U.S. Army's Procurements of Battle Effects Simulators (29-AUG-01,
GAO-01-1113R).
The Army uses battle effects simulators on training ranges to
help prepare its soldiers for realistic combat conditions. The
simulators fire pyrotechnic cartridges that simulate the sound,
smoke, and flash of shells being fired from or striking targets,
such as armored vehicles. Concerns have been raised about the
safety of the simulators now being used by the Army and the
possibility that U.S. companies may be excluded from full and
open competition for new simulators. The Army's existing battle
effects simulators have experienced more than 120 documented
malfunctions, many of which caused serious injuries, such as
third-degree burns, loss of appendages, and lacerations. The Army
has tried to make the devices safer and has suspended their use
many times. It is also assessing the safety and the effectiveness
of a new system from a foreign source. However, it does not plan
to assess a U.S. system due to funding limitations. The Army
could rely on the Marine Corps' planned type classification of a
U.S. produced device to certify another qualified source for
future competition.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-1113R
ACCNO: A01695
TITLE: U.S. Army's Procurements of Battle Effects Simulators
DATE: 08/29/2001
SUBJECT: Army procurement
Combat readiness
Military training
Occupational safety
Product safety
Safety regulation
Safety standards
Army Armor Target Kill Simulator
Army Hoffman Device
Intermediate New Generation Army
Targetry System
Omega 36 Simulator
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-1113R
GAO- 01- 1113R Battle Effects Simulators
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
August 29, 2001 The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison United States Senate
Subject: U. S. Army?s Procurements of Battle Effects Simulators Dear Senator
Hutchison: This responds to your March 26, 2001, letter asking us to review
the U. S. Army's procurements of battle effects simulators. The Army uses
these simulators on training ranges to help prepare its soldiers for
realistic combat conditions. The simulators fire pyrotechnic cartridges that
simulate the sound, smoke, and flash of shells being fired from or striking
targets, such as armored vehicles. There have been concerns surrounding the
safety of the simulators currently being used by the Army and the
possibility that U. S. companies may be excluded from full and open
competition for new simulators.
As agreed with your office, we reviewed (1) the safety record of the Army?s
existing battle effects simulators, (2) the Army's plans for determining the
safety and effectiveness of U. S. produced simulators and cartridges, and
(3) the possibility that the Army could rely on the Navy and the Marine
Corps to determine the safety and effectiveness of U. S. products.
In brief, we found that the safety record for the Army?s existing battle
effects simulators includes more than 120 documented incidents of
malfunctions, many of which resulted in injuries such as third- degree
burns, loss of appendages, and lacerations. The Army has attempted to make
the devices safer and suspended them from use numerous times. It is also in
the process of assessing the safety and effectiveness of a new system from a
foreign source. However, it does not plan to assess a U. S. produced system
due to funding limitations. The Army could rely on the Marine Corps? planned
type classification of a U. S. produced device to certify another qualified
source for future competition.
Background In 1999, five U. S. contractor teams responded to a solicitation
from the Army?s Tank, Automotive and Armaments Command to provide the Army
with a new target system referred to as the Intermediate New Generation Army
Target System. Army gunners will fire upon this target system from their
armored vehicles to hone their skills for combat. According to Army
officials, an important subcomponent of this new target system was a new
battle effects simulator. However, during the selection process for the
target system, the Army amended its solicitation by eliminating any
possibility of orders for new battle effects simulators. Army officials
stated this was done because none of the selected subcontractor?s
GAO- 01- 1113R Battle Effects Simulators Page 2
simulators had been type classified, as required by Army Regulation 70- 1,
and funding was not available for certification testing. Type classification
is the process through which the Army determines that a munitions item will
be safe and effective for its intended purpose.
According to an Army official, after eliminating the requirement for the new
battle effects simulator from the solicitation, the Army decided to continue
using its existing simulators. These are referred to as the Armor Target
Kill Simulator (ATKS) and the Hoffman device. The pyrotechnic cartridges
that are fired from these devices were type classified from 1989 to 1992.
One of the pyrotechnic cartridges, called the M21, simulates the bang and
smoke of a tank or artillery gun. For the target system, the Army only
intends to use the ATKS device.
Separate from the ongoing target system effort, the Army?s Simulation,
Training, and Instrumentation Command is in the process of acquiring new
battle effects simulators and cartridges from a foreign source for a
different program. It has requested officials at the Army Research,
Development, and Evaluation Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, to
conduct type classification of the foreign simulators that would be used for
this program and is providing funds to the Center for this effort. The Army
currently plans to acquire 4, 770 of these foreign battle effects simulators
from fiscal years 2001 through 2013 at an estimated cost of approximately
$35.1 million, and it plans to begin fielding these devices in January 2002.
According to the Army, the unit cost of the U. S. produced devices that
could have been acquired as part of the new target system (had they been
type classified) would have been about half as much as the foreign
simulators.
ATKS And Hoffman Devices Have History Of Malfunctions Causing Injuries
The ATKS and Hoffman devices, along with the M21 cartridges, have a history
of premature detonations and other malfunctions that have resulted in
injuries to soldiers and civilian contractors. Army documents 1 indicate
there have been 127 reported incidents since 1983. (In a typical year, the
Army fires thousands of cartridges from these devices.) Many of these
incidents have been classified as class ?A? mishaps, 2 which are
malfunctions ?that have resulted in death or lost- time injury, are similar
to previous malfunctions that have resulted in death or lost- time injury,
are judged as having had an appreciable probability of causing death or
lost- time injury, or that have adverse political implications.?
Documented injuries include third- degree burns, lacerations, loss of
appendages, and damage to hearing and eyesight. The most recent incident
reported, according to the Army, occurred at Fort Knox, Kentucky, in
September 2000 when an individual suffered third- degree burns, temporary
loss of hearing, and other significant injuries when a chamber of M21
cartridges detonated while being loaded into the ATKS device.
1 These documents are tracked in the Army?s Malfunction Investigation
Database, which can be located at http:// www. osc. army. mil/ ib/ ibq/
surv/ gen/ surv. htm. 2 Prior to October 1, 1994, all incidents were
recorded in the database as class A mishaps. Beginning
on October 1, 1994, incidents were designated as A, B, or C, according to
the severity of the incident; A being the most severe and C being the least
severe.
GAO- 01- 1113R Battle Effects Simulators Page 3
Army regulations require that an investigation be conducted of a pyrotechnic
device after a malfunction is reported so the cause can be determined and
corrective action taken. Consequently, the Army has suspended use of the
ATKS and Hoffman battle effects devices and M21 cartridges many times, and
numerous engineering changes have been implemented to try to prevent future
malfunctions. Nevertheless, the Army has been unable to eliminate
malfunctions and injuries, and after each investigation, it has eventually
allowed the remaining inventory of ATKS and Hoffman devices to be used.
Some Army test range officials contend that the history of incidents
involving the ATKS and the Hoffman devices demonstrates that they are not
safe when used with the M21 cartridge and that they need to be replaced.
These test range officials limit use of the devices or will not permit their
personnel to work with the devices due to the history of mishaps with these
systems. As an alternative, in 1996, the Army Tank, Automotive and Armaments
Command purchased 105 commercially available, U. S.- produced Omega 36
simulator devices for test purposes at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Even though the
Omega 36 devices have not been formally type classified by the Army, range
managers said that in 5 years of use they have experienced no safety
problems with them. According to one range official, 33, 000 commercially
available cartridges have been expended from Omega 36 devices on his range
with no safety problems.
Army Has No Plans to Type Classify A U. S. Produced Simulator System
In 1996, Army type classification officials at the Army Research,
Development and Evaluation Center began the process of type classifying a
new foreign- produced battle effects simulator and cartridges at the request
of and with funds from the Army?s Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation
Command. The Center has no plans to type classify any U. S. simulator system
because the officials state they do not have the necessary funds available.
3 According to the Army officials responsible for type classification, they
would require approximately 2 years and $2 million to complete the safety
certification of each pyrotechnic device. Army officials acknowledged that
this estimate might be comparatively more expensive and time- consuming than
type classifications conducted by other military services. However, they
pointed out that the Army requires its tests to be carried out in a broad
range of operational scenarios, including extreme weather conditions in
various climates as well as increasingly complex electromagnetic
environments.
Navy and Marines Intend To Type Classify U. S. Battle Effects Simulator
An alternative available to the Army to potentially acquire a safer
simulator systemthan the ATKS and Hoffman devices could be to rely on a type
classification the Marine Corps plans to fund, and the Navy plans to
conduct, for a U. S. produced battle effects simulator.
3 In February 1995, the Army Materiel Command requested Army officials
responsible for type classification at Picatinny Arsenal to assess the
potential of the Titan Dynamics Omega 36 simulator system to meet the Army?s
needs for a safer and less expensive replacement for its current simulator
system.
GAO- 01- 1113R Battle Effects Simulators Page 4
The Marine Corps plans to acquire new battle effects simulators because it
considers the ATKS and Hoffman devices to be unsafe. In doing so, it plans
to fund type classification of the U. S.- produced Omega 36 simulator at the
Navy?s test facility at Crane, Indiana. According to Navy officials, this
effort would require approximately 18 months and $1.16 million. The testing
would also cover extreme environmental conditions and increasingly complex
electromagnetic environments.
The Marine Corps estimates the Omega 36 simulator will be considerably less
expensive than the foreign- produced device currently being assessed by the
Army. Because each military service generally honors type classifications
conducted by the other services, the Navy?s type classification could allow
the U. S manufacturer to compete for Army battle effects simulator contracts
in the future.
Conclusion and Recommendation for Executive Action The history of incidents
involving the Army?s current simulation devices indicates they are not safe.
At least one U. S. produced device is already in use at some Army locations,
even though it is not type classified. Since the Army may not have funds
available to conduct another type classification, we recommend that the
Secretary of Defense direct the Army to consider using the type
classification planned to be carried out by the Navy for the Marine Corps on
a U. S. produced device to provide it with another potentially safer and
less expensive source for battle effects simulators and cartridges.
Agency Comments We obtained oral comments on a draft of this correspondence
from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Army, and additional
comments by electronic mail from the Army. They agreed with our findings,
conclusion, and recommendation. The Army stated that if the Marine Corps
effort is successful, and the Marines acquire a type classified device that
meets the training community?s needs and is less costly, the Army will
consider using it.
In addition to its comments, the Army also provided a number of technical
comments. We incorporated these comments where appropriate.
Scope and Methodology We reviewed the safety record of the Army?s current
battle effects simulators by obtaining system specific documentation from
the Army Safety Center at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, and the Army Type
Classification Office at the Army Research, Development, and Evaluation
Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, and interviewing officials at those
locations. We also interviewed Army officials at various training range
facilities, including Fort Knox, Kentucky, about their experiences with
battle effects simulators and cartridges. We visited the Naval Surface
Warfare Center at Crane, Indiana, and spoke with Navy officials regarding
their type classification and materiel release processes and specific
testing procedures for battle effects simulators. We also met with the
Program Manager for Training
GAO- 01- 1113R Battle Effects Simulators Page 5
Systems for the Marine Corps and discussed type classification and material
release procedures along with training needs of the Marine Corps.
We conducted our review from May to August 2001 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this correspondence to the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of the Army, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. If you
have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512- 4841. Contributors to
this report were Jeffrey T. Hunter, Kristin A. Pamperin, Charles A. Ward,
and Joseph H. Zamoyta.
Sincerely yours, James F. Wiggins Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management
(120070)
*** End of document. ***