Force Structure: Joint Seabasing Would Benefit from a Comprehensive Management Approach and Rigorous Experimentation before Services Spend Billions on New Capabilities
Released: 2007-01-26T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 2002, the Navy’s Sea Power 21 vision stated that shore-based capabilities would be transformed to seabased capabilities whenever practical to improve the reach, persistence, and sustainability of systems that are already afloat. The objective for the United States to maintain global freedom of action is a consistent theme throughout the National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy. DOD’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report further stated that the future joint force will exploit the operational flexibility of seabasing to counter political antiaccess and irregular warfare challenges.

The joint seabasing concept is currently going through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), a DOD decision support process for transforming military forces. Figure 1 shows the JCIDS process, including the major elements of a capabilities-based assessment. The purpose of JCIDS is to identify, assess, and prioritize joint military capability needs. Capabilities represent warfighting needs that are studied as part of the system’s capabilities-based assessment process. The process identifies warfighter skills and attributes for a desired capability (Functional Area Analysis), the gaps to achieving this capability (Functional Needs Analysis), and possible solutions for filling these gaps (Functional Solution Analysis). The results of this assessment are used as the basis for identifying approaches for delivering the desired capability. When identifying these approaches, cost is one factor that is considered. One way costs are used to evaluate potential approaches is by developing total ownership cost estimates. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has overall responsibility for JCIDS and is supported by eight Functional Capabilities Boards (Command and Control, Battlespace Awareness, Focused Logistics, Force Management, Force Protection, Force application, Net-Centric, and Joint Training), which lead the capabilities- based assessment process. DOD’s anticipated timeframe for an operational joint seabasing capability as currently envisioned in the Joint Integrating Concept is 2015–2025.

The services are either considering or actively pursuing material solutions to support seabasing. According to service officials and documentation, these solutions will play a critical role in enhancing current seabasing capabilities. For example, the Navy and Marines plan to acquire the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) along with several supporting connectors needed for it to be able to achieve its mission. As part of the seabase, the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) will be a squadron of ships to transport and deliver the personnel, combat power, and logistic support of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The connectors, which are envisioned to provide both intertheater lift to the seabase and intratheater lift within the seabase, include sealift, such as the Joint High Speed Vessel, Joint High Speed Sealift, and Joint Maritime Assault Connector (this vessel is intended to replace the Landing Craft Assault Connector), and airlift, such as the V-22 Osprey and CH-53K heavy lift helicopter. Figure 2 illustrates and describes several sealift and airlift connectors. The Army is also exploring new capability initiatives for establishing a seabasing capability. In conjunction with the Navy and Marine Corps, the Army is developing the Joint High Speed Vessel and Joint High Speed Sealift ships. Furthermore, the Army is also in the early stages of development of its Afloat Forward Staging Base, which is a ship concept whose mission would be providing aerial maneuver with Army forces from the sea. One option the Army is exploring for the Afloat Forward Staging Base is to add flight decks to a commercial container ship, along with other alterations, as a means to provide aerial maneuver to Army forces.

DOD Has Not Fully Established a Comprehensive Management Approach to Guide Joint Seabasing and Integrate Service Initiatives

Although DOD has taken action to begin the development of joint seabasing, DOD has not fully established a comprehensive management approach to effectively guide and assess joint seabasing as an option for projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment and integrate service initiatives. Specifically, DOD has not fully incorporated sound management practices—such as providing leadership, dedicating an implementation team, and establishing a communications strategy—that our prior work has shown are found at the center of successful transformations.

DOD Has Taken Action to Develop Joint Seabasing

DOD has taken action to develop joint seabasing by pursuing it within DOD’s Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). JCIDS is a key DOD decision support process that uses a capabilities- based approach to assess existing capabilities, identify capability gaps, and develop new warfighting capabilities. Within JCIDS, future capability needs are intended to be developed from top-level strategic guidance such as the National Military Strategy, a “top-down” approach. Under the former process, requirements grew out of the individual services’ unique strategic visions, a “bottom-up” approach. In January 2006 we reported that JCIDS is not yet functioning as envisioned to define gaps and redundancies in existing and future military capabilities across the department and to identify solutions to improve joint capabilities. We reported that requirements continue to be defined largely from the “bottom up”—by the services—although DOD uses the JCIDS framework to assess the services’ proposals and push a joint perspective.

According to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics officials, seabasing is going through the JCIDS process to become more of a joint concept that is developed through input from the services, combatant commands, and other DOD organizations. DOD has produced a Seabasing Joint Integrating Concept that outlines the concept for joint seabasing and identifies essential capabilities. Under JCIDS, the capabilities-based assessment follows a structured, four-step process. The first step in this process, the Functional Area Analysis, dated October 2005, identified the seabasing tasks, conditions, and standards needed to meet military objectives. The Functional Area Analysis identified such critical joint seabasing tasks as providing for maintenance of equipment in the joint operations area, attacking operational targets, and building and maintaining sustainment bases in the joint operations area. The second step of the capabilities-based assessment, the Functional Needs Analysis, dated November 2006, provided a prioritized list of joint seabasing capabilities and capability gaps, and identifies potential mitigation areas from which the identified capability gaps may be addressed. The 17 seabasing capability gaps include at-sea assembly, forcible entry, and conducting operational movement and maneuver. The analyses that are currently being developed are intended to further define and organize the capability gaps identified in the Functional Needs Analysis and recommend potential solutions for consideration in future analyses.

DOD’s Management Approach Has Not Fully Incorporated Sound Management Principles or Integrated Service Initiatives

Despite pursuing joint seabasing within JCIDS, DOD has not fully incorporated key sound management practices into its approach for managing the development of joint seabasing requirements and integrating service initiatives. In our prior work, we identified several key sound management practices at the center of successful mergers, acquisitions, and transformations. These key sound management practices include (1) ensuring top leadership drives the transformation, (2) dedicating an implementation team to manage the transformation process, and (3) establishing a communication strategy to create shared expectations and report related progress. Without a management approach that contains these elements, DOD may be unable to guide and assess joint seabasing in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Moreover, without central coordination, it is unclear whether DOD will be able to effectively manage billions of dollars of potential service investments in interdependent complex platforms, connectors, and logistics technologies that will need to be coordinated using a common set of standards, requirements, timeframes, and priorities.

First, although joint seabasing capability development is underway, DOD has not provided sufficient leadership to integrate service initiatives and guide the development of joint seabasing. While the joint seabasing JCIDS process is still in the early stages of assessing needed capabilities, the services have developed their own concepts and approaches for seabasing, and in some cases systems that will support joint seabasing are further along than the concept in JCIDS development. For example, the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) and the Joint High Speed Vessel are approaching their second major milestone, or decision point, within DOD’s acquisition system, which will initiate systems-level development, whereas the joint seabasing concept is still being refined. Preliminary cost estimates for both these systems range from nearly $12 billion to over $15 billion. The 2005 National Research Council Committee’s report, Sea Basing, concluded that developing a system of systems such as seabasing that is comprised of complex platforms, connectors, and logistics technologies will require a common set of standards, requirements, timeframes, and priorities. Various ship, airlift, and sealift connector components of the seabase will need to interface, and the capabilities of some of these components will be interdependent. In addition, joint operations from a seabase will require robust logistics technologies and command and control. Prematurely developing such systems to meet individual service requirements rather than joint requirements may result in initiatives that duplicate each other and systems that are not interoperable and compatible. Moreover, in addition to the billions of dollars being spent to procure these systems, it may be costly to realign or adjust the efforts of the services in the future if they do not meet the joint requirements of seabasing.

In addition, DOD leadership has not provided an official, unified vision for joint seabasing to guide the transformation, ensure that focus is maintained on providing a capability that is the best option for projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment, and ensure that joint seabasing is evaluated against competing options. Joint Staff officials told us that the joint seabasing JCIDS process has been addressing how seabasing can be used to counter the problem of projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment, rather than examining specific solutions. We reported in 2003 that key practices and implementation steps for successful transformations include ensuring top leadership drives the transformation. We found that leadership must set the direction, pace, and tone for the transformation. Concerns have been raised by other organizations about the lack of leadership to guide the development of joint seabasing. For example, the National Research Council Committee’s report, Sea Basing, stated that “given the complexity of and the long- term nature of the major capital investments by Services in new platforms, development of advanced technologies, and the introduction of appropriate joint doctrine, such a unifying vision will be essential in order to best leverage existing currently programmed and future Service capabilities.” Also, in 2003 the Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing found that developing the seabase requires persistent, top-down leadership to coordinate the numerous initiatives—including concepts of operations, ships, aircraft, weapons, and transportations systems—that support the seabase. Absent leadership, DOD can not be certain joint seabasing has been evaluated against competing options for projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment. Moreover, without leadership that has the authority, responsibility, and accountability to guide joint seabasing and integrate service initiatives, DOD cannot be sure that ongoing or planned initiatives are cost-effective, fully leveraged, properly focused, and complement each other.

Second, DOD has not established a dedicated implementation team to provide day-to-day management oversight. We reported in 2003 that a dedicated implementation team should be responsible for the day-to-day management of transformation to ensure various initiatives are integrated. Such a team would ensure that joint seabasing receives the focused, full-time attention necessary to be sustained and effective, by establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities, helping to reach agreement on work priorities, and keeping efforts coordinated. There are several groups and DOD organizations tasked with specific responsibilities for developing joint seabasing within JCIDS; however, none of these organizations have the overall authority, responsibility, and accountability to coordinate initiatives and the acquisition of systems that may support joint seabasing. For example, the Navy was designated the sponsor of the Seabasing Joint Integrating Concept and is responsible for all common documentation, periodic reporting, and funding actions required to support the seabasing capabilities development and acquisition process. The Force Management Functional Capabilities Board is responsible for leading the seabasing capabilities-based assessment and oversees the sponsor (the Navy) in developing documents. The Seabasing Working Group was organized and tasked by the Joint Staff to assist the Force Management Functional Capabilities Board in completing the joint seabasing analyses. The Seabasing Working Group is comprised of members from the Joint Staff, combatant commands, the services, and other organizations, and serves as a source of expertise and as a joint sounding board for collaboration and focusing the direction of the analyses. According to Joint Staff officials, the working group can ask the services and combatant commands to participate and provide input to the analyses, but they have no authority to force their participation in the development of the analyses nor do they have authority over service initiatives that may support joint seabasing.

Recommendations have been made for a joint office to manage and lead joint seabasing by DOD officials, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, and the Naval Studies Board, but a leadership body has not been established. In November 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics directed that a terms of reference be developed for a Joint Expeditionary Force Projection/Seabasing Capabilities Office. According to the Terms of Reference, the office would organize all joint seabasing-related DOD activities—ranging from experimentation efforts to solutions development to training—into a coherent direction. In addition, the office would be comprised of members from each of the four services and the U.S. Joint Forces Command and would have limited contract authority. However, DOD officials decided to forgo the joint office and pursue joint seabasing within the JCIDS process. According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, one reason a joint office was not set up for joint seabasing was because there was no staff available at the time. According to Joint Staff officials, one downfall to joint seabasing being developed under the JCIDS process is that consensus is required on all decisions before moving forward, which may result in compromising solutions. Although use of the JCIDS process has encouraged the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps to participate with the Navy in the development of the Joint Integrating Concept and JCIDS analyses, the services continue to pursue their own initiatives. As previously mentioned, some of these initiatives are still in the early stages of concept development, whereas other initiatives are further along in the acquisition process ahead of joint seabasing. A key official from the Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing told us that the need for a joint office to coordinate efforts between the services still exists. According to the official, the lack of action in setting up a joint seabasing office makes achieving compatible systems to support joint seabasing more difficult considering some supporting systems are ahead of joint seabasing in the development process. The Naval Studies Board also recommended a joint planning office be set up to “correlate Service requirements and advise Service procurements” so common capabilities among the services can be taken advantage of and incompatible acquisitions will not be made. We and the DOD Office of the Inspector General have found similar management challenges in DOD’s efforts to field other joint capabilities such as the Global Information Grid and network-centric warfare. Without formally designating a dedicated leadership body to provide day-to-day management oversight by providing a coherent direction for related activities, establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities, helping to reach agreement on work priorities, and keeping efforts coordinated, DOD’s ability to develop a joint seabasing capability in an efficient manner may be hindered. Furthermore, without a dedicated implementation team, it may be difficult for DOD to sustain joint seabasing development over a long period of time.

Third, DOD has not fully developed a communications strategy that encourages communication, shares knowledge, and provides information to DOD organizations involved in joint seabasing initiatives. We previously reported that creating an effective, ongoing communication strategy is central to forming the partnerships that are needed to develop and implement the organization’s strategies. As previously mentioned, there are numerous groups and DOD organizations involved in joint seabasing and various initiatives that may affect joint seabasing. The seabasing working group hosts meetings that provide a forum for discussion on joint seabasing among members. In addition, it has established a Web site that posts meeting minutes and various joint seabasing JCIDS analysis documents. While this Web site provides some transparency into the analysis process, it does not serve as a central repository for communicating information on joint seabasing because it does not provide information on joint seabasing efforts conducted by the services and combatant commands outside of the JCIDS process. In addition, we found no evidence of a formal mechanism that communicated joint seabasing information. Officials from the Navy and Marine Corps told us they face challenges in determining what organizations are involved in joint seabasing and what they are doing. According to Marine Corps officials, this impedes their ability to leverage activities and minimize redundancy. Furthermore, Joint Staff officials have acknowledged that the lack of a central, authoritative source of information significantly hindered timely completion of analyses. For example, the data management tool used to associate essential seabasing capabilities with the appropriate functional area did not provide a systematic method for identifying relevant information and some data was missing. Moreover, they also recognized that a means for identifying DOD-wide initiatives that affect joint seabasing needs to be established. In the absence of clear communication of joint seabasing information throughout DOD via an overall communications strategy, joint seabasing participants may not be able to effectively leverage activities and minimize redundancy, and the overall development of joint seabasing may be impeded.

DOD Has Not Developed a Joint Experimentation Campaign Plan to Inform Decisions About Joint Seabasing

DOD has not developed, implemented, or used an overarching joint experimentation campaign plan to inform decisions about joint seabasing. Experimentation campaign plans play an important role in developing transformational concepts by coordinating and guiding experimentation efforts using a series of related experiments that develop knowledge about a concept or capability. Many seabasing experimentation activities have taken place across DOD and the services; however, an overarching experimentation campaign plan to coordinate and guide joint seabasing experimentation does not exist because the U.S. Joint Forces Command— DOD’s leader of joint warfighting experimentation—has not taken the lead in coordinating joint seabasing experimentation efforts. Additionally, DOD lacks a systematic means to analyze, communicate, and disseminate information on joint seabasing experimentation. Moreover, DOD lacks a feedback mechanism to interpret and clarify results from joint seabasing experimental activities.

Experimentation Campaign Plans Coordinate and Guide Experimentation Efforts

According to military experimentation guides, experimentation campaign plans play an important role in developing transformational concepts by coordinating and guiding experimentation efforts using a series of related experiments that develop knowledge about a concept or capability. Taken together, the results of these experiments can inform decisions about future research and technology programs, acquisition efforts, risk, organizational changes, and changes in operational concepts. A well- planned experimentation campaign provides a framework for much of what needs to be known about a new concept or capability. According to defense best practices, key aspects of an experimentation campaign include: (1) designated campaign leaders; (2) clear campaign focus and objectives; (3) a spectrum of well-designed and sequenced experimental activities, including studies and analyses, seminars and conferences, war games, modeling and simulation, and live demonstrations; (4) data collection and analyses; (5) broad dissemination of results; and (6) a feedback mechanism to discuss and interpret results. Experimentation campaigns that include these aspects can reduce the risk in developing and fielding a new concept or capability by addressing a spectrum of possibilities and building upon experimentation activities systematically, with continual analyses and feedback to interpret the results into useful information.

Single experiments alone are insufficient to develop transformational concepts because they can only explore a limited number of variables, and their contributions are limited unless their findings can be replicated in other experiments. Campaigns can provide conclusive and robust results through their ability to replicate findings and conduct experiments in a variety of scenarios and operating environments. A well-planned experimentation campaign can mitigate the limitations of a single experiment by synthesizing outputs from a series of activities into coherent advice to decision makers.

Many Seabasing Experimentation Activities Have Taken Place but an Overarching Experimentation Campaign Plan to Guide These Activities Does Not Exist

Many experimentation activities involving seabasing have taken place; however, an overarching DOD experimentation campaign plan to guide and coordinate these activities does not exist. All of the services, combatant commands, and some defense entities have been involved with seabasing experimentation through war games, studies, workshops, modeling and simulation, and live demonstrations. For example, in 2004 the Joint Chiefs of Staff led a war game called Nimble Viking that brought the services together and addressed gaps in their understanding of the joint seabasing concept. The services conducted studies addressing gaps in the joint seabasing concept, such as the Navy’s 40 Knot Marine Expeditionary Brigade study, which identified gaps in conducting forcible entry operations with Marine Corps forces using seaborne lift capable of speeds of 40 knots. Moreover, the Marine Corps modeled plans for landing seabased forces from amphibious ships, the results of which, according to the Marine Corps, shaved hours off the landing of forces from amphibious ships. In addition, the U.S. Joint Forces Command and services worked together in cosponsoring several war games involving joint seabasing, including Unified Course 2004, Joint Urban Warrior 2004, Pinnacle Impact 2003, and Sea Viking 2004. While many of the reports from these war games recognized joint seabasing as a potential concept for addressing antiaccess and force projection issues, they stated that further experimentation was needed before joint seabasing moved forward.

Additionally, material solutions being developed to support joint seabasing have undergone planned experimentation and testing activities. For example, U.S. Transportation Command officials believe that DOD’s Joint- Logistics-Over-the-Shore program could support joint seabasing logistical operations, such as heavy cargo transfer at sea. To that end, in June 2006 they sponsored a Joint-Logistics-Over-the-Shore exercise to transfer equipment and bulk materials from large ships to the beach using smaller landing craft. Figure 3 shows forces using a barge to move construction vehicles from ships to shore during a Joint-Logistics-Over-the-Shore exercise at Naval Magazine, in Indian Island, Washington.

The Navy’s Program Executive Office for Ships, which manages the Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future) and the Joint High Speed Vessel programs, reports that the Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future) program has planned and is executing a series of jointly coordinated tests involving modeling and simulation and live demonstrations. According to the Program Manager, demonstrations included at-sea evaluation of the Mobile Landing Platform concept and its ability to interface with other vessels supporting the joint seabase. Additionally, the Navy’s Office of Naval Research is developing a number of technologies, such as internal ship cargo handling and ship-to-ship cargo transfers, to address capability gaps in joint seabasing operations.

Although joint seabasing experimental activities have taken place, an overarching experimentation campaign plan to coordinate and guide these activities does not exist because the U.S. Joint Forces Command has not taken the lead in coordinating joint seabasing experimentation efforts. Moreover, involvement in these activities by the services, combatant commands, and defense entities has been inconsistent due to budget restraints, other competing priorities, and the lack of timely coordination and advance notice of events. In May 1998, the Secretary of Defense designated the U.S. Joint Forces Command as the DOD executive agent for joint warfighting experimentation. In this role the command is responsible for conducting joint experimentation on new warfighting concepts and disseminating the results of these activities to the joint concept community, which includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, combatant commands, services, and defense agencies. The U.S. Joint Forces Command is also responsible for coordinating joint experimentation efforts by developing a biennial joint concept development and experimentation campaign plan. In January 2006, a memo from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff further underscored this responsibility by providing explicit direction to the U.S. Joint Forces Command on developing a campaign plan that provided guidance to the joint concept community on coordinating joint experimentation efforts, and capturing and disseminating the results of these efforts. While the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it is in the process of developing the plan, it is unclear the extent to which this plan will address joint seabasing. According to the U.S. Joint Forces Command, other more near-term priorities, such as improvised explosive devices and urban warfare, have prevented them from focusing on joint seabasing during the past few years.

Once the U.S. Joint Forces Command develops and implements the plan, which it intends to do by fiscal year 2008, it is also unclear the extent to which this plan will be able to guide and coordinate joint seabasing experimentation efforts because the U.S. Joint Forces Command does not have the authority to direct service and other DOD organizations’ experimentation plans. The services and combatant commands are responsible for working with the U.S. Joint Forces Command in executing the joint concept development and experimentation campaign plan, and for providing them with observations, insights, results, and recommendations related to all joint experimentation efforts. However, the services and combatant commands are not required to go through the U.S. Joint Forces Command before executing their own experimentation activities. Moreover, the U.S. Joint Forces Command says it does not have authority to make the services and combatant commands take specific joint actions. Additionally, there are many entities within the services involved in joint seabasing experimentation and there are no formalized leaders coordinating service efforts. As a result, these entities operate independently and do not coordinate their efforts with the U.S. Joint Forces Command. This lack of coordination poses risks of duplicating experimentation efforts and conducting experimentation that does not build upon previous activities.

Furthermore, no overarching campaign plan to guide joint seabasing experimentation exists within any other DOD entity. While the Navy and Marine Corps have seabasing experimentation campaign plans, officials told us these plans are not overarching within each of the services and it is unclear the extent to which they are being implemented. For example, a seabasing experimentation plan exists as part of the Navy’s Sea Trial Concept Development and Experimentation Campaign Plan; however, Navy officials said there is not a lot of joint seabasing experimentation being conducted within this plan and the plan does not encompass all of the Navy’s efforts. In addition, the Marine Corps has a plan that broadly focuses on issues that need to be addressed for seabasing capabilities such as the Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future) and the Joint High Speed Vessel. However, its plan does not identify designated leaders and specific experimentation activities that should take place, nor does the plan identify timelines, resources, or staff to conduct experimentation. It also does not contain plans for data collection and analysis or any provisions for disseminating results. In addition, according to Marine Corps officials, the plan is not being fully executed due to lack of funding and staff.

Many service officials expressed concern over the lack of coordination and guidance on joint seabasing experimentation. They stated that the U.S. Joint Forces Command has not shown much interest in experimentation for future concepts such as joint seabasing, instead focusing experimentation efforts on short-term concepts and immediate priorities such as improvised explosive devices. One service official commented that there is no single point of contact for joint seabasing at the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Additionally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff states in the Functional Needs Analysis that more joint experimentation is needed to inform and further refine capability gaps in the joint seabasing concept.

DOD Lacks a Systematic Means to Analyze, Communicate, and Disseminate Information on Joint Seabasing Experimentation

DOD also lacks a systematic means to analyze, communicate, and disseminate information about joint seabasing experimentation across the department. According to military experimentation guides, a significant part of an experiment consists of gathering data, interpreting it into findings, and combining it with already known information. Additionally, data collection and analysis plans are important to experimentation because they ensure valid and reliable data are captured and understood, and that the analysis undertaken addresses the key issues in the experiment. However, we found no overarching data collection and analysis plan to guide the analysis of joint seabasing experimentation results. Furthermore, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Program Analysis and Evaluation division described a lack of analysis in joint seabasing to inform the capabilities-based assessment, which could lead to inaccurately identifying gaps in implementing the concept. They said that no comprehensive analytical framework was ever established to guide development of the joint seabasing concept; consequently, the value joint seabasing will bring to the warfighter is unknown. Without an overarching campaign plan, experimental results for joint seabasing are being obtained and interpreted using different data collection and analysis methods, which may lead to inconsistent reporting methods. As a result, experimentation data may be analyzed, interpreted, and shared inconsistently and with little transparency across the community.

Additionally, DOD and service officials commented on the lack of sufficient modeling and simulation tools available to provide valid data on joint seabasing. Modeling and simulation tools play an important role in experiments. Unlike live demonstrations, modeling and simulation techniques can inexpensively vary the values of variables to represent a wide variety of conditions. They also provide a great deal of control over the variables in the experiment, which allows for replication. The Joint Chiefs of Staff noted the absence of high-level modeling tools capable of end-to-end modeling of seabasing in the Functional Needs Analysis, saying that the absence of this type of modeling precluded effective and meaningful data to validate warfighter needs and thus limited the depth of their analysis. Furthermore, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Program Analysis and Evaluation division also commented that the lack of modeling could result in missing critical gaps in the joint seabasing concept that have not yet been identified. The Joint Chiefs of Staff identified the U.S. Joint Forces Command as a possible lead for end- to-end modeling and simulation of joint seabasing because of its role in joint concept development and experimentation, and its expertise in developing comprehensive modeling and simulation tools.

While some communication takes place among the entities involved with developing the seabasing concept, there is no established method for communicating observations, insights, and upcoming events across the entire community. DOD and service officials described the joint seabasing community as an informal community of practice, where the services, combatant commands, and defense entities invite each other to participate in their experimentation activities. The U.S. Joint Forces Command and the services track to some degree the experimental efforts of the joint seabasing community. For example, the U.S. Joint Forces Command says it tries to leverage off the services’ efforts by partnering with them in experimental activities. However, despite this informal community, DOD and service officials describe a lack of coordination and awareness of experimental activities. A Marine Corps official stated that some officials are more aware than others are; but no one is completely aware of what is going on across the entire community. In fact, many officials we spoke with were either unaware or had very little advance notice of an upcoming war game involving seabasing. Without an established communication method, joint seabasing experimentation efforts are not transparent to the entire community, which can contribute to a lack of consensus on the types of activities that take place, conflicts in scheduling events, and duplication of efforts.

Additionally, there is no overarching system to disseminate observations and results on joint seabasing experimentation. The U.S. Joint Forces Command has a database containing documents and reports from experimentation activities; however, the database contains different levels of information based on what the services choose to publish. As a result, the database is not a comprehensive resource of joint experimentation information. The Navy’s Warfare Development Command also maintains a Web site of information pertaining to its Sea Trial campaign, which other entities within the Navy contribute to, but it is not overarching within the Navy. In response to a January 2006 memo from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Joint Forces Command is developing an online knowledge management portal to disseminate information on experimentation activities across the joint concept community. The portal contains a repository of information on experimentation concepts, projects, and documents; a bulletin board to post insights and observations; hotlinks to other sites; and a calendar function for upcoming experimentation activities. The portal also contains a section on activities relating to joint logistics, and joint deployment and sustainment; however, it does not yet contain information on joint seabasing. Furthermore, while the portal has the ability to disseminate information, it may not be successful in increasing communication across the joint seabasing community because the services have not been directed to use the portal in planning their activities.

DOD Lacks a Feedback Mechanism to Interpret Results From Joint Seabasing Experimentation

DOD lacks a feedback mechanism to interpret and clarify results from joint seabasing experimental activities. Feedback on analyses and findings produced from experimental activities provides the joint seabasing experimentation community an opportunity to comment on the results and ask questions. It also gives the experiment sponsor an opportunity to see how the work was received, assist in interpreting results, and provide further advice on how the results should be used. In the context of an experimentation campaign, it may also give the sponsor an opportunity to clarify how the results affect the overarching campaign concept. While individual seabasing experiments may have had some form of feedback, the lack of an overarching joint seabasing experimentation campaign plan that includes procedures for providing and obtaining feedback may prevent the joint seabasing experimentation community from fully realizing how the results of individual experiments affect the development of joint seabasing.

Timeframe for Completing Joint Seabasing Total Ownership Cost Estimates is Uncertain

While some service acquisitions tied to seabasing are approaching milestones for investment decisions, it is unclear when DOD will complete development of total ownership cost estimates for a range of joint seabasing options. Understanding estimated total ownership costs helps decision makers measure the whole cost of owning and operating assets and make comparisons between competing options. The joint seabasing capability is being assessed in the JCIDS analysis process. However, DOD has not yet begun a key study of approaches and their associated costs and may not complete this study for at least a year. In the meantime, the services are considering or pursuing systems to enhance seabasing capabilities. For example, a major Navy-Marine Corps initiative is scheduled to undergo a major milestone review in fiscal year 2008. Until total ownership cost estimates for joint seabasing options are developed and made transparent to DOD and Congress, decision makers will not be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of individual service initiatives.

Total Ownership Cost Estimates Help Decision Makers Evaluate Options

In order to evaluate options and make informed, cost-effective decisions, decision makers must have an understanding of the total ownership costs for establishing a desired capability. A total ownership cost estimate includes the costs to develop, acquire, operate, maintain, and dispose of all systems required to establish a seabasing capability. Understanding total ownership cost estimates helps organizations measure the whole cost of owning and operating assets by providing a consistent framework for analyzing and comparing options. Total ownership cost estimates can be used to assess the possible return on investment of new initiatives. According to DOD guidance, all parties involved in the defense acquisition system must be cognizant of the reality of fiscal constraints and treat cost as an independent variable when developing systems. Furthermore, the policy stresses the importance of identifying the total costs of ownership, including major cost drivers, while considering the affordability of establishing needed capabilities. Even with future concepts, such as joint seabasing, where uncertainty exists, total ownership cost estimates can be developed. According to DOD cost analysis guidance, in such cases, areas of uncertainty can be quantified using ranges of cost, thereby giving decision makers, at a minimum, a rough estimate of the total costs to achieving a desired capability. For systems of systems, such as seabasing, a total ownership cost estimate should include research, acquisition, operation, maintenance, and disposition costs of all systems, primary and support, needed to achieve the desired end state. Understanding the estimated total ownership costs of seabasing options can help decision makers make informed decisions to determine the most cost-effective method of achieving a seabasing capability. Furthermore, they can be used to more effectively evaluate joint seabasing against alternative methods of projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment.

JCIDS Has Not Yet Produced Cost Estimates for Joint Seabasing Capability Options and Timeframes Are Uncertain

Joint seabasing is currently going through the capabilities-based assessment phase of the JCIDS analysis process. One part of the JCIDS analysis process is the Functional Solutions Analysis—an operationally based assessment of all potential approaches, including changes to doctrine, organization, training, as well as material solutions, to solve identified capability gaps. According to Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance, this process will assess the costs of potential approaches to joint seabasing. For any material approaches that are developed, the cost to develop, procure, and sustain each approach will be estimated. These estimates should provide decision makers with some understanding of the costs of these approaches. However, the timeframe for when these cost assessments will take place is unclear. According to DOD officials, cost assessments for joint seabasing approaches have not yet begun and may not be completed for a year or more. Furthermore, the Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance does not provide a specific methodology for what level of cost assessment should take place. Rather, the guidance only states that the process should “roughly assess” the costs of each identified approach.

Service Acquisitions May Outpace Joint Seabasing Cost Analysis

Although DOD has not yet begun its analysis of joint seabasing approaches and costs, the services are either considering or actively pursuing systems to develop enhanced seabasing capabilities. For example, the Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2007 Budget includes funding for the development of seabasing ships, including ships for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) and Joint High Speed Vessels. Furthermore, the Navy has included eleven ships for its Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), three Joint High Speed Vessels, and one Joint High Speed Sealift ship in its Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2007 report to Congress. Although the plan could change as the Navy continues to assess its requirements and address affordability issues, the Navy estimates that these investments will cost nearly $12 billion. The ships the Navy has programmed for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) do not include the cost of a Landing Helicopter Deck (LHD) amphibious assault ship, which is planned to be part of the squadron. The Congressional Research Service has reported that this ship has an estimated cost of $2.2 billion, and that the estimated cost of the entire Maritime Prepositioning Squadron is about $14.5 billion. However, unknown factors remain that could affect these estimates. Furthermore, the number of connectors required to support the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) is yet to be determined. Within the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) squadron, several factors that could influence cost—such as manning and ship survivability levels—remain in flux. Figure 4 shows the ships of the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future).

The Navy and Marine Corps have not yet estimated the total ownership costs of their preferred options for establishing a seabasing capability. However, both the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) and the Joint High Speed Vessel, which will play a critical role in establishing a joint seabasing capability, are in development and progressing through DOD’s acquisition system. The Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) is approaching its second major milestone, which initiates system development and demonstration, in mid-2008. Prior to this milestone, a total ownership cost estimate will be required in order for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) to be validated and approved before program initiation. Although a total ownership cost estimate may be available for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) squadron for this milestone, according to service documentation, the costs of the supporting vehicles and vessels needed for the squadron to operate as planned for use in joint seabasing will not be included. Furthermore, one of the ships in the squadron—the Mobile Landing Platform—is going through its own acquisition process with its second milestone scheduled in fiscal year 2008. Furthermore, because the JCIDS analysis process for Joint Seabasing will not produce any cost assessments for at least 1 year, decision makers risk making substantial investment concerning the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) without knowledge of the potential costs of other joint seabasing options. The Navy plans to acquire the first ship for the squadron in 2009.

The Army is also exploring new initiatives for establishing a seabasing capability. In conjunction with the Navy and Marine Corps, the Army is developing the Joint High Speed Vessel and Joint High Speed Sealift ships. Although not being developed specifically for seabasing, according to service documentation, these systems will have a significant role in establishing a seabasing capability. The Army plans to acquire five Joint High Speed Vessels beginning in fiscal year 2008, with a total acquisition cost of $210 million for the first ship and $170 million for the remaining ships. The Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan estimates the Joint High Speed Sealift ship to cost around $920 million. Furthermore, the Army is also in the early stages of exploring ideas for its Afloat Forward Staging Base to provide aerial maneuver to Army forces. One option the Army is exploring for the Afloat Forward Staging Base is to add flight decks to a commercial container ship, along with other alterations, as a means to provide aerial maneuver to Army forces. Several research organizations also recommended this option, because it is seen as a potentially low-cost means of establishing a seabasing capability. A rough order of magnitude estimate of the cost to convert a commercial cargo ship is approximately $300 million to $600 million.

Options Cannot Be Compared without Cost Estimates

In addition to the options in development, additional means for projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment exist. However, they cannot effectively be compared when total ownership costs are not known. For example, the U.S. Transportation Command is working to enhance the military’s joint logistics over-the-shore capabilities, which utilize existing assets, such as the Army’s Logistics Support Vessel and the Navy’s Improved Navy Lighterage System, to deploy and sustain forces by allowing strategic sealift ships to discharge through austere or damaged ports, or over a bare beach. Furthermore, the Air Force has developed its Expeditionary Airbase Operating Enabling Concept. This concept is a methodology and plan for rapid airbase seizure, establishment, and operation to support the joint force commander in sustaining forces. Other possibilities include Army air-dropped or air-landed operations to roll- back enemy shore-based defense or joint special operations forces to attack high-value coastal defense assets prior to or in concert with naval strikes from the sea. Some of these options represent existing capabilities, which could prove to be a more cost-effective means of projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment. Until total ownership costs are developed, the cost-effectiveness of these options cannot be effectively evaluated.

Conclusions

While DOD’s ability to project and sustain forces in an antiaccess environment is expected to become increasingly important, DOD has not taken all of the steps needed to effectively manage joint seabasing initiatives across the department and evaluate competing options for force projection and sustainment. Without a comprehensive management approach to guide and assess joint seabasing, DOD may be unable to ensure that ongoing or planned joint seabasing initiatives are properly focused and complement each other and the capability is being developed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. One consequence of this lack of effective management is the absence of a joint experimentation campaign plan. Without a campaign plan to direct experimentation for joint seabasing, DOD and the services’ ability to evaluate and validate their solutions, coordinate efforts, perform analysis, and disseminate results could be compromised. As a result, the services risk duplicating experimentation efforts and developing and fielding seabasing capabilities that are not compatible or interoperable, and they will be unable to leverage the results of individual experiments across the joint seabasing experimentation community to maximize synergies. Furthermore, establishing a joint seabasing capability could be the source of significant investment by DOD. Given the challenging fiscal environment facing DOD and the rest of the federal government, decision makers must make investment decisions that maximize return on investment at the best value for the taxpayer. By understanding the estimated total ownership costs of options for establishing a seabasing capability, decision makers would be in a better position to make informed decisions about what options are most cost-effective, and evaluate the costs and benefits of establishing a seabasing capability against other competing priorities. However, while it is unclear when DOD will complete its analysis of joint seabasing approaches and costs, the services are pursuing initiatives and systems to develop a seabasing capability, some of which are approaching milestones for investment decisions. If individual systems that support seabasing are allowed to move forward through the acquisition process before total ownership cost of seabasing options are developed and made transparent to DOD and Congress, there is a risk that DOD could make significant investments to develop a capability that may not be the most cost-effective means of projecting and sustaining forces in an antiaccess environment.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To assist decision makers in developing a comprehensive management approach to guide and assess joint seabasing as an option for force projection and sustainment in an antiaccess environment and integrate service initiatives, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following actions to incorporate sound management principles into DOD’s management of joint seabasing: assign clear leadership and accountability for developing a joint seabasing capability and coordinating supporting initiatives; establish an overarching, dedicated implementation team to provide day-to-day management oversight over the services, combatant commands, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others involved in joint seabasing; and develop and implement a communications strategy to ensure communication between and among the services, combatant commands, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to provide information on all joint seabasing activities across DOD.

To better guide joint seabasing experimentation and inform decisions on joint seabasing as an option for force projection and sustainment in an antiaccess environment, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense do the following: Direct the U.S. Joint Forces Command to lead and coordinate joint seabasing experimentation efforts, under the purview of the joint seabasing implementation team. U.S. Joint Forces Command should be responsible for developing and implementing a joint seabasing experimentation campaign plan to guide the evaluation of joint seabasing as a capability for force projection and sustainment. Such an experimentation plan should include the following elements: a clear focus and objectives for joint seabasing that encompass near-, mid-, and long-term experimentation plans; a near-term plan for joint seabasing experimentation that includes events for the next fiscal year, participants, timelines, and resources that will be used to support the events; a spectrum of joint experimentation activities that include wargaming, comprehensive modeling and simulation, live demonstrations, workshops, symposiums, and analysis; a data collection and analysis plan to capture and evaluate results; a method for communicating observations, results, upcoming activities, and feedback across the joint seabasing experimentation community.

Direct that the services collaborate with the U.S. Joint Forces Command in developing, implementing, and using the joint seabasing experimentation campaign plan.

Direct that the services utilize and contribute to the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s knowledge management portal by providing their observations, insights, results, and planned activities to the portal for use by the joint seabasing experimentation community.

To assist decision makers in evaluating the costs of joint seabasing options against the capabilities that joint seabasing could provide the joint warfighter as a means for force projection and sustainment in an antiaccess environment, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the implementation team or other appropriate entity to synchronize development of total ownership cost estimates for the range of joint seabasing options so decision makers have sufficient information to use in making investment decisions on service seabasing initiatives.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially agreed with our recommendations, except for the need for a dedicated implementation team. In its comments, DOD stated that it is premature to establish additional oversight at this time and that in the interim the Force Management Joint Capabilities Board is providing an appropriate level of management oversight. As discussed below, in view of the magnitude of potential DOD investments in seabasing and DOD’s need to efficiently manage future resources and distinguish between needs and wants, we continue to believe that an implementation team is needed to coordinate disparate service and defense organization initiatives related to seabasing and urge the department to further consider the need for action now rather than waiting until after it establishes joint requirements. In addition, although DOD partially agreed with our other recommendations, its comments did not indicate that it would take specific actions beyond those it has already begun and which we evaluated as part of our review. In light of DOD’s stated agreement with the intent of our recommendations, we urge the department to develop specific actions and plans to implement our recommendations.

DOD partially agreed with our recommendation regarding leadership and accountability for developing a joint seabasing capability and coordinating supporting initiatives. DOD stated that the Joint Staff is assigned responsibility to develop the Joint Seabasing Concept and the resulting capability and that there is clear and accountable leadership established within the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Joint Capabilities Board to accomplish this development. While the Joint Staff, Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the Joint Capabilities Board have oversight and responsibilities within JCIDS, we found that none of these organizations have the overall authority, responsibility, and accountability to coordinate joint seabasing initiatives and the service acquisitions that may support joint seabasing. As discussed in the report, the services have their own seabasing concepts and some service initiatives are outpacing joint seabasing in development. DOD has not provided sufficient leadership to ensure these initiatives are fully leveraged, properly focused, and complement each other. Because of the potential for billions of dollars to be spent to procure these systems, we continue to believe our recommendation has merit and that assignment of clear leadership and accountability for developing a joint seabasing capability and coordinating supporting initiatives is needed.

DOD did not agree with our recommendation that an overarching, dedicated implementation team be established to provide day-to-day management oversight over the services, combatant commands, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others involved in joint seabasing. DOD commented that the joint seabasing concept is still being developed within the JCIDS and the Force Management Functional Capabilities Board is providing the appropriate level of management oversight. DOD stated that it is premature to establish additional oversight at this time and that after the needed joint seabasing capabilities have been defined, the department will determine if additional oversight is necessary. We believe that the Force Management Functional Capabilities Board’s oversight does not go far enough in providing comprehensive management oversight for joint seabasing. While the Board is responsible for leading the joint seabasing capabilities-based assessment and oversees the sponsor (the Navy) in developing documents, the Board’s responsibilities do not constitute the type of oversight needed to ensure ongoing or planned service initiatives that may support joint seabasing are coordinated and complement each other. We continue to believe that our recommendation has merit and that creation of an implementation team to provide day-to-day management oversight of joint seabasing is needed. Therefore, we urge the department to create such a team now rather than waiting until needed joint seabasing capabilities are defined.

DOD also partially agreed with our recommendation regarding implementing a communications strategy for all joint seabasing activities in DOD. DOD stated that the JCIDS process, Joint Capabilities Boards, and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council provide for communication between the Joint Staff, all four services, the combatant commands, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). However, as discussed in our report, we found that while the Joint Staff, all four services, the combatant commands, OSD, and others participate in the JCIDS process, the information shared is not all inclusive and it is not always clear who is involved in joint seabasing and what they are doing. A DOD-wide communication strategy that provides a framework to effectively manage activities can support the overall development of joint seabasing by (1) providing better information for the participants in organizing and planning initiatives and (2) enabling the participants to minimize redundancy by leveraging activities being conducted by others. We continue to believe, as we have recommended, that a communications strategy should be developed and implemented.

DOD partially agreed with our recommendations regarding coordination of joint seabasing experimentation efforts and development of a joint experimentation campaign plan. DOD stated that the Joint Staff, with service, combatant command, and OSD support, is developing a draft Joint Capabilities Document that recommends a joint seabasing experimentation plan. However, DOD’s comments did not address which organization would be responsible for developing the experimentation campaign plan. As we recommended, we continue to believe that the U.S. Joint Forces Command should be charged with developing and implementing the joint seabasing experimentation campaign plan. As noted in our report, the U.S. Joint Forces Command is the DOD executive agent for joint warfighting experimentation. In this role the command is responsible for conducting joint experimentation on new warfighting concepts, disseminating the results of these activities, and coordinating joint experimentation efforts.

DOD also partially agreed with our recommendation regarding the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s knowledge management portal. DOD concurs that a common portal should be established and used by the services. DOD stated that the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s knowledge management portal is one option that will be considered in order to share joint seabasing experimentation observations, insights, results, and planned activities. While we support DOD’s plans to establish a knowledge management portal for joint force projection and sustainment experimentation, we continue to believe our recommendations merit action and that DOD should direct the services to use the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s knowledge management portal to share information on joint seabasing rather than consider it an option.

Finally, DOD partially agreed with our recommendation regarding development of total ownership costs for joint seabasing options. DOD stated that once the Joint Requirements Oversight Council defines the required joint seabasing capabilities, total ownership costs for the options to satisfy the needed capability gaps will be developed as part of the DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution and acquisition processes. We support DOD’s plans to develop total ownership costs; however, as our report points out, we do not believe that these actions alone will sufficiently ensure that total ownership costs for all joint seabasing options are synchronized. While total ownership costs will be estimated and synchronized for those options being developed in DOD’s JCIDS process for joint seabasing, the services are either considering or actively pursuing systems to develop their own seabasing capabilities. Some of these systems are approaching major milestone reviews for investment consideration. Requiring that total ownership cost estimates be developed for only those options developed in DOD’s joint seabasing JCIDS will provide decision makers with an incomplete picture of all joint seabasing options. Without ensuring that total ownership cost estimates are developed as we recommended for both joint seabasing options being developed in JCIDS and those options being developed by the services, DOD will risk making investment decisions that may not be the most cost- effective means of establishing a joint seabasing capability.

DOD also provided technical and editorial comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II of this report.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Navy; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4402 or stlaurentj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has employed a sound management approach for developing a joint seabasing capability, we interviewed officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the joint staff, two combatant commands, the four military services, and the private sector; received briefings from relevant officials; and reviewed key documents. We compared DOD’s approach with best practices for managing and implementing major efforts. To identify these best practices, we reviewed our prior work including GAO, Results- Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations. In the absence of a comprehensive planning document, we used relevant questions derived from the identified best practices in interviews with officials and in analyzing pertinent documents such as the August 2005 Seabasing Joint Integrating Concept, and instructions and manuals on DOD’s Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS), including (1) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01E, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (May 11, 2005); (2) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3170.01B, Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (May 11, 2005); and (3) the Joint Chiefs of Staff White Paper on Conducting a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Under the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) (January 2006). We also interviewed officials involved in the development of the joint seabasing to obtain information on how involved the services, combatant commands, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in developing joint seabasing, what their respective roles and responsibilities were, the level of authority available to direct the services and combatant commands to participate in the JCIDS analyses, how information on joint seabasing development efforts and initiatives was shared, how initiatives that may support joint seabasing were coordinated, and other issues. In addition, we examined the Seabasing Working Group Web site to identify what information was being communicated through the Web site.

To assess the extent to which a joint experimentation campaign plan has been developed, implemented, and used to inform decisions on joint seabasing options, we obtained briefings and interviewed officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Joint Forces Command, the U.S. Transportation Command, and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. We also discussed the status of joint seabasing experimentation efforts and the extent to which they coordinated with each other in conducting joint seabasing experimentation. We examined DOD guidance to identify and clarify roles and responsibilities for leading joint warfighting experimentation. To identify key aspects for conducting experimentation campaigns, we reviewed books and publications on experimentation campaigns, including Code of Best Practice: Campaigns of Experimentation; Code of Best Practice: Experimentation; Guide for Understanding and Implementing Defense Experimentation; and The Role of Experimentation in Building Future Naval Forces. We obtained and reviewed DOD and service reports and briefings containing the analyses and findings of experimentation activities. We also attended an Army Joint-Logistics-Over-the-Shore exercise demonstrating the unloading and loading of equipment to the shore when port facilities are inadequate, unavailable, or nonexistent.

To assess the extent to which DOD and the services identified the cost of joint seabasing options so that decision makers can make informed, cost- effective decisions, we reviewed official statements, obtained briefings from, and interviewed officials from, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Defense Science Board, and Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. We examined DOD documents and data including, but not limited to, the President’s Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Budget, the Department of the Navy Ships and Aircraft Supplemental Data Tables, and the Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007. We assessed the reliability of the data used through discussions with knowledgeable officials. We determined that the data used were sufficiently reliable for our objectives. We reviewed statements by the Congressional Budget Office and Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. We also reviewed reports on seabasing including, but not limited to, Thinking About Seabasing: All Ahead, Slow by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Sea Basing by the Defense Science Board, Sea Basing by the Naval Research Advisory Committee, and Seabasing: Ensuring Joint Force Access From the Sea by the National Research Council. To identify guidance on cost estimating and total ownership costs, we reviewed DOD documentation, including DOD Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System (May 12, 2003), DOD Instruction 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (April 5, 2002), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01E, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (May 11, 2005), and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3170.01B, Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (May 11, 2005). We also reviewed our prior work on cost estimating and total ownership cost.

We conducted our review from February 2006 to October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards at the following locations: Offices of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.

Office of Force Transformation Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and The Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.

Office of Force Structure Resources and Assessment—Studies, Analysis, and Gaming Division U.S. Joint Forces Command, Suffolk, Virginia Joint Experimentation Directorate Joint Futures Lab U.S. Transportation Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois Offices of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.

Office of Expeditionary Warfare Office of Assessments, Seabasing Pillar Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia Navy Warfare Development Command, Newport, Rhode Island Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island Marine Corps Combatant Development Command, Quantico, Virginia Capabilities Development Directorate, Seabasing Integration Division Operations Analysis Division, Mission Area Analysis Branch Marine Corps Warfighting Lab Offices of the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, Washington, D.C.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Patricia Lentini, Assistant Director; Sarah Baker; Renee Brown; Nicole Harms; Margaret G. Holihan; Ian Jefferies; Kevin L. O’Neill; Roderick Rodgers, Analyst-in-Charge; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this report.