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

1. Aerial Targets Status An OSD ViewNDIA Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium Mr. Rick Lockhart Deputy Director, DT&E OUSD(AT&L) November 18, 2004

2. Purpose • Describe OUSD(AT&L) initiative to reinvigorate Systems Engineering (SE) • Provide OSD DT&E perspective regarding targets • Discuss future challenges regarding use of aerial targets in T&E • Describe DSB Aerial Targets Study

3. USD(AT&L) 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 DT&E • Conduct outreach with industry, academia, associations, individual programs, and others

5. Defense Systems Director Dr. Glenn Lamartin Principal Deputy Mr. Mark Schaeffer Systems Engineering Mr. Schaeffer Systems Acquisition Dr. Lamartin Systems & Mission Integration Dr. Garber Enterprise Development Bob Skalamera Developmental Test & Evaluation Rick Lockhart Assessments & Support David Castellano JF Integration Robin Quinlan JF Operations Jay Kistler JF Application James Durham Air Warfare Dianne Wright Land Warfare & Munitions Anthony Melita Naval Warfare Darlene Costello Missile Warfare Kent Stansbury Treaty Compliance Tom Troyano Source: DS Memo, Subject: Defense Systems Organizations and Management Adjustments, dated January 16, 2004 Defense Systems Organization

6. Director Systems Engineering Mark Schaeffer (SE) Modeling & Simulation Deputy Director, Systems Engineering (Enterprise Development) Bob Skalamera (ED) Deputy Director, Systems Engineering (Assessments and Support) Dave Castellano (AS) Deputy Director, Systems Engineering (Developmental Test & Evaluation) Rick Lockhart (DTE) • DT&E Policy • DT&E Education and Training • DT&E Best Practices • Test Ranges & Facilities • DTRMC Interface / Liaison • DT&E Outreach • DT&E Champion • Targets Oversight and Coordination • JDEP • DSOC • M&S • JT&E • Program Support and Assessments (DAB / OIPT) • DAES Assessments • T&E Oversight • SE & T&E Support to PMs • SEP and TEMP staffing for OSD review / approval • Program Support Reviews • Software Engineering Policy/ Practice • CMMI-AM Pilot • Aircraft Survivability • Section 804 • SE Policy • SE Education and Training • SE Best Practices • SE Handbooks / Guidebooks • SE Outreach • SE Champion • Systemic Analysis • RTOC / VE • Corrosion • Strategic Planning • SE Forum • Commercial Standards 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 M&S • Leveraged close working relationships with industry and academia • Integrating DT&E with SE policy and assessment functions — focused on effective, early engagement

8. Importance of DT&E in Acquisition (DT&E is a critical part of good SE) • Provides an opportunity to find problems early (Learn) — Failure in DT&E 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 IOT&E • 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 T&E : • Full scale targets • Supersonic Seaskimming Targets (SSST) • Threat " D "

11. AQM – 37 BQM – 34 VANDAL QF – 4 BQM – 74 AQM – 37 BQM – 34 VANDAL QF – 4 BQM – 74 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 T&E 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 T&E 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 T&E • Future threats make T&E 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 (M&S) : • Verification and Validation (V&V) of most M&S today is performed through comparison to live test data • V&V of future M&S may depend on limited or "piecemeal" live test data

16. OSD Targets Review • Concerns raised by DOT&E and DT&E during DAES process • AF and Navy directed to brief USD(AT&L) 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(AT&L) and DOT&E • 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 T&E • Alternatives to using aerial targets for training and T&E • Specialized range, instrumentation, or facility requirements for T&E or training • Alternatives for replication of Threat " D "

18. Summary • Emphasis on robust DT&E is a critical part of AT&L efforts to reinvigorate SE : • Robust DT&E 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(AT&L) Systems Engineering website : http://www.acq.osd.mil/ds/se/ OUSD(AT&L) Developmental Test and Evaluation website : http://www.acq.osd.mil/ds/se/dte/

21. Back-ups

22. DEVELOPMENTAL TEST & EVALUATION Rick Lockhart (SES)* 2B278 695-4421 Lt Col Rich Stuckey (O-5)* 2B278 697-5806 Fred Myers* 2B278 697-3406 Dr. Elizabeth Rodriguez-Johnson 2B278 697-4812 Larry Paulson* 2B278 697-5805 Contract Support Team Jay White (PM) 412-3685 Sandy Stanford 697-5733 Joe Angsten 412-3696 Tom Ballew 412-3670 Dorothy Guy 695-7247 Bill Molino 695-7246 Mo Perry 697-5732 Joe Terlizzese 412-3687 *(4 AT&L Billets) DT&E Organization Structure

23. BQM-74E Subsonic, 0.8 M Recoverable Surface or air (C-130) launched BQM-74F Subsonic, 0.8 M Recoverable Surface or air (C-130) launched BQM-74F vs. -74E BQM-34S Subsonic, 0.8 M Recoverable Surface or air (C-130) launched

24. MQM-107 Subsonic, subscale aircraft target Recoverable BQM-167A Subsonic, subscale aircraft target Relatively large payload Recoverable

25. MQM-8G VANDAL To be replaced by GQM-163C COYOTE (SSST) Supersonic, 2.25 M Non- Recoverable GQM-163A COYOTE Supersonic, 2.5 M Non- Recoverable Launched from VANDAL launcher MA-31 Skimmer/diver Supersonic, 3+ M Non- Recoverable Air launched from QF-4 HARPOON Subsonic, 0.9 M Non- Recoverable Air launched from F/A-18

26. FGNKormoran Subsonic, 0.9 M Non- Recoverable Air launched from FGN Tornado QF-4 Phantom Can also be flown manned Launch platform for AQM-37C & MA-31 Recoverable AQM-37C High altitude, supersonic, M 3+ Air launched from QF-4 Non-Recoverable

27. SDTS-R, ex-DD 964 SDTS, ex-Decatur with towed radar reflector barge Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS)