2. Keynote Address 2005 TACOM APBI LTG Joseph L. Yakovac, Jr.
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
27 October 2005

3. Challenges
Programs
People
Industrial Base

4. Research, Development and Acquisition (RDA) Dollars*
Department of Defense
Research, Development and Acquisition (RDA) Dollars*
FY06: $147.4B*
37%
Air Force
$55.1B
Defense -Wide
$21.7B
15%
Navy/Marines
$47.7B
Army
$22.9B
32%
16%
*Budget Request Pending Congressional Approval

5. FY06 Top Twenty DoD Research, Development and Acquisition (RDA) Programs*
1. BMDS 7,775
2. Joint Strike Fighter 5,822
3. F/A ,304
4. FCS 3,405
5. C ,402
6. F/A-18E/F Hornet 2,880
7. SSN ,845
8. V-22A/CV-22 Osprey 1,883
9. Chem/Bio Defense ,549
10. EELV 1,499
11. DD(X) ,085
12. P-8 MMA
13. Stryker
14. MEADS
15. CVN
16. TSAT
17. EA-18G
18. MH-60R
19. CH-47 Upgrade 660
20. Longbow Apache Block III 637
*RDA funding only

6. Recapitalization Process Upgrade Warfighting Capability
Two Paths:
Rebuild
Selected Upgrade
M1A1 AIM XXI*
UH-60A
CH-47D
M9 ACE
M88A1
PATRIOT
FIREFINDER
ELEC SHOPS
FAASV
HMMWV
M1A2 SEP*
AH-64D
UH-60M
CH-47F
HERCULES *
BRADLEY A3*
M113 A3
HEMTT
Zero Time/Zero Mile
Maintenance Standard
Zero Time/Zero Mile
Maintenance Standard
Technology Insertion
Technology Insertion
$26.1B / 5 yrs
Upgrade Warfighting Capability
Same Model-
New Life
New Model-
New Life
Extended Service Life
Reduced Operating and Support (O&S) Cost
Improved System Reliability, Safety, Maintainability, and Efficiency
Enhanced Capability
One Outcome:
February 2005
* Currently in production

7. “Need It Now” Is Working Because:
:01
Supplementals, Supplementals, Supplementals, …!
:02
Operational Needs Statements Vice The JCIDS Process.
:03
Access To Infrastructure Within The Theater.
Time (Not Always Adequate) To Integrate Solutions, Minimally Test, And Train To Use Prior To Deployment.
:04
Acceptance Of Contractor Support Throughout The
Theater.
:05
:06
Supply Chain Able To Support New / Low Density Capabilities.
When
Goes Away – Then What?
:01

8. Future Army Career Program-16* Workforce - 200531 44
2005
Total = 15,173
Avg = 44.62
1992
Total = 17,080
Avg = 42.18
Strength
Retirement
Eligibility
Window
BACKGROUND:
While the Army Engineers & Scientists (CP-16) (non construction) workforce is not young, it is younger than the non Engineers & Scientists civilian workforce (44.6 vs 47.9 Years on Average).
And the peak age group is much younger - approximately 8 years younger.
While the non Engineers & Scientists workforce is facing a major retirement wave, the Engineers & Scientists workforce does not.
TALKING POINTS FOR SLIDE:
The vitality of the Engineers & Scientists workforce, nevertheless, still suffers from the impact of the years of downsizing and retirement. Only a small fraction of the workforce is under age 30.
There is a year age gap equating to skill and experience to be lost at retirement
20% of the CP16 workforce was 30 or younger in 1992 vice 15% today
Strength in 2000 was and today it is 15173
If we push the recruiting and replacement processes, the average age will slowly adjust down and we will begin to establish the nucleus of the next generation of the workforce.
But without a significant growth in the workforce, an increase in retirements or some other intervention, the average age will remain relatively high until the peak age group begins to depart in about 10 years .
Note that without an increase in the workforce, the age void created by 10 years without new hires is likely to remain indefinitely.
Skill and
Experience
Gap
Age
*Engineers and Scientists

9. National Defense as a Percent of GDP