DOD’s MCRS-16, which was completed in February 2010, was to provide senior leaders with a detailed understanding of the range of mobility capabilities needed for possible future military operations and help leaders make investment decisions regarding mobility systems. The study was driven by strategy current at the time. The study scope included, among other things, the way changes in mobility systems affect the outcomes of major operations and an assessment of the associated risks. MCRS-16 had several objectives, including to determine capability shortfalls (gaps) and excessesmobility force structure, provide a risk assessment, and identify the capabilities and requirements to support national strategy. (overlaps) associated with programmed In order to assess mobility capabilities, DOD officials responsible for the MCRS-16 used three cases to evaluate a broad spectrum of military operations that could be used to inform decisions regarding future mobility capabilities. The three cases are described below: Case 1: U.S. forces conduct two nearly simultaneous large-scale land campaigns and at the same time respond to three nearly simultaneous homeland defense events. Case 2: U.S. forces conduct a major air/naval campaign concurrent with the response to a large asymmetricsignificant homeland defense event. campaign and respond to a Case 3: U.S. forces conduct a large land campaign against the backdrop of an ongoing long-term irregular warfare respond to three nearly simultaneous homeland defense events. Irregular warfare is a violent struggle among state and nonstate actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). required, a potential shortfall would exist and there could be a risk that the mission might not be accomplished. If DOD had more aircraft than required, a potential excess could exist, and there could be risk that resources could be expended unnecessarily on a mobility capability. In January 2012, DOD issued Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, which describes the projected security environment and the key military missions for which DOD will prepare. DOD may make force and program decisions in accordance with the strategic approach described in this guidance, which could differ from the guidance—the National Military Strategy—that was used by the MCRS-16 to determine requirements. The new strategic guidance is intended to help inform decisions regarding the size and shape of the force, recognizing that fiscal concerns are a national security issue. To support the new strategic guidance and remain within funding constraints, the Air Force has proposed changes concerning the retirement of aircraft in its airlift fleet. Specifically, in February 2012, the Air Force proposed to Retire the oldest 27 C-5 aircraft, thereby reducing the fleet to 275 strategic airlift aircraft—which, according to the Air Force, would consist of 223 C-17s and 52 C-5s. Retire the 65 oldest C-130 aircraft—the primary aircraft used in DOD’s intratheater airlift mission—thereby reducing the fleet to 318 C-130s. Retire or cancel procurement of all 38 planned C-27 aircraft, which were intended to meet time-critical Army missions. While the MCRS-16 included some useful information concerning air mobility systems, the report did not clearly meet two of its objectives because it did not provide decision makers with specific information concerning (1) shortfalls and excesses associated with the mobility force structure or (2) risks associated with shortfalls or excesses of its mobility capabilities. Moreover, the MCRS-16 generally did not make recommendations about air mobility capabilities. These weaknesses in the MCRS-16 raise questions about the ability of the study to provide decision makers with information needed to make programmatic decisions. In addition, DOD’s January 2012 strategic guidance could affect its air mobility requirements. I will first address the issues related to DOD’s MCRS-16, and then turn to a discussion of the new strategic guidance. The MCRS-16 did not meet its objective to identify shortfalls and excesses in most of its assessments of mobility systems. For each of the three cases of potential conflicts or natural disasters DOD used in the MCRS-16, the department identified the required capabilities for air mobility systems. However, the MCRS-16 stopped short of explicitly stating whether a shortfall or excess existed. Moreover, it did not make recommendations regarding the need for any changes to air mobility assets based on any shortfalls or excesses. Using DOD data from the MCRS-16, we were able to discern possible shortfalls or potential capacity that could be considered excess or used as an operational reserve even though the MCRS-16 report was ambiguous regarding whether actual shortfalls or excess capabilities existed (see figure). The C-27 Spartan is a mid-range, multifunctional aircraft. Its primary mission is to provide on-demand transport of time-sensitive, mission-critical supplies and key personnel to forward-deployed Army units, including those in remote and austere locations. Its mission also includes casualty evacuation, airdrop, troop transport, aerial sustainment, and homeland security. As shown in the figure, the MCRS-16 determined that in each case, there was unused strategic airlift capacity, but the study did not specifically state whether the unused capacity represented excesses or identify excesses by aircraft type. When an excess exists, decision makers need to know which aircraft and how many could be retired. Specifically, the MCRS-16 did not identify the required number of C-5s or excesses of C-5 aircraft; but at the time of our report, the Air Force stated its intention to seek the retirement of 22 C-5s, which it increased to 27 and proposed again in February 2012. Furthermore, the MCRS-16 did not identify the most combat-effective or the most cost-effective fleet of aircraft even though DOD had previously stated that the MCRS-16 would set the stage to address the cost-effectiveness of its strategic aircraft. Decision makers rely on studies such as the MCRS-16 so that they can make informed choices to address mobility shortfalls and excesses. In our December 2010 report, we recommended that DOD explicitly identify the shortfalls and excesses in the mobility systems that DOD analyzed for the MCRS-16 and provide this additional analysis to DOD and congressional decision makers. In commenting on our draft report, DOD disagreed with our recommendations, stating that the MCRS-16 explicitly identifies shortfalls and excesses in the mobility system. DOD identified strategic airlift as an example of an excess. While the MCRS-16 showed that there was unused capacity associated with strategic airlift, it was not clear from the study whether this unused capacity could serve as an operational reserve. If the study had clearly identified an excess in strategic lift capabilities, decision makers may have chosen to retire aircraft and reallocate resources to other priorities or to keep an operational reserve to militate against unforeseen events. Similarly, if the study had identified a shortfall in strategic lift capabilities, decision makers may have chosen to accept the operational risk or sought to address the shortfall by increasing capabilities. DOD has not taken action based on our recommendation, but we continue to believe that explicitly identifying the shortfalls and excesses in mobility systems is useful to decision makers in making programmatic decisions. The MCRS-16 also did not clearly achieve its study objective to provide Assessing risk related to shortfalls and excesses is risk assessments.important—the risk associated with shortfalls is that the mission might not be accomplished, while the risk associated with excesses is that resources may be expended unnecessarily on a mobility capability. However, the MCRS-16 did not include risk assessments of airlift systems. For example, the MCRS-16 showed potential excesses in strategic and intratheater aircraft but did not identify the risk associated with these potential excesses. Furthermore, the MCRS-16 identified a reduced intratheater airlift fleet (401 C-130s) in comparison with the previous fleet (a maximum of 674 C-130s), but it did not describe the level of risk associated with this reduced fleet size. Concerning air refueling, the MCRS-16 reported that airborne tanker demand exceeded tanker capacity by 20 percent in MCRS-16 case two but did not identify the risk associated with that potential shortfall. In our December 2010 report, we recommended that DOD provide a risk assessment for potential shortfalls and excesses and provide this additional analysis to department and congressional decision makers. DOD disagreed, stating that MCRS-16 included a risk assessment which links the ability of mobility systems to achieve warfighting objectives. Therefore, DOD has not taken action on this recommendation. While warfighting risk metrics can inform decision makers concerning overall mobility capabilities, decision makers would benefit from knowing the risk associated with particular mobility systems as they make force structure decisions. Quantifying the risk associated with specific mobility systems could help with decisions to allocate resources, enabling decision makers to address the most risk at the least cost. In January 2012, DOD issued new strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, that will help guide decisions regarding the size and shape of the force. The strategic guidance is to ensure that the military is agile, flexible, and ready for the full range of contingencies. However, the strategic guidance includes changes from previous strategy—for example, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.past, DOD has translated strategic guidance into specific planning In the scenarios, which DOD has used in studies (such as the MCRS-16) to generate requirements that inform force structure decisions. Based on the new strategic guidance, the Air Force has proposed changes to the mobility air fleet, including the retirement or cancellation of procurement of 130 mobility aircraft. According to Air Force officials, the proposals ensure that the Air Force can deliver the capabilities required by the new strategic guidance and remain within funding levels. However, the Air Force’s February 2012 document that outlines its proposed aircraft retirements does not provide details of any analyses. Given the new strategic guidance—which articulates priorities for a 21st century defense—it is unclear the extent to which the requirements developed from the MCRS-16 are still relevant. In weighing the Air Force’s proposal, decision makers will require additional information concerning what types of potential military operations are envisioned by the strategic guidance and to what extent DOD has analyzed its planned force structure using cases that reflect the new strategic guidance. In conclusion, the MCRS-16 study did not fully provide congressional decision makers with a basis for understanding what mobility systems are needed to meet requirements, how many are needed, and what are the risks of having too many or not enough of each aircraft to meet defense strategy. While DOD disagreed with our recommendations, we continue to believe that the study missed opportunities to identify specific shortfalls and excesses and did not provide associated risk assessments. Further, the MCRS-16 study was completed more than 2 years ago using defense planning guidance in effect at that time. With DOD’s newly issued strategic guidance on defense priorities, the department’s potential scenarios may have changed. Decision makers would benefit from a clear understanding from DOD of the basis for the proposed aircraft retirements and DOD’s ability to execute its new strategic guidance with its planned air mobility force structure. Chairman Akin and Ranking Member McIntyre, and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time. For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Cary Russell at (404) 679-1808 or russellc@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony are Alissa H. Czyz, Assistant Director, James P. Klein, Ronald La Due Lake, Richard B. Powelson, Michael C. Shaughnessy, Jennifer B. Spence, Amie M. Steele, Joseph J. Watkins, and Stephen K. Woods. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: Over the past 30 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has invested more than $140 billion in its airlift and tanker forces. In 2010, DOD published its Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16), which was intended to provide an understanding of the range of mobility capabilities needed for possible military operations. In January 2012, DOD issued new strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense , affecting force structure decisions. This testimony addresses GAOs previous findings on the MCRS-16 and air mobility issues to consider in light of DODs new strategic guidance. GAOs December 2010 report on the MCRS-16 (GAO-11-82R) is based on analysis of DODs executive summary and classified report, and interviews with DOD officials. The Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16) provided some useful information concerning air mobility systemssuch as intratheater airlift, strategic airlift, and air refuelingbut several weaknesses in the study raised questions about its ability to fully inform decision makers. In particular, the MCRS-16 did not provide decision makers with recommendations concerning shortfalls and excesses in air mobility systems. In evaluating capabilities, the MCRS-16 used three cases that it developed of potential conflicts or natural disasters and identified the required capabilities for air mobility systems. Based on data in the MCRS-16, GAO was able to discern possible shortfalls or potential capacity that could be considered excess or an operational reserve, even though the MCRS-16 was ambiguous regarding whether actual shortfalls or excess capabilities exist. It also did not identify the risk associated with potential shortfalls or excesses. Identifying the risk associated with specific mobility systems could help with decisions to allocate resources. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued new strategic guidance in January 2012, which is intended to help guide decisions regarding the size and shape of the force. In the past, DOD has translated strategic guidance into specific planning scenarios, which it used in studies (such as the MCRS-16) to generate requirements that inform force structure decisions. Based on the new strategic guidance, the Air Force has proposed reducing its mobility air fleet by 130 aircraft, which would leave 593 mobility aircraft in the airlift fleet. According to Air Force officials, the proposals will enable the Air Force to deliver the airlift capabilities required to implement the new strategic guidance and remain within funding levels. However, the Air Forces document that outlines its proposed aircraft retirements does not provide details of any analyses used to support the reductions. Given the new strategic guidance, it is unclear the extent to which the requirements developed from MCRS-16 are still relevant. In weighing the Air Forces proposal, decision makers would benefit from a clear understanding from DOD of the basis for the proposed aircraft retirements and DODs ability to execute its new strategic guidance with its planned air mobility force structure. GAO previously recommended that DOD clearly identify shortfalls and excesses in the mobility force structure and the associated risks. DOD did not concur with the recommendations, stating that the MCRS-16 identified shortfalls and excesses and included a risk assessment. GAO disagreed, noting for example, that DODs MCRS-16 study did not explicitly identify excess aircraft and did not include mobility system risk assessments when potential shortfalls existed.