Bottom line is technolgy will drive FCS's success. Many are skeptical. I admit that in some cases I have my doubts as well. HR McMaster wrote a good article about the future of transformation and about dominate knowledge in future wars.
Kreker,
I know many of the technologies are coming across OK. I've been to a quite a few of the demos, wrote quite a few trip reports., and done quite a bit of thinking on it - I was one of the robotics guys for the Experimental Element (and also an OPs Officer in MCG1 at the CAB and FBCT level for the experiments) - granted I left the program in 06 to serve on a TT, but I know the obstacles well. However, I think all must be wary when claims are made when inextricably linking technology and success without qualifying the critical role people play in fighting wars.

I will agree that FCS will provide us with some good technology we can apply to our tactics. However, it does not provide a failsafe solution against a thinking, adaptive, and energetic enemy - adaptive, agile, innovative soldiers are the best thing to counter the enemy. Ground combat will forever remain a dirty, cut-throat and personal business as long as people are involved - technology can provide some advantages, but it does not neutralize it. While NLOS and BLOS, the gamut of FCS UMS (UAS,UGS, UGS, etc.) offer lots more data, and some options at points in the fight, its people who will make use, or fail to make use of what they see and how they comprehend its relevance to the fight.

Good tech I think is that which enables people to do their jobs better without compromising the required fundamentals. It does not seek efficiency at the expense of effectiveness.

As mentioned before, I think COL Schaill's BCT down in Bliss will inject the realism of today's challenges the program was unable to attain previously.

Best Rob