Because the models that comprise the ALSP Confederation were built in the early 1980s to meet service-specific needs, they lack the ability to simulate many aspects of joint warfare, including operations other than war, strategic mobility, space, intelligence, and logistics capabilities. These models also lack the capability to represent many combat interactions, such as ground to ship. Because of the existing shortfalls of the services’ individual models, the ALSP Confederation can only fully support 2 of 25 identified CINC and service joint training requirements. This also may be the result of the fact that requirements for application of the ALSP technology were solicited from the CINCs and services only after development of the technology. The services have long recognized the technical and training shortfalls of their respective models for accurately portraying joint operations. The Army’s Corps Battle Simulation is a ground maneuver training simulation used in exercises for commanders and battle staffs. The Army model lacks the capability to simulate weather information, the terrain of the battlefield, and ground-to-ground combat interactions with the Marine Corps model. The Air Force’s Air Warfare Simulation used to support air operations has limited capability to simulate electronic warfare, reconnaissance and surveillance play, and space capabilities. The Navy’s sanctioned training model, the Enhanced Naval Wargaming System, operates on a hardware system that cannot interface with ALSP. The Navy has been modifying this model for acceptance into the confederation since 1993. Navy officials were unable to elaborate on the joint training benefits that would be achieved from these modifications. According to service modeling and simulation officials and after-action reports, the Research, Evaluation, and Systems Analysis Simulation—a naval analytical model—has been used successfully in the current ALSP Confederation. In 1994, the Marine Corps introduced a new amphibious operations simulation, the Marine Air Ground Task Force Tactical Warfare Simulation, into the ALSP Confederation. The Office of the Secretary of Defense created the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office to serve as the focal point for modeling and simulation under the Director, Defense Research and Engineering. The DOD Executive Council for Modeling and Simulation, chaired by the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, advises and assists the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology in modeling and acquisition decisions. The JSIMS program is a jointly managed DOD program with the Air Force providing acquisition oversight. The JSIMS Joint Program Office, under the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Combat Support Systems, has been designated as an acquisition activity for JSIMS. The Army’s Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command is the executive agent for the day-to-day management of the ALSP Confederation. The development of JSIMS is already a year behind schedule and a clear, consistent definition of JSIMS is still evolving. According to the June 1994 joint memorandum of agreement, a clear definition was due of what constitutes JSIMS within 4 months of the signing of the memorandum. Also due was a detailed plan of action in the form of a JSIMS Joint Program Office charter and JSIMS master plan delineating duties, responsibilities, mission, scope, and strategies for implementing JSIMS. However, lack of agreement among the services as to what JSIMS entails has delayed approval of the charter and the plan. The services have different interpretations of the memorandum of agreement. The low end of expectations is a set of standards and protocols that would allow interoperability for the services’ next generation of simulations. The high end of expectations is a “super model” in which JSIMS would describe all of the objects, such as aircraft, for all of the services and determine all warfare functions. During July 1995, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition approved milestone 0 for the JSIMS program, which authorizes proceeding into the concept exploration and definition phase of the acquisition cycle. At that time, the JSIMS Joint Program Office stated that JSIMS would comprise (1) a core element of common functions, such as terrain and weather effects and (2) warfare functions, such as air, ground, and naval combat, and logistics. Common core development would be the responsibility of the JSIMS Joint Program Office while warfare function development will be the responsibility of designated executive agents. The executive agents will develop a joint representation of their warfare area that would then be integrated with the JSIMS core. The Army is the executive agent for land warfare, the Air Force for air and space warfare, and the Navy for sea warfare. The Marine Corps’ missions will be included throughout these executive agents’ warfare representations. Further, the 1994 memorandum of agreement stated that JSIMS should also be adaptable to other modeling and simulation applications, such as analysis and testing. However, in February 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, to initiate and lead development of a new joint analysis model called the Joint Warfare System (JWARS). Program Analysis and Evaluation officials informed us that they believed improvements to DOD’s analytical capability needed to be made now and they could not afford to wait for JSIMS to become a reality. The JSIMS’ focus is now solely on providing a simulation environment for joint task force training. Coordination between the JSIMS and JWARS programs is being worked out. Currently, the major stumbling block for JSIMS is how to fund the $416 million program since there is no central funding line for the program. Some military service officials have expressed concerns about the piecemeal approach of funding JSIMS. As of July 1995, the JSIMS’s core element was estimated to cost about $154 million. Under the provisions of the joint memorandum of agreement, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy have each agreed to provide 30 percent of this cost. The Marine Corps will provide 10 percent of the cost. In addition to the $154 million, the executive agents will incur additional costs, currently estimated at a total of $262 million, to develop simulations for their specific warfare functions. The problem with this approach is that if a service believes that improving its own core competencies has a higher priority to fund than its responsibilities for JSIMS, that function for JSIMS may not be developed in concert with the other required components. The military services are proceeding to develop the next generation of simulations that will better address their specific mission or core requirements. The services are also responsible for ensuring that these simulations are able to function within the JSIMS’ domain. The Army’s program, Warfighters’ Simulation 2000, is estimated to cost about $200 million and be operational by 2000. The Air Force is developing the National Air and Space Warfare Model that is estimated to cost about $103 million and be fully operational by 2003. The Navy is developing an analytical simulation, the Naval Simulation System, at an initial estimated cost between $15 million and $25 million that could be enhanced at an additional cost of about $47 million to function in a training capacity. Unless decisive management is exercised, these service efforts may outpace JSIMS’ core development and require additional modifications to operate in the JSIMS’ domain. According to DOD officials, several recent events have occurred that demonstrate the JSIMS program is moving forward. First, on July 14, 1995, the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, chaired the first JSIMS Senior Review Board at which the members agreed to provide their share of the JSIMS Joint Program Office permanent staff. Second, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology signed a memorandum on August 8, 1995, calling on DOD components to formally adopt a proposed division of funding and personnel requirements. Third, the Deputy Secretary of Defense endorsed the establishment of a joint core funding line with the services providing both their share of core funding and personnel to staff the JSIMS Joint Program Office. In addition, the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, and the Joint Staff are to provide a share of funding for the JSIMS core program. However, we note that these actions have not been formalized. Concurrent with the development of JSIMS, DOD has decided to make improvements to the ALSP Confederation, the last of which is expected to be in place in 1999—at the same time that JSIMS should reach initial operational capability. According to the ALSP Master Plan, the improvements are intended to respond to the identified CINC and service training requirements and include additional capabilities such as strategic mobility and ground-to-ground combat interactions between models. Even though officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Director, Defense Research and Engineering, the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, and the Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command told us that the total cost of these improvements will not be significantly high, none of these offices was able to provide comprehensive cost estimates. We identified about $40 million that DOD plans to spend for ALSP Confederation improvements through fiscal year 1999. However, because this money may be directed toward service-specific improvements rather than joint improvements, the cost could be higher. As is the case with JSIMS, there is no central funding line for the ALSP Confederation improvements. Consequently, DOD’s ability to achieve all of the improvements that it seeks is dependent on funding from the individual military services, agencies, or CINCs. However, to date the Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology has not provided the management to ensure that all significant components of the ALSP improvements will be completed. Consequently, management of the improvements has been fragmented and it is questionable whether the improvement plan is cost-effective. For example, the Army has decided not to fund ALSP improvements to its ground warfare model, which is a primary component of the ALSP Confederation. The Army is proceeding to develop its new training model, Warfighters’ Simulation 2000.