|
TESTIMONY
OF
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOSEPH L. YAKOVAC, JR.
MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY)
BEFORE
THE
HOUSE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REGARDING
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM AND FORCE PROTECTION INITIATIVES
APRIL 1,
2004
Introduction
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,
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.
Competition
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.
One-Team
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
|
