 |
Some Good News on Army SARs
Here are some highlights of the latest Selected Acquisition Report data provided by the Pentagon the other day. It's noteworthy that some key Army programs have price declines and that those that increased did so because of quantity increases rather than any fundamental price problems.
FBCB2 (Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below)– Program costs increased $685.0 million (+25.5 percent) from $2,686.1 million to $3,371.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 28,895 systems from 44,568 to 73,463 systems to support Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (+$683.0 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations* (+$99.0 million). There was an additional increase in other support for retrofit of Type I encryption for the increased quantities (+$114.1 million). These increases were partially offset by lower unit costs from beneficial contract pricing of the increased quantities
(-$131.3 million) and lower estimates for the aviation A- kits (i.e., modification kits) based on current contract data (-$45.7 million).
FCS (Future Combat System) – Program costs decreased $2,609.9 million (-1.6 percent) from $161,930.1 million to $159,320.2 million, due primarily to the application of revised escalation indices (-$1,331.0 million) and a correction of previously reported costs that were overstated due to the use of incorrect escalation indices (-$913.2 million). There were additional decreases in other support (-$190.6 million) and Congressional statutory reductions and budget decrements (-$146.5 million).
GMLRS (Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System) – Program costs decreased $764.2 million (-11.3 percent) from $6,772.5 million to $6,008.3 million, due primarily to lower estimates of hardware costs for the Unitary variant at the production decision (Milestone C) (-$496.6 million) and an acceleration in the procurement buy profile (-$68.9 million). Because of the shorter buy schedule, there were lower estimates for systems engineering/program management costs (-$84.5 million), engineering services (-$44.8 million), and Government production verification testing (-$19.4 million).
LUH (Light Utility Helicopter) – Program costs increased $208.4 million (+11.1 percent) from $1,881.8 million to $2,090.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 23 aircraft from 322 to 345 aircraft ($139.3 million). There was an additional cost increase for modifications to address issues identified during the Initial Operational Test (+$171.1 million). These modifications included ARC-231 secure radios and cabin ventilation kits for all 345 aircraft, engine inlet (air) filters for 66 aircraft, and medical evacuation kits for 84 aircraft.
STRYKER – Program costs increased by $2,560.2 million (+19.5 percent) from $13,130.9 million to $15,691.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 640 vehicles from 2,887 to 3,527 vehicles (+$1,907.2 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations* (+$621.8 million), and spares and support associated with the quantity increase (+$425.1 million), There were additional increases for survivability enhancements (+$502.6 million), revised testing and management costs (+$375.7 million), and updated MILCON estimates (+$340.9 million). These increases were partially offset by a change in the mix of models procured and new cost estimates (-$797.1 million) and removal of Stryker Product Improvement Program funding (-$816.0 million).
-- Christian
Bush Chucks Defense Budget at the Hill
Here's how the Armed Forces Press Service is reporting on the President's current defense budget making it's way down Pennsylvania Avenue.
A 3.4 percent military pay raise, a 2.9 percent civilian raise, money to continue to grow the Army and Marines and a funding increase to maintain readiness are major aspects of the fiscal 2009 defense budget request President Bush sent to Congress today. The defense budget request is for $515.4 billion, a $35.9 billion increase over the 2008 level. The total federal budget request for fiscal 2009 is $3.1 trillion.
Defense officials said five priorities drive the budget request: winning the war on terror, increasing ground combat capabilities, improving readiness, developing future combat capabilities and improving servicemembers' quality of life.
"The budget request provides the resources needed to prevail in current conflicts, while preparing the department for a range of challenges the nation may face in the years ahead," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said during a Pentagon news conference this afternoon.
He pointed out that the defense request amounts to about 3.4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. "To give you some basis for comparison, ... during the Korean War the percentage of GDP going to defense was about 14 percent, and during Vietnam it was about 9 percent," Gates said.
The budget funds the operations, training, recruiting and equipping of 2.2 million personnel in the Defense Department.
The service portions of the budget are $140.7 billion for the Army, $149.2 billion for the Navy and Marine Corps and $143.8 billion for the Air Force.
The request is broken into four major funding areas: military pay and health care; family housing and facilities; operations, readiness and support; and strategic modernization.
Military pay and health care would receive $149.4 billion, with pay and benefits receiving $107.8 billion and health care $41.6 billion.
Family housing and facilities account for $23.9 billion, with $3.2 billion going to privatizing 12,324 more homes for servicemembers. Base realignment and closure costs are set at $9.5 billion, fully funding 25 base closures and 24 major realignments. The 2009 request also asks Congress to approve $11.2 billion for training centers and base infrastructure needed as the Army and Marine Corps continue to grow.
The budget continues funds for increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Last year, the overall end-strength increase was set at 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines through fiscal 2012.
The budget request asks for $15.5 billion for the Army increase and $5 billion for the Marines in fiscal 2009. If approved, the increase will boost the Army to 532,400 during fiscal 2009 and the number of brigade combat teams from 40 to 42. The Army's goal is a force of 547,400 with 48 brigade combat teams in fiscal 2012.
In fiscal 2009, the Marine Corps will boost its end-strength by 5,000 to 194,000. The Marine goal is 202,000 in fiscal 2011.
The increase will help both services handle the operations tempo required to fight the global war on terrorism, and could potentially mean more time at home for servicemembers. Currently, soldiers deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan for 15-month tours and are at home stations for a year; the Marines are deployed for seven months and home for seven months. Once the growth is finished, soldiers will spend a year deployed and two years at home station, and the Marines will deploy for seven months and be home for 14 months.
Air Force end-strength will be set at 316,600, and Navy end-strength will be 325,300.
Force readiness will experience a 10.4 percent jump in funding over 2008 if the budget is approved. The budget request is $158.3 billion, an increase of $14.9 billion. Operational readiness ? tank miles, ship steaming days and flying hours ? will remain constant, officials said.
The request also includes $33.1 billion for logistical, intelligence and servicewide support activities. Equipment maintenance is set at $11.8 billion, while base operations and facilities maintenance are pegged at $32.6 billion for more than 5,300 sites worldwide. Training is set for $7.4 billion, and recruiting is at $3.3 billion for fiscal 2009.
Strategic modernization is set at $183.8 billion in fiscal 2009, up $10.5 billion from fiscal 2008. The category includes procurement and research and development. Joint air capabilities account for about half of the procurement, and includes 16 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 20 F-22A Raptors, 36 V-22 Ospreys, 23 F/A-18 Hornets, 16 CH-47 Chinook helicopters and $1.4 billion for the Air Force's KC-X tanker aircraft program.
On the Navy side, the budget includes money for building the CVN-21 aircraft carrier, a Virginia-class submarine, two littoral combat ships and a DDG-1000 destroyer.
Army buys include 119 Stryker vehicles, 5,249 Humvees, 29 M-1A1 tank upgrades, 1,061 heavy tactical vehicles and 3,187 medium tactical vehicles.
Spec-based capabilities include more launch vehicles, two space-based infrared systems and advanced, extremely high-frequency satellite and ballistic missile defense.
Officials said the department will work with Congress to ensure four specific initiatives mentioned in the president's State of the Union address become realities. The first is to put legislation in place so servicemembers can transfer unused education benefits to spouses or children. The second is to expand and strengthen career opportunities for military spouses. Third is to develop a public-private partnership to increase child-care centers in communities surrounding military bases. The last is to implement the Dole-Shalala Report recommendations for treatment of wounded warriors and their families.
So let's see how this thing flies from this point forward.
-- Ward
Bigger Bucks for Feds in 2008
Today's Washington Post has an article about this year's federal pay forecast. Things are looking good for civil servants, especially those in the DC area. Here's an excerpt from the story:
At the start of 2007, federal employees received an average raise of 2.2 percent, with about half receiving a 1.8 percent raise.
This year, federal employees will see their pay rise by an average of 3.5 percent. About half will get a 2.99 percent raise.
The differences in the raises largely can be attributed to the political process on Capitol Hill. At the end of 2006, Congress had not completed most of the annual appropriations bill and left it to President Bush to set the 2007 raise. Last month, Congress put together a consolidated spending bill and got Bush's signature before the year ended.
To be sure, the 2008 raise, ratified by Bush in an executive order Friday, was shaped by other considerations.
Those factors included data on wage growth in the private sector, a desire in Congress to give a solid raise to the armed forces during a war and efforts by Washington area members of Congress to renew support for the civil service, where baby-boom retirements are on the rise and agencies are finding it tougher to compete with the private sector for top talent.
"I know from having advocated for federal employees since I came to Congress that it's easier to rail against 'Washington bureaucrats' than to recognize the invaluable contributions these dedicated public servants make," Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said in a written statement.
Federal employees, he said, "protect the homeland, fight crime, battle disease, ensure the wide variety of government functions on which we all depend operate properly and support our troops abroad."
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) played a pivotal role in moving this year's raise through Congress and said he was pleased that Bush took the final step to put the raise in place. "This adjustment will reap significant dividends both in terms of the morale of our federal workforce and in our efforts to recruit and retain vital government personnel," Hoyer said.
Washington area House members and senators "fought hard to secure a fair pay adjustment this year, and we will continue to do so in the future because we believe federal employees deserve compensation equal to that of the great contributions they make in service to this nation," he said.
The article also states that the the projected median federal salary in the DC area will be $90,698. Righteous bones.
So who's going to pay the $609 billion bill created by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Let's just suggest that 2008 will be a bad year to try and buy that super Gucci next-gen weapons system your service has had its eyes on.
Read the entire Washington Post story here.
(Gouge: NC)
-- Ward
"Hey, Rocko, Help the President Find His Checkbook!"
Our friend Amy Butler over at Aviation Week reports the following:
U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says his push to garner an extra $20 billion per year to boost the service's procurement plans is "beginning to get some traction" with the White House.
Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley have consistently told Congress that the extra funding is required to pay for aircraft -- including the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, future refueling tanker and next-generation combat search and rescue helicopter -- in higher quantities and at lower per unit costs.
"We are actually starting to hear a little bit of melody," on this initiative, Wynne told an audience Nov. 28 at the Aerospace & Defense Finance conference . . .
Read the rest at Military.com.
-- Ward
Line Up at the Pork Trough
An astute reader passed along this item to Defense Tech yesterday, and we’ve only gotten around to including it today because it’s a pretty long list.
What we got, as first reported by the premier political newspaper in Washington, DC, The Politico, is a comprehensive list of earmarks included in the House version of the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill passed a couple days ago.
We’ve provided a link to the list, compiled by PorkBusters.org, which outlines every one of the 1,776 (nice number, huh?) earmarks and its sponsor.
DT invites its readers to dive into the (lengthy) list and pull out particularly egregious items for us to include in updated posts. Be that extra set of eyes for us!
-- Christian
House Cuts Major Programs
The House Appropriations Committee’s Defense panel just voted out its 2008 Pentagon budget today.
(Photo: Boeing FCS)
A release from the committee shows reductions in the Army’s Future Combat Systems program, a cut in missile defense spending and the cancellation of the Army’s Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program.
The committee boosted spending on shipbuilding, bought Stryker vehicles, F-35 Lightning II JSFs, MV and CV-22 Ospreys and F-22 Raptors.
The committee also put restrictions on the use of security contractors in combat zones, curtailed any funds for permanent bases in Iraq and enacted language that prohibits torture of detainees.
One surprise is the inclusion of $288 million in R&D funds to continue the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program. This replacement for the current AAV was considered by many to be all but dead going into the budget process. But now it’s being kept on life support. The EFV is indeed a revolutionary leap over the current AAV, but its complexity has kept the program in limbo due to delays and performance issues all along.
Top Navy acquisition officials have proposed that maybe the performance specs should be reduced to match the reality experienced by engineers in testing. It’s unclear as of now if that has happened, but it looks as if House appropriators were convinced enough of the Marine Corps’ case to keep the speedy gator on track.
Click HERE to view the preliminary HAC-D report.
CORRECTION: From HAC-D..."For the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter - funding for production is zeroed out, but research and development activities will continue."
-- Christian
War Costs Reach Deeper Into Your Wallet
The Congressional Research Service has just sent to Congress its latest update of the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” dated July 16, 2007. Important elements of the new report include the following:
Assuming Congress’ approval of President George W. Bush’s request for war costs for the upcoming fiscal year 2008 (a request of $141.7 billion), total appropriations related to the wars would reach $758 billion, including $567 billion for Iraq, $157 billion for Afghanistan, $29 billion for other security operations in the US and elsewhere, and $5 billion which can be attributed to “unknown” due to the Defense Department’s inability to track its own money. (See second to last paragraph in the report’s “Summary.”)
Counting all war appropriations to date, including those for not just DOD but also the State Department and the VA, costs per month have risen from about $12 billion in FY 2006 to about $14.4 billion in FY 2007. (See p. 3)
2007 costs total $173 billion. Of that amount, $135.2 billion is for Iraq, and $36.9 billion is for Afghanistan.
In addition to the extra costs of the “surge” of troops in Iraq, the increase in costs from 2006 to 2007 is explained by a dramatic increase in procurement spending to replace warn out equipment and to move acquisition costs for routine modernization (such as for V-22s and C-17s) from the regular annual budget to the separate budget for the war. (See p. 18-19)
Current plans anticipate a reduction of spending in 2008: down to a total of $147.5 billion, of which $116.3 billion would be for Iraq. However, that plan assumes that the “surge” of US troops would terminate abruptly on September 30, 2007. (See p. 6) It would appear logical to assess that a continuation of the surge would require funding above the 2007 total if the size of the US deployment in Iraq and the tempo of operations continue at their present rate for more than six months in FY 2008.
Cost per deployed troop has increased from $320,000 for each troop in 2003 to $390,000 for each in 2006. (See p. 24)
CRS, CBO, and GAO each continue to find major discrepancies in DOD’s reporting on annual expenditures. (See p. 26) GAO’s Comptroller General reported that the continuing inability of DOD to account for its own spending “make it difficult to reliably know what the war is costing, to determine how appropriated funds are being spent, and to use historical data to predict future trends.” (See p. 28)
DOD may be “front loading” its budget requests for “reset” (repair and refurbishment of equipment and units) by requesting funds twice for both the Army and the Marine Corps for reset in 2007. (See p. 32)
While the Congressional Budget Office has made nominal estimates for the future costs of the wars (ranging from $393 billion to $840 billion [See p. 10]), the actual future costs of the wars is truly unknown, especially if one includes long term costs for the wars’ veterans as paid out over decades by the VA. Beyond federal appropriations, there are also other costs, such as to the economy, that have been measured by other studies.
-- Winslow Wheeler
DoD Makes Key Program Adjustments
The Pentagon recently sent Congress a $1.7 billion reprogramming request. These are areas where the services take fiscal 2007 money away from some programs that can afford to be delayed, canceled or restructured and transfer those dollars to help boost other programs that can be sped up or more robustly fielded.
You can read more in-depth coverage of the reprogramming from the good folks over at Inside Defense, but here are some of the major moves:
Army Decreases:
$155 million in Reserve mobilizations due to reduction in needed forces by about 15,000 troops.
$92 million in Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter funding.
$4.6 in precision guided mortar funding.
Marine Corps Reductions:
$23 million for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
$17 million for CH-53K Super Stallion.
Air Force Reductions:
$128 million for B-2 radar modernization.
$123 million cut from CSAR-X due to protest delays.
Army Increases:
$84 million to purchase 40 Strykers.
$38 million to purchase 38 Bradley fighting vehicles.
$16 million to speed up Viper Strike munitions for Hunter UAVs.
$3.9 million for AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to arm Warrior UAVs.
$23 million for Excalibur guided-155mm rounds.
Air Force Increases:
$129 million for increased fuel costs.
$12 million for Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
$6 million for LaserJDAM.
$22 million for Focused Lethality Munitions.
Navy Increases:
$205 million for Littoral Combat Ship.
$10 million for increased biometric equipment purchases.
-- Christian
That'za Lotta Gas . . .
Our friend Joe at Defense Industry Daily has done some brilliant analysis of DoD contract award announcements and come up with the following: The military spent over $4 billion in awarding gas contracts during the month of March 2007 alone. This figure exceeds last year's by over $1 billion.
The hefty sum adds some immediacy to what Steve Trimble reported here some weeks ago. (At this rate the military may be bankrupt by 2050.)
Click here to read the entire article, including detailed breakdown of contract awards.
-- Ward
Air Force Budget Challenge
DT obtained a series of after-action notes compiled by Air Force officials during the March 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Air Force programs in the fiscal 2008 budget request. They outline some tough choices on transport aircraft options, JSF buys and UAV plans...
Summary of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing 20 March
Note: This hearing summary contains paraphrased excerpts of statements, questions and answers.
CHAIRMAN LEVIN’S OPENING STATEMENT:
Noted that while the Air Force does not have many of the issues in optempo as the Army and Marines the Air Force does have some critical acquisition challenges. Space programs have cost growth and schedule delays. Congress did not allow B-52 retirements down to 56 in FY07 and still awaits the report on bomber requirements which is now not slated to be out until the end of FY07 and yet the Air Force is still requesting B-52 retirements – this was not likely until FY08.
Concerns over the possible closing of the C-17 line while asking to retire C-5 aircraft.
Cost increases in the C-5 re-engining program.
Praised the transparency in the ongoing tanker acquisition process.
SENATOR WARNER’S OPENING STATEMENT:
Commented that the Air Force should be given the flexibility to manage the fleet and recommended they meet quietly to resolve the acquisition and retirement issues. Questioned the JSF engine single-source decision.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:
Supplemental Request
Secretary Wynne indicated the supplemental did meet requirements, but if he had additional money he would spend it on C-130J and strategic deterrence (5th generation fighters and space). When asked why ten C-130Js are in the supplemental and yet only nine are in the normal FY08 budget, Secretary Wynne stated the C-130Es are excluded from support, C-130Hs are being flown double time and the C-130J has shown excellent capability for delivery within theater.
Senator Inhofe noted that the 5th generation fighter [JSF] is not in the supplemental and asked what happened. Secretary Wynne stated that for several years the strategic fighters have been the source of funding. In the supplemental there was a surge in ground forces that was not expected so the department stripped the fixed wing aircraft (to include JSF). He explained the rational for the request was reluctance to acquire new 4th generation aircraft.
Airlift Programs:
C-130J
Senator Levin wanted to know why the Air Force was asking for 17 C-130Js in the supplemental vice the regular budget. Secretary Wynne outlined the C-130 issues in theater and indicated the C-130Js have shown a dramatic affect within theater in reducing the need for convoys. The need for the mission is now.
C-17/C-5
Senator Levin asked about the C-17 and C-5 budget request and how they fit. He asked “how do you reject C-5 re-engining option and put the focus on the C-17s in the unfunded priority list. General Moseley indicated with the increase in the Army and Marines the MCS does not adequately support the larger footprint. We are waiting for the land component numbers from the Army and Marines. We know there will be an increase in requirement for strategic lift. MCS saw a minimum of 300 airlift requirements. Need to retire 25-30 C-5s and work replacements.
Continue AMP on C-5s and RERP on C-5s with the most life. In a case where the land component is growing, strategic airlift is inventory static, C-5 hard to maintain and the C-17 line is about to shut down - we have to make some decisions.
Senator Inhofe asked how many C-17s it would take to keep the line open. Secretary Wynne said he has been pushing Boeing for that figure but still does not have it. His assessment, based on the F-16 line, is less than 1/month.
Senator Thune asked the Air Force to clarify their strategic airlift requirement and how they propose to meet them if authorized to retire C-5As. General Moseley responded we don’t know what the growth of the Army and Marines will do to the airlift requirements. We do know that the MCS did not take into account this growth so we have an unknown. Do not believe the number of airlift assets would go down. Desire to take the worse actors of the C-5 fleet (25-30 aircraft.) and retire them which would provide some revenue to continue mods on the C-5s and possibly acquire more C-17s.
Secretary Wynne reiterated that the Air Force would like to retire 25-30 C-5s. Senator Chambliss expressed that it was not an either/or issue with the C-17 and C-5 but the aircraft complement each other. He then asked if we did cancel the C-5A RERP when would that yield savings. Secretary Wynne explained that if we were to cancel the program (a decision that has not been made) the bulk of the savings would be around 2014-2016. Some immediate savings would be from not having to maintain the aircraft we would retire.
Senator McCaskill asked if the Secretary has read the recent GAO report on airlift/tanker programs. She stated the MCS study is flawed yet the Air Force is basing their tanker acquisition on it. She also outlined the C-130 AMP overruns (+$700M) and reduction in the buy (435 down to 268). Secretary Wynne indicated he has not read the report in-depth. He further explained that while there is disagreement with how GAO sees these programs, the Air Force is complying with DOD-5000 regulations and the Air Force is making “best judgments” on programs.
Joint Cargo Aircraft
Senator Prior asked the status of the JCA. Secretary Wynne outlined the Army has the lead and the Air Force is working with them on requirements. He asked that a letter to foreign Air Chiefs and state governors asking for any requirements they may have be placed in the record.
Tactical Aircraft:
JSF Alternate Engine
Senator Warner asked if it wouldn’t be wiser to keep competition and two suppliers for the JSF engines because it is proven that competition reduces cost and improves quality. He later added, “couldn’t we just buy fewer” JSF to pay for the alternate engine. He expressed concern about the additional thrust needed for the STOVL version. He stated we may need to “buy fewer aircraft.” General Moseley stated it is about $2B we don’t have. He stated there is value in competition and additional sources, but the money is the issue. Senator Lieberman asked “if” Congress ordered the Air Force to have an alternate engine program where would the Air Force get the $2B. Secretary Wynne he didn’t know how it would be funded and if it came out of the JSF budget it would have an impact, especially at very low rate production.
F-22
Senator Chambliss asked about status of the study that supports the F-22 multi-year decision Congress approved last year. Secretary Wynne indicate the study was on track and the FFRDCs and contractors are responsive and he felt the study will show we will achieve greater (or as a minimum the forecast) savings. He indicated he expects to award the multi-year procurement this year.
Synthetic Fuels
Senator Thune asked about the synthetic fuel test on the B-52. Secretary Wynne indicated the Air Force was pleased with the test and will now look at the engines to see if there is a life cycle benefit. Looking to qualify other aircraft and would like to have the Air Force fleet available for synthetic fuel, partnered with JP-8, by 2010.
CSAR-X
Senator Clinton asked about the GAO’s upholding a bid protest and Secretary Wynne’s statement that he would like to “stay with what we have got and get on and get this product going.” Secretary Wynne explained the Air Force will work with the GAO and the competitors to make sure we are in a transparent and open method. We are working for a better read on the protest items and when we re-solicit it will be against the findings the GAO brought up. Senator Clinton asked if there was an AOA for the CSAR-X. General Moseley stated there was an AOA and it was forwarded through the joint system. He indicated there were a JROC, AOA, RFI and a RFP.
UAV
Senator Inhofe asked about the Army and Air Force UAV program. General Moseley believed there was a better way to field and fight with UAVs. He offered to provide a letter he had authored to explain his position.
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
The Cost of War...
It looks as if the White House is making some tough choices to fund its increase of 8,200 additional support and combat troops for Iraq and Afghanistan.
In documents released by OMB today, the Navy and Air Force are being forced to swallow some bitter pills. To free up $3.1 billion to fund the “surge” boost – about 4,700 for Iraq and 3,500 for Afghanistan – the White House sent Congress amendments to the fiscal 2007 Wartime Supplemental request March 9.
The amendments cut:
5 F/A-18G Growler electronic warfare planes (-$375 million)
5 C-130Js (-$388 million)
2 F-35 Lightening II JSFs (-$389 million)
1 CV-22 Osprey (-$146 million)
The list also includes a decrease of over $800 million in Navy operations and maintenance funds that would have gone to pay for “naval forces supporting combat forces in Iraq.”
But some – especially the ground-pounders – will be pleased with the changes.
Among other additions, the White House asked for:
$1.2 billion for Army urgent needs gear, including up-armor kits and MRAP vehicles
$250 million for Marine Corps MRAP purchases
$27 million for small arms and other equipment for Afghan army training teams
It will be interesting to see how Congress reacts to the amendments, since House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., recently released his own chop of the supplemental request – with additional policy restrictions. This could throw that plan back to the drawing board, though some of the OMB cuts reflect congressional sentiment anyway.
-- Christian
Sell! Sell! SSSEEEEELLLLL!
NEW YORK (AP) -- Defense stocks tumbled Tuesday, dragged down by fears of a weakening global economy that sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average down by more than 3 percent.
The defense sector selloff afflicted Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp., Falls Church, Va.-based General Dynamics Corp. and Providence, R.I.-based Textron Inc.
U.S. stock markets headed lower after a 9 percent slide in Chinese stocks, with the Dow briefly falling by more than 500 points before rebounding somewhat later in the day. The last time the Dow dropped more than 500 points was on Sept. 11, 2001.
Lockheed gained 4 cents to $97.61 in aftermarket trading, after dropping $3.55, or 3.5 percent, to close at $97.57 on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares traded between $69.87 to $103.50 over the last 52-week period.
Shares of Northrop gained 13 cents to $72.04 in aftermarket trading, after dropping $1.93, or 2.6 percent, to $71.91. Shares traded between $61.51 to $75.72 over the last 52-week period.
Textron shares gained 8 cents to $90.91 in aftermarket trading, after dipping $4.33, or 4.5 percent, to close at $90.83 on the Exchange. Shares traded between $80.46 to $98.96 over the last 52-week period.
Shares of General Dynamics dropped $2.76, or 3.5 percent, to close at $75.33 on the NYSE. The company traded between $61.20 and $81.28 over the last 52-week period.
Binge and Surge
According the Associated Press and thinkprogress.org, the Iraq-fueled tension in the Middle East is setting off a defense buying binge. Fears that sectarian violence could spill over into countries like Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia has those countries looking at expanding their weapons programs.
But, it isn't just the Iraq violence that has nations reaching for their checkbooks:
If Iran were threatened or attacked by the United States or Israel, its ballistic missiles could hit land targets or ships, and its mines could block the narrow shipping lanes that carry oil from the Gulf.
That scenario is pushing Gulf defense ministers to consider missile defense systems like the Patriot, sold by U.S. manufacturer Raytheon Co. They also are eyeing warships, including mine sweepers, and early-warning radar, Hughes [an analyst for Jane's] said.
So much for bringing peace and prosperity to the greater Middle East. But then again, if I lived next door to Iraq, I'd be getting bigger guns too. The real bottom line here is the very real and very scary possibility that sectarian violence may expand from low-tech militia and terrorists groups to nation states with devastating consequences. After all, the Iran-Iraq war cost over a million casualties.
We would be well-served to find ways to de-escalate a Middle East Arms race before it begins in earnest and leads to something worse. But, in the interim it might be smart to buy some Raytheon stock.
More at Al Jazeera (so you know it's true).
-- Kris Alexander
Navy Phone Bill: $4 Billion
And you thought your phone bill was high. The Navy is paying about $4 billion a year for calls, according to Defense News. And not surprisingly, there is a whole lot of padding in that tab.
 A check of telephone bills in the Jacksonville, Fla., area “found that when we have a digital receipt for a phone bill in the area…we are being overcharged 30 percent,” deputy chief of naval operations Vice Adm. Mark Edwards told a group of military-industrial insiders at a recent conference.
Telephone service with no digital receipt showed overcharges of 18 percent, he added.
The Navy’s top IT official said he wasn’t accusing telephone companies, but he just might not let it slide. “What I’m saying is: It’s my money and I want it back. And we’re going to get it back,” he said, to some chuckles.
By recouping 30 percent of the $4 billion tab over the five-year defense plan, “we could build another carrier, just on the phone bill,” noted Edwards, a former ship and carrier battle group commander. “It won’t be quite that easy, but we’re working it.”
And it might not end there. Edwards wants the Navy to change course by replacing traditional landlines for VOIP, or “voice over IP,” communications, he said. “It would save us over 24 percent the first year” and 24 percent the second year, he estimated.
Amphibious Vehicle Leaks Cash
"After 10 years and $1.7 billion, this is what the Marines Corps got for its investment in a new amphibious vehicle: A craft that breaks down about an average of once every 4 1/2 hours, leaks and sometimes veers off course. And for that, the contractor, General Dynamics of Falls Church, received $80 million in bonuses," the Washington Post's Renae Merle reports in a brutal front page story.
The amphibious vehicle, which can be launched from a ship and then driven on land, is so unreliable that the Pentagon is ditching plans to begin building the first of more than 1,000 and wants to start over with seven new prototypes, which will take nearly two years to deliver, at a cost of $22 million each.
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is one of the Pentagon's largest weapons programs and exemplifies the agency's struggle to afford a cadre of new mega-systems that are larger and more complex, but also more trouble, than their predecessors.
Despite reforms meant to rein in costs, it is not unusual for weapons programs to go 20 to 50 percent over budget, the Government Accountability Office recently found. Among the offenders is the Army's sprawling modernization program, which aims to update everything from tanks to drones and is now expected to cost $160 billion [or much more -- ed.], up from $90 billion, and a Lockheed Martin missile-warning satellite program, which is projected to cost more than $10 billion, up from $4 billion...
The overruns are eating away at the Pentagon's buying power but not its appetite. The amount the Pentagon plans to spend on major weapons systems has doubled in the past five years, to $1.4 trillion from $700 billion, according to the GAO...
When it was launched in 1996, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was promoted as an example of acquisition reform... But the program has struggled with repeated delays, cost increases, budget cuts and dashed expectations, according to military officials and government reports. Problems range from leaks in hydraulics systems to software glitches, according to the reports. Last year, the vehicles completed just two of 14 planned tests.
"They started out really well, and I was really pleased," said Philip Coyle, the Defense Department's former director of operational test and evaluation. "But gradually the complexity of the program has overcome the contractor, so they are years behind schedule."
General Dynamics defends its progress, noting that the vehicle has met many goals, including being able to reach speeds of 30 knots on the water. The vehicle is fast enough to keep up with the Abrams tank on land, it can carry 17 Marines, and its systems can communicate with other ships and tanks, all key performance criteria, the company says...
An independent review released in December by the Navy's acquisition office questioned the company's commitment to solving the development problems that plagued the vehicle. The report said General Dynamics appeared more interested in starting production than trouble-shooting and didn't manage the groups making many of the decisions. The production phase is typically more profitable for a contractor and often marks a point at which a program becomes more difficult to cancel.
General Dynamics "seems to be focused on production rather than on solving significant design and engineering problems," the Navy report said. "This must be changed if the Program is to move ahead successfully."
Undead "Warrior" (Updated)
As expected, the Army has eliminated funding for its high tech soldier ensemble, Land Warrior, in its budget for 2008. The gear -- a collection of radios, electronic maps, and next-gen rifle scopes -- was finally supposed to connect the average infantryman into the growing network for combat. But the Army never could figure out the seemingly-endless weight and usability issues.
 Robot Economist is almost delirious over the program's demise:
DOD planners dream up expensive systems... while ignoring the obvious success of modern digital device formats, such as cellphones, PDAs and even iPods. You may not be able to tap out a text message on a cellphone during a firefight as easily as with the Land Warrior, but what are you doing text messaging anyways? That's what the radio is for!
But Land Warrior isn't quite dead, yet. The 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry will still be taking more than 200 Land Warrior uniforms to Iraq, later on this year. The systems were already bought and paid for, in earlier budgets. And the hope is that Land Warrior performs so well under fire that the Army's chiefs have no choice but to turn the program's cash spigot back on. "It's kind of a Hail Mary pass," one Pentagon insider tells me.
The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II, a new rocket for Apache and Cobra copters, and the Army Tactical Missile System have been wiped out, too.
Also, as expected, the Army will trim its mongo modernization project, Future Combat Systems, by cutting "two classes of unmanned aerial systems, one unmanned ground system and remov[ing] the Intelligent Munition System [a sort of smart landmine] from the program," Inside Defense reports. Army budget director Lt. Gen. Dave Melcher says the changes will save $3.3 billion over five years. FCS will still cost taxpayers $10.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 alone, if the Pentagon's budget goes through. Plus, there will be another $222 million for the Warfighter Information Network - Tactical, which is designed to help troops on the battlefield plug into info networks through satellite, airborne and terrestrial links. That's a nearly 100% increase over the previous year.
Defense News lists some of the other items that the Army is buying this year with its $27.8 billion procurement budget:
• $473 million to buy Patriot PAC-3 missiles.
• $596 million to buy 7,000 Humvees.
• $828 million to buy 2,862 trucks in the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
• $483 million to buy trucks in the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.
• $172 million to buy mortars rounds.
• $222 million to buy artillery rounds.
• $167 million to buy rockets.
• $132 million to buy combat service support equipment.
• $712 million to modernize AH-64 Apache helicopters.
• $705 million to buy UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.
• $191 million to buy Chinook CH-47 cargo helicopters.
• $468 million to buy Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters to replace OH-58D Kiowa Warriors.
• $230 million to buy Light Utility Helicopters.
• $98 million to buy 5,900 M4 carbines.
“We are trying to procure M4s for all soldiers in theater; the shorter weapon gives a lot more potential,” the service’s budget director, Lt. Gen. Dave Melcher said.
UPDATE 7:44 PM: "The 4th Brigade was also scheduled to test Land Warrior at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., but now that has also been canceled," Federal Computer Week notes. "NTC is a common final stop for realistic training before Iraq deployments."
The unit will be fully supported throughout its Iraq deployment, Atherton said. The Army has funding for unit support and repair parts through 2007 and is confident they will find procurement or operating money to keep the unit alive in 2008.
Meanwhile, the program office for Land Warrior here at home will be shut down. The Army will buy replacement parts and materials to last during the duration of the deployment...
The Army is looking for alternatives to give dismounted soldiers a point of presence on the network, Melcher said. One possibility is something called the Single Infantry Transport System, which has similar capabilities, he said.
The research from Land Warrior will be folded into the Future Force Warrior program, a component of the Future Combat System, Melcher said.
Giant Blimp Deflated; Laser Jet Delayed
The big weapons -- the destroyers, the aircraft carriers, and the stealth jets -- all emerged pretty much unscathed in the Pentagon's latest budget. Some of the more bleeding-edge projects weren't so lucky. Especially at the Missile Defense Agency, which took about a half-billion dollar hit for fiscal year 2008.
 Take the High-Altitude Airship, for instance. Just a year ago, the Pentagon handed Lockheed a $150 million contract to build the missile-spotting dirigible. No, it wouldn't be 25 times bigger than the Goodyear Blimp, as originally planned. Nor would it be powered by lasers. But it would still be built to "hover above the jet stream at an altitude of 65,000 feet for months at a time." That is, if major advances in solar panels, fuel cells, aerodynamic controls, and flexible materials could be overcome.
Lockheed won't get the chance any time soon, however. The High Altitude Airship "has been canceled due to funding constraints," according to the Missile Defense Agency. But get too distraught, blimp-lovers; the budget for the Aerostat Joint Program Office just jumped from $243 million to $481 mil.
The Airborne Laser -- the modified 747, meant to zap missiles as they take off -- still gets more than $500 million in the new budget. But its first live-fire test has been delayed, again. Originally scheduled for 2002, the blast has now been rescheduled for 2009, Inside Defense notes. The Laser Jet's alternative -- the "Kinetic Energy Interceptor," a non-explosive interceptor missile -- has been pared back, as well. There's no longer a "kill vehicle," or warhead, part to the program, Defense News observes. Instead, the KEI has been tweaked, to become a "common booster" for all sorts of missile interceptions.
There's much, much, much more in this budget to explore. Expect lots of posts in the week to come.
D.O.D.: Iraq Budget "Wrong" from the Start
 In its new budget for fiscal year 2008, the Pentagon says it'll parcel out about $142 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Defense Department doesn't really believe in its own figures, apparently. The number was was calculated before the new 35,00-48,000 troop "surge" plan was put in place, Pentagon comptroller Tina Jonas said in a news conference. So $142 billion is just a "best estimate."
"We know it will be wrong," she added. "Conditions will change, and we'll have to adjust at that point."
The number is also $28 billion dollars less than the $170 billion being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Does that mean there's some sort of secret plan to start bringing troops home? Hell, no. "White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that fact shouldn't be interpreted as an indication of likely reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq," according to the AP.
There was another item of note from the Pentagon news conference introducing the new budget. Vice Admiral Stephen Stanley, Director for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, listed a number of major "risks" to the health of the American armed forces. One of the biggest was increased wear and tear that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were putting on military gear. Another was the increased "operational tempo" from those wars, which were grinding down our troops. In other words, the wars themselves are a threat to the American military. Interesting to hear that, in a Pentagon briefing.
New Weapons Get Big Cash in Pentagon Request
You might think, with two wars draining hundreds of billions from the country's coffers, that the Pentagon would be inclined to slow down its modernization efforts. Especially ones that have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorists -- or even battling North Korea or Iran. That'd be wrong.
 The Pentagon fiscal year 2008 budget adds another $8.8 billion to its modernization accounts, Defense Department comptroller Tina Jonas justed noted in a news conference. That'll include "the first significant funding" -- $3 billion -- in the next generation of aircraft carrier," the CVN-21. The Joint Strike Fighter fleet will grow from two in FY07, to twelve the following year -- including the first short take-off version. It'll take $6 billion in 2008, the Pentagon projects. Despite major cost inflation, the Defense Department budget request "funds three littoral combat ships and will continue funding for two DDG-1000-class destroyers and another amphibious assault ship," according to a American Forces Press Service article. "The Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter is budgeted at $3.8 billion for 20 aircraft."
The F-22, it should be noted, was recently deemed "too sensitive... to be useful" in places like Iraq. Most of these other systems -- big destroyers, new aircraft carriers, and the like -- wouldn't have much to do with an Iraq-style situation. Neither would the $8.8 billion for missile defense (although that is a more than a half-billion less than what the program got last year).
Of the major service's weapons programs, only the Army's massive modernization effort, Future Combat Systems, seems to have been trimmed. The $3.6 billion requested for FCS is just slightly less than what the Pentagon asked for last year.
One bit of good news is that the Army, after years of requests, is starting to get a bigger slice of the budget. "If the budget is enacted as submitted, the Army will receive $130.1 billion in fiscal 2008, for an increase of more than 20 percent," the American Forces Press Service says. "The Navy will receive $119.3 billion, up 9 percent. The Marine Corps will receive $20.5 billion, up 4.3 percent, and the Air Force will receive $136.6 billion; an increase of 8.2 percent."
Bloomberg's ace Pentagon-watcher, Tony Capaccio, has more.
UPDATE 02/06/07 4:06 PM: "Any fear that war costs would crimp spending on new weapons evaporated Feb. 5 when the Pentagon unveiled its proposed 2008 budget," says Defense News. Check out these stats:
• $14.4 billion for new ships, a 29 percent increase over 2007.
• $6 billion for satellites and related equipment, a 25 percent increase.
• $27.4 billion for warplanes, an 18 percent increase.
• $3.7 billion on the Army’s Future Combat Systems, a 9 percent boost.
Pentagon's Big-Ass Budget
How much cash do we spend on defense, really? Center for Defense Information budget guru Winslow Wheeler provides this handy chart. Check out the $50 billion increase in the "peacetime" Pentagon coffers -- the money that doesn't get spent on Afghanistan and Iraq.
And where does that money go? Healthcare, paychecks, and new weapons, mostly. Check out this Pentagon chart.
Breaking: Double the Troops in "Surge" (Updated)
President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.
 That's because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, "including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services," the CBO notes.
Over the past few years , DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops.
DoD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved. Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate. CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel.
To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops—a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel—about 3,000 per combat brigade—totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000.
According to the study, the costs for the "surge" would also be dramatically different than the President has said. The White House estimated a troop escalation would require about $5.6 billion in additional funding for the rest of fiscal year 2007. Of that, about $3.2 billion was supposed to go to the Army and Marines for their escalated activity.
But that figure appears to have been grossly underestimated. The CBO now believes "that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment." There's a more detailed analysis of the numbers on pages 3 and 4 of the study, which was sent to House Budget Chairman John Spratt today.
UPDATE 1:43 PM: Here's Spratt's reaction, in a statement just released:
“An average of 170,000 military personnel has been maintained in the Iraq theater of operations, and this high deployment level has taken a toll. Last year, CBO reported that the Department of Defense had reduced the amount of ‘dwell’ time for many troops from two years to one year in order to sustain troop levels. ‘Dwell’ time is the time troops spend in training at bases in the United States while living with their families. CBO questioned whether such a high pace of operations was sustainable over the long term. The President’s proposal will increase this level to above 200,000 troops, and to reach this level, the Pentagon will probably have to relax ‘dwell’ time standards even more.
“CBO’s report concludes that the cost of the President’s plan to ‘surge’ troops will be higher than previously indicated, both in dollar terms and in the burdens it places on our military.”
UPDATE 2:06 PM: As they say on the Internet, "WTF?" Gen. George Casey, the nominee for Army chief of staff, "told a Senate panel Thursday that improving security in Baghdad would take fewer than half as many extra troops as President Bush has chosen to commit," the AP is reporting.
Asked by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., why he had not requested the full five extra brigades that Bush is sending, Casey said, "I did not want to bring one more American soldier into Iraq than was necessary to accomplish the mission."
With many in Congress opposing or skeptical of Bush's troop buildup, Casey did not say he opposed the president's decision. He said the full complement of five brigades would give U.S. commanders in Iraq additional, useful flexibility.
"In my mind, the other three brigades should be called forward after an assessment has been made on the ground" about whether they are needed to ensure success in Baghdad, Casey said. later.
Now, Casey has long been skeptical of a troop increase. "It's a tough nut, whether or not bringing in more troops, more US troops will have a significant long term impact on the violence," he said back in October. And just the other day, Casey was arguing that any additional boots on the ground could be removed by the summer. So this feels like we're seeing the edges of an internal squabble between the White House and the Army brass. Or maybe between general and general.
UPDATE 02/02/07 6:36 PM: The White House is denying the CBO report.
(Big ups: JA)
Darpa Takes $300 Million Hit
You'd think that the Defense Department's higher-ups would be happy, when their research agencies start demanding results from the scientists and engineers that they fund. Not necessarily. Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon's comptrollers have slashed Darpa's budget by $300 million -- about 10% - for the next fiscal year. Another $200 million is supposed to come off the top, the year after that. The reason: "A project management oversight structure introduced in DARPA... mandat[ing] that projects are reviewed at regular execution intervals to ensure that they are meeting defined program goals and objectives."
The switch "has resulted in more effective linking of resources to outcomes," according to "Program Budget Decision 704," an internal Defense Department document obtained by Inside Defense. Which would be a good thing, ordinarily. Except that Darpa hasn't been spending the money it's been given, apparently. While funding for the agency has gone up, up, up since 9/11, the number of program managers hasn't increased as fast. Combined with the new, results-driven process, that "has slowed execution of DARPA’s funding.... resulting in a significant decline in obligations and expenditures," says PBD 704. So what happened to all that excess cash? I haven't been able to get a straight answer, yet.
The subtext to all this wrangling is the leadership of Darpa chief Tony Tether. In the military research world, he's known as a hands-on manager -- a very, very hands-on manager. No item in his $3 billion budget is too small; even some of the names of Darpa research efforts require his approval. "Nothing happens without his say-so," one Darpa-funded researcher tells me.
That's a change for the agency, which has traditionally let its program managers -- and its researchers -- more or less follow their imaginations. Some current and former Darpa types mumble that the quality of research has been undermined, as a result; after all, "Darpa-hard" problems can take longer than six months to solve. But with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are sucking up more and more money, Defense research budgets are tightening up; demanding results doesn't seem like such a bad thing. We'll see how this one shakes out.
While PDB 704 takes from Darpa, it adds $300 million to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. That's the widely-criticized effort to build new nukes -- a construction effort many sage observers thinks is completely unneeded.
New Gear Stuck in Labs
Nobody puts more money into bleeding edge R&D than the Pentagon. And a surprising number of those studies actually pan out. So why is the military still relying on gear that's decades old? The problem is crossing the so-called "valley of death" between research projects and "acquisition," when the Defense Department actually starts to buy stuff in bulk. National Defense magazine offers up some examples.
Last year, the Georgia Tech Research Institute developed a lightweight ceramic armor for a vehicle... The message from military officials was that they needed this technology immediately for troops in Iraq. “We prototyped one vehicle and delivered it to Quantico,” where the Marine Corps acquisition command is based. “We are waiting to hear from the Marine Corps on what the next steps are,” Cross says. “This is where we all get frustrated … We think it’s a good solution. There’s no technology impediment for moving forward. It’s the acquisition process.”
The armored vehicle is not likely to go into production any time soon. The Army and the Marine Corps are studying proposed designs from major defense contractors for a new light tactical vehicle that would replace the Humvee. The program is not expected to deliver new vehicles for at least two more years.
Frustrations with the defense bureaucracy also can be found at a California university where Congress created a “technology transfer” office specifically to expedite the transition of promising concepts from the commercial sector to the military.
“The challenge is getting into acquisition programs. That consumes most of our time,” says Stu Gordon, director of the Office of Technology Transfer and Commercialization at California State University San Bernardino...
Recent products that, with CSU’s help, contractors successfully sold to the Defense Department include biological detectors, radios, batteries and fuel cells.
“We have contacts at the office of the secretary of defense,” Gordon says. “They are very supportive … But when we ask them how we get into acquisition programs, frankly, they don’t know. This is true for many of the technologies we have.”
Getting to the right person who can write a purchase order so someone in the military can buy the product is “really a hard thing to do,” Gordon says. Some officials at the Defense Department “want to help us but they don’t know how.”
UPDATE 3:40 PM: John Robb has some interesting ideas on how "tinkerers' networks" should be brought into the R&D process.
Behind the Army's Cash Crunch
Our Army gets $168 billion a year to train and fight. So why do its chiefs keep complaining about a cash crunch? The Wall Street Journal's Greg Jaffe explains, in maybe the best article on the subject to date.
From 1990 to 2005, the military lavished money on billion-dollar destroyers, fighter jets and missile-defense systems. Defenders of such programs say the U.S. faces a broad array of threats and must be prepared for all of them. High-tech weaponry contributed to the swift toppling of the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has been of little help in the more difficult task of stabilizing the two countries.
Of the $1.9 trillion the U.S. spent on weaponry in that period, adjusted for inflation, the Air Force received 36% and the Navy got 33%. The Army took in 16%, it says. Despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both dominated by ground forces, the ratio hasn't changed significantly...
It may seem hard to believe that a country which allocated $168 billion to the Army this year -- more than twice the 2000 budget -- can't cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the two pillars of the Army, personnel and equipment -- both built to wage high-tech, firepower-intensive wars -- are under enormous stress:
The cost of basic equipment that soldiers carry into battle -- helmets, rifles, body armor -- has more than tripled to $25,000 from $7,000 in 1999.
The cost of a Humvee, with all the added armor, guns, electronic jammers and satellite-navigational systems, has grown seven-fold to about $225,000 a vehicle from $32,000 in 2001.
The cost of paying and training troops has grown 60% to about $120,000 per soldier, up from $75,000 in 2001. On the reserve side, such costs have doubled since 2001, to about $34,000 per soldier.
At Fort Knox, Ky., the cash crunch got so bad this summer that the Army ran out of money to pay janitors who clean the classrooms where captains are taught to be commanders. So the officers, who will soon be leading 100-soldier units, clean the office toilets themselves.
"The cost of the Army is being driven up by [Iraq and Afghanistan]. That's the fundamental story here," says Brig. Gen. Andrew Twomey, a senior official on the Army staff in the Pentagon. The increased costs are "not from some wild weapons system that is off in the future. These are costs associated with current demands."
Senior Army officials concede they mistakenly assumed prior to the Iraq war that if they built a force capable of winning big conventional battles, everything else -- from counterinsurgency to peacekeeping -- would be relatively easy. "We argued in those days that if we could do the top-end skills, we could do all of the other ones," says Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the deputy commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Iraq has proven that guerrilla fights demand different equipment and skills. "I have had to eat a little crow," says Gen. Metz...
The Humvee stands as a metaphor for the problems the Army faces. First fielded in the early 1980s, it was designed to ferry soldiers around behind the front lines of a conventional war. In recent years, the vehicle, which troops drive on the streets of Iraq, has been modified countless times. The Army has bolted layers of armor onto it to protect troops from roadside bombs. It has added sophisticated electronic jammers, rotating turrets, bigger machine guns, satellite navigational systems and better radios.
The result is a Humvee that is much better than the version the Army took to Iraq in 2003. But the add-ons have driven up its cost. The modified vehicle is top heavy and tends to tip over at high speeds. Army officials say they can't add more weight without overwhelming the engine or breaking the axle.
"The Army recognizes that the Humvee has reached a limit of our ability to improve it for the current fight," Gen. Speakes says.
What the Army says it really needs is an all-new vehicle, designed to better withstand roadside bombs that have become part of life in Iraq. But such a vehicle likely won't be ready until 2010 or 2012, Army officials say. In the interim, the Army wants to buy something on the commercial market -- South Africa, Turkey and Australia all make alternatives. Yet it's not clear whether the Army, which is struggling to equip the current force, has the money.
| |
