Army Breaks Up FCS

Army Breaks Up FCS

Lawmakers, or at least the one lawmaker who returned to the hearing after a room clearing floor vote, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who chairs the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, tried to get an answer today on the status of the Army’s FCS program. Conflicting press reports this week had DoD claiming the entire program had been terminated while the Army said no, in fact just the ground vehicle part had been cancelled, the rest of the program would continue.

It turns out the Army will break apart the program formerly known as FCS into three separate programs; one for new ground combat vehicles, another for technological upgrades or “spin-outs” that will go to all Army units, and a third for a communications network and software, said Army acquisition leader Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson. The confusion as to the program’s status came about because the Army had been awaiting completion of the FCS System of Systems Preliminary Design Review, which is now finished, and for “official guidance” on the way forward in the form of an acquisition decision memorandum from Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter.

Once they get the memo, which should happen in the next few days, the Army will issue a stop work order on the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the FCS contract and will then renegotiate the details of the remaining contract parts with Boeing, Thompson said. The restructured contract will “redefine” the relationship with Boeing and with subordinate contractors such as General Dynamics and BAE, the companies that were building the vehicles. What portion of the three new Army orders will go to Boeing has yet to be determined.

The Army wants the “best competitive acquisition approach” before it places a new order for what it now calls “Ground Combat Vehicles,” which probably won’t be until the fall, Thompson said. The Army is relooking the requirements for the vehicles and will make sure lessons learned from the current wars, in other words better protection against IEDs, are built into the vehicle design.

The Army’s original order was for delivery of 15 armored brigades. That order has now been cancelled, which means Boeing is due cancellation fees. Abercrombie said that according to his own back of the envelope calculation, killing the entire FCS program would mean Boeing gets on the order of $1 billion in termination fees, so killing the vehicles, and the “trifurcation” of the program, should entail some fraction of that figure. Since the vehicles were by far the biggest part of the original FCS program, killing them will cost taxpayers the “major portion” of that amount, said David Ahern, from the acquisition shop in OSD. He said the final figure is under negotiation.

Abercrombie said he was troubled by a $415 million charge in the current budget for software development. That money is to comply with National Security Agency software “protection requirements,” to secure the Army’s mobile communications and battle command networks from hostile attack, Thompson said. In order to get NSA certification that their networks can’t be hacked, it will cost the Army hundreds of millions of dollars, and the network hasn’t even been built yet. Look for that price tag to go up.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

“Abercrombie said he was troubled by a $415 million charge in the current budget for software development.”

There’s a whole lot more of that on the way, due to Boeing’s insistence that building and integrating their own middleware and operating system software, out of open source piece parts, is better than relying on industry-funded and proven commercial off the shelf solutions.

Has the DoD notified the Army and/or Boeing to stop work on FCS or any portion of it yet?

It is a great day for the Army. Boeing and SAIC, who managed the program did not care any thing about the Warfighter; just the money. They mismanaged the testing and would not listen to any corrective criticism.

x-man: What aspect of FCS testing do you think was mismanaged?

BINGO!!!

Chuck…It seems so typical of a $100B bureacracy these days to take something so simple, creative, and insightful and bastardize it in the name of branding and profit.

Boeing missed the boat.

Max — Nothing about FCS was ever simple.

Monroe

I’ve had more than 20 years working development programs, including the last five on FCS, and I can say from the bottom of my heart that FCS MGV was the biggest Charlie Foxtrot of a program I’ve ever had the misfortune to be associated with. The entire program was hideously mismanaged from the get-go.

I worked FCS for two years; the program in my optinion was mismanaged by both Boeing and SAIC. My role was to setup the communications equipment at WSMR for the first test, EXP1,1. The test was a real mess with so much interference among sensors and the Mobile Node wireless network. The 802.11g network connected the FCS C4ISR vehicles (seven total) providing a data simulation capability as an input to the FCS systems. We told Boeing, who managed the test about the frequency conflicts but Boeing ignored the warnings. The sensors T-UGS, IMS, U-UGS used Zigbee to communicate among themselves (2,4ghz mesh net)

The first field test had an urban component; Ft. Bliss. This test had the sensors along a road detecting vehicle movement. Also lining the road was the C4ISR vehicles used to relay information back to the Mobile Node. Sensors used high power zigbee mesh to communication among themselves (1watt ERP or more). The C4ISR vehicles also had wireless mesh net used to simulate the FCS C4ISR NETWORK. The wireless net covered channels 1 and 6 in the wireless band; the ERP used was 2+watts. Boeing did not do any frequency management; that is the sensors were within the Mobile Node’s frequency band.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement