First it was the Crusader, then CTD, then NLOS-C, and they were all canceled and many of us lost our jobs.

What happened to when a programs like the abrams were actually followed through until the end? Now everytime we get a new President or Sec of Defense, they cancel the current program and propose a new one that never is allowed to be finished.

You might want to take a look at IAI’s “Rex” a 6x6 unmanned squad supply vehicle that takes basic dong commands and will accompany a rifle squad into the field.

For you who may remember back when the ground forces had a vehicle the M-274 Mule in the 50’s, it was popular with the Marines and the the troopers of the 11th., 82nd. and 101 st. Airborne Divisions. But the Generals hated it and it didn’t survive it’s first tour in Vietnam.

This is the thinking that we need, not more of the same ole,same ole.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Quite the opposite. The Army, like the AF and the Navy, has already come to realize that era of the manned combat weapons/system platform is FAR from over & that unmanned systems while playing an increasingly supportive role WILL NOT replace manned systems anytime soon.

Maybe Greg and the crew at the buzz and the ARMY will get the idea, the manned FCS and any of it’s clones is DEAD.

It is of note that none of the pay to post boys showed on this one. I would like to thank pennst98 for the Swiss Army Knife analogy. That fits what the Army is looking for, something that will do everything but not very well.

The Army like the AF and the Navy has already, come to realize that era of the manned combat weapons/system platform is over. Like the horse, big lumbering armored vehicles are an easy target for any number of weapons that can destroy anything we can build. The future is in cheap network centric platforms/systems that can roam the battle space/field and be handed off form ground commander to another ground commander seamlessly.

The idea that a 20–30 ton vehicle could be constructed that could be immune to the ravages of the battle field is absurd. If you want to go heavier, well you already have it they are called “Bradley” and “Abrams”, sadly both these armored behmouths have already been compromised on the battlefield by rather crude, easy to make, cheap IED’s, EFP’s and PRG rounds, and the terrorists have shown that they can match anything we can put on the road, so why put lives at risk for the missions that these vehicles will be required to do.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I remember working on Allison ( Gas Turbine Division of GM) when they were making the T-56 engine for the first Ospreys. Sitting in an office in Indianapolis, two contractors were arguing about the fact Congress wanted the YF-17 (now the F-18) to do more than fleet defense. Congress demanded that it be a jet bomber as well because it had to take the pressure off the F-14 AND the A-6. They argued that that would make it bad at both.

Well, here we are twenty some years later and the F-18 is somewhat superb as a jet bomber/CAP aircraft. Congress asked for it and the manufacturers delivered. So I don’t think it’s backward thinking to ask a weapons manufacturer to build a modular system, or at least plan for a modular armored system. Big ideas require big engineering and I am confident that they can deliver.

That said, why is everyone so down on the Swiss Army Knife? I have one and it works great. It opens cans, cuts open letters, screws in my eye glasses stems, etc. ( Could it be the reason why Switzerland hasn’t been invaded successful in centuries? )

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

The Initial Capabilities Document (ICD for the Acq geeks) for this has more front-end analysis of a trade-off strategy, but still falls back onto (essentially) the original pre-JCIDS requirements of the FCS ORD — with it’s over emphasis on engineering instead of capabilities. “Gee Wally… What color should the seatbelts be?”

Given that it is only at the ICD stage, nobody should be letting industry see (or influence) details until the hard work of prliminary trade-off analysis is done.

Well, at least the Army has decided to move into this century’s JCIDS process. The Air Force is still appending its 1990’s Joint Strike Fighter ORD — now version 3 with added Key Performance Parameters.

But, I don’t live in a bubble so I know that it will all be backroom deals for contractors, transitioning Army Generals, and congressional districts. The soldier still loses.