Defense Acquisitions: Challenges Remain in Developing Capabilities for Naval Surface Fire Support
Released: 2006-11-30T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Marine Corps has been developing new concepts for expeditionary operations that are characterized by an increase in mobility, flexibility, and depth of operations. To successfully conduct these operations, the Marine Corps relies on a “fires triad” composed of land-based artillery and mortars, attack planes and helicopters, and sea-based surface ships to destroy or suppress enemy forces. Figure 1 shows the fires triad concept.

The systems within the fires triad are considered complementary. For example, while surface ships provide the majority of supporting fires for ground forces during the early phases of expeditionary operations, land- based artillery and mortars assume a greater role in later phases as more of these assets are placed ashore. Some legs of the triad offer capabilities others cannot. The guns of artillery and surface ships are more capable of providing volume of fire—large amounts of sustained fire to suppress or destroy a target—while aircraft are used for long-range precision strikes or attacks on moving targets. Regardless of each system’s capabilities or contributions, all components of the triad are considered necessary for success.

The sea-based portion of the triad is referred to as naval surface fire support and is traditionally provided by the guns and missiles onboard Navy surface ships. For decades the Navy had provided this capability with the 16-inch guns of the Iowa class battleships that were eventually taken out of service due to the high cost of their operations and maintenance. With the decommissioning of the last Iowa class battleship in 1992, the Navy was left with only the short-range (13 nautical miles) 5- inch guns on destroyers and cruisers to provide naval surface fire support. According to the Navy, new and improved coastal defense systems deployed by potential adversaries required that Navy ships protect themselves by coming no closer than 25 nautical miles to shore, rendering the existing 5-inch guns ineffective for fire support. In May 1992, the Navy approved a mission need statement for naval surface fire support that recognized this gap in capabilities and called for new or improved systems that could provide increased range, lethality, and accuracy. Since that time, the Navy and Marine Corps have conducted a number of studies to identify possible solutions for this gap and to clarify the needs and requirements associated with naval surface fire support.

In 1994, the Navy developed a plan to improve naval surface fire support by upgrading existing 5-inch guns on Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers and developing a new 5-inch guided munition for near-term capabilities, and considered options for long-term capabilities as it developed concepts for a new surface combatant ship. Eventually, these concepts evolved into the Extended Range Munition and the Zumwalt class destroyer programs. The establishment of basic requirements by the Marine Corps supported efforts to develop these systems. Marine Corps analysis concluded that since ground-based artillery would be unavailable during the initial stages of an expeditionary operation, naval surface fire support must provide, at a minimum, the same range, accuracy, and lethality as current artillery systems. In 1995, the Navy began to incorporate this analysis into its plans for acquiring new weapons systems by approving an initial range requirement of 41 to 63 nautical miles, assuming a 25 nautical mile stand-off range. As Marine Corps thinking on expeditionary operations evolved over the next decade, more requirements would be added.

Agreement on Requirements Took over a Decade and Did Not Address Quantitative Measures for Volume of Fire

For over 10 years the Marine Corps worked with the Navy to develop requirements for naval surface fire support that align with the concept of expeditionary operations. It was not until December 2005 that, as a result of the joint requirements process, an agreement was reached. This agreement provides the basis for meeting the fire support needs of the warfighter through a variety of solutions by attempting to define the effects required. One issue the agreement has not resolved is the lack of a clear definition for volume of fire. According to the Marine Corps, volume fires are necessary to execute expeditionary operations, but quantifiable volume fires requirements have not been established due to the variance in effects desired from mission to mission and the planned use of precision munitions. Clearer requirements would inform the acquisition of planned systems and aid in determining capabilities of any future systems.

Validated Requirements for Naval Surface Fire Support Are Derived from Marine Corps Concepts for Expeditionary Operations

Although the Marine Corps further defined its needs for naval surface fire support over the last 10 years, it only recently reached agreement with the Navy on a new set of requirements through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, a joint process for establishing requirements. This process resulted in the Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals Initial Capabilities Document, which incorporated and validated the Marine Corps’s requirements for naval surface fire support. These requirements are based on the concept of expeditionary operations that the service has been developing since 1992. Table 1 describes the documents and events central to creation of this concept.

According to the concept created by the Marine Corps, the fundamental aspect that defines expeditionary operations—sea-based forces operating with increased depth and mobility in multiple dispersed units—establishes certain requirements for naval surface fire support. Since land-based artillery is restricted by the need for a large presence ashore, and air-based fire support can be restricted by weather conditions, the importance of sea-based naval surface fire support increases. The depth of operations envisioned requires ship-based guns and other systems with considerable range, while the speed and mobility envisioned demand rapid response times. Fire support for expeditionary forces also requires accuracy and precision, to increase the probability that targets are destroyed or disabled and reduce the possibility of marines being killed when calling for munitions to land close to their own positions. Sustainability and lethality are needed as well to compensate for the firepower removed from Marine units to preserve their speed and agility. According to the Marine Corps, volume of fire, defined as large quantities of munitions delivered over time or simultaneously to suppress or destroy a target, is also necessary to immobilize or destroy the enemy and enable maneuver. These requirements surpass the abilities of the Navy’s existing 13 nautical mile range 5-inch guns, necessitating the development and fielding of new weapons systems or the acceptance of risks in executing expeditionary operations.

The Marine Corps quantified many of the requirements for naval surface fire support to better communicate them to the Navy and aid in the development of new systems. While an initial range requirement was established in 1995, the Marine Corps identified a number of additional requirements for naval surface fire support that clarify the needs for expeditionary operations. These requirements were identified in a series of three letters from 1996 to 2002, with the last letter describing requirements in terms of desired near-, mid-, and far-term capabilities. The Marine Corps also provided rationale for its needs by providing an explanation of each of the requirements. Table 2 lists the requirements as described in the last of these letters. The Marine Corps sought to use these letters to establish a more formal agreement on the needs for naval surface fire support, and even drafted a memorandum of agreement in 2003. While the Navy did not sign this memorandum, many of the requirements presented in the letters were used in the development of systems and technologies to provide fire support. Agreement was reached when the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which oversees requirements development for all four services, approved the Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals Initial Capabilities Document in December 2005. This document incorporated and validated Marine Corps requirements for naval surface fire support.

Requirements for Volume of Fire Remain Unclear

While some of the Marine Corps requirements for naval surface fire support have been quantified, validated, and applied to Navy systems in development, the requirement for volume of fire remains less defined. The Marine Corps has consistently maintained the need for these fires and has described their use under the concept of expeditionary operations. The Marine Corps defines volume of fire as large quantities of munitions delivered over time or simultaneously to suppress or destroy a target. This definition establishes two types of volume fires: suppression, which requires a large quantity of munitions delivered on a target or group of targets in an area over a period of time, and destruction, where a large quantity of munitions are delivered simultaneously with as much accuracy as possible. Marine Corps officials have also identified an increasing need for multiple simultaneous suppression or destruction missions to support dispersed units. While the Marine Corps’s letters on naval surface fire support provide definitions of these missions, the requirements provided do not offer quantitative measures of effectiveness or success for all the key elements of volume of fire. The firing rate of weapon systems and their ability to deliver multiple rounds simultaneously are highlighted as important, but other factors—such as the amount of time or munitions typically required for suppression, or the number of simultaneous engagements to be supported—remain undefined.

Marine Corps and Navy officials have stated that the advent of precision munitions for naval surface fire support further complicates requirements and definitions for volume of fire. Currently, volume fires are provided by ground-based artillery and mortars firing large amounts of inexpensive, unguided munitions. Due to the perceived benefits of precision in air- delivered weapons and the need to deliver naval surface fire support from greater distances due to shore-based threats, the Navy has been developing guided munitions for fire support. These munitions have the potential to deliver far greater precision and lethality than unguided munitions, but the high cost of procurement—up to $54,500 per round for the Extended Range Munition against $1,633 for the current 5-inch projectile—could preclude the Navy from deploying them in the large quantities posited for volume fires. Marine Corps officials have stated that the concept of providing volume of fire with precision munitions is currently being analyzed and that changes to the way volume fires are employed could be possible. For instance, as the lethality and precision of munitions increase, it may be possible to change the way targets are selected and use fewer rounds to achieve volume effects. Officials state, however, that there are still scenarios in which large sustained quantities of munitions are necessary.

The ambiguity surrounding volume of fire, especially when such missions are executed with precision weapons, has a direct impact on the procurement of munitions for naval surface fire support. The Navy uses an estimating process, known as the non-nuclear ordnance requirements process, to assist in determining the number of munitions needed to support the warfighter. According to Navy officials, to accurately estimate the number of rounds needed for volume fires the model requires—but does not have—a definition of the effects desired from volume fires. In addition, the process does not currently account for the new capabilities offered by the precision weapons under development for naval fires. Without the Marine Corps’s definition of these effects, the model will produce inaccurate or unrealistic estimates of the number of rounds needed. Navy officials identified other shortcomings in both the information provided by the Navy and Marine Corps and in the assumptions used to model naval surface fire support procurement quantities. For instance, the model does not provide enough fidelity in the distance to targets or properly account for the number of precision rounds carried in each ship. The Marine Corps, through the Expeditionary Warfare Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, is working with the Navy to refine the data provided to the non-nuclear ordnance requirements process as well as the assumptions made within the process itself.

The inability to quantify requirements for volume of fire also affects the ability of the Navy to develop systems to meet the Marine Corps’s needs. The Marine Corps has stated that the effects desired from volume of fire varies from mission to mission and therefore is difficult to quantify. However, the variance in desired effects from scenario to scenario is a challenge in other warfare areas as well. In the absence of requirements that define at least minimum capabilities for common scenarios, such as the duration and quantity of fire needed to suppress a target, it may be difficult to develop cost effective systems that meet Marine Corps needs.

Naval Surface Fire Support Systems Have Experienced Cost and Schedule Growth and Will Deliver Less Capability Than Originally Planned

The Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer have required additional funding and time for development and will not be fielded in the quantities initially planned. Development of the Extended Range Munition has been delayed by nearly 11 years due to technical and programmatic challenges, resulting in cost growth of over 550 percent from initial estimates. The Navy continues to face challenges related to the affordability and viability of its plan ahead that must be overcome in order to field the munition. Optimistic estimates and consequent cost increases in the Zumwalt class destroyer program have resulted in reductions to both ship quantities and munition capacities per ship, both of which will seriously impact capabilities available to support future expeditionary operations. Candidate technologies to provide future naval surface fire support capabilities are currently in development as science and technology programs, and have not yet completed the requirements documentation and other steps necessary to enter the acquisition process.

Affordability Concerns in the Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program Have Led to Reductions in Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities and Procurement Quantities

The Zumwalt class destroyer will deliver far fewer quantities of ships and munitions for naval surface fire support than envisioned 10 years ago. The primary reason for this reduced capability is that the Navy’s concept for the Zumwalt class destroyer promised revolutionary performance at an unrealistically low cost. In 2001, the Department of Defense recognized that additional time and money were required to develop and field the destroyer and concluded that a new approach was necessary. Through a series of decisions, the Navy restructured the program by adding time for technology development, trading naval surface fire support capability for lower costs, and reducing the planned number of ships. At the same time, other ship capabilities were maintained or even expanded, leading to increased cost and additional technical risk. The capability trades and quantity reductions in the Zumwalt class destroyer program increase the Navy’s dependence on the less capable Extended Range Munition (ERM) to provide naval surface fire support, as shown in figure 4.

The Zumwalt class destroyer program represents the Navy’s solution for addressing a mission need identified in 1994 for a 21st century surface combatant capable of, among other things, projecting sustained naval surface fire support for amphibious and other ground forces. The program was derived from a concept for a tailored capability ship identified as the Maritime Fire Support Ship. This concept featured significant naval fires capabilities—including two advanced 155 millimeter gun systems capable of firing a land attack munition up to 100 nautical miles—as well as robust surface and subsurface warfare capabilities, reduced signatures, and reduced crewing compared to that of current ship classes. The Navy used the characteristics of the Maritime Fire Support Ship to serve as a basis for developing requirements for the DD 21 land attack destroyer. These requirements were approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in 1997 and featured robust capabilities related to naval surface fire support including threshold quantities of 2 advanced gun systems, 1200 munitions capable of long range land attack, and 128 missile launch cells. When sized to these capabilities, DD 21 was expected to displace over 17,000 long tons. Requirements also included ambitious targets for reduced manning and a low radar cross section. DD 21 plans, along with other Zumwalt class program events, are shown in table 4.

In 2001, the Office of the Secretary of Defense developed concerns that the program’s cost estimate was unrealistic and that the program was not adequately funded. Although originally envisioned as a tailored capability ship, DD 21 requirements outlined a multimission ship featuring several revolutionary technologies. These concerns prompted the Navy to restructure the program and revisit its planned family of ships concept. As a result, the Navy revised its family of ships approach to include a future destroyer named DD(X), a future cruiser known as CG(X), and a new littoral combat ship. This approach sought to take advantage of commonality among the three programs in an effort to mitigate risk in technology development. Figure 5 shows the different technologies introduced through the DD 21 and DD(X) programs.

The Navy’s Surface Combatant Spiral Development Review in 2002 recommended a multimission DD(X) configured with 2 advanced gun systems, 900 land attack munitions, and 96 missile launch cells as the most cost-effective basis for developing DD(X) requirements. These capability reductions were expected to decrease the ship’s cost by reducing the destroyer’s weight from nearly 17,000 long tons expected for DD 21 to approximately 15,700 long tons. Subsequently, the Chief of Naval Operations directed that the size of DD(X) be reduced to 14,000 long tons while retaining multimission capability. To achieve these goals, the Navy reduced planned DD(X) land attack munitions to 600 and decreased minimum requirements for missile launch cells to 80 per ship. In an effort to address Marine Corps concerns regarding the reduced naval surface fire support capabilities offered by DD(X) as compared to DD 21, the Navy modified the DD(X) design to include a convertible storeroom capable of holding an additional 320 land attack munitions. The Chief of Naval Operations also directed the Navy to revisit its plan for developing a volume search radar for the DD(X) design. According to Navy officials, undertaking development of a less technologically mature, but potentially more powerful volume search radar for DD(X) was worthwhile because it would help preserve a competitive industrial base in advance of CG(X) development. The change would also add air defense capability to DD(X), giving the ship capability that exceeds performance requirements. Achieving these benefits, however, would require the Navy to delay testing for the volume search radar and commit nearly $20 million in additional research, development, test, and evaluation funding for the DD(X) program to manage the significant technical risk associated with developing the more challenging technology. One month following the Chief of Naval Operations’s directive, the Navy modified the ship’s radar development contract to accommodate the higher risk volume search radar approach.

In 2004, the Department of Defense approved new program goals and operational requirements for the DD(X) program that reflected a plan to procure fewer ships, projecting less naval surface fire support capability than DD 21. Figure 6 shows how program costs and quantities have changed over time.

Continuing cost pressures in the program led the Navy to reevaluate DD(X) capabilities, technologies, and design as part of a comprehensive cost reduction effort. As part of this effort, the Navy eliminated the DD(X) convertible storeroom from the ship’s design. Although yielding approximately $19 million in procurement savings per ship, this decision reduced the ship’s naval surface fire support capability by almost 35 percent. Other DD(X) capabilities and technologies including the ship’s dual band radar (volume search radar and multifunction radar), integrated computing environment, and reduced signature features were not significantly affected during this process. According to Navy officials, contractor estimates have identified $265 million in procurement savings achieved for each Zumwalt class destroyer.

In 2006, the Navy changed the name of the DD(X) program to DDG 1000 Zumwalt class destroyer and reduced planned ship quantities to 7. Although this decision reflected the practical realities of recognizing more realistic costs, these reductions nevertheless increase the Navy’s reliance on successful outcomes in the Extended Range Munition program in order to complete future naval surface fire support missions. This reliance is further compounded by Navy decisions that have reduced the number of land attack munitions each Zumwalt class ship is capable of carrying. However, because the Extended Range Munition offers less range and capability than the DD(X) long-range land attack munition, the Navy may be forced to accept additional risk in certain fire support missions. Currently, the Navy plans to field the Extended Range Munition on 32 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, which will be supplemented with 7 Zumwalt class ships carrying long-range land-attack munitions.

Navy Has Begun Development of Some Candidate Systems for Future Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities

The Navy has begun science and technology efforts for the electromagnetic railgun and multipurpose loitering missile, but has not approved development or fielding of these systems as formal acquisition programs. The Office of Naval Research is leading efforts to develop and test a prototype of the electromagnetic railgun and estimates that the system will require approximately $216 million to complete its initial demonstration phase in support of fielding around 2025. The electromagnetic railgun is one of four key naval prototype efforts within the Office of Naval Research, which together represent 50 percent of the agency’s fiscal year 2007 proposed investment in leap-ahead innovations.

Naval Sea Systems Command is managing preliminary tests and the development effort of the Affordable Weapon System, which is one candidate for the multipurpose loitering missile concept. The project has received approximately $155 million to date in support of these efforts. While neither the electromagnetic railgun nor the multipurpose loitering missile have been formally chosen as programs for acquisition, these systems provide the Navy and Marine Corps with potential options for future naval surface fire support capabilities. Further analysis by the Navy and the Department of Defense will determine whether these technologies are feasible and if these systems are needed.

Needs for Naval Surface Fire Support Exceed Projected Capabilities

Based on the 2005 Initial Capabilities Document for Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals, the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer will not provide the full range of capabilities needed for naval surface fire support. Analysis performed for the initial capabilities document studied the capabilities of systems across the services to provide fire support in the littorals and identified 4 capability gaps—command and control of joint fires, engaging moving targets, minimized collateral damage, and achieving volume fires effects. While the Navy has initiated efforts to address remaining naval surface fire support needs, it faces challenges in further defining requirements for volume of fire, shaping acquisition outcomes to meet the needs of the expeditionary warfighter, and managing command and control issues related to fire support.

Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt Class Destroyer Offer Significant Naval Surface Fire Support Capability, but Cannot Meet All the Needs of Future Warfighters

In December 2005, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council reviewed and validated the Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals Initial Capabilities Document, which describes some of the fire support needs of the warfighter for the next decade as well as the gaps that exist in meeting these needs. Needs were defined by collecting guidance, tasks, conditions, and standards for fire support from each of the services, including those presented by the Marine Corps’s letters on naval surface fire support. Gaps in capability were identified by analyzing the ability of current and planned systems throughout the fires triad, including the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer, to fulfill the defined needs. As could be expected from any analysis of current versus desired capabilities, the initial capabilities document identified a number of gaps. The document lists the gaps in order of priority as 1) the ability to transmit and receive targeting information to enable command and control of fire support, 2) engaging moving targets in poor weather, 3) providing fire support when collateral damage or casualties in friendly forces is a concern, and 4) providing volume fires to achieve suppression of enemy targets.

While the initial capabilities document approaches fire support needs and capabilities from a joint perspective—meaning that the need for fire support and the systems providing it can come from the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, or Air Force—it does address naval surface fire support systems specifically. The Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer were treated as planned systems within the analysis, as they are expected to become available within the 2005 to 2015 time period considered in the study. The analysis conducted for the initial capabilities document revealed that if these systems are implemented as currently planned they will provide the warfighter with improved capabilities to engage certain targets, especially in restricted conditions such as poor weather. However, they do not provide enough additional capability to close any of the four gaps. Future systems for naval surface fire support, such as the electromagnetic rail gun and the multipurpose loitering missile, were not considered as they will not be available until after 2015.

The analysis performed for the initial capabilities document discussed a number of weaknesses in current and planned naval surface fire support systems. For instance, the analysis determined that Navy ships cannot take full advantage of targeting information communicated from other systems affecting their ability to provide accurate fire support, especially when collateral damage is a concern. Munitions currently in use or development also lack the ability to hit moving targets, as they have neither the sensors to detect moving targets nor the ability to update the location of targets while in flight. The need for volume fires is not fully met by the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer either, and multiple, simultaneous calls for volume fire provide a challenge as well. Officials state that this gap in volume of fire persists despite the low number of calls for suppression anticipated by the analysis—5 targets or 0.3 percent of the total fires called for in the scenarios analyzed—due to the reductions made in munitions available for naval surface fire support and uncertainty about the effects expected.

Risks Remain in the Navy’s Approach for Addressing Future Needs in Naval Surface Fire Support

Requirements for Volume of Fires Need Further Definition

The Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals Initial Capabilities Document provides greater definition for volume of fire than articulated in earlier Marine Corps’s correspondence on naval surface fire support, presenting new measures of effectiveness for suppression. The document establishes a minimum capability needed to fill the gap in volume fires for suppression that includes measures of effectiveness for probability of damage against targets and a number of targets to suppress as well as capabilities like range and rate of fire. However, these desired minimum capabilities still lack a measure for the duration of fire, or how long targets need to be suppressed or fired upon to cause the stated amount of damage, and the amount of munitions needed to cause these effects. Instead of providing measures for these capabilities, the document reiterates previous analyses by stating that more specific volume requirements are dependant on the situation. Initial capabilities documents, like the Joint Fires document, do not generally establish requirements but only suggest capabilities. A set of requirements that quantitatively captures all the capabilities potentially needed is a necessary precursor for the Department of Defense to determine whether and how to address any resultant capability gap regarding volume fires.

Current Navy Practices for Managing Resources and Requirements Increase Risk That Warfighter Needs Will Go Unaddressed

Navy processes for defining requirements and allocating resources for naval surface fire support systems may result in acquisition outcomes that do not align with the priorities of the expeditionary warfighter. The Navy’s Expeditionary Warfare Division is charged with developing capabilities and requirements for naval surface fire support. However, this division has not had a formal oversight role in the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer programs. Instead, the Navy has assigned management of requirements and resources for these programs to its Surface Warfare division, which is charged with developing capabilities and requirements for destroyers and other surface ships. This approach places the Navy at risk for making investment decisions in its naval surface fire support programs without fully understanding the potential impacts on operating concepts for expeditionary warfare.

For example, quantity requirements in the Extended Range Munition program were initially established by the Navy’s Surface Warfare Division. However, a 2005 report from the Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General identified the Navy’s Expeditionary Warfare Division as responsible for both analyzing warfighting requirements for the Extended Range Munition and validating planned procurement quantities in the program. On the basis of the Inspector General’s report the planned quantities of the Extended Range Munition increased by over 75 percent in order to meet Marine Corps naval surface fire support requirements. In another example, resources and requirements for the Navy’s multimission Zumwalt class destroyer are principally managed by the Navy’s Surface Warfare Division. Cost challenges within the program have required the Navy to reduce planned capabilities on the ship as well as procurement quantities, which has significantly reduced the Zumwalt class’s ability and availability to provide naval surface fire support. This process of cost and capability trades has been managed by the Navy’s Surface Warfare Division, not by the customer—represented by the Navy’s Expeditionary Warfare Division—who depends on the delivered capabilities. As a result, current naval surface fire support capabilities of the Zumwalt class destroyer may not be aligned with the priorities of the expeditionary warfighter.

Management of Command and Control Issues is Unresolved

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has designated the Navy as the lead component to analyze the four gaps. The Navy, through its Surface Warfare Division, has already begun the analysis for the three engagement gaps presented in the initial capabilities document. However, no organization has been chosen to analyze the first gap in capability, which identified issues in fire support command and control. Any attempt to close this gap could have consequences for systems developed to engage targets, as they rely on the command and control architecture for target assignment and information.

Conclusions

Since the retirement of the battleships in 1992, the Navy and Marine Corps have worked to develop capabilities for naval surface fire support. The Navy and Marine Corps chose to pursue an approach in which the Extended Range Munition would provide near-term capabilities and the Zumwalt class destroyer would provide capabilities over the medium term. However, this investment strategy was defined by low levels of technical knowledge and poor estimates of the financial resources that would be needed to acquire this capability. As a result, the acquisition of systems for naval surface fire support has been plagued by technical and budgetary challenges that have delayed the fielding of any significant capability.

The recent joint analysis of fire support for forces operating in the littorals has been an important and constructive process in generating agreement and improving the knowledge base required to reconcile needs and assets. Yet, more work needs to be done to reconcile these differences, as evidenced by the gaps identified in the joint analysis. The presence of gaps in capabilities should be expected from any analysis of current resources, and it does not necessarily follow that all gaps must be closed with more resources. However, if gaps are to remain in place, this result should be the product of deliberate analysis and decision making that takes into account the views of the warfighter. At this point, there are several issues whose resolution will enable the kind of analysis needed to fully reconcile naval surface fire support needs with fire support assets.

First, although the Marine Corps has quantified many of its requirements for naval surface fire support in a way that allows the Navy to guide development of its systems, volume of fire remains ill-defined. While the Marine Corps maintains the importance of volume fires, the failure to even roughly quantify needs within thresholds and objectives leads to the absence of this capability in the systems the Navy develops as well as difficulty in planning munition procurement. By working with the Navy and other services to better define the effects required and to create operational concepts for a system or combination of systems that could achieve volume effects, the Marine Corps may be able to better provide this capability to warfighters in future conflicts.

Second, although the Navy and Marine Corps have reached an understanding on naval surface fire support requirements as a whole, translation of this understanding to the capabilities and quantities of individual systems must yet be reached. Over the past 10 years, the decisions made on individual systems such as the Extended Range Munition and the Zumwalt class destroyer have reduced the capabilities the Navy plans to make available to provide fire support for the Marine Corps’s operations. These decisions were reached without providing a formal role for the Navy’s Expeditionary Warfare Division in deciding the requirements and resources allocated to platforms that provide naval surface fire support, increasing risk that acquisition outcomes will not align with the priorities of the expeditionary warfighter.

Third, because of challenges posed by the development of the Extended Range Munition and the Zumwalt class destroyer, the Navy is now in a position in which it will rely more heavily on Extended Range Munition to provide fire support than originally planned. This program still faces significant development risks, a fact recognized by the decision of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics to elevate oversight of the program.

Finally, while the Navy’s Surface Warfare Division has begun the analysis of gaps related to engaging targets, no office has been selected to analyze the gap in command and control of fire support in the littorals. To ensure that current and future systems provide a fire support function within the larger command and control network, it is important that this gap be analyzed in conjunction with the other identified capability gaps in joint fire support.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the Department’s efforts to address naval surface fire support needs, we are making the following four recommendations: To determine the desired effects for volume of fire, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Navy and Marine Corps to define quantitative requirements and operational concepts on use of volume fires, especially when using precision weapons for suppression or simultaneous strikes. This analysis should be used to 1) inform and update the non-nuclear ordnance requirements process used to determine procurement objectives for these munitions and 2) clarify the capability gap for volume fires as identified in the Initial Capabilities Document for Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals.

In order to ensure that the systems providing naval surface fire support are aligned with the requirements and operating concepts of the forces they assist, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Navy to provide the Chief of Naval Operations’s Expeditionary Warfare Division, as the division charged with establishing capabilities and requirements for naval surface fire support and liaison to the Marine Corps, a formal role in developing requirements, determining capabilities, and managing resources for Navy systems responsible for providing naval surface fire support.

In light of the changes to the schedule, budget requirements, and design of the Extended Range Munition program, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, as the program’s milestone decision authority, conduct a comprehensive review of the program to validate progress and acquisition plans that will incorporate results from current and planned program studies and direct changes as necessary.

Given the importance of command and control in coordinating fire support, especially in the complex environment imposed by joint operations in the littorals, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Navy to designate the appropriate organization for managing an analysis of alternatives related to this gap and ensure that the results of this analysis are coordinated with solutions for identified engagement gaps.

Agency Comments and Our Review

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the recommendation to define quantitative requirements and operational concepts on the use of volume fires as well as the recommendation to conduct a comprehensive review of the Extended Range Munition program.

DOD partially concurred with the recommendation to provide a formal role to the Expeditionary Warfare Division in decisions regarding naval surface fire support, stating that the department will review the existing role of the Director, Expeditionary Warfare and relevant Navy directives and make adjustments if necessary. It also stated that the role of Expeditionary Warfare was recently formalized for the munitions requirements and procurement process, but that the guns and launchers which fire these munitions are the responsibility of the Surface Warfare Division. In conducting its review, we believe the department should be mindful that naval surface fire support capability is not limited to munitions but also includes guns, ships, and other systems.

DOD also partially concurred with the recommendation to address the command and control gap identified by the Initial Capabilities Document for Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals, but indicated that full analysis of this gap will be deferred and not coordinated with the initial analysis of engagement gaps. This is surprising given that the initial capabilities document identified correcting weaknesses in command and control as the highest priority in its analysis. We are concerned that deferring command and control to a later analysis continues a history of inattention to this area.

DOD’s written comments are included in their entirety in appendix II. The department also provided technical comments which were incorporated into the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy; and interested congressional committees. We will also provide copies to others on request. We will also make copies available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report or need additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or francisp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO Staff who made contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess whether well-defined requirements for naval surface fire support have been established, we reviewed current and historical Navy, Marine Corps, and joint force documents that identify requirements related to naval surface fire support and that explain operational concepts for expeditionary warfare. We analyzed and compared these documents to determine 1) when the joint services reached formal agreement on naval surface fire support requirements, 2) how these requirements align with the Marine Corps’s key operating concepts for expeditionary warfare, and 3) the degree to which these requirements include clear, quantitative measures of performance. To supplement this analysis, we further discussed these issues with Navy, Marine Corps, and joint force officials responsible for establishing naval surface fire support requirements. We also interviewed Navy program officials responsible for developing and procuring the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer to understand how naval surface fire support requirements have been incorporated into these programs.

To assess the Navy’s progress in developing and fielding the Extended Range Munition, the Zumwalt class destroyer, and future systems for naval surface fire support, we analyzed key program documentation including performance requirements, cost estimates, budget submissions, acquisition strategies, development and demonstration contracts, and testing plans and results. We also drew from our prior work related to best practices and development and cost challenges in the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer programs. In addition, we reviewed Department of Defense reports related to these and other programs for naval surface fire support. To supplement our analysis, we interviewed Navy and Office of the Secretary of Defense officials responsible for managing resources and requirements in naval surface fire support programs. We also discussed program challenges and risks with the acquisition managers, contractors, and testing community associated with each system.

To determine whether current Navy systems in development will fulfill naval surface fire support requirements, we comparatively analyzed the joint services’ most recent requirements document related to naval surface fire support—the Initial Capabilities Document for Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the Littorals—with the validated performance requirements for the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer. To identify actions taken to address situations where naval surface fire support requirements may not fully align with the capabilities planned for these systems, we interviewed officials from the Navy, Marine Corps, joint services, and Office of the Secretary of Defense.

To address our objectives, we visited and interviewed officials from the Navy’s Surface Warfare and Expeditionary Warfare Divisions; the Marine Corps’s Combat Development Command and Plans, Policies, and Operations offices; the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems; and the Extended Range Munition and Zumwalt class destroyer program offices. We also met with officials from the Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Joint Forces Command, the Naval Surface Warfare Center—Dahlgren Division, the Office of Naval Research, Affordable Weapon System project office, the Defense Contract Management Agency, Raytheon Missile Systems, BAE Systems, and Alliant Techsystems.

We conducted our analysis from February 2006 to November 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

Key contributors to this report were Karen Zuckerstein, Assistant Director; J. Kristopher Keener; Christopher R. Durbin; Ryan Consaul; and Lily Chin.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It 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.