United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

October 1997 FUTURE YEARS

DEFENSE PROGRAM

DOD’s 1998 Plan Has

Substantial Risk in

Execution

GAO/NSIAD-98-26

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-277841 

October 23, 1997

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.

United States Senate

Since its bottom-up review in 1993, the Department of Defense (DOD) has

repeatedly stated that it must reduce its infrastructure to offset the cost of

future modern weapon systems. Our analysis of DOD’s Future Years

Defense Programs (FYDP) for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 showed that DOD

continued to allocate about the same percentage of its budget for

infrastructure activities as it did at the time of the bottom-up review and

that planned weapon systems increases had repeatedly been shifted

further into the future with each succeeding FYDP.

1

 As requested, we

compared DOD’s fiscal year 1998 FYDP with the FYDP for fiscal year 1997.

Specifically, we determined (1) how major programs were adjusted from

the 1997 FYDP to the 1998 FYDP and (2) how these adjustments may affect

programs in the future. We also identified proposed Quadrennial Defense

Review (QDR) initiatives that could impact future FYDPs. We do not reflect

any adjustments that may have been taken by the Committees on

Authorizations and Appropriations during their reviews of the fiscal 

year 1998 defense budget request.

Background An objective of DOD’s 1993 Report on the Bottom-Up Review was to

identify potential infrastructure savings and to launch a long-term process

to reduce and streamline DOD’s infrastructure without harming readiness.

The report stated that infrastructure activities accounted for $160 billion in

fiscal year 1994, or about 60 percent of DOD’s total obligational authority.

DOD defines infrastructure as those activities that provide services to

mission programs, such as combat forces, and primarily operate from

fixed locations.

Our analysis of DOD’s FYDPs and infrastructure activities over the past few

years showed that the infrastructure portion of DOD’s budget had not

1

Future Years Defense Program: Lower Inflation Outlook Was Most Significant Change From 1996 to

1997 Program (GAO/NSIAD-97-36, Dec. 12, 1996); Defense Infrastructure: Costs Projected to Increase

Between 1997 and 2001 (GAO/NSIAD-96-174, May 31, 1996); and Future Years Defense Program: 1996

Program Is Considerably Different From the 1995 Program (GAO/NSIAD-95-213, Sept. 15, 1995).

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

decreased as DOD planned. As explained in our previous reports, about

80 percent of DOD’s infrastructure activities are paid for from the military

personnel and operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts. Therefore, if

DOD is to free up dollars for weapons modernization, it must reduce

funding requirements for these accounts.

The FYDP is an authoritative record of current and projected force

structure, costs, and personnel levels that have been approved by the

Secretary of Defense. The 1997 FYDP supported the President’s fiscal 

year 1997 budget and included budget estimates for fiscal years 1997-2001.

The 1998 FYDP supports the President’s fiscal year 1998 budget and

includes budget estimates for fiscal years 1998-2003.

In May 1997, DOD completed its first QDR. The QDR was required by the

Military Force Structure Review Act, which was included in the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (P.L. 104-201). DOD said

that it designed the QDR to be a fundamental and comprehensive

examination of America’s defense needs from 1997 to 2015. It considered

potential threats, strategy, force structure, readiness posture, military

modernization programs, defense infrastructure, and other elements of the

defense program. The QDR is intended to provide a blueprint for a

strategy-based, balanced, and affordable defense program. DOD plans to

incorporate many of the details of the QDR blueprint into its fiscal 

year 1999 budget and FYDP for fiscal years 1999-2003.

Results in Brief Our comparison of the 4 years common to both DOD’s fiscal year 1998 FYDP

and 1997 FYDP (1998-2001) shows that funding for military personnel; O&M;

and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) is projected to be

higher and funding for procurement is projected to be lower than

anticipated 1 year ago. For the fourth straight budget year since 1995, DOD

has not met its procurement goals established in previous FYDPs.

The 1998 FYDP retains substantial risk that DOD’s program will not be

executed as planned. Although the 1998 FYDP projects that a smaller

percentage of DOD’s total budget will be needed to pay for infrastructure

activities than that projected in the 1997 FYDP, DOD’s projections are

questionable. For example, the 1998 FYDP projects billions of dollars in

savings due to management initiatives, but DOD does not have details on

how all the savings will be achieved. Also, DOD projects no real growth in

the cost of the Defense Health Program during 1998-2001, whereas O&M

funds in DOD’s health program increased 73 percent in real terms during

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

1985-96. Another reason we believe the 1998 FYDP poses risks is that the

estimates for procurement spending, in relation to DOD’s total budget and

its O&M projections, run counter to DOD’s experience over the last 30 years.

DOD acknowledged in its May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense

Review that the 1998 FYDP includes substantial financial risk. The Secretary

has stated that absent any further changes, the fiscal patterns and

assumptions embedded in the 1998 FYDP are most likely not going to free

up sufficient funds to achieve DOD’s modernization goals. According to

DOD, compared to the 1998 FYDP, the QDR proposes a more balanced,

modern, and capable defense program that can be achieved within

currently proposed budgets. To accomplish its goals, DOD proposes that it

reduce personnel, make some modest changes in force structure, realize

additional infrastructure savings through fundamental reforms and base

realignments and closures, and continue to improve its business

operations. The success of these initiatives will require discipline,

execution, and aggressive follow-through on the part of DOD management.

On some important initiatives, such as base closures and military

personnel reductions, DOD will need congressional approval.

The 1998 FYDP

Reflects Some Change

Since the 1997 FYDP

but Retains

Substantial Risk in

Execution

The 1997 FYDP, which totaled $1,281 billion, represented DOD’s 5-year

program through fiscal year 2001.2

 The 1998 FYDP, which totals

$1,607 billion, covers the 6-year period through fiscal year 2003. The 1997

plan overlaps the 1998 plan for the 4 years 1998-2001. Table 1 compares

the two plans, by appropriation.

2

Unless otherwise stated, the dollar values shown in this report are in current dollars and on a fiscal

year basis.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

Table 1: DOD’s 1997 and 1998 FYDPs, by Appropriation

Fiscal year

Total

Dollars in billions

Appropriation FYDP 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1997

FYDP

1998

FYDP

Military personnel FY 1997 $69.8 $69.2 $70.0 $71.1 $73.1 $353.2

FY 1998 69.5 70.1 71.4 73.3 $75.3 $77.5 $437.1

Change 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2

Operation and maintenance FY 1997 89.1 88.6 90.1 92.3 95.9 456.0

FY 1998 93.5 91.4 92.0 93.8 91.8 95.2 557.7

Change 4.9 1.3 –0.3 –2.1

Procurement FY 1997 38.9 45.5 50.5 57.7 60.1 252.7

FY 1998 42.6 50.7 57.0 60.7 68.3 68.0 347.3

Change –2.9 0.2 –0.7 0.6

Research, development, test, and

evaluation

FY 1997 34.7 35.0 33.7 31.9 31.7 167.0

FY 1998 35.9 35.0 33.4 32.9 34.2 35.8 207.2

Change 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.2

Military construction FY 1997 5.5 4.8 4.7 4.1 4.2 23.3

FY 1998 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.4 3.4 24.4

Change 0 –0.4 0.2 0

Family housing FY 1997 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 20.1

FY 1998 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 23.6

Change 0 –0.1 –0.2 –0.1

Other FY 1997 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.4 8.7

FY 1998 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 9.4

Change 0.1 –0.2 0.0 0.0

Total FY 1997 $244.0 $249.0 $255.1 $262.5 $270.4 $1,281.0

FY 1998 $252.2 $257.2 $263.5 $270.3 $278.2 $285.3 $1,606.7

Change $3.2 $2.1 $1.0 –$0.1

Note: Program estimates in DOD’s FYDP are expressed in total obligational authority, which is the

sum of the new budget authority provided for a given fiscal year and any other amounts

authorized to be credited to a specific fund or account during that year, including transfers

between funds or accounts. Total obligational authority may not reflect the precise budget

authority adjustments made in the President’s budget. Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: 1997 and 1998 FYDPs.

Focusing on the years common to both FYDPs, table 1 shows that the costs

of military personnel; O&M; and RDT&E are higher than previously planned,

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

while planned procurement spending is reduced. Specifically, the 1998

FYDP adds about $1 billion to the military personnel accounts, $3.7 billion

to O&M accounts, and $4.9 billion to RDT&E accounts and reduces planned

procurement spending by $2.8 billion. Increases in the O&M accounts and

decreases in the procurement accounts are inverse to DOD’s goals since the

bottom-up review, which have been to reduce infrastructure and increase

funding for weapons modernization. This is the fourth straight budget year

since 1995 that DOD has not met procurement goals established in previous

FYDPs.

Savings achieved from infrastructure reductions have too often not been

as large as anticipated and tended to be absorbed by unplanned or

underestimated expenses in day-to-day operations. According to DOD, the

most prevalent underestimated expenses are for depot maintenance, real

property maintenance, military construction, and medical care. Because of

unrealized savings, weapons modernization plans have repeatedly been

delayed.

Defense budgets are planned to remain relatively flat in inflation-adjusted

terms through 2003 as part of the balanced budget agreement. Therefore, if

DOD is to achieve real growth in the procurement accounts, it must reduce

funding for its infrastructure activities.

The 1997 FYDP projected that spending for infrastructure would decline

slightly from 58 percent to 57 percent of DOD’s budget during 1998-2001.

The 1998 FYDP shows that spending for infrastructure is projected to

decline from 58 percent to about 55 percent of DOD’s budget from 1998

through 2001 and further decline to 54 percent through 2003. This planned

decline in infrastructure spending is predicated primarily on planned

reductions in O&M accounts. Our review of these and other accounts and

DOD’s own review of the current FYDP found risks that sufficient reductions

will not occur and that planned procurement increases will not

materialize. We discuss these risks in later sections of this report.

QDR Finds That Program

Changes Must Be Made to

Mitigate Known Cost Risks

In the QDR report, the Secretary of Defense expressed doubts that the 1998

FYDP goes far enough to break the cycle of the migration of funds from

planned procurement to unplanned expenses. Specifically, the report

states the following:

“Based on an assessment of recent patterns and the assumptions embedded in the current

six-year plan, the QDR concluded that there was a potential for annual migration to

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

unplanned expenses of as much as $10-$12 billion per year in the later years of the plan.

Migration in that range would undermine much of the planned increase in procurement.

Instead of growing to $60 billion, procurement funding could be expected to stall in the

range of $45 to $50 billion. Some growth from the FY 1998 level could be expected from

ongoing efforts to reduce the cost of defense infrastructure and from the natural transition

of several major programs from development to production. Absent any further changes to

the defense program, however, growth above $50 billion would be highly unlikely.”

A principal resource management objective of the QDR was to understand

the financial risk in DOD’s program plans and devise ways to manage that

risk. In the QDR report, the Secretary recognizes the sources of instability

that are built into the current FYDP and presents plans to mitigate that

instability through more realistic planning assumptions in the 1999 FYDP.

Those assumptions include making some force structure reductions and

greater personnel reductions, shedding additional excess facilities through

more base closures and realignments, streamlining operations, and

proceeding more prudently on the acquisitions of new weapons. DOD

recognizes in the report that it will need congressional approval to

accomplish some of the more significant cost-reduction measures, such as

additional base closures and military personnel reductions. In appendix I,

we discuss specific QDR proposals that could impact future defense

programs.

Fiscal Year 1998

Program Provides for

Small Increase in

Active Military

Personnel

By comparing the 1998 FYDP with the 1997 FYDP, we found that during fiscal

years 1998-2001, active duty military personnel and the comparable

military personnel accounts have net increases of 4,655 personnel and

$929 million, respectively. The overall increases are due to changes in the

active Army. The Army has programmed 10,000 more military personnel by

the end of 1998 and an additional 10,000 personnel in 1999 for a total

increase of 20,000 from the 1997 FYDP.

3

 The Air Force and Navy have

programmed personnel decreases in every year for the common period,

and the Marine Corps’ 1998 personnel remains unchanged from the 1997

FYDP.

Within the active components, some military personnel programs

expected to receive the largest cumulative funding increases during

1998-2001 are the Army’s recruit training ($1.8 billion), general skill

training ($1.4 billion), and integrated recruit and skill training

($965 million). Some of the largest cumulative decreases in military

3

According to an Army official, contrary to what the 1998 FYDP shows, the Army will end 1997 with

about 490,000 active duty personnel and plans to be down to about 480,000 personnel by the end of

1999.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

personnel costs are projected for the Navy’s general skill training

($547 million) and the Army’s and Air Force’s defense medical centers,

station hospitals, and medical clinics ($249 million and $191 million,

respectively). Appendix II provides a description of these and other

programs identified in this report.

The 1998 FYDP shows that the Navy and Air Force plan to lower active duty

force levels in fiscal years 1998-2003 by 3,319 and 6,031, respectively. The

planned decreases would bring force levels below the permanent

end-strength levels set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1996. If DOD is precluded from implementing its planned

personnel reductions, it will have to make other compensating

adjustments to its overall program.

Risks in Executing

O&M Plans

Overall, a comparison of the 1998 FYDP with the 1997 FYDP shows an

increase of $3.7 billion in O&M funding during 1998-2001. By service, the

1998 FYDP projections differ considerably from the 1997 projections when

comparing dollar values in the common 4-year period. The Air Force’s

1998 FYDP projections are higher than the 1997 FYDP projections in every

year. Air Force programs that are projected to receive the largest

cumulative gains between 1998 and 2001 are base operations for tactical

air forces ($904 million), training ($525 million), and F-15A/B/C/D

squadrons ($410 million). The Air Force program, logistics operations

other than working capital funds, has the largest projected cumulative

decrease during the common period—$437 million.

The Navy and Marine Corps 1998 FYDP O&M estimates are higher in 1998

and 1999, with decreases in 2000 and 2001. The Navy’s largest projected

cumulative increases include nonindustrially funded depot maintenance

($564 million) and administrative base operations ($418 million). The

Marine Corps’ largest projected cumulative increase is for other combat

support ($444 million). The largest cumulative projected decreases are in

the Navy’s logistics support activities ($330 million) and in the Marine

Corps’ other personnel activities program ($302 million).

In contrast, the Army’s 1998 FYDP O&M funds are lower in every year than

the 1997 FYDP. Some of the Army’s largest projected cumulative decreases

are in real property maintenance ($800 million) and nonindustrially funded

depot maintenance ($622 million). Despite lower 1998 FYDP levels, Army

base operations increase by $2.3 billion during 1998-2001.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

According to the Secretary of Defense, support costs have been

consistently underestimated in recent years. In underestimating costs, DOD

risks the execution of its program as originally desired. The following

sections describe significant influences on the O&M accounts.

Operational Changes in

Bosnia Could Lead to

Higher O&M Costs

Part of the higher 1998 O&M level in the 1998 FYDP is due to DOD’s request

for almost $1.5 billion for Bosnia operations.4

 In July 1997, we reported

that recent operational decisions will increase the cost estimate for 1998

and that other decisions, such as changes in the size and composition of

the force and the timing of withdrawal, could lead to further increases in

the O&M cost estimate for 1998.5

Large Projected Savings in

O&M Dependent on

Management Initiatives

DOD is depending on a number of management initiatives, both defined and

undefined, to achieve large savings in future O&M costs. For example,

undefined savings of $600 million in 2001 were included in the 1998 FYDP.

These savings were not in the 1997 FYDP. Moreover, additional savings of

$4.2 billion and $3 billion are projected in 2002 and 2003, respectively.

According to DOD officials, the savings were programmed by the Office of

the Secretary of Defense, although details do not exist on how the savings

will be achieved. In addition to these savings to be generated through

undefined initiatives, DOD has programmed over $16 billion in savings from

defined initiatives. These include outsourcing installation support,

improving maintenance processes, improving material management

processes, consolidating inventory control points, and reducing the

life-cycle costs of weapon systems by reducing the operation and support

costs for fielded and new systems.

Base Closure Savings Have

Been Difficult to Precisely

Estimate

In reporting on lessons learned from prior base closure rounds, we noted

that costs associated with closing bases can be significant; savings, though

not well documented, are expected to be substantial; and achieving annual

recurring savings to offset costs may take several years.6

 However, the

exact amount of actual savings realized from base closure actions is

uncertain.

4

The 1997 FYDP did not include any funds for Bosnia beyond fiscal year 1997.

5

Bosnia: Cost Estimating Has Improved, but Operational Changes Will Affect Current Estimates

(GAO/NSIAD-97-183, July 28, 1997).

6

Military Bases: Lessons Learned From Prior Base Closure Rounds (GAO/NSIAD-97-151, July 25, 1997).

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

In the 1997 FYDP, the Air Force was the only service that projected savings

from the fourth round of base closures. The savings was projected at

$586 million during 1998-2001. The 1998 FYDP projects total Air Force

savings of $119 million for these 4 years, $467 million less than the 1997

FYDP. Moreover, the savings slip to 1999-2001. The 1998 FYDP also includes

projected savings for the Navy from the fourth round of base closures.

However, the Navy’s projected savings in the FYDP of $687 million in 2000

and 2001 is incorrect. According to the Navy, this estimate is for

outsourcing and competition initiatives. Instead, base closure savings

projections should show $1.3 billion for 1998-99, with steady state annual

savings of $732 million thereafter.

Estimates for Lower

Health Care Costs May Be

Unrealistic

The Defense Health Program, approximately 11 percent of projected

annual O&M spending, changes considerably from the 1997 FYDP to the 1998

FYDP. When compared with the 1997 FYDP, the 1998 FYDP shows lower

funding levels between 1998 and 2001. Figure 1 shows funding levels for

the Defense Health Program for the entire period covering the 1997 and

1998 FYDPs.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

Figure 1: Defense Health Program Funding for the 1997 and 1998 FYDPs

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

Fiscal year

Dollars in billions

1997 FYDP 1998 FYDP

Source: DOD FYDP data.

DOD significantly underbudgeted the 1997 O&M Defense Health Program,

and Congress appropriated additional funds for the program. Shortfalls

continue in the 1998 FYDP in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, as documented by

DOD in the 1998 President’s budget submission. Moreover, when the

program in the 1998 FYDP is viewed in constant dollars, DOD projects no

growth between fiscal year 1998 and 2001.7

 This appears to be unrealistic,

given that during fiscal years 1985-96, O&M funds in DOD’s health program

increased 73 percent in real terms. In addition, our analysis of the Defense

Health Program during the 1998 FYDP development showed that one key

assumption DOD used to estimate future program costs appeared to be

unrealistic and another was questionable.8

 Although DOD’s budget

7

The 1997 FYDP had 5.8 percent real growth between fiscal year 1998 and 2001.

8

Defense Health Program: Future Costs Are Likely to Be Greater Than Estimated

(GAO/NSIAD-97-83BR, Feb. 21, 1997).

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

assumptions appear to be optimistic, the extent to which future costs

might exceed the budget estimates is unknown.

Civilian Personnel Levels

Are Projected to Decline

Steadily

Civilian personnel levels have a direct effect on O&M costs because

civilians’ salaries and benefits account for about 40 percent of annual O&M

appropriations.9 Overall, civilian personnel levels continue downward at

nearly the same rate in the common period in both FYDPs. In the 1997 FYDP,

the total number of civilian personnel was projected to decline 6.2 percent

between fiscal year 1998 and 2001. During the same period in the 1998

FYDP, the number of civilians is projected to decrease at a rate of

6.6 percent.

Risks That

Procurement Plans

May Not Succeed

The 1998 FYDP reflects a net decline in planned procurement during the 

4 years common to the 1997 FYDP. The largest decline is in 1998, for which

the President’s budget requested $42.6 billion in lieu of the $45.5 billion

projected in last year’s FYDP. Projected spending declined by 10 percent or

more over the common years for some major programs, including the

Advanced Tactical Fighter, Abrams tank upgrade, Bradley base

sustainment, Javelin and Hellfire missiles, UH-60 Blackhawk and SH-60

helicopters, Medium Launch Space Vehicle, Joint Standoff Weapon, and

Global Positioning System.

Both the 1997 and 1998 FYDPs anticipate procurement spending of

$60 billion in 2001. The 1998 FYDP projects that procurement costs will

increase to about $68 billion for 2002 and remain at that level for 2003.

The 1998 FYDP procurement accounts include funds reserved for

modernization that were not included in the 1997 FYDP. These funds total

$19.8 billion for 1999-2003. Table 2 shows the allocation of these funds by

year.

Table 2: Proposed Modernization

Reserve, by Fiscal Year Dollars in millions

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Reserve $965 $1,783 $2,454 $6,640 $8,003

Source: 1998 FYDP.

9

Approximately 87 percent of DOD civilian payroll costs are paid from O&M appropriations. The

remainder is funded from the RDT&E, military construction, and family housing appropriation

accounts.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

DOD has programmed the funds in anticipation that savings will be

achieved from reduced operating costs and that the savings will become

available for procurement. However, DOD has not assigned these projected

funds to specific programs.

With each FYDP from fiscal year 1995 to 1997, DOD has not met its plans to

increase procurement. There is risk that DOD’s 1998 plan also may not

succeed. Since 1965, O&M spending has increased consistently with

increases in procurement spending. However, the 1998 FYDP shows that

DOD plans to change that historical relationship from 1998 through 2003 by

increasing procurement while decreasing O&M spending. Figure 2 shows

the historical and projected relationship between O&M and procurement

spending.

Figure 2: Historical and Projected Relationship Between Procurement and O&M Spending in Constant 1998 Dollars

1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fiscal year

Dollars in billions

O&M Procurement Projected

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

DOD’s plans for procurement spending in the 1998 FYDP also run counter to

another historical trend. Specifically, DOD procurement spending rises and

falls in nearly direct proportion to movements in its total budget. However,

DOD projects that procurement funding will rise in real terms during

1998-2003 by about 43 percent while the total DOD budget remains

relatively flat. Figure 3 shows the historical trend and DOD’s FYDP

projections.

Figure 3: Historical and Projected Relationship Between Procurement Spending and DOD’s Total Budget in Constant 1998

Dollars

1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Fiscal year

Dollars in billions

Total DOD Procurement Projected

DOD’s plans to increase procurement funding to pay for modern weapon

systems will also have to provide for potential cost growth in existing

systems. Program cost increases and schedule delays are two of the

oldest, most prevalent, and most visible problems associated with weapon

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

systems development and procurement. In 1994, we reported that program

cost increases of 20 to 40 percent have been common for major weapon

programs, with numerous programs experiencing increases much greater

than that.10 A 1993 RAND study of weapon system cost growth prepared

for the Air Force concluded that there had been no substantial reduction

in the average cost growth of weapon systems over the last 30 years,

despite the implementation of several initiatives intended to mitigate the

effects of cost risk and the associated cost growth.11

We continue to find examples of program projections that appear to be

overly optimistic. For example, in our 1997 high-risk report, we noted that

the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Program contained significant

schedule and cost risk.12 The plan is to develop and initially deploy the Air

Force’s most capable precision-guided munition in 5 years for no more

than $700,000 per missile. However, the plan does not appear to allow

enough time to develop and test the munition’s complex technology and to

integrate the missile into the appropriate aircraft.

In June 1997, we reported that we were skeptical the Air Force could

achieve planned production cost reductions of $13 billion proposed in its

F-22 fighter aircraft program.13 The planned reductions in F-22 unit costs

are greater than achieved in prior fighter programs, and initiatives to

reduce the production costs are not fully developed. As a result of the QDR

analysis, DOD has decided to reduce total procurement of F-22s by about

100 aircraft, in part due to its own overall affordability concerns.

RDT&E Projected to

Increase

Total projected RDT&E funding for the 4 common years increases from

$132 billion in the 1997 FYDP to $137 billion in the 1998 FYDP—an increase

of $5 billion. Table 3 shows total planned funding for the seven budget

activities of RDT&E during 1998-2001 in both the 1997 and 1998 FYDPs.

10Future Years Defense Program: Optimistic Estimates Lead to Billions in Overprogramming

(GAO/NSIAD-94-210, July 29, 1994).

11An Analysis of Weapon System Cost Growth (RAND, MR-291-AF, 1993).

12Defense Weapon Systems Acquisition (GAO/HR-97-6, Feb. 1997).

13Tactical Aircraft: Restructuring of the Air Force F-22 Fighter Program (GAO/NSIAD-97-156, June 4,

1997).

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

Table 3: Planned Funding for RDT&E

by Budget Activity During the 4

Common Years of 1997 and 1998

FYDPs

Dollars in millions

RDT&E budget activity 1997 FYDP 1998 FYDP Change

Basic research $5,167 $4,877 –$290

Applied research 12,434 12,174 –260

Advanced technology development 13,896 14,013 117

Demonstration and validation 17,606 19,045 1,439

Engineering and manufacturing development 29,505 31,276 1,771

RDT&E management support 11,908 12,397 489

Operational systems development 41,749 43,497 1,749

Total $132,265 $137,279 $5,014

Source: 1997 and 1998 FYDPs.

As table 3 shows, the $5-billion increase is almost totally allotted to three

budget activities—demonstration and validation, engineering and

manufacturing development, and operational systems development. Two

accounts were reduced slightly over the period—basic and applied

research.

Programs for which funding was significantly increased over the common

years of both FYDPs include the Joint Strike Fighter ($223 million), airborne

laser technology ($307 million), B-1B bomber enhancements

($114 million), and dual-use applications programs ($120 million).

Programs for which funding was significantly reduced over the common

years of both FYDPs include experimental evaluation of major innovative

technologies ($2.9 billion), defense airborne reconnaissance ($1.7 billion),

advanced military satellite communications ($567 million), and the

advanced technology transition program ($125 million).

Significant Changes in

Funding for Military

Construction

Programs

The overall funding level for military construction changed little between

the 1997 FYDP and the 1998 FYDP during the 4 common years. However, our

examination of programs showed several changes. We found significant

increases in Army base operations ($391 million), Navy base realignment

and closure activities ($335 million), Marine Corps base operations

($116 million), training base operations ($67 million), logistics base

operations ($51 million), and Army National Guard base operations

($50 million). We also found significant decreases in Army management

headquarters construction ($713 million), chemical agents and munitions

destruction ($158 million), Air Force base operations for airlift activities

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

($145 million), Air Force environmental compliance ($122 million), and

Navy environmental compliance ($49 million).

Family Housing

Improvement and

Operations Funds

Projected to Decline

Total funding for family housing decreases by $337 million, or about

2 percent, for the common years in the 1997 and 1998 FYDPs. The decrease

is due primarily to reduced funding for improvements and operations

costs. Table 4 compares total funding for the common years of the 1997

and 1998 FYDPs for family housing programs.

Table 4: Funding for Family Housing

Programs During the 4 Common Years

in the 1997 and 1998 FYDPs

Dollars in millions

Family housing program 1997 FYDP 1998 FYDP Change

Maintenance $5,458 $5,556 $98

Operations 4,858 4,500 –358

Improvements 2,569 2,127 –442

Leasing 2,072 2,089 17

New construction 1,167 1,156 –11

Homeowner’s Assistance 0 275 275

Debt payments 474 458 –16

Construction (planning and design) 0 100 100

Total $16,598 $16,261 –$337

Source: 1997 and 1998 FYDPs.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD generally concurred with a draft of this report. It emphasized that the

full implications of the QDR on programs and budgets will not be fully

expressed until the submission of the fiscal years 1999-2003 defense

program in February 1998. DOD’s comments are included as appendix III.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the major program adjustments in DOD’s fiscal year 1998

FYDP, we interviewed officials in the Office of Under Secretary of Defense

(Comptroller); the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation; and the

Army, Navy, and Air Force program and budget offices. We examined a

variety of DOD planning and budget documents, including the 1997 and

1998 FYDPs and the QDR report. We also reviewed the President’s fiscal 

year 1998 budget submission; our prior reports; and pertinent reports by

the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and

others.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
B-277841 

To determine the implications of program changes and underlying

planning assumptions, we discussed the changes with DOD officials.

We compared DOD’s automated data with published documents provided

by DOD. Specifically, we compared total budget estimates, appropriation

totals, military and civilian force levels, force structure levels, and some

specific program information. Based on our comparisons, we were

satisfied that DOD’s automated FYDP data and published data are in

agreement. We did not test DOD’s management controls of the FYDP data.

The FYDP is DOD’s primary source of official program information. It is used

extensively throughout DOD for analytical purposes and for making

programming and budgeting decisions.

Our work was conducted from March through August 1997 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are providing copies of this report to other appropriate congressional

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and the

Navy; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also

provide copies to others upon request.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on

(202) 512-3504. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Richard Davis

Director, National Security

 Analysis

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Quadrennial Defense

Review Initiatives

20

Smaller Active and Reserve Forces Are Planned 20

Proposed Reductions in Operation and Maintenance 20

Proposals Impacting Procurement 21

QDR Proposes Substantial Investments in Research,

Development, Test, and Evaluation

22

Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

24

Military Personnel 24

Operation and Maintenance 25

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 27

Military Construction 28

Family Housing 29

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

31

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

32

Related GAO Products 36

Tables Table 1: DOD’s 1997 and 1998 FYDPs, by Appropriation 4

Table 2: Proposed Modernization Reserve, by Fiscal Year 11

Table 3: Planned Funding for RDT&E by Budget Activity During

the 4 Common Years of 1997 and 1998 FYDPs

15

Table 4: Funding for Family Housing Programs During the 4

Common Years in the 1997 and 1998 FYDPs

16

Table I.1: QDR Proposed Military Personnel Reductions 20

Figures Figure 1: Defense Health Program Funding for the 1997 and 1998

FYDPs

10

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Contents

Figure 2: Historical and Projected Relationship Between

Procurement and O&M Spending in Constant 1998 Dollars

12

Figure 3: Historical and Projected Relationship Between

Procurement Spending and DOD’s Total Budget in Constant 1998

Dollars

13

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

FYDP Future Years Defense Program

O&M operation and maintenance

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review

RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation

THAAD Theater High Altitude Area Defense

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix I 

Quadrennial Defense Review Initiatives

The following sections describe proposed Quadrennial Defense Review

(QDR) initiatives that could impact the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

future programs.

Smaller Active and

Reserve Forces Are

Planned

Across DOD, QDR actions are to reduce active military end strength by about

62,000 and Reserve end strength by about 54,000. The reductions, by

service, are shown in table I.1.

Table I.1: QDR Proposed Military

Personnel Reductions Service Active military Reserves

Air Force 26,900 700

Army 15,000 45,000

Marine Corps 1,800 4,200

Navy 18,000 4,100

Total 61,700 54,000

Source: QDR report.

According to the QDR, most of DOD’s infrastructure is in the military

departments (medical and some logistics functions are the exceptions). In

fiscal year 1997, the military departments’ infrastructure activities employ

557,000 military personnel. Further, the QDR states that about 37,000 of the

active military positions would be eliminated from infrastructure

activities.

Proposed Reductions

in Operation and

Maintenance

According to DOD, 61 percent of the people employed by the Department in

fiscal year 1997 are involved in infrastructure activities. Most of these

activities, including civilian pay, are funded from the operation and

maintenance (O&M) appropriation. Since the end of the Cold War, DOD has

reduced its military force structure and number of military personnel

faster than its supporting infrastructure. To close the gap, and to begin to

reduce the share of the defense budget devoted to infrastructure, the QDR

proposed the following four actions:

• Reduce the number of civilian personnel associated with infrastructure by

72,000 more than the reductions in DOD’s 1998 budget.

• Request authority for two additional rounds of base closures and

realignments.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix I 

Quadrennial Defense Review Initiatives

• Improve the efficiency and performance of DOD support activities by

adopting innovative business practices of the private sector.

• Consider far more nonwarfighting DOD support functions as candidates for

outsourcing, inviting commercial companies to compete with the public

sector to undertake certain support functions.

Proposals Impacting

Procurement

As DOD observed in its QDR report, each new defense program since the

bottom-up review has had to postpone the previous year’s plan to increase

procurement spending. According to DOD, these postponements have

generally reflected the high priority DOD attaches to current spending on

readiness. Funding originally planned for procurement was spent instead

to meet day-to-day operating expenses. DOD refers to this as a “migration”

of funding. DOD pointed out that funds have migrated because it has not

managed financial risk to reflect the importance it also attaches to

investing in the future. The implication for the future is that DOD’s

operating costs will continue to exceed program estimates, resulting in

substantial unrealized weapons procurements early in the next century.

DOD recognizes the challenge it faces to achieve its modernization goals.

To address the problem of migrating funds, DOD plans to redirect about

$6 billion to $7 billion in resources annually by the end of 2003 from

savings made available by reducing the force structure, streamlining

infrastructure, and adjusting modernization plans. While DOD has retained

its goal of increasing procurement funding to roughly $60 billion by fiscal

year 2001, it plans to moderate the intermediate targets to $49 billion in

1999 and $54 billion in 2000. The QDR also suggests reducing some

purchases that were planned beyond 2000.

Some of the QDR procurement proposals are as follows:

• Reduce purchases of the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar

System from 19 to 13 aircraft.

• Decrease the total procurement of F-22 aircraft from 438 to 339 and slow

the maximum planned annual production rate from 48 to 36.

• Reduce the maximum production rate of F/A-18E/F aircraft from 60 to 48

per year. Also delay by 2 years, from 2000 to 2002, production at the

maximum rate.

• Reduce planned purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter from 2,978 to 2,852.

Also delay production at the planned maximum rate for 2 years, from 2010

to 2012.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix I 

Quadrennial Defense Review Initiatives

• Reduce planned purchases of the Marine Corps V-22 Osprey from 425 to

360 aircraft and accelerate procurement to a long-term rate of 30 per year

by 2004.

• Limit procurement of B-2 bombers to the currently planned 21.

• Create a funding reserve to offset cost growth in weapons programs due to

technical risk. Cost growth in existing programs divert modernization

funds.

QDR Proposes

Substantial

Investments in

Research,

Development, Test,

and Evaluation

The QDR discusses broad efforts that are underway in all of the military

departments to exploit the Revolution in Military Affairs. Underwriting

DOD’s extensive modernization effort and the Revolution in Military Affairs

are plans for substantial future investments in research, development, test,

and evaluation (RDT&E). DOD acknowledges that some of these major

investments, while deemed essential to meet national goals, will involve

very high financial and technological risks. Therefore, it is likely that

billions of additional dollars will be directed to these programs over the

coming years. But according to DOD, the precise amount and allocation of

these dollars are still under review. Some of these programs were

identified in the QDR report and include the following:

• Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Programs. According to DOD, the Theater

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Program is expected to take longer

and cost more than the 1998 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)

anticipated. DOD has decided to slow the Army’s portion of the THAAD

program because of serious technical problems and shift the deployment

date from 2004 to 2006. According to DOD, this action will improve the

stability of the program and lower program risk.

• National Missile Defense. This high-priority program with the executive

branch and Congress is on an accelerated research and development path.

However, the QDR analysis concluded that this program could not be

deployed by the planned date of 2000 within the current program budget.

As a result, DOD decided it will direct additional funds to national missile

defense. DOD acknowledges in the QDR report that even with the additional

funding, this program will remain a high risk.

• Cruise Missile Defense. According to DOD, intelligence estimates have

revealed that a cruise missile threat to U.S. forces may emerge after 2000.

Therefore, over the next several years, DOD plans to increase emphasis on

a national cruise missile defense.

• Navigation. Upgrades to the space-based Global Positioning System and

compliance with global air traffic management rules to become effective

over the next several years will require significant future expenditures,

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix I 

Quadrennial Defense Review Initiatives

which are yet to be determined. According to DOD, its very large fleet of

aircraft will need to be properly equipped with new navigation equipment

to comply with new procedures of the Federal Aviation Administration

and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

• Counterproliferation. DOD said that it will increase planned spending on

counterproliferation by approximately $1 billion over the 1999 FYDP,

particularly for protective measures against chemical weapons.

• Force Protection and Combating Terrorism. According to the QDR, DOD is

increasing its research and development funding in this area. The funding

will support state-of-the-art programs, including systems to detect, assess,

and disable large vehicle bombs; standoff explosive detection capabilities;

capabilities to maintain surveillance of and tag and track harmful materials

that can be used in terrorist attacks; and improvements to robotic vehicles

used in counterterrorism operations.

• Information Operations. According to DOD, technical measures to protect

military information systems, in both hardware and software, are being

greatly expanded.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

The following are descriptions of the programs in the FYDP, by

appropriation, that are mentioned in this report.

Military Personnel

Recruit Training Units This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the conduct of recruit training and the basic

introductory and indoctrination provided to enlisted entrants in units

devoted to such training at Army training centers, recruit training

commands, Marine Corps recruit depots, the Air Force Military Training

Center, and other DOD facilities.

General Skill Training This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the conduct of specialized skill training in

both DOD and civilian institutions, including initial skill, skill progression,

and functional training to provide tactical, technical, administrative, and

management skills. Specifically includes, but is not limited to, officer basic

courses, advanced individual training at Army training centers, training in

aircraft maintenance and airfield operations, formal noncommissioned

officer and drill sergeant schools, survival training, Navy apprenticeship

training, and temporary duty specifically identified for this training.

Integrated Recruit and

Skill Training

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the conduct of enlisted recruit training and

initial skill training in a single unit in a single, uninterrupted formal course.

Includes, for example, Army one-station unit training and Navy

apprenticeship training, when conducted as a single, uninterrupted course

with recruit training.

Defense Medical Centers,

Station Hospitals, and

Medical Clinics

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the provision of health care in the continental

United States in DOD-owned and operated facilities that are staffed and

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

equipped to provide inpatient care for both surgical and nonsurgical

conditions and outpatient care for patients that are not hospitalized.

Operation and

Maintenance

Base Operations This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the following: administration, retail supply

operations, maintenance of installation equipment, other base services,

bachelor housing operations and furnishings, and other personnel support.

Excluded from this program are the following types of base operating

support: real property services, minor construction, maintenance and

repair, base communications, commissary operations, station hospitals,

medical and dental clinics, and family housing.

Air Force Training This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the operating cost of aircraft used in training,

field maintenance, organizational maintenance, and permanent party

student authorizations.

Air Force F-15A/B/C/D

Squadrons

This program includes all F-15 acquisitions, research and development,

staff authorizations, peculiar and support equipment, necessary facilities,

and the associated costs specifically identified and measurable to the

F-15A/B/C/D, including wing headquarters, tactical fighter squadrons,

avionics maintenance, field maintenance, consolidated aircraft

maintenance, munitions maintenance, and weapon system security.

Air Force Logistics

Operations, Other Than

Working Capital Funds

This program includes staff authorizations, necessary facilities, and

associated costs specifically identified and measurable to the costs of

civilian personnel, travel, and transportation for supply depot operations;

inventory control and materiel management-related requirements

computations; commodity management; standardization; cataloging;

systems and data management; procurement and contract administration;

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

requisition processing; inventory accounting; and the management,

receipt, storage preservation, issue, and distribution of supplies.

Nonindustrially Funded

Depot Maintenance

This program includes, for all services, funds for reimbursement of the

industrial fund for depot maintenance of aircraft and equipment, financing

commercial depot maintenance contracts, and interservice depot

maintenance. Also includes staff, equipment, facilities, and associated

costs directly measurable to nonindustrially funded depot-level

maintenance at various facilities.

Marine Corps Other

Combat Support

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and associated costs specifically identified

and measurable to headquarters of Marine amphibious forces, brigades,

and units; communications battalions; force reconnaissance companies;

air and naval gunfire liaison companies; and topographic platoons.

Navy Logistics Support

Activities

This program includes staff authorizations and the associated costs

specifically identified and measurable to the following: centrally managed

logistics support services not directly related to another program,

production engineering activities that do not fit into another program, and

various other activities.

Marine Corps Other

Personnel Activities

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to resources associated with units and activities

devoted to enhancing the service’s overall morale, fostering good

community relations, and providing miscellaneous personnel support

services.

Army Real Property

Maintenance and Repair

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to maintenance and repair of real property, such

as utilities, buildings, other facilities, pavements, land, and grounds.

Includes such things as repair of electrical circuitry, heating and air

conditioning, water piping, and routine maintenance work, such as

caulking and painting, at fixed installations.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

Research,

Development, Test,

and Evaluation

Joint Strike Fighter (Joint

Advanced Strike

Technology)

This program continues engineering and manufacturing development of a

joint program to develop a high-technology, low-cost, multirole fighter

aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

Airborne Laser Technology This program includes funds to design, build, and test a weapon system to

acquire, track, and kill theater ballistic missiles in the boost phase.

Air Force B-1B Bomber

Enhancements

This program includes funds for the full-scale engineering development of

a strategic multirole bomber that maximizes range, payload, and the ability

to perform the missions of a conventional bomber, cruise missile launch

platform, and nuclear weapons delivery system in both the tactical and

strategic role.

Dual-Use Applications

Programs

The objective of this program is to leverage emerging dual-use (potentially

usable in both commercial and defense applications) technologies to the

direct benefit of military system acquisitions.

Experimental Evaluation

of Major Innovative

Technologies

This program includes resources to demonstrate technology of major

program efforts. Principally, it includes technology investigations aimed at

providing radically new options for major increases in the effectiveness of

strategic and tactical command, control, and communications mission

areas.

Defense Airborne

Reconnaissance

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to providing a central focus for a multiservice

requirements approach to develop and field future airborne

reconnaissance systems.

Advanced Military Satellite

Communications

This program includes demonstration and validation efforts to support

development of the follow-on satellite to the Milstar II program. This

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

system will provide the capability for survivable, jam-resistant, worldwide,

secure communications for strategic and tactical warfighters.

Advanced Technology

Transition Program

This program includes funds for advanced technology development, which

provides a formal mechanism to foster and encourage transition of the

most promising technological opportunities into development programs.

Military Construction

Navy Base Realignment

and Closure Activities

This program includes resources necessary to implement base

realignments and closures. Includes costs to prepare facilities and

property for disposal, relocate personnel and equipment, construct new

facilities for realigned forces, and assist affected communities. Financing

for this program is to be provided by the sale of assets made available by

base realignments and closures, and by appropriated funding.

Base Operations This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the following: administration, retail supply

operations, maintenance of installation equipment, bachelor housing

operations and furnishings, other base services, and other personnel

support. Excluded from this program are the following types of base

operating support: real property services, minor construction,

maintenance and repair, base communications, commissary operations,

station hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and family housing.

Army Management

Headquarters-Construction

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to management resources for the Headquarters,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Chemical Agents and

Munitions Destruction

This program includes resources, not otherwise provided for, that are

necessary for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical

agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of section 1412 of

the 1986 DOD Authorization Act, Public Law 99-145.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

Environmental Compliance This program includes actions to achieve and maintain full and sustained

compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and

regulations; executive orders; and host nation regulations and DOD

policies. This program funds all costs related to environmental

compliance, including recurring costs of environmental program

management; nonrecurring costs of projects/services required to bring DOD

into compliance with environmental standards or notice of violation; pest

management programs to meet federal standards for pest management

and pesticide storage, handling, or use; overseas cleanup and compliance

efforts; and certification of innovative technology for DOD applications.

Family Housing

Maintenance This program includes maintenance costs for the DOD Family Housing

Program.

Operations This program includes costs specifically identifiable and measurable to

operations costs for the DOD Family Housing Program.

Improvements This program includes costs specifically identifiable and measurable to

construction costs, including applicable planning costs, for improving

existing facilities under the DOD Family Housing Program and other

construction items.

Leasing This program includes costs specifically identifiable and measurable to

administration and leasing costs of the Leased Housing Program.

New Construction This program includes costs specifically identifiable and measurable to the

construction of new family dwelling units; new trailer court facilities; new

nondwelling buildings; new community facilities; and new roads,

driveways, walks, and utilities primarily for use by family housing

occupants.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix II 

Program Descriptions

Homeowner’s Assistance This program includes costs specifically identified with the Defense

Homeowner’s Assistance Fund. These include reimbursements to

homeowners for losses in private sales; operating and maintenance costs

for acquired properties; appraisal fees; administrative costs for all types of

assistance; and equity payments to homeowners, payments in foreclosure

cases, and payments on assumed mortgages.

Debt Payments This program includes costs specifically identifiable and measurable to

debt payments for family housing.

Construction Planning and

Design

This program includes staff authorizations, peculiar and support

equipment, necessary facilities, and the associated costs specifically

identified and measurable to the planning and design of military

construction, access roads, and minor land acquisitions.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Robert Pelletier

William Crocker

Deborah Colantonio

Alan Byroade

Shawn Bates

Nancy Ragsdale

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
Related GAO Products

Bosnia: Cost Estimating Has Improved, but Operational Changes Will

Affect Current Estimates (GAO/NSIAD-97-183, July 28, 1997).

Military Bases: Lessons Learned From Prior Base Closure Rounds

(GAO/NSIAD-97-151, July 25, 1997).

Tactical Aircraft: Restructuring of the Air Force F-22 Fighter Program

(GAO/NSIAD-97-156, June 4, 1997).

Defense Budget: Observations on Infrastructure Activities (GAO/NSIAD-97-127,

Apr. 4, 1997).

High-Risk Series: Defense Weapon Systems Acquisition (GAO/HR-97-6,

Feb. 1997).

Defense Health Program: Future Costs Are Likely to Be Greater Than

Estimated (GAO/NSIAD-97-83BR, Feb. 21, 1997).

Future Years Defense Program: Lower Inflation Outlook Was Most

Significant Change From 1996 to 1997 Program (GAO/NSIAD-97-36, Dec. 12,

1996).

Defense Infrastructure: Costs Projected to Increase Between 1997 and

2001 (GAO/NSIAD-96-174, May 31, 1996).

Defense Infrastructure: Budget Estimates for 1996-2001 Offer Little

Savings for Modernization (GAO/NSIAD-96-131, Apr. 4, 1996).

Future Years Defense Program: 1996 Program Is Considerably Different

From the 1995 Program (GAO/NSIAD-95-213, Sept. 15, 1995).

DOD Budget: Selected Categories of Planned Funding for Fiscal Years

1995-99 (GAO/NSIAD-95-92, Feb. 17, 1995).

Future Years Defense Program: Optimistic Estimates Lead to Billions in

Overprogramming (GAO/NSIAD-94-210, July 29, 1994).

(701101) Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-98-26 Future Years Defense Program
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:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100