Man, I wish Noah were around to comment on this one, from Inside the Army:
The Future Combat System successfully cleared its initial preliminary design review, marking the end of the program’s “PowerPoint” phase and the beginning of more tangible progress, program officials said last week.
“We are done with PowerPoint charts,” said Maj. Gen. Charles Cartwright, the Army’s FCS program manager during an Aug. 15 conference call with reporters. “It’s about building real stuff for not only the current force but to build the equipment for the future modular brigades.”
And then there’s this, from a congressional staff member:
Another area of concern is the program’s long-term costs, but the discussion during the initial preliminary design review put aside the issue of cost entirely, the staffer said.
Noah may not be around, but you can get a pretty good idea of what he’d say by browsing here.
– Dan Dupont
UPDATE, 5:06 EST (from Axe): Since Noah’s not around, I’ll say it: FCS is too expensive, too ambitious, technologically and operationally unsound and destined for the kinds of cuts and stretches that turn even useful programs into multi-billion-dollar embarassments. Only here we’re talking a trillion dollars, if the Army FCS-izes the entire force.
The CBO is all over this one (PDF!), as I reported earlier:
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.)
Kill FCS now!
–David Axe
FCS is the next generation of fighting vehicles. So if FCS is cut what is the next step
What will be the vehicle(s) of choice to move our troops from point a to b safely and offer a easily deployable option to get out forces over seas in a short amount of time?
Besides the Stryker thers not much else for now.
This may seem strange coming from someone who works on Army S&T, but I think FCS is just too ambitious at this point. Like USAF’s plans to replace most of its fighter fleet with F-22s, the Army is trying to do too much too quickly.
If you read through the CBO’s report, they pose four alternatives to the Army’s current plans for FCS. Personally, I think their four alternative that focuses on integrating FCS’s information and communications network into its current fleet of vehicles and refurbishing the Abrams, Bradley and Paladin is probably the best idea for one simple reason: It lets the Army dabble with net-centric warfare before it commits to producing the next generation of equipment.
Simply looking at the entire FCS demonstrates a clear sense that the Army doesn’t know what it wants or what will be useful in the future. Since Army leaders’ conception of what will work in net-centric warfare is hazy, they’ve throw every imagined piece of kit plus the kitchen sink into FCS’s scope.
If we test net-centric concepts in the field with current Army gear, we’ll have a better idea of which FCS components will shine on the battlefield and which will be better off in mothballs.
Sure FCS is quite ambitious however look into how old most Army vehicles and designs are you are going to find out that most of them are well over 30 years old!
With out doubt most of them are improved but you can olny improve a vehicle so much.
I think the Army’s goal is to do more with less. So no matter what the old a tired equipment has to be replaced and a newer and most improved vehicle(s) has to take it’s place.
This starts from regular transport vehicles on up. While I’m not convinced that some LAV 3 variant “Stryker” is a do all end all vehicle it’s better than nothing at all.
Also with fuel possibly becomming more expensive and potentially scarce in the near future something has to happen soon to replace all these gas guzzeling vehicles.
According to the Army:
“FCS is one of the most complex systems integration and development programs ever executed by the Department of Defense. The scope of the program — the development of 18 manned and unmanned systems and their integrating network, the integration of 150+ complementary and associated programs, and development of the underlying doctrine, organization, training, facilitization, and other functions needed to develop and field a fully-functioning UA — require a new, innovative approach to complex systems integration.“
If your car demonstrated the same performance and reliability as MS Windows you’d never drive again. Now ‘they’ want to develop and apply an infinitely more complicated system to military hardware?
Sounds like a big money-maker to me. Too bad you and I are going to be paying for it.
I feel the FCS program is one that is worth the cost. The Army needs to make a shift from cold war era vehicles to ones designed for modern warfare and I feel FCS is the answer. FCS will give commanders more options on the ground and it will provide them with more information to work with.
I have a question or two:
~ FCS is a program designed to replace the majority, if not all of the US Army’s current weapons systems. Ranging from the M1A2 to the M109, these systems will be replaced by new designs which will offer improved survivability, reduced logistics, and increased ease of maintenence. As well as improved communications. Right?
~ FCS costs are always in question. But its not a single weapons program. Its not: “The M1A2-replacement vehicle program”. So why is cost held in such poor regard? When it is in fact, a program designed to replace all sorts of vehicles.
Basically. Future Combat Systems, if executed properly, can be a very important program for the Army.
Things I’d Change:
>Make JTRS a seperate entity.
>Increase weight limit of MCV (replacement of M1A2) to 50 tons. So it can have adequate armor protection making use of new armor systems.
>Take experience from Stryker Program.
too expensive??? yeah, but we’ll have supersoldiers who can be invisible, jump over 20 foot fences, and see through walls!!! come oooooooonnnnnn!
I’m usually all for extra military spending. I love the Raptor, think the F-35 is awesome, and want all our soldiers to run around in active camo like in the movie Predator.
Unfortunately, I think FCS is being poorly handled. It’s a very expensive program. I don’t have a problem with that. But they keep changing the requirements, and I’m not sure they really know what they want.
FCS is a good idea. It’s a GREAT idea. It’s necessary, and I think we’ll see a great benefit from it once everything is done. That said, they’re screwing around on it right now and wasting money. It seems like they almost don’t know how to implement it. Like a director who knows he wants to make a movie about something, but little idea how to go about doing it. The Army seems to be stumbling through the FCS, when they need a strong plan and a clear direction
Yes. The program isnt the problem, just the handling.
Good Morning David,
The FCS is going nowhere for a long time, courtesy of the U. S. Air Force, SAIC and Boeing. The linch pin of the FCS are the GPS IIF satelites. Scheduled for a first unit 2002 launch the GPS IIF has been postphone again. The current schedule had the first of these satellites for launching this Fall and the consillation to be operational by 2008, oohps sorry won’t happen.
The new T Shirt worn by members of the GPS IIF project says, “GPS IIF, for sure in ’08″, well maybe. The projects open budget is now $400 Million over contract, who knows what the over run on the “Classified Budget”, is?
The most optimistic view from the Air Force is first launching in 2009, operational by 2012. More likely 2025. It is very likely the first 2d.Lt. Platoon Leader of the first FCS Platoon is not yet born.
At this rate and with the built in cost esclations the FCS will surly make the $500 Billion mark by mid decade of the next decade when it might start becomming operational.
If the FCS goes on, the only winners will be SAIC and Boeing, the Mega loser(s) will be the U.S. Army and of course the U.S. Taxpayer.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
It seems to me unless we suddenly develop some revolutionary lightweight armor and/or active defenses the program is of little value. Saving weight is useless in an urban/asymmetric battlefield with ATGM’s/RPG’s/IED’s coming in all directions (Israel recently). Air transporting armor to the theater is a fantasy. Spend the money on M1 TUSK upgrades or something else we can use right now.
Cartwrong will get the hook soon, or will retire, and the program will be descoped or perhaps cancelled as well. It quickly grew from $92B to $300B under his so-called “leadership” and nothing yet has been built. Five years and nothing built.
Boeing has wrecked the program by promising an extremely risky and unaffordable high-tech solution to a mostly undefined problem. FCS would not have changed things in Iraq — that is very clear.
A modern 70-ton M1A2 tank at $2M each will be replaced with a less capable and less survivable 24-ton FCS MGV costing over $10M each. Amazingly stupid. The C-130 transort requirement has also been dropped, and the program already has stretched out 4 years (so far).
The other services have suggested budget cutbacks to Rummy for FY2007-2012 on-time but the Army has instead delayed their cutback suggestions and instead will demand more money! No doubt this will lead to FCS’s demise. The CBO and GAO both have said FCS is a mess and should be cancelled.
Like Boeing’s V-22, FCS seems fantastic on paper. In reality it will be suffer from endless technical problems and endless related delays and cost overruns. V-22 went from $40M each to $160M each and took 20 years rather than 8. FCS will make the V-22 look like a High School science project in comparison.
Kill it!