the end user or Soldier representatives at the FFID and AETF at Fort Bliss. Considering that MG Terry and most of the soldiers at the AETF are combat vets, do you really think they gave it a pass when they themselves will be using this equipment in the future? MG Terry is slated to take command of 10th Mountain very shortly. It is very likely he will be taking them into combat. They don’t work for the acquisition side of the Army or the PM. If it didn’t work, they would say so.

Folks seem to miss how truly revolutionary FCS is. Instead of designing a new tank or a new artillery piece or a new infantry carrier in isolation, the Army and its partners have designed an entire brigade’s worth of capabilities from the ground up. The program pushes the envelope but I guess stovepiped acquisition will be back in style…

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:57:37 +0000

Zach, the EFV is expected to bring 17 sea-sick Marines and the crew to shore from probably 50+ miles out to avoid shore-to-ship missiles. It then is expected to spend 99% of its time fighting multiple places on shore, where no doubt the enemy has placed minefields and IEDs on and off road. It is protected only against 14.5mm machine gun. It weighs far more than the AAVs that got stuck at the Battle of Nasiriyah.

The FCS MGV was HYBRID-ELECTRIC drive just like all the cars you see running around. In other words, a small diesel engine charges the batteries that run the electric motor that powers the vehicles band tracks.

If we had all M1 sized MGVs we would need 6 times as many fuel trucks driving around getting blown up. So you essentially safeguard one group of combat arms Soldiers to a greater degree while exposing another group of logisticians to more danger.