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


Army National Guard: Sharing Unit Training Equipment Would Help Avoid Maintenance Costs (Letter Report, 09/29/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-206).

GAO determined the: (1) feasibility of Army National Guard units that
annually train at the same site to pool and share equipment; (2)
maintenance costs that the Guard would avoid by pooling and sharing
equipment; and (3) ways the Guard can maximize equipment sharing at
annual training sites.

GAO found that: (1) according to GAO's analysis of nine equipment items
with high annual scheduled maintenance costs and eight Guard units, it
is feasible for units that annually train at the same site to pool and
share equipment; (2) for the eight units GAO reviewed, more than enough
equipment is already located at Mobilization and Training Equipment
Sites to create a pool of equipment for unit training needs; (3) the
equipment not needed for the pool could be preserved in a controlled
humidity environment; (4) more equipment than the Guard's 25-percent
goal can be preserved; (5) other than during the 2-week annual training
period, the unit equipment located at some training sites is used
little; (6) because units train at different times during the summer,
this equipment could be made available to other units for use during
their 2-week training period or put in preserved storage; (7) GAO's
analysis showed that the Guard could avoid up to $10.3 million annually
in maintenance costs if it preserved 25 percent of these items in a
controlled humidity environment; (8) the Guard could avoid up to $20
million annually in maintenance costs if three units at one training
site and two units at another training site pooled and shared their
equipment and preserved their unused equipment; (9) the cost avoidance
GAO identified is the minimum that the Guard can achieve because many
equipment items other than the ones used in the GAO analysis could be
pooled and shared; (10) additional maintenance costs could be avoided if
other state and territorial Guard military commands pooled and shared
training equipment; (11) changing the annual training site of as few as
three units will maximize equipment sharing, cause more equipment to be
available for preservation, and allow the Guard to more efficiently use
scarce maintenance resources; (12) under this scenario, Guard units
could place as much as 49 percent of their equipment in preserved
storage and reduce maintenance costs by $38.1 million in the first year
and $39.2 million each year thereafter, which is $18 million more than
the $21.2 million cost avoidance using the Guard's 25-percent goal; and
(13) although the Guard would incur additional facility costs to
preserve more than 25 percent of its equipment, the benefits of avoiding
annual maintenance costs for this equipment would more than offset the
facility costs.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-97-206
     TITLE:  Army National Guard: Sharing Unit Training Equipment Would 
             Help Avoid Maintenance Costs
      DATE:  09/29/97
   SUBJECT:  National Guard
             Army facilities
             Equipment maintenance
             Military materiel
             Military training
             Armed forces reserve training
             Military cost control
             Maintenance costs
             Centralization
             Cost effectiveness analysis
IDENTIFIER:  Bradley Fighting Vehicle
             Abrams Tank
             Crusader Self-Propelled Howitzer
             M88 Recovery Vehicle
             M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
             M1A1 Tank
             North Carolina
             Georgia
             Louisiana
             Tennessee
             Texas
             Mississippi
             
******************************************************************
** 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


Report to the Secretary of Defense

September 1997

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD - SHARING UNIT
TRAINING EQUIPMENT WOULD HELP
AVOID MAINTENANCE COSTS

GAO/NSIAD-97-206

Army National Guard

(703155)


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

  CHP - Controlled Humidity Preservation
  DOD - Department of Defense
  MATES - Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites
  NMC - nonmission-capable
  OPTEMPO - operating tempo

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


B-274607

September 29, 1997

The Honorable William S.  Cohen
The Secretary of Defense

Dear Mr.  Secretary: 

We initiated this review to identify opportunities for Army National
Guard units to share training equipment and store unused equipment in
preserved environments, which would help avoid some maintenance costs
and reduce the existing maintenance backlog.  Specifically, we
determined the (1) feasibility of Guard units that annually train at
the same site to pool and share equipment, (2) maintenance costs that
the Guard would avoid by pooling and sharing equipment, and (3) ways
the Guard can maximize equipment sharing at annual training sites. 


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

The Army National Guard has approximately $38 billion worth of
equipment assigned to its 54 separate state and territorial military
commands.  The equipment is mostly used during peacetime to train
units in the event that they are needed to reinforce or replace
active force components during wartime.  Equipment predominantly used
for units' 2-week annual training is located at Mobilization and
Training Equipment Sites (MATES).  There are 24 MATES located
throughout the United States, and almost half of them will have
equipment that belongs to more than one unit. 

During the last several years, the Guard has spent over $756 million
annually to maintain its equipment.  However, this amount has not
been enough to fund required scheduled maintenance and repairs on
equipment that has deteriorated.  As a result, the Guard had a
maintenance backlog of 2.3 million labor hours as of September 1996. 
To help reduce this backlog, the Guard developed the Controlled
Humidity Preservation Program.  The goal of the program is to
preserve up to 25 percent of the Guard's combat-ready ground
equipment, including tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, self-propelled
howitzers, and recovery vehicles, in a controlled humidity
environment for up to 5 years.  The program will eliminate the need
to perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on the preserved
equipment, which will permit the Guard to concentrate its limited
maintenance resources on the remaining equipment and gradually reduce
the maintenance backlog. 

The Guard has selected 890 equipment items for preservation under the
Controlled Humidity Preservation Program.  Equipment preserved under
the program will meet all technical and mission capability
requirements and will be available when needed for mobilization or
training rotation purposes.  The Guard is testing program techniques
at several locations throughout the United States and is focusing on
equipment that has high maintenance costs and humidity-sensitive
electronic components, such as the M1A1 tank.  Preliminary test
results have been positive.  Even though final results are not
anticipated until January 1998, the Guard is moving forward with
implementation.  Currently, 17 states have taken actions to implement
controlled humidity techniques, and 16 more states plan to do so
before the end of fiscal year 1997.  Appendix I contains a more
detailed discussion of the Controlled Humidity Preservation Program. 


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

According to our analysis of nine equipment items with high annual
scheduled maintenance costs\1 and eight Army National Guard units, it
is feasible for units that annually train at the same site to pool
and share equipment.  For the eight units we reviewed, more than
enough equipment is already located at Mobilization and Training
Equipment Sites to create a pool of equipment for unit training
needs.  The equipment not needed for the pool could be preserved in a
controlled humidity environment.  In fact, more equipment than the
Guard's 25-percent goal can be preserved.  Further, other than during
the 2-week annual training period, the unit equipment located at some
training sites is used little.  Because units train at different
times during the summer, this equipment could be made available to
other units for use during their 2-week training period or put in
preserved storage. 

Our analysis of the nine equipment items also showed that the Guard
could avoid up to $10.3 million annually in maintenance costs if it
preserved 25 percent of these items in a controlled humidity
environment.  Further, our analysis indicated that the Guard could
avoid up to $20 million annually in maintenance costs if three units
at one training site and two units at another training site pooled
and shared their equipment and preserved their unused equipment.  The
cost avoidance we identified is the minimum that the Guard can
achieve because many equipment items other than the ones used in our
analysis, could be pooled and shared.\2 Also, our analysis included
only eight Guard units, and additional maintenance costs could be
avoided if other state and territorial Guard military commands pooled
and shared training equipment. 

Changing the annual training site of as few as three units will
maximize equipment sharing, cause more equipment to be available for
preservation, and allow the Guard to more efficiently use scarce
maintenance resources.  Under this scenario, Guard units could place
as much as 49 percent\3 of their equipment in preserved storage and
reduce maintenance costs by $38.1 million in the first year\4 and
$39.2 million each year thereafter, which is $18 million more than
the $21.2 million cost avoidance using the Guard's 25-percent goal. 
Although the Guard would incur additional facility costs to preserve
more than 25 percent of its equipment, the benefits of avoiding
annual maintenance costs for this equipment would more than offset
the facility costs. 


--------------------
\1 The nine items selected for review were the Abrams Combat Tank,
Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle,
Self-Propelled Howitzer, Recovery Vehicle, Armored Vehicle Launch
Bridge, Armored Fire Support Personnel Carrier, Armored Personnel
Carrier, and Command Post Carrier. 

\2 Cost avoidance, as used in this report, includes costs associated
with repair parts; depot-level repairable equipment; petroleum, oil,
and lubricants; and personnel time and effort to maintain equipment. 

\3 This percentage was calculated based on the collective percent of
the nine equipment items that can be preserved at the three MATES. 
The quantities of individual equipment items that may be preserved
differ; therefore, this percentage cannot be applied to individual
equipment items throughout the Guard. 

\4 First-year net savings is the amount realized after deducting
equipment relocation expenses. 


   POOLING AND SHARING TRAINING
   EQUIPMENT ARE FEASIBLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Guard units generally do not share their equipment and would only use
equipment from another unit when they do not have sufficient
quantities of their own to meet training needs.  Our analysis of
equipment usage at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Camp Shelby,
Mississippi, MATES confirmed that the five units that train at these
locations share very little equipment.  However, it would be feasible
for these units, as well as other units that use the same training
site, to pool and share equipment.  More than enough equipment is
already located at these MATES to create a pool of equipment to meet
unit training needs.  The equipment not needed for the pool could be
put in preserved storage.  Further, the unit equipment located at the
Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby MATES is predominately used during the
units' 2-week annual training period.\5 Because units train at
different times during the summer, this equipment could be made
available to other units for use during their 2-week training period
or put in preserved storage.  In fact, more equipment than the
Guard's 25-percent goal can be preserved. 


--------------------
\5 This equipment is also used during the year for weekend training. 


      UNITS DO NOT CURRENTLY SHARE
      EQUIPMENT AT TRAINING SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

National Guard Regulation 750-2 (Oct.  1, 1996) requires that units
draw and train with their own equipment, if possible, during their
annual 2-week training period.  Units generally do not share their
equipment with another unit and only use equipment from another unit
when they do not have sufficient quantities of their own to meet
training needs.  Concerns about equipment sharing have been expressed
because all units do not have the same types of equipment and
personnel believe they need to train with their own equipment. 

Guard units train about 39 days each year, but the equipment located
at MATES is used mostly during the 2-week annual training period,
which is normally conducted during the summer months.  For the
remaining
50 weeks, the equipment is used little and generally sits outside
exposed to the weather elements.  The Guard requires units to place
50 percent of selected equipment items, such as M1A1 Abrams tanks and
Bradley Fighting Vehicles, at MATES, since such equipment is
generally needed and used only when units conduct their 2-week annual
training. 

Our analysis of equipment usage at the Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby
MATES showed that the five units that train at these locations share
very little equipment.  For example, in 1996 the three brigades from
Fort Stewart withdrew equipment 31 times, but in only 6 instances (19
percent) did any of the equipment belong to another brigade.  At the
Camp Shelby MATES, officials stated that units use only their own
equipment during their annual 2-week training period and do not share
equipment with other units. 

In addition, the tanks stored at the Fort Stewart, Camp Shelby, and
Fort Hood, Texas, MATES are used very little.  We analyzed the engine
hour usage data for 246 M1A1 and M1IP tanks and found that engines
were running an average of about 52 hours, or 6-1/2 days, per year
(assuming an 8-hour training day).\6


--------------------
\6 Engine hours include actual training time as well as time used in
performing maintenance during the 2-week annual training period and
weekend training. 


      SHARING WILL ALLOW MORE
      EQUIPMENT TO BE PRESERVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Establishing equipment pools and requiring units that train at the
same site to share the minimum quantities of equipment needed for
training would enable the Guard to preserve more equipment in
controlled environments.  Although concerns about equipment sharing
have been expressed, Guard officials at the Army National Guard
Bureau, state, MATES, and unit levels believe that units can share
equipment and use the controlled humidity concept for preserving
equipment.  Generally, the officials agreed that units do not have to
use their own equipment in training, equipment can be shared to a
greater extent, and a paradigm change is necessary.  According to
officials, equipment ownership and sharing are leadership issues that
can be managed.  Further, according to the Guard's modernization
plans, high-priority units will generally have the same equipment by
the end of 1999. 

Several factors have a significant impact on determining the size of
equipment pools.  These factors include a unit's assigned personnel,
number of unit personnel that actually attend annual training with
their unit, the quantities of equipment items drawn from a MATES and
the quantities actually needed to accomplish training tasks, and
annual training scheduling intervals.  The number of individual
equipment items required in a pool will vary by type and size of
units training at a particular location. 

MATES officials stated that the size of the equipment pool would also
need to reflect their ability to repair nonmission-capable (NMC)
equipment after units complete training.\7 Equipment turnaround time
and the amount of time a MATES has to fix NMC equipment between unit
training periods are key to determining the equipment pool size and
the quantity of equipment that can be placed in long-term
preservation.  With the exception of major problems, such as a blown
engine for a M1A1 tank or equipment awaiting parts availability, most
equipment items can be fixed and returned to the pool within 2 weeks,
the officials said.  Scheduling annual training with the greatest
interval between unit training periods would allow MATES personnel
more time to repair equipment for reissuance and thus allow greater
equipment quantities to be preserved.  Appendix II contains
information on how we determined the size of the pools used in our
analysis. 

Several MATES officials stated that unit commanders draw more
equipment than they need for annual training.  More equipment could
be preserved if unit commanders would draw only the equipment
quantities needed to accomplish training tasks.  For example,
officials at one MATES said unit commanders generally draw one M1A1
tank and one Bradley Fighting Vehicle for each of the tank and
Bradley crews that show up for an annual training event.  The
officials said that the commanders wanted to have each crew
experience some driving time and therefore had extra tanks and
Bradleys available so that training would not be delayed or
interrupted because of maintenance. 

MATES officials understood this rationale but pointed out that a unit
generally has only two training ranges available at any one time and
that only two crews can train on a range.  Therefore, a typical M1A1
tank or a Bradley unit trying to qualify in gunnery operations can
train only four crews at the same time.  The officials believe that
these units can achieve their training tasks with about one-half of
the tank and Bradley vehicles drawn from MATES and still have enough
extra equipment in case of maintenance losses.  A Bradley Fighting
Vehicle battalion commander stated that his battalion could achieve
training goals with about one-half the Bradleys drawn for annual
training.  The commander also stated that other commanders could
achieve their training goals with the same amount of equipment but
that this method of operating would require a change in the way
training is currently done. 

MATES officials had other suggestions to reduce the amount of
equipment needed to accomplish training goals and increase
preservation of equipment.  These suggestions include (1) minimizing
home station assets, (2) improving maintenance operations in units by
making maintenance a priority, (3) splitting annual training by
having half of the brigade rotate in and out of annual training, and
(4) scheduling training over a longer period of time to better
utilize equipment availability at MATES. 


--------------------
\7 Equipment is considered NMC if it cannot perform one or more of
its combat missions. 


   MAINTENANCE COSTS CAN BE
   AVOIDED BY POOLING AND SHARING
   TRAINING EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The Guard's training equipment is costly to maintain.  In fact, the
Guard spent over $756 million during fiscal years 1995 and 1996 to
maintain equipment, but this amount was insufficient to perform all
required maintenance.  Our analysis of the nine equipment items
showed that the Guard could avoid up to $10.3 million annually in
maintenance costs if it preserved 25 percent of this equipment in a
controlled humidity environment.  Our analysis also showed that the
Guard could avoid an additional $4.4 million to $9.7 million each
year in maintenance costs if it required the three units that train
at the Fort Stewart MATES and the two units that train at the Camp
Shelby MATES to pool and share equipment.  The portion of each unit's
training equipment that is not pooled could then be preserved. 

The cost avoidance we identified is the minimum that the Guard can
achieve because many equipment items other than the ones used in our
analysis could be pooled and shared.  Also, our analysis included
only eight Guard units, and additional maintenance costs could be
avoided if other state and territorial Guard military commands pooled
and shared training equipment.  In fact, in May 1997, the U.S.  Army
Cost and Economic Analysis Center endorsed the Guard's Controlled
Humidity Preservation Economic Analysis and stated that similar
benefits were likely in the Army Reserves, active component, and
other services. 


      EQUIPMENT IS COSTLY TO
      MAINTAIN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

According to the economic analysis of the Controlled Humidity
Preservation Program, the required scheduled maintenance for the 890
ground equipment items in the program would cost the Guard about
$1.1 billion annually.  Much of this required maintenance, however,
is not funded, which has forced trade-off decisions.  During fiscal
years 1995 and 1996, the Guard spent over $756 million to maintain
equipment.  This amount was focused on maintaining priority equipment
items rather than performing other required maintenance. 

Scheduled periodic maintenance accounts for much of the annual
maintenance expense.\8 For example, annual scheduled maintenance for
one M1A1 Abrams tank costs $61,555 and takes 995 hours to complete. 
For the Guard's 472 M1A1 tanks, these figures translate to an annual
expense of over $29 million and about 470,000 labor hours.  The
annual scheduled maintenance cost for the Guard's tracked vehicles
alone is $363 million. 


--------------------
\8 The annual cost of scheduled maintenance, as used in this report,
includes the Guard's compilation of the costs for labor, parts,
petroleum, oils, and lubricants. 


      MORE COSTS COULD BE AVOIDED
      THAN CURRENTLY ANTICIPATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The Guard anticipates that annual scheduled maintenance costs of $277
million could be deferred by placing 25 percent of the 890 equipment
items in long-term preservation.  However, more maintenance costs can
be deferred than the Guard anticipates because additional equipment
can be preserved.  For example, if the Guard preserved 25 percent of
the equipment used in our analysis, it could avoid up to $10.3
million annually in maintenance costs.  However, if the Guard
established equipment pools and required units training at the same
site to share this equipment, it could avoid $4.4 million to $9.7
million more each year.  As a result, the Guard could preserve more
equipment in controlled environments and avoid spending up to $20
million annually.  More details on how we estimated the potential
cost avoidance by pooling and sharing equipment is in appendix II. 

The additional cost avoidance would occur if the 48th and 218th
Infantry Brigades and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment were to
share the equipment they have located at the Fort Stewart MATES and
the 155th Armor and 31st Armored Brigades were to share the equipment
at the Camp Shelby MATES.  The additional cost avoidance is
attainable because the five units that conduct annual training at the
Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby MATES train at different times during
the summer.  Therefore, a portion of each unit's training equipment
could be pooled and designated as common use equipment, and the
remaining equipment could be preserved in a controlled humidity
environment. 

Units reporting for training would draw the necessary equipment to
complete their 2-week training cycle from the pool of common use
equipment.  The equipment would then be returned to the pool and be
made ready for the next unit.  Equipment could be rotated in and out
of the pool to equalize use so that the equipment in the pool is not
subjected to overuse.  Table 1 shows the incremental maintenance cost
avoidance if the three units at the Fort Stewart MATES and the two
units at the Camp Shelby MATES were to share the nine equipment items
for training purposes and place their remaining equipment in
long-term preservation.  More details concerning NMC rates and
training intervals are on page 31 in appendix II. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                       Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment
                     Were Shared at the Fort Stewart and Camp
                         Shelby Mobilization and Training
                                 Equipment Sites

                              (Dollars in millions)

                                                           Total equipment that
            Guard 25% goal for     Additional equipment            can
          equipment preservation  that can be preserved        be preserved
          ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
Selected
NMC
rates
and
training
interval                    Cost                    Cost                    Cost
s         Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance
--------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------
30% NMC     345            $10.2    209             $4.4    554            $14.6
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     350            $10.3    302             $7.3    652            $17.6
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
30% NMC     350            $10.3    330             $7.9    680            $18.2
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     350            $10.3    386             $9.7    736            $20.0
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional maintenance costs could be avoided if unit commanders used
only the minimum quantities of equipment needed for annual training. 
According to MATES officials, unit commanders draw whatever equipment
quantities they deem necessary to accomplish annual training because
they are not responsible for the maintenance costs of this equipment. 
If unit commanders used the minimum equipment required, the potential
size of an equipment pool could be smaller, enabling more equipment
to be preserved. 


   CHANGES IN ANNUAL TRAINING
   SITES WOULD MAXIMIZE EQUIPMENT
   SHARING AND COST AVOIDANCE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Changing the annual training sites of some units to allow multiple
units with like or comparable equipment to train at the same site
would facilitate greater equipment sharing.  If sharing were
optimized, maximum maintenance cost avoidance could be achieved. 
Various scenarios exist to achieve optimum equipment sharing and
training goals.  Additional travel time, costs to transport equipment
to another training site, and the impact of equipment density
reductions on maintenance personnel requirements are concerns
associated with changing annual training sites. 

We developed three scenarios to demonstrate how equipment sharing
could result in an avoidance of greater maintenance costs.  The
scenarios we present may not necessarily reflect the optimum
combinations of units and annual training sites to achieve the
greatest benefits to the Guard.  However, all three scenarios reflect
greater potential benefits to the Guard than those that are presently
being achieved or anticipated through the implementation of the
Guard's Controlled Humidity Preservation Program. 

According to our analysis of nine equipment items and eight Guard
units, we determined that the Guard could reduce scheduled annual
maintenance cost by an additional $23.1 million to $39.2 million
annually if as few as three units changed their annual training
location and share equipment.  These figures are $5.3 million to $18
million more than the Guard's current program could achieve.  Our
scenarios for changing annual training sites are detailed in figure
1. 

   Figure 1:  Distances to Units'
   Training Sites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

We recognize that the scenarios presented will require units to
travel farther to train and therefore incur more transportation
costs.  Also, there would be one-time equipment relocation costs in
each scenario.  However, the annual maintenance cost avoidance to be
achieved through sharing and preserving equipment is greater than
these additional costs.  For example, under scenario 2,
transportation to annual training would cost approximately $4.2
million and equipment relocation would cost $888,000, for a total of
$5.1 million.  The minimum cost avoidance the Guard could achieve by
pooling and sharing equipment under this scenario would be $25.6
million, as shown in table 3.  Even though maintenance personnel
requirements are based on the quantities of equipment located at
MATES, changes in equipment quantities would be offset from one
annual training site to another.  We recognize the economic impact
such changes would have, but the maintenance cost avoidance to be
realized would be greater to the Guard as a whole. 


      SCENARIO 1
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

This scenario involves seven Guard units and maximizes equipment
sharing among the 48th and 218th Infantry Brigades and the 278th
Armored Cavalry Regiment, which train at Fort Stewart, and the 155th
Armor Brigade and 31st Armored Brigade, which train at Camp Shelby. 
The annual training site of the 256th Infantry Brigade is changed
from Fort Polk to Fort Hood to maximize equipment sharing with the
49th Armored Division, which is located there.  The 256th Infantry
Brigade stores much of its equipment at the Fort Polk MATES, and
units accomplish their weekend training at Fort Polk.  Fort Hood is
the infantry brigade's mobilization training site, and the 49th
Armored Division provides the opposing forces for the brigade's
annual training. 

This scenario allows the Guard to preserve up to an additional 488
pieces of equipment over its current goal.  Even though an estimated
one-time cost of about $269,000 would be incurred to move equipment,
an additional $5.3 million to $11.3 million in costs would be avoided
annually, as shown in table 2.  According to III Corps officials at
Fort Hood, from a training and logistical support standpoint, Fort
Hood can accommodate an additional brigade for annual training. 
Also, according to Fort Hood MATES officials, facilities are adequate
to accommodate and maintain the equipment of another brigade-size
unit. 



                                     Table 2
                     
                       Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment
                       Were Shared at the Forts Stewart and
                      Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
                      Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 1)

                              (Dollars in millions)

                                                           Total equipment that
            Guard 25% goal for     Additional equipment            can
          equipment preservation  that can be preserved        be preserved
          ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
Selected
NMC
rates
and
training
interval                    Cost                    Cost                    Cost
s         Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance
--------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------
30% NMC     626            $17.8    270             $5.3    896            $23.1
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     660            $18.9    378             $8.4   1,038           $27.3
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
30% NMC     653            $18.5    392             $7.7   1,045           $26.2
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     675            $19.6    488            $11.3   1,163           $30.9
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana State Area Command and 256th Infantry Brigade officials
were not in favor of having the brigade change annual training sites. 
The concerns expressed by these officials primarily focused on the
additional transportation and equipment movement costs and potential
loss of training time associated with changing the brigade's annual
training site to Fort Hood.  Brigade officials were also concerned
with their units' inability to conduct weekend training, especially
gunnery, at Fort Polk if 50 percent of their tanks and Bradleys were
moved to Fort Hood and the Fort Polk MATES were to lose maintenance
personnel.  However, the officials recognized the benefits of pooling
and sharing equipment. 


      SCENARIO 2
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

This scenario involves seven Guard units and changes the annual
training site of the 30th Infantry Brigade from Fort Bragg to Fort
Stewart and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment's training site from
Fort Stewart to Fort Hood.  These changes allow for optimum equipment
sharing among the 48th, 218th, and 30th Infantry Brigades at Fort
Stewart; the 49th Armored Division and the 278th Armored Cavalry
Regiment at Fort Hood; and the 155th Armor and 31st Armored Brigades
at Camp Shelby. 

This scenario allows the Guard to preserve up to an additional 572
pieces of equipment over its current goal.  Even though the Guard
would incur a one-time transportation cost estimated at $888,000 to
relocate equipment, the changes enhance sharing and preservation of
equipment and achieve an annual maintenance cost avoidance ranging
from $7.4 million to $15 million more than currently anticipated, as
shown in table 3.  In addition, this scenario provides the 278th
Armored Cavalry Regiment with larger range facilities for its tanks,
and the 30th Infantry Brigade would join two other infantry brigades
at Fort Stewart that train with the same equipment. 



                                     Table 3
                     
                       Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment
                       Were Shared at the Forts Stewart and
                      Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
                      Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 2)

                              (Dollars in millions)

                                                           Total equipment that
            Guard 25% goal for     Additional equipment            can
          equipment preservation  that can be preserved        be preserved
          ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
Selected
NMC
rates
and
training
interval                    Cost                    Cost                    Cost
s         Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance
--------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------
30% NMC     627            $18.2    317             $7.4    944            $25.6
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     644            $18.7    458            $11.6   1,102           $30.3
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
30% NMC     649            $18.8    487            $12.1   1,136           $30.9
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     649            $18.8    572            $15.0   1,221           $33.8
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials from the North Carolina State Area Command, 30th Infantry
Brigade, and Fort Stewart MATES indicated that changing the infantry
brigade's annual training site from Fort Bragg to Fort Stewart would
be feasible.  The infantry brigade has previously trained at Fort
Stewart and is scheduled to conduct annual training there in 1998. 
Although both locations have similar maneuver areas, Fort Stewart has
better gunnery ranges than Fort Bragg.  According to the officials,
Fort Bragg does not have the gunnery ranges to qualify tank and
Bradley crews to the required proficiency level (gunnery table VIII). 
Fort Stewart MATES officials stated that it would be easier to
support three infantry brigades than the current two infantry
brigades and one armored cavalry regiment because the three brigades
have the same types and quantities of equipment. 

Concerns were expressed over the increased annual training travel
costs to Fort Stewart and the initial costs to move 50 percent of
certain equipment from Fort Bragg to Fort Stewart.  The Commander of
the
30th Infantry Brigade said that all of the brigade's equipment was
needed at Fort Bragg for weekend training requirements.  The
Commander thought that, without the equipment, the unit would not be
able to train to standards and, as a result, unit readiness would
suffer.  Further, the Commander believed that retention would also
suffer because personnel like to use the equipment currently
available.  In addition, the Fort Bragg MATES General Foreman was
concerned about losing maintenance personnel if the equipment were
moved to Fort Stewart because less equipment would be at Fort Bragg. 
The official suggested, as an alternative, preserving 50 percent of
the equipment at Fort Bragg, which would save the movement costs and
provide equipment needed for weekend training.  The 30th Infantry
Brigade could then use the equipment already located at Fort Stewart
for annual training needs. 

Officials from Fort Hood, the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the
Tennessee State Area Command stated that changing the regiment's
annual training site to Fort Hood would be feasible.  III Corps
officials at Fort Hood stated that, from a training and logistics
support standpoint, Fort Hood could accommodate the regiment for
annual training.  The Commander of the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment
pointed out that Fort Hood has excellent training ranges and MATES
facilities.  Officials raised concerns about the additional travel
time to Fort Hood; however, the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment has
trained at Fort Hood in the past and would be amenable to training
there in the future.  The Commander also recognized that the regiment
would have to move a portion of its equipment to Fort Hood to receive
priority for range use. 


      SCENARIO 3
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

This scenario involves eight Guard units and changes the annual
training site of three units.  The 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment
would train with the 49th Armored Division at Fort Hood, and the
256th Infantry Brigade would train with the 155th Armor and 31st
Armored Brigades at Camp Shelby.  As in scenario 2, the 30th Infantry
Brigade would train at
Fort Stewart with the 48th and 218th Infantry Brigades. 

The one-time transportation cost to relocate equipment under this
scenario is estimated at $1,134,000.  However, this scenario is the
most beneficial in avoiding maintenance cost.  The three annual
training site changes would enhance sharing and preservation of
equipment and result in an annual maintenance cost avoidance ranging
from $11 million to $18 million more than currently anticipated, as
shown in table 4.  This scenario also shows the added benefits of
having as many as three units training and sharing equipment at the
same annual training site. 



                                     Table 4
                     
                       Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment
                       Were Shared at the Forts Stewart and
                      Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
                      Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 3)

                              (Dollars in millions)

                                                           Total equipment that
            Guard 25% goal for     Additional equipment            can
          equipment preservation  that can be preserved        be preserved
          ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
Selected
NMC
rates
and
training
interval                    Cost                    Cost                    Cost
s         Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance  Quantity     avoidance
--------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------
30% NMC     697            $19.6    446            $11.0   1,143           $30.6
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     725            $20.6    590            $14.9   1,315           $35.5
 rate
 with no
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
30% NMC     728            $20.7    627            $15.8   1,355           $36.5
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
15% NMC     739            $21.2    706            $18.0   1,445           $39.2
 rate
 with a
 2-week
 interva
 l
 between
 trainin
 g
 periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials from the 256th and 30th Infantry Brigades were concerned
about the reduction in maintenance personnel that would be required
at their respective MATES because of the changes in training
locations.  About 50 percent of each brigade's tracked equipment
would be moved to the new training locations.  An official from the
Guard's Personnel Directorate confirmed that the amount of equipment
determines maintenance personnel requirements and authorizations. 
However, the official also said that a loss in equipment at a MATES
would not necessarily result in a loss of assigned personnel. 

The Guard develops personnel requirements to accomplish all of the
work that Guard members in a particular state are required to do and
prioritizes authorizations against those requirements.  These
requirements and authorizations, along with funds to support the
authorizations, are allotted to the state.  However, according to one
Personnel Directorate official, the Army National Guard Bureau does
not provide the adjutants general sufficient funds or authorizations
to meet all the requirements, and as a result, they have flexibility
within certain limits to use the authorizations and funds for those
activities that are most needed to accomplish the state's mission. 

Because maintenance personnel requirements at MATES are based on the
amount of equipment, the Fort Polk and Fort Bragg MATES would lose
personnel authorizations, but the adjutants general would ultimately
decide whether the MATES would actually lose people.  A Personnel
Directorate official said that the Guard would probably offer
affected personnel any unfilled positions elsewhere in those states
or that it would allow attrition to occur to preclude personnel from
losing their jobs.  The requirements and authorizations would not be
lost because the Guard redistributes requirements and authorizations
every year.  The authorizations lost by one state are gained by
another.  The Guard's personnel system is expected to adjust to the
movement of equipment with minimal confusion and turbulence. 
According to the personnel official, the Guard already makes such
adjustments when a force structure change occurs. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The Army National Guard's Controlled Humidity Preservation Program
can result in a more effective maintenance workforce, and the Guard
should be commended for its work thus far.  However, the Guard could
avoid even greater maintenance costs and achieve greater workforce
efficiencies if it developed a strategy to pool and share more
equipment than the current 25-percent goal and changed the training
sites of some units.  The cost avoidance amounts presented in this
report are substantial; however, they reflect the minimum amounts the
Guard can avoid because many more equipment items can be pooled and
shared and many other state and territorial Guard commands can pool
and share equipment. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To optimize the avoidance of annual equipment maintenance costs and
achieve the resulting benefits of having a more effective maintenance
workforce and increased equipment availability for mobilization, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of the
Army National Guard Bureau to

  -- develop and implement a strategy, along with the modernization
     of Guard units, to provide controlled humidity facilities at the
     training sites that will achieve the greatest cost avoidance
     benefit;

  -- incorporate the concept of equipment sharing as the way of doing
     business in the Guard; and

  -- change the annual training locations of Guard units where
     feasible to achieve maximum cost avoidance benefits through
     greater equipment sharing while achieving training objectives. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Defense concurred with our recommendation.  The Department said that,
based on the results of the Army National Guard's study (due in
January 1998), and our recommendations, the Army National Guard will
develop and present its strategy and an implementation plan to meet
the recommendations. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To determine the feasibility for sharing equipment and changing the
annual training sites for some units, we interviewed cognizant
officials and obtained and analyzed documents from the Army National
Guard in Washington, D.C.; U.S.  Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson,
Georgia; and state area commands in Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee.  The units
included in our review were the 48th Infantry Brigade, Georgia; 218th
Infantry Brigade, South Carolina; 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment,
Tennessee; 155th Armor Brigade, Mississippi; 256th Infantry Brigade,
Louisiana; 30th Infantry Brigade, North Carolina; 49th Armored
Division, Texas; and 31st Armored Brigade, Alabama. 

To determine the extent of equipment sharing and the likelihood that
an additional unit could train at a MATES, we visited the MATES at
Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Hood, Texas; and Camp Shelby,
Mississippi.  We chose these MATES because they store and maintain
equipment and host annual training for multiple units.  Camp Shelby
is also a test site for the Controlled Humidity Preservation Program,
and we observed equipment stored under controlled humidity conditions
and discussed the status of the program with MATES officials. 

To show the impact of NMC equipment turned in to a MATES after annual
training, we used 30- and 15-percent NMC rates that assume no
intervals and 2-week intervals between annual training periods.  In
determining quantities of equipment available for annual training,
our analysis assumed that 90 percent of unit authorized personnel
were assigned and that 70 percent of assigned personnel actually
attended annual training with their units.  We did not determine
whether commanders could actually accomplish annual training tasks
with less equipment than they requested. 

To determine the maintenance cost avoidance achieved through
equipment sharing and preservation, we conducted an analysis of nine
equipment items that have high annual scheduled maintenance costs. 
These items are the Abrams Combat Tank, Bradley Infantry Fighting
Vehicle, Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, Self-Propelled Howitzer,
Recovery Vehicle, Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge, Armored Fire Support
Personnel Carrier, Armored Personnel Carrier, and Command Post
Carrier.  We accepted the types and quantities of equipment that are
authorized for the units included in our review as being needed to
carry out the units' mission.  Further, we did not set up our three
scenarios in a way that would adversely impact the units' annual
training objectives. 

To determine the cost to move equipment from one annual training site
to another for those units in our analysis that could change annual
training sites, we visited the Military Traffic Management Command,
Arlington, Virginia, and obtained the transportation costs to move
the equipment.  We did not analyze the impacts that changing annual
training sites would have on morale, the added travel time and
transportation cost to another training site, or the actual
maintenance personnel impacts associated with changing the amount of
equipment at affected MATES. 

We conducted our review from May 1996 to September 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen of the Senate
and House Committees on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the Secretary of the Army, and the Director of the
Office of Management and the Budget.  Copies will also be made
available to other interested parties on request. 

As you know, 31 U.S.C.  720 requires the head of a federal agency to
submit a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee
on Government Operations not later than 60 days after the date of the
report.  A written statement must also be submitted to the Senate and
House Committees on Appropriations with an agency's first request for
appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of the report. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report
were Reginald L.  Furr, Jr.; Dudley C.  Roache, Jr.; Bradley D. 
Simpson; and Karen S.  Blum. 

Sincerely yours,

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues


THE CONTROLLED HUMIDITY
PRESERVATION PROGRAM
=========================================================== Appendix I

In fiscal year 1994, the Army National Guard began the Controlled
Humidity Preservation (CHP) Program.  The purpose of the CHP Program
is to avoid the annual scheduled maintenance cost of 25 percent of
890 selected equipment items and reduce the maintenance backlog
throughout the Guard.  Solutions under study include placing a
portion of the Guard's vehicle fleet in either enclosed long-term
preservation or dehumidified operational preservation.  These
techniques are projected to lengthen the service life of vehicle
components.  The program's objectives are to (1) reduce the number of
labor hours used to maintain equipment, (2) reduce the quantity of
repair parts used, (3) decrease the quantity of consumables used for
periodic servicing of equipment, and (4) decrease Guard-wide
operating tempo (OPTEMPO) costs.  The program is not intended to
eliminate the maintenance backlog. 

The concept of dehumidified preservation is not new.  The use of this
technique dates to the 1930s.  According to a Logistics Management
Institute study,\1 dehumidified preservation of operational weapon
systems has been used effectively abroad as a maintenance technology
but has not been broadly implemented in the Department of Defense
(DOD). 


--------------------
\1 Using Dehumidified Preservation as a Maintenance Technology for
DOD Weapons Systems and Equipment, Logistics Management Institute,
June 1996. 


   HUMIDITY DEGRADES EQUIPMENT AND
   INCREASES MAINTENANCE
   REQUIREMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

Relative humidity is an expression of the moisture content of the air
as a percentage of what it can hold when saturated.  The main
problems caused by humidity are corrosion, mold, moisture regain, and
condensation.  Most materials absorb moisture in proportion to the
relative humidity of the surrounding air.  Therefore, the greater the
moisture in the air, the greater the absorption rate of materials. 
Moisture has particularly hazardous effects on military electronic,
optical, communication, and fire control equipment.  Moisture in
optics and fire control components clouds the vision of the crew and
damages electronics.  Communication and computer systems are
especially sensitive to moisture, and machine surfaces, such as the
main gun recoil system, are susceptible to corrosion.  Corrosion
generally remains a significant problem unless relative humidity is
reduced to less than 45 percent. 

The Logistics Management Institute study stated that moisture
degradation of DOD weapon systems and equipment represents an
important cost issue.  Current costs are estimated to range between
$3 billion and $12 billion annually.  There are also numerous
nonfinancial impacts, the most important being the reduced readiness
and sustainability of DOD weapon systems and equipment.  An approach
to mitigating moisture damage is to control the relative humidity in
the air.  By extracting moisture from the air, the relative humidity
can be reduced to a level at which damaging moisture cannot form. 


   CHP PROGRAM CONTROLS HUMIDITY
   AND REDUCES MAINTENANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The CHP Program consists of three parts.  The first part, long-term
preservation, is the process of storing selected equipment in an
enclosure and maintaining the internal environment's relative
humidity at the optimal range of 30 to 40 percent.  If the relative
humidity is controlled, the optimal humidity range can be reached,
and corrosion will cease.  With the use of this process, the Guard
can defer all scheduled maintenance for up to 5 years.  This process
has been extensively evaluated and is now widely applied by many
nations as a maintenance technology for operational weapon systems. 

The Logistics Management Institute study stated that weapon systems
and components can be dehumidified by utilizing a mechanical
dehumidifier to process moisture-laden air into properly dehumidified
air with a desired level of relative humidity.  This processed air is
recirculated into and around the equipment or system being preserved. 

A highly efficient data acquisition and control system provides
continuous monitoring and control of the long-term preservation
program to evaluate and maintain the environment stabilization
system, characterize the relative severity of the site environment,
and confirm site compatibility with seasonal atmospheric changes. 
The system is designed to ensure that a stable, corrosion-free,
low-humidity environment is sustained within each enclosure. 

The second part of the CHP Program, modified long-term preservation,
is similar to long-term preservation except that equipment may be
taken out of the CHP environment and used as required.  Maintenance
may be deferred while equipment is within the CHP environment but
maintenance requirements will accrue for that period of time the
equipment is removed. 

The third part of the program is operational preservation.  Equipment
is attached to central dehumidifiers and can be parked outside or
within an enclosure.  Dehumidified air is provided to the internal
spaces of the equipment.  No maintenance is deferred by this method;
however, the dehumidification process reduces moisture-induced
corrosion to the point at which a substantial reduction in
electronic, optic, and fire control systems faults is achieved.  The
equipment remains available for frequent training events but is
connected to a dehumidification system during the intervening periods
to dry the engine and crew compartments. 

Equipment items put into long-term preservation are preserved at
Technical Manual-10/-20 standards, thereby enhancing the combat
readiness of Guard forces.  The goal of the Guard is to put 25
percent of selected equipment into long-term preservation over a
5-year fielding schedule.  The equipment will be placed in
preservation for a minimum of
3 years and a maximum of 5 years.  After this period, the equipment
is to be put back into operation and replaced with similar equipment. 
In addition, the Guard anticipates that operational preservation will
reduce faults in selected equipment by 30 percent, resulting in a
significant reduction in unscheduled maintenance. 


   THE GUARD IS VERIFYING THE
   BENEFITS OF THE CHP PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The Guard is testing the various preservation treatments to validate
the Guard's CHP concept and evaluate the physical benefits of
different alternatives that control humidity on equipment that is
sensitive to moisture.  The test will measure the average maintenance
labor hours and repair parts cost for selected equipment located in
six different sites within six different treatment conditions.  Three
of the conditions (long-term, modified long-term, and operational
preservation) use preservation treatments, and the other three do
not.  The test period is planned to last 1 year, and test results are
expected in early 1998. 

According to the test plan, Camp Ripley, Minnesota, and Camp Shelby,
Mississippi, are testing sites for long-term preservation.  Modified
long-term preservation is being tested at these sites and at the
Western Kentucky Training Site and the Unit Training and Equipment
Site in Oregon.  Camp Ripley, Camp Shelby, Western Kentucky, and Fort
Stewart, Georgia, are test sites for operational preservation. 

CALIBRE Systems, Incorporated, under contract to the Guard, performed
an economic analysis of the test to validate the benefits of the CHP
Program.  The analysis compared CHP strategies to identify the
strategy that provides the greatest overall benefit to the Guard. 
CALIBRE examined the following alternatives:  (1) status quo, (2)
long-term preservation, (3) operational preservation, and (4) a
combination of long-term and operational preservation.  Status quo,
which is storing equipment in an ambient environment with minimum
corrosive protection, is the method currently used by Mobilization
and Training Equipment Sites (MATES).  Long-term preservation
encloses equipment inside a regulated humidity environment with
relative humidity between 30 and 40 percent.  Operational
preservation achieves the same results as long-term preservation but
on a more limited scale.  When not in use, equipment is externally
attached to a central dehumidification system but remains parked
without external protection from the environment.  The combination of
long-term and operational preservation places a defined quantity of
equipment in both environments.  Operational preservation reduces
corrosive faults while the vehicles remain available for training;
vehicles not required on a frequent or recurring basis for training
are placed in long-term preservation. 

The analysis assumed that the usage of equipment not placed into
long-term preservation would increase by no more than 10 percent. 
Guard CHP Program officials told us that this estimate was based on
their visits to states and discussions with Guard personnel about
training activities.  The officials found that an average of about 65
percent of personnel attended annual training.  Therefore, the
10-percent figure is overestimated because much of the equipment is
not currently being used for training.  Officials agreed that, if 25
percent of the equipment were placed in CHP, usage of the remaining
equipment would not increase, and the 10-percent estimate would be
adequate even if 40 percent of the equipment were placed in CHP.  In
fact, studies show that increased equipment usage actually decreased
the need for repairs because the equipment was used and did not sit
idle. 

The analysis concluded that all three preservation alternatives would
provide benefits to offset implementation costs.  The
benefit-to-investment ratios for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are 9, 7.6,
and 8.9, respectively.  All three alternatives have a break-even
point of 1 year.  The analysis recommended that the Guard implement
alternative 4, the combination long-term and operational
preservation.  The alternative of long-term preservation by itself
provided a slightly larger benefit-to-investment ratio; however, that
alternative would not provide the Guard with the greater flexibility
of placing equipment into either long-term or operational
preservation. 


   STATES ENDORSE THE CHP PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

Many states believe that the CHP Program will be beneficial in terms
of avoided maintenance costs and increased equipment availability and
readiness.  Therefore, states are moving forward to implement the
program, even though testing has not been completed.  Kentucky and
New York are 2 of 17 states with long-term preservation or
operational preservation systems.  Kentucky has 180,000 square feet
of CHP space and about 84 tanks in operational preservation.  New
York has 96,000 square feet for long-term preservation and 120
vehicles in operational preservation.  In fiscal year 1997, 16 more
states will add CHP systems. 

Officials in each of the states we visited recognize the benefits of
storing equipment using the CHP concept.  They believe that CHP will
avoid maintenance costs and improve equipment availability and
readiness.  Officials from Georgia and Tennessee stated that about
one-third of the equipment at the Fort Stewart MATES could be put
into CHP; Fort Stewart MATES officials agreed because the equipment
is not needed for training.  South Carolina officials also said that
equipment not needed for training could be stored in CHP.  Officials
from North Carolina and Texas noted that with decreasing OPTEMPO
funds, the Guard will be using equipment less, and CHP is a good
technique for storing equipment not used for training.  Officials at
the Camp Shelby MATES, which is one of the CHP test sites, stated
that they have seen a 30- to 40-percent reduction in electronic
components needing repair because preservation has prevented
corrosion on them. 


SCENARIOS FOR EQUIPMENT SHARING AT
ANNUAL TRAINING SITES
========================================================== Appendix II

According to our analysis, Army National Guard units can preserve
more than 25 percent of their equipment in controlled humidity
environments if units at the same annual training site pool and share
equipment.  Further, changing the location where some units are
annually trained could maximize the amount of equipment that can be
preserved. 


   SELECTED UNITS AND EQUIPMENT
   ITEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

For our analysis, we identified units (1) at the same training
location that could pool and share equipment and (2) that could
change their annual training sites to maximize the amount of
equipment that could be stored in controlled environments.  Those
units in our analysis included 6 of the 15 Separate Brigades,\1 the
49th Armored Division, and the 31st Armored Brigade.  The units and
their current MATES are shown in table II.1. 



                               Table II.1
                
                Units in Our Analysis and Their Current
                  Mobilization and Training Equipment
                                 Sites

Unit                                      State         MATES location
----------------------------------------  ------------  --------------
48th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)        Georgia       Fort Stewart,
                                                        Ga.

218th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)       South         Fort Stewart,
                                          Carolina      Ga.

278th Armored Cavalry Regiment            Tennessee     Fort Stewart,
                                                        Ga.

30th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)        North         Fort Bragg,
                                          Carolina      N.C.

155th Armor Brigade                       Mississippi   Camp Shelby,
                                                        Miss.

256th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)       Louisiana     Fort Polk, La.

49th Armored Division                     Texas         Fort Hood,
                                                        Tex.

31st Armored Brigade                      Alabama       Camp Shelby,
                                                        Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The nine tracked equipment items selected for our analysis are shown
in table II.2.  These items have high annual costs for scheduled
maintenance.  Except for the Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge, Guard
units are required to put 50 percent of these items at a MATES that
facilitates mobilization and use by units training at the MATES
location.  For these nine tracked equipment items, we determined the
types and quantities of authorized equipment that the eight units in
our analysis are scheduled to have on hand in fiscal year 1999 or
funded through 2008.  By 2008, all of the eight units are to have
similar equipment, which will facilitate sharing among the units. 
Several of these units currently have these equipment items on hand,
and pooling and sharing can begin after CHP facilities are in place. 



                               Table II.2
                
                 Equipment Items Selected for Analysis

Item number     Description
--------------  ------------------------------------------------------
1               M981 Armored Fire Support Personnel Carrier

2               M113 Armored Personnel Carrier

3               M577 Command Post Carrier

4               M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle

5               M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle

6               M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer

7               M60/M48 Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge

8               M88 Recovery Vehicle

9               M1A1 Abrams Combat Tank
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The item numbers correspond with those included in tables II.4
through II.19. 


--------------------
\1 The Separate Brigades--formerly Enhanced Brigades--are organized
and resourced so that they can be quickly mobilized, trained, and
deployed to fast-evolving major regional conflicts. 


   SCENARIOS DEVELOPED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

We developed four scenarios that offer the opportunity to maximize
equipment sharing and preservation.  These four scenarios have eight
units that train annually at either Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Hood,
Texas; or Camp Shelby, Mississippi.  As shown in table II.  3, the
current scenario does not require any of the units to change annual
training sites, but scenarios 1 through 3 require that up to three of
the units change training sites. 



                                    Table II.3
                     
                       Scenarios for Sharing Equipment and
                          Changing Annual Training Sites

                           Annual training site
              ----------------------------------------------
                                                                Number    Number
Scenario      Fort Stewart    Fort Hood       Camp Shelby     of units  of moves
------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------  --------
Current       48th and 218th  None            155th Armor            5         0
              Infantry                        and 31st
              Brigades and                    Armored
              278th Armored                   Brigades
              Cavalry
              Regiment

1             48th and 218th  49th Armored    155th Armor            7         1
              Infantry        Division and    and 31st
              Brigades and    256th Infantry  Armored
              278th Armored   Brigade\a       Brigades
              Cavalry
              Regiment

2             48th and 218th  49th Armored    155th Armor            7         2
              Infantry        Division and    and 31st
              Brigades and    278th Armored   Armored
              30th Infantry   Cavalry         Brigades
              Brigade\a       Regiment\a

3             48th and 218th  49th Armored    155th Armor            8         3
              Infantry        Division and    and 31st
              Brigades and    278th Armored   Armored
              30th Infantry   Cavalry         Brigades and
              Brigade\a       Regiment\a      256th Infantry
                                              Brigade\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These units are the ones that, under our scenarios, would change
annual training sites. 


   COMPUTATION OF THE EQUIPMENT
   POOL AT ANNUAL TRAINING SITES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

On the basis of the units' authorized equipment, we determined the
amount of equipment for each of the nine items that would be needed
if the units training at the same location pooled and shared their
equipment.  We assumed that

  -- the entire unit (i.e., brigade or division) went to annual
     training during a 2-week period;

  -- 90 percent of a unit's authorized personnel would be assigned;

  -- 70 percent of assigned personnel would actually attend annual
     training with the unit; and

  -- the unit would need an additional quantity of 5 percent to allow
     for equipment replacement in case some equipment broke down
     during the 2-week annual training period. 

We used the 90-percent figure for the amount of authorized personnel
assigned based on discussions with Guard officials, statistics on
assigned strength, and the fact that Guard units normally do not have
100 percent of their authorized strength.  The 70-percent figure for
annual training attendance is based on actual attendance statistics,
a RAND study, and discussions with Guard officials.  The 5-percent
additional quantity is based on discussions with Guard maintenance
officials. 

Because some unit-shared equipment would be turned in to MATES in a
nonmission-capable (NMC) status at the end of the 2-week annual
training period, we determined the amount of extra equipment that
would be needed to have sufficient quantities of equipment on hand
for the next unit to use for training.  Because of the Guard's lack
of historical information on the quantity of NMC equipment that is
turned in to MATES, we asked MATES officials to provide us with an
estimate.  The average estimate for several equipment items from two
MATES ranged from 12 to 16 percent.  The average estimate from four
MATES ranged from 21 to 36 percent.  On the basis of these estimates,
we chose to use rates of 15 and 30 percent.  We also considered the
capability of MATES personnel to repair this equipment in time for
the next unit to use it for annual training.  Lacking information on
the capability of MATES to repair equipment, we assumed for each of
the nine items used in our analysis that the MATES could repair no
more than 10 of the items in a 2-week period.  We did not consider
the impact of MATES maintenance personnel having to spend time
issuing and receiving equipment from units that were training at the
MATES rather than spending this time repairing equipment.  In
addition, we analyzed the effect on the maintenance quantity of units
having consecutive training and a 2-week period between training. 

For each scenario, we calculated the quantities of the nine equipment
items that would be placed in long-term preservation at each of the
MATES in our analysis based on (1) the quantities currently located
there and (2) 50 percent of the units' authorized equipment, which is
required by Guard regulation to be located at MATES.  We used the
greater of these two quantities in our analysis as the quantity
located at the MATES.  The total quantity of equipment needed for
training and the additional quantity needed to compensate for
equipment undergoing maintenance determines the pool size needed at
each of the three annual training sites.  The difference in
quantities between the equipment that is located at the MATES and the
amount needed for the pool becomes available for CHP long-term
preservation.  Of that equipment, we allocated 25 percent to meet the
Guard's 25-percent goal.  The remaining quantity represents
additional equipment that can be put into preservation based on
sharing equipment and changing annual training sites. 


   ANALYSIS OF SCENARIOS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

Analysis of each of the four scenarios shows that the Guard can place
more than 25 percent of its equipment in long-term preservation by
sharing unit equipment at annual training sites and changing some
units' training sites.  For each scenario, we determined the total
quantity of the nine equipment items that can be placed into
long-term preservation at the three training sites and the resulting
maintenance cost avoidance.  The quantities and cost avoidance are
divided to show the results of the cost avoidance of the Guard's
25-percent goal and the additional cost avoidance resulting from
increased sharing among units.  The results for each scenario are
based on units turning in

  -- 30 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with no
     break between units coming to annual training,

  -- 15 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with no
     break between units coming to annual training,

  -- 30 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with a
     2-week break between units coming to annual training, and

  -- 15 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with a
     2-week break between units coming to annual training. 


      CURRENT SCENARIO
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.1

We analyzed the five units that train annually at Fort Stewart and
Camp Shelby.  This scenario does not require any of the units to
change their annual training site; therefore, the additional
equipment and cost avoidance over the Guard's 25-percent goal that
could be put into long-term preservation would result from greater
sharing among the units. 

Tables II.4 through II.7 show the quantity of equipment that could be
placed in long-term preservation using different assumptions and the
resulting benefits.  The total cost avoidance ranges from $14.6
million to $20 million, of which $4.4 million to $9.7 million is
based on the benefits of having units pool and share equipment at
annual training. 



                                    Table II.4
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   16      $307,504      13      $249,847      29      $557,351
2                   87       884,181      82       833,366     169     1,717,547
3                   39       601,848      30       462,960      69     1,064,808
4                   62     1,931,734      16       498,512      78     2,430,246
5                   13       450,229       3       103,899      16       554,128
6                   16       405,088      16       405,088      32       810,176
7                   11       291,159      11       291,159      22       582,318
8                   25       628,250      21       527,730      46     1,155,980
9                   76     4,678,180      17     1,046,435      93     5,724,615
================================================================================
Total              345   $10,178,173     209  $4,418,996 5      54   $14,597,169
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.5
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   16      $307,504      17      $326,723      33      $634,227
2                   87       884,181     107     1,087,441     194     1,971,622
3                   42       648,144      37       570,984      79     1,219,128
4                   62     1,931,734      35     1,090,495      97     3,022,229
5                   15       519,495       5       173,165      20       692,660
6                   16       405,088      20       506,360      36       911,448
7                   11       291,159      13       344,097      24       635,256
8                   25       628,250      27       678,510      52     1,306,760
9                   76     4,678,180      41     2,523,755     117     7,201,935
================================================================================
Total              350   $10,293,735     302    $7,301,530     652   $17,595,265
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.6
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   16      $307,504      21      $403,599      37      $711,103
2                   87       884,181     107     1,087,441     194     1,971,622
3                   42       648,144      47       725,304      89     1,373,448
4                   62     1,931,734      36     1,121,652      98     3,053,386
5                   15       519,495       6       207,798      21       727,293
6                   16       405,088      24       607,632      40     1,012,720
7                   11       291,159      15       397,035      26       688,194
8                   25       628,250      33       829,290      58     1,457,540
9                   76     4,678,180      41     2,523,755     117     7,201,935
================================================================================
Total              350   $10,293,735     330    $7,903,506     680   $18,197,241
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.7
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   16      $307,504      21      $403,599      37      $711,103
2                   87       884,181     127     1,290,701     214     2,174,882
3                   42       648,144      49       756,168      91     1,404,312
4                   62     1,931,734      52     1,620,164     114     3,551,898
5                   15       519,495       6       207,798      21       727,293
6                   16       405,088      24       607,632      40     1,012,720
7                   11       291,159      15       397,035      26       688,194
8                   25       628,250      34       854,420      59     1,482,670
9                   76     4,678,180      58     3,570,190     134     8,248,370
================================================================================
Total              350   $10,293,735     386    $9,707,707     736   $20,001,442
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      SCENARIO 1
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.2

For this scenario, we analyzed seven units training at Fort Stewart,
Fort Hood, and Camp Shelby.  The 256th Infantry Brigade changes its
annual training site to Fort Hood and shares equipment with the 49th
Armored Division.  Therefore, the additional equipment that could be
put into long-term preservation would be a result of more units
sharing equipment because of a change in training sites. 

Tables II.8 through II.11 show the equipment that could be placed in
long-term preservation under different assumptions and the resulting
benefits.  The total cost avoidance ranges from $23.1 million to
$30.9 million, of which $5.3 million to $11.3 million is based on the
benefits of having units pool and share equipment at annual training
and changing the 256th Infantry Brigade's annual training site to
Fort Hood. 



                                    Table II.8
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      21      $403,599      53    $1,018,607
2                  179     1,819,177     129     1,311,027     308     3,130,204
3                   75     1,157,400      30       462,960     105     1,620,360
4                  105     3,271,485      16       498,512     121     3,769,997
5                   25       865,825       9       311,697      34     1,177,522
6                   25       632,950      16       405,088      41     1,038,038
7                   11       291,159      11       291,159      22       582,318
8                   42     1,055,460      21       527,730      63     1,583,190
9                  132     8,125,260      17     1,046,435     149     9,171,695
================================================================================
Total              626   $17,833,724     270    $5,258,207     896   $23,091,931
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.9
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      27      $518,913      59    $1,133,921
2                  179     1,819,177     164     1,666,732     343     3,485,909
3                   83     1,280,856      37       570,984     120     1,851,840
4                  118     3,676,526      35     1,090,495     153     4,767,021
5                   27       935,091      13       450,229      40     1,385,320
6                   27       683,586      20       506,360      47     1,189,946
7                   11       291,159      13       344,097      24       635,256
8                   44     1,105,720      28       703,640      72     1,809,360
9                  139     8,556,145      41     2,523,755     180    11,079,900
================================================================================
Total              660   $18,963,268     378    $8,375,205   1,038   $27,338,473
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.10
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      33      $634,227      65    $1,249,235
2                  179     1,819,177     164     1,666,732     343     3,485,909
3                   84     1,296,288      51       787,032     135     2,083,320
4                  115     3,583,055      36     1,121,652     151     4,704,707
5                   27       935,091      15       519,495      42     1,454,586
6                   29       734,222      24       607,632      53     1,341,854
7                   11       291,159      15       397,035      26       688,194
8                   44     1,105,720      37       929,810      81     2,035,530
9                  132     8,125,260      17     1,046,435     149     9,171,695
================================================================================
Total              653   $18,504,980     392    $7,710,050   1,045   $26,215,030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.11
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      33      $634,227      65    $1,249,235
2                  179     1,819,177     194     1,971,622     373     3,790,799
3                   84     1,296,288      54       833,328     138     2,129,616
4                  123     3,832,311      57     1,775,949     180     5,608,260
5                   27       935,091      15       519,495      42     1,454,586
6                   29       734,222      24       607,632      53     1,341,854
7                   11       291,159      15       397,035      26       688,194
8                   44     1,105,720      38       954,940      82     2,060,660
9                  146     8,987,030      58     3,570,190     204    12,557,220
================================================================================
Total              675   $19,616,006     488   $11,264,418   1,163   $30,880,424
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      SCENARIO 2
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.3

For this scenario, we analyzed seven units training at Fort Stewart,
Fort Hood, and Camp Shelby.  The 30th Infantry Brigade changes its
training site to Fort Stewart and shares equipment with the 48th and
the 218th Infantry Brigades.  Thus, three infantry brigades will have
the same types and quantities of equipment at Fort Stewart.  The
278th Armored Cavalry Regiment also changes its training site from
Fort Stewart to Fort Hood and shares equipment with the 49th Armored
Division.  Therefore, the additional equipment that could be put into
long-term preservation would be a result of similar units sharing
equipment because of a change in training sites. 

Tables II.12 through II.15 show the equipment that could be placed in
long-term preservation under different assumptions and the resulting
benefits.  The total cost avoidance ranges from $25.6 million to
$33.8 million, of which $7.4 million to $15 million is based on the
benefits of having units pool and share equipment at annual training
and changing the 30th Infantry Brigade's and 278th Armored Cavalry
Regiment's annual training sites to Fort Stewart and Fort Hood,
respectively. 



                                   Table II.12
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      23      $442,037      55    $1,057,045
2                  179     1,819,177     124     1,260,212     303     3,079,389
3                   74     1,141,968      26       401,232     100     1,543,200
4                   84     2,617,188      45     1,402,065     129     4,019,253
5                   38     1,316,054      16       554,128      54     1,870,182
6                   25       632,950      16       405,088      41     1,038,038
7                   11       291,159      10       264,690      21       555,849
8                   43     1,080,590      22       552,860      65     1,633,450
9                  141     8,679,255      35     2,154,425     176    10,833,680
================================================================================
Total              627   $18,193,349     317    $7,436,737     944   $25,630,086
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.13
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      28      $538,132      60    $1,153,140
2                  179     1,819,177     165     1,676,895     344     3,496,072
3                   82     1,265,424      39       601,848     121     1,867,272
4                   85     2,648,345      77     2,399,089     162     5,047,434
5                   38     1,316,054      19       658,027      57     1,974,081
6                   27       683,586      20       506,360      47     1,189,946
7                   11       291,159      13       344,097      24       635,256
8                   44     1,105,720      30       753,900      74     1,859,620
9                  146     8,987,030      67     4,124,185     213    13,111,215
================================================================================
Total              644   $18,731,503     458   $11,602,533   1,102   $30,334,036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.14
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      33      $634,227      65    $1,249,235
2                  179     1,819,177     164     1,666,732     343     3,485,909
3                   84     1,296,288      51       787,032     135     2,083,320
4                   86     2,679,502      75     2,336,775     161     5,016,277
5                   38     1,316,054      22       761,926      60     2,077,980
6                   29       734,222      24       607,632      53     1,341,854
7                   11       291,159      15       397,035      26       688,194
8                   44     1,105,720      39       980,070      83     2,085,790
9                  146     8,987,030      64     3,939,520     210    12,926,550
================================================================================
Total              649   $18,844,160     487   $12,110,949   1,136   $30,955,109
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.15
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   32      $615,008      33      $634,227      65    $1,249,235
2                  179     1,819,177     194     1,971,622     373     3,790,799
3                   84     1,296,288      54       833,328     138     2,129,616
4                   86     2,679,502      97     3,022,229     183     5,701,731
5                   38     1,316,054      22       761,926      60     2,077,980
6                   29       734,222      24       607,632      53     1,341,854
7                   11       291,159      15       397,035      26       688,194
8                   44     1,105,720      39       980,070      83     2,085,790
9                  146     8,987,030      94     5,786,170     240    14,773,200
================================================================================
Total              649   $18,844,160     572   $14,994,239   1,221   $33,838,399
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      SCENARIO 3
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.4

For this scenario, we analyzed eight units training at Fort Stewart,
Fort Hood, and Camp Shelby.  The 30th Infantry Brigade changes its
training site to Fort Stewart and shares equipment with the 48th and
the 218th Infantry Brigades.  Thus, as in the last scenario, three
infantry brigades would have the same types and quantities of
equipment at Fort Stewart.  The 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment
changes its training site from Fort Stewart to Fort Hood and shares
equipment with the 49th Armored Division.  The 256th Infantry Brigade
also changes its annual training site to Camp Shelby and shares
equipment with the 155th Armor Brigade and the 31st Armored Brigade. 
Therefore, the additional equipment that could be put into long-term
preservation would be a result of similar units sharing equipment
because of a change in training sites. 

Tables II.16 through II.19 show the equipment that could be placed in
long-term preservation under different assumptions and the resulting
benefits.  The total cost avoidance ranges from $30.6 million to
$39.2 million, of which $11 million to $18 million is based on the
benefits of having units pool and share equipment at annual training
and changing annual training sites for the 30th Infantry Brigade,
278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, and 256th Infantry Brigade to Fort
Stewart, Fort Hood, and Camp Shelby, respectively. 



                                   Table II.16
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   35      $672,665      29      $557,351      64    $1,230,016
2                  193     1,961,459     165     1,676,895     358     3,638,354
3                   86     1,327,152      43       663,576     129     1,990,728
4                  137     4,268,509      49     1,526,693     186     5,795,202
5                   27       935,091      27       935,091      54     1,870,182
6                   27       683,586      23       582,314      50     1,265,900
7                   12       317,628      14       370,566      26       688,194
8                   46     1,155,980      33       829,290      79     1,985,270
9                  134     8,248,370      63     3,877,965     197    12,126,335
================================================================================
Total              697   $19,570,440     446   $11,019,741   1,143   $30,590,181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.17
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                      NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   35      $672,665      35      $672,665      70    $1,345,330
2                  193     1,961,459     206     2,093,578     399     4,055,037
3                   91     1,404,312      61       941,352     152     2,345,664
4                  150     4,673,550      85     2,648,345     235     7,321,895
5                   27       935,091      31     1,073,623      58     2,008,714
6                   29       734,222      27       683,586      56     1,417,808
7                   12       317,628      18       476,442      30       794,070
8                   47     1,181,110      41     1,030,330      88     2,211,440
9                  141     8,679,255      86     5,293,730     227    13,972,985
================================================================================
Total              725   $20,559,292     590   $14,913,651   1,315   $35,472,943
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.18
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   35      $672,665      41      $787,979      76    $1,460,644
2                  193     1,961,459     205     2,083,415     398     4,044,874
3                   92     1,419,744      74     1,141,968     166     2,561,712
4                  147     4,580,079      83     2,586,031     230     7,166,110
5                   27       935,091      36     1,246,788      63     2,181,879
6                   31       784,858      31       784,858      62     1,569,716
7                   12       317,628      20       529,380      32       847,008
8                   47     1,181,110      50     1,256,500      97     2,437,610
9                  144     8,863,920      87     5,355,285     231    14,219,205
================================================================================
Total              728   $20,716,554     627   $15,772,204   1,355   $36,488,758
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table II.19
                     
                       Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-
                     Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent
                       NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks Between
                                 Training Periods

                 Guard 25% goal for   Additional equipment  Total equipment that
                     equipment            that can be               can
                    preservation           preserved            be preserved
                --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
                Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost  Quanti          Cost
Item                ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance      ty     avoidance
--------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------------
1                   35      $672,665      41      $787,979      76    $1,460,644
2                  193     1,961,459     236     2,398,468     429     4,359,927
3                   92     1,419,744      78     1,203,696     170     2,623,440
4                  154     4,798,178     111     3,458,427     265     8,256,605
5                   27       935,091      36     1,246,788      63     2,181,879
6                   31       784,858      31       784,858      62     1,569,716
7                   12       317,628      20       529,380      32       847,008
8                   47     1,181,110      50     1,256,500      97     2,437,610
9                  148     9,110,140     103     6,340,165     251    15,450,305
================================================================================
Total              739   $21,180,873     706   $18,006,261   1,445   $39,187,134
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



(See figure in printed edition.)


*** End of document. ***



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


Maintained by Webmaster