Posted on 11/23/2005 9:11:51 AM PST by GOPGuide
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.
Inside 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.
Posted by: Art Vandaley at November 18, 2005 03:27 PM
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.
Hopefully, when FCS gets the big budget axe, the Shinsekiites, "Modernisers", and other jokers in the Pentagon who want the US army to be fighting Communist Chinese Tanks in high tech golf carts 20 years from now, will be sent out to pasture.
Then we can start investing in weapons systems that actually work, like the Abrams, new light and medium tanks which I think we need to assist our 70 ton MBTs, Bradley's, F-22s, DDX destroyers and Virginia attack submarines (You know, the stuff we will need to fight China instead of these crappy Islamonazi militaries that are armed with ancient Soviet weapons).
Instead of all these expensive Stryker/FCS light vehicles that can be blown up by a $200 Russian RPG.
Golf carts - I love it! Great way to put it! So true!
It is also absolutely a fact that every weapons system ever developed went through a period where it "didn't work." Including all those we are presently using so effectively.
The first tanks, for example, were almost worthless militarily, although their psychological impact on the Germans was impressive.
Sticking to production of only "tried and true" weapons systems means that in the long run somebody else will develop the systems that make them obsolete. This is exactly the mentality that caused the Union Army to reject the first magazine rifles and machine guns.
The Army's version of the A-12, a plane that never got past the drawing board, but cost the Navy $12 billion dollars.
We should always have a superior naval fleet and in todays day and age, that means subs....though I always did love the destroyers.
We've gotten to the point where weapons development needs to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. In other words, instead of starting from scratch and making brand new wonder wiz weapons, we need to leverage our cold war expierience and technology and simply improve the versions we already use. The Navy has learned this lesson well after the A-12 fiasco...instead of developing an entirely new aircraft, they simply made a more capable version of the F-18, the Super Hornet, which is cheaper and easier to maintain than the USAF's F-22 (another fiasco). The next class of carrier is simply an evolved version of the Nimitz class. The Virginia class subs took Seawolf technology and put it in smaller, cheaper subs. The next big programs that need to die are the Joints Strike Fighter and DDX destroyers. JSF brings no combat advantage to the table other than stealth (which can be defeated and is useless after the first day of a major war anyway), and actually carried less ordinance than current generation falcons and hornets.
I would be that Boeing is a big part of the problem here. In the last 6-7 years, they have recast themselves as "integrators", but they can't do the job. All they are interested on is reaping their semi-annual award fee on cost-plus award fee contracts. Their managers get promoted or fired based on their ability to optimize their award fee. The problem is that the award fee often gets seperated from actual contract performance (e.g., making the product work). So, if Boeing can come up with even a barely plausible story as to why things didn't work as planned, the Program Manager (PM) will likely cave and given them 99% of their fee anyway.
Why might an othewise competent Government PM cave you ask? Simple, 'cause Boeing is so big, its intimidating. If he shows some backbone and zeros out their fee (or even if it goes below 50%), then the wrath of God will be upon him. Senators, Congressmen, DOD higher ups, lobbyists, (you name it) will come out of the woodwork demanding his head on a platter. If you're a 1 or 2 star general and try this, you can also kiss your chance at a high-paying retirement job goodbye.
I have seen this phenomenon first hand. This, in my opinion, is why many systems are so hard to develop. We have whittled the number of defense contractors down to just a few. And these are so big that if you cross them, you're toast.
Agreed, procurement is a mess.
We need more weapons developers to compete for the best weapons.
"instead of developing an entirely new aircraft, they simply made a more capable version of the F-18, the Super Hornet, which is cheaper and easier to maintain than the USAF's F-22 (another fiasco)."
In a one-on-one fight, an F-22 would annhilate a Super Hornet. It is so much better, there is no comparision. How is the F-22 "a fiasco" exactly? It is a true next-generation fighter which will probably have a 40 year useful life. The Super Hornet is nearing the end of its "air superiority" phase.
To mention one world-class feature of the F-22, supercruise. No other fighter in the world has the capability of supersonic flight with no afterburner.
"JSF brings no combat advantage to the table other than stealth (which can be defeated and is useless after the first day of a major war anyway), and actually carried less ordinance than current generation falcons and hornets."
Oh. Now I see. You're simply completely clueless. Let's see...
1) The JSF has several other "combat advantages" such as VTOL/STOL capability, and post-stall manuevering.
2) Stealth can NOT "be defeated"...it is a characteristic that enemy systems will struggle to make any headway with, and will always degrade the performance of enemy sensors compared with "non-stealthy" vehicles. Further, the value of stealth continues on every day of the war, as it gives the aircraft tremendous tactical advantages over its adversaries and targets.
3) You should really think about whether or not you know more than the true experts that propose, perform and review programs like this, before spouting a bunch of nonsense. ;-)
I hope that educated you a bit.
I'm with you on the F-22. Nothing can touch it and it will eat a Super Hornet as if it was a snack. But the JSF is junk.
"But the JSF is junk."
I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
You're right about the F-22. Combat trials pitted them against the most modern versions of the F-15.
In Actual In-flight (simulated) Combat Operations against the F-15, one F/A-22 was able to operate without detection while it went Head to Head against 4 F-15's and (2) F/A-22's against (8) F-15's. The F/A-22's scored Missile Hits (Kills) against each F-15 Aircraft and the F/A-22's were never Detected by the F-15's or Ground Based Radar.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lewis said: "The Raptor Operated Against All Adversaries with Virtual Impunity; Ground Based Systems Couldn't Engage, and NO Adversary Aircraft Survived"!!!
I've actually heard good things about the Strykers from people who have been to the box and who conducted training at JRTC. One individual told me that the Strykers could drive up on their position, drop off an Infantry company without their knowing, and they were paying attention. Furthermore the Stryker has proved durable in Iraq.
It better be, I'm going to one of these units.
This reminds me the B-1 bomber when it was labeled useless by some people, until the Iraq War, which changed its role.
"The F/A-22's scored Missile Hits (Kills) against each F-15 Aircraft and the F/A-22's were never Detected by the F-15's or Ground Based Radar."
This is particularly impressive in light of the fact that the F-15's operational record is over 100 kills with no losses.
Draw your own conclusions.
Unlike some of the other posters here, I think the JSF will draw similar accolades, if not more.
"I've actually heard good things about the Strykers from people who have been to the box and who conducted training at JRTC."
From what I've read the Stryker is a fine fighting vehicle. We need to find a way to defeat the IEDs, but I guess right now the best way is sharp eyes on the ground and friendlies giving tips.
"It better be, I'm going to one of these units."
Best of luck! :-)
The comments here about Shinseki are so far off it is pathetic, I know him and know what his vision for the future was and remains. I love comments that the beret is his legacy. So what? I work with soldiers everyday from E-1 to O-6 and O-7 and the beret has not effected them one way or another. They are still the best warriors in the world!
Will we see a fielded FCS? IMHO, not in manner and shape/design that is being briefed throughout the pentagon right now. Yes, something will be fielded, but you can count on seeing the Abrams and Bradley in service for at least the next 25 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.