Following the Persian Gulf War, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified a number of problems with its deep attack weapons and suggested improvements designed to ensure target destruction with minimum casualties, delivery sorties, weapons, and unwanted collateral damage. In response, the services initiated a number of programs to upgrade existing guided weapons and to acquire new ones. However, because the defense budget, in accordance with the balanced budget agreement, is likely to be relatively fixed for the foreseeable future, Congress expressed concern about the need and affordability of all these programs. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) acknowledge that they are facing flat budgets and increasingly expensive readiness and modernization and that to retain effectiveness, the services must integrate their capabilities. The JCS anticipate leveraging technological opportunities to reach new levels of effectiveness in joint military operations. The current military doctrine also recognizes that new technologies are a key component in increasing the effectiveness of military operations. Guided weapons play an important role in implementing this doctrine. Guided weapons are more accurate than unguided weapons because they have the capability for in-flight guidance correction. They can be powered or unpowered. The range from which they can be launched varies from a few miles for the unpowered Guided Bomb Unit (GBU) series of weapons to several hundred miles for the Tomahawk cruise missile and the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM). Most guided weapons are launched from aircraft or helicopters, but the Tomahawk is launched from Navy surface ships and submarines; and the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) is launched from the Multiple Launch Rocket System. They can be guided by the Global Positioning System (GPS), infrared sensors, electro-optical sensors, or lasers. Some weapons have single warheads, others carry many antipersonnel or antiarmor submunitions. The specific guided weapon used depends on the type of target, the defenses around the target, and whether areas adjacent to the target must be avoided. Deep attack guided weapons are used for operations carried out beyond the areas where friendly ground forces are operating. These weapons can be released very close to the target or at standoff ranges many miles from the target, either vertically or horizontally. “Standoff” range is the distance between the weapon launcher and the target. Guided weapons were first used in the Vietnam War to destroy targets that previously required tons of unguided general purpose weapons. However, guided weapons proved their value in the Persian Gulf War, when the world watched them make precision attacks against targets in Iraq. Guided weapons were subsequently recognized as having the potential to revolutionize warfare. Before the Gulf War, aircrew training focused on a potential Central European conflict and emphasized low-altitude tactics using aircraft and weapons designed for such missions. However, Iraqi air defenses included large numbers of antiaircraft artillery that could put up a “wall of iron” against low-flying aircraft. After several aircraft losses, and to avoid the risk of losing a B-52H to antiaircraft artillery, pilots were ordered to drop weapons from higher altitudes than anticipated. At these altitudes, however, bombing with general purpose bombs was not accurate, and wind forces became a factor. While guided weapons achieved better results, a relatively small number of them were used, and their effectiveness was often limited by weather, target location uncertainty, and other factors. As a consequence, bombing accuracy was poor, and multiple weapons—in some cases multiple attacks—were used on each target. Incomplete and delayed bomb damage assessments were also a factor in the need for multiple attacks. Following the Gulf War, several DOD studies identified a number of changes that could improve the accuracy, standoff range, and lethality of its guided weapons as well as target identification and damage assessment capabilities. The aim of these improvements is to ensure target destruction with the minimum number of delivery sorties and weapons and to avoid unwanted collateral damage and minimize exposure of friendly aircraft to enemy defenses. In response, the services initiated a number of programs to upgrade existing guided weapons—such as CALCM, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM), and Air-to-Ground Guided Missile (AGM) 130—and to acquire new guided weapons, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the Wind-Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD), the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), and the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). Still more guided weapon programs are planned. To take full advantage of new and improved guided weapons, launch aircraft capabilities are improving. More than nine times as many F-16s and many more F-15E fighters can employ guided weapons today than in 1991. All DOD combat aircraft will be able to use GPS by the end of fiscal year 2000 (GPS allows precise positioning and navigation and permits weapon release in all types of weather). Additionally, the number of aircraft with night-fighting and target acquisition capabilities has increased significantly since fiscal year 1991. Currently, more than 600 Air Force fighters can use all or part of the Low-Altitude Navigation Targeting Infrared for Night System, and hundreds of Navy F/A-18 aircraft have forward-looking infrared pods for night vision. DOD’s management of its guided weapon capabilities, requirements, and acquisition programs has been of interest to Congress and others for many years. In 1995, we reported that the services had bought or were developing 33 types of guided weapons with over 300,000 individual weapons to attack surface targets. We also stated that the services had initiated development programs both to increase the number of guided weapons and to gain additional capability through technical improvements to weapons in the inventory. The 1995 Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces recommended an assessment of the services’ deep attack systems to determine the appropriate force size and mix. The report questioned whether DOD had the right mix, asserted that DOD may have greater quantities of deep attack weapon systems than it needs, and recommended a DOD-wide cost-effectiveness study to determine the appropriate mix. The report concluded that “only by approaching capabilities in the aggregate, from the Commanders in Chiefs’ (CINC) perspective rather than the services’, can this particular ‘who needs what’ question be answered.” The 1996 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to report to Congress on (1) the process for approving development of guided weapons, (2) the feasibility of the services’ jointly developing weapons and integrating them in multiple aircraft, and (3) the cost-effectiveness of developing interim weapons or of procuring small quantities of weapons. DOD was also asked to provide a quantitative analysis of deep attack weapons mix options. In April 1996, the Secretary of Defense issued a report informing Congress of the steps DOD was taking to avoid duplicate and redundant guided weapon programs and explaining how requirements and inventory levels were being determined. DOD also responded to congressional concerns regarding the economy and effectiveness of the continued acquisition of smaller quantities of some guided weapons whose unit costs had increased over 50 percent since December 1, 1991. DOD’s report to Congress is discussed in chapter 5. In May 1997, DOD issued its report on the Quadrennial Defense Review.The review was a comprehensive examination of America’s defense needs from 1997 to 2015 and included military modernization programs and strategy. It was intended to serve as DOD’s overall strategic planning document and made several recommendations involving guided weapons modernization programs. In November 1997, DOD reported on the results of its Deep Attack Weapons Mix Study. The results of this study and the recommendations of the review are discussed in chapter 4. In December 1997, the National Defense Panel reported on its congressionally directed assessment of DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review. The Panel considered the review a significant step in the adjustment of U.S. forces to reflect the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. However, the Panel differed over emphasis or priorities in a number of areas. We discuss the Panel’s assessment in chapter 5. In response to the request of the Chairmen of the National Security Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations, and of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, House Committee on National Security, we sought to determine whether the services’ plans for developing and/or procuring guided weapons can be carried out as proposed within relatively fixed defense budgets, the number of guided weapons the services plan to buy are consistent with projected threats and modernization requirements, the current and planned guided weapon programs duplicate or overlap each other, and DOD is providing effective oversight in the development and procurement of deep attack weapons. To determine whether the services’ plans for developing and/or procuring guided weapons can be carried out as proposed within expected defense budgets, we obtained program cost and schedule information from weapon program offices and compared current weapon procurement plans with previous procurement history. We discussed and obtained copies of weapon program plans at the Aeronautical Systems Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; Ogden Air Logistic Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah; and Naval Air Warfare Center, Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station, California. To determine whether the numbers of guided weapons the services plan to buy are consistent with projected threats and modernization requirements, we obtained information on DOD’s weapons inventories from the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C. We reviewed the Navy’s nonnuclear ordnance requirement process and the Air Force’s nonnuclear consumables annual analysis model with personnel from those offices in Washington, D.C. Worldwide threat information was obtained from the Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, D.C. We discussed targeting procedures and weapon employment tactics with officials at the U.S. Central Command and Navy Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, and the Air Force Central Command, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.