The U.S. Army is working to modernize its air and missile defense systems, but its failure to fully adopt modern design tools and industry best practices has slowed progress and may be driving up costs, a Federal watchdog said.
In a report released June 18, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the Army has not consistently applied leading product development approaches – particularly iterative development and the use of methods like digital twins – to its air and missile defense programs, including those targeting drone threats.
“The Army chose accelerated acquisition pathways and flexible agreement types to develop and field systems to address required capabilities – and submitted increased funding requests through the budget process to support them – but has not yet fielded most of the air and missile defense modernization efforts,” said GAO.
Some of the practices that the Army has failed to use to support those modernization efforts include using modern design tools like digital twins, and digital threads which GAO said can help with reducing costs, anticipating design flaws, and enabling faster design iterations.
“Fully using these tools can provide efficiencies, such as the ability to anticipate potential design flaws and reduce costs,” said GAO. “Assessing the benefits and affordability of using these modern design tools can better position the Army to more quickly change designs than is possible with 3D modeling and simulations alone, speeding the delivery of capability to the soldier.”
The Army’s air and missile defense priorities include linking sensors and weapons through its new command network; deploying Stryker-mounted weapons systems with missiles, lasers, and cannons; building mobile missile and directed-energy systems; replacing legacy radar with a 360-degree upgrade; and expanding counter-drone capabilities.
The Army’s current modernization strategy, published in 2021, does not require most programs to follow iterative development – a process that emphasizes continuous testing and refinement to speed innovation and delivery. By contrast, traditional linear methods lock in requirements early and deliver in fixed stages.
Only two of the Army’s seven air and missile defense modernization efforts applied an iterative development approach while none of its efforts fully applied modern design tools, GAO reported.
GAO warned that without adopting modern practices, the Army risks inefficient spending, and noted that the service’s air and missile defense efforts have contributed to the Army’s budget request that rose from $8.8 billion in fiscal 2021 to $11.8 billion projected for fiscal 2026.
Practices named by the watchdog include attaining and maintaining a sound business case to continuously evaluate it throughout development; identifying a minimum viable product which can enable successive updates; obtaining stakeholder and end-user feedback throughout iterative cycles; prioritizing off-ramping capabilities when risk is identified; and using modern design tools.
DoD agreed with all GAO recommendations that the Army use iterative development for future short-range air defense systems and a new missile system, and assess digital twin and modern design tools for its battle command system, all short-range air defense variants, all indirect fire protection efforts, and its next-generation radar.