"Son of crusader".

In reference to your June 2007, page 16, article, "Future combat vehicles will fall short of preferred weight," the distortions and half truths by proponents of the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) have now entered the realm of lies and damn lies. The program is a failure and they all know it.

The reason for a 20-ton limit was to allow delivery by C-130 cargo aircraft. This delivery method was the foundation of the entire FCS concept. Without it, FCS is redundant to the existing combat maneuver force.

Your article quotes Paul Rogers of TARDEC: "I think we will get the protection levels necessary to meet the FCS requirement, and the weight goal will always be a challenge." He is therefore committed to fielding a 27-ton vehicle regardless.

Even more interesting is Daniel Zanini, senior vice president at system integrator SAIC. He simply blows it off. He changes the entire paradigm of air delivery in his statement: "We're able to take C-17s places today where when we first started this program, you couldn't do." He then takes the single and high risk example of a seizure of an airport in Afghanistan and twists it to mean that we can land C-17s anywhere without seeking permission from host nations.

At the end of the story, you report that FCS will also fail in adequately protecting against the more recently recognized threat of anti-tank blast mines, and this is directly related to the failed effort to reduce weight.

We know that FCS cannot meet the air transportability requirement and in fact the requirement is being blown off. For goodness sake, quit the charade and start over with a realistic weight goal and then design vehicles that will satisfy all of their other operational requirements.

Chester A. Kojro

Rolla, MO