REFEREN 1. Ad Hoc Committee of the Scientific Advisory Board, Life Extension and Mission Enhancement For Air Force Aircraft, Vol. II: Panel Reports, United States Air Force, Washington D.C., 1994. 2. Committee on Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft, Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft, National Materials Advisory Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., NMAB-488-2, 1997. 3. Pyles, Raymond, Laura Baldwin, Jean Gebman, Timothy Ramey, and Hyman Shulman, Aging Aircraft: Implications for Programmed Depot Maintenance and Engine-Support Costs, RAND, Santa Monica, California, AB-237-1-AF, 1998. 4. Nelson, J. R., Life-Cycle Analysis of Aircraft Turbine Engines, RAND, Santa Monica, California, R-2103-AF, 1977. 5. McPeak, M. A., Weapon System Cost Reduction, United States Air Force, Washington D.C. RECORD VERSION STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE PAUL J. HOEPER ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN G. COBURN DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PROCUREMENT UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON AGING MILITARY EQUIPMENT FEBRUARY 24, 1999 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Introduction Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss aging military equipment. It is our privilege today to represent the Army leadership and the soldiers who rely on us to provide them with world-class weapons and equipment to fight and win our nation's wars. We have the finest land combat force on earth. We are very proud of our soldiers and what they accomplish every day in countries all over the world. And, we thank you for your help and support in equipping them to do their jobs. As representatives of the American people, you have strongly supported our programs and guided them to fruition. Our success would not have been possible without your advice and support. It is imperative that we sustain modernization. If not, our technological advantage over potential adversaries will diminish over time and increase the risk to our soldiers. Continuous modernization is one of the keys to dominance on the future battlefield and the key to readiness for unexpected challenges of the 21st century. Aging Equipment We, in the Army, believe that aging equipment is one of the most serious issues we face. This issue is so serious that, if not properly addressed and corrected, it will inevitably result in degradation in the Army's ability to maintain its readiness. Before proceeding further, we would like to describe how we got to where we are on aging equipment and the link to Army readiness. Our weapon systems are aging because we have not modernized as quickly as we should have. When coupled with the increased operational tempo we have faced over the last decade, increased maintenance has been required in order to avoid degradation in our operational readiness. More maintenance means increased Operations and Support (O&S) costs. In order to resource unanticipated O&S costs, the Army was faced with an unpleasant choice: either accept a degradation in our current readiness posture, a choice the Army finds unacceptable, or reprogram money from another source - in this case, procurement outlays. This is having an enormous impact on Army programs. Because of funding challenges, we are forced to either reduce the quantities of systems or stretch our programs to great lengths or both. These actions raise unit costs and further delay modernization. For example, the Army's only heavy lift cargo helicopter, the Chinook, has been in our inventory for 37 years. It is being upgraded from the CH-47D model to the CH-47F model, also known as the Improved Cargo Helicopter. We expect to have it in our inventory for another 30 years. Fielding is scheduled to begin on time, but a tight budget means it will occur at a slower rate. As a result, CH-47Ds will have to be kept in the force longer, driving up operating costs. In addition to O&S cost increases, delaying modernization puts readiness at risk. We must break this "death spiral" to assure the long-term readiness of our Army. Army Equipment Readiness Although our modernization effort is proceeding slower than we would desire, the Army's current equipment readiness posture remains high. Last year, the Military Readiness Subcommittee was told that our Army was trained and ready, that our logistics readiness was a good news story, with high readiness rates for equipment and our ability to deploy. This year we can again report that equipment readiness rates remain high and our ability to project power continues to improve. A significant reason why we enjoy an excellent readiness posture is the extraordinary efforts of our outstanding soldiers. Our soldiers in the field are working harder than ever to keep our equipment combat ready. Their hard work has provided the margin needed to meet the readiness standards we described at the outset of this statement. All the major combat and support systems continue to meet or exceed Department of Army (DA) standards, and the Army continues to focus on equipment readiness. With respect to readiness rates, during the most recent reporting period, 15 of 16 weapon systems we closely track, the so-called |