Army seeks short-term payoff from Future Combat Systems.

The Army is redirecting priorities in the Future Combat Systems program, in an attempt to meet short-term needs for new technologies. This shift in emphasis means the program will be less about developing futuristic concepts and more about upgrading the current tanks, armored infantry vehicles and trucks.

Program officials assert that the chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, supports the FCS and intends to keep the $15 billion project on track to field a new family of vehicles by 2010. But the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly have forced the Army to reassess the program goals. While the FCS previously was viewed as a long-term modernization effort, now the chief wants FCS to begin delivering technologies as soon as possible.

The plan is to "spin off capabilities" out of FCS into the Abrams tank and Bradley infantry vehicle fleets, said Lt. Gen. John S. Caldwell Jr., military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition. But he cautioned that the FCS program is not being significantly restructured or downscaled. Rather, other programs will be "adjusted" to take advantage of the new technologies developed in FCS, Caldwell told National Defense.

Since the FCS got under way more than three years ago, the predominant message heard from senior officials has been the notion of FCS as a "network" or a "system of systems" that would usher the Army into the information age.

Each FCS brigade, called a unit of action, will run 30 million lines of software. More than half of the money in the program will be allocated to ground combat vehicles and C4ISR (command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems.

A seamless network of light ground vehicles and aircraft remains the essence of the FCS, but program officials now are stressing that FCS is first and foremost about putting technology in the hands of soldiers. During an industry conference last month sponsored by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, in Dearborn, Mich., the program manager for FCS, Brig. Gen. Donald F. Schenk, told contactors that they "need to work fast."

Despite widespread skepticism that the program may not be able to deliver a new generation of vehicles to begin replacing tanks and Bradleys in less than a decade, Schenk said that the goals are achievable. But in his opening comments to the conference, he acknowledged that, with the Army at war, the focus has changed. The technologies of the FCS could "transition" to other programs "more quickly than most people think," Schenk said.

Among the technologies that could "spiral" from FCS into the current force are wireless communications systems, active protection for vehicles, diagnostics devices to predict engine failures, hybrid-electric power units and advanced truck suspensions, said Albert Puzzuoli, deputy program executive officer for Army ground combat systems.

But for FCS to be successful, he stressed, the Army and its contractors must fix a vexing problem that affects today's weapons systems: electronics obsolescence. The term refers to the difficulties in upgrading older weapon systems because the electronic components often are out of production and not available in the commercial market. This could pose serious hurdles as the Army figures out how to upgrade the Abrams and the Bradley, so they can remain in the fleet for at least 20 more years.

The Army's ability to "spiral" technologies out of FCS into Abrams and Bradley depends on "how we attack our electronic obsolescence problems," Puzzuoli told the TACOM conference. One solution would be to develop a new, less complex electronic architecture in the Abrams and Bradley that is "somewhat compatible" with FCS, he said.

Unless this matter is resolved, he added, "FCS, one day, will suffer electronic obsolescence issues."

Puzzuoli suggested that one of the more pressing technology needs in the near future will be to equip the Abrams tanks with new or remanufactured engines. The Army had awarded a contract to Honeywell Corp. in 1999 to develop a new turbine engine, the LV100. The plan was to build 1,600 engines to be installed on all Abrams tanks and Crusader artillery vehicles. But the cancellation of Crusader and cutbacks in the Abrams upgrade program drove down the number of engines to fewer than 600. An expected higher price for the LV100 (as a result of a smaller order) and technical problems experienced in the program have prompted the Army to reassess whether it should cancel the project and start over.

"We are currently evaluating the status of that program and where the future lies," Puzzuoli said.

The current engine, the AGT1500 turbine, is fuel guzzling, has poor reliability and high maintenance costs, he said.

In fiscal year 2004, the Army will need to overhaul more than 1,200 tank engines, a three-fold increase over 12 months. The Anniston Army Depot, in Alabama, currently overhauls about 400 engines a year.

The commander of TACOM, Army Maj. Gen. N. Ross Thompson III, said he fears that shortages of key components could severely undermine the depot's ability to deliver enough engines to meet the Army's needs in Iraq.

The potential cancellation of the LV100 is not related to the increased need for AGT1500 engines, Thompson said in an interview. "If they don't continue the program, we'll have a competition to reengineer and increase the reliability and the durability of the AGT1500."

Also of immediate need in the field is additional protection for Humvees and other trucks that are not armored. As U.S. forces in Iraq endure continuing attacks by rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and various explosive devices, TACOM officials are rushing to come up with "countermeasures," such as armor kits.

Ideally, TACOM would like to build more of the up-armored Humvees, hut the production line only can assemble 220 per month. The Army has asked for at least 3,500.

Until enough up-armored Humvees can be delivered, TACOM is providing interim alternatives, such as armor kits and a newly designed armor door that can be applied on existing Humvees. The Army's depots will make 1,000 armor doors for immediate delivery to Iraq, Thompson said.

Armor kits also will be needed for medium and heavy trucks, he said. Future Army rotations in Iraq will see fewer Abrams and Bradleys, and more wheeled vehicles, including the new Stryker.

Upgrading Vehicles

Contractors, meanwhile, await specific direction from the Army on how it will go about transitioning from the current force to the so-called Future Force, equipped with FCS technology.

Much of the technology the Army wants in FCS already exists, experts contend. Vehicle manufacturers are coming forward with unsolicited concepts that aim to prove that.

United Defense LP, for example, recently unveiled a 20-ton armored vehicle equipped with a 120 mm gun that was fired at a shooting range in California, according the UDLP officials. The demonstrator--powered by a hybrid-electric engine--is a modified armored gun that originally was developed in the early 1990s for Army light forces and subsequently was cancelled to fund other programs.

UDLP resurrected one of the six 105 mm prototypes and installed a 120 mm gun designed at the Army's Watervliet Arsenal.

The company claims that the vehicle is not intended to meet FCS requirements, given that the Army selected General Dynamics as the provider of direct-fire vehicles for FCS. UDLP was designated the supplier for the artillery systems.

In what appears to be a tit-for-tat move, General Dynamics unveiled its own concept for a 20-ton 105 mm howitzer, which would be compatible with the Stryker family. Company officials said the Army has not yet settled on whether the FCS howitzer will be 105 mm or 155 mm, even though UDLP is developing a 155 mm non-line-of-sight cannon for FCS.

As far as FCS requirements are concerned, the Army has been "really vague," said Dean Lockwood, combat vehicles analyst at Forecast International, a market research firm. For that reason, "contractors are showing what is possible and what is not."

Lockwood believes that the Army is moving toward a hybrid force of light quick-reaction and heavy armored units. "With FCS, they want something in the middle." Stryker, he said, is the "first incarnation of FCS. It's the test-bed and interim program for it."

Marine Lt. Gen. James Cartwright, of the Joint Staff, called FCS "the most transformational thing that is going on in the Department of Defense."

Given the uncertainty about future conflicts and geopolitics, "the Army knows its goals are probably ambitious," Cartwright said in a speech to the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement. The schedule may slip, "but they've got the right mindset," said Cartwright. "They've got a heck of a challenge."

Army Sets Up Liaison Office To Assist in Homeland Security 

The Army is setting up a "homeland security cell" to act as a liaison organization with the Department of Homeland Security. The plan is to give DHS easier access to Army programs and suppliers.

In charge of this effort is the Army program executive office for combat support and combat service support, based in Warren, Mich.

PEO CS&CSS would be the "single point of focus for acquisition for the Army" in support of homeland security, said Army Col. Philip R. Loschiavo, who currently runs that office.

Programs will be broken into three areas: transportation, infrastructure and physical security. Transportation equipment includes trucks, trailers, watercraft, cranes and rail stock. Infrastructure involves construction equipment, water and petroleum systems, auxiliary power generation and bunkers. Security systems would encompass perimeter and facility intrusion detection and denial equipment, customized Humvees and armored security vehicles.

To help state and local agencies acquire equipment, for example, the PEO would set up a preferred vendor product list, add options to existing Army contracts to fill other agencies' requirements and even provide Army hardware to homeland security organizations.

The Army's depots and arsenals could be used for storage and repairs.

Budget Logjams Slow Equipment Deliveries to Iraq

Despite a supplemental appropriation approved by Congress last month for operations in Iraq, the Army is having a tough time meeting escalating demands for spare parts, vehicle components and repairs.

A decade of downsizing left the Army's depots and suppliers unprepared for the rapid surge in requirements resulting from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the rebuilding efforts in Iraq, said Maj. Gen. N. Ross Thompson III, commander of the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.

TACOM's business has skyrocketed, from $6.5 billion worth of contracts in 2002, to $9.4 billion expected in 2004.

The budget process, however, poses a significant hurdle for TACOM, because the money does not flow down fast enough to meet pressing requests from the field for items such as vehicle tracks, suspensions and engines, among other things. "It's a real challenge for us when we have an increase in demand, to be able to respond as quickly as we need to respond," Thompson said at an industry conference sponsored by TACOM, in Dearborn, Mich.

"Our resource processes are very, very constraining, and are not responsive and agile enough to allow us to deal with changes," said Thompson.

In fiscal year 2003, TACOM was short $1 .2 billion in its working capital fund, a revolving account used to pay suppliers. That meant Thompson had to issue orders to depots and arsenals, as well as to commercial suppliers, without necessarily knowing where the money would come from. The funds eventually will be repaid, as part of the $87 billion supplemental appropriation approved for the Defense Department, but the process is highly inefficient, Thompson said. "It's no wonder that we had some major issues trying to provide components, the right components in the quantities that we needed. ... We do tremendous amounts of workarounds, trying to make things happen."

TACOM estimates it will need $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 to repair equipment coming back from Iraq. That money is not currently in the Army budget, because the '04 spending plan was built two years ago, before the war.

This $1.2 billion "unfunded requirement" likely is included in the supplemental appropriation, Thompson said, but it will take a long time for TACOM to get the money. "I have promissory notes to the tune of millions and millions of dollars to get started on contracts to buy items on long lead and short lead, to be able to support the Army. I can't wait for the budget to catch up. ... It's not just promissory notes to depots and arsenals, but also commercial firms."

Thompson said he wished the Army were able to get funds "obligated" in advance, like the Defense Logistics Agency got before the war. In August 2002, DLA obtained permission to issue nearly a billion dollars worth of contracts, in anticipation of the war in Iraq. "We weren't successful in doing that," Thompson said. "When requests came and demand went up, we were always reacting and not being proactive, it caused problems in meeting the demands."

Vehicle components have been in such high demand that Thompson personally called company executives to ask them to ramp up production for things like Humvee starters, suspensions and engines. He also leaned on the depots and arsenals to set up 24-hour a day assembly lines.

The rise in equipment requisitions has been staggering. Before the war, the Army would produce about 67,000 Bradley tracks annually. This year, it will need more than 480,000 to meet the war needs. Humvee engine requests have gone from 6,000 to 12,000, tank engines from 410 to 816. Humvee tire orders have increased from 48,000 to 204,000, heavy truck tires from 5,800 to 88,000. Tank transmission requests went from 393 to 543, and Bradley transmissions from 651 to 886.

Although much of the demand for equipment repair results from the beating that vehicles take in the desert, Thompson said he was disappointed to see that, in many units, soldiers don't perform adequate maintenance.

"Our soldiers' ability to take care of the equipment is an issue," he said. "It's not just in wartime. The skills for taking care of the equipment have deteriorated a bit."

An Army Forces Command inspector general investigation nearly two years ago revealed that many units were reporting that the readiness status of their equipment was 50 percent higher than what it was in reality, Thompson said. "That is pretty significant."

Sloppy maintenance is unacceptable, he said. "When I came into the Army [to the 82nd Airborne Division], you had division and corps maintenance inspections. As a company commander, if you didn't do well in one of those, your career was over. We don't have that same level of emphasis today."

A certain amount of basic maintenance in the field is needed, he said. "I can't do it all from TACOM, with contractor support. I need everyone who touches that piece of equipment to take care of it, love it, treat it like it's their own, follow the technical manual. ... It's not a soldier issue. It's a leadership issue."

The Army also should do a better job supporting contractors in the battlefield, he said. In Iraq, contractors in some cases ended up becoming a "burden" to the units, because they had not been equipped with basic necessities, such as vehicles, communications devices and body armor. That will change, he said.

The Army, however, increasingly may use fewer contractors for logistics support, because they are too expensive, said Thompson.

"We do due diligence on everything we put out on contract," he said. "Some things I can do a heck of a lot cheaper ourselves, and better." In one case, he estimated that it would cost $110,000 to send a government logistics specialist (GS12 average) to Iraq for one year, while a contractor would cost two to three times that. The reason is that large contractors add a significant markup for overhead costs, he noted.