• 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

COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC)

	Navy ACAT IC Program 206 systems Total program cost (TY$) $3,069.1M Average unit cost (TY$) $14.9M Full-rate production FY00 Prime Contractor Raytheon E-Systems St Petersburg, FL

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION & CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT VISION 2010

CEC is a system of hardware and software that allows the sharing among ships of radar data on air targets. Radar data from individual ships of a Battle Group (BG) is transmitted to other ships in the group via a line of sight, data distribution system (DDS). Each ship uses identical data processing algorithms resident in its cooperative engagement processor (CEP), resulting in each ship having essentially the same display of track information on aircraft and missiles. An individual ship can launch an anti-air missile at a threat aircraft or anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) within its engagement envelope, based on track data relayed to it by another ship. Program plans include the addition of E-2C aircraft equipped with CEP and DDS, to bring airborne radar coverage plus extended relay capability to CEC. CEP-equipped units, connected via the DDS network, are known as Cooperating Units (CUs).

As currently implemented, CEC is a major contributor to the JV 2010 concept of full-dimensional protection for the fleet from air threats. In concert with multi-Service sensor and engagement systems, it can contribute to a major expansion of the battlespace within which that protection is provided.

At-sea DT of CEC was conducted during FY90. An early operational assessment was conducted in FY94, based on results of at-sea DT, including missile firings at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility in Puerto Rico. Although there were significant test limitations, we concluded that CEC is potentially operationally effective and potentially operationally suitable. We also observed that this assessment must be tempered with the caveat that CEC has not undergone OT&E with the attendant operational realism. Approval to begin EMD (Milestone II) was granted in May 1995. An additional early operational assessment (OT-1A) of the airborne component of the CEC network was conducted in September 1995 in conjunction with the All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team exercise in the Gulfport, MS area. In accordance with Congressional guidance, the Navy certified IOC for CEC (EDM equipment) in late FY96. OT&E to support the initial LRIP decision was conducted as described below. As of this writing, OT&E to support a second LRIP decision and the full production decision is being scheduled for 1998 and 1999.

Early IOT&E was conducted in August 1997 in the Virginia Capes Operating Area with four CUs. These included two CUs equipped with CEC AN/USG-2 hardware and Baseline 1 software: the amphibious warfare ship, USS WASP (LHD 1) and a land-based test site at the Fleet Combat Direction System Support Acitivity, Dam Neck, VA. Also included were two CUs with the EDM CEC AN/USG-1 hardware and Baseline 1 software: the Aegis cruiser, USS ANZIO (CG 68) and a land-based test site, the Aegis Combat Systems Center, located at Wallops Island, VA. OT included scenarios with manned aircraft, as well as target drones modified to reduce radar cross section. This period of early IOT&E was preceded by DT, the results of which were used in our assessment. OT was conducted in accordance with a DOT&E-approved test plan and TEMP. OT was observed by DOT&E staff. Additional activity in FY97 included planning for the OPEVAL.

Results were used from both DT and OT in the following assessment. In terms of depth of fire improvement, CEC demonstrated an average increase, relative to local radars alone, both in earlier track initiation and initiation at greater ranges. The CEC network further provided CUs with information and graphic displays that provided a more comprehensive, accurate, and timely depiction of air tracks within radar coverage areas than available with the Link 11 and Link 16 data links. The airborne CEC data distribution system enabled the land based test site at Dam Neck, VA to remain as test control center although the nearest CU was at a considerable distance, by relaying the near real time information. However, problems were observed in the area of Battle Group interoperability and in software reliability.

Notwithstanding the significant deficiencies observed in software reliability and other areas during this early IOT&E, CEC is potentially operationally effective and potentially operationally suitable.