Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

The U.S. Army appears to be conflating computer driven Combat Systems with NCW. As Barnett undoubtedly knows NCW is predicated upon the concept of information driven C2 systems. Indeed the acronym for NCW is C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance). It has nothing directly to do with combat platforms or force structures. Admittedly the USAF and USN are well ahead of the Army because the precursors of NCW concepts are to be found in the Navy’s ship borne CICs and the Air Force’s AWACs. Much of the problem with a service wide implementation of the NCW concept is that with the death of the late Admiral A. Cebrowski, (USN) the DOD no longer has a high ranking champion for implementing NCW. Perhaps Barnett ought to use his apparently considerable recruiting skills and contacts among the senior military to scare up another champion.

another possibility: they'll change the name because FCS has become associated with bloatware and major cost overruns. the systems that can be spun up at a reasonable cost will be and then spun out as distinct systems. sure, they'll all be networked, like with JTRS, but less than originally envisioned, and the code line count will come down as the project gets scaled back. Boeing will eventually be busted as the LSI and the Army will take it back in house. the Army will ultimately have a choice between a few brigades of something like FCS or recapitalization with slight upgrades for the entire service, and they'll pick the latter, obviously. we'll see the JLTV (next Hummer), more UAVs (like Fire Scout), more UGVs, and the like, but nothing truly 'revolutionary'. and that's good, if you're a believer that the Army needs to develop more SysAdmin than Leviathan.

Richard: i don't speak for Tom, but i bet he wouldn't consider fighting for NCW because he views his contribution in this regard (not across the board) as descriptive, not prescriptive. ie: he describes what is and will be (and i think it'll correspond to what i've written above), not what should be (again, in a case like this. in some, he does prescribe).

in fact, i see, upon further review, that they are going to change the name.

of course, that doesn't contradict Tom's point that they'll eventually have FCS - by one name or another.

I seen a video on the FCS and must say I was impressed. It was a 10 minute movie where a FCS force attacked an objective and actually did simulation training in their vehicles during the flight to the mission. I just wonder how reliable it all is and how well trained everyone will be if the computer networks fail?

While watching the video I thought about where FCS units would fit in Dr. Barnett's vision of the military? Leviathan Force? SysAdmin" Both? With the Marines being the "mini-me" Leviathan of the SysAdmin and most of the Army's Mech and Armour forces going to the Leviathan, I can't figure out where it would fit? About 15 of the Army's 45 BTC's (or UOA's) will be fitted with the fCS, so where to fit these is anyone's guess?

One argument could be that the future Leviathan force will be manned by FCS forces. This extremely high-tech force will do its thing and await the arrival of a lower-tech SysAdmin force. The biggest problem I see here is the loss of armour capability. Perhaps the armour of the future will be just as strong as today's Abrams but light enough to put on the FCS?

Perhaps someone here has an idea for where FCS would fit in Dr. Barnett's vision of the military?

I think I just see an evolution in FCS from a solution seeking a problem to one that is a solution to a problem. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan are tempering the program by creating stresses in the military like any good systems testing should do.

I just see the adaptation of FCS to our current engagement - now the problems have been defined and FCS is adapting its solutions to solve them.