Research, development and acquisition investments have declined 37 percent because the fiscal year 2012 budget planning cycle, said the G-8.
Historically, the research, development and acquisition, or RDA, account averaged about 22 percent of the Army’s obligation authority. But for fiscal year 2015, the RDA account is at 17 percent or about $20 billion, Lt. Gen. James O. Barclay III told members of the home Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, today.
Yet, despite slashing RDA, “it’s essential that the military ensure every Soldier deployed is provided to gain decisive overmatch,” he said, outlining the stairs being taken.
To achieve decisive overmatch without much money, the military is using incremental improvements to modernize critical systems, he explained. And new systems would be built “only by exception.”
Additionally, he said the military is divesting older systems just like the Kiowa helicopter and “niche capabilities to diminish sustainment costs and generate more resources to speculate in modernization and readiness.”
In the realm of science and technology, the military is funding research on key areas that commercial corporations are ignoring, while reducing funding where private-sector S&T gains are being seen.
And finally, to maximise every dollar, the military is procuring smaller quantities of systems and components.
Barclay admitted to lawmakers that the military “is taking risks in its near-term modernization program,” because it tries to balance that with readiness and modernization.
INDUSTRIAL BASE
Lawmakers expressed their concern that the organic industrial base would stagnate and lose workers due to the Army procuring smaller quantities of materiel, divesting systems and never buying new systems.
Addressing their concerns, Maj. Gen. Michael E. Williamson, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the military for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, enumerated steps the military is taking as lawmakers tighten the purse strings.
Foreign military sales could keep one of the vital assembly lines running and talented professionals employed, he said, but with a purpose to only go to date.
“Not all sales come through,” Williamson said, adding foreign sales can every now and then be unpredictable.
Acquisition reform is another area where improvements may well be made, he said, stating that there are too many statutes and rules of where money can or cannot go and that adds to overhead costs related to running facilities in the industrial base.
Army Materiel Command and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the military for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, are actually locating greater efficiencies, identifying “cost drivers,” determining overhead and searching out opportunities, Williamson said.
Another solution to save costs, while procuring in less quantities, he said, can be to team up with other agencies, not only sister services. To illustrate, he said the military might have a look at partnering with police and other security forces you acquire body armor. Buying in quantity would drive down costs of the research in addition to the procurement. Also, with extra cash in play, competition among vendors can be much more likely.
Something else that may benefit the military in addition to the economic base, he said can be using more multi-year programs. Reckoning on how the contracts are worded, multi-year might allow savings by creating leverage in negotiations.
Multi-year programs, needless to say, would want a predictable funding stream, that is something that hasn’t been too predictable lately.
WEAPONS SYSTEMS
Barclay said the military remains committed to continued funding of its mission-critical systems similar to the Paladin Integrated Management System, double-V-hull Strykers, Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.
He added that despite “a rocky start, [the Paladin Integrated Management System] is performing alright now.”
If WIN-T is so important, why has the military lowered funding for it and the Joint Tactical Radio System’s Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit, asked a lawmaker.
Williamson replied that both WIN-T and HMS radio are critical to the warfighter but due to the declining budget, the military has accepted some risk, “but not excessive risk.”
Lower funding of these systems, he said, will mean fewer coming off the production lines, but those who do can be fielded first to the “most critical units” which might be or could deploy.
Besides slowing production, he said some capability within the networks are being delayed, resembling the WIN-T Increment 3 package which might have had enhanced bandwidth capability.
With respect to the networks, Barclay added that low funding is pushing the dates of procurements and deliveries to the precise, however the Army is “not backing faraway from its commitment to the network and its overall importance.”
One lawmaker commented that with the removal of the Apache helicopters from the National Guard, the Reserve Component is losing its teeth.
Barclay replied that active-component Apaches will still be “aligned with the National Guard” and its combat aviation brigades.
Why would the Guard’s combat aviation brigades be called “combat” aviation brigades if the Apaches are being removed, the lawmaker pressed?
Black Hawk and Chinook helicopters, which the Guard has in its fleet, can and do perform combat missions, Barclay replied, adding that the choice to divest all of its Kiowa helicopters and take away Apaches from the Guard was done in consultation and after much analysis and that it’s the “best shall we do given the dollar amount given.”
Related Topic Tags