Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1974

III

Force Development

As combat structure and personnel strength stabilized in fiscal year 1974, the Army continued to mold its diminished assets into a highly motivated, combat-ready force.

War games are used to determine the combat units needed to defeat a potential enemy. Then a force structuring exercise is conducted to determine the administrative and logistical units required to support the combat force. Involved is a large volume of data concerning hundreds of types of units and varying support requirements based on the intensity of combat, location and length of supply routes, medical evacuation policy, casualty, disease, and nonbattle injury rates, engineering construction requirements, and supply and maintenance policies. The typical force structuring exercise is so complex and time-consuming that it is often restricted to the establishment and evaluation of but one set of circumstances or one scenario. In recent years the Army has developed new systems and models designed to simplify force structuring and allow the analysis of a number of alternative scenarios for developing the best force structure for the Army.

The U.S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency operates the Automated Force Planning System (FOREWON), which consists of five separate but integrated models. A lift model deploys units to a theater of operations and provides arrival dates. A war game model employs combat units against an assumed enemy as the units arrive in the theater. A logistics or force roundout model determines the units required to support the combat forces. When troops lists are developed for more than one theater, a force aggregation model provides a single force structure that is able to support all of the theaters. Finally, a consolidated force cost model computes the costs of raising current forces to the proposed level and for maintaining that force in peacetime. With this system, force planners can look at a theater over a period of time and not only determine what units are required, but when each is required.

The U.S. Army Management Systems Support Agency maintains a second system, the Modular Force Planning System. This system consists of a logistics or force roundout model that determines the support requirements for a given combat force at a single point in time. The system also provides the capability, through a linear program, to add or delete support units.

[23]

During the past year a new force packaging concept, the Heavy/ Light Corps package, was developed to provide a force of up to corps size capable of rapid deployment in support of worldwide contingency requirements. The package consists of active Army units, which could be configured with a fixed number of divisions and supported with minimum essential combat support and combat service support units needed to sustain the corps for a specified period of time. The force could be tailored for deployment to any geographical area, but structuring constraints preclude the deployment of more than one corps at a time. The initial troop list for the Heavy/Light Corps package was developed during the first quarter of fiscal year 1974. During the remainder of the year the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command tested the validity of the troop list for using selected scenario situations.

The first run of the Army's Total Force Analysis, emanating from the Nixon Doctrine, was completed in February 1974, approved, and partially implemented by the close of the fiscal year. The analysis used the Automated Force Planning System to assess the combat ability of four force structures, each based on different assumptions as to the time available to generate forces and the nature of the enemy threat. Other factors considered in the study were the affiliation of Reserve Component units with active Army units, a pending reduction in Reserve forces by Congress, the organization and number of training divisions, the status of the Individual Ready Reserve, the organization of forces above the division level, the requirement for units in Korea, and manpower constraints at the end of the year. The resulting Total Force troop list was examined to identify units not required in the M-day force structure and to free spaces to support other Total Force requirements. Follow-on analyses will be conducted during each fiscal year in light of new force structure constraints, revised loss rates, and improvements in forces. The Army will use them in developing recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on the Army's total resource requirements.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense directed a study on the National Guard and Reserve that would consider the availability, force mix, limitations, and potential of the Selected Reserve in a national emergency. Elements of the Department of the Army staff, initially under the direction of the Office, Chief of Reserve Components and then under the Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, supported the study as full-time participants and as sources of information. The primary objective of the study

[24]

task force, the development of recommendations to improve the Total Force posture, should be met by August 1974.

In January 1974 the Army Electronic Warfare Master Plan was published. Developed under the guidance of the Army Electronic Warfare Board, it represented the combined efforts of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Army Forces Command, U.S. Army Communications Command, U.S. Army Security Command, U.S. Army Materiel Command, and the Army staff. The plan was the first to provide guidance in all aspects of electronic warfare training, combat and materiel developments, planning and programming, force and materiel requirements, and Army priorities. In a related development, the Chief of Staff, in December 1973, established as top priority the improvement of Army tactical signal intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities. As a result, the tactical direct support units of the U.S. Army Security Agency were nearly doubled and procurement of tactical signal intelligence and electronic warfare systems increased approximately fourfold in Army programs for .fiscal years 1976-1980.

Systems

In the defense budget presented to Congress in March 1973, the fiscal year 1974 Ballistic Missile Defense program called for $402 million to continue Safeguard deployment at the Grand Forks site and $170 million for the Site Defense program. After considerable discussion during authorization and appropriation hearings, Congress appropriated $340 million for Safeguard and $110 million for Site Defense.

As a result of the ABM Treaty and congressional action, American Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) programs have been limited to research and development and to deploying defensive missiles at one site. Meanwhile, the Soviets have demonstrated their intent to improve their offensive capabilities to the extent permitted under the Strategic Arms Limitation (SAL) agreement. Through development and testing, they have made major technological achievements, increasing their capability to threaten the survivability of U.S. strategic retaliatory forces.

To help offset Soviet advances, the Secretary of Defense, by memorandum of 3 April 1973, and as later changed by an Amended Program Decision Memorandum (APDM), dated 31 August 1973, directed the Army to continue Safeguard deployment at the Grand Forks site essentially as planned, to investigate new or improved system concepts and applicable technology, to preserve options for deploying additional weapons in defense of U.S. retaliatory forces,

[25]

and to continue planning for the application of Site Defense technology and components for the National Command Authority (NCA).

The Site Defense program continued to be the only existing development program that could protect the Minuteman force against Soviet weapons systems projected as early as 1979 or 1980. Stressing the importance of the program, the Secretary of Defense called it "a prudent and necessary hedge" in the event that "an acceptable permanent agreement on the limitation of strategic offensive arms cannot be achieved." Although congressional appropriations for the program were reduced, technical progress was made. Program activity-during the year turned from design to fabrication, selected components of the Sprint II missile and its radar were completed, and the basic target tracking software was coded and verified. Still, the program schedule had to be extended from sixty-six to seventy-two months and some systems tests and other activities deferred. Also, no funds were available for NCA defense design studies.

Safeguard deployment at the Grand Forks site proceeded on schedule. Construction was essentially completed at both radar sites and at the four Remote Sprint launch sites. The installation of tactical hardware and the testing of components and subsystems neared completion, and system testing proceeded as planned. Three of the six site-level acceptance tests were conducted.

At Kwajalein Missile Range the final phase of system tests to support software development was continued. A total of 52 system tests were completed as of 30 June 1974; of these, 45 were successful, 2 partially successful, and 5 unsuccessful.

A number of significant developments marked the ballistic missile defense advanced technology program during the past year. The Fly Along Infrared sensor vehicle (FAIR II) was test-flown in August 1973. The vehicle and sensor performed as specified. The Army accepted delivery of the first Signature of Fragmented Tank (SOFT) sensor in January 1974, and calibration of the sensor was completed at the Advanced Sensor Evaluation and Test (ASET) facility in February 1974. The Optical Signatures Code was developed and distributed to fourteen military and industrial organizations. A number of specific techniques for optical discrimination against tanks, tank fragments, radar chaff, optical balloons, and replica and background sources were defined and evaluated. A multivariate algorism for discrimination techniques was developed for the Advanced Ballistic Missile Development Agency (ABMDA) Research Center. The Hardened Optical Sensor Testbed (HOST) was fabricated and delivered to the ASET facility. The design of a

[26]

hardened Portable Optical Sensor Tester (POST) was completed and fabrication started. Conceptual designs of mosaic sensors were developed and analyzed.

The Homing Interceptor Technology (HIT) vehicle was completely mechanized and underwent a highly successful nonflying operation test. A set of fuze concept formulation studies was completed, and two concepts were selected for development studies. Growth threats to missile silo defense were also analyzed. Based on this analysis, terminal interception systems were established, new concepts in high-performance terminal interceptors developed, and the basis for the evolution of interceptor technology established.

The Technology Applications Panel (TAP) visited a total of thirty industrial and university laboratories during fiscal year 1974. Several hundred concepts were discussed and fifty-six reviewed in detail. Of these, 17 promising new technology opportunities for BMD were identified, 11 of which will be funded in the fiscal year 1975 Advanced BMD program, and the remaining 6 will be studied further. These initiatives range from revolutionary BMD concepts to significant evolutionary improvements in component developments. Multistatic radar technology, consisting of a large number of low-cost transceivers controlled by a central battle management processor, showed a potential application for defense of Minuteman. Studies were also begun on several kill technologies that could revolutionize ballistic missile defense.

Flight testing of the Army Special Target Program was completed, and excellent data obtained on sixteen of the eighteen targets flown. The targets were carried on a series of Minuteman flights, piggyback ICBM tests, and SLBM velocity tests launched by Athena boosters from Wake Island to Kwajalein. Significant information was obtained on performance of ICBM and SLBM velocities, traffic decoy capabilities, and bulk filtering possibilities for terminal defense.

In October 1973, a practical surface acoustic wave signal convolver was demonstrated, and development of an acoustic reflective array compressor was completed. Exoatmospheric designation techniques that employ radar and optical sensors were developed during the year. The analysis and field testing of a passive jammer location technique was completed in November 1973. Also in November, the operation of a 100-watt peak power S-Band trapatt power amplifier was demonstrated. Development of an S-Band low-noise figure and a medium-power output (25-watt) transistor amplifier suitable for solid state radar application was completed in January 1974. The Dome Antenna Phase III model was under construction

[27]

with completion and experimental testing scheduled for fiscal year 1975. Also, a low-cost printed circuit antenna element, Spiraphase, was demonstrated and found to be feasible.

Major changes in the management structure of the Army's ballistic missile defense effort took place during the past year. The changes, which succeeded in placing all Army BMD activity under a single program manager, are set forth below.

Name changes, the discontinuation of the Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense Agency in Washington, and transfer of control of the Kwajalein Missile Range from the Office of the Chief of Research and Development to the Ballistic Missile Defense Program Manager went into effect on 20 May 1974. The transfer and redesignation of the U.S. Army Safeguard System Evaluation Agency became effective on 1 July 1974. Revised tables of distribution and allowances and internal management realignments to carry out the above changes were to be accomplished during fiscal year 1975. This reorganization will enable the Army to maintain an effective technological program within constrained funding and will consolidate management for all ballistic missile defense programs.

On 4 May 1974, the Secretary of Defense submitted the Defense program and budget for fiscal year 1975. The request included $60.8 million to complete deployment of the Safeguard site at

[28]

Grand Forks, North Dakota, for the defense of Minuteman, and $160 million to continue work on the Site Defense prototype demonstration program. The Secretary stated that the Site Defense program would "be conducted on a very austere basis." He added, however, that "Site Defense must be developed with `system' applications in mind if the demonstration of the development prototype is to be of any real value." To round out the fiscal year 1975 program, $91.4 million was requested for an advanced technology effort to guard against technological surprise, provide a basis for improving existing ballistic missile defense systems, and assist in the design and evaluation of strategic offensive systems.

A special task force met on 8 January 1973 to validate the need for Pershing II, a proposed modular improvement of Pershing la designed to provide increased accuracy and substantially reduce collateral damage. The Pershing II Special Task Force, which was the first to be formed under new acquisition guidelines contained in AR 1000-1, presented its findings to the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) on 18 October 1973. Following ASARC approval, the task force on 22 January 1974 briefed the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC). On 7 March 1974, the Department of Defense approved Pershing II for advanced development only and authorized the Army to begin discussions with the Atomic Energy Commission on appropriate nuclear warheads.

In October of 1973 the Army decided to substitute, as assets became available, an armored personnel carrier, M113A1, for the command and reconnaissance carrier, M114A1. The action was taken because of the M 114's operational deficiencies and unreliability.

Development on the family of scatterable mines progressed satisfactorily throughout fiscal year 1974. The XM56 helicopter delivered antitank mine system was approved for procurement on 20 November 1973. Developmental and operational testing of the XM692E1 artillery-delivered antipersonnel mine system, begun in March 1973, continued. Also, the XM718 artillery-delivered antitank mine system remained in the engineer development phase.

The Force Development Management Information System (FDMIS) consists of twenty-three automated systems, models, files, and data bases that support specific functions in the management of Army units and forces. The following are primary systems of the FDMIS. The Force Accounting System provides an indexed listing of all active and Reserve Component units in the current, programmed, and planned Army structure. The Army Authorization Documents System contains the detailed authorizations for per-

[29]

sonnel and equipment for each Regular Army, National Guard, and Reserve unit. This system also produces the document which is the unit commander's authority for requisitioning personnel and equipment. The Table of Organization and Equipment System contains model organizational structures for each type of combat and support unit required by the Army and forms the basis for developing documents in the Army Authorization Documents System. The Basis of Issue Plan System determines unit requirements for new items of equipment under development and reflects deletion of replaced items. The Structure and Composition System extracts and combines data from other FDMIS systems to produce personnel and equipment requirement statements for use by personnel and logistic managers in procurement, distribution, and budgeting activities.

During the fiscal year several changes were made in the systems that make up the FDMIS. Accuracy and timeliness, in particular, were improved.

Within the Force Accounting System a subsystem has been developed to trace the effects of decision making on force structure. Another added subsystem verifies budget coding. The system itself has been extended to U.S. Army, Pacific; U.S. Army, Europe; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; and U.S. Army Forces Command. This extension gives these commands the same tool for managing their forces as that of Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Conversion of the Army Authorization Documents System to a multicommand automatic data processing system and its extension to the field commands, which began in June 1973, was 99 percent complete for the active Army and 70 percent complete for the Army Reserve by the end of fiscal year 1974. The Army National Guard completed the training required for conversion to the new system, and extension of the system to the National Guard was scheduled for early fiscal year 1975. The application of this system to the field has increased the responsiveness of Headquarters, Department of the Army, to the needs of the field commands and their troop units.

The Structure and Composition System was used extensively during fiscal year 1974. It produced three logistics computations for delivery to management agencies and two logistics computations to support planning activities. It provided 2 computations for equipment distribution managers, 11 for personnel management agencies, 5 for use in the development of training programs, and 1 for personnel planning. The system was also expanded to include

[30]

a subsystem for verifying data in the computation of personnel requirements.

By the middle of fiscal year 1974, it became clear that the Force Accounting System and the Army Authorization Documents System should be combined. Realizing this, the Army reviewed the capabilities of the Force Development Management Information System's component systems and established a study group to recommend ways of making these systems better support the field. At the close of fiscal year 1974 the study group had completed its research.

Training and Schooling

Unit exchanges were carried out in fiscal year 1974 with three allied countries to promote training. The initial unit exchange program with Australia was enlarged, and companies now participate. A platoon-size exchange program with the Canadian armed forces was agreed upon in September 1973. The first of two exchanges (25 April-5 June 1974) involved a platoon of the 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg .and a platoon of Canada's 1st Combat Group. The second exchange, between platoons of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson and the 1st Combat Group, is planned for the fall of 1974. The Army also exchanged platoons with Norway. A Norwegian Army platoon participated in Alaska's winter exercise program, Ace Card VII, while a platoon from the 172d Infantry Brigade in Alaska took part in operational readiness training in Norway. From 5 to 25 February 1974, one platoon of the 47th Infantry Division, Minnesota Army National Guard, changed places with a Norwegian Home Guard unit from Oslo.

In the United States the Interservice Training Review Program, an effort to lower training costs through the consolidation of service training courses and the sharing of training equipment and facilities, showed substantial gains during the past year. Since its inception in fiscal year 1973, 1,171 courses have been reviewed, 37 of which have been consolidated into 18 interservice courses. The experience gained during this review led to new systems that will satisfy the services' common training requirements. Initially this concept of consolidation and sharing was tried on the construction equipment operator and law enforcement occupational subgroups, and the trial confirmed a potential for improving training at reduced cost. At the close of the fiscal year, task forces were preparing cost-benefit analyses of thirty-three additional occupational subgroups for possible consolidation. Also, the training commands of the services agreed on ways to exchange training literature, audio-visual materials, and training aids.

[31]

Army planning for one-station training, which is scheduled for phased implementation over a five-year period beginning in fiscal year 1974, received considerable attention during the past year. Under this new management concept the Army can reduce turbulence during the training of new enlistees and lower costs by conducting all stages of initial entry training for most enlistees at a single installation and by presenting most courses of instruction at only one installation. Initial entry training, skill progression training, professional development courses, and combat and training development activities will be conducted in an integrated environment, with each branch having its own professional home. Installations scheduled to participate in the one-station training plan and the professional home concept are Fort Benning (infantry training), Fort Bliss (air defense artillery training), Fort Gordon (signal training), Fort Jackson (combat support training), Fort Knox (armor training), Fort Leonard Wood (engineer training), Fort McClellan (military police training), and Fort Sill (field artillery training). One or more existing Army training centers, however, will be retained to provide additional training capacity.

While the Army made progress in one-station training, it also relocated and consolidated several service schools. Major changes are noted below.

A reduction in programmed foreign language requirements -4,600 for fiscal year 1975 as compared to 5,600 in fiscal year 1973- led to cancellation of the Defense Language Institute's planned move to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Instead, the east coast branch and the headquarters of the Institute will be transferred from the Washington Navy Yard (Anacostia branch) to the Presidio of Monterey, where they will be consolidated with the school's west coast branch and the Systems Development Agency. This move will centralize all foreign language training in a favorable academic atmosphere and will reduce management and staffing overhead.

Plans were approved to relocate the U.S. Army Military Police School from Fort Gordon, Georgia, to Fort McClellan, Alabama. The move, which will begin in early fiscal year 1975, is intended to make full use of the excellent academic facilities at Fort McClellan, the former home of the disestablished U.S. Army Chemical School.

The relocation of the U.S. Army Signal Center and School from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Fort Gordon, Georgia, and its consolidation with the U.S. Southeastern Signal School had been approved in March 1973. Under previous policies, communications electronics and signal training was conducted at both sites, with instruction in fixed and strategic communications centered at Fort

[32]

Monmouth and training in tactical communications centered at Fort Gordon. By consolidating all signal training at Fort Gordon, the Army will reduce the administration and support costs of academic programs and make better use of its field training sites in a year-round climate. Phase I of the consolidation, which involved the transfer of tactical communications courses to Fort Gordon, was completed on 30 June 1974. Phase II, which entails the move of strategic communications and systems training from Fort Monmouth, will begin during the first quarter of fiscal year 1975. During this phase the Army will position extensive equipment at Fort Gordon, including that required for a Tri-Service Automatic Digital Network (AUTODIN) training facility. To that end some AUTODIN items were recovered from Southeast Asia, and others were obtained from Tobyhanna Army Depot and Fort Monmouth. Completion of Phase II is scheduled for the end of fiscal year 1976.

The Judge Advocate General's School, located since 1951 at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, trains Army lawyers and oversees military law training Army-wide. During the past year, the school trained 350 lawyers initially entering active service in the judge Advocate General's Corps. It provided an active program of continuing legal education, including courses in procurement law, military criminal law, personal legal assistance, government litigation, and international law. It added to its curriculum a course in environmental law and another entitled Management for Military Lawyers. To improve the qualifications of legal support people, the school conducted a law office management course for legal administrative technicians and senior legal clerks, presented courses for military lawyers' assistants in both criminal and administrative law, and offered specialized training for legal clerks and court reporters attending the school's noncommissioned officers advanced course.

Army Judge Advocate officers stationed throughout the world attended the annual judge Advocate General's Conference, which focused on the theme of trial and appellate advocacy, not only in courts-martial but also in the increased litigation affecting the Army in the civilian courts. The Judge Advocate General's School sponsored special training conferences for the staff judge advocates of Army Reserve units, commanders of judge Advocate General's Service Organization detachments in the Army Reserve, and for senior judge advocates of the Army and Air National Guard. The school also conducted the annual training of the Army Reserve claims investigating teams, claims adjudicating teams, and legal assistance teams of the judge Advocate General's Service Organiza-

[33]

tion. To help Reserve Component judge advocates perform their duties during mobilization and active duty training, faculty members from the judge Advocate General's School made 186 visits to the home stations of Reserve Component units and conducted more than a thousand hours of instruction for judge advocate personnel.

At year's end, construction of a new University of Virginia building for leasing by the judge Advocate General's School was well under way. The new facility will provide for practice courtrooms, classrooms, an enlarged military legal research center, and student housing.

In the Army Nurse Corps, training during fiscal year 1974 emphasized Nurse Clinician programs. These programs were designed to prepare nurses to assume broader responsibilities in health assessment, treatment, patient teaching, illness prevention, and health care maintenance and thereby to improve health care to the military community. Nurse Clinician programs currently include psychiatric mental health, ambulatory care, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, intensive care nursing, community health and anesthesiology nursing, and a new program in nurse midwifery.

[34]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 2 December 2004