BMT (RIP)
10-22-2008, 13:48
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pentagon_satellite/2008/10/22/142965.html
BMT
Off Road
10-22-2008, 15:56
Personally, I'm not convinced that the Army's Future Combat Systems is where we should be going - it's got several major faults, just one of which is its massive requirement for bandwidth. By postponing the satellite contract, it exacerbates the potential bandwith problem and reinforces my concerns about the whole thing.
Additionally, while the budget may be flush for the Army right now, it'll likely get tight here very soon. With a multi-billion dollar pricetag ($160B+) it takes away from a lot of other potential investments. I'd probably be pilloried by senior Army leaders for my lack of support, particularly because they tend to see FCS as the Army's primary modernization program and absolutely critical to the force - not only for future missions but also for soldiers on the battlefield today. The underlying premise of FCS is to connect the U.S. Army’s fighting force on one network through an interlocked system of ground sensors, manned and unmanned vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, radio systems and non-line-of-sight cannon systems. It's ambitious and definitely got some potential, but all of that requires a massive network that I think is vulnerable.
Anyway, that's just one of my various thoughts about FCS... I'll spare you the rest of them!
For more info on what FCS is:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/defense_fcs_081108at/
DOL,
OR