DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » FCS Watch » “Future Combat”: Cuts, or More Cash?

“Future Combat”: Cuts, or More Cash?

It’s only taken $50 billion in extra cash, a heap of missed deadlines and redrawn requirements, and a war that’s lasted about two years too long. But the Pentagon may finally be ready to start putting the axe to the Army’s leviathan modernization program, Future Combat Systems.
nloscfiring.jpgInside Defense reports that FCS is on a “short list of…weapon system programs that could be terminated or significantly pared back.”

They are looking to slip it to the right or kill it, said a source familiar with FCS options advanced by the Pentagon’s office of program analysis and evaluation.
Army officials are working to convince Pentagon leaders, including England, to reconsider cutting or even terminating FCS, the service’s only major new-start development program.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker is scheduled to meet Friday with England and again make the case for the program, a briefing that is expected to discuss FCS’ relevance to today’s challenges.

Whoops! Make that $70 billion in cost overruns. The Defense Department quietly released a “selected acquisition report” this week saying that FCS would now run $161 billion — up from 2003’s $92 billion estimate. So we’re talking a 75% increase. And remember, folks, that’s only down payment. Because $161 billion only pays for modernizing a third of the Army’s troops.

Share |

November 18th, 2005 | FCS Watch | 477625 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/11/18/future-combat-cuts-or-more-cash/%22Future+Combat%22%3A+Cuts%2C+or+More+Cash%3F2005-11-18+15%3A21%3A19noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « “Climax” for Los Alamos Fight | Comments are Back On… » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. John says:
    November 18, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    The only FCS system to come in on budget and to work is the one pictured. The Interim Artillery Vehicle. It meets the weight (C-130 transportable) specification too.

    Reply
  2. Art Vandaley says:
    November 18, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    Noah — good synopsis.
    Now this is some good news! Yes, — cancel the program already! The Army recently changed the requirements to drop the C-130s as the required transport platform, a key requirement from DAY 1 BTW. Now watch Boeing beg for more money to now redo much of the Engineering to now optimize all these phantom Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) Platforms for larger aircraft, delaying the program yet again. Watch Boeing grab another 25%/year cost growth too. And to add insult to injury, the per-vehicle production cost estimate for the FCS MGVs is almost 10-times an Abrams or Bradley due to all the electronics, this is BEFORE they have been fattened up. Yeah — the Army will be able to buy 1000’s of those at that price. No one wants to talk about that!
    And does JTRS work? .. NO.
    And is IMS going to work? ..NO.
    Is UGS going to work? ..NO.
    And are all the funky unmanned platforms going to work? .. NO.
    And will the mobile wireless ad-hoc network work? .. NO.
    And will WIN-T work? .. NO.
    What a collosal train-wreck.
    And General Dynamics just can’t wait for this program to be cancelled since they have a corner on the ground vehicle market and will reap much of the reprogrammed money.
    There should have been active 3rd party oversight 3 years ago to limit the insanity on this program. How much has been spent and what is there to show for it now? … basically nothing. And they are suppose to roll-out vehicles beginning in 2008? .… Not bloody likely!!
    Will costs continue to rise … of course!
    Drive a stake through its heart I say.

    Reply
  3. David Axe says:
    November 18, 2005 at 5:43 pm

    No kidding, Art. I love me some big-ticket defense hardware, but this FCS is a POS. In this day and age, it’s a lot smarter and cost-effective to stick with old reliable platforms and simply update update update. You save money, avoid megabillion-dollar bungles and end up with equipment the troops can use instead of whizbang toys that work only on paper.

    Reply
  4. Cybrludite says:
    November 19, 2005 at 2:41 am

    David,
    That works great until it costs more to keep the updated systems running than it would to replace them. And even then, the machines will wear out & be used up eventually. Cheaper in the short run, but you do have to think of the long term as well.

    Reply
  5. Dfens says:
    November 19, 2005 at 10:24 am

    Yes, cancelling this program is a lot easier and costs a hell of a lot more than fixing the problem. It also ensures every program from now on is a similar failure.
    Keep paying the contractors profit on development. Keep making it profitable for them to screw up. Then whine about why they do. Cancel their program. Hire a new contractor. Start the whining again. Repeat until someone gets tired of hearing the whining and kicks our ass.

    Reply
  6. PO'd Taxpayer says:
    November 20, 2005 at 6:24 pm

    FCS is only the most recent example of Pentagon acquisition blunders. Unfortunately, this is what happens is you have Generals in charge of these particular programs who are in it to either get their next star or set themselves up for retirement in a nice, defense contractor position. What’s worse is when you have politicians meddling because it keeps their constituents employed and them in the office.
    This has been going on since the Bradley debacle, continued with the B-1 bomber, and is now going on with the goldplating of the F22 and JSF. It will continue to go on as long as the goevernment has the final say on whether these get cancelled. Read the books, “National Defense: The gold plating of the B1 Bomber”, “The Pentagon Wars”, and “Grand Theft Pentagon” for a good, accurate look at how Defense Acauisitions work,
    Folks, as much as I hate to say it, the FCS will probably not get cancelled. There’s too much political clout invested. I pray that I’m wrong. If not, this program will never die because too much has been invested. They’ll continue to scale back requirements and get one quarter of what they wanted for 10 times the cost. Why not? Have you ever heard of the government punishing the contractors for not performing.
    As someone who works in defense acquisitions, it sickens me to see how the government wastes money because our leadership doesn’t have the balls to pull the plug on a dying program. Common sense doesn’t factor into decisions, promotions do. If a program dies under someone’s watch, it career suicide. Sadly, the only way to fix it is by removing all the old school leadership and starting over with a cultural change. You know this won’t happen. So, for those who can, invest in the Defense industry. The government won’t let them go out of business.

    Reply
  7. Whopping Great Intermission says:
    November 21, 2005 at 7:56 am

    PO’d Taxpayer,
    I’d like to hear more about the Bradley debacle. The B-1 and F-22 problems are common knowledge (I think) but so much time has passed, and the system has performed so well, that I’m having a hard time tracking ANYTHING down on the Bradley acquisition controversy.
    Ironic, isn’t it, that the B-1 was cancelled to make room for the B-2 (which had rendered it obsolete) which was in turn cut partly because the B-1 could do the job just as well in the post-USSR wold?

    Reply
  8. FFRDC Employee says:
    November 23, 2005 at 1:11 pm

    HBO did indeed make a movie about “The Pentagon Wars”. Excellent movie. Carey Elwes as the Air Force office protagonist, and Kelsey Grammer as his nemesis, General Partridge. I believe you can rent it at Blockbuster.
    At some point they made the Bradley amphibious. What’s really telling is that they say that the Israelis bought off on the initial design before they screwed with it, and the factory making the Bradleys made two versions — the screwed up one and the original one. Guess who bought which one?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Gees the price is on the roof already. Maybe we just...
      roland
    • Ft. Irwin, Where You At?
      I was the driver for BoB Gaygos, B Co 6/31st Commander....
      Ricky houltzhouser
    • Ft. Irwin, Where You At?
      Luis, I was Captain Gaydos, driver Sgt. Houltzhouser in...
      Ricky Houltzhouser
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      If you really want to win the war permanently, it will...
      steven
    • Cover Your Computer Mics and WebCams
      Another question, how would I physically obstruct the...
      Curious
    • Cover Your Computer Mics and WebCams
      whats a good way to physically cover my laptop webcam?...
      Curious
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      But, the Eurotrash airplane ISN'T better… The Boeing...
      WillyPete
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Gee, I wonder why? Oh! Maybe it's because the...
      WillyPete
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      It would also help, a LOT to 'limit' excess...
      WillyPete
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      And flush ALL those dollars already spent down the...
      WillyPete
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage