Posted on 06/04/2007 12:53:14 PM PDT by neverdem
Can the Army reconcile its current -- and future -- force requirements? That's the key question now at the center of an important debate concerning the Army's budget.
At issue is an $867-million cut to the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization program recommended by the House Armed Services Committee. House authorizers are concerned that the Army cannot afford to pay for current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously pursuing FCS modernization. The Senate Armed Services Committee, by contrast, has proposed increasing the FCS budget by $115 million to accelerate key FCS modernization initiatives. The congressional appropriations committees have yet to act; and the Senate and the House still must reconcile their differences.
FCS is the Army's principal modernization program. In fact, it is the only Army program that ranks in the Defense Department's top 10 weapons acquisition programs. All of the other programs are ships and aircraft. That's why FCS is so important: It involves not just one particular program, but the Army's entire modernization strategy for the next quarter-century. Indeed, the Army is developing 14 new FCS manned and unmanned air and ground systems for 15 new FCS-equipped units or Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). The entire Army, moreover, is being outfitted with more modern FCS capabilities, which will better empower and protect soldiers. This is necessary because the Army has not comprehensively modernized in decades. The service's newest M1-Abrams tank is older than our soldiers. And some Army vehicles employ chasses that were developed well over 50 years ago, when Harry Truman was president.
Well, the world's changed a lot since then. Technology's changed a lot since then. And the Cold War is over. We need new and more modern equipment for our soldiers. This is especially true today...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What is the total $$ amount in earmarks so far in this Congress? How about they cut those and fund our military?
The answer:
The Army is too FLIPPIN small.
It needed all along to remain at 18 divisions before idiot clinton sliced it to free up pork barrel money.
With those 18 divisions we could fight 2 wars simultaneously AND do rotations AND do R&D.
Why don’t we cut ALL the aid to illegal aliens? That would save us nearly $90,000,000,000.00 a year. Enough to pay for the FCS program... and seventeen Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
bookmark
I worked on FCS and it gave us small UAVs, SUGVs, improved 1st aid packs, improved weapon sites, improved datalinks, improved recon ability, improved jammers, improved counter IED systems, improved armor for vehicles and soldiers, improved propulsion systems, improved survivability, etc.
Will the FCS vehicles look exactly like what FCS program thinks they will in the end? Maybe, but maybe not. We transformed a horse army to a mechanized army in WWII and designers of the pre-war tanks had no idea what the Pershing tanks or the Pattons that followed them would look like. Nor did they think diesel engines and computers would ever be small and useful enough to fit into the chassis. Heck, with the way nanofibers, spidersilk, optical computers, powered armor, man-machine interfaces (cybernetics), batteries, and a host of other technologies are going, the FCS common chassis may look the same as we envision it, but the vehicle will be anything but.
Or we could let dim congress cut it and still have M1s and M2s in 2040. I Love the M1 tank, but though the final design is not quite as old as I am, it cannot last forever without A LOT of modifications (which the FCS program is also providing). Killing FCS will cripple the Army’s modernization and “quantum leap” efforts.
Though maybe that is what the leftist base desires?
Specific Example: We are rapidly approaching end of life for systems like an M1; a great tank, but 27 years old and conceptually obsolete both in design for protection as well as the threat it was meant to counter. The turbine pushing that tank hasn’t been built for nearly a decade (All rebuilds) and both costs and reliability are taking a toll as a consequence. As awesome as a M1 is, it’s conceptually obsolete and with the proliferation of advanced ATGMs and arty systems things look very grim. Bolting on some stop-gap fix is not the answer and long term costs more.
FCS like the M1 and M2 in the past is the answer to todays needs as those systems were during the Cold War and Western European stand off with the Warsaw Pact. Active protection with soft and hard kill, signature reduction, incredible mobility and situational awareness packed into a unit that is modular and is a common platform for various roles makes for an easy to sustain and economy of mass in production platform. FCS is a platform that can be airlifted more easily and expeditionary missions are easier to conduct with this system. Bottom line, FCS must come. Those standing in its way are obstructing something desperately needed by the DoD.
The answer was $$$ and Rumsfeld’s belief that he could get more bang for the buck with reorganization.
He was proven wrong.
“...House authorizers are concerned that the Army cannot afford to pay for current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously pursuing FCS modernization.”
Am I reading that right? If so...Is that one of the stupidest statements ever?
Actually...How would you know if I’m reading it right, but what I’m saying is Who has the purse strings?
As is the navy. Both need to be roughly doubled in size.
You hit it on the head! Just to caveat:
1. The Cold War had static bases in Germany, Netherlands, and Italy where tanks sit in garrison and get rail loaded to ranges. The battles would have been large mechanized battles on rolling plains and the advanced FLIR technology and computing power and was not there to make things like Javelin, Spike, and other emerging systems possible. These tanks were not moved constantly in and out of theater and the threat is not constantly moving as well like today.
2. As a complex machine ages, and as components are no longer manufactured, the cost of maintaining it goes up. The M1 turbine is old and expensive at this point. The weight alone of an M1 imposes an impressive burden on the DoD when it comes to moving them.
Bottom line - the world has changed and so has the threat. Technology has advanced, and these older systems are getting expensive and unreliable. We need new systems for our troops!
IMHO, the House dems, but it will have to be reconciled with the Senate.
How many weapons systems have he and Cheney killed in their careers? After billions spent, the following come to mind: Crusader, Osprey (first round), Comanche, Peacekeeper, B-2, BBs, DD-21.
Two words: Donald Rumsfeld.
Before one goes out and buy all these toys, let us rebuild our production base, like ammunition, steel mills for armor kits, battery factories, critical components for guided weapons, etc, etc, etc. Relying on China for 90 percent of the armor grade steel, the electronics from Switzerland, who declared neutrality on our Iraq war effort, thus cutting off the components for our JDAM weapons, running out of ammo because the consumption rate for training Guard units and fighting insurgents outran our sole factory producing military rounds. Problem with DoD is the political appointees are from private industry who think industrial base is of the past because in the Digital Age one just rely on foreign sources for parts and components, and to save money no need to stockpile because in the consumer world vendors practice just in time logistics. All I can say is we are lucky that North Korea did not something while we attacked Iraq. Before any dime is spent on defense, there is a need to shore up our production base and not have it outsourced and offshored, and stop emphasizing hi tech systems that we can afford a few, and look at med tech systems that we can afford to field in huge numbers.
Modernization means nothing if the ROE stay inappropriate.
Oh I know Rumsfeld screwed some things up in a big way, but at the end of the day, it was Bush’s call - he had a Republican Congress and (at the time) a clear message, and a clear reason for an increase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.