|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 4, 2006 14:19:26 GMT -5
Congressman, Every expensive military development program in history has been called a "dud", until it proves itself in battle. This is true of today's "legacy" systems like the M1 Abrams, the M2/3 Bradley, the F-15, and I could recite an endless list... Why are these programs so expensive? Because we design them to an exacting standard to survive and work effectively in harsh environments, test them beyond such requirements, and train our service members to effectively operate them.
The majority of the FCS vehicles will be capable of transport by the C-130, however two or three heavier types would need either the larger C-130J-30 or C-17 aircraft. Also, due to the cargo area dimensions, not all versions will be able to roll-off is combat configuration. That being said, FCS is designed for quick combat preparedness and operationally this was determined to be an objective, not a threshold requirement. This same issue was true of the Stryker vehicle and carries over from Clinton administration. Deployability refers to both tactical and strategic, by land, sea, and air. In all these regards the FCS should at least match Stryker units and will surpass heavy "legacy" units. While expanded airlift capacity would be preferable, this is deemed a future and not an immediate necessity. In the 2020-2030 time-frame an aircraft with A-400M type capabilities would be sought to replace the C-130 as the end of their service lives approach.
As a former soldier, I am sure you are aware there are no absolute assurances in combat. What I can tell you is that this "toolbox" of networked systems will provide the FCS Brigade with better situational awareness and more options for maneuver and engagement. FCS will rely both on traditional "passive" armor, as well as active and nanotechnology armor systems as they mature.
With all due respect, especially to your service, "real fighting" is done by all the men and women in uniform, each in their own way. As a former naval aviator who has been in harms way I can attest to that.
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 4, 2006 14:23:41 GMT -5
Secretary Adams, if I may jump in rather abruptly before you answer, I would just like to add that I had also heard alot of call back in 2005 and 2006 to completely end the program, because it was an albatross hanging over the heads of the military. It was considered a high cost program that was not producing the results necessary. For instance, the original program including arming our Armored Vehicles with laser weapons and have our next gen howitzers weigh in at under 19 tons. Thank god cooler heads prevailed, and the pink floyd light show was nixed from the project fairly quickly.
If I remember correctly, and as my colleague Representative Reynolds points out, that those weight requirements have changed. In fact, I believe that then-Army Secretary Francis Harvey allowed that we do not have the technology to sustain smaller vehicles against anti-armor weapons, especially seeing how many Abrams and Bradleys we lost in Iraq due to RPGs and roadside ambushes. And hell, the contractor hired to create the common radio wasted 5 billion dollars and 3 years worth of potential work with nothing to show for it.
As far as I can see, you're trying to return this project to its orginal objective: speeding army brigades to any part of the world within 96 hours, when that objective was abandoned due to flawed planning, incompetence and the inability to produce or develop the proper technology. Can you please explain to this body how you are planning to overcome those problems when it does not appear that you have changed any of the specifications for the project? Or are we just going to be flushing billions of dollars down the drain on a project that has proven to be one that promotes waste, and one that is unrealistic in expectations?
One other question is that without going into detail regarding the content of classified programs, because that would be inappropriate in this theater, but I think it IS appropriate to discuss the cost of those programs. How much would you estimate is the U.S. going to be spending on its classified R&D programs, because without it, the figures you have presented regarding total cost are misleading and false.
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 4, 2006 14:30:47 GMT -5
Mr. Secretary,
Mr. Reynolds I'm sure did not intend to indicate that other branches of the military do not do their share of fighting. The fact is, however, that air and naval superiority have not even been an issue in Iraq and Afghanistan. The individuals on the ground in the Army and Marines have sustained by far the most casualties out of the service branches, and this does not appear to be likely to change given our current adversaries in Iran and Syria.
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 4, 2006 16:43:02 GMT -5
Congressman,
Most R&D programs go through these growing pains. When they start they seem like they will produce amazing results, then it is realized the effort and difficulties involved with meeting these goals. This usually requires adjusting time and budgets, and a decission made how to do so and whether to maintain requirements. FCS has gone through this but has evolved and adjusted. It will continue to do so, but we are indeed in the heart of systems development, not an abstract proposal.
We must not only ensure that our superiority is maintained and enhanced, but we must also ensure that ships, aircraft, and vehicles that are reaching the end of their service lives are replaced. That is why it makes sense in 2010 to 2020 to build F-22s and F-35s, not F-15s and F-16s from the 1970s and 1980s. The theory behind FCS is not only replacing "legacy" systems, but doing so in such a way that it is networked, more deployable, and better integrated and designed "system of systems". In some ways we will succeed beyond expectations, in other technologies will need greater maturity. The FCS program is designed so that the systems can be improved and replaced with greater ease as the technologies become more avalible (so-called "spiral-development" and fielding of capabilities).
The deployment issue is fluid of course. Brigade deployment in 96 hours is do-able, but only utilizing most of the heavy airlift (C-17/C-5) fleet, something we would never dedicate the fleet to. This was largely addressed a few years ago so that prepositioned stores, sea-lift, and air-lift are considered when strategic and tactical deployment is planned. Like the Stryker, the FCS is better designed than the "legacy" systems so in-theater self-deployability (rather than being trailored).
As far as RPGs and "ambushes", heavy mechanized forces actually had very few losses in Iraq (the media just loves to run the video of burning vehicles), the problem was that heavy vehicles were not always right for sustained operations in certain environments and require high maintenance. These are some items the FCS seeks to improve. The IED-problem was another issue, which had to do with detecting them - again something we seek to improve through enhanced situational awareness emphasized in FCS.
I am not going to defend JTRS (OOC: I have personal gripes against that program outside the game), but the purpose, that the radios of all services SHOULD be able to talk to year other and share data IS relevent; again a program with serious growing pains.
If we want to compare the current situation, which is actual probably not strictly relevent since this R&D is addressing future threats from all sectors and improving on capabilities across the board. It should also be noted that Iraq's military was degraded by the 1991 Gulf War and 12 years of santions and air strikes, which degraded their air defense systems. Syria and Iran both have a substantial air force and air defense systems, Iran also has naval vessels and anti-ship missile capable of threatening naval and neutral vessels in the Persian Gulf. But there are other growing regional powers that also have other capabilities we have to acount for, that this open session is not appropriate for.
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 4, 2006 18:26:30 GMT -5
Mr. Secretary,
I'm sure we can all agree that R&D is essential to maintaining our technological superiority, but the question is, at what point do you stop calling the problems these programs are having "growing pains," and start calling them what they are, flaws that are not feasibly fixed within a reasonable budget. These programs have been in place for almost ten years, and have been planned even farther back. It is not as if we are looking at new problems here. I do not object to the Development of new equipment and technology for our men, of all people I understand the need for that equipment in the field. However, I am also not about to make them stomach increased delays in getting that equipment while the budget for the program steadily increases.
I agree with the point that there should be a standard communication system. However, I disagree with the JTRS project, and when you aren't even in a position to defend the program to this body, it does not inspire confidence that billions of dollars should be spent on the program as is. I would not object to a reformed program that was more efficient both in practice, and financially. Would you be willing to address this program, or do you intend to leave it as is, even though you are not in full support of the program?
The deployment issue strikes at the very heart of the FCS program. The point was to be able to deploy an army brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours using our smaller airlifts, such as the C-130, phasing out the C-17s and C-5s. I have seen no evidence, however, that this is going to be possible if we continue on this current plan. It is has been said time and again that if we try and replace our heavy mechanized vehicles with smaller vehicles we will not be able to armor them as well as we need to, and that they will not be as effective in combat. These comments are coming from within the Army itself, and I tend to agree with their assessment.
Again, I ask you how you are planning to overcome the weight requirement dilemma without, it looks like, significantly changing the project? Also, if smaller vehicles are feasible, how do you plan to armor them so that they aren't more vulnerable to attack than our current vehicles?
Also, what can you tell me about changes in the project that have made it more feasible than in 2005 and 2006 when it was considered to be very high on the Army chopping block? These programs were considered to almost be beyond salvage then, and now it doesn't appear that much has changed. If that is the case, then I guess the question is, why should we allow a continually expanding budget for the project?
I also repeat my request for any information you can give us about the budget for classified programs under your control. I am not asking for you to declassify the programs themselves, I simply want an estimate of how much additional money we are putting into classified programs, after seeing the amount of money we are spending on regular programs. We need to get an accurate portrayal of the R&D budget, because we need to be more fiscally responsible to get our country back on the right track.
|
|
|
Post by Speaker Hastert on Jan 5, 2006 1:10:12 GMT -5
Debate has expired. Thankyou Mr. Secretary for your time. The vote is now open *gavel*
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Jan 5, 2006 23:23:55 GMT -5
Aye
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Jan 5, 2006 23:30:58 GMT -5
aye
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 6, 2006 1:48:10 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
This proposal is flawed, and the Secretary of Defense does not even fully support pieces of it by his own admission. I suggest that he come forward with solutions to those flaws, and propose a new bill for debate. With that in mind, I can not support this bill in the interests of our government's finances, and most importantly in the interests of our fighting men out there in field, who are the ones who will bear the brunt of these flaws when the time comes.
My Vote is NAY
|
|
|
Post by jamestaggert on Jan 6, 2006 17:05:14 GMT -5
"Mr.Speaker,
Congressman Jenkins has brought forward a number of interesting questions with regards to this proposal. And I agree with Mr.Jenkins in some of his criticism. True, American ground forces have bared the brunt of fighting and casualties.
However, that has always been the case in all the conflicts in which the United States of America has ever participated within. It is the sweat, sacrifice and blood of the soldier that wins the fight on the ground. But it is the aircraft that supply air superiority and soften up ground targets, the ships that bring them to the action and other technology (cruise missiles etc) that supports the efforts of soldiers on the ground. Where would the American soldier be if not for the added advantage of having a first class airforce and a first class navy? The added firepower that the other two branches offer the ground fighting men cannot be downplayed as secondary.
Iraq and Afghanistan may have had little or nothing in terms of a navy or airforce but communist China, Iran and other hostile nations do have significant airforces and navies.
Mr. Jenkins' suggestion that we give the bulk of the money to one branch of the armed forces is flawed. We cannot only focus on one branch or one aspect of the armed forces while letting all the other branches stagnate. You cannot pick and choose. If America is to maintain military supermacy in the world and its edge in the area of technology, we need a proposal which ensures a balanced development of weapon systems and technology in *ALL* branches, across the board. America must ensure its superiority in *ALL* three branches.
However, this being said, I tend to agree with Mr.Jenkins on the core critique of this bill. Mainly, current Defense Research and Development practices are squandering millions and producing little in return. Having been involved in the Pentagon bureaucracy and having heard many complaints from servicemen and women, the opinions regarding this bill, as it is almost similar to the older R&D program, are quite negative.
I think some serious reform needs to go into the spending of money on R&D. With all due respect, the government tends to handle defense spending like a a drunken gambler handles his chips at the craps table. We keep throwing billions and billions at companies without asking certain specifications or even knowing what we are going to do with the new equipment and expect results in return. We keep spending billions without a clear objective in mind. This practice has to stop.
I would ask that my colleagues in the Republican party who are so keen to ask for cuts in social programs and who always demand efficiency as payback from government investment from such programs, that they also put military spending under these demands as well. For too long money has been squandered with little of it directly bettering our servicemen and women fighting abroad.
We need results for dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Secretary of Defense modify the bill or complete an entirely new one that is built up around a more concise strategy with regards to the United States Army.
Hence, I vote nay.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 8, 2006 17:02:37 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I believe that some of the honored individuals in this body have misunderstand the words of the Democrat from Georgia, as I did not at any point hear him suggest that the Army should be funded at the expense of the Navy and Airforce. I only heard him suggest that the Army should be funded correctly and efficiently.
However, I do believe that the Republican from Louisiana has the right of it. This bill is obviously incomplete and the Secretary of Defense has not been able to convince me that our country's dollars are being spent in a manner which actually makes our soldiers any safer. The blood of American patriots is required to win our nation's wars and secure our freedom, yes. But we should be endeavoring to make our soldiers as safe as we can as they go on about their duty. Spending billions of dollars on frivolous programs that should have been shelved three years ago does not constitute protecting our people.
I vote nay.
|
|
|
Post by Speaker Hastert on Jan 9, 2006 0:23:36 GMT -5
Voting is closed *gavel* the Admin shall release the results.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 13, 2006 17:00:23 GMT -5
Bill fails, 252-180, due to GOP defections.
E.
|
|