Part of the Army’s main legal job is to ensure soldiers receive the right equipment to be ready for whatever mission they are called upon to perform and the new Army Equipping Guidance—2013 through 2016 aims to do so “at the absolute least possible cost,” the Army Vice Chief of Staff said in the foreword.
Force structure and stationing changes are being undertaken at the same time as troops withdraw from Afghanistan, equipment is also returning and must be put back in shape, while budget and sequestration cuts overshadow the efforts to rebalance the force from conflict to the requirements of a complex and restless world.
“Efficiency is paramount,” Gen. John Campbell said. “Every minute or dollar used inefficiently now produces a very steep reduction to our warfighting capability.”
 |
| Making the Army Vision Reality: Army G8 |
The guidance, issued in June, is the third of three documents guiding how the service plans to meet equipment challenges. The first is the Army Equipment Modernization Strategy. The second is the 2014 Army Equipment Modernization Plan that details quantities, dollars and rationale for equipment to be procured. And, now, the multi-year guidance on equipping the force aims to identify and minimize equipment risks and costs during the transition “from Afghanistan through Sequestration towards regionally aligned and mission tailored forces.”
Army Sustainment Command will be Lead Materiel Integrator, the focus for synchronizing and directing much of the three lines of effort: equipping units for their missions, increasing readiness by redistributing equipment and saving money.
Equipping units for their missions means prioritizing–from 2013 through 2014–those units deploying to Afghanistan, the Global Response Force, forward deployed units and low-density/high demand units.
From 2014 through 2016, there will be a transition to the Future Force Generation model supporting the new regionally aligned and mission tailored Forces.
Additionally, the guidance calls for meeting critical dual use equipment needs and equipping organizations that train soldiers.
This equipping includes non-rotational units and is to ensure the reserves have the authorized equipment they need for support Homeland Defense and Defense Support to Civil Authorities responsibilities.
There will be significant challenges, the guidance points out. There are two different models to equip the force, the current force generation model based on Operation Enduring Freedom force and the future force generation model that is based on three different force pools: the mission force pool, the rotational force pool and the operational sustainment force pool.
The guidance also seeks to increase readiness by redistributing equipment. It is focused on moving equipment the service already owns or will procure in the near term to increase overall unit readiness.
To do all this, Lead Materiel Integrator will use the Decision Support Tool, a Logistics Information Warehouse (LIW) application that has visibility of all equipment, all materiel requirements, and priorities that enable decision making. The process allows redistribution at the lowest level and collaborative decision making.
The guidance directs the service to be innovative with returning equipment, and to increase transparency of reserve equipment payback and fielding.
The challenge here is that while the Army has just fewer than 90 percent of its modification table of organization and equipment (MTOE) necessary to adapt to the units specific needs or type on hand, “at the individual unit level they either have too much or not enough.”
Another challenge is to move away from theater-provided equipment to a pre-positioned and training activity model for selected missions and capabilities–this is part of the transition from the current force generation model to the future force generation model.
Saving money is a top concern as the service is operating under significant funding reductions, and its civilian workforce undergoes furloughs.
“Every dollar that is not spent wisely directly diminishes the opportunity to reduce risk elsewhere,” the guidance said.
The challenge is what is affecting most everything the Army does: implementing the Budget Control Act of 2011, the start of sequestration this year, higher than expected war costs in Afghanistan and reductions expected in 2014 and beyond that are likely to reduce the operations, maintenance and procurement funds needed to keep the force ready.
The guidance said every decision to move equipment must have actual cost estimates that include transportation and maintenance. There must also be property accountability, which promotes timely decision making and supports meeting Congress’s mandated January 2014 deadline for being able to audit military equipment, general equipment and all operating material and supplies.
Additionally, units must identify excess equipment that will inform command decisions on potential redistribution or divestiture of equipment.
Accepting some risk, the service will divest older systems and niche capabilities “to decrease operating and operations tempo (OPTEMPO) and sustainment costs,” the guidance said. For future capabilities, the “acquisition, sustainment, equipping and materiel management review community” will conduct forward looking reviews to determine when equipment will cascade within formations or be eligible for divestment.
Making such decisions before the equipment becomes excess to mission requirements, the Army can set conditions for foreign military sales or other disposal processes. It could even allow the equipment to be divested ahead of modernization without undue risk to war fighting capabilities, allowing more savings, the guidance said.