Army, Senate panel discuss service size cuts - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Army, Senate panel discuss service size cuts

Army leaders are confident they can build a modernized future force despite $100 billion lost in bad acquisitions and forthcoming cuts of 49,000 soldiers.

But comments made May 18 at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill show that lawmakers and military leaders alike are starting to question plans to reduce the Army’s size as operations in Afghanistan and Iraq come to a close.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a Pentagon press briefing May 18, brought into question the long-standing strategy that the U.S. be able to fight two major regional conflicts at once. To make ends meet with current budget goals, that strategy would likely come to an end, he said. But Gates also offered warning of what that might mean.

“The other side of that is the risk involved if you’re wrong. And the other guys always have a vote,” he said. “... If we’re going to cut the military, if we’re going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications of that are for the security of the country, as well as for the operations that we have around the world.”

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said plans to cut Army end strength seemed reasonable a year ago, but now she has reservations. In a Senate subcommittee hearing on defense appropriations, she pointed to the Tunisian revolution, conflict in Libya and Syria and “so many unexpected consequences and dynamics in the world.”

“I’m apprehensive that maybe we’re going to need a larger standing Army to not only meet unintended things in the world, but that we have no elasticity anymore,” she said.

Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey acknowledged the slippery slope on which the military stands. They said it is not only a funding issue but one of personnel. If the military’s size is cut but operations are not, it will only add to the combat stress felt by soldiers and families.

“The answers aren’t going to be like turning on a light in a dark room,” McHugh said. “It’s going to be more like lifting the shade slowly.”

The Army plans to cut 22,000 active-duty soldiers by the end of 2013, and a combined 27,000 in 2015 and 2016. Further cuts could come as the Obama administration looks to slash another $400 billion from the defense budget.

McHugh affirmed that planned cuts would leave enough elasticity and manpower for future operations — as long as “nothing new will happen.”

“If conditions change, then we’re going to have to re-evaluate,” the secretary said, adding that a plan was in the works that would stop cuts, and even build end strength back up if conditions change.

Procurement reform

End strength wasn’t the only tough topic facing McHugh and Dempsey. Senators asked about everything from botched budgets to veterans’ benefits.

The Army is seeking a base budget of $145 billion for fiscal 2012. That is an increase of $7.2 billion over last year’s request, but the $71 billion sought for overseas contingency operations is $30.5 billion less than last year. The decrease is due to the drawdown of forces from Iraq, where 86 percent of the bases have been closed or transferred and the number of troops has been cut by 75,000.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on defense appropriations, acknowledged the Army “is at a turning point and is examining its postwar role.”

But Inouye, an Army veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, kept a critical eye on future purchases, pointing out that the service, since 2004, has spent between $3.3 billion and $3.8 billion annually on programs that were eventually canceled.

“Unfortunately, the Army does not have a good track record with its modernization efforts,” Inouye said.

McHugh did not disagree. Instead, he described a procurement reform designed to improve efficiency. In addition, a series of reviews has enabled service leaders to identify critical requirements and terminate programs that are “redundant, don’t work or which are just too expensive.”

One hard decision cited in testimony is the 2013 end of production for the M1A2 Abrams tank.

Dempsey acknowledged that shutting down the plant and losing that “expert force” has undeniable costs. But the Abrams inventory “is among the most modern of any of our equipment,” with an average age of just over 2 years old, and keeping the plant open with minimum production was not fiscally responsible.

‘Vital’ programs

The Army’s state-of-the-art network is a key element in the budget request. The Army wants $298 million to develop and $974 million to buy the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, or WIN-T, which McHugh said will become “the cornerstone of our battlefield communications system.” The request also seeks $2.1 billion for the joint and combat communications systems, which include the joint tactical radio system.

The Army wants $1.5 billion for tactical wheeled vehicle modernization and more than $1 billion for combat vehicle modernization. Included in that number is $884 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle — a design McHugh said should “provide the survivability of [a mine-resistant, ambush protected vehicle] with the maneuverability of a Stryker and the lethality of a Bradley.”

Another $156 million is sought to modernize the Stryker, Bradley and Abrams platforms. Funds for an armed reconnaissance helicopter were not sought, though McHugh said a near-term cockpit upgrade for the Kiowa Warrior will extend that platform to 2023.

The budget request also seeks $1.7 billion for soldier and family programs.