Based on its experiences with the launching of short-range theater missiles by Iraq during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, DOD concluded that expanded theater missile warning capabilities were needed and it began planning for an improved infrared satellite sensor capability that would support both long-range strategic and short-range theater ballistic missile warning and defense operations. In 1994, DOD studied consolidating various infrared space requirements, such as for ballistic missile warning and defense, technical intelligence, and battlespace characterization, and it selected SBIRS to replace and enhance the capabilities provided by the Defense Support Program. The Defense Support Program is a strategic surveillance and early warning satellite system with an infrared capability to detect long-range ballistic missile launches that has been operational for about 30 years. DOD has previously attempted to replace the Defense Support Program with the Advanced Warning System in the early 1980s; the Boost Surveillance and Tracking System in the late 1980s; the Follow-on Early Warning System in the early 1990s; and the Alert, Locate, and Report Missiles System in the mid-1990s. These attempts failed due to immature technology, high cost, and affordability issues. SBIRS is to use more sophisticated infrared technologies than the Defense Support Program to enhance the detection of strategic and theater ballistic missile launches and the performance of the missile-tracking function. The SBIRS development effort consists of two programs—SBIRS-high and SBIRS-low. SBIRS-high is to consist of four satellites operating in geosynchronous earth orbit and sensors on two host satellites operating in a highly elliptical orbit. SBIRS-high will replace Defense Support Program satellites and is primarily to provide enhanced strategic and theater ballistic missile warning capabilities. The SBIRS-high program includes the consolidation of the three existing Defense Support Program ground facilities—two overseas and one in the United States—at a single U.S. ground station to reduce operations and maintenance costs. The program is in the engineering and manufacturing development phase, with a scheduled launch of the first SBIRS-high satellite in fiscal year 2005. The SBIRS-low program is currently in the program definition and risk reduction acquisition phase and is expected to consist of about 24 satellites in low earth orbit, but it could consist of more or less satellites, depending on the results of contractor cost and performance studies. The primary purpose of SBIRS-low is to support both national and theater missile defense by tracking ballistic missiles and discriminating between the warheads and other objects, such as decoys, that separate from the missile bodies throughout the middle portion of their flights. Its deployment schedule is tied to fiscal year 2010, the date when these capabilities are needed by the National Missile Defense System. According to DOD, the first SBIRS-low satellites need to be launched in fiscal year 2006 if full deployment is to be accomplished by fiscal year 2010. Due to the importance Congress has placed on the deployment of a National Missile Defense System, Congress has maintained a high level of interest in the SBIRS-low program and has included in legislative provisions dates by which the first satellites are to be launched and initial operational capability is to occur. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 is the latest expression of such interest. It defines, in section 231, the SBIRS-low baseline schedule as a program schedule that includes a first launch of a SBIRS-low satellite to be made during fiscal year 2006. This provision also requires that before the Secretary of the Air Force makes any changes to the SBIRS-low baseline schedule he must obtain the approval of the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The Air Force’s current SBIRS-low acquisition schedule is at high risk of not delivering the system on time or at cost or with expected performance. Specifically, satellite development and production are scheduled to occur concurrently and the results of a 1-year flight test that is to test and finalize the design of the satellites will not be available until more than 5 years after the program enters production. The software required for SBIRS-low to perform all its missions is to be developed concurrent with the deployment of the satellites and is not to be completed until more than 3 years after the first SBIRS-low satellites are to be launched. Under the Air Force’s previous schedules for SBIRS-low, the results of an on-orbit flight demonstration of crucial satellite functions and capabilities were to be available and used to support the decision to enter satellite production; however, the current schedule does not provide such test results in time to support the production decision. In February 1999, the Air Force established the current acquisition schedule (see fig.1) for the SBIRS-low program, which includes a program definition and risk reduction phase, a concurrent development and production phase, and a 1-year on-orbit test with the first six SBIRS-low satellites produced (to be launched with two launches—three satellites per launch). The decision to enter the engineering and manufacturing development phase and production phases is to be made in the third quarter of fiscal year 2002. The 1-year on-orbit test, which is intended to test and finalize the design of the satellites, will not be completed until January 2008, more than 5 years after development and production is to start. In contrast, under previous schedules (see app. I), the Air Force had stressed the importance of on-orbit tests, stating they were critical to support the decision to enter production. According to the Air Force, its decision to enter the engineering and manufacturing development and production phases will now be based on information obtained from the ground demonstrations performed under the program definition and risk reduction contracts and from other completed on-orbit demonstration programs such as the Midcourse Space Experiment and the Miniature Sensor Technology Integration Program. These program results, however, may be of limited utility to SBIRS-low. For example, according to Air Force officials, they plan to use information on midcourse discrimination collected by the Midcourse Space Experiment in their decision concerning SBIRS-low development and production. However, according to DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Midcourse Space Experiment did not collect discrimination data on objects representative of those that SBIRS-low must be able to discriminate. According to the Air Force, launches are not to be resumed until after the 1-year on-orbit test period has been completed, test results have been reviewed, and modifications, if required, have been made to the remaining satellites. However, the production of satellites will not stop during the 1-year on-orbit test. As a result, by the time the test is to be completed in fiscal year 2008, 9 satellites will have been produced (including the first 6 used for flight-testing), an additional 21 satellites will be in various stages of production, and at least $1.9 billion of the $2.4 billion (then-year) cost for these 30 satellites will have been expended or committed. Because the on-orbit test results for crucial functions and capabilities is not to be available until more than 5 years after the start of production, there is a risk that design changes will be required for satellites in production. For example, if parts that have already been purchased for the SBIRS-low operational satellites became obsolete because their acquisition was based on the initial system design, new parts may be required, program costs will increase, and the schedule will slip. Also, additional changes may be necessary to the satellite configuration that could affect not just long lead items, but also modifications may be required to satellite components already produced. In a July 1999 memorandum to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation expressed concern that the new (current) schedule eliminated critical on-orbit experiments that were to be conducted under the flight demonstration. The Director stated that while the restructured program schedule includes ground demonstrations that were previously lacking from the SBIRS-low program, considering the many technical challenges and high risk in the program, DOD must seek every opportunity to obtain early on-orbit experience. According to the Director, many of the functions and capabilities that must be demonstrated (and would have been demonstrated under the flight demonstration) before SBIRS-low exits the program definition and risk reduction phase and enters the engineering and manufacturing development phase are impossible to demonstrate with only ground tests. For example, the Director stated that DOD has no flight experience where two or more satellites in low earth orbit have communicated with each other. He stated that this was challenging because of the dynamically changing positions of orbiting satellites relative to each other and the high data rates needed to transmit data between satellites thousands of kilometers apart. Another example cited by the Director where DOD has no flight experience is with coordinating the operation of acquisition and tracking infrared sensors, both of which are to be mounted on each SBIRS-low satellite. Specifically, when the acquisition sensor detects the heat from a missile’s booster motor, it must determine and relay highly accurate information on the missile’s position to the tracking sensor. The tracking sensor must then point to the proper location in space, find the missile, and begin tracking the missile. All of these activities must occur within short time frames (seconds) to support missile defense. We have reported on numerous occasions about the risks associated with program concurrency and of initiating production without adequate testing. In a 1990 testimony, we cited the Navy’s F/A-18 aircraft, the Air Force’s B-1B Bomber, and the Navy’s AEGIS Destroyer as examples where a rush to production without adequate testing resulted in increased costs, lower than expected performance, or both. In 1994 and 1995, we reported that programs are often permitted to begin production with little or no scrutiny and that the consequences have included procurement of substantial inventories of unsatisfactory weapons requiring costly modifications to achieve satisfactory performance, and in some cases, deployment of substandard systems to combat forces.