A CBO study. Assesses the competitiveness of nuclear power compared to other sources of new capacity to generate electricity.

The Army has initiated two programs designed to transform itself from a force focused on fighting the Cold War to one better designed to face the challenges of the 21st century. Those two programs, the Modularity Initiative and the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, would change the way the Army is organized and equipped, respectively. This study considers the near- and long-term implications of those two programs. It also examines three alternatives for modernizing the Army¿s combat forces using modified versions of the FCS program and estimates the costs and savings of those options as well as their effects on the Army¿s ability to introduce new technologies into its combat brigades. ¿An objective, impartial analysis.¿ Charts and tables.

Carrying out the plans proposed in the President¿s 2010 budget request, excluding overseas contingency operations, would require defense resources averaging $567 billion annually from 2011 to 2028. That amount is about 6% more than the $534 billion in total obligational authority the Admin. requested in its regular 2010 budget. Four main factors account for the higher resources required in the long term: The likelihood of continued real growth in pay and benefits for DoD¿s military and civilian personnel; The projected increases in the costs of oper. and maint. for aging equip.; DoD¿s plans to develop and field advanced weapon systems; and Investments in new capabilities to meet emerging security threats. Charts and tables.

In 2003, the U.S. Army began a process to transform from a division-based to a modular force structure. Congress requested a study of the process and outcomes of the initiative to assess the impact on the Army's capabilities in a range of operations.