With urgent equipment needs, army redirects future combat systems.

The Army is sketching a spending plan to accommodate both urgent equipment needs and an ambitious program to develop a new family of futuristic combat systems.

Although officials stress that supplying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is the priority, they said they intend to align immediate requirements

This approach makes sense, said Army officials, because FCS contains many technologies that soldiers could use much sooner than 2012 or 2014, when FCS is expected to enter service. Army budget planners also encouraged the service to move in this direction, in order to prevent a colossal funding crunch in coming years that potentially could derail FCS.

The most recent estimates peg the cost of FCS at $25 billion for research and development alone, and at more than $200 billion if it reaches full production, noted Daniel G. Mehney, director of acquisition at the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.

In fiscal year 2005, nearly 34 percent of TACOM's $9.8 billion budget is being allocated to FCS-related work.

Meanwhile, the price tag for replacing equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq keeps rising, and will reach significantly higher levels than previously forecast. The Army is at least $2 billion short of what it needs to repair war-torn hardware, and the bill could grow by several billion dollars during the next year or two.

Among the actions being considered to ease the Army's transition to a more technologically advanced force is to synchronize the activities of two of the Army's largest procurement organizations--the program executive office for ground combat vehicles and the office that oversees FCS.

Both groups will work to come up with a "single investment strategy," said Kevin Fahey, program executive officer for ground combat systems.

Speaking to an industry conference in Dearborn, Mich., Fahey explained that the Army is trying to come to grips with how best to keep aging fleets of armored and tactical vehicles in war-ready shape. Officials said they want to avoid duplicating costs by making sure that certain key technologies already funded under FCS get applied to existing tanks and other combat systems.

"Programs today are connected, but not integrated," Fahey said. The Army would like, for example, to synch up programs intended to upgrade Abrams tanks with FCS efforts aimed at designing a replacement for the tank. "We are trying to line up the schedules," Fahey said, so that "we fit with FCS."

FCS is run by the "program manager for units of action," a job currently held by Army Brig. Gen. Charles Cartwright.

Based on the stage of maturity of a given technology, the Army may assign the program to a "lead" program office. The upshot is that, in some instances, FCS work could end up being split between the program manager for units of action and the program executive officer for ground combat systems.

This approach fits the Army's focus on the networking technology in FCS, which must integrate a family of 17 ground and air vehicles. As it stands, the initial fielding of FCS will be only a software package--a battle-command network that will operate on existing vehicles. That is why the PEO for ground combat systems has been designated the "lead" for the first "spiral" of FCS, Fahey said.

"The PM UA will be responsible for development and evaluation of items," he said. "When it comes to integrating, buying and fielding, it's going to be the lead PEO's responsibility."

Each piece of the FCS will be assessed based on its applicability to the force today. "If a technology fits both current and future force, it will be PM UA lead," said Fahey. "FCS will get it to a point and then move to a lead PEO."

One example is the technology the Army is pursuing to protect vehicles from rocket-propelled grenades and other munitions that are employed by insurgents against U.S. troops in Iraq. So-called "active defense" systems detect incoming RPGs and defeat them by striking them. The original plan was to deploy active defenses in FCS vehicles, but the extended counterinsurgency fighting in Iraq prompted the Army to try to accelerate the technology and install it on existing armored vehicles.

Tanks, Bradleys and Stryker infantry vehicles require the same technology that the Army already is funding for FCS, Fahey noted. "The PM for units of action is going to take the lead to develop the specifications, and make sure that the Abrams, Bradley and Stryker are part of those specifications."

Cartwright's deputy, Brig. Gen. John R. Bartley, said that structuring FCS under the "lead PEO" approach would ensure that technologies get fielded to the current force, if they fit existing requirements.

"Why does the Army have to wait until 2012? Why can't capabilities roll into the current force as they become available?" he asked.

The prime contractors for FCS are the Boeing Company and Science Applications International Corp. They are responsible for selecting suppliers. So far, 23 subcontractors are participating in the program.

The Army will field an experimental unit in 2008 that will be dedicated to test FCS technologies in realistic exercises, according to program officials. Skeptics, however, question whether the Army is putting too many eggs in one basket by tying its entire modernization strategy to the FCS. The Congressional Budget Office criticized the service earlier this year for rushing to restructure the program before it can prove that FCS can deliver a functional battle-command network.