| Page 3 of 3 < |
The Complex Crux Of Wireless Warfare
By the Lines
SOURCE: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Government Accountability Office, Gary McGraw of Cigital | The Washington Post - January 24, 2008 TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Designed by Northrop Grumman, a Boeing rival, Blue Force allows soldiers to use satellite technology to locate themselves and friendly forces, one of the goals of Future Combat Systems. Blue Force can also estimate enemy positions, based on intelligence. It was first used in combat in Afghanistan in 2002 and a year later in Iraq. About a year ago, Northrop said it demonstrated how its system could be used to communicate with an unmanned aerial vehicle, much as Boeing's system would.
Nonetheless, Northrop, a subcontractor to Boeing on Future Combat Systems, said it does not view Blue Force as a competitor to Boeing's software. Others do. Boeing's software and related hardware will cost about $250,000 per combat vehicle, about 10 times the cost of Blue Force, said Dan Goure, a defense expert at the Lexington Institute. Muilenburg, of Boeing, said his company's software will be much more advanced than Blue Force, saying that if Boeing's SOSCOE is like the Windows operating system, then Blue Force is akin to one of its applications, like PowerPoint.
Army officials said they were taking a harder look at the two systems, among others. The Army recently held a battle command summit, looking for one integrated common platform that would link its forces within five to seven years.
The GAO, for its part, is studying Future Combat Systems' software development, expecting to issue a report in March. Already, however, the GAO knows this much: Paul L. Francis, the point man in its studies of the weapons program, said his agency recommended that the Army develop the software network before designing the weapons, devices and combat vehicles, but "the Army wanted the system very fast and had a very ambitious schedule."
One concern is that the software ultimately won't be able to do what it's supposed to do. "Is that a possibility?" said Sorenson, the general. "Certainly, the answer is yes." But he said developers are performing rigorous tests, simulations and evaluations along the way.
The GAO remains dubious. "We do not know at this point if FCS is doable," Francis said, "in its totality, or the network."
