Chapter 17

CONVENTIONAL FORCES

Conventional forces form the bulk of the nation's armed forces. They consist of combat and support elements from all four military Services, excluding units dedicated to special operations and nuclear deterrence. The major categories of conventional forces are land, naval, aviation, and mobility forces. Land forces are contributed by the Army and Marine Corps. These forces, employing both ground weaponry and rotary-wing aircraft, provide capabilities to conduct sustained combat operations on land, as well as power projection and forcible-entry operations. Naval forces constitute the sea-based component of the nation's defenses. These forces are used extensively to provide overseas presence, particularly as part of aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups with embarked marines. Naval forces also provide critical support to joint operations. Aviation forces are composed of combat and support aircraft employed by the various Services. Forward-deployed elements of these forces provide overseas presence and the capability to respond quickly to crises. Aviation forces, including both tactical aircraft and long-range bombers, are capable of a wide range of independent action; they also play an integral role in joint operations. Mobility forces consist of airlift and sealift forces, as well as land- and sea-based prepositioned materiel. These forces move troops and equipment to and from operating locations and help sustain U.S. force deployments over time.

The Bottom-Up Review (BUR) defined the missions and capabilities required of the nation's conventional forces to meet current and projected threats. The FY 1998 President's Budget and associated Future Years Defense Program (FYDPP) provide the resources needed to sustain the BUR force structure in both the near and far terms. This chapter describes the missions that U.S. conventional forces must perform, the capabilities needed to execute those missions, and the investments in readiness and equipment modernization vital to maintaining those capabilities.

MISSIONS

As dictated by the National Military Strategy, U.S. conventional forces must perform a broad spectrum of missions. These range from prosecuting major regional conflicts to providing humanitarian assistance. The following paragraphs describe these missions in greater detail.

Major Regional Conflicts

The BUR identified the capabilities and force structure needed to execute the most challenging warfighting scenario that the United States would likely confront - two major regional conflicts occurring nearly simultaneously. Earlier chapters of this report reviewed the capabilities and force structure associated with the two-major regional conflict requirement, as well as with overseas presence.

Executing a major regional conflict would impose heavy demands on U.S. conventional forces:

• Phase I - Halting the Invasion. All elements of the conventional force structure would make critical contributions during this phase. Forward-deployed ground, sea, and air units, along with long-range bombers, would be the first forces to engage the enemy. Their primary objectives would be to halt the enemy's advance, establish air superiority, cut enemy lines of communication, and minimize territorial losses during the critical early days of a conflict. Other units would deploy rapidly from the United States and draw on equipment prepositioned for them in the theater.
• Phase II - Force Buildup. Heavy ground elements and additional sea and air power would arrive during this phase. Forces available in the theater, particularly those capable of deep attack, would prevent the enemy from strengthening his position and, if the situation dictated, would continue combat operations to reduce the enemy's ability to withstand a counteroffensive. Airlift and sealift would play a vital role during this phase in delivering the combat and support forces needed to conduct the counteroffensive.
• Phase III - Counteroffensive. Once sufficient forces (including logistical support) were in place, the operation would shift to the attack. Depending on the circumstances, an appropriate combination of land, sea, air, and amphibious assault forces would engage the enemy to reverse his gains and secure victory on terms acceptable to the United States and its allies.
• Phase IV - Ensuring Postwar Stability. Once victory had been achieved, some forces would remain in the theater to provide assistance to allies, deter further aggression, and participate in subsequent operations.

In the case of a second major regional conflict, additional forces would deploy rapidly from the United States, while selected combat elements from the first conflict would swing into the second theater with the goal of halting the invasion. Subsequent phases of the second operation would parallel the phases outlined above. U.S. forces, however, are not sized to prosecute two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts while also sustaining an active involvement in other conflict operations and maintaining overseas presence. Consequently, in order to prosecute two major regional conflicts, the United States would have to disengage from any sizable peace enforcement or intervention operations and forgo other overseas presence missions in order to ensure that the requisite forces were available.

Overseas Presence

The BUR identified a continuing need to deploy U.S. forces routinely abroad. Forward deployments ensure that forces are ready to fight, are familiar with the regions in which combat operations might take place, and can operate in combination with other U.S. or allied forces. Perhaps more important, deployed forces provide the United States' first response to crises as well as a framework for introducing follow-on forces. While this presence posture exacts a toll on people and equipment, and requires significant resources, it allows American forces to deter aggression, through immediate visibility, and respond to crises within days, if not hours.

Historically, forward deployments have been concentrated in Europe, the Pacific, and Southwest Asia. Despite reductions in the size of these deployments relative to Cold War levels, recent crises have dictated a similar deployment pattern, with emphasis shifted among the three theaters, but with each still covered by the U.S. presence umbrella. These deployments currently include:

• Pacific - Two Army infantry divisions (one light and one heavy), one Marine expeditionary force, three Air Force fighter wing equivalents, one Navy carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group.
• Europe - Forward elements of one Army armor and one Army mechanized infantry division, two Air Force fighter wing equivalents, one carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group.
• Southwest Asia - One Air Force fighter wing equivalent, one carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group.

Beyond the routine deployments discussed above, forces from all four Services carry out periodic deployments in forward locations, as needs arise. These deployments, involving both active and reserve component units, contribute substantially to overseas presence, as does the prepositioning of U.S. equipment and materiel abroad. The following chart shows the current location of major U.S. conventional force elements.

In most cases, the force structure necessary to prosecute the two-major regional conflict scenario is also sufficient to provide overseas presence. Naval forces are an exception, however. The combination of operating and personnel rotation requirements, the lack of permanent overseas homeports, and the transit times and distances involved dictate force levels for selected elements greater than those needed for major regional conflicts alone. Thus, the size of naval forces reflects the demands both of the two-major regional conflict requirement and of forward deployments.

To take the carrier force as an example: Prosecuting two major regional conflicts would require up to 10 aircraft carriers. The force is sized, however, at 11 active carriers plus one operational reserve carrier capable of undertaking limited deployments. This 12-carrier force meets peacetime needs and satisfies wartime requirements, allowing the Navy to deploy a carrier battle group on a nearly continuous basis to each of the three major theaters - the Pacific, Europe, and Southwest Asia. Other naval force elements - including amphibious ships, attack submarines, surface combatants, and Marine Corps forces - likewise are sized to reflect the dual requirements of peacetime presence and warfighting.

Other Military Operations

American leadership remains crucial in the post-Cold war era. While threats to vital national interests are now less clear and perhaps less acute, the world continues to pose dangers to which the United States must be prepared to respond. Civil and ethnic conflicts, if not contained, can threaten regional stability. A wide variety of missions ranging from limited counterdrug operations to large-scale peace operations, such as the mission undertaken in Bosnia, have helped to maintain stability throughout the world. Although UN peacekeeping forces have declined sharply in size, from about 69,000 troops in 1995 to roughly 26,000 at the end of 1996, these forces continue to provide a mechanism for enhancing regional stability.

In FY 1996, two crises demanded continuous attention. Ethnic strife in the Balkans necessitated one of the largest peacetime operations conducted since World War II, while tensions in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula resulted in deployments of U.S. troops to the region, as well as preemptive cruise missile strikes against Iraqi air defense systems.

Multiple missions in the new Balkan republics contributed to the peace process and the free elections in Bosnia in September 1996. Operations in support of this goal included Able Sentry, Provide Promise, Sharp Guard, and Joint Endeavor. Moreover, as a result of the 1995 Dayton accord, more than 20,000 U.S. troops were deployed with the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR). A forward-deployed Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) served as the designated IFOR in-theater reserve.

In Iraq, operations included enforcement of the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraqi territory. In September 1996, Iraq challenged the multinational forces monitoring the southern zone, firing missiles at U.S. aircraft. In Operation Desert Strike, Navy Tomahawk missiles and conventional air-launched cruise missiles fired from Air Force B-52 bombers disabled selected Iraqi air defense forces. Also in response to the Iraqi action, the southern no-fly zone was expanded to the 33rd parallel and additional U.S. troops were deployed to the region.

The United States carried out a number of humanitarian and disaster relief operations in 1996, delivering aid to needy populations at home and abroad. Examples include Operation Provide Comfort, supporting the Iraqi Kurds, and Operation Southern Watch, aiding 10,000 people in southern Iraq. Closer to home, U.S. forces provided assistance in response to natural disasters, such as Hurricane Fran on the U.S. east coast.

Many of the skills needed for crisis-response operations reside in the reserve components. Reserve units therefore play a key role in these operations, participating voluntarily in most instances. On only three occasions in recent years - the Gulf War and the Haitian and Bosnian deployments - was presidential Selected Reserve call-up authority invoked. Reserve volunteers have supported numerous recent operations, including Southern Watch, Provide Comfort, and Vigilant Sentinel in Iraq and the Persian Gulf; the Sinai peacekeeping force separating Israel and Egypt; Operations Provide Hope, Deny Flight, Sharp Guard, Able Sentry, and Joint Endeavor in southern Europe; and counterdrug operations in the Caribbean.

The fight against drugs continues in the United States and abroad. Active, reserve, and National Guard forces have provided training and intelligence support to law enforcement agencies. DoD continues to assist host nations in their battle against the production and trafficking of drugs, including the provision of intelligence support to enhance interdiction capabilities. During FY 1995 and FY 1996, South American air forces, aided by U.S. intelligence, interdicted more than 35 drug-smuggling aircraft. Support to U.S. embassies in that region likewise was integral in the arrest of the leaders of the Cali Mafia. DoD also has taken aggressive steps to assist Mexico in drug interdiction operations. In October 1995, Secretary Perry and Mexican Defense Minister Cervantez established a bilateral working group to address counterdrug issues, among other mutual defense concerns. This working group developed a comprehensive initiative for enhancing Mexico's drug interdiction capability.

THREATS

Each potential regional aggressor possesses a wide range of technological capabilities that could pose significant dangers to U.S. military operations. These capabilities, which are expanding as a result of the worldwide proliferation of modern military technology, include the increasingly capable air-, sea-, and land-based weapons discussed below. Because U.S. strategy demands minimal casualties, American forces must maintain a substantial advantage over potential adversaries capable of employing these weapon systems.

Aviation Threats

Intelligence estimates project potential regional aggressors as having the capability to field numerous combat aircraft, as well as ground and naval forces with significant surface-to-air weapons capability. Examples of systems that could pose increasing challenges to U.S. operations include advanced airborne electronic equipment, modern fighter aircraft, and dense and highly capable integrated air defenses.

New radar, electronic countermeasures, weapons, and other equipment can be added to existing aircraft at a much lower cost than buying new aircraft. Highly capable weapons, such as the Russian-made AA-11 or Israeli-made Python 4 short-range missile and the French-made Mica medium-range missile, could significantly increase the ability of foreign air forces to challenge U.S. aircraft.

One example of an advanced fighter aircraft developed elsewhere is the French Rafale, a single-seat fighter that combines good maneuverability with a reduced radar cross section and infrared signature. The Rafale is planned to achieve initial operational capability in 2002 in the French navy and could be available for sale to potential adversaries early in the next century.

New, integrated air defense systems have advanced electronic features that are difficult to counter. These systems could pose a serious challenge to the quick and successful prosecution of an air campaign. Several potential adversaries have chosen to emphasize acquisition of ground-based air defenses as the highest-leverage method of countering U.S. air power.

Maritime Threats

Potential threats to U.S. forces conducting operations in littoral areas include antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs), naval mines, and diesel-electric submarines.

Antiship cruise missiles - launched from the air, land, or sea - are increasingly available throughout the world. The limited time available to react to them, once airborne, could pose difficulties for existing antiair defenses, particularly in littoral operations, where naval forces may be patrolling very close to the shore. A number of countries in regions vital to American interests, including the Persian Gulf, now possess advanced ASCMs.

Naval mines provide a potentially effective way to delay, or even deny, accomplishment of U.S. maritime objectives. These weapons are generally inexpensive, easy to store and conceal, and rapidly deployable. They range in type and capability from primitive moored contact mines to sophisticated bottom mines, which are difficult to detect and counter and are triggered by acoustic and/or magnetic signatures of passing ships. During the Gulf War, Iraq employed a number of mines of varying types successfully enough to damage two ships seriously and complicate plans for an amphibious landing. Most littoral nations possess at least a rudimentary mine capability, raising the possibility of a mine threat in any contingency.

Diesel-electric submarines constitute a growing threat, and one that can be difficult to detect and counter in shallow water. These submarines could disrupt shipping and shut down vital sea-lanes in littoral areas. Many navies now operate diesel subs, and additional countries could well follow suit.

Ground Threats

Ground threats consist of standing armies of foreign powers, armed with mixes of old and modern weapon systems. Many nations, including members of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact alliance, are selling weapons on the international market. Thus, U.S. forces could encounter a wide variety of systems in combat, including possibly some originally produced in the United States.

Older tank systems that U.S. forces might face include Soviet T-55s and T-62s, as well as early-generation T-72s; newer systems include later-generation Soviet T-72s with reactive armor and T-80(U)s with applique armor. Older attack helicopters that potential adversaries might employ include Soviet MI-8/17 HIPs and German BO-105s; newer systems include Soviet MI-24/25 Hinds and Ka-50 Hokums, and upgraded French SA-342 Gazelles.

New weapon technologies will add more advanced capabilities to threat forces. Examples include tank upgrades (e.g., day and night optics, active defense systems that redirect or destroy incoming projectiles), advanced antitank guided missiles capable of top attacks against tank turrets, increasingly accurate tactical ballistic missiles, and advanced artillery munitions.

Although irregular forces will continue to be unable to match the combat power of heavy U.S. weaponry, these forces could still pose difficult challenges to U.S. forces. The proliferation of modern light arms, a fighting style that could necessitate operations in dense urban environments, and the ability of indigenous forces to submerge themselves within civil populations could negate some of the advantages of U.S. heavy weaponry.

Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons

Nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons delivered by theater ballistic missiles or other means threaten U.S. security interests and U.S. military forces deployed in regions throughout the world. More than 20 countries possess or are developing NBC weapons, and more than 20 nations have theater ballistic missiles. Since 1980, ballistic missiles have been used in six regional conflicts. The threatened use of NBC weapons not only affects the psychological and political aspects of any military campaign, but also poses a significant technological challenge in countering them.

FORCE STRUCTURE

The force levels established by the BUR for key conventional force elements are discussed in the paragraphs below.

Aviation Forces

Aviation forces - composed of fighter/attack, conventional bomber, and specialized aircraft - offer the advantages of rapid deployability, diversity, and flexibility. Specifically, fighter/attack forces provide air superiority and strike warfare capability on short notice from land and sea; conventional bombers provide a long-range capability to deliver general-purpose bombs, cluster munitions, or precision munitions against point and area targets; and specialized forces conduct support operations such as airborne early warning and control, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, surveillance, and combat rescue. The key operational advantage of aviation forces is their ability to respond rapidly to crises; their diversity and flexibility are a result of the differing roles and missions of the Services that operate them.

Beyond the aircraft addressed here, the aviation force structure includes a variety of transport planes, aerial-refueling aircraft, and helicopters. Details on these forces are provided in the sections on mobility and land forces.

FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT

Air Force, Navy, and Marine combat aircraft provide versatile striking power for employment worldwide on short notice. The Air Force is capable of deploying seven to eight fighter wing equivalents into a theater as an initial response to a major regional conflict, with additional wings following within the first month. Where the local infrastructure and political conditions permit, these forces can operate directly from airfields within the theater. Navy and Marine air wings also provide a source of air power that can rapidly be employed in distant trouble spots; furthermore, these forces are capable of conducting prolonged operations independent of access to regional air bases. At present, the Navy and Marine Corps cooperatively maintain continuous overseas deployments of about three carrier air wings afloat and elements of four Marine wings ashore.

During FY 1998, the aviation force structure will include 20 Air Force fighter wing equivalents, 11 Navy carrier air wings, and four Marine air wings. Air Force wings are counted in terms of fighter wing equivalents (FWE), with each FWE including 72 combat aircraft; relative to the notional 72-aircraft FWE, the size of operational wings varies according to each wing's mission. Navy carrier wings include more than 50 fighter/attack aircraft, while Marine wings consist of a variety of task-organized aircraft. Tables 10 through 12 compare the composition of Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps air wings at the end of FY 1998.

The structure of the Navy's basic carrier air wing has been evolving throughout the 1990s as A-6s have been retired from the force and a mix of F/A-18 C/Ds and modified versions of F-14 fighters have succeeded them. The number of fighter/attack aircraft in each wing has declined to 50 from the previous level of about 56. The smaller wings are more flexible because they operate a greater percentage of multirole aircraft, thus increasing the average number of precision strike-capable aircraft from 36 to 50 per wing.

The Marine Corps will maintain four air wings - three active and one reserve -throughout the program period. In addition to the single-seat F/A-18 (which is identical to Navy models), the Marine Corps employs the two-seat F/A-18D as a multirole fighter, and also as a reconnaissance, forward air control, and tactical air control system for operations at night and in adverse weather. The AV-8B, while capable of multiple missions, is used primarily in the close air support role.

Table 10 Composition of Air Force Wings (Fighter/Attack Aircraft)
Aircraft Type	Mission	Active FWEs	Reserve FWEs	Total FWEs
F-15A/B/C/D	Air superiority	3.5	0.6	4.1
F-15E	Multirolea	1.8	-	1.8
F-16C/D	Multiroleb	6.2	5.2	11.4
F-117	Attack	0.5	-	0.5
A-10	Close air support	1.0	1.2	2.2
Total		13.0	7.0	20.0
Note: FWE quantities are based on the primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI).  PMAI denotes aircraft authorized to combat units for the performance of the units' basic missions; it excludes aircraft maintained for other purposes, such as training, testing, attrition replacements, and reconstitution reserves. a Oriented primarily to the air-to-ground role, but also can be used in air-to-air operations. b Can be used in the air-to-air or air-to-ground role.

Table 11 Composition of Carrier Air Wings (Fighter/Attack Aircraft)
Wing Type	Aircraft Type (PMAI per Wing)	Number of Air Wings
		FY 1995	FY 1996	FY 1997	FY 1998
Power Projection	F-14 (20), F/A-18 (24), A-6 (16)	6	3	-	-
Littoral	F-14 (14), F/A-18 (36)a	4	7	10	10
Reserve	F-14 (14), F/A-18 (36)	1b	1	1	1
Total Navy Combat Aircraft (PMAI)c		574	544	490	490
a Two air wings will maintain a 12-aircraft F-14 squadron in place of a third F/A-18 squadron until those squadrons transition to the F/A-18E in 2001 and 2002. b The reserve air wing includes 36 PMAI F/A-18s, operated by two Navy Reserve squadrons (24 aircraft) and one Marine Reserve squadron (12 aircraft). c Total PMAI shown consists only of Navy F-14s, F/A-18s, and A-6s. The Marine Corps will provide sufficient active F/A-18 squadrons to ensure 36 F/A-18s per deployed carrier air wing. (Actual numbers based on operating tempo requirements of each Service as determined by the Department of the Navy Tactical Aircraft Consolidation Plan.)

Table 12 Composition of Marine Air Wings (Fighter/Attack Aircraft)
Aircraft Type	Mission	Active PMAI (Squadrons)	Reserve PMAI (Squadrons)	Total PMAI (Squadrons)
F/A-18 A/C	Multirole	96 (8)	48 (4)	144 (12)
F/A-18D	Multirole	72 (6)	0	72 (6)
AV-8B	Close air support	140 (7)	0	140 (7)
Total				356 (25)

CONVENTIONAL BOMBERS

In a major regional conflict, bombers would deliver large quantities of unguided general-purpose bombs and cluster munitions against area targets, such as ground units, airfields, and rail yards. Bomber forces also would play a key role in delivering precision-guided munitions (including cruise missiles) against point targets, such as command and control facilities and air defense sites. The more advanced munitions now entering the inventory or in development will enable bombers to bring a wider range of targets under attack, while taking better advantage of the bombers' large payload capacity. The long-range capability provided by bombers could make them the first major U.S. weapon system on the scene in a rapidly developing crisis, particularly in regions where the United States does not routinely maintain forces. Here, too, their ability to have an immediate impact on a conflict by slowing the advance of enemy forces, suppressing enemy air defenses, and inflicting massive damage on an enemy's strategic infrastructure will increase dramatically over the next 10 years as increasingly capable munitions become available for employment by bombers.

At present, the Department has a total inventory of 94 B-52s, 95 B-1s, and 13 B-2s. Of these, 44 B-52s and 48 B-1s are designated primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI), meaning that they are fully funded in terms of operations and maintenance, load crews, and spare parts. All of the B-52s and B-1s in the inventory, including those in attrition reserve, will be kept in flyable condition and will receive planned modifications. The Department plans to reduce the B-52 inventory to 71 aircraft (44 PMAI) in FY 1998. B-1 PMAI will rise to 70 by 2001, when modern weapons (discussed in detail subsequently) - such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Standoff Weapon, Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser, and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - are available to enhance the bombers' effectiveness in conventional operations.

SPECIALIZED AVIATION FORCES

Specialized aviation forces have taken on added importance in the post-Cold War era. These forces contribute to all phases of military operations. Two of their most important missions are suppression of enemy air defenses and aerial reconnaissance and surveillance. Air defense suppression forces locate and neutralize enemy air defenses. Airborne reconnaissance and surveillance forces are a primary source of information on enemy air and surface forces and installations. They bridge the gap in coverage between ground- and satellite-based surveillance systems and the targeting systems on combat aircraft. Airborne reconnaissance systems fall into two categories: standoff systems, which operate outside the range of enemy air defenses; and penetrating systems, which are employed within enemy air defense range. Table 13 summarizes the force levels programmed for the end of FY 1998.

Table 13 Specialized Aviation Forces
Electronic Warfare and Air Defense Suppression     EA-6B	104
Airborne Reconnaissance and Surveillance Systems   Standoff     E-2Ca     E-3a     E-8b     U-2b     RC-135 V/Wc     EP-3c     ES-3c     RC-12c	62 28 8 29 12 12 16 42
Penetratingb     F-14 (TARPS)     F-16 (TARS)     F/A-18D (ATARS)     RC-7 ARL     Pioneer UAV Systems     MAE (Predator) UAV Systems     Tactical (Outrider) UAV Systems	47 24 4 6 9 8 6
Note: Reflects PMAI totals. a Performs airspace surveillance, early warning, and fighter control. b Performs ground reconnaissance. c Conducts signals intelligence.

Naval Forces

U.S. naval forces include aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, attack submarines, surface combatants, mine warfare ships, maritime patrol aircraft, and ballistic-missile submarines (discussed in the Strategic Nuclear Forces chapter). Also included in the naval force structure are ships that perform support and logistics functions. By the end of FY 1998, the naval force will number 346 ships (see Table 14).

Table 14 Naval Force Levels
Ballistic Missile Submarines	18
Aircraft Carriers     CV     CVN	2/1 9
Attack Submarines     Pre-SSN-688 class     SSN-688/SSN-21 class	11 55
Surface Combatants     Aegis     Non-Aegis	51 65/10
Amphibious Ships     Amphibious Assault Ships     Other	11 30/2
Mine Warfare Ships	11/5
Logistics Force Ships/Support Force	65
Total Battle Force Ships	346
Selected Naval Aircraft     Maritime Patrol Aircraft Squadrons     LAMPS Helicopter Squadrons	12/8 12/2
NOTE: Entries with two numbers separated by a slash give active and reserve force counts.

This overall force structure - and each of its major elements - remains consistent with the projections derived in the Bottom-Up Review. For wartime operations, the BUR identified an FY 1999 objective for 10 aircraft carriers and 45 attack submarines as part of an overall force goal of 346 ships. As mentioned earlier, the BUR also reaffirmed the need for naval forces to conduct routine peacetime deployments in forward areas. As a result of this forward presence requirement, the 12-carrier force includes one additional active aircraft carrier, beyond the wartime requirement, plus an operational reserve carrier to support training and undertake limited deployments, if required. The BUR also determined that a force of 45 to 55 attack submarines is needed to meet the dual demands of peacetime and wartime operations.

The naval presence policy established by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called tethered presence, envisions a nearly continuous presence of naval forces in each of three major theaters - the Mediterranean, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. In response, the Navy deploys a carrier battle group (CVBG) and an amphibious ready group (ARG) on a nearly continuous basis in each theater. Each CVBG consists of a carrier, its air wing, and various escorts, while each ARG comprises a large-deck amphibious assault ship, a transport dock ship, a dock landing ship, and an embarked Marine expeditionary unit (special operations capable), or MEUMarine Expeditionary UnitMEU/SOC. Consistent with the naval presence policy, roughly three CVBGs and three ARGs are maintained continuously on patrol in forward regions. During periods when neither a CVBG nor an ARG is present in a theater, one of these forces is located within a few days' transit time of the region.

Maintaining a continuous CVBG and ARG presence in each of three theaters would require a force of 14 carriers and 13 ARGs. Recent analyses show that tethering allows the accomplishment of the forward presence mission with 11 active carriers, about 100 active surface combatants, and nine ARGs. To carry out training/reserve missions and occasional forward deployments, sustain warfighting requirements for up to 10 CVBGs for two major regional conflicts, and provide amphibious shipping capable of lifting the equivalent of 2.5 Marine expeditionary brigades (MEBs), the Department needs one operational reserve carrier, 20-25 active surface combatants, and three ARGs in addition to the forces required for forward presence. Thus, total naval forces in these categories will consist of 12 carriers, 123 active surface combatants, and 12 ARGs in FY 2003.

The following sections describe in greater detail each of the major naval force elements.

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Aircraft carriers provide a forward base for maritime air operations, as well as support facilities for joint force commanders. Operating independent of land-basing restrictions, carriers support joint forces by conducting attack, surveillance, air defense, and electronic warfare missions against targets at sea, in the air, or ashore. Beyond their combat roles, aircraft carriers continue to be a mainstay in quelling crises and in supporting peacekeeping operations.

The FY 1998 budget sustains the current force of 11 active carriers and one operational reserve/training carrier. At the end of FY 1998, the force will consist of nine nuclear-powered carriers - eight vessels of the CVN-68 Nimitz class and the Enterprise (CVN-65) - and three conventionally-powered ships.

AMPHIBIOUS FORCES

Naval expeditionary forces with embarked marines provide joint capabilities for presence in forward areas and for rapid responses to crises. These forces are essential for over-the-horizon, high-speed force projection operations. As noted earlier, amphibious ready groups constitute a responsive, forward-deployed component of naval expeditionary forces.

The FY 1998 budget and FYDP maintain 12 ARGs, capable of supporting three forward-deployed MEU/SOCs in peacetime and lifting the equivalent of two-and-a-half MEBs in wartime. By FY 2003, the amphibious force will consist of 43 active and two reserve ships. Of the active ships, 41 will be amphibious lift ships and two will serve as command vessels.

ATTACK SUBMARINES

Attack submarines (SSNs) provide important capabilities for conducting military operations in forward regions. They gather covert surveillance data, communicate tactical information, control the surface and undersea battlespace, conduct strikes against ground and naval targets, and deliver special operations forces ashore. The increased importance of littoral operations has shifted the mission emphasis for SSNs from open-ocean antisubmarine warfare (ASW) and surveillance to power projection, support of special operations forces, and ASW in littoral regions. The SSN force will continue its post-Cold War drawdown over the FYDP period, declining from 66 submarines at the end of FY 1998 to 52 by FY 2003.

SURFACE COMBATANTS

The surface combatant force consists of cruisers and destroyers equipped with standoff weapons, antiair missiles, guns, and antisubmarine torpedoes, as well as frigates employing a variety of combat systems. Deployed in various mixes, these ships provide a worldwide deep-strike capability, protect carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups, and conduct combat and presence missions in areas where full battle groups may not be available. Reflecting the high pace of post-Cold War operations, the FY 1998 budget and associated FYDP provide for an increase in the number of active surface combatants from 116 in FY 1998 to 123 in FY 2003.

COMBAT LOGISTICS FORCES

Combat logistics forces (CLF) replenish the stocks of ships operating in forward areas. They provide fuel, food, spare parts, and ordnance to seaborne vessels, as well as perform numerous other functions, including salvage, towing, repair, maintenance, diving, and firefighting. The CLF force includes station ships to perform in-theater operations and shuttle ships to ferry material from shore bases. The Navy recently revised the mix of Military Sealift Command (MSC) and active Navy ships in the CLF fleet. The station-ship forces consist primarily of the AOE-1 class and new AOE-6 class of fast combat support ships. The shuttle-ship force consists of the MSC's civilian-manned fleet of oilers, dry stores, and ammunition ships (TAOs, TAFSs, and TAEs). The FY 1998 budget and FYDP provide for a total of 41 CLF ships - 13 station ships and 28 shuttle ships - through FY 2003.

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

The maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) force, consisting of P-3C aircraft, supports naval task groups at sea by conducting antisurface, antisubmarine, surveillance, and mining operations. The P-3C force is being restructured to reflect the transition from open-ocean missions to littoral warfare. At the end of FY 1998, there will be 241 P-3 aircraft in the inventory.

LIGHT AIRBORNE MULTIPURPOSE SYSTEM HELICOPTERS

The Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) MK III system combines the SH-60B helicopter with a computer-integrated shipboard system to provide an airborne platform for deployment of sonobuoys, torpedoes, and antiship missiles and processing of magnetic anomaly detector sensor information. LAMPS also provides an elevated platform for radar and electronic support measures. Embarked, fully integrated SH-60B LAMPS MK III helicopters provide critical capabilities for both antisubmarine and antiship missions. At the end of FY 1998, there will be 169 SH-60B and 13 SH-2G aircraft in the inventory.

Land Forces

The Army and Marine Corps provide unique and complementary capabilities for conducting military missions. The Army provides forces for sustained combat operations on land, as well as for power projection and forcible-entry operations. The Marine Corps, as part of the nation's naval forces, provides expeditionary forces to project combat power ashore in support of naval campaigns or in conjunction with Army and Air Force units. These diverse capabilities give military commanders a range of options for conducting ground missions. Operationally, land forces are assigned to a joint force commander, who employs them in close coordination with aviation and naval forces.

ARMY

The Army maintains heavy and light forces, based both in the United States and abroad. Light forces - airborne, air assault, and light infantry divisions - are tailored for forcible-entry operations and for operations on restricted terrain, like mountains, jungles, and urban areas. Heavy forces - armored and mechanized divisions equipped with Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Apache attack helicopters, and the Paladin field artillery system - are trained and equipped for operations against armies employing modern tanks and armored fighting vehicles. Light and heavy forces can operate independently or in combination, providing the mix of combat power needed for specific contingencies. Depending on the geographic location of both the forces and the crisis, Army forces stationed overseas provide either an initial or an additional source of combat power for regional deployments. For major conflicts, the Army can dispatch a U.S.-based contingency force of up to seven divisions plus support elements to any region of the world. Table 15 shows the major elements of the Army force structure programmed for the end of FY 1998.

MARINE CORPS

The Marine Corps maintains forces designed for sea-based, self-sustained power projection and forcible entry ashore. Marine units are employed as part of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces consisting of four elements: command, ground combat, air combat, and combat service support. The Marine Corps has three Marine expeditionary forces (MEFs), home-based in California (I MEF), North Carolina (II MEF), and Okinawa (III MEF). Each MEF is composed of a division, an air wing, and a force service support group. Marine expeditionary units, consisting of about 2,000 Marines, are forward deployed continuously in or near regions of vital U.S. interest. These forces provide a swift and effective means of responding to fast-breaking crises and can remain on station for indefinite periods of time, ready to intervene or take action if needed. Table 16 summarizes the Marine force structure programmed for the end of FY 1998.

Table 15 Army Force Structure and End-Strength
Active Component     Divisions     Separate brigades and armored cavalry regiments     End-strengtha	10 3 495,000
Army National Guard     Divisions     Separate brigades and armored cavalry regimentsb     End-strengtha	8 18 366,500
Army Reserve End-Strength	208,000
a Includes all functional areas of combat, combat support, and combat service support. b Fifteen will be enhanced readiness brigades.

Table 16 Marine Corps Force Structure and End-Strength
Active Component     Divisions     Wings     Force service support groups     End-strength	3 3 3 174,000
Reserve Component     Division     Wing     Force service support group     End-strength	1 1 1 42,000

Mobility Forces

Mobility forces - airlift, sealift, and land- and sea-based prepositioning - move military personnel and material to and from operating locations worldwide. These forces include transport aircraft, cargo ships, and ground transportation systems operated both by the military and by commercial carriers. In relying on commercial resources to augment military mobility systems, the Department maximizes the efficiency with which it can deploy and support forces abroad, while avoiding the prohibitive cost of maintaining military systems that duplicate capabilities readily attainable from the civil sector.

Airlift - the most rapidly deployable mobility component - contributes to the movement of both troops and materiel. Often employed in conjunction with prepositioning, it delivers the forces needed in the critical early days of a combat operation. Sealift delivers the vast majority of follow-on equipment, as well as the bulk of cargo needed to sustain deployed forces over time.

As discussed in an earlier section of this report, the Department conducted two major reviews in recent years to determine the mix of mobility forces needed for post-Cold War operations. Requirements for strategic mobility - the movement of resources between theaters - were defined in the 1995 Mobility Requirements Study Bottom-Up Review Update, or MRS BURU. A companion study, the 1996 Intratheater Lift Analysis, identified transportation requirements within theaters. The mobility objectives identified in these studies will guide force structure and investment decisions in the years ahead.

AIRLIFT FORCES

Military airlift forces provide a range of capabilities not available from civil aircraft. Features unique to military transport aircraft include the ability to airdrop cargo or personnel; to unload cargo rapidly, even at austere airfields lacking materiel-handling equipment; and to carry outsize loads, such as Patriot missile launchers or helicopters. Of the cargo that would have to be airlifted in the early stages of a conflict, about half could not be accommodated by even the largest U.S. commercial cargo aircraft and would have to be transported by military air. The military airlift fleet consists of long-range C-17, C-141, KC-10, and C-5 transports and shorter-range C-130 aircraft (see Table 17 for FY 1998 inventories). These aircraft are operated by both active and reserve component squadrons.

Commercial aircraft augment military airlift forces in moving troops and standard-sized cargo. Through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program DoD gains access to commercial passenger and cargo planes in times of crisis. In return for their participation in CRAF, carriers are given preference for DoD's peacetime passenger and cargo business. CRAF forces are mobilized in three stages. Calling up Stage I aircraft provides DoD with access to about 9 percent of the passenger capacity in the long-range U.S. commercial fleet and 15 percent of the cargo capacity. With the addition of Stage II aircraft, those figures rise to 29 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Aircraft from Stage III bring the CRAF contribution, as a share of total U.S. long-range commercial aircraft capacity, to 59 percent for passengers and 75 percent for cargo.

AERIAL-REFUELING FORCES

Aerial-refueling, or tanker, forces extend the range of airlift and combat aircraft by refueling these planes in flight. The long-range tanker force consists of KC-135 and KC-10 Air Force aircraft. In addition to operating in the tanker role, both the KC-135 and KC-10 can be employed as passenger and cargo transports, with the KC-10 possessing a significant capability to perform tanker and airlift missions simultaneously.

PREPOSITIONING PROGRAMS

The United States stores a variety of combat equipment and supplies at selected locations abroad. These stocks, maintained ashore and afloat, dramatically reduce both the time required to deploy forces and the number of airlift sorties needed to move them. To cite just one example: Moving a heavy Army brigade with its 20,000 tons of equipment from the United States to an overseas location would take 20 to 30 days using a combination of airlift and sealift. By prepositioning the bulk of the brigade's equipment abroad, the intertheater transport requirement drops to 5,000 tons, enabling the brigade to be deployed in a week using airlift exclusively. Deploying a brigade in this manner would require only a portion of the Department's total airlift fleet, allowing the remainder to be available for other missions.

Land- and sea-based prepositioning provide complementary capabilities for supporting military operations. Land-based prepositioning enhances crisis responsiveness in specific theaters and is the most economical way of maintaining material abroad. Afloat prepositioning, while more expensive, provides the flexibility to relocate stocks quickly within and between theaters, as particular operations require.

LAND-BASED PREPOSITIONING

Land-based prepositioning programs are maintained in Europe, Southwest Asia, and the Pacific region. In Europe, the Army will stockpile equipment for three heavy brigades, down from nine sets prepositioned during the Cold War. Two brigade sets will remain in Central Europe, with a third set in Italy. The Marine Corps stores equipment and 30 days of supplies for a brigade-sized MAGTF in Norway. In addition, the Air Force is consolidating 12 air base support sets - temporary shelters for early-arriving air base personnel - at a site in Luxembourg.

In Southwest Asia, the Army will maintain equipment for two armor brigades. The first brigade set was prepositioned in Kuwait in FY 1995. The second set, which includes equipment for a division headquarters, will be in place in Qatar by the end of FY 2000. The Air Force will maintain 46 air base operation sets in the region. These stocks include shelters, materiel-handling equipment, aircraft refueling trucks, and other gear.

In Korea, the Army has prepositioned equipment for an armor brigade.

SEA-BASED PREPOSITIONING

Sea-based prepositioning programs support Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force operations. Of the 34 ships that DoD is using for afloat prepositioning, 23 have been chartered from the commercial fleet, 10 come from the Navy's Ready Reserve Force (RRF) of general-purpose transport ships, and one ship is a government-owned tanker.

Marine Corps equipment and supplies are carried on 13 chartered vessels, known collectively as Maritime Prepositioning Ships. These ships are organized into three squadrons, each supporting the deployment and operation of a 17,300-person MAGTF for 30 days. The squadrons are stationed in the western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. All three squadrons were used during the Gulf War and have been fully replenished.

Six chartered vessels and eight RRF ships carry Army equipment and supplies. These ships, stationed in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, provide material for an armor brigade and selected combat support and combat service support units. Beginning in FY 1997, eight large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ships will be used for afloat prepositioning. As these vessels enter service, seven of the RRF ships now performing this function will be returned to reserve status.

Three chartered ships carry Air Force munitions, such as precision-guided bombs and air-to-air missiles. One of these ships is stationed in the Mediterranean Sea; the other two are in the Indian Ocean. The Navy also charters one ship to carry a fleet (ashore) hospital.

The remaining ships - a government-owned tanker and two RRF ships specially equipped to transfer fuel directly to forces ashore - are maintained for use by all U.S. forces.

SEALIFT FORCES

Sealift forces carry the full range of combat equipment and supplies needed to support military operations abroad. These forces include three primary types of ships: container ships, which are used primarily for moving supplies; roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) vessels, which move combat equipment; and tankers, for transporting fuels. In addition, the inventory includes a number of breakbulk ships that can move both equipment and supplies.

Sealift capacity comes from three sources: government-owned ships, commercial ships under long-term charter to the Defense Department, and ships operating in commercial trade.

• The majority of government-owned ships are maintained in the Ready Reserve Force. This 94-ship fleet is composed primarily of RO/RO vessels (some of which are temporarily supporting the afloat prepositioning program), breakbulk ships, and tankers. These ships are maintained at various levels of readiness, enabling them to be available for operation in four to 20 days.
  
• Augmenting the Ready Reserve Force are eight fast sealift ships manned by partial crews. These vessels can begin loading on four days' notice. Also maintained in reserve status are two aviation support ships (each providing maintenance capabilities for a Marine air wing) and two hospital ships. Each of these vessels can be readied for deployment in five days.
• To support peacetime operations, DoD currently charters eight dry cargo ships and 10 tankers from commercial operators. These ships transport military cargoes to locations not normally served by commercial routes.
• The U.S.-flag commercial fleet contains 203 ships with military utility. These include 106 dry cargo ships, 95 tankers, and two passenger ships. Another 132 commercial vessels that could contribute to military missions - 58 dry cargo ships, 67 tankers, and seven passenger ships - are maintained in the effective U.S. control (EUSC) fleet. These ships are owned by U.S. companies or their foreign subsidiaries and registered in nations whose laws do not preclude the ships' requisitioning for military operations.

Table 17 shows the FY 1998 inventories for key elements of the military mobility force structure.

Table 17 Military Mobility Forces
Airlift (PMAI)     C-17     C-141     C-5     C-130a	30 143 104 408
Aerial Refueling (PMAI)     KC-135     KC-10b	472 54
Sealift     Ready Reserve Force Ships     Fast Sealift Ships	94 8
a Includes 20 aircraft operated by the Navy. b These aircraft also perform airlift missions.

READINESS AND SUSTAINABILITY

To ensure the rapid responsiveness and combat effectiveness of U.S. forces, the Department has designated readiness and sustainability as its highest funding priorities. Readiness - the ability of forces to arrive when and where needed, fully prepared to carry out their missions - depends on each unit having the equipment, supplies, logistics and intelligence support, and skilled people to accomplish its assigned tasks. Currently, readiness rates are at historic highs. Sustaining those high rates presents a continuing challenge, given the substantial resources needed to meet overseas presence and crisis response requirements.

Readiness

Readiness objectives for operational units are dictated by each Service's peacetime duties and wartime tasking (e.g., forward-deployed versus U.S.-based early- deploying units or first-to-fight versus U.S.-based strategic theater reserve forces) within the framework of the National Military Strategy. Forward-deployed forces maintain the highest readiness levels. Forces not deployed are engaged in training, maintenance, resupply, and personnel rotations.

Most Air Force units (active, guard, and reserve) must maintain high overall readiness levels due to the rapid responsiveness required of them in both wartime and crisis operations. Similarly, forward-deployed naval forces maintain high readiness to ensure their rapid responsiveness for operations around the world. In the case of the Army, units like the 82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), 3rd Infantry Division, and 1st Cavalry Division are required to maintain a higher state of readiness than other Army forces because of their first-to-fight deployment status.

OVERALL READINESS

U.S. active and reserve forces stand ready to execute their assigned missions. The Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS) maintained by the Joint Chiefs of Staff measures unit readiness in five categories, called C-ratings. Units with readiness scores in the highest two categories, C1/C2, have between 80 and 100 percent of the resources needed to accomplish their wartime missions and can maintain at least a 70 percent mission-capable rate.

Nearly all first-to-fight forces meet the C1/C2 criteria, while readiness scores forcewide average the levels achieved during the early-to-mid 1980s (i.e., 65-70 percent). The relatively lower readiness status of reserve units, and of some active force units, indicates that those forces will require time to mobilize before being sent into a theater of operations.

MATERIAL READINESS

Equipment readiness, as measured by mission-capable rates for major weapon systems, remains at established Service goals: 75 to 80 percent for the Air Force, the Navy, and aviation elements of the Army and Marine Corps and 90 percent for Marine and Army ground systems. Nevertheless, the demands of contingency operations, along with the effects of aging for certain categories of equipment (e.g., Air Force C-141 and KC-135 aircraft and Army trucks and construction engineering equipment), has placed added demands on Service maintenance personnel and logistics systems, reinforcing the need to continue full funding of these programs.

The overall availability of equipment has improved markedly in recent years as force downsizing has made modern assets available to all units. In the case of the Army Reserve and National Guard, for example, the elimination of active Army units has allowed many reserve units to modernize and achieve inventory objectives for major items of equipment.

Service depot maintenance programs continue to be funded at about 80 to 90 percent of known requirements in the budget year, generally sustaining an acceptable backlog of unserviced equipment. Increased funding levels in the FY 1998 program for Navy aviation depot maintenance will improve the availability of aircraft, easing the logistical burden of supporting both deployed and nondeployed naval aviation forces.

The Navy has taken steps to ensure the continued high readiness of its F/A-18 strike-fighter force, despite recent shortages of F404 engines. These engines developed serious component durability problems about two years ago, when some parts failed after only a quarter of their anticipated service life. Corrective measures have since improved the availability of replacement engines, and the prospective arrival of new-design parts should eliminate the F404 shortage by the end of FY 1999.

UNIT TRAINING

The overall training of operational units remains at the levels necessary to accomplish wartime missions. Nevertheless, extended participation in contingency operations often reduces opportunities to maintain proficiency in combat-related tasks. For example, Air Force tactical aircrews participating in Operation Southern Watch in Iraq are flying primarily surveillance missions, and cannot train for air-to-air combat tasks, air-to-ground gunnery, or delivery of precision-guided munitions. Similarly, peacekeeping demands on the 1st Armored Division while involved in Operation Joint Endeavor have reduced the opportunity for that division to maintain its maneuver warfare skills. Once these units conclude their participation in contingency operations, they will require about three to six months to prepare effectively for participation in a major regional conflict.

The FY 1998 budget funds Service operating tempos (OPTEMPO) - flying hours per crew per month, ship steaming days per quarter, and combat vehicle miles per year - at the levels necessary to maintain high unit readiness, but at a lower overall cost. For example, the Army has reduced its OPTEMPO program costs through greater use of computer simulations, replacing certain repetitive procedures and battle staff exercises with techniques made possible by the use of remote-learning technologies. The Navy has consolidated exercise and training operations, saving the transit time and costs incurred in preparing for these events. The Marine Corps has reduced aviation OPTEMPO by changing the focus from flying hours to sortie-based training programs, by conducting fewer training deployments, and by making increased use of flight simulation technology. Similarly, for the Air Force, changes in the size and mix of aviation squadrons have allowed active flying-hour standards to be reduced somewhat relative to Cold War levels. The Air Force currently is reviewing its fighter flying-hour goals, taking into consideration joint mission tasking procedures. The results of this review are expected to be available later this year.

EXERCISES AND JOINT TRAINING

Training and exercise programs are key to maintaining unit readiness and combat effectiveness. Each of the Services maintains excellent combat training centers where realistic joint large-scale, live-fire exercises are held. Significant resources have been invested in capabilities that permit direct assessment of large-scale, force-on-force engagements.

The Army operates the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, Louisiana, and the Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC) at Hohenfels, Germany. Instrumented field exercises are used at each of these locations to improve the readiness of battalion and brigade-sized units. These training opportunities build on home-station training, which is limited by range availability. The Army will train 10 heavy brigades in FY 1998 at the NTC and 10 light brigades at the JRTC, while providing annual training opportunities at the CMTC for all of its European-based infantry and armor battalions.

The Air Force conducts three Red Flag/Green Flag exercises annually at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. In addition to providing training for Navy/Marine Corps and coalition forces, these exercises provide composite force package training for Air Force tactical aircraft squadrons on about an 18-month rotational basis. Air Force units conduct similar training in annual Maple Flag combined-force exercises held in Canada.

The Navy participates in about 175 unit exercises annually. Ninety percent of these exercises involve operations with other U.S. or multinational forces. These deployments improve the ability of naval forces to conduct forward presence missions and to operate effectively as part of a joint or combined force. In addition, the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center in Fallon, Nevada, conducts four to five exercises annually for carrier air wings. This program provides predeployment integrated strike training for naval aviation units.

The Marine Corps conducts 10 to 12 combined-arms exercises annually at Twenty-Nine Palms, California. These drills provide combined-arms training and combat readiness evaluations for Marine tactical air and assault support squadrons operating in support of ground forces. In the case of ground forces, eight active and two reserve infantry battalions, plus associated combat support and combat service support elements, train each year at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center at Twenty-Nine Palms. Marine expeditionary units (special operations capable) undergo intense, 26-week predeployment training, during which they conduct operations both ashore and at sea.

Sustainability

Sustainability is a measure of a force's ability to conduct operations of the duration and intensity needed to achieve military objectives. Sustainability means maintaining the personnel, materiel, and consumables necessary to support military operations, including replacement equipment, spare parts, ammunition, and fuel. Sustainability also includes the manpower required to rotate, replace, and reinforce units as an operation proceeds.

In general, the drawdown of U.S. forces and the diminution of the Cold War threat have contributed significantly to improvements in the adequacy of war reserve stocks. The FY 1998 budget focuses investments on areas where residual shortfalls have been identified. For example, shortages of war reserve spares for newer systems such as the F-15E fighter, the C-17 transport aircraft, and the JSTARS ground surveillance aircraft will be alleviated by the FY 1998 budget and subsequent funding requests. As discussed later in this chapter, the Department also is pursuing a robust program for acquiring preferred munitions, relying on adequate supplies of substitute munitions in the interim. Finally, the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of secondary items to determine the degree of risk associated with any shortfalls that remain.

As the designated single service manager of the conventional ammunition stockpile, the Army continues to downsize and restructure the stockpile of conventional munitions. Special attention is being paid to eliminating excess holdings and ensuring the provision of adequate inventory management controls, emphasizing such functions as ammunition inspection, testing, repair, and demilitarization.

INVESTMENT

With the end of the Cold War and the resulting force drawdown, the Department could afford to reduce the pace of its modernization programs for a few years. Now, the emergence of technologically-advanced threats, combined with the aging of key U.S. systems and the need to execute missions with minimal casualties, demands a renewed emphasis on modernization. The FY 1998 President's Budget and associated FYDP accomplish this task through a program that:

• Increases procurement funding to approximately $55 billion to $60 billion per year in constant budget dollars by FY 2001, with total investment averaging roughly $80 billion to $85 billion annually.
• Invests in advanced capabilities, potentially allowing for the replacement of aging systems on a less than one-for-one basis, and pursues cost-effective upgrades of existing systems.
• Avoids the need for large increases in procurement accounts beyond the FYDP.

These efforts will maintain a technologically superior force able to execute a full range of missions. Substantial deviation from the modernization plan would result in an erosion of capability, an increase in the average age of equipment, or a declining force structure (as older systems retire without replacement), or some combination of these undesirable outcomes. And while average age serves as only one indicator of program health, it illuminates underlying problems, including shortfalls in procurement.

The Department's modernization program attempts to avoid unacceptable increases in force age by acquiring selected new systems and making major upgrades to existing systems. For some categories of equipment, these actions will maintain average age at acceptable levels; for others, modernization will slow or reverse negative trends. The following series of charts illuminates the effects of the Department's modernization efforts on equipment age.

Successful execution of the modernization program will require the Department to take full advantage of opportunities to redefine the way it conducts business. In short, the Department must:

• Aggressively pursue infrastructure reductions, particularly base closures.
• Fully implement acquisition reform initiatives.
• Privatize support functions to the fullest extent possible.

Each of these initiatives will reduce operating costs, providing the basis for increases in procurement funding. While challenges to the execution of this plan exist - for instance, the need to fund unexpected contingencies - the Department will continue to maximize its efforts at cost reduction and equipment modernization.

The following sections describe key investment programs funded by the FY 1998 President's Budget. Each contributes to maintaining the forces and capabilities necessary to execute BUR missions.

Aviation Forces

Modernization programs for aviation forces lay the technological foundation for future enhancements in combat power, while preserving the combat edge that U.S. forces now possess. Investments in the area will improve stealth capabilities and enhance interservice commonality, as well as expand aircraft ranges and payloads.

FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF is the Department's largest acquisition program, and the first program to develop a family of common aircraft for use by land- and sea-based aviation forces. The JSF will be employed by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in variants configured for each Service's specific needs. It will replace the F-16 in the Air Force and the F/A-18C/D and AV-8B in the Marine Corps. In the Navy, it will provide a new capability for more survivable attack operations. The creation of a tri-Service program reflects the judgment that it would be prohibitively costly to develop three major new combat aircraft simultaneously, and that advancements in powerplant output and reliability, electronics miniaturization, and other technologies offer the possibility of combining aircraft qualities in ways never before accomplished.

The Department completed an initial definition of JSF characteristics in mid-1995 and developed a preliminary plan for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) costs and schedules during the winter of 1995-96. The present program fully supports that plan. In particular, the JSF completed the transition in May 1996 from a science and technology-oriented technology base program - the so-called Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program initiated in 1993 - to the JSF major defense acquisition program. Wide-ranging management actions are underway to ensure that JSF development proceeds smoothly to an FY 2001 decision milestone for entering the engineering and manufacturing development phase. A comprehensive analysis of alternatives will be prepared in support of the EMD decision.

The JSF is anticipated to have a considerably greater mission radius than current-generation aircraft. Key to achieving this objective will be the use of advanced-technology design, materials, and manufacturing techniques. An important feature of the JSF program is the Technology Maturation initiative, aimed at reducing the risk of accomplishing such innovations. JSF risk also is being reduced through the adaptation of major components developed for other programs. These technology developments contribute directly to affordability, a key element of the JSF concept.

F-22. The F-22 is being developed to replace the Air Force F-15C/D in the air superiority role, but it will incorporate substantial air-to-ground capability as well. With a much-reduced radar signature, an ability to cruise at supersonic speeds, and its use of a new generation of avionics, the F-22 will dominate any future air engagement. Likewise, the provision of capability to carry two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs will enable the F-22 to conduct air-to-ground attacks anywhere on the battlefield.

The Air Force completed a thorough review of the status of F-22 development in December 1996. That review identified a need to devote additional time to the engineering and manufacturing development effort and to commit an additional $2.2 billion for EMD work. In response, the Air Force proposed a restructured program that sustains full aircraft capability, the initial operational capability date, and previously planned production quantities. The restructured program would be financed within existing F-22 resources over the FYDP period, in part by shifting $1.45 billion from procurement to development and slowing the rate of increase in early production quantities. An additional $700 million in near-term funding would be freed by forgoing plans to build four pre-production verification aircraft, and using the first two production aircraft temporarily to accomplish initial operational test functions. The Air Force's ability to fund the restructured program within planned resources reflects an Air Force/contractor memorandum of agreement designed to incentivize the contractors to achieve contract prices consistent with these resources. The restructured program retains the previously planned FY 1999 initial procurement date, but buys two rather than four aircraft in that year. The savings resulting from smaller initial purchases will help keep the program affordable in the near term.

The FY 1998 budget reflects the Air Force's restructuring proposal, pending completion of a detailed Departmental evaluation of the implementation plan, which was underway at the time of the budget's submission. A Defense Acquisition Board review of the F-22 program in early 1997 examined the findings of that evaluation; as required by law, the Cost Analysis Improvement Group in the Office of the Secretary of Defense provided the Secretary of Defense, in March 1997, with a cost assessment of the F-22 program, which the Secretary has forwarded to Congress.

F-15s and F-16s. In view of the challenges inherent in operating F-16s to 8,000 flight hours, together with the moderate risk involved in JSF integration, the Department has established a program to earmark by FY 2000 some 200 older, Block 15 F-16 fighter aircraft in inactive storage for potential reactivation. The purpose of this program is to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production. This force could offset aircraft withdrawn for unanticipated structural repairs or compensate for delays in the JSF program. Reactivating older F-16s is not a preferred course of action, but represents a relatively low-cost hedge against such occurrences. The six F-16s procured in FY 1997 will be allocated between the combat fleet and the attrition reserve. Attrition reserve F-16s are needed to maintain the 20-FWE force structure until the JSF enters service. Due to budgetary constraints, the Air Force does not plan to procure new F-16s in FY 1998. The recent sale of 21 aircraft to Egypt will keep the F-16 in production, however, until at least the year 2000.

The Department plans to sustain production of the F-15E for at least two more years, purchasing three aircraft in both FY 1998 and FY 1999. Without FY 1998 procurement, the F-15 production line would begin to close in the absence of new foreign sales. These six additional aircraft, together with the six aircraft approved by Congress in FY 1997, will sustain the present 132-plane combat force structure until about FY 2016. Keeping the F-15E production line open provides the Department with valuable near-term production capacity in the event of need as new-generation aircraft (F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter) proceed in their development.

F/A-18. The F/A-18E/F is the Navy's principal fighter/attack acquisition program. The F/A-18E/F is an enlarged, much-improved follow-on to the proven F/A-18C/D, which is the backbone of carrier aviation. Compared with the C and D models, the F/A-18E/F will have significantly greater range, carrier payload recovery capability, and survivability; it also will be able to function as a tanker for in-flight refueling. Additionally, the F/A-18E/F affords valuable growth capability and more payload flexibility, ensuring that the Navy will be able to effectively employ the next generation of standoff weapons.

The F/A-18E/F entered engineering and manufacturing development in FY 1992, and was approved for low-rate initial production (LRIP) in March 1997. An update of the cost-benefit analysis for the F/A-18E/F program was being conducted to support the LRIP decision. The first 12 production aircraft were funded in FY 1997, and an additional 20 aircraft are requested this year. Establishment of the first operational training squadron is planned for FY 2000.

The Navy will acquire a final six F/A-18C/D aircraft using FY 1997 funds provided by Congress. These aircraft will help sustain the force structure, which already is below the full capacity of aircraft carriers to embark tactical aircraft. Additional F/A-18C/Ds are being produced for Finland, Malaysia, Switzerland, and Thailand, but lacking new foreign orders, the last deliveries of this aircraft type are projected for FY 2000.

AV-8B. The AV-8B remanufacturing program continues on track, with the first three refurbished aircraft having been delivered in 1996. Current plans call for a total of 72 AV-8Bs to be remanufactured with significantly improved avionics and weapons provisions. These specialized vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) light attack aircraft, operated by the Marine Corps, ultimately will be superseded by the Joint Strike Fighter.

CONVENTIONAL BOMBERS

B-1. The B-1, which is programmed for use solely in conventional missions by the end of 1998, will be the backbone of the future bomber force. By the end of the decade, planned upgrades will give the B-1 an advanced navigation system integrated with the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS) and an improved communications system. Enhancements to the aircraft's computers and electronic countermeasures system are slated to follow around FY 2002. The B-1 can already deliver the entire family of advanced cluster munitions (CBU-87, CBU-89, CBU-97); this increases the aircraft's effectiveness against area targets and armored vehicles in low-to-medium threat environments. Other upgrades will give the B-1 the ability to carry several types of advanced weapons. The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and the ALE-50 towed decoy will be fielded on the aircraft in FY 1999, followed by the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), and the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) in FY 2002.

B-2. The B-2 will be assigned both nuclear and conventional missions. Because of its stealth characteristics, the B-2 is extremely difficult to detect, especially at night and in adverse weather. The B-2's ability to penetrate heavy defenses is further enhanced if it is employed with air-superiority aircraft and electronic warfare aircraft that conduct standoff jamming. Current plans call for the procurement of 21 B-2s (16 PMAI). As of January 1, 1997, 13 B-2s had been delivered to the Air Force.

Table 18 Fighter/Attack Aircraft Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
JSF     RDT&E (DARPA)     RDT&E (Air Force)     RDT&E (Navy)b	28.9 81.3 80.0	72.9 252.0 250.1	23.9 458.1 448.9	- 465.6 443.5
F-22     RDT&E     Procurement	2,154.2 -	1,818.5 81.3	2,071.2 80.9	1,464.8 934.2
F-15A-E     RDT&E     Procurement	160.9 351.3	151.0 275.2	137.5 170.0	109.8 165.0
F-16     RDT&E     Procurement	146.1 165.1	126.2 154.8	100.2 -	100.5 -
F/A-18E/F     RDT&E     Procurement	803.1 233.6	343.2 2,094.8	267.5 2,191.6	128.7 3,034.4
F-14     RDT&E     Procurement	19.8 114.4	9.4 229.0	11.7 290.5	14.8 228.6
AV-8B     RDT&E     Procurement	25.5 259.2	16.1 382.1	11.0 329.1	11.2 385.4
F/A-18C/D     RDT&E     Procurement	54.1 870.9	79.5 419.5	49.4 156.2	70.2 278.6
a Not executed; subject to change. b Includes funding for both Navy and Marine Corps variants.

Table 19 Airborne Surveillance and Reconnaissance Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)a
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimatedb	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
E-2     RDT&E     Procurement	59.6 230.4	62.0 324.4	64.9 305.1	48.1 412.9
E-3     RDT&E     Procurement	88.8 222.7	78.6 265.9	46.8 134.7	29.3 114.9
E-8     RDT&E     Procurement	155.0 467.8	215.2 536.9	119.2 370.9	84.5 838.6
U-2     RDT&E     Procurement	29.9 189.6	27.3 118.9	27.8 136.7	11.1 153.1
RC-135     Procurement	179.1	308.3	194.3	174.3
MAE (Predator) UAV     RDT&E     Procurement	65.8 -	5.8 107.8	15.0 116.5	4.4 79.3
Endurance UAV (HAE, HAE-LO)     RDT&E	173.9	183.5	201.7	163.4
Tactical (Outrider) UAV     RDT&E     Procurement	33.6 -	49.3 -	83.3 -	9.8 94.0
a Includes new weapon systems and modifications. b Not executed; subject to change.

B-2 capability will increase as new aircraft are delivered and existing systems are progressively upgraded from the test configuration and Block 10 design to the more capable Block 20 and 30 versions. The current Block 20 aircraft have the Navstar Global Positioning System, improved communications and offensive avionics, and an ability to deliver 2,000-pound GPS-aided munitions (GAMs). By 2000, the entire B-2 force will achieve the Block 30 configuration, featuring better stealth characteristics, improved avionics, and the ability to employ the JDAM, JSOW, and 4,000-pound GAMs. JASSM will be fielded on the B-2 in FY 2003. During the transition to the Block 30 standard, some aircraft will be undergoing conversion and will not be immediately available for use. The Department is studying the cost-effectiveness of potential B-2 upgrades beyond the Block 30 configuration.

B-52. The B-52 can be used in either the nuclear or conventional role. The B-52's nuclear capabilities are described in the Strategic Nuclear Forces chapter. For conventional missions, the B-52 carries a full complement of unguided weapons. In addition, it is the only launch platform for conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCMs). Some B-52s have been modified to carry Have Nap standoff precision weapons and Harpoon antiship missiles. Future modifications will enable the entire B-52 force to carry JDAM, JSOW, WCMD, and JASSM, as well as CALCM, Have Nap, and Harpoon.

SPECIALIZED FORCES

Air Force E-3 and Navy E-2C radars and communications suites are being upgraded, and E-3s are receiving a new passive emitter detection system. In addition, new E-2Cs are being produced and older models are being remanufactured. Both the E-3 and E-2C fleets also are receiving reliability/maintainability improvements to keep them viable well into the next century.

Many of DoD's airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) systems, including Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft, Navy EP-3s, and Army RC-7 Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) systems, will evolve into a new, more cohesive Joint Airborne SIGINT Architecture (JASA). The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, in conjunction with the National Security Agency, established JASA, which is designed to provide much higher levels of commonality and interoperability and is expected to lead to increasing flexibility and capability at modest costs. Other major changes in airborne SIGINT include expanding the RC-135 fleet to 16 aircraft to support the higher current operating tempos, and installing Navy ES-3 surface terminals on more than two dozen ships. These terminals also provide connectivity with other reconnaissance systems and sensors.

Production of E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft will continue throughout the FYDP period. The Department plans to procure 19 aircraft in total, of which 10 have been approved by Congress. The FY 1998 request includes funds for one additional aircraft. Moreover, NATO is considering the acquisition of JSTARS for alliance ground surveillance and reconnaissance missions. These systems provide broad-area moving-target indicator (MTI) radar coverage as well as battle management capabilities.

Significant investments in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs/oUAVs) will continue. The Tactical UAV (TUAV) program was begun in FY 1996 as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTDs/oACTD). This system, which will carry a real-time video sensor, is programmed for use by Army and Marine ground units, typically at the brigade level. The first six systems will be delivered during the ACTD, and follow-on procurement is programmed in FY 1999-2003. Approximately 60 systems will be acquired, each comprising four UAVs and a ground station. The Predator Medium-Altitude Endurance (MAE) UAV, which carries real-time imagery sensors, will be operated by the Air Force as a theater and joint force asset. Acquisition was initiated with an ACTD and will continue through FY 1999. Thirteen systems will be procured, each including four UAVs, a ground station, and a communications suite. The High-Altitude Endurance UAV ACTD will continue, and follow-on procurement of some of these systems is programmed after FY 1998.

Other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems also will be modernized. The U-2 force, recently equipped with new engines, will remain viable well into the next century. To take advantage of the aircraft's expanded life, many of its sensors will be upgraded. Planned enhancements include the addition of an electro-optical/infrared sensor with multi-spectral imagery capability and a synthetic aperture radar with increased range, resolution, and MTI capability. RC-7 ARL platforms will be converted to a common multisensor configuration. Other new imaging systems will be based on fighter aircraft. In the Navy, half of the existing TARPS pods (for F-14s) will be converted from film to electro-optical systems, and 31 ATARS sensors will be procured for the F/A-18D force. The Air Force will procure 20 similar but less capable and less costly pods for use on Air National Guard F-16s.

AVIATION FORCE WEAPONS

In the future, combat aircraft will benefit from improvements being made in air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. New air-to-air missile variants will be effective across a larger engagement area and will have increased lethality. New air-to-ground weapons with increased standoff range and improved accuracy will provide added benefits in combat operations, including:

• Neutralization or reduction of the effectiveness of enemy antiaircraft systems. This will reduce aircraft losses and speed the follow-on use of direct attack weapons, which usually are less expensive than standoff munitions.
• The ability to attack highly defended targets from the outset of hostilities, without first having to destroy a series of peripheral defenses sequentially.
• The extension of the effective reach of precision weapons far beyond the combat radius of the delivery platform, and with less exposure.

Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). Air Force and Navy procurement of the AMRAAM will continue throughout the FYDP period. Enhancements are being made in a number of performance areas, including kinematics and lethality.

AIM-9X. The AIM-9X is an enhanced version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, designed to meet evolving short-range air-to-air missile requirements. The AIM-9X program replaces the AIM-9M seeker and airframe, while retaining the AIM-9M motor, fuze, and warhead. AIM-9X performance will be enhanced by a new helmet permitting the pilot to realign the missile's seeker to detect targets normally outside the aircraft radar's field of view. The AIM-9X program recently entered EMD following a source selection that considered not only U.S. designs but the British ASRAAM as well. Affordability and growth potential are key tenets of this program. Production will begin in FY 2000.

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). JASSM is a new long-range, survivable missile with excellent autonomous navigation capability and an autonomous terminal seeker. The standoff capability of this weapon will enable it to hold highly defended targets at risk while minimizing aircraft attrition. The program is currently in the product definition/risk reduction phase; EMD will begin in FY 1998 and low-rate initial production in FY 2000. Maintaining low unit cost while attaining desired performance are important goals in the development of this system.

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). JSOW is a long-range, aerodynamically efficient glide weapon with excellent autonomous navigation capability. The initial (baseline) model, which will carry combined effects bomblets, will provide an accurate, relatively low-cost standoff method of delivering tactical munitions in all types of weather. A follow-on version will carry a Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW)-derived BLU-108 payload for standoff antiarmor capability. Further planned improvements will provide a unitary warhead and a man-in-the-loop seeker for increased accuracy and target discrimination. EMD for both the BLU-108 and unitary variants began in FY 1995. The baseline version will enter production in FY 1997, followed by the BLU-108 and the unitary variant in FY 2000 and FY 2001, respectively.

Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW). The SFW is a tactical munitions dispenser containing 10 BLU-108 submunitions, each with four Skeet warheads for top attacks on enemy armor. SFW is designed to achieve multiple kills against armored vehicles in day or night and in adverse weather. The system entered full-rate production in FY 1996. Development of an improved BLU-108 submunition for SFW and JSOW began in FY 1996; production is scheduled to begin in FY 1999. The improved munition is expected to be much more effective, at only a small increase in cost. Enhancements include the addition of an active sensor and a multimission warhead, and expansion of the weapons pattern over the ground by more than 50 percent. These changes will reduce the munition's susceptibility to countermeasures, increase soft target lethality, reduce the impact of target location errors, and improve target coverage.

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Under this program, existing general-purpose bombs will be provided with an improved guidance capability based on an inertial navigation system (INS) coupled with satellite-borne GPS data. INS/GPS guidance will permit the delivery of free-fall munitions in adverse weather, while improving bombing accuracy from medium and high altitudes. Low-rate production will begin in the latter half of FY 1997.

Table 20 Aviation Weapons Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
AIM-9Xb     RDT&E     Procurement	47.1 -	84.3 -	113.3 -	120.1 -
JASSMb     RDT&E     Procurement	27.6 -	161.0 -	213.0 -	153.3 -
JDAMb     RDT&E     Procurement	108.4 -	70.4 23.0	32.3 99.8	24.4 107.0
JSOWb     RDT&E     Procurement	121.7 25.5	105.0 86.3	96.2 59.8	107.0 195.0
SFW     RDT&E     Procurement	9.5 165.4	18.7 152.0	19.8 153.9	3.6 143.3
WCMD     RDT&E     Procurement	50.0 -	53.6 -	18.1 19.9	7.7 30.1
SLAM     RDT&E     Procurement	50.8 88.9	31.0 42.2	28.9 21.9	5.2 36.3
AMRAAMb     RDT&E     Procurement	48.5 245.9	26.9 172.6	56.5 174.8	50.9 190.7
a Not executed; subject to change. b Includes both Navy and Air Force funding.

Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM). A modified Harpoon antiship missile, the SLAM incorporates an AGM-65 Maverick imaging infrared seeker and Walleye datalink for man-in-the-loop control. An upgraded version of the weapon, known as the Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), will provide about a 60 percent increase in range over the baseline SLAM system. The SLAM-ER incorporates enhancements in aerodynamic performance, survivability, anti-jam guidance, and hard-target capability, while providing for more rapid mission planning. About 300 SLAM missiles will be converted to the SLAM-ER configuration between FY 1997 and FY 2003. An enhanced variant, the SLAM-ER Plus, will add an autonomous terminal seeker.

Wind-Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD). The WCMD is a modification kit that inertially measures wind and provides corrections to advanced cluster bomb dispensers, thereby improving delivery accuracy from higher altitudes. This modification will be made to the CBU-87 (combined effects munition), CBU-89 (Gator), and CBU-97 (SFW). Delivery of production units will begin in FY 1999.

Naval Forces

The FY 1998 budget sustains a modernization program for naval forces, built on initiatives begun in previous years. Investments focus on acquisitions that will offset capabilities lost through system retirements, while boosting combat effectiveness forcewide. Reflecting the continued high pace of peacetime operations, the budget calls for no early ship retirements in FY 1998. Moreover, the budget keeps several frigates in service beyond their previously planned retirement dates in order to support current operations.

The average age of the fleet, about 15 years, is currently within acceptable limits. Portions of the amphibious, logistics, and surface combatant fleets have aged, however, to the point that steps must be taken to update or replace them.

The shipbuilding program funded in the FY 1998 budget and FYDP is displayed in Table 21. Highlights of major modernization programs are presented in the sections that follow.

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

The FY 1998 budget and FYDP will sustain a force of 11 active carriers and one reserve/training carrier well beyond the turn of the century. To maintain this force structure and meet future modernization needs, the FY 1998 budget and FYDP support a dual-track recapitalization program. The FYDP includes funding for the tenth, and final, Nimitz-class carrier (CVN-77) in FY 2002. This carrier will replace the Kitty Hawk (CV-63) in FY 2008 as that ship reaches 47 years of service. The FYDP includes nearly $700 million to develop the next-generation aviation platform, known as the CVX. The first CVX, planned for authorization in FY 2006, will replace the Enterprise (CVN-65) in 2013. As part of the concept development phase of the CVX program, the Department is examining Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) concepts that could contribute to joint operations in forward areas. The results of the CVX evaluations should be available in FY 2000.

Table 21 FY 1998-2003 Shipbuilding Program
	FY 1998	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FYDP Total
New Construction
CVN-77 (Aircraft Carrier)	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
NSSN (Attack Submarine)	1	1	0	1	1	0	4
DDG-51 (Guided Missile Destroyer)	3	3	3	3	1	2	15
SC-21 (Replacement Combatant)	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
LPD-17 (Amphibious Transport Dock)	0	1	2	2	2	2	9
AOE (Fleet Oiler)	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Service Life Extensions (SLEPs)/Overhauls
Carrier Refueling Overhaul	1	0	0	1	0	0	2
TAE/TAFS SLEP	0	0	0	0	2	2	4
AOE SLEP	0	0	1	0	1	0	2

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS

The key to modernizing the amphibious force is the new amphibious transport dock ship, the LPD-17. The planned 12-ship LPD-17 program will replace 27 ships of various classes in the active, reserve, and inactive reserve fleets. These ships will reach the end of their service lives shortly after the turn of the century. Thus, beyond the FYDP, the LPD-17 - in combination with newer LSD, LHD, and LHA vessels - will constitute the core of the modernized amphibious force. The long-term goal is to achieve and sustain a 36-ship amphibious force consisting of 12 ARGs, each with three ships.

The FY 1998 budget and shipbuilding plan continue the LPD-17 acquisition program. Congress accelerated the lead ship of this class by two years, funding the first unit in FY 1996. In order to implement the accelerated program more efficiently, the LPD profile has been adjusted relative to last year's plan. The revised plan reflects fact-of-life slippage that permitted awarding the contract in December 1996 to a shipbuilding team instead of a single shipbuilder. The resulting profile defers the previously planned FY 1998 ship to FY 1999 to retain the normal one-year construction gap between the lead and follow-on ships of a new class. The resulting delay in the modernization schedule for amphibious forces will have no significant impact on the Navy's ability to fight two major regional conflicts or meet forward presence requirements. Beginning in FY 2000, LPD-17 procurement will be funded at a rate of two ships per year.

LHAs and LHDs are large multipurpose vessels that embark and support Marine ground forces using a combination of vertical/short-takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft, helicopters, and amphibious vehicles. With the delivery of LHD-7 in FY 2001, the Navy will have 12 large-deck amphibious assault ships - five of the Tarawa (LHA-1) class and seven of the Wasp (LHD-1) class. The Tarawa-class ships were commissioned between FY 1976 and FY 1980 and will begin reaching the end of their projected 35-year service lives in FY 2011. The Wasp-class ships began entering the fleet in FY 1989 and have a designed 40-year service life.

ATTACK SUBMARINES

The end of the Cold War and the resulting drawdown of U.S. forces have permitted a significant restructuring of modernization programs for the attack submarine force. Earlier plans to procure the Seawolf (SSN-21) submarine as a replacement for the Los Angeles class have been revised sharply downward, leading to the current objective for three submarines of the Seawolf class. The lead ship will be delivered in FY 1997, and the final two ships are projected to join the fleet in FY 1998 and FY 2003, respectively. Congress did not include in the FY 1997 appropriation the balance of funds needed to complete the third Seawolf submarine. Funding for this purpose is requested in FY 1998.

The New Attack Submarine (NSSN), designed as a lower-cost alternative to the Seawolf class, will provide a more affordable replacement for Los Angeles-class submarines. The NSSN will incorporate Seawolf and post-Seawolf technologies and will offer enhanced capabilities for littoral operations. The FY 1998 budget and FYDP call for procurement of four NSSNs through FY 2003, with the lead ship funded in FY 1998. This profile avoids buying NSSNs ahead of near-term needs, while satisfying projected warfighting requirements. The Department has made a major change to the program funded in last year's budget, and to the competitive acquisition strategy stipulated in the FY 1996 and FY 1997 National Defense Authorization Acts. Specifically, the four NSSNs funded in the FY 1998-2003 shipbuilding program will be procured using an innovative teaming arrangement between the Electric Boat and Newport News shipyards. By taking advantage of specialization at each yard, this evolving strategy will reduce costs relative to those that could result from a competitive approach. Furthermore, it supports the intent of Congress, reflected in the authorization acts, of maintaining two nuclear-capable shipyards. Although the integration and contracting risks of the new teaming arrangement are considerable, the Department believes they are both manageable and outweighed by the potential benefits.

The ongoing deactivation of older SSNs will reduce the force from 73 submarines in FY 1997 to 55 in FY 1999 and 52 in FY 2003. Force levels are projected to range between 45 and 55 vessels thereafter. This force structure reflects the continued inactivation of older SSN-637 and 688-class submarines, deliveries of three Seawolf-class (SSN-21) units through FY 2003, and subsequent deliveries of NSSNs starting in FY 2004. Even though the attack submarine force is being reduced in size, it is relatively modern, its vessels averaging about 14 years in age throughout the FYDP.

SURFACE COMBATANTS

The FY 1998-2003 shipbuilding program includes funds for 15 DDG-51-class destroyers. These ships will bring the number procured through FY 2003 to 53. The first 12 ships will be purchased at a rate of three per year under a multiyear procurement strategy initiated in FY 1998. This acquisition strategy takes advantage of additional funding provided by Congress in FY 1997 and may allow, according to Navy estimates, the procurement of 12 ships for the price of 11. Funding plans for the remaining three ships included in the FY 1998-2003 shipbuilding plan will be reexamined in future program and budget reviews as the SC-21 program (discussed below) becomes better defined.

Long-term surface combatant requirements are being reviewed as part of the 21st Century Surface Combatant (SC-21) Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA). The COEA is evaluating future needs in light of forward presence requirements, historical operating tempos, and possible contingency deployments. It also is examining the types of ships and capabilities that will be needed to replace older DD-963 and FFG-7 vessels. Phase I of the ongoing analysis of alternatives, which was completed in 1996, identified mission deficiencies in projected joint scenarios. Phase II, slated for completion in 1997, is exploring remedies for those deficiencies. Funding for the lead SC-21 vessel is programmed in FY 2003, consistent with the plan described in last year's report.

In concert with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Navy is evaluating an entirely new type of surface vessel, called an arsenal ship, as a potential strike platform that could be stationed permanently in forward areas. The Navy and DARPA are jointly funding construction of a research and development/concept demonstration ship in FY 1998, with at-sea testing scheduled to begin in FY 2000. Follow-on planning and cost estimates for constructing complete-design arsenal ships await results from those tests. The arsenal ship concept could have a significant effect on surface combatant force levels, SC-21 designs, and the entire joint strike warfare mission area.

The age of the surface combatant force is relatively low, averaging about 13 years in FY 1998. Force age has dipped somewhat in recent years, due primarily to early retirements of older ships during the post-Cold War drawdown. Now that the drawdown is largely complete, the average age of the force will move slightly upward, reaching about 15 years by FY 2003. Continued deliveries of Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class guided-missile destroyers equipped with the Aegis weapon system will more than offset the ongoing deactivation of selected FFG-7-class frigates. The fraction of Aegis-capable ships in the force will increase from 40 percent to 55 percent during the FYDP period.

COMBAT LOGISTICS

The Navy has deferred initial procurement of the new ADC(X) dry-cargo ship for at least four years to revisit requirements and reassess acquisition alternatives. This new ship class is needed eventually to replace aging ammunition and dry cargo vessels. Pending completion of the Navy review, and to offset deferral of the lead ship, funds have been programmed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 for service life extensions for four ammunition and dry cargo ships (TAE/TAFS). These refurbishments will allow the vessels to remain in service for an additional 10 years.

To meet long-term requirements for nine high-speed multiproduct combat logistics ships, the Navy has programmed funds to procure a new fast combat support ship (AOE) in FY 2003. This ship will provide munitions, bulk petroleum, oil, lubricants, and dry and frozen provisions to battle forces at sea. With its delivery, the total inventory of AOEs will increase to nine. In the meantime, shortfalls will be mitigated through the use of existing ammunition ships and fleet oilers to support naval forces at sea.

P-3C MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

Land-based maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) provide critical surveillance support for deployed naval task groups. To meet forward presence and warfighting requirements, the FY 1998 budget maintains 12 active and eight reserve MPA squadrons. Investments focus on service life extensions and upgrades of existing aircraft, with plans for a replacement system deferred beyond the FYDP. The service life extensions will increase the operational life of P-3C aircraft to about 50 years; this will require additional fatigue testing and analysis to ensure the safe and effective operation of the aircraft. Capability enhancements will come from the Antisurface Warfare Improvement Program (AIP), begun in FY 1994. This program is using commercial off-the-shelf technologies to incorporate enhanced surveillance, combat identification, and antiship capabilities into the MPA force. The FY 1998 budget reduces the pace of these upgrade and life extension programs by about 20 percent.

MINE COUNTERMEASURES

The FY 1998 budget continues the mine warfare modernization initiatives implemented in FY 1996. The budget adds funds for the most promising near-term programs, such as the Remote Minehunting System, the Near-Term Mine Reconnaissance System, the Airborne Mine Neutralization System, and the Shallow-Water Assault Breaching System. Funds also are included to provide enhanced satellite communication links for mine countermeasure ships, and to improve mission planning capabilities. These programs will significantly enhance the readiness and sustainability of mine countermeasure forces.

WEAPON SYSTEMS

Tomahawk. The Tomahawk cruise missile enables surface combatants and submarines to launch attacks against land targets from distant ranges in all types of weather. Recent military operations in Iraq and Bosnia have highlighted the utility of improved versions of sea-launched Tomahawk land-attack missiles. In Operation Desert Strike in September 1996, selected military targets within Iraq were destroyed or damaged by Tomahawk Block III missiles equipped with the Global Positioning System. Further enhancements to the Tomahawk system are being made through the Tomahawk Baseline Improvement Program (TBIP). TBIP will provide better terminal guidance and precision strike capabilities as well as improve weapon control systems and afloat planning capability. The FY 1998 budget accelerates the TBIP program by 18 months, to introduce these improvements in FY 2000. Total TBIP quantities have been reduced, however; the current budget cuts the previously planned buy by about 40 percent, funding procurement of about 700 retrofitted missiles through FY 2003.

Standard Missile. Three upgraded versions of the surface-to-air Standard missile (SM-2) are currently in development or production: the Block IIIB, which will enhance fleet air defenses; the Block IV, designed to provide a larger engagement envelope against advanced antiship cruise missiles; and the Block IVA, providing an area (lower-tier) theater ballistic missile defense capability. The FY 1998 budget provides funding for service life extensions and refurbishments of Block II and Block III missiles to improve their capability and sustain a sufficient inventory to support warfighting objectives.

Ship Self-Defense Systems. The FY 1998 budget and FYDP will enhance the self-defense capability of major surface vessels. The FY 1998 budget provides funds to procure additional Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAMs), acquire the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), and improve the Close-In Weapon System (CIWS). RAM is a lightweight, low-cost, short-range surface-to-air missile that is being added to destroyers and amphibious ships. ESSM, which will provide an important close-in defensive layer, is scheduled for installation on several new classes of ships starting in FY 2001. Both of these programs will add depth to the Navy's air defenses. Funding is included in the FYDP to expedite introduction of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) enhancements throughout the fleet. The CEC program achieved initial operational capability in FY 1996. With CEC, ships will be able to pass detailed target information to other vessels within a task force in near-real time. Analyses show that airborne CEC capabilities will extend threat detection ranges well beyond line-of-sight limitations, significantly increasing the battlespace for naval and joint operations in air threat environments. In particular, the CEC concept will enhance future air defense capabilities against both theater ballistic and cruise missiles.

Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS). LAMPS helicopters expand the range and capabilities of surface combatants for surface warfare, undersea warfare, surveillance, and targeting missions. The LAMPS force is undergoing a service life extension as well as a number of capability upgrades. The upgraded helicopters, designated SH-60Rs, will incorporate a dipping sonar and surveillance and weapon improvements to enhance their effectiveness and survivability in littoral operations. The first Flight IIA version of the DDG-51, incorporating an organic LAMPS capability, entered construction in FY 1994 and will be introduced in the fleet in FY 2000.

Naval Surface Fire Support. The FY 1998 budget funds near-term improvements in the naval surface fire support mission area. These include modifications to the current 5-inch 54-caliber gun as well as development of an advanced new 5-inch projectile. The advanced projectile, incorporating INS/GPS guidance, will have a range of 60 nautical miles when fired from the modified gun; initial operational capability is projected for FY 2000. The Navy also is evaluating various long-range guns and missiles that could be employed in the fire support role beginning early in the next decade. Concepts under evaluation include vertical guns for advanced ships (VGAS), a Standard Missile strike variant, and a naval version of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

Table 22 Naval Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
Ship Construction     SSN-23     NSSN     DDG-51     LHD-1     LPD-17     TAGS-60	690.9 790.3 2,231.6 1,261.3 953.7 15.4	634.9 780.4 3,530.6 - - 97.3	153.4 2,599.8 2,823.6 - - -	- 2,057.6 2,676.8 - 762.3 -
Ship Service Life Extensions/Overhauls     CVN Refueling Overhaul     AE Service Life Extension	213.9 30.0	231.7 39.2	1,707.9 -	243.2 -
Ship Development     CVX     Arsenal Ship	8.2 -	5.8 39.6	90.2 150.2	105.0 189.5
Mine Countermeasures     Remote Minehunting System       RDT&E       Procurement     Airborne Mine Neutralization System       RDT&E     Shallow-Water Assault Breaching System       RDT&E       Procurement	6.5 - 0.8 18.5 0.8	26.3 - 2.4 28.8 0.9	7.1 - 8.6 26.7 -	11.6 18.2 9.9 29.8 15.0
Maritime Patrol Aircraft     P3-C AIP	139.2	93.0	74.7	93.4
Weapons     Tomahawk       RDT&E       Procurement     Standard Missile       RDT&E       Procurement     RAM       Procurement     ESSM       Procurement     CIWS       Procurement     CEC       RDT&E       Procurement	157.7 112.1 21.4 127.8 61.3 - 32.0 248.3 -	140.4 103.4 9.2 215.0 47.6 - 24.9 234.5 -	93.4 51.8 0.5 196.5 44.1 15.5 10.0 139.2 17.9	67.3 136.6 1.3 277.9 57.0 36.5 3.7 87.6 84.5
a Not executed; subject to change.

Land Forces

Today, U.S. land forces have some of the finest equipment in the world, giving them a combat advantage over potential adversaries. Modernization programs will maintain that edge in the future.

Five objectives shape the Army's modernization plan: projecting and sustaining the force, protecting the force, winning the information war, conducting precision strikes, and dominating the maneuver battle. Marine Corps modernization is driven by the concept of operational maneuver from the sea. Modernization programs support this concept by enhancing amphibious and aerial assault capabilities, land mobility, mine countermeasures, and sea-based logistics and fire support.

AIRCRAFT

Comanche Helicopter. The Comanche (RAH-66) is the first helicopter designed for armed reconnaissance. This aircraft will allow Army commanders to pass near-real-time intelligence to soldiers throughout the battlefield. It will significantly expand the Army's ability to locate enemy forces, mass fire against them in close and deep tactical operations, and synchronize Army actions throughout the land component commander's area of operation. The Comanche will replace the current fleets of AH-1, OH-6, and OH-58A/C/D helicopters in early-deploying and forward-deployed units. The first flight test of the system took place in January 1996; the program will continue in research and development throughout the FYDP period. Plans call for procurement to begin in FY 2004, with a total of 1,292 helicopters slated for production through FY 2026.

V-22 Osprey. This tilt-rotor aircraft will replace the Marine Corps' aging fleet of CH-46E and CH-53D helicopters. The V-22's combination of range, speed, and payload will enable Marine units to move assault forces and supplies faster from ship to shore and deeper within the area of operations. This improvement in mobility will also enhance the survivability of ships carrying the aircraft. Amphibious vessels will be able to remain farther offshore, decreasing their vulnerability to shore-based missiles, underwater mines, and detection by ground surveillance systems. The V-22 program is currently in engineering and manufacturing development, with low-rate production scheduled to begin in FY 1997. Current plans call for the procurement of 523 aircraft (425 for the Marine Corps) through FY 2021. The procurement total includes 50 CV-22s modified for Air Force special operations and 48 HV-22s modified for the Navy. Initial operational capability is anticipated in FY 2001.

Apache Longbow and Longbow Hellfire Missile. This modification to the Apache system will provide ground commanders with a long-range helicopter capable of delivering massed, rapid fire in day or night and in adverse weather. Longbow's digitized target acquisition system can automatically detect and classify targets. The target acquisition system uses a millimeter-wave radar to direct a fire-and-forget version of the Hellfire II missile. Initial operational tests and evaluation of the Longbow system were conducted in 1995, following which the system was approved for production. The Army has signed a multiyear contract for 232 Longbow Apache helicopters. The first Apache AH-64A entered the factory in 1996 and will emerge as an Apache Longbow in 1997. Current plans call for a total of 758 Apache helicopter conversions to the Longbow configuration through FY 2008.

4BN/4BW (H-1 Helicopter) Upgrade. Under this program, the Marine Corps is making extensive improvements to its aging fleets of UH-1N utility and AH-1W attack helicopters. The program provides for 280 existing airframes (100 UH-1N and 180 AH-1W) to be remanufactured and fitted with a newly developed drivetrain incorporating a four-bladed, all-composite rotor system. Increased commonality between the aircraft will enhance maintainability and deployability. The planned avionics upgrade will also enhance joint interoperability. Together, these upgrades will reduce program life-cycle costs, significantly improve operational capability, and extend the service life of both helicopter fleets. The helicopter upgrade program will provide a bridge to a Joint Replacement Aircraft in the 2020 timeframe. The program is currently in the engineering and manufacturing development phase; procurement is slated to begin in FY 2002.

MISSILES AND MUNITIONS

Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The ATACMS is a surface-to-surface guided missile capable of striking targets beyond the range of existing Army cannons and rockets. This advanced weapon and the Multiple-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) are both fired by the M270 delivery platform. ATACMS Block I missiles, with antipersonnel/antimateriel (APAM) bomblets, were fielded beginning in FY 1990. An improved version of the weapon, designated ATACMS Block IA, offering greater range and accuracy will enter service in FY 1998; a total of 800 of these missiles are programmed for production. Two follow-on versions of ATACMS are scheduled for fielding after the turn of the century. ATACMS Block II missiles, carrying the Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition (BAT), will enter service in FY 2001; an inventory objective of 1,206 missiles has been established for this variant. In FY 2003, the extended-range ATACMS Block IIA will be fielded; a total of 600 of these missiles are planned for procurement.

Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition. BAT is a fire-and-forget submunition designed to destroy tanks and other armored targets. It will be delivered deep into enemy territory by ATACMS. Once released from the missile, BAT will use infrared and acoustic sensors to autonomously locate and automatically attack moving armored vehicles. BAT began contractor developmental testing in FY 1996 and will enter low-rate production in FY 1998.

Sense and Destroy Armor Submunition (SADARM). This submunition is designed to destroy lightly- armored vehicles, primarily self-propelled artillery. It will be delivered to its target by 155mm artillery projectiles. Once dispensed from its carrier, SADARM will locate its target using dual-mode millimeter-wave and infrared sensors. SADARM began low-rate production in FY 1995 and is scheduled for initial operational testing in FY 1998. A decision on full-rate production will be made in FY 1999. Current plans call for procurement of 73,612 projectiles (with two SADARM submunitions per projectile) through FY 2012. A fully funded product improvement program will increase the submunition's footprint and lethality through the incorporation of improved electronics and a combined-effects warhead; the product-improved version will enter production in FY 2002.

Javelin. This new man-portable missile system significantly improves the antiarmor capability of dismounted Army and Marine forces. It is replacing the Dragon antitank system in infantry, scout, and combat engineer units. The Javelin can destroy both conventional and reactive armor targets from frontal or top attack positions. The system includes two major components: a reusable command launch unit (CLU) and the missile, sealed in a disposable launch tube. The key feature of the Javelin is the use of fire-and-forget technology, which allows gunners to launch their missiles and immediately take cover. Other features include the ability to fire the missile safely from enclosures and covered fighting positions and to use the CLU separately for battlefield detection and surveillance. Javelin is currently in low-rate initial production; a decision on full-rate production will be made in 1997.

Table 23 Land Force Aircraft Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
Comanche     RDT&E	284.1	331.4	282.0	371.9
Apache Longbow     RDT&E     Procurement	22.0 442.5	10.6 405.6	- 511.8	- 586.7
V-22     RDT&Eb     Procurementc	717.3 47.1	552.1 733.0	529.5 541.7	272.7 676.1
4BN/4BW (H-1 Helicopter) Upgrade     RDT&Eb	11.0	70.0	80.7	90.3
a Not executed; subject to change. b Navy funds applied to Marine Corps RDT&E. c Navy funds applied to Marine Corps procurement.

Table 24 Missile and Munition Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
ATACMS     RDT&E     Procurement	25.4 121.3	4.8 161.8	- 98.8	- 103.0
BAT     RDT&E     Procurement	190.5 -	161.8 -	202.3 85.2	129.5 160.9
SADARM     RDT&E     Procurement	15.8 41.1	9.9 93.7	22.4 67.9	20.8 77.6
Javelin     RDT&E (Army)     RDT&E (Marine Corps)     Procurement (Army)     Procurement (Marine Corps)	2.2 0.3 200.9 -	6.1 0.4 195.2 38.1	8.0 0.2 143.1 42.1	5.3 0.2 326.6 83.4
Predator     RDT&E     Procurement	33.5 -	27.7 -	0.8 -	- 18.2
a Not executed; subject to change.

Predator Short-Range Assault Weapon. This new shoulder-mounted fire-and-forget weapon will improve Marine light antitank capability in the field. Operational requirements were established in 1994, and the program is currently in engineering and manufacturing development. Procurement of a planned total of 18,190 Predators is scheduled to start in FY 1999, with full operational capability slated for FY 2006.

GROUND COMBAT SYSTEMS

Abrams Tank Upgrade. Instead of developing a new main battle tank, the Army is upgrading its existing fleet of M1 Abrams tanks. Three versions of the Abrams tank are currently in service - the original M1 model, dating from the early 1980s, and two newer versions, designated M1A1 and M1A2. The M1A1 series, produced from 1985 through 1993, replaces the M1's 105mm main gun with a 120mm gun and incorporates numerous other enhancements, including an improved suspension, a new turret, increased armor protection, and a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system. The newer M1A2 series includes all of the M1A1 features plus a commander's independent thermal viewer, an independent commander's weapon station, position navigation equipment, and a digital data bus and radio interface unit permitting the rapid transfer of data between the M1A2 and other systems on the battlefield. Since the inception of the M1A2 program in FY 1993, the Army has produced 77 new tanks in the A2 configuration and converted 129 older M1s to M1A2s. An additional 580 M1s are being upgraded to A2s under a five-year contract awarded in FY 1996, with a total of 1,000 M1 upgrades planned.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Upgrade. The A3 upgrade to the Army's Bradley fighting vehicle system will complement the capabilities provided by the M1A2. When equipped with upgraded Bradleys, mechanized infantry units will be able to share battlefield data with M1A2-equipped armor units. In addition to providing a digital command and control capability, enhanced situational awareness, and improved sustainability, the A3 upgrade increases the lethality of the Bradley by adding an improved fire control system and a commander's independent thermal viewer. Approximately 1,602 existing Bradley A2s will be remanufactured into A3s, including fire support and air defense derivatives. Engineering and manufacturing development of the A3 upgrade will continue through FY 1999. Low-rate production is scheduled to begin in FY 1997.

Crusader. The Crusader is a new-generation self-propelled indirect-fire cannon and artillery resupply system for Army heavy forces. It will replace the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer and M992 field artillery ammunition supply vehicle used by early-deploying and forward-deployed units. Compared to those earlier systems, Crusader will provide a significant increase in range, accuracy, rate of fire, mobility, and survivability, restoring the Army's cannon artillery supremacy. Innovations incorporated in the system include an advanced cannon system, automated ammunition handling, and improved fire control capabilities. Crusader will be in research and development during the program years; production is scheduled to begin in FY 2003, with the first unit to be equipped in FY 2005. Current plans call for the procurement of 824 Crusader systems (824 cannons and 824 resupply vehicles) through FY 2011.

Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV). The AAAV will replace the AAV7A1 amphibious assault vehicle, which dates from the early 1970s and is well beyond its originally intended service life. The new AAAV will allow Marine forces to launch assaults from points over the horizon, move rapidly to the beach, and continue the attack inland in a seamless operation. It will also provide armor-protected transport and direct fire support to Marine infantry forces ashore. The AAAV will have much greater mobility in the water than the AAV7A1, and will have the speed and cross-country mobility to operate with the M1A1 tank. Development is proceeding under a demonstration and validation contract awarded in 1996, with low-rate production scheduled to begin in FY 2004. The Marine Corps plans to procure 1,013 vehicles through FY 2013.

Lightweight 155 Howitzer (LW155). This new towed cannon system will replace the M198 155mm howitzer used by Army and Marine forces. Substantially lighter than the M198, the LW155 will significantly enhance ship-to-shore mobility, while increasing the survivability and responsiveness of artillery support for ground operations. The requirements for this joint program were defined in the first half of 1995, at which time concept definition activities were initiated. Subsequent to the completion of a shoot-off among competing systems, an EMD contract was awarded in March 1997. A total of 1,036 howitzers will be procured - 598 for the Marine Corps and 438 for the Army. Production is scheduled to begin in FY 2000, with the Marine Corps version achieving initial operational capability in FY 2002 and the Army system in FY 2005.

Table 25 Ground Combat System Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
Abrams Upgrade    RDT&E    Procurement	38.8 565.1	71.5 463.9	35.4 594.9	8.4 691.0
Bradley Upgrade    RDT&E    Procurement	117.9 113.9	89.2 234.8	75.4 125.6	37.2 324.4
Crusader    RDT&E	206.6	206.8	136.5	69.5
AAAV    RDT&E	34.0	61.3	60.1	106.2
LW155    RDT&E (Army)    RDT&E (Marine Corps)	10.9 14.4	- 8.5	- 12.6	0.38 15.6
a Not executed; subject to change.

SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). This new family of 2 1/2-ton and 5-ton trucks will be used by Army units to move troops, equipment, and supplies within operating theaters. The trucks will be produced in a variety of versions, all incorporating a common chassis. This will reduce production costs and save maintenance time and expenses. The new truck lines will overcome significant performance limitations of the existing fleets, which are now more than 20 years old and will average more than 30 years in age by the end of FY 2001. The reliability problems, and particularly the limited off-road capability, of these vehicles were documented in the Gulf War. The Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) will have much greater off-road mobility and will be much easier to maintain than the systems currently in service. Plans call for the delivery of 53,600 FMTVs through FY 2015.

Army Tactical Vehicle Remanufacture. In addition to developing a new family of trucks, the Army is remanufacturing a number of 2 1/2-ton and 5-ton trucks to extend their service lives and improve their performance. The remanufactured vehicles will have greater off-road mobility than existing truck models, complementing the improvements offered by the FMTV. They will be fielded with later-deploying units not slated to receive the FMTV series. The 2 1/2-ton truck program is producing two remanufactured vehicles from the parts of three older vehicles. A total of 1,620 trucks have been remanufactured to date, against an objective of 4,187. The proposed program for 5-ton trucks will upgrade a total of 3,400 vehicles.

Medium Tactical Vehicle Remanufacture (MTVR). Under the Medium Tactical Vehicle Remanufacture (MTVR) program, the Marine Corps is remanufacturing 5-ton trucks used by combat, combat support, and combat service support units to move troops, equipment, and sustainment supplies. The current fleet will begin to reach the end of its service life in FY 1999; its limited mobility and load-carrying capacity were demonstrated during the Gulf War. In upgrading the fleet, the remanufacturing program is emphasizing modern, nondevelopmental off-road truck technologies. Planned enhancements include the installation of an improved engine, independent suspension, and a central tire inflation system; the upgraded vehicles also will have a 7-ton off-road capability. This program will be pursued under the same contract as the Army's 5-ton truck remanufacturing program, thereby achieving both cost and production efficiencies. A total of 7,945 Marine trucks will be remanufactured.

Table 26 Support System Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
FMTV     RDT&E     Procurement	2.9 146.0	6.0 238.9	3.7 210.0	- 364.8
Army Tactical Vehicle Remanufacture     2 1/2-Ton Trucks        Procurement	19.4	40.0	-	97.4
MTVR     RDT&E     Procurement	5.4 -	4.5 -	4.0 -	1.8 159.9
Digitization     RDT&E     Procurement	99.1 -	88.1 -	57.5 -	49.7 -
a Not executed; subject to change.

Digitization. This group of programs - including but not limited to the Army Digitization program, the Army Global Command and Control System, and the Army Tactical Command and Control System - will improve Army command and control capabilities. The primary goal of this major research and development initiative is to provide digital communications links between commanders and their forces and among individual force elements. These programs will enable information to be passed around the battlefield in near-real time, improving situational awareness and decision support capability. As part of this initiative, communications systems are being upgraded to carry the immense amounts of digital information that will have to be processed, and to give them the computer hardware and software required for this task. The various systems included in this initiative will be field tested through 1998; a decision on full production will be made in FY 1999.

Mobility Forces

The Department has embarked on an ambitious modernization program to replace obsolete mobility forces and achieve the force deployment goals established in the MRS BURU.

AIRLIFT AND AERIAL-REFUELING PROGRAMS

Airlift investments in coming years will focus on replacing the aging fleet of C-141 intertheater aircraft with state-of-the-art C-17 aircraft. Under a plan announced in November 1995, the Department will acquire a total of 120 C-17s. The first 40 aircraft were purchased prior to that time, and the remaining 80 will be procured through a seven-year contract begun in FY 1997. This multiyear contract will save more than $1 billion compared with the cost of annual buys. The FY 1998- 2003 program includes $18.8 billion to complete the C-17 purchases.

Having overcome earlier delays, the C-17 program is performing well. The latest 17 aircraft were delivered to the Air Force ahead of their production schedule. Additionally, the C-17s already in service are demonstrating better reliability than expected. Operationally, the C-17 has successfully supported U.S. missions such as those in Bosnia, where it delivered more than 20,000 tons of cargo and 3,800 passengers to airports lacking facilities to accommodate other intertheater transport aircraft.

Enhancements in intratheater airlift capabilities have come both from the C-17 and from the recent introduction of a new version of the C-130 tactical transport aircraft. The upgraded C-130J model incorporates a redesigned two-crew-member flight station, which will allow the cockpit crew to be reduced from four to two people. In addition, the new model features a modern-technology engine and propeller system, and an integrated digital avionics subsystem. This program also will modernize airborne battlefield command and control center aircraft, weather reconnaissance aircraft, and electronic combat aircraft. The FY 1998 budget includes procurement funds for one C-130J.

The KC-135 tanker force also is being upgraded. All 472 PMAI KC-135 aircraft will receive state-of-art avionics upgrades, which will allow a reduction in cockpit crew size from three to two persons. In addition, 45 KC-135s will be reconfigured to accommodate a multipoint refueling pod, enhancing their ability to refuel Navy, Marine Corps, NATO, and other allied aircraft.

Other air mobility investments focus on modernizing materiel-handling equipment; designing command, control, communications, and computer systems to allow in-transit visibility; identifying aircraft modifications needed to comply with the Global Air Traffic Management system; and ensuring access to overseas air mobility infrastructure.

AFLOAT PREPOSITIONING PROGRAMS

Three ships are being added to the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) supporting Marine Corps operations. The first of these ships, funded in FY 1995, will be delivered in FY 1999. The remaining ships, funded in FY 1997, will enter service early in the next decade. These ships will be allocated among the three existing MPF squadrons.

Eight large medium speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ships are being procured for Army afloat prepositioning. These ships, now under construction, will be fully deployed by FY 2001.

SEALIFT PROGRAMS

The MRS BURU validated a need for the acquisition of 19 LMSRs. Eight of these ships will be used for afloat prepositioning and 11 for transporting combat and support equipment of early-deploying Army divisions. The first five ships were purchased on the world market and sent to U.S. shipyards for conversion for military use. Two of the ships were delivered in 1996, and the third in early 1997. These three ships will go on station in 1997. The remaining two converted ships will be delivered in 1997 and will go on station in 1998. The 14 remaining LMSRs will be new vessels, constructed at U.S. shipyards. Eleven of these ships have been funded through FY 1997, and the first is slated to enter service in 1998. The FY 1998-2003 program includes more than $1.1 billion in ship construction funds to complete the LMSR program.

The Departments of Defense and Transportation, along with commercial cargo carriers, have established the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA). Like the Sealift Readiness Program it replaces, VISA provides DoD with access to commercial shipping capacity in times of crisis. As with the CRAF program for airlift, VISA has been structured to make sealift available in phases. Furthermore, VISA provides access to the intermodal capabilities of commercial carriers, such as rail, truck, and pier facilities.

Table 27 Mobility Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Estimateda	FY 1998 Budgeted	FY 1999 Planned
Airlift   C-17     RDT&E     Procurement   C-130J     Procurement   KC-135 Upgrade     Procurement	72.0 2,565.6 97.9 87.0	71.7 2,117.0 62.8 123.9	113.6 2,290.3 49.9 119.9	202.3 3,082.2 - 112.4
Sealift     LMSR Construction	596.1	902.4	812.9	322.4
a Not executed; subject to change.

At the direction of Congress, DoD is executing the National Defense Features program to make commercial ships more militarily useful. This program will pay ship owners to make modifications such as strengthening decks to carry tanks or increasing maximum engine speed to reduce transit time. The Department is evaluating initial proposals submitted by industry and expects to award the first contract during FY 1997. The NDF program may provide some sealift capability to complement the high-readiness vessels in the Ready Reserve Force, which remains the most effective source of shipping to meet mobility requirements.

CONCLUSION

Today, U.S. conventional forces stand ready to execute the missions articulated in the Bottom-Up Review and detailed in the National Military Strategy. The FY 1998 budget ensures that these forces will continue to possess the capabilities needed to defeat any potential adversary. While readiness remains the Department's highest priority, modernization programs will ensure that U.S. forces retain their qualitative edge in the future.

Systems planned for acquisition will allow the Department to replace older equipment with more capable, sometimes less costly variants. For example, the SC-21 and New Attack Submarine will exceed the capabilities of retiring assets at less cost than current programs. New aircraft programs such as the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the F/A-18E/F could potentially replace existing systems on a less than one-for-one basis given the projected increase in their capabilities. Modernization programs for land forces continue to stress technology upgrades to existing weapons, thereby taking advantage of remaining life, while providing for the development of more capable future systems. Finally, mobility modernization initiatives are replacing aging systems with more capable new designs while adding lift capability where needed to meet emerging requirements.

The careful balance between readiness and investment, and between near-term demands and long-term requirements, requires constant attention and adjustment. The President's Budget reflects this balance, maintaining the ability to fight and to win far into the future.