Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
February 27, 2008
Pg. 2
The U.S. Army will need around $265 billion annually through fiscal 2011 to get itself back in shape from prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as transform its organization and update its equipment and train personnel, the land service’s top two officials told senators Feb. 26.
But the armed service may only encounter growing skepticism on Capitol Hill over its budget requests in coming years– especially for the massive Future Combat Systems (FCS) program – if sentiment from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is any indication.
At an annual oversight hearing Feb. 26, SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) tried to hone in on recent commentary on FCS cuts from the Pentagon’s chief, while he questioned meeting such large allocations every year. “That would be somewhat doubtful,” Levin told Army Secretary Pete Geren and Gen. George Casey, chief of staff.
Even the ranking Republican at the SASC hearing, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), acknowledged a list of challenges facing the Army that Levin read aloud, but Inhofe said alleged acquisition shortfalls starting last decade were at least partially to blame. And he maintained that the Army – as well as the rest of DOD – should be funded more. “We’ve just got to rebuild,” Inhofe said.
For their part, the Army secretary and top general acknowledged that the service is out of balance, a term they have chosen carefully to stress the strain the service is experiencing while trying to refute accusations that it is broken - a term used to describe the Army after the Vietnam War.
“We are not where we need to be,” Casey said. “We are stretched,” he said later.
“We cut this army way too much,” Geren said.
The officials reiterated long-standing Army opinion that FCS is affordable under the service’s multiyear budget plan through the next presidential administration. The Army’s first major modernization effort in decades, FCS will only amount to a third of the Army’s self-projected procurement allocation, itself only a quarter of its overall requested budget, they said.
Their FCS reference point was a roughly $160 billion cost estimate, although congressional auditors have outlined the potential for tens of billions of dollars more in costs.
FCS has suffered several delays since it was authorized in 2003, which the Army has blamed in part on congressional cuts. FCS systems once were slated to enter production by 2006 and to start initial fielding this year, but since 2003 the schedule has slipped more than six years.
On the Hill, lawmakers from both parties have complained about not understanding FCS – thus making it harder to justify meeting Army budget requests. To that effect, Casey told the SASC that members will see some articles and services previously promised on PowerPoint presentation slides come to life this year as the Army starts “limited” testing at Ft. Bliss, Texas.
-- Michael Bruno
February 27, 2008
Pg. 2
The U.S. Army will need around $265 billion annually through fiscal 2011 to get itself back in shape from prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as transform its organization and update its equipment and train personnel, the land service’s top two officials told senators Feb. 26.
But the armed service may only encounter growing skepticism on Capitol Hill over its budget requests in coming years– especially for the massive Future Combat Systems (FCS) program – if sentiment from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is any indication.
At an annual oversight hearing Feb. 26, SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) tried to hone in on recent commentary on FCS cuts from the Pentagon’s chief, while he questioned meeting such large allocations every year. “That would be somewhat doubtful,” Levin told Army Secretary Pete Geren and Gen. George Casey, chief of staff.
Even the ranking Republican at the SASC hearing, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), acknowledged a list of challenges facing the Army that Levin read aloud, but Inhofe said alleged acquisition shortfalls starting last decade were at least partially to blame. And he maintained that the Army – as well as the rest of DOD – should be funded more. “We’ve just got to rebuild,” Inhofe said.
For their part, the Army secretary and top general acknowledged that the service is out of balance, a term they have chosen carefully to stress the strain the service is experiencing while trying to refute accusations that it is broken - a term used to describe the Army after the Vietnam War.
“We are not where we need to be,” Casey said. “We are stretched,” he said later.
“We cut this army way too much,” Geren said.
The officials reiterated long-standing Army opinion that FCS is affordable under the service’s multiyear budget plan through the next presidential administration. The Army’s first major modernization effort in decades, FCS will only amount to a third of the Army’s self-projected procurement allocation, itself only a quarter of its overall requested budget, they said.
Their FCS reference point was a roughly $160 billion cost estimate, although congressional auditors have outlined the potential for tens of billions of dollars more in costs.
FCS has suffered several delays since it was authorized in 2003, which the Army has blamed in part on congressional cuts. FCS systems once were slated to enter production by 2006 and to start initial fielding this year, but since 2003 the schedule has slipped more than six years.
On the Hill, lawmakers from both parties have complained about not understanding FCS – thus making it harder to justify meeting Army budget requests. To that effect, Casey told the SASC that members will see some articles and services previously promised on PowerPoint presentation slides come to life this year as the Army starts “limited” testing at Ft. Bliss, Texas.
-- Michael Bruno