U.S. Army's Future Combat System Will Run Linux 742
jkastner writes "In 2001 Boeing was chosen to be the lead system integrator for the Army's Future Combat System. The bumper sticker description of this project is 'see first, understand first, act first and finish decisively,' and while Boeing's official FCS site doesn't have a lot of technical details, but you can find some good information at Global Security. To quote their page, "FCS is envisioned as a networked 'system of systems" that will include robotic reconnaissance vehicles and sensors; tactical mobile robots; mobile command, control and communications platforms; networked fires from futuristic ground and air platforms; and advanced three-dimensional targeting systems operating on land and in the air.' The Phase 2 request for proposals just appeared and the estimated price is $26 billion
through fiscal year 2009. The fact that the Army is spending billions of dollars on a project isn't anything new, but a little known fact is that the OS for FCS will be Linux (FAQ 4 here.)"
They'd better (Score:4, Informative)
For such a system, linux is the obvious choice IMHO. Here's why: Consider the possibility of a malicious agent (possibly an insider) gaining unauthorized access to some of the systems. Because the whole thing is networked and remotely coordinated, the possibility for damage is immense. In that case, it is absolutely essential to detect the intrusion, track the attacker's footprints and minimize the damage as quickly as possible. And I would say linux wins hands down at this, because of its transparency. The main thing is not cost or ease of use or applications or any of the things that are usually considered, but having the innards of the system open for the administrator to see.
Re:Know thy enemy? (Score:3, Informative)
They would have to provide access to the code to people they distribute binaries to. Of course that is probably not the general public.
Re:Say bye-bye with EMP (Score:5, Informative)
When I went into the Army in 1991, no Army unit had executed a bayonet charge since World War II, but we still learned to fight with them attached to the M-16. There's all sorts of high tech gadgetry that can help you kill the enemy deader than shit...but you still learn to do it with bayonet, bare hands, and rifle with iron-sights before you ever learn to call in MLRS fire or pull down realtime data from a Predator drone...
Correct shielding. (Score:1, Informative)
The goal should only be to *survive* the pulse, I assume it's acceptable for a system to, for example, be forced to reset if an EMP was encountered.
The principals are very simple - put a Faraday cage around anything you don't want to fail. This can be tricky with a complex piece of equipment where size and weight is a premium. But I've seen aircraft books with pictures of (for example) an EMP-hardened radar bay of a fighter plane - lots of very thick grounded cable running into solid metal boxes.
FYI, some off-the-shelf hardware is available in radiation-hardened versions. For example, I believe that Motorola has a line of radiation-hardened processors designed for satellites. You'd still want to use it inside some heavy shielding, but this would be more resistant to external magnetic fields and radiation than a standard CPU.
Re:Conribute back? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Know thy enemy? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:money saving technique (Score:3, Informative)
you mean $26 billion *more* than we already give.
military spending isn't for developing nations. in case you haven't noticed lately, we do have hostiles which we need to protect ourselves from.
Re:money saving technique (Score:5, Informative)
Six bucks per person would inoculate them against the major killing diseases, and provide vitamins for a year, which in turn would prevent numerous nutrional deficiency diseases and ailments.
And if need be, we could set boundaries for help. There's little point in spending six bucks on a single elderly starvation victim who's body is so ravaged that s/he'll only live another few months anyway, when that six bucks could make a life-or-death difference to a dozen children.
$26 billion would also be more than enough to provide contraceptive options to every third-world woman. Reducing the birth rates would allow us to, in following years, provide better health care and nutrition care to the children. And with the children growing up healthier, the long-term consequences would be even further reduced ill health.
The long and the short of it is pretty damn plain:
We can spend $26 billion killing a bunch of people, causing the survivors to despise us even more.
Or we can spend $26 billion saving a bunch of people, and helping bring peace to earth.
I know which I'd rather see.
Re:Bittersweet news (Score:3, Informative)
Quoth the GPL section 3b (emphasis mine):
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
If Boeing distributes GPL'd code to the US Army it also must give any third party the source if they ask for it.
-- iCEBaLM
Other services take notice! Here is one (Score:2, Informative)
Even headline is Best battle ground for Linux [osopinion.com].
Re:Bittersweet news (Score:3, Informative)
Re: money saving technique (Score:5, Informative)
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. [fas.org]
I find him a bit more authoritative than the man who said "a little bit of hypocrisy is a good thing" when it comes to life and death issues.
Eugenics are you on crack? (Score:3, Informative)
Guess you should watch M*A*S*H, preferably the movie, not the liberal leaning sanitized comedy tv series then you know what triage is.
Re:$28B over 7 Years? (Score:2, Informative)
I think most of the posters here just don't quite get it. FCS is part of the transformation process that DOD is currently going through. The reality is that the current force structure is not well suited for what are likely to be the primary threats of the first half of the 21st century.
Throw in sub-national groups (terrorists) and you have an even larger gap in the current force structure.