The Transportation Balance

A Study of the

Transportation Budgeting Process

MICHAEL D. CASSIDY, MAJOR, USAF

School of Advanced Airpower Studies

Air University Press

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

June 1996

AIR UNI V ERSITY

THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF

THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES,

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, FOR COMPLETION OF

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, ACADEMIC YEAR 1995–96.
Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the

author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force,

the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

ii
Contents

Chapter Page

DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ABOUT THE AUTHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 THE PROCESS TODAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 THE PROPOSED PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5 PRECEDENCE AND INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Illustrations

Figure

1 The Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 The Imbalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Method One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Method Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5 Method Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6 The Structural Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7 Joint War-fighting Capability Assessment (JWCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table

1 DOD Major Force Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

iii
Abstract

This study analyzes the way the Department of Defense currently funds the

Defense Transportation System (DTS). The central question that this study

attempts to answer is does the current decentralized, service-centered, budgeting process optimize national mobility capabilities or would centralized budget

authority, under United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), offer

greater potential for balancing mobility capabilities and requirements?

To answer this question this study examines the current process employed to

maintain the DTS and comparing the current system to one possible alternative:

US Transportation Command Budget Authority. The study accomplishes this by

first describing the objective of the budgeting process, which is to balance limited lift capabilities against demanding requirements, and follows this description of the “transportation balance” with a brief description of the DTS. The

study continues with an analysis of the current process used to support the balance of this DTS. This analysis includes a study of the planning, programming,

and budgeting system (PPBS) from both the Navy and Air Force perspective and

the impact this system has on the transportation system. After the study of the

PPBS this study describes the Joint Requirement Oversight Council and its

influence on the DTS. This study then describes one alternative to the current

process and its potential for maintaining the transportation system in balance.

The proposed alternative grants USTRANSCOM budget authority for Major Force

Program 4 airlift and sealift program elements. After the description of the proposed alternative budgeting system this study examines US Special Operations

Command budget authority and its’ affect upon the Special Operations Mission.

This study then examines examples of USTRANCOM’s limited budget authority.

This study concludes by saying that the proposed process could more effectively support the DTS balance than the current process. It also addresses several of the major implications of this policy change, but acknowledges that it did

not address other possible alternatives to the one proposed. The final conclusion, therefore, recommends further studies compare other possible alternatives

to the one proposed in this study.

v
About the Author

Maj Michael D. Cassidy is an airlift pilot, commissioned through Air Force

Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1982 from the University of Southern

California. He attended undergraduate pilot training at Williams Air Force Base

(AFB), Arizona. He then flew C-130s at Rhein Main Air Base (AB) in the 37th TAS

from 1984 to 1988. He was a low-altitude parachute systems lead, and instructor pilot qualified in the C-130. He then flew C-141s at McChord AFB,

Washington, in the 8th Military Airlift Squadron (MAS) from 1988 to 1991. He

became an airdrop and air-refueling flight examiner in the C-141. He was the

chief of squadron tactics for both the 37th and 8th MAS. Major Cassidy then

became a C-17 instructor pilot directly involved in the operational development

of this new weapon system. Major Cassidy is a senior pilot with over 3,800 flying hours. He received a bachelor’s of science degree in aerospace engineering

from the University of Southern California, and a master’s degree in aviation

management from Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University. In July of 1996 Major

Cassidy was assigned to the Checkmate Division of the Air Staff.

vii
Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge several people without whose support and help I

would have never been able to complete this study. At the Air Staff, Majors John

Norton, Greg Parker, John Smith, and Capt Steve Groenheim and the members

of XOFM for their input, and giving me a place to stay during my visit to the

Pentagon. Comdr Rick Bush and Lt Col James A. Neumeister from the Joint

Staff for providing great support. Capt John Flood and Comdr Bob Drash from

CNO N42 provided me with the Navy’s approach. At USTRANSCOM Col Galen

Morris and Lt Col Steve Jones were very helpful. Lt Col Ron Bean and Maj Tom

Contos freely offered their time from the Air Mobility Command POM shop. I

especially want to thank Ms. Margaret Nigra and the rest of the staff of the

UNSTRANCOM Research Center, who consistently sent me any document that I

thought I might need. Additionally, I need to thank Dr. Thomas B. Young of the

Air Mobility Command (AMC) History Office and Maj Ray Kruelski from US

Special Operations Command for their last minute assistance.

I especially want to thank my family; all of whom had to suffer through the

daily routine with less help from a husband and father, than they should.

Finally, I want to thank the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of AMC, Military

Sealift Command, and military traffic management command who every day do

an unglamarous job professionally and expertly.

ix
Chapter 1

Introduction

The fundamental purpose of the Armed Forces must remain to fight and win our

Nation’s wars whenever and wherever called upon.

—John M. Shalikashvili

––1995 National Military Strategy

Providing transportation forces to support the nation’s chosen strategy

is a process of balancing stated requirements with affordable and effective

capabilities. The transportation forces of the Department of Defense

(DOD) are critical to the execution of the United States’ national military

strategy, currently a dual, near-simultaneous, major regional contingency

(MRC) strategy. The ability to “fight and win . . . whenever and wherever”

is dependent upon the ability of these forces to deploy and sustain the

nation’s combat forces. Regardless of the strategy, therefore, maximizing

transportation capabilities in relation to requirements is an important policy objective.

Question and Choice

This study proposes an alternative to the current process of maintaining that balance; a process which offers the potential to leverage

available lift capabilities against requirements more effectively. Not surprisingly, the national military strategy recommends enhancement to

four strategic mobility areas to maximize the nation’s ability to project

power: Increase airlift capability, additional prepositioning, increase

surge capacity of sealift, and improve the responsiveness of the Ready

Reserve Force.1 These are expensive propositions––demanding, among

other planning elements, an effective budgeting process. Does the current DOD budgeting process for acquiring transportation forces ensure

effective and economic achievement of these proposed enhancements?

This study proposes an alternative to the current budgeting process by

answering a core question: Does the current decentralized, service-centered, budgeting process optimize national mobility capabilities or would

centralized budget authority, under United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), offer greater potential for balancing mobility

capabilities and requirements?

This question presents a choice between the status quo budgeting system and placing budget authority in the hands of USTRANSCOM. This

study answers that question and presents the issues involved in choosing

to maintain the current system or accept a significant change of policy.

1
Methodology

This study analyzes five topics to answer the core question. The second

chapter discusses the nature of the balance between mobility requirements and capabilities, as well as the specific nature of the military transportation problem. The third chapter describes and analyzes the current

programming and budgeting system. It specifically examines the role of

the services, the major commands, and the unified commands in this system. Chapter 3 also describes the role of the enhanced Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in the budgeting process.

The fourth chapter discusses what the system would look like if

USTRANSCOM had budget authority. The purpose of the third and fourth

chapters is to directly compare and contrast the current system with the

proposed system. This comparison highlights which of the two systems,

the current or the proposed, permits leveraging the transport forces more

effectively. The fifth chapter examines the precedent set by the US Special

Operations Command (USSOCOM) budget authority and the implications

of limited budget authority in USTRANSCOM. Studying these examples

provides evidence to either support or dispute the proposed process.

The final chapter discusses the broader implications of such a programming and budgeting system for the Air Force and the DOD in general. It also summarizes the question and argument, along with drawing

conclusions.

Assumptions and Limitations

This study is based on certain assumptions and limitations. This study

assumes that the basic national security strategy and the national military strategy of the United States will not change drastically in the near

future. Specifically, the United States will continue to have global interests, some of which will require the introduction of military force or military-unique capabilities. This assumes, therefore, a persistent requirement for mobility. This study also assumes that there will be consistent

calls to either reduce the total defense budget or increase the capability of

the forces acquired with a fixed budget.

This study is limited in that it cannot, with 100 percent accuracy, predict the outcome of a centralized budget authority for mobility forces

under USTRANSCOM. It can highlight disconnects or organizational

seams which lead to inefficiencies or ineffectiveness in the current system. By identifying and proposing a system to eliminate the seams or disconnects of the current system, the potential for greater lift for fewer dollars is apparent. This study also looks at present examples of centralized

budget authority in an attempt to predict the seams and disconnects an

altered system might produce.

The impact of this proposal on the Army component of the transportation

system is discussed, but only in a limited fashion. The focus of this analy2
sis is centered on the Navy and Air Force systems. The Navy and Air Force

portions of the transportation budget far exceed that of the Army, and the

way that the Army’s Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) is

funded is unique. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter 5.

Significance and Originality

Reduced overseas presence, reliance on mobility forces for power projection, and continual budgetary pressures forces, military thinkers to not

only study what mobility forces the nation buys, but also how they are

bought. This study seeks to inform a choice between the current system

of buying transportation forces and a process which offers greater potential for realizing the USTRANSCOM vision statement:

USTRANSCOM, providing timely, customer-focused global mobility in peace

and war through efficient, effective, and integrated transportation from origin

to destination.2

This study is unique in that it describes the budgetary disconnects

which limit full exploitation of transportation forces in the current budget

system compared to the possibilities in a USTRANSCOM centered system.

There have been several recent articles which address related topics.

These were prevalent in the years closely following the passage of the

Goldwater-Nichols Act, the creation of USSOCOM and the establishment

of its independent budget authority. Most of these articles or studies,

however, address the broader topic of budget authority, or increased influence, for the commanders in chief (CINC) of the unified commands in general.3 One of these studies specifically addresses USTRANSCOM budget

authority and compares it to the USSOCOM situation, similar to the

approach of this study. This study, conducted at the Industrial College of

the Armed Forces, however, made a limited attempt to identify the budgetary disconnects with regard to USTRANSCOM.4 Its conclusion used the

specific USTRANSCOM example to try and answer the broader question

as to whether every CINC should have budget authority. This study looks

specifically at that question with regard to USTRANSCOM. The disconnects it analyzes, unlike previous studies, lie in the conceptual nature of

balancing transportation capabilities and requirements. There are implications for other unified commands, but these are addressed only as possibilities for further research.

Chapter 2 begins the analysis by describing the process of balancing

requirements and capabilities. It looks at the components involved and

the historical evidence of how this balance was achieved in the past. This

evidence is used to distill the fundamental tensions at the heart of the

choice between the current and proposed systems. It also describes the

basic components of the Defense Transportation System (DTS) to provide

a picture of the system which is involved in this budget balancing act.

3
Notes

1. Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Military Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office [GPO], 1995), 7.

2. United States Transportation Command (USSTRANCOM), DTS 2015 Strategic Plan,

Executive Summary (Scott Air Force Base [AFB], Ill.: USTRANSCOM/J5-SP, 1995), 7.

3. These studies were generated as a result of the fact that the Goldwater-Nichols Act

specifically called for each of the CINCs to have a budget primarily for training and improving command and control capabilities. See Lawrence C. Crockett, “Joint Commanders and

Budget Authority” (Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces,

1992); Julia Denman, “Enhancing CINCs’ Influence on Defense Resource Allocation:

Progress and Problems” (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: US Army War College, May 1989); Barry

H. Smith, “A Budget for the CINCs?” (Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of

the Armed Forces, 1993); and Herschel Kanter, The CINCs and the Acquisition Process

(Alexandria, Va.: Institute for Defense Analysis, September 1988), II-8.

4. Smith.

4
Chapter 2

The Nature of the Problem

The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman

and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on

which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.

—Carl von Clausewitz

––On War

In order to produce an informed decision regarding the question at

hand, it is essential to understand the nature of the transportation balance, and its elements. The choice presented in the first chapter boils

down to either maintaining the current budgeting process for transportation or replacing it with a process centralized under USTRANSCOM. In

order to address the “nature” of this choice, this chapter answers two

questions. First, what is the general nature of the dilemma involved in the

transportation budgeting process? This description of the balance

between transportation capabilities and requirements permits a comparison of the current and the proposed system in following chapters. Second,

what is the nature of the DTS? Looking at the general nature of the DTS

allows analysis of the effects of the current and the proposed budgeting

system on more specific examples later in this study.

The Transportation Balance

Past changes to the transportation system limit the degree to which

mobility planners can leverage finite transportation capabilities against

demanding requirements. To understand why these changes limit the

ability to leverage capability, one must understand how the leveraging

takes place. The variables in the “calculus” of balancing the transportation system are capabilities, requirements, and the structure employed

to quantify, satisfy, and establish equilibrium between the first two elements. In the transportation system airlift and sealift capabilities are

measured in terms of millions of ton miles per day and square footage,

respectively, in conjunction with throughput capability.1 With respect to

the budgeting process, transportation capability equates to the amount

of money spent on transportation assets the more capability (ton miles or

square footage) desired, the more one spends. Requirements define what

is needed out of the transportation system. These requirements are

derived through the Joint Strategic Planning System which includes the

inputs of the CINCs of the unified commands.2 The third portion of this

5
process is the structure, which balances capabilities and requirements.

This structure consists of three parts: operational, organizational, and

managerial elements; each is established to either effectively employ,

command, or acquire transportation assets to meet the established

requirements.3

There are two easily identifiable techniques used to maintain the balance between capabilities and requirements. The first method establishes

the requirements and then procures the capabilities to meet them. The

second method is to determine how much capability is affordable and

then determine what requirements or strategic scenarios this capability

will support. There is, however, another way to arrive at a balance. The

third way of maintaining balance is to focus on improving the operational,

organizational, and managerial portions of the structure which supports

this balance. This improvement in the individual portions of the structure––

in an appropriate fashion––maximizes or leverages the ultimate capabilities of the forces and equipment bought.4 This last method essentially

allows planners to do more with less.

A simplistic way of describing this balancing act is by using a child’s

teeter-totter as an illustration (see fig. 1). There is one child (requirements) on one end of the board and one child (capabilities) on the other.

If the requirements side is too heavy you can either add more capability

or lighten requirements. The board and pivot point are the operational,

organizational, and managerial structure. By structurally adjusting the

balance, moving the pivot point farther away from the smaller child, one

child’s weight can be leveraged against the other’s. Adjusting the structure effectively balances “heavier” requirements with “lighter” capabilities.

In the past all three techniques were used in pursuit of balancing

transportation capabilities against requirements (see fig. 2). The most

obvious way to adjust the balance is to manipulate either the requirements or the capabilities. An example of increasing the capability of the

fleet (see fig. 3) was the purchase of the C-5B in the mid-1980s.5 This

purchase, made during the development of the C-17, was to offset the

airlift shortfall identified in the 1981 Congressionally Mandated Mobility

6

Structure

Capabilities Requirements

Figure 1. The Balance
Study.6 The addition of 19 large medium speed roll-on/roll-off

(LMSRO/RO) ships dictated by the 1992 Mobility Requirement Study

(MRS) and more recently the 1994 MRS Bottom Up Review Update

(MRS/BURU) is another example of increasing capability to counterbalance requirements.7 An example of changing the requirements side (see

fig. 4) of the balance is the recent decision to change the national military strategy from one which supports two simultaneous MRCs to one

which supports two near-simultaneous MRCs. This change from simultaneous to near-simultaneous had a significant effect on the total lift

assets required to support the strategy.8

In addition to manipulating the requirements and capabilities to manage

the balance, there are past examples of modifications made to the threepart structure which supports the balance. Figure 5 illustrates how modifying the structure leverages the capabilities against the requirements. Figure 6 shows how the structure consists of three parts in the simple model

portrayed. Structural modifications leverage the capabilities of the limited

7

Structure

Capabilities

Requirements

Figure 2: The Imbalance

Figure 3. Method One

Structure

Capabilities Requirements
8

Figure 5. Method Three

Figure 6. The Structural Components

Capabilities

Managerial Operational Organizational

Figure 4. Method Two

Structure

Capabilities Requirements
transportation assets by making organizational, operational, or managerial

changes. Examples of changes which emphasized operational flexibility

over raw capability included the purchase of the C-17 or additional prepositioning ships.9 The C-17 accomplishes this leveraging with its ability to

carry any of the Army’s outsize cargo into small fields. Unlike the C-5,

which is restricted to larger fields with large apron areas, the C-17 can land

at and maneuver on small fields. This opens up more destinations for its

cargo. Because the C-17 is not as restricted as the C-5, it effectively leverages the capability of the airplane by permitting more direct, timely delivery of cargo. Prepositioning in a similar way leverages the capability of

cargo ships. By placing equipment on these strategically located ships, tailored for specific tasks or units, this equipment reaches a contingency

much more rapidly than a ship from the continental United States.

There are also examples of past organizational changes made to leverage the capability of limited transportation forces. These changes include

the unification of the transportation assets under USTRANSCOM10 and

then giving the command Combatant Command (COCOM) authority versus operational control (OPCON) over its subordinate Transportation

Component Commands (TCC) during peace and war.11 The original charter of USTRANSCOM stressed effective employment of existing mobility

assets. The reasoning behind the move to COCOM during peace and war

was identical. Both of these changes addressed the need to leverage transportation capabilities by placing all of the multiuse transportation forces

under one command. In the past when a unit needed to deploy for either

a contingency or an exercise, it worked with all three components of the

transportation system individually. To streamline these efforts

USTRANSCOM is now the single point of contact for all of the DOD’s

transportation needs.12

There are examples of limited changes to the management portion of

the three-part structure supporting the balance between requirements

and capabilities. The concept of the managerial portion of the supporting

structure is borrowed from one of the landmark documents leading to the

Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Defense Organization: The Need for Change.

13 It proposed that alterations to the people,

organizational, and managerial foundations of an established organization lead to fundamental transformation. The term managerial changes

defined changes to the acquisition process of an organization. Previous

limited changes to the DTS include the creation of the National Defense

Sealift Fund,14 the Strategic Mobility Enhancement Fund,15 and the

Defense Business Operating Fund for Transportation.16 The limitations

of these changes arise from the fact that USTRANSCOM is unable to

affect changes to the force structure with them. This ability to modify the

forces with which USTRANSCOM is required to fulfill its obligations still

resides with the individual services. This is described in greater detail in

the next chapter.

9
Section Summary

Analyzing the “nature” of the balancing process for transportation distills the transportation balance down to its fundamental components.

Examples in this section show that the past changes to the transportation

system limit the degree that transportation planners can leverage capabilities against demanding requirements. These changes focused on

increasing capabilities, decreasing requirements, or partial modifications

to the structure. Recent changes to the three-part structure focus primarily on its organizational and operational aspects. Although changes to the

managerial or budgeting portion of this structure occurred, they did not

change the fundamental nature of the programming and budgeting

process. This section sets up the next chapter’s discussion on the detailed

process of programming and budgeting for transportation. Programming

and budgeting is the managerial element of the three-part structure

defined above. It is the means by which the forces are acquired that make

up the DTS. This study proposes that an adjustment to the programming

and budgeting process permits closer integration of the elements of the

DTS; this integration leads to greater leverage. The next section examines

the elements of this complex system which require integration.

Defense Transportation System

The USTRANSCOM mission is: to provide air, land, and sea transportation for the Department of Defense both in time of peace and time of war.17

The DTS is a multifaceted, complex, global system. The capabilities,

requirements, and structure consist of many parts––some closely integrated, others only loosely connected. In order for this system to be completely effective, in the most economical fashion, it must integrate its

many components. The system consists of civilian, active duty, guard,

and reserve personnel who work together to provide global transportation

in support of the National Command Authorities (NCA). These people

employ air, sea, and ground transportation assets from commercial

industry and the military to make the system work. This combination of

people with their equipment requires ports, both sea and air, as points of

embarkation and debarkation through which the tools of war and peace

flow. To facilitate the flow of equipment and people, an integrated command and control structure coordinates these diverse operations and

ensures the flow is smooth and efficient. USTRANSCOM accomplishes its

mission through three TCCs: Air Mobility Command (AMC), Military

Sealift Command (MSC), and the MTMC.

Air Mobility Command manages the air transportation portion of

USTRANSCOM through the employment and maintenance of the civil

reserve air fleet (CRAF) and organic military units. The military units consist of guard, active, and reserve forces. MSC manages sea transportation

by utilizing Surge Sealift, the Ready Reserve Fleet, the Navy Fleet Auxil10
iary Force (NFAF), and the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The

management of these different fleets revolves around a complex relationship between USTRANSCOM, MSC, the Navy, and the Department of

Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD).18 The MTMC is primarily responsible for movement of forces within the United States to port

facilities and the management of these port facilities. It also supports theater port facility operations. The majority of the MTMC mission is conducted through civilian contract operations.19

The USTRANSCOM document DTS 2015: Strategic Plan describes the

transportation system in four broad categories: people, equipment,

infrastructure, and operations. Under these broad categories, it establishes goals and supporting objectives.20 The command and its component commands base their planning actions and goals on these four categories. USTRANSCOM establishes the command goals and objectives

while the components establish the individual component goals and

objectives in coordination with and to support those of USTRANSCOM.

The operative concept is that if each of USTRANSCOM’s goals and objectives are met under each category, then the DTS is healthy. If these categories are not properly maintained, then the DTS is less then completely effective.

To maintain the health of the DTS, USTRANSCOM carefully links its

four system categories to specific tasks. Each of the components establishes

specific tasks to enable each of the supporting objectives and keep its portion of the DTS healthy. For example, the second category––equipment––

states as its overall goal: “Ensure equipment supports current and future

DTS requirements in an international environment.”21 The USTRANSCOM

supporting objectives under the equipment category are to:

• Develop strategic sealift, air mobility, and surface modernization programs.

• Utilize commercial, off-the-shelf capabilities to support transportation requirements.22

Examples of the tasks which support these objectives come from both

AMC and MSC and are detailed in their respective master plans. Examples of the AMC tasks which support the USTRANSCOM’s second strategic goal of equipment under the airlift mission area are cargo, airdrop,

aeromedical evacuation, special operations, and passengers.23 These are

the different tasks that must be performed by AMC in order to support

USTRANSCOM’s various goals. AMC must have equipment programs

which support the objectives in DTS 2015. Recent examples of AMC

equipment modernization programs that fulfill those tasks include the

procurement of the C-17 and the procurement of a 60K loader, a cargohandling vehicle. Equipment modernization programs which support the

MSC tasks are purchase of additional LMSR ships and RRF roll-on/rolloff (RO/RO) shipping.

11
Section Summary

The DTS is a complex conglomeration of military and civilian, men, equipment, and operations. The system is organizationally centered under

USTRANSCOM. It is not “managerially” centered under USTRANSCOM. The

command responsible for the maintenance of the DTS does not have the

authority to modernize the equipment required to maintain this system.

Chapter Summary

Starting with a conceptual description of the transportation process of

balancing requirements and capabilities, this chapter then described the

different methods employed to maintain the balance. These methods

include increasing capabilities or decreasing requirements and modifying

the structure which supports the balance. The organizational, operational, or managerial procedures inherent to the structure are modified to

leverage limited capabilities. This balance is part of a transportation system which remains vital by striving to accomplish specific goals, objectives

and tasks. The planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS) is

the DOD managerial process, or the budgeting portion of the three-part

structure, utilized to maintain the health of this critical DOD mission. A

recent variation of this complex procedure is the JROC and Joint Warfighting Capabilities Assessment (JWCA) process. The next chapter describes the PPBS and the JROC/JWCA to determine if additional modification to this part of the transportation structure can further leverage

finite capabilities. Examples of specific programs which have undergone

both of these processes show how portions of the transportation system

fare under the current programming and budgeting system.

Notes

1. Millions of ton miles per day is the typical measurement for airlift capability. It is the

number of miles that an airplane, or fleet of airplanes, can take a ton of cargo in a day.

Square footage is the typical measurement for sealift capability; this equates to the area

available on a ship to carry cargo. Throughput measures the capability of the ports to

interface with the different modes of transportation in terms of time to load or unload

cargo.

2. The unified commanders establish these requirements through the deliberate planning process which is applied to specific operations plans (OPLAN). These OPLANs are

assigned to the CINCs by the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) which is derived from

the president’s national security strategy and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

national military strategy; Armed Forces Staff College, AFSC Publication 1: The Joint Staff

Officer’s Guide 1993 (Norfolk, Va.: National Defense University, 1993), 5–16 and 5–34.

3. This concept is a modification of one established in Defense Organization: The Need

for Change which states that changes to the people, organizational and managerial foundations of an established organization lead to change. Staff report to the Committee on

Armed Services, US Senate, Defense Organization: The Need for Change (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office [GPO], October 1985), 483.

4. An example of the operational portion of the structure would include acquiring

assets which have greater flexibility. The C-17 is an airlift example where its raw tonnage

12
capability is less than the proposed nondevelopmental airlift aircraft (NDAA), but its ability to utilize smaller runways is one way it leverages its “lighter” capability. An example of

the organizational portion of the structure is the fact that CINCUSTRANSCOM can now

call up the first stage of the CRAF, allowing a quicker injection of CRAF during the early

stages of a contingency. The term managerial structure is used in the same way that the

1986 Packard Commission report uses the term, which is the process of programming and

budgeting.

5. DOD, Annual Report to the Congress Fiscal Year 1983 (Washington, D.C.: GPO,

1982), III–94.

6. DOD, Congressionally Mandated Mobility Study, Summary Volume 1 (S) (Washington,

D.C.: DOD, 30 April 1981), 34–37 (U).

7. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mobility Requirements Study Volume I (U) (Washington, D.C.:

Joint Chiefs of Staff, 23 January 1992), ES-5 (U); and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mobility

Requirements Study Bottom-Up Review Update (S) (Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff,

28 March 1995), VI-2 (U).

8. Ibid., ES-1 (U).

9. USSTRANCOM, Posture Statement Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF Commander in Chief

United States Transportation Command (Scott AFB, Ill.: USTRANSCOM, April 1994), 23–24,

31.

10. DOD 4500.53, Transcript maintained at USTRANSCOM Research Center, Scott

AFB, Ill., 15 May 1987.

11. Richard B. Cheney, Washington, D.C., memorandum to the secretaries of the military departments and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), subj.: Strengthening Department of Defense Transportation Functions, 14 February 1992. Transcript maintained at USTRANSCOM Research Center, Scott AFB, Ill.

12. Ibid.

13. Staff report to the Committee on Armed Services US Senate, Defense Organization:

The Need for Change (Washington, D.C.: GPO, October 1985), 483.

14. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 103d Congress, 1st sess.,

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993), IX.

15. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.,

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1994),

149–150.

16. General Accounting Office, Defense Business Operations Fund Management Issues

Challenge Fund Implementation (Washington, D.C.: GPO, March 1995), 3.

17. USSTRANCOM, DTS 2015: Strategic Plan (Scott AFB, Ill.: USSTRANSCOM/TCJ5-

SP, February 1995), 5.

18. Basil B. Bates Jr., US Strategic Sealift Capability in 1994: Is it Ready for the Threat?

(Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, February 1994), 2–4.

19. Military Traffic Management Command, “Master Plan (Prototype),” 1 August 1994.

Transcript maintained at USTRANSCOM Research Center, Scott AFB, Ill.

20. Posture Statement Ronald R. Fogleman, 7.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid., 11.

23. AMC, 1996 Air Mobility Master Plan (Scott AFB, Ill.: Headquarters AMC/XP, October 1995), 5-2.

13
Chapter 3

The Process Today

How much am I willing to spend on . . . transportation?

—Charles J. Hitch and Roland N. McKean

––The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age

This chapter explains how the PPBS and the JROC deal with the vision,

goals, objectives, and tasks established in DTS: 2015. It analyzes the current process employed to fund the DTS. A study of the Air Force and Navy

approaches to the system follows an analysis of the three components of

the PPBS. Included is a discussion of the Air Force and Navy interface to

the JROC and a description of the JWCA process. By examining the managerial portion of the structure used to balance transportation capabilities

and requirements, this study identifies if and how modifications to this

process permit more effective leveraging of the capabilities.

The Planning, Programming,

and Budgeting System

Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara established the PPBS partly as an

attempt to put an end to duplicative spending by the services. This was a

reaction to the previous system in which the services simply submitted

unrelated budgets. There were numerous goals for this new system. In addition to decreasing wasteful spending, the PPBS sought to link national

strategic planning to the budgeting process. To accomplish these goals, the

PPBS introduced civilian cost-benefit techniques along with other quantitative systems for analyzing the budget. In order to fulfill the goal of reducing

duplicative spending, the PPBS sought to budget by functional versus service categories. This transition led to the establishment of MFP categories in

the budget process.1 These MFPs created broad mission areas under which

specific weapon system programs were categorized. The 10 original MFPs

are listed in table 1 below, along with the eleventh created in 1989 for

Special Operation Forces (SOP) under the authority of USSOCOM.

The major disconnect in the DOD budgeting process is the attempt to

budget along functional lines under an organizational structure centered

on the services. Even with the establishment of the MFPs there is no clear

method for ensuring that budgeting occurs across service lines. Without a

very strong secretary of defense the PPBS does not naturally force service

budgeting along functional lines. Each of the three parts of the PPBS

make it part of an iterative and cyclical process. It is cyclical because

every other year the budget is developed with direct reference to the last

15
budget as a baseline. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) adjusts

the former budget by publishing the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG)

with guidance for each of the services.2 Unless this guidance is very specific and directive it cannot overcome the momentum of the service priorities established in the previous Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). It

is interpreted by the services and results in a Program Objective

Memorandum (POM) reflecting service priorities, not functional priorities.`

The first step in the PPBS, planning, remains close to the goal of crossservice budgeting because of the high level from which it originates. It is,

however, where the cross goal begins to erode. The planning phase of the

PPBS is a complex integration of national objectives and fiscal guidance

from the president and the secretary of defense presented to the CJCS.

The chairman takes this guidance, and in coordination with the other

members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified commanders, begins

to develop national military objectives, strategy, recommended forces,

options, assessments, and evaluates risk.3 Since the guidance from the

secretary of defense is divided among the separate services for funding

execution, instead of being divided along MFP lines, the goal of functional

force structure planning is eroded. The guidance from the NCA in conjunction with the recommendations of the military leadership produces,

informally, the guidance and doctrines of each of the individual services.

This link from strategy to service guidance and doctrine provides the services a vehicle to communicate their requirements, which if met, permits

them to support the nation’s strategy. These service requirements justify

the development and maintenance of service programs but not necessarily along MFP lines.4 The connection between the planning phase of the

PPBS and the programming phase is the DPG.

16

MFP-1 Strategic Forces

MFP-2 General Purpose Forces

MFP-3 Intelligence and Communication

MFP-4 Airlift and Sealift

MFP-5 National Guard and Reserve Forces

MFP-6 Research and Development

MFP-7 Central Supply and Maintenance

MFP-8 Training, Medical, and Other

MFP-9 Administration

MFP-10 Support of other Nations

MFP-11 Special Operations

Table 1

DOD Major Force Programs
The programming phase continues the service-centered versus MFPcentered direction of the planning phase to the lower levels of each of the

services. Although it is service centered, there is an accountability mechanism through the requirement to respond to the CINC of the unified

commands integrated priority lists (IPL). The IPL is an annual responsibility for each of the unified commands; it addresses those items each

command feels require priority attention in the service’s POM.5 The

Goldwater-Nichols Defense Act established this procedure to give the

“warfighting” commands direct input to the programming process and

make the services responsive to the warfighter’s needs.6 This accountability feature is limited due to the unstructured nature of the IPLs and the

methods by which the services must respond.7 The programming phase

takes the output of the planning phase to develop requirements in terms

of equipment and budget to acquire the equipment. This phase of the

PPBS specifically deals with the development of a budget for a six-year

time frame. It uses economic forecasts and budget predictions to ensure

fiscal constraint in the service POM. The programming covers the 11

MFPs, five appropriations areas, and all of the services and defense agencies. Each service produces and submits a POM which the CJCS evaluates to determine how well it follows the guidance in the DPG. The full

POM is developed every other year on even years. The POM must address

the unified command priorities which are submitted prior to the start of

the PPBS cycle in the form of each unified commander’s IPL.8 The biennial programming phase leads into the budgeting phase which occurs

every year.

The budgeting phase is the short-term result of the planning and programming phases. Instead of economic forecasts, it uses current economic figures to determine the amount of money available to match the

programmed plan. This phase produces the DOD budget, which becomes

part of the president’s budget. Its focus is on the current year, the budget

year, and the budget year plus one. The services produce a budget estimate submission (BES) which is forwarded to the Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (comptroller). These are modified with a process of

program budget decisions (PBD) and service reclamation to become the

DOD budget.9 During non-POM years, a budget “drill” is conducted, starting with an amended BES.10 The outcome of this final step is a system

whose nature results in protecting programs along service lines and not

functional lines.

The budgeting phase highlights the service-centered nature of the PPBS

process. The short deadlines built into this phase cause it to reach a frenzied level of activity in order to address questions from the OSD or

Congress regarding programs. The pace of the budgeting phase causes the

system to fall back on its fundamental nature. The desire to protect programs in accordance with service priorities, not necessarily functional priorities, precludes it from achieving the original intent of the MFP process.

17
The Air Force and the Current System for Airlift

For mobility requirements the Air Force approach to the PPBS revolves

around AMC. AMC takes the planning guidance from the DPG through the

Air Staff and works with the baseline FYDP. AMC is responsible for specific program elements or subsets of a Major Force Program. AMC program elements come from MFP-4 (airlift and sealift programs).11 A program element identifies all forces and activities necessary to accomplish

the mission under the different MFPs.12

By focusing on the airlift portion of MFP-4 program elements, AMC, in

theory, does not concern itself with service priorities, only airlift or its

functional priorities. The people responsible for the programming at AMC

are the Program Element Monitor (PEM) and the program manager. The

PEM is the individual at AMC who is responsible for the program element.

This includes funding and scheduling problems for the program element.

The PEM is responsible to the AMC staff for all information concerning his

or her program element.13 The program managers provide functional

expertise from across the AMC staff on specific programs.14 The PEM uses

the baseline, derived from the previous budget cycle FYDP, to identify disconnects, initiatives, and offsets. A disconnect identifies a portion of a

program element which, because of funding problems, causes the program to be completed as planned. Initiatives add to the baseline plan by

increasing the funding of an existing program or by creating a new program. Offsets are excess funds which are taken from a program to pay for

disconnects, initiatives, or to decrease the overall budget.15

The AMC-centered system is not free from involvement with the larger

Air Force POM. The AMC PEM uses offsets, proposed in AMC, to develop

an AMC POM for submission to the Air Staff. The programmers at AMC

work with programmers at the Air Staff. Each program element has two

PEMs, one at the major commands (MAJCOM) and one at the Air Staff.

Having an AMC PEM is the command’s method to provide a focal point

representing AMC headquarters on its various program elements.

The Air Staff review process is a hierarchical system starting with the

PEMs from similar program elements defending their programs from one

another and progressing ultimately to a review by the secretary and chief

of staff of the Air Force. Mission or mission support panels combine

related program elements to integrate the POMs submitted by the

MAJCOMs. Currently there are five in each category. Examples of the mission panels include air superiority, power projection, and global mobility.

Examples of the mission support panels include logistics, installation

support, and personnel/training. Each panel is divided into integrated

process teams (IPT) which look at more specific tasks within the panel.16

The IPTs in the global mobility panel include tactical airlift, C-5, C-17, and

C-141 teams, in addition to others. The IPT team leaders are also the Air

Staff PEMs for the program element(s) that their IPT represents. The IPTs

18
have representatives from across the Air Staff much like an AMC PEM has

functional representatives from the entire AMC staff.17

The review process continues from the panels through the corporate

structure. The program that is developed cooperatively between the AMC

PEM and the Air Staff PEM for each mobility program element is compared to those of the other MAJCOM/Air Staff IPTs. Remaining disconnects and initiatives are initially resolved across panel boundaries by the

review and guidance of midlevel Air Staff leadership. Three bodies review

the panel submissions: the Air Force Group, the Air Force Board, and the

Air Force Council. The Air Force Group “serves the senior leadership as

the first corporate integrated review and evaluation of programs and

issues” and is composed of colonels or civilian equivalents from across the

functional areas of the Air Staff at the Pentagon.18 It is the lowest level

decision-making body. It relays its decisions and unresolved issues to the

Air Force Board, composed of brigadier generals, who review and resolve

issues from the group. The board forwards these to the Air Force Council

for its final review, approval, or amendment of the Air Force POM.19 Board

members, like group members, come from across the Air Staff including

expertise from Operations (XO), Acquisitions (AQ), Logistics (LG), and

Personnel (DP) staffs. The council is the highest level of review and is

chaired by the chief of staff.

In addition to the corporate structure described above, the Air Force

employs an Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC) as part of

its program review process. The AFROC’s primary responsibilities include

assessment of Air Force operational requirements, quality articulation of

these requirements, consistent documentation of the requirements, and

resolution of cross-service issues. The AFROC establishes the service’s

priorities to facilitate the review of the different programs by Air Force’s

corporate structure.20

The Air Staff review process erodes the functional, airlift, focus of the

AMC proposed POM in three ways. The first involves initiatives, disconnects, and offsets. If AMC identifies an internal offset, it is not necessarily used to fund disconnects or initiatives within the AMC proposed POM.

Once an offset is offered, the Air Staff determines which program element

initiatives or disconnects from all of the MAJCOMs it is used to fund. This

directly impacts the second way that the Air Staff process erodes the functional nature of the programming process. The second point is that the Air

Staff level comparison of the different functional areas essentially compares apples to oranges within the service. Above the mobility panel level,

mobility programs are compared to non-mobility programs and the offsets

are used across panel boundaries. The third point that causes erosion of

the functional focus is the membership at all the levels of the Air Force

corporate structure. None of the mobility panel IPTs include membership

from AMC. The implementation plan of the Enhanced Air Force Corporate

Structure does not specifically preclude MAJCOM membership, but there

are no AMC members on the mobility program IPTs.21 The panel, board

19
and council consist strictly of Air Staff members. This reflects the servicecentered nature of the budgeting process which results in service, not

functional, priorities prevailing.

Navy and the Current System for Sealift

The Navy approach to functional programming is different from the Air

Force but has the same natural weaknesses. The Navy approach to functional input and programming centers around the Office of Chief of Naval

Operations (CNO) level. The Navy has claimants and resource sponsors.

Claimants are the commands or agencies that submit funding requirements to the CNO for different programs. For strategic sealift there are

three primary claimants: the Navy fleets, MSC, and the MARAD from the

Department of Transportation. The Navy fleets are the claimants responsible for the maritime pre-positioning ships. MSC is responsible for the

Fast Sealift Ships and MARAD is responsible for the Ready Reserve Fleet

operations and maintenance (O&M) funding.22 There is one office responsible for funding sealift programs, CNO/N42, a division of CNO/N4, the

Navy logistics directorate. The various sealift claimants send funding

requirements to N42 which then submits a sealift POM to N4. N4 submits

its integrated logistics POM to N81. N81 is the assessment division of the

Navy’s resources, warfare requirements, and assessments directorate.

This division balances the different POMs from the various Navy directorates to develop the overall Navy POM.23 N81 is similar to the Air Force

Group as the Navy’s lowest level of POM integration. Like the Air Force the

Navy programs along functional lines, but the review process likewise

dilutes any functional perspective.

The Navy attains its functional approach through wargaming and a

matrix assessment concept. The Navy wargames determine broad programming targets for the different offices, including N42. It accomplishes

this by looking at 12 assessment areas similar to the JWCA areas which

are discussed later. One area is maritime support of land forces, roughly

corresponding to the Strategic Mobility and Sustainment area in the

JWCA process. During wargaming requirements for each assessment area

is established for the various scenarios of the wargame. These requirements are translated into budgetary targets to fiscally constrain N42’s

budget submission. This wargame and assessment matrix process is used

in conjunction with the previous FYDP, DPG and Navy programming guidance to analyze disconnects, initiatives, and offsets similar to the Air

Force.24 The limitations imposed on this functional approach are the same

as the limitations which result from the Air Force process. First, offsets

that are identified by N42 can be used Navy-wide. The exception to this

are programs that are funded by the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF)

which, by law, cannot be used for programs other than sealift programs.

Second, the Navy process also compares apples to oranges when develop20
ing its POM. Lastly, the claimants that define the requirements are not

involved in the review process.

PPBS Section Summary

There are three important aspects of PPBS and the Air Force and Navy

roles. First, the PPBS is service centered. Although the program elements

are funded under the auspices of cross-service major force programs,

each service is responsible for its traditional program elements of the MFP.

There is not one lead agent responsible for a MFP. Second, although the

Air Force and Navy approach is different, there are also great similarities.

Both use the baseline FYDP and program guidance to identify disconnects, initiatives, and offsets. The Air Force and Navy both also use a hierarchical system to resolve unsettled issues within each individual service.

The Air Force does this at both the MAJCOM level and at the Air Staff

level. The Navy does this only at the CNO level. The result of this in-service

hierarchical review process is that they both compare transportation programs against other Air Force or Navy programs, not against other transportation programs. There is a requirement to compare transportation

programs to non-transportation programs, but this proposal suggests

that it should occur after the transportation system is integrated. This

point is discussed further in the last chapter. Lastly, although both the Air

Force and Navy POMs must address each of the unified commander’s priority items, it does not integrate the system nor is its scope very broad

because of the need to limit the number of priorities. The IPL is limited

because a CINC must decide what is truly a priority and what is not. For

example, USTRANSCOM limits its IPL items to 10 major items with

numerous subitems for each. Although the service must explain how they

address the IPL items, this does not necessarily reflect the way that the

Unified Command would like to see them addressed. The JROC is another

way that the CINCs have impact on the budgeting process and is examined in the next section.

JROC and Transportation

The JROC attempts to direct the programming process along functional

lines. However, this attempt is limited by the nature of the programming

process. The JROC evolved from the Joint Requirements and Management

Board (JRMB) that was similar to the current council but with a revolving

board chairman. Although similar in form, in substance the JROC is

much more powerful. The JROC consists of the vice chief of staff of the

Army, vice chief of naval operations, the vice chief of staff of the Air Force,

and the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, just as the JRMB. In

1986 the Goldwater-Nichols Act created the office of the vice chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff and made him the chairman of the now renamed

JROC. The most recent change is the codification of the JROC charter in

21
the 1996 Defense Authorization Act.25 The overarching purpose of the

JROC is to cut across service lines and analyze requirements and acquisition programs with a joint perspective. This is similar to one of the original motivations behind Secretary McNamara’s PPBS. The JROC differs in

that it provides military oversight versus civilian oversight.26

The impact of the JROC on joint perspective budgeting is now more tangible because of recent changes. Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Adm William Owens, significantly influenced the role of the JROC by instituting four major changes in the JROC.27 The first increased the time

spent by the members on JROC business. The second created the JWCA

process. Next, the JROC became involved in the publication of the chairman’s program assessment (CPA) and the creation and involvement with

the chairman’s program recommendations (CPR). Lastly, he formalized

the communication between the JROC and the commanders of the unified

commanders.28

Admiral Owens made these changes to help the JROC fulfill its mission

of assisting the chairman. The JROC charter specifically states that the

mission of the JROC is to assist the chairman and the vice chairman in

11 different tasks. The tasks that are most directly related to this thesis,

in the order that they appear in the charter, are as follows:

• Assess military requirements for defense acquisition programs.

• Spokesman for the commanders of the combatant commands on

operational requirements.

• Assign a joint priority among major programs meeting valid requirements.

• Assess the extent program recommendations and budget proposals of

Military Departments and DOD components conform with established priorities.

• Assist the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in carrying out

his responsibilities as Vice Chairman of the Defense Acquisition

Board (DAB).

• Identify, evaluate, and designate potential candidates for joint acquisition programs.

• Resolve cross-Service requirements issues.29

The JROC exists to build consensus among the services on functional

issues in the acquisition process. It also represents the unified commanders in the PPBS process. The JROC uses the JWCA process to accomplish

these missions. The JWCA uses a matrix process to cut across service,

agency and OSD lines in broad functional areas similar to the MFP areas

established with the PPBS in 1961.30 The JWCA consists of 10 functional

assessment areas with representation from the various defense organizations. The MFP and JWCA are not identical; they do, however, share one

common purpose permit budgeting along functional versus service lines.

The differences result from civilian versus the military perspectives. The

similarities are evident in the MFP-4 and the strategic mobility relation22
ship––also in the intelligence and communication (MFP-3) and the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance JWCA area relationship. The different

assessment areas and the participants are shown in figure 7. The primary

area of concern for USTRANSCOM is the strategic mobility and sustainability assessment area. The strategic mobility and sustainability area is

sponsored by the Joint Staff under J-4.

The JWCA attempts to cause functionally centered budgeting during the

input and the output stages of the PPBS. The CPR is the CJCS input to the

secretary of defense for the DPG. The CPA assesses the individual service

POMs to determine if they followed the recommendations in the CPR. The

CPR is the chairman’s input at the beginning of the PPBS. It represents the

unified commanders and the joint staff on the specific issues covered in the

JWCA process. The CPA is the chairman’s assessment of the output of the

PPBS. It not only assesses but recommends changes to the service POMs

23

J8

J8

J4

J8

J5

J6

J8/J3

J2

J5

J1/J3/J7

DOD

Agencies

Joint Services OSD CINCs

Staff

Others

Joint Readiness

Regional Engagement/Presence

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

Information Warfare

Command Control

Strike

Land and Littoral

Strategic Mobility and Sustainability

Sea, Air and Space Superiority

Deter/Counter Proliferation of WMD

Figure 7. Joint War-fighting Capability Assessment
as advice to the OSD before the POM is forwarded to the president. During

each of these cycles, specific issues are addressed and answered in such a

way that the product becomes part of either the CPR or the CPA. Issues

studied by the assessment areas can come from numerous agencies. The

CINCs are the primary source of current JWCA issues. The issues for an

upcoming JROC are identified in a contract brief. The contract brief from

the JWCA assessment area teams informs the JROC what issues the

upcoming JWCA cycle will address. The contract brief identifies the issue

and identifies the responsibilities of the different participants which leads

to resolution of the issue. An action officer (AO) study team is constituted

from the different representatives of the JWCA matrix. Each study team

has members assigned by their different organizations to participate on the

team. The AO study teams consist of core members and supporting members. The core members are the service’s representatives from the

Pentagon. The supporting members come from the major or unified commands and provide requested technical expertise.

Direct input to the CPA and the CPR give the study teams authority to

determine the course of the particular issue which they address. Each

issue is resolved with a “deliverable” that answers the question or offers a

solution to resolve the problem. The deliverable is briefed to the unified

commanders prior to the JROC briefing.31 The deliverables can become a

part of the CPR or the CPA and hence also the DPG.

JROC Section Summary

The JROC/JWCA and the IPL are the only inputs that the CINC, the

chairman, or the vice chairman have into the services’ POM process. The

JWCA process has a significant effect but is limited in scope because of

the size of the joint staff and the size of the task. The joint staff is limited

by law to 1,627 military and civilian members.32 It is impossible for this

small number of people to look at all of the operations in the 10 assessment areas which could be candidates for joint review. Because of its relatively small size, the joint staff relies on the services for the manpower

and the expertise in the different areas being evaluated. These service

members not only serve on the JWCA study teams but are actively

involved in their respective service POM development––some are the PEMs

for service programs. This creates the awkward situation of asking team

members to wear a joint hat for the JWCA study team and then a service

hat for the service IPT. Because of the limited scope and the potential for

conflict of interests for the service members, the JWCA is unlikely to look

at the DTS as an integrated whole. It is effective for reviewing isolated

problems, but this structure does not naturally lead to an integrated system.

The JWCA process does review important, yet isolated issues. However,

because of its small size or its’ structure, it does not or cannot integrate

the separate components and missions of the DTS. The study teams in the

24
strategic mobility assessment area do not have a formal method of cross

flow. The strategic mobility “tree” consists of the strategic mobility “trunk”

with airlift, sealift, and prepositioning main “branches.” There are numerous smaller branches from each of these main branches but no definitive

mechanism to connect the smaller branches to determine common problems or solutions. An example of this is the material handling equipment

(MHE) under the airlift branch. Similar equipment issues exist under the

sealift main branch within the Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS)

subbranch. Both of these study areas address transshipment problems

but do not formally interface with each other. Neither the JROC nor the

current PPBS effectively leverage transportation capabilities; the following

section describes the effects of the budgeting process on transportation.

Current Process in Action

In order for the DTS to function, it must meet the goals described in

chapter 2. For airlift this included specific modernization programs such

as the procurement of the 60K loader and the C-17. Sealift modernization

programs include procurement of additional LMSRO/RO ships and funding for the Ready Reserve Fleet ships. Examining the procurement of the

60K loader and the Ready Reserve Fleet issues highlight the imperfections

of the current system.

The Air Force approach to procuring additional MHE highlights the problem of acquiring basic transportation infrastructure in a service-centered

procurement process. The average 40K loader is 23 years old; the original

life span was predicted to be eight years. The fleet is nearly unsupportable

due to constant maintenance problems, and recent intense use has led to

metal fatigue and frame cracks. A replacement strategy for the aging fleet

of 60,000-pound capable aircraft loaders was identified by the Military

Airlift Command (MAC) in mid-1980s. The first of 318 new 60K loaders will

arrive at their destination in 1996.33 This delay was influenced by the

inability of MAC and AMC to elevate the priority of these systems until it

was almost too late. MHE is now a JWCA and a USTRANSCOM IPL item

and receives elevated priority; this reflects the belated nature of the current program to replace the current aging equipment.

The MRS and MRS/BURU recommended 36 RO/RO in reduced operating status for the Ready Reserve Fleet. Only 31 of these ships have been

added to the fleet; the last five are still being debated. Fiscal year (FY)

1993 authorizations created the NDSF in order to encourage the Navy to

obligate funds for these five ships. The Navy is not totally responsible for

the lack of these ships, as Congress is restricting the purchase of these

ships to US builders. The end result is that the current system has not

completed the purchase of ships called for in the MRS and the

MRS/BURU.

Both of these programs became issues for JWCA study teams. The

JWCA helped ensure that the 60K loader program progressed to its current point but could not affect the status of the Ready Reserve Fleet. The

25
60K loader shows the JWCA’s ability to influence change but only after

the fact. In the case of the Ready Reserve Fleet, the Navy and congressional debate over how to proceed with the funding continues to delay the

purchase of final ships.

Chapter Summary

Because the current PPBS is service centered it does not permit integration of the total DTS. Transportation is a core competency of all the

services; but because of its multiuser nature, it is not naturally the core

competency of any of the services. The services choose assets which support the missions that are most fundamental to their nature against those

which are fundamental to everyone. This puts them in the position of

choosing between apples and oranges––F-22s versus C-17s or warships

versus LMSRs. The submission of IPLs from the unified commands helps

the service make these difficult decisions, but it is high-level input and

does not remove the need of the service to make the choice.

The JROC, and especially the JWCA, attempted to accomplish what the

PPBS originally intended, except from within the military establishment.

Its functional or mission-area approach and its ability to directly influence

the CPR, CPA, and the DPG make it a strong tool. However, much like the

IPLs, it is a band-aid approach designed to fix problems after the fact

instead of ensuring that the DTS is healthy from the start. Until an integrated approach, comparing transportation systems against transportation systems, is established, the ability to fully leverage the limited transportation assets available to the nation will not be recognized.

Notes

1. Staff report to the Committee on Armed Services United States Senate, Defense

Organization: The Need For Change (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office [GPO],

October 1985), 485.

2. Armed Forces Staff College Pub 1: The Joint Staff Officer’s Guide 1993 (Norfolk, Va.:

National Defense University, Armed Forces Staff College, 1993) 5–9, 5–16, 5–34.

3. Joint Staff, Director for Operational Plans and Interoperability, Joint Pub 5-0,

Doctrine for Planning Joint Operations, Washington, D.C., 13 April 199,) II-2, 3.

4. The link between service doctrine and the budgeting process is not a formal portion

of the joint strategic planning system and planning, programming and budgeting system.

Statements of the national military strategy are used, within each service, to promote particular programs which each service believes, from their perspective, best accomplishes

this strategy.

5. AMC describes the POM in the following manner: “The Service, Defense Agencies,

and USSOCOM submit POMs to SECDEF biennially. The POMs propose military department and defense agency total program requirements for the next six years and include

rationale for planned changes from the approved FYDP baseline within OSD Fiscal

Guidance.” This is different from a budget estimate submission (BES) which is described

in the following manner: “The BES is a re-costing of the POM as modified by the Program

Decision Memorandum (PDM). Fact-of-Life adjustments, including congressional actions

impacting POM and PDM positions, are made in accordance with OSD direction.” HQ

26
AMC/XPPP, Program Element Monitor and Program Managers’ Handbook, A “How To”

Guide for AMC Programmers (Scott AFB, Ill.: HQ AMC, 7 July 1995), A-6, A-2.

6. As cited in Lawrence C. Crockett, Joint Commanders and Budget Authority (Fort

McNair, Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1992), III–2.

7. Ibid., III–6–III–8.

8. AFSC PUB 1, 5-10—5-14.

9. Ibid., 5-14—16.

10. Program Element Monitor and Program Managers’ Handbook, A “How To” Guide for

AMC Programmers, 2.

11. AMC is responsible for the program elements which cover general purpose tanker

forces, MFP-2 program elements. There are also guard and reserve (MFP-5) airlift forces

for which AMC is responsible.

12. Program Element Monitor and Program Managers’ Handbook, 3.

13. Ibid., 4, 11.

14. Ibid., 4.

15. Ibid., 3–4.

16. Department of the Air Force, The Enhanced Air Force Corporate Structure,

Implementation (Washington, D.C.: AF/PE, November 1995), 4-6.

17. Maj Greg Parker, Air Force HQ/XOFM Global Mobility Panel POC, interview by

author, 18 March 1996.

18. The Enhanced Air Force Corporate Structure, Implementation, 3.

19. Ibid., 3–4.

20. Brig Gen David J. McCloud, “Charter of the Air Force Requirements Oversight

Council,” September 1995.

21. Ibid., 2–16.

22. Comdr Robert Drash, HQ Navy/N42, interview by the author, Washington, D.C., 19

March 1996.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996,” on-line, Internet, 23

February 1996, available from

http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/4?c104:./temp/~c104CF2s:e769827:

26. Office of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, JROC: Planning in a

Revolutionary Era (Washington, D.C.: DNA Printing Plant, 1996), 20–22.

27. Ibid., 2–5.

28. Ibid., 10–12.

29. Memorandum from the Office of the Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “MCM-14-

95, Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council” (Washington, D.C.: Office of the

Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 7 February 1995), 1–2.

30. Michael D. Burnes, The History, Concepts and Phases of the PPBS (Washington,

D.C.: Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency, 25 August 1992), 2.

31. Comdr Rick Bush, Joint Staff J4, interview by the author, 18 February 1996.

32. AFSC PUB 1, 2-13.

33. Air Mobility Command, 1996 Air Mobility Master Plan (Scott AFB, Ill.: HQ AMC/XP,

October 1995), 5–54, 55.

27
Chapter 4

The Proposed Process

A nation which excuses its own failures by the sacred untouchableness of its own

habits can excuse itself into complete disaster.

—George Kennan

––American Diplomacy

The proposed system eliminates the need for the services to compare

apples to oranges. Various attempts at creating greater budget authority

for the DTS included the creation of PPBS and the JWCA. These changes

sought to cut across service lines in order to create a truly integrated DTS.

These attempts and others like them are diluted because it is the nature

of services to ensure their primary mission is funded. A next step is to

grant USTRANSCOM the authority for developing and executing an integrated POM. This proposal moves the Title 10 equipment responsibilities

for transportation assets from the services to USTRANSCOM. The services, however, maintain their organization and training responsibilities.

The following chapters analyze possible problems and organizational

seams created by this change. Making a modification to the managerial

portion of the structure, supporting the transportation balance, enables

USTRANSCOM to leverage capabilities against requirements.

The New PPBS for Transportation

The proposed system is not service centered. USTRANSCOM becomes

the sole responsible organization for equipping MFP-4 program elements.

The PPBS planning process changes in that the USTRANSCOM responsibilities for the DPG are expanded. The PPBS programming portion

changes more significantly. Under this proposal, USTRANSCOM issues

guidance to the TCCs and the TCCs, use MFP-4 programs to develop a

FYDP baseline. Programming for AMC and MSC is described in the next

two sections of this chapter. Programming for MTMC is not described in

detail because approximately 88 percent of MTMC funding is derived from

the Defense Business Operating Fund for Transportation (DBOF-T) which

is already managed by USTRANSCOM and is described in greater detail in

the next chapter.1

The proposed system establishes a review process to compare transportation systems to transportation systems in order to determine priorities. The proposed corporate review structure at USTRANSCOM settles

issues between the three TCCs that arise during POM development.

Mission panels, mission support panels, and imbedded IPTs, similar to

29
those found now at the Air Staff, would reside at each TCC. For example,

an airlift panel would reside at AMC; and a similar sealift panel would

reside at MSC. Mission and mission support panels would reside at each

component, or if they are generic to all the TCCs, be combined at

USTRANSCOM. Members of the IPTs would include representatives from

the TCCs, USTRANSCOM, the unified commands, and affected civilian

agencies. USTRANSCOM would create levels of review along the lines of

the current Air Force Group, Board, and Council.2

USTRANSCOM, not the services, would defend its transportation specific BES in the budgeting phase of this proposed system. The short

responses required during the buildup to the BES translates to increased

USTRANSCOM presence in the Pentagon.3

The new system relies on wargaming and mobility requirement studies to

establish transportation priorities. Similar to the Navy and the JWCA, a

USTRANSCOM matrix review uses wargame results to examine different

transportation assessment areas. This matrix review forces a system wide

look at the different functions within the transportation system. The different USTRANSCOM staff organizations would review the wargame or studybased requirements and determine which transportation assessment area

requires priority. This prioritization translates into planning guidance from

USTRANSCOM to its components. This guidance establishes a fiscal ceiling

under which the programmers from the components work.

The proposed USTRANSCOM POM naturally incorporates both

USTRANSCOM’s IPL items and the other unified commands’ transportationspecific IPL items. As a supporting command legally responsible to all the

unified commands, the transportation priorities of the other unified commands are addressed in the USTRANSCOM IPL. This is not different from

what occurs today. The supported commands, traditionally the geographic

commands, influence the transportation requirements used in wargames

and requirements studies by setting force-level requirements. These requirements form the foundation of the USTRANSCOM IPL. A USTRANSCOM

POM addresses these transportation IPL items not from a single service or

single medium perspective but from an integrated DTS perspective. Today

these transportation IPL items are addressed in three different service POMs

and integrated after-the-fact with the JROC/JWCA process.

Air Mobility Command and

the New PPBS for Airlift

Under this proposal AMC continues its role in programming for airlift.

Program elements that AMC is currently responsible for would continue

under AMC programmers. AMC program element monitors (PEM) continue as program advocates using the expertise from the command’s program managers.4 The PEM continues to use the baseline FYDP to identify

disconnects and initiatives. These would be resolved internally. Unlike the

30
current system, AMC identified offsets would be used at the

USTRANSCOM level to fund other transportation initiatives and disconnects. This encourages USTRANSCOM to find internal offsets to fund initiatives, unlike the current system which punishes the command by funding initiatives or disconnects outside of its core competency.

The AMC PEM is the only PEM; there is no Air Staff or USTRANSCOM

equivalent position. Instead of dealing with an Air Staff PEM, the AMC PEM

deals with a POM integrator at USTRANSCOM J5 or J8. This is similar to

the current Navy process which takes N42 inputs first to the N4 level for

Navy logistical budget integration and then to N81 for overall Navy budget

integration. In this new process AMC would integrate the airlift budget and

then would work with USTRANSCOM J8 to integrate it with the sealift and

MTMC budgets. This would be an iterative process much like it is today. In

this new managerial structure most of the Air Staff mobility programming

jobs are not required. New positions at USTRANSCOM J8 are required to

integrate the TCC POMs; but like the additional Pentagon positions, they

are offset by the fewer Air Staff positions.

Military Sealift Command and

the New PPBS for Sealift

The current Navy structure requires significant changes to implement

this proposed plan for sealift. The Navy’s current PPBS system is centered

around the CNO staff instead of MSC. Under the proposed system, MSC

requires a full programming office. The manning for this would come from

the current programmers at the CNO N42. MSC also gains the additional

sealift program elements that are not currently under MSC operational

control. They are, however, under programming responsibility of N42;

therefore, the N42 multiuser program elements migrate to MSC. Some

single-user sealift programs––for example, the Navy Fleet Auxiliary

Forces––would remain under the naval programming umbrella.

With the proposed system in place, MSC develops a POM with guidance

and integration from USTRANSCOM. MSC creates IPTs for each of the different programs under the sealift panel. This sealift panel represents the

MSC proposed POM to USTRANSCOM/J8 and the newly created

USTRANSCOM corporate review structure. Sealift PEMs continue to advocate their programs, identify disconnects and initiatives, and resolve them

internally when possible. They accomplish this within MSC and

USTRANSCOM. Offsets would go to any of the USTRANSCOM identified

initiatives and disconnects.

PPBS Section Summary

This proposal clearly places the authority for equipping the DTS under

the command that has the responsibility for its operation. Unlike today’s

31
system this authority is scattered among the services, none of whom have

complete responsibility. The changes required to implement a new

USTRANSCOM centered PPBS system for transportation forces are significant but not insurmountable. Political and service opposition is a different subject than the technical challenges of this managerial change, and

these are elaborated upon in chapter 6. USTRANSCOM would require

more people to aid in the integration of the component POMs and a corporate review process. AMC would not require any more people; it would

only need to start receiving programming guidance from USTRANSCOM.

MSC would require the most change; but the programmers at N42 would

migrate from the Navy to MSC and continue their responsibility for the

same program elements that they currently advocate. In short, the change

is big but not overwhelming.

JROC and Its Role in the New Process

The JROC is no longer required to build consensus between the services for transportation force decisions. It continues to fulfill its role of representing the various unified commands to the services. This role, however, is minimized because of USTRANSCOM’s need to fulfill the

requirements of the unified commands. USTRANSCOM budget authority

enhances the JROC’s ability to assess the joint military requirements and

capabilities by presenting a POM that is already integrated. The

JROC/JWCA process currently is the military tool for integrating the separate services inputs to the DTS. The original intent of the PPBS and the

JROC was to integrate separate service POMs along functional lines.

USTRANSCOM centered budget authority answers this programming

dilemma for transportation.

The need for the JROC and JWCA, however, continues to exist for four

reasons. First, the need to balance capabilities and requirements that

cross service boundaries remains for other assessment areas and MFPs.

Second, the JROC remains as the military-led accountability tool for all of

the POMs, including USTRANSCOM’s. Third, the USTRANSCOM POM

remains subject to recommendations submitted by the chairman by way

of the DPG. Finally, the JROC/JWCA also assesses the transportation

POM to ensure that it addresses IPL items and JWCA issues. The last

function is minimized because of the nature of USTRANSCOM as a supporting command and the transportation integration resulting from the

proposed process.

With budget authority, USTRANSCOM as a supporting command can

accomplish or assist in the accomplishment of the separate tasks

assigned to the JROC in its charter. It enhances the JROC as it analyzes

transportation requirements and programs by providing a joint viewpoint

at the onset of the programming cycle. The mission tasks are listed below

with a discussion of how USTRANSCOM in its new role would enhance the

JROC accomplishment of these tasks.

32
• Assess military requirements for defense acquisition programs.

Under currently established war games and mobility simulations,

with the budget centered under USTRANSCOM, USTRANSCOM

remains the focal point for establishing transportation requirements

by way of the unified commands force requirements.

• As spokesman for the commanders of the combatant commands on

operational requirements.

With the proposed process, USTRANSCOM becomes the single

spokesman for the other combatant commanders’ transportation

requirements. USTRANSCOM currently has the responsibility for this

portion of the JROC mission. The proposed budget process gives

authority to fulfill these requirements.

• Assign a joint priority among major programs meeting valid requirements.

Under the proposed process, the JROC still accomplishes this part of

its mission. Major transportation programs require priority against

other major defense programs. USTRANSCOM is the single-voice

advocate for its programs, but they still require justification and balance against other important DOD programs. For smaller programs,

USTRANSCOM would prioritize internally.

• Assess the extent program recommendations and budget proposals of

Military Departments and DOD components conform with established

priorities.

This JROC mission continues with the proposed process in place. Like

it does for the service budgets, the JROC adds a layer of military-led

accountability. The USTRANSCOM proposed POM requires a check and

balance prior to its submittal to the Secretary of Defense. The JROC

process provides this in the form of the CPA.

• Assist the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in carrying out his

responsibilities as Vice Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Board

(DAB).

Under the proposed system USTRANSCOM provides a unified and

fully integrated transportation view for the VCJCS to carry forward to

the DAB.

• Identify, evaluate, and designate potential candidates for joint acquisition programs.

As the single authority for the DTS, USTRANSCOM works with the

services and the other combatant commands to recommend nontransportation acquisition programs that minimize the transportation

requirements or enhance the capabilities that exist. Because of the

scope of the current JROC it can only do this to a limited extent.

• Resolve cross-service requirements issues.5

USTRANSCOM, with budget authority, greatly assists the JROC in

fulfilling this part of its mission for transportation requirements. It

does this across service and across unified command lines. As a sup33
porting command its focus is to support all the CINCs and their

OPLANs. USTRANSCOM cannot support one CINC or service more

than the others, it is legally obligated to support all the CINCs, as

directed by the NCA.6

JROC and the New PPBS Section Summary

A USTRANSCOM centered system does not eliminate the need for the

JROC. Because the new system permits an integrated approach to the

DTS, in concert with the JROC’s ability to investigate high interest items,

it makes the JROC more effective. The JROC remains a vital part of the

transportation portion of the PPBS system. Its role in transportation

forces is minimized in some aspects and enhanced in others. Consensus

between the services is not required, but representation for the other unified commands is still an important role. Its transportation integration

function is minimized, but it still makes recommendation for the DPG and

assesses the service, USTRANSCOM and USSOCOM POMs. It is also the

military accountability process as well as the authority for integrating the

various POMs.

The New PPBS in Action

The previous chapter briefly examined two examples, the Air Force 60K

loader and the Navy’s Ready Reserve Fleet RO/RO ships, to describe how

the current PPBS system affects the DTS. Both of these programs are critical for USTRANSCOM to meet the current and future needs of the unified

commands. The proposed process allows USTRANSCOM to flow these programs into a transportation POM, balancing major programs in some

years with smaller programs in others. The proposed process still requires

the CPR and the CPA to balance these against the other DOD programs.

But the proposal permits USTRANSCOM to plan and budget for the maintenance of this diverse system.

Chapter Summary

This chapter described the proposed budgeting system for transportation. The proposed change centers the budgeting process for equipping

the DTS under USTRANSCOM. It does not eliminate these services but

organize and train functions of the transportation component commands

program while USTRANSCOM develops a review process to integrate and

prioritize the separate POMs. This integrated transportation POM is forwarded to the DOD for further integration with the remaining POMs. The

JROC process still makes recommendations for the DPG and assesses the

USTRANSCOM POM, but its role of building consensus among the services with respect to transportation issues is eliminated. The JROC con34
tinues to act as an accountability tool and as the unified commands representative.

The next chapter studies examples of budget authority under a unified

commander. It explores the reasoning and the success of these examples.

It examines cases of both total budget authority and limited budget

authority and argues a substantive precedent exists for further

USTRANSCOM budget authority.

Notes

1. “Military Traffic Management Command, Master Plan (Prototype).” Transcript maintained at USTRANSCOM Research Center, Scott Air Force Base (AFB), Ill., 1 August 1994,

5.

2. Department of the Air Force, The Enhanced Air Force Corporate Structure

Implementation (Washington, D.C.: AF/PE, November 1995), 2–4.

3. There are currently two full-time USTRANSCOM people at the Pentagon, one colonel

and one secretary.

4. Headquarters AMC/XPPP, Program Element Monitor and Program Managers’

Handbook, A “How To” Guide for AMC Programmers (Scott AFB, Ill.: Headquarters AMC, 7

July 1995), 4–5.

5. Memorandum from the Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, MCM-14-95,

subj.: Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Washington, D.C., 7 February

1995, 1–2.

6. Joint Staff, Director for Operational Plans and Interoperability, Joint Pub 0-2, Unified

Action Armed Forces (UNAAF), Washington, D.C., 24 February 1995, III–10.

35
Chapter 5

Precedence and Indicators

If you look at the service programs historically, you’ll see that they don’t change

very much or very fast in their emphasis. The traditional core will get funded, first

and foremost, then the programs that are peripheral to individual services core

interests, missions and traditions compete for resources that are left.

—Noel Koch

Today, the managerial component of the structure used to balance

transportation requirements against capabilities is centered around the

separate Services, as described in chapter 3. Centering this programming

component of the “balancing act” around USTRANSCOM results in the

process described in chapter 4. USSOCOM is an example of a military

function, special operations, that has done this already. It effectively

shifted the managerial portion of a similar balance in order to permit

greater leverage of limited capabilities against multiuser requirements.

Additionally, there are examples within the current DTS of limited budget

authority for USTRANSCOM. These are restrained attempts in the transportation function to effect this same kind of change. This chapter examines these two examples, USSOCOM budget authority and

USTRANSCOM’s limited budget authority, to answer four questions.

1. Can implementation of budget authority be successful?

2. What are some of the problems involved with implementation of

budget authority?

3. Do the examples demonstrate that budget authority actually

resulted in a better integrated force, evidence of greater leverage?

4. Can the reasoning used to grant USTRANSCOM’s current limited

budget authority be served as well or better by the proposed process?

Answering these questions addresses two broader issues surrounding

the proposed solution to the DTS balancing problem. The first question is

about feasibility, and answering the second provides a qualitative assessment of the proposal.

US Special Operations Command Budget Authority

USSOCOM, as a separate command, was and still is a contentious

issue. Its creation occurred in the defense reform years of the mid-1980s;

but the roots of the debate go back to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. The

Desert One accident, however, provided the impetus for the creation of

this unique command.1 The impetus behind the proposed USTRANSCOM

budgetary modifications is less dramatic than that which created USSOCOM; and the changes to our current command structure are less severe

37
than the creation of a new unified command, but the significance for the

DOD is no less important.

Studying the history of the creation of USSOCOM and its acquisition of

budget authority offers useful insights regarding the implementation of

USTRANSCOM budget authority. Examining the congressional committee

hearings and legislation indicates the contention surrounding the creation

of USSOCOM and the issue of it gaining budget authority. The following

examination of the USSOCOM creation outlines lessons which aid in

deciding if a similar policy change is useful for the DTS.

• Lesson One: The proposed policy implementation is less ambitious than

the creation of USSOCOM.

Three laws spell out the history of the creation of USSOCOM and the

issue of its budget authority clearly. The first, Public Law (PL) 99-661, the

Cohen-Nunn amendment, was the original legislation creating the command. In addition to establishing a unified combatant command responsible for SOF, it formed a board for low-intensity conflict within the NSC.

It created the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special

Operations and low-intensity conflict (ASD SO/LIC), and established a

MFP-11 for SOF programs. The law also established a SOF commander in

the US European Command, US Pacific Command and any other geographic command that the secretary of defense deemed appropriate.2

USTRANSCOM is already a combatant command and MFP-4 covers the

program elements the command is responsible for now and that do not

change in the proposed process. There is no position in the OSD for transportation. This may be required, depending on the degree of support that

transportation receives once this proposal is implemented.

• Lesson Two: Head of Agency status for USTRANSCOM is simpler due

to the existence of MFP-4.

In reaction to the perception DOD was dragging their feet on the creation of the USSOCOM, Congress enacted PL 100-180. The authors of this

second law drew this perception from the original vehement reaction

against forming the command and the unwillingness of the DOD to

appoint an appropriate ASD SO/LIC.3 PL 100-180 mandated several

changes. First, it made the ASD SO/LIC the principal civilian adviser to

the secretary of defense on special operations and low-intensity conflict.

Second, it required the secretary of defense to publish an ASD SO/LIC

charter. Next, it designated the secretary of the Army as the acting ASD

SO/LIC until an appropriate candidate was found by the DOD. Finally, PL

100-180 gave the CINC USSOCOM head of agency authority. This last

step provided the commander in chief of special operations command

(CINCSOC) the same authority over acquisition and procurement as a

service secretary. All of these facilitated the implementation of MFP-11.4

Of the four changes legislatively mandated for USSOCOM, only designating the CINC of US Transportation Command (CINCUSTRANSCOM) as a

head of agency is required under this proposal.

38
• Lesson Three: Programming responsibilities in the proposed process

are clearer due to the existence of MFP-4 prior to the establishment of

budget authority.

Lingering confusion regarding the degree of programming authority that

USSOCOM should possess resulted in PL 100-456 less then a year after

PL 100-180. PL 100-456 prescribed that USSOCOM prepare a SOF POM.

The law also stated the POM include programming for the SOF assigned

to the other unified commands.5 The 1988 law intended that USSOCOM

assume these budgetary responsibilities as soon as possible but not later

then 1992.6 The combination of these laws made the intent of the

Congress abundantly clear and USSOCOM operates in accordance with

these laws today. A smoother transition with regard to programming

responsibilities is possible for USTRANSCOM because of MFP-4. USSOCOM,

however, was a newly created command that had to develop a POM and

determine in reluctant coordination with the services what program elements belonged in that POM.

• Lesson Four: The proposed system employs experienced MFP-4 programmers to ease the transition.

Once USSOCOM’s responsibilities were established by law, there were

still problems with implementation; but these problems should not effect

USTRANSCOM implementation to the same degree. These problems

stemmed from the lack of personnel with experience in the PPBS. Few

SOF personnel had Pentagon or programming experience. Additionally,

the small congressional liaison office in USSOCOM did not deal well with

budget responsibilities and required extra staff positions.7 Under the proposed process USTRANSCOM budgeting centers around the TCCs. The

AMC staff already accomplishes programming and the MSC staff will initially consist of the migrated N42 programmers, thus minimizing transition problems for USTRANSCOM. USTRANSCOM will require additional

budgeting and liaison people at the Pentagon, much like USSOCOM, but

recognizing this prior to implementation will minimize this problem.8

• Lesson Five: The current MFP-4 programs ameliorate problems resulting from the size of the proposed USTRANSCOM budget.

The remaining problem that plagues the SOF budget presents a dilemma

for the USSOCOM programmers––the problem is size. USSOCOM uses

only about 1.7 percent of DOD manpower and 1.3 percent of the DOD

budget.9 Because it is so small and wishes to remain small, USSOCOM

cannot afford to independently fund its major programs. The most recent

example of this is the CV-22, the special operations version of the V-22.

The V-22 is a Navy program designed to replace and enhance the capabilities of the Marine Corps CH-46. USSOCOM plans to buy only 50 CV-22s

while the Navy plans on buying 425 for the Marines. In fact, USSOCOM is

not buying the airplane at all; the Air Force is buying the airplane and

USSOCOM is buying its SOF unique equipment. This is the same arrangement USSOCOM has for the new MC-130 Talon II and the AC-130U

39
Gunship. The command does not require enough of the airplanes to buy a

sufficient quantity to make the acquisition economically viable. USSOCOM

acquires these major programs in partnership with one or more of the services. With the CV-22 it is the Air Force and the Navy.10 Most of the time

this arrangement works in favor of USSOCOM; the command is able to

maintain a small budget by getting the services to buy its major weapon

systems which it then upgrades. This arrangement, however, gives USSOCOM less control of the acquisition, configuration, and schedule of these

programs. The dilemma, therefore, stems from the desire for control while

at the same time limiting the command’s budget. Since MFP-4 exists and

under the proposed programming process for USTRANSCOM its program

elements, including major programs, transfer to USTRANSCOM, partnerships for current programs are not required. Because the precedent is set

for transportation forces, the FYDP continue to fund the appropriate elements as USTRANSCOM is able to justify them.11

With the lessons learned from the creation of USSOCOM in mind, the

next step is to determine the influence that USSOCOM budget authority

had in integrating the SOF. Because USTRANSCOM’s command relationship is established and tested, and because MFP-4 already exists, many

of the agreements used to establish the relationship between USSOCOM

and other organizations are less complex. USSOCOM has agreements

with all the services, the other unified commands, and four other DOD

agencies or organizations. The command considered a total of 37 agreements essential in order to adhere to its legislatively mandated responsibilities.12 By completing these agreements the command established the

means for the services, the components, and USSOCOM to interact. These

agreements provide the means for USSOCOM to integrate its separate

service components.

The USSOCOM agreements cover MFP-11 responsibilities such as

research, development, and acquisition, plus military construction/engineering support.13 This proposal requires USTRANSCOM to establish

agreements with the services establishing the division of labor between

USTRANSCOM and the services. For example, USTRANSCOM will utilize

AFMC to oversee the acquisition of major airlift programs. By starting with

the established MFP-4 responsibilities, the agreements for program element responsibilities are simpler than during the USSOCOM transition.

Military construction agreements would vary in complexity depending on

the location, size, and relationship of bases, posts, and ports. All of these

agreements, whether of equal or lesser complexity, are facilitated by the

fact that USSOCOM has established similar relationships from which

USTRANSCOM can learn.

Budget authority improved the integration of SOF in numerous ways.

Under the proposed process, the DTS could expect similar integration

improvements. These improvements to the SOF include the creation of

programs or units that are interoperable among the three components.

The creation of the SORDAC in 1991 promoted integration.14 It is not dif40
ficult to imagine a similar defense transportation center incorporating the

Air Mobility Warfare Center based at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and including

elements from the Army and Navy.15 The creation of a triservice special

operations medical training center (SOMTC) is yet another way that triservice SOF unique capabilities and requirements are being integrated.16

A similar notional program for patient transportation benefits from an

integrated budget.

Budget authority allows USSOCOM to pursue various improvements

other than new procurement that are ongoing for the different SOF mobility assets. These have implications across the command and include

improvements to the HC-130 P/N, special operations low-level (SOLL) C141, MH-53J improvements, and modifications to the EC-130E

Commando Solo. Equally important are the numerous Command,

Control, Communications, Computers & Intelligence (C4I) systems under

development, including the theater SOC C4I program, the Tactical Satellite

Manpack Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) Terminals (TACSAT), SOF Laser

Markers (SOFLAM) and Multimission Advanced Tactical Terminal (MATT).

These programs are interoperable among each of the components of

USSOCOM.17 Even with its dependence on the services for major programs, the acquisition of these multiple systems exemplifies the ability of

a USSOCOM budget to provide the capabilities to balance the requirements.

It is reasonable to extrapolate for USTRANSCOM, with no dependence on

the services, and foresee an integrated, balanced transportation POM.

Section Summary

The creation of USSOCOM and its budget authority set the precedent

for a similar approach for USTRANSCOM. Examining the USSOCOM

example answers three questions. First, can implementation of budget

authority be successful? The creation of USSOCOM with budget authority was difficult but successful. Establishing budget authority for

USTRANSCOM presents challenges but apparently not as many as USSOCOM faced. Second, what are some of the problems of implementing

budget authority for USTRANSCOM? The problems of staffing and congressional liaison are solved for USSOCOM. The problem of funding major

programs demands attention. In the proposed process, USTRANSCOM

requires a larger presence in the Pentagon and MSC; but these people

exist in other organizations and have the requisite experience.

USSOCOM’s dependency on the services is not a problem for

USTRANSCOM because MFP-4 is established. Lastly, does budget authority actually yield a better integrated force? There are numerous indications that better integration of the three components’ requirements and

capabilities is taking place. USTRANSCOM can realize similar improvements in integration with budget authority. Examining these questions in

the context of USSOCOM and comparing the answers to the

USTRANSCOM situation partially answers the broad questions of feasibil41
ity and quality of a change in the programming process. Answering the

question concerning USTRANSCOM’s current limited budget authority

looks at both questions from a different perspective.

USTRANSCOM’s Limited Budget Authority

USSOCOM budget authority is the only example of a unified commander holding head of agency authority. This head of agency authority

obligates USSOCOM to prepare and submit a POM. Limited budget

authority exists in USTRANSCOM. What are the examples of limited

budget authority, what does this imply, and has it been successful? By

answering these questions the broader feasibility and quality questions,

regarding USTRANSCOM budget authority are further explored. Analyzing

the four types of budget authority that USTRANSCOM possesses answers

the above questions. The first is the DBOF-T, next is the MEF, third is the

commander in chief’s initiative fund (CINCIF), and the fourth is the C2IP.

Unlike USSOCOM, USTRANSCOM was not created in such a heated

atmosphere.18 The directive creating USTRANSCOM was much less

restrictive than the public laws that created USSOCOM and granted it

budget authority. USTRANSCOM also initially had less responsibility and

authority than USSOCOM.19 Not until 1992 did USTRANSCOM acquire

combatant command of its three component commands.20 At that same

time, USTRANSCOM gained significant budgetary authority in the form of

control of the DBOF-T.

To understand the significance of the DBOF-T to the proposal one must

know why DOD created the DBOF. The DBOF-T, like the rest of the DBOF

programs is a revolving fund, forcing business-like practices on the services. Revolving funds existed for many years. The Airlift Service Industrial

Fund (ASIF), for example, lasted from 1958, until it was replaced by the

DBOF-T. With the creation of the DBOF in September 1991, several

industrial funds and stock funds combined under the administration of

the OSD comptroller.21 Controlling costs is the major goal of this combination of the former funds under one DBOF. The fund does two additional

things. The first forces transportation users to stay within a planned and

published operating budget. Customers cannot exceed this planned

budget without prior approval from the DOD comptroller. Second, DBOF

requires customer prices to reflect full USTRANSCOM costs, including

depreciation of assets and offsetting losses or gains from previous years.22

Imposing business principles on the DOD for transportation has not

been entirely successful. As part of establishing prices, USTRANSCOM

prepares the DBOF-T POM and submits it to the secretary of defense.23

There are two portions to the DBOF-T prices, the operating funds and

capital investment funds. Operating funds cover the direct costs of providing the transportation to the various DOD users. Capital funds generally cover the depreciation of the assets involved in providing the transportation service. By building the DBOF-T POM, USTRANSCOM is telling

the OSD comptroller how much money is required to support the DOD

42
transportation requirements. USTRANSCOM’s control of this fund is its

most significant example of budget authority. USTRANSCOM’s role in this

has been contested. As the manager for this fund, USTRANSCOM is

responsible to the secretary of defense for the funding of DOD’s transportation needs. The services relay their projected transportation costs to

USTRANSCOM, and USTRANSCOM uses these to develop the DBOF-T

POM. These figures do not always match and USTRANSCOM has been

accused of charging too much for transportation. The source of contention

has primarily been centered on USTRANSCOM’s use of the fund for recapitalization programs under the capital investment portion of the fund.24

Without complete budget authority, the goal of the DBOF cannot be

realized. The disagreements between USTRANSCOM and the transportation users over costs result from the need of the command to fund capital improvements not covered by the service POMs. The robust transportation system required for wartime results in high peacetime costs for

the relatively small number of users. With expanded budget authority,

USTRANSCOM would charge users the operations and capital costs to

support peacetime requirements. The command would program, through

the PPBS, for any additional wartime readiness costs.25

The next three examples of limited budget authority indicate a recognition by Congress of the need to integrate the transportation system. The

House Armed Services Committee recommended $50 million for fiscal

year 1995 for a new initiative, the Strategic Mobility Enhancement

Fund.26 Congress directed the commander of USTRANSCOM to be the sole

authority for the expenditure of this money. The fund is for mobility

enhancements to ensure strategic mobility readiness, some of which the

committee discussed in the text of the 1995 report. The suggestions in the

text included a merchant marine reserve program, an airlift companion

trainer program, increased use of flight simulators, and improvements to

the airlift enroute structure. In the discussion of overseas bases, the

report stated, “the commander of USTRANSCOM is in the best position to

make the necessary trade-offs among competing high-priority projects.”27

In addition to the Strategic Mobility Enhancement Fund, Congress has

for several years authorized a CINC intermediate frequency (IF). This is a

$25 million fund limited to use on one-time joint, humanitarian, or command and control initiatives. It cannot be used for major systems, service,

or unfunded FYDP programs. Suggestions for the use of this fund come

from the USTRANSCOM community at large and is managed by

USTRANSCOM J-8. The fourth budgetary fund that USTRANSCOM controls is the C2IP. This fund is a maximum of $300 thousand to be used at

the USTRANSCOM headquarters for operations and maintenance, procurement or research and development on urgent and unforeseen C2IP

requirements. The fund cannot be used for yearly purchases, manpower

requirements, or word processing equipment.28

The creation of these USTRANSCOM controlled funds reflect the

broader need to integrate the whole DTS budget process. They do not,

43
however, permit the command to solve problems before they occur. These

funding programs are only small and insufficient steps towards integrating the overall DTS budget process.

Section Summary

The control of these funds indicates the feasibility of USTRANSCOM

budget authority. The problems that occur with control of the DBOF-T

indicate there is room for a qualitative improvement. The last three funds

demonstrate the command is currently fiscally responsible for portions of

its mission requirements but unable to establish an integrated DTS. The

most significant example of budget authority is the control of the DBOFT.29 Budget authority permits USTRANSCOM to build recapitalization programs into a POM out of user prices. It also permits the command to create an integrated system beforehand, instead of integrating after the fact.

Chapter Summary

Describing the budget authority USSOCOM possesses and

USTRANSCOM’s limited budget authority permits a glance into a possible

future given expanded budget authority for USTRANSCOM. The first of

two important characteristics of the USSOCOM budget are the limitations

which USSOCOM must work under because of the size of the command.

The second characteristic is that, in spite of this limitation, the command

made great strides in integrating the three components’ capabilities and

matching them with its requirements. USTRANSCOM is not limited by its

size or the types of programs for which it is responsible because of established MFP-4 programs. USTRANSCOM will also integrate the separate

components more effectively with budget authority. The important characteristic that stands out in the second section is the impact that

USTRANSCOM has DOD-wide, with its responsibility for different funds––

especially the DBOF-T. This impact allows USTRANSCOM to meet user

needs but does not allow it to integrate and, therefore, leverage, all of the

commands’ capabilities to meet these needs most effectively.

Notes

1. William G. Boykin, Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Legislation: Why

Was It Passed and Have the Voids Been Filled? (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: US Army War

College, 12 April 1991), 2–7.

2. John M. Collins, Special Operations Forces: An Assessment (Washington, D.C.:

National Defense University Press, April 1994), 10–11.

3. Boykin, 26–28, 38–41.

4. Collins, 11–12.

5. Ibid.

6. Boykin, 45.

7. Lawrence C. Crockett, Joint Commanders and Budget Authority (Fort McNair,

Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1992), II-10–II-12, IV-1.

44
8. Collins, 32–35.

9. Gen Wayne A. Downing, “Small Budget, Big Payoff,” interview by Glenn W. Goodman

Jr., Armed Forces Journal International, vol. 132, no. 1 (August 1994): 44.

10. Maj Ray Kruelski, USSOCOM/J7, interview by author, 21 May 1996.

11. Ibid.

12. Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, House of

Representatives, General Accounting Office (GAO) Report to the Chairman, “Special

Operations Command: Progress Made in Completing Needed Agreements” (Washington,

D.C.: June 1992), 2.

13. Ibid., 12–13.

14. James R. Locher III and Carl W. Stiner, “US Special Operations Forces, Posture

Statement” (1992), 17.

15. Air Mobility Command, 1996 Air Mobility Master Plan (Scott AFB, Ill.: Headquarters

AMC/XP, October 1995), 3–16.

16. Locher and Stiner, C-12.

17. Allen Holmes and Wayne A. Downing, “US Special Operations Forces, Posture

Statement” (1994), 40–45.

18. Gen Duane H. Cassidy, “General Duane H. Cassidy, US Transportation Command’s

First Commander in Chief,” interview by Dr. James K. Matthews, August 1989. Transcript

maintained at USTRANSCOM Research Center, Scott AFB, Ill., 1–8.

19. The original directive that established USTRANSCOM did not dictate command

relationships; It simply echoed the recommendations of the Packard Commission.

20. Richard B. Cheney, Washington, D.C., to the secretaries of the military departments and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, subj.: Strengthening Department of

Defense Transportation Functions, 14 February 1992. Transcript maintained at

USTRANSCOM Research Center, Scott AFB, Ill.

21. GAO Report to Congressional Committees, “DBOF Management Issues Challenge

Fund Implementation” (Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1995), 3.

22. Lawrence Schwarz, Implementing the Defense Business Operations Fund: The Case

of the Military Airlift Command (Bethesda, Md.: Logistics Management Institute, June

1992), 1–2.

23. The total 1997 DBOF-T account is $3.95 billion, which includes the accounts for

AMC, MSC, MTMC and the USTRANSCOM headquarters operations account. Lt Col Steve

Jones, USTRANSCOM/J8-P, telephone interview by author, 23 May 1996.

24. Lt Col Steve Jones, USTRANSCOM/J8-P, interview by author, 21 March 1996.

25. Ibid. An example of the high peacetime costs needed to support the wartime structure is the airlift subsidy. This congressional subsidy covers the high cost of a unique military airlift system and still keeps the DBOF prices down so that the users can afford to

exercise the system. Jones interview, 21 March 1996.

26. House of Representatives, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1995” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994), 149–50.

27. Ibid., 149.

28. Jones interview.

29. Ibid.

45
Chapter 6

Summary, Implications, and Conclusion

I can think of no programs more vital than those that are designed to enhance the

strategic deployment of our forces.

—Gen John M. Shalikashvili

––1994 Posture Statement

In the past, we approached our strategic lift shortfalls much like the Soviets

treated their five-year economic plans. Time and again, we gathered great fervor

and intensity behind our intention to correct these shortfalls, we drew up ambitious timetables and schedules, and then, with each succeeding year we slipped

these schedules as we failed to accomplish one objective after another, as projected increases in air tonnage and sea tonnage failed to materialize, until we

finally succumbed to the old trick of modifying our original requirements, reducing them to levels that made us appear successful, when, in fact we remained far

short of our original goals. Then, a few years later, some coalescing event would

cause us to repeat the same cycle again. This budget is part of another of those

five-year plans, but this time we have much more on the line than in the past.

—Gen John M. Shalikashvili

––1994 Statement before House Appropriations Committee

The first and second chapters of this paper start with a description of the

balance between transportation capabilities and requirements. By analyzing this balance, they set out to determine if granting budget authority to

USTRANSCOM would leverage the DOD’s limited transportation capabilities more effectively. This description leads to the conclusion that past

attempts to balance transportation capabilities against requirements did

not include complete financial responsibility for DOD transportation under

one authority. A description of the transportation mission followed the

explanation of this balance. The basic nature of the transportation mission

includes goals, objectives, and tasks focused on people, equipment, infrastructure and operations. Each of the components of US transportation

command must maintain these four elements by performing specific tasks.

This study describes tasks for two of the components, MSC and AMC, in

order to facilitate the discussion in later chapters concerning the budgeting process and the role that the JROC plays in that process.

Summary

As the next step in answering the thesis question, chapter 3 described

the current budgeting process. This included a description of the PPBS at

the DOD level and the Air Force and the Navy approach to the PPBS.

47
Similarly, the third chapter described the JROC and the JWCA process

from a DOD, Air Force, and Navy perspective. Finally, the chapter

described a case for both airlift and sealift programs going through the

process as it stands today. The descriptions summarized above led to the

following conclusions: the system in place today cannot create an integrated transportation system, and the Air Force process is duplicative.

Although the JROC attempts to integrate, its limitations allow it to only

selectively focus on a few issues after the fact versus integrating throughout the process of building the DTS.

The fourth chapter described the proposed process for budgeting transportation and how it would work. Similar to the third chapter, it started

by describing the proposed PPBS for the DOD, the Air Force, and the

Navy. Likewise, it described the way in which the JROC and JWCA

process might change under this proposed system. Using the same airlift

and sealift examples from the previous chapter, chapter 4 described the

steps these programs must take for review under the proposed process.

This chapter concluded that centralizing the POM process around

USTRANSCOM would eliminate much of the duplicative effort in the Air

Force and that this USTRANSCOM centered proposal would offer greater

potential for integration of the DTS than the current system. The proposal

seeks to utilize the JROC in a role to which it is more naturally suited. The

JROC, in the proposed process, provides a high level of accountability

over USTRANSCOM on behalf of the DTS users.

Following the description of the proposed process, chapter 5 describes

the events that led to the establishment of USSOCOM and the manner in

which it gained budget authority. Additionally, this chapter describes

USTRANSCOM’s limited budget authority. By describing these two examples of budget authority that exist in unified commands it draws the conclusion that not only was it possible for USTRANSCOM to gain budget

authority but, using USSOCOM as an example, the chapter argues that

the possibilities for greater integration were likely. Additionally, it highlights the fact that because the USTRANSCOM components are closely

aligned with MFP elements it should not have the same problems USSOCOM had at its inception when creating a new MFP.

Implications of Proposed Implementation

This section addresses some of the reservations over granting

USTRANSCOM budget authority as raised by various sources during the

course of research, including senior ranking officers from the various

services and members of the Joint, Air, Navy, USTRANSCOM, and AMC

staffs. There are, of course, other implications; but these are the ones that

came up most often and/or seemed to have the greatest significance.

• If budget authority is appropriate for USTRANSCOM, why would it not

apply to the all of the unified commands?

48
The answer is rooted in the difference between a geographic CINC and

a functional CINC. This difference is particularly true for USTRANSCOM.

The functional CINCs have one primary mission, or core competency. For

USTRANSCOM that mission is transportation of military equipment to

support all the other unified commanders. The geographic CINC’s mission

is much more broad and ranges from operations other than war to MRC.

It can also be accomplished with a variety of weapon systems, each with

overlapping capabilities. If each geographic CINC had budget authority to

match their spectrum of assigned missions, each would require a substantial and idiosyncratic joint force at their call, an absurd funding situation.

• If the geographic commands are not eligible for budget authority, then

should the other functional commands at least be granted budget

authority?

The answer to this question is in two parts. First, USSPACECOM’s and

USSTRATCOM’s mission is not so narrowly defined as USTRANSCOM’s

pure transportation mission; therefore, this policy change does not immediately fit for each of the functional CINCs. Second, the other functional

CINCs do not have such a clear historical connection with the PPBS.

USTRANSCOM and its individual components––before they were unified––

has had a connection in the form of MFP-4. Similarly, when the JWCA was

created it included a separate assessment area for strategic mobility and

sustainment. No other command, functional or geographic, has such a

historically recognized focus.

• The next most often made point refers to the CINCs’ responsibilities.

The point is often made that the primary responsibility of the unified;

commands is to prosecute war; and if the command is involved in the very

complex business of the PPBS; this could dilute its ability to fulfill its primary responsibility. This issue is addressed in two ways. First, part of this

problem stems from the poor differentiation in joint doctrine between a

functional CINC versus a geographic CINC. In the vast majority of cases,

USTRANSCOM’s primary role is that of a supporting command.

USTRANSCOM has been a supported command, but this is not its most

likely role.1 By and large, USTRANSCOM supports the geographic CINCs’

role. Since the command is established upon one well-defined mission,

USTRANSCOM has the luxury––even the mandate––of not only preparing

for the war that it will support tomorrow but also the war that it will support in five years. Second, USTRANSCOM is already very involved in the

budget process as the manager of the DBOF-T and its other funds.

• How would this policy implementation impact the affiliation of the components with their parent services or the culture of the services?

Under the proposed policy, the services would continue to organize and

train the components in coordination with USTRANSCOM. The airmen,

soldiers, and sailors would continue to be airmen, soldiers, and sailors.

The differences in their areas of expertise will not change because

USTRANSCOM is paying the bills. USSOCOM provides an example of how

49
SOF is separate; but they are nonetheless still dependent on the services

and maintain their identity with the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

Agreements between the services and USTRANSCOM which establish procedures to deal with personnel issues are an important aspect of the proposed process.

• Another implication of this proposal is that it continues to erode the

power of the services.

From the current perspective, this is true; but it is also possible that it

could strengthen the services role by divesting what is, in fact, not the

core activity of any of the services. This policy frees the services to consider in detail, and in coordination with each of the other services, the

very difficult topics of roles and missions with respect to force application

across the spectrum of conflict. This policy also distributes the burden of

equipping the transportation forces equally by taking the required funds

off the top, leaving funds to be divided among the services based on combat capabilities and requirements. This implication relates to the “organize, train and equip” mantra, referring to the current responsibility of the

services under Title 10 of the US Code. This “habit” cannot be allowed to

reach the level of George Kennen’s “sacred untouchableness”; and if an

approach with potential is available, then it must be considered.2

• Another aspect of this policy change comes under the broad heading of

competition.

This thesis implies that under USTRANSCOM centered budget authority the DTS will be “better.” Better implies improved efficiency, but can a

monopoly of the DTS actually improve efficiency? Monopolies are historically and theoretically inefficient due to lack of competition. There are,

however, large portions of the DTS with the characteristics of a natural

monopoly. A natural monopoly is an industry whose cost of production,

in conjunction with a small market, limits the overall market place “naturally” to only one provider.3 The cost of producing aircraft that carry very

large, heavy vehicles, or ships whose cargo can drive on or off, is not only

expensive but there are few customers that require these capabilities.

That is why very few commercial companies operate aircraft or ships with

these features. In addition to the characteristics of a natural monopoly,

the monopolistic nature of the DTS is apparent by the degree of government intervention that strictly controls the system.4 Although much of the

DTS is a monopoly, large portions are not. The CRAF program for airlift

and shipping contracts make it a very competitive system. One could suggest that the competition between the services which is imbedded in the

current system might generate efficiencies. However, since the resulting

competition first occurs within the services, competing transportation

against nontransportation systems, this leads to false competition. Truer

competition prevails when transportation systems compete against each

other based on their ability to support the national military strategy. A

system to contend with the negative attributes of a monopoly, high prices

50
and poor service, must exist or that monopolist stands the chance of being

replaced. The system that exists to avoid this in the proposed process consists of the numerous checks and balances that are in place in the current PPBS and also the JROC process.

• A final implication one must consider before a policy of this nature is

implemented is the issue of personnel. Or, how would USTRANSCOM

budget and provide the manpower for its separate components?

The answer to this question applies to several of the other issues

already discussed. The fact that USSOCOM already deals with this issue

and has working agreements with the services that deal with this issue

make a transition more simple. This is not to say that this would not be

a different problem for USTRANSCOM; but there has been a precedent

set, upon which the implementers of this proposal can build.

Conclusion

The national military strategy is transportation dependent. The transportation system could easily be considered a center of gravity, “the hub

of all power and movement, on which everything depends.”5 The way in

which the DOD funds this center of gravity can influence its efficiency and

effectiveness. The previous chapters show there is strong potential to

improve the DTS by following the process proposed and described in

chapter 4. This process essentially permits USTRANSCOM to leverage to

the fullest extent limited capabilities against growing requirements. The

other aspects of the structure, the operational and organizational parts

upon which the DTS rests, have undergone significant change to enhance

the balance. By adopting this proposal, the managerial or budgeting portion will also aid in leveraging the nation’s transportation assets.

Currently, USTRANSCOM is responsible for providing a well-defined service to the entire DOD––transportation. The command, however, is limited

in its authority to fulfill this responsibility. Without this authority it is less

accountable for the mission because it can ascribe its performance to factors beyond its control. With both the responsibility and the authority, the

command is singularly accountable for the performance of the DTS.

It is impossible to prove without doubt the benefits of any policy change.

It is, however, possible to show where the problems lie in the current system, the potential benefits, and some of the costs of change. The evidence

in this paper demonstrates these problems, describes the benefits, and

addresses some potential difficulties of the proposed change. This study

did not study other solutions to the fragmented budgeting system.

Alternatives could include modifying the JROC process or strengthening

the role of the Joint Staff J4. In order to fully appraise the strength of the

proposed solution, comparison to these and other possible solutions is

necessary. The importance of transportation to the nation’s strategy and

51
the limited implementation costs of this plan warrant studying this policy

change in greater detail.

Notes

1. Lt Gen James D. Starling, “Deputy Commander in Chief US Transportation

Command, Exit Interview” interview by Dr. James K. Matthews, September 1993.

Transcript maintained at USTRANSCOM Research Center, 43–44.

2. “A nation which excuses its own failures by the sacred untouchableness of its own

habits can excuse itself into complete disaster.” George Kennan, American Diplomacy

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 73.

3. John P. Gould Jr. and Edward P. Lazear, Microeconomics Theory (Homewood, Ill.:

Irwin, 1989), 293.

4. Ibid., 294.

5. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. and edited by Michael Howard and Peter Paret

(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 595.

52