Military Transformation: Fielding of Army's Stryker Vehicles Is Well Under Way, but Expectations for Their Transportability by C-130 Aircraft Need to Be Clarified
Released: 2004-08-12T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Stryker family of vehicles consists of 10 eight-wheeled armored vehicles mounted on a common chassis that provide transport for troops, weapons, and command and control. Stryker vehicles weigh on average about 19 tons—or 38,000 pounds, substantially less than the M1A1 Abrams tanks (68 tons) and the Bradley Fighting vehicle (33 tons), the primary combat platforms of the Army’s heavier armored units. The C-130 cargo aircraft is capable of tactical, or in-theater, transport of one Stryker vehicle; the Army’s Abrams tank and Bradley Fighting vehicle exceed the C-130 aircraft’s size and weight limits.

The Army’s original operational requirements for Stryker vehicles included (1) the capability of entering, being transportable in, and exiting a C-130 aircraft; (2) the vehicle’s combat capable deployment weight must not exceed 38,000 pounds to allow C-130 transport of 1,000 miles; and (3) the Stryker vehicles must be capable of immediate combat operations after unloading. The Army’s most current operational requirements for Stryker vehicles required the same vehicle weight and C-130 transport capabilities without reference to C-130 transport of 1,000 miles. The Army has similar operational requirements for its Future Combat Systems’ vehicles. The Army’s April 2003 Operational Requirements document for the Future Combat Systems requires the vehicles’ essential combat configuration to be no greater than 38,000 pounds and have a size suitable for C-130 aircraft transport. A memorandum of agreement between the Air Force and the Army issued in 2003, set procedures allowing C-130 transport of 38,000-pound Stryker vehicles aboard Air Force aircraft, but required that the combined weight of the vehicles, other cargo, and passengers shall not exceed C-130 operational capabilities, which vary based on mission requirements, weather, airfield conditions, among other factors.

Eight of the 10 vehicle configurations are being acquired production ready—meaning they require little engineering design and development work prior to production. Two of the 10 vehicle configurations, the Mobile Gun System and the NBC Reconnaissance vehicle, are developmental vehicle variants—meaning that a substantial amount of design, development, and testing is needed before they can go into production. Table 1 provides descriptions of the ten Stryker vehicles. Three of the vehicles are shown in figures 1 to 3.

The Army selected one light infantry brigade and one mechanized infantry brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington, to become the first two of six planned Stryker brigades. The first of these brigades, the 3rd Brigade, Second Infantry Division, became operational in October 2003, at which time the Brigade was deployed to Iraq. The second of the two Fort Lewis brigades became operational in May 2004, and plans are for it to deploy to Iraq in late 2004. The Army plans to form four more Stryker brigades from 2005 through 2008. The planned locations of the next four brigades are Fort Wainwright/Fort Richardson, Alaska; Fort Polk, Louisiana; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and a brigade of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.

Acquisition of Stryker Production Vehicles Is about Two-thirds Complete, Though Overall Program Costs Have Increased, and Operational Cost Estimates Are Not Yet Reliable

Acquisition of the eight Stryker production vehicle configurations is about two-thirds complete with about 68 percent of the over 1,800-planned production vehicles ordered, and a low rate of production for the two developmental Strykers is scheduled for September 2004. Estimated program costs have increased because of, among other reasons, increases in the Army’s estimate for related military construction, such as for the cost of building new Stryker vehicle maintenance facilities. However, the Army does not yet have reliable estimates for the Stryker’s operating costs, such as for vehicle maintenance, because of limited peacetime operational experience with the vehicles.

About Two-thirds of Stryker Production Vehicle Acquisition Completed

The Army is pursuing three acquisition schedules for the Stryker production and developmental vehicles. Since the November 2000 Stryker vehicle contract award, the Army has ordered 1,231 production vehicles—about 68 percent—of the 1,814 production vehicles the Army plans to buy for the six Stryker brigades. Of the 1,231 vehicles ordered, 800 have been delivered to the brigades, including all of the production vehicles for the first two Stryker brigades. The Army is currently fielding Stryker production vehicles for the third of the six planned brigades. The third brigade is to be fielded in Alaska.

Thus far, the Army has bought limited quantities of the developmental vehicle variants—8 Mobile Gun System and 4 NBC Reconnaissance vehicles—as prototypes and for use in testing at various test sites around the country. Of 238 Mobile Gun Systems the Army plans to buy overall, current plans are to buy 72 initially upon approval for low-rate initial production scheduled for September 2004. The Army plans low-rate initial production of 17 NBC Reconnaissance vehicles also in September 2004. The Mobile Gun System is not scheduled to reach a full production decision until September 2006 at the earliest, while the NBC Reconnaissance vehicle is not scheduled to reach its full production decision until 2007. Table 2 below shows the status of Stryker vehicle acquisition as of April 2004.

Stryker Vehicle Program’s Costs Have Increased from Earlier Estimates

The Stryker vehicle program’s total costs increased, in then-year dollars, from the original November 2000 estimate of $7.1 billion to the December 2003 estimate of $8.7 billion—or about 22 percent. The increases occurred primarily due to revised estimates for the associated cost of military construction, such as that needed to upgrade maintenance and training facilities for a Stryker brigade, but were also due to lesser increases in procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) costs for the vehicles—which together grew by about 8 percent from the original November 2000 estimate.

In then-year dollars, the estimated cost of military construction accounted for the largest increase in the Stryker program’s cost estimate. In December 2003, the Army increased its estimate for military construction by about $1.01 billion over the original November 2000 estimate, from $322 million to $1.3 billion. (See table 3.) As in all major Department of Defense acquisition programs, military construction costs are included in the program’s total costs. According to the Army, the military construction cost estimate increased because the December 2003 estimate reflects (1) the identification of all five sites scheduled to receive Stryker brigades and (2) the total cost of upgrading or building maintenance and training facilities at these installations to accommodate a Stryker brigade. When the original estimate was made, only one site had been identified to receive a Stryker brigade and that estimate identified just the cost of maintenance facility upgrades.

The Stryker vehicle’s procurement costs increased by about $390 million. The largest factor in the increase of procurement costs was the higher than originally estimated costs of procuring add-on reactive armor, including the additional costs to equip six Stryker brigades with add-on armor, instead of four brigades as originally planned. Also, the cost of RDT&E increased about $138 million, from $508 million to $645.6 million. Most of the RDT&E cost increase is attributable to revised estimates for the cost of test and evaluation, development, and system engineering for the developmental vehicles. The average acquisition cost per vehicle increased by about $0.79 million, from $3.34 million to $4.13 million. The program costs and average acquisition cost per vehicle estimates reflect a reduction in the number of Strykers planned from 2,131 to 2,096. (See table 3 above.)

Limited Peacetime Operational Experience Makes Operating Cost Estimates Unreliable

The Army does not have reliable estimates of Stryker vehicle operating costs because, with the first Stryker brigade’s deployment to Iraq, it lacks sufficient peacetime operational experience with the vehicles. The Army considers 3 years of actual peacetime operational cost data to be sufficient for reliable estimates. Since none of the production vehicles have 3 years of peacetime operating experience, reliable operating cost estimates will not be available until 2005 at the earliest. With the Mobile Gun System and NBC Reconnaissance vehicles still in development, it will be several years before these vehicles are fully fielded and sufficient data are available for reliable estimates of their operating costs.

According to the Army, current Stryker vehicle operating cost estimates, shown in table 4 below, are engineering estimates based in part on operating costs for another vehicle in the Army’s inventory—the M-113 armored personnel carrier. The estimates assume peacetime operations.

Vehicle operating costs include the cost for maintenance, repair, and the cost of consumable and repairable parts. The Army calculates vehicle cost per mile by tracking vehicle mileage and the actual costs of consumable or replaceable parts used. However, the short time frame from fielding the first Stryker brigade’s production vehicles—May 2002 through January 2003—and the brigades’ deployment to Iraq in October 2003, limited the amount of time and miles the vehicles were in peacetime service. Similarly, fielding of Stryker vehicles for the second brigade was completed in January 2004. While the Army collected operational cost and mileage data for both brigades, there were insufficient actual operating costs and miles on the vehicles to make reliable estimates. Consequently, until the Army can collect more actual peacetime operating cost data for the production vehicles, it will not be able to determine actual vehicle operating costs and make reliable operating cost estimates for these vehicles. Similarly, reliable operating cost estimates for the Mobile Gun System and NBC Reconnaissance vehicle will not be available until after 2006 when they are scheduled to begin full production and fielding.

Tested Production Vehicles Generally Met Requirements, but Testing and Acquisition Schedules for Developmental Vehicles Have Been Delayed

According to Army and OSD test reports, the tested Stryker production vehicles met operational requirements with certain limitations and, overall, support the key operational capabilities and force effectiveness of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The separate developmental testing schedules of the Mobile Gun System and NBC Reconnaissance vehicles have been delayed, resulting in delays in meeting planned production milestone dates. Delay in the Mobile Gun System’s development was due in part to shortfalls in meeting performance requirements of the vehicle’s ammunition autoloader system. The NBC Reconnaissance vehicle’s development schedule was delayed pending OSD approval of an updated technology readiness assessment for the vehicle and its nuclear, biological, and chemical sensor systems.

Following Testing, Army and OSD Indicate Stryker Production Vehicles Met Operational Requirements, with Limitations

Following the Army’s completion of live-fire tests and evaluation for seven production vehicles in February 2004 and its ongoing test evaluation of the eighth, the Army stated that the Stryker production vehicles met operational requirements, with limitations; and OSD approved full production.

The Army’s System Evaluation Report for the Stryker production decision concluded that overall, the Stryker family of vehicles is effective, suitable, and survivable, and supports the key operational capabilities and force effectiveness of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The report concluded that the Stryker production vehicle configurations met operational requirements with limitations. For example, in the area of lethality, the report noted that four Stryker vehicle configurations have a remote weapons station that provides effective protective and supporting fires for dismounted maneuver. However, limitations of the remote weapons station’s capability to provide accurate and continuous fires at night and while moving reduce its effectiveness and lethality. Similarly, while the Stryker vehicles contribute to force protection and meet survivability requirements, there are inherent and expected survivability limitations as in any armored vehicle system. Table 5 lists some of the operational requirements of the vehicles and excerpts of selected performance capabilities and limitations from the Army’s Stryker system evaluation report.

The OSD Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, found that six Stryker production vehicles are operationally effective for employment in small- scale contingency operations and operationally suitable with certain limitations. OSD found that the Engineer Squad vehicle is not operationally suitable because of poor reliability. However, in its March 2004 Stryker acquisition decision, OSD determined that the operational capabilities provided by the Engineer Squad vehicle supported its continued production in light of planned fixes, operational work-arounds, and planned follow-on testing. It also determined that corrective actions are needed to address survivability and ballistic vulnerability limitations of the vehicles, such as ensuring basic armor performance and reducing exposure of Stryker personnel.

Mobile Gun System Development and Testing Schedule Ongoing but Delayed

Although developmental testing is ongoing, the development and testing schedule of the Mobile Gun System has been delayed, resulting in more than a 1-year delay in meeting planned production decision milestone dates, with initial limited production to start in September 2004. The delay in the Mobile Gun System’s development was due in part to shortfalls in meeting performance requirements of the vehicle’s ammunition autoloader system. At the time of our review, the Mobile Gun System was undergoing additional testing to find a fix for the autoloader, in preparation for a low- rate production decision. The Mobile Gun System is scheduled for production qualification testing through July 2004, production verification testing starting in October 2005, and live-fire test and evaluation starting in November 2005 through September 2006. The Army’s earlier Mobile Gun System acquisition schedule was to complete developmental testing and have a low-rate initial production decision in 2003 and begin full production in 2005. Current Army plans are to buy limited quantities of Mobile Gun System vehicles upon OSD approval of low-rate initial production planned for September 2004. A full-rate production decision for the Mobile Gun System is currently scheduled for late in 2006.

The Mobile Gun System has a 105mm cannon with an autoloader for rapidly loading cannon rounds without outside exposure of its three- person crew. The principal function of the Mobile Gun System is to provide rapid and lethal direct fires to protect assaulting infantry. The Mobile Gun System cannon is designed to defeat bunkers and create openings in reinforced concrete walls through which infantry can pass to accomplish their missions. According to the Army’s Stryker Program Management Office, the autoloader system was responsible for 80 percent of the system aborts during initial Mobile Gun System reliability testing because of cannon rounds jamming in the system. As of February 2004, the Army was planning additional testing and working with the autoloader’s manufacturer to determine a solution. A functioning autoloader is needed if the Mobile Gun System is to meet its operational requirements because manual loading of cannon rounds both reduces the desired rate of fire and requires brief outside exposure of crew. In its March 2004 Stryker acquisition decision, OSD required the Army to provide changes to the Mobile Gun System developmental exit criteria within 90 days, including the ability to meet cost and system reliability criteria.

NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle Development Schedule Delayed

Although its developmental testing is also ongoing, the development schedule of the NBC Reconnaissance vehicle has also been delayed, and its production is now scheduled to occur about two years later than planned. The delay was primarily due to additional time needed to develop and test the vehicle’s nuclear, biological, and chemical sensor systems. As a result, low-rate initial production, previously scheduled for December 2003, will not occur until September 2004. A full-rate production decision, which had previously been scheduled for June 2005, will not occur until July 2007. In its March 2004 Stryker acquisition decision, OSD required the Army to provide within 90 days an updated technology readiness assessment for the NBC Reconnaissance vehicle and its nuclear, biological, and chemical sensor systems. At that time, OSD will make a determination as to whether the vehicle is ready for production.

Army Demonstrated Required Stryker C- 130 Transportability, but Contrary to Congressional Expectations, Operational Limits Significantly Challenge Routine C- 130 Transport

Although the Army demonstrated during training events that Stryker vehicles can be transported short distances on C-130 aircraft and unloaded for immediate combat, the average 38,000 pound weight of Stryker vehicles, other cargo weight concerns, and less than ideal environmental conditions present significant challenges in using C-130s for routine Stryker transport. Similar operational limits would exist for C-130 transport of the Army’s Future Combat Systems because they are also being designed to weigh about 38,000 pounds.

In addition, much of the mission equipment, ammunition, fuel, personnel, and armor a Stryker brigade would need to conduct a combat operation might need to be moved on separate aircraft, increasing the numbers of aircraft or sorties needed to deploy a Stryker force, adding to deployment time and the time it would take after arrival to begin operations. Yet, the Army’s weight requirement and C-130 transport requirements for the vehicles, and information the Army provided to Congress in budget documents and testimony, created expectations that Stryker vehicles could be routinely transported by C-130 aircraft within an operational theater.

Stryker’s C-130 Short- Distance Deployability Was Demonstrated in Operational Evaluations

In a December 2003 report on the first Stryker Brigade’s design evaluation, we reported that the Stryker Brigade demonstrated the ability to conduct tactical deployments by C-130 aircraft. At the National Training Center in April 2003, we observed the brigade conduct a tactical movement by moving a Stryker infantry company with its personnel, supplies, and 21 Stryker vehicles via seven C-130 aircraft flying 35 sorties from Southern California Logistics Airfield to a desert airfield on Fort Irwin about 70 miles away. Figure 4 shows a Stryker vehicle being offloaded from a C-130 at the National Training Center.

A team from the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Office of the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation and the Army’s Test and Evaluation Command also observed the Stryker vehicle’s deployment and recorded the weight of the vehicles and the total load weight onboard the aircraft. The average weight for the eight production vehicle configurations was just less than 38,000 pounds, while the total load weight—including a 3- days’ supply of fuel, food, water, and ammunition—averaged more than 39,100 pounds. Table 6 shows the weight of eight-production vehicles and their total load weight recorded at the time of the April 2003 National Training Center deployment. We noted in our December 2003 report, however, that while the tactical deployment of Stryker vehicles by C-130 aircraft was demonstrated, the Army had yet to demonstrate under various environmental conditions, such as high temperature and airfield altitude, just how far Stryker vehicles can be tactically deployed by C-130 aircraft.

Weight Presents Significant Challenges for C-130 Transport of Stryker Vehicles, Making Requirements and Expectations Difficult to Meet

The weight of Stryker vehicles presents significant challenges for C-130 aircraft transport because, as a general rule U.S. Air Force air mobility planning factors specify an allowable C-130 cargo weight of about 34,000 pounds for routine flight. With most Stryker vehicles weighing close to 38,000 pounds on board, the distance—or range—that a C-130 aircraft could fly is significantly reduced when taking-off in high air temperatures or from airfields located in higher elevations. In standard, or nearly ideal, flight conditions—such as day-time, low head-wind, moderate air temperature, and low elevation—an armored C-130H with a cargo payload of 38,000 pounds can generally expect to fly 860 miles from takeoff to landing. Furthermore, according to a Military Traffic Management Command’s Transportation Engineering Agency study of C-130 aircraft transportability of Army vehicles, a C-130’s range is significantly reduced with only minimal additional weight, and ideal conditions rarely exist in combat scenarios. The C-130 aircraft’s range may be further reduced if operational conditions such as high-speed takeoffs and threat-based route deviations exist because more fuel would be consumed under these conditions. Even in ideal flight conditions, adding just 2,000 pounds onboard the aircraft for associated cargo such as mission equipment, personnel, or ammunition reduces the C-130 aircraft’s takeoff-to-landing range to 500 miles. In addition, the more than 41,000-pound weight of the Mobile Gun System would limit the C-130 aircraft’s range to a maximum distance of less than 500 miles. Figure 5 shows the affects of cargo weight on an armored C-130H aircraft’s flight range in nearly ideal flight conditions.

The addition of armor to the Strykers would pose additional challenges. With removable armor added to Strykers, the vehicles will not fit inside a C-130. To provide interim protection against rocket-propelled grenades, the Stryker vehicles of the brigade that deployed to Iraq in October 2003, were fitted with Slat armor weighing about 5,000 pounds for each vehicle (see fig. 6). By 2005, the Army expects to complete the development of add-on reactive armor—weighing about 9,000 pounds per vehicle—for protection against rocket-propelled grenades. With either type of armor installed, a Stryker vehicle will not fit inside a C-130 aircraft cargo bay. Regardless, with the added weight of the armor even in ideal flight conditions, the aircraft would be too heavy to take off.

Furthermore, according to the Army Test and Evaluation Command’s Stryker System Evaluation, in less than favorable flight conditions, the Air Force considers routine transport of the 38,000-pound cargo weight of a Stryker vehicle on C-130 aircraft risky, and such flight may not be permitted under the Air Force’s flight operations risk management requirements if other transport means are available. In two theaters where U.S. forces are currently operating—the Middle East and Afghanistan, high temperatures and elevation can reduce C-130 aircraft range if carrying a 38,000-pound Stryker vehicle. Table 7 shows the reduced C-130 aircraft transport range due to daytime average summer temperatures of more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Iraq and high temperatures and elevations in Afghanistan. From two locations in Afghanistan (Bagram at 4,895 feet elevation and Kabul at 5,871 feet elevation) during daytime in the summer, a C-130 with a Stryker vehicle on board would not be able to take off at all. In winter from these same locations, its flight range would be reduced to 610 miles departing from Bagram and to 310 miles departing from Kabul. These same weight concerns would also apply to the Army’s Future Combat Systems vehicles, which according to the Army’s operational requirements should be no larger than 38,000 pounds and be transportable by a C-130.

Additionally, the Mobile Gun System, expected to weigh over 41,000 pounds, is probably too heavy to transport a significant distance via C-130 aircraft. Furthermore, the C-130 aircraft cannot transport many of a Stryker brigade’s vehicles at all. Stryker vehicles make up a little more than 300 of the over 1,000 vehicles of a Stryker brigade, and many of the brigade’s support vehicles, such as fuel trucks, are too large or heavy for C-130 transport.

C-130 Airlift for Stryker Brigades Could Increase Force Deployment Time and Time Needed to Start Operations upon Arrival— a Key Operational Requirement and Expectation

Because a C-130’s range is limited by weight and a Stryker’s weight exceeds limits for routine C-130 loading, a tactical movement of significant distance of a Stryker brigade via C-130 aircraft in less than ideal conditions could necessitate moving much of the mission equipment, ammunition, fuel, personnel, and armor on separate aircraft. Such use of separate aircraft for moving Stryker vehicles and associated equipment, personnel, and supplies increases the force closure, or deployment, time and might limit the deployed forces’ ability to be capable of immediate combat operations upon arrival—one of the Army’s key operational requirements for the Stryker vehicles—because aircraft would arrive at different times and potentially different locations. In combination, a 38,000-pound Stryker vehicle, and the associated equipment, personnel, or armor that would have to be transported on separate aircraft are likely to increase the number of aircraft or sorties that would be needed to deploy a Stryker force. For example, if a decision were made to use a Stryker’s add-on armor for a tactical mission, at about 9,000 pounds for each vehicle’s armor, it would take at least one additional C-130 aircraft sortie to transport the armor for about four vehicles. Or, because of potential limits of the availability of C-130 lift assets, the size of a Stryker force and number of Stryker vehicles that could be tactically deployed would have to be reduced.

At the National Training Center in April 2003, we observed, upon landing, an infantry company unload the vehicles from the C-130 aircraft, reconfigure them for combat missions, and move onward to a staging area. All Stryker variants except one reconfigured into combat capable modes within their designated time standard. Once reconfigured, units of the Stryker brigade also demonstrated the ability to conduct immediate combat operations. However, this was a short-range movement with only seven aircraft and did not require fitting armor on the vehicles. In an operational mission, depending on the size of the Stryker force deployed, using separate C-130 aircraft for transporting vehicles and associated people and equipment could significantly increase force deployment time because of the increased numbers of aircraft sorties needed. Upon arrival, it would also increase the time needed to reconfigure and begin operations because the vehicles, equipment, and personnel on different aircraft might arrive at different times or at different airfield locations. In addition, if a decision were made to use add-on armor for a mission, the armor would need to be installed after arrival, adding an average of about 10 hours per vehicle in reconfiguration time to install the armor.

The capability of transporting Stryker vehicles on C-130 aircraft, despite its challenges and limitations, is a major objective of the Army’s transformation to a lighter more responsive force. As such, the Army’s weight and C-130 transport requirements for the vehicles, as well as information the Army provided to Congress, created expectations that Stryker vehicles could be routinely transported within an operational theater by C-130 aircraft. For example, in several congressional hearings since 2001, senior Army leadership testified that Stryker vehicles would be capable of transport by C-130 aircraft. In addition, annual budget justifications, which the Army submits to Congress for Stryker vehicle acquisition, highlight the C-130 transport capability of Stryker-vehicle- equipped Brigade Combat Teams.

During our review, Army officials acknowledged the significant challenges and limitations of meeting expectations for transporting Stryker vehicles— and beyond 2010, the Future Combat Systems—on C-130 aircraft in terms of limited flight range, the size force that could be deployed, and the challenges of arriving ready for combat. The officials, however, believe that the capability to transport Stryker vehicles or the Future Combat Systems’ vehicles on C-130 aircraft, even over short distances, offers the theater combatant commanders an additional option among other modes of intratheater transportation—such as C-17 aircraft, sealift, or driving over land—for transporting Stryker brigades and vehicles in tactical missions. In addition, the officials believe that the ability to transport elements of a Stryker brigade as small as a platoon with four Stryker vehicles— as a part of an operational mission of forces moving by other means, greatly enhances the combatant commander’s war-fighting capabilities.

Conclusions

In less than 4 years from the November 2000 Stryker vehicle contract award, the Army is well under way in fielding the eight production vehicle configurations, and Stryker vehicles are already in use in military operations in Iraq. However, program costs have increased, largely because of the cost of military construction related to Stryker vehicle needs, and delays in developing and testing the two remaining variants will delay their fielding and use.

Furthermore, although the Army has successfully demonstrated that Stryker vehicles can be transported on C-130 aircraft during training events, routine use of the C-130 for airlifting Stryker vehicles, for other than short-range missions with limited numbers of vehicles, would be difficult in theaters where U.S. forces are currently operating. Therefore, the intended capability of Stryker brigades to be transportable by C-130 aircraft would be markedly reduced. The Army’s operational requirements and information the Army provided to Congress created expectations that a Stryker vehicle weight of 38,000 pounds—and a similar weight for Future Combat System vehicles—would allow routine C-130 transport in tactical operations. Consequently, congressional decision makers do not have an accurate sense or realistic expectations of the operational capabilities of Stryker vehicles and Future Combat Systems.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, take the following two actions: 1. Provide to Congress information that clarifies the expected C-130 tactical intratheater deployment capabilities of Stryker brigades and Stryker vehicles and describes probable operational missions and scenarios using C-130 transport of Stryker vehicles that are achievable, including the size of a combat capable C-130 deployable Stryker force; describes operational capability limitations of Stryker brigades given the limits of C-130 transport; and identifies options for, and the feasibility of, alternative modes of transportation—such as C-17 aircraft— for transporting Stryker brigades within an operational theater. 2. Provide the Congress similar clarification concerning the operational requirements and expected C-130 tactical airlift capabilities of Future Combat System vehicles, considering the limits of C-130 aircraft transportability.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with our recommendations. The department also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report where appropriate.

DOD concurred that operational requirements for airlift capability for brigade transport need clarification and stated that the ongoing Mobility Capabilities Study, scheduled for completion in the spring of 2005, will include an assessment of the intratheater transport of Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and address the recommendations of this report. In responding to our recommendation to provide information to Congress concerning C-130 transport of Stryker-equipped brigades, the department partially concurred and stated that the Army has studied C-130 transportability in depth. While we agree that the Army has studied C-130 transportability of Stryker vehicles—including the limitations that we point out in this report—their comments provide no assurance that this information will be provided to Congress, and we believe Congress needs this type of information to have an accurate sense of the operational capabilities of Stryker brigades. The department also partially concurred with our recommendation to provide to Congress similar clarification concerning the operational requirements and expected C-130 tactical airlift capabilities of Future Combat System vehicles, considering the limits of C-130 aircraft transportability. The department noted in its response that the Army is currently considering many factors, including C- 130 tactical airlift capability limits, as it reviews Future Combat Systems Unit of Action capability requirements. The department also stated that the Mobility Capabilities Study would include intratheater transport of Army units of action—the Army’s Future Combat Systems-equipped future force.

Given the ongoing congressional interest in the implications of the Army’s requirements for C-130 transport of Stryker vehicles and Future Combat System ground vehicles, we agree that the information the Congress would need, if addressed in the Mobility Capabilities Study and provided to Congress, would meet the intent of our recommendations. With the Mobility Capabilities Study not scheduled for completion until the spring of 2005, we will assess at that time the adequacy of the study’s assessment of intratheater transport of Army Stryker- and Future Combat System- equipped units. The Senate Armed Services Committee has directed GAO to monitor DOD’s processes used to conduct the Mobility Capabilities Study, and to report on the adequacy and completeness of the study to the congressional defense committees no later than 30 days after the completion of the study.

The appendix contains the full text of the department’s comments.

Scope and Methodology

To determine the current status of Stryker vehicle acquisition and the latest Stryker vehicle program and operating cost estimates, we analyzed documents on Stryker vehicle acquisition plans, contract performance requirements, and costs and interviewed officials from the Army Program Executive Office/Stryker Program Management Office, Warren, Michigan. To determine Stryker program costs, we reviewed the DOD approved December 2003 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) and interviewed Stryker Program Management Office officials. For our analysis of Stryker vehicle-operating costs, we reviewed the Army’s mileage cost estimates and the Army’s methodology for calculating costs per mile. We did not verify source information the Army used in its calculations.

To determine the status and results of Stryker vehicle tests, we reviewed the results of Stryker vehicle developmental and survivability testing from the Army Test and Evaluation Command, Alexandria, Virginia, and the Army Developmental Test Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. We also reviewed the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Army Evaluation Center’s Stryker System Evaluation Report and OSD Director, Operational Test and Evaluation’s Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and Evaluation Report for the Stryker family of vehicles.

To determine the ability of C-130 aircraft to transport Stryker vehicles within a theater of operations, we reviewed a Military Traffic Management Command’s, Transportation Engineering Agency study of the C-130 aircraft’s range and payload capabilities and interviewed U.S. Army, Air Force and Transportation Command officials. We notified U.S. Central Command of our objective to review plans for C-130 aircraft transport of Stryker vehicles within the command’s area of operations, but Central Command officials determined that this was an Army issue, rather than a combatant command’s issue.

Our review was conducted from July 2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other Senate and House committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities for DOD. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8365, or Assistant Director, George Poindexter, at (202) 512-7213. Major contributors to this report were Kevin Handley, Frank Smith, and M. Jane Hunt.

Appendix: Comments from the Department of Defense

Related GAO Products

Defense Acquisitions: The Army’s Future Combat Systems’ Features, Risks, and Alternatives. GAO-04-635T. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2004.

Military Transformation: The Army and OSD Met Legislative Requirements for First Stryker Brigade Design Evaluation, but Issues Remain for Future Brigades. GAO-04-188. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2003.

Issues Facing the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program. GAO-03- 1010R. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2003.

Military Transformation: Realistic Deployment Timelines Needed for Army Stryker Brigades. GAO-03-801. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.

Military Transformation: Army’s Evaluation of Stryker and M-113A3 Infantry Carrier vehicles Provided Sufficient Data for Statutorily Mandated Comparison. GAO-03-671. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003.

Army Stryker Brigades: Assessment of External Logistic Support Should Be Documented for the Congressionally Mandated Review of the Army’s Operational Evaluation Plan. GAO-03-484R. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2003.

Military Transformation: Army Actions Needed to Enhance Formation of Future Interim Brigade Combat Teams. GAO-02-442. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2002.

Military Transformation: Army Has a Comprehensive Plan for Managing Its Transformation but Faces Major Challenges. GAO-02-96. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2001.

Defense Acquisition: Army Transformation Faces Weapons Systems Challenges. GAO-01-311. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2001.

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs