On a parallel schedule, the Navy conducted the F/A-18E/F OPEVAL from 3QFY99-1QFY00. Since F/A-18E/F OPEVAL was conducted before the more capable IDECM RFCM was available, F/A-18 E/F OPEVAL aircraft were not equipped with IDECM RFCM. It was equipped with the ALE-50 Launch Controller/Dispenser portion of IDECM Block I, including AAED, to fill part of the self-defense requirement in support of overall F/A-18E/F OPEVAL survivability assessment. DOT&E required the Navy conduct a separate Block I OT, which concluded in August 2000. F/A-18E/F FOT&E with IDECM RFCM is planned concurrently with OPEVAL for the RFCM, supporting RFCM Milestone III and B-LRIP in FY02.

IDECM Block I DT, Sep 99 through Feb 00, tested ASPJ installation, effectiveness and suitability on the F-18 E/F to include compatibility with other self-protection systems (ALE-50, ALE-47, and ALR-67(V3). The successful initial DT of IDECM Block I led to a combined DT/OT test, March to April 2000. In May, the Operational Test Readiness Review moved the program forward into dedicated OPEVAL. The program completed a four-month OPEVAL in August 2000. The operational effectiveness criteria for IDECM Block I was that it provide a measurable reduction in lethality for the Block I equipped F/A-18 E/F as compared to an ALQ-126B equipped F/A-18 C/D.DT and OT included rigorous ground and flight test which included hardware-in-the-loop simulations and flights involving actual threat systems. COMOPTEVOR is finalizing test documentation and system assessment that DOT&E will follow with a BLRIP report evaluating test adequacy and confirmation of effectiveness and suitability. Since no new ASPJ systems are to be procured, the effect of the report is to comply with Title 10 requirements for operational test of the IDECM system, Block I version only, prior to deployment to the fleet.

IDECM Block II completed a limited DT Assist by operational test personnel in 4QFY00. The results indicated positive progress towards a Block II fielding in the third F-18E/F deployment in August 2003. Block III completed a limited (no on board transmitters) Operational Assessment (OA) in March 2000 where it was assessed to be potentially operationally effective and suitable.

The IDECM Block III RFCM OA was conducted in two phases. A hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) test versus a realistic threat system was carried out November 1999. The aircraft, missile flight path, and environmental effects were modeled using an uninstalled RFCM and FOTD to counter a missile in a radar anechoic chamber. The second OA phase was flight testing at NAWC-WD China Lake's Electronic Combat Range, carried out from February-March 2000. This test phase was an early look at the potential operational effectiveness and suitability of IDECM. By design, the test was limited to a non-production representative installation on the ATB aircraft using a reel-out, reel-in external pod to conserve decoys.

Test and evaluation activity of Block III during FY00 was beset by continued technical difficulties with the FOTD, and FOTD launcher assembly. Early developmental testing revealed that FOTD flight envelope and IDECM component interoperability issues were more difficult than expected. System development was at a much slower pace than expected, and led to a delay in the OA flight test until 2QFY00. Fast deploy (a rapid release and reel out to a specific distance behind the aircraft) testing was carried out on several platforms throughout FY00: Lear, Drakken (for early development work), F-16, F/A-18 E/F, and F-15. All aspects of system mechanical and electrical performance were evaluated. To resolve safety of flight issues caused by FOTD fins striking the underside of the aircraft, a fin delay mechanism was developed and entered into test. Developmental flight testing continued sporadically throughout the beginning of the fiscal year, slowing during the RFCM OA. System software and software integration appear to be on track, with two major blocks of software delivered this FY on or ahead of schedule. However, due to the by-design deployment of the FOTD in the area of the engine plume, the F/A-18 E/F continues to be the most difficult platform for IDECM. To characterize the thermal environment behind the aircraft, tests were conducted with a Tiger pod that uses a towline with embedded thermocouples. Early results showed unexplained temperature spikes in the towline.

Several efforts were made to improve decoy deployment and retention on the F-18E/F. Materials research studies on new fiber optic and towline strength member materials were continued, looking for materials that will improve the thermal and mechanical limits of the current towline. In addition, two efforts to improve the current version of the reel-out, reel-in pod for test use were begun. These improvements are needed to improve the rate of decoy re-use and expand the flight envelope over which the decoy can be tested.

The only approved TEMP is dated April 1999. It was approved by DOT&E with the condition that it was valid only through the IDECM RFCM OA and that the TEMP will be updated prior to the next test event. An Annex to the TEMP covering all Block I test efforts was approved in March 2000. The TEMP IPT is currently updating the capstone TEMP to include the complete three-phase approach to IDECM development (described above), testing, and introduction to the Fleet.

The new three-phase development strategy and test planning have successfully mitigated some of the risk incurred over the last two years of IDECM evolution. As mentioned earlier, Block I is presently on track to support the first two F-18E/F deployments. The IDECM Block I test effectively re-baselined survivability of the F/A-18E/F. The limited nature of the supportability of the end product, however, is cause for some concern. The Navy has not sought to change or extend the ASPJ logistics support structure. The IDECM Block I system, by virtue of being an interim solution intended only for the first two F/A-18E/F deployments, has limited logistic supportability for the fleet. Follow-on IDECM blocks must produce an effective and suitable replacement to the Block I suite before its available logistics support expires. Block II successfully completed DT; recall, though, that operational test of Block II (including ALQ-214 RFCM, on board jamming, and ALE-50 towed decoy operation) is yet to be conducted.

Block III, with particular regard to the FOTD, towline, and deployment design, is still high risk. In the lab environment, the Block III RFCM and FOTD proved to be a highly effective system in numerous scenarios. Results in the OA HITL tests versus the realistic threat system were very positive and also very close to predicted results. Once the flight envelope in which the system could successfully deploy and maintain fiber optic continuity was determined, the IDECM OA flight test was successful. The results of the test proved - in the very limited maneuver, altitude, and airspeed regime explored - that the RFCM and FOTD could be effective against several distinctly different types of SAMs. However, the hardware and software installations were non-production representative and, therefore, little could be determined in the OA about suitability. Furthermore, reel-in/reel-out and towline improvements are not complete.

Several test range limitations hampered all blocks of IDECM testing. Threat simulators intended for use during the RFCM OA were not operational. One new test asset, the "Missile on a Mountain," used for testing a particular class of missiles, did not produce consistent miss distance data. Daily alignment variations of several of the threat simulators made analysis and interpretation of the results difficult. Furthermore, only a small number of threat assets available have accredited fly-out models that work in real time profiles. The Navy needs to invest in these test assets, to include valid fly-out models and accreditation of as many threats in the IDECM threat matrix as possible, in order to produce operationally relevant and credible T&E results for Block II and Block III variants.

With regard to the IDECM development strategy, the Navy needs to continue developmental efforts to produce a reliable IDECM system, solve decoy launch/flight envelope issues, and gain further insight on towline characteristics and failure conditions. The Navy needs to mitigate the risk that Block III will not be available for the fourth and subsequent F-18E/F deployments (January 2004 and beyond). Understandably, the service desires to plan for the success of the Block III program. However, a prudent plan must include an operational test of the Block II system, which would necessarily begin in FY01 with an early decision (i.e. at least prior to the beginning of OPEVAL) to do so. A rigorous and comprehensive operational test of the Block II configuration is required before fielding the system for interim use (the third F/A-18 E/F deployment), much less as what may turn out to be the final installment in F/A-18 E/F self-protection.