The Planned Change principle generally includes three courses of action: Maintain/sustain the current system/process, evolutionary/incremental improvement or revolutionary improvement through re-design.  The higher degree of change, the higher the risk. Risk can be minimized through use of the concept of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).  FCS incorporates all three approaches and a strategic assessment will help identify priorities for funding.

Why Funding Future Combat Systems Is A Must, (European Stars and Stripes)…Sen. John Cornyn, December 19, 2008, Pg. 19

The federal government has a solemn duty to provide our men and women in uniform with the best equipment available to ensure they can fight and win against any opponent on any battlefield on Earth. That is exactly the intent be­hind Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Army’s flagship modernization program, which represents a quantum leap in mili­tary technology. By making our ground forces lighter, faster and more lethal, and equipping them with weapon systems that are more survivable, more deployable, and more sustainable, FCS will change the way our Army does business.

In short, FCS is an interoperable fam­ily of cutting-edge ground vehicles, UAVs, ground robots, indirect fire weapons and sensors. Each component is interconnect­ed through the FCS communications and data network, allowing for unparalleled information sharing. FCS will provide our soldiers the means to execute both coun­terinsurgency operations, now the most critical piece of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the conventional war­fare for which Bradleys, Abrams tanks and other legacy systems were designed. Whether battling uniformed military forc­es or insurgents who conceal themselves within a civilian population, FCS will en­able our soldiers to see the enemy first, un­derstand the situation, then act decisively.

But that’s only part of the story. FCS, at its core, is about soldiers; it’s about em­powering them to make decisions that are quicker, better-informed and more sound. With individual soldiers functioning as in­telligence assets, FCS will allow 360-de­gree information flow — streaming up to unit commanders, down to individual sol­diers, and out to adjacent units — enabling better integration of actions against a foe.

We will digitally link our soldiers at every level, thanks to the FCS network and the new Ground Soldier System, which is separate but fully complementary to FCS. Soldier-worn and integrated into the body armor, the lightweight system consists of a compact computer, GPS unit, helmet-mounted display and communications sys­tem. It will allow us to maximize soldiers’ situational awareness.

Unfortunately for soldiers, the FCS pro­gram has had an uphill climb since con­ception. With a large price tag, it has been repeatedly targeted for funding cuts in Congress. FCS is highly complex — with 14 different platforms, more than 300 dif­ferent technologies, and more than 600 contracts in place — which has made it dif­ficult to tell the story of its potential.

The name itself has contributed to broad misperception, arguably sounding more like something intended to fight space-age enemies on distant battlefields than what it actually is: a family of game-changing weapon systems ideally suited to fight enemies on the streets of Iraqi cities, the unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan, and conventional battlefields. As such, it is past time for the Army to change the name.

FCS nonbelievers, some of whom argue that FCS will be of limited value in mod­ern-day counterinsurgency operations, should take note that FCS addresses more than 80 percent of all “operational needs statements” (requests for new equipment and situational awareness capabilities) generated in the past two years by our sol­diers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, early versions of FCS equip­ment are helping soldiers take the fight to the enemy and save American lives today. Our Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams are using small FCS-derived robots called “Packbots” to clear improvised explosive devices from the roads our troops travel. Packbots are also being utilized to clear buildings, caves and bunkers. In addition, for the past year, U.S. troops in Iraq have been flying more than 20 FCS-derived, back-packable UAVs, called “Micro Air Vehicles,” to spot IEDs before they kill or injure anyone. Even the latest enhanced armor kits for HMMWVs are based on FCS technology.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that our military should be “moving ag­gressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield,” and the Ar­my’s two-phased fielding strategy for FCS follows this guidance. Because infantry Brigade Combat Teams have been in the highest demand during post-9/11 combat operations, the Army will “spin out” essen­tial FCS equipment to these units first.

New FCS equipment arrives on a regular basis at Fort Bliss, Texas, where the Army Evaluation Task Force is based. The AETF, whose ranks are filled by combat-seasoned soldiers, provides immediate feedback on the equipment before it is fielded to troops, representing a huge leap forward in the way the Army acquires weapon systems.

Our current inventory of Army weapon systems is aging rapidly and may not last as long as intended. That makes it even more crucial that the Army’s next weapon sys­tems be fielded now, with the capability to defeat the threats of both today and tomor­row. With FCS, we have that technology in hand, and we have a golden opportunity.

John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is the ranking Republican on the airland subcom­mittee, which is responsible

for oversight of Army weapons programs and funding levels.