GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: GAO: Military should consider breaking up FCS

• 74891
  

  The goals and objectives of FCS are not beyond our technological know-how and ability to field. The Department of Defense has fielded many more systems that are more intricate than FCS. Why is DoD not seeking the experience from our retired and qualified board-selected product/project managers whose experience can provide the resolution to the continuing growth of this system. We are "missing the boat" if we don't seek commercial technology that will provide lighter mobile vehicles improving our ability to deploy quickly. Where are the leaders and the true successful product managers that can put this thing in motion?

  Mario A. Cervantes Posted April 15, 2009 2:35 PM
• 61424
  

  You guys should do some research. the $160.7 billion is over 30 years and includes development and operational fielding. It also amounts to 3.7% of the Army's planned budget for that 30 year period. $160.7 to equip almost half the BCTs in the Army or $2.2 billion for one B2 (at production start).

  Plus the technology and systems will be fielded to the guys downrange right now - that will save lives or are your freedoms not worth the cost? By the way the entire DOD budget amounts to $23/year for each person who actually pays income taxes.

  Intelligent Taxpayer 1 Posted October 22, 2008 9:17 PM
• 46776
  

  Although it seems like a tremendous amount of money, after the current war the Army's equipment will not be in good enough shape to fight another one. Pick what works and saves taxpayer dollars in the long run and cut the rest. Soldiers fighting wars with 20 year old equipment and technology is even more of an injustice than sending them to war in the first place.

  Taxpayer II Posted March 19, 2008 12:19 PM
• 46675
  

  Army claims that FCS will "provide capabilities that will be as good as or better than current forces"

  Wow, what a bargain. Only $160Billion for the same capability we already have. What a huge waste of our money.

  Taxpayer Posted March 18, 2008 7:31 AM
• 46637
  

  While in theory FCS sounds great it is in reality a true "leap of faith". At the FCS core is "the Network" or "GIG". Boeing/SAIC is not even close to writing the millions and more likely billions of lines of code needed for this program. At $160 billion+ and counting and no really hardware insight (exept for the NLOS cannon and a few man portable UAVs, each in prototype even before FCS was a twinkle in the eye) this white elephant needs to be shot. I agree that it needs to be carved up because the one LSI concept is milking even more money had these programs been seperate.

  Avis Posted March 17, 2008 1:51 PM
• 46580
  

  Perhaps if we show them how well JTEM fills out the CTM for FCS, it will save their program?

  Houdini Posted March 17, 2008 8:31 AM
• 46565
  

  The Army has looked foolish for a long time with the "FCS Program." This program was simply intended to allow the Army to carve off a bigger slice of the budget than they have received in the past, as compared to the other services. The Army leadership shoould make more realistic plans focused on the near/mid-term threats and problems they have today. Withhold name.

  G. Jones Posted March 17, 2008 6:32 AM