Order Code RS20787
Updated January 24, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Army Transformation and Modernization:
Overview and Issues for Congress
Edward F. Bruner
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
The U.S. Army continues an ambitious program intended to transform itself into
a strategically responsive force dominant in all types of ground operations. As planned,
its Objective Force will eventually meld all ongoing initiatives into a force based on a
high-tech Future Combat System. Its Interim Force is beginning to provide a new
combat capability, based on current-technology armored vehicles, for the mid-intensity
combat operations that seem prevalent in today’s world. Its Legacy Force of existing
systems is being modernized and maintained to ensure effective light and heavy force
capabilities until the Objective Force is realized. This short report briefly describes the
program and discusses issues of feasibility, viability, and affordability of potential
interest to Congress. It will be updated as events warrant.
Background
Modernization is not a new issue or objective for U.S. military forces, but it has
taken on new urgency because of: the post-Cold War downsizing and procurement
reductions, the new global environment and unexpected requirements, and the promise
of a “revolution in military affairs” (RMA) suggested by rapid developments in
computers, communications, and guidance systems. The last notable surge in
modernization culminated during the “Reagan build-up” of the 1980's. Weapons and
doctrines developed and fielded in that era made fundamental contributions to United
States successes in the Cold War, the Gulf War, and Kosovo. For the Army, such
weapons included the M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley armored fighting vehicle, Apache
attack helicopter, Blackhawk utility helicopter, and Patriot air defense system.
During the post-Cold War downsizing, the Army greatly decreased purchase of new
equipment and largely deferred development of a next generation of weapons, with
notable exceptions being R&D for a howitzer, the Crusader, and a reconnaissance
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
helicopter, the Comanche.1 Much older equipment was retired. Modernization was
approached through upgrading and inserting new technologies into previously acquired,
or “legacy,” systems. Information technology was seen as the most immediate and
promising aspect of the RMA. It exploited Desert Storm successes such as pinpoint
targeting and navigation, while addressing problems such as friendly fire casualties. A
major initiative was launched in the 1990's to create Army Force XXI, based on the
“digitization” of the battlefield, now dubbed “network-centric warfare.” Modern
computers and communications systems would connect all weapons systems and give
U.S. soldiers and commanders advantages in situational awareness and speed of
decisions.2 One heavy, mechanized division at Fort Hood, TX is now so equipped and
first tested the concept in early 2001. The post-Desert Storm Army, although smaller, is
more modern and technically capable than its Desert Storm predecessor.
Even before Desert Storm, the “battlefield” was changing as the Army was called
upon to respond to numerous, lengthy operations short of war rather than occasionally to
defeat a large army. Near-term readiness became a problem as fewer troops were asked
to cover more missions, and operation and maintenance (O&M) funds were diverted from
fixing aging equipment and facilities to pay for unbudgeted deployments such as Bosnia
(funds eventually replaced in part by emergency supplemental appropriations). The
problem of rapidly projecting heavy forces had been highlighted beginning with the long
buildup required for Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-91. In 1999, it was suggested
that an Army task force inserted into Albania for potential action in Kosovo was too
heavy for rapid air insertion and also too heavy for the unimproved roads and bridges
found there. The Army determined that a new capability was needed in addition to
mobile, light forces and heavy, lethal forces – a medium, lethal force.
Army Transformation
In October 1999, the Army announced its priority program to transform into a force
that could better meet future requirements to be both rapidly deployable and lethal. The
first step is near-term fielding of a new unit, first called the Interim Brigade Combat
Teams but now called the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), based on a wheeled
armored vehicle much lighter than the standard M2 Bradley. For the long-term, the Army
is developing a Future Combat System (FCS) based on new technologies that would equip
very mobile formations with lethality and survivability equal or greater than that of
present heavy units. Until the FCS is fielded, the Army believes it must also continue to
maintain and upgrade legacy weapons systems (e.g., M1, M2, etc.) and equipment in
units that can meet any potential foe across the spectrum of conflict. All three of the
above efforts would eventually meld into the transformed Objective Force of the future.
Interim Force. The Army plans to field a new capability based on the SBCT.
This unit is designed for maximum strategic and operational mobility in that its equipment
can be airlifted inter-theater in all U.S. cargo aircraft, including the comparatively small
C-130 Hercules – also used intra-theater. All vehicles weigh less than 20 tons. The goal
1 Christopher Bolkcom. Army Aviation: The RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter Issue, CRS Report
RS20522, updated as developments warrant.
2 See General Gordon R. Sullivan and Colonel James M. Dubik. War in the Information Age,
Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, June 6, 1994, 23 pp.

---

CRS-3
is that a SBCT could be completely moved to a combat zone within 96 hours. It is an
infantry brigade of about 3,500 soldiers with the armored mobility needed to fight on a
mid-intensity battlefield. Particular strengths are an included reconnaissance and
intelligence battalion and “network-centric” command, control, and communications (C3)
systems. The effort began early in 2000 at Fort Lewis, WA, where two existing brigades
were converted, using temporary, borrowed equipment.
In November, 2000 the Army selected the Light Armored Vehicle III (LAV III), built
by General Motors Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems, as its “interim armored
vehicle” under a six year contract worth $4 billion.3 Some 2,131 LAV III’s, now called
Strykers, will be procured. They will include two vehicle variants, an infantry carrier with
eight additional configurations and a mobile gun system with a 105 mm cannon. The
vehicle can negotiate flat surfaces at 62 mph, convert to 8-wheel drive off-road, and self-
recover with its winch if needed. Plans also include procurement of the Joint Lightweight
155 mm Howitzer for the Brigade’s included field artillery -- an Army-Marine program,
with an estimated cost of about $1.1 billion, aiming for Army initial operating capability
(IOC) at the end of 2004.
Objective Force. For the long-term, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency and the Army began work on some 25 critical technologies for incorporation into
R&D of new systems to be selected as early as 2006, with fielding to begin by 2008 and
IOC by 2010.4 A key component is expected to be a Future Combat System (FCS) that
could, as one capability, assume the role currently held by the Abrams tank. It is
intended to be as transportable and mobile as the Stryker, with lethality and crew
survivability equivalent to or greater than that of today’s tanks. The FCS may, however,
bear little or no resemblance to today’s tanks and could feature advanced technologies
such as robotics and electric guns and facilitate new operational doctrines. The FCS
currently encompasses some 19 subsystems and the network to tie them together. Boeing
Company and Science Applications International Corp. were selected as the prime
contractor team to integrate all systems. As of September 2002, the Army had budgeted
$20 billion to develop FCS. Objective Force units will also incorporate ongoing
developments in information technology and systems such as the Comanche helicopter.
The resulting Army should be responsive to requirements ranging from operations short
of war to high-intensity conflict.
Legacy Force. Until the Objective Force exists, the current Army based on legacy
equipment must be prepared to fight whether called to low-intensity or high-intensity
battlegrounds. According to Army planners, programs to replace and/or upgrade older
equipment must continue if forces other than or additional to 5-6 new Stryker Brigades are
to be ready for combat. The ongoing program to replace old trucks with new will
continue. Older models of the Abrams tank and the Bradley fighting vehicles will
continue to be rebuilt and upgraded. The legacy force will largely consist of M1A2 SEP
(for Systems Enhancement Package) and M1A1D tanks and M2A3 and M2A2ODS with
applique Bradley’s. Inserting these vehicles into the force will aid the Army in converting
3 Kim Burger. “GM-GDLS Team Awarded $4 Billion Interim Armored Vehicle Contract,” Inside
the Army (Special Report), November 17, 2000, p. 1.
4 Projected dates first provided by Army Transformation Office, ODCSOPS, on March 15, 2001,
reaffirmed by the Army Objective Force Task Force on December 8, 2002.

---

CRS-4
to a digitized force. One heavy division at Fort Hood has made this conversion, and, with
all combat vehicles electronically connected, seems more combat effective than previous
divisions. Although modernization of the legacy force is important, the Army sacrificed
many previously desired programs to free funds for transformation priorities. Examples
are a dedicated Command and Control vehicle, the Grizzly Breacher engineer vehicle, and
the Wolverine assault bridge vehicle – the latter continued to be funded by Congress from
the Army’s Unfunded Priorities List, although funds were requested for FY2003.
Issues for Congress
The 107th Congress continued strong support for Army modernization and
transformation initiatives. At the same time, Congress showed caution by pressing a
requirement to compare the wheeled LAV III with similar tracked vehicles already in
inventory. The Army believes its evaluation demonstrated that buying Stryker was more
desirable than converting the M113A3 APC.5 Whether the 108th Congress will continue
to support Army transformation as a high priority will depend on its evaluation of issues
such as those discussed below.
Desirability. All Services have felt pressures to “transform,” or at least adapt to
current circumstances and experiences with the post-Cold War world. These include
opportunities and challenges from a rush of technological advances, unexpected numbers
and types of missions (particularly peacekeeping and urban warfare requirements), new
threats from potential enemies with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, and, for the
Army, criticism that it was not “nimble” enough during 1999 allied operations in Kosovo.
The broadest long-term question is whether current transformation plans will yield
a desirable outcome, i.e, what military force capabilities will the United States require 20
years from now? Should they include a power projection Army capable of fighting equally
well across the full spectrum of ground combat; or, should other services or entities
assume some parts of that mission? Will Army plans over-stress DoD airlift assets, or
would more reliance on fast sealift yield greater flexibility and economies? Internally,
has the Army sought the right approach to transformation with its emphasis on medium-
weight formations? Does the Army’s plan strike the right balance in allocating resources
between modernizing the current legacy force and developing and fielding the Interim and
Objective Forces? It is expected that DoD will fully address these issues for the first time
in its FY2004 budget request.
For the short term, it is projected that some amount of modernization for existing
legacy forces would be needed if policymakers decide to prevent further aging and
degradation. The average age of the M1 tank fleet is now 11.9 years and an estimated
11.7 years for support vehicles.6 Many of these vehicles may not be able to remain in
service beyond 2030 without some form of service life extension work. Deciding on the
proper allocation of resources is made more complex by the large numbers and diverse
types of vehicles and weapons systems in the Army, which makes it difficult to gather and
present desirable data, that is both comprehensive and aggregated, on equipment age,
5 Erin Q. Winograd. Congressionally mandated report completed, Inside the Army, January 13,
2003, p. 1.
6 Defense News, October 23, 2000.

---

CRS-5
condition, and potential combat effectiveness. The Navy, in managing a fleet of about 315
ships, may have an easier job describing the level of investment needed to maintain a fleet
of a given size over time.7 Congress may consider recommending that the Army attempt
to develop some aggregate portrayal of its fleet capitalization status and implications of
various funding strategies.
Feasibility. The Army plan for transformation is considered aggressive. But, by
using largely off-the-shelf materiel, the Interim Force is fairly low risk for meeting
technology objectives. After an initial slip of 16 months and a contractor’s protest,
deliveries of Strykers are now supporting the fielding of SBCTs.8
Plans for the Objective Force involve higher risk in both technology and time. Since
all the specific technologies to form the FCS have not yet been chosen, it is possible that
their integration into a leap-ahead system will experience some problems. The goal of
having this system ready to produce by 2008 is very ambitious. Previous system-
development efforts of this kind have often encountered technical problems, schedule
problems, or both. The need for the Comanche helicopter, for example, was identified in
1979; a contractor was selected for development in 1991; and, it is not yet ready for
production. The original target date proposed for the FCS, 2023, may be more realistic
but it has also raised concerns regarding duration of development. Congress , through its
eventual levels of support, will influence the priority and speed with which the FCS
becomes reality.
Affordability. Some question the Army’s ability to finance its transformation plan,
particularly given an inability in recent years to finance many procurement programs at
desired rates. Can the Army adequately finance all three elements of its plan at once,
while also providing adequate funds for necessary non-transformation priorities such as
readiness and pay and benefits? The life-cycle cost for equipping 6 brigades with LAV
III’s has been estimated by program officials at $9 billion through FY2032.9 This will
only be part of the total cost to transform and modernize the Army; some have estimated
that the Army requires a sustained increment of $10 billion annually beyond its average
post-Cold War expenditures for R&D and procurement. The Army is not alone in
claiming a need for more investment funds. Other Services cite even higher numbers.10
An issue that will confront Congress is whether to fund Army transformation and
modernization efforts at levels proposed by the Bush Administration, or higher or lower.
If Congress ascribes a higher priority to Army transformation, will necessary funds be
7 See charts presented by Ronald O’Rourke to House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee
on Military Procurement in hearings on Navy shipbuilding programs, February 29, 2000.
8 See Kim Burger, “Army Pushing to Speed Interim Armored Vehicle Delivery Schedule:
Contract protest might upset program pace,” Inside the Army, December 11, 2000, p. 8.
9 Kim Burger, “Integration of Army Systems brings Interim Vehicle Cost to $6 Billion: LAV III
will require $9 billion over lifetime,” Inside the Army, December 4, 2000, p. 1.
10 Christopher Jehn, CBO Testimony before the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, House
Armed Services Committee, September 21, 2000. CBO estimates for a sustaining procurement
budget in billions of dollars above that appropriated in FY2000: Army, 5; Navy and Marine
Corps, 12; and Air Force, 17.

---

CRS-6
provided by adding to overall DoD appropriations, subtracting from DoD programs in
other services, or reducing deployments? In ascribing priorities that will ultimately
determine the shape of U.S. military forces in the future, Congress will utilize normal
procedures such as hearings and committee meetings.
During the FY2003 budget cycle, DoD expressed its intent to cut acquisition
programs that do not meet its definition of “transitional” in favor of those that do. Its
prime example was the Army’s Crusader Howitzer program. DoD cut Crusader and
allocated the savings to several other advanced fire support systems in development.
Congress reluctantly endorsed the action with the proviso that Crusader expertise be rolled
into the FCS program. As part of its appropriations responsibilities, the 108th Congress
may choose to enforce DoD’s implied promise to support adequately fire support
throughout the FCS development program.11
Wheels or Tracks and How Many Stryker Brigades? An early issue to
confront the Army was whether the Interim Force should use tracked or wheeled armored
vehicles, or some combination.12 Traditionally, the U.S. Army has favored tracks for its
combat vehicles; with their low ground pressure and greater traction, they generally
perform better off roads on difficult terrain. Wheels generally perform better on roads in
terms of speed, agility, and quietness. After reviewing proposals, the Army selected the
wheeled LAV III from General Motors, and named it Stryker. Critics of the decision,
including some current and former members of Congress, continue to argue for a reversal
or curtailment of the Stryker decision.13 The Army defends its case strongly and DoD has
not indicated that it would intervene.
DoD has, however, raised questions about the ultimate number and stationing of
SBCT’s. In the past, it requested the Army consider stationing one of the six units in
Europe. More recently it has suggested that units five and six not be funded unless they
could be “spiral developed” into much more transformational formations. It appears that
funding for the fourth SBCT will be requested. The combination of these new
considerations could, however, open prior decisions to station SBCT’s in Hawaii and
Alaska to debate and thus create political complications.14 The 108th Congress may play
an important role in resolving the ultimate disposition of the proposed Interim Force.
11 Edward F. Bruner and Steve Bowman. Crusader XM2001 Self-Propelled Howitzer:
Background and Issues for Congress, CRS Report RS21218.
12 For a technical discussion of this argument, see Paul Hornback, “The Wheel Versus Track
Dilemma, Armor, March-April 1998, pp. 33-34.
13 Winograd. “Stryker Criticism Continues as Army, OSD Work Out SBCT Compromise,” Inside
the Army, December 9, 2002, p. 1.
14 Winograd. “Units’ home stations could change,” Inside the Army, December 23, 2002, p.1.

---