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 -..-
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)