Maintenance problems due to personnel include (1) lack of  trained and experienced technicians and (2) increases in maintenance  man-hours required to repair some of these aging equipment items. However, some gaps exist because the services either have not validated  their plans for the sustainment, modernization, or replacement of the  equipment items, or the services’ program strategies for sustaining the  equipment are hampered by problems or delays in the fielding of  replacement equipment or in the vulnerability of the programs to  budget cuts. The two equipment items for which we assessed the program strategy as  red are the KC-135 Stratotanker and the Tomahawk Cruise Missile because,  although the services may have developed long-range program strategies  for these equipment items, they have not validated or updated their plans  for sustaining, modernizing, or replacing these items. For  example, as shown in table 2, we identified fiscal year 2003 unfunded  requirements totaling $372.9 million for four major aircraft equipment  items we reviewed. In general, the  services will always ensure equipment is ready to go to war, often through  surges in maintenance and overcoming obstacles such as obsolete parts,  parts availability, and cannibalization of other pieces of equipment. Only one equipment item,  the Marine Corps CH-46E helicopter, could not accomplish its intended  wartime mission due to lift limitations. In this report, we identify a  number of examples of equipment condition deficiencies and  inconsistencies between the program strategies and the funding requests to  address those deficiencies that were not fully addressed in the  department’s budget documents. Scope and Methodology

To determine the level of attention required by the Department of Defense,  the military services, and/or the Congress for each of the 25 equipment  items we reviewed, we performed an independent evaluation of the  (1) equipments’ current condition; (2) services’ program strategies for the  sustainment, modernization, or replacement of the equipment items;  (3) current and projected funding levels for the equipment items in relation  to the services’ program strategies; and (4) equipments’ wartime  capabilities. indicates a problem or issue that is severe enough to  warrant action by DOD, the military services, and/or the Congress  within the next 3-5 years. We also reviewed the wartime capability of the selected equipment items,  focusing on the extent to which each equipment item is capable of fulfilling  its wartime mission. Because of ongoing operations in Iraq and our limited  access to the deployed units and related equipment performance data, we  were unable to obtain sufficient data to definitively assess the wartime  capability for each of the 25 equipment items we reviewed, as we did for  each of the other three assessment areas.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO was asked to assess the condition of key equipment items and to determine if the services have adequate plans for sustaining, modernizing, or replacing them. To address these questions, we selected 25 major equipment items, and determined (1) their current condition, (2) whether the services have mapped out a program strategy for these items, (3) whether current and projected funding is consistent with these strategies, and (4) whether these equipment items are capable of fulfilling their wartime missions.

What GAO Found

Many of our assessments of 25 judgmentally selected critical equipment items indicated that the problems or issues we identified were not severe enough to warrant action by the Department of Defense, military services, and/or the Congress within the next 5 years. The condition of the items we reviewed varies widely from very poor for some of the older equipment items like the Marine Corps CH-46E Sea Knight Helicopter to very good for some of the newer equipment items like the Army Stryker vehicle. The problems we identified were largely due to (1) maintenance problems caused by equipment age and a lack of trained and experienced technicians, and (2) spare parts shortages. Although the services have mapped out program strategies for sustaining, modernizing, or replacing most of the equipment items we reviewed, some gaps exist. In some cases, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and the Tomahawk missile, the services have not fully developed or validated their plans for the sustainment, modernization, or replacement of the items. In other cases, the services' program strategies for sustaining the equipment are hampered by problems or delays in the fielding of replacement equipment or in the vulnerability of the programs to budget cuts. For 15 of the 25 equipment items we reviewed, there appears to be a disconnect between the funding requested by the Department of Defense or projected in the Future Years Defense Program and the services' program strategies to sustain or replace the equipment items. For example, we identified fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirements, as reported by the services, totaling $372.9 million for four major aircraft--the CH-47D helicopter, F-16 fighter aircraft, C-5 transport aircraft, and CH-46E transport helicopter. The 25 equipment items we reviewed appear to be capable of fulfilling their wartime missions. While we were unable to obtain sufficient data to definitively assess wartime capability because of ongoing operations in Iraq, the services, in general, will always ensure equipment is ready to go to war, often through surging their maintenance operations and overcoming other obstacles. Some of the equipment items we reviewed, however, have capability deficiencies that could degrade their wartime performance in the near term.