With urgent equipment needs, army redirects future combat systems.

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.
• Position: Upfront

The Army is sketching a spending plan to accommodate both urgent equipment needs and an ambitious program to develop a new family of futuristic combat systems.

Although officials stress that supplying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is the priority, they said they intend to align immediate requirements for new and improved vehicles with the Army's largest modernization project, the Future Combat Systems.

This approach makes sense, said Army officials, because FCS contains many technologies that soldiers could use much sooner than 2012 or 2014, when FCS is expected to enter service. Army budget planners also encouraged the service to move in this direction, in order to prevent a colossal funding crunch in coming years that potentially could derail FCS.

The most recent estimates peg the cost of FCS at $25 billion for research and development alone, and at more than $200 billion if it reaches full production, noted Daniel G. Mehney, director of acquisition at the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.

In fiscal year 2005, nearly 34 percent of TACOM's $9.8 billion budget is being allocated to FCS-related work.

Meanwhile, the price tag for replacing equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq keeps rising, and will reach significantly higher levels than previously forecast. The Army is at least $2 billion short of what it needs to repair war-torn hardware, and the bill could grow by several billion dollars during the next year or two.

Among the actions being considered to ease the Army's transition to a more technologically advanced force is to synchronize the activities of two of the Army's largest procurement organizations--the program executive office for ground combat vehicles and the office that oversees FCS.

Both groups will work to come up with a "single investment strategy," said Kevin Fahey, program executive officer for ground combat systems.

Speaking to an industry conference in Dearborn, Mich., Fahey explained that the Army is trying to come to grips with how best to keep aging fleets of armored and tactical vehicles in war-ready shape. Officials said they want to avoid duplicating costs by making sure that certain key technologies already funded under FCS get applied to existing tanks and other combat systems.

"Programs today are connected, but not integrated," Fahey said. The Army would like, for example, to synch up programs intended to upgrade Abrams tanks with FCS efforts aimed at designing a replacement for the tank. "We are...