FAS | Military Analysis | GAO |||| Index | Search |

Military Readiness: Data and Trends for January 1990 to March 1995 (Briefing Report, 03/04/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-111BR).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the military readiness
data in the Department of Defense's (DOD) Status of Resources and
Training System (SORTS) focusing on the: (1) overall readiness of
military units from January 1, 1990 to March 31, 1995; (2) readiness
trends and problems of select units from each service; and (3) changes
in reported readiness of selected units.

GAO found that: (1) military units' combat readiness remained generally
stable from January 1, 1990 to March 31, 1995; (2) 80 percent of 94
reviewed units' readiness levels met service goals; (3) most units'
readiness problems were caused by personnel and equipment shortages and
inadequate training for military personnel; (4) Navy ships maintained
their readiness levels when periods of planned maintenance and training
were excluded from SORTS data; (5) Navy aviation squadrons' reductions
were a result of personnel shortages from increases in the number of
authorized aircraft and shortages in pilot training funding; (6) Marine
Corps readiness for ground combat units remained at desired levels, but
support and aviation units experienced fluctuations after supplying
detachments to deploying ships and expeditionary units; (7) the Army's
readiness levels were influenced by the number of contingency operations
it was involved in; and (8) the Air Force maintained its desired level
of readiness, but contingency and counterdrug operations have strained
the number of spare parts, engines, and crews available.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-96-111BR
     TITLE:  Military Readiness: Data and Trends for January 1990 to 
             March 1995
      DATE:  03/04/96
   SUBJECT:  Combat readiness
             Military training
             Military personnel
             Strategic planning
             Military operations
             Military forces
             Military materiel
             Defense contingency planning
             Defense capabilities
IDENTIFIER:  JCS Status of Resources and Training System
             Airborne Warning and Control System
             AWACS
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                    <info@www.gao.gov>                        **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Briefing Report to the Chairman, Committee on National Security,
House of Representatives

March 1996

MILITARY READINESS - DATA AND
TRENDS FOR JANUARY 1990 TO MARCH
1995

GAO/NSIAD-96-111BR

Military Readiness

(703130)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AWACS - Airborne Warning and Control System
  DOD - Department of Defense
  SORTS - Status of Resources and Training System

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-271209

March 4, 1996

The Honorable Floyd Spence
Chairman, Committee on National Security
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

As you requested, this report is an unclassified version of our
earlier classified report on military readiness.  We analyzed
military readiness data contained in the Department of Defense's
(DOD) Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS) to determine if
the data showed significant changes in readiness since 1990--a year
of peak readiness.  This report provides readiness information for
the four military services.  Specifically, it (1) summarizes the
reported overall readiness status of all military units from January
1, 1990, to March 31, 1995; (2) assesses readiness trends of selected
units from each service for the same period, and, where applicable,
discusses reported readiness problems experienced throughout a
service and by the selected units; and (3) explains significant
changes in reported readiness of the selected units. 

On August 31, 1995, we briefed the Subcommittee on Military
Readiness, House Committee on National Security, staff on the results
of our work.  This report summarizes the information we presented in
that briefing. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

SORTS is DOD's automated reporting system that identifies the current
level of selected resources and training status of a unit--that is,
its ability to undertake its wartime mission.  Units report their
overall readiness status as well as the status of four resource areas
(personnel, equipment and supplies on hand, equipment condition, and
training).\1 Overall readiness status is generally reported at a
level consistent with the lowest rated resource level, but commanders
are allowed to subjectively upgrade or downgrade the overall rating. 
SORTS is an internal management tool used by the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, services, and combatant commands.  It provides the
Chairman with the necessary unit information to achieve an adequate
and feasible military response to crisis situations and participate
in the joint planning and execution process. 

In viewing SORTS information, it should be noted that there are
significant differences in the way each service manages readiness. 
For example, the Air Force's goal is to maintain all units at the C-2
level or better.  In contrast, the Army uses a tiered resourcing
system that maintains contingency units at the C-1 or C-2 level but
allows later-deploying units to fall to the C-2 or C-3 level.  The
Navy and the Marine Corps manage readiness so that deployed units are
C-1 or C-2.  Units deployed or preparing for deployment have higher
resource allocation priority than nondeployed units.  Therefore,
reported readiness fluctuates with deployment and maintenance cycles. 


--------------------
\1 Readiness status of a unit is reported by assigning "C" levels
that are defined as follows:  C-1--Unit can undertake the full
wartime mission for which it is organized or designed.  C-2--Unit can
undertake the bulk of its wartime mission.  C-3--Unit can undertake
major portions of its wartime mission.  C-4--Unit requires additional
resources and/or training to undertake its wartime mission, but if
the situation dictates, it may be required to undertake portions of
the mission with resources on hand.  C-5--Unit is undergoing a
service-directed resource change and is not prepared to undertake its
wartime mission. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

DOD-wide, the percentage of military units with the ability to
undertake all or major portions of assigned missions remained
generally stable from January 1, 1990, to March 31, 1995. 

Of the 94 units we reviewed, readiness remained at levels consistent
with service goals in 75 (80 percent) of the units.  However,
readiness declined below the goals in 19 (20 percent) of the units. 
In five of these units, the readiness reductions were for fairly
short periods of time due to the units' participation in contingency
operations.  In the remaining units, readiness reductions were caused
primarily by personnel shortages, equipment shortages, and difficulty
in obtaining training for personnel in certain military occupations. 

In the Navy units we analyzed, ships maintained the desired readiness
levels when periods of planned maintenance and training were
excluded.  However, the readiness of Navy aviation squadrons declined
in the training area--a problem we found was Navy-wide.  The
reduction was caused by personnel shortages related to the Navy's
decision to increase the number of aircraft authorized in some
squadrons and a shortage of funds to pay for the flying hours needed
to keep pilots qualified.  As a result, from April 1994 through March
1995, the number of naval aviation units reporting the desired
readiness levels declined by 27 percent.  Although the funding
problem was alleviated at the beginning of fiscal year 1995, the Navy
has been unable to raise the readiness to previous levels. 

In the Marine Corps units we analyzed, the readiness for ground
combat units remained at desired levels throughout the period,
whereas the readiness of support and aviation units fluctuated or
remained stable at a lower level.  This happened because these units
continuously provided detachments to deploying ships and Marine
Expeditionary Units.  Although a constant drain of personnel and
equipment depressed the reported readiness of parent units, Marine
Corps officials said that this practice reflected normal operations
and that they considered the readiness of these units to be adequate,
albeit at a level lower than desired.  Officials attributed this
situation to Marine Corps-wide problems in training personnel for
certain occupational specialties.  Since the Corps does not have its
own training capability for skilled specialties, it must rely on the
other military services to provide it.  Officials expect it will take
about
2 years to resolve this problem. 

Readiness for most active Army infantry, armor, and artillery units
we analyzed remained high for contingency units and generally stable
for later deploying units.  There were, however, significant changes
or fluctuations in the readiness of five active Army units due to
contingency operations.  These units were used to support operations
such as Somalia, thereby decreasing their availability to the parent
units or inhibiting the deployed units' ability to train its
personnel.  Also, Army National Guard combat units experienced
readiness reductions.  Officials attributed the reductions to
comprehensive readiness reporting criteria that provide a more
accurate portrayal of personnel availability and to the difficulty of
getting guardsmen trained in occupational skills.  National Guard
units also overstated their readiness by understating the number of
training days required to achieve a C-1 status.  Lastly, some
commanders subjectively upgraded their units' overall status. 
Officials told us they could not determine in retrospect whether the
upgrades were justified. 

Readiness for Air Force units we analyzed generally remained at
desired levels.  However, there was some reduction or fluctuation in
the readiness of airlift and Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS) units.  Air Force officials said this condition occurred
because aircraft have been continuously committed to the operations
in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Bosnia.  Officials said heavy usage of
airlift aircraft have strained the supply of spare parts and engines. 
The constant use of AWACS aircraft for contingency and counterdrug
operations affected the Air Force's ability to train crews and
maintain required skills.  We also noted that commanders sometimes
reported overall readiness levels higher than the measured resource
areas.  Air Force officials said they consider this SORTS feature to
be a strength of the system.  They believe that a commander is in the
best position to accurately assess the readiness of a unit on the
basis of a wide range of information available to make this judgment. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

DOD has over 10,000 units that report readiness status under SORTS. 
We analyzed the overall readiness reported for all units since
January 1, 1990.  In addition, we performed a detailed analysis of
all readiness data reported for a cross-section of units\2 in each
service.  To ensure that we obtained adequate coverage, we asked
service officials to help us select specific units that would
represent the various types of units within the service.  The units
selected are not a statistical sample, and the results of our
analyses cannot be projected to the entire service.  The units
included in our review are shown in appendix II. 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff established the requirements for specific
data that each service must report.  In addition, the Army, the Navy,
and the Air Force identified a number of service-unique indicators
that their units are required to report.  We selected indicators from
this universe that we believe are most relevant to identifying
readiness trends.  In general, these indicators comprised the overall
C-rating for the unit, the C-rating for each of the four measured
resource areas, and data elements that are used to determine the
C-rating in each measured area.  (See app.  II.)

For the selected units, we graphed the data elements and identified
trends.  Where we noted changes in historical trends or in units that
dropped below C-2 for extended periods, we compared the readiness
data with operational scheduling and maintenance data and discussed
these conditions with readiness officers from the respective
services.  Briefing sections I-IV of this report contain summary data
for each service. 

With the exception that we did not assess the reliability of SORTS
data provided by the services, our review followed generally accepted
government auditing standards and was conducted from November 1994
through July 1995. 

In written comments on a draft of our report, DOD agreed with the
information presented.  (See app.  I.) We are sending copies of this
report to the Chairmen, Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations; the Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services; and
the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. 
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.  If
you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me on
(202) 512-5140. 

Sincerely yours,

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues

Briefing Section I

--------------------
\2 For our analyses, we selected the following reporting
organizations:  Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft squadrons;
Marine Corps and Army battalions, support groups, and squadrons; and
Air Force wings and squadrons. 


NAVY READINESS TRENDS:  JANUARY
1990-MARCH 1995
============================================================== Letter 



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The percentage of units that reported an overall readiness status of
C-1 to C-3 was stable.  The readiness reported for 15 of the 16 ships
included in our analysis fluctuated cyclically between when they were
deployed and not deployed or undergoing maintenance.  Five of eight
aviation units showed a similar readiness trend.  In the remaining
units, we identified significant reductions in readiness levels. 

Only one Navy ship experienced a reduction in readiness, as compared
to several aviation units.  In explaining the reduced readiness in
aviation units, Navy officials said that during the past year, the
training readiness of aviation squadrons Navy-wide declined
significantly. 

Officials attributed the reduction to two major factors.  First,
contingency operations caused a shortage of flying hour funding in
late 1994, which significantly reduced training readiness.  We did
not verify the funding shortage.  Second, personnel shortages were
caused by force structure changes that increased the number of
authorized aircraft in some squadrons.  In August 1994, the number of
squadrons that reported C-1 or C-2 in training declined by 15 percent
from only 3 months earlier.  The funding shortage was alleviated at
the beginning of fiscal year 1995, but training readiness has not yet
reached previous levels. 


Briefing Section II MARINE CORPS
READINESS TRENDS:  JANUARY
1990-MARCH 1995
============================================================== Letter 



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Although the percentage of units that reported C-1 to C-3 for overall
readiness was stable, the percentage that reported C-1 or C-2
declined.  Readiness in the seven Marine Corps ground combat units we
reviewed was stable at desired levels.  Likewise, readiness in 7 of
the 13 aviation and support units remained stable at desired levels. 
However, we noted significant fluctuations or changes in the reported
readiness of five aviation, maintenance, and support units and one
instance in which a squadron's training rating dropped due to
insufficient flying hours late in fiscal year 1994. 

Marine Corps officials contended that these changes generally reflect
normal variations due to the way the Corps organizes and deploys its
forces.  For example, many Marine Corps aviation and support units
are not deployed as a single entity that reports readiness.  Instead,
the units provide detachments, comprised of mission-ready personnel
and equipment, to a deploying Marine Expeditionary Unit.  This
necessarily degrades the readiness status of the parent unit, which
then begins to build toward its next commitment.  This continuous
cycle of deploying the best-trained personnel and mission-ready
equipment may cause changes in the reported status of the unit or
cause it to remain at a low level over time. 

Officials said that although readiness for many of the units was
stable, it was not at the desired level.  They said that there are
Corps-wide problems in providing sufficient personnel trained in many
of the low-density, highly skilled military occupational specialties. 
Officials attributed this largely to the planned force-structure
reduction designed to reduce the Corps to 159,000 personnel. 
Although this level was subsequently changed to 174,000, the Corps
meanwhile had lost many of its skilled personnel and forfeited future
training opportunities.  Since the Corps does not have its own
facilities to train personnel for these skills, it relies on the
other services to provide training.  Officials expect it will take
about 2 years to correct this deficiency. 


Briefing Section III ARMY
READINESS TRENDS:  JANUARY
1990-MARCH 1995
============================================================== Letter 



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The percentage of units that reported C-1 to C-3 for overall
readiness was stable.  We noted significant changes or fluctuations
in reported readiness for active Army units due to contingency
operations and equipment maintenance problems, a general reduction in
readiness reported by National Guard units and, in some cases,
commanders' subjective upgrades of overall readiness ratings. 

Five of the units included in our analysis were used to respond to
contingency situations, which affected readiness for fairly short
periods of time.  Officials said that such use of units may affect
readiness in two ways.  First, if only part of the reporting unit is
deployed, certain resources available to the unit are depleted,
thereby degrading readiness in such areas as personnel and equipment
on hand.  Second, if a unit is engaged in one role, such as
peacekeeping or security operations, it may be unable to train
personnel in the full range of military skills or to maintain its
equipment in mission-ready condition. 

We noted a reduction in readiness for National Guard combat units,
which Army officials attributed to more stringent reporting
requirements and the difficulty of getting personnel trained in the
needed occupational skills.  Moreover, our analyses disclosed that
two of the four National Guard combat units we analyzed appear to
have understated the number of training days required to achieve C-1
status. 

In several instances, Army unit commanders subjectively upgraded
their units' overall status.  Army officials told us there was no way
of determining in retrospect whether the upgrades were justified. 
They said many commanders view the SORTS reports as "report cards" on
their performance and will therefore make every effort to present the
unit in the best light.  Officials also explained that a commander's
subjective assessment to upgrade or downgrade readiness is a
standard, deliberate part of the process that provides a more
complete assessment of a unit's readiness. 


Briefing Section IV AIR FORCE
READINESS TRENDS:  JANUARY
1990-MARCH 1995
============================================================== Letter 



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The percentage of units that reported C-1 to C-3 for overall
readiness was stable.  Readiness remained generally stable in most of
the units we reviewed.  Guard and reserve units were the most stable. 
In three of the units, there was some reduction or fluctuation in
reported readiness, primarily among airlift and specialty aircraft
units.  Air Force officials generally attributed the changes to
continuous use of the aircraft for contingency operations and the
resulting strain on the supply of spare parts and engines.  We also
noted that Air Force commanders sometimes upgraded their units'
overall readiness status above the level indicated by the four
measured resource areas. 

Included in our sample were four Air Force Reserve and four Air
National Guard units--two fighter squadrons and two airlift squadrons
from each.  Reported readiness in these units remained at high levels
throughout the period.  Air Force officials attributed this condition
to the Air Force policy of viewing reserve components as an integral
part of the total force.  They said that the reserve units had equal
access to the supply system in obtaining spare parts, were usually
staffed with experienced pilots and maintenance personnel, and were
generally not used as heavily as active component units. 

Continuously using the aircraft to support Desert Storm, Somalia, and
Bosnia operations, along with counterdrug operations, affected the
reported readiness of Air Force units during this period. 
Particularly affected were the airlift units required to transport
personnel, equipment, and supplies.  For example, in fiscal year
1991, the C-141 fleet flew 58 percent over the planned flying hour
program, and the C-5 fleet flew over by 175 percent.  Heavy use of
the C-141 and C-5 aircraft created a greater demand for spare parts
and engines and accelerated the rate at which the aircraft required
major repairs.  Units with specialty aircraft, such as the E-3B
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), were also affected. 
These aircraft are an integral part of air operations and are in
constant demand by the commanders in chief. 

Finally, Air Force commanders sometimes upgraded the overall
readiness status of their units.  In some units we analyzed,
commanders subjectively upgraded the overall readiness reported for
extended periods of time
(5 consecutive months or longer).  Air Force officials said that they
do not consider upgrades to be a problem.  In fact, they consider the
capability to do this to be a strength of the Status of Resources and
Training System (SORTS) rather than a weakness.  They believe that a
commander is in the best position to accurately assess the readiness
of a unit, on the basis of a wide range of information available to
make this judgment.  Commanders have the prerogative to upgrade or
downgrade their unit's overall readiness status. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================== Letter 


UNITS INCLUDED IN OUR READINESS
ASSESSMENT
========================================================== Appendix II

Major command       Unit name           Major equipment     Home station
------------------  ------------------  ------------------  --------------------
Air Force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat Command
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96th Wing           28th Bomb Squadron  B-1B aircraft       Dyess Air Force
                                                            Base, Tex.

4th Wing            744th Air           KC-10A aircraft     Seymour Johnson Air
                    Refueling Squadron                      Force Base, N.C.

1st Fighter Wing    71st Air Rescue     HC-130P aircraft    Patrick Air Force
                    Squadron                                Base, Fla.

                    27th Fighter        F-15C/D aircraft    Langley Air Force
                    Squadron                                Base, Va.

2nd Bomb Wing       20th Bomb Squadron  B-52H aircraft      Barksdale Air Force
                                                            Base, La.

355th Wing          354th Fighter       OA-10A aircraft     Davis-Monthan Air
                    Squadron                                Force Base, Ariz.

23rd Wing           41st Airlift        C-130E aircraft     Pope Air Force Base,
                    Squadron                                N.C.


U.S. Air Forces, Europe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52nd Fighter Wing   23rd Fighter        F-16C aircraft      Spangdahlem Air
                    Squadron                                Base, Germany


Pacific Air Forces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18th Wing           961st Airborne      E-3B aircraft       Kadena Air Force
                    Warning and                             Base, Japan
                    Control Squadron

3rd Wing            90th Fighter        F-15E aircraft      Elmendorf Air Force
                    Squadron                                Base, Alaska


Air Mobility Command
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    60th Airlift Wing   C-5B aircraft       Travis Air Force
                                                            Base, Calif.

                    437th Airlift Wing  C-141B aircraft     Charleston Air Force
                                                            Base, S.C.

                    22nd Air Refueling  KC-135A aircraft    McConnell Air Force
                    Wing                                    Base, Kans.


Air Force Special Operations Command
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
353rd Special       1st Special         MC-130E aircraft    Kadena Air Base,
Operations Group    Operations                              Japan
                    Squadron


Air National Guard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
135th Airlift       104th Fighter       A-10A aircraft      Martin Air National
Group               Squadron                                Guard Station, Md.

172nd Airlift       183rd Airlift       C-141B aircraft     Jackson Air National
Group               Squadron                                Guard Station, Miss.

136th Airlift Wing  181st Airlift       C-130H aircraft     Dallas Naval Air
                    Squadron                                Station, Tex.

149th Fighter       182nd Fighter       F-16A/B aircraft    Kelly Air Force
Group               Squadron                                Base, Tex.


Air Force Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
914th Airlift       328th Airlift       C-130H aircraft     Niagra Falls, N.Y.
Group               Squadron

                    459th Airlift Wing  C-141B aircraft     Andrews Air Force
                                                            Base, Md.

442nd Fighter Wing  303rd Fighter       OA-10A aircraft     Whiteman Air Force
                    Squadron                                Base, Mo.

301st Fighter Wing  457th Fighter       F-16A aircraft      Ft. Worth Naval Air
                    Squadron                                Station, Tex.


Army
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Infantry        2nd Battalion, 1st  AH64A; OH58C        Katerbach, Germany
Division            Aviation Regiment   helicopters
(mechanized)

                    1st Battalion, 6th  Bradley fighting    Vilseck, Germany
                    Infantry Regiment   vehicles

                    3rd Battalion, 1st  155mm self-         Bamberg, Germany
                    Field Artillery     propelled
                    Regiment            howitzers

                    2nd Battalion,      M1A2 main battle    Schweinft, Germany
                    64th Armor          tanks
                    Regiment

                    82nd Combat         Combat engineer     Bamberg, Germany
                    Engineering         vehicles;
                    Battalion           personnel carriers

                    703rd Combat        Recovery vehicles;  Kitzingen, Germany
                    Support Battalion   medical equipment

4th Infantry        1st Battalion, 4th  AH64 attack         Fort Carson, Colo.
Division            Aviation Regiment   helicopters
(mechanized)

                    1st Battalion,      155mm self-         Pocatello, Idaho
                    148th Field         propelled
                    Artillery Regiment  howitzers

                    2nd Battalion,      M1A1 main battle    Fort Carson, Colo.
                    77th Armor          tanks
                    Regiment

                    1st Battalion, 8th  Armored personnel   Fort Carson, Colo.
                    Infantry Regiment   carriers

                    4th Combat Support  Personnel carriers  Fort Carson, Colo.
                    Battalion

                    299th Engineering   Personnel carriers  Fort Carson, Colo.
                    Battalion

24th Infantry       1st Battalion,      AH64 attack         Hunter Army
Division            24th Aviation       helicopters         Airfield, Ga.
(mechanized)        Regiment

                    4th Battalion,      155mm self-         Fort Benning, Ga.
                    41st Field          propelled
                    Artillery Regiment  howitzers

                    1st Battalion,      M1A1 main battle    Fort Stewart, Ga.
                    64th Armor          tanks
                    Regiment

                    2nd Battalion,      Bradley fighting    Fort Benning, Ga.
                    18th Infantry       vehicles; Dragon
                    Regiment            anti-tank missiles

                    24th Combat         Recovery vehicles;  Fort Stewart, Ga.
                    Support Battalion   personnel carriers

                    317th Engineering   Combat engineer     Fort Benning, Ga.
                    Battalion           vehicles;
                                        personnel carriers

                    1st Battalion,      M1A1 main battle    Mullins, S.C.
                    263rd Armor         tanks
                    Regiment

                    1st Battalion,      M1A1 main battle    Calhoun, Ga.
                    108th Armor         tanks
                    Regiment

                    148th Combat        5,000-gallon        Forsyth, Ga.
                    Support Battalion   trailers; 10,000-
                                        gallon collapsible
                                        tanks

                    648th Engineering   Tank launch         Statesboro, Ga.
                    Battalion           recovery vehicles;
                                        combat engineer
                                        vehicles

10th Infantry       3rd Battalion,      Infantry equipment  Fort Drum, N.Y.
Division (light)    14th Infantry
                    Regiment

                    3rd Battalion,      TOW anti-tank       Utica, N.Y.
                    108th Infantry      missiles
                    Regiment

                    2nd Battalion,      OH58A helicopters   Fort Drum, N.Y.
                    25th Aviation
                    Regiment

                    2nd Battalion, 7th  105mm towed         Fort Drum, N.Y.
                    Field Artillery     howitzers
                    Regiment

                    10th Combat         Medical equipment   Fort Drum, N.Y.
                    Support Battalion

                    41st Engineering    Track and wheeled   Fort Drum, N.Y.
                    Battalion           engineering
                                        vehicles


Marine Corps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Marine Air      Marine Wing         Mobile airfield     Okinawa, Japan
Wing                Support Squadron    equipment
                    172

2nd Marine Air      Attack Squadron     AV8B aircraft       Cherry Point Marine
Wing                231                                     Corps Air Station,
                                                            N.C.

                    Electronic          EA6B aircraft       Cherry Point Marine
                    Countermeasures                         Corps Air Station,
                    Squadron 1                              N.C.

                    Light Attack        UH1N; AH1W          New River Marine
                    Helicopter          helicopters         Corps Air Station,
                    Squadron 269                            N.C.

                    Fighter/Attack      F/A18D aircraft     Beaufort Marine
                    (all weather)                           Corps Air Station,
                    Squadron 533                            S.C.

3rd Marine Air      Marine Air Control  Radios; vans        El Toro Marine Corps
Wing                Group 38                                Air Station, Calif.

                    Fighter/Attack      F/A18D aircraft     Miramar Naval Air
                    (all weather)                           Station, Calif.
                    Squadron 121

                    Attack Squadron     AV8B aircraft       Yuma Marine Corps
                    214                                     Air Station, Ariz.

1st Division        1st Battalion, 7th  Infantry equipment  Twenty Nine Palms,
                    Marine Regiment                         Calif.

                    1st Light Armor     Light armor         Camp Pendleton,
                    Reconnaissance      vehicles            Calif.
                    Battalion

2nd Division        3rd Battalion, 2nd  Infantry equipment  Camp Lejeune, N.C.
                    Marine Regiment

                    1st Battalion, 6th  Infantry equipment  Camp Lejeune, N.C.
                    Marine Regiment

                    2nd Light Armor     Light armor         Camp Lejeune, N.C.
                    Reconnaissance      vehicles
                    Battalion

2nd Surveillance,   2nd Radio           Radios              Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Reconnaissance,     Battalion
and Intelligence
Group

3rd Division        2nd Battalion, 3rd  Infantry equipment  Kaneohe Bay Marine
                    Marine Regiment                         Corps Air Station,
                                                            Hawaii

U.S. Marine Corps   1st Battalion,      Infantry equipment  Detroit, Mich.
Reserves            24th Marine
                    Regiment

                    4th Combat          Engineer equipment  Baltimore, Md.
                    Engineering
                    Battalion

1st Force Service   1st Maintenance     Repair equipment    Camp Pendleton,
Support Group       Battalion                               Calif.

2nd Force Service   8th Engineering     Engineer equipment  Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Support Group       Support Battalion

3rd Force Service   3rd Support         Logistics support   Okinawa, Japan
Support Group       Battalion           equipment


Navy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Fleet      USS Puget Sound     Destroyer tender    Norfolk, Va.

                    USS Simon Lake      Submarine tender    La Maddalena, Italy

                    USS Monterey        Guided-missile      Mayport, Fla.
                                        cruiser

                    USS Eisenhower      Nuclear aircraft    Norfolk, Va.
                                        carrier

                    USS Connolly        Destroyer           Norfolk, Va.

                    USS Nassau          Amphibious assault  Norfolk, Va.
                                        ship

                    USS Gladiator       Mine counter-       Ingleside, Tex.
                                        measures ship

                    USS Nebraska        Ballistic missile   Kings Bay, Ga.
                                        submarine

                    USS Saturn          Combat stores ship  Norfolk, Va.

                    Helicopter Support  CH53E helicopters   Norfolk Naval Air
                    Squadron 4                              Station, Va.

                    Electronic Warfare  EA6B aircraft       Oceana Naval Air
                    Squadron 120                            Station, Va.

                    Fighter Squadron    F14 aircraft        Oceana Naval Air
                    102                                     Station, Va.

                    Anti-Submarine      S3 aircraft         Cecil Field Naval
                    Squadron 32                             Air Station, Fla.

                    USS America         Conventional        Norfolk, Va.
                                        aircraft carrier

Pacific Fleet       USS Willamette      Fleet oiler         Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

                    USS Sacramento      Combat support      Bremerton, Wash.
                                        ship

                    USS Callaghan       Guided-missile      San Diego, Calif.
                                        destroyer

                    USS Ingraham        Guided-missile      Everett, Wash.
                                        frigate

                    Anti-Submarine      SH60F; HH60H        North Island Naval
                    Helicopter          helicopters         Air Station, Calif.
                    Squadron 14

                    USS New Orleans     Amphibious assault  San Diego, Calif.
                                        ship

                    USS Honolulu        Fast-attack         Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
                                        submarine

                    Attack Squadron     A6 aircraft         Whidbey Island Naval
                    196                                     Air Station, Wash.

                    Fighter/Attack      F/A18 aircraft      Lemoore Naval Air
                    Squadron 94                             Station, Calif.

                    Tactical Support    C130; T39; C2       Guam, U.S. territory
                    Squadron 50         aircraft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READINESS INDICATORS INCLUDED IN
OUR ANALYSIS
========================================================= Appendix III


   AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1


      AIR FORCE SORTS DATA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1

  Overall C-rating

  Personnel C-rating

  Equipment and supplies on-hand C-rating

  Major equipment condition C-rating

  Training C-rating


      AIR FORCE-UNIQUE INDICATORS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.2

  Percentage of authorized personnel available

  Percentage of critical authorized personnel available

  Percentage of authorized crews formed, mission-ready, and available

  Percentage of authorized combat-essential equipment and supplies on
     hand

  Percentage of authorized support equipment and supplies on hand

  Percentage of possessed combat-essential equipment that was
     mission-ready and available within unit's response time

  Percentage of possessed support equipment mission-ready and
     available within unit's response time


      GAO CALCULATIONS USING AIR
      FORCE SORTS DATA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.3

  Percentage of total authorized personnel assigned

  Percentage of total authorized critical personnel assigned

  Percentage of total authorized crews formed, mission-ready, and
     available

  Percentage of total authorized crews formed from assigned
     individual personnel

  Percentage of authorized combat-essential equipment assigned

  Percentage of authorized combat-essential equipment on hand

  Percentage of authorized combat-essential equipment mission-ready
     and available

  Percentage of assigned combat-essential equipment mission-ready and
     available

  Percentage of possessed combat-essential equipment mission-ready
     and available


   ARMY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2


      ARMY SORTS DATA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

  Overall C-rating

  Personnel C-rating

  Equipment and supplies on-hand C-rating

  Major equipment condition C-rating

  Training C-rating

  Assigned personnel ratings

  Percentage of total authorized personnel assigned

  Available personnel rating

  Percentage of total authorized personnel available

  Percentage of total senior grade authorized personnel available

  Military occupational specialty-qualified personnel ratings

  Percentage of total authorized personnel qualified in military
     occupational specialty

  Senior grade personnel ratings

  Percentage of personnel turnover

  Pacing items fill rating

  Condition rating for all on-hand equipment items

  Percentage of all on-hand equipment that is mission-capable

  Condition rating for all on-hand pacing items

  Percentage of on-hand pacing equipment items that are
     mission-capable

  Training days required to achieve C-1


      GAO CALCULATIONS USING ARMY
      SORTS DATA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

  Percentage of equipment and supplies on hand


   MARINE CORPS AND NAVY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

  Overall C-rating

  Personnel C-rating

  Equipment and supplies on hand C-rating

  Major equipment condition C-rating

  Training C-rating

  GAO-calculated percentage of total authorized crews mission ready
     (Marine Corps only)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Sharon A.  Cekala
Charles Bonanno
Waverly Sykes
Jai Eun Lee
James Ungvarsky

NORFOLK REGIONAL OFFICE

Ray S.  Carroll, Jr.
James Lewis
James Mahaffey
Lester L.  Ward


*** End of document. ***