United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

October 1995 ENHANCED FIBER

OPTIC GUIDED MISSILE

Need to Define

Requirements and

Establish Criteria to

Assess Performance

GAO/NSIAD-96-7

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-260257 

October 17, 1995

Congressional Committees

We reviewed selected aspects of the Army’s plans for acquisition of the

Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M) system. The Army plans to

acquire limited quantities of the system for the Rapid Force Projection

Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) and

field them for a 2-year user evaluation.1

 The Army expects the limited

acquisition to cost about $280 million, but, based on the results of the

demonstration and evaluation, a much larger acquisition could occur. We

focused our review on the acquisition of the EFOG-M system and did not

evaluate the ACTD process. We conducted this review under our basic

legislative responsibilities but are addressing the report to you because it

discusses matters we believe warrant consideration by your committees.

Results in Brief There is no formal requirement for the EFOG-M, and the Army has not

prepared comprehensive studies comparing EFOG-M’s projected cost and

effectiveness to other alternatives. Requirements documents and

comprehensive analyses are not normally required for ACTD programs. But,

we believe the EFOG-M requirement should be formally agreed upon and

cost-effectiveness analyzed during the ACTD program because the Army

previously experienced considerable difficulty in justifying the system’s

predecessors.

One purpose of an ACTD program is to evaluate its military value, but the

Army has not yet fully defined EFOG-M expectations in terms that could be

used as a benchmark to assist in the evaluation. The Army, before

beginning tests and demonstrations, needs to establish the specific

performance values required and desired from the EFOG-M.

The ACTD program is expected to shorten the acquisition of larger

quantities of systems if required. However, it may not shorten EFOG-M’s

acquisition unless innovative strategies are devised. One strategy could

involve reducing tests and evaluations during the larger acquisition by

reaching agreements with independent testers and evaluators regarding

their effort in the limited procurement.

1

An ACTD is a Department of Defense initiative directed toward more rapidly fielding advanced

technologies. The RFPI is an ACTD to explore new approaches for a more capable early entry force.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

Retaining the limited fielding beyond the evaluation period is an option,

but, at the present time, resources are not available to support and operate

either the limited fielding after the 2-year evaluation or a larger

procurement. Before making a decision regarding either limited fielding or

the larger procurement, the Army needs to ensure that (1) the limited

fielding is cost-effective and (2) funding and forces are available for either

fielding.

Background The EFOG-M is being designed to engage armored combat vehicles, other

high value ground targets (such as command, control, and communication

centers), and helicopters beyond the line of sight at ranges up to 

15 kilometers. The system will consist of a gunner’s station and eight

missiles mounted on a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. The

missiles are launched toward a target area based upon forward

intelligence information. After missile launch, the gunner can intervene at

any time to lock on and engage detected targets. The gunner views the

flight path and the target via a seeker (located in the missile) that is linked

to the gunner’s video console by fiber optic cable. Figures 1 and 2 show

the EFOG-M fire unit and missile and the potential EFOG-M deployment

concept, respectively.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

Figure 1: EFOG-M Fire Unit and Missile

Fire Unit Missile

Missile Launcher

Gunner’s Station

Heavy HMMWV

Fiber optic cable

Seeker

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

Figure 2: Potential EFOG-M Deployment Concept

According to an Army official, the EFOG-M uses the same concept and some

of the same technology as three previously terminated efforts costing

more than $440 million—the Fiber Optic Guided Missile (FOG-M), the

Non-Line-of-Sight Missile (NLOS), and the NLOS-Combined Arms (CA). The

Army began development work in 1978 to demonstrate fiber optics

guidance and conducted flight tests in 1984 to demonstrate the technology

as an antitank missile (FOG-M). However, in late 1986, the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (OSD) approved development not primarily as an

antitank weapon but to provide defense against helicopters (NLOS).

Although the Army had planned to produce NLOS, OSD decided to terminate

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

the program once its development was completed because other programs

had higher priority and other systems could accomplish the intended

mission. However, the Army then terminated the program in January 1991

before completing development because of excessive cost growth. The

Army restarted the effort as NLOS-CA in mid-1991, performed concept

analyses, explored alternative acquisition strategies, and sought approval

for engineering and manufacturing development. But its development was

not approved.

The Army is now developing the EFOG-M and plans to acquire limited

quantities under an advanced technology demonstration program designed

to demonstrate potential technology enhancements; and the Army will

provide the system and support it for the RFPI ACTD. RFPI is exploring new

approaches to provide an early entry force that is significantly more

capable against a heavy armored threat.

The primary objective of an ACTD is to accelerate the application of new

technology to solve military problems. ACTDs are to (1) evaluate military

utility before committing to acquisition, (2) develop operational concepts,

and (3) rapidly provide operational capability. During this process, ACTD

programs require much more early user involvement than expected during

normal acquisition program phases. Department of Defense (DOD) officials

believe ACTD programs will shorten the acquisition process.

Under the demonstration program, the Army plans to procure 12 fire units,

3 platoon vehicles, 300 missiles, and associated equipment at an estimated

cost of about $280 million. According to Army officials, the development,

demonstrations, and evaluations could result in one of the following

actions:

• terminating the effort before building the system hardware (not a likely

option);

• purchasing only the limited quantities and making a decision as to whether

to leave the residual quantities in the field;

• procuring much larger quantities of the EFOG-M currently being developed

(3,126 missiles and 120 fire units are being examined from an affordability

standpoint); or

• substantially modifying the system and procuring larger quantities.

The Army plans to demonstrate EFOG-M performance and military utility

through (1) simulations, (2) contractor-conducted missile performance

tests, (3) a force-on-force demonstration along with other early entry

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

systems and potential systems, (4) government check-out missile firings,

and (5) a 2-year user fielding and evaluation of a residual force. Table 1

shows the schedule for these events.

Table 1: EFOG-M Demonstration

Schedule Date Demonstration/test

May 1996 Virtual prototype evaluation

February 1996-January 1998 Contractor missile tests

February 1998 Force-on-force demonstration

August 1999 Government check-out firings

August 1999-July 2001 Extended user evaluation

The Requirement for

EFOG-M Has Not

Been Established

The Army does not have an agreed-upon requirement for the EFOG-M. It has

not completed the documentation nor analyses for the EFOG-M program

required for most acquisition programs. For example, the Army has not

(1) prepared a mission need statement documenting the mission

deficiency, (2) analyzed other alternatives to satisfy the need, (3) defined

the system’s operational and performance requirements, nor

(4) comprehensively compared EFOG-M’s cost and operational effectiveness

to other existing or developmental systems.

According to Army officials, that type of documentation, analysis, and

evaluation is not required for ACTD programs. They said these changes

resulted from defense acquisition reform efforts. However, at the current

time, U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (responsible for

determining requirements) officials state (1) the system is needed for use

with early entry forces and (2) the requirement will be defined during the

ACTD.

But, the Army has experienced great difficulty in maintaining a stable

requirement (completing development programs or justifying

procurement) for EFOG-M’s predecessors. For example, NLOS procurement

was canceled in part because of higher priority programs, and

development of NLOS-CA was disapproved for affordability reasons.

Regarding its stability, an OSD official stated

“NLOS-CA has struggled in budget competition within the Army because it is such a

revolutionary concept. It simply doesn’t fit well anywhere within the Army’s branch

structure and has been passed around among air defense (anti-helicopter version), artillery,

and infantry branches.”

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

Because requirements and/or support for predecessor systems have

disappeared after considerable effort and expenditure of funds, we believe

that the EFOG-M requirement should be agreed upon and formally

documented. In addition, we believe the system’s cost and operational

effectiveness should be comprehensively compared to other alternatives

for satisfying that requirement.

In its report (104-131, June 1, 1995) on the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the House National Security Committee

expressed concern that the Army is pursuing a weapon system that

provides questionable value and possesses known fiscal risk. The

committee recommended a provision (sec. 215) that would (1) require the

Secretary of the Army to certify by December 1, 1995, that a requirement

exists for the EFOG-M and whether there is a cost-effectiveness analysis

supporting such requirement and (2) limit the expenditure of funds for the

EFOG-M program to that identified in the current program plan only

($280 million, based on fiscal year 1995 constant dollars) and deny

continuation of the program beyond fiscal year 1998 if contract obligations

are not met.

Some Criteria for

Evaluating

Performance Are Not

Specific

Army guidance for advanced technology demonstration programs require

establishment of criteria to be met and the RFPI ACTD management plan

recognizes that criteria as the technical goals for the system. A DOD

instruction states that, to be effective, the criteria must be specific and

quantitative. Since the ACTD’s objective is to judge the military value of the

system, it appears reasonable and prudent to establish specific measurable

standards as a basis for making the judgment.

The Army’s EFOG-M Advanced Technology Demonstration Plan establishes

exit criteria for evaluating EFOG-M performance (see app. I). Some of these

criteria are specific and easily measurable. For example, the plan

establishes specific minimum criteria that must be accomplished by

mid-1996 for missile reload time, the number of missiles mounted on each

fire unit, and the system response time for missile launch. It also provides

specific minimum criteria that must be accomplished by mid-1999 for

missile range and set-up time for system operation.

However, the criteria for some other operational issues that project

officials consider critical do not provide the specific values to be

attained—a standard to measure against to determine success. For

example, to demonstrate successful identification of targets, the minimum

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

criterion to be accomplished in 1996 is “gunner recognition without

diverting the missile and obtain in-flight intelligence.” However, the plan

does not identify the minimum required probabilities of correctly

identifying the target—a performance issue very critical to the

effectiveness of the weapon system—either in 1996 or at the end of the

technology demonstration.

Another criterion extremely important to the basic role and need for the

system is demonstrating that targets can be engaged even though they are

not within the gunner’s view. The criterion states that the Army is to

demonstrate engaging targets not in the line of sight by mid-1996. But the

criterion does not address the required probability for engaging each

target correctly identified—a key determinant of the success of the

system—either in 1996 or at the end of advanced technology

demonstration in 1999.

In addition, the minimum criteria for warhead lethality is to “defeat

existing threat tanks and helicopters.” But it does not establish and

provide for measuring specific minimum required probabilities of

defeating the tanks or helicopters with a single shot. However, the

probability of killing a target with a single shot is critical to determining

whether the system is cost-effective and, consequently, whether it should

be procured.

We believe that in order to accomplish an evaluation of the system, the

criteria for determining a success must be (1) specific and measurable and

(2) representative of the capability needed rather than the capability

available. In our opinion, if the military value of the program is to be

judged, the criteria for measuring that value, including specific

performance of the missile, should be established in advance of the tests

rather than relying on subjective judgment of success afterward.

Future EFOG-M

Acquisition Could Be

Shortened

ACTD programs are designed to shorten the time required to obtain

operating capability. But, when asked where EFOG-M would enter the

acquisition process if a larger procurement is desired, the Under Secretary

of Defense for Advanced Technology said that it depends upon the quality

of the ACTD—it could enter at production or it could go back to the

beginning of engineering and manufacturing development. However, since

the ACTD is scheduled for 6 years, it appears to us that, unless engineering

and manufacturing development is greatly abbreviated, entering the

process at that phase would accomplish little toward shortening the

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

acquisition process. One shortening strategy could involve conducting

tests and evaluations during the limited acquisition in such a fashion to

prevent duplication during a larger procurement.

For normal Army acquisition programs, development testers (Army Test

and Evaluation Command) plan and conduct developmental testing and

provide safety release of all systems; independent evaluators or assessors

(Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity or Test and Evaluation

Command) determine the degree to which the technical parameters of the

system have been achieved; and operational testers and independent

operational evaluators (Army Operational Test and Evaluation Command)

conduct operational tests and address the operational effectiveness and

suitability of the system. However, the roles of development testers,

independent evaluators, and operational testers and evaluators in the RFPI

demonstration and EFOG-M tests and evaluations are not well defined at this

time.

The RFPI ACTD Management Plan is endorsed by the Test and Evaluation

Command but the plan does not specify the Command’s role nor the role

of other independent testers in the demonstration. More detailed draft

plans for conducting EFOG-M tests, conducting the demonstrations, and

acquiring the EFOG-M limited quantities also do not identify the specific

roles. And discussions with independent testers and evaluators and with

EFOG-M management officials provided little additional definitive

information about the role of the independent testers and evaluators.

According to EFOG-M management officials, the contractor has prepared a

draft master test plan for the limited acquisition, and the contractor will be

responsible for the tests. Project test officials have sent the plan to the

independent testers and evaluators for comment, but their approval is not

required. The project manager will approve the test plan, and will consider

the independent comments. Project management officials said that the

testers and evaluators would be invited to observe the tests, but not

control them.

However, there are no formal agreements with independent testers and

evaluators as to (1) their role in the testing and evaluation of EFOG-M or

(2) the amount of testing and independent tester and evaluator

involvement required to prevent retesting and reevaluating the system if a

larger quantity is desired. All acknowledge receiving the contractor’s

master test plan. However, the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity,

for example, is only currently attempting to define its role in ACTD

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

programs. Its representatives have participated in RFPI and EFOG-M

discussions, and they plan to provide some informal evaluation. Army Test

and Evaluation Command representatives have been informed they will be

responsible for safety tests, and they are actively attempting to define their

involvement. Operational Test and Evaluation Command officials are

aware of the RFPI and EFOG-M programs, but they have not yet defined their

role in the programs. They believe they will be involved at the appropriate

time. One RFPI ACTD manager has begun efforts to provide coordinated

evaluation for the virtual prototype evaluation

If, in order to accomplish the ACTD objective, the Army initiates strategies

to ensure that the ACTD reduces the time required to acquire a larger

quantity of systems, we believe there should be assurances that required

tests and evaluations of the system are conducted in such a fashion during

the ACTD program to preclude the need to repeat the tests and evaluations

to support a larger procurement.

Resources for

Fielding System

Beyond the ACTD Are

Not Ensured

Because of the early stage of the ACTD program, the Army has not yet

planned for the personnel and funds to support, operate, and maintain the

EFOG-M beyond the ACTD program. In addition, the Army has not yet

determined whether a deployment of the residual equipment would be

cost-effective. According to Army officials, the ACTD could result in

(1) leaving the EFOG-M residual equipment deployed with a combat unit but

not purchasing additional systems or (2) purchasing a much larger

quantity of EFOG-Ms—possibly to equip the entire early entry force. Before

making decisions regarding retaining the residual deployment or a larger

deployment, the Army should ensure that it has the force structure and

funding needed to operate, support, and maintain EFOG-M beyond the ACTD

program and that the deployment is cost-effective.

For the extended user evaluation, the EFOG-M will be assigned to a

company consisting of 3 platoons with a total of 58 personnel. Each

platoon will have 1 platoon leader vehicle and 4 EFOG-M fire units (12 per

company), and the company will be assigned support vehicles for resupply

of ammunition and fuel. The EFOG-M contractor will support and maintain

the system during the period.

Training and Doctrine Command officials informed us that the company

will perform its normal activities during the evaluation. For example, if the

unit went to training, it would train with the EFOG-M. If the unit were

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

deployed for a military contingency, it would deploy with the EFOG-M as a

part of the force.

The Army Forces Command will provide the personnel to operate and

support the systems during the user evaluation, and the RFPI program

management office will fund the supporting contractor. However, Training

and Doctrine Command officials informed us that funding or support

beyond the 2-year extended user evaluation period has not been planned

for the residual quantity or for a larger procurement. They said such plans

would be premature since decisions have not been made regarding

retaining the residual quantity or procuring a larger amount.

In addition, although retaining the residual quantity without a larger

procurement is an option, at this time the Army has not examined the

cost-effectiveness of such a deployment. For example, we found no

evidence the Army has compared (1) the cost of personnel to operate the

system and the cost to establish or contract for maintenance and logistics

support with (2) the cost to accomplish the mission with other

alternatives. An Army official said the Army plans to make these

comparisons during the ACTD.

We believe the Army should ensure that such cost-effectiveness studies

are performed as well as ensure that a supporting/operating force is

available before making decisions regarding retaining the residual

deployment. In addition, before making decisions regarding a larger

deployment, DOD should ensure that the Army has the force structure and

funding planned to operate, support, and maintain the larger procurement.

Recommendations We recommend that, before deciding to either acquire more EFOG-Ms or

retain the limited quantity beyond the user evaluation, the Secretary of

Defense require the Army to prepare (1) a formal EFOG-M requirements

document and (2) analyses comparing EFOG-M’s cost and operational

effectiveness with other alternatives for satisfying the requirement,

including the weapons of other services if appropriate.

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense establish measurable exit

criteria regarding the most critical EFOG-M performance issues before

beginning the tests, demonstrations, and evaluations.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense evaluate the feasibility

and costs of performing the tests and evaluations to be conducted during

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

the limited procurement in such a fashion to preclude the need to repeat

them if a larger procurement is desired.

We further recommend that, before requesting appropriations to support

and operate the EFOG-M equipment beyond the extended user evaluation

period, the Secretary of Defense require the Army to provide evidence that

such a deployment would be cost-effective. In addition, before requesting

funds for a larger procurement, we recommend that the Secretary of

Defense ensure that the Army has planned sufficient funding and

personnel to support, operate, and maintain the larger procurement.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD said the report contained

many useful comments and observations and it partially agreed with the

recommendations. However, it did not agree with the findings because it

believes the report treats EFOG-M as a normal acquisition program instead

of as part of the RFPI ACTD. We disagree. The report is directed toward

improving DOD’s management of acquiring EFOG-M for the RFPI ACTD,

demonstrating EFOG-M’s utility, and evaluating its military value.

DOD partially agreed with our draft recommendation to prepare a formal

requirements document and conduct analyses comparing EFOG-M cost- and

operational effectiveness with other alternatives by the end of the

force-on-force demonstration. DOD stated that it would prepare a formal

cost- and operational effectiveness analysis and statement of requirement

if the results of the ACTD indicates that a larger quantity of EFOG-M should

be acquired. However, it believed that the timing should be keyed to the

transition decision. Based on DOD’s comments, we modified the

recommendation to provide more flexibility in the timing of establishing

requirements and conducting a cost- and operational effectiveness

analysis. DOD agreed with the modified recommendation.

DOD did not agree with our draft recommendation to establish measurable

exit criteria regarding the most critical EFOG-M performance issues. DOD

stated that exit criteria are not appropriate for use with an ACTD. It further

stated that appropriate testing would be performed to characterize

performance and required levels of performance will be established at the

conclusion of the ACTD. We disagree with DOD. The Army has already

established exit criteria for EFOG-M and the RFPI ACTD management plan

recognizes that most of the systems (including the EFOG-M) have approved

exit criteria that describe the technical goals for each system. Our

recommendation is directed toward making some of these technical goals

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

more specific and measurable. We continue to believe that measurable

critical levels of performance should be established before beginning the

tests, demonstrations, and evaluations.

Because of a misinterpretation, DOD partially agreed with our draft

recommendation to evaluate the feasibility and costs of performing

sufficient tests and evaluations during the limited procurement to preclude

the need to duplicate them during a larger procurement. DOD concluded

that we wanted them to expand the testing program. However, our intent

was to preclude the need to repeat tests to support a larger procurement.

Therefore, we modified the recommendation to prevent any

misunderstanding.

DOD agreed to provide evidence that the deployment of EFOG-M would be

cost-effective before requesting appropriations to support and operate the

EFOG-M equipment beyond the extended user evaluation period. DOD stated

that the results of the RFPI ACTD would include an analysis of the

cost-effectiveness of limited fielding with the inventory procured for the

ACTD as well as for an expanded deployment and that any decision to

procure additional units would include full consideration of funding and

personnel levels required to operate and support the expanded

deployment.

The DOD response and our comments are included in appendix III.

We are sending copies of the report to the Secretaries of Defense and the

Army and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be

made available to others upon request.

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

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appen dix IV.

Thomas J. Schulz

Associate Director, Systems Development

 and Production Issues

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
B-260257 

List of Committees

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

Chairman

The Honorable Sam Nunn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable John P. Murtha

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

EFOG-M Exit Criteria

18

Appendix II 

Scope and

Methodology

20

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

21

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

28

Table Table 1: EFOG-M Demonstration Schedule 6

Figures Figure 1: EFOG-M Fire Unit and Missile 3

Figure 2: Potential EFOG-M Deployment Concept 4

Abbreviations

ACTD Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

CA Combined Arms

DOD Department of Defense

EFOG-M Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile

FOG-M Fiber Optic Guided Missile

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical

NLOS Non-Line of Sight

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

RFPI Rapid Force Projection Initiative

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix I 

EFOG-M Exit Criteria

Operational capability Minimum capability to be demonstrated Maximum capability to be demonstrated

Capabilities to be demonstrated by mid-1996

System missile load Ready to fire 6 missiles Ready to fire more than 6 missiles

System missile reload Reload in benign conditions in 15 minutes Reload in benign conditions in less than 15

minutes

Reload in nuclear, biological, and chemical

(NBC) conditions in 20 to 30 minutes

Reload in NBC conditions in less than 20

minutes

Reload at night and/or in adverse weather

in 20 to 30 minutes

Reload at night and/or in adverse weather

in less than 20 minutes

System response time for missile launch Launch 2 missiles within 30 seconds Launch 3 missiles within 30 seconds

Capable of launching at least 2 missiles in

flight at one time

Launch more than 2 missiles in flight at one

time

Mission planning aid Automated mission planning to include

missile flight to target area

-

Positive identification Gunner recognition without diverting

missile; obtain in-flight intelligence

Positive identification

Missile seeker imagery exploitation System capable of recording missile

seeker video

-

Platoon leader capability to observe any of

platoon gunner’s videos selectively real time

-

Platoon leader capability to passively

transmit same video to other gunners in

platoon

Platoon leader capability to transmit near

real time seeker data images (freeze frame)

with 6-digit grid coordinates, to company

commander/higher echelon

Capability to automatically receive target

information through brigade-level

command and control systems in use at the

time of the demonstration

-

Gunner control of in-flight missiles Gunner capability of making manual

in-flight corrections to single launched

missiles and for subsequent missiles in the

target area in all multiple missile

engagements

-

Gunner capability to manually switch to

next missile in-flight seeker after initial

missile lock-on in multiple missile

engagements

-

Receive and provide updated target

information to missile

Periodic update of missile with current

target location as provided by command

and control systems

Receive updated target information and

provide to missile

Engage targets not in line of sight Engage targets not in line of sight -

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix I 

EFOG-M Exit Criteria

Operational capability Minimum capability to be demonstrated Maximum capability to be demonstrated

Capabilities to be demonstrated by mid-1999

Tactical deployment Air transportable by C-130 aircraft Sling transportable by CH-47D helicopter in

a march order configuration

Sling transportable by UH-60 helicopter (2

lifts)

System deployment Emplacement within a specified number of

minutesa

Emplacement within a specified number of

minutesa

Standby to operate mode within a specified

number of minutesa

Cue/alert to launch within a specified

number of minutesa

Cue/alert to launch within a specified

number of minutesa

Hasty march order within a specified

number of minutesa

Air droppable using low velocity, low

altitude airdrop procedures

Reliability, availability, and maintainability A mean time between operational mission

aborts of 120 hours for the fire unit

A mean time between operational mission

aborts of greater than 120 hours for the fire

unit

A maintenance ratio equal to or less than

0.18 for the fire unit

Maintenance manhours per system

operating hour for the fire unit availability

equal to or greater than 0.90

Missile reliability equal to or greater than

0.89

Missile range Minimum range of 1,000 meters Minimum range of less than 1,000 meters

Maximum range of 15 kilometers Maximum range greater than 15 kilometers

Protect the force For the light system mounted on the heavy

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled

Vehicle, protection to crew and vehicle is

not less than provided by host vehicle

Provide ballistic protection/ survivability for

crew and vehicle against non-nuclear

indirect artillery above that of host vehicle

System location Automatic azimuth orientation and

position/location device integrated into fire

control system

-

Backup Global Positioning System Receiver -

Operability Operate day, night, and in adverse weather -

Countermeasure susceptibility Performance during and after exposure to

battlefield environments

Exceed performance during and after

exposure to battlefield environments

Warhead lethality Defeat existing threat tanks Defeat projected threat tanks through the

year 2005

Defeat helicopters -

aThe specified number of minutes is classified.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

We obtained information regarding the purposes of the Rapid Force

Projection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

(ACTD) by (1) reviewing the RFPI ACTD management plan and (2) discussing

the matter with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced

Technology; the Director of Technology, Office of the Assistant Secretary

of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition; and officials

from the RFPI Program Office, U.S. Army Missile Command.

We obtained information regarding the Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided

Missile (EFOG-M) system’s exit criteria by reviewing the EFOG-M Advanced

Technology Plan and interviewing officials from the Non-Line of Sight

Project Office (responsible for managing the EFOG-M program), Program

Executive Office for Tactical Missiles. In addition, we obtained

information regarding demonstration, test, and evaluation plans from

discussions with RFPI and EFOG-M project officials and officials from the

(1) Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland; (2) Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving

Ground and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; and (3) Operational Test and

Evaluation Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

We also obtained information regarding EFOG-M system requirements, force

structure requirements, and fielding plans from the U. S. Army Training

and Doctrine Command’s System Manager for Antitank Missiles and the

Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory, Fort Benning, Georgia, and the

Early Entry Lethality and Survivability Battle Laboratory, Fort Monroe,

Virginia.

We conducted our review from September 1994 through July 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 1.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 1.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 7.

See comment 8.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 9.

Now on p. 11.

Now on p. 11.

Now on p. 11.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 11-12.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

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

letter dated September 15, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. The report does not focus on the EFOG-M program as a normal acquisition

program. The report is directed toward improving DOD’s management of

acquiring a limited number of EFOG-Ms for the RFPI ACTD. For example, we

believe that the recommendation regarding the formal agreed-upon

requirement is appropriate because requirements and/or support for three

EFOG-M predecessors have disappeared after considerable effort and

expenditure of funds.

2. The report does not ignore the primary thrust of ACTDs. The draft

recommendation was directed at establishing an EFOG-M requirement by

the end of the force-on-force demonstration in mid-1998, or nearly 4 years

into the ACTD program, not at its inception. Our intent was to ensure that

the Army validated its requirement for EFOG-M before deciding whether to

either acquire a larger quantity of EFOG-Ms or retain the residual ACTD

quantity after the 2-year evaluation. Based on DOD’s comments, we

modified our recommendation to permit more flexibility in the timing and

even greater user evaluation.

3. We disagree that requirements, exit criteria, and cost-effectiveness

analyses must be products of an ACTD. We addressed the importance of

exit criteria in the agency comments and evaluation section of the report

and the importance of requirements in comment 1. A cost-effectiveness

analysis can be performed at any time, not at just the end of the ACTD.

4. The report does not recommend force structure planning at this time;

however, it does recommend that such planning occur before a decision is

made to either acquire a larger quantity or retain the limited quantity after

the 2-year evaluation. DOD agreed with the recommendation.

5. The report neither addresses changes in threat nor prohibits exploring

EFOG-M’s effectiveness under early entry conditions. However, as modified,

it recommends an agreed-upon requirement before making a decision to

either procure a larger quantity or retain the limited quantity.

6. We do not judge EFOG-M because of its history; but, at the same time, we

believe that history should be used to assist in making good management

decisions.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

7. Our review was not designed to evaluate the ACTD process, but rather to

examine selected aspects of the acquisition of the Army’s EFOG-M system.

Therefore, we cannot comment on the benefits of ACTD programs.

8. Regarding critical decisions, we modified our recommendations to

permit more flexibility in establishing the requirement; however, we still

believe that a requirement should be established before decisions are

made regarding a larger procurement or retaining a limited quantity. We

also believe that specific measurable exit criteria, or standards for

performance, should be established before tests, evaluations, and

demonstrations.

9. DOD’s comments and our evaluation are included in the body of the

report.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Raymond Dunham, Assistant Director

Atlanta Field Office Thomas W. Gilliam, Evaluator-in-Charge

Erin B. Baker, Evaluator

(707090) Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
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 (301) 258-4097 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
GAO/NSIAD-96-7 Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile