GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 28, 2009 

The Honorable Neil Abercrombie 

Chairman 

The Honorable Roscoe Bartlett 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Defense Acquisitions: Army Aviation Modernization Has Benefited from 

Increased Funding but Several Challenges Need to Be Addressed

The Army’s current efforts to transform and modernize its aviation assets began in 

1999, seeking to maintain and improve the warfighting capabilities of the existing 

force as well as to invest in science and technology in a way that improved the future 

force. To accomplish these goals, the Army focused on upgrading and modernizing 

existing equipment, rapidly fielding new equipment, incorporating new technologies 

as they became available, and restructuring aviation warfighting units. Initially, 

fielding the developmental Comanche helicopter was a key focus of modernization, 

but when the Comanche program was terminated in 2004, an investment strategy was 

presented to Congress that would redistribute $14.6 billion of planned Comanche 

funding through fiscal year 2011 to enhance a broad range of Army aviation 

modernization efforts. Furthermore, the Army is currently re-evaluating the plans 

that were established in 2004 by conducting several assessments, tracking progress, 

and assessing future capability requirements, and intends to develop an updated 

Aviation Modernization Plan in 2010. 

Given this, you asked us to determine: 

• What is the Army’s current investment strategy for its aviation forces? 

• How do the current aviation plans differ from the initial post-Comanche plans 

and what are the causes of the differences?1

• What challenges does the current investment strategy face? 

To address these objectives, we conducted our work at the Department of Defense 

(DOD), Department of Army, Program Executive Office Aviation, Program Executive 

Office Missiles and Space, and selected aviation and missile program offices, holding 

discussions and interviews with appropriate DOD and Army officials. For each 

question, we compared army aviation acquisition plans, analyzed investment data 

 

1

Initial post-Comanche plans were established after the Comanche termination in 2004.
from DOD and the Army, and identified and recognized possible execution risks in 

the Army plans over the coming years. 

On August 13, 2009, we briefed your staff on our initial observations related to the 

Army’s current aviation modernization strategy and the challenges it faces. This 

report transmits the materials we used at the briefing, which are reprinted in 

enclosure I. 

We conducted this audit from November 2008 through September 2009 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary 

The current Army aviation modernization plan, as proposed through fiscal year 2010, 

includes a combination of procuring and upgrading existing aviation systems, 

developing new systems, and buying off-the-shelf equipment. Existing aviation 

systems include the Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, and Kiowa Warrior helicopters. 

New aviation systems include the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and Sky Warrior 

unmanned aerial system. Off-the-shelf programs include the Light Utility Helicopter 

and Raven unmanned aerial system. Of the $5.8 billion requested by the Army for 

aviation investments in fiscal year 2010, the majority—71.1 percent—is for existing 

aviation programs. Development programs account for 11.0 percent and off-the-shelf 

programs, 6.3 percent.2

 Existing aviation programs are generally meeting their cost 

and schedule goals, as are off-the-shelf programs. However, the new development 

programs have either been delayed or are just starting up. 

While aviation plans continue to be dominated by investments in existing and off-theshelf programs, the Army spent considerably more on aviation in recent years than 

originally planned, yet terminated new development programs. For fiscal years 2006 

through 2010, actual spending was about $30.8 billion—including base budget and 

supplemental funds—considerably more than the Army’s original target of $21.6 

billion (in fiscal year 2010 dollars). Major increases in funding occurred in several 

programs: Apache upgrades and procurement, unmanned aerial system procurement, 

Chinook and Blackhawk procurement, Hellfire missiles, and Aircraft Survivability 

Equipment. A sizable portion of the increased funding was for replacement aircraft 

and missiles that were lost or used in ongoing conflicts. Also, differences exist in 

several areas due to an expansion in an existing aviation program, termination of 

several programs planned for development, and program changes as directed by the 

Secretaries of Defense and Army. 

Ongoing activities to modernize Army aviation are expected to continue for the next 

several years, but several challenges exist that will have an impact on those efforts, 

including managing within reasonable funding expectations, balancing demands to 

field equipment quickly while ensuring the maturity of the technology, and acquiring 

and maintaining needed aviation capabilities. For example, 

 

2

Totals do not include supplemental requests for fiscal year 2010. The remaining 10.9 percent of 

aviation investments are for avionics, air traffic control, and other needs. 

Page 2 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions
• Managing within reasonable funding expectations will require the Army to 

provide long-term funding to support upgrading and sustaining the Kiowa 

Warrior helicopter fleet, and potentially develop and procure a replacement 

for the Kiowa Warrior. Furthermore, the Army will need to maintain an 

acceptable inventory of Hellfire missiles (particularly the laser variant) until 

the Joint Air-to-Ground missile is available.

• Balancing demands to field equipment quickly while ensuring the maturity 

of the technology will require the Army to continue to meet current aircraft 

survivability needs with currently available equipment and develop follow-on 

survivability capabilities. Further, the Army will need to come to agreement on 

unmanned aerial system commonality issues with the Air Force while 

resolving Sky Warrior technical issues. 

• Acquiring and maintaining needed aviation capabilities will require the 

Army to balance its aviation capabilities to account for the addition of 

unmanned aircraft systems; while many new unmanned aircraft systems have 

been fielded, there have been no reductions in manned aircraft. Further, the 

Army will need to optimize teaming between unmanned aircraft, ground 

forces, and manned aircraft. 

Conclusions 

Army aviation has not faced funding shortfalls since embarking on the postComanche plan; in fact, Army funding for aviation has increased by about 40 percent. 

The Army has been relying largely on existing aviation programs and off-the-shelf 

programs while several new development programs have experienced cost, schedule, 

and performance problems resulting in termination over the last few years. Cost and 

technical challenges in developing and fielding aircraft and missiles, if not addressed, 

may result in gaps between desired capabilities and available resources. Given the 

growth in aviation funding to date, it would not be reasonable to expect an increase 

in funds as a solution to cost and technical problems. 

Recommendation 

To address various challenges, we recommend the Secretary of the Army ensure that 

the 2010 Army Aviation Modernization Strategy include 

• An assessment of the impact of potentially available funding levels and 

sources on the ongoing and planned aviation programs, and how the Army will 

maximize capabilities within these constraints, 

• Specifics on how the Army intends to balance demands to field aviation 

equipment quickly while ensuring that the technology is mature, and to apply 

lessons learned in its new development programs, and 

• An assessment of the feasibility of acquiring and employing future aviation 

capabilities—such as the Joint Future Theatre Lift aircraft—as well as manage 

the mix of manned and unmanned capabilities over the long term. 

Page 3 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

recommendations. DOD’s comments appear in enclosure II. 

In its comments, DOD noted that of the $9.1 billion GAO identified in its report, $8.0 

billion of that amount is primarily due to supplemental requests, DOD 

reprogrammings, and congressional funding above the department’s request. DOD 

stated that plans for the Kiowa Warrior are fully funded in fiscal year 2010 and the 

Chinook and Blackhawk upgrades are funded acquisition programs to improve the 

capabilities of those aircraft. 

We were unable to verify the $8.0 billion identified by the department; our report 

notes the actual spending though fiscal year 2009 includes $4.0 billion in 

supplemental funding. Additionally, we acknowledge in our report several additional 

drivers of the increased funding including DOD program changes and Apache Block 

III development effort. 

DOD stated that the Army Aviation Strategy is a discrete document that is prepared, 

approved, and presented as a standalone product. DOD noted, however, that the 

strategy is not fully linked to the Army aviation budget planning that is contained in 

Army aviation accounts in the annual budget submission. DOD further stated that the 

complete documentation that is submitted in support of the President’s budget 

request is the department’s formal plan; the strategy may include elements of a 

comprehensive strategy that were not funded, totally or partially, in the process of 

reconciling competing requirements to a constrained budget. 

While we understand the role of the DOD budget, we see value in an overall Army 

Aviation Modernization Strategy. We look forward to both the strategy and budget 

submission to determine how DOD and the Army address the challenges noted in our 

report. 

DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and the Army as 

well as to other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. 

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-

4841 or martinb@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were William Graveline, 

Assistant Director; Michael Hesse; Anne-Marie Lasowski; Wendy Smythe; Marie 

Ahearn; Hai Tran; and Robert Swierczek. 

Sincerely yours, 

Belva M. Martin 

Acting Director, 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Enclosures

Page 4 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions
Enclosure I 

GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

1

Army Aviation Modernization

Briefing to 

House Committee on Armed Services 

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

August 13, 2009
Enclosure I 

Page 6 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

2

Overview

• Objectives

• Background

• Objective 1: Current Army Aviation Investment Strategy

• Objective 2: Causes of Differences

• Objective 3: Future Challenges

• Observations

• Scope and Methodology

• Appendix I
Enclosure I 

Page 7 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

3

Objectives of Our Review

• As requested, we addressed the following key questions:

• What is the Army’s current investment strategy for its aviation 

forces?

• How do the current aviation plans differ from the initial post 

Comanche plans and what are the causes of the differences?1

• What challenges does the current investment strategy face?

1Initial post-Comanche plans were established after the Comanche termination in 2004.
Enclosure I 

Page 8 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

4

Army Transformation

• In 1999, the Army began developing and implementing transformation and 

modernization efforts, including investments in existing aviation assets and 

fielding of the developmental Comanche helicopter.

• The Army’s modernization of aviation assets consists of two parts:

• Maintaining and improving essential warfighting capabilities of the 

existing force through modernization and recapitalization, and

• Investing in science and technology to enable fielding to the future 

force.

• Furthermore, aviation modernization efforts focus on

• Rapid fielding of new equipment,

• Upgrading and modernizing existing equipment,

• Incorporating new technologies as they become available, and

• Restructuring aviation warfighting units into Combat Aviation Brigades 

that are modular, capable, lethal, tailorable, and sustainable.

Background
Enclosure I 

Page 9 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

5

Comanche Termination

• In February 2004, the Comanche program was terminated and funds were 

redistributed to meet mission needs.

• Army aviation study identified a variety of issues that needed to be addressed in 

order to “fix” Army aviation.

• The Army presented an investment strategy to Congress which incorporated the 

planned Comanche funding that would

• Enhance modernization efforts, and 

• Work toward a more deployable, modular, and joint force structure. 

• The strategy enabled the Army’s modernization efforts.

• The Army aviation portfolio included the Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, Armed 

Reconnaissance, and Light Utility helicopters; the Joint Cargo Aircraft; Raven 

unmanned aerial system (UAS), MQ-1C Extended Range Multi-Purpose UAS 

(Sky Warrior), and Shadow UAS; and the Joint Common and Hellfire missiles.

• The portfolio also included aircraft survivability equipment, missiles systems, 

and other aviation support.

Background
Enclosure I 

Page 10 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

6

Re-evaluation of 2004 Plans and Army 

Aviation Portfolio

• The Army is currently re-evaluating the plans established in 2004 through 

several assessments, tracking progress in modernizing aviation, and 

assessing future capability requirements.

• Army Aviation Study II 

• Review of findings of 2004 Aviation Study

• Review of future helicopter needs

• Consider roles of unmanned aviation systems

• Future Vertical Lift Capabilities Based Assessment

• Consider a variety of airlift issues, including Joint Future Theatre 

Lift capabilities

• Quadrennial Defense Review

• Look at strategies and programs, including those in the Army 

Aviation arena

Background
Enclosure I 

Page 11 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

7

What Is the Army’s Current Investment 

Strategy for Its Aviation Forces?

• The Army Aviation Modernization Plan describes aviation missions and 

available capabilities while discussing planned aviation developments and 

acquisitions.

• The 2010 strategy includes a combination of procuring and upgrading 

existing systems, developing new systems, and buying off-the-shelf 

equipment.2

• Existing programs—Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, and Kiowa 

Warrior helicopters; Shadow UAS; Aircraft Survivability Equipment 

(ASE); and Hellfire missile

• Off-the-shelf programs—Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) and Raven 

UAS

• New development programs—Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), 

and Sky Warrior UAS are already underway; Armed Aerial Scout 

system to start in the future.

Objective One

2Appendix I describes the programs and provides information on quantities and costs.
Enclosure I 

Page 12 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

8

Composition of the Army’s Fiscal Year 

2010 Aviation Investment Strategy

3Totals do not include supplemental requests for fiscal year 2010.

• Of the $5.8 billion in fiscal year 

2010 investments in the Army 

aviation portfolio, existing aircraft 

programs make up about 71.7 

percent.

• New programs (development, 11.0 

percent and off-the-shelf, 6.3 

percent) account for 17.3 percent 

of the total portfolio with most 

spending being directed to 

developmental programs.

• Other spending in aviation is 10.9 

percent and includes avionics, air 

traffic control, aircraft ground 

support equipment, and aircraft 

components.3

Objective One
Enclosure I 

Page 13 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

9

Status of 2010 Army Aviation Programs

• Programs to procure and/or upgrade existing aircraft are generally 

meeting their cost and performance goals.

• Off-the-shelf programs

• LUH and Raven are generally meeting their cost and 

performance goals.

• New development programs

• JAGM is early in its development,

• Delays in fielding Sky Warrior program of record, and

• Armed Aerial Scout development program expected to start in 

the future.

Objective One
Enclosure I 

Page 14 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

10

How Do the 2010 Plans Differ from the Initial PostComanche Plans and What Are the Causes?

• While similarities exist between the Army’s current and initial postComanche plans in terms of investments in existing aircraft and off-theshelf programs, key differences have occurred in the portfolio.

• Furthermore, the Army has spent considerably more on Aviation in recent 

years than originally planned.

• Contributing causes for differences in the plans include

• Expansion in scope of the program to further upgrade the Apache 

helicopter,

• Termination of new development programs such as Armed 

Reconnaissance Helicopter, Joint Common Missile, Advanced 

Precision Kill Weapon System, and

• Program changes as directed by the Secretary of Defense and Army.

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 15 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

11

Aviation Portfolio Similarities and 

Differences

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 16 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

12

Causes of Differences—Increased Spending 

for Aviation

• Overall, the Army has and will continue to spend more resources annually 

to modernize aviation than it had planned to do after the termination of 

Comanche.

• For fiscal years 2006 through 2010, the Army planned to spend $21.6 

billion on aviation modernization.

• Actual and planned spending for those years was about $30.8 billion, 

including base budget and supplemental funds. 

• Major increases in funding occurred in these areas: 

• Apache upgrades and procurement as well as Block III development

• UAS procurement

• Chinook and Blackhawk procurement

• Hellfire missiles

• Aircraft Survivability Equipment

• Actual spending through fiscal year 2009 includes at least $4.0 billion in 

supplemental funding used for war replacement purposes.

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 17 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

13

Causes of Differences—Spending for 

Fiscal Years 2006-2010

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 18 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

14

Causes of Differences—Expansion of 

Apache Block III Development Effort

• Originally an engineering change proposal, the Apache Block 

III was expanded and upgraded to an ACAT 1D program in 

2006.

• Apache Block III, an upgrade to the D model, includes 

improved drive systems; upgraded communications; 

improved situational awareness, targeting, and navigation; 

and Level 4 UAS capability.

• A milestone C production decision is expected in April 2010 

with initial capability set for January 2013.

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 19 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

15

Causes of Differences—Termination of 

New Developmental Programs

• Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter—Due to cost, 

schedule, and performance problems, DOD terminated the 

program in October 2008.

• APKWS Rocket System—Terminated due to contractor 

problems with cost, schedule, and performance 

expectations caused by technical issues and failed testing.

• Joint Common Missile—Development was established in 

April 2004, but cancelled in December 2004 due to future 

capability needs.

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 20 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

16

Causes of Differences—Directed 

Program Changes

• Aircraft Survivability Equipment—In September 2008, the Army 

authorized immediate action to equip Chinook aircraft with an ATIRCM 

system in quick reaction capability (QRC) configuration for wartime use.

• Sky Warrior—As part of the Secretary of Defense direction for a surge in 

intelligence assets, Army used supplemental funds to procure two QRC 

Sky Warrior systems, the first was fielded in July 2009 and the second will 

be fielded in 2010. 

• Systems are to be fielded even though they do not meet all of the key 

performance parameters.

• DOD has accelerated initial fielding of Sky Warrior by about 1.5 years.

• Joint Cargo Aircraft—The Secretary of Defense removed all funding 

from the fiscal year 2010 Army budget when responsibility for the program 

was moved to the Air Force.

Objective Two
Enclosure I 

Page 21 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

17

What Challenges Does the Current 

Investment Strategy Face?

• Ongoing activities to modernize Army aviation are 

expected to continue for the next several years.

• However, several challenges have emerged, including

• Managing within reasonable funding expectations,

• Balancing demands to field equipment quickly with 

technology maturity, and

• Acquiring and maintaining needed aviation 

capabilities.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 22 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

18

Managing Within Reasonable Funding 

Expectations—Armed Scout Helicopter

• Within the Armed Scout Helicopter program, the Army has two initiatives in 

place to sustain and upgrade the armed scout capabilities.

• Upgrading and sustaining the Kiowa Warrior fleet 

• Obsolescence and weight reduction initiatives as well as 

completion of the safety enhancement program

• Converting A/C models to D models

• Upgrades including nose mounted sensor

• Developing and procuring a new Armed Aerial Scout system that will 

replace the terminated ARH (which was to replace Kiowa Warrior).

• Analysis of alternatives to be started soon.

• Both initiatives have been defined and initially approved, but not fully 

budgeted.

• Challenge: match realistic funding with scope of these two efforts.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 23 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

19

Managing Within Reasonable Funding 

Expectations—Missile Procurement

• Army has expended more than 11,000 

Hellfire missiles (in Iraq and Afghanistan), 

and plans to purchase 2,373 with 

supplemental funds in fiscal year 2010. 

• Unclear if Army has accounted for 

usage with unmanned assets in 

future inventory plans.

• Other than plans to replenish Hellfire 

missiles with fiscal years 2009 and 2010 

supplemental funds, additional 

procurement is not currently planned in the 

base budget even though future needs 

seems to be predictable.

• Initial fielding of Joint Air-to-Ground Missile 

(which is to replace Hellfire) is planned for 

fiscal year 2016, which could result in a 

significant inventory shortfall prior to JAGM 

deliveries. 

• Challenge: maintain an acceptable 

inventory of Hellfire missiles (particularly 

the laser variant) until JAGM is available.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 24 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

20

Managing Within Reasonable Funding Expectations—

Supplemental Funding Resets Aircraft

• The Army is actively “resetting” many assets in its aircraft 

fleet and buying new aircraft to offset wartime losses. These 

activities are funded through supplemental funding. 

• The Army’s reset program restores aviation equipment to 

a fully mission-capable condition using special technical 

inspection and repair procedures. 

• Total spending on reset through July 2009 for aviation 

platforms is $3.5 billion.

• Challenge: maintain sufficient funding to continue resetting 

aviation equipment as they return from the warfront.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 25 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

21

Balancing Demands to Field Equipment Quickly with 

Technology Maturity—Aircraft Survivability Equipment

• The Army has accelerated fielding of the quick reaction capability 

ATIRCM/CMWS assets to meet warfighters’ immediate needs while 

restructuring the longer term development of the ATIRCM program of 

record.

• The Army is continuing to meet aircraft survivability needs by 

developing the quick reaction capability and adjusting the mix of 

flares to meet threat changes. 

• The ATIRCM program is being restructured and plans to conduct a 

new competition with competitive prototyping once requirements and a 

fielding timeline has been validated through the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council.

• Challenge: continue to meet current aircraft survivability needs with 

ATIRCM/CMWS and develop follow on ASE capabilities.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 26 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

22

Balancing Demands to Field Equipment Quickly with 

Technology Maturity—Unmanned Aircraft Systems

• In September 2007, DOD directed the Army’s Sky Warrior and the 

Air Force’s Predator programs to be more common by combining 

them into a single acquisition effort but that has not yet been 

accomplished.

• Efforts to meet urgent warfighter needs through a quick reaction

capability have delayed initial production deliveries of the Sky

Warrior program of record. 

• Technical issues in development of the Synthetic Aperture 

Radar have delayed the program of record’s ability to perform 

as required. 

• Challenge: finalize Air Force/Army agreement on commonality 

issues and resolve technical issues faced in Sky Warrior 

acquisition.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 27 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

23

Acquiring and Maintaining Needed Aviation 

Capabilities—Mix of Manned and Unmanned Aircraft

• Army has been considering how best to use unmanned aircraft to 

optimize teaming with ground forces and manned aircraft.

• Quantities of unmanned systems expanding:

• Sky Warrior, Shadow, and Raven.

• Future Combat System’s unmanned aircraft may be fielded to 

current Army forces in the coming years.

• However, no reduction in number of manned aircraft.

• Challenge: optimize aviation capabilities and size of aircraft 

inventories.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 28 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

24

Acquiring and Maintaining Needed Aviation 

Capabilities—Joint Future Theatre Lift

• Enhanced capabilities attributed to Joint Future Theatre Lift (JFTL) aircraft 

may offer up opportunity for a new way of fighting.

• Such as mounted vertical maneuver concept.

• Army and Air Force requirements and proposal now up for consideration by 

the Secretary of Defense.

• Initial Joint Requirements Oversight Council review and possible

approval expected by summer 2009.

• JFTL acquisition may require significant resources.

• The Army requirement for JFTL may have to be reassessed in light of 

recent decisions on the Future Combat System program and the 

modernization of the brigade combat teams. 

• Challenge: determine if there is a technically feasible and affordable 

means to implement mounted vertical maneuver concept and, if not, reexamine the concept.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 29 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

25

Acquiring and Maintaining Needed Aviation 

Capabilities—Long Term Aviation Needs

• Current “work horse” aircraft, Apache, Blackhawk, and Chinook, are seen 

by the Army as providing at least adequate capabilities for the next 10 

years.

• Next generation rotorcraft may not be technically feasible and 

affordable right now.

• User community looking at potential capability gaps for 2015-2024 

time period.

• Based on a recent Secretary of Defense decision, the Joint Cargo Aircraft 

was transferred to the Air Force.

• Army may have a capability gap for the delivery of mission critical, time 

sensitive cargo, and key personnel to forward deployed units in the 

Joint Operations Area.

• Challenge: minimize capability gaps over the long term.

Objective Three
Enclosure I 

Page 30 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

26

Conclusions

• Army aviation has not faced any funding shortfalls since embarking 

on the post-Comanche plan; in fact, Army funding for aviation has 

increased by about 40 percent.

• While the Army continues to rely largely on procuring and 

upgrading existing systems and procuring off-the-shelf aviation 

systems, new development programs have experienced cost, 

schedule, and performance problems which often resulted in 

termination.

• Cost and technical challenges in developing and fielding aircraft 

and missiles, if not addressed, may result in gaps between desired 

capabilities and available resources. Given the growth in aviation 

funding to date, it may not be reasonable to expect an increase in 

funds as a solution to cost and technical problems.
Enclosure I 

Page 31 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

27

Scope and Methodology

• We conducted our work at DOD, Department of the Army, Program Executive 

Office Aviation, Program Executive Office Missiles and Space, and selected 

aviation and missile program offices. 

• For each question, we analyzed investment data from DOD and the Army as well 

as held discussions and interviews with appropriate DOD and Army officials from 

the listed locations. We

1. compared the fiscal year 2006 and 2010 Army aviation acquisition plans to 

determine changes over the last 5 years and determine the status of each 

portion of the plan,

2. reviewed and analyzed investment strategies and data for aviation systems 

and conducted interviews with DOD and Army officials to determine causes of 

divergences from previous plans, and 

3. identified and recognized possible execution risks in the Army plans over the 

coming years.

• To accomplish our work, we visited the Pentagon, Arlington, Va. and Redstone 

Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala.
Enclosure I 

Page 32 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

28

Appendix I—Systems Included in Current 

Army Aviation Portfolio

• AH-64 Apache

• UH-60 Blackhawk

• CH-47 Chinook

• OH-58D Kiowa Warrior

• Shadow Unmanned System

• Aircraft Survivability Equipment

• Hellfire Missile

• Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Replacement

• Joint Air-to-Ground Missile

• Sky Warrior Unmanned System

• Light Utility Helicopter

• Raven Unmanned System

Appendix I
Enclosure I 

Page 33 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

29

Existing Aircraft Program: Apache 

Helicopter Upgrades

• System Description: The Apache helicopter 

performs attack and reconnaissance missions.

• The D model upgrades add millimeter wave 

fire control radar, radar frequency 

interferometer, fire and forget radar guided 

missile, and digitization enhancements.

• The Apache Block III upgrades are expected 

to amplify performance, improve situational 

awareness, enhance lethality, increase 

survivability, and provide interoperability.

• Army Plans: Upgrade 618 Apache A model 

aircraft to Block III aircraft. Additionally, as 

part of the National Guard Modernization 

plan, Apache will also convert the remaining 

95 Army National Guard A models to Block III. 

In fiscal year 2010, the Army plans 28 

conversions and war replacement aircraft. 

The Apache Block III production decision is 

April 2010 and plans to procure 8 low rate 

production aircraft. 

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$1.1 billion

Appendix I
Enclosure I 

Page 34 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

30

• System Description: Blackhawk 

provides utility and assault lift capability in 

support of air assault, medevac, general 

support, and lift helicopter.

• The M model adds a digital cockpit, 

upgraded engine, upgraded 

communications, CMWS, and wide chord 

blades.

• Army plans to further upgrade the M 

model (Mu) with fly-by-wire technology for 

integration with FCS, an upgraded 

cockpit, and a composite tail cone; Mu 

model will continue through fiscal year 

2015.

• Blackhawk A to L conversions will extend 

service life and add capabilities to 

continue through fiscal year 2015; 38 are 

planned for fiscal year 2010.

• Army Plans: to procure 1,227 Blackhawk 

M aircraft. M model procurement started 

in 2005 and will continue through fiscal 

year 2012.

Existing Aircraft Program: Procurement 

of New Blackhawks and Upgrades 

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$1.5 billion

Appendix I
Enclosure I 

Page 35 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

31

Existing Aircraft Program: Chinook D-to-F 

Upgrade and Procurement of New F Models

• System Description: The CH-47 

provides transportation for tactical 

vehicles, artillery, engineer 

equipment, personnel, and 

logistical support equipment.

• The F model features upgraded 

engine, common avionics, air 

warrior, and digital automatic flight 

control.

• The Army plans to acquire 513 F 

models; 202 new builds and 311 

remanufactured aircraft. In fiscal 

year 2009, 69 F models were 

delivered.

• Army Plans: Procure 31 aircraft in 

fiscal year 2010 with plans to 

continue to at least fiscal year

2017.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$1.2 billion

Appendix I
Enclosure I 

Page 36 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

32

Existing Aircraft Program: Kiowa Warrior Life 

Support 2020 and A/C to D Conversions

• System Description: The OH-58D Kiowa 

Warrior is a two-seat, single-engine, 

observation, scout/attack helicopter that 

operates autonomously at standoff ranges 

providing armed reconnaissance, 

command and control, and target 

acquisition/designation for Apache 

helicopters and other airborne weapons

• Increased cost contributed by integration 

of nose mounted sensor results in an 

acquisition category II designation with 

the associated milestone decision cycle.

• Army Plans: Sustain the fleet through 

obsolescence and weight reduction 

initiatives - Kiowa Warrior Life Support 

2020. Convert existing OH-58 A/C aircraft 

to D Models to replace combat losses. 

Upgrade all Kiowa Warriors with nose 

mounted sensor.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$334.8 million

Appendix I
Enclosure I 

Page 37 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

33

Existing Aircraft Program: Shadow UAS 

Product Improvement

• System Description: Shadow provides 

the tactical maneuver commander nearreal-time reconnaissance, surveillance, 

target acquisition, and force protection 

during day/night and limited adverse 

weather conditions.

• The quantity required to equip and 

sustain the Army force is 115 Systems; 

The Army Procurement Objective is 102 

and 100 have been procured to date.

• A decision to enter Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development was made 

in December 1999. A decision to begin 

full rate production was made in 

September 2002.

• Army Plans: Procure laser designators 

and retrofits of the tactical common data 

link which includes a ground control 

station as well as pre-planned product 

improvements.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$609.4 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 38 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

34

Existing Aircraft Program: Aircraft 

Survivability Equipment

• System Description: ATIRCM/CMWS is an 

integrated warning and countermeasure 

system to enhance aircraft survivability against 

infrared guided threat missiles.

• A-kits are wiring and modification hardware 

necessary to install the B-kits, which are the 

mission equipment.

• ATIRCM includes an active infrared jammer 

and a countermeasure dispenser for flares 

and chaff. 

• CMWS is an integrated suite of infrared 

countermeasures including a passive missile 

warning system and a countermeasure 

dispenser.

• CMWS has completed 1,780 A-kit and 913 

B-kit installations as of January 2009. The 

ATIRCM program of record is not yet fielded. 

• Army Plans: ATIRCM program restructure 

began April 2009 separating ATIRCM and 

CMWS. Subprogram next generation ATIRCM 

is to report back to the DAB in 60 days with a 

new acquisition strategy.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$537.7 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 39 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

35

Existing Aviation Program: Hellfire Missiles

• System Description: Hellfire is an 

air-to-ground, point target, 

precision strike missile system 

designed to defeat hardpoint 

targets. 

• Two primary variants - Hellfire II 

semi-active laser guidance and 

Longbow Hellfire millimeter wave 

radar guidance.

• Army has a requirement for 13,549 

Hellfire missiles. 

• Army Plans: Procure 2,373 

missiles in fiscal year 2010.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$250.9 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 40 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

36

New Start Development Program: Armed 

Aerial Scout

• System Description: The 

developmental ARH was to 

provide reconnaissance and 

security capability for air and 

ground maneuver teams and 

replace the aging Kiowa Warrior 

Helicopter.

• Due to cost, schedule, and 

performance problems, DOD 

terminated the ARH program in 

October 2008.

• Army Plans: To complete an 

analysis of alternatives prior to 

starting a program to replace the 

Kiowa Warrior.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$4.3 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 41 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

37

New Start Development Program: Joint Air-toGround Missile

• System Description: The Joint 

Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) is 

an air-launched missile system 

that provides advanced line-ofsight and beyond-line-of-sight 

capabilities. 

• The system will be used with 

fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing 

aircraft, and unmanned aircraft 

systems.

• Army Plans: The JAGM is 

planned to replace the Army’s 

Hellfire Missiles.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$127.4 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 42 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

38

New Start Development Program: Sky Warrior 

Unmanned Aircraft System

• System Description: Sky Warrior is 

an unmanned aircraft system that 

operates alone or with other platforms 

to perform reconnaissance, 

surveillance, target acquisition, and 

attack missions. Development began 

in 2005.

• Sky Warrior includes two efforts 

• the program of record, with a 

production decision scheduled for 

November 2009 and

• two less-capable “quick reaction” 

systems added in response to 

DOD direction, the first of which is 

to be fielded in July 2009.

• Army Plans: Procure three systems 

with new equipment training and preplanned product improvement.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$651.4 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 43 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

39

Off-the-Shelf Acquisition: Light Utility 

Helicopter

• System Description: LUH is a 

commercially procured helicopter 

designed to perform a variety of 

missions from nongovernmental to 

homeland security.

• National Guard is the primary user of 

LUH for conducting missions in support 

of homeland security such as civil 

search and rescue and counter-drug 

operations. 

• LUH is being procured to replace aging 

UH-1 and OH-58A/C aircraft. LUH will 

also free up Army National Guard 

Blackhawk assets.

• Army Plans: Procure 340 LUH through 

fiscal year 2015 and 72 aircraft have 

been delivered to date.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$326.0 million

Appendix One
Enclosure I 

Page 44 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

40

Off-the-Shelf Acquisition: Raven UAS

• System Description: The RQ-11 

Raven Small Unmanned Aircraft 

System is an “over the hill” 

rucksack-portable, day/night, 

limited adverse-weather, remotely 

operated, multi-sensor system 

used in support of combat. 

• Total Army acquisition quantity 

procured to date 1,368 (includes 

50 DDL systems). In addition, 206 

system retrofits from analog to 

digital.

• The program entered milestone C 

in October 2005.

• Army Plans: Procure 729 

additional units through fiscal year 

2015.

Fiscal year 2010 funding request: 

$79.6 million

Appendix One
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 46 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions

Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 46 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 47 GAO-09-978R Defense Acquisitions 

(120799) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and GAO’s Mission investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

GAO Reports and posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone 	 The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Relations Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548