The latest Congressional Budget Office report (PDF!) on the Army’s $250-billion Future Combat Systems family of vehicles paints a pretty bleak picture:
In 2011, planned FCS costs would account for about 6 percent of the Army’s $21 billion procurement budget, CBO estimates; by 2015, that share could rise to almost half and remain at or above 40 percent through 2025. (For purposes of comparison, in the mid-1980s, at the height of the Reagan defense buildup, the Army dedicated at most 20 percent of its procurement funds to buy combat vehicles.
So CBO has come up with alternatives, as described by Defense News:
CBOs first alternative, focused on the Armys ability to collect and disseminate information, includes the purchase of unattended ground sensors, all four proposed classes of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and a computer network to link them all together …
A second alternative, with an emphasis on long-range strikes, calls for the procurement of the network and ground sensors, but only the longer-range UAVs (Classes III and IV) to detect targets and an FCS vehicle-based mortar system to attack them …
Under a third alternative, the Army would focus on maneuver warfare by developing several of the proposed FCS vehicles, particularly those that would replace aged M113 armored personnel carriers and M109 self-propelled howitzers. The FCS computer network would be retained …
Under the fourth and least expensive alternative CBO proposed, the Army would develop only the computer network and forgo acquisition of any other FCS components. The service would maintain the same fleet of armored vehicles that it has had for more than 20 years …
One aspect common to all four proposals is the elimination of the unmanned ground vehicles and intelligent munitions system now part of the FCS plan. All four alternatives would, however, see the Army upgrading its armored vehicles to the most recent standard, while incorporating various FCS attributes as they are developed.
The Army has already moved forward on such upgrades, as the CBO explains:
The more than 2,500 upgrades that the Army plans to procure from 2007 through 2016 would improve the capabilities of its tanks, fighting vehicles and personnel carriers and slightly lessen the increase in the average age of the armored vehicle fleet … When combined with the additional upgrades funded in the supplemental appropriations enacted this past June, the planned upgrades would further the Army’s efforts toward meeting its goal of having enough of the latest models of its Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to equip all of its heavy brigades and prepositioned stocks.
But the Army says that upgraded legacy vehicles, while capable, would mean heavier brigades that are 25 percent slower to deploy using existing sealift and airlift assets.
Here’s a thought: stick to proven, affordable armored vehicles that work (and might even be better suited to future fights than FCS) while investing some of the savings in more ships and C-17s, speeding up deployments at a fraction of the cost.
–David Axe
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
The Army already has a suitable Digital Battlefield system and vehicles. With a newer and faster processor in the highly reliable FBCB2 computer, most of the advanced Information bells and whistles the Army wants can be realized. The 20T Stryker line is nearly as capable as the 24T FCS MGV line was planned to be. Perhaps a 24T Stryker (Stryker II) program should be pursued.
I vote for a cancellation of the entire FCS program and put the money towards upgrades which have proven to be lower cost and faster to field. Call this ALTERNATIVE 6.
It does make me sick how much has been wasted on this program already, led mainly by Boeing who has no business, imo, trying to solve Army battlespace problems – mainly because they have no real understanding of it.
Over four years already and billions have been spent, and the program is still trying to figure out requirements. Nothing has been built or proven. CBO and GAO seem to agree. FCS needs to be stopped, and the sooner the better.
Good Morning David,
Let’s see how long has FCS been around, since the early 90′s or before, when it was called “Force 21″ and used the 4ID as game players on the game board called Ft. Hood.
Among it many problems the FCS has always been about building a two story house from the second story down. With out dealing with basic problems such as communications, command and control, and intelligence distribution the Army was awarding contracts right and left for new vehicles and devoloping new formations that were never to be.
The result is the mess that we have now,the only winners are the defense industry contractors who have made record profits on producing speculations and ideas that never quite worked out.
The base reason for all this is of course the Army recycles all it’s Col’s. and Gen’s. every four years and each new cycle wants to start new. The result is we now are in the fifth generation of Generals who think the guy they replaced was all wrong.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“The base reason for all this is of course the Army recycles all it’s Col’s. and Gen’s. every four years and each new cycle wants to start new.”
The only thing this has to do with personnel changes at the DoD is the Col. who just retired is now either a corporate stooge or a lobbyist.
The real problem is funding provided by politicians who are bound to corporate donations, party pressure and a desire to ‘bring the bacon home’ to local defense contractors. Congress often adds programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want (like the Crusader, funding for which was shifted to FCS in 2002).
The revolving door between government, the military and arms manufacturers is the most powerful interest group in DC. Thus the US has a $450 billion annual ‘defense’ budget, multiple ongoing military actions (justification), black R&D budgets hidden in departments such as DoE, etc.
The Pentagon is awash in projects with massive cost overruns (such as Raptors at $361 million apiece) and nobody does anything about it, simply because it is sooooo profitable.
The US is the world’s largest arms dealer. It’s ‘defense’ budget is 9 times more than #2 spender China and more than the world’s top 25 military budgets combined *without* including the cost of ongoing military actions.
Anyone remember the Peace Dividend?
Good Afternoon Noah,
Just trying to be polite Noah, last year I had three (a Sony and two HP’s.) computers infected with something strange from .mil that wipped them both out. I’ve had my current computer since last November, I’m hoping they won’t hit me till hard again till Vista and Win-Max comes out sometime next year.
I can’t find any fault with you statement, ifyou check out todays papersw you will find that Boeing has been caught with $412million in over charges for the C-17 programme.
But I guess like the $600 million boeing got caught skinning earlier all will be forgiven.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner