• 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
	FY98 Annual Report

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION & CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT VISION 2010

The Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) is a command, control, and coordination system for the fire support battlefield functional area of the Army Tactical Command and Control System. AFATDS is intended to provide integrated, automated support for planning, coordinating, and controlling all fire support assets (field artillery, mortars, close air support, naval gunfire, and attack helicopters). AFATDS contributes to the Joint Vision 2010 concept of precision engagement by providing responsive fire support command and control in order to tie together high fidelity target acquisition, prioritized target requirements, and joint forces within the battlespace. AFATDS is a network of computer workstations that process and exchange information from the forward observer to the fire support element for indirect fires and close air support. Features include the automatic processing of fire requests, generation of multiple tactical fire solutions for missions, monitoring of mission execution, and support for the creation and distribution of fire plans. AFATDS fundamentally changes tactical fire support by decentralizing the decision making process. The enhancements in speed and accuracy are critical capabilities in meeting the increasing demand for fire support on the modern battlefield.

The AFATDS IOT&E, held in 1995 at Fort Hood, TX, was a division-level command post exercise using soldiers from the 1^st Cavalry Division. AFATDS was assessed as operationally effective and operationally suitable. However, the IOT&E revealed concerns with the interfaces between AFATDS and the counter-battery radar, the All Source Analysis System, and the currently fielded artillery command and control system. Further, the IOT&E did not establish the ability of AFATDS to adequately disseminate changes to artillery guidance and fire plans.

The AFATDS IOT&E Verification Limited User Test (LUT) conducted in 1996 with AFATDS 96 software at Fort Sill, OK, re-examined the IOT&E shortfalls that required resolution before fielding. The LUT confirmed solutions for all shortfalls except that of fire planning, where occasional fire mission deletions and system crashes were observed following transmission of the fire plan. Subsequently, AFATDS 96 software and Common Hardware/Software-1 hardware entered full procurement and fielding. Fire planning and maximum fire-mission processing capacity/interoperability within the Army Tactical Command and Control System, were identified as issues for future testing. The Army also used the results of the LUT to support a materiel release of AFATDS 97 on Common Hardware/Software-2.

The Army, with U.S. Marine Corps personnel participating for the first time, conducted a LUT in October 1997 to support a material release of AFATDS 97 software. Although this LUT did not demonstrate improvements to shortfalls in the areas of fire planning and air support, AFATDS 97 received a materiel release on the current Common Hardware/Software-2 hardware.

The first OA of AFATDS to involve Marine Corps units occurred at Twentynine Palms, CA, from March 23-27, 1998. During this OA, overlaid on an existing training event with live fire and maneuver, the Marine Corps evaluated AFATDS 97 software and two Common Hardware/Software-2 hardware configurations within the context of specific Marine Corps effectiveness and interoperability issues.

The next operational test of AFATDS was also a Marine Corps event, October 19-November 5, 1998, at Camp Pendelton, CA. This LUT examined AFATDS 98 software; the first version developed to address specific USMC requirements. Also under investigation was a smaller hardware package, the Common Hardware/Software-2 Compact Computer Unit, which employs a single unit computer and a flat panel display to reduce both system size and weight.

The AFATDS IOT&E established the core capability for this program, and is effective in processing fire missions and receiving updates. However, AFATDS continues to evolve with hardware and software improvements to attain full capability for both U.S. Army and Marine Corps users. DOT&E is working with the Army and the Marines to determine the most appropriate level of testing for each upgrade of this software-intensive system. Our reviews and test observations determined that the AFATDS 97 LUT was appropriate to support a material release decision of the new software capability on Common Hardware/Software-2.

During the OA in March 1998, neither hardware configuration supported on-the-move employment for the Marine units. Both configurations traveled with the maneuver battalions as "loose cargo" in High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle's, and required approximately one hour to set up after the unit stopped. During the 96-hour test, the tank battalion stopped for a sufficient duration to employ AFATDS only twice. Artillery units were more positive about AFATDS than maneuver units, as they considered the automated support provided by AFATDS (planning, coordination, control, and execution of artillery fire) to be acceptable. Although the direct sensor-to-shooter capability of AFATDS permits very responsive fire support, the streamlined linkages challenge the ability of the Fire Support Coordinator and Fire Direction Officer to override a mission without disrupting the flow of information between the forward observer and the supporting arms.

Issues from prior OT will be examined during the evaluation of the November 1998 LUT, and will be reported in a future assessment. Initial observations indicate that both the new hardware and AFATDS 98 software experienced a number of problems during the LUT, and future testing will probably be required.

The March 1998 OA for AFATDS was an excellent opportunity to explore ways to successfully combine OT and unit training. In this case, the OA had limited objectives that were consistent with the training goals. With the focus on system integration vice system performance, there were no intrusive instrumentation requirements, and no need for test personnel to dictate specific scenarios. Although the post Milestone III status of AFATDS certainly made this success easier to achieve, the principles are applicable for other systems that have yet to attain a Milestone III decision.