Association of the Unit�d States Army
Army Budget
! · . Fisc31 Year 1997.
/ An Analysis ,
'
- - / _May 1996
- I
Institute of Land Warfare I Association of the United States Army
Army Budget Fiscal Year 1997
An Analysis
May 1996
Institute of Land Warfare Compiled by AUSA's Institute of Land Warfare
LTG Richard L. West (USA Ret.), COL James D. Blundell (USA Ret.), Sandra J. Daugherty, George E. Ehling, Lori J. Johnston and Leslie A. Ballard
May 1996
Reproduction of this report, in whole or in part, is authorized with appropriate acknowledgement of the source.
ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201-3385 703-841-4300 CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... vii
THE FEDERAL BUDGET ...... 1
General ...... 1
Reconciliation and a Balanced Budget ...... 2
F'rrunework for ·oefense ...... :...... 3
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET...... 5
Budget Allocation ...... ·...... 6
Guidelines and Priorities ...... 6
Force Structure and Manpower ...... 7
Manpower ...... 8
Strategic Nuclear Forces ...... 8
Mobility Forces...... 9
Space Forces ...... 10
Special Operations Forces ...... 12
.ReserveForces ...... : ...... 12
Readiness ...... 13
Modernization...... 14
Ballistic Missile Defense...... 17
Facilities...... 17
Military Construction...... 18
Fan1ily Housing ...... 18
Defensewide Progran1s ...... 19
'fiealth <:are...... 19 Environmental...... 19
Chemical Demilitarization Progran1...... 20 Base Realignn1ents and Closures ...... 21
Acquisition Reform and Privatization ...... 21
Management and Revolving Funds ...... 22
ARMY BUDGET ...... 25 Budget Numbers and Trends ...... 25 Army Appropriations ...... 27 Forces ...... 27
Background and J\!Jissions ...... 27
Army Structure ...... 28
Active Arn1y Divisions ...... : ...... 29
h1frastructure ...... 3 0 Special Operations Forces ...... 3 1 The Army Engaged...... 31
Manpo\ver ...... 31
Strength and Budget ...... 31 Recruiting ...... 34 Quality of Life ...... 34 Training ...... 3 5 iii Readiness ...... 3 7
Operation and Maintenance ( O&M) ...... 3 7
Modernization ...... :...... 39
Procurement ...... 40
Aircraft Procurement ...... ·...... 41
Selected Items Aircraft...... , ...... 42
Missile Procuren1ent ...... 43
Selected Itetns Missiles ...... 43
Weapons andTracked Combat Vehicles Procurement...... 44
Selected Items Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) ...... 44
Arnn1unition Procurement...... 46
()ther Procurement, Army (OPA)...... _ ...... 47
Selected Items Other Procurement, Army ...... 47
Research and Development...... 50
Army Highlighted RDT&E Items ...... 51
Ballist-ic Missile Defense (BMD)...... 53
BMDO Programs of Special Army Interest...... 53
Facilities ...... 54
Military Construction ...... 54
Family IIousing ...... 55
Army Projection Capability...... 56
Army Environn1ental Progran1s ...... 57
Ar1ny Reserve Con1ponents Swnmary ...... 58
Army National Guard ...... 59
Army Reserve ...... 60
Additional Notes on Army RC Progran1s ...... 61
BUDGET ASSESSMENT ...... 63
APPENDIXI -- Budget Terms ...... 67
APPENDIX II -- FY 1997 Army Budget Summary Data...... 69
Army Appropriation...... 69
Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) ...... 70
Operation and Maintenance, Army Rese1ve and Army National Guard ...... 72
Procw·ement ...... 73
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ...... 78
Gl... OSSARY ...... : ...... 81 TABLES
1. Outlays, Receipts and Deficits ...· ...... 2
2. Defense Top Line ...... 5
3. DoD Budget Authority by Title ...... 6
4. DoD Budget by Co1nponent ...... 6
5. Force Sttucture ...... 7
6. Personnel ...... 8
7. Space-Based .Forces FY 1997 (Projected) ...... 11
8. Special Operations Forces Investment ...... 12
9. Rese1ve Co1nponent Funding ...... 13
iv 10. DoD Procurement and RDT&E Funding Profiles ...... 15 11. Selected DoD Systems ...... 16 12. Ballistic Missile Defense Budget...... 17 13. MilitaryConstruction and Family Housing ...... 18 I4. FY 1997 Defense Health Care Program ...... 19 15. Environment, Department of Defense...... 20 16. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program ...... 20 17. National Defense SealiftFund Program Activity ...... 22 18. Defense Business Operations Fund Program Activity...... 23 19. Army Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund Program Activity ...... 23 20. Army Budget Sumn1ary...... 25 21. Army SummaryTotal Obligation Authority ...... 25
22. Army Combat Force Structure Changes ...... ·...... 28 23. Army Corps and Divisions ...... 28 24. Arn1y End Strength ...... 3 0 25. Army Personnel Appropriations ...... 33 26. Army Operation and Maintenance ...... 38 27. Procurement Summary by Appropriation ...... 40 28. Army Ammwution...... 47 2 9. Army ROT&E ...... 50 30. Army Military Construction ...... 54 3 I. Army Family Housing ...... 55 32. Arn1y Environmental Funding ...... 58 33. ARNG Swnmary ...... 59 34. ARNG Force Structure and Manning Highlights ...... 59 35. USAR Budget Summary...... 60 36. Army Reserve Highlights ...... 60 FIGURES 1. FY97 Federal Outlays -- $1.635 Trillion ...... 1 2. Defense as a Share of GDP ...... 3 3. Defense, Nondefense and Mandatory--(% Real Changes in Outlays)...... 4 4. DoD Procurement Program ...... 15 5. Army Program Balance ...... 26 6. IS-Division Stationing by the End of FY96 ...... 29 7. Active Cotnponent ...... 32 8. Reserve Components ...... 32
9. Civilians ...... 33 10. Ratio of Procurement $ to RDT &E $ ...... 40 11. Army Procurement Funding ...... 41 12. Aircratt Procurement ...... 41 13. Missile Procurement...... 44
14. WTCV Procuren1ent...... · ...... 45
15. Anununition Procurement...... · ...... 46 16. Other Procw·ement, Army ...... 48 17. Army RDT&E Funding Profile...... 50 18. Army War Reserve (AWR) Program ...... 57
v INTRODUCTION
Lastyear at this time I said that the FY 1996 budget was a benchmark, that the transitionwas essentially complete and the foc us was now on the future but, more importantly, that we should expect the initiation of serious review and debate on securitypolicy and militarymissions. However, this is precisely where we find ourselves now, a year later, with the FY 1997 budget; serious debate on national security never got off the ground. It slipped out of the cycle and will not surface until next year, but it is clearly in the offmg. The real questions pending are the budget level to be allocated to defense through 2002 and whether or not there will be a "frre wall" established to protect defense funds from diversion to other purposes. In all probability,these questions will not be answered until after the presidential election. Next year, though, should bring a national-level look at national securitypolicy in conjunction with the multiyear budget question. Unfortunately this look will be entangled with balanced budget debates, the danger being that objectivity on national security matters may be compromised by those who simply want to redefme or shrink the threat, thereby satisfyingthe budget equation. This, of course, should not be done without the most carefuland searching analysis. AUSA plans to fo llow this closely and join the debate as both contributor and participant. As to the FY 1997 budget itself there were no major surprises; the submission was essentially a continuation of the President's budget projections of the previous year, with priority on near-term readiness. Congress is now moving on the budget with some sense of urgency and with little or no discussion on national security policy. The authorization and appropriation committees are proposing modest increases in the defense budget, most of which are directed to modernization. How this fitswith futureplans remains to be seen, as we do not yet have reconciliation agreements on a balanced budget by 2002 which will directly affect future defense spending. Looking at the Army portion, it is pretty much a repeat of last year but without the added funding provided by Congress in FY 1996. The glaring deficiency in the Army FY 1997 budget is lack of resources for modernization. With only $10.6 billion for procurement and RDT&E combined, the lowest in real terms since FY 1959, it is simply not adequate to meet future requirements and ensure the Army remains technologically superior. Between three and fo ur billion dollars more a year are needed to meet 21st century modernization objectives. The proposal in recent defense guidance by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to further cut Army end strength by 20,000 as a source for future modernization funding doesnot make much sense, either, particularly in light of today's Army commitments and general operating tempo worldwide. Currently some 40 percent of the Army's operational force is fo rward deployed or involved in some type of operational activity around the world, and a soldier in an operational unit can expect to be away from home or bunk for more than 138 days a year. To cut an additional 20,000 would put the 1 0-division active force in an understrength position, and it would be difficultfor the Army to effectivelyhandle all required missions with any less structure. This is simply not a sound move. The best Congress can do now is to give DoD an approved FY 1997 budget quickly as a fo rerunner to the next (FY 1998) budget. Also, Congress should act favorably on the budget line which covers anticipated but previously unbudgeted contingency operations for FY 1996. Failure to do so would place the Army again in a difficult operating condition in the last quarter of the fiscalyear.
JACK N. MERRITT General, USA Retired President
May 1996
Vll THE FEDERAL BUDGET
GENERAL from an approved budget provides the legal basis to spend. The proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 1997 presented by the president to Congress calls About one-third of the budget is subject to for $1.638 trillion in budget authority (the annual appropriations by Congress and listed as authority to obligate funds) with estimated outlays discretionary. The rest falls into fixed categories (actual payments) during the fiscal year of $1.635 that include entitlements (such as Social Security, trillion. Medicare, Medicaid, welfare payments and certain other categories) and interest on the national debt. While these numbers look almost identical, The discretionary package includes national defense, they represent two different things. Budget international affairs, and domestic discretionary authority is the authority to obligate and spend and spending (essentially the cost of the rest of the includes both entitlements and new appropriations federal government). This, in terms of outlays, is by Congress. Outlays represent specific payments illustrated in figure 1. made during any particular year of which more than 20 percent would normally come from prior The president's budget proposes to achieve a year corrunitments and a similar percentage would balanced state by FY 2002. The plan for this is carry over into future years. Outlays minus reflected in table 1, with estimated outlays, receipts receipts translate to deficits. Budget authority and resulting deficits by fiscal year.
Fig. 1. FY97 Federal Outlays-- $1 .635 Trillion
International 1%
Defense 50% r------16%
Social Security Medicare Medicaid Welfare Food Stamps Agriculture Support Other (automatic payments to entities meeting certain requirements '------Debt Interest 16% Source: OMB and DoD Table 1
OUTLAYS, RECEIPTS AND DEFICITS ($ billions*)
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FYOl FY02
Outlays by Category 1,572.4 1,635.3 1,675.9 1,716.9 1,761.4 1,811.5 1,868.3 Discretionary (54 1.2) (542.3) (539.1) (535.7) (536.8) (548.2) (572.9) Mandatory (790.2) (854.5) (900.7) (946.6) (994.7) (1,036.3) (1,072.2) Interest (241.1) (238.5) (236.1) (234.6) (229.9) (227.0) (223.7)
Receipts 1,426.8 1,495.2 1,577.9 1,652.5 1,733.8 1,819.8 1,912.2
Deficit/Surplus -145.6 -140.1 -98.0 -64.4 -27.5 8.3 43.9
*Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: Budget of the United States FY 1997
While this would incrementally decrease the The FY 1996 budget was finally passed deficits throughout the period, the total estimated without the benefit of a balanced budget federal debt subject to statutory limitations would resolution. FY 1997 is now being processed but still increase by another half a trillion or so by the is still hampered by continued lack of agreement. year 2002. Just this past March, Congress passed and the president signed a bill increasing the legal Two things are needed. One is a con debt ceiling from $4.9 trillion to $5.5 trillion. gressionally agreed reconciliation for FY 1997 :which would be the basis for fund allocations to The basic economic asswnptions on which the various appropriation committees. This would federal calculations are based include an average clear the way for FY 1997 appropriation bills conswner price index of 2.8 percent, unemployment which, in tum, may be subject to veto by the rates of about six percent and annual growth rates president if he disagrees. More important, on the order of 2.3 percent of the gross domestic however, is agreement on a road map for product (GOP). balancing the budget by 2002. Otherwise, the FY 1997 budget lacks relevancy in terms of multiyear programs. RECONCILIATION AND A BALANCED BUDGET The major disconnects relate to the entitlements (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.), the amount and While the president and the Democrats and nature of tax cuts, and the amount of cuts in Republicans in Congress agree on the need for discretionary funding for government operations. eliminating the deficit, they have not been able to agree on the specific mix of cuts necessary to Because of the magnitude of the differences achieve this goal along with possible tax changes. along with their political ramifications, it is This will ultimately be thrashed out and unlikely that a balanced budget agreement can formalized in a reconciliation bill, but the question actually be resolved until after the presidential is when. election.
2 FRAMEWORK FOR DEFENSE automatic pilot until deliberately changed by law, extreme pressures will be brought to bear on the Defense represents about 16 percent of federal discretionary portion, which includes defense. expenditures (outlays) for FY 1997. Defense spending has declined steadily, both in real tenns To put defense in context, it should be and as a percent of federal outlays, for the past 11 recognized that since FY 1990 it has taken large years. FY 1997 will be the 12th. reductions while nondefense activities and mandatory costs were on a steady increase. Figure Even more significant is the decreasing 3 illustrates that from FY 1990 to the present, defense share of the GOP, as shown in figure 2. It defense real dollars decreased by more than 29 is expected to be about 3.2 percent of GDP in FY percent along with a drawdown in structure and 1997, roughly half of what it was in FY 1986, and end strength, while the nondefense sector actually drop to about 2. 7 percent by 2002. increased some 18 percent and mandatory costs continued on their upward track. Based on the Major multiyear budget decisions loom in president's budget, defense would still take more light of serious attempts to balance the federal cuts by FY 2002 but at a much reduced rate as it budget. The big issue will be the ultimate trade has pretty much leveled out in structure and size. off between entitlements and discretionary The nondefense portion, however, is expected to spending. Since mandatory spending is on decrease significantly. This will cause much pain
Fig. 2. Defen se as a Share of GOP-
11.9% 12
10 9.1%
8
... z w fi 6 w a.
4
2 . ------3.2%
2.7% 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 FISCAL YEARS
Source: DoD
3 and probably place additional pressure on defense, budget levels and should not be considered on the but it should be noted that the defense sector has same baseline as those activities that have taken already made its major contributions to reduced no reductions in the past.
Fig. 3. Defense, Nondefense an d Man datory -- (% Real Changes in Outlays)
60
EJDefense Spending 45.4
40 1--····-·----·····------t• Nondefense Spending c::JMan nd
20
0
-20
-40 % Change 90-97 % Change 97-02 % Change 90-02
Source: DoD
4 THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET
The Department of Defense (DoD) budget is the preceding year. Outlays for FY 1997 are about 96 percent of total national defense funding. estimated at $247.5 billion. The balance goes to the Department of Energy (DoE) for military nuclear programs and to other While budget authority goes up after FY 1997 agencies for military-related activities. in current dollar terms, it is actually quite flat when adjusted for projected inflation. The Table 2 shows defense top line dollar figures adjusted line, using FY 1997 constant dollars, for both national defense and Department of would look like this: Defense with projections through FY 200 1. This section of the paper will deal with the DoD FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FYOl segment (the Pentagon budget), focusing on FY $242.6 242.1 242.2 243.4 244.9 1997, which is the budget now before Congress. Unless otherwise indicated, dollar figures will be The overall drop in the DoD budget in expressed in tenns of budget authority. constant dollars from the end of the Cold War to
the present -- FY 1989 to FY 1997 -- is 37 The DoD FY 1997 request is for $242.6 percent, actually 40 percent if calculated from the billion, a real decrease of about six percent from FY 1985 peak.
Table 2
DEFENSE TOP LINE (current $ billions*)
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FYOl
Budget Authority
DoE and other agencies, military functions 10.7 1 1.5 10.7 9.8 8.9 10.0
Total National Defense 266.3 263.3 255.8 264.1 270.5 279.6
Outlays Department of Defense 259.6 254.3 243.9 246.5 253.9 256.6 DoE and other agencies, military functions 12.6 11.3 10.9 10.0 9.1 9.4
Total National Defense 272.1 265.6 254.8 256.5 263.0 266.0
*Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: DoD
5 BUDGET ALLOCATION Table 4 Breakouts of the DoD numbers by title and DOD BUDGET BY COMPONENT 3 4. component are shown in tables and (BA current $ billions*)
Table 3 FY89 FY95 FY96 FY97
DOD BUDGET AUTHORITY BY TITLE Army 78.1 63.3 62.8 59.8 (current $ billions*) Navy 97.7 76.9 76.4 74.0 Air Force 94.7 73.9 71.9 72.0 FY95 FY96 FY97 Defensewide 20.4 41.6 40.7 36.9 Military Personnel 71.6 69.6 69.8 Total 290.8 255.7 251.8 242.6 O&M 93.6 93.5 89.2 Procurement 43.6 42.3 38.9 * Numbers may not add due to rounding. RDT&E 34.5 34.9 34.7 Source: DoD Military Construction 5.4 6.9 5.3 Family Housing 3.4 4.3 3.9 Other 3.4 .3 .9 The breakout of the budget by component shows changes in balance between the services in recent Total 255.7 251.8 242.6 years and the growing portion in the Defensewide * Numbers may not add due to rounding. category. The Defensewide portion increases from seven percent in FY 1989 to 15 percent in FY 1997. Source: DoD Concurrently, all the services have lost budget share. The comparison is even more striking if we go back From table 3, it is apparent that funding for to the FY 1985 peak budget years when the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military Defensewide portion was only five percent of the Personnel outweighs everything else. Research, budget. Added supply functions of the Defense Development and Acquisition -- Procurement and Logistics Agency, the consolidation of health care Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding at DoD, management of the Defense (RDT&E) combined -- is only 30 percent of the Business Operations Fund (DBOF), base realignment total for FY 1997 and Military Construction and costs, environmental restoration costs and the Family Housing combined a very modest four consolidated Ballistic Missile Defense Office percent. The National Guard and Reserve programs are all contributors to this growth in the appropriations are embedded in the above titles. Defensewide segment of the budget. About $18.8 billion is included in separate National Guard and Reserve appropriations for FY 1997 under Military Personnel, Operation and GUIDELINES AND PRIORITIES Maintenance and Military Construction headings. The underlying policy on which military Personnel-related costs are a major part of the forces and this budget are based is the President's DoD budget with more than 46 percent of the total February 1996 statement, A Na tional Security for FY 1997; and this does not include contracting Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, which out in lieu of direct hire personnel. The dollars incorporates the military strategy of the associated with military personnel are readily Bottom-Up Review (BUR). apparent under Military Personnel appropriations. Civilian employees, however, are included under In his March 1996 Annual Report to the various appropriations, but primarily O&M. Total President and the Congress, Secretary of Defense DoD civilian pay for FY 1997 is estimated at William J. Perry defined the dangers and the $42.6 billion. actions taken to counter those dangers.
6 Dr. Perry lists today's cunent dangers as (I) intervention. Desert Shield/Desert Storm is a the proliferation of weapons of mass destmction, classic example. (2) instability in critical areas, specifically in Central and Eastern Europe and (3) the dangers of Military fo rces in the DoD plan are based on explosions of local and regional conflicts, often the ability to accomplish all of the above. rooted in ethnic and religious hatreds. In establishing priorities fo r the budget,
In managing these dangers, defense actions are Secretary of Defense Perry emphasized fo rce geared to prevent, to deter, and finally to defeat (if readiness as the top priority. In extension of this necessary), in that order. he recognized the need fo r attracting and retaining quality people and strongly supported a variety of Preventive defense (e.g., antiproliferation quality-of-life initiatives. He also recognized the actions, reduction of the nuclear threat) is designed need fo r modernization in terms of new systems to preclude the need to deter or to fight. and the upgrading of existing systems fo r future readiness. While modernization funding has Detenence is intended to control threats and reached a low point in FY 1997 as a trade-off fo r preclude others from taking actions harmful to · near-term readiness, a modernization upturn is U.S. interests or to our allies and friends. To deter, planned in future budgets and will be reflected in the United States must maintain strong and ready the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). fo rces, demonstrate the will to use them if necessary and to make U.S. presence fe lt. FotWard deployment is an effective fo rm of FORCE STRUCTURE AND MANPOWER detenence. The principal defense components include Finally, the use of military fo rce is the method Land Forces, Maritime (Navy) Forces and Air of last resort if detenence fa ils and the vital Forces. The major combat fo rce elements under interests of the United States require military these three categories are reflected in table 5.
Table 5 FORCE STRUCTURE
Cold War Base 1990 1997 Projected Goal Land Forces Anny active divisions 18 10 10 Reserve component brigades 57 42* 42* Marine Corps divisions (3 active, 1 reserve) 4 4 4 Navy Battle fo rce ships 546 357 346 Aircraft carriers Active 15 ll 11 Reserve 1 I Navy carrier wings Active 13 10 10 Reserve 2 1 1 Air Force Active fighter wings 24 13 13 Reserve fighter wings 12 7 7
* Includes 15 enhanced readiness brigades (equivalent to 5+ divisions). Source: DoD
7 In addition, there are forces which provide When these goals are reached, personnel operational mission support across the defense reductions in DoD, using a FY 1989 base, would spectnun, to include strategic nuclear forces, show -33 percent active, -24 percent selected mobility forces, special operations forces and reserve and -35 percent civilian employees. space forces. These are discussed separately. Military Personnel for FY 1997 is budgeted for In the Land Forces category only the brigades $69.8 billion (about 29 percent of the total DoD are counted in the reserve component line. The budget). The estimated FY 1997 pay fo r civilians is eight National Guard divisions are considered $42.6 billion, which is included under several strategic reserve but are not included in appropriations. Incorporated is a three percent pay contingency war fighting plans as division entities. raise for both military and civilian personnel. Of the brigades listed, 15 are enhanced readiness brigades to be deployable in 90 days from date of mobilization. Strategic Nuclear Forces
In conjunction with its effort to prevent the Manpower proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the United States intends to maintain a capability to Military and civilian personnel end strength deter and prevent their use, as well as to protect are summarized in table 6. against such weapons. While major reductions in nuclear forces are planned and under way, the Table 6 United States intends to maintain a strong hedge against outside threats. PERSONNEL (End strength in thousands) The present policy is based on recom
FY95 FY96 FY97 Goal mendations of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) conducted by DoD and approved by the President Active Military on September 8, 1994. Army 509 495 495 475-495 Navy 435 425 407 394 The decision was made to retain the triad of Marine Corps 175 174 174 174 nuclear forces (sea-, air- and ground-based missiles) Air Force 400 388 381 375 with sufficient nuclear force to deter and hold at Total Active 1,519 1,482 1,457 1,418 risk those who might otherwise choose to threaten Selected Reserve 946 93 1 90 1 893 or challenge the United States. The review did not Civilians 865 841 807 728 change the number of warheads to be retained under START II, but it did streamline the forces Source: DoD and reduce the number of platforms that carry the warheads. Under START II the United States and Active forces will be reduced by 25,000 Russia would each be left with between 3,000 and personnel in FY 1997 and are programmed to 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads, a reduction of come down 25,000 more in FY 1998, bringing about two-thirds from the Cold War peak. them to within 14,000 of the planned steady state of 1 ,418,000. Selected reserve forces will come Under START II levels, by 2003 U.S. strategic down by 30,000 in FY 1997, which brings the nuclear forces would be constituted as follows: reserves within 8,000 of the planned steady state of 893,000. Civilian manpower will decline by • 14 Trident submarines, each carrying 24 34,000 in FY 1997 and should reach its final end Trident II submarine-launched ballistic strength goal· of728,000 within four years. missiles.
8 + three wings of Minuteman III intercontinental Using the scenario of two nearly simultaneous range ballistic missiles, each equipped with a major regional conflicts (MRC), the DoD planning single warhead. process matched various combinations of events against a four-phase scenario. First was the halt + 66 B-52 bombers capable of canying air phase to stop the enemy, where speed is of the launched cruise missiles. essence and rapid effective airlift essential; this is followed sequentially by a full military buildup + 20 B-2 bombers capable of canying gravity phase, a counterattack phase and a postwar stability bombs. phase. Because of the need to move heavy
As the Russian parliament has not yet ratified equipment and large tonnages, sealift is essential in the buildup phase and . to maintain the force START II, and it is uncertain when this will happen, the United States intends to protect its thereafter. Prepositioning, if properly configured and strategically located, can greatly improve the options to maintain its strategic capabilities under probability of effective and timely response. START I until Russia actually ratifies START II and reductions are in process.
No new U.S. strategic nuclear systems are Airlift. Airlift, with available prepositioning, under development or planned at this time. One provides for rapid delivery of units initially, with major nuclear system, the B-1 bomber, is in sealift delivering the bulk of heavy forces and transition to a totally conventional role. supplies during the buildup. Sealift will continue to deliver the bulk of materiel need�d to sustain Funding for strategic nuclear forces has force operations. The majority of the personnel, dropped significantly in recent years, from almost however, will be airlifted. 1 0 percent of the DoD budget in FY 1985 to a little more than three percent in FY 1997. Total Aerial refueling capability will permit nonstop funding in FY 1997 is about $7.5 billion; most of deployment of tactical aircraft and extend the this (more than 60 percent) goes for -O&M and range of airlift aircraft when needed. personnel costs rather than investment. The 1994 version of the Mobility Requirements Study established the intertheater airlift objective Mobility Forces of between 49 million and 52 million ton miles per day of cargo airlift capability, the precise amount Strategic mobility is a vital factor in being able depending on the level of prepositioning overseas. to move and support projection forces in the execution of the national security strategy. It is Airlift requirements will be met by a what makes the projection force concept feasible. combination of military aircraft and the Civil Four key elements are involved: airlift, sealift, Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF), as follows: prepositioning (both afloat and ashore), and surface transportation, along with the ability to + Strategic military airlift requirements will be deploy and outload in the United States. met by a mixture of C-17, C141 and C-5 aircraft. The C- 141 s are aging rapidly and will Intertheater requirements were initially defined phase out over the next ten years. The current in the Mobility Requirements Study conducted by plan is to procure 120 C-17 airlifter aircraft to DoD in 1992 and revised in 1994 to take full provide both inter- and intratheater lift. The cognizance of the Bottom-Up Review. The latter C-130 is a proven aircraft fo r intratheater use, is the basis for defense planning and budgeting to with the new improved version, the C.J 30J, meet those requirements. just starting production.
9 + The aetial refueling fleet will be a combination vessels) are carrying equipment and supplies fo r of KC- 135 and K-1 0 aircraft. an Army armored brigade and selected combat and combat support units. Later these will be replaced + Heavy reliance will be on the CRAF which by large medium speed roll-on/roll-off ships consists of passenger and cargo aircraft that (LMSRs) being procured fo r this purpose. The commercial carriers have agreed to make rest carry munitions, medical materiel, fuel and available fo r military requirements. Civil equipment fo r other units required early m aircraft can provide significant support in deployment. moving people and lighter cargo, but are The Army is presently restructuring unit limited in their ability to carry a range of equipment sets prepositioned worldwide. Two military equipment or heavy tonnage items. heavy brigade sets will be maintained in Central Europe. A third set, stored in Italy, is available fo r Sealift. Sealift comes from several sources: use in the Mediterranean area. In Southwest Asia, government-owned ships, commercial ships under the battalion of equipment in Kuwait is to be ex long-term charter to DoD, and ships operating in panded to brigade size. Negotiations are under way the commercial trade. The major demand is fo r to preposition a second brigade set and divisional roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) capacity, container support equipment. In addition, an armor brigade capacity and tanker capacity. Breakbulk ships can set wiH be prepositioned in Korea in FY 1997. also be used. To meet the projection fo rce timetable called fo r in contingency plans, RO/RO Space Forces and similar ships must be available and ready on short notice. The government currently has eight Space systems are an integral part of the fa st sealift ships (high-speed RO/RO) that are overall U.S. military fo rce structure and contribute funded and operated by DoD. The Mobility materially to the fo rce equation. These systems Requirements Study proposed a requirement of 36 are essential in achieving the dominant advantage RO/RO vessels in the Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF), inherent in U.S. military doctrine. 29 of which are already in the RRF. One was purchased in FY 1995 and two more were All military commands, organizations and included fo r FY 1996. activities are users of space products and services. Because of their technical complexity and high Sealift is funded by DoD through the National costs, along with the necessity fo r overall Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). Starting in FY integration and compatibility, DoD established the 1996, NDSF also funds the Ready Reserve Fleet, U.S. Space Command, a unified command fo rmerly budgeted by the Department of Trans reporting to the Secretary of Defense. U.S. Space portation. The NDSF totals in the budget are $1.78 Command's mission is to support the combatant billion fo r FY 1996 and $1.69 billion for FY 1997. commanders in chief or CINCs.
Space systems provide real-time surveillance; Prepositioning. Prepositioning is part of the instantaneous and secure battle management; overall mobility plan. This is a combination of global three-dimensional grid reference systems; materiel and equipment afloat and ashore. This year, and accurate navigation, positioning and timing. DoD is using 34 ships fo r afloat prepositioning. Of these, 13 are Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) Space support functions include the launching specifically configured fo r the prepositioning of of space vehicles, maintaining and sustaining Marine Corps equipment and supplies. An spacecraft in orbit, and deorbiting and recovery of additional MPS ship is being acquired with funds space vehicles as required. Cape Canaveral Air provided in FY 1995. Fourteen (eight ships from Force Station, FL, and Vandenberg Air Force the Ready Reserve Force and six chartered Base, CA, are the primary space launch fa cilities.
10 Operational fun ctions include reconnaissance Major space programs in the FY 1997 budget and surveillance, targeting, tactical warning and are: assessment, communications, navigation and environmental monitoring. Space-based systems RDT&E support virtually all DoD activities. + Defense support programs ($ 1 00 million) Table 7 shows a summary of the status of space-based fo rces. + MILSTAR ($727 million) + NA VSTAR GPS ($79 million) Space-based communications are particularly important. The Defense Satellite Communications + Titan Launch Vehicles ($106 million) System (DSCS) provides high frequency-secure voice and high data-rate transmissions worldwide. Procurement The Military Strategicffactical Relay (MILSTAR) Satellite System provides extremely high frequency + DSCS Ground Systems ($1 03 million) (EHF) voice and medium to low data-rate • Fleet Satellite Communications ($113 million) transmissions worldwide in support to the CINCs. + Medium Launch Vehicles ($179 million) DoD is currently conducting a comprehensive + NAVSTAR GPS ($199 million) study on Military Satellite Communkations (MlLSA TCOM) architecture to meet ti.tture needs. + Titan Launch Vehicles ($490 million)
· Table 7
SPACE-BASED FORCES FY 1997 (PROJECTED)
Available In Satellite System Mission On-Orbit for Launch Production
Defense Support Program Missile Classified 4 (Network of ground-based radars) warning
Global Positioning System Navigation 24 6 17
Nuclear Detonation (NUDET) Nuclear 24 6 17 Detection System detonation detection
Defense Meteorological Satellite Weather and 2 6 System en vi ron mental survei I lance
Defense Satellite Communications Communications 5 5 0 System
MILSTAR Communications 2 0 4
Fleet SA TCOM System Communications 4 0 0
UHF Follow-on Communications 6 2
Source: DoD
11 Special Operations Forces The bulk (about 70 percent) of RDT&E goes for tactical systems development. On the Special Operations is a unique category of procurement side, the major items for FY 1997 fo rces organized into Anny, Navy and Air Force include a special operations vessel, AC-130U components under a joint U.S. Special Operations gunship acquisition, C-.130 modifications and Command (USSOCOM). Special operations fo rces ammunition. (SOF) have a total strength of about 46,000 active and reserve component personnel. Reserve ·Forces
SOF may be employed independently but in The reserve components (RC) are more than actual operations are normally used as part of a 38 percent of total U.S. military strength and joint fo rce under a theater CINC. represent a significant part of total military structure. They are located in more than 4,600 SOF are both unique and diverse in the nalure communities and occupy or use some 36,000 and scope of their missions. These range the facilities. RC strength and major fo rce elements in spectrum of direct action, special reconnaissance, the various services, based on FY 1997 numbers, unconventional warfare, civil affairs, psychological are summarized in the fo llowing paragraphs. operations, antiterrorism, counterdrug operations support and other collateral activities. The Army includes both Army National Guard and Army Reserve with a combined FY 1997 end Recent use of SOF is best illustrated by the strength of 581,500. The Army National Guard high operational tempo of overseas deployments. has eight divisions considered strategic reserve and In 1995 alone SOF conducted more than 2,700 will have 15 enhanced readiness brigades included deployments to 137 countries in accomplishing in plans for major regional conflicts. Also, more assigned missions. than 60 percent of the Army's combat support and combat service support are provided by the reserve USSOCOM, unique among · the joint components. commands, has been given responsibility for its own resource management, to include program, The Navy has only Navy Reserve with an end budget and acquisition, and the authority to deal strength for FY 1997 of 95,900. Navy Reserve directly wit h DoD on these matters. The SOF surface ships include one reserve aircraft carrier, budget, therefore, is not part of the se1vice ten surface combatants, two amphibious ships and budgets. five mine watfare ships. The Navy also provides one rese1ve air wing. The investment portion of the SOF budget pertaining to RDT&E and Procurement is shown The Marine Corps with its Marine Reserve in table 8. will maintain a combat division, an aviation wing and a fo rce service support group. Strength is Table 8 programmed at 42,000. SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES The Air Force, like the Army, has both INVESTMENT National Guard and Reserve fo rces. FY 1997 end (BA $ millions) strength is programmed at 181,300. Forces include FY95 FY96 FY97 seven reserve fighter wings (equivalent).
RDT&E 199.7 147.8 122.4 Most of the fo rmer problems of RC Procurement 522.2 613.0 454.3 accessibility have been resolved, and RC Source: HoD personnel are being used in virtually all
12 contingency operations fo r a number of essential READINESS purposes. It is evident that the reliance on the RC will continue to grow. Readiness is the top-priority requirement, but it is a difficult concept to define and even more Each of the reserve components has separate difficult to measure. Essentially, readiness is a appropriations for Military Personnel, Operation combination of all those things that produce a and Maintenance, and Military Construction. A winning team. From the military perspective it is summary of RC budget requests for FY 1997 is the ability of a unit to perform its mission shown in table 9. Miscellaneous items in other eftectively and well on short notice. budget appropriations specifically earmarked for reserve programs total more than $18 billion. Readiness depends on quality people and top-notch leadership. It requires the right The reserve components do not budget for equipment and weapons in a high state of procurement since procurement requests are maintenance. It must have effective sustaining normally carried in various service budgets. In support and above all requires the right kind of recent years, however, Congress has seen fit to training. provide a special procurement line fo r National Guard and Reserve Acquisition of about $750 What is fo rmally reported is generally what million per year for fiscal years L 995 and 1996. can be measured and quantified, and that Funding was also added to their Military represents only half a loaf. The rest of the Construction budgets. We should expect the same equation is largely subjective. The proof is for FY 1997. always in the execution.
Table 9
RESERVE COMPONENT FUNDING ($ millions)
Title FY95 FY96 FY97
Military Personnel Reserve (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) 4,722.8 4,664.7 4,587. 1 National Guard (Army and Air Force) 4,742.2 4,502.0 4,526.8
Operation and Maintenance Reserve 3,645. 1 3,566.4 3,51 6.6 National Guard 5,224.3 5,200.9 4,863.0
Military Construction Reserve 110.3 128.3 111.2 National Guard 437.6 301.7 83.0
National Guard and Reserve Equipment 758.4 737.4 (appropriated by Congress)*
* Added by Congress.
Source: DoD
13 Funding for readiness is closely related to the Southwest Asia and $542 million for three months Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations of operations in Bosnia. This is a hedge to help in the budget as so many of the readiness-related protect force readiness as a whole while covering activities -- especially those things involving the additional cost of these contingencies� training and support, either directly or indirectly - are funded by O&M. O&M in the FY 1997 Other factors which are critically important to budget totals $89.2 billion or almost 37 percent of readiness in the mid- to long-term relate to quality the whole budget. ·of the force -- the need to attract the right people and to retain those with the needed technical and O&M also covers many other things which are leadership skills. This is highly dependent on fixed by nature and only indirectly related to near working and living environments, challenging term readiness, such as civilian pay and benefits, work and other benefits. Family considemtions the health care system and environmental costs. are paramount, since more than 60 percent of the Almost half of the O&M costs fall into this active force are married. Improving quality of life category, and perhaps another 20 percent, such as for both unif01med people and their families is contract services, recruiting and training, have receiving special attention. Included in the FY limited flexibility in the year of execution. This 1997 budget is support for: means that the remaining 30 percent over which the services and senior commanders can exercise + a three percent pay raise and retiree cost-of reasonable flexibility in the event of increased living allowance; opemting tempo, such as unprogmmmed con tingencies or a deliberate reduction in the level of + construction of 2,300 family housing units and O&M funding, must be absorbed by this so-called improvements to 4,100 units; flexible portion. This was the situation encountered in FY 1994 when umeimbursed operational costs + inclusion of a Family Housing Improvement for unprogrammed contingency requirements Fund for private sector housing ventures; (Somalia, Haiti and Imq) caused a force readiness • construction of 42 banacks and 12,200 living problem at the end of that fiscal year. spaces for unaccompanied service members;
Secretary of Defense Perry has stated clearly + support for preserving health care and that readiness is the number one priority, at the commissary benefits; expense of other areas in the budget if necessary. This is reflected by the relatively high mtio of + other initiatives such as child care, welfare and O&M funding. Since FY 1994, O&M funding per recreation and family support. military end strength, even when adjusted for inflation, has averaged some 18 to 20 percent In the long term, investment in modernized higher (excluding Desert Storm) than during the weapons and equipment becomes an important prior decade. readiness factor. This is discussed in the next section. Unprogrammed and unbudgeted contingencies have been a chronic problem in recent years. Unless funds are replaced in a timely manner this MODERNIZATION causes cancellation or curtailment of other training and support. This fiscal year, unlike the past, the In the context of this paper, modernization budget includes a funding request of about $1.1 covers those things relating to research, billion fo r contingency operations expected to development and acquisition (RDA) and is carry over from FY 1996. Of this, $590 million is expressed in the budget in terms of RDT&E and a based on Southern Watch and Provide Comfort in series of Procurement appropriations.
14 The track records of both RDT &E and is normal fo r a vigorous modernization Procurement over time speak fo r themselves. Table investment. The 1:1 ratio is indicative of a very 1 0 shows funding profiles from FY 1989 through constrained program. FY 1997 in both current and constant dollars. The Secretary of Defense has acknowledged The FY 1997 number of $73.6 billion the problem. For the past few years modemization combined fundingfor Procurement and RDT&E is was slowed to provide additional readiness the nadir in a 12-year RDA cycle from its high funding. A calculated risk was taken during the point in FY 1985. The drop in Procurement was drawdown while older equipment was weeded out. particularly acute, with shrinkage of more than 70 The reprieve from equipment aging, however, is percent in real terms over the period. In addition, over and the plan now is to ramp-up procurement the ratio of Procurement to RDT&E dropped from investments after FY 1997 to reach a level of $60.1 about three to one to almost I:1. The ratio of 3: 1 billion by FY 2001 . This is illustratedin figure 4.
Table 10
DOD PROCUREMENT AND RDT&E FUNDING PROFILES ($ billions)
FY85 FY87 FY89 FY91 FY93 FY94 DoD Procurement Funding Current 96.8 80.2 79.4 71.7 52.8 44.1 Constant 134.3 104.2 95.7 81.5 57.4 47.1 DoD RDT&E Funding Current 31.3 35.6 37.5 36.2 38.0 34.6 Constant 44.1 47.3 46. 1 41.3 41.3 36.8 Ratio, Procurement:RTD&E 3:1 2.2:1 2.1:1 2:1 1.4:1 1.3:1
Source: DoD
Fig. 4. DoD Procurement Program
$billions 90
60.1 60
42.3
FY97-01 Real Increase = 40% 3,0
Fiscal Ye ars
0 FY95 FY97 FY99 FY01
Source: DoD
15 The stated DoD objectives for achieving its • continue enhancements to power projection future modernization goals are to: capabilities;
• continue "leap-ahead" technology; • strengthen Ballistic Missile Defense/Theater Missile Defense. • expand cost-effective upgrades of existing systems; Selected DoD systems in either RDT&E or + ensure battlefield dominance; procurement status are listed in table 11.
Table 11
SELECTED DOD SYSTEMS
Program Procurement* RDT&E FY96 FY97 FY96 FY97 Army Comanche Helicopter 292.2 288.6 Black Hawk Helicopter 405.8 244.4 Apache Longbow Aircraft 417.7 392.0 23.0 5.9 Javelin Antitank Weapon 200.9 162.1 HellfireMissiles (Hellfire IIand Longbow Hellfire) 239.5 357.6 Annored Systems Modification 193.3 265.5 Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrade 148.3 143.7 115.1 87.1 Abrams tank upgrade 581.6 474.3 38.2 71.5
Navy (includes Marine Corps) AV-8B(V/STOL) Harrier Aircraft 251.7 318.9 26.2 16.9 FA-1 8E/F HornetTactical Aircraft 229.7 2,226.8 823.8 360.5 V -22 Osprey (ti1trotor) 46.6 602.3 736.8 576.8 Trident II Missile 506.8 324.4 17.4 12.3 DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer 2,303.8 3,416.1 91.9 89.3 New Attack Submarine 775.2 287.0 442.4 487.6 Seawolf Attack Submarine 687.3 809.3 123.2 110.9
Air Force B-2 Stealth Bomber 801.2 150.0 589.2 528.5 C-17 AirliftAircraft 2,569.5 2,204.2 70.7 87.5 E-8A Joint STARS Aircraft 523.0 559.1 167.1 207.3 F-15E Multimission Fighter 351.7 290.9 162.1 143.1 F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter 2,164.9 2,003.0 MILSTAR (Communications Satellite) System 582.9 727.3
Defensewide/Joint Joint Strike Fighter 193.2 581.8 Ballistic Missile Defense 336.2 263.2 3,010.1 2,534.2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 101.5 59.9 290.7 249.0
*Procurement totals include initial spares. Source: DoD
16 BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Navy Upper and Lower Tier systems, Medium
One of the · largest defense developmental Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) (formerly programs is Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Corps SAM), and. the Battle Management C3 which is centrally managed by the BMD Office (Command, Control and Communications) fo r within the Office of the Secretary of Defense control and integration. Work is being done for (OSD). detection capability and integration of lower-tier systems for defense against cruise missiles in theater. The program is essentially one of research and development with three major segments: Theater The National Missile Defense objective is to Missile Defense (TMD), National Missile Defense develop defensive systems and capabilities so as to (NMD) and support technologies. be able to respond to any strategic ballistic missile threat as it develops. The present program is Appropriation summaries fo r BMD programs based on a three-year development and planning in the FY 1997 budget are shown in table 12. phase which, if necessary, could be fo llowed by a three-year system acquisition and deployment phase. Thus, an initial operational capability Table 12 could be achieved in about six years.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE BUDGET . With accelerated funding the BMDO Director, (BA$ millions*) LTG Malcolm O'Neill, told the House National Security Committee on March 7, 1996 that a FY95 FY96 FY97 reasonable although high-risk development RDT&E 2,444.0 2,992.5 2,529.3 program could lead to the demonstration of the NMD in an integrated system test in 1999. Procurement 269.4 342.3 268.1 LTG O'Neill also pointed out that funding fo r Military Construction .3 17.0 1.4 support technologies was particularly important because this is what is necessary to improve our Total 2,713.8 3,351.9 2,798.8 systems and move ahead on the leading edge of *Numbers may not add due to rounding. technology. Technology requirements are being generated by evolving threats and countermeasures. Source: DoD The procurement portion of the budget is largely fo r Patriot PAC-3 missile acquisition. The total FY 1997 budget request fo r BMD is $2,799 million with $2,062 million fo r Theater Missile Defense, $508 million fo r National Missile FACILITIES Defense and $226 million for support technologies. The FY 1997 budget contains $9.12 billion as the total sum of Military Construction and Family First priority is for defense against theater Housing appropriations. These appropriations are class ballistic missiles, which represent the most contained in a separate military construction bill urgent threat. The next priority is the development passed by Congress. of a defensive capability against longer range ballistic missiles which could threaten the United Budget numbers fo r both Military States sometime in the future. Primary elements Construction and Family Housing are summarized ofTMD include the Patriot PAC-3 missile system, in table 13.
17 Table 13
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMil-YHOUSING ($ billions)
FY95 FY96 FY97
Military Construction 5.43 6.91 5.26 (Separate appropriations for Anny, Navy, Air Force, Defensewide and each reserve component by service)
Family Housing 3.39 4.30 3.86 (Separate appropriations for Anny, Navy, Air Force, Defensewide and Homeowners Assistance) Construction (.72) (.94) (. 71)
Operations (includes debt payments) (2.67) (3.36) (3.15) Housing Improvement Fund (.22) (.20)
Total Military Construction 8.82 11.21 9.12
Source: DoD
Military Construction holdings, the funding proposed in this budget and projected through the FYDP period do not remotely Military Construction includes separate accounts approach n01mal reconstitution needs on even a for Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense Agencies, 50-year-plus replacement basis. and for NATO infrastructure and construction costs associated with base closures. Of the $5.3 billion for FY 1997, the largest portion ($2.5 billion) will go to Family Housing base realignment costs. After NATO infrastructure ($208 million) and planning and design costs ($163 Funding fo r family housing has been budgeted million) are subtracted, only about $2.4 billion on a fa irly steady basis throughout the period. About defensewide will be available for basic construction. one-fifth of the Family Housing account has been designated fo r construction. The rest goes for Of the projects included fo r FY 1997, the largest operating costs, to include debt payments and single item is for troop barracks, with a budget homeowners' assistance. Much of the fa mily housing request of $570 million. This is in line with the inventory needs upgrading, and an increasing Defense Secretary's priority on quality-of-life backlog of maintenance and repair is an endemic enhancement. Other priority funding goes to problem. The goal is to renovate family quarters on a operational and training facilities ($620 million), 35-year cycle. maintenance and production facilities ($368 million), and hospital and medical fa cilities ($236 million). The FY 1997 budget also includes a new account titled Department of Defense Family On the negative side, considering the size, nature Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF). It was and complexity of DoD facilities and real estate created specifically to financeinnovative methods
18 to meet housing needs in conjunction with the Potential beneficiaries fo r FY 1997 total some private sector. The Housing Revitalization Act 8.3 million, to incluoe 1.61 million active duty passed by Congress authorizes DoD to use limited personnel, 2.31 million dependents of active duty, partnerships, make guaranteed loans and convey 3.13 million retirees and dependents under 65 DoD-owned property to stimulate private. sector years of age, and 1.35 million retirees and participation. For test purposes, $22 million was dependents over 65. appropriated in the FY 1996 budget and $20 million more is included fo r FY 1997. The new TRICARE system bas subsumed CHAMPUS. Ongoing studies in Defense are making detailed analyses of overall military health DEFENSEWIDE PROGRAMS care requirements from both needs and future costs considerations. These should be laid out and Health Care debated this next year.
Health care is a defensewide program with Health care is the number one concern for funding consolidated at DoD. The program soldiers with fa milies and of equal concern to consists of Army, Navy and Air Force medical retirees and their dependents. Proposals will be facilities supplemented by the new TRICARE watched carefully. This is a major quality-of-life system. ISSUe.
Table 14 shows a FY 1997 program budget of $15.24 billion, of which $5.6 billion would be Environment reimbursable. DoD has a comprehensive program covering When the costs of all military medical cleanup (restoration), compliance, conservation, personnel in the services and the cost of medical pollution prevention and technology improve construction are added, this total increases by ments. about $5 billion. The DoD FY 1997 budget includes $4.7 Table 14 billion for these programs, of which $1 .33 billion is designated fo r the Defense Environmental FY 1997 DEFENSE Restoration Account (DERA). HEALTH CARE PROGRAM (Budget Plan) The Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 ($ billions*) requires all federal fa cilities (including all of defense) to fully comply with hazardous waste FY95 FY96 FY97 rules in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. To provide fo cus and coordination for these O&M 9.63 9.82 9.34 programs, an Under Secretary of Defense for Procurement .35 .30 .30 Environmental Security was established in 1993. Total Direct 9.97 10.12 9.64
Reimbursable 4.37 5.90 5.60 These environmental requirements do not have unique identification in appropriation listings Total Obligations 14.34 16.02 15.24 except for the Environmental Restoration Fund. The rest is included under other appropriations, *Numbers may not add due to rounding. largely O&M, but also with significantcoverage in Source: DoD RDT&E and construction. See table 15 for FY 1997 funding distribution.
1 9 Overall, about 45 percent of this environmental future actions on the program included with the budget will be used for restoration and cleanup, FY 1997 budget request. Budget numbers are another 50 percent for compliance, and the rest for shown in table 16. conservation, pollution prevention and technology development. Histmically, about 25 percent of the Table 16 up-front money spent on base closures has gone for environmental cleanup. CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM Environmental costs are now pretty much an (BA $ millions*) ongoing level of effort, and environmental requirements will remain a significant claimant for FY95 FY96 FY97 defense funding. RDT&E 20.7 53.0 48.3 Procurement 199.0 259.0 273.6 Table 15 O&M 355.8 345.2 477.9 ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Total 575.4 657.3 799.8
· ($ billions) FY97 *Numbers may not add due to rounding. Estimate Source: DoD Cleanup 2.1 Environmental Compliance/ The weapons to be destroyed are located at Pollution Prevention/Conservation 2.4 eight sites in the United States and on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. The Johnston Atoll incineration Environmental Technology .2 facility is in operation now. A second site at Total 4.7 Tooele Anny Depot in Utah, where 40 percent of Source: DoD the stockpile is kept, should begin incineration operations this summer. Construction of similar facilities at Anniston, AL, and Pine Bluff, AR, Chemical Demilitarization Program should start later this year.
This is a defensewide program for complete DoD has been challenged to find alternative disposal of the U.S. chemical stockpile. The ways, other than incineration, to .destroy or Atmy is the executive agent and program neutralize chemical agents. The Army is manager, with funding provided in a special DoD aggressively pursuing two such possibilities. approptiation. However, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences has The task of disposing of the total stockpile of determined that incineration is a safe and effective some 30,000 tons of chemical agents, involving method of destroying chemical weapons and has about 3.3 million weapons and storage vessels, has also concluded that indefinite storage of chemical been technologically difficult and subject to much weapons presents greater risk than proceeding controversy with respect to safety and assurance of with the incineration technology. NRC is also doing the job in a risk-free way. reviewing additional technologies proposed by industry, but none of these would be near-term A May 1996 report by DoD provided the options. status of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP), declaring it to be operational. The report DoD fiscal guidance for this program beyond also contained recommendations for revisions and FY 1997 would continue a level of effort of $800
20 million to $900 million per year through 2003. Acquisition Reform and Privatization The overall program over 16 years is estimated to he $12.4 billion. A cost reduction study is in Two strong initiatives aimed at both efficiency process, to he provided to Congress with the DoD and cost savings are acquisition reform and budget request for FY 1998. privatization. While not factored into present budget estimates, these programs can have major impacts on both the way DoD does its business Base Realignments and Closures and future costs involved.
BRAC 95, the last of the Base Realignment and Closures commissions sanctioned by Congress, was Acquisition Reform. · DoD has officially completed in mid-1995. discarded the system of military specifications (MilSpecs, which spelled out in detail how Even with BRAC 95, however, there remains contractors were to. design and produce systems, more infrastructure overall than is justified by total fum!sh supplies or provide services) and has fo rce structure. Effort will be needed in the future shifted to commercial specifications and to look for additional consolidations, but will performance standards. New fe deral acquisition require new authorization by Congress. A new regulations published in October 1995 docwnent BRAC is probably several years away. changes in how DoD will buy goods and services, with far greater emphasis on the commercial In the meantime, many BRAC recommen market place. dations have yet to be fu lly implemented; this must be pushed hard if real net savings are to be As pointed out by Defense Secretary Perry, in realized. Up to now front-end costs have exceeded addition to expected cost savings which could be savings, but FY 1997 should start the tum-around. applied to the modernization program, these new policies should greatly facilitate the opportunities Deputy Secretary of Defense Dr. John White, to take advantage of and incorporate advanced before the Readiness Subcommittee of the House technologies into the development of warfighting Committee on National Secmity, on April 16, systems and doctrine. He referred to dus as 1996 stated that FY 1997 marks the cross-over "technology pull." year when the savings from base closures and realignments exceed the costs required to close bases. Over the five-year program submitted to Privatization. Privatization is the other associated Congress last month, BRAC will generate net DoD program. Its emphasis is on having far more savings of $17.8 billion. DoD estimates that the of DoD's support functions performed by the results of the fo ur rounds of base closures and private sector on a contract basis rather than in realigmnents will produce annual savings of about house by military or civilian employees. The $5.5 billion when fully implemented. rationale is that with reduced militruy stmcture and strength, DoD should fo cus on the core capabilities Base realignment accmmts in cluded w1der related to its primary national security missions and military construction in the FY 1997 budget show contract out those things which can be done more ($ billions): efficiently and effectively in the private sector.
...Y95 F'Y96 F\'97 Contracting for service t\mctions is already being done successfully at a number of bases 2.7 3.9 2.5 throughout the world. Tlus policy visualizes a
21 significant expansion. Some of the target areas MANAGEMENT are depot maintenance, automated data processing AND REVOLVING FUNDS (ADP) service support, base maintenance, and other administrative and logistic support activities. DoD has a series of management and revolving funds established fo r financing certain To substantially expand contracting fo r activities. They generally apply to business-like service functions would require some changes transactions and are intended to simplify finance such as the 60/40 rule fo r depot maintenance that and accounting when two or more appropriations requires at least 60 percent of the work to be are involved. Each bas a corpus with funds performed in-house, and the streamlining of such appropriated by Congress and receives reim regulations as Circular A-76. A counterargument bursement from receiving customer appropriations to be recognized is the stated need to maintain a fo r work done or supplies and services provided. minimum corecapability in organic service facilities Three of these -- National Defense Sealift Fund, to ensure a minimum level of essential support. the Defense Business Operations Fund and the This pertains primarily to depot maintenance. Anny Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund -- are summarized here because of their An April 16, 1996 statement by Under impact on mission performance as well as the Secretary of Defense White in discussing these significant dollar levels involved. issues listed three basic considerations (or conditions) fo r outsourcing: National Defense Sealift Fund was established + DoD will not consider outsourcing activities by Congress in conjunction with passage of the which constitute our core warfighting mission; FY 1993 DoD budget for the purpose of funding the sealift program. It started out with $1.9 billion + A competitive market must exist fo r the appropriated prior to FY 1993 plus a $1 billion activity; addition in the FY 1993 budget. + Outsourcing the activity must result in best value fo r the government and therefore the The National Defense Sealift Fund Program U.S. taxpayer. fo r the FY 1997 budget is shown in table 17.
Table 17
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND PROGRAM ACTIVITY ($ millions)
FY95 FY96 FY97 Actual Estimate Estimate
Strategic Sealift Acquisition 677 596 604 Strategic Sealift O&M 637 754 73 1 Ready Reserve Force 43 359 351 Other 69 8
Total 1,357 1,778 1,694
Source: Budget of tbe United States
22 The fund's purpose was for strategic sealift The large activities covered by DBOF are depot acquisition and operation and maintenance, to maintenance, distribution depots, base support, include the Ready Reserve Force. DoD transportation, R&D, information services, com reimburses Department of Transportation O&M missary, and supply management. As reflected in costs for the Ready Reserve Force. table 18, total transactions on the order of $70 billion annually are involved. The new budget authority request for FY 1997 is $963 million. Army Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund finances the procurement and Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) assembly of conventional ammunition for all the finances designated business operations of services and other designated customers. It industrial, commercial and support activities. The provides for loading, assembling and packing operating costs include all applicable administrative, operations, purchases of component metal parts supply, and materiel expenses of the various and explosive materials, quality assurance and activities. The fund in turn allocates these costs to rework requirements. Army is the executive agent. the users. The new budget authority request for FY 1997 The new budget authority request for FY 1997 is $725 million. The program activity is shown in is $948 million. table 19.
Table 18 DEFENSE BUSINESS OPERATIONS FUND PROGRAM ACTIVITY (BA $ millions*)
FY95 FY96 FY97 Actual Estimate Estimate Total Operating Expenses 75,508 70,627 67,441 Total Capital Investment 1,021 1,353 1,443 Total Obligations 76,529 71,981 68,884 *Nwnbers may not add due to row1ding. Source: Budget of the United States
Table 19 ARMY CONVENTIONAL AMMUNITION WORKING CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM ACTIVITY ($ millions*)
FY95 FY96 FY97 Actual Estimate Estimate Load, Assemble and Pack 630 646 566 Components 332 156 158 Quality Assurance and Testing 98 74 75 Rework 83 16 17 Total 1,143 892 815 *Nwnbers may not add due to rounding. Source: Budget of the United States
23 24 THE ARMY BUDGET
The Army's FY 1997 budget of $60.1 billion TOA, which is the total value of the direct in Total Obligational Authority (TOA) represents program and the basis on which the Army 24.6 percent of the total DoD budget and about manages budget execution, will be used in this 3.7 percent of total fe deral outlays. FY 1997 will section fo r analyzing the Army budget. be the 12th consecutive year in which the Army will have a real (inflation adjusted) decline with (Editor's note: The difference between BA and TOA respect to the previous year. The peak post in the Army FY 1997 budget totals is the result of Vietnam year was FY 1985. offsetting receipts of $252 million and has accounting significance only. All of the titled Army budget figures for fiscal years 1995, app ropriations in the Army FY 1997 budget are the 1996 and 1997 are shown in table 20. same fo r both BA and TOA.)
Table 20 ARMY BUDGET SUMMARY BUDGET NUMBERS AND TRENDS ($ billions) FY95 FY96 FY97 The breakdown of the Army budget by title Total Obligational (appropriations groupings) is shown in table 21. Authority (TOA) 64.0 63.1 60.1 These numbers include fu nding for the active Budget Authority (BA) 63.3 62.8 59.8 component and for both the Army National Guard Source: DA and the Army Reserve, each of which has separate appropriations for Military Personnel, Operation
Table 21 ARMY SUMMARY TOTAL OBLIGATION AUTHORITY (current $ billions*)
APPROPRIATION GROUPINGS FY95 FY96 FY97
Military Personnel 26.1 25.7 25.9 Operation & Maintenance 21.4 22.9 21.4 Procurement 6.7 7.5 6.3 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 5.4 4.8 4.3 Military Construction 0.8 0.8 0.5 Army Family Housing 1.2 1.5 1.3 Defense Environmental Restoration Actt 0.4
Total 61.7 63.1 60.1
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t DERA was funded in DoD-wide account prior to FY97.
Source: DA
25 and Maintenance, and Military Construction. materially. The total (military and civilian), Specific appropriations will be identified in later which was 54 percent of the budget in FY discussion. 1989, has now risen to about 60 percent -- this despite personnel strength reductions during A review of Army program balance and the period which means that funding fo r all trends shows changes in the Army's funding nonpay items has decreased accordingly. While pattern during the transition years since FY 1989 military pay can be determined from the military (pre-Desert Storm). There are several ways to pay appropriations, civilian costs are more look at this. One is the ratio of personnel-related elusive, as they are embedded in other Army costs, both military and civilian, to all other costs. appropriations. The largest percentage, however, Another is the relative portion of the budget is covered in the O&M appropriations. devoted to operational costs as compared with investment costs. Military Personnel (MILPERS) and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations clearly From FY 1989 to FY 1997, the Army budget dominate Army spending at this time. It is not will have gone down 38 percent in real terms, the that MILPERS and O&M are out of balance - active military strength by 36 percent, reserve MILPERS covers de facto costs of military component strength by 25 percent, and civilian personnel in the force plus retired pay accrual, employees by 36 percent. Concurrently, Army and O&M not only covers most of civilian pay program balance has changed, as shown in figure 5. but is the key to the readiness of the fo rce. As a consequence, the Army is severely constrained The balance between personnel-related costs with respect to investments, especially equipment and everything else in the budget has changed modernization and other recapitalization.
Fig. 5. Army Program Balance
I FY891 I FY971 O&M O&M MILCON MILCON 33% 36% 2% Family Housing 1% 2% RDA RDA 25% 18% Military Personnel (Procurement plus RDT&E) Military Personnel DERA 38% 43% 1%
Source: DA
26 ARMY APPROPRIATIONS Engagement and Enlargement. The broad tasks outlined in this statement include: The Army obtains its funding in a series of + deterring and defeating aggression in major separate appropriations provided by Congress through the appropriations process. A listing of regional conflicts; the specific appropriation titles by which funds are + providing a credible overseas presence; appropriated fo llows. These will be referred to in subsequent discussion. + countering weapons of mass destruction; + contributing to multilateral peace operations; Army Appropriations + supporting counterterrorism efforts, fighting Military Personnel, Anny drug trafficking, and other national security Reserve Personnel, Army objectives; National Guard Personnel, Army
Operation and Maintenance, Army The analytical basis fo r defense guidance with Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve respect to the size, types and mix of fo rces comes Operation and Maintenance, Army National from the Bottom-Up Review completed in Guard October 1993. This established the requirement that U.S. defense forces be able to deter and, if Aircraft Procurement, Army necessary, win two nearly simultaneous major Missile Procurement, Army regional conflicts. The adequacy of planned Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat forces and allocated resources is measured against Vehicles, Army these criteria. Procurement of Ammunition, Army Other Procurement, Army Following Desert Storm, the Army fo cus changed from a fotward deployed Army to RDT&E, Army primarily a CONUS-based power projection Army. Over fo ur years, II0 combat battalions Military Construction, Army were removed from its European fo rce and Army Military Construction, Army National Guard strength in Europe was reduced from 213,000 to Military Construction, Army Reserve 65,000. Family Housing Construction, Army Family Housing Operation and Debt, Army While the Almy retains fo tward presence No te: For a listing of TOA by individual missions in both Europe and Asia, power appropriation, see Appendix fl. projection is now its ptimary mission. Other missions include a variety of operations other than war, including peace keeping, humanitarian FORCES assistance, and special domestic requirements.
Background and Missions The most demanding projection fo rce· requirements for Anny fo rces stationed in the The Army provides the major landpower United States are defined by the contingency component of U.S. fo rces for national defense. corps, with force closure times of fo ur days fo r a Defense guidance which translates to Army fo rces leading light brigade, 12 days for a leading and resources is based on national security policy, division, 30 days for two heavy divisions and 75 the last version of which was published in days for the corps and corps support conunand February 1996 and titled A National Strategy of with all divisions on the ground.
27 Army Structure The Army National Guard has eight divisions. It also has 15 enhanced readiness combat brigades, The total Army consists of the active not part of the eight Guard divisions, to be trained component, the reserve components (Army Reserve and capable of deployment within 90 days. and Army National Guard) and the civilian segment. Combat fo rce structure and changes since FY The combat structure of the Army is a mix of 1996 are shown in table 22. heavy, light and special operations fo rces. This, along with supporting fo rces and the Army base The Army's corps structure envisions a structure, make up the whole Army. Pacific Corps (HQ I Corps at Fort Lewis, WA), a European Corps (V Corps in Germany), a Although the Army has shifted most of its contingency Corps (XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort fo rces to the United States, it will maintain a Bragg, NC) and a reinforcing corps (III Corps at forward presence in Europe with a corps of two Fort Hood, TX). Table 23 shows the listing of divisions (of two brigades each) and in Korea the fo ur corps and 18 Army divisions (active and with one division (minus). Guard) for FY 1997.
Table 22 Table 23 ARMY COMBAT ARMY CORPS AND DMSIONS FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGES Fiscal Year 1997 Corps UNITS FY96* DELTA FY97* I Corps Active III Corps 4 0 4 Corps V Corps Divisions 10 0 10 Corps Mech/Armor 6 0 6 XVlll Light/Airborne/ Assault 4 0 4 · Active Component Divisions Separate Brigadest 2 0 2 2d Infantry Division (Mechanized) MeehlArmor/ ACR I 0 I 25th Infantry Division (Light) lnfantry/Light/LCR 0 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) Army National Guard 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) Divisions 8 0 8 3d Infantry Division (Mechanized) Meeh/Armor 5 0 5 1st Armored Division Infantry 2 0 2 I st Cavalry Division Light/Airborne/ Assault I 0 I 82d Airborne Division Separate Brigades 6 -3 3 I 0 I st Airborne Division (Air Assault) MeehiArmor/ACR 4 -3 1 Infantry 2 0 2 I Oth Mountain Division (Light Infantry) RO/RU Brigades 0 0 0 Reserve Component (Guard) Divisions MeehlArmor 0 0 0 29th Infantry Division (Light) Infantry 0 0 0 38th Infantry Division Enhanced Brigades 15 0 15 42d Infantry Division (Mechanized) MeehlArmor/ ACR 8 0 8 49th Armored Division Light Infantry 7 0 7 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized)
* Reflects status at year end. 35th Infantry Division t Does not include IIth ACR Brigade and 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized) 3d Infantry Regiment. 34th Infantry Division
Source: DA Source: DA
28 Worldwide division stationing by the end of FY 3d Infantry Division (Mechanized) I 996 is shown in figure 6. The 1 0-division active headquarters and two brigades at Fort Stewart, Army now has fo ur light and six heavy divisions. All GA, one brigade at Fort Benning, GA. divisions will consist of three active component brigades; several divisions will have changed number 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) designations. When this is complete, the active Army headquarters and two brigades at Fort Hood, TX, divisions will appear as fo llows: one brigade at Fort Carson, CO.
Active Army Divisions lOth Mountain Division (Light Infantry) - headquarters and two brigades at Fort Drum, NY 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the I st Brigade, 6th Infantry Division (Light) headquarters and two brigades in Germany, one at Fort Richardson, AK. brigade at Fort Riley, KS. 25th Infantry Division (Light) - headquarters
1st Armored Division - headquarters and two and two brigades at Schofield Barracks, HI, one brigades in Germany, one brigade at Fort Riley, KS. brigade at Fort Lewis, WA.
1st Cavalry Division - headquarters and three 82d Airborne Division - headquarters and three brigades at Fort Hood, TX. brigades at Fort Bragg, NC.
2d Infantry Division (Mechanized) 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) - headquarters and two brigades in Korea, one headquarters and three brigades at Fort brigade at Fort Lewis, WA. Campbell, KY.
Fig. 6. 18-Division Stationing by the End of FY96
Reinforcing 1 Corps 1AC Division Strategic Reserve 15ARNG Enhanced 8 ARNG Divisions Forward Presence
Brigades • 1 Corps Pacific 2 Divisions
Forward Presence 1 Division
• Brigades in transition to enhanced status
Source: DA
29 Infrastructure 125,000 spaces or about 25 percent of the Army active military authorization. In summary, Army Discussion so far has dealt with the Arm y's end strength is allocated as shown in table 24. operational forces. This is often referred to as the TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) Army and designates the specific personnel Table 24 authorized by grade and skills as well as ARMY END STRENGTH equipment authorizations fo r each type of unit. This is the operational portion of the Army and Operational Forces 310,000 currently represents about 63 percent of the active + Combat strength. + Combat Support + Combat Service Support In addition, there are two other segments which absorb people within the active end Infrastructure 125,000 strength of 495,000. + Recruiting and Training + Schools One is referred to as TTHS (for Trainees, + Doctrine and Requirements Transients, Holdees and Students), which includes + Installation Management those individuals who are not available for + Acquisition mission or unit duty. This is a dynamic group + Logistics Support which is constantly changing, but the total holds + Headquarters quite steady at about 60,000 fo r the Army at any one time. There is little that can be done to TTHS 60,000 materially change this as recruiting, individual + (Not available for training and those moving between assignments specific mission use) plus other fact-of-life conditions dictate the Source: DA numbers.
The rest of the personnel are accounted for in This chart shows that of the 495,000 total, a major segment called infrastructure. This is there are only 435,000 soldiers available for also called the TDA (for Table of Distribution mission use. Also, there are other directed and Allowances), with each element organized personnel requirements, such as the Army's and approved fo r particular missions at particular allocated spaces fo r joint assignments and the places. While infrastructure includes all major additional support to the reserve components headquarters, it . should not be considered as required by title XJ (5,000 additional officers and synonymous with overhead. This part of the NCOs), which are a drain on mid-level officers Army performs many essential functions which and senior NCOs. are absolutely vital to supporting the Army total mission. It includes recruiting, training and The basic question: Is a 495,000 active end equipping soldiers; running the Army schools and strength now sufficient fo r Army structure and Army training centers; running the installations; Army mission? By the normal rules of allocation, developing doctrine and future requirements; with I 0 active divisions, Army strength should be managing the acquisition process from development 30,000 to 40,000 higher. While ready availability through procurement and distribution; and providing of qualified RC personnel can be a small overall logistics support. The Army cannot operate compensating factor, such requirements as joint and sustain itself without these fu nctions. At the assignments and additional RG support count the present time, this segment accounts for about other way.
30 Numbers are important, and end strength is fa r Special operations units are called upon more imp01iant than just the budget equation. constantly in military operations other than war. Adequate personnel strength has a direct bearing The operating tempo fo r SOF is heavy. In FY on the assurance of tra ined and ready operational 1995, SOF had more than 2,700 deployments to fo rces and on the capability of supporting fo rces to 137 countries. do their jobs. Infrastructure can and should be reviewed carefully fo r possible efficiencies, but Funding fo r the SOF operations and investment arbitrary cuts on the basis of reducing overhead cost are independent of the service budgets. alone must be carefully avoided. Management visibility and control of SOF resources was established by Congress under Major Force Program (Special Operations Special Operations Forces 11 Forces), with direct budget authority vested in the commander in chief, U.S. Special Operations Not shown on the combat structure chart (table · Command. 23) are the Army special operations fo rces (SOF) with their unique groupings of combat and combat units designed fo r special employment. The Army Engaged These SOF fo rces are assigned to the Army Special Operations Command, headquartered at Fort The Army today has about 138,000 soldiers at Bragg, NC. This command, with a strength of about any one time providing overseas presence or 26,000, is the Army component of the U.S. Special involved in some fo rm of contingency operations Operation Command, one of the unified conunands short of war. Bosnia is a classic example. Other under DoD. The Army Special Operations Com current missions include Sinai, Macedonia, mand provides trained and ready SOF fo r a variety Kuwait, Haiti, Partnership for Peace exercises, of missions and is normally employed as part of a joint task fo rces for the drug war, and hunicane joint force under a theater CINC. and flood relief. This involves about 40 percent of the Army's fighting fo rces. Maj or elements under the Army Special Operations Command are: Total missions have increased on the order of 300 percent from a few years ago, and the + The JFK Special Warfare Center and School; operating tempo for many elements of the fo rce + Army Special Forces, organized into five remains vety high. The fighting soldier today can active and two Army National Guard groups; now expect to spend on average about 138 days a year away from his bunk or home station. + a Ranger regiment consisting of three active battalions; The RC are also involved more than ever in + Special Operations Aviation; supporting forward presence and meeting con tingency needs. Every operation since Desert + Psychological Operations, organized into three Storm has involved the use of RC personnel. groups (one active and two in the Am1y Reserve); + and Civil Affairs (CA), consisting of three MANPOWER USAR CA brigades, 24 USAR CA battalions and one active CA battalion. Strength and Budget
Ninety-seven percent of the Army's civil Figures 7 through 9 show past (actual) and affairs units and 70 percent of the psychological budgeted (FY 1996 and FY 1997) personnel end operations units come from the Army Reserve. strengths for FY 1989 to FY 1997.
31 Fig. 7. Active Component (thousands) 800 770
700
611 600 572
500
400 �----L-----L-----L-----�--��--�----�----� 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Ye ars Source: DA
Fig. 8. Reserve Components (thousands)
800 776
600
457 437 441 426 410 397 ...... 5 400 �37... 373 367 • .. 299 300 302 276 260 241 230 200 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Ye ars
I• Total •ARNG • USARI
Source: DA
32 Fig. 9. Civilians*
410-
334
310 --
210 �----�----�--�----�----�----�----�--� 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Ye ars
• Reflects end strength totals as derived from OSD-directed work years. Source: DA
These curves are all flattening out. Endstate table 25. Military personnel appropriations proj ections are: represent 43 percent of the Army's FY 1997 budget total. • Active component: The AC reaches· its endstate objective of 495,000 in FY 1996, but Table 25 has received FYDP guidance fo r a further reduction to 475,000. Final decision on this ARMY PERSONNEL has not been made. If directed, it will APPROPRIATIONS* probably be a FY 1999 decision. ($ billions)
+ Army Reserve: The USAR budget calls fo r FY95 FY96 FY97 FY 1997 end strength of 215,000 with an objective end strength by FY 1998 of Military Personnel, 21.01 20.30 20.58 208,000. Army (MPA)
+ Army National Guard: Budgeted end strength Reserve Personnel, 2.17 2.12 2.04 fo r FY 1997 is 367,000 which is its objective Army level. National Guard 3.45 3.24 3.24 • Civilians: The budget is based on a 252,000 Personnel, Army end strength in FY 1997 with fu rther reductions to 236,000 over the fo llowing fo ur Total MILPERS 26.63 25.67 25.87 years. * Includes retired pay accrual Army fund levels fo r military personnel in the Source: DA military personnel appropriations are shown in
33 Costs of civilian personnel are spread across a seems to be doing some good. Some success in number of appropriations, but roughly 77 percent advertising is reflected in the latest Youth Attitude of the total is paid by O&M, about 11 percent tracking survey, which shows a somewhat more reimbursed to the Defense Business Operations positive propensity to enlist than before and an Fund, 9.5 percent by RDT&E, and the rest by increased awareness of the Army's opportunities. Military Construction and Family Housing. The At least the message is getting out that, despite the direct pay of civilians equates to about 13 percent drawdown, the Army is still hiring. of the total Army FY 1997 budget. With the increased recruiting challenge fo r FY 1997, the Am1y is requesting a higher recruiting Recruiting and advertising budget -- a total of $228 million, which is $39 million more than the FY 1995 base. For the last completed fiscal year (FY 1995), This needs full support, as the Army today is the active component brought in 62,900 soldiers, dependent on quality and cannot afford to lower meeting or exceeding quality objectives. Some 95 quality standards to meet quantity goals. percent were high school diploma graduates and 70 percent scored in the high test categories of I to lllA. The reserve components also did credibly well. Quality of Life The Anny Reserve, with over 48,1 00, met quality goals and was only slightly shy on quantity. The Quality of life is a term fo r a mix of things Army National Guard, with 56,700 accessions, affecting pay and benefits, living and working missed both standards by only a small margin. environments, support services, and special recreational or self-improvement opportunities for So far in FY 1996, recruiting seems to be service members (including retirees) and their going fa irly well. Based on first-half results, the families. active component is approximately on target with 33,500 gains, buoyed by the addition of350 active Once individuals are recruited and on board, recruiters and increased advertising funds. The subsequent decisions to either reenlist or leave the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, Army are based on two essential fa ctors: (1) job however, are lagging and will probably not meet satisfaction and (2) quality of life. With 65 quantity goals fo r FY 1996. percent of the soldiers now married, family attitudes count heavily in career decisions. The Army recognizes that future recruiting is Quality-of-life factors are high on the checklist in going to be more difficult. For one thing, the making these decisions and are, therefore, good numbers needed annually will be higher than the investments in the retention of a highly qualified goals fo r FY 1995 and FY 1996. With the end of and technically proficientfo rce. the drawdown required accessions are 70,000 fo r FY 1996 but go up to over 90,000 in FY 1997 and There are a number of things which come each year beyond to replace losses on a one-for under this umbrella, but the basic ones are one basis. With polls showing a significant drop adequate pay and benefits (including quarters among the eligible age group in their propensity to allowance); adequate housing; health care; enlist fo r military service, recruiting is bound to be protection against erosion of retired pay and increasingly tight. This means the need fo r benefits; protection of commissary and exchange increased recruiting effort. service; off-duty education; and Army community and soldier support activities. In recognition of the recruttmg situation, Congress increased funding fo r advertising and Secretary of Defense Perry has highlighted recruiter support fo r the past two years, which quality-of-life issues in the defense budget. This
34 was reinforced by a special report on the subject, TRAINING dated October 1995, under the chairmanship of fo rmer Secretary of the Army John 0. Marsh. The Army must be a trained and ready force today and in the future to carry out the range of Health care emerges as the number one family potential missions from operations short of war to concern, followed closely by pay, housing and major regional conflicts. High standards of retired benefits. training are essential and must be maintained.
Direct funding for health care is in the DoD The training program incorporates all aspects budget but not segmented or allocated by service. of individual training, unit training and leadership To provide a cost-effective health care system for development. all beneficiaries, DoD has developed and is implementing TRICARE, a managed care Funding for training is contained in the O&M program. It brings together the health care appropriations. This is why any serious raid on delivery systems of each of the services and the the Army's O&M funds is likely to put a big Civilian Health and Medical Program of the squeeze on training resources, particularly field Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). TRICARE, training, which bas some measure of scheduling which will be administered through 12 regions, is flexibility (i.e., it can be postponed). Training supported in the budget but is not yet a proven lost, however, can never be effectively recouped. system. A major deficiency is its lack of authority to cover and therefore get reimbursed for treatment Training costs for individual training of Medicare-eligible personnel. Approval of conducted in the schoolhouse or at training centers subvention, or the authority for the Health Care come under the O&M, Army (OMA) account Finance Administration (HCFA) to reimburse the identified as Budget Activity 3: Training and military health care system for treatmentprovided Recruiting. This includes funding for accession to Medicare patients, is urgently needed. training (both enlisted and officer), basic skill training and advanced training. Resources are Military pay is recognized in the budget by a provided for the operation and maintenance of six three percent increase for FY 1997. But there is Army training centers, 30 Army schools and still no progress on closing the gap with equivalent colleges, and four Department of Defense and joint civilian pay scales. service schools and colleges, as well as for civilian education and for off-duty militaryeducation. Housing improvements are reflected in both Military Construction and Family Housing Total funding for this budget activity budgets as covered earlier in the DoD pottion of (excluding recruiting, advertising and examining) this paper. The Army FY 1997 budget requests is about $2.87 billion for FY 1997. This covers $75 million for both new family housing and base operation costs for training centers and major construction improvements in the Family institutions. Housing appropriation, and $232 million for troop housing and community support in the Military The other part of the training picture is that Construction appropriation. conducted in units at their home stations, at one of the combat training centers or as part of training As for retired benefits, the budget covers cost exercises. The funding for such training is of-living adjustments (COLAs) at presently included under OMA Budget Activity 1: Operating approved levels and schedule. The issue of Forces. For FY 1997, $1.41 billion is included in reduced or delayed COLAs could well resurface, .the budget for force-related training and $55 however, as part of the budget balancing drill. million for joint exercises.
35 The Army's combat training centers (CTCs) terms of both sophistication and scope. are an important factor in the overall unit training Simulations allow the Army to exercise scheme. These provide the most realistic combat - increasingly complex warfighting systems. Live training possible, short of actual combat, and are simulations augment field training with realism the best index of unit training readiness. Budgeted and provide feedback to commanders. Virtual CTC schedules for FY 1997 include: simulations allow repetitive content training.
+ National Training Center (NTC), Fott Irwin, The combat training centers are prime CA: 27 battalions in 12 rotations. examples. They are well instrumented and can + Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort accurately simulate the effects of artillery, naval Polk, LA: 23 battalions in 10 rotations. gunfire, mortars, close air support, mines, and Scenarios at JRTC include peace enforcement nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The operations, and all rotations at the JRTC upgraded Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement include special operations forces. System (MILES) can provide near-miss indicators and casualty and damage assessment in real-time. + Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC), Germany: 15 battalions/rotations. The plan is The Combined ArmsTactical Trainer (CATT) to train all battalions in Europe each year as will develop virtual, networkable simulators for part of a brigade task force. mechanized infantry, armor, aviation, engineer, field artillery and air defense artillery. Using this + Battle Command Training Program (BCTP), Fort system, commanders will be able to synchronize Leavenworth, KS: eight rotations for division all battlefield operating systems. and corps staffs. The National Guard enhanced readiness brigades participate in BCTP with their The overseas deployment training program is associated active component units. one in which the reserve components participate. About 45,000 RC soldiers participate in overseas Joint exercises, normally conducted through the deployment training annually. Not only does this Chaim1an, Joint Chiefs of Staff, give Army forces the provide useful experience for deployment itself, it opportunity to train under the operational control of permits a working experience and relationship warfightingcommanders in chief (CINCs). with the wartime gaining commander while The Partnership for Peace (PFP) Exercise productive work is also accomplished. Program, begun in 1995, continues as a top The much-cited operating tempo (OPTEMPO) priority NATO political/military tmttative. represents an average level of training activity Scenarios focus on noncombat operations. One against which resources can be calculated. It is such PFP exercise, Cooperative Nugget 95, was not by itself a readiness measure, but with the successfully conducted at the Joint Readiness OPTEMPO model, costs can be estimated. There Training Center at Fort Polk, LA in August 1995. are two parts to the OPTEMPO funding estimate. It involved 14 East European countries, Canada One is for direct OPTEMPO costs such as and the United Kingdom. petroleum consumption, repair parts and depot Training funds used by the ARNG and USAR maintenance; the other is for indirect OPTEMPO come from their respective O&M appropriations. related costs. OPTEMPO, for the purpose of this For FY 1997, the budgeted amounts for overall budget, is based on active combat force usage of training operations are $1.74 billion for the ARNG 800 tank miles per year for a tank battalion and and $.58 billion for the USAR. 14.5 flying hours per crew per month. This does not consider the use and effect of simulators. A The Army is increasing the use of simulators new operational readiness methodology is being and simulations to expand training opportunities in developed.
36 The Army is in the process of establishing a • Personnel readiness depends on having in Total Army \ School System (TASS) with place in the unit the right number and right integrated Army, Army Reserve and Army kind of people with the proper skills, fu lly National Guard schools. The purpose is to reduce trained and ready to execute missions. The duplication, share information and resources, and fu ture depends on the ability to recruit, train make desirable organizational changes. When and retain quality people, which means a accomplished, this will provide a total Army continuing need to fo cus on recruiting schoolhouse that shares training, uses certified incentives and quality-of-life issues. instructors, teaches standard courses, and meets • Force readiness today depends on units the same certification requirements. Distance organized, equipped and trained to perform learning technology will be expanded. TASS the Army's combat missions as well as should be implemented and in use by FY 1998. missions other than war. The future must react to changes in doctrine and resulting READINESS organizational and equipment changes.
Force readiness is the primary mission of the There is no single place in the Army budget Army's combat and supporting forces in that uniquely identifies readiness. Resources that peacetime. It connotes the overall ability to man, pertain directly to fo rce readiness receive the equip, mobilize, deploy and sustain fo rces in the most attention. Operation and Maintenance is accomplishment of their missions. generally considered the readiness appropriation, as it fu nds many of the elements identified with Force readiness of any unit is best defined as readiness, such as entry, institutional and unit the ability to do the job it was designed to do. training. It also covers supply (other than This has special importance in the Army's investment procurement), equipment maintenance projection force role where quick response and and base support. Things related to OPTEMPO rapid execution are keys to success. are O&M fu nded.
When O&M is eroded or underfunded, the A number of elements contribute to the accounts that have direct application to readiness readiness equation: personnel readiness, equipment will invariably be affected. Both the FY 1994 and readiness, training readiness and leadership. Some FY 1995 supplemental requests to cover unbudgeted of these can be measured effectively and some contingency costs were examples of this. Some cannot, leaving a lot to subjective judgment. FY 1996 supplemental actions are still pending. Nevertheless, fa ilure to achieve and maintain the necessary standards for any of these elements leads to diminished fo rce readiness overall. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) Readiness is a perishable asset and needs constant attention and refurbishment. It takes Operation and Maintenance (O&M) covers a people, effort, time and resources. Readiness is wide band of operational support activities, not only a "today" thing, it incorporates a "future" including the pay for about three-quarters of all dimension as well. For example: Army civilians. There are three separate O&M appropriations: Operation and Maintenance, + Equipment readiness requires the right kind of Army (OMA) for the active fo rce; Operation and equipment properly maintained, in condition Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMNG); to fight, and in the hands of troops. Future and Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve readiness depends on modernization and (OMAR). These in tum are subdivided into upgrading ofweapons and equipment. budget activities as shown in table 26.
37 Table 26
ARMY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ($ millions*)
FY9S FY96 FY97 Operation and Maintenance, Army BA1: Operating Forces 9,798 10,514 9,249 BA2: Mobilization 591 739 586 BA3: Training and Recruiting 2,977 3,078 3,170 BA4: Administration and Servicewide Support 6,166 5,006 5,110 Total Active 19,534 19,336 18,114
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guardt BA 1 : Operating Forces 2,250 2,254 2,056 BA4: Administration and Servicewide Support 187 179 153 Total Army National Guard 2,436 2,433 2,209
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reservet BA1: Operating Forces 1,105 1,000 971 BA4: Administration and Servicewide Support 135 110 114 Total Army Reserve 1,240 1,110 1,084
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t Training and Recruiting is included in BA 1 for the ARNG and the USAR. Source: DA
The total O&M request for FY 1997 is about Budget Activity 4 (Administration and 36 percent of the Army budget. O&M fo r FY Servicewide Support) fu nds such important 1997 maintained high priority fo r those things support activities as transportation, central supply, directly affecting near-term readiness, but in other servicewide communications, and installation areas, particularly base operations and real support relating to its own activities. property maintenance, funding is very tight. Some of the activities covered by the O&M Those portions of O&M most closely budget affecting sustainment and the well-being associated with near-term readiness are fo und of the supported fo rces are: under Budget Activity 1 (Operating Forces) and Budget Activity 3 (Training and Recruiting). • Depot Maintenance. Included under BA4, Altogether, these accounts for FY 1997 total the FY 1997 budget requests $845 million fo r about $15.7 bill ion or 72 percent of the O&M the active components. The current requirement dollar. Categories identified with training use is estimated at $979 million, which leaves a about 30 percent of the O&M total. These shortfall of about $135 million. This backlog statistics incorporate all the military components. is within manageable bounds.
Budget Activity 2 (Mobilization) is a fa irly The situation with the reserve components new category covering mobilization fu nding. appears to be more difficult than this. The This involves $586 million fo r FY 1997, of which Army Reserve and Army National Guard about 75 percent supports operations in line with combined FY 1997 depot maintenance budget projection fo rce requirements. is about $82 million, while the backlog is
38 perhaps double that. The situation is made For budget purposes, the concept of more difficult by reorganizations and shifting modernization fo.cuses on resources for equipment of equipment. development and acquisition. It encompasses those approptiations to which dollar figures are + Base Support. Base support costs are fo und attached. The general term applied to this in all the budget activities that have installation grouping in DoD is Research, Development and responsibilities. Base support includes, in Acquisition (RDA). It includes what is earned in addition to real property maintenance, the the budget fo r the ROT&E appropriation and the funding fo r such things as laundry and various procurement appropriations. dry-cleaning services, dining fa cilities, security and counterintelligence operations, child This paper addresses the subject in these development, youth services, etc. O&M, Anny budget tenns: Modernization equals RDA, which base operations are shown in the FY 1997 is the sum of the RDT &E and the Procurement budget at $5.47 billion, which includes $1.3 appropriations. billion fo r real property maintenance. Altogether, the Anny will devote some 10 RDA is recognized as the area of most critical percent of its FY 1997 budget to base support. concern in the Anny's FY 1997 budget. Not only This is an area considered to be chronically have the totals fo r Army procurement and RDT&E underfunded, particularly fo r real property gone down drastically in real tenns since FY 1985, maintenance. The Anny could effectively use but the ratios of procurement to ROT&E have another $350 million in FY 1997 funding for this also narrowed significantly. This is illustrated purpose and similar funding for the next few graphically in figure 10. years to achieve a stable long-term maintenance level. This is exclusive of family housing, which This ratio has been as high as 4:1 and as low as has its own appropriation. 1.2: I over the 12-year period. The ratio for a healthy reinvestment program should be on the order of 3:1, so it is evident that the Anny is seriously MODERNIZATION underinvesting in procurement fo r the long haul.
Modernization connotes future changes and The current Anny modernization program improvements in fo rce capabilities, to include seeks firstto improve or upgrade existing systems, doctrine, structure and tools of the trade, i.e., when cost effective, and then fo cus on new weapons and equipment -- all fo cused on procurement needed to replace technologically providing superiority over a real or assumed obsolete assets. The overall approach is threat. This is driven by the melding of several summarized as fo llows: impottant fa ctors, primarily the threat, the state of technology, doctrine, and the intellectual concept • selective upgrade; of how best to exploit future capabilities. + maximum horizontal technology integration; The Army's long-tenn modemization require + investing in programs that reduce operation ments are being developed and defined fo r the and support costs; and 21st centuty through a process of exercises and + when necessary, development and procurement experiments known as Force XXI. It will of new systems. capitalize on using infonnation-age technology and will be facilitated by the use of a series of The objective is to obtain and keep battle laboratories to test, evaluate and synchron technological superiority. ize fo r future combat. Digitization and horizontal integration of all systems are key goals and are The next two sections show in more detail the part of overall Force XXIdevelopment plans. Anny Procurement and ROT&E budgets.
39 Fig. 10. Ratio of Procurement $ to RDT&E $
Constant FY97 $ billions 30 �Procurement 25 -- -·------IDIRDT&E
20 . ------· -- .- -- ·------·-
15
10
5
0 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Ye ar
Note: The two curves are separate and not additive. Source: DA
PROCUREMENT fo r fiscal years 1995 through 1997. This is fo llowed by a brief description of selected The Army budget includes five separate systems under each of the appropriations. A more procurement appropriations listed as: (1) Aircraft, comprehensive listing is fo und in Appendix II. (2) Missiles, (3) Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), (4) Ammunition and (5) Other Table 27 Procurement, Army (OPA). PROCUREMENT SU�RY BY APPROPRIATION The funding profile fo r total Army procurement ($ millions*) from FY 1989 through the current budget submission is shown in both current and constant dollar terms in Appropriation FY95 FY96 FY97 figure 11 (following page). Using constant dollar Aircraft 1,019 1,364 971 comparisons, the drop in buying power from FY Missiles 803 839 766 1989 through FY 1997 is 64 percent. WTCV 1,143 1,598 1,102 The major fo cus is on system improvements Ammunition 1 '1 12 1,031 853 and upgrading existing systems to include the Other Procurement 2,610 2,677 2,627 Abrams tank upgrade, Apache Longbow modifica tions, Bradley Fighting Vehicle modifications and Total 6,687 7,509 6,319 Kiowa Warrior modifications. * Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Table 27 shows the budgeted amount for each Source: DA of the separate Army procurement appropriations
40 Fig. 11. Army Procurement Funding
$billions 20 ....- Procurement Current $ 17.5 • FY 1996-Constant $
15
10 ---·
5 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years Source: DA
Aircraft Procurement and related support equipment and fac ilities. The Army budget requests $97 1 mill ion fo r FY 1997. This appropriation includes the procurement of The fu nding profile fo r aircraft from FY 1989 is aircraft, aircraft modifications, spares, repair parts shown in figure 12.
Fig. 12. Aircraft Procurement
current $ billions 5.0
4.0 3.7
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years Source: DA
41 The only major new aircraft production in FY The AH-64 Apache is the Army's primary 1997 is fo r 28 Black Hawk utility helicopters, with attack helicopter, designed to operate day and funding of $236.3 million. Other significant night and in adverse weather conditions. It is aviation items in the budget are all modifications, equipped with a target acquisition designation to include AH-64 Apache, Apache Longbow, sight and a pilot night-vision sensor. Modification Guardrail and Kiowa Wanior. Descriptions of funds are fo r improvements on reliability and selected aviation items fo llow. operational enhancements based on lessons leamed fr om Desert Storm. Selected Items Aircraft ($ millions) Apache Longbow UH-60 Black Hawk Utility Helicopter (Advanced Procurement) FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt 60/306.7 60/391.8 60/236.3 /117.0 /417.7 /379.5 The Black Hawk, the Army's primary tactical The Apache Longbow will provide Longbow lift and utility helicopter, is used for air assault, air Hellfire (fire-and-forget) capability. It consists of the cavalry and aeromedical purposes. With AH-64 aircraft, modified to effectively integrate modifications, it serves in command and control, the Longbow radar and missile. electronic warfare and special operations roles. This is fo r continued production to meet already Longbow consists primarily of the integration validated needs. of mast-mounted control radar and a fire-and-forget Hellfire missile onto the Apache. The Longbow's digitized target acquisition provides automated Guardrail Common Sensor (GRICS) detection, location, classification, prioritization (Modifications) and target handover.
FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Armed OH-58 Kiowa Warrior /56.2 /30.6 FY95 FY96 FY97 The GR!CS system is to provide a fixed-wing Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt communication and electronic emitter intercept /217.6 /64.3 /6.1 and direction-finding capability. It is a corps-level aitbome signal intelligence (SIGINT) collection and The Kiowa Warrior is the cunent · armed location system. These fundspertain to upgrading reconnaissance scout helicopter. It has a GR!CSsystems with the latest technology. mast-mounted sight that houses a them1al imaging system, a low-light television and a laser rangefinder designator. Its highly accurate AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter navigation system pennits precise target location (Modifications) that can be handed off to other engagement systems or can provide autonomous designation FY95 FY96 FY97 for Hellfire or other laser-guided precision Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt weapons. The system has essentially reached its /51.8 /46.5 /43.3 limit of cost effective improvements.
42 Missile Procurement Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)
This appropriation includes missiles, missile FY95 FY96 FY97 modifications, spares and major parts, along with Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt support equipment and fa cilities. The FY 1997 148/115.0 97/121.3 97/92.8 budget requests $766.3 million, primarily fo r the procurement of Hellfire missiles, the Javelin A TACMS is a ground-launched missile Advanced Antitank Weapon System-Medium system consisting of a surface-to-sutfa ce guided (AA WS-M), MLRS rockets, and the Army missile with an antipersonnel and antimateriel Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The fu nding configuration. ATACMS missiles are fired from profile is shown in figure 13. modified MLRS launchers. This system can provide deep fires under nearly all weather Missiles under Theater Missile Defense are conditions, day or night, at ranges beyond the funded in the BMDO budget (covered separately), capability of carmons and rockets. which includes the PAC-3 fo r the Patliot as well as development of the Medium Extended Air A product improvement effort will integrate Defense System (MEADS) (fonnerly the Corps Global Positioning System (GPS) technology into Surface-to-Air Missile, or CorpsSAM) and the the missile guidance system fo r more accurate theater high altitude area defense system orientation in position and azimuth. FY 1997 will {THAAD). Descriptions of selected items fo llow. be the sixth year of fu ll-scale production.
Selected Items Missiles ($ millions) HellfireMissile System
MLRS Rockets FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt 1,600/127.5 1,102/239.5 2,805/357.6
/25.9 1,326/44.6 852/24.4 The Hellfire provides heavy antiarmor capability for attack helicopters.
MLRS Launchers This entry includes the combination of Longbow Hellfire missiles and Laser Hellfire II FY95 FY96 FY97 missiles. Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt The new Longbow Hellfire system consists of 148/112.6 120/121.3 97/92.8 a millimeter-wave radar seeker installed on a MLRS is a free-flight artillery rocket system Hellfire missile to be launched from the AH-64 that can provide large volumes of firepower in a Apache Longbow helicopter. This provides a short period of time, supplementing cannon fire-and-forget capability. artillery fires. A program is now under way to add the extended-range multiple launch rocket system Hellfire II is the latest laser-directed version (ER-MLRS). That will extend the current range of that homes on a laser spot that can be projected the basic rocket from about 32 km to about 50 km. fr om ground observers, other aircraft or the An improved launcher mechanical system (ILMS) launching aircraft itself. It is presently used as the will mitigate electronic obsolescence and provide main armament on the AH-64 Apache. The two growth for futuresystems. are complementary.
43 Fig. 13. Missile Procurement
current $ billions 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years Source: DA
Javelin Advanced Antitank Weapon The only new production start for WTCV in FY 2 System-Medium (AAWS-M) 1997 is the Command and Control Vehicle (C V). The Armored Gun System (AGS) announced as a FY95 FY96 FY97 new start last year was later canceled as an Army Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt program. Major items (all modifications) include 872/212.6 1,010/200.9 1,020/162.1 the Abrams tank, the M 1 06 (Paladin) howitzer, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle series and the M88A l This is the Army's new man-portable antitank RecoveryVehicle. Summarydescriptions of selected weapon. The system consists of a reusable items under this appropriation fo llow. command launch unit (CLU) and a sealed missile in a disposable launch tube assembly. The CLU Selected Items Weapons and Tracked has a day/night sight permitting operation under Combat Vehicles (WTCV) adverse weather or light conditions. The Javelin, ($ millions) weighing 49.5 lb., has a range of 2,000 meters and uses fire-and-forget technology. Improved Recovery Vehicle (M88 Modification) Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles Procurement FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles /36.8 /55.6 /28.6 (WTCV) procurement includes tracked and combat vehicles, weapons, other combat vehicles This is a product improvement of the existing and repair parts. The Army FY 1997 budget M88A 1 recovery vehicle. The improved recovery requests a total of $1.102 billion under this vehicle is designed to provide independent appropriation, the bulk of which ($ 1 .028 billion) is recovery of track vehicles weighing up to 70 tons. designated for tracked combat vehicles. A funding It will safely tow, winch and hoist Abrams tanks. profile since FY 1989 is shown in figure 14.
44 Fig. 14. WTCV Procurement
current $ billions 4.0
3.0 2.6
2.0
1.0
0.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years Source: DA
M1 Abrams Tank Modifications Upgrade programs are to convert Ml tanks to the M 1 A2 configuration with improved armor, a FY95 FY96 FY97 120mm gun, a commander's independent thermal Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt viewer, an improved commander's weapon station, /37.1 /50.1 /50.2 position navigation equipment and digitized communications.
Abrams Upgrade Advance Procurement Bradley Base Sustainment Program FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt /181.8 /30 1.5 /259.3 /136.1 /133.9 /134.4
Abrams Upgrade Regular Procurement Bradley Series Modification FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt /98.2 /263.6 /205.2 /88.6 /85.5 /83.6 The Abrams tank series provides the main battle tanks for U.S. armor fo rces. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS) provides mechanized infantry and cavalry units The modifications are to meet validated needs. with protected cross-country mobility and They include such programs as the Vehicle Inter mounted firepower. The M2 Bradley is an communications System and kits for the Precision infantry fighting vehicle, and the M3 is a cavalry Lightweight Ground Positioning System Receiver. fighting vehicle.
45 The Army is in the process of converting all Howitzer. l55mm Ml09A6 (Paladin) A 1 s to the A2 configuration. Modernization Modification includes upgrading first-generation Bradleys to FY95 FY96 FY97 the M2A2 or M3A2 configuration. The Army Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt will retrofit a laser rangefinder, global positioning system, combat identification, driver's thermal /226.9 /291.9 /75.0 viewer and a missile countermeasure device. The Paladin (Ml 09A6) is a major upgrade of the M I 09 series 155mm self-propelled howitzer. 2 Command and Control Vehicle (C V) It includes an on-board ballistic computer and navigation system, secure radio communications, FY95 FY96 FY97 an improved cannon and gun mount, automatic Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt gun positioning, driver's night vision capability 5/49.0 and built-in test equipment. The Paladin will provide primary indirect fire support for armored 2 This is a new production start. The C V and mechanized infantry divisions. provides a fully tracked armored command and control platform fo r heavy forces during mobile operations. It provides staffs at battalion through Ammunition Procurement corps a survivable and mobile vehicle with digital 2 This appropriation covers funding fo r the command and control communications. C V procurement of ammunition end items and accommodates the Army Battle Command System ammunition base support. (ABCS) and gives on-the-move capabilities for maneuver commanders. The funding profile since FY 1989 is shown in figure 15.
Fig. 15. Ammunition Procurement
current $ billions 4.o · r------�
3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years
Source: DA
46 The budget request fo r FY 1997 is for $853.4 targets and fires an explosively fo rmed penetrator million. Of this, $675.7 million is for ammunition through the top of the target. itself. The other $177.7 million is for production base support, including $86.6 million for ammunition Overall training requirements are being met, demilitarization. A listing of ammunition categories but fu ture years will require more funding to is shown in table 28. preclude an erosion of war reserve, as well as for selective procurement of preferred (high technology) Table 28 munitions to provide adequate precision strike capabilities. ARMY AMMUNITION ($ millions*) Item FY95 FY96 FY97 Other Procurement, Army (OPA) 208 222 119 Small Arms OPA covers three major categories: ( 1) Mortars 70 117 110 tactical and support vehicles, (2) communications Tank 234 199 248 and electronic equipment and (3) other support Artillery 105 103 89 equipment. A fu nding profile since FY 1989 is Rockets 107 27 27 Miscellaneous 21 15 20 shown in figure 16. Other 62 96 41 Mines/Countermines 49 47 21 The OPA budget request fo r FY 1997 totals Production Base Support 256 205 178 $2.627 billion: $522 million fo r tactical and support vehicles, $1,621 million fo r communications and Total 1,112 1,031 853 electronics equipment, $423 million for other * Numbers may not add due to rounding. support equipment and $62 million fo r spares. Source: DA The bulk of this appropriation is fo r Of the total FY 1997 ammunition portion, communications and electronics, with priority to $409 million is for training ammunition and command, control and communications capabilities $250 million for war reserve stock. The largest plus expanded use of automation and enhanced ammunition segment is fo r tanks, with a FY 1997 digitization. A description of selected items included · request of $200.4 million. in the budget under this appropriation fo llows.
Sense and Destroy Armor Munition Selected Items Other Procurement, Army (SADARM) ($ millions) ($ millions) High Mobility Multipurpose FY95 FY96 FY97 Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt FY95 FY96 FY97 10/29.8 71/41.1 22/60.3 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt
This is for low-rate production on the Sense 1,352/117.7 1,586/125.6 1,126/96.8 and Destroy Armor Munition (SADARM) HMMWV is the Army's light fo ur-wheel-drive included under the artillery line. SADARM is a tactical vehicle. It can be configured for a number fr re-and-forget sensor-fuzed submunition designed of uses, such ·as a cargo/troop carrier, armament to detect and destroy armored vehicles, especially carrier, shelter carrier, ambulance and TOW and self-propelled artillery. SADARM is delivered by Stinger weapons carrier. 155mm artillery projectiles or by MLRS. Once dispensed from its carrier, the submunition detects
47 Fig. 16. Other Procurement, Army
current $ billions 5.0 4.5
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years Source: DA
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) (HETS} and the Heavy Expanded Tactical Truck (HEMTT), described as fo llows: FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt • PLS consists of a 16.5-ton tactical vehicle composed of a truck (I Ox 1 0 with central tire 3,352/370.2 977/144.1 1,603/ 233.1 inflation}, self-load/unload capability, a 16.5- ton companion trailer and demountable cargo This consists of a fa mily of vehicles based on beds. It is a key transportation component fo r a common truck chassis fo r the new medium ammunition distribution. trucks being acquired and fielded. Several body configurations are used to meet various needs in • HETS consists of a tractor (8x8 with central the 2 1/2- to 5-ton range. These are badly needed tire inflation) and a 70-ton semitrailer. This to replace a large number of overage trucks provides transportation and evacuation fo r the currently in the fleet that have become main battle tank. maintenance intensive with uncertain reliability. • HEMTT is an 8x8 truck which comes in various configurations including cargo with Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV) crane, wrecker, fuel tanker and tractor.
FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Defense Satellite Communications Ground System /15.6 283/122.5 196/163.3 FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt This consists of the Palletized Load System (PLS), the Heavy Equipment Transporter System /103.5 /72.4 /97.5
48 The Defense Satellite Communications operating on a simulated battlefield. The CCTT System (DSCS) provides wide band and antijam function is to train Ml Abrams tank and M2/3 satellite communications supp01ting national Bradley fighting vehicle crews on individual and 3 strategic and tactical C 1 requirements. The Army collective tasks and skills on a simulated, is responsible fo r developing and acquiring the interactive, real-time basis. ground segments to support DSCS.
Joint Surveillance Target Attack System Single Channel Ground and Airborne (Joint STARS) Army Radio System (SINCGARS) FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt /55.2 /80.4 /85.4 23,850/344.8 28,623/353.2 26,209/297.5 Joint STARS (also known as JSTARS) is a SINCGARS is the Army's VHF-FM radio joint Air Force and Anny program that provides system providing voice and data communications both tactical air and ground commanders with near for tactical command and control. It has real-time, wide area surveillance and deep frequency-hopping and jam-resistant capabilities targeting data on both moving and fixed targets. and has been highly reliable in field use. Its The Air Force is responsible fo r the Joint STARS configurations include manpack, vehicular and aircraft, as modified, to conduct the surveillance airborne models. Over 60,000 have been fielded mission. The Atmy is responsible fo r the Ground within the Army, including the training base. An Station Module. improved model will go on· the market this year.
Reserve Component Automation System Advanced Field Artillery Tactical (RCAS) Data System (AFATDS) FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt /135.3 /80.6 /72.6 118/9.6 331/28.5 187/31.6 RCAS is an automated infonnation system to AFA TDS provides the automated fire support support the reserve components. Now being command, control and communications portion of fielded, it is designed fo r management of day-to the Anny Tactical Command and Control System day operations and mobilization planning. (ATCCS). Funds are also included in ROT&E.
Forward Area Air Defense (FAAD) Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) Ground Base Sensor (GBS)
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt
/3 1.8 /30.7 /88.5 10/63.7 24/61.9 16/51.2
The CCTT program comprises a group of fully The FAAD GBS consists of a radar sensor interactive networked simulators and command, with its prime mover. The sensor is an advanced control and communications workstations rep licating three-dimensional air defense phased array radar vehicles and weapon systems of a company or team with a range of 40 km. Capable of operating day
49 and night and under adverse weather conditions, Table 29 summarizes the Army RDT&E funding it provides 360-degree coverage for acquisition by budget activity fo r fiscalyears 1994 through 1997. and tracking. · The GBS contributes to the digital battlefield by automatically detecting, tracking, The Army FY 1997 program of $4.3 billion classifying, identifyingand reporting targets. represents about 7.2 percent of the Army budget and a 12.3 percent share of total ROT&E fu nding in the DoD budget. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
This is the second part of the RDA equation. The Science & Technology (S&T) portion - Army funding fo r RDT&E from FY 1989 through the total of Budget Activities 1, 2, and 3 from the FY 1997 submission is reflected in figure 17. table 29 -- includes the development of
Fig. 17. Army RDT&E Funding Profile $billions 8.0 • RDT&E Current $ 7.1 . • FY97 Constant $
4.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Fiscal Years Source: DA
Table 29 ARMY RDT&E (current $ millions) Budget Activities FY95 F¥96 FY97
i. Basic Research 214 187 204 2. Applied Research 599 446 448 3. Advanced Technology 747 585 449 4. Demonstration/Validation 446 460 485 5. Engineering Manufacturing Development 1,563 1,157 1,064 6. Management Support 1,273 1,173 1,029 7. Operational Systems Development 561 730 642 Total 5,403 4,738 4,321
Source: DA
50 technologies not directly tied to specific acquisition expand the Army's capability to conduct operations programs and covers programs in basic research, in a variety of combat scenarios and battlefield exploratory development and advance development. environments. It provides enhanced reliability and crew survivability. The program is currently in the The $1.1 billion budgeted for S&T is a little development phase with two prototype aircraft more than 25 percent of the total FY 1 997 RDT&E being built. The first flight of prototype 1 occurred total. While this ratio is about normal, it fa ils to 4 January 1 996. The program also includes six meet DoD guidance of two years ago to maintain Early Operational Capability (EOC) aircraft that S&T at a constant (inflation adjusted) level. will be evaluated in a field environment prior to low-rate initial production. Funding is included in the FY 1997 for continuing the development of JSTARS, Comanche, the Brilliant Antiarmor (BAT) Brilliant Antiarmor (BAT) Submunition submunition, Crusader and SADARM programs. Also, operational systems development fu nds are FY95 FY96 FY97 budgeted to continue the Combat Vehicle 115.1 194.8 180.4 Improvement Program and for Horizontal Battlefield Digitization. The BAT is a dual-sensor (both acoustic and infrared) antiarmor submunition that can Management support absorbs a significant share, automatically seek out, identify and destroy about 24 percent, of the ROT&E budget for FY moving vehicles. Carried by a variant of the 1997. In addition to base operations and environ Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), its mental compliance costs, the Atmy must cover the primary mission is fo r deep attack of moving cost of operating the Kwajalein national test range as armored vehicles. well as Atmy test ranges and facilities.
There are no new major initiatives in the FY Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) 1997 program; the overall budget level fo r FY 1997 has dropped some 24 percent in real terms from the FY95 FY96 FY97 FY 1995 level and 1 1 percent below FY 1 996. 57.8 70.6 64.3
A brief description of selected Army RDT&E MLRS is the Army's self-propelled rocket items fo und in the Army budget fo r fiscal years system designed to attack deep targets. The 1995, 1996 and 1997 fo llows. RDT&E funding is fo r an MLRS product improvement program to extend the range of the Army Highlighted RDT&E Items rocket system and upgrade fire control and ($ millions) launcher mechanized systems. RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter
FY95 FY96 FY97 Advanced Field Artillery Tactical 474.9 290.9 288.6 Data System (AFATDS)
The RAH-66 Comanche armed reconnaissance FY95 FY96 FY97 helicopter is one of the Army's top priority 50.7 35.4 39.5 development projects. It will provide the Army with new and expanded capability to conduct AFATDS provides the automated fire support armed reconnaissance both day and night in command, control and communications portion of adverse weather conditions and will greatly Army Battle Command System (ABCS). It will
51 provide integrated and automated support for station. It also provides for digitized communications planning, coordinating and cataloging all five capability and for nuclear, biological and chemical support assets. AF A TDS is a fu ndamental part of protection. the digital battlefield. It will replace the present tactical fire direction system. Sense and Destroy Armament Missile (SADARM) Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) FY95 FY96 FY97
FY95 FY96 FY97 40.5 16.2 10.1
174.9 193.3 265.5 SADARM is a fire-and-forget multisensor smart munition designed to detect and destroy Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) armored vehicles, primarily self-propelled artillery. includes both the new Crusader 155mm self It is effective in all weather or terrain. SADARM propelled howitzer and its armored resupply is delivered to the target area by 155mm artillery vehicle (RSV). This constitutes the indirect fire projectiles. Extensive engineering has been done support system of systems fo r providing direct toward integrating SADARM into the MLRS and general support fires to maneuver fo rces. It rocket. The SADARM system uses multiple will incorporate advanced technologies to sensors and is designed to defeat targets in severe increase accuracy, rate of fire, survivability, clutter, signature reduction and jamming mobility and ammunition handling. It will have countermeasures. an automated ammunition handling system and advanced fire control system. Battlefield Combat Bradley Upgrade Program Identification System (BCIS)
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97
76.3 115.1 87.1 20.2 21.9 16.8 .
This is the RDT&E portion of the program BCIS is a point-of-engagement, millimeter that provides for the upgrading of first-generation wave, question-and-answer type of system to Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the current M2A2 significantly reduce the risk of fratricide during configuration as well as a new M2A3 upgrade to military operations. It is resistant to countermeasures provide digitized communications and improved and deception. Systems are being built for Brigade target acquisition capability. Task Force XXI and will be tested as a stand alone system for value on the digitized battlefield.
M1 Tank Upgrade Program Maneuver Control System (MCS) FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97 10.4 38.2 71.5 36.7 49.5 29.1 This is the ROT&E portion of the program that will upgrade older M I Abrams tanks to the MCS will provide tactical commanders and MIA2 configuration, to include improved armor, their staffs (corps through brigade) automated, a I20mm gun, a commander's independent thermal near real-time systems for planning, coordinating viewer and an improved commander's weapon and controlling tactical operati�ns. It will
52 integrate the maneuver functions with the The GSM is a mobile multisensor ground command and control systems of the other station that receives, displays, processes and functional areas -- fire support, air defense, disseminates targeting information. Block II intelligence, electronic warfare and combat GSM will be the common ground station and a service support. key node on the digitized battlefield.
Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Digitization Ground Environment FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97 84.7 99.1 110.2 68.9 54.4 40.7 Digitization is the application of common This involves the development of ground technologies across multiple systems. It involves the subsystem equipment fo r the Defense Satellite use of digitized communications fo r the integration Communications System. As executive agent, the of operations on the modern battlefield. It incor Army will continue to modernize fixed satellite porates horizontal integration of information nodes ground terminals. to provide real-time information and data exchange for a seamless battlefield architecture.
All Source Analyses System (ASAS) BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (BMD) FY95 FY96 FY97 41.1 51.2 36.2 In addition to systems fu nded by the Army budget, the Army is heavily involved in the ASAS, the intelligence electronic warfare development of BMD technologies and systems subelement of the Army Battle Command System funded through DoD's Ballistic Missile Defense (ABCS), will provide combat commanders with Organization (BMDO). the source intelligence needed to view the battlefield and conduct the land battle. It provides The Army's Space and Strategic Defense the capability to receive and correlate data, Command (USASSDC) is the agent fo r a number of produce enemy situation displays, disseminate BMDO programs related to ground-based air and intelligence information, nominate targets and missile defense systems. For FY 1997, the Army manage collection requirements. will be the agent for about $1.7 billion (or 60 percent) ofBMDO total funding for that year. Much of this is related to those systems for which the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Army will become a principal user. Descriptions of Radar System (Joint STARS) the major programs in this category fo r which the Army has mission requirements fo llow. FY95 FY96 FY97
37.8 27.5 9.9 BMDO Programs of Special Army Interest (RDT &E $ millions) This is the ground station module (GSM) fo r the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Medium Extended Air Defense System (Joint STARS or JSTARS). Joint STARS is a joint (MEADS) Air Force/Army program. The Joint STARS system (formerly Corps SAM) can detect, locate, track, classify and assist in FY95 FY96 FY97 attacking both fixed and moving targets both day arid night and in nearly all weather conditions. 14.2 19.7 56.2
53 MEADS will provide low- to medium-altitude Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) air and theater missile defense to maneuver forces FY95 FY96 FY97 and other fo rward deployed units, filling an existing void in theater missile defense. The 344.8 378.0 376.6 system will consist of missiles, launchers, sensors 3 and C 1 (command, control, communications, The Patriot missile system provides high- and intelligence) elements. It will be deployed and medium-altitude defense against aircraft and operated by both the Army and the Marine Corps. tactical ballistic missiles. The Patriot Advanced MEADS will provide a 360-degree defense against Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile will provide attacks by a wide variety of tactical missiles and advanced antimissile capability to the currently other air-breathing threats. fielded system. The primary mission of the PAC-3 missile is to kill tactical ballistic missiles. It also will have the capability to counter cruise Theater High Altitude Missile Defense (THAAD) missiles and aircraft.
FY95 FY96 FY97 In addition to ROT&E, the BMDO budget 622.4 554.8 481.8 provides for the procurement of PAC-3 missiles at $25 1 million in FY 1 995, $285 million for FY THAAD will provide high-altitude air defense 1996 and $2 1 5 million fo r FY 1997. against ballistic missiles. The system will consist 3 of missiles, launchers, C 1 elements, Ground Based Radar and support equipment. The missile FACILITIES will be a hypervelocity kinetic energy weapon that will kill by direct collision. The Ground . Military Construction Based Radar provides surveillance and detection The Army has three separate appropriations of incoming tactical ballistic missiles. The under the Military Construction heading: Military THAAD system is a theater missile defense Construction, Army (MCA) for the active force, (TMD) weapon system designed to intercept MCNG for the Army National Guard and MCAR short- and intermediate-range missile threats. for the Army Reserve. Table 30 summarizes the budgeted funding for these appropriations.
Table 30
ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (TOA $ millions)
Appropriation Title FY95 FY96 FY97
Military Construction, Army* 551.3 633.8 434.7 Military Construction, Army National Guard 188.1 137.1 7.6 Military Construction, Army Reserve 57.4 72.7 48.5
Total 796.8 843.6 490.8
* Does not include BRAC funds, which are a DoD appropriation but become part of Army TOA when provided for execution.
Source: DA
54 Looking at the FY 1997 MCA request, the new fa cilities include barracks, training simulators, Table 31 infrastructure for strategic mobility and an overseas prepositioning site. The major portion ARMY FAMILY HOUSING (53 percent) is for troop housing and community ($ millions) support. Lesser amounts go to operation and FY95 FY96 FY97 training (12 percent), supply and administration (15 percent), with all other (including planning) at Army Family Housing 170 1 I 7 75 20 percent. Construction 1,059 1,336 1,212 The budget provides a very low level of Army Family Housing Operations* construction fu nding fo r the reserve components, especially the ARNG, and applies this only to the Total 1,229 1,453 1,287 most critical administrative, training and main tenance facilities. In past years, Congress has * Includes leasing. usually inserted additional construction projects Source: DA fo r the Guard and Reserve and can be expected to do so again in FY 1997. The Family Housing budget includes construction fo r a limited number of new houses By any measure, this is a very austere and revitalization of a number of houses as well construction budget. The total of $491 billion as the operation and maintenance of some (including the reserve components) is at the 137,000 fa mily housing units worldwide. lowest level in real (inflation adjusted) terms since the end of World War II. It clearly fails to Army fa mily new housing construction fo r provide fu nding fo r reconstitution .of the Army's fiscal years 1995 to 1997 is for replacement of assets on any reasonable cycle. uneconomically repairable units and does not increase the overall housing inventory. A significant segment of DoD construction funding goes fo r base closure costs. While held For FY 1997 the budget includes $38.3 in the DoD account, base closure fu nds are million fo r 282 new units -- 54 at Schofield allocated to the services during the year of Barracks, HI, 88 units at Fort Bragg, NC, and 140 application. This should be about $382 million units at Fort Hood, TX. In addition, $34 million fo r the Army in FY 1997. will go to the modernization and upgrading of a number of existing family units.
Family Housing DoD initiatives to improve military family housing will have a large impact on the Army, Family Housing is the other important part of which has the most family housing units. The bulk the facilities picture. The Family Housing of the Family Housing budget is devoted to appropriation provides for both construction and operations, with the largest portion (41 percent) the cost of operating the Army's family housing designated for maintenance. While this has been inventory, including debt payment and Home about the normal share fo r maintenance, the owners Assistance. maintenance status of housing in recent years has deteriorated. In conjunction with the revitalization A summary of Army Family Housing (AFH) program, maintenance needs increased attention in budget numbers is shown in table 31. the future.
55 ARMY PROJECTION CAPABILITY along with its nmmal combat support elements and a 30-day corps floating supply package. The The projection Army depends on its ability to use of prepositioned ships for delivery of deploy the necessary fo rces and equipment from equipment to Southwest Asia in October 1994 home bases rapidly enough to meet potential clearly proved their worth. The current fleet of mission requirements. The key to this is strategic ships for this pmpose now numbers 14. Some of mobility. these will be replaced by more modern roll-on/roll-off ships later and the total number Anticipated m1ss1ons are fra med m the increased to 16. Bottom-Up Review along with lift requirements identified in the most recent Mobility Requirements Other actual or planned prepositioned Study. packages of equipment worldwide include two separate heavy brigade sets in Central Europe; a For the Army, projection objectives are based heavy brigade set in Italy; a heavy brigade set in on the first-and-most-demanding-contingency Kuwait; a mechanized battalion in Qatar to grow scenario, the one that would require a cotps of up into a full brigade set, plus a division base; and a to five divisions. Most pressing is the timing and heavy brigade set in Korea. One more brigade set sequence needed to ensure stopping the enemy is planned in Southwest Asia, with the specific and a rapid military buildup, in that order. This location yet to be determined. scenario would require a lead brigade on the ground by C+4 days, a lead division by C+12, two Since 1992, the Army has been in the process armored or mechanized divisions fi·om the of reorganizing its war reserves and operational continental United States by C+30, and a project stocks. Stockpiles have been delinked five-division corps with a cmps support command from specific warfighting commands. Total (COSCOM) in place by C+75, along with quantities have been materially reduced and sufficient supplies to sustain the force until the stockage placed into common user stockpiles: regular lines of communication are working. CONUS, Europe, prepositioned afloat, Korea and Southwest Asia. In addition, there will be 16 There are multiple factors in the strategic operational project stocks designed fo r specific mobility equation, including airlift, sealift, mtsstons. The Army War Reserve Program is prepositioning of equipment and materiel (both further described in figure 18. afloat and ashore), and facilities in the United
States that support deployment. War Reserve Secondary Items (WRSI) - including rations, clothing, tentage, packaged The Army depends on all of these and is a petroleum products, barrier materials, medical major user of both airlift and sealift for the success materials and repair parts -- are an important of contingency missions. However, the budget for segment of prepositional stocks. They are strategic mobility is not centralized. The Army is essentially starter stocks to bridge the gap until responsible for funding its own prepositioning as fo llow-up supplies are available. WRSI stocks are well as for infrastmcture requirements in the not adequate today to meet the two-MRC scenario, United States. Airlift is covered in the Air Force but there is no funding in the FY 1997 budget to budget, and sealift is funded through a special increase these stocks. The total deficit is estimated National Defense SealiftFund. at about $2.4 billion.
The Army is an active player in prepositioning, In the continental United States, the Army has an essential patt of the whole mobility scheme. It has taken a hard look at its infrastructure needs to established a prepositioned - package fo r the facilitate deployment and support projection equipment needed by an armored brigade afloat, missions. This involves the movement from
56 Fig. 18. Army War Reserve (AWR) Program
AWR-3 -- Afloat AW R-5 -- SWA o 14 ships Indian/Pacific Oceans (grows to 16) o 1 bde set -- Kuwait AWR-1 -- CONUS o 1 bde set o Mech bn TF -- Qatar o Sustainment o Port and CSS unit sets (grows to 1 bde set and div o OPROJs o 30 days of supply corps base -- Qatar in 1998) sustainment o Proposed 1 bde set ashore . o OPROJs -- location TBD
AWR-4 -- Pacific AWR-2 -- Europe o 1 bde set -- Korea o 2 bde sets -- BeNelux o OPROJs -- Korea and Japan o 1 bde set -- Italy o WRSA -- Korea (equip/ammo) o 1 FA bn set -- Norway o WRSA -- Thailand (ammo) o Sustainment and OPROJs o WRSA -- Israel (ammo)
Legend AWR -- Army War Reserve OPROJ -- Operational Project Stocks WRSA -- War Reserve Support for Allies Source: DA installations and depots to airports and seaports. This will use automation to bridge the seams It requires good rail systems, modern airfield and among strategic, operational and tactical logistics. port facilities, and installations with adequate Total Asset Visibility (TAV), a major Army storage capability. Also needed are facilities program now under development, provides quick that make these installations good power identification and visibility of materiel in process, projection platforms. The Army has identified in storage and iri transit. The initial implementation over $700 million in infrastructure improvements of this will be in Korea. TA V is a quantum step at installations and depots in the United States for above the logistics tracking system used during this purpose, to include rail upgrades, airfield Desert Storm. improvements, and enhancements in warehousing and other deployment facilities. The Army also plans to purchase 16,000 shipping containers and ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS over I ,000 special rail cars to improve its capability. The funding for these improvements The Army environmental program is part of will be spread over several years. the overall DoD program discussed earlier. The fo ur basic areas cover compliance; restoration, Other important initiatives relate to the prevention and conservation. The Army is logistics support structure. Key to this are mandated to comply with fe deral, state and local initiatives under the umbrella of the Total requirements as well as applicable host-nation Distribution Program (TOP) with associated environmental standards. Army funding in the in-transit visibility for equipment and materiel. FY 1997 budget is shown in table 32.
57 Table 32
ARMY ENVIRONMENTALFUNDING ($ millions)
FY95 FY96 FY97
Restoration 831 832 672 (from Defense Environmental and Restoration Account and Base Realignment and Closure Account)
Compliance/Conservation/Prevention!fechnology 783 789 753 Source: DA
Army restoration funding comes from either are being cleaned up with an innovative the Defense Environmental and Restoration biological process first fielded at the Louisiana account or from front-end costs associated with Army Ammunition Plant. Explosive con BRAC (shown as a cost under Military Con tamination in the soil is being eaten by struction). The rest is included in other Army microorganisms. appropriations, mostly O&M, but with $54 million RDT&E funding in the FY 1997 budget for environmental compliance research. ARMY RESERVE COMPONENTS SUMMARY -Since 1995 the money fo r actual cleanup has exceeded the cost of studies. For the past year the When the Army reaches its projected end Army goal for restoration (actual cleanup) is 65 state, all the Army components added together percent. will total a military strength of slightly more than one million. Of these, about 54 percent will be in New environmental technologies are beginning the Army National Guard (ARNG) or the Army to pay off. A few illustrative examples: Reserve (USAR).
• At Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX, use of a Both the Army National Guard and the Army new, improved process to coat and harden Reserve receive separate appropriations from equipment without cadmium or chrome is Congress. These appropriations are incorporated eliminating the hazardous waste associated into the Army's overall budget. with cadmium and chrome. Changes have taken place since 1989 in • Army's Armament, Munitions and Chemical structure, strength and warfighting missions ofthe Command reduced hazardous waste in its reserve components. There has been a shift in the paint-stripping operations by almost 95 fo cus between the two, with emphasis on combat percent between 1985 and 1992. Also, wastes elements for the Army National Guard and on produced in plating were reduced by more combat service support for the Army Reserve. than 88 percent. The Army National Guard no longer has • At Umatilla Army Depot Activity, OR, roundout brigades for the active divisions. Instead explosives washed out of obsolete munitions it has 15 designated enhanced readiness brigades.
58 Eight division headquarters are retained, but the 15 enhanced brigades are separate from the Table 33 divisions. These brigades will be given the ARNG SUMMARY necessary personnel, training and equipment for ($ millions) deployment in 90 days. They are expected to reach fullreadiness by 1999. FY95 FY96 FY97
The USAR will carry the bulk of the Army's Military Persmmel, 3,446 3,242 3,242 support fo rces, with special priority on units for ARNG( to tal direct the Force Support Pool, which are those units program) needed fo r the projection fo rce in a regional crisis. O&M,ARNG 2,436 2,433 2,208 While adjusting to these changes, the reserve Military Construction, 188 137 8 components (RC) are in the process of reducing ARNG strength from 776,000 in FY 1989 to 575,000 by the end ofFY 1998. Combat support and combat Source: DA service support are now heavily in the reserve components and have an important role in the sustainment of Army forces in contingencies or Table 34 future regional conflicts. ARNG FORCE STRUCTURE AND MANNING HIGHLIGHTS Previous discussion of the Army's budget in this paper incorporated all Army components FY95 FY96 FY97 (active, Army National Guard and Army Reserve). This section fo cuses specifically on budget-related Force Structure aspects of the reserve components. Divisions 8 8 8 Separate brigades 13 6 3 Enhanced brigades 0 15 15 Army National Guard Armored car regiment I 0 0 RO/RUbrigades 7 0 0 Three appropriations apply directly to the ARNG: (1) Military Personnel, (2) Operation and Manning (thousands) Maintenance and (3) Military Construction. The Military end strength 374.9 373.0 366.8 Paid drill strength 336.7 334.6 328.8 Army National Guard is also funded by the Full-time support* individual states for state-related functions. These Active Guard and 23.4 23.4 22.9 three appropriations fund specific requirements as Reserve defined in appropriation language but should not Military technicians 25.2 25.5 25.5 be confused with the total costs. Some support costs, including most equipment acquisition, are ARNG provided by others. ARNG statistical highlights * In addition, the has full-time 390 are shown in tables 33 and 34. active component support estimated at military personnel fo r each of the above years and DA civilians totaling 496 for FY In addition to the 15 enhanced readiness 1995 and 574 fo r FY 1996 and FY 1997. brigades, the ARNG has a heavy share of the Army's combat support, especially artillery, Source: DA combat engineers and air defense.
59 Army National Guard Operation and Main tenance fu nding fo r FY 1997 requests $2.208 Table36 billion, which includes $1.74 billion fo r training ARMY RESERVE HIGHLIGHTS operations ·and $196 million fo r base operations. FY95 FY96 FY97 Facilities are an underfunded area. The FY Manning (thousands) 1997 budget fo r real property maintenance Military end strength 241.3 230.0 215.0 requests only $48 million while the estimated Paid drill strength 217.4 207.9 195.5 backlog of real property maintenance and repair Full-time support* (BMAR) goes up to $359 million. Likewise, the Active Guard and military construction request is for only a meager Reserve 11.9 11.6 11.6 $8 million while the ARNG carries an estimated Military technicians 6.7 6.6 6.8 construction backlog of more than a billion DA civilians 1.3 1.2 0.9 dollars. Admittedly, much of this is on hold until Individual Mobilization 8.0 there is a better fix on units and locations and Augmentees (IMA) 12.0 10.5 determinations are made on the best use of Individual Ready 376.8 360.1 342.5 existing facilities. If past years are any indication, Reserve (IRR) Congress will add something to the Army * In addition, the USAR has full-time National Guard construction budget. active component support estimated at 810 military personnel in FY 1995, 1,200 for FY 1996 and 1,000 in FY 1997. Army Reserve Source: DA
The USAR has three direct appropriations: (1) Military Personnel, (2) Operation and The mission of the USAR is to provide trained Maintenance and (3) Military Construction. In and ready federal reserve fo rces that can be employed addition, the USAR is provided equipment and at the direction of the National Command Authority. receives support from other Army sources. The USAR is the principal provider to the Army of combat service support. It is particularly important USAR budget highlights are summarized in that the USAR units, designated in the Force Support tables 35 and 36. Pool and subject to employment on short notice for contingency operations, be in an especially high state Table 35 of readiness.
USAR BUDGET SUMMARY ($ millions) A major organization change by the USAR this past year was the activation of I 0 Regional Support FY95 FY96 FY97 Commands to replace 20 stateside Army Reserve Commands. The USAR FY 1997 structure will now 2,174 2,122 2,044 Reserve Personnel, have 1 0 Regional Support Commands and seven Army (total direct training divisions, with an end strength of215,000. program)
O&M, Army Reserve 1 ,240 1,1 10 I ,084 Over half of the Army terminal and transport capability, the bulk of maintenance and engineer Military Construction, 57 73 48 backup support, the bulk of medical and hospital Army Reserve augmentation, and virtually all civil affairs units, water supply battalions and chemical brigades come Source: DA from the Army Reserve.
60 That portion of the USAR budget most closely + Recruiting and retention is surfacing as a tied to readiness is Operation and Maintenance, potential problem. While FY 1995 was a Army Reserve (OMAR). OMAR is budgeted for successful year, there are good indications based $1.084 billion in FY 1996. Of this, the largest on mid-FY 1996 statistics that objectives may portion ($578 million) is for training and operations. not be met this fiscal year and will probably be The rest goes for base support ($258 million), even more difficult to achieve in FY 1997. depot maintenance, recruiting and retention, and
· administration. Two fa ctors are apparent. One is a decline in RC input from the active fo rce, essentially due Maintenance and repair funding fo r real property to a smaller pool from which to draw. The is not adequate, with a request of $5 1 million for FY second fac tor is a decline in retention rates, 1997 and a backlog of more than $230 million. probably resulting fr om turbulence of the past year or so. Recruiting efforts will have to be As with ARNG, the USAR construction budget expanded: is at a low funded level, with an unfunded backlog
estimated inthe hundreds of millions of dollars. Here The reserve components are playing a stronger again, transition changes combined with base realign role in contingency operations as well as ments require comprehensive reviews to optimize use peacetime engagement and civil assistance of existing fa cilities and detetmine future require operations. The Sinai mission in 1995 was a ments before large investments can be made. special example, with a mixed battalion of 21 percent regular, 71 percent Army National Guard and eight percent Army Reserve; another rotation Additional Notes on Army RC Programs is being planned. RC elements have participated in all recent joint contingency operations. Now that most basic fo rce decisions have been made and projected end strengths should be Out-of-the-country trammg involves the reached by 1998, the most important thing fo r the reserves to an extensive degree. Statistics for FY well-being of the RC is stability. They are locked 1995 show more than 17,000 Army Reserve with the active component in a common national soldiers on training operations or missions in 74 security mtsston and must be given the countries and 24,000 Army National Guard opportunity, training and resources to carry out soldiers on training missions in 58 countries. their part of the plan.
Special actions are underway in the Army to A couple of problems fa cing the RC relate to increase the field artillery support provided by the (1) modernization and equipment compatibility Army National Guard. Two-thirds of the Army's and (2) recruiting and retention, discussed below. total field artillery will be provided by the Army + Equipping the RC with modem equipment National Guard as of the end of FY 1999. With compatible to the active with whom they will respect to air defense artillery, a parallel initiative, operate and support is a significant problem. when completed, will have the Guard providing all There is simply not enough available equipment of the echelons above division short-range air or funding to accomplish this quickly. For defense battalions. maximum compatibility of high-priority units, the best approach (now being fo llowed) is By the end of the transition and related fo rce based on a fo rce packaging match. This uses adj ustments, fully 70 percent of Army combat the first-to-fight principle, applied equally to support and combat service support will be active and reserves fo rces. provided by the reserve components.
61 BUDGET ASSESSMENT
THE DOD BUDGET Base support for fac ilities, especially real property maintenance, is not favorable, as The DoD budget submitted fo r FY 1997 did reflected in various service budgets. Aging not have the benefit of a signed FY 1996 facilities and low levels of new construction have appropriation bill when fo rwarded to Congress. It driven up the backlog of real property was, however, vety close to the total level maintenance. More direct funding is needed, as is projected fo r FY 1997 in the five-year extension acceleration of the elimination of old and decaying provided with the FY 1996 budget. There were no fa cilities. They are simply not cost-effective to surprises. maintain.
The budget was presented and discussed in a Something more effective still needs to be multiyear context, FY 1997 being one year of a done in the handling of unprogrammed costs fo r six-year program. contingency operations, these are heavy consumers of O&M dollars. The FY 1997 budget The major disadvantage in trying to analyze request for $1.1 billion for FY 1996 ongoing the entire program at this time is the lack of a firm contingency operations is only a partial approach. balanced budget agreement through 2002. The Since contingencies similar to those of the past president and the Republican-led Congress have few years will probably continue, a more certain thus far fa iled to agree on how the cuts will be and responsive funding procedure should be made. This becomes critically important to DoD adopted. Otherwise, there will be constant O&M because the balanced budget plan will determine turmoil at the end of each fiscal year. the amount of funding allocated to defense over the period. Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA). To provide high levels of readiness with Comments on the DoD budget as a whole: constrained DoD budgets, investments in modernization were drastically curtailed. FY 1997 Military Personnel. The budget adequately illustrates this vividly by budgeting only $39.9 provides fo r the authorized fo rce, including a three billion for procurement as compared to a JCS percent pay raise. Earlier problems which could endorsed target level of $60 billion a year. RDA is surface again during this fiscal year include badly underfunded. The Secretary of Defense additional military-related personnel costs recognizes the situation and is planning an resulting from unbudgeted contingencies. upswing in modernization spending starting in FY 1998, but procurement will not reach the $60 O&M. The budget emphasizes readiness and billion level until FY 2000. Even then, it will quality of life, and DoD gets good marks on both need a source of dollars not clearly apparent at this counts. As pointed out by the Secretary of time. Defense, the budget now reflects higher ratios of O&M dollars to military strength (even when The Gap Problem. The "gap," defined as the adjusted for inflation) than at any other time shottfall between total dollars required to support during the past decade. Some of this results from the military strategy coming from the Bottom-Up spreading fixed O&M costs over fewer active Review (including other unanticipated contin personnel, but the priority is real and should be gencies) compared with defense fundspro jected in recognized as such. "the six-year program, is a very real problem. The
63 specific amount of this gap depends upon the problem over the past few years as a result of assumptions made and the specific time segment unbudgeted contingency operations. considered. The 1995 Government Accounting Office (GAO) number of $150 billion is a O&M is generally adequate fo r operational reasonable order of magnitude; other independent purposes barring unforeseen contingency costs. assessments have been even higher. The gap Funding for activities directly related to near-term problem is going to plague DoD in its future readiness enjoyed a high priority. Where O&M efforts to match budget top lines with mission fa lls short is in the fa cilities (base support) area, requirements, especially with the primity being patticularly fo r real property maintenance, where given to balancing the fe deral budget. How large and growing backlogs exist. The major defense is addressed in the balanced budget uncertainty with O&M has been and remains the agreement is critica)ly important. problem of unbudgeted contingencies which consume O&M funds at a significantly greater rate Congressional Action on the Budget. The FY than that of normal operations and training 1997 defense budget is currently being processed activities. The Army must rely on supplemental by Congress; a completed bill should be passed requests or internal reprogramming actions to before the end of this fiscal year. Some defense cover these costs. When costs have to be absorbed increases are expected, primatily fo r modernization, internally, other accounts are curtailed, and when but the total will be controlled by the dollars the payback from supplemental action lags, the allocated to defense in the congressionally Atmy must borrow against the fo urth quarter. approved budget resolution fo r FY 1997. The DoD and Congress are cognizant of the continuing defense budget must then be tailored to fit. problem but haven't yet agreed on a streamlined solution. Projected increases can be a mixed blessing and should be viewed with caution. They may Research, Development and Acquisition provide desirable acceleration and future cost (RDA), which includes both Procurement and economies, but an increase in FY 1997 probably Research, Development, Test and Evaluation offers no more total resources fo r defense in the (RDT&E), is clearly deficient. The $10.6 billion balanced budget environment through FY 2002. fo r RDA must be increased significantly, on the Specific increases have value only if applied to order of $3 billion to $4 billion annually, if the approved programs and validated requirements. If Army is to meet modernization objectives for the they involve unplanned and additive programs, 21st century. Allocation of the $10.6 billion is as their multiyear costs can seriously erode or delay balanced as can be expected within current more critical programs. priorities and dollar constraints. The pace of modernization, however, is fa r too slow if the digitization program and other enhancements THE ARMYBUDGET inherent in Force XXI are to materialize within a reasonable time period. Otherwise, the technical Funding for personnel is adequate to meet the enhancements visualized in the Bottom-Up programmed strength for both military and civilian Review will not be realized. personnel based on currently authorized entitlements and benefits. Unprogrammed events The Military Construction program represents of any magnitude involving the movement and use a very small portion (less than one percent) of the of personnel where special pay or additional Army budget. The major priority is fo r the troop entitlements are involved would have to be housing program. In fact, over 50 percent of the covered in a supplemental request or by MCA program is devoted to troop housing and reprogramming actions. This has been a recuning community support in response to quality-of-life
64 initiatives. The Army now lacks a long-term ments fo r economic efficiencies, program reconstitution program, so MCA funding must enhancements and critical shortfalls, with grow in the fu ture. special emphasis on night vision, digitization and C41 (Command, Control, Communi Funding fo r fa mily housing is pretty much in cations, Computers and Intelligence) in line with previous years. Over 90 percent of the support of Army XXI objectives; total appropriation goes fo r operations, with the rest allocated for construction. As with other + about 22 percent for infrastructure military fa cilities, the backlog of fa mily housing revitalization, the big driver here being real maintenance and repair is the major funding property maintenance, plus barracks con problem. New initiatives are just getting offthe struction and fa mily housing; ground with respect to major improvements and · rehabilitation of the Army's entire fa mily housing + seven to eight percent for specific readiness inventory, plus selected new construction on a · items, including strategic mobility enhance replacement basis. ments, end item management and RC support.
The FY 1997 Army budget is now undergoing AUSA does not offer a separate list this year. the congressional review process. There are The relative allocation shown above clearly acknowledged shortfalls, particularly in the areas parallels the soft spots in the Army FY 1997 of modernization, as well as concerns in various budget. There are many valid candidates for support areas. All the service chiefs were asked modernization increases; specific items are by the chairman of the House National Security judgment calls. All of the items on the Army list Committee to submit recommendations on how are important and need to be fu nded sometime additional fu nds could best be used if made during the next few years. available. The Army Chief of Staff's response is summarized in aggregate termsfo r the top $3 billion The same caution applies to DoD. Additions as fo llows: which are not on the "must buy" list and not required for fu ture programs must be avoided so + 70 percent for modernization, to include a as to avoid erosion of Army resources from combination of early program buyouts, invest- higher priority needs.
65 APPENDIXI
BUDGET TERMS
Appropriation is the specific authority to however, always relate to a base year, such as FY obligate and expend funds provided for in 1997 dollars. appropnahon bills, which are prepared by the appropriation committees, passed by Congress Current or "then year" dollars are the dollar and signed by the President into law. figures in the budget (or in the accounting Appropriations are provided in line item detail. records) actually associated with the stated date The time over which monies may be obligated is (past, present or projected). Figures fo r prior specified, varying from one year for personnel years and the present year arc those actually and operation and maintenance to two years fo r recorded (not adjusted fo r inflation), but figures RDT&E and three years (normally) for projected for fu ture years contain estimated procurement and construction (extended to five inflationary increases expected to occur in the years for shipbuilding). program.
Authorization is substantive legislation which Deficit is the amount by which outlays exceed provide� the authority for an agency to cany out a receipts. The reverse of this is called sutplus. particular program. Authorization may be annual, for a specified number of years, or indefinite. The Department of Defense (DoD) Budget, Most national defense activities require annual which carries the Federal Account Number 051, authorization before funds may be appropriated includes funding fo r DoD itself. It is the budget by Congress. Of the total FY 1997 Department of which comes under the jurisdiction of the Defense request, more than 70 percent requires Secretary of Defense and is frequently referred to annual authorization by the Armed Services as the Pentagon Budget. The DoD budget Committees of the House and Senate. The largest accounts for about 96 perce�t of the National amount in the request not requiring annual Defense function in FY 1997. authorization is military pay; military end strength, rather than military pay, is authorized. Discretionary appropriations is a category of budget authmity that comptises budgetary resources Budget Authority (BA) is the authority to enter (except those provided to fund mandatory-spending into obligations which will result in the payment programs) provided in appropriations acts. of government funds. Budget authority is normally provided in the fo rm of appropriations. Entitlement authority is a provision of law that The defense budget as presented to Congress is legally obligates the fe deral government to make expressed in terms ofbudget authority. specified payments to any person or government that meets the eligibility requirements established Constant dollars are dollars expressed in tetms by that law. which have been adjusted for inflation relative to some reference or base year. Thus, all figures Fiscal year (FY) is the federal government's have the same relative value to allow accounting period. It begins October 1 and ends comparisons. This is sometimes referred to as September 30, and ·is designated by the calendar "real dollars" or "dollars in real terms." It must, year in which it ends.
67 The National Defense Budget, which carries the Receipts are collections from taxes or other Federal Account Number 050 as a designator, payments to the fe deral government. includes not only the Department of Defense (military) budget, but also funding fo r Supplemental appropriation is one enacted sub defense-related activities of the Department of sequent to a regular annual appropriations act when Energy (primarily weapons activities and related the need fo r funds is too urgent to be postponed support) and miscellaneous military activities of until the next regular annual appropriations act. other fe deral agencies. Total Obligational Authority (TOA) is a DoD Obligations are binding agreements that will term which includes the total value of the direct result in outlays, immediately or in the future. program regardless of the method of financing. As a practical matter, TOA totals in the aggregate Outlays are the measure of government spending. do not differ significantly from BA. TOA is used They are the payments actually made fo r goods in managing the service budgets, as it is the most and services and interest payments during a accurate reflection of program value. The particular year. These payments (outlays) lag differences are attributed principally to offsetting obligations because of the sequential cycle of receipts, such as recoveries from fo reign military congressional appropriations, contracting, placing sales, and financing adjustments. For example, orders, receiving goods or services and (finally) application of sales receipts will increase TOA but making payments. For example, in DoD fo r FY not BA. Legislation transferring unobligated 1996, approximately 30 percent of the outlays funds fo r which the purpose has changed are pertain to prior-year appropriations. reflected in BA with no effect on TOA.
68 APPENDIX II
FY 1997 ARMY BUDGET SUMMARY DATA (TOA - $ millions*)
ARMY APPROPRIATION FY95 FY96 FY97
Military Personnel, Army $ 21,007 $ 20,300t $20,581
Operation & Maintenance, Army 19,534 19,336t 18,114
National Board for Promotion of RiflePractice 3 0 0
Procurement 6,687 7,509t 6,319 Aircraft (1,019) (1,364)t (971) Missiles (803) (839)t (766) WTCV (1,143) (1,598)t (1,102) Ammunition (1,112) (1,031)t (853) Other Procurement (2,610) (2,677)t (2,627)
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation 5,403 4,738t 4,321
Military Construction, Army 551 634 435
Defense Environmental Restoration Account 0 0 357
Army Family Housing 1,230 1,453 1,287 Operations (1,059) (1 ,336) (1,212) Construction (171) (117) (75)
Army National Guard 6,070 5,812 5.458 Personnel, Army National Guard (3,446) (3,242) (3,242) Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard (2,436) (2,433)t (2,208) Military Construction, Army National Guard (188) (137) (8)
Army Reserve 3,471 3,305 3,176 Reserve Personnel, Army (2,174) (2,122) (2,044) Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve (1,240) (1,110)t (1,084) Military Construction, Army Reserve (57) (73) (48)
Total $63,956 $63,087 $60,050
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t Includes requested and other contingency reprogrammings.
69 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY (OMA) BUDGET SUMMARY DATA* ($ millionst)
FY95 FY96 FY97 BAt: OPERATING FORCES Land Forces 9,437 10,264 8,978 Land Operations Support 361 250 270 Total 9,798 10,514 9,249
BA2: MOBILIZATION Mobility Operations 591 739 586
BA3: TRAINING AND RECRUITING Accession Training 305 314 334 Basic Skill and Advanced Training 2,015 2,069 2,1 15 Recruiting and Other Training and Education 658 695 720 Total 2,977 3,078 3,170
BA4: ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES Security Programs 385 355 364 Logistic Operations 1,752 . 1,560 1,480 Servicewide Support 3,727 2,797 2,953 Support of Other Nations 302 295 313 Total 6,166 5,006 5,110
GRAND TOTAL 19,534 19,336 18,114
FY95 FY96 FY97 BAl: OPERATING FORCES Combat Units 1,319 1,866 1,785 Tactical Support 1,243 1,169 1,144 Theater Defense 198 170 151 Force Related Training 1,865 2,174 1,411 Force Communications 59 88 65 JCS Exercises 52 54 55 Base Support 3,699 3,827 3,522 Depot Maintenance 1,002 915 845 Combat Development 239 196 207 Unified Commands 122 54 64 Total 9,798 10,514 9,249
* Does not include OMAR and OMNG. t Numbers may not add due to rounding.
70 FY95 FY96 FY97 BA2: MOBILIZATION Strategic Mobilization 281 377 288 War Reserve Activities 102 125 151 Industrial Preparedness 91 139 65 POMCUS 116 97 82 Total 591 739 586
BA3: TRAINING AND RECRUITING OfficerAcquisition 54 58 61 Recruit Training 11 12 13 One Station Unit Training 13 16 17 ROTC 113 110 121 Service Academy Base Support 115 118 122 Specialized Skill Training 215 233 242 Flight Training 217 220 225 Professional Development and Education 71 66 .68 Training Support 422 390 405 Base Support 1,089 1,159 1,174 Recruiting and Advettising 189 215 228 Examining 65 62 72 Off Duty/Voluntary Education 100 104 102 Civilian Education and Training 83 83 83 Junior ROTC 68 75 77 Base Support Recruiting & Examining 153 156 158 Total 2,977 3,078 3,170
BA4: ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE WIDE ACTIVITIES Security Programs 385 355 364 Servicewide Transportation 474 506 516 Central Supply Account 450 456 398 Logistics Suppott Account 43 1 297 308 Ammunition Management 397 301 258 Administration 609 297 309 Servicewide Communications 724 662 689 Manpower Management 74 136 158 Other Personnel Support 187 168 172 Other Service Support 529 591 597 Army Claims Account 124 165 176 Real Estate Management 93 83 80 Base Support 719 695 772 Defense Environmental Restoration Account 669 0 0 International Headquarters 274 262 274 Miscellaneous Support of Other Nations 28 34 39 Total 6,166 5,006 5,110
* Does not include OMAR and OMNG. t Numbers may not add due to rounding.
71 FY95 FY96 FY97 (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Missiles Patriot (MYP) 8.8 4.9 2.9 Avenger 17.7 30.5 12.6 Hellfire 1,600 127.5 I,10 2 239.5 2,805 357.6 TOW 2 1,541 363.7 12.0 13.6 MLRS Rockets (MYP) 25.9 1,326 44.6 852 24.4 MLRS Launchers 20 141.6 95.1 38.0 ATACMS 148 I 12.8 120 121.3 97 92.8 Javelin 872 212.6 1,010 200.9 1,020 162.1 Modifications Patriot 26.0 6.8 11.5 Stinger 5.0 9.8 16.9 TOW 0 32.4 0 MLRS 29.3 17.5 6.4 Avenger Modifications 10.7 0 0 Spares and Repair Parts 34.4 11.5 12.1 Support Equipment and Facilities Air Defense Targets 8.2 6.6 6.2 Production Base Support 3.6 3.5 6.5
Other Missile 1.8 2.6 5.7
Total Missile 802.6 839.5 766.3
WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES (WTCV) PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Tracked Combat Vehicles Bradley Fighting Vehicle 14.0 0 0 Command and Control Vehicle 0 0 6 49.0 Field Artillery Ammo Support Vehicle 0 38 42.6 24 34.4 M I Abrams Tank Series 17.5 2.9 0 M 1 Abrams Training Devices 16.8 6.1 12.6 Armored Gun System (AGS) 0 142.8 0 Weapons and Other Combat Vehicles Machine Gun, 5.56mm (SAW) 8,705 21.8 9,577 27.6 4,345 11.1 M16A2 Rifle 20,473 9.9 27,440 13.1 9,982 5.6 Grenade Launcher, Auto 40mm 2, 100 33.4 2,170 32.8 320 5.2 Mortar, 120mm 110 13.5 2.9. 0 Carbine XM4, 5.56mm 15,892 11.1 9,569 6.3 7,704 5.6
* Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(continued on next page)
74 FY95 FY96 FY97 (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT
Modifications Carrier, Modifications 50.3 48.0 23.0 Bradley Base Sustainment 136. 1 133.9 134.4 BFVS Modifications 88.6 85.5 83.6 Howitzer, Med Sp Ft l55mm 226.9 29 1.9 75.0 M l 09 Modernization F AASV PIP to Fleet 9.9 3.9 4.7 Heavy Assault Bridge 0 14.6 54.4 M I Abrams Tank Modifications 37.1 50.1 50.2 Abrams Upgrade Advanced Procurement 181.8 301.5 259.3 Abrams Upgrade Regular Procurement 98.2 263.6 205.2 SAW Modifications 4.4 0 0 Improved Recovery Vehicle 36.8 55.6 28.6
Support Equipment and Facilities Spares and Repair Parts 41.2 31.8 20.3 Production Base Suppott 24.7 11.2 13.6 Industrial Preparedness 6.7 5.3 5.1
Other WTCV 62.1 23.6 24.1 Total WTCV 1,142.8 1,597.6 1,102.0
AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Ammunition Small Arms 208 222 119 Mortars 70 117 110 Tank 234 199 248 Artillery 105 103 89 Rockets 107 27 27 Miscellaneous 21 15 20 Other 62 96 41 Mines/Countermines 49 47 21 Production Base Support 256 205 178 Total Ammunition 1,112 1,031 853
Training/War Reserve Breakout Training 437 458 409 War Reserve 404 355 250 Non hardware 15 13 17 Miscellaneous 10 0 0 Production Base 246 205 177 Total Breakout 1,112 1,031 853
* Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(continued on next page)
75 FY95 FY96 FY97 (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Tactical and Support Vehicles Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 1,352 I,17 .7 1,586 125.6 1,126 96.8 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles 3,352 3,70.2 977 144.1 1,603 233.1 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles 15.6 283 122.5 196 163.3 All Other Vehicles and Trailers 63.7 48.4 28.3
Communications and Electronics Equipment Joint Communications 1.8 2.2 2.9 Satellite Communications 161.9 232.5 217.6 MSE Modifications 33.3 14.2 9.8 C3 System 16.6 26.0 48.3 Combat Communications 422.9 484.8 402.3 Intelligence Communications 0 0 3.8 Information Security 13.9 10.8 10.7 Long Haul Communications 5.6 21.3 11.2 Base Communications 63.5 110.9 108. 1 Electronic Equipment - NFIP 33.9 27.0 15.3 Electronic Equipment - TIARA 202.3 243.6 187.9 Electronic Equipment - 2.0 2.5 1.6 Electronic Warfare (EW) Electronic Equipment - Tactical 178.8 194.0 202.0 Surveillance Electronic Equipment - Tactical C2 72.2 161.4 165.3 Electronic Equipment - Automation 230.6 209.2 209.0 (RCAS and ADPE) Electronic Equipment - 6.9 7.4 2.5 Audiovisual Systems (A V) Electronic Equipment - Test 74.2 63.9 20.8 Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment Electronic Equipment - Support 17.0 2.4 1.8
Other Support Equipment Smoke Generators 0 17.4 27.5 Chemical Defensive Equipment 76.4 t t · Bridging Equipment 0 3.7 4.3 Engineer Equipment (Nonconstruction) 16.2 1.0 1.0 Combat Service Support Equipment 30.4 21.0 22.4 Petroleum Equipment 16.7 8.9 6.4 Water Equipment 5.4 8.7 3.0 Medical Equipment 19.2 13.8 15.9
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t Transferred to OSD.
(continued on next page)
76 FY95 FY96 FY97 (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT
Other Support Equipment (continued) Maintenance Equipment 4.8 3.1 3.0 Construction Equipment 9.9 20.4 20.5 Rail Float Containerization Equipment 17.5 17.4 41.4 Generators 25.8 13.3 13.2 Materiel Handling Equipment 4.1 27.3 18.6 Training Equipment 140. 1 124.9 183.2 Other Supp01t Equipment 139.1 58.0 63.0
Initial Spares Tactical Support Vehicles 0 1.0 0.1 Communications and Electronics 0 80.4 60.5 Other Suppo1t 0 2.0 1.0
Total Other Procurement 2,610.2 2,676.9 2,627.4
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t Transferred to OSD.
77 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION BUDGET SUMMARY DATA ($ millions*)
FY95 FY96 FY97
TECHNOLOGY BASE BAt: Basic Research 214 187 204 BA2: Applied Research 599 446 448 Subtotal 813 633 652
BA3: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Logistics 16 38 23 Medical 233t 93t 12 Aviation 51 55 41 Weapons & Munitions 31 27 20 Combat Vehicle & Automotive 60 27 31 Missile/Rocket 67 116 90 Landmine Warfare 20 24 15 Night Vision 32 33 33 Military HlV Research 28t 3 3 Air Defense/Precision Strike 40 37 40 Technology Demonstration Other 169 132 141 Subtotal 747 585 449
BA4: DEMONSTRATION & VALIDATION Landmine Warfare and Barrier 23 32 16 Armored System Modifications - Advanced 169 187 259 Development Soldier Support and Survivability 12 St 7� Aviation - Advanced Development 16 14 8 CSSCS Evaluation and Analysis 18 14 13 . Medical Systems - Advanced Development 15 10 10 Other 193 195 1 72 Subtotal 446 460 485
BAS: ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT Comanche 475 291 289 Electronic Warfare Development 91 63 69 Landmine Warfare 30 30 18
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t Includes congressional adds. * Programs restructured.
(continued on next page)
78 FY95 J<, Y96 FY97
Night Vision 41 39 34 Armored Systems Modifications - Engineering 61 39 7 Development Nonsystem Training Devices - Engineering 48 51 43 Development BAT 115 195 180 Combat ID 20 22 17 Longbow 170 23 6 Other 512 404 40 1 Subtotal 1,563 1,157 1,064
BA6: RDTE MANAGEMENT SUPl)ORT Major Test and Evaluation 49 65 42 Army Test Ranges/ Facilities 153 143 133 Army Kwajalein Atoll 157 144 137 Support of Operation Testing 31 45 51 Programwide Activities 94 62 61 Environmental Compliance 50 64 54 Maintenance and Repair - RPM 79 93 66 Base Operations 294"1" 311t 217t Other 366 246 268 Subtotal 1,273 1,173 1,029
BA7: OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT Combat Vehicles Improvement Program 107 209 198 Horizontal Battlefield Digitization 85 99 110 MLRS PIP 58 7 1 64 Other Missile PIP 62 64 6 SATCOM Ground Environment 69 54 41 Other 180 233 223 ' Subtotal 561 730 642
TOTAL 5,403 4,738 4,321
* Numbers may not add due to rounding. t Contains $27.2 million in FY95, $27.2 million in FY96 and $28.1 million in FY97 to pay for DFAS Support.
79 GLOSSARY
3 AAWS-M Advanced Antitank Weapon System- C 1 Command, Control, Communica- Medium tions and Intelligence 4 ABCS Army Battle Command System C I Command, Control, Communica- ACR Armored Cavalry Regiment tions, Computers and Intelligence ADP Automated Data Processing CAIT Combined Arms Tactical Trainer ADPE Advanced Data Processing Equip- CCTT Close Combat Tactical Trainer ment CHAMP US Civilian Health and Medical Pro- AFATDS Advanced Field Artillery Tactical gram ofthe Uniformed Services Data System CINC Commander in Chief AFH Army Family Housing CLU Command Launch Unit AGS Armored Gun System CMTC Combat Maneuver Training Center ARL Airborne Reconnaissance Low COLA Cost-of-living adjustments ARNG Army National Guard CONUS Continental United States ASAS All Source Analyses System CorpsSAM Corps Surface-to-Air Missile ASM Armored System Modernization COSCOM Corps Support Command ATACMS (or Army TACMS) Army Tactical CRAF Civil Reserve Air Fleet Missile System CSDP Chemical Stockpile Disposal Pro- ATCCS Army Tactical Command and Con- gram trol System css Combat Service Support AWR Army War Reserve csscs Combat Service Support Control BA Budget Authority System BAI Budget Activity I CTC Combat Training Center BA2 Budget Activity 2 DA Department of the Army BA3 Budget Activity 3 DBOF Defense Business Operations BA4 Budget Activity 4 Fund BAT Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition DERA Defense Environmental Restoration BCIS Battlefield Combat Identification Account System DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting BCTP Battle Command Training Program Service Bde Brigade Div Division BeNeLux Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg DoD Depa11ment of Defense BFVS Bradley Fighting Vehicle System DoE Department of Energy BMAR Backlog of Maintenance and Repair DSCS Defense Satellite Communications BMD Ballistic Missile Defense System BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organi- ED Engineering Development zation EHF Extremely High Frequency Bn Battalion EOC Early Operational Capability BRAC Base Realignment and Closure ER-MLRS Extended Range Multiple Launch BUR Bottom-Up Review Rocket System CA Civil Affairs EW Electronic Warfare c2 Command and Control FA Field Artillery 2 C V Command and Control Vehicle FAAD Forward Area Air Defens c3 Command, Control and Communi- FAASV Field Artillery Ammunition cations Support Vehicle
81 FHIF Family Housing Improvement Fund MPS Maritime Prepositioning Ship FHTV Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles l\.1RC Major Regional Conflict FMTV Family of Mediwn Tactical Vehicles MSE Mobile Subscriber Equipment FY Fiscal Year MYP Multiyear Procurement FYDP Future Years Defense Program NAVSTAR Navigation System Using Time GAO Government Accounting Office and Ranging GBS Grow1d Based Sensor NDSF National Defense SealiftFtmd GDP Gross Domestic Product NFIP National Foreign Intelligence Pro- GPS Global Positioning System gram GR/CS Guardrail/Common Sensor NMD National Missile Defense GSM Ground Station Module NPR Nuclear Posture Review HCFA Health Care Finance Administration NRC National Research Council HEMTT Heavy Expanded Tactical Truck NTC National Training Center HETS Heavy Equipment Transporter NUDET Nuclear Detonation Detection System System HMMWV (or Humvee) High Mobility Multi- O&M Operation and Maintenance purpose Wheeled Vehicle OMA Operation and Maintenance, Army HIV Human Immunodeficiency Vims OMAR Operation and Maintenance, Army ID Identification Reserve ILMS Improved Launcher Mechanical OMNG Operation and Maintenance, Army System NationalGuard IMA Individual Mobilization Aug- OPA Other Procurement, Army mentee OPROJ Operational Project Stocks IRR Individual Ready Reserve OPTEMPO Operating Tempo JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff OSD Officeof the Secretary of Defense JRTC Joint Readiness Training Center PAC-3 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 JSTARS (or Joint STARS) Joint Surveillance l'FP Partnership for J>eace Target Attack Radar System PIP Product Improvement Program LCR Light Cavalry Regiment PLS Palletized Loading System LMSR Large Medium-speed POMCUS Prepositioning of Materiel Con- Roll-on/roll-off(ships) figured to Unit Sets MCA Militru.y Construction, Army RC Reserve Components MCAR Military Construction, Army Reserve RCAS Reserve Component Automation MCNG Military Construction, Army System National Guard RDA Research, Development and Acqui- MC S Maneuver Control System sition MEADS Medium Extended Air Defense RDT&E Research, Development, Test and System Evaluation MILCON Military Construction RO/RO Roll-on/roll-off MILES Multiple httegrated Laser Engage- RO/RU Rowtdout/roundup ment System ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps MILPERS Military Personnel RPM Real Property Maintenance MILSATCOM Military Satellite Communications RRF Ready Reserve Fleet MilSpecs Military Specifications RSV Resupply Vehicle MILSTAR Military Strategic/Tactical Relay SADARM Sense and Destroy Armor MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System S&T Science and Teclmology MPA Military Personnel, Army SATCOM Satellite Communications
82 SAW Squad Automatic Weapon TOW Tube-Launched, Optically-Sighted, SIGINT Signal Intelligence Wire-Guided SINCGARS Single Channel Ground and TRICARE Military health care program; AirborneRadio System successor to CHAMPUS SOF Special Operations Forces TTHS Trainees, Transients, Holdees and TASS Total Anny School System Students
TAV Total Army Visibility UHF Ultra high frequency · TBD To be determined USAR United States Army Reserve TDA Table of Distribution and Allow- USASSDC United States Army Space and ances Strategic Defense Command TDP Total Distribution Program USSOCOM United States Special Operations THAAD Theater High Altitude Area Defense Command TIARA Tactical Intelligence Related V/STOL Vertical Short Take-off and Landing TMD Theater Missile Defense WRSA War Reserve Support for Allies TOA Total Obligational Authority WRSI War Reserve Secondruy Items TOE Table of Organization and Equip- WTCV Weapons and Tracked Combat ment Vehicles
83