Army officials promised lawmakers a comprehensive briefing within ten days regarding the Army’s new transformation initiative, following increasing pressure from Congress for clarity on plans that were announced over a month ago.
During a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George addressed questions about the Army’s fiscal 2026 budget request, but details about program cuts and investment shifts associated with the transformation initiative remain vague.
Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) expressed frustration, stating, “The Army must change and modernize how it fights and must take into account significant changes in technology. But bluntly, months after you’ve announced the Army Transformation Initiative, this committee hasn’t received detailed or substantive analysis as to why the Army is planning to cancel or reduce 12 programs of record, consolidate or reduce staffing at 21 commands, or how the investments you’re proposing will significantly enhance battlefield lethality.”
In response to queries about when lawmakers could expect a detailed briefing, Driscoll assured, “We’d be happy to come by any time, but I think very specifically you will have that detail within 10 days.”
While many lawmakers support the initiative, they have raised questions about the Army’s decisions related to the overhaul.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “We want to see the analysis behind the specific bets the Army wants to place on ATI. We want to understand the second order effects on industry, other services and allies.”
Driscoll acknowledged during the hearing that the Army did not extensively consult with other military services before announcing significant program cancellations, including the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), a decision that reportedly surprised the Marine Corps.
He explained the rationale behind this approach, stating, “When that consultation occurs, what would happen is the antibodies in the system come up to stop change. And so, when we weighed the decision of how do we actually get the most likely chance of succeeding, we decided that the best chance was to sync with the Pentagon leadership and the administration and keep it very narrow until after announcement, but we consulted with them the night before we announced it, and then very soon after it came out.”
Concerns about the economic implications of these cancellations were also voiced by Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), who noted the potential impact on suppliers in her state.
“In Wisconsin, we probably have 40 or more suppliers to the two canceled programs, and I very much worry about their health,” Baldwin said.
Driscoll acknowledged the economic risks but expressed optimism that the Army Transformation Initiative would create new opportunities for small and medium-sized manufacturers across the country.
“We are incredibly optimistic that the Army Transformation Initiative will be a renaissance for small and medium-sized businesses, not just on the coast and in Silicon Valley and the tech companies, but throughout the heartlands. And if you can make something that the Army needs, and we need a lot, and this inflection point in warfare, we are gapped in a lot of spaces. If you can make things that we need, what we are trying to do is close the loop on being able to purchase those things more quickly so that these small and medium businesses, and the large ones too, that make investments can get rewarded for those investments,” Driscoll said.
Another controversial aspect of the initiative is the decision to cancel the Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) program, which Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) described as one that “showed real promise and could have served as a foundation for future innovation.”
Collins criticized the cancellation, saying, “It’s the height of irony that you would feature this combat vehicle in your parade as the future of the Army at the same time that you’ve canceled the contract, the cancellation of a contract that was won over a lot of other competitors. This is equipped with anti-drone technology. Drones are a threat to all sorts of vehicles. This one is autonomous. You’re not going to lose a soldier’s life if it’s taken out. I think you should review this decision. I think it was terribly unfair and a real mistake.”
In defending the decision, Driscoll argued that the RCV exemplified the challenges of investing in costly, over-engineered systems, indicating that the Army had set too many requirements, resulting in a lengthy development process and ultimately excessive costs for large-scale deployment.
“An $800 drone with a very cheap munition can take out a $3 million piece of equipment endlessly. And what we, the U.S. Army, have done very poorly in the last 30 or 40 years is we keep building exquisite pieces of equipment that we cannot even, as one of the wealthiest nations in the history of the world, sustain at scale,” Driscoll said.
Driscoll estimated that the transformation initiative would result in the cancellation or shifting of approximately $48 billion in spending over the next five years.
image source from：federalnewsnetwork
