Ballistic Missile Defense: More Common Systems and Components Could Result in Cost Savings

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-05-21.

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

                   United States General Accounting Office

GAO                Report to the Secretary of Defense

May 1999
                   BALLISTIC MISSILE

                   More Common
                   Systems and
                   Components Could
                   Result in Cost Savings

United States General Accounting Office                                                                 National Security and
Washington, D.C. 20548                      Leter
                                                                                                 International Affairs Division

                                    B-280494                                                                              Letter

                                    May 21, 1999

                                    The Honorable William S. Cohen
                                    The Secretary of Defense

                                    Dear Mr. Secretary:

                                    Affordability is a major concern for ballistic missile defense programs.
                                    According to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’s (BMDO)
                                    November 1998 development plan, the organization faces a shortfall of
                                    several hundred million dollars per year when its baseline acquisition
                                    programs are compared to available funding in the future years’ defense
                                    plan. Because using common subsystems and components when designing
                                    systems can reduce system costs, BMDO and the services1 have considered
                                    the feasibility of sharing designs among some of their programs.

                                    We reviewed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to incorporate
                                    common subsystems and components in its ballistic missile defense
                                    acquisition programs. Specifically, we (1) identified the key benefits that
                                    BMDO and service officials believe could be achieved through
                                    commonality, (2) determined what BMDO and the services have done to
                                    incorporate commonality into their programs, and (3) identified BMDO’s
                                    plans for instilling commonality in the future. We are addressing this report
                                    to you because of the potential cost savings from commonality and because
                                    your support is needed for DOD to take advantage of such potential

Results in Brief                    According to BMDO and service officials, the key benefits of
                                    commonality—using the same or interchangeable subsystems and
                                    components in more than one weapon—are cost savings and improved
                                    interoperability among BMDO systems. Increased use of common items
                                    can reduce both production costs and total life-cycle costs of a system.
                                    Because BMDO systems must interoperate with each other, DOD officials
                                    said that commonality is directly linked to the success of interoperability.

                                        The military services execute most of the BMDO-funded acquisition programs.

                   Leter            Page 1                        GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

                    While commonality is theoretically possible at any level of a weapon
                    system, BMDO has achieved commonality primarily at lower levels of
                    assembly, such as in components. According to BMDO and program
                    officials, they have had limited success in designing common systems or
                    major subsystems mostly because of differences in system requirements
                    and operating environments and difficulties in incorporating new
                    technologies into systems with mature designs. These officials said that
                    the greatest benefits of commonality can be produced at the component
                    level. BMDO has sought to promote commonality within its ballistic
                    missile defense systems through the use of an “open systems” approach
                    and technology insertion at the component level—an approach that seeks
                    to use commonly available commercial products in DOD systems, rather
                    than developing program unique components.

                    BMDO officials said that they expect more commonality in the future for a
                    variety of reasons, such as having fewer suppliers and more opportunities
                    to upgrade systems with newer technologies. Although BMDO tries to
                    promote commonality in its programs, it does not have a structured
                    process to systematically identify promising common technologies and has
                    provided little funding to evaluate the feasibility of the use of these
                    technologies. Although some technologies have been identified and
                    preliminary estimates show that they could save substantial dollar
                    amounts, these technologies must be thoroughly evaluated. Without
                    adequate evaluation, program offices and their prime contractors are
                    reluctant to convert to unproven technologies.

                    To better achieve commonality, BMDO needs to establish a structured
                    effort or program with appropriate funding to identify and evaluate
                    potential common systems and components.

Key Benefits of     According to DOD officials, the primary benefit from the use of common
                    subsystems and components is cost savings, especially over the life of a
Commonality in      system. One way to achieve commonality is to insert common
Ballistic Missile   technologies into existing systems. BMDO’s November 1998 development
                    plan states that the success of technology insertion can be improved by
Defense Programs    using open systems concepts in system design. These concepts, introduced
                    into DOD in 1994, promote affordability by extensive use of common
                    components. Open systems, according to DOD documents, allow DOD to
                    use commercially available, widely accepted standard products from
                    multiple vendors. The advantage of this is that wide availability of a
                    potentially large variety of compliant products makes rapid design and

                    Page 2              GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

                           prototyping much easier than when every element of the system must be
                           custom designed. DOD documents note that the long-term payoffs for
                           open systems include lower life-cycle costs for weapon systems, better
                           system performance with greater interoperability between systems, and
                           more rapid technology upgrades. Army missile defense program officials
                           told us that the advantage of commonality is that as the quantity of an item
                           increases, both fixed and unit component production costs are reduced.
                           Increased commonality results in reduced life-cycle costs.

                           Another benefit of commonality, according to BMDO, is improving
                           interoperability among BMDO systems. Officials from the Army’s Theater
                           High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program told us that each BMDO
                           program is required to interoperate with the other programs and that
                           BMDO plans to have common messages, communication, and processing
                           equipment. Navy officials said that commonality is inherently linked to the
                           success of interoperability. Army officials told us that commonality also
                           may enhance reliability. According to these officials, experience in the
                           electronics industry has shown that when the quantity of production items
                           increases, reliability increases.

Mixed Success in           Depending on the particular circumstances, commonality is possible at any
                           level of a weapon, from the entire system or a major subsystem to
BMDO’s Commonality         components or piece parts. BMDO has had limited success in achieving
Efforts                    commonality in entire systems or major subsystems. The use of a common
                           interceptor missile for the Army’s THAAD program and the Navy’s Theater-
                           wide program has been studied extensively, and cost savings have been
                           shown to be outweighed by modification and integration costs and risks.
                           BMDO and service officials believe that system commonality has been
                           limited because of differences in system requirements and operating
                           environments. BMDO and the services have had some success in achieving
                           commonality below the system level, especially at the component level.

System Level Commonality   To date, the most ambitious attempt at instilling commonality in a BMDO
                           program relates to considering a common interceptor for the Army’s
                           THAAD program and the Navy’s Theater-wide program. Since 1991, several
                           DOD studies have examined the possibility of such a common interceptor.
                           These studies looked primarily at adapting the THAAD missile for the
                           Theater-wide program since the THAAD program was further along in
                           development. While initially, a common interceptor appeared attractive
                           given that the threats, defense objectives, and system functions are very

                           Page 3              GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

similar, the studies generally found that differences in the systems’ mission
requirements and operating environments would be difficult and costly to
overcome. For example, in 1993, a DOD committee reported that a
common THAAD and Navy Theater-wide interceptor would likely be
impractical because of safety concerns unique to shipboard operations.
Also in 1993, DOD’s independent Cost Analysis Improvement Group
reported that although it was too early to assess cost-effectiveness, it was
unlikely that the objective of a common interceptor could be achieved, in
part, because of different operating environments. THAAD subsystems
may be spaced out over an area of several square miles, while the Navy
system must operate from a ship at sea. Navy radars and missiles will be
much closer together, increasing the possibility of interference and the
hazards associated with flammable materials. Also, THAAD is intended to
be located near critical assets and to intercept missiles both inside and
outside the atmosphere as they fly toward the system. The Theater-wide
missile will be designed to intercept a target missile in all stages of flight
outside the atmosphere. In many cases, the target missile will travel away
from the defense system, which will require an interceptor that is roughly
twice as fast as the planned THAAD interceptor.

More recent studies have further defined the risks associated with a
common interceptor. The Navy’s 1997 cost analysis, which specifically
evaluated whether the Navy Theater-wide system could use the THAAD
interceptor’s kill vehicle,2 concluded that the kill vehicle could not be used
in the Navy system without significant modifications. The study
concentrated on two variants of the THAAD kill vehicle. The first variant
would be about 85-percent common with the Army’s kill vehicle and would
result in commonality benefits totaling $150 million. However, these
benefits, according to the analysis, were almost totally offset by increases
in safety-related costs associated with the Army’s use of liquid fuels in the
kill vehicle’s design. The use of liquid fuels, which are toxic, corrosive, and
explosive, would require additional Navy investments in safety equipment
and training. The second variant was estimated to be 54-percent common
with the Army’s kill vehicle and it would result in commonality benefits of
$50 million versus additional costs of $500 million. These additional costs
were primarily for developing a new seeker capable of longer range
intercepts and a new solid fuel control system to reduce shipboard safety

 The kill vehicle is the front end of an interceptor that will see the target and destroy it by colliding with

Page 4                        GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

                        hazards. A 1997 BMDO study3 reconfirmed that designing a common
                        interceptor for the two programs would increase costs and risks and
                        recommended that both systems proceed as planned. The study also
                        recommended that both programs be structured to support commonality
                        objectives when they are upgraded and suggested that commonality could
                        be revisited as a mitigation approach if major problems occur in either

Commonality Below the   BMDO has had more success at incorporating commonality below the
System Level            system or major subsystem level, as the following examples show.

                        • The THAAD4 and National Missile Defense5 radars use several common
                          components, including common hardware, software, and processors.
                          Program officials believe that measurable cost savings have been
                          achieved by this commonality, but the magnitude of the savings is yet to
                          be determined.
                        • Both Navy theater missile defense systems rely on technology that has
                          evolved from earlier versions of the Standard missile and the AEGIS
                          weapon system. For example, the Navy Area program6 is modifying an
                          earlier version of the Navy’s Standard missile and is upgrading the
                          existing AEGIS system in order to perform its theater ballistic missile
                          defense mission. DOD officials could not provide an estimate of the
                          cost savings associated with this commonality.
                        • The Navy Theater-wide program and the National Missile Defense
                          program are developing common infrared seekers and propulsion
                          systems. DOD officials could not provide an estimate of the cost savings
                          associated with this commonality.

                        BMDO and service officials said that component level commonality has
                        been the focus of most recent initiatives. BMDO has emphasized
                        commonality at the component level through the use of open systems and

                            BMDO, The Commonality Alternatives Systems Study, 1997.
                          For more details on the THAAD program, see Ballistic Missile Defense: Improvements Needed in
                        THAAD Acquisition Planning (GAO/NSIAD-97-188, Sept. 12, 1997).

                        5For more details on the National Missile Defense program, see National Missile Defense: Even With
                        Increased Funding Technical and Schedule Risks Are High (GAO/NSIAD-98-153, June 23, 1998).

                         For more details on the Navy Area program, see Ballistic Missile Defense: Improvements Needed in
                        Navy Area Acquisition Planning (GAO/NSIAD-98-34, Nov. 14, 1997).

                        Page 5                       GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

                        technology insertion. To this end, BMDO has established several working
                        groups, including the Open Systems Working Group and the Government/
                        Industry Open Systems Applications Group. The purpose of the Working
                        Group,7 which meets quarterly, is to coordinate the use of open systems
                        within the BMDO community, and the purposes of the Applications Group8
                        are to provide a forum for communication regarding specific and planned
                        open systems implementation opportunities and to enhance the consistent
                        application of open systems. The Applications Group met three times in
                        1998. Participants at the Working Group’s and Applications Group’s
                        meetings have generally been pleased with the results to date.

                        According to BMDO officials, BMDO recently implemented two processes
                        that, while not primarily focused on commonality, should help identify
                        promising common technologies. These are the technology master plan
                        process and the Family of Systems architecture. The technology master
                        plan process has identified multiple potential applications for new
                        technology. For example, four different window technology efforts,
                        supporting two different programs, were combined into one “advanced
                        window” effort to support both programs. The Family of Systems
                        architecture is focused on systems interoperability, but, according to
                        BMDO officials, commonality and affordability are inherently linked to the
                        systems design trade-offs necessary to achieve interoperability.

Factors That Restrict   We discussed factors that have restricted the use of common subsystems
Commonality             and components in ballistic missile defense systems with BMDO and
                        service officials. These officials said that commonality must be
                        incorporated into the design phase of a system or subsystem when
                        requirements are being established for maximum benefit. They identified
                        several reasons why commonality in BMDO systems has been difficult to

                        One reason given was different performance requirements. BMDO systems
                        are designed to meet specific service performance requirements that may
                        be compromised with common components. For example, according to
                        the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office, an inertial measurement

                        7The   Working Group consists of representatives from BMDO and its program offices.

                         The Applications Group’s members include not only BMDO and program office representatives, but
                        also representatives from BMDO’s prime contractors and major subcontractors.

                        Page 6                      GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

unit developed for a theater missile defense interceptor could be used for
the National Missile Defense Program’s interceptor. However, the weight,
volume, and power requirements may not be fully compatible with the
National Missile Defense program goals, possibly lowering performance.
Navy officials said where operating requirements and environments are
substantially different, commonality may not be appropriate, especially if
cost and performance goals must be sacrificed to achieve it.

A second reason was mature designs. BMDO systems have mature designs
and integration of common systems may involve high integration costs. As
noted previously, for example, the cost to integrate the Army’s THAAD
interceptor into the Navy’s Theater-wide system was estimated to be
between $150 million and $500 million. Officials from the Army’s missile
defense program office told us that the stage of maturity of a weapon
system limits the extent to which changes can be implemented. While
some components such as batteries can be changed easily, others, such as
composite airframes, cannot. They added that the only way to make
changes at a system level for a mature system is through future upgrades.

A third reason given by officials was that candidate common systems
emanating from other programs have to be proven to a program office or
prime contractor before either one will accept them. That is, program
offices and prime contractors are reluctant to accept systems they did not
design. THAAD officials told us that commonality is a design constraint
that must be considered at the beginning of the design process and that
program managers would resist changing the baseline design after it has
been established. According to the Army’s missile defense program office,
DOD acquisition reforms have given prime contractors total system
performance responsibility, and thus, they have little incentive to use
common systems that can be produced by another contractor. Navy
officials added that a company that produces a common product for all
applications is unlikely to encourage a competitive industrial base for that

A fourth reason was management challenges. A joint service program is
likely to require many more decision trade-offs than would a single service
development, and there are complex budget, cost, and schedule
interactions that affect the delivery of products for both services. The
effort will result in a successful conclusion only if all parties are willing to
make the necessary compromises to maintain commonality.

Page 7                GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

BMDO’s Plans for           Despite the limited commonality that exists, officials told us that they
                           expect to see more commonality in the future because there will likely be
Enhancing                  fewer suppliers and more opportunities to upgrade existing designs with
Commonality in the         newer technology. Several efforts that involve increased commonality have
                           already started. However, BMDO does not have a structured process to
Future                     systematically identify promising common technologies. Furthermore,
                           even when promising technologies are identified, BMDO’s ability to
                           incorporate them into weapon systems is hampered because it does not
                           have a consistent source of funding to evaluate the feasibility of using the

DOD’s Future Emphasis on   The decreasing number of defense contractors, subcontractors, and
Commonality                suppliers is forcing DOD system designs to contain common subsystems or
                           components that are made by the same supplier. One BMDO official told
                           us that industry is moving away from producing defense-specific parts;
                           thus, defense programs will be forced toward more commonality. Also,
                           BMDO’s requirement that all of its theater ballistic missile defense systems
                           operate in an integrated manner, that is, interoperate with each other—a
                           concept known as the Family of Systems—will facilitate the use of
                           common items. According to Navy officials, commonality, affordability,
                           schedule, and performance are inherently linked to interoperability

                           Most officials said that commonality will become more prevalent as
                           systems are improved through periodic upgrades. The BMDO development
                           plan notes that new technology has primarily been viewed as a contributor
                           in the earliest stages of development before a system’s design has been
                           “frozen.” It states that many of the current BMDO component technologies
                           are already obsolete and often unavailable. With the lifetime of many
                           microelectronic devices at less than 2 years, BMDO will have to modify
                           system designs several times during the development phase. Finally, it
                           notes that programs must plan to make use of emerging commercial and
                           defense developed technologies based on availability of technology rather
                           than on DOD acquisition phases. A BMDO official said that BMDO
                           programs have mature system designs and thus seeking commonality could
                           result in high engineering costs. However, in the future, when these
                           systems are upgraded, common subsystems and components could be
                           inserted more affordably.

                           Page 8              GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

                              Several system upgrades related to commonality are being developed. For
                              example, BMDO is developing the next generation radar transmit/receive
                              modules to replace modules that are currently planned for use in both
                              National Missile Defense and THAAD radars. Also, BMDO’s Advanced
                              Interceptor Technology program is to develop a new interceptor that can
                              be used to upgrade current systems. Although it does not have
                              commonality as a specific goal, the program, according to many officials,
                              would result in greater BMDO commonality through system upgrades. For
                              example, Navy officials said that a number of common components are
                              being developed under this and other programs, including common
                              infrared seekers and common propulsion systems.

Further Application Limited   BMDO currently promotes component commonality primarily by acting as
By Lack of Structured         a “clearinghouse” for information. The working groups meet and discuss
                              common technologies that could possibly be shared by the services or may
Process for Identifying and
                              be available commercially. However, even with the working groups and the
Funding Promising             process initiatives, BMDO officials told us that they lack a formal process
Technologies                  to systematically identify promising common technologies. One BMDO
                              official described BMDO’s effort as “hit or miss.”

                              Furthermore, even if a promising common technology is identified, BMDO
                              does not have a consistent source of funding to evaluate the feasibility of
                              the use of that technology. Evaluation is necessary to assess (1) the costs
                              and risks of transitioning to a new technology and (2) the cost impact of
                              operating and maintaining that technology after system deployment.
                              Funding for evaluations often comes from reprogrammed sources or from
                              excess program funds; a budget account for such evaluations does not

                              Through the Applications Group, BMDO has identified 16 possible common
                              technologies, but only 4 have been funded for evaluation. One technology
                              involves replacing ring laser gyroscopes, which cost $70,000 to $100,000
                              each, with interferometric fiber optic gyroscopes,9 which cost $15,000 to
                              $30,000 each. The cost to evaluate the feasibility of this one technology is
                              estimated to be $500,000, with funding being provided by BMDO. Another
                              $7 million is estimated to be needed to develop the technology for program
                              insertion. This development funding is expected to be provided by BMDO,

                               These gyroscopes are part of an interceptor’s inertial measurement units and allow the interceptor to
                              track and intercept the target.

                              Page 9                      GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

              the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Patriot Advanced
              Capability-3 Program Office. According to BMDO, while the Army’s
              THAAD and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 programs would be the initial
              beneficiaries of this common component, other programs may also benefit
              in the future. BMDO’s preliminary estimate of the cost savings that would
              result from the use of the common gyroscopes is about $116 million over
              the life of the systems.

              The average cost to evaluate the other three technologies was estimated at
              $1 million to $1.8 million, versus average projected life-cycle cost savings
              of $33 million. BMDO’s preliminary estimates show that five of the other
              technologies could save $113 million if implemented, but they have not
              received funding for the needed evaluations. Army officials told us that
              many good common technologies are never realized because the near-term
              funding needed to quantify the technical and cost benefits for those
              candidates is insufficient.

              To better structure its commonality effort, BMDO could consider the
              example of other DOD programs, such as the Army’s Horizontal
              Technology Integration Program, which has many of the same goals as
              BMDO’s effort. The purpose of this program is to apply common
              technologies across multiple systems within a force to increase
              effectiveness. The program seeks to reduce overall cost while allowing for
              rapid fielding of high payoff technologies, ensure interoperability and
              commonality, and facilitate simultaneous system upgrades.

              The Army’s process for this is more structured than BMDO’s. Proposals are
              forwarded to an executive secretariat and are then reviewed by a “council
              of colonels.” If the proposal is promising, it is reviewed by a council of
              general officers for formal approval. The program provides funding to the
              appropriate program offices for approved projects so as to control design
              and funding. The Army estimates that the program has already resulted in
              cost savings of $2 billion.

Conclusions   Because DOD and BMDO studies have demonstrated the potential for
              reducing costs and enhancing interoperability through increased
              commonality within BMDO systems, BMDO has taken some initial steps to
              make its systems more affordable through the use of commonality,
              primarily at the component level. BMDO expects to have greater
              commonality in the future, either through the use of upgrades to existing
              systems or through more common designs in future weapon systems.

              Page 10             GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

                      However, at the time of our review, BMDO did not have a structured effort
                      or program with appropriate funding to systematically identify and
                      evaluate potential common systems and components. In our opinion,
                      developing such an effort is both feasible and potentially beneficial. The
                      Army’s Horizontal Technology Integration program is an example of
                      another DOD program that has many of the same goals as BMDO’s. While
                      we recognize that BMDO must fund many pressing priorities within its
                      available resources, we believe that the potential for significant cost
                      savings warrants formalization of BMDO’s commonality activities. In
                      commenting on a draft of this report, DOD said that BMDO had recently
                      begun planning for a structured and funded commonality program.

Recommendation        In light of potential cost savings that will enhance the affordability of
                      ballistic missile defense programs, we recommend that the Secretary of
                      Defense take steps to ensure that BMDO implements plans to establish a
                      structured program, with appropriate milestones and funding, to identify
                      and evaluate potential common systems and components for its missile
                      defense systems.

Agency Comments and   In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with our
                      recommendation. DOD concurred with the intent of the recommendation
Our Evaluation        but stated that action by the Secretary of Defense was unnecessary
                      because BMDO was in the process of establishing the recommended
                      structured and funded program. In clarifying DOD’s comments, a BMDO
                      official told us that the organization began internal discussions aimed at
                      establishing the program in March 1999 and that a process action team,
                      established in April 1999, recommended the following actions.

                      • Criteria be established to judge commonality proposals; the criteria will
                        include readiness of the technology, its producibility, benefits to more
                        than one program, future potential, and the ability to build on existing
                      • A working group be formed to evaluate proposed technologies.
                      • Promising technologies be forwarded to an existing BMDO advanced
                        technology and cost benefits team that will estimate life-cycle costs.
                      • Technologies with reasonable cost estimates be passed to a senior level
                        steering group for approval.

                      Page 11             GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

              The official told us that this process had not yet been finalized or
              implemented and that no decision had been made on how the evaluations
              would be funded. We modified our report to recognize that BMDO has
              begun planning a structured and funded program for identifying and
              evaluating potential common systems and components. We have also
              modified our recommendation to emphasize the need for the Secretary of
              Defense to take steps to ensure that BMDO’s plans for a structured
              program are implemented, with appropriate milestones and funding.

              DOD also provided additional technical comments, which were
              incorporated as appropriate. DOD’s comments are included in appendix I.

Scope and     To describe the benefits of commonality to BMDO programs, we
              interviewed agency officials and reviewed pertinent documentation,
Methodology   including the BMDO Development Plan, the BMDO Open Systems
              Deployment Plan, and the Theater Missile Defense Engineering and
              Technology Commonality Study. We analyzed the various factors that have
              contributed to commonality within BMDO programs.

              To determine what current efforts have been undertaken by BMDO and the
              services to achieve commonality, we interviewed agency officials and
              analyzed relevant documentation, including the Navy Theater-wide Phase II
              Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis, the BMDO Commonality
              Alternatives System Study, and committee charters and meeting
              summaries. We examined BMDO’s open systems and technology insertion
              efforts to determine achievements and future plans. We also interviewed
              government and industry participants in commonality meetings and

              To identify BMDO’s plans to instill commonality in the future, we
              interviewed agency officials and analyzed documentation related to
              BMDO’s commonality efforts and the Army’s Horizontal Technology
              Integration program, which has goals similar to BMDO’s commonality

              We interviewed responsible agency officials at the Office of the Secretary
              of Defense, the Joint Staff, BMDO, and the Defense Advanced Research
              Projects Office, in Washington, D.C.; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
              the Army (Research, Development & Acquisition) and the Office of the
              Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, in Washington, D.C.;
              the Army’s Program Executive Office for Air and Missile Defense, and

              Page 12              GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality

THAAD and Patriot program offices, in Huntsville, Alabama; the Navy’s
Program Executive Office (Theater Surface Combatants) in Washington,
D.C.; the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Virginia; the Office of
the Secretary of the Air Force, Theater Air Defense Division, Washington,
D.C.; and industry officials in Washington, D.C.

We conducted our review from June 1998 to February 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As you know, the head of a federal agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to
submit a written statement of actions taken on our recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on
Government Reform not later than 60 days after the date of this report. A
written statement also must be submitted to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations with the 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; Lieutenant General Lester L. Lyles, Director, BMDO; the
Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable Richard
Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; and the Honorable F. Whitten Peters, Acting
Secretary of the Air Force. We will also make copies available to others on

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-4841. Major contributors to this report were
Lee Edwards, David Hand, and Judy Lasley.

Sincerely yours,

Allen Li
Associate Director
Defense Acquisitions Issues

Page 13             GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of Defense                                                       AppeInxdi

Now on p. 5.

               ertet   Page 14   GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality
                        Appendix I
                        Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 11.

(707368)        L
                ertet   Page 15               GAO/NSIAD-99-101 Ballistic Missile Defense Program Commonality
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:


or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested