May 19, 2003 at 2:00 pm
TRANSCRIPT OF FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS ROUNDTABLE
Maj. Gen. Gottardi: First of all, for those of you who don't know me I'm Major General Larry Gottardi, Chief of Public Affairs for the Army. I'd like to welcome you to the Media Roundtable for the FCS Milestone B decision.
I understand it's very short notice so I appreciate that you all were able to come.
As you may know, the DAB, Defense Acquisition Board, met last Wednesday to sort of review the progress of the FCS program and to make a decision relative to the FCS milestones. Over the weekend the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics, the Honorable Pete Aldridge, signed an Acquisition Decision Memorandum called an ADM that approved Milestone B for the Future Combat System and its entry into the systems, development, demonstration phase of the program down at the [inaudible]. So what we're going to do is we're going to talk about that today.
Today, to my left we have Lt. Gen. John S. Caldwell, Jr., who is the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. When you hear us talk about ASALT or SALT, that's that office.
To my right, this handsome devil here is Lt. Gen. John Riggs who is the Director of the Objective Force Task Force. What he will do is he will be able to sort of give you the environment in which this system is going to operate and what this decision means for the Army and the joint force in the future.
We also have to my left Maj. Gen. Joseph L. Yakovac, Jr., who is the Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat and Support Systems.
To my right, Dennis Muilenburg. He's the Vice President and FCS Lead Systems Integrator Program Manager.
You've all been provided some press kits here. Your press kits have got the bios and the spellings of the names, and we've given you the acquisition language. I will say in addition within that press kit there are a couple of CDs and within that CD there's some graphics on there that you may find useful for republication or for your own understanding of what we discuss here.
So if you have no questions - This is on the record, by the way. So if you have no questions I will turn this over to General Caldwell.
Lt. Gen. Caldwell: Once again it's a pleasure to be here with you all. I really appreciate your coming on relatively short notice. This program has a lot of characteristics and speed is certainly one of them.
I'll start out with a brief formal statement and then look forward to the Q&A period where we can get into any amount of detail that you would like.
As Larry said, my name is John Caldwell. My boss is Mr. Bolton, the Army Acquisition Executive who is on travel and could not be with us today.
Wednesday the 14th of May was a great day for the Department of Defense, it was a great day for the Army, and especially a great day for our soldiers. On the 14th of May the Defense Acquisition Executive, Mr. Pete Aldridge, convened the Defense Acquisition Board better known as the DAB to review the readiness of the Army's Future Combat System program and enter what we call the systems development and demonstration phase of the acquisition process. Today we are publicly announcing his decision.
In a nutshell that decision initiated the Future Combat System program that declared Milestone B which is the entry into what we call systems development and demonstration or SDD. It designated the Future Combat System as a major defense acquisition program, what we call an [ACAT 1D] program which means that it is managed by, at the system of systems level, by the Department of Defense. The milestone decision authority is the Defense Acquisition Executive.
It approved the acquisition program baseline for the program, it approved the acquisition strategy report and requirements for this level of the program.
In October of 1999 General Shinseki the Chief of Staff of the Army announced the transformation of the Army to an objective force. A joint force more lethal and more survivable, yet one more agile and more supportable than the current forces we have today. This analysis set into motion a massive team effort designed to meet an aggressive transformation timeline to field an objective force capability by the end of the decade, that being by the end of 2010.
In February of 2000 in support of the transformation vision the Army partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, DARPA, to establish an aggressive, collaborative demonstration program. This program identified critical science and technology programs which supported the FCS initiative.
In September 2001 the Army assigned total program management authority to the Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems, General Yakovac and assigned as Program Manager for the Future Combat System Brigadier General Don Schenk.
On March 7, 2002, DARPA and the Army added the third team member by selecting the partnership of the Boeing Company and Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC, as the lead systems integrator in a competitive process.
The work accomplished by the LSI, DARPA, Army team ensured that the FCS program was ready as scheduled to transition from the concept and technology development phase into the systems development and demonstration phase.
FCS is critical to the Army realizing the objective force. FCS is a vision of a networked family of systems including manned and unmanned platforms. FCS will give our soldiers an overwhelming advantage in future operations because they will be able to see [first], to understand [first], act [first], and finish decisively.
This Milestone B decision is significant not only to business and industry, to researchers and developers, but most important to the soldiers on point coordination. It is clear to all that are involved in this program that the most technologically advanced platform and networks are of very little value without the courage, intellect, dedication and remarkable sense of duty of our soldiers. We're going to have those soldiers involved up front and continuously in the development of FCS.
At this time I'd like to turn the microphone over to Lt. Gen. Riggs. He'll provide a broader overview of the Army transformation.
Lt. Gen. Riggs: I realize that we're here today to talk about Future Combat System and that is the material portion of this discussion as it relates to Army transformation and I can appreciate that, but let me just make five very quick points with you to maybe put it in a little bit of context, or if nothing else, to stimulate some of the questions that might be coming about how does FCS fit into this broader realm of transformation of your forces to a force for the future?
First of all let me say that approval of FCS to go into the next phase of the program, the systems engineering phase of the program, it represents a clear and unambiguous confirmation that the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Army are moving forward with transformation. Even as we fight the current war on terrorism.
Second of all, let me say that Army transformation, the changing of the Army into a future force that is as relevant to the situation and conditions that we'll face into the next decades and beyond - that's transformation. But let me say that Army transformation is an integral part of the Department of Defense's larger transformation effort. And as I've said, FCS represents a big part of the material piece of Army transformation.
Number three, this significant milestone event represents the combined efforts of many people. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, DARPA, industry, Congress, and of course much work within the Army to get us up to where we are now which by the way is the beginning.
That's the fourth point. The fourth point is this milestone decision that we have just made regarding this program represents a solid beginning. A beginning in providing the joint forces commanders, the combatant commanders if you will, with a precision ground maneuver system capable of joint, interagency and multinational operations in the future.
The fifth one is although there's been lots of good work done up to this point to get us here, I again say it's not time for anybody to be resting upon their laurels. But I would say to you the bulk of the work is still ahead of us to field a 21st Century Army, a 21st Century joint force for the challenges that we are going to face deeper into the 21st Century.
So that's what this represents today is a beginning.
I'll turn over this part of it to the Q&A.
Q: General Caldwell mentioned 2010. Could you fill us in a little more on when you expect the system to be fielded, or you begin to field it?
A: As General Caldwell stated, we begin fielding in 2010 but if you would think of Future Combat Systems and the way that business is done today, the acquisition system, I'd like not to think in terms of an end state. Aha, you have arrived. I'd like to think of it only as a beginning. Because as we are in fact putting together this program for a beginning with fielding the initial capabilities in 2010 which is a militarily significant unit with the system of systems that we classified as future combat systems, we are also bringing additional licensed technology efforts into system engineering so that we can be spiraling into this increment with additional capability.
So it starts the process of incrementally fielding that significant capability with additional capabilities, because as you and I both realize we must take advantage of the technologies that have matured. There's one thing for sure. If we don't, our potential adversaries will.
Q: You also, I mean this is going to cost $15 billion to develop and demonstrate. Do you have any idea what the overall program is going to cost?
A: The overall cost of replacing your Army? When you start talking about procurement and all of that, it's in the tens of billions of dollars if not more. Because what we're actually talking about is we're talking about beginning the fielding process which takes the bulk of the Army's heavy forces and a good portion of our light forces and starts replacing them over time with this capability. So FCS is a very significant fielding process beyond the RDT&E phase as we go into the procurement and fielding of this unit capability for the future.
Q: I understand that OSD has stipulated that there be a review in 18 months that's going to coincide with the preliminary design review and it's going to be joint. Other than that, can you stipulate any more I guess how this would coincide with the PDR and what exactly will be looked at in the review.
A: Let me take part of that, then General Yakovac can comment.
First of all as I stated and as General Riggs stated and as various review teams that helped us get this program ready to enter this phase have stated, FCS is a joint capability. The units actually equipped with FCS will absolutely function in the joint world, in the joint area.
The Army does not manage all of the programs that bring some of those joint capabilities to the combatant commanders. The Army has had more frequent and periodic reviews to make sure that these capabilities are synchronized across the joint forces, synchronized operationally and synchronized programmatically and technically.
Secretary Aldridge is the Acquisition Executive responsible for the programmatic alignment of those programs. So essentially while the Army proposed most of these reviews in his capacity as the Defense Acquisition Executive, he testified on a couple of others and the timing. But the one that you mentioned, the one in 18 months is specifically set up to better align us to make the program absolutely [inaudible].
A: I'd just like to say that I look at this as not only transformation but a continual requirement for the acquisition community to also transform and reform. As you would suspect when you're taking on something that's new, transformation, and perhaps it will be a continual change in how you manage. I think that's what this signals is the recognition that for us collectively within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to be successful, that the management and oversight has to change as well.
If this was a singular system as we have done in the past, [they'd] have a hard time putting something on you that you do not want. I think because it is not and it is transformational, that it would not be successful or could not be successful if we didn't have different ways of managing and oversight in this program.
So I just think it's a logical extension of what we're trying to do. I would suspect in the future there would be more programs that are structured this way, being looked at in the same manner.
It also really brings in a better cooperative spirit, not one of oversight per se as to helping us along the way. We are looking at programs outside of the ones that Army controls, to be there when we need them. So it's that collective look at procedures [we] also support. I think that's what's helped us.
Q: Would it be [inaudible] of another whole DAB? Would it be like a milestone decision or -
A: I would suspect it to be. If you're going to try something new in any endeavor you want the people who are trying to change with you to have a confidence that you're doing what you said you would do. So again I just think it's a logical extension of all of us trying to change and do things differently.
If we're doing our job correctly, all the things we would do normally are just part of this review. We just show them our work. So I don't see it as an additional piece of work to do. It's just what we're doing, and you present where you are to the leadership. There again, I don't see it as a burden by any means.
A: I think a lot of this is really the hard work that's associated with synchronization. Because like was just stated here, the one overarching lesson that we learned through our recent conflicts and really all of the conflicts prior to this, has been that jointness is absolutely essential.
I'll simplify it a little bit. To the average soldier or Marine that's on the point, it doesn't make any difference to them where the solution to the problem in front of them comes from. They could care less whether it's Army, Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps, as long as the solution is applied in a timely manner.
So I think that's what this FCS is all about. It starts out with capabilities that are within the Army, but it builds on complementary capabilities that must come from inside the Army as well as from the other services and the joint world. I think much of what these meetings are about subsequent to this milestone review is making sure that everybody's piece of the equation is properly synchronized for success. Jointness matters in this business and we owe it to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to make sure that we build jointness in by design, not developed as we go along.
Q: What's the timeline for these prototypes to be built? And who will be building them?
A: They will be on different timelines depending on the maturity of the various technologies would be the first statement I would make. And who will be building them is being decided right now for the most part. We are in the source selection process for some 23 procurement packages that are on the street as well as a [paving] effort in the [manned ground] system. Bill, if you want to be more specific than that. We have a [inaudible].
A: Look at the big pieces of this that you've been briefed on. It shows the past. You've got manned ground vehicles. Manned ground vehicles [inaudible], and you have unmanned aerial vehicles as well as a selection of sensors. The sensors go from unattended all the way through very close-knit integration onto the various platforms. Then over that is the network.
So to break it down into any one [inaudible], when you say there is a prototype, again, this is on a weapon system. I think it would be too easy.
I can give you an example. When do I see the first manned ground vehicle? That's right now about the 35th month into this process. Then they'll be staggered. When would you see something like an unmanned ground vehicle? That's on this [whole] timeline?
The key is, at a point where we have to put all this together prior to giving a production decision, prior to '08. So in the '07-'08 timeframe you will see the beginnings of a structure of an FCS unit that will have to go through a test. That's the best way to answer your question is when does it all come together, when does the piece [inaudible] begin.
Q: It most likely will [inaudible].
A: I think what it's going to depend upon is the maturity, [inaudible] what we think the manned ground vehicles will be. But if we look at unmanned air and unmanned ground, that's in the competitive process right now and how fast that comes along will be based on what we select and how mature they are. If you select a relatively mature unmanned ground or air you could [inaudible] time table different than the other one.
So when you get outside of manned ground vehicles we will allow the results of the competition throughout this summer and into the early fall. As we make those announcements you'll have a better idea, and I will too by the way, of when we'll see individual components available.
A: I would say this, that a lot of the things that have been proposed, several of us here have ridden in those, driven them, in some cases fired them. These things are real. We are well down the path, depending on what gets selected. But as important as it is as to when we start the various systems or subsystems associated with FCS, what's important is finishing together. That's what's unique about this program.
Heretofore we have always addressed things as a single system. A new airplane, a new helicopter, a new tank, a new artillery piece, but it's always been the eaches. And sometimes putting those eaches together and making them work, certainly we've been successful in doing it as the latest war in Iraq attests. But think of it. What a wonderful opportunity we have with a system of systems to focus in and build all of these piece parts and many more virtually simultaneously as far as the fielding goes. How that ties this together and playing off of each other, fitting it together not only inside the Army but also inside the joint arena.
If nothing else, just think of the commonality alone, by having common drive trains and common chassis and common components. Think what a burden that takes off of our really very over-burdened sustainment system now.
So I again go back to where I started. Starting is certainly important and our program managers will do that and do that well, but it's finishing together as a collective capability that's important as well.
Q: I just want to follow up real quick. This is a system of systems. It's going to have a common chassis, a common structure. When you first started out with the interim vehicles you had the infantry carrier first. Is it going to be similar to that? Will you start out with one vehicle and then build on the other ones?
A: It's a different tier, [inaudible], if I can [inaudible] design commonality in. Which one first? The mission package to go on top of a common platform [inaudible]. What we can design [inaudible] talking about manned systems up front, to make sure that we do job one, is the commonality piece, and then make sure that that commonality piece supports various missions. So that's how we've done it.
A: A big part of the commonality [inaudible] too much time talking about platforms, one or another, [inaudible] a fair piece of this [inaudible] network is going to be developed. Now a lot of that network resides on the platform and in the platform. [Inaudible] focal point capability derived from the networks that are being developed.
Q: To follow up on the vehicles, [inaudible] on the briefing [flights], how kind of firm are any of these features? For example I noticed some of the air transportability, several [inaudible] C-130, but some are actually listed as 20 tons or above. Are you starting to fall off the C-130 transportability with some of the variants?
A: We have not fallen off of the C-130 as being the [design train]. We are fine. Depending on what is selected, it may turn out that that context gives us other characteristics that we don't want.
We have a transportability and key performance parameters, and that's [inaudible] transportable, the units of action enabled by FCS will be transportable by all modes of transport. For the FCS portion, we're still using that as a design constraint [inaudible].
A: It's there. [Inaudible]. You've all been with me before on that question, [inaudible]. Other factors [inaudible] would require us [inaudible].
Q: [inaudible]
A: I think that as the new leadership comes on board, I mean obviously there will be a continuous assessment process that may or may not impact the current way that we're doing business right now. But I think it's only fair to say that the leadership as we go through these various changes, whether it's the next leadership or even the next one after it, I mean it's fair to say that their review process certainly may have some impact upon our current course.
If your question is, is it a 90 degree turn or are the course corrections made on the azimuth, it remains to be see.
I would say to you that there is an understanding today by all that the magnificent Army, and I guess I can say this for all the services that exist and is very effective in 2003, is not necessarily the issue that we're discussing. We're discussing 2010, 2015, 2020 and we want to make sure that those that sit in this room and interview with you all can make the same statement about their current Army. So that's what this is all about.
Will there be course corrections? Certainly. [Inaudible] to that.
A: We are at the tail end of the concept and development phase right now. We are entering the phase [inaudible] demonstration. There is plenty of time and latitude right now for new leadership to, once it's in place, take a look at this program, understand the program, and to have their fingerprints on this program. It's well within the boundaries of [inaudible]. And you would expect that and you would want it.
Q: [inaudible]
A: I think what you're saying is that like any program [inaudible] to a review. We have to have a baseline on which to make [inaudible] all aspects of this vehicle. Over a year ago we started to put together potentially what that baseline could be. As a result of that, [inaudible] we have [inaudible] right now a vehicle that is one point in space.
We have also as part of the tech base that will continue to support us refocused some efforts there that would give us a right way [inaudible] by December as a written assumption. So if we are proven wrong we have other off-ramps [inaudible]. Right now we have aligned the tech base program with this program with the assumption that by December we'll have a working prototype and we will continue to design [inaudible].
Q: [inaudible]
A: No, I don't think there's [inaudible] from any one person. We're taking the collective wisdom of people who work in the industry of [big guns] and lightweight platforms and have done an analysis to say what is the possibility and what is the risk. That analysis shows that it is doable [inaudible] technology [without any stretch] of going out, and that's why we have [selected] that task. The other thing you have to recognize is you go into a program like this, although 14-point-something billion, you still have to think about the other impacts. So [inaudible] other requirements -
A: - collaborative environment of which [inaudible] designed. It will revolutionalize the way we do business in the Army and Department of Defense, I believe. If you all have not been exposed to that environment, we're very [inaudible] done. We invite you to see it. It's being put in place as we speak. Many of these things are already working [inaudible].
Q: Talk about this $14.9 billion, who gets what. The Post last week said Boeing was being awarded a $14.9 billion contract. That clearly is not the case. Can you correct the record in terms of just roughly how much [inaudible] will get from the effort, how much Boeing may get versus its subcontractors -
A: I'll make a top level statement and Joe can talk about how that's split out.
First of all we don't exactly because it's still early in the program and we're in source selection evaluation right now. Traditionally under a prime subcontract it's something like 70 percent of the program dollars end up going to the subcontractors, not the so-called prime.
Now the LSI is not a prime in the traditional sense. We're not paying them, quite frankly we're not paying the LSI to manufacture things in the phase in which they believe and the Army agreed that Boeing is the number one or number two capability, we have procedures in place where they can submit [inaudible], and we have a different way of evaluating those.
Joe did you have something you want to add to that?
A: We have probably about [inaudible].
A: I think you have to understand that [inaudible] what is a lead systems integrator and what do you hold them responsible for? And General Caldwell hit it on the head. We're not looking for the LSI to manufacture unless they clearly are the best of industry. They're really to help us put together the best of the best and then integrate all of these capabilities into an FCS-equipped iterative action. Their success, from my point of view, will not be tied to the product. It will be tied to our ability, our being the government and our lead systems integrator's ability to build a capability that is truly integrated and does what the requirements document says that it's supposed to do. If we do this right, that's how they will make what is important to them, profit, on this endeavor.
A: If I can just add onto that, the process that we've had in place is a complete partnership between the Army and the LSI and I do think it's important here to differentiate between the LSI and Boeing as you put the question.
As the Army's LSI we work in partnership with them to develop the program, put in place the best of industry and bring them on board.
As General Caldwell mentioned, we're in the process of going through a source selection at the moment. We have 23 RFP packages that have been submitted to industry. They're responding to those. Approximately two-thirds of the contract value will be flowed through to those subcontractors. Again, as we get into the details of that, the specific numbers will become apparent. But we'll be working very closely with the Army to design a program to bring the best of industry on board, and our role as the LSI is to help coordinate that, integrate it, and make sure that all the pieces come together, from a total integrated system standpoint it all works together.
Q: At this point though you don't know what will flow to Boeing [inaudible].
A: No, sir. There's no hard numbers there yet. As we've said, we've just entered into the SDD phase. As General Riggs pointed out, this is the start of that phase. We're in the process of going through the source selection process currently. The Boeing Company along with the rest of industry has the opportunity to respond to those subcontracts. As the Army's LSI we are separate [from] that activity.
A: [inaudible] that is the program office. The program number normally consists of what industry provides and what other government requirements are there. For example, test [case]. There is money in there so that we can do the testing we have historically done on individual systems. Now we have to do it on individual [inaudible]. The number is not a number that goes [into three]. It is something less than that number that would go down. The number you've been floating is not in the review because we had to have an independent cost estimate put together for this increment one, what they believe it would cost. That's a requirement. So that is the number you're floating and it's made up of various elements one of which is a development of the [inaudible] and the capabilities we're talking about. And how we contract for that and test it is what that number equates to.
A: I guess this is a little bit different. It's probably hard to understand. We're - the government, the Army - is looking for a partnership to help us manage the complexity of this program. I would hope that Boeing would be competitive in their core competencies as well as the reset of industry, both American and off-shore. Because all we want is the best and we will ensure that we get the best.
Q: [inaudible] get a $15 billion contract -
A: It helps to understand the relationship which is what we're here for, to understand that relationship. I can appreciate what was written last week, but what we're trying to do is to clear it up at least a little bit.
Q: I was wondering if you gentlemen could help me understand the relationship with the rest of the Army programs, FCS, the [U of A], they're very fast-moving. They can be delivered very quickly. At the same time between 2008 and 2032 you're going to have Stryker combat brigades and the heavy forces. So what kind of money is going to have to flow into those programs to let them connect with the [inaudible]? Is that something you've looked at? Is that something you're working on? How are they all going to be used together?
A: - looked at that extensively and it's been a major part of getting prepared to go to the decision [meeting].
I don't know [inaudible] pictorial of that available to you, but the objective force at any point in time out there will be comprised of what it is. Some of it will be updated, the [inaudible] the last few years, the legacy force, what you saw fighting in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Pretty awesome stuff, by the way. The Stryker brigade combat teams are undergoing a certification right now. The first one to be ready to go here shortly. Other combinations and Special Operations are air mobile, air assault, [inaudible].
Over time as we develop and field these FCS-enabled units of action, those other forces will be converted and they will come out of the force and get some new capability.
We are changing at any point in time. But technically they're going to have to all begin to, they're going to have to be integrated operationally to provide capability tactically to the combatant commanders.
We've looked at how to do that, and that's why we require [inaudible] coordination levels above the [inaudible].
Q: In other words you're not talking about perhaps retrofitting some kind of piece of the network into these forces so you can maneuver them better?
A: Actually we are looking at that capability. We would be - It's the responsible thing to do. But the Army's S&T program is focused for the most part on objective force capability. Our program right now procures six units of action out in the 2015 timeframe. So six units of action is really a small part of the combat power, combat capability we have to provide to the combatant commanders.
So as we develop these capabilities, [fashion the] network portion of the capabilities, we are going to through our integrated effort put the appropriate amount of that capability into the combat power we would provide, be that heavy force, light force, etc.
A: And I know you know that this is a transformation over time. We use the word objective force to be a synonymous term with the future Army, and at any point on that equation in time you have a balance of forces that are there. Current forces, Stryker forces, as well as the Future Combat System equipped forces. So the point is we're balancing capabilities over time as well as balancing risk. That's very much an annual thing. It's very much an annual review to make sure based upon the potential adversaries that we have that we are in fact balancing that risk and those capabilities.
For instance, we have chosen a specific portion of the current force and we said we're going to make not modest but significant improvements of that capability in order to give it the punch that we need over time. Our Sunday punch if you will.
The interim force is a capabilities based risk reducer because it gets by many of the anti-access problems that we've been running into and provides us a whole new range of capabilities. The Stryker formation. Especially in urbanized areas in close terrain areas, while we're buying the time and resources to build the Future Combat System equipped capability.
So your question is very much into details, over time where do you stand question, but we've left none of the force uncovered. In other words we haven't mortgaged current force for future force. It's a balancing act over time.
Q: So the FCS is just one part of what the Army needs to spend to have a balanced force -
A: That's right. And ultimately the FCS pieces of it, as General Caldwell said, begins to take preeminence over the existing force or the current force as we go further down the road.
A: - technology is clearly focused on [inaudible] capability. That's where the bulk of our emphasis will be, and we will roll those capabilities into [inaudible].
A: I misspoke. I think rather than clear it up later I might as well do it now. The question was asked roughly what we intend to negotiate with the LSI. We intend to negotiate an agreement that has a value of roughly the value you read [inaudible]. That's because they are an LSI and our partner. How that flows down to the best of the best is I think what you're concerned with, and I can't break that out right now. That is a part of what we do.
So whoever he was, if we can grab him and make sure that he understands that that was a correct number. I misspoke.
A: And you all do understand the LSI is firewalled from Boeing which makes Boeing another competitor in the process along with everybody else.
A: But that number is different because you're not looking at them providing [inaudible]. You're looking at how they're executing that in partnership with the Army as the lead systems integrator.
A: That goes back to what I just said. I'm sorry. I misspoke. I wanted to clear up the record.
Q: I'm going to ask a very stupid question. If Boeing is part of LSI, how can they be firewalled if Boeing is going to be competing to perhaps build some of this stuff? How can you put Boeing in a lead position as part of the integration and yet keep them apart?
A: First of all, this is not a new, this is not [inaudible]. Teaming arrangements with [inaudible], teaming arrangements between domestic and international partners [inaudible]. So the processes and procedures to do that are not new. How well they're executed and enforced is another issue. [Inaudible] But in our agreement that we're operating under now and the one that we will sign when we negotiate the final details very explicitly lays out that. Also the [core] question, not [inaudible] the selection process takes place is very explicit in how [inaudible] come in, how they will be evaluated by the combination of the government and [inaudible].
Q: Did I misunderstand you? One of you said you expect some source selection to begin as early as this summer?
A: Source selection is going on right now.
Q: [Inaudible] Some of these -
A: - summer and then early fall.
A: [inaudible] by the end of this fiscal year.
A: The manned ground system that portion has already been laid out in an agreement between the [inaudible] and [inaudible]. It capitalizes on the intellectual knowledge and [inaudible] and the technology we already invested in the Crusader program and captured those efforts and many of those dollars, and probably moved it a couple of years downrange from where we would have otherwise been. That was definitely on the modeling simulation capability [inaudible]. We decided that program [inaudible].
Q: [inaudible] If there were companies [inaudible] perhaps [inaudible] the Army [inaudible]. What might be involved in that?
A: Let me make sure we're talking [inaudible]. We didn't want Boeing or SAIC or anybody else. We had a competitive process. It was a very competitive process. [Inaudible] of Boeing and SAIC [inaudible] based on their providing a better solution than what's before me [inaudible]. So yes [inaudible] teams a lot of experience in actually building a ground combat platform, what's not [inaudible]. However as I just got through saying for various reasons they are doing the initial design work that may lead to their producing a ground combat [inaudible].
I think as you look at the Future Combat System core program, the 18 systems plus the network plus the soldier, you might begin to answer your own question. It is more than just ground combat vehicles. It is more. Certainly an important part of it, but unmanned air, unmanned ground, sensors, the network, net fires, intelligent munitions, and it goes on and on and on. This is bigger than just replacing manned ground combat systems. So that actually may help you answer your own question as to why in the larger scheme.
I would also say to you all, transformation. Certainly a bumper sticker about everything from changing your hairdos to getting a new facelift. You're transforming. Everybody and everything seems to be transforming today. That's all well and good.
Army transformation actually has about 18 major areas that we're working very hard on. There's the personnel system, the sustainment system, our doctrine, our organization, certainly our materiel, our training, our soldier systems, our leader development, our facilities.
What kind of car - A Mazarati is what kind of car she drives. Who would want to take a Mazarati and just put it on a gravel road and run it up and down?
So we're also addressing the larger aspects of how do you change around future combat systems, equipped forces, in order to make sure that we've got the Army that's competent and capable to fit into the joint world for the solution sets that we're looking for the future as we understand them today.
So get interested in the larger aspects of transformation if you would, please, because there's lots and lots going on out there to change our structure and the way we organize, train and equip this force for the future.
Maj. Gen. Gottardi: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
