STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND"

Meredith Tyler
6 years ago
Views:

1 AD-A TJC, IL. '.ul " STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND STATEMENT C- NEED (SON) POSITIVE VERIFICATION OF MINUTEMAN MISSILE ENABLE CODING SAC SON MAY 1988 SDTIC ECTE R OCT D HEADQUARTERS STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND Offutt Air Force 'a *.'U~BI bia oo I" o Base, Nebraska 1?9

2 I. Mission. 10 MAY 1988 SAC Statement of Operational Need (SON), Positive Verification of Minuteman Missile Enable Coding A. Mission Area. USDRE Strategic Offense. B. Joint Service/Multinational Applicability. None. HQ SAC/XPQ SMS Cannon AV COMM C. Mission Element Need. ' rhe need exists to ensure missile launch control through correctly loading enable codes into the Minuteman ICBM missile with extremely high confidence. II. Basis of Need. Proper installation of the enable code into the Minuteman missile is essential for missile launch. A need to verify enable code installation has arisen through recent detection of incorrectly coded command signals decoders - missile (CSD-Ms). On two occasions, CSD-Ms were found to contain the previous revision of the enable code. Examination of the equipment involved could not produce a definite fault or a design susceptibility that would allow undetectable failure of the CSD-M coding process. Personnel performance was examined and personnel error could not be positively proven. However, in one instance, personnel error is the most probable cause of incorrect CSD-M coding. Whatever the error source, once it occurs, the system cannot identify the error until another coding is attempted. i Pr II. Assessment of Capabilities. A. Existing Capabilities. 1. Successful missile coding is not verified by an end-to-end check, i.e., a separate direct comparison of the installed code with the source code. Rather, verification is an incremental process based on the successful completion of several coding tasks. These three tasks are: (1) preparation and verification of the code change verifier (CCV) at the support base; (2) CSD-M coding at the missile; and (3) reverification of codes and CCV upon return to the support base. Each task stands alone without linkage to another except for the task 3 reverification of codes installed in task Successful completion of each coding task relies almost exclusively upon the performance of the many equipment operators. Tasks one and three are performed and documented by two separate operations code teams at the support base on the Code Inserter Verifier (CIV) or ICBM Code Processing System (ICPS). The remaining task, task two, is performed by a maintenance code team at the launch facility. An undetected malfunction or omission in any of these tasks can invalidate the entire coding process. j a do -oat ka, bes ;W;'o1j Asuba. b mas V.,

3 3. Verification of operator performance relies on review of task documentation. CIV coding and CSD-M coding at the launch facility are documented by operator hand scribed records. Coding on the ICPS improves task documentation by providing a printout of task completion, faults, and critical task data. Review of this documentation is inadequate to provide the confidence in successful task completion that is required. B. Planned/Programmed Capabilities. All existing CIV equipment is being replaced with the ICPS. No improvements to the ICPS hardware or software are currently programmed. IV. Needed Capability. A. General Operational Requirements. 1. Operational Capability. A capability must be provided to properly code the CSD-M with 99.9 percent effectiveness (999 successful codings out of 1000). The capability must link all three tasks of CSD-M coding and provide comparison/traceability of the resident CSD-M code to the original source information (NSA master code data). This must be accomplished without initiating an enable command or affording the operators or maintainers the opportunity to view operational codes. The new capability should stress human engineering to eliminate or limit human error rather than relying on error-free operator performance to achieve the required confidence level. Security for code values shall be equal to current standards with increased security very desirable. Operational nuclear certification (by the user) must be no more difficult than the current equipment. Operation of the new capability shall require no more than a ten percent increase in coding time lines. Existing coding and maintenance equipment and facilities shall be used to the maximum extent possible to reduce modification impact on the weapon system. 2. Reliability. The new capability shall have a minimum mean-time-between-failure of 500 hours with a design goal of 1000 hours. This is based on an average coding operation time of 10 minutes. New equipment or added capabilities to existing equipment shall not adversely affect coding reliability. 3. Maintainability. Service and repair of the new capability shall be possible within the current Minuteman organizational and intermediate maintenance structure. Repair shall consist of fault isolation to a line replacement unit (LRU). Mean-time-to-repair shall not exceed one hour. 4. Supportability. Parts and materials to support the new capability shall be available for the life of the Minuteman weapon system-- currently projected well beyond the year The capability shall be supportable from the weapon system operating locations by the various levels of organizational and intermediate level maintenance. 5. Readiness. The new capability must sustain an emergency code change demand (200 coding operations within 48 hours at a single operatinj location) and the yearly code change demand (50 coding operations within 48 hours) at all operating locations. 2

4 6. Mobility. Any new hardware for use at the launch facility must be suitcase modular and within current weapon system handling restrictions for man-carry and equipment lowering. 7. Survivability. Any new hardware must be sufficiently rugged to accommodate extended transport in a truck bed without special protection provisions. Hardware must withstand non-operating temperatures of -50 to +150 degrees Fahrenheit and an operating temperature of +35 to +110 degrees Fahrenheit. B. Possible Solutions. None. V. Proposed Program. A. Acquisition Strategy. (1) Full and open competition will be pursued during all program phases. Lowest Evaluated Price (LEP) techniques will be utilized during contract award evaluation. (2) Contractual methods used: Concept definition - fixed price; Full-Scale Development (FSD) and production - fixed price incentive (firm target) award fee. (3) The Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) program will include Qualification Operational Test and Evaluation (QOT&E) and potentially Follow-On Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E). HQ SAC will assist in development of the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and will conduct QOT&E and any FOT&E. B. Schedule: Conception Definition Studies - Fiscal Year (FY) 88; Request for Proposal (RFP) - FY 88; FSD Contract Award (FY 89; QOT&E - FY 90; Nuclear Weapon System Safety Group (NWSSG) Review - FY 90; and Delivery - FY 90. C. Funding Profile. Ogden ALC will combine the Positive Verification of Minuteman Missile Enable Coding SON with a separate initiative to replace the code change verifer for maintainability/ supportability. The combined program will be managed under Minuteman S s fund. Funding for the combined program is detailed in GEORGE LAI, JR. 2 Atch Brigadier General, USAF 1. Requirements Correlation Matrix Deputy Chief of Staff/Plans 2. Program Decision Package (PDP) 3

5 LAJ I-- -4 I- I-4 C3- LA.. U (J I.- LlL. LAJ ' ;--- c to Lii C- iu43 0 cu, u I- (D J 0 D U -C Vr) - (D c, S l: cr fa OI. S- Cf--- a)- ( ) 0 Q) r,, S CD S.. S L- %,.--, ro - C S,- (a = Li. uv1e A04 )S 0. to-0 0 S I = X L-o = 0 hii D ao) L- m c L.wmrQ4.) o)' 0 "SG) 4 u.. "0 u LAJ x 9(^0 0 in4. CL z 0 0 C V - CD - mfw,--- u~d ONuC COL Cdi.. -) Lh m 4c m (D00c( o (A Z ~ ~ ~ O1. ~ ~ - O * C - CG U 0 06 M 4- C.- > LL- 0 Lii cc "" 4I.J -. 0 c 0 G w 0 C ~ 4-- U i - JLo - o 0V -~ ~~ ~ 04. V C 0 -.*U).~- Lii 4 o. CD I -~G 1o '' QI o i i 0-)d V,- L> LL (Du ) 4) c O I-j M C G ~.C-, to. a O C O G 0. ~ d4) ~ C. V)4- M =i o~i Li > Q.)..)f D >- M 4- r=.41 4-~% -4C.. C..).- a) ~ L. q) '1L La. - -Vi 4 u 4j u- o -o4o 4-o o C '- cm Q c 0Q -- u. U 5L ol L. -4-0Q. W- C 0. dij 0 *.CDU L- U-~~t S-di

6 Lii tj. w~o IA...0 > LL 44J a- 1- a 43 (U u 0. 0o Qi 4- C S- af VC 4-) #A (0 W- I- ml C ('-a o *-. w~4 o 0L W. 4-3 ML. 4$ 0) c ac3 to Q 4) o. t- 0) ~ "0 04-) 4) 4-. S 80 C- 2C0 0 CetoU Q ~ 43Lfl Ia 4- C W.43 C) = c~4- %I- 4- to 4 N N- I C ~ 4- d) to r 0 0 S- U.-. r24 9) ---- $- (AQ E 43 4JCS.43-1e m = m U. Li. ~ > ( ca4 w0+ a 1 - u043 = r=s i-- 4) xs-c as 40 c 0 Lii i x u (/4 0.5 ~4- m 04w ZC 00 0 S= -- 4 CSJ -C4i C%.J0 C'. C J 14 C 0 C- d).4-0 al 0 Q 4fv r 43 4)Ci 4- c- C4-0) 41 eo - 4-'E CM C 4-034~ di ' 2 -"2 (a v S- c-~' a a) >, a, *v- c0 to h,. > $.- m0 S - 4. =. ea 4'0 ea C7 2r 43j.X -a ric Cje V) a.

7 LJ L16J IL JU--) L M 4) L t $ S 4-) 0.) m to ao 4)4 - r -L -s 0 q~r Rr 0. L.. = - 4- ) 6 OOc - 0 o04 S "a C 4-- o0 3c to CL0 0.C 4 L.0 -J r- S q - 0) 303(A 0 o) *- CA 4).- o+ 4- to) (M S.. C4~ 0r 0U -4) 00 S-0 4MV NGJ Wa f a -3# Ux '0l = L S c C) QO s~u V M *-SL0 n- LaJ * ea 0n

8 C~1 N CD -4 n L %-4 I- >4r- ON 0%CI C4 I j ~ r-l V D- In r-~-~ CAI r44 I 1-4 OC-. >4 L co Ln co I48 ckjo CAen c E-4 asu (1 U 4 Lt 1- I z cn fl ~ ch m I Mg* r-i n C4uu 4 N iic D CIO r-c c v n -v L 1 N a CD C CD C C

9 DISTRIBUTION FOR SAC SON ADDRESSEE COPIES-ACTION (A) OR INFO (I) SAF/AQPN /AQQM I (A) /AQQR /AQQT /AQQX I (A) /AQSD HQ USAF/DPXX /INEG 2 (A) /INT /INYX /IGF /LE-RD I (A) /LEE /LEXM 1 (1) /LEEX /LEYM 1 (A) /LEYY 5 (A) /PRME /PRPRC /REO /SAX /SCMR 3 (1) /XOEX /XOSX /XOXF /XOXQ 25 (I) /XPXQ Wash DC HQ USAF/SGPT, Bolling AFB I (Q) Wash DC HQ USAF/FMS/Buzzards Point Wash DC ANSER (Analytic Services Inc.) Suite Jefferson Davis Hwy Arlington VA HQ AFISC/SESD /IGSS Norton AFB CA AFISC/SNA 5 (A) Norton AFB CA HQ AFSC/XRX 25 (A) Andrews APB DC HQ AFOTEC/XP 5 (A) Firtland AFB NM FTD/XO 4 (1) WPAFB OH HQ ATC/TTY 6 (A) Randolph AFB TX HQ AU-LSE i (I) Maxwell AFB AL 36112

10 DISTRIBUTION (CONT.) ADDRESSEE COPIES-ACTION (A) OR INFO (I) HO AFLC/XRI 15 (A) WPAFB OH HQ AFLC/LOC 3 (A) WPAFB OH OC-ALC/XRX Tinker AFB OK SA-ALC/XRX Kelly AFB TX SM-ALC/XRX McClellan AFB CA OO-ALC/MMG 10 (A) Hill AEB UT OO-ALC/XRX Hill AFB UT WR-ALC/XRX Robins AFB GA AGMC/XRP Newark AFB OH AFALC/LSX 10 (I) WPAFB OH AFALC/LWE Hanscom AFB MA AD/AL Eglin AFB FL HQ AMD/XR/RD - Brooks AFB TX ASD/XR WPAFB OH BMO/MM 10 (A) /EN /MY Norton AFB CA RADC/XPXS 5 (I) Griffiss AFB NY Joint Tactical C3 Agency C3A-ARM-M OASD-C31 (ASC) Wash DC ANG/AFRES FWS' Tucson lap Tucson AZ DTIC/DDA Cameron Station Alexandria VA ESD/XRX 5 (I) Hanscom APB MA ESD/SYR Hanscom AFB MA LS

11 DISTRIBUTION (CONT.) ADDRESSEE COPIES-ACTION (A) OR INFO (I) Space Division/XR P.O. Box Los Angeles CA HQ AFCC/XPQ 6 (A) Scott AFB IL HO AFIS/XPP 4 (I) Ft Belvoir VA AWS/SYP Scott AFB IL HO ESC/XPX 6 (I) San Antonio TX HQ AFRES/XP Robins AFB GA NGB/RD Wash DC HQ AAC/PR Elmendorf AFB AK AFSPACECOM/XPX 6 (A) Peterson AFB CO HQ MAC/XPQ 6 (A) Scott AFB IL HQ PACAF/DOQ 9 (A) Hickam AFB HI HQ SAC/XPRR 3 (A) Offutt AFB NE HQ TAC/DRP 3 (A) Langley AFB VA HQ USAFE/DOQ 10 (A) APO New York HQ AFOSP/SPD Kirtland AFB NM Tri-Service Industry 3 (1) Information Office 5001 Eisenhower Ave Alexandria VA Tri-Service Industry Information Office 1030 E. Green St. Pasadena CA Tri-Service Industry Information Office WPAFB OH DIRNSA/V62 1 (A) 900 Savage Road Ft George Mead, MY

Spectrum of Testing. OPERATIONAL testing for the warfighter in the representative BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENT

Spectrum of Testing. OPERATIONAL testing for the warfighter in the representative BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENT Vision Statement To be the best operational test agency, recognized for impartial, accurate, and timely contributions that continuously improve America s warfighting capability. 2 Mission Statement We