DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Army Weapon Systems Handbook 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Army Weapon Systems Handbook 2012 341 Appendices Glossary of Terms Systems by Contractors Contractors by State Points of Contact WEAPON SYSTEMS 2012 342 Glossary of Terms Acquisition Categories (ACAT) ACAT IA programs have two subcategories: ACAT I programs are Milestone Decision Authority Programs (MDAPs) or programs designated ACAT I by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). 1. ACAT IAM, for which the MDA is the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the DoD, the ASD (C3I). The “M” refers to Major Automated Information System Review Dollar value: estimated by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Council (MAISRC). (Change 4, 5000.2-R) Technology) (USD [A&T]) to require an eventual total expenditure for research, 2. ACAT IAC, for which the DoD CIO has delegated milestone decision authority to development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) of more than $365 million in fiscal year the CAE or Component CIO. The “C” refers to Component. (FY) 2000 constant dollars or, for procurement, of more than $2.190 billion in FY 2000 constant dollars. ACAT I programs have two subcategories: ACAT II programs are defined as those acquisition programs that do not meet the 1. ACAT ID, for which the MDA is USD (A&T). The “D” refers to the Defense criteria for an ACAT I program, but do meet the criteria for a major system, or are Acquisition Board (DAB), which advises the USD (A&T) at major decision points. programs designated ACAT II by the MDA. The dollar value is estimated to require 2. ACAT IC, for which the MDA is the DoD Component Head or, if delegated, the total expenditure for RDT&E of more than $140 million in FY 2000 constant dollars, DoD Component Acquisition Executive (CAE). The “C” refers to Component. The or for procurement of more than $660 million in FY 2000 constant dollars. USD (A&T) designates programs as ACAT ID or ACAT IC. ACAT III programs are defined as those acquisition programs that do not meet the criteria for an ACAT I, an ACAT IA, or an ACAT II. The MDA is designated by the ACAT IA programs are MAISs (Major Automated Information System Acquisition CAE and shall be at the lowest appropriate level. This category includes less-than- Programs), or programs designated by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for major AISs. The dollar values are under the threshold for ACAT II. Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD [C3I]) to be ACAT IA. Acquisition Phase Estimated to exceed: $32 million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, All the tasks and activities needed to bring a program to the next major milestone for all increments, regardless of the appropriation or fund source, directly related occur during an acquisition phase. Phases provide a logical means of progressively to the AIS definition, design, development, and deployment, and incurred in any translating broadly stated mission needs into well-defined system-specific single fiscal year; or $126 million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, requirements and ultimately into operationally effective, suitable, and survivable for all increments, regardless of the appropriation or fund source, directly related systems. The acquisition phases for the systems described in this handbook are to the AIS definition, design, development, and deployment, and incurred from the defined below: beginning of the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase through deployment at all sites; or $378 million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, for all increments, Technology Development Phase regardless of the appropriation or fund source, directly related to the AIS definition, The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology risk, determine and mature the design, development, deployment, operations and maintenance, and incurred from appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into a full system, and to demonstrate the beginning of the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase through sustainment for the critical technology elements on prototypes. Technology Development is a continuous estimated useful life of the system. technology discovery and development process reflecting close collaboration between the Science and Technology (S&T) community, the user, and the system developer. It is an iterative process designed to assess the viability of technologies while UNITED STATES ARMY 343 simultaneously refining user requirements. Entrance into this phase depends on the informed by EMD results, and details the performance expected of the production completion of the Analysis of Alternatives (A0A), a proposed materiel solution, and system. If Milestone C approves LRIP, a subsequent review and decision shall full funding for planned Technology Development Phase activity. authorize full-rate production. Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase Operations and Support Phase The purpose of the EMD phase is to develop a system or an increment of capability; The purpose of the Operations and Support phase is to execute a support program complete full system integration (technology risk reduction occurs during Technology that meets materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements, Development); develop an affordable and executable manufacturing process; ensure and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life operational supportability with particular attention to minimizing the logistics cycle. Planning for this phase shall begin prior to program initiation and shall be footprint; implement human systems integration (HSI); design for producibility; documented in the Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LLSP). Operations and Support ensure affordability; protect critical program information by implementing appropriate phase has two major efforts: life-cycle sustainment and disposal. Entrance into techniques such as anti-tamper; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, the Operations and Support Phase depends on meeting the following criteria: safety, and utility. The Capability Development Document, Acquisition Strategy, Systems an approved CPD; an approved LCSP; and a successful Full-Rate Production Engineering Plan, and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) shall guide this effort. (FRP) Decision. Entrance into this phase depends on technology maturity (including software), approved requirements, and full funding. Unless some other factor is overriding in its impact, the Acquisition Program maturity of the technology shall determine the path to be followed. A directed, funded effort designed to provide a new, improved or continuing weapons system or AIS capability in response to a validated operational need. Acquisition Production and Deployment Phase programs are divided into different categories that are established to facilitate The purpose of the Production and Deployment phase is to achieve an operational decentralized decision-making, and execution and compliance with statutory capability that satisfies mission needs. Operational test and evaluation shall requirements. determine the effectiveness and suitability of the system. The MDA shall make the decision to commit DoD to production at Milestone C and shall document Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs) the decision in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum. Milestone C authorizes ACTDs are a means of demonstrating the use of emerging or mature technology to entry into low rate initial production (for MDAPs and major systems), into address critical military needs. ACTDs themselves are not acquisition programs, production or procurement (for non-major systems that do not require LRIP) or although they are designed to provide a residual, usable capability upon completion. into limited deployment in support of operational testing for MAIS programs or If the user determines that additional units are needed beyond the residual capability software-intensive systems with no production components. Entrance into this and that these units can be funded, the additional buys shall constitute an acquisition phase depends on the following criteria: acceptable performance in developmental program with an acquisition category generally commensurate with the dollar value and test and evaluation and operational assessment (OSD OT&E oversight programs); risk of the additional buy. mature software capability; no significant manufacturing risks; manufacturing processes under control (if Milestone C is full-rate production); an approved Automated Information System (AIS) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) (if Milestone C is program initiation); an A combination of computer hardware and software, data, or telecommunications, approved Capability Production Document (CPD); a refined integrated architecture; that performs functions such as collecting, processing, transmitting, and displaying acceptable interoperability; acceptable operational supportability; and demonstration information. Excluded are computer resources, both hardware and software, that are that the system is affordable throughout the life cycle, fully funded, and properly physically part of, dedicated to, or essential in real-time to the mission performance of phased for rapid acquisition. The CPD reflects the operational requirements, weapon systems. WEAPON SYSTEMS 2012 344 Commercial and Non-Developmental Items system is any vehicle, weapon platform, or conventional weapon system that includes Market research and analysis shall be conducted to determine the availability features designed to provide some degree of protection to users in combat and that and suitability of existing commercial and non-developmental items prior to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Texas Military Preparedness Commission Biennial Report Table of Contents
    Texas Military Preparedness Commission Biennial Report Table of Contents 2 Letter to the Governor 3 Executive Summary 4 The Defense Economy and Texas Highlights 6 The Commission Mission & Strategies Commissioners Ex-Officio Members Staff & Interns Funding Programs, Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Fund (TMVRLF) Funding Programs, Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Grant (DEAAG) Texas Military Value Task Force (TMVTF) Governor’s Committee to Support the Military (GCSM) 16 Texas Commander’s Council, Recommendations 18 State Defense Legislation 21 Military Installations in Texas: Overview and Economic Impact 22 Economic Impact: Methodology and Disclaimers 24 Economic Impact Map 25 U.S. Air Force Installations Dyess Air Force Base Goodfellow Air Force Base Laughlin Air Force Base Sheppard Air Force Base 34 U.S. Army Installations & Army Futures Command Corpus Christi Army Depot Fort Bliss Fort Hood Red River Army Depot Army Futures Command 45 U.S. Navy Installations Naval Air Station Corpus Christi Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth Naval Air Station Kingsville 52 Joint Base San Antonio & Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base 57 Texas Military Forces Air National Guard Army National Guard Texas State Guard 62 Resources: Wind Energy and Military Operations 64 Resources: Maps Cover photo courtesy of U.S. Army/ By Capt. Roxana Thompson 1 Letter to the Governor Dear Governor Abbott: On behalf of the Texas Military Preparedness Commission (TMPC), I am pleased to submit to you the 2019-2020 TMPC Biennial Report. It has been an eventful two years since our last biennial report to you. The military continues to grow in their missions as Texas seeks opportunities to continue being the best home to military personnel in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • PRESS RELEASE Amended June 6, 2005
    2005 BRAC Commission Schedule Base Closure and Realignment Commission PRESS RELEASE Amended June 6, 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Robert McCreary Deputy Director of Communications 703 – 699 – 2964 [email protected] 26 MAY 2005 BRAC Commissioners Release Schedule for Installation Visits Arlington, Virginia, May 26, 2005—Today the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission is releasing the schedule for the Commissioners’ visits to major bases recommended for closure or realignment by the Department of Defense (DoD). Chairman Principi stated, “The 2005 BRAC Commission is not going to serve as a rubber stamp; we will look at the DoD recommendations carefully and closely to see if they complied with, or substantially deviated from, the selection criteria and force structure against which all bases are to be measured.” “We have been given the mandate to provide an independent, fair, and equitable assessment and evaluation of both the DoD BRAC proposal and the data and methodology used to develop that proposal,” the Chairman remarked. “My Commissioners and I have pledged to provide that assessment openly and transparently.” The Commissioners plan to visit military installations which have been recommended by DoD to lose either 300 civilian jobs, or a total of 400 civilian and military jobs. The fact-finding visits will involve briefings by base representatives as well as tours of facilities and will be conducted for the primary purpose of determining the military value of the installations. Although military value will be the primary basis for the decision to close or realign a military facility, the Commission was created to also take into account the economic, environmental, and other effects the closure or realignment of a base would have on the surrounding community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Texas Grid and U.S. National Security
    NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS The Texas Grid and U.S. National Security Backgrounder No. 182 by David Grantham May 2016 America’s electric power grid is arguably the most vulnerable part of our nation’s infrastructure. Divided among three geographical regions, the U.S. network remains dangerously exposed to a host of potentially devastating natural disasters and foreign attacks. Yet, Texas finds itself in a unique position to act. Utilities in the Lone Star State operate their own, self-contained grid. And, because it is confined within state borders, the Texas government has authority to preempt catastrophe by “hardening” the system. The state government has the responsibility for public safety, the financial resources and access to the latest technologies necessary to accomplish this mission. The Threat Cannot Be Overstated. In 2010, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a translated copy of an Iranian military doctrine publication. The “Passive Defense” textbook PROVIDE FOR advocates for a variety of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks THE COMMON as a means of blacking out an enemy’s electric grid, suddenly and DEFENSE NOW! anonymously. Former CIA Director James Woolsey explains that the most devastating EMP options remains the high-altitude detonation Go to ncpa.org/petition to of a nuclear weapon.2 Such an operation could theoretically be show your support! accomplished by simply launching a single, unsophisticated ballistic missile from a freighter floating off the American coast. Other Dallas Headquarters: delivery systems include low-orbit satellites and crude nuclear 14180 Dallas Parkway, Suite 350 devices. North Korea actually practiced a nuclear EMP attack in Dallas, TX 75254 April 2013, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Procurement Army 1
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Procurement Programs Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Budget Estimates OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Tactical and Support Vehicles Budget Activity1 APPROPRIATION February 2004 *** UNCLASSIFIED *** DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EXHIBIT P-1 FY 2005 PROCUREMENT PROGRAM DATE: 15-Jan-2004 16:21 President's Budget 2005 APPROPRIATION Other Procurement, Army ACTIVITY 01 Tactical and support vehicles DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 LINE NO ITEM NOMENCLATURE ID QTY COST QTY COST QTY COST TACTICAL VEHICLES 1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS (DA0100) A 10,071 17,844 11,940 2 Semitrailers, Flatbed: (D01001) A 36,443 26,696 9,242 3 Semitrailers, tankers (D02001) A 4,357 11,016 667 4 HI MOB MULTI-PURP WHLD VEH (HMMWV) (D15400) 334,879 369,250 303,692 5 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T (CCE) (D16001) 18,617 6 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) (D15500) 658,943 344,679 505,664 7 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT (D15800) 26,503 25,676 2,198 8 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) (DA0500) 257,983 217,469 84,038 9 ARMORED SECURITY VEHICLES (ASV) (D02800) 17,041 5,558 10 TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/M916 (DA0600) 46,455 48,192 15,314 11 Towing Device, 5th Wheel (D15901) A 3,628 12 TRUCK, TRACTOR, YARD TYPE, M878 (C/S) (D16000) A 4,752 5,372 13 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV PROG (DV0021) 116,614 24,654 19,204 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP (DA0924) 81,207 58,027 25,848 15 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (TAC VEH) (DL5110) 2,844 243 247 16 TOWING DEVICE-FIFTH WHEEL (D09900) 1,943 1,907 SUB-ACTIVITY
    [Show full text]
  • 94 Stat. 1782 Public Law 96-418—Oct
    PUBLIC LAW 96-418—OCT. 10, 1980 94 STAT. 1749 Public Law 96-418 96th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1981, and Oct. 10, 1980 for other purposes. [H.R. 7301] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be Military cited as the "MiUtary Construction Authorization Act, 1981". Au'thSdon Act, 1981. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con­ verting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and construc­ tion: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $16,350,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $14,200,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $129,960,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $1,000,000. Fort Drum, New York, $5,900,000. Fort Gillem, Georgia, $2,600,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $24,420,000. Fort Hunter-Liggett, California, $5,100,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $16,000,000. Fort Ord, California, $4,700,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $14,800,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $890,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $3,750,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field, Georgia, $31,700,000. Presidio of San Francisco, California, $750,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $12,220,000. Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, $84,500,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort A.
    [Show full text]
  • ARMY INSTALLATIONS (To Include Joint Bases)
    ARMY INSTALLATIONS (to include joint bases) TOTAL DIVIDEND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD $267,371 ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, AL $24,566 ARMY RESERVE CENTER IN SAIPAN, MARIANA ISLANDS $501,101 AS SAYLIHAY ARMY BASE, QATAR $101,328 BARRIGADA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, GUAM $208,844 BELLWOOD DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER, RICHMOND, VA $32,034 BISMARCK ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, ND $5 CAMP ARIFJAN, KUWAIT $755,817 CAMP ASHLAND TRAINING SITE, ASHLAND, NE $15,453 CAMP ATTERBURY, EDINBURGH, IN $24,055 CAMP BEAUREGARD, PINEVILLE, LA $22,992 CAMP BONDSTEEL, BOSNIA $47,345 CAMP CARROLL LODGING, WAEGWAN, KOREA $8,187 CAMP GRAFORTON, DEVILS LAKE, ND $1,362 CAMP GRAYLING MICHIGAN NATIONAL GUARD, MI $11,829 CAMP GRUBER, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK $6,649 CAMP GUERNSEY JOINT TRAINING CENTER, WY $378 CAMP HUMPHREYS LODGING, KOREA $8,269 CAMP JOHNSON COLCHESTER, VT $12,591 CAMP KEYS, AUGUSTA, ME $15,187 CAMP LINCOLN, SPRINGFIELD, IL $3,438 CAMP MABRY, AUSTIN, TX $39,740 CAMP MCCAIN TRAINING FACILITY, GRENADA, MS $5,805 CAMP PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING, DUBLIN, CA $7,535 CAMP PERRY NATIONAL GUARD, PORT CLINTON, OH $3,117 CAMP RILEA ARMED FORCES TRAINING FACILITY, WARRENTON, OR $3,411 CAMP RIPLEY, LITTLE FALLS, MN $37,487 CAMP ROBERT, SAN MIGUEL, CA $3,903 CAMP ROWLAND, NIANTIC, CT ($5,010) CAMP SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA $994 CAMP SANTIAGO, SALINAS, PUERTO RICO $3,907,558 CAMP SHELBY JOINT FORCES TRAINING CENTER, MS $24,152 CAMP WALKER LODGING, KOREA $8,222 CAMP WALKER, DAEGU, KOREA $323 CAMP WILLIAMS, RIVERTON, UT $51,417 CAMP ZAMA, JAPAN $322,217 CARLISLE BARRACKS, PA $271,328 CHARLES
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-12-709R Military Base Realignments and Closures
    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 June 29, 2012 The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman The Honorable John McCain Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman The Honorable Thad Cochran Ranking Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Howard “Buck” McKeon Chairman The Honorable Adam Smith Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives The Honorable C. W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable Norman D. Dicks Ranking Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Subject: Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings Estimates from BRAC 2005 The Department of Defense’s (DOD) cost estimates to implement recommendations from the most recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round have increased and estimated savings resulting from the round have decreased compared to the estimates from the 2005 BRAC Commission. BRAC 2005 was the fifth round of base closures and realignments undertaken by DOD since 1988, and it was the biggest, most complex BRAC round ever. GAO-12-709R Military Base Realignments and Closures To implement this round, DOD executed hundreds of BRAC actions involving over 800 defense locations and the planned relocation of over 125,000 personnel. By law, BRAC 2005 recommendations were to be implemented by September 15, 2011.1 At the outset of BRAC 2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) indicated that DOD viewed BRAC 2005 as a unique opportunity to reshape its installations and realign its forces to meet defense needs for the next 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Commander's Corner
    Tactical Vehicles www.tacticaldefensemedia.com | August 2011 Special Section: Tactical Vehicles Commander’s Corner MG Kurt J. Stein Commander Permit #701 Permit U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) Lebanon Junction, KY Junction, Lebanon PAID Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) U.S. Postage U.S. PRSRT STD PRSRT Warren, MI M-ATV USMC COC PEO GCS SUGV ANAD E/O Shot Detection CRWS Stabilized Sensors Single Battle Network Communicate in the most extreme environments Digital Ears® The Ultimate Soldier System Bone Mic INVISIO® X5 DUAL HEADSET » Clarity in high noise » Talk even at a whisper » Works under gas mask » Provides 360° Awareness » Certified hear-Pro Bone Mic INVISIO® X6 DUAL CUSTOM » Custom fit to your ear » Certified hear-Pro INVISIO® X50 » Works under gas mask Multi-Com PTT » Provides 360° Awareness Control Multiple Radios » » Stays secure in your ear » Works with Mobile Phones » Integrates into vehicle ICS » SimplifiedWe button offer layout multiple headset technologies » Submersible IP68 Rating » Optional sniper/wireless PTT’s In-Ear Dual Ear Throat Single Ear The X50 can work with practically any 2-way radio or vehicle/aircraft intercom Bone Mic Boom Mic Mic Boom Mic Recommended Digital Ears® Accessories 30 Day Eval Program New York (845) 278-0960 Setting the standard California (310) 457-7401 for over 40 years Texas (469) 362-0121 www.TEAheadsets.com Indiana (574) 264-7217 2010 © Television Equipment Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved Armor & Mobility August 2011 Contents Emerging Forecast Strategic Leadership: ANAD: Equipping at Home and Abroad PEO GCS 20 Program Executive Office (PEO) Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) is one of DoD’s primary installations for the 4 Ground Combat Systems overhaul and repair of heavy and light combat vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98Th Congress an Act
    PUBLIC LAW 98-115—OCT. 11, 1983 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1984, and for Oct. 11, 1983 other purposes. [H.R. 2972] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may Military be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984'\ Au'thorizSn Act, 1984. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $31,100,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $15,300,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $17,760,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $3,000,000. Fort Douglas, Utah, $910,000. Fort Drum, New York, $1,500,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $76,050,000. Fort Hunter Liggett, California, $1,000,000. Fort Irwin, California, $34,850,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $35,310,000. Fort Meade, Maryland, $5,150,000. Fort Ord, California, $6,150,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $16,180,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $940,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $76,600,000. Fort Stewart, Georgia, $29,720,000. Presidio of Monterey, California, $1,300,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $31,900,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $5,900,000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate Subcommittee on Base Realignment and Closure
    The Senate Subcommittee on Base Realignment and Closure Report and Recommendations to the 81st Texas Legislature December 2008 December 2008 The Honorable David Dewhurst Lieutenant Governor P.O. Box 12068 Austin, Texas 78711 Dear Governor Dewhurst: The Senate Subcommittee on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) of the Senate Veteran Affairs and Military Installations Committee respectfully submits its interim report on issues surrounding Texas' defense communities and the impacts of the 2005 BRAC round. This report presents the current environment and developments surround the Department of Defense's recent BRAC round and addresses the subcommittee's charges to study and report on: · analyze the implementation of legislation passed during the 80th Regular Session; and · monitor Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) developments. In accordance with your request, copies of this report have been distributed to the appropriate parties. Respectfully submitted, Senator Eliot Shapleigh, Chair Senator Craig Estes Senator Chris Harris Base Realignment and Closure A Report and Recommendations to the 81st Legislature Senate Veteran Affairs and Military Installations Committee, Senate Base Realignment and Closure Subcommittee Senator Eliot Shapleigh, Subcommittee Chair Senator Craig Estes Senator Chris Harris December 2008 Base Realignment and Closure December 2008 A Report and Recommendations to the 81st Legislature Table of Contents 1. Cover Letter 2. Executive Summary 3. Report a. BRAC - Past and Present b. Texas' Defense Community c. State Assistance for BRAC-Affected Defense Communities d. Senate BRAC Subcommittee's Interim Charges e. Interim Charge One f. Interim Charge Two g. Interim Charge Three h. Interim Charge Four 4. Appendix One - Hearing Agendas 5. Appendix Two - Hearing Presentations 6.
    [Show full text]
  • US Army Organizational Codes
    Incident Qualification and Certification System Agency Hierarchy Agency: ARMY0 Lvl Org Code and Description 1 USARMY United States Army 2 0100000 IMCOM Pacific Regional Office 3 01AK001 Fort Greely 4 01AK001FES Fort Greely FES 4 01AK001NR Fort Greely NR 3 01AK002 Fort Wainwright 4 01AK002FES Fort Wainwright FES 4 01AK002NR Fort Wainwright NR 3 01HI001 USAG Schofield 4 01HI001FES USAG Schofield FES 4 01HI001NR USAG Schofield NR 3 01HI002 USAG Hawaii PTA 4 01HI002FES USAG Hawaii PTA FES 4 01HI002NR USAG Hawaii PTA NR 2 0200000 IMCOM West Regional Office 3 02AZ001 Ft. Huachuca 4 02AZ001FES Ft. Huachuca FES 4 02AZ001NR Ft. Huachuca NR 3 02AZ002 Yuma Proving Ground 4 02AZ002FES Yuma Proving Ground FES 4 02AZ002NR Yuma Proving Ground NR 3 02CA001 Camp Parks 4 02CA001FES Camp Parks FES 4 02CA001NR Camp Parks NR 3 02CA002 Ft. Hunter Liggett 4 02CA002FES Ft. Hunter Liggett FES 4 02CA002NR Ft. Hunter Liggett NR 3 02CA003 Ft. Irwin 4 02CA003FES Ft. Irwin FES 4 02CA003NR Ft. Irwin NR 3 02CA004 Persidio Mont. 4 02CA004FES Persidio Mont. FES 4 02CA004NR Persidio Mont. NR 3 02CA005 Shape Army Depot 4 02CA005FES Shape Army Depot FES 4 02CA005NR Shape Army Depot NR 3 02CA006 Military Ocean Terminal Concord 4 02CA006FES Military Ocean Terminal Concord FES 4 02CA006NR Military Ocean Terminal Concord NR 3 02CA007 Sierra Army Depot 4 02CA007FES Sierra Army Depot FES 4 02CA007NR Sierra Army Depot NR 3 02NV001 Hawthorne Army Depot 4 02NV001FES Hawthorne Army Depot FES 4 02NV001NR Hawthorne Army Depot NR 3 02UT001 Dugway Proving Ground 4 02UT001FES Dugway Proving
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Military Summit Texas Commanders Council
    Texas Military Summit Texas Commanders Council CAPT Jon Townsend Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth (NAS JRB Fort Worth) WHO WE ARE COL Atkins BGEN Lenderman CAPT Jason COL Barker COL Wesbrock COL Nazario CAPT Spitzer COL James COL Gentile CAPT Townsend COL York COL Bell COL Sumangil 2 WHO WE ARE COL Atkins BGEN Lenderman CAPT Jason COL Barker COL Wesbrock COL Nazario CAPT Spitzer COL James COL Gentile CAPT Townsend COL York COL Bell COL Sumangil 3 TCC Installations – Air Force Sheppard AFB Dyess AFB Goodfellow AFB Joint Base San Antonio Camp Bullis Randolph Ft Sam Houston Ellington Field JRB Laughlin AFB Lackland Seguin (Texas ANG) 4 TCC Installations – Army Red River Army Depot Fort Hood Fort Bliss Camp Mabry (Tx ARNG) Camp Swift (Tx ARNG) Camp Stanley Corpus Christi Army Depot 5 TCC Installations - Navy NAS JRB Fort Worth NAS Corpus Christi NAS Kingsville 6 Our Missions • Dyess Air Force Base – Bomb Wing, Airlift Group, Army & Navy • Goodfellow Air Force Base – Training Wing, Firefighting & Intelligence Training • Laughlin Air Force Base – Flight Training Wing, Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training • Sheppard Air Force Base – Allied Specialized Flight, Tech Training • Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base – Texas Army and Air Guard, Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, Texas State Guard 7 Our Missions Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) DoD’s Largest, Most Diverse Joint Base • Fort Sam Houston – Military Medicine, Multiple Command HQ • Lackland AFB – Basic & Technical Training, Language, Cybersecurity, Intelligence, Medical, 80,000
    [Show full text]