Fully Fund Future Combat Systems

[unhappycamper]

Fully Fund Future Combat Systems
By rep. jim saxton
Published: 5 May 2008
Print Print | Print Email

T he U.S. Army's flagship modernization program, the Future Combat System (FCS), is designed to be part of a future Army force that's faster, more deployable and more responsive. This differs substantially from the large division-centric structure of the past; the FCS concept is to replace mass with superior information - allowing soldiers to see and hit the enemy first, rather than to rely on heavy armor to withstand a hit.

Although Congress has reduced FCS funding in past years for valid reasons, I believe the program has progressed to a point where Congress should fully fund the program per the president's 2009 budget request. At the same time, the Army needs to spend less time trying to save the FCS program and more time explaining how soldiers want and need the capabilities that FCS brings to the fight.

To be clear, the view from Congress is simple when it comes to defense acquisition programs. We are in a fiscal death spiral. Time and time again, we end up paying more for weapon systems to get less than what was promised.

Congress' role is to consider the overall yearly and long-term budgets for the Department of Defense. Given current fiscal constraints, the challenges of fully funding the global war on terror and the costs to reconstitute our current forces, the question we have to ask is: How do we reduce the inefficiencies and errors in developing complex weapon systems so that we can continue to fund programs and actually afford to buy them? And buy them in sufficient quantities for the future while not sacrificing the capability of our current forces?

In previous years, the House Armed Services Committee enacted legislative provisions and reduced funding for FCS. These changes were designed to provide better oversight of the Army program and steer it back in the right direction.


Rest of article at: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3517224&c=FEA&s=COM



uhc comment: Reading tips: Saxton is a rethug.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. There was a good reason...

That FCS got the axe: a lot of it was just cost overruns and little else that worked. Smoke blown up the cloacal vents of Pentagon Pinheads. Money down the Biggest Rathole.

And there is a good reason Saxton is retiring: Because his constituents figured out he sucks as a Rep.

[jimmil]

2. We are following the Russian model,

And building a military that our economy cannot support. Ike was right. Too bad political forces have made the military the sacred cow that no one can deny funding for fear of being called unpatriotic and loosing the next election for being soft on terror (newest catch phrase since communist). It is funny that the rest of the world gets by on much less and are just as secure as the U.S., many probably more so since they aren't pissing the world off.