	Background

Protecting U.S. airspace has changed over the years. The Air  Force is responsible for organizing, training, and equipping Air Force  units. While NORAD  is not required to conduct risk assessments on a routine basis, doing so  could allow it to enhance its ability to determine the appropriate level and  types of resources—including units, personnel, and aircraft—for ASA  operations. NORAD officials stated that it has not adopted a risk-based management  approach primarily because DOD does not require NORAD to use a risk- based management approach to determine ASA operational requirements. The Air Force Has Not Implemented ASA Operations as a Steady-State Mission in Accordance with NORAD, DOD, and Air Force Directives and Guidance

The Air Force has not implemented ASA operations as a steady-state  mission in accordance with NORAD, DOD, and Air Force directives and  guidance because it (1) has focused on other priorities and (2) believes  that ASA operational requirements, such as the number of sites, might be  decreased to pre-September 11, 2001, levels in the future. The Air Force Does Not Operate ASA as a Steady- State Mission

Although its units are conducting ASA operations, the Air Force has not  implemented these operations as a steady-state mission in accordance  with NORAD, DOD, and Air Force directives and guidance. In addition, the Air Force  did not fully fund ASA operations in the two previous 2-year programming  cycles. Readiness of Units Performing ASA Operations is Partially Assessed by NORAD and PACOM but Not by the Air Force

DOD is to evaluate personnel, training, and quantity and quality of  equipment to determine the readiness of units to perform their missions. This  preassessment evaluates the quality of alert aircraft, to include the overall  condition of the aircraft, and the units’ ability to respond to different air  sovereignty scenarios, such as intercepting various types of aircraft. Our structured interviews with the commanders of units that conduct ASA  operations showed that they did not evaluate and report the personnel,  training, or quantity and quality of equipment to perform ASA operations  because the Air Force has not formally assigned ASA as a mission to the  units and it has not declared the operations as a steady-state mission. Specifically, by fiscal year  2020, 11 of the 18 current ASA sites could be without viable aircraft to  conduct ASA operations. While Air Force officials have acknowledged the challenges we  identified to the long-term sustainability of ASA operations, they have not  developed plans to address them because the service has been focused on  other priorities, such as overseas operations. Plans would provide the Air  Force with information that could assist it in its efforts to ensure long-term  sustainability of ASA operations and the capability of ASA units to protect  U.S. airspace. Further,  if the Air Force, or other service if assigned, does not formally assign the  ASA mission to units performing ASA operations and ensure that the  readiness of units performing ASA operations is fully assessed—to include  training, personnel, equipment, and the ability to respond to an alert— opportunities may be lost to identify and resolve readiness issues. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which North American Aerospace Defense  Command (NORAD) has adopted a risk-based management approach to  determine air sovereignty alert (ASA) operational requirements, we  reviewed prior GAO reports that recommended organizations use risk  assessments to manage risk and determine operational requirements. In identifying the challenges to the long-term sustainability of the Air  Force’s ASA operations and the extent to which the service had plans to  address these challenges, we reviewed documents and interviewed  officials from a range of DOD organizations involved in conducting,  managing, or overseeing ASA activities and funding. Homeland Defense: DOD Needs to Assess the Structure of U.S. Forces for  Domestic Military Missions.
Why GAO Did This Study

According to U.S. intelligence, the threat to U.S airspace remains. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is to defend U.S. air space and the U.S. Air Force has 18 sites in the United States that conduct air sovereignty alert (ASA) operations. ASA operations support fighter aircraft in conducting homeland air defense operations. GAO examined the extent to which (1) NORAD has adopted a risk-based management approach to determine ASA operational requirements; (2) the Air Force has implemented ASA operations as a steady-state mission in accordance with Department of Defense (DOD), NORAD, and Air Force directives and guidance; (3) the Air Force assesses the readiness of units conducting ASA operations; and (4) the Air Force faces challenges in sustaining ASA operations for the future and what plans, if any, it has to address such challenges. GAO reviewed relevant ASA guidance, directives, and planning documents; and interviewed DOD officials, including the commanders of all 18 ASA sites.

What GAO Found

Responding to individual requests from DOD, NORAD has done some assessments to determine ASA operational requirements. NORAD has not adopted a risk-based approach to determining ASA requirements, including routine risk assessments. Although GAO previously reported on the benefits to organizations that routinely do risk assessments to determine program requirements, NORAD does not conduct such assessments because DOD does not require NORAD to do so. However, such assessments could enhance NORAD's ability to determine and apply the appropriate levels and types of units, personnel, and aircraft for the ASA mission. The Air Force has not implemented ASA operations in accordance with DOD, NORAD, and Air Force directives and guidance, which instruct the Air Force to establish ASA as a steady-state (ongoing and indefinite) mission. The Air Force has not implemented the 140 actions it identified to establish ASA as a steady-state mission, which included integrating ASA operations into the Air Force's planning, programming, and funding cycle. The Air Force has instead been focused on other priorities, such as overseas military operations. While implementing ASA as a steady-state mission would not solve all of the challenges the units must address, it would help them mitigate some of the challenges associated with conducting both their ASA and warfighting missions. NORAD has partially assessed the readiness of ASA units; however the Air Force has not evaluated personnel, training, and quantity and quality of equipment. Readiness measures are designed to ensure that DOD forces are properly trained, equipped, and prepared to conduct their assigned missions. For example, while NORAD evaluated the extent to which aircraft were maintained for ASA operations and the units' ability to respond to an alert and to locate and intercept aircraft, it did not evaluate training. Because the Air Force has not implemented ASA as a steady-state mission or formally assigned the mission to the units, it does not assess ASA readiness. By assessing the readiness of units that consistently conduct ASA operations, DOD would be better assured that these units are organized, trained, and equipped to perform ASA operations. The Air Force faces two challenges to sustaining its ASA capabilities over the long term--(1) replacing or extending the service life of aging fighter aircraft and (2) replacing ASA units with equipment and trained personnel when they deploy. For example, if aircraft are not replaced by 2020, 11 of the 18 current air sovereignty alert sites could be without aircraft. The Air Force has not developed plans to mitigate these challenges because it has been focused on other priorities. Plans would provide the Air Force information that could assist it in ensuring the long-term sustainability of ASA operations and the capability of ASA units to protect U.S. airspace.