Army evaluating whether to accelerate, ditch parts of FCS

The Army is undergoing a major review of the Future Combat Systems program to see what can be accelerated and what will be ditched. The Army Times has this report:

Clip: “The question will be: how fast will the technologies mature, and is there a way to accelerate and do it faster? If we can do it faster, we will,” U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff for programs, said Jan. 9 at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Aviation Symposium in Arlington, Va.
...
“The context of all of this is we want to show as much velocity in delivery as we can,” Speakes said. “What the Army is going to be constantly evaluating is: What is the status of the technology? What are the needs of soldiers in the war, and how can we accelerate either the delivery or the spread of the capability? How can we get it across more of the formation faster?”

More recently from Aviation Week, noting the Army's review of FCS which will be complete by the end of February:
Clip:

The Army’s second-highest officer stressed survivability is an issue reframed by the current conflicts. “We have a 360-degree war,” he said. “Survivability is not just an issue for tanks and Bradleys. It’s an issue we’ve had to address with the entire force.”
The review encompasses numerous other aspects of Army modernization, including procurement. Chiarelli said he supports an acquisition approach with faster results: “As I look at the amount of time it takes us to move from requirements to a fielded system, does [the 1960s-era procurement system] really work in today’s world?”

IMHO, having watched this for the past few years, iRobot's SUGV (Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle) is more ready to go compared to all of the other technologies out there (perhaps along with Micro Air Vehicle?) and could be deployed in very large numbers within a year or two. You can't say that about any of the larger FCS items with big pricetags and lots of manufacturing risk. Army guys need something to WORK and work NOW to justify the very large FCS pricetag. Why not a relatively cheap (for the Army) $1 billion investment in small robots for infantry soldiers? It's a slam dunk PR wise. Who will question having a robot take the place of a marine on the point?

Of course, there is plenty of risk here for IRBT. Just because something SHOULD happen doesn't mean the Army will do it (remember Jameel Ahed?). IRBT needs the SUGV contract, and needs it this year to counter what will almost certainly be weakening slackening demand for robotic appliances and the start of a pullout from Iraq. I think with an SUGV contract, iRobot could get to $20 a share THIS year. Without it, we'll be in yucky land until the economy gets better. Also noting that iRobot has SUGV competition from Foster-Miller, but it would be inconceivable to me for DOD to invest so much into iRobot's development of the SUGV and then drop them from the program. One could easily see Foster-Miller being given a portion of the overall SUGV orders to provide future competition, just as the two companies often have similar orders for Talon/PackBot.

Tags: iRobot, SUGV