Title: DOD is Not Well-Positioned to Field Weapon Systems with Speed

Description: Each year, GAO provides a quick look assessing the
Department of Defense's major weapons programs. We look at things like
investments, schedules, and practices for acquiring and developing
weapons systems. This year's assessment comes at a time of significant
internal changes to DOD's weapons acquisition process. We'll find out
more from GAO's Shelby Oakley.

Related work: GAO-24-106831, Weapon Systems Annual Assessment: DOD Is
Not Yet Well-Positioned to Field Systems with Speed

Released: June 2024

{Music}

[Shelby Oakley:] Until you change the underlying behaviors, we're going
to continue to see the same outcomes that we've always seen in these
programs.

[Holly Hobbs:] Hi, and welcome to GAO's Watchdog Report, your source for
fact-based, nonpartisan news, and information from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. I'm your host, Holly Hobbs. Each year, GAO
provides a quick look assessing the Department of Defense's major
weapons programs. We look at things like investments, schedules, and
practices for acquiring and developing weapons systems. This year's
assessment comes at a time of significant internal changes to DOD's
weapons acquisition process. Joining us to talk about our latest
assessment is GAO's Shelby Oakley, an expert on DOD acquisition policy
and a director in our Contracting and National Security Acquisitions
team. Thanks for joining us.

[Shelby Oakley:] Thanks, I appreciate you having me.

[Holly Hobbs:] So, Shelby, this is our 22nd annual Quick Look, and we're
looking at DOD's weapons systems. What's new this year?

[Shelby Oakley:] Well, unfortunately, the new news this year isn't
really new. DOD is continuing to struggle with delivering innovative
technologies quickly to the warfighter. We did some analysis this year
that looks at how long it's taking and on average, it's about 10 years.
And this is despite many years of reforms that have been focused on
trying to speed up capability delivery. And that's the unfortunate news
this year.

[Holly Hobbs:] Last time we talked was in 2020, and at that time, DOD
was looking to revamp its acquisition policy because of concerns that
the process was too slow. It was too bureaucratic. What changes did DOD
make? And did they work?

[Shelby Oakley:] Yeah. At that time, DOD had just revamped its
acquisition policies, and they implemented what's called the adaptive
acquisition framework. And this was intended to provide different
pathways for programs to take based upon the unique aspects of their
program. So, they could really tailor-in or tailor-out requirements and
use the pathway that was the most appropriate. The whole goal of this
adaptive acquisition framework was to allow for speed and flexibility in
the process. But again, we're continuing to see programs just take a
long time to get out to the warfighter. Let me give you an example.
There's a pathway called the middle tier of acquisition pathways. This
is the pathway intended for speed. This is the pathway that folks are
supposed to use if they want to deliver a capability to the warfighter
within 2 to 5 years. We're seeing, with that pathway, programs
continuing to take just as long to develop that capability and field
that capability or planning to take just as long to develop and field
that capability. So, it's really calling into question how well these
pathways are working to encourage that speed in innovation. My one key
line that I always say about these programs and what that pathway has
been providing, is--it's providing programs and opportunity to start
fast, not necessarily finish fast. And that's a really important
distinction.

[Holly Hobbs:] Shelby, is there an example--among weapon systems--that
kind of illustrates how long some of these acquisitions can take?

[Shelby Oakley:] Yeah, the B-52 commercial engine replacement program is
one of those programs that I think is a good example. This is an engine
replacement for our strategic bombers that have been in operations since
the 1950s. The program started out on that middle tier of acquisition
pathway, and has spent 5 years on that pathway, and is now transitioning
to another pathway and is going to require at least 8 more years in
development before that engine is fielded. So, that's 13 years for this
engine program. And I don't know about you, but to me that's not really
fitting the bill of quicker capability delivery when we see that type of
time frame on these traditional programs and on those traditional
pathways that we've always used.

[Holly Hobbs:] So, that was the B-52, which my dad flew. What are some
of the other major weapon systems that we looked at and some of the
challenges we found?

[Shelby Oakley:] Yeah, we looked at 69 other programs in depth this
year, so it's a pretty expansive review. I'll call your attention to a
couple of programs across the services that are experiencing particular
challenges this year that we want to highlight. First, the Navy's
frigate program. This is what's called a small surface combatant
program. It's intended to be based off of a modified design of the
frigate that the Italian navy uses. This program has faced ongoing
delays. It's been challenged in adopting that foreign design to the Navy
survivability requirements. It continues to lack key information to
complete the design effort. And it's dealing with significant workforce
issues at the shipyard. In April, the Navy announced that--even though
the program just really started construction--it's already projecting a
3-year delay in lead ship delivery. And one thing I want to make sure to
point out about this program that's important to remember is the frigate
program was put in place because of failures on the Littoral Combat Ship
program that never lived up to expectations, and is just being fielded,
and is actually going to be decommissioned pretty quickly after that.
Another high-profile program that we've looked at is the Air Force's
Sentinel program. This is the land-leg of the nuclear triad and it's a
pretty expansive effort to replace that existing capability. In January
2024, the Air Force reported an acquisition unit cost increase of at
least 37%. This triggered what's known as a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which
means you got to go back and relook at the program and determine, you
know, what you can do and reset baselines. And the Air Force is in the
process of doing that now. The program has experienced significant
technical challenges and management problems as well--in addition to
things that are outside of its control, like, you know, workforce issues
and that kind of thing. So, those are just two kinds of big examples of
programs that we've seen that are currently challenged.

[Holly Hobbs:] Given these continuing challenges--even after the 2020
revamp--is DOD considering other changes? 

[Shelby Oakley:] Well, we hope so because we're making some
recommendations related to that. Our recommendations are focused on
getting DOD to act more like commercial companies and how they go about
acquiring these big systems. We've done a lot of work looking at how
commercial companies approach acquisition, and they do it in what's
called an iterative process. They identify a minimum viable product or
the initial set of capabilities that they can achieve. They iterate on
that design, they field that capability, all with the intention of
continuing to modify it and upgrade it as they go forward. And that
middle tier of acquisition pathway really presents an opportunity for
programs to think about structuring their acquisitions in this way.
Additionally, and this is a big challenge across the Department of
Defense and actually other federal agencies is, you know, software and
cybersecurity. And we have looked at DOD's challenges in this regard,
which are becoming increasingly critical because of the types of systems
that the department is buying. It's no longer just hardware-based
systems with a little bit of software to ensure the hardware
functionality. These are really software-based systems. And DOD has been
trying to take steps to improve its capabilities for software
development and oversight of software development; and has been a little
slow in that regard. The Congress directed DOD to develop what's called
a software cadre to provide that expertise across the organization to
help programs as they develop their acquisition strategies and execute
on them. Unfortunately, as of now, the software cadre has about one
federal employee supporting it for all of DOD with some contractor
support. 

{MUSIC}

[Holly Hobbs:] Shelby just told us that despite revamping its process,
the DOD still faces a number of challenges that have resulted in costly
delays in its acquisition programs. So, Shelby, why is the issue of
timely acquisition so important? What's the bigger picture here?

[Shelby Oakley:] The bigger picture is that the threats continue to
change. We now have near-peer adversaries, which we haven't had in this
country for a very long time. These adversaries are now producing
weapons and capabilities at a pace that is causing concern within the
federal government, within the Department of Defense specifically. DOD
expects China to continue to modernize its forces into one that really
could become a challenge for the United States across the spectrum of
all of our capabilities. Obviously, Russia is an increasing military
threat and unpredictable, and its actions are concerning for the United
States. So, because of all of this, we need the ability to be able to
keep pace with technology and innovation. 

[Holly Hobbs:] So, given that, what more do we think DOD should be doing
to improve its acquisitions process.

[Shelby Oakley:] DOD is taking steps in the right direction. They're
trying to make change. But moving forward, they really need to think
about how programs can be incentivized to not just start fast but finish
fast, and what that looks like and how they need to be structured to be
able to do that. That would enable them to incorporate these leading
practices that we've seen commercial companies successfully used to
develop super innovative products that meet customer needs and provide
them when they are expected. You know, as I mentioned before, DOD also
needs to continue to improve its software development and cybersecurity
efforts. This is going to be the key to maintaining innovation going
forward. And if we lack expertise and can't continue to evolve and
develop software and software-enabled capabilities at a pace that's in
line with technology, we're going to continue to be challenged. So, I'd
like to see DOD continue to focus on both of those areas as well, too.

[Holly Hobbs:] And last question, what's the bottom line of this report?

[Shelby Oakley:] Establishing new policies really isn't enough. Until
you change the underlying behaviors that lead to programs that aren't
structured to leverage the flexibilities that are provided by the new
pathways, we're going to continue to see the same outcomes that we've
always seen in these programs, which will become increasingly concerning
as we continue to deal with the challenges presented by near-peer
adversaries. 

[Holly Hobbs:] That was Shelby Oakley talking about GAO's annual
assessment of DOD's weapons systems. Thanks for your time, Shelby.

[Shelby Oakley:] Thank you.

[Holly Hobbs:] And thank you for listening to the Watchdog Report. To
hear more podcasts, subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or
wherever you listen. And make sure to leave a rating and review to let
others know about the work we're doing. For more from the congressional
watchdog, the US Government Accountability Office, visit us at GAO.gov.