The U.S. Army may kill or delay half of the 27-ton vehicles planned for its flagship Future Combat Systems, hoping to cut costs and stave off more drastic measures by senior Pentagon officials or lawmakers, service sources said.
Led by Boeing and SAIC, the $160 billion effort is seen as a likely target for trimming in the wake of hints by the White House and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) that the shaky economy will require cuts to major weapon programs.
"We are emphasizing fiscal responsibility," a senior Army source said.
One industry analyst said the eight vehicles "will be prioritized" by Army officials, with up to half potentially killed or delayed and others sped up.
Sources said four vehicles are likely safe from the axe: BAE Systems' Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon and Infantry Carrier Vehicle, and General Dynamics' Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle, and Command and Control Vehicle.
Vehicles seen to be at risk include BAE's Non-line-of-Sight Mortar, Medical Vehicle, and Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle; and General Dynamics' Mounted Combat System.
James McAleese, the principal of the McAleese and Associates defense consulting firm, said the Army might buy more currently available combat vehicles instead.
"The Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon will almost certainly proceed, because of strong testing and congressional mandates. The Army should be able to successfully prioritize at least two or three additional MGV [manned ground vehicle] variants for large-volume production by 2015," McAleese said. "Congress will likely back-fill the remainder of the planned MGV fleet with less costly Abrams/ Bradley upgrades, plus continued Stryker production for near-term replacement of M113."
Cuts to vehicle programs would be reflected in the research and development lines of the annual FCS budget.
FCS's next-generation battlefield networking effort is expected to survive. One congressional source said it might be spun off from the FCS umbrella and become its own program.
Also likely to remain on track is the service's planned first FCS "spin-out" of robots, UAVs and networking gear to Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, said Army, industry and congressional sources. The fate of later planned spin-outs is less clear.
Last fall, the Army's 2010-15 Program Objective Memorandum called for adding $6.2 billion to the FCS program over the next six years. But that plan is now being revised, Army sources said.
"They had been moving along on a restructuring of the program, but due to new budget guidance, they may have had to adjust and make additional changes to the program," one congressional source said.
An industry source added the Army's restructuring effort was triggered in large part by criticism trained on FCS by the Pentagon's Program Analysis and Evaluation office.
Others noted that on Jan. 30, Pentagon procurement chief John Young listed FCS among U.S. defense programs that underwent cost growth because of lower-than-realistic initial estimates.
Loren Thompson of the Arlington,Va.-based Lexington Institute said disagreement about the costly program has been coming to a head for some time.
"You have the entire Army leadership lined up behind FCS, but in OSD and in Congress, there is this bemused reaction to why that is," Thompson said.
McAleese said the Obama administration will "heavily scrutinize" the program.
"Congress and OSD perceive that FCS competes against reset, readiness and expanded-end-strength requirements," McAleese said.
Service leaders, who have seen their budget slice grow more than the Navy's or Air Force's during the wars launched by the Bush administration, said they have been planning for the possibility of budget cuts.
"During the last eight years, the Army has been the beneficiary of some of the budgets and that is likely to get more scrutiny," said Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, Fort Monroe, Va. "Things are going to become targets of discretionary spending to help the administration take care of some of the other national needs."
Vane said FCS' price tag doesn't tell the whole story. The program has absorbed lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that will make the gear better. He cited the 2003-08 efforts to build Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.
"How do we build that MRAP-like capability in an incremental fashion inside the FCS program? Those are the kinds of things that you added that did increase cost but also increased capability," he said.
Vane added the Army recently decided to distribute some FCS vehicles and networking gear to the entire force, not just to 15 brigades.
Under this new plan, some heavy units would get Non-Line-of-Sight Cannons to replace their M109 Paladins, Army sources said.
Vane said the MGVs could bring a mobile network to Afghanistan.
"When you think about going into Afghanistan where small units are separated from their higher headquarters over a country much larger than Iraq ... how are you going to bring the network into small units?" he said. "How are you going to get comms into small units? What MGV brings is the network-embedded in the platform. Instead of having to bring a whole bunch of stuff with you when you go to Afghanistan or someplace else, you are brining the infrastructure with you."
Thompson said the Army is not alone in making preemptive cuts.
"Each of the services is cutting back on programs as a result of the expected reductions in defense spending," Thompson said. "There is no question major programs are going to be cut." ■
E-mail: kosborn@defensenews.com, jbennett@defensenews.com.
The Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is ready to test a few components that soldiers may have in their hands by 2010.
Help
