oversight

Computer Simulations, War Gaming, and Contract Studies

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-23.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                  J
                                      . llllIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllll
                                                    LM089759
                                                              ~




                                      RELEASED

Computer Simulations,            ‘*
War Gaming,
And COIItra(Tt. Studies   B-763074




Department   of Defense




BY THE COMPTROLLER    GENERAL
OF THE UNITED  STATES



                          FEB. 23,19              -i 1
                                                               ~
                                                                      “1
                                                                     ..“.
                                            ---      - .------
                                                              ---.   -j$ ,+,.’
                 COMPTROLLER      GENERAL     OF      THE       UNITED   STATES
                                WASHINGTON.    D.C.         20548




B-163074          _.




Dear    Mr.    Chairman:

        In accordance      with your request        dated     July 27, 1970,
this is our initial     report      on computer    simulations,      war
gaming,    and contract        studies   in the Department        of Defense,

        In chapter     5, we have listed           a number     of matters  that
may be .of immediate           interest      to the Committee       as well as
those aspects      of simulations,          war gaming,       and contract
studies   that we plan to review              in the future.     As we complete
our subsequent       reviews        in these     areas,   we will forward    re-
ports   to you.

          Formal         comments      on our findings        have not been re-
quested      from       the Department        of-Defense.        We plan to make
no further       .distribution      of this report       unless    copies    are
specifically         requested,     and then copies         will be distributed
only after your agreement                has been obtained          or public     an-
nouncement           has been made         by you concerning          its contents.

                                                       Sincerely           yours,           ,   _.          .“.




                                                                                            I        .. .




                                                                                            r
                                                       Comptroller                General
                                                       of the United              States

T.he-Honorable       George        H. Mahon
Chairman,      Committee          on Appropriations
House     of Representatives
I                l    .




COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S                                                COMPUTERSIMULATIONS, WAR GAMING,
REZ%RT TO THE COMMITTEE ON                                          AND CONTRACT STUDIES IN
APPROPRIATIONS                                                      THE DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE B-163074
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


DIGEST
------                        '


    WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADi

           At the request of the Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,        House of
           Representatives,      the General Accounting Office (GAO) has inquired     into
           selected aspects of computer-oriented       war gaming, computer simulations,                       ‘
           and contract     studies sponsored by the Department of Defense.     The pri-
           mary objectives      of the inquiry were to identify   the extent and related
           costs -of

                     --computer    simulation         activity;

                     --computer    or computer-assisted              war gaming;    and,

                     --contract    studies      for    strategic,       tactical,   politico-military,   and
                        related   areas.

           GAO also looked into the conduct and utilization        of a number of re-
           cently completed war games. Because of the magnitude of the subject
           area and the limited   time available,    much of the data obtained during
           GAO's inquiry was compiled at GAO's request by various Department of
           Defense activities   and was not verified    independently   by GAO. Formal
           comments on GAO's findings   have not been requested from the Department
           of Defense.


    FINDINGS AND COkLUSIONS

           Computer simulation    is a popular analytical         technique throughout      the                    , _..         rr.
           Department of Defense because of Its value in analyzing complex systems
           and in testing    the effect of proposed policies            and procedures.    The es-
           timated cost of the simulation        effort   durin     fiscal   year 1970 repre-
           sented a Defense-wide     expenditure      of about $17‘2 million.        The most                      ,       I..




           extensive   uses of computer. simulations         have been by the Air Force and
           the Army. Within those services          simulation    is used primarily      in re-
           search, development,     and testing activities.            (See p. 8.)

           The extent of war-gaming as an analytical          tool in the Department of
           Defense is evidenced by the fact that GAO identified            61 military   and
           contractor   organizations     that participated     in computer or computer-
           assisted war games in one form or another during fiscal             year 1970.
           This effort   required     an expenditure    of about $13.8 million,     of which
           $6.4 million    was contract     costs.
    Tear
    --   Sheet

                                                                                           FEB.23,1971
There is no centralized            responsibility           within   the Department     of De-
fense for coordinating            and controlling           the various     war gaming    activ-
i ti.es . Although      GAO has found some indications                  of efforts    to en-
courage    and enhance the exchange of information                      and to promote coordi-
nation,    the military      departments           are operating       more .or Aess indepen-
dently.      In GAO's opinion,,        this       environment      is conducive    to redundancy
and duplication        of effort.        (See p. 17.)

The Navy is planning        a major    improvement     in war gaming        equipment    at
the Naval War College.         Equipment       will  be procured    in.four       phases at
a total  estimated.cost       of about $16.3 million.            The improvement        pro-
gram is- expected       to be completed      in fiscal   year 1974.         (See p. 19.)

 The Department           of Defense      and the General       Services   Administration           are
 planning     to     establish      the Federal       Automatic    Data Processing        Simulation
 Center.      Its      proposed     charter    states     that  the Center    will     provide      tech-
.nical    support        and service's      to all elements       of the Federal       Government        in
 the area of         simulation       of data processing        systems.    It is tentatively
 scheduled      to     become 'operational        on July 1, 1971. (See p. 15.)

Studies     and analyses         are also perfomled         under contracts            awarded by the
Department      of Defense.          A total     of 209 contract          studies      costing      about
$100 million       were identified           that were awarded to a selected                   number
of contractors         (28)'during       fiscal    year 1970.         Approximately           one half.
of the studies        were directed          to strategic,      tactical,         and politico-
military     problems;       about one third         were scientific           and technological
in nature;      and the remainder            were in the manpower,             personnel,        and man-
agement.areas.          Of the 28 contractors,             15 accounted         for,contracts
totaling     $91 million.           (See p. 23.)

Some of the titles,       descriptions          , and/or     obj,ectives       of the simulations,
war games, or contract          studies       included     in GAO's inquiry          appeared     to
have a degree     of similarity         sufficient       to indicate         that some dupli-
cation  of effort    in these areas may be occurring                     either     within    or
among the military      departments.              (See pp- 10, 11, 16, 19, and 24.)

A number of studies         were being        performed       under what are generally           re-
ferred    to as level-of-effort            contracts.         The scope of the.work          set out
in these contracts        is very general,            and the speci fit      tasks    to be per-
formed    are not agreed        to until      after     the award of the contracts.              Vari-
ous-Defense    and military        activities         rely    to a great    extent    on this
type of support      to supplement          and/or      complement    in-house     expertise.
 (See p. 25.)


Gierall     observations      and
suggestions       for further     stxiy

GAO has not fully'explored                   certain  potentially    troublesome          management
areas, but there     appears            to    be a need for additional        study       of:




                                                  2
               --The    changes    in data processing      equipment,     the extent  of utilization
       ' I
                  of the facilitfes,        and the overall      benefits    expected in the im-
                  provement     program   for war gaming at the Naval War College.
                   (See p. 26,)

               --What    controls       will     be instituted         to ensure    that Government    agen-
                  cies make use of -the available                   services    of the Federal    Automatic
                  Data Processing           'Simulation       Center     and once the Center     becomes
                  fully    operational,          whether      there    is any intention    to expand its
                  role   to simulations            other    than those for automatic         data processing
                  equipment       configuration          and acquisition.          (See p. 26.)

               --The      indications      of possible       similarity   and duplication         of effort
                   in simulations,         war games,       and contract    studies,     as well as whether
                   the input        data are realistic         and the results       are utilized    effec-
                  tively.          (See p:26.)

               --The appropriateness               of using   the level-of-effort          type    of contract,
                  which initially            prescribes     no specific     tasks,   for     the   studies    area.
                   (See p,. 27.)

         GAO believes          that    the     Committee     may-wish    to   explore  these'matters     with         ;
         the agencies          involved.          However,     GAO intends     to look into     the last  two         i.   I,
         items   listed        above.in        greater    detail.

                                                                                                                      _I




Tear
--     Sheet




                                                             3
                            Contents
                                                              Page

DIGEST                                                          1
CHAPTER'
    1        INTRODUCTION                                       4
                 Simulation                                     4
                 War gaming                                     5
               - Contract   studies    and analyses             6'
    2        COMPUTER-SIMULATION ACTIVITY IN THE DEPART-
             MENT OF DEFENSE
                 Department   of Defense agencies
                 ArTJ
                 Air Force
                 Navy
                 Marine Corps
                 Federal Automatic    Data Processing Simu-
                    lation  Center                             15
    3        WAR GAMING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE           17
                 costs                                         18
                 Similarity  of war game studies               19
                 War gaming at the Naval War College           19
                 Utilization  of selected war games            21
    4        CONTRACT STUDIES AND ANALYSES
b 5          ‘OVERALL OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
              FURTHER STUDY
APPENDIX                                                             i.             +



         I   Letter   dated September 24, 1969, from the
                Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,                              .I




                House of Representatives                       31    L    .,.   1   _    .




    II       Letter   dated July 27, 1970, from the Chair-
                man, Committee on Appropriations,  House of
                Representatives
  III        Department   of Defense organizations    men-
               tioned   in this report
‘        .




    'CO?4PTRisLLERGENERAL'S                                       COMPUTER SIMULATIONS, WAR GAMING,
     REPOLs"TTO THE COMMITTEE ON                                  AND CONTRACT STUDIES IN
     AP&OPRIATIONS                                                THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE B-163074
     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


    DIGEST
    _-----


    WHYTHE REVIEW WASMtlDi'

             At the request         of the Chairman,        Committee    on Appropriations,       House of
             Representatives,           the General     Accounting    Office    (GAO) has inquired          into
             selected      aspects     of computer-oriented         war gaming,     computer   simulations,
             and contract        studies    sponsored      by the Department       of Defense.      The pri-
             mary objectives          of the inquiry       were to identify      the extent    and related
             costs of

                 --computer      simulation         activity;

                 --computer      or computer-assisted'war                gaming;   and,

                 --contract     studies       for    strategic,       tactical,    politico-military,           and
                    related    areas.

              GAO also looked         into    the conduct     and utilization          of a number of re-
              cently   completed        war games.      Because of the magnitude             of the subject
              area and the limited            time available,     much of the data obtained              during
              GAO's inquiry         was compiled     at GAO's request          by various     Department      of
              Defense    activities        and was not verified          independently       by GAO.     Formal
              comments    on GAO's findings          have not been requested             from the Department
              of Defense.


    FTNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

              Computer    simulation        is a popular         analytical           technique     throughout      the
              Department     of Defense        because of its value                 in analyzing        complex   systems
              and in testing         the effect     of proposed            policies         and procedures.       The es-
              timated    cost of the simulation              effort       durin‘        fiscal   year 1970 repre-
              sented    a Defense-wide         expenditure         of about 3 172 million.                 The most
              extensive     uses of computer           simulations           have been by the Air Force and
              the Army.      Within      those services          simulation           is used primarily         in re-
              search,    development,         and testing        activities.               (See p. 8.)

             ,The extent       of war gaming as an analytical                tool    in the Department        of
               Defense     is evidenced      by the fact         that   GAO identified        61 military      and
               contractor      organizations      that     participated        in computer      or computer-
               assisted      war games in one form or another                during    fiscal    year 1970.
               This effort       required    an expenditure           of about $13.8 million,            of which
               $6.4 millio     n was contract       costs.
.
          4   .




                   There is no centralized            responsibility          within   the Department      of De-
    . .            fense for coordinating            and controlling          the various    war gaming     activ-
                   ities.     Although     GAO has found some indications                 of efforts    to en-
                   courage    and enhance     the exchange           of information       and to promote     coordi-
                   nation,    the military       departments         are operating       more or less indepen-
                   dently.      In GAO's opinion,         this      environment      is conducive     to redundancy
                   and duplication        of effort.        (See p. 17.)

                   The‘Navy  is planning      a major   improvement     in war gaming equipment       at
                   the Naval War College.        Equipment      will  be procured    in four phases at
                   a total  estimated     cost of about $16.3 million.            The improvement   pro-
                   gram. is expected    to be completed       in fiscal   year 1974.       (See p. 19.)

                    The Department       of Defense     atid the General        Services   Administration            are
                    planning    -to establish     the Federal       Automatic      Data Processing        Simulation               '-:,,.;,;::~~"
                    Center.      Its proposed     charter    states      that   the Center     will    provide       tech-         '* L'*
                    nical    support    and services      to all.elements         of the Federal       Government         in        ----
                  . the area of simulation          of data processing          systems.     It is tentatively
                    scheduled      to become operational          on July     1, 1971.    (See p. 15.)

                    Studies    and analyses        are also performed         under contracts            awarded by the
                    Department      of Defense.        A total     of 209.contract           studies     costing      about
                    $100 million       were identified         that were awarded to a selected                   number            '   ,: 'I,
                    of contractors         (28) during     fiscal    year 1970.          Approximately         one half            ' , .$'
                                                                                                                                   P __,. ,'
                    of the studies        were directed        to strategic,       tactical,         and politico-
                    military     problems;      about one third        were scientific            and technological                L
                    in nature;      and the remainder          were in the manpower,              personnel,       and man-    *
                    agement    areas.      .Of the 28 contractors,           15 accounted‘for            contracts
                    totaling     $91 million.         (See p. 23.)

                    Some of the titles,        descriptions          , and/or     objectives       of the simulations,
                    war games, or contract           studies       included     in GAO's inquiry         appeared     to
                    have a degree      of similarity         sufficient       to indicate        that   some dupli-
                    cation   of effort    in these areas may be occurring                    either     within    or
                    among. the military      departments.              (See pp. 10, 11, 16, 19, and 24.)

                    A number of studies        were being       perfomed        under what are generally         re-
                    ferred  to as level-of-effort            contracts.         The scope of the work set out
                    in these contracts       is very general          , and the specific       tasks    to be per-
                    formed  are not agreed        to until      after     the award of the contracts.            Vari-
                    ous Defense   and military       activities         rely    to a great    extent    on this,
                    type of supp'ort   to supplement           and/or     complement    in-house     expertise.
                    (See p. 25.)


                    UveraZ’l obkemations     and
                    suggestions  for further     study

                    GAO has' not fully        explored     certain  potentially    troublesome             management
                    areas,  but there        appears     to be a need for additional        study          of:




                                                                  2
       --The changes       in data processing      equipment,     the extent  of‘utilization
.,
          of the facilities,        and the overall      benefits    expected in the im-
          provement     program   for war gaming      at the Naval War College.
           (See p. 26.)

       -r-What controls          will     be instituted          to ensure   that Government    agen-
          ties-make       use of the available                services   of the Federal    Automatic
          Data Processing             Simulation.Center            and once the Center    becomes
          fully     operational,          whether       there    is any intention   to expand its
           role   to simulations            other     than those for automatic        data processing
          equipment        configuration           and acquisition.         (See p. 26.)

       --The indications        of possible       similarity   and duplication        of effort
          in simulations,      war games,        and contract   studies,     as well as whether
          the input      data are realistic         and the results      are utilized    effec-
          tively.      (See p. 26.)

       --The appropriateness           of using   the level-of-effort             type    of contract,
          which initially        prescribes     no specific     tasks,      for     the   studies    area.
           (See p. 27.)

     GAO believes      that    the   Committee     may wish to explore   these            matters  with
     the agencies      involved.        However,     GAO intends to look into             the last  two
     items   listed    above in      greater    detail.
             .
I




    .              _   .




        ..
                                                       CHAPTER 1

                                                     INTRODUCTION

                           At the request    of the Chairman,    Committee on Appropri-
                  ations,,    House of Representatives,      the General Accounting
                  Office has inquired        into selected  aspects of computer-
                  oriented      war .gaming, computer simulationg,      and contract
                  studies     sponsored by the Department       of Defense,

                          The primary        objectives       of our inquiry       were to identify
                  the extent and related              costs of (1) computer simulation                 ac-
                  tivity,     (2) computer or computer-assisted                   war gaming, and
                   (3) contract        studies     for strategic,       tactical,        politico-
                  military,       and related        areas.      We also looked into the con-
                  duct‘ and utilization            of a number of recently              completed war
                  games. We did not attempt,                  during the course of these pre-
                  liminary      inquiries,       to evaluate       management controls,            the
                  effectiveness          of computer programs,          or'the     utilization        of
                  the results       obtained.         Additional     reviews to look into se-
                  lected    &as        that appear to warrant           a.ttention       are being           .
                  planned.        (See p. 27.)

                           Because of the magnitude          of the subject       area and the
                   limited     time available,      much of the data obtained             during
                   our inquiry       was compiled at our request by various                Depart-
                   ment of Defense activities           and was not verified           indepen-
                   dently     by us:     We were advise'd by the Office           of the Secre-
                 ‘tary     of Defense and by the military            agencies that the data
                   might be subject         to omissions,     inaccuracies,       and incom-
                   pleteness      -because of (1) individual         judgments       concerning
                   the meaning of the word "simulation,"                 (2) differing       inter-
                   pretations       of tests associated       with analysis,        programming,                                        F



                   and machine'utilization,           and '(3) difficulties          of gathering                 .    . .   I               .




                   data within       the time constraints        and in the form requested.

                  Simulation

                         Computer simulation   is an analytical     technique   which
                  involves   the use of mathematical    and logical     models to rep-
                  resent and study the behavior      of real-world     or hypothetical                           I,.             .---   _-




                  events,   processes , or systems over extended perio-ds of time.



                                                             4
         .
I




    .t
            Simulation       provides     the means for gaining           exherience
     and for making and correcting                errors   without     incurring       the
     costs-or     risks     of-actual     application.         It offers      opportu-
     nities    to test theories          and proposed modifications              ill sys-
     tems or processes;           to study organizations           and structures;
    .to probe past,         present,     and future      events;    and to utilize
     forces    that are difficult           or impracticable        to mobilize.
     Simulation       therefore       is of value both as an educational                 de-
     vice and as a means of discovering                  improved methods.

             Simulation     should be used when (1) it is either                impos-
     sible     or extremely      costly   to observe certain          processes    in
     the real world,        (2).the     observed     system is too complex to
     be described       by a set of mathematical            equations,      (3) no
     straightforward        analytical      technique     exists    for solution      of
     appropriate       mathematical      equations,      and (4) it is either
     impossible       or very costly      to obtain      data for the more com-
     plicated     mathematical       models describing         a system.

             On the other hand simulation         should not be used when
     (1) simpler      techniques   exist,     (2) data are inadequate,       (3)
     objectives     are not clear,       (4) there are short-term      dead-
     lines,     or (5) the problems       are minor.

     W& GAMING

            One -of the major applications          of simulation       is war gam-
     ing.    A war game is defined       by the Department        of Defense as
     a simulation       of a military   operation     involving    two or more
     opposing     forces   and using rules,      data, and procedures            de-
     signed to depict        an actual  or assumed real-life          situation.
      It is primarily      a technique   used to study problems            of mili-
     tary planning,       organization,   tactics,      and strategy.

              A war game can be conducted         to cover the entire            spec-
     trum of war, -i.e. , politico-military             crises,      general    war,
     or limited      wa.r.   The game may be based on hypothetical                  sit-
     uations,     real-world    crises,    or current       operational      plans.
     Some games are designed           for joint    operations       by two or more
     military     services,    some are for use by a single              service,-      and
     others'may      be used by individual        Army field       commanders or
     even by division        or battalion      commanders.       The level      of
     command at which the game is to be played,                  of course,
                                                                                               c
t         .

.

    . .
               influences the type           of units  to be represented             and the
               scope of operations           to be conducted.

                       There Are three types of war games in common use today:
              the training          game, the operational          game, and the research
              game.      The    training       game   is   the least    complex and is de-
              signed.to       provide       the participants       with decisionmaking         oppor-
              tunities      -similar     to those that may be experienced                 in combat.
              The operational           game deals with current            organizations,
              equipment,        and tactics.          It is-more      complex than the train-
              ing game, uses inputs              that are based on known quantities,
              and is used to test operational                  plans.      The research      game,
              which is the most complex of the three types of games, re-
              quires     careful-rpreparation            to achieve     maximum objectivity
              and usually         is designed       to study tactical         or strategic     prob-
              lems in a future            time frame.

                       A war game can be accomplished        manually,     can be
              conljuter-assisted,        or can be wholly    computerized.       Manual
              games are played using symbols,          pins,   or pieces     to represent
              forces;     weapons,     and targets on maps, mapboards,         and terrain
              models.       A computer-assisted    game is a manual game using
              computerized        models which free the control        group from many
              repetitive       and time-consuming   computations.

                        Computer games are based on predetermined                    procedures.
               All simulation         of conflict       is done by the computer           in accor-
               dance with the detailed             instructions         contained    in the com-
               puter program.           The primary       advantage      of computer     gaming is
               that the same situation             can be simulated           many times under
              -differing      conditions,       to observe variability            of results.         A
               computer     war game'requires           the use'of       a war game model
                ( i.e.,   computer     .prqgram)     which     contains     all the rules,       pro-
               cedures,     and logic       required      to conduct the game.           Develop-
               ment of such a model normally                 requires     about 12 to 24 months
               depending      on the complexity           of the interactions          and the ex-
               perience     level     of the model developers.

               CONTRACT STUDIES AND ANALYSES

                      The words      "studies  and analyses,"    as used in this re-
              port;    .refer to     those studies  and analyses    which are done by




                                                          6
    c         ‘




        *         . .

            . . contract      or by grant and which deal with the-systematic                       and
                critical.     examinations        of various      subjects.      Studies     and
                analyses      often require        advanced analytical         techniques       to
                integrate      a variety        of factors      and to evaluate      data.     Their
                purpose     is to provide         greater     understanding      of alternative
                organizations,         tactics,      dbctrines,      policies,    strategies,
                procedures,        syst+ms,      and programs.

                      Department      of Defense Directive           5010.22 states        that
              studies    and analyses         should be used as essential             tools     of
              management and.that           they should be considered            integral       parts
              of executive       or command responsibility.                This directive
              states    also that control          of studies       and analyses      is neces-                         1.. ,,
                                                                                                                        45,.,a+6 ,.'
              sary to ensure visibility              and usefulness        of all such ef-                              +_.,a',.._.
              forts.      Department      of Defense policy          requires    that control
              be exercised       to. ensure that initiation             of studies      is ap-
              proved by appropriate            senior    officials      and that the results
              of the, studies       receive     appropriate        management attention.




                                                                                                                   -.     X..   _




                                                         7



c
                                                                                                        ---   --
*         .

.             _.                                   CHAPTER .- 2
    . .
                                      COMPUTER SIMULATION         ACTIVITY

                                      IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                     Computer simillation          is a popular    analytical      technique
              throughout      the Department         of Defense because of its, value         '
              in analyzing        complex systems and in testing            the effect     of
              proposed     policies       and procedures.      The variety      of applica-
              tions    ranges from the simulation            of automatic      data process-
              ing equipment         configurations      to personnel     management and
              planning,     war gaming,         and the development      and testing      of
              complex weapons systems.

                       The user community         consists     of a multiplicity          of agen-
              cies,      departments,      commands, and individual              elements    therein,
              all of which utilize           numerous computer         facilities.          The De-
              partment       of Defense identified          for us 214 activities            that
              conduct      computer    simulations.         These simulations           were con-
              ducted at 181 Government.and                184 contractor         data processing
              facilities        at a total     estimated      cost of about $172.4 million
              for both computer          and manpower costs during               fiscal   year
              1970.

                        Computer costs are those costs associated               with the ac-
              tual operation         and use of the computer        and manpower costs
              are those costs for model and software                development,        prepa-
              ration      of inputs,     and analysis      and evaluation.        We found
              that manpower costs usually             were substantially        higher     than
              the costs of computer           usage.     We also noted that few, if
              any, computer         systems were dedicated        to special      simulation
              acti,vities       but rather    were utilized     for a number of differ-
              ent applications.            Shown below is a summary of the reported
              costs,      by agency,     for fiscal     years 1970-72.
                             B
                         Estimated     Cost of Computer Simulation         Activity        ,
                                     in the DeDartment       of Defense
              Fiscal                                            Marine         Air           DOD
               year           Total                  Navy        Corps        Force      ageric'ies
                                                        (millions)
                   1970    $172.4        $34.7      $23.7          $ .7      $104.8          $8.5
                   1971     17q.5         35.1..     25.8           1.3       $00.3           8.0
                   1972     134.3         11.9       24.3           ' .2       91.5           6.4


                                                          8
I

        .




    ..      As indicated     above,, the most extensive     uses of computer
     simulations     have been by the Air Force and the Army.          Within
     these services      simulation    is used primarily    in the areas of
     research,    development,      and testing activities.

             The following    narratives    describe    the more significant
     aspects of computer simulation           activity    in each of the mil-
     itary     departments   and the Defense agencies.          A brief   de-
     scription      of the functions     of the various     organizations     dis-
     cussed is included       in appendix     III.

     DEPARTMENT OF-DEFENSE AGENCIES

           We identified-eight           organizations     and agencies that
     conducted computer simulations,               at a total   cost of about
     $8.5 million.during         fiscal     year 1970.     Of this total,    about
     $2.4 million      represented       computer costs and $5.6 million        was
     for model development,           preparation      of data inputs,    and anal-
     ysis of results.

           The largest     users among the Defense organizations               and
    agencies were the Defense Communications                 Agency (about
     $4.8 million)     and the Joint Chiefs of Staff               (about $2.3 mil-
    lion).     .-The Defense Communications         Agency conducts four
    types of simulations:         (1,) survivability-vulnerability             stud-
    ies of communications        systems, (2) evaluations              of communica-
    tions systems, (3) logistics,          and (4) war gaming in support
    of the Office      of the Secretary      of Defense and the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff.

           The Joint Chiefs of Staff conducted          a variety    of simu-
    lation   projects    in support of their      roles as principal     mil-
     itary  advisors   to the President   and the Secretary        of Defense
    and in the exercise      of strategic    direction    over the unified
    and specified     commands.



          Computer simulation     expenditures   for fiscal  year 1970
    in the Army totaled     about $34.7 million     and were incurred
    by at least 17 Army commands and staff         offices.  A substan-
    tial  portion  of-the   Army costs, about $28.1 million,       was ex-
    pended by five organizations:         (1) Army Materiel  Command,



                                           9
.            .



    c
                  .   .




        -.       ('2) Office-of-  the Chief        of Research and Development,
                 (3) Combat Developm&ts            Command, (4) Deputy Chief of Staff
                 for Military    Operations,        and (5) Deputy Chief of Staff for
                 Logistics.

                         Expenditures      by'the     Army Materiel        Command totaled       about
                  $16.3 million       for 240 projects        and were incurred           mainly by
                 the research,        development,        and testing      organizations.        Two
                 of the more extens$ve            projects    were:       (1) ~a cost analysis
                 trade-off     of different        logistic     alternatives       and inventory
                 policies     and (2) a simulation           of the operation          of the M60
                 tank.

                         Simulation     efforts-under         the.direction      of the Office      of
                 the Chief of Research and Development                     cost about $3.4 mil-
                 lion and were conducted            entirely      under contract       by the Re-
                 search Analysis        Corporation.          The most costly       project  was
                 the Automated Force Planning                System study which cost about
                  $536,000.       This system is being designed to analyze midrange
                 requirements       for nonnuclear        general-purpose        forces and their
                 capabilities       to cope with any one of several worldwide                  sit-
                 uations.

                         Of the total     fiscal     year 1970 expenditure          by the Combat
                 Developments      Command, about $1.7 million            represented       two
                 large projects:         (1) the Field Army Modernization               War Game
                  (costing    $1.1 million),        designed to make a combat effective-
                 n-ess comparison      of forces and to identify            strengths      and
                 weaknesses of various           organizations       and doctrines      and (2) a
                 study of the development            and design of future         tactical     com-
                 munications      systems (costing          $660,000).

                         The simulation     activity  (costing     $2.1 million)     by the
                  Deputy Chief of Staff for Military           Operations     was conducted
                  under the supervision        of the Strategy     and Tactics Analysis
                 .Group.     About $500,000 of the total        simulation.    expenditure
                  for this activity       was spent on the Automated Force Planning
                  System study.       (This is the same project        for which the Of-
                  fice of the Chief of Research and Development               had assigned
                  work to be performed,        under contract,     by Research Analysis
                  Corporation.)

                       We' also noted that the Strategy               and Tactics   Analysis
                  Group was 'conducting  a project called              Quick Reaction    Costing


                                                           10
     .    .




         -for Major Forces.        This is a rapid method of estimating               to-
          tal Army budget and personnel              distribution,      given total   Army
           strength    or monetary limitations.              As discussed    below, the
          Office of the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics
          will.spend      about $10.6 million         over a 3-year period to in-
           stall    the Automated Procurement           of Equipment and Missiles,
          Army Budget System.          Although      we have not yet made detailed
          analyses     of these two projects,           it appears that both involve
          methods of determining           estimated      overall   Army costs and may
          possibly     involve   duplications        of-effort.

                 Some significant cost trends and observations                  were
         noted    in other commands of.the  Army.

                1. Funds-expended       by the Office     of the Deputy Chief of
         Staff for Logistics       will    increase   from about $3.6 million     in
         fiscal   year 1970 to $4.3 million         in fiscal     year 1971 and to
          $5.3 million   in fiscal      year 1972.      A substantial   portion of
         the cost ($10.6 million)          is for the Automated Procurement
         of Equipment and Missiles,           Army Budget System.

               2. -Expenditures        by the Office      of the, Deputy Chief of
         Staff  for Personnel..will         more,than     double,   increasing       from
         $217,000 in fiscal-year          l970 to about $518,000 in fiscal
         year 1971.      A significant       portion     of the increase       is,repre-
         sented by a contract          for modifications       to the Enlisted         Per-
         sonnel Inventory       Analysis     System.      There are indications
         that additional      funds will      be required      in fiscal     year 1972
         to program the concepts developed              under this contract.

               3. Army Air Defense Command costs will      increase from
         about $387,000 in fiscal     year 1970 to $533,000 in fiscal
         year 1971.   About  $103,000   of the increase  is for the SAFE-
         GUARD System Simulator.

                4. SAFEGUARD System Command costs will              increase    from
         about $2.9 million         in fiscal    year 1970 to $3.5 million         in
         fiscal    year 1971.and to $3.9 million          in fiscal     year.1972.
         A significant      portion    of the increase      is for simulations        to
         evaluate      the performance      of the SAFEGUARD System.




                               .                 II



r.                                                                                            -.
.




    AIR FQRCE

            The' Air Force expended about $105 million                   to conduct
    computer .simu.l.at$.on studies         during fiscal      yeirr1970.           Al-
    though this total          represented     simulation     activities        by 21
    major commands and organizations,               the Air Force Systems Com-
    mand accounted        for $101 million;       or.96 percent          of the.total
    Air Force expenditure.             The.Systems      Command had 13 differ-
    ent organizational           elements reporting       simulation       activities
    in connection        with its mission of advancing             aerospace tech-
    nology;     adapting     it into operational         aerospace systems, and
    acquiring     aerospace systems and materiel.

            The total     r&ported     costs of $101 million       were under-
    stated,     however,     inasmuch as costs relating          to 54 universi-
    ties or contractors          performing    computer simulations       under
    57 contracts      for the Air' Force Office          of Scientific    Re-
    search were not included.              We were advised that this infor-
    mation was not identifiable             in contractual     documents and
    that the Systems Command, within              the time available,      could
    not-ascertain       from 311 the organizations          involved   the ex-
    tent of simulations          being undertaken.

       . A further  breakdown         of the    Systems Command's fiscal
    year 1970 costs indicated          that:

          1. In-house      studies    conducted     totaled    567;   contract
             studies     totaled     686.

          2. There'was  an indicated      trend through   fiscal   year
             1972 to increase    in-house     efforts  and decrease'the
             number of contract     studies.

          3. The Space and Missile      Systems Organization,    located
             at Los.Angeles,  California,      accounted   for $61.3 mil-
             lion of the Systems Command's costs.          This organiza-
             tion had 310 of its 312 studies under contract.

          4. The Aeronautical     Systems Division,    located    at Wright-
             Patterson    Air Force Base, Ohio, that includes        five
             major laboratories,     accounted    for $28.6 million     of
             the Systems Command's .costs.       This organization      had
             245 studies.under     contract.
c




    . -,
            In addition,  trends in Air Force simulation                    activities
       were noted at other commands, as follows:

               1.. The costs of the Aerospace Defense Command, Ent Air
       Force Base, Colorado,         will    quadruple,     increasing      from about
       $247,600 in f iscal year 1970 to about $1 million                    in fiscal
       year 1972.       The primary      reason for this increase           is the
       combined cpntractor-         and in-house-supported           projects    to be
       conducted      during fiscal      years.1971-72.         One project     will    be
       the Aerospace Defense Capabilities               Analysis     Model which will
       be designed to develop and test aerospace defense capabili-
       ties.      Estimated   annual costs relative           to this project        are
       $60,000 in fiscal       years 1971-72.          A second project        account-
       ing .for a signi.ficant       part of the increase          is the Integrated
       Space Surveillance        System.. The estimated           costs of this
       project     are expected to be $140,000 in fiscal                year 1971 and
       $640,000 in fiscal       year 1972.

              2. Headquarters,     Data Systems Design Center,        expendi-
       tures will more than double,           increasing   from about $164,500
       in fiscal   year 1970 to about $402,700 in fiscal           year 1972.
       This effort    involves    simulations       that evaluate automatic
       data processing      systems design.

              3. Expenditures    by the Office          of the Assistant     Chief of
       Staff,   Studies and Analysis,         will    increase    by about 53 per-
       cent from $476,000 in fiscal           year 1970 to about $725,000 in
       fiscal   year 1971.     Most of the effort           by this organization              I / ,,“-
                                                                                             1. = 1.. : :‘?
                                                                                             ,i’,’
                                                                                                            “
                                                                                                              *i”
                                                                                                              _:

       supports    tactical   and -strate,gic      air studies..




                                               13
   NAVY        .

            Computer simulation      expenditures'by       24 major naval com-
   mands and qrganizatipns         for .fiscal.year       1970 totaled     $23.7
   million.      The largest    Navy users of simulations           were the
   Naval Air Development        Center,     Johnsville,     Pennsylvania;      Na-
   val Weapons Center,        China Lake, California;         and Naval Air
   Systems Command, Washington,            D.C.    These three activities
   accounted      for $10.3 million,       or 44 percent,     of the total
   Navy expenditures,        and indications        are that fiscal     year
   1971 costs will      increase.

          Significant        trends     in costs      were    noted    among other        Navy
   organizations.

         1. Costs at the Naval Underwater        Systems Center,           New
  London Laboratory,       New London, Connecticut,      will      increase
_ from about $316,000       in fiscal   year 1970 to $1.3 million
  during   fiscal  year 1971.       Most of the increase      will      be due
  to a simulation     project    called  Display  Parameter        Evaluation
  which is intended      to determine    the minimum essential           features
  that a ship's    display    console   needs for an observer          'to per-
  form his job,

            2. Costs at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory,                           White Oak,
   Maryland,        will      increase      from about $450,000            in fiscal     year
   1970,to        about $845,000          in 1971.         A project      called   Ships
    Elec-tronitis        Susceptability          and Computer Analysis            Technology
   Development           represents     *a significant          part of the increase.
   This project           has a twofold          purpose:       (a> to evaluate        the
  ,vulnerability            of electrical         circuits      and-/or systems aboard
    ships and'(b)           to improve        the simulations        utilized      for these
   evaluations.

  MARINE CORPS

           Computer simulation     activity,       costwise,   in the Marine
   Corps was minor compared with that of Defense agencies                    and
   other military     services.      The Marine Corps spent about              I
   $673,000 fo r simulations       during     fiscal     year 1970 and will
   spend about $1.3 million        in fiscal       year 1971.     A substantial
   portion    of the increase-will        result     from a contract    project
   called    Landing Force Integrated         Communications      Systems



                                               14
.



    ~4 which is to define the communications   requirements                           for   the
       Marine Corps in the 1975-85 time frame.

      EEDERAL AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SIMULATION                          CENTER                        w',-&. i
             We have learned      that the Department        of Defense and the
      General    Services    Administration      are planning      to establish
      the Federal      Automatic    Data Processing     Simulation     Center,
      within   the Air Force, 'which will         be located     at Hanscom
      Field,   Massachusetts.         It is tentatively      scheduled    to be-
      come operational       on July 1, 1971.

              The proposed        charter     states       that the Center will               pro-
       vide technical       support       and services          to all elements          of the
       Federal     Government      in the area of simulation                   of data proc-
      'essing.systems.         Such support           and services        will     serve two
       prime roles:        (1) simulation           in support       of the procurement
       of data processing          systems,       which involves           assisting        in the
       tasks of cost estimation,              competitive          analysis,       feasibility
       studies,     requirements        analysis,         and evaluation          of proposals            .?.,'
                                                                                                           -. -.!'
                                                                                                              ..':_.,+'.A
                                                                                                                        '
       and (2) simulation          in support'of           the management of data                          : .l'' -2b',
                                                                                                                     : .,
       systems,     which involves         assisting         in the tasks of prepara-                '-
       tion of systems specifications,                    software      design,      system de-.
       sign,    resources     allocation,         traffic       analysis,        scheduling,
       and systems augmentation.

               The currently       proposed      operating      procedures        for the
       Center specify        that any Government            agency requiring          simula-
       tion assistance         be required       to utilize       the services        of the
       Center unless       specific      conditiotis      dictate      otherwise.        They
       do n.ot, however*        indicate    what controls,           if any, will        be
      .established      to ensure that this requirement                   will    be met.
                                                                                                               .
              The General     Services     Administration'will          provide   the                            s,,
      initial    financing      for creation      and operation        of the Center                      *. 1-2 .
      under the authority          granted   in Public         Law 89-306 dated Oc-
      tober 30; 1965.         The Administration          has set aside $330,000
      of-fiscal     year 1971 funds and $650,000 of fiscal                  year 1972                     1      *
      funds for these purposes.             Subsequent         normal operational                             II< .
      expenses will        be reimbursed     by the users under an industrial                             I',* :
      fund arrangement.                                                                                   &. ..-. .---




                .
                                                    15
         Simulation        activities         in the Department        of Defense
cover a wide range of technical                      and management problems         and
represent        significant          expenditures.         Our preliminary     inqui-
ries have indicated                that.there       may be some duplication         of
effort      by organizations              developing     simulations     having   simi-
lar objectives.              In view of this,          we plan to examine into
the reasons' for,            results       obtained    from,     and the extent     of
similarity         in, these simulations.‘




                                            16
          .

i

    . .
                                         CHAPTEFx 3

                     WAZt GAMING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

            ..The extent      of war gaming as an analytic&l             tool in the
     Department       of Defense is evidenced             by the fact    that 61 mil-
    -itary     and contractor         organizations      which participated        in
     c.omputer or computer-assisted                war games in one form or
     another     during    fiscal.     year 1970 were identified.            This ef-
    -fort required        an expenditure          of about $13.8 million        (see
     tabulation       below),      of  which     $6.4 million   were   contract      costs.

                                 Estimated   Cost of
                   Computer and Computer-Assisted       War Gaming
                           in the Department     of Defense

                                                                               Joint
                                                                     Joint    unified
                                                                    Chiefs       and
    Fiscal           Total                               Air          of     specified
     year             cost      Army        Navy        Force        Staff   commands

                                               (millions)

      1970           $13.8      $4.4        $4.4            $2.7     $1.3        $1.0
      1971            lle4      -;*i         3*7             1.2      1.3           .7
      1972.           11,o           .       6.7               .3     (a>         1.2


    aNot      available

       " The scope of war gaming efforts                  ranged from antisubmarine-
    warfare    evaluations          to games designed       to assist    high-level
    decisionmaking.          In     support   of the  latter     effort,    each of
    the military       services       has a war gaming'activity          assigned    to
    its headquarters          staff     and the Joint     Chiefs    of Staff     are
    provided     with war gaming support            by the Studies,        Analysis
    and Gaming Agency.             The Off'ice   of Secretary       of Defense has
    access to a number of groups that utilize                    war games in their
    studies.

            There is no centralized    responsibility       within.the                  De-
    partment     of Defense for coordinating        and controlling               the
    various     war gaming programs.     In some of the military


                                               17
--
       services,      there are activities         responsible     for coordinating
       the war gaming program.            For example, the Navy's Assistant
       for'War Gaming Matters          and the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff
       for Military       Operations    have this responsibility.           Although'
       we have found some indications              of .efforts   to encourage and
       enhance the exchange of 'information               and to promote coordina-
       tion,   the military       departments      are operating      more or less
       independently,        In   our  opinion,      this environment     is con-
       ducive to redundancy          and duplication       of effort.

      -.COSTS
             As in the case of other. types of simulations,               the cost           .:c,p$-;;-.
       for computer time represents            only a relatively     small portion       .     .'I *'
       of the total     expenditures      for war gaming, because there are
       few, if any, computers-dedicated             solely   to war game activi-
       ties.    The data f_urnished       to us by the various       Department    of
       Defense activities       indicated      that between 65 and 90 percent
       of the total     costs were incurred         for development    of models               ;
       (computer programs),        preparation      of data 'inputs,   and analysis            k, ,,fI,l.;i
       of game results.                                                                        j. ._, ,i , -i

                The conduct of a computer war game requires             the use of
        specifically       designed models, the development          of which is
        complex, time-consuming,          and expensive.     Within the Depart-
        ment of Defense; hundreds of different             models have been de-
        veloped for this purpose by the military              departments,       Tech-
        nological     .changes in military       weaponry and equipment have a                 ,*..i+
                                                                                               yv..:.F'7
        tendency to outdate war gaming models.              To remain abreast                          ,I":
        of these changes, existing            models must be updated,      modified,
        or revised      or new models must be developed.           If an existing             ~,i~, ~-,
        model can satisfy         the objectives     of the games, it is far
        less costly      to use or modify the existing         model than to ini-
        tiate    development      of a new model..     The Navy plans to spend                L.I... i._/
        about $4 million        for the refinement      of current    models and
     -.the development         of new and/or replacement       models‘ during     fis-
        cal years 1970-72.

              The cost for analysis    representsanother     major portion                   ,1, ,~ i
      of the total    war gaming cost.       War games generate    large                        f* -
      quantities    of data that must be analyzed        in order that the                    .+ i .,-.   'L
      results    may be utilized    for decisionmaking     and/or training.
                                                                                               ,:_._,*
                                                                                                    -.. _r_:y,
                                                                                                            ._
                                                                                                j. ‘S;'.,$..*
                                                                                                     . Qs.Q
                                                                                                    -


                                             18
f

    .        .   ’




        ‘SIMILARITY          OF WAR GAME STUDIES

                In reviewing  a listing    of various    war gaming studies
        in the Army that were conducted         by the Strategy    and Tactics
        Analysis     Group, a support activity      of the Deputy Chief of
        Staff for Military     Operations,     we noted that a number of
        studies    had some aspects of similarity.

         For example:

                     1. Capabilities     War Game. Europe. Nuclear-1969
                        (CAPNUC-69)--A     war game that investigated        the capa-
                        bility     of NATO theater'nuclear     and conventional
                        forces to counter aggression       initiated    by the War-
                        saw Pact in Europe during the 1969 time frame.
                        Three situations      were gamed,

                     2 .’ Tactical   Nuclear     Sufficiency       for NATO (TANSUN)--A
                          war game that investigated            the requirements    of NATO
                          theater   and conventional         forces to counter Warsaw
                          Pact aggression      in Europe in the midrange time
                          frame.    Three distinctive         NATO postures     were gamed,
                          The final   report-was       prepared     in 1969.

                     3. War Game IjJurope, Nuclear,          1973--A war game being
                        conducted   that will      investigate       NATO theater     nuclear
                        and conventional       forces'     abilities    to counter War-
                        saw Pact aggression        in Europe.        Two alternatives
                        differing   in intelligence          input data .are being war
                        gamed,    The 'final    report     is scheduled      for publication
                        in February    1971.                                                    1,    4.




               We have not yet made any detailed           analyses of these
        games, but the apparent        similarities      in these war gaming                    .I   I.




        studies    raise the possibility         that there may be duplication
        of effort.

        WAR GAMING AT THE,NAVAL WAR.COLLEGE

                  The-Naval   War College,   Newport,   Rhode Island,   provides
         facilities      in the Navy, for the conduct of war games by op-
         erational      commanders.     The actual   gaming of fleet  plans is




                                                    19
    .


.       .   .




        done by using the Navy Electronic                     Warfare    Simulator,  a sys-
        tem designed  specifically  for the                   simulation    of naval war-
        fare,

                War games, in which the Navy Electronic               Warfare      Simula-
        tor is -used, may be divided          into-two      broad categories,          In
        locally     played games the players          are physically       present     at
        the college,      whereas in remote-play           games the players        parti-
        cipate    through    special    communications       networks    from various
        ships or.land-based          commands throughout        the world,      The
        remote-play-game       communications        network    was developed       to
        permit    commanders and their        staffs     to conduct     games without
        the necessity      for ,their    being transported         to the college.

               During our inquiry,      we learned    that the Navy had deter-
        mined that a major improvement          in war gaming facilities
        would be required       if the Naval War College       were to maintain
        a satisfactory     war gaming capability.         The Navy believes     that
        its needs are growing        beyond the capability      and capacity    of
        the Navy Electronic       Warfare   Simulator    and that advances    in
        science    and engineering     have accelerated     the obsolescence
        of the system.

                  A program has been established                  to improve         the capabil-
        .ity of the Navy Electronic                Warfare       Simulator.          The program
         will     result      in a new war gaming system called                    the Warfare        ,
         Analysis        and Research      System.        Fach planned         increment       of
         the improxement;program              will   provide        an increased          gaming ca-
         pability        through     a technical     improvement          in the equipment.
         It is planned          that, 'upon completion            of the program in fiscal
         year 1974, the Naval War College                   will     possess facilities             em-
         ploying      the most advanced and reliable                   state-of-the-art           .
         technology         and having     the capability           of meeting         all present
         and foreseeable            war gaming'needs.            According       to the acquisi-
         tion schedule,           the equipment      will     be procured          in four phases,
         and    its   total     cost   is  estimated       at    $16,357,000.

                 The Naval Electronic     Systems Command is exercising        over-
        all technical      supervision    of the program.      It is responsible
        for purchasing      the equipment     and for developing      program spec-
        ifications.       The program development      will  be accomplished
        by the Fleet Computer Programming           Center,  Pacific.




                                                    20
.




           Since the system incorporates             new equipment         and tech-
    niques into the Naval War Cclleg~              f?cilitics,        additional
    personnel    (number undetermined          at this time) will            be re-
    quired    to program,    operate,      and maintain        the system.        The
    Na,v believes      that the system will          have a minimum impact on
    maintenance     since the equipment         is primarily        the same type
    of equipment     being used in other Navy applications,                      There-
    fore   only   minor special       training    will       be required      to sup-
    port some special       equipment.

    UTILIZATION      OF SELECTED WAR GAMXS

             During our inquiry    we looked into the conduct         and uti-
    lization      of selected   war games conducted     by the Army, Navy,
    and Air Force.         The games selected    were recently     completed
    and were representative        of the type of games conducted          by
    the military      services,    Most of the data that were used and
    the results      of the games are 'classified     information.       Our
    observations      of the results    are therefore     general   in nature.

             In tine instance,     where.the    application     of two similar
    proposed ~types of equipment           were simulated,      the results     in-
    dicated      which equipment     would be of greater        value in accom-
    plishing       the mission   that was gamed.          These results,    along
    with other data, were furnished             to the Office      of the Chief
    of Staff       and to the Off,ice     of the Secretary      of Defense for
    their      consideration   in future     planning      and courses   of ac-
    tion.

             We noted that the results            of this particular      game sup-
    ported. the acquisition             of a major weapons system that the
    military      service     had been advocating        for some time.       In this
    type of game (which in many respects                 is similar     to a cost-
    effectiveness         study),     it is essential      that the input     data
    and the assumptions           be examined closely         to ensure that the
    results     are objective,           We did not attempt,       at that time.,
    to make such an analysis,               nor did we determine      whether   man-
    agement personnel          within     the military     service   and the Office
    of the Secretary          of Defense had done so..

           In another  military    service    the results     of a war game
    were-used   to determine    the effectiveness        of tactics    and
    force levels.     These results      were then tested      in live



                                            21
. .



exercises     .and eventually     were used   as a basis   for   the   prep-
aration     of new manuals      on tactics.

       In these two instances,        the results     of the war games
fkmed     the bases for certain       affirmative     actions (i.e.,
recommendation.for      acquisition       of a weapons system and de-'
velopment    of new tactics).       In another     instance,  we were
unable    to determine   what use, if any, had been made of the
data generated      by a war game.
.

    .        _.

                                             CHAPTER 4

                              CONTRACT STUDIES AND ANALYSES

                Closely     related    to many of the simulation              efforts       con-'   .   &$y
        ducted within         the Department       of Defense are the studies                and        n".y.;&;;,,:
        analyses conducted by contractors                  for the Department.              To
        determine       the' nature of the studies              that were placed under
        contract,      we selected       25 nonprofit        firms and six for-profit
        firms from a Department            of Defense listing            of 500 contrac-
        tors that.received          the largest       dollar       volume of contract
        &wards.      We    obtained    from  the    Department         of Defense and the                        ,,
        military.departments           an identification            of contracts       for              'k ,'y-4,I,b
        studies     and analyses       awarded to those firms during                 fiscal             2
        year 1970.
                 A total     of.209. contract         studies   costing    $99.7 million
        were identified.*           Approximately         one half of the studies          in-
        volved .strategic,          tactical,      and politico-military          problems
        and about one third            were scientific         and technological        in
        nature.       The Advanced Research Projects                 Agency, a research
        activity       attached     to the Office         of the Director      of Defense
        Research and Engineering,               sponsored practically          all the
        scientific         and technic.al     effdrt.        The remaining     studies     were
        in the manpower, -personnel,               and management areas*

                The Advanced Research Projects        Agency sponsored 97
        -studies,    the Army 43, and the Navy 29. The Air Force ini-
        tiated    only four contract      studies,   but one of the contracts
        was for Project RAND at a cost of $12.6 million.             The Air
        Force usually      uses contractors      to analyze problems associ-
        ated with-specific      weapon system programs.

               An identification          of the major contractors  and the dol-
                                                                                                        i -- ,. .
        lar amount of their           contract   studies are set out in the fol-
        'Lowing schedule.




                                                  23
.




    I                .   .




            .   .




                                             .Listing    of Major Contractors
                                     Awarded Contracts       for Studies  and Analyses
                                                      Fiscal    Year 1970

                                                                           Number of
                                                                            contract        Dollar
                                           Contractor                       studies         amount
                    RAND Corporation                                             5       $16,250,000
                    Institute     of Defense Analyses                            5         9,420,643
                    University     of Rochester                                  6         9,329,737
                    Cornell    Aeronautical       Laboratory                     3         7,627,778
                    Computer Sciences         Corporation                        7         7,175,ooo
                    Massachusetts      Institute      of Technol-
                         O&Y                                                    13         7,150,000~
                    Stanford   Research      Institute                          32         6,239,430
                    Research Analysis        Corporation                        35         5,910,219
                    University    of California                                 16         5,217,OOO
                    University    of Illinois                                    5         4,435,ooo
                    MITRE Corporation                                            1         2,950,ooo
                    Battelie   Memorial      Institute                           6         2,616;900
                    Stanford   University                                        7         2,464,OOO
                    Systems Development         Corporation                      6         2,410,505
                    Technical   Operations,         Inc.                        14         2,018,284
                             Total                                             161       $91,214,496

                            On the basis of a limited analysis    of the               contract
                    studies    and analyses area, our most significant                  observations
                    were as follows:

                             1. ke identified      a number of contracts    and. in-house
                     studies      that appear to be similar     in scope.    For example,
                    the following       Air Force and Office      of the Secretary     of De-
                    fense contracts         and studies  relate   to bomber penetration
                    capabilities.

                                     a. Air Force contract      with   Cornell   Aeronautical
                                        Laboratory     for Analysis    of Penetration      Aids.
                                        Cost--$7,350,000.

                                     b. Air Force contract      with The Boeing Company at
        I                               $924,736  (FY 1970)     and $150,000    (FY 1971) for an
                                        advanced penetration       model.   Cost--$1,074,736.



                                                               24
            c. Air Force contract        with North American          Rockwell
               Autonetics     for Strategic      Bomber Penetration.
               This contract      involves    studies     to evaluate      pene-
               tration    aids and concepts..         Cost--$245,000.
                                                                                           '. ....:,"&r
                                                                                                  ...
                                                                                                         y(
                                                                                           &,;'l~,~"
                                                                                           b?.'
            d; Defense Communications            Agency awarded a contract                     .,'..n,.
                                                                                                      ..-'I.
               for the Office       of the Secretary        of Defense to
               Stanford    Research     Institute      to Develop Techiques           '
               to Evaluate      the Effectiveness         of Bomber Penetra-
               tie-n,   A follow-on       contract     for Air Defense/
               Bomber Penetration         was awarded to Stanford        Re-
                search Institute      for fiscal       year 1971.    costs
               for the two contracts--$215,000.

            e. An in-house         simulation   study called    Saber Pene-
               trator‘was        conducted    by the Air Force.      This is
       ..      a continuing          study that analyzes     bomber
               vulnerability-survivability.

            .f. An Air Force simulation    study          called    Low Altitude
                Penetration will   be conducted           during    fiscal    year
                1971.

         2. We observed        that a number of studies            were being
performed       under what are generally           referred      to as level-of-
effort     contracts.        This type of contract           provides   a type of
service --for        example,     operations   research        and systems anal-
ysis--for       a specified       number of man-months          at an estimated                .-e,..
price.       It usually       spans a multiyear       period      and is renego-          : .2;
                                                                                             .,-,",y".:.s".
                                                                                                .
tiated      annually.       The scope of work set out in the contract
is very general,           and the specific      tasks to be performed           by
the contractor          are not agreed to until           after    the award of           r.' rr“
the contract..

       Various     Defense and military        activities    rely    to a
great extent       on this      type'of support     to supplement      and/or
complement      in-house     expertise.    Some examples of level-of-
effort    contracts      are those with the Center for Naval Anal-
yses, Institute        for Defense Analyses,          RAND Corporation,       and
Stanford     Research     Institute.,    We found that awards on this
type of contract        ranged from $325,000 to about $12 million.                        i     "
                                                                                          I. -....




                                        25
                                        CHAPTER 2

                  OVERALL OBSERVATIONS               AND SUGGESTIONS

                                  FOR FUR'J%ER STUDY

         The expenditures,          for simulations,          war games, and re-
 lated     contract      studies      represent      a significant       annual in-                    I
 vestment      of funds by the Department                of Defense.       Our limited             I
 inquiries       indicated       certain     potentially       troublesome     manage-
 ment areas in which there appeared to be a need for further
 study .

            1. The Major Improvement          Program for war gaming at the
  Naval War Coll.ege,          Newport,    Rhode Island      (see p. 191, rep-
^ resents      a -significant     updating     in automatic      data processing
  equipment        at that activity.         The total    cost of this     program
  is estimated        at $X,357,000.          The Committee      may wish to
  discuss      with Navy officials         the need for the changes in                                      ;
  data processing          equipment,    the extent     of utilization       of the                         II *.'.,..
                                                                                                            :i Tr.:.*i
  facilities,        and the overall       benefits    expected      to be realized.                          ," +'I,'b
                                                                                                           .-
           2. The Federal             Automatic    Data Processing         Simulation
 Center        (see p. 151, if established                  as planned,      will     have a
  significant           effect       on automatic     data processing          system
 simulation           throughout         the Federal       Government.       If the Center
 functions          in accordance           with the expectations          of its plan-
 ners,      it 'can probably             reduce the costs of simulation                ac-                        . .'a&g-:
                                                                                                               ,;a,;: . ,:
 tivity       throughout           the Federal     Government.         The Committee         may
 wish tp discuss               with Air Force and General              Services      Adminis-
 tration        officials         what controls       will    be instituted         to ensure
 that Government               agencies      make use of the available              service-s
 and whether,             once the Center becomes fully                operational,
 there is any intention                    to expand its role to simulations
 other than those for studying                     the acquisition         of data proc-
 essing       equipment.

         3. We estimate      that during    fiscal      year 1970 the Depart-
 ment of Defense expended about $286 million                 for the types of
 simulations,       .w& games, and contract         studies    discussed   in
 this    report.      In each of these areas,         it is essential    that
 effective       management controls     exist     to ensure that:


                                                                                                           L



                                                26
    .        . .


                   a. There   are no duplications          of effort.

                   b. Appropriate   consideration    is given           to the   results
                      of the studies,    games, etc.

                   c. Input   data   are realistic.

               Our preliminary       inquiries    indicated   that         these matters
        warran't detailed      reviews,      and we are planning           to initiate
        such r&views in the near future.

                4. A substantial       expenditure     is made annually      for
         studies   and/or services       under levelAof-effort-type          contracts
        -which initially     prescribe      no specific      tasks.    In effect,
         these are contracts        for personal      services,     and we intend to
         look into the‘ appropriateness-           of using this type of contract
         for the studies      area.




                                                      27

L                                                                                          -.
. .




      APPENDIXES




                   :           .,

                   L   .a_,.        -




        29.
                                                                                  APPENDIX I
. .
                                                                                      Page 1

    hhJ0RIT-fMEMm3?B
GEORGE H. MAHOPI. TEA..
                  CH*WlMAN




          Honorable   E3ner 8. Staats
          Comptroller   General of the United         States
          U. S. General Accounting    Office
          Washington,   D. C. 20458

          Dear Mr. Staats:

                   The Committee hearings     on the Department     of Defense Operation
          and Maintenance       budget requests    for 190 contain discussions        of
          several new Automatic        Data Processing     (ADP) systems planned for
          installation     in fiscal.year     1910 and future years.       Such systems
          as the Army "Conarc Class One Automatic            System (WCC&S),"    the
          Navy "Integrated       Command/Management    Information    System (NICOMIS),"
          and the Air Force "Advanced Logistics           System (AI&X)'     are actively
          under development.

                  It would be most helpful         if the General Accounting        Office
          maintained    a dir&t      effort    in the area of development,        installation,
          and operation       of automatic     data processing       systems with periodic
          reporting    of the results       of its reviews.        The guidelines    established
          in earlier,     related,     Committee letters       of November 28, 1967 and
          August 6, 1968 adequately          state the scope of the work to be undertaken.
          Reports such as yours of March 13, l$s                 and January 16, 1969 are of
          the type in which the Committee             is interested.

                  The Committee would also be interested        in an opinion    as to the
          effectiveness     of the directive      of the Deputy Secretary     of Defense,
          dated June 7, 1968, which places the responsibility             for the management
          of automa.tic   data processing      functions  under the control     of the Office
          of the Assistant     Secretary     of Defense, Comptroller.




                                                 31
.

    *   iPPENDIX    I
           - '-Page 2


                T!ie Co&ittcze will aF$reclate    the continued $ffort   of the
          Gcnersl Aecowd~ng OYfice in this       area and your reporting   of
          sS.gnifS.cant findLngs.




                                                 32
                                                               APPENDIX II




                               JOY   27, 1970




    Honorable Elmer B. Staats
    Comptroller General of the United States
    Washington, D. C. 20548
    Dear Mr. Staats:
          On September 24', 1969, this Committee requested the
    General Accounting Office to maintain a cjlrect effbrt in
    the area of development, installation,  and operation of
    automatic data processing systems in the Department of
    Defense with periodic reporting of. the results of its
    reviews.
         Within the scope of this broad request, the Committee
    would  appreciate your inquiring into the management of
    automatic data processing equipment and related facilities
    used in War Gaming activities   conducted by the Department
    of Defense. To ensure that your inquiry wiU. be directed
    to the matters of most concern to the Committee, we suggest
    that your staff make a preliminary   examination of this area
    for about 30 days and then meet with the Committee's staff
    to reach agreement on the specific subjects to be included
    in your review.
         The Cornnittee would appreciate   receiving by January 31,
    1971, the results  of your inquiries   into the matters selected
.   for review.
          EMlosed is a copy of a letter to the Secretary of Defense
    requesting his assistance in facilitating your work.




                                     33
     .          ,+.PPENDIX III
                        Page 1
         r. .
                                            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                              ORGANIZATIONS MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT

                .DEFENSE

                      Joint-Chiefs   of Staff.      The principal     military    advisers
                      to the President,     the National     Security    Council,   and
                      the Secretary     of Defense.

                      Studies,  Analysis and Gaming Agency.    Its overall  mis-
                      sion fs to plan, organize,   and perform   joint war games
                      for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

                      Defknse Communications      Agency.     Is responsible        for the
                      management control      and operational    direction       of the De-
                      fense Communications      System, technical       supervision     of
                      technical     support for the National     Military      Command
                      System, and support of the National          Communications
                      System'function,

                      Advanced Research Projects        Agency.    A separately   orga-
                      nized research     and development     agency under the direc-
                      tion and s,upervision     of the Director     of Defense Re-
                      search and Engineering       that   is responsible     for basic'
                      and applied    research   and development     for such advance
                      projects    as the Director    may assign.



                      Office      of the Chief of Research and Development;                           This
                      Office,      which is under the functional                   supervision        of
                      the Assistant          Secretary.of         the Army (Research and De-.
                      velopment),         is responsible          to the Chief of Staff.
                      It.has      responsibility           for all Army research,            develop-
                      ment, test,         and evaluation,           including      review and anal-
                      ysis,     research       and development           objectives,      policies,
                      and funds essential               to the discharge          of this responsi:
                      bility;       plans,     projects,       tasks,' and priorities            relat-
                      ing thereto;          qualitative       materiel       requirements        and
                      small development              requirements        for all Army materiel;
                      and the research             and development          aspects of interna-
                      tional-military            cooperation        programs.        It also directs
                      the Army Research Office.

                                                          34

                                                                 --A-     -.
!P
i

+                                                                                APPENDIX III
                                                                                       Page 2
          .   l




    .P.
                  Deputy Chief of Staff for Military         Operations.      Has
                  General Staff 6esponsibility        for development    of stra-
                  tegic concepts;estimates,        plans,  and broad force re-
                  quirements.    He defines    and. promulgates     the current
                  mission of the Army.

                  Strategy   and Tactics Analysis        Group.   An activity  un-
                  der the control        and supervision   of the Deputy Chief of
                  Staff for Military        Operations,    1%~ mission is to sup-
                  port Department        of the Army operational     planning and
                  evaluation    activities     by war gaming and by application
                  of allied   techniques.

                   Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics.              Has General
                  -Staff    responsibility      for planning,    co&d-inating,   and
                   supervising      the advance producti&        engineering-and
                   initial     procurement    that occur prior     to completion   of
                   production      acceptance     testing  and for management of
                   all Army logistics        activities.

                  Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel.      Has General
                  Staff responsibility   for policy, plans,   and programs
                  relating  to the personnel  of the Army.-

                   Combat Developments          Command. Directs         Army combat de-
                   velopment'activities          under the general        supervision       of
                  .Headquarters,        Department     of the Army.       It develops
                   concepts,     doctrines,      materiel    objectives,      requirements,
                   and organization         for the Army in the field           and, in co-
                   ordination      with other conknds,          ensures that the re-
                   quirements      are compatible       with Army support        structures
                   and systems developments.

                  Army Materiel      Command. Performs assigned materiel                              . -.,. .
                  functions     of the Department            of the Army comprising             re-
                  search and development;             maintenance,        production,        and
                  product    engineering;        testing       and evaluation;        procure-
                  ment,and production;           integrated        materiel     inventory
                  mana.gement; new-equipment             training;      technical      intelli-       .* ,,, .
                                                                                                      b .!
                  gence; mutual s.ecurity           programs;       and, as related          to
                  the continental       U.S. wholesale           supply and maintenance               1   -1 _ i

                  s9tem      storage and distribution,               transportation,
                  &inteAance,       demilitarization,            and disposal.



                                                     35
.z

     l
           AiPENDIX III
              " Pa.ge 3
         .?1
               Army Air     Defense Command. Commands all Army air de-
               fense'forces      allocated to the air defense of the
               United States.

               SAFEGUARD System Command, Is responsible           for accom-
               plishing     the approved development,  acquisition,      and
               installation     of the SAFEGUARD System within       the guid-
               ante and direction       of the SAFEGUARD System manager.

          AIR FORCE

               Air Force Systems Command. Its mission            is to advance
               aerospace technology,      adapt it into operational         aero-
               space systems, and .acquire qualitatively           superior     aero-
               space systems and materiel       needed to accomplish        the
               Air Force mission.      It is responsible      for the research,
               development,  production,      and procurement      actions    re-
               quired to place a complete aerospace system in opera-
               tion.

               Space. and Missile   Systems Organization.   An organiza-
               tion of the Air Force Systems Command, it is the man-
               agement agency for planning,    development,  testing,    and
               acquisition   of all Air Force space and ballistic     mis-
               sile systems.

               Aeronautical    Systems Division.       An organization   of the
               Air Force Systems Command, it         manages the development
               and acquisition     of aeronautical     systems and related
               equipment.

               Assistant  Chief of Staff,    Studies and Analysis.           Pro-
               vides the Air Force:with    capability      for study      and anal-
               ysis of all types of military      operations.

               Aerospace Defense Command. Its mission is detection,                     ..
               identification,       interception,  and, if necessary, de-
               struction       of any aerospace threat  to the North American           :

               continent.                                                               ;
                                                                                             ‘.”
                                                                                                   :




               Data Systems Design Center.    Is responsible            for provid-
               ing support to the Air Force‘Staff    managers           in the de-
               sign of computer systems.
1
              i


    c

                                                                            APPENDIX III
                                                                                  Page 4

         NAVY

                    Assistant   for War Gaming titters,       Chief of Naval Opera-
                    tions.    Is responsible  for coordinating      all Navy--
                    sponsored war gaming activities        that contribute   to re-
                    view of planned naval warfare       tasks.

                    Naval Air Systems Command, Is responsible     for provid-
                    ing complete Navy and Marine Corps.aircraft,     including
                    components,  and. air-launched weapons systems.

                    Naval Air Development         Center.      Is concerned with re-
                    search and development         of electronics,       pilotless    air-
                    craft,    armament, theoretical         analysis    and computations,
                    experimental     photography,      airborne‘antisubmarine-
                    warfare    systems, aviation       instruments,      and aviation
                    medicine,

                    Naval Weapons Center.     Has broad responsibilities  for
                    research  and development   of naval weapons systems, par-
                    titularly  systems for air warfare.

                    Naval Underwater       Systems Center, New London Laboratory.
                    Plans and conducts programs of warfare            and systems
                    analyses,    research,     development,    test,  evaluation,      and
                    fleet   support    in underwater     weapons systems and compo-
                    nents, underwater       surveillance    systems, submarine com-
                    munications     systems, navigation,       and related     science
                    and technology.

                     Naval Electronic    Systems Command. Is responsible                for              .--'.,,
                    -the provision    and life-cycle management of major              elec-
                     tronic  equipment and systems.

                    Naval Ordnance Laboratory,      White Oak, Maryland,  Con-
                    cerned primarily    with the research and development   of                       I
                    air,  surface,   and underwater   ordnance.

                    Fleet Computer Programming Center,            Pacific.'  Is re-                  I .r .!
                    sponsible   forprogramming       activity     whose primary mis-
                    sion is to provide     technical      support    for the Navy Tac-
                    tical   Data System in the Pacific         area.


        U.S. GAO,   Wash.,   D.c.

                                                   37


                                                                                              -..-