Can The Army Convince Congress It’s Learned From FCS?

The reboot of the Bradley replacement reminded many on the Hill of past procurement disasters like the Future Combat System. Can the Army exorcise the specter of FCS?

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.

CAPITOL HILL: “This is the Army's third attempt at replacing the Bradley,” the grim-faced chairman of defense appropriations, Rep. Pete Visclosky, warned Army officials last week. “We've been told, time and again, that this time it is different.... but the first large acquisition program that has come out of the Army Futures Command has fallen flat. You do need to convince this committee today that our continued support of modernization will eventually be a good investment.”

At three hearings in the last two weeks, members of the House bombarded Army leaders with questions about the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, the semi-robotic replacement for the Reagan-era M2 Bradley. The Army cancelled its original competition after every vendor either dropped out or failed to meet requirements, then rebooted OMFV on a new, less rushed schedule that began with humbly seeking industry's input on what was actually possible.

“We learned early on this program [that] there was confusion over the requirements,” the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. James McConville, told appropriators. With the new approach of listening assiduously to industry, he said, “we think we can save time up front and get the vehicle we need...and have requirements that we know industry can meet.”

That was met with some skepticism. “That sounds great, general, but I wonder why we didn't start this process, you know, a long time ago,” replied the panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Ken Calvert. “What happened?”

“I think what happened, Congressman, is we have learned,” said McConville, not quite answering the question. “We are learning with industry. We're learning with our acquisition folks who are used to doing it the old way, where we spent [10-14 years] developing requirements [and] a system, and then investing a lot of money in it, and finding out at the end we didn't get what we wanted. So, we are stopping early and we are redefining the way we do the process to encourage innovation.”

So what's the new schedule? That's the question Rep. Paul Mitchell asked, without getting a clear answer, in two different House Armed Services Committee hearings, on March 3rd and March 5th.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/can-the-army-convince-congress-its-learned-from-fcs