Army's FCS: Training or product endorsement?

(Credit: U.S. Army)

In what's portrayed as a new approach, the U.S. Army is including soldiers in the early stages of equipment development, and in the case of the Future Weapons Systems, it's having them pitch it as well.

Last January, defense contractors employed nearly 400 computers, dozens of vehicle mockups, and more than 100 soldiers and engineers in a preliminary test of the Future Combat Systems (FCS), a technological enterprise billed as the "cornerstone of Army modernization."

The Army followed up with a complete line of videos and slick multimedia touting the involvement and input from recently returned combat veterans. Videos with titles like "A Soldier's Perspective of FCS Systems" and "Soldiers on FCS" feature guileless noncommissioned officers and other uniformed personnel barking the virtues of multibillion-dollar geegaws on which some in Congress and in the military have yet to be sold. (PDF)

In one video, an officer relates a story of the "tall, bearded man" in Afghanistan, possibly the one "we were looking for," who got away for want of FCS gear. (Videos)

During the test, soldiers were monitored to see how they interacted with the equipment, especially the FCS Warfighter Machine Interface display panels, designed to provide a common operating picture of the battle space. (PDF)

Including actual soldiers this early in the development loop is a new approach, an Army statement boasts.

"Through participation in these exercises and their relevant combat experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soldiers provided invaluable recommendations on everything from FCS vehicle ergonomics to how we display and move information within the battle command network," said Rick Greenwell, a Boeing test director.

The tests, conducted at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, simulated combat operations in which vehicles interfaced with FCS command software developed by Boeing and Science Applications International.

The FCS comprises 14 weapons systems, including a whole new line of armaments, UAVs, and manned and unmanned ultralight vehicles that will allow soldiers to be able to see and hit the enemy first. It also includes a layered, interconnected system of computers, software, radios, and sensors, which will replace the current cacophony of systems all using different software. A "full-spectrum dominant modular" force, in Army parlance.

However, it's an endeavor of "unprecedented complexity," the Government Accounting Office has warned. The estimated cost is $161 billion, with steadily declining expectations. (The number of systems has gone from 18 to 14.) (PDF)

Feedback will lead to the next phase, network and hardware build-out. Madison Avenue production-quality endorsements from men and women who've risked it all for God and country may keep funding on track.

[man_w_balls]

was that Billy Dee Williams (aka Lando) at 1:36 in teh video?

[Super2online]

Ask any combat soldier that lost a friend right next to them, or many all around them, if it's worth the money, and they are going to tell you, "Give it to me NOW!" When lives are on the line, the money it costs pales in comparison.

[maxsell]

Soldiers are the ones you want pitching new weapons systems and technology. They are the ones putting their lives on the line and they know the value of the systems.

[indep]

This article is categorized as News > Military Tech, but it's tone is more appropriate to a rather mocking opinion piece.

It seems that writer is bothered by the fact that the Army is promoting this project in new ways that are in tune with the times. Not sure what the problem is there.

A general attitude of condescending mockery permeates the piece. Comments like "guileless noncommissioned officers and other uniformed personnel barking the virtues of multibillion-dollar geegaws" are clearly the reporter's personal take and represent editorializing that's out of place in a supposed news article.

So what's the point of the mockery here? That the army is using new approaches to trying to get funding for projects? That they're pushing the state of the art in experimental combat systems? To argue that the military personnel in the videos are not expressing honest views but are being used as shills (if so, what investigative effort revealed this to the writer)?

Finally, the last line: "Madison Avenue production-quality endorsements from men and women who've risked it all for God and country may keep funding on track." seems to be a wink-wink jab at people who have indeed risked it all and don't think this is all a joke. If the phrase used was "simply risked it all for our defense" or something similarly straightforward, the message would be quite different. Including the "God and country" phrase these days connotes an old fashioned, naive, and unsophisticated concept of patriotism that's widely accepted on the political left.

The writer should write a news article as news and remember that he's writing for a broad audience with a variety of political views and not assume that he's writing for the amusement of his particular local peer group.

[steveg42]

Of course the writer shows a certain cynicism about "the Army promoting this project in new ways." Why not? There is nothing new about it and it is illegal. Spending Army funds and using members for lobbying and for promotional videos (except for purposes specifically authorized, such as recruiting) is prohibited and has been for a long time. The Army has (and other agencies have) done it many times over the years and been slapped down repeatedly, and they are doing it again.

[indep]

Steve, you make a good point. If the the videos are being used to promote the project to congress or the public, it would seem to be a violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act.

On the other hand, it they're only being used for internal puposes for the Army and the contractors, then it wouldn't seem to be a problem. I worked at a defense contractor many years ago and one of the high points of each week was the screening of videos showing the end product of our efforts in action. The purpose was both informational and motivational - to show us how our efforts fit into the big picture, and why it was important.

According to the Army web site for the FCS project linked to in the article: "The Future Combat Systems News page provides Soldiers an opportunity to read articles by civilian and military press agencies that affect the Army."

If the main point of the article is that it may be a violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act, never to mention it explicitly is a pretty significant omission. If that is the point of the article, then it should certainly make clear how the videos are being used. Are they in fact being used to directly lobby congress or promote the project to the public, or are they primarily used internally? Nothing in the article about that.

Whatver the merits of a claim that the videos consitute illegal lobbying, the cynicism in the article is directed not only at promotional aspects of the videos, but also at the project itself with derogatory comments such as "multi-billion dollars geegaws". A visit to the FCS web site reveals that among these "geegaws" are such highly effective systems as UAVs.

All of this aside, thanks for the serious reply.

[sbaysailor]

I think the point of the video is that the Army is applying a sound approach, albeit new to them, whereby feedback from the eventual end user is acquired early in the development process. The process of user-centered design is not new, but is essential for focusing development dollars in the right areas, which saves taxpayer dollars in the long run. The USAF conceived of "pilot-centered design" in the late '70's, and aircraft manufacturers use this method all the time.

[Salyersbw]

Army's FCS: Training or product endorsement?

NEITHER

The work being done by the Army and the Future Combat System community at FT Bliss is not training and it certainly is not product endorsment. The purpose of having Soldiers use the equipment is to allow developers to gather feedback on the effectiveness of the systems and how the system and the Soldiers interact . It is this Soldier feedback that proves so important. The Soldier is the user. He/she will be the person that places these future systems into service. Again, it is the Soldier feedback that the FCS community tries to gather during such exercises.
Why should the tax payer have to pay for such exercises. The answer simply -- the Soldier. The United States Soldier is the least integrated combat platform in the history of the Army. In my opinion, the Soldier, until recent times, has undergone even less integration than the horse. It is the Soldier that carries the controllers and the robots and rides in the compact spaces on the FCS platforms. Therefore, for our Nation to continue to enjoy our frredoms, it is a must that the Soldier is integrated into all future systems.
I hope the readers now understand why such exercises take place. The Soldier is the centerpiece of our Army. Their feedback on future warfighting systems will only and ultimately make the systems better.

MAJ Bryan Salyers
Student, Command and General Staff College

[gsosbee]

pub a little truth,pls:
fbi/cia world inhumane & murderous domination:


http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Army-Lies-To-Our-Young-by-GERAL-SOSBEE-080929-134.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/USA-Military-Universal-Su-by-GERAL-SOSBEE-080915-75.html
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/proclamation.html

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/index.html


http://roma.indymedia.org/printable/taxonomy/term/1549

QUESTIONS! GERAL SOSBEE [phone]





http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/video/the-future-war-robots