Future Force Company Commander (F2C2)

[Mirzayev]

Was reminded of this "Wargame" from my youth today. F2C2 is more propaganda of a US Army concept from the mid-2000s than a serious wargame, with the Future Combat Systems you command having a VAST overmatch against the types of enemies that you fight. Still, it can be a fun diversion, and it is free. 

 

https://future-force-company-commander-f2c2.en.softonic.com/

Future Force Company Commander is a realtime strategy game based on the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) networked weapons. SAIC has contracted Zombie to produce a simulation of the FCS battle command station in which the player controls the full spectrum of FCS vehicles, sensors, UAVs and weapon systems - and fights four intense missions on the complex future battlefield.

 

Future Combat Systems includes 18+1+1 systems consisting of unattended ground sensors; two unattended munitions, the Non-Line of Sight – Launch System and Intelligent Munitions System; four classes of unmanned aerial vehicles organic to platoon, company, battalion and Unit of Action echelons; three classes of unmanned ground vehicles, the Armed Robotic Vehicle, Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, and Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment Vehicle; and the eight manned ground vehicles (18 individual systems); plus the network (18+1); plus the Soldier (18+1+1). FCS is a core building block of the Army’s Future Force.

 

The FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) will consist of three FCS-equipped Combined Arms Battalions, a Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon Battalion, a Reconnaissance Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron, a Forward Support Battalion, a Brigade Intelligence and Communications Company, and a Headquarters Company.

 

The FCS-equipped UAs will be the Army’s future tactical warfighting echelon; a dominant ground combat force that complements the dominant Joint team. Although optimized for offensive operations, the FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) will have the ability to execute a full spectrum of operations. FCS will improve the strategic deployability and operational maneuver capability of ground combat formations without sacrificing lethality or survivability.

[RS88]

In F2C2 you take command of the Army’s integrated Future Combat Systems (FCS).
F2C2 is a sort of Battle Command Software (BC) which should demonstrate a wireless network, where the Company Commander (you) has access to different manned and unmanned vehicles, drones, sensors and requests for precision Non-Line-of-Sight fire support.

 

This simulation from 2006, before the end of the Army's FCS in 2009, has aroused my interest again today. We are facing a situation with new technologies of main battle tanks like:
Abrams-X, KF51-Panther or T14-Armata.

These vehicles have been developed as semi-automatic combat machines with a view to full automation, that means dependence on robust wireless networks and software technologies.
But we must be aware that automated systems also bring risks, for example network failures due to jamming or hacking.

 

And this is what Training Mission Ch.11 looks like in F2C2 (in a perfect network):

 

 

I think the end of the Army's FCS was not only due to the high costs of the new developments, but also due to the requirement that the individual vehicles could not weigh more than 20 tons and could not exceed certain dimensions, so that faster transport with a C-130 Hercules was possible.

These limitations meant that the armor and armament had to be reduced and the system was no longer safe and efficient.

It is obvious that a good network and technology is an advantage on the modern battlefield, but it can also be a vulnerable point.
 
 CU - RS88 -

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by RS88

[Captain_Colossus]

1 hour ago, RS88 said:

 

 

 

 

It is obvious that a good network and technology is an advantage on the modern battlefield, but it can also be a vulnerable point.
 
 CU - RS88 -

 

the whole cosmic joke is that it never gets there- there is only a process but no finish line. any technology, system or weapon invites its response, as if an adversary would simply overlook what you are doing to secure an advantage. so far example the invention of the tank implies defenses against the introduction of this new wrinkle into the game- now comes the anti-tank ditches, mines, obstacles and so on. the game never finishes. it would have done so ages ago if it could actually be completed. stasis would have been the default situation already. 

[RS88]

Yes, that's right, Captain, it should never stop, that's what the whole industry lives on.

New technologies only give you a head start for a certain amount of time. During this time you can develop other new technologies.

With regard to the new technologies, I think it is important to correctly assess the dangers and to plan countermeasures in advance so that the advantage lasts for a long time.
This always includes a backup plan, if something goes wrong, how do I get out of it again.

With regard to automated vehicles on the battlefield, when the network collapses, the UAV and UGV must be able to operate independently. This is where AI can be useful - but there are also new risks.

What is more, are the enormous costs that arise and can lead to a premature end of a development project, if results are not really recognizable within the lead time.
Or if new technologies or new combat tactics have already overtaken the existing concept.

These were some of the reasons for the premature end of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) of the Army. Time advance is limited and must be used wisely!

 

[Captain_Colossus]

correctly assessing evolving threats goes without saying- the trick is actually pulling it off while an opponents is also attempting to guess the next correct move. and so i make the case that observable phenomena is deterministic- not to be equated  with an infallible prognostication, but rather determinism means that in hindsight the chain of causation theoretically can be deduced i.e., odds given a player to win who should have won , individual battles may be won but perhaps operational or strategic goals still fail- in retrospect, we can study what happened and identify what went wrong, but  we did not correctly predict so many moves ahead (or at least policy  makers didn't), at the time.  a given steel beasts scenario may utilize complex boolean arguments with random variables, but the AAR tool will reveal what happened deterministically when the program drew numbers from the die rolls. the current conflict in ukraine has shown the west to be a bit flumoxed at the scale of casualties- im rather certain no nato country could absorb hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded at this scale before there would be considerable domestic pushback (let alone supply the manpower numbers to begin with), the scope of which is unimaginable and removed from any previous western experience since world war 2. company scale maneuvers are great but in this war it is a drop in tbe ocean compared to the weekly battalion+ losses; higher estimates place this loss rate at the daily tally. what nato army actually prepares for this- or is prepared for it. as we have seen it is something that you could have planned for one kind of conflict, your opponent also planned for it, but the interaction of that move-counter move evolved into attrition warfare which probably breaks only when a specific threshold is tripped- one side runs out of artilery shells, a supporting flank might pull back or collapse, then a whole cascade of problems begin to pick up momentum and the tide begins to turn

Edited August 2, 2023 by Captain_Colossus

[Gibsonm]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:25 AM, RS88 said:

This simulation from 2006, before the end of the Army's FCS in 2009, has aroused my interest again today. We are facing a situation with new technologies of main battle tanks like:
Abrams-X, KF51-Panther or T14-Armata.

 

 

FYI, the Heer is looking at a platform beyond (i.e. newer than) the KF51-Panther as their Leo 2 replacement.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Gibsonm
Added text for clarity.

[RS88]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

 

FYI, the Heer is looking at a platform beyond the KF51-Panther as their Leo 2 replacement.

 

... they don't have to look far:

 

From the Rheinmetall website:

https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/tracked-vehicles/tracked-armoured-vehicles/panther-kf51-main-battle-tank

 

 

Panther KF51 main battle tank

 

Future tanknology:

• highest lethality on the battlefield, combined with an
• integrated survivability concept and connected by a
• fully digitised NGVA data backbone to enable
• next-generation operational capabilities and automation.

This enables a reduction in crew size, which paves the way for unmanned turret options and Human-Machine Teaming. 

 

Fully digitised:

The first for an MBT: The Panther is designed around a digital architecture complying with the NGVA standard. This is the key enabler for future decision support and automation systems.

 

 

[Gibsonm]

5 minutes ago, RS88 said:

 

... they don't have to look far:

 

From the Rheinmetall website:

https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/tracked-vehicles/tracked-armoured-vehicles/panther-kf51-main-battle-tank

 

 

Panther KF51 main battle tank

 

Future tanknology:

• highest lethality on the battlefield, combined with an
• integrated survivability concept and connected by a
• fully digitised NGVA data backbone to enable
• next-generation operational capabilities and automation.

This enables a reduction in crew size, which paves the way for unmanned turret options and Human-Machine Teaming. 

 

Fully digitised:

The first for an MBT: The Panther is designed around a digital architecture complying with the NGVA standard. This is the key enabler for future decision support and automation systems.

 

 

 

As I said they are looking at something beyond / newer than Panther (i.e. at least a generation "newer").

 

Panther is basically a technology demonstrator from a company, not a response to a published user requirement.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Gibsonm

[RS88]

8 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

As I said they are looking at something newer than Panther (i.e. at least a generation "newer").

 

I don't think so.

Where did you get that information?
I believe a generational leap would be too risky. Panther builds on the Leopard. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by RS88

[Gibsonm]

3 minutes ago, RS88 said:

I don't think so.

Where did you get that information?
I belive a generational leap would be too risky. Panther builds on the Leopard. 

 

A US Army Symposium on Future Land Forces, where a Senior German Officer (1 star) gave the Heer presentation.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Gibsonm

[RS88]

3 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

A US Army Symposium on Future Land Forces, where a Senior German Officer (1 star) gave the Heer presentation.

 

Interesting, can you give us more details about this Future Land Forces?

[Gibsonm]

17 minutes ago, RS88 said:

Interesting, can you give us more details about this Future Land Forces?

 

I think it was LANPAC 2023, but I'll have a look for the link when I get home.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Gibsonm]

Couldn’t find the exact link but:

 

1. Conducted by US Army’s Army Future Command.

2. Conducted Jun 23.

3. Open source discussion by a person some here may recognise:
 

 

4. Leopard / MFC discussion at around 16:40 (noting earlier comments about future crews likely to be two (2) and Cbt weight not to exceed 50 metric tonne. Panther ruled out (or at least unlikely) 19:43.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Gibsonm

[RS88]

15 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Couldn’t find the exact link but:

 

1. Conducted by US Army’s Army Future Command.

2. Conducted Jun 23.

3. Open source discussion by a person some here may recognise:
 

 

4. Leopard / MFC discussion at around 16:40 (noting earlier comments about future crews likely to be two (2) and Cbt weight not to exceed 50 metric tonne. Panther ruled out (or at least unlikely) 19:43.

 

I honestly think this is all speculation. Converting an entire army to a futuristic vision is just too dangerous today.

Then Goliath gets feet of clay.
There are different opinions about the future, but I would not lean too far out of the window and then maybe bet on the wrong horse.

[Ssnake]

Armies are slow to adapt, except maybe after serious defeats. That's good, and bad.

[RS88]

Early 2000s, at a time when Steel Beasts was just coming out (I still play the SB V1.226 Gold today) the United States Army thought about modernization and created the Future Combat Systems (FCS).
They then also thought about replacing the M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradle with lighter versions.

 

I quote here from the "CRS Report for Congress RL32888" (year 2009):

 

The Future Combat System (FCS) was a multiyear, multibillion dollar program at the heart of the Army’s transformation efforts. It was to be the Army’s major research, development, and acquisition program, consisting of 14 manned and unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and information network.

FCS was intended to replace current systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The FCS program has been characterized by the Army and others as a high-risk venture because of the advanced technologies involved and the challenge of networking all of the FCS subsystems together so that FCS-equipped units could function as intended.

 

For more information, search the web for the CRS Report for Congress RL32888

 

However, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led to a rethink.

Edited August 3, 2023 by RS88

[RS88]

As part of the Future Combat System FCS the Army also considered that although there were fewer soldiers on the battlefield, more network operators were needed. For this reason, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was commissioned to conduct a study on such a network interface.

This is how Future Force Company Commander (F2C2) came about - which started this thread.

 

I played through F2C2 Mission 1, but then quickly realized that it really was a prototype.
The interface is cumbersome, unfinished and doesn't really support the commander in his decision-making.