Editor's corner.

An impending consolidation of the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy tactical aviation units has sparked a heated debate as to who really benefits from the combination of both services' tactical fighter squadrons. Top defense officials have touted the merits of the integration, claiming it will enhance joint war fighting and increase efficiency.

Four Marine F/A-18 squadrons already operate from Navy carriers. The plan is to shift maybe six more squadrons, for a total of 10 Marine squadrons, one for each carrier wing. The transition would take place over the course of the next five to six years.

But critics claim that the integration is nothing but an easy way for the Navy to shift its unfunded aviation procurement requirements to the Marine Corps. Not only do both services collectively face $30 billion in unfunded long-term aviation requirements, but they also are struggling with the rising cost of operating bases and maintaining aging aircraft. The consolidation of tac-air squadrons seems the only way out. The expectation is that future Marine and Navy buys of the Joint Strike Fighter could be downsized significantly.

The Marines, meanwhile, fear that the reorganization may result in ground commanders no longer receiving the same level of tactical air support from Marine air squadrons as they are used to. Some Marine aviators believe that the integration plan may be going too far, stripping Marine tac-air of its long-standing role in support of the commander on the ground.

You can read more about this in our cover story, starting on page 16.

Of interest to many in the defense industry will be a commentary piece by Harvard Business School professor J. Ron Fox, on the topic of the A-12 cancellation and subsequent lawsuit. This case already is nearly 12 years old, but it remains in the news, because the government and the contractors continue to wrangle over who should pay the $2.1 billion in research and development funds that were spent on the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber. Fox is a defense industry consultant who obviously is raking the contractors' side on the issue. But regardless of how one feels about the case, the article, on page 37, is an attention grabber.

On the Army front, the service is plowing ahead with the design of the Future Combat System--a collection of aerial and ground, manned and unmanned combat: vehicles linked via a command-and-control network.

In this project, the Army is trying to complete in 18 months a process that typically would take five or six years. Amid rumors that a budget crunch at the Pentagon will force the Army to decelerate the effort and postpone the FCS deployment by at least two years, service officials are adamant that it would be a mistake to slow down FCS. They say the program is gaining momentum, at a time when the Army is depending on FCS to forge ahead with its modernization campaign. Read our exclusive report on page 24.

Alongside the FCS, the Army also is looking to field the Future Tactical Truck System. Through the FTTS, the service plans to consolidate its various lines of tactical trucks into a single family of vehicles. If the Army can muster enough high-level support for the program, FTTS will enter an advanced concept technology demonstration in 2004. The program potentially could lead to $3 billion in future production contracts. You can find out more on page 33.