THE TIMES TAKES ON “FUTURE COMBAT”

Ever since it was just a wee lit­tle $92 bil­lion pro­gram, Defense Tech has been rant­ing about the spi­ral­ing costs and doe-​​eyed expec­ta­tions behind Future Combat Systems, the Army’s gar­gan­tuan mod­ern­iza­tion plan. Now that the project — meant to almost rein­vent just about every aspect of warfight­ing, almost simul­ta­ne­ously — is mov­ing north of $145 bil­lion, the New York Times is finally start­ing to take notice.

The Army’s plan to trans­form itself into a futur­is­tic high-​​technology force has become so expen­sive that some of the military’s strongest sup­port­ers in Congress are ques­tion­ing the program’s costs and com­plex­ity.
Army offi­cials said Saturday that the first phase of the pro­gram, called Future Combat Systems, could run to $145 bil­lion [click here for details]. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the “tech­no­log­i­cal bridge to the future” would equip 15 brigades of roughly 3,000 sol­diers, or about one-​​third of the force the Army plans to field…
That price tag, larger than past esti­mates pub­licly dis­closed by the Army, does not include a pro­jected $25 bil­lion for the com­mu­ni­ca­tions net­work needed to con­nect the future forces. Nor does it fully account for Army plans to pro­vide Future Combat weapons and tech­nolo­gies to forces beyond those first 15 brigades.
Now some of the military’s advo­cates in Congress are ask­ing how to pay the bill.
“We’re deal­ing today with a train wreck,” Representative Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania and vice chair­man of the House Armed Services Committee, said at a March 16 Congressional hear­ing on the cost and com­plex­ity of Future Combat Systems.
“We’re left with impos­si­ble deci­sions,” said Mr. Weldon, a strong sup­porter of Pentagon spend­ing. One of those choices, he warned, might cut back Future Combat.

Good idea, Curt. What took you so long?
THERE’S MORE: “But there’s another, more seri­ous issue, which the Times’ oth­er­wise excel­lent story doesn’t explore,” says Slate’s Fred Kaplan. “Even if all the tech­ni­cal prob­lems could be solved and the costs brought under con­trol, the Army may be tum­bling down the wrong road; Future Combat Systems may not address the true nature and needs of future com­bat.“
AND MORE: Project on Government Oversight piles on, too.

March 27th, 2005 | FCS Watch | Comments Off Both comments and pings are currently closed.