Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a plan to address any projected capability gaps in ASA units due to the expected end of the useful service lives of their F-15s and F-16s.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation. The Air Force has taken some action that could mitigate potential challenges, if proactively managed, but has not developed a single plan to manage the recapitalization of the aircraft that conduct ASA operations. Specifically, the service has initiated efforts to test the effective service life of its remaining F-15 and F-16 fleets. In addition, the service has requested funding to update both platforms with radar and communication equipment that will support ASA operations. The Air Force has also identified the extent to which it could cover its alert sites if either the F-15 or F-16 fleet were unavailable. However, the potential grounding of ASA aircraft?such as the grounding of F-15s during 2007 and F-22s during 2011, the ongoing delays in the F-35 program, and the unspecified fielding locations for the F-35 aircraft could pose challenges in the future. Further, the Air Force could have challenges if the retirement of the current fleet of F-15s and F-16s are not managed in a manner that considers the effect on ASA operations. For example, if the Air Force were to decrease the number of older models of F-16s in the inventory, this could affect ASA operations since these aircraft are flown by units that conduct these operations. Also, if the Air Force retires the fleet of F-15s and F-16s with the longest remaining effective service lives before those with shorter service lives, the service could experience a shortage in fighter aircraft available for ASA operations before the 5th-generation aircraft (such as the F-22 and F-35, with stealth characteristics, fused sensor data, and advanced radars) are available.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to implement ASA as a steady-state mission according to NORAD, DOD, and Air Force guidance by (1) updating and implementing the ASA program action directive; {2) updating the Air Force homeland defense policy, homeland operations doctrine, and concept of operations to incorporate and define the roles and responsibilities for ASA operations; and (3) incorporating the ASA mission within the Air Force submissions for the 6-year Future Years Defense Program.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. DOD has addressed one of the three elements of the recommendation. The National Guard Bureau has incorporated ASA operations in its fiscal year 2013 Future Years Defense Program. Rather than updating and implementing the ASA program action directive, the Air Force canceled the program action directive. This leaves the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau without clear roles and responsibilities for operational planning, programming, and budgeting for ASA operations, which GAO has identified as an internal control weakness. The Air Force has also not updated any of the identified policy and doctrine documents in the recommendation. Consequently, overall roles and responsibilities remain undefined.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a timetable to implement ASA as a steady-state mission.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. However, the Air Force has not established a timetable to implement ASA as a steady-state mission.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the military services with units that consistently conduct ASA operations to formally assign ASA duties to these units and then ensure that the readiness of these units is fully assessed, to include personnel, training, equipment, and ability to respond to an alert.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation. The National Guard Bureau, in coordination with Air Combat Command, implemented this recommendation by placing ASA operations on the units' secondary mission statements, which the Air Force issues to identify a unit's mission(s) and related requirements (e.g., type and number of personnel). However, the National Guard Bureau told us that it does not believe that the Secretary of Defense has formally assigned ASA operations to the Air National Guard units. As of November 2011, bureau officials told us that they were taking action to remove the reference to ASA operations from these statements because they now believe that they could better address the findings identified in the 2009 report through the Air Force's standard deployment process. However, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) does not believe that the National Guard Bureau should remove the reference to ASA operations from the units' secondary mission statements. NORAD officials told us that they do not support the bureau's position because NORAD experienced some challenges when it placed units that do not normally sit alert on alert for the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. While our assessment gives the Air Force credit for having taken action, we are also concerned that removing the reference to ASA operations from the units' secondary mission statements could have adverse effects, such as the units not reporting the extent to which they are able to conduct both their ASA operations and overseas deployments in their appropriate readiness systems. DOD does regularly update the Operation NOBLE EAGLE Execute Order, which assigns roles to multiple agencies (such as the military services). But the Execute Order does not assign specific units to carry out the mission. It is too early to determine the consequences of the bureau's decision, although a bureau official acknowledged that the problems we identified in our 2009 report could reoccur if this new approach with NORAD is not fully implemented.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Commander of the U.S. command element of NORAD to routinely conduct risk assessments to determine ASA requirements, including the appropriate numbers of ASA sites, personnel, and aircraft to support ASA operations.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation and initially stated that it believed that sufficient guidance and a longstanding risk-based process currently guide its decisions on ASA operations and, therefore, it did not plan on taking any additional actions until additional requirements are identified through its current process. In an April 2009 hearing before the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, DOD told Congress that it would implement this recommendation. Although NORAD has not conducted routine risk assessments, it took steps toward implementing the recommendation by developing a computer model to evaluate ASA basing locations. We assessed the model as part of a 2011 audit and reported results in GAO-12-311. We found that the model had certain limitations that limit its ability to provide NORAD commanders, DOD decision makers, and Congress risk-based information. Specifically, it did not include a prioritized list of metropolitan areas and critical infrastructure locations that NORAD should protect. The model also did not incorporate data that are associated with risk: threat, vulnerability, and consequence because NORAD designed the model to assess the ability of its aircraft to respond to a single type of threat regardless of its location in the United States. We also found some limitations with the assumptions and reliability of the input data used by NORAD's computer model. NORAD officials agreed with our observations and agreed to take action to address them.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a formal method to replace deploying units that still provides unit commanders flexibility to coordinate replacements.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. DOD noted that it has a global force management system that it uses to formally manage its forces around the world. However, the approach that DOD uses to backfill personnel and units for ASA operations is still managed on an ad hoc basis. NORAD and the Air Force have developed some planning documents, such as a plan for backfilling ASA units on a large scale. For example, one of the planning documents identifies potential units that could conduct ASA operations at bases that are equipped with F-15s if those aircraft were grounded for a period of time as they were in 2008. In addition, Air Combat Command and the National Guard Bureau developed a memorandum of understanding that identifies a process by which Air National Guard units will be scheduled to support non-ASA Operation Noble Eagle missions, such as national special-security events, throughout the year, if called upon. The agreement identifies a process by which Air National Guard units will be identified and scheduled to support these missions, if called upon, and the time frame during which each unit will be ready to support these missions. It also identifies Air Combat Command as the command that will be responsible for providing funds to those units when called upon. However, the Air Force has not developed similar Operation Noble Eagle planning documents to replace ASA units that deploy to support overseas operations or units that are taken off alert for a short period of time when they fail an alert force evaluation. Consequently, the National Guard Bureau, in coordination with Air Combat Command, must try to find personnel and equipment that are available to support these units. In addition, since it is unclear who is responsible for funding these backfill efforts, the National Guard Bureau must use funds that were programmed for other purposes to cover these costs.