Boeing Says A-B-C-U-Later to $160 Billion Program

Easy come, easy go. And as Boeing (NYSE: BA  ) learned this week ... sometimes not so easy.

The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday that it is officially putting an end to its "$160 billion" Future Combat Systems program in its current form, heading off taxpayer fears that runaway costs could morph FCS into a $300 billion boondoggle.

Back to the future...
Six years in the making, FCS aimed to transform the way the U.S. Army fights its wars, linking military units through a high-tech maze of computer and satellite networks. Co-managed by Boeing and SAIC (NYSE: SAI  ) , the plan aimed to link remote ground sensors, unmanned aircraft, military robots, and ultra-high-tech combat vehicles into a unified fighting force. Every element of a brigade would be able to "see" what every other element saw, creating an unmatched "force multiplier" in combat.

Unfortunately, while the program by definition aimed at preparing for "future combat situations," FCS became rapidly overtaken by events in the present. Combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan taught the military that thin-skinned vehicles, no matter how technologically superior, were vulnerable to low-tech improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In-process changes ordered for various FCS vehicles, combined with the defense industry's penchant for viewing defense budgets more as a guidelines than mandates, had FCS running at least 40% over budget (and counting.)

Long story short, Defense Secretary Gates decided to first gut the program in last month's Pentagon budget request -- scooping out the $87 billion heart of the program when he eliminated the "Manned Ground Vehicle" element -- then cancel it once the heart had been ripped out.

... and back to the drawing board
So it's so-long and see-ya for FCS. But what will take its place? I mean, after sinking billions into developing new military technologies, you wouldn't want the Army to just junk all it has learned, and start from scratch, right?

Enter "ABCTM," the Pentagon's latest batch of alphabet soup, this time denoting "Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization." While more a concept than a plan at this stage, the broad outlines of ABCTM seem to go like this: Instead of equipping 15 high-tech, super-integrated brigades with space-age technology, the Army will take various bits of tech, developed piecemeal, and spread them over all 73 of its combat brigades.

In some ways, ABCTM may still look a lot like FCS. Two weeks ago -- after Gates outlined his long-range plans for the future -- the Army asked Congress for $2.9 billion in FCS funds. The bulk would go to Boeing and SAIC for network hardware and software and systems engineering work. But that still left more than $300 million for bits and pieces of FCS:

  • A Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System being developed by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT  ) and Raytheon (NYSE: RTN  )
  • Unattended Ground Sensors, a technology developed by Textron (NYSE: TXT  ) ,
  • Unmanned Ground Vehicles from providers like Lockheed, and iRobot (Nasdaq: IRBT  )
  • And Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from... well, everybody. Name a company -- any of those listed above, plus General Atomics, Honeywell (NYSE: HON  ) , and L-3 besides -- and it's probably hawking some type of UAV.

How much of this funding will survive the termination of FCS, however, remains uncertain. Apparently, the Army is only asking for $100 million to help it start up ABCTM, which suggests that the previous requests may be scaled back -- or perhaps just pushed back a bit until the Pentagon firms up just what "ABCTM" stands for.

What's it all mean for investors?
You're going to think I'm crazy for saying this... but if you ask me, the answer is: "It probably doesn't mean a lot. And it's certainly not as bad as you fear."

Oh, sure, if you own shares of Boeing or SAIC, the two lead contractors under FCS, then the program's cancellation probably means fewer revenues for both companies in years to come. It's not a total loss, though. The Pentagon will likely have to pay Boeing and SAIC at least for their development costs up to date, and perhaps a cancellation fee. (DefenseNews quotes an army source who pegs this figure at approximately $350 million.) Importantly, even with FCS kaput, Boeing and SAIC can still bid on the parts of FCS that survive under ABCTM. More to the point, each company should maintain a critical role in the core networking technology that underlies modernization efforts. The same DefenseNews article quotes an Army source saying Boeing-SAIC will remain the lead system integrator for spinout technologies.

More generally, I see Gates' killing of FCS and initiation of ABCTM as an attempt to:

  • Rein in costs on a program that had gone "off the reservation" and was galloping its way to the Land of $300 Billion. As a taxpayer and an investor, I cannot fault him for trying to head off the PR fiasco that would entail
  • Invest in weapons systems that we will actually need in the future -- not just protect pet projects that appease vested military-industrial complex interests. FCS as a whole may be dead, but Gates' moves this week make me more certain than ever that if you put your money in firms developing unmanned aircraft, robots, and body armor -- that's where the future, and the profits still lie.

Invest accordingly.

Victory through superior defense investing:

If you want the very best in Foolish defense investing ideas, check out Motley Fool Rule Breakers, where we're looking into options for everything from flying model airplanes and robotic warriors, to bomb-proof trucks, to bulletproof soldiers. We never intended to become the "defense contractor" newsletter -- that' s just where the opportunities seem to be. 30-day trials are free.

Fool contributor Rich Smith owns shares of Boeing. iRobot is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers recommendation. SAIC is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. The Motley Fool's disclosure policy is the ultimate force multiplier.


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (15)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2009, at 5:17 PM, jammer13 wrote:

    You guys are not only foolish, your blind too. You want to talk about programs that have run off the reservation, look at JSF. It is billions and over budget and years behind schedule, and flight test has only begun. Why don't you take a more indepth look at that "boondoggle."

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2009, at 6:43 PM, ZGare wrote:

    I agree with the last comment. The top people in the Army disagree with Gate's assessment, and they have studies to back them up. Where are the studies from Mr, Gates that show MGVs are provide less protection for soldiers than MRAPs? If Mr. Gates wanted new requirements, why didn't he just change them a year ago before another billion or so dollars were spent. He was Sec of Defense last year too. It hasn't stopped them in the past. This switch to MRAP style armor will be the most expensive requirements change in history. I believe Mr. Gates just wanted to continue development phase so the expensive part, production -- actually equipping an army -- will be pushed off to the next administration. Or we can always buy vehicles from Europe and keep them working.

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2009, at 6:46 PM, ZGare wrote:

    One more thing for young people -- go into finance, not engineering. The government will always bale out their buddies in the fianancial community with free cash. But if you actually give the government something for the money you get, prepare to be cancelled and look for another job.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 905604, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/23/2014 10:42:14 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement