Replies

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.

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.

So what you're saying is that after the hundreds of millions of dollars the Army has spent, you don't know what the FCS will be armed with, what propulsion system it will use, how many soldiers it will carry, and what it's mission is. Thanks for the clarification. Were you surprised when the crusader self propelled howitzer and comanche helicopter programs were cancelled?

You seem to know your tanks and CV:s! What´s your opinion on the Stridsfordon 90-family (CV90)?

It was introduced just as I left the army, but it is just amazing to see the array of systems they´ve used on this vehicle.

Personally for sentimental reasons I think the S tank (103C) is the coolest tank ever built.