GovernmentExecutive.com

Rebuilding the Army's equipment stocks that have been lost, damaged or worn down by combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost at least $190 billion from 2004 to 2013, according to a new report by government auditors. Total equipment costs will not be known for some years because repair and replacement needs are tied to how long military operations continue.

Adding to the cost is the Army's modularity initiative, which is designed to convert its organizational building block from large divisions to more agile brigades. That effort will cost more and take longer than original Army estimates, the Government Accountability Office concluded in recent congressional testimony (GAO-08-669T). The Army needs much more equipment than originally thought because it now plans to convert and outfit National Guard units as well as active units and is adding 74,000 soldiers to its active-duty ranks.

GAO said it lacks a clear picture of the Army's funding needs because the service has yet to provide a plan detailing how it will restructure existing forces and add six new combat brigades. The report said congressional oversight of Army equipment needs has been complicated by multiple funding requests for the same purpose -- such as replacing pre-positioned equipment stocks -- that draw from both the defense budget and emergency supplemental appropriations.

The Army initially estimated that converting to a modular organization would cost $52.5 billion from 2005 to 2011. The service has since said it will take until at least 2017 to make up shortfalls in equipment for modular units, but it has not revised its cost estimate. GAO said the Army's costs will climb because the original estimate was based on a modular design that has since changed, and it assumed National Guard and reserve units would keep older equipment. The Army now wants to outfit National Guard and reserve units with the same equipment as active-duty forces because the Guard and reserve units are frequently used in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In early 2007, the Army estimated it would cost $70 billion to equip six new combat brigades. GAO said that estimate was not "transparent or comprehensive," and likely was too low. The service recently moved up its deadline to complete the expansion from 2013 to 2010, but has yet to develop a revised funding plan, GAO said.

The Army's costs to repair war-worn equipment, which the service calls "reset," also has climbed sharply, from $3.3 billion in 2004 to more than $17 billion in 2007. The service will require reset funding for the duration of the war and for two to three years after combat operations stop. GAO said its estimates show the Army will require at least $118.5 billion for reset from 2004 to 2013. Those costs will increase the longer the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.

COMMENTS

• The military moved to private contractors years ago because they were tired of fighting with the unions. Some rehabs would take years the union cooked the golden goose and the military can't afford to go back Dan ketter Posted April 22, 2008 12:39 PM
• The problem is we rely too heavily on contractor support rather than performing the work in-house...particularly, with the military. There are some units who possess the necessary skills to perform maintenance on their own equipment...but, for the most part, when deployed many are at a loss since they haven’t a clue how to proceed. The biggest problem is equipment has become more complicated, which is attributed to all the electronic gadgetry installed and requiring upkeep. In addition, whenever a special work detail is required, the first ones tasked for extra duty are the mechanics. Yes, we need war fighters...however, we also require personnel with the expertise to provide continuity and assure equipment is in FMC status at all times and not rely solely on contractors to perform the work remaining behind when the unit deploys. We are doing an injustice to those in the military by not ensuring their technical skills are enhanced providing them with the tools, training and expertise required to maintain equipment at high readiness levels. At present, the readiness in some areas leaves a lot to be desired and the parameters set forth by DA for ensuring levels are maintained at a high standard is not happening...therefore, it’s little wonder not all equipment is reported on 026s citing deadlined equipment. During deployments, I’ve worked with some maintenance personnel whose main goal is readiness, reliability and sustainability of equipment….while on the other hand, there are also those who have no idea how to troubleshoot/isolate problems and attempt to temporarily repair equipment, which is equivalent to placing a band aid on the problem, exacerbating the initial problem and creating others which could have been avoided. Bottom line let the maintenance personnel perform the function for which they were recruited…maintain and sustain. CAE Posted April 22, 2008 8:54 AM
• Suppliers see us coming and jack up the prices. Many times suppliers will try to rip off the government and don’t bat an eyelash. The lessons learned by IBM from executive order 12345 just recently may be the best method to control costs. Government contracting agencies need to grow fangs. Gerryworks Posted April 19, 2008 11:39 AM