Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1992
Army logisticians faced many challenges during the fiscal year. They returned, repaired, and reconstructed war materiel from Southwest Asia and surplus materiel from the Army's reduction of its forces in Europe. They moved units, equipment, and personnel with their dependents and household goods back to the continental United States. They also reviewed logistic policy and sought to bring it into line with the Army's overall vision. As the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Lt. Gen. Leon Salomon, stated, "With an uncertain and unknown threat, a reshaping Army increasingly based in the continental United States, and tremendous changes facing us, [we] returned to the basics in 1992: a review of our essence, an update of our mission, and establishment of a vision to guide future efforts."
Management and Planning
The Defense Management Review Decisions (DMRD) established the framework for numerous changes in the way Army logisticians did their business. Army supply planners sought ways to improve the tracking of items ("asset visibility"), reduce ordering and shipping time, lower stock levels, improve distribution methods, and generally streamline supply, maintenance, and transportation. The most important of the DMRD recommendations were the Objective Supply Capability, Total Asset Visibility, the Stock Funding of Depot Level Reparables, the Single Stock Fund, Integrated Sustainment Maintenance, the Total Distribution System, and Army Item Introduction.
During FY 1992, logisticians developed an important new management tool, the Objective Supply Capability (OSC). Through the OSC, logisticians could electronically submit requisitions through a central "gateway" that, after checking inventory, selected the most cost-effective method to supply the order and then filled it from either retail or wholesale stock. Through improved communications and advanced automation, the OSC could place orders on the wholesale system on the same day that the customer generated them. It also made all assets on an Army post or
within a specific geographical area available to that customer. An operational prototype test under the guidance of the Program Manager for Integrated Logistics Systems and the Program Executive Officer for Standard Army Management Information Systems saved $4.4 million through the end of May 1992 by redistributing repair parts within Fort Hood, relieving supply personnel from the costlier and slower method of ordering the items from wholesale stocks. By the end of the fiscal year, the Army had fielded the OSC at Forts Hood, Texas; Polk, Louisiana; and Bliss, Texas, and extension of the program to the remainder of III Corps was proceeding on schedule. The Army planned to field the system worldwide during 1994.
The Army designed the Total Asset Visibility System to keep track of Army materiel items throughout their life cycles. In January 1992, an operational prototype covering close to 440 weapon systems and over 210,000 varieties of ammunition, repair parts, and other items supporting those systems began a year-long test involving more than 150 managers at six sites. The Army hoped that introduction of the system would produce significant savings in procurement, repair, and redistribution of materiel.
Responding to the push for changes in the supply of reparable items, the Army developed Stock Funding of Depot Level Reparables (SFDLR) under DCSLOG's Directorate for Resources and Management (DMR). To achieve greater efficiency, customers would buy reparable items with Army supply management funds, rather than receive them at no cost. In addition, each user would review database information for accuracy, rather than rely on a few logisticians to perform that task. The new system also combined three separate sources for the procurement and wholesale maintenance of secondary items into one funding account and linked the cost of these items to specific weapon systems. To introduce the process, Army logisticians distributed a computer-based training package to both active and reserve managers and users. The Army implemented the final phase of the SFDLR at the retail level on 1 April 1992. By the end of the fiscal year, customers were more aware of the cost of operations and seeking ways to reduce costs and improve efficiency. With users paying for what they ordered, the issue of new materiel dropped 10 percent.
Sponsored by the Joint Logistics Systems Center, and in response to DMRD 927J (Consolidating Retail and Wholesale Systems), the Single Stock Fund (SSF) initiative aims to provide national-level managers with centralized control for redistributing secondary item inventories. Included are Army Working Capital Fund, Supply Management, Army, and selected Operation and Maintenance, Army, inventories. The SSF will merge assets at installation, division, corps, and theater levels to form wholesale accountable records. Key benefits include eliminating redundant inventory accounting mechanisms, increasing asset visibility, and redistributing
excess material to fill unit requests, thereby reducing wholesale procurements. The Strategic Logistics Agency (SLA), the Army Materiel Command, and FORSCOM, under the direction of ODCSLOG, planned an integrated demonstration of the SSF and Integrated Sustainment Maintenance Initiatives for 1 April 1993.
The Integrated Sustainment Maintenance (ISM) program brought together capabilities, resources, and authority for sustainment maintenance under a national-level manager. This manager coordinated active and reserve component general support units, directors of general support-level maintenance, national depots, forward repair activities, and depot-level contractor maintenance. ISM provided a direct means to connect the theater commander to all levels of assets for sustainment maintenance, so that he could more effectively plan and tailor support packages for theater logistics.
The Total Distribution System was the product of an action plan developed by a task force established by the Army in June 1991. This Total Distribution Action Plan identified 140 issues and designated fifteen agencies to implement solutions. As actions having the highest priority, the plan listed upgrading logistics automation and communications systems, developing a way to track items in transit, creating a Theater Distribution Management Center to control theater distribution and track unit locations, and ensuring a proper mix of combat service support units that deployed early to a theater. On 27 May 1992, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army approved the Total Distribution Action Plan for implementation and included funding for the plan's automation and communications changes in the POM.
The Army intended its Item Introduction Program, formerly the Usage Based Requirements Determination, to expedite the implementation of the Sparing to Availability (STA) concept throughout the Army. The STA uses multiechelon models to generate logistical information that supports weapon system performance at the least cost. During FY 1992, the SLA approved two field demonstrations of the STA concept, one at the National Training Center and one by the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized). These demonstrations would determine the requirements for an improved replenishment process that would compute Authorized Stockage Lists based on weapon system availability. The Item Introduction Program was supposed to aid this process by establishing baseline requirements for provisioning, cataloging, and supply management.
Activities of the Strategic Logistics Agency
A move from Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to Army Materiel Command headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, in April 1992 was only one of many
activities for the SLA during FY 1992. With the development of the Defense Business Operating Fund, Corporate Information Management, the Joint Logistics Systems Center, and the Business Case Method for determining requirements, the SLA became heavily involved in development of new techniques for management, requirements determination, functional analysis, technical review, milestone tracking, and data presentation. The agency also established new baselines to account for changes in fielding schedules and estimated cost savings. Among other activities, the SLA investigated new ways of supplying deployed forces by conducting a satellite communications test with ARNG units deployed to Southern Command in Panama.
On 1 June 1992, ODCSLOG transferred functional proponency for the Joint Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistic Support (JCALS) initiative from the Directorate for Plans and Operations to the SLA. The Army was the armed service responsible for the JCALS program, which began as an Army effort to automate and integrate logistics technical information throughout a weapon system's life cycle. As the focal point in the Army for JCALS, the SLA worked with diverse Army elements, the other services, and the Defense Logistics Agency to identify and institutionalize all of the steps necessary to establish JCALS. The Army-led JCALS Functional Requirements Management Activity, established on 27 July 1992, received responsibility to identify other functional areas for joint application.
New Developments in Medical Supply
During FY 1992, the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) took several steps toward improving its efficiency in medical logistics. It came closer to creating one medical supply system for peace and war as it converted all active Army and National Guard Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) medical logistics units; the 6th Medical Supply, Optical, and Maintenance Battalion in Korea; and twenty-two Health Services Command hospitals to the Theater Army Medical Management Information System-Medical Supply (TAMMIS-MEDSUP). Medical logisticians also pushed for changes in solicitations by the Defense Personnel Support Center and the Veterans Administration for contracts for prime vendor support to AMEDD hospitals. The AMEDD wanted prime vendors for pharmaceuticals and medical surgical supplies to provide 24-hour delivery of supplies to AMEDD hospitals, thereby allowing the AMEDD to reduce its inventory levels by over 80 percent and its costs by about 10 percent. The AMEDD also wanted Defense Logistics Agency depots to have designated trucks on call and a 24-hour pull time on medical items, thereby decreasing the average shipment time of depot-stocked items from twenty-five days to approximately ten days. At the end of FY
1992, depots pulled most of the medical items within twenty-four hours, and dedicated trucks made door-to-door deliveries from the depots to the hospitals two to three times a week, decreasing hospital stockage levels by almost twenty days.
The ability to support the planned force development in all of its potential roles was essential to accomplishment of the Army's missions under the National Security and National Military Strategies. During the fiscal year, the Army took several steps to improve its ability to support its forces in combat and in operations other than war. These covered a wide spectrum of logistical issues such as war reserves; repair parts; tactical water; petroleum, oil, and lubricants; and the industrial base. In the process, the Army leadership had to balance considerations of force structure design, mobility, and personnel end strength with the available resources to properly sustain its forces.
Because the decline in forward-deployed forces required faster deployment from the continental United States in an emergency and raised the possibility that reserve units might not deploy rapidly enough, the Army decided to increase the number of active component Combat Support/Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) units. After studying doctrine, global requirements, and lessons learned from Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM, Army planners drew up a list of the CS/CSS units required to sustain a three-division contingency force for thirty days without mobilizing reserve support units. The list included maintenance, heavy truck, medium truck, terminal transfer, supply and service, field service, and ammunition companies, as well as movement control teams and logistics headquarters. The Army could find 75 percent of these units among the active component CS/CSS units returning from Europe and Southwest Asia. The Army would station these redeploying support units in installations that were near the units they supported and that were able to support the soldiers and their families. Established end-strength levels would permit the retention of these units until FY 1995.
To provide nondivisional Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM) and limited depot support in an operational area, the Army established its Pre-positioned Sustainment Maintenance Facility (ARAPAHO) program. Operating as either a sea-based or land-based facility, ARAPAHO consisted of a designated nondivisional AVIM unit's personnel with equipment installed in shelters. Logisticians designed the unit for loading on board a C-5 Seawitch class or larger container ship within twenty-four to thirty-six hours of receiving movement orders, and they envisioned deployment at sea within six days. The unit can use on-board Operational
Ready Float (ORF) and Forward Repair Activities (FRA) and will use extended prescribed load list/authorized stockage list (PLL/ASL). ARAPAHO's ability to deploy rapidly would hopefully save forces from waiting sixty days for a ground-based AVIM unit. As a self-transportable unit, ARAPAHO can also quickly redeploy after completing its initial mission.
Taking into account reductions in force structure and the latest strategic guidance, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS) revised its methodology for determining war reserve requirements for major items. ODCSOPS worked with the U.S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA) to improve the theater-level warfighting simulations process that CAA used to project wartime expenditures of munitions and combat losses of major items of equipment.
During FY 1992, the Army reorganized and consolidated its war reserve and operational stocks, eliminating costly excesses and striving to achieve Total Asset Visibility (TAV) under the centralized control of the Department of the Army. On 20 May 1992, the Army Chief of Staff informed Army component commanders of major policy changes in the Army Reserve (AR)formerly Theater Reservesand Operational Projects (OP) programs. These changes reduced the size of the AR and OP programs by 50 percent. The AR and OP accounts are now centrally funded and controlled by the Department of the Army, rather than by the separate commanders. The Army distributed stocks into strategically located common stockpiles supporting multiple commanders. It reduced the sixteen theater reserve stockpiles outside the continental United States to four Army Reserve accounts: AR-1 in the continental United States, AR-2 in Europe, AR-3 afloat, and AR-4 in Japan and Korea. Instead of developing requirements to sustain all forces, the Army will determine materiel needs for two of the most threatening regional contingencies. The Army Materiel Command (AMC) assumed responsibility for the management and accountability of all stocks except for medical supplies, which became the responsibility of the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Activity (USAMMA).
Repair Parts Support
During FY 1992, the Army sought to reduce its surplus of spare parts, as well as its inventory and management costs. Army divisions reduced their excess repair parts by 73 percentfrom $152 million in September 1991 to $41 million in June 1992-through crossleveling and redistributing assets throughout the supply system. The Army planned additional
reductions in excess repair parts during the next fiscal year. As for inventory and management costs, the updated Total Army Inventory Management (TAIM) program used MACOM input to identify over forty areas for cuts, including redistribution of assets, reduction of excess, automation, smaller inventory requirements, and improved transportation and distribution.
Simultaneously, the Department of the Army, ODCSLOG, and AMC initiated an aggressive program, the Class IX Asset Visibility-Inventory Reduction Initiative, to ensure that Army wholesale managers considered the availability of surplus repair parts in their purchases. Critical to this process was the Selected Item Management System-Expanded (SIMS-X), which provided the wholesale manager with information on availability of items, requirements for selected repair parts in short supply, items with long procurement lead times, and items with a high cost. In addition to reducing the Army's procurement of secondary items, SIMS-X was supposed to allow AMC to conserve Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF) dollars and demonstrate sound stewardship over existing Army assets. The initiative, in which SIMS-X was supposed to play such a major part, was divided into three phases. During Phase I, AMC continued to use SIMS-X to cancel requisitions for stock already surplus at the level of the requestor. Phase II, which began on 1 September 1992, required item managers to use SIMS-X data to determine what and how much to buy. During Phase III, which the Army expected to test during FY 1993, AMC was supposed to use SIMS-X data routinely to redistribute assets, including all Army-managed repair parts. The end goal of the initiative was: "Just Enough, Just on Time." Through this process, item managers were responsible for reducing the procurement of assets already in excess throughout the Army.
Tactical Water Supply
Arrangements for tactical water supply took much of Army logisticians' time and attention. During FY 1992, the Army completed the redeployment from Southwest Asia to the Sierra Army Depot of most of the 811 International Standards Organization (ISO) containers holding tactical water supply equipment. The ultimate goal was to containerize all water operational project stocks. The Army loaded the refurbished water equipment onto two of its fifteen pre-positioned ships to help meet its strategic mobility requirements. In addition, it deployed the 160-gallon lightweight collapsible pillow tank, a new five-quart water carrier, and a 3,000-gallon-per-hour (GPH) Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit. Tactical water support equipment, including 600 and 3,000 GPH Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Units, provided humanitarian assistance to victims and relief workers after Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki.
Bulk Petroleum Distribution
During FY 1992, the Army took further steps to implement the 1973 assignment to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) of the mission of DOD Integrated Materiel Manager (IMM) for Bulk Petroleum. In 1991, DOD expanded DLA's ownership of, and responsibility for, wholesale bulk fuel to include the management of bulk fuel stored in intermediate storage facilities on military bases and installations. On 1 October 1992, the Army turned over funding responsibility to DLA for bulk fuel tankage at ten U.S. and eleven overseas locations. The Army will retain ownership of these facilities, but DLA will assume the funding responsibility for their maintenance and repair as well as any associated environmental costs. The Army still has the option to continue operational control of these facilities.
During the past nine years, the Army has invested substantially in large, collapsible, tactical petroleum storage bladders and modern, lightweight aluminum pipelines with quick-lock couplings that it can install rapidly. These pipeline systems worked with great success during Operation DESERT STORM. During 1992, logisticians sent them to the Sierra Army Depot for reconstitution and repair, which will continue through 1993. The Army will reconfigure these systems into sets and pack them into ISO containers to facilitate storage and shipping.
Prior to 1990, the Army used only military specification engine oil in its vehicles. In 1990, the Army began to replace military specification oil with commercial engine oil in its nontactical vehicles, and in 1992 it began to use heavy-duty commercial engine oil in its tactical vehicles. Commercial engine oil represented a savings of 2 to 4 percent over military specification engine oil.
Supply and Maintenance
Clothing and Individual Equipment
By lightening the soldier's load and improving his protection from weather and bullets through state-of-the-art clothing and individual equipment (CIE), the Army strengthened the effectiveness of its troops. The Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) streamlined the acquisition and fielding to high-priority units of such items as the desert combat boot, the lightweight flashlight, the improved desert battle dress uniform (DBDU), the updated hot weather battle dress uniform (BDU), and the mattax. The desert boot saw service in Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM. In the case of both battle dress uniforms, Army logisticians introduced a lightweight nylon/cotton fabric that was more durable and more comfortable than the cotton hot weather BDU and the nylon/cotton DBDU. The
mattax, a combination mattock and axe, supplemented the entrenching tool, and Army logisticians issued one mattax per two infantrymen. At the end of the fiscal year, the Clothing Advisory Group was evaluating the policy of issuing an entrenching tool for every two soldiers.
During the fiscal year, Army logisticians made several changes in Army CIE. In the course of the year, the Army approved the Stinger Missile Jump Pack and the Combat Soldier's Sleeping System. It also approved several desert versions of clothing items that it had developed and fielded especially for Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, such as the aircrew BDU, the aircrew uniform (with chemical protection) for the integrated battlefield, the combat vehicle crewman's uniform, and the Suit, Contamination Avoidance Liquid Protection. The basis of issue remained the same as for woodland versions. The Army also approved an Environmental Protection Agency-approved insect repellent for the DBDU.
Army dress clothing initiatives for the fiscal year included adoption of a lightweight black dress sweater as a second sweater in the optional purchase program and the type classification of a men's short-sleeve shirt with stand-up collar. The new men's short-sleeve shirt used the same body pattern and dress collar design as the long-sleeve version, facilitating production of both shirts. The pattern could also be standardized with similar shirts used by the Air Force and Coast Guard, thereby complying with the recommendations of an OSD regulation.
Redeployment of Equipment
While operating several long-range programs during the fiscal year, logisticians also managed the return, reconstitution, and redistribution of materiel from Europe and Southwest Asia. Logisticians removed all equipment from Southwest Asia except for a training set in Kuwait. In addition, U.S. Army Veterinary Service food inspection specialists and Veterinary Corps officers inspected millions of pounds of surplus operational rations, which the United States utilized for humanitarian relief and relief for homeless Americans without a single report of illness from contaminated food. Redistribution of equipment from Southwest Asia focused on non-unit items that remained after the departures of the combat divisions. Major weapon systems, such as the M1A1 tank and Bradley fighting vehicle, went through depots to active and reserve units as part of the process of force modernization. The Army sent the remainder of the equipment through National Guard maintenance sitesfor equipment going to the National Guardor FORSCOM contract maintenance sites for equipment going to active Army or Army Reserve units. Equipment not issued to units underwent repair at maintenance sites for distribution by the end of FY 1993.
Equipment redistribution from Europe became a major issue in FY 1992. The rapid pace of the reductions left too few units to bring excess equipment up to standard for transfer to those units remaining in Europe. An assistance team from the Department of the Army went to Europe to help inspect and dispose of equipment. In addition, the Army will route equipment being returned from Europe through maintenance sites for repair prior to distribution to active and reserve component units. The Army expected that this operation would take several years to complete.
Supply and Maintenance Reforms During FY 1992
For Army installations, the ability to respond rapidly from the continental United States with overwhelming combat power to a regional crisis or a humanitarian mission became a major role during FY 1992. Some installations would launch the operating force, while others would send the supporting and sustaining materiel, individual replacements, communications, or technology. In its guidance, Installations: A Strategy for the 21st Century, the Army laid out a strategy calling for world-class platforms for power projection, proven leadership in city management and public administration, quality facilities and services, environmental stewardship, and responsible partnerships with local communities.
As the Army modernized its installation infrastructure, it planned to remove the traditional boundary between tactical and sustaining base activities. This approach would make possible the training of highly technical forces within limited geographical and physical limits and the more efficient mobilization, deployment, and support of Total Army forces beyond the installation. It would also provide the quality of life and of family and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs that the Army realized sustained the physical fitness, mental readiness, and mission commitment of its soldiers.
Under the Army's strategy, installations would improve their efficiency in several ways. They would reduce duplication of management by regionalization, consolidation, and competition. They would draw on neighboring public and private infrastructures for resources. They would generate revenues by charging market value prices for services and property. Furthermore, units and activities would have to program, budget, and reimburse their installations for support services, an innovation that should tie the cost of these services to mission requirements and provide an incentive to conserve resources. In short, the Army was trying to reshape the installations' structure and business processes along more entrepreneurial lines.
This new approach was demonstrated when inspections of aircraft that the Army used in Operations DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM and PROVIDE COMFORT revealed that the sand and salt environment in Southwest Asia
had extensively damaged them. In response, the Army turned to contractors for Special Technical Inspection and Repair (STIR) of these aircraft to prevent additional wear and corrosion damage. Army logisticians thought this to be the most timely response because major Army facilities both in and outside the continental United States possessed STIR sites, and many of these sites had been established by the Aviation and Troop Command (ATCOM) to carry out modification work orders and engineering changes to the fleet. Using contractor personnel at these sites reduced costs and repair time with minimal impact on unit readiness. The Army accordingly scheduled 1,085 aircraftincluding AH-64s, CH-47s, UH-60s, and OH-58Dsfor STIR work during fiscal years 1992 and 1993, with a programmed cost of $400.9 million. Logisticians also identified 573 UH-1Vs, OH-58Cs, and AH-1Fs requiring an extra $131 million in reconditioning. Most of the STIR program repairs were for maintenance below depot level, but the Army did send twenty-one aircraft requiring maintenance unavailable at STIR sites to the Corpus Christi Army Depot for depot-level repair. Performance of these repairs and STIR maintenance at this site saved transportation costs.
To help improve support efficiency, the Army also instituted the Unit Level Logistics SystemAviation (ULLS-A). ULLS-A automated aircraft logistical and maintenance records and forms at the unit and intermediate levels. During the fiscal year, the Army began to purchase hardware for Force Package 1 units, and it also launched planning for aircraft-installed hardware containing the automated logbook, electronic technical manuals, and checklists.
The Army realized the need for more protective shelters for its aircraft fleet. A May 1989 storm at Fort Hood, Texas, had caused $450 million of damage to 245 aircraft, and from June 1989 through April 1991, windstorms had damaged more than 70 Army aircraft in Louisiana, Europe, and Southwest Asia. In response, on 21 March 1990, the Vice Chief of Staff directed FORSCOM to erect Automatic Building Machine structures on posts in the southern storm belt to test their feasibility for housing aircraft. FORSCOM and the Army Staff accordingly developed plans to erect protective shelters for "proof of principle" evaluation, scheduling two shelters each for Forts Hood, Polk, and Carson. Another storm at Fort Polk in November 1991 destroyed twenty-nine aircraft, reinforcing the urgency of the Vice Chief's directive. In July 1992, the Army obtained funding and ordered material for the first two buildings. Troops from the 62d Engineer Battalion began erecting these shelters in August at Fort Hood. Each $200,000 building could hold two aircraft of the same size as a Black Hawk or Apache.
During FY 1992, the Army's depot maintenance program went through significant changes as a result of major force structure reductions,
DMR initiatives, and the cessation of supplemental funding for Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. DMR initiatives improved efficiency through consolidating depot maintenance operations, internal streamlining, increased interservice operations, optimized depot maintenance capacity, and expanded public/private competition for depot maintenance missions. These steps helped Army depots to service the high volume of equipment returning from Southwest Asia. The DOD increased the program's funding level to 98 percent. These appropriations financed the overhaul and depot-level repair of major end items, the maintenance of software for weapon systems, the operation of Life Cycle Software Support Centers, and the calibration of test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment.
During FY 1992, the Directorate for Transportation, Energy, and Troop Support began to define and to evaluate the changing roles of the Installation Transportation Offices (ITO). The development of multiple software automated systems and new computer hardware, public contracting of base operations, and conversion to General Services Administration (GSA) fleet operations was having a great impact on ITOs. In addition, the ongoing restructuring of the Army, force reductions, base realignments and closings, and support of the Army Strategic Mobility Program created broader and more demanding roles for the ITOs. The Army formed a task force of representatives from MACOMs and other interested agencies to assess ITO methods of operation and determine the impact of existing and prospective automated systems on ITO operations. In the first phase of the program, the task force evaluated the results of a survey of ITOs in the continental United States, the findings of Army Staff visits to ITO sites, and a report covering proposed options to modernize ITO activities. In the second phase, the group used the OSD corporate information management initiative to identify inefficient ITO operations and predict the efficiency of new proposals. The goal of the ITO Modernization Project is a state-of-the-art DOD model ITO with improved and more efficient methods of operation.
To cut costs, the Army sought to make better use of GSA vehicles for nontactical tasks. In 1986, the Army had begun to consolidate its nontactical vehicle (NTV) fleet of about 55,000 vehicles with GSA's interagency fleet to reduce costs. Since then, cost comparison studies have showed that the use of GSA vehicles is much more cost-effective for the Army than owning and maintaining its own fleet. The Army accordingly planned to use GSA assets for 90 percent of its total fleet by December 1992. Reliance on GSA's newer fleet will not only increase vehicle availability,
but also ease vehicle maintenance and the need for replacements. The GSA conversion plans called for the transfer of the Army's NTV fleet inside the United States, except for special-purpose vehicles, to GSA management. As a result of the consolidation of NTVs into the GSA fleet, the Army realized an immediate one-time cost saving of $28 million, an average annual saving of approximately $666 per vehicle. The Army expected a total cost saving of $37 million upon completion of the conversion. At the end of the fiscal year, the Army was coordinating with GSA and the major overseas commands to explore expanding the program outside the continental United States.
The drawdown of conventional forces and the end of Stop-Loss in Europe significantly increased the number of permanent changes of station from USAREUR to the continental United States. The expanded volume of passengers, household goods, unaccompanied baggage, privately owned vehicles (POV), and petsas well as units and equipmentbeing shipped in narrow windows of time resulted in a temporary saturation of the local carrier industry, ocean terminals in the continental United States, and several transportation offices. USAREUR responded by authorizing personnel to ship their unaccompanied baggage via parcel post to their new duty station in the continental United States and by borrowing military personnel from units remaining in Europe to augment installation transportation offices. Logisticians also increased the use of Direct Procurement Method (DPM) service, an alternative they normally used for small loads. Under this service, the government managed the shipment from point of origin to its destination, with each steppacking, containerization, delivery, unpacking, and storageperformed separately by commercial firms under contract. In addition, DOD used freight forwarders for line-haul transportation. USAREUR also brought household goods carriers from other countries into Germany to increase capability and changed the POV policy to allow delivery directly to the final duty station for most unit members rather than to the ocean terminal for pickup.
Even though these changes met USAREUR's moving requirements, the quality of the moves suffered. The increased use of DPM service and the shipment of household goods exceeded the capability of the destination contractor and caused late deliveries. Another major problem was a large backlog of unaccompanied baggage in USAREUR. Logisticians instituted a number of effective corrective actions. USAREUR limited the use of DPM and emphasized the use of International Through Government Bill of Lading service, which minimized delays and damage. The reinstitution of Code "J" airlift eliminated the backlog of unaccompanied baggage. Logisticians also employed one-year temporary hires at the New Orleans ocean terminal port to expedite the movement of shipments inside the United States. Finally, the Army established a coordina-
tion link between USAREUR logisticians and their counterparts in the continental United States to monitor the program and correct problems.
The Army's security assistance and international defense program helped achieve national security and foreign policy objectives by providing allied and friendly nations with the materiel and training to upgrade their defense capabilities and to improve the professionalism of their armed forces. Fiscal year 1992 proved to be one of the most productive in the history of the program, but it was also a year of many challenges. Sales of Army weapon systems to allied and friendly nations in Europe and the Middle East increased to $23.8 billion, reflecting the unprecedented international interest in those systems. But the program had to adjust to the changing political and military environment. With the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, twelve former Soviet Bloc nations established diplomatic relations with the United States and became eligible to procure defense materiel, services, and training under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act. The major security assistance programs of the year were Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Cash, the Foreign Military Financing Program (FMFP), the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program, and Drawdown of Equipment from Army Stocks (Section 506). In all, Army security assistance for FY 1992 comprised programs for 149 countries and international agencies.
In the FMS program, foreign governments purchased defense equipment, engineering and construction equipment, services, and training from the United States. During the fiscal year, new orders for Army equipment and services totaled $3.3 billion. These new orders came primarily from countries in the Middle East in the wake of Operation DESERT STORM.
The FMFP is a grant aid and military assistance program that provides the financial resources for many countries to obtain American security assistance. It replaced the Military Assistance Program in FY 1990. During FY 1992, this program enabled forty-two allied and friendly nations to obtain $4.4 billion worth of defense equipment, services, and training.
The IMET program provided, on a grant basis, professional and technical training to military and civilian personnel of allied and friendly nations. Training took place in the United States, at American installations overseas, and in the participating countries themselves through the use of mobile training teams. During FY 1992, the IMET program spent $47.2 million on ninety-seven nations.
The EDA program provided excess Army materiel to foreign governments through reduced prices or grant transfers. During the fiscal year, the Army declared over 9,000 tactical wheeled vehicles eligible for transfer as a result of downsizing. The Directorate for Security Assistance reduced the time between the identification of excess equipment and its transfer to foreign customers from twenty-four months to only eight months. As a result of the FY 1993 Defense Authorization Act, the Army will be able to use the proceeds from the sale of excess inventory in fiscal years 1990-92 to help fund the modernization of its tanks and armored personnel carriers in FY 1993.
Under special authority of the Foreign Assistance Act, Section 506, the President may direct a drawdown of equipment from existing stocks to assist a foreign government or an international agency in an emergency. Through this provision, Army security assistance provided an estimated $35 million worth of Army materiel to Mexico, Colombia, and Senegal during FY 1992.
At the end of the fiscal year, the Army estimated the cost of its security assistance programs at $58.5 billion. Their status is shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13ARMY SECURITY ASSISTANCE OPEN PROGRAMS (IN BILLIONS)
Note: Amounts as of 31 October 1992.
Country Programs in Pacific Command (PACOM)
The Army continued its major role in security assistance within PACOM. Of the nations in PACOM's area of responsibility, Taiwan was still the largest participant in the Army's security assistance program. During FY 1992, Taiwan bought approximately $485 million worth of equipment and other items through DOD FMS sales. Security assistance to Japan concentrated on coproduction, but it also included an FMS sale for a Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise (CALFEX). This CALFEX, which was approved in August 1992, will take place at the Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii early in FY 1993. Because of the dearth of suit-
ably large areas in Japan for modern weapons practice, the Army expected Japanese use of U.S. training facilities to grow in the future. Despite public concern about the use of American facilities for foreign training activities, DOD believed that support for Japanese readiness was in the best interest of the United States.
In May 1992, the United States signed a coproduction memorandum of understanding with Korea. Under this memorandum, the United States will sell to Korea, or coproduce with the Koreans, a total of 197 M9 Armored Combat Earthmovers. By the close of the fiscal year, the Army had delivered three vehicles. In addition, Korea expressed an interest in purchasing Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS) hospitals.
During FY 1991, President Bush authorized a $20 million drawdown under Section 506 for disaster relief to Bangladesh after a cyclone caused severe flooding in that nation. The Army has supplied $4.9 million worth of vehicles, Landing Craft Utility (LCU), selected Mobile Training Teams (MTT), and engineer, medical, troop support, and communications equipment. During FY 1992, the Army delivered equipment and deployed survey teams and vehicle maintenance MTTs. The Army planned to send communications and LCU MTTs to Bangladesh in FY 1993.
During FY 1992, Congress approved $25 million in FMFP and $2.4 million in IMET funds for the Philippines, a large reduction from prior levels. The Army expected further reductions in the future because of the Philippine Senate's rejection of the extension of base rights agreements with the United States and the completion of American troop withdrawals from the Philippines early in FY 1993. Nevertheless, substantial aid continued through FY 1992, including the transfer of excess M151A2 and M880 truck spares under Section 519 of the Foreign Assistance Act and the ongoing construction of two logistic support vessels that the Army expected to deliver to the Philippines in FY 1993.
Country Aid in European Command (EUCOM)
During FY 1992, Eastern European countries became eligible for IMET and other security assistance. The IMET program expanded to include Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria, which sent students to the Army War College and the Command and General Staff College. The enrollment of a Russian military officer at the Army War College marked the first time since the Revolution of 1917 that a representative from that country had attended the Army's highest educational institution. The United States also approved Romania, Georgia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for IMET, and the Army expected approval of security assistance transfers, primarily nonlethal and excess materiel, to the Baltic States. In addition, Army medical specialists participated in a five-year pediatric physical therapy program, sponsored by the World
Vision organization, to evaluate Romanian children and to train Romanian physical therapists.
On 24-25 October 1991, the United States held a high-level consultative committee meeting with Greece to discuss defense articles and finances. Greece requested M60A3 tanks and Cobra helicopters. The tanks were unavailable, but the United States offered fifteen Cobra helicopters. Under FMS, Greece also obtained twelve Apache helicopters on 24 December 1991. The process of "cascading" military hardware under the treaty's limited equipment redistribution process started during FY 1992, and Greece was allocated 359 M60A1 tanks, 312 M60A3 tanks, 150 M113A1 armored personnel carriers, and 72 M110 howitzers.
Much of the Army's security assistance effort in EUCOM involved European attempts to buy missile systems. After five years of negotiation, Denmark accepted an FMS offer of the Stinger Reprogrammable Module (RPM) Missile System in October 1991. The 940-missile deal was the largest sale of Stinger RMP missile systems to date. Also during the fiscal year, Germany asked for a coproduction program for Air-to-Air Stinger (ATAS) so that it could adapt the system for the PAH-2 Tiger antitank helicopter and the BSH-1 escort helicopter. In June 1992, the Army presented a memorandum of understanding to Turkey in response to a Turkish request to establish a coproduction program for the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). To maintain the U.S. industrial base, the memorandum provided for coassembly of ATACMS components that Turkey obtained through FMS.
The Army also provided Senegal with $10 million in Section 506 drawdown authority for peacekeeping activities in Liberia. By the end of FY 1992, Senegal had received uniforms and other personal equipment for 1,500 soldiers as well as MREs, rifles, mortars, ammunition, trucks, jeeps, field kitchens and cooking supplies, tents, cots, blankets, and other miscellaneous materiel. Some FMFP funds allowed the purchase of items not available under the drawdown authority.
Country Aid in Central Command (CENTCOM)
The American military aid program to Jordan came under attack as a result of Jordan's support for Iraq during the Gulf War. The United States suspended Jordan's participation in the security assistance program as a result of that nation's stance. By the end of FY 1992, however, the Army reopened the program at a significantly lower level.
Security assistance to other Middle Eastern countries continued almost unabated. The United Arab Emirates showed considerable interest in U.S. military equipment but actually purchased little. A potential sale of the Bradley fighting vehicle fell through, and as of the end of the fiscal year, the only major system acquired by the UAE was the AH-64 Apache
helicopter, twenty of which were supposed to be delivered by the Army in 1993. Oman expressed more interest in the acquisition of U.S. military equipment, obtaining M60A3 tanks from excess status, purchasing the V-300 armored vehicle in the commercial market, and making its first FMS purchaseM16A2 rifles. Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait expressed interest in purchasing DEPMEDS hospitals. The Army fielded and arranged training for six DEPMEDS Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals (MASH), which went to the Royal Saudi Land Forces.
Country Aid for Southern Command and Atlantic Command (SOUTHCOM/LANTCOM)
The Army oriented most of its security assistance activities in SOUTHCOM toward counterdrug operations in Mexico and Colombia. On 8 November 1991, the State Department notified Congress that the President intended to authorize a Section 506 drawdown of DOD equipment and services for Mexico. The Army provided $23.1 million of this $26 million equipment drawdown, supplying twelve UH-1H helicopters, spare parts, ground support equipment, and various services. The Mexican drawdown had barely ended on 6 June 1992 when, on 30 September, President Bush directed DOD to draw down $7 million worth of equipment, training, and services to support Colombian counterdrug activities. The Army's portion of this second drawdown amounted to $2.2 million and consisted of the transportation of excess vehicles from Europe, radios, one UH-1H helicopter, and helicopter training for six students. The DOD planned that all equipment involved should be in the pipeline to Colombiaand training startedby 12 January 1993.
Army logisticians faced several issues that strained their resources during the fiscal year. In the midst of reductions in personnel and force structure, the Army tasked its logisticians with moving equipment and personal possessions from Europe and Southwest Asia and with disposing of surplus materiel. At the same time, logistical planners started to reshape the logistical force structure to meet the requirements of the downsizing Army, notably the need to project power in response to contingencies anywhere in the world. Army supply personnel could view with pride their ability to accomplish multiple and demanding tasks in an effective and expeditious manner. While they had not resolved all problems and contentious issues during the fiscal year, they had laid the groundwork for future resolution.
Return to Table of Contents
Last Updated 21 July 2003
Return to CMH Online