Defense Acquisitions: Naval Surface Fire Support Program Plans and Costs
(Letter Report, 06/11/1999, GAO/NSIAD-99-91).
Since 1994, the Navy has been working on a two-phase research and
development program to address shortfalls in its naval surface fire
support capabilities. GAO has already reported on the Navy's compliance
with legislation directing it to retain two Iowa class battleships and
their logistical support infrastructure. (See GAO/NSIAD-99-62, Apr.
1999.) This report describes the Navy's effort to modernize its naval
surface fire support capabilities and identifies the cost of the
modernization. An upcoming report will analyze the Navy's assessment of
the costs associated with alternative ways to carry out the naval
surface fire-support mission, including reactivating two battleships.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-99-91
TITLE: Defense Acquisitions: Naval Surface Fire Support Program
Plans and Costs
DATE: 06/11/1999
SUBJECT: Missiles
Defense capabilities
Naval procurement
Weapons systems
Naval warfare
Military cost control
Logistics
Military vessels
Weapons research and development
Research and development costs
IDENTIFIER: Navy Land Attack Standard Missile
Navy Vertical Launching System
Advanced Tomahawk Weapons Control System
Ticonderoga Class Cruiser
Army Tactical Missile System
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System
Naval Fire Control System
Multiple Launch Rocket System
Naval Surface Fire Support Modernization Program
DD-21 Destroyer
U.S.S. Arleigh Burke
DDG-51 Destroyer
Navy Advanced Gun System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
GAO/NSIAD-99-91
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to Congressional Requesters June 1999 DEFENSE
ACQUISITIONS Naval Surface Fire Support Program Plans and Costs
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 United States General Accounting Office
National Security and Washington, D.C. 20548
International Affairs Division B-281508
Letter June 11, 1999 The Honorable John Warner Chairman The
Honorable Carl Levin Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed
Services United States Senate The Honorable Floyd Spence Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Armed Services House of Representatives This letter responds to
one of four reporting requirements in section 1015 of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
The requirements involve the status of inactive battleships and
the Navy's plans, costs, and capabilities to provide naval surface
fire support (NSFS). Since 1994, the Navy has been engaged in a
two-phase research and development program intended to address
current shortfalls in its NSFS capabilities. We previously
reported on the Navy's compliance with legislation directing it to
retain two inactive Iowa class battleships and their associated
logistical support infrastructure. This report, addressing the
second and third requirements, describes the Navy's program to
modernize its NSFS capabilities and identifies the cost of the
modernization. A third report, addressing the final requirement,
will analyze the Navy's assessment of the costs associated with
alternative methods for executing the naval surface fire-support
mission, including the alternative of reactivating two
battleships. NSFS is the use of guns, missiles, and electronic
warfare systems on surface ships to support amphibious, maritime,
or land forces. Force Structure: Navy Is Complying With Battleship
Readiness Requirements (GAO/NSIAD 99-62, Apr. 12, 1999). Page 1
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Results in Brief
In the first phase of the NSFS modernization program, planned for
completion by 2009, the Navy plans to develop a modified 5-inch
gun and associated guided munition, land-attack missiles, and
mission planning system for installation on 49 of the current
classes of cruisers and destroyers. However, the weapons developed
during this phase are not expected to satisfy the full range of
Marine Corps NSFS requirements. Development of the modified 5-inch
gun is currently on schedule, but development costs have increased
slightly. Development of the guided munition for this gun has been
delayed by technical problems, and costs have increased. Because
the most critical testing of the munition has not yet been
conducted, it is too early to know whether the munition will meet
performance specifications in terms of range, accuracy, and
lethality. In May 1998, the Chief of Naval Operations decided to
modify missiles in the Navy's inventory into a land-attack variant
rather than develop a Navy variant of an Army missile. In May
1999, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology approved the Navy's proposal in the near term, provided
more funds were programmed to modify the Army Tactical Missile
system to be fired from DDG-51 tubes. The Navy expects fleet
introduction of a mission planning system in 2001 to support
weapons developed during the first phase of the NSFS modernization
program. The second phase of the modernization program, beyond
2003, includes development of a longer range gun and munition and
an advanced land-attack missile for the planned DD-21 class of
destroyers. Weapons developed during this phase are intended to
fully meet Marine Corps NSFS requirements. The Center for Naval
Analyses is conducting an analysis of gun system alternatives for
the DD-21, and industry teams are also developing advanced gun
concepts for this class of ship. Thus far, the Chief of Naval
Operations has deferred a decision on a land-attack missile for
the DD-21 pending further development of competing missile
systems. At the same time, the Navy is conducting technology
demonstration projects intended to improve performance and reduce
the costs of future munitions. Under the Navy's current plan, it
will be many years before the fleet will have these weapon systems
in the quantities needed to support major combat operations. The
Navy plans to accept delivery of 32 DD-21s between 2008 and 2020.
In fiscal years 1994-98, the Navy spent $309 million on both
phases of its modernization program. For fiscal years 1999-2005,
both phases are estimated to cost a total of about $2 billion, not
including the cost of the ships. The estimate also does not
include the cost of (1) integrating Land Page 2
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Attack Standard
Missiles into the Vertical Launch System, (2) changing to the
Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System, and (3) developing and
procuring of an advanced land-attack missile for the DD-21. Total
program cost estimates beyond fiscal year 2005 are not available.
! Background Since the end of the Cold War, the Navy and the
Marine Corps have been working on operational concepts for coastal
combat operations that stress speed, maneuverability, and
avoidance of enemy strong points to achieve military objectives.
These concepts are in striking contrast to the attrition
operations of past wars such as World War II, when amphibious
forced entry operations required fire support from large-caliber
guns on battleships and other combatants operating near enemy
shores. The new war-fighting strategy assumes that amphibious
assaults will be launched from at least 25 nautical miles from
shore to enhance surprise and the survivability of the fleet and
invading forces. According to the Marine Corps, operating at this
distance from shore and the need to neutralize enemy artillery at
its maximum range results in a need for NSFS from between 41 and
63 nautical miles. As illustrated in figure 1, the Marine Corps'
fire support requirement under its new operational concept is up
to 200 nautical miles. The Marine Corps has stated a need for both
conventional unguided and precision munitions to meet its
requirements. Each fire support ship should be able to deliver
munition effects that equal the explosive weight and volume of
fire of an artillery battery (six 155-millimeter howitzers firing
high-explosive munitions). !Official Navy program budget estimates
are contained in the Fiscal Year 2000 President's Budget submitted
to Congress in February 1999. The President's budget contains
budget estimates for fiscal years 1999-2005. Page 3
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Figure 1: NSFS
Requirements Source: U.S. Navy The Navy is developing modern
surface fire support weapons to address current NSFS deficiencies.
The Marine Corps believes that once they are fielded, these
weapons, along with the mobility enhancements provided by the
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the MV-22 tilt-rotor
aircraft, will allow it to execute its new operational concept.
NSFS Modernization During the first phase of the NSFS
modernization, planned to be completed First Phase
by 2009, the Navy intends to improve the capabilities of the
current class of cruisers and destroyers by developing and
installing (1) modified 5-inch, 62-caliber guns; (2) an extended-
range guided munition for this gun; Page 4
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 (3) land-attack
missiles; and (4) a land-attack mission planning system. The Navy
plans to install 1 gun on each of 27 new Arleigh Burke class
destroyers between fiscal year 2001 and 2009, and 2 guns on each
of 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers selected for modernization
between fiscal year 2004 and 2009. The near-term guns, munitions,
and missiles will improve current NSFS capabilities, but they are
neither intended nor expected to meet all of the Marine Corps'
NSFS requirements for range, explosive lethality, and volume of
fire. Gun and Munition Development of the modified 5-inch gun
is currently on schedule, but Development development
costs have increased slightly. Development of the guided munition
for this gun has been delayed by technical problems, and costs
have increased. Since the most critical testing of the munition
has not yet been conducted, it is too early to know whether the
munition will meet performance specifications in terms of range,
accuracy, and lethality. The modified 5-inch gun and its guided
munition are intended to provide increased range and accuracy
compared with those of the 5-inch guns on existing surface combat
ships. The guided munition's operational requirements include
performance specifications for target accuracy at ranges of
between 41 and 63 nautical miles, compared with the 13 nautical
miles for existing unguided munitions. The 5-inch Gun Gun
development is on schedule, though the manufacturer estimates that
development costs at completion will have increased about 8
percent over the planned funding. Initial test firings of the
propellant achieved the required energy levels needed to launch
the guided munition, but the pressures created by ignition of the
propellant caused some pitting of the test-gun barrel. According
to a Navy official, the program office is working to solve this
problem and believes a barrel life of 1,500 rounds can be
achieved. The program office has scheduled additional gun tests in
May 1999. The Navy made a low-rate initial production decision on
the gun in April 1999 and initial operating capability is planned
for fiscal year 2001. However, delays in delivery of the guided
munition have slipped the schedule for incorporating and testing
this capability from October 1999 to June 2000. Because the
modified gun will be able to fire conventional 5-inch ammunition
to longer ranges than the current one, it will be installed on new
destroyers and modernized cruisers even if guided munition
development is delayed. Page 5
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Guided Munition
Technical design problems in development of the guided munition
have caused schedule delays and cost increases. These problems
have delayed development about 3 months. For example, during
recent test firings, gun gas leakage has occurred around the
projectile obturator " because of the increased energy generated
by the new propelling charge and the mid-body placement of the
obturator. This leakage may cause unacceptable wear of the gun
barrel. To solve this problem, the manufacturer has been testing
various obturator designs and materials. The most critical tests
to determine how well the guided munition's components work
together have been delayed until the end of fiscal year 1999 by
disruptions associated with the contractor's relocation from Texas
to Arizona. According to Navy officials, only 20 percent of the
key people who have been working on the guided munition have
agreed to relocate. The guided munition's critical design review
was intended to follow the successful completion of the critical
tests. As a result of these delays, however, program officials
expect a delay in the critical design review, previously scheduled
for August 1999. They also expect up to a 1-year delay in fielding
the guided munition. Partly because of design risks and delays,
the Navy and the guided munition contractor are currently
negotiating a restatement of contract deadlines and a cost
increase over the original contract price of $75 million. In a
November 1998 proposal, the contractor increased its price by $57
million. The proposal did not consider any delays resulting from
the contractor's relocation. The Navy expects a revised proposal
from the contractor in August 1999 that would address the
relocation impact on the program schedule. Near-Term Land-Attack
The Navy's plan to add land-attack missiles to the 27 Arleigh
Burke class Missile destroyers and 22 Ticonderoga
class cruisers was on hold. In May 1998, the Chief of Naval
Operations decided that it would be quicker and cheaper to convert
about 800 existing surface-to-air Standard Missiles to a land-
attack configuration than to develop a Navy version of the Army
Tactical Missile System. This decision was based on a land-attack
missile assessment conducted by the Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory. "An obturator is a ring-like device
that seals the projectile firmly against the gun barrel during
projectile launch. Page 6
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Both missiles would
have a range of about 150 nautical miles-about 50 miles short of
the Marine Corps' stated requirement for deep support. However,
the Office of the Secretary of Defense put the Navy's decision on
hold, pending additional review. The Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 conferees directed
an analysis of alternatives for the Navy's land-attack missile
system. In response to the congressional direction, Department of
Defense (DOD) officials asked the Navy to provide additional
analysis for its decision. The Navy, in turn, asked the Center for
Naval Analyses to review the Johns Hopkins study's analytical
basis. The Center analyzed both the land-attack version of the
Standard Missile and the Navy's variant of the Army Tactical
Missile System with regard to targets, target location error,
weapon performance (lethality), and the cost and performance of
the missiles' Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System
(GPS/INS). In December 1998, the Center briefed the Oversight
Board # on the results of its review. The Center concluded that:
(1) finding reasonable target lists was easy but determining which
targets would be best assigned to the land attack missile and
which ones to guns, tactical tomahawk missiles, or aviation was
not complete; (2) each missile's potential to generate a small
target location error was not an issue; (3) lethality: both the
land attack version of the Standard Missile and the Navy's variant
of the Army Tactical Missile System were effective weapons; and
(4) the GPS/INS costs were not a problem, but overall cost
differences of the missiles were. On May 11, 1999, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology approved the
Navy's proposal to develop the land attack Standard Missile in the
near term, provided that more funds are programmed in the Navy's
advanced land attack missile plan to modify the Army Tactical
Missile System to be fired from DDG-51 tubes. Naval Fires Control
System The Navy is developing a Naval Fires Control System that
will automate Is Being Developed shipboard fire support
management functions for the modified 5-inch gun and guided
munition. The system will be used to receive targeting data,
conduct planning and coordination, and execute fire missions
through #The Board is led by the Deputy Director, Naval Warfare,
and includes representatives from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis and Evaluation, the
Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Page 7
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 interfaces to weapon
control systems. To support a fiscal year 2003 initial operating
capability milestone, the Navy plans to perform an operational
assessment of the first phase of the fires control system in 2001.
At that time, this first phase of the system is scheduled to be
installed aboard 16 destroyers (DDG-81 through 96), in a stand-
alone mode in the ships' Advanced Tomahawk Weapon Control Systems.
The Navy plans to introduce the next phase of the fires control
system as an integral part of the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control
System and the fire control systems of the Tactical Tomahawk and
Land Attack Standard Missiles. Later phases of the fires control
system will support complex naval fires planning and coordination
and possibly other weapon systems such as the Advanced Gun System.
The Navy plans to install the new system on its new destroyers and
older cruisers and make it available to amphibious and command
ships. NSFS Second Phase Because the first phase of the
NSFS modernization program will not fully meet Marine Corps
requirements for range, lethality, and volume of fire, the Navy
intends to develop, in a second phase after 2003, a larger caliber
advanced gun system and a new land-attack missile for the DD-21.
Weapons developed during this phase are intended to fully meet
NSFS requirements. The Navy has funded the advanced gun program
and has undertaken studies of the gun design. However, the missile
program remains unfunded, and the Navy has not made key decisions
on its design or type. The Navy will also assess various Office of
Naval Research (ONR) projects demonstrating maturing and emerging
technologies to improve the performance of and reduce the costs of
future fire support systems. Advanced Gun Alternatives A new
larger caliber gun for the DD-21 is being developed as the
Advanced for the DD-21 Are Under Gun System (AGS). To ensure
early design integration, the DD-21 program Study
office has been given responsibility for AGS development. $
However, House and Senate committees have raised concerns about
the extent to which the Navy has considered different gun
alternatives. In response to these concerns, the Navy contracted
with the Center for Naval Analyses to conduct an analysis of
alternative gun systems for the DD-21. The analysis $House
Committee on National Security report (105-532, at 180) and Senate
Committee on Armed Services report (105-189, at 167-168). Page 8
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 is to consider guns
of various calibers and designs and the Multiple Launch Rocket
System. % The Center plans to brief the Navy on its results in
June 1999 and to issue a final report in August 1999. At the same
time, two DD-21 industry teams are developing concepts for the
AGS. The teams expect to reach a decision on whether to adopt a
vertical or deck-mounted gun design by June 1999. The Navy will
select the final characteristics, based on the results of the
Center's analysis and on industry efforts, both of which are
scheduled for completion at the end of fiscal year 1999. Advanced
Land-Attack When the Chief of Naval Operations decided to
proceed with development Missile Plans Deferred and
procurement of the Land Attack Standard Missile, he explicitly
deferred a decision on a next generation land-attack missile for
the DD-21 pending further development of competing missile
systems. According to a Navy official, the Navy presently has no
program activity or funding associated with an advanced land-
attack missile. ONR Projects Explore NFSF Over the next few
years, the Navy plans to assess various ONR Enhancing Technologies
demonstration projects intended to reduce costs and enhance weapon
performance of NFSF development programs. The projects will
explore both maturing and emerging technologies that may enhance
fire support capabilities in both the first and second phases of
the NSFS modernization. The goals of the first project, called Air
and Surface Launched Weapons Technology/Naval Surface Fire
Support, are to increase gun-launched projectile and missile
ranges, decrease the response time required to reach the target,
increase the weapon's accuracy against moving targets, and
increase the weapon's lethality. The three goals are scheduled to
be achieved in 2005, 2010, and 2015. The second project, called
Air Systems and Advanced Technology/Weapons Advanced Technology,
is expected to demonstrate emerging technologies in weapon system
components/subcomponents that may improve the performance of
existing and future surface weapon systems. A portion of the
project will demonstrate improved mission planning and execution
times of missiles for land-attack missions. %The two major designs
are a deck-mounted gun and a vertical gun. Page 9
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 The next project is
the "competent munitions" advanced technology demonstration & that
aims to combine miniaturized (microelectromechanical system)
inertial measuring units with the Global Positioning System and
with an inertial navigation system to guide and control a gun-
launched projectile such as the one designed for the 5-inch gun.
The goal is to produce a low-cost, highly accurate guidance and
control unit that can be used in various munitions by the Army,
the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Final flight tests are scheduled
to be complete by the end of fiscal year 1999. The last project is
the "best buy" advanced technology demonstration that aims to
demonstrate technologies critical to developing a projectile with
a range of 100 nautical miles and twice the payload of the guided
munition currently being developed for the modified 5-inch gun.
This project plans to demonstrate a projectile, made of composite
materials rather than steel, that can hold a variety of other
payloads using guided munition subsystems and components. The
demonstration is scheduled for fiscal year 2000. Full NSFS
Capability Is Table 1 shows that the delivery schedules for the
modified 5-inch gun and Years Away projectile, the
Land Attack Standard Missile, and the Advanced Gun System span a
number of years. According to its schedules, the Navy will have
accepted for delivery all of the 5-inch guns and Land Attack
Standard Missiles and some of the AGS and advanced land-attack
missiles between fiscal year 2010-2015. If it is able to obtain
all the planned NSFS weapons that perform as required, between
fiscal year 2010-2015, the Navy will have 71 5-inch guns with
guided munition capability and an expected NSFS range of 63
nautical miles on 49 ships between fiscal year 2010-2015. In
addition, the Navy will have accepted delivery of Land Attack
Standard Missiles (about 20 per ship) with a range of 150 nautical
miles aboard these same ships. The Navy will fall short of meeting
the full NSFS range goal of 200 nautical miles until it fields the
advanced land-attack missile in the DD-21 destroyer. But it
expects to have fielded 22 DD-21 destroyers equipped with AGS and
advanced land-attack missiles by 2015. According to one Navy
official, this level of capability on cruisers and destroyers will
enable the Navy to have three to four NSFS-capable ships deployed
at all times to support operations ashore. &A narrowly-focused
technology demonstration to identify key technologies ready for
transition and demonstrate their performance parameters. Page 10
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Table 1: Schedule
of Fire Support Systems Deliveries Weapon system First
delivery (fiscal Last delivery (fiscal System delivery
range year) year)
Quantity 5"/62 caliber gun, forward fit on 41-63 nautical
2001 2009 27 ships, 27
barrels Arleigh Burke class destroyersa miles 5"/62 caliber
gun, retrofit on 41-63 nautical 2004
2009 22 ships, 44 barrels Ticonderoga class
cruisersb miles Naval Fires Control System
Not applicable 2001 2009+
All ships with 5"/62 caliber guns Land Attack Standard Missile
150 nautical miles 2003 c
800 Advanced Gun System 100 nautical miles
2008 2020 32 ships, 64
barrels Advanced 200 nautical miles
cc c Land-Attack Missile aDestroyer hull numbers 81 through 107.
bCruiser hull numbers 52 through 73. cTo be determined. Total
Program Cost Figure 2 shows the cost
of developing a modern NSFS capability from fiscal Estimates Are
year 1994 to 2005, not including the cost of the ships. The Navy
spent $309 million between 1994 and 1998 and plans to spend at
least another Incomplete $2
billion between fiscal year 1999 and 2005. ' However, this amount
also does not include significant additional costs for (1)
integration of the Land Attack Standard Missile into the Vertical
Launch System, (2) fire control modifications to the Tomahawk
Tactical Weapons Control System, and (3) development and
procurement of an advanced land-attack missile for the DD-21.
Costs projected beyond 2005 for most of the NSFS programs are
incomplete or not available. 'According to the most recent Future
Years Defense Plan, submitted to Congress in February 1999 with
the Fiscal Year 2000 DOD budget request. Page 11
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Figure 2: NSFS
Programs Costs Dollars in Millions 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Fis ca
l Y e ar Note: Fiscal years 1999-2005 are estimates. Source:
Congressional Budget Documents. Agency Comments and Inwritten
comments, DOD concurredwith a draft of this report (see Our
Evaluation app. I). DOD also provided
technical clarifications that we incorporated as appropriate.
Scope and To assess the Navy's plans to
modernize its surface fire support capabilities Methodology
and describe the cost of these efforts, we interviewed officials
and obtained and reviewed documentation from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Naval Operations, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps Combat
Developments Command, the Naval Sea Page 12
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions B-281508 Systems Command and
subordinate activities, the Center for Naval Analyses, the Office
of Naval Research, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory. We viewed firing demonstrations of the
modified 5-inch gun and received briefings on the guided munition,
the automated munition handling system, and the Naval Fires
Control System software at the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Dahlgren, Virginia. We conducted our review from July 1998 through
April 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to
Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman and Senator Robert C. Byrd, Ranking
Minority Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations;
Representative C. W. Bill Young, Chairman and Representative David
R. Obey, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on
Appropriations. We are also sending copies of this report to the
Honorable William Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable
William J. Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the
Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget;
the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable
Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; and General Charles C.
Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies will be made
available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-
4841 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this
report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
II. James F. Wiggins Associate Director Defense Acquisition Issues
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-91
Defense Acquisitions Contents Letter
1 Appendix I
16 Comments From the Secretary of Defense Appendix II
17 Major Contributors to This Report Tables
Table 1: Schedule of Fire Support Systems Deliveries
11 Figures Figure 1: NSFS Requirements
4 Figure 2: NSFS Programs Costs
12 Abbreviations AGS Advanced Gun System DOD
Department of Defense GPS/INS Global Positioning System/Inertial
Navigation System NSFS naval surface fire support ONR
Office of Naval Research Page 14
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-91
Defense Acquisitions Appendix I Comments From the Secretary of
Defense Appendix I Page 16
GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions Appendix II Major
Contributors to This Report
Appendix II National Security and Martha J. Dey International
Affairs Jack G. Perrigo, Jr. Richard J. Price Division,
Washington, D.C. Office of the General William T. Woods Counsel
Alan S. Goldberg Norfolk Field Office Anton G. Blieberger %
%!'$ Letter Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-91
Defense Acquisitions Ordering Information The first copy of each
GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a
check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents,
when necessary, VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted,
also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General
Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit:
Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed
by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061,
or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of
the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call
(202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will
provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail
message with "info" in the body to: [email protected] 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
*** End of document ***