Email this article

Print this article

Readers Sound Off on Recent Stories 

6  2,009 

 

Working With Allies

Having just read your April 2009 article, “U.S. Wants More Help From Allies? Not Really,” I have to say it was spot on. It was an easily read and understood report on the basic frustrations that our allies feel. My international students actually sent the article around and made similar comments.


Robots in the Military
Thank you for the informative article “Defense Dept. Forecasts Greater Use of Robots in Ground Combat.” (April 2009)

It’s clear, as you mention, that robots are gaining an increasing role in defense and the importance of combining knowledge from the commercial robots industry is becoming more evident.


Lessons From Future Combat Systems

I have more than 30 years of engineering experience in the design, development and production of combat and related vehicles, including the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the M113 Vehicle Family. When we developed new vehicles in the past, we were directly responsible to the Army’s Tank Automotive Command program manager, and not to a “non-combat vehicle contractor,” which is the case for FCS, the Army’s Future Combat Systems.

Quoting from your February 2009 article, “Defense Secretary Robert Gates has expressed concerns about the cost and technical scope of FCS, although he vowed to support the program for the time being. Several members of Congress also have voiced discontent about FCS’ complexity and huge price tag.”

Let’s save time and money by eliminating the intermediary “lead systems integrator” who guided FCS’ unrealistic requirements for the vehicles’ basic size/weight to be compatible with the C-130 aircraft.

Further, let’s put the FCS program back directly into the hands of an Army-industry “team” with responsibility to the Army’s program manager, where it belongs.

Email this article

Print this article