Hearing of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services - Army Modernization in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. INHOFE: (Off mike) -- a couple of questions while we are waiting for them to return, since I have another commitment. I -- while it was not this committee, it was the Readiness Committee, I used to chair it, and we were dealing with the same issues at that time -- I think the chairman was getting into most of the things -- the concerns that I had.

I think this is kind of unique though that we have the two of you. It's an opportunity. I don't want to lose this opportunity. As I said to you earlier, we have General Thompson, and how do we get it, and then General Speakes -- what we do once we got it.

And my concern has always been, of course, deciding -- the Future Combat System. Going back in years when some of our areas of weakness were there, such as the NLOS Cannon, we are still using the antiquated Paladin.

One time we were going into the Crusader, and it was President Bush that axed that program. Frankly, there was no warning. I thought it was the end of the world until I believe that probably had the silver lining, and that we wouldn't be where we are today with the FCS, in my opinion, if that hadn't happened. And this is far, far more significant and more important.

I know that with all the competition that's out there, normally, and with the testimony of General Cody and others talking about how stressed things are, normally the way we respond to things is you just let off what is bleeding today.

That's been my concern about the modernization program. I made a talk on the floor this morning, talking about how we got to this position of where we are today, and that during the '90s, we let the military slide in some of the modernization programs to an amount of $412 billion over what it would've been if we just had level spending.

Now we saw a lot of programs were falling behind at that time. The chairman asked you about the possible acceleration of the FCS program, and I think I left before we go the full answer of that.

I'd like to ask you to comment on the discussion that's taking place on accelerating the FCS program, but more importantly, do we have the necessary resources to keep the FCS on track as it is today.

GEN. SPEAKES: Sir, let me address the adequacy of resources. You correctly identified the challenge of the '90s, and the fact that we lost critical capabilities to bring research and development through each cycle so we could field capabilities.

And we have spent the first years of this decade, now recovering from those challenges. And thanks to your support and the support of other members, we've been able to generate the capital to invest, the capital then to bring programs very quickly to the Army, an army that very much need additional capabilities for protection, and a host of other issues.

So at this point we believe what we have done is within an overall budget that we understand we have put FCS into a place in our modernization strategy that is approximately one third of our overall investments that we are making for new capability.

We think that that third of a share of investments is affordable, we think it enables us to proceed with the other elements of modernization that are essential.

Obviously, we need trucks. Obviously, we need command and control capability. So we need a host of other capabilities that essentially must move along with FCS to bring the Army's -- (inaudible) -- forward.

So we are in the process of continuing that balanced strategy, a strategy that will bring us forward, bring capabilities online in a balanced way. And we believe that this program is appropriate for the size budget that we have today, and we have for the planning period out through '15.

So in short answer, the plan that we have today will provide us an FCS program that will give the Army what it needs. And it is affordable within the overall construct of an Army at war. We will continue to work that.

And General Thompson has identified in his testimony the impact of the cuts that we've taken over the past years, and those cuts are important because they disrupt the program's ability to execute the plan that they have.

And they also causes issue then of realignment of program requirements over time that causes others to believe that we have challenges with the delivery of programs and the ability to make the contribution that people would expect.

SEN. INHOFE: Well, that's a good answer. That's what I wanted.

General Thompson, did you have anything to add to that.

GEN. THOMPSON: Sir, what I said when you had to step out is that we have a near-term reprogramming request that has been three or the four committees on the Hill, and we're working our way through the last committee, to accelerate the small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, to get that into the hands of the soldiers at Fort Bliss, to be able to experiment and test with that.

Followed behind that is an other reprogramming request that is essential for us to be able to keep the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon and the Spin Out I program on track. If you take the FY '06, FY '07 and FY '08 reductions to the FCS program that we are taking in the budget, it totals $789 million.

We have not reduced the scope of the FCS program as a result of those cuts, and so those two reprogramming requests, one is an add to accelerate, the other one is to maintain the schedule for the near- term capability. But we will have to put money back into the FCS program in order to keep the scope and maintain the schedule.

And that's one of the things we're looking at in out '10 to '15 --

SEN. INHOFE: That's good. You were talking also about the spin out programs and what's happening at Fort Bliss. And tell my friend Senator Cornyn and -- I had already planned one trip to come down. I'd like to see, you know, what is happening there.

But we -- on the FCS until we have everything fielded, it's -- that's the day we are looking. Do any of the spin out programs adversely affected the ultimate fielding of the total system in a negative way.

GEN. THOMPSON: No, Sir, they don't. As a matter of fact it helps us reduce risk. When the technology readiness is such that we can accelerate those and put them in the hands of soldiers, we'll do that.

I characterize the FCS blueprint as still being the blueprint of capability that we want to see in the future. I can deliver against that blueprint sooner with some capabilities, and that's what we're trying to do when we look at acceleration.

SEN. INHOFE: I've often said the, not because of any parochial concern, but the NLOS-C and the NLOS-M are the -- two of the areas where we are most deficient with what we have right now, and that's why I've felt that the -- I want to make sure the -- probably are going to be the first components that we will be fielding, and that it stays that way.

What I'd like to ask of you, if either of you gentlemen see a problem that you don't see today coming up? If you would let me know and advice your staff accordingly, I would appreciate that very much.

GEN. SPEAKES: And one comment on the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon system. It is the first of the eight-man ground vehicles. And because of the way the program is being constructed, which is, good operational sense and good business sense, that is the foundation for the common chassis for the other prototypes.

So 70 percent of the manned ground vehicles are going to be common from a component standpoint. And so this year, at the Army birthday, the Chief of Staff gave us a challenge of having on display the first prototype of the Non-Line-of-Sighted Cannon.

So when you attend our Army birthday in June, we will show you that capability here in Washington, DC.

SEN. INHOFE: I will be there singing. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cornyn for allowing me to go in front of you at this time.

SEN. CORNYN: Happy to do it.

I know, Senator Lieberman is en route back, and I think we'll just stand down until he returns.

SEN. INHOFE: -- advised me, we can go ahead --

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source