Air Force Secretary Eyed For Top Army Job

The Bush administration wants Air Force Secretary James Roche to be the next Army secretary, InsideDefense.com has learned.

Two industry sources tracking the issue said Roche is the favorite to fill the shoes of outgoing Army Secretary Thomas White, who recently resigned at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Roche is viewed as a trusted aide who could “fix” problems in the Army, said one of the sources, noting Rumsfeld's well-publicized disagreements with White and outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki.

White's effective date of resignation is May 9; Shinseki is due to leave the service about a month later. No nominee for chief of staff has been announced, but many sources believe U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks is Rumsfeld's top pick.

Bryan Whitman, a senior Defense Department spokesman, said President Bush would announce the nomination of the next Army secretary “when the time is right,” adding that DOD does not “speculate” about such announcements. A top aide to Roche issued a similar statement.

“Until the president announces his intent to nominate a candidate, all is speculation or rumor,” William Bodie, special assistant to Roche and director of Air Force communications, said April 30. “As a longstanding policy, we do not address rumors or speculation.”

A 23-year Navy veteran, Roche retired from the sea service with the rank of captain in 1983. He served as Democratic staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee before joining Northrop Grumman in 1984, where he held top positions until he left in 2001. Roche was nominated by the White House to be Air Force secretary on May 7, 2001, and confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2001.

Roche and Rumsfeld have known each other for years and share a close relationship, according to another industry official. Vacancies in the service secretary positions are hard to fill now that Bush is more than halfway through his first term, the industry official said.

A Pentagon official predicted many in the Army would be upset by the selection of Roche. White's dismissal has already angered some in the service, as did the leak of Rumsfeld's preferred successor to Shinseki more than a year ago. That candidate, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane, later took himself out of the running.

I can only comment from second hand sources, as I have had nothing to do with the program on-going up in Ft. Lewis, WA. The Army Times recently did a report that stated the IBCT finished it's first field trials with flying colors at NTC. I think the IBCT will be around for a while, maybe just not entire divisions of them. The program is bought and paid for.

However, from my own experience, and the experience of many European nations-the light skinned vehicles cannot protect and withstand the duties of high intensity combat against any foe. The Russian BTR series of vehicles prove this: they carry alot, but not heavy armor (defeating the ability to load a Stryker on a C-130, which barely fits to begin with-only stripped to the bone as is!). They are also less mobile in harsh terrain (proven for the last 60 years, the German light wheeled fighting vehicle fleet in WWII suffered this). The only good is that they are less fuel consuming, and usually require less maintenance overall. IMO, Stryker is not an improvement, just a step back with old technology, nothing to see here folks, move along.

There are cheaper ways to test the FCS than fielding an entire set of brigades with less than combat worthy gear. Lots of computer stuff has been imbedded into the brigades, and that is the real tech advantage. However, this same equipment can, and has been loaded into regular heavy divisions with outstanding results: see Iraqi Freedom, 3rd ID.

In sum: The Stryker is not as deployable as they make it seem (too heavy, arrives in theater unarmed, unarmoured-now it takes two C-130's to bring the equipment for just one vehicle to be combat-ready). We don't have the lift capability to deploy an IBCT in the first place. The computer tech edge has already been applied and used by heavy units with superior results. The IBCT, in it's current form, gives the US no military advantage it did not already have in the Marines.

I'm a little confused here. The ICBT program is not FCS. My sources tell me that ICBT is a total bust up and the the Pentagon just wants to find a way to phase it out without a lawsuit from the contractors or having the press get wind of how stupid the whole thing was. I imagine that they will end up in some sort of "military-police" role attached to some other division(s) in the future.

FCS is a whole other kettle of fish, and one that has much larger implications.

True, but Stryker, the bedrock platform for the IBCT (IFV, mortar carrier, cav scout vehicle, FIST-V, ambulance, engineer vehicle and so on), and what makes the IBCT different, is the first generation Future Combat System. But it is'nt. It is a throwback to World War II vehicles that are useful, but not battle winners. The vehicle breaks no new ground in it's basics. All that has been done is to throw in some nifty computers and vision gear. Look up the Stryker web page for all it's variants. Neat stuff, but nothing new. If this is what the Army of the future is supposed to be equipped with, be prepared for massive casualties because these vehicles cannot withstand combat. Period. The Army is just replicating what the Marines already have.

The FCS is supposed to be a survivable combat platform that can be fielded in many variants, and be highly deployable. Again, Stryker, first generation FCS, is neither survivable (only protected from small arms, armor pack add ons only provide protection in the .50 cal range, not against RPG) nor easily deployable (one per C-130, fully stripped, it takes a second c-130 to carry its armor packs and ammo load).

FCS has a long way to go. take care

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.