In an effort to make use of the billions of dollars it invested in the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, the U.S. Army may have required too many immature technologies in its first Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Request for Proposals, according to the Army's vice chief.(emphasis mine)
"We wanted to look and ensure that we made use of the investment in FCS and that we had the ability to use those technologies," Gen. Peter Chiarelli told reporters at a Sept. 22 lunch in Washington.
However, if you want a vehicle in seven years, "you can't be reaching deep for technologies right now," he said.
………
According to Chiarelli, FCS was canceled in a way so that the Army could still make use of the research and development work done under the program.
"We wanted to ensure that those technologies that we worked so hard to develop could be integrated in to a new ground combat vehicle," he said.
However, "there were a lot of those technologies that aren't at a technology readiness level today where we could integrate them in seven years."
It boggles the mind that the technologies, "aren't at a technology readiness level," when the original intent was to begin fielding the FCS in 2008.
So the technologies in question won't be ready 9 years after they were supposed to be fielded.
Our defense procurement system is seriously broken.
*Full disclosure, I worked on the Future Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle, FRMV, "wrecker" variant of the FCS-MGV† from 2003-2006 at United Defense (later BAE Systems after the Carlyle Group sold me to buy Dunkin Donuts).
†Future Combat Systems-Manned Ground Vehicle. These are the ones that are the tanks and APCs. As opposed to the various unnmanned vehicles, networking technologies, etc. that form the full FCS along with the MGVs.‡
‡Yes, I have worked everywhere. Maybe I can't hold down a job, but more likely this has been my role as "technical hit man", where you are parachuted in to take care of a specific need.
0 comments :
Post a Comment