_f._ IJtrit,t!ti States General Accounting Office GAO Mefing Report t,o the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Ikpresentativcs AIR FORCE BUDGET Potential Reductions to the Minuteman II Weapon System Budget 141839 --. .__. ___. . _. _ .-.;... -.-. .-. ---ml,r.. .- GAO/NSfAI)-90- I96lJR United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, DC. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-23957 1 June 21,199O The Honorable Les Aspin Chairman, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested, we reviewed the Air Force’s funding requirements for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for the Minuteman weapon system. Our objective was to identify opportunities for budget reductions associated with the anticipated retirement of the Minuteman II force, which con- sists of 450 single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles. We presented the preliminary results of our review to your office on May 2, 1990. The final results of our review are summarized below and dis- cussed in detail in appendixes I and II. We identified potential reductions of $66.2 million-$32.4 million appropriated in fiscal year 1990 and $32.8 million requested in fiscal year 1991-for Minuteman II missile procurement. Also, we identified potential reductions of $30.5 million-$13.6 million appropriated in fiscal year 1990 and $16.9 million requested in fiscal year 1991-for depot repairs and modifications. In submitting the Department of Defense fiscal year 1991 budget request, the Secretary of Defense announced that an outcome of ongoing Strategic Arms Reduction Talks could be the retirement of the Min- uteman II force. In response to this announcement, the Air Force modi- fied and canceled some Minuteman II life-extension programs, such as modifications, replacements and refurbishments, necessary to sustain an operationally effective Minuteman II force. Our estimated reductions result from differences between the Air Force budget submission and more current Air Force estimates that reflect the anticipated retirement of the Minuteman II force. As agreed with your office, we did not obtain agency comments on this report. However, we discussed a draft of this report with program offi- cials, and they agreed with our estimated reductions. Our scope and methodology are described in appendix III. Unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time we will send copies to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Page 1 * GAO/NSIAD-90496BR Air Force Budget Defenseand the Air Force; and the Director, Office of Managementand Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Pleasecontact me at (202) 2764268 if you or your staff have any ques- tions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Sincerely yours, Nancy RI Kingsbury r Director tv Air Force Issues Page 2 GAO/NSIADBO-186BR Air Force Budget Page 3 GAO/TWAD-8O-196BR Air Force Budget Potential Reductions.tothe Air Force’sMissil6 . ProcurementBudget for the Minuteman II WeaponSystem We identified potential missile procurement budget reductions of $66.2 million: $32.4 million appropriated in fiscal year 1990 and $32.8 million requested in fiscal year 1991. These potential reductions are based pri- marily on funding adjustments made by the Minuteman System Program Office in anticipation of the retirement of the Minuteman II force. Table I. 1 shows the potential reductions in the fiscal year 1990 appro- priated funds and the fiscal year 1991 budget request by budget pro- gram activity code. Table 1.1: Potential Reductions to the Air Force’s Missile Procurement Budget Dollars in millions (3020 Appropriation) Fiscal year 1990 Fiscal year 1991 Replacement equipment $16.7 $6.4 Redenishment wares 15.7 26.4 Total $32.4 $32.8 ReplacementEquipment Program office documents show that $60.7 million of the total amount appropriated for Air Force missile procurement in fiscal year 1990 was (Budget Program 2200) for Minuteman replacement equipment. For fiscal year 1991, the Air Force requested $2 1.2 million for this equipment. The program office provided us with updated funding requirements as of April 1990 for fiscal years 1990 and 1991. Those estimates were $34 million for fiscal year 1990 and $14.8 million for fiscal year 1991. Thus, we identified an excess of $16.7 million and $6.4 million in fiscal years 1990 and 1991, respectively. Program officials agreed with our calcula- tion and stated the potential retirement of Minuteman II has reduced the need for replacement equipment funding. Replenishment Spares Program documents show that $86.3 million of the total amount appro- priated for Air Force missile procurement in fiscal year 1990 was for (Budget Program 2500) Minuteman replenishment spares. The program office provided us with updated fiscal year 1990 funding requirements as of April 1990. We compared updated fiscal year 1990 funding requirements of $69.6 mil- lion with the amount appropriated and identified an excess of $16.7 mil- lion Program officials agreed with our calculation and stated that these excess funds are available due to cancellations and modifications of some Minuteman II life-extension programs. Page 4 GAO/NSIAD9O-lB6B~ Air Force Budget . Append&I Potential Reductions to the Air Force’s Missile hxurement Budget for the MhUteman II Weapon System Beginning in fiscal year 1991, the Air Force will implement a new con- cept of management for replenishment spares which transfers funding responsibility from this central procurement account to the Air Force Stock Fund. We identified potential reductions of $26.4 million for fiscal year 1991 from the Air Force Stock Fund. These excess funds resulted from the cancellation of three Minuteman II life-extension programs: $16.9 million for Minuteman II Stage III motor replacement, $10.1 mil- lion for Stage I nozzle replacement, and $0.4 million for Stage I propel- lant replacement. According to Air Force officials, funding for these programs still remains in the Air Force Stock Fund. Page 5 GAO/NSL4D-9O-l96BR Air Force Budget Appendix II * Potential Reductionsto the Air Force’s Operationsand MaintenanceBudget for the Minuteman II WeaponSystem We identified potential operations and maintenance budget reductions for central supply and maintenance -specifically depot repairs and modification-of $30.6 million: $13.6 million appropriated in fiscal year 1990 and $16.9 million requested in fiscal year 1991. Table II. 1 shows these potential reductions. Program officials agreed with our calcula- tions and stated the potential retirement of Minuteman II has reduced the need for depot repairs and modifications funding. Table 11.1:Potential Reductions to the Air Force’s Operations and Maintenance Dollars in millions Budget (3400 Appropriation) Fiscal year 1990 Fiscal year 1991 Deoot reDairs and modifications $13.6 $16.9 Depot Repairs and The Air Force had planned to begin a program to refurbish the Min- Modifications uteman II Stage I propulsion motor beginning in fiscal year 1990. Pro- gram officials informed us that $13.6 million had been budgeted for this refurbishment in fiscal year 1990, but funds are no longer needed, since the Air Force decided to cancel the program in anticipation of the retire- ment of the Minuteman II force. For fiscal year 1991, the program office provided us with updated funding requirements, which were $16.9 mil- lion less than the amount requested: $10.5 million due to the cancella- tion of the Stage I propulsion motor refurbishment program and $6.4 million due to other miscellaneous reductions. Program officials stated that the above fiscal year 1990 and 1991 amounts are excess and avail- able for reduction. Page 6 GA0/NSIAD90496B& Air Force Budget . Ppe kz; and Methodology This review is one of a series that examines defense budget issues. We reviewed Minuteman II missile procurement and operations and mainte- nance appropriations for central supply and maintenance. We inter- viewed Air Force officials to identify potential reductions resulting from the cancellation and modification of some Minuteman II programs. We also examined various budget documents and cost estimates to identify budget amounts in excess of requirements. We discussed our findings with officials at Air Force Headquarters and at the Minuteman System program Office. We performed our work at Air Force Headquarters, Washington, DC., and Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah. We conducted our review from April to May 1990 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Page 7 GAO/NSIADBO-196BR Air Force Budget Appendix IV Major Contributors to This Report . Norman J. Rabkin, Associate Director National Security and Steven F. Kuhta, Assistant Director International Affairs John J. Klotz, Assignment Manager Division, Washington, D.C. James Dinwiddie, Evaluator-in-Charge Los Angeles Regional Michael decastro, Evaluator Office Meeta Sharma, Evaluator (392504) Page 8 GAO/NSIADBO-196BR Air Force Budget -.---I_ .-~-.-~I_ .- ---_ ---_ ---.- - ITS. Gtmt~ral Acconntirrg Offiw 1’0~1,Offiw Hox 60 15 Gaithttrsburg, Maryland 20877 ‘I’t~lephont~ 202-276-8241 The first fivtb c!opit*s of teach report are free. Atiditiortal copies are $2.00 tvlch. Orcit~rs ~nust~be prtqmid by cash or by check or rnorwy order made out, Lo t.htt Supt!rint,tlnd~nl, of Ihcimtwts. First-(Xws Mail Post.agt5 & Ftttts Paid GAO
Air Force Budget: Potential Reductions to the Minuteman II Weapon System Budget
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-06-21.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)