| | Another software difficulty is the operating system, which is being developed by Boeing. The System-of-Systems Common Operating Environment, or SOSCOE, is supposed to be like Windows, the world's dominant operating system, only better. It will be embedded in the 14 combat vehicles, robots, drones, sensors and weapons that comprise Future Combat Systems, helping soldiers to communicate with the different systems through a wireless network using radios, relays and satellites.
Boeing and the Army said they chose not to use Microsoft's proprietary software because they didn't want to be beholden to the company. Instead, they chose to develop a Linux-based operating system based on publicly available code.
Microsoft, which does substantial business with the military, declined to comment.
Boeing's Schoen said that it is designing software so that if soldiers lose their connection, the software will automatically "heal itself," retrieving the information within seconds without rebooting. The software, in the name of speed, will find an efficient mathematical algorithm to reconnect the soldier. The design is a combination of commercial software and code written from scratch by many software developers, he said. Instead of Microsoft, Boeing said it is using software developed by a hodgepodge of companies including Red Hat and Wind River Systems. Boeing is developing the operating system with SAIC, which is also assisting Boeing on another critical piece of software for the Army program, the Warfighter Machine Interface, which is essentially what soldiers will see on their monitors.
SAIC worked on another major software development program for the U.S. government, and it didn't go well. In 2001, the FBI hired SAIC to create software to update the bureau's computer systems and later to replace its paper files. By 2004, the FBI abandoned the $170 million program, starting over. Arnold Punaro, an SAIC executive vice president, said in a statement that the company recognized problems early in the program. But it was "not forceful enough in bringing them to the attention of the FBI's most senior leaders, including the director."
An Available System When the Army began developing Future Combat Systems, it decided to rely on Boeing and SAIC to create a new operating system rather than borrow from what it already had, Blue Force Tracking.
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."
__________________  |