• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

STATEMENT BY
DR. GLENN F. LAMARTIN
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SYSTEMS
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
(ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS)

BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
HOUSE ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2003   
 

 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Skelton, and Members of the Committee.  Thank you for the opportunity to express the Department's views on how changes in our acquisition policies will expedite fielding of the Future Combat Systems and on the current and future ability of the U.S. industrial base to effectively and affordably meet our national security requirements for Army and Marine Corps ground weapon systems and ammunition.  I am pleased to provide you this report on the Department's progress in these areas.

ACQUISITION PROCESS CHANGES AND THE FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM

The Department is in the process of reissuing the DoD 5000-series documents that guide our acquisition activities.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics is scheduled to testify on these exciting changes before the full House Armed Services Committee next month.  Among the changes being considered are to:

(a) implement evolutionary acquisition to rapidly deliver capability to warfighters with the explicit intent of improving that capability in the future

(b) encourage tailoring of our acquisition programs to promote flexibility while retaining a knowledge- and event-based approach

(c) decentralize responsibility so as to provide Program Managers the authority they need to execute their programs, and

(d) foster innovation, learning, and continuous improvement.

My role, as the Director of Defense Systems, includes overseeing for the Defense Acquisition Executive, how acquisition programs, such as the Army's Future Combat Systems, implement these important changes in our acquisition process, seeing to the proper application of sound management and engineering practices, and in doing so helping to ensure their success.

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

The Future Combat Systems (FCS) is a prime example of the Department's efforts to encourage in its acquisition activities a creative and informed risk-taking culture to better provide future warfighters the capabilities they will need to deter aggression or fight and win our nation's conflicts in both joint and coalition environments.  The Army began a transformation a few years ago that will result in an Objective Force capable of defeating all adversaries, in all situations, from peacetime military engagements to major combat operations.  The fundamental enabler of this Objective Force is the FCS.

The FCS is not a single system.  Rather, it is an ensemble of combat and support vehicles, and unmanned air and ground systems designed from the outset to work together as an integrated system-of-systems.  FCS relies on advanced communications, sensors, and battle command systems.  Its program structure fully embraces the evolutionary acquisition approach by planning to add capability in development spirals.  An open architecture will make this possible by allowing insertion of maturing technologies. 

Development and fielding of FCS is an aggressive, challenging endeavor that requires many parallel activities to achieve a First Unit Equipped, or FUE, in 2008.  As a minimum, this first introduction must include the networked, information framework that is the foundation of the FCS vision and, if executed properly, can be the basis for continuing spiral development.  The Army plans an Initial Operational Capability, or IOC, around 2010.  The Department has scheduled a Milestone B, System Development and Demonstration, decision in May of this year.  As such, Secretary Aldridge, the Defense Acquisition Executive, has not yet approved the details of the program structure and approach. 

We are now taking a number of steps to help prepare for this major review and answer the many questins we have about successfully executing this complex system-of-systems acquisition.  We are carefully reviewing the program and the challenges we face at three basic levels: 1) the FCS as a family of systems, 2) the FCS as a key element of the Army's Objective Force together with the many complementary systems with which it must interact to be effective, and 3) FCS in the context of a land component of a Joint Force.  We plan a series of Defense Acquisition Board reviews in the months leading up to and culminating in the Milestone B decision in late May. 

Future Combat Systems Acceleration Challenges

Attaining the Future Combat Systems schedule to an FUE in 2008 and an IOC in 2010 will require the Department to develop and demonstrate a number of technologies that are critical to providing advanced capabilities.  To help meet this challenge, the Army has partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop Future Combat Systems concepts and identify those technologies and systems with the most promise.  The Army - DARPA partnership is providing payoff technologies in unmanned air systems, unmanned ground systems, communications, and sensors, and they have already contracted with a lead systems integrator to speed up the transition into development.  The Army has also focused much of its Science and Technology investment to advance the technologies needed for the Objective Force and the Future Combat Systems.

The Department's acquisition community will transform its actions, in part, through informed risk-taking.  As such, the Army's process for managing FCS program risks includes identifying and taking steps to mitigate the risks associated with technology maturation.  In one of the DAB sessions I alluded to earlier, Secretary Aldridge will review the maturity of the FCS-related technologies and the remaining risk we must resolve in development.  That review will be a critical component of his decision regarding proceding into System Development and Demonstration.  Our intent is for all critical technologies to be sufficiently mature before integration into the Future Combat Systems design, thereby reducing the amount of time, effort, and risk associated with demonstrating a capability. 

The Committee's letter of invitation noted the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation's concerns about the ability of the Future Combat Systems program to meet its schedule for threshold levels of mission performance.  The Department acknowledges that the FCS schedule is ambitious, and concerns about the program's ability to hold that schedule will be thoroughly addressed during the Defense Acquisition Board's deliberations on the Milestone B decision.  To that end, my office is leading a detailed review of the Army's plans for program management and systems engineering as part of the preparation for the Milestone B review.  The Department's staff is also planning for test and evaluation, assessing technology readiness levels, developing an independent cost estimate, reviewing the acquisition strategy, assessing needed industrial capability, and looking hard at logistics and support matters.  These are typical Milestone B activities that, in this case, will consider the special nature of the FCS program.   Together, these activites will address many of the concerns raised by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and assure an informed decision about proceeding into the next program phase.

Industrial Base Considerations and FCS

The Department has had to make difficult choices as it weighs operational risks and balances its investments in today's forces with the steps it must take to transform to meet future needs.  These choices about recapitalization, modernization, and the acquisition of new capability can have implications for the industrial base.  The Department recognizes that some of its decisions regarding FCS and other weapons systems can impact the industrial base.  For example, the shift from heavy armor-plated vehicles to lighter, more deployable vehicles built of composite materials and specialty metals will challenge the industrial base to respond with new manufacturing technologies and processes.  To help address this, the Army recently approved the teaming of the two legacy ground vehicle producers for development of the manned-systems portion of the FCS.  Therefore, for ground combat vehicles related to FCS, we are confident that there are adequate opportunities for our current defense industry to contribute now in design, development, and integration activities, and to prepare to meet our future production and support needs.

Although the Department believes that forces in the market are positive and that industrial capabilities will be available when needed for combat vehicles, we will actively monitor the base.  One of our monitoring efforts will be an Army-led in-depth industrial base assessment that will cover the entire ground combat vehicle industrial sector.  This initiative should be completed by the end of this year.  In addition, the Army has started an industrial capabilities assessment that will address all aspects of the FCS program. 

This will be a continuing effort that will assess the industrial capabilities needed to design, develop, produce, and support the Future Combat Systems; and it will surface any issues it finds for management attention.

CONCLUSION

The Department is excited about the transformational capabilities that the Future Combat Systems will bring to the battlefield.  We believe the changes in our acquisition processes are well matched to the new environment in which we find ourselves.  The Department looks forward to the challenges before us.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Committee on these important topics.  I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.