Despite a full-bore public relations campaign to press lawmakers into supporting the Armys Future Combat System program, it looks like Congress wasnt buying the services pitch.
According to a report by Tony Capaccio with Bloomberg News, House authorizers slashed the FCS budget 23 percent, cutting nearly $870 million from the Armys fiscal 2008 request. According to service budget documents, the Army asked for $3.7 billion in 2008 to pay for the following:
Continuing development, testing and delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles, unattended ground sensors and unmanned ground vehicle prototypes.
Completing preliminary platform design reviews and initiating critical design reviews.
Continuing development of the FCS network, including delivery of the battle command network and software to support key testing events and Spin Out 1.
Completing technical field testing (TFT), force development testing and evaluation (FDT&E) and limited user testing (LUT) for Spin Out 1.
Delivering early prototypes of the Non-Line-Of-Sight-Cannon (NLOS-C) Manned Ground Vehicle.
Continuing development of the short-range countermeasure active protection system.
See an exerpt of Capaccios story below:
The $867 million cut is the largest since the program was proposed in 2003. Cuts in the past two years have averaged about 10 percent.
This latest cut could be overturned by the Senate Armed Services Committee when it completes its version of the fiscal 2008 spending measure later this month.
At $161 billion, the Future Combat Systems is the Pentagon’s second-most-costly program, behind the $276 billion Joint Strike Fighter.
Since fiscal 2003, the program’s research-and-development phase has slipped five years and the final fielding date by seven years.
And the House Armed Services Committees red pen didnt stop there
In a separate action, the committee voted to kill the Textron Inc. Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, a $3.6 billion program.
The committee recommended that the program be reopened to competition. In voting to kill Textron’s stewardship, the committee cited a long list of problems.
The program’s development phase has grown to more than $300 million from $210 million, and the per-aircraft price has nearly doubled — to almost $10 million from $5.2 million, according to Army officials.
Like the story says, the money for FCS and the ARH, for that matter — could be restored by the Senate Armed Services Committee and put back into the final bill during the conference markup. But at a time when the worlds attention is focused on current operations and counterinsurgencies, its hard to see how the Armys sales pitch is going to take hold.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
As an Engineer who worked on the Crusader project that was killed by Rumsfeld and the technology of which was subsequently absorbed into the FCS program, I personally believe that the FCS is largely a waste of time and money and should be canceled or relegated to a research project. I understand the need for having a technological edge on the enemy, but I think the Army needs to focus on the tasks at hand, like repairing the scads of armored vehicles and equipment sitting in depots all over the place that was damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s been my personal experience that the Military wastes far too much money on Rube-Goldberg projects that may have some value, but are a waste of scarce resources right now. What do you other guys think?
The program is just a cash cow for contractor’s. Cost Plus contracts are always bonzana for contractors.
Good Morning Folks,
It’d time to put both the FCS and ARH to rest once and for all. The FCS has been a desaster from the start and only shows that you can’t modernize the Army in one broad stroke. The neccessary technologies just won’t all come together at the same time.
As for the ARH what about the cancellation of the Comache don’t Bell/Textron and the politicians on the take don’t understand. The Army can’t afford, don’t need and don’t want a dedicated ARH, end of story.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The FCS idea as far as I understood is to have hardware in a network to multiply its usefulness.
I would give FCS up and instead insist on guidelines; the hardware needs to be software-based in its functions so that later on the stuff could be connected by a common data transfer protocol and a software-based radio family interface.
All the other stuff could be developed just how the tecgnology allows.
But I’d like to remark that many – even ground warfare – systems/technologies are about a quarter century old when (if) they finally enter production.
I remember technologies in a mid-70′s Jane’s Weapon Systems edition that are hyped as modern today.
The Agile missile, which should have given capabilities in the late 70′s that AIM-9X offers only today.
Predecessors of C-KEM and LOSAT kinetic antitank missiles.
Drones that promised in the 70′s what drone sellers promise today.
Ground observation radar projects that promised what the same breed of radars promises today.
…
There’s more wrong in the R&D and procurement within NATO than just too large “all-in-one” programs like FCS.
I worked on FCS but got off the program as it was going absolutely nowhere. It has been 6+ years and nothing has been built, and they are still arguing over requirements. What a classic waste of money. My personal belief is that GD is behind the delays because they get to sell more Stykers each year that FCS is delayed. Strykers once were $1M/copy, but GD demands $4.4M each now just because they are sole-source and can. What a scam. GD is also pissed because they lost to Boeing for the LSI role and now have to power to see Beoing fail. Similarly, Boeing never wants FCS to go into production becuase then GD will be the biggest beneficiary (Boeing does not build any of the major FCS platforms). What a racket!
Scrap the FCS bureaucracy or Burroaucracy toMove the FCS Ahead.
CUT the DC Bogus bodies & Fund this.
Dont need dipsticks in DC.
Fund FCS & combine with the Navy & Air Force for a COMBINED FCS COMMAND
All forces supply & combine planning etc.
& save $$$$$$.
Brainstorm ideas & save Money & Projects.
ALL forces.