Reported Readiness of the M1 Tank Fleet Is High

We used the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS) report to assess the readiness of M1 tanks. Our analysis of the SORTS data as of March 1995 showed that over 94 percent of the units with M1 tanks reported that their tanks were C-3 (can accomplish the majority of the assigned wartime missions) or higher and that about 56 percent of the units reported that their tanks were C-1 (can accomplish all of the assigned wartime missions). Discussions with officials at three Army divisions that have 834 M1 tanks confirmed that they were not experiencing any major readiness-related maintenance or supply problems with their tanks. As a result of the high operating tempo, the NTC M1 tanks have experienced many more maintenance problems than the tanks in the tactical units. Another factor that has enabled NTC to meet its training requirements is that its tanks are cycled through the Anniston Army Depot under the Army’s inspection and repair only as needed (IRON) program. NTC officials and officials from a unit that was training at NTC at the time of our visit said that the condition of the tanks and the maintenance problems had not detracted from the realism of the training. Change in Repair Parts Funding Has Not Adversely Affected Unit Maintenance

Some Army officials have expressed concern that the change in repair parts funding could lead unit commanders to delay maintenance because they may not have the funds to buy the needed repair parts. The commanders said that the shortages they experienced were not caused by a lack of repair parts funds, but rather by a lack of repair parts in the supply system. Cost and Benefits of Army’s Proposed M1 Tank Overhaul Program Are Uncertain

Some Army officials in the maintenance community believe that an M1A1 overhaul program is needed because of the fleet’s age and because there is no new tank production planned. To address the potential latent deficiencies, the officials proposed a joint proof of principle test program with General Dynamics (the M1 manufacturer) to essentially overhaul the M1A1 tanks. The estimated cost of this effort is $559,000 per tank, about $9.5 million total. Additionally, the Army does not have a predictive readiness system to demonstrate that if the tanks are not overhauled, the tanks will not be able to maintain a high rate of operational readiness. Therefore, if the AIM XXI program would result in M1A2 fielding delays, they would opt for the M1A2 tanks. To determine whether the change in repair parts funding had affected the units’ ability to maintain the M1 tank, we interviewed Army division officials at the three divisions. We interviewed Army and contractor officials and reviewed documentation relating to the proposed AIM XXI overhaul program for the M1 tank fleet.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the absence of a procurement program to modernize the M1 tank fleet beyond the upgrade of existing tanks and to address new tank threats, focusing on: (1) whether the current readiness level of the M1 tank is adequate to meet its war-fighting requirements; (2) whether the operating condition of the tanks at the National Training Center (NTC) is adequate to meet training requirements; (3) whether the change in repair parts funding has adversely affected unit maintenance; and (4) the status of the Army's proposed M1 tank overhaul program, referred to as the Abrams Integrated Management XXI (AIM XXI) program.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) as of March 31, 1995, over 94 percent of the active and reserve Army units reported that their M1 tanks were ready to perform the majority of the assigned wartime missions, and about 56 percent of the units reported that their M1 tanks were ready to perform all of their assigned wartime missions; (2) because of the high operating tempo of the training tanks, the M1 tanks at NTC are experiencing more maintenance problems than tanks in active Army units; (3) however, in spite of the maintenance problems, NTC has fielded the required number of tanks to meet all of its training requirements; (4) on average, the NTC M1 fleet maintained an operational readiness rate of about 82 percent for the 8-month period that ended December 1995; (5) commanders at three Army divisions that have 834 M1 tanks told GAO that the change in repair parts funding had not caused them to alter their maintenance approach; (6) the commanders cited some instances in which they had experienced repair parts shortages; (7) however, they emphasized that lack of funds to buy the parts was not the reason for the shortages; (8) the parts were generally not available in the supply system; (9) notwithstanding, some Army officials have proposed a M1 overhaul program, at a cost of $559,000 a tank, because they were concerned that latent deficiencies that do not show up during routine readiness inspections could show up during wartime and affect the tanks' performance; (10) other Army officials, however, are resistant to the overhaul program because of concerns that the program would take funds away from the ongoing M1A2 upgrade program; (11) the Army does not maintain data that show the extent, if any, of the latent deficiencies, nor does the Army have a predictive readiness system that would show what would happen to operational readiness if there were no depot overhaul program; and (12) at the time GAO completed its review, the Army had not made a decision concerning the proposed overhaul program.