Combat needs are driving the new acceleration of the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS), generals claimed June 26, saying they will not ask for more money to make the changes.

But lawmakers are not yet sold on the move. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and airland forces subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) called the changes a "positive step" in improving FCS. But they are still concerned that the new plan may not allow for adequate testing of the equipment due to its "very tight" schedule.

"In addition, the overall FCS program remains far over budget, far behind schedule, and unaffordable in the long term given the many other pressing needs facing the United States Army," they said. "We look forward to seeing more changes to this program in the future."

In a dramatic reassignment of priorities, the Army is recommending infantry brigade combat teams and National Guard units receive FCS equipment first and faster. Army leaders cited combat demands on the infantry over the past few years, although observers have noted criticism of the massive, multiyear acquisition program.

"We are making this change because the commanders and soldiers in the field...are asking for [FCS] equipment and technology [for] the current fight," Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, said June 26. "[This change] puts resources more in line with current operations."

The money for the acceleration will be drawn from FCS coffers. "We're moving existing money," said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff for programs. Limited reprogramming in fiscal 2008 and 2009 will be moved to accommodate the plan so "the Army can live within its means."

At a Pentagon press conference, Speakes bristled at the notion that the rescoping of FCS has anything to do with avoiding a potential breaking apart of the multi-asset program. "We're not contemplating the defeat of FCS," he said. Army acquisition chief Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson concurred, adding, "We will continue to resist any notion that we should break this apart."

Still, the restructuring comes after Defense Secretary Robert Gates' firings of the top two U.S. Air Force leaders in June. That action stemmed, in part, from disputes over the institutional military's pursuit of high-priced, long-term weapons systems that have questionable relevance to the protracted counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations now preoccupying the armed services. In May, Gates said FCS "must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face, as well as for full-spectrum warfare." Since then, the Pentagon's acquisition chief said he would scrutinize each of the 14 FCS elements to make sure they stood up as viable acquisition programs on their own.

"The revisions reiterate the Army's fears about the future viability of the FCS effort," said Robert Stallard, managing director and head of U.S. infrastructure research at Macquarie Capital. "As the Army faces ongoing potential budget cuts to FCS, the armed service continues to announce earlier spin-outs of FCS components and a renewed effort to evaluate the program holistically."