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 ***