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.
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.