Rep. Hartzler: The Army continues to insufficiently fund these [munitions] efforts in the base budget. Unfortunately, the president’s proposed budget for FY 2023 appears to be much of the same, continuing the trend of using ammunition procurement and production-based support accounts as bill payers for other Army priorities.
That was from a March 2022 HASC hearing on the Army’s munitions modernization priorities. I would push back a little. While I’m sure the Army has used munitions funds as a bill payer, so has Congress. Except for FY 2018 where Congress added 14% to the DoD’s munitions budget, between FY 2011 and FY 2021 Congress has on average cut DoD’s munitions request by 4.7% on average. That translates to $5.75 billion fewer dollars in munitions between FY 2011 and FY 2021 (excluding FY 2018, which was a $1.9 billion plus up).
Congress tends to do a little better by Army munitions. FY 2018 saw a 25% boost, while all other years between FY 2011 and FY 2021 saw just a 2% average cut.
The Army also reprogrammed $220 million away from munitions budget lines between FY 2018 and FY 2021. These were all Above Threshold Reprogrammings, and so approved by Congress.
This was all from my analysis of DD1416 comptroller reports. Here’s more from the hearing about the munitions industrial base and a potential replacement for the Stinger anti-air missile:
Rep. Terner: If you go to 2017, the association united states army institute of land warfare did a study looking at production of munitions and what the challenges were from that point going forward. What they found is that about a third of the 3,000 different types of ammunition were actually under supplied — so we we weren’t producing what we needed. Within that realm what they also found that 25 of the current munitions stores that we have are 25 years of age or older so as we look at the risk we take on with aging munitions stores with lack of production capability, I think that’s an unacceptable risk.
…. A great example is we’re using up lots of Javelins and lots of Stingers. The Stinger is a circa 1960s weapons platform listen very effective, but the question is if we’re going to go into production large scale to replace the ones that we’re using, is it a wise thing to reproduce a circa 1960s platform or is it something that we ought to look at something like the starstreak, 2007, a pretty incredible weapon?
ASAALT Doug Bush: I think the approach the Army’s going to take as you know we have current requirement for the current weapon, which as you note is a classic design but still effective. I believe we are going to use funding provided by Congress to replenish weapons similar to what we provided our current weapon. However, the Army has a requirement underway work on a requirement for a new missile potentially underway that will look at the future you’re talking about the army is still underway to determine what the requirements would be for that but I expect us to do both.
Just remember, a new requirement can take multiple years to get approved. And then an Analysis of Alternatives, Budgeting, Acquisition Planning, Contract Award… it could be a decade before this new Stinger is fielded. I prefer Rep. Turner’s approach, what exists today that can be leveraged, and what rapid modifications to existing technologies to include injection of commercial tech can be done?
Here’s more from Doug Bush:
We have met our commitment we recently produced a 15-year army modernization plan for the entire OIB which includes all depots and arsenals as well as ammunition plants. Within the ammunition plant community, both contractor and government operated as the Army undergoes the greatest transformation in more than 40 years. The 15-year modernization plan represents a once in a generation chance to holistically modernize. With collaboration input and feedback from our industry partners, consulting companies, in academia, the plan provides a deliberate and comprehensive roadmap to a 21st century OIB focused on processes facilities equipment workforce data and information technology as well as energy and cyber resilience.
This three-phase plan represents an estimated $16 billion investment, $8-plus billion of which will upgrade ammunition sites alone. This effort will be significant in bringing on our ammunition plant capabilities into the 21st century critical to modernization efforts are minimizing human exposure to hazards through robotics and remote operating processes seeking to reduce single points of failure and dependence on foreign suppliers and building capacity and capability to support the Army and the joint force as we move into the future all while sunsetting and divesting of legacy equipment facilities and processes.
And an interesting industry comment, though it looks like the Fed is trying to raise interest rates and bring that inflation down… DoD planning and contracting just tends to be months or years behind the curve on fast moving events.
The second item would be more widespread use of FAR clause 52-216-4, economic price adjustment. Labor and material in today’s rapidly changing environment translating into increasing inflation rates we have not seen in decades. This has become more and more difficult to get price quotes that are valid for longer than 30 days. As defense contractors we must take these short term quotes and respond to government solicitation asking for five year sometimes ten years firm fixed pricing. I can understand why the government likes firm fixed price contracts, however, in today’s environment I’m not sure the department of defense really gets the best value in these instances.
And a final one:
I’ll say for contractor and Army there’s a lot of frustration about how much these work statements cost the government, yet we’re bound by these requirements in ways that we cannot get to more efficient solutions that are certainly available if we operate in a more commercial fashion.
Leave a Reply