19 MB PDF - GlobalSecurity.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NAVY PROGRAMS test/operational test and operational assessment events should be conducted to evaluate the sensor systems, their sensor integration into the command and control and common operational picture architectures, and, finally, the sensor suite integration into the host ship. 134
NAVY PROGRAMS Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is a system of hardware and software that allows ships to share radar data on air targets. Radar data from individual ships of a Battle Group are transmitted to other ships in the group via a line-of-sight, data distribution system . Each ship uses identical data processing algorithms resident in its cooperative engagement processor so that each ship will have essentially the same display of track information on aircraft and missiles. An Aegis ship can launch an anti-air missile at a threat aircraft, or anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) within its engagement envelope, based on radar data relayed to it by another ship. SSDS- or ACDS-equipped ships can receive cueing to hostile tracks. Program plans include the addition of E-2C aircraft equipped with the cooperative engagement processor and data distribution system to bring airborne radar coverage plus extended relay capability to CEC. Cooperative engagement processor-equipped units, connected via the data distribution system network, are known as cooperating units. CEC was demonstrated at sea as early as FY90. Early operational assessments were conducted in FY94, FY95, and FY97. Entry into engineering and manufacturing development was approved at Milestone II in <strong>19</strong>95. In accordance with congressional guidance, the Navy certified initial operational capability for CEC (engineering development model equipment upgraded to AN/USG-1 configuration) in late FY96. CEC was designated an Acquisition Category ID program in FY99. Operational evaluation (OPEVAL) of the surface AN/USG-2 hardware and Baseline 2.0 software was conducted in 3QFY01. DOT&E’s test and evaluation report was published on February 1, 2002. The acquisition decision memorandum of April 3, 2002, approved AN/USG-2 for full-rate production and approved low-rate initial production) for the air AN/ USG-3 hardware for FY02-03. The AN/USG-2 and AN/USG-3 hardware, with associated software, were designated as CEC Block 1. The acquisition decision memorandum further approved the Navy’s plan for the next CEC upgrade, Block 2, which was to be competed for development. During FY03, the Navy reconsidered this approach and elected instead to pursue an upgrade program for CEC, with no further reference to Block 2. The OPEVAL equivalent of the air AN/USG-3 hardware and software was delayed from FY02 to FY04 when deployment of the Battle Group intended for OPEVAL was accelerated. TEST & EVALUATION ACTIVITY Test & Evaluation activity consisted of engineering tests, developmental testing, and operational testing of AN/USG-3 equipment in E-2C aircraft in preparation for the FY04 follow-on operational test & evaluation (FOT&E-2) that will support the AN/USG-3 full-rate production decision. An operational assessment was conducted in November 2002 in the Virginia Capes Operating Area. The program is preparing for a two-phase technical evaluation during the first quarter of FY04, followed by FOT&E-2, the USG-3 OPEVAL, in the second quarter of FY04. FOT&E-2 will be conducted with the USS John F. Kennedy Strike Group along the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. TEST & EVALUATION ASSESSMENT CEC Surface Equipment AN/USG-2 and Baseline 2.0 Software. Although the surface AN/USG-2, with Baseline 2.0 software, was determined to be operationally effective and suitable, issues were identified in the following areas for further examination during FOT&E: Battle Group integration and interoperability, information assurance, maintainability, joint interoperability, production representative The Cooperative Engagement Capability is a system of hardware and software that allows ships to share radar data on air targets. 135
Page 1:
Director, Operational Test and Eval
Page 4 and 5:
DIRECTOR’S INTRODUCTION Comparati
Page 6 and 7:
DIRECTOR’S INTRODUCTION iv
Page 8 and 9:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Suite of Integrat
Page 10 and 11:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Unmanned Combat A
Page 12 and 13:
DOT&E ACTIVITY AND OVERSIGHT TEST A
Page 14 and 15:
DOT&E ACTIVITY AND OVERSIGHT 4
Page 16 and 17:
DOT&E ACTIVITY AND OVERSIGHT PROGRA
Page 18 and 19:
DOT&E ACTIVITY AND OVERSIGHT NAVY P
Page 20 and 21:
DOT&E ACTIVITY AND OVERSIGHT AIR FO
Page 22 and 23:
DOD PROGRAMS GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE
Page 24 and 25:
DOD PROGRAMS AEGIS BALLISTIC MISSIL
Page 26 and 27:
DOD PROGRAMS PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPAB
Page 28 and 29:
DOD PROGRAMS A thorough lethality t
Page 30 and 31:
DOD PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACTI
Page 32 and 33:
DOD PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ASSE
Page 34 and 35:
DOD PROGRAMS effectiveness deficien
Page 36 and 37:
DOD PROGRAMS Solution experienced d
Page 38 and 39:
DOD PROGRAMS all users worldwide lo
Page 40 and 41:
DOD PROGRAMS Northwestern United St
Page 42 and 43:
DOD PROGRAMS Environment, and impro
Page 44 and 45:
DOD PROGRAMS with user traffic to e
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
DOD PROGRAMS Additional development
Page 50 and 51:
DOD PROGRAMS Test planning appears
Page 52 and 53:
DOD PROGRAMS suitability for aircra
Page 54 and 55:
DOD PROGRAMS Because the OA/LUT beg
Page 56 and 57:
DOD PROGRAMS of the current system
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
DOD PROGRAMS JITC will conduct a fo
Page 62 and 63:
DOD PROGRAMS aboard two ships of th
Page 64 and 65:
ARMY PROGRAMS Several issues will b
Page 66 and 67:
ARMY PROGRAMS suppression system (F
Page 68 and 69:
ARMY PROGRAMS The ASAS RWS risk ass
Page 70 and 71:
ARMY PROGRAMS The FBCB2 digital com
Page 72 and 73:
ARMY PROGRAMS ICH using ARL-develop
Page 74 and 75:
ARMY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACT
Page 76 and 77:
ARMY PROGRAMS 66
Page 78 and 79:
ARMY PROGRAMS risk reduction ballis
Page 80 and 81:
ARMY PROGRAMS should make the techn
Page 82 and 83:
ARMY PROGRAMS 72
Page 84 and 85:
ARMY PROGRAMS Kingdom Armored Divis
Page 86 and 87:
ARMY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ASS
Page 88 and 89:
ARMY PROGRAMS 78
Page 90 and 91:
ARMY PROGRAMS requirements. Four se
Page 92 and 93:
ARMY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ASS
Page 94 and 95: ARMY PROGRAMS ISYSCON(V)4 is deploy
Page 96 and 97: ARMY PROGRAMS 86
Page 98 and 99: ARMY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ASS
Page 102 and 103: ARMY PROGRAMS Warrior live fire tes
Page 104 and 105: ARMY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACT
Page 106 and 107: ARMY PROGRAMS Recently, the Army de
Page 108 and 109: ARMY PROGRAMS The test unit, 4 th I
Page 112 and 113: ARMY PROGRAMS Headquarters, Delawar
Page 114 and 115: ARMY PROGRAMS During FY04, the Army
Page 116 and 117: ARMY PROGRAMS IOT&E, the MC had a d
Page 120 and 121: ARMY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACT
Page 122 and 123: ARMY PROGRAMS The LFT&E strategy wi
Page 124 and 125: ARMY PROGRAMS PM adopted a short-te
Page 126 and 127: ARMY PROGRAMS MH-60R to reduce cost
Page 130 and 131: NAVY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ASS
Page 132 and 133: NAVY PROGRAMS Plan. The Navy and DO
Page 134 and 135: NAVY PROGRAMS 124
Page 136 and 137: NAVY PROGRAMS While design problems
Page 138 and 139: NAVY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACT
Page 142 and 143: NAVY PROGRAMS LHD 8 will likely be
Page 146 and 147: NAVY PROGRAMS AN/USG-3 equipment, a
Page 148 and 149: NAVY PROGRAMS grave responsibility
Page 150 and 151: NAVY PROGRAMS The Navy tested the p
Page 156 and 157: NAVY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACT
Page 158 and 159: NAVY PROGRAMS their own development
Page 160 and 161: NAVY PROGRAMS Due to its importance
Page 162 and 163: NAVY PROGRAMS field-testing of the
Page 164 and 165: NAVY PROGRAMS understanding the imp
Page 166 and 167: NAVY PROGRAMS • The PDRR EFV(P)
Page 168 and 169: NAVY PROGRAMS November 2003; Milest
Page 172 and 173: NAVY PROGRAMS The F-35 JSF Air Syst
Page 174 and 175: NAVY PROGRAMS Software Qualificatio
Page 178 and 179: NAVY PROGRAMS and Navy later confir
Page 184 and 185: NAVY PROGRAMS Operational effective
Page 186 and 187: NAVY PROGRAMS vulnerable area becau
Page 188 and 189: NAVY PROGRAMS performance as the le
Page 194 and 195:
NAVY PROGRAMS 184
Page 196 and 197:
NAVY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ASS
Page 198 and 199:
NAVY PROGRAMS OT&E for the NESP ter
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
NAVY PROGRAMS parameter of 98 perce
Page 204 and 205:
NAVY PROGRAMS RAM HAS Mode. The pro
Page 206 and 207:
NAVY PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATION ACT
Page 208 and 209:
NAVY PROGRAMS Mark 2 must be combin
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
NAVY PROGRAMS DOT&E feels the model
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
NAVY PROGRAMS 206
Page 218 and 219:
NAVY PROGRAMS completed. This softw
Page 220 and 221:
NAVY PROGRAMS 210
Page 222 and 223:
NAVY PROGRAMS personnel in sea stat
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
NAVY PROGRAMS The AH-1Z attack heli
Page 228 and 229:
NAVY PROGRAMS On August 28, 2003, t
Page 230 and 231:
NAVY PROGRAMS 220
Page 232 and 233:
NAVY PROGRAMS 222
Page 234 and 235:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Test and Evaluat
Page 236 and 237:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Force as not per
Page 238 and 239:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS DOTE also has co
Page 240 and 241:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS 16 percent decre
Page 242 and 243:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS The most promisi
Page 244 and 245:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS TEST & EVALUATIO
Page 246 and 247:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS changed to a com
Page 248 and 249:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS aircraft. Fleet
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS • August 2003,
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS 246
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS and sea C2ISR su
Page 262 and 263:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS engine performan
Page 264 and 265:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Quarterly Defens
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS MOT&E was postpo
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS the Key Performa
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS F-15C found the
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS not operationall
Page 282 and 283:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Operational Test
Page 284 and 285:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS In FY03, the pri
Page 286 and 287:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS satellites indic
Page 288 and 289:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS complex dependen
Page 290 and 291:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS as a means to co
Page 292 and 293:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS The risk associa
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Defense Advanced
Page 300 and 301:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Operational Requ
Page 302 and 303:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS The first two pr
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Common Gyro Refe
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS DSCS satellites
Page 314 and 315:
LIVE FIRE TEST & EVALUATION LIVE FI
Page 316 and 317:
LIVE FIRE TEST & EVALUATION In FY03
Page 318 and 319:
LIVE FIRE TEST & EVALUATION analyse
Page 320 and 321:
LIVE FIRE TEST & EVALUATION 310
Page 322 and 323:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION • Joint U
Page 324 and 325:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION institution
Page 326 and 327:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION Combined JT
Page 328 and 329:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION TEST & EVAL
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION • JGPSCE
Page 334 and 335:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION The JLOG/PE
Page 336 and 337:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION JMACA condu
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION hand kits w
Page 342 and 343:
JOINT TEST & EVALUATION UAV Operati
Page 344 and 345:
INFORMATION ASSURANCE • Participa
Page 346 and 347:
INFORMATION ASSURANCE both training
Page 348 and 349:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES The mode
Page 350 and 351:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES Issues i
Page 352 and 353:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES 40% 35%
Page 354 and 355:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES migratio
Page 356 and 357:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES In FY03,
Page 358 and 359:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES produced
Page 360 and 361:
SYSTEMS AND TEST RESOURCES 350
Page 362 and 363:
INDEX OF PROGRAMS Defense Medical L
Page 364:
INDEX OF PROGRAMS Navy Standard Int
show all

19 MB PDF - GlobalSecurity.org

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?