The instruction also sets out tenets of joint training, including  “train the way you operate” and states that joint training must be based on  relevant conditions and realistic standards. Some Integrating Ballistic Missile Defense Training Occurs but Gaps May Exist and Current Efforts Are Not Guided by a Holistic Strategy

DOD has identified roles and responsibilities and developed training plans  for individual ballistic missile defense elements and combatant  commands, but it has not developed an overarching strategy for  integrating ballistic missile defense that specifies requirements for training  across and among commands and multiple elements. The services and combatant commands conduct  some integrating training; however, our analysis showed that there are  some training gaps such as limited training across more than two tiers  and simulated rather than live participation in exercises. DOD Has Not Developed a Strategy for Integrating BMDS Training

GAO’s guide for assessing training programs states that a training  program should include the development of an overall training strategy  and an organization that is held accountable for achieving training goals. Further,  without a strategy, DOD runs the risk that organizations that need to work  together may have limited opportunities to realistically interact prior to an  actual engagement and this risk may increase over the next few years as  more elements are fielded. Ballistic Missile Defense Training Funds Are Dispersed and Total Resources Not Easily Identified

DOD lacks visibility over the total resources that may be needed to  support ballistic missile defense training since the funds are currently  dispersed across MDA and the services, and some of the services’  budget estimates do not separately identify ballistic missile defense  training. An additional complication is that agreements between MDA and  the services on funding responsibilities and life-cycle cost estimates— which include training—have not been completed and approved for all  elements. We also found  examples of gaps between training requirements and budgeted  resources, such as a $300 million requirement in the THAAD Program  that is not included in MDA’s budget plans. DOD and MDA policies  identify the need to complete cost estimates and funding responsibilities  for elements as they are developed. However, DOD has not yet identified  the total resources necessary to support ballistic missile defense training  and has not determined the long-term funding responsibilities because  there are no procedures or firm deadlines in place requiring that MDA and  the services agree on funding responsibilities and complete training cost  estimates before elements are fielded. As a result, DOD and  congressional decision makers do not have a full picture of the resources  that will be needed over time and risk training gaps. We compiled available budget documents and data from MDA and the  services and estimated about $4 billion is planned to support ballistic  missile defense training from fiscal years 2011 through 2016. Conclusions

Defending against ballistic missile attacks requires quick responses and  an integrating training strategy is important to connect seams where  commands, tiers, or elements must work together. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following three  actions:  To enhance DOD’s ability to identify and resolve issues in integrating  ballistic missile defense training across and among combatant commands  and services and to improve training realism, we recommend that the  Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Chairman of the Joint  Chiefs of Staff, issue guidance that:    designates an entity to be responsible for integrating training across  and among combatant commands and elements and provide that  entity with the authority to develop an overall ballistic missile defense  training strategy which includes specific requirements and standards  for integrating training and identifying and resolving any gaps in  capabilities to enhance integrating training across and among all tiers  (or combatant commands and elements). To improve the transparency of the resources to support ballistic missile  defense training requirements and to inform budget development, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of the  Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Director of the Missile Defense  Agency to:  set a firm deadline to complete training cost estimates and element- specific agreements for elements already fielded and establish  procedures that require the training cost estimates and element- specific funding agreements delineating funding responsibilities  between MDA and the services be completed before additional  elements are fielded; and    establish procedures that require annual development and reporting  of the total BMDS training budget (i.e., all Missile Defense Agency  and service costs for individual, unit, and sustainment training and  combatant command and service exercise costs).
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD) has spent over $80 billion on developing and fielding a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) comprised of various land-and sea-based elements employed by multiple combatant commands and services. Since the time available to intercept a missile is short, integrating training among all organizations involved is important to connect seams where commands and elements must work together. In response to House Report 111-491 which accompanied H.R. 5136, GAO assessed the extent to which DOD has (1) developed a plan for integrating ballistic missile defense training across and among commands and multiple elements, and identified training roles, responsibilities, and commensurate authorities; and (2) identified and budgeted for the resources to support training. To do so, GAO analyzed DOD training instructions, plans, exercises, and budgets and assessed the extent to which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the services have agreed on training cost estimates and funding responsibilities.

What GAO Found

DOD has identified roles and responsibilities and developed training plans for individual ballistic missile defense elements and combatant commands, but has not developed a strategy for integrating training among ballistic missile defense organizations and elements in a manner that requires them to operate as they would in an actual engagement. A Joint Staff Instruction sets out tenets of joint training including "train the way you operate" and DOD guidance requires synchronization of training among the services and combatant commands. The services and combatant commands are conducting some integrating training--training across and among combatant commands and services--but our analysis of exercises shows that there may be some training gaps. For example, although some exercises included more than one combatant command, few included multiple live elements. GAO's guide for assessing training programs states that a training program should include an overall training strategy and an organization that is held accountable for achieving training goals. However, DOD has not developed an overall strategy that includes requirements and standards for integrating ballistic missile defense training because DOD has not clearly designated an entity to be responsible for integrating training across and among all organizations involved and provided it with the authority to do so. Without an overall strategy that includes requirements and standards for integrating training, DOD runs the risk that the organizations that need to work together may have limited opportunities to realistically interact prior to an actual engagement. DOD lacks visibility over the total resources that may be needed to support ballistic missile defense training since the funds are currently dispersed across MDA and the services, and some of the services' budget estimates do not separately identify ballistic missile defense training. A further complication is that agreements between MDA and the services on funding responsibilities and life-cycle cost estimates--which include training--have not been completed and approved for all elements. GAO compiled budget documents and data from various sources and estimated about $4 billion has been planned for ballistic missile defense training from fiscal years 2011 through 2016. However, some of the services' resources for ballistic missile defense training are not easily identifiable since some training is funded as part of a more comprehensive training program. GAO found examples of gaps between training requirements and budgeted resources, such as a $300 million requirement in the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense program that is not included in MDA's budget plans. DOD and MDA policies identify the need to complete cost estimates and funding responsibilities for elements as they are developed; however, there are no procedures or deadlines in place requiring that MDA and the services agree on funding responsibilities and complete training cost estimates before elements are fielded. As a result, DOD and congressional decision makers do not have a full picture of the resources that will be needed over time and risk training gaps.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD designate an entity with authority to develop a strategy for integrating training, and set a deadline to complete training cost estimates and funding agreements and report total BMDS training cost estimates. DOD generally concurred with the merits of our recommendations but did not commit to a timeframe for implementation.