Army In Fight For Future Combat System

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
CNN
June 19, 2008 The Situation Room (CNN), 5:00 PM
WOLF BLITZER: The U.S. Army has a major fight on its hands right now and it has nothing to do with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or any place else. It's over future wars and which pricey weapons the soldiers of tomorrow will take into battle.
Our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the story -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE: Wolf, we're standing here in the Pentagon parking lot in front of the Army's new non-line-of-sight cannons. It's one of the big guns the army has pulled out in the looming battle of the budget.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MCINTYRE: In the shadow of the U.S. Capitol last week, the Army mounted a rear guard action, assembling a strike force of future weapons in the shameless bid to impress the likes of Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes. With Congress struggling to fund the current wars, the Army is lobbying furiously to save its future wish list.
GEN. GEORGE CASEY, U.S. ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF: This vehicle behind me has a crew of two. And it can fire six rounds a minute very precisely.
MCINTYRE: The Army's prototype non-line-of-sight cannon is a hybrid marvel whose on board diesel generator produces enough electricity to power nine city blocks. And thanks to the latest GPS technology, it can put a 155 millimeter artillery round on a specific building from miles away.
CASEY: I can see the power and the utility of systems like the ones you see around you here today in the hands of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
MCINTYRE: Not so fast, warns Defense Secretary Robert Gates who recently singled out the Army's Future Combat System, which includes the non-line-of-sight cannon, as a Cold War concept the Pentagon may not really need. Making the case for the Army, falls to Major General Charlie Cartwright.
I get it that this is the best damn howitzer money can buy. But $10 million, is it worth it when look at all the other things you have to buy?
MAJ. GEN. CHARLIE CARTWRIGHT, U.S. ARMY: Well I guess I would ask you when I only put two soldiers in harm's way and double survivability versus five soldiers in harm's way, that's a pretty good option for the American public.
MCINTYRE: But the question is, are this better, cheaper technologies to hit over-the-horizon targets than a 27-ton tracked vehicle the size of a tank? Why not more unmanned attack planes. They put no one at risk and are several million dollars cheaper.
But right now couldn't they call in an air strike on that target?
CARTWRIGHT: They can do the same thing with the air strike. What this gives them is the organic piece to that squad and platoon that's down there in the fight. (END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: While Secretary Gates has the Army's Future Combat System in his cross hairs, he won't be here when the money is doled out. He said Congress did the Pentagon a big favor by coming up with extra money for those MRAPS, the mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles. That's not going to happen with all the competing programs and it's going to get messy -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre, thank you.
 
Back
Top