army budget - voice for the army – support for the soldier · association of the united states...

•

Association of the {Jnited States Army

Army Budget · Fiscal Year 1998

An Analysis

July 1997

Institute of Land Warfare

Association of the United States Army

Army Budget Fi.scal Year, 1998'

An Analysis

July 1997

Institute of Land Warfare

Compiled by AUSA's Institute of Land Warfare

LTG Richard L. West (USA Ret.), LTG Theodore G. Stroup, Jr. (USA Ret.) COL James D. Blundell (USA Ret.), Sandra J. Daugherty, George E. Ehling,

Lori Johnston and Stephannie B. Addison

July 1997

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 www.ausa.org

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . .............................. ............................................................................................. vii

THE FEDERAL BUDGET . . . . .. . .............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . ......... ........ . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General .............. . . . . . . . . . . . .............................................. . . . . . . . . . . ........... ....................................................... ! Reconciliation and a Balanced Budget ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .................... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Framework for Defense ....................... .................... . . . . ..... ................................................... . . . ............... 3

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET ........ ........... ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ...................... . ... .... . . . . ... 5

Budget Allocation ............................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Guidelines and Priorities ......................................................... . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . ? Force Structure and Manpower ........................................................................ ...................................... ?

Manpower ....... ......... . .. . ......... ............................................................. .............................................. 7 Strategic Nuclear Forces .................................................................................................................. 9 Mobility Forces ......................................................................... ....................................................... 9 Space Forces ...... ................................................................................... . . .. . ................................... . ! 0 Special Operations Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . ............... . . ............................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reserve Forces . . . . ............................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. .......................... . . . . . . . 12

Readiness ........... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ........................................................................................................... 13 Modernization .............................. . . . ............................ .... . . . . . ............................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Ballistic Missile Defense .... ................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..................................... . . . . . . . 16 Facilities .................. . ........... . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................... 18

Military Construction .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . ................................................... . . . . . . . . . ......... 19 Family Housing ........................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . ................................ . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Defensewide Programs ........ . . . . . ........................................... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... 20 Health Care ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 20 Base Realignments and Closures .................................................. . . . . ............................................ .20 Environmental Restoration .. . . . . . . . . ............................. .................................. ..... . ...... . . . . ............. ...... 20 Efficiencies and Streamlining ............................................. ......... . . . . ........ . . . . . . ............................... .21 Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . ......................................... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Chemical Demilitarization Program .......................... . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . ... .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Management and Revolving Funds ................................... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..................................... 22 Defense Working Capital Funds ......................................... . . .. . . . ..... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ................................. 23

Impact of QDR on the Budget . . ............................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . ..... 24 Congress: Status and Issues . . . . . . .. . . . ...................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Moving to FY 1999 .............................................................................................................................. 26

ARMY BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 27 Budget Numbers and Trends . . . . . ...... ........................ . . .. . . . ....... . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Army Appropriations .......................................................................................................... ................. 28 Forces ............................................................ . ...................................................................................... 29

Background and Missions ...................................... . . ...................................................................... 29 Army Structure ...... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................. 29 Active Army Divisions ............................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . . 31 Infrastructure ..................................................................................... . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2

iii

Special Operations Forces .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . ........... ............... . . . . . . . . . 32 The Army Engaged . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . ..... ........ . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ........ . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Manpower . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . ... . . ........ . . . . . . . . ............... 33 Strength and Funding ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ............... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . 33 Budget . . . . ....... . . ........................ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . 33 Recruiting ........................... . . . . . . . ............ . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ........ . . . . . .. . . . . . . ............. 35 Quality of Life .............. . . . . .. . . . . . . .......................... . ... . . . ... . .. .... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 36

Training ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................... . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Readiness . . . . . . . . ................... . . . .. . . . . . .............................................................. ...... . . . . . ....... ............... . . . . . . . . . 38 Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................ . . .. . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . 39 Modernization .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . ........ ........................................................... . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ................... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ............ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 42

Aircraft Procurement, Army . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 42 Missile Procurement, Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ................ 44 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . 46 Procurement of Ammunition, Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . ... ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .4 7 Other Procurement, Army (OPA) ........................................................ . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . ..... . . . . . . . .48

Research and Development . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . ........ ..... . . .............. . . . .... . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . ............ ............ 51 Army Highlighted RDT&E Items ......... ................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . 52

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) . . ............................................................. . . . . . . . ......................... . . . . . . . . . . 54 BMDO RDT &E Programs of Special Army Interest . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Facilities . . . .. . . .................................. ............... .... .... .......... .......... ..... . . ......... . ...................... , ................... 55 Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................. ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 55 Family Housing . . . . ....... . . . . ................................... . . ................................. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 56

Army Projection Capability . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . , ............................................................................................. 56 Army Environmental Programs .......................... . . . . . . .................................... , ...................................... 58 Army Working Capital Fund . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . , .................................................. 59 Army Reserve Components Summary ................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 59

Army National Guard .............. , ..................................................................................................... 59 Army Reserve ................ . ........ . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...................... . . . .. . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . 61 Reserve Component Integration ........................ . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Equipping the Reserve Components .................... . . . . .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 62 Future Strength and Structure Issues .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . 63

Army Budget Assessment . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 63 Quadrennial Defense Review .................................................... . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . ............ 64 Conclusion . . . .............................. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . ... . . . . .......................... . . . 64

APPENDIX I- Budget Terms ........... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ................................. . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . ................... 65

APPENDIX II- FY 1998 Army Budget Summary Data .......................... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .............. . . . . . . . . 67 Army Appropriations . ...... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . ................ . . . . . . . . .. . . ................... 67 Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) .. . ... . . .. ... . . . , ........................................................................ 68 Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) and Anny National Guard (OMNG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Procurement ......... . . . . . . . ... . . . ....................... . . .................. . . . . . ................................. . . .. . . . . . ................... . . . . . . 73 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation .............. . . . ....... ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . 79

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 81

lV

TABLES 1. Receipts, Outlays and Surplus or Deficits ..... . . . . . . . . . ................ : ........................................................ 2 2. Defense Top Line . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . .. . . . . . ..... . . . . ............ ............ . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 5 3. DoD Budget Authority by Title . ... . . ................. . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . .......... 6 4. DoD Budget Authority by Component . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ................... . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . 6 5. Share of the DoD Budget by Component .... . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . ............................. ......... . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . 6 6. Force Structure ............. ............. .......................................................... ............................................. 8 7. Personnel . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . ............... ........ . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . ..................... 8 8. QDR Proposed Manpower Reductions ..... . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . 8 9. Space-Based Forces FY 1998 (Projected) ........ . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . .................. 11

10. DoD Space Programs FY 1998 ...................................................................................................... 11 11. Special Operations Forces Investment. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . .................. l2 12. Reserve Component Funding . . . . . . . . ........... . . ......... ........... ...... . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . 13 13. DoD Procurement and RDT &E Funding Profiles ......... . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . ........ 15 14. DoD Selected Major Weapon Systems in the FY 1998 Budget .. ................................................. .17 15. Ballistic Missile Defense Budget. ....... .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 18 16. Military Construction and Family Housing ......................... . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . 19 17. Defense Health Care Program . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . ............................................................. . . . . . . . . ........ 20 18. Environmental Restoration ........ . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . .. . .......... . . . .................... 21 19. Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities- Defense ............ ............. . . . .................................. 22 20. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program . . . . . . . ..................................... ..................... 22 21. National Defense Sealift Fund Program Activity . . . ...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . 23 22. Defense Working Capital Funds Total Obligations ................. . . . . . ..................... ................. ........... 23 23. Army Budget Summary ............................. .................................................................................... 27 24. Anny Summary Total Obligation Authority .................. . . . . . .............. . . . ...................... .................... 27 25. Army Combat Force Structure Changes ....... . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 30 26. Army Corps and Divisions ........ . . . . . . . ........ . . ... . . ........................ . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . .................. ............ 30 27. Active Army Strength ............................................ ............................... . . . . . .................................... 32 28. Army Personnel Appropriations ... . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 35 29. Recruiting and Advertising Budgets ........ . . . . . . . ................. . . . .................... . . . . . . ........ . . . . ....... ............ . . 36 30. Army Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 39 31. Selected Army Systems . . ............ . . . . . . . . . ................ .............. . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . .. . ............................... 41

32. Procurement Summary by Appropriation .... . . . . . . ................................. .... . . . . .................................. .42 33. Army Ammunition . . . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . .......... . . .................... 48 34. Army RDT&E . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . .. ................ . .. . ....... ............. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 52 35. Army Military Construction .......... , ............................................................................................... 55 36. Army BRAC .................................................................................................................................. 56 37. Army Family Housing . . . ................................................................ , ............................................... 56 38. Army Environmental Funding . . . ........... , ........................................................................................ 58 39. Costs, Army Working Capital Fund . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . ................. , .......... 59 40. ARNG Summary .............................. ....................... .................................................... ................... 60 41. ARNG Force Structure and Manning Highlights ........... . . ..... . . . ........ . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 60 42. USAR Budget Summary ....... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ......... .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 61 43. Army Reserve Highlights .................. .' ........................................................................................... 61

v

FIGURES 1. FY 1998 Federal Outlays- $1.687 Trillion ............ . . . . .. . . . . . . ... ... . .. .......... . ... ... ... . . . . . . . . ...... .. . . . .......... . . .! 2. DoD- Military as a Percent of GOP . . . .. . . . . ... . . .. ........ .......... ....... ........ .... . . . . ..... . . . . . . ................... ... . . . . . 3

3. Federal Budget Outlays-(% Distribution) . . . . . . ............ . ............. . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ...... . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4 4. FY 1998 O&M Budget. .. . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . .. .... . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. FY 1998 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) Procurement Profile . . ......... . . ........... . . . . . � . . . . . . . ..... . . . . 16 6. Anriy Program Balance . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . ........ . ... . .. . . . ... . . . . . . ........ . . ....... . . . ... .......... . . . . . . . ....... . 28 7. FY 1998 Worldwide Division Stationing ............................................................................................ 3 1 8. Active Component Personnel Strength ................................................................................................ 34 9. Reserve Component Personnel Strength ...... . . . . ..... . . .......... . . . . ... . . ......... ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ................. . . . . . .. .. 34

10. Civilian Personnel Strength .............................. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . ....................... . . . . ........... ..... .. . . . . . . . . . .. 35 1 1. Army Procurement Funding ........................... . ..... ............. . . . . . .. . .......... . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . ... .... . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . 42 12. Aircraft Procurement. ........................................................................................................................... 43 13. Missile Procurement ... . . . . . ...... . . . . .................. . . . . . ............ . ..... .. . . ............. . .. . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . 44 14. Weapon and Tracked Combat Vehicle Procurement. ......................................................................... .46 15. Ammunition Procurement . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ....... . . ...... . . .... ....... . . . . . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 48 16. Other Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . .. . . ............... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 17. Army RDT &E Funding Profile ........ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ..... . . ........ . . . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 18. Army War Reserve ... ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . ... ... . . . . ..... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . 57 19. Reserve Comp�nent Strength Change ....... . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ......... ... . . . . . . ... 60

vi

INTRODUCTION

When the Department of Defense budget went to Congress in February it was the standard package, with no surprises and few major issues at stake. This was the cycle for a two-year budget presentation, so both FY 1998 and FY 1999 columns were displayed- and backed up by the necessary supporting details with estimates projected through FY 2002 -but with full knowledge that Congress would take action only on the FY 1998 portion.

While 2.5 percent in real terms below the budget appropriated for FY 1997, the FY 1998 budget was still somewhat higher than had been projected last year. It also came with the same funding deficiencies evident in DoD budgets of the past few years: modernization funding well below objective levels; skimping on base support (primarily real property maintenance); and carrying what had become a perennial burden-a supplemental request for unfunded FY 1997 contingency operations. Otherwise, it was standard fare, with force readiness maintaining top priority.

This was also the year for a major review of military strategy and related impacts on modernization policy and force structure, strengths and budget.

As mandated by Congress in the FY 1997 Defense Authorization Act, the Secretary of Defense was to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) with a reporting date of mid-May. Concurrently, an independent National Defense Panel (NDP) was formed not only to critique the QDR but to provide alternate force structure proposals to Congress by December 1997.

While these actions would have little impact on the FY 1998 defense budget, they clearly negated the validity of the FY 1999 numbers. The QDR report, in particular, will have a direct affect on the next (FY 1999) budget as well as program and funding tails extended through FY 2003.

For this reason, AUSA waited for the results of the QDR process before finalizing the budget analysis. This permitted a matching of QDR recommendations with FY 1998 proposals and provided a much better basis for analysis and projections.

The main focus of the AUSA budget analysis remains the FY 1998 budget, which is important in its own right. It is essential in getting the authorities and resources needed for programs and force support through FY 1998. Equally important, the FY 1998 budget as authorized and appropriated, becomes the baseline for future changes.

The NDP will have little direct impact on the development of next year's defense budget because of its late completion date, but with the alternate force structure submission, it will clearly fuel next year's big debate on

the subject.

The other important congressional action which shapes both the FY 1998 and future budgets is the final balanced budget agreement through 2002. This sets defense funding levels which, in effect, become budget ceilings in future years. While the FY 1998 defense budget is within limits, this may well be the ultimate restraint on future defense programs, particularly in terms of outlays.

Throughout this paper, references to the QDR are made where applicable. While Congress has yet to complete final action on the budget, it has reacted to some of the QDR proposed actions in both positive and negative terms, as noted in the text. But, in general, no radical changes are anticipated.

July 1997

I �0)�

Vll

JACK N. MERRITT General, USA Retired President

THE FEDERAL BUDGET

GENERAL

The President's budget as submitted to Congress

for FY 1998 proposed a total of $1.7 1 0 trillion in budget authority (the authority to obligate funds) with

estimated outlays (or actual payments expected to be made) for FY 1998 of$1.687 trillion. A breakout of the

federal budget in terms of outlays is shown in figure 1.

About one-third of the budget is subject to annual appropriations by Congress and listed as discretionary.

The rest falls into fixed categories that include

entitlements (such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,

welfare payments and certain other categories) and

interest on the national debt. The discretionary package

includes national defense, international affairs and

domestic discretionary spending (essentially the cost

of operating the rest of the federal government).

The budget also projected both budget authority (BA) and outlays through the year 2002 along with

estimated deficits. These are assumptions based on

projected program levels and a number of economic

estimates to include inflation, interest rates and a host

of other economic indicators (see table 1 ) .

While the essential purpose of the FY 1998 budget itself is to provide the legal basis and funding for the federal government during FY 1998, public

interest is focused on a balanced federal budget by the

year 2002. Congress is currently wrestling with a balanced budget bill which, when passed and signed

by the President, will establish levels for the various

functional areas (including defense) through this

period. This is a crude tool because of the variable

factors involved, but will serve as the guide for future fund allocations.

Fig. 1 FY 1 998 Federal Outlays- $1 .687 Tri l l ion

Entitlements 52.8%

Social Security Medicare Medicaid Welfare Food Stamps Agriculture Support

::::::::: ::::::::: . ::::::::: : : ::::::: :. ::::::: : ::::::: ::: ::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::;:::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::;:: :::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::.:::.:::

::.:::::::: ::: ::::: . . : ::::.::::: :::::::::: :. :::.::: . ::::::::

Other (automatic payments to entities meeting certain requirements)

Domestic 15.9%

International 1.1%

Defense 15.4%

Debt Interest

14.8% Source: OMB and DoD

Table I

RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND SURPLUS OR DEFICITS

($ billions*)

1996 Estimate

Actual 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Receipts 1,453 I ,505 1,567 1,643 1,727 1,808 1,897

Outlays 1,560 1,631 1,687 I ,761 1,814 1,844 1,880

Surplus/Deficit (-) Unified budget -107 -126 -121 -117 -89 -36 17

*Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Editor's note: The latest treaswy reports reflect better than anticipated receipts for FY 1997, thus a more favorable outlook for closing the gap.

This exercise highlights the important difference between budget authority and outlays. Budget authority provides the legal basis to obligate federal funds; outlays occur when payments are actually made. As a

result, 20 percent or more of outlays during a particular year are generated by prior-year commitments (about 30 percent for defense) and a similar percentage carries forward to future years. Congress can influence future spending by changing laws which affect entitlements or through the annual appropriate process in terms of budget authority. Modifying budget authority is an indirect way to adjust outlays but outlays dtive deficits.

While the balanced budget agreement would incrementally decrease the deficits throughout the period, the total estimated federal debt subject to statutory limitations would still continue to increase through 2001, or until revenues equal outlays. In the meantime, total federal debt subject to statutory limitations is expected to increase from about $5.4 trillion at

the present time to about $6 trillion by 2002, unless

2

Source: Budget of the United States FY 1998

future federal revenues continue on a more favorable track than originally estimated.

The basic economic assumptions on which federal

calculations are based include an average consumer price index of about 2.7 percent, ur.employment rates

of about 5.5 percent and annual growth rates on the

order of 2 to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in real terms, all fairly optimistic.

RECONCILIATION AND A BALANCED BUDGET

Congress is about to come to closure on a balanced budget agreement with li1nits on discretionary spending, which is subject to the annual appropriation process.

For the FY 1998 budget to proceed in an orderly and timely fashion, two things are needed. First comes the balanced budget agreement in the form of a bill. This establishes the amount for FY 1998 discretionary

spending, divided across 13 spending bills. This division will not be easy as many partisan issues are

at stake, but action is needed if the 13 bills are to meet an October 1 deadline; otherwise we face another continuing resolution at the end of this fiscal year.

The current status of the agreement for FY 1998

with respect to the major subelements is summarized

as follows:

Total spending FY 1998: $ 1 .692 ·trillion in ·outlays

Mandatory (entitlements): $ 890 billion in outlays

Interest on the federal debt: $ 249 billion in outlays

Discretionary: $ 553 billion in outlays

Defense: $ 269 billion in budget authority $ 267 billion in outlays

Nondefense: $ 258 billion in budget authority $ 286 billion in outlays

These figures are not much different from the President's budget for FY 1998, but future years will require tough decisions on how to maintain a steady

Fig. 2 DoD - Military as a Percent of GOP

11.7% 12 I -��---- ------------

10

defense level, provide some tax relief and, at the same time, progressively narrow annual deficits to zero by 2002.

One of the major problems will be outlay control. For example, taking national defense and projecting

the current program through 2002, there appears to be $6 billion more in outlays than allowed. If closure on the deficit is the most important thing, then we can expect outlay juggling, and the spend-out rates on

appropriations become very important. Judgment on budget content and program balance will be

heavily influenced by outlays. Defense is particularly vulnerable, because of its investment programs with

multiyear payouts.

FRAMEWORK FOR DEFENSE

Defense now represents slightly more than 15 percent of federal outlays, down from 24 percent in FY 1989 (the first post-Cold War year). Concurrently,

defense as a percentage of GOP decreased from about 6

percent to roughly 3 percent in FY 1998 (see figure 2).

(\ .... .............. .

-----� 9.��-------------�ct��-' ............... . 8

fz LIJ (.) ex: LIJ []_

6

4

2

0 50

7.1%

4.6%

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I 55 60 65 70 75 80

FISCAL YEARS

3

6.1%

85 90

95

Estimate

2002 Source: DoD

Over the same period, Department of Defense (DoD) spending levels decreased 33 percent in real terms, active personnel strength is down 34 percent, reserve component (RC) personnel down 21 percent, and civilian employees down 32 percent; also, procurement spending has decreased 56 percent in real terms.

Figure 3 illustrates trends in federal budget

distribution over the past eight years and a further

projection to 2002. It shows significant and continuing increases in mandatory spending through the entire period. From FY 1990 to FY 1998 defense took major decreases but is now tapering off and is projected on a relatively level line through 2002. On the other hand, nondefense discretionary spending enjoyed moderate

but steady increases from FY 1990 to FY 1998 but will decline as a percentage of the budget after that.

These projections will place severe pressures on discretionary spending over the next few years.

The key action controlling future budget levels is approval of a Balanced Budget Act which will cap discretionary budgets. Current DoD budget guidance for planning purposes is for future levels of about $250 billion in budget authority per year in FY 1997 constant dollars adjusted for inflation. Levels in the pending balanced budget drill generally conform with this.

Other influencing actions relative to future DoD budgets are the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) report issued by the Secretary of Defense on May 19, 1997 and the subsequent report of the National

Defense Panel (NDP) at the end of this calendar year. Although the QDR report will have some marginal influence on the final FY 1998 budget, its real impact will be FY 1999 and beyond. Regardless of QDR

actions, a balanced budget bill signed by the President will establish the defense top-line numbers.

Fig. 3 Federal Budget Outlays - (% Distribution)

FY 1990 = $1.25T FY 1998 = $1.69T FY 2002 = $1.88T

Interest 14.7%

Mandatory 45.4%

Defense 23.9%

Mandatory 52.8%

Nondefense 16.0% Interest

14.8%

Nondefense 17.0%

Defense 15.4%

Mandatory 57.1%

Defense 14.6%

I• Nondefense D Mandatory •Interest D Defense

4

Nondefense 15.6%

Source: DoD

-

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET

The Department of Defense (DoD) budget is

about 95.5 percent of total national defense funding.

The balance goes to the Department of Energy (DoE) for military nuclear programs and to other agencies

for military-related activities.

Table 2 shows defense top line dollar figures for both national defense and Department of Defense,

with projections through FY 2002.

This section of the paper will deal with the DoD segment (the Pentagon budget), focusing on FY 1998, which is the budget now before Congress. Unless

otherwise indicated, dollar figures will be expressed in terms of budget authority.

The DoD FY 1998 request is for $250.7 billion. Outlays for FY 1998 are estimated at $247.5 billion.

While budget authority increases after FY 1998 in current dollar terms, it is essentially flat when adjusted for projected inflation.

The overall drop in the DoD budget in constant dollars from the end of the Cold War to the present- FY 1989 to FY 1998- is about 33 percent. If we go back to the peak

budget year of 1 985, the drop is about 40 percent.

Table 2

Budget Authority �-: · -- · -: -.·--;-�-- ·:...,... .

Department of-Defense .• ·· . .

DoE and other agencies, military functions

Total National Defense

Outlays

Department of Defense

DoE and other agencies, military functions

Total National Defense


DEFENSE TOP LINE

(current $ billions*)

FY97 FY98 FY99

250.0 250.7 256.3:;

12.3 14.6 12.9

262.3 265.3 269.2

. . . 254.3 ·;247�5 249.3

'

:· . ;::- :

12.9 11,9 12.1

267.2 259.4 ' 261.4

5

FYOO FYOl FY02

. . - � , ":- '·:; ... . . :: . . .. 262.8 269.6 277.5

12.2 1 1 .9 1 1 .6

275.0 281.5 289.1

255.2 256.2 261.4

12.0 11.8 11.8

267.2 268.0 273.2

Source: DoD

BUDGET ALLOCATION

Breakouts of the DoD numbers by title and component are shown in tables 3 and 4.

Table 3

DOD BUDGET AUTHORITY BY TITLE (current $ billions*)

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Military Personnel 69.8 69.9 69.5 70. 1 O&M 93.7 92.9 93.7 9 1 .5 Procurement 42.4 44.1 42.6 50.7 RDT&E 35.0 36.6 35.9 35.0 Military Construction 6.9 5 .9 4.7 4.2 Family Housing 4.3 4. 1 3.7 3.9 Revolving Funds 3 . 1 2.3 1.7 1 . 7 Rescission -4.8 Other -.6 - 1 .0 -1.0 -.9

Tot al 254.4 250.0 250.7 256.3


Editor's note: For DoD title groupings, environmental

restoration costs are included with O&M, BRAC costs

with Military Construction and chemical demilitarization

as part of Procurement.

Source: DoD

From table 3, it is apparent that funding for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military

Personnel outweighs everything else. Research, Development and Acquisition - Procurement and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (ROT &E) combined - is only 30 percent of the total for FY 1998, and Military Construction and Family Housing

combined a small three percent. The National Guard

and Reserve appropriations are embedded in the

above titles. About $ 19 billion dollars is included in separate National Guard and Reserve appropriations for FY 1998 under the Military Personnel, Operation

and Maintenance and Military Construction headings.

Personnel-related costs, both military and civilian, are a major part of the DoD budget with more than 46 percent

of the total for FY 1998 - and this does not include

contracting out in lieu of using direct hire personnel. The

dollars associated with military personnel are readily apparent under Military Personnel appropriations.

6

Civilian employees, however, are included under various appropriations, but primarily O&M. Total DoD civilian direct pay for FY 1998 is estimated at $43.7 billion.

Table 4

DOD BUDGET AUTHORITY BY COMPONENT (current $ billions*)

FY89 FY97 FY98 FY99

Army 78. 1 62.4 60.1 62.2 Navy 97.7 78.9 79.1 80.7 Air Force 94.7 72.4 75.0 76.7 Defensewide 20.4 36.4 36.4 36.7

Tot al 290.8 250.0 250.7 256.3

* Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source: DoD

The breakout of the budget by component (table 5) shows changes in balance among the services in recent years and the growing portion in the Defensewide

category; the Defensewide portion increases from seven percent in FY 1989 to almost 15 percent in FY 1998. Concurrently, all the services have lost budget

share. The comparison is even more striking if we go

back to the FY 1985 peak budget year, when the Defensewide portion was only five percent of the budget. Added supply functions of the Defense Logistics Agency, the consolidation of health care funding at DoD, environmental restoration costs and the consolidated Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs are all contributors to this growth in the

Defensewide segment of the budget.

Table 5

SHARE OF THE DOD BUDGET BY COMPONENT

Comparison FY89 and FY98 (percent)

Army Navy Air Force Defensewide

FY89 � F¥98�� 26.9 33.6 32.6

7.0

24.0.

31.6 29.9 14S!

Source: DoD

GUIDELINES AND PRIORITIES

The underlying national policy on which defense

policy and military forces are based is the President's May 1997 statement, A National Security Strategy for

a New Century.

The April 1997 Secretary of Defense Annual Report

to the President and the Congress defined U.S. military

missions in support of national security policy. It stated

that the United States must be able to credibly deter and, if required, decisively defeat aggression in concert with regional allies by projecting and sustaining U.S. power in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts; also, that U.S. forces must be forward deployed

or stationed in key overseas regions to demonstrate

commitment, underwrite regional stability and provide initial capabilities for timely response to crises.

In addition, the United States must be prepared for

a wide range of contingency operations in support of

U.S. interests, and U.S. forces must be capable of responding quickly and operating effectively. In short, they must be ready to fight.

Defense actions are geared to prevent, to deter and finally to defeat (if necessary), in that order.

Preventive defense (e.g., antiproliferation actions and reduction of the nuclear threat) is designed to

preclude the need to deter or to fight.

Deterrence is intended to control threats and preclude others from taking actions harmful to U.S.

interests or to those of our allies and friends. To deter, the United States must maintain strong and ready

forces, demonstrate the will to use them if necessary and make U.S. presence felt. Forward deployment is an effective form of deterrence.

Finally, the use of military force is the method of

last resort if deterrence fails and the vital interests of the United States require military intervention. Desert Shield/Desert Storm is a classic example.

Military forces in the DoD plan are based on the ability to accomplish all of the above.

The May 1997 QDR report essentially confirmed the defense strategy on which the budget is based. It

7

restated military miSSions in the context of engagement, deterrence, small-scale contingencies (SSCs) and major theater wars (MTWs), with military requirements to shape, respond and prepare now.

In setting priorities for the budget, force readiness remains the top priority with the recognition of the critical necessity for attracting and retaining quality people - thus a strong focus on quality-of-life issues. Despite a far lower than desired budget level for

modernization in FY 1998, future procurement is emphasized with the strong commitment for increasing levels of funding in subsequent years. This is

indicated in the five-year projected budget extensions.

FORCE STRUCTURE AND MANPOWER

The principal defense components include land

forces, maritime (Navy) forces and air forces. The major combat force elements under these three categories are reflected in table 6.

In addition, there are forces which provide

operational mission support across the defense spectrum, to include strategic nuclear forces, mobility

forces, special operations forces and space forces. These are discussed separately.

In the land forces category only the brigades are

counted in the reserve component line. The eight Army National Guard divisions are considered strategic reserve but are not included in contingency

warfighting plans as division entities. Of the brigades listed, 15 are enhanced readiness brigades to be

deployable in 90 days from date of mobilization.

Manpower

Military and civilian personnel strength figures are summarized in table 7.

Already planned for FY 1998 are reductions of

21,000 active, 10,000 selected reserve and 27,000

civilians (full-time equivalent). The QDR recommendations, if fully approved, will guide future changes. Based on initial QDR proposals, active forces would go down to 1 .36 million, reserve

Table 6

FORCE STRUCTURE

Land Forces Army active divisions Reserve component brigades Marine Corps divisions (3 active, 1 reserve)

Navy Battle force ships Aircraft carriers

Active Reserve

Navy carrier wings Active Reserve

Air Force Active fighter wings Reserve fighter wings

Cold War Base 1990

1 8 57 4

546

1 5

1 3 2

24 1 2

Base Force 1998

1 2 1 0 34 42* 4 4

430 346

1 3 1 1 1

l l 1 0 2 l

1 5 .3 1 3 1 1 .3 7

*Includes 1 5 enhanced brigades; also includes 8 National Guard divisions (24 brigades).

Table 7

PERSONNEL (end strength in thousands)

Active Military Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Total Active

Selected Reserve

Civilians (FTEs)

FY96

491 4 1 7 1 75 389

1,472

920

8 1 9

FY97 495 402 1 74 3 8 1

1,452

902

799

1��31 ;j ' 89:� :j

: : ' _ 772 i Source: DoD

component (RC) forces to 835,000, and civilian

employees to 640,000. The proposed timing of

additional reductions is not known at this time.

Military Personnel for FY 1998 is budgeted for

$69.5 billion (about 28 percent of the total DoD budget).

The estimated FY 1998 pay for civilians is $41 . 8 billion,

which is included under several appropriations but

8

Source: DoD

primarily O&M. Incorporated is a 2.8 percent pay raise

for both military and civilian personnel.

The QDR report does not recommend any significant

changes in the combat force structure of the active force.

It accepts the requirement for retaining the capability of

successfully fighting two overlapping major theater

conflicts. It also supports the overseas stationing of about

100,000 in Europe and 100,000 in the Pacific. While few

near-term force changes are proposed, the QDR would

reduce personnel and streamline the forces to the degree

required, looking primarily at infrastructure and support

elements. The QDR's proposed reductions from the

presently authorized base are summmized in table 8.

Table 8 QDR PROPOSED MANPOWER REDUCTIONS

Active Reserve Civilian

Army 1 5,000 45,000 33,700 Navy 1 8,000 4, 1 00 8,400 Air Force 26,900 700 1 8,300 Marine Corps 1 ,800 4,200 400

Source: DoD

Strategic Nuclear Forces

In conjunction with its effort to prevent the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the United States intends to maintain a capability to deter and prevent their use, as well as to protect against such weapons. While major reductions in nuclear forces are planned and under way, the United States intends to maintain a strong hedge against outside threats.

The present policy is based on recommendations of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) conducted by DoD and approved by the President on September 8, 1994.

The decision was made to retain the triad of nuclear forces (sea-, air- and ground-based missiles) with sufficient nuclear force to deter and hold at risk those who might otherwise choose to threaten or challenge the United States. The review did not change the number of warheads to be retained under START II, but it did streamline the forces and reduce the number

of platforms that carry the warheads. Under START II the United States and Russia would each be left with between 3,000 and 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads, a reduction of about two-thirds from the Cold War peak.

When START II is ratified by the Russian Duma and the treaty enters into force, the United States will draw down to START II levels by 2003 as follows:

+ 14 Trident submarines, each carrying 24 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles;

+ three wings of Minuteman III intercontinental range ballistic missiles, each equipped with a single warhead;

+ 66 B-52 bombers capable of carrying air-launched cruise missiles;

+ 20 B-2 bombers capable of carrying gravity bombs.

As Russia has not yet ratified START II, and it is uncertain when this will happen, the United States intends to protect its options by maintaining its strategic capabilities at levels agreed upon under START I.

No new U.S. strategic nuclear systems are under development or planned at this time.

Funding for strategic nuclear forces has dropped in recent years, from almost 1 0 percent of the DoD

9

budget in FY 1985 to about three percent for FY 1998. Total funding in the FY 1 998 budget is a little more than $7 billion, about two-thirds of which goes

for O&M and personnel costs rather than investment.

Mobility Forces

Strategic mobility is what makes the projection force concept feasible.

Four key elements are involved: airlift, sealift, prepositioning (both afloat and ashore), and surface transportation, along with the ability to deploy and outload in the United States.

Intertheater requirements were initially defmed in the Mobility Requirements Study, last updated in 1995.

Using the scenario of two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs), the DoD planning process matched various combinations of events against a four-phase scenario. First was the halt phase to stop the enemy, where speed is of the essence and rapid effective airlift essential; this is followed sequentially by a full military buildup phase, a counterattack phase and a postwar stability phase. Because of the need to move heavy equipment and large tonnages, sealift is essential in the buildup phase and to maintaining the force thereafter. Prepositioning, when properly configured and strategically located, greatly improves the probability of effective and timely response.

Airlift. Airlift, with available prepositioning, provides

for rapid delivery of initial units, with sealift delivering the bulk of heavy forces and supplies during the buildup. Sealift will continue to deliver the bulk of materiel needed to sustain force operations. The majority of deploying personnel, however, will be airlifted.

Aerial refueling capability will permit nonstop deployment of tactical aircraft and extend the range of airlift aircraft when needed.

The 1994 version of the Mobility Requirements Study established an intertheater airlift objective of between 49 million and 52 million ton miles per day of cargo airlift capability, the precise amount depending on the level of prepositioning overseas.

=

Airlift requirements will be met by a combination of military aircraft and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF):

+ Strategic military airlift requirements will be met by a mixture of C-1 7, C 1 4 1 and C-5 aircraft. The C-1 4 ls are aging rapidly and will phase out over the next ten years. The current plan is to procure 120 C-17 airlifter aircraft to provide both inter- and

intratheater lift. The C-1 3 0 is a proven aircraft for intratheater use, with the new improved version, the C-1 30J, just starting production.

+ The aerial refueling fleet will be a combination of KC- 135 and K-1 0 aircraft.

+ Heavy reliance will be on the CRAF, which consists of passenger and cargo aircraft that commercial carriers have agreed to make available

for military requirements. Civil aircraft can provide significant support in moving people and lighter cargo, but are limited in their ability to carry a range

of military equipment or heavy tonnage items.

Sealift. Sealift comes from several sources:

government-owned ships, commercial ships under long-term charter to DoD, and ships operating in the commercial trade. The major demand is for roll-on/ roll-off (RO/RO) capacity, container capacity and tanker capacity; breakbulk ships can also be used. To meet the projection force timetable called for in

contingency plans, RO/RO and similar ships must be available and ready on short notice. The 1995 study

recommended surge sealift capacity of 1 0 million square feet, made up of fast sealift ships, large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) vessels and the Ready Reserve Force. It also called for an afloat

prepositioned cargo capacity of four million square feet for the Army and Marine Corps and a complementary land-based prepositioning program.

Sealift is funded by DoD through the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). This includes funds for the Ready Reserve Fleet, formerly budgeted by the Department of Transportation.

Prepositioning. Prepositioning is part of the overall

mobility plan. This is a combination of materiel and equipment afloat and ashore. This year, DoD is using

10

34 ships for afloat prepositioning. Of these, 13 are Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPSs) specifically configured for the prepositioning of Marine Corps equipment and supplies. An additional MPS is being acquired. Fourteen (eight ships from the Ready Reserve Force and six chartered vessels) are carrying equipment and supplies for an Army armored brigade and selected combat and combat support units. Later these will be replaced by LMSRs being procured for this purpose. The rest carry munitions, medical materiel, fuel and equipment for other units required early in deployment.

The Army is presently restructuring unit equipment sets prepositioned worldwide. Two heavy brigade sets will be maintained in Central Europe. A third set,

stored in Italy, is available for use in the Mediterranean area. In Southwest Asia, a brigade set of equipment will be maintained in Kuwait; negotiations under way

to preposition a mechanized battalion set in Qatar, to grow to a brigade set and a division support base later. In addition, there is a proposal for a third brigade set ashore. An armor brigade set is being prepositioned in

Korea in FY 1 997. A Marine Corps brigade set is

prepositioned in Norway.

Space Forces

Space systems play a vital role in supporting all aspects of operations needed for intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, weather information, space-based navigation and communications. The U.S. lead in space is key to maintaining operational dominance now and in the future.

Space force structure is comprised of constellations of satellites and their associated ground-based systems and facilities to cover four basic mission areas: space support, force enhancement, space control and space enhancement.

All military commands, organizations and activities are users of space products and services, but because of the technical complexity and the need for overall

integration and compatibility, DoD established the U.S. Space Command as a unified command reporting to the Secretary of Defense. Its mission is to support the commanders in chief (CINCs).

Table 9 SPACE-BASED FORCES BY 1998 (PROJECTED)

Satellite System

Defense Support Program (Network of ground-based radars)

Global Positioning System

Nuclear Detonation Detection System

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

Defense Satellite Communications System

MILSTAR

Fleet SATCOM System

UHF Follow-on

Space support involves operations to deploy and sustain military systems in space. Force enhancement involves space combat support operations, to include reconnaissance and surveillance, targeting, tactical warning and attack assessment, communications, navigation and environmental monitoring. Space control involves operations to ensure and enhance the

ability of the United States and friendly forces to

exploit space while limiting or denying adversaries '

ability to exploit space for hostile purposes.

The present status of space-based forces 1s

depicted in table 9.

Important network systems for operational

support include :

+ space-based military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) systems which provide satellite

communications services in support of DoD and other government users. The Defense Satellite

Communications System (DCSC) provides super

high-frequency secure voice and high data rate

transmissions worldwide;

+ the Military Strategic/Tactical Relay (MILST AR)

system provides extremely high-frequency (EHF) voice and low to medium data rate transmissions;

+ the Fleet satellite communications (SATCOM) and UHF Follow-on (UFO) systems provide ultra

Mission On-Orbit

Missile warning Classified

Navigation 24

24

2

5

2

4

5

Nuclear detonation detection

Weather and environmental surveillance

Communications

Communications

Communications

Communications

l l

Source: DoD

high-frequency (UHF) and EHF for mobile forces.

The last three UFO satellites will also host the military's Global Broadcast Service (GBS), providing high-bandwidth broadcasts directly to deployed forces.

Unclassified FY 1998 budget requests for

Procurement and RDT &E for major space programs are summarized in table 10 .

Table 10

DOD SPACE PROGRAMS FY 1998 ($ millions)

Program Procurement RDT&E

Defense Satellite 96.0 14.9 Communication System (DCSC)

Defense Support Program 1 1 3.9 23.2

Medium Launch Vehicles 2 18.5 5.7

MILSTAR 676.7

NAVSTAR Global 2 1 8.9 144. 1 Positioning System

Titan Space Launch 555.3 82.4 Vehicles

Source: DoD

Special Operations Forces

Special Operations is a unique category of forces organized into Army, Navy and Air Force components

under a joint U.S. Special Operations Command

(USSOCOM). Created in 1987 at the direction of Congress, special operations forces (SOF) have a total

strength of about 47,000 active and reserve component

personnel.

SOF may be employed independently, but in actual

operations are normally used as part of a joint force

under a theater CINC.

SOF are unique and diverse in the nature and scope

of their missions. These range the spectrum of direct action, special reconnaissance, unconventional warfare,

civil affairs, psychological operations, antiterrorism,

counterdrug operations support and other collateral

activities.

Current use of SOF is best illustrated by its high

operational tempo and extensive overseas deployments.

For the past several years SOF have annually logged

up to 3,000 deployments to some 140 countries in

accomplishing assigned missions.

USSOCOM, unique among the joint commands, has been given responsibility for its own resource manage

ment, to include program, budget and acquisition, and the

authority to deal directly with DoD on these matters.

USSOCOM funds its own training and procures SOFunique (or modified) equipment not funded by other

service budgets. In many cases, USSOCOM funds only unique aspects of new systems, such as the future CV -22

(the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft's special operations version).

The investment portion of the SOF budget pertaining to RDT &E and Procurement is shown in table 1 1 .

T able 11

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES INVESTMENT

RDT&E Procurement

(BA $ millions)

FY96 FY97 ! FY98 FY99

147.0 606.9

142.3 5 1 5.7

1 1 8.5 1 16.3 669.2 61 3.2

Source: DoD

12

Major procurement items for FY 1998 include C-130

aircraft modifications, AC- 1 30U gunship acquisition,

advanced SEAL (Sea-Air-Land team) delivery system, special operations craft, communication and electronics,

and ammunition replenishment.

Other budget areas include Operation and

Maintenance at about $ 1 . 169 billion and Military Construction at about $39 million for FY 1998.

Reserve Forces

The reserve components are more than 3 8 percent of

total U.S. military strength and represent a significant part of total military strUcture. They are located in more

than 4,600 communities and occupy or use some

36,000 facilities. RC strength and major force elements

in the various services, based on FY 1 998 projected

numbers, are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The Army reserve components include both Army

National Guard and Army Reserve, with a combined

FY 1998 projected strength of 574,500. The Army has

eight National Guard divisions designated as strategic

reserve and 1 5 enhanced readiness brigades which are

included in plans for major regional conflicts. Also, more

than 60 percent of the Army's combat support and combat service support is provided by the reserve components.

The Navy Reserve has a programmed FY 1 998

strength of 94,300. Navy Reserve surface ships include

one reserve aircraft carrier, ten surface combatants, two

amphibious ships and five mine warfare ships. The

Navy also provides one reserve air wing.

The Marine Corps' Marine Reserve will maintain a

combat division, an aviation wing and a force service

support group. Strength is programmed at 42,000.

The Air Force, like the Army, has both National

Guard and Reserve forces. Programmed FY 1 998 end

strengths are 1 07,400 for the Air National Guard and

73,400 for the Air Force Reserve. Forces include

seven reserve fighter wings (equivalent).

Altogether the reserve components provide 892,000

selected reserve personnel for total force use.

Most of the former problems of RC accessibility have been resolved, and RC personnel are being used

----- ----

Table 12

RESERVE COMPONENT FUNDING ($ millions)

Title

Military Personnel Reserve (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) National Guard (Army and Air Force)

Operation and Maintenance Reserve National Guard

Military Construction Reserve National Guard

National Guard and Reserve Equipment (appropriated by Congress)*

* Added by Congress.

in virtually all contingency operations for a variety of essential purposes. It is evident that the reliance on the RC will continue to grow.

Each of the reserve components has separate appropriations for Military Personnel, Operation and

Maintenance, and Military Construction. A summary of the RC budget requests for FY 1998 is shown in table 12. Altogether about $19 billion is included in the FY 1998 budget for reserve components.

The reserve components do not budget for procurement since procurement requests are normally carried in various service budgets. In recent years, however, Congress has seen fit to provide a special procurement line for National Guard and Reserve Acquisition of $767 million and $717 million for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 respectively. Funding was also added to RC Military Construction budgets. Similar

increases can be expected for FY 1998.

READINESS

Readiness is the top-priority requirement, but it is a difficult concept to define and even more difficult to measure. Essentially, readiness is a combination of all

1 3

FY96 FY97

4,690 4,647 4,666 4,559

3,577 3,608 5,222 4,965

. 128.3 1 45.9 308.4 268.0

767 7 1 7

FY98

4,596 4,520

;3,762 '5 ,250

67.5 105.3

FY99

4,705 4,529

3,8 1 5 5,349

93.7 65.7

Source: DoD

those things that produce a winning team. From the military perspective it is the ability of a unit to perform its mission effectively and well on short notice.

Readiness depends on quality people and top-notch leadership. It requires the right equipment and weapons in a high state of maintenance. It must have effective

sustaining support and above all requires the right kind of training.

What is formally reported is generally what can be measured and quantified, and the rest of the equation is largely subjective. The proof is always in the execution.

Funding for readiness is closely related to the Operation and Maintenance appropriations in the budget as most readiness-related activities - especially those

involving training and support - are funded by O&M. O&M in the FY 1998 budget totals $93.7 billion, or 37 percent of the DoD budget.

A general breakout of the FY 1998 O&M budget in figure 4 shows the relative degree of flexibility in

using O&M funds. The flexible portion permits some discretion by senior commanders during the year of execution. This is the part which most directly relates to readiness, but also the one that gets "tapped" when

Fig. 4 FY 1 998 O&M Budget

Flexibi l ity: $258 OPTEMPO Depot Maintenance Force Operations Support/

Transportation

Limited Flexibil ity:

Guard and Reserves

27%

Drug Interdiction Recruiting/Training RPMA/Logistic Support/Other

unfunded bills have to be paid - thus the problem of

unfunded contingency operations without timely

replacement of funds by supplemental appropriations.

Readiness remains DoD's number one budget

priority as reflected by the relatively high ratio of

O&M funding. Since FY 1994, O&M funding per

military end strength, even when adjusted for inflation,

has averaged some 1 8 to 20 percent higher (excluding Desert Storm) than during the prior decade.

After people, training is the most important factor

in force readiness. Training activities in terms of

operational tempo (OPTEMPO) and planned exercises

are fully supported.

Unprogrammed and unbudgeted contingencies have been a chronic problem in recent years. Unless

funds are replaced in a timely manner, this results in

cancellation or curtailment of other training and support.

FY 1997 was no exception.

The FY 1 997 DoD budget had initially requested

and Congress had appropriated $ 1 .3 billion for military

14

No Flexibi l ity: $468 Civilian Pay and Benefits Health Program Environmental Utilities/Rents Mobil ization Contingency Operations

50o/o

Source: DoD

contingency operations projected at the time, but

subsequent events developed which required $2 billion

in additional unbudgeted operations costs. This related

directly to increased intensity of U.S. operations in

Southwest Asia and the President's approval for U.S.

participation in the new phase of operations in Bosnia.

To cover this after the fact, a $2 billion FY 1 997 supplemental appropriation request was forwarded with the FY 1998 budget. An interesting feature was the

concurrent request to rescind $4.8 billion in previously

appropriated FY 1997 funds, targeting items which had

been added but which the Secretary of Defense had

deemed not essential. Of this, the budget assumed that $2 billion of the rescission would offset the supple

mental request.

Since most of the identified additions had been

added in committee during the FY 1997 budget process,

this was not a particularly appealing offer to Congress.

While the supplemental is now forthcoming, forces in

the field had to borrow against the fourth quarter of FY 1997 and were facing the possibility of curtailing

training for the latter part of the fiscal year.

------------------·-----��-·-� ---��---•----

The FY 1 998 DoD budget now before Congress has a specific line item request for $2.2 billion to cover the expected costs of ongoing military contingency

operations, primarily for.

Other factors which are critically important to

readiness in the mid- to long term relate to the quality of the force - the need to attract the right people and to retain those with the needed technical and leadership

skills. This is highly dependent on working and living environments, challenging work and other benefits. Family considerations are paramount, since more than 60 percent of the active force is married. Improving quality of life for uniformed servicemembers and their families is receiving special attention. Included in the

FY 1998 budget is support for:

+ a 2.8 percent pay raise and retiree cost-of-living allowance;

+ construction, upgrading and improvements for family housing, barracks and living spaces for unaccompanied servicemembers;

+ support for preserving health care and commissary benefits;

+ other initiatives such as child care, welfare and recreation and family support.

While in the short term readiness is essentially O&M-oriented, in the long term, investment in modernized weapons and equipment becomes an important readiness factor. This is discussed in the next section.

MODERNIZATION

In the budget context the term "modernization" equates to those things relating to research, development

and acquisition (RDA) and is expressed in appropriation language as RDT &E and Procurement.

The funding records of both RDT &E and procurement over time tell their own story. Table 1 3 shows funding profiles in constant FY 1 998 dollars from FY 1 989 to the present.

For Procurement, the FY 1 998 budget request is almost 57 percent less than in FY 1989. If we go back further to the peak year of FY 1985, the drop is an astonishing 69 percent. A similar but less radical decline is apparent for RDT &E, with a 24 percent drop since FY 1 989. At the same time the ratio of Procurement to RDT &E - about 3 : 1 in the mid- 1 980s - narrowed to less than 1 .2: 1 in the FY 1 998 budget.

It is generally acknowledged that Modernization has been underfunded in recent years because of the requirements for force readiness and the drain of unanticipated costs of unplanned contingency operations. Modernization funding must now be increased to meet the recapitalization needs of the next century. The objective level for Procurement set by the Secretary of Defense is now $60 billion annually, so the $42.6 billion for DoD Procurement in the FY 1 998 budget is well below the mark. The plan now is to ramp up Procurement to reach the $60 billion level by FY 200 1 . Figure 5 shows the projected profile.

Modernization programs followed the DoD guidelines of ( 1 ) leap-ahead systems, (2) cost-effective upgrades, (3) expanded battlefield awareness and (4) a stronger Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program.

Although FY 1998 provides austere funding, no major systems were cancelled; all remain on the table for the QDR and subsequent decisions.

Table 13

DOD PROCUREMENT AND RDT&E FUNDING PROFILES (constant FY98 $ billions)

DoD Procurement Funding

DoD RDT &E Funding

FY89

97.5

47.0

FY91

83.0

42. 1

15

FY93

58.5

42. 1

FY95

46.4

36.8

FY96

44.2

36.5

FY97

45. 1

37.4

FY9s ·

42 .. 6

35.9

Source: DoD

Fig. 5 FY 1998 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) Procurement Profile

($ bil l ions)

80 / - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

60 /.

/ E 40 57.0

44. 1 42.6

20

--

I/ 0 97 98 99

- - - - - - - - -

/'1 ;:

60.7

--

00

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -· -

�

60.7

01

L ;·{<

68.3

- - -

1---:;

02

Fiscal Years

FY 1998 selected highlights (Procurement and RDT&E) in each of the above categories include:

+ leap-ahead: Comanche helicopter, V-22 tilt-rotor

aircraft, New Attack Submarine (NSSN), F-22

Advanced Tactical Fighter, Joint Strike Fighter and F I A - 1 8 E/F tactical aircraft.

+ cost-effective upgrades: CH-47 Chinook medium

lift helicopter engine, Apache Longbow attack helicopter, Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrade, medium truck service life extension, AV-8B Harrier aircraft remanufacture, and B- IB bomber upgrade.

+ expanded battlefield awareness: funding for Army

digitization (Force XXI), unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAVs), Global Broadcast Service (GBS), Spacebased Infrared System (SBIRS) and MILST AR.

The BMD program is discussed in a separate section.

A selected list of major Procurement and RDT &E programs in FY 1998, with dollar amounts, appears in table 14.

16

Source: DoD

The QDR addressed modernization initiatives but proposed no radical program changes. The report

indorsed stable and focused modernization to implement the vision of future warfare. Some proposed initiatives were to reduce buys and slow production rates on the FA- 1 8E/F and F-22 tactical aircraft, to fully fund the

National Missile Defense program, to accelerate deployment of Army's Force XXI, and to expand chemical and biological warfare (CW/BW) protection.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Ballistic Missile Defense, or BMD - one of the largest of DoD's ongoing developmental programs is managed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO) within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The growing proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction, along with ballistic missiles and cruise

missiles for delivery, poses a growing threat to the United States as well as to allies and other friendly nations. This has increased the urgency and higher

funding priorities of BMD programs.

--- --------

Table 14

DOD SELECTED MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS IN THE FY 1998 BUDGET ($ millions)

Program

Aircraft AH-64D Apache Longbow (Army) RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter (Army) A V-8B Harrier (Navy) E-2C Hawkeye (Navy) F/A-1 8E/F Hornet (Navy) B-2 Stealth Bomber (Air Force) C-17 Airlift Aircraft (Air Force) E-8C Joint STARS Aircraft (Air Force) F-22 Advanced Fighter (Air Force) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (DoD/Joint) V-22 Osprey Tilt-rotor (DoD/Joint)

Missiles Javelin Antitank System (Army/Marine Corps) Longbow Hellfire Missile (Army) Trident I I Ballistic Missile (Navy) Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile

(AMRAAM) (DoD/Joint) Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile

(JASSM) (DoD/Joint) Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) (DoD/Joint)

Vessels DDG-5 1 Aegis Destroyer (Navy) New Attack Submarine (NSSN) (Navy)

Tracked Combat Vehicles Abrams Tank Upgrade Program (Army) Bradley Fighting Vehicle Upgrade Program (Army) Crusader Advanced Field Artillery System (Army)

Space MILSTAR Communications Satellite (Air Force) NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (Air Force) Titan Space Launch Vehicles

Other

FY 1998 Procurement (includes initial spares)

525.2

320.5 362.2

2,261.4 241 .8

2,290.3 37 1 .0

80.9

570.5

185.2 264.7 339.3

1 74.6

59.8

2,87 1 .8 2,599.8

622 . 1 125.6

2 18.9 555.3

Tactical Trucks (FHTV*, FMTVt and HMMWVt) (Army) Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) (DoD/Joint)

284.7 384.6

* Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV)

t Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) t High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)

17

FY 1998 RDT&E

282.0 1 1 .0 64.9

267.5 355.8 1 13.6 1 1 9.2

2,071 .2 930.9 529.5

8.2

28.7

56.5

2 1 2.9 96.2

87.9 396.5

33.3 75.3

322.3

676.7 144.1

82.4

1 3.6 2,582.0

Source: DoD

------------------------------------------------------�------

The overall program consists of three basic elements: Theater Missile Defense (TMD), National Missile Defense (NMD) and supporting technologies. First priority is for defense against theater-range ballistic missiles, which represent the most urgent threat Next is the development of a defensive capability against longerrange ballistic missiles which could threaten the United States sometime in the future.

Theater Missile Defense is being pursued to meet the

threat that exists now. The goal is to develop, procure and deploy systems that can protect forward-deployed and expeditionary elements ofU.S. forces, as well as allied and friendly nations, from theater-range ballistic missiles. In general these programs are structured to proceed at the fastest pace that the technology risks will allow. Key programs include the Patriot PAC-3, Navy Area TMD, Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Navy Theater-wide TMD, Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Airborne Laser (ABL).

The next BMD priority is development of a

National Missile Defense program that positions the United States to field the most effective possible system to defend U.S. territory in the future when the threat warrants such a deployment.

The third BMD priority is the continued develop

ment of a technology base that improves the capability of both the Theater and National Missile Defense programs to respond to emerging threats.

Appropriation summaries for BMD programs in the FY 1998 budget are shown in table 15.

Within the total RDT &E and Procurement funding for FY 1998, about $2.2 1 3 billion is for Theater Missile Defense, $504 million for National Missile Defense and $250 million for support technologies.

Through FY 1997 all BMD budgeting was

identified under BMDO. In FY 1998, Procurement funding was moved to the applicable military department budgets. For example, procurement of Patriot PAC-3

($349 million in FY 1998) appears in the Army

Procurement budget. Congressional language pending in the FY 1998 authorization bill, however, will require reversal of this action so that all BMD funding control will remain in BMDO.

1 8

Table 15

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE BUDGET (BA $ millions*)

FY97 FY98 FY99

RDT&E 3,373 .4 . 2,582.0 2,272.6

Procurement 262.9 384.6 440.0

Military Construction 1 .4 7 . 1 14.8

Total 3,637.7 2,973.7 2,724.4


Source: DoD

The QDR report provided strong support to Ballistic Missile Defense. It not only confirmed high priorities for Theater Missile Defense, but proposed additional funding for National Missile Defense to permit a deployment decision by FY 2000 if warranted. For this purpose, about $2 billion in additional funding is expected to be added over the program period. The QDR also stated the need for more emphasis on cruise missile defense.

In a 23 May 1997 letter to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense William Cohen indicated a need for an

additional $474 million in the FY 1998 budget for NMD to accelerate the program toward a decision point in 2000. At the same time, he acknowledged a slowdown in THAAD system development because of successive test failures. More time will be needed for corrective actions.

FACILITIES

The FY 1998 budget requests $8.58 billion for the combined total of Military Construction and Family Housing appropriations. These appropriations are contained in a separate Military Construction bill passed by Congress.

Budget numbers for FY 1996 through 1999 are summarized in table 16.

..

---------

Table 16

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING ($ billions in Budget Authority)

Military Construction FY96 6.89

(Separate appropriations for Anny, Navy, Air Force, Defensewide and each reserve component by service)

Family Housing (FH) Total (Separate appropriations for Army, Navy, Air Force, Defensewide and Homeowners Assistance)

4.26

PH Construction (.96)

PH Operations (includes debt payments)

Housing Improvement Fund

(3.28)

(.02)

Total Military Construction and Family Housing

1 1 . 15

Military Construction

Military Construction includes separate accounts for Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense agencies, and

for NATO infrastructure and construction costs associated with base closures. Of the $4.7 billion for FY 1 998, the largest portion (about $2. 1 billion) will go to base realignment costs. After NATO security

investment and planning and design costs are subtracted, only about $2.4 billion Defensewide will be available for basic construction.

Of the other projects included for FY 1 998, the largest single item is for troop barracks, with a budget

request of $606 million, which is in line with the Defense Secretary's priority focus on quality-of-life issues. Other funding goes to operational facilities ($334 million), supply facilities ($226 million), and hospital and medical facilities ($ 1 13 million).

Family Housing

About one-fifth of the Family Housing account is designated for construction. The rest goes for operating costs, to include debt payments and homeowners' assistance.

19

FY97 5.87

4.12

(.75)

(3.34)

(.03)

9.98

FY98 4.72

3.67

(.74)

(2.93)

·,_ .-.:,....;.;_ · .

sj9 .

FY99 4.25

3.88

(.70)

(3.00)

( . 18)

8.12

Source: DoD

Family Housing budgets have remained fairly steady in recent years, but much of the family housing

inventory needs upgrading, and an increasing backlog of maintenance and repair is an endemic problem. The

goal is to renovate family quarters on a 35-year cycle.

DoD currently owns more than 300,000 military family housing units, approximately two-thirds of

which require either renovation or replacement.

DoD also maintains more than 400,000 unaccompanied housing or barracks spaces. More than 60

percent require significant repair.

A new account titled Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) was established last year in support of the Housing

Revitalization Act, which authorizes Congress to use limited partnerships, make guaranteed loans and

convey DoD-owned property to stimulate private

sector participation. Twenty-two million dollars was appropriated in FY 1 996 and $20 million added in FY 1 997 for a test of the concept. While nothing is budgeted for FY 1998, $ 1 80 million is being requested for FY 1999. This concept has tremendous long-term potential.

--------------------------------- - � - -- ---

DEFENSEWIDE PROGRAMS

Health Care

Health care is a defensewide program with funding consolidated at DoD. The program consists of Anny, Navy and Air Force medical facilities supplemented

by the new TRICARE system.

FY 1998's total program of $15.74 billion, of which $5.7 billion would be reimbursable is shown in

table 17.

Potential beneficiaries for FY 1 998 total some 6.3 million, to include 1.59 million active duty personnel,

2 . 1 9 million dependents of active duty, 2.04 million

retirees and dependents under 65 years of age, and

1 .44 million retirees and dependents over 65.

For FY 1 998 medical care will be provided at 98

hospitals or medical centers and 488 clinics.

The new TRICARE system has subsumed

CHAMPUS. Ongoing studies in Defense are making detailed analyses of overall military health care

requirements from both needs and future costs

considerations.

Health care is the number one concern for soldiers

with families and of equal concern to retirees and

their dependents. This is a major quality-of-life issue.

Table 17

DEFENSE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM (Budget Plan)

($ billions*)

FY96 FY97

O&M 9.87 9.94

Procurement .29 .27

Total Direct 10.15 10.21

Reimbursable Program 4.41 5.70

Total Budget Plan 14.56 15.91


I FY98 i ;. i i I i 9.77 i I !

f .27

" Hl.04

5.70

15.74

FY99

9.50

.25

9.74

5.70

15.44

Source: DoD

20

Base Realignments and Closures

BRAC 95 was the last of the Base Realignment and Closure commissions sanctioned by Congress.

Altogether there were four commissions between

1988 and 1995, resulting in recommendations for 97

major closures. By the end of FY 1996 the military

departments had closed 56 bases; 22 bases are slated

for closure in FY 1 997.

These closures and realignments involved costly up-front expenditures, and only in FY 1997 will total

savings catch up with costs. DoD has estimated that when all of the recommendations, including realign

ments and the closures of smaller bases, have been

fully implemented by year 200 1 , BRAC savings will

net about $ 1 4 billion and annual recurring savings

will be about $5.6 billion. In the meantime, the DoD

budget is still funding substantial BRAC costs. The

FY 1998 budget submission shows $2. 1 billion for FY 1 998 and $ 1 .6 billion for FY 1999.

Now a look to the future: While the total force has

decreased by some 3 3 percent, the base structure,

counting all BRAC actions, will contract by about 20

percent. If additional streamlining of the infrastructure is to be realized, more consolidations will be necessary.

The QDR report has brought this into focus. If actions to cut the share of the budget devoted to

infrastructure are to be realized, additional consolidations and base closings must follow; such reductions are

necessary to provide resources needed for force and modernization.

The QDR report recommends two additional BRAC rounds in 1 999 and in 200 1 . Secretary of Defense

Cohen has asked Congress to provide some legislative

authority this year, but it is not a popular idea in

Congress and is apparently a dead issue for this session.

Environmental Restoration

The Defense Environmental Restoration program

provides for the identification, investigation and cleanup

of contamination resulting from past DoD activities.

For FY 1996 and prior, these functions were funded in

the Defense Environmental Restoration Account

(DERA). Starting with FY 1997, Congress established

five separate accounts: one for each military department, one for Defense agencies and one for formerly used Defense sites. The Army acts as the executive agent for the former Defense sites. Program requested funding is shown in table 1 8 .

At the beginning o f 1 996, DoD had about 12,500

active sites at more than 688 military installations and about 2,640 formerly used Defense properties (not including sites on closing installations) requiring attention (study or actual clean-up).

This represents only the restoration portion of the environmental pie. Environmental funding is included in military department and Defensewide budgets to support such environmental programs as environmental compliance, pollution prevention, conservation and environmental technology. These costs are embedded in various appropriations, largely O&M but also identified in RDT &E and Construction. All this IS estimated at about $2.5 billion total for FY 1 998.

In addition, BRAC costs which are not reflected in table 18 , carry a significant environmental tail.

Table 18

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ($ millions)

Army

Navy

Air Force

Defensewide

Formerly used Defense sites

Total

FY96 FY97 · FY98 FY99 Actual Estimate Estin:;�ate · Estimate

339 ;__ ; , · 377 ' 386 i

-

288 278 288

394 .. 379 387

37 28 26

256 202 · · , , 202

1,411 1,314 1,264 1,288

Source: DoD

Efficiencies and Streamlining

A number of initiatives are underway which fall under the general heading of efficiencies. They involve reducing overhead, streamlining infrastructure, reforming the acquisition process, reducing excess inventories, outsourcing and privatizing a range of

2 1

support activities, leveraging commercial technology, simplifying standards and specifications, shortening cycle times and providing more program stability. Also, an effort is being made to reduce the inventory of unneeded real property and facilities.

By such efficiencies in conjunction with an intensive review of the whole Defense infrastructure for streamlining, the objective is to offset the estimated $ 1 5 billion needed annually to provide future procurement increases.

New base closures are clearly in order. This was the purpose of past BRAC commissions, but they did not go deep enough.

A review panel - the Defense Reform Task Force - was established by Secretary of Defense Cohen in early May of this year to specifically review defense infrastructure and industrial activities. This will include all the Defense agencies and OSD as well as the departmental headquarters and will cover territory not addressed in the QDR.

In the near term, Secretary Cohen has asked Congress to take action this session on several requests to facilitate cost-saving measures. These include:

+ authorizing a new Base Realignment and Closure Commission for additional closure rounds in FY s 1999 and 200 1 ;

+ providing congressional relief from the 60/40

statute which requires that at least 60 percent of depot maintenance work be done by government employees;

+ repealing the floors on active military strength included in the FY 1997 Defense Authorization Act, so that DoD can proceed with changes proposed in the QDR report.

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities

This is a special appropriation to provide DoD support to drug interdiction and counterdrug activities through expanded use of reserve component personnel.

The funds appropriated under this heading are specifically restricted to this purpose and are intended for transfer to appropriations available for use of the

reserve components. This applies particularly to the National Guard, who are active in a number of cooperative antidrug programs.

Budgeted amount are shown in table 19.

Table 19

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES - DEFENSE

($ millions)

FY96 FY97 Estimate

807

FY98 Estimate

653

FY99 Estimate

652

Source: DoD

Chemical Demilitarization Program

Chemical Demilitarization is a defensewide program for complete disposal of the U.S. chemical stockpile. The Army is the executive agent and

program manager, with funding provided in a special

DoD appropriation for the destruction of chemical agents and munitions and the destruction of any other chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical weapon stockpile.

The task of disposing of the total stockpile of some 30,000 tons of chemical agents, involving about 3 .3 million weapons and storage vessels, has been technologically difficult and subject to much controversy with respect to safety and assurance of doing the job in a risk-free way.

A May 1 996 report by DoD provided the status of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP), declaring it to be operational. The report also contained

recommendations for revisions and future actions on the program. Requested amounts in the budget for this program are shown in table 20.

The weapons to be destroyed are located at eight sites in the United States and on Jolmston Atoll in the Pacific. The Jolmston Atoll incineration facility is in operation now. A second site at Tooele Army Depot in Utah, where 40 percent of the stockpile is kept, started incineration last year. Similar facilities at

22

Anniston, AL, Pine Bluff, AR and Umatilla, OR will be built.

DoD has been challenged to find ways other than incineration to destroy or neutralize chemical agents. The Army is pursuing two such possibilities. However, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences has determined that incineration is a safe and effective method of destroying chemical weapons and has also concluded that indefinite storage of chemical weapons presents greater risk than proceeding with the incineration technology. NRC is also reviewing additional technologies proposed by industry, but none of these would be near-term options.

The overall program is estimated to exceed $ 1 2 billion.

Table 20

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM

($ millions)

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

RDT&E 53 88 66 1 12 Procurement 259 1 9 1 82 404

: ;

O&M 344 478 472 578

Direct Program Total 656 758 621 1,094

Source: DoD

MANAGEMENT AND REVOLVING FUNDS

DoD has a series of management and revolving funds established for financing certain activities. They generally apply to business-like transactions and are intended to simplify finance and accounting, particularly when two or more appropriations are involved. They

have a corpus with funds appropriated by Congress.

The revolving funds receive reimbursement from customer appropriations for work done or supplies and services provided. Two of these - National Defense Sealift Fund and Defense Working Capital Funds

(formerly the Defense Business Operations Fund) are summarized here because of their particular significance.

There are also a number of lesser revolving and management funds established for better control and financial accounting.

National Defense Sealift Fund. The purpose of this fund is to support National Defense Sealift programs and activities and to fund expenses of the National

Defense Reserve Fleet.

It was established by Congress with passage of the

FY 1 993 DoD budget and a corpus of $2.9 billion. Different from most revolving funds, the National Sealift Fund requires recharging by regular appropriations to

meet ongoing program needs.

The program by activity for FY 1 996 to 1 999 is

summarized in table 2 1.

Table 21

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND PROGRAM ACTIVITY

($ millions*)

FY96 FY97 : FY98 FY99 Actual Est. ··· Est. Est.

Strategic Sealift Acquisition 788 1 , 152 · 81_3 322

Strategic Sealift O&M 744 741 741 741

Ready Reserve Force 278 266 302 276

Defensewide 17 8 . 76 .. 92

Total 1,827 2,168 1,933 1,431

*Numbers may not add due to rounding

Source: Budget of the United States

The new budget authority request for FY 1 998 is $ 1 .2 billion.

Defense Working Capital Funds

Four Working Capital Funds - the Army Working Capital Fund, the Navy Working Capital Fund, the Air Force Working Capital Fund and the Defensewide Working Capital Fund - were established in December

1996 when the previous Defense Business Operating Fund was discontinued. The functions of all are

essentially the same - to fmance designated businesstype operations of industrial, commercial and support

activities. All operate on the basis of funded reimbursables from customers.

23

Working Capital Fund activities include:

• supply management;

• depot maintenance;

• ordnance;

• information services;

• commissary operations;

• printing and publications;

• transportation;

• financial operations;

• distribution depots;

• research and development (Navy);

• industrial plant equipment services;

+ defense reutilization and marketing service.

The overall level of activity is high. Total obliga

tions of the four funds are summarized in table 22.

Table 22

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS TOTAL OBLIGATIONS

($ billions)

FY96 FY97 FY98 ' FY99 Actual Estimate

'Estim�te Estimate

Army 9.5 8.9 . 8.7: .. 8.6 Navy 2 1 .6 20.4 ' ' 19.4 . 1 9.0 Air Force 1 3 .6 13 .7 ' 1 9 .. 3 : 1 9.3 Defensewide 27.8 30.3 ' , 1 9.9 · ': 1 9.7

Total Obligations 72.5 73.3 67.3 .. 66.6 ... . · .. · ··' ·'· !: .. -. .. : - -

Source: Budget of the United States

These are significant numbers and show that more than 25 percent of the total Defense budget resources

move through one of the Working Capital Funds for

some purpose. The Defensewide Working Capital Fund has a large share of the action because it includes all the

Defense agencies and especially the Defense Logistics agency, which is a big player in the supply management area. The Air Force . took a good jump in FY 1 998

because the Joint Transportation Command is now managed under the Air Force Fund.

The decreases projected after FY 1997 are due to

anticipated lowering of customer orders based on lower operating budgets.

IMPACT OF QDR ON THE BUDGET

Overshadowing the whole budget process is the ongoing national security review. This is being conducted by of two separate review groups, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the National Defense Panel (NDP). The QDR is directly under the Secretary of Defense, with a report provided May 1 9,

1 997. It defined strategy and focused on force structure, modernization, and budget considerations. The NDP, an independent panel which parallels the QDR, is actively conducting its review at this time and will report to Congress in December 1997. The NDP not only critiques the QDR report but provides alternate force structure options and is extending its vision of the security environment to 2020 and beyond.

The QDR is closely tied to Defense budget interests and will have direct impact on near-term budget and program actions. The NDP, on the other hand, looks beyond and will provide the grist for serious long

term policy and security debates starting next year.

QDR is providing the basis for guidance in next year's (FY 1999) DoD budget. For this reason, it is worthwhile to reemphasize some of the key provisions of the QDR. For more complete coverage, the 69-page Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, dated May 1997, is recommended. [For a copy of the QDR report, call OSD Public Affairs, 703-695-0192 or access the Internet at http://www.dtic.mil/defenselink/ top story I quad.html.]

In general, the QDR reinforces the basic guidelines for the FY 1998 budget, endorsing present national security policy and, more precisely, defining a strategy which is compatible with engagement and enlargement. It formally acknowledges the need to plan for and conduct small-scale contingencies and reasserted the requirement of being able to fight (and win) two major theater wars. It restated the need to get modernization back on track and supported the basic modernization thrusts already under way, but with some proposed program reductions. It also proposed some force and strength reductions as cost-offsetting mechanisms.

Other pertinent QDR positions and decisions on structure, strength and modernization, extracted from

24

AUSA's Summary of Quadrennial Defense Review (Background Brief No. 74, June 1997), follow:

The QDR assumes that defense spending will remain constant in the future at $250 billion a year (in constant FY 1 997 dollars). The report reaffirms the commitment to achieve a $60 billion procurement program annually in the future.

As part of the restructuring of the force, the total active duty end strength will be reduced from the previously planned level of 1 .42 million to 1.36 million, reserve component forces will decline to 8 35,000 from 890,000 and the civilian force will fal l to 640,000 from 720,000.

Major force structure and modernization decisions:

Army - Acceleration of Force XXI modernization plan; retention of ten active, combat-ready divisions;

reduction of the force by 1 5,000 active duty personnel by deactivation, consolidation and realignment of headquarters and support facilities; and reduction of its reserve component forces by 45,000 through restructuring, deactivation and conversion.

Navy - Retention of 1 2 carrier battle groups and 1 2 amphibious ready groups; reduction of surface combatants in the fleet from 128 to 1 16; reduction of

attack submarines from 73 to 50; increase of the Navy's planned Joint Strike Fighter buy to 480 aircraft; reduction of the planned F/A- 1 8E/F buy from 1 ,000 to between 548 and 785; reduction of active duty personnel by 1 8,000; and reduction of its reserve component by 4,100 personnel.

Air Force - Shifting of one fighter wing from active

to reserve component (total force becomes 12 active and eight reserve fighter wings); consolidation of fighter and bomber units; reduction of force structure for continental air defense; reduction of active duty personnel by 27 ,000; and reduction of planned F-22 procurement from 438 to 339.

Marine Corps - Retention of three Marine Expeditionary Force capability; restructuring of support responsibilities; and acceleration of MV-22

(the Marine Corps version of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft) procurement while reducing the buy to 360.

r

Missile Defense - Retention of National Missile

Defense as high priority, adding $2 billion to its

development; and deceleration of THAAD theater missile defense program due to technical problems.

Nuclear Forces - Retention of current START I force structure. After Russian Duma ratification,

reduction to START II levels and negotiation of

further reductions following the START III framework.

Infrastructure - Request of authority from Congress

for two rounds of Base Realignment and Closure,

including a consolidation of laboratories and research,

development and test facilities; seeking additional

outsourcing and opportunities to reengineer DoD

business practices; and calling for broad infrastructure

deregulation to permit more efficient operations.

There is nothing in the QDR which is directly

incompatible with the FY 1998 budget; problems

requiring further debate and negotiations will become

issues for next year.

CONGRESS: STATUS AND ISSUES

How is Congress reacting to all of this?

In general, the defense oversight committees are

supportive of the overall DoD budget and there are

few, if any, major issues that should delay passage of

the authorization and appropriations bills in a timely

manner. The inclination of these committees has been

to increase Defense levels to a modest degree, but they

are constrained by the balanced budget agreement.

The five-year balanced budget agreement between

President Clinton and congressional leaders allowed a $2.6 billion increase in defense spending. The defense

authorizing committees have conformed to this, but

the appropriation subcommittees are aiming higher,

with the Senate proposing an additional $3.3 billion and House proposing a DoD bill some $4.4 billion over request. The differences will have to be thrashed

out after the August break. In the process there will be

some "pet rocks" added which are not on the admin

istration's list, but this is the normal order of business.

The congressional co:mmittees have taken cogni

zance of the QDR report with a less than enthusiastic

attitude for now. Some members of Congress were

25

openly disappointed with the lack of boldness they

saw in the document. Secretary of Defense Cohen

stirred it up a bit with his personal request for some

specific actions during this session to facilitate

implementation of QDR recommendations in FY 1999.

Among the actions Cohen requested were 1 )

language to permit new base closure actions i n F Y 1 999

and FY 200 1 ; 2) change in the 60/40 legislation which

requires that 60 percent of depot maintenance be

performed in government facilities; 3) language repealing

the FY 1997 Defense Authorization Act floors on active

military strengths so that reductions could be set in motion

next year; and 4) more funding for National Missile

Defense, for chemical and biological weapons defense

and for additional Air Force and Navy flying hours.

Secretary Cohen's requests received mixed reactions:

The request for a new Base Closure Commission received

a negative response, at least for now. Congress will

probably fmesse the depot maintenance question and slip

the issue to next year. Some leeway will be provided

on personnel strength in the Authorization Conference,

but the issue will be further addressed next year. Additional funding support is being provided for

National Missile Defense, chemical and biological

defense and for the additional flying hour requirements.

Timing of congressional actions on the DoD

budget are pretty much on track.

Appropriations follow authorizations and normally

appropriation marks in each body are in line with the

authorization bill presented by that body. They can be

more restrictive, however, in terms of funding, and

may reflect other changes based on the independent

judgment of the different committees.

The Military Construction appropriation, including

Family Housing, has its own bill separate from the

rest of the DoD appropriations.

All actions and reports by the authorizing committees

have been completed and are now awaiting House/

Senate conference action. The Defense Appropriations

subcommittees will also complete actions before the

August break. This leaves final conference and floor

actions for after the break. Barring major disagreements,

unexpected amendments or a presidential veto, there

will be a defense budget before the end of the fiscal year.

As for significant congressional issues, we have only the House and Senate Authorization reports to go on so far. Comparative Appropriations Committee reports are not yet available.

The House National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee are based on identical top lines of $2.6 billion more than requested in the President's budget, but the mix is somewhat

different and will be the basis for conference issues.

One significant issue is the B-2 bomber. The House would add $322 million to reestablish the B-2 production line, with the intention of producing nine more B-2s in the future. The Senate is in line with the administration's proposed B-2 program, which would cap the number of B-2s at 2 1 .

Another difference relates to authorized military strengths. The House committee, at least for now, did not change the strength floors set last year. The Senate,

however, proposes to reduce active Army strength by

10,000 and Army National Guard strength by 5,000 below requested levels. This will be a conference item, but other more contentious strength adjustments proposed in the QDR will have to wait until next year.

The Senate is more permissive on contracting out

depot maintenance than the House, and compromise language will have to be worked out in conference; no significant changes in the rules are expected this year.

Another issue to be resolved in conference relates to language by the House to cut funding for U.S. troops in Bosnia after June 1998. The Senate version would impose no such cut-off date, and a presidential veto is

probable if included.

The congressional budget allocation for Military

Construction of $9.2 billion provides more than $800 million over the budget request. The Military Construction measure (including Family Housing) has already passed the House at the $9.2 billion figure. Senate approval should follow very soon.

No hold-up on the Defense budget is anticipated. Difficult, far-ranging or time-consuming issues will simply be deferred and. become part of next year's national security debate.

26

MOVING TO FY 1999

With the QDR report on the table, attention in DoD has now turned to revising the program and the FY 1999 budget schedule for the rest of the year. The clock

is moving and it will be a compressed process.

An OSD memorandum issued March 4, 1997 indicated a calendar of events which started with Defense fiscal guidance in June (actually provided in early July), program review from September to mid

October and budget review from the end of September

through December. This means overlapping of program and budget actions, and many program and budget decisions will be made concurrently.

While the QDR laid out the strategy on which to base the future programs, there remain acknowledged gaps between missions and resources, and some tough decisions must be made during this process. The Secretary of Defense-appointed Defense Reform Task

Force, which is now looking in depth at department organization and infrastructure, may provide some timely input for FY 1999, but it is likely that any big

decisions will be deferred beyond next year.

Final actions by Congress on the FY 1998 budget will, of course, affect the FY 1 999 budget. This is an annual problem which is anticipated, and indications now point to few if any disruptive changes of substance

in the FY 1998 budget.

The looming long-term problem remains the gap between expected Defense resources and the funding needs for both force structure and modernization programs. The estimated gap is on the order of$ 15 billion to $20 billion a year. While the Defense Reform Task

Force will attempt to tackle the problem, support of Congress will be essential if it is to be successful. Many of the cost saving possibilities require congressional action or approval.

-

THE ARMY BUDGET

The Army's FY 1998 budget of $60.4 billion in Total Obligational Authority (TOA) represents 24.6 percent of the total DoD budget' and about 3. 7 percent

of total federal outlays.

Army budget figures for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 are shown in table 23.

Table 23

ARMY BUDGET S�Y ($ billions)

FY96 FY97 :�98 FY99 Total Obligational Authority (TOA) 64.9

Budget Authority (BA) 64.5 62.7 .60.4 62.5 62.3 ! 60.1 62.2

Source: DA

TOA, which is the total value of the direct program and the basis on which the Army manages budget execution, will be used in this section for analyzing the Army budget.

Editor 's note: The difference between BA and TOA in the Army FY 1998 budget totals is the result of offsetting receipts of $322 million. The major titled appropriations in the Army FY 1998 budget are essentially the same for both BA and TOA.

BUDGET NUMBERS AND TRENDS

The breakdown of the Army budget by title (appropriations groupings) is shown in table 24.

Table 24

ARMY SUMMARY TOTAL OBLIGATION AUTHORITY

(current $ billions*)

APPROPRIATION GROUPINGS

Military Personnel

Operation & Maintenance

Procurement

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

Military Constructiont

Army Family Housing

Environmental Restoration Actt

Total


tBRAC funding has been included with MILCON.

tERA was funded in DoD-wide account prior to FY97.

FY96 actual

25.8

23.8

7.6

4.8

1 .5

1 .5

64.9

27

FY97 est

26.0

20.9

8.2

4.9

1 . 1

1 .4

0.3

62.7

: FY98 FY99 est .j est

25.8 26.2

. 20.6 20.5

6.8 i 8.4 . � i

4.5 4.5

Ll 1 .3

1.3 1 . 3 0.4 0.4

60.4 62.5

Source: DA

These numbers include funding for the active component as well as for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army Reserve (USAR), each of which has separate appropriations for Military Personnel (MILPERS), Operation and Maintenance (O&M), and Military Construction (MILCON). Army funding for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) costs is included in the Military Construction line.

From FY 1989 to FY 1998, the Army budget will have gone down about 40 percent in real terms, the active military strength by 36 percent, reserve component strength by 26 percent, and civilian employees by about 40 percent. Figure 6 illustrates the changes in program balance over this period.

The balance between personnel-related costs and everything else in the budget has shifted materially. The total (military and civilian), which was 54 percent of the budget in FY 1989, has now risen to about 60 percent - this despite personnel strength reductions during the period, which means that funding for all nonpay items has decreased accordingly. While military

Fig. 6 Army Program Balance

pay can be determined from the military pay appropriations, civilian costs are more elusive, as they are embedded in other Army appropriations. By far the largest percentage, however, is covered in the O&M appropriations.

Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance appropriations clearly dominate Army spending at this time. MILPERS covers de facto costs of military personnel in the force plus retired pay accrual, and O&M not only covers most of civilian pay but is the key to maintaining force readiness. As a consequence, the Army has been severely constrained with respect to investments, especially equipment modernization.

ARMY APPROPRJATIONS

The Army obtains its funding in a series of separate appropriations provided by Congress through the appropriations process. A listing of the specific appropriation titles by which funds are appropriated follows. These will be referred to in subsequent discussion.

RDA O&M 33. 1 % MILCON

1 .8% 1 8.5% Family Housi

2.0% --II��

O&M 35.0o/o (lncludes ERA)

RDA 25.0% MILCON Military Personnel

38. 1 % (Procurement plus RDT&E) Mil itary Personnel 1 .5% (includes BRAC)

43.0%

Source: DA

28

Army Appropriations

Military Personnel, Army Reserve Personnel, Army National Guard Personnel, Army

Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

(OMNG)

Aircraft Procurement, Army Missile Procurement, Army Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat

Vehicles, Army Procurement of Ammunition, Army Other Procurement, Army

RDT&E, Army

Military Construction, Army Military Construction, Army National Guard Military Construction, Army Reserve Family Housing Construction, Army Family Housing Operation and Debt, Army

Editor 's note: In addition, the Army receives specifically allocated funding under the Environmental Restoration Act (ERA) and for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) costs. For a listing of TOA by individual appropriation, see appendix II

FORCES

Background and Missions

The Army provides the major landpower component of U.S. military forces.

The strategic basis for military missions and requirements derive from the latest U.S. policy statement, A National Security Strategy for a New Century, as signed by President Clinton in May 1 997.

The basis for defense guidance in this budget with respect to sizing and mix of military forces comes from the Bottom-Up Review (BUR) completed in October 1 993. This established the requirement that U.S.

defense forces be able to deter and, if necessary, win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs). The recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) report will supersede the BUR for force planning purposes, but the capability of responding to

29

two major and overlapping conflicts remains a requirement, as does maintenance of sufficient forces to conduct smaller-scale contingencies (SSCs) on a continuing basis.

The major Army missions include deterrence with the capability to fight and win when deterrence fails; provision of power-projection forces on short notice; and execution of a variety of operations other than war

(OOTW).

The Army today is organized and trained as a power-projection force with the flexibility to task organize and deploy rapidly to meet a variety of crisis situations. The Army will almost always operate in a joint mode.

The most demanding projection force requirements for Army forces stationed in the United States are defined by the contingency corps, with force closure times of four days for a leading light brigade, 1 2 days for a leading division, 30 days for two heavy divisions and 7 5 days for the corps and corps support command with all divisions on the ground.

While the Army retains forward presence missions in both Europe and Asia, power projection is now its primary mission. Other missions include a variety of operations other than war, including peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and special domestic requirements.

Army Structure

The total Army consists of the active component, the reserve components (Army Reserve/ Army National Guard) and the civilian segment.

The combat structure of the Army is a mix of heavy, light and special operations forces. This, along with supporting forces and the Army base structure, make up the whole Army.

The Army National Guard has eight divisions. It also has 1 5 enhanced readiness combat brigades, not part of the eight Guard divisions, to be trained and capable of deployment within 90 days.

Although the Army has shifted most of its forces to the United States, it will maintain a forward presence in Europe with a corps of two divisions (of two brigades each) and in Korea with one division (minus one brigade).

Combat force structure and any changes since FY 1 997 are shown in table 25.

Table 25

ARMY COMBAT FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGES

UNITS FY97* DELTA FY98*

Active

Corps 4 0 4

Divisions 10 0 10 4 Mech/2 Armor 6 0 6 2 Lt/1 Abni!Assault 4 0 4

A CRt 2 0 2 I Armor I 0 1 1 Infantry 0 1

Army N a tiona) Guard

Divisions 8 0 8 I Mech/3 Armor 4 0 4 3 Medium 3 0 3 I Light 0 1

Separate Brigadest 2 0 2 1 Armor I 0 1 I Infantry I 0 I 1 Scout Group I 0 1

RO/RU Brigades 0 0 0 Mech/Armor 0 0 0 Infantry 0 0 0

Enhanced Brigades 15 0 15 5 Mech/2 Arm/! ACR 8 0 8 7 Infantry 7 0 7

* Reflects status at year's end. t Does not include I I th ACR Brigade

and 3d Infantry Regiment. t Plus Alaska Scout Group (+ I )

Source: DA

The Army's corps structure envtstons a Pacific corps (HQ I Corps at Fort Lewis, W A), a European corps (V Corps in Germany), a contingency corps (XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, NC) and a reinforcing corps (III Corps at Fort Hood, TX). Table 2 6 shows the listing of the four corps and 1 8 Army divisions (active and Guard) for FY 1998.

30

Table 26

ARMY CORPS AND DIVISIONS

Corps

I Corps

III Corps

V Corps

Fiscal Year 1998

XVIII Airborne Corps

Active Component Divisions

Ist Infantry Division (Mechanized)

2d Infantry Division (Mechanized)


4th Infantry Division (Mechanized)

25th Infantry Division (Light)

I Oth Mountain Division (Light Infantry)

I st Armored Division

1st Cavalry Division

82d Airborne Division

I 0 I st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

Reserve Component (ARNG) Divisions


29th Infantry Division (Light)

34th Infantry Division





49th Armored Division

Source: DA

Worldwide division stationing m FY 1 998 is shown in figure 7.

The 1 0-division active Army now has four light and six heavy divisions. All divisions will consist of three active component brigades. They are identified as follows:

Active Army Divisions

1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) - headquarters

and two brigades in Germany, one brigade at Fort

Riley, KS.

1st Armored Division - headquarters and two brigades in Germany, one brigade at Fort Riley, KS.

1st Cavalry Division - headquarters and three

brigades at Fort Hood, TX.

2d Infantry Division (Mechanized) - headquarters and two brigades in Korea, one brigade at Fort Lewis, WA.

3d Infantry Division (Mechanized) - headquarters

and two brigades at Fort Stewart, GA, one brigade at Fort Benning, GA.

4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) - headquarters and two brigades at Fort Hood, TX, one brigade at Fort Carson, CO.

lOth Mountain Division (Light Infantry) -headquarters and two brigades at Fort Drum, NY and the 1 st Brigade, 6th Infantry Division (Light) at Fort Richardson, AK.

25th Infantry Division (Light) - headquarters and two brigades at Schofield Barracks, HI, one brigade at Fort Lewis, W A.

82d Airborne Division - headquarters and three brigades at Fort Bragg, NC.

lOlst Airborne Division (Air Assault) headquarters and three brigades at Fort Campbell, KY.

Fig. 7 FY 1998 Worldwide Division Stationing

Pacific

Reinforcing

1 Corps 1AC Division

1 5 ARNG Enhanced Brigades *

Strategic Reserve

8 ARNG Divisions

Contingency

1 Corps 5 Divisions

* Brigades in transition to enhanced status

3 1

Forward Presence

1 Corps 2 Divisions

Forward Presence 1 Division

Source: DA

Infrastructure

Discussion so far has dealt with the Army's operational forces. This is often referred to as the TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) Army and designates the specific personnel authorized by grade and skills as well as equipment authorizations for each type of unit. The operational Army currently represents about 63 percent of the total active military strength.

In addition, there are two other segments which absorb people within the active end strength of 495,000.

One is referred to as TTHS (for Trainees, Transients, Holdees and Students), which includes those individuals who are not available for mission or unit duty. This is a group which is constantly changing, but the total holds quite steady at about 60,000 for the Army at any one time. There is little that can be done to materially change this, as recruiting, individual training, those moving between assignments, and other fact-of-life conditions dictate the numbers.

The rest of the personnel are accounted for in a major segment called infrastructure. This is also called the TDA (Table of Distribution and Allowances) Army, with each element organized and approved for particular missions at particular places. While infrastructure includes all major headquarters, it should not be considered as synonymous with overhead. This part of the Army performs many essential functions which are vital to supporting the total mission. It includes recruiting, training and equipping soldiers; running the Army schools and Army training centers; running the installations; developing doctrine and future requirements; managing the acquisition process from development through procurement and distribution; and providing overall logistics support. The Army cannot operate and sustain. itself without these functions. At the present time, this segment accounts for about 25 percent of the Army active military authorization. In summary, active Army end strength is allocated approximately as shown in table 27.

By the normal rules of strength allocation, the Army is about 30,000 short to cover the operational force requirements for a I 0-division Army, and trained strength has a direct bearing on the assurance of trained and ready operational forces. Infrastructure can and should be reviewed carefully for possible efficiencies, but arbitrary cuts on the basis of reducing overhead

32

alone must be avoided. It is presumed, however, that the 1 5,000 active strength reduction proposed in the QDR will come from infrastructure rather than from the operational forces.

Table 27

ACTIVE ARMY STRENGTH Operational Forces + Combat

Infrastructure + Recruiting and Training + Schools + Doctrine and Requirements + Installation Management + Acquisition + Logistics Support + Headquarters

TTHS

310,000

125,000

60,000 + (Not available for specific mission use)

Source: DA

Special Operations Forces

Not shown on the combat structure chart (table 25) are the Army special operations forces (SOF) with their unique groupings of combat and combat support units designed for special employment.

These SOF forces are assigned to the Army Special Operations Command, headquartered at Fort Bragg, NC. This command, with a strength of about 26,000, is the Army component of the U.S. Special Operations Command, one of the unified commands under DoD. The Army Special Operations Command provides trained and ready SOF for a variety of missions and would normally be employed as part of a joint force under a theater commander in chief (CINC).

Major elements under the Army Special Operations Command are:

+ the JFK Special Warfare Center and School;

+ Army Special Forces, organized into five active and two Army National Guard groups;

+ a Ranger regiment consisting of three active battalions;

+ Special Operations Aviation;

+ Psychological Operations, organized into three groups (one active and two in the Army Reserve);

+ and Civil Affairs (CA), consisting of three USAR CA brigades, 24 USAR CA battalions and one active CA battalion.

Editor 's Note: More than 90 percent of the Army 's civil affairs units and psychological operations units come from the Army Reserve.

Special operations units are called upon constantly in military operations other than war. The operating tempo for SOF is heavy; for the past few years SOF has averaged some 3,000 or so deployments per year to some 140 countries.

Funding for the SOF operations and investment costs are independent of service budgets. Management visibility and control of SOF resources was established by Congress under Major Force Program 1 1 (Special Operations Forces), with direct budget authority vested in the Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

The Army Engaged

The Army today is globally engaged. It has more than 100,000 soldiers and 28,000 civilians physically stationed around the world, primarily in Europe and in the Pacific and, on any given day, can expect to have an additional 30,000 to 35,000 soldiers deployed away from home stations conducting operations and participating in exercises in about 1 00 countries. Recent and ongoing missions include the Sinai, Macedonia, Kuwait, Haiti and Bosnia; Partnership for Peace exercises; joint task forces for counterdrug operations; and hurricane and flood relief. Units are also routinely deployed to our combat training centers for intensive away-fromhome-base training.

Based on the experience of the past few years, soldiers in the operating forces can expect to be away from home station on operational or training missions for approximately 136 days a year.

Since 1990 the Army has made 25 significant deployments; for the major ones {some 1 6 joint operations) the Army contributed more than 60 percent of total U.S. participation, a clear indication of the continuing

33

significance of land forces in supporting the National Security Strategy of engagement.

The RC are also involved more than ever in supporting forward presence and meeting contingency needs. Every operation since Desert Storm has involved the effective use of RC personnel.

MANPOWER

Strengths and Funding

Figures 8, 9 and 1 0 show personnel strength curves for all Army components (active, RC and civilian). Numbers before FY 1998 are actual or authorized and those shown for FY 1998 and FY 1999 are the numbers in the president's budget request now before Congress.

The military strength figures shown for FY 1 999 are the previously approved projections reflecting the end of the post-Cold War drawdown. The May 1 997 QDR has proposed further Army reductions of 15 ,000 active, 45,000 RC (Army National Guard and Army Reserve) and 33,700 civilians. The timing and structure implications of this are not known at this time and would be implemented by adjustments to the FYDP along with specific defense guidance for program and budget purposes. It should have no impact, however, on the FY 1998 budget unless Congress inserts some directive or special language. Future civilian reductions would be largely keyed to reductions and efficiencies in the Army infrastructure, now under intensive review. Additional discussion on the RC is included in the special RC section.

Budget

Military Personnel appropriations for active, Army Reserve and Army National Guard are summarized in table 28. These appropriations, which include retired pay accrual, constitute about 43 percent of the total Army FY 1998 budget request.

Costs of civilian personnel are spread across a number of appropriations, but close to 80 percent is paid by OMA, OMAR and OMNG; 1 2 percent by RDT&E, and the rest by Military Construction, Family Housing and reimbursement to management funds. The direct pay of civilians equates to about 20 percent of the total Army FY 1 998 budget.

Fig. 8 Active Component Personnel Strength

Fig. 9

800

700

600

500

(thousands)

770 751 725

6 1 1 572

541 509

491 495 495 495

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Fiscal Years

Reserve Component Personnel Strength

(thousands)

900 776 736 741

700 582 575 575

500 457 437 441 426 4 1 0 397 375 370 367 367 367 3 1 9 299 300 302

300 276 260 226 2 1 5 208 208

1 00

89 90 9 1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Fiscal Years

1-- Total � ARNG --- USAR I

34

Source: DA

Source: DA

Table 28

ARMY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS* ($ billions)

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Military Personnel, 20.33 20.65 20.53 20.96 Army (MPA)

Reserve Personnel, 2 . 1 3 2.07 . 2.02 , 2.06 Army

National Guard 3.35 3.26 i 3.20� 3 . 1 8 Personnel, Army . . Total MILPERS 25.81 25.98 25.15 ' 26.20

* Includes retired pay accrual

Source: DA

Recruiting

Quality soldiers are the key ingredient for the superb Army which exists today. This means setting and adhering to high standards, and the Army is

35

committed to recruiting and retaining those quality people which are its bedrock.

The Army's past standards for new accessions have been high, set at 95 percent high school graduates with 67 percent scoring in the upper half (category I to IliA) of Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores. Up to last year, recruiting was pretty much on track. In FY 1 996 the active Army met all recruiting goals in terms of both quantity and quality, although the RC missed recruiting goals by a small margin.

This year things are more difficult. The recruiting mission has increased as the drawdown ends and losses must be replaced on a one-for-one basis. The active Army recruiting mission has gone from 63,000 in FY 1 995 to 73 ,000 in FY 1996 and now 89,700 for FY 1997, and will remain at about this level. For FY 1 997, the Army already has adjusted the requirement for high school diploma graduates from 95 to 90 percent but intends to hold the line at this level.

In recognition of the upswing after the drawdown period, recruiting assets, advertising and bonuses have been increased. This is in the face of the most recent

Youth Attitude Tracking Study, which shows that the propensity to enlist has decreased. Educational benefits are a key incentive factor for those enlistees with college aspirations.

Retention has remained steady, with reenlistment goals being met. This is dependent, however, on continued career satisfaction and, more importantly, on soldier and family satisfaction with the military environment. These are discussed under Quality of Life.

Recruiting and advertising are contained in the Army budget under the O&M accounts. The funding for these functions is summarized in table 29. For FY 1998, the active Army budget for recruiting and advertising shows a 30 percent increase over the FY 1 995 level of $ 1 55 million.

Table 29

RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING BUDGETS ($ millions)

FY96 Actual

Active (OMA) 2 1 0.5

Army Reserve 4 1 .8

(OMAR)

Army National 28.4

Guard (OMARNG)

FY97 .FV98 FY99 Estimate Estiin!lte· Estimate

23 1 .6 222.7* 2 1 9.2

42.0 37/j . 39 . 1

20.2 31.2 35.7

* Some reduction from FY97 is due to a drop in recruiting objectives from 89,700 in FY 97 to 87,200 in FY98. This figure includes $75 million for advertising.

Source: DA

Quality of Life

Once individuals are recruited and on board, subsequent decisions to either reenlist or leave the Army are based on two essential factors: ( 1) job satisfaction and (2) quality of life. With 65 percent of the soldiers now married, family attitudes count heavily in career decisions. Quality-of-life factors are hig� on the checklist in making these decisions and are, therefore, good investments in the retention of a highly qualified and technically proficient force.

There are a number of things which come under this umbrella, but the basic ones are adequate pay and

36

benefits (including quarters allowance); adequate housing; health care; protection against erosion of retired pay and benefits; protection of commissary and exchange service; off-duty education; and Army community and soldier support activities.

Quality-of-life issues were defmed and highlighted in a special report directed by then Secretary of Defense William Perry and published in October 1995. This report, under the chairmanship of former Secretary of the Army John 0. Marsh, has generally served as the basis for subsequent programs and priorities on the subject.

Health care emerges as the number one family concern, followed closely by pay, housing and retired benefits.

Direct funding for health care is in the DoD budget and not segmented or allocated by service. To provide a cost-effective health care system for all beneficiaries, DoD has developed and is implementing TRICARE, a managed care program. It brings together the health care delivery systems of each of the services and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). TRICARE, which will be administered through 12 regions, is supported in the budget but is not. yet a proven system. A major deficiency is its lack of authority to cover and therefore get reimbursed for treatment of Medicare-eligible personnel. Approval of subvention, or the authority for the Health Care Finance Administration (HCF A) to reimburse the military health care system for treatment provided to Medicare patients, is urgently needed.

Military pay is recognized in the budget by a 2.8 percent increase for FY 1 998 with three percent a year projected from FY 1999 to FY 2002. But there is still no progress on closing the gap with equivalent civilian pay scales. Since parity was achieved with a 14.3 percent pay raise in FY 1 986, the gap had grown to 12.7 percent by FY 1997. Government civilian pay has also lagged well behind private sector compensation.

Housing improvements are reflected in both Military Construction and Family Housing budgets. The Army FY 1 998 budget requests $ 1 34 million in the Family Housing appropriation for both new family housing and major restoration, and $338 million in the Military Construction appropriation for the Barracks Renewal Program.

In addition, there are a number of other much valued community support programs which depend on a combination of appropriated and nonappropriated fund support. These include family assistance centers,

child development services (including child care), commissaries, education programs and a variety of morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) programs.

As for retiree benefits, the budget covers cost-ofliving adjustments (COLAs) at presently approved levels. The issue of reduced or delayed COLAs is now on the back burner but could well resurface as part of future budget-balancing drills.

TRAINING

The training program incorporates all aspects of individual training, unit training and leadership development. Funding for this comes largely from the O&M appropriations; any serious curtailment on the Army's O&M funds will put a big squeeze on training resources, particularly field training, which has some measure of scheduling flexibility (i.e., it can be postponed). Training lost, however, can never be effectively recouped.

Training costs for individual training conducted in the schoolhouse or at training centers come under the O&M, Army (OMA) account identified as Budget Activity 3 (BA3), Training and Recruiting. This includes funding for accession training (both enlisted and officer), basic skill training and advanced training. Resources are provided for the operation and maintenance of six Army training centers, 30 Army schools and colleges, and four Department of Defense and joint service schools and colleges, as well as for civilian education and for off-duty military education.

Total funding for this budget activity (excluding recruiting, advertising and examining) for FY 1 998 is about $2.92 billion. This includes the base operation costs for training centers and institutions.

The other part of the training picture is that conducted in units at their home stations, at one of the combat training centers or as part of training exercises. The funding for such training is included under OMA Budget Activity 1 (BAl), Operating Forces. The FY 1998 budget requests $ 1 . 9 billion for land forces readiness, which provides funding for near-term unit readiness throughout the Army, including the concept

-----------------------------

37

of operating tempo (OPTEMPO) and other activities pertinent to training readiness in the field. Sixty million dollars are identified for joint exercises.

The Army's combat training centers (CTCs) supported in this budget are an important factor in the overall unit training scheme. These provide the most realistic combat training possible, short of actual combat, and are the best index of unit training readiness. Budgeted CTC schedules for FY 1 998 support:

+ National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, CA ( 1 2 rotations - 1 1 AC and one RC);

+ Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, LA ( 10 brigade rotations - nine AC and one RC);

+ Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC), Germany (five brigade rotations);

+ Battle Command Training Program (BCTP), Fort Leavenworth, KS ( 1 3 corps/division commanders and staff).

Joint exercises, normally conducted through the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, provide Army forces the opportunity to train under the operational control of warfighting commanders in chief. The Army now participates in about 80 joint and combined training exercises each year.

Training funds used by the ARNG and USAR come from their respective O&M appropriations. For FY 1998, the budgeted amounts for overall training operations are $ 1 .7 billion for the ARNG and $.62 billion for the USAR.

The Army is increasing the use of simulators and simulations to expand training opportunities in terms of both sophistication and scope. Simulations allow the Army to exercise increasingly complex warfighting systems. Live simulations augment field training with realism and provide feedback to commanders. Virtual simulations allow repetitive content training.

The combat training centers are prime examples. They are well instrumented and can accurately simulate the effects of artillery, naval gunfire, mortars, close air support, mines, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The upgraded Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) can provide near-miss indicators and casualty and damage assessment in real time.

The Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (CATT) is developed virtual, networkable simulators for mechanized infantry, armor, aviation, engineer, field artillery and air defense artillery. Using this system, commanders will be able to synchronize all battlefield operating systems.

About 45,000 RC soldiers participate with the AC in overseas deployment training annually. Not only does this provide useful experience for deployment itself, it permits a working experience and relationship with the wartime gaining commander while productive work is accomplished.

The much-cited operating tempo (OPTEMPO) represents an average level of training activity against which resources can be calculated. It is not by itself a readiness measure, but with the OPTEMPO model, costs can be estimated.

Funded OPTEMPO for the FY 1 998 budget supports a ground OPTEMPO of 800 miles per year for the M 1 Abrams tank, 934 miles for the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and 1 ,309 miles for the M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, and an average of 1 4.5 crew flying hours per month for attack and scout helicopters and 14 hours per month for other helicopter crews.

The budget supports fewer OPTEMPO miles and flying hours for the RC. Some limited tradeoffs are permitted in designated units for combat tactical trainer (simulator) miles.

The budget funds the Army's training modernization program (Army Training XXI), which is the umbrella concept for total Army training in the 2 1st century. It represents the training strategy that will prepare Army forces to exploit new operational concepts, capabilities and systems.

The Army is presently establishing a Total Army School System (TASS) made up of Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard schools. The purpose is to reduce duplication, share information and resources, and make desirable organizational changes. When accomplished, this will provide a total Army schoolhouse that shares training, uses certified instructors, teaches standard courses, and meets the same certification requirements. Distance learning technology will be expanded and implemented within TASS by FY 1 998.

38

READINESS

Force readiness is the primary m1sswn of the Army's combat and supporting forces in peacetime. It connotes the overall ability to man, equip, mobilize, deploy and sustain forces in the accomplishment of their missions.

Force readiness of any unit is -oest defined as the ability to do the job it was designed to do. This has special importance in the Army's projection force role, where quick response and rapid execution are keys to success.

A number of elements contribute to the readiness equation: personnel readiness, equipment readiness, training readiness and leadership. Some of these can be measured effectively and some cannot, leaving much to subjective judgment. Nevertheless, failure to achieve and maintain the necessary standards for any of these elements leads to diminished force readiness overall.

Readiness is a perishable asset and needs constant attention and refurbishment. It takes people, effort, time and resources. Readiness is not only a "today" thing; it incorporates a "future" dimension as well. For example:

+ Equipment readiness requires the right kind of equipment, properly maintained, in condition to fight, and in the hands of troops. Future readiness depends on modernization and upgrading of weapons and equipment.

+ Personnel readiness depends on having in place in the unit the right number and right kinds of people with the proper skills, fully trained and ready to execute missions. The future depends on the ability to recruit, train and retain quality people, which means a continuing need to focus on recruiting incentives and quality-of-life issues.

+ Force readiness today depends on units organized, equipped and trained to perform the Army's combat missions as well as missions other than war. The force must react to changes in doctrine and resulting organizational and equipment changes.

There is no single place in the Army budget that uniquely identifies readiness. Resources that pertain directly to force readiness receive the most attention.

Operation and Maintenance is generally considered the readiness appropriation, as it funds many of the elements identified with readiness, such as entry, institutional and unit training. O&M also covers supply (other than investment procurement), equipment maintenan�e and base support. Items/activities related

to OPTEMPO are O&M-funded.

Also, there is no specific formula which links budget dollars to finite readiness levels, much to the frustration of the operation research fraternity. Too much of the human element is involved, but we do know that starving the force by lack of operating and support funds will surely lower readiness.

When Operation and Maintenance is eroded or underfunded, the accounts that have direct application to readiness will invariably be affected. This occurred in both fiscal years 1994 and 1995 when unbudgeted contingency costs were only partially covered by supplemental actions after-the-fact. The situation was pending again this year with a supplemental request for FY 1 997 recently covered by congressional action.

Recognizing the limitations of OPTEMPO in assessing total readiness requirements, the Army is developing a methodology called Operational Readiness (OPRED) which will provide a better and more accurate framework for relating readiness and resource usage. In addition to OPTEMPO as now defined, OPRED will include other costs associated with training, to include training devices, simulators, ranges, land and force projection facilities. However, the readiness link requires far more than an inventory of unit training funds.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) covers a wide band of operational support activities, including the pay for more than three-quarters of all Army civilians. There are three separate O&M appropriations: Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for the active force; Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMNG); and Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR). These in tum are subdivided into budget activities as shown in table 30.

Table 30

ARMY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ($ millions*)

Operation and Maintenance, Army

BA1 : Operating Forces BA2: Mobilization BA3: Training and Recruiting BA4: Administration and Servicewide Support

Total Active

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

BA1: Operating Forces BA4: Administration and Servicewide Support

Total Army National Guard

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

BA1 : Operating Forces

*

BA4: Administration and Servicewide Support

Total Army Reserve

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

39

FY96 FY97

10,762 738

3,079 5,667

20,246

2,247 1 97

2,444

1 ,003 1 14

1,117

8,6 14 595

3, 1 57 5 , 107

17,473

2,088 1 64

2,252

1 ,004 1 14

1,118

F)'98 FY99 '

8,368\ . 8 , 1 96 566 703

3,220:; 3 , 1 72 5,06l 4,820

17.�15. 16,891

2,086 2, 188 173 178

2,259 2,366

. 1,057 ' 1 ,073 1 36 136

1,193 "j - j

1,209

Source: DA

The total O&M request for FY 1998 is about 34 percent of the Army budget. O&M for FY 1998 will maintain a high priority for those things directly affecting near-term readiness, but in other .areas, particularly base operations and real property maintenance funding, is very tight.

Those portions of O&M most closely associated with near-term readiness are found under Budget Activity 1 (BA1), Operating Forces and Budget Activity 3 (BA3), Training and Recruiting. Categories identified with training use about 30 percent of the O&M dollar. These statistics incorporate all the military components.

Budget Activity 2 (BA2), Mobilization is a fairly new category covering mobilization funding. This involves $566 million for FY 1998, of which most (about 80 percent) is primarily in support of projection force requirements.

Budget Activity 4 (BA4), Administration and Servicewide Support funds such important support activities as transportation, central supply, servicewide communications, and installation support relating to its own activities. This represents about 26 percent of FY 1998 O&M spending.

Some of the activities covered by the O&M budget affecting sustainment and the well-being of the supported forces are:

Depot Maintenance. Under BA4, the FY 1998 budget requests $637 million for the active Army. The current requirement is estimated at about $ 1 billion, but the backlog is on a downslope and is considered within manageable bounds.

The situation with the Army Reserve and Army National Guard appears to be more critical. The reserve components' combined FY 1998 depot maintenance budget is about $95 million, while the backlog is perhaps double that. The situation is made more difficult by reorganizations and shifting of equipment.

Base Support. Base support costs are found in all the budget activities that have installation responsibilities. Base support includes, in addition to real property maintenance, the funding for such things as laundry and dry-cleaning services, dining facilities, security and counterintelligence operations, child development, and youth services. O&M, Army base support is

40

shown in the FY 1998 budget at $5.16 billion, which includes $ 1 .2 billion for real property maintenance. Including the RC, the Army will devote about 9.5 percent of its FY 1998 budget to base support. This is an area considered to be chronically underfunded, particularly for real property maintenance. This is exclusive of family housing, which is covered by its own appropriation.

MODERNIZATION

Modernization pertains to improvements in force capabilities, to include doctrine and force structure along with improved weapons and equipment - all focused on providing superiority over a real or assumed threat. It is the product of melding such key factors as the threat, the state of technology, doctrine, and the intellectual concept of how best to exploit future capabilities.

The Army's long-term modernization requirements are being developed and defined for the 2 1 st century through a process of exercises and experiments known as Force XXI. This will capitalize on using information-age technology and will be facilitated by the use of a series of battle laboratories to test, evaluate and synchronize for future combat. Digitization and horizontal integration of all systems are key goals and are part of overall Force XXI development plans.

As stated by Army Chief of Staff General Dennis J. Reimer at FY 1998 budget posture hearings, the Army's highest priority in the near term is to increase the ability to establish information superiority. The second priority is to maintain the combat over-match capability to successfully project a force against numerically superior adversaries.

The term "modernization" as used here is focused on new or improved weapons and equipment covering the full scope of research, development and acquisition, or RDA. In budget terms, RDA is the sum of RDT &E and the procurement appropriations.

RDA is recognized as the area of most critical concern in the Army's FY 1 998 budget. Not only have the totals for Army procurement and RDT &E gone down drastically in real terms since FY 1985, but the ratios of procurement to RDT &E have also narrowed significantly.

The Army RDA funding is only a 14.3 percent

share of a depressed DoD RDA budget level for FY 1998. The Army track record since the peak budget year of FY 1 985 tells the story when displayed in

constant dollar terms - an overall reduction of 67 percent in real terms and an unbalanced ratio of procurement to RDT &E of far less than 2: 1 .

The current Army modernization program seeks

first to improve or upgrade existing systems, when cost effective, and then focus on new procurement needed to replace technologically obsolete assets. The

overall approach is summarized as follows:

+ selective upgrade;

+ maximum horizontal technology integration;

+ investing in programs that reduce operation and support costs; and

----------- - -- -- - - - -- ---- -- -- - -- -- -- ----

+ when necessary, development and procurement of new systems.

The objective is to obtain and keep technological superiority.

The 1 9 May report of the Quadrennial Defense Review supported the Army's priority modernization items. Specifically mentioned were the Comanche Scout helicopter, Crusader advanced field artillery system, ATACMS with BAT, Javelin antiarmor weapon and Hellfire missiles.

A summary of selected Army systems with FY 1997 and FY 1998 budget levels in displayed in table 3 1 .

The next two sections address Army Procurement and RDT &E budgets in more detail.

Table 31

SELECTED ARMY SYSTEMS (current $ millions)

Program

Apache Longbow Attack Helicopter RAH-66 Comanche Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter UH-60 Black Hawk Utility Helicopter Armed OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Scout Helicopter Army Tactical Missile System (AT ACMS) Brilliant Antiarmor (BAT) Submunition Javelin Advanced Antitank Weapon System (Army only) Longbow Hellfire Missile Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Patriot PAC-3 Missilet Abrams (Ml) Tank Upgrade Program Bradley Upgrade and Base Sustainment Programs Crusader Artillery System Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles Defense Satellite Communications System (ground systems) Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM) Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System SINCGARS Radio Digitization Program

* Procurement totals include initial spares.

Procurement* FY97 l.FV98'i

415.7

299.5 200 . 1 161 .8

195.3 249.3 145.1 2 1 9.4 485.7 363.1

238.9 1 03.9 93.7 3 1 .5

307.5

' 525.2 ,

.. 210.7· 3.8.8<

·.··· 98.8 ... . 8.5.2 ' 14:3,,1 ' 264.7 . . 106.5,1

' 349. 1 1 : , 622.1 ·! 186.8 ]

209A ·• 96.0

' 67.9 33.2 '

291.7·· ' ',-

RDT&E FY97 i ' FY98.

10.6 3 3 1 .4

1 . 1 4.8

1 6 1 .8 6.0

10.6 62.8

3 8 1 . 1 7 1 .2 89.7

235.8 5.9

1 6.5 9.9

38.5

137 . 1

t Procurement for Patriot P AC-3 missile moved from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization budget in DoD to the Army budget, effective FY 1 998; the RDT&E portion remains in the BMDO budget.

Source: DA

4 1

PROCUREMENT

The Army budget includes five separate procurement appropriations: ( 1) Aircraft, (2) Missiles, (3) Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), (4) Ammunition and (5) Other Procurement, Army (OPA).

The funding profile for total Army procurement from FY 1989 through the current budget submission is shown in figure 1 1 . A constant dollar comparison shows a real decrease of 62 percent in Army procurement funding from FY 1989 .to FY 1998, which emphasizes the Army's modernization problem.

Major focus is on improving and upgrading existing systems, to include the Apache Longbow, CH-47 Chinook helicopter modifications, Abrams tank upgrade, Bradley Fighting Vehicle modification and improved recovery vehicle modification.

Table 32 shows the budgeted amount for each of the separate Army procurement appropriations. This is followed by a brief description of selected systems under each appropriation heading. A more extensive listing is found in appendix II.

Fig. 1 1 Army Procurement Funding

Table 32

PROCUREMENT SUMMARY BY APPROPRIATION

($ millions*)

Appropriation FY96 FY97 . FY98 ·

Aircraft 1,540 1 ,346 1 , 162 Missiles 839 1 ,038 1 , 178 WTCV 1 ,455 1 ,468 .· 1,066. Ammunition 1 ,053 1 , 126 891

Other Procurement 2,699 3,177 2,455

Total 7,586 8,156 6,752.


FY99

1 ,241 1 ,541 1 ,475

976 3 , 140

8,373

Source: DA

Aircraft Procurement, Army

This appropriation includes the procurement of aircraft, aircraft modifications, spares, repair parts and related support equipment and facilities. The Army budget requests $ 1 . 1 63 billion for FY 1 998. The funding profile for aircraft from FY 1989 in current dollars is shown in figure 12.

($ billions) Total Obligation Authority (TOA)

20 D Current $

D FY98 Constant $

9.7

1 0

0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Fiscal Years Source: DA

42

Fig. 12 Aircraft Procurement

(current $ billions)

4 / -

3 ' --

3.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 2.8

1

o v�

89

L-

90

-

1.2 ,____

91

-

- �

1.9 1.4 1 .3

,____ L- L-

92 93 94

-- - -

- 1.5 1.3

1.0 1.2 1.2 L- ,____ ,____ ,____ � 95 96 97 98 99


The only major new aircraft production in FY 1998 is for 1 8 Black Hawk utility helicopters. Other significant aviation items in the budget are all modifications, to i�clude the CH -4 7 Chinook cargo helicopter, Apache Longbow attack helicopter, Kiowa Warrior scout helicopter and Guardrail/Common Sensor airborne Signals Intelligence collection/location system. Descriptions of selected aviation items follow.

Selected Items, Aircraft ($ millions)*

��60 J:J••u�k llawk utillt)' B:elicopteJ;' ; ·: ... : � .. : >� � : ; : ... ;: :· . : .: '

' .. ---·· · ·-- .

. ;•

FY96 Qty/Amt

60/398

FY97 Qty/Amt

34/293

lf¥98 ·· . Qty/�mt

FY99 Qty/Amt

12/125

The Black Hawk, the Army's primary tactical lift and utility helicopter, is used for air assault, air cavalry and aeromedical purposes. With modifications, it serves in command and control, electronic warfare and special operations roles. The authorizing committees in Congress have indicated their intent to increase the FY 1 998 Black Hawk procurement by 12 (HNSC) and

43

1 8 (SASC), primarily to support National Guard needs, the final number to be resolved in Congress.

. · ca-47 .. Cbin�l{· rijoditications

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Alnt Qty/Amt

/11 /51 ·· /64 /1 11

The CH-47 Chinook is the only U.S. Army cargo helicopter designed to transport weapons, ammunition, equipment, troops and other cargo in supp'ort of operations. The current fleet is aging and needs upgrading.

The Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH) program is a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the CH-47D Chinook helicopter. It consists of a fuselage/cockpit upgrade that will extend the life of the aircraft for another 20 years. The improved Chinook will have a more powerful and reliable engine, and will also incorporate a new electronic architecture for interface with systems on the digital battlefield.

FY96 Qty/Amt

/442

AH�64 Apache Longbow (Modifications)

FY97 Qty/Amt

/406

FY98 ·

Qty/Amt

/512

FY99 Qty/Amt

/587

The AH-64 Apache is the Army's primary attack helicopter, designed to operate day and night and in adverse weather conditions. Apache Longbow consists of a mast-mounted Fire Control Radar (FCR) integrated into an upgraded and enhanced AH -64 airframe.

FY96 Qty/Amt

/211

Armed OH-58 Kiowa Warrior

FY97 Qty/Amt

/199

. FY98 Qty/Amt

/39

FY99 Qty/Amt

/35

The Kiowa Warrior is the current armed reconnaissance scout helicopter. It has a mast-mounted sight

Fig. 13 Missile Procurement


4 / - - - - - - � - - - -

�

.l"':""'r.! 3.0 3

...... � -

2 2.6 2.3

-

that houses a thermal imaging system, a low-light television and a laser rangefinder designator. Its accurate navigation system permits precise target location that can be handed off to other engagement systems or can provide autonomous designation for Hellfire or other laser- guided precision weapons. The system has essentially reached its limit of cost effective improvements.

Missile Procurement, Army

This appropriation includes missiles, missile modifications, spares and major parts, along with support equipment and facilities. The FY 1 998 budget requests $ 1 , 1 78 million, primarily for the procurement of Patriot PAC-3, Hellfire missiles, the Javelin Advanced Antitank Weapon System-Medium (AA WS-M), Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launchers, and the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The funding profile is shown in figure 13.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

� - - - - - - - - - - -- � � 1 .5 _..,...

1 . 1 1 . 1 - - 1 .2 1 .0 0.8 0.8 1 .0

1

0 v-� ._____ - - '-- - ._____ - - '-- � 89 90 9 1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99


44

FY96 Qty/Amt

Selected Items, Missiles ($ millions)

Patriot PAC-3 Missile

FY97 Qty/Amt

/4.9

FY98 Qty/Amt

52/349

FY99 Qty/Amt

68/370

The Patriot Missile System provides high- and medium-altitude defense against aircraft and tactical ballistic missiles. The PAC-3 missile will provide an advanced antitactical missile capability to the currently fielded system and will provide the lower tier of a two-tier active theater missile defense. Procurement costs were shifted from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the Army budget effective FY 1 998.

Editor 's note: Both the SASC and HNSC reports in Congress have included language that would reverse this and restore procurement funding authority to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in DoD.

Bellf'rre Missile System

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt

1,102/236 2,805/357 1,465/280 2,000/345

The Hellfire provides heavy antiarmor capability for attack helicopters.

This entry includes the combination of Longbow Hellfire missiles and Laser Hellfire II missiles for FY 1 996 and FY 1 997, but Longbow Hellfire only for FY 1998 and FY 1999.

The Longbow Hellfire is a fire-and-forget weapon with a millimeter-wave radar seeker installed on a Hellfire missile to be launched from the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter. Its primary advantages include adverse weather capability and fire-and-forget guidance which permits a launch and immediate remask.

Hellfire II is a laser-directed version that homes on a laser spot that can be projected from ground observers, other aircraft or the launching aircraft itself It is presently used as the main armament on the AH-64 Apache.

45

The two are complementary. The Apache Longbow is about three times as expensive, and the Army must determine an optimum mix.

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)

FY96 Qty/Amt

/81

FY97 Qty/Amt

/104

FY99 Qty/Amt

32/93

MLRS is a free-flight artillery rocket system that can provide large volumes of firepower in a short period of time, supplementing cannon artillery fires. A program is now under way to add the extended-range multiple launch rocket system (ER-MLRS) that will extend the current range of the basic rocket from about 32 km to about 50 km. An improved launcher mechanical system (ILMS) will mitigate electronic obsolescence and provide growth for future systems.

. BrWianiAnttannQ;r (BAT) Submunitlou,: .

· ;

FY96 FY97 ' FY98 FY99 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/AJnt Qty/Amt

.� 305/85 ' 547/100 -� - .��J.. "

The BAT is a dual-sensor (acoustics and infrared) "smart" submunition that autonomously seeks, identifies and destroys moving armored targets. It will be carried by a Block II missile variant of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Currently a major Army RDT &E priority, a BAT low-rate initial production decision is planned for FY 1 998.

• . . . . . , . .. , . . .. , • . . • ·· · - ····- · . . . . , . . . . "' . , ". j

· Army Tactical Misslle System (ATACMS) . . v· • . . � - �

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt r Qty/Amf � Qty/Amt

' . . ·;! • !..} 120/121 97/161 ': 153/9.8 ·:." 160/103

AT ACMS is a ground-launched missile system consisting of a surface-to-surface guided missile with an antipersonnel and antimateriel configuration. AT ACMS missiles are fired from modified MLRS launchers. This system can provide deep fires under

nearly all weather conditions, day or night, at ranges beyond the capability of cannons and rockets.

A product improvement effort will integrate Global Positioning System (GPS) technology into the missile guidance system for more accurate orientation in position and azimuth.

.· · JaveUn Advanced Antitank Weapon System-Me

,dium (AA WS�M)

FY96 Qty/Amt

1,010/201

FY97 Qty/Amt

1 ,020/195

.- FY98 ; Qty/Amt

· 4,080(143

FY99 Qty/Amt

3,316/327

This is the Army's new man-portable antitank weapon. The system consists of a reusable command launch unit (CLU) and a sealed missile in a disposable launch tube assembly. The CLU has a day/night sight permitting operation under adverse weather or light

conditions. The Javelin, weighing 49.5 lb., has a range of 2,000 meters and uses fue-and-forget technology.

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) procurement includes tracked combat vehicles, weapons, other combat vehicles and repair parts. The Army FY 1 998 budget requests a total of $ 1 ,066 billion under this appropriation, the great bulk of which is for tracked combat vehicles. A funding profile since FY 1989 is shown in figure 14.

Major items (all modifications) include the Abrams tank, the M l 06 Paladin howitzer, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle series and the M88Al Recovery Vehicle. Descriptions of selected items under this appropriation follow.

Fig. 14 Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicle Procurement


4 / - - - -

3 ;,...-----..

r=-� - -

2.6 2 .4

2.2 � � � 2

� r--- � 1.5 � .........,., 1.5 1 .5 1 .1 1.1 1 .1 0 .9 0 .9 1

0 [/.___ ..___ L-- L-- .._____ '- L-- '-- ..___ ..___ [7 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99


46

Selected Items, Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV)

($ millions)

Ml A�rams Tank Modifications

FY96 Qty/Amt

/50

FY97 Qty/Amt

/63

: - FY98 QtytAmt

/30

_ Abrams Upgrade.Program

FY99 _ Qty/Amt

/30

(Regular Procurement plus Advanced Procurement)

FY96 Qty/Amt

100/268

FY97 Qty/Amt

120/205

FY98 Qty/Amt

. 120/329

FY99 Qty/Amt

120/420

The Abrams tank series provides the main battle tanks for U.S. armor forces. The modifications include such programs as the Vehicle Intercommunications System and kits for the Precision Lightweight Ground Positioning System Receiver.

Upgrade programs are to convert M l tanks to the M l A2 configuration with improved armor, a 1 20mm gun, a commander's independent thermal viewer, an improved commander' s weapon station, position navigation equipment and digitized communications.

Bradley Base Sustainment Program

FY96 Qty/Amt

105/134

FY96 Qty/Amt

/93

FY97 Qty/Amt

80/235

F¥98 Qty/Amt

. ·

·

·18/126

Bradley Series Modification

FY97 Qty/Amt

/119

FY98 Qty/Amt

/61

FY99 Qty/Amt

78/342

FY99 Qty/Amt

/47

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS) provides mechanized infantry and cavalry units with protected cross-country mobility and mounted fire-

47

power. The M2 Bradley is an infantry fighting vehicle, and the M3 is a cavalry fighting vehicle.

The Army is in the process of modifying all A 1 s to the A2 configuration. Modernization includes upgrading first-generation Bradleys to M2A2 or M3A2. The Army will retrofit a laser rangefinder, global positioning system, combat identification, driver's thermal viewer and a missile countermeasure device.

FY96 Qty/Amt

24/54

Improved Recovery Vehicle (M88 Modification)

FY97 Qty/Amt

24/56

FY98 Qty/Amt

12/29

FY99 Qty/Amt

16/40

This is a product improvement of the existing M88Al recovery vehicle. The improved recovery vehicle is designed to provide independent recovery of tracked vehicles weighing up to 70 tons. It will safely tow, winch and hoist Abrams tanks.

Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)

FY96 Qty/Amt

FY97 Qty/Amt

5/49

FY98 Qty/Amt

5/31

FY99 Qty/Amt

14/63

This is a new FY 1997 production start. The C2V provides a fully tracked armored command and control platform for heavy forces during mobile operations. It provides staffs at battalion through corps levels a survivable and mobile vehicle with digital command and control communications. C2V accommodates the Army Battle Command System (ABCS) and gives on-the-move capabilities for maneuver commanders.

Procurement of Ammunition, Army

This appropriation covers funding for the procurement of ammunition end items and ammunition base support.

The funding profile since FY 1989 is shown in figure 1 5 .

Fig. 1 5 Ammunition Procurement


4 /

3

2 ,_ .-:zo:ro ,..--. 2.0 2.0

1 .9 � 1 .4

1

0 v- '---- '---- -

89 90 91 92

- - -

- -

� 1 .0

'----

93

� � � .lmO!I:II 0.8

1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1

'---- - '--- '------

94 95 96 97

- - -

-0.9

-

98

- - -

-

- -

-1 .0

-

99

�


The budget request for FY 1998 is for $891 million. Of this, $624 million is for ammunition itself and $ 1 97 million is for production base support, including ammunition demilitarization. A listing of ammunition categories is shown in table 3 3 .

Table 33

ARMY AMMUNITION ($ millions*)

Item FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Small Arms 224 1 72 220 254 Mortars 1 1 7 140 59 87 Tank 1 99 305 237 150 Artillery 1 03 163 83 97 Mines/Countermines 47 27 1 5 1 8 Rockets 42 3 7 12 1 2 1 Other 75 3 1 46 48 Miscellaneous 1 5 20 � 22 27 Production Base Support 2 3 1 23 1 .

. 197 1 74

Total 1,053 1,126 891 976


Source: DA

48

Of the FY 1998 funding for ammunition end items, $425 million i s for training ammunition and $249 million for war reserve stock. The largest segment is for tank ammunition, with a request of $237 million for FY 1998.

Sense and Destroy Almor Muliition (SAD�

FY96 FY97 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt

1 50/41 600/94

FY98 Qty/Amt .

·-·

:· · .. , ' ; �. : : 1: -·:.j

. 507/68 '

FY99 Qty/Amt

1 ,085178

SADARM is a fire-and-forget sensor-fused submunition designed to detect and destroy armored vehicles, especially self-propelled artillery. SADARM is delivered by 1 55mm artillery projectiles or by MLRS. Once dispensed from its carrier, the submunition detects targets and fires an explosively formed penetrator through the top of the target.

Other Procurement, Army (OPA)

OPA covers three major categories: ( 1 ) tactical and support vehicles, (2) communications and electronic equipment and (3) other support equipment. A funding profile since FY 1 98 9 is shown in figure 16.

Fig. 1 6 Other Procurement

5

4

3

(current $ bil lions)

1 . r--:

4.5 � �

�

3.5

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - -�

� 3.2

�

r---:.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - -�- - -

� � �

� 3 . 1 3.2 3 . 1 2.7 � 2.9

2.6 2.7 2.5 2

1

k"- ...___ '--- - '--- '----- '----- - '----- '----- v 0

89 90 9 1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99


The OPA budget request for FY 1 998 totals $2,455 million: $378 million for tactical and support vehicles, $ 1 ,5 3 1 million for communications and electronics equipment, $492 million for other support equipment and $54 million for spares.

The bulk of this appropriation is for communications and electronics, with priority to command, control and

communications capabilities plus expanded use of automation and enhanced digitization. Descriptions of selected items included in the budget under this appropriation follow.

Selected Items, Other Procurement, Army ($ millions)

High Mobility Multipurpose Whee.led y ehicle .. . (liMMWV) · FY96

Qty/Amt

1,586/125

FY97 Qty/Amt

1,515/163

FY99 Qty/Amt

110/14

HMMWV is the Army's light four-wheel-drive tactical vehicle. It can be configured for a number of

49

uses, such as a cargo/troop carrier, armament carrier, shelter carrier, ambulance, and TOW and Stinger weapons carrier.

. • Famfiy. of Jie�nr TacJit•I Vehicl�� <:- .

-

_

'

,

-

. - . > : <·- > " -·: : ·:,�t .� < ; ,>; ;�, � -,. -

-

�> ;i(

_

: :.-:l: :

.

· ':

-

: · ::::�i:;

_

: : �� -� .. :i-:' -.

;:. �,; FY96 FY97 ..

. J1Y9�·:',-\ FY99 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt ( .. Qty/�t.:�; Qty/Amt

:

·

·

'

. '

/120 /244 ;9 _

" �)' /163 '

·

Jl"

FHTV consists of the Palletized Load System (PLS), the Heavy Equipment Transporter System (HETS) and the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT).

FMTV consists of a family of vehicles based on a common truck chassis for the new medium trucks being acquired and fielded. Several body configurations

are used to meet various needs in the 2 1/2- to 5-ton range. These are badly needed to replace a large number of overage trucks currently in the fleet that have become maintenance intensive with uncertain reliability.

)>efense Satellite Communications Ground System

FY96 Qty/Amt

174

FY97 Qty/Amt

/97

: FY98 Qty/Amt

188

FY99 Qty/Amt

/102

The Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) provides wide band and antijam satellite communications supporting national strategic and tactical C3I requirements. The Army is responsible for developing and acquiring the ground segments to support DSCS.

Army·Data Distribution System (ADDS)

FY96 Qty/Amt

/45

FY97 Qty/Amt

/68

FY98 . Qty/Amt '

/57

FY99 Qty/Amt

/56

ADDS provides commanders with a tactical data distribution system designed to support the Army Tactical Command and Control System and other battlefield automated systems. ADDS consists of two major products: the Enhanced Position Location and Reporting System (EPLRS) and the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) for highspeed data distribution.

Sbi&lo QlUUlel (;";�und a�d· Air�;n� �dio System� � , ·

.

·.

.

· (SlNC_ GARS) . � . ' � ��;:�:;�) ' ·'

FY96 Qty/Amt

/357

FY97 Qty/Amt

/320

i • • . '

FY99 Qty/Amt

/14

SINCGARS is the Army's VHF-FM radio system providing voice and data communications for tactical command and control. It has frequency-hopping and jam-resistant capabilities and has been highly reliable

50

in field use. Its configurations include manpack, vehicular and airborne models. More than 65,000 SINCGARS have been fielded. An improved model will go on the market this year.

FY96 Qty/Amt

/84

Night Visiop. Devices

FY97 Qty/Amt

/165

FY98 · Qty/Amt

/85

FY99 Qty/Amt

/84

This line item includes a family of devices for night vision, image intensification and sensor technologies for effective operations at night or under degraded conditions. Significant items under this category include: night vision goggles, aviator night vision systems, night vision sniperscopes and monocular night vision devices.

�·---• • - .. ·-· "'!'" ••

• •.

Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)

FY96 Qty/Amt

246/32

FY97 Qty/Amt

196/32

FY98 Qty/Amt ..

253/33

FY99 Qty/Amt

191138

AF A TDS provides the automated fire support command, control and communications portion of the Army Tactical Command and Control System (ATCCS).

FY96 Qty/Amt

/29

FY97 Qty/Amt

178

FY98 Qty/Amt.

/93

FY99 Qty/Amt

/116

The CCTT program comprises a group o f fully interactive networked simulators and command, control and communications workstations replicating vehicles and weapon systems of a company or team operating on a simulated battlefield. The CCTT function is to train Abrams tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle crews on individual and collective tasks and skills on a simulated, interactive, real-time basis.

Joiirt Surveillance Target - Attack System (Joint STARS) Ariny

FY96 FY97 . · FY98 . . FY99 Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt Qty/Amt

/82 /85 �· . 11.19 .: /89 · · ·�

Joint STARS (also known as JSTARS) is a joint Air Force and Army program that provides both tactical air and ground commanders with near real-time, wide area surveillance and deep targeting data on both moving and fixed targets. The Air Force is responsible for the Joint STARS aircraft, as modified, to conduct the surveillance mission. The Army is responsible for the Ground Station Module.

· · -· �

- --

--

·-

- .

· �eserv.e Component Automation System . (RCAS)

FY96 Qty/Amt

/81

FY97 Qty/Amt

173

' -F¥98 ··· . t (!ty/Amt

FY99 Qty/Amt

/ 1 1 1

RCAS i s an automated information system to support the reserve components. Now being fielded, it is designed for management of day-to-day operations and mobilization planning.

Fig. 1 7 Army RTD&E Funding Profile


7

6

5 5.6 5.3

4 5 . 1

3

2

1

0 89 90 91 92 93 94

FY96 Qty/Amt

24/62

Sentinel

FY97 Qty/Amt

28/69

FY98 Qty/Amt

12/41

FY99 Qty/Amt

1 5/40

Sentinel is a ground-based sensor system used with the Forward Area Air Defense (FAAD) Command and Control System. It automatically detects, tracks and reports targets to air defense weapon systems in the forward area.

Sentinel consists of a radar sensor with its prime mover. The sensor is an advanced three-dimensional air defense phased array radar with a range of 40 km. Capable of operating day and night and under adverse weather conditions, it provides 360-degree coverage for acquisition and tracking.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT &E) is the other part of the RDA equation. The Army funding profile for RDT &E from FY 1989 is reflected in Figure 17 .

Table 34 summarizes the Army RDT &E projected funding by budget activity for fiscal years 1 996 through 1 999.

4 . 8 4 . 9 4 . 5 4.5

95 96 97 98 99


5 1

Table 34

ARMY RDT&E

(current $ millions*)

Budget Activities

Basic Research Applied Research Advanced Technology Development DemonstrationN ali dation Engineering Manufacturing Development Management Support Operational Systems Development

Total


The Army FY 1 998 program of $4.5 billion represents about 7 . 5 percent of the Army budget and a 1 2 . 5 percent share of RDT&E funding in the DoD budget.

The Science & Technology (S&T) portion - the total of Budget Activities 1 , 2, and 3 from table 34 -

includes the development of technologies not directly tied to specific acquisition programs and covers programs in basic research, exploratory development and advanced development. The $ 1 . 1 billion budgeted for S&T is 24 percent of the FY 1 998 RDT&E total.

The FY 1998 budget includes funding for continuing the development of the JST ARS, Comanche, BAT submunition for AT ACMS, Crusader and SAD ARM programs. Operational Systems Development funds are budgeted to continue the Combat Vehicle Improvement Program and for Horizontal Battlefield Digitization.

Management supp01t absorbs a significant share - about 25 percent - of the RDT &E budget for FY 1998. In addition to base operations and environmental compliance costs, the Army must cover the cost of operating the Kwajalein national test range as well as Army test ranges and facilities.

There are no new major initiatives in the FY 1 998 program; the overall budget level for FY 1 998 is about

52

FY96 FY97 FY98 . FY99

182 1 79 199 2 1 0 45 1 552 463 494

, . 580 678 ' 418 432 454 558 523 446

1 , 125 1 , 1 4 1 1 , 107 ' 1 , 163 1 ,235 1 ,072 1 , 137 1 , 1 08

731 75 1 663 644

4,757 4,931 4,511 . 4,497

Source: DA

1 0 percent in real terms below the RDT &E funded levels for both FY 1 996 and FY 1 997.

Brief descriptions of selected Army RDT &E items in the Army budget follow.

Army Highlighted RDT &E Items ($ millions)

FY96

284

RAH-66 Com�nche Helicopt�r FY97

331

FY98· · 282

FY99

372

The RAH-66 Comanche atmed reconnaissance helicopter is one of the Army's top priority development projects. It will provide the Army with new and expanded capability to conduct armed reconnaissance both day and night in adverse weather conditions and will greatly expand the Army's capability to conduct operations in a variety of combat scenarios and battlefield environments. The program is currently in the development phase, with two prototype aircraft being built. The first flight of prototype 1 occurred 4 January 1996. The program includes six Early Operational Capability (EOC) aircraft that will be evaluated in a field environment prior to low-rate initial production.

l

Brilliant Antiarmor (BAT) Submunition

FY96

191

FY97

162

FY98

202

FY99

129

The BAT is a dual-sensor (both acoustic and infrared) antiarmor submunition that can automatically seek out, identify and destroy moving vehicles. Carried by a variant of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), its primary mission is for deep attack of moving armored vehicles. BAT also has a procurement element listed in the section on procurement.

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) (Product Improvement Program)

FY96

69

FY97

63

FY9.8

27

FY99

22

MLRS is the Army's self-propelled rocket system designed to attack deep targets. The RDT &E funding is for a MLRS product improvement program to extend the range of the rocket system and upgrade fire control and launcher mechanized systems.

Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)

FY96

37

FY97

39

FY98

39

FY99

35

AF A TDS provides the automated fire support command, control and communications portion of the Army Battle Command System (ABCS). It will provide integrated and automated support for planning, coordinating and cataloging all five support assets. AF A TDS a fundamental part of the digital battlefield. It will replace the present tactical fire direction system.

Advanced Field Artillery System (Crusader)

FY96 FY97

239

FY98

324

FY99

294

Crusader is the Army' s next generation of artillery for the heavy force. This l55mm self-propelled howitzer

53

will provide direct and general fire power support to the maneuver forces. It will incorporate advanced technologies to increase accuracy, rate of fire, survivability, mobility and ammunition handling. It will have both an automated ammunition handling system and an advanced fire control system. Effective FY 1997, Crusader is carried in the budget under the listing Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation.

FY96

Bradley Upgrade Program

FY97

90

FY98

75, FY99

37

This is the RDT &E portion of the program that provides for the upgrading of first-generation Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the current M2A2 configuration as well as a new M2A3 upgrade to provide digitized communications and improved target acquisition capability.

FY96

Ml Tank Upgrade Pro.Jiram · ..

FY97

7 1

FY98

33

FY99

6

This is the RDT &E portion of the prograp1 that will upgrade older M l Abrams tanks to the M l A2 configuration, to include improved armor, a 1 20mm gun, a commander's independent thermal viewer and an improved commander's weapon station. It also provides for digitized communications capability and for nuclear, biological and chemical protection.

Sense and DestrC>y Arm amen� Missile ,(SAD ,ARM): FY96

16

FY97

1 0

. • • 1,, �

. FY98

22

FY99

21

SADARM is a fire-and-forget multisensor smart munition designed to detect and destroy armored vehicles, primarily self-propelled artillery. It is effective in all weather and terrain. SADARM is delivered to the target area by 1 55m artillery projectiles. Extensive engineering has been done toward integrating SADARM into the MLRS rocket. The SADARM system uses multiple sensors and is designed to defeat targets in

severe clutter, signature reduction and jamming countermeasures. SADARM also has a procurement element previously listed.

Maneuver Control system (MCS) I • . •

FY96

48

. � . � . . ._ . " --·

FY97

28

··• FY98

26

FY99

24

MCS will provide tactical commanders and their staffs (corps through brigade) automated, near realtime systems for planning, coordinating and controlling tactical operations. It will integrate the maneuver functions with the command and control systems of the other functional areas - fire support, air defense, intelligence, electronic warfare and combat service support.

All SoUrce Analyses System (ASAS)

FY96

50

FY97

39

FY98

24

FY99

26

ASAS, the intelligence electronic warfare subelement of the Army Battle Command System (ABCS), will provide combat commanders with the source intelligence needed to view the battlefield and conduct the land battle. It provides the capability to receive and correlate data, produce enemy situa.tion displays, disseminate intelligence information, nominate targets and manage collection requirements.

FY96

1 1 1

· Battlefiel� Digitization ·

FY97

137

FY98

157

FY99

149

Digitization is the application of common technologies across multiple systems. It involves the use of digitized communications for the integration of operations on the modem battlefield. This combines horizontal battlefield digitization and Force XXI initiatives. Digitization will provide a common picture of the battlefield to commanders, warfighters and supporters for planning and execution.

54

FY96

4

Aerostat Program

FY97

26

FY98

86

FY99

134

In 1996 the Army was directed to form a joint program office and initiate an Aerostat program. The Navy and Air Force will provide deputy program managers. The Aerostat mission is to provide overthe-horizon surveillance and precision tracking data for defense against land-attack cruise missiles. The

Aerostat Joint Program Office is under the operational control of the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command. The initial directive is to proceed with concept studies leading to an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration.

FY96

31

Force XXI Land Warrior

FY97

16

FY98

1 1

FY99

7

This program was a consolidation of previous

programs (the Generation II Soldier and the Land Warrior) to address Almy needs to enhance the

performance, lethality, survivability and sustainment of the individual soldier. This project is the RDT &E science and technology portion for improved capabilities, to include a lighter-weight helmet, helmet-mounted displays, digital radio, voice-activated soldier radio and radio packet relay. Another project involves a lighter infrared rifle sight with integrated handover functions. Emerging technologies add other components such as combat identification, personnel status monitor,

future infantry weapons, mine detection, chemical agent detectors and others.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (BMD)

In addition to systems funded by the Army budget, the Army is heavily involved in the development of

BMD technologies and systems funded through DoD's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).

The Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command (USASSDC) is the agent for a number of BMDO programs related to ground-based air and missile defense systems. This is related essentially to systems

for which the Army has mission requirements and will be a principal user. The systems falling into this category for Theater Missile Defense are: Patriot PAC-3, Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).

BMDO RDT &E Programs of Special Army Interest

($ millions)

Patriot.Advanced Capability.:3 (P AC-3)

FY96

353

FY97

381

FY98

· . . . 206

FY99

101

The PAC-3 missile will provide advanced antimissile capability to the Patriot system. The primary missions of the PAC-3 missile are to kill tactical missiles and to counter cruise missiles and aircraft.

Theater High Altitude Missile De.fense (THAAD)

FY96

566

FY97

341

FY98

295

FY99

1 7

THAAD will provide high-altitude air defense against ballistic missiles. It is a Theater Missile Defense (TMD) weapon system designed to intercept short- and intermediate-range missiles. THAAD is a badly needed ground-based capability, but several test

failures will slow down the program, with probable slippages of about two years. RTD&E funding can be expected to slip accordingly.

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)

FY96

20

FY97

56

FY98

48

FY99

1 0

MEADS will provide low- to medium-altitude air and missile defense to maneuver forces and other forward deployed units. It will provide a 360-degree defense against attacks by a wide variety of tactical missiles and other air-breathing threats. MEADS is an international cooperative program with Germany and Italy. Although it is not reflected in the FY 1999 figure above, DoD has committed to full support through FY 1999 as a result of the QDR.

FACILITIES

Military Construction

The Army has three separate appropriations under the Military Construction heading: Military Construction, Army (MCA) for the active force, MCNG for the Army National Guard and MCAR for the Army Reserve. Table 35 summarizes the budgeted funding for these appropriations.

Table 35

ARMY MILITARY CONSTR,UCTION (TOA $ millions)

Appropriation. Title FY96 FY97 Military Construction, Army (MCA)* 625.4 565 . 7

Military Construction, Army National Guard (MCNG) 1 37 . 1 78 . 1

Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR) 64.8 55.5

Total 827.3 699.3

FY98 FY99 595.3 697.0

45. 1 33.8

47.0 66.1

687.4 796.9 * Does not include BRAC funds, which become part of the Army budget when provided for execution.

Source: DA

55

In addition to the military construction appropriations, the Army has funding for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) costs shown in table 36 for fiscal years 1996 through 1 999. Note that these are almost of the same order of magnitude as MCA itself.

FY96

700.6

Table 36

ARMY BRAC (TOA $ millions)

FY97 FY98

428.6 400.5

FY99

523.9

Source: DA

The focus for FY 1 998 is on revitalization of facilities at installations, with emphasis on improving strategic mobility, troop housing and necessary environmental health and mission-essential requirements. The Military Construction FY 1 998 budget for the active Army and reserve components is $687 million, of

which $338 million is for the whole Barracks Renewal Program (with projects at six major U.S. installations plus Germany); $ 1 10 million is for barracks construction in Korea and Germany. Other areas include $75 million for strategic mobility and prepositioning capability, $97 million for mission training requirements and $43 million for RC training readiness.

These are lean construction budgets, falling far short of a reasonable standard for reconstituting Army real property over time (say 50 years). Base Closure and Realignment actions have dominated the construction

planning process. More consolidations and removal from the inventory of unneeded or uneconomically sustainable real assets are still necessary before a solid long-term plan is adopted. In the meantime, Military

Construction is almost entirely focused on missionessential requirements.

Family Housing

Family Housing is the other portion of the facilities picture. It has two separate parts: (1) family housing construction and (2) family housing operation and debt payment. A summary of Army Family Housing (AFH) budget numbers is shown in table 37.

The construction part of the FY 1998 family housing budget requests $88.7 million for 583 new units to replace 778 old (uneconomically repairable) units at five major installations, plus eight new units in Miami, FL. Another $44.8 million will fund six whole neighborhood revitalization projects of 455 dwelling units.

FY I 998 operational funding is for operating and maintaining approximately 133,000 military family housing units world-wide. It covers $468 million for maintenance and repair, including major repairs on 2,600 dwellings and recurring maintenance on the others.

Although it comprises 4 1 percent of the FY 1998 operations budget, maintenance and repair is underfunded, covering only about 72 percent of validated needs; therefore, the backlog is increasing.

ARMY PROJECTION CAPABILITY

The projection Army depends on its ability to deploy the necessary forces and equipment from home bases rapidly enough to meet potential mission requirements. The key to this is strategic mobility.

Table 37

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING ($ millions)

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Am1y Family Housing Construction 1 1 9.3 1 5 8 . 5 143.0 1 37.9

Army Family Housing Operations* 1 ,338 .6 1 ,2 1 2.5 1 , 148.9 1 , 1 1 8.0

Total 1,457.9 1,371.0 1,291.9 1,255.9

*Includes leasing. Source: DA

56

l

Lift requirements are identified in the most recent ( 1995) Mobility Requirements Study. The Army's objectives are to be able to project the following forces rapidly to anywhere in the world: a light brigade in four days; a light division in 1 2 days; a heavy brigade afloat in 1 5 days; two heavy divisions in 30 days; and a five-division contingency corps in 75 days. To achieve these power projection goals the Army relies on a critical triad of prepositioned unit equipment, strategic sealift and strategic airlift, plus facilities in the United States that support deployment.

The Army is a major user of both airlift and sealift for the success of contingency missions. However, the budget for strategic mobility is not centralized. The Army is responsible for funding its own prepositioning as well as for infrastructure requirements in the United States. Airlift is funded in the Air Force budget, and sealift is funded through a special National Defense Sealift Fund.

The Army is an active player in prepositioning. It has established a prepositioned package of the equipment needed by an armored brigade afloat, along with its normal combat support elements and a 30-day corps floating supply package. The use ofprepositioned ships

Fig. 18 Army War Reserve

AWR-1 - CONUS

• Sustainment • OPROJs

AWR-3 - Afloat

• 1 4 ships Indian/Pacific Oceans (grows to 1 6)

• 1 brigade set • Port and CSS corps unit sets • 30 days of supply corps

sustainment

Legend

AWR - Army War Reserve

OPROJ - Operational Projects Stocks

WRSA - War Reserve Support for Allies

for delivety of equipment to Southwest Asia in October 1994 clearly proved their worth. The current fleet of ships for this purpose now numbers 14. Some of these will be replaced later by more modem roll-on/ roll-off ships and the total number increased to 16 .

Other actual or planned prepositioned packages of equipment worldwide include two separate heavy brigade sets in Central Europe; a heavy brigade set in Italy; a heavy brigade set in Kuwait; a mechanized battalion set in Qatar (to grow into a full brigade set), plus a division base; and a heavy brigade set in Korea. One more brigade set is planned in Southwest Asia, with the specific location yet to be determined.

Since 1 992, the Army has been in the process of reorganizing its war reserves and operational project stocks. Stockpiles have been delinked from specific warfighting commands. Total quantities have been materially reduced and stockage placed into common user stockpiles: the continental United States (CONUS), Europe, prepositioned afloat, Korea and Southwest Asia. In addition, there will be 16 operational project stocks designed for specific missions. The Army War Reserve Program is further illustrated in figure 1 8 .

AWR-2 - Europe

• 2 brigade sets - BeNelux • 1 brigade set - Italy • 1 FA battalion set - Norway

AWR-4 - Pacific

• 1 brigade set - Korea • OPROJs - Korea and Japan • WRSA - Korea (equipment/ammo)

57

AWR-5 - SWA

• 1 brigade set - Kuwait • Mech battalion TF - Qatar (grows

to 1 brigade set in '98 and division base in '00 - Qatar)

• Proposed 1 brigade set ashore -location TBD Source: DA

War Reserve Secondary Items (WRSI) - including rations, clothing, tentage, packaged petrolewn products, barrier materials, medical materials and repair parts -are an important segment of prepositional stocks. They are essentially starter stocks to bridge the gap until follow-up supplies are available. WRSI stocks are not adequate today to meet a two-MRC (major regional conflict) scenario. The total deficit is estimated at about $3.3 billion.

In the continental United States, the Army has taken a hard look at its infrastructure needs to facilitate deployment and support projection missions. This involves the movement from installations and depots to airports and seaports. It requires good rail systems, modem airfield and port facilities, and installations with adequate storage capability. Also needed are facilities that make these installations good powerprojection platforms. The Army has identified over $700 million in infrastructure improvements at installations and depots in the United States for this purpose, to include rail upgrades, airfield improvements, and enhancements in warehousing and other deployment facilities. The Army is procuring some 1 6,000 shipping containers and 1 ,090 special rail cars to improve its capability. Some 500 have already been procured for prepositioning at plants, depots and installations.

Other important initiatives relate to the logistics support structure. Key to this are initiatives under the umbrella of the Total Distribution Program (TDP) with associated in-transit visibility for equipment and materiel. This will use automation to bridge the seams

l among strategic, operational and tactical logistics. Total Asset Visibility (T A V), a major Army program now

under development, provides quick identification and visibility of materiel in process, in storage and in transit.

ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

The Army environmental program is part of the overall DoD program discussed earlier. The four basic areas cover compliance, restoration, prevention and conservation; funding is identified in various appropriations within the Army budget. The Army is mandated to comply with federal, state and local requirements as well as applicable host-nation environmental standards. Funding requested in this budget is shown in table 38.

Army restoration funding is provided in a separate Environmental Restoration Account (ERA) or from costs associated with BRAC (carried down as a cost under Military Construction). The rest is included in other Army appropriations, mostly O&M, but with $54 million in RDT &E funding in the FY 1 998 budget for environmental compliance research.

The FY 1998 budget reflects a combined budgeted level of $ 1 .37 billion - 2.3 percent of the total Army budget. Of this, a little more than 40 percent is for the restoration or clean-up of existing sites. The remainder ($.8 billion) covers ongoing operational and safety requirements and the cost of full compliance with environmental standards. In the near term, at least, this should continue at a fairly constant level of effort.

Table 38

ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING ($ millions)

FY96 FY97 FY98 . FY99

Compliance/Conservation/Prevention/ 755 740 ; , 795 700 Technology Programs

Restoration 762 425 576 623 (from Environmental and Restoration Account and Base Realignment and Closure Account)

Source: DA

58

ARMY WORKING CAPITAL FUND

The Army Working Capital Fund (AWCF) is one of the Defense Working Capital Fund activities. It was established in December 1996 when the single Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) was disestablished and four separate funds identified as Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense-wide Working Capital Funds were formed. A WCF is the mechanism for financing Army industrial, commercial and support activities.

A WCF operates as a revolving fund by financing through funded customer-reimbursable orders. Army management is exercised under four fund activity groups:

+ Supply Management. This activity group buys and maintains assigned stocks of materiel for sale to its customers. The group consists of a wholesale division and separate retail divisions for Army major commands and the National Capital Region.

+ Depot Maintenance. This activity group maintains end items and depot-level repairables.

+ Ordnance. This activity group manufactures, renovates and demilitarizes ordnance material for all services within DoD and for foreign military customers.

+ Information Services. This activity group provides for the development and operational sustainment of automated information systems.

The Army Working Capital Fund operates on a break-even basis over time. The Army sets annual revenue rates to achieve this. For FY 1 998 A WCF activities are anticipated to have $ 1 1 .4 billion in sales.

Costs for FY 1 996 (actual) and fiscal years 1997 to 1999 (estimated) are displayed in table 39.

Table 39

COSTS, ARMY WORKING CAPITAL FUND ($ millions)

Costs FY96 FY97 F¥98 FY99 Supply Management 7,223 7,333 7,021 6,889

Depot Maintenance 1 ,53 1 1 ,492 1,449 ' 1 ,470 Ordnance 5 12 494 488 487 Information Services 1 5 1 147 165 !59

Total 9,41 7 9,466 9,123 9,005 Source: DA

59

A significant factor in determining rate structure is the cost of personnel. This is particularly true in depot maintenance. For the FY 1998 budget, civilian personnel costs are based on 23,24 7 work years.

The Army is also a major customer of all Defense Working Capital Fund activities.

ARMY RESERVE COMPONENTS SUMMARY

At the present time, about 54 percent of the Army's total strength resides in the reserve components - the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve receive separate appropriations from Congress in addition to their portions of the Army's overall budget.

Changes have taken place since 1989 in structure, strength and warfighting missions of the reserve components. There has been a shift in the focus between the two, with emphasis on combat elements for the Army National Guard and on combat service support for the Army Reserve.

The Army National Guard now has 1 5 designated enhanced readiness brigades which will be given the necessary personnel, training and equipment for deployment in 90 days. Eight divisions were retained as strategic reserve.

The USAR, with 10 Regional Support Commands, will carry the bulk of the Army's support forces, with special priority on units for the Force Support Pool, which are those units needed for the projection force in a regional crisis.

While adjusting to change, the RC will have decreased in strength by about 26 percent from FY 1 989 to FY 1 998 (see figure 19). At this time, about 70 percent of the Army's combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) will come from the ARNG and the USAR.

The rest of this section will focus specifically on budget-related aspects of the Army National Guard and the Atmy Reserve.

Army National Guard

Three appropriations apply directly to the ARNG: ( l) Military Personnel, (2) Operation and Maintenance

hz

Fig.19 Reserve Component Strength Change

1989 Army Reserve From 29 Command & Control HQ/Training Divisions 31 9,000 End Strength

1989 Army National Guard From 1 0 Divisions/23 Brigade Equivalents 457,000 End Strength

and (3) Military Construction. The Army National Guard is also funded by the individual states for state-related functions. These three appropriations fund specific

requirements as defined in appropriation language but should not be confused with the total costs. Some support costs, including most equipment acquisition, are provided through other appropriations. ARNG statistical highlights are shown in tables 40 and 4 1 .

In addition to the 1 5 enhanced readiness brigades, the ARNG has a heavy share of the Army's combat support, including artillery, combat engineers and air defense.

Table 40

ARNG SUMMARY ($ millions)

FY96 FY97

Military Personnel, 3,349 3,263 ARNG (total direct program)

O&M, ARNG 2,444 2,252

Military Construction, 1 3 7 7 8 ARNG

FY98 FY99

' 3�2Ql . 3 , 1 84

2,.259 2,366

45 34

Source: DA

60

----------

1998 Army Reserve To 1 0 Regional Support Commands 7 Training Divisions 208,000 End Strength

1998 Army National Guard To 8 Divisions, 1 5 Enhanced Brigades 3 Theater Defense Brigades 367,000 End Strength

Source: DA

Table 41

ARNG FORCE STRUCTURE AND MANNING HIGHLIGHTS

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 Force Structure

Divisions 8 8 8 8

Separate brigades 6 2 2 2

Enhanced brigades 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5

Armored car regiment I Manning (thousands)

Military end strength 370.0 366.8 366.5 366.5

Paid drill strength 346.9 344.0 344.2 345 . 1

Full-time support* Active Guard and Reserve 23.0 22.8 . 22.3 2 1 .4

Military technicians 25.6 25.5 25 .3 24.6

* In addition, the ARNG has full-time active component support of !59 for FY s 1 996 and 1 997 and 144 for FY s 1998 and 1999; also, DA civilians totaling 5 1 8 for FY 1 996, 560 for FY 1997 and 484 for FY s 1 998 and 1999.

Source: DA

..

J

The Army National Guard Operation and Maintenance budget for FY 1998 requests $2.26 billion, which includes $ 1 . 7 billion for training operations and the rest for base support, depot maintenance, recruiting and retention, real property maintenance and administration.

·

Facilities funding for both military construction and real propet1y maintenance and repair is very restricted. The military construction request of $45 billion for FY 1998 is only a token amount in relation to the total real property inventory value and a looming ARNG construction backlog of well over a billion dollars. For real property maintenance, which is funded by O&M, there is a similar disconnect - a $46 million budget request with a backlog of maintenance and repair estimated at $443 million and growing. This has been aggravated by the turbulence of reductions, reorganizations and relocations. These need to settle down before major new investments are planned.

Army Reserve

The U SAR has three direct appropriations: ( 1 ) Military Personnel, (2) Operation and Maintenance and (3) Military Construction. In addition, the USAR is provided equipment and receives support from other Army sources.

USAR budget highlights are summarized in tables 42 and 43.

The mission of the USAR is to provide trained and ready federal reserve forces that can be employed at the direction of the National Command Authority. The USAR is the principal provider to the Army of combat service support. It is particularly important that the USAR units, designated in the Force Support Pool and subj ect to employment on short notice for contingency operations, be in an especially high state of readiness.

A major organization change by the USAR this past year was the activation of 1 0 Regional Support Commands to replace 20 stateside Army Reserve Commands. The USAR structure now has the Regional Support Commands and seven training divisions, with a programmed end strength of 208,000 for the selected reserve category.

61

Table 42

USAR BUDGET SUMMARY ($ millions)

FY96 FY97 FY98· FY99

Reserve Personnel, 2 , 127 2,072 2,024 2,064 Anny (total direct

program)

O&M, Anny Reserve I , 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 8 1 , 193 1 , 2 1 0

Military Construction, 65 56 47 66 Anny Reserve

Source: DA

Table 43

ARMY RESERVE HIGHLIGHTS

FY96 FY97 F¥98 FY99

Manning (thousands)

Military end strength 226.2 Paid drill strength 204.2

Full-time support* Active Guard and

Reserve 1 1 .6 Military technicians 6.2 DA civilians 1 . 1

Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMA) 10.5

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) 3 1 8 .3

2 1 5 .3 298.0 208.0 1 95.4 190.4 1 90.4

1 1 .8 6.8 1 .2

.. . ..

. • .tts •

/ i:;: , .. , . ;:: : .:

1 1 .5 6.5 1 .2

8 . 1 6: 1 6 . 1

3 0 1 .9 333.8 ; 332.2

* In addition, the USAR has full-time active component support estimated at 799 military personnel in FY 1996, 997 in FY 1997, 994 in FY 1998 and 994 in FY 1 999.

Source: DA

Of importance is the individual ready reserve (IRR) carried by the USAR, estimated to total 338,800 in FY 1 998. This provides a valuable resource for individual fillers in the event of a declared emergency.

Over half of the Army terminal and transport capability, the bulk of maintenance and engineer backup suppot1, the bulk of medical and hospital augmentation, and virtually all civil affairs units, water supply battalions and chemical brigades come from the Army Reserve.

That portion of the USAR budget related most closely to readiness is Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR). OMAR is budgeted for $ 1 . 1 9 billion in FY 1 998. Of this, the largest portion ($62 1 million) is for training and operations. The rest goes for base support ($258 million), depot maintenance, real property maintenance, recruiting and retention, and administration.

The USAR's militmy construction and real property maintenance repair situation is much like that of the ARNG. Real property maintenance is budgeted in FY 1 998 at $85 million, with a backlog of maintenance and repair of more than $300 million and increasing. Likewise, the construction budget of $56 million does not make a big dent in the unfunded construction backlog of several hundreds of millions of dollars. Again, stability of organizations and locations hinder sound long-term facility planning at this time.

Reserve Component Integration

The reserve components are playing an increasingly stronger role in contingency operations as well as in peacetime engagement and civil assistance operations. For example, during Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia, some 8,000 Army National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers were mobilized either to augment or backfill units in Germany or to deploy directly to Bosnia, particularly in those areas where they brought special competency and skills.

The challenge for the future is to make the best allocation of total Army military assets against total Army missions. Maximum effective use of the RC comes under the heading "RC Integration." Some of the integration initiatives in process include:

• The Army National Guard Division Redesign Study (ADRS). This responded to a long-standing shortfall in combat support and combat service support assets. The ADRS recommended converting a portion of the ARNG's combat structure to a CS and CSS structure. This will reduce the shm1fall by more than 47,000 spaces and enable the Army to better meet its warfighting support requirements. In addition, the Army will study and test a proposal to form two new divisions by merging six of the enhanced brigades - three per division - with an active component division headquarters. Implementation of ADRS will cost about $2.7 billion.

62

• Army Reserve Structure Improvements. The Army Reserve has made several force structure changes to improve the overall Army's power projection capability. For example, newly established Garrison Support Units (GSUs) backfill installation base operations activities vacated by active Army units deployed to contingency operations. Three GSUs mobilized and supported Operation Joint Endeavor. In addition, the Army Reserve has reorganized port/terminal units, military intelligence units, medical augmentation hospitals and movement control units, among others. These units enhance the ability to project power and are designed to be ready on the first day of a contingency.

• Additional Integration Initiatives. Several initia

tives to further integrate the active and reserve components are being examined. These include increasing mission sharing for peacetime missions and functions, such as base operations, Reserve Officer Training Corps, recruiting, training, contracting and transportation; increasing the reserve components' role in rotational deployments, such as in the Sinai and Macedonia; and transferring some active component missions, such as National Missile Defense, to the reserve components.

Already planned and in process is the way the Army National Guard will provide field artillery and air defense support for the total Army force. When the process is completed, some 70 percent of the supporting field m1illery above division level and all Army air defense artillery above division will be in the Army National Guard.

Equipping the Reserve Components

Providing the RC with modem equipment compatible with that of the active force with whom they will operate is a significant problem. There is simply not enough available equipment or funding to accomplish this quickly or completely. For maximum compatibility of high-priority units, the best approach (now being followed) is based on a force packaging match using the first-to-fight principle. This works well with units planned for early deployment in either combat or support roles, but creates a problem for later deploying units which will have older or substitute equipment. In the current environment, later deployers for a crisis

often are early deployers for peacetime engagement.

In recent years, redistribution from the active component has been the prime source of RC equipment. This is declining due in large part to the end of equipment retrograding from Europe. However, the replacement of M60 series tanks in Army National Guard units by M l tanks will be complete by FY 1997.

Between service redistribution and modest new procurement, gradual improvements are taking place along with the withdrawal of older equipment. Compatibility of equipment is and will continue to be a problem area, less so for tactical systems than for communications and logistical support. A portion of the fleet of very old trucks is being sustained by a service-life extension program. Tactical radios for ground operations are not compatible in many RC units and this remains an unsolved problem, particularly with the move to digitization and more secure networks.

It now appears certain that Congress will repeat what was done in both FY 1996 and FY 1 997 by adding funding for RC equipment in a separate appropriation. From House and Senate reports, this will probably be on the order of $700 million for all services; and the amount targeted for the Army RC units is not clear at this time.

Future Strength and Structure Issues

The recent QDR made proposals which impact directly on the Army reserve components. Specifically, the report indicated a reserve component reduction of 45,000 but without a profile of how this would be accomplished over time. More explanatory is the memo of27 May 1997 by Secretary of Defense William Cohen to the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff, directing the Almy to reduce the reserve component by 45,000 without affecting the combat capability of the Army. In addition, he stated that the 1 5 enhanced ARNG brigades were to be retained, properly trained and resourced. Also, he directed that the Army should continue to implement its ARNG division redesign plan.

The projected strength cuts are and will continue to be a major issue. An initial Department of the Army review to reach consensus on the cuts for future budget purposes agreed on the following: Army National Guard would reduce by 5,000 in FY 1 998, 5,000 in FY 1999 and 7,000 in FY 2000. The Army Reserve would reduce by 3,000 in FY 2000. This leaves 25,000 to be addressed later.

63

The OSD directive that will have major impact on the next update of the FYDP needs to be further clarified in future defense planning guidance.

ARMY BUDGET ASSESSMENT

The Army FY 1998 budget as submitted was a continuation of FY 1997 and a reflection of the existing FYDP. There were no major program changes or cancellations and only modest adjustments in personnel, primarily civilian strengths. The budget, however, is severely constrained as indicated by its "going-in" value at six percent below FY 1 997 in real terms.

The Army had a $ 1 billion stake in the $2 billion unfunded FY 1997 contingency costs for Bosnia and Southwest Asia. This is now being covered by congressional supplemental action but was a threat to operating funds for training in the second half of FY 1 997 until cleared.

Next, a quick analysis of the major budget categmies:

Military Personnel. At 43 percent of the total Army budget, Military Personnel is the largest single account, directly tied to authorized end strength and estimated man-years. It covers entitlements, including all special pays and retired pay accrual. It is not a major budget problem as long as strength levels and the equivalent budgeted man-years move in tandem, and those special pays related to dislocations and out-of-the-country employment are fully accounted for.

Admittedly, the reserve components are somewhat restricted by budget limitations in their ability to send all those desired to special skill and advanced training. The quality-of-life and equity issues, such as a deficiency in housing allowances and the military/civilian pay gap of over 12 percent, are real concerns, but they are not at issue in this year's military pay appropriations.

Although not directly pay-related, a concern for the future will be the ability of the Almy to recruit and retain the people it needs and wants. There are storm clouds on the horizon. Standards and fulfillment goals have slipped a bit this year. Unfortunately, recruiting has an inverse relationship with the economy. Educational benefits are enormously important; so is continued attractiveness for women enlistees, as about 20 percent of new accessions are female. Recruiting and retention remain a major challenge.

Operation and Maintenance. O&M, at 34 percent, is the second-largest budget group. The O&M appropriations are the most complex of all Army appropriations. They provide the sustenance to make things run and to train and support the force. Overall, O&M funding for FY 1998 adequately covers the essential training and readiness requirements, and Army O&M dollars per soldier have remained quite consistent in real terms for unexpected contingency costs.

As differentiated from militruy pay (an entitlement), when O&M funds ru·e reduced or not available something must be curtailed or funds shifted from one pocket to another. As readiness has first claim on O&M dollars, such things as base support and maintenance invariably get squeezed. FY 1 998 is no exception. Real property maintenance is well below current needs, and the backlog continues to grow. The Army could easily use another $400 million or more this purpose. Also, the unfunded backlog for depot maintenance for FY 1998 is estimated at about $380 million.

Research, Development and Acquisition. RDA (the sum of the Procurement and RDT &E appropriations) is the area where budget shortages are the most critical and the most obvious. These are the appropriations that fuel modernization, and the lack of RDA resources in recent years has been a major drag on the Army's ability to modernize and prepare for the next century under Force XXI concepts. On the positive side, the Army's major ongoing modernization systems remain supported, to include the Comanche Crusader, Longbow Hellfire, Javelin Antitank System, Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition (BAT), Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and battlefield digitization for Force XXI. But while suppmted, they are funded at less than adequate levels.

The Army's RDA request in the FY 1 998 budget of $ 1 1 .3 billion, or only 14.5 percent of total RDA for all DoD, is not adequate to support the Army's multiyear program. Additional funding of about $3 billion a year is needed to do this. Congress may provide some help, as they did last year, but they have little flexibility this yeru· with the balanced budget agreement.

Military Construction and Family Housing. Combined, these appropriations represent only $2.4 billion, or 3.9 percent of the total Army budget, and do not draw much attention from the financial macroplanners, but they are critical budget problems. First, o f the $2.4 billion, $400 million results from base

64

l

realignment costs, and the Army has no option as to its use. From the Family Housing appropriation, $ 1 . 1 5 million is used for operations. This leaves about $850 million for the construction part of Family Housing and the total of Military Construction budgets for the active Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve. It is very thin gruel for the size and scope of the facilities involved. On the positive side, the major emphasis goes to barracks and housing. But with the Army's vast holdings in aging facilities, only militaryessential work is being done.

Quadrennial Defense Review

A discussion of the Army budget would not be complete without a look at how the QDR directly supports or affects future Army programs. In its recommendations, the QDR report:

+ supports the need for a two-major-theater-war (MTW) capability;

+ provides a statement of requirements for smallscale contingencies (SSCs);

+ supports the Army's ten-active-division structure;

+ endorses the Army National Guard's 1 5 enhanced separate brigades;

• validates the Army's long-term modernization program, which includes the Comanche, Crusader, ATACMS with BAT, Javelin Antitank System and Hellfire;

+ would accelerate Force XXI;

+ proposes strength cuts over time to include reductions of 1 5 ,000 for the active Army, 45,000 for the reserve components and 35,000 civilians.

The QDR pretty much validates the Army's current and planned future programs, but it provides no assurance of the necessary funding to carry them out.

Conclusion

Three basic issues currently facing the Army are 1 ) recruiting and retention; 2) how to manage the strength cuts, particularly those relating to the reserve components; and 3) how to get the necessary RDA funding to support Force XXI and the Army modernization program.

APPENDIX I

BUDGET TERMS

Appropriation is the specific authority to obligate and expend funds provided for in appropriation bills, which are prepared by the appropriation committees, passed by Congress and signed by the President into law. Appropriations are provided in line item detail. The time over which monies may be obligated is specified, varying from one year for personnel and operation and maintenance to two years for RDT &E and three years (nonnally) for procurement and construction (extended to five years for shipbuilding).

Authorization is substantive legislation which provides the authority for an agency to carry out a particular program. Authorization may be annual, for a specified number of years, or indefinite. Most national defense activities require annual authorization before funds may be appropriated by Congress. Of the total FY 1 998 Department of Defense request, more than 70

percent requires annual authorization by the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate .. The largest amount in the request not requiring annual authorization is military pay; military end strength, rather than military pay, is authorized.

Budget Authority (BA) is the authority to enter into obligations which will result in the payment of goverment funds. Budget authority is normally provided in the form of appropriations. The defense budget as presented to Congress is expressed in terms of budget authority.

Constant dollars are dollars expressed in terms

which have been adjusted for inflation relative to some reference or base year. Thus, all figures have the same relative value to allow comparisons. This is sometimes referred to as "real dollars" or "dollars in real terms." It must, however, always relate to a base year, such as FY 1 998 dollars.

Current or "then year" dollars are the dollar figures in the budget (or in the accounting records) actually associated with the stated date (past, present or projected). Figures for prior years and the present

65

year are those actually recorded (not adjusted for inflation), but fi.gmes projected for futme years contain estimated inflationary increases expected to occur in the program.

Deficit is the amount by which outlays exceed receipts. The reverse of this is called surplus.

The Department of Defense (DoD) Budget, which carries the Federal Account Number 05 1 , includes funding for DoD itself. It is the budget which comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense and is frequently referred to as the Pentagon Budget. The DoD budget accounts for about 95 percent of the National Defense function in FY 1 998.

Discretionary appropriations is a category of budget authority that comprises budgetary resources (except those provided to fund mandatory-spending programs) provided in appropriations acts.

Entitlement authority is a provision of law that legally obligates the federal government to make specified payments to any person or government that meets the eligibility requirements established by that law.

Fiscal year (FY) is the federal government's accounting period. It begins October 1 and ends September 30,

and is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.

The National Defense Budget, which carries the Federal Account Number 050 as a designator, includes not only the Department of Defense (military) budget, but also funding for defense-related activities of the Department of Energy (primarily weapons activities and related support) and miscellaneous military activities of other federal agencies.

Obligations are binding agreements that will result in outlays, immediately or in the future.

Outlays are the measure of government spending. They are the payments actually made for goods and services and interest payments during a particular year.

These payments (outlays) lag obligations because of the sequential cycle of congressional appropriations, contracting, placing orders, receiving goods or services and (finally) making payments. For example, in DoD for FY 1 997, approximately 30 percent of the outlays pertain to prior-year appropriations.

Receipts are collections from taxes or other payments

to the federal government.

Supplemental appropriation is one enacted subsequent to a regular annual appropriations act when the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until the next regular annual appropriations act.

66

Total Obligational Authority (TOA) is a DoD term which includes the total value of the direct program regardless of the method of financing. As a practical matter, TOA totals in the aggregate do not differ significantly from BA. TOA is used in managing the service budgets, as it is the most accmate reflection of program value. The differences are attributed principally to offsetting receipts, such as recoveries from foreign military sales, and financing adjustments. For example, application of sales receipts will increase TOA but not BA. Legislation transfening unobligated funds for which the purpose has changed are reflected in BA with no effect on TOA.

APPENDIX II

FY 1998 ARMY BUDGET SUMMARY DATA (TOA - $ millions*)

ARMY APPROPRIATIONS

FY96 " '

FY98 FY97 I FY99 '

Military Personnel, Almy $ 20,335 $ 20,648 � $ 20,529 $20,963

Operation & Maintenance, Army 20,246 1 7,4 73 17,2 1 5 1 6,89 1

Procurement 7,586 8 , 155 6,752 8,373 Aircraft ( 1 ,540) ( 1 ,346) (1 , 162) ( 1 ,2 4 1 ) Missiles (839) ( 1 ,038) (1 ,178) ( 1 ,54 1 ) WTCV ( 1 ,455) ( 1 ,468) (1,066) ( 1 ,475) Ammunition ( 1 ,053) ( 1 ' 1 26) (891} ' (976) Other Procurement (2,699) (3, 1 77) (2,455) (3 , 1 40)

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation 4,757 4,93 1 4,5 1 1 4,497

. .

Military Construction, A1my 625 566 595 697

Environmental Restoration Account 0 339 377 386

Almy Family Housing 1 ,458 1 ,37 1 1,292 1 ,256 Operations ( 1 ,339) ( 1 , 2 1 2) ( 1 , 149) ( 1 , 1 18 ) Construction ( 1 1 9) ( 1 59) (143) ( 1 38)

Almy National Guard 5,930 5,593 5,505 5,585 Personnel, Army National Guard (3,349) (3,263) (3,201) (3, 1 84) Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard (2,444) (2,252) (2,259) (2,367) Military Construction, Am1y National Guard ( 1 37) (78) (45) (34)

Army Reserve 3,3 1 0 3,246 3,264 3,340 Reserve Personnel, Army (2, 1 27) (2,072) (2,024) (2,064) Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ( I , 1 1 8) ( 1 , 1 1 8) (1, 193) ( 1 ,2 1 0) Military Construction, Army Reserve (65) (56) (47) (66)

BRAC 701 426 400 524

Total $ 64,948 $ 62,748 $ 60,442 $ 62,512


67

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY (OMA) BUDGET SUMMARY DATA*

($ millionst)

OMA LISTING BY BUDGET ACTIVITY AND GROUP

FY96 FY97 FY98 BAt : OPERATING FORCES

Land Forces 2,626 2,908 2,995 Land Forces Readiness 2,007 2,059 1,882 Land Forces Readiness Support 6, 129 3,648 3,492

Subtotal 10,762 8,6t4 8,368

BA2: MOBILIZATION

Mobility Operations 738 595 566

BA3: TRAINING AND RECRUITING

Accession Training 306 330 305 Basic Skill and Advanced Training 2,086 2 , 1 08 2,204 _ ,

Recruiting and Other Training and Education 686 7 1 8 7 1 1

Subtotal 3,079 3,t57 3,220 .

BA4: ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES

Security Programs 346 349 366 Logistics Operations 1 ,748 1 ,626 1,559 Servicewide Support 3,307 2,835 2,83 1 Support of Other Nations 266 297 304

Subtotal 5,667 5,107 5,061

Total 20,246 1 7,473 17,215

EXPANSION BY BUDGET ACTIVITY

FY96 FY97 FY98 BAt : OPERATING .FORCES

Divisions 1 ,028 1 ,2 1 3 1 ,22� Corps Combat Forces 324 353 35 1 Corps Support Forces 268 278 323 Echelon-Above-Corps Forces 500 438 441 Land Forces Operations Support 506 626 658 Force Readiness Operations Support 777 929 898 Land Forces Systems Readiness 465 395 347

* Does not include OMAR and OMNG.

t Numbers may not add due to rounding.

FY99

3,075 1 ,883 3,238

8�t96

703

320 2 , 1 6 1

691

3,t72

374 1 ,489 2,662

295

4,820

16,891

FY99

1 ,237 363 337 441 697 949 3 1 2

(continued on next page)

68

Expansion By Budget Activity

BAt : Operating Forces (continued)

Land Forces Depot Maintenance

Base Operations Support

Maintenance of Real Property

Management and Operational Headquarters

Unified Commands

Miscellaneous Activities

Total

BA2: MOBILIZATION

Strategic Mobilization

War Reserve Activities

Industrial Preparedness

POMCUS

Total

BA3: TRAINING AND RECRUITING

Officer Acquisition

Recruit Training

One Station Unit Training

ROTC

Base Operations Support (Academy Only)


Specialized Skill Training

Flight Training

Professional Development Education

Training Support

Base Operations Support (Other Training)


Recruiting and Advertising

Examining

Off Duty IV oluntary Education

Civilian Education and Training

Junior ROTC

Base Operations Support (Recruiting Leases)

Total


FY96

765 3,070

904 242

70 1 ,843

10,762

363 1 15 1 6 1 1 00

738

57 12 12

1 12 7 1 42

228 208

70 369 968 242 2 1 1

63 1 06

76 70

1 60

3,079

'

FY97 FY98 . FY99

735 637 622 2,541 2,418 2,406

825 693 503 1 5 0 1 30 ' 123 66 .7 1 66 66 180 1 4 1

8,614 8,196

333 433 203 1 92

59 79 O:j: Ot

595 703

62 66 1 3 1 3 1 6 1 5

1 1 8 1 1 9 8 1 74 40 33

241 221 2 1 6 207

69 70 402 5 1 7 908 8 8 8 272 258 232 2 1 9

72 74 1 0 1 82 80 80 75 74

1 5 8 1 6 1

3,157 3,172

t POMCUS has combined with War Reserves based on the transition of the war reserve program from component CINC support into strategic common user stockpiles oriented towards supporting multiple CINCs. POMCUS assets were consolidated at the Army level into Europe and relocated both ashore and afloat.


69

Expansion By Budget Activity (continued)

BA4: ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWJDE ACTIVITIES

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Security Programs 346 349 366 374 Servicewide Transportation 6 1 0 524 531 473 Central Supply Activities 438 456 405 405 Logistics Support Activities 374 3 1 3 253 26 1 Ammunition Management 326 333 369 350 Administration 390 304 295 274 Servicewide Communications 656 639 621 585 Manpower Management 1 19 1 76 152 1 4 1 Other Personnel Support 203 1 78 155 1 5 5 Other Service Support 377 596 593 562 Army Claims Activities 1 27 1 28 1 5 1 1 3 8 Real Estate Management 8 1 88 64 66 Base Operations Support 654 6 1 7 668 646 Maintenance of Real Property 68 108 132 96 Closed Account 3 0 0 0 Environmental Restoration 628 0 0 0 International Military Headquarters 235 258 270 257 Miscellaneous Support of Other Nations 3 1 39 35 37

Total 5,667 5,107 5,061 4,820

Editor's note: Base support is a significant parr of BA l . BA3 and BA4 imbedded in the above listings. For FY 1998 it represents 3 7 percent of BAl. 46 percent of BA3 and 16 percent ofBA4.Base support is discussed in more detail in rhe main te.xt.

70

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE (OMAR) AND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (OMNG)

BUDGET SUMMARY DATA *t

ARMY RESERVE

BAt : OPERATING FORCES


Total

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

BAt : OPERATING FORCES


Total

* BA2 (Mobilization) was eliminated.

($ millionst)

FY96 FY97

1 ,003 1 ,004

1 1 4 1 1 4

1,1 1 7 1 ,118

FY96 FY97

2,247 2,088

1 97 1 64

2,444 2,252

FY98

1 ,057

136

1,193

FY98

2,086

1 73

2,259

t BA3 (Training and Recruiting) - Training was rolled into BAt, Recruiting into BA4.


7 1

FY99

1 ,073

1 3 6

1,209

FY99

2, 1 88

1 7 8

2,366

--------------------------��--

PROCUREMENT BUDGET SUMMARY DATA ($ millions*)

FY96 FY97 'FY98 FY99

(QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT APPROPRIATION

Aircraft 1 ,540 1 ,346 1 , 162 1 ,24 1

Missiles 839 1 ,038 1, 1 78 1 ,5 4 1

Weapons and Tracked 1 ,455 1 ,468 1 ,066 1 ,475

Combat Vehicles

Ammunition 1 ,053 1 , 1 26 891 976

Other Procurement 2,699 3 , 1 77 2,455 3 , 1 40

Total 7,586 8,156 6�'752 8,373

AIRCRAFI' PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Aircraft Airborne Reconnaissance Low 1 9 2 4 1

C-XX Aircraft 5 2 1 5 22 0

Guardrail Common Sensor 6 5 2

AH-64 Apache Helicopter 2 0 0

UH-60 Black Hawk 60 398 34 293 12 1 25

New Training Helicopter 0 0 0

Modifications ' ' �I

Guardrail 57 30 1 3 .,

AH -64 Apache 52 43 · ·. ' 4_1 7 1

CH-47 Chinook Cargo Helicopter 1 1 5 1 64 1 1 1

Apache Longbow 442 406 '"' . 512 5 8 7

UH-60 Black Hawk 24 1 2 1 4 1 7

Kiowa Warrior 2 1 1 1 99 39 3 5

EH-60 Quickfix 37 14 38 37

Airborne Avionics 29 5 1 43 42

Aircraft Survivability Equipment 1 3 26 5 4

Other Modifications 1 5 1 0 9 8

Spares and Repair Parts 28 4 1 3 3

Support Equipment and Facilities Aircraft Survivability Equipment 50 0 . 1 34

Avionics Support Equipment 20 1 0 3 3

Training Devices 29 7 0 0

Common Ground Equipment 28 25 3 1 3 1

Airborne Communications 2 1 48 47 43

Other Support Equipment 27 22 20 3 1

Total 1,540 1,346 1,162 1,241



73

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Missiles Patriot 5 0 52 349 68 370

Avenger 3 1 72 0 0 Hellfire 1 , 102 236 2,805 357 1 ,465 280 2,000 345 TOW 2 1 0 14 1 0

MLRS Rockets 1 ,323 45 1 ,674 4 1 3 534 1 9

MLRS Launchers 8 1 104 29 1 03 32 92

ATACMS 120 1 2 1 97 1 6 1 458 1 83 757 264

Javelin 1 ,010 201 1 ,020 1 95 1 ,080 143 3,3 1 6 327

Modifications Patriot 7 23 2 1 1 6

Stinger 1 1 37 1 2 1 4

TOW 4 1 0 63 64

MLRS 27 6 2 2

Spares and Repair Parts 12 12 1 1 2 1

Support Equipment and Facilities Air Defense Targets 7 6 1 I Production Base Support 3 3 3 3

Other 3 6 2 2

Total 839 1,038 1,178 1,541

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Tracked Combat Vehicles Command and Control Vehicle 0 5 49 5 3 1 14 63

Field Artillery Ammunition 48 50 48 64 0 0

Support Vehicle Abrams Training Device (Mods) 3 3 2 6

Abrams Tank Training Devices 6 1 3 1 3 14

Armored Combat Earthmover 0 54 5 1 0 0

Weapons and Other Combat Vehicles Machine Gun, 5 .56mm (SAW) 9,430 28 3,802 12 406 . 5 1 ,570 5

M l 6A2 Rifle 3 1 ,056 1 3 1 5,583 6 1 1 ,297 5 . 2 1 ,077 9 Grenade Launcher, Auto 40mm 1 ,500 33 2,150 33 0 720 1 3

Armor Machine Gun 0 2,034 20 0 673 7

Carbine M4, 5.56mm 9,785 6 10,603 6 7,484 5 1 5,352 1 0



74

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (continued)

FY96 (QTY) AMT

Modifications Carrier, Mods 48

Bradley Base Sustainment 1 05 134

BFVS Mods 93

Howitzer, Med Sp Ft 268 282

1 55mm M 1 09 Mods F AASV PIP to Fleet 7

Heavy Assault Bridge 2 1 5

M 1 Abrams Tank Mods 50

Abrams Upgrade 100 268 Regular Procurement

Abrams Upgrade 297

Advanced Procurement FIST Vehicle Mods 0 Breacher System Mods 0

M4 Carbine Mods 1

Medium Machine Gun Mods 6

M 1 1 9 Mods 0

M 1 6 Rifle Mods 3

Improved Recovery Vehicle 24 54

Support Equipment and Facilities Spares and Repair Parts 25

Production Base Support 1 1

Industrial Preparedness 5

Small Arms (Soldier 2

Enhancement Program)

Other 1 5

Total 1,455

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Ammunition Small Arms Mortars Tank Artillery Mines/Countermine Rockets Other Miscellaneous Production Base Support

Total


224 1 1 7 1 99 103

47 42 75 1 5

231

1,053

75

FY97 FY98 FY99 (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT (QTY) AMT

43 20 34

80 235 1 8 126 78 342 1 1 9 6 1 47

1 9 1 06 1 9 1 2

1 4 2 0

1 0 5 1 7 42 9 52 63 30 30

120 205 120 329 120 420

259 266 271

0 9 1 5 1 5 1 6 0 0 1 0

2 2 5

0 0 0

0 5 5

6 8 7

24 56 1 2 29 1 6 40

20 2 1 1 4

14 1 5 1 6

5 6 6

6 4 6

7 5 1 5

1,468 1,066 1,475

172 220 254

140 59 87

305 237 1 50

1 63 83 97

27 1 5 1 8

37 1 2 1 2 1

3 1 46 48

20 22 27

23 1 197 1 74

1,126 891 976


_ .......... �--................ ---------------- - --- -- - - -- --

Procurement of Ammunition, Army (continued)


Training/War Reserve Breakout Training 450 3 9 1 425 63 1 War Reserve 360 488 249 146

Nonhardware 1 2 1 6 20 25

Production Base 23 1 23 1 1 97 1 74

Total 1,053 1,126 891 976

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Tactical and Support Vehicles Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) 1 ,586 1 25 1 ,5 1 5 1 63 66 1 1 0 14

Family of Medium 675 146 1 ,807 239 209 2,204 365

Tactical Vehicles

Family ofHeavy 120 244 9 163

Tactical Vehicles

All Other Vehicles and Trailers 55 8 1 93 242

Communications and Electronics Equipment Joint Communications 2 3 3 3

Satellite Communications 222 1 9 8 1 3 6 1 7 8 M S E Modifications 1 7 1 0 0 0 C3 System 34 48 1 7 24

Combat Communications 490 484 449 1 8 8 Intelligence Communications 0 4 2 2 Information Security 1 1 20 1 5 25 Long-Haul Communications 27 1 1 26 6

Base Communications 122 132 74 86 Electronic Equipment

- NFIP 27 34 23 22 - TIARA 249 194 2 1 2 2 1 4 - Electronic Warfare (EW) 3 7 2 2 - Tactical Survey 1 96 272 148 1 65

- Tactical C2 1 7 7 1 95 1 54 1 3 8 - Army Training XXI Mod 0 0 25 40

- Automation (RCAS 1 93 209 239 23 1

and ADPE) - Audiovisual Systems (A V) 5 2 3 6 - Test Measurement & 6 1 4 1 0 0

Diagnostic Equipment - Support 3 2 0 0

* N umbers may not add due to rounding.


76

Other Procurement, Army (continued)


Other Support Equipment Smoke Generators 1 7 28 24 35

Bridging Equipment 4 4 4 4

Engineer Equipment 1 1 1 6 1 4

(Nonconstruction) Combat Service Support 24 38 1 8 128

Equipment Petroleum Equipment 12 1 0 8 2 1

Water Equipment 9 3 3 38

Medical Equipment 10 1 6 1 2 25

Maintenance Equipment 3 3 3 1 8

Construction Equipment 2 1 67 25 65

Rail Float Containerization 1 4 42 48 5 8

Equipment Generators 1 3 30 8 75

Materiel Handling Equipment 27 19 5 50

Training Equipment 140 197 1 89 235

Test Measurement and 0 0 28 84

Diagnostic Equipment Other Support Equipment 57 67 101 . 1 1 3

Initial Spares Tactical Support Vehicles 0 0 0 3

Communications and Electronics 64 59 57

Other Support 0 1

Total 2,699 3,177 2,455 3,140


77

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION BUDGET SUMMARY DATA

($ millions*)

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

TECHNOLOGY BASE

BAl: Basic Research 1 82 179 199 2 1 0

BA2: Applied Research 45 1 552 463 494

Subtotal 633 731 662 704

BA3: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Logistics 39 23 35 32

Medical 9 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1

Aviation 48 56 3 1 30

Weapons & Munitions 29 29 1 8 30

Combat Vehicle & Automotive 26 29 33 60

Command, Control & Communications 29 29 20 2 1

Missile & Rocket Advanced Technology 1 10 100 1 1 7 90

Landmine Warfare and Barrier 25 28 1 9 20

Night Vision 3 1 30 1 9 1 9

Military HIV Research 3 1 8 3 3

Air Defense/Precision Strike 3 8 22 12 5

Advanced Tactical Computer Science 27 21 20 23

and Sensor

Other 84 92 80 89

Subtotal 580 678 ' 418 432

BA4: DEMONSTRATION & VALIDATION

Landmine Warfare and Barrier 36 28 1 9 1 1

Armored System Modifications - 1 82 8 2 2

Advanced Development

Artillery System Dem!Eval 0 239 324 294

Soldier Support and Survivability 7 7 8 8

Aviation - Advanced Development 1 3 1 3 7 7

CSSCS Evaluation and Analysis 1 3 1 3 8 8

Medical Systems - Advanced Development 1 0 1 0 7 9

Other 194 242 149 1 07

Subtotal 454 558 523 446

BAS: ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT

Comanche 284 3 3 1 282 372

Electronic Warfare Development 62 74 66 5 1

Landmine Warfare 36 34 42 67

* Numbers may-not add due to rounding.


79

Engineering & Manufacturing Development (continued)

FY96

Night Vision 3 8

Nonsystem Training Devices - 50

Engineering Development

BAT 190 Combat ID 24 Longbow 22 Other 4 1 8

Subtotal 1,125

BA6: RDTE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

Major Test and Evaluation 62 Army Test Ranges/ Facilities 143 Army Kwajalein Atoll 1 4 1 Support o f Operation Testing 4 1

Programwide Activities 65

Environmental Compliance 66

Maintenance and Repair - RPM 93

Base Operations 306

Other 3 1 8

Subtotal 1,235

BA7 : OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

Combat Vehicles Improvement Program

Horizontal Battlefield Digitization

MLRS PIP

Other Missile PIP

SATCOM Ground Environment

Other

Subtotal

Total


207

1 1 1

69 1 24

53

168

731

4,757

80

9

FY97 FY98 · FY99

3 5 3 3 2 1

49 77 73

162 202 1 2 9

1 6 20 1 3

1 1 0 0

429 384 435

1,141 1,107 1,163

4 1 40 33

1 3 0 122 1 29

144 1 3 9 142

50 82 69

60 86 86

54 5 1 48

73 90 79

3 1 0 321 323

2 1 1 206 < l 200

1,072 : 1 137 ·

'

.! 1,108 ! I ' ,. ,

"

207 1 3 7 69

137 1 5 7 149

63 27 22

74 1 9 28

39 58 44

230 267 33 1

751 663 644

4,931 4,511 4,497

AAWS-M

ABCS ABL

AC ACR

ADDS ADPE

ADRS

AFATDS

AFQT AGS AMRAAM

ARL

ARNG ASAS

ATACMS

ATCCS

AV AWCF

AWR BA

BAt BA2

BA3

BA4

BAT BCTP

BeNeLux

BFVS BMD

BMDO

BRAC

------- --------- ----

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

Advanced Antitank Weapon System - BUR Bottom-Up Review Medium BW Biological Warfare

Army Battle Command System CA Civil Affairs

Airborne Laser c2 Command and Control

Active Component C2V Command and Control Vehicle

Armored Cavalry Regiment c3 Command, Control and Communications

Army Data Distribution System C31 Command, Control, Communications

Advanced Data Processing Equipment and Intelligence

Army National Guard Division Redesign CATT Combined Arms Tactical Trainer

Study CCTT Close Combat Tactical Trainer

Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data CHAMPUS Civilian Health and Medical Program of

System the Uniformed Services

Armed Forces Qualification Test CINC Commander in Chief

Armored Gun System CLU Command Launch Unit

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air CMTC Combat Maneuver Training Center

Missile COLA Cost-of-living adjustment

Airborne Reconnaissance Low CONUS Continental United States

Army National Guard CRAF Civil Reserve Air Fleet

All Source Analyses System CSDP Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program

(or Army TACMS) Army Tactical cs Combat Support

Missile System css Combat Service Support

Army Tactical Command and Control csscs Combat Service Support Control System

System CTC Combat Training Center

Audiovisual cw Chemical Warfare

Army Working Capital Fund DA Department of the Army

Army War Reserve DBOF Defense Business Operations Fund

Budget Authority DERA Defense Environmental Restoration

Budget Activity 1 (Operating Forces) Account

Budget Activity 2 (Mobilization) DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting

Budget Activity 3 (Training and Service

Recruiting) DoD Department of Defense

Budget Activity 4 (Administration and DoE Department of Energy

Servicewide Support) DSCS Defense Satellite Communications

Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition System

Battle Command Training Program ED Engineering Development

Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg EHF Extremely High Frequency

EOC Early Operational Capability Bradley Fighting Vehicle System EPLRS Enhanced Position Location and Ballistic Missile Defense Reporting System

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization ERA Environmental Restoration Account/

Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Restoration Act

8 1

ER-MLRS Extended Range Multiple Launch JTIDS Joint Tactical Information Distribution

Rocket System System

EW Electronic Warfare LCR Light Cavalry Regiment

FA Field Artillery LMSR Large Medium-speed Roll-on/roll-off

FAAD Forward Area Air Defense MCA Military Construction, Army

FAASV Field Artillery Ammunition Support MCAR Military Construction, Army Reserve

Vehicle MCNG Military Construction, Army National

FCR Fire Control Radar Guard

FH Family Housing MCS Maneuver Control System

FHIF Family Housing Improvement Fund MEADS Medium Extended Air Defense System

FHTV Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles MIL CON Military Construction

FIST Fire Support Team MILES Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement

FMTV Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles System

FTE Full-time Equivalent MILPERS Military Personnel

FY Fiscal Year MILSATCOM Military Satellite Communications

FYDP Future Years Defense Program MILSTAR Military Strategic/Tactical Relay

GBS G lobal Broadcast Service MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System

GDP Gross Domestic Product MPA Military Personnel, Army

GPS Global Positioning System MPS Maritime Prepositioning Ship

GR/CS Guardrail/Common Sensor MRC Major Regional Conflict

GSM Ground Station Module MSE Mobile Subscriber Equipment

GSU Garrison Support Unit MTW Major Theater War

HCFA Health Care Finance Administration MYP Multiyear Procurement

HEMTT Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical NAVSTAR Navigation System Using Time and

Truck Ranging

HETS Heavy Equipment Transporter System NDP National Defense Panel

HMMWV (or Humvee) High Mobility Multipurpose NDSF National Defense Sealift Fund

Wheeled Vehicle NFIP National Foreign Intelligence Program

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus NMD National Missile Defense

HNSC House National Security Committee NPR Nuclear Posture Review

ICH Improved Cargo Helicopter NRC National Research Council

ID Identification NSSN New Attack Submarine

ILMS Improved Launcher Mechanical NTC National Training Center

System O&M Operation and Maintenance IMA Individual Mobilization Augmentee OMA Operation and Maintenance, Army IRR Individual Ready Reserve OMAR Operation and Maintenance, Army

JASSM Joint Air-to-Surface StandoffMissile Reserve

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff OMB Office of Management and Budget

JRTC Joint Readiness Training Center OMNG Operation and Maintenance, Army

JSF Joint Strike Fighter National Guard

JSOW Joint Standoff Weapon OOTW Operations Other Than War

JSTARS (or Joint STARS) Joint Surveillance OPA Other Procurement, Army

Target Attack Radar System OPRED Operational Readiness

82

OPROJ Operational Project Stocks sse Small-scale Contingencies

OPTEMPO Operating Tempo START Strategic Arms Reduction Talks

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense SWA Southwest Asia

PAC-3 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 TASS Total Army School System

PIP Product Improvement Program TAV Total Army Visibility

PLS Palletized Loading System TBD To be determined

POMCUS Prepositioning of Materiel Configured TDA Table of Distribution and Allowances to Unit Sets TDP Total Distribution Program

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review TF Task Force RC Reserve Component THAAD Theater High Altitude Area Defense RCAS Reserve Component Automation TIARA Tactical Intelligence Related

System TMD Theater Missile Defense RDA Research, Development and Acquisition TOA Total Obligational Authority RDT&E Research, Development, Test and TOE Table of Organization and Equipment

Evaluation TOW Tube-Launched, Optically-Sighted, RO/RO Roll-on/roll-off

Wire-Guided RO/RU Roundout/roundup TRICARE Military health care program; successor ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps to CHAMPUS RPM Real Property Maintenance TTHS Trainees, Transients, Holdees and RRF Ready Reserve Fleet Students S&T Science and Technology UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle SAD ARM Sense and Destroy Armor UFO UHF Follow-on SASC Senate Armed Services Committee UHF Ultra High Frequency SATCOM Satellite Communications USAR United States Army Reserve SAW Squad Automatic Weapon USASSDC United States Army Space and SBIRS Space-based Infrared System Strategic Defense Command

SEAL Sea-Air-Land USSOCOM United States Special Operations

SIGINT Signal Intelligence Command

SINCGARS Single Channel Ground and Airborne WRSA War Reserve Support for Allies

Radio System WRSI War Reserve Secondary Items

SLEP Service Life Extension Program WTCV Weapons and Tracked Combat SOF Special Operations Forces Vehicles

83

army budget - voice for the army – support for the soldier · association of the united states...

Documents