Eight years ago the Army launched its most ambitious modernization program ever, the Future Combat Systems, a collection of 18 vehicles, aerial drones, robots, missiles and sensors all tied together by a robust communications network. The multi-billion dollar program was beset by shifting requirements, cost overruns, delays and what Army leaders now admit was a shining example of technological overreach.
Various restructurings over the years trimmed the bits of gear from the program, yet costs continued to climb; by 2010, the Army had spent nearly $23 billion on FCS. Last year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates finally stepped in and cancelled FCS, directing the Army to salvage what it could, at an affordable cost.
The Army changed the program’s name to Brigade Combat Team Modernization and sought to speed modest technological upgrades to troops in the field, including unattended munitions, the Non-Line-Of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS), sensors, a small hovering drone, a small robot, new radios and software.
Later today, lawmakers will express their continued displeasure with the program’s performance and will chop $891 million from the Army’s 2011 budget request for modernization, Defense News’ Kate Brannen reports. The Army had requested $1.6 billion for research and development and $682.7 million to buy two brigades sets of gear.
The House Armed Services Committee air and land forces subcommittee says it’s premature to start buying brigade sets of the new technologies when recent tests showed serious performance and reliability problems. The committee cuts all funding for the NLOS-LS, which the Army now says it wants to cancel, after spending $1 billion on the weapon.
The committee is also frustrated with the performance of the communications network and the new JTRS radios. Brannen writes:
“The committee also notes that even if the [Network Integration Kits] perform as planned, they may provide little additional capability to [early infantry brigade combat team] units and will likely be very expensive,” an excerpt from the committee’s mark up reads.
Update: The HASC markup shifts NLOS-LS R&D funding to the Navy.
– Greg Grant
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
So, i guess this means its out for the USN aswell? i know they were going to use it to arm the LCS. could they seek more funding to continue developement or is NLOS LS dead and buried?.
It boggles the mind how they screwed this up when all the pieces for a vertically launched small missile with a range of dozens of miles have essentially been done before. How could this taken $1 billion and fail so badly?
Had DARPA made this and X-prize the prototypes might even be working better than this.
The DOD needs to stop looking for revolutionary change and focus on evolutionary change. The billions that have been spent on programs like FCS could have funded generations of new evolutionary upgrades to dozens of systems. I understand that sometimes you have to spend money to get that thing that's never been done before, but most of the time if you just build on what you have you can find great leaps in ability without huge changes.
The thing is, JTRS was a "revolutionary" system and difficult, but NLOS-LS? What happened here?
You got me. Some of that stuff seems like it should be pretty easy considering it's pretty much all been done before. You will get that out of evolutionary change as well, it will just be less often and cost less money when you do have those problems.
NLOS-LS itself spun out of control as far as money is concerned, but I think that is big project thinking issues more than anything else.
FFFFLLLLLuuuusssshhhhh.
23 Billion down the toilet.
Think of what real people could have done with that money (as opposed to the military procurement system).
It almost makes me ill thinking about it……
prometheusgonewild…..what makes you sick? the thought that all of the money cut from the FCS could have been better spent,or the fact that our pathetic government will figure out a way to give that money to some up and coming terrorist group without even knowing it?
Granted, our government would have spent the money anyway, in some stupid fashion.
However, terrorist groups do not have idiot Congressmen as cheerleaders for funding. Unlike our defense contractors.
It is all for "jobs".
How may jobs were lost due to the government taking taking 23 billion from efficient companies…..
FCS has some nice ideas, but honestly 23 billion and we don't have a new tank or IFV? This is just the kind of waste Gates is pointing out can't be sustained. We insist on these cutting edge systems and we buy for scenarios that aren't even likely to occur. Our real military strength isn't about the technology. It's about logistics and training. We will do just as well with existing off the shelf systems because we will practice more with them, and we will be able to deploy and maintain them longer, in larger numbers, than anyone else. That's our real military strength.
Remember, FCS started as a DARPA initiative. We have DARPA to thank for the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) concept and awardee, Boeing, who treated the program as an Obama-style jobs program for their otherwise unemployed aircraft workers.
Boeing is also the 'integrator' for the JTRS radio. Despite the fact that 95% of all the radios were to be bought for use by the Army, the geniuses at OSD inexplicably gave the program to the Navy to run…. who then proceeded to deliver a $ 300,000 radio to go in $25,000 vehicles.
Looks like another protest is on its way, is GCV going to suffer thsame fate as MGV?