Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

July 2001 DEFENSE LOGISTICS

Information on

Apache Helicopter

Support and

Readiness

GAO-01-630
Page i GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Agency Comments 4

Scope and Methodology 4

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 7

Appendix II Are the Apache’s Sustainment Systems Technical

Support Need Being Met? 9

Appendix III Have Obsolete Parts Been Procured? 13

Appendix IV Do Available Technical Manuals and Technical Data

Packages Meet User Needs? 15

Appendix V Are There Unfunded Component and Airframe

Upgrade Requirements? 17

Appendix VI Have the Mandate Issues Affected Apache Fleet

Readiness? 21

Appendix VII Comments From the Department of Defense 26

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Tables

Table 1: Army Materiel Command Sustainment Support

Requirements, Funds Received, Unfunded Requirements,

and Percent Funded for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 10

Table 2. Aviation and Missile Command Sustainment Support

Requirements, Funds Received, Unfunded Requirements,

and Percent Funded for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 10

Table 3: Aviation and Missile Command’s Apache Sustainment

Support Requirements, Budget Estimates, and Percents for

Fiscal Years 2001-2003 11

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2001 Unfunded Requirements for Component

Upgrades (as of September 1999) 18

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2002 Unfunded Requirements for Component

Upgrades (as of February 2001) 19

Figures

Figure 1: Total Apache Fleet Fully Mission Capable Rates

(Sept. 1997 through Jan. 2001) 22

Figure 2: Active Army Apache Fully Mission Capable Rates

(Sept. 1997 through Jan. 2001) 23

Figure 3: Army Reserve Apache Fully Mission Capable Rates

(Sept. 1997 through Jan. 2001) 24

Figure 4: Army National Guard Apache Fully Mission Capable

Rates (Sept. 1997 through Jan. 2001) 25
Page 1 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

July 17, 2001

Congressional Committees

The AH-64 Apache helicopter is considered the most advanced attack

helicopter in the world. The Army expects the Apache to be the

cornerstone of the Army’s aviation fleet for many years to come. The Army

plans to rely on the Apache until the fleet reaches its replacement point in

fiscal year 2020.1

 In recent years, aircraft groundings due to flight safety

issues have raised questions about the long-term reliability of this weapon

system.

From the time a weapon system is fielded until it is retired, the Army

routinely provides ongoing engineering and technical support to identify

and correct problems that could affect safety, performance, and readiness.

These services are referred to by the Department of Defense as

sustainment systems technical support and are funded from its operation

and maintenance appropriation. Sustainment systems technical support

includes engineering services to support safety and capability

modifications to weapon systems, updates to engineering drawings and

parts specifications, updates to technical manuals, and technical

assistance to field units. In addition to sustainment support, the Army

must provide significant, often costly, improvements and upgrades to

address component limitations and deficiencies and to improve

capabilities. These upgrades are primarily funded through the Army’s

procurement appropriation.

Section 376 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 20012

 requires that we examine selected logistics, funding, and

readiness issues pertaining to the AH-64 Apache helicopter program.

Specifically, the act requires that we determine the following: (1) Are the

Apache’s sustainment systems technical support needs being met? (2)

Have obsolete Apache parts been procured? (3) Do available technical

manuals and data packages of engineering specifications and drawings

meet user needs? (4) Are there unfunded requirements for component and

airframe upgrades? (5) Have any of the above issues affected fleet

readiness? The Army’s Aviation and Missile Command and the Aviation

 1

2000 Army Aviation Modernization Plan, submitted to Congress in April 2000.

2

P.L. 106-398.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Program Executive Office have primary management responsibility for

these issues.

In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Apache’s identified sustainment systems

technical support requirements have not been fully met. In fiscal year

2000, the Aviation and Missile Command was able to provide only about

$27.9 million of the $28.6 million needed for Apache sustainment support.

However, the Command projects that it will be able to meet only about

56 percent of the Apache’s sustainment support requirements for fiscal

years 2001-2003. Recognizing that all weapon systems must compete for

limited funds, the Army has prioritized sustainment support requirements

and funds its most critical needs. As a result, some Apache sustainment

support projects that affect the efficient management of Apache parts and

the helicopter’s flight safety have been limited in scope or delayed. For

example, a faulty tail rotor swashplate identified in June 2000 could not be

analyzed for over 5 months because the Army did not have the funds

available. When the contractor examined the swashplate, it was

determined that 88 additional swashplates might be affected, and the

entire Apache fleet was grounded to prevent the potential loss of lives and

equipment. An Aviation and Missile Command official stated that

procedures are in place to elevate a request for additional funding when

circumstances indicate a potential safety risk. However, upon initial

examination the external condition of this particular component did not

warrant elevation to a higher level.

The Army and the Defense Logistics Agency have not procured obsolete,

unusable parts for the Apache. We analyzed the Army and Defense

Logistics Agency inventory databases and found no instances in which

obsolete Apache parts were ordered. However, older versions of parts that

are still usable are sometimes ordered because the inventory database

used by both the Army and the Defense Logistics Agency is out-of-date.

While these parts are still usable, they may not include the latest

technological upgrades or be as reliable as the newer versions. The

database has not been updated since 1995 due to constrained sustainment

system technical support funding and does not contain the latest

information on all Apache parts. Consequently, the Army relies on its

suppliers to ensure that erroneous orders are corrected and the latest

versions of the parts are provided. The Army has an effort under way to

update the inventory database to include changes to over 7,000 Apache

part numbers by September 2001.

Although technical manuals used to maintain the Apache are sometimes

outdated, field and depot personnel told us the manuals are sufficient to

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

meet their needs. Army maintenance personnel told us that the manuals

provide the information on parts and maintenance procedures that they

need to maintain the helicopter. Although the manuals are generally

updated only once per year, the Aviation and Missile Command issues

technical bulletins as necessary to augment the information contained in

the manuals between updates. However, technical data packages,

including engineering drawings and specifications, are not available for all

Apache parts because the Army decided during the helicopter’s

procurement in the early 1980s to limit the amount of technical data

purchased. As a result, the Army uses alternative methods to compensate

for the lack of data. These methods include using reverse engineering to

develop drawings and specifications needed to purchase required spare

parts. Additionally, the Army is not purchasing any technical data for the

upgraded Apache Longbow helicopter and plans to rely on the original

equipment manufacturer for all of its technical data support.

There are unfunded requirements for Apache component upgrades for

fiscal years 2001 and 2002, but the Army has no airframe upgrade

requirements for either year. Needed component upgrades totaling over

$168 million will not be funded in fiscal year 2001 according to Army

officials. Further, as of February 2001, the Army projected over

$158 million in component upgrades that will not be funded in fiscal year

2002. Examples of unfunded component upgrades include the purchase

and installation of an internal fuel tank that would give each aircraft one

additional hour of flying time and an upgrade to the Aerial Rocket Control

System to eliminate uncommanded rocket launches. Army officials

recently stated that they are considering withdrawing the 2002

requirements to focus on the Longbow procurement and aviation

recapitalization efforts. However, the Army has not provided any

documentation supporting the withdrawal of the requirements and

program officials stated that those decisions are still under review within

the Army.

These issues have not prevented the Apache fleet from meeting its

readiness goals. While sustainment support funding is critical to

maintaining weapon system readiness, we did not find that constrained

funding has directly affected Apache fleet readiness. However, as

discussed previously, we noted one instance where operational risk was

increased as a result of funding constraints. Although the fleet has not
Page 4 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

always met the Army’s fully mission capable goal,3 our examination of

readiness data for the period September 1997 through January 2001 did

not reveal a link between the issues addressed by the mandate and low

readiness rates. During the period we examined, active Apache units

generally met or exceeded the Army’s fully mission capable goal with the

exception of periods in which safety issues grounded the entire fleet.

However, Army Reserve and National Guard units generally reported fully

mission capable rates below the Army’s goal due to insufficient funding,

low priority for parts, and a shortage of experienced maintenance

personnel.

Since the Army has actions under way to update its inventory database

and technical manuals, we are not making recommendations in this report.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense

concurred with the information presented and stated that it supports the

concerns raised in the report as well as ongoing efforts to correct them.

The Department stated that it strongly supports efforts to elevate and

correct potential safety hazards in an expeditious manner. The

Department further stated that updating the Army's inventory database by

September 2001 is a priority to assure that the most current versions of

Apache parts are provided to field users. The Department's comments are

reprinted in their entirety as appendix VII.

To address the issues in this report, we interviewed and obtained

information from officials of the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command

and the Aviation Program Executive Office in Huntsville, Alabama; Army

Forces Command, Atlanta, Georgia; Apache battalions at Fort Bragg,

North Carolina, and Fort Hood, Texas; the Defense Logistics Agency; and

the Boeing Company, Mesa, Arizona. We conducted our review from

August 2000 through May 2001 in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Appendix I provides additional detail

about the scope and methodology of our work. Detailed information on

the issues discussed in this letter is provided in appendixes II through VI.

 3

Fully mission capable means that the aircraft is capable of performing all of its assigned

missions. The Army’s fully mission capable goal for the Apache is 70 percent.

Agency Comments

Scope and

Methodology
Page 5 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the

Secretary of the Army; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;

and interested congressional committees. We will also provide copies to

others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions on this report or wish to discuss

these matters further, please call me on (202) 512-8412. Key contacts and

staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VIII.

David R. Warren

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 6 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John Warner

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Chairman

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Ranking Minority Member

Defense Subcommittee

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Stump

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jerry Lewis

Chairman

The Honorable John P. Murtha

Ranking Minority Member

Defense Subcommittee

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 7 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

To address each of the five issues set forth in the 2001 Defense

Authorization Act, we interviewed and obtained information from officials

of the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command and the Aviation Program

Executive Office in Huntsville, Alabama, and Forces Command, Atlanta,

Georgia. We also interviewed and obtained information from additional

Army and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) officials in other offices and

locations pertaining to each of the specific questions, as described below.

To determine whether the Apache’s sustainment system technical support

needs are being met, we met with officials from the Office of the Secretary

of Defense (Comptroller), the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Financial Management and Comptroller), and the Army’s Office of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Washington, D.C.; the Army Materiel

Command, Alexandria, Virginia; and the Aviation and Missile Command

and Aviation Program Executive Office, Huntsville, Alabama . In addition,

we obtained and analyzed guidance, requirement information, budget

documents, and funding data from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. We also

analyzed processes for determining requirements for the Apache’s

sustainment system technical support and prioritization for funding. While

these issues dealt with funding requirements and priorities, it was not

within our scope to assess the validity of the Army’s sustainment system

technical support requirements or prioritization decisions. We also

interviewed Apache program officials to determine the effect of funding

constraints on sustainment system technical support, particularly as it

related to readiness.

To determine whether the Army and DLA had procured obsolete Apache

parts, we analyzed Army and DLA inventory data to identify items coded

obsolete and with inventory on order. We limited this analysis to the

activities that manage the largest number of Apache parts–the Army’s

Aviation and Missile Command and DLA’s Richmond, Virginia, and

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Supply Centers. We also interviewed and

obtained information from officials of the Aviation and Missile Command,

DLA offices in Richmond, Virginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

Apache battalions located at Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Bragg, North

Carolina; and the Boeing Company, Mesa, Arizona.

To determine whether Apache technical manuals meet user needs, we

interviewed officials of Apache battalions at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg as

well as maintenance personnel at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas.

Additionally, we selectively reviewed the technical manuals at the Apache

battalions we visited. We also interviewed responsible officials at the

Aviation and Missile Command to identify deficiencies and methods used

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 8 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

to augment technical manuals between annual updates. Regarding

technical data packages, we interviewed Aviation and Missile Command

officials to determine whether sufficient technical data is available to meet

the needs of the Apache engineering community. Because many of the

decisions affecting technical data packages were made during

procurement of the weapon system in the mid-1980s, available information

on this issue was limited. We also discussed potential readiness

implications with the Aviation and Missile Command officials we

interviewed.

To determine whether there are unfunded requirements for airframe and

component upgrades, we interviewed and obtained data from officials of

the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and the

Aviation Program Executive Office to document the requirements

determination and funding processes. We also obtained and analyzed

Army budget documents listing upgrade requirements for fiscal years 2001

and projected for 2002. We compared the requirements to the actual

budget information to identify projects not included. However, we did not

attempt to validate the Army’s upgrade requirements.

To determine the extent to which these issues affected Apache fleet

readiness, we analyzed readiness data from September 1997 through

January 2001 to identify instances in which reported readiness levels were

below established Army goals. Where readiness problems were identified,

we reviewed commanders’ comments that accompanied unit readiness

reports and interviewed Apache battalion and Aviation and Missile

Command officials to determine whether reported readiness problems

were caused by any of the conditions described in the mandate. We also

discussed factors affecting fleet readiness levels with Aviation and Missile

Command officials.

We conducted our review from August 2000 through May 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Are the Apache’s Sustainment

Systems Technical Support Need Being Met?

Page 9 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Sustainment systems technical support comprises engineering and

technical services for fielded weapon systems. Sustainment support begins

the first full fiscal year after the last item (e.g., helicopter, tank, truck, and

missile) is produced and continues until the weapon system is retired from

the Army inventory. Specific support provided includes

• engineering services in support of safety and capability modifications;

• updates to technical manuals that field and depot personnel use to

maintain weapon systems;

• updates to technical data packages, which include engineering drawings

and parts specifications; and

• on-site technical assistance to field units.

All Army sustainment support projects are funded from the “central supply

activities” subactivity group of the Army’s operation and maintenance

account. While the Army Materiel Command is responsible for managing

the funds for all Army weapon system sustainment support, the Aviation

and Missile Command has primary responsibility for about 95 percent of

the Apache’s sustainment support funds. The Army’s CommunicationsElectronics Command and the Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command

also provide some limited sustainment support for the Apache

components they manage.

The Army considers all sustainment support requirements identified by the

Aviation and Missile Command in developing the proposed operation and

maintenance budget. However, sustainment support competes with many

other programs for operation and maintenance funding. Consequently,

sustainment support funding usually falls short of identified requirements

at all levels. For example, as shown in table 1, the Army Materiel

Command received only 78.7 percent and 66.1 of the funds required for

sustainment in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, respectively.

Appendix II: Are the Apache’s Sustainment

Systems Technical Support Need Being Met?

Background

Army Process for

Funding Apache

Sustainment

Requirements
Appendix II: Are the Apache’s Sustainment

Systems Technical Support Need Being Met?

Page 10 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Table 1: Army Materiel Command Sustainment Support Requirements, Funds

Received, Unfunded Requirements, and Percent Funded for Fiscal Years 2000 and

2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Requirement

Funds

received

Unfunded

requirement

Percent

funded

2000 $346.0 $272.3 $73.7 78.7

2001 449.5 297.2 152.3 66.1

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics

and the Army Materiel Command.

Since the amount of sustainment support the Army Materiel Command

received was less than its requirements, the amount it could provide to its

subordinate commands, such as the Aviation and Missile Command, was

also constrained. According to an Army Materiel Command official, the

Aviation and Missile Command received $260.6 million for sustainment

support for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. As shown in table 2, the Aviation

and Missile Command received $60.3 million less than its sustainment

support requirements in fiscal year 2000 and about $28.7 million less in

fiscal year 2001.

Table 2. Aviation and Missile Command Sustainment Support Requirements, Funds

Received, Unfunded Requirements, and Percent Funded for Fiscal Years 2000 and

2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Requirement

Funds

received

Unfunded

requirement

Percent

funded

2000 $171.5 $111.2 $60.3 64.8

2001 178.1 149.4 28.7 83.9

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Army Materiel Command and the Aviation and Missile

Command.

The Aviation and Missile Command provided about $27.8 million of the

$28.6 million needed for Apache sustainment support in fiscal year 2000.

However, funding projections for fiscal years 2001-2003 are at a lower

level. As shown in table 3, the Aviation and Missile Command projects that

it will be able to provide only 55.6 percent of the $146.2 million Apache

sustainment support requirement during the next 3 years.
Appendix II: Are the Apache’s Sustainment

Systems Technical Support Need Being Met?

Page 11 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Table 3: Aviation and Missile Command’s Apache Sustainment Support

Requirements, Budget Estimates, and Percents for Fiscal Years 2001-2003

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Requirement Budget estimate Percent

2001 $31.4 $15.3 48.7

2002 50.2 21.0 41.8

2003 64.6 45.0 69.7

Total $146.2 $81.3 55.6

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Aviation and Missile Command.

The Army has provided guidance for prioritizing the sustainment of all

fielded weapon systems, including the Apache. The guidance breaks

sustainment requirements into six categories:

• senior leader-directed, legal, and emergency safety;

• near-term readiness;

• recapitalization;

• industrial base;

• force modernization fielding plans; and

• routine sustainment.

While the Apache is the first priority among aviation weapon systems,

such requirements as strategic intelligence; small arms; nuclear, chemical,

and biological defense; strategic mobility; and initial sustainment have

higher priorities in each of the above categories. According to an Aviation

and Missile Command official, sustainment support funding levels are

generally sufficient to satisfy the senior leader-directed, legal, and safety

requirements but not all of the near-term readiness requirements.

Consequently, lower priority projects are rarely funded.

For example, in June 2000, maintenance personnel removed a tail rotor

swashplate from an Apache helicopter after finding excessive play

between the rotating and nonrotating swashplates. Although the Army

forwarded the swashplate to Boeing (the contractor that manufactured the

helicopter) for inspection and analysis in July 2000, due to limited

sustainment support funds a contract did not exist to cover the needed

engineering analysis and investigation. Consequently, Boeing did not

perform its analysis and investigation of the tail rotor swashplate until

December 2000 when the Army had sustainment support funds available to

award a contract for the required work. The contractor’s analysis and

investigation identified a faulty overhaul process that affected 88

Army’s Priorities for

Sustainment Projects
Appendix II: Are the Apache’s Sustainment

Systems Technical Support Need Being Met?

Page 12 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

swashplates and resulted in the grounding of the Apache fleet until the

potentially faulty swashplates could be accounted for. Once the suspect

swashplates were identified and inspected, it was determined that only the

first one was defective. However, according to Army officials, more could

have been defective, and helicopters and lives could have been lost during

the 5 months the part was on the shelf awaiting funding. An Aviation and

Missile Command official stated that in the absence of sufficient

sustainment support funding to routinely investigate all quality deficiency

reports that could affect flight safety, the Command has procedures in

place to elevate the level of review and request additional funding for

specific engineering investigations when circumstances indicate a

potential safety risk to personnel or equipment. However, the external

condition of this particular component did not prompt such a request.

In another example, the Army has ordered older, but still usable, versions

of some Apache parts when newer versions are available because its

inventory records are outdated. The Army has not updated the records

since 1995 because of insufficient sustainment support funding.

Consequently, the Army must rely on its parts suppliers to identify and

correct its errors when parts are ordered. (This issue is discussed in more

detail in appendix III.)
Appendix III: Have Obsolete Parts Been

Procured?

Page 13 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

The Army and DLA manage over 15,500 Apache parts. Within the Army,

the Aviation and Missile Command manages the majority of the Apache

parts. The Aviation and Missile Command manages higher dollar value

repairable parts, while DLA primarily manages lower dollar value

consumable parts.1

 The Command maintains the Provisioning Master

Record—an inventory database used by the Army to manage and procure

Apache parts.

The Apache fleet consists of two models of the AH-64 helicopter—the

basic A-model and the upgraded D-model, including the D-model

Longbow, which is equipped with the radar-guided missile. The D-model

Apache differs from the A-model in that it is equipped with a global

positioning system, enhanced cockpit controls, an improved cooling

system, and advanced Hellfire missiles. The Longbow Apache is also

equipped with radar to give it “fire-and-forget” radar-guided Hellfire

missiles. About 175 A-model helicopters have been upgraded to the D- and

Longbow models by Boeing at its Mesa, Arizona, facility. Production of the

upgraded models is expected to continue until approximately 2006.

We found no evidence that the Army or DLA had procured obsolete (i.e.,

unusable) spare parts for the Apache helicopter. Further, Aviation and

Missile Command, DLA, and Apache program officials as well as

representatives of each of the nine major Apache parts suppliers told us

that they could not recall any instances in which obsolete or unusable

Apache parts had been purchased. Apache battalion maintenance officers

at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg also told us that they had not received

obsolete parts to fill their requisitions.

We found no evidence of obsolete parts being procured; however, the

Provisioning Master Record is outdated and the Army and DLA are

vulnerable to ordering old versions of some parts. While these parts are

still usable, they may not include the latest technological upgrades or be as

reliable as the newer versions. According to Aviation and Missile

Command officials, the Army’s Provisioning Master Record is outdated for

two reasons. First, as discussed previously, it had not been updated since

1995 because of constrained sustainment support funds.2

 Second, the

 1

Reparable parts are expensive items that can be fixed and used again, such as hydraulic

pumps, navigational computers, engines, and landing gear. Consumable parts, such as bolts

and screws, are used extensively to fix reparable parts and aircraft.

2

This issue was addressed in app. II.

Appendix III: Have Obsolete Parts Been

Procured?

Background

Obsolete Parts

Army’s Inventory

Database
Appendix III: Have Obsolete Parts Been

Procured?

Page 14 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

contract governing the upgrade of A-model aircraft to the D-model allows

Boeing to make configuration changes—which may result in newer

versions of some parts—without notifying the government. These D-model

configuration changes may also affect A-model aircraft.

Because the master record is outdated, the Army sometimes orders older

versions of spare parts when newer, more up-to-date, versions are

available. In these instances, the Army must rely on its spare parts

suppliers to identify the error and notify the Army that a newer spare part

is available. Once notified, the Army then revises its order so that it

receives the latest version. According to representatives of the Army’s nine

largest suppliers of Apache spare parts, each has procedures in place to

identify such errors and has in the past notified the Army of incorrect

orders.

The Army has contracted with Boeing to update the Provisioning Master

Record to reflect the most current version of all spare parts by September

2001 to reduce the likelihood that it will order old versions of Apache parts

in the future. Boeing officials expect to make over 33,000 changes to the

master record, affecting over 7,000 parts. This update will include the

latest information available as of December 30, 2000, and will not reflect

any changes made after that date. However, the Army plans another

update of the master record in fiscal year 2002. Additionally, the new

D-model production contract awarded in September 2000 requires Boeing

to notify the Army of all configuration changes it makes to the D-model

during production. According to Apache program officials, this change is

intended to allow the Army to better track configuration changes that

might also affect the A-model aircraft.

Corrective Actions Under

Way to Update the

Provisioning Master

Record
Appendix IV: Do Available Technical Manuals

and Technical Data Packages Meet User

Needs?

Page 15 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Technical manuals contain parts lists and maintenance information that

field unit and depot personnel use to maintain the Apache helicopters.

Apache manuals are provided in three formats: paper manuals, electronic

technical manuals, and integrated electronic technical manuals. The paper

and electronic technical manuals are used for the A-model Apache

helicopters and integrated electronic technical manuals are used for the

D-model Apache helicopters. All of the manuals contain inspection

requirements, maintenance procedures, and drawings and diagrams of

Apache parts, components, and systems. Electronic technical manuals are

searchable Acrobat files created by scanning the hard copy paper manuals

and are provided to the units on compact discs. Integrated electronic

manuals are accessed through an interactive computer program that

contains drop-down menus and offers options for obtaining information

on specific parts and repairs. The integrated electronic technical manuals

are provided through specially designed laptop computers.

Technical data packages are engineering drawings, parts lists, source data,

and process and procedure specifications that enable the Army to procure

spare parts for the helicopters. The information defines engineering and

manufacturing processes and is used to design, procure, produce, support,

maintain, operate, repair, or overhaul Apache parts.

Army officials and field and depot maintenance personnel believe the

Apache technical manuals provide the information on parts and

maintenance procedures that is necessary to maintain the helicopter.

Apache technical manuals are generally updated annually; however,

changes often occur between annual updates. The Aviation and Missile

Command issues technical bulletins to augment the information contained

in the technical manuals between annual updates. For example, technical

bulletins are used to notify maintenance personnel of safety of flight1

messages, new inspection requirements, or a change in maintenance

procedures.

The Aviation and Missile Command attempted to update the A-model

Apache technical manuals in fiscal year 2000 but experienced problems

that prevented the update. According to Command officials, the contractor

used an old version of the paper manual as the basis for identifying and

 1

A safety of flight restriction pertains to any defect or hazardous condition, actual or

potential, that can cause personal injury, death, or damage to aircraft, components, or

repair kits for which a medium to high safety risk has been determined.

Appendix IV: Do Available Technical Manuals

and Technical Data Packages Meet User

Needs?

Background

Technical Manuals
Appendix IV: Do Available Technical Manuals

and Technical Data Packages Meet User

Needs?

Page 16 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

making changes to the technical manual. Consequently, the updated

electronic files contained errors and lacked some information. The

Command identified the error during its review and acceptance of the new

file and has directed the contractor to correct the file in fiscal year 2001.

Efforts are under way to update the Apache technical manuals by

September 2001. Under this effort, the contractor will change

approximately 900 pages. According to Aviation and Missile Command

officials, this effort will include all required changes identified as of

December 30, 2000. However, it will not include any changes made after

that date.

According to Army officials, only a limited amount of technical data is

available for the A-model Apaches. Consequently, the Aviation and Missile

Command employs alternative procedures to overcome the deficiencies.

Insufficient technical data has been an ongoing problem since the early

1980s, when the Apache was procured. Technical data is often very

expensive to obtain from the original equipment manufacturers, and

program officials decided to limit the amount purchased.

To compensate for the lack of technical data, Aviation and Missile

Command officials often use alternative methods such as reverse

engineering to develop the information they need to procure spare parts.

The information gained from the reverse engineering process is also used

to update the maintenance processes in the technical manuals. This

process is time-consuming and can result in delays in getting spare parts to

the field units.2

 However, we did not find a direct link between technical

data and reported readiness rates.

 2

 This process does not apply to the D-model Apache, since it is still in production and the

manufacturer provides technical support for the helicopter. Further, the Army intends to

rely on the manufacturer for technical data support throughout the life of the D-model

helicopters and does not intend to purchase technical data packages for that model.

Technical Data

Packages
Appendix V: Are There Unfunded Component

and Airframe Upgrade Requirements?

Page 17 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Responsibility for development, justification, prioritization, and funding

decisions for Apache component and airframe upgrades rests with weapon

system program managers and the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for

Operations. Program managers determine upgrade requirements based on

safety and reliability information received from Apache units and

contractors. The Apache program manager prioritizes and ranks the

requirements based on his knowledge of reliability and maintenance issues

and those items users identify as the highest priority. The program

manager’s requirements are forwarded to the Army’s Office of the Deputy

Chief of Staff for Operations, where the requirements for the Apache, as

well as all other weapon systems, are reviewed and validated. The Deputy

Chief of Staff for Operations makes final decisions on the projects to be

funded and may or may not choose those projects designated as highest

priority by the program manager. The two highest priority requirements

are generally funded. The remaining requirements are considered

unfunded in the current fiscal year and may appear on the next fiscal

year’s requirement list.

Component upgrades are primarily paid for using procurement funds from

the Army’s aircraft procurement account. These funds are used for

projects related to procurement, production, modification, modernization,

engineering, and acceptance testing of the aircraft and its related ground

support equipment.

In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Army identified unfunded requirements

totaling over $168 million and $158 million, respectively, for component

upgrades to the Apache helicopter. As shown in tables 4 and 5, the

component upgrades include various projects, ranging from a new

onboard video recorder to an upgrade of critical aircraft components such

as main transmissions, the main rotor head, and the main landing gear.

Additionally, items such as internal auxiliary fuel systems, advanced rotor

systems, drive system improvements, and video transmission receptions

appear as unfunded requirements in both fiscal years. With the exception

of the Common Engine Program, all of the component upgrade projects

are to be paid for with procurement funds.

Appendix V: Are There Unfunded Component

and Airframe Upgrade Requirements?

Background

Component Upgrades
Appendix V: Are There Unfunded Component

and Airframe Upgrade Requirements?

Page 18 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2001 Unfunded Requirements for Component Upgrades (as of

September 1999)

Dollars in millions

Project Purpose

Amount

unfunded

Internal Auxiliary Fuel

System

Provide integration and retrofit for 98-108-

gallon extended range fuel tank and

approximately 240-round 30-millimeter

ammunition pack.

 $16.2

APR-39(v) Radar Warning

Receiver 1553 Card

Eliminate obsolete parts on the radar

warning receiver circuit card assembly and

recurring costs to procure 298 assemblies.

 1.4

Advanced Apache Rotor

System

Procure 530 sets of new, lower cost,

composite rotors with improved

performance, reliability, and

maintainability.

79.3

Drive System

Improvement

Upgrade the Apache Drive System to

include intermediate, tail rotor, and nose

gearboxes; transmissions; and tail rotor

drive shafts.

47.5

Common Engine Program Provide a new, more powerful engine, to

be used on the AH-64D, UH-60 and SH-60

aircraft.

 2.7

Fire Control Radar Air-to

Air Enhancement

Procure and integrate the air-to-air

enhancement modification on 227 aircraft

equipped with fire control radar.

 1.6

Multimode Laser Upgrade the Laser Range

Finder/Designator of the Target Acquisition

Designator Sight.

17.6

Video Transmission

Reception

Provide ability to transmit battlefield video

to desired location, providing/receiving

intelligence and damage assessments in

530 aircraft.

 1.0

Apache Main Rotor Blade

Repair

Repair 252 main rotor blades. 1.0

Video Recorder Upgrade Upgrade onboard mission video recorder

for 530 aircraft.

 0.3

30MM Turret Diagnostic

Testing

Ensure 30-millimeter turret meets MultiRole Area Weapon System specifications

and accuracy requirements.

 0.2

Total $168.8

Source: Aviation Program Executive Office.
Appendix V: Are There Unfunded Component

and Airframe Upgrade Requirements?

Page 19 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2002 Unfunded Requirements for Component Upgrades (as of

February 2001)

Dollars in millions

Requirement Purpose

Projected

amount

unfunded

Internal Auxiliary Fuel

System

Purchase and integration of A and B kits for

internal, crashworthy, ballistically tolerant

100-gallon fuel tank, and 246-round 30-

millimeter ammunition storage magazine.

Army expects to fund $10.7 million for this

project in fiscal year 2002.

$4.6

Video Recorder Upgrade Upgrade onboard mission video recorder for

505 Apache aircraft (214 A-models and 291

D-models).

 4.8

Video Transmission

Reception

Provide ability to transmit battlefield video to

desired location, providing/receiving

intelligence and damage assessment

(upgrade for entire fleet of 743 aircraft).

 1.0

Aerial Rocket Control

System

Rebuild rocket control panel for 408 Apache

aircraft to correct uncommanded rocket

launches.

 2.6

RFI Frequency Extension Expand frequency coverage of the Radio

Frequency Interferometer to enable

identification of newly deployed emitters.

 4.0

AH-64A Reliability and

Safety Enhancement

Accelerate program for A-model Apache

upgrades for multiple components including

main transmissions, main rotor heads, gun

turrets, and main landing gear. Army

expects to fund $2.86 million for this project

in fiscal year 2002.

44.9

AH-64 D Multi-year II

Procurement

Procure 6 Longbows in fiscal year 2002 out

of 99 additional aircraft planned to achieve

a total requirement of 600 Longbows.

48.7

AH-64D Reliability and

Enhancement

Accelerate program for D-model Apache

upgrades for main transmission overhauls

with new sprag clutches, main rotor head

with new strap packs, engine nose

gearboxes, and other upgrades. Army

expects to fund $5.7 million for this project

in fiscal year 2002.

25.5

Advanced Apache Rotor

System

Develop and procure a new lower cost

composite rotor for 600 Apache A- and

D-model aircraft with improved

performance, reliability, and maintainability.

15.7

Drive System Improvement Upgrade the system to include intermediate,

tail rotor and nose gearboxes;

transmissions; and tail rotor drive shafts.

 6.9

Total $158.9

Source: Army Deputy Chief of Staff of Operations.
Appendix V: Are There Unfunded Component

and Airframe Upgrade Requirements?

Page 20 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

In discussing our draft report in early May 2001, Army officials told us that

they are rethinking how the Apache will be used in the future and are

considering withdrawing the fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirements for

component upgrades described in Table 5. According to program officials,

this decision is part of an effort to alleviate pressure on the Army to cancel

the second phase of the Longbow procurement contract and to focus on

the Army’s aviation recapitalization effort. However, Army officials did not

provide documentation supporting the planned withdrawal of the fiscal

year 2002 unfunded component upgrade requirements.

According to Army officials, there are no unfunded requirements for

airframe upgrades because such upgrades are a part of the recapitalization

program. Recapitalization is defined as the rebuild and selected upgrade of

currently fielded systems to ensure operational readiness and extend the

operational life of the system. The purpose of the program is not only to

restore equipment to its original condition but also to insert new

technology to enhance the system’s capability, reliability, safety, and

sustainability. Airframe upgrades include strengthening the metal in the

airframe by improving the bulkhead mounts, slot closures to repair

vibrations to the tail of the aircraft, and stiffening of the aircraft’s frame to

reduce vibrations.

Unfunded

Requirements for

Airframe Upgrades
Appendix VI: Have the Mandate Issues

Affected Apache Fleet Readiness?

Page 21 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

The Army has established procedures for reporting on the physical

condition and ability/inability of its weapon systems to perform their

intended missions. The Army uses a weapon system’s availability for

missions to indicate its reliability, maintainability, and associated

problems. The Army’s measures of availability are "fully mission capable,"

"partially mission capable", and "not mission capable." The Army

designates a weapon system as fully mission capable when it can perform

all of its assigned combat missions without endangering the lives of its

crew or operators. A weapon system is partially mission capable when it is

safely usable and can perform one or more but not all of its missions. The

Army considers a weapons system “mission capable” when it is in either

the fully or partially mission capable category. A weapon system is not

mission capable when it cannot perform any of its assigned missions

because of either maintenance or supply problems. The Army’s fully

mission capable goal for the Apache is for the helicopter to be able to

perform its intended mission 70 percent of the time. The mission capable

goal for the Apache is 75 percent.

As indicated in figure 1, the Apache fleet generally did not meet the Army’s

fully mission capable goal from September 1997 through January 2001.

Appendix VI: Have the Mandate Issues

Affected Apache Fleet Readiness?

Background

Apache’s Ability to

Meet Readiness Goals
Appendix VI: Have the Mandate Issues

Affected Apache Fleet Readiness?

Page 22 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Figure 1: Total Apache Fleet Fully Mission Capable Rates (Sept. 1997 through

Jan. 2001)

Source: Aviation and Missile Command.

Our examination of Apache readiness data and interviews with readiness

officials did not indicate that any of the issues we reviewed contributed to

the failure to achieve readiness goals. Rather, the fleet fell short of the

Army’s fully mission capable goal because of safety-of-flight actions and

low readiness levels experienced by Army Reserve and National Guard

units. However, sustainment support is critical to maintaining weapon

system readiness. For example, in an October 2000 information paper

proposing a change in sustainment support budgeting practices, Army

officials noted that the deferral of engineering efforts required to eliminate

technical obsolescence and to process engineering changes has affected

Apache readiness.

Although overall fleet fully mission capable rates were generally below the

Army’s goal, active units met or exceeded the goal with the exception of

two periods when safety-of-flight actions grounded the entire Apache fleet,

as shown in figure 2.

Active Apache Units' Fully

Mission Capable Rates

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Actual Goal

Sept. 1997 May 1998 Jan. 1999 Sept. 1999 May 2000 Jan. 2001
Appendix VI: Have the Mandate Issues

Affected Apache Fleet Readiness?

Page 23 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Figure 2: Active Army Apache Fully Mission Capable Rates (Sept. 1997 through

Jan. 2001)

Source: Aviation and Missile Command.

Between November 1999 and April 2000, the fleet was grounded because

of two flight safety issues that occurred almost simultaneously in

November 1999. In the first instance, the Apache fleet was grounded

following an accident caused by the failure of transmission accessory

gearbox clutches.1

 The second problem resulted from the failure of hanger

bearing assemblies in the tail rotor drive shaft.2

 The fleet was grounded

again in December 2000 because of the tail rotor swashplate assembly

problem described in appendix II.

 1

The transmission accessory gearbox clutches provide a primary and backup mechanical

drive between the main transmission and the accessory gearbox. If both accessory gearbox

clutches fail in flight, the helicopter will lose its primary electrical, hydraulic, and

pneumatic power systems.

2

Hanger bearing assemblies (two per helicopter) provide alignment, coupling and support

for three of the helicopter’s tail rotor drive shaft sections. If either hanger bearing assembly

fails, the helicopter will lose power to its tail rotor system.

0

20

40

60

80

100 Percent

Actual Goal

Sept. 1997 May 1998 Jan. 1999 Sept. 1999 May 2000 Jan. 2001
Appendix VI: Have the Mandate Issues

Affected Apache Fleet Readiness?

Page 24 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Army Reserve and National Guard Apache units reported readiness rates

lower than the Army’s goal during the period we examined, as shown in

figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3: Army Reserve Apache Fully Mission Capable Rates (Sept. 1997 through

Jan. 2001)

Source: Aviation and Missile Command.

Reserve Component Units'

Fully Mission Capable

Rates

Actual Goal

0

20

40

60

80

100 Percent

Sept. 1997 May 1998 Jan. 1999 Sept. 1999 May 2000 Jan. 2001
Appendix VI: Have the Mandate Issues

Affected Apache Fleet Readiness?

Page 25 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Figure 4: Army National Guard Apache Fully Mission Capable Rates (Sept. 1997

through Jan. 2001)

Source: Aviation and Missile Command.

According to an Army Reserve official, the Reserve units generally report

lower readiness rates than the active units because they have (1) a lower

priority for obtaining spare parts and (2) a shortage of maintenance

personnel in their Apache battalions. Army National Guard units report

even lower readiness rates than their Army Reserve counterparts. An

Army National Guard official stated that that National Guard Apache units

report lower readiness rates because they (1) are funded at a lower level

than active units; (2) have a lower priority for obtaining spare parts, and

therefore, do not receive parts as quickly as their active counterparts; and

(3) have some of the oldest Apaches in the fleet that are less reliable.

0

20

40

60

80

100 Percent

Actual Goal

Sept. 1997 May 1998 Jan. 1999 Sept. 1999 May 2000 Jan. 2001
Appendix VII: Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 26 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Appendix VII: Comments From the

Department of Defense
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts

and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 27 GAO-01-630 Defense Logistics

Gary Billen (214) 777-5703

Penney Harwell (214) 777-5611

In addition to those named above, Lou Modliszewski, Pam Valentine,

John Brosnan, and Nancy Ragsdale made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

(709534)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

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

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

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.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

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

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs