    Defense Acquisitions: 2009 Is a Critical Juncture for the Army's
    Future Combat System (07-MAR-08, GAO-08-408).

    The Future Combat System (FCS) program--which comprises 14
    integrated weapon systems and an advanced information network--is
    the centerpiece of the Army's effort to transition to a lighter,
    more agile, and more capable combat force. The substantial
    technical challenges, the Army's acquisition strategy, and the
    cost of the program are among the reasons why the program is
    recognized as needing special oversight and review. Section 211
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
    requires GAO to report annually on the FCS program. This report
    includes an examination of (1) how the definition, development,
    and demonstration of FCS capabilities are proceeding,
    particularly in light of the go/no-go decision scheduled for
    2009; (2) the Army's plans for making production commitments for
    FCS and any risks related to the completion of development; and
    (3) the estimated costs for developing and producing FCS.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-408
        ACCNO:   A81262
      TITLE:     Defense Acquisitions: 2009 Is a Critical Juncture for the
    Army's Future Combat System
         DATE:   03/07/2008
      SUBJECT:   Combat readiness
    	     Cost analysis
    	     Cost overruns
    	     Defense budgets
    	     Defense capabilities
    	     Defense cost control
    	     Developmental testing
    	     Military budgets
    	     Military technology
    	     Operational testing
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Requirements definition
    	     Risk management
    	     Schedule slippages
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Systems integration
    	     Systems testing
    	     Technology assessment
    	     Weapons
    	     Weapons research and development
    	     Weapons systems
    	     Cost estimates
    	     Program implementation
    	     Program costs
    	     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-08-408

    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. 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.

    Report to Congressional Committees:

    United States Government Accountability Office:
    GAO:

    March 2008:

    Defense Acquisitions:

    2009 Is a Critical Juncture for the Army's Future Combat System:

    GAO-08-408:

    GAO Highlights:

    Highlights of GAO-08-408, a report to congressional committees.

    Why GAO Did This Study:

    The Future Combat System (FCS) program�which comprises 14 integrated
    weapon systems and an advanced information network�is the centerpiece
    of the Army�s effort to transition to a lighter, more agile, and more
    capable combat force. The substantial technical challenges, the Army�s
    acquisition strategy, and the cost of the program are among the reasons
    why the program is recognized as needing special oversight and review.
    Section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2006 requires GAO to report annually on the FCS program. This report
    includes an examination of (1) how the definition, development, and
    demonstration of FCS capabilities are proceeding, particularly in light
    of the go/no-go decision scheduled for 2009; (2) the Army�s plans for
    making production commitments for FCS and any risks related to the
    completion of development; and (3) the estimated costs for developing
    and producing FCS.

    What GAO Found:

    The progress made during the year by the FCS program, in terms of
    knowledge gained, is commensurate with a program in early development.
    Yet, the knowledge demonstrated thus far is well short of a program
    halfway through its development schedule and its budget. This portends
    additional cost increases and delays as FCS begins what is
    traditionally the most expensive and problematic phase of development.
    Thus, FCS�s demonstrated performance, as well as the reasonableness of
    its remaining resources, will be paramount at the 2009 milestone review
    for the FCS program. In the key areas of defining and developing FCS
    capabilities, requirements definition and preliminary designs are
    proceeding but not yet complete; critical technologies are immature;
    complementary programs are not yet synchronized; and the remaining
    acquisition strategy is very ambitious.

    Beginning in 2008, the Army plans to make a series of commitments to
    produce FCS-related systems in advance of the low-rate production
    decision for the FCS core program in 2013. In general, production
    commitments are planned before key information is available. In 2008
    and 2009, the Army plans to begin funding production of the first of
    three planned spin outs of FCS technologies to current forces. However,
    its commitment to the first spin out may be made before testing is
    complete. Also starting in 2008, the Army intends to commit to
    production of early versions of the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon. This
    commitment is being made to respond to congressional direction to field
    the cannon. FCS technologies, network, and designs are not yet mature
    enough for production, and thus the cannons produced will not be
    deployable without significant modifications. Advance procurement
    funding for the first full suite of FCS systems will begin in fiscal
    year 2011, the budget for which will be presented to Congress in
    February 2010�less than a year after the milestone review and before
    the stability of the FCS design is assessed at the critical design
    review. In addition, the Army plans to commit to using Boeing, its lead
    system integrator, for the early production of FCS systems through the
    initial production phase of the FCS system of systems. By the time of
    the production decision in 2013, $39 billion will have already been
    invested in FCS, with another $8 billion requested. Thus, while
    demonstration of the FCS�s capability falls late in the schedule,
    commitments to production are likely to come early�an untenable
    situation for decision makers.

    The Army�s $160.9 billion cost estimate for the FCS program is largely
    the same as last year�s but yields less content as the number of FCS
    systems has since been reduced from 18 to 14. There is not a firm
    foundation of knowledge for a confident cost estimate. Also, two
    independent cost assessments are significantly higher than the Army�s
    estimate. However, the Army maintains that it will further reduce FCS
    content to stay within its development cost ceiling. Should the higher
    cost estimates prove correct, it seems unlikely that the Army could
    reduce FCS content enough to stay within the current funding
    constraints while still delivering a capability that meets
    requirements.

    What GAO Recommends:

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense: establish criteria that
    the FCS program will have to meet in the 2009 milestone review in order
    to justify continuation; identify viable alternatives to FCS; and take
    other actions. DOD concurred with GAO�s recommendations.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    [hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-408]. For more information, contact Paul
    Francis at (202) 512-4841 or francisp@gao.gov.

    [End of section]

    Contents:

    Letter:

    Results in Brief:

    Background:

    Knowledge Has Been Gained on FCS Definition, Development, and
    Demonstration but Falls Well Short for a Program at Midpoint:

    Production Commitments Are Planned to Be Made Early Despite Late
    Demonstration of FCS Capabilities:

    FCS Costs Likely to Be Higher Than Current Army Estimate:

    Conclusions:

    Recommendations for Executive Action:

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:

    Appendix III: Technology Readiness Levels:

    Appendix IV: FCS Critical Technology Ratings and Projections for
    Achieving TRL 6:

    Appendix V: Annual and Cumulative FCS Research and Development Funding
    and Planned Events and Achievements:

    Related GAO Products:

    Tables:

    Table 1: FCS Critical Technology Maturation--Actual and Projected:

    Table 2: Key FCS Test Event Schedule:

    Table 3: Comparison of the Original Cost Estimate and Recent Cost
    Estimates for the FCS Program (in billions of dollars):

    Table 4: FCS Procurement Funding through 2013:

    Figures:

    Figure 1: FCS's Core Systems:

    Figure 2: Flow and Number of FCS Requirements:

    Figure 3: Comparison of TRL 6 Projections:

    Figure 4: Differences between Best Practices Acquisition Approach and
    FCS Approach:

    Figure 5: FCS Knowledge Gaps:

    Figure 6: NLOS-C versus Core FCS Procurement Schedule:

    Figure 7: Cumulative FCS Research and Development Funding and Key
    Events:

    Figure 8: FCS Research and Development and Procurement Funding Profile
    from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2030:

    Abbreviations:

    APS: active protection system:

    CAIG: Cost Analysis Improvement Group:

    CDR critical design review:

    DOD: Department of Defense:

    FCS: Future Combat System:

    RMV: FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle:

    FRP: full-rate production:

    GAO: Government Accountability Office:

    IDA: Institute for Defense Analyses:

    JTRS: Joint Tactical Radio System:

    KP1: knowledge point 1:

    KP2: knowledge point 2:

    KP3: knowledge point 3:

    LSI: lead system integrator:

    LRIP: low-rate initial production:

    NLOS-C: Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon:

    NLOS-LS: Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System:

    NLOS-M: Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar:

    PDR: preliminary design review:

    R&D: research and development:

    SOSCOE: system-of-systems common operating environment:

    TRL: technology readiness level:

    UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle:

    WIN-T: Warfighter Information Network-Tactical:

    [End of section]

    United States Government Accountability Office:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    March 7, 2008:

    Congressional Committees:

    The Future Combat System (FCS) program--which comprises 14 integrated
    weapon systems and an advanced information network needed for a brigade
    combat team--is the centerpiece of the Army's efforts to transition to
    a lighter, more agile, and more capable combat force and, according to
    the Army, the greatest technology and integration challenge it has ever
    undertaken. The Army seeks to develop and then integrate dozens of new
    technologies in the FCS program and ultimately create a force in which
    people, platforms, weapons, and sensors are linked seamlessly together
    in a system of systems.

    The Army started the FCS program in May 2003 before defining what the
    systems were going to be required to do and how they would interact.
    The Army moved ahead without determining whether the concept could be
    successfully developed with existing resources--without proven
    technologies, a stable design, and available funding and time. The Army
    projects the FCS program will cost $160.9 billion, which does not
    include all the costs to the Army, such as complementary programs. The
    Army is using a unique partner-like arrangement with a lead system
    integrator (LSI), Boeing, to manage and produce the FCS. For these and
    other reasons, the program is recognized as being high risk and needing
    special oversight. Accordingly, in 2006, Congress mandated that the
    Department of Defense (DOD) hold an FCS milestone review following the
    FCS preliminary design review, which is now scheduled for February
    2009.[Footnote 1] Congress directed that the review include an
    assessment of whether (1) the needs are valid and can be best met with
    the FCS concept, (2) the FCS program can be developed and produced
    within existing resources, and (3) the program should continue as
    currently structured, be restructured, or be terminated. Congress
    required the Secretary of Defense to review and report on specific
    aspects of the program, including the maturity of critical
    technologies, program risks, demonstrations of the FCS concept and
    software, and a cost estimate and affordability assessment.

    Given its cost, scope, and technical challenges, section 211 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 requires GAO to
    report annually on the FCS program.[Footnote 2] The specific objectives
    of this report are to address (1) how the definition, development, and
    demonstration of FCS capabilities are proceeding, particularly in light
    of the go/no-go decision scheduled for 2009; (2) the Army's plans for
    making production commitments for FCS and any risks related to
    completing development; and (3) the estimated costs for developing and
    producing FCS and risks the Army faces in both meeting the estimate and
    providing commensurate funding. We are issuing a second report to
    address FCS network and software development.[Footnote 3]

    In conducting our work, we have contacted numerous DOD and Army
    offices. We reviewed documents pertaining to the FCS program, including
    the Operational Requirements Document, the Acquisition Strategy Report,
    technology assessments, and modeling and simulation results; attended
    meetings at which DOD and Army officials reviewed program progress; and
    held discussions with key DOD and Army officials on various aspects of
    the program. Officials from DOD and the Army have provided us access to
    sufficient information to make informed judgments on the matters in
    this report. In addition, we drew from our body of past work on weapon
    systems acquisition practices. We performed our work from March 2007 to
    March 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
    to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
    basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
    our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
    further discusses our scope and methodology.

    Results in Brief:

    The progress made during the year by the FCS program, in terms of
    knowledge gained, is commensurate with a program in early development.
    Yet, the knowledge demonstrated thus far is well short of a program
    halfway through both its development schedule and its budget. This
    portends additional cost increases and delays as FCS begins what is
    traditionally the most expensive and problematic phase of development.
    Accordingly, FCS's demonstrated performance as well as the
    reasonableness of its remaining resources will be paramount at the 2009
    milestone review for the FCS program. Specifically, in the key areas
    for defining and developing FCS capabilities, we found:

    * Requirements have been defined well enough to begin preliminary
    designs of the individual FCS systems. Requirements are still fluid,
    reflecting recent events such as the Army's decision to reduce systems
    from 18 to 14, understanding what the FCS network needs to be, and the
    re-estimate of software from 63 million to 95 million lines of code.

    * FCS's 44 critical technologies are approaching the basic maturity
    needed to start a program, but are immature for a program halfway
    through its scheduled development. Most FCS technologies may not be
    fully mature until after 2009. Beyond basic technology maturity, major
    integration challenges lie ahead.

    * Complementary programs--needed to meet FCS requirements but managed
    outside the program--are not yet synchronized with the FCS schedule and
    face their own technical, funding, and requirements challenges. Two
    programs critical to the FCS network--the Joint Tactical Radio System
    (JTRS) and the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)--have
    been restructured several times.

    * The strategy for completing the second half of FCS development is
    ambitious. According to DOD policy, a program at the midpoint of
    development should be at the critical design review--the point at which
    the design is stable and ready to be demonstrated with high-fidelity
    prototypes. FCS is still a year away from preliminary design, and by
    the time of critical design review in 2011, there will be only 2 years
    left before the production decision. To meet this schedule, FCS will
    not test production-representative prototypes before low-rate
    production, and key system-of-systems testing will not take place until
    after production starts.

    Beginning in 2008, the Army plans to make a series of commitments to
    produce FCS-related systems in advance of the production decision for
    the FCS core program in 2013. In general, production commitments are
    planned before key information is available. In 2008 and 2009, the Army
    plans to begin funding initial production of the first of three planned
    spin outs of FCS technologies to current forces. The Army intends to
    commit to the first spin out before testing is complete and will rely
    partly on tests of surrogate systems. Also starting in 2008, the Army
    plans to commit to production of early versions of the Non-Line-of-
    Sight Cannon (NLOS-C). This commitment is being made to respond to
    congressional direction to produce and field the cannon. FCS
    technologies, network, and designs are not yet mature enough for
    production, and thus the cannons produced will not be deployable
    without significant modifications. In addition, the Army recently
    decided to commit to using its LSI for the production of spin outs,
    cannons, and the first three sets of FCS core systems. This makes the
    Army's relationship with the LSI even closer and will heighten
    oversight challenges. By the time of the 2013 production decision, a
    total of about $39 billion will already have been appropriated for FCS,
    with another $8 billion requested. Thus, while demonstration of the FCS
    capability falls late in the schedule, commitments to production will
    come early--an untenable situation for decision makers.

    The Army's $160.9 billion cost estimate for the FCS program is largely
    the same as last year's estimate but yields less content as the number
    of FCS systems has since been reduced from 18 to 14. Given the
    program's relative immaturity, there is not a firm foundation of
    knowledge for a confident cost estimate. Also, two independent cost
    assessments--one from DOD's Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) and
    the other from the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)--are
    significantly higher than the Army's estimate. Both assessments
    estimate higher costs for software development, to which the recent
    increase in lines of code adds credence. Nonetheless, the Army has not
    accepted these estimates and instead uses its own, lower estimate in
    making funding projections and maintains that it will further reduce
    FCS content to stay within its development cost ceiling. As the Army
    begins a steep ramp-up of FCS production, FCS costs will compete with
    other Army funding priorities, such as the transition to modular
    organizations and recapitalizing the weapons and other assets that
    return from current operations. Together, the program's uncertain cost
    estimate and competing Army priorities make additional reductions in
    FCS's scope and capabilities likely.

    We are making several recommendations to the Secretary of Defense in
    regard to (1) establishing objective and quantifiable criteria that the
    FCS program will have to meet at the 2009 go/no-go decision, (2)
    identifying viable alternatives to FCS to be considered if FCS does not
    meet the established criteria, and (3) closely examining the Army's
    relationship with the LSI, particularly regarding the LSI's expanded
    responsibilities for production. In commenting on a draft of this
    report, DOD concurred with our recommendations.

    Background:

    The FCS concept is designed to be part of the Army's Future Force,
    which is intended to transform the Army into a more rapidly deployable
    and responsive force that differs substantially from the large division-
    centric structure of the past. The Army is reorganizing its current
    forces into modular brigade combat teams, each of which is expected to
    be highly survivable and the most lethal brigade-sized unit the Army
    has ever fielded. The Army expects FCS-equipped brigade combat teams to
    provide significant warfighting capabilities to DOD's overall joint
    military operations. The Army is implementing its transformation plans
    at a time when current U.S. ground forces continue to play a critical
    role in ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has
    instituted plans to spin out selected FCS technologies and systems to
    current Army forces throughout the program's system development and
    demonstration phase.

    The Army recently made a number of adjustments to its plans for the FCS
    program. The revised program will no longer include all 18 systems as
    originally planned. The FCS family of weapons is now expected to
    include 14 manned and unmanned ground vehicles, air vehicles, sensors,
    and munitions that will be linked by an advanced information network.
    The systems include:

    * eight new types of manned ground vehicles to replace current tanks,
    infantry carriers, and self-propelled howitzers;

    * two classes of unmanned aerial vehicles;

    * several unmanned ground vehicles; and:

    * an attack missile.

    Fundamentally, the FCS concept is to replace mass with superior
    information--allowing the soldier to see and hit the enemy first rather
    to rely on heavy armor to withstand a hit. This proposed solution
    attempts to address a mismatch that has posed a dilemma to the Army for
    decades: the Army's heavy forces had the necessary firepower needed to
    win but required extensive support and too much time to deploy while
    its light forces could deploy rapidly but lacked firepower. If the
    Future Force were to become a reality, then the Army would be better
    organized, staffed, equipped, and trained for prompt and sustained land
    combat, qualities intended to ensure that the Army would dominate over
    evolving, sophisticated threats. The Future Force is to be offensively
    oriented and will employ revolutionary concepts of operations, enabled
    by new technology. The Army envisions a new way of fighting that
    depends on networking the force, which involves linking people,
    platforms, weapons, and sensors seamlessly together in a system of
    systems.

    Figure 1: FCS's Core Systems:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is an illustration of the FCS's Core Systems. The following
    information is illustrated with data and drawings:

    Network: Sensors Battle Command SOSCOE Transport:

    Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV):
    * Mounted Combat System (MCB);
    * Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV);
    * Command and Control Vehicle (C2V).

    Common Chassis:
    * Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle (RSV);
    * Non-line of Sight Mortar (NLOS-m);
    * Non-Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-c);
    * FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV);
    * Medical Vehicle Treatment (MV-T0;
    * Medical Vehicle Evacuation (MV-E).

    Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS):
    * Class 1 UAV;
    * Class IV UAV.

    Unattended Ground Systems (UGS):
    * Tactical Unattended Ground Sensor (T-UGS);
    * Urban Unattended Ground Sensor (U-UGS);
    * Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS_LS).

    Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV):
    * Armed Robotic Vehicle-Assault (Light)(ARV-A-L);
    - Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE);
    - Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Countermine (MULE-C);
    - Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Transport (MULE-T).
    * Small UGV (SUGV).

    Source: U.S. Army.

    [End of figure]

    If successful, the FCS system-of-systems concept would integrate
    individual capabilities of weapons and platforms, thus facilitating
    interoperability and open system designs. This concept would represent
    significant improvement over the traditional approach of building
    superior individual weapons that must be retrofitted and netted
    together after the fact. This transformation, in terms of both
    operations and equipment, is under way with the full cooperation of the
    Army warfighter community. In fact, the development and acquisition of
    FCS is being accomplished using a uniquely collaborative relationship
    among the Army's developers, the participating contractors, and the
    warfighter community.

    The Army is using a management approach for FCS that centers on an LSI
    to provide significant management services to help the Army define and
    develop FCS and reach across traditional Army mission areas. Because of
    its partner-like relationship with the Army, the LSI's responsibilities
    include requirements development, design, and selection of major system
    and subsystem contractors. The team of Boeing and its subcontractor,
    Science Applications International Corporation, is the LSI for the FCS
    system development and demonstration phase of acquisition, which is
    expected to extend until 2017. The FCS LSI is expected to act on behalf
    of the Army to optimize the FCS capability, maximize competition,
    ensure interoperability, and maintain commonality in order to reduce
    life-cycle costs, and for overall integration of the information
    network. Boeing also acts as an FCS supplier in that it is responsible
    for developing two important software subsystems. Army representatives
    stated they did not believe the Army had the resources or flexibility
    to use its traditional acquisition process to field a program as
    complex as FCS under the aggressive timeline established by the then-
    Army Chief of Staff. The Army will maintain oversight and final
    approval of the LSI's subcontracting and competition plans.

    In 2007, we reported on, among other things, why the Army decided to
    use an LSI for the FCS program and the nature of the LSI's working
    relationship with the Army.[Footnote 4] We found that the use of an LSI
    for FCS provides an oversight challenge for the Army and that the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense has an important role in providing
    oversight on the FCS program. Congress has expressed concern over the
    use of LSI's, and has prohibited DOD from awarding new contracts for
    LSI functions after October 2010.[Footnote 5]

    Knowledge-Based Processes Necessary for Successful Development:

    Since the mid-1990s, we have studied the best practices of leading
    commercial companies.[Footnote 6] Taking into account the differences
    between commercial product development and weapons acquisitions, we
    have articulated a best practices product development model that relies
    on increasing knowledge when developing a new product. This knowledge-
    based approach requires developers to make investment decisions on the
    basis of three specific, measurable levels of knowledge at critical
    junctures over the course of a program:

    * Knowledge Point 1: At program start, the customer's needs should
    match the developer's available resources in terms of mature
    technologies, time, and funding. Indications of this match include
    having firm requirements in place as well as demonstrated maturity of
    technologies needed to meet customer needs. A preliminary design review
    at or near the start of product development is typically the vehicle
    used to help stabilize performance, schedule, and cost expectations.

    * Knowledge Point 2: About midway through development, the product's
    design should be stable and demonstrate that it is capable of meeting
    performance requirements. A critical design review at this mid-point is
    the vehicle for making the determination and generally signifies the
    point at which the program is ready to start building production-
    representative prototypes.

    * Knowledge Point 3: By the time of the production decision, the
    product must be shown to be producible within cost, schedule, and
    quality targets and have demonstrated its reliability. It is also the
    point at which the design should demonstrate through realistic testing
    that it performs as expected.

    The most important part of a knowledge-based approach occurs at program
    start, when product development begins. At that point, a timely match
    of requirements and resources is critical to successful product
    development. A key difference between successful products--those that
    perform as expected and are developed within estimated resources--and
    problematic products is when the match is achieved. When a customer's
    needs and a developer's resources are matched before a product's
    development starts, it is more likely the development will result in a
    successful product that is able to meet cost, schedule, and performance
    objectives. When this match takes place later, after the product
    development is underway, problems occur that can significantly increase
    the expected time and money as well as result in performance
    shortfalls.

    Knowledge Has Been Gained on FCS Definition, Development, and
    Demonstration but Falls Well Short for a Program at Midpoint:

    Because the Army went forward with FCS development before attaining key
    knowledge such as firm requirements and mature technologies, its
    knowledge levels have consistently lagged behind its calendar schedule.
    It will be a challenge for the Army to mature technologies and hold a
    preliminary design review by 2009. Ideally, these processes should have
    been completed by the program's start in 2003. Moreover, the Army has
    just recently formed an understanding of what the FCS network needs to
    be and what may be technically feasible. The Army is still struggling
    to synchronize the set of needed complementary programs with FCS's
    content and schedules because many of these programs have technical or
    funding issues of their own. As it has gained knowledge in these areas,
    the Army has had to restructure the program, reducing scope, increasing
    cost, and delaying schedule. In 2009, the Army will have spent 6 years
    and $18 billion on these initial definition and development efforts.
    That leaves about 4 years and $9 billion in development funding to
    complete what are usually the more costly aspects of a development
    program--system integration and demonstration activities as well as
    preparation for production. The Army's user community believes, based
    on modeling and simulation analyses, that FCS will provide needed
    capabilities. However, it will be several years before demonstrations
    validate those results. In fact, system demonstrations to date have
    been limited and broad system-of-systems demonstrations will not be
    conducted until late in the program.

    FCS Requirements Not Yet Fully Defined, and System Designs Are Not Yet
    Complete:

    Ideally, the Army should have shown a match between customer needs and
    available resources by having established firm requirements and
    preliminary designs that meet those requirements shortly after program
    start in 2003. Instead, the Army expects to continue the process of
    setting and defining requirements and establishing system designs at
    least until the program reaches its system-of-systems level preliminary
    design review in 2009. This is particularly problematic because 2009
    actually marks a date that is about one year past the mid-point of the
    FCS development phase, when a program following best practices and DOD
    policy would normally conduct a critical design review to show it has a
    stable, producible design that is capable of meeting performance
    requirements.

    The Army faces a daunting task in completing requirements definition by
    2009. As figure 2 illustrates, the FCS program encompasses thousands of
    requirements at the operational, system-of-systems, and individual
    system levels.

    Figure 2: Flow and Number of FCS Requirements:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure contains a chart representing the Flow and Number of FCS
    Requirements. The following data is depicted:

    FCS operational requirements document:
    * 544 requirements;
    * 7 key performance parameters:
    - Net ready;
    - Networked battle command;
    - Networked lethality;
    - Transportability;
    - Sustainability/reliability;
    - Training;
    - Survivability.

    System-of-system requirements:
    * 11,697 requirements with threshold and objective values;
    * Brigade combat team functionality.

    System-level requirements:
    * 51,944 System level requirements;
    * Systems and platform functionality:
    - 8 types of Manned Ground Vehicles;
    - 2 types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;
    - 1 unattended sensor;
    - 1 unattended munitions;
    - 2 types of Unmanned Ground Vehicles;
    - Information Network;
    - Soldier systems;
    - Training systems;
    - Logistics systems;
    - Plus complimentary and associated programs.
    * Hardware subsystems;
    * Software subsystems.

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    The Army anticipates that it will gain a better understanding of FCS
    system and subsystem requirements--and resolve many of the remaining
    "to be determined" and open issues--during a series of system-level
    preliminary design reviews to be completed by February 2009. Army
    officials acknowledge that system-level requirements are almost certain
    to be modified in the process as subsystem hardware and software are
    more fully defined.

    The Army is working through the detailed requirements changes needed to
    implement the program adjustments announced in early 2007 because the
    restructure of FCS from 18 to 14 systems resulted in requirements
    modifications, deferral, and redistribution. Army officials told us
    they are currently assessing the requirements balance among the 14
    systems and do not yet have all the modifications to system
    requirements in place. However, some consequences are already apparent.
    For example, a requirement for the deferred Class II unmanned aerial
    vehicle to carry a laser designator is to be assigned to the Class I
    aerial vehicle. According to Army officials, the Class I aerial vehicle
    will consequently need to use a more powerful engine. In addition,
    because of the deferral of the Class III aerial vehicle, its mission
    requirements--including performing the mine detection mission--will
    need to be assigned to other platforms.

    All the individual FCS systems are being designed to meet the system-
    level requirements and restrictive space, weight, and power
    constraints. The Army is still coming to terms with these and other
    design issues. It has not finished making trade-offs between
    requirements and design and have not yet finalized decisions about how
    to implement requirements within several areas of concern, including
    weight, power, space, reliability, and unit costs. For example, most of
    the manned ground vehicles are at risk of not meeting their weight,
    maintainability, and other requirements. To that end, the program is
    still working on designing a hull for manned ground vehicles that not
    only meets weight constraints but also requirements for protecting
    vehicle crews against mine blasts. Similarly, the program is trying to
    confirm a design that will balance competing requirements for the Class
    I unmanned aerial vehicle to perform as needed yet be small and light
    enough to be carried in a soldier's backpack. It is not clear that the
    Army will be able to complete all system designs by 2009.

    The Army is also working to reduce recognized technical risks in the
    system designs in order to meet system-of-systems as well as system-
    level FCS requirements. For example, the Army is considering the
    possibility of modifying requirements for the Class IV unmanned aerial
    vehicle because the vehicle may not fully meet FCS electromagnetic
    requirements. Likewise, the Army has focused on modifying transport
    requirements for manned ground vehicles because they are too heavy to
    be moved via the Air Force's C-130 airlift aircraft as originally
    planned.

    Incomplete Requirements and Designs for FCS Information Network Hamper
    Software Development:

    Despite significant efforts to date, the Army and LSI have not
    completed defining the detailed network requirements, maturing the
    preliminary design of the network, and developing and integrating
    network hardware and software. Nearly 5 years after the start of system
    development, the Army and LSI only recently reached an understanding of
    what the network needs to be, what may be technically feasible, how to
    begin building the network, and how to eventually demonstrate it. An
    engineering approach has been identified but network design and
    maturity is still a work in progress. For example, the Army and LSI are
    still determining what network management means in terms of:

    * what is needed to support each specific mission (radios, routers,
    satellites, computers, information assurance devices, policies);

    * how to allocate network resources to the mission spectrum (storage,
    throughput, bandwidth); and:

    * how to fuse, process, and present extensive FCS sensor data to
    appropriate users.

    The Army and LSI are also working to establish how to maintain the
    network, such as:

    * how to monitor status and performance of the network (hardware
    faults, network quality of service, overall performance);

    * how to implement spectrum management to ensure connectivity and avoid
    interference; and:

    * how to reconfigure the network in real time based on network
    conditions and mission critical traffic.

    As they move ahead, the Army and LSI are faced with significant
    management and technological challenges that place development of FCS's
    network and software at risk. The magnitude, size, and complexity of
    the network and software development are unprecedented in DOD history.
    The Army and LSI have identified and need to address numerous areas of
    high risk such as enterprise network performance and scalability,
    immature network architecture, quality of service on a mobile ad-hoc
    network, end-to-end interoperability with strategic networks of the
    global information grid, and synchronization of FCS with WIN-T and JTRS
    programs, which still do not have mature technologies and are at risk
    of having delayed or incomplete delivery of capabilities to FCS.
    Finally, a recent study by IDA found that the FCS program would likely
    experience additional cost growth because of unplanned software effort,
    unplanned rework during operational testing, and additional work to
    address system-of-systems integration, validation, and performance
    issues identified during testing after the critical design
    review.[Footnote 7] Each of these areas would affect network and
    software development, but the Army believes that IDA did not consider
    the impact of the Army's mitigation efforts.

    Although the requirements process for the FCS information network is
    not yet complete, the LSI and many of its subcontractors are developing
    and testing FCS software. In total, five major software builds are
    planned. Software Build 0 is complete and Build 1 is being tested. The
    most significant issue identified to date is the growth in the
    estimates of the total amount of software to be developed for FCS.
    Early in the program, the Army and LSI projected that about 32 million
    lines of code would be needed. Later, that estimate was increased to
    about 63 million lines of code. As the Army continues to define FCS
    hardware and software subsystem requirements, a new estimate puts the
    total volume of software at about 95 million lines of code. The Army
    and LSI attribute this latest increase to factoring the operating
    system software, something that had not been included previously, into
    their estimate. In terms of actual experience, the lines of code in
    Build 0 were about 6 percent greater than projected and Build 1 were
    about 17 percent greater than projected.[Footnote 8]

    Although the Army and LSI have implemented disciplined software
    practices for developing the network and software, the aggressive pace
    of the program and Army decisions on what it can afford to do during
    development have caused requirements issues at the software developer
    level. While the Army and LSI have implemented practices that have
    proved successful at leading software companies, such as the use of
    repeatable and managed development processes and use of a structured
    management review process to ensure quality development, we found that
    the immature definition of system-level requirements was causing
    problems. For example, the software developers for the 5 of the 52
    major software packages we reviewed report that high-level requirements
    provided to them for decomposition and refinement were poorly defined,
    omitted, or delivered late to the software development process. Also,
    we found that poor or late requirements development have had a
    cascading effect as late delivery or poorly defined requirements on one
    software development effort, in turn, caused other software development
    efforts to be delayed. For example, four of the five software
    developers report that problems with late requirements have caused them
    to do rework or to defer requirements out to future builds because of
    insufficient time. These software developers report that schedule
    compression caused much of this strain which could have been averted if
    they had been allowed sufficient time to adequately understand and
    analyze the requirements.

    Army's User Representative Believes FCS Will Still Provide Needed
    Capabilities:

    Although the Army has not yet demonstrated the technical feasibility of
    FCS's expected capabilities, the Army's user representative expects
    that FCS will provide capabilities that will be as good as or better
    than current forces.[Footnote 9] The user representative's position is
    based on the results of a series of modeling and simulation activities.
    However, it will be several years before field demonstrations validate
    those results. The user representative has a key role in assessing
    whether FCS can deliver capabilities that meet operational
    requirements. According to an Army Training and Doctrine Command
    official, the user representative's current position is that FCS, in
    either an 18-or 14-system configuration, is expected to provide needed
    capabilities and will be as good as or better than current forces.

    The official stated that the user representative's position is based on
    the results of modeling and simulation analyses conducted to date. The
    Army relies heavily on these modeling and simulation analyses in the
    early phases of FCS in cases where actual or live test assets are not
    available. To that end, these analyses began in 2003 and will continue
    throughout the development program. Together, the analyses collectively
    postulate that an FCS-equipped force will outperform current forces on
    many levels, including the ability to affect a larger area of
    operations, accomplish assigned missions faster, survive as well or
    better, kill earlier at longer ranges, and better leverage and enable
    more effective joint operations. In referencing the analyses and
    conclusions to date, the Army official noted that the Army's decision
    to decrease the number of FCS systems from 18 to 14 did not affect the
    FCS brigade combat team's likely capability to prevail in the simulated
    conflicts. However, while the Army has performed modeling and
    simulation analyses with both 18 and 14 systems, it did not make a
    direct comparison of the projected capabilities of FCS with 18 systems
    and FCS with 14 systems because changes in data and other modeling
    aspects precluded such a comparison.

    The official added two caveats to the user community's current
    position. He pointed out that true FCS capability at all levels will
    not be known until demonstration and testing of actual physical assets
    is conducted. Additionally, he noted that the user community will not
    accept FCS if it does not meet minimum operational requirements.
    However, he did indicate that the user community might accept some
    parts of FCS if it did not meet minimum requirements but yielded
    systems that were badly needed and/or performed better than other
    weapon systems available at that time.

    The user community's optimism about FCS capabilities may be premature.
    The Army already has stated that the program adjustment from 18 to 14
    systems saved money but put at risk FCS's ability to reach its full
    tactical and operational potential. Furthermore, it has indicated that
    the adjustment reduced the individual capability of each of the 15
    projected FCS brigade combat teams. At this point, it is unclear
    exactly what FCS capability can be realistically expected because
    modeling and simulation results will not be fully validated by actual
    demonstrations and testing until well in the future. For example, most
    of the manned ground vehicle prototypes are not expected to be
    available until 2011 for developmental and qualification testing. As
    noted by IDA in its 2007 report, what is known is that the Army has
    little experience in developing system-of-systems and in designing for
    a whole system to be more capable than the sum of its parts. Moreover,
    according to IDA, experience teaches that the simulated behavior of
    individual systems and system of systems almost certainly fails to
    capture important aspects of live behavior.

    Key Assessments Planned to Inform 2009 Milestone Review for FCS:

    In commenting on our March 2007 FCS report, DOD indicated that the
    Defense Acquisition Board, in alignment with the FCS system-of-systems'
    preliminary design, would conduct a number of critical assessments to
    support the department's FCS acquisition and budget decisions.[Footnote
    10] It identified one of these as a systems engineering assessment that
    would evaluate the executability of the FCS program and will focus on
    many key areas including requirements development and management,
    understanding the system-of-systems dependencies and interfaces, design
    and requirements trade-off processes, and risk assessment and
    mitigation plans. DOD also stated that a second assessment, to be
    conducted by the Joint Staff, will evaluate the FCS's capabilities
    relative to its role in joint force applications.

    Critical Technologies and Complementary Programs Put FCS at Significant
    Risk:

    Almost 5 years and $12 billion into development, FCS's critical
    technologies remain at low maturity levels. According to the Army's
    latest technology assessment, only two of FCS's 44 critical
    technologies have reached a level of maturity that based on best
    practice standards should have been demonstrated at program start. Even
    applying the Army's less rigorous standards, only 73 percent can be
    considered mature enough to begin system development today. This is not
    to suggest that the technology maturation should have proceeded more
    smoothly or more quickly. Rather, the state of FCS technologies
    accurately reflects the unpredictable nature of the discovery process
    that attends technology development, which is why it is best done
    before development of a system is formally begun. The technological
    immaturity, coupled with incomplete requirements, is a mismatch that
    has prevented the Army from reaching the first critical knowledge point
    for this program-a precursor for cost growth. Many of these immature
    technologies may have an adverse cumulative impact on key FCS
    capabilities such as survivability. In addition, the Army is struggling
    to synchronize the schedules and capabilities of numerous essential
    complementary programs with the FCS program.

    FCS Critical Technologies Not Yet Sufficiently Mature:

    Maturing technologies to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7 (fully
    functional prototype demonstrated in an operational environment) prior
    to starting product development is a best practice and a DOD policy
    preference. (See app. III for a complete listing and description of
    TRLs.) For the FCS, this degree of maturity would have meant having had
    all technologies at TRL 7 by May 2003; today, it only has two that have
    reached that level. Although DOD policy prefers the best practice
    standard, it does accept a lower standard--TRL 6 (system model or
    prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment). However, only 32 of
    FCS's 44 critical technologies have attained that lower standard of
    maturity almost 5 years after starting product development. Army
    officials do not expect to mature all FCS's critical technologies to
    this lower standard until at least the preliminary design review in
    2009, at least 6 years late. (App. IV contains a list of all FCS
    critical technologies with their 2006 and 2007 TRL ratings and Army
    projections for attaining TRL 6.)

    Army engineers do not track a technology's progress once it reaches TRL
    6. They maintain that anything beyond TRL 6 is a system integration
    matter and not necessarily technology development. We do not agree with
    this position as integration often involves adapting the technologies
    to the space, weight, and power demands of their intended environment.
    To a large extent, this is what it means to achieve TRL 7. This is work
    that needs to be accomplished before the critical design review and is
    likely to pose additional trade-offs that the Army will have to make to
    reconcile its requirements with what is possible from a technology and
    engineering standpoint. Table 1 shows the number of FCS critical
    technologies that have matured to different levels during the program's
    history and presents the Army's projections through the production
    decision.

    Table 1: FCS Critical Technology Maturation--Actual and Projected:

    TRLs greater than or equal to 7:
    Development Start: 0;
    August 2006: 1;
    July 2007: 2;
    2009 Preliminary design review: 2;
    2011 Critical design review: 5;
    2013 Production decision: 44.

    TRLs = 6:
    Development Start: 10;
    August 2006: 34;
    July 2007: 30;
    2009 Preliminary design review: 41;
    2011 Critical design review: 39;
    2013 Production decision: 0.

    TRLs less than or equal to 5;
    Development Start: 42;
    August 2006: 11;
    July 2007: 12;
    2009 Preliminary design review: 1;
    2011 Critical design review: 0;
    2013 Production decision: 0.

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of table]

    Throughout the 5 years of FCS development, multiple Army assessments
    illustrate that the maturation of critical technologies has not been
    predictable. Although the Army has matured a few critical technologies
    since last year, it is behind the ambitious pace it had set just 2
    years ago (see fig. 3).

    Figure 3: Comparison of TRL 6 Projections:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a multiple line graph that represents a Comparison of
    TRL 6 Projections. The vertical axis of the graph represents percentage
    of technologies at TRL 6 from 0 to 100. The horizontal axis of the
    graph represents years from 2003 to 2009. Lines are depicted
    representing the following assessments:

    April 2003;
    April 2005;
    September 2006;
    July 2007;

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    When the development effort began in 2003, the Army expected to have
    100 percent of FCS's critical technologies matured to a TRL 6 by 2006.
    Since that time, the Army has updated its projections on numerous
    occasions. Each of those revised estimates assumed that almost all of
    FCS's critical technologies would be mature to TRL 6 by 2009, in time
    for the program's preliminary design review. (Currently, the threat
    warning sensor for the active protection system is not expected to be
    mature to TRL 6 until sometime in 2010.) The Army's September 2006
    assessment projected that 80 percent of FCS critical technologies would
    mature to TRL 6 by 2007, while the most recent assessment revealed that
    only 73 percent of those technologies have actually satisfied the
    conditions of TRL 6.

    While the September 2006 critical technology assessment suggested
    progress, the most recent assessment revealed that the Army misjudged
    the maturity of a few critical technologies and that the projected
    dates for other technologies achieving TRL 6 have slipped. According to
    the Army's latest technology assessment, two technologies have reached
    full maturity (TRL 7)--Health Monitoring and Casualty Care Intervention
    and Excalibur Precision Munitions. According to Army analyses, the
    maturity assessment for Health Monitoring and Casualty Care
    Intervention is based on existing technology being fielded to Stryker
    brigades. Nevertheless, FCS vehicles have not been produced yet, and
    integration of this technology onto those vehicles will ultimately
    determine their true maturity for FCS. The first increment of Excalibur
    is being used by existing howitzers, but recent Army reports identified
    a risk that the round may not be entirely compatible with the proposed
    NLOS-C design. Even for these mature systems, the Army must be aware of
    the potential integration issues, which may not reveal themselves until
    the Army more fully develops the FCS platform designs. Despite these
    examples, other technologies are now rated less mature, projected
    maturity dates have slipped, and others have shown little advancement
    over the years.

    Since the start of the program, the Army has reduced the ratings of
    seven FCS critical technologies. Five of these critical technologies
    are still rated as less mature than they were in previous assessments,
    and three of those adjustments happened within the past year. Last
    year, the active protection system was rated as a TRL 6, but the Army
    had based this assessment on a concept that was not ultimately selected
    for further development in FCS.[Footnote 11] Instead, the Army selected
    an active protection concept that was less mature, but which the Army
    believed was a better design for satisfying all FCS active protection
    requirements. Consequently, the Army's most recent assessment rated the
    active protection system as a TRL 5. Two WIN-T technology ratings were
    also adjusted to better reflect their maturity. The WIN-T program has a
    turbulent history, including technical challenges, and is being
    restructured in an effort to improve program execution. As a result,
    the assessed maturity of WIN-T technologies was reduced.

    While the Army did manage to advance the maturity of six FCS critical
    technologies, this progress must be put into context. Because some
    critical technologies that were approaching full maturity were removed
    and the TRLs of other technologies were reduced, it effectively
    counteracted the progress achieved over the past year. This condition
    resulted in FCS technologies advancing at a slower pace than
    anticipated. In addition, some technologies have matured only one level
    over nearly 5 years of development. Distributed Fusion Management is
    the technology that correlates the large amounts of sensor data from
    numerous sensor sources and ultimately contributes to the maintenance
    of the common operational picture created with data from the
    distributed network nodes. Fusing sensor data is important for creating
    situational awareness and enabling FCS forces to see first and
    understand first. This technology had been assessed as TRL 4 when the
    FCS program began development 5 years ago and advanced to TRL 5 in the
    Army's most recent assessment.

    Based on the Army's current assessment, eight FCS critical technologies
    were assessed as being no more mature, and in some cases even less
    mature, than they were when the program began. For example, Rapid
    Battlespace Deconfliction, which is designed to help manage airspace
    and airborne assets and potentially reduce the risk of collisions, was
    rated TRL 6 at the time of the first independent assessment and has
    since been reduced to a TRL 5. In almost 5 years of FCS development,
    the Army has not yet advanced the maturity for quality of service
    algorithms. These algorithms are vitally important for ensuring
    successful operation of the FCS network, particularly in regard to the
    Army's desire for FCS forces to see first, understand first, act first,
    and finish decisively. Failure to provide a high quality of service
    network will significantly degrade force effectiveness, and could have
    devastating consequences in a force that trades armor for information.
    Further, aided target recognition, which aids FCS in seeing and acting
    first and contributes to survivability, has been rated a TRL 5 since
    the FCS program began.

    The uneven nature of the technology assessments, coupled with the lack
    of progress for some technologies, does not inspire confidence that the
    Army can successfully mature all FCS critical technologies to TRL 6 in
    time for the preliminary design review in 2009. While the most recent
    assessments were conducted by the Army without independent review, the
    Army expects to have an independently reviewed assessment available for
    the 2009 preliminary design review. This assessment should provide an
    objective technical opinion regarding the status of FCS critical
    technologies, enabling more knowledgeable decisions at the 2009
    milestone review.

    Immature Technologies Have Cumulative Effects: Survivability as an
    Example:

    While the performance of individual technologies is important, the
    potential collective or cumulative effect they can have on the
    performance of FCS is also important. The multiple technologies that
    are critical to FCS survivability are illustrative. The FCS concept for
    survivability breaks from tradition because it involves more than just
    heavy armor to protect against impacts from enemy munitions. Instead,
    FCS survivability involves a layered approach that consists of
    detecting the enemy first to avoid being fired upon; if fired upon,
    using an active protection system to neutralize the incoming munition
    before it hits the FCS vehicle; and finally, having sufficient armor to
    deflect those munitions that make it through the preceding layers. Each
    of these layers depends on currently immature technologies to provide
    the aggregate survivability needed for FCS vehicles. Many of the
    technologies intended for survivability have experienced problems in
    development or have otherwise made little progress in maturity over the
    5 years of the FCS program. To the extent these technologies do not
    mature or under-perform, the effect on overall survivability must be
    assessed. This also holds true for other key performance parameters,
    such as lethality, sustainability, and networked battle command.

    The first several layers of defense best illustrate the fundamental FCS
    concept of replacing mass with superior information in order to see and
    hit the enemy first rather than relying on heavy armor to withstand a
    hit. These layers rely on critical technologies that are largely
    unproven and that have not yet demonstrated that they can provide
    adequate information superiority as a substitute for heavy armor to
    protect Army soldiers. One such critical technology is the JTRS.
    According to the Army's most recent critical technology assessment,
    JTRS radios have achieved a TRL 6. However, according to the JTRS
    program office, there are three JTRS subtechnologies that have not yet
    matured to the point where the entire radio can be rated a TRL 6.
    Another critical technology that contributes to FCS's first layer of
    survivability is wideband networking waveforms, which work in
    conjunction with the JTRS radios. A host of technology, cost, and
    schedule problems have slowed waveform and radio development, and in
    2006, DOD approved a JTRS program restructure to address these
    problems. However, the restructure is incomplete, and waveform
    development is behind schedule.

    The active protection system is part of the comprehensive FCS hit
    avoidance system architecture and will protect the vehicles from
    incoming rounds, like rocket-propelled grenades and antitank missiles.
    The Army has rated this technology as TRL 5. According to the most
    recent critical technology assessment, the Army expects to mature most
    of the active protection system suite to TRL 6 by fiscal year 2008. The
    Army does not expect the active protection system sensor to mature to
    TRL 6 until sometime after the 2009 preliminary design review. Based on
    current test schedules, the Army could demonstrate TRL 6 for the short-
    range solution by that time. However, a number of test events for the
    short-range solution, some of which inform future events, have slipped.
    In addition, demonstration of the long-range solution to TRL 6 is not
    scheduled to happen until fiscal year 2010. The Army must also address
    the potential repercussions from blast fragmentation and the
    corresponding risk of collateral damage and fratricide.

    The Army has been developing lightweight hull and vehicle armor as a
    substitute for traditional, heavy armor. The Army is developing
    lightweight armor for FCS vehicles in three iterations. The Army
    believes the first version will satisfy FCS threshold protection and
    weight requirements and is planned to be used in the manned ground
    vehicle prototypes. The Army has begun development of a second armor
    iteration with the goal of formulating materials that will meet FCS
    objective survivability requirements, but Army engineers do not expect
    those designs to be lighter than the first iteration's designs. The
    third armor iteration will focus on weight reduction initiatives with
    the goal of satisfying objective requirements for both protection and
    weight. The Army hopes that the third iteration will be ready to use in
    the initial production of the manned ground vehicles.

    During the first iteration, Army engineers formulated a number of
    different armor recipes in an attempt to satisfy threshold vehicle
    protection requirements. They have tested a number of these recipes
    using smaller sample sizes called coupons, but only more robust testing
    of larger representative armor samples will determine whether the
    proposed solutions will provide the necessary protection. The Army
    plans to conduct such testing later this year on larger-scale samples
    of the different armor recipes. The Army believes this testing will
    prove the armor technology to TRL 6. However, should this approach
    fail, the Army plans to use heavier hull and vehicle armor that will
    require trade-offs for space and weight.

    The overall survivability of FCS-equipped units will depend not only on
    the contribution of technologies to each layer of survivability, but
    also on the cumulative contribution from layer to layer. For example,
    if the information network, active protection, and armor each under-
    perform by 10 percent, the Army will first have to know this and second
    be able to assess the cumulative impact on overall survivability. As
    system-level requirements are defined and allocated, and technologies
    demonstrate their actual capabilities, additional design trades may be
    necessary and concessions made that could impact key performance
    parameters like lethality, survivability, sustainability, and networked
    battle command.

    Synchronizing FCS with Complementary Programs Is a Continuing
    Challenge:

    In addition to the 14 systems and the network that compose the FCS
    program, its full capabilities depend on at least 50 complementary
    programs managed outside of FCS, some of which are also critical
    technologies. The Army has been unable to fully synchronize the
    schedule and content of the FCS program with that of complementary
    programs. The Army has identified problems that raise concerns about
    the likelihood that many complementary systems will deliver the
    required capabilities when needed. In some cases, complementary
    programs have faced funding issues due to evolving FCS requirements,
    and there are examples where lack of coordination between FCS and
    complementary program officials have stalled efforts aimed at
    synchronizing programs and resolving cost, schedule, and technical
    issues.

    When the FCS program began, the Army concluded that it would need to
    interoperate or integrate with as many as 170 other programs to help
    FCS meet its operational requirements. The Army has stated previously
    that as many as 52 of these programs are essential for meeting FCS key
    performance parameters. As a result, the Army closely monitors these
    programs to determine if they are synchronized with the cost, schedule,
    and performance expectations of the FCS program. While the Army has
    produced a list of complementary programs that need management
    attention, that list has fluctuated, and although many complementary
    programs have been mainstays on the list, the Army has had difficulties
    synchronizing the schedules and capabilities of those systems with FCS.

    A number of challenges have contributed to the Army's inability to
    synchronize complementary programs with FCS. A few of these challenges
    are presented below.

    * Both the JTRS family of programs and the WIN-T program are facing
    technology maturation problems of their own, and they are at risk of
    delayed or reduced delivery of capabilities to the FCS program.

    * Some complementary programs are not adequately funded to conduct the
    additional development activities needed to satisfy FCS requirements.
    For example, the Army wants to integrate an upgraded variant of the
    Javelin missile onto the Armed Robotic Vehicle-Light to defeat tanks at
    close range, but the Javelin program has not secured funding for this
    effort. In another case, the Army planned to use the MK-44 precision
    air burst munition to satisfy a requirement that infantry vehicles have
    the ability to defeat light armor vehicles and groups of soldiers at
    short ranges. Based on Army analyses, the MK-44 will not satisfy the
    antipersonnel portion of the requirement, and no funding is available
    to improve the round's performance.

    * As the Army continues examining complementary programs, it is
    discovering unanticipated technical and integration issues that were
    not evident earlier. For example, the Army plans to use Excalibur
    rounds with the NLOS-C, but engineers have discovered some
    compatibility issues that are being addressed. In a similar assessment
    of the Airborne Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Mine Detection
    System, the Army discovered a number of issues that included
    performance requirement gaps, software integration gaps, and a risk
    that onboard processing may not be sufficient to execute the required
    missions.

    * In some cases, ineffective coordination has created situations where
    either FCS requirements were not adequately defined for key
    complementary programs or significant technical issues were not
    promptly addressed. FCS engineers discovered problems with JTRS radios
    related to storage temperatures and shock and vibration on the FCS
    ground vehicles. Efforts to resolve this problem have stalled because
    not all the affected parties have been included in the joint
    engineering team dialogue. In another example, JTRS requirements are
    not aligned with current force vehicles. The FCS program has not
    received a unified set of requirements from the user representative for
    spin out 1 current-force vehicles.

    Complementary programs have their own acquisition and development
    challenges, much like the FCS program, and they have their own approved
    requirements documents and acquisition program baselines that cannot
    easily be changed--hence the difficulties in synchronizing the schedule
    and content of the FCS with that of the complementary programs.

    FCS officials have been revising the list of essential complementary
    programs, in part because of the risks revealed during the
    synchronization process, but also in response to the Army's competing
    budget priorities. Program officials said they planned to complete the
    revised list by the end of calendar year 2007, but that has not
    occurred yet. Instead, Army leaders have acknowledged the problems
    associated with the synchronization of FCS with its complementary
    programs and will have to refocus their efforts and work to improve the
    situation. They did not promise an immediate resolution and acknowledge
    that FCS program officials may have to temper their expectations for
    complementary programs because the Army may be unable to afford all the
    systems that were once considered "essential." Part of the solution may
    also involve building FCS capabilities over time.

    Finally, the Army and LSI have much work to do to define the interfaces
    not only between FCS systems and the complementary programs but also
    with the FCS system-of-systems. Some 500 interface documents--which
    describe the mechanical, electrical, and logical interface between two
    subsystems or systems for those systems to work together--will
    ultimately be needed. The Army and LSI have completed 61 as of late
    2007 and expect to complete about 261 by the time of the preliminary
    design review in 2009.

    Schedule-Driven Acquisition Strategy Will Demonstrate FCS Capabilities
    after Key Decision Points:

    When FCS reaches its planned preliminary design review in 2009, the
    Army will have expended over 60 percent of its development funds and
    schedule. Much still needs to be done with the remaining 40 percent of
    resources--including technology maturation, system integration and
    demonstration, and preparation for production--in short, attaining all
    three knowledge points fundamental to an acquisition. Although the
    manned ground vehicle designs depend on the performance of the
    information network, demonstration of the network will take place after
    the vehicles are designed and prototyped. Most tests to demonstrate
    whether the FCS system-of-systems performs as required will take place
    after the low-rate production decision, precluding opportunities to
    change course if warranted by test results and increasing the
    likelihood of costly discoveries in late development or during
    production. The cost of correcting problems in those stages is high
    because program expenditures and schedules are less forgiving than in
    the early stages of a program.

    Figure 4 compares a knowledge-based approach to developing a weapon
    system (consistent with DOD policy) with the approach taken for FCS.

    Figure 4: Differences between Best Practices Acquisition Approach and
    FCS Approach:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure illustrates time lines for the two approaches. The
    following information is illustrated:

    Best practices approach (knowledge driven):

    Knowledge acquired over time:

    Technology development;
    Development start: KP1 and PDR;
    System development and demonstration: KP2 and CDR;
    Low-rate production start: KP 3;
    Production.

    FCS approach (schedule driven):

    2000 to 2013: Technology development;
    2013: FCS KP1, KP2 and KP3?
    2003 to 2016: System development and Demonstration;
    2009: PDR;
    2011: CDR;
    2013 and beyond: Production.

    KP 1: (Knowledge point 1): technologies and resources match
    requirements;
    KP 2: (Knowledge point 2): design performs as expected;
    KP 3: (Knowledge point 3): production can meet cost, schedule, and
    quality targets;
    PDR: Preliminary design review;
    CDR: Critical design review.

    Source: Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    Under a knowledge-based approach, the FCS program would have achieved a
    match between requirements and resources before entering system
    development and demonstration. If the match had occurred in 2003, the
    FCS program would have held its preliminary design review some 3 to 5
    years ago, have nearly completed design integration by now, and be
    approaching a critical design review in the next year. However, the
    Army moved ahead with the program's start without having this match in
    place, and consequently, the technology development and system
    development and demonstration phases will overlap by several years.
    Now, the Army is moving towards another set of major decision points,
    the preliminary design review in 2009 and subsequent milestone review,
    and it may not have sufficient knowledge for these reviews either.

    As illustrated in figure 5 below, the program has numerous knowledge
    gaps that must be closed before the performance of the FCS, as well as
    its cost and schedule, can be stated with confidence.

    Figure 5: FCS Knowledge Gaps:

    [See PDF for image]

    The figure is a complex graph containing lines, stacked bars and data
    points. The left vertical axis of the graph represents knowledge points
    from 0 to 3. The right vertical axis of the graph represents remaining
    funding in billions. the horizontal axis of the graph represents years
    from 2004 to 2013. An ideal knowledge progression is depicted beginning
    at knowledge point 1 in 2003, progressing to knowledge point 2 in 2008
    (best practice CDR), and culminating at knowledge point 3 in 2013. A
    stacked bar for each year represents a combination of the following:
    * Projected design knowledge (after current date);
    * Demonstrated design knowledge;
    * Projected technology knowledge (after current date);
    * Demonstrated technology knowledge.

    A line representing remaining funds is also depicted.

    Source: Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    The first gap between technology maturity and firm requirements has
    persisted since 2003, as discussed earlier. The second gap occurs at
    the program's critical design review, scheduled for 2011. Ideally, this
    review, which confirms that a design performs as expected, occurs about
    halfway through a program's development schedule. In the case of FCS,
    the program will be 80 percent of the way through its development
    schedule and cost before the review is held. Furthermore, the schedule
    leaves little time to gain knowledge between the critical design review
    (knowledge point 2) and the low-rate initial production decision
    (knowledge point 3) because the Army has scheduled only 2 years between
    these events. Moreover, the critical design review is typically the
    point at which a program begins building the fully integrated,
    production-representative prototypes whose testing will prove the
    design's maturity and form the basis for a low-rate initial production
    decision. Instead, the FCS will rely on earlier, less mature
    prototypes. Therefore, a decision to proceed into low-rate production
    will be made without a mature design, and will likely lead to costly
    rework or further delays.

    The FCS network illustrates knowledge gaps that the Army faces in
    developing the FCS system--a substantial amount of development work
    remains before the Army and LSI can demonstrate the full expected
    capability of the FCS network. To date, only basic network concepts,
    such as connecting and exchanging information among limited network
    nodes, has been demonstrated (Experiment 1.1). The Army plans to
    demonstrate introduction and use of sensor information during this
    year's spin out demonstration; other incremental demonstrations will
    follow. The first major demonstration of FCS network is limited user
    test number 3, scheduled for fiscal year 2012, which will be at least a
    year after critical design review and about a year before the start of
    core FCS production. Recently, Congress legislated that a network
    demonstration be held prior to obligation of FCS production funding at
    Milestone C.[Footnote 12] Even with this test, by then, other FCS
    system developments--such as manned ground vehicles--will have had
    their critical design reviews; their developmental prototypes will be
    in testing; and they will be getting ready to start initial production
    in fiscal 2013. Well in excess of 80 percent of planned development
    funds will have been expended by this point in time. In short, the
    manned ground vehicles may be proceeding well in advance of network
    development and demonstration, given that their designs--and in fact,
    the entire FCS--depend on the network's performance. At this point, it
    is not certain what level of network demonstration will be needed
    before decision makers can confidently approve manned ground vehicles
    and other FCS systems for initial production.

    FCS testing is particularly risky in terms of its relation to
    demonstration of design and production process maturity (knowledge
    point 3) because testing of actual capabilities occurs late in the
    program--shortly before and after major decision points, including the
    low-rate production decision in 2013. Moreover, the period for testing,
    analyzing, fixing, and retesting is both too late and too short to
    support major decisions. The majority of testing through 2012 is
    limited in scope and more aimed at confidence-building than
    demonstrating key capabilities. Early test efforts focus on experiments
    and development testing of individual systems. Most development
    prototypes will not be available until 2010 and later for testing and
    demonstrations. Table 2 below shows the schedule for FCS key test
    events.

    Table 2: Key FCS Test Event Schedule:

    No.1;
    Event: Experiment 1.1;
    Systems: Ground sensors and other emulators, radio systems, and other
    systems;
    Description: Provides early and limited assessment of abilities of
    selected network systems;
    Dates as of 3/07: 7/06 to 6/07;
    Dates as of 10/07: Complete.

    No. 2;
    Event: Experiment 2;
    Systems: Command and control, ground sensors, communications, lethality
    enablers, and other systems;
    Description: Early experiment with several FCS systems at the
    battalion, company, and platoon echelons;
    Dates as of 3/07: 1/08 to 1/09;
    Dates as of 10/07: 7/06 to 7/08.

    No. 3;
    Event: Spin out 1 Technical Field Test;
    Systems: Unmanned Ground Sensors, Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System,
    Vehicle Kits;
    Description: Controlled field test of systems included in spin out 1 to
    current forces;
    Dates as of 3/07: [Empty];
    Dates as of 10/07: 2/08 to 3/08.

    No: 4;
    Event: Spin out Limited User Test 1;
    Systems: Various computer systems, ground sensors, and missile launch
    system;
    Description: Battalion level test with current force equipment and
    selected systems being "spun out" to current forces;
    Dates as of 3/07: 3/08 to 4/08;
    Dates as of 10/07: 6/08 to 7/08.

    Preliminary design review:
    Dates as of 3/07: 2nd quarter fiscal year 2009;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    Defense Acquisition Board milestone review:
    Dates as of 3/07: 3rd quarter fiscal year 2009;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    No.5;
    Event: Early Ground Vehicle Delivery;
    Systems: Early prototype of the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon manned ground
    vehicle;
    Description: Initial prototype with commonality with later prototypes;
    Dates as of 3/07: 3rd quarter fiscal year 2008;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    No. 6;
    Event: Integrated Mission Test 2;
    Systems: Integration laboratory, simulations, common operating system
    and other items;
    Description: First system-of-systems test in integration phase 2 and
    indicator of network functionality;
    Dates as of 3/07: 8/09 to 11/10;
    Dates as of 10/07: 2nd and 3rd quarter fiscal year 2010.

    No. 7;
    Event: Aerial Vehicle;
    Systems: Prototype of the Class IV Fire Scout;
    Description: First flight of class IV unmanned aerial vehicle in
    integrated qualification testing;
    Dates as of 3/07: 3/10;
    Dates as of 10/07: 11/2010.

    No. 8;
    Event: Spin out 1 Technical Field Test 2;
    Systems: Surrogate ground vehicles with spin out 1 systems;
    Description: Field test of maturing FCS network and battle command;
    Dates as of 3/07: [Empty];
    Dates as of 10/07: 4/10 to 7/10.

    No. 9;
    Event: Limited User Test 2;
    Systems: Small number of unmanned aerial vehicles and a task organized
    platoon;
    Description: Assess network maturity and capabilities of aerial
    vehicles in operational environment;
    Dates as of 3/07: 2/10 to 4/10;
    Dates as of 10/07: 3rd and 4th quarter fiscal year 2010.

    No. 10;
    Event: Spin out 1 Production Technical Field Test;
    Systems: Production unmanned ground sensors, vehicle kits, Non-Line-of-
    Sight Launch System;
    Description: Controlled field test of production systems included in
    spin out 1 to current forces;
    Dates as of 3/07: [Empty];
    Dates as of 10/07: 4/10 to 7/10.

    No. 11;
    Event: Spin out 1 Initial Operational Test;
    Systems: Various computer systems, ground sensors, and missile launch
    system;
    Description: Operational test of selected systems and their
    effectiveness with current forces;
    Dates as of 3/07: 4th quarter fiscal year 2010;
    Dates as of 10/07: 1st quarter fiscal year 2011.

    No. 12;
    Event: Experiment 3;
    Systems: Command, control, communications, computer, sensors, Non-Line-
    of-Sight Cannon, surrogate platforms;
    Description: Demonstrate the integration of selected FCS
    communications, displays, sensor components and capabilities, unmanned
    air and ground systems, Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, and lethality and
    logistics enablers;
    Dates as of 3/07: [Empty];
    Dates as of 10/07: 12/09 to 7/10.

    Critical design review:
    Dates as of 3/07: 2nd quarter fiscal year 2011;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    No. 13;
    Event: Preproduction Prototypes Delivery;
    Systems: Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon and other manned ground vehicles;
    Description: Preproduction prototype delivery of manned ground vehicles
    with common features;
    Dates as of 3/07: 3rd quarter fiscal year 2010 to 4th quarter fiscal
    year 2011; Dates as of 10/07:
    3rd quarter fiscal year 2008 to 4th quarter fiscal year 2012.

    No. 14;
    Event: Technical Field Test 3;
    Systems: Field test of the brigade combat team with prototypes;
    Description: Important test that deals with maturing the network and
    confirms important interfaces and interoperability;
    Dates as of 3/07: 10/11 to 3/12;
    Dates as of 10/07: 2nd quarter fiscal year 2012 to 3rd quarter fiscal
    year 2012.

    No. 15;
    Event: Integrated Qualification Test 3;
    Systems: All manned ground vehicles and remaining unmanned ground
    vehicles, aerial vehicles and ground sensors;
    Description: Integrated qualification tests for majority of FCS systems
    including preproduction representative prototypes in their core
    threshold configurations;
    Dates as of 3/07: 8/10 to 1/12;
    Dates as of 10/07: 2nd quarter fiscal year 2010 to 1st quarter fiscal
    year 2013.

    No. 16;
    Event: Limited User Test 3;
    Systems: Some of all systems deployed in two companies with the
    network;
    Description: Assesses the brigade combat team small unit capabilities;
    Dates as of 3/07: 4/12 to 5/12;
    Dates as of 10/07: 4th quarter fiscal year 2012 to 1st quarter fiscal
    year 2013.

    Low-rate initial production decision:
    Dates as of 3/07: 2nd quarter fiscal year 2013;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    No. 17;
    Event: Production and Deployment Technical Field Test 1;
    Systems: Production core FCS systems;
    Description: Controlled field test of core FCS systems;
    Dates as of 3/07: [Empty];
    Dates as of 10/07: 4/14 to 8/14.

    No. 18;
    Event: Integrated Verification Testing;
    Systems: All FCS platforms;
    Description: Specification verification and evaluation of production
    platforms;
    Dates as of 3/07: [Empty];
    Dates as of 10/07: 10/13 to 12/16.

    No. 19;
    Event: Production and Deployment Limited User Test;
    Systems: All manned ground vehicles and some unmanned systems;
    Description: Complete full-up system-level tests of all systems to
    production standards;
    Dates as of 3/07: 4th quarter fiscal year 2014;
    Dates as of 10/07: 4th quarter fiscal year 2014 to 3rd quarter fiscal
    year 2015.

    Initial operating capability:
    Dates as of 3/07: 3rd quarter fiscal year 2015;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    No. 20;
    Event: Live Fire Test;
    Systems: All individual systems;
    Description: Live fire tests with complete and functional systems;
    Dates as of 3/07: 2014 to 2016;
    Dates as of 10/07: 4th quarter fiscal year 2014 to 4th quarter fiscal
    year 2016.

    No. 21;
    Event: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation;
    Systems: Brigade combat team and all of the systems involved;
    Description: Full spectrum operations with production representative
    systems in a realistic, operational live environment;
    Dates as of 3/07: 3rd and 4th quarter fiscal year 2016;
    Dates as of 10/07: 4th quarter fiscal year 2016 to 1st quarter fiscal
    year 2017.

    Full-rate production decision:
    Dates as of 3/07: 2nd quarter fiscal year 2017;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    Full operating capability:
    Dates as of 3/07: 3rd quarter fiscal year 2017;
    Dates as of 10/07: Same.

    Source: FCS Test and Evaluation Master Plan and FCS Program Office
    (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of table]

    As shown in table 2, a key system-of-systems level test scheduled
    before the low-rate production decision is the Limited User Test 3 in
    2012 to assess brigade combat team capabilities. This test will be the
    first large-scale FCS test that will include a majority of the
    developmental prototypes and a large operational unit and occurs only
    one year before the low-rate production decision. The Army is planning
    to have prototypes of all FCS systems available for testing prior to
    low-rate initial production, but these prototypes are not expected to
    be production-representative and may not be fully integrated. Whereas
    the testing of fully-integrated, production-representative prototypes
    demonstrates design maturity, this knowledge point will not be attained
    until after the low-rate production decision is made.

    The IDA reported in 2007 that the Army's plan for testing and analyzing
    in one phase and then fixing and retesting in the next phase could
    cause problems in FCS because the test and analysis half of one phase
    overlaps the development half of the next phase. The IDA pointed out
    that this means test results from one phase cannot easily be available
    for use in the next phase. It noted that the program's later phases are
    particularly at risk of failing to capture rework requirements
    identified by earlier experimentation and testing. It predicts that the
    compressed schedule of development and test events, together with dense
    schedule dependencies among program activities, will mean that any
    rework required will lead to a program-wide schedule slip. In
    anticipation of these and other related consequences, the IDA predicts
    that there needs to be at least one cycle of additional FCS test and
    evaluation beyond the current planned test sequence in order to resolve
    outstanding issues from previous, overlapping phases and complete
    development.

    As mentioned earlier, a systems engineering assessment will be
    conducted on the FCS program for the 2009 milestone review. This
    assessment will be an important input for the 2009 review because it
    will include an evaluation of risks associated with the FCS acquisition
    strategy, test plan, and key complementary programs. It will also
    evaluate the program's system engineering plan for reasonable exit
    criteria associated with the critical design review and production
    readiness.

    Production Commitments Are Planned to Be Made Early Despite Late
    Demonstration of FCS Capabilities:

    While the FCS low-rate production decision for the core FCS program is
    to be held in fiscal year 2013, in fact, production commitments are
    planned to begin in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 with production for the
    first of a series of three planned spin out efforts and the early
    versions of the NLOS-C vehicle. When considering these activities,
    along with long-lead and facilitization investments associated with the
    production of FCS core systems, a total of $11.9 billion in production
    money will have been appropriated and another $6.9 billion requested by
    2013. Including development funds, $39 billion will have been
    appropriated and another $8 billion requested for FCS. As noted
    previously, key demonstrations of FCS capabilities will not yet have
    taken place. Also, in April 2007, the Army announced its intention to
    contract with the LSI for the low-rate production of the first 3
    brigade combat teams of FCS systems--some 6 years in advance of the low-
    rate production decision--in addition to the production of the FCS spin
    out items and the early production of NLOS-C vehicles. In so doing, the
    Army departed from its pre-development phase philosophy of keeping the
    LSI focused on development versus production, ceding its option to
    contract directly with the producers of the individual FCS systems.
    This decision makes an already unusually close relationship between the
    Army and the LSI even closer, and heightens the oversight challenges
    FCS presents.

    Spin Out Procurement to Begin before Testing Completed:

    The Army has started a process to spin out selected FCS technologies
    and systems to current Army forces. The first spin out systems will be
    tested and evaluated in the coming year and a production decision is
    planned in 2009. However, the testing up to that point will feature
    some surrogate subsystems rather than the fully developed subsystems
    that would ultimately be deployed to current Army forces. The Army also
    has general plans for a second and third round of spin outs but,
    according to Army officials, has not funded them.

    In 2004, the Army revised its acquisition strategy to bring selected
    technologies and systems to current forces via spin outs while
    development of the core FCS program is underway. This strategy provides
    for deployment of FCS capabilities to current forces through three spin
    out efforts. The first spin out has already started, the second is
    scheduled to start in 2010, and the third in 2012. Each spin out is to
    have its own production decision point. The Army expects these spin
    outs to incrementally field some capabilities to the current forces as
    well as provide opportunities to test, experiment, and learn for the
    FCS core program. In 2006, the Army established the Army Evaluation
    Task Force to use, evaluate, and train with the spin out capabilities.
    This unit also is expected to refine FCS doctrine and other matters.

    Spin out 1 includes development, testing, procurement, and related
    installation and training activities necessary to integrate initial
    capabilities with 3 current force vehicles--the Abrams tank, the
    Bradley vehicle, and the High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle--
    and to field unattended ground sensors and the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch
    System. Planned capabilities, added to these vehicles via modification
    kits, also include two radios from the JTRS, an integrated computer
    system, and early versions of the system-of-systems common operating
    environment and battle command software subsystems. The Army expects
    spin out 1 capabilities to address current force gaps in situational
    awareness, force protection, and lethality and, if found to have
    sufficient military utility, plans to start fielding them to
    operational units in fiscal year 2010. According to the Army, it has
    fully budgeted for developing and procuring these spin out 1
    capabilities, after a go-ahead decision from the Defense Acquisition
    Board. Once approved by the board, the Army plans to begin procurement
    of long-lead production items for spin out 1 in fiscal year 2008. It
    estimates spending about $178 million total on spin out 1 development
    in fiscal years 2008 to 2012 and approximately $2.6 billion on spin out
    1 procurement in fiscal years 2008 to 2013. Procurement of these items
    will continue for many years in that the Army plans to field them to
    all current force units.

    The Army is now integrating the spin out capabilities with current
    force vehicles. These capabilities consist of hardware and software
    that are largely stand-alone systems, several of which were in
    development before the FCS program was initiated. For example, both the
    JTRS and unattended weapon system predate the start of FCS in 2003.
    Taken together, these spin out 1 capabilities serve as a starting point
    for FCS and represent only a fraction of the total capability that the
    Army plans for FCS to provide.

    The Army plans to begin testing spin out 1 capabilities in fiscal year
    2008 and finish testing them in fiscal year 2010. It anticipates an
    initial production decision on spin out 1 capabilities in January 2009.
    At this decision, the Army plans to request authorization to produce a
    limited quantity of production items for use as test assets for
    operational testing and for production ramp-up. Before the production
    decision, there are several major test events that help the Army
    Evaluation Task Force evaluate the contribution of spin out 1
    capabilities. These tests include a technical field test in the spring
    of 2008 to verify technical aspects of the capabilities, a force
    development test and evaluation in the early summer of 2008 to validate
    requirements and training associated with the capabilities, and a
    limited user test in mid-summer 2008 to operationally test the
    capabilities. However, none of these tests will use the fully
    functional JTRS radios or associated software that is to be provided to
    the current forces at spin out 1 fielding. Instead, because the JTRS
    radios and their software will not be fully developed at that time, the
    Army plans to use engineering development versions of the radios for
    ground vehicles and surrogate non-JTRS hardware and software.

    The Army believes that this test strategy mitigates risk and maintains
    that it will have the fully-capable JTRS radios and software for spin
    out 1 testing that is to be conducted shortly after the initial
    production decision. However, this approach is not without risk. First,
    as stated by Army officials, testing with surrogates will not
    necessarily provide quality measurements to gauge system performance.
    Second, as noted by the IDA, the Army may have to redesign if the fully
    developed and certified JTRS radios have different form, fit, function,
    and interoperability characteristics than expected. In short, the Army
    will be accepting sizable risks in deciding to produce the spin out
    capabilities before tests finish evaluating how well they can address
    current force capability gaps.

    In addition to spin out 1, the Army also has plans for spin outs 2 and
    3. However, those spin outs are less well-defined than spin out 1, and
    Army officials have stated that they are not yet funded. The
    capabilities planned for spin out 2, which is scheduled for the fiscal
    year 2010 to 2012 time frame, include upgraded versions of JTRS radios,
    an active protection system, and a mast-mounted sensor for the Stryker
    armored combat vehicle. Under spin out 3, which is planned for fiscal
    years 2012 to 2014, capabilities may include some FCS-developed small
    unmanned ground vehicles and unmanned airborne assets as well as the
    full FCS battle command capability.

    NLOS-C Production Planned to Begin Soon at Congress's Direction:

    Since fiscal year 2003, the Army has been required by Congress to make
    future budgetary and programming plans to fully finance the NLOS-C in
    order field a self-propelled, indirect fire capability.[Footnote 13]
    Most recently, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008,
    required the Army to make plans to field the system by fiscal year 2010
    and to deliver 8 NLOS-C prototypes by the end of calendar year
    2008.[Footnote 14] These systems are to be in addition to those needed
    for developmental and operational testing.

    The Army plans to begin procuring long-lead production items for the
    NLOS-C vehicle in 2008 to meet this requirement. The Army determined
    that a set of 18, a full battalion's worth, would be needed to meet the
    intent of the language. The Army plans to deliver six units per year in
    fiscal years 2010 through 2012. However, these early NLOS-C vehicles
    will not meet threshold FCS requirements and will not be operationally
    deployable without significant modification; rather, they will be used
    as training assets for the Army Evaluation Task Force.

    The Army has not finalized plans for facilities in which to build the
    early NLOS-C vehicles; these decisions are expected to be made no later
    than the manned ground vehicles preliminary design review in fiscal
    year 2009. Initially, the Army will likely use the current facility in
    Lima, Ohio, for hull fabrication and chassis assembly of ground
    vehicles. The mission module structural fabrication and assembly for
    most manned ground vehicles will likely be done in a York,
    Pennsylvania, facility. According to a program official, ground has
    been broken on an additional facility in Elgin, Oklahoma, where NLOS-C
    mission module assembly is expected. The expected costs of these
    facilities and the process to approve and fund the building of the
    facilities are unclear at this point.

    To meet the early fielding dates, the Army will begin early production
    of these NLOS-C vehicles with immature technologies and designs.
    Several key technologies, such as lightweight armor, the active
    protection system, and the JTRS radios will not be fully mature for
    several additional years. Much requirements work remains on the manned
    ground vehicles, including the NLOS-C, and software development is in
    its early stages. Design work on the manned ground vehicles also
    remains to be done, including work on the chassis and mission modules.
    Significant challenges involving integrating the technologies,
    software, and design will follow. To the extent that these aspects of
    the manned ground vehicles depart from the early production cannons,
    costly rework of the cannons may be necessary.

    As seen in figure 6 below, this commitment to NLOS-C production comes 5
    years before the Army plans to produce the core FCS program in 2013.
    Because of this, the early prototypes will most likely have to be hand-
    built because production facilities and processes and the necessary
    tooling will not be fully developed at that time.

    Figure 6: NLOS-C versus Core FCS Procurement Schedule:

    [See PDF for image]

    The figure is an illustration of NLOS-C versus Core FCS Procurement
    Schedule. The following information is depicted:

    Fiscal year: 2008;
    NLOS-C: Long-lead items;
    FCS core: [Empty].

    Fiscal year: 2009;
    NLOS-C: Milestone C;
    FCS core: Preliminary design review.

    Fiscal year: 2010;
    NLOS-C: first 6 delivered;
    FCS core: [Empty].

    Fiscal year: 2011;
    NLOS-C: second 6 delivered;
    FCS core: Critical design review.

    Fiscal year: 2012;
    NLOS-C: third 6 delivered;
    FCS core: Long-lead items.

    Fiscal year: 2013;

    NLOS-C: [Empty];
    FCS core: Milestone C.

    Source: Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    The Army is planning for a seamless transition between NLOS-C
    production and core FCS production. Beginning the production of NLOS-C
    vehicles 5 years before the start of FCS core production could create
    additional pressure to proceed with FCS core production. Advance
    procurement funding for the first full suite of FCS systems will begin
    in fiscal year 2011, the budget for which will be presented to Congress
    in February 2010--less than a year after the milestone review and
    before the stability of the FCS design is assessed at the critical
    design review. By 2013, the Army will have already invested a total of
    $11.9 billion in procurement, with another $6.9 requested. Moreover, to
    the extent that beginning NLOS-C production in 2008 starts up the
    manned ground vehicle industrial base, it could create a future need to
    sustain the base. If FCS goes according to plan, FCS core production
    would begin as early NLOS-C production ends, with FCS core long lead
    items providing a transition. If decision makers were to consider
    delaying FCS core production because it was not ready, a gap could
    develop when early NLOS-C production ends. Sustaining the industrial
    base could then become an argument against an otherwise justified
    delay.

    In December 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics took steps to keep the decisions on the NLOS-
    C early production separate from FCS core production. In approving
    procurement of long-lead items for the NLOS-C vehicles in 2008, the
    Under Secretary designated the 18 early prototypes as a separate,
    special interest program for which he will retain authority for making
    milestone decisions. The Under Secretary plans another decision in 2009
    to approve the start of NLOS-C production and has put a cost limit of
    $505.2 million (fiscal year 2003 dollars) on production. He also
    specified that specific requirements be met at that time, such as a
    capability production document, technology readiness assessment, test
    plan, independent estimate of costs, and an approved acquisition
    program baseline. This is a positive step in ensuring that the Army's
    efforts to meet congressional direction do not result in unfavorable
    consequences.

    Army's Early Commitment to LSI for FCS Production Heightens Oversight
    Challenges:

    The Army's April 2007 decision to contract with the LSI for FCS
    production makes an already close relationship closer, represents a
    change from the Army's rationale prior to beginning development for
    using an LSI, and may further complicate oversight. As LSI, Boeing's
    role is multifaceted: it is a partner with the Army in developing
    requirements and defining the FCS solution; it is overseeing the
    development efforts of all of the individual system subcontractors, a
    role that will extend well beyond the 2013 production decision; it is
    responsible for developing two key software products--the system-of-
    systems common operating environment, the core of the FCS network, and
    the Warfighter Machine Interface; it is the prime contractor for the
    production of spin outs and the NLOS-C; and now it is to be responsible
    for the low-rate production of the first three combat brigades of FCS
    core systems.

    The specific role the LSI will play in production of spin outs, NLOS-C,
    and FCS core production are unclear at this point. The contracts for
    long lead items for spin out 1 and NLOS-C have not been definitized yet
    and statements of work for the production contracts will be negotiated
    later. According to the program officials, Boeing will contract with
    the first tier subcontractors who will in turn contract with their own
    subcontractors. For example, the firms that are designing and
    developing and will physically manufacture NLOS-C are General Dynamics
    and British Aerospace. Similarly, the work that the LSI does on actual
    production of the FCS is likely to be small compared to the other
    hardware suppliers and assemblers. Thus, the production role of the LSI
    is likely to be largely in oversight of the first tier subcontractors.

    From the outset of the program, the LSI was to focus its attention on
    development activities, which the Army judged to be beyond what it
    could directly handle. The Army believed that traditionally,
    contractors made much of their profit in production, not in research
    and development. Thus, the Army reasoned, the contractors are not as
    motivated by research and development as they are by production. Army
    leadership believed that by using an LSI that would not necessarily
    have to be retained for production, the Army could get the best effort
    from the contractor during the development phase while at the same time
    making the effort profitable for the contractor. The Army had always
    reserved the right to contract directly with the developers of the
    individual FCS systems for production. In 2005, the Army took steps to
    further bound the integrator role when it strengthened the
    organizational conflicts of interest clause in the contract to preclude
    the LSI from competing for any further subcontracts.

    Nonetheless, the LSI's involvement in the production phase has been
    growing over time. The current LSI development contract for the core
    FCS systems extends almost 2 years beyond the 2013 production decision.
    The Army does not expect that the initial brigades outfitted by FCS
    will meet the upper range of its requirements, and has made the LSI
    responsible for planning future FCS enhancements during the production
    phase. The LSI is also responsible for defining and maintaining a
    growth strategy for integrating new technologies into the FCS brigade
    combat teams. Combined with a likely role in sustainment, which has not
    yet been fully defined, the LSI will remain indefinitely involved in
    the FCS program. It is also likely that the LSI will be used over the
    long term for data and configuration management, among other things.

    The recent decision to commit to the LSI for the early production of
    FCS spin out items and NLOS-C vehicles as well as the initial low rate
    production of FCS core systems is perhaps the final departure from the
    Army's effort to keep the contractor's focus solely on development. It
    is particularly significant given that it is 6 years in advance of the
    low-rate production decision and effectively cedes a key point of
    leverage--source selection--that the Army held. The Army justified its
    decision on the grounds that it is the most cost effective means of
    proceeding. The Army believes that Boeing's previous experience with
    FCS provides the company the unique management framework and expertise
    necessary to proceed. The Army also cites Boeing's common configuration
    management process and the ability to integrate systems-of-systems
    trade-offs and requirements changes holistically. While these may be
    legitimate advantages, they would not necessarily represent new
    discoveries on the part of the Army but rather natural advantages that
    would likely accrue to an incumbent system integrator. In addition, the
    Army's analysis that led up to the decision did not assess its
    originally stated option of the Army's contracting directly with the
    individual system developers for production, but rather focused on the
    much narrower question of whether it was feasible for any other
    contractor to perform the role of the LSI for the entire FCS program.

    We have previously reported that the complex relationship between the
    Army and Boeing increases the burden of oversight and poses risks for
    the Army's ability to provide independent oversight over the long
    term.[Footnote 15] The relationship between the Army and Boeing broke
    new ground in its close, partner-like arrangement. It has advantages
    over an arms-length relationship but makes oversight more challenging.
    Specifically, we have noted that:

    * The government can become increasingly vested in the results of
    shared decisions and runs the risk of being less able to provide
    oversight.

    * The Army's performance, such as in developing critical technologies,
    may affect the LSI's ability to perform, a situation that can pose
    accountability problems.

    * It may be difficult for the Army to separate its own performance from
    that of the LSI's when making decisions on how and whether to award
    fees.

    The Army's decision to commit to the LSI as the source for initial FCS
    production in 2013 makes the relationship even closer and more
    interdependent. Beyond the existing oversight challenges the
    relationship already posed, there is now an additional need to guard
    against the natural incentive of production from creating more pressure
    to proceed through development checkpoints prematurely. As we have
    previously reported, this is a burden that will need to be increasingly
    borne by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

    FCS Costs Likely to Be Higher Than Current Army Estimate:

    The Army's $160.9 billion cost estimate for the FCS program is largely
    unchanged from last year's estimate despite a program adjustment that
    reduced the number of FCS systems from 18 to 14. This represents a
    reduction in the Army's buying power on FCS. Two independent cost
    assessments--from DOD's CAIG and the other from the IDA--are
    significantly higher than the Army's estimate. Both assessments
    estimate higher costs for software development, to which the recent
    increase in lines of code adds credence. Given the program's relative
    immaturity in terms of technology and requirements definition, there is
    not a firm foundation for a confident cost estimate. The Army maintains
    that when it becomes necessary, it will further reduce FCS content to
    keep development costs within available funding levels. As the Army
    begins a steep ramp-up of FCS production, FCS costs will compete with
    other Army funding priorities, such as the transition to modular
    organizations and recapitalizing the weapons and other assets that
    return from current operations. Together, the program's uncertain cost
    estimate and competing Army priorities make additional reductions in
    FCS scope and increases in cost likely.

    Program Adjustment Reduces Scope, yet Costs Remain Largely the Same:

    Despite a major program adjustment that deleted 4 of the 18 platforms,
    extended the overall schedule by about 5 months, and further lengthened
    the production run, the Army's official cost estimate for the FCS
    program has only slightly decreased since last year. In inflated
    dollars, the program estimates the acquisition cost will be $160.9
    billion, down from last year's estimate of $163.7 billion. The current
    estimate reflects the second major program restructuring in the
    program's history. The Army attributes the adjustment to (1) funding
    constraints in the fiscal year 2008 to 2013 program objective
    memorandum that made the previous configuration of the program
    unaffordable, (2) consecutive budget cuts by the Congress, and (3) the
    changing needs of the Army that incorporate lessons learned from
    ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of January 2008, the Army
    and LSI were in negotiations to implement these changes into the
    development contract, and the dollar values of the specific changes
    were not yet available. For example, the cost savings from deleting
    four systems were offset by reducing annual procurement rates and
    extending the production schedule by 4 years.

    The program adjustment may mean a reduction in capabilities of the FCS
    program. The impacts of the adjustment on the program are not yet fully
    known, but Army officials stated that the adjustment puts into doubt
    its ability to reach the full potential of the program. In 2003, the
    program was approved with a set of 14 core systems. Several systems
    were added when the program was restructured in 2004. Now, with this
    most recent adjustment, the program has once again been reduced to
    largely the same set of 14 systems, but in that time frame, the costs
    of the program increased by about 46 percent. This increasing cost,
    coupled with reductions in scope of the program, means a loss of buying
    power for the Army that may continue to the extent that costs continue
    to grow, forcing program officials to reduce more capabilities to stay
    within available funds.

    Independent Assessments Indicate Potentially Higher Acquisition Costs:

    Two recent independent estimates, from IDA and the CAIG, suggest costs
    for the FCS program could be much higher than Army estimates. The
    Army's estimate; the independent assessment from IDA, which focuses on
    research and development costs; and the CAIG estimate are presented in
    table 3.

    Table 3: Comparison of the Original Cost Estimate and Recent Cost
    Estimates for the FCS Program (in billions of dollars):

    Base-year 2003 Dollars: Research, development, testing, and evaluation;
    May 2003: Army estimate: $18.1;
    December 2005: Army estimate: $26.4;
    May 2006: CAIG estimate: $31.8 - 44.0;
    December 2006: Army estimate: $25.1;
    April 2007: IDA assessment: Approximately $38.1.

    Base-year 2003 Dollars: Procurement;
    May 2003: Army estimate: $59.1;
    December 2005: Army estimate: $92.8;
    May 2006: CAIG estimate: $118.7;
    December 2006: Army estimate: $87.5;
    April 2007: IDA assessment: N/A.

    Base-year 2003 Dollars: Total;
    May 2003: Army estimate: $77.2;
    December 2005: Army estimate: $119.2;
    May 2006: CAIG estimate: $150.5 - 162.7;
    December 2006: Army estimate: $112.6;
    April 2007: IDA assessment: N/A.

    Then-year Dollars: Research, development, testing, and evaluation;
    May 2003: Army estimate: $19.6;
    December 2005: Army estimate: $30.6;
    May 2006: CAIG estimate: $36.6 - 52.7;
    December 2006: Army estimate: $29.3;
    April 2007: IDA assessment: N/A.

    Then-year Dollars: Procurement;
    May 2003: Army estimate: $71.8;
    December 2005: Army estimate: $133.1;
    May 2006: CAIG estimate: $166.7 - 181.2;
    December 2006: Army estimate: $131.6;
    April 2007: IDA assessment: N/A.

    Then-year Dollars: Total;
    May 2003: Army estimate: $91.4;
    December 2005: Army estimate: $163.7;
    May 2006: CAIG estimate: $203.3 - 233.9;
    December 2006: Army estimate: $160.9;
    April 2007: IDA assessment: N/A.

    Source: U.S. Army, Office of the Secretary of Defense, IDA (data); GAO
    (analysis and presentation).

    [End of table]

    In its 2007 study, IDA estimated a potential $13 billion in additional
    development costs above the Army's adjusted estimate because of
    unplanned software effort, additional costs related to rework during
    the operational test and evaluation phase of the program, and
    additional costs for system-of-systems integration, validation, and
    test after the program's critical design review. The study further
    identified significant additional cost risk, which it described as
    unquantifiable, because of incomplete technology maturation, critical
    dependency on complementary programs, necessary experimentation during
    FCS development, and the overall complexity and required
    synchronization of the FCS development activities. The IDA study did
    not assess likely procurement costs. The Army has stated that the IDA
    assessment does not give the Army credit for the risk mitigation
    offered by the integration phase approach and spin outs. The IDA
    expects an additional catch-up integration phase to be necessary, which
    increases work scope and would drive up development costs. Program
    officials said that the integration phase approach is a knowledge-based
    approach, but acknowledged that the overlapping schedules of the phases
    assumes success.

    We reported last year that the CAIG's independent estimate indicated
    that FCS costs could ultimately range from $203 billion to $234 billion
    in inflated dollars. The CAIG estimate was based on additional
    procurement quantities that were never approved or funded. The CAIG's
    development estimate reflected several additional years and additional
    staffing beyond the Army's estimate to achieve initial operational
    capability. The difference in estimates is also attributable to the
    CAIG's assessment that the FCS software development would require more
    time and effort to complete than the Army had estimated. In fact, the
    Army recently indicated an increase in estimated software lines of code
    from 63 million to 95 million. The independent estimate also provided
    for additional risks regarding the availability of key systems to
    support the FCS network, such as the JTRS radios. Neither the Army nor
    the Defense Acquisition Board has accepted the independent estimate.
    Program officials stated last year that the independent cost estimate
    of research and development costs was too high because it was too
    conservative regarding risks.

    In 2003, the CAIG's initial independent estimate for the program was
    $101.1 billion in acquisition costs, versus the Army's estimate of
    $77.2 billion in base year 2003 dollars. When the program began, the
    estimates were based on an FCS system-of-systems including 14 platforms
    with an additional four platforms deferred. The 2004 restructure
    brought back the deferred systems for a total of 18. But, the recent
    program adjustment once again deferred essentially the same set of
    platforms. The current configuration is 14 systems, and the Army's cost
    estimate of $112.6 billion in base year 2003 dollars is comparable to
    the CAIG's original estimate for the same number of FCS systems. The
    Army's estimate has thus increased about 46 percent over the course of
    4 years for essentially the same set of platforms, while some
    capabilities, such as the transport requirements for manned ground
    vehicles, have been modified over that time frame.

    The Army has not accepted either of the independent estimates on the
    grounds that the CAIG and IDA estimates include additional work scope,
    particularly in the later years of the development phase. Program
    officials told us that the Army cannot fund additional work that is not
    currently in its scope. The CAIG and IDA both use historical growth
    factors in their estimates, based on the results of previous programs.
    It is reasonable to use such growth factors, based on our own analysis
    of weapon systems and the low level of knowledge attained on the FCS
    program at this time. Given the different approaches from the Army and
    the independent estimators, it is likely the CAIG and the Army will
    still differ in their estimates when the CAIG prepares its independent
    estimate for the 2009 program review. Army officials have said they
    will not increase program cost estimates to fall in line with
    independent estimates, but will instead consider trading away
    requirements or changing their concept of operations to keep FCS
    development costs within available funding levels. The Army and LSI are
    currently conducting analyses to determine which requirements and
    capabilities can be discarded with the least impact to the program. The
    FCS contract also contains a clause on program generated adjustments.
    This allows the LSI to identify a prioritized list of capabilities in
    advance that can be partially or completely deleted should the need
    arise. The money budgeted for them can then be redirected to new work
    scope or to offset a cost overrun. Should the higher cost estimates
    prove correct, the Army will have to make significant changes in
    planned capabilities to absorb the higher program costs.

    FCS Still Lacks Solid Knowledge Base from Which to Make Confident Cost
    Estimates:

    Cost estimates for any program are limited by the level of product
    knowledge available. We have previously reported that the Army's
    estimates are limited by the low level of knowledge in the FCS program
    today. The current FCS estimates do not have a base of mature
    technologies and well-defined system-level requirements. There have
    been few demonstrations of FCS capabilities to date, and the set of
    complementary programs that the FCS program will rely on to function
    properly is still uncertain. Therefore, the Army must make significant
    assumptions about how knowledge will develop. As experience has shown,
    in many DOD weapon systems, assumptions generally prove optimistic and
    result in underestimated costs.

    One way to reduce the probability of unbudgeted cost growth is to
    present a confidence level for a cost estimate based on risk and
    uncertainty analyses. Such analyses entail testing the sensitivity of
    costs to changes in input values and key assumptions. While confidence
    levels have limitations in that they are dependent on the assumptions
    made in calculating them, their use is recognized as a best practice.
    In an effort to better ensure realism in DOD budgets, a 2006 panel on
    acquisition reform established by the Deputy Secretary of Defense
    recommended that program budgets be set at a specific confidence
    level.[Footnote 16] To date, the Army has not calculated a confidence
    level for its FCS cost estimate. FCS program officials maintain that
    while they would like to explore this area, confidence levels are
    difficult to do because the program's budget frequently changes and
    requirements are undefined. On the other hand, this is the kind of
    variability that a confidence level analysis attempts to capture.

    As it is currently structured, the Army is planning to make substantial
    financial investments in the FCS program before key knowledge is gained
    on requirements, technologies, system designs, and system performance.
    Figure 7 shows the cumulative funding, as reported in the program's
    current cost estimate, and the timing of the program's key events.
    Appendix V has a year-by-year breakdown of FCS research and development
    funding and key events.

    Figure 7: Cumulative FCS Research and Development Funding and Key
    Events:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a line graph depicting Cumulative FCS Research and
    Development Funding and Key Events. The vertical axis of the graph
    represents dollars in billions from 0 to 35. The horizontal axis of the
    graph represents fiscal years from 2003 to 2015. The following data is
    approximated from the graph:

    Fiscal year: 2003;
    Cumulative R&D funding: 0;
    Key Event: None.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Cumulative R&D funding: approximately $5 billion;
    Key Event: None.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Cumulative R&D funding: approximately $11 billion;
    Key Event: None;

    Fiscal year: 2009;
    Cumulative R&D funding: approximately $18 billion;
    Key Event: Preliminary Design Review (PDR).

    Fiscal year: 2011;
    Cumulative R&D funding: approximately $25 billion;
    Key Event: Critical Design Review (CDR).

    Fiscal year: 2013;
    Cumulative R&D funding: approximately $27 billion;
    Key Event: Low-rate initial production (LRIP).

    Fiscal year: 2016;
    Cumulative R&D funding: approximately $30 billion;
    Key Event: Full-rate production (FRP).

    Source: Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    As indicated in figure 7, by the time of the preliminary design review
    and the go/no-go decision in 2009, the Army will have spent over $18
    billion--60 percent--of its development budget. At that point, the
    program should have matured most of the critical technologies to TRL 6,
    and the definition of system-level requirements should be nearing
    completion. This is the level of knowledge the program should have
    reached in 2003 before being approved for development start, according
    to best practices and the approach preferred by DOD in its acquisition
    policies. Yet, significantly expensive work, such as building and
    testing prototypes, remains ahead.

    As reported by the CAIG and IDA, historical experience suggests FCS
    costs will grow higher, possibly significantly, beyond the Army's
    current estimate. Our previous work has shown that development costs
    for the programs with mature technologies increased by a modest average
    of 4.8 percent over the first full estimate, whereas the development
    costs for the programs with immature technologies increased by a much
    higher average of 34.9 percent. Similarly, program acquisition unit
    costs for the programs with the most mature technologies increased by
    less than 1 percent, whereas the programs that started development with
    immature technologies experienced an average program acquisition unit
    cost increase of nearly 27 percent over the first full estimate. Our
    work also showed that most development cost growth occurred after the
    critical design review. Specifically, of the 28.3 percent cost growth
    that weapon systems average in development, 19.7 percent occurs after
    the critical design review. An example of a program that did not allow
    enough time in development and that is now dealing with the results is
    the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. We reported in May
    2006 that this program has seen a 45 percent increase in acquisition
    cost alongside reductions in key performance parameters and schedule
    delays--a major reduction in buying power.[Footnote 17] These effects
    are attributable to the fact that the program did not allow enough time
    in system development and demonstration to fully design and demonstrate
    the capabilities of the program before the decision to begin building
    prototypes.

    Army Efforts to Control Cost Focus on Scope Reductions:

    The Army is attempting to manage the growing cost of the FCS. It has
    said that the Army will not exceed the cost ceiling of the development
    contract, but as a result, it may have to modify, reduce, or delete
    lower priority FCS requirements. Also, the Army is focusing on reducing
    the projected average unit production cost of the brigade combat teams,
    which is currently projected to exceed the amount at which each brigade
    combat team is budgeted. As a result of the program adjustment, the
    Army has re-established a lower average unit production cost target.
    Prior to the adjustment, the Army had established a glide path for cost
    reduction, but had been struggling to meet the goals in some areas,
    particularly with the manned ground vehicles. The Army has developed
    affordability initiatives to help it reach the targets, but their
    effectiveness may not be realized for several years.

    The Army and the LSI monitor the performance of the FCS program through
    an earned value management system, which provides information on the
    technical, schedule, and cost performance of the program. As it
    proceeds, the Army and LSI can use the information gleaned from the
    earned value management system to make informed program decisions and
    correct potential problems early. According to recent earned value
    data, (which does not currently take into account the scope reduction
    of four systems) the FCS program is currently tracking fairly closely
    with cost and schedule expectations that were revised in 2004, although
    some variances are beginning to show in key areas such as the Non-Line-
    of-Sight Launch System. However, it is too early in the program for the
    data at this point to be conclusive. In the case of the FCS, when the
    program restructured its scope in 2004, the earned value data up to
    that point was rebaselined. And, because of the recent program
    adjustment, the future work on the program is being replanned. As a
    result, the earned value data at this point provides little insight
    into the potential future performance of the program and the extent of
    the challenges the Army still faces with FCS.

    Army Begins Steep Ramp Up of FCS Procurement Funding in 2008:

    The FCS program plans to begin spending procurement money in fiscal
    year 2008 for long lead items for the spin outs and for the NLOS-C. FCS
    procurement funding then ramps up very quickly, as can be seen in table
    4. By the time of the low-rate initial production decision for the core
    program in 2013, the Army expects that a total of $39.1 billion will
    have been appropriated and another $8 billion requested for FCS. $11.9
    billion of the appropriated funds and $6.9 billion of the requested
    funds will be for production costs. This money will include spin out
    production, early NLOS-C production, and long lead and facilitization
    for FCS core production. About $500 million (fiscal year 2003 dollars)
    of this will be designated for NLOS-C early production through fiscal
    year 2012.

    Table 4: FCS Procurement Funding through 2013 (dollars in millions):

    Core program:
    Fiscal year: 2008: 79.5;
    Fiscal year: 2009: 155.8;
    Fiscal year: 2010: 149.4;
    Fiscal year: 2011: 683.8;
    Fiscal year: 2012: 2194.6;
    Fiscal year: 2013: 5795.3;
    Total: 9058.4.

    Spin outs:
    Fiscal year: 2008: 20.1;
    Fiscal year: 2009: 172.7;
    Fiscal year: 2010: 373.8;
    Fiscal year: 2011: 557.1;
    Fiscal year: 2012: 779.7;
    Fiscal year: 2013: 958.1;
    Total: 2861.4.

    Total:
    2008: 99.6;
    2009: 328.5;
    2010: 523.2;
    2011: 1240.9;
    2012: 2974.3;
    2013: 6753.3;
    Total: 11919.8.

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of table]

    As indicated in figure 8 below, the increasing budget demands for FCS
    production are occurring when FCS development costs are still high and,
    per independent estimates, may be higher yet.

    Figure 8: FCS Research and Development and Procurement Funding Profile
    from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2030:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a line graph representing FCS Research and Development
    and Procurement Funding Profile from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal
    Year 2030. The representation is a combination of R&D and Procurement
    funding. The vertical axis of the graph represents dollars in billions
    from 0 to 10. The horizontal axis of the graph represents fiscal years
    from 2003 to 2029. R&D funds are zero in 2003, peak at about $3.5
    billion in 2007, and taper back to zero by 2016. Procurement funds
    begin in 2007, adding to the total funding. By 2015, procurement funds
    peak at about $9.5 billion and remain between $7 and 8 billion through
    2028 when there is a steep decline to about $1 billion for 2029.

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of figure]

    The Army will have to balance its needs for the FCS program with
    competing demands from within the Army and DOD, including the Army's
    efforts to change its division-based force structure to smaller, more
    numerous brigade formations. These efforts have proven significantly
    more costly and time consuming than originally planned. The Army will
    also have to fully define the content of spin outs 2 and 3 and secure
    funding for their full costs, which could be substantial. Additional
    reductions in FCS scope and capabilities may become necessary if the
    high budgets needed cannot be sustained. By the time of the FCS
    milestone review in 2009, the fiscal year 2010 Army budget will be
    under consideration by the Congress, and the fiscal year 2010 to 2015
    future years defense program will be available. This program will
    include the first few years of FCS production, at the annual rate of 1
    brigade combat team per year, and the procurement of spin outs 2 and 3.
    As such, it should provide insights as to whether the Army can
    reasonably fund FCS and its other priorities.

    Conclusions:

    The 2009 milestone review will be perhaps the definitive decision on
    FCS's future. For several reasons, the decision bears the
    responsibility of both a commitment to continued development and to
    production. The Army's strategy for FCS--with technologies still
    immature, insufficient testing of system prototypes before low-rate
    production, and a high likelihood of cost increases--has never abided
    by DOD policy and in 2013 is likely to present decision makers with a
    partially developed and largely undemonstrated system for production.
    If significant problems have to be corrected during production, the
    costs could be prohibitive, thus putting the Army's modernization plan
    in jeopardy. It is therefore essential at the 2009 decision that the
    FCS business case be demonstrated against clear criteria--both as to
    what performance it can deliver and the soundness of its remaining
    schedule--versus being assessed on potentialities. With such large sums
    already invested, early production having begun in 2008, and the late
    development and demonstration of the FCS capability, decision makers in
    2013 will be in a very difficult position under the current strategy.

    The deficiencies we cite in this report in areas such as requirements
    and technology are not criticisms of progress in the sense that things
    should have gone smoother or faster. At issue, rather, is the
    misalignment of the program's normal progress with the events used to
    manage and make decisions on such acquisitions--key decisions are made
    well before requisite knowledge is available. The decisions in 2009
    will provide an opportunity to realign the progress of knowledge in FCS
    with events such as the critical design review and tests of prototypes
    before the production decision. The 2009 decision point may also be the
    government's last realistic opportunity to safeguard its ability to
    change course on FCS, should that be warranted. The first decision, as
    we see it, will have to involve whether FCS's capabilities have been
    demonstrated to be both technically feasible and militarily worthwhile.
    If they have not, then DOD and the Army will need to have viable
    alternatives to fielding the FCS capability as currently envisioned.
    Depending on the results of the first decision, the second decision is
    to determine how to structure the remainder of the FCS program so that
    it attains high levels of knowledge before key commitments.

    Other aspects of the FCS program warrant attention that should not wait
    until the 2009 decision. Primary among these is the Army's decision to
    extend the role of the LSI into FCS production. This is a decision that
    will necessarily heighten the role the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense will have to play in overseeing the program and departs from
    the Army's philosophy of having the LSI focus on development without
    the competing demands and interests that production poses. A second
    aspect of the program warranting attention is the Army's approach to
    spin outs. It will be important for the Army to clearly demonstrate the
    military utility of the spin outs to current Army forces based on
    testing high-fidelity, production-representative prototypes, before a
    commitment is made to low-rate production. This is not the current
    plan, as the Army plans to use some surrogate equipment in the testing
    that will support the production decision for spin out 1. Finally, it
    is important that the production investments in the spin outs and NLOS-
    C do not create undue momentum for production of FCS core systems. As
    noted above, commitment to production of the FCS's core systems must be
    predicated on attaining high levels of knowledge, consistent with DOD
    policy. The Under Secretary of Defense's recent decision to break out
    early NLOS-C production as a separate acquisition program goes a long
    way to meet congressional direction on NLOS-C while mitigating the
    consequences for the rest of the FCS program. This is an issue that
    will need sustained attention.

    Recommendations for Executive Action:

    To ensure that the 2009 FCS milestone review is positioned to be both
    well-informed and transparent, we recommend that the Secretary of
    Defense establish objective and quantitative criteria that the FCS
    program will have to meet in order to justify its continuation and gain
    approval for the remainder of its acquisition strategy.[Footnote 18]
    The criteria should be set by at least July 30, 2008, so as to be
    prescriptive, and should be consistent with DOD acquisition policy and
    best practices. At a minimum, the criteria should include:

    * the completion of the definition of all FCS requirements including
    those for the information network;

    * the demonstration that preliminary designs meet FCS requirements;

    * the maturation of all critical technologies;

    * the synchronization of FCS with all essential complementary programs;

    * a sound and executable acquisition strategy, including:

    - the synchronization of the development and demonstration of the FCS
    information network with the development and demonstration of other FCS
    elements,

    - a realistic path forward to critical design review,

    - a thorough and robust test and evaluation plan, and:

    - a realistic path forward to production process maturity before the
    start of production;

    * development and production cost estimates that (1) have a specified
    confidence level and (2) are reconciled with independent estimates;
    and:

    * assurance that the Army can properly fund, over the long term, the
    FCS program of record.

    We recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in advance of the 2009
    milestone review, identify viable alternatives to FCS as currently
    structured that can be considered in the event that FCS does not
    measure up to the criteria set for the review. As we have previously
    reported, an alternative need not be a rival to the FCS, but rather the
    next best solution that can be adopted if FCS is not able to deliver
    the needed capabilities. For example, an alternative need not represent
    a choice between FCS and the current force, but could include fielding
    a subset of FCS, such as a class of vehicles, if they perform as needed
    and provide a militarily worthwhile capability.

    Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense (1) closely examine
    the oversight implications of the Army's decision to contract with the
    LSI for early production of FCS spin outs, NLOS-C, and low-rate
    production for the core FCS program; (2) take steps to mitigate the
    risks of the Army's decisions, including the consideration of the full
    range of alternatives for contracting for production; and (3) evaluate
    alternatives to the LSI for long-term sustainment support of the FCS
    system of systems.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

    DOD concurred with our recommendations and stated that criteria for the
    2009 FCS Defense Acquisition Board review, aligned with the FCS's
    preliminary design review, will be reviewed and finalized at the 2008
    FCS Defense Acquisition Board review. For its 2009 review, the Defense
    Acquisition Board expects the Army to provide evidence of stable
    requirements, verification that the preliminary design can meet those
    requirements, evidence of mature technologies, alignment of essential
    complementary systems, an executable acquisition strategy, a low-risk
    cost estimate, and an affordability assessment. The results of the
    analyses and assessments planned to support the 2009 review will inform
    DOD's acquisition and budget decisions for FCS. These are positive
    steps toward informing the 2009 Defense Acquisition Board review. For
    example, the expectation that FCS will have mature critical
    technologies is a step beyond simply conducting an independent
    assessment of technology maturity. Likewise, aligning essential
    complementary systems would demonstrate measurable progress more than
    simply updating status and issues for complementary systems.

    DOD states that an analysis of alternatives will inform the 2009 FCS
    review. It is important that such an analysis go beyond whether FCS is
    the preferred alternative, and assess alternatives to FCS in the event
    the Defense Acquisition Board determines the FCS program of record is
    not executable or affordable. Such alternatives would not necessarily
    represent a choice between competing solutions, but may, for example,
    include a subset of FCS systems augmenting current forces.

    Regarding our recommendations related to oversight, DOD stated that it
    would evaluate FCS production contracting approaches and risks, as well
    as alternatives to the LSI for long-term sustainment support. DOD is
    silent on the expansion of the LSI's role into core FCS production and
    cites its reliance on Army analyses and risk assessments. Yet, the Army
    has already indicated its intent to go forward with its plans for
    production, including contracting with the LSI, pending approval to do
    so. It is essential that the Office of the Secretary of Defense perform
    its own analyses and assessments, so that it may arrive at its own
    conclusions. In particular, the Office must evaluate the advantages and
    risks of the LSI's expanded production role with regard to the
    potentially greater burden of oversight it will likely bear as a
    consequence.

    Finally, the department maintains that GAO's definition of testing
    requirements to support the low-rate initial production decision is
    more in line with the requirements for Initial Operational Test and
    Evaluation, which occurs with low-rate production assets and informs
    the full-rate production decision. The testing standards we apply
    reflect the best practice of having production-representative
    prototypes tested prior to a low-rate production decision. This
    approach demonstrates the prototypes' performance and reliability as
    well as manufacturing processes--in short, that the product is ready to
    be manufactured within cost, schedule, and quality goals.

    We received other technical comments from DOD, which have been
    addressed in the report, as appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the
    Secretary of the Army; and the Director, Office of Management and
    Budget. Copies will also be made available at no charge on the GAO Web
    site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

    Please contact me on (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff has any
    questions concerning this report. Contact points for our Offices of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
    page of this report. Other contributors to this report were Assistant
    Director William R. Graveline, Noah B. Bleicher, Martin G. Campbell,
    Tana M. Davis, Marcus C. Ferguson, and Carrie R. Wilson.

    Signed by:

    Paul L. Francis:
    Director:
    Acquisition and Sourcing Management:

    List of Committees:

    The Honorable Carl Levin:
    Chairman:
    The Honorable John McCain:
    Ranking Member:
    Committee on Armed Services:
    United States Senate:

    The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
    Chairman:
    The Honorable Ted Stevens:
    Ranking Member:
    Subcommittee on Defense:
    Committee on Appropriations:
    United States Senate:

    The Honorable Ike Skelton:
    Chairman:
    The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
    Ranking Member:
    Committee on Armed Services:
    House of Representatives:

    The Honorable John P. Murtha, Jr.
    Chairman:
    The Honorable C. W. (Bill) Young:
    Ranking Member:
    Subcommittee on Defense:
    Committee on Appropriations:
    House of Representatives:

    [End of section]

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

    To develop the information on the Future Combat System program that we
    used to assess (1) how the definition, development, and demonstration
    of FCS capabilities is proceeding, particularly in light of the go/no-
    go decision scheduled for 2009; (2) the Army's plans for making
    production commitments for FCS and any risks relative to the completion
    of development; and (3) the estimated costs for developing and
    producing FCS and risks the Army faces in both meeting the estimate and
    providing commensurate funding, we interviewed officials at the Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and
    Logistics); the Secretary of Defense's Cost Analysis Improvement Group;
    the Institute for Defense Analyses; the Army's Training and Doctrine
    Command; the Future Force Integration Directorate; the Army Evaluation
    Task Force; the Army Test and Evaluation Command; the Director of the
    Combined Test Organization; the Program Manager for the Future Combat
    System (Brigade Combat Team); the Future Combat System LSI; and LSI One
    Team Partners.

    We reviewed many Army and DOD documents, including the Future Combat
    System's Operational Requirements Document, the Acquisition Strategy
    Report, the Selected Acquisition Report, the Test and Evaluation Master
    Plan, critical technology assessments and technology risk mitigation
    plans, and modeling and simulation results.

    We attended the Board of Directors Reviews, the Engineering Maturity 1
    event, and multiple system demonstrations. In our assessment of the
    FCS, we used the knowledge based acquisition practices drawn from our
    large body of past work as well as DOD's acquisition policy and the
    experiences of other programs.

    We certify that officials from DOD and the Army have provided us access
    to sufficient information to make informed judgments on the matters in
    this report. We discussed the issues presented in this report with
    officials from the Army and the Secretary of Defense and made several
    changes as a result. We performed our review from March 2007 to March
    2008 in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
    the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.

    [End of section]

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:

    Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
    Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
    3000 Defense Pentagon:
    Washington, DC 20301-3000:

    February 28, 2088:

    Mr. Paul L. Francis:
    Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20548:

    Dear Mr. Francis:

    This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
    report, "Defense Acquisitions: 2009 Is a Critical Juncture for the
    Army's Future Combat system," dated January 31, 2008 (GAO Code
    120656/GAO-08-408).

    The report recommends that the Secretary of Defense establish criteria
    for the Future Combat System (FCS) program to meet for approval at the
    2009 review for continuation of the FCS acquisition strategy. The GAO
    recommended the Secretary of Defense identify viable alternatives to
    the FCS program as currently structured. Additionally, the GAO
    recommended examination of the alternatives for FCS production and
    sustainment.

    The Department concurs with the GAO recommendations and our comments
    are enclosed. A technical comment of note is the GAO's definition of
    testing requirements to support the low-rate initial production
    decision is more in line with the requirements for Initial Operational
    Test and Evaluation, which occurs with low-rate production assets and
    informs the full rate production decision. Detailed technical comments
    were provided separately.

    The Army's transformation effort, and in particular, the FCS program
    requires a disciplined, yet agile, acquisition construct. The FCS
    acquisition strategy includes periodic acquisition reviews by the
    Department, including a Defense Acquisition Board review, subsequent to
    the FCS preliminary design review in 2009.

    Sincerely,

    Signed by:
    David G. Ahern:
    Director:
    Portfolio Systems Acquisition:

    Enclosure: As stated:

    GAO Draft Report Dated January 31, 2008:
    GAO-08-408 (GAO Code 120656):

    "Defense Acquisitions: 2009 Is A Critical Juncture For The Army's
    Future Combat System"

    Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:

    Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
    establish objective and quantitative criteria that the Future Combat
    System (FCS) program will have to meet in order to justify its
    continuation and gain approval for the remainder of its acquisition
    strategy. At a minimum the criteria should include:

    * the completion of the definition of all FCS requirements including
    those for the information network;

    * the demonstration that preliminary designs meet FCS requirements;

    * the maturation of all critical technologies;

    * the synchronization of FCS with all essential complementary programs;

    * a sound and executable acquisition strategy, including:
    - the synchronization of the development and demonstration of the FCS
    information network with the development and demonstration of other FCS
    elements;
    - a realistic path forward to critical design review;
    - a thorough and robust test and evaluation plan, and;
    - a realistic path forward to production process maturity before the
    start of production;

    * development and production cost estimates, that (1) have a specified
    confidence level, and (2) are reconciled with independent estimates;
    and;

    * assurance that the Army can properly fund, over the long term, the
    FCS program of record. (p. 49/GAO Draft Report)

    DOD Response: Concur. Criteria for the 2009 FCS Defense Acquisition
    Board (DAB), aligned with the program's Preliminary Design Review, will
    be reviewed and finalized at the FCS DAB planned for later in 2008. The
    expectations for the 2009 FCS DAB include stable requirements,
    verification that the preliminary design can meet those requirements,
    mature critical technologies, aligning of the essential complementary
    systems, an executable acquisition strategy, a low-risk cost estimate,
    and an affordability assessment. The Department's FCS acquisition and
    budget decisions will be based on the results of the analyses and
    assessments planned to support the 2009 DAB review.

    Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense, in
    advance of the 2009 milestone review, identify viable alternatives to
    FCS as currently structured that can be considered in the event that
    FCS does not measure up to the criteria set for the review.

    DOD Response: Concur. An analysis of alternatives will inform the 2009
    FCS review.

    Recommendation 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
    closely examine the oversight implications of the Army's decision to
    contract with the Lead System Integrator (LSI) for early production of
    FCS spin outs, Non-Line-of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), and low-rate
    production for the core FCS program.

    DOD Response: Concur. The Department has separated the Congressionally
    mandated production of NLOS-C Special Interest vehicles from the FCS
    acquisition. The FCS spin-out production is currently authorized only
    for limited long-lead for a small subset of FCS capability,
    specifically the initial increments of the unattended ground sensors,
    the NLOS-Launch System, and integrated computer system for the current
    force brigades. Production contract approaches and risks will be
    examined in support of the Spin-Out 1 Milestone C decision.

    Recommendation 4: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
    take steps to mitigate the risks of the Army's decisions, including the
    consideration of the full range of alternatives for contracting for
    production.

    DOD Response: Concur. The Army will provide a risk assessment of
    production alternatives in support of the update to the FCS acquisition
    strategy. The Defense Acquisition Board and the Milestone Decision
    Authority address risks at the annual FCS program reviews.

    Recommendation 5: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
    evaluate alternatives to the LSI for long-term sustainment support of
    the FCS system-of-systems.

    DOD Response: Concur. The evaluation and analysis of alternative
    support and sustainment options for FCS brigades is a component of the
    program's product support strategy. This, in conjunction with the
    program's Core Logistics Analysis/Source of Repair Analysis, will
    inform program decisions throughout the acquisition life cycle.

    [End of section]

    Appendix III: Technology Readiness Levels:

    Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are measures pioneered by the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration and adopted by DOD to
    determine whether technologies were sufficiently mature to be
    incorporated into a weapon system. Our prior work has found TRLs to be
    a valuable decision-making tool because they can presage the likely
    consequences of incorporating a technology at a given level of maturity
    into a product development. The maturity level of a technology can
    range from paper studies (level 1), to prototypes that can be tested in
    a realistic environment (TRL 7), to an actual system that has proven
    itself in mission operations (level 9). According to DOD acquisition
    policy, a technology should have been demonstrated in a relevant
    environment (TRL 6) or, preferably, in an operational environment (TRL
    7) to be considered mature enough to use for product development. Best
    practices of leading commercial firms and successful DOD programs have
    shown that critical technologies should be mature to at least a TRL 7
    before the start of product development.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 1. Basic principles observed and
    reported;
    Description: Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research
    begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples
    might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties;
    Hardware and software: None (paper studies and analysis);
    Demonstration environment: None.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 2. Technology concept and/or
    application formulated;
    Description: Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed,
    practical applications can be invented. The application is speculative,
    and there is no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumption.
    Examples are still limited to paper studies;
    Hardware and software: None (paper studies and analysis);
    Demonstration environment: None.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 3. Analytical and experimental
    critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept;
    Description: Active research and development is initiated. This
    includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically
    validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology.
    Examples include components that are not yet integrated or
    representative;
    Hardware and software: Analytical studies and demonstration of non-
    scale individual components (pieces of subsystem);
    Demonstration environment: Lab.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 4. Component and/or breadboard.
    Validation in laboratory environment; Description: Basic technological
    components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work
    together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual
    system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in a
    laboratory;
    Hardware and software: Low-fidelity breadboard. Integration of non-
    scale components to show pieces will work together. Not fully
    functional or form or fit but representative of technically feasible
    approach suitable for flight articles;
    Demonstration environment: Lab.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 5. Component and/or breadboard
    validation in relevant environment;
    Description: Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly.
    The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably
    realistic supporting elements so that the technology can be tested in a
    simulated environment. Examples include "high fidelity" laboratory
    Integration of components;
    Hardware and software: High-fidelity breadboard. Functionally
    equivalent but not necessarily form and/or fit (size, weight,
    materials, etc.). Should be approaching appropriate scale. May include
    integration of several components with reasonably realistic support
    elements/subsystems to demonstrate functionality;
    Demonstration environment: Lab demonstrating functionality but not form
    and fit. May include flight demonstrating breadboard in surrogate
    aircraft. Technology ready for detailed design studies.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 6. System/subsystem model or
    prototype demonstration in a relevant environment;
    Description: Representative model or prototype system, which is well
    beyond the breadboard tested for TRL 5, is tested in a relevant
    environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated
    readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity
    laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment;
    Hardware and software: Prototype--Should be very close to form, fit,
    and function. Probably includes the integration of many new components
    and realistic supporting elements/subsystems if needed to demonstrate
    full functionality of the subsystem;
    Demonstration environment: High-fidelity lab demonstration or
    limited/restricted flight demonstration for a relevant environment.
    Integration of technology is well defined.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 7. System prototype demonstration in
    an operational environment;
    Description: Prototype near or at planned operational system.
    Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of
    an actual system prototype in an operational environment, such as in an
    aircraft, vehicle, or space. Examples include testing the prototype in
    a test bed aircraft;
    Hardware and software: Prototype. Should be form, fit, and function
    integrated with other key supporting elements/subsystems to demonstrate
    full functionality of subsystem;
    Demonstration environment: Flight demonstration in representative
    operational environment such as flying test bed or demonstrator
    aircraft. Technology is well substantiated with test data.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 8. Actual system completed and
    "flight qualified" through test and demonstration;
    Description: Technology has been proved to work in its final form and
    under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the
    end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and
    evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if
    it meets design specifications;
    Hardware and software: Flight-qualified hardware; Demonstration
    environment:
    Developmental test and evaluation in the actual system application.

    Technology readiness level (TRL): 9. Actual system "flight proven"
    through successful mission operations;
    Description: Actual application of the technology in its final form and
    under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test
    and evaluation. In almost all cases, this is the end of the last "bug
    fixing" aspects of true system development. Examples include using the
    system under operational mission conditions;
    Hardware and software: Actual system in final form;
    Demonstration environment: Operational test and evaluation in
    operational mission conditions.

    Source: GAO analysis of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    data.

    [End of table]

    [End of section]

    Appendix IV: FCS Critical Technology Ratings and Projections for
    Achieving TRL 6:

    FCS Critical Technologies: Joint Interoperability: Software
    Programmable Radio: JTRS Cluster 1;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Joint Interoperability: Software
    Programmable Radio: JTRS Cluster 5;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Joint Interoperability: Software
    Programmable Radio: WIN-T;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Joint Interoperability: Interface and
    Information Exchange: Army, Joint, Multinational Interface;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    Information Exchange: WIN-T Strategic Communication;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Security Systems
    and Algorithms: Cross Domain Guarding Solution;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Security Systems
    and Algorithms: Intrusion Detection-IP Network;
    2006 TRL Rating: 4;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Security Systems
    and Algorithms: Intrusion Detection-Waveform;
    2006 TRL Rating: 4;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2007;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Mobile Ad Hoc
    Networking Protocols;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Quality of Service
    Algorithms;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Unmanned Systems
    Relay;
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Wideband
    Waveforms: Wideband Waveform-JTRS;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Wideband
    Waveforms: Wideband Waveform-SRW;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Advanced Man-
    Machine Interfaces;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Multi-Spectral
    Sensors and Seekers;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Decision
    Aids/Intelligent Agents;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Combat
    Identification: Air (Rotary Wing/UAV)-to-Ground;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Combat
    Identification: Air (Fixed Wing)-to-Ground (Interim/Robust Solutions);
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Combat
    Identification: Ground-to-Ground (Mounted);
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Combat
    Identification: Ground-to-Air (Mounted);
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Combat
    Identification: Ground-to-Soldier;
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Rapid Battlespace
    Deconfliction;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Sensor/Data Fusion
    and Data Compression Algorithms: Distributed Fusion Management;
    2006 TRL Rating: 4;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Sensor/Data Fusion
    and Data Compression Algorithms: Level 1 Fusion Engine;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Battle Command: Sensor/Data Fusion
    and Data Compression Algorithms: Data Compression Algorithms;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: Dynamic Sensor-Shooter
    Pairing Algorithms and Fire Control;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: LOS/BLOS/NLOS Precision
    Munitions Terminal Guidance: PGMM Precision Munitions;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: LOS/BLOS/NLOS Precision
    Munitions Terminal Guidance: MRM Precision Munitions;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: LOS/BLOS/NLOS Precision
    Munitions Terminal Guidance: Excalibur Precision Munitions;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 7;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: LOS/BLOS/NLOS Precision
    Munitions Terminal Guidance: NLOS-LS;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: Aided/Automatic Target
    Recognition: Aided Target Recognition for RSTA;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: Aided/Automatic Target
    Recognition: NLOS-LS ATR for Seekers;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: Recoil Management and
    Lightweight Components;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: Distributed
    Collaboration of Manned/Unmanned Platforms;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Networked Lethality: Rapid Battle Damage
    Assessment;
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Transportability:
    Sustainability/Reliability: High-Power Density/Fuel-Efficient
    Propulsion: High-Power Density Engine;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Transportability:
    Sustainability/Reliability: High-Power Density/Fuel-Efficient
    Propulsion: Fuel-Efficient Hybrid-Electric Engine;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Transportability:
    Sustainability/Reliability: Embedded Predictive Logistics Sensors and
    Algorithms;
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Transportability:
    Sustainability/Reliability: Water Generation and Purification;
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Transportability:
    Sustainability/Reliability: Lightweight Heavy Fuel Engine;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2006;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Training: Computer Generated Forces;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Training: Tactical Engagement Simulation;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Active Protection System:
    Active Protection System:
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Active Protection System:
    Threat Warning System;
    2006 TRL Rating: 4;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2009;
    2007 TRL Rating: 4;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2010.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Signature Management;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Lightweight Hull and Vehicle
    Armor;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Health Monitoring and
    Casualty Care Interventions;
    2006 TRL Rating: 7;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 7;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Power Distribution and
    Control;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Advanced Countermine
    Technology: Mine Detection;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Advanced Countermine
    Technology: Mine Neutralization;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Advanced Countermine
    Technology: Efficient Resource Allocation;
    2006 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: N/R;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Advanced Countermine
    Technology: Protection;
    2006 TRL Rating: 5;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: 2008;
    2007 TRL Rating: 5;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: 2008.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: High-Density Packaged Power;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    FCS Critical Technologies: Survivability: Class 1 UAV Propulsion
    Technology: Ducted Fan;
    2006 TRL Rating: 6;
    2006 TRL 6 Projection: N/A;
    2007 TRL Rating: 6;
    2007 TRL 6 Projection: N/A.

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    Note: N/A = Not Applicable; N/R = Not Rated:

    [End of table]

    [End of section]

    Appendix V: Annual and Cumulative FCS Research and Development Funding
    and Planned Events and Achievements:

    Fiscal year: 2003;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 0.6;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 165.2;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 165.2;
    Planned events and achievements: Start of product development.

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 6.4;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 1701.3;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 1866.5;
    Planned events and achievements: Program restructured.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 16.4;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 2929.9;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 4796.4;
    Planned events and achievements: System of Systems Functional Review;
    system-of-systems requirements stabilized; cost estimate updated.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 27.2;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 3168.8;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 7965.2;
    Planned events and achievements: Initial preliminary design review;
    initial system level requirements.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 38.9;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 3426.4;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 11391.6;
    Planned events and achievements: Preliminary design work in progress.

    Fiscal year: 2008;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 50.8;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 3498.6;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in

    millions of dollars): 14890.2;
    Planned events and achievements: Most technologies reach TRL 6; final
    system-level requirements.

    Fiscal year: 2009;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 61.6;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 3148.3;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 18038.5;
    Planned events and achievements: Preliminary design review; most
    technologies reach TRL 6; mandated "go/no-go" review.

    Fiscal year: 2010;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 72.6;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 3226.9;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 21265.4;
    Planned events and achievements: Limited user test 2; some prototypes
    available.

    Fiscal year: 2011;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 82;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 2778.6;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 24044;
    Planned events and achievements: Critical design review; design
    readiness review; all system prototypes available.

    Fiscal year: 2012;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 88.4;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 1868.1;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 25912.1;
    Planned events and achievements: Technologies reach full TRL 7
    maturity; limited user test 3; initial system-of-systems demonstration.

    Fiscal year: 2013;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 92.9;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 1313.7;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 27225.8;
    Planned events and achievements: Milestone C - initial production
    decision.

    Fiscal year: 2014;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 96.7;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 1115.2;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 28341;
    Planned events and achievements: Limited user test 4; full system-of-
    systems demonstration; fielding start brigade combat teams.

    Fiscal year: 2015;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 99.6;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 857.2;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 29198.2;
    Planned events and achievements: Initial operational capability.

    Fiscal year: 2016;
    Percentage of funding spent to date: 100;
    Annual research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 107.3;
    Cumulative research, development, testing, and evaluation funding (in
    millions of dollars): 29305.5;
    Planned events and achievements: Initial operational test and
    evaluation; full-rate production decision.

    Fiscal year: 2017;
    Planned events and achievements: Full operational capability.

    Source: U.S. Army (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

    [End of table]

    [End of section]

    Related GAO Products:

    Defense Acquisitions: Analysis of Processes Used to Evaluate Active
    Protection Systems. GAO-07-759. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007.

    Defense Acquisitions: Role of Lead Systems Integrator on Future Combat
    Systems Program Poses Oversight Challenges. GAO-07-380. Washington,
    D.C.: June 6, 2007.

    Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. GAO-07-
    406SP. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2007.

    Defense Acquisitions: Future Combat System Risks Underscore the
    Importance of Oversight. GAO-07-672T. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2007.

    Defense Acquisitions: Key Decisions to Be Made on Future Combat System.
    GAO-07-376. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2007.

    Defense Acquisitions: Improved Business Case Key for Future Combat
    System's Success. GAO-06-564T. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.

    Defense Acquisitions: Improved Business Case is Needed for Future
    Combat System's Successful Outcome. GAO-06-367. Washington, D.C.: March
    14, 2006.

    Defense Acquisitions: Business Case and Business Arrangements Key for
    Future Combat System's Success. GAO-06-478T. Washington, D.C.: March 1,
    2006.

    Defense Acquisitions: Future Combat Systems Challenges and Prospects
    for Success. GAO-05-428T. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2005.

    Defense Acquisitions: The Army's Future Combat Systems' Features,
    Risks, and Alternatives. GAO-04-635T. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2004.

    Issues Facing the Army's Future Combat Systems Program. GAO-03-1010R.
    Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2003.

    Defense Acquisitions: Army Transformation Faces Weapon Systems
    Challenges. GAO-01-311. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2001.

    Best Practices: Better Matching of Needs and Resources Will Lead to
    Better Weapon System Outcomes. GAO-01-288. Washington, D.C.: March 8,
    2001.

    Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve
    Weapon System Outcomes. GAO/NSIAD-99-162. Washington, D.C.: July 30,
    1999.

    Best Practices: Commercial Quality Assurance Practices Offer
    Improvements for DOD. GAO/NSIAD-96-162. Washington, D.C.: August 26,
    1996.

    [End of section]

    Footnotes:

    [1] John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364, � 214 (2006).

    [2] Pub. L. No. 109-163, � 211.

    [3] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Significant Challenges Ahead in
    Developing and Demonstrating Future Combat System's Network and
    Software, GAO-08-409 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2008).

    [4] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Role of Lead Systems Integrator on
    Future Combat Systems Program Poses Oversight Challenges, GAO-07-380
    (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2007).

    [5] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L.
    No. 110-181, � 802.

    [6] See "Related GAO Products" in this report.

    [7] This study was required in the John Warner National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364, � 216.

    [8] Software data in Build 1 is a cumulative total that includes
    software from Build 0.

    [9] The Army's Training and Doctrine Command acts as the FCS user
    representative, and in that capacity, it serves as a warfighter
    advocate and counterpart to the FCS program manager and is responsible
    for the centralized management of all user activities during the FCS
    development program.

    [10] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Key Decisions to Be Made on Future
    Combat System, GAO-07-376 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2007).

    [11] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Analysis of Processes Used to Evaluate
    Active Protection Systems, GAO-07-759 (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007).

    [12] Pub. L. No. 110-181, � 211.

    [13] Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-
    248, � 8121 (2002), and similar provisions in subsequent defense
    appropriations acts.

    [14] Pub. L. No. 110-116, � 8088 (2007).

    [15] GAO-07-380.

    [16] Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel, Defense
    Acquisition Performance Assessment Report, (Washington, D.C.: January
    2006).

    [17] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
    Encountered Difficulties in Design Demonstration and Faces Future
    Risks, GAO-06-349 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2006).

    [18] In our March 2007 report, we recommended that the Secretary of
    Defense establish criteria to evaluate the FCS program at that
    decision. Although DOD concurred with our recommendations and outlined
    how the Defense Acquisition Board's review of FCS in 2009 would be
    informed by a number of critical assessments and analyses, it did not
    specifically respond to our recommended criteria that it will use to
    evaluate the FCS program.

    [End of section]

    GAO's Mission:

    The Government Accountability 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.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
    weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
    posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
    and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone:

    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. Government Accountability 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:

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

    Contact:

    Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

    Congressional Relations:

    Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4400:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Public Affairs:

    Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4800:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    *** End of document. ***