United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Secretary of Defense

December 1995 UNMANNED AERIAL

VEHICLES

Hunter System Is Not

Appropriate For Navy

Fleet Use

GAO/NSIAD-96-2

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-266159 

December 1, 1995

The Honorable William J. Perry

The Secretary of Defense

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As part of our ongoing review of the $4.2 billion Joint Tactical Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program, we are assessing the development of a

shipboard variant of the Hunter UAV for Navy use. We are issuing this

interim report to bring your attention to a conflict over Navy requirements

for the Hunter UAV shipboard variant that we believe should be resolved

before the Navy portion of the program proceeds.

Background The Hunter UAV shipboard variant is planned for deployment on Navy

amphibious assault ships to accomplish reconnaissance, target acquisition,

and other military missions. Each system is to include eight UAVs with

payloads and modified Hunter support equipment for launching and

recovering UAVs, controlling UAVs in flight, and processing information

from the UAVs during flight missions.

The Joint Tactical UAV Projects Office, which manages the program, is

currently identifying the UAV system modifications as well as the ship

modifications required for the Navy’s use of Hunter. Current plans are to

acquire 9 complete systems1

 for the Navy, begin deployment to the fleet in

1998, and outfit the Navy’s entire fleet of 12 amphibious assault ships with

shipboard control stations that could be used to operate Hunter air

vehicles.

Results in Brief The Joint Tactical UAV Projects Office is proceeding with the acquisition of

the Hunter shipboard variant even though all Navy fleet commanders have

stated that they do not want the system on Navy ships. Thus, the

Department of Defense (DOD) is at risk of investing in a system that will

not be used.

1

The Navy is acquiring eight complete systems for deployment on the ships and one complete ground

system for training.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
B-266159 

Navy Fleet

Commanders Do Not

Want Hunter UAV

In April 1995, the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet informed the Chief of

Naval Operations that he, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, and the

Commander of Naval Forces in Europe did not support deploying Hunter

UAVs on Navy ships. Fleet officials told us that they opposed Hunter

because of the adverse impact that it would have on flight operations of

other aircraft on the ships. Some fleet representatives also opposed

Hunter because its performance capability was insufficient and because

the system required too much space on the ships.

Fleet officials provided the following details of their opposition to Hunter:

• First, all aircraft currently operating from amphibious assault ships,

typically including some 25 helicopters and 6 AV-8B Harriers, can take off

and land vertically from up to 9 designated points on the ship’s flight deck.

Since Hunter cannot take off or land vertically, a ship’s crew would have

to clear the back half of the ship’s deck to allow Hunter operations,

moving the helicopters and Harriers to the front of the ship or below to the

hangar deck. For Hunter landings, the crew would also have to erect a

protective barrier to shield parked aircraft from a possibly errant, or

out-of-control, 1,500 pound Hunter UAV.

• Moving aircraft and erecting the barrier to allow for each Hunter

operational cycle would take about 1 hour. This, coupled with the need for

frequent Hunter takeoffs and landings necessitated by Hunter’s limited

flight endurance, would severely disrupt flight operations by other aircraft.

Fleet representatives pointed out that when other aircraft were moved to

allow Hunter landings, the area remaining would be too crowded to safely

conduct routine flight operations.

• Hunter’s limited performance capability detracts from its potential use by

the Navy. Hunter’s range capability of about 100 miles is considered to be

inadequate in the vast Pacific. In addition, when Hunter is viewing land

targets, its limited range means that the ship must move closer to shore,

increasing the risk from shore patrol attacks, mines, and other threats.

Finally, because of weight limitations, Hunter cannot carry payloads

capable of seeing in poor weather conditions.

• Use of Hunter would compound an already existing space problem on

amphibious assault ships. Atlantic Fleet and Naval Forces Europe

representatives also told us that because of a lack of available space,

storage of Hunter air vehicles and related equipment (estimated to take up

12,000 cubic feet on each ship) would dictate that other combat mission

equipment, such as helicopters and artillery pieces, be removed. The

number of Marines stationed on the ships for assault missions would also

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
B-266159 

have to be reduced to make room for personnel needed to operate and

maintain Hunter.

Department of the

Navy Proceeding With

Plans for Shipboard

Variant

Representatives of the Chief of Naval Operations told us that despite the

position of the Fleet Commanders, the Navy’s participation in the Hunter

program would continue at least until testing shows whether Hunter will

meet its performance requirements. The Joint Tactical UAV Projects Office

is proceeding with plans to identify and perform the UAV and ship

modifications required to install and operate Hunter. The first modified

UAV system and ship are to be ready for testing in 1997. The cost of the

Navy’s portion of the Hunter program is estimated to be about

$340 million.

We discussed with fleet representatives the Department of the Navy’s

intention to continue with the Hunter program at least until testing shows

whether it will meet its performance requirements. They told us that they

consider Hunter inadequate to meet shipboard requirements even if it

meets all of the UAV performance requirements.

Fleet UAV

Requirements Are

Uncertain

Fleet commanders plan to complete an assessment of their UAV

requirements by May 1996 and will not know what their specific

requirements will be until that time. However, the Pacific Fleet

Commander believes that a UAV with substantially more capability is

needed while the Atlantic Fleet Commander and the Commander of Naval

Forces Europe believe that a system requiring less space than Hunter is

needed.

Recommendation We recommend that the Secretary of Defense stop all acquisitions of

shipboard variants of the Hunter UAV System until the Navy (1) allows fleet

commanders to complete their assessments of shipboard UAV

requirements, (2) resolves the issue of whether Hunter will meet those

requirements, and (3) determines whether fleet commanders will use

Hunter if Navy acquisition officials procure it.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it plans no further

acquisition of the Hunter shipboard variant until an assessment is

completed. However, DOD also indicated that the concerns of the Fleet

Commanders about the Hunter system had been resolved and cited a

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
B-266159 

message from the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations as representing a

coordinated Navy position on the matter. Our review of the message and

follow-up contacts with Fleet Commanders’ representatives indicate that

the objections to Hunter have not been resolved. In addition, the Defense

Acquisition Board will meet shortly to consider a Joint Chiefs of Staff

recommendation to terminate the Hunter program. This further indicates

that the issue remains unresolved. DOD’s comments are presented in their

entirety in appendix I along with our evaluation of them.

Scope and

Methodology

Our examination of the shipboard variant requirements controversy was

done as part of our ongoing review of the Joint Tactical UAV program. We

discussed the fleet commanders’ objections to using the Hunter shipboard

variant with representatives of the Commanders in Chief, U.S. Atlantic

Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia; U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and the

Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, London, England. To better

understand their objections, we visited a deployed amphibious assault

ship, the USS Kearsarge, and another operational ship, the USS Nassau,

and discussed with the ships’ commanders and crew the potential

problems associated with use of the Hunter UAV shipboard variant.

We also discussed the issues with representatives of the Chief of Naval

Operations in Washington, D.C., and reviewed the Joint Tactical UAV

Project Office’s plans for acquiring the shipboard variant. We conducted

our work from June 1995 to October 1995 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional

committees; the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy; the Commandant of

the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We

will make copies available to others on request.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
B-266159 

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Jack Guin,

Mark Lambert, John S. Warren, and Charles A. Ward.

Sincerely yours,

Louis J. Rodrigues

Director, Systems Development

 and Production Issues

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 1.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 2.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 2.

See comment 2.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 3.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

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

letter dated November 8, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. Our review of the N8 message and follow-up contacts with Fleet

Commanders’ representatives indicate that the objections to Hunter have

not been resolved. The message from the Deputy Chief of Naval

Operations to the Fleet Commanders summarized Navy plans for acquiring

various UAVs. With respect to Hunter, the message stated, in part, that

(1) continued Navy participation in the Hunter program was pending

results of a user demonstration in October 19952

 and (2) fleet concerns

about Hunter would be resolved in an upgrade process, including

consideration of a vertical takeoff and landing air vehicle. The message

also requested comments and concurrence with the plans.

In their response message dated October 3, 1995, the Fleet Commanders

stated that they supported the “focus” of the plans and concurred in the

need for an endurance UAV and certain other aspects of the plan. However,

they did not mention the Hunter in their response to the N8 message.

In an attempt to clarify the Fleet Commanders’ position on Hunter, we

recontacted their representatives on October 20, 1995, to determine if they

had changed their position and supported the Hunter system. None would

state that they supported Hunter. The fact that the Defense Acquisition

Board will meet shortly to consider a Joint Chiefs of Staff

recommendation to terminate the Hunter program further indicates that

the issue remains unresolved.

2. These comments appear to be aimed at discrediting the Fleet

Commanders’ opposition to Hunter. We did not attempt to independently

determine whether Hunter is suitable for shipboard operations. Rather, we

point out the Fleet Commanders are opposed to it and outline the reasons

for their opposition. We believe that these issues should be settled by the

Navy before DOD allows the Navy portion of the program to proceed.

3. We do not question the Navy’s need for a tactical UAV, but show why the

Fleet Commanders believe that the Hunter System is not appropriate for

Navy Fleet Use.

(707117)

2

This demonstration was not held because the Hunter system has been grounded due to technical

problems.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
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. 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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

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