FCS Battle Command

Army,  Aug 2005  by Puckett, Tim

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

In its numerical description of Future Combat Systems (FCS) as "18 + 1 + 1," the U.S. Army simultaneously highlights the many unique aspects of this bold programmatic undertaking: 18 systems, linked by one network, supporting every single warfighter. The sequence will add up to the ability of the FCS-equipped unit of action (UA) to be able to see first, understand first, act first and finish decisively.

The equation for victory may seem simple and straightforward, but in reality, the 18 + 1 + 1 concept represents a synergistic undertaking that is unlike anything that has ever occurred before.

Second only to the warfighter himself, the interlinked network will be the primary cornerstone of capabilities in the FCS-equipped UA. That network will consist of four overarching building blocks: the system-of-systems common operating environment; Battle Command (BC) software communications and computers; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

The FCS Battle Command network building block will shatter the traditional paradigm of "problem and application." Instead of being an application, the FCS BC can be viewed as a "tactical mission space" that will house a "container" of different maneuver and sustainment services. This service-based architecture features software units that will perform the foundational BC tasks, with the mission space applying a service as many times as necessary and at any computation site within the distributed FCS network.

Another unique aspect of FCS is that the BC software services are being developed by different contractors in a uniquely cooperative environment that has evolved under the "best of industry" mandates of the FCS lead systems integrator approach.

Today's warfighter addresses his battle command needs through the elements of the Army Battle Command System (ABCS). Emerging from the early skirmishes of the digital revolution in the early to mid 1990s, ABCS came to fruition in the opening years of the 21st century. While performing admirably in today's operating environments, the system is primarily constructed out of approximately one dozen vertical stovepipes that all began under completely different architectures, development philosophies, requirements and focuses.

FBCB2, for example, represents a tremendous leap ahead in providing situational awareness on today's vehicle platforms. The commander can look at the screen and make decisions, but that process is not supported by a degree of automation. It is primarily a situational awareness tool supported by computational activities from other ABCS elements. Moreover, while FBCB2 provides benefits to the platform commanders, the bulk of today's ABCS benefits are directed at higher command post levels.

The process has worked well in Afghanistan and Iraq but it falls far short of the network-centric design capabilities underlying the FCS-equipped unit of action in the expanded common operating environment (COE). Fortunately, FCS BC will be fielded before the ABCS reaches its technological horizon.

Optimized for those fully networked COE applications, FCS BC will operate both horizontally and vertically across the unit of action. The BC service-based architecture will be structured to execute a myriad of threads, with each stringing together small services from the BC tactical mission space containers. These small, elegant, highly optimized and very focused services will do the multitudes of tactical tasks that the UA will have to execute in performing its missions.

The classic call for fire, for example, will apply FCS networked fires to a battlespace target. Through extensive analysis of the entire PCS network, those networked fires are being decomposed into constituent elements and tasks that can be arranged into simple, highly optimized task flows. Called task integration networks (TINs), these task flows are being tailored for specific warfighter roles at each echelon in the UA.

The FCS BC call for fire thread would create TINs by stringing selected services from multiple containers, including warfighter machine interfaces, situation understanding and mission execution. With the multiple services strung together by the cooperative software, the UA effects coordinator would monitor the readiness for engagement by one or more non-line-of-sight platforms and simply hit a button to implement the effects process.

The network-centric nature of FCS BC reflects the fact that the 18 FCS platforms will integrate capabilities that were never before available to warfighters. Under this fundamental shift in thinking, the individual FCS platforms will have tremendous computational powers running in the background and handling routine status tasks. Simultaneously, an incredibly gifted array of sensors on the platforms or linked in the network will also be processing that information on the vehicles. Based on that computational power, action recommendations will be presented to the warfighters in the vehicle.

The computational power inherent to each platform will also enhance tactical flexibility. For example, while commanders might conduct planning on a dedicated command and control vehicle, the realities of today's warrior ethos will likely move that commander and command group to an armed combat platform to lead from the front. In those instances, an FCS concept called "key chain" will allow the commander or staff officer to identify their location within the UA network and immediately call up tailored screens with tailored threads for their role-specific critical tasks.