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.