PDA

View Full Version : after 450 billion on FCS back to the drawing board



petsan
09-29-2005, 05:03 PM
Sorry posted this in wrong subject before

$450 billion dollars
5 years of development and billions of dollars wasted.

We could have fielded
the XM-8 rifle, chambered for 6.8mm for every soldier in the us services
(back to competition phase after almost finishing)

the armored humvees and M1 tusk could have been on every street in tal afar (its comming guys just wait a while)

Crusader super artillery could have been pounding the ragheads to oblivion (too heavy at 40 tons cancelled)

A 120MM mortar system based on spare bradley chassis with AMOS or Dragonfire (short listed but too expensive)

weapons our guys need in the field now and dont have them

and i could go on and on

I read this 450 BILLION SPENT
..........DOESNT THIS CRAP PISS ANYBODY OFF :bash:




copied from defence org
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001831.html
Slow, Fat "Future" for Army

It's official: After $450 billion, the Army's quick-moving force of the future will be just about as slow as the one that's around right now.

As I noted in June, one of the big ideas behind the Army's massive modernization effort, Future Combat Systems, was to make American troops more mobile – able to get around the world in a matter of days or weeks, instead of the months that are needed now.

Mortar2004-10-19.jpgThe first step: slim down the service's cannon and armored vehicles. Today, it takes a gargantuan C-17 or C-5 transport plane to lug a single, 32-ton Paladin 155 mm howitzer. Army planners wanted the Paladin's next-gen replacement to weigh in at 19 tons or less – so one could fit inside a much smaller C-130 transport plane, instead.

After dancing around the issue for a couple of months, the Army has now delcared that neither the Paladin replacement nor any other FCS vehicle is going to fit into a C-130, according to Defense News' Greg Grant. And that "appears to abandon the fundamental rationale for FCS, which was intended to speed Army brigades to combat zones around the world within 96 hours."

The Army created the FCS concept about five years ago, after long delays in deploying a small air-ground task force to the Balkans raised questions about the service’s strategic relevance. Under Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army’s former chief of staff, the service scrambled for lighter armored vehicles to replace heavy Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles...

[Army Secretary Francis] Harvey’s announcement appears to confirm that the Army does not have the technology to allow lighter vehicles to survive future anti-armor threats. This is in part a realization born of tough losses in Iraq, where 70-ton Abrams and Bradleys have been lost to roadside explosives and rocket-propelled grenades.

But more than FCS' weight requirement has changed. As recently as last year, the program was slated to cost $92 billion. Then, suddenly, that estimate ballooned -- first to $127 billion, and next to $145 billion. Finally, we were told that this gargantuan sum would only pay for transforming a third or less of the Army.

And what would be so different, after all that cash was spent? When the program first got started, the armored vehicles were not only going to be light -- they were going to be electric-powered. And they were going to fire laser weapons. Now, all of that has been dropped, understandably.

But even the more basic changes have seemed near-impossible to pull off. The effort to get all soldiers on a common radio, for example, is facing massive restructuring, after the project's main contractor, Boeing, seems to have flushed $5 billion and three years worth of work down the toilet.

"The government has not seen sufficient evidence of the contractor teams’ understanding of the scale of integration required… to ultimately achieve the program requirements," the Army told Boeing in an April letter. "Nor has the industry team displayed sufficient ability to estimate a cost and schedule baseline and rigorously manage to that baseline."

In other words, the radio project has become slow and bloated. Just like the rest of FCS. 5 years of development and billions of dollars wasted. sounds like just about everything the administration has done.[/b]

CANsoldier
09-29-2005, 06:20 PM
do you not get, Picture/Video section :cantbeli:

Pille1234
09-29-2005, 07:50 PM
..........DOESNT THIS CRAP PISS ANYBODY OFF :bash:
It does. Public procurement is a mess, and when it comes to military it gets even worse, but I assure you this is not only an American problem .

ZaakM433
09-29-2005, 08:10 PM
why is this in the photos forum?

petsan
09-29-2005, 08:58 PM
Yea my bad
doesnt belong here

was so mad had to vent sorry wont happen again :bash:

Siddar
09-30-2005, 01:04 AM
Not only in wrong forum but title is a flat out lie the army have not spent 450 billion on FCS already like title implys in fact they have no plans to spend that much in existing plans.

The figure is a number made up by author for cost of converting all of active duty military to FCS a process that pentagon has never comitted to and wouldnt happen tell 2030s even if they did. He also leaves out the gaurd and reserve from his made up figures so toss another 150 to 300 billion onto it unless you plan on screwing the guard on equipment like useal.

Hellfish
09-30-2005, 09:21 AM
Yeah... $450 billion in 5 years? C'mon... that's like us buying fifty new aircraft carriers. That would have been the overall cost of the entire project through 2030, not the actual funds shelled out to date. If it was really $450 billion, you know that there'd be a massive uproar and congressional inquiries up the ass.

And it doesn't say that the FCS is cancelled, just that it's not going to be C-130 capable. Not necessarily a bad thing - maybe that means we'll move on to something better than a C-130 in the future. Our own version of the A400M or something.

And the technology for the new weapons and systems isn't there yet. The Army just realized that lasers and electric armor won't be developed overnight, no matter how much money you throw at it.