. -. United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate September 1990 TACTICAL MISSILES Issues Concerning the Navy’s Requirements Determination Process EESTBICTED-- Not to be released outside the General Accounting Of&e unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. GAO/NSIAD-90-233 GAO United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-240050 September 12,199O The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: The costs associated with developing and procuring Navy tactical mis- sile systems exceed billions in current year dollars. In view of reduced defense spending, you expressed concern about the Navy’s plan to pro- cure large numbers of missile systems during the 1990s. In response to your request, we examined the Navy’s requirements determination pro- cess, including (1) how operational requirements were developed, defined, and stated and (2) how the total number of weapons (inventory objectives) that are needed to support the requirement was established. Initially, we examined the requirements documentation for 19 tactical missile systems. At the Chairman’s suggestion, however, we limited our review to three missile systems. We selected the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM),the Advanced Interdiction Weapon System (AIWS), and the Standard Missile II Block IV System (AEGIS ER) because they illustrate the types of deficiencies we found at various stages of the requirements determination process. The requirements process consists of two elements: (1) the development Background of requirements documents, which state the acquisition strategy and can refer to generic capabilities or specific operational or performance capa- bilities and (2) the establishment of inventory objectives, a process of determining what to buy, when to buy it, and how many to buy. Integral to this process is the Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirements (NNOR) pro- cess. The NNOR process establishes estimates of inventory objectives for conventional (non-nuclear) munitions. It relies on (1) military assess- ments and (2) computer simulations. A number of significant issues (e.g., requirements documentation, inven- tory objectives, affordability, and rationale) surround the Navy’s ability to acquire and support missile systems successfully. Page 1 GAO/NSIAMO-233 Navy Tactical Missiles E-240060 We found that adherence to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Results in Brief and Navy guidance in determining requirements for the three systems we reviewed was inconsistent. Key requirements documents were often unapproved or missing. Furthermore, the process by which inventory objectives were established was not always clear or well documented, and it was not possible to quantitatively match inventory objectives of Navy tactical missiles to military requirements. The Navy has not consistently followed procedures for establishing requirements or setting inventory objectives for the three missile sys- tems we reviewed. We found that the process for determining SLAMinventory objectives was unclear and predicated largely on assumptions and military judgments; the stated operational capabilities for the baseline AIWS may differ from actual capabilities, thus rendering key requirements documentation mis- leading; and a major system in development, the AEGIS ER, may proceed to production without an approved operational requirement for the system or other required documentation and formal agency approval. The Navy establishes estimates of inventory objectives for conventional Concerns With the munitions through the NNOR process. All requirements for naval muni- Non-Nuclear Ordnance tions are developed through models that rely heavily on intelligence Requirements Process estimates, naval force doctrine, judgment, subjective information, and probability modeling. Concerns have been raised within OSD as to the reasonableness and soundness of assumptions in determining the inven- tory objectives for missile systems. While requirements planners and reviewers have been generally satisfied with the results of the process, the assumptions and projections entered in the NNOR model have some- times led to inflated inventory objectives. The SIAM, a derivative of the HARPOON antiship missile, is an advanced Inventory Objectives air-to-surface medium range missile to be used in a high-threat environ- of SLAM Not ment. Its flyaway unit cost has increased from $800,000 in 1989 to over Supported $900,000 in 1990. Originally intended as an interim system, the Navy recently doubled the SLAMinventory objective. However, Xavy require- ments planners could not provide justification for this action or show support for the original inventory objective. In addition, some i%avy offi- cials have reported plans to develop a follow-on to SLAM, which will be Page 2 GAO/NSIADgO-233 Navy Tactical Missiles more expensive than the baseline SLAMand which will be designed to meet military requirements not met in the baseline SLAM program. The AIWS, an advanced standoff weapon to be used against low value AIWS May Not Meet fixed land targets, was designated to be a low cost replacement for the Basic Requirement or SLAMand a replacement for the Maverick, Walleye, Paveway, and Improve Existing Skipper missiles. However, the baseline AIWSmissile may not provide a similar capability equal to the systems it is to replace. In addition, the Capability baseline missile, which has a $60,000 limit placed on its unit cost by the Secretary of the Navy, may actually cost about $80,000. The AIWS is in the demonstration/validation phase of its acquisition program. The AEGIS ER, a surface-to-air missile, is designed to provide fleet air AEGIS ER Acquisition defense for surface ships by countering high altitude missiles. The Navy Proceeding Without has not developed or approved an operational requirement for the Formal Approval system. While there were initial indications that the Navy might proceed into production without operational testing, Navy officials said such tests will be conducted. If not, it could lead to a commitment of signifi- cant production funds before technical and operational problems are identified and resolved. The requirements determination process is described in greater detail in appendix I, including a discussion of the three systems identified as illustrative of deficiencies in the requirements process. Our objectives, scope, and methodology are presented in appendix II. As discussed with your staff, we did not obtain official agency com- ments. However, we discussed our findings with responsible agency offi- cials and included their comments where appropriate. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chairmen, House Committees on Appropriations and on Government Operations and Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy, Copies will be made available to other interested parties on request. Page 3 GAO/‘NSL4&90-233 Navy Tactical Misdlea B-240060 Please contact me at (202) 2756504 if you or your staff have any ques- tions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Sincerely yours, Martin M Ferber Director, Navy Issues Page 4 GAO/NSLADSO-233 Navy Tactical Missiles Page 5 GAO/NSIAD!W233 Navy Tactical Missiles ~- Coritents 1 Appendix I 8 Deficiencies in the The Requirements Planning Process The NNOR Process 8 9 Requirements The Three Tactical Missile Systems Reviewed 10 Determination Process Appendix II Objectives, Scope,and Methodology Appendix III Major Contributors to This Report Abbreviations AEGISER AEGIS Extended Range Missile AIWS Advanced Interdiction Weapon System GAO General Accounting Office NNOR Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirements CBD Office of the Secretary of Defense SLAM Standoff Land Attack Missile Page 6 Page 7 GAO/NSIADBM33 Navy Tactical Missiles Appendix I Deficienciesin the Requirements Determination Process The Navy’s requirements process provides the foundation and structure for planning, developing, evaluating, and fielding weapon systems to respond to the threat within reasonable time frames and at a reasonable cost. The degree of formality, extent of documentation, and level of deci- sion authority vary with the dollar value of a program. The management of major weapon system programs is normally divided into phases to provide effective oversight during development and pro- curement.’ These phases include concept demonstration/validation, full- scale engineering development, limited production, and full-rate produc- tion Department of Defense approval is normally required at key deci- sion points, or milestones, before these programs can proceed from one phase to the next. The term “requirements” has several meanings. In the broadest sense, it The Requirements can be applied to generic capabilities or it can be applied to specific Planning Process operational or performance characteristics. It also applies to contract specifications that dictate how a weapon system will be built, tested, and inspected. For the purpose of this review, requirements refers to the military capability. When dealing with state-of-the-art technology, no process, however sound and well staffed, can anticipate all future uncertainties in fielding a weapon system that has yet to be developed, let alone put into active service. Incorrect estimates and assumptions that occur during the requirements planning process can become magnified later in the form of program instability, production delays, or excess costs. Department of Defense and Navy guidance provide the structure and procedures for managing and funding weapon system programs. The fol- lowing principal documents are required. l Tentative Operational Requirements statement identifies deficiencies in meeting the threat in the current mission and outlines, in general terms, key capabilities desired. l Development Options Paper outlines alternative means of solving defi- ciencies in meeting the threat. . Operational Requirement contains the statement of capabilities required. ‘F’~~~EuIwthat are expected to exceed $200 million in research, development, test, and evaluation or $1 billion in procurement funds are classified as major weapon system programs. Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-90-232 Navy Tactical Missiles Appendix I Lkflciencies in the Requirements Determination Prow739 l Decision Coordinating Paper identifies program options based on initial studies of design concepts, alternative acquisition strategies, planned operational capabilities, and cost estimates. l Test and Evaluation Master Plan contains performance parameters defined in the Decision Coordinating Paper, outlines the plan for testing and evaluating systems, and reflects changes and updates in capabilities as systems proceed through development. These documents provide background for milestone decisions associated with research and development and production of weapon systems. They outline the weapon system’s purpose; the new system’s uniqueness as compared to existing systems; the evaluation of risks, funding, and scheduling aspects; the acquisition strategy; and the test and evaluation strategies. Integral to the acquisition strategy is an assessment of how many The NNOR Process weapons will be bought. In the Navy, calculation of inventory objectives for most types of tactical missiles is done through the NNOR model. The NNOR model plays a key role in determining inventory requirements for most tactical missiles in the Navy. The numbers generated by this model, after a review by high ranking Navy officials, are used as a basis for the Navy’s Program Objectives Memorandum submission to OSD. Factors that affect inventory requirements and that are entered into the NNOR model are revised estimates on the threat, platform availability, adjustments in the probability of kill percentages, and revisions in false target ratios. Different allocations of targets to a missile, trade-offs between systems, needed upgrades in weapon systems, and program ter- mination are also factors. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics tasked the Rand Corporation to review the Navy’s procedures for estimating conventional munitions. The study, published in April 1989, identified several deficiencies in the NNOR mode1.2For example, the model assumes the complete independence of every U.S. ship and air- plane, which is in contrast to evolving strategies and warfare tactics. In addition, cost trade-off values among comparable munitions are not con- sidered as the model assumes no budget constraints. “A Rand Note: Conventional Munitions Requirements Estimation in the Navy. Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-222 Navy Tactical hiidles Appendix I Deficiencies in the Requirements Determination Process Another deficiency, according to Rand analysts, is that an analysis of the validity and soundness of assumptions is not performed to deter- mine which are the key variables that affect requirements. Several vari- ables inflate inventory objectives, including the assumption of the need to destroy 100 percent of the threat to win the war, excessive categori- zation of targets (more than one type of weapon assigned to a target), and false targets treated like real targets. The NNORmodel does not account for maldistribution of weapons or, in some cases, loss of muni- tions (i.e., such as when supply ships are sunk). OSDand Navy require- ments planners generally concurred with the Rand findings. Thus, it is difficult to measure the adequacy or soundness of inventory objectives generated by the model. Navy planners and CXDprogram evaluators familiar with requirements planning have reported that they have occasionally rejected NNOR-generated inventory objectives for being too inflated or not supportable. However, generally they have been sat- isfied with the results of the process. During our review of the three missile systems, we found that the Navy The Three Tactical did not always follow its own or OSDguidance and procedures for estab- Missile Systems lishing requirements or setting inventory objectives. For example, Reviewed (1) the Navy did not go through prescribed procedures for determining inventory objectives for SLAM,(2) the baseline AIWSwill not provide an enhanced capability over systems it is designed to replace, and (3) the AEGISERmay go forward in development and/or production without formal approval of required documentation. The following systems illustrate deficiencies we found in various stages of the requirements determination process. Status of SLA.M Is The SLAMis a land attack variation of the HARPOON missile. The total unit cost of SLAMis about $1.121 million; the missile flyaway unit cost is Uncertain about $910,000 in current year dollars. With its high cost, the SLAMwas originally considered an interim solution in meeting the low inventory of air-launched modular standoff weapons available for a multiservice role. The acquisition strategy of SLAMhas not been well defined. Even though it was originally scheduled for only limited production, Navy officials said that the inventory objectives had recently doubled. Furthermore, Page 10 GAO/NSIADMb233 Navy Tactical .Misailes Appendix I Defldendes in the Requirementa Determination Process Navy officials disagree as to the future of SLAM.While one official indi- cated the SLAMprogram will not be expanded, other officials indicated that the requirement for SLAMmay be even greater than currently stated and that a follow-on and costly enhancements are being considered. Navy requirements planners who execute the NNOR model reported that they could not support or justify how the Navy established the initial inventory objective, nor were they provided a rationale for doubling the inventory objective that was outside of the routine NNOR modeling process. Proposed AIWS May Not The AIWSis an advanced air-to-surface, standoff missile designed to pro- vide close air support, battlefield interdiction, and destruction of low Be an Improvement value ground targets in a high-threat environment. It was initially viewed as a low cost alternative to SLAM, which costs $910,000 per unit, and a replacement for the Walleye, Skipper II, Laser Maverick, and Paveway Guided Bomb. However, its estimated unit cost has already exceeded the $60,000 limit the Secretary of the Navy placed upon it. In fact, the currently projected baseline ADJSunit cost may rise to over $80,000. In addition, a proposed planned product improvement may cost over $170,000 per unit. A rationale for developing a new weapon system, among other justifica- tions, is to provide a similar capability at a lower cost over existing weapon systems. We found, and Navy officials acknowledge, that the baseline AIWSmissile, currently in demonstration/validation, may fail to provide a capability equal to systems it is to replace. 0s~ documents show a pre-planned product improvement of this missile, proposed for future development upon completion of the baseline production pro- gram, may actually serve as the replacement missile. The AIWSproposed pre-planned product improvement would provide enhanced range and targeting capability. The requirements documentation did not clearly distinguish the capabilities of the baseline and the improved AIWS. Navy officials stated that it has been their intent to follow a two-pronged approach to AMOSdevelopment, and they acknowledged that the require- ments documentation can be misinterpreted. AEGIS ER Is Lacking The AEGISER,also known as the Standard Missile II Block IV, is a surface-to-air missile that will replace the Standard Missile II Block II on Critical Documentation AEGIS cruisers and destroyers equipped with the MK-41 vertical launch Page11 GAO/NSIAD9O-233Navy TacticalMissiles Appendix I Deficiencies in the Requirements Determination Process system. The missile, which is in development, is being designed to pro- vide fleet air defense for surface ships by countering high altitude missiles. The Navy has awarded contracts worth over $231 million to Raytheon and General Dynamics, codevelopers of the AEGIS ER missile, but it has not determined the total procurement costs for the AEGIS ER. Develop- ment costs exceed $360 million in current year dollars. Navy program sponsors report that the AEGIS ER is an upgrade, not a new development effort. General Dynamics disagrees, however, indicating that the missile is over 60 percent new and, in many ways, is a major development effort. According to Navy guidance, an operational requirement must be developed and approved to support new research and development programs. This is particularly true for such major acquisition programs as AEGISER. However, the Navy has not developed or approved an operational requirement for the system. The Navy has not approved the Decision Coordinating Paper or the Test and Evaluation Master Plan, yet the Navy has decided to purchase 300 AEGISER missiles in the early 1990s through a pilot production program. The Decision Coordinating Paper would provide a description of the weapon system’s concept and an assessment of technological risks. Master plans are required for all major defense acquisition programs. Furthermore, test and evaluation of system capabilities cannot begin until the master plan is approved. We were initially told that the Navy might forego a series of operational tests normally conducted in a realistic operational environment that would demonstrate the combat effectiveness and suitability of the AEGIS ER and resolve technical uncertainties and problems at the conclusion of the pilot production phase before entering full-rate production. How- ever, Navy officials recently indicated that they plan to conduct opera- tional tests and evaluation before entering into the full-rate production phase. Page 12 GAO/NSiAIMO-233Navy Tactical.Missiles Appendix II Objectives,Scope,and Methodology The Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Senate Committee on Appro- priations, asked us to examine the procedures the Navy followed in matching inventory objectives to military requirements for tactical mis- siles. Our objectives were to review how operational requirements were developed, defined, and stated and how the total number of weapons needed to support the requirement was established. Initially, we examined the requirements documentation for 19 tactical missile systems. At the Chairman’s suggestion that we narrow our review, we selected three systems-the SLAM,the AIKS, and the AEGISEX. To examine the procedures used in the requirements determination pro- cess, we met with officials at the Offices of Research and Engineering; Weapons Systems Assessment; Program Analysis and Evaluation, Pro- duction and Logistics; Tactical Warfare Programs; and Joint Technical Coordinating Group/Munitions Effectiveness in the Office of the Secre- tary of Defense. We also met with Navy officials from Ordnance Mate- rial Management, Aviation Plans and Requirements, Weapons Analysis Branch (Tactical Air Surface and Electronic Warfare Development Branch), Commander in Chief, Headquarters Atlantic Fleet Ordnance; program managers from Naval Air Systems Command and Naval Sea Systems Command; and the former Commander in Chief, Headquarters Atlantic Fleet, and Sixth Fleet commander. We also held discussions with issue area experts from the Rand Corporation, Brookings Institute, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Analytical Sci- ences Corporation. We conducted our review from May 1989 to May 1990 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Page 13 GAO/NSLADSO-333 Navy Tactical Missiles Appendix III Major Contributors to This Report National Security and John J. D’Esopo, Assistant Director International Affairs Lenora Fuller, Evaluator-in-Charge Division, Jean Fox, Evaluator Daniel Hoagland, Evaluator Washington, DC. Laura Jackson, Evaluator Daniel Tikvart, Evaluator Page 14 GAO/‘NSIAD-90-233 Navy Tactical Misdes (394312) ‘k . Ordering Information The first five copies of each GAO report are free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accom- panied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Offrce P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 2756241.
Tactical Missiles: Issues Concerning the Navy's Requirements Determination Process
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-09-12.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)