HASC Leaders Write Gates About Army Abrams, Bradley, Stryker Funding

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Defense Daily
October 1, 2008
Pg. 1

By Ann Roosevelt
Top House Armed Services Committee (HASC) members this week expressed their concerns to Defense Secretary Robert Gates about Army funding in fiscal year 2010 for Abrams, Stryker and Bradley combat vehicles, in favor of funding the Future Combat Systems program.
Abrams and Stryker are produced by General Dynamics, Bradley by BAE Systems.
The Sept. 29 letter is concerned that "dramatically reducing funding for those vehicles could lead to termination of the existing Abrams tank multiyear contract. Further, it is our understanding that these funding reductions have been proposed, primarily, in order to shift funding to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program--a program that has a long history of cost growth and schedule delays."
Boeing and SAIC manage FCS for the Army.
What specifically concerns HASC Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and ranking member Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and the HASC Air and Land Forces subcommittee chairman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and ranking member Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) is the possibility the Army doesn't know enough about the likelihood of the FCS program delivering manned ground vehicles on schedule to make such dramatic changes in vehicle investment priorities in the FY '10 budget.
The members continue to support incremental upgrades to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker to ensure they remain relevant, as the final FY '09 defense authorization and appropriations bills do (Defense Daily, Sept. 30).
Committee members said "we feel that reducing investments in these programs, which constitute the core of the Army's armored combat vehicle fleet, before the Army even begins to test realistic prototypes of FCS vehicles in the 2012-2015 timeframe could place our future forces at risk if achieving the FCS program/s aggressive schedule is delayed or FCS manned vehicles cost more than is now forecast."
This was an issue the committee raised in the report accompanying the FY '09 defense-authorization bill.
Also, there is the concern that heavy brigade combat teams will be critical until all 15 FCS BCTs are fielded, but that's only 50 percent of the Army's inventory, thus Abrams, Bradley and Stryker will be part of the Army inventory beyond 2050. "If these vehicles are going to be in the Army for that length of time, we feel they must continue to be upgraded to remain fully capable," the letter said.
Another concern raised is the precedent of canceling a multiyear contract for Abrams tank, entered this year at DoD request and with strong congressional support. "Abruptly canceling the multiyear contract sends a signal to the defense industry that long-term agreements with the DoD cannot be trusted, and we fear that the defense industry will react by increasing the cost of all equipment as a hedge against this kind of short-term thinking by the Army and DoD."
The members write that if their budget information is correct, they are concerned the service would have a fleet of combat vehicles worn out from heavy use in Iraq and less capable than vehicles they could someday face in combat, as well as replacement FCS vehicles that take longer to field and cost more than now considered.
In closing, Gates is urged to carefully review the Army's budget proposals on Abrams, Bradley and Stryker and "ensure there is adequate funding to sustain the multiyear Abrams tank contract and to continue to fully modernize the Army's current combat vehicle fleet until the FCS program delivers and tests fully integrated prototype manned ground vehicles."
 
Back
Top