Future Combat Systems: too big to fail, or too juicy a target to succeed?

By John Keller
Posted by John Keller

The U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, a mammoth initiative to design and field families of manned and unmanned armored vehicles , unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs ), and the networking and data communications necessary to link its systems together for decision support and situational awareness, appears to be finished -- at least as originally conceived.

Earlier this summer the Army officially cancelled the $160 billion FCS program with the signing of an acquisition defense memorandum that officially gutted the program of its manned combat vehicle component -- a family of armored vehicles based on a common chassis that was to include a new main battle tank, self-propelled artillery piece, and armored personnel carrier.



Instead, the Army is restructuring what is left of FCS to emphasize military ground robots and UAVs, communications networking, and sensors linked on communications networks. The new initiative to replace FCS is called Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization.

The FCS program has already yielded much important technology, including the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV), and the Warfighter Information Network–Tactical (WIN-T). More useful technology and equipment will come out of this program, including large unmanned ground vehicles that function as cargo trucks, which caravan together on the battlefield with minimal human intervention.

Despite its valuable developments, however, the FCS program had a lot of problems -- many of which were political, not technological.

The first problem involved the anticipated FCS mission: improving the Army's ability to go toe-to-toe with large national mechanized forces of major military powers like China and Russia. The motivation behind FCS, in large part, was a legacy of the Cold War, which ended nearly 20 years ago.

FCS was not so much about dealing with today's military imperatives of fighting unconventional forces and terrorists -- who rely on roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs) detonated by cell phones and garage door openers -- as it was about confronting large national forces equipped with tanks and artillery.

The second problem with FCS was its sheer size. While most military programs are concerned with one platform at a time, the FCS packaged many platforms together as a monolithic move into the future. Proponents believed the program was a logical and integrated step toward modernization; proponents also believed the program was too big to fail.

Actually, the program was too large and juicy a target to survive. It was easy for political opponents to attack on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon -- a large, lumbering, fantastically expensive program with fragmented constituencies that could be set against one another with ease.

In the military today, there are few rivalries as fierce as the manned vs. unmanned vehicle communities. Tank drivers, artillery commanders, and helicopter pilots often look on unmanned vehicles with scorn; they have convinced themselves that their manned platforms can do a better job; they also know that unmanned vehicles threaten their jobs.

The FCS program contained both of these components as cornerstones. It was nearly inevitable that the program eventually would turn on itself.

We've seen much the same thing happen before. In 1984 then-President Ronald Reagan envisioned a gigantic land- and space-based system to defense against nuclear ballistic missiles called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which popularly became known as the Star Wars missile defense research program.

SDI brought together many separate ballistic missile defense programs under the Aegis of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). In its nine years of existence, the SDI program not only created breakthrough technology that we are seeing deployed today, but it also was a political lightning rod, which its well-organized opposition took delight in bashing.

Eventually the SDI program was whittled down, its overall vision evolved to land- and sea-based ballistic missile defense programs, and its name was changed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration to the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program. Today its managing organization is the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The SDI program, like the FCS program, made too big a target to survive.

Still, the SDI program's legacy lives on today, most notably in the Aegis ballistic missile defense systems aboard the Navy's Ticonderoga-class cruisers, as well as in land-based ballistic missile defense systems deployed in Alaska. Other legacies of the SDI program include the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), and the recently cancelled Airborne Laser system (ABL).

Legacy components of the FCS program will live on, as well. These most likely will involve new generations of unmanned ground vehicles and battlefield tactical networking. Not only that, but the demise of the FCS program also paves the way to new research programs to develop next-generation battle tanks, artillery, and armored personnel carriers.

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account.

Previous Blog Posts

Capital Hill budget deal could restore tens of billions of dollars to the Pentagon

Tue Dec 17 13:15:00 CST 2013

Hacker drone story a cautionary tale about the need for unmanned vehicle data security

Tue Dec 10 09:46:00 CST 2013

Lack of money for systems upgrades threatens to maintain wind-farm radar dead spots

Tue Dec 03 10:36:00 CST 2013

Engineering support contracts indicate the Pentagon is sinking into the Mothball Strategy

Tue Nov 26 06:57:00 CST 2013

The revenge of COTS: an ageing commercial technology base complicates military supply chain

Tue Nov 19 08:53:00 CST 2013

Navy's newest destroyers evolve to fill traditional battleship roles

Tue Nov 12 11:54:00 CST 2013

International suspicions of U.S. encryption technology putting defense companies in a bind

Tue Nov 05 11:24:00 CST 2013

Defense industry left guessing as Army struggles forward with an unclear mission

Tue Oct 29 09:45:00 CDT 2013

These are tough times for the combat vehicle and vetronics industries

Tue Oct 22 04:22:00 CDT 2013

Is the government shutdown a harbinger of more ominous things to come?

Tue Oct 15 11:21:00 CDT 2013

Government shutdown reduces military contracting, increasing pressure on U.S. defense industry

Mon Oct 07 12:17:00 CDT 2013

Potential good news: has U.S. defense spending finally bottomed-out?

Tue Oct 01 13:02:00 CDT 2013

Is robotics revolution the first glimpse of a fundamental change in human evolution?

Tue Sep 24 09:46:00 CDT 2013

Obsolescent parts: are we enhancing military readiness or creating a hollow force?

Tue Sep 17 15:46:00 CDT 2013

For the high-tech warfighter, the future of electronics-laden uniforms is here

Tue Sep 10 11:26:00 CDT 2013

New generation of embedded computing thermal management in development at GE

Tue Sep 03 09:44:00 CDT 2013

Trading bus stops for credit cards: how far embedded computing has come in three decades

Tue Aug 27 10:59:00 CDT 2013

Unmanned vehicle industry stands at the doorstep of a fundamental transformation

Tue Aug 20 11:09:00 CDT 2013

AUVSI 2013, one of the biggest unmanned vehicles shows in the world, opens this week in Washington

Tue Aug 13 05:35:00 CDT 2013

The Washington Post, under Jeff Bezos, could lead the way for media in the 21st Century

Tue Aug 06 09:47:00 CDT 2013

Are costs and vulnerabilities making military leaders nervous about satellite communications?

Tue Jul 30 11:07:00 CDT 2013

Unmanned aircraft carrier that travels beneath the waves may be in the Navy's future

Tue Jul 23 05:20:00 CDT 2013

Electronic warfare programs kick into high gear with a flurry of contract activity

Tue Jul 16 08:03:00 CDT 2013

How vulnerable are U.S. Navy vessels to advanced anti-ship cruise missiles?

Tue Jul 09 07:03:00 CDT 2013

First came VHSIC, then came MIMIC, and now comes ACE to push electronics technology

Tue Jul 02 09:16:00 CDT 2013

The Mil & Aero Bloggers

John Keller is editor-in-chief of Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine, which provides extensive coverage and analysis of enabling electronic and optoelectronic technologies in military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military & Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr. Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of PennWell’s Aerospace & Defense Media Group, including Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence and Avionics Europe.  He’s a father of four, a runner, and an avid digital media enthusiast with a deep background in the intersection of media publishing, digital technology, and social media. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @aero_ernesto.

Courtney E. Howard, as executive editor, enjoys writing about all things electronics and avionics in PennWell’s burgeoning Aerospace and Defense Group, which encompasses Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence, the Avionics Europe conference, and much more. She’s also a self-proclaimed social-media maven, mil-aero nerd, and avid avionics geek. Connect with Courtney at Courtney@Pennwell.com, @coho on Twitter, and on LinkedIn.

Mil & Aero Magazine

January 2014
Volume 25, Issue 1
file

All Access Sponsors


Download Our Apps



iPhone

iPad

Android

Connect with Us



Newsletters

Military & Aerospace Electronics

Weekly newsletter covering technical content, breaking news and product information
SUBSCRIBE

Defense Executive

Monthly newsletter covering business news and strategic insights for executive managers
SUBSCRIBE

Embedded Computing Report

Monthly newsletter covering news on embedded computing in aerospace, defense and industrial-rugged applications
SUBSCRIBE

Unmanned Vehicles

Monthly newsletter covering news updates for designers of unmanned vehicles
SUBSCRIBE