GEN. STANTON: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Army's budget brief. I know that you all have the green top with some comments, as well as the highlights brochure that we've handed out. So, while some of that information is captured in our briefing, we won't dwell on it overly long so that we can get through the numbers and then address your questions, which I know is what's of paramount interest to you.
So, let me begin with the next chart, please.
Every budget has to be characterized with themes. Ours are consistent with last year's, and the chief of staff of the Army and the secretary of the Army's guidance, which is to transform our Army, restoring balance -- and what we mean by "restoring balance" is that, after seven years of war, and where we have very limited time at home for our soldiers, we've experienced considerable stress not only for our soldiers, who go in harm's way, but their family members as well, and, in large part, much of our civilian workforce.
So, our first overarching theme is to sustain our force. And "the force" refers to our civilians, our soldiers and their families. And, of course, you do that by investing in quality-of-life programs -- the 2.9 percent pay raise; the 2 percent pay raise, for example, for the civilian workforce.
Then of second importance to us is to prepare our soldiers for the fight that they go into, so that they can go to battle -- are equipped and trained for the mission sets we challenge them with. So, there is focus, I think, as we all know, on counterinsurgency, on techniques, tactics and procedures for the fight that we're currently in – in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, part of the Title 10 responsibility, obviously, for the United States Army leadership, is to provide the combatant commanders with these soldiers that are trained to accomplish their missions.
We have a third priority that we look at, which is characterized as "resetting the force." This is the soldiers, both in terms of their own personal and professional development, the collective skills in the units in which they're assigned, and equipping those units not just for the fight that we're in, but for the future contingencies that we may find ourselves in.
And then, lastly, we look at transforming the Army, which is any and everything associated with modernizing the force and taking advantage of emerging technical capabilities continuously.
So, those are the overarching priorities for the budget. Before Mr. Campbell goes through some of the numbers in a bit more detail, let me just address -- in the vein of modernization, FCS.
I know that that was discussed briefly by Secretary Hale. And, with respect to the FCS program, the FY'10 budget calls for the Army to accelerate spin-outs now to all 73 Brigade Combat Teams. Initially, we were going to spin-out Future Combat System capabilities to 15 BCTs. And so that approach is now going to change, and we will accelerate to all 73 BCTs starting in Fiscal '11. It will take a few years, and probably until Fiscal '25, to complete that fielding.
Secondly, with respect to FCS, we're going to halt the development and the procurement of the Manned Ground Vehicle.
And then, thirdly, cancel development and procurement of the Non Line of Sight Cannon.
The Army's modernization strategy will now focus -- rather than on FCS, on a versatile mix of network BCTs that leverage mobility, protection, precision and information -- in order to be effective across the full spectrum of combat operations.
So, we're going to work those through the QDR, and, clearly, through PBR 11-15. We don't know the numbers yet for 11-15, as Secretary Hale said, all we know at this point is the adjustments to Fiscal Year '10. So, the way forward, beyond '10, will evolve and mature as we go through the QDR process and work in concert with the Joint Staff and OSD leadership. So, let me end there, and introduce Mr. Bill Campbell, who is the director of the Army budget, to take you through the budget numbers.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, General Stanton. Next chart, please. What we've got here is the total obligation or budget authority that the Army is requesting for FY'10, and you'll see it in two parts up there. And as Secretary Hale mentioned earlier, the budget that's going over this year includes both the base budget, as we would normally do, but also the Overseas Contingency Operations budget. And so you'll see there the base budget for the Army is $142 billion -- the request; and for the Overseas Contingency Operations request, that's at $83 billion.
And you can see, by the pie charts there -- which are reflective or relative to the size of the budget, that the Overseas Contingency request, the "OCO" request, of course, is heavily favored -- or heavily into the O&M accounts. So, that's running the day-to-day cost of theater operations, with some military pay for deployed soldiers, and special pays, and mobilized soldiers, and then some procurement accounts.
The other line there that you see, that category, the Army acts as executive agent for several of these, more -- I'd say, CENTCOM, or theater-wide funds. So, we carry those in our budget request. You'll see those in our numbers. But, they're really more policy-driven by OSD.
The reason we put this budget up here is, as you all probably remember from the Punaro report last -- over the last year, there's been a great deal of emphasis on funding that goes to the different components -- the active, Guard and the Reserve. And so what we've done here is actually showing you a chart that's got that funding broken out by the three components.
What's of interest, or newer this year, is the procurement line -- that $21 billion. And although we will still continue to have the same budget lines, from an appropriations standpoint, in the procurement accounts, what we've done differently this year is emphasize the amount, and tracking the amounts of equipment that are targeted for the Guard and Reserve, as well as the Active.
Now, we've always -- we've always done that in the past, but we tended to do it up-front, and then we tended to take a look at it at the end. And there wasn't a real clear audit trail from start to finish. What we're doing now is actually putting a little more rigor -- or a lot more rigor I should say, into that audit trail by tracking that. So, we'll be able to track dollars and quantities for all components as the request moves through the appropriation process, and then even into execution.
This is a "Mr. Hale" chart, as he probably would refer to it, a comptroller-type chart. What we'll do next, then, is walk through each of these accounts to get to the $142 billion. We'll give you a little bit of highlights, a little bit of nuggets on each one of them. And the books that you have actually have a little more information that you can refer to.
Before I start with this MILPERS chart, all the charts you're going to see on the base budget are oriented kind of like this. We're going to have a chart up in the right-hand side that shows you the budget request. Underneath you'll see a 10-year profile of our budget request, and then some of the highlights of what the program does, on the left. One kind of "budget-speak," if you'll allow me, on the budget request. What that is -- is a comparison between what the Department requested last year to what the Department is requesting this year. Of course, when Congress gets it, they'll look at what they enacted last year, to what they've -- to what we've requested. So, you'll, as you compare FY '09 numbers with some of the detailed budget justification material that you'll see, you may notice some differences there.
But, bottom line there, you see on MILPERS -- as Secretary Hale mentioned earlier, one of the key decisions or actions in this budget is to move the funding for all of the military personnel into the base budget. And, for the Army, that's 15,000 on the Active side, and about 5,600 on the Guard.
A key point now is those were soldiers -- or, are soldiers already on the payroll. What we've done is changed how we finance them. So, we've taken them from relying on supplemental funding -- or the "OCO funding," as we refer to it now; moving that into the base program. That's significant for us in the budget world because it gives us some stability, some predictability and some outyear funding for that. So, that's significant, at least from a budgeting standpoint.
You'll also see then that we do have the 2.9 percent pay raise funded in there. And then you'll also see, in some of the materials, we've got the recruiting and retention funding -- it kind of levels off. Now that the Army -- both Guard and Reserve, and Active have reached their authorized levels, or those target levels, when you look at the details in the budget request you'll see that the recruiting and retention funds have also leveled off as we level that out.
Operation and l Maintenance: This is a -- it was mentioned as "the day-to-day funding." And here's where you're going to start to see some of the priorities, of not just the secretary of Defense but also the Army leadership, and you'll see it as you walk down there. What we have done, as part of this budget, again, is moving things that were supplemental funded but have become enduring in nature and important to supporting the All-Volunteer Force into the base budget.
So, we've moved some of the -- things like Family Readiness programs, taking care of Warrior Transition Units, those have moved from the base program into -- I mean, from the supplemental into the base program. We've also continued the modular conversion of units in both the Active and the Reserve component. We've got one BCT that we'll stand- up, or start to stand-up in FY '10 in the Active. And then, through the rest of them, there's about nine multi-functional brigades -- support brigades across the rest of the Components that we'll stand up.
Readiness: Our op-tempo or training funds you'll see remain relatively level from '09 to '10. Key point with the training, though, is that it's highly dependent on the supplemental or the OCO funding, which we'll address in later charts.
But we're going to do about -- well, we will do 10 NTC rotations, 10 JRTC rotations. And a new initiative that we started last year, expanding this year, are the exportable training brigades. So we're going to have as many as eight of those this year.
Last, the maintenance of facilities and equipment infrastructure: With equipment, that's highly dependent on the OCO, and you'll see reset figures for that. So the repair and maintenance of equipment that's used in theater or needed in theater is funded out of that. What we have here is kind of a steady state base funding for the maintenance of equipment.
Facilities and infrastructure -- when you look at the budget details, you will see actually a decrease from nine to 10 for the maintenance of facilities. That's actually reflective of an increase that we got in FY '09 of about $490 million.
What you don't see in these budget documents are the impacts of the Stimulus Act. The Army has received about $1.8 billion for maintenance and facilities and about $230 million for military construction. That are funds that we do the same thing as the maintenance of facilities and we will be spending those over this year and the next fiscal year.
Procurement summary -- I'm going to go through each one of these, so let's just go onto the next chart.
And aircraft procurement: You'll actually see that this goes up compared to FY '09. Part of that's due to the transfer of the UAVs, which we had procured out of the Other Procurement Army account into the aviation. That's to become consistent across all the departments as directed by OSD.
But you'll find that we are procuring 24 of the Sky Warrior systems. That's enough to fund two systems. When I get to the OCO budget, you're going to see another one there. So altogether, the Army in its combined budget has three of the Sky Warrior systems. We've got 79 Black Hawk helicopters in the budget; eight Longbow block-2 MODs; 54 of the Lakota Light Utility Helicopters and 27 of the CH-47s, Chinook D-to-F model conversions. You'll also see some aircraft survivability equipment in the budget as well.
Going back to the Kiowa Warrior, the other thing that you'll see based on the decision about a year ago -- eight months ago -- to cancel the ARH program is we now have additional monies put into extending the life and reliability of the Kiowa Warrior. So you'll see some of that in the budget as well. Next chart.
Missiles procurement: On the PAC-3, we'll decrease in that as we finish out the fielding of those missiles. We've got 59 missiles this year, a little over 100 last year as we finished out the two Patriot battalions.
SLAMRAAM -- we've got 13 launchers in the budget for that. This first year we have procured that and next year we'll start buying the missiles for that system.
Small arms training: We've sufficiently funded that and you'll also see some funding in the OCO budget to replace munitions that we have expended in theater.
And finally, we've got quite a bit of money in here to modernize facilities -- Ammo facilities primarily at Holston, Iowa and Lake City. Next chart.
WTCV -- weapons and track combat vehicles: On the Stryker system, what we've got in here is no new buys of systems. What the budget will fund is modification, survivability, force protection- types enhancements. So it's enough to keep the production line warm, but it's not buying any new additional systems.
We've got 22 Abrams SEP Tanks in the budget; 13 Paladin (PIM) vehicles -- that's the integrated management system. This is still in low-rate initial production. This is the third year that we've been in LRIP and so we're continuing that program.
We've also got 17 of the Light Weight Towed Howitzers there -- as noted on there -- for the Stryker Brigades. And then for the Bradley and Abrams, those are again modifications -- engine procurements and upgrades.
The next to the last bullet there on the technology enhancements for the tactical and urban sensors, that essentially is the continuation of the FCS program without the FCS name attached to it. But what we've done, as General Stanton mentioned, the spinouts that have accrued or matured through the FCS program will continue and actually be accelerated and expanded to all the BCTs. So we have in there some of the unmanned ground systems, aerial systems as well as some ground sensors. And then finally, we've got about 4,800 in M2 .50caliber machine guns in the budget as well. Next chart.
Other procurement: Quite a bit in here. And as you can see, though, this is where the UAVs were, so that's part of what's bringing that number down from the $11.3 billion to the $9.9 (billion). It was about $800 million that moved from one account to the other.
But again, focus on communications systems. WIN-T is part of that; NAVSTAR GPS, SMART-T -- those are some of the systems you'll see in here. And then in the other part of the budget there the wheeled and tactical vehicles. Approximately 3,800 medium trucks, about 9,100 heavy trucks, a little over 1,000 HEMTT. So again, continuing the Army's vehicle modernization success efforts. Next chart then.
RDT&E: Again, the brigade combat team modernization -- the carry on of the FCS program -- that's funded at about $2.7 billion in FY '10 -- our request is $2.7 billion. Science and technology programs about $1.9 billion -- again, maintaining that level of effort.
And then we've got some other things in there for Patriot MEADS -- that's the international program that continues.
Q (Off mike.)
MR. CAMPBELL: In RDT&E, yes.
Q (Off mike.)
MR. CAMPBELL: Total? Total would be about -- I think we've got 300 in WTCV so it's about $3.1 billion -- $3.1 billion.
Q (Off mike) -- in fiscal 2010 and how it compares to the '09 budget level?
MR. CAMPBELL: It's about the same as the '09 inactive level.
GEN. STANTON: It's -- I believe it's 700 less than --
MR. CAMPBELL: 633 less
GEN. STANTON: 633 less
Q (Off mike) -- What does that 633 reflect?
GEN. STANTON: Let us finish the briefing and then we'll get to your questions.
MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. All right, next chart then.
Facilities: FY '09 was the peak for the Army for both military construction and BRAC. So what you start to see in FY '10 is just the natural decline in that program as those construction projects come to fruition and finish up by '11 for -- at least for BRAC.
We do have some warrior-in-transition complexes funded in here through a combination of both last year's base and supplemental -- also the Stimulus Act or the ARRA and this budget. We buy out all the of the WTU complexes that we had proposed. Next chart. And what I'll do here real quickly is go through the overseas budget and then we can get to your questions -- $83 (billion) is the amount of the overseas -- OCO amount budget for the army. I think as Secretary Hale mentioned, $130 billion is the DoD total, $83 (billion) is the Army share of that -- to include those pass-through accounts or as we have them there, the executive agent accounts -- almost $10 billion of that for those accounts. Next chart.
Military personnel: What we fund here is the mobilization of Guard and Reserve soldiers. As you see, about 73,000, which is down from about 79,000, which was the budget estimate for FY '09. We also have special pays for all the deployed personnel -- again, that's about 150,000 soldiers is the estimate for the deployed personnel.
We fund pre-MOB training for our Reserve component. There's about $1 billion in the budget for that. And then also included in here is some additional funds to help us get off of the stop loss, which is also part of the initiative this year with the secretary. Next chart.
Operation and maintenance: We've got -- this, of course, is where the bulk of the money is. As you can see, about $53 billion. Let me just point out there that on the theater operations and sustainment, that's about $18 billion for essentially the day-to-day cost of operations in theater and then some of the other details through there. Reset is on the O&M side, again, at about $7.9 billion. So that's where we do a lot of the maintenance funding comes from this program and not so much from the base program. Next chart.
RDA -- under the ground rules, I think as was mentioned earlier, they've tightened those up in FY '10 trying to limit that to -- or limiting what we can put into here to more true incremental cost of operations. On the procurement side what that usually allows us to do is put in wash outs or battle losses in here -- or equipment that's unique for the theater of operations or not supported in the base budget for the theater of operations.
And so what I'll do is just go through a couple of examples here. We can do our next chart then.
In Sky Warrior, as I mentioned, we actually have another system here so 12 of those vehicles in here. We've got four Black Hawks -- actually, four of the F-model Chinooks and four Apaches -- again, as replacements and washouts.
Not listed up here, though, are six of the -- we do have six C- 12s in this budget. And that's related to the expansion of the ISR mission that Secretary Hale also mentioned.
Missiles, there's about $500 million in there to replace missiles and ammunition, about $370 million for that.
Next chart. There we are. On the WTCV, again most of what of you're going to see here is either to replace the battle losses washouts or it's going to be force protection safety related things as you can see there with the Bradley armor and the survivability kits. Coming halfway down the chart there, communications infrastructure, there is about $500 million in here for various communications systems and infrastructure. Very little in RDT&E, not much of that passes the filter for the OCO. There's about $58 million in RDT&E funds.
And next chart. Facilities, this year in contrast to the '09 budget, all these funds or requests for the facilities are for facilities in Afghanistan. There are no CONUS facilities in here -- as I've mentioned we have been able to fund some actually some child care centers and WTUs last year, but this is about 74 projects all for Afghanistan. There is some planning and design in there and some minor military construction in the request.
And next chart. Okay. So with that, I'll turn it back to General Stanton and I think we're ready for questions.
GEN. STANTON: I think what you can see on the first written observation from a macro perspective is that we had a plus up in our MILPERS accounts -- about a $6 billion plus-up. The operation and maintenance is essentially the same as last year, flat if you will from a budget perspective. And then we had some adjustments about -- in the aggregate of about $4 billion less in our RDA accounts. And some of the 140 from this year grows to 142 for next year.
Okay. I think you had a question.
Q Yes, General, first of all, what do you attribute the reduction of $633 million for the future combat systems?
GEN. STANTON: Termination of the manned ground system.
Q Okay. And what's your timetable like for getting on with a new set of ground vehicles?
GEN. STANTON: We've already begun with the training and doctrine command at the direction of the Army leadership to relook at requirements. And this was consistent with what Secretary Gates announced on 6 April that he wanted to take a pause and then relook at the Army's requirement for the manned ground vehicle, recognizing that there is one but Secretary Gates wanted to be sure that we were developing the right one for today's fight in terms of force protection as well as tomorrow's fight, and not one that was consistent with -- I think he called it Cold War relic.
So I think that we will endeavor by Labor Day to come forward with a concept proposal as we go through the requirements development process. So I think the chief's guidance was to take the time to do this right but yet at the same time to move out with it.
Q On timetables. The Defense Department says that the Army is going to seek to renegotiate the contracts with Boeing and I guess with SAIC. When do you expect to do that?
GEN. STANTON: I don't want to speak for the acquisition community but I think you could expect that in the near term that we would look at the restructuring of the system. And I don't want to give you a date.
Q How much money is going for reenlistment and retention bonuses and how does that compare since say 2003?
GEN. STANTON: Well, gosh I wish I was smart enough to stand up here and tell you, what it was in 2003. I don't know but what I can tell you is that, you know, the bonuses do go up and down and of course are consistent with the recruiting environment, how difficult it is to recruit. The recruiting environment is a function of I believe the fight that we're in and what it means to get young Americans to sign up.
And then secondly the economy and alternatives that are available. We have this year already reduced the bonuses for retention and recruiting based on the fact that we have a more propitious recruiting environment. I don't know the exact numbers that we've reduced for '10, Kathy do you?
STAFF: Yeah, in the '10 budget for military personnel Army account, reenlistment bonuses are $444 million, enlistment bonuses are $450 million and officer bonuses were $77 million. All three categories decreased significantly from the FY ’09 levels.
GEN. STANTON: The 2003 level will be --
STAFF: Total between what we have requested -- we've gotten a baseline, and what we have requested in the '09 OCO which is on the Hill and is being marked. So this may not be the final number for '09. For reenlistment bonuses it's $626 million, for enlistment bonuses $549 million and for officer bonuses $134 million. So again those '09 numbers are tentative based on our current request to Congress, they may or may not be the final notes.
Q Is that for all branches of service?
STAFF: That is only for the active.
Q Does it change for the National Guard?
STAFF: Let me take a look at that. There is a change for National Guard, I just don't have that right here.
GEN. STANTON: And we're already doing quite well with the National Guard strength. In fact the challenge right now will be to bring the strength down to the funded level as we begin '10, of 358.2. We're a little bit above that right now. Yes ma'am.
Q Sir, you noted on your slides that you're replacing some of the Kiowa Warriors with Lakotas. Is that part of the Alpha and Charlie mods up to the Delta or --
GEN. STANTON: I think that we had originally planned to replace the Kiowa with the Lakota. And now of course without the armed reconnaissance helicopter and still having a need for that capability, we are going to take some of the Kiowas and sustain their existence if you will -- (inaudible) -- to keep them.
GEN. STANTON: I don't know if that answered your question or not.
Q As you say in here that you're going to replace Kiowas with the Lakota and that's not --
GEN. STANTON: There are some that are being replaced with Lakota but their mission was a different mission than the Army reconnaissance helicopter mission.
Q You said you were trying to restart the Army vehicle modernization program or whatever that's going to end up being. Is there a funding in this proposal for that effort? And I notice there's $370 million left in the FCS MGV line. Is that the RDT&E money --
GEN. STANTON: I would say that all of that funding is to be worked -- as I indicated earlier, we're not sure yet what the fiscal guidance will be for 11-15. And we really need to come back to OSD with the concept and the way forward and then address the funding. So as currently -- probably as currently figured in the 10-15 program which we have not yet adjusted, the funding would be in the wrong places in the wrong years. So we have to work all that.
Q A reprogramming or something like this?
GEN. STANTON: Or in the next program review to adjust it.
Q Just to be clear on the $633 million reduction, that is from FY '09 not what was planned for FY '10, right? In FCS?
GEN. STANTON: No, that's what was planned in FY '10.
GEN. STANTON: Right.
Q Okay. Also can you speak at all about funding for the MATV program?
GEN. STANTON: (Pause.) I can't. (Laughter.) Let me ask my team if we can.
STAFF: Let me get with you afterwards.
Q Okay. Thank you.
GEN. STANTON: Yes, ma'am.
Q Can you please tell us what's going to happen to the Army's money for joint cargo aircraft, considering the Army already bought 11 and the Army had Comanche money for the JCA. So what's happening with that money and -- now that the Air Force is in charge of that program?
GEN. STANTON: The expectation would be that all funding that was in the Army program would move down to the Air Force. But I believe that where we are at this juncture is that the Air Force leadership, the Army leadership, and the Air Guard and the National Guard Army are still working out all of the implications about how to affect this transfer. So --
GEN. STANTON: I'm saying that that's not resolved yet in terms of how we're going to do that. Who would do the training, who would provide the pilots, who would provide the facilities, all of that is in the process of working.
Q The other question, are you working out with the National Guard in terms of the Army National Guard units that were supposed to get the JCA. How's that going to, how are you working that out? Have you considered that --
GEN. STANTON: Well let me go back to -- to what I said, that the senior leadership and all the concerned parties -- the Army, the Air Force, the Air Guard and National Guard are all working how to do this. You have to keep in mind we were just told to do this several weeks ago. So we are all working together to determine the best way to make that happen. But there has not been resolution yet on the way forward.
Q I wanted to kind of get a behind the scenes look at what happened -- when you got the Army's top line and how you had to respond to, okay, here's a list of -- changes coming from the top. How did you deal with that at the Army level and have you put together an unfunded requirements list at this point?
GEN. STANTON: Well that was three questions. (Laughter.) We learned of Secretary Gates' decision on the 6th of April when he announced the decisions. With the great hard work of a number of wonderful civilians and soldiers, we took that guidance and did in a compressed rate of time -- built a budget that would normally take place over months.
And so the third question is, we are in the process of looking at unfunded requirements to respond to the request from the Hill, as are the other services. We have not yet finalized such a requirement nor forwarded it to OSD.
Q Have you forwarded that request to OSD in past years?
GEN. STANTON: Yes, normally at the -- I mean, I can speak for the past couple since I have direct knowledge. At the same time that we responded to it in writing to the Hill, we provided it to OSD.
Q Thank you.
GEN. STANTON: Yes, sir.
Q How's the Army doing on reset? What is your total outstanding bill for restoring degraded equipment? And how much of that are you paying in -- are you spending in 2010?
GEN. STANTON: I think, for 2010, we're right around 11. That's down a little bit from previous years, because, as you know, when we first got the 17, which was -- (inaudible) -- for reset three years ago, we had a rather large backlog that had accrued by that point.
I think we're to the point now where most of that backlog has worked off, and we're now essentially sustaining, repairing and replacing as we go along in wear-out equipment and/or lose equipment in the fight. But for this year it's right in line with the historical level.
Q (Inaudible) -- that's $11 billion, and that takes care of what you need.
GEN. STANTON: Yes.
GEN. STANTON: Now, keeping in mind that it'll be $11 (billion) the following year, probably, and -- (inaudible).
Q In the previous briefing, Mr. Hale said that -- he had a chart that said that there's funding for additional helicopters in the budget. And he also listed as one of the top changes they're making adding $500 million for -- I think he said 150 Army helicopter crews. Are you spending $500 million to --
GEN. STANTON: No, sir. That included the purchase of, I think -- and not having the numbers --
MR. CAMPBELL: (inaudible) -- I think, added to FY '10, if I'm not mistaken.
Q So they get additional money for five helicopters?
GEN. STANTON: No, there's money for training additional crews at Fort Rucker. Part of the problem that we're trying to address is insufficient pilots. So a portion of that money goes to Fort Rucker for more instructor pilots so that we can accelerate the through-put of instructors. But the aircraft that it purchased are also for Rucker for the Flight School 21 training. So I believe there were some Chinooks as well as Apaches.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, and the Apaches, they're beginning later.
Q And why are you short of pilots and crews?
GEN. STANTON: There's a greater demand in Afghanistan than there was in Iraq because of the terrain that we're fighting in. It's a completely different scenario that we find ourselves in than the more urban, really rather developed-over-time terrain that we were in -- in Iraq. It's, as you know, very mountainous. You can't -- (inaudible). The road structure is not there. There's a much greater demand for aircraft capability.
Q Not to belabor the point, but I just -- Mr. Hale said there's no shortage of airframes; there's a shortage of crews.
GEN. STANTON: I think he was speaking in the aggregate of if you count the number of airframes that the Guard has and the number of airframes that are assigned to units and pulled them all out, then you would have sufficient airframes.
We are putting another combat aviation brigade into Afghanistan. So, I mean, there is the demand for that. And I will tell you that the environment is such that you need -- the more powerful engine for the altitude -- you obviously understand the helicopter challenges. And the wear and tear that we're putting on these is just tremendous.
Q A question about the three brigades that were eliminated from the 48 BCTs. A … how much of a savings will the Army gain? And B … what are the three locations where these brigades are coming out of? I think you announced last year Fort Stewart was one of them.
GEN. STANTON: B -- as for question B, not determined yet. We were not directed which brigade combat teams would come out, so the Army is in the process now; it won't just necessarily be the last three. So we're relooking which three it should be, and then where they should be stationed in a holistic context.
Remind me of question one.
GEN. STANTON: Savings? There was money taken from the Army's -- (inaudible) -- funding for the equipment for these. There have been no adjustments for milcon or facilities because we have not yet determined where the units -- which units will be involved. I think there was on the order of $600 million.
MR. CAMPBELL: It was about $500 million in '10, $400 million in '11, so about almost -- a little under a billion dollars of equipment related to the three BCTs.
Q That's now being reallocated?
MR. CAMPBELL: I think it was just part of the top line --
GEN. STANTON: Back to the greater OSD pot. But, you know, you should also keep in mind that while it's three less BCTs, it's still 547.4 force that we have to accommodate.
Q Could you break down a little bit the personnel request in the OCO request? You talked about stop-loss incentives and stuff like that. Are you looking at warrior pay at all? I know that's been kind of out there for a while. Can you talk about what some of this money is going to go to?
GEN. STANTON: Let's start with the -- what do we call the $500- a-month pay?
STAFF: Stop-loss compensation.
GEN. STANTON: Stop-loss compensation. So that is now in place. I think it began --
STAFF: It began in March, sir, and we started making payments in the month of March and we’re going to be making retroactive payments in the month of May for soldiers who were in stop-loss status back to the 1st of October.
GEN. STANTON: It's $500 a month for every soldier that is stop-lossed.
Q Have you projected how much that might --
MR. CAMPBELL: That's $72 million in the actual '09 budget. That was part of that appropriation. Depending on as it gets phased out in FY '10, I think we're looking at about $10 to $12 million --
STAFF: -- about $40 million.
MR. CAMPBELL: $40 million? Okay.
GEN. STANTON: And the Army is just as interested, if not more so, than anyone else in eliminating stop-loss because of the demand that it puts on our soldiers and their families. It's not a practice we want to continue. The problem is, to meet the exigencies of the war fight, we've had to do that in order to be able to field effective fighting formations.
Q Have there been any changes made to the program of record for the joint air-to-ground missile?
MR. CAMPBELL: No.
GEN. STANTON: Yes, sir.
Q What about the six C-12s that are in the OCO budget? Is that the same capability the Air Force is buying with the Liberty ship project, or is this --
GEN. STANTON: No, it is for the Aerial Common Sensor capability for ISR. But also still at work is potentially the transfer of the Liberty ships to the Army.
Q Do you have anything in the budget right now for ARH termination fees, or is that still under negotiation?
GEN. STANTON: Termination fees for --
Q Termination fees with ARH, with Bell?
GEN. STANTON: The -- yes. But, you know, the way that normally works is we have the monies that are on the line. And until we go through the contract negotiations for the termination --
Q Could I ask you to clarify your answer to her earlier on ARH and LUH and OH-58? Are the Lakotas that are being bought to replace OH- 58 replacing unarmed OH-58s?
GEN. STANTON: More than half --
MR. CAMPBELL: They're replacing older OH- -58s.
Q So there is still going to be an ARH program that will replace the OH-58?
GEN. STANTON: We're going through an analysis of alternatives now to replace the ARH system. So, you know, when it's terminated, we go through the AOA, there'll be a new start -- we need that capability.
Q Sir, could you explain a little bit what you're doing with the Stryker fleet? It looks like it takes quite a hit from '09 to this year.
GEN. STANTON: Well, we had procured all except for the NGS and the NBCR vehicle, what we had intended to with the Stryker. The funding that's in '10 is for sustainment of Strykers and was not to procure more Strykers.
But to an earlier question, and one that remains to be resolved, it may be that we need -- the QDR process yields a decision for more Strykers, more Stryker Brigade combat teams, and therefore we would need to purchase more. The intent with the '10 budget was to keep the line warm, as Mr. Campbell indicated.
Q Just to follow, sir, could you tell us a little more about the FCS spinouts? I'm a little unclear as to whether some of the -- even though you're fielding to all the brigades, are you accelerating the money to field more this coming year in ‘10?
GEN. STANTON: We're going to fill them as fast as we can evolve the technology, and then procure them. But the commitment, I believe, from OSD is that -- actually, the direction is to accelerate this to the extent that we can. So it isn't going to be a funding issue. It's going to be a capability issue.
Q I had a question, just getting back to the new manned ground vehicle program, whatever that might be. You said that there's no money in '10 for that? Because Secretary Gates said a couple of weeks ago that there would be significant funding, I think he said, or substantial funding, in the '10 budget to restart that program. But --
GEN. STANTON: I don't think that he said it was going to -- he did mention that he intended fully to fund it, but I don't think that he said that it was in the '10 budget.
Q He mentioned it at the Army War College.
GEN. STANTON: I mean, there's just a little bit of RDT&E money. So all of that we still have to work on. We're really going back -- now, we'll take full advantage of all the work that was done in developing the FCS technology as we go through the requirements determination process. But most of the money for the main ground vehicle was what was terminated.
Q Do you mind elaborating on WIN-T? What increments are going to be funded and what kind of capability is going to be --
GEN. STANTON: We're going to -- actually, the adjustment in the budget was to reduce the funding, RDT&E funding, for WIN-T Increment 3, but to increase the funding for procurement of WIN-T Increment 2. So there's still funding for the RDT&E on 3, but the priority of effort has been moved to fielding 2 more expeditiously.
Q What are the amounts involved?
GEN. STANTON: We can --
MR. CAMPBELL: About $29 million in Increment 1 and about $459 million in Increment 2.
Q Thank you.
Q So you've got about three months to come up with a new concept for the manned ground vehicles in your strategy for that, which isn't a lot of time. So are you just going to make modifications of the design that you already have, or are you going to come up with an entirely new vehicle design? And is the Army strategy to field a family, a suite of common vehicles, common chassis? Or are you going to look to just replace the Paladin or replace Bradley or replace Abrams?
GEN. STANTON: Very good questions. I think the answer to the first question is we start with a blank sheet of paper. I mean, I think it would also be prudent that we would take into account, as we started with that clean sheet of paper, the work that had been done to date. So it's very difficult to -- I don't know if this would be a wheel vehicle or a track vehicle.
You know, one of Secretary Gates' concerns, as he put out on the 6th (April), was the protection; in other words, gets back to the V-shaped hulls and the other kind of protective measures that we've been putting into place. And I don't think there was any decision made yet on whether or not it would be a family of vehicles with variants or one vehicle. We really, truly are going back and doing what we were told, and that's to start over.
Q So you can start the whole wheels-versus-track debate over again? (Laughs.)
GEN. STANTON: In the back, sir.
Q Following up on that, you said by Labor Day TRADOC is going to come up with some new requirements, right? Do you have any sense of what next, i.e., a goal in mind for when you might issue a new contract for this?
GEN. STANTON: No, sir.
Q All right. So the only timetable you have --
GEN. STANTON: I know that we're going to work this as quickly as we can and that the Army leadership guidance to Training and Doctrine Command was to come back by Labor Day. Beyond that, I would be getting ahead of where we are.
Q With C-17 production coming to an end, is there a concern that, you know, you might not have enough C-17s to accommodate the eventual FCS vehicles, the size of those vehicles? I mean, the C-17 would be better suited to whatever eventual --
GEN. STANTON: I think that actually becomes part of the calculus again, and you go back to the whole lift capability issue and how heavy will the vehicle be and how do you move it to where you need it. I mean, we just really are going to start and look through all of that.
Q Will that be a factor?
GEN. STANTON: I don't know that'll be a factor, but it was a KPP before, as you know, so the likelihood -- I mean, you know, we've got to get from where we are to where the fight is, so you can't not consider it.
Q The $924 million in the milcon OCO request, all that's going to Afghanistan. Are we talking about, like, FOBs? What kind of project are you talking about?
GEN. STANTON: Well, you know, we don't have the infrastructure in place in Afghanistan that we have developed over six to seven years in Iraq. And so there are a fair number of one-time costs that we have to incur in order to stand up the number of ECTs that are going to be plussed up into Afghanistan.
Q Infrastructure for incoming troops, not so much local projects, because they're separate.
GEN. STANTON: That's right. Right.
Q So everything from troop housing to airfield operations, dining facilities, fuel handling systems.
GEN. STANTON: Command and control.
Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your interest in your soldiers and the United States Army.
(C) COPYRIGHT 2009, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE.
NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY
REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY
UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION
CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION
LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION.
FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT
AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO
ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.
FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG