B-2 Bomber: Cost to Complete 20 Aircraft Is Uncertain (Letter Report, 09/08/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-217). Problems with the technology of the B-2 Stealth bomber, including its sophisticated radar systems and computer software, coupled with testing delays, could push acquisition costs for 20 aircraft above the $44 billion ceiling imposed by Congress. Although the Air Force believes that the B-2 acquisition program can be completed within the total program cost limitation, the Air Force has not prepared documentation describing its analysis, assumptions, and rationale for the estimate. GAO believes that major uncertainties surround completion of the B-2 acquisition within the cost limitation. About 57 percent of the planned flight test hours are not yet completed and testing to date has highlighted problems that have not yet been corrected. Additional performance problems could crop up during the remaining testing that would boost program costs. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: NSIAD-94-217 TITLE: B-2 Bomber: Cost to Complete 20 Aircraft Is Uncertain DATE: 09/08/94 SUBJECT: Bomber aircraft Air Force procurement Aircraft research Defense cost control Advanced weapons systems Future budget projections Reporting requirements Advance appropriations Cost effectiveness analysis Research and development IDENTIFIER: B-2 Aircraft B-1B Aircraft Joint Direct Attack Weapon Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile NAVSTAR Global Positioning System C-17 Aircraft F-14D Aircraft GPS ************************************************************************** * This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO * * report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, * * headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions * * of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are * * identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end * * of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the * * document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page * * numbers of the printed product. * * * * 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. * * * * A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document * * Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your * * request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, * * Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders * * for printed documents at this time. * ************************************************************************** Cover ================================================================ COVER Report to Congressional Committees September 1994 B-2 BOMBER - COST TO COMPLETE 20 AIRCRAFT IS UNCERTAIN GAO/NSIAD-94-217 B-2 Bomber Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV DOD - Department of Defense GPS - Global Positioning Satellite system JDAM - Joint Direct Attack Munition RCS - radar cross-section RDT&E - research, development, test, and evaluation TSSAM - Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile Letter =============================================================== LETTER B-257642 September 8, 1994 The Honorable Sam Nunn Chairman, Committee on Armed Services United States Senate The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Chairman, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives The Honorable John P. Murtha Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 limits how much can be spent on acquiring B-2 aircraft. The conference report on the 1994 Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization Act calls for GAO to report at regular intervals on the total B-2 acquisition costs through completion of the production program. This is the first in a series of reports concerning B-2 acquisition costs. Our objectives were to identify risks that remain in the program and identify issues that could affect the Air Force's ability to complete the acquisition of 20 operational aircraft within the cost limitation. BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1 The B-2 development program was initiated in 1981 and was followed by approval in 1987 to procure B-2 aircraft concurrently with the development and testing effort. The Air Force's early plans were to acquire 132 operational aircraft; however, the plans were reduced in the early 1990s to 20 operational aircraft.\1 At about the same time, the B-2's mission emphasis was changed from being principally a strategic bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to a conventional bomber capable of delivering precision-guided munitions. The 1994 Defense Authorization Act, in addition to reaffirming a limit on procuring no more than 20 operational B-2 aircraft, also limited the program acquisition costs to no more than $28,968.0 million, expressed in fiscal year 1981 constant dollars. Currently, the same program acquisition cost limitation expressed in then-year dollars is $44,656.0 million. The last of the 20 operational aircraft are scheduled for delivery in January 1998. These aircraft are required to be low observable aircraft with sufficient range and payload capability to deliver precision-guided conventional weapons or nuclear weapons anywhere in the world with enhanced survivability. Most B-2 aircraft delivered will not initially meet that requirement. To meet the requirement, 18 of the aircraft, including 5 test aircraft, are scheduled to undergo major modifications after their initial delivery to the Air Force. The modifications now planned are required partly as a consequence of producing the aircraft before the test program uncovered problems and limitations. The modifications are also partly necessitated by the change in the B-2's mission from a nuclear to a conventional bomber. Planned modifications to correct defects and incorporate full conventional and strategic capabilities are scheduled to continue through July 2000. Appendixes I and II include details of the planned modifications. Although the flight test program began in July 1989, it was only 43 percent complete as of July 31, 1994, because of delays and problems experienced earlier in the test program. -------------------- \1 This includes 5 test aircraft and 15 production aircraft. RESULTS IN BRIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2 Significant development, testing, production, and modification efforts are required before the 20 operational aircraft meet their final\2 performance configuration. Through fiscal year 1994, the Congress has appropriated $39,639.7 million, about 89 percent of the $44,656.0 million cost limitation established. Air Force plans indicate that the funding required to complete the program will be spread over the next 10 fiscal years, ending in fiscal year 2004. Air Force officials believe the total program cost limitation is sufficient to accommodate completion of the B-2 acquisition program. However, the Air Force has not prepared documentation describing its analysis, assumptions, and rationale for the estimate. The lack of the required documentation hindered our evaluation of B-2 costs. Further, in October 1993, an independent Air Force review team identified significant risk in sustaining and interim contractor support costs yet to be incurred in the procurement program. The review team noted a need for additional cost analyses and recommended specific analyses be accomplished by the Air Force. We believe there is uncertainty about whether the Air Force will be able to complete B-2 acquisition within the cost limitation. About 57 percent of the planned flight test hours are not yet completed and testing to date has identified problems that are yet to be corrected. Additional performance problems could be discovered during the remaining testing that would increase program acquisition costs. Correcting problems already identified during testing and new problems identified in the remainder of the test program could cause additional development effort, further extension of development and test schedules, and increased costs to further modify or correct defects on delivered aircraft. Much of the funding remaining to be appropriated is expected to pay for such things as B-2 support, including support equipment, spares, technical data, and interim contractor support. However, making an accurate estimate of these costs requires that DOD decide on the specific support approach for the B-2. The Congress directed that no funds be used to establish an Air Force organic maintenance support activity for the B-2 until the Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition, reviewed the infrastructure for the private sector and Air Force depot support and maintenance of the B-2. The Undersecretary was to report no later than May 15, 1994, about the most efficient and cost-effective use of both public and private facilities to support the B-2. As of July 31, 1994, DOD had not issued its report. Until this decision is made, B-2 support costs remain uncertain. -------------------- \2 The final performance configuration is now defined as a block 30 aircraft with certain other planned performance improvements. See appendix I for definitions of B-2 configurations. SIGNIFICANT EFFORT REMAINS TO DELIVER FULLY OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3 Through fiscal year 1994, the Congress has appropriated $39,639.7 million of the $44,656 million that the Air Force expects to be needed for B-2 acquisition. Significant program efforts are required to complete the acquisition of B-2s. The rest of the funding is to be requested through fiscal year 2004. In addition, the contractor must complete initial delivery of the production aircraft and modify aircraft to the final configuration within the cost and schedule agreed to in the current contract. In a January 1994 evaluation of the B-2 costs, an independent Air Force cost review team identified cost trends that indicated the Air Force needed to take actions to ensure the program would not cost more than the congressional limit on the B-2 program. REMAINING B-2 EFFORT TO BE FUNDED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1 The Air Force financial plan indicates that $5,016.3 million in research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement funding is yet to be appropriated through fiscal year 2004. Table 1 shows the Air Force's current plans for the use of these remaining appropriations. Table 1 Planned Use of Funds to be Appropriated for B-2 Program From Fiscal Years 1995 Through 2004 (Dollars in millions) RDT&E funding Amount Procurement funding Amount ------------------- -------- ------------------- -------- Air vehicle $481.6 Support $1,139.5 Weapon delivery 209.5 Curtailment/ 679.5 systems closeout Engineering/ 406.5 Spares 532.8 program management Test and evaluation 243.1 Interim contractor 229.1 support Support 135.0 Other government 122.2 costs Other government 549.8 Retrofit 102.6 costs Engineering changes 180.0 Engineering changes 5.1 ============================================================ Subtotal $2,205.5 Subtotal $2,810.8 ============================================================ Total $5,016.3 ------------------------------------------------------------ Two major program efforts yet to be funded and executed are identified in table 1 as support ($1,139.5 million) and interim contractor support ($229.1 million). DOD has not yet made decisions that are likely to affect the ultimate cost of logistics support. For example, it must decide whether the Air Force or the contractor will perform depot support. Until such decisions are made, estimates of logistics support costs will remain uncertain. The fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act requires the Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition, to evaluate the most efficient and cost-effective use of public and private facilities for B-2 depot support. A report should have been submitted to the congressional defense committees by May 15, 1994, but as of July 31, 1994, the report had not been submitted. The B-2 program office has not completed the cost estimate documentation required for major defense acquisition programs. The cost estimate documentation is to include a detailed record of the estimating procedures and data used to develop the cost estimate. B-2 program officials told us they have not completed the documentation because of higher priorities within the program office. PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT MUST BE DELIVERED AND THEN MODIFIED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2 All the production aircraft, except the last two to be delivered, are planned to be subsequently modified. The modifications of these aircraft are currently planned to begin in June 1996 and end in July 2000. In addition, the modification of the five test aircraft are planned to begin in September 1995 and end in May 2000. Aircraft are scheduled to be delivered in three different configurations, called blocks 10, 20, and 30. The blocks are based on capabilities planned to be demonstrated during the flight test program. Appendix I shows the aircraft capabilities planned in each block. Air Force officials believe the total program cost limitation is sufficient to complete the B-2 acquisition in the block 30 configuration. Appendix II shows the detailed schedule for initial aircraft delivery and subsequent modifications. AIR FORCE COST REVIEW TEAM IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT COST RISKS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3 In October 1993, the Secretary of the Air Force chartered an independent Air Force team to review the B-2 program and determine if it could be executed within the congressional cost limitation. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management stated, "The Independent Cost and Executability Review team identified significant cost risk in sustaining and material costs for production and interim contractor support costs for support." One element of the team's analysis showed actual sustaining costs were on a trend to exceed the sustaining costs estimated to complete the B-2 program. The team concluded, however, that the B-2 program could be executed within the cost limitation, provided that B-2 program management actions are successful in changing the existing cost performance trends of the contractor. Because of the limited financial analysis found during its review and the cost risks that remain, the review team recommended that the Air Force closely monitor the remaining efforts covered by the production contract, noting several reports that should be analyzed and analytical procedures that should be followed. The team also recommended that an annual program office cost estimate be prepared and submitted with the annual B-2 budget request, which would include a detailed analysis of the cost of items such as aircraft production and block 20 and block 30 modifications. The review team also pointed out that the 1994 Defense Appropriations Act prohibits the Air Force from using funds to establish or support any organic depot maintenance for the B-2 until DOD studies and reports to the Congress on the support concept. The Air Force will fund interim contractor support for interim maintenance until DOD develops and implements a support concept. Since interim contractor support is paid for by procurement funds that are included within the cost limitation, delays in the DOD support decision could extend the time period originally planned for interim contractor support. This could increase interim contractor support costs over the Air Force's estimate. REMAINING DEVELOPMENT EFFORT INCREASES POTENTIAL FOR HIGHER COSTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4 A major risk to staying within the cost limitation stems from the fact that all the aircraft are being produced with only 43 percent of the flight test program completed as of July 31, 1994. Flight test results are to be used to determine the performance specifications that both production and modified aircraft must achieve. Therefore, until specified performance is demonstrated through the test flight program, the extent to which any further problems will affect development and production costs and schedules is largely unknown. However, based on past experiences with other systems, flight testing typically identifies problems that require financial resources to correct. Early flight testing of the B-2 uncovered numerous problems such as radar cross-section (RCS) deficiencies and aft deck cracks. Corrective actions have been identified and either have been or will be tested in a B-2 aircraft. The flight test program is, however, not scheduled to be completed until July 1997. As of July 1994, performance testing of offensive and defensive avionics, precision weapons, and range/payload is yet to be completed. Delivery of software to integrate B-2 systems and subsystems, important to meeting test schedules, is not expected to be completed before December 1996. Further, some problems are being encountered with the RCS of production aircraft. The status and plans for completing tests in each of these areas are discussed below. Offensive and defensive avionics. Avionics have not been fully flight tested in the B-2. Several radar modes and defensive avionics functions, important to the B-2 mission, are scheduled for flight testing as late as 1997. Recent problems with the terrain-following and terrain-avoidance functions of the radar and signal processing capacity in Band 1 of the defensive avionics subsystem have delayed flight testing of the radar and defensive avionics subsystem. Problems with the terrain-following and terrain-avoidance functions will cause about a 1-year delay in the scheduled flight testing of selected parts of these functions. Air Force engineers stated that changes to the avionics software have reduced the rate of occurrence of some of the problems. Additional software changes and flight testing are still required to resolve all the current deficiencies. However, Air Force officials noted that aircraft delivered in the block 10 configuration are not required to have an effective terrain-following and terrain-avoidance capability. Accordingly, acceptance of block 10 aircraft will not be delayed. We are concerned because the Air Force experienced development problems with the B-1B terrain-following radar mode that delayed its full capability until well after the B-1B's initial operational capability date. The contractor has developed software changes to avoid the conditions causing the signal processing capacity problem with Band 1 of the defensive avionics. This will allow the continuation of flight testing for other defensive functions but does not resolve the signal processing capacity problem. Air Force engineers told us they have not determined if the problems are caused by deficiencies in the hardware or software. Precision weapons. The principal mission of the B-2 was changed from nuclear to conventional bombing missions in late 1992. To make effective use of the expensive and complex B-2 aircraft, the Air Force planned to incorporate new conventional munitions with precision capabilities. These new munitions, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM), are planned to be the primary conventional weapons to be used by the B-2. These weapons are still in development, and integration flight testing is not scheduled to begin until 1995 or later. Range/payload. The flight testing was planned to be completed in July 1994, but data analysis is not scheduled to be completed until December 1994. About one-third of the test points were completed as of April 1994. Estimated capability based on preliminary test data show the B-2 should meet the range/payload requirements. However, Air Force officials said the margin for error is small for some of the specification range requirements.\3 Integration software. The B-2 flight test schedule depends on the delivery of the software that integrates the functions of the various subsystems into the aircraft so it can perform as an operational military aircraft. Critical functions that remain to be incorporated into the test aircraft include the Global Positioning Satellite system (GPS), TSSAM, final defensive system, Band 4 defensive capabilities, GPS Aided Targeting System, and JDAM. In addition, any problems identified during flight testing must be resolved, and software updates will be required. The remaining development integration software versions are scheduled to be delivered to the flight test program through December 1996. Final block 30 production software is not scheduled to be delivered until January 20, 1997. Historically, software has been a source of development problems that resulted in schedule delays and cost overruns. Both the C-17 and the F-14D experienced such software development problems. RCS. The Air Force has done extensive testing to demonstrate capabilities and correct serious problems identified earlier in the test program. As of July 31, 1994, however, flight testing of a fully configured block 30 aircraft has not been accomplished. Flight tests to demonstrate RCS in a block 30 aircraft are scheduled to begin in late 1995 after a test aircraft has been modified to include RCS enhancements and other block 30 changes. Before the Air Force accepts delivery of early production aircraft, limited RCS acceptance testing is to be completed to determine if the aircraft meets the block 10 acceptance criteria. The second and third production aircraft were scheduled for delivery on March 31, 1994, and July 31, 1994, but the Air Force refused to accept delivery because RCS performance did not meet the acceptance criteria. Officials stated aircraft failed to meet the criteria because of a slight change in the process used to manufacture the aircraft tailpipe. They said the manufacturing process has been corrected and new tailpipes have been installed and successfully tested on one of the aircraft, bringing it into compliance with the block 10 RCS acceptance criteria. The Air Force accepted the aircraft on August 17, 1994. Other RCS problems resulting from the manufacturing process were identified during the acceptance testing of the third production aircraft and have been corrected, according to Air Force officials. However, flight testing of the additional corrective measures has been delayed because problems with the aircraft's environmental control system have prevented further acceptance flight testing. These RCS problems show how sensitive RCS is to small changes in the aircraft or its manufacturing process and raises concerns about production repeatability of the specified RCS. -------------------- \3 Ten aircraft will be heavier than the specification aircraft by about 3,000 pounds. This equates to reduced aircraft range (unrefueled distance) of between 40 and 150 miles, depending on the altitude of the aircraft. RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5 We recommend that the Secretary of the Air Force direct the B-2 Program Office to complete the annual cost estimate and the supporting documentation for the fiscal year 1996 President's budget and require that office to prepare updated cost estimates and the supporting documentation before future annual budgets are submitted to the Congress. AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6 In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our findings and stated that it would direct the Air Force to take action on our recommendations. DOD acknowledged that significant work remained to deliver fully operational B-2 aircraft but said that remaining tasks are on contract and the amount of work required is understood by the Air Force and the contractor. In addition, the Air Force is currently monitoring the key cost elements of the B-2 program. DOD stated continued interim contractor support costs for the B-2 remains an open issue, as they have not yet decided whether to support the B-2 with organic or contractor maintenance. Until this support issue is resolved, DOD states pressure will continue on the cost cap. Although DOD is correct in saying that most major program efforts yet to be funded are on contract, we would point out that many are contract options that are to be exercised as far in the future as the year 2002. Furthermore, the B-2 development contract will be incrementally funded for several more years. With only 43 percent of the flight test program complete, uncertainties exist that can affect both development and production costs. These uncertainties are potentially of greater risk to the B-2 program because of the extensive amount of concurrency between development and production. DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix III. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7 We reviewed available documents and records and interviewed officials at the B-2 Program Office, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; the Departments of Defense and the Air Force, Washington D.C.; and the Northrop B-2 Division, Pico Rivera and Palmdale, California. We performed our review from January 1994 through August 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1 Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Ranking Minority Members of the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services; Subcommittees on Defense, Senate and House Committees on Appropriations; the Secretaries of Defense and the Air Force; the Director of Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Louis J. Rodrigues, Director, Systems Development and Production Issues, who may be reached on (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Frank C. Conahan Assistant Comptroller General B-2 SYSTEM BLOCK CAPABILITIES =========================================================== Appendix I Block 30 modifications and Capability Block 20 performance categories Block 10 modifications improvements ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------- Mission Initial signature Band 1-3 awareness Final signature survivability Band 4 awareness\ a Low observable Contrail Management System \a Terrain following/ Visual contour Limited TF/TA Full TF/TA terrain avoidance flying (TF/TA) Radar 6 radar modes 11 radar modes 19 radar modes Navigation Stellar/inertial Global Full specification navigation Positioning requirements Satellite system (GPS) \a Fixed target Limited mark-84 Full mark-84 Full B-83/B-61 bomb effectiveness (2,000 lb) bombs rack and B-83 nuclear Precision-guided assembly weapons bomb munitions Joint Direct Attack GPS-Aided Munition\ a Targeting System Deployability No requirement Deployable for 14 Deployable for 30 days days Command and Normal Air Force Secure high MILSTAR -UHF \a control Satellite frequency Communications System Normal and secure VHF/UHF Air refueling KC-10/135 Autonomous Autonomous directed rendezvous rendezvous rendezvous defensive multiple on multiple avionics JP-8 single on single Flying qualities Limited aero Full aero envelope Limited envelope autopilot Full auto pilot 80 percent loads 100 percent loads clearance clearance Limited weapons Full weapons bay bay door door envelope envelope Tactical air Radar coupled navigation and approaches instrument landing All weather system approaches Light to moderate weather Ground mission Unit-level mission Deployable unit planning planning mission planning In-flight mission In-flight route In-flight mission In-flight mission planning changes changes changes Training Training systems Training systems Training systems compatible compatible compatible Reliability/ On aircraft -all Off aircraft -Air Off aircraft -Air maintainability Air Force Force/interim Force/ Off aircraft - contractor contractor limited support/ logistics Air Force/limited contract support support or mix interim mix contractor support Other Pilot vehicle interface \a Defensive management system tools\a -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a Characteristics are planned performance improvements and are not yet contractually definitized. B-2 PLANNED DELIVERY AND MODIFICATION DATES ========================================================== Appendix II Start Complete Start Complete ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- 1 Test Sept. 1, Mar. 31, 1999 1995 2 Test Dec. 1, Feb. 28, 2000 1997 3 Test June 1, May 31, 2000 1998 4 Test Jan. 1, July 31, 1998 1997 5 Test Apr. 1, Dec. 31, 1999 1998 6 Aug. 31, Feb. 1, May 31, 1998 1994\c 1997 7 Dec. 17, Aug. 1, Dec. 31, 1997 1993 1996 8 Mar. 31, Nov. 1, Mar. 31, 1998 1994\d 1996 9 July 31, June 1, Sept. 30, 1997 1994\e 1996 10 Oct. 31, Sept. 1, Dec. 31, 1998 1994 1997 11 Jan. 31, Dec. 1, Jan. 31, Apr. 1, July 31, 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 12 Apr. 30, Apr. 1, May 31, Mar. 1, June 30, 2000 1995 1997 1997 1999 13 Oct. 31, Aug. 1, Sept. 30, July 1, Oct. 31, 1998 1995 1996 1996 1997 14 Jan. 31, Oct. 1, Nov. 30, Feb. 1, May 31, 1999 1996 1996 1996 1998 15 Apr. 30, Feb. 1, Mar. 31, July 1, Sept. 30, 1999 1996 1997 1997 1998 16 July 31, Nov. 1, Jan. 31, 2000 1996 1998 17 Sept. 30, Jan. 1, Apr. 30, 2000 1996 1999 18 Dec. 31, May 1, 1999 July 31, 2000 1996 19 Oct. 31, 1997 20 Jan. 31, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a There is a sixth test aircraft that is not currently planned to be modified to operational capability. (Program, therefore, has 21 total aircraft.) \b Five test aircraft are planned to be modified and delivered to the Air Force in block 30 configuration after flight test completion. Ten aircraft are planned to be delivered to the Air Force in block 10 configuration. Five of these are planned to be modified to block 20 configuration. All 10 of these are planned to be modified to block 30 configuration. Three aircraft are planned to be delivered to the Air Force in block 20 configuration and then modified to block 30 configuration. Two aircraft are planned to be delivered to the Air Force in block 30 configuration. \c This aircraft underwent special testing and is planned to be delivered out of sequence. \d Air Force acceptance of this aircraft was delayed because of RCS problems. It was accepted on August 17, 1994. \e Air Force acceptance of this aircraft was delayed because of RCS problems. It is now scheduled for acceptance on September 6, 1994. (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ========================================================== Appendix II (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT ========================================================== Appendix IV NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C. -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1 Robert D. Murphy CINCINNATI REGIONAL OFFICE -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2 Michael J. Hazard Jeffrey T. Hunter Brian Mullins LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3 James F. Dinwiddie