UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military


 DOT&E

Director, Operational Test & Evaluation
  
FY97 Annual Report

FY97 Annual Report

TEST RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

One of DOT&E's Title 10 statutory responsibilities is to "review and make recommendations to the SECDEF on all budgetary and financial matters relating to OT&E, including operational test facilities and equipment." Within DOT&E, the responsibility for operational test facilities and equipment is assigned to the Deputy Director for Resources and Administration (R&A). This section covers R&A initiatives and test resource activities during FY97.

Our view is that DoD testing should be a single continuum from the beginning of the development process through production, deployment, and system upgrades. While each phase of testing makes its own unique contribution to the process, weaknesses in one phase can affect the adequacy of the overall test program. Accordingly, DOT&E urges the elimination of T&E resource shortfalls, regardless of where in the testing cycle they appear.

During FY97, DOT&E reviewed critical resource elements of T&E, including physical infrastructure, facilities and ranges, human resources, funding, and management. These areas were examined from three distinct time perspectives: today's capability, the path that the T&E community is on as it moves toward the future, and the projected capability to meet the testing challenges of 2010 and beyond.

 
T&E Resources Today

Today, the effects of T&E resource shortfalls are increasingly acute as demands to do more with less are imposed on the T&E establishment. Today's situation would be far worst were it not for the remaining cadre of experienced and innovative test personnel who must strive to overcome our facilities and equipment shortfalls. Obsolete facilities and equipment increasingly fall short of data collection requirements. Taken together-the people, facilities, and processes-the T&E infrastructure is under great stress.

The two charts shown on the next page help to illustrate the root cause of today's T&E shortfalls. The T&E infrastructure funding has dropped 34 percent and the T&E investment funding has dropped 35 percent below the FY87 level as of FY97. These decreasing funding trends are exacerbated by the fact that T&E did not share in the build-up of RDT&E that peaked in FY87 and FY88. In the general environment of increasing defense resources during the mid-to late 1980s, investment in T&E remained essentially flat. T&E workload, however, continued to rise and today is still higher than it was in the early 1980s.

The data in the two charts are derived from reporting by installations in the Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB). The MRTFBs comprise ranges and facilities that are national test assets, and which are owned and operated by individual Services. The ranges and facilities that make up the MRTFBs are shown on below.

DoD's MRTFB T&E complex includes many of the largest and most technologically sophisticated test facilities in the world. These facilities support a multitude of activities including research; weapons system development, production, and modification testing; depot maintenance testing; operational training and testing; aging and surveillance testing; foreign military sales; live fire testing; and contracted service to industry in the testing of commercial products.

  T&E's Path to the Future

Not only must we work to eliminate existing shortfalls, we must keep pace with advancing technology. In many areas, T&E resources are being outpaced by new technology, and we have significant ground to make up if we are to deal effectively with the challenges of tomorrow. For example, the National and Theater Missile Defense programs all present current and future T&E challenges. We also are not well prepared to deal with information warfare, with "systems of systems" tests, or with future systems interoperability issues. Our ability to apply modeling and simulation lags far behind current technology. Well before we reach 2010, demands of emerging technology will severely stress and likely exceed our capabilities to conduct necessary measurements and deliver essential information.

During this period of rapid change, a significant percentage of our most valuable and experienced T&E personnel will be lost to retirement or higher-paying employers. In addition, hiring and promotion freezes, personnel drawdowns, contracting out, and limited funding make difficult the hiring and promotion of outstanding, younger members of the workforce. Consequently, the T&E community lacks the ability to attract and retain the best and brightest of available technical experts.
 

 
The chart on the left above portrays the declining trend of both DoD manpower and T&E infrastructure, while the right chart addresses overall DoD budget trends. As reported last year, T&E funding continues to decline as we prepare for the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and for the force structure needed for Joint Vision 2010. The RDT&E budget line on the right chart shows a significant decrease from $48 billion in FY87 to $31 billion in FY03 in constant FY98 dollars. This decrease of some 35 percent in RDT&E funding reflects steady decreases in T&E investment. Also note the increase in procurement funds after FY97. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) calls for substantial increases in systems development and procurement funding. Weapons system modernization is projected to increase to $63.5 billion by 2003, a well-justified increase of 50 percent above 1996 procurement levels. Since the T&E workload is driven by the number and variety of different systems under test-not by production quantities-the QDR increases to build new military systems also will increase the T&E workload.

On the plus side, we do have a corporate level strategic plan that helps to point our way to the future, and we are developing detailed roadmaps. We have done a major share of the preparation and planning necessary to meet future demands; we just are not able to fund the implementation. The real problem today is not lack of planning. It is limited resources to implement these directions.

T&E in 2010 and Beyond

Joint Vision 2010, and the other documents noted in the Introduction, provide a vision of the military environment ten or more years hence and offer valuable guidance concerning required test capabilities. It is certainly a safe prediction that the weapons we will be called upon to test will be more sophisticated with more advanced technology. Without the resources and funding required to sustain, maintain and modernize T&E, one sees the inescapable conclusion that T&E will reach a point in the foreseeable future where the quality of testing and the information provided will deteriorate below reasonable and acceptable limits. Without some new investment, our T&E capabilities will not support our nation's defense readiness.

 While money is critical, an additional factor is a management structure and process that makes it difficult to get out of this situation. The current Executive Agent management structure is a labyrinth of boards, councils, and committees that makes decisive action cumbersome and protracted. If we are to put T&E on a firm footing to face the future, streamlining the Service management structure is an imperative companion to infrastructure modernization.

Modernization Is an Imperative

Assuring the effectiveness of our weapons requires an adequate test and evaluation infrastructure. Maintenance and upgrade of that infrastructure is not an option, but current funding programmed for T&E resources is not sufficient to sustain and modernize that infrastructure. DoD cannot continue on this path and expect to maintain objective confidence in its weapons. That confidence can only be achieved through testing under realistic conditions.

With downsizing and reduction, funding for infrastructure is often viewed as less important than funding allocated for weapon system procurement. Infrastructure in general is considered to be part of the "tail," not part of the "teeth" of the fighting force. In fact, T&E infrastructure is far from the "tail." T&E, along with military training, is what sharpens the teeth and keeps them sharp. T&E is also how we know how sharp the "teeth" really are. In the desire to increase the "tooth to tail" ratio, T&E infrastructure modernization often suffers. DOT&E supports the need to reduce the cost of the T&E infrastructure, but this must be accomplished with a program that balances further reductions with revitalization, modernization, and new investment.

DOT&E serves as a voice for T&E modernization within the Pentagon and is proactive in helping to shape strategic planning and guidance for T&E resources. Frequently, DOT&E has been instrumental in preventing or reducing budget reductions that might negatively impact needed T&E capabilities. Sometimes the proposed reductions resulted from a lack of understanding by decision-makers on the contribution of the area to be reduced. In these cases, DOT&E quickly compiled and provided impacts and additional information that influenced the final decisions.

Limited funding during the last 10 to 15 years has consistently delayed efforts aimed at modernizing the T&E infrastructure. Consequently, many of our most critical test facilities date back to the 1950s when we were engaged in early stages of the Cold War. The average age of two-thirds of the T&E physical plant is over 30 years old. To bring down the average age to an acceptable limit, we must both increase the level of investment in our infrastructure and carefully eliminating obsolete, inefficient, or underutilized capabilities and test facilities.

 

T&E Manpower (RDT&E Funded MRTFBs)

The DoD T&E workforce is declining significantly, as illustrated above. The chart shows the decreasing institutionally funded workyears for military, civilian, and support contractors in FY87, FY97 and FY00. This decline in personnel has many causes, including budget cuts, government drawdowns, higher pay in the private sector, incentives for early retirement, and broadly applied hiring and promotion freezes. The lack of stable T&E funding combined with the continued decline of available human resources underscores the compelling need to revitalize T&E.

Some personnel reductions in specific skill areas have had disproportionate impact on T&E. For example, loss of military spaces for Soldier, Maintainer, Tester, and Evaluator personnel at test ranges prevents the evaluation of equipment by actual military personnel under field conditions as part of development testing. This results in problems, that previously would have been discovered and corrected during development tests, being overlooked or undiscovered until much later in the program.

Implementing Defense Guidance in Test and Evaluation

As a result of the QDR, DoD is now implementing broad direction to build a solid financial foundation for weapons modernization that is largely financed by offsetting reductions in other areas, particularly infrastructure reductions. T&E was viewed by the QDR as a part of the acquisition infrastructure, and QDR infrastructure reductions may impact T&E. The QDR, as DoD's strategic plan, serves as the capstone of the T&E strategic planning process.

Joint Vision 2010 is a Joint Chiefs of Staff planning document created to highlight the weapons and operational strategy required to achieve dominance in the joint warfighting environment of the early 21st century. For DOT&E, it provides insight into how future warfighting concepts might drive development of weapons systems and the testing challenges associated with these new weapons and technologies. Accordingly, Joint Vision 2010 provides a starting point for much of our resource planning.

The FY99-03 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) is the first DPG to positively address significant testing issues, including the importance of widespread T&E infrastructure modernization. Much of the favorable T&E language in the DPG was suggested by DOT&E during development of the document. In particular, the DPG states:

"Emphasis should be placed on reducing outdated, inefficient T&E capability and replacing it with modern, cost-effective or more productive capability which supports the Department's modernization priorities."

"Components should seek efficiencies that result in lower operating cost through the use of more advanced technology, simulation, outsourcing and privatization and any other means for reducing cost. Where practical, savings from such alternatives should be used to accelerate the modernization of T&E facilities."

The directions in the DPG have not yet been translated into action, and the burden is now on the T&E community to implement the clear guidance it provides. We need to work to ensure that the DPG emphasis on T&E modernization is implemented in Program Objective Memorandum formulation. We also need to meticulously document cost savings gained through efficiencies and press to retain a significant percentage of such savings for new investment to modernize T&E.

A Corporate Strategy for T&E Resources and Investments

For a number of years, DOT&E has emphasized that neglect of T&E infrastructure modernization cannot continue without loss of significant capabilities. We have already lost critical T&E capability simply because we cannot afford to continue operating certain facilities and test equipment. DOT&E has worked proactively to stop these downward trends by establishing a modernization program. Underfunding in past years has resulted in increased dependence on equipment that is increasingly costly to maintain. Infrastructure maintenance costs are consuming too much of range operation and maintenance budgets. This leaves little money for much needed modernization. This leads to a situation where modernization of T&E capability must be delayed indefinitely and consequently our ability to conduct meaningful tests steadily degrades year after year.

DOT&E recognized that the T&E community needed a comprehensive strategic plan for the future that clearly lays out directions for investments in the infrastructure. Discussions with the Office of the Director, Test, Systems Engineering and Evaluation (DTSE&E) indicated that they shared the view that a strategic plan was necessary to take charge of our future. Accordingly, DOT&E and DTSE&E jointly developed a strategic vision for investment in test and evaluation resources. We have crafted a corporate strategy that points the way to the realization of that vision. This vision is to:

Create and Sustain Sufficient T&E Capability that Contributes to Tomorrow's Readiness by Enabling the Fielding and Use of Affordable, Superior Weapons that Work. The strategic plan supplements this vision with specific goals, each goal having specific supporting objectives. There are a total of 24 objectives in our current plan, each time-phased for completion within a 5-year period. As objectives are completed, new ones will be added. We have structured the plan to build a step-by-step framework for achieving success in revitalizing the test infrastructure through targeted investments.

The four goals that are essential if we are to realize this vision are:

  • A Strong T&E Infrastructure for Efficiency and Productivity
  • A Foundation for the Future T&E Infrastructure
  • A Corporate Investment Process, Integrating OSD and Service Priorities
  • Strategic Partnerships, Leveraging "Win-Win" Outcomes
These goals establish the basic framework for modernization and provide for the future foundation of the T&E infrastructure. They also are designed to establish an implementing framework through a corporate investment process with a family of strategic partnerships. Taken together, these goals address all the principal elements of the T&E infrastructure: people, facilities, and processes.

Nine strategic planning implementation teams have been created and assigned milestones for accomplishment of the 24 specific objectives. These nine teams are: Skill Base Team, Industry Team, Process Team, CTEIP Team, Science and Technology Team, Range Team, Interface Team, Management Team, and Technical Team. Each team's activities will be reviewed monthly against established metrics to ensure that progress is being made toward accomplishment of the assigned objectives.

Planning for Revitalization of T&E Infrastructure

Using future warfighting concepts outlined in Joint Vision 2010, we can begin to develop a vision of which capabilities must be retained or upgraded between now and 2010. With DoD placing increased emphasis on weapon modernization, we cannot neglect a parallel modernization of T&E infrastructure. The future challenge for T&E comes from the numbers of new and highly technical weapons to be tested, as well as from advanced technology upgrades to existing systems. The number of new and upgraded systems, not production quantities, is the stressing element for T&E. To be ready to meet the challenges of the future, DOT&E has outlined a program for infrastructure modernization. During FY97, DOT&E surveyed the test community to identify major test resource capability shortfalls. This included discussions with test range personnel, headquarters personnel, T&E Action Officers, and with organizations such as the Test and Evaluation Resources and Investment Board and the Range Commanders Council. All agreed we need to take action to change the course of T&E investment. Examples of needed projects are:

  • Realistic 3 km/sec Live Fire T&E Capability for Theater Missile Defense (estimated cost $27 million). Current live fire testing using realistic interceptor models is limited to closing velocity of approximately 2 km/sec. This proposal will upgrade the rocket sled track at Holliman AFB to 3 km/sec, using conventional rocket sled methodology. This will allow testing at the full range of intercept velocities on THAAD, PAC-3, Navy Theater Wide, and Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense.
  • Realistic Threat Characteristics (estimated cost: Phase I - $100 million). The ability to provide realistic threat characteristics and adequate threat density is a major shortfall of today's testing. An improved ability to realistically replicate the latest threats and threat environments on our ranges or in test chambers is required. This includes population of realistic threat densities in both digital and physical simulations. Threat emissions may be multi-spectral and include IR, UV, RF, acoustic, magnetic, etc. Some shortfall examples are future rotary wing targets; surrogate ground, sea and aerial targets; and surrogate tactical ballistic missile targets. Today, testing is often conducted against threats that are not realistic representations of the current, full-spectrum threat. This capability will support programs in all Services. Representative programs that need this capability include F-22, JASSM, ALE-50 Towed Decoy, ASPJ, ATACMS, SADARM, and torpedoes.
  •  Information Warfare Test Capability (estimated cost $60 million). Our capability to test information warfare including technology such as spoofing, anti-spoofing, resistance to viruses, etc., is inadequate. This is a new challenge for the military tester, and we have very little in the way of facilities or processes to conduct such exercises. The Services have a number of systems that may be vulnerable to information warfare scheduled for testing in the future. This capability is required to conduct and determine results from such tests.
  • Shallow Water Test and Evaluation Range (estimated cost $40 million). A capability to test submarine weapons, ASW, mines, and countermeasures in a realistic range environment not limited to few systems in small and unrealistic areas is required. For example, the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) range is limited to simultaneous engagement of two submarines, two weapons, and five countermeasures. There is also an increasing need to test and train in the undersea environment at locations far remote from an existing instrumented range. A range like AUTEC while very valuable for torpedo and submarine testing, is too small, too deep, and too quiet to replicate other realistic environments. The Shallow Water Range instrumentation currently planned for installation off the Carolina coast is not accurate enough for weapons and mine testing and is in water that is deeper than the Navy standard for shallow water (600 feet). A typical exercise might require an 800 square mile shallow water area, although the highly instrumented portion could be smaller. Proposed solutions are instrumentation that can be carried onboard the submarine or target or a system of expendable or recoverable sensors using GPS for self-location.
  • Non-Intrusive Test and Training Instrumentation (estimated cost $78 million). We need to emphasize reductions in the weight, size, and power requirements of instrumentation packages, and-for the individual soldier-increased battery life is also needed. To combine tests with training exercises, there will be an increased need to instrument individual troops in ways that do not interfere with the training objective. Current instrumentation systems for OT, such as Mobile Automated Instrumentation Suite, require significant improvements in size, weight, and battery life. A closely related requirement is the need for embedded instrumentation that can be used to collect data from opportunities presented during training exercises. Future training exercises are quite likely to be less frequent and of shorter duration to save money, and testers will require immediate feedback of data as they work to quickly solve problems discovered on the training battlefield. Non-intrusive, imbedded instrumentation will be essential in this process.
  •  Integration of Live, Constructive, and Virtual Test Objects (estimated cost: $80 million). The capability to routinely and seamlessly integrate actual test objects in operation on ranges with simulated or virtual objects must be developed. Today's realistic testing typically requires many-on-many scenarios that cannot be adequately populated with real objects. For example, realistic numbers of threat anti-aircraft weapons that are simultaneously attempting to defeat several modern fighter aircraft are not practical to implement in hardware. Pure simulations are not satisfactory, as live players are essential to ensure anchors to the real-world environment. We must develop a capability to effectively marry the live and virtual test environment. This capability will also be of significant benefit to weapon systems developers and to the training community. This would support a wide range of weapons systems under test by all Services.
These six projects, along with some 30 others listed below, provide necessary capabilities to support Joint Vision 2010, but their accomplishment will require significant additional investment. The cost to implement all of them is estimated to be more than $800 million. We are now examining time phasing, investment priority, and year-by-year funding requirements to implement such a program.

Each project below is categorized with the letter (A), (B) or (C) to indicate the impact of not completing by 2010. The (A) indicates that, without this project, we will not be able to deal effectively with the technology inherent in the weapons we will be called upon to test; for example, Information Warfare. The (B) indicates that we will not be able to do a complete test unless we acquire that capability; for example, Shallow Water Test and Evaluation. The (C) indicates that reductions in the cost of testing will not be achieved if the capability is not acquired.

Testing and Training

  • Multi-Range Integration and Scheduling (C)
  • Non-Intrusive Test and Training Instrumentation (B)
  • Integration of Test and Training Synthetic Environments (B)
  • Multi-Functional Electromagnetic Airborne Test and Training System (C)
  Modeling and Simulation
  • Integration of Live, Constructive, and Virtual Test Objects (A)
  • BMD Intercept Lethality Assessment Methodology (B)
  • Roadway Simulator (B)
  • Air Warfare Mission Simulator (B)
  • Multi-Spectral Simulation Facilities (A)
  • Captive Flight Testing for BMDO Hit-to-Kill Vehicles (B)
Targets and Threats
  • Realistic Threat Characteristics (A)
  • Surface-to-Surface Missile Target (B)
  • Undersea Warfare Targets (B)
  • VANDAL Target Launch Capability on East Coast (C)
  Facilities Upgrade
  • Improved Realism in Test Environments (B)
  • Improved Communications and Spectrum Utilization (C)
  • Improved Data Processing And Analysis (B)
  • Test Control Center for Ship Defense Engineering (B)
  • Improved Data Archival and Retrieval (B)
  • Realistic Live Fire Capability for Theater Missile Defense (B)
Emerging Technologies
  • Information Warfare Test Capability (A)
  • Improved, Integrated C4ISR Test Capability (A)
  • Cooperative Engagement Capability, Distributed Theater Level Test Bed (B)
Modern Range Capabilities
  • Shallow Water Test and Evaluation Range (B)
  • Open Air Facility for High Power Microwave Live Fire Testing (A)
  • Combined DT/OT/Training Range for Combat Vehicles (C)
  • Debris Tracking and Modeling (B)
  • Very High Precision Space Position Tracking (A)
  • Mobile Range Complex (A)
  • Large Missile Hardware-in-the-Loop Facility (B)
  • Low Probability of Intercept Underwater Tracking (C)
  • Icing Tanker (B)
  • Joint Data Acquisition System (C)
  • Addressable Airborne Data Recorder (C)
  • Improved Field Data Collectors (C)
  • Kwajalein Missile Range Upgrade "Remoting Roi" (C)
  Facility Consolidation

The Services have undertaken extensive efforts to realign, reduce, and consolidate their T&E infrastructure. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, Defense Management Review Decisions, and the Services? internal consolidation efforts have all contributed to reductions in T&E capacity. In general, the T&E community has implemented these actions with minimal impact to scheduled testing. For example, BRAC directed that the US Navy's turbine engine test capability at the Navy Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Aircraft Division, Trenton, NJ, be transferred to the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), TN, and the NAWC, Patuxent River, MD. The possibility of transferring common, shared, and unique capabilities from Trenton was identified early and plans to ensure an orderly transition were already developed when final closure of Trenton was mandated. A 1995 BRAC decision also resulted in the transfer of the PHOENIX Nuclear Weapons Effects (NWE) radiation simulator from the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) at White Oak, MD, to the DECADE NWE facility at AEDC. Similarly, the NSWC's CASINO and TAGS NWE radiation simulators were transferred to the Army Pulse Radiation Facility at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

The Services are continuing to consolidate their technical activities into a shared RDT&E infrastructure. Instead of performing R&D and T&E work at different sites with similar but separate support infrastructures, the Services are moving towards the conduct of R&D and T&E for many programs at a single site, using the same facilities, equipment, personnel, and support activities throughout the life of those programs.

Some examples of the Army, Navy, and Air Force BRAC and other T&E related realignments, reductions, transfers, and consolidations that are complete or will be completed by the end of FY01 are:

  • Army Laboratory Command, Meteorological Teams transferred to T&E Command (TECOM).
  • Army Missile Command (MICOM) Small Missile Testing transferred to TECOM Redstone Technical Test Center, AL.
  • Army Small Arms Test Facility, Fort Dix, NJ, transferred to TECOM Aberdeen Test Center (ATC), MD.
  • AF Electromagnetic Test Facilities, Kirtland AFB (KAFB), NM, realigned under TECOM White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), NM.
  • Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicle Testing and Management Organization, Twenty Nine Palms, CA, transferred to TECOM Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), AZ.
  • Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) Tropic Testing Mission transferred to TECOM YPG.
  • Army TECOM Airworthiness Qualification Test Directorate, ATTC, Edwards AFB, CA, transferred to Fort Rucker, AL.
  • Army Operational Evaluation Mission for all Non-major Weapon Systems, Training and Doctrine Command transferred to Army Operational T&E Agency (OTEA).
  • Army Test and Experimentation Command (TEXCOM) combined with OTEA and Operational Threat Support Activity (OTSA) to form the Operational T&E Command.
  • Army Personnel, Fort Ord, CA, transferred to Army TEXCOM, Fort Hunter-Ligget, CA.
  • Army TEXCOM, Fort Hunter-Liggett, CA, transferred to Fort Hood, TX.
  • Army TECOM Electronic Proving Ground consolidated with Test Directorate of TECOM WSMR.
  • Army Cold Regions Test Activity restructured as a Test Directorate of TECOM YPG.
  • Closed - Army TECOM Jefferson Proving Ground, IN; function transferred to TECOM YPG, AZ.
  • Navy Underwater Component Shock Testing consolidated with TECOM, ATC, MD.
  • Navy PHOENIX Nuclear Weapon Effects (NWE) Radiation Simulator, NSWC, White Oak, MD, transferred to AEDC, TN.
  • Navy CASINO and TAGS (NWE) Radiation Simulators, NSWC, White Oak, MD, transferred to TECOM, ATC, MD.
  • Naval Air Propulsion Center, Trenton, NJ, transferred to AEDC, TN, and NAWC, Patuxent River, MD.
  • Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) small Training RDT&E Division co-located with Army training systems efforts, Orlando, FL.
  • Navy C3 RDT&E and Acquisition and West Coast In-Service Engineering (ISE) consolidated with NCCOSC, San Diego, CA.
  • Navy Subsurface RDT&E and ISE consolidated with Naval Underwater Warfare Center (NUWC), Newport, RI, and Keyport, WA.
  • Naval Research Laboratory Ocean and Atmospheric R&D functions consolidated from two to one Research Laboratory.
  • Air Force Test Aircraft, Hanscom AFB, MA, transferred to Wright Patterson AFB (WPAFB), OH.
  • Air Force System Command merged with Air Force Logistics Command and restructured under Air Force Materiel Command.
  • Air Force 4950th Test Wing Residual Assets, WPAFB, OH, relocated to Edwards AFB, CA.
  • Sled Track Testing Operations and Outdoor Static RCS Measuring Facilities consolidated with Holloman AFB, NM.
  • Closed - Air Force Nuclear Electromagnetic Radiation Test Facilities, KAFB, NM.
  • Naval Telecommunications Systems Integration Center consolidated with Joint Interoperability Test Center, Fort Huachuca, AZ.
  • Defense Special Weapons Agency, DOE's Nevada Test Site personnel reduced.
However, the pressure to consolidate causes unique test capabilities to be proposed for closure, capabilities no other Services possess. It is DOT&E's position that consolidation decisions must take into account the uniqueness of the facilities under consideration in order to prevent a unilateral consolidation or closure from depriving other Services or users of a required test capability. For example, in FY97 TECOM proposed to decommission the Army Pulse Radiation Facility (APRF) due to insufficient customer base to pay civilian guards and operating costs. TECOM plans to consolidate nuclear weapons effects testing at the WSMR, NM, but if APRF is closed, unique capabilities would be lost. DOT&E and DTSE&E conducted an independent study in response to the APRF principal customers? concerns over retaining APRF and determined that the capabilities of APRF are unique and should be retained, if possible. A final decision on the future of APRF has not been made.
 

CURRENT T&E INVESTMENT PROGRAMS

DOT&E and DTSE&E jointly provide oversight of the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program and the Threat Systems Program.

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program

The Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) was established to provide funding for critically needed multi-Service and multi-program T&E applications. In FY97, CTEIP supported projects totaling $143 million. The FY97 funds were used to provide capabilities required by multiple Services to execute testing, resolve test shortfalls, and explore the use of state-of-the-art technologies in test and evaluation.

DOT&E and DTSE&E jointly manage the CTEIP and review the execution of CTEIP projects. CTEIP consists of three types of projects: (1) Joint Improvement and Modernization (JIM) ($111 million), (2) Resource Enhancement Project (REP) ($24 million), and (3) Test Technology Development and Demonstration (TTD&D) ($8 million). Groups overseeing the JIM and REP projects are chaired by DOT&E or jointly by DOT&E/DTSE&E. Membership includes the Services and Defense Agencies.

DOT&E chairs the Operational Test and Evaluation Coordinating Committee (OTECC) that oversees the REP. The REP subprojects were prioritized by the respective Services and Defense Agencies and approved by the Defense Test and Training Steering Group.

The REP is an invaluable tool that allows the operational tester to acquire essential capabilities and resolve near-term operational test resource shortfalls, particularly those that could introduce high risk in the evaluation of new weapon systems or system upgrades. REP also responds to late-breaking operational test issues and new technologies.

In FY97, the DoD Comptroller issued a Program Budget Decision (PBD) to phase out the REP program. DOT&E immediately provided information to the Comptroller on the value of current and future REP efforts. The analysis and reclama were endorsed by DTSE&E and the three Services and were forwarded to the Comptroller under the signatures of DOT&E, DTSE&E, and the three Service T&E principals. When this effort failed to accomplish full restoration of the REP request, DOT&E submitted a major budget issue paper that successfully addressed the PBD and retained REP at current levels.

The following are examples of FY97 accomplishments by REP subprojects:

 

CBS-ATCCS Interface
  • Corps Battle Simulation Army Tactical Command and Control System (CBS-ATCCS). This subproject completed the development of hardware and software interfaces between the CBS model and the real-world ATCCS devices. The CBS-ATCCS subproject enables the tester to "envelope" the unit under test with a simulated command structure thus providing increased test realism. CBS-ATCCS supported the OT testing of ATCCS I, II, III, IV, and VI; Maneuver Control System; Combat Service Support Control System; and the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System.
 
GPSJ
  
  • Global Positioning System Jammer (GPSJ). This subproject provided the Navy with high power and low power jammers to test jam resistance of GPS guided weapons and navigation systems. These jammers were mounted in vans to provide an open air GPS jamming capability. This subproject supported the DT/OT of Joint Standoff Weapon and B-2 aircraft. GPSJ will support testing of Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response, Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Programmable Fuse, Multiple Launch Rocket System, Near-Term Data Radio, and COMANCHE Helicopter.
 
 
 
FISTA
  • Flying Infrared-Signature Test Aircraft (FISTA). Supports the Air Force with new capability to make well-calibrated measurements of IR signatures of aircraft, missiles, rockets, and their respective backgrounds. It also provides a database for validation of visible and IR simulation programs. FISTA has actively supported the F-22 program, and other programs.
 
RSDE
  • Range Signal Density Enhancement System (RSDE). Provides a more realistic battlefield RF environment, in which both hostile and friendly emitters are represented with modern signal types. Located at the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA, RSDE is capable of generating 128 signals simultaneously with pulse densities in excess of five million pulses per second. RSDE supported the testing of the Navy's towed decoy and an EW suite on the Air Force's F-16. RSDE will be available to support additional planned testing on the F-14D, V-22 Osprey, and F/A-18E/F.
 
E-9A Airborne Telemetry
Platform Upgrade
  • E-9A Airborne Telemetry Platform Upgrade. This subproject provides an over-the-horizon, ultra-high frequency command initiate/destruct relay system and increased telemetry receive/record data rates up to 10 Mbits/sec. In FY97, the E-9A flew approximately 425 hours in support of various programs, conducting initial and follow-on operational test and evaluation as well as weapons competitions. E-9A supported the F-15/F-16 operational flight program, advanced short and medium range air-to-air missiles, and the Navy's Tomahawk program.
 
Threat Systems Program

The Threat System Program is focused on the development of realistic and affordable threat simulators and targets. DOT&E is an advisor to the CROSSBOW Committee and the Joint Targets Oversight Council (JTOC) both of which provide technical and management oversight of the Service's development and acquisition programs for targets, threat systems, and threat related hardware simulators, emitters, software simulations, hybrid representations, and surrogates.

DOT&E and DTSE&E are co-chairs of the Foreign Materiel Program Review Board T&E Subcommittee (TES). In FY97, TES reviewed the entire Foreign Materiel Exploitation process and is developing recommendations for improvements that will be included in a final report. DOT&E and DTSE&E leadership in this area has ensured that T&E requirements are an integral part of the decision process to either acquire an actual threat system or meet requirements by use of simulation or surrogates. The following are examples of threat systems program accomplishments:

 

ASET IV
  • Army Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainer IV (ASET IV). ASET IV is the final effort of a four-phase development of devices for training aviators and other air crew personnel in the use of aircraft survivability equipment installed in Army tactical aircraft, including Attack and Scout Helicopters. It is now fully operational and is currently used for familiarization training of aviation units in rotation.
  
  • Joint Modeling and Simulation System (J-MASS). J-MASS continues to evolve as the DoD architecture and simulation support environment to be used in the development of digital models of threat and friendly systems. J-MASS supports the Radar Directed Gun systems; Generic Aircraft Target Model; and the SA-5, SA-6, and SA-8 threat digital models.
  • Threat System Validation. The validation of representative threat systems, i.e., measuring and documenting the differences between the representative and the DIA-approved threat, is essential to the integrity of T&E, modeling and simulation, and training programs. Formal validation of threat simulators began in 1989 and has now produced a current inventory of 69 approved validation reports. Of these, 49 have been accomplished within the last two years.
  •  Targets Program. The goal of the targets program is to maximize commonality, interoperability, and utilization of targets and related systems in support of T&E. The Services participate in efforts to share target resources and jointly manage targets capabilities in response to target user needs.
For example, the Mobile Ship Target pictured below supported 14 live fire exercises during FY97, including two that resulted in direct hits on the target.

Through early involvement and the Test and Evaluation Master Plan review process, DOT&E continues to ensure targets are adequately representative of the current and projected threats for OT&E. This results in the development of targets that represent the threats in the kinematic capabilities and physical characteristics that are significant to the weapon systems undergoing OT&E. In the area of Theater Ballistic Missile (TBM) Defense, for example, targets will be available to represent the TBM threat spectrum. In the area of air-breathing targets, the greatest challenge is that of adequately representing the latest and projected near-term anti-ship missile threats. During FY97, the Navy conducted the first successful flight of a supersonic, sea-skimming target that executes maneuvers and represents a current threat. However, efforts to obtain supersonic, sea-skimming targets that represent the projected threats have been less successful. Progress was made in modification of an existing subsonic target that will execute terminal maneuvers, representing current threats, and first flight is scheduled for early 1998.

Modeling and Simulation

The increasing complexity of DoD weapon systems and the decrease of T&E infrastructure funding dictate the need for improved and more efficient capabilities to ensure combat effectiveness and suitability of the items tested. More effective use of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) is central to the success of DoD acquisition programs.

The Defense Planning Guidance states that programs should invest in modeling and simulation to reduce costs and cycle times and to reveal systems performance issues early in the acquisition process. DOT&E believes that there are numerous benefits to be gained from the integration of M&S with T&E and is aggressively pursuing this merger. The following M&S initiatives are currently in process:

  • Simulation, Test, and Evaluation Process (STEP). A DOT&E and DTSE&E initiative, STEP significantly changes the way M&S is integrated with T&E to foster more effective testing. STEP is an iterative process that integrates modeling, simulation, and test throughout all acquisition phases.
  •   The Foundation Project. This is a CTEIP project under which various efforts to integrate T&E and M&S will be conducted. The project comprises five subprojects, each addressing a specific initiative. The subprojects are:
    • Joint Advanced Distributed Simulation (JADS). JADS is identifying critical constraints, concerns, methodologies, and future requirements for using distributed simulation for test and evaluation.
    • Test and Training Enabling Architecture (TENA). TENA will develop network definitions and architecture to enable seamless interoperability between test and training ranges and facilities.

    •  Virtual Test and Training Range (VTTR). VTTR will identify, develop, and validate an ability to combine virtual, and live simulations, and provide a set of tools to enable operation of synthetic resources with ranges and facilities.

    • Common Display, Analysis, and Processing System (CDAPS). CDAPS will define, develop, and validate a common set of modular data analysis, processing, and display software components and applications.

    • Joint Regional Range Complex (JRRC). JRRC will identify, develop, and demonstrate coordination tools and communications/interoperability components that are easily re-configurable and enable inter-operation of multiple test and training ranges and facilities.
  Testing and Training

While the conduct of training operations on testing ranges and of testing events on training ranges are fairly common occurrences at many ranges today, the processes and procedures in place are not conducive to integration. Most integration takes place as a result of ad hoc measures and arrangements pursuant to expensive operations such as missile firings.

The DOT&E, DTSE&E, and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) are sponsoring a Prototype Training and T&E Range Study to identify ways to facilitate the integration of training and testing activities on DoD ranges. The study will focus on four inter-related areas: range operations, infrastructure modernization planning, funding for operations and investment, and organizational structures.
 

CONCLUSION

This nation owes its warfighting force weapons that are second-to-none. Performance on the battlefield can only be assured by subjecting these weapons to rigorous test and evaluation. Lack of necessary investment in the maintenance and modernization of essential capabilities compromises future testing and threatens our competitive edge. DOT&E will continue to strive to retain and upgrade essential capabilities, including test ranges and the associated land, air, and sea space. If lost, these capabilities will be virtually impossible to recreate in the future.

FY97 did not see a turning point for T&E resources. In FY98, DOT&E will continue to emphasize the importance of new investment in T&E. Unfortunately, a gradual turnaround in support for T&E resources will not be sufficient. Even if we halt the downtrend and stabilize funding at current levels, we cannot meet the challenges of 2010 and beyond. The downward trend must not only be halted, it must be dramatically reversed.

During FY97, we created a corporate investment plan and proposed investment projects to revitalize our infrastructure. However, increased funding is absolutely essential to transform these plans into reality. Today's T&E capabilities barely provide adequate testing and evaluation of weapons before they are fielded. Without upgrades to our infrastructure, much of the technology called out in Joint Vision 2010 and the Revolution in Military Affairs will remain a promise without proof.

The DPG offers a challenge to "earn" money for new investment from savings in T&E efficiency and consolidation. This challenge will be a high priority for DOT&E in the coming year.
 



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list