Comments on: Futures

By: Glen Baker

Glen Baker — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:01:38 +0000

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!

By: WarNerd

WarNerd — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:36:30 +0000

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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:49:27 +0000

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

By: skrip00

skrip00 — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:27:45 +0000

Yes. The program isnt the problem, just the handling.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:15:54 +0000

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

By: DS

DS — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:19:35 +0000

too expensive??? yeah, but we’ll have supersoldiers who can be invisible, jump over 20 foot fences, and see through walls!!! come oooooooonnnnnn!

By: skrip00

skrip00 — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:50:09 +0000

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.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:43:10 +0000

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.

By: Noah (the other one)

Noah (the other one) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:34:24 +0000

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.

By: Punisher1

Punisher1 — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:56:44 +0000

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.