Experts contradict Pentagon on anti-RPG tests

Under FCS, the Army is building a series of complex weapons systems — including an Active Protection System — from scratch instead of taking and improving upon existing technologies. That approach has led to skyrocketing costs and concerns in Congress that the Army is letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

OFT’s plan to battle-test Trophy in Iraq, therefore, hit a sore spot. Why spend years building a ‘perfect’ system as part of FCS, Pentagon and congressional sources wonder, if Trophy — a very capable system in existence today — might do the job, and potentially answer those urgent calls by U.S. commanders in Iraq for help against RPGs?

The Army originally planned to pick an APS based on a live, side-by-side competition — called a “shoot-off rodeo” — scheduled for the summer of 2005. At the time, Trophy and at least one other system were prepared to compete. Raytheon’s system, however, was still on the drawing board and the Army opted to cancel the test citing “concerns related to cost, supportability, practicality and fairness.” Officials opted instead for what they described as a “traditional source selection” — Army speak for picking a weapons system.

But when it comes to FCS, source selection is anything but traditional: the Army essentially pays weapons manufacturers to tell the Army which weapons systems to buy.

Army officials argue such an unusual arrangement is necessary to manage an acquisition program as large and complex as FCS. But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other watchdogs worry about the potential for conflicts of interest where defense contractors with systems up for consideration as part of FCS, have decision-making input about which systems are ultimately bought.

There’s also growing concern about the pace at which the Army and its FCS contractors are developing these brave new systems. As the GAO told Congress in March 2007:

"FCS technologies are far less mature at this point in the program than they should be, and they still have a long way to go to reach full maturity. The Army only sees the need to reach a technology readiness level that requires demonstration of capabilities in a relevant environment by 2011. This does not assure that these capabilities will actually perform as needed in a realistic environment, as required by best practices for a sound business case." [.PDF link to full GAO report]

MORE FROM INVESTIGATIVE UNIT

Investigative Unit Section Front

Countrywide whistleblower reports 'liar loans'   Military arms dealers had checkered past   U.S. tries to smoke out accused terrorist   Aid falling short for people facing foreclosures   Can this home be saved?   Asking for help to save a family home   Lessons learned from an earlier foreclosure crisis   Veteran public servants discuss the current foreclosure crisis   Hunger in America has a new face   Road hazard: Truck drivers and drugs Investigative Unit Section Front   Add Investigative Unit headlines to your news reader: