AUSA Background Brief No. 103WJune 2005

An Institute of Land Warfare Publication

Future Combat Systems:Taking the Current Force into the Future

Technologies that are changing the way we fight wars in order to keep the peace,[including] the Army�s Future Combat Systems . . . will give every Soldier precisetactical information in the heat of battle.

President George W. Bush*

*Remarks at signing ceremony for the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Appropriations Bill, 5 August 2004

BackgroundFuture Combat Systems (FCS) represents the

Army�s primary initiative to reduce or eliminatecapability gaps in the Future Force assessedagainst the estimated capabilities of future enemythreats. The FCS program is the centerpiece ofDOTMLPF (doctrine, organization, training,materiel, leader development, personnel andfacilities) solutions for the Future Force. It is tieddirectly to achieving concepts and capabilities tomeet the needs of the future Joint Force.

FCS will consist of a family of advanced,networked air- and ground-based maneuver,maneuver support and sustainment systems. Itemploys a revolutionary, integrated architecture tohelp meet the future Joint and Army commanders�requirements. These capabilities include networkedcommunications, networked operations, sensors,battle command systems, training platforms, andboth manned and unmanned reconnaissance andsurveillance capabilities. These will enable improvedsituational understanding and operations at a levelof synchronization heretofore unachievable.

FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA)Within a Balanced Force

The Future Force will be a mixed force ofheavy, light, Stryker and FCS. The FCS-equippedbrigade encompasses more than a new set ofcapabilities; this organization reflects a fun-damentally transformed method of combat. Thecore of the FCS maneuver UA comprises the 18manned and unmanned platforms centered on theSoldier and integrated by a network.

The Future Combat Systems-equipped UA isnot just a unique brigade combat team builtaround a family of systems. Rather, it is thecornerstone of future Army Modular Force capa-bilities, providing the Joint Force with dominantlandpower capability that is decisive in anyoperation, against any level of threat, in any envi-ronment. The FCS-equipped brigade balancesthe capabilities for strategic responsiveness andbattlespace dominance.

The FCS-equipped UA can be tailored withadditional capabilities for specific missions during

2

a campaign. It allows command and control of upto six combined-arms battalions by one command-er. It is able to employ a range of supportingcapabilities to perform a variety of missions suchas reinforcing fires, engineering operations, militarypolice tasks, air and missile defense, psychologicaloperations and civil affairs.

The FCS-equipped UA is designed to ensurea campaign-quality Army. Although it has theresponsiveness and deployability to achieve rapidArmy deployment goals, it is designed with thedurability, endurance and stamina to fight battlesand engagements for the duration of a campaign.Given its inherent tactical mobility, it can land atpoints removed from its objectives and out ofrange of enemy defenses, then move by land tocomplete its mission. This capability applies notonly to entry operations but also to theateroperations throughout the campaign.

Spiral Acquisition StrategyThe Army is accelerating Future Combat

Systems by putting FCS technologies into thecurrent Army Modular Force. This will reduceoperational risk by improving the Current Force�ssurvivability, its intelligence, surveillance andreconnaissance and its joint interdependence. Asemerging FCS capabilities enhance the CurrentForce, the Current Force�s operational experienceinforms the FCS program, mitigating futurechallenges and risk. FCS technologies will migrateinto the Current Force through a series of fourspirals or �spin-offs.�

The first FCS capabilities, consisting of proto-types fielded to an evaluation brigade combat

team, come into the force in Fiscal Year 2008.Following successful evaluation, production andfielding of the first increment (spiral 1) to CurrentForce units will commence in 2010. This processwill be repeated for each successive spiral. By2014, the Army force structure will include oneUA equipped with all 18+1 FCS core systemsand additional Modular BCTs with selected FCScapabilities. (See graphic on page 10.)

Future Capabilities into the Current ForceThe Army�s plan to adjust the FCS program

is based on the fact that a nation at war must pro-vide for its operational forces the best possiblecapabilities. Additionally, the program adjustmentreflects that the Army, as a learning institution, hasheeded the counsel of several independent reviewpanels, including the Welch panels, GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) and CongressionalBudget Office (CBO) studies, and the Institutefor Defense Analyses. FCS remains at the heartof the Army�s strategy to adjudicate risk using theCurrent-to-Future-Force construct. Under thisconstruct, the future Army Modular Force informsdevelopment of the current Modular Force. Thisis the centerpiece of the adjustment: pro-viding the Current Force with FCS capabilitiessooner rather than later.

Modular forces solve immediate Armyshortfalls and urgent force capability gaps. TheArmy has used the FCS-equipped UA operationaland organizational plan as the starting point tocreate a modular, brigade-based Army. Throughits Modular Force efforts, the Army is rapidlymoving its Current Force toward the charac-teristics envisioned for the FCS-equipped UA;

We have a concept of developmentwhere we evolve from the Current Force to the Future Force

in a continuous, seamless mannerand we . . . start to network the Current Force.

Dr. Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army,in testimony before the House Armed ServicesCommittee re the Fiscal Year 2006 Army Budget

3

this will enable the Army to transition into FCS-equipped units and FCS-enabled methods ofoperation. Furthermore, the modular designimproves the Current Force�s versatility, agility,information superiority and full-spectrumcapabilities that are paramount to the FCS-equipped UA.

These two major initiatives are not competing;rather, they are truly complementary, both strivingtoward achieving the operational requirements forlandpower. Using primarily organizational changeto achieve operational needs, modular forcesenable leader development and feedback forFuture Force developments. The FCS-equippedUA will capitalize on the Modular Force initiativeand go further in achieving land force operationalneeds by effecting change through new materiel.It is through this new materiel and Modular Forcedesign that the operational concepts and tactics,techniques and procedures (TTPs) envisioned forthe Future Force will become a reality.

Organizational and Equipment OverviewFCS is a family of systems designed around a

common network with advanced, networked air-and ground-based systems including mannedcombat vehicles, unmanned air and groundvehicles, unattended sensors and unattendedmunitions�all with embedded and networkedbattle command that operates as a system ofsystems, with all platforms capable of tacticalairlift. Future Combat Systems is connected viaan advanced network architecture that will enablelevels of joint connectivity, situational awarenessand understanding, and synchronized operationsheretofore unachievable.

Core equipment systems. FCS includes 18+1+1core systems comprising:

• Eight manned ground vehicles. FCS haseight manned vehicles designed to perform thetasks required in the maneuver and maneuversupport functions of the UA:

o Mounted Combat System (MCS):Provides direct and beyond-line-of-sight

offensive firepower in its primary role ofproviding direct support. MCS is capableof rapid-rate precision fires to destroymultiple targets at standoff ranges.

o Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV): Com-prises four versions�company commander,platoon leader, rifle squad and weaponssquad�each with turret-mounted firesupport weapons. Both the rifle andweapons squad variants will transportnine Soldiers.

o Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C):Provides networked, extended-rangetargeting and precision attack fires onpoint and area targets. The primary roleof NLOS-C is in support of FCS combat-arms battalions and subordinate units.

o Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M):Provides close support fires for tacticalmaneuver. A dismounted 81mm capabilityis retained by the FCS mortar platoons.

o Reconnaissance and Surveillance Ve-hicle (RSV): With its advanced sensorsuite, will detect, locate, track, classify andautomatically identify targets at longstandoff ranges, under all climaticconditions, day or night. RSV equippingincludes unattended ground sensors, asmall unmanned ground vehicle with vari-ous payloads, and two unmanned aerialvehicles.

o Command and Control Vehicle (C2V):Provides the hub for battlefield com-mand and control by incorporatingsystems for information management ofthe integrated FCS network of commu-nications. The C2V has data and sensorcapabilities and tools enabling the syn-chronizing of information, coordinating ofaction and increasing situational under-standing and the distribution of a commonoperating picture.

o Medical Vehicle-Treatment (MV-T) andMedical Vehicle-Evacuation (MV-E):

4

Provide advanced trauma managementand advanced trauma life support.

o FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle(FRMV): Provides the recovery andmaintenance system to sustain andgenerate combat power.

• One family of Unattended Ground Sensors(UGS). The FCS Unattended Ground Sensorsprogram consists of tactical and urban sensors:

o Tactical-UGS (T-UGS), which includesIntelligence, Surveillance and Recon-naissance (ISR)-UGS and Chemical,Biological, Radiological and Nuclear(CBRN)-UGS;

o Urban-UGS (U-UGS), also known asUrban Military Operations in Urban Ter-rain (MOUT) Advanced Sensor System.

• Two Unattended Munitions. FCS has twounattended munitions programs:

o Non-Line of Sight-Launch System(NLOS-LS): Consists of a family ofmissiles and a highly deployable, plat-form-independent Container Launch Unit(C/LU) with self-contained tactical firecontrol electronics and software forremote and unmanned operations. ThePrecision Attack Missiles (PAMs) arebeing designed to defeat heavy armoredtargets. PAM is a modular, multimission,guided missile with two trajectories�adirect-fire or fast-attack trajectory anda boost-glide trajectory.

o Intelligent Munitions System (IMS):Provides, unattended, both offensivebattlespace shaping and defensive forceprotection capabilities for the Future Force.IMS is a system of lethal and nonlethalmunitions integrated with robust commandand control features, communicationsdevices, sensors and seekers that make itan integral part of the Future CombatSystems network�s core systems.

• Four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).There are four classes of unmanned aerialvehicles (UAVs) organic to platoon, company,battalion and brigade echelons.

Each of these UAVs is designed to provideReconnaissance, Surveillance, and TargetAcquisition (RSTA) from the dismountedSoldier to each organizational level up tobrigade echelon. Each class has extendedranges and durations based on the element itis designed to support.

• Three classes of Unmanned GroundVehicles (UGVs). The three classes of un-manned ground vehicles are the ArmedRobotic Vehicle (ARV), the Small UnmannedGround Vehicle (SUGV) and the Multi-functional Utility/Logistics and Equipment(MULE) Vehicle :

o The ARV comes in two variants: theAssault variant and the Reconnaissance,Surveillance and Target Acquisition(RSTA) variant.

o The SUGV is a small, lightweight, man-portable UGV capable of conductingmilitary operations in urban terrain tunnels,sewers and caves.

o The MULE Vehicle is a 2.5-ton UGVthat will provide logistics support todismounted operations. Three commonchassis variants are planned: transport,countermine and armed robotic vehicle-assault-light (ARV-A-L).

• The network and the Soldier (+1, +1). TheArmy�s FCS network allows the FCS Familyof Systems (FoS) to operate as a cohesivesystem-of-systems in which the whole of itscapabilities is greater than the sum of its parts.As the key to the Army�s transformation, thenetwork, including its logistics and EmbeddedTraining (ET) systems, enables the FutureForce to employ revolutionary operational andorganizational concepts. The network enablesSoldiers to perceive, comprehend, shape and

5

dominate the future battlefield at unprece-dented levels.

All Soldiers in the UA are part of the Soldier-as-a-System overarching requirements,encompassing everything the Soldier wears,carries and consumes to include unit radios,crew-served weapons and unit-specific equip-ment in the execution of tasks and duties. TheFCS Soldier, regardless of Military Occu-pational Specialty (MOS), will be enabled toperform Army common tasks and functionsmore efficiently and effectively.

FCS Unit of Action StructureThe FCS-equipped UA design is a modular

organization that is tailorable based on the opera-tional considerations of mission, enemy, terrain,troops, time available and civil considerations,(METT-TC), and it is capable of receiving Unit ofEmployment, Joint Force and Special Operationsaugmentation. Commanders have the ability to taskorganize on the move and can operate successfullyin open rolling, urban and other complex terrain(mountains, dense forest and jungle).

The FCS-equipped UA can be tailored withadditional capabilities for specific missions duringa campaign. It allows command and control of upto six combined-arms battalions by one com-mander. It is also able to employ a range ofsupporting capabilities to perform a variety ofmissions such as reinforcing fires, engineeringoperations, military police tasks, air and missiledefense, psychological operations and civil affairs.Special Operations elements can add languagecapability as well as civilian interface and psy-chological operations abilities. This modulardesign facilitates greater flexibility for the com-mander and minimizes its deployment footprint.

The FCS-equipped UA is a network-enabledforce. Its vast sensor array will dramatically im-prove a commander�s situational awareness.Sensor-shooter relationships begin with the Soldierand exist throughout the formation, allowing theFCS-equipped UA to accurately direct internally

generated effects or those generated from sup-porting units and joint assets. This ability tocooperatively engage targets with tactical-,operational- and strategic-level assets will beaccomplished in seconds rather than minutes.The FCS-equipped UA presupposes platformsuperiority and emphasizes teaming of teams toachieve combat power synergy.

The FCS-equipped UA will be optimized todevelop the situation out of contact (before forcesare joined), throwing the enemy off balance bydestroying his high-payoff systems before hecan maneuver to a position of advantage. TheFCS-equipped UA sets the conditions and iso-lates enemy formations to enable it to close withand destroy the enemy at a time and place of itschoosing. Though optimized to develop the situa-tion out of contact, it will be capable of finishingengagements decisively. FCS will be capable ofproviding the needed protection to ensure sur-vivability. Also, FCS will enable the Army torapidly adapt and field improved survivabilitysystems in response to emerging threats.

The FCS-equipped UA, a combined-armsforce built to be interdependent with joint forces,can work directly for a joint task force. A keyconstruct of this design is the ability to developsensor-to-shooter linkages across service lines.The FCS-equipped UA, designed with an opera-tional architecture that allows it to access jointassets, is built to leverage the best capabilities ofother services vice building redundant capabili-ties into the FCS-equipped UA. (See graphic onpage 11.)

Headquarters Company. The UA HQ providesC2, information management and communicationsto enable the UA command group to plan andexecute missions. It also provides administrativeand logistical staff support to the headquarterssection and any attached units.

Brigade Intelligence and CommunicationsCompany (BICC). The BICC plans, coordinatesand directs organic and external signal assetsto support the UA in achieving seamless

6

communications architectures, an assured in-formation management construct and a reliablenetwork gateway to external resources. The BICCenables proactive decisions by the commanderby providing timely, relevant and accurate earlywarning and predictive intelligence based oninformation from organic sensors and externalsources. It establishes, maintains and controls boththe communication and knowledge grid structures,enabling the effective utilization of the Battle Com-mand System in support of the UA commander.

Three FCS-equipped Combined-Arms Battal-ions (CABs). Each battalion is capable of closingwith the enemy by means of combined-arms fireand maneuver and tactical assault to destroy theenemy, repel his assaults and/or seize terrain.

Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Ac-quisition (RSTA) Squadron. The RSTA squadronreconnoiters to find or fix threats and to build andshare the common operational picture tailored tothe air-ground team as it relates to task or purpose,allowing the commander to focus combat powerat the decisive point and at the right time. It alsoconducts security operations to provide earlywarning, reaction time, maneuver space andprotection to air-ground movement and maneuver.

Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Battalion. Thebattalion provides destructive, suppressive,protective and special-purpose fires and effectsto enable the UA to conduct decisive operations.It is organized and equipped to acquire targetsand deliver fires and effects at extended ranges inall terrain types and environments to deny enemyforces sanctuary; provide precision point and areaeffects from dispersed locations; and rapidly shiftstriking power across the area of operations.

Forward Support Battalion (FSB). The battaliondistributes supply classes for food, extra materials,fuel and lubricants, construction materials,ammunition and explosives, medical, repair partsand water. It performs field maintenance andrecovery and provides health service support forforce health protection to the UA and its attachedunits. It carries the sustainment stocks that exceed

the organic carrying capability of the UA�smaneuver and maneuver support. It plans andcoordinates for the UA sustainment requirements.

Analytical UnderpinningsAn extensive body of analysis over the past

decade (Louisiana Maneuvers Exercises, ArmyAfter Next studies, wargaming and analysis, andForce XXI digitization experiments) underpinsFCS development and continues to this day. Thecollective effort that has produced compellingevidence to support senior-leader decisionmakingis remarkable for its degrees of complexity,innovation, rapidness and integration of Army,Department of Defense (DoD) and industryanalysis resources. Recent efforts can be dividedinto four distinct analyses:

• Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA)/TRADOC AnalysisCommand (TRAC)/Four Industry TeamsAnalysis (January 2000�October 2001). InJanuary 2000, the FCS Army Analysis Inte-grated Product Team (AIPT), sponsored bythe FCS Program Manager (PM) of DARPA,initiated a unique analysis that was largely acollaboration of Army analytic organizationsand the four industry teams contracted byDARPA to perform FCS concept explorationand design. From April 2000 to October2001, industry and Army analysts workedside-by-side to evaluate emerging conceptsfor FCS. This effort helped shape the conceptsof the Army and the FCS Lead System Inte-grator (LSI), and was foundational for theAnalysis of Alternatives (AoA) conductedduring FCS Concept and Technology Devel-opment (CTD).

• FCS Milestone B Analysis of Alternatives(January 2000�May 2003). As the founda-tional pillar of this body of analysis, the Armyconducted an FCS AoA to inform a May 2003Milestone B (MS B) decision for the FCSprogram to enter System Development andDemonstration (SDD). The most complexAoA ever undertaken by the Army and perhaps

7

by DoD, it supported DoD, joint and Armysenior leaders� decisions for implementing andadjusting the FCS program. Done concurrentlywith development of the FCS Unit of ActionOperation and Organization (O&O) conceptand the FCS Operational RequirementsDocument (ORD), and system definition ofthe FCS family of systems, the AoA analyzedseven alternatives across nine joint operationaland tactical warfighting scenarios, employing50 different models and simulations.

The AoA study team comprised a diversemembership from across the Army, FederallyFunded Research and Development Centers(FFRDCs) and industry, further distinguishedby its inclusion of the LSI. Most important,the team was highly qualified, innovative andfully committed to the AoA. The team war-gamed or simulated more than 10,000 scenariohours for record, giving special attention tothe modeling and analysis of communica-tions architectures, networked sensors andfires, and operations within a joint force. TheAoA found FCS to be the preferred alterna-tive based on costs and effectiveness. At thetactical and operational levels, the brigadecombat team equipped with the FCS incre-ment 1:o leveraged and enabled more effective joint

operations;o were able to affect a larger area of

operations (AO);o accomplished the missions faster;o killed the threat earlier and at longer

ranges;o survived as well as or better than units

alternatively equipped;o deployed faster (except for light forces)

and built combat power more quickly; ando demanded less sustainment with a smaller

logistics footprint.• FCS Key Performance Parameter (KPP)

Analysis (June 2003 � May 2004). The KPP

analysis was designed to inform and underpinthe KPP metrics established in the FCS ORD.Its principal findings supported the 24 May2004 Army Requirements Oversight Council(AROC). The analysis began in June 2003following the May 2003 FCS MS B decisionand relied upon proven methods used in theFCS AoA while also incorporating new tech-niques developed for the unique requirementsof the KPP analysis. It focused on determiningif the threshold values for Networked BattleCommand, Networked Lethality, Transport-ability, Sustainability/Reliability, Trainingand Survivability enable the FCS-equippedUA to be effective during the conduct of com-bat operations.

The KPP analysis supported the ORD-established KPP threshold values for the FCSSystem of Systems (SoS) and found:

o Values set for KPPs enabled the FCS-equipped UA to successfully conduct theoperations described in the UA O&O plan.

o When the UA conducted operations withthe FCS SoS operating at their thresholdvalues for network dependability, opera-tional availability, networked lethality andsurvivability, the UA retained enoughcombat power to conduct follow-onoperations, albeit with some risks.

o The network enabled the commander�ssituational awareness, the UA�s ability toleverage networked lethality and toengage the threat at extended ranges andout of contact. When severely degraded,the network contributed to more frequent,unexpected close fights; as a result, UAsurvivability suffered as well.

o The network enabled the organic lethalcapabilities of the FCS SoS to be domi-nant killers of threat, and also enabled thelethal capabilities of the Unit of Employ-ment and joint forces to be significantcontributors as well.

8

o The UA achieved mission success with theFCS SoS performing at the Sustainability/Reliability KPP threshold values. How-ever, the UA�s ability to accomplish animmediate follow-on mission was at riskdue to a buildup of maintenance workloadand combat losses of sustainment assets.

o The Survivability KPP threshold enabledsignificant protection of the FCS SoS andUA survivability but did not make theFCS platforms invulnerable to threatactions. The UA was able to conductfollow-on operations; however, there wasrisk posed by losses of ICVs and non-FCS SoS sustainment assets resultingfrom threat targeting priorities and close-in engagements.

o Bad weather reduced networked lethality,but it also improved Blue (friendly) Forcesurvivability. Bad weather more negativelyimpacted the threat, allowing the FCS-equipped UA to retain a relative combatadvantage.

• FCS Analysis of Alternatives Update (May2004�October 2004). The AoA Updateanalysis built upon the innovative method-ologies proven in the AoA and KPP Analysis.More than 2,000 total scenario hours werewargamed or simulated for record, and10,000 more were devoted to preparation andanalysis support. A diverse and highly qualifiedstudy team from across the Army, supportedby FFRDCs and industry and led by the FCSLead System Integrator, performed the update.It was further distinguished by its inclusion ofthe FCS LSI. The update focused on furtherimproving the treatment of the communicationsnetwork and its effect on force outcomes, toinclude the addition of network attack, as wellas improving the treatment of the sustainmentconcept and capabilities and their impact onthe FCS force. The study team also addressedthe impact of a major change to the FCS-equipped UA aviation structure and assessedthe conduct of operations in jungle terrain.

Program OversightThe FCS program has both the advantage and

challenge of continuous program oversight fromfour levels�Congress, Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD), Joint Staff and Army. Congressis kept informed by quarterly updates, and GAOhas a person on site in St. Louis to oversee theprogram. GAO has completed four audits withno findings that required corrective action andcurrently has four audits underway that includeoverview of communications, the Lead SystemIntegrator concept, a �quick look� review, and areview related to Milestone B update docu-mentation.

OSD oversight is also comprehensive andcontinuous. The Institute for Defense Analyseshas conducted several studies including thepanel studies and an FCS management review.In fact, FCS restructuring in the Fiscal Year2006�11 Program Objective Memorandum(POM) was a direct result of their independentreviews and an effort on the part of the Armyto make the FCS program more affordable andexecutable. Ongoing oversight comes from theCost Analysis Improvement Group, the DefenseAcquisition Board, the Overarching IntegratedProcess Team and the Joint Staff through theJoint Capability Integration and DevelopmentSystem (JCIDS) process.

Army oversight is even more comprehensive;in addition to normal oversight, it includes quar-terly four-star reviews by Army Training andDoctrine Command (TRADOC); a board ofdirectors that includes senior Army staff andAssistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology (ASA/ALT), TRADOCand Project Manager personnel.

In addition, Secretary of the Army Francis J.Harvey and Army Chief of Staff General Peter J.Schoomaker recently announced that they willconduct in-depth reviews of the program at leastthree times a year. Secretary Harvey, in closeconsultation with General Schoomaker, will alsoserve as the Army approval authority for all majorchanges to the program.

9

FCS Contract RestructureOn 6 April 2005, Secretary Harvey announced

a restructuring of the business aspects of theFuture Combat Systems program. The changesare comprehensive and include contractual,programmatic and managerial improvements.

The improvements formally link the FCSprogram to the Army Modular Force Initiativethrough a Future Combat Force Strategy thatestablishes a framework for the continuousprogression of the current Modular Force intothe future. The Future Combat Force Strategyprovides for the spiraling of FCS-basedtechnologies into the current Modular Force,integration of current combat lessons in areas ofdoctrine, organization, equipment and other keyelements and into the force, and eventual incor-poration of advanced manned combat platformsdeveloped in the FCS program.

Secretary Harvey directed that the current FCSOther Transaction Agreement (OTA) with theLead System Integrator change from an OTA to aFederal Acquisition Regulation-based contract.

ConclusionFuture Combat Systems (FCS) is key to

achieving a strategically responsive, precisionmaneuver force that is dominant across the rangeof military operations as outlined for the Army�sFuture Force concept.

The FCS-equipped Unit of Action will operateas a system of systems and will provide the neededprotection to ensure survivability. Current designsfor FCS provide a suite of protection capabilitiesgreater than those of current manned groundsystems.

The Army is employing better business prac-tices by transforming its business, resourcing andacquisition process for FCS. Restructuring themanagement of the FCS program will increase itsemphasis on jointly fighting the Global War onTerrorism. Contract changes provide greatercontrol, safeguards and incentives for contractorperformance.

The FCS is now formally linked to the ArmyModular Force Initiative to fulfill the Army FutureCombat Force Strategy.

We are committed to the Future Combat Systems,but this is a journey. It is not a destination.

General Peter J. Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff,in testimony before the House Armed ServicesCommittee re the Fiscal Year 2006 Army Budget

10

11

12

Association of the United States Armywww.ausa.org