Chapter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements 3.2.4 Air Force Assessment Results 12 Air Force Training Range Capability Assessment Results Te Air Force Range Capability Assessment data from 38 Air Force range complexes are summarized and presented in Table 3-11. Te Air Force Range Capability Cart and Scores are presented in Figure 3-29 and assessments by Range,, and are sown in Figures 3-31, 3-33, and 3-35. Te Air Force s 38 individual range assessments along wit comments for red and yellow ratings are included at te end of tis section (Figure 3-39). Air Force Training Range Encroacment Impact Assessment Results Te Air Force Range Encroacment Assessment data from 38 Air Force range complexes are summarized and presented in Table 3-12. Te Air Force Range Encroacment Cart and Scores are presented in Figure 3-30 and assessments by Range, Factors, and are sown in Figures 3-32, 3-34, and 3-36. Te Air Force s 38 individual encroacment assessments along wit comments for red and yellow ratings are included at te end of tis section (Figure 3-39). Te Air Force Range Capability and Encroacment assessment comparisons are presented in Table 3-13. 12 Of te 40 locations in te Air Force s range inventory in Appendix C, two electronic scoring sites (ESS) were not assessed (Belle Fource and Snyder). Tese two ESSs are not considered range complexes for te purpose of te report; terefore, te Air Force does not intend to evaluate tem unless mission canges or some encroacment factors treaten teir abilities to function. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 245

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Table 3-11 Air Force Capability Assessment Data Summary Range NMC PMC FMC Capability Scores Adirondack 11 19 45 7.27 Airburst 2 13 62 8.90 Atterbury 0 6 36 9.29 Avon Park 0 16 51 8.81 Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) 1 11 41 8.77 Blair Lake 0 17 37 8.43 Bollen 0 19 58 8.77 Cannon 10 37 11 5.09 Claiborne 0 12 6 6.67 Dare County Ranges 0 0 72 10.00 Draugon 9 22 15 5.65 Edwards Ranges 6 12 85 8.83 Eglin Ranges 0 44 70 8.07 Falcon 0 3 69 9.79 Grand Bay 0 2 108 9.91 Grayling 0 10 80 9.44 Hardwood 0 9 87 9.53 Holloman 4 3 86 9.41 Jefferson 1 16 70 8.97 McMullen 0 28 40 7.94 Melrose 1 4 55 9.50 Mountain Home Ranges 0 0 72 10.00 NTTR 8 14 67 8.31 Oklaoma 0 17 82 9.14 Patrick 0 1 12 9.62 Pilsung 4 11 19 7.21 Poinsett 0 6 126 9.77 Polygone 0 10 11 7.62 Razorback 1 6 76 9.52 Selby Ranges 0 5 94 9.75 Siegenberg 0 4 2 6.67 Smoky Hill 0 0 63 10.00 Torisima 15 4 4 2.61 Townsend 0 4 67 9.72 UTTR 0 8 80 9.55 Vandenberg 0 3 10 8.85 Warren Grove 5 22 54 8.02 Yukon 0 15 84 9.24 HQ AF 78 433 2,107 8.88 Table 3-12 Air Force Encroacment Assessment Data Summary Range Severe Moderate Minimal Encroacment Scores Adirondack 0 15 56 8.94 Airburst 0 0 74 10.00 Atterbury 0 11 20 8.23 Avon Park 0 7 74 9.57 Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) 0 8 38 9.13 Blair Lake 0 15 51 8.86 Bollen 0 15 73 9.15 Cannon 0 15 69 9.11 Claiborne 0 0 20 10.00 Dare County Ranges 0 0 88 10.00 Draugon 2 25 33 7.58 Edwards Ranges 0 16 35 8.43 Eglin Ranges 0 46 106 8.49 Falcon 0 0 90 10.00 Grand Bay 0 2 130 9.92 Grayling 1 8 90 9.49 Hardwood 0 15 84 9.24 Holloman 0 3 118 9.88 Jefferson 1 27 66 8.46 McMullen 0 4 84 9.77 Melrose 0 5 83 9.72 Mountain Home Ranges 0 0 88 10.00 NTTR 3 28 101 8.71 Oklaoma 0 20 101 9.17 Patrick 0 7 5 7.08 Pilsung 0 8 45 9.25 Poinsett 0 2 130 9.92 Polygone 0 6 14 8.50 Razorback 0 5 87 9.73 Selby Ranges 0 1 109 9.95 Siegenberg 0 4 4 7.50 Smoky Hill 0 0 88 10.00 Torisima 0 4 8 8.33 Townsend 0 9 90 9.55 UTTR 0 8 80 9.55 Vandenberg 0 5 17 8.86 Warren Grove 1 9 89 9.44 Yukon 0 31 90 8.72 HQ AF 8 384 2,628 9.34 246 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-29 Air Force Capability Cart and Scores Figure 3-30 Air Force Encroacment Cart and Scores 17% 3% 2012 8.88.3% 13% 2012 9.34 80% 87% Air Force s overall capability score decreased from 9.02 in 2011 to 8.88 in 2012 ``Air Force s Fully Mission Capable (FMC) assessments (green) decreased from 82% to 80% ``Partially Mission Capable (PMC) assessments (yellow) increased from 16% to 17% ``Not Mission Capable (NMC) assessments (red) increased from 2% to 3% Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capability Scores 8.52 8.52 8.91 9.02 Te top tree capability attributes wit te greatest number of red and yellow assessments are (Figure 3-33): ``Treats (16+81) `` (9+65) ``Range (8+45) Te top tree mission areas wit te greatest number of red and yellow assessment are (Figure 3-35): `` (10+89) `` (11+78) `` (16+49) Refer to te Air Forces s 38 individual range assessments for comments and additional information (Figure 3-39). Air Force s overall encroacment score marginally decreased from 9.44 in 2011 to 9.34 in 2012 ``Air Force s minimal risk assessments (green) decreased 89% to 87% ``Moderate risk assessment (yellow) increased from 11% to 13% ``Severe risk assessments (red) marginally decreased from 0.4% to 0.3% Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Encroacment Scores 9.08 9.07 9.28 9.44 Te tree encroacment factors wit te greatest number of red and yellow assessment are (Figure 3-34): `` (1+83) ``Munition Restrictions (0+56) ``Adjacent Land Use (2+53). Te top tree mission areas wit te greatest number of red and yellow assessments are (Figure 3-36): `` (3+82) `` (1+67) ``Special (0+57) Refer to te Air Forces s 38 individual range assessments for comments and additional information (Figure 3-39). 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 247

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-31 Air Force Capability Assessments by Range Adirondack 11 Airburst 2 13 Atterbury 6 Avon Park 16 BMGR 111 Blair Lake 17 37 Bollen 19 58 Cannon 10 37 11 Claiborne 12 6 Dare County Ranges 72 Draugon 9 22 15 Edwards Ranges 6 12 85 Eglin Ranges 44 Falcon 3 69 Grand Bay 2 108 Grayling 10 80 Hardwood 9 87 Holloman 4 3 86 Jefferson 1 16 70 McMullen 28 40 Melrose 14 55 Mountain Home Ranges 72 NTTR 8 14 67 Oklaoma 17 82 Patrick 1 12 4 11 19 Pilsung Poinsett Polygone 19 6 10 11 36 41 45 62 51 Razorback 1 6 76 1 Selby Ranges 5 94 Siegenberg 4 2 Smoky Hill 63 Torisima 15 4 4 Townsend 4 67 UTTRs 8 80 Vandenberg 3 10 Warren Grove 5 22 54 Yukon 15 84 35 126 30 0 30 60 90 120 150 70 Number of Assessments NMC PMC FMC Figure 3-32 Air Force Encroacment Assessments by Range Adirondack Airburst 15 56 74 Atterbury 11 20 Avon Park 7 74 BMGR 8 38 Blair Lake 15 51 Bollen Cannon 15 15 73 69 Claiborne 20 Dare County Ranges Draugon 2 25 88 33 Edwards Ranges 16 35 Eglin Ranges 46 Falcon 90 Grand Bay 2 130 Grayling 1 8 90 Hardwood 15 84 Holloman 3 118 Jefferson1 27 66 McMullen 4 84 Melrose 5 Mountain Home Ranges 83 88 NTTR 3 28 101 Oklaoma 20 101 Patrick 7 5 Pilsung 8 45 Poinsett 2 130 Polygone 6 14 Razorback 5 Selby Ranges 1 87 109 Siegenberg 4 4 109 Smoky Hill 88 Torisima 4 8 Townsend UTTRs 9 8 90 80 Vandenberg 5 17 Warren Grove1 9 89 Yukon 31 90 106 0 50 100 150 200 Number of Assessments Severe Moderate Minimal 248 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-33 Air Force Capability Assessment by Landspace 1 49 230 9 65 219 Seaspace 11 22 Underseaspace 5 Targets 6 43 205 Treats 16 81 172 Scoring & Feedback Systems 12 31 215 Infrastructure 8 36 228 Range 8 45 221 Small Arms Range 13 89 Collective Ranges 6 7 121 MOUT Facilities 9 30 177 Suite of Ranges 3 32 203 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Assessments NMC PMC FMC Figure 3-34 Air Force Encroacment Assessment by Factors T&E Species Munitions Restrictions Spectrum Maritime Sustainability Air Quality Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/Supply Wetlands 24 2 242 56 3 48 205 227 5 39 1 83 300 6 251 32 246 2 53 218 26 254 4 263 27 222 Range Transient 20 261 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Assessments Severe Moderate Minimal Figure 3-35 Air Force Capability Assessment by 11 78 216 Counterair 5 44 217 Counterspace 311 52 48 10 89 240 11 9 88 1314 138 81 16 49 187 6 21 204 Air Drop 2 31 201 Air Refueling 2 1 121 18 43 Special 3 52 253 Surveillance 5 34 226 and 0 70 140 210 280 350 Number of Assessments NMC PMC FMC Figure 3-36 Air Force Encroacment Assessment by 1 Counterair 67 47 270 273 Counterspace 8 75 48 3 10 5 82 282 7 153 3 41 281 10 252 Air Drop 31 246 Air Refueling 2 204 8 49 Special 57 267 Surveillance 14 and 0 50 100 271 150 200 250 300 350 400 Number of Assessments Severe Moderate Minimal 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 249

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Air Force Special Interest Section General Issues Gulf Regional Strategic Initiative (GRASI) Te eastern Gulf of Mexico region of te United States as one of te igest concentrations of military activity in te country. in te Gulf is quickly becoming overcongested, due to public and military growt. SUA was created to segregate civilian aircraft from military operations. SUA includes Restricted (RA), Military Areas (MOAs), Alert Areas, and Warning Areas, eac caracterized by unique requirements for non-participating aircraft. RA tat extends to te ground is especially important, as it allows for te testing of munitions dropped from an aircraft. Five major installations call te area ome, and eac requires te presence of SUA to accomplis its mission. Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) manages two-tirds of te surface-to-unlimited RA in te eastern United States. Due to te extremely significant reac tat use of tis ig-demand airspace as into military, socio-economic, and commercial aviation aspects of te region, te Air Force is actively working to ensure te continued utility of SUAs in te region via te Gulf Regional Strategic Initiative (GRASI). GRASI is te result of DoD bringing togeter appropriate stakeolders to discuss te growing issue of airspace congestion and its associated azards between military and civilian aircraft. Its goal is to ensure te availability of airspace and te continued economic prosperity of te Gulf coast. Using an agreed upon set of Performance Expectations, GRASI stakeolders worked for two years to model te region s future airspace usage and formulated te following goals: 1) develop and modernize air traffic control (ATC) procedures and airspace; 2) enance military capacity of te region; and 3) maintain and enance regional collaboration. A sitting Executive Steering Committee (ESC) oversees te GRASI, ensuring it runs according to tree core guiding principles: `` Economic Prosperity Solutions sould ave a neutral or positive economic impact on te region `` Collaboration Solutions sould involve cooperation between military stakeolders and general and commercial aviation officials `` Mission Solutions sould accommodate te region s various military missions and te requirements of civil aviation Based on tese principles, te ESC establised a set of recommendations to elp ensure near optimum use of airspace by civilians and te military. Tese recommendations, wic must be approved by te FAA, are as follows: `` Develop and Modernize ATC Procedures and `` Enance Military Capacity of te Region `` Maintain and Enance Regional Collaboration Air Force Center Sceduling Enterprise As recently as 2009, te Air Force used 32 different systems and associated procedures to scedule activity on teir ranges. Tese systems were all developed in te field to meet te day-to-day range needs. A 2007 Secretary of te Air Force Eagle Look examined te effectiveness of range management, and determined: `` Available airspace and range utilization reports did not provide a complete and accurate assessment of utilization `` Current reporting processes were labor intensive, difficult to complete, and lacked standardized tools `` IO activities were not consistent wit standard open air range activities, precluding future integration Tese issues led to a series of impacts across te Air Force, affecting bot te efficient use of current Air Force range and airspace assets, and te ability to plan for future needs. Tese impacts were summarized into five areas: `` Failure to maximize usage of te limited resource of range and airspace `` Failure to capture all capabilities of airspace and ranges `` Inaccurate report of airspace and range use `` Lack of insigt into possible addition capabilities and capacities `` Lack of integration in joint exercises A key recommendation of te report was to Implement a common automated utilization reporting tool for airspace and ranges. After examining all current Air Force and oter Military Service ranges sceduling systems, te Center Sceduling Enterprise (CSE) system was cosen to provide an end-to-end capability from sceduling a range and/or airspace asset to recording utilization. Te Air Force CSE is currently being used by Eglin AFB Range, Edwards AFB Range, and te Nevada Test and Training Range. Wit several of te Air Force largest ranges currently using te CSE, instituting use across te Air Force is te most cost-effective low risk course of action. Specific benefits of te Air Force CSE include tat it: `` Provides a common system for units to scedule Air Force assets across DoD ` ` Standardizes terms, practices, and procedures at all Air Force Ranges for sceduling and utilization reporting, allowing true asset comparisons 250 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements `` Provides a quantitative basis for defending current requirements and developing future needs `` Provides a single interface to te future mandatory FAA Military Data Entry (MADE) system for te sceduling of SUA Figure 3-37 Air Force CSE Status as of 8 August 2011 Current Status of te Air Force CSE Figure 3-37 depicts te Air Force CSE implementation status as of August 2011. sown in green is live and sceduling is accomplised using te CSE. sown in purple is live in te system, but tese range/airspace managers ave not completed training in te CSE. (Te initial round of training as been completed.) All remaining Air Force airspace as been entered into te system; owever, installation personnel training in use of te CSE will continue troug te second quarter of FY2011. CSE is in te process of being furter enanced using service oriented arcitecture (SOA) compliant to work wit oter fligt sceduling systems as tey come online in te future. Specific tecnical work as already been conducted wit Patriot Excalibur (PEX), Graduate Training Integration Management System (GTIMS), and Training Management System (TMS). Figure 3-38 depicts te information saring process between te fligt and range scedulers, as well as te approval process for sceduling ranges and/or airspace. Air Force CSE completed te interface wit te FAA MADE system and is expected to start live sceduling in te second quarter of FY2012. Te use of MADE will be required to scedule any SUA in te United States. Integration as also begun wit te Army/USMC Range Facility Management System (RFMSS). RFMSS is responsible for range land sceduling required by Army and USMC ground forces. Te goal of te integration efforts is to ave seamless sceduling between te Military Service systems for bot land and air assets. Energy Compatibility Studies and Tool Development Te Air Force is currently involved in analyzing and minimizing operational impacts posed by wind turbines on Air Force operations, particularly tose arising from interference wit radar operations. Tese turbines affect radar performance in two primary ways: decreased probability of detection and an increased number of false tracks (also referred to as clutter returns). A 2010 Air Force Researc Laboratory (AFRL) report reviewed existing publised researc on operational impacts wit respect to radar and oter missionrelated assets. Te report also summarized current and proposed mitigation solutions to assess effectiveness and te relative pros and cons of eac. In researcing te report, one outstanding issue was a lack of real world data to support impact and mitigation effects. Figure 3-38 Air Force Fligt Sceduler Process Flow Fligt Sceduler (PEX, GTIMS, etc) Build Missions Aircraft types, Aircrew, Syllabus, Squares Pre-Mission Range & Sceduler CSE User s Library of Mission Templates Working Missions Pending Missions Submitted Finalize Mission Plan & Scedule Submit for range/airspace availability, iterate conflicts Mission Planning Missions Non-Sceduled (Notice sent to Sceduler) Missions Sceduled Missions Canceled Build Missions Build Aircraft, Assign Crew, Confirm, Take-off, Return to Base Submit & Scedule Execution Post-Mission Pre-Mission Submit & Scedule Execution Post-Mission or or Submission/ Acceptance Range Office Range Office Takeoff/Configuration Confirmation Ops Desk Real Time Sceduling Situational Awareness Mission Tracking Bootlegs Sceduled Requested Bootleg Data Arcive & Range, Utilization, Sorties, Munitions, etc Missions Completed or Canceled Data Arcive Aircraft, Syllabus, Fligt Crew, Scores, etc Anoter observed sortfall was te lack of a coerent, topdown policy approac witin DoD to effectively and efficiently quantify te effects of a proposed renewable energy development on operations and engage wit developers. Proposal response was occurring late in te development process, past te point at wic DoD concerns and requests could be addressed, and in an ad oc manner. Tis situation resulted in legislative action tat significantly raised te requirements for opposing a proposed project. It is important to note tat tis sortfall is being addressed by te current DoD Siting Clearingouse. Mission Compatibility Analysis Tool (MCAT) Te goal of MCAT is to develop a GIS-based database of existing and proposed renewable energy projects. A tracking tool developed for te Navy will be modified for use by all MADE Mission Results SOA DATA EXCHANGE OSS Resources Range & Resources 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 251

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Military Services. Proposed renewable energy and potential transmission projects will be logged in MCAT by users, and te installations tat may be impacted will be notified. MCAT will ten track te project troug te OSD Clearingouse process, allowing installation and MAJCOM assessments to be logged and viewed. Tis will create a central record of all proposed energy projects, and a istory of action taken wit regard to eac proposal. Radar Toolbox Te Air Force Radar Toolbox is an automated software tool for recording, reducing, and analyzing surveillance system performance data. Te Air Force is working to add capability to te Radar Toolbox, wic would allow it to estimate te effects of a proposed wind development project on radar performance. Te ability to accurately predict te impact of a proposed project on radar performance would allow te Air Force to determine weter or not te proposal poses a azard to operations and, if so, provides evidence to support suc a claim. Efforts are currently underway to create a module tat estimates te decrease in Probability of Detection (PD) from a proposed wind farm. Once te modifications are made to add tis predictive analysis capability, an updated version of te Radar Toolbox tat includes te new features will be released for use by federal and civilian agencies, including for use by military installations. Obtaining a baseline radar performance would allow an installation to assess its vulnerability to degraded performance from proposed wind development. Performance data could also be used to evaluate mitigation solutions. Once te predictive analysis capability is developed, performance data would form te basis for estimating new performance wit te proposed development in place. Experimental Data Collection and Validation Experimental data collection provides documented scientific evidence of operational impacts, suc as degraded radar or radio communications performance, and allows for te development, testing and evaluation of analysis tools. Current activities include fligt trials of elicopter and fixed wing aircraft above local wind farms. Data is collected from te Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)-11 Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) operating at te Jonstown, Pennsylvania, airport. Radar performance is assessed by calculating probability of detection (PD) and false track rate for aircraft operating bot witin and outside of te wind farm to quantify wind turbine effects on tese metrics. Te results of two suc trials ave been submitted for publication, wic could lead to a peer reviewed scientific paper documenting te effects of wind turbines on ASR-11 performance. 252 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Tis Page is Intentionally Left Blank. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 253

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Adirondack Assessment Details Range Mission Description Adirondack is a Joint A-G (A-G) range, an intermediate training range for te ANG/AF, an all-purpose range for te Army, and a combined arms/joint live fire exercise range. Te primary user is te Vermont Air National Guard. Capability Data Encroacment Data Capability Encroacment Factors Landspace Seaspace Underseaspace Targets Treats Scoring & Feedback System Infrastructure Range Small Arms Ranges Collective Ranges MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Treatened and Endangered Species Munitions Restrictions Spectrum Maritime Sustainability Air Quality Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/Supply Wetlands Range Transients Counterair Counterspace Electronic Combat Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend FMC PMC NMC Capability Cart and Scores Counterair Counterspace Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend Minimal Moderate Severe Encroacment Cart and Scores 15% 7.27 21% 8.94 25% 60% 79% Adirondack Range is located on Ft. Drum and contained witin its training areas. Te range as large tracts of land tat remain unusable, due to te presence of MPPEH. Te range continues to request EOD support as personnel and funds become available in an effort to open up tese areas for training use. Adirondack as ad numerous requests from ASOS units and flying units for a digital gateway for training use on range. Te range as requisitioned most of te equipment needed for tis, but as not yet completed installation. Wetlands and Munitions Restrictions (residue) ave restricted use of te vast majority of wat would oterwise be usable training/target areas. Te range as made significant progress in te past two years in clearing target areas of MPPEH and gaining approval from te Ft. Drum Environmental Division to develop tose areas once cleared. Adirondack will continue to request EOD support to clear areas of MPPEH, and work wit Ft. Drum s Environmental Division in an effort to gain access to areas near/in designated wetlands. 254 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Adirondack Assessment Details Historical, Results, and Future Projections Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capability Scores 7.77 7.77 N/A 7.27 Encroacment Scores 8.96 8.96 N/A 8.94 Adirondack Detailed Comments Landspace Targets Treats Scoring & Feedback System Range Small Arms Ranges Collective Ranges Capability Observations Assigned Training Mission Score Comments Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unusable due to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban Air Drop training areas, and allowing realistic maneuver of ground forces. Te range will continue to request EOD support as funding and EOD personnel become available. Additional tree clearance will occur tis year. Te Air Force needs an IR stimulator for realistic/relevant treat simulation. Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unusable due Special to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban training areas, and allowing realistic maneuver of ground forces. Te range will continue to request EOD support as funding and EOD personnel become available. Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unusable due to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban training areas. Te range will continue to request EOD support as funding and EOD personnel become available. Counterair Same as above. Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unusable due to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban training areas, and allowing realistic maneuver of ground forces. Te range will continue to request EOD support as funding and EOD personnel become available. Te Wideband Remote Emitter Treat System (WRETS) as no supply or depot support. Te RWR Lite as very limited range. Te range as very limited success providing EW treats to its customers wen requested to do so. Counterair Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Air Drop Same as above. Counterair Te range as no ACMI type system available. Te range is transmitter only, visual/verbal feedback only in training. Tere is no current Link 16 capability. Te range as acquired most of te ardware to setup a Digital Gateway but installation is still in development. Counterair Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. Surveillance and Same as above. Muc of te range as become overgrown and/or littered wit MPPEH. Tis prevents installation of targets and precludes land navigation training on muc of te range. Te range continues to request EOD support and work wit environmental personnel to clear more land. Special Same as above. Surveillance and Same as above. Te Wideband Remote Emitter Treat System (WRETS) as no supply or depot support. Te RWR Lite as very limited range. Te range as very limited success providing EW treats to its customers wen requested to do so. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 255

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Adirondack Detailed Comments MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Treatened & Endangered Species Munitions Restrictions Wetlands Capability Observations Assigned Training Mission Score Comments Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unstable due to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban training areas. Te range will continue to request EOD support as funding and EOD personnel become available. Same as above. Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unstable due Special to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban training areas, and allowing realistic maneuver of ground forces. Te range will continue to request EOD support as funding and EOD personnel become available. Surveillance and Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. Surveillance and Same as above. Encroacment Observations Assigned Training Mission Score Comments Te presence of te Indiana Bat prevents te cutting of trees, wic may be used as abitat for te bat, during muc of te year. Tis restriction delays or prevents clear cutting of various parts of te range for target construction. Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. Surveillance and Same as above. Significant progress as been made in te past year wit EOD clearance, but large areas of land remain unstable due to te presence of MPPEH. Tese azards prevent te range from constructing realistic airfield and realistic urban training areas, and allowing realistic maneuver of ground forces. Te range will continue to request EOD support for surface clearance as funding and EOD personnel become available. Special Same as above. Army UAS activity and te Safety Danger Zones created by concurrent use of oter ranges on Fort Drum create a number of restrictions on any given day in te R5201 restricted airspace. Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. Wetlands restrictions ave ad a significant negative impact on target area/training area development. Te approval process required to develop target/training areas in te vicinity of wetlands often takes years to navigate. Requests for use of te wetlands mitigation bank on Ft. Drum ave always been denied. Wetlands cover muc of te training areas on Ft. Drum and, combined wit te presence of MPPEH, ave precluded use of vast tracts of land tat would oterwise be available for training. Te range continues to work wit te Environmental Division to resolve wetland related issues. Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. 256 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Tis Page is Intentionally Left Blank. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 257

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Airburst Assessment Details Range Mission Description Airburst is a 3,110 acre (845 acre impact area) Primary Training Range (PTR) located on te soutern portion of Fort Carson Army Post. Airburst s mission is to provide today s warfigters wit a training environment tat closely mirrors te battlefields and treats tey will face in today s combat teaters of operations. Te range caters to a broad spectrum of federal, state, and local military; law enforcement; and first responder units. Range managers design relevant training packages/ scenarios tat most closely replicate te real world callenges tese users will face. Te range is autorized all types of inert ordnance, to include PGMs and JDAM. Primary Training Units include: 120FS (F-16 Buckley AFB, CO), 13ASOS (Joint Terminal Attack lers, Fort Carson, CO), 1-2 (AH-64, Fort Carson, CO), 2-135 (CH-47, UH-60 Buckley AFB, CO), 302AW (C-130, Peterson AFB, CO), 160t SOAR (AH-6, MH-60, MH-47), 10SFG (Fort Carson), EOD (Buckley AFB, Peterson AFB), Security Forces (140 SFS/460 SFS Buckley AFB, 137 SWS Greeley, 302 SFS/21 SFS Peterson AFB, 10 SFS U.S. Air Force Academy). Oter users include: 917AW (A-10 Barksdale AFB, LA), various F/A-18 and F-16 units, PC- 12 sensor testing (Centennial Airfield, CO), AF Researc Lab, and te Naval Researc Lab. Capability Data Encroacment Data Capability Encroacment Factors Landspace Seaspace Underseaspace Targets Treats Scoring & Feedback System Infrastructure Range Small Arms Ranges Collective Ranges MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Treatened and Endangered Species Munitions Restrictions Spectrum Maritime Sustainability Air Quality Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/Supply Wetlands Range Transients Counterair Counterspace Electronic Combat Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend FMC PMC NMC Counterair Counterspace Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend Minimal Moderate Severe Capability Cart and Scores Encroacment Cart and Scores 3% 17% 80% 8.90 100% 10.00 258 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Airburst Assessment Details Historical, Results, and Future Projections Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capability Scores 8.28 8.28 10.00 8.90 Encroacment Scores 8.86 8.86 10.00 10.00 A vast majority of areas rated yellow can be attributed to te range s inability to create te most realistic and relevant training environment due to insufficient landspace, airspace, funding and target sets. Te range performs very well at Close Air, Basic Surface Attack, and Basic Air Drops. Training evolutions suffer in terms of realism/relevance wen te mission dictates large ground forces, enanced treats, and large force exercises. In te coming years we will continue to operate as is currently, maximizing available assets and personnel te Air Force wile operating on a srinking budget. Airburst Detailed Comments Assigned Training Mission Landspace Targets Treats Infrastructure MOUT Facilities Counterair Capability Observations Score Comments Limited land space does not allow for te building of a realistic Urban CAS village. Te training impact is a limited number of targets and associated scenarios. Te range will continue to build te best Urban CAS village witin current land constraints. Insufficient volume and attributes of airspace to conduct large force exercises or for bomber aircraft to maneuver. Marginal for figter aircraft conducting strategic attack training. Insufficient volume and attributes of airspace to conduct large force exercises. Working to expand airspace via te Colorado Initiative. Volume and attributes of airspace limits tactics and ordnance. Virtually all attack runs wit PGMs or JDAM are limited to one direction. Working to expand airspace via Colorado Initiative. Range target suite provides some but not all target types possible for strategic attack (e.g., real buildings/complexes vice stacked conex containers). Additionally, te range does not posses any target sets wit required fidelity for 5t generation figters. Te Air Force will continue to try to build te most realistic target sets tat current assets allow. Range target suite provides some but not all target types possible for close air support. Limits are no realistic village for Urban CAS and no compressed soil block macine to build mud uts similar to tose in OIF/OEF. Additionally, te range does not ave any moving strafe targets tat can be employed against wit inert ordnance. Currently trying to procure funds for te compressed soil block macine troug various cannels. Limited capability to provide targets in te electro-magnetic spectrum, bot in target types as well as range and cueing. Limited capability to replicate a few tactical surface-to-air treats RWR Lite x1, Smokey SAM launcers x 2. Limited capability to replicate a few tactical surface-to-air treats RWR Lite x1, Smokey SAM launcers x 2. Limited untrained, igly motivated, ground force (personnel) act as aggressors/red Force against JTACS/SOF. Air Drop Limited capability to replicate a few tactical surface-to-air treats RWR Lite x1, Smokey SAM launcers x 2. Special Limited capability to replicate a few tactical surface-to-air treats RWR Lite x1, Smokey SAM launcers x 2. Limited untrained, igly motivated, ground force (personnel) act as aggressors/red Force against SOF. Surveillance and Current communications suite is antiquated and need of replacement by building of greater functional configuration, visibility, and cost-effective construction. Date of remedy unknown. Additionally, no SADL, Link-16 or RADS (ATC feed) capabilities at te range. Currently attempting to procure software/ardware for a SADL and RADS feed. No small paved runway available for small ISR platforms requiring a prepared or ard surface. A MOUT facility would greatly enance te CAS and ground forces (Security Forces, EOD, and Special Ops Forces) training evolutions. Tis could go and in and wit an Urban CAS Village. Special Same as above. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 259

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Atterbury Range Assessment Details Range Mission Description Atterbury Range provides primary training for te 122nd FW, 178t FW, 180t FW, and joint training for LFE s, MEU s, SOF, SMERF, FEMA, ASOS, IW, Urban Warfare, and Homeland Defense all in conjunction wit te Muskatatuck Urban Warfare Training Center. Capability Data Encroacment Data Capability Encroacment Factors Landspace Seaspace Underseaspace Targets Treats Scoring & Feedback System Infrastructure Range Small Arms Ranges Collective Ranges MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Treatened and Endangered Species Munitions Restrictions Spectrum Maritime Sustainability Air Quality Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/Supply Wetlands Range Transients Counterair Counterspace Electronic Combat Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend FMC PMC NMC Capability Cart and Scores Counterair Counterspace Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend Minimal Moderate Severe Encroacment Cart and Scores 14% 86% 9.29 35% 65% 8.23 1. 14% of te Air Force s range/range complex mission areas are Partially Mission Capable (PMC) 2. MOUT Facilities and Suite of Ranges are impacting te range s capability to support ; Special ; and. 1. 35% of te range/range complex mission is moderately impacted by encroacment factors 2. Noise Restrictions and Adjacent Land Use are restricting te range s ability to support, Counterair, and. 260 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Atterbury Range Assessment Details Historical, Results, and Future Projections Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capability Scores 8.98 8.98 8.98 9.29 Encroacment Scores 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 No comments No comments Atterbury Detailed Comments MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Capability Observations Assigned Training Mission Score Comments MOUT facilities for te range are under construction. Special Same as above. Surveillance, and Same as above. Tere are various types of ranges available on post troug te Army. Special Same as above. Surveillance, and Same as above. Encroacment Observations Factors Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/ Supply Range Transients Assigned Training Mission Score Comment Counterair Te Racer MOA cannot be sceduled at te same time as te JPG MOA, restricting te potential number of missions tat could be sceduled. Tere are occasional altitude restrictions over adjacent Army ranges. Missions cannot over fly Princes Lakes to te west due to noise complaints. Counterair Same as above. Same as above. Missions cannot over fly Princes Lakes to te west due to noise complaints. Counterair Same as above. Same as above. Counterair Tere are occasional civilian aircraft entering airspace during operations. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 261

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Avon Park Assessment Details Range Mission Description Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) provides DoD and Allied users a full-spectrum training facility focused on A-G operations. Te complex maintains unique target sets, training sites, and state of te art scoring systems in battle space designated for fire and maneuver. Infrastructure supports any size unit up to and including composite large force exercises. Wile Avon Park is part of te 23rd Wing and is an Air Combat Command installation, te range s primary user is te 93rd FS, Homestead Air Reserve Base, FL. Avon Park is also ost to Atlantic Strike and Jaded Tunder Large Force Employments. Capability Data Encroacment Data Capability Encroacment Factors Landspace Seaspace Underseaspace Targets Treats Scoring & Feedback System Infrastructure Range Small Arms Ranges Collective Ranges MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Treatened and Endangered Species Munitions Restrictions Spectrum Maritime Sustainability Air Quality Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/Supply Wetlands Range Transients Counterair Counterspace Electronic Combat Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend FMC PMC NMC Capability Cart and Scores Counterair Counterspace Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend Minimal Moderate Severe Encroacment Cart and Scores 24% 8.81 9% 9.57 76% 91% Tere is limited capability to train for Counterair, wic is not a primary mission of APAFR. capability is limited by lack of runway certification; air assets must launc and recover from MacDill AFB, reducing teir time on station. Biggest capability limitation as been a tremendous increase in op-tempo wit no corresponding increase in manpower. APAFR is at or near its maximum training capacity wit current manning. Adjacent land use continues to be te primary area of encroacment concern. Completion of te JLUS was a significant step. Te local jurisdictions provided a good deal of support to te process and were generally very supportive of te range mission. Increased UAS/RPA activity may igligt additional encroacment issues in te future. Wetlands will continue to be a callenge, especially in te State of Florida. 262 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Avon Park Assessment Details Historical, Results, and Future Projections Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capability Scores 9.62 9.62 9.62 8.81 Encroacment Scores 9.32 9.32 9.32 9.57 APAFR s capabilities rating as decreased in relation to te last two years, primarily due to a significant increase in op-tempo and te number and variety of units seeking training space. APAFR will be pursuing a man-power study in an effort to better align workload and manpower requirements. APAFR is actively pursuing runway certification and te programming actions needed to sustain te airfield as an integral part of te training environment. One significant mission cange will be te introduction of te F-35 into te CAF and te associated operational requirements. Impacts of te F-35 operational training on range operations are not known at tis time. Increased empasis on public outreac and te JLUS process as elped reduce encroacment impacts. Efforts to pursue adoption of te JLUS recommendations by te local jurisdictions will be a major empasis area in te coming years. Recently passed legislation in te State of Florida makes it mandatory for local planning councils to coordinate wit military installations in teir districts. Tis as te potential to lessen encroacment pressures. Avon Park Detailed Comments Treats Scoring & Feedback System Capability Observations Assigned Training Mission Score Comments Counterair APAFR as no ig-fidelity, surface-to-air treat replication capability. Lack of ig-fidelity treats limits te quality of training, especially during large force exercises. No current plans to integrate ig-fidelity treats at APAFR. Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. Surveillance and Same as above. Counterair APAFR lacks any TSPI capability, wic limits fidelity of air to air training. No current plans to integrate TSPI capability at APAFR. APAFR as an outdated communications infrastructure tat cannot support LVC operations. Tis limits fidelity of training. APAFR communications upgrade as been funded and is underway. Expect new arcitecture in place by end of CY2010. LVC capability as been discussed and will be more actively pursued once upgrade is complete. Same as above. APAFR as an 8000x150 ft runway tat is currently only certified as an LZ. Lack of runway certification severely Infrastructure Counterair limits te number and type of aircraft tat can operate from te range. Range is pursuing airfield certification/waiver approval wit an estimated completion witin 6 monts. Same as above. Operational tempo as significantly increased, particularly over te last five years. Range manning as not been updated to keep pace wit te additional workload. Manning, combined wit te 60 our per week contract limitation, as reaced te point were APAFR staff cannot support all incoming training requests. Additionally, APAFR lacks Counterair SIPRNET capability, meaning units ave to rescedule or are being denied range time. Lack of SIPRNET limits training fidelity and complicates range sceduling. APAFR staff will pursue a manpower survey and seek additional manpower autorizations, but an estimated completion date is unknown. SIPRNET capability will be pursued once communications infrastructure upgrade is complete. Range Same as above. Additionally, APAFR as limited capability to respond to wildland fires and relies eavily on State assistance. APAFR will be coordinating te results of a wildland fire program evaluation wit te 23rd WG. Same as above. Same as above. Special Same as above. Surveillance and Same as above. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 263

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Avon Park Detailed Comments Spectrum Adjacent Land Use Wetlands Assigned Training Mission Surveillance and Counterair Encroacment Observations Score Comments Limited frequencies are available of UAS/RPA activity. Due to increased UAS/RPA activity at APAFR, available frequencies must be deconflicted troug sceduling. Requests for range time ave to be denied due to spectrum availability, despite available air and ground space. APAFR personnel need to determine if additional frequencies can be obtained and if te expanded frequencies will alleviate te conflicts. Private development and oter land use could affect te training mission at APAFR. A specific project is te Destiny project in Osceola County, wic would affect 1/3rd of te Marion MOA. APAFR does not ave a community planner. If te development goes troug, APAFR could lose 1/3rd of te Marion MOA, wic extends from 500 to 5000 ft. AGL. Te Air Force recently completed a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) involving four counties and tree municipalities, including Osceola County. It is working wit all te planning councils to adopt JLUS recommendations, wic will elp figt encroacment. APAFR needs an autorization for a community planner. ECD Encroacment is an ongoing issue wit no completion date. Same as above. Air Refueling Same as above. Additionally, low-level elicopter refueling occurs in Marion MOA. Special Same as above. Any new training mission, project, or cange to an existing range activity tat impacts wetlands requires extensive coordination and approval from numerous State and Federal entities. Efforts to meet wetland requirements ave te potential to delay or even prevent training activities. An effort to produce a range-wide FONPA is being processed to minimize impact. Special Same as above. 264 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Tis Page is Intentionally Left Blank. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 265

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Figure 3-39 Air Force Capability and Encroacment Assessment Detail (continued) Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) Assessment Details Range Mission Description BMGR East (BMGR-E) is te major training range for te 56 FW, 162 FW, 355 FW, 563 RQS, and Arizona Army National Guard. BMGR supports daily A-G sorties and electronic combat training. Te range also supports: Air Guard/Air Reserve Test Center operations; Arizona ANG Snowbird deployed operations; ACC directed Angel Tunder Ex and USMC Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course training; world-wide JTAC training as well as coalition war figter A-G employment; HE/inert weapons employment; combat laser operations wit a vast array of targets; and full spectrum Air Combat Training Systems to include ACMI, treat simulation, datalink network, C2. Primary range users include: 56 FW (AETC) F-16. 162 FW AZ ANG (AETC) F-16; 355 FW (ACC) A-10; 563 RQG (AFSOC) HC- 130/H-60; AFRES H-60; AZ ArNG AH-64; and tree separate and distinct foreign military sales squadrons from Taiwan and Singapore. Capability Data Encroacment Data Capability Encroacment Factors Landspace Seaspace Underseaspace Targets Treats Scoring & Feedback System Infrastructure Range Small Arms Ranges Collective Ranges MOUT Facilities Suite of Ranges Treatened and Endangered Species Munitions Restrictions Spectrum Maritime Sustainability Air Quality Noise Restrictions Adjacent Land Use Cultural Resources Water Quality/Supply Wetlands Range Transients Counterair Counterspace Electronic Combat Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend FMC PMC NMC Counterair Counterspace Air Drop Air Refueling Special Legend Minimal Moderate Severe Capability Cart and Scores Encroacment Cart and Scores 21% 2% 8.77 17% 9.13 77% 83% 266 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

Capter 3: Adequacy of Existing Range Resources to Meet Training Requirements Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) Assessment Details 1. Did not rate training activities currently not conducted on te BMGR-E. In some cases, te range could support oter mission needs, but wit limited capability; i.e., ISR, electronic combat. 2. Effective C2 of training space is aving a negative effect on some operations/ training, i.e., JTAC train-like-you figt operations. 3. Better fidelity MOUT facilities is te single most impactful attribute affecting te training mission. 4. Wile not a core competency of te range, supporting SPECOPS and like training is most te effected training activity on te BMGR. 1. 82.61% of te range/range complex mission areas are fully capable and are not impacted by encroacment factors. 2. 17.39% of te range/range complex missions areas are moderately impacted by encroacment factors, but are being addressed. 3. Wile it appears cultural resources and range transients are impacting BMGR-E te most, te Air Force is still able to support te mission as it stands today. Future/different military mission requirements may be more or less impacted in te future. Cultural impact is prevalent, given magnitude of arceological finds on range. Its impact is mitigated troug need, assessment, and resolution. Range Transients issue is sporadic, based on Border Patrol effectiveness and overall flow of illegal traffic, but raises concern due to lack of solid visibility downrange. Range users ave seen illegal transients in nontraditional areas and in an area not traditionally monitored. mission most effected by above encroacment factors. Sonoran Prongorn population on te increase, due in part to a joint captive breeding venture. Introduction of a second erd being proposed by U.S. Fis and Wildlife Service. Potential exists to de-list te species in mid-term, vice long term, if erd continues to grow at current rate. 4. No range/range complex mission areas are severely impacted by encroacment. Te Air Force is beginning to see solar development gain significant interest and development on te nortern border of te BMGR-E (west of Gila Bend, AZ). Historical, Results, and Future Projections Historical, Results, and Future Projections Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capability Scores 8.77 8.77 8.77 8.77 Encroacment Scores 9.13 9.13 9.13 9.13 1. Electronic combat/treats are a limited treat capability, wit lack of interactive feedback to pilots. BMGR is seeing a lack of use due to limited system capabilities and nature/pace of F-16 syllabus training. 2. Wile / is coded green, integration of RPAs/UAVs is extremely difficult, if not impossible, based on current manned aircraft customer base (significant amount of RTU training coupled wit operational squadron training). Te RPA/UAV mission is currently assessed as incompatible. 1. Rating stayed te same; owever, BMGR realized significant gain in te new Sonoran Prongorn Biological Opinion. New opinion reduced target closure criteria and lessened impact by over 80 percent, and a take statement was added to te agreement. New opinion realized from ealt of population and ongoing efforts, including Air Force cooperation. Due to its endangered status, te Prongorn must be actively monitored and will continue to be an impact to te mission until de-listed. 2. Until te U.S.-Mexican border can be truly controlled, illegal trespass will continue to be an issue and impact te military mission. Excellent coordination wit Customs and Border Protection is elping minimize impacts; most crossing are occurring during no-military operating times. Currently, no electronic observation means available on te BMGR (USAF side). All clearing is done by umans on-site, and can ave limited effect based on volume of land space. 3. Non-renewable energy source development still being watced on te nortern border of BMGR, primarily in te vicinity of Gila Bend, AZ. No ground breaking development to date, but permits and incentives ave been issued by te State. 56 RMO and 56 FW trying to stay engaged wit developers to ensure compatible development wit military flying operations is considered. Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) Detailed Comments Capability Observations Assigned Score Comments Training Mission Targets Special Treats Tere are limited targets designed for SPECOPs (e.g., people/pop ups). Tere are severely limited opportunities for SPECOPs and combat searc and rescue training. Planned action is to continue development of SPECOPs/CSAR ground movement area and te current EIS addressing te development of a elicopter unique range incorporating pop-up targets. ROD expected in Spring 2011; target area specific funding source unknown. Tere is a lack of interactive treat simulation, limited treat capability, and no electronic means for real time feedback capability to ECM or maneuver. Terefore, te range as limited usefulness for flying community. Unknown remedies at tis time; operations must provide requirement in order for BMGR-E to realize capability to support requirement. 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report 267