Future Combat Changes

War pressures in Iraq and Afghanistan prompt the Pentagon to shift long-term modernization strategy.

In late June, the Army announced that it was rewriting the plans for its massive Future Combat Systems program to focus its near-term efforts more heavily on infantry brigades that have been in high demand in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision marks a significant shift for the $160 billion FCS program, the most expensive and ambitious technological undertaking in the Army's history.

Rather than first fielding so-called spinout technologies to heavy brigades, as had been long planned, the Army now wants to get those technologies to deploying infantry brigades beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011-three years earlier than previously scheduled.

The changes to the program come as lawmakers, particularly key House Democrats, continue to question whether the Army can afford this long-term modernization program as it continues to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those conflicts, some say, demand immediate and significant investments in the service's ground vehicles and other equipment. Spending billions annually on FCS, the program's skeptics argue, is simply a luxury the Army can't afford-at least not in its entirety.

After the announcement, John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said his panel would review the changes, but added that the revisions make the program "more viable."

Two senior Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, which cut $200 million from the $3.6 billion fiscal 2009 request for Future Combat Systems, said the restructure is a "positive step toward improving the FCS program."

But the lawmakers, House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and Armed Services Air and Land Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, questioned whether the new plan established to accom-modate the changes allows for adequate testing of the equipment "due to its very tight schedule."

They also suggested that the changes are among many the Army needs to make to the program.

Concerns about FCS are reverberating across the river, at the highest echelons of the Pentagon.

"It is hard for me to see how that program can be completed in its entirety," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. "In light of what are inevitably going to be pressures on the defense budget in the future, I think that . . . is one that we will have to look at carefully."

But the Pentagon, though watchful of the program, does not appear to have the appetite to make any significant cuts to FCS.

Indeed, John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, praised the program shortly after meeting with Army officials in late May. FCS, Young told reporters just days after the meeting, "has become a label and a lightning rod for doing the right thing in the Army."

He emphasized the importance of fielding FCS, but also said he will keep a close eye on the individual pieces of the program.

"I have to make sure every one of those programs will stay in budget and deliver on schedule and they have a rational development test schedule," Young said. "I'm going to look at those 'eaches' in more detail."

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from GovExec.com.
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

    In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

  • Toward A More Innovative Government

    This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

  • From Volume to Value: UK’s NHS Digital Provides U.S. Healthcare Agencies A Roadmap For Value-Based Payment Models

    The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.

  • GBC Flash Poll: Is Your Agency Safe?

    Federal leaders weigh in on the state of information security


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.