I'm a little confused here. The ICBT program is not FCS. My sources tell me that ICBT is a total bust up and the the Pentagon just wants to find a way to phase it out without a lawsuit from the contractors or having the press get wind of how stupid the whole thing was. I imagine that they will end up in some sort of "military-police" role attached to some other division(s) in the future.
FCS is a whole other kettle of fish, and one that has much larger implications.
True, but Stryker, the bedrock platform for the IBCT (IFV, mortar carrier, cav scout vehicle, FIST-V, ambulance, engineer vehicle and so on), and what makes the IBCT different, is the first generation Future Combat System. But it is'nt. It is a throwback to World War II vehicles that are useful, but not battle winners. The vehicle breaks no new ground in it's basics. All that has been done is to throw in some nifty computers and vision gear. Look up the Stryker web page for all it's variants. Neat stuff, but nothing new. If this is what the Army of the future is supposed to be equipped with, be prepared for massive casualties because these vehicles cannot withstand combat. Period. The Army is just replicating what the Marines already have.
The FCS is supposed to be a survivable combat platform that can be fielded in many variants, and be highly deployable. Again, Stryker, first generation FCS, is neither survivable (only protected from small arms, armor pack add ons only provide protection in the .50 cal range, not against RPG) nor easily deployable (one per C-130, fully stripped, it takes a second c-130 to carry its armor packs and ammo load).
FCS has a long way to go. take care