Comments on: Draft GAO Report Rips Into Army Weapons Platform

By: SM

SM — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:17:47 +0000

"Even if the money existed, the FCS concept is a marginal improvement over what exists today where we have artillery and tanks that are the best in the world. The scare selling point that the existing systems are 30 years old, ignores that each are continuously improved and overhauled to better than new frequently." - Not even remotely close.

Try the the wikipedia artice to start with and if you have access to a platform like Jane's use that. There is also some research comparing the latest projected version of current equipment and FCS base configs from RAND and others out there in the unclassified space. When used together the components of the platform are far, far more lethal than the components they replace in any environment or conflict level.

I do agree that it'll probably cost more than projected but then this platform replaces allot of systems. People keep pricing it like it replaces one or two. It replaces almost every major platform in inventory and still it's the only Army program in top 10 for cost across all services.

Most things cost more than originally projected. These stories are starting to sound like similar stories in the early 80s about the M-1, M-2, F-16, F-18 when people were fighting the Reagan buildup. Those platforms were never supossed to work either. And like you said, they are the best (if only for the moment mow).

I do also agree that housing, benefits, and pay need to be improved. We have to take care of the people that take care of us.

By: The Washington Independent » Draft GAO Report Rips Into Army … | GIT Fourm

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:48:09 +0000

[...] here: The Washington Independent » Draft GAO Report Rips Into Army … army, bob-gates, congress, defense-reform, economy, government, home, national, [...]

By: oldgeek

oldgeek — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:37:33 +0000

FCS is over promised in terms of realistic capability for the schedule promised and significantly under cost for not only design, development and engineering but production as well. The word significantly is under scored to mean at least 100 billion short of what was initially included.

Even if the money existed, the FCS concept is a marginal improvement over what exists today where we have artillery and tanks that are the best in the world. The scare selling point that the existing systems are 30 years old, ignores that each are continuously improved and overhauled to better than new frequently.

No, FCS like many of the new planes in the R&D pipeline can prudently be pushed way out in the future where perhaps major advancements in technology can take the person out of the loop to achieve the over matching capability we desire in the air and ground.

I would cancel FCS the FY22, Raptor and Ospery . Improve Military Housing ways to better support the military in the field would be money better spent.