Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1982
In September 1977, when Secretary of the Army Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., and Chief of Staff Bernard W. Rogers first prepared the statement "Total Army Goals," they defined the materiel goal as "developing, fielding, and maintaining a balanced warfighting and sustaining capability." In the context of the times, with the Army aware of the need to modernize the force structure but with the new generation of weapons and support systems still largely on the drawing boards and even the most advanced ones not yet in the tactical units, the emphasis of the materiel goal on just obtaining equipment was understandable. By December 1981 when the Secretary of the Army, John O. Marsh, Jr., and the Chief of Staff, General Edward C. Meyer, issued the current statement "Total Army Goals," much of the new equipment had begun to arrive in the field. Consequently, the emphasis of the materiel goal shifted from obtaining equipment to using it. The reworked goal simply said: "A Total Army equipped and sustained to win any land battle."
At the end of the 1982 fiscal year General Meyer noted that the Army still faced serious problems in the logistics area. Some units lacked the equipment called for in their tables of organization. The introduction of new systems had only begun in 1982. Eventually the Army would have to field 583 new systems, a task "guaranteed to tax the imagination, innovation, and patience of the entire Army." Finally, he noted that, while the Army had made great strides in the past few years, maintenance management remained a problem. Army maintenance was, he observed, a "laborious, paper-intensive system." In 1982 the Army found no final solutions to these problems or related ones, but it did make considerable progress toward achieving the materiel goal as set forth by Secretary Marsh and General Meyer.
Management and Planning
The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG) last published DA Pamphlet 701-1, "Direction of Army Logistics (DIALOG)," in January 1981. Early in fiscal year 1982 the office discontinued it. Lt. Gen. Richard H. Thompson, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG), provided
broad direction for Army logistics, previously found in DIALOG, in an ODCSLOG white paper entitled "Logistics Directions for the 1980's." Published in April 1982, it identified and discussed nine logistics objectives that supported the seven Total Army goals outlined by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff on 7 December 1981. General Thompson incorporated specific projects and actions, called thrust items, previously identified for the ODCSLOG staff in DIALOG into an ODCSLOG Performance Management Program based on the nine DCSLOG objectives. As of the end of the fiscal year, the program consisted of a series of initiatives not yet codified into a single document.
In March 1982 the Chief of Staff appointed General Thompson as co-lead agent with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management, Joel E. Bonner, Jr., for the Total Army materiel goal under the Performance Management, Army, program. They were responsible for identifying objectives, determining tasks, and setting milestones to support the goal. At the end of fiscal year 1982, ODCSLOG was in the process of specifying the tasks necessary to ensure achievement of the materiel goal and assigning offices to accomplish them.
The ODCSLOG program of studies makes analytical examinations to clarify problems, provide assessments, prepare alternative solutions, develop conclusions, make recommendations, and construct methodologies to measure performance in the general areas of installations and logistics. In short, the program exists to help decision makers. First developed in the 1970s, it consisted of twenty-two studies in fiscal year 1982, with thirty-three more planned for the following year.
On 1 April 1982 the Army redesignated the Logistics Studies Steering Group as the Logistics Studies Steering Committee (LSSC). Chaired by the Director for Plans and Operations in ODCSLOG, the committee consists of representatives from eighteen staff agencies and commands. Its primary function is to provide a forum at which the different agencies can compare what they are doing. They can eliminate studies which duplicate one another or, if the overlap is less, redefine or combine them. The committee met on 26 May 1982 and reviewed 166 in-process or planned Army studies-primarily ODCSLOG, DARCOM, and TRADOC studies-valued at more than $44 million. ODCSLOG published and distributed the results of the committee's deliberations in July.
Recent Army interest in reducing the administrative burdens and streamlining the procedures associated with property accountability dates from the work of the Property Accountability
Task Force in 1977 and 1978. During 1982, General Thompson reemphasized the subject. He identified the management and accountability of Army materiel as a high-priority issue. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics initiated the Total Army Property Accountability Revitalization Program (TAPARP) to improve this function within the Army. The program included the review and revision by ODCSLOG of all Army regulations setting forth policy and procedures to account for government property. Other portions of the program included Proper Count II messages to inform commanders of ongoing property accountability initiatives, articles submitted to various Army publications, field visits by Department of the Army staff members, and assessments of the status of the property accountability program through the Inspector General Management Information System (IGMIS), the Army Audit Agency (AAA), and Command Logistic Review Team Expanded (CLRTX). Inherent in the revitalization program is the belief that the current property accountability system tends to reduce readiness by forcing the unit commander to focus time and attention on administration that would be better devoted to training.
Supply and Maintenance
During fiscal year 1982 the Total Army Equipment Distribution Program (TAEDP) received increased emphasis at all levels. TAEDP is a computer program that uses all other automated data processing programs dealing with major pieces of Army equipment, that is, Class VII end items. It is a mathematical model which encompasses requirements, assets, inputs, equipment undergoing repair and rebuilding at depots, washouts, stocks, and the planned force and which uses this information to generate a master distribution list for Class VII equipment throughout the entire Army, active and reserve.
The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition, the Depot Systems Commands, and the U.S. Army Management Systems Support Agency (USAMSSA) worked on various improvements to the program during 1982. The most important included strengthening the analytical capabilities of TAEDP. These agencies also extended the program to cover the five Program Objective Memorandum (POM) years as well as the current and budget years. During 1982, TAEDP gained the ability to note the substitution of one model of equipment for another, for example, the M1 main battle tank for the
M60A3. In 1982 TAEDP also received the capacity to produce a number of on-call reports, that is, to respond to special user requirements by reformatting the data. Finally, in 1982 the Army used the troop list generated by the TAEDP as the standard by which unit requests for new equipment were approved or rejected, a change referred to as the new requisition validation process.
The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and the U.S. Army Materiel, Development, and Readiness Command initiated several major improvements of TAEDP in 1982 which were not complete by the end of the year. Depot Systems Command (DESCOM) concentrated on creating a major item data base that would consolidate TAEDP's four linked data bases into one on-line transactional data base located at DESCOM. A second improvement, displacement distribution planning, would trace the cascade effect created by the introduction of new equipment in the Army. The third major enhancement begun in the fiscal year was called support item management. Support items are needed to maintain Class VII equipment in the field, such as tool kits for M1 tankers. The improved program will link these items with the equipment so that the Army staff can determine how many pieces of major equipment are actually operable at any given time.
The ability of the U.S. Army, Europe, to sustain itself against a conventional attack until resupply arrives continued to be a major concern. Because the United States does not have all the strategic airlift and sealift that it needs, the Army pre-positions supplies in Europe and other potential theaters of operations. During 1982 the Ammunition Office in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics began a major study of the call forward and retrograde programs for Europe according to each type of ammunition during the period fiscal year 1983-1988. This study was associated with a more comprehensive one, Resource Constrained Procurement Objective for Munitions (RECPOM). RECPOM is a computer-assisted simulation designed to provide the most lethal mix of munitions, given the various constraints operating on the Army.
The Army continued to build up ammunition stocks in Europe at a reasonable rate during 1982. The Ammunition Office still consider it possible to reach the number-of-days supply targeted by the Department of Defense by the end of the funded delivery period for fiscal year 1987. Due to limited funding from NATO, however, a serious storage problem existed in 1982. The Army thought it was prudent to wait until the study on the call
forward and retrograde programs was complete in order to determine future needs for warehouse space more accurately before opening negotiations with NATO.
Funding levels for secondary items financed by appropriations in fiscal year 1982 amounted to $1,099.4 million, compared with $856.5 million in fiscal year 1981. The increase would support new weapons systems fielded under the modernization program. During 1982, the Army lacked $139.7 million worth of initial and replacement parts for aircraft. The Department of the Army submitted a reprogramming request of $70.4 million to Congress in order to remove the deficit at least partially. Congress approved $22.0 million. The Department of the Army planned to seek funding for the remaining spare parts during fiscal year 1983.
Because of unusual delays in Congress, the Army Stock Fund did not receive final funding of the midyear program until very late, and execution fell short of the target by approximately $135 million. Late receipt precluded obligation of the total program. In the field, this situation caused back ordering for parts, kept the available supply level below the target. figure of 85 percent, and caused the Army to lower its safety level of spare parts. At no time, however, did this unfortunate situation result in any unit being less than mission ready. The Army Stock Fund sales program was virtually on target at $5.8 billion.
The working capital of the Army Industrial Fund, acquired initially through congressional appropriation, is sustained on an annual basis by customer reimbursements for goods and services furnished. Activities financed with the fund are arsenals, depots, laboratories, missile facilities, and port terminals. The total cost of goods and services produced in fiscal year 1982 was approximately $2.8 billion. The Army Industrial Fund prepared to implement a new capitalization policy in 1983 that will allow activities to purchase equipment with Industrial Fund money rather than depending on appropriated funds, which is the current policy.
Depot maintenance activities provide for the overhaul, repair, conversion, and renovation of equipment. Backlog is defined as that portion of the total workload which the Army cannot fund within available resources. In 1982 the Army took steps to reduce the hardware backlog to zero and keep it there. ODCSLOG expected to receive $1,312 million out of the $1,355 million needed for maintenance, overhaul, and repair during fiscal year 1983. The addition of new, more sophisticated equipment in fiscal year 1984 and after will add to the total depot maintenance
requirement. ODCSLOG expected that the materiel maintenance backlog would reach $450 million in 1984.
This problem not withstanding, the materiel condition of most Army systems and equipment remained satisfactory during 1982, although it was difficult to keep some aging and low-density tactical and engineer equipment in good repair. (Low density means that there are only a few pieces of equipment within the worldwide Army inventory, often only five or less.) ODCSLOG expected improvement in the mission-capable rate of artillery over the next few years as a result of the deployment of the new M198155-mm towed howitzer, the upgrading of the M 109-series 155-mm. self-propelled howitzer, the M110A2 self-propelled 8-inch howitzer, and the overhaul of the M163A1 20-mm. Vulcan air defense gun. A modernization program in progress during 1982 for the M113 armored personnel carrier family of vehicles will extend benefits beyond the artillery.
Field audits and inspection reports during the late 1970s indicated a need for improved maintenance practices. Under the leadership of Lt. Gen. E H. Johansen, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics from August 1977 through May 1979, and in conjunction with other staff agencies and major Army commands, ODCSLOG developed the Maintenance Management Improvement Program (MMIP), formalized in Chief of Staff Memorandum No. 79-5-4, 5 February 1970, which was still current in 1982. The office designed the MMIP to attack the root causes of maintenance shortfalls identified by various audit and inspection reports. These causes included lack of troop interest and motivation, insufficient involvement by leaders, lack of command attention and emphasis, poorly trained personnel fragmented quality control, improper use of mechanics, and outdated maintenance practices.
Problems that developed at the organizational level as a result of these root causes included the improper use of equipment; failure to detect, identify, report, and document failures; unnecessary replacement of serviceable repair parts; and improper preventive maintenance. Problems at the support maintenance level included low mechanic use and production, improper diagnosis of equipment fault, inadequate unit training programs, and excessive evacuation to higher maintenance levels.
ODCSLOG developed five primary objectives for the Maintenance Management Improvement Program, which General Rogers, the Chief of Staff of the Army from October 1976 until June 1979, approved. The objectives served to provide a framework for both near-term and sustained improvement action. The
first objective was to focus command emphasis and attention on the maintenance area. Briefings for general officers and various organizations and activities began in 1979 and have continued ever since. ODCSLOG developed a how-to maintenance guide for leaders in comic book style, DA PAM 750-1, "Maintenance: Commander's Guide of Preventive Maintenance Indicators," 20 August 1979, which replaced three publications cast in a more traditional format-DA PAM 750-1, "Preventive Maintenance: Commander's Guide of Preventive Maintenance Indicators," 12 January 1971; DA PAM 750-4, "Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment: Commander's Maintenance Evaluation Techniques, A Guide for Commanders," 19 April 1974; and DA PAM 750-18, "Commander's Maintenance Guide," 12 March 1973. The new pamphlet provided guidance for leaders at all levels on topics such as maintenance management, equipment inspections, repair parts, and motor pool and maintenance shop operations. During fiscal year 1982, the User Support Policy Branch in ODCSLOG revised and expanded DA PAM 750-1, renamed "Organizational Maintenance Guide For Leaders." The branch anticipated that the Army would publish the revised edition during the first quarter of fiscal year 1983.
The second primary objective in the Maintenance Management Improvement Program was upgrading maintenance operations. The Directorate for Plans and Operations in ODCSLOG initiated actions to simplify procedures and reduce administration. The directorate had streamlined The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS), first developed in the early 1960s, in TM 38-750, published in 1978. Other reforms included upgrading serviceability standards, developing standards for the transfer of equipment between units, and updating AR 750-1, "Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment: Army Materiel Maintenance Concepts and Policies," which was published on 1 April 1978. The regulation set the standards for determining whether a unit is fully mission capable, as well as standards for preventive maintenance and equipment serviceability. Modified in both 1979 and 1981, the regulation was under review during 1982 by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics in preparation for a major revision.
A third objective was to strengthen maintenance training. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), beginning in 1979, reviewed the entire spectrum of maintenance training, including course curriculum baselines for individual training (that is, the core curriculum common to the supervisor and leader training of all the branch schools), training devices,
and materials. TRADOC initiated corrective actions to improve conditions at the service schools and at the unit level. The command has had supervisory leader and precommand courses under development since 1979, although during fiscal year 1982 precommand courses received the most attention.
The fourth objective was to improve the management of people. The U.S. Army Materiel, Development, and Readiness Command (DARCOM) expressed concern over the lack of a well-thought-out maintenance career. Under prompting from the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel reviewed personnel policies in the maintenance career fields and analyzed proposals intended to improve conditions. Operating under the supervision of ODCSPER and ODCSLOG, TRADOC developed a systems mechanic (master mechanic) career management field and studied the consolidation of maintenance officer specialties. Pressure from the General Accounting Office of the Army Audit Agency caused FORSCOM to develop, on a test basis, a maintenance manpower utilization system, which FORSCOM and TRADOC subsequently adopted for all their direct support and general support units. ODCSPER, at the instigation of ODCSLOG, also adopted several reforms to improve the acquisition and retention of maintenance personnel, including the establishment of a minimum score on the enlistment test to get into maintenance career fields and a reenlistment bonus for maintenance specialists.
The final objective called for an improvement in publications, tools, and repair parts support. Beginning in 1979, ODCSLOG, TRADOC, and DARCOM updated maintenance publications to improve operations and reduce tasks. The U.S. Army Logistics Evaluation Agency initiated Armywide implementation of skill performance aids which combined technical documentation and associated training materials in one complete package. ODCSLOG expected these aids to reach the troops during the first quarter of fiscal year 1983. Steps to improve authorized lists of combat stock, procedures for returning repairable equipment, and means for the direct exchange of repair parts between units, sponsored by ODCSLOG and implemented by DARCOM, began in 1979 and have continued to the present.
The Maintenance Management Improvement Program included procedures for getting information to the field immediately. Since 1979, numbered "Maintenance Improvement Flashers" have announced policy and procedure updates and changes to the field, and "Maintenance Improvement Grams"
have provided general information and coordination. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics has held in-process reviews periodically since 1979 to ensure that the program remains viable. The most recent in-process review occurred in February 1982.
The Standard Army Maintenance System is an automated logistics management system, twelve years in development, that will provide maintenance management from the direct support and general support units at retail level up through DARCOM at the Army wholesale level. When extended to battalion and division maintenance companies, sometime during 1986, the system will improve the use of resources in the Army and provide automated maintenance support to combat service support units. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management had approved the combat service support modules for automation on the division-level data entry device, a military minicomputer system designed for logistics applications. In fiscal year 1982 this minicomputer program was terminated. Consequently, the Army started a replacement program entitled The Tactical Army Combat Service Support Computer System. During the fiscal year, the Logistics Center and the Computer Systems Command worked toward adapting the combat service support applications of the Standard Army Maintenance System to this replacement computer.
Maintenance support activities include maintenance engineering, technical assistance, publication updates, and new equipment training for the whole Army. During 1982, the growth of requirements for these activities outstripped available resources. Fiscal year 1983 promises no relief because the increased funding for maintenance support will go primarily for new systems scheduled for fielding. Funding of maintenance support for equipment not being modernized will actually decline because the Army has decided to provide full funding for maintenance support activities for the new equipment. Funding for 1983 will furnish only $530 million of the $734 million needed for maintenance support.
The Army did not experience any major shortfalls in the base operations line of the 1982 budget. Congressional support for the fiscal year 1982 budget amendment resulted in the creation of additional civilian personnel spaces to replace military personnel who had been temporarily borrowed from units to perform critical base operations missions. During 1982 the major commands were able to apply funds to existing shortfalls and backlogs in bachelor housing furnishing, support for morale, welfare
and recreation activities, maintenance work, and replenishment of operating supply stocks. The Army applied the funds made available in 1982-due to congressional action on the pay and program supplementals-toward the purchase of furniture for bachelor housing in Europe and FORSCOM.
There were no major new initiatives in the transportation area in fiscal year 1982. Rather the Army concentrated on following up programs begun in previous years. Six programs received major emphasis: the "CONUS Mobility Analysis," logistics over the shore, containerized shipping, the nontactical vehicle fleet, the Department of the Army Movements Management System, and the Department of the Army Standard Port System Enhanced
Until fiscal year 1981, deployment planning had focused on reinforcing theaters of operation by aircraft until the first ships started to arrive. Because of the inadequate number of Air Force C-5As compared with the Army's strategic airlift requirements, some units that did not have the highest priority on the staging list would arrive more quickly in the theater of operations if they deployed by ship rather than by air. Therefore, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics planned to integrate air and sea movements so that seaborne units would arrive at the time and in the order desired by the theater commander. This shift followed a study of reinforcement rates called the "CONUS Mobility Analysis."
During 1982, ODCSLOG and other concerned agencies worked on actions designed to correct deficiencies noted in the study. The Navy purchased several commerically built sea-land container ships, designated as SL-7s, which were converted to carry roll-on, roll-off equipment such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, and self-propelled artillery; the ships can travel at thirty-five knots or more. They provide a more efficient method of moving an armored division overseas than the C-5As. Prepositioning of unit basic load permits, discussed at length in the fiscal year 1981 Historical Summary, continued during 1982. During 1982, work was completed on the port for the U.S. Army Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) at Sunny Point, North Carolina. Work continued on the Navy's port at Earl, New Jersey.
In 1980 ODCSLOG proposed and MTMC sponsored the contingency response program. It involved preparing and main-
taining an inventory of private trucking firms within specified geographic areas which would be able to move Army equipment in an emergency. The installation transportation capability survey, begun by ODCSLOG and run by the MTMC-specifically by its Transportation Engineering Agency-is an ongoing program to assess receiving and shipping capabilities at military installations. During 1982 the survey concentrated on depots.
The "CONUS Mobility Analysis" and the actions resulting from it affect planning for operations in all potential foreign theaters. The logistics over the shore (LOTS) program focuses primarily on operations by the Rapid Deployment Force in regions of the world without extensive port facilities. During 1982 the DCSLOG led the move to have over one billion dollars included in the Program Objective Memorandum for LOTS for fiscal years 1984-1988. The LOTS program procures commercially available landing craft, utility (LCU), and logistics support vessels (LSV) as well as other essential supporting craft and lighterage. In addition to the POM initiative, funding of the second company of lighter air cushion vehicles (LACV)-30 was realized in the fiscal year 1982 and 1983 budgets. LACV-30 is a medium amphibian, air cushion vehicle that can be used on 70 percent of the world's beaches, compared with only 17 percent now acceptable to conventional lighterage. The LACY-30, which can transport twenty-five to thirty short tons of containerized or break-bulk cargo at a cruising speed of forty-six miles per hour, operates independently of tides, reefs, mudflats, water depths, underwater obstacles, or bottom gradients. DARCOM signed a contract for construction of the twelve craft needed to equip the new company. Also during 1982 the Army accepted the first production model LACV-30 at Fort Story, Virginia. At the end of September 1982, ODCSLOG expected the last of the twenty-four craft required for the two companies to be delivered by fiscal year 1985.
Containerized shipping is one of the most important innovations for moving supplies and equipment in the last three decades. In 1982 the Army's containerization program was dominated by actions stemming from the general officer review of June 1981. Following an analysis of the review's conclusions by the Army staff and the major commands, the Transportation Management Division in ODCSLOG consolidated all the material into a comprehensive overview of the Army's efforts to develop, field, and sustain a wartime container capacity. This overview was presented to the Army Staff Council at an information briefing in July 1982. The office spent the rest of the year trying to resolve
areas of concern. General Thompson requested that the J-4 (Logistics) on the joint Staff study long-range shipping capabilities to correct what he perceived to be a deficiency in long-range containerization planning. He hoped that the joint Staff study would give the services a benchmark by which to measure future development of the program. TRADOC began reviewing the requirement for a unit storage and deployment locker, an item of unit equipment, as a replacement for the CONEX, the standard container used for transporting unit equipment and for storage. A test of containers conducted jointly by the Military Airlift Command and the U.S. Army Materiel, Development, and Readiness Command in early April 1982 provided the basis for developing a prototype container for air delivery. III Corps conducted a test at Fort Hood, Texas, also in April 1982, of the equipment and doctrine for a general support ammunition company to receive, store, and issue containerized ammunition. The eight-by-six-foot containers proved satisfactory in rough terrain under combat conditions.
While developments in containerized shipping, logistics over the shore, and the "CONUS Mobility Analysis" were promising, the condition of the Army's nontactical vehicle fleet remained bleak. During fiscal year 1982 the fleet continued to deteriorate as Congress adhered to the policy begun in 1977 of not adequately funding replacements. During the year the number of vehicles declined from approximately 70,000 to about 68,000. As of 30 September 1982, 38 percent of all vehicles required replacement, the same level as during fiscal year 1981. To partially offset its deficiencies, the Army leased over 2,000 vehicles during 1982.
The Army had two major computer software systems under development in the transportation area in 1982: the Department of the Army Movements Management System (DAMMS) and the Department of the Army Standard Port System-Enhanced (DASPS-E).
DAMMS consists of three major modules, the cargo movements module (CMM), the movements planning module (MPM) both discussed in some detail in the 1981 Historical Summary and the MODE management module (MMM). The MMM provides information about transportation assets within a theater as well as driver availability and scheduled maintenance. In September 1982 the Strategic Mobility Division, ODCSLOG, prepared and submitted an update of the DAMMS functional description and economic analysis to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management for review.
In the same month the Logistics Center distributed to users for their review a major systems change package (SCP-05-08) for DAMMS, which will furnish a data base on break-bulk cargo. Another systems change package (SCP-04), sent to units in the field in May, provides an interface between the Standard Army Intermediate Level Supply System (SAILS) and DAMMS that records and controls requisitions in transit. The Strategic Mobility Division expected the SAILS portion of the interface to become operational in April 1983. The Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Division of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans completed the replacement of the DAMMS computers (IBM 4331s) with modern hardware (IBM 36B-40s) in October 1981. The new equipment made it possible to redesign the movements management system and replace batch processing with interactive processing-that is, substitute on-line processing, in which each unit of information is processed immediately at the time of presentation, for a sequential procedure that uses an accumulation of information divided into groups or batches before processing.
The development of the Department of the Army Standard Port System-Enhanced progressed satisfactorily during 1982 and remained on schedule for initial fielding in the second quarter of fiscal year 1984. A system acceptance test (SAT) training in process review (IPR) at Fort Lee, Virginia, was held in June 1982. In May 1982 the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management approved the hardware (DAS3, Model B) for the DASPS-E software acceptance tests, and subsequently approved the remaining DASPS-E hardware needed to implement the full fielding plan in the required operational capability (ROC) paper of September 1982. At the end of the fiscal year, the Logistics Center and Computer Systems Command planned to hold the software acceptance review for DASPS-E in March and April 1983.
The security assistance program supports U.S. foreign policy by helping friendly and allied governments to achieve and maintain the ability to defend themselves. Army security assistance programs for fiscal year 1982 consisted of seven different types: Military Assistance Programs (MAPS); International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs; Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs; Foreign Military Construction Sales (FMCS) programs; Foreign Military Sales financing programs; coproduc-
During 1982, security assistance received more high-level attention than in previous years. Two factors contributed to this situation. First, senior officials and officers in the Department of Defense recognized the need to become more involved in revitalizing and improving the program. In this regard, the joint Chiefs of Staff decided to play a more prominent role in justifying the program before Congress and the public. Second, the department needed to obtain revised legislation as a statutory basis for the new conventional arms transfer policy promulgated by the Reagan administration in July 1981, discussed in that year's Historical Summary.
Fiscal year 1982 saw an extraordinary amount of activity in security assistance legislation. At the beginning of the year, Congress was still debating the authorization of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981 for the fiscal year. Congress finally passed compromise authorization and appropriations bills in mid-December, and President Reagan signed them into law on 29 December 1981. The legislation doubled the dollar ceilings of FMS sales to $50 million and increased the ceiling to $200 million for FMCS sales to foreign countries that require review by Congress; it also removed the dollar ceiling on commercial sales of arms and services to foreign countries and authorized the Department of Defense to lease arms to them. The act expanded the duties of the overseas security organizations (SAOs), which are the groups charged with administering the security assistance program in country. The old law limited the SAOs to essentially administrative functions: logistical support management, transportation, fiscal management, and contract administration. The new law allowed officers in SAOs to help host governments evaluate their military requirements and plan the military force needed to meet them. The legislation authorized assistance to Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, and Pakistan under specific conditions and removed restrictions on assistance to Jordan and Panama. Finally, it established the Special Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF) to acquire defense articles in anticipation of their transfer to other countries.
The establishment of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund was especially gratifying to the Army. Since 19'76, both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army had tried to obtain funds from Congress for defense articles and services to meet urgent requests from friendly governments. Money for the Special Defense Acquisition Fund would come from three sources: (l) receipts from the sale of defense articles which the services did not intend to replace; (2) receipts from
charges and recoupments from nonrecurring research, development, and production costs; and (3) other funds appropriated by Congress for this account. The International Security and Development Act authorized $300 million for the fund in fiscal year 1982 and $300 million for the following fiscal years, with a cumulative ceiling of $600 million. Congress appropriated $125 million for the fund in the fiscal year 1982 supplement to the Department of Defense budget. The Director of the Defense Security Assistance Agency provides day-to-day management and operation of the fund.
In conjunction with all the legislative activity in the security assistance area, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans conducted a review of all international programs; it then proposed legislative and Department of Defense policy changes. Maj. Gen. J. W. Seigel, the Director of the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate in ODCSOPS, proposed standard pricing for all Foreign Military Sales training and a comprehensive exchange program, as well as continued emphasis on the "total package approach" in the Foreign Military Sales process as the sales program expanded with new and more sophisticated weapons and systems. Under this policy, the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command makes customers aware of support items and services needed to maintain and operate the equipment. In the area of policy development, the Security Assistance Division in ODCSOPS published revised guidance on providing Army tanks for security assistance and on transferring and supporting Nike Hercules air defense systems.
New orders in the Department of Defense for security assistance for fiscal year 1982 totaled $21.5 billion, of which the share managed by the Army amounted to $4.2 billion. New security assistance business is generated from amendments and modifications to prior-year cases and from new orders implemented during the year. At the end of the fiscal year, the Army security assistance open cases amounted to $42.4 billion. (Table 9)
The general upward trend in equipment diversions continued during fiscal year 1982. President Reagan approved diversions to support allies and friendly nations faced with ongoing or imminent threats and to fulfill certain foreign policy commitments. The principal recipients included El Salvador, Pakistan, the Sudan, and Somalia. The diversions involved 126 tanks, 32 helicopters, 75 howitzers, 623 machine guns, 15,602 rifles, 492 radios, and 4,517 TOW missiles. In addition the Army diverted 198,559 rounds of large-caliber ammunition during the fiscal year, a 74 percent increase over the 114,146 rounds diverted the
TABLE 9 - ARMY SECURITY ASSISTANCE OPEN
30 September 1982
(in billions of dollars)
a Most of the $18.0 billion managed by the Corps of Engineers is for its substantial construction program in Saudi Arabia.
Current high-demand items are pieces of Army equipment and munitions used by the active Army and by foreign armies The list below contains the most important items in fiscal year 1982.
Current High-Demand Items
|Armored personnel carrier (APC), M113A1/2
|Howitzer, self-propelled, M110A2, 8-inch
|Howitzer, self-propelled, M109A1/2
|Improved (I) Hawk, missile
|Howitzer, towed, M198, 155-mm.
|Improved (I) Hawk, battery set
|Recovery vehicle, M88A1
|Tank, M60 series
|Stinger weapons system
The lead-time of Foreign Military Sales for most of these items exceeded two years. They were prime candidates for Special Defense Acquisition Fund purchases in order to allay the competition between the U.S. Army and foreign buyers and to minimize the need for future diversions from Army units.
During fiscal year 1982, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided various degrees of engineering and construction management support to nine foreign governments-Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Honduras, and the Federal Republic of Germany-under the Foreign Military Construction Sales program, formerly a part of the Foreign Military Sales program. The Corps also continued to provide support to the Saudi Arabian Army Ordnance Corps Program (SOCP).
Coproduction enables a foreign government, commercial firm, or international organization to acquire the technical know-how to assemble or manufacture an Army weapons system in whole or in Dart. The Army initiated its first coproduction program
with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1960 for the Hawk missile system. Since then the Army has participated in programs with thirteen foreign countries and NATO. A memorandum of understanding requires the foreign producers to purchase American components. The total dollar value for all coproduction projects through fiscal year 1982 was $6.3 billion, with $2.4 billion in value returned to the United States.
Concern that international coproduction was adversely affecting the Army's mobilization and production base led DARCOM to develop a method of evaluating the impact of individual coproduction projects on the production base. At the same time Congress, concerned about the lay-off of skilled workers at defense-oriented manufacturing plants, passed legislation that prevented foreign governments from receiving technical data and assistance from government-owned and -operated defense plants manufacturing large-caliber cannon. These issues, coupled with foreign government requirements for offsets-that is, the U.S. government or a U.S. company would have to purchase coproducing country-affected several coproduction projects in 1982. ODCSLOG expected these constraints would continue.
The International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981 authorized the President to furnish grant aid to any friendly country or international organization when he believes that the assistance will strengthen the security of the United States. President Reagan used this provision to send aid to El Salvador. Other aid fell under the International Military Education and Training Program, which provided instruction to military and related civilian personnel of friendly countries on a grant basis. The Army conducted the training in the United States, on overseas U.S. military facilities, or through mobile teams in the foreign countries. Barbados, Honduras, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, and Tunisia received training aids and devices under the IMET. During fiscal year 1982, the IMET program consisted of $19.1 million for seventy-one countries. The total ongoing undelivered grant aid program for all years included twenty-five participating countries and was valued at $221 million.
A total of 8,599 foreign students received military training in the continental United States under U.S. Army sponsorship during fiscal year 1982-2,316 under the IMET program and 6,283 under the Foreign Military Sales program. Training funded under the former exceeded $4.5 million; under the latter, $34 million. Participating countries financed the International Fellows Program (IFP) at the U.S. Army War College through FMS
or IMET. During the 1982-1983 academic year, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, France, West Germany, China, Kuwait, Spain, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, and Canada participated. Eight of these countries were in the program for the first time.
The Personnel Exchange Program (PEP) expanded during fiscal year 1982 from 94 positions with sixteen countries participating to 102 positions with nineteen countries. Expansion included agreements with Ecuador, Paraguay, and Jordan and an increase of positions with the United Kingdom, Venezuela, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Exchanges with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom still made up the bulk of the program in 1982-77 of the 102 approved positions. General Meyer, Army Chief of Staff, decided to shift the priority of effort toward expanding the program with non English-speaking armies in 1980. In line with this policy, at the end of the fiscal year he was considering expanding PEP to include the armies of Egypt, Spain, Paraguay, Greece, Portugal, and Turkey.
In September 1982, the Washington Post broke a story about Capt. Jesse A. Garcia, U.S. Army, serving with the Guatemalan Army under PEP. Some congressmen confused PEP with a military adviser program. Congressional prohibitions concerning reciprocal arrangements for formal training combined with a misunderstanding over the intent of the program and its legal basis threatened to hamper PEP greatly in the future.
In 1982, 110 countries and international organizations participated in Army security assistance programs. The programs varied greatly in size and technical sophistication. The largest Army country program, Saudi Arabia, amounted to over $22 billion. Other large programs included Israel, $3 billion; Egypt, $2 billion; Jordan, $1 billion; Korea, $1 billion; and West Germany, $1 billion. These six country programs made up over 75 percent of the Army's open case value.
NATO's interest in security assistance remained high in fiscal year 1982 as the member armies continued their efforts to improve combat effectiveness significantly by modernizing the armament. The continuing expansion and modernization of Soviet forces provided ample impetus for NATO efforts. The most notable event of the year was the entry of Spain into the alliance on 5 June 1982. The United States and Spain also concluded a base rights treaty on 2 July 1982 after approximately one year of negotiation.
Eight countries in the Middle East qualified for either Foreign Military Sales credits, IMET, or economic support funds in 1982. Egypt and Israel were the largest FMS credit clients, while Egypt and Jordan were the largest IMET recipients.
During the year the existing security assistance programs for Saudi Arabia continued to expand. Ongoing programs included the mechanization of two Army brigades, the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) Modernization Program, and the Saudi Naval Expansion Program. Work also continued on the Saudi Arabian National Guard Medical Program. Toward the end of fiscal year 1981, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding covering the entire medical project. The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) put together a team of officers to develop a comprehensive plan covering Saudi Arabian National Guard health. The plan addressed six basic areas: preventive medicine and public health, hospitals, clinics, field medical service, the office of the director of health services, and support systems. The section on support systems included medical logistics, patient administration, information systems, communication, and training. After the plan was reviewed by the relevant agencies on the Army staff, the DCSLOG, as the focal point on all security assistance matters for the Army, approved and forwarded it to the director of the Defense Security Assistance Agency in October 1982.
The Camp David Accords of 1979 committed the United States to replacing two air bases, at Etam and Etzion, which Israel would have to abandon when it withdrew from the Sinai. The new bases at Ramon and Ovda were completed this year. Each consists of two 10,000-foot runways, a taxiway of similar length which can be used as a runway in an emergency, hardened underground hangers, and the ancillary facilities needed to operate military air bases.
Israel continued to maintain a generally recognized margin of military superiority over any possible combination of opponents in the region. During fiscal year 1982, the United States used Foreign Military Sales financing to address Israel's priority needs for air defense, armored and tracked vehicles, artillery, missiles, and ammunition. In response to requests from the government of Lebanon, the Army expedited delivery of various communications items, tactical vehicles, recoilless rifles, and machine guns.
The total Foreign Military Sales program for Egypt, through fiscal year 1983, has a planned value of $3.95 billion. The Army portion is $2.3 billion. The most significant items were 439 M60A3
tanks, 220 of which were purchased in 1982; 1,214 M113 armored personnel carriers; and twelve Hawk batteries. Technical Assistance Field Teams (TAFTs) sent to Egypt included a team on logistics management, the armor project manager, a team from the U.S. Armor School, and CH-47 helicopter and IHawk teams. The Corps of Engineers assisted the U.S. and Egyptian Air Forces in designing facilities at An Shas Air Force Base to support F-16 fighter aircraft. A total of 221 Egyptian officers received training under the International Military Education and Training program. In addition there were twenty-eight Defense Production Assistance projects during 1982. The objective of these programs was to strengthen the capabilities of the Egyptian defense industry as well as the Egyptian economy.
The U.S. government continued to emphasize the importance of U.S.-Pakistani relations. The two governments targeted security assistance to remedy deficiencies in Pakistani defenses and obsolescent equipment. Pakistan was mainly concerned with the early delivery of F-16 aircraft. The U.S. Army also addressed armor, air defense, and other combat capabilities. Pakistan purchased field artillery, armored vehicles, helicopter missiles, and ammunition valued at $394.2 million.
Relations with India remained cool because of improving relations with Pakistan. The BMY Division of Harsco Corporation conducted the one major Foreign Military Sales arrangement with India, an in-country test of the M109A2 self-propelled 155-mm. howitzer, which American Army officers attended as observers.
In 1982 the Army conducted Defense Requirement Surveys, the first step in initiating or expanding security assistance relationships, in Liberia and Botswana. Thirty states in sub-Sahara Africa qualified for either Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or economic support funds. Sudan and Kenya were the largest FMS clients as well as the largest IMET recipients. There was also an increase in the number of mobile training teams (MTTs) south of the Sahara. Most of the training teams were equipment oriented. However, some conducted nation-building projects.
The guaranteed credit program under Foreign Military Sales increased from $126.4 million in fiscal year 1981 to approximately $247.6 million in fiscal year 1982 for fourteen African countries excluding Egypt. Djibouti and Senegal became eligible for FMS credits in 1982. Somalia, in conflict with Ethiopia along their border, received expedited delivery of vehicles, ammunition, small arms, and antitank systems in July 1982. Tunisia and the United States formally agreed that the Army would provide Tu-
nisia with (Chaparral and M60A3 tanks and spare parts as well as the training required to operate and repair them. Morocco, in conflict with the Polisario, received expedited assistance to train and equip an infantry brigade. Survey teams visited Botswana and Liberia to help in future security assistance programs, and Congress lifted the Brooke Amendment restrictions for Zaire, which permitted further extensions of military assistance even though the government of President Mobutu Sese Seko had fallen behind on its payments for equipment previously received.
The security assistance programs for the Pacific region during fiscal year 1982 continued to be affected by several events: the instability in Southeast Asia caused by the occupation of Kampuchea by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam coupled with Thailand's tacit allowance of anti-Vietnamese elements operating inside Thailand; internal problems in the Philippines; and the potential for conflict on the Korean peninsula. During fiscal year 1982, follow-up U.S. support continued for defense equipment previously furnished to Taiwan. Major Army end items delivered during fiscal year 1982 included self-propelled 155mm. howitzers, .50-caliber machine guns, and IHawk missiles. Under the fiscal year 1982 Taiwan Foreign Military Sales training program, seventy-five Taiwanese-forty-two officers and thirty-three enlisted men-received U.S. Army courses of instruction.
In South Korea, extensive coproduction and coassembly programs continued to operate effectively. They included small arms munitions, M 16 rifles, Vulcan air defense guns, helicopters, and tank munitions. During 1982, the Army added ammunition valued at approximately $130 million to U.S. war reserve stocks in Korea, which are designated for use by the Republic of Korea (ROK) ground forces in the event of war. The U.S. Army provided instruction to 160 ROK personnel in various professional development and technical training courses during the fiscal year.
Japan continued to purchase military equipment, services, and training of a defensive nature from the United States during fiscal year 1982. Japan also kept up its vigorous licensed production program. This program enhanced Japan's defense posture, expanded its defense production industrial base, increased its capacity for wartime sustainability, and promoted the interoperability of Japanese and U.S. forces. Coproduction agreements with the United States involved building systems to produce flinch howitzers and Nike and IHawk missiles. Discussions continued for coproduction of additional systems including TOW, Copperhead, Stinger, Patriot, and the AH-1S helicopter. During
the year, 25 Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force troops received professional or technical training in the United States, and 1,643 officers and enlisted men participated in IHawk and Nike annual service practice at Fort Bliss, Texas.
The threat of incursions by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam along the Thai-Kampuchea border continued to stimulate Thai concerns and requests for security assistance. Air defense and additional armor remained high on Thailand's priority list. The Director J-4 (Logistics) on the Joint Staff, Lt. Gen. O. E. DeHaven, began bilateral logistics planning with the Thai Supreme Command in order to provide Thailand with the expertise needed for long-range planning.
Twenty countries in the Western Hemisphere received security assistance from the United States during fiscal year 1982. Security assistance in FMS guaranteed credit and Military Assistance Program (MAP) grants increased from $56.3 million in fiscal year 1981 to approximately $151.9 million in fiscal year 1982. The number of countries in the region that were authorized MAP or FMS credit programs grew from seven in fiscal year 1981 to nineteen in fiscal year 1982, including Costa Rica, Colombia, Panama, and nine island nations of the eastern Caribbean. The high points of the security assistance program in 1982 came when President Reagan used Section 506, "Emergency Drawdown Authority," of the Foreign Assistance Act to provide El Salvador with $55 million, and Congress passed Supplemental Fiscal Year 1982, Military Assistance Program, authorizations for Honduras ($10 million) and Costa Rica ($2 million). TRADOC trained a Salvadorian light infantry battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and an officer candidate battalion at Fort Benning, Georgia. Honduras received a total of $30 million in security assistance. The Department of Defense directed the Corps of Engineers to manage the design and construction of two airfields in Honduras which will be able to support F-15 aircraft. The Mobile District of the Corps South Atlantic Division started design work for upgrading the airfields, with construction scheduled to start on one site during fiscal year 1982. Central America received the bulk of military assistance in the area, but Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Paraguay participated in substantial programs. Colombia received howitzers, helicopters, and antitank missiles. Ecuador became the first Foreign Military Sales customer to obtain the M 198 155-mm. towed howitzer. Brazil implemented Foreign Military Sales cash cases for ammunition, and Paraguay purchased UH-1B helicopters.
Military-to-military relations with Latin America suffered as a result of U.S. Support for Great Britain during the Falkland
Islands war between Argentina and the United Kingdom. As a result of this crisis, western solidarity against insurgencies and subversion supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba weakened considerably and thus dampened the effects of U.S. security assistance efforts in the region.
The Security Assistance Affiliated Program consists of training U.S. Army officers in security assistance and related policies. Lt. Gen. W. R. Richardson, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, directed the Security Assistance Division to undertake a comprehensive study of the foreign officer specialty in July 1982 in order to identify the Army's requirements for officers in the Foreign Area Officer Specialty through the year 2000, to examine different options in training foreign area officers and recommend the best training strategy, and to design the most efficient management structure for career progression in the specialty. General Richardson forwarded the completed study to Lt. Gen. M. R. Thurman, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, on 8 September 1982 for approval and implementation. The study projected an increase in the number of foreign area officers from the current level of 1,138 positions to 1,929 by calendar year 2000, stated that the Army would need to train approximately 209 specialists each year to meet future requirements compared with the current level of 100 officers per year, and asserted that the increased training requirement would mean the addition of eighty-three more in-country studies per year at an estimated cost increase of $3.6 million. Subsequent studies will determine how best to train officers for each region within the foreign area officer specialty.
Beginning in fiscal year 1983, U.S. Army foreign area officers will no longer study Chinese at the Ministry of Defense Chinese Language School (MODCLS) in Hong Kong. The British school took over third-year foreign area officer training when the United States reduced its presence in Taiwan. The Army found the school to be very structured with no flexibility and focused exclusively on language training. The Army wanted its foreign area officer students to have third-year training designed to meet their individual needs: a mixture of language training, area studies, and travel. The British would not agree. The Defense Language Institute will provide third-year training in Chinese.
Significant innovations in the affiliated program also occurred at the United States Army Russian Institute (USARI) at Garmisch, West Germany, and the U.S. Army Institute for Military Assistance at Fort Bragg. The Russian institute contracted with George-
town University to provide a graduate degree in Russian studies, which Georgetown will conduct concurrently with the two-year institute program. A one-year trial will begin in the summer of 1983. The Institute for Military Assistance started a graduate degree completion program with several North Carolina universities. The foreign area officer course at the institute will count as six of the twenty-five hours of credit needed for a master-of-arts degree. The pilot program, a joint degree in government with Campbell University, began in July 1982. Eventually, the joint program will expand to include area studies, international relations, political science, economics, history, anthropology, and sociology. The Institute for Military Assistance planned to inaugurate one-year language training programs in Spanish and French in January 1983. The Institute for Military Assistance also began a visiting professors program in 1982. Five visiting professors drawn from among the fields involved in the degree completion program will serve on a one- or two-year basis.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 24 May 2004