Army Ground Combat Modernization for the 1980s: Potential Costs and Effects for NATO

Abstract : The Warsaw Pact alliance, the principal opponent confronting NATO, has recently made significant gains in conventional ground combat weaponry, and evidence suggests these advances will continue throughout this decade. In response to the growth of the perceived Warsaw Pact threat, all member nations of NATO have committed themselves to programs that would upgrade their own non-nuclear capabilities. Provisions of a NATO agreement signed in 1977 stipulate that each member nation pledge to increase real annual defense spending by 3 percent. But fiscal pressure, especially on West European governments, has made attainment of that goal difficult. Whereas Congress would prefer to see our allies shoulder a larger share of the burden of defending NATO, economic realities may leave the major responsibility to the United States, and in particular, to the U.S. Army. The Reagan Administration has formulated plans to make major investments in ground combat materiel for the Army. The ground combat equipment modernization sought would improve or displace outmoded weapons systems at a total cost of $37.6 billion over the 5-year period 1983-1987. Most of this sum would go to acquire the following: 5,096 M1 tanks, 3,897 M2 Fighting Vehicle Systems (FVS), 221 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), 435 Apache Attack Helicopters (AH-64) equipped with 29,076 Hellfire Missiles, 568 Division Air Defense (DIVAD) guns, and 208 applications of the Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP). The $37.6 billion also would put two more divisions in the POMCUS program, which prepositions heavy Army equipment in Europe. The size of the federal deficit is prompting consideration of cost-cutting measures in all program areas, including the Army modernization program. This report estimates the costs of three cost-cutting approaches to Army ground combat modernization: (1) Continuation of current policy, (2) Reduction in the rate of procurement, and (3) Modification of the composition of the program.