fcs - TransTracker on Diigo

10 Jun 09

Procurement and research and development are the chief areas in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sought savings in the proposals he announced in April. He has proposed cuts to programs including the F-22 fighter, the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Army's Future Combat System, the presidential helicopter fleet, the transformational communications satellite, aircraft carrier production runs, the airborne laser missile defense program and the next-generation bomber. These are solid proposals; he could make additional cuts to the V-22 Osprey and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs, as well as existing nuclear weapons platforms.

It is important to note, though, that these aren't cuts in current costs; they are cuts in plans. When you eliminate a defense program, you still typically must buy something to replace aging equipment, even if the alternative is less expensive. Moreover, a lot of equipment (much of it purchased under Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush) is wearing out, and we need to replace it soon.
- Or....here's a radical idea. Maybe it would be cheaper to buy the shit we've already paid to develop! Ya know, instead of paying for it, then shit canning it, and then paying AGAIN to develop other stuff!! The problem with these kinds of "analyses" is that they never take into account the money we have already spent. They only consider from today forward. Long term responsibility with our defense dollars means not making decisions now that, in effect, wastes all the money we have already spent. But alas, politicians don't think that way. - on 2009-06-10
Add Sticky Note

25 Mar 09

FCS Faces Bleak Future

www.defensetech.org/...004759.html - Preview

fcs procurement

The Army and senior OSD leadership are debating whether to eliminate all but one of the eight FCS vehicles, a Hill source says. The sole surviving vehicle would be, not surprisingly, the Non Line of Sight Cannon.

But the plan being considered would save a relatively paltry $500 million in 2010.
- And there you have it, the logic (or lack thereof) of the way we do defense. We're going to cancel an entire program, wasting the billions we've already spent, so that we can save $500 million in the short term. And in the process, we're going to end the main Army modernization program, ensuring that the backbone of our force is comprised of platforms developed in the 1970s. - on 2009-03-25
Add Sticky Note
Also, an industry source pointed out that as the number of vehicles in the program shrinks, so does the viability of the network. “The development of the FCS network is linked to the development of FCS Manned Ground Vehicles. Each MGV acts as a node in the ground based aspect of the network. So cutting MGVs reduces the viability of the network,” the industry source said.

09 Mar 09

Fear of Lost Jobs Is Hurdle to Reining In Defense Contracts

What we really have here is a perfect storm of ideologies overtaking common sense. Gates and Obama don't necessarily share the same ideology, but they are useful to one another nonetheless. Gates has bought into the 4GW, the future is in counterinsurgency and therefore airplanes, ships, tanks, etc. are irrelevant ideology. Obama, as many predicted, is just more focused on domestic issues than defense. He doesn't necessarily buy into a theory of future warfare, just sees these projects as money that could be spent elsewhere. So, none of this has anything to do with solving real problems. A true assessment of the difficulties facing the economy, along with a look at what is happening in the world, should indicate that canceling force modernization efforts across the board, which is the Obama-Gates plan, is good for neither the economy, nor the military. But this si not about doing what's good or makes sense; it's about adhering to ideology come what may.

www.nytimes.com/...09defense.html - Preview

F-22 fcs procurement

Perhaps the most controversial program in Mr. Obama’s sights is the Air Force’s advanced F-22 fighter jet, which the Bush administration tried for years to halt, saying it was a cold war relic. Mr. Korb and other analysts say that if the president is determined to fix the contracting process, canceling the F-22 would send a strong signal.
Gordon Adams, a professor at American University in Washington, said parts of the $10 billion missile defense programs, which are still being tested, represent “low-hanging fruit” for Mr. Obama. His team might also cancel a radar-evading $3.3 billion destroyer that even the Navy says it can no longer afford. And the Army’s sweeping $160 billion modernization plan seems likely to be scaled back.
- Missile defense is so obviously irrelevant. With Iran test firing long range missiles, and North Korea preparing to do the same, and even threatening war if we attempt to shoot it down, anyone can see that there's no reason why we would want to develop missile defense systems. And beyond that, since when does the Air Force need airplanes, the Navy ships, or the Army new tanks, artillery, armored transports, etc.? [sarcasm] - on 2009-03-09
Add Sticky Note
1 more annotations...
- Many studies, including those by the Government Accountability Office and Pentagon boards, have shown that many weapons projects start out with unrealistically low cost estimates, depend on technologies that are not ready and face constant changes in design requirements.
  “The root cause is that you’ve got an ever-changing kaleidoscope of entities involved in the decisions, and nobody has the authority to just say no and be held accountable for it,” said John F. Lehman, the first secretary of the navy in the Reagan administration. “That’s what has to change.”
  - While I don't want to defense massive cost overruns (because I agree it's a problem), this argument makes a number of unrealistic assumptions about teh way technological change works. First, of course the technologies are "not ready." That's why it's called "research and development." It will not be perfect on day one. And the fact that it is not perfect on day one is not evidence that it will never work. This is an argument that gets leveled constantly against new weapon systems. Second, design requirements will change, and indeed should change. As the R&D process moves forward, as new lessons are learned, and as mission requirements, the likely environment of conflict, etc., all change, so will dessign requirements. Third, multiple entities will and should have input. Taken altogether, it is unrealistic and indesirable to have one authority that works to create a new system only from existing technologies where the design is fixed from the beginning and unresponsive both to lessons learned during development and from input from other entities. - on 2009-03-09
  Add Sticky Note

26 Feb 09

Obama vows to help troops, cut weapon programs

www.spacewar.com/...s_cut_weapon_programs_999.html - Preview

F-22 F-35 fcs procurement future war

President Barack Obama said his upcoming budget would increase the number of US soldiers, state the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut "Cold War-era" weapons programs.

Setting out his priorities for military spending, Obama said late Tuesday in his first address to a joint session of Congress that he wanted to provide relief to men and women in uniform with higher pay and more boots on the ground.

"To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines," Obama said.
- Of course, "Cold War-era" is now an epithet that encompasses fighter and bomber aircraft, as well as tanks too. How is it that we are "providing relief" to or "relieving strain" from our forces by increasing their numbers but not giving them the weapons they need to fight? What will soldiers and Marines use for air support when the Air Force has no aircraft? Will soldiers and Marines feel relief or strain when they come under enemy air attack for the first time in decade because the Air Force wasn't given the tools to maintain air superiority? - on 2009-02-26
Add Sticky Note
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already warned of major cutbacks, citing expensive weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter aircraft as possible targets.

"It's obviously one of the programs that, along with a number of others -- many others -- that we will be looking at," Gates said earlier this month.
- But of course it's obvious. I mean, when you're top-line fighter is 30 years old and has literally been falling out of sky lately, has been grounded almost as long this year as it has been flying, it obvious and makes total sense that you would seriously consider canning its replacement that you've already spent years and billions of dollars to develop. Makes perfect sense! [heavy dose of sarcasm] - on 2009-02-26
Add Sticky Note
3 more annotations...
- The United States cannot "eliminate national-security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything," Gates wrote in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
  - True. But we also can't eliminate security threats without weapons. And with the F-22, F-35, and FCS all on the chopping block--i.e. all the major modernization efforts--one is left to wonder if Gates and the
    "New Establisment" really get that physical infrastructure in the form of weapons is still necessary, that war is not just a matter of mind. - on 2009-02-26
  Add Sticky Note
- New weapons "have grown ever more baroque, have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build and are being fielded in ever dwindling quantities," he said.
  - So, in the case of the F-22, is cutting the number produced and fielded going to solve wither the "dwindling quantities" problem or the "more costly" problem? No. Part of the reason that numbers are dwindling Mr. Gates is that you are buying fewer. You have less because you bought less. Now, though not all of the cost increase problem is because of dwindling numbers--i.e. there are legitimate and serious problems in procurement that drive up costs--nonetheless, cutting the order and buying fewer increases the cost per unit. So, to a certain degree, you have fewer because you chose to have fewer, and those fewer units that you do have cost more because you chose to have fewer! You are to a large degree causing the problem that you are using to justify taking more of the actions led to the problem in the first place! - on 2009-02-26
  Add Sticky Note
- Gates has made clear that counter-insurgency is the immediate priority, and that fleets of new ships, squadrons of sophisticated aircraft and a network of hi-tech army vehicles may be of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  
  Apart from the F-22 Raptor fighters, which cost about 350 million dollars each, other candidates for possible cuts are F-35 and F-18E/F aircraft, the Navy's new generation destroyer -- the DDG-1000, a new amphibious ship, and computer-linked Army vehicles, known as Future Combat Systems.
  - Right, because our forces have made no use of airplanes, tanks, ships, or information networks in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And additionally, we all know that what we're doing right now (i.e. counterinsurgency) is all we'll ever do in the future, because we all know that that's how life works. Like, for exmaple, right now I'm writing a blog post, meaning that all I'll ever do from here on out will be to write blog posts. So, while I was planning what to eat for dinner, what I need to do this weekend, a conference for this fall, and all sorts of other stuff, it is clear now that I can just forget all of that because none of it relates to writing this blog post, which is, again, obviously all I'll ever do from now on. [Again, heavy dose of sarcasm.] The idiocy behind the dominant thinking of the "New Establishment" is mind boggling, and dangerous. - on 2009-02-27
  Add Sticky Note

06 Feb 09

TransTracker 's Library tagged fcs → View Popular

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Top Contributors

Groups interested in fcs