This equipment is used to diagnose problems in aircraft avionics and  weapon system components so that the component can be repaired and  replaced on the aircraft or put into the supply system for future use. For  example, testers may be used to diagnose problems with aircraft radars,  guidance and control systems, or weapon systems. Over the years, various  studies have criticized the continued proliferation of unique ATE and  highlighted the need for the development and acquisition of testers that  can be used to test more than one system or component. These problems include the high costs of maintaining and replacing  ATE and the declining availability of spare parts for the aging testers. Readiness Could Be Adversely Affected

ATE is becoming increasingly out-of-date and more difficult to support. In addition, according  to DOD readiness reports, only 28 percent of Air Force, Navy, and Marine  Corps key aircraft models met their readiness goals in fiscal year 2002. Although the services  have been making some progress, efforts to comply with these policies  have been slow. In addition,  strategic planning for the modernization of automatic test equipment at  Navy depots has only recently been initiated. Since individual aircraft program offices have been doing their  own planning for modernization, the Air Force has given little  consideration to having common ATE or testers that are interoperable  with those of other services. In the 1980s the Navy embarked upon an ATE standardization program to  replace 25 of its testers with one standard ATE family, the Consolidated  Automated Support System (CASS), to minimize unique types of testers. However, according to Navy officials, because of budget  cuts that caused delays in developing the test program sets, only 4 of the  25 have been completely replaced by CASS, and 8 test sets have been  partially replaced. Although the Air Force is developing plans to modernize its ATE, and  although its policy is to consider developing common testers, it does not  yet have an overall plan to guide its modernization efforts and has made  limited progress in this area. In 1994,  DOD appointed the Navy as its Executive Agent for ATE to oversee the  implementation of this policy. Wherever the Executive Agent is placed  organizationally, we recommend that the Secretary give it authority and  resources to  include representatives from all of the services, with a scope to include the  oversight of ATE acquisition and modifications for all weapon systems;    establish a mechanism to ensure that all ATE acquisitions and  modernizations are identified in an early enough stage to be able to  provide a comprehensive look at commonality and interoperability and to  ensure a coordinated effort between service entities;    direct the services to draw up modernization plans for its review so it can  identify opportunities to maximize commonality and technology sharing  between and within the services; and    continue efforts to research technical issues dealing with tester  commonality such as the development of open system architecture and  other joint service applications. DOD concurred with our recommendations  and agreed that it should reemphasize the policy that common automatic  test equipment be developed to the maximum extent possible. We focused our  work concerning this objective at the Navy office designated as DOD’s  Executive Agent for Automatic Test Equipment—PMA-260 within the  Naval Air Systems Command—and the Air Force’s Automatic Test System  Division at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center.
Why GAO Did This Study

The services have billions of dollars worth of outdated and obsolete automatic test equipment (ATE) used to test components on military aircraft or weapon systems. Department of Defense (DOD) policy advocates the development and acquisition of test equipment that can be used on multiple types of weapon systems and aircraft and used interchangeably between the services. At the request of the Subcommittee's Chairman, GAO examined the problems that the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are facing with this aging equipment and their efforts to comply with DOD policy.

What GAO Found

DOD and the services face growing concerns regarding obsolete automatic test equipment, given the high costs of modernizing or replacing it and its potential effect on aircraft readiness. The Navy and Air Force, for example, estimate that they will spend billions of dollars to modernize or replace this equipment, much of which was acquired in the 1970s and 1980s. In the meantime, the aging testers are becoming increasingly out of date and more difficult to support. When the testers do not work properly, maintenance can suffer and readiness can be adversely affected. Since 1994, DOD policy has advocated the acquisition of test equipment that can be used on multiple weapon systems and aircraft and can be used interchangeably between the services; progress in this regard has been slow. For example, although the Navy set out in 1991 to replace 25 major tester types with one standard tester by 2000, budget cuts and delays in developing software have resulted in delays in completing the replacement of these obsolete testers until 2008. The Air Force has only recently initiated a test equipment modernization plan. However, little evidence suggests that consideration is being given to the acquisition of equipment that would have common utility for more than one weapon system as DOD policy advocates. For procurement of new weapon systems, the Air Force is giving little consideration to the use of a common tester, while a common tester is planned for use as the primary tester for the Joint Strike Fighter. Although DOD tasked the Navy as its Executive Agent for automatic test equipment in 1994, the agent has made only limited progress in achieving compliance across all the services with DOD policy advocating the development of common systems. While the Executive Agent can point to some successes in individual systems, its officials acknowledged that the organization does not have sufficient authority or resources to fully implement the policy and achieve the maximum commonality possible.