Development of the Tactical Satellite 3 for Responsive Space Missions

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Development of the Tactical Satellite 3 for Responsive Space Missions"

Transcription

1 4th Responsive Space Conference RS Development of the Tactical Satellite 3 for Responsive Space Missions Mr. Thomas M. Davis Captain Stanley D. Straight, USAF Space Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Kirtland AFB, NM 4th Responsive Space Conference April 24 27, 2006 Los Angeles, CA

2 AIAA-RS Development of the Tactical Satellite 3 for Responsive Space Missions 1 Mr. Thomas M. Davis Captain Stanley D. Straight, USAF Space Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Kirtland AFB, New Mexico ABSTRACT Numerous Department of Defense studies show implementing a responsive satellite capability provides for significant military utility to augment or surge current space capabilities. The TacSat concept explores the capability/technological maturity of small, low-cost satellites with the most prominent efforts currently being conducted within the Science and Technology (S&T) Program. In addition to providing for ongoing innovation and demonstration in this important technology area, these S&T efforts also help mitigate technology risk and establish a concept of operations (CONOP) for future acquisitions. TacSat efforts underway by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) are focused on demonstrating small (<500kg), operationally responsive, lowcost satellite and launch capabilities to support warfighter. AFRL s Space Vehicles Directorate is leading the Tactical Satellite 3 (TacSat- 3) team and partners include Space and Missiles Center Detachment 12, the Army Space Battle Laboratory, the Air Force Space Warfare Center, the Office 2 of 10 4th Responsive Space Conference 2006 of Naval Research, and the DoD Office of Force Transformation. Building on the experiences with TacSats 1 and 2, TacSat-3 s mission was vetted through a formal payload selection process with Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and Combatant Commands (COCOMs). TacSat-3 s mission was selected for specific capabilities to meet user needs, and to demonstrate those capabilities within cost and schedule constraints. A stepping stone for Operationally Responsive Space, TacSat-3 will experiment with a Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) capability direct to the tactical warfighter within 10 minutes of a collection opportunity. The TacSat-3 demonstration features a low cost plug and play modular bus and low cost militarily significant payloads - a Hyperspectral Imager and a secondary payload demonstrating data exfiltration provided by the Office of Naval Research.. TacSat-3 will demonstrate evolutionary steps and traceability towards objective system goals for the capabilities and processes including rapid response to a user 1 This paper is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.

3 defined need for material detection and identification, and battle damage assessment. Additionally, it will demonstrate traceability to enable launch processing at the launch base faster than seven days. Finally, it will feature a rapid development of the space vehicle and integrated payload and spacecraft bus by using components and processes developed by the Operationally Responsive Space Modular Bus program. capability to uplink tasking to spacecraft and will receive full data image. INTRODUCTION The goal of the tactical satellite (TacSat) demonstration program is to develop the capability to field small, inexpensive space systems in time of crisis, to augment and reconstitute existing capabilities, and perform entirely new tactical theater support missions. These space systems must be low cost and be rapidly fielded. Additionally, a TacSat must leverage a spiral technology development to support a broad range of payloads and mission. New capabilities are to be automatically built into successive generations of satellites with minimal non-recurring engineering. Figure 1. Concept of TacSat-3 Design constraints established for the TacSat-3 program include a total program cost to be less than $50M, to fit on a low cost responsive space booster and a satellite weight of less than 400 kilogram, with a build time for payload and modular bus of less than 18 months. The TacSat-3 CONOPS breaks old paradigms and gives COCOMs first realistic opportunity for responsive, dedicated space capabilities at the operational and tactical level. The TacSat-3 spacecraft will collect and process images and then downlink material ID text and geolocation or downlink full data image using a Common Data Link. An in-theater tactical ground station will have the 3 of 10 Other objectives include executing a robust program of space demonstrations as testbeds to validate and refine space science and technology, CONOPS, and military utility of TacSat-like satellite systems. It will also provide a program of warfighter experiments using TacSat to refine the operational views for the deployment of TacSat-like capabilities and to determine their military utility. A final objective is to develop a procurement strategy to insure the rapid transition of the science and technology advancements, demonstrations, and warfighter experimentation if deemed cost effective in meeting warfighter needs. The TacSat-3 demonstration addresses several military problems. The stove pipes associated with many of our current space systems tend to restrict opportunities for horizontal integration

4 and network centric operations. Theater commanders must compete with each other and other government agencies for priority in accessing our limited global space systems. Maintaining our military space advantage will require network centric space systems that are more responsive, flexible, and affordable. These attributes will enable on-demand, cost-effective augmentation of our space forces. They will permit a tailoring of space capabilities for the warfighter in response to specific and emerging crises. They will also allow for the insertion of the latest high-payoff technologies to avoid surprise. In addition to augmentation, these attributes will provide the means to rapidly reconstitute space capabilities that are destroyed or degraded through hostile action or natural phenomenon to a level that allows continued prosecution of military action. TacSat-3 follows the TacSat experimental series philosophy of providing COCOMs realistic opportunities for responsive, dedicated space capabilities at the operational and tactical level. The TacSat-3 spacecraft will collect and process images, then downlink material identification (ID) text, geolocation, and/or downlink full data image using the already fielded and established Common Data Link as well as fielded Ultra High Frequency (UHF) units. An in-theater tactical ground station will have the capability to uplink tasking to spacecraft and will receive full data image. The TacSat-3 hyperspectral imaging (HSI) payload will conduct spectral reconnaissance and surveillance fused with high resolution panchromatic (PAN) imaging. Depending on how rapidly TacSat HSI spectral products are 4 of 10 generated, the system may be able to cue other sensors or respond to tip-offs or cues from other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets. Figure 2. TacSat-3 Mission Concept The key objectives of TacSat-3 are rapid launch and on-orbit checkout, theater commanding, and near-real time theater data integration. TacSat-3 will experiment with capabilities and processes including a rapid response to a user defined need for target detection and identification, camouflage defeat, identification of concealment and disturbed earth, and battle damage assessment. A key component for the responsive space initiative is to leverage plug and play technologies to develop a fully modular bus. TacSat-3 will focus on the first generation of modular bus technologies. Goals of the modular bus are compliant with standard interfaces and modular subsystems. Additional objectives are a flexible data bus, plugn-play switch fabric, modular solar arrays, scalable power, and adaptable to all orbits.

5 TACSAT-3 DESCRIPTION Figure 3. TacSat-3 System Diagram TACSAT-3 SYSTEM The TacSat-3 system is illustrated in Figure 3. It consists of the ARTEMIS Sensor (a Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) Payload), an ARTEMIS Sensor Processor, a Common Data Link (CDL) communications package, a Satellite Communications Package experiment, a Satellite Avionics Experiment (SAE), and a spacecraft bus. The overall system includes a CDL ground station, a fielded warfighter, a Tactical Ground Station (TGS), and the Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN). The spacecraft is commanded and controlled by a mission operations center located at Kirtland AFB, NM. An additional payload, the Satellite Communications Payload (SCP) hosts HSI data as well as participating in the Ocean Data Telemetry Micro-Sat Link system described below. The following are descriptions of the major systems. HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGING PAYLOAD 5 of 10 The primary capability the TacSat-3 mission will provide is quality Hyperspectral Imagery (HSI) products. The Advanced Responsive Tactically- Effective Military Imaging Spectrometer (ARTEMIS) is under development for tactical military applications and is the primary payload for the TacSat-3 satellite. ARTEMIS consists of a telescope, an imaging spectrometer, and a high resolution imager. These elements produce a raw Hyperspectral image along with a raw high resolution image. The benefits of Hyperspectral imaging consists mainly of allowing spectral match indication and identification using automated routines. This is explained below under the sensor processor paragraph. The ARTEMIS sensor was designed by Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems with collaboration on the imaging spectrometer from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as one of the first responsive space payload developments. The goals of responsive space motivated all aspects of the ARTEMIS sensor payload development. Design trades were carefully evaluated at each step with cost and schedule impacts of foremost consideration. The resulting sensor maintains technical performance while containing costs under a rapid development schedule (12 months). HSI provides unique benefits to the warfighter. The spectral information in each image lends itself to anomaly detection in a given scene, spectral matching of elements within the scene, and ultimately capabilities to distinguish man-made materials from natural materials. The raw data (often referred to as a data cube) has not only two

6 spatial dimensions, but a spectral dimension as well. ARTEMIS SENSOR PROCESSOR An innovative aspect to controlling cost and schedule was the divorce of the processing capabilities from the sensor itself. These functions are performed by the ARTEMIS Sensor Processor (SP). Control of the functions on the sensor, power switching, collecting state of health data from ARTEMIS, and storing ARTEMIS data are prime functions of the SP. Additionally, a fundamental capability of the SP is to autonomously process data cubes from ARTEMIS and produce tactically relevant for dissemination directly to the fielded warfighter. These products primarily are in the form of text products along with some imagery dependent upon the dissemination method. The Sensor Processor uniquely separates payload data management such as storage, processing, and control separate from an integrated sensor and processor. This allows for the ARTEMIS and Sensor Processor combination to be hosted on a more generic platform such as a modular bus by adapting only a piece (the SP) as required for future concepts. Additionally, it is easily expandable into a plug and play component by consolidating the sensor electrical, power, and software interfaces into a single unit. This single interface paradigm is essential to the responsive space. The primary contractors building the SP are SEAKR Engineering, Inc. and the 6 of 10 Space Computer Corporation (SCC). SEAKR Engineering is responsible for the hardware development, and SCC is responsible for the software development of both the data processing algorithms as well as the software for controlling the ARTEMIS sensor. COMMON DATA LINK (CDL) The Common Data Link communications package provides high speed data downlink and uplink functions. The Common Data Link also allows TacSat-3 to be compatible with existing fielded infrastructure, therefore minimizing unique ground station requirements. CDL (Common Data Link) is the US military s standard communications waveform for Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR) in airborne platforms. 1 The enormous data size of the raw data cubes produced by ARTEMIS requires a large bandwidth downlink which CDL provides. The CDL communications package can provide up to 274 Mbps of bandwidth. This high data rate is essential to providing a routine store and forward concept of operations when the satellite is not performing a tactical mission. The L-3 Communications Corporation is building the TacSat-3 CDL communications package. They are space qualifying an airborne asset to meet TacSat-3 s responsive space mission. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PACKAGE (SCP)

7 A secondary payload provided by the Office of Naval Research is the Satellite Communications Package (SCP). It has two distinct TacSat-3 functions: perform data exfiltration from oceanbased buoys and downlink tactical data products directly to the fielded warfighter. SCP is essentially a UHF radio with internal store and forward capabilities. Downlinking tactical data products via UHF services considerably more fielded systems in theater than the CDL, and pushes the data to a lower echelon to be utilized from not only a division level but possibly down to a single unit of action such as a company or brigade. profiles, and has minimal non-recurring engineering for successive satellite builds. The modular bus development process will address rapid design, fabrication, integration and test that mix and matches off-the-shelf, low-cost proven bus components to meet varied payload and orbital mission requirements. A key objective is to develop and test avionics standards to develop a robust, flexible modular bus platform. MODULAR BUS The primary objective of the Operationally Responsive Space Modular Bus initiative is to develop and demonstrate modular bus standards, interfaces, and processes to advance modular bus capabilities in order to meet rapidly evolving and unanticipated tactical military needs. This requires that tactically relevant space system performance be delivered much faster and at lower cost. This adaptable, lowcost modular bus enables the tactical warfighter to rapidly deploy tactical satellites as low-cost consumables to fill critical requirements. These tactical satellites become additional nodes within a tiered network of tactical and national systems comprised of ground, air, and space assets. The goal is to move toward an adaptable modular bus development process that leverages plug-and-play standards and interfaces and incorporates the latest bus component technologies, supports multiple payloads and orbital mission 7 of 10 Figure 4. Modular Bus Objectives The long-term responsive goal is that modular satellite assembly and test be accomplished in a matter of days for a fraction of the cost of current buses. An analogue to these goals is the evolution of main frame computers to current lowcost modular PCs, which can be rapidly tailored to meet a broad range of computing and interface requirements. However, there are many space unique challenges that must be addressed: limited market, long-lead components, varied orbital environments and power profiles, varied payload requirements and interfaces, varied attitude measurement and control requirements, high component costs, high costs for high reliability, etc. Example characteristics desired in the modular bus design are: prudent modularity for

8 rapid customization, standardized interfaces, plug-and-play, internet-like data architecture, robust design to span varied requirements, communications hardware to interface with theater intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) networks, intelligent adaptation to open standards such as Ethernet, Spacewire, and USB (to accommodate power delivery, synchronization, and fault tolerance), common software adaptability via scripts and data sheets, rapid assembly and test, and autonomous satellite operations. The plug-and-play approach must be carefully structured to avoid rapid obsolescence and restrictions to future full and open competition due to proprietary elements, while providing a form of modularity and scalability that has previously been desired but not achieved. The goal is not to develop a capable point design but rather to develop a modular bus configuration and process to produce and deliver such modular buses. This process must continually evolve the bus configuration to incorporate mature component technologies, to interface with an evolving user network, and to support new and different payload requirements (e.g., packaging and CONOPS). The modular bus size is targeted toward the DARPA/Air Force FALCON class of launch vehicles, assumes a payload mass fraction of 50-75%, and targets a design life of one year. Four contractor teams were selected to develop a preliminary design in August These were Design_Net, Denver, CO; Microsat Systems, Littleton, CO; Millennium Space Systems, Manhattan Beach, CA; and Swales Aerospace, Beltsville, MD. The preliminary designs were completed in February 2006; the contractor team to fabricate the actual TacSat-3 modular bus is planned to be selected in late April 2006 with delivery of the bus months later. The bus is expected to weigh approximately 140 kilograms with power in the 1000 Watt range. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS TacSat-3 s Concept of Operations (CONOPS) can be classified into two different modes: routine and tactical. The routine mode is for collecting HSI data outside of the assigned theater of operation. The tactical mode is reserved for anytime the spacecraft can collect over an assigned theater of operation. The primary purpose of the Tactical Satellite series is to provide the tactical warfighter a dedicated space asset, and as such the tactical mode is the first priority. However, all space systems will have global capabilities due to the nature of orbiting the Earth. Demonstrating the synergy of these two modes is a major goal for TacSat-3. TACTICAL MODE The tactical mode is driven by one requirement: to demonstrate responsive delivery of decision-quality information to operational and tactical commanders by enabling tactical tasking and data delivery. The delivery latency of the decision-quality information must be less than 30 min at a maximum with a goal of less than 10 min. However, due to TacSat-3 s Low Earth Orbit altitude often this timeline must be accomplished in less than 10 min. Figure 5 illustrates the Tactical mode operations. 8 of 10

9 VMOC (KAFB & TGS) SIPRNET SIPRNET Payload DC (HAFB) Mission Planning (KAFB) Figure 5. Tactical Mode Operations The primary sequence starts with the warfighter transmitting a collection task to the Tactical Ground Station (TGS) prior to a collection opportunity. A collection opportunity is defined as any time TacSat-3 can collect a Hyperspectral image within the assigned theater. The TGS formats the tasking for receipt by the spacecraft. The tasking can be modified at any moment until after a short period of time after acquisition of signal with the TGS. An alternate path for tasking the spacecraft runs through the mission operations center and the AFSCN via the secure internet. TacSat-3 can be tasked for a tactical collect prior to a collection opportunity. Upon receipt of a properly formatted tasking, TacSat-3 autonomously slews to the target, collects the data, processes the data, then downlinks the data directly to the warfighter. The tactical data product is determined by the original tasking, and is tailorable to meet the warfighter s needs and communications capabilities. Once the tactical product has been disseminated the raw data is downlinked to the next available site. The raw data 9 of 10 can be further processed for more detailed products and retransmitted to the theater, but with considerably more latency. This reach back capability provides a wider range of available data products, but with greater latency. TacSat-3 s tactical mode drives the system design, and is consistent with other responsive space mission constraints of cost and schedule. DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION As a demonstration mission the primary product will be an evaluation of its utility in a militarily relevant environment. TacSat-3 is taking advantage of Modeling and Simulation Analysis (MS&A) in addition to participation in field exercises. The MS&A analyses have shown utility in a variety of missions. These missions will be further vetted with operational warfighters exercising the system in field exercises. Operational warfighters have shown interest in evaluating TacSat-3 s potential. In addition to characterizing the military utility of the TacSat-3 system, a comprehensive sensor evaluation and calibration routine will be performed. The focus of this evaluation is to evaluate the feasibility of acquiring an operational TacSat-3 system. TacSat-3 s design process and procedure focuses not only on demonstrating the art of the possible, but streamlining the initial acquisition of operational systems based upon its capabilities. A full evaluation will allow future acquirers to selectively target scarce funding and schedule resources for the final operational system.

10 CONCLUSION TacSat-3 is one in a series of demonstrations with small satellites to support the DoD Responsive Space initiative. It will also demonstrate a streamlined acquisition model for operational system. The TacSat-3 mission addresses operational responsive space needs and provides an HSI payload provides military utility to theatre commanders. TacSat-3 is a responsive space mission with a focus to provide a full capability direct to the warfighter, while meeting the cost and schedule portion of the responsive space paradigm. Crucial to the success of the TacSat-3 mission are well defined mission objectives coupled with measurable and feasible mission success criteria. All design information and trades must be traceable to these success criteria. TacSat-3 mission addresses needs for operational responsive space and has strong support from Air Force and DoD leadership. New Defense Business Model, Parameters, Summer 2005 Straight, S. and Davis, T., Development of the Tactical Satellite 3 for Responsive Space Missions, Georgia Institute of Technology 2005 Systems Engineering Conference, Atlanta, GA, November 2005 Doyne, T., Hurley, M., and Davis, T., Network-Enabled Program Management: Meeting the Space Acquisition Challenge, High Frontier, January 2006 REFERENCES Anne Plummer, Small Radar-Enabled Satellite Eyed For Aid to Ground Troops, Inside the Army, Washington Publishers, November 29, Galindez, Richard, Morrow, Darren, et. al., A Common Data Link (CDL) For Space-Based Communications: Migration of Airborne Hardware to Space, Proceedings for Utah State University Small Satellite Conference, Aug 14, 2005 Cebrowski, A.K. and Raymond, J.W., Operationally Responsive Space: A 10 of 10

Tactical Satellite 3 Mission Overview and Lessons Learned

Tactical Satellite 3 Mission Overview and Lessons Learned Tactical Satellite 3 Mission Overview and Lessons Learned 10 August 2010 STANLEY D. STRAIGHT TacSat-3 Chief Engineer / Deputy Program Manager Space Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Kirtland

More information

Tactical Satellite 3: Requirements Development for Responsive Space Missions

Tactical Satellite 3: Requirements Development for Responsive Space Missions Tactical Satellite 3: Requirements Development for Responsive Space Missions Captain Stanley D. Straight, USAF Mr. Thomas M. Davis Space Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Kirtland AFB,

More information

TACTICAL SATELLITE 3 THE 4S SYMPOSIUM

TACTICAL SATELLITE 3 THE 4S SYMPOSIUM TACTICAL SATELLITE 3 THE 4S SYMPOSIUM Thomas M. Davis (1), Stanley D. Straight (2), Dr. Ronald B. Lockwood (3) (1) Air Force Research Laboratory, 3550 Aberdeen Ave. SE, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117, USA, (2)

More information

SMALLER is Better: Technical Considerations for ORS

SMALLER is Better: Technical Considerations for ORS SMALLER is Better: Technical Considerations for ORS Lt Col G.R. Nagy, USAF Deputy Chief, Operationally Responsive Space Division HQ AFSPC/A5V 10 Aug 10 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release;

More information

Operationally Responsive Space 1 Lessons Learned

Operationally Responsive Space 1 Lessons Learned Approved for Public Release: PAIRS CASE 2012-0463 Operationally Responsive Space 1 Lessons Learned Presented to AIAA/Utah State University Small Satellite Systems Conference August 16, 2012 THOM DAVIS

More information

Joint Military Utility Assessment

Joint Military Utility Assessment TacSat-3 Joint Military Utility Assessment By Allen Kirkham, Erik Perez and Kenneth Kriner Combat Situation Tuesday morning, 9 a.m., SOUTHCOM/ARSOUTH/ Honduras Army Counter Drug Mission Planning Cell:

More information

Request and Requirements Development Process for Operationally Responsive Space Capabilities

Request and Requirements Development Process for Operationally Responsive Space Capabilities Request and Requirements Development Process for Operationally Responsive Space Capabilities by Colonel James D. Patterson United States Army United States Army War College Class of 2013 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT:

More information

Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle

Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Program TTO Tactical Technology Office Dr. William Scheuren DARPA/TTO wscheuren@darpa.mil (703) 696-2321 UCAV-N Vision ❶ Revolutionary New Ship-based

More information

Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification

Exhibit 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 Office of Secretary Of Defense DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 Total FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 To Complete Total Total

More information

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) BUDGET ACTIVITY ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) PE NUMBER AND TITLE and Sensor Tech COST (In Thousands) FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Actual Estimate

More information

Racing Toward Becoming Operationally Responsive in Space. Jeff Nagy, Capt, USAF. Air Force Research Laboratory, Mesa AZ. Veronica Hernandez

Racing Toward Becoming Operationally Responsive in Space. Jeff Nagy, Capt, USAF. Air Force Research Laboratory, Mesa AZ. Veronica Hernandez Racing Toward Becoming Operationally Responsive in Space Jeff Nagy, Capt, USAF Air Force Research Laboratory, Mesa AZ Veronica Hernandez Air Force Research Laboratory, Mesa AZ Abstract The US Air Force

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element : DIGITAL BATTLEFLD COMM.

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element : DIGITAL BATTLEFLD COMM. 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) FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

More information

GLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE (GBS)

GLOBAL 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE F / Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems. Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE F / Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems. Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Air Force Date: March 2014 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Prior

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED 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 information

MILITARY STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL RELAY (MILSTAR) SATELLITE SYSTEM

MILITARY STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL RELAY (MILSTAR) SATELLITE SYSTEM MILITARY STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL RELAY (MILSTAR) SATELLITE SYSTEM Air Force ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Systems: 6 satellites Lockheed Martin Total Program Cost (TY$): N/A Average Unit

More information

2017 Annual Missile Defense Small Business Programs Conference

2017 Annual Missile Defense Small Business Programs Conference 2017 Annual Missile Defense Small Business Programs Conference DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. 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 information

THE MINIATURE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW. Jason R. Feig Air Force Phillips Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CA

THE MINIATURE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW. Jason R. Feig Air Force Phillips Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CA THE MNATURE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY NTEGRATON PROGRAM: AN OVERVEW Jason R. Feig Air Force Phillips Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CA Richard S. Matlock Major G. Scott Yeakel Ballistic Missile Defense Organization,

More information

COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM

COMMON 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 Base OCO Total FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Cost To Complete Total Cost Total Program Element 20.396 20.046 19.938-19.938 20.389 20.799 21.255 22.393 Continuing

More information

NETWORKING THE SOLDIER ARMY TACTICAL NETWORK MODERNIZATION APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS LIMITED. AUGUST 2018

NETWORKING THE SOLDIER ARMY TACTICAL NETWORK MODERNIZATION APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS LIMITED. AUGUST 2018 NETWORKING THE SOLDIER ARMY TACTICAL NETWORK MODERNIZATION APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS LIMITED. AUGUST 2018 THE ARMY WILL FIELD A NETWORK THAT IS EASY TO USE, WORKS IN ALL ENVIRONMENTS,

More information

FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND, BRIGADE AND BELOW (FBCB2)

FORCE 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE F / Common Data Link Executive Agent (CDL EA) FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE F / Common Data Link Executive Agent (CDL EA) FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Air Force : February 2015 COST ($ in Millions) Years FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 To Program Element - 33.896 32.015 43.986-43.986 42.760 41.790

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 9 R-1 Line #188

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 9 R-1 Line #188 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2017 Air Force : February 2016 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Years

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE

UNCLASSIFIED 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE F: MQ-9 Development and Fielding. FY 2011 Total Estimate. FY 2011 OCO Estimate

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE F: MQ-9 Development and Fielding. 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 57.205 93.145

More information

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED : February 26 Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 27 2: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) FY 25 FY 26 R Program Element

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element : Integrated Broadcast Service FY 2015

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element : Integrated Broadcast Service FY 2015 COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 OCO # Total FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Air Force Page 1 of 5 R-1 Line #36 Complete Total Program Element - 18.216 - - - - - - - - - 18.216 644778:

More information

MILITARY STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL RELAY (MILSTAR) SATELLITE SYSTEM

MILITARY STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL RELAY (MILSTAR) SATELLITE SYSTEM MILITARY STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL RELAY (MILSTAR) SATELLITE SYSTEM Air Force ACAT ID Program Prime Contractor Total Number of Satellites: 6 Lockheed Martin Total Program Cost (TY$): N/A Average Unit Cost

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 United States Special Operations Command DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 Base OCO Total FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Cost

More information

Annual Automated ISR and Battle Management Symposium

Annual Automated ISR and Battle Management Symposium Defense Strategies Institute professional educational forum: 6th Annual Automated ISR and Battle Management Symposium February 13-14, 2018: Mary M. Gates Learning Center 701 N. Fairfax St. Alexandria,

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 7 R-1 Line #9

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 7 R-1 Line #9 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Army Date: March 2014 2040:, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 2: Applied COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Base FY

More information

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) ARMY COMMON GROUND STATION (CGS) (TIARA) FY 2000 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 15 R-1 Line #32

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 15 R-1 Line #32 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Air Force Date: March 2014 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 4: Advanced Component Development & Prototypes (ACD&P) COST

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE F: Integrated Broadcast Service (DEM/VAL) FY 2012 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE F: Integrated Broadcast Service (DEM/VAL) FY 2012 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2012 Air Force DATE: February 2011 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 To Program Element 24.438 20.580 20.046-20.046 19.901

More information

Yemen ISR CONOPS and Capabilities

Yemen ISR CONOPS and Capabilities Yemen ISR CONOPS and Capabilities THIS INFORMATION WAS APPROVED FOR PUBLISHING PER THE ITAR AS BASIC MARKETING INFORMATION OF DEFENSE ARTICLES OR PER THE EAR AS ADVERTISING PRINTED MATTER. harris.com Yemen

More information

First Announcement/Call For Papers

First Announcement/Call For Papers AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems Conference AIAA Missile Sciences Conference Abstract Deadline 30 June 2011 SECRET/U.S. ONLY 24 26 January 2012 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California

More information

STATEMENT OF. MICHAEL J. McCABE, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE DIVISION BEFORE THE SEAPOWER SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

STATEMENT OF. MICHAEL J. McCABE, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE DIVISION BEFORE THE SEAPOWER SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. McCABE, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE DIVISION BEFORE THE SEAPOWER SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 10 R-1 Line #201

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 10 R-1 Line #201 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2017 Air Force : February 2016 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Years

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Office of the Secretary Of Defense Date: February 2015 0400: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide / BA 3: Advanced Technology Development

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base 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 information

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) BUDGET ACTIVITY ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) PE NUMBER AND TITLE Sensor Tech COST (In Thousands) FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Cost to Total Cost

More information

Detect, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade and Evade Lethal Threats. Advanced Survivability Suite Solutions for Mission Success

Detect, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade and Evade Lethal Threats. Advanced Survivability Suite Solutions for Mission Success Detect, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade and Evade Lethal Threats Advanced Survivability Suite Solutions for Mission Success Countering Smart and Adaptive Threats Military pilots and aircrews must be prepared to

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2017 Base FY 2017 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2017 Base FY 2017 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2017 Office of the Secretary Of Defense Date: February 2016 0400: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide / BA 3: Advanced Technology Development

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 10 R-1 Line #10

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 10 R-1 Line #10 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Army Date: March 2014 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 2: Applied Research COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 Air Force DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Air Force Page 1 of 14 R-1 Line #216 To Program Element

More information

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) MAY 2009 APPROPRIATION / BUDGET ACTIVITY RDT&E, DEFENSE-WIDE / 7

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) MAY 2009 APPROPRIATION / BUDGET ACTIVITY RDT&E, DEFENSE-WIDE / 7 RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) DATE MAY 2009 APPROPRIATION / BUDGET ACTIVITY RDT&E, DEFENSE-WIDE / 7 R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE / PROJECT NO. PE 1160404BB Special Operations (SO) Tactical

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Air Force Date: February 2015 3600: Research,, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 6: RDT&E Management Support COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY 2014

More information

FIGHTER DATA LINK (FDL)

FIGHTER 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 Air Force DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2011 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 To Program Element 65.844 127.925 21.000-21.000 8.000 -

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 8 R-1 Line #211

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 8 R-1 Line #211 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Air Force Date: March 2014 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Prior

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE D8Z / Prompt Global Strike Capability Development. Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

UNCLASSIFIED. 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE F: Requirements Analysis and Maturation. FY 2011 Total Estimate. FY 2011 OCO Estimate

UNCLASSIFIED. 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED (U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands) PROJECT NUMBER & TITLE FY 2000 ACTUAL FY 2001 ESTIMATE FY 2002 ESTIMATE ** ** 83,557 CONT. ** The Science and Technology Program Elements (PEs) were restructured in FY

More information

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED EXHIBIT R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TEST & EVALUATION, NAVY / BA-5 Program Element (PE) No. and Name: 0604218N Air/Ocean

More information

Naval Earthmap Observer (Nemo) Program

Naval Earthmap Observer (Nemo) Program Naval Earthmap Observer (Nemo) Program Thomas L. Wilson Code 8200 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5000 phone: (202) 767-0518 fax: (202) 404-2898 e-mail: wilson@ncst.nrl.navy.mil

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED 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 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Years FY 2014

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Army : February 2015 2040: Research,, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 5: System & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) Years FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2017

More information

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit)

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) PE NUMBER: 0604256F PE TITLE: Threat Simulator Development RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) COST ($ In Thousands) FY 1998 Actual FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Air Force : February 2015 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Years

More information

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit) COST (In Thousands) FY1999 Actual FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY2005 to Program Element (PE) 42025 71879 57419 76674 71545 65355 65395 Continuing Continuing

More information

GOOD MORNING I D LIKE TO UNDERSCORE THREE OF ITS KEY POINTS:

GOOD MORNING I D LIKE TO UNDERSCORE THREE OF ITS KEY POINTS: Keynote by Dr. Thomas A. Kennedy Chairman and CEO of Raytheon Association of Old Crows Symposium Marriott Marquis Hotel Washington, D.C. 12.2.15 AS DELIVERED GOOD MORNING THANK YOU, GENERAL ISRAEL FOR

More information

ORS-5 Program Management Review

ORS-5 Program Management Review UNCLASSIFIED Cleared for Public Release ORS-5 Program Management Review "Operationally Responsive Space The Way Forward Aug 28, 2014 Presented to: AIAA 2015 Small Satellite Conference Utah State University

More information

Reconsidering the Relevancy of Air Power German Air Force Development

Reconsidering the Relevancy of Air Power German Air Force Development Abstract In a dynamically changing and complex security political environment it is necessary to constantly reconsider the relevancy of air power. In these days of change, it is essential to look far ahead

More information

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) Exhibit R-2 0602712A Countermine Systems ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Total Program Element (PE) Cost 26267 29171 22088 21965

More information

resource allocation decisions.

resource allocation decisions. Remarks by Dr. Donald C. Winter Secretary of Navy National Defense Industry Association 2006 Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington, D.C. Wednesday August

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2012 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. 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

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base 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 information

Future Combat Systems

Future Combat Systems Future Combat Systems Advanced Planning Briefing for Industry (APBI) BG John Bartley 15 October Overarching Acquisition Strategy Buy Future Combat Systems; Equip Soldiers; Field Units of Action (UA) Embrace

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE A / Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology. Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE A / Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology. Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Army Date: March 2014 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 3: Advanced Technology Development (ATD) COST ($ in Millions) Prior

More information

Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates

Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates Attack the Network Defeat the Device Tr ai n the Force February 2010 JUSTIFICATION OF FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2011 BUDGET ESTIMATES Table of Contents - Joint Improvised

More information

STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD P. FORMICA, USA

STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD P. FORMICA, USA RECORD VERSION STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD P. FORMICA, USA COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND ARMY FORCES STRATEGIC COMMAND BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

More information

C4I System Solutions.

C4I 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 information

Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification

Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification PE NUMBER: 0603850F PE TITLE: Integrated Broadcast Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification BUDGET ACTIVITY PE NUMBER AND TITLE 03 Advanced Technology Development (ATD) 0603850F Integrated Broadcast

More information

Tactical Edge Command and Control On-The-Move A New Paradigm

Tactical Edge Command and Control On-The-Move A New Paradigm Tactical Edge Command and Control On-The-Move A New Paradigm 16 th ICCRTS 22 June 2011 Paper ID 149 Mr. Ken Teske and Mr. Mike Tisdel FGM, Inc. C2OTM Focused Integration Team (FIT) 1 Agenda Define C2OTM

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2011 Total Estimate. FY 2011 OCO Estimate

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2011 Total Estimate. FY 2011 OCO Estimate COST ($ in Millions) FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Cost To Complete Program Element 143.612 160.959 162.286 0.000 162.286 165.007 158.842 156.055 157.994 Continuing Continuing

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element Continuing Continuing : Physical Security Equipment

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element Continuing Continuing : Physical Security Equipment COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 Base OCO # Total FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Cost To Complete Total Program Element - 3.350 3.874 - - - 1.977 - - - Continuing Continuing 645121: Physical

More information

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2016 Navy Date: February 2015 1319: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy / BA 6: RDT&E Management Support COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years R1 Program

More information

From Stove-pipe to Network Centric Leveraging Technology to Present a Unified View

From Stove-pipe to Network Centric Leveraging Technology to Present a Unified View From Stove-pipe to Network Centric Leveraging Technology to Present a Unified View Medhat A. Abuhantash U.S. Army, Communications and Electronics Command (CECOM), Software Engineering Center (SEC), Battlespace

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 10 R-1 Line #161

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 10 R-1 Line #161 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Army : March 2014 2040: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army / BA 7: Operational Systems Development COST ($ in Millions) Years FY 2013 FY

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 23 R-1 Line #212

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 23 R-1 Line #212 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Air Force Date: March 2014 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 7: Operational Development COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 21 R-1 Line #20

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force Page 1 of 21 R-1 Line #20 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Air Force Date: March 2014 3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force / BA 3: Advanced Development (ATD) COST ($ in Millions) Prior

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Navy Page 1 of 6 R-1 Line #162

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Navy Page 1 of 6 R-1 Line #162 Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2015 Navy Date: March 2014 1319: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy / BA 6: RDT&E Management Support COST ($ in Millions) Prior Years FY 2013

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2013 Air Force DATE: February 2012 COST ($ in Millions) Total FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Cost To Complete Total Cost Total Program Element 35.208 38.447

More information

Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification

Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification PE NUMBER: 0603850F PE TITLE: Integrated Broadcast Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification BUDGET ACTIVITY PE NUMBER AND TITLE Cost ($ in Millions) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: Military Engineering Advanced Technology

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: Military Engineering Advanced Technology Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 2012 Army DATE: February 2011 COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 Base OCO Total FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Cost To Complete Total Cost Total Program

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) FY 2012 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Office of Secretary Of Defense Page 1 of 7 R-1 Line #73

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Office of Secretary Of Defense Page 1 of 7 R-1 Line #73 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 3: Advanced Technology Development

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE COST ($ in Millions) Years FY 2012 FY 2013 # ## FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Air Force Page 1 of 11 R-1 Line #36 To Program Element - 7.074 10.429 28.764-28.764 21.717 22.687 20.902 20.383 Continuing

More information

AUSA BACKGROUND BRIEF

AUSA BACKGROUND BRIEF AUSA BACKGROUND BRIEF No. 46 January 1993 FORCE PROJECTION ARMY COMMAND AND CONTROL C2) Recently, the AUSA Institute of Land Watfare staff was briefed on the Army's command and control modernization plans.

More information

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 4660.3 April 29, 1996 ASD(C3I) SUBJECT: Secretary of Defense Communications References: (a) Title 10, United States Code (b) National Security Decision Directive,

More information

Force 2025 Maneuvers White Paper. 23 January DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release.

Force 2025 Maneuvers White Paper. 23 January DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release. White Paper 23 January 2014 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release. Enclosure 2 Introduction Force 2025 Maneuvers provides the means to evaluate and validate expeditionary capabilities for

More information

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. 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 information

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED : February 216 Exhibit R2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 217 24: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, / BA 5: tem Development & Demonstration (SDD) COST ($ in Millions) FY 215 FY 216 R1 Program

More information

STATEMENT J. MICHAEL GILMORE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

STATEMENT J. MICHAEL GILMORE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNTIL RELEASE BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES U.S. SENATE STATEMENT BY J. MICHAEL GILMORE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BEFORE THE

More information

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit)

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) PE 0603766E, R-1 #50 COST (In Millions) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Program Element (PE) Cost 0.000 0.000 95.654 151.966 205.382 183.796 200.335 203.073 Joint Warfare Systems NET-01 0.000

More information

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB 213 Navy DATE: February 212 COST ($ in Millions) FY 211 FY 212 PE 65866N: Navy Space & Electr Warfare FY 214 FY 215 FY 216 FY 217 Cost To Complete Cost

More information