By Ann Roosevelt
The fiscal year 2011 president’s budget supports $3.1 billion for Army modernization, including funds for the capability packages designed to make infantry brigade combat teams (IBCT) more effective.
These Increment 1, or E-IBCT, capabilities, were developed under the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and now are a key element of the Army Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Modernization.
Procurement of $683 million would buy capability packages to enhance two IBCTs to be fielded in FY ’12.
That equipment–Increment 1–includes Textron‘s [TXT] unattended ground sensors, the Honeywell [HON] Class One unmanned aerial vehicle, the iRobot [IRBT] small unmanned ground vehicle and the Network Integration Kit–the integrated computer system providing network capability to move voice, data and video between and among soldiers, the systems and across the network.
Another $350 million would procure the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System, under development by NetFires LLC, a joint venture of Raytheon [RTN] and Lockheed Martin [LMT]. The system currently is undergoing a flight limited user test at White Sands Missile Range, and its FY ’10 funding expenditures are limited until the results of the flight tests are evaluated and reviewed.
The funds are a continuation of the direction Defense Secretary Robert Gates provided in April while canceling the FCS manned ground vehicle program (Defense Daily, April 7). At that time, Gates also called for a restructure of FCS that would “retain and accelerate” the initial increment of the program to spin out technology enhancements to all combat brigades.
The increased capabilities address DoD budget and Quadrennial Defense Review priorities to “enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks,” as Gates said discussing the budget Feb. 1.
Boeing [BA] and SAIC [SAI], prime contractors on the work, yesterday announced the successful completion of the Critical Design Review (CDR) of Increment 1, also known as the Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team (E-IBCT) capabilities, conducted in mid-October.
“Completing the Critical Design Review is an important step toward the Milestone C decision in December so we can enter low-rate initial production early in 2010,” Derek McLuckey, Boeing Increment 1 program manager, said in a statement.
The CDR reviewed more than 120 criteria and involved representatives from the Army, Boeing, SAIC, industry partners and other government agencies, including DoD and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
E-IBCT capabilities are planned to be fielded to seven Infantry Brigade Combat Teams beginning in 2011. The Army is planning additional increments as part of its modernization strategy.
The Army FY ’11 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) portion of the budget includes $934 million to begin initial GCV development, the new vehicle that supercedes the FCS MGV. The Army is focused on developing a versatile GCV while including the experiences of current combat operations. These funds would be used after an analysis of manned ground vehicle concepts and a re-evaluation of MGV requirements.
The Army would also develop capability sets for Unmanned Common Mobility platform, the Armed Robotic Vehicle, Common Controller, and Network Integration Kits, as part of the BCT Modernization, Increment 2.
The Army RDT&E request continues support and testing for the Increment 1 and development of Increment 2. These increments will provide additional capabilities and advances in networking and battle command to the remaining IBCTs.
The FY ’11 budget is the first in eight years that does not address FCS. It was in 2002 that the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency selected Boeing and SAIC as the FCS lead system integrator (Defense Daily, March 8, 2002).
Since 2003, General Dynamics [GD] and BAE Systems had worked to design and develop the family of eight MGV under the FCS umbrella (Defense Daily, Jan. 23, 2003). Both companies are highly interested in the GCV.
FCS went through several iterations, years of congressional funding reductions and critical reports from government agencies such as the GAO.