GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Military Research and Development,

Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives

July 2000 ELECTRONIC

WARFARE

Phased Approach to

Infrared Upgrades

Would Reduce Risk to

Helicopters

GAO/NSIAD-00-171

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-285362 Letr

July 27, 2000

The Honorable Curt Weldon

Chairman, Subcommittee on

Military Research and Development

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

To survive against infrared guided (or “heat-seeking”) missiles on the

modern battlefield, Army helicopters require infrared countermeasure

systems. However, the Army’s currently fielded infrared countermeasure

systems are rapidly becoming inadequate to ensure survival against newer

generations of heat-seeking missiles.1 To address this problem, the Army is

acquiring a new set of countermeasure systems, referred to as the Suite of

Integrated Infrared Countermeasures, with fielding scheduled to begin in

2003. As you requested, we reviewed the Army’s acquisition strategy for

this equipment to determine whether the strategy satisfies the infrared

countermeasure requirements of the Army’s helicopters.

Heat-seeking missiles operate on the principle that an aircraft emits more

infrared energy (heat) than the surrounding environment. The missile’s

heat-seeking sensor detects the heat emitted by the aircraft and guides the

missile toward the target by following the heat. The Army currently has two

types of infrared countermeasure systems fielded to defend its helicopters

from heat-seeking missiles. The first type seeks to decoy the missile away

from the aircraft by providing alternative heat sources for the missile to

follow. This is accomplished by using a missile warning system, which

detects approaching missiles and signals countermeasure dispensers on

the aircraft to launch flares that burn at high temperatures. The second

type of countermeasure system involves directing an infrared energy beam

toward the missile to try to confuse its heat-seeking sensor. An onboard

device called an infrared jammer produces the energy and then directs it at

the incoming missile.

1

Details about the performance of specific heat-seeking missiles against specific

countermeasure devices are considered classified by the Department of Defense.
B-285362

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

The new Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures will include four

components: a laser-based infrared jammer, a programmable

countermeasure dispenser, advanced flares, and a missile warning system.

Each of these is expected to perform better than the Army’s currently

fielded infrared jammer, dispenser, flares, and missile warning system. The

laser will deliver more direct energy than the current jammer to more

effectively disrupt a missile’s seeker. Likewise, advanced flares that burn at

temperatures more closely approximating the heat of an aircraft, and

launched by a programmable dispenser, present more effective decoy

patterns than flares randomly launched from the current nonprogrammable dispenser. The new missile warning system is being

designed to more quickly and accurately detect, identify, locate, and initiate

a countermeasure reaction to approaching missiles than the existing

missile warning system.

The current procurement unit cost estimate for the entire Suite of

Integrated Infrared Countermeasures is about $1.6 million per helicopter.2

The Army plans to procure a total of 1,047 systems for a total procurement

cost of $1.7 billion.3

Results in Brief The Army’s strategy for acquiring improved infrared countermeasure

systems for its helicopters could be revised to better satisfy the needs of

Army helicopters. The current strategy is to defer production and fielding

of the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures until all four

components of the system are successfully developed. However, because

of delays in developing one of these components, the laser-based infrared

jammer, most Army helicopters will remain vulnerable to currently fielded

enemy missiles until the second half of this decade or later. If the strategy is

revised to take a phased approach, all helicopters scheduled to receive the

Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures could be better protected

from current heat-seeking missiles much sooner. The phased approach

could be accomplished by installing either (1) the existing programmable

dispenser, advanced flares, and existing missile warning system in use by

the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, for about $175,000 per

helicopter or (2) the new programmable dispenser, advanced flares, and

2

This unit cost does not include the cost of the advanced flares.

3

The Army’s 232 OH-58 Kiowa Warriors will not receive the laser-based infrared jammer

portion of the system.
B-285362

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

new missile warning system when those components are ready, for about

$300,000 per helicopter. Hence, the Army could provide improved infrared

countermeasures for the 1,047 helicopters planned to receive the Suite of

Integrated Infrared Countermeasures for about $183 million with the first

approach and $314 million with the second approach.

To improve helicopter survivability sooner, we recommend that the Army

take a phased approach to acquiring improved infrared countermeasures

for Army helicopters as soon as is practical. In commenting on a draft of

this report, the Department of Defense agreed in concept to deploy infrared

countermeasures at the earliest possible date. However, it stated that our

proposed phased approach—using the existing programmable

countermeasure dispenser and missile warning system with advanced

flares—is not feasible because the Suite of Integrated Infrared

Countermeasures is being developed as an integrated system. The

Department also stated that a phased approach using the new

programmable dispenser and missile warning system with the advanced

flares would be possible but unnecessary because the maturity of all four

components has converged, so that testing and fielding of the system as

planned is very probable. We continue to believe that a phased approach is

the fastest, surest way of reducing the vulnerability of Army helicopters to

heat-seeking missiles. As our report shows, the Army continues to have

problems in developing the new infrared jammer. Also, a phased approach

using the existing programmable dispenser and missile warning system

with advanced flares has proven feasible on the Army’s Special Operations

aircraft. In response to the agency’s comments, however, we revised our

report to recognize that a phased approach using the new programmable

dispenser, advanced flares, and new missile warning system is an option

because these components are more likely to be ready in the near future

than the new infrared jammer.

Acquisition Strategy

Could Be Revised to

Better Meet

Helicopters’ Needs

The Army’s acquisition strategy for the Suite of Integrated Infrared

Countermeasures could be revised to better satisfy the needs of the Army’s

helicopters. Under the current strategy, most Army helicopters will remain

vulnerable to currently fielded enemy missiles until the second half of this

decade or later. If the strategy is revised to take a phased approach to

upgrades, however, all helicopters scheduled to receive the Suite of

Integrated Infrared Countermeasures can be protected many years earlier

from such enemy missiles. This could be accomplished for an investment

of about $183 million or $314 million, depending on the configuration.
B-285362

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

Army’s Current Strategy

Leaves Most Helicopters

Vulnerable for Years

The Army’s infrared countermeasure acquisition strategy is to defer

production and fielding of improved infrared countermeasures until all

four components of the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures are

ready for production. However, technical challenges associated with

developing the laser-based infrared jammer have delayed the production

schedule more than 3 years, from February 2000 to July 2003.

Consequently, under the current schedule, the Army’s Apache helicopter

will not begin receiving the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures

until fiscal year 2004, the Army Blackhawk until 2006, and the Army

Chinook until 2012. (See table 1.)

Table 1: Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures Planned Installations

a

These aircraft will not receive the new infrared jammer and will be replaced eventually by new

Comanche helicopters.

Source: U.S. Army.

While the Army continues to address the problems with the new jammer,

the advanced flares have performed well in testing and are already fielded

with an existing programmable dispenser (DOD’s joint-service ALE-47

dispenser) and missile warning system (the AAR-47) on Special Operations

helicopters. (The Army Special Operations Command has taken this action

to reduce the vulnerability of its helicopters while waiting for the new

suite.) A programmable dispenser is capable of ejecting a combination of

flares in certain sequences at specific time intervals. The advanced flares

are more effective than the Army’s current flares because their material

composition when burning closely matches the aircraft’s heat signature. To

maximize their effectiveness, the advanced flares require the

(Fiscal years 2003-14)

Helicopter type FY03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Total

Special Operations

Blackhawks

12 17 12 12 7 60

Special Operations

Chinooks

10 16 11 37

Army Apaches 1 40 60 70 70 15 256

Army Blackhawks 6 22 35 92 107 108 12 382

Army Chinooks 38 35 7 80

Army Kiowa

Warriorsa

58 73 101 232

Total 1,047
B-285362

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

programmable dispenser to be cued to launch by a signal from a missile

warning system.

Table 2: Effectiveness of Army, Special Operations, and Suite of Integrated Infrared

Countermeasure Systems Against Infrared Missiles

a

Thirty-nine percent of currently fielded infrared threats are 1st generation, 37 percent are 2nd

generation, and 24 percent are 3rd generation. The different generations are characterized by differing

levels of performance and resistance to countermeasures. Further details about these characteristics

are considered classified by the Department of Defense.

Source: Department of Defense.

As shown in table 2, in contrast to the performance of the Army’s currently

fielded infrared countermeasure systems, the current Special Operations

infrared countermeasure systems and expected Suite of Integrated Infrared

Countermeasures provide greater levels of effectiveness against the three

generations of infrared missiles that are currently fielded. The Army’s

current countermeasure systems can defeat first-generation missiles.

Second- and third-generation infrared guided missiles are more difficult to

defeat, but the Special Operations’ programmable dispenser and missile

warning system with advanced flares have demonstrated the ability to

defeat second- and some third-generation infrared missiles during flight

testing. Looking to the future, more advanced infrared guided missiles are

being developed that will have even greater capabilities against current

countermeasures. Addressing this last missile category will ultimately

require the Army to successfully complete development of and field the

new laser-based infrared jammer for itself and for Special Operations

Forces.

Infrared missile

typea

Currently fielded

Army infrared

countermeasures

Currently Fielded

Special Operations

infrared

countermeasures

Future Suite of

Integrated Infrared

Countermeasures

1st generation Yes Yes Yes

2nd generation Partial Yes Yes

3rd generation No Partial Yes

Future missiles No No Yes
B-285362

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

Risk to Helicopters Could

Be Reduced by Revising

Strategy

If the Army were to revise its strategy and take a phased approach to

upgrading its infrared countermeasures by installing the advanced flares

with existing or new programmable countermeasure dispensers and

missile warning systems on its helicopters, it could immediately improve

the capability of Army helicopters to defeat currently fielded infrared

missiles. The Army has an opportunity to begin such installations

immediately.

The Army is extending the service life of its helicopters through a series of

remanufacturing programs. During the remanufacturing process, the

helicopters will be available for lengthy periods of time in a factory

environment, creating ideal opportunities for the installation of new

equipment. The Army is currently remanufacturing the Apache, will begin

remanufacturing programs for the Chinook in fiscal year 2002, and plans to

begin remanufacturing the Blackhawk helicopter in fiscal year 2003. By

installing existing programmable countermeasure dispensers, advanced

flares, and missile warning systems during the remanufacturing period, the

Army could improve protection for the Apache 4 years earlier than

currently planned, the Chinook 10 years earlier, and the Blackhawk 3 years

earlier. We discussed this revised approach with acquisition officials from

the Army, the Special Operations Command, and the Office of the Secretary

of Defense. All were supportive of getting upgraded infrared

countermeasure systems for the Army’s helicopters as soon as practical.

According to the Army’s program manager for the Suite of Integrated

Infrared Countermeasures, a phased approach will be considered if the

new infrared jammer component fails to meet requirements in upcoming

tests.

The Army’s current procurement unit cost estimate for the entire Suite of

Integrated Infrared Countermeasures is about $1.6 million. According to a

rough estimate provided by an infrared countermeasure contractor, the

Special Operations’ programmable dispensers, advanced flares, and missile

warning systems could be installed on Army helicopters for about

$175,000 per aircraft. Alternatively, according to the Army’s program

manager for the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures program, the

new programmable dispenser, advanced flares, and new missile warning

system could be installed on Army helicopters for about $300,000 per

aircraft. On the basis of these estimates, the Army could provide improved

infrared countermeasures for the 1,047 helicopters planned to receive the

Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures for about $183 million with

the first approach and about $314 million with the latter approach. The
B-285362

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

Army’s total procurement cost for the complete Suite of Integrated Infrared

Countermeasures would remain at $1.7 billion.

Conclusions Advances in the development of improved infrared guided missiles have

made it necessary to develop new infrared countermeasure systems to

ensure the survivability of aircraft and aircrews. However, the Army’s

acquisition strategy for improved infrared countermeasures does not begin

to address the risk to Army helicopters from currently fielded heat-seeking

missiles until after 2004. Taking a phased approach to upgrades would

begin to address this need immediately.

Recommendations To reduce the risk to the Army’s helicopters from heat-seeking missiles, we

recommend that the Army acquire and install programmable

countermeasure dispensers, advanced flares, and missile warning systems

as part of a revised acquisition strategy that takes a phased approach to

fielding improved infrared countermeasures. These installations should be

done during the Army’s ongoing and planned helicopter remanufacturing

programs.

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

in concept to deploy infrared countermeasures at the earliest possible date.

(See app. I.) However, it stated that our proposed phased approach—using

the existing programmable countermeasure dispenser and missile warning

system with advanced flares—is not feasible because the Suite of

Integrated Infrared Countermeasures is being developed as an integrated

system. The Department also stated that a phased approach using the new

programmable dispenser and missile warning system with the advanced

flares would be possible but unnecessary because the maturity of all four

components has converged, so that testing and fielding of the system as

planned is very probable. We continue to believe that a phased approach is

the fastest, surest way of reducing the vulnerability of Army helicopters to

heat-seeking missiles. As our report shows, the Army continues to have

problems in developing the new infrared jammer. Also, a phased approach

using the existing programmable dispenser and missile warning system

with advanced flares has proven feasible on the Army’s Special Operations

aircraft. In response to the agency’s comments, however, we revised our

report to recognize that a phased approach using the new programmable

dispenser, advanced flares, and new missile warning system is an option
B-285362

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

because those components are more likely to be ready in the near future

than the new infrared jammer.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine whether the Army’s acquisition strategy can be revised to

better satisfy the infrared countermeasure requirements of the Army’s

helicopters, we analyzed the Army’s modernization, acquisition, and

fielding plans for infrared countermeasures and reviewed related classified

test reports, requirements documents, and threat information. We also

reviewed Selected Acquisition Reports and other program documentation

for the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures program.

We discussed the Army’s infrared countermeasure acquisition strategy and

the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures program with

knowledgeable officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and

Department of the Army, at Alexandria, Virginia; the Program Executive

Office for Army Aviation, and Missile and Space Intelligence Center at

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; the 101st Airborne Division and 160th Special

Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; the Army

Aviation Directorate of Combat Development at Fort Rucker, Alabama; and

the Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures contractor, Lockheed

Martin—Sanders Division, in Nashua, New Hampshire.

We conducted our work from June 1999 through June 2000 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees,

the Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis

Caldera, Secretary of the Army; and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director,

Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to

other interested parties.
B-285362

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

or Robert Levin at (202)512-4841. Key contributors to this assignment were

Marcus Ferguson, Dana Solomon, Charles Ward, and John Warren.

Sincerely yours,

Louis J. Rodrigues

Director, Defense Acquisitions Issues
Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

Appendix I

Comments From the Department of Defense ApApenednxidexiIs

Note:GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

See comment 1.

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

letter dated June 20, 2000.

GAO’s Comments 1. A phased approach to fielding is feasible if DOD and the Army are

willing to consider using the existing programmable dispenser,

advanced flares, and missile warning system configuration that has

already been tested and fielded on the Army’s Special Operations

aircraft. Alternatively, our recommendation does not preclude inclusion

of the Common Missile Warning Sensor (new missile warning system)

in a phased fielding approach if, as indicated in DOD’s comments,

development has now progressed to the point where it could be fielded

with the new programmable dispenser and advanced flares.

2. According to the system contractor’s latest monthly progress report to

the Army, the new infrared jammer continues to have problems.

Consequently, we believe a phased approach is still likely to be the

most expeditious way to field an improved infrared capability.

3. DOD’s comment that “the programmable dispenser and (advanced)

flares cannot be deployed without the Common Missile Warning Sensor

and its Electronic Control Unit” is incomplete. DOD is referring to the

new programmable dispenser, a close derivative of the existing ALE-47

programmable dispenser currently fielded on numerous aircraft,

including U.S. Army Special Operations helicopters. The major

difference between the two dispensers is that the new dispenser’s

programming function has been moved to the Common Missile Warning

Sensor’s Electronic Control Unit. Hence, as DOD’s comment indicates,

the new programmable dispenser and the Common Missile Warning

Sensor must be fielded together. However, the existing ALE-47

programmable dispenser and advanced flares could be fielded with the

existing AAR-47 missile warning system, as in the U.S. Army Special

Operations helicopter configuration. We did not intend to imply that

components of the new system could be easily mixed and matched with

components of the existing Special Operations configuration. We have

modified our report to clarify this.

4. DOD’s existing joint service ALE-47 programmable dispenser with

advanced flares has been successfully tested and is currently fielded on

Army Special Operations helicopters. DOD’s comment refers to the new

programmable dispenser being used in the Suite of Integrated Infrared

Countermeasures program. (See also comment 3.)
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-171 Electronic Warfare

5. If, as indicated by DOD’s comment, the Common Missile Warning

Sensor development has progressed to the point where it can be fielded

with the new programmable dispenser and advanced flares, our

recommendation does not preclude DOD from adopting the OH-58

Kiowa Warrior configuration as an interim improved infrared

countermeasure solution for Army helicopters until the new infrared

jammer is ready for fielding.

6. DOD’s comment that “proposed phased fielding would require a second

downtime to retrofit” would be accurate if the Army were not already

planning to take helicopters out of the field for remanufacturing.

However, our report clearly indicates that the first “downtime” is

already scheduled as part of ongoing remanufacturing efforts for Army

Helicopters. The second “downtime” to which DOD refers is required to

install Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures components,

regardless of whether or not a phased approach is taken. Moreover, by

not taking a phased approach, DOD’s acquisition strategy leaves Army

aviators at risk while they attempt to complete development of the new

infrared jammer.

(707434) Letr
Ordering Information 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 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

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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 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

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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. GI00