Evolution to AMCOM: Part VI: Organizational Changes, 1970-1985

Courtesy Photo | U.S. Army image of the logos in use for part of this period - (Image provided by Dr. Kaylene Hughes, AMCOM History Office)  

REDSTONE ARSENAL, AL, UNITED STATES

12.13.2017

Courtesy Story

U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command

by Dr. Kaylene Hughes, Historian

During the 1970s and into the early 1980s, the U.S. Army undertook a series of studies and ensuing actions that essentially reinvented the service in light of past experience, current developments, and future global threats. The end of the service’s involvement in Southeast Asia in conjunction with the introduction of the all-volunteer armed forces posed a variety of questions and challenges for the Army that were not fully resolved for another 20 years. An upsurge in antimilitarism and isolationism among some segments of the U.S. populace impacted Army recruiting efforts as well as led to constrained budgets. The service’s concentration on fighting in Vietnam also hampered its initial efforts to deal effectively with changing threats throughout the world, particularly in Europe where the buildup of Warsaw Pact forces and more extensive deployment of technologically superior weapons increasingly alarmed the nation’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.

Once the service committed itself to the reality of the all-volunteer Army, it was able to make considerable headway by 1974 in recruiting both male and female “quality enlistees” who, in turn, helped to revitalize the standards and pride of the nation’s oldest military institution. In addition, Army leaders began to identify, define, and refine new doctrines to guide how it would prepare for as well as fight the differing levels of conflict threatened by possible foes closer to home or overseas. Also of major concern was the failure to adequately modernize in light of the extensive technological developments that had been altering the battlefield while the Army was engaged in Vietnam.

Confronted with hostile forces able to commit larger numbers of troops equipped with superior firepower, Army leaders looked for ways to successfully counter these unfavorable odds. This it did by reorganizing its major commands, revising Army Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations, and maximizing its available arsenal with technologically superior weapon systems, such as the so-called “big five” development programs for the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the AH-64A Apache attack helicopter, the UH-60A Blackhawk utility helicopter, and the Patriot air defense missile. The latter three items were managed by the AMC major subordinate commands (MSCs) in St. Louis and at Redstone Arsenal that would eventually be merged into today’s U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM).

New concepts for how the Army was to fight and quickly win any
future war were also introduced and reflected evolving technology. The 1976 revision of FM 100-5 introduced the theory of Active Defense and emphasized the pivotal role of heavy armor and concentrated artillery fire in a primarily ground war. Various aspects of this concept proved to be unacceptable or difficult to apply outside Europe, which led to the 1982 edition of the Operations field manual and the introduction of the AirLand Battle doctrine. Further revisions in 1986 and subsequent refinements of the concept called for simultaneously aggressive close, deep, and rear operations, with greater reliance on tactical air power. AirLand Battle was the doctrine which eventually helped guide the Army’s actions during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

One of the most significant changes involved the reorganization of the Army in 1973 and led to the division of the multifunctional U.S. Army Continental Army Command (CONARC) into the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) and the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). FORSCOM exercised jurisdiction over all the service’s operational units in the continental United States (CONUS) and concentrated on readiness. TRADOC combined authority over most of the Army’s schools with combat development functions formerly assigned to the Combat Developments Command. In some respects, this division was similar to the separation of the U.S. Army Material Command (AMC) into readiness and research and development (R&D) organizations. Readiness-oriented commands were responsible for current operations and sustaining the force, while the future-oriented doctrine and development commands provided the training and technology essential to prepare for potential conflicts.

AMC Reorganizations, Realignments, and Acquisition Restructuring, 1966-1973

Like the rest of the Army, AMC also experienced several major organizational changes during this period. The command’s original structure when it stood up in Aug. 1962 included five major commodity commands, one each for electronics, missiles, munitions, mobility, and weapons. There also were two functional MSCs covering supply and maintenance as well as test and evaluation. In addition, AMC initially established 36 project management offices (PMOs) responsible for the development of major weapons and equipment.

The first modifications to this organizational structure began not long afterwards. In 1966 and 1969, for example, AMC implemented two major realignments of its headquarters (HQ), the main objectives of which were “to provide better control over assigned missions and functions, streamline the HQ, and reduce the number of commands, agencies, and individuals reporting to the AMC command group,” especially to the commanding general. These significant changes were followed in the period between 1970 and 1973 by the command’s loss of almost 35,000 authorized civilian manpower spaces; additional cuts also decreased AMC’s authorized military spaces.

The command’s assigned depots experienced even greater cutbacks because of their primary focus on supporting the war in Vietnam and their more extensive reliance on the use of temporary employees. Consequently, Headquarters, Department of the Army’s (HQDA’s) 1969 decision to accelerate the termination of temporary and part-time positions, in conjunction with the subsequent manpower cuts from 1970 to 1973, seriously eroded the morale, productivity, and efficiency of the entire depot workforce. Also in this period, AMC had to deal with the announced closure of 36 installations under its jurisdiction.

Further reorganizations undertaken in 1973 transformed several of AMC’s original commodity commands. Designed to improve materiel readiness and enhance management, AMC restructured, merged, and consolidated many of its subordinate commands and other elements in accordance with guidance provided by the Total Optimum Army Materiel Command initiatives, DA’s Baseline Development and Utilization Planning Project, and the Army Reorganization of 1973. Despite all of these changes, however, AMC faced an even more extensive transformation based on the findings of the Army Materiel Acquisition Review Committee (AMARC) established by the Secretary of the Army in Dec. 1973.

AMARC and the Creation of DARCOM

The Secretary of the Army assigned AMARC the task of analyzing the Army’s materiel acquisition process and recommending improvements, with special emphasis on organization and procedures, particularly those of AMC. One significant committee finding was the fact that the AMC mission of maintaining the readiness of fielded weapon systems had taken precedence over the command’s responsibility for materiel acquisition. AMC’s intense focus on readiness, AMARC members concluded, was a major reason for the numerous problems confronting post-Vietnam Army acquisition and had put the service behind the power curve in staying abreast of technological advances in weapon systems development.

Gen. John R. Deane, Jr., then the AMC Commander, acknowledged that by not concentrating sufficient management attention on the acquisition process Army procurement at times did not incorporate the latest technology. Further compounding the problem was the Army’s failure to find effective contractor incentives designed to encourage companies to push the state of the art to develop more cost effective and better manufacturing techniques early enough in system development to drive down costs once it reached production.

In response to these concerns, one of the key recommendations of the AMARC study involved the creation of separate centers within AMC focused on either development or logistics. The development centers were to be formed from the existing laboratories, R&D elements, and other separate acquisition activities. The new organizations would be independent commands reporting directly to the AMC Commander and would have no logistics support missions. Once established, the new development centers would also initiate programs and policies to strengthen the Army’s working relationship with industry. The logistics centers would provide follow-on procurement and support to fielded systems. In addition, these commands would cooperate with the development centers throughout the initial acquisition process to ensure that new systems could be maintained in a high state of readiness once developed and fielded.

The AMARC study resulted in an extensive DA assessment of the AMC organizational and management structure, which led to a major reorganization of AMC headquarters and its MSCs. On Jan. 23, 1976, AMC became the U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM). Designed to function as a smaller, corporate-style headquarters, with 30 percent fewer personnel than the former AMC, the objective of the command’s restructuring was maximum decentralization via the transfer of operational functions to the field. DARCOM Headquarters retained responsibility for developing broad programs and policies, establishing priorities, allocating resources, and evaluating performance.

A major feature of the new DARCOM HQ was the creation of two three-star deputy commanding general (DCG) positions. The DCG for Materiel Development supervised the R&D commands and those organizations’ assigned project managers, corporate laboratories, the Test and Evaluation Command, all Army research and standardization offices, as well as the Foreign Science and Technology Center. The DCG for Materiel Readiness was in charge of the materiel readiness commands, their assigned project managers, the International Logistics Command, the Depot System Command, arsenals, logistics management activities, and logistic assistance offices.

Subsequently, DARCOM HQ added a third DCG for Resources and Management to oversee management and control of total command resources by formulating and maintaining systems and procedures to develop and execute fully balanced and integrated appropriation budgets. A vital part of this responsibility was the provision of a consistent resources management framework for development, testing, procurement, production, and integrated logistic support planning.

Equal emphasis on both readiness and development was to be achieved by separating these two functions within the DARCOM MSCs, including the U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command (AVSCOM), U.S. Army Troop Support Command (TROSCOM), and U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM). Consequently, DARCOM restructured its former commodity commands into eleven MSCs, six of which were dedicated to development; in Jan. 1979, the eleven MSCs expanded to 13. This was in keeping with DARCOM’s initial plans for reorganizing into a completed organizational structure with eight R&D commands, five readiness commands, a Test and Evaluation Command, a Depot System Command, and an International Logistics Command.

The Creation of AVRADCOM and TSARCOM

On Jul. 1, 1977, in compliance with AMARC recommendations, the R&D components of AVSCOM evolved into the U.S. Army Aviation Research and Development Command (AVRADOM). TROSCOM became the U.S. Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness Command (TSARCOM) as a result of the merging of its own as well as the AVSCOM logistics support and materiel readiness functions.

AVRADCOM’s basic mission was to manage and control the Army’s aviation materiel development and the initial acquisition portion of the aviation materiel life cycle. TSARCOM’s primary responsibility was the management of logistics for assigned troop support and aviation materiel, which included additional acquisition and materiel readiness support for the life cycle of various items once they were developed and field tested. TSARCOM also served as the “host command” for AVRADCOM in keeping with DARCOM policy that the newly created R&D commands not be burdened with installation support type functions. Consequently, TSARCOM provided common service support to its “tenant” in areas such as finance and accounting, morale and welfare activities, and installation safety.

In 1979, both the TSARCOM and AVRADCOM headquarters underwent further realignments and transfers of workload in several of their subordinate elements to achieve “more efficient and productive organizational and position structures.” A primary action of the realignment involved the reallocation of 71 engineering and technical spaces from TSARCOM to AVRADCOM and the move of 22 equipment specialists and supply cataloger spaces from AVRADCOM to TSARCOM. These refinements in the alignment of the commands’ engineering activities, operational concepts, organization, and manpower allocations occurred because not enough engineering spaces had been given to AVRADCOM in the original transfer of functions. Also, TSARCOM failed to receive enough spaces to handle the functions of configuration management, data planning and acquisition, type classification, or new equipment training.

Other reorganization manpower issues also confronted both commands in 1979. These included the reassignment of employees made excess by the AMARC reorganization, the abolition of spaces due to a high-grade reduction action, the placement of employees from the Iranian PMO which had been curtailed and substantially reduced by the overthrow of the shah, and an unscheduled manpower adjustment imposed by changes at DARCOM and DA.

AMARC Revisited

AMC’s two MSCs in St. Louis were not the only organizations encountering difficulties in operating under the AMARC mandated realignment. Previously in 1978, the AMC Commander, Gen. John Guthrie, initiated a baseline study known as “AMARC Revisited” designed to rejoin its severed commodity commands. The first of AMC’s separated MSCs to undergo such a realignment were the U.S. Army Missile Readiness Command (MIRCOM) and U.S. Army Missile Research and Development Command MIRADCOM) located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. On Apr. 25, 1979, DA approved the merger of MIRCOM and MIRADCOM personnel, missions, and assets into a single organization to reduce duplication, improve efficiency, eliminate interface and transition problems, and optimize the use of dwindling resources. To minimize personnel turbulence, the merger was implemented in two phases.

MICOM was reactivated at Redstone Arsenal on Jul. 1, 1979. Concurrently, the organizational elements of MIRCOM and MIRADCOM were transferred in place to the single command. During the 90-day stable period that followed, MICOM consisted of a dual command structure, with former MIRCOM elements grouped under the DCG for Readiness and the former MIRADCOM elements under the DCG for R&D. Phase II of the MIRCOM/MIRADCOM merger into MICOM began on Oct. 1, 1979. The dual command structure was realigned in a two-step process. The first step entailed the consolidation of functionally similar or duplicate missions into the merged command structure, which became operational on Oct. 7. This process continued in the fiscal year (FY) 1980-81 period by other realignments to streamline and optimize the consolidated command in accordance with DARCOM approved organizational concepts.

Although the reestablishment of MICOM fueled speculation that
DARCOM planned to immediately reunite all of its readiness and R&D commands such was not the case. Instead, AMC undertook a series of evaluations at its other MSCs to determine “how well the DARCOM reorganization, in line with the … AMARC study, (was) working and whether it (was) achieving the expected objectives.” Nonetheless, from 1979 to 1984, AMARC Revisited “resulted in the reconciliation of the commodity commands and the elimination of the many problems created by AMARC.”

In St. Louis, starting in Mar. 1983, command representatives began devising a detailed step-by-step plan to consolidate control of the existing aviation and troop system related organizations … into two unified, life cycle oriented commands called AVSCOM and TROSCOM.” In a prepared statement released on Mar. 11, DARCOM announced the return to the prior MSC structures and explained that the realignment would “reduce the complexity of a single command (TSARCOM) managing two such dissimilar commodities as aviation and troop support.” During a redesignation ceremony held in St. Louis on Oct. 3, 1983, DARCOM’s newest major subordinate commands were provisionally implemented by Gen. Donald R. Keith, the DARCOM Commanding General. According to Keith, “Making our Army a better one is what these two commands are all about. We have retained the best of a strengthened research and development structure and combined it with an improved readiness organization. We will be able to meet the challenges of modernization and readiness, and fulfill the promise of attaining and sustaining quality equipment and support for an excellent Army.”

In Aug.1984, DARCOM resumed its original name of Army Materiel Command. The command expected the change to “remove a perceived boundary between development and logistics support implied in the DARCOM name. Additionally, the redesignation features brevity and clarity and will be better understood by allies and the general public.”

AVRADCOM and TSARCOM Accomplishments, 1976-1983

Despite the organizational and manpower challenges of the six years during which AVSCOM and TROSCOM were divided into separate R&D and readiness commands, both AVRADCOM and TSARCOM made notable headway in several of the programs assigned to their respective commands. Work on most of these programs had actually begun prior to the AMARC reorganization.

During this period, AVRADCOM supported three major aviation programs including the Black Hawk utility helicopter, which in 1978 began maturity flight testing and continued through a second production year contract with Sikorsky Aircraft, acceptance of the first production T-700 engine, establishment of the first pilot ground school, and the start of Army mechanic training. The command also managed the AH-64A Apache attack helicopter program initiated in 1972. Full-scale production began in 1982 and the Army officially accepted the first of 515 Apache helicopters in Feb. 1984.

The Aquila Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), the third major program assigned to AVRADCOM, began development in 1975 and made its initial flight on Jul. 16, 1982. “Being developed by the Army as an unmanned aerial platform designed to carry a complement of mission payloads, the successful flight was the first of a series to prove the RPV system’s effectiveness as a battlefield support system.” A predecessor of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) now being used in combat, operational control of the Aquila RPV transferred to MICOM in Aug. 1985 because of its “more extensive laboratory resources.”

Other AVRADCOM accomplishments included delivery of the initial production model CH-47D Chinook helicopter in May 1982, the first of 436 CH-47s to be modernized to the “D” configuration. Begun in 1976, the effort was “designed to extend the service life, increase the operational capabilities, and lower the operating costs” of the Army’s medium-lift “workhorse cargo helicopter.”

Among the many and varied programs overseen by TSARCOM were several which involved rail and water transportation. In1979, the command’s three Mobile Rail Repair Shops celebrated their 30th anniversary. The teams of qualified rail mechanics from the New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; Red River, Texas; and Tooele, Utah, Army Depots kept “military rail equipment across the nation in good running order by providing direct and general support maintenance and supply support for the Department of Defense utility rail equipment.”

TSARCOM technical support and field maintenance teams conducted training on the Assault Float Bridge for Fort Hood’s 1st Cavalry Division, E Company, 8th Engineers in Feb. 1980. Nicknamed the “ribbon bridge” because it was constructed of floating aluminum modular units, the bridge could be “control launched” by off-loading from a truck using cable or “free launched” by backing the truck into the water and sliding the bridge off the truck bed. The TSARCOM teams trained soldiers in all aspects of maintenance, rafting, and bridging.

In May 1981, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army approved the Army Watercraft Requirements Master Plan jointly developed by TSARCOM and TRADOC. The baseline document provided a “quantitative basis to support acquisition programs” for a revitalized Army watercraft fleet to deliver Logistics-Over-The-Shore (LOTS) coastal, harbor, and inland waterway capabilities. The following year, the Lighter Air Cushion Vehicle 30-ton (LACV-30) became the first hardware product of the 1973 U.S. Army Trans-Hydro Craft Study. Managed by TSARCOM’s Amphibian and Watercraft Project Office, the LACV-30 became operational on Aug. 20, 1981 with the 331st Transportation Company, Air Cushion Vehicle, which was the first unit of its kind in the history of the U.S. Army.

Able to perform the LOTS mission “over 80 percent of the world’s shore lines,” the LACV-30 made it possible for the Army to put “cargo ashore over unimproved beaches, marsh areas, marginal terrain, and ice that is not accessible using conventional lighterage” (i.e., the process of transferring cargo between vessels of different sizes). In addition, the new airboat was capable of skimming over the water at 60 miles per hour and could cross over reefs, underwater obstacles, and land barriers to rapidly deploy soldiers from ship to shore.

TSARCOM also had an additional major role to play in sustaining the rapid deployment force (RDF) created by the Carter administration following the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One of the Army’s highest priorities in the 1980s in preparing for the possibility of combat operations in Southeast Asia was the acquisition of water supply equipment to support troops in an area of limited water or with water temperatures in excess of 70 degrees. As a result of this requirement, in 1982, TSARCOM was assigned responsibility for the ultimate fielding, training, and managing of water purification, storage, and cooling systems then in the development or initial production stages as well those being readied for field use.

Like its R&D counterpart in St. Louis, TSARCOM also interacted with MICOM through its management of the electrical power-generating equipment and environmental control units (ECUs) used in the launching of Army missiles. “Perhaps the most anonymous parts of these intricate apparatus,” the generators and ECUs managed by TSARCOM supported 20 major weapons systems as well as sustained individual troop requirements for electrical power as well as proper temperature and humidity controls.

In addition to their autonomous workloads, AVRADCOM and TSARCOM cooperated on various programs in support of Army aviation. In Sep. 1981, for example, the two commands took on a joint effort for DA to develop “a cockpit in selected helicopters capable of using night-vision goggles.” The night-vision devices then available blocked the pilot’s peripheral vision, while a new aviator model to be fielded in 1984 was still red/infrared light sensitive and so was impaired by the type of lighting used at that time in Army aircraft. The quick reaction project undertaken by AVRADCOM, TROSCOM, and Corpus Christi Army Depot (by then a sub-element of AMC’s newly established Depot Systems Command) was the first phase of the Improved Lighting System, Army Aviation (ILSAA).

In Nov. 1981, the joint effort completed a prototype lighting system using an infrared filtering blue-green glass obtained from Germany to replace red lenses on critical lights in the cockpits of the UH-1 Huey, AH-1 Cobra, OH-58A Kiowa and CH-47C helicopters. The designated Night Fix, Phase I solution, which was adopted as a depot-level modification to be applied to more than 2,500 aircraft within one year, gave “the unit combat commander a capability to engage any enemy on a 24-hour basis.”

Another successful cooperative effort between AMC’s St. Louis MSCs was a TSARCOM Fixed Wing Readiness Project Office program supported by AVRADCOM by which the Army accepted aircraft seized nationwide by federal law enforcement agencies for use by the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. The planes were a welcome addition to fixed-wing fleets long overdue for replacements that would normally cost over $1 million per plane. TSARCOM employees inspected the aircraft to determine if they were suitable for Army use, while AVRADCOM’s System Engineering and Development Directorate provided the necessary aeronautical engineering expertise. Once accepted for transfer, “the unit receiving a confiscated aircraft (was) responsible for upgrading and maintaining these non-standard aircraft to Federal Aviation Administration and Army standards.”

Army Transformation after Vietnam

Although the Army emerged from the long conflict in Southeast Asia worn down and somewhat disheveled, it overcame the numerous challenges confronting it in the years between 1970 and 1985 to successfully begin transforming itself to meet future threats to the nation’s security. As part of that larger process, AVSCOM and TROSCOM also experienced a series of alterations during this period that shaped how they carried out their assigned missions. Despite the uncertainties of organizational upheaval and constrained resources, the significant contributions of both commands helped to strengthen the Army and ensure the safety and success of soldiers in the field.

• Date Taken: 12.13.2017
• Date Posted: 12.13.2017 14:01
• Story ID: 258668
• Location: REDSTONE ARSENAL, AL, US
• Hometown: REDSTONE ARSENAL, AL, US