Tactical Intelligence

The Air Force and the Army are developing the joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS) to detect, track, classify, and support the attack of moving and stationary ground targets. This $11 billion program consists of air and ground segments--refurbished 707 aircraft equipped with radar, operation and control, data-processing, and communications subsystems, together with ground stations equipped with communications and data-processing subsystems. Joint STARS' performance during development and operational testing, as well as evaluations done in Bosnia, do not support a decision to commit the system to full-rate production. The Defense Department's (DOD) decision to move Joint STARS into full-rate production was premature and raised the program's level of risk. The program could have continued under low-rate initial production until operational effectiveness and suitability for combat were demonstrated and plans to address deficiencies and reduce program costs were completed. Instead, DOD decided in favor of full-rate production without the benefit of that information. One option not now under consideration could reduce program costs and improve the system. Because of the expense to procure, refurbish, and modify the 707 aircraft and because the 1996 price for a commercial version Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft is between $82 million and $93 million, it may now be more cost effective for the Air Force to buy that or some other new, more capable aircraft. Such an aircraft could provide a longer life, greater room for growth, greater flight range, greater fuel efficiency, higher operational availability, and lower program life-cycle costs.

GAO noted that: (1) Joint STARS' performance during its combined development and operational test and the operational evaluation done in Bosnia do not support a decision to commit the system to full-rate production; (2) the system's operational effectiveness and suitability were not demonstrated during the operational testing; (3) DOD's decision to move Joint STARS into full-rate production was premature and raised the program's level of risk; (4) the program could have continued under low-rate initial production (LRIP) until operational effectiveness and suitability for combat were demonstrated and plans to address identified deficiencies and reduce program costs were completed; (5) DOD decided in favor of Joint STARS full-rate production without the benefit of that information; (6) during the period that the full-rate production decision was being considered, the Assistant to the President for National Security was promoting the sale of the system to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); (7) in an August 10, 1996, memorandum to the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Assistant to the President stated that: "We have been working through various military, diplomatic, and political channels to secure NATO support for a fall 1996 decision in principle by the Conference of Armament Directors...to designate (Joint STARS) as NATO's common system"; (8) a DOD official informed GAO that in November 1996, the NATO armament directors delayed their decision on Joint STARS for 1 year; (9) before DOD approved the full-rate production of Joint STARS, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) provided Congress with a Joint STARS "Beyond LRIP" report; (10) the report clearly indicates that further operational testing is needed, DOT&E could only declare effectiveness for operations other than war, and the system was unsuitable as tested; (11) DOD plans follow-on test and evaluation to address the deficiencies identified during the earlier testing; (12) there is an opportunity not currently under consideration that could reduce the Joint STARS' program cost and result in an improved system; (13) since the Joint STARS was approved for LRIP, the procurement cost objective of the Air Force's share of the Joint STARS has increased by about $1 billion, primarily due to the greater effort and more resources needed to refurbish the 25- to 30-year-old Boeing 707 airframes than previously anticipated; and (14) it may now be more cost effective for the Air Force to buy the Boeing 767-200 Extended Range aircraft or some other new, more capable 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: