A 2008 date could be set for the Pentagon to decide if the Army can proceed with its multibillion-dollar Future Combat System program, if members of the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee get their way.

Last week, during the subcommittee's mark up of the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill, lawmakers inserted language into their version of the bill that would require the Defense Acquisition Board to make a “go/no go decision” by Sept. 30, 2008.

“We are three years into [system development and demonstration phase] and there is still no independent cost estimate,” subcommittee chairman Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) said April 26. “None of the required reports from last year dealing with transportability, lethality and survivability issues have been submitted to Congress as required by law. Projected dates for maturation of critical technologies have slipped. Design and production maturity would not be demonstrated under the current program plan until after the production decision is made.”

Weldon added that recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have exacerbated the subcommittee's concerns about the program and reinforced its belief that a date needs to be set to determine if the Army should continue to invest in FCS.

In March, the congressional watchdog office released a report that concluded that the FCS requirements, technologies, complementary program, acquisition strategy, cost and funding availability lags behind expectations and should continue to be reviewed. At the time, the Defense Department rejected GAO's the suggestion for a “go/no go review.”

On April 4, Mike Gilmore, CBO's assistant director for national security, testified before the subcommittee that based on historical trends, FCS program costs could increase by 60 percent.

The subcommittee also voted last week to shave $325 million from FCS in FY-07, a move its contends will not have a negative impact on the FCS development time line.

The budget cut, which is about 6 to 8 percent, was recommended because of “unjustified program cost increases and excess management reserve,” Weldon said.

“Our mark reflects an objective of balancing the health and capability of the current force with the needs of future Army capability,” he continued.

In all, the committee approved $3.9 billion for the FCS program for the next fiscal year, but Weldon said the estimated cost of the program is at least $5.9 billion. “It is difficult to know the real costs of FCS because it is funded across dozens of lines within the Army budget,” Weldon said.

Ranking subcommittee member Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) said the cut to FCS was needed, in part, to help fund other service priorities.

“We recognize that the Army is carrying the heaviest burden in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms [of] lives lost and dollars spent,” Abercrombie said.

“The problem is that the Army simply has too many bills to pay and not enough funding to cover all of them. This subcommittee decided to cut the FCS program because it needed to fund things our troops need today. To me those near-term imperatives have to take precedence over a program like the FCS that will not deliver complete new units for almost 10 years and that faces serious cost, technology and schedule problems,” he added.

Despite the proposed cut to the program, Abercrombie assured subcommittee members it would not delay the program's development. “The schedule is not the issue, it's whether in some instances, some things can be done properly” or at all, he said.

Efforts the subcommittee deemed as near-term imperatives that would need additional funds include upgrades to the M-1 tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle platforms.

Accordingly, the subcommittee is recommending that an additional $276 million be allocated between the two programs because the Army budgeted only 50 percent of what the modularity requirement is for Bradley upgrades and only 25 percent of what it said the requirement is for M-1 tank upgrades, Weldon said.

“Instead of the Army paying $3 million per Bradley upgrade, if done at the minimum economic order quantity rate, the Army is paying $8 million per vehicle -- two and a half times what we should be paying,” Weldon said. “Instead of paying $5 million for an M1 tank upgrade, the Army is paying $7.4 million a tank. Our $276 million recommended increase would fund the economic order quantity for each vehicle.”