Conventional forces provide the bulk of the nation’s military power. They consist of combat and support elements from all four Services, excluding units dedicated to special operations and nuclear deterrence. The major categories of conventional forces are land, naval, aviation, and mobility forces. It is primarily these forces that provide the United States the ability to support the defense strategy, which focuses on shaping the international environment and responding to a full range of crises. Toward these objectives, conventional forces conduct forward presence missions, engage in a range of smaller-scale contingencies, and conduct combat operations up to and including major theater wars.

The FY 2000 President’s Budget and associated Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) provide resources to sustain and modernize the nation’s forces in both the near and far terms. This chapter describes the capabilities required for executing conventional force missions and the investments vital to maintaining and enhancing those capabilities.

The United States needs to deploy forces routinely abroad to shape the international environment in ways favorable to its interests. Historically, forward deployments have been concentrated in Europe, the Pacific, and Southwest Asia. These deployments include:

In addition, all four Services periodically deploy forces to forward locations, as needs arise. Such deployments involve both active and reserve component units, with prepositioned U.S. equipment and material contributing substantially to overseas presence. The following chart shows the nominal location of major U.S. conventional force elements.

Potential regional aggressors possess a range of capabilities that could pose significant dangers to U.S. military operations. These threats, which are likely to expand in the future as a result of the proliferation of modern military technology, include increasingly capable air-, sea-, and land-based weapons. To ensure quick and decisive victory with minimum casualties, U.S. forces must maintain a substantial advantage over potential adversaries capable of employing advanced weapon systems. U.S. forces simultaneously must be prepared to face the potential challenges of asymmetric threats, such as the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, an increase in terrorism, and information warfare.

Near-term threats remain below levels that would put U.S. air superiority at significant risk in a regional conflict. On the other hand, potential adversaries are expected to pose significant future surface-to-air threats that could restrict the rapid application of U.S. air power against key ground targets at the outset of a war.

A maritime threat of increasing concern is the proliferation of advanced submarine technology to countries with an interest in impeding access to international waters. The production of nonnuclear submarines is increasing worldwide, with the most advanced technologies readily available to many nations. Additionally, many smaller navies are now acquiring modern submarines, some for the first time in their histories. Of principal concern are North Korea, which continues to operate the fourth largest number of submarines in the world, and Iran, which is acquiring acoustically-quiet diesel submarines from Russia. Also, China’s navy operates the third largest number of submarines in the world, and has cultivated a relationship with Russia that has enabled it to obtain access to some of the most advanced undersea warfare technology.

In the future, the United States must be prepared to face a range of potential naval mine threats far more lethal than those existing today. More than 48 of the world’s navies now possess mines and minelaying capabilities. At least 30 countries are actively engaged in the development and manufacture of sophisticated new mines. Of these, 20 are known exporters of mines. An even greater number of nations possess the ability to lay naval mines. Although most of the world’s stockpiled mines are relatively old and unsophisticated, they remain lethal and are easily upgraded. Naval power projection missions often require U.S. forces to operate in shallow water (less than 300 feet deep), where mines are most effective.

Sophisticated antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) remain a major threat to U.S. naval forces. These weapon systems are rapidly increasing in number worldwide. In particular, several Middle Eastern and Asian countries have procured substantial numbers of ASCMs for use aboard missile boats and by coastal defense batteries. Future generations of ASCMs will be supersonic and highly maneuverable in the terminal phases of flight. As a result, U.S. naval forces operating in littoral waters can expect to face a more substantial threat from these missiles in the decades ahead.

The United States and its allies continue to face the threat of coercion and large-scale, cross-border aggression by hostile states with significant military power. Several types of highly capable weapon systems are becoming both available and affordable for regimes that are unstable or hostile to U.S. interests. These systems include lightweight antiaircraft and antitank missiles, tactical ballistic missiles with improved guidance and payload technologies, modern battle tanks incorporating day-and-night optics, passive defense systems capable of interfering with precision-guided munitions, active defense systems that redirect or destroy incoming projectiles, advanced antitank guided missiles capable of top attacks against tank turrets, and advanced artillery munitions.

Increasingly capable and violent terrorist groups, drug cartels, and international crime organizations directly threaten the lives of American citizens and undermine U.S. policies and alliances. Although irregular forces will be unable to match the combat power of heavy U.S. weaponry, these forces 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 conceal themselves within civil populations could negate some of the advantages of U.S. heavy weaponry.

NBC weapons delivered by theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, artillery, aircraft, special operations forces, or terrorists threaten U.S. security interests and U.S. military forces deployed throughout the world. More than 20 countries possess or are developing NBC weapons, and more than 20 nations have theater ballistic missiles. The warfighting assessments conducted for the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) highlighted the significant challenge that the sustained use of NBC weapons could pose to U.S. conventional forces.

Key elements of the conventional force structure are shown in Table 1.

Aviation forces of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps—composed of fighter/attack, conventional bomber, and specialized support aircraft—provide a versatile striking force capable of rapid employment worldwide. These forces can quickly gain and sustain air superiority over regional aggressors, permitting rapid air attacks on enemy targets while providing security to exploit the air for logistics, command and control, intelligence, and other functions. Fighter/attack aircraft, operating from both land bases and aircraft carriers, combat enemy fighters and attack ground and ship targets. Conventional bombers provide an intercontinental capability to strike surface targets on short notice. The specialized aircraft supporting conventional operations perform functions such as airborne early warning and control, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, surveillance, and combat rescue. In addition to these forces, the U.S. military operates a variety of transport planes, aerial-refueling aircraft, helicopters, and other support aircraft. Descriptions of those systems are provided in the sections on mobility and land forces.

The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps keep a portion of their tactical air forces forward deployed at all times. These forces can be augmented, as needs arise, with aircraft based in the United States.

During FY 2000, the aviation combat force structure will include 20.2 Air Force FWEs (72 aircraft each), 11 Navy carrier air wings (50 fighter/attack aircraft each), and four Marine aircraft wings (which are task organized and include varying numbers and types of aircraft). Tables 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the composition of Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps air wings at the end of FY 2000.

The Air Force has proposed to recast the operational employment of the bulk of its tactical aviation forces through the creation of aerospace expeditionary forces (AEFs). Under this concept, the fighter/attack force, as well as some bomber, tanker, and transport aircraft, will be grouped into ten AEFs for the purpose of specifying day-to-day readiness levels and availability for overseas contingency deployments. Readiness to meet MTW demands will remain unchanged. The main benefit of the AEF process will be the long-term predictability of future deployment prospects, much as the Navy has accomplished with its cyclical overseas deployments. This predictability should greatly aid Service personnel in planning personal and family commitments. The Air Force’s basic unit organization—squadrons and wings— will not change. Details regarding AEF composition and procedures are being worked out now, and the first AEF is expected to become operational in FY 2000.

The Air Force is taking steps to improve both near- and long-term force readiness. Expanded funding relative to last year’s program for both depot-level repairable items and initial spares will increase aircraft availability across the fleet. Funding additions for engine upgrades, modifications, and component improvements—also across the fleet—similarly will improve force availability. Funding also has been added to support F-15 radars, which otherwise would have become unsustainable in FY 2002. Finally, there has been a considerable increase in funding for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. These will help not only in retaining today’s highly trained aviators but also in attracting the highly qualified personnel needed for the future.

The Navy also is taking steps to improve force readiness, both in the near term and for the long term. Funding increases for F/A-18C/D maintenance and modifications, as well as expanded procurement of infrared targeting pods, will improve force effectiveness over the lives of these aircraft. Significant improvements are being made in Marine Corps AV-8B support, drawing on the findings of the 1998 Harrier Readiness Panel study. Procurement of an additional 41 T-45 and 24 T-6 training aircraft will increase student pilot throughput and help ease current pilot shortages. Boosts in flight-hour funding levels also are expected to reduce fluctuations in readiness as naval tactical aviation forces prepare for deployments.

Efforts to reduce the cost of the tactical aviation infrastructure continue to fall short of goals. Practical difficulties in defining the scope of new programs, as well as restrictions on consolidation and reduction, have eliminated or delayed achievement of some anticipated efficiencies. As foreseen in the Quadrennial Defense Review, however, the Air Force will reduce its U.S.-based air defense force from six to four fighter interceptor squadrons by FY 2000. The two squadrons removed will be reassigned to general purpose fighter roles.

In a major theater war, 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 Department has 94 B-52, 93 B-1, and 21 B-2 bombers. (The B-2 figure includes aircraft being modified to the Block 30 configuration.) The number of B-52s is scheduled to be 76 in FY 2000. Of the force totals reported above, 44 B-52s and 54 B-1s are primary mission aircraft, meaning that they are fully funded in terms of operations and maintenance, load crews, and spare parts, and are ready for immediate deployment. An additional 12 B-52s are held ready for nuclear missions. 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. B-1 primary mission aircraft will rise to 70 by 2004, when increasingly capable conventional weapons become available. Bombers will be an integral part of aerospace expeditionary forces; the mix of B-1s, B-52s, and B-2s needed for each AEF is currently under review.

Specialized aviation 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. These forces bridge the gap in coverage between ground- and space-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 operate within enemy air defense range. Table 5 summarizes the force levels programmed to be on hand at the end of FY 2000.

Air Force reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft will remain outside the aerospace expeditionary force concept for the time being, based on their relatively small numbers and occasionally very heavy deployment demands. Other approaches, such as increasing the number of crews assigned, will be employed where practicable (and affordable) to moderate the operating tempo of these forces.

Naval forces conduct forward presence, crisis response, and joint warfighting operations. Major elements of the maritime force include aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, attack submarines, surface combatants, mine warfare ships, and ballistic-missile submarines (discussed in the Strategic Nuclear Forces/Missile Defenses chapter). In addition, the force includes maritime patrol aircraft and sea-based helicopters, as well as ships that perform support and logistics functions.

The FY 2000 budget and associated FYDP support the strategy and operational concepts outlined in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. They provide funds to sustain 12 carrier battle groups (CVBGs), 12 amphibious ready groups (ARGs), 116 surface combatants, and 50 attack submarines through the FYDP period. The maritime force structure will reach 314 ships by the end of FY 2000 and will stabilize at slightly above 300 ships through FY 2005.

Carrier battle groups consist of a carrier and its air wing, plus various surface combatants and attack submarines. Amphibious ready groups are composed of a large-deck amphibious assault ship, a transport dock ship, a dock landing ship, and an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), or MEU(SOC). The Navy deploys a CVBG and an ARG about 75 and 80 percent of the time, respectively, in the Mediterranean; about 75 and 50 percent of the time, respectively, in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Gulf; and on a nearly continuous basis in the western Pacific, where overseas homeporting arrangements exist. 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.

The demands associated with maintaining overseas presence and supporting contingency operations play a significant role in determining naval force requirements. The composition and missions of major elements of the naval force structure are described in the sections that follow.

In addition to their extensive forward presence and crisis-response capabilities, aircraft carriers provide a unique forward base for littoral air operations and support facilities for joint force commanders. Operating independent of land-basing restrictions, carriers support joint forces by engaging in attack, surveillance, air defense, and electronic warfare missions against targets at sea, in the air, or ashore.

The FY 2000 budget and FYDP sustain a force of 12 fully deployable aircraft carriers. At the end of FY 2000, the carrier force will consist of nine nuclear-powered vessels—eight of the CVN-68 Nimitz class plus the Enterprise (CVN-65)—and three conventionally-powered units. The conventionally-powered ships include the J.F. Kennedy (CV-67), which functions as a reserve and training asset when not deployed to forward areas. The Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) was commissioned last year and is now preparing for its first deployment.

The next Nimitz-class carrier, the Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), will join the fleet in FY 2003, replacing the Constellation (CV-64). At that time, two conventionally-powered carriers—the Kitty Hawk (CV-63), stationed in Japan, and the Kennedy—will remain in operation. The Kitty Hawk will be retired in FY 2008, when CVN-77 enters service. The first CVNX, slated for construction beginning in FY 2006, will replace the Enterprise (CVN-65) in the FY 2013 time frame. The second CVNX will replace the Kennedy about five years later, when that carrier is about 50 years old.

Forward-deployed naval expeditionary forces containing Marine units embarked on amphibious assault ships contribute both to warfighting and peacetime presence operations. These forces are organized into three-ship amphibious ready groups. The ships can be employed either collectively or individually, depending on operational circumstances. They provide the capability to project forces rapidly into littoral regions and to support other types of contingencies, such as evacuation operations.

The FY 2000 budget and FYDP maintain a 12-ARG force capable of supporting three forward-deployed Marine expeditionary units in peacetime and lifting the equivalent of 2.5 Marine expeditionary brigades (MEBs) in wartime. By FY 2005, the amphibious force will consist of 38 active and two reserve vessels, including five of the new San Antonio-class LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ships.

The FY 2000-2005 program maintains a surface combatant force of 116 vessels, including 108 ships in the active inventory and eight in the reserves. While previous plans had contemplated reducing the reserve combatant force to four units, a decision has been made to retain eight ships due to the continued need for reserve vessels to support peacetime operations, such as drug interdiction.

Combat logistics forces provide fuel, food, spare parts, and ordnance to naval task groups at sea. These forces include station ships, which travel with the task groups, and shuttle ships, which ferry material continuously to them from shore bases. In FY 2000, the station-ship force will consist primarily of eight AOE-1 and AOE-6 class fast combat support ships. The shuttle-ship force will comprise 13 oilers, six dry stores ships (T-AFSs), and seven ammunition ships (T-AEs). The first new Auxiliary Dry Cargo Ships (T-ADC(X)) will be procured during the FYDP period. These multiproduct ships, to be manned by the Military Sealift Command, will allow aging T-AE, T-AFS, and AOE-1 vessels to be replaced on a less than one-for-one basis. The T-ADC(X) is slated to enter service in FY 2003.

The Light Airborne Multipurpose Helicopter (LAMPS) MK III system combines the SH-60B helicopter with a computer-integrated shipboard system for deploying sonobuoys, torpedoes, and antiship missiles and processing magnetic anomaly detector information. LAMPS also performs radar surveillance and electronic support functions. SH-60B LAMPS MK III helicopters operating from surface warships support both antisubmarine and antiship missions. The FY 2000 budget continues a reduction of the LAMPS force, including deactivation of SH-2G LAMPS MK I reserve squadrons. At the end of FY 2000, there will be 153 SH-60B aircraft in the inventory.

The diverse and complementary mix of capabilities provided by the Army and the Marine Corps gives military commanders a wide range of options for conducting ground 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 an integral part of the nation’s naval forces, provides expeditionary forces to project combat power ashore and to conduct forcible-entry operations in support of naval campaigns or as part of joint task forces. Operationally, a joint force commander employs land forces in close coordination with aviation and naval forces.

The Army will continue to maintain four active corps headquarters, 10 active divisions (six heavy and four light), and two active armored cavalry regiments. 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 a follow-on source of combat power for regional deployments. For major conflicts, the Army can dispatch a force of up to five divisions plus support elements to any region of the world within 75 days.

The ongoing redesign of Army heavy divisions has resulted in the following changes: one less combat company per combat battalion, a dedicated reconnaissance troop assigned to each brigade, and an increased emphasis on command, control, and information support structures. The Total Army Analysis for FY 2007 will identify additional adjustments to the support needed to sustain Army combat forces across the range of military operations. Pending the study’s completion, the Army will work with the reserve components, including representatives of the Adjutants General, to develop possible options for reconfiguring appropriate reserve component units so that they mirror active units and are more relevant to national needs. In FY 2000, the Army National Guard is authorized 350,000 soldiers, organized into 15 enhanced separate brigades, eight combat divisions, three separate brigades, and various support units for divisions, corps, and theaters. The Army Reserve is authorized 205,000 soldiers, assigned primarily to combat support and combat service support units. Table 7 summarizes the Army force structure programmed for the end of FY 2000.

Marine units are employed as part of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) consisting of four elements: command, ground combat, aviation combat, and combat service support. A Marine expeditionary force (MEF) is the largest MAGTF organized for combat, comprising one or more divisions, aircraft wings, and force service support groups. The Corps has three MEFs in the active force, headquartered in California (I MEF), North Carolina (II MEF), and Okinawa (III MEF). Embarked on amphibious ships, Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable), consisting of about 2,000 Marines each, are task-organized and 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. In addition to these general purpose forces, the Marine Corps has formed and employed a significant special capability in its Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF). The CBIRF is a national asset, designed to provide a rapid initial response to chemical/biological incidents. Table 8 summarizes the Marine Corps force structure programmed for the end of FY 2000.

Mobility forces—airlift, sealift, and land- and sea-based prepositioning—move military personnel and materiel to and from operating locations worldwide. These forces include transport aircraft, cargo ships, and ground transportation systems operated by the Defense Department and commercial carriers. By 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 aircraft provide for the rapid deployment of troops and materiel to conflict theaters. Sometimes employed in conjunction with prepositioning, airlift delivers the forces needed in the critical early days of a combat operation. DoD has established an intertheater airlift objective of about 50 million ton-miles per day (MTM/D) of cargo capacity. Of that amount, about 20 MTM/D is provided by commercial aircraft, which contribute to military missions as participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). The remaining 30 MTM/D of intertheater airlift capacity is provided by military aircraft, which are designed to perform missions that cannot be accomplished by commercial planes. The Department will have an organic strategic airlift capacity of 26 MTM/D at the end of FY 2000.

Sealift contributes primarily to the movement of combat equipment and other cargoes, delivering the majority of the materiel needed to sustain deployed forces over time. DoD will attain a surge sealift capacity of 8.6 million square feet by the end of FY 2000, toward a goal of 10 million square feet. Surge sealift capacity is provided by fast sealift ships, large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) vessels, and the Ready Reserve Force (RRF).

The prepositioning of military equipment and supplies near potential conflict regions reduces response time in contingencies. With material stored on land or afloat at overseas locations, only the troops themselves and a relatively small amount of equipment need be airlifted to the theater at the outbreak of a crisis. Objectives for prepositioning are based on those forces required very early in a conflict to halt an enemy’s advance.

Military airlift forces provide a range of capabilities not attainable from civil aircraft. Features unique to military transport aircraft include the ability to air drop cargo and personnel; unload cargo rapidly, even at airfields lacking materiel-handling equipment; and carry outsize loads, such as Patriot missile systems, tanks, or helicopters. Of the cargo that must be airlifted in the early stages of a conflict, more than half is too large to be accommodated by even the biggest commercial cargo planes and must be transported by military aircraft. By the end of FY 2000, the military airlift fleet will consist of 46 C-17s, 104 C-141s, 104 C-5s, and 425 C-130s (all figures denote aircraft assigned for performance of their wartime missions). These aircraft are operated by active, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve squadrons.

Commercial aircraft augment military airlift forces in moving troops and standard-sized cargo. Through the CRAF program, the Department gains access to commercial passenger and cargo planes in times of crisis. In return for their participation in CRAF, carriers are given preference for the Department’s peacetime passenger and cargo business. CRAF forces are mobilized in three stages, giving DoD access to approximately 60 percent of the passenger capacity in the long-range U.S. commercial fleet and nearly 75 percent of the cargo capacity. In the most demanding deployment scenarios, commercial aircraft would move nearly all of the passengers and more than one-third of the cargo airlifted to a conflict theater.

Sealift forces carry the full range of combat equipment and supplies needed to support military operations abroad. These forces include three major types of ships: containerships, used primarily to move supplies; LMSRs and other roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) vessels, which move combat equipment; and tankers, used to transport fuels.

Sealift capacity comes from three sources: government-owned ships supporting the prepositioning program or maintained in reserve status, commercial ships under long-term charter to the Defense Department, and ships operating in commercial trade.

A number of the commercial vessels listed above can be made available for military contingencies under the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA), established by the Departments of Defense and Transportation with commercial cargo carriers in 1997. VISA provides access to commercial shipping capacity and to the intermodal capabilities of commercial carriers, such as rail, truck, and pier facilities. As with the CRAF program for airlift, VISA is structured to make sealift available in stages.

Aerial-refueling, or tanker, forces extend the range of airlift and combat aircraft by enabling these planes to be refueled in flight. The long-range tanker force consists of 472 KC-135 and 54 KC-10 Air Force primary mission aircraft. In addition to operating in the tanker role, both the KC-135 and KC-10 can be employed as passenger or cargo transports, with the KC-10 possessing a significant capability to perform tanker and airlift missions simultaneously.

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. For instance, moving a heavy Army brigade with its 27,000 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 about 2,000 tons, enabling the brigade to deploy in a week using only a small portion of the Department’s total airlift fleet and allowing the remaining aircraft to be employed 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 materiel abroad. Afloat prepositioning, while more expensive, provides the flexibility to relocate stocks quickly within and between theaters to meet the demands of particular operations.

Land-Based Prepositioning. Land-based prepositioning programs are maintained in Europe, Southwest Asia, and the Pacific region. In Europe, the Army stockpiles equipment for three heavy brigades—two in central Europe and one in Italy. The Marine Corps stores equipment and 30 days of supplies for the lead echelon of a MEF in Norway. In addition, the Air Force maintains eight air base support sets—temporary shelters for early-arriving air base personnel—at a site in Luxembourg.

In Southwest Asia, the Army stocks equipment for two heavy armor brigades. One brigade set is prepositioned in Kuwait, and the other set—which includes equipment to support a division headquarters—is located in Qatar. The Air Force stores air base operation sets in the region, consisting of shelters, materiel-handling equipment, aircraft-refueling trucks, and other gear. Much of the Air Force materiel maintained at Southwest Asian locales is being used to support contingency operations.

In Korea, the Army stockpiles equipment for a heavy armor brigade. The Air Force stores eight air base support sets at three locations in Korea to meet surge billeting requirements.

Sea-Based Prepositioning. Sea-based prepositioning programs support all four Services. The Department uses a mix of government-owned ships and commercial vessels to stockpile materiel at sea. Army equipment and supplies are carried aboard a fleet of chartered vessels, LMSRs, and an RRF ship. Stationed in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, these ships provide materiel for an armor brigade and selected combat support and combat service support units. Additionally, the fleet carries Army watercraft for port-opening operations. Plans call for an additional Army brigade set to be prepositioned afloat by FY 2001.

Marine Corps equipment and supplies are carried on a mix of vessels, known collectively as maritime prepositioning ships. These ships, which form the maritime prepositioning force (MPF), are organized into three squadrons, each capable of supporting the operation of a 17,300-person MEF for 30 days. The squadrons are stationed in the western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. A new ship will be added to the MPF in FY 2000, and an additional vessel will join the force in FY 2001. The new ships, both of which are being built specifically for the maritime prepositioning force, will be assigned to two of the three existing MPF squadrons.

The sea-based prepositioning force also includes chartered ships carrying Air Force munitions and a Navy fleet (ashore) hospital. The remaining vessels—a government-owned tanker and two RRF ships specially equipped to transfer fuel directly ashore—are maintained for use by all U.S. forces.

Table 9 shows the projected inventories for key elements of the military mobility force structure at the end of FY 2000.

The military challenges that could emerge in the 21st century, coupled with the aging of key elements of the U.S. force structure, led the QDR to emphasize the need for a robust defense modernization program. Continuing the QDR’s emphasis, the Department’s FY 2000 program:

A robust modernization program can be achieved and sustained only if the Department pursues fundamental reforms in the way it does business. Initiatives begun as a result of the QDR, in conjunction with the ongoing Defense Reform Initiative, are achieving savings in all aspects of the Department’s activities. Examples include:

The following sections describe key investment programs sustaining conventional forces funded in the FY 2000 President’s Budget.

Aviation force modernization is an important part of the Department’s overall investment program, constituting more than 10 percent of the funding planned for FY 2000.

JSF is projected to combine a substantial combat mission radius with high survivability against air defenses and a large payload by capitalizing on technological advances in electronics, materials, and manufacturing processes. To reduce risk in the development process, JSF currently is in a concept demonstration phase that will continue into FY 2001. The demonstration phase involves two competing aircraft designs, one developed by Boeing and the other by Lockheed Martin. Construction of two demonstrator aircraft by each contractor is well underway, and flight tests will begin in FY 2000. The tests will help refine aircraft propulsion integration and flight control design, while ensuring the aircraft’s suitability for shipboard operations. Successful completion of the flight test program will give greater confidence in the subsequent engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, slated to begin in mid-FY 2001. Procurement of the first aircraft, for the Air Force, is scheduled for FY 2005.

Success in the JSF program depends both on technical engineering factors and on cost control. Meeting cost targets is essential if JSF is to be a mass-production aircraft that can sustain the force structure beyond FY 2010. The JSF is not projected to match the unique capabilities of more specialized aircraft. It will, however, provide a superior combination of multirole capabilities within affordable limits. A thorough Analysis of Alternatives will be conducted to confirm the aircraft’s readiness for entry into the EMD phase in FY 2001.

The JSF has attracted significant interest from friendly nations who are considering potential replacements for their current fleets of combat aircraft. The United Kingdom is a full collaborative partner, planning to replace its Royal Navy Sea Harriers and Royal Air Force GR-7 Harriers with the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF. Three other nations that have become associate partners—the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark—are seeking to determine whether the JSF could meet their future strike-fighter requirements. In addition, Canada is monitoring the system’s initial development efforts as an informed partner.

F-22. The F-22 will replace the F-15C/D in the air superiority role and will possess substantial air-to-ground capability as well. The F-22 is expected to be even more effective than the F-15 due to its significantly lower radar signature, highly integrated avionics systems (for situation awareness and targeting), and ability to cruise at supersonic speed. The first two of nine F-22 EMD test aircraft are flying at Edwards Air Force Base in California, demonstrating the aircraft’s performance in a steadily increasing share of its planned flight envelope. The aircraft is meeting or exceeding the design goals set for this stage of development. Complementing the flight-test program, static (loadbearing) testing on one aircraft and cyclic fatigue (lifetime) testing on another aircraft will begin in 1999.

The pace of some F-22 avionics and airframe tasks within the EMD program fell behind schedule during the first half of 1998, increasing the potential risk of cost growth and further schedule slippage. Government and contractor teams have evaluated a full range of potential remedies for these problems, and are committed to keeping the program within the congressionally-mandated cost caps. The program’s recent success during an accelerated flight-test schedule reflects this commitment. The Defense Acquisition Executive has established criteria that must be met before each of the early lots of aircraft can be ordered. The F-22 program satisfied those criteria on schedule in 1998.

Accordingly, the manufacture of two production-representative test aircraft was authorized on December 23, 1998. A contract award for low-rate initial production (LRIP) of six F-22s is planned in 1999. The decision to commence production of the F-22 reflects a judgment weighing the benefits and risks of proceeding in a situation where there is concurrency between development and production. The Department accepts some concurrency between development and production as being appropriate to limit costs. While delays in the F-22 program have increased concurrency beyond previously planned levels, the costs of interposing a larger gap between development and procurement are prohibitively high. Delaying procurement now would reduce production risks. The program’s initial flight test success, extensive modeling and simulation accomplishments, and prior flying prototype results give evidence, however, that the existing concurrency risks are acceptable.

The present acquisition plan will provide three wings of F-22 aircraft by about FY 2013. In the event that the F-22 encounters significant cost, schedule, or performance problems, the Department will pursue an alternative force mix to ensure air superiority in the future. Possible alternatives to the F-22 will be assessed over the coming year in preparation for the LRIP decision. Provided its costs are controlled, the F-22 could be used to meet force needs beyond those currently planned. In particular, a derivative of the F-22 could be a candidate to replace the F-15E and F-117A in the long-range interdiction role. Development of such an aircraft, if deemed necessary, would not begin until after FY 2005. An F-22 derivative as well as several other alternatives would be considered should a decision be made to pursue development of a new interdiction aircraft.

F-16s, A-10s, and F-15s. The Department’s plan for Air Force tactical fighter/attack aircraft calls for the F-16 multirole fighter force—which constitutes about 50 percent of the force structure—to operate beyond 2020, pending the delivery of replacements from the JSF program. Maintaining force readiness with aircraft whose ages are unprecedented for fighter systems will be a growing challenge in future years. F-15s and A-10s also are planned to operate to the same long, 30-year service life. As previously reported, some 260 F-16s and A-10s have been put into long-term storage as a hedge against the need to carry out long-term refurbishment of operating aircraft. The Air Force plans to begin reactivating a small number of stored A-10s in FY 2004 to offset peacetime attrition and sustain the operating inventory.

The Department has decided to procure 30 new F-16C/D aircraft in the Block 50 (air defense suppression) configuration. Funds for the first ten are requested in FY 2000. Procurement of these aircraft will serve several purposes. The added aircraft permit the formation of an additional air defense suppression-oriented squadron, enabling each of the ten planned aerospace expeditionary forces to have such a unit. Previously, the planned operation of nine such squadrons to meet deployment commitments would have kept their operating tempo above desired levels. The additional aircraft also will provide a sufficient inventory of modern F-16 models to enable all existing Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve fighter squadrons to retain 15 operationally-assigned aircraft. Without the additional procurement, half of those squadrons would have had to reduce their inventories to 12 aircraft as older-model F-16s retired. Operation of fighter squadrons with 12 aircraft would be inefficient, in the absence of any basing consolidation; moreover, provision of modern F-16s for all of these reserve component units will permit them to participate fully in AEF deployments. Finally, continued F-16 procurement will guarantee the continued availability of the F-16 production line until FY 2003, by which time JSF engineering development will have been underway for two years. The prospective sale of 80 improved F-16 variants to the United Arab Emirates also would sustain the production line during this time.

U.S. procurement of F-l5 aircraft ended in FY 1998. Deliveries of F-l5 models to foreign nations will continue at least through FY 1999.

F/A-18. The F/A-18E/F is the Navy’s principal fighter/attack aircraft acquisition program. In addition to providing greatly improved survivability over earlier F/A-18 models, the E/F version will have much greater operational utility due to its larger weapons payload and greater carrier recovery payload. F/A-18E/F aircraft also will increase carrier air-wing flexibility through their ability to refuel other strike-fighters in flight. Earlier F/A-18 models lack the growth potential to accommodate the set of technological improvements, including advanced electronic countermeasure systems and significant radar signature reductions, that will be needed for future operations.

For the longer term, the Navy plans to make the transition to JSF procurement as soon as possible. The acquisition objective for the F/A-18E/F was reduced to between 548 and 785 aircraft in the QDR, depending upon the pace that JSF production can achieve.

The F/A-18E/F’s flight-test program is nearing completion, with the final phase of initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) scheduled to begin in May 1999. Most test objectives already have been met during EMD, in particular in the second phase of IOT&E (OT-IIB), conducted during mid-1998. As a result of the OT-IIB evaluation, the Navy’s independent testing command has recommended that the Department continue development of the aircraft, deeming its positive attributes to outweigh the deficiencies that were identified. Performance in air-to-surface attack roles exceeds that possible with the C/D model. The F/A-18E/F achieved a 75 percent success rate in air-to-air combat encounters against currently operational Navy F-14A/D and F/A-18C/D aircraft, despite marginal sustained maneuver deficiencies relative to recent production variants of the F/A-18C.

The OT-IIB evaluation underscored the need for several new systems that had been planned or postulated for use on the F/A-18E/F. A number of those systems, including the AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missile and associated helmet-mounted sight and the Multifunctional Information Distribution System (a tactical data link), are programmed for employment on the F/A-18E/F soon after the aircraft enters operational service. Additional major new capabilities planned for incorporation into the aircraft include a new main computer, a new radar system (incorporating an active electronically-scanned array), and—for a small part of the force—a tactical reconnaissance pod (the Shared Advanced Reconnaissance Pod). Further enhancements will be considered for the aircraft should the final IOT&E evaluation show such modifications to be warranted. The long-term scope and pace for F/A-18E/F improvements will be refined in the defense acquisition process. The resulting enhanced F/A-18E/F is expected to meet the Navy’s operational needs, complemented after FY 2010 by the JSF.

Production of the 32 F/A-18E/Fs funded in FY 1997-1998 is well along, with the first aircraft having been delivered in December 1998. The 30 FY 1999 aircraft were placed on contract in January 1999. Initial operational capability is planned for FY 2001, and the first carrier-based overseas deployment is scheduled for FY 2002. F/A-18E/F support funding provides full allowances of targeting systems and electronic countermeasures equipment, as well as sufficient lesser ancillary equipment (such as fuel tanks and bomb racks) for squadrons on overseas deployments and for training and testing. Stocks of such lesser equipment are planned to be filled by about FY 2006.

B-1. The B-1, which is devoted exclusively to conventional roles, 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 and an improved communications suite. Major enhancements to the aircraft’s computers and electronic countermeasures system are scheduled to follow around FY 2002; ALE-50 towed decoys will be fielded on the B-1 force beginning in FY 1999. The B-1 can already deliver the entire family of advanced cluster munitions (CBU-87/89/97), increasing its effectiveness against area targets and vehicles in low-threat environments. The JDAM was fielded on B-1 aircraft in FY 1999; WCMD, JSOW, and JASSM are slated to follow in FY 2002.

Installation of radar upgrades and new passive-emitter detection systems on Air Force E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft will continue well into the next decade. The Air Force is providing funding for parallel improvements in NATO E-3s via the NATO AWACS modernization effort. New E-2Cs for the Navy are being produced at a rate of three per year, and both the E-3 and E-2C fleets are receiving reliability and maintainability improvements to keep them viable past the year 2010. Cooperative Engagement Capability subsystems are being installed in E-2Cs to improve targeting of missiles and aircraft.

DoD tactical UAV programs were completely restructured in 1998. Evidence of the military utility of a land-based UAV was provided by the Outrider advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD); nevertheless, a fully joint program could not be accomplished. Consequently, joint requirements were modified to permit use of more than one type of air vehicle. The Army and Navy now have initiated programs for land-based and sea-based UAV systems, respectively. The Navy seeks to develop a vertical takeoff and landing UAV for use on ships with small landing areas and in urban areas ashore. To ensure joint interoperability, both the Army and Navy UAVs will incorporate the Tactical Control System (TCS), which is designed to permit flexible control of all tactical unmanned air vehicles. TCS also will be used to control Predator endurance UAVs operated by the Air Force. The TCS program itself, originally scheduled to enter low-rate production in FY 1999, was restructured to accommodate changes in tactical UAV fielding schedules. Acquisition of Predator UAVs will conclude in FY 2000, although procurement of attrition aircraft and upgrades will continue through at least FY 2005.

Advancements are being made in air-to-ground and air-to-air weapons carried by fixed-wing tactical aircraft. Improved variants of existing air-to-air missiles will be more lethal and effective across a larger engagement area. Advanced air-to-ground weapons with greater accuracy and longer standoff range will yield important benefits for combat operations, including:

Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Air Force and Navy will continue procurement of the AMRAAM throughout the FYDP period. Performance is being enhanced in a number of areas, including kinematics and lethality.

AIM-9X. The AIM-9X is a new short-range air-to-air missile under development by the Air Force and the Navy. An advanced version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, it combines the AIM-9M’s motor, fuze, and warhead with a new seeker and airframe. Other enhancements incorporated in the AIM-9X design include a helmet-mounted sight that can align the missile’s seeker head with targets well outside the aircraft radar’s field of view. The combination of improved missile performance and the new helmet-mounted sight will recover an advantage in close-in combat that was lost several years ago when advanced new foreign systems, such as the Russian AA-11, were deployed. Affordability and growth potential are key tenets of this program. The AIM-9X entered engineering and manufacturing development in FY 1997; production is slated to begin in FY 2000.

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The JASSM is a new long-range missile designed to have excellent autonomous navigation capability and an autonomous terminal seeker. JASSM’s standoff capability will enable U.S. aviation forces to hold highly defended targets at risk while minimizing aircraft attrition. A key goal in the system’s development is achieving desired performance while maintaining low unit cost. This Air Force-led joint program is currently entering EMD, with low-rate production slated to begin in FY 2001. The FY 2000 budget includes Navy development funding to ensure that the missile remains suitable for carrier operations. While no Navy procurement for the F/A-18E/F is currently planned, the missile may be considered for future use on both the JSF and F/A-18E/F.

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). JSOW is a new long-range glide weapon with autonomous navigation ability. Capable of employment in adverse weather, it will provide an accurate standoff method of delivering tactical munitions at a relatively low cost. The baseline variant, which entered production in FY 1997, carries combined-effects bomblets for use against area targets. To provide standoff antiarmor capability, a follow-on version will carry the BLU-108 payload derived from the Sensor-Fuzed Weapon (described below). EMD for the BLU-108 variant began in FY 1996, and low-rate production will commence in FY 1999. A third variant, incorporating a unitary warhead and autonomous seeker for target discrimination, is also in development. The unitary variant was redesigned over the past year, enabling a significant reduction in acquisition costs without sacrificing the weapon’s overall effectiveness. Production of the unitary variant is slated to begin in FY 2002.

Sensor-Fuzed Weapon (SFW). Designed for top attacks on enemy armor, the SFW is a tactical munitions dispenser containing 10 BLU-108 submunitions, each with four Skeet warheads. This weapon is capable of achieving multiple kills against armored vehicles during 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 as part of a preplanned product improvement program; initial production funds were requested in FY 1999. The improved munition will be much more effective than earlier versions 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 system’s susceptibility to countermeasures and improve its soft-target lethality and coverage, while reducing the impact of target location errors.

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). The JDAM program modifies existing general-purpose bombs to add an inertial navigation system (INS) coupled to satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) data. INS/GPS guidance will improve bombing accuracy from medium and high altitudes, permitting the delivery of these free-fall munitions in adverse weather. Low-rate production of the MK-84 warhead began in FY 1997; the BLU-109 and MK-83 will follow in FY 1999 and FY 2000, respectively. The Air Force and Navy are currently revising the design of the tailkit for the MK-84 warhead. Additionally, the Navy is pursuing development of a variant with improved accuracy under a product improvement program.

Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM). The Navy SLAM is a modified Harpoon antiship missile incorporating a GPS receiver, an AGM-65 Maverick imaging infrared seeker, and a Walleye datalink for man-in-the-loop control. An upgraded version of the missile, designated SLAM-ER, provides an approximately 100 percent increase in range over the baseline SLAM system. The ER version also incorporates enhancements in survivability, anti-jam guidance capability, and hard-target penetration. Improvements in the SLAM-ER’s mission planning system will greatly enhance the weapon’s ease of employment. SLAM-ER Plus, a variant further enhanced by an autonomous terminal seeker, entered production in FY 1998. Approximately 400 SLAM/SLAM-ER missiles will be converted to the SLAM-ER Plus configuration between FY 1999 and FY 2005.

Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). The WCMD is a modification kit for advanced cluster bomb dispensers that inertially guides the units to compensate for high-altitude winds, thus improving delivery accuracy. 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.

The FY 2000 budget and associated FYDP continue modernization initiatives for naval forces undertaken in response to the QDR. Programmed investments in these forces will sustain and improve naval warfighting capabilities in the decades ahead. More than $7.2 billion has been added to six major shipbuilding programs as part of the defense funding increase approved by the President for FY 2000-2005. This additional investment—representing eight new ships—will help sustain a force of approximately 300 ships well into the next century.

The average age of the fleet is currently at an acceptable level. The combination of new ship deliveries and retirements of aging vessels is projected to keep the fleet’s age within acceptable bounds during the FYDP period and beyond.

The shipbuilding program for FY 2000-2005 is outlined in Table 10.

The FY 2000-2005 program sustains a force of 12 routinely deployable aircraft carriers, consistent with forward presence, crisis-response, and warfighting objectives. The tenth, and final, Nimitz-class carrier (CVN-77) is funded in FY 2001 on the accelerated schedule approved by Congress in 1998. Advance procurement funds for shipbuilder construction and nuclear propulsion components are included in the FY 2000 request.