RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,163822,00.html

See this is how this freakin mess start, cut the fat out. Can you say HUMVEE with no armor. But Lets go to war with the Army we have.

Yeah it's a shame that the Army cant get its brain going in the right direction.Another issue is the ACU'S we currently wear.Why the heck would you use a green uniform in a desert environment.I think the best one's Ive seen is the Marines desert uniform.Since I'm a former Marine I think we should should switch to the one they use.But that would be too easy for those that make all the wrong decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by DIRTYLODOWN:
See this is how this freakin mess start, cut the fat out. Can you say HUMVEE with no armor. But Lets go to war with the Army we have.

If you did not know, the HUMVEE was made to be fast and light, not bullet proof. That is why we have STYKERs and APCs.

I don't think the military should rely on technology so much, because if someone decides to shoot our sattelites down, were screwed..

FCS software problems take me back to my days as a government employee where I saw software, hardware,contractor disputes, pillaging natural resources. I do not remember the number of trips I made to training sessions all over the USA where promised software and hardware did not work.
Therefore this latest bro-ha-ha with FCS systems does not surprise me. What folk do not understand is that there are some wonderful employees who see their government work as being a good CITIZEN.

So what else is new?

The good new... I finally learned CONGRESS is totally responsible for OVERSITE of USA government thus ensuring USA stays number one in the world. Unfortunately, congress seems totally inept which enables folk like the BUSHITES, CLINTONITES, REAGANITES,NIXIONITES RUN the USA into the ground.

Everything the Government does is dictated by CONGRESS. A government agency is mandated by CONGRESS to perform certain tasks. Congress is supposed to have over-sight responsibilities for all USA agencies.

One day I was watching C-SPAN while Rumsfield and his gang of thieves over ran the Senate intelligence Committee. Rummie had already testified and one of his deputies was asked a question by a very senior senator. Rummie's gang basically told the Senate Rummie ran the pentagon. Rummie's deputy would decide what information to hand over to the Senate committee. Rummie's boy stated the pentagon would decide when or if military info would go to the SENATE. I was mortified that one of Rummies boys actually stood toe to toe with Senators dictating to the Senate what Rummie will or will not do.

As we all know Rummie was canned and now we have a college president running the pentagon with his underlings now dictating to the USA what or if or when or why. AMERICA YOU GOT TO LOVE IT.

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMEERICA

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

I can’t say that I was ever very impressed with the FCS. Bits and pieces of it may be possible to integrate into current combat but the whole system? No way.

In civilian life I’m a computer/network administrator and there is no way that even the newest most robust of computer systems is ever going to be 100% reliable. So the idea of depending on, putting my life on, a system that is old (designing, approving, and fielding any new system will take at least 10 years) and being used in field conditions just plain scares the crap out of me. Here at my civilian job I would never use a computer for a critical application that is more than 3 years old.

If they can accomplish the goals of the program with purpose built equipment there might be a chance for it to work. For example the CINGARS radios are digital devices but they are not computer systems and therefore will remain reliable for a long time. I just can’t get a comfortable feeling about a system that only uses ruggedized laptops.

I think the scope of the project is the biggest problem though, any overreaching system like this is going to take a long time to develop and therefore can’t depend on militarized civilian technology because the technology moves too fast. The only way to make it work is to make purpose built hardware like the Air Force has in its fighters. Those computers work 99.99999999% of the time. But from what I’ve seen of the FCS that’s not what they are doing.

The good new... I finally learned CONGRESS is totally responsible for OVERSITE of USA government thus ensuring USA stays number one in the world. Unfortunately, congress seems totally inept which enables folk like the BUSHITES, CLINTONITES, REAGANITES,NIXIONITES RUN the USA into the ground.

If con is the opposite of pro is congress the opposite of progress?

quote:

In civilian life I’m a computer/network administrator and there is no way that even the newest most robust of computer systems is ever going to be 100% reliable. So the idea of depending on, putting my life on, a system that is old (designing, approving, and fielding any new system will take at least 10 years) and being used in field conditions just plain scares the crap out of me. Here at my civilian job I would never use a computer for a critical application that is more than 3 years old.

you think THATS scary, what about multi million dollar aircraft run by those computers 30,000ft in the sky!! In Russia, we use "off the shelf" computer systems and components like Intel, TI and Motorola. Up until 2001, planes like the MiG29 used computers with 486 technology.
Now THATS scary. but hey, its actually worked well especially with the integration of the modular concept. many critical components are now "disposable" and easily replaceable.

I hope that the FCS program will get it together as it promises to be a great system ONCE its issues are resolved. The FCS simply is suffering from the same ills most military programs suffer from, too many heads involved not working together.

Ooops!

The sever went down, we have to reboot. Stop the war until we can come back on line.

How 'bout a direct hit on the server by a mortor round?

Gates Observes Army Future Combat Systems Progress

(Source: U.S. Department of Defense; issued May 11, 2008)

FORT BLISS, Texas --- Army Staff Sgt. Joshua Flowers has served combat deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and understands firsthand what warfighters need to succeed.

Last week, Flowers and his fellow soldiers from the Army Evaluation Task Force got a chance to show U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates some of the revolutionary concepts and systems they’re testing to give future soldiers the upper hand on the battlefield.

The task force, from 5th Brigade, 1st Armored Division, stood up here in late 2006 as an operational test bed for the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.

Gates got a firsthand look during his May 1 visit here at progress in developing an advanced data and communications network that will give troops detailed, real-time battlefield information.

The first of four planned “spinouts” in the program includes testing of the Intelligent Munitions System; the Tactical Unmanned Ground Sensor, which detects and reports on ground movement; the Urban Unmanned Ground Sensor, which detects motion inside a building; and the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System, nicknamed “rockets in a box.”

The Non-Light-of-Sight cannon is being tested now at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., and Army Test and Evaluation Command will conduct an operational test on other Spinout 1 technology this summer. If all goes as hoped, its systems could be fielded within two years of the test, said Army Col. Patrick “Lee” Fetterman, Army Training and Doctrine Command’s Future Combat Systems capability manager.

Gates watched preparations for those tests as the task force demonstrated how the systems can be used to track down and search a notional insurgent safe house at the Future Force Integration Directorate compound.

Sensors placed in the building – not unlike home security devices that monitor for break-ins – relayed details about inside activity to Bradley fighting vehicles. The Bradleys, picking up movement through advances communications equipment, barreled toward the building. They stopped abruptly as their crews dismounted, breaching a chain-link fence as they ran toward their objective, smoke and dust in their wake.

When the soldiers reached the suspected safe house, they dispatched the first of 25 small unmanned ground vehicles, or SUGVs, to be tested here as their “point man.” The 30-pound tactical robot entered the building, relaying real-time images of its findings.

Ultimately, it honed in on the “insurgent” -- actually an Evaluation BCT soldier -- hiding in the dark beneath a stairwell. The soldiers stormed the building, capturing the suspect.

Flowers, who served with a reconnaissance platoon in Iraq, said he sees the clear value of systems that track enemy movement without risking or expending precious manpower.

“This would have been a great help in Iraq,” he said. “You can use less manpower and keep your eyes on the objective at all times.”

Army Staff Sgt. Christopher Mazzarese, who joined the task force in January 2007, said likes the idea of leaving a piece of equipment, rather than one of his soldiers, behind to watch for enemy movement. “Being able to keep all my soldiers together means a lot to me,” he said.

The demonstration showed progress in the Future Combat Systems program, which has been called the Army’s most ambitious and far-reaching modernization since World War II. The program aims to tap into the most advanced technologies possible to enable FCS-equipped brigade combat teams to see the enemy first and understand his intentions, officials explained. Once they understand what the enemy is up to, they can act first and on their own terms.

“We think this is a significant increase in capability for the soldier, dismounted and mounted, in combat,” said Fetterman. “I believe there is value added in all the aspects of FCS.”

While each new component will offer more capability, the true value of FCS will be far greater than the sum of its individual parts, Army Col. Michael Williamson, program manager for the FCS network, said.

“It is really the integration of all these pieces,” he explained, “that will provide the commander and the soldiers so much more information and so much more capability than when you talk about individual pieces.

“So even though we are talking about the schedule of when various pieces are ready, at the end of the day, where the real impact comes, is when you start to combine all these capabilities into a package,” he said.

Soldiers from the evaluation task force, most with combat experience under their belts, will combine live training, experimentation and simulation to test systems ranging from sensors to automated systems to manned vehicles.

“[The task force] ensures it all works together, and that it all provides value added to the soldier before we send it to over the theater and the soldier tries to apply it in a combat situation,” Fetterman said. “Before we field it to a combat unit, these guys will tell us what’s wrong with it, and we’ll fix it.”

Mazzarese is quick to say he’d rather be in the fight, but that his first choice of stateside assignments would be with the experimental task force. “I’ve been in the Army for 11 years, and I’ve seen Army equipment suddenly appear,” he said. “Being here, I’m able to be at the front end of that process and articulate my impressions about equipment before it gets to the field. That’s making a difference to the soldiers.”

FCS testing will be conducted both here and at neighboring White Sands Missile Range, N.M., through four spinouts that will enable the Army to build the new technology over time.

The second spinout will test a series of unmanned aerial vehicles. Spinout 3 will test varieties of unmanned ground vehicles. The final spinout will evaluate manned ground vehicles that operate from a common platform, as well as the network.

The network is evolving incrementally, with additional sensors added to it with each spinout. The goal is to have “everything together and working” by 2017, with individual components fielded during the interim, Fetterman said.

But the Army doesn’t intend to wait until then to get some of the best new technologies being developed to warfighters in the field. Some, including unmanned aerial vehicles that can be carried in a backpack and small unmanned ground vehicles that can carry sensors into buildings, caves and other dangerous spots, are already in limited use in the combat theater.

“We’re a lot farther down the road on this than people know,” said Army Col. John Maddux, director for Army Evaluation Task Force integration. “This is not about the future. It’s about giving a capability to soldiers now.”

-ends-

quote:

Originally posted by strmvet:

quote:

Originally posted by DIRTYLODOWN:
See this is how this freakin mess start, cut the fat out. Can you say HUMVEE with no armor. But Lets go to war with the Army we have.

If you did not know, the HUMVEE was made to be fast and light, not bullet proof. That is why we have STYKERs and APCs.

DS deployed twice with 82nd, once to Afghanistan and once to Iraq. He said they HATED the uparmored humvees, they were so slow, they felt like sitting ducks.