Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

ARMY SLOWING "FUTURE COMBAT" PLANS

Ten days after a damning Congressional report, the Army is beginning to scale back its sweeping, $92 billion modernization plans, Defense News reports.

The Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) project was supposed to replace the lumbering, heavily armored tanks and personnel carriers of the Cold War with lighter, more maneuverable vehicles. Now, the M1 tank and Bradley fighting vehicles will be around for more than two decades, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker tells Defense News.

"The current force we have today, the heavy force, for instance, is still going to be in this Army out to 2030 — M1 tanks, Bradleys and all the rest of them," Schoomaker said. "The FCS, as we design that, we know the kinds of capabilities that we want resident in that force out there in the future. And the challenge is to balance that future with the current readiness that’s required to perform.”

Meanwhile, the 19-ton Stryker armored vehicle, designed as a bridge to ultimate transformation goals and now deployed to Iraq, has shed its “interim” moniker and is critical to the current force and to the development of FCS, Schoomaker said.

"It’s a near inevitability that the Army of tomorrow is going to be largely equipped with the technology of today," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank. "The service is short on money and it is also short on vision in terms of what it is replacing existing equipment with."

Senior program officials from the Boeing and SAIC-led lead system integrator industry team met last week in Phoenix for a semi-annual "state of the union" meeting on FCS, said a program spokeswoman.

But a top item on that meeting’s agenda was "damage control," with the goal of shielding FCS from program delays and budget cuts, according to a source. (emphasis mine)

THERE'S MORE: It gets worse. Consulting firm CommerceBasix got "the cold shoulder from Army acquisition officials for doing exactly what it was hired to do — provide critical due-diligence analysis of the Army’s $14.8 billion contract with Boeing to develop the net-centric Future Combat Systems," Eric Miller writes in a Defense News op-ed.

The honchos at Alexandria, Va.-based CommerceBasix were not aware that one of the quickest ways to get in trouble at the Pentagon is to tell the truth... The firm also rather bluntly advised the Army that it needed to rework the FCS contract because it lacked the necessary provisions to protect the Army — and the taxpayers — from $1 billion worth of risk. The Army signed the contract anyway.

Comments