United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Secretary of Defense September 1997 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES Outrider Demonstrations Will Be Inadequate to Justify Further Production GAO/NSIAD-97-153 United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-276890 September 23, 1997 The Honorable William S. Cohen The Secretary of Defense Dear Mr. Secretary: The Department of Defense (DOD) has undertaken a number of efforts in the past to acquire unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to complement its mix of manned and national reconnaissance assets. Our previous reviews of UAV programs have shown that DOD’s acquisition efforts to date have been disappointing.1 This report discusses the Outrider, a UAV system, which DOD is acquiring through a streamlined acquisition process known as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD).2 We examined whether (1) DOD is applying lessons learned from prior UAV programs to the Outrider and (2) the Outrider is likely to meet user needs. DOD is not applying lessons learned from prior unmanned aerial vehicle Results in Brief programs to the Outrider ACTD. For example, despite problems with the Pioneer and Hunter stemming from DOD’s decision to award further production contracts without conducting operational testing or demonstrating that the system is user-supportable, DOD is pursuing the same strategy for the Outrider. In addition, DOD has underestimated, as it did for the Pioneer and the Hunter programs, the time and effort necessary to integrate nondevelopmental items into Outrider.3 Moreover, the Outrider system may not satisfy user needs unless problems associated with meeting joint requirements are resolved and interoperability with other DOD systems is ensured. Consequently, DOD will not have assurance that Outrider will meet user needs by the time of the planned fiscal year 1998 low-rate production decision. 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: DOD’s Acquisition Efforts (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-138, Apr. 9, 1997). 2 ACTDs are a product of DOD’s acquisition reform efforts and are used to determine if a mature technology can satisfy a military mission. ACTDs are intended to enable the services to examine new capabilities without committing to the large research and development investments required in traditional acquisition programs. This approach allows the user to operate the new capability and (1) determine its utility, (2) develop related concepts of operation, and (3) define specific requirements. If successfully completed and a significant number of systems is required, it then transitions to the formal acquisition process. Systems acquired under the ACTD process are not subject to the stringent reporting and oversight requirements of DOD’s traditional acquisition process. 3 A nondevelopmental item is: (1) any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for governmental purposes by a federal agency, state, or local government, or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement or (2) any item described in (1) that requires only minor modifications or modifications of the type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency. Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 UAVs are pilotless aircraft, controlled remotely or by preprogrammed Background on-board equipment. The Outrider system consists of four air vehicles, ground control equipment, one remote video terminal, four modular mission payloads, communications devices, a means of launch and recovery, and one mobile maintenance facility for every three Outrider systems (see fig. 1). The Outrider ACTD grew out of the Joint Tactical UAV program. The original concept of the Joint Tactical UAV program was to acquire (1) a 50-kilometer UAV system, the Maneuver, to satisfy reconnaissance and surveillance needs of Army brigade and Marine Corps regimental commanders and (2) a 200-kilometer UAV system, the Hunter, to satisfy the reconnaissance and surveillance needs of Army corps and division commanders and Navy task force commanders. The Joint Tactical UAV program was restructured in fiscal year 1996. The Hunter portion was canceled and the Maneuver portion was reconstituted as the Outrider ACTD to evaluate one UAV system’s ability to perform both the Hunter and Maneuver missions. Figure 1: Outrider in Flight Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 To streamline the acquisition process, DOD designated Outrider an ACTD in December 1995 and awarded a contract for a 2-year ACTD in May 1996. During this period, DOD will acquire 6 nondevelopmental Outrider systems with 24 air vehicles at a cost of approximately $57 million. DOD can procure more systems during the ACTD using low-rate production options built into the contract and, according to an Outrider program official, has requested $30 million for fiscal year 1998 to do so. According to DOD, the purpose of the Outrider ACTD is to evaluate the utility of the system through a series of operational demonstrations. The Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps will prepare assessments of the system’s military utility based on the operational demonstrations. At the end of the ACTD, Defense Acquisition Board executives will review the service assessments and determine if the ACTD should become a formal acquisition program. If DOD approves transition to the formal acquisition process, program officials must prepare documentation identical to that required of traditional acquisition programs. Prior to beginning the Outrider ACTD, DOD acquired three other DOD Has Not Learned nondevelopmental tactical UAV systems: Pioneer, Hunter, and Predator. Past UAV Lessons Each of these UAV programs provided DOD with important lessons about acquisition strategies, system integration, and logistic supportability. However, DOD is not applying these lessons to the Outrider ACTD. Outrider Acquisition DOD’s acquisition strategy for the Outrider closely resembles the Strategy Repeats Mistakes acquisition strategy used for the Hunter program. After a user of the Hunter demonstration, DOD awarded a low-rate production contract for 7 Hunter systems with 56 aircraft before demonstrating through operational testing that the system was potentially operationally effective and suitable.4 Testing of the low-rate production Hunter systems revealed numerous problems, and eventually DOD terminated the Hunter program. Similarly, according to an Outrider program official, DOD plans to exercise a contract option for low-rate production of three to six additional Outrider systems in April 1998 before conducting realistic operational testing. The program official stated that user demonstrations conducted prior to April 1998 as part of the ACTD will provide a sufficient basis for making a low-rate production decision. These user demonstrations, however, will not provide the same level of assurance for justifying a 4 Operational effectiveness refers to the ability of a system to accomplish its mission in the planned operational environment. Operational suitability is the degree to which a system can be placed satisfactorily in field use considering such factors as reliability and maintainability. Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 low-rate production commitment as would operational testing since such testing involves meeting minimally acceptable thresholds for key performance parameters. Outrider as an ACTD system has neither key parameters nor thresholds, and DOD is not required to establish them for the demonstrations. Lessons learned from prior UAV programs illustrate that nondevelopmental UAV systems should be operationally tested in realistic environments before beginning low-rate production. Our past work has shown that production of nondevelopmental UAV systems before operational testing can result in adverse consequences. DOD started producing two nondevelopmental UAVs—the Pioneer and, more recently, the Hunter—before subjecting either to any operational testing. The problems DOD has experienced with these systems clearly illustrate the adverse consequences of beginning production without having adequate assurance of satisfactory system performance. Specifically, in 1990, we reported that lack of Pioneer operational testing led the Navy to costly and time-consuming trial and error while trying to adapt the system for shipboard use.5 Ultimately, DOD spent about $50 million redesigning and modifying Pioneer systems initially acquired for $56 million. Undeterred by the experience with Pioneer, DOD then started production of the Hunter without subjecting it to operational testing. In 1992, we reported that DOD should not award a production contract for the Hunter based on limited testing in unrealistic environments.6 Nevertheless, DOD awarded a contract for seven Hunter systems. These systems were unable to meet requirements, and the program was terminated in 1995 after an investment of over $757 million. Outrider System Integrating nondevelopmental components into a fieldable Outrider Integration May Prove system is proving more challenging than DOD anticipated. According to More Difficult Than program officials, integrating components necessary to satisfy the naval requirements, such as electromagnetic interference shielding and stronger Expected landing gear, delayed Outrider’s first flight from November 1996 to March 1997. Because the Outrider ACTD has a 2-year time limit, schedule delays result in less time available for the users to assess the system’s military utility. 5 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Realistic Testing Needed Before Production of Short-Range System (GAO/NSIAD-90-234, Sept. 28, 1990). 6 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: More Testing Needed Before Production of Short-Range System (GAO/NSIAD-92-311, Sept. 4, 1992). Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 These nondevelopmental UAV integration lessons are not new to DOD. The Hunter and Pioneer were both procured by DOD as nondevelopmental systems. Both systems required the expenditure of unexpected development time and money in retroactive attempts to solve integration problems. For example, we stated in our September 28, 1990, report, that the Pioneer system required substantial development to integrate the system into a shipboard environment. In addition, in 1995, DOD concurred with us that the complexity of the Hunter subsystem integration was significantly underestimated by both the government and the contractor.7 An independent DOD team that reviewed the Hunter UAV in 1995 reported that using nondevelopmental subsystems misled many into believing that integrating nondevelopmental subsystems would not require substantial development. The team recommended that the services should consider and reevaluate the advantage of attempting to procure nondevelopmental subsystems without allowing for some developmental effort needed to integrate them into the overall system. ACTD Will Not DOD plans to award a low-rate production contract for up to six Outrider Demonstrate Outrider systems without demonstrating a critical component of military Supportability utility—whether the system is user-supportable. The ACTD’s operational demonstrations will not realistically address the user-supportability of the Outrider system. According to an Outrider program official, the user will perform only basic maintenance during the operational demonstrations, while the contractor will perform all other maintenance. Furthermore, the Outrider ACTD will not include a logistics demonstration to show that the system is user-supportable without contractor assistance. UAV lessons learned show that procuring nondevelopmental systems without assurance that they are user-supportable results in cost growth and program delays. For example, a logistics demonstration conducted after DOD procured seven low-rate production Hunter systems revealed the system was not user sustainable. DOD analysts reported that the perception in the Hunter program was that logistics would be easy to add to a nondevelopmental system. In reality, adding military logistics to a nondevelopmental system proved a significant challenge. The analysts noted that an expensive, time-consuming developmental effort was needed to acquire the logistics support for Hunter. In addition, while ACTD unit cost may be low, militarizing capabilities and adding logistics support 7 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: No More Hunter Systems Should Be Bought Until Problems Are Fixed (GAO/NSIAD-95-52, Mar. 1, 1995). Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 increases program costs. For example, while a Predator ACTD system cost about $15 million, a Predator combat-ready production system, with configuration changes, added subsystems, and full integrated logistics support provisions, costs about twice that amount. The Outrider system may not satisfy user needs unless problems Outrider May Not associated with meeting joint requirements are resolved and Satisfy User Needs interoperability with other DOD systems can be achieved. Design changes necessary to increase Outrider’s range to 200 kilometers have delayed the program and have increased the weight of the air vehicle to the point it may not be suitable for shipboard operations. Furthermore, developing an air vehicle engine suitable for naval use has proven problematic. In addition, the Outrider analog datalink is not compliant with DOD’s communications interoperability standards for reconnaissance assets and provides limited payload growth options. Problems Associated With The Outrider system is encountering technical problems that must be Meeting Joint resolved before the system can meet user needs. First flight of the Requirements Outrider system was delayed 4 months because of these problems. According to program officials, these problems arose from modifying the Outrider to satisfy joint requirements. The Outrider system was originally designed to satisfy the 50 kilometer, land-based, Army maneuver UAV requirement. Under the ACTD, Outrider’s joint range requirement is 200 kilometers and includes operation from amphibious ships. Modifications to satisfy joint requirements have necessitated several changes to the air vehicle design. These changes, such as adding electromagnetic interference shielding for shipboard operations and increasing air vehicle size to satisfy the range requirement, have added a large amount of weight to the air vehicle. Since DOD awarded the ACTD contract in May 1996, the weight of the fueled air vehicle has grown from the proposed 385 pounds to an actual of 578 pounds. The added weight increases the distance necessary to launch and recover the air vehicle. According to an Outrider oversight official, this could necessitate the use of arresting cables or barrier nets on the deck of a ship. According to Navy officials, the Navy is reluctant to use cables or nets to recover the Outrider because of the impact on other shipboard flight operations. The Navy has previously expressed concerns about the adverse impact of arresting cables and barrier nets on the normal flight Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 operations of amphibious assault ships. In December 1995, we reported that Navy fleet officials opposed fielding the Hunter UAV on Navy ships because erecting barrier nets would adversely impact other flight operations from their amphibious assault ships.8 Additionally, Outrider’s joint requirements include a heavy fuel engine. Naval use requires a heavy fuel engine because the automotive gasoline currently used by the Outrider is considered too combustible for safe use on ships. DOD research officials estimate it may ultimately cost $100 million to develop a heavy fuel engine that is small enough to power the Outrider. Without a heavy fuel engine, the system will not satisfy naval users. A senior program official acknowledged the heavy fuel engine development is not proceeding as successfully as planned, and the current gasoline engine is not performing adequately. Consequently, 1 year into the ACTD, DOD now plans to acquire another gasoline engine. Potential Interoperability DOD is not capitalizing on opportunities to demonstrate that Outrider will Issues Exist be interoperable with other DOD systems during the ACTD period. DOD will not be demonstrating the Outrider with the Army and the Navy’s standardized computer workstations or with the software being designed to control all tactical UAVs, including the Predator UAV system, which is already in production. Nor will DOD be demonstrating the Outrider with a DOD-compliant Common Data Link (CDL) that would allow information from the Outrider to be more easily transferred to other DOD systems. Outrider ACTD Schedule DOD is developing a tactical control system that will control all tactical Not Aligned With Tactical UAVs. The current Outrider and Predator control systems are incompatible Control System Schedule and do not meet standards for communications compatibility with DOD’s other airborne reconnaissance systems. Although the Outrider will be required to work with the tactical control system, according to an Outrider program official, DOD will attempt to demonstrate interoperability on only one occasion during the ACTD. A potentially serious interoperability issue may arise if the Outrider development schedule is not aligned with the tactical control system program schedule. The tactical control system is primarily software designed to perform common mission planning and control for all tactical UAVs, including the Outrider, and it will be installed on computers already 8 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Hunter System Is Not Appropriate for Navy Fleet Use (GAO/NSIAD-96-2, Dec. 1, 1995). Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 used by the services, such as the Navy’s TAC-4 and the Army’s Sunspark Systems. However, during the ACTD, DOD is allowing the Outrider contractor the option of using either (1) Outrider-specific hardware and software that is supposed to be interoperable with the tactical control system or (2) the tactical control system. According to the Outrider Demonstration Manager, the contractor has opted to use the Outrider-specific equipment, and only one demonstration of interoperability between the Outrider equipment and the tactical control system is planned for the ACTD. If the actual tactical control system and service computers are not used during the ACTD, the services’ overall assessments of military utility will not be based on actual system performance. DOD acknowledges the risk their plan creates of not achieving the required interoperability between the Outrider and the tactical control system. Outrider Datalink Not The Outrider datalink is not compliant with the CDL, DOD’s standard for Compliant With DOD communications interoperability for all airborne reconnaissance and Standard Architecture surveillance missions, including those missions performed by the Outrider. The CDL requires a digital data link, whereas the Outrider employs an analog data link. According to officials from the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, which is responsible for airborne reconnaissance and intelligence communications interoperability, the analog data link has no growth options and operates in the same widely used band of the microwave spectrum as European and Korean television. These officials noted that a CDL-compliant digital data link would offer the Outrider program several advantages over the current analog link. For example, a digital data link would (1) be less susceptible to distortion and interference, (2) minimize a system’s signature, (3) provide anti-jam capabilities, and (4) offer encrypted communications. The digital data link also provides for greater capability, including (1) a means to upgrade to all-weather payloads, such as the synthetic aperture and millimeter wave radars and (2) computer processing of gathered imagery. A Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office study indicates that a short development effort could result in a CDL-compliant digital data link for the Outrider at an acceptable cost. However, Outrider officials maintain that a CDL-compliant digital data link would be too expensive given Outrider’s post-ACTD cost limit of $350,000 for the 33rd air vehicle and sensor. Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 Because DOD’s strategy for acquiring the nondevelopmental Outrider Recommendation system will not provide assurance of successful performance and interoperability before DOD’s planned low-rate production decision, and to avoid repeating the mistakes of prior UAV programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense delay low-rate production of the Outrider system until the results of operational testing of available systems demonstrate it is potentially operationally effective and operationally suitable for all intended users. DOD reviewed a draft of this report. DOD disagreed with most of our Agency Comments findings. It partially concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, DOD and Our Evaluation disagreed that it had not learned from problems in past programs and stated these problems in part led it to initiate the Outrider ACTD. DOD also disagreed that Outrider may not satisfy user needs unless it meets the Navy’s shipboard requirements and is interoperable with the tactical control system. It stated that the ACTD responds to an approved joint requirement and does not identify service unique requirements, but will address the effect of weight and engine type. DOD also noted that it has formed an integrated team between the Outrider and tactical control system programs and taken other measures to ensure interoperability. We recognize that DOD is aware of problems with past UAV programs and agree that an ACTD can provide useful insights. However, we remain concerned about DOD’s strategy for the Outrider because the planned demonstrations of military utility that will precede DOD’s low-rate production decision are (1) limited in scope; (2) will not be complete before the decision; and (3) may not identify and resolve serious system deficiencies, such as compatibility with joint requirements, and interoperability with the tactical control system. As detailed in this report, similar acquisition strategies for the Hunter and Pioneer programs resulted in the acquisition of additional systems that required costly modifications in order to meet user needs. DOD has the opportunity to operationally test the Outrider’s performance without risking commitment to additional unproven systems under low-rate production. DOD is acquiring 6 Outrider systems with 24 aircraft under the original contract. If the Outrider is assessed positively during the ACTD, DOD could modify the ACTD hardware to the production representative design for operational tests. If the required changes are so significant that the ACTD systems cannot be made production Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 representative, DOD guidance on transitioning ACTDs to formal acquisition indicates that a new competition should be conducted. In responding to our recommendation, DOD concurred that Outrider should not enter production until the results of operational testing demonstrate its effectiveness and suitability. DOD noted that completing operational test and evaluation is a statutory requirement for formal acquisition programs entering production. DOD added, however, that this statute does not apply to ACTDs entering low-rate production. We recognize that full operational testing is not a statutory requirement for ACTDs entering low-rate production. However, our past work shows that awarding low-rate initial production contracts without any operational testing has resulted in the procurement of substantial inventories of unsatisfactory weapons requiring costly modifications to achieve satisfactory performance and, in some cases, deployment of substandard systems to combat forces. To determine whether DOD is applying lessons learned from prior UAV Scope and lessons learned to this program, and whether the Outrider would meet Methodology user needs, we reviewed program plans, test schedules, performance documents, and other records relating to the Outrider ACTD and examined DOD guidance related to systems acquisition, acquisition streamlining and reform, and ACTDs. We also interviewed and obtained information from knowledgeable officials of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Office of the Secretary of Defense; Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office; Chief of Naval Operations; Department of the Navy, Program Executive Office for Cruise Missiles and UAV Joint Project; Department of the Army, Operational Test and Evaluation Command; and the Department of the Air Force, Deputy Chief of Staff Plans and Operations. All of these officials are located in the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Furthermore, we interviewed and obtained information from representatives of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia; the Department of the Navy, Operational Test and Evaluation Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia; the Joint Tactical UAV Project Office, Huntsville, Alabama; Defense Contract Audit Agency, Hopkins, Minnesota; Defense Contract Management Command, Hopkins, Minnesota; and the Outrider ACTD contractor, Alliant TechSystems, Hopkins, Minnesota. Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles B-276890 We performed our work from July 1996 to June 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. This report contains a recommendation to you. As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight not later than 60 days after the date of the report. A written statement also must be submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations with an agency’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of the report. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy; and the Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-4841, if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Tana Davis, John Warren, and Charles Ward. Sincerely yours, Louis J. Rodrigues Director, Defense Acquisitions Issues Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See pp. 9 and 10. See comment 1. Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See pp. 9 and 10. Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See comment 1. See comment 2. See comment 3. Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See comment 4. See comment 5. Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See comment 6. See comment 6. Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See comment 7. See comment 8. Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense See comment 8. See pp. 9 and 10. Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense The following are GAO’s comments to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) letter, dated July 9, 1997. 1. We understand that the purpose of the Outrider Advanced Concept GAO Comments Technology Demonstration (ACTD) is to assess the utility of the Outrider system and note that DOD is acquiring 6 Outrider systems with 24 air vehicles under the original ACTD contract. If the Outrider is assessed positively, these could be used instead of building production representative systems under low-rate production. Specifically, DOD could modify the ACTD systems to create a production representative system that could be operationally tested prior to low-rate production. If required changes are so significant that the ACTD system cannot be successfully modified, DOD ACTD guidance indicates that a new competition should be conducted. 2. We agree that ACTDs should be based on mature technologies. However, DOD officials have acknowledged the Outrider system is not mature. We therefore continue to believe that DOD should resolve the integration challenges for Outrider before proceeding to a low-rate production decision. 3. Although DOD maintains that the development of Outrider is event rather than schedule driven, we note that DOD has not slipped the planned low-rate production decision or ACTD completion date in response to delays to the Outrider test schedule. 4. DOD states that it will demonstrate supportability prior to the full system acquisition. DOD ACTD guidance states that the full range of support areas must be considered if the plan for an ACTD is to transition to low-rate production. We believe that committing to further Outrider production without taking advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate supportability adds unnecessary risk to the planned acquisition program. 5. Our report specifically identifies the differences in the cost of a Predator ACTD system compared with a Predator production system. 6. We modified the text to clarify that the Outrider ACTD is based on joint requirements. 7. ACTD guidance points out that overall systems engineering efforts performed during the ACTD should include actions ensuring connectivity, Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense compatibility, and synchronization of ACTD products with systems these products will operate with on the battlefield. Receipt of secondary imagery from the Outrider ground control station (level 1) does not provide any evidence that the tactical control system will be able to control or receive information directly from the Outrider air vehicle (levels 2 and 3). DOD’s plan to demonstrate Outrider’s compliance with tactical control system’s interoperability standards during the ACTD is not the same as demonstrating that levels 2 and 3 can be achieved in the field. 8. DOD’s response indicates a tactical Common Data Link (CDL) may be available for use in Outrider in less than 2 years. The ACTD is scheduled for completion in May 1998. If Outrider low-rate production were delayed until the CDL became available, DOD could avoid retrofit risks and expenses. (707181) Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-97-153 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: email@example.com or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER United States Bulk Rate General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Outrider Demonstrations Will Be Inadequate to Justify Further Production
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-09-23.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)