Operation Desert Storm: Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank, Apache Helicopter, Patriot Missle System and Foreign Government and Individual Contributions
Four reports on Operation Desert Storm: (1) Early performance assessment of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Abrams Tank during the Persian Gulf War; (2) Apache Helicopter was effective in combat, but reliability problems persist; (3) Data does not exist to conclusively say how well the Patriot Surface-to-Air Guided Missile System performed; (4) Foreign gov1t. and individual contributions to the DoD in Operation Desert Shield/Storm. PL 101-403 and 101-510 authorized the Sec. of DoD to accept any contribution of money, property, services, and supplies from any person, foreign gov1t., or internat. org. This report discusses the DoD1s admin. of contributions accepted as of Sep. 30, 1991. Ill.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
100-hour ground 11 Apache units 1st Aviation Regiment 1st Battalion 1st Cavalry Division 227th Aviation Regiment Abrams crews Abrams systems Abrams Tank Receives according to Apache Affected the Apache's air campaign Apache aircraft Apache personnel Apache pilots Apache Was Considered Apache's Overall Effectiveness Armed reconnaissance Army's attack missions Aviation Brigade Bradley and Abrams Bradley Fighting Vehicle Bradley Performed combat units Component Reliability Considered Effective deployed destroyed Effective in Combat engine ground campaign Helicopter Hellfire missile in-cell fuel pumps Iraqi laser lethality Limited Role Logistical Support Problems Marks for Performance missions flown night vision Operation Desert Storm Persian Gulf area Persian Gulf war Played a Limited Problems Were Believed radios Range Was Limited Receives High Marks refueling Reliability and Logistical sand ingestion Saudi Arabia SINCGARS SLGRs Tank Receives High tank's transfer pump Type of mission U.S. Army unit commanders units we visited VII Corps weapon systems XVIII Corps
Page 8 - appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and on Appropriations, the House Committee on Government Operations, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and other interested parties. We will also
Page 2 - the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requested that GAO assess
Page 1 - and Budget; and the Secretaries of Defense and the Army. We will also provide copies to others upon request This report was prepared under the direction of Richard Davis, Director, Army Issues, who may be reached on (202) 275-4141 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors
Page 8 - on Appropriations, the House Committee on Government Operations, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Secretary of
Page 14 - As requested, we did not obtain fully coordinated Department of Defense comments on this report. However, we did obtain oral comments on a draft of this report from representatives of the Offices of the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition; the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics; and others.
Page 8 - As requested, we did not obtain agency comments on this report. However, we discussed the information
Page 14 - the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition; the Army
Page 14 - of the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; the Assistant Secretary of
Page 13 - Germany. (See app. I for a listing of the 11 units we reviewed.) We visited these units primarily because they were more active than the remaining four units, which were essentially held in reserve. We also conducted work at the US Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri; and Headquarters, Departments of Defense and the Army, Washington, DC We visited the