Issues Facing the Army's Future Combat Systems Program		 
(13-AUG-03, GAO-03-1010R).					 
                                                                 
Under its transformation efforts, the Army plans to change the	 
way it organizes, trains, deploys, and equips its forces. It	 
expects the future force to be organized around brigade-size	 
units that perform virtually all Army combat functions. The Army 
wants to fully equip these units with the Future Combat Systems  
(FCS), a family of 18 networked, warfighting systems which are	 
intended to be more lethal, survivable, deployable, and 	 
sustainable than existing heavy combat systems. In order to	 
deploy faster, the FCS vehicles are expected to be a fraction of 
the weight of existing heavy armored fighting vehicles. The Army 
believes that nontraditional fighting tactics coupled with an	 
extensive information network will compensate for the loss of	 
size and armor mass by utilizing information superiority and	 
synchronized operations to see, engage, and destroy the enemy	 
before the enemy detects the future forces. The Army has	 
allocated about $22 billion for the FCS program during fiscal	 
years 2004 through 2009 and several billions more for non-FCS	 
programs that the FCS will need to become fully capable. In	 
addition, the Army recently implemented FCS schedule changes,	 
which added about 2 years to the system development and 	 
demonstration (SDD) phase.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-1010R					        
    ACCNO:   A08038						        
  TITLE:     Issues Facing the Army's Future Combat Systems Program   
     DATE:   08/13/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Combat readiness					 
	     Defense capabilities				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic mobility forces				 
	     Army Future Combat Systems 			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-1010R

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548

August 13, 2003 The Honorable Curt Weldon Chairman The Honorable Neil
Abercrombie Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives

Subject: Issues Facing the Army*s Future Combat Systems Program In October
1999, the Army announced plans to transform into a more strategically
responsive force that could more rapidly deploy and effectively operate in
all types of military operations, whether small- scale contingencies or
major theater wars. The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is to provide
the suite of weaponry and other equipment for the transformed force. The
Army plans to develop a family of 18 systems under the FCS program.
Because of its size, the FCS program will dominate the Army*s investment
accounts over the next decade.

In July 2002, we began to review the FCS program as the program was
approaching a decision on whether to start the system development and
demonstration (SDD) phase* referred to as the milestone B decision. On
April 10, 2003, we briefed staff of the House Committee on Armed Services
on our work and provided a copy of the

briefing to the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We also
briefed Army and DOD officials associated with the FCS program. The
objectives of the briefing were to provide (1) an understanding of the
content, approach, and schedule of the FCS program; (2) observations on
both the positive and challenging features of the program; and (3)
different approaches to proceeding with FCS that warrant consideration.
The enclosure contains the briefing slides.

On May 17, 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics) approved the Army*s request to begin the SDD phase for the
FCS program. He directed the Army to perform a full milestone B update in
November 2004 to obtain authority to continue SDD and to authorize
prototype production. He also listed 14 actions items to be completed
prior to the milestone update.

We believe the issues raised in our briefing remain relevant as the FCS
program begins the SDD phase. Because of your committees* interest in the
FCS program, we

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 2 are enclosing the full briefing with
this report and summarizing it in the following

paragraphs.

Background

Under its transformation efforts, the Army plans to change the way it
organizes, trains, deploys, and equips its forces. It expects the future
force to be organized around brigade- size units that perform virtually
all Army combat functions. 1 The Army wants to fully equip these units
with FCS, a family of 18 networked, warfighting

systems which are intended to be more lethal, survivable, deployable, and
sustainable than existing heavy combat systems. In order to deploy faster,
the FCS vehicles are expected to be a fraction of the weight of existing
heavy armored fighting vehicles. The Army believes that nontraditional
fighting tactics coupled with an extensive information network will
compensate for the loss of size and armor mass by utilizing information
superiority and synchronized operations to see, engage, and destroy the
enemy before the enemy detects the future forces.

The Army has allocated about $22 billion for the FCS program during fiscal
years 2004 through 2009 and several billions more for non- FCS programs
that the FCS will need to become fully capable. In addition, the Army
recently implemented FCS schedule changes, which added about 2 years to
the SDD phase.

Features and Challenges of the FCS Concept

The FCS program has several progressive features, but also faces a number
of challenges. The FCS concept shows that the Army leadership is thinking
innovatively to arrive at the best ways to prepare for future Army
operations. For example, Army leaders decided to include interoperability
with other systems in the FCS design and design the individual FCS systems
to work as part of a networked system- of- systems. These features
represent an improvement over the past approach of developing individual
systems first and then attempting to integrate them later, an approach
that could lead to schedule and cost growth. The system- of- systems
approach also allows program managers more flexibility to make trade- offs
among the individual systems. Collectively, the system- of- systems could
still provide an effective combat capability even if some of the
individual system capabilities are lost or degraded. In addition, the Army
has adopted best practice tools to measure the progress of technology
development. For example, it is employing technology readiness levels to
measure the maturity of technologies being considered for FCS components.

The acquisition strategy for the FCS is aggressive, particularly in light
of the program*s vast scope. The SDD phase began with more risk present
than recommended by best practices or DOD guidance. For example, many
critical technologies were significantly immature and will require further
development at the same time as product development is conducted. This
concurrent development 1 According to Army planning documents, Special
Forces, Rangers, and airborne forces are the only combat formations that
will continue to perform their current missions and not be replaced in the
future force.

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 3 increases the risk of cost growth and
schedule delays. Since FCS will dominate the

Army*s investment accounts over the next decade, any cost growth and
schedule delays could affect the entire Army.

Even with the recent extension of SDD by about 2 years, the FCS strategy
calls for developing multiple systems and a network in less time than DOD
typically needs to develop a single advanced system. In addition, a
favorable decision to begin SDD on a system- of- systems like FCS poses
challenges for the acquisition process such as defining and evaluating
requirements, analyzing alternatives, estimating and tracking costs,
conducting test and evaluation, and conducting oversight.

Options for Proceeding with FCS

In our briefing, we noted that while proceeding with FCS as planned posed
significant challenges, doing nothing would not allow the Army to meet its
transformation objectives. Moreover, if each of the 18 FCS systems and the
network were managed as traditional, individual programs, it could weaken
the architecture and would amount to controlled evolution versus
transformation.

We offered three options for proceeding with FCS at lower risk. Each
option involves trade- offs or consequences, as indicated below.

Proposed Action Potential Consequences Further mature key technologies
before entering SDD.

Reduces risk and increases knowledge but could delay system integration
and fielding.

Use advanced technology demonstrations to mature key technologies.

Accelerates development of least mature and most complex technologies but
could delay fielding.

Approve FCS architecture while implementing a knowledge- based approach
for incorporating individual systems into SDD.

Provides a better fit with the acquisition process and more opportunity to
change course if planned progress is not made. Could increase the
difficulty of maintaining the integrity of the system of systems and
reduce flexibility to make decisions across system lines.

Agency Comments In early April 2003, we discussed a draft of the briefing
at length with Army and DOD officials and revised the briefing as
appropriate. We recently provided a draft of this

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 4 letter and enclosed briefing to DOD
for review and comment. In official oral

comments, DOD officials stated that there were no objections to the
content of the letter and briefing.

Scope and Methodology

We focused our assessment on the Army*s strategy for developing and
acquiring FCS and compared it with knowledge- based acquisition
principles. Specifically, we examined (1) the technologies the Army has
proposed for FCS and (2) the challenges associated with developing a
complex system- of- systems. We reviewed relevant program documents and
interviewed key officials to understand the FCS concept and determine the
Army*s strategy for developing and acquiring FCS. We met with officials
from the research and development commands to identify key technologies
the Army is considering for use in FCS. 2 We conducted our work from July
2002 to June 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

We plan to provide copies of this report to the Senate Armed Services
Committee; the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Defense; and the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Defense. We also will provide copies to the Director, Office of Management
and Budget; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretary of the Army. We
will make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512- 2811; or Bill Graveline, Assistant Director, on
(256) 922- 7514. Major contributors to this correspondence are John David
Anderson, Marcus Ferguson, Lawrence Gaston, Thomas Gordon, and William
Lipscomb.

Paul L. Francis Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Enclosure 2 On April 28, 2003, the Institute for Defense Analysis issued a
draft report of the Independent Assessment Panel for Future Combat
Systems, called the Welch Report. We could not include information from
that report in our briefing of April 10, 2003. The report, however, is
being considered in our ongoing work regarding FCS.

Enclosure Enclosure 5 GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 1

Future Combat Systems

Briefing by GAO April 2003

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 6

2

Briefing Structure

* Understanding Future Combat Systems (FCS)  Criteria For Knowledge-
Based Acquisitions  FCS Technologies  Schedule for FCS Increment 1  FCS
Affordability

 FCS Program Review  Observations  Options

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 7

3

Army Transformation

 Army is radically transforming its combat capabilities including
culture, doctrine, personnel, training, and weapon systems. This
transformation is predicated on Army Visions and Concepts, new unit
designs, etc.

 Army wants a force, called the Objective Force, that is agile, flexible,
deployable, and mobile, yet as tough as the current heavy force. Its basic
combat unit will be the Unit of Action.

 The Objective Force means more than different equipment and
organizations* for example, it means delegating decision- making authority
to commanders close to the action.

 The FCS acquisition program will provide most of the combat systems to
equip the Objective Force.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 8

4

Transformation Demands of FCS

 To meet the needs of transformation, FCS must be:  Lethal * equal to
the current heavy force.  Survivable * equal to the current heavy force.
 Deployable * within days, not months.  Sustainable * immediately and
with a small logistical footprint.  FCS is expected to be a system of
systems featuring advanced,

networked air- and ground- based maneuver, maneuver- support, and
sustainment systems that will include manned and unmanned platforms.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 9

5

General Description

 The smaller, lighter systems that enhance deployability will have to do
the work of heavy systems. This requires:  New technologies that give
conventional systems more

capability (e. g., armor, munitions, and propulsion).  New technologies
that provide unconventional capabilities (e. g., unmanned sensors,
robotics).

 A command, control, communications, computer, intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance (C4ISR) network that substitutes information
superiority and synchronized operations for mass and makes for a system of
systems whose whole is greater than the sum

of its parts. Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 10

6

Key Features of FCS

 FCS depends on light systems so they can deploy anywhere in the world
quickly.

 FCS systems are to roll off combat ready and self- sustaining for 3 to 7
days.

 Once deployed, the FCS will need to fight in nontraditional ways to be
successful.

 The Network will be used to gain informational superiority, locate and
identify the enemy, and kill at a distance before the enemy can engage the
manned FCS systems.

 FCS is expected to use advanced signature management and other
techniques to avoid detection and advanced armors to survive the
engagement if the enemy systems approach within direct fire range.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 11

7

FCS Acquisition Strategy

 Eventually replace all the heavy and interim combat units with the FCS-
equipped objective force units.

 Evolutionary acquisition focused on providing warfighters with an
initial capability which can be delivered sooner than an ultimate
capability.

 Incremental or block approach using spiral development to reach full
requirements.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 12

8

FCS Acquisition Strategy (cont.)

 Collaborative effort involving user, developer, testers, and industry in
Integrated Product Teams (IPTs).

 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency lead agency in Concept and
Technology Development (CTD) phase. Army will be the lead agency during
the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase.

 Competitively selected Lead System Integrator (LSI) is responsible
during CTD for identifying possible FCS technologies, performing trade
studies, and developing a FCS system of systems architecture. LSI to
continue during SDD.

 Program documents are being concurrently developed for the upcoming
milestone B decision point (Operational Requirements Document, Analysis of
Alternatives, Baseline Cost Analysis).

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 13

9

FCS Key Performance Parameters

 Operational Requirements Document for FCS increment 1 dated January 22,
2003 is under review by Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

 Operational Requirements Document contains seven Key Performance
Parameters.  Joint interoperability  Networked battle command 
Networked lethality  Transportability  Survivability  Sustainability
and reliability  Training

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 14

10

FCS Increment 1 Concept

 Increment 1 of the FCS system of systems includes 18 direct systems plus
the network.  FCS platforms will be networked via a joint C4ISR
architecture to

enable levels of situational understanding and synchronized operations
heretofore unachievable.

 Complementary systems are needed to provide capabilities to the Unit of
Action and will have to stay synchronized with the FCS program.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 15

11

Increment 1: 18 Direct FCS Systems

Manned Systems

 Command and Control Vehicle  Infantry Carrier Vehicle  Mounted Combat
System  Non Line of Sight - Cannon  Non Line of Sight - Mortar 
Reconnaissance and

Surveillance Vehicle  FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle

 Medical Vehicle Unmanned Systems

 4 types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles classed by size

 3 types of Unmanned Ground Vehicles

 Armed Robotic Vehicle  Multi- Function Utility/ Logistics

Equipment Vehicle  Small Unmanned Ground

Vehicle  Unattended Ground Sensors  Intelligent Munition System  Non-
Line of Sight Launch System

A Unit of Action will need 690 direct FCS systems.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 16

12

Network Concept

 The Network is envisioned as a voice, data, and video communication,
command, and intelligence system linking the unit commander and all levels
within the unit of action including the individual vehicles and dismounted
soldiers with:

 All sources of intelligence including unattended ground sensors,
dismounted soldiers, ground vehicles, aircraft, and space satellites.

 All sources of combat firepower including systems both inside and
outside the unit regardless of the services that owns them.  Members of
the Joint, Interagency and/ or Multinational Coalition forces.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 17

13

Network Concept (cont.)

The FCS network will require  Obtaining and fusing imagery and other data
from National and

commercial assets (e. g. satellites), Army assets both within the unit of
action and above the unit of action, and other services assets.

 Developing and networking unit of action assets such as unmanned aerial
and ground vehicles, unmanned ground sensors, dismounted soldiers, and
manned FCS vehicles.  Interoperability with the current Army radios and
those of joint

and multinational coalitions.  Access to and management of bandwidth to
transfer vast amounts of information.

 Two complementary programs-- Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and
Warfighter Information Network * Tactical (WIN- T) are expected to enable
the interoperability and increases in bandwidth.

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 18

14

Understanding FCS * The Network

*UE *Joint Force *Inter- Agency *Multinational Force

*UA *FCS

JTRS Network ISR Assets

*JSTARS

ISR Assets

*TES Fire Assets

*IDM

Fire Assets

Legacy Army

*ABCS

Stryker

*ABCS

HSOC JTF

*ADSI *JWARN *JDISS *DCGS *GCCS

FTTS Soldier

+ Med HQ

*TMIP/ MC4 Battle

Command System RAH- 66

*IDM

Manned Platforms UAVs Unmanned Ground Vehicles

WIN- T Network GCSS- A Host Nation

*Air traffic control SOF

*JSOF C2 GIG

*NIPRNET *SIPRNET *TIBS

*TRAP *TRIXS

ISR Assets

*DCGS- A AH- 64

*IDM

Comm Asset

*GIG teleport

*DSN *DRSN

DoS Country

teams C2V

*JWICS

Fire Assets

*HIMARS *GCCS- M

MV Med Co Comm Assets

*MILSTAR *IBS/ GBS ISR Assets

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 19

15

Examples of Complementary Systems

 Comanche Helicopter  High Mobility Artillery Rocket System

 Engineer Vehicle  Future Tactical Truck System  Theater Support
Vehicle  Combined Arms/ Psychological Operations Vehicle

 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Response System

 Common Missile  Aerial Common Sensor

JTRS WIN- T  Distributed Common Ground System * Army

 Army Airborne Command and Control System

 Technical Enhancement Program

 Prophet (signal intelligence)  Multi- Mission Radar  Land Warrior
Block II

Understanding FCS

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 20

16  Separate technology development from product development.

 Match user needs with developer*s resources by milestone B (Indicator:
Technology readiness).

 Demonstrate design stability by Critical Design Review (CDR) (Indicator:
percent of drawings releasable to manufacturing).

 Demonstrate production process maturity before manufacturing articles
are ready for delivery to the customer.

 Endorsed by Defense Acquisition policies.

Criteria For Knowledge- Based Acquisition

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 21

17  Experience has shown that programs with technologies

that reach high maturity levels at product launch were better able to meet
cost, schedule, and performance requirements.  Experience also indicates
that programs that proceed

with immature technologies encounter significant cost growth and schedule
slippage.  The acquisition process puts pressure on programs to accept
immature technologies and to make optimistic assumptions about product
development.

Criteria For Knowledge- Based Acquisition

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 22

18

FCS Increment 1 Still Being Defined

 Army has defined the system of systems architecture and concept, but the
individual systems are expected to evolve during SDD:

 Complete system definitions have been put off at least until the
preliminary design review scheduled for fiscal year 2005 or perhaps until
critical design review in fiscal year 2006.

 If some technologies do not work out, the Army plans to work with the
user community to modify the current requirements, and pursue the
technology in a later phase of the program.  The Army plans to continue
to mature technologies during SDD and

spiral them into the system of systems when they become mature. Thus, the
composition of the system of systems and the design of the individual
systems will change throughout SDD.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 23

19

Design Concept Must Balance Tensions

 Small and light systems are key to meeting deployability requirements
but meeting the survivability and lethality requirements puts pressure on
size and weight of the systems.

 Sensors, sensor fusion, relays, and data flow are critical to lethality
and survivability. System of systems performance will be sensitive to
degradation in these areas.

 Technical sophistication is needed to deliver performance
characteristics but has to be balanced with high reliability,
maintainability, and sustainability.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 24

20

Technical Assessment Used Good Processes

 The Science and Technology IPT identified and assessed 31 critical FCS
technology areas that, if not available, would result in significant
degradation of Unit of Action effectiveness.

 The assessment process:  Used approved criteria* Technical Readiness
Levels

(TRLs).  Was transparent.  Was a clear confrontation of technical
challenges.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 25

21

Many Key Technologies Not Mature

 The maturity assessment of the 31 critical FCS technology areas showed:
 7 were at TRL 6 (or had funded SDD program)  10 were between TRL 5 and
6  10 were at TRL 5  4 were at less than TRL 5  22 required risk
mitigation plans

 These scores were based on the assessed maturity of underlying
technologies and their readiness for FCS applications. FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 26

22

Independent Technology Assessment

 Validated the IPT technology maturity assessment.  Reviewed the FCS
program*s risk mitigation plans.  Concluded that:

 TRLs support entry into SDD for FCS Increment 1 in May 2003 and  Risk
mitigation strategies are reasonable.

 Army drew on very senior and experienced individuals to make these
judgments.

 Although the Army concluded that the TRLs supported entry into SDD, most
technologies are at TRL levels considered immature by best practice
standards.

 FCS expected to present a major technology integration challenge.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 27

23

MS C IOC (Threshold) DAB IPR

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MS B

System Development & Demonstration Concept

and Technology Demos

Final Prototype CTD Award SoS

CDR

30

SoS PDR

DAB IPR

Note: calendar year shown # Critical Technology Number

Low Rate Initial Production 27

28 11

20 15

16a 12

24 25

29 31

2 7 10

8 6 4

1 19

13 5 23

18 3

26 22 17

21 9

14 CTs after PDR 30

15 7 18 3 Network Security

Wideband Waveforms Dual Mode Seeker

Precision Munitions Manned/ Unmanned Collaborations Countermine 15

Army Assessment of FCS Critical Technology Readiness

FCS Technologies

DAB IPR

Source: U. S. Army.

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 28

24

Network Technology Challenges

 Development of these capabilities will require:  Full time unmanned air
vehicle to provide relays.  Wideband waveform from the JTRS to provide
necessary

bandwidth. (Alternatively, the FCS program is working on means to better
manage available bandwidth.)

 Availability of FCS version of JTRS in fiscal year 2007.  Significant
software development effort.  Sensor/ data fusion and other algorithms. 
If the network capability falls below critical mass (yet to be defined),
the lethality and survivability of the unit of action will be reduced.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 29

25

Lethality Technology Challenges

 FCS must achieve a high kill- per- round- fired ratio and at greater
ranges to achieve its lethality goal. The FCS will use networked fires and
advanced precision weapons to achieve its goal.

 Traditional delivery systems, including cannons and howitzers, mounted
on 16 to 20- ton platforms present physics challenges (i. e. shock
impact).

 Lightweight 120 mm cannon development is not yet at TRL 5.  Advanced
precision weapons including Common Missile, Compact Kinetic

Energy Missile, Loiter and Precision Attack Missiles, precision mortar
round are not yet mature.

 The FCS lethality goal also depends upon:.  Network*s ability to locate
and identify targets and communicate to the

shooter in real time.  Automatic Target Recognition.  Sensor- Shooter
Algorithms and Fire Control.  Rapid battle damage assessment.  Lethality
affects the amount of munitions that must be carried by FCS

which in turn affects FCS*s sustainability and deployability.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 30

26

Survivability Technology Challenges

 FCS manned system survivability is dependent on its ability to detect
and kill the enemy beyond direct combat range, to avoid detection if the
enemy approaches within direct combat range, and to survive the first shot
if the enemy engages the FCS system.

 Killing the enemy first depends on achieving the FCS*s lethality as
discussed on the previous slide.

 Avoiding detection depends on vehicle*s signature management and the
ability of the network to tell FCS systems precisely where the enemy is
before the enemy detects FCS.

 Surviving the first shot depends on robust ballistic armor, active
protection system, electronic armor, and other means.

 Each presents technical challenges and could make reaching other goals
(like high reliability) more difficult.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 31

27

Sustainment Technology Challenges

 To achieve its self- sustainment and logistics footprint reduction
requirements, the FCS will need to:

 Obtain very high levels of reliability and maintainability by: 
Developing robust, simple FCS designs despite high

complexity of the FCS concept and the use of advanced technologies in the
designs.  Achieving advances in embedded prognostics and

diagnostics systems.  Emphasize the use of common subsystems and
components.

 Achieve its high kill- per- round- fired goals.  Develop a robust real
time battlefield damage assessment

system.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 32

28

Other Technology Challenges

 Other critical technologies that are not yet mature include:  High-
power density/ Fuel efficient propulsion.  Semi- autonomous Unmanned
Ground Vehicles.  Water purification and generation.  Hybrid electric
power systems.

FCS Technologies

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 33

29

Program Schedule

FY00 FY00- -03 03 FY04 FY04 FY05 FY05 FY06 FY06 FY07 FY07 FY08 FY08 FY09
FY09 FY10 FY10 FY11 FY11 FY12 FY12 FY13 FY13 FY14 FY14 FY15 FY15- -18 18

System Development

& Demo Production & Deployment B C

System Integration System Demo Full- Rate Prod & Deployment

Systems of Systems Critical Design

Review 3 nd Qtr. 2006

Full Rate Production Decision

Review 3 rd Qtr.

2013 Con

& Tech

Dev

LRIP

System of Systems Preliminary Design Review 1 st Qtr. 2005

56- month SDD schedule driven by FCS Increment 1 Initial and Full
Operational Capability dates in fiscal years 2011 and 2013.

Schedule for FCS Increment1

Milestone B May 2003 Milestone C

2 nd Qtr. 2008

Initial Operational Capability 1 st Qtr. 2011

Full Operational Capability 1 st Qtr. 2013

Source: GAO analysis of U. S. Army data.

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 34

30

SDD Schedule Extended

 Approximately two years added between Milestones B and C.  First unit
equipped date of fiscal year 2008 has been dropped.

 Initial operational capability is to be achieved in fiscal year 2011
with less ambitious FCS unit:  Includes combination of FCS and legacy
units, not a unit of action.  Could use *in lieu of* vehicles.

 Full operational capability date extended to fiscal year 2013.

Schedule for FCS Increment 1

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 35

31

Recent Changes Improve SDD Schedule March 2003 Schedule

 Prototype assembly to start within 3 to 5 months of start of SDD. 
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) to occur within 8 to 9 months of SDD

start.  CDR to occur within 21 months of start

of SDD.  Long lead item procurement to start within 26 months of SDD
start* within 5 months after CDR* and with the benefit of only limited
prototype

testing.  Not all FCS systems will be prototyped before production
decision.

Schedule for FCS Increment 1

April 2003 Schedule

 Prototype assembly to start within 28 months of start of SDD. 
Preliminary Design Review to occur within 18 months of SDD start.  CDR to
occur within 36 months of start of SDD.  Long lead item procurement to
start

within 45 months of SDD start* within 12 months after CDR* and with the
benefit of only limited prototype testing.

 Need more information on FCS systems to be prototyped.

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 36

32

Revised Schedule More Executable But Still Aggressive

 SDD increased by two years.  More knowledge demonstrated by PDR and
CDR.  *Offramps* added in form of Defense Acquisition Board in- process
reviews.

 Smaller initial operational capability unit makes SDD scope more
manageable.

 Completion of technology development, system development and
integration, network integration, and system of systems integration still
must occur within five years.

Schedule for FCS Increment 1

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 37

33

Funding and Affordability

 Army cost estimate is complete and the Cost Analysis Improvement Group*s
independent review is underway.

 Cost estimates need to accurately account for significant scope and
unknowns.

 If the FCS cost estimate is not more realistic than estimates for past
programs, impact on the Army*s budget could be serious.

 Army has allocated about $22 billion for FCS during fiscal years 2004 to
2009 and several additional billion for complementary programs.

 Recent schedule changes and program re- scoping were made to address
near term affordability issues. Army plans to address remaining near term
affordability issues in budget drills later this year.

 More details needed on Increment 1 content under revised program plans.

 Significant funding increases required in years beyond the current
Future Years Defense Program period.

FCS Affordability

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 38

34

Welch Panel to Review FCS and Transformation

 Confirm that the currently defined program of the Objective Force and
FCS components is on course to deliver, in successive increments, the
needed capability to combatant commanders for future operations.

 Confirm that the current and planned management structure can begin to
deliver the 1 st Increment of this force by dates planned under recently
revised program.  Study completed and results provided to the Army on

April 28, 2003.

FCS Program Review

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 39

35  Overall, the FCS concept shows progressive thinking on the part of
the

Army, particularly regarding the architecture, but SDD slated to start
with more risk than recommended by best practices or DOD guidance. The
Army*s recent schedule changes improve the program*s executability but the
acquisition strategy is still aggressive.

Positive features of FCS:

 Army leadership is thinking about the best ways to prepare for future
conflicts and is thinking unconventionally.

 The architecture FCS provides will leverage individual capabilities and
will facilitate interoperability and open systems. This is a significant
improvement over the traditional approach of building superior individual
weapons that must be netted together after the fact.

 System of systems will give managers flexibility to make tradeoffs
across traditional program lines for best value.

 FCS is more like a community than an individual, so that a problem in
one element does not necessarily spell disaster for the community. This
gives the FCS design an inherent ability for graceful degradation.

Observations

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 40

36  Good processes were used for the user/ developer interface and the

technology maturity assessments. In particular, the technical challenges
the Army faces have been clearly delineated by the technology maturity
assessments.

 Substantial involvement of Science and Technology community should
significantly facilitate handoff of technologies from technology base to
program office.

 The Army plans to use good measures like technology readiness levels,
engineering and manufacturing readiness levels, production readiness
levels, drawing releases, and statistical process control.

 Many FCS efforts will have residual/ transferable benefits for the
legacy force.

 The Army is willing to make tradeoffs to fund FCS.  Setting
sustainability as a design characteristic equal to lethality and

survivability is a best practice.

Observations

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 41

37

Concerns About the FCS Approach:

 The FCS strategy challenges performance of past programs and best
practices. Significant improvements in how technology development and
system design and integration progress, and improvements in cost
estimating are necessary for success.

 Many critical technologies will not be mature at Milestone B, thus
technology development and product development will occur concurrently.
This increases the risk of experiencing cost growth and

schedule delays on the order of past programs. The cost of delays in SDD
could be significant given the scope of FCS.  Even with a longer
schedule, SDD is still a significant challenge for such a vast scope*
completion of technology development, design

and demonstration of individual systems, design and demonstration of the
network, and design and demonstration of the system of systems. The SDD
strategy calls for developing multiple systems and a network within a
period of time that DOD typically needs to develop a single advanced
system.

Observations

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 42

38  While FCS provides for graceful degradation, increment 1 must

reach a critical mass to demonstrate a viable capability* it is not enough
to be more deployable and sustainable than the heavy force and more lethal
and survivable than the light force. It must be as capable as the heavy
force. Such critical mass is synergydependent and will not be demonstrated
until late in SDD.

 Making a Milestone B decision on a system of systems like FCS poses
challenges for the acquisition process in terms of the magnitude of the
decision, defining and evaluating requirements, analyzing alternatives,
conducting test and evaluation, estimating and tracking costs, and
conducting oversight.

 If the Milestone B decision on FCS is viewed as a referendum on
transformation, it will detract from its proper focus as an acquisition
decision that must be based on a business case.

Observations

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 43

39 Decision makers must decide on how best to proceed.

 Proceeding as planned has significant challenges as noted above.  Doing
nothing is not acceptable in light of the Army*s transformation

objectives.  Putting each of the 18 FCS systems plus the network
individually

through the current acquisition process could weaken the architecture and
would amount to controlled evolution versus transformation.

Considerations for Proceeding

Enclosure Enclosure

GAO- 03- 1010R FCS Program Issues 44 (120258)

40 The Army*s case for proceeding as planned has compelling arguments, but
is it the only

acceptable way to develop FCS? Are there other ways to facilitate the
realization of FCS capabilities without taking undue risks? If so, they
should be considered and their pros and cons weighed. For example,

 Accelerate maturity of key technologies before holding Milestone B.

Pros: Lower technology risk, higher knowledge level at Milestone B.

Cons: SDD system level activities like systems engineering and system
integration will be delayed, delaying fielding of FCS.

 Use mechanisms like Advance Technology Demonstrations to accelerate the
maturation of FCS *long poles* like the network before Milestone B. Pros:
Lower technology and integration risk for network, higher knowledge level
at Milestone B.

Cons: Pace of direct systems may be slowed and other SDD system level
activities will be delayed, delaying fielding of FCS.

 After vetting and approving an FCS architecture, construct a
streamlined* but knowledgebased* process for putting the entry of
individual systems into SDD. Pros: Better fit with the acquisition process
without paying the price of 19 separate processes; more opportunity for
*off ramps* if planned progress is not made.

Cons: Increases the difficulty of maintaining the integrity of the system
of systems and could reduce flexibility to make decisions across system
lines and take advantage of graceful degradation.

Considerations for Proceeding

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies
of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO s Web site ( www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list,
known as Today s Reports, on its Web site daily. The list contains links
to the full- text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you
every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select Subscribe to e- mail
alerts under the Order GAO Products heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $ 2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: ( 202) 512- 6000 TDD: ( 202) 512- 2537 Fax: (
202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: ( 800) 424- 5454 or ( 202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov ( 202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548 Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse in Federal Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***