Talk:Future Combat Systems

message: I believe there is enough information to make an article on the Class I UAV, but I have no experience making articles and believe that it is best left to someone better. Good sources of information are here and here. --68.184.57.83 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UAVs

message: Well, not exactly, but it seems very likely that the majority of FCS is being scrapped/postponed. The 2015 roll-out now looks extremely doubtful FOARP (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is toast . . . .  

message: Future Combat Systems Minus Vehicles 
By Bob Brewin   05/07/09 02:35 pm ETC
As expected, the Obama administration took a budget axe to the Army Future Combat Systems program. It chopped all of the project's eight manned ground vehicles from the program for a savings of $22.9 billion, according to the Terminations, Reductions and Savings section of the proposed fiscal 2010 federal budget released today.
But the section said the Defense Department intends to "retain and accelerate the fielding of other FCS capabilities which have demonstrated success, such as unmanned ground and aerial vehicles and the unattended sensors." The Office and Management and Budget estimated the cost of these systems at $24.5 billion through 2015.
Unmanned FCS systems include the small unmanned ground vehicle developed by iRobot, which makes smart vacuum cleaners and the backpack-sized Micro Air Vehicle, which is fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The FCS ground sensors include a video camera equipped gizmo that can work during day or night and a gadget that can detect radiation, along with a Gateway Node, which transmits information gathered by the sensors. 
The ground and aerial vehicles carry video cameras for surveillance and reconnaissance. I hope to see them all during a long-awaited trip to Ft. Bliss, Texas, later this month to see a demo of what remains of FCS.
Username 1 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The DoD's budget is what it suggests to Congress, which may make changes/additions before it is final.  According to this article, the Army has canceled the NLOS-C, but has some funds included for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FCS vehicles canceled

message: Perhaps it would be a good idea to put the cancelled systems in their own section so that people interested in the project can see what was previously in it? Completely deleting them means the previous scope is unknown. Hohum (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Just move the manned ground vehicles to a Former subsystem section. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just undid all the ground system mergers. The user who did them didn't even comment here, so I was unable to even find a discussion on the merger at all, either on any of the merged pages, or through the user's contributions. I only found this discussion by accident. To be honest, most of the articles were long enough to stand on there own. The merged-to page, Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles, was really just a combination of the whole content of the merged-from pages,a nd looked like it was going to get pretty long. I honestly don't think any of the pages were in danger of being deleted, as they were all legitimate programs. They were unfortunate enough to run into Obama's own spending plans and be cancelled - they didn't cease to exist! It might be good if someone had a talk with the user, User:User name one, about at least leaving a data trail on the mergers. In addition, he needs to state what articles he's merging into the merged-to page in the edit summary or on the talk page, as required by the GFDL (?) licensing. I'm not that happy at the moment, so I'm not going to try to speak to him directly. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled systems. 

message: I suggest we move all the devices and unmanned vehicles to their M numbers. Any opposition? username 1 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-page move suggestion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Future Combat Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811223149/http://www.defensetech.org:80/archives/cat_fcs_watch.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_fcs_watch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Future Combat Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223155351/http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1103567&tw=wn_wire_story to http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1103567&tw=wn_wire_story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021043344/http://www.boeing.com/ids/soscoe/index.html to http://www.boeing.com/ids/soscoe/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_fcs_watch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified