[Tailback]

Remember that Future Combat System (FCS) is a System of Systems or SoS for short. The key is being netted together so that situational awareness is first and foremost.

FCS is supposed to take the electronic gizmos and lack of real world combat protection from the Stryker and put it on vehicles just as unprotected with slightly better firepower. The great thing about the computer gadgets is that unlike the Sherman tank in WWII, company commanders will know almost instantly when their unit's "armored" vehicles are destroyed.

[SLB]

FCS is supposed to take the electronic gizmos and lack of real world combat protection from the Stryker and put it on vehicles just as unprotected with slightly better firepower. The great thing about the computer gadgets is that unlike the Sherman tank in WWII, company commanders will know almost instantly when their unit's "armored" vehicles are destroyed.

First of all, Stryker is NOT related in any way to the FCS program. Next, we do not know right now which of the vehicles will be armored, which will be armed with what, which will be manned and which will be unmanned. In fact we are still not sure which will be ground based and which will be aerial or if they will be a hybrid. I know some of this does not make sense, but when you see it in progess it is sort of like a poetic dancer. Granted, there are problems (loose lips rule in place), but with each set of simulations we run the problems are fewer and fewer and of less and less importance to the overall success of the Unit of Action.