WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army can't afford to pay for its current size and buy all elements of the Future Combat Systems program, its key modernization effort, according to U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie.

"For the Army, the fundamental choice appears to be keeping the new, larger Army we have today, or pursuing the massive list of Army acquisition programs" including the $159 billion Future Combat Systems, Abercrombie, a Hawai'i Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's panel on air and land forces, said yesterday.

"Despite the Army's desire to pursue both goals, doing so is not affordable, and arguably unnecessary," he said in opening remarks for a hearing on the program, the Pentagon's second-most costly after the $298 billion F-35 fighter program.

The Future Combat Systems, jointly developed by Boeing Co. and Science Applications International Corp., remains largely unproven and may run over budget, the Government Accountability Office said in a March 12 report.

Abercrombie's panel will have the first say on paying for the program when the Pentagon sends its detailed 2010 budget proposal next month. His subcommittee has recommended cuts to the program each year since 2006.

The Army's choice is to terminate the program, continue on the current path or "reorganize and reduce the scope of the FCS program" taking a "more sober, disciplined, and realistic approach," Abercrombie said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen both have said they don't intend to cut the Army's plan to add about 65,000 troops and grow to 547,400 by the end of this year.

The service has pursued a "phased development approach," adding technologies developed under the program to the battlefield as and when they're ready instead of waiting to finish all work on the program, Maj. Gen. John Bartley, the Army's program manager, said in a statement issued after the GAO report was issued.

The GAO's assessment doesn't take the Army's approach into account, he said.

Army officials weren't present at today's hearing, and Abercrombie said he took that to mean their "silence was assent" or agreement with the GAO report.