Defense Technology International - July 2007 - (Page 43)

THE NET part because of the unique system-ofsystems approach with the contractor acting as overall integrator.” Technical difﬁculties arise from the complex integration of technologies The U.S. Army’s Future Combat at the Government Accountability Of- and data. A case in point: the Navy’s Systems program may take a major ﬁce. A sound business case, for Fran- DDG-51 destroyer, FFG-7 frigate and funding hit in 2008. Defense budget cis, would assure an acquisition that LPD-4 amphibious ship acquisition authorization legislation passed by is likely to result in a product that per- programs, each representing an inthe House of Representatives in May forms as required. But, he contends, tegrated systems approach, have all cut the Bush administration’s budget “the Army has yet to fully deﬁne FCS experienced problems with subsysrequest for FCS research and develop- requirements, and FCS technologies tems. These problems, according to are still immature.” ment by 25%, or $867 million. the GAO, have affected the vessels’ The Army’s management philoso- day-to-day operations. The FCS cuts “reduce concurrency of network and manned ground ve- phy is under attack and out of fashFCS will have to develop massive hicle development,” says Rep. Neil ion. In an attempt to avert the delays amounts of software to connect all of Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of that had plagued earlier complex the new systems with each other and a House subcommittee on air and land Army programs, the service contract- with the Army’s existing systems. At forces. In other words, Abercromleast 34 million lines of software bie wants the Army to test the code must be generated, twice FCS information network before the amount needed for the Joint it starts to build FCS manned Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s largground vehicles. est software development project FCS envisions a new way of to date, according to a Congressional Budget Ofﬁce report. warfighting that depends on “Software problems in complex networking people, platforms, systems can be daunting,” says weapons and sensors seamlessly in a so-called “system of sysPhilip Coyle, a former assistant tems.” But there is more to FCS secretary of defense and senior than that. The idea is that the advisor at the Center for Defense future force will be made up of Information, a Washington, D.C., Program delays mean current smaller, more agile vehicles. With research organization. “It’s easy technology such as this software-deﬁned better situational awareness and for things to go wrong.” radio from Raytheon will augment agility, they can survive without All of this has led FCS manFCS materiel for some time. heavy armor, and they can call on agers to consider alternatives networked ﬁre support from any to the program’s original “big asset in range, rather than relying on ed the overall management of FCS to bang” approach. One option is to elimtheir own weapons. The original goal a “lead systems integrator” (LSI) team inate all or some of the new ground was that an FCS vehicle would be small comprising Boeing and Science Ap- vehicles while pushing forward with enough to be carried in a C-130: 20 plications International Corp. (SAIC). the communications equipment and tons or less. The Boeing/SAIC team, not the Army, sensors. The Army would incorporate Abercrombie’s proposed approach would select and manage the con- some FCS technologies into its ﬂeet runs counter to the Army’s plans for tractors producing everything from of Abrams tanks and Bradley ﬁghting FCS, which call for the simultaneous unmanned aerial vehicles and mobile vehicles and upgrade them, increasing development of vehicles and the in- guns to radios and software. their capabilities and service life. formation network that ties them to“This decision reflected the fact “However, if it did, the Army would gether. While it is uncertain whether that the Army has limited capacity to forgo potential beneﬁts of the capabilthe cuts initiated by the House will manage the undertaking,” says Fran- ities it now seeks in the FCS program,” appear in the ﬁnal authorization bill cis. Such an arrangement, moreover, notes the CBO report. The major goal to be signed by President Bush, they “increases the Army’s risks to provide of switching to lighter and more agile do express a lack of confidence in oversight over the long term.” vehicles would be missed. In addition, how FCS is proceeding. But the LSI approach has foundered previous attempts to upgrade Abrams Not that criticism of FCS is new. The in other programs and is being looked and Bradley communications and elecprogram has suffered severe delays at skeptically. The U.S. Coast Guard tronics have been difﬁcult. since it was authorized in 2003. FCS sys- took over management this year of What, then, is the future of FCS and tems were slated to enter production its Deepwater modernization program its information network? Congress by 2006 and to start initial ﬁelding in from a Northrop Grumman-Lockheed may add back some or all of the fund2008. Since 2003, the schedule has been Martin joint venture after systems fail- ing, but that could be the least of the extended by more than six years. ures and cost overruns. Deepwater is program’s problems. But the criticism now being heard is analogous to FCS in that it envisions “These programs can be very difmore fundamental. Four years into de- development of a series of ships and ﬁcult to manage and very expensive velopment, the Army can’t articulate aircraft with a “system-of-systems” and complex,” says Coyle. “The cona basic business case for the program, network linking them. “That program tractors often jump in with both feet according to Paul Francis, director of continues to face a degree of underly- and the programs then crash under acquisition and sourcing management ing risk,” a GAO report concluded, “in their own weight.” I PETER BUXBAUM CRUNCH TIME FOR FCS RAYTHEON www.aviationweek.com/dti JULY/AUGUST 2007 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL 43 http://www.aviationweek.com/dti

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Defense Technology International - July 2007

Around the World Science Watch Tech Watch Parallax Ghost Ship Low Visibility Red Tape Sub Catcher Boom Time Broad Access Fight or Flight Cut Loose Loud and Clear Drone On Postmortem The Net Cutting Edge On the Record In Review Insight

Defense Technology International - July 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.