oversight

Military Operations: Status of DOD's Efforts to Develop Future Warfighting Capability

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-03-31.

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

                  United States General Accounting Office

GAO               Report to the Chairman, Committee on
                  Armed Services, U.S. Senate



March 1999
                  MILITARY
                  OPERATIONS

                  Status of DOD’s
                  Efforts to Develop
                  Future Warfighting
                  Capability




GAO/NSIAD-99-64
                   United States
GAO                General Accounting Office
                   Washington, D.C. 20548                                                            Leter




                   National Security and
                   International Affairs Division

                   B-280338                                                                  Letter

                   March 31, 1999

                   The Honorable John Warner
                   Chairman, Committee on
                    Armed Services
                   United States Senate

                   Dear Mr. Chairman:

                   The Department of Defense (DOD) is implementing a plan designed to
                   meet the critical security challenges of the future by transforming the
                   Armed Forces into a joint force capable of meeting the requirements of
                   21st century operations. A key element of achieving this transformation is
                   the conduct of joint warfighting experimentation, which involves assessing
                   joint warfighting concepts that could lead to changes to doctrine,
                   organization, training and education, materiel, leadership, and personnel
                   (DOTMLP). As agreed with your office, this letter responds to the Senate
                   Committee on Armed Services' report on the fiscal year 1999 DOD
                   Authorization Act and (1) describes the status of DOD’s efforts to
                   implement its joint experimentation program, (2) identifies some of the
                   factors that we believe contribute to the success of a joint experimentation
                   program, and (3) provides answers to the issues posed in the report
                   regarding the extent of DOD’s support for future warfighting.



Results in Brief   DOD is beginning to implement its future warfighting vision and joint
                   experimentation, both of which are formidable efforts. It has done a
                   significant amount of work in establishing the processes to implement both
                   efforts, but it is too early to assess their success. Joint Vision (JV) 2010 is
                   the conceptual template for future joint warfighting. To provide joint
                   policy and guidance for the implementation of JV 2010 in December 1998,
                   the Joint Staff published the Joint Vision Implementation Master Plan
                   (JIMP). The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), is responsible for JV
                   2010 implementation. The U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM), designated
                   by the Secretary of Defense as executive agent for joint experimentation, is
                   responsible for concept development, assessment, and experimentation
                   within the program to implement JV 2010.

                   USACOM’s role as executive agent for joint experimentation is less than a
                   year old. In that time, it has developed a plan to implement its
                   responsibilities, which includes a detailed joint experimentation process
                   and an organization to implement it. It also has developed its first Joint



                   Page 1                                        GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
B-280338




Experimentation Campaign Plan (CPLAN), which identifies the first
advanced warfighting concepts and supporting experimentation events
that will be undertaken during fiscal years 1999-2001. A key early element
of its CPLAN is the proof of process experiment, scheduled for completion
in November 1999, which will be used to validate the experimentation
process. USACOM is still building its staff and the first experiment events
are just beginning. Because it takes time to staff a new organization,
USACOM officials report that in their first year of operation they have not
been able to do as much as they had hoped to do.

Since experiments are just beginning in 1999 and the proof of process
experiment will not be completed until late 1999, necessary data will not be
available for at least a year for anyone to make a preliminary assessment of
how well the joint experimentation process is working in practice and for
several years to thoroughly assess whether joint experimentation is
achieving the results envisioned by the Secretary of Defense and the
Congress. To aid the Committee in its oversight of joint experimentation in
the interim, we have identified what we believe are important initial factors
in a successful joint experimentation program. These factors include
whether joint experimentation is becoming institutionalized within DOD,
the extent to which joint experimentation includes exploring changes in
doctrine and organization as well as technology, and the extent to which
USACOM is establishing linkages with other DOD organizations exploring
future warfighting. This last factor is particularly important since
USACOM places heavy emphasis on leveraging other DOD components’
experimentation.

The Committee’s report directed us to examine a number of issues related
to the extent of DOD’s support for implementing JV 2010, including the
extent to which it is supported by the JIMP, the Secretary of Defense’s and
CJCS’s guidance on DOD priorities, and the defense science and
technology plans. Table 1 states the issues and provides a summary of our
responses. Our detailed responses are in appendixes I through VI.




Page 2                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                                                B-280338




Table 1: JV 2010 and Joint Experimentation Issues and Our Answers
Issue                                                                   Answer
Does the JIMP reflect a viable time line and adequate resources to      For the most part. The JIMP provides joint policy and guidance to
achieve the operational concepts of the vision by 2010 and              implement JV 2010. It does not nor was it intended, to discuss time
incorporate the operational challenges and desired force                lines and resources. The JIMP describes the year 2010 as a way
characteristics described in the report of the National Defense         point rather than an end point for achieving JV 2010 capabilities.
Panel (NDP); is funding for the execution of the JV 2010                The JIMP incorporates all of the NDP's operational challenges and
assessment roadmaps adequately reflected in the Future Years            desired force characteristics. Responsibility for the assessment
Defense Program (FYDP); and are service plans for                       roadmaps was transferred to USACOM as executive agent for joint
experimentation activities consistent with these roadmaps?              experimentation. The fiscal years 2000-2005 FYDP will contain
                                                                        funding for USACOM, whose planned experiments should be
                                                                        consistent with the services' events since USACOM plans to utilize
                                                                        them. (See app. I.)
Is the plan for the development of joint enablers adequate to           No, but it is a beginning. Joint enablers—such as command,
implement the operational concepts of JV 2010 by 2010?                  control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
                                                                        reconnaissance—comprise over half of the JIMP’s 72 desired
                                                                        operational capabilities to implement JV 2010. USACOM’s
                                                                        experiment plan begins to address joint enablers but does not go
                                                                        beyond 2001. (See app. II.)
Are the fielding of advanced technologies, the preparation of forces,   They are not reflected in most recent documents but are expected
and the funding support for the joint experimentation plan reflected    to be reflected in future documents. While the defense guidance
in the Defense Planning Guidance for fiscal years 2000 through          contains considerable discussion of JV 2010, it and associated
2005 and the subsequent budget and planning review process              budget and planning review process products mostly make limited
documents?                                                              or no mention of joint experimentation or the fielding of advanced
                                                                        technology and preparation of forces for the joint experimentation
                                                                        plan. This is partly due to these documents preceding the joint
                                                                        experimentation program. They are expected to discuss joint
                                                                        experimentation in 1999. There is no complete picture of funding
                                                                        support for joint experimentation, JV 2010, and defense
                                                                        transformation activities. (See app. III.)
What are the views in the modeling and simulation community as to The ability to model or simulate important elements of future
the capability and limitations of existing and developing models and warfighting is not within DOD’s current capability. It may be a
simulations to support the joint experimentation process?            decade or more before such capabilities exist. (See app. IV.)
Do the Defense Science and Technology Strategy, the Basic               To a great extent. The plans are linked to each other. We found
Research Plan, the Defense Technology Area Plan, and the Joint          almost all of the key future technology needs for the Army and Navy
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan synchronize the fielding        reflected in these plans. (See app. V.)
of advanced technologies across the services to support the
development of joint capabilities?
How does USACOM’s charter compare to the Joint Forces                   While the charter establishing USACOM as executive agent for joint
Command recommended by the NDP and what is USACOM’s                     experimentation did not address any of the NDP recommendations
capability to implement its charter?                                    regarding the framework for a Joint Forces Command, USACOM's
                                                                        Joint Experimentation Implementation Plan (IPLAN) followed the
                                                                        framework for 10 of the 17 recommendations and part of an 11th
                                                                        recommendation. USACOM has established a joint
                                                                        experimentation process and is beginning to implement it. (See
                                                                        app. VI.)
                                                Source: GAO.




                                                Page 3                                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                       B-280338




Background             On May 1, 1996, the CJCS approved a document entitled Joint Vision 2010.
                       This document responded to a recommendation in the Commission on
                       Roles and Missions’ May 1995 report that the CJCS propose a joint
                       warfighting vision to help guide service force development efforts. It, along
                       with future concepts documents, is to guide joint warfighting
                       experimentation. JV 2010 describes how technological innovations and
                       information superiority will allow the services to use four new operational
                       concepts—dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full dimensional
                       protection, and focused logistics—in future conflicts. The synergy of these
                       new concepts is described as defining the end state of the vision—full
                       spectrum dominance, the ability to dominate the full range of military
                       operations from humanitarian assistance, through peace operations, up to
                       and into the highest intensity conflict. The Joint Staff is responsible for
                       overseeing JV 2010 implementation. To provide further guidance for
                       achieving future joint warfighting capabilities, in December 1998 the Joint
                       Staff published the JIMP.

                       On May 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense chartered USACOM to serve as
                       the DOD executive agent for joint experimentation, effective October 1,
                       1998, and directed the development of an implementation plan. As
                       executive agent, USACOM is to plan, conduct, and assess joint
                       experiments, synchronize service experimentation efforts, and provide
                       “best value-added” recommendations for changes to DOTMLP based on the
                       results of those experiments. The charter made USACOM responsible for
                       concept development, assessment, and experimentation within the CJCS
                       program to implement JV 2010 and future warfighting visions.



USACOM Is Making       USACOM has had to perform three critical tasks concurrently to meet its
                       responsibilities as executive agent for joint experimentation—create a joint
Progress in            experimentation capability, develop a joint experimentation plan, and
Establishing a Joint   execute the plan. In anticipation of, and to accomplish, this mission, it
                       began working on the preparation phase in April 1998, with the
Experimentation        establishment of the joint experimentation concept team. This team
Program                developed the IPLAN and the joint experimentation process, and on
                       September 1, 1998, this team became the USACOM Joint Experimentation
                       (J9) Directorate. Both the organization and the process will evolve as the
                       joint experimentation program matures.

                       USACOM has taken a number of steps to implement its joint
                       experimentation responsibilities. In addition to developing the IPLAN and



                       Page 4                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                                         B-280338




                                         the joint experimentation process, it has identified resource requirements,
                                         completed the first CPLAN, and begun preparation for the first
                                         experiments.


The Joint Experimentation                The IPLAN, dated July 14, 1998, documents USACOM’s concept for
Process                                  executing its mission. It establishes an eight-element experimentation
                                         process and describes how USACOM will task organize to accomplish the
                                         mission (see table 2).



Table 2: Elements of the Joint Experimentation Process
Element                                       Description
Concept development                           Assimilates strategic guidance and other inputs from the combatant commanders,
                                              services, non-DOD agencies, private sector, and others. From this compilation of
                                              information, the J9 Directorate refines and further develops concepts for joint
                                              experimentation.
Campaign planning                             Develops a multiyear CPLAN detailing a series of experiments addressing each of
                                              the concepts selected for experimentation.
Experimentation plan development              Each concept approved for experimentation will be fully developed in a white paper
                                              describing the concept and desired capabilities in sufficient detail for implementation
                                              by the warfighter. The paper also will contain the experimental hypotheses for
                                              defining the objectives for each experiment event, which provide the basis for the
                                              experimentation plan. Experimentation plans will identify events required to assess
                                              the concept and provide the information required to select, design, schedule, and
                                              develop the events to be executed.
Experiment design                             Experiment management plans are developed for events identified in the experiment
                                              plans. The management plan may include measures of effectiveness and
                                              performance, a data collection plan, an analysis plan, and a modeling and simulation
                                              plan. Experiment objectives are defined and experiments, demonstrations, and
                                              exercises being conducted throughout DOD are examined to determine the extent to
                                              which they can be leveraged to support USACOM's experiment objectives.
Experiment preparation                        Establishes the experiment control cell and develops the experiment training,
                                              support, and technical support plans.
Experiment conduct                            The hypothesis testing and data generation portion of the process.
Assessment                                    Data collected is analyzed in accordance with the analysis plan and results in two
                                              major outputs: (1) an initial after action report and (2) a final report based on more
                                              extensive analysis of the data with conclusions and recommendations.
Integration                                   Examines the results of all experiments pertaining to a given concept, as well as
                                              information available from other sources, and draws conclusions about the utility of
                                              the concept and the value-added to joint operations. After extensive review, these
                                              conclusions become recommendations for new DOTMLP actions required to
                                              implement the concept.
                                         Source: USACOM’s IPLAN.




                                         Page 5                                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                        B-280338




Resource Requirements   USACOM has identified its resource requirements, both for personnel and
                        funding, and it is anticipating rapid personnel growth over a 3-year period.
                        In November 1998, the USACOM J9 Directorate had 27 military and civilian
                        personnel.1 It had a staffing goal of 127 military and DOD civilian personnel
                        by September 1999, but it now expects to have 58 people, including
                        30 military personnel, by that date. By October 2001, USACOM officials
                        told us that their goal is to have staffing of 161 personnel, including
                        126 military and DOD civilian personnel and 35 reimbursable personnel
                        from other organizations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has
                        authorized the 126 military and DOD civilian personnel for both fiscal years
                        2000 and 2001. The reimbursable personnel do not require Office of the
                        Secretary of Defense authorization. USACOM officials told us that because
                        it takes time to staff a new organization, in their first year of operation they
                        have not been able to do as much as they had hoped to do.

                        Because joint experimentation is a new mission, it was not included in the
                        President’s fiscal year 1999 budget or the FYDP, so DOD transferred funds
                        from other accounts. USACOM requested $41 million for the J9 Directorate
                        in fiscal year 1999 and DOD agreed to fund $30 million.2 Initially,
                        $14.1 million was provided to USACOM, of which it has actually received
                        $12.48 million. USACOM officials believe that this amount is sufficient to
                        last until March 1999. The balance is to come from a $16-million
                        reprogramming action approved by DOD and expected to be submitted to
                        the Congress in early 1999. USACOM officials told us that they expect to
                        receive those funds in April 1999. In addition, DOD has included
                        $350 million for joint experimentation for fiscal years 2000-2005 in the
                        FYDP. Joint Staff officials told us that additional funding may be added in
                        fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to fund an additional joint experiment in each of
                        those years.

                        In April 1999, USACOM will lease a commercial building that is currently
                        under construction to house its joint experimentation personnel and battle
                        laboratory. Long-range plans include repairing an existing Navy-owned
                        facility on Naval Air Station Norfolk as a permanent location for the J9
                        Directorate, with a planned occupancy date in fiscal year 2001.


                        1The  J9 Directorate was augmented by about 50 reservist and contractor personnel who are available
                        for varying periods of time.

                        2
                         Current resource estimates include funds for initial experimentation efforts, operation and
                        maintenance funding, facilities for operations, contractor support, communications and information
                        systems, and experimentation forces and logistics support.




                        Page 6                                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
            B-280338




The CPLAN   The first CPLAN, known as CPLAN 99, was submitted by USACOM for
            CJCS approval in December 1998, with CJCS review expected in late
            February or early March 1999. It covers fiscal years 1999-2001. The second
            CPLAN, which is to cover a 6-year period, is scheduled to be issued in
            spring 1999.

            CPLAN 99 identified the first group of advanced warfighting concepts to be
            studied in the joint experimentation program. These concepts were
            selected through the concept development process described in the IPLAN
            experimentation process. Concept development and selection for CPLAN
            99 began with a concept development workshop and a review of concept
            papers from various sources. Rating the concepts as to their suitability,
            feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability, the workshop attendees
            identified eight concepts as having the greatest potential for early
            experimentation. The eight concepts are:

            •   attack operations against critical mobile targets,
            •   future collaborative information environment,
            •   common relevant operational picture,
            •   interoperable combat identification,
            •   adaptive joint command and control,
            •   joint contingency force operations,
            •   focused logistics: enabling early decisive operations, and
            •   surveillance and fires from space.

            USACOM will use three types of events to assess concepts. These are
            (1) USACOM-generated events; (2) major-leveraged events where USACOM
            plays a major role in previously scheduled events of a combatant
            commander, service, or agency, including adding components to the
            experiment to meet USACOM’s experiment needs; and (3) minor-leveraged
            events where USACOM plays a reduced role in previously scheduled events
            of a combatant commander, service, or agency, which does not involve
            adding any components to the experiment.

            To leverage previously scheduled experiment events, USACOM has begun
            to establish linkages with the services, the defense agencies, and the
            national laboratories on future warfighting efforts. It has had discussions
            with the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Navy’s Maritime Battle
            Center, the Air Force’s Expeditionary Force Experiment group, the Marine
            Corps Warfighting Laboratory, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
            Agency, and national laboratories such as Los Alamos National Laboratory.
            We gathered information using a data collection instrument from



            Page 7                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
B-280338




14 organizations across the services, combatant commands, and national
laboratories about their future warfighting efforts and relationships with
USACOM. Nine of the 14 organizations said that a linkage had been
established with USACOM. For example, the U.S. Central Command, the
Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, and the Army’s Battle Laboratory
Integration, Technology, and Concepts Division reported that they have had
direct contact with the J9 Directorate. Three of the remaining five
organizations anticipate establishing linkages with USACOM in the near
future.

USACOM provided us with a list of 88 experiment events to be conducted
over the next 3 years. Experiment events are focused on three different
time phases—near-, mid-, and far-term. According to the CPLAN, the
near-term phase, which covers the next 6 years, focuses on improving
current capabilities; the mid-term phase, which is the 4 to 18-year period
from now, focuses on achieving JV 2010 operational capabilities, and the
far-term phase, which is the 15- to 25-year period from now, focuses on
developing revolutionary concepts. The most detailed planning for the
88 experiment events has been for those that address the mid-term phase.
A total of 42 mid-term-oriented experiments are detailed in a
synchronization matrix that identifies each event, the fiscal year and
quarter when it is scheduled to be conducted, and the advanced
warfighting concepts to be assessed. The matrix will be updated as new
experiments are identified. There is no similar matrix for the other
46 events.

The first leveraged experiment events will involve face-to-face contacts
with the service sponsor to arrange for USACOM participation. The first
agreement has been reached with the Navy’s Maritime Battle Center for the
Center to identify the contribution that Fleet Battle Experiment “Echo” can
make to USACOM joint experimentation goals and to design a coordination
process to allow USACOM to leverage off service experiments. The
agreement calls for the Center to provide a report on both the coordination
process and the results of the fleet battle experiment.

A key part of the first year’s experimentation, designed to validate
organizational structure and relationships and resource requirements, is
the proof of process experiment that USACOM has selected. It is
scheduled to be conducted between July 15 and August 15, 1999. The data
analysis is scheduled to occur from August 15 through November 15, 1999.
The final report is scheduled for completion on November 30, 1999.




Page 8                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                          B-280338




                          To address the far-term phase of joint experimentation, USACOM hosted a
                          futures program workshop with representatives from DOD, the services,
                          government, industry, and academia to identify potential concepts for
                          future evaluation. Using a construct based on descriptions of views of the
                          future, attendees looked for common concepts or capabilities that would
                          be needed by future warfighters to meet multiple scenarios. The attendees
                          identified the following eight areas for focus as far-term concepts.

                          •   Mastery of information
                          •   Bio-centric operations and counters
                          •   Space operations
                          •   Organizing for military operations
                          •   Weapons of mass effects
                          •   Operational and strategic sanctuaries
                          •   Autonomous operations
                          •   Global power projection



Some Important Initial    Because actual experiments are just beginning and the proof of process
                          experiment will not be completed before November 1999, we believe that a
Factors of a Successful   preliminary assessment of how well the joint experimentation process is
Joint Experimentation     working cannot be made by anyone before early in the year 2000 because
                          the necessary data will not be available for at least a year. Since the final
Program                   phase of the joint experimentation process leading to recommendations for
                          changes to DOTMLP involves examining the results of all experiments
                          pertaining to a given concept, we further believe that it will require several
                          years to conduct enough experiments to thoroughly assess whether joint
                          experimentation is achieving the results envisioned by the Secretary of
                          Defense and the Congress. To aid the Committee in its oversight of joint
                          experimentation in the interim, we have identified several initial factors
                          that we believe are important to successful joint experimentation. We
                          chose these initial factors based on a synthesis of (1) our review of various
                          documents related to defense transformation and joint experimentation;
                          (2) the sense of the Congress and the reporting requirements regarding
                          joint experimentation contained in the fiscal year 1999 DOD Authorization
                          Act; and (3) discussions with officials involved in joint experimentation,
                          including those at USACOM, a member of the NDP, and those at think tank
                          organizations. The initial factors we have identified and, where
                          appropriate, a brief description of how each factor could be assessed, are
                          as follows. We recognize that a certain amount of trial and error is to be
                          expected because DOD has not conducted a joint experimentation program
                          before.



                          Page 9                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                         B-280338




Institutionalizing the   The Joint Experimentation Program is less than a year old. The fiscal
Program                  year 1999 DOD Authorization Act includes the finding that it is essential
                         that an energetic and innovative organization be established in DOD with
                         the authority to design and implement a process of joint experimentation.
                         The JIMP states that near-term (1999-2000) objectives that support the
                         goals of JV 2010 implementation include establishing and institutionalizing
                         the process for joint experimentation and identifying and institutionalizing
                         the process of resourcing JV 2010 assessments. According to senior
                         USACOM officials involved in the joint experimentation program, the
                         program is not yet institutionalized, that is, permanent. A number of
                         actions have been and are being taken that should help institutionalize the
                         program. Completed actions include the requirement for an annual report
                         to the Congress on joint experimentation, the creation of USACOM’s J9
                         Joint Experimentation Directorate, the validation of over 100 positions for
                         the directorate, the development of a joint experimentation process, and
                         the inclusion of the joint experimentation program in DOD’s long-term
                         budget projections. A planned action is to include USACOM’s joint
                         experimentation responsibilities in the next revision to the Unified
                         Command Plan.3


Short Versus Mid- and    The allocation of resources among the near-, mid-, and far- term phases of
Far-Term Focus for       experimentation can have an important influence on the program’s success
                         in developing new warfighting capabilities. USACOM plans to use about
Experimentation
                         20 percent of its fiscal year 1999 resources for near-term experimentation,
                         about 75 percent for mid-term experimentation, and about 5 percent for
                         far-term experimentation. Other organizations, such as the combatant
                         commands and the services, already focus on meeting short-term needs
                         and improving current capabilities. We discussed this matter with the
                         Director of the Joint Staff’s Directorate for Operational Plans and
                         Interoperability, which is the executive agent and primary Joint Staff
                         proponent for JV 2010 implementation and systems integration. The
                         Director said that while in the future it might be good to focus on the far
                         term, not all of the problems from the Gulf War have been fixed. He also
                         said that there is a need for a mid-term focus for a while and to show some
                         concrete results. As USACOM makes resource allocations for subsequent
                         years, there should be a full dialogue among USACOM, the Joint Staff, the



                         3
                         This document sets basic guidance to all unified combatant commanders and establishes their
                         missions, responsibilities, and force structure.




                         Page 10                                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                              B-280338




                              Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Congress regarding the focus of
                              USACOM’s efforts, particularly whether they should include near-term
                              experimentation.


Assessing Organizational      The fiscal year 1999 DOD Authorization Act contains both a sense of the
Structures and Operational    Congress and an annual reporting requirement for joint warfighting
                              experimentation. The sense of the Congress noted the importance of
Concepts, Creating
                              assessing the effectiveness of current and new organizational structures,
Common Scenarios, and         operational concepts, and technologies in addressing expected early
Using Realistic Adversaries   21st century operational challenges as well as developing scenarios and
in Experiments                measures of effectiveness and using realistic adversaries in experiments,
                              called red teaming. It stated that the commander responsible for joint
                              warfighting experimentation should have the authority to integrate and test
                              the system and concepts that result from warfighting experimentation
                              conducted by the armed services and defense agencies. In the annual
                              reporting requirement, the Congress directed that the report include any
                              recommendations the commander responsible for such experimentation
                              considers appropriate regarding, among other things, changes in
                              organizational structure, operational concepts, or joint doctrine.

                              USACOM’s charter and IPLAN call for USACOM to recommend new
                              DOTMLP to the CJCS and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
                              Because recommendations regarding DOTMLP are the last step in the joint
                              experimentation process and actual experimentation is just beginning, it
                              will be several years before all experiments relating to a given concept are
                              complete and the results are available. A necessary step is to assure that
                              experimentation includes new organizational structures and operational
                              concepts. Whether experiments examine organizational structures and
                              operational challenges, as well as technology, can be ascertained by
                              examining the hypotheses and designs of specific experiment events. In
                              the longer term, it will be possible to assess the extent to which USACOM
                              recommends changes in organizational structure, operational concepts,
                              and joint doctrine and how the Joint Staff reacts to the recommendations.

                              USACOM has identified a number of experiment events that it believes
                              address the eight advanced warfighting concepts mentioned previously as
                              having the greatest potential for early experimentation. Each of the
                              military services is exploring concepts for future warfighting that could
                              serve as a basis for joint experimentation. Some of the leveraged events
                              USACOM identified involve service future warfighting concepts such as the
                              Army After Next wargame. By examining service and USACOM



                              Page 11                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                           B-280338




                           experimentation plans and events, it will be possible to compare the
                           concepts being assessed by the services and USACOM to determine the
                           extent to which the joint experimentation program tests service concepts.

                           The battle laboratories, research laboratories, and other service
                           organizations we contacted believe that USACOM should provide a
                           common set of experimentation concepts and/or scenarios while leaving
                           leeway to pursue independent scenarios. The combatant commands we
                           contacted believe that Commanders in Chief should be free to set
                           scenarios, although one combatant command believes that USACOM
                           should provide an overview of the future security environment. Examining
                           the details of individual experiments will provide an early indication of the
                           extent to which the services, defense agencies, and combatant commands
                           are using common scenarios and measures of effectiveness in their
                           participation in joint experimentation.

                           The importance of red teams in experimentation was identified as
                           important by people with whom we discussed benchmarks of joint
                           experimentation progress. Red teams should be allowed to try all
                           constructive and reasonable ways of foiling the experiment's goal or
                           objective. Nothing should be considered "off the table" and thinking
                           asymmetrically or "out of the box" should be strongly encouraged and
                           rewarded. Otherwise the experiments may not generate valid results. The
                           extent to which red teaming is being used should be apparent by examining
                           the specifics of individual experiments.


Linkages to the Services   A successful joint experimentation program should include linkages to all
                           DOD components experimenting with future warfighting concepts and
                           technologies as well as non-DOD components, such as the national
                           laboratories. USACOM plans to rely heavily on leveraging other DOD
                           components’ warfighting experiments. USACOM has begun to establish
                           such linkages. As part of these linkages, the components must be willing to
                           allow USACOM to add experimentation elements to their experiments and
                           exercises so that USACOM can leverage them to support its joint
                           experimentation plan. Because planning an experiment can require
                           considerable lead-time, USACOM and the components need to allow
                           sufficient time to add elements to the experiment or exercise. Our queries
                           of 14 DOD components involved with future warfighting found that they
                           were amenable to USACOM participation, and all noted that if adding
                           experiment elements results in increased funding and/or resource needs,
                           than USACOM must be prepared to provide them. Consequently,



                           Page 12                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                            B-280338




                            USACOM’s budget should include funding for USACOM-generated
                            experiments as well as for leveraging others’ experiments. An examination
                            of events USACOM has decided to leverage, discussions with USACOM and
                            the services, and an analysis of USACOM’s J9 Directorate’s budget should
                            provide insight into the extent to which USACOM is leveraging service and
                            other DOD activities.


Ability to Systematically   Because of the emphasis on leveraged experimentation events, USACOM
Capture Experiment Data     will need to establish a mechanism to systematically capture leveraged
                            experiment results. USACOM officials agree with the need for such a
                            mechanism and, in October 1998, were beginning to examine how to create
                            one. One objective of the J9 assessment division is database management,
                            which includes capturing experiment results. Examining experiment plans
                            and the actual experiments should indicate how well USACOM is capturing
                            data from leveraged events.


Feedback to the Defense     The science and technology community will play an essential role in
Research Community          providing new technologies that will affect future warfighting, sometimes
                            described as technology push. Likewise, warfighting organizations can
                            provide guidance to the science and technology community about
                            technological improvements that they would find most helpful, sometimes
                            described as technology pull. Therefore, a communication mechanism,
                            including a feedback loop, is essential between the science and technology
                            community and the Joint Staff, USACOM, and warfighters. The CPLAN
                            states that joint experimentation has the potential to shape the science and
                            technology community’s efforts and will provide for successful integration
                            of innovative technologies into tomorrow’s battlefield. USACOM's joint
                            experimentation insights should be one of the many factors that help
                            decide future science and technology priorities. A periodic examination of
                            experiment outcomes and discussion with the defense research community
                            should provide insight into the extent to which USACOM is providing
                            feedback.


Role of Modeling and        USACOM’s charter states that joint warfighting experiments may include
Simulation                  modeling and simulation. The IPLAN states that modeling and simulation
                            will be used throughout the experimentation process, including to conduct
                            predictive analyses for developing plans for individual experiments and to
                            assist planners in identifying problem areas. However, according to DOD
                            modeling and simulation officials, the ability to model or simulate



                            Page 13                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                      B-280338




                      important warfighting elements, such as information operations, is not well
                      understood or within DOD’s current technological capabilities. These
                      capabilities may not be achievable in full for a decade or more, and
                      developing them will require significant basic research. USACOM, in
                      conjunction with the Joint Staff, has produced a database tool to help with,
                      among other things, refining concepts and developing hypotheses and
                      measures of merit and performance. USACOM reports that this tool has
                      become a living document that is supporting modeling and simulation
                      within joint experimentation.



Agency Comments and   In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
                      report, stating that it is a fair and accurate assessment of DOD’s current
Our Evaluation        and projected efforts to develop future joint warfighting capabilities. DOD
                      also stated that we have identified three key factors that are important to a
                      successful joint experimentation program—institutionalization of joint
                      experimentation within DOD, the extent to which joint experimentation
                      includes exploring changes in doctrine and organization as well as
                      technology, and the extent to which USACOM is establishing linkages with
                      other DOD organizations exploring future warfighting—and agreed that
                      these three factors are key to successful joint experimentation.
                      Appendix VII contains the full text of DOD’s comments.



Scope and             To address the issues directed by the Committee’s report, including the
                      extent to which the JIMP, defense guidance, the FYDP, modeling and
Methodology           simulation, and DOD’s science and technology efforts support the
                      development of future warfighting capabilities and joint experimentation,
                      we reviewed the JIMP, the FYDP, defense guidance, and the NDP report,
                      among other documents. We compared these documents to one another to
                      assess their support for JV 2010 and joint experimentation and talked with
                      Joint Staff, USACOM, and service officials. We also reviewed a number of
                      documents relating to the defense science and technology program and
                      compared these to service identified technology needs to assess how the
                      science and technology program supports the synchronizing of advanced
                      technologies and the development of joint capabilities. We also talked with
                      DOD and service officials involved in modeling and simulation to ascertain
                      their views as to the state of modeling and simulation capability to support
                      the joint experimentation process.




                      Page 14                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
B-280338




To assess the status of joint experimentation, we talked with officials of
USACOM’s Joint Experimentation Directorate, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Joint Staff, the services, the combatant commands, and the
defense agencies, a member of the NDP, and contractors involved in the
joint experimentation program. We reviewed key documents involving
joint experimentation, specifically the USACOM charter, the IPLAN, and
the CPLAN. We developed a series of questions regarding joint
experimentation and USACOM’s role that we electronically provided to a
number of DOD components and tabulated their responses.

We performed our review between May and December 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.


We are providing copies of this report to Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator
Pete V. Domenici, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg,
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator Fred
Thompson, and to Representative Rod R. Blagojevich, Representative Dan
Burton, Representative John R. Kasich, Representative Jerry Lewis,
Representative John P. Murtha, Representative David R. Obey,
Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Henry A. Waxman, and
Representative C. W. Bill Young in their capacities as Chair or Ranking
Minority Member of Senate and House Committees and Subcommittees.
We are also sending copies of this report to the Honorable William Cohen,
Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army;
the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; the Honorable F.W.
Peters, Acting Secretary of the Air Force; and the Honorable Jacob Lew,
Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request.




Page 15                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
B-280338




If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-4300. The major contributors to this report were Steve
Sternlieb, Assistant Director, Joe Dewechter, evaluator-in-charge, Connie
Sawyer, senior evaluator, Dale Wineholt, evaluator, and Elizabeth Ryan,
evaluator.

Sincerely yours,




Henry L. Hinton, Jr.
Assistant Comptroller General




Page 16                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Page 17   GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Contents



Letter                                                             1


Appendix I                                                        22
Joint Vision
Implementation Master
Plan Provides
Guidance

Appendix II                                                       26
Joint Enablers Are
Beginning to Be
Addressed

Appendix III                                                      27
Defense Guidance and
Associated Budget and
Planning Review
Process Expected to
Address Joint
Experimentation in
1999

Appendix IV                                                       30
Modeling and
Simulation for Joint
Experimentation Could
Take Years to Develop




                        Page 18   GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                         Contents




Appendix V                                                                                        32
Science and
Technology Plans Are
Interrelated and
Support Future
Warfighting
Technology Needs

Appendix VI                                                                                       36
IPLAN Meets the Spirit
of Many of the NDP
Recommendations for
a Joint Forces
Command

Appendix VII                                                                                      39
Comments From the
Department of Defense

Tables                   Table 1: JV 2010 and Joint Experimentation Issues and Our
                           Answers                                                                 3
                         Table 2: Elements of the Joint Experimentation Process                    5
                         Table V.1: JV 2010-Related Defense Technology Objectives
                           Funding in Fiscal Year 1999                                            34
                         Table VI.1: Comparison of the NDP Recommendations and
                           USACOM IPLAN                                                           37




                         Page 19                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Contents




Abbreviations

BRP    Basic Research Plan
C4ISR  command, control, communications, computers,
         intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
CJCS   Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
CPLAN  Joint Experimentation Campaign Plan
DOD    Department of Defense
DOTMLP doctrine, organization, training and education,
         materiel, leadership, and personnel
DTAP   Defense Technology Area Plan
FYDP   Future Years Defense Program
IPLAN  Joint Experimentation Implementation Plan
JIMP   Joint Vision Implementation Master Plan
JV     Joint Vision
JWARS  Joint Warfare System
JWSTP  Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan
NDP    National Defense Planel
USACOM United States Atlantic Command



Page 20                                GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Page 21   GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix I

Joint Vision Implementation Master Plan
Provides Guidance                                                                                           AppeIx
                                                                                                                 ndi




                            Joint Vision (JV) 2010 is the conceptual template for future joint
                            warfighting and expresses how technological innovations and information
                            superiority will enable the vision’s operational concepts. The Joint Vision
                            Implementation Master Plan’s (JIMP) stated purpose is to provide joint
                            policy and guidance for implementing JV 2010 and subsequent Chairman,
                            Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) joint vision documents. The Joint Staff delayed
                            publishing the JIMP for over a year because Joint Staff officials said it was
                            difficult to obtain concurrence from all of the services, unified commands,
                            and defense agencies involved. The JIMP contains guidance on the
                            implementation process, project management, and long-range planning;
                            defines roles and responsibilities; and identifies 72 desired operational
                            capabilities.


The JIMP Was Not Intended   The JIMP was not intended to, nor does it, identify the resources needed to
to Contain Resources or     implement JV 2010. Instead, it states that initial start-up funding will be
                            provided by retargeting Joint Staff resources and reprogramming
Time Lines
                            Department of Defense (DOD) resources. Joint Vision implementation
                            funds will then be delineated in future DOD budgets. Planned funding was
                            discussed earlier in this report.

                            The JIMP was also not intended to, nor does it, contain a time line for
                            implementing JV 2010’s new operational concepts. Specifically, the JIMP
                            states that development of a long-range planning process for JV 2010
                            implementation recognizes that the year 2010 is a way point, not an end
                            point. The long-range planning process is described as helping to focus
                            available time and resources to ensure integrated joint operational
                            capability development. In the July 1996 JV 2010, CJCS referred several
                            times to implementing and/or needing the JV 2010 operational capabilities
                            by 2010. In addition, the U.S. Atlantic Command’s (USACOM) July 1998
                            Joint Experimentation Implementation Plan (IPLAN) states that the end
                            result of the joint experimentation process will be the development of
                            sustained, continuous operational innovations and the realization of
                            desired operational capabilities that meet the full spectrum of joint
                            operational requirements in the year 2010 and beyond. Since then, the
                            Joint Staff has shifted from describing 2010 as a date by which it seeks to
                            achieve desired operational capabilities to a way point on the path to
                            achieving them. The JIMP also states that the development, assessment,
                            and integration of emerging concepts and capabilities are a continuous,
                            never ending journey of discovery.




                            Page 22                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                            Appendix I
                            Joint Vision Implementation Master Plan
                            Provides Guidance




                            In commenting on a draft of this report, the Joint Staff stated that it
                            adopted the concept that the year 2010 is a way point, not an end point, to
                            recognize a continual process that explores and develops a
                            capabilities-based force for the future (2010 and beyond). The Joint Staff
                            further stated that developing a capabilities-based force must be an
                            open-ended process and that the “journey” concept does not indicate a lack
                            of resolve to achieve the vision described in JV 2010 by the year 2010 but a
                            determination to build a permanently viable force.

                            We believe that the CJCS’ goal of achieving JV 2010 capabilities by the
                            year 2010 is important because a specific time goal is quantifiable and
                            provides a basis for measuring progress against the goal. A time goal also
                            can be a motivational tool that challenges the leadership to quickly improve
                            capabilities as opposed to getting there when they get there. In addition,
                            setting a common goal for all entities involved in developing future
                            warfighting capabilities has merit because it helps those entities to act
                            synergistically, as opposed to one service, for example, implementing new
                            capabilities by 2007 and another service implementing them by 2012. A
                            time goal also would help DOD assess its progress toward meeting the goal
                            of exploiting the revolution in military affairs that it set in response to the
                            requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.


The JIMP Incorporated All   The Congress authorized establishment of the National Defense Panel
of the National Defense     (NDP) in the Defense Authorization Act of 1997. The NDP began its work
                            on February 2, 1997, and, in December 1997, issued its report entitled
Panel Operational
                            Transforming Defense - National Security in the 21st Century. The report
Challenges and Desired      focused on the long-term issues facing U.S. defense and national security
Force Characteristics       and recommended an immediate transformation strategy to meet the
                            challenges of the 21st century. The NDP believes the challenges of the 21st
                            century will be quantitatively and qualitatively different from those of the
                            Cold War and will require fundamental change to national security
                            institutions, military strategy, and defense posture by 2020.

                            The NDP report identified six operational challenges that the U.S. military
                            must meet in the 21st century, and the JIMP incorporated all of them. The
                            six operational challenges are

                            •   project military power,
                            •   deter and manage weapons of mass destruction,
                            •   maintain U.S. information superiority,
                            •   maintain U.S. lead in space,



                            Page 23                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                           Appendix I
                           Joint Vision Implementation Master Plan
                           Provides Guidance




                           • prepare for urban operations, and
                           • meet transnational challenges.

                           The NDP report also identified 10 desired force characteristics on which
                           the U.S. military should place far greater emphasis in the 21st century, and
                           the JIMP incorporated all of them. The desired force characteristics are

                           •   systems architectures,
                           •   information system protection,
                           •   information operations,
                           •   automation,
                           •   small logistics footprint,
                           •   mobility,
                           •   stealth,
                           •   speed,
                           •   increased operational and strike ranges, and
                           •   precision strike.


Service and USACOM Plans   Assessment roadmaps, which are plans describing the events required to
Are Consistent             achieve desired operational capabilities, are contained in the Joint
                           Experimentation Campaign Plan (CPLAN). Originally, the Joint Staff had
                           planned to publish an assessment roadmap for each desired operational
                           capability. Joint Staff officials said that the roadmaps were to cover the
                           first 3 years of JV 2010 implementation rather than serve as roadmaps
                           ending with achievement of the desired operational capabilities. According
                           to the Joint Staff, the roadmaps were originally intended as tools for the
                           Joint Staff JV 2010 coordinating authorities to use in assessing concepts
                           and capabilities within their assigned areas.1 The designation of USACOM
                           as the executive agent for joint experimentation, however, transferred
                           much of the assessment role from the coordinating authorities to
                           USACOM. The Joint Staff told us that USACOM, in collaboration with the
                           coordinating authorities, services, and combatant commands, will develop
                           experimentation plans that meet the intent of the assessment roadmaps.
                           USACOM's first CPLAN identifies experiment events that are to take place
                           over the next 3 years, through fiscal year 2001, to address new joint




                           1
                            Coordinating authorities are parts of Joint Staff organizations, such as the Logistics Directorate,
                           designated as responsible for participating with USACOM in joint experimentation and monitoring
                           progress in support of CJCS oversight.




                           Page 24                                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix I
Joint Vision Implementation Master Plan
Provides Guidance




warfighting concepts and further achievement of the JIMP’s desired
operational capabilities.

With the transfer of responsibility for assessment roadmaps to USACOM,
the development of the first CPLAN, and USACOM’s plans to leverage
previously scheduled experimentation, service and USACOM plans for
experimentation should be consistent. Our review of 42 experimentation
events for fiscal years 1999-2001 shows that 37 are leveraged events being
conducted by the services, the combatant commands, and the Joint Staff.
To help guide USACOM's selection of experiments for the CPLAN, the Joint
Staff identified what it considered to be the six most important 21 st century
challenges, according to a Joint Staff official. These are all three
information superiority challenges (battlespace awareness, information
transport and processing, and information operations); joint command and
control; combat identification; and joint theater logistics management. The
initial eight concepts chosen by USACOM for joint experimentation
reflected five of these six challenges.




Page 25                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix II

Joint Enablers Are Beginning to Be
Addressed                                                                                                   ApIpexndi




               Joint enablers are military capabilities, such as command, control,
               communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
               reconnaissance (C4ISR), logistics, force protection, and others that allow
               the military to integrate its operations. The JIMP makes extensive
               reference to them through its desired operational capabilities. Of the
               72 desired operational capabilities the Joint Staff identified to implement
               JV 2010, 38, according to our analysis, directly relate to joint enablers. Of
               these 38, 9 relate to command and control, such as situational awareness;
               10 relate to focused logistics, such as providing unimpeded access to
               operational and logistical information for all who need it; and 19 relate to
               information superiority, such as information transport and processing,
               battlespace awareness, and information operations. In addition to the
               38, 12 other desired operational capabilities relate to full dimensional
               protection, such as early detection, identification, and dissemination of air
               and missile threats, which also could be considered joint enablers.
               USACOM’s CPLAN begins to address joint enablers in that it addresses five
               of the six most important challenges identified by the Joint Staff, which
               involve some of these types of enablers. Because the current CPLAN does
               not go beyond 2001, we could not evaluate the adequacy of plans to 2010.

               We previously reported that DOD faces many challenges in achieving its
               information superiority goals and objectives and may need many years of
               concerted effort to reach them.1 We reported that for over 30 years (since
               1967) DOD has been trying to establish some form of DOD-wide C4ISR
               architecture. The most important component, which defines the
               information needs that are the basis for setting system standards and
               acquiring and protecting systems, has not been completed. Meanwhile,
               DOD has been developing a number of critical C4ISR systems and
               information assurance measures without the benefit of a completed and
               approved architecture. Enforcing compliance with the architecture will be
               an important factor in achieving information superiority. However, we
               found that DOD has had difficulty in achieving compliance with related
               C4ISR policies and decisions.




               1
                 Defense Information Superiority: Progress Made, but Significant Challenges Remain
               GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-98-257, Aug. 31, 1998).




               Page 26                                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix III

Defense Guidance and Associated Budget and
Planning Review Process Expected to
Address Joint Experimentation in 1999                                                                        AIpIexndi




                            The Secretary of Defense issues guidance annually on the goals, priorities,
                            and objectives for the services and DOD components, called the Defense
                            Planning Guidance. The current defense guidance, issued in April 1998,
                            preceded the Secretary of Defense’s charter designating USACOM as
                            executive agent for joint experimentation. Therefore, it makes no mention
                            of who will conduct such experimentation and contains no directives
                            regarding the fielding of advanced technology and preparation of forces for
                            the joint experimentation plan. However, the current guidance emphasizes
                            the importance of transforming U.S. military forces and contains an
                            extensive discussion of JV 2010 and its operational concepts. The guidance
                            was accompanied by the Secretary of Defense's message that described it
                            as aiding the transformation of U.S. forces by serving as a central reference
                            for the joint implementation of the revolution in military affairs. The
                            message also stated that the guidance initiates a series of analytical efforts
                            to support the deliberation of DOD's senior leadership council on matters
                            pertaining to the revolution in military affairs and to provide the basis for
                            future years' planning and programming guidance.


The Current Guidance Does   The defense guidance is divided into two main sections. A strategy section
Not Link Planning and       outlines the defense strategy upon which DOD plans and programs will
                            continue to be based. This section states that DOD's commitment to
Programming Guidance
                            prepare now for an uncertain future includes pursuing a focused
                            modernization effort that replaces aging systems and incorporates
                            cutting-edge technologies and continues to exploit the revolution in
                            military affairs. A guidance section identifies key planning and
                            programming priorities necessary to execute the defense strategy. Within
                            the guidance section, there is planning and programming guidance.
                            Planning guidance sets broad objectives within a program area, such as
                            modernization. Programming guidance contains specific directives as to
                            actions the military services and agencies are to take, such as the number
                            and types of weapon platforms to be procured and the period over which
                            the procurement is to take place.

                            The guidance section includes a section entitled Prepare: A Transformation
                            Strategy that discusses the revolution in military affairs and JV 2010,
                            describing JV 2010 as providing the conceptual framework for developing
                            the innovative operational concepts, advanced technologies, organizational
                            architectures, and doctrine required to meet a range of security challenges
                            in the early part of the 21st century. This section also states that JV 2010
                            concepts and capabilities will be explored through information superiority
                            experiments and a series of progressively advanced joint warfighting



                            Page 27                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                            Appendix III
                            Defense Guidance and Associated Budget and
                            Planning Review Process Expected to
                            Address Joint Experimentation in 1999




                            experiments. The guidance section also includes a section entitled
                            Prepare: Modernization that includes a discussion of each of the
                            operational concepts of JV 2010, which includes planning and
                            programming guidance sections. However, there appears to be no clear
                            connection between the planning and programming guidance sections. For
                            example, the planning guidance on dominant maneuver, one of JV 2010's
                            operational concepts, states that there are two key objectives for
                            developing dominant maneuver capabilities. These objectives are that
                            forces be (1) lighter, more lethal, and less dependent on logistics tails and
                            (2) sufficiently versatile to, among other things, sustain a high operating
                            tempo. The programming guidance section directs the acquisition of
                            specific weapons systems but makes no mention of what steps are to be
                            taken to meet the objectives described in the planning guidance section.
                            The programming guidance section also does not link the directed
                            acquisitions to the JV 2010 operational concepts or joint experimentation.


The CJCS’s 1998 Program     According to Joint Staff officials, neither the Chairman's program
Recommendations and         recommendations nor the Chairman's program assessment addresses
                            advanced technology and preparation of forces in terms of joint
Assessment Do Not Address
                            experimentation. The program recommendations are issued in February of
Joint Experimentation       each year and contain the Chairman’s views on what should be included in
                            the guidance. When the program recommendation was issued in February
                            1998, the Joint Experimentation Plan Report and the USACOM charter had
                            not been formalized. The program assessment provides the Chairman's
                            assessment of the extent to which the services and other DOD components
                            conform to the priorities established in the defense guidance and is issued
                            each August. Joint Staff officials said that the August 1998 program
                            assessment does not address joint experimentation and that the defense
                            guidance is the best place to look for such discussion. Since USACOM had
                            been selected as the joint experimentation executive agent at that point,
                            the program assessment could have, if the Chairman wished, made some
                            comment on joint experimentation. Senior USACOM officials involved in
                            the joint experimentation program believe that joint experimentation was
                            not addressed in August 1998 because USACOM’s charter was new and
                            because of the Chairman’s desire to wait for USACOM to complete its
                            IPLAN, USACOM's staffing request to be evaluated at the Joint Staff, and
                            the Defense Resources Board to act. These officials anticipate a major
                            change in the 1999 program recommendations and assessment. The
                            Director of the Joint Staff’s Directorate for Operational Plans and
                            Interoperability, which is the executive agent and primary Joint Staff
                            proponent for JV 2010 implementation and systems integration, also



                            Page 28                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                              Appendix III
                              Defense Guidance and Associated Budget and
                              Planning Review Process Expected to
                              Address Joint Experimentation in 1999




                              expects to see a change in the program recommendations and assessment
                              in 1999.


There is No Complete          In December 1998, the Office of the Secretary of Defense provided
Funding Picture for Defense   USACOM with a joint experimentation program element in the Future
                              Years Defense Program (FYDP), which contains $350 million in funding for
Transformation
                              the period fiscal years 2000-2005. This funding should appear in the FYDP
                              that DOD will submit in fiscal year 1999.

                              Prior to December 1998, in examining the FYDP submitted in fiscal
                              year 1998, we found few clearly identifiable joint experimentation program
                              elements. The Office of the Secretary of Defense also attempted to identify
                              the programs and resources devoted to defense transformation activities,
                              which include joint experimentation, but abandoned the effort due to
                              definitional problems as to what constituted transformation. However,
                              funding was identified in some instances, such as advanced concept
                              technology demonstrations and service battle laboratories, while activities
                              were identified in other instances with no associated funding. At this point,
                              there is no complete picture of defense transformation-related funding.




                              Page 29                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix IV

Modeling and Simulation for Joint
Experimentation Could Take Years to Develop                                                  ApV
                                                                                               Ienxdi




              Many DOD components and national organizations have modeling and
              simulation capabilities. However, most of these models are predominantly
              based on force-on-force assessments and attrition warfare concepts that
              date from the Cold War. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
              services are updating current modeling and simulation capabilities and
              developing new ones that reflect current and future warfighting. The Joint
              Staff and USACOM plan to use these new capabilities, which are in varying
              stages of development, to help implement JV 2010 and joint
              experimentation.

              According to the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, the ability to
              model or simulate important warfighting elements, such as command and
              control, operations other than war, information operations, and
              human/group behavior representation, is not well understood or within
              DOD’s current technological capabilities. These capabilities may not be
              fully achieved for a decade or more and will require significant basic
              research effort to establish an acceptable degree of confidence in their
              utility. The ability to model or simulate warfighting that occurs 10 or more
              years in the future is not comfortably within the current capabilities of
              models and simulations across the diverse alternative futures that
              USACOM may need to address.

              The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology will,
              through DOD’s Executive Council for Modeling and Simulation and the
              Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, advise and assist USACOM and
              work to develop necessary modeling and simulation support for joint
              experimentation, including promulgating modeling and simulation policy,
              initiatives, and guidance to maximize efficiency and effectiveness by
              promoting cooperation among DOD components. The Defense Modeling
              and Simulation Office took advantage of our modeling and simulation
              meetings by inviting the services, which have most of the capability, to
              attend each other’s meetings with us so that they could learn about each
              other’s capabilities and efforts.

              The Office of the Secretary of Defense is developing a new analytic model
              called the Joint Warfare System (JWARS), which is to be a state-of-the art,
              constructive simulation that provides a multisided and balanced
              representation of joint theater warfare. JWARS is to have four applications:
              force assessment, planning and execution, system effectiveness and
              trade-off studies, and concept and doctrine development and assessment.
              JWARS' limited initial operational capability is scheduled for March 2000,




              Page 30                                     GAO/MSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                        Appendix IV
                        Modeling and Simulation for Joint
                        Experimentation Could Take Years to
                        Develop




                        full initial operational capability is scheduled for May 2001, and full
                        operational capability is scheduled for fiscal year 2002.

                        At our August 1998 meeting with the JWARS Director, there was limited
                        awareness of JV 2010 and joint experimentation, even though the JWARS
                        model is planned to have important applications that could be helpful to
                        both efforts. He said that joint experimentation was not identified in the
                        JWARS operational requirements document as an objective. He also said
                        that JWARS would not be an ideal tool for joint experimentation because it
                        may require higher resolution than JWARS may be able to provide. After
                        further deliberation, in a subsequent document provided to us by the
                        JWARS Office, the Director stated that JWARS would assist JV 2010
                        implementation by providing a vehicle to assess current and future military
                        capabilities within JV 2010's four operational concepts and to represent
                        and assist in defining these operational concepts. He also identified several
                        ways that JWARS can contribute to joint experimentation.


USACOM Studied How to   USACOM studied the best ways to use modeling and simulation in joint
Use Modeling and        experimentation and has developed a database tool to assist with the joint
                        modeling and simulation effort. Joint experimentation is to rely heavily on
Simulation
                        simulations to support concept development and the conduct of
                        experiments, initially using existing legacy simulation systems. USACOM
                        intends to use existing simulation capabilities to the maximum extent
                        possible, commercially lease additional capability when required, and
                        develop systems only when there are no other means of meeting the
                        requirement. As joint experimentation matures and concepts and
                        capabilities that cannot be supported by legacy systems are identified,
                        USACOM will identify requirements for future simulation technologies and
                        recommend that its Joint Training and Analysis Simulation Center integrate
                        them into proposals for developing future simulations.




                        Page 31                                       GAO/MSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix V

Science and Technology Plans Are
Interrelated and Support Future Warfighting
Technology Needs                                                                             ApV
                                                                                               enxdi




               The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology), within the
               Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, plays a key role
               in the science and technology strategic planning process. Critical to the
               process is a series of interrelated documents—-the Defense Science and
               Technology Strategy, the Basic Research Plan (BRP), the Joint Warfighting
               Science and Technology Plan (JWSTP), and the Defense Technology Area
               Plan (DTAP). These documents are linked not only by the process but by
               the people who prepare them.

               The Defense Science and Technology Strategy guides DOD’s science and
               technology program and, in turn, is supported by the BRP, the DTAP, and
               the JWSTP. The science and technology program includes identifying
               current and emerging technology candidates for the development of joint
               capabilities. These science and technology documents present the vision,
               strategy, plan, and objectives for the defense science and technology
               planners, programmers, and performers. The BRP provides overall
               guidance for basic research, presenting the objectives and investment
               strategy for DOD-sponsored basic research performed by universities,
               industry, and service laboratories. The DTAP presents the objectives and
               applied research and advanced technology development investment
               strategy for technologies critical to DOD acquisition plans, service
               warfighter capabilities, and the JWSTP. The DTAP takes a perspective
               across the service and defense agency efforts, thereby charting the total
               DOD investment for a given technology, and documents the focus, content,
               and principal objectives of the overall DOD science and technology efforts.
               The objectives are expressed in the form of Defense Technology
               Objectives. The BRP and the DTAP lay out broad technology objectives
               and provide support for achieving priority far-term, joint warfighting
               capabilities.

               The JWSTP provides a joint perspective across the applied research and
               advanced technology development plans of the services and defense
               agencies. According to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science &
               Technology), that organization, in collaboration with the Joint Staff,
               combatant Commanders in Chief, the services, and the defense agencies,
               publishes the JWSTP, in part, to ensure that DOD’s science and technology
               program supports achievement of near- and mid-term joint warfighting
               capabilities. The JWSTP contains roadmaps for 11 Joint Warfighting
               Capabilities Objectives, which support achieving the operational concepts
               of JV 2010 and other critical capabilities for maintaining the warfighting
               advantage of U. S. forces. Each year, the Joint Requirements Oversight
               Council reviews and validates these objectives. Each objective roadmap



               Page 32                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                             Appendix V
                             Science and Technology Plans Are
                             Interrelated and Support Future Warfighting
                             Technology Needs




                             identifies specific technology advancements that will be developed or
                             demonstrated and the anticipated date when the technology will be
                             available. These specific technology advancements are described in a
                             published volume of Defense Technology Objectives that provides detailed
                             information about Advanced Technology Demonstrations and Advanced
                             Concept Technology Demonstrations.


The Process for Developing   The process for developing the various plans involves a number of
the Science and Technology   interrelated participants from the Directorate for Defense Research and
                             Engineering, the services, and the defense agencies, with the Deputy Under
Plans
                             Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology) being responsible for the
                             overall direction, quality, and content of the DOD Science and Technology
                             Program. The BRP is developed, coordinated, and implemented through
                             the Basic Research Panel, which includes members from the Office of the
                             Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology), the services,
                             and the defense agencies. The BRP is linked with the DTAP and the JWSTP
                             in several ways. One is through scientific planning groups for each of
                             10 technical disciplines, such as mathematics and computer science,
                             physics, and chemistry. The 10 scientific planning groups are comprised of
                             and have the active participation of both the service laboratories and the
                             warfighters.

                             The JWSTP is developed by Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives panels,
                             one for each of the 11 objectives, with participation from warfighters, the
                             services, the defense agencies, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Deputy
                             Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology). The DTAP is
                             developed by DTAP panels, one for each of the 11 technology areas, with
                             participation from service and defense agency technical specialists.
                             There is overlap between representatives on the Joint Warfighting
                             Capability Objectives and DTAP panels, according to Defense Research
                             and Engineering officials, and consequent overlap between defense
                             technology objectives in the DTAP and the JWSTP. Technology Area
                             Reviews and Assessments are held for each of the 11 DTAP technology
                             areas, the basic research area, and manufacturing technology program to
                             provide an independent assessment of the science and technology program
                             by world class experts in their fields.




                             Page 33                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                              Appendix V
                              Science and Technology Plans Are
                              Interrelated and Support Future Warfighting
                              Technology Needs




JV 2010-Related Defense       The JWSTP contains $766 million in fiscal year 1999 funding planned for
Technology Objectives         JV 2010-related defense technology objectives. Table V.1 shows a breakout
                              of the funds by category.
Funding Totals $766 Million
in Fiscal Year 1999

                              Table V.1: JV 2010-Related Defense Technology Objectives Funding in Fiscal Year
                              1999
                              Dollars in millions
                              Category                                                                  Amount
                              Dominant maneuver                                                            $257
                              Precision engagement                                                              81
                              Full dimensional protection                                                   181
                              Focused logistics                                                                 85
                              Information superiority                                                       162
                              Total                                                                        $766



The Army’s and the Navy’s     The services and the defense agencies develop their own science and
Future Warfighting            technology plans with input and guidance from the Deputy Under Secretary
                              of Defense (Science & Technology)’s plans, and we found that the Army’s
Technology Needs Could
                              and the Navy’s future technology needs were adequately reflected in the
Almost Always Be Identified   plans. For example, in the Army's future warfighting effort, the Army After
in Science and Technology     Next, it identified a short list of desired technologies. We compared the
Plans                         technology short list with the Army’s science and technology plan and the
                              Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology)’s plans and
                              found that the Army’s plan almost always contained planned efforts
                              addressing the technology needs to some degree, which could also be
                              traced through the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science &
                              Technology)’s plans. We had difficulty doing our comparison because the
                              technology short list frequently provided a general technology heading
                              under which any number of efforts may fall.

                              The Navy has also identified a future Navy capability options list of desired
                              technologies to support the future Navy and Marine Corps. These
                              technology needs almost always appeared to be addressed in the Deputy
                              Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology)’s plans. However, as
                              we found with the Army, the Navy’s list frequently provided a general
                              technology heading under which any number of efforts may fall, making it
                              difficult to determine the extent to which these science and technology
                              efforts support the JV 2010 operational concepts.



                              Page 34                                        GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix V
Science and Technology Plans Are
Interrelated and Support Future Warfighting
Technology Needs




The Air Force reports that its strategic plan provides authoritative direction
for planners at all Air Force levels, including tailoring capabilities that meet
JV 2010. The Air Force has a list of six high-priority areas: space
superiority, flexible strike, information dominance, aircraft sustainment,
agile combat support, and training for warfighting. However, a senior
science and technology official in Air Force headquarters stated that
JV 2010 technology needs must be clarified to allow direct linkage with
science and technology efforts.




Page 35                                        GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix VI

IPLAN Meets the Spirit of Many of the NDP
Recommendations for a Joint Forces
Command                                                                                     ApV
                                                                                              enxdiI




              The NDP made 17 recommendations regarding the framework for a Joint
              Forces Command, but the Secretary of Defense did not establish it; instead,
              he made USACOM executive agent for joint experimentation. Therefore,
              we concluded that the USACOM charter did not address any of the
              recommendations. We also compared the NDP recommendations to
              USACOM’s IPLAN to assess if it met the spirit of the recommendations. In
              our opinion, USACOM's IPLAN met the spirit or framework for 10 of the
              17 NDP recommendations and part of an 11th recommendation. Table VI.1
              compares the NDP recommendations and the USACOM IPLAN.




              Page 36                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                                               Appendix VI
                                               IPLAN Meets the Spirit of Many of the NDP
                                               Recommendations for a Joint Forces
                                               Command




Table VI.1: Comparison of the NDP Recommendations and USACOM IPLAN
NDP report recommendation                                                      IPLAN response
Create a Joint Forces Command responsible for driving the transformation       Yes, in the form of the USACOM J9 Directorate for joint
process of U.S. forces.                                                        experimentation.
Eliminate USACOM.                                                              No.
Create a Joint Forces Command with appropriate resources.                      Yes, USACOM, like any major command, requests
                                                                               resources. USACOM has been authorized both
                                                                               personnel and budgetary resources for joint
                                                                               experimentation.
Create a Joint Forces Command with appropriate requirement authorities.        No.
Create a Joint Forces Command that formulates challenging scenarios.           Yes.
Create a Joint Forces Command that conducts regular field exercises under      Yes.
the aegis of a Joint Battle Laboratory.
Create a Joint Forces Command responsible for conducting joint                 Yes. DOD designated USACOM as executive agent for
experimentation.                                                               joint experimentation.
Create a Joint Forces Command that ensures forces possess the appropriate No.
cultural and political awareness of the specific regions to which they will be
deployed.
Create a Joint Forces Command responsible for developing and validating        Yes for developing joint doctrine; no for validating it.
joint doctrine for the approval of the Joint Chiefs.
Create a Joint Forces Commander with Major Force Program 11-type               No.
authority to ensure the ability to support the experimentation program.
Appoint a Joint Forces Commander who would submit an annual report to           Yes.
the Secretary of Defense detailing the conduct of joint exercises, including
their number, forces involved, the operational challenges they faced, the
exercise results, and the effect of the exercise on the transformation process,
to include recommended changes in force structure, doctrine, and resource
allocation.
Create a Joint Forces Command that would have exercises based on the           No, the location of training exercises is not yet known.
emerging challenges of 2010-2020 that would take place at joint training
centers.
Have exercises that would use scenarios developed by a Joint Concept           Yes.
Development Center.
Have a Joint Concept Development Center that would monitor exercises,          Yes.
determine measures of effectiveness, and evaluate the adequacy of current
analytic methodologies, models, and simulations.
Make maximum use of service battle laboratories.                               Yes.
Have Joint Warfare Centers: the Joint Warfighting Center, the Joint C4ISR     Yes.
Battle Center, the Joint Warfare Analysis Center, the Joint Command and
Control Warfare Center, and the Joint Doctrine Center that would report to
the Joint Forces Commander; assist in the development of new strategies
and task force objectives; establish desired outcomes, measures of
effectiveness, and analysis of experimentation results; and develop follow-on
experiments.
Create a Joint Forces Command responsible for all joint modeling and           No.
simulation.



                                               Page 37                                                GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                           Appendix VI
                           IPLAN Meets the Spirit of Many of the NDP
                           Recommendations for a Joint Forces
                           Command




USACOM’s Ability to Meet   USACOM has taken a number of steps to implement its charter, which are
Its Charter                described in the body of this report. These steps include developing a joint
                           experimentation process, identifying resource requirements, and
                           developing an IPLAN and the first CPLAN. USACOM has developed an
                           eight-element joint experimentation process that begins with concept
                           development and ends with integration, resulting in recommendations for
                           new DOTMLP actions that are required to implement the concept and the
                           first joint experiments are to begin in 1999.




                           Page 38                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
Appendix VII

Comments From the Department of Defense                        AppV
                                                                  enxdiI




               Page 39       GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
                   Appendix VII
                   Comments From the Department of Defense




(701138)   L
           ertet   Page 40                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-64 Military Operations
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:

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov
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
         Contents




Tables   Table 1: JV 2010 and Joint Experimentation Issues and Our
           Answers                                                                  3
         Table 2: Elements of the Joint Experimentation Process                     5
         Table V.1: JV 2010-Related Defense Technology Objectives
           Funding in Fiscal Year 1999                                             34
         Table VI.1: Comparison of the NDP Recommendations and
           USACOM IPLAN                                                            37




         Page 45                          GAO/NSIAD-99-25 Relative Risk Implementation