It plans to  procure 482 Crusader systems—each system consisting of a self-propelled  155-millimeter howitzer and a resupply vehicle. Lighter-weight Crusader May Not Significantly Improve Strategic Deployability

The Army has made considerable progress over the past 2 years in  redesigning the Crusader to substantially reduce its size and weight. Army officials told us that, if carrying two Crusaders on a C-17 aircraft is  not feasible, they will still accept the Crusader system because it is a much  more capable system than the current self-propelled howitzer system, the  Paladin. Apparent Overlap of Crusader and Future Combat Systems Programs Creates Uncertainties

The Army’s current schedule to begin fielding the Crusader system and its  replacement, the Future Combat Systems, in the same fiscal year—2008—  represents a potential risk of investing in duplicative systems to fulfill the  same missions. Because all the technologies needed for the Future Combat Systems may  not be mature enough to be put into systems, the Army is planning to  develop the initial version of the Future Combat Systems with less than its  full capabilities and then upgrade it in a number of steps, called blocks, as  the required technologies mature. Conclusions

Moving into product development without demonstrating critical  technologies in an operational environment increases the risk of cost  overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls. As currently  planned, the majority of the critical Crusader technologies will have been  demonstrated in a relevant environment but not the important operational  environment. Finally, to ensure the Army does not invest in two weapon systems that will  meet the same artillery missions at the same time, we recommend that the  secretary of defense direct the secretary of the army to determine, based  on available data, the potential capabilities and schedule of the initial  version of the Future Combat Systems and the implication of those  capabilities and schedule on the Crusader’s utility to the Army before  making the decision on beginning the Crusader’s system development and  demonstration—currently scheduled for April 2003. To assess the Crusader program’s ability to meet the Crusader reduced  weight requirements and improve the Crusader system’s strategic  deployability, we analyzed the Army’s plans and requirements for reducing  the weight of the Crusader and requested that the Army perform an  analysis of the improvement in strategic deployability that the reduced  weight Crusader system would provide compared to the original weight  Crusader system.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Army wants an artillery system with greater firepower, range, and mobility than its current self-propelled howitzer. In 1994, the Army began to develop the Crusader, an advanced artillery system consisting of a self-propelled 155-millimeter howitzer and a resupply vehicle. The Department of Defense (DOD) will decide next year whether the Crusader program should enter its system development and demonstration stage, which will require the commitment of major resources.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the Crusader program has made considerable progress in developing key technologies and reducing its size and weight. However, more progress and knowledge is needed to minimize the risk of cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls. The Crusader program will likely enter product development with most of its critical technologies less mature than best practices recommend. Most of the Crusader's critical technologies have been demonstrated in a relevant environment but not in the more demanding operational environment. Although the Army is reducing the Crusader's weight so that two vehicles can be deployed on a C-17 aircraft, the deployability advantage gained does not appear significant. The reduction in the Crusader system's weight would only decrease the number of C-17 flights needed to transport two complete systems and support equipment from five to four flights. A lighter system offers several other benefits, and knowing the magnitude of the deployability advantage of reduced weight would allow the Army to make better decisions on trade offs. An apparent overlap exists between the Crusader's and the Future Combat Systems' capabilities and schedules. The Army expects the Future Combat Systems to meet the same artillery missions as the Crusader and eventually replace it. The current schedules for initial fielding of the Future Combat Systems and the Crusader system occur in the same year, 2008. The extent of this apparent overlap depends more on the Future Combat Systems than the Crusader because less is known about the Future Combat Systems' technologies.