Home » Land » Son of FCS Gets Xmas Present

Son of FCS Gets Xmas Present

By Colin Clark Tuesday, December 29th, 2009 4:42 pm
Posted in Land, Policy

The Pentagon gave Boeing a nice Christmas present – approval by the Defense Acquisition Board on Dec. 24 of the remnants of the Future Combat System to equip one Brigade Combat Team for test and evaluation.

This tentatively clears the way for the crucial FCS network to go ahead, as well as technologies such as the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, the Class 1 Block 0 Unmanned Air System, Unattended Ground Sensors and the Non-Line of Sight Launch System. But the DAB also imposed important conditions on the Low Rate Initial Production decision, said a source familiar with the program.

The DAB requires the Army to submit to two interim DAB reviews, one in March 2010 that will examine network maturity and require an update on its reliability and maintainability. It will also require an update on the limited user test of the NLOS launch system (fondly known as rockets in a box) the mo nth before.

Then in December 2010 the DAB will review results from another limited user test scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2010. It will also review progress on the network again, our source said.

Paul Mehney, chief spokesman for these Army systems, said the Army did not yet have cost estimates for the BCT equipment approved for LRIP. He noted that Boeing received $18 million for long lead time items in May this year. Then the Army issued an RFP in fall and Boeing responded to this “a few weeks ago,” he said. The PEO for integration is reviewing Boeing’s response and will soon enter into negotiations with Boeing for the BCT equipment, which must be delivered by early 2011.

In a clear sign of the importance of this award to Boeing, the new president and CEO of its Integrated Defense Systems unit issued the company’s statement today.

“The decision to enter initial production demonstrates Boeing’s commitment to develop and field the types of networked capabilities and technologies that our warfighters need today in Afghanistan,” said Dennis Muilenburg.

Join the Conversation

	robert December 29th, 2009 at 8:40 pm What’s next the terminator?
	William C. December 30th, 2009 at 5:14 am Good to see the once-known-as-FCS program is showing some results. There is value in all of networking and information systems, yet it is important to ensure they are completely secure, as well as avoiding becoming too reliant on systems like FBCB2. Yet equally important for the Army in my opinion is getting the GCV program on track. There is much we can improve over the Bradley with a new vehicle and we could possibly use the chassis as a basis for a Paladin replacement among other things.
	Boeing Insider December 31st, 2009 at 7:00 am So how much money did Boeing put in the pockets of these people to give them a piece of the rotten pie back? FCS was as mismanaged as Peace Shield.
	Boeing Manager December 31st, 2009 at 7:09 am As a Boeing Manager and retired Senior NCO I thank Uncle Sam for the vote in confidence.
	Major Geek December 31st, 2009 at 12:21 pm As a former IT consultant servicing the top FCS Brass, I am pleased to see that the Pentagon still recognizes some value in the concept of the Program. There is good to be had for the warfighter in theatre, if the beancounters and meddlers in Washington will just allow it to be developed and fielded! The greatest failure of any military program’s efficiency is the NECESSITY to dedicate SO MUCH time, money and manpower to just KEEP THE MACHINERY oiled… that is… to keep the program sold and funded with Congress!! I understand oversight. It is constitutionally mandated that the Military be subject to civilian authority. However, when politicians try to micromanage the military, there is a waste of time, money, manpower and productivity. If a program is authorized, FUND it for a year — ask for SEMI-ANNUAL progress reports, and GET OUT OF THE WAY! If the program fails to perform — don’t fund it the next year… but GIVE THEM the breathing room to ACTUALLY DO their jobs!
	Gordon of Khartoum December 31st, 2009 at 1:22 pm Once again, I say, look at who is beating us: insurgents with pick ps, Aks, RPGs and IEDs. They do have terrain and initiative going for them, but high tech. has very little to offer by way of negating that, ridiculously, underestimated advantage. Unmanned drones make sense. Carting robots around on the ground, really doesn’t, and neither does planting sensors all the place. Besides, can’t we already FO NLOS with what we’ve got? Low initial production rate is a DAMN good idea! And, LOTS of oversight! WE don’t the Generals int he toy store, anymore. If it works, great-but lots of this stuff doesn’t work and gets passed along on the limited DoD budget, anyway. Want a ral “bang forthe buck”? Take a simple course in Operational Body Language, used by teh Isrealis. Cheap and Effective: Invest in your people first, then start looking for hardware.
	Marvin Barfonme December 31st, 2009 at 1:35 pm Boeing is one rapacious company. Its singular mismanagement of almost all government programs–and a few commercial ones–over the past decade is its calling card. It was critical to the mass failure of FCS as a technology development program and a business framework. I think twice about stepping into Boeing jets now because I know the incompetence occurring on a mass scale in the government-business part of the company. I fear some commenters believe Boeing is entitled to the work. No, the company has to earn our respect as citizens and taxpayers each time. And, in the case of Boeing, the more “meddlers” and “beancounters” from Washington the better.
	Max Headroom December 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pm Glad to hear.…. even though I think Boeing missed the boat with their “network” The “network” (which shall remain anonymous) smells like non-technical or semi-technical management inserting themselves where they don’t belong. The solution is so simple and elegant, yet made so difficult by people who don’t have a clue. Gordon, you are an example of the problem within Boeing. Stupid opinions and completely off base with what the FCS program strives to achieve.
	In the know December 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm As an engnineer who worked FCS for 10 years, it is a joke that Boeig is rewarded for this joke. None of the equipment touted as a “success” was even FCS developed. It was on the drawing board before FCs started. As for the much vaunted network discussed above, it simply does not owrk is was never developed with small unit nor combat platform utility in mind. Sad to say this is a cover up for the Army’s mismanagement of the program as much as Boeing’s totally criminal activity during the conduct of a program that was well conceived but so poorly executed. If i had a son in the US Army, I would woud never let him go to war with anything marked FCS.
	Been There...Civi December 31st, 2009 at 3:19 pm Support the troops, DONT line the pockets of Boeing nor GDLS. BAE impressed with with the NLOS. Boeing SHOULD be able to make something that flies. GDLS can’t do much outside of rebuilding old technology. Mind you, the Abrams is awesome but it is not made for this type of warfare. From day one this system needed, was provided, and then ignored first hand experience from the troops.
	Salim Samai December 31st, 2009 at 3:36 pm Good analysis! The basics are lost in the middle of too much electronics, TV unreality which young isolated men take for reality, computer, distant decision making and INITIATIVE. The Israelis have not found anything. Any guerrilla fighter or any grown up, like me, in an Algerian market uses the same tactics because he´s assessing the partner first or fighting autonomously. You only forgot motivation!
	A Marine Veteran December 31st, 2009 at 4:09 pm The irony with anything the Pentagon does called “future” is that if and when it’s ever fielded, it either isn’t the “future” because technology has passed it by, or their view of the “future” is irrelevent. The program has the smell of political intrigue: a system whose components are produced by subcontractors spread throughout as many different states and congressional districts as possible. Frequently, Pentagon acquisition comes down to jobs in a congressional district, translating into votes, translating into congressional support for funding that eventually flows to major defense contractors…like Boeing. One should ask, given today’s threat and the risk of weapons development based on ‘the last war’, is it time for an impartial review of the basic requirement driving FCS? Should this program be restructured and adapted to today’s threats? Maybe this has been done. The number, and tone, of commentators on this subject do beg the question.
	Former FCS evaluator December 31st, 2009 at 4:55 pm As a former Army FCS Requirement writer and evaluator, I concur with the engineers comment from 2 hours ago. The premise of the FCS system of systems looked really good on the multiple PowerPoint briefings, but sadly in reality it fails at every step. That our Congressmen have been hoodwinked by the failing Army acquistion community as well as the Boeing lobbists is also a sad comment. A couple of realizations. The network proudly transmits data to only FCS network equipped vehicles at a maximum range of 1.5 kilometers. No realiteve important data was shown to Soldiers during the evaluations. They did get to see many and many blue force vehicles though. Well within the killing radias of every hand held weapon system. The emergining technology that was to be delivered, never appeared. The second item everything that does work was not even borne within FCS. NLOS, SUGV and the Class 1 UAS are all complimentary programs. The glaring fact is that our Soldiers will be fielded, now only 1 BCT, this mismanaged and totally inoperable and combat ineffective equipment. Someone needs to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes on.
	DINSTAR December 31st, 2009 at 5:35 pm Wow I have gone to war (gulf 1) with Boeing/ McDonnel Douglas products and they never did me wrong. Now as for the Boeing engineer that thinks so poorly of Boeing sounds like someone had to find a new job. I have been with Boeing for 16 years I came to them right out of the service I am a Sr. manager in IDS and have found that they put a lot of pride into what they build. I would never work for someone that put less than 110% into supporting are armed forces. Everyone wants to put the problems with defense contracts on the contractor what about the Government they ask for one thing then the changes start and those mount up. How as contractors are we going to provide a product if the product changes if the government provides a spec don’t change it halfway through the race? I guess we could act like contractors and give them one thing then hand them a new bill with the changes and still provide them with a non working aircraft. Lets put this were it belongs if you were having a custom car done would you run that program the way the government runs there’s?
	William C. December 31st, 2009 at 7:11 pm Seems Mr. Boeing Insider here gives everybody a negative vote if they dare have something good to say about Boeing or FCS.
	Log ELK December 31st, 2009 at 8:27 pm As a government project manager, I have worked with just about every beltway bandit out there and I can say that the Boeing engineers that I have worked with always gave more than 110%. There were a lot of good products in FCS. Unfortunately the government did not keep its focus on the end product. Hopefully there will be some good coming out of the BCT fielded products.
	PFB December 31st, 2009 at 11:05 pm What a mistake. The core network (SoSCOE) is a dud. Maybe IBM could build it or a real software company (at far less expense). Boeing has never built any premier system that does not have wings. Taxpayers would be up in arms if they knew the powerpoint fraud that keeps this dog alive. The problem is that so many Army officials have bought off on it and it’s too embarrasing for them to kill it.
	Cole December 31st, 2009 at 11:21 pm In response to Gordon of Khartoum as posted on DefenseTech: If these systems had been available at Wanat and nearby Camp Blessing last year, the casualties could have been far lighter. NLOS-LS missiles launched from 8 kms away at the Camp Blessing FOB could have struck in close proximity to the Wanat COP due to smaller blast radius and greater precision. Inbound artillery and bombs responded rapidly, but had to be more distant from friendlies (and attackers) due to danger close criteria. Wanat troops with lightweight laser designators could have lased sources of fire coming from the surrounding mountains for NLOS-LS engagement. Class I UAS launched at “stand-to” could have been loitering overhead to identify insurgent massing (a villager the day before asked if they had UAS) and could have assisted NLOS-LS and 155mm targeting. Small unmanned ground vehicles and unattended ground sensors (UGS) placed around OP Topside may have provided early warning where the bulk of casualties occurred. Other Urban-UGS placed in the nearby police station, hotel, and bazaars may have identified potential hanky-panky. Such ground sensors for the OP and COP may have provided possible cueing for Claymore mines and diversion of the Class I UAS to investigate.
	Dow December 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pm This is nothing in the bigger picture when one considers government motors was given 80 billion which will just be wasted on barrys union thugs who can barely bolt a bumper on a car.
	William C. January 1st, 2010 at 5:11 am Yet the are not beating us tactically, we win the battles, yet they are wearing down our will to fight which is a problem no amount of technology can solve either. The DoD budget is driven by personnel costs despite what the lefties who want to cut all research, development, and procurement say. We certainly need to keep paying and providing for our soldiers but as a nation we need to put some more effort into getting new gear.
	LANDWARNET January 9th, 2010 at 3:17 am Heaven forbid that the Army rely too much on– and maximize its already $1B investment in– a combat-proven reliable system called FBCB2. Much better that we continue to ignore that the emperor called FCS is wearing no clothing. Poorly conceived, poorly executed, and poorly managed — the FCS program was a response to no known requirement fashioned to protect Army budget during peacetime and to line the pockets of an anti-competitive industry cabal with big congressional clout.__FBCB2 is saving lives every day. FCS cannot even pass its testing at Ft. Bliss.__FBCB2 is already a Joint system fielded to 85,000 Army and USMC platforms and is affordable. FCS doesn’t exist and cannot be afforded.____Hurrah for common-sense Army and DoD decision making in favor of FBCB2 that puts our Soldiers first — not money-grubbing LSI contractors and their crooked politician cronies!!!!

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

DoD Buzz

Son of FCS Gets Xmas Present

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments