FCS will never see the light of day. It's just way too expensive, and I don't see much applicabilty in a "system of systems" where one BCT will cost more than the entire equipment requirement for the National Guard. Soldiers will always form the backbone of the Army, equipment is tertiary importance.

BRAC - actually, any move of unit requires a massive process to understand the move of a unit. All those things you mention Rob - and many more, BTW - are spot on. Even a single piece of a major end items being fielded requires a ton of analysis. When I was fielding tanks to the Guard, we were about to field a battalion of M1A1's to Michigan, and I went up to the environmental bubbas to see if Camp Grayling had ranges and an environmental impact statement for 120mm ammo. They didn't, so it took a year for the EIS to get approved, and in one of the drafts that I reviewed, the EIS writers stated, "The 120mm round is made of depleted uranium..." and they didn't realize that training rounds were made of steel. The complexity of all this is immense...

Good points about money. There are millions of great ideas, but the ones who can find the keys to the vault for their ideas are the winners.



Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
I think the Army is going through its own reality check with FCS. As one who worked it, and was part of COL Roy Waggoner's "Thin Green Line" I can agree that there was a tendency of many to see only what they wanted. Many however fought for balance between reasonable technological improvements and the sacrificing of fundamental, proven, cost effective alternatives that could be trained with. That does not even get into my belief that the best tech can be out-fought with out the best people employing it.


when you are talking about changing what appears to be a small thing, it often turns into a big thing quickly. Consider BRAC - somebody probably said - "what we need is a "maneuver center" - we'll put it at Benning - but then after they'd announced it all sorts of things like, environmental impact studies for moving 400 additional tanks to Benning, new ranges in order to allow both the students and the BCT there to sustain gunnery skills, AHA impacts, Motor Pool space, and the list goes on crept into the plan - friction!

I guess my point is the only way this problem is easy is if you only consider an individual perspective. Nobody has enough money to do what they'd like right now because protracted war is expensive. Law makers have to provide the means from a long term perspective that considers all the possible threats, and they prefer to do it with the constraints of the established budget - we may pass supplementals (and even they are subject to political dispute), but they don't have to renew that or live with the domestic and economic consequences for quite so long. The profiteers and the lobbyers they (Industry and proponents) employ add more friction, and Active Duty parochial heavy weight hitmen and retired senior leaders turned lobbyist/acquisition officer attempt to influence spending as well. Even Industry must be considered - what does it take to create and sustain a military industrial complex that can continue to provide the best technology, or even consitent quality of older tech (once you quit making something, often its just gone)? Anybody who does not think our Military Industrial/Info complex just runs itself does not understand the gears of war. This stuff is complicated.

Where does this leave us? I'd say with the obligation to attempt to understand the problem from multiple perspectives while acknowledging that we won't get everything we want, or cry we need. We live in a world of constraints so we have to figure out how to succeed where others might fail with the means we've been given. This does not prevent us from discussing shortfalls and their impacts, but we need to do so in a constructive manner that provides leaders and lawmakers with good information. It helps if you can acknowledge something other then a singular point of view. The SWJ forum is superb for that (and people know it) because it provides a very public discourse on a wide range of tough, relevant issues by professionals with a diverse background and experience range.