Com-Central.net

Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

Just ran acrossed this report over at Military.com

Army Slashes Abrams, Bradley Funding
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Jason Sherman | February 28, 2006
Eleventh hour cuts to the Army's portion of the fiscal year 2006 supplemental spending request stripped billions of dollars for key improvements to Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, setting back service plans to modernize the force and threatening to break assembly lines that upgrade these front-line combat systems, according to Pentagon documents and industry officials.

Last-minute efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to trim the Pentagon's supplemental request down to $65.3 billion in mid-February forced the Army to slash more than $2 billion from its combat tracked vehicle lines, according to Pentagon officials.

Army officials are now looking to the next Ã¢â‚¬Å“bridge supplementalÃ¢â‚¬Â? spending request -- which could come as soon as the fall -- to restore those funds, according to Pentagon documents.

But that may be too late to avoid an eight-month production break in the Abrams tank industrial base and cause severe disruptions in the Bradley line, driving up costs for the armored personnel carriers by as much as 50 percent, according to Pentagon documents and industry officials.

More than $1.2 billion was wrung from the Abrams tank line last week in the budget maneuver, sending shock waves through the tank industrial base and service modernization plans. This cut would delay fielding modernized tanks to both the active component and National Guard and push off engine improvements necessary for Iraqi urban operations, according to Pentagon documents.

The Army is looking to streamline by 2013 its fleet of Abrams tanks down to two types: the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) for the active force and the M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program for the National Guard.

That schedule may be reconsidered, industry officials said, in the wake of the recent cuts, which include: $588 million to produce 120 M1A2 SEP tanks for two enhanced brigade combat teams; $504 million for 210 M1A1AIM tanks for three brigade combat teams in the National Guard; and $155 million for the Tank Urban Survivability Kit that was to be purchased this year and fielded to units in Iraq next year.

The Bradley M2A3 program took a $1 billion hit, which will delay fielding the most advanced versions of the armored personnel carriers to three heavy brigade combat teams in the 1st Armed Division that are being transformed into modular units. The A3 variant of the Bradley has increased protection and is more survivable than older versions of the vehicle.

A key experimental Army unit that was slated to receive the A3 Bradleys will not receive them, according to Pentagon documents.

Without funds sought in the supplemental, Army effective Brady production plans could be derailed and upend the services' procurement strategy, driving up the unit cost of each vehicle by as much as 50 percent, according to Pentagon documents that detail the impact of the cuts.

Other combat tracked vehicle programs were also cut.

The M88A2 Hercules, designed to tow a disabled Abrams tank and other heavy tracked vehicles, had $331 million cut from the supplemental that were intended to completely outfit two heavy brigade combat teams. The cut will delay fielding of these vehicles by as many as three years, Pentagon documents state.

The M113 Family of Vehicles funding line also was cut by $90 million, which will affect improvements slated for 172 of the vehicles, including upgrades to the A3 variant of the M1068, M1064, M113 and M577, according to the Pentagon documents. A delay for these upgrade efforts will slow down by as many as two years transformation efforts of two active duty brigade combat teams at Fort Bliss and three National Guard brigade combat teams. The industrial base assembly line that support these upgrades will run out of work in fiscal year 2007.

Spot report!
Sgt, Scouts Out! Sad

Doug_Kibbey

A2_Prius · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 27, 2006 Posts: 112

I'll get flamed for saying so, but perhaps our troops could have these things if . . .

A. We hadn't been at war in Iraq for three years (thus far).

B. Katrina and Rita hadn't happened.

C. The Administration wasn't laboring under the illusion that the country could afford both A. and permanent tax cuts.

Dontos

- Doug_Kibbey

I hate it when politics pops up.... Confused

Spoils everything.....Free speech though.

Don

SFC_Jeff_Button

Whats sad is that the funds effected arent just the armor/tracked funds, but I'll bet that the funds for post housing/modernization, commisary/PX improvements, and so forth have also taken a hard hit. Soldier and family quality of life on post installations always suffers when funds are cut. Because then money starts getting juggled to "other"areas to try and equal things out. And I agree, I hate talking politics, too.

Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

There is also the 30,000 extra troops Congress ramed down the Army's throat. Possible this is DOD pay back to Congress for those extra troops.

While a lot of this is political give and take, I think the main point to try and remember is that there is NEVER enough funds to cover all the programs that the DOD would like to have.

The M114 Lingle is an out standing example. Two years after the Army started fielding that vehicle, it had decided that was not the vehicle it wanted and starting planning for a different vehicle. Due to a lack of funds that vehicle had to last much longer that anyone guessed it would have to.

Why during WWII did the Army standup and ship overseas the number of TOWED Anti-Tank Gun Battalions that it did. The powers that be, though those units would be effective and where MUCH CHEAPER that tank battalions. We all now know that while they were cheaper, they were never effective.

In some ways, the Army has only it's self to blame. After all just a very few years ago tank was a dirty four letter word. The top leadership didn't want and though they didn't need Abrams and Bradleys, why should we keep up war reservice stockpiles of parts or even complete vehicles.

I agree that some of it is politics, but in the end it really is about not enough funds to fund everything. Sad

My 2 cents.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

Roy_A_Lingle

- Tumbleweed

I wonder what happened with FCS funding? I'd rather see that money spent on what we have now than to see the troops shortchanged.

It has taken a number of hits also. Take a second look at the follow line from the report.

'A key experimental Army unit that was slated to receive the A3 Bradleys will not receive them, according to Pentagon documents.'

That 'key experimental' unit is the FCS Unit of Action Brigade that will be standing up here at Ft. Bliss.

I think the FCS program is very slowly changing from a system of new vehicles with all kinds of bells and whisles (state of the art comm gear and command and control systems) to just the bells and whisles installed into what we already have now.

Spot Report and my 2 cents.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

Sometimes it is more telling to inquire what items in the DoD budget DIDN'T get cut...like how many US$150M F-22s did they cut? Or how may Osprey's (which can't carry a HMMWV) got axed?

There are a lot of sacred cows in the Pentagon, and too often the priority is to protect a favorite system, regardless of what effect that has on the "boots on the ground". It could also be a political ploy, to make Congress add survivability and soldier welfare money back into the appropriations bill, this getting money for BOTH the neato systems and the boring old modernization money.

Or, I could just be getting very cynical in my old age...

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big