GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 28, 2005 

Congressional Committees 

Subject: Department of Defense’s Assessment Addresses Congressional 

 Concerns but Lacks Detail on High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,1

 Congress directed 

the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a laser master plan to include 

identification of potential weapon applications, critical technologies, a development 

path for those critical technologies, and the funding required to carry out the master 

plan. 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. The Master 

Plan recommended establishing a management structure for HEL technologies, 

including a HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO) to execute development and day-today management of a joint program to revitalize HEL technologies. The plan also 

recommended establishment of a HEL Technology Council—composed of senior 

science and technology executives from the military services and agencies --- to 

provide oversight and approval authority for JTO’s programs. As a result of the 

Master Plan, JTO was formed in June 2000. JTO collaborates with the military 

services and defense agencies in order to develop and execute an investment strategy 

for HEL science and technology (S&T) development. 

In the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,2

Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to implement the management and 

organizational structure specified in the Master Plan. The legislation also required the 

Secretary of Defense to designate a senior civilian official to head the HEL 

Technology Council as well as carry out responsibilities for HEL programs by 

establishing priorities, coordinating the services’ and defense agencies’ efforts, 

identifying promising high-priority technologies for funding, and preparing a detailed 

technology plan to develop and mature those technologies. DOD’s Deputy 

Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology was designated that official. 

In the conference report that accompanied the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,3

 the conferees expressed concern that the JTO 

may not be accelerating progress in HEL technology and providing incentives to the 

services to invest in such technologies. Accordingly, they required the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the fiscal year 2001 

legislation and directed that the report specifically address (1) the effectiveness of 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 106-65, sec. 251, Oct. 5, 1999. 

2

Pub. L. No. 106-398 (Appendix - H.R. 5408), sec. 242 and 243, Oct. 30, 2000. 

3

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-767 at p. 520, Oct. 8, 2004. 
Page 2 GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

JTO in meeting its statutory goals, (2) whether JTO’s structure has been effective in 

transitioning technologies to the warfighter, and (3) the impact of DOD’s decision to 

shift funding responsibility for JTO efforts from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) to the Air Force. 

The conferees required the Secretary of Defense to provide this report by January 15, 

2005, and asked GAO to review the report and provide an assessment to the 

congressional committees by March 15, 2005. We received DOD’s report in May 2005 

and are providing our assessment of the report’s responsiveness to the conferees’ 

three requirements with this correspondence. 

To address the report objectives, we reviewed DOD’s 2005 report on the effectiveness 

of the HEL JTO and drew upon our May 2005 correspondence that addressed the 

extent to which DOD implemented the recommendations of the HEL Master Plan.4

 

To determine whether JTO has been effective in achieving its statutory goals, we 

reviewed the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act and the HEL Master 

Plan. To identify the impact of shifting JTO funding from OSD to the Air Force, we 

reviewed funding trends and reductions levied on JTO budgets. In particular, we 

discussed the impact of such reductions on JTO as well as the reductions in the 

context of overall OSD and Air Force budgets. To determine whether JTO was 

effective in transitioning laser technology to the services, we discussed JTO’s role in 

moving HEL technologies to the warfighter with officials from OSD. We also 

reviewed DOD’s draft Directed Energy Technology Roadmap to gain insight into 

DOD’s future strategy for HEL-related work as a whole. We conducted our work from 

May 2005 to July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Results in Brief 

The Department of Defense’s report on the effectiveness of the HEL JTO is generally 

responsive to congressional direction but lacks detail on how and when it plans to 

eventually transition laser technologies to the warfighter. Specifically: 

• The DOD report describes the actions DOD has taken to meet the statutory 

goals and cites an increase in funding as evidence of its commitment to 

advance HEL technologies. We agree that, in large part, JTO has been 

effective in achieving the statutory goals outlined in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. In addition, on the basis of our 

previous work, we believe that DOD’s implementation of the 

recommendations of the HEL Master Plan has increased the focus on 

critical HEL issues. 

• While the DOD report discusses efforts to transition JTO-sponsored 

technologies to the services and agencies, it does not address the broader 

issue of how HEL technology will eventually transition to the warfighter. 

 

4

Department of Defense Initiatives on High Energy Lasers Have Been Responsive to Congressional 

Direction, GAO-05-545R (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2005). 
Page 3 GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

The Department’s Directed Energy Roadmap, currently in draft, may 

provide the detailed technology plan to develop and mature HEL 

technologies, as Congress directed in the 2001 legislation, but it has not yet 

been implemented as official department policy or guidance. 

• DOD reports that devolving funding responsibility for JTO from OSD to the 

Air Force has had no negative impact on the program. Judging from the

information provided by OSD, the financial impact appears minimal thus 

far. The office is continuing to use the same processes for its day-to-day 

operation, with OSD retaining responsibility for management oversight of 

the office. 

JTO’s Effectiveness in Meeting Its Objectives 

The Secretary of Defense’s report assessing JTO’s effectiveness cites an increase in 

HEL science and technology funding since 2002 as evidence of DOD’s commitment to 

advancing HEL technologies. The report explains (1) how JTO manages its programs 

and executes its responsibilities, (2) how JTO funds for developing HEL technologies 

are allocated across six HEL technology thrust areas based on recommendations 

from HEL experts from the services and agencies, and (3) how JTO solicits and 

awards individual technology projects. The report also identifies the members of the 

Technology Council who provide direction to JTO and approval of JTO’s plans and 

investments. 

We found that DOD has, in large part, met the statutory goals. In responding to the 

statutory goals, DOD has: 

• Set up JTO and the HEL Technology Council and established the management 

and organizational structure required by the 2001 legislation. 

• Implemented the recommendations of the HEL Master Plan and increased the 

focus on critical HEL issues. 

• Increased overall investment in HEL efforts and the percentage of the overall 

investment represented by the S&T base. 

• Provided opportunities via the Technology Council and JTO’s Technical Area 

Working Groups for more collaboration among the HEL community as well as 

opportunities for key HEL experts to discuss goals and objectives and share 

project information. 

• Included criteria in the JTO process to determine funding for projects that 

address 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. 

While JTO has a process for establishing its funding priorities—as we 

previously reported—the services and agencies fund their own HEL S&T 

projects based on their specific needs. 

Plans for Transitioning Technology to Services 
Page 4 GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

The conferees directed DOD to report on the effectiveness of the JTO structure in 

transitioning laser technologies to the warfighter. The DOD report points out that 

JTO does not transition technologies directly to the warfighter, but rather transitions 

technologies to the services, which insert these applications into new or existing 

research and development or acquisition programs. The report then briefly discusses 

how certain JTO-developed technologies could be inserted into such programs and 

states that by providing funding and partnerships to government, industry, and 

academia, JTO supports state-of-the-art advancements in laser development. The 

report provides five examples of service or agency programs and projects that have 

benefited from JTO’s efforts: 

• the Special Operations Command Advanced Tactical Laser program, 

• the Navy Free Electron program, 

• the Joint Army and Air Force High Powered Solid State Laser program, 

• the Directed Energy Lethality program, and 

• the Directed Energy Modeling and Simulation program. 

While the DOD report discusses some specific efforts to transition JTO-sponsored 

technologies to the services and agencies, it does not address the broader issue of 

how HEL technologies will eventually transition to the warfighter or provide a 

strategy for maturing the technologies. Progress has been made in setting up the 

management structure and processes to facilitate HEL technology development, but 

it is not clear what, if any, progress has been made in furthering the transition of 

these technologies to the warfighters. Further, DOD does not have a detailed, 

department wide strategy for maturing the technologies– a strategy that could ensure 

the efforts of the services, agencies and JTO are coordinated and focused on goals 

achievable within a reasonable time-frame. In that regard, DOD has not yet satisfied 

the statutory goal of the 2001 legislation regarding the preparation of a detailed 

technology plan to develop and mature HEL technologies. 

DOD officials are currently drafting a Directed Energy Roadmap that may provide the 

detailed strategy to develop and mature HEL technologies, as Congress directed in 

the 2001 legislation. It identifies the promising HEL technologies for which funding 

should be a high priority and the planning appropriate to evolve the HEL technology. 

However, the roadmap is a draft and has not been issued as policy or guidance. 

Impact of Shifting JTO Funding Authority to the Air Force 

In 2002, in an effort to streamline and downsize the number of organizations managed 

by OSD, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

proposed the transfer of JTO’s funding authority from OSD to the Air Force. Under a 

memorandum of agreement finalized in early October 2004, responsibility for JTO’s 

funding devolved to the Air Force. The Air Force executed funding responsibility for 

JTO in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The previously established management structure, 

along with the influence of the HEL Technology Council, continues unchanged. 

According to the memorandum, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science 

and Technology retained responsibility for oversight of JTO, with the HEL 

Technology Council providing input on JTO program strategy and direction. 
Page 5 GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

However, the Air Force became administratively responsible for the planning, 

programming, budgetary, and execution process activities for the JTO. As stated in 

the agreement, the Air Force would not move funding from any JTO program element 

to another Air Force science and technology program element. The agreement 

further noted that the Air Force would attempt to exempt JTO funds from being used 

for other corporate Air Force expenses, and, if this exemption was unsuccessful, 

would take no more than a “fair share” assessment. 

DOD’s report on JTO stated that there had been no negative financial impact on the 

JTO program as a result of shifting funding responsibility. The report noted that the 

Air Force did reduce JTO’s funding by what the report termed a “fair share” of certain 

reductions directed by Congress or OSD. In fiscal year 2004, these reductions 

amounted to approximately $2.3 million out of a total JTO budget of about $64.8 

million and, in fiscal year 2005, approximately $2.7 million out of a total JTO budget 

of about $72.9 million. According to an OSD official, OSD also applied similar 

mandated reductions to JTO funding in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The official 

indicated that JTO anticipated these mandated reductions and thus suffered no 

significant impact as a result of the adjusted funding. 

We have not seen any evidence to indicate that the shifting of JTO funding authority 

to the Air Force has had a negative financial impact on the JTO programs, particularly 

since the previously established management structure remained the same. 

Agency Comments 

The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this report, but had no comments on 

the draft. 

- - - - - - 

We also are sending copies of this correspondence to the Secretary of Defense; the 

Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Director, Missile Defense Agency; 

and the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the correspondence will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 6 GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this correspondence, please 

contact me at (202) 512-4841. Contact points for our offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Paul L. Francis, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Enclosure 
Page 7 GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans 

List of Congressional Committees 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

(120449) 
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. 
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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER