• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

	Director, Operational Test & Evaluation
FY97 Annual Report

FORWARD-AREA AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, AND INTELLIGENCE (FAAD C3I) SYSTEM GROUND-BASED SENSOR (GBS)

	Army ACAT 1C Program 15 systems Total program cost (TY$) $1148.9M Average unit cost (TY$) $76.6 Full-rate Production 3QFY95 Prime Contractor TRW Hughes

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION & CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT VISION 2010

The Forward Area Air Defense Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (FAAD C3I) system is a network that connects the command posts, weapons, and sensors of the FAAD Battalion. In addition, the FAAD C3I system is one of the five components that make up the Army Tactical Command and Control System (ATCCS). The Ground-Based Sensor (GBS) provides air surveillance, target acquisition, and target tracking information to the weapons in the FAAD Battalion. The FAAD C3I and GBS systems provide information superiority to the dominant maneuver force.

The FAAD C3I system comprises computer hardware, computer software, and communications equipment. The computer hardware includes central processing units and display screens. The FAAD C3I software performs the air track and battle management processing functions. The communications equipment consists of the Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System, the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, and the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System. FAAD C3I is an automated system for providing command, control, targeting, and other information to the air defenders on the battlefield.

The Army chose the Hughes Aircraft Company TPQ-36A radar as the GBS. The TPQ-36A radar is a modified version of the Army's FIREFINDER counter-battery radar. The GBS is a three-dimensional radar system that uses a phased-array antenna and an Identification Friend or Foe device. The GBS system is mounted on a high-mobility multiwheeled vehicle and a towed trailer.

The first operational test of the FAAD C3I system was the Limited User Test (LUT) conducted in January and February of 1993 at Fort Bliss, Texas. The Army made a Low-Rate Initial Production decision to procure and field the FAAD C3I system to selected light and special divisions following the FAAD C3I LUT.

The FAAD C3I and GBS IOT&E was conducted from September through December 1994 at both Fort Hood and Fort Bliss, TX. This test supported an Army Milestone III full-rate production decision for the FAAD C3I and GBS systems.

The FAAD C3I and GBS IOT&E was adequate to assess operational effectiveness and suitability. Baseline testing using the Army's then-current air defense capabilities was conducted during the IOT&E. Thus, direct comparisons of the test results could be made between the FAAD C3I and GBS systems and the baseline despite the limitations inherent in operational testing.

When there were no friendly aircraft in the sky, FAAD C3I and GBS clearly demonstrated an improvement over the baseline system during the IOT&E, and were operationally effective. However, when friendly aircraft were added to the operational area, the fratricide experienced by FAAD units was unacceptably high and the operational effectiveness for reduction of fratricide was minimized. Until combat identification procedures are improved, severe operating restrictions will undoubtedly be placed on the FAAD units.

The FAAD C3I and GBS systems were operationally suitable, although there were shortfalls in the generator and software reliability of the GBS system and the mobility of the FAAD C3I and GBS systems.

The FAAD C3I system could not interoperate with the other elements of the Army Tactical Command and Control Systems (ATCCS). Numerous technical and operational problems existed that preclude the ATCCS system itself from being either operationally effective or suitable.

The shortfalls in operational effectiveness and suitability discovered during the IOT&E should be used to establish the future operational test requirements for the FAAD C3I and GBS systems. All future operational testing of the FAAD C3I system will include the ability to visually identify aircraft as friend or foe. The FAAD C3I and GBS systems should be included in joint testing with the Air Force. All future operational tests for both the FAAD C3I system and the ATCCS systems must include sufficient testing between the systems to ensure their interoperability. The FAAD C3I and GBS systems should be tested to determine whether they can keep up during highly mobile combat operations, such as Desert Storm. Additional reliability testing of the GBS system is required.

A new version of FAAD C3I software, version 4.R, was tested in an Early User Innovative Test (EUIT) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in June 1997. An EUIT is not a formal test or evaluation, but is a period used by an operational unit for collective training. The version 4.R software is a rehosting of the current FAAD C3I software on the Army's next generation Common Hardware and Software-2 (CHS-2) hardware that replaces the current CHS hardware used by FAAD C3I. Additional regression testing of the version 4.R FAAD C3I testing followed the EUIT.

The GBS reliability was tested in 1997 during the Performance Verification Test (PVT) developmental test at White Sands, New Mexico.

The GBS PVT revealed that the reliability problems discovered during the IOT&E in 1994 have been not all been successfully resolved. The GBS trailer used to transport the generator and other support equipment has continuing reliability and safety problems. Because the GBS failed the PVT, the Army has not yet issued a materiel release of the radar to fielded Army units. However, the reliability problems with the GBS radar subsystem that were discovered in IOT&E were fixed and successfully tested during the PVT.

The EUIT of the version 4.R software was successful enough that the Army made a conditional materiel release of the upgraded software and hardware to fielded Army units. During the EUIT, however, hardware problems were discovered with the handheld terminal units (HTUs) that were part of the next generation Common Hardware and Software-2 equipment.

The shortfalls in operational effectiveness discovered during the IOT&E should be used to establish the future operational test requirements for the FAAD C3I and GBS systems. All future operational testing should examine the important issue of fratricide. During the IOT&E, fratricide was very high as friendly aircraft were often engaged by air defense fire units. The friendly aircraft fired upon were identified as "unknown" to individual air defense gunners. This situation is operationally realistic and exists because today's electronic identification devices and other means cannot correctly identify all friendly aircraft. Thus, soldiers must often visually identify aircraft as either friend or foe. Any testing conducted in which all aircraft are identified as either "friend" or "foe" with no "unknown" aircraft present, is not an operationally realistic scenario and will not be sufficient for future testing. This scenario does not test the fratricide issue. Additionally, future operational tests of the FAAD C3I and GBS systems should be included in joint testing with the Air Force.

All future operational tests of both the FAAD C3I and ATCCS system must include sufficient testing between the systems to ensure their interoperability. Also, the FAAD C3I and GBS systems should be tested to determine whether they can keep up during highly mobile combat operations, such as Operation Desert Storm.

The next major operational test of the FAAD C3I system is an Follow-on OT&E of the version 5.1 system, a major software and hardware upgrade of the FAAD C3I system. This test is scheduled for 2QFY99.

The fratricide problems would never had been discovered if operationally realistic combat identification procedures were not part of the IOT&E. Furthermore, this problem would not have been revealed if the Army air defense gunners had not been required to proceed through the complete engagement sequence, up through simulating an actual missile firing. Previous testing, such as the LUT, did not have high fratricide rates because the testing only examined the ability of the FAAD C3I system to pass information around the battlefield. The LUT did not require Army gunners to use the FAAD C3I information to complete an engagement.