search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS


helps meet new challenges by promoting Joint programs and resource sharing. By doing more with less, the program makes efficient use of taxpayer dollars.


EVALUATE AND BUY Despite a huge number of technologies on which to focus, the OSD has one clear goal for the FCT Program: evaluate and buy capabilities.


SEEKING NEW TECHNOLOGIES


The search for game-changing military technology leads the Army and DOD to foreign expositions and displays. Once identified, a new technology may be acquired through the FCT Program. Here, SGT David Drugagh of 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, talks about the capabilities of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle with Heidi Shyu, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, June 11 during the 2012 Eurosatory International Exhibition in Paris. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Brooks Fletcher, U.S. Army Public Affairs)


“Te FCT Program takes the best tech- nology the world has to offer and puts it directly in the hands of our young men and women in the field. Te program has been a tremendous asset to the Army, and it has been a privilege for RDECOM to take the lead for our service,” said Tomas Mulkern, leader of RDECOM’s Inter- national Technology Integration Team, which oversees the Army FCT program.


Team of the U. S. Army Research, Devel- opment, and Engineering Command (RDECOM).


By focusing solely on mature technologies, FCT acquisitions avoid the high costs associated with extended research and development (R&D). For example, it was estimated that government R&D costs would have been $2–3 million to build a comparable processing system for the meat dehydration project from scratch. Furthermore, the project would take at least three to five years to develop.


By testing and incorporating the already mature French system, these upfront R&D costs were avoided and tastier, long- lasting meat products will be on the way to U.S. service members much sooner. (See related article on Page 89.)


As of Oct. 31, 2012, 671 FCT projects had been initiated, and 600 of those com- pleted. Of the 311 projects that met service requirements, 256 were transitioned for procurements worth $10.8 billion.


86 Army AL&T Magazine


CONSTANTLY EVOLVING Te FCT Program adapts continually to changing environments. Before 1989, the program was referred to as the Foreign Weapons Evaluation and NATO Com- parative Testing programs and focused initially on NATO allies. Tat year, the program was reborn as the Foreign Comparative Testing Program with autho- rization from Congress. At the end of the Cold War, the program broadened its scope to involve countries such as South Korea, Australia, and South Africa, which have supplied life-saving technologies.


Te South African-developed Mine Pro- tected Clearance Vehicle, or Buffalo, was successfully evaluated in 2002. It uses V-shaped hull technology to counteract roadside explosives. Te timing could not have been better, as the Buffalo would be used extensively throughout Iraq and Afghanistan and save lives.


With the coming withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and DOD facing a new age of fiscal austerity, the FCT Program


January–March 2013


Each military branch and the U.S. Spe- cial Operations Command conduct FCT programs. Each nominates mature military or commercial products that pro- vide a needed solution. Each service also conducts assessments and fields the tech- nology when it is approved for acquisition.


FCT successes have been many. Since the program’s inception, projects from 31 countries have been completed, and foreign vendors have teamed with U.S. industry in 34 states. Considerations such as exportability and intellectual property limitations are considered upfront during the initial proposal submission process. Successful proposals that are selected for funding have a strategy in place to address problem areas and allow the U.S. mili- tary access to critical information once an item is fielded.


Te program is an example of how NATO and other foreign partners help satisfy U.S. technology requirements or help shore up operational deficiencies. Because


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212