By Ann Roosevelt
Congress has the last word on the future of the Army’ Future Combat System (FCS) Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), though the Pentagon’s acquisition chief has directed that work stop pending a determination of a way forward for the system.
Production of the NLOS-C is currently on hold as the Army drafts its new modernization plan, but Congress will have the last word on the NLOS-C because it is mandated in U.S. law,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a statement provided to Defense Daily. “Above all else, the need for the Army to modernize its aging fleet of combat vehicles remains my top concern and I remain committed to doing all I can to ensure our Soldiers are properly equipped.”
Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-chair of the Army Caucus, has long been a strong supporter of the cannon, to be integrated in his home state, where current force Paladin self-propelled howitzers receive upgrades.
While Boeing [BA] and SAIC [SAI] manage the FCS program for the Army, General Dynamics [GD] and BAE Systems jointly manage the MGV program.
On June 23, the Pentagon acquisition chief issued an acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) canceling the manned ground vehicle portion of the FCS program.
“I have formally notified Congress that the termination of the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the FCS program will impact negatively on the Army’s ability to deliver and field the NLOS-C system independently of the FCS,” Ashton Carter wrote in the ADM. “I direct that work be stopped on the NLOS-C portion of the program, and that the Army take the necessary contractual actions to implement this decision. Finally, and as a consequence of stopping work on the NLOS-C portion of the FCS program, the Army should not take any further action to produce the NLOS-C through the special interest production program.”
“Since the 1990s with the Crusader cannon and the advent of FCS in 2003, I have been the proponent in the Senate and on the Armed Services Committee for a replacement for the Army’s 50-year-old Paladin artillery howitzer,” Inhofe said. “The Paladin is the oldest of the Army’s tracked combat vehicles and is built on a 1963 chassis. As part of the FCS, the NLOS-C is thus specifically and separately written in to law to be the first FCS vehicle produced.”
BAE is developing the NLOS-C system, which is required to be separate from the FCS program under Section 8085 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act 2009.
As described in the ADM, that law requires the delivery of five pre-production NLOS-C systems by the end of calendar year 2008, three more by the end of calendar year 2009, and system fielding in fiscal year 2010.
The Army’s concerns about the cannon were voiced at a June 16 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in response to a question from Inhofe.
“My professional opinion…is that if we’re going to terminate the manned ground vehicle, the non-line-of-sight cannon program is highly leveraged and intertwined with the manned ground vehicle program and it’s very very difficult from an acquisition and contracting perspective, for us to produce the non-line of sight cannon system that doesn’t have the MGV program wrapped around it. It would be prohibitively expensive for us to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, principal military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, logistics and technology and acquisition career management director.
There is about a 70 percent commonality among the MGV family, to include the NLOS-C. Such things as the chassis, power pack, drive train, chassis, suspension and internal software that drives the vehicles would be common. The chassis, for example, was paid for, certified and tested by the MGV program.
Contractually, canceling the MGV portion of FCS means key personnel and skills are lost. But a stop work order for NLOS-C lasts only 60 days, during which time personnel must still be paid.
Thus, the Army must work through what this means, and work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to hammer out with Congress whether the law is adjusted or something else is worked out.
Meanwhile, the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is examining its vehicle fleets, needs, and capability gaps, and requirements for a ground combat vehicle (GCV). Specifics on that are expected this fall.
The MGV program had three increasingly more mature designs, and the technology developments would be leveraged for a future GCV that senior Army leaders have said would be fielded in five to seven years. A key determinant would likely be how TRADOC views the way such a vehicle would be moved in the future, by strategic airlift, for example, which in turn, would indicate the vehicle’s weight.
“Although I did not agree with Secretary Gates decision to go against the Army’s recommendation and cut the ground vehicle portion of FCS,” Inhofe said, “I continue to work with the DoD, the Army and within the Congress as a new Army vehicle modernization plan is drafted and planned for release this September.”