Prepared for Milestone A Decision
|
|
- Linette Carr
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Test and Evaluation Master Plan For the Self-Propelled Artillery Weapon (SPAW) Prepared for Milestone A Decision Approval Authority: ATEC, TACOM, DASD(DT&E), DOT&E Milestone Decision Authority: US Army Service Acquisition Executive Designation: JROC Interest Date: September 2005 [Note: This document was designed for classroom exercise purposes only.] PART I - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) presents the initial strategy for conducting T&E throughout the SPAW program. This TEMP will focus on testing in the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase. Testing for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Production phases will be outlined, but not addressed in detail. 1.2 Mission Description The SPAW performs the same seven tasks as those defined for all field artillery (FA) battalions in FM , Chapter 2. Those seven basic tasks of the field artillery are as follows: 1. Coordinate fire support 2. Acquire targets 3. Deliver supporting fires 4. Survive 5. Communicate 6. Move and/or maneuver 7. Maintain and re-supply A recent capability gap has emerged in the area of counter-battery fire; therefore, procurement of the Self-Propelled Artillery Weapon has become essential to the US maneuvering forces. Recent developments and proliferation of threat artillery have rendered US artillery forces extremely vulnerable. There is a critical need to provide supporting fires to the maneuver forces that are capable of ranges in excess of 32,000 meters. The Russian MSTA-X 152 mm self-propelled howitzer and the Chinese PLZ05-X 152 mm self-propelled howitzers are both projected to have a maximum range in excess of 32,000 meters. This performance puts US artillery forces at a distinct disadvantage. The range of the US M109A1 howitzer is 25,000 meters. With upgrades the M109 can
2 reach ranges of 30,000 meters. These weapons will still be vulnerable to enemy counterbattery fires. The SPAW will replace the existing systems with a single system that has the ability to perform both the light and heavy artillery missions for U.S. Army and Marine Corps use. The SPAW is expected to provide increased range, speed, maneuverability, firing rate, integration, communications, and the ability to logistically support these improvements in a battlefield environment. The SPAW will be used to provide armored combat support. It will be able to be air transported into the theater of operations and operate in combat with tanks and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It requires excellent ground mobility allowing the ability to move and maneuver to increase personnel survivability. It requires the ability to fire in a 360 degree circle with its primary and secondary armaments. The system requires the ability to provide both direct (line of sight) and indirect (non- line of sight) firing. 1.3 System Description The SPAW is an extended range howitzer based on a concept similar to the existing M- 109A1 self-propelled howitzer. The SPAW consists of a 155 mm cannon mounted on a track vehicle chassis. The cannon are manufactured using new material technology and have a design range of 37,000 meters. The vehicle will have provisions to carry 30 rounds of conventional artillery ammunition. The vehicle also contains command/control and target acquisition electronics suites to provide precision targeting, location, and threat information. The crew of the SPAW will consist of a section chief, driver, gunner, one cannoneer who loads and fires the weapon, and two cannoneers who handle the ammunition. The SPAW system will be deployed in battery-sized units consisting of six weapons. The battery would also include four support vehicles. One tracked vehicle would be devoted to command and control functions. One tracked vehicle would be devoted to fire direction functions and subsystems. One vehicle would transport ammunition. One vehicle would carry satellite navigation and communications network equipment. All vehicles would contain compatible command/control and target acquisition suites. Each SPAW and tracked support vehicle is transportable by C-17.
3 PART II - TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE 2.1 T&E Management Office of the Secretary of Defense, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (OSD (DOT&E) OT and LFT&E Oversight. TEMP approval Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DASD (DT&E-TRMC) DT&E Oversight and advice to ATL on TEMP approval Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS) Self-Propelled Artillery Weapon Program Manager (SPAW PM) - Chairs Test WIPT and provides material and support for Test and Evaluation of SPAW Deputy Under Secretary for the Army for Test and Evaluation (DUSA TE) Army T&E Executive. Provides TEMP concurrence Army Test & Evaluation Command (ATEC/AEC/OTC) Lead Developmental Test Organization and Operational Test Agency. Conducts T&E through subordinate agencies (AEC and OTC) Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Provides Intelligence support to threat assessments Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) participates in Test WIPT provides Joint Interoperability Test Certification. 2.2 Common T&E Data Base Requirements Sufficient and appropriate data shall be collected in all test activities to ensure accurate determination of exit criteria compliance. Data shall be consistent with appropriate applicable standards. Maximum coordination and sharing among participating organizations shall be assured. The Program and Developmental Test Leads will ensure that DASD (DT&E) and DOT&E have timely access to all records, test data, and reports, including classified and proprietary information, as appropriate to carry out their independent assessments. 2.3 Deficiency Reporting (Omitted) 2.4 TEMP Updates This TEMP will be updated at each major future milestone as required by DoD Between major required updates Program Manager will keep TEMP up-to-date as required by performing required updates and informing Milestone Decision Authority as appropriate. 2.5 Integrated Test Program Schedule The SPAW program is event-driven. Testing provides data to systems engineering that demonstrates the level of compliance with the specifications and allows evaluators to
4 support assessment of the capabilities achieved. Significant events include MS A Decision (FY2006), a MS B decision (FY2007), a MS C decision (FY 2010), a demonstrated IOC (FY 2012), and a FRP Decision (FY 2014). These schedules are for reference only and present the scheduled activities as currently anticipated. The Integrated Master Schedule maintains the real-time program schedules, which will be revised as changes occur.
5 PART III - TEST & EVALUATION STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 T&E Strategy The objective of testing during the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase is to mature critical technologies and demonstrate the desired capabilities are achievable. There are three critical technologies for the SPAW: 1. Cannon Tube Metallurgy necessary to achieve increased range without sacrificing accuracy. 2. Armor necessary to enhance survivability against counter-battery fire, without sacrificing transportability or mobility. 3. Interoperability necessary to improve coordination of fire support missions and defend against counter-battery fire. 3.2 Developmental Evaluation Approach The SPAW testing will be focused on maturing critical technologies and key systems and validating the operational capabilities of the SPAW system. Technology Maturation will focus on lab and limited field tests of critical technologies, and on development and validation of system-level models and operational simulations. The results of the TMRR testing will support a Milestone B decision to determine if the SPAW is ready for Engineering and Manufacturing Development. There are three critical technologies involved in the development of the SPAW system. They are as follows. 1. Cannon Tube Metallurgy: The SPAW requires substantially increased range, survivability, and air transportability. These design requirements conflict somewhat in that the cannon tube must be longer to increase muzzle velocity and must be heavier to control deflection, i.e. droop or bending. At the same time, the tube must be light enough so that the SPAW system is transportable by C-17. In order to achieve a balance of stiffness, strength, and weight, more advanced materials are required. Current cannon tube metal technology has little design margin. Indications are that new materials, such as composites, and new processes, such as sandwich construction, are capable of handling the stressing requirements of the SPAW system. 2. Armor Performance: The SPAW system requires survivability, mobility and transportability. These design requirements can be potentially contradicting. Survivability, especially from counter battery fires, implies heavier armor yet mobility and transportability implies lighter vehicle design and less armor. Heavier armor impacts the vehicle s ability to be transportable by helicopter, as well as it s mobility to ford streams, and achieve required cruising speeds. Advanced, lightweight armor materials offer some potential for achieving survivability, mobility and transportability design objectives. Recent research and development efforts have yielded lightweight armor materials that are being incorporated into the SPAW design. 3. Interoperability: The SPAW system requires a robust and sophisticated communications system that can receive fire direction information from all US and allied sources. It must be flexible, reliable, hardened, immune to electronic countermeasures, have significantly enhanced range, and capable of supporting
6 various forms of encryption. This level of technology has been demonstrated, but not been fielded in U.S. and allied artillery systems to date Developmental Evaluation Framework A draft CDD has been developed. The requirements in the draft CDD reflect the Analysis of Alternatives. SPAW PMO will undertake engaging with contractors to design, fabricate and test required prototypes during TMRR phase. A top level evaluation framework matrix containing primary capabilities (as defined in the CDD) will be provided as the material solutions are identified, matured, and reflected in the TEMP Test Methodology The majority of tests will be conducted using engineering development models of SPAW firing components, SPAW track vehicle, and the command/control and target acquisition suites. A complete SPAW system will be used for selected system-level tests to assist in demonstrating that the SPAW is ready for entry into the EMD phase. Major test events during the TMRR phase include cannon tube testing with a maximum design firing charge, armor testing at design limit impact forces, and command/control and target acquisition suite operation at maximum design data rates, both incoming and outgoing, using the most stressing operationally realistic scenario. The TMRR phase testing will be conducted at contractor facilities, Yuma Proving Ground, and at Fort Sill, and supported by Unit XXX. Vehicle and system maintenance and support will be provided by Unit ZZZZ with assistance and training provided by the prime-contractors. Test scenarios during the TMRR phase will be primarily limited to developmentally challenging scenarios, designed to extract developmental test and evaluation data for use in maturing the design and critical technologies. At least one test will be conducted with a complete SPAW system in a relevant environment. Barrel tube developmental and live fire tests will be conducted. Testing during the EMD phase will focus on subsystem integration and system-level development tests to mature the SPAW system, and operational tests to assess SPAW effectiveness, suitability, and overall capabilities. Testing during the Production and Deployment phase will focus on maturing the production processes, validating updates to components/systems, operational tests of production representative systems under realistic operational conditions, and live fire testing of the SPAW Modelling and Simulation (M&S) A high fidelity model of the SPAW command/control and target acquisition suites will be used for developmental simulations to test system interfaces and performance limits. This model will also be used in operational simulations to evaluate man-machine interfaces, operational procedure development, crew training, and selected maintainability aspects. The model will be capable of emulating the entire SPAW electronic suite in software, as well as accommodate varying levels of Hardware-In-The-Loop (HWIL) Test Limitations and Risks
7 There are no known test limitations that would significantly affect the evaluator s ability to draw conclusions about the TRLs or system capabilities. 3.3 Developmental Test Approach Mission Oriented Testing Subsystem evaluation/self-assessment will be conducted as part of trade studies and system requirements verification testing. The results will determine if the SPAW system is at TRL 6 or higher Developmental Test Events and Objectives The key test objectives for the TMRR phase focus on the following: Firing range Evaluate the maximum firing range & accuracy (CEP). Firing rate Evaluate the reload and fire capability of the SPAW. Interoperability Assess the capability of the SPAW to accept targeting information from external systems, and exchange information with communications and positioning systems. Armor performance Evaluate the near-miss vulnerability of the SPAW to counterbattery threat rounds. Transportability Assess the airlift transportability of the SPAW. Mobility Evaluate the capability of the SPAW to maneuver in various field conditions. At a minimum, assess the following characteristics: - Speed on improved roads - Stream fording Supportability Assess the supportability of the SPAW. 3.4 Certification for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) The Component Acquisition Executive (CAE) will evaluate and determine system readiness for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). Prior to the CAE s determination of readiness for IOT&E, an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness will be conducted by OUSD (AT&L). It shall consider the risks associated with the system's ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals and will be based on capabilities demonstrated during DT&E and OAs, as well as on the criteria described in this TEMP. The final report for DT will provide insight into the system s readiness for IOT&E. 3.5 Operational Evaluation Approach (Details Omitted for Training Purposes) 3.6 LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION APPOACH (Details Omitted for Training Purposes) 3.7 Other Certifications (Details Omitted for Training Purposes) 3.8 Future Test and Evaluation (Details Omitted for Training Purposes)
8 PART IV - RESOURCE SUMMARY 4.1 Introduction Testing will be planned to take advantage of existing DoD ranges, facilities, and other resources wherever practical. 4.2 Test Resource Summary SPAW Test Articles Anticipated prototypes and test articles are listed in Table These represent the minimum anticipated requirements. Article Type SPAW System Prototype Cannon Tubes Armor SPAW Mockup SPAW Chassis LRIP SPAW System Table Prototypes and Test Articles Article Description Prototype of complete SPAW system SPAW full sized Cannon tubes Complete set of SPAW system armor Full sized SPAW Mockup (size and Mass) Full sized, SPAW chassis for support of Vulnerability testing Production representative SPAW systems Quantity (Duration) Test Phase Location 3 sets 2 TMRR, EMD Contractor facilities and designated Government test range 3 Contractor TMRR facilities and designated Government test range Contractor TMRR facilities and designated Government test range 1 EMD Transportability demonstrations Contractor facilities and designated Government test range 1 LFT&E Designated government test facilities. 6 OT Designated government test ranges
9 UNCLASSIFIED FOR TRAINING USE ONLY Test Sites The TMRR Phase testing will be conducted at contractor facilities, Yuma Proving Ground, and at Fort Sill. Test Range support for tracking exercises and/or live engagements will include but not be limited to ground truth sensors, radar and/or optical tracking systems. TMRR testing is intended to be conducted at designated contractor facilities, Yuma Proving Ground, and at Fort Sill. Specific range sensor requirements are to be determined. Regardless of range, the USG will require administrative support (office space, communications, security/classified storage, etc.) as well as range operations support Test Instrumentation EMD and Production testing will require large open areas for maneuver and fire and laboratories/ranges to emulate environmental extremes. Test Range support for tracking exercises and/or live engagements will include but not be limited to ground truth sensors, radar and/or optical tracking systems. Specific range sensor requirements are to be determined Test Support Equipment At least one set of four battalion support vehicles Threat Representation - TBD Test Targets and Expendables Cannon rounds Estimate 500 rounds for TMRR Phase Threat rounds Estimate 20 representative threat rounds for the TMRR Phase Operational Force Test Support Vehicle and system maintenance and support will be provided by Unit ZZZZ with assistance and training provided by the prime-contractor Models, Simulations, and Testbeds Models and simulations will be contractor developed and maintained Joint Mission Environment SPAW PMO will explore the use of distributed Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) testing throughout the program s acquisition lifecycle in order to create an operationally relevant Joint Mission Environment. System will be tested in a live environment during EMD, DT, and IOT&E. Specific details will be determined by
10 UNCLASSIFIED FOR TRAINING USE ONLY the T&E WIPT and reflected in the MS B TEMP Special Requirements There are no known special requirements. 4.3 Federal, State, and Local Requirements (Details Omitted for Training Purposes) 4.4. Manpower/Personnel and Training (Details Omitted for Training Purposes) 4.5 Test Funding Summary - (Details Omitted for Training Purposes)
UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 213 Army DATE: February 212 24: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army COST ($ in Millions) FY 211 FY 212 Total FY 214 FY 215 FY 216 FY 217 Army
More informationSYSTEM DESCRIPTION & CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT VISION
F-22 RAPTOR (ATF) Air Force ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 339 Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Pratt &Whitney Total Program Cost (TY$): $62.5B Average Flyaway Cost (TY$): $97.9M Full-rate
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 213 Army DATE: February 212 COST ($ in Millions) FY 211 FY 212 Total FY 214 FY 215 FY 216 FY 217 To Complete Total Total Program Element 35.849 4.314 3.56-3.56
More informationMULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (MLRS) M270A1 LAUNCHER
MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (MLRS) M270A1 LAUNCHER Army ACAT IC Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 857 Lockheed Martin Vought Systems Total Program Cost (TY$): $2,297.7M Average Unit Cost
More informationJAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILE
JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILE Army ACAT ID Program Total Number of Systems: Total Program Cost (TY$): Average CLU Cost (TY$): Average Missile Cost (TY$): Full-rate production: 4,348 CLUs 28,453 missiles $3618M
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element ED8: Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army : February 2015 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) Years
More informationOperational Testing of New Field Artillery Systems by LTC(P) B. H. Ellis and LTC R. F. Bell
Operational Testing of New Field Artillery Systems by LTC(P) B. H. Ellis and LTC R. F. Bell From January 1982 to April 1983, four new field artillery systems The Battery Computer System (BCS), the fire
More informationARMY TACTICAL MISSILE SYSTEM (ATACMS) BLOCK II
ARMY TACTICAL MISSILE SYSTEM (ATACMS) BLOCK II Army ACAT ID Program Total Number of BATs: (3,487 BAT + 8,478 P3I BAT) Total Number of Missiles: Total Program Cost (TY$): Average Unit Cost (TY$): Full-rate
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: Soldier Systems - Warrior Dem/Val
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2012 Army DATE: February 2011 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 To Program Element 20.602 20.886 48.309-48.309 60.003 53.434
More informationGUARDING THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT. Stephen J Scukanec. Eric N Kaplan
GUARDING THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT 13th Annual Systems Engineering Conference Hyatt Regency Mission Bay San Diego October 25-28, 2010 Stephen J Scukanec Flight Test and Evaluation Aerospace Systems
More informationFORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND, BRIGADE AND BELOW (FBCB2)
FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND, BRIGADE AND BELOW (FBCB2) Army ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 59,522 TRW Total Program Cost (TY$): $1.8B Average Unit Cost (TY$): $27K Full-rate production:
More informationBMDO RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
COST (In Thousands) FY2000 Actual FY 2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 to Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) 81614 540998 A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification The Theater High Altitude
More informationARMY MULTIFUNCTIONAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM-LOW VOLUME TERMINAL 2 (MIDS-LVT 2)
ARMY MULTIFUNCTIONAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM-LOW VOLUME TERMINAL 2 (MIDS-LVT 2) Joint ACAT ID Program (Navy Lead) Total Number of Systems: Total Program Cost (TY$): Average Unit Cost (TY$): Low-Rate
More informationDepartment of Defense DIRECTIVE. SUBJECT: Electronic Warfare (EW) and Command and Control Warfare (C2W) Countermeasures
Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 3222.4 July 31, 1992 Incorporating Through Change 2, January 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Electronic Warfare (EW) and Command and Control Warfare (C2W) Countermeasures USD(A)
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
BUDGET ACTIVITY ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) PE NUMBER AND TITLE 5 - Engineering and manufacturing development 0604854A - Artillery Systems - EMD COST (In Thousands) FY 2001 FY 2002
More informationA udit R eport. Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense. Report No. D October 31, 2001
A udit R eport ACQUISITION OF THE FIREFINDER (AN/TPQ-47) RADAR Report No. D-2002-012 October 31, 2001 Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense Report Documentation Page Report Date 31Oct2001
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2013 OCO
COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Base FY 2013 OCO FY 2013 Total FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Cost To Complete Total Cost Total Program Element 157.971 156.297 144.109-144.109 140.097 141.038
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) 5 - Engineering and Manufacturing 0604854A Artillery Systems - Engineering COST (In Thousands) FY1998 Actual FY 2002 FY 2003 FY2004 FY2005 to Program
More informationC4I System Solutions.
www.aselsan.com.tr C4I SYSTEM SOLUTIONS Information dominance is the key enabler for the commanders for making accurate and faster decisions. C4I systems support the commander in situational awareness,
More informationF-22 RAPTOR (ATF) BACKGROUND INFORMATION
F-22 RAPTOR (ATF) The F-22 is an air superiority fighter designed to dominate the most severe battle environments projected during the first quarter of the 21 st Century. Key features of the F-22 include
More informationTesting in a Joint Environment. Janet Garber Director Test and Evaluation Office Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army
Testing in a Joint Environment Value Added and Considerations Janet Garber Director Test and Evaluation Office Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army June 2008 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Why do we test?
More informationCOMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM
Section 6.3 PEO LS Program COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM CAC2S Program Background The Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) is a modernization effort to replace the existing aviation
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army Date: February 2015 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 4: Advanced Component Development & Prototypes (ACD&P) COST ($ in
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 213 Army DATE: February 212 COST ($ in Millions) FY 211 FY 212 FY 214 FY 215 FY 216 FY 217 To Complete Program Element 125.44 31.649 4.876-4.876 25.655
More informationPRODUCT MANAGEMENT/ PRODUCT DIRECTOR OFFICE TEAM OF THE YEAR (05 LEVEL)
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 2016 Army Acquisition Executive s (AAE) Excellence in Leadership Award PRODUCT MANAGEMENT/ PRODUCT DIRECTOR OFFICE TEAM OF THE
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2014 Army DATE: April 2013 COST ($ in Millions) All Prior FY 2014 Years FY 2012 FY 2013 # Base FY 2014 FY 2014 OCO ## Total FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
More informationFire Support Systems.
Fire Support Systems www.aselsan.com.tr AFSAS FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ASELSAN Fire Support System (AFSAS) is a system of systems which provides the automation of planning and execution
More informationB-1B CONVENTIONAL MISSION UPGRADE PROGRAM (CMUP)
B-1B CONVENTIONAL MISSION UPGRADE PROGRAM (CMUP) Air Force ACAT IC Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 93 Boeing North American Aviation Total Program Cost (TY$): $2,599M Average Unit Cost
More informationACQUISITION OF THE ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM. Report No. D February 28, Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense
ACQUISITION OF THE ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM Report No. D-2001-066 February 28, 2001 Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense Form SF298 Citation Data Report Date ("DD MON YYYY") 28Feb2001
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Office of Secretary Of Defense Page 1 of 8 R-1 Line #163
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Office of Secretary Of Defense Date: March 2014 0400: Research, Development, Test &, Defense-Wide / BA 6: RDT&E Management Support COST ($ in Millions)
More informationFIGHTER DATA LINK (FDL)
FIGHTER DATA LINK (FDL) Joint ACAT ID Program (Navy Lead) Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 685 Boeing Platform Integration Total Program Cost (TY$): $180M Data Link Solutions FDL Terminal Average
More informationFire Control Systems.
Fire Control Systems www.aselsan.com.tr ARTILLERY FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS ASELSAN Fire Control Systems developed for Self Propelled/Towed Howitzers, Mortars and Multiple Launch Rocket
More informationTest and Evaluation Policy
Army Regulation 73 1 Test and Evaluation Test and Evaluation Policy UNCLASSIFIED Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 16 November 2016 SUMMARY of CHANGE AR 73 1 Test and Evaluation Policy
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)
Budget Item Justification Exhibit R-2 ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 to Complete XM982 ILE 99344 64214 78197 43313 2778 2115 2315
More informationUNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Missile Defense Agency Date: February 2015 0400: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide / BA 3: Advanced Development (ATD) COST ($
More informationTHE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3010 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3010 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3010 ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS DEC 0 it 2009 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS CHAIRMAN OF THE
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)
ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Cost to Total Cost Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army Date: February 2015 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 3: Advanced Technology Development (ATD) COST ($ in Millions) Prior
More informationExhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification
PE NUMBER: 0603500F PE TITLE: MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ADV Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification BUDGET ACTIVITY PE NUMBER AND TITLE Cost ($ in Millions) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) FY 2012 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2012 Army DATE: February 2011 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 MISSILE Total FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Army Page 1 of 11 R-1 Line Item #128 To
More informationTest and Evaluation of Highly Complex Systems
Guest Editorial ITEA Journal 2009; 30: 3 6 Copyright 2009 by the International Test and Evaluation Association Test and Evaluation of Highly Complex Systems James J. Streilein, Ph.D. U.S. Army Test and
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)
Budget Item Justification Exhibit R-2 ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) 114 812 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 to Total COST (In Thousands) Actual Estimate
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) FY 2012 OCO
Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 212 Army DATE: February 211 24: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army COST ($ in Millions) FY 21 FY 211 PE 6545A: Joint AirtoGround Missile Total
More informationWEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION DIRECTORATE OVERVIEW SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE WORKING GROUP 22 SEPTEMBER 2016
Presented to: SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE WORKING GROUP WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION DIRECTORATE OVERVIEW Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release - Distribution Unlimited. Review completed
More informationMission-Based Test & Evaluation Strategy: Creating Linkages between Technology Development and Mission Capability
U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Mission-Based Test & Evaluation Strategy: Creating Linkages between Technology Development and Mission Capability NDIA Systems Engineering Conference
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
BUDGET ACTIVITY ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) PE NUMBER AND TITLE 5 - ENG MANUFACTURING DEV 0604768A - BAT COST (In Thousands) FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
More informationJoint Test & Evaluation Program
Joint Test & Evaluation Program Program Overview Mr. Mike Crisp Deputy Director Air Warfare DOT&E March 22, 2005 Mr. Jim Thompson Joint Test and Evaluation Program Manager 1 What is the JT&E Program? DOT&E
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2012 OCO
COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Base FY 2012 OCO FY 2012 Total FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Cost To Complete Total Cost Total Program Element 160.351 162.286 140.231-140.231 151.521 147.426
More information(FOUO) Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System Not Ready for Production Decision
Report No. DODIG-2012-121 September 7, 2012 (FOUO) Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System Not Ready for Production Decision This document contains information that may be
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 8 R-1 Line #86
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2017 Air Force : February 2016 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions)
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army : February 2015 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 4: Advanced Component Development & Prototypes (ACD&P) COST ($ in Millions)
More informationtheater. Most airdrop operations will support a division deployed close to the FLOT.
INTRODUCTION Airdrop is a field service that may be required on the battlefield at the onset of hostilities. This chapter outlines, in broad terms, the current Army doctrine on airborne insertions and
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Cost to Total Cost Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
COST (In Thousands) Actual FY 2002 FY 2003 FY2004 FY 2005 to Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade & Below (FBCB2) 52003* 65176 63601 37699 29154 12179 0 0 264137 * Database presently shows 56328. Internal
More informationDoDI ,Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Change 1 & 2
DoDI 5000.02,Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Change 1 & 2 26 January & 2 February 2017 (Key Changes from DoDI 5000.02, 7 Jan 2015) Presented By: T.R. Randy Pilling Center Director Acquisition
More informationFOR TRAINING USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED DRAFT. CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR Self-Propelled Artillery Weapon (SPAW)
UNCLASSIFIED DRAFT CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR Self-Propelled Artillery Weapon (SPAW) Increment: 1 ACAT: IC Validation Authority: JROC Approval Authority: JROC Milestone Decision Authority: US
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 Navy DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Navy Page 1 of 8 R-1 Line #83 To Program Element - -
More informationThe Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA)
U.S. ARMY TEST AND EVALUATION COMMAND The Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) MG John W. Charlton 8 November 2017 Mission What does ATEC do for the Army? ATEC plans, integrates,
More informationMission Based T&E Progress
U.S. Army Evaluation Center Mission Based T&E Progress Christopher Wilcox Deputy/Technical Director Fires Evaluation Directorate, US AEC 15 Mar 11 2 Purpose and Agenda Purpose: To review the status of
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)
BUDGET ACTIVITY ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) PE NUMBER AND TITLE COST (In Thousands) FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Cost to Total Cost Actual Estimate Estimate
More informationREQUIREMENTS TO CAPABILITIES
Chapter 3 REQUIREMENTS TO CAPABILITIES The U.S. naval services the Navy/Marine Corps Team and their Reserve components possess three characteristics that differentiate us from America s other military
More informationDepartment of Defense DIRECTIVE
Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 5141.02 February 2, 2009 DA&M SUBJECT: Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) References: See Enclosure 1 1. PURPOSE. This Directive: a. Reissues DoD
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army Date: February 2015 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 6: RDT&E Management Support COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY
More informationMISSILE S&T STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
Presented to: THE SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE WORKING GROUP MISSILE S&T STRATEGIC OVERVIEW Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release - Distribution Unlimited. Review completed by AMRDEC Public
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Air Force Date: February 2015 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 3: Advanced Development (ATD) COST ($ in Millions) Prior
More informationThe Army s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress
The Army s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress Andrew Feickert Specialist in Military Ground Forces February 24, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov
More informationNATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS)
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) Air Force/FAA ACAT IC Program Prime Contractor Air Traffic Control and Landing System Raytheon Corp. (Radar/Automation) Total Number of Systems: 92 sites Denro (Voice Switches)
More informationDoD Countermine and Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Systems Contracts for the Vehicle Optics Sensor System
Report No. DODIG-2012-005 October 28, 2011 DoD Countermine and Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Systems Contracts for the Vehicle Optics Sensor System Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No.
More informationSCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ENABLING ARMAMENTS ACQUISITION MODERNIZATION
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ENABLING ARMAMENTS ACQUISITION MODERNIZATION Joe Pelino ARDEC Director of Technology 18 April 2018 UNPARALLELED COMMITMENT &SOLUTIONS Act like someone s life depends on what we do.
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 Air Force DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 Base OCO Total FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Cost To Complete Total Cost Total
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 21 R-1 Line #102
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Army : March 2014 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) Years
More informationGLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE (GBS)
GLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE (GBS) DoD ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Receive Suites: 493 Raytheon Systems Company Total Program Cost (TY$): $458M Average Unit Cost (TY$): $928K Full-rate
More informationThe Army s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress
The Army s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress Andrew Feickert Specialist in Military Ground Forces September 14, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov
More informationAIRBORNE LASER (ABL)
AIRBORNE LASER (ABL) Air Force ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 7 aircraft Boeing Total Program Cost (TY$): $6335M Average Unit Cost (TY$): $528M Full-rate production: FY06 SYSTEM
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: FIREFINDER FY 2012 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 212 Army DATE: February 211 COST ($ in Millions) FY 21 FY 211 FY 213 FY 214 FY 215 FY 216 To Program Element 19.534 24.736 1.358-1.358 3.977 41.223 37.431
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)
Budget Item Justif ication Exhibit R-2 0604814A Artillery Munitions - EMD ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) Actual Estimate Estimate to XM982 ILE 62490 79134 42452 Continuing
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED R-1 Line Item No. 3 Page 1 of 15
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Project Justification May 2009 OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE (0460) BUDGET ACTIVITY 6 (RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT) OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES (OT&A) PROGRAM ELEMENT
More informationMiddle Tier Acquisition and Other Rapid Acquisition Pathways
Middle Tier Acquisition and Other Rapid Acquisition Pathways Pete Modigliani Su Chang Dan Ward Contact us at accelerate@mitre.org Approved for public release. Distribution unlimited 17-3828-2. 2 Purpose
More informationARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)
Budget Item Justif ication Exhibit R-2 0603460A Joint A ir-to-ground Missile (JAGM) ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) Actual Estimate Estimate to JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND
More informationReport No. DoDIG June 13, Acquisition of the Navy Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Needs Improvement
Report No. DoDIG-2012-101 June 13, 2012 Acquisition of the Navy Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Needs Improvement Additional Copies To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web
More informationUS Special Operations Command
US Special Operations Command Operational Test & Evaluation Overview HQ USSOCOM LTC Kevin Vanyo 16 March 2011 The overall classification of this briefing is: Agenda OT&E Authority Mission and Tenants Responsibilities
More informationUNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2014 Office of Secretary Of Defense DATE: April 2013 0400: Research, Development, Test &, Defense-Wide COST ($ in Millions) All Prior FY 2014 Years FY 2012
More informationCOMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE POLICY DIRECTIVE 99-1 3 JUNE 2014 Test and Evaluation TEST AND EVALUATION COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications
More informationInside the Beltway ITEA Journal 2008; 29: Copyright 2008 by the International Test and Evaluation Association
Inside the Beltway ITEA Journal 2008; 29: 121 124 Copyright 2008 by the International Test and Evaluation Association Enhancing Operational Realism in Test & Evaluation Ernest Seglie, Ph.D. Office of the
More informationUNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
: February 205 Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) R Program Element (Number/Name)
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE F: Requirements Analysis and Maturation. FY 2011 Total Estimate. FY 2011 OCO Estimate
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2011 Air Force DATE: February 2010 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 To Complete Program Element 0.000 35.533
More informationNAVY AREA THEATER BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (NATBMD)
NAVY AREA THEATER BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (NATBMD) Navy ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 1500 missiles Raytheon Missile Systems Company Total Program Cost (TY$): $6710M Lockheed
More informationS&T Advances Future Munitions Development Joseph A. Brescia, David Fair and Kevin T. Hayes
S&T Advances Future Munitions Development Joseph A. Brescia, David Fair and Kevin T. Hayes As the Army s Center for Lethality, the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC)
More informationNATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE (NMD)
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE (NMD) DoD ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Interceptors: 20 (Capability 1) LSI: - Boeing North American Total Life Cycle Cost (TY$): $26,600M* Pro Rata Interceptor
More informationM&S for OT&E - Examples
Example 1 Aircraft OT&E Example 3.4.1. Modeling & Simulation. The F-100 fighter aircraft will use the Aerial Combat Simulation (ACS) to support evaluations of F-100 operational effectiveness in air-to-air
More informationUNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
: February 216 Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 217 2: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) FY 215 FY 216 R1 Program
More informationWARFIGHTER MODELING, SIMULATION, ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION SUPPORT (WMSA&IS)
EXCERPT FROM CONTRACTS W9113M-10-D-0002 and W9113M-10-D-0003: C-1. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT SW-SMDC-08-08. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND WARFIGHTER MODELING, SIMULATION, ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION SUPPORT
More informationSection 7.5 PEO LS Program GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR
Section 7.5 PEO LS Program GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR G/ATOR Program Background G/ATOR is expeditionary, lightweight, and radar employed by units within the Air Combat Element (ACE) and Ground Combat
More informationExpanding the Armed Forces Capability through Turreted Mortar Systems
Expanding the Armed Forces Capability through Turreted Mortar Systems Jukka Tiainen, Technical Manager Weapon Systems Kari Reunamäki, Vice President Land Systems Joint Armaments Forum & Exhibition, Phoenix,
More informationU.S. Army representatives used the venue of the 2012
By Scott R. Gourley U.S. Army representatives used the venue of the 2012 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition to outline a wide range of fielding, modernization and sustainment activities for its fleet of
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: Biometrics Enabled Intelligence FY 2012 OCO
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2012 Army DATE: February 2011 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 To Program Element - 14.114 15.018-15.018 15.357 15.125
More informationUNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army : February 2015 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) Years
More informationUNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE D8Z / Prompt Global Strike Capability Development. Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Office of Secretary Of Defense Date: March 2014 0400: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide / BA 5: System Development & Demonstration
More informationOFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FUNCTIONAL AND PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION AUDITS OF THE ARMY PALADIN PROGRAM
w m. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FUNCTIONAL AND PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION AUDITS OF THE ARMY PALADIN PROGRAM Report No. 96-130 May 24, 1996 1111111 Li 1.111111111iiiiiwy» HUH iwh i tttjj^ji i ii 11111'wrw
More informationJOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS) E-8C AND COMMON GROUND STATION (CGS)
JOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS) E-8C AND COMMON GROUND STATION (CGS) Air Force E-8C ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 15 Northrop Grumman Total Program Cost
More information