[Top] [Bottom] [Previous] [Next] [Table of Contents]

Chapter 5


Conventional forces provide the bulk of the nation’s military power. Consisting of four elements—land, naval, aviation, and mobility—these forces execute the full range of military missions, with the exception of special operations and nuclear deterrence. As such, they play a crucial role in carrying out the defense strategy, which focuses on shaping the international environment and responding to a broad variety of crises. Toward this end, 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 2001 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 routinely deploys forces abroad to support its international interests. Historically, forward deployments of troops have been concentrated in three regions:

· Pacific – One Army mechanized division, one Marine expeditionary force, 2.2 Air Force fighter wing–equivalents, one Navy carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group with an embarked Marine expeditionary unit. Additionally, forward–based forces in the Pacific region include one light infantry division in Hawaii and 1.25 fighter wing–equivalents in Alaska.

· Europe – The major elements of one Army armored and one Army mechanized infantry division, 2.3 Air Force fighter wing–equivalents, one carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group with an embarked Marine expeditionary unit.

· Southwest Asia – One Army heavy battalion task force and one attack helicopter battalion, one Air Force fighter wing–equivalent, one carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group with an embarked Marine expeditionary unit.

As needs arise elsewhere, all four Services periodically deploy forces to forward locations. These deployments involve both active and reserve component units, with prepositioned U.S. equipment and material contributing substantially to overseas presence.


As potential regional aggressors expand their technological capabilities and modify their doctrine, they will pose more lethal threats to military operations. The proliferation of modern defense technologies means that U.S. forces must maintain a substantial advantage over potential adversaries to ensure quick and decisive victory with minimum casualties. U.S. forces simultaneously must be prepared to operate in the face of asymmetric threats, such as the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, terrorism, and information warfare.

Aviation Threats

Near–term threats remain below levels that would put U.S. air superiority at significant risk in a regional conflict. Aerial engagements conducted in the Balkans in 1999 as part of Operation Allied Force corroborate that assessment. On the other hand, potential adversaries are projected to field significant numbers of improved surface–to–air systems that could restrict the rapid application of U.S. air power against key ground targets at the outset of a war. As shown during the 1999 operations against Serbian air defenses, even older air defense systems, adroitly employed, can limit the application of air power.

While the chief current regional adversaries—Iraq and North Korea—have done little in recent years to augment their capabilities against U.S. air forces, they—or other possible future adversaries—may be able to exploit a wide range of advanced air–to–air and surface–to–air technologies and systems available on the international market. Aviation systems and weaponry currently being offered for sale include fighter aircraft, air–to–air missiles, and air defense systems. Properly employed, these systems could pose a difficult challenge to U.S. forces in combat. The further proliferation of advanced weapon systems could drive up U.S. losses in a future conflict, making continued improvements in the nation’s military capability imperative.

Given the current U.S. preeminence in air combat capability, potential adversaries are likely to emphasize ground–based air defenses and the hardening and camouflage of ground targets. Several rogue states are making serious efforts to move important military and industrial facilities underground. The secrecy surrounding these projects compounds the difficulty of planning the neutralization of such targets in wartime. Enemy use of decoy targets also can work effectively to dilute or confuse air attacks if not countered by the adoption of sophisticated information–gathering and targeting systems. Finally, the use of unconventional approaches, such as the dispersal of troops or weapons in densely populated urban areas, can limit the application of strike systems like missiles and air–delivered bombs. Such decoys and troop dispersal tactics were widely employed against NATO forces during Operation Allied Force. While quite effective in limiting enemy losses, these measures also constrained the movement and deployment of enemy forces. Once enemy ground units massed in the open, where they lacked effective air cover, they became vulnerable to air attack.

The lessons of Operation Allied Force concerning potential threat capabilities are particularly important in comparison with the experience of the Gulf War and the continuing air patrols being flown over Iraq in support of Operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch. Serbian exploitation of ground terrain and foliage cover, combined with the use of decoys, points to the need for continued improvements in several aspects of future air attack operations, with emphasis on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets and integration.

Maritime Threats

Advanced antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) represent an expanding threat to U.S. naval forces, particularly in littoral environments. These weapons can be launched from missile boats, coastal batteries, and air platforms. Newer generations of supersonic, highly maneuverable, low–flying, low–observable ASCMs are expected to enter world markets in large quantities within the next two decades. As a result, U.S. naval forces can expect to face increasing challenges in dealing with these sophisticated missiles in the years ahead.

Another continuing concern is the proliferation of advanced submarine technology to countries that might try to restrict access to international waters. The production of nonnuclear submarines is a growth industry worldwide, with the most advanced technologies flowing freely to countries with adequate resources to procure them. Potential adversaries such as Iran, operating a handful of advanced diesel submarines in the complex acoustic environment of the littorals, could severely impede the conduct of maritime operations in a future conflict. While the number of submarines maintained by Russia has declined over the past decade, the quality of its remaining ships is high. In addition, China, which operates the third largest number of submarines in the world, has been actively modernizing its fleet.

Naval mines pose an asymmetric threat of increasing concern to maritime forces. The employment of these weapons in a regional conflict could delay, or even prevent, the execution of U.S. maritime missions. Mine systems are generally inexpensive, easy to store and conceal, and are 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. Most littoral nations possess at least a rudimentary mine capability, raising the possibility of a mine threat in any contingency.

Ground Threats

The threat of coercion and large–scale, cross–border aggression by hostile states with significant military power continues to pose a danger to the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and regional security partners. Several highly capable weapon systems are available and affordable to regimes that are unstable or hostile to U.S. interests. Examples include lightweight antiaircraft and antitank missiles, tactical ballistic missiles with improved guidance and payload technologies, modern battle tanks with 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, they 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 conceal themselves within civil populations could negate some of the advantages of U.S. heavy weaponry.

Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons

The threat of hostile nations or terrorists using NBC weapons against U.S. military or civilian targets, or against U.S. friends and allies, has been growing. More than 20 countries currently possess or are developing NBC weapons and the means to deliver them. This makes the deployment of defenses, particularly against chemical and biological weapons, increasingly important. Toward that end, the Department has doubled its expenditures on chemical and biological defense programs over the past five years, and now commits approximately $1 billion annually to such initiatives. Details on these programs are provided in Chapters 2, 4, 7, and 9.


Key elements of the conventional force structure are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Conventional Force Structure Summary,
FY 2001


Active Corps
Divisions (Active/National Guard)
Active Armored Cavalry Regiments
Enhanced Separate Brigades
(National Guard)
Separate Brigades (National Guard)


Aircraft Carriers
Air Wings (Active/Reserve)
Amphibious Ready Groups
Attack Submarines
Surface Combatants (Active/Reserve)

Air Force

Active Fighter Wings
Reserve Fighter Wings
Reserve Air Defense Squadrons
Bombers (Total Inventory)a

Marine Corps

Marine Expeditionary Forces
Divisions (Active/Reserve)
Air Wings (Active/Reserve)
Force Service Support Groups

a Reflects the planned reduction of 18 B–52 aircraft.


Aviation Forces

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 surveillance, airborne warning and control, air battle management, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, and combat search and 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 important role played by aviation forces in regional contingencies was underscored in Operation Allied Force. More than 700 U.S. aircraft, plus another 300 aircraft contributed by the NATO allies, took part in the operation. Fighter and bomber forces conducted missions against fixed and mobile targets in the province of Kosovo and against Yugoslavia itself. Strike aircraft received extensive support from a variety of other aircraft, including tankers, electronic warfare systems, and ISR forces. The airlift and tanker fleets provided for the rapid deployment of personnel and materiel to the theater.


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 U.S.–based aircraft.

The Air Force is capable of deploying, as part of its expeditionary forces, seven to eight fighter wing–equivalents (FWEs) to a distant theater in a matter of days as an initial response in a major theater war. Additional wings would follow within the first month. These forces would operate from local bases where infrastructure exists and political agreements allow. Navy and Marine Corps air wings similarly can be employed in distant contingencies on very short notice; these forces provide a unique ability to carry out combat operations independent of access to regional land bases.

During FY 2001, the aviation combat force structure will include 20.2 Air Force FWEs (72 aircraft each), 11 Navy carrier air wings (48 fighter/attack aircraft each), and four Marine air wings (which are task organized and include varying numbers and types of aircraft). Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the programmed composition of Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps air wings at the end of FY 2001.

The Air Force will complete its transition to an expeditionary deployment concept during FY 2001. In October 1999, the Air Force began to recast its operational deployment planning for the majority of its nonnuclear forces. Under this new approach, fighter/attack aircraft and selected additional force elements are being grouped into 10 Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) packages for deployment planning purposes. The goal is to enhance the predictability of deployments and to improve the quality of life for Air Force personnel by minimizing unexpected contingency deployments. Each AEF unit will be prepared to deploy for a 90–day period on a fixed, 15–month cycle. Although a given unit may not actually be called on to deploy, it will remain ready to move on short notice throughout its designated period of availability.

Through the expeditionary concept, the Air Force will be able to substantially improve the way it packages forces for deployment. This gain will be realized without corresponding changes in force levels or force structure. No new command structure will be created. Unit identities, basing locations, and readiness levels will remain as before. While there may be some adaptations in training sequences, such adjustments will be identified and refined as the concept is put into practice and evaluated.

Table 3

Composition of Air Force Wings, FY 2001
(Fighter/Attack Aircraft)

Aircraft Type Mission Active


Air superiority

3.4 0.6 4.0



1.8 0 1.8



0 0.4 0.4



5.8 5.2 11.0



0.5 0 0.5


Close air support

1.0 1.4 2.4


12.6 7.6 20.2

NOTES: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

FWE quantities are based on the primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI) in combat units. PMAI denotes aircraft authorized for the performance of units’ basic missions; combat PMAI 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.

c Excludes OA–10 forward air control aircraft and F–15/16 aircraft devoted to North American air defense missions.


Table 4

Composition of Carrier Air Wings, FY 2001
(Fighter/Attack Aircraft)

Wing Type Aircraft Type
(PMAI per Wing)
Number of Air Wings


F–14 (12), F/A–18 (36)a



F/A–18 (48)b


NOTE: PMAI counts include only Navy F–14s and F/A–18s. The Marine Corps will maintain 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.)
a Two air wings will maintain a second F–14 squadron in lieu of a third F/A–18 squadron until those squadrons transition to the F/A–18E in 2001 and 2002.

b Includes three Naval Reserve squadrons (36 aircraft) and one Marine Corps Reserve squadron (12 aircraft).


Table 5

Composition of Marine Aircraft Wings, FY 2001
(Fighter/Attack Aircraft)

Aircraft Type Mission Active PMAI
Reserve PMAI
Total PMAI












Close air support






As noted above, each AEF unit will be made up primarily of fighter/attack and selected support elements. Although airlift, tanker, and low–density/high–demand forces (such as command and control aircraft) have not been designated as AEF components, the Department is evaluating possible future options to limit deployment pressures on these forces. Some steps have already been taken, such as the decision to retain the EC–130E airborne command, control, and communications force in service through FY 2005, rather than retiring it at the end of FY 2003 as previously planned. Measures to limit E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System deployments also are being considered. Other approaches, such as increasing the number of crews assigned, will be employed where practicable and affordable in order to moderate the operating tempo of these forces.

The Air Force is continuing its efforts to improve both near– and long–term force readiness. Funding for depot–level repairable items and initial spares has been increased over previously projected levels for the second straight year in an effort to ensure aircraft availability across the fleet. Funding additions for engine upgrades, modifications, and component improvements—also across the fleet—likewise will improve force availability. Funding for F–16 engine safety–of–flight modifications has been accelerated. Funds have also been added to support F–15 radars, which otherwise would become unsustainable in FY 2002.

The Air Force has been equipping its fleet of F–16 aircraft with targeting pods for precision attack of ground targets and for air defense suppression missions. As a result of the high demand experienced during Operation Allied Force for the capability to deliver precision munitions, additional numbers of these pods will be procured. Many of the targeting pods will be allocated to reserve aircraft, enabling them to deliver precision–guided munitions. These upgrades will also enhance the deployability of reserve forces in contingencies, helping to relieve high operating tempos in the active force.

Finally, there has been a considerable increase in funding for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. The expanded bonuses 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 the readiness of its aviation forces. Funding increases for F/A–18C/D maintenance and modifications, as well as expanded procurement of infrared targeting pods, will improve the effectiveness of these aircraft over the remainder of their service lives. Significant improvements are being made in Marine Corps AV–8B support, drawing on the findings of the 1998 Harrier Review Panel study. Boosts in flight–hour funding levels also are expected to reduce fluctuations in readiness as naval aviation forces prepare for deployments.


Conventional bombers perform missions spanning the full spectrum of operations. For example, during Operation Allied Force, B–2 bombers played an essential role attacking sensitive targets using precision munitions. The B–1 bomber was also used to attack targets throughout the operation.

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 ability of these forces 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 expand dramatically over the next 10 years as new munitions are deployed. More advanced weapons now entering the inventory or in development will enable bomber forces to bring a wider range of targets under attack, while taking advantage of the bombers’ large payloads. The rapid–response, long–range capability provided by bombers could make them the first major U.S. weapon system on the scene in a fast–breaking crisis. For remote inland targets, bombers could be the only weapons platform capable of providing a substantial response.

The bomber inventory currently includes 208 aircraft—94 B–52s, 93 B–1s, and 21 B–2s. The B–52 force is programmed to decline to 76 aircraft in FY 2001. Within the existing inventory, 44 B–52s and 52 B–1s are primary mission aircraft, fully funded in terms of operations and maintenance, load crews, and spare parts, and ready for immediate deployment. An additional 12 B–52s are held ready for nuclear missions. All 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 the expeditionary air force, with both B–1s and B–52s available for AEF deployments.


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 provide critical 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 6 summarizes the force levels programmed for the end of FY 2001.


The decades–long promise of precision munitions is being realized. U.S. aviation forces can now hit, precisely, any set of coordinates, thus putting at risk any target that can be identified. This places a premium on ISR assets, which provide targeting support for strike operations involving precision munitions. The operational benefits afforded by these munitions include:

· Neutralization or reduction of the effectiveness of enemy antiaircraft systems. This helps reduce aircraft losses and speeds the follow–on use of direct attack weapons, which are less expensive than standoff munitions.

· The ability to attack highly defended targets from the outset of hostilities, without having to sequentially destroy a series of peripheral defenses.

· The extension of the effective reach of combat aircraft, enabling attacks to be launched from positions well beyond enemy air defense range.

Table 6

Specialized Aviation Forces, FY 2001

Electronic Warfare



Airborne Reconnaissance and Surveillance Systems
Standoff E–2Ca
RC–135 Sd/Ue/Vc/Wc



F–14 (TARPS)
F–16 (TARS)
RC–7 (ARL)
Pioneer UAV Systemsf
MAE (Predator) UAV Systemsf
Tactical UAV Systemsf
Hunter UAV Systemsf


NOTE: Force counts represent PMAI totals.

a Performs airspace surveillance, early warning, and fighter control.

b Performs ground reconnaissance.

c Conducts signals intelligence.

d Conducts measurement and signature intelligence.

e Conducts electronic intelligence.

f Each UAV system contains three or more air vehicles.

The ability of precision weapons to maximize damage to targets while minimizing collateral damage and increasing aircraft survivability was vividly demonstrated during Operation Allied Force. Precision munitions were employed by U.S. forces in strikes against Serbian air defense installations, infrastructure, and ground forces. Examples of weapons used in the operation include the Joint Direct Attack Munition, the Joint Standoff Weapon, and the Standoff Land Attack Missile.

Inventories of air–to–air munitions also are benefiting from the introduction of upgraded systems. New variants of existing missiles, now in production or under development, incorporate significant improvements in lethality and range, making these weapons more effective across a larger engagement area.

Naval Forces

The diverse roles played by naval forces in support of the defense strategy drive the forces’ overall size and structure. Forward presence requirements and peacetime and crisis response operations, in particular, are major determinants of naval force needs.

The key components of the maritime force structure are aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, attack submarines, surface combatants, mine warfare ships, and ballistic–missile submarines (discussed in the Nuclear Forces chapter). In addition, the force includes maritime patrol aircraft and sea–based helicopters, as well as ships that perform support and logistics functions.

The maritime force will number 316 ships at the end of FY 2001 (see Table 7). Force levels will decline slightly over the remainder of the program period, stabilizing at just over 300 ships. This will provide a sufficient number and mix of vessels to maintain 12 aircraft carrier battle groups (CVBGs), 12 amphibious ready groups (ARGs), 116 surface combatants, 55 attack submarines, and associated logistics and support forces.

Table 7

Naval Force Levels, FY 2001

Ballistic Missile Submarines


Aircraft Carriers


Attack Submarines


Surface Combatants


Amphibious Ships


Mine Warfare Ships


Logistics Force Ships/Support Force


Total Battle Force Ships


Selected Maritime Aircraft

Maritime patrol aircraft squadrons
LAMPS helicopter squadrons
NOTE: Entries with two numbers separated by a slash give active and reserve force counts.

Carrier battle groups typically consist of a carrier, its air wing, surface combatants, attack submarines, and various supporting vessels. 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 MEU(SOC). Until late 1998, the Navy deployed 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 on a nearly continuous basis in the western Pacific. Since 1999, a CVBG has been deployed in the Southwest Asian region on a continuous basis to support contingency operations. Maintaining a continuous presence in that theater has been accomplished by adjusting CVBG deployments in other regions. Plans call for a CVBG to be deployed continuously in Southwest Asia through FY 2001, thus obviating the need for the Air Force to provide AEFs to fill any gaps in CVBG presence. In the other two theaters, where a CVBG or ARG is not constantly on patrol, one of those forces is located within a few days’ transit time of the region and can be dispatched promptly if circumstances require.


In addition to their extensive forward presence and crisis–response capabilities, aircraft carriers provide a forward base from which to conduct air operations in littoral areas. Operating independent of land–basing restrictions, carriers also provide support facilities for joint operations. Their presence in a conflict theater enables attack, surveillance, air defense, and electronic warfare missions to be conducted against naval, air, and ground targets from points well distant from the shore. The employment of two carriers in Operation Allied Force illustrates the key role that these forces play in influencing and controlling world events.

The FY 2001–2005 program supports an aircraft carrier force structure of 12 fully deployable units. At the end of FY 2001, 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. One of these ships, the J. F. Kennedy (CV–67), has been serving as an active as well as a reserve/training asset. The FY 2001 budget redesignates this ship as an active unit, enabling it to be incorporated fully into the carrier deployment schedule.

The newest Nimitz–class aircraft carrier, Ronald Reagan (CVN–76), will join the fleet in FY 2003, replacing the Constellation (CV–64). At that point, two conventionally–powered carriers—Kitty Hawk (CV–63), stationed in Yokosuka, Japan, and the J. F. Kennedy—will remain in the fleet. The Kitty Hawk will be retired in FY 2008, when CVN–77 enters service. The first of the Nimitz–class follow–on ships, designated CVNX, will enter construction in FY 2006 and join the fleet around FY 2013, replacing the Enterprise (CVN–65), which will then have seen more than 50 years of service. The second CVNX will replace the J. F. Kennedy about five years later, when that carrier is about 50 years old.


Forward–deployed naval expeditionary forces with embarked Marines provide joint capabilities for forward presence and crisis–response operations. Amphibious forces are typically employed in three–ship ARGs. A vital component of the maritime force structure, ARGs provide the ability to project forces into littoral regions rapidly from points over the horizon, utilizing both air and surface platforms. During Operation Allied Force, Marines from two ARG/MEUs demonstrated the flexibility that amphibious forces bring to bear in contingencies by simultaneously conducting attack missions in support of the air campaign while providing humanitarian assistance and protection for displaced Kosovars.

The FY 2001–2005 program sustains 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 ships, including six new San Antonio–class LPD–17 amphibious transport dock ships.


The attack submarine (SSN) force plays a vital role in support of maritime operations. The increased emphasis on regional contingencies has shifted the focus of SSN missions from open–ocean antisubmarine warfare (ASW) to surveillance, power projection, support of special operations forces, and ASW in littoral environments. SSNs are uniquely suited to littoral operations by virtue of their ability to gather surveillance data, perform crisis response missions, conduct strike operations, and protect carrier battle groups and amphibious forces in forward areas.

The Department completed an assessment of SSN mission and force structure needs in late 1999. The assessment concluded that at least 55 SSNs are needed to ensure the capability to respond to urgent missions of high national interest. Based on that finding, the FY 2001 budget retains 55 attack submarines and the FY 2001–2005 FYDP provides the resources needed to sustain a fully capable submarine force.


Surface combatants provide multimission capabilities for operations in littoral environments. The surface combatant force comprises modern cruisers and destroyers equipped with standoff strike weapons, antiair missiles, guns, and ASW torpedoes, as well as older frigates and destroyers with some of these capabilities. Surface combatants protect carrier battle groups and ARGs, and sustain a presence in areas where full battle groups may not be available. They also provide naval surface fire support, long–range strike capability (using Tomahawk cruise missiles), and integrated theater air defense capabilities.

The FY 2001–2005 program maintains a surface combatant force of 116 ships, including 108 ships in the active inventory and eight in the reserves. A decision has been made to decommission six Spruance–class destroyers in 2001 in favor of retaining an equal number of Oliver Hazard Perry–class frigates (FFGs). Because of their inherent utility for littoral missions and relatively low operating costs, FFGs are increasingly relied upon for employment in regional engagements and military exercises with other nations.


The combat logistics force provides extensive at–sea replenishment for ships deployed in forward areas. The force includes station ships, which support in–theater operations, and shuttle ships, which ferry material continuously from shore to sea. In FY 2001, the station–ship force will consist of four AOE–1–class and four AOE–6–class fast combat support ships. The shuttle–ship force will be composed of a civilian–manned Military Sealift Command (MSC) fleet of 13 oilers (T–AO), six dry stores ships (T–AFS), and seven ammunition ships (T–AE). The first Advanced Dry Cargo Ships (T–ADC(X)) will enter the force in FY 2005. These new MSC–manned multiproduct ships will replace aging T–AE and T–AFS vessels. When teamed with a T–AO, the T–ADC(X) will provide dry–cargo capability equivalent to that of an AOE–1–class vessel.


Maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) conduct antisubmarine, antiship, and other surveillance missions, as well as mining operations, in support of task groups at sea and forces ashore. At the end of FY 2001, the MPA force will comprise 228 P–3C aircraft, organized into 12 active and seven reserve squadrons. The FY 2001–2005 program continues the transition of this land–based force from open–ocean to littoral operations.


Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) MK III SH–60B helicopters, operating from surface warships, provide extensive antiship and antisubmarine capabilities for maritime engagements. LAMPS helicopters are used for deploying torpedoes, sonobuoys, and antiship missiles; processing magnetic anomaly detector information; and conducting reconnaissance missions. At the end of FY 2001, there will be 147 SH–60B aircraft in the inventory. During that year, three SH–60Bs will be transferred to a reserve squadron, where they will replace less capable SH–2G systems.

Land Forces

The diverse and complementary mix of capabilities provided by the Army and 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 capable of projecting combat power ashore and conducting 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 maintain four active corps headquarters, 10 active divisions (six heavy and four light), and two active armored cavalry regiments throughout the program period. 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.

The Army is developing plans for both the near and far term to field more mobile and lethal forces. The Army’s plans call for the immediate creation of new, more responsive brigades that will initially use surrogate equipment and loaned vehicles. Off–the–shelf medium armored vehicles will then be procured to extend this capability in the interim until technology allows for the fielding of a new family of combat vehicles. The long–term goal is to erase the distinction between traditional heavy and light forces, thereby creating a standard force (termed the Objective Force) for the entire Army that is both more responsive and more capable.

Implementation of redesigned heavy Army divisions has resulted in the following changes: one less combat company per combat battalion, a dedicated reconnaissance troop assigned to each brigade, a shift of organic combat service support assets from combat battalions to forward support battalions, and an increased emphasis on command, control, and information support structures. The Total Army Analysis for FY 2003 and FY 2005 identified adjustments to the support needed to sustain Army combat forces across the range of military operations. As a result, the Army is taking steps to convert lower–priority support and combat units to higher–priority support units. Pending the completion of the Total Army Analysis FY 2007, the Army will continue to work with its reserve components (including representatives of the Adjutants General) to refine options for reconfiguring appropriate reserve units so that they mirror active units and maintain their relevancy to national needs.

Table 8

Army Force Structure and
End–Strength, FY 2001

Active Component

Separate brigades and armored cavalry regiments


Army National Guard

Separate brigades and armored cavalry regimentsa


Army Reserve End–Strengthb


a Fifteen will be enhanced separate brigades.

b Includes all functional areas of combat, combat support, and combat service support.

In FY 2001, 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 8 summarizes the Army force structure programmed for the end of FY 2001.


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 Marine Corps maintains three MEFs in the active force, headquartered in California (I MEF), North Carolina (II MEF), and Okinawa (III MEF). Embarked on amphibious ships, MEU(SOC)s (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. Over the past several years, the Marine Corps has closely integrated its reserve force with the active component, providing specific units to augment and reinforce active capabilities.

Table 9

Marine Corps Force Structure and
End–Strength, FY 2001

Active Component

Force service support groups


Reserve Component

Force service support group


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 designed to provide a rapid initial response to chemical/biological incidents.

Table 10 summarizes the Marine Corps force structure programmed for the end of FY 2001.

Mobility Forces

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 overseas operating locations. 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 flown by commercial planes. The Department will have an organic strategic airlift capacity of 27 MTM/D at the end of FY 2001.

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 9.6 million square feet by the end of FY 2001, 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).

Prepositioning military equipment and supplies near potential conflict regions reduces response time in contingencies. With material stored on land or afloat at overseas locations, only personnel and a relatively small amount of equipment need be airlifted to a 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 2001, the military airlift fleet will consist of 58 C–17s, 88 C–141s, 104 C–5s, and 418 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.

· The majority of government–owned ships are maintained in the Ready Reserve Force. This 87–ship fleet is composed primarily of RO/RO vessels, breakbulk ships, and tankers held at various levels of readiness. More than half of the ships are able to get underway in four to five days; the remainder can be readied for service in 10, 20, or 30 days.

· Augmenting the Ready Reserve Force are eight fast sealift ships and two hospital ships manned by partial crews. The fast sealift ships can begin loading on four days’ notice, while the hospital ships can be readied for deployment in five days.

· LMSRs support both the prepositioning program and surge sealift. Once the full 20–ship LMSR fleet is deployed, these vessels will provide nearly all of the afloat prepositioning space required for Army unit equipment and approximately one–third of surge sealift capacity. Ten LMSRs have been delivered to date, and eight additional ships are scheduled for delivery by FY 2001. The remaining two vessels will join the fleet by the end of FY 2002. One LMSR, slated for deployment with the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF), will be configured specifically to carry Marine Corps equipment.

· To support peacetime operations, the Department charters dry cargo ships and tankers from commercial operators. These ships transport military cargo to locations not normally served by commercial routes.

· The U.S.–flag commercial fleet contains 198 ships with military utility. These include 110 dry cargo ships, 87 tankers, and one passenger ship. Another 175 commercial vessels that could contribute to military missions—81 dry cargo ships, 84 tankers, and 10 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 are registered in nations whose laws do not preclude the ships’ requisitioning for military operations.

A number of the commercial vessels listed above can be made available for military contingencies under the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA), maintained by the Departments of Defense and Transportation with commercial cargo carriers. 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.

Operating from bases throughout Europe, U.S. tanker forces played a crucial role in refueling combat aircraft deployed during Operation Allied Force. In addition, tankers formed an air bridge between the United States and Europe, enabling other military aircraft to fly nonstop from U.S. bases to destinations throughout the area of operations.


The United States stores a variety of combat equipment and supplies at selected locations abroad. These stocks, maintained ashore and afloat, dramatically reduce the time required to deploy forces and the number of airlift sorties needed to move them.

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. Several of these sets were used to support humanitarian relief operations in Albania during Operation Allied Force.

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, many of which are 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 operating with the Maritime Prepositioning Force. The ships are organized into three squadrons, each capable of supporting a 17,300–person MEB for 30 days. The squadrons are stationed in the western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. The MPF will receive a new ship in FY 2000, and two additional vessels will join the force by the end of FY 2002. The new ships, converted specifically for MPF operations, will be allocated among the three 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. During Operation Allied Force, ammunition from one of the Air Force–chartered ships was used to support air combat operations in Kosovo.

Table 10 shows the projected inventories for key elements of the military mobility force structure at the end of FY 2001.

Table 10

Military Mobility Forces, FY 2001

Airlift (Operational)a



Aerial Refueling (Operational)c




Ready Reserve Force Ships
Fast Sealift Ships
Large Medium–Speed RO/ROs

a The inventory levels shown reflect primary mission aircraft.

b Does not include 14 aircraft operated by the Navy.

c These aircraft also perform airlift missions.

d Excludes four RRF ships tendered to the Military Sealift Command for use in peacetime operations.


The aging of key elements of the U.S. force structure and the increase in asymmetric military threats underscore the need for continued defense modernization. Consistent with this requirement, the Department’s FY 2001–2005 program:

· Emphasizes acquisition of advanced capabilities in support of Joint Vision 2010.

· Increases annual procurement funding to just over $60 billion in FY 2001, and exceeds that figure in each of the four subsequent years.

· Continues substantial investment in research and development and in science and technology programs in order to incorporate new technologies and techniques that could revolutionize U.S. warfighting capabilities.

Equipment modernization programs, described in the sections below, will be funded in part through cost–saving initiatives being pursued across the Department. Such initiatives include:

· Opening more than 200,000 billets to public–private sector competitions by FY 2005.

· Aggressively pursuing infrastructure reductions.

· Fully implementing acquisition reform initiatives.

· Pursuing business process reengineering, including labor–saving technologies.

Aviation Forces

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 2001.


Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF is the Department’s largest acquisition program and one of the most ambitious in concept. This project is intended to provide a family of aircraft for use by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, produced in variants configured to reflect the Services’ individual needs. The JSF will replace the F–16 in the Air Force, the F/A–18C in the Navy, and the F/A–18C/D and AV–8B in the Marine Corps. Through substantial commonality across the Service variants, JSF avoids the need for separate aircraft development programs that would be prohibitively expensive to conduct in parallel.

The JSF is projected to combine substantial combat mission radius, high survivability against air defenses, and large payloads by capitalizing on technological advances in electronics, materials, and manufacturing processes. The program will continue in the concept demonstration phase during FY 2000; engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) is slated to begin in FY 2001. The concept demonstration process involves a competition between two 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. Construction of the demonstrators also will provide insights into the degree of commonality that can be achieved among JSF variants. Successful completion of the flight test program will give greater confidence in the EMD phase and support the planned production phase. 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. While the JSF is not projected to match the unique capabilities of more specialized aircraft, it will provide a superior combination of multirole capabilities within affordable limits. A thorough analysis of alternatives is underway to confirm the aircraft’s readiness for entry into the EMD phase in FY 2001.

The JSF has attracted significant interest from friendly nations considering potential replacements for their 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 (Harrier variant) aircraft 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 determining whether the JSF could meet their future strike–fighter requirements. In addition, Canada and Italy are monitoring the system’s initial development efforts as informed partners.

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 system (for situation awareness and targeting), and superior aerodynamic performance. The F–22’s larger wing area, more powerful engines, and superior engine thrust control features all contribute to its improved maneuverability relative to the F–15.

The first two of nine F–22 EMD test aircraft are flying at Edwards Air Force Base, California, and the third aircraft will arrive in the spring of 2000. The fourth test aircraft—the first to incorporate mission avionics—is planned to commence flight tests in mid–2000. Aerodynamic flight testing conducted thus far has been very successful. The aircraft continue to meet or exceed design goals for this stage of development, including demonstration of supersonic cruising flight, full flight altitude, and demanding high–angle–of–attack maneuvers. All nine EMD aircraft are planned to be operational by the end of FY 2001.

The Department’s F–22 acquisition strategy has been modified to reflect congressional action on the FY 2000 program. Beyond the nine EMD aircraft, plans continue to call for acquisition of two production representative test vehicles (PRTVs) with FY 1998 and 1999 funds. Six additional PRTVs will be acquired prior to the start of low–rate initial production (LRIP), now planned for FY 2001. The second PRTV lot will be acquired with research and development funding, as directed by Congress. Advance procurement funds in FY 1999 enabled initial work to begin on the second PRTV lot. About $723 million will be committed to the PRTV effort during FY 2000. The FY 2001 budget provides an additional $404 million for PRTV acquisition; a final funding increment of $148 million is programmed for FY 2002.

The Department plans to procure a total of 333 F–22 aircraft with production funding. (The overall quantity of developmental and production aircraft remains unchanged.) No change in the previously planned testing or design review process is anticipated as a result of the congressional shift of FY 2000 production funds to the research, development, test, and evaluation account.

F–16s, A–10s, and F–15s. The Department’s plan for Air Force fighter/attack aircraft calls for the F–16 multirole fighter force—which constitutes about 50 percent of the force structure—to operate beyond 2010, 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. It is anticipated that the sturdy A–10 attack aircraft can operate well into the 2020s, assuming some future life–extension efforts. As reported in past years, some F–16s and A–10s have been put into long–term storage as a hedge against a possible future need to refurbish operating aircraft. The first lot of 100 early–model F–16s is already in storage. A second lot of 100 aircraft was planned to enter storage in FY 2000, but some of these aircraft will now be retained in operational Air National Guard units for a few years longer.

The Department initiated a program in FY 2000 to procure 30 new F–16C/D aircraft in an air defense suppression configuration. Acquisition of these aircraft serves several purposes, most importantly the provision of sufficient air defense suppression aircraft to allocate one squadron to each of 10 AEFs. Six F–16s are programmed for procurement in FY 2003 and seven in each of the two subsequent years. Additional F–16 foreign sales were made during 1999, extending F–16 production well into this decade.

The Congress added $275 million in FY 2000 for procurement of F–15Es for the Air Force. Five aircraft are to be acquired with these funds. The additional aircraft will be assigned to the backup inventory to offset future peacetime attrition. Their acquisition will extend the service life of the existing F–15E force structure.

F/A–18. The F/A–18E/F is the Navy’s principal fighter/attack aircraft acquisition program. The F/A–18E/F will replace older F/A–18 models as well as F–14s. In addition to providing greatly improved survivability over earlier–model F/A–18s, 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 F/A–18E/F acquisition plan calls for the procurement of between 548 and 785 aircraft, depending upon the pace that JSF production can achieve.

The F/A–18E/F completed its initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) during FY 1999. F/A–18E/Fs participating in the test flew more than 800 sorties, totaling over 1,400 flight hours. A wide variety of operational trials, including joint force exercises, were conducted. The test schedule was accomplished almost exactly according to plan, and all the information sought was collected. The Navy’s test command will release its report early in 2000, to be followed later in the year by DoD’s independent OT&E report.

The operational impact of deficiencies uncovered during pre–IOT&E flight tests was investigated thoroughly during 1999. In support of that evaluation, the Navy established an independent review panel to consider the effects of noise and vibration on weapons carriage. The panel recommended a variety of improvements for consideration, ranging from adjustments in wing flight control surface settings to relatively minor aerodynamic modifications. Assessments currently underway will help identify the most cost–effective approaches. Over the long term, improved aerodynamic analysis tools developed through basic research programs will help pinpoint needed design improvements early in the development process.

Production of the 62 F/A–18E/Fs funded in FY 1997–1999 is well along, with a total of 13 aircraft delivered through December 1999. The production rate continues to increase, with 36 aircraft funded in FY 2000 and a further 42 requested in FY 2001. Full–rate production of 48 aircraft per year is slated to commence in FY 2002. 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 testing and training.

AV–8B. The AV–8B remanufacturing program is progressing, with 28 aircraft delivered through the end of 1999. Of the 72 AV–8Bs programmed for remanufacturing, 62 were funded in FY 2000 and prior years. The FY 2001 budget provides for procurement of the remaining 10 aircraft. The Marine Corps plans to replace the AV–8B, as well as the F/A–18C/D, with the Joint Strike Fighter. Pending the initial delivery of Marine JSFs near the end of this decade, some Navy F/A–18Cs will be transferred to the Marine Corps. In addition, 24 Marine F/A–18As will be equipped with new computers and sensors, which will enable them to carry modern air–to–air and air–to–ground ordnance. This will leave a balance of 76 Marine F/A–18s in the earlier configuration; these aircraft will be capable of carrying laser–guided (but not GPS–aided) munitions and Sparrow (rather than AMRAAM) medium–range air–to–air missiles.

Trainer Aircraft. The FY 2001 budget includes funds to procure 12 T–45 trainer aircraft for the Navy. The need to acquire additional T–45s in subsequent years is being evaluated as part of a Navy review of alternative approaches for meeting future trainer aircraft requirements. To preserve a range of options, T–2C aircraft being retired will be placed in secure storage for potential reactivation as part of a mixed fleet of training aircraft, should such an approach be deemed the most efficient long–term solution.


B–52. The B–52 has both conventional and nuclear missions. Upgrades for the B–52 force will keep it capable of employing the latest munitions and communicating with other forces. B–52s already are capable of carrying the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the Wind–Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), and the Sensor–Fuzed Weapon (SFW). The Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) will be added to the B–52 force in FY 2000 and the Joint Air–to–Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) in FY 2001. The existing ALR–20 radar warning receiver on the B–52, which provides information on enemy electronic emissions, will be replaced with a system capable of recognizing the latest threat signals.

B–1. The B–1 will be the backbone of the future conventional bomber force. Upgrades completed in 1999 provided the B–1 with an advanced navigation system and an improved communications suite. ALE–50 towed decoys are now being fielded on the B–1 force; major enhancements to the aircraft’s computers and electronic countermeasures system will be incorporated starting in FY 2003. The B–1 can deliver the entire family of advanced cluster munitions (CBU–87/89/97) as well as MK–82 and MK–84 general purpose bombs, MK–62 mines, and the GBU–31 (JDAM), increasing its effectiveness against area targets and vehicles in low–threat environments. The WCMD will be added to the B–1 weapons suite in FY 2002, followed by JSOW and JASSM in FY 2003.

B–2. The B–2 has both nuclear and conventional missions. The stealth features incorporated in this aircraft make it difficult to detect, especially at night and in adverse weather; its ability to penetrate heavy defenses is further enhanced when it is employed with standoff jamming aircraft. All 21 aircraft in the programmed B–2 force have been delivered. The capability of these aircraft will increase as they are upgraded from the test configuration and initial Block 10 and Block 20 configurations to the Block 30 design; completion of these modifications is scheduled for July 2000. Block 30 aircraft incorporate improved stealth features and advanced avionics, and are capable of employing the JDAM and 4,700–pound GBU–37. The B–2 was the only aircraft to employ JDAM during Operation Allied Force. JSOW will be added to the B–2 weapons suite during FY 2000, followed by JASSM in FY 2003. During the transition to the Block 30 standard, some aircraft will be undergoing conversion, rendering them unavailable for immediate use.


During Operation Allied Force, the Department’s fleets of specialized aircraft, particularly those that perform ISR missions, were in high demand. This occurred for a number of reasons, including the extensive use by the Serb forces of tactics of concealment and deception. These tactics placed a premium on U.S. capabilities to perform continuous surveillance of regions in which Serb forces might be hiding. The Department has, therefore, taken a number of actions to enhance its fleets of specialized aircraft, as described subsequently in this section.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS). The JSTARS system, operated by the Air Force and the Army, locates, identifies, and tracks enemy targets on the ground in support of air and ground operations. The system consists of two primary elements: large transport–class aircraft (E–8s) carrying a powerful multimode radar with on–board systems–operating personnel, and mobile common ground stations that receive and exploit radar data. The FY 2000 budget provided funds to procure a fourteenth production E–8C; a fifteenth aircraft is funded in FY 2001. Two block upgrades will be initiated during the next few years: the Computer Replacement Program (Block 20), which will begin in FY 2001, and the satellite communication version (Block 30), commencing in FY 2002. Additionally, the budget continues funding for a major upgrade to the E–8 radar system being accomplished as part of the Radar Technology Insertion Program. The acquisition profile has been structured to provide five modified aircraft by FY 2011.

U–2. The Air Force high–altitude U–2 force is receiving several enhancements, most importantly an upgraded radar with greatly improved imagery and moving–target intelligence features. Additional ground–processing capabilities, which will support endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations, are being incorporated.

UAVs. Two Air Force high–altitude endurance (HAE) UAVs—Global Hawk and Dark Star—were evaluated in the HAE UAV Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). Early results from this ongoing effort formed the basis for the selection of the Global Hawk for engineering development and eventual deployment. The Dark Star low–observable UAV segment of the ACTD was terminated in January 1999. Global Hawk is performing well and will continue participating in joint operational demonstrations during FY 2000. This UAV will complement the U–2 force in providing high–altitude surveillance capability. It is designed to provide electro–optical, infrared, and synthetic aperture radar imagery as well as moving–target surveillance capability. The Global Hawk post–ACTD now includes an EMD phase, procurement plan, and operations and support concepts. A total of eight Global Hawk UAVs are planned for procurement through FY 2005.
The Army and the Navy also are pursuing tactical UAV programs. The Army has initiated a program for a small, land–based UAV to be fielded in the early 2000s. A design competition for this system is underway. The Navy will begin developing a UAV with a vertical–takeoff–and–landing (VTOL) capability for employment on ships with small decks and for operation ashore in locations with limited landing facilities, including urban areas. The Navy and Marine Corps will continue to operate the Pioneer UAV until the VTOL UAV enters service. Both the Army and Navy UAVs will incorporate the Tactical Control System, ensuring command, control, and communications interoperability in joint engagements. The Tactical Control System also will be considered for retrofit on Predator endurance UAVs operated by the Air Force. Although acquisition of Predator systems concluded in FY 2000, procurement of attrition replacement UAV air vehicles will continue through at least FY 2005.

RC–135 and EP–3. Air Force RC–135 Rivet Joint and Navy EP–3 aircraft are being upgraded to Joint Signals Intelligence Avionics Family standards to provide higher levels of interoperability, operational flexibility, and capability. The Rivet Joint fleet has been expanded to 16 aircraft. The Navy’s land–based EP–3 fleet is being increased to 13 aircraft, with an additional aircraft (being converted from the P–3C ASW configuration) scheduled for delivery in FY 2004.

E–3 and E–2C. Installation of numerous upgrades¾ radar improvements and new passive emitter detection systems¾on Air Force E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft will continue well into the next decade. Planned computer and display improvements are being slowed to reduce crew training burdens. The Air Force is providing funding for parallel improvements in NATO E–3s via the NATO AWACS modernization effort; a computer and display upgrade being accomplished as part of the NATO program will serve as the basis for the U.S. fleet improvements. New E–2Cs for the Navy are being produced initially at a rate of three per year under a multiyear contract covering FY 1999 through FY 2003. Both the E–3 and E–2C fleets are receiving reliability and maintainability improvements to keep them viable past the year 2010. Beginning with FY 2001 deliveries, E–2Cs will be equipped with Cooperative Engagement Capability subsystems to improve targeting of missiles and aircraft.

EA–6B. EA–6B tactical airborne electronic warfare aircraft will be receiving further capability enhancements, some as a result of experience in Operational Allied Force. Installation of an improved avionics package (ICAP III) will be accelerated beginning in FY 2003 and will reach a maximum rate of 15 sets per year by FY 2005. The FY 2001–2005 program provides for the formation of one additional EA–6B squadron. Drawing from the existing aircraft inventory through reassignment of selected test aircraft and benefiting from the activation of all previously stored aircraft, the new unit will become operational in FY 2003. Its addition will bring the total number of Navy and Marine Corps EA–6B squadrons to 20; five of the Navy squadrons will be earmarked for land–based expeditionary deployments. Combined with the capability upgrades discussed above, the creation of the new unit will enhance the contribution of the EA–6B force to combat operations. Also, the Department has initiated a joint effort to determine the capabilities that should be developed to replace the EA–6B as this fleet begins to retire after 2010.

EC–130H. The FY 2001–2005 program provides for the upgrade of two EC–130H Compass Call aircraft to a common (Block 35) configuration. With this upgrade, a total of 13 Block 35 aircraft will be available to combatant commanders.


Advanced Medium–Range Air–to–Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Air Force and Navy will continue procurement of AMRAAM missiles 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 the ability to be cued to a target by 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. Early testing led to some improvements in component design and production quality that are being proven as flight tests proceed. Assuming continued test successes, the system will enter low–rate production in FY 2001.

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 in EMD. Initial flight tests revealed a minor design problem (a wing–opening actuator failed), leading to a thorough review of program plans and a subsequent decision to add 10 months to the EMD phase to ensure an acceptable risk level. Developmental flight testing will now begin in FY 2001. Assuming successful test results, low–rate production will commence in FY 2002. The FY 2001 budget includes Navy development funding to ensure that the missile will be suitable for carrier operations. While no Navy procurement for the F/A–18E/F is currently planned, the missile will be considered for future use on both the JSF and F/A–18E/F.

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. JDAM proved very successful in Operation Allied Force, although its early production status limited the number of weapons available for use. The Department has made every effort to accelerate delivery of contracted weapons and requested a large near–term increase as part of the FY 1999 emergency supplemental funding bill. Low–rate production of JDAM tail–kits for MK–84 and BLU–109 warheads began in FY 1997 and FY 1999, respectively; MK–83 tail–kits will enter production in FY 2000. The Air Force and Navy are currently revising the design of the tail–kit for the MK–84 warhead. The new design has passed all qualification testing, and Navy operational testing will be conducted in FY 2000. Additionally, the Navy and Marine Corps are pursuing development of a JDAM variant with improved accuracy under a product improvement program.

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). JSOW is a long–range glide weapon with autonomous navigation ability. Capable of employment in adverse weather, it provides 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 next). EMD for the BLU–108 variant began in FY 1996, and low–rate production commenced in FY 1999. Consistent with congressional direction, production of this variant has been suspended during FY 2000. A third JSOW 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 a decrease in 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. Development of an improved BLU–108 submunition for SFW and JSOW began in FY 1996 as part of a preplanned product improvement program; production of the improved SFW will commence in FY 2001. 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, 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.

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 accuracy, anti–jam guidance capability, and hard–target penetration. Improvements in the SLAM–ER’s mission planning system will 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 are slated for conversion to the SLAM–ER Plus configuration through 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 2000.

Naval Forces

The FY 2001–2005 program continues a broad range of modernization initiatives for naval forces. Programmed investments will add the capabilities needed to counter emerging threats, while providing the mix of ships and supporting systems required for 21st century operations. Toward that end, the program continues several smart–ship initiatives aimed at reducing manning requirements on existing ships, including aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, and surface combatants. Investments in these initiatives, totaling about $380 million over the FYDP period, are expected to achieve savings of approximately $470 million through FY 2005.

To address rising near–term readiness needs, several shipbuilding and conversion programs have been restructured. The revised plan funds 39 new–construction ships over the FYDP period, adjusting the funding and timing of selected programs. Highlights of the FY 2001–2005 shipbuilding plan are provided in Table 11.

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 FY 2001–2005 program sustains a force of 12 deployable aircraft carriers. 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 were included in the FY 2000 appropriation. The Navy negotiated cost reductions with the CVN–77 contractor in 1999 as part of an overall strategy to achieve efficiencies in the ship’s construction.

CVN–77 will serve as a bridge to the next generation of aircraft carriers, designated CVNX. More than $200 million of the approximately $5 billion programmed for CVN–77 through FY 2001 will be used to develop technologies for incorporation into the CVNX class. Some of these technologies also will be considered for backfit into existing Nimitz–class carriers.

Table 11

FY 2001–2005 Shipbuilding Program

  FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005

FYDP Total

New Construction

CVN–77 (Aircraft Carrier)
SSN–774 (Attack Submarine)
DDG–51 (Guided–Missile Destroyer)
DD–21 (Land–Attack Destroyer)
LHD–8 (Amphibious Assault Ship)
LPD–17 (Amphibious Transport Dock)
T–ADC(X) (Dry Cargo Ship)
JCC(X) (Joint Command Ship)







Service–Life Extensions/Overhauls

Carrier Refueling Overhaul
Attack Submarinesa
LCAC Modernization







a In addition to these refueling overhauls, the FYDP provides $1.1 billion to enhance the submarine force either by refueling an additional four SSN–688–class submarines or by initiating the conversion to a conventional configuration (SSGN) of up to four Trident ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) that are scheduled to be removed from service. For purposes of calculating submarine force levels through the FYDP, a total of 10 SSN refueling overhauls has been assumed.

Funds have been programmed in later years of the FYDP for continued research and development, advanced planning and design, and advance procurement of CVNX components. CVNX carriers will be nuclear powered and will each be capable of supporting an air wing of 75 aircraft, consistent with requirements established by a 1998 Navy analysis of alternatives.

The Navy is developing the new CVNX class through an evolutionary, multi–carrier process. Initial technology efforts and new design features, such as a new island, will be incorporated into CVN–77. CVNX–1, slated to begin construction in FY 2006, will retain the existing Nimitz hull, while adding a new nuclear power plant and an improved electrical generation and distribution system incorporating major technological advances. The FY 2001–2005 program provides funds to develop a new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System for CVNX–1. Beyond CVNX–1, a new hull design and other, more substantial system changes are being considered for CVNX–2, which is planned for procurement in FY 2011. Through this evolutionary approach, the Navy seeks to develop a class of carriers that will provide improved warfighting capabilities at an affordable acquisition cost and reduced ownership costs.

The FY 2001 budget funds a new, phased approach to financing aircraft carrier refueling overhauls. The overhauls previously programmed for FY 2001 and FY 2005 have been rephased to FY 2002 and FY 2006. This plan is not expected to delay completion of these scheduled maintenance periods.


Amphibious lift forces play increasingly important roles in joint operations, reflecting the growing emphasis on regional contingencies, a broader range of peacetime operations, and the rapid–deployment requirements of naval expeditionary forces. The FY 2001–2005 program continues a robust modernization of the amphibious force. Programmed investments support a long–term goal of achieving a 36–ship force comprising 12 ARGs.

The key to modernizing the amphibious force in the near term is the new amphibious transport dock ship, the LPD–17. The addition of 12 of these ships to the fleet will alleviate the current shortfall in vehicle space. The LPD–17 is designed to carry approximately 700 troops and two Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCACs), while providing 25,000 square feet of vehicle stowage space, 36,000 cubic feet of cargo space, and the capacity to accommodate four CH–46 helicopters or a mixed load of AH–1/UH–1, CH–46, and CH–53E helicopters and MV–22 tilt–rotor aircraft. Four LPD–17s have been funded to date; the first of these ships is slated to enter the fleet in FY 2003. The FY 2001–2005 shipbuilding program completes the planned 12–ship buy, procuring the remaining eight vessels at a rate of two per year in FY 2001–2004.

Investments in amphibious assault ships will continue during the FYDP period, with funds for one additional LHD–class ship programmed in FY 2005. The Navy has procured seven LHDs to date. Acquisition of an eighth ship will provide sufficient large–deck amphibious assault vessels to sustain a 12–ARG force when the first ship of the LHA–1 class reaches the end of its 35–year service life in 2011. In preparation for LHD–8’s construction, design work has begun on a new gas–turbine propulsion system. Studies currently underway within the Navy are examining other cost–effective design changes that could be incorporated into LHD–8. Funding provided by Congress in FY 1999 and FY 2000 for construction of LHD–8 will be used to finance this ship.

The FY 2001 budget provides continued funding for a service life extension of the LCAC fleet. This program increases the LCAC’s originally planned 20–year operational life to 30 years. A high–speed, fully amphibious landing craft, the LCAC is capable of carrying a 60–ton payload at speeds greater than 40 knots over a range of approximately 200 nautical miles. Carrying equipment, troops, and supplies, the LCAC transits at high speed over the sea and across the beach, quickly offloads its cargo, and then returns to its home ship to take on additional sorties. LCACs provide amphibious task force commanders flexibility in selecting landing sites. Capable of delivering cargo directly onto dry land, they afford access to more than 70 percent of beaches worldwide.


As noted earlier, the SSN force will be maintained at 55 units through FY 2001 to ensure that there is no diminution in the fleet’s ability to respond to high–priority national needs. The FY 2001–2005 FYDP provides resources to sustain the attack submarine force either by refueling additional 688–class submarines or by converting SSBN submarines to an SSGN configuration.

The Navy’s new Seawolf submarines continue to demonstrate their superior capabilities in all critical warfighting areas. The first two submarines of this class—Seawolf (SSN–21) and Connecticut (SSN–22)—entered service in the late 1990s. The third and final unit, Jimmy Carter (SSN–23), is scheduled for delivery in 2004.

Virginia (SSN–774) class submarines will provide a more affordable follow–on to the Seawolf class. Their addition to the fleet will enable attack submarine force levels to be sustained as older 688–class SSNs leave service. Incorporating new technologies, including those developed for the Seawolf program, these submarines will be highly effective in performing traditional open–ocean ASW and antisurface missions as well as littoral and regional operations, which will be their primary emphasis. Such operations include standard SSN missions plus mine warfare, special forces insertion/extraction, battle group support, and intelligence–gathering. The Virginia class will be configured to adapt easily to evolving mission requirements. The FY 2001–2005 program funds a robust submarine technology initiative designed to improve capabilities while reducing life–cycle costs.

Virginia–class SSNs are being constructed under an innovative teaming agreement between the nation’s two builders of nuclear–powered submarines, Electric Boat Corporation and Newport News Shipbuilding. Under this arrangement, Electric Boat will assemble the first and third submarines and Newport News, the second and fourth. Five Virginia–class SSNs are programmed for procurement during FY 2001–2005 at a rate of one per year.


The FY 2001–2005 program sustains a modern force of 116 surface combatants. The age of the surface combatant force is relatively low, averaging about 14 years in FY 2001 and a projected 16 years in FY 2005. Continued deliveries of new Arleigh Burke–class guided–missile destroyers (DDG–51s) carrying the Aegis weapons system will more than offset deactivations of older surface combatants. The share of Aegis–capable ships in the force will increase from 56 percent to 68 percent during the FYDP period.

The FY 2001–2005 program restructures the DDG–51 acquisition profile, reducing procurement to two ships per year in FY 2002–2003 and extending production two year by procuring two ships in FY 2004 and one in FY 2005. These adjustments are needed to accommodate delays in the DD–21 program and to provide additional resources for other high–priority needs.

DDG–51 destroyers are equipped with the Aegis weapon system and the SPY–1D multifunction phased–array radar. The DDG–51 combat system includes the Mk–41 Vertical Launching System, advanced antisubmarine and antiair systems and weapons, and Tomahawk cruise missiles. New DDG–51s, starting with the ships delivered in FY 2002, will provide improved land–attack capabilities as well as area defenses against ballistic and cruise missiles. They will be able to operate independently or as part of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, or ARGs, or in support of underway replenishment groups. The first Flight IIA variant, launched in FY 1999, incorporates facilities to support two embarked SH–60 LAMPS helicopters, significantly enhancing the fleet’s sea control capabilities.

The FY 2001–2005 program begins procurement of the new DD–21 land–attack destroyer. Resources have been added to support high–priority, near–term efforts for research and development of key DD–21 systems. To ensure that adequate time is available to complete these efforts, procurement of the lead ship has been deferred one year, to FY 2005. The extension of the DDG–51 program, discussed previously, will sustain the surface combatant industrial base while the DD–21 completes development.

The DD–21 will provide firepower at long ranges in support of joint operations ashore. With its state–of–the–art information technologies, it will operate in close coordination with other naval forces, as well as with U.S. ground and land–based air forces. The emphasis on sensor–to–shooter connectivity will provide naval or joint task force commanders the flexibility to counter any maritime threat and destroy a variety of land targets. Moreover, the DD–21 will be difficult to detect by potential adversaries.

The FY 2001 budget continues an initiative to gain additional capabilities at low cost from selected CG–47–class cruisers (CG–52 and subsequent ships). Under this program, improvements will be incorporated into 12 Aegis cruisers between FY 2002 and FY 2005. Planned modifications include the addition of the Area Air Defense Commander system and area theater ballistic missile defense capability. The upgraded ships also will be capable of employing the new Extended–Range Guided Munition (discussed in the Naval Surface Fire Support section).


The FY 2001–2005 shipbuilding program procures 11 T–ADC(X) dry–cargo ships, completing the planned 12–ship buy. The program also accelerates the procurement schedule relative to previous plans, funding three ships per year in FY 2002 and FY 2003. These new multiproduct vessels will replace aging T–AE and T–AFS ammunition and dry cargo ships and AOE–1 fast combat stores ships. They will be used to carry both dry and refrigerated products as well as ammunition and a limited amount of fuel. To improve affordability, the ships will be procured using commercial business and construction practices to the maximum extent possible.


The Navy is conducting a study to determine the potential need for a new class of command ships. The new vessels, initially designated Joint Command Ships (JCC(X)), would replace the four existing command ships, which range in age from 30 to 36 years. The JCC(X) would provide a platform for performing joint command and control functions in forward areas. The first phase of the Navy study, to be completed in spring 2000, will assess alternative methods of performing these functions to determine whether the required capabilities could be provided by systems other than command ships. The alternatives include relying on land–based facilities (in both the United States and forward areas); using a mix of existing ships, such as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, and cruisers; or employing some combination of these approaches. Pending completion of the initial phase of the study, the Department has programmed funds to acquire two JCC(X) ships—one each in FY 2004 and FY 2005.


Investments in the MPA force focus on service life extensions (SLEPs) and upgrades of the existing P–3C fleet. By updating aircraft support systems and replacing components susceptible to fatigue, the SLEP will enable the P–3C fleet to remain operational until about 2020.

The FY 2001–2005 program also provides for the continued modernization of the P–3C fleet under the Antisurface Warfare Improvement Program (AIP). AIP is significantly expanding the P–3C’s surveillance, combat identification, and antiship capabilities through the application of commercial off–the–shelf technologies. The gains in operational performance afforded by these enhancements were demonstrated during the P–3C’s employment in Operation Allied Force. Of the 40 AIP kits purchased to date, 21 have been installed. The FY 2001–2005 program completes the planned 52–kit buy, procuring the final 12 AIP kits in FY 2001.


The Navy continues to operate dedicated mine countermeasure (MCM) ships, helicopters, and explosive ordnance disposal forces, while developing systems that will be assigned to battle groups and amphibious ready groups. These new mine warfare systems will provide airborne, surface, and subsurface MCM capabilities that will allow the fleet to avoid¾or reduce to manageable proportions¾mine threats in regional contingencies in a timely manner.


Antisubmarine warfare remains a challenging task. ASW programs funded in FY 2001–2005 are generally consistent with the course outlined in the Integrated Antisubmarine Warfare Road Map, forwarded to Congress in 1999. The ASW initiatives pursued over the FYDP period will ensure that a robust combined–forces ASW capability is maintained to meet projected threats.


Tomahawk. The Tomahawk cruise missile enables surface combatants and submarines to launch attacks against land targets from long ranges in all types of weather. As demonstrated in Operation Allied Force, Tomahawk missiles provide force commanders with a versatile, precision strike capability. The 1997 decision to terminate Block III production, combined with the use of Tomahawk missiles during the Balkan and other recent operations, has reduced stores of the newest Block IIIC missile below acceptable levels. To maintain adequate inventories of Block III Tomahawks for future contingencies, an emergency supplemental funding bill passed by Congress following the Kosovo operation provides for the conversion of 624 older Block IIC/D and Tomahawk antiship missiles to the Block IIIC configuration. For the longer term, the Navy is continuing development of an advanced, more affordable version of the Tomahawk system, designated Tactical Tomahawk. Enhancements incorporated in the Tactical Tomahawk’s design include in–flight retargeting, the ability to loiter over the battlefield and attack emerging targets, and target identification and damage assessment capabilities. In addition, the missile will employ GPS guidance.

Standard Missiles. The Standard Missile (SM) is the Navy’s primary surface ship area air defense weapon. The newest variant of the Standard system—the SM–2 Block IVA—has the dual mission of defeating both advanced antiship cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles. The FY 2001 budget continues low–rate initial production of SM–2 Block IVA missiles on a schedule that will allow the system to achieve initial operational capability and enter full production in FY 2003. Pending the Block IVA’s deployment, the budget provides for continued procurement of SM–2 Block IIIB missiles.

Ship Self–Defense Systems. Modernization of ship self–defense systems continues under the Maritime Force Protection program. This program includes the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), and the Re–architecture NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System. The FY 2001 budget begins production of the ESSM and continues RAM procurement. New 11–round RAM launchers will be installed on guided missile cruisers as part of the cruiser conversion program. They will replace the Close–In Weapon System currently employed by these ships. Reflecting the results of an analysis of ship–based radar systems conducted in 1999, the Navy has increased development funding for both the multifunction radar and the volume search radar, to be installed on CVN–77 and DD–21s. These systems are also being considered for backfit on LPD–17 amphibious ships during the next decade.

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). The CEC system collects radar data from multiple ships and aircraft and distributes this information to each ship in a battle group. This enables vessels to engage cruise missiles at ranges well beyond their radar horizons, significantly enhancing the chances of defeating advanced ASCM threats. A series of land–based tests will be conducted in FY 2000 to identify solutions to problems that have occurred in integrating CEC with other ship defense systems. Near–term efforts focus on fixing interoperability and software maturity problems. An operational evaluation of CEC interoperability is planned for the spring of 2001. The FY 2001 budget supports CEC/E–2C integration efforts to ensure that this critical airborne sensor portion of the CEC network is deployed as scheduled.

Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS). The FY 2001 budget continues initiatives to extend the service life of SH–60B LAMPS helicopters and equip them with improved sensors and weapons. The upgraded helicopters, renamed SH–60Rs, will incorporate a modern dipping sonar, a multimode radar, and other upgrades, enhancing their effectiveness and survivability in littoral environments.

Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS). Naval surface fire support capabilities are being modernized in order to expand support for joint land–attack operations. Based on the results of analyses conducted in 1999, the missile portion of the NSFS program has been restructured to address near– and long–term requirements. The FY 2001–2005 program funds development of the Land Attack Standard Missile as the near–term solution for deployment on Aegis ships. To address longer–term NSFS needs, an advanced land–attack missile will be acquired for deployment on DD–21s and possible incorporation on Aegis ships. This missile will be developed under an aggressive multi–team competition to be conducted in FY 2001–2002. The FY 2001 budget increases funding for the Advanced Gun System, a 155mm weapon that can reach a range of 100 nautical miles, also slated for fielding on the DD–21. In addition, the FY 2001 budget funds procurement of a 5"/62mm gun capable of employing extended–range guided munitions; the gun will be installed on Aegis cruisers and on DDG–81 and later Aegis destroyers.

Information Technology 21st Century (IT21). Under the IT21 program, the Navy is accelerating the fielding of shipborne computer networks supporting both warfighting and other requirements. The networks provide secure and unclassified Internet protocol access for naval forces through satellite and other communications means, using commercial hardware and software. As ships implement IT21, battle groups will be better able to coordinate their actions by sharing a common tactical picture.

Land Forces

Army. The FY 2001–2005 program marking the start of a major transformation of the Army is designed to realize the Army’s vision for fielding a more versatile, lethal, and survivable force. The Army will accomplish this transformation by combining digitization initiatives that have been a key part of its modernization program for several years with accelerated development of advanced technologies for propulsion, protection, and direct and indirect fire. Overall, the Army’s program will create a more responsive force; accelerate procurement of weapon systems that make light forces more lethal; accelerate procurement of computerized logistics systems to facilitate deployment and sustainment of Army forces; and sustain key elements of the existing force until the transformation is complete.

A major near–term element of the transformation effort is the immediate establishment of an initial force of two brigades at Fort Lewis, Washington. These units, which initially will use off–the–shelf loaned equipment, will develop tactics, techniques, and doctrine associated with the operational employment of redesigned forces. Following demonstrations and selection this spring, the Army will begin procuring off–the–shelf Medium Armored Vehicles (MAVs) for the interim force. The MAVs will be used first to replace the loaned equipment at Fort Lewis and subsequently to equip other brigades within the Army. Plans call for interim brigades to be fielded at a rate of about one per year beginning in FY 2001. The units fielded will come from both the active and reserve components. Concurrently, the Army will develop a Future Combat System (FCS) with advanced capabilities for introduction around FY 2012.

The transformation plan calls for the accelerated procurement of weapons to make lighter forces more lethal. Examples of such systems include the lightweight 155mm howitzer, the Line–of–Sight Antitank (LOSAT) weapon, and the High–Mobility Artillery System (HIMARS). Additionally, the Army will sustain key legacy systems pending completion of its transformation initiative by continuing modernization of the M1 tank, accelerating procurement of the CH–47F cargo helicopter and the UH–60L+ Blackhawk helicopter, continuing the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Extended Service Program, and initiating procurement of the Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift System (Hercules).

To improve strategic responsiveness, procurement of key logistical command and control systems will be accelerated. These systems will improve preparation and execution of movement plans, ensure integration with joint logistical systems, and provide a capability to track shipments in transit. Programs to be accelerated include the Global Combat Support System–Army, the Combat Service Support Control System, the Movement Tracking System, and the Transportation Coordinators Automated Information for Movement System II.

The Army is also continuing its efforts to equip the first digitized corps (III Corps) by 2004. Digitization entails the incorporation of state–of–the–art computers, software, and digital radios throughout the force structure and in key warfighting platforms, such as the M1 Abrams tank and the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle. Initiatives in this area will enable critical, time–sensitive information to be disseminated rapidly throughout the battlefield, thus permitting overwhelming combat power to be brought to bear rapidly at the right time and location. Anticipating the enhanced capability that digitization will provide, the Army has redesigned its mechanized divisions, reducing their size and making them more deployable while maintaining their combat capabilities.

Marine Corps. Marine Corps modernization programs are driven by the concept of Operational Maneuver From the Sea. Executing this concept will require adaptive and agile forces able to rapidly reorganize and reorient across a broad range of missions and operational environments. Potential modernization initiatives have been tested in the Hunter Warrior and Urban Warrior experiments and will continue to be evaluated in the Capable Warrior series of advanced warfighting experiments. Major ongoing Marine Corps modernization programs funded in the FY 2001 budget include the V–22 aircraft, the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle, and the Marine Corps version of the Joint Strike Fighter.


Abrams Tank Upgrade. 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 Army is pursuing two programs—the M1A1D and the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP)—to provide Abrams tanks with digital command and control (C2) capabilities. The M1A1D adds an applique computer to existing M1A1 tanks to provide the processor and memory necessary for digital command and control. Between FY 2001 and FY 2010, the Army will complete its programmed retrofit of 1,535 M1A1 tanks into the M1A1D configuration. The M1A2 SEP upgrades M1A1 and early M1A2 tanks to the latest M1A2 configuration. SEP enhancements include second–generation forward–looking infrared (FLIR) sensors, improved armor, and computer processor and memory upgrades required by the Army’s future C2 software. Between FY 2001 and FY 2010, the Army will retrofit all 627 of its older M1A2 tanks with SEP features and complete modification of 547 M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 SEP configuration. All tanks in III Corps will be M1A2 SEPs.

Additionally, under the Abrams Integrated Management XXI program, the Army is overhauling its remaining M1A1 tanks to reduce their operating and support costs. Funds have been programmed to increase overhaul rates to 135 per year during FY 2001–2005.

Finally, the Army had planned to use the M1 chassis as a platform for the M1 Grizzly Breacher and the Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge. These programs were terminated in order to free resources for the transformation effort.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Upgrade. The A3 upgrade to the Army’s Bradley fighting vehicle system is a major component of the Army digitization initiative, designed to complement M1A2 SEP capabilities while incorporating additional enhancements needed to meet future requirements. Upgraded Bradleys will be fielded to units with M1A2 SEP tanks, and will be able to share battlefield data with those units. Digitization upgrades will improve both situational awareness and sustainability through automated fault reporting and diagnostics. The A3 upgrade will also increase the Bradley’s lethality by adding an improved fire control system and a commander’s independent thermal viewer with a second–generation FLIR. Approximately 1,100 earlier–model Bradleys will be remanufactured into A3s. All Bradley infantry fighting vehicles in III Corps will be A3s.

Crusader. This new system consists of a self–propelled howitzer and resupply vehicles. Fully automated, computerized, and designed for use on the digital battlefield, the Crusader offers substantial improvements in lethality, range, and mobility over existing artillery systems. It is slated to replace the M109A6 Paladin self–propelled howitzer and the M992 field artillery ammunition supply vehicle. The Army is restructuring the Crusader program in order to improve the system’s indirect fire support capability and reduce its overall weight. The weight reduction will be attained primarily through changes to the suspension and power plant and through the use of wheeled as well as tracked ammunition supply vehicles. The acquisition objective for the system has been reduced to fewer than 500 units, sufficient to equip III Corps.

Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV). The AAAV will replace the Marine Corps’ AAV7A1 amphibious assault vehicle, which is well beyond its originally projected service life. The AAAV will allow Marine forces to launch assaults from points over the horizon, move rapidly to the beach, and continue the attack inland. It also will 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 Marine Corps’ M1A1 tanks. Development is continuing under a demonstration and validation contract awarded in 1996. Production is scheduled to begin in FY 2004, with a total of 1,013 vehicles planned for procurement. To bridge the gap until the AAAV’s deployment, the Marine Corps is extending the service life of a portion of the existing AAV7A1 fleet. The service life extension program will equip the AAV7A1 with the engine and suspension of the Bradley fighting vehicle and replace many aging components, thereby increasing reliability and maintainability while reducing maintenance and repair costs.

Lightweight 155mm Howitzer. This new towed cannon system is programmed for fielding by both the Army and Marine Corps. Substantially lighter than the M198 howitzer that it will replace, the LW155 will significantly enhance ship–to–shore mobility, while increasing the survivability and responsiveness of artillery support for ground operations. The howitzer will incorporate an Army–developed digital fire control system with a self–locating capability, further enhancing operational effectiveness. Currently in engineering and manufacturing development, the LW155 is scheduled to enter production in FY 2003. Plans call for procurement of 724 howitzers, with initial operational capability achieved in FY 2003. Fielding will be completed in FY 2006.

Future Combat System (FCS). The Army’s force transformation initiative has as its cornerstone a medium–weight combat vehicle designed to be more strategically mobile than current systems, while remaining highly lethal and effective. This new vehicle will evolve in tandem with the development and fielding of the redesigned force. In the near term, off–the–shelf MAVs will be procured for the initial and interim force. These vehicles will be in the 20 to 25–ton weight class and will be deployable by C–130 aircraft. The near–term goal is to provide the necessary mobility, protection, firepower, and capacity to fight, survive, and conduct operations independently or as part of a combined–arms team. For the longer term, the Army will develop a family of FCS vehicles for the transformed force. FCS will provide capabilities to conduct direct combat, deliver line–of–sight or near–line–of–sight munitions, perform reconnaissance, and transport personnel and material.


Comanche Helicopter. The Comanche is a key component of the Army modernization program. Designed for armed reconnaissance and incorporating the latest in stealth, sensors, weapons, and advanced flight capabilities, Comanche helicopters will be electronically integrated with other components of the digitized battlefield. They will provide the operational capabilities essential for a smaller, joint integrated force structure. Enhancements incorporated in the Comanche system will give these helicopters greater mobility, lethality, versatility, and survivability than predecessor systems at lower operating and support costs. The first flight test of a Comanche helicopter was conducted in 1996, and research and development will continue throughout the FYDP period. The first Comanche unit will be fielded in FY 2007, with a total of 1,213 helicopters planned for production through FY 2025.

V–22 Osprey. This tilt–rotor aircraft, being developed to replace the Marine Corps’ aging fleet of CH–46E and CH–53D helicopters, represents a significant advance in technology for providing tactical mobility to ground combat forces. The V–22’s combination of range, speed, and payload is a critical enabler for the modernized force. The Marine Corps plans to procure 360 MV–22 aircraft at a rate projected to reach 28 aircraft per year by FY 2003. Separate acquisition programs include 50 CV–22s modified for Air Force special operations and up to 48 HV–22s for the Navy. Initial operational capability for the MV–22 is slated for FY 2001.

Apache Longbow and Longbow Hellfire Missile. The remanufacture of 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 target acquisition system can automatically detect and classify targets. The target acquisition system incorporates a fire control radar (FCR) that uses millimeter–wave technology to direct the Longbow Hellfire missile. The fire–and–forget capability of the Longbow system provides an enhancement that is critical to the survivability and effectiveness of its launch platform. Production of the first AH–64D Apache Longbow was completed in March 1997, and initial operational capability was achieved in November 1998. Plans call for production of 530 aircraft, 500 of which will eventually incorporate the FCR and upgraded engines.

UH–1Y/AH–1Z Upgrade. The Marine Corps is making extensive improvements to its aging fleets of UH–1N utility and AH–1W attack helicopters. A total of 280 aircraft—100 UH–1Ns and 180 AH–1Ws—will be remanufactured beginning in FY 2002. The upgraded systems, redesignated UH–1Ys and AH–1Zs, will incorporate significant improvements in operational capability. The remanufacturing program also will reduce life–cycle costs (through reliability and maintainability enhancements), while extending the aircraft’s service life. The program is currently in engineering and manufacturing development; procurement is slated to begin in FY 2002.


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 are fired by the M270 delivery platform. A total of 1,647 ATACMS Block I missiles were procured through 1997. An improved version, designated ATACMS Block IA, will offer greater range and, with an embedded GPS receiver, greater accuracy as well. A total of 552 of these missiles are programmed for production. Block II ATACMS missiles, carrying the Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition (BAT), are slated for fielding beginning in FY 2001. The extended–range Block IIA missile has been terminated in order to free resources for higher–priority transformation efforts.

Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition. The BAT uses advanced acoustic and infrared sensors to seek, identify, attack, and destroy armored vehicles. ATACMS will deliver a single warhead carrying 13 BAT submunitions deep into enemy territory. The submunitions will autonomously disperse to attack their targets, allowing multiple engagements by a single missile. A preplanned product improvement program will add stationary targets—including multiple–rocket launch systems and Scud missile transporters—to the basic BAT target set through seeker and warhead enhancements. Together, the BAT and ATACMS systems will provide superior deep–strike capability to Army forces. BAT entered low–rate production in December 1999.

Sense and Destroy Armor Munition (SADARM). This top–attack submunition, delivered by 155mm artillery projectiles, is designed to destroy lightly–armored vehicles, primarily self–propelled artillery. Once dispensed from its warhead carrier, SADARM orients itself, then scans and detects its target using dual–mode millimeter–wave and infrared sensors. Operational tests of the submunition in 1998 yielded disappointing results. As a consequence, the Army is restructuring the program and is developing improvements to the system design.

Javelin. The Javelin is a medium–range, man–portable, fire–and–forget missile with day–and–night capability and an advanced tandem warhead capable of defeating modern main battle tanks, including those with reactive armor. The system includes two major components: a reusable command launch unit (CLU) sight system and the missile. Other enhancements incorporated in the Javelin’s design include the ability to fire the missile safely from covered fighting positions and to use the CLU sight separately for battlefield detection and surveillance. Javelin began full–rate production in May 1997. The Marine Corps plans to procure 2,553 missiles through FY 2001, while the Army will acquire 19,805 missiles through FY 2003.

Predator Short–Range Assault Weapon. This new fire–and–forget top–attack system will improve the Marine Corps’ short–range antitank capability in the field. A 20–pound weapon with a disposable launcher, Predator will use an inertially–guided autopilot to increase its accuracy. The system is currently in engineering and manufacturing development, with production slated to begin in FY 2001. A total of 18,190 Predator weapons will be acquired, including 6,706 during the FYDP period. Full operational capability is anticipated in FY 2011.

Line–of–Sight Antitank (LOSAT) Weapon. This system consists of kinetic–energy missiles (KEM) and a second–generation FLIR television acquisition sensor mounted on a High–Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) chassis. The KEM is designed to defeat all projected future armored vehicles as well as hardened targets, such as bunkers and reinforced urban structures. It will be readily deployable and capable of being air–dropped or slingloaded for helicopter transport. Initial production is planned for FY 2004.

High–Mobility Artillery System (HIMARS). The HIMARS is a C–130–transportable, truck–mounted, general–support rocket system designed for use by early–entry forces. Essentially a wheeled multiple–launch rocket system, HIMARS will provide high–volume artillery capability for initial–entry operations. Fielding of this system is slated to begin in FY 2005.


Digitization. The Army is continuing plans to field advanced information technologies throughout the force. Key initiatives include procurement of platforms (upgraded M1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles plus command and control vehicles) with built–in digital information–exchange capability. For critical systems that do not incorporate digital technologies, the program provides add–on capabilities, called applique sets. The use of appliques enables the Army to provide an interim digital capability for selected systems currently in the inventory, such as the M1A1, M2A2, Paladin, Avenger, and Fox.

The core of the digitization initiative is command and control equipment and software. C2 acquisitions include the improved Single–Channel Ground–Air Radio System, the Enhanced Position Locating Reporting System, the Warfighter Information Network, and the Global Broadcast Service. Related initiatives include Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below, which will link maneuver elements of brigades and battalions; the Army Tactical Command and Control System (comprising the Maneuver Control System, All–Source Analysis System, Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, Forward–Area Air Defense Command and Control System, and Combat Service Support Control System), connecting division and corps maneuver assets with intelligence, fire support, air defense, and logistics elements; and the Global Command and Control System–Army, which will link Army forces with other U.S. forces.

Annual investments in digitization over the FYDP period will average $1 billion for system upgrades to improve digital communications throughput; $850 million for C2 programs; $700 million for data–link improvements in reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, and acquisition systems; $500 million for embedded computer additions to platforms like the M1A2, M2A3, and Comanche; and $250 million for doctrinal development and training on digital equipment. About $3.6 billion has been allocated annually for all aspects of the approximately 100 programs that make up the digitization effort.

Force XXI is the Army’s concept for modernizing its forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Digitization is a key component of Force XXI. The hardware, software, and doctrinal changes supporting digitization are being evaluated in Army warfighting experiments. Building on a series of tests conducted in 1996–1998, a Digitization Capstone Exercise is scheduled for 2001. The exercise will be conducted in two phases over the spring and fall of that year. The insights gained from warfighting experiments continue to guide Army digitization efforts.

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). Under this program, the Army is fielding a complete family of medium tactical trucks and companion trailers. The vehicles share a common cab and chassis as well as common engines and transmissions, fuel systems, suspensions, and steering systems. With their off–road mobility and other performance enhancements, FMTV vehicles offer a significant improvement over the older 2 1/2–ton and 5–ton trucks they replace. Their modern design likewise affords improved crew visibility, safety, and comfort relative to previous truck systems. The FMTV will be produced in eight models—cargo, tractor, wrecker, shop van, expandable van, dump, fuel, and water tanker—with companion trailers. The high degree of commonality among the variants will reduce production costs and operations and maintenance expenditures. Since 1996, approximately 9,521 trucks have been delivered to the Army.

A few of the FMTVs currently in service have experienced drive train failures at high speeds while carrying light loads. The Army imposed a speed restriction for highway operations pending resolution of this problem. The correction, involving installation of redesigned and strengthened power train parts, began in 1999. Once the trucks have been retrofitted with the new parts, the speed restriction will be lifted and the fleet will be cleared for unrestricted operations.

Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR). Under the MTVR program, the Marine Corps is replacing its medium tactical truck fleet with new trucks. MTVRs will be used to move troops, equipment, and supplies. Each truck will be capable of carrying more than 7 tons off–road and up to 15 tons on the road. Built for a service life of 22 years, the MTVR fleet will incorporate numerous enhancements, including an electronically controlled engine/automatic transmission, an independent suspension, a central tire inflation system, antilock brakes, traction control, and improved safety/ergonomic features. Plans call for the production of 6,854 trucks, with initial operational capability achieved in FY 2001.

Logistics Command and Control Systems. In support of its transformation effort, the Army is accelerating the acquisition of selected logistical C2 systems. The Global Combat Support System–Army will provide access to logistical information from the tactical through the strategic level. It constitutes the Army’s interface with the Global Command and Control System. The Combat Service Support Control System will provide an automated means of supporting logistical, medical, financial, and personnel planning and decision making. The Movement Tracking System will provide visibility into all cargo shipments, enabling two–way communication and the redirection of in–transit material. The Transportation Coordinators Automated Information for Movement System II will facilitate the preparation and execution of movement plans at the unit level. These systems are either being fielded now or will enter the inventory over the next several years.

Mobility Forces

The FY 2001 budget and associated FYDP continue an ambitious modernization program for mobility forces. The program is designed to replace obsolete equipment with more capable and efficient systems, while adding capacity in selected areas to meet mobility objectives.


C–17. Airlift investments over the FYDP period focus on replacing the aging fleet of C–141 intertheater aircraft with state–of–the–art C–17s. The current multiyear acquisition contract will result in procurement of 120 C–17s by FY 2003, with the last of those aircraft projected for delivery in FY 2005. The Department plans to purchase additional C–17s in coming years to ensure that U.S. mobility forces possess the operational flexibility to respond to the full spectrum of crises.

Recent operations have highlighted the C–17’s versatility in performing a variety of airlift missions. During Operation Allied Force, the C–17 fleet flew more than 50 percent of strategic airlift missions, while maintaining a departure reliability rate of 97 percent. Within the area of operations, the C–17 fleet demonstrated its inherent flexibility for intratheater use by transporting materiel from NATO bases to an austere Albanian airfield. The C–17’s large payload, rapid offload capability, and ground maneuverability enabled it to deliver up to 1,150 tons of urgently needed cargo per day to NATO forces in Albania.

C–5. Current investments in the C–5 force focus on avionics modernization and selected engine modifications. Incorporating technological advances in cockpit avionics will improve the C–5’s operational capability, while enabling the force to meet more restrictive airspace management criteria slated to take effect in future years. The Air Force is investigating the feasibility of making additional upgrades to the C–5 force that would improve aircraft reliability and availability.

KC–135. The KC–135 tanker force also is being modernized. All KC–135 aircraft will receive avionics upgrades, allowing a reduction in cockpit crew size from three to two persons. In addition, 45 KC–135s will be reconfigured to accommodate one of 33 multipoint refueling pod sets, enhancing their ability to refuel Navy, Marine Corps, and allied aircraft.

C–130J. As part of the Department’s efforts to modernize the C–130 fleet, the FY 2001 budget provides procurement funding for two Air Force C–130Js and two Marine Corps KC–130J tankers. The upgraded C–130J model incorporates a redesigned flight station that will allow the cockpit crew to be reduced. In addition, the new model features a modern–technology engine and propeller system and an integrated digital avionics subsystem.

Global Air Traffic Management. Approximately $2.7 billion has been programmed in FY 2001–2005 for cockpit modernization efforts. These funds will be used to equip mobility aircraft with updated communications, navigation, and surveillance systems. A principal goal of this initiative is to ensure that these aircraft comply with worldwide airspace access criteria, known as Global Air Traffic Management (GATM). Compliance with GATM criteria is necessary to preserve the worldwide deployment capability of U.S. forces, avoid delays, and improve airspace management.

Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures. The FY 2001 budget provides the military airlift fleet with a new countermeasure system designed to foil heat–seeking surface–to–air missiles. This program will enhance the survivability of large aircraft operating in high–risk environments.


The FY 2001–2005 program continues investments in Air Force prepositioning of air base operation sets in Southwest Asia. The funding plan provides for the reconstitution of sets used to support contingency operations as well as for accelerated procurement of additional sets to enhance responsiveness in major crises.


Numerous airfields, ports, and other transportation facilities support the movement of U.S. military personnel and equipment to destinations worldwide. The Army’s Strategic Mobility Program funds improvements to domestic rail, highway, port, and airfield facilities. In addition, DoD maintains airfield facilities overseas for refueling, maintenance, and other en route support. Today, DoD operates about one–third the number of overseas airfields that it did a decade ago. Therefore, it is increasingly important to keep these facilities in good operating order and, in some cases, to enhance their capability. Complementing these improvements are continued investments in the Global Transportation Network. Funding programmed over the FYDP period will strengthen command and control capabilities, thus facilitating the tracking of personnel and cargo and enhancing the utilization of transportation resources.


U.S. conventional forces continue to evolve to meet 21st century requirements. The FY 2001 President’s Budget and associated FYDP increase funding for operational readiness as well as for critical facilities and modernization. These actions, in conjunction with initiatives to reduce operating costs, are intended to ensure that the modernization programs planned for FY 2001–2005 can be executed and that the funding target of $60 billion in annual procurement expenditures in FY 2001 is achieved. In fact, programmed expenditures meet that target in FY 2001 and exceed it each year thereafter. The Department’s modernization programs and associated operational initiatives for conventional forces emphasize and, where possible, accelerate high–payoff programs that will ensure U.S. dominance over any potential military threat.

Table 12

Web–Based Resources

For additional information on systems described in the Investment and Force Structure sections, please visit the Web sites for the respective Services at the addresses listed below:

Navy Fact File


Marine Corps Fact File


Army Weapon System Handbook


Air Force Fact Sheets


[Top] [Bottom] [Previous] [Next] [Table of Contents]