Apache Helicopter

Tests Results for 30-Millimeter Weapon System Inconclusive Gao ID: NSIAD-93-134 April 1, 1993

Although the Army maintains that the Apache's area weapon system has passed most endurance requirements, exceeded reliability requirements, and passed accuracy requirements, testing procedures and conditions did not produce enough information to fully assess whether these requirements were met. GAO recommends that the Army (1) require the contractor to retest the area weapon system to ensure that it meets contract reliability specifications, (2) operationally test the area weapon system to determine what the field users can realistically expect to achieve in terms of reliability performance and distribute the results to the user community, and (3) validate the accuracy improvements on each of the different fuselage configurations during the October 1993 accuracy test.

GAO found that: (1) although most AWS components have met endurance, reliability, and accuracy requirements, the test plan has not allowed for sufficient assessment of key reliability requirements; (2) AWS test results may be inaccurate because favorable test conditions have allowed for a higher reliability measure; (3) the Army has planned to conduct additional maximum life endurance and reliability tests to reevaluate AWS components, and the contractor has proposed design changes to those components that did not meet minimum life endurance and reliability requirements; (4) the Army's 1992 accuracy test is of limited value because the Army has reduced AWS performance criteria by lowering the accuracy requirements, allowing the contractor to pay a $1-million penalty for each target point missed, and limiting AWS assessment to only one of three Apache fuselage configurations; and (5) the Army has planned additional follow-up tests to validate the incorporation of the 1992 accuracy modifications into production aircraft.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.