ARTICLE

May 2003

Army ‘Transformation’ Plans Could Be Revisited After War

by Sandra I. Erwin

Conclusions from the conflict in Iraq could reopen the debate on whether the Army’s plans for “transformation” are heading in the right direction, said a U.S. congressman.

The pivotal role that heavy armored vehicles played in the war possibly means that “we have to seriously look at whether our heavy units are going to be adequate for the kind of battles like the one we are doing in Iraq,” said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., chairman of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.

“I don’t know that we need to restart the Abrams,” Weldon told National Defense. The Abrams main battle tank production line was closed in 1992, in the expectation that, after the Cold War, the Army no longer needed to buy new tanks and could keep the existing ones running until a replacement was developed.

What emerged as the next generation was the Future Combat System—an overarching effort to field by 2010 a family of up to 18 types of lightweight combat vehicles and robotic platforms, all linked under a common command-and-control network. The project is the cornerstone of the so-called transformation of the Army into a lighter and more mobile force.

“Gen. Shinseki’s [the Army chief of staff] plan for transformation is solid,” but the experience in Iraq should be taken into account, Weldon said. “I want to hear from the war fighters when the conflict is over on whether or not they need to rethink the whole future of where we are going in terms of transformation,” Weldon said. “It’s a question that is going to be opened after this war.”

“The FCS is exciting,” but the potential cost is worrisome, he said. The Army budgeted $13.5 billion for the project over the next five years.

FCS proponents received bad news in March when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed an independent review panel to study the program.

Rumsfeld asked former Air Force chief of staff, retired Gen. Larry Welch, to lead a group of experts in an evaluation of FCS. The timing of the appointment—only 60 days before the FCS program was scheduled to proceed into its next phase of development—is suspicious, sources said. Speculation also is rampant about Rumsfeld’s decision to probe the merits of the Future Combat Systems only three months before the retirement of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who conceived the FCS concept.

A number of retired Army officers who did not want to be quoted by name said that, at first sight, it appears that the review panel may be a retaliatory move against Shinseki, who had irked administration officials when he told Congress that “hundreds of thousands” of troops would be needed in Iraq to help stabilize the country after a U.S.-led campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.

Having a retired Air Force general in charge of reviewing the program is a source of great consternation among FCS advocates, particularly a cadre of lawmakers and staffers who have supported the transformation efforts not only with rhetoric, but also with hundreds of millions of dollars.

A senior staff member of the defense appropriations subcommittee described the situation as “scary.”

In the appropriations committee, he said, “there is great concern about the Welch report.” Further, he added, “the Welch panel scares us,” because it is being read as a sign that the FCS may be on shaky ground, and that the Army’s transformation may be slowed down as a result.

“We took the trip to transformation,” the staffer told a senior Army official recently. “We are still with you,” he said. “However, I don’t think what’s going on is a good thing for transformation.”

Nevertheless, the staffer stressed, the members of the appropriations committee are “in a partnership with the Army on transformation.”

One senior Army official closely involved in the FCS program said the review panel announcement was a shock to him. But the silver lining in all this, he said, is that Welch “is the right guy to do it.”

Welch led a review of the troubled Army Comanche helicopter program, so he is more knowledgeable about ground-combat issues than many may suspect. As the panel moves forward with the review, said the Army official, “We are going to do everything we can to provide the information [Welch] wants.”

He said the Army remains hopeful that the study won’t hold up the FCS Defense Acquisition Board review, scheduled for May 13. The DAB is a prerequisite for FCS to move into the next phase, called system design and development.

Back To Top