Department of Defense Initiatives on High Energy Lasers Have Been Responsive to Congressional Direction (18-MAY-05, GAO-05-545R). Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare a master plan to develop laser technologies for potential weapons applications in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. In response to this legislation, the High Energy Laser (HEL) Executive Review Panel was formed and issued the HEL Master Plan on March 24, 2000. This plan recommended that DOD implement a new management structure for HEL technologies and increase the funding allocated to HELs to achieve a better balance between large demonstration programs and the enabling science and technology projects. Subsequently, in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2001, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to implement the management and organizational structure specified in the Master Plan. Congress asked us to review the extent to which DOD has implemented the recommendations of the HEL Master Plan, by assessing (1) whether DOD has achieved more balance between large demonstration projects and the enabling science and technology base projects; (2) whether the DOD funding process focuses on the most critical HEL issues; and (3) what impact the new management structure has had on the coordination and redundancy of HEL technology efforts DOD-wide. -------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- REPORTNUM: GAO-05-545R ACCNO: A24320 TITLE: Department of Defense Initiatives on High Energy Lasers Have Been Responsive to Congressional Direction DATE: 05/18/2005 SUBJECT: Defense budgets Defense capabilities Investments Military research and development Program evaluation Strategic planning Weapons research and development Program goals or objectives Lasers DOD High Energy Laser Technology Program ****************************************************************** ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a ** ** GAO Product. ** ** ** ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although ** ** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but ** ** may not resemble those in the printed version. ** ** ** ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when ** ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed ** ** document's contents. ** ** ** ****************************************************************** GAO-05-545R United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 May 18, 2005 The Honorable Terry Everett Chairman Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives The Honorable Silvestre Reyes Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Subject: Department of Defense Initiatives on High Energy Lasers Have Been Responsive to Congressional Direction Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare a master plan to develop laser technologies for potential weapons applications in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.1 In response to this legislation, the High Energy Laser (HEL) Executive Review Panel was formed and issued the HEL Master Plan on March 24, 2000. This plan recommended that DOD implement a new management structure for HEL technologies and increase the funding allocated to HELs to achieve a better balance between large demonstration programs and the enabling science and technology projects. Subsequently, in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2001, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to implement the management and organizational structure specified in the Master Plan.2 You asked us to review the extent to which DOD has implemented the recommendations of the HEL Master Plan, by assessing (1) whether DOD has achieved more balance between large demonstration projects and the 1Pub. L. No. 106-65, sec. 251. 2Pub. L. No. 106-398, sec. 242. enabling science and technology base projects; 3(2) whether the DOD funding process focuses on the most critical HEL issues; and (3) what impact the new management structure has had on the coordination and redundancy of HEL technology efforts DOD-wide. We briefed your staff on October 20, 2004, on the interim results of our work, and, at that time, we agreed to provide a briefing on the results of our work with a letter summarizing our findings to follow. We provided the final briefing on March 30, 2005. This letter summarizes and transmits the final briefing itself (see encl. I). In addition, the conference report that accompanied the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the fiscal year 2001 legislation.4 The conferees required the Secretary to provide this report by January 15, 2005, and also asked us to review the report and provide our assessment of it to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2005. As of March 30, 2005, the Secretary had not issued this report, and we were unable to review the report in time to include our assessment in this correspondence. We will provide this assessment to your staff and to the other defense committees in a separate letter within 60 days after the Secretary issues the report. The HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO) was formed in June 2000 as the principal organization to implement the recommendations of DOD's HEL Master Plan. It functions as the advocate for DOD's HEL technology development and funds high priority science and technology efforts that are expected to have significant impact on long-term laser weapon requirements of the military services. In addition to the HEL projects sponsored by the JTO, each of the military services, the Missile Defense Agency, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency sponsor HEL science and technology efforts. The Army,5 the Missile Defense Agency, and the Special Operations Command are also working on large 3The large demonstration programs are system-specific programs, such as the Airborne Laser or the Advanced Tactical Laser, while the enabling science and technology base projects are somewhat independent of a specific application. 4H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-767 at p. 520. 5The Army did not request funding for its HEL weapon program, the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser in its fiscal year 2006 budget request. According to an Army official, the program's priority was insufficient to compete favorably with other Army programs. Background scale HEL demonstration programs with the goal of fielding laser weapon systems. The HEL Master Plan recommended that the funding for HEL science and technology be increased to achieve a better balance between large demonstration programs and the enabling science and technology projects. In discussing the imbalance between these projects, the plan stated that, while the demonstration programs are desirable to demonstrate that the HEL weapons can be fielded, there must be a corresponding level of science and technology base funding to ensure the future growth of these programs and the continuing exploration of other types of HEL technologies. Currently, all DOD HEL activity, including the demonstration programs, is funded within the science and technology budget category, which includes basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development. The Master Plan also recommended that DOD establish a new management structure for HEL technologies. Therefore, the HEL Technology Council was established, with the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology designated chairman of the council and senior civilian official for HEL projects. In addition, senior level executives of the services and agencies were designated as the members of the Technology Council. The HEL Technology Council provides oversight and approval authority over JTO funding, while Technology Council executives represent their individual service and agency needs and bring guidance to their respective service based on the council's deliberations. The JTO consists of a director and full-and part-time representatives of each service or agency, with additional support provided by technical area working groups, which provide recommendations and expert advice to the JTO on their projects. We found that the Department of Defense has, in large part, implemented the recommendations of the High Energy Laser Master Plan and has made the following changes to increase the focus on critical high energy laser issues: o Since the High Energy Laser Master Plan and the 2001 Defense Authorization Act, the overall investment in high energy laser efforts has increased and the science and technology base has grown as a proportion of total investment. Results in Brief o The Joint Technology Office has a process for establishing priorities that is clearly defined, objective, and based on input from experts in the high energy laser field. The services and agencies fund their high energy laser projects according to their mission requirements. o By implementing the management structure and recommendations of the Efforts to Implement Congressional Directives Master Plan, the Department of Defense has increased collaboration within the high energy laser community and provided more opportunities for coordination of high energy laser efforts. The DOD had no comments on a draft of this report. From a resource standpoint, DOD has achieved more balance between its spending for large-scale HEL demonstration programs and the enabling science and technology base projects. Since the HEL Master Plan was written and the subsequent legislation implemented, the overall investment in HEL efforts has increased and the science and technology base has grown as a proportion of the total investment. In 1998, the HEL technology base accounted for 17 percent of the total HEL spending ($66 million out of $398 million, with the demonstration programs receiving $332 million). In 2004, it increased to 27 percent of total HEL spending ($263 million of $983 million, with the demonstration programs receiving $720 million). This 27-percent increase includes about $58 million to fund the JTO and its projects as well as an increase in service and agency funding for HEL science and technology base projects, from about $66 million in 1998 to about $205 million in 2004. We did not attempt to determine what constitutes the ideal spending balance between demonstration programs and science and technology base projects, nor did we attempt to analyze the projects for technical balance. For the new money that the JTO has infused into enabling HEL science and technology projects-ranging from about 20 to 40 percent of the total-the funding process does track with identified HEL priorities. While the individual services participate in this process, they fund their own science and technology projects based on their specific needs. The JTO has a process to evaluate projects that includes criteria for establishing funding priorities for the most critical technical issues. These criteria are clearly defined, objective, and based on input from a wide range of experts in the HEL field. In deciding on which projects to fund, the JTO uses the priorities established through this process. The JTO initiated the process in 2000 and continues to follow it when allocating funding for its laser projects. The JTO used four criteria to prioritize technology projects critical to future HEL applications: the overall potential impact on HEL missions; whether the technology is sufficiently mature to benefit from increased funding; whether the funding needed for the research matches the expected JTO funds; and whether there are benefits to multiple applications or multiple services. The HEL technology projects were then evaluated by a wide-range of experts in the HEL field, prioritized and grouped into seven technology thrust areas: beam control, solid-state lasers, chemical lasers, free-electron lasers, advanced laser technology, lethality science, and modeling and simulations. The JTO allocates its funding, which has been between $50 million and $60 million each year since fiscal year 2002, exclusively to projects in these seven thrust areas. The priorities and the investment strategy are updated annually. The services and agencies prioritize and fund their technology investments according to their individual mission needs. However, they do so with the knowledge of what the JTO and other organizations have underway. By implementing the management structure and recommendations of the 2000 HEL Master Plan, DOD provides opportunities via the Technology Council and the JTO's Technical Area Working Groups for more collaboration among the HEL community as well as opportunities for key HEL experts from all of the services to discuss goals and objectives and share project information. The Technology Council provides specific direction to the JTO and some direction to the services and agencies on their HEL-related activities. The senior level executives on the Technology Council represent their services' or agencies' HEL needs and issues to the council and take the results of the Technology Council discussions and guidance back to their own services. Finally, based on our review of selected projects, we found no apparent duplication of HEL technology projects within the JTO projects or among the JTO projects and service and agency projects. Even within the same thrust area, the projects explore different aspects of the various technologies. According to JTO officials, the office makes a conscious attempt to avoid duplication with service or agency projects and instead tries to address technology gaps and issues not being covered by the services and agencies. Agency Comments The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this report, but had no comments on the content. Their response is included as Enclosure II. and Our Evaluation We reviewed the HEL Master Plan and the subsequent legislation as well as other documentation concerning the implementation of the recommendations in the Master Plan. We interviewed officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to assess DOD's implementation of the plan's recommendations. We interviewed HEL JTO officials and reviewed documents to determine their role in implementing the Master Plan's recommendations and to assess their criteria for prioritizing and funding HEL technologies. We also interviewed Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile Defense Agency, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency officials involved in HEL projects and reviewed pertinent documentation to determine how the officials set their priorities and funding for HEL projects and to solicit their views on the effectiveness of the JTO as the focal point for HEL-related activities. We reviewed the active projects the JTO was sponsoring for possible duplication with those from the services and other agencies. For those projects that seemed similar to other projects, we then did a more in-depth analysis of the project and its focus. We conducted our review from August 2004 to April 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Paul L. Francis, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management Enclosures -II Scope and Methodology Enclosure I Service Project Title Description JTO Air Force Optical component Athermal subscale window sponsor technology Alternate HEL windows Evaluate a type of window JTO Army sponsor material JTO Navy sponsor Tactical conformal Fabrication of large tactical window development conformal windows High reflective Develop optical coatings that can JTO Navy sponsor coating withstand high power Air Force Airborne laser beam Refine beam control for airborne control platforms Investigate effects of aerosols, Navy Beam control water vapor, and air turbulence on laser beam in maritime environment Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. GAO's Mission Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 512-6061 To Report Fraud, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548 Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER *** End of document. ***