Since 1998, only 11 of 49 aircraft models (22 percent) experienced a  change to their goals—and 7 of these changes were to raise the goals. Less Than One-Half of the Aircraft Models Met Goals

DOD’s key, high-demand aircraft have experienced widespread difficulties  in meeting MC and FMC goals since at least 1998. For example, during fiscal years 1998- 2002, the percentage of aircraft models meeting their MC goals never  exceeded 35 percent. As previously shown in table 1, the level at which the goals were set  showed little consistency, varying widely even among the same type of  aircraft. Mission Capable Problems Caused by a Combination of Factors

According to DOD officials, difficulties in meeting MC and FMC goals are  caused by a complex combination of interrelated logistical and operational  factors, with no dominating single problem. DOD’S Goal-Setting Process Is Largely Undefined and Undocumented

Despite the importance of MC and FMC goals as measures of readiness  and logistical funding needs, we found widespread uncertainty over how  the services’ MC and FMC goals were established and who is responsible  for establishing them, as well as basic questions about the adequacy of  those goals as measures of aircraft availability. DOD officials told us that  the instruction has not been updated to reflect the current environment of  increased deployments and other changes since the end of the Cold War. In comparison, MC and FMC goals represent the  expected percentage of time that an aircraft will be able to perform at  least one or all of its missions, respectively. Furthermore, it does not require the services to  document the basis for the goals chosen or outline any of the basic  historical documentation that should be maintained for goal-setting and  other key activities during the process. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that aircraft availability goals and their performance measures  are appropriate to the new defense strategy and based on a clear and  defined process, we recommend that (1) DOD and the services determine  whether different types of aircraft availability goals are needed, (2) as  appropriate, DOD and the services validate the basis for the existing MC  and FMC goals, and (3) the Secretary of Defense revise DOD Instruction  3110.5 to    clearly define the specific aircraft availability goals required to be  established by the military services and their accompanying  performance measures;    establish a standard methodology identifying objective principles of  analysis to be used by all services in setting the goals, including an  identification of the readiness and cost implications of setting the goals  at different levels; and  require each service to identify one office to act as a focal point for  coordinating the development of the goals and for maintaining a  documentary record of the basis for the goals chosen and other key  decisions in the goal-setting process.
Why GAO Did This Study

The attacks on September 11, 2001, show that threats to U.S. security can now come from any number of terrorist groups, at any number of locations, and in wholly unexpected ways. As a result, the Department of Defense (DOD) is shifting to a new defense strategy focused on dealing with uncertainty by acting quickly across a wide range of combat conditions. One key ingredient of the new strategy is the availability of aircraft to carry out their missions. Key measures of availability include the percentage of time an aircraft can perform at least one or all of its assigned missions, termed the "mission capable" (MC) and "full mission capable" (FMC) rates, respectively. GAO examined whether key DOD aircraft have been able to meet MC and FMC goals in recent years, and DOD's process for setting aircraft availability goals.

What GAO Found

Less than one-half of the 49 key active-duty aircraft models that GAO reviewed met their MC or FMC goals during fiscal years 1998-2002. The levels of mission capability varied by military service and type of aircraft, and the levels at which the goals were set also varied widely, even among the same type of aircraft. However, the MC and FMC goals for each model changed little over time. Since 1998, only 11 of 49 aircraft models (22 percent) experienced a change to their goals. Seven of the changes were to raise the goals to higher levels. Difficulties in meeting the goals are caused by a complex combination of logistical and operational factors. Despite their importance, DOD does not have a clear and defined process for setting aircraft availability goals. The goal-setting process is largely undefined and undocumented, and there is widespread uncertainty among the military services over how the goals were established, who is responsible for setting them, and the continuing adequacy of MC and FMC goals as measures of aircraft availability. Uncertainty and the lack of documentation in setting the goals ultimately obscures basic perceptions of readiness and operational effectiveness, undermines congressional confidence in the basis for DOD's funding requests, and brings into question the appropriateness of those goals to the new defense strategy. DOD guidance does not define the availability goals that the services must establish or require any objective methodology for setting them. Nor does it require the services to identify one office as the coordinating agent for goal setting or to document the basis for the goals chosen. DOD officials told GAO that the guidance has not been updated since 1990 to reflect the new security environment of increased deployments and other changes since the end of the Cold War.