Army Proposes Major Weapons Cuts

[Ryan Ruck]

Army Proposes Major Weapons Cuts

The Army has finalized a budget plan that proposes cutting $3.3 billion from its Future Combat System, killing the Land Warrior program and terminating or sharply trimming funds for many other initiatives, according to sources familiar with the plan.

In submitting its budget plan to Pentagon leaders last week, the Army contended that budget constraints have forced the service to take what it believes are imprudent risks in the readiness of today’s forces, as well as in its future plans.

Moreover, the service remains strident in its contention that additional funds for readiness and other priorities must still be provided next year and thereafter to lessen those risks, according to service and industry officials.

In making its case to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the service laid out a roster of cuts to some of its most prized programs, beginning with FCS, the centerpiece of its modernization efforts. By delaying key milestones, shifting some pieces of the program out of FCS plans and killing others, the Army believes it can save more than $3.3 billion over the next six budget years (fiscal years 2008 to 2013).

The moves would reduce the cost to field each FCS brigade combat team, but it would also push back procurement plans for BCT equipment, delaying by five years the schedule for fielding the teams, according to sources familiar with the plan.

The FCS cuts also entail the removal of some unmanned aerial vehicles from the program and the deferral of some vehicles, as well as some ammunition. The upshot of the moves would be an FCS program consisting of 14 platforms plus the network, down from the 18 envisioned today, with FCS systems to be fielded at a rate of one brigade combat team per year for fifteen years, beginning in 2015. Prior plans called for those 15 BCTs to be fielded at a rate of 1.5 per year over 10 years.

The service’s plan to “spin out” key FCS technologies remains intact, but would be modified, sources say.

Slated for termination is the Land Warrior program, a system of soldier equipment that would be deployed with an Army unit for the first time next summer. That termination, which also includes the linked Mounted Warrior effort, would save the service several hundred million dollars, but may provoke opposition on Capitol Hill if it is sustained by the Pentagon in the president’s FY-08 defense budget request.

In addition, the Army has proposed killing its Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, its Precision Guided Mortar Munition and the remainder of its Army Tactical Missile System program, sources say. In the same vein, the Army plans to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System over the six-year plan, called the program objective memorandum.

Another cut sure to meet with opposition is a proposal to trim $250 million from the Medium Extended Air Defense System. The United States is partnered with Germany and Italy on the missile system, and U.S. delays and changes over the last decade have led to significant friction among the three countries.

According to sources, the proposed MEADS cut is being reviewed by Pentagon leaders who are assessing the impact it would have on the international arrangement.

Other notable programs proposed for termination include the M113 Command Post Upgrade, the Army Airborne Command and Control System and the Joint High Speed Vessel.

The JHSV is a joint program with the Navy. This week, Inside the Navy reported that Pentagon officials were likely to reject the Army’s cut, which would save the service more than $1 billion.

Other cuts and terminations are included in the proposal, which is the product of negotiations between the service, the Pentagon and the White House Office of Management and Budget. The service decided not to submit a budget plan in August in favor of continued discussions over its funding allotment, which it contended was short by more than $24 billion in FY-08.

In the end, as InsideDefense.com first reported Oct. 24, the service received only $7 billion more from the Pentagon and OMB.

Earlier in October, in an interview with defense reporters, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said if the service got less than what it needed in FY-08 it would be forced to slow the modernization of the force, among other actions.

Sources say more money from the White House may still be coming in the form of a late program budget decision similar to PBD 753, handed down in late December 2004. That PBD added billions of dollars to the Army’s outyear spending plans while cutting back major defense programs, most of them Air Force and Navy efforts.

[Ryan Ruck]

Army Axing High-Tech Uniforms, "Future"

The Army made a big decision, back in October. After 15 years and a half-billion dollars in development, the service would finally take Land Warrior, its ensemble of high-tech soldier gear, to war for the first time. The collection of radios, GPS-locators, and next-generation rifle scopes wasn't perfect -- far from it. But, for infantrymen who typically don't even have a walkie-talkie, it was an important first step towards plugging the average soldier into battlefield network.

But, just six weeks later, the Army appears to have reversed itself. According to Inside Defense, service financiers have decided to kill off Land Warrior in its 2008 budget. It's one of a number of high-tech programs slated for big cuts by the Army.

The service got $17 billion less than what it wanted for its 2008 budget from the Pentagon and the White House. "Earlier in October... Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said if the service got less than what it needed in FY-08 it would be forced to slow the modernization of the force," Inside Defense's Dan Dupont notes. "In submitting its budget plan to Pentagon leaders last week, the Army contended that budget constraints have forced the service to take what it believes are imprudent risks in the readiness of today’s forces, as well as in its future plans."

Future Combat Systems -- the Army's plan to connect all its next-generation tanks, robots, and fighting vehicles to that battlefield network -- is also slated to take a good-sized hit.

By delaying key milestones, shifting some pieces of the program out of FCS plans and killing others, the Army believes it can save more than $3.3 billion over the next six budget years (fiscal years 2008 to 2013).

The moves would reduce the cost to field each FCS brigade combat team, but it would also push back procurement plans for BCT equipment, delaying by five years the schedule for fielding the teams, according to sources familiar with the plan.

The FCS cuts also entail the removal of some unmanned aerial vehicles from the program and the deferral of some vehicles, as well as some ammunition. The upshot of the moves would be an FCS program consisting of 14 platforms plus the network, down from the 18 envisioned today, with FCS systems to be fielded at a rate of one brigade combat team per year for fifteen years, beginning in 2015. Prior plans called for those 15 BCTs to be fielded at a rate of 1.5 per year over 10 years.

Now, just because the Army has proposed these cuts doesn't necessarily mean they are going to happen. As you may have heard, there's a new party taking over Congress. And, at least in the run-up to the elections, these guys made a lot of noise about giving the Army a boost. Then there's the new Secretary of Defense. He may be more favorably inclined to funding the Army than his predecessor was. Certainly, he seems to look kindly on the larger goal of retooling the military. Check of this exchange with Sen. Elizabeth Dole:

SEN. DOLE: Dr. Gates, the transformation efforts undertaken by Secretary Rumsfeld are critical to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. While Secretary Rumsfeld made transformation of the military a priority, obviously much remains to be done. In your view, which transformation programs are the most important and effective in fighting this war on terror?...

MR. GATES: Senator Dole, one of the things that has impressed me the most in the briefings -- the very short briefings that I've received preparatory to this hearing, is the extent of the transformation that actually has taken place in recent years, compared to when I was in government.

I can't tell you how many crisis meetings I sat through in the Situation Room over a 20-year period, and we would look at military contingencies, and we would be looking at 60 to 90 days to generate a brigade, to get a military force on the move and in place.

So the expeditionary nature of the Army, the mobility, the change in mind-set -- sometimes perhaps those of you who have been really close to it may not fully appreciate just how dramatically the situation already has changed, compared to when I was in government last.

I think that the transformation needs to continue... The two things that I think make a lot of sense has been this shift of the Army from being basically a static force to a more mobile expeditionary force. I think that's very important.

I think that the -- based on very superficial information at this point, this -- the shift from divisions to the brigade structure does make a lot of sense, and I think it provides a lot more flexibility.

I would say that one of the things that I think is very important in the transformation is continuing to strengthen our capacity to fight irregular wars. I think that's where the action is going -- is most likely to be for the foreseeable future. And so I think it's very important that it go forward.