FCS in future conflicts

[Kreker]

I’m relatively new to SWJ and was asked by Granite State in the “Tell Us About You2” thread to discuss FCS and small wars. As an add on, there is some good FCS discussion in the “Army Future: Invade Azerbaijan” thread. So, I’m providing some insights into the FCS brigade combat team (FBCT) capabilities and how this modernization program is leveraging and infusing technology to the current force.

Today and tomorrow's operating environment (OE) require currently undefined levels of security for not only successful military operations, but also for partner nations to thrive in other areas relative to security and national power. That said, the adversary will seek to deter US involvement, isolate the US from local support or allies, and block the entrance to the country in which they are operating or lure us into “their zone.” Adding complexity to the OE are adversaries who have “gone to school” on US operations including protracted, simultaneous, full spectrum operations in difficult and diverse terrain (urban). Fueling the fire even more is that the adversary in some cases has niche capabilities better than ours, is a master of IO, and abides by no rules. This was borne out by the recent Herzbollah/IDF war in which the fight was on complex terrain in “their zone”; relying on low visibility and prepared defenses; and, with secured LOCs enabling Hezbollah to mass rockets, ATGMs, RPGs, and mortars.

Enter the FBCT, which is designed for complex urban environments. Compared to the HBCT it has 10X more unmanned assets, 6X more sensors (which are all networked), 2X more infantry soldiers (boots on the ground), and is 3X more reliable and maintainable. The eight variants of the MGV have increased lethality and survivability, are chemical and bio hardened, have a 360 degree hemispheric active protection system, are the primary node for sharing information, and carry most of the FBCT’s sensors. Insights from the OMNI FUSION 2007 COIN experiment documented that tactical FBCT formations are more survivable and lethal than current tactical units in the COIN urban environment (can provide more insight if needed).

At the tactical level of operations the FBCT has:
- Self-contained units with reliable equipment and greater situational awareness, do not need operational pauses, thus keeping continuous pressure on adversaries
- Multi-layered, unmanned ground and air systems dramatically increasing situational awareness and reach, and increased force protection by doing more of the dangerous and dirty jobs.
- Battle command on the move; more robust staffs dealing with the full range of military operations.
- High situational awareness available at the lowest levels empowering all leaders.
- Smaller footprint due to greater reach-back and more reliable equipment.
- Combat units are fully networked; interdependent land forces leveraging all Joint capabilities.
- Mitigating our increased difficulty in concealing our intentions (surprise).

Testimony from recently deployed Soldiers who participated in FCS Experiment 1.1 held at Ft. Bliss/WSMR indicated that the equipment used during the experiment could be used in theater now including the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV), Class I UAV, and tactical and urban unattended ground sensors (T-UGS/U-UGS). On 22 July 2004, Army officials announced plans to accelerate the delivery of selected FBCT capabilities to the Current Force. The Army will accelerate fielding of select FBCT capabilities (called Spin Outs) to reduce operational risk to the Current Force. Spin Out 1 (SO 1) will initiate testing in FY08 and consist of prototypes issued to the Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF) for their use and evaluation. Following successful evaluation, production and fielding of SO 1 will commence to Current Force units. SO 1 will include T-UGS/U-UGS, NLOS-LS, JTRS, and Integrated Computer “B-Kit” for Abrams, Bradley, and HMMWV. This process allows FCS capabilities being put in soldier’s hands sooner than the core program current schedule. SO 2 will initiate its testing in FY 2010 and will consist of the integration of the program’s Active Protection Systems (APS), the Manned Ground Vehicle Mast Mounted Sensor to Stryker, the SUGV, and the Class I UAV. SO 3 will initiate testing in FY 2012. This SO will leverage heavily on core program events. SO 3 will include these FCS systems: Armed Robotic Vehicle –Assault- Light, Class IV UAV, and FCS Battle Command Network that will replace current ABCS in current force operation centers. The FCS network will benefit not just the Army, but the entire joint force, which will also be network-enabled.

The Army’s FCS approach is the most effective way to leverage current resources in order to modernize the force and to maintain readiness while investing in programs that extend U.S. military advantages into the future. As CSA GEN Casey has observed, the cost of modernizing is measured in dollars; the failure to modernize too often is measured in lives. Without FCS modernization, the Army will get new equipment, but no new capabilities. Our Soldiers absolutely require new capabilities to prevail against a learning and adaptive enemy who is not standing still.

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.

[Granite_State]

Thanks for the thread, but to simplify a bit, I understand the FCS is a "system of systems", as you mentioned, but the core combat platforms are medium armor, not unlike the Stryker, is that right? Given the prevelance and dramatically increased firepower (IEDs, EFPs, ATGMs w/ Hezbollah) of our non-state adversaries, has there been some re-evaluation of heavy armor and the usefulness of the "Legacy Force"?

[Kreker]

The FCS manned ground vehicle (MGV), of which there are eight variants, is a new family of networked vehicles with enhanced armor and protection technology, and next-generation survivability and sustainability features. Enhanced armor will be located on the entore vehicle to enhace survivability from IEDs and RPGs. Additionally, each MGV comes with an APS. MGVs have a common chassis, high-density diesel engine, hybird-electric drive, and band track.

The NLOS-C will be the first of the eight MGV variants to be developed and fielded as part of the FCS program. Plans call for 18 NLOS-C initial production platforms to be delivered between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 at a rate of six per year.

Currently, the Army plans on fielding 15 FBCTs. The remainder of the Army's BCTs (71) will be comprised of HBCTs, IBCTs, and SBCTs. All BCTs will be networked with the FBCT's battle command network.

So the "Legacy Force" will not be going away.

[CSC2005]

Am I the only one that thinks the original post was written by a defense contractor for FCS? I smell SAIC:

:

[SWJED]

Am I the only one that thinks the original post was written by a defense contractor for FCS? I smell SAIC:

:

I resemble that remark .

[Rob Thornton]

All good bumper stickers - however, the effectiveness of the platforms, payloads, SoS, etc. all depend on the quality of the people who crew, use fight, interface with the GUIs, conduct operations in, from and around them, and most of all lead soldiers against tough enemies in challenging enviornments where technology does not solve all the problems and sometimes even encmbers us.

From one of the UAEE/FBCT-EE plank holders I'm hoping we wind up with the right tools. With the quality of some of the folks like COL Schaill, I believe we'll do OK.

As for contractors - I just consider that "life after" - although I'm still a few years shy

[Kreker]

I resemble that remark .

This thread started with a question from Granite State based on my background input, which stated I was a defense contractor working FCS...not SAIC or Boeing. That said, I've spent the last 36 years working for the Army. I take great pride in that institution and try to do the best of my ability and beyond for today's Soldiers...for they are the ones carrying the load.