UNITED STATES ARMY Army Fiscal Programming For Equipment Organizations / Processes / Challenges & Priorities COL Frank M. Muth Director of Materiel, Force Development, Army
2 Agenda FOUO Agenda Organizations Processes Challenges Priorities Challenges
Force Development Directorate Authorized / Assigned Strength Military 107 / 109 Civilian 177 / 155 Contractors 140 / 143 Director BG Dyess Assistant Deputy COL Perry Created 1984 within G-3 FA 50 LTC Rivers Director of Materiel Director of Resources Director of Joint & Integration COL Muth Mr. Francis (Acting) BG Ferrari Equipment Distribution Plans Equipment Modernization Equipment Programming Management of Programming for Equipping Program Evaluation Group War-fighting Analysis for equipping and modernization Synchronize munitions funding requirements Unit Set Fielding Integration of Distribution Plans Modular Force Integration Reserve Component Pay- Back Plans Army Equipping Strategy Army BCT Modernization Planning Monitor Technical Integration and Test and Evaluation JROC, AMCB, ACR, CDRT oversight Understanding the physical realities that we are facing now and into the future! $$$$$$$$$$ BUDGET $$$$$$$$$$ RESOURCING/PROGRAMMING Equipping: Turning materiel requirements into programs developing distribution plans developing modernization strategies 3
Organization - DOM Divisions Office Name Capability Portfolio Key Capability Areas TRADOC Alignment FDB Full Dimension Protection Protection NBC Engineers Military Police Maneuver Support Center of Excellence (CoE) Fort Leonard Wood, MS FDC Mission Command Mission Command Signal Logistics Automation Tactical Power Generation Mission Command CoE Fort Gordon, GA FDD Soldier & Maneuver Movement & Maneuver (Soldier) Movement & Maneuver (Ground) Armor Infantry Soldier Maneuver CoE Fort Benning, GA FDG Fires Fires (Indirect) Protection (AMD) Air Defense Field Artillery Fires CoE Fort Sill, OK FDI Intelligence Intelligence Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance U.S. Army Intelligence School Fort Huachuca, AZ FDL Logistics Sustainment Sustainment (Transportation) Combat Service Support - Transportation Combat Service Support Log Enablers Sustainment CoE Fort Lee, VA FDV Aviation Movement & Maneuver (Air) Rotary Wing Fixed Wing Unmanned Aerial Systems Aviation CoE Fort Rucker, AL Equipping: Our seven DOM Division Chiefs manage ten Equipping Portfolios Programming: Understanding the process 4
The Army program must continue to adapt to the changing global security environment and economic conditions or risk the loss of additional resources Army Fiscal Outlook $160 $155 $150 $145 $140 $135 $130 $125 $120 $2.4 - $3.4B/year remaining in must fund bills & compelling requirements OCO $67.7B $147.1 $148.8 $135.3 $134.6 $134.3 $134.7 FY12 Enacted OCO $50.1B FY13 Requested $133.5 $133.8 $150.0 $135.5 $134.9 $153.0 $153.5 $138.0 $137.1 $139.7 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 PB13 OSD Fiscal Guidance Critical Rqmts Critical requirement: Minimum level of resources necessary to accomplish a program s critical mission/task Assume reduced OCO for 2-3 years after Afghanistan (FY14) for Army Reset POM Program Objective Memorandum
DoD POM Process 6 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC DPG 14-18 6: National Elections 2012 2013 2014 2015 Potential New Administration Transition 20: Presidential Inauguration DPG 15-19 CRA DPG 16-20 DPG 17-21 Build POM 14-18 Build POM 15-19 Build POM 16-20 Build POM 17-21 Program Review Issue Teams 14-18 Program Budget Review Program Review Issue Teams 15-19 Program Budget Review 4: National Elections Program Review Issue Teams 16-20 Program Budget Review Program Review Issue Teams 17-21 Program Budget Review DoD POM Process drives the Army POM Process
Army Equipping PEG POM Process Requirements Identification Guidance & Decisions PMs & PEOs Rqmts HQDA Weapons System Review Rqmts Validation/Prioritization & Funding Solutions Rqmts & Funding Solutions Rqmts & Funding Solution Approval Nov Inputs G-3 FM MTOEs & TDAs TRADOC Capabilities Needs Analysis EE PEG Directors Reviews EE PEG Two Star Reviews Recommendations PPBC SRG Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 29 Jul Decisions PPBC: Planning Programming Budgeting Council PEG: Program Execution Group SRG: Senior Review Group EE PEG Process: Deliberate & Transparent 7
8 Currently like the Chevy Suburban We are large, cumbersome, and have a difficult time maneuvering in tight places extremely expensive overloaded with technology that is difficult and costly to maintain. Tremendous energy (fuel) requirement Equipping Challenges FY12 Future like the Chevy Equinox Smaller and more agile Much less expensive Keep only the most needed capabilities based on a narrower mission set Lower energy requirement How Do You Modernize In This Environment?
Equipment Modernization Priorities Priorities for FY13 and beyond.. Network Broadband capability to the commanders on the move and to the Soldier Combat Vehicle Portfolio Transform Replace Improve Transform Bradley IFV to GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) Replace M113 with the AMPV (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle) Improve the M1 and Stryker M2A3 IFV M113 FOV GCV IFV Aviation Highest demand capability AH-64 D II/III Longbow Expanding requirements (13 th CAB) Light Tactical Vehicle Modernization (JLTV) Soldier Modernization CH-47F UH-60M AMPV Programs, Resources, Equipping in Today s Fiscally Restrained Environment trades in Risk, Capabilities, and Requirements 9
Thoughts for Discussion Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) Capability Sets Technology (Faster, cheaper, lighter, requires less power) When do we integrate (as technology emerges) Can we afford it? Aim Point (i.e. choose technology at the right point; sometimes is not the best point)
Conclusion Where is our Aim Point??? Programmatics
Our Nation and Our Soldiers Deserve the BEST ARMY 12
Questions 13