Infantry Antitank Weapons Tests:

Assessment of the Army's Test and Evaluation of the Dragon II and BILL

NSIAD-92-170: Published: Mar 16, 1992. Publicly Released: Mar 16, 1992.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO assessed the Army's evaluation of the Dragon II, the Bofors Infantry Light and Lethal (BILL), and the Milan antitank weapons, focusing on: (1) which system the Army selected as the interim system until the Army Javelin system is fielded; (2) whether additional tests were needed; and (3) potential Dragon II improvements.

GAO found that: (1) the Army conducted some side-by-side tests, as required by the act, to assess Dragon II and BILL as interim medium antitank candidates and also established an evaluation team that considered the results of side-by-side tests, reviewed the results of earlier tests, and obtained the opinions of subject matter experts; (2) based on the team's findings, the Army selected Dragon II as the superior system; (3) the Army did not fully comply with the act's provisions, since it limited its testing primarily to tank-killing capability or lethality and did not adequately compare gunner survivability during either previous or current testing; (4) the Army's lethality tests and assessments appear to have been conducted in a reasonable manner and both systems were equally supportable and reliable; (5) the Army's tests did not provide sufficient information to select the superior system; (6) further testing of Dragon II and BILL may no longer be warranted, since the Army has already fielded Dragon II and even if BILL was selected as a supplemental interim system, the earliest its fielding could begin would be 17 months before the Javelin's scheduled fielding; (7) the dissolution of the Soviet Union has reduced the Soviet threat and the need for a supplemental interim system; (8) if changes should occur in the Soviet threat or the Javelin schedule, consideration could be given to Dragon II improvements as an alternative to BILL; and (9) the Army did not test the Milan because the contractor withdrew from the competition.

Sep 22, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 19, 2016

Sep 12, 2016

Sep 8, 2016

Sep 7, 2016

Sep 6, 2016

Aug 25, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here