Aerial Targets Status An OSD View NDIA Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 27
About This Presentation
Title:

Aerial Targets Status An OSD View NDIA Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium

Description:

Conduct Program Reviews (System Assessments) ... 4 Different ship test programs shared 3 targets 7 Required ... Advanced cruise missile and aircraft threats ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:66
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: dtic5
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Aerial Targets Status An OSD View NDIA Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium


1
Aerial Targets Status An OSD View NDIA
Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium
  • Mr. Rick Lockhart
  • Deputy Director, DTE OUSD(ATL)
  • November 18, 2004

2
Purpose
  • Describe OUSD(ATL) initiative to reinvigorate
    Systems Engineering (SE)
  • Provide OSD DTE perspective regarding targets
  • Discuss future challenges regarding use of aerial
    targets in TE
  • Describe DSB Aerial Targets Study

3
USD(ATL) Imperatives
  • "Provide a context within which I can make
    decisions about individual programs"
  • "Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the
    acquisition and logistics support processes"
  • "Help drive good systems engineering practice
    back into the way we do business"

4
How Defense Systems is Responding
  • Formed a new Systems Engineering organization
  • Institutionalizing Systems Engineering across DoD
  • Setting policy for implementation, capturing best
    practices
  • Setting standards for training and education
  • Conduct Program Reviews (System Assessments)
  • Provide leadership information to support
    decision making
  • Assist program offices in implementing
    disciplined Systems Engineering
  • Continue to support and provide oversight of DTE
  • Conduct outreach with industry, academia,
    associations, individual programs, and others

5
Defense Systems Organization
6
Systems Engineering Organization
7
What We Have Doneto Revitalize System Engineering
  • Issued Department-wide SE policy requiring a
    Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)
  • Established SE Forum to ensure senior-level focus
  • Established SE as theme for 2004 PEO / SysCom
    Conference
  • Instituted system-level program reviews to aid
    PMs
  • Working with Defense Acquisition University to
    revise curricula
  • Instituting a renewed emphasis on MS
  • Leveraged close working relationships with
    industry and academia
  • Integrating DTE with SE policy and assessment
    functions focused on effective, early
    engagement

8
Importance of DTE in Acquisition (DTE is a
critical part of good SE)
  • Provides an opportunity to find problems early
    (Learn) Failure in DTE is OK
  • Provides information about risk and risk
    mitigation
  • Assesses technical performance and system
    maturity
  • Provides indication of program's development
    progress
  • Confirms weapon system meets technical
    requirements
  • Confirms weapon system's readiness to enter IOTE
  • Provides essential information on which to base
    acquisition decisions

9
Importance of Targets in Acquisition
  • Robust Developmental Testing is integral to
    successfully fielding weapons
  • to ensure they work when and how they're
    supposed to
  • Threat representative targets are a critical
    resource to adequately test weapon systems
  • Evaluate effectiveness of weapon systems against
    the threat in an operationally realistic
    environment
  • Conduct Live (End-to-End) System Testing

10
OSD Target Concerns
  • For years, target efforts have been
  • Low priority
  • Under funded
  • Complexity underestimated
  • Lagging behind advancements of threats
  • Current shortfalls are impacting TE
  • Full scale targets
  • Supersonic Seaskimming Targets (SSST)
  • Threat " D "

11
Aerial Target History
Today 25 Years Later
1980
Operational
In Development
In Development
GQM 163 BQM 167
Terminated
Firebrand SLAT Firebolt
12
Full Scale Shortfalls
  • Navy ceased QF-4 operations in FY2004
  • Navy will use AF QF-4s for future full scale
    target tests
  • AF QF-4s not compatible with Navy ranges
  • Limits full scale tests to 2 AF ranges
  • AF target and range capabilities are not adequate
    for all test requirements
  • F/A-22 program TE adversely impacted
  • Inventory of AF QF-4s projected to deplete in
    FY2011
  • Development of follow-on target lagging behind
  • Decision and program start required immediately
    to prevent gap

13
SSSTs
  • Numerous false starts to develop a replacement
    SSST
  • Resulted in great expense and yielded no targets
  • Allowed inventory of legacy SSSTs to be depleted
  • Delays in GQM-163 development resulted in
    FY2004-05 rationing of few remaining VANDALs
  • 4 Different ship test programs shared 3 targets
    7 Required
  • 3 Different ship test programs shared 1 target
    5 Required
  • Sharing targets results in compromise of test
    objectives, increases complexity and risk of
    scheduling, and adversely impacts realism and
    adequacy of test

14
Threat " D "
  • Emerging threat, currently fielded in one foreign
    Navy
  • Flight profile unlike any target in current US
    inventory
  • Required for TE of
  • SM-6 CIWS
  • SM-2 block IV (ER) DDX
  • SM-2 block IIIB (MU) SSDS
  • ESSM MFR/DBR
  • RAM-III
  • Studies underway, but no solution identified or
    funded

15
Challenges to Future TE
  • Future threats make TE using live targets more
    difficult
  • Advanced cruise missile and aircraft threats may
    be too difficult to replicate
  • Operational realism may be impossible due to
    range safety constraints of stressing targets
  • Future programs may have to rely more on Modeling
    and Simulation (MS)
  • Verification and Validation (VV) of most MS
    today is performed through comparison to live
    test data
  • VV of future MS may depend on limited or
    "piecemeal" live test data

16
OSD Targets Review
  • Concerns raised by DOTE and DTE during DAES
    process
  • AF and Navy directed to brief USD(ATL) on status
    and plan to solve target issues
  • Briefing was held August 02, 2004
  • Focus was on full-scale and subscale aerial
    targets
  • Outcome
  • OSD will continue to monitor progress
  • Review after 6 months
  • Conduct DSB study on future target requirements

17
Defense Science BoardAerial Targets Study
  • Co-sponsored by USD(ATL) and DOTE
  • Emphasis is on future threats, and representative
    targets
  • FY 2005 2020
  • Possibility of common targets and control systems
    across Services
  • Fidelity of targets, and portions of flight
    profiles necessary for adequate training and TE
  • Alternatives to using aerial targets for training
    and TE
  • Specialized range, instrumentation, or facility
    requirements for TE or training
  • Alternatives for replication of Threat " D "

18
Summary
  • Emphasis on robust DTE is a critical part of
    ATL efforts to reinvigorate SE
  • Robust DTE requires threat representative
    targets
  • Need to increase priority and funding for targets
  • Need to address how we will test our weapon
    systems against advanced threats
  • OSD is taking an increased interest in Service
    target programs

19
Developmental Test and Evaluation ensures Our
weapons perform as designed and meet Warfighter
requirements. Systems work when and how they're
supposed to
OUSD(ATL) Systems Engineering website
http//www.acq.osd.mil/ds/se/ OUSD(ATL)
Developmental Test and Evaluation website
http//www.acq.osd.mil/ds/se/dte/
20
(No Transcript)
21
Back-ups
22
DTE Organization Structure
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com