Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program...
Transcript of Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program...
1
Central Test and Evaluation Investment
Program (CTEIP)
PE 0604940D8Z
Mr. Gerry Christeson
Deputy Director, Test Capabilities Development
Test Resource Management Center
2
Requirements Drivers
Central Test & Evaluation
Investment Program (CTEIP)
Established in FY91 by Congress with 6.4 RDT&E funds
Mission: Develop or Improve Major Test Capabilities that have Multi-Service Utility
19 JIM, 6 EW, 13 REP, 11 TSP = 49 Projects
Near-Term Investments Long-Term Multi-Service Investments
JIM-Core
• 3-5 year requirement horizon
• EMD of major test capabilities
• Must address multi-service need
• Development, not procurement
• Services & Agencies budget for
O&M over life-cycle
• $110-120M/year
JIM-EW
• Special DoD area of emphasis
• EMD of electronic warfare (EW)
test capabilities
• Focus is on assessing
performance of aircraft against
complex new threats.
• Service budget for life-cycle O&M.
• Total cost/schedule is TBD
Threat
Systems
Project
(TSP)
• 1-2 year horizon
• Address shortfalls
in threat systems
representation
• Coordinated with
DOT&E
• $3-5M/year
• 1-2 year requirement horizon
• EMD of instrumentation
needed to address an
emergent requirement
• Must address OT shortfalls
• Coordinated with DOT&E
• $18 -20M/year
Resource
Enhancement Project
(REP)
Joint Improvement & Modernization (JIM)
Annual review of near term
OT requirementsBi-annual Multi-Service T&E
Reliance Nomination ProcessMultiple DoD EW studies
Annual review
of threat needs
3
Central T&E Investment Program
(CTEIP) Budget
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
CTE
IP T
OA
($
M)
EW
JIM Baseline
REP/TSP
New EW Test Capabilities
Baseline Joint Improvement & Modernization
Near-term OT and Threat Simulators
FY15 Budget RequestHistorical
Major new investment in EW Test Capability to address advanced radar threats
4
Examples of how CTEIP developed capabilities
support major weapons systems
AircraftSub-meter TSPI
Spectrum efficient 2-way telemetry
MissilesMiniaturized flight termination
Simulation of net-centric missile engagements
UAS Manned-Unmanned Integration
Integration into National Airspace
Multi-band telemetry collection/relay
High fidelity imagery of flight performance
(F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15, C-17,
G550 & Others)
(JASSM, SDB-2, others)
(Global Hawk, Reaper, Triton,
Apache/Gray Eagle)
Networking and interoperability
Infra-red countermeasures T&E
5
• Accurate Time-Space-Position Information ($383M)
• Cyber and Test Security ($37M)
• Infra-red Countermeasures ($44M)
• EW Test Resource Enhancement Program ($466M)
• Net-centric Weapons T&E ($100M)
• Realistic Test Environments ($171M)
• Safe Testing of Large Footprint Weapons ($91M)
• Spectrum Efficient Technology ($93M)
• T&E for Unmanned Aerial Systems ($14M)
CTEIP Investment Areas
25 major projects grouped into common Investment Areas that help
enable the Enterprise Solution Approach
6
Accurate Time Space Position Information (TSPI)
Challenge
Drivers Program Examples
Goals
• Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System (CRIIS) - First real-time, high-precision (sub-meter) TSPI range system
Adds new internal mount configurations for F-18 and F-35
• Advanced Range Tracking and Imaging System (ARTIS) – New multi-band video tracking system started in FY14
• CRIIS
Replaces ARDS with growth potential for Combat Training System
• ARTIS
Replaces KTMs with high fidelity optics and remote operation
Development Status
• CRIIS
Flight Test starting in FY15
• ARTIS
Source selection starting in 2nd Qtr FY15.Provide precise “Ground Truth” TSPI for high accuracy future Systems Under Test (SUT)
CRIISGPS ARDS
7
• OHISS
In development with Boom Flight Test and Critical Design Review in FY15
• VEMPS
Critical Design Reviews for both Pax River and WSMR EMP capabilities in early FY15
HPM capability at Pax River to award development contract in early FY15
Realistic Test Environments
Challenges
Drivers Program Examples
Development Status
Provide test environments that provide realistic conditions on which to assess system performance. For example:
• Provide full envelope of icing conditions that meets FAA requirements under safe flight conditions
• Provide variable EMP test capability that meets MIL-STD-2169 requirement
• Provide HPM test capability that meets revised MIL-STD-464 requirements
• Objective Helicopter Icing Spray System (OHISS)
Provides improved icing testing for low speed aircraft
• Vertical Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP ) Simulator (VEMPS)
Provides improved Vertical EMP and HPM T&E capabilities
Realistic
EMP Environment
Realistic
Icing Conditions
8
EW Test Resource Enhancement Program
• USD(AT&L) has developed a strategy to address highest-priority shortfalls in
testing against advanced radar threats
Substantially improves our ability to develop, test, and field next-generation EW
capabilities FY16-18 and beyond
The Department has programmed CTEIP funding to support these critical
developments
• Establishes balanced investments across all EW test domains (i.e., SIL, HWIL,
ISTF, OAR) in order to test against modern threat systems
Laboratory and chamber environments provide cost-effective early discovery,
component and system-level testing
Open air flight tests support full end-to-end performance in single and multi-ship
operations
• Develops capabilities for DT/OT of F-35, Next Generation Jammer, B-2 Defensive
Management System (DMS), F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System
(EPAWSS) and other EW programs
9
ISTF Upgrades
Installed Test Facility UpgradesCapabilities
• Next Generation EW Environment Generator
(NEWEG) High-fidelity EW signal generation
Direct-inject – Patuxent River NAS (ACETEF), Edwards AFB
(BAF), Point Mugu (ECSEL)
Free-space chamber radiating configuration – Patuxent River
NAS (ACETEF), Edwards AFB (BAF)
Open air, open loop threat emitters
• Advanced Dynamic Transmitter Array (ADTRA) Delivers 12 advanced RF transmit carts for dense/diverse threat
environment at the BAF
Goal Development Status
• NEWEG
Scenario Simulation Control (SSC) subsystem PDR
March 2014
Measurement and Analysis (MAA) and Digital
Signal Generator (DGEN) subsystem SRRs Aug –
Sep 2014
Contract award for remaining subsystem to be
finalized 1st Qtr FY2015
• ADTRA
Kick-off meeting in April 2014
Requirements development underway
• NEWEG
Provide high-fidelity ground test EW signal environment
Wideband (open architecture) modular/scalable RF signal
generator for use in both direct-inject and free-space test
configurations
Common high-fidelity EW signal generation for open air
T&E threat simulators
• Improve BAF and ACETEF EW test environments to
support next generation DoD weapon systems
• Build toward needed sensor fusion capability
10
Open Loop RF Emitters
• Fields S-Band and C-Band transmit only
radar signal emulators at Air Force and
Navy test ranges
Pursuing Active Electronically Scanned Array
(AESA) technologies
Each emitter to represent multiple threats
Two alternative prototype designs being developed
Red Air
Range
C2
Blue Air
GPS
Open LoopSystems
ECCU
ClosedLoop
System
Open Loop
System
External Interface
(T&E, TSPI, Other)
Description
Development Status
• Acquisition Strategy includes MIT-LL and CEA (Australia) parallel prototype development efforts
Contract actions initiated for both efforts
• Test Capability Requirements Document –June 2014
• 1st Prototype to be delivered March 2016
Goal
• Address current OAR test capability shortfalls
Accurate representation of current and emerging
WESTPAC threats
High-fidelity threat signal sets (ERP / Scan Pattern /
Complex Waveforms / Signal Density)
• Support DT/OT of F-35, Next Generation Jammer,
B-2 DMS, F-15 EPAWSS, and other EW programs
in FY16-20 time frame
11
Closed Loop Threat Simulators
• High fidelity OAR surrogates of three
different WESTPAC shooters with search,
track, and missile fly-out functions to be
fielded at ECR and NTTR:
Pursuing space-fed Passive Electronically Scanned
Array (PESA) technologies
Delivers reconfigurable receiver and signal
processing
Red Air
Range
C2
Blue Air
GPS
Open LoopSystems
ECCU
ClosedLoop
System
Open Loop
System
External Interface
(T&E, TSPI, Other)
Description
Development Status
• Radar/Antenna Group SRR: July 2014
• Receiver/Processor Common Equipment Group SRR: Oct 2014
• Preliminary Design Review (PDR):
January 2015
• Critical Design Review (CDR): July 2015
• IOC FY2018
* CG and PCG will be LSI developed, PESA/PEG will be AATS deliverables
Goal
• Address current OAR test capability shortfalls
Accurate representation of current and emerging
WESTPAC threats
High-fidelity threat signal sets (ERP / Scan Pattern /
Complex Waveforms / Signal Density)
• Support DT/OT of F-35, Next Generation Jammer,
B-2 DMS, F-15 EPAWSS, and other EW programs in
FY16-20 time frame
12
Emphasis on
Better Buying Power 2.0 • “Use technology development phase for true risk reduction”
Problem: Over-estimation of technology maturity
CTEIP Action: Close collaboration with T&E/S&T program to assess and support technology development activities.
• “Improve requirements definition/prevent requirements creep”
Problem: Overly specific or vague requirements are causing issues defining a clear set of customer needs and a
reasonable set of performance/cost trade-offs
CTEIP Actions:
Support early Service studies to define Use Cases and write initial Test Capability Requirements Documents before project
start.
“Build strong partnerships with requirements community (throughout the project) to control costs.”
• “Achieve affordable programs”
Problem: Many projects realizing cost growth. Primary causes are requirements uncertainties or technical issues.
CTEIP Actions:
Conduct early “affordability” reviews confirm that total cost of capability is consistent with need and customer
density.
Conduct formal review of major cost overruns in collaboration with Services to confirm continued need.
Examples: JDIGS (Build A and B), CBITS, Mid-Pressure Arc Heater, and SWARM
Examples: Successful TCRD preparation work on MLS & SBES, adjustments to
OHISS requirement based on close collaboration with RTC user.
Examples: CTEIP instituted the “Acquisition Strategy and Affordability Review in
2010. ARTIS cost growth due to early under-estimation confirmed by customer at
ASAR (MS-I). SFSS cost growth due the environment test failures confirmed by
customer at MS-II.