By Ann Roosevelt
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) met Sept. 26 with the Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli to air concerns over potential funding reductions in fiscal year 2010, to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker programs while increasing funds for the Future Combat System (FCS).
Rogers is one of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) members who have made their concerns clear to Pentagon leaders.
On Sept. 29, HASC chairman and ranking member and the Air and Land Forces panel leaders wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates airing similar concerns about the three combat vehicles (Defense Daily, Oct. 1).
Rogers’ concerns came over reports on pre-decisional information on the Army’s draft FY ’10 spending plan.
In his letter, Rogers said, “if this is the case it would seem that the Army proposed to shift almost $1 billion in funding away from upgrading crucial ground platforms to a program that, while needed, is still developing.”
A supporter of FCS, Rogers is concerned the approach is “unbalanced.” Rogers supported recent committee report language saying that the Army should accelerate programs such as FCS, but not jeopardize current force platforms such as Abrams, Stryker and Bradley.
Abrams and Stryker are produced by General Dynamics [GD]; Bradley is produced by BAE Systems. Both GD and BAE Systems are teamed to work on the FCS Manned Ground Vehicles under FCS. Boeing [BA] and SAIC [SAI] manage FCS for the Army.
“It is my opinion that it is not an acceptable level of risk to preclude upgrades of these while FCS is still a work in progress,” Rogers wrote.
Also, he is concerned not only about the reported cost in millions to the Army by terminating the Abrams multiyear contract, but the perception that “canceling a Commitment by the Army to complete a contract could give the defense community a lack of confidence in the long term planning of the service.”
Additionally, Rogers is concerned about “production breaks or disruptions in places like Anniston, Alabama, located in my Congressional District.”
Chiarelli “committed to detailing the exact impact on the Stryker program,” Rogers wrote and said he looks forward to receiving it.
During the meeting Chiarelli expressed his opinion that the proposed cuts would have no impact on Anniston, and assured Rogers any decision made would not adversely affect work done on these programs in the Anniston area.
Rogers said he wanted to be informed of any development related to their discussion.