Enemy sea mines were responsible for 14 of the 18 Navy ships destroyed or damaged since 1950, and producing countries have developed and proliferated mines that are even more difficult to detect and neutralize. After the Gulf War, during which two Navy ships were severely damaged by sea mines, the Navy began several actions to improve its mine warfare capabilities. The Navy’s current MCM capabilities are in a special purpose force that consists of 12 mine-hunter, coastal (MHC) and 14 MCM ships, 1 command and support ship, 24 mine-hunting and clearing helicopters, 17 explosive ordnance disposal detachments, a very shallow water detachment, and a marine mammal detachment. According to the Navy, the cost of operating and maintaining this MCM force from fiscal year 1992 through 2003 will be about $1.9 billion. Because the Navy’s MCM ships lack the speed and endurance they would need to accompany carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups on overseas deployments, the Navy has changed its strategy of maintaining only a special purpose force to also developing mine countermeasure capabilities to be placed on board combat ships within the fleet. The Navy has consolidated operational control of all surface and airborne mine warfare forces under the Commander, Mine Warfare Command, and improved the readiness of these forces through exercises and training. The Navy also initiated research and development projects to address the weaknesses in its MCM program, especially the lack of on-board MCM capability throughout the fleet, and created a Program Executive Office for mine warfare, which brought together disparate MCM programs and their associated program management offices. In a prior report, we discussed weaknesses in the Navy’s ability to conduct effective sea mine countermeasures. We reported that critical MCM capabilities were unmet and reviewed the Navy’s efforts to address these limitations. At that time, the Navy had not established clear priorities among its mine warfare research and development programs to sustain the development and procurement of the most needed systems. Consequently, the Navy experienced delays in delivering new systems to provide necessary capabilities. DOD concurred with our recommendation that a long-range plan be developed to identify gaps and limitations in the Navy’s MCM capabilities and establish priorities. DOD said the process was ongoing and consisted of developing an overall concept of MCM operations and an architecture within which needs and shortfalls in capabilities could be evaluated and prioritized. DOD also said that critical programs would be identified and funded within the constraints of its overall budget. Congress previously expressed its concern that the Navy had failed to sufficiently emphasize mine countermeasures in its research and development program and noted the relatively limited funding allocation. As a result, mine warfare programs were designated as special congressional interest items. To support continuing emphasis on developing the desired mine countermeasures, Congress added a certification requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. This required the Secretary of Defense to certify that the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, had submitted an updated MCM master plan and budgeted sufficient resources for executing the updated plan. It also required the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to determine that the budgetary resources needed for MCM activities and the updated master plan are sufficient. This certification requirement will expire with the fiscal year 1999 budget submission unless it is renewed. Although it has developed a strategy for overcoming deficiencies in its MCM capabilities, the Navy has not decided on the composition and size of its future on-board and special purpose MCM force. Navy officials have acknowledged the need to maintain some special purpose MCM force, while the Navy is moving toward an on-board MCM capability. The Navy currently has no on-board MCM capabilities and relies on a force of MCM capabilities that are specifically dedicated to that mission. The Navy has two assessments in progress to develop the information it needs to decide on the mix of its future on-board and special purpose forces. The objectives of these assessments are to determine (1) the quantities and types of on-board MCM systems the Navy will need to procure to meet fleet requirements in fiscal years 2005-2010; (2) the optimal force mix to meet fleet requirements in the 21st century; and (3) the numbers and types, if any, of special purpose MCM assets that will still be needed in the fiscal year 2010-2015 time frame. Initial results are expected to be available in October 1998, in time to influence the development of the fiscal year 2001 Navy resource program, with a final report in January 1999. Navy officials do not expect this phase of the assessments to provide them all of the information that is needed to tailor the future MCM force structure. They do expect, however, that it will give them a good idea of how to plan procurement, training, and maintenance for the on-board systems expected to be deployed in the fiscal year 2001-2005 time frame. To address the lack of on-board capability, the Navy accelerated the delivery of a Remote Minehunting System and established a contingency shallow-water mine-hunting capability in one Navy Reserve helicopter squadron using laser mine detection systems, and it is including mine-hunting systems in upgrades to existing and in new construction submarines. Maintaining the special purpose force is costly, and Navy resource managers have been evaluating how to pay for the operations and support costs of this force while pursuing costly development of on-board capabilities. A final force structure decision will likely be driven by the level of resources the Navy intends to dedicate to the MCM mission in the future—a decision that depends on numerous issues outside the MCM arena such as conflicting funding priorities among the various Navy warfare communities (aircraft, surface ships, and submarines). A decision on the future force structure is, however, still needed because that decision will determine the types and quantities of systems to be procured, set priorities among systems, and determine the level of resources required for development, procurement, and sustainment. For example, the Navy is currently debating whether to retire the current mine-hunting helicopters, the MH-53, in favor of maintaining only H-60 series helicopters. This helicopter decision will directly affect the types and quantity of airborne MCM capabilities the Navy will be able to field in the future. Since 1992, the Navy has invested about $1.2 billion in RDT&E funds to improve its mine warfare capabilities. The Navy plans to spend an additional $1.5 billion for RDT&E over the next 6 years. It is currently managing 28 separate MCM development programs and several advanced technology and advanced concept technology demonstrations. (See app. I for the status of selected programs.) So far, according to a Navy official, this investment has not produced any systems that are ready to transition to production. A few systems, such as the Airborne Mine Neutralization System, the Shallow-Water Assault Breaching system, Distributed Explosive Technology, and a Closed Loop Degaussing system, are scheduled for a production decision over the next 2 to 3 years. Other systems, such as communications data links for the MH-53 helicopters and the airborne laser mine-detection system (Magic Lantern Deployment Contingency), were not produced because the Navy never funded their procurement. Delays experienced in a number of MCM development programs result from the same kinds of problems that are found in other DOD acquisitions such as funding instability, changing requirements, cost growth, and unanticipated technical problems. For example, although the MCM funding program is small, the Navy has reduced funding for its MCM research and development programs after budget approval. (See app. II for two program examples.) These problems in MCM acquisition programs show that the design, development, and production of needed systems are complex and that technical processes must operate within equally complex budget and political processes. If programs are not well conceived, planned, managed, funded, and supported, problems such as cost growth, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls can easily occur. Two examples of mine warfare programs that have been in the research and development phase for many years without advancing to procurement are the AQS-20, an airborne mine-hunting sonar, and the Airborne Mine Neutralization System. The AQS-20 began in 1978 as an exploratory development model and was scheduled for a limited rate initial production decision in fiscal year 1999. The Navy terminated the program in 1997 in favor of a follow-on sonar, the AQS-X, with added mine identification capability and a tow requirement from a H-60 helicopter instead of a MH-53 helicopter. During the intervening 19 years, the program was plagued by cost growth, changing requirements, and a funding shortfall. The development of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System began in 1975, but a production decision is not scheduled until fiscal year 2000. The principal reason for the delay is that the program was canceled and restarted two times because of funding instability. Contributing to difficulties in transitioning programs into production are a number of management and internal control weaknesses noted during the annual Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act certification. Since 1992, the Program Executive Office has attempted to improve internal controls within five subordinate program offices by developing financial and acquisition management information and reporting systems. At its request, the Naval Audit Service is reviewing the state of internal controls within one of the program offices and expects to issue a report in the fall of 1998. A majority of officials we interviewed said that the annual certification requirement was useful because it served to increase the visibility of MCM requirements within DOD and the Navy. Most said that some form of the certification should continue to be required. However, as currently prepared, the annual certification does not address the adequacy of overall resources for this mission, nor does it provide for objective measures against which progress can be evaluated. Moreover, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff’s involvement in the certification process occurs too late to have a significant impact.