Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

ARMY SHIELDING "FUTURE COMBAT"

There's been a lot of noise in recent weeks about the fighter planes and aircraft carriers the Pentagon may or may not be cutting. But lost in the clamour is a simple, and strange, fact: one of the programs considered most likely to be pruned back has somehow avoided the budget axe. And now, Defense News reports, the Army is moving to "build a fence" around its gargantuan, $127 billion modernization program, Future Combat Systems, so it doesn't get cut in the upcoming tussle over Defense Department funding.

NLOS_cannon.jpgFuture Combat Systems, or FCS, is a sprawling effort by the Army to turn itself Army into a quicker, better-networked, robot-reliant force. Since it was introduced back in the Clinton years, FCS has been reconfigured more than once, with deadlines pushed back and funding scraped away.

"In December, the Office of the Secretary of Defense recommended cutting $1.5 billion from the FCS program each year from 2006 to 2011," Defense News' Megan Scully notes. But instead of trimming that money, "typically considered the low-hanging fruit in the Pentagon budget," the Army is looking to make up the shortfall "largely by cutting civilian personnel."

"To significantly cut its payroll," the magazine says, "the Army may have little choice but to fill less than half of the slots it creates when it converts military posts to civilian positions, and may only be able to replace half of the civilians who retire."

The Army will also try to save FCS by relying on supplemental funding bills, meant to pay for the war in Iraq. The Army could get more than $66 billion from such a measure when it passes Congress -- which it almost certainly will, since no Senator or Represenative wants to be seen as keeping soldiers in the field from getting the gear they need.

"Some officials and military analysts said they are wary of the supplemental funding bills because they are not guaranteed annually," Defense News observes. "Still, the Army’s future plans hinge on having Congress authorize supplemental money for years to come."