IWS - The Information Warfare Site
News Watch Make a  donation to IWS - The Information Warfare Site Use it for navigation in case java scripts are disabled





 APRIL 1, 2004 


Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to report to you on the Future Combat Systems (FCS).  It is my privilege to represent the Army leadership, the military and civilian members of the Army acquisition workforce, and the Soldiers who rely on us to provide them with world-class weapon systems and equipment so they can successfully accomplish any mission at anytime, anywhere in the world.

This is a time of tremendous change, and we are most grateful for your wisdom, guidance, and strong support.  Over the last year, our Army has met the demands of the Global War on Terrorism, with more than 330,000 troops deployed around the world in more than 120 countries.  Our Army was instrumental in the defeat of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent liberation of more than 46 million people from oppression and despair.  Our Army remains a central and critical participant in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.  Although these and other operations have stressed the force, our Soldiers have responded magnificently.

We are most grateful, too, for your continued support of our Army's transformation.  The goals of Army transformation are to provide relevant and ready forces that are organized, trained, and equipped for full spectrum joint, interagency, and multi-national operations and to support Future Force development.  Our Future Force is the operational force the Army continuously seeks to become - a strategically responsive, networked, precision, capabilities-based, maneuver force that is dominant across the range of military operations envisioned for the future global security environment.

Both current experiences and emerging operational imperatives confirm the Army's judgment that the FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) is the organizational template capable of meeting the regional combatant commander's requirements of the future.  By accelerating the transformation of the Current Force toward a modular force with many of the characteristics of the FCS-equipped Future Force, we will accelerate our transformation in areas such as doctrine, training, and leader development.  Such a force will be agile, lethal, networked, precise [PLI1]  , rapidly deployable, modular and born Joint.  The modular Army we are building today is the bridge to the FCS-equipped Unit of Action.

The FCS-equipped Maneuver Unit of Action is not just a unique Brigade Combat Team, built around a family of systems, but a new concept for fighting those systems. This formation will be part of a Joint team that is decisive across the spectrum of conflict, in all types of operations, against the complexity of threat capabilities, in a variety of terrain and weather environments.  The UA balances the capabilities for strategic responsiveness and battlespace dominance, resulting in an expeditionary force with campaign qualities.  It can perform tactical and operational maneuver by land, air, and sea.  The UA can be tailored with additional capabilities for specific missions during a campaign.  It employs its revolutionary C4ISR architecture to expand or contract its span of control and integrate Unit of Employment (the next higher Army echelon) or Joint Task Force supporting capabilities to accomplish missions.  Its significantly improved ability to collect and process information using organic and external Joint and Army supporting sensors and sources ensure that commanders will possess the timely, accurate intelligence necessary to achieve decision superiority.  The UA improves the ability of Soldiers and leaders to achieve lethality and survivability overmatch.   Like our Current Forces, the foundational centerpiece of the formation remains Soldiers and leaders, enabled by technology, within mounted and dismounted small unit fighting teams.

Program Description

The objective of the FCS program is to field an integrated combat capability at the unit level as opposed to developing individual systems. Central to this approach is the integrated development and acquisition of sensors, unmanned air and ground systems, and manned combat systems working together and connected by a network that provides increased combat effectiveness.

The most important effort for the development of the UA is the application of sound System of Systems engineering beginning first with good analysis and functional allocation of requirements.  We are committed to this systems engineering process and to the generation of program management metrics, which will ensure an FCS program that is in control, within reasonable risk and on schedule for a 2010 fielding of the UA.  We believe the FCS program is progressing in conjunction with these accepted engineering processes.

To separate individual entities from the overall FCS development, at this time, would be detrimental to the complex integration effort so critical to the success of the FCS program.  The design would not be compatible with the integrated architectures, to include sustainment, developed specifically for the Unit of Action.

The Army and the entire FCS development team are engaged in executing the integrated schedule and work plan that will achieve the objective of fielding transformational integrated capabilities in the shortest possible time.  This plan includes completing requirements and functional reviews in 2004, completing preliminary design in 2005 and pre-production design in 2006, leading to assembly and delivery of the initial pre-production (Lead Manned Ground Vehicle System) NLOS-C, in fiscal year 2007.

To ensure effective cost and schedule control the Army and the LSI have implemented an Earned Value Management System (EVMS).  We are now in the process of providing Congress access to this EVMS data.  EVMS provides a powerful analytical capability to support integrated performance decisions based on detailed knowledge of cost, schedule, and technical performance.  The committee will have unprecedented access and insight into program performance by virtue of its access to the program's EVM data.

Complementary Program Definitions and Systems

Complementary systems to the FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) are those systems or technologies resident within the UA but not one of the 19 FCS core systems making up the FCS Family of Systems (FoS).  These systems will function separately or be integrated into one or more of the 19 FCS Core systems.  These are systems essential to get the FCS Family of Systems (FoS) to work together and/or to support  system-of-systems (SoS).  These systems facilitate UA operations.  UA Associate Programs (AP) are those programs that FCS must interoperate with as detailed in the FCS ORD and in the Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence Support (C4ISR) Plan.

The FCS-equipped UA is networked via a C4ISR architecture, including networked communications, network operations, sensors, battle command system, training, and both manned unmanned reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities, that will enable levels of situational understanding and synchronized operations heretofore unachievable.  Some of the complementary programs that are key to the successful development and employment of FCS as enablers to the FCS-UA Network include: Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T), and Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A).

FCS Complementary Program (CP) Management

As part of the joint Army-OSD review and analysis process leading to a successful FCS Milestone B decision in May 2003, it became clear that, for the FCS Program to succeed, other existing programs with systems essential to the system-of-systems employment concept for the FCS-equipped Unit of Action (UA) needed to be synchronized with FCS Program development and fielding timelines.  Accordingly, synchronization of FCS and complementary system timelines was identified as a top priority and occurs on many levels.

Within the FCS Program, the Project Manager, Unit of Action (PM-UA) - formerly PM-FCS - has partnered with the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI), the Boeing Company with its partner Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), to integrate Complementary and Associate programs into the overall FCS Program.  As such, the LSI has responsibility for ensuring integration required to meet system-of-systems (SoS) specification functionality and performance.  In conjunction with the LSI, the FCS Complementary Programs (CP) IPT has responsibility for developing the overarching integration and management approach for CPs and develops and implements plans with Army and other service counterparts for identification and management of CPs.  The CP IPT provides the communications path to define the SoS-level interface and interoperability requirements for each FCS complementary and associate system.

In those cases where an existing or developmental program has applicability to FCS, Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs), as required, are executed, between the LSI and the prime contractor for the identified program - or a directed subcontract arrangement is invoked under the LSI agreement.  The ACAs are needed because the LSI is a contractor and not a government agency.  An ACA will not always be required and the need may be filled with only a government-to-government Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).  The purpose of these MOAs (and Subordinate MOAs) is to establish the responsibilities and management processes between PEO, Ground Combat Systems (PEO-GCS), PM-UA, and the other PEOs/PMs in order to procure, develop, test and field an FCS-equipped UA.  The MOAs/SMOAs also provide a basis for cooperative, technical and, acquisition efforts between PEO-GCS, PM-UA, and the other PEOs/PMs.  The MOAs/SMOAs are what we are using now to facilitate this significant coordination effort. Current count within  the Army is 19 PEO-to-PEO MOAs and 44 PM-to-PM SMOAs. The Army recognized that if FCS were to be successful, a permanent process in addition to the MOAs, SMOAs and ACAs would be required.

Within the Army, in recognition of FCS Program complexity and interdependence on other standalone complementary programs in order to meet UA and Unit of Employment (UE) required capabilities, the Army G8 and the Military Deputy to the ASA(ALT) established a complementary systems management and oversight process documented in a Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) signed in August 2003.  This MOA established an Army Complementary Systems Synchronization Integrated Process Team (IPT) at the O-6 level to synchronize the network, survivability, lethality, sustainability and training aspects of FCS with 1-, 2-, and 3-Star GOSCs for review and approval of synchronization recommendations.  Additionally, functional Complementary Systems Working Groups (CSWG), co-led by G8 and ASAALT, provide action-level support for identification and synchronization of complementary programs.  Key tenets/functions of the complementary systems management process:

.  Identify programmatic disconnects and funding shortfalls with complementary systems.

.  Develop work-arounds to rectify disconnects and for resources and adjustments to the FCS/UA/UE Complementary Systems list.

.  Ensure program baselines for the UA and candidate UE Complementary System include FCS key programmatic events as part of their program oversight.

.  Manage and track cost, schedule and performance identified in the program baselines for the UA Complementary Systems and candidate UE Complementary Systems.

The Synchronization IPT Council of Colonels is co-chaired by  Deputy Chief of Staff, G8 and ASA(ALT) representatives and has membership from all parts of the Army. The Synchronization IPT exists to resolve issues.  If the issue is within the Army's purview, the IPT will map out appropriate resolution to include adjustment of other program funding, scheduling or performance requirements.  The IPT then weighs the impacts of proposed alternatives and decides on a Course Of Action (COA) - based on impacts across the Army - and informs the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) of the preferred COA prior to implementation. If consensus cannot be reached, the issue and alternatives are taken to the AAE for disposition and resolution.  One final note - the complementary systems synchronization process within the Army, as documented, is as described, but the MOA governing the process is currently under revision to include the TRADOC Futures Center with its establishment on November 4, 2003.  In the revision, the TRADOC Futures Center would serve as "tri-chair" at every level of the synchronization effort - from CSWG through 3-Star GOSC.

Within OSD, the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) has directed grouping FCS Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) reporting together with key complementary system programs.  So, FCS is now grouped together with Joint Tactical Radio Systems (JTRS), Warfighter Information Network - Tactical (WIN-T), Distributed Common Ground System - Army (DCGS-A) DAES reporting to the DAE.  In terms of FCS-UA Complementary System synchronization and issue resolution, if an issue resides external to the Army and cannot be solved at the PEO level, the Army's Complementary Systems Synchronization IPT will meet with additional members included to represent their respective services/organizations as required.  Once alternatives are assessed, the Synchronization IPT will present its recommendation to the AAE in preparation for convening an Overarching IPT (OIPT) or joint OIPT, depending on the issue, to assess and present a recommended COA.  If the COA can be effectively instituted at the OIPT level, the DAE will be notified of the decision. If consensus cannot be reached, the OIPT will recommend convening a special Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) to bring the issue to closure.

FCS Technology and Complementary Program Risk Management

Recognizing the importance of critical technologies and complementary programs to the development and fielding of FCS, the FCS Program has established a robust risk mitigation strategy for those systems that are on the FCS critical development path.  The FCS Program is mitigating these technical risks through employment of a formal Risk Management process with OSD/DA oversight and through documentation of customer-supplier relationships with FCS technology suppliers through written Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs).

Increment 1 Critical Technologies 

The FCS Acquisition Strategy Report (ASR) documented the conscious recognition that some FCS critical technologies were not sufficiently mature at Milestone B per General Accounting Office (GAO) and Department of Defense (DoD) 5000-series guidelines. The ASR specifies that continued technology maturation will continue in SDD, provided that:

  • Technologies can be matured to appropriate Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) by the Preliminary Design Review (PDR/April 05), and/or
  • Full integration can be demonstrated at the time of operational testing.

Recognizing that this approach does introduce additional cost and schedule risk into the program, DoD specified in the Milestone B Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) that the FCS will mitigate this risk by:

  •      Executing formal Risk Mitigation Plans (RMP) with OSD/DA oversight, and

  •      Documenting customer-supplier relationships with our technology suppliers through written Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs).

PM,  Unit of Action (PM-UA) and the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) have identified 31 critical technologies, developed risk mitigation plans for them, and are actively developing TTAs to document technology deliverables with our technology suppliers.

The Risk Mitigation Plans contain, where applicable, technology "off ramps" or "tollgates""  - specific decision points and criteria where decisions would potentially be made to use alternate, less risky (and less capable) technologies and technology development/integration strategies.

Risk Management Program

The FCS Risk Management Program Plan lays out the methodology and processes used to manage programs for both FCS core Critical Technologies (CT) and FCS Complementary Programs (CP).  Risk Mitigation Plans (RMP) have been developed, or are in the process of being developed, that address both technology maturation risk and system/system-of-systems integration risks into the FCS Family of Systems (FoS) and the greater Unit of Action (UA) at the system-of-systems level.  Where applicable, these RMPs contain technology "off ramps" or "tollgates" - specific decision points and criteria where decisions would potentially be made to use alternate, less risky (and potentially less capable) technologies and technology development and integration strategies - or, in the case of complementary programs, alternative complementary programs.  Decisions to use these "off ramps" or "tollgates" will be made based upon cost, schedule, performance, and/or technology maturity criteria, and are included in many of the on-going trade studies. The FCS program will execute the off ramps, as needed, when building the program technical baseline.  However, the overriding consideration to any decision to execute an "off ramp" is to understand that the focus ultimately is not on these technologies, CPs, or their respective alternatives (taken individually) - but in how each impacts the overall performance of the FCS system-of-systems construct. 

Key Program Tenets

To obtain the best value for, and in recognition of program complexity, the Army  is using the LSI as the single accountable, responsible contractor to integrate the FCS on time and within budget, while reducing the logistics footprint.  The LSI will act on behalf of the Army to optimize the FCS capability, maximize competition, ensure interoperability and maintain commonality in order to reduce life cycle cost.  The Army will maintain oversight and final approval of the LSI's subcontracting and competition plans.  The key tenets of the program and the principles by which this acquisition strategy was developed are:

.         Create Opportunity for Best of Industry to Participate.

.         Leverage Government Technology Base to Maximum Extent.

.         Associate On-Going Enabling Efforts with LSI-Led Activity.

.         Collaborative Environment from Design through Life Cycle.

.         As a Minimum, Commonality at Subsystem/Component Level.

.         Design/Plan for Technology Integration and insertion.

.         Maintain and Shape the Industrial Base for the Future.

.         Retain Competition throughout Objective Force Acquisition.

.         Appropriate Government Involvement in Procurement Processes.

.         Consistent and Continuous Definition of Requirements.

.         Maintain and Shape Government Acquisition Community.

.         Program Affordability--Balance Performance and Sustainment.


A key FCS program tenet is to maintain competition and create opportunities for the "best of industry" to participate.  The LSI implemented these tenets by issuing 23 competitive solicitations involving multiple contract years and millions of dollars in actual work content that would shape the FCS team.  These solicitations were issued on a  "best value" basis with the intent to attract the best technological approaches and the most reliable partners industry could offer.  It was a remarkable feat that all solicitations were conducted simultaneously in approximately the same time it would take to conduct one source selection of this magnitude.  Approximately 600 government and LSI subject matter experts were assembled to tackle this endeavor.  The winning 21 industry partners have joined forces with the LSI to form a "One-Team" approach to FCS program challenges.

Industrial Base

Another key tenet mentioned is to maintain and shape the Industrial Base for the Future.

We are experiencing a changing environment in our country's defense industrial base.  We are charged with balancing the pace at which we move into the future while maintaining the capability to support the current force requirements.  We must strike a balance on the correct mix of depot, arsenal and industry capabilities in order to be able to afford to field future requirements.

To ensure on-time delivery of cost-effective and reliable equipment, the LSI/government team will perform a series of Industrial Capability Assessments (ICA) as required by the Department of Defense (DoD) (Title 10, United States Code 2440). The resulting document assesses industry capability and identifies risks associated with manufacturing products that meet FCS requirements over the life of the program merge.

Once identified, the supply base will develop and implement plans to mitigate the risk subject to approval of the Army.

The ICA process will identify and mitigate risk in supplier manufacturing processes. The deliverable is a periodic report to the Army Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) that assesses industry capability to produce FCS products and services. The near term focus is on understanding the FCS product design that will be developed and integrated through the supply base via the IPT process. The Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) will assist with determining whether technologies are ready for incorporation into the design. The resultant product design defines what the suppliers will produce and what is to be assessed.

A parallel near term effort is the selection of suppliers and information gathering regarding their capabilities. The LSI utilizes this information to identify risks to the supplier's ability to design, prototype, produce and support FCS products and services. Identified risks will be coordinated with the suppliers through the IPTs using the LSI Risk Management Plan.   The end result of the assessment of industry capabilities to support the FCS development and fielding effort will inform both existing and future industrial base support requirements.  Ultimately, the development and fielding of the FCS equipped UA, will shape the industrial base for decades to come, due to the sheer size and complexity of the systems and technologies encompassed in this system of systems development, As the technology progresses and requirements change there will continue to be a requirement to bend metal and manufacture platforms and structures.  Our charge is to maintain and shape that industrial base to maintain the capabilities required for both the current and future requirements.


The LSI, its partners and the government have embraced the One-Team concept.  This is accomplished through IPTs: co-locations at government and contractor facilities; use of an advanced collaborative environment as the single authoritative source of management, product and technology information; and program management plans that establish joint management procedures and processes.  The One-Team concept incentivizes the LSI, customer and industrial partners to share the same destiny.


The FCS program is vital to UA development and fielding and is the Army's top materiel development program that will provide unprecedented military capability for the Future Force.  The real winner in our success is the Soldier.  We serve the Soldier.  The most technologically advanced platforms are useless without the intellect, dedication, and remarkable sense of duty of the American Soldier.  The Soldier remains the centerpiece of our combat systems and formations and is indispensable to the Joint Team.  Adaptive, confident, and competent Soldiers, infused with the Army's values and warrior culture, fight wars and win the peace.  Working with Congress, we will keep the Army ready to meet today's challenges and continue to make significant strides toward the fielding of our Future Force.

  [PLI1] ??

House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515