An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Published by:

The Army Test and Evaluation Management Agency

September 2007

Table of Contents

Topic Page

Introduction 1

I Test and Evaluation Mandate 1

II The Army Test and Evaluation Community 6 A. Army Test and Evaluation Executive 7 B. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Management Agency 8 C. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command 9 1. U.S. Army Developmental Test Command 10 2. U.S. Army Operational Test Command 17 3. U.S. Army Evaluation Center 18 D. U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command 19 1. U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site 20 2. High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility 22 E. Project Manager for Instrumentation, Targets, and Threat Simulators 24 F. Army Research Laboratory’s Survivability, Lethality, and Analysis Directorate 25 G. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity 27

III. Chemical and Biological T&E Community 31 A. Army 31 B. Air Force 31 C. Navy 32 D. Product Director, Test Equipment, Strategy, and Support 32

IV T&E Resource Management Structure 34 A. Army T&E Funding 34 1. Army Test Ranges and Facilities (665601) 38 2. Army Technical Test Instrumentation & Targets (665602) 38 3. Meteorological Support to Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation Activities (665702) 39 4. Support of Operational Testing (665712) 40

An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Table of Contents (continued)

5. Program-wide Activities (665801) 40 6. Army Evaluation Center (665716) 40 7. Army Kwajalein Atoll (665301) 41 8. DOD High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (665605) 41 9. Major Test and Evaluation Investment (664759) 42 10. Threat Simulator Development (664256) 42 11. Target Systems Development (664258) 43 12. Special Equipment for User Testing (MA6700) 43 13. Lethality/Survivability Analysis (665604) 43 14. Materiel Systems Analysis (665706) 44 15. Production Base Support and Industrial Facilities 45 B. Chemical and Biological Defense Program Funding 46 1. Chemical/Biological Defense (0603384BP) (Advanced Technology Development) 46 2. Chemical/Biological Defense (0603884BP) (Advanced Component Development and Prototypes) 47 3. Chemical/Biological Defense (0604384BP) (System Development and Demonstration) 47 4. Chemical/Biological Defense (9695384BP) (RDT&E Management Support) 47 5. Chemical/Biological Defense (0607384BP) (Operational System Development) 47

V Summary 48

Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance A-1

An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Introduction

This document serves as a basic reference regarding the Army test and evaluation community’s general capabilities, funding, and policies. The primary audience includes members of the Army staff, the Tri-Service T&E community, Congressional staff, and personnel assigned to Army test and evaluation organizations. Formal course instruction is available through the Defense Acquisition University, and additional information is also available in Office of the Secretary of Defense directives and instructions, Army regulations and pamphlets, and individual test and evaluation organizations. Section I, The Test and Evaluation Mandate, outlines the requirement for test and evaluation. Section II, Army Test and Evaluation Community, provides a broad description of Army organizations that conduct, or are directly associated with, test and evaluation. Section III, Chemical and Biological T&E Community, describes the research and development facilities, T&E capability developers, and T&E assets unique to the Chemical and Biological T&E community. Section IV, T&E Resource Management Structure, describes the general funding construct that supports Army test and evaluation capabilities and what each T&E Program Element (PE) funds. Section V is a Summary of this document.

I. The Test and Evaluation (T&E) Mandate

The requirement and need for T&E as an integral part of the acquisition of materiel systems are mandated by law, directives, and regulations. Summaries of the primary mandates are discussed below.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-109, Major System Acquisitions, dated 5 April 1976, established policies to be followed by executive branch agencies in the acquisition of major systems. These policies were designed to assure the effectiveness and efficiency of the process of acquiring major systems. They were based on the general policy that Federal agencies, when acquiring major systems, would do the following: encourage innovation and competition by expressing needs and program objectives in mission terms; allow competitive exploration of alternative system design concepts; communicate with Congress early in the system acquisition process; establish clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability for management of programs; utilize appropriate managerial levels in decision making; designate a focal point responsible for integrating and unifying the system acquisition management process; and rely on private industry where appropriate. Specifically, paragraphs 7a & d of the Circular state that “Each agency acquiring major systems should: a. Ensure that each major system fulfills a mission need. Operates effectively in its intended environment. Demonstrates a level of performance and reliability that justifies the allocation of the Nation's limited resources for its acquisition and ownership. …d. Provide

1 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

strong checks and balances by ensuring adequate system test and evaluation. Conduct such tests and evaluation independent, where practicable, of developer and user."

10 United States Code (USC) Sec. 2399, Operational Test and Evaluation of Defense Acquisition Programs, dated January 2006, is the primary statute from which Department of Defense (DoD) Directives, Instructions, and Army T&E regulations flow. Section 2399 is the primary reference for the requirement to conduct and report on operational testing. It states that “…a major defense acquisition program may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until initial operational test and evaluation of the program is completed.” It further states that: “Operational testing of a major defense acquisition program may not be conducted until the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense approves (in writing) the adequacy of the plans (including the projected level of funding) for operational test and evaluation. ‘The Director shall analyze the results of the operational test and evaluation conducted… [and] prepare a report stating the opinion of the Director as to whether the test and evaluation performed were adequate, and whether the results of such test and evaluation confirm that the items or components actually tested are effective and suitable for combat. ‘A final decision… to proceed with a major defense acquisition program beyond low-rate initial production may not be made until the Director has submitted to the Secretary of Defense the report with respect to that program… and the congressional defense committees have received that report.”

10 USC Sec. 2366, Major Systems and Munitions Programs: Survivability Testing and Lethality Testing Required Before Full-Scale Production, dated January 2006 is the primary reference for conducting live fire survivability and lethality testing. It states that a covered system, major munition, a missile program, or a product improvement to a covered system, major munitions, or missile program may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until realistic survivability or lethality testing is completed and the report required by statute is submitted to the congressional defense committees.

Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, dated 12 May 2003, provides management principles and mandatory policies and procedures for managing all DoD acquisition programs. In accordance with (IAW) OMB Circular A-109, it fosters flexibility, responsiveness, innovation, disciplined, streamlined and effective management to acquire quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable improvements to mission capability and operational support, in a timely manner, and at a fair and reasonable price. It states that: “Test and evaluation shall be integrated throughout the defense acquisition process… and… structured to provide essential information to decision-makers, assess attainment of technical performance parameters, and determine whether systems are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for intended use. The conduct of test and

2 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

evaluation, integrated with modeling and simulation, shall facilitate learning, assess technology maturity and interoperability, facilitate integration into fielded forces, and confirm performance against documented capability needs and adversary capabilities as described in the system threat assessment.”

DoD Instruction 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, dated 12 May 2003, establishes a simplified and flexible management framework for translating mission needs and technology opportunities, based on approved mission needs and requirements, into stable, affordable, and well-managed acquisition programs that include weapon systems and automated information systems (AISs). Consistent with statutory requirements and DoDD 5000.1, it authorizes Milestone Decision Authorities to tailor procedures to achieve cost, schedule, and performance goals. It states that: “The PM, in concert with the user and test and evaluation communities, shall coordinate developmental test and evaluation (DT&E), operational test and evaluation (OT&E), live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E), family-of-systems interoperability testing, information assurance testing, and modeling and simulation (M&S) activities into an efficient continuum, closely integrated with requirements definition and systems design and development. The T&E strategy shall provide information about risk and risk mitigation, provide empirical data to validate models and simulations, evaluate technical performance and system maturity, and determine whether systems are operationally effective, suitable, and survivable against the threat detailed in the System Threat Assessment. ‘Adequate time and resources shall be planned to support pre-test predictions and post-test reconciliation of models and test results, for all major test events. The Program Manager (PM), in concert with the user and test communities, shall provide safety releases to the developmental and operational testers prior to any test using personnel. ‘Completed independent initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) and completed LFT&E shall support a beyond low-rate initial production (LRIP) decision for acquisition category (ACAT) I and II programs for conventional weapons systems designed for use in combat…” as required by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2399 and 2366. LFT&E, as that term is defined in 10 U.S.C. 2366, must be conducted on a covered system, major munition program, missile program, or product improvement to a covered system, major munition program, or missile program before it can proceed beyond LRIP. A covered system is any vehicle, weapon platform, or conventional weapon system that includes features designed to provide some degree of protection to users in combat and that is an ACAT I or II program.

AR 73-1, Test and Evaluation Policy, dated 1 August 2006, implements DoD policies and procedures and specifically prescribes implementing policies and assigns responsibilities for Army test and evaluation activities during the system acquisition process. It applies to all systems acquired under the auspices of AR 70-1, dated 31 December 2003. It implements the Army's continuous evaluation program, defines the role of the independent evaluators, and includes implementing policies for the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).

3 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

DA Pamphlet 73-1, Test and Evaluation in Support of Systems Acquisition, dated 30 May 2003, provides guidance and procedures to implement test and evaluation policy for materiel and information technology systems as promulgated by AR 73-1. It outlines the basic Army test and evaluation philosophy; general test and evaluation guidance in support of materiel systems acquisition and information technology systems acquisition; test and evaluation guidance in support of system modifications and non-developmental items; the Test and Evaluation Working-level Integrated Product Team; preparation, staffing and approval of the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP); detailed guidance on preparation, staffing, and approval of critical operational issues and criteria to include key performance parameters; guidance on the planning, conduct, and reporting of system evaluation; and guidance on the planning, conduct, and reporting of testing (that is, developmental and operational) to include test support packages, test incidents, corrective actions, instrumentation, targets, and threat simulators.

50 USC, Section 1522, Conduct of chemical and biological defense program, dated January 2006, outlines the management and oversight responsibilities for the conduct of the chemical and biological defense program. It states that the Secretary of Defense “…shall designate the Army as executive agent for the Department of Defense to coordinate and integrate research, development, test, and evaluation, and acquisition, requirements of the military departments for chemical and biological warfare defense programs of the Department of Defense.” Regarding funding of the chemical and biological defense program, it states that the …”budget …shall reflect a coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense program for the Department of Defense. ‘Funding requests for the program…shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of Defense for each fiscal year as a separate account, with a single program element for each of the categories of research, development, test, and evaluation, acquisition, and military construction. ‘Funding requests for the program may not be included in the budget accounts of the military departments. ‘Funds for military construction for the program in the military construction budget shall be set forth separately from other funds for military construction projects.” Additionally, it states that “All funding requirements for the chemical and biological defense program shall be reviewed by the Secretary of the Army as executive agent…”

Public Law 107-314, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 section 232, dated December 2002, clarifies the objectives for institutional funding of test and evaluation facilities and differentiates overhead and direct costs. It.states that the Secretary of Defense shall establish the objective of ensuring that “…the institutional and overhead costs of a facility or resource of a military department or Defense Agency that is within the Major Range and Test Facility Base are fully funded through the major test and evaluation investment

4 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

accounts of the military department…and the charge to an element of the Department of Defense for a use by that element of such a facility or resource for testing a particular program is not more than the amount equal to the direct costs of such use by that element.” The act further defines the terms “institutional and overhead costs” as …”the costs of maintaining, operating, upgrading, and modernizing the facility or resource; and does not include any incremental cost of operating the facility or resource that is attributable to the use of the facility or resource for testing under a particular program.” The term “direct costs” is defined as “…those costs that are directly attributable to the use of the facility or resource for testing under a particular program, over and above the institutional and overhead costs with respect to the facility or resource.”

5 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

II. The Army Test and Evaluation Community

There are many Army organizations that play a role in testing and evaluation activities. For example, the combat developer represents the user and develops and coordinates system operational requirements and test support packages; the materiel developer, or Program Manager (PM), assists with the design, planning, programming, coordination, and execution of a viable T&E program; the developmental and/or operational tester plans and executes the necessary test events throughout a system’s life cycle; the system evaluator plans, conducts, and reports the system evaluation or assessment regarding effectiveness, suitability, and survivability; the logistician, who, in support of T&E, conducts the logistic evaluation of systems being acquired and assures that logistics are adequately addressed in the TEMP and detailed test plans; and the training developer who develops the training strategy and training test support package for testing and certifies that soldier players are ready for testing. The U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) is the command that plans, executes, and reports on the majority of Army tests. In addition to ATEC, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) conducts testing at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site and the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility. While it is recognized that ATEC and SMDC conduct the majority of the developmental and operational testing for the U.S. Army, there are other organizations that also conduct testing. The Chief of Engineers (COE), for example conducts T&E on commercial and/or non-developmental items (NDI) procured for use in engineer maintenance and supply activities; the Intelligence and Security Command conducts T&E for assigned classified or secure systems; the Army Medical Command conducts testing for medical materiel systems; and the Army Special Operations Command conducts operational testing on special operations peculiar systems. Other key organizations in the Army T&E community include the Army Research Laboratory’s Survivability, Lethality, and Analysis Directorate (SLAD), the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA), as well as the Program Manager for Instrumentation, Targets and Threat Simulators (PM ITTS). As designated by the Secretary of Defense, the Army is responsible for the coordination and integration of research, development, test, and evaluation, and acquisition requirements of the military departments for the Chemical and Biological Defense program (CBDP). The organizations that assist in the fulfillment of these responsibilities are included in Section III of this document. Figure 1 reflects many of the offices and commands discussed above. Those in green and purple are Army and OSD organizations, respectively, with whom TEMA interacts on a frequent basis. Those in yellow are Army organizations with whom TEMA interacts on a routine basis and receive a portion of their institutional funding through the Test Joint Capability Area (JCA) for

6 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

which TEMA is the manager and proponent. Each is addressed in subsequent paragraphs.

SECDEF ASSISTANT SEC DEF (NII) UNDER SEC DEF (AT&L)

Test Resource Asst to SEC DEF Director, Operational Management Center (NCBD) Test & Evaluation SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY T&E Exec ASA(ALT)

TRADOC AMC TSG FORSCOM TEMA

COE INSCOM MEDCOM USASOC PEO JPEO STRI CBD SMDC ATEC RDE COMMAND USAKA/RTS HELSTF

PM PD ARL AMSAA AEC DTC OTC ITTS TESS

SLAD

Figure 1. Army T&E Community

A. Army Test and Evaluation Executive The Test and Evaluation Executive, serves as the Army T&E Executive and the CBDP T&E Executive. He establishes, supervises, and enforces Army T&E policy and procedures, and serves as the Army member or advisor to various DoD T&E executive committees, to include the Joint T&E Senior Advisory Council, the Army Requirements Oversight Council, the Army Overarching Integrated Product Team, and the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council. He also chairs the CBDP Working-level Integrated Product Team. The T&E Executive provides Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) approval authority for test-related documents including the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and Operational Test Event Design Plans (EDPs). He also provides oversight and issue resolution to the CBDP T&E community on T&E related issues.

7 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

B. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Management Agency (TEMA) TEMA is a staff support agency within the office of the Army Chief of Staff. Its mission is to establish policy and resources that are disciplined and flexible enough to support safer and more reliable equipment for the current and future Army and DoD Chemical and Biological Defense. They also provide T&E subject matter expertise and oversight of Army and DoD Chem/Bio programs and represent Army T&E interests at OSD and Tri-Service committees and forums. Figure 2 graphically depicts the unique relationship between TEMA, the office of the Chief of Staff and the Army T&E Executive. As part of the Army Staff, TEMA reports to the Director of the Army Staff, however, much of TEMA’s daily activities are closely aligned with and support the Army T&E Executive, who reports to the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army.

Secretary of the Army USA DUSA Army T&E Executive CSA VCSA DAS

Director Test & Evaluation Management Agency

Deputy Director/ Chem/Bio Defense Policy and Resources Program Division Programs Division Division Figure 2. TEMA and Army T&E Executive

TEMA has a director and three divisions. The following paragraphs describe the major responsibilities and duties of each division:

The Policy and Programs Division develops and promulgates Army T&E policy and procedures (authors AR and DA Pam 73-1), provides T&E oversight for all Army programs (less those falling under CBDP oversight), provides Army T&E expertise to support defense acquisition programs, manages the HQDA approval and staffing of all Army test-related documentation, and chairs the Test and Evaluation Managers Committee (TEMAC). The Resources Division serves as the proponent for Army T&E resources at HQDA by developing and defending the Army T&E budget to the Army, OSD, and Congress, serving as the HQDA staffing and approval agent for all T&E resource programming, developing and monitoring the Army Major Range and

8 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Test Facility Base (MRTFB) management and funding policy, and providing HQDA oversight of the funding of Army instrumentation, targets, and threat simulator programs. The Resources Division also administers the Army portion of the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program, oversees the Army validation of threat representations used in testing, and develops and coordinates the Army Test and Evaluation Strategic Plan.. The Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) Division works closely with the Joint Program Executive Office, Chemical and Biological Defense, and the CBDP T&E Executive to provide CBDP T&E oversight and expertise to support defense acquisition systems. They review the CBDP Program Objective Memorandum (POM) to ensure adequate T&E funding, approve the CBDP T&E infrastructure investment strategy, and establish standardized CBDP T&E procedures and processes.

C. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC)

ATEC is composed of a Headquarters (HQ) and three subordinate commands/center. ATEC HQ is located at Alexandria, VA. Its subordinate organizations are the Developmental Test Command (DTC), the Operational Test Command (OTC), and Army Evaluation Center (AEC), as shown in Figure 3.

U.S.U.S. ArmyArmy TestTest andand EvaluationEvaluation CommandCommand (ATEC)(ATEC)

U.S.U.S. ArmyArmy U.S.U.S. ArmyArmy U.S.U.S. ArmyArmy DevelopmentalDevelopmental OperationalOperational EvaluationEvaluation TestTest CommandCommand TestTest CommandCommand CenterCenter (DTC)(DTC) (OTC)(OTC) (AEC)(AEC)

Figure 3. ATEC Command Structure

ATEC plans, conducts, and integrates developmental testing, independent operational testing, independent evaluations, assessments, and experiments in order to provide essential information to decision makers. The primary ATEC products and services include:

Developmental Test (DT) Initial Operational Test (IOT) Customer Test (CT) Follow-on Operational Test (FOT) Safety Testing Verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) of modeling and simulation (M&S) and of targets and threat simulators/simulations

9 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Live-Fire vulnerability and lethality tests Joint and Multi-Service tests involving Army materiel Force development tests in support of Army combat development process Field experiments and technology demonstrations Safety Releases/Safety Confirmations System Assessment (SA)/System Evaluation Reports (SER) Capabilities and Limitations (C&L) Reports for Rapid Acquisition Initiatives

The following map (Figure 4) depicts the various ATEC range locations, offices and headquarters.

Alexandria Aberdeen HQ ATEC HQ DTC HQ AEC ATC AVED BMDED Ft. Leavenworth SED(AEC) Ft. Greely, AK CIEDED CCED ILS (AEC) ATEC LNO CRTC CSED FFED R&M (AEC) IED C3ED International Dugway Ft Sill Ft. Leonard NFED LNO WDTC FSTD Wood Warren, MI TECO LNO London ATEC LNO Ft. Monmouth Hawaii AEC Field Office TRTC Picatinny LNO LNO • Ft Belvoir LNO Ft. Lee TECO Ft Monroe Yuma ATEC LNO YTC Ft. Bragg ABNSOTD Ft Huachuca EPG Ft. Knox IEWTD Redstone TECO Ft. Bliss White Sands ADATD Arsenal Ft. Benning WSTC AEC Field Office RTTC Ft Rucker TECO LNO ATTC Ft. Hood HQ OTC ECSTD AVTD CCTD C4TD FFTD TESA TTD AMSCA DTC Field Office

Figure 4. ATEC Locations

1. U.S. Army Developmental Test Command (DTC) DTC is headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. DTC manages the developmental test capability for testing DoD materiel, weapons, and weapon systems throughout the acquisition cycle and manages the Army's live fire test mission. DTC has been at the forefront of testing to support forward deployed Soldiers and units in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and the Long War Against Terrorism (LWAT). With the largest, most diverse assemblage of testing capabilities in the DoD, DTC tests military hardware of every description across the full spectrum of cold regions, tropic, desert and other

10 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

natural or controlled environments on highly instrumented ranges and test courses. DTC offers a full range of test services, including technical feasibility of early concepts, determining system performance and safety, assessing technical risks during system development, confirming designs, and validating manufacturers’ facilities and processes at system, component, and system of systems (SOS) levels. Its testing services are extended to all of DoD, other federal agencies, state and local governments, foreign and allied governments, and private industry. DTC’s command structure is depicted in Figure 5.

DevelopmentalDevelopmental TestTest CommandCommand (DTC)(DTC)

WhiteWhite SandsSands AviationAviation AberdeenAberdeen RedstoneRedstone YumaYuma ProvingProving TestTest CenterCenter TechnicalTechnical TestTest TestTest CenterCenter TechnicalTechnical TestTest GroundGround (WSTC)(WSTC) CenterCenter (ATTC)(ATTC) (ATC)(ATC) CenterCenter (RTTC)(RTTC) (YPG)(YPG)

ElectronicElectronic WestWest DesertDesert TropicTropic RegionsRegions ColdCold RegionsRegions YumaYuma TestTest ProvingProving TestTest CenterCenter TestTest CenterCenter TestTest CenterCenter CenterCenter GroundGround (EPG)(EPG) (WDTC)(WDTC) (TRTC)(TRTC) (CRTC)(CRTC) (YTC)(YTC)

Figure 5. DTC Command Structure

DTC works closely not only with Army program managers and the Army acquisition community, but also with the T&E communities of the Air Force and the Navy. The efficiency and effectiveness of the DoD T&E infrastructure are continuously monitored and improved/updated through the tri-Service T&E Executive Agent structure and process. Within that structure, DTC is the Army member of the Test Resource Advisory Group (TRAG). The TRAG works to oversee the T&E infrastructure, to identify requirements for new capabilities, and to ensure that investments are not made in unnecessary, duplicative capabilities/facilities. Much of this work is performed through the application of the principles of T&E Reliance, which is the process by which the Services rely on each other’s T&E capabilities to meet T&E requirements where it is practical to do so. Reliance also enables the Services’ T&E communities to identify those proposed investments that may be duplicative so that unwarranted duplication of investments or capabilities does not occur. As an active member of integrated product teams (IPTs) that include testers and evaluators, as well as program managers and program executive officers, DTC supports the development of the acquisition strategy, statement of work, performance specification, and test/simulation execution strategy.

11 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

In addition to conducting rigorous performance tests on weapon systems and materiel, DTC tests equipment and systems under a variety of conditions and possible uses to characterize performance and ensure the safety of Soldiers. Test personnel report safety risks, and in some cases, recommend use restrictions that enhance safety. Validating the safety of systems and equipment is the key thrust of DTC’s safety verification program, and it is a critical part of the DTC test mission. DTC developed the unique M&S initiative known as the Virtual Proving Ground (VPG). This initiative provided the foundation for the command’s current distributed test capability that encompasses the varied roles of individual test centers which is a fundamental requirement for system-of-systems (SoS) testing. DTC executes its test mission at the following test ranges and centers, all of which are elements of the DoD Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB), except the Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC) and Redstone Technical Test Center (RTTC).

a. Aberdeen Test Center (ATC). ATC is situated at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Central Maryland and is the T&E Reliance lead test agency for automotive, Congressionally-mandated live fire vulnerability and lethality testing, direct fire, non-lethal weapons, unmanned ground vehicles, littoral warfare, soldier systems, transportability, and engineering equipment. A diverse, multi- purpose proving ground, ATC encompasses 56,707 acres of engineered and dedicated land and water (40 miles of test track and 250 test ranges), including restricted airspace from the surface to unlimited altitude. ATC's comprehensive array of state-of-the-art capabilities and unique facilities, simulators, and models enable testing and experimentation from the component and subsystem level to the integrated system. ATC executes a cutting-edge information system that incorporates innovative data-acquisition technologies. Satellite/high-band communications, coupled with database technology, allow customers to access information regarding their programs in real time through the World Wide Web. This capability enables test customers to make rapid, rational and rigorous decisions throughout a system’s life cycle. ATC has a key role in conducting T&E of rapid material equipping initiatives in support of the GWOT and is providing technical leadership in moving the focus of developmental testing from platform centric testing to network centric system of systems testing.

b. West Desert Test Center (WDTC). WDTC is located at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) in northern Utah and serves as the T&E Reliance lead test agency and the nation’s Chemical and Biological Defense Proving Ground. Effective FY97, U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) test operating funds were transferred to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) IAW Public Law 103-160. Funds for technology, base operations, environmental, and real property maintenance remain within the Army, as well as responsibility for test management and manpower. The Department of Defense has designated DPG as an element of the MRTFB, and the primary chemical and biological (CB) defense testing center under the Reliance Program. The primary mission of the

12 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

WDTC is testing of United States and Allied CB defense systems and performing nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) contamination survivability testing of defense materiel. With 65 years of experience, the test center uses its state-of- the-art laboratories and chambers in concert with extensive field test grids to fully determine the performance characteristics of items being tested. Testers here determine the reliability and survivability of all types of military equipment in a chemical or biological environment This remote and isolated installation is composed of almost 900,000 acres, located in the Great Salt Lake Desert of northern Utah (approximately 85 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah). The terrain varies from level salt flats to scattered sand dunes and rugged mountains. The isolated location provides an acoustically and electronically quiet environment, free from population encroachment. WDTC is located next to the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR), and when teamed together, provide the largest overland safety footprint in the United States for the support of aircraft weapons testing, aircraft tactical testing, and training activities. DPG and UTTR maintain a "team" relationship to serve customers and utilize the many resources available. In support of Presidential decision directives, WDTC also provides unique capabilities for Domestic CB Incident Response Courses and hosts challenging full-scale field exercises, complete with detailed laboratory training programs that enable emergency response organizations to validate their tactics, techniques, and procedures for use during a chemical or biological weapons incident. WDTC is also home to DTC's Meteorological (MET) Division. This division provides world-class meteorological and atmospheric modeling support to all of DTC's test facilities, as well as for CB defense model development, validation and testing.

c. White Sands Test Center (WSTC). WSTC is a unique combination of geography, laboratories, weather personnel and support activities that make it ideal for modern land based testing. WSTC, the largest (3,200 square mile) all overland test range in DoD, is a multi-Service use range for testing of air-to- ground and ground-to-ground munitions as well as surface-to-air, air defense, and fire support systems. In recognition of this, WSTC has been designated the T&E Reliance lead test agency for surface-to-air weapons testing. The missile range is in the Tularosa Basin of south-central New Mexico with their headquarters located 20 miles east of Las Cruces, NM and 45 miles north of El Paso, TX. It is a fully instrumented (radar, telemetry, optical, global positioning system, timing, and meteorological) land range with restricted airspace that also supports space vehicle launches and landings as a backup site. The modern Cox Range Control Center and Launch Complex facilities provide an extraordinarily effective range control and missile/rocket launch capability. In recognition of this unique capability, ATEC recently established WSTC as the command’s Inter-Range Control Center (IRCC) for its Distributed

13 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Test Capability. In this capacity, WSTC will coordinate across ATEC’s multiple locations to provide an integrated live, virtual and constructive test environment in support of network-centric, system-of-systems testing. White Sands operates facilities that provide a full spectrum of battlefield environments for testing such as nuclear, electromagnetic, laser, temperature, and vibration. WSTC provides the off-range target sites for medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles launched to support extended range tests. The preponderance of Future Combat Systems (FCS) developmental testing will be conducted at WSTC. Tenant capabilities collocated at WSTC include: the Navy’s land-locked ship simulator (“Desert Ship”) which supports tests of shipboard fire control and ship- based missiles and the Air Force High Speed Test Track. In addition, White Sands supports various tests for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), other government agencies, and private industry.

d. Electronic Proving Ground (EPG). With a remote location and radio frequency interference-free environment, EPG is the principal Army test center for electronic systems, including the developmental testing of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, & Intelligence (C4I) systems, and navigation and avionics systems. Located at Fort Huachuca, AZ, EPG has access to the 76,000 acres of this southeastern Arizona fort to conduct tests, as well as selected government and private land in the area. EPG is the premier government activity for testing distributed communication systems with emphasis on systems of systems testing. EPG is the developer of the Virtual Electronic Proving Ground that allows for the conducting of tests in combined real, virtual, and constructive simulation environments. Facilities here include a full range for testing of electromagnetic compatibility and vulnerability of tactical electronic equipment, the intra-/interoperability of tactical automated C4I systems (including software and documentation), TEMPEST testing, and electronic countermeasures testing. EPG has an in-house developed suite of test instrumentation that includes test control, test stimulation, test data acquisition, and virtual jamming. EPG is also the Army’s flight test facility for unmanned/micro aerial vehicles and has extensive test capabilities in the areas of global positioning system testing, propagation simulation, C4I battlefield simulations, and the use of existing battle simulations in test and training activities.

e. Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). YPG is the management authority for all DT conducted in extreme natural environments and consists of three subordinate test centers: Yuma Test Center (YTC), Cold Regions Test Center (CRTC), and Tropic Regions Test Center (TRTC). Desert environment testing takes place at YTC, with cold weather testing taking place at the CRTC at Fort Greely, AK. The TRTC, which operates in Hawaii and other tropic areas, as negotiated, conducts testing in a tropic environment, which many claim is the most damaging environmental extreme. YPG is significantly involved in testing new technologies to detect and defeat the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) that continue to plague American and coalition forces in Iraq. Tests are conducted at the Joint Experimentation Range

14 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Complex (JERC), a 30,000-acre YPG test site that greatly resembles Iraq in both climate and terrain. Monthly range temperatures are within a degree or two of Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. The JERC site consists of 227 buildings and many aspects of the Iraqi infrastructure, including power lines, roads and overpasses. Multi-million dollar expansion plans call for another 125 adobe buildings, a train station and a bus station. Soldiers and Marines training at the JERC site gain valuable “Iraqi-city” experience before deployment. Yuma Test Center, at over 1,300 square miles in size, is larger than the state of Rhode Island and has facilities that are capable of realistically, accurately, and safely testing nearly everything in the ground combat arsenal. This is the Army’s large desert environment test center and long/medium range artillery testing facility. YTC is the T&E Reliance lead test agency for gun and munitions testing. In addition, many miles of test courses are used for testing prototype and operational combat vehicle systems (both wheeled and tracked). Developmental testing of Army aircraft weapon systems is accomplished, to include armament (air-to-ground) and target acquisition equipment. Production acceptance testing for Army munitions programs is conducted at YTC. YTC tests all parachute systems for personnel and air delivery of materiel and supports extensive global positioning systems testing. In addition to its systems test mission, extensive range facilities and support systems have been developed to allow joint Service combined arms testing/training. YTC offers the most modern mine, countermine, and demolitions test facility in the Western Hemisphere. Cold Regions Test Center. The Army’s cold, winter, mountain and northern environmental test center is a large outdoors test area of over 670,000 acres with special use restricted airspace from the surface to unlimited altitude. The testing effort is centered at the Bolio Lake Test Complex, AK, from which CRTC accommodates a full range of cold weather or temperate climate tests depending on the season. Bolio Lake provides automotive cold start capabilities and a base for Soldier equipment tests. Ranges are also available for mine, explosives, small arms, direct fire, sensor, air defense, missile, artillery, smoke and obscurant, and mobility testing. CRTC can accommodate indirect fire testing with the capability of observed fire to 30 km and unobserved fire to 50 km. Indirect fire, up to 100 km, can also be accomplished by utilizing ranges near Fort Wainwright, AK with the impact on Ft Greely areas. Supporting infrastructure includes a state-of-the-art test track and mobility testing complex, as well as facilities for surveillance testing, ammunition storage, administrative areas, communications circuits, meteorological sites and an extensive network of roads and trails. Airfield-based and tactical air operations are supported and airdrop zones/facilities are available. Tropic Regions Test Center. TRTC provides customer services in Hawaii and other tropic areas in Central America, where it conducts tests on a wide variety of military weapon systems, materiel, and equipment. Testing in the tropics addresses such environmental aggressors such as heat, humidity, solar radiation, insects, fungus, bacteria, rainfall, and other factors that combine to rapidly reduce the performance of people, machines, and materials. Current and

15 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

planned test capabilities include: Soldier systems test sites, corrosion testing at fixed facilities, a MANPACK portability course, exposure cages, firing range access, and small caliber weapons firing. TRTC offers a diverse number of testing sites to meet the environmental testing needs of customers now and in the future. Future test operations will involve dual-use, off-the-shelf technologies with military and civilian applications such as advanced sensors with multiple application capabilities. There will be multinational cooperative efforts to gather and share information of mutual interest.

f. Redstone Technical Test Center (RTTC). RTTC, located at Redstone Arsenal, AL, is the Army’s foremost tester of small rockets, missiles, aviation subsystems/components, and associated supporting hardware and equipment. It encompasses over 14,000 acres of the Arsenal and operates 650,000 square feet of test facilities. It is unique in its provisions for testing inert and explosive components. Extensive laboratory and range test capabilities have proven to be effective means of verifying component, subsystem, and system performance before committing to flight testing. RTTC is the only lightning effects tester of explosive items in DoD and is recognized as the Army’s primary E3 test facility for aviation systems. RTTC operates the Army’s largest rocket motor static test facility. The Center offers complete test capabilities for small rocket and missile systems to include flight, warhead, and motor performance. All types of natural and operationally induced dynamic, environmental, and electromagnetic testing can be performed. Sensor systems testing (radar and electro-optical) are conducted under simulated battlefield conditions including obscurants and countermeasures. RTTC performs developmental and life-cycle technical tests, as well as quality assurance and stockpile reliability testing at Redstone Arsenal, AL, and throughout the world.

g. Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC). ATTC conducts airworthiness qualification and developmental flight testing of Army aircraft and associated systems. ATTC maintains a fleet of test bed aircraft representing the Army’s diverse fielded aviation systems (e.g.,AH-64A/D, UH-60A/L/M, CH-47D/F, OH- 58D, C-12, and the Shadow Unmanned Aerial System). Several of these aircraft are specially equipped and instrumented to perform in-flight performance and handling qualities evaluations whereby technical engineering data can be recorded and/or transmitted to ground stations for real time or post flight analysis. Instrumentation packages can be tailored for each flight test, whereby the aircraft then becomes a flying laboratory with a flexible “Open Air Range” capability. ATTC is a tenant activity on both Cairns Army Airfield at Fort Rucker, AL, and Redstone Army Airfield at Redstone Arsenal, AL. With a core competency in developmental flight testing of manned and unmanned aircraft and a professional cadre of military and civilian experimental test pilots, flight test engineers and technicians, ATTC routinely conducts its mission throughout the continental US. ATTC is supported by several technical contracts, to include an aircraft maintenance contract with depot-level aircraft modification, fabrication and prototyping capabilities.

16 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

2. U.S. Army Operational Test Command (OTC) OTC is headquartered at Ft. Hood, TX. OTC conducts independent operational testing of military systems and conducts experiments in support of the Army's Transformation Campaign Plan (TCP) and Advanced Technology Objectives/Joint Concept Technology Demonstrations (ATO/JCTDs). OTC has the mission to conduct realistic testing in the critical areas of equipment, doctrine, force design, and training. The command conducts the operational tests required by public law (Title 10) that provide significant data to the Army decision makers on key Army systems and concepts. Whenever possible, instrumentation embedded in the system under test and models or instrumentation created by other organizations are used to create the environment required for an operational test and collect the necessary data. When necessary, OTC will initiate creation of instrumentation or simulation/stimulation systems required for operational testing, such as the Operational Test – Tactical Engagement System (OT-TES) for Real-Time Casualty Assessment (RTCA), or the Simulation Testing Operations Rehearsal Model (STORM). The OTC Analytic Simulation and Instrumentation Suite (OASIS) management structure determines whether tools need to be tailored or new interfaces designed to meet the requirements of specific operational tests and ensure that necessary instrumentation interference testing and VV&A of models/simulation/stimulation systems have been completed to ensure appropriateness for operational testing. OTC becomes involved in the earliest phases of the Army’s acquisition process to ensure that the product performs according to Army expectations. That product is handed off to OTC to test in the hands of the intended user – the Soldier. OTC is composed of 9 test directorates and two support directorates – the Methodology and Analysis Directorate (MAD), and the Transformation Technology Directorate (TTD). Five of these directorates are located at Ft. Hood, TX – Future Force; Aviation; Engineer/Combat Support; Close Combat; and Command, Control, Communications and Computers. The MAD and TTD are also located at Ft. Hood. The remote test directorates are Intelligence and Electronic Warfare, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Fire Support, Fort Sill, OK; Airborne and Special Operations, Fort Bragg, NC; and Air Defense Artillery, Fort Bliss, TX. The backbone of OTC lies within the test directorates that go to the field to perform the tests or experiments. They perform the detailed planning, execution and reporting for all tests and field experiments within their assigned mission areas. Figure 6 shows OTC’s command structure.

17 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

OperationalOperational TestTest CommandCommand (OTC)(OTC)

Engineer/CombatEngineer/Combat Command,Command, Control,Control, CloseClose CombatCombat AviationAviation FutureFuture ForceForce SupportSupport Communications,Communications, (CCTD)(CCTD) (AVTD)(AVTD) (FFTD)(FFTD) (ECSTD)(ECSTD) ComputersComputers (C4TD)(C4TD)

IntelligenceIntelligence andand AirAir DefenseDefense FireFire AirborneAirborne andand MethodologyMethodology andand TransformationTransformation ElectronicElectronic ArtilleryArtillery SupportSupport SpecialSpecial OperationsOperations AnalysisAnalysis TechnologyTechnology WarfareWarfare (IEWTD)(IEWTD) (ADATD)(ADATD) (FSTD)(FSTD) (ABNSOTD)(ABNSOTD) DirectorateDirectorate (MAD)(MAD) DirectorateDirectorate (TTD)(TTD)

Figure 6. OTC Command Structure

3. U.S. Army Evaluation Center (AEC) AEC is headquartered at Alexandria, VA, and is the Army's independent system evaluator. AEC conducts integrated operational and developmental evaluations, to include congressionally mandated live fire evaluations of materiel systems in support of the Army’s acquisition process. AEC also oversees the logistics aspects of acquisition, modification, and deployment of systems. AEC is involved early and throughout the acquisition and total life-cycle process to ensure that T&E programs, strategies, and objectives are consistent throughout the acquisition program. Since the results of testing and evaluation figure heavily in design and milestone decisions, early T&E involvement in the acquisition process serves to add value to the final product of any acquisition program. Working in coordination with DTC and OTC, AEC assesses system performance to determine whether it is meeting developmental and operational expectations. This effort assists in discovering any potential problem early - when fixes are easier and less costly to the materiel developer. AEC also supports key Army initiatives, such as, Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE), ATO, JCTD, and other fast track initiatives. In addition, AEC conducts the Army Continuous Evaluation program and live fire evaluations on all covered systems. AEC evaluates and reports on each system’s effectiveness, suitability, and survivability to the Army senior leadership and, when requested, to Congress. Forming a new directorate in 2002, AEC postured itself to support the Army Transformation and the ongoing demands of the Current systems. AEC has twelve evaluation directorates: Aviation; Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS); Close Combat; Combat Support; Intelligence; Command, Control & Communications; Future Force /Transformation; Counter ED, and NETFIRES (Network Fires), all of which are located at Alexandria, VA. The Survivability, Reliability & Maintainability, and Integrated Logistics Support directorates are located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. AEC also has a field office in Ft. Monmouth, NJ and Ft. Bliss, TX. AEC evaluates a proposed system’s performance for the Army or, following a joint test, for other services.

18 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

AEC customers also include the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Figure 7 shows AEC’s organizational structure.

ArmyArmy EvaluationEvaluation CenterCenter (AEC)(AEC)

AviationAviation BallisticBallistic MissileMissile IntelligenceIntelligence CloseClose CombatCombat CombatCombat SupportSupport CounterCounter IEDIED (AVED)(AVED) DefenseDefense (BMDED)(BMDED) (IED)(IED) (CCED)(CCED) (CSED)(CSED) (CIEDED)(CIEDED)

Command,Command, Control,Control, FutureFuture Force/Force/ ReliabilityReliability && IntegratedIntegrated NetworkNetwork FiresFires SurvivabilitySurvivability Communications,Communications, TransformationTransformation MaintainabilityMaintainability LogisticsLogistics SupportSupport (NETFIRESED)(NETFIRESED) (SED)(SED) (C3ED)(C3ED) (FFED)(FFED) (R&M)(R&M) (ILS)(ILS) Figure 7. AEC Organization Structure

D. U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC)

The USASMDC is headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, AL. Its mission is to provide the world’s best space and missile defense capabilities to warfighters and to provide for the protection of our homeland and the worldwide interests of the United States. A 1997 Memorandum of Agreement with the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) designated the command as the Army’s specified proponent for space and National Missile Defense (NMD) and the Army’s overarching integrator for Theater Missile Defense (TMD). To meet these added responsibilities, the command developed its USASMDC Vision 2010. The vision of the Commanding General is “Normalizing space, providing layered force protection for Combatant Commanders throughout the world, developing Army Soldiers and civilians with technical skills to support the Future Force of the 21st Century.” To implement the Commanding General’s vision, USASMDC is a capabilities-based organization. SMDC includes combat, materiel, and technology developers, as well as users, testers, and evaluators. To fulfill its mission, USASMDC maintains two activities of the DoD’s MRTFB and two components of the Army’s Test Joint Capability Area (JCA): U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS) and the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF). These test facilities are unique and have set many precedents in space and missile defense history. In 1958, an Army rocket launched America’s first satellite into orbit. In 1962, a Nike-Zeus launched from Kwajalein Atoll intercepted an intercontinental ballistic missile. In 1984, the Homing Overlay Experiment hit a ballistic missile in flight, validating hit-to-kill interceptor technology. In 1996, HELSTF shot down a Katyusha rocket in flight.

19 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

In 2004, HELSTF made history by shooting down a salvo of 3 mortar rounds in a single engagement. These unique facilities will enable us to lead the Army space and missile defense into the 21st Century.

1. U.S. Army Kwajalein ATOLL/Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS)

USAKA/RTS operates a DoD MRTFB activity by providing multi-level strategic and ballistic missile defense system testing to include system interoperability testing, sensor system research and development testing, and conducting space operations to include space object identification, space surveillance, and new foreign space launch tracking in support of the U.S. Strategic Command and NASA. It’s vision is to continue to be the Army's premier space operations and full-spectrum missile testing activity that, through transformation, provides increasingly relevant products and net-centric capabilities to support the combatant commanders. As figure 8 depicts, USAKA/RTS is located 2136 miles southwest of Hawaii in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) is home to the Reagan Test Site. Eleven of the 100 islands comprising the Atoll are leased by the United States from the Republic of the Marshall Islands government. Radar, optics, telemetry, and communications equipment on eight islands provide instrumentation for ballistic missile and missile interceptor testing and space operations support.

Reagan Test Site

s e il m 2 2 4 1 1 8 2 0 m i le s

s e il m 6 3 1 2

s ile m 20 22

Figure 8. USAKA/RTS

The Reagan Test Site supports range operations with essential services normally found in a community of 2,500 people. Contractor operated logistics support services include housing, retail facilities, food, medical/dental, K 1-12

20 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

schools, child-care, police, fire protection, postal, recreation, TV/newspaper, and other services. USAKA/RTS is a command element within USASMDC under the Deputy to the Commanding General for Research, Development and Acquisition in the Sensors Integration and Test and Evaluation Directorate. Figure 9 depicts the hierarchical command structure of USAKA/RTS. In addition to supporting hundreds of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) developmental and operational tests and playing an important role in space surveillance and identification, USAKA/RTS has executed numerous successful Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) intercepts, including Exo-atmospheric Reentry Interceptor Subsystem (1991), Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle weapon systems (2000) and Ground-based Missile Defense GMD System Tests (2000 to 2005). Because of its unique geographical location, the USAKA/RTS radars provide, within a half-hour of launch, critical first-revolution coverage of most Chinese, Russian, Japanese, French Guianan, Indian, and other Asian-continent launches. USAKA/RTS supports the Compact of Free Association with the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

USASMDCUSASMDC

DCGDCG forfor Research,Research, DevelopmentDevelopment andand AcquisitionAcquisition

SpaceSpace andand MissileMissile DefenseDefense TechnicalTechnical CenterCenter

SensorsSensors IntegrationIntegration andand TestTest && EvaluationEvaluation DirectorateDirectorate

Commander,Commander, USAKAUSAKA // RTSRTS

DeputyDeputy GarrisonGarrison ReaganReagan TestTest SiteSite KwajaleinKwajalein SupportSupport CommanderCommander CommanderCommander DirectorateDirectorate (Huntsville,(Huntsville, AL)AL) Directorate of Logistics Directorate of Directorate of Logistics Directorate of Program Support InformationInformation Program Support Management DivisionDivision DirectorateDirectorate ofof Management Community Activities Community Activities Directorate of TestTest SupportSupport Directorate of ResourceResource ManagementManagement DirectorateDirectorate ofof DivisionDivision PublicPublic WorksWorks USAKA/RTSUSAKA/RTS DirectorateDirectorate ofof Plans,Plans, CommandCommand SafetySafety Training,Training, andand SecuritySecurity OfficeOffice

Figure 9. USAKA/RTS Command Structure

21 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

USAKA/RTS’ major investment projects include range safety system and mobile range safety system upgrades, Range Operations Coordination Center modernization, 70/35mm film to digital conversion, radar modernization, and millimeter wave (MMW) radar performance enhancements. USAKA/RTS bandwidth requirements to meet operational and developmental testing continue to grow rapidly. To meet these increasing requirements, a submarine fiber- optical cable connecting Kwajalein to the Defense Information System’s Pacific basin optical cable network will be installed. This fiber optical connection will also serve as the primary enabler for distributed operations between Kwajalein and CONUS, resulting in a large portion of the RTS space and missile operations being performed remotely from CONUS. With the recently completed space launch facility at Omelek Island, USAKA/RTS now provides launch support to small to medium launch systems for equatorial launch. Since the facility completion, two LEO launches from Omelek have been supported with another launch scheduled in October, 2007.

2. High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF)

HELSTF is the Army’s high-energy laser (HEL) Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) facility. Located on White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and managed by the USASMDC, HELSTF serves as USASMDC’s primary test facility for their HEL weapons programs, and is a tri-Service center for HEL RDTE. As part of the DoD’s MRTFB infrastructure, HELSTF is important in the development of potential high power laser programs in part because of its strategic location at WSMR. The instrumented WSMR test range consists of 3200 square miles of controlled land area, and 7000 square miles of controlled air space. This geographic location allows it to accommodate live missile and rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) projectile shoot-down tests. HELSTF is an accredited predictive avoidance site with the US Strategic Command Laser Clearinghouse and is an approved above-the-horizon HEL test facility. The HELSTF array of lasers (low power to megawatt-class), beam directors, sensors, associated equipment, meteorological measurement capabilities, multiple test areas, and pointing and tracking systems provides a unique opportunity for researchers and testers to conduct laser experiments and tests. Additionally, complete data reduction is provided for all tests and data analysis is available to all users. HELSTF can conduct testing on high and intermediate power laser weapons systems, as well as perform a variety of tests with several high and intermediate power lasers. There are test areas for full scale target explosive and hazardous testing, material effects testing, and testing while under vacuum (simulated space environment). For dynamic live-fire lethality testing against missiles, RAM projectiles, remotely controlled ground targets, and airborne targets, HELSTF can employ the SeaLite Beam Director (SLBD) or the Lethality Test Bed beam control system to project the laser onto the target. Figure 10 illustrates HELSTF capabilities.

22 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Figure 10. HELSTF Capabilities and Facilities

HELSTF is supporting Army Future Force development by expanding its capabilities to support HEL lethality testing and analysis. HELSTF is working jointly with other SMDC major subordinate command elements to develop a HEL lethality testbed that will support potential Army and other Service HEL weapon systems. The HELSTF Strategy focuses on maintaining a current capability in support of current Navy and Air Force customers. The long-term strategy also includes: • A Mobile HEL Diagnostic Capability (MDS) to support mobile range operations and support testing HEL weapons in a variety of relevant combat environments • A brassboard solid state laser (SSL) testbed for open air testing of emerging SSL technologies developed by the HEL Joint Technology Office. • A distributed test capability that will be compatible with ATEC’s Inter- Range Control Center (IRCC) and SMDC’s distributed exercise capability • An Army Force Protection (counter-RAM) testbed/range with associated BMC4I testing capability • Upgrades to the Large Vacuum Chamber for better simulation of HEL effects in a space environment HELSTF’s modernization strategy supports Developmental Test and Evaluation and Operational Test and Evaluation for emerging laser technologies that will lead to laser weapons employed by the Army Future Force and other Service forces.

23 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

E. Project Manager for Instrumentation, Targets, and Threat Simulators (PM ITTS)

PM ITTS, under the Program Executive Office, Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), provides acquisition discipline to the research, development, production, and fielding of major instrumentation, targets, and threat systems required for developmental and operational T&E for the Army. In support of its mission, PM ITTS manages three executing activities responsible for the development, fielding, and in some cases, the maintenance and operation of the items they produce. One of these activities, the Instrumentation Management Office (IMO), is located with the PM office in Orlando, FL, while the Targets Management Office (TMO) and the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) are located at Redstone Arsenal, AL. TSMO Operations, located at Ft. Bliss, TX, provides the realistic and simulated threat system support to operational testing and Army training. Figure 11 shows the PM ITTS organization and reporting chain.

AssistantAssistant SecretarySecretary ofof thethe ArmyArmy (Acquisition,Logistics,(Acquisition,Logistics, && Technology)Technology) (ASA(ALT))(ASA(ALT))

ProgramProgram ExecutiveExecutive OfficerOfficer Simulation,Simulation, Training,Training, && InstrumentationInstrumentation (PEO(PEO STRI)STRI)

DeputyDeputy ProgramProgram ExecutiveExecutive OfficerOfficer Simulation,Simulation, Training,Training, && InstrumentationInstrumentation (PEO(PEO STRI)STRI)

ProjectProject ManagerManager forfor Instrumentation,Instrumentation, Targets,Targets, && ThreatThreat SimulatorsSimulators (PM(PM ITTS)ITTS)

InstrumentationInstrumentation TargetsTargets ThreatThreat SystemsSystems ManagementManagement OfficeOffice ManagementManagement OfficeOffice ManagementManagement OfficeOffice Figure 11. PM ITTS Command Structure

PM ITTS customers are ATEC, TRADOC, Army field commands, reserve components, Army laboratories, other DoD Services and agencies, international cooperative activities, foreign military sales, and project managers/program executive offices requiring instrumentation, targets, and threat systems. Additionally, some test systems are developed to address tri-Service needs under the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP). PM ITTS executes projects under CTEIP for which the Army has lead responsibility. For the live, virtual, and constructive simulation domains, PM ITTS executes developmental and operational test investments, including instrumentation, aerial/ground targets and target control systems, and threat simulators and simulations. PM ITTS provides scalable threat simulations for the virtual testing and training environments, manages a variety of foreign materiel in support of

24 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

testing and training, and manages procurement lines in support of the production of test and training investment assets. In addition, PM ITTS sponsors the Army Model Exchange (AMX) in coordination with the AMC Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) to provide a repository for government owned models, promoting reuse for all DoD agencies involved in modeling and simulation.

F. Army Research Laboratory’s Survivability, Lethality, and Analysis Directorate (SLAD)

The Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate is the Army’s primary source of survivability, lethality, and vulnerability (SLV) analysis and evaluation support, adding value over the entire system life cycle. SLAD is a subordinate activity of the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) (ARL reports to the Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), a subordinate command of AMC). Figure 12 depicts the SLAD hierarchical command structure.

ArmyArmy MaterielMateriel CommandCommand (AMC)(AMC)

ArmyArmy Research,Research, DevelopmentDevelopment andand EngineeringEngineering CommandCommand (RDECOM)(RDECOM)

Director,Director, ArmyArmy ResearchResearch LabLab (ARL)(ARL)

OfficeOffice ofof thethe Director,Director, Survivability,Survivability, LethalityLethality AnalysisAnalysis

InformationInformation && ElectronicElectronic BallisticsBallistics && NBCNBC ProtectionProtection DivisionDivision DivisionDivision

AnalyticalAnalytical SupportSupport BranchBranch SystemSystem AnalysisAnalysis BranchBranch

M&SM&S SupportSupport BranchBranch MethodologyMethodology && DataData BranchBranch

Experimental Support SoftwareSoftware DevelopmentDevelopment Experimental Support Branch BranchBranch Branch SystemSystem EngineeringEngineering && Ground Combat Branch Ground Combat Branch ExperimentationExperimentation BranchBranch

MissileMissile DefenseDefense BranchBranch EngineeringEngineering AnalysisAnalysis BranchBranch

InformationInformation WarfareWarfare BranchBranch

CommunicationsCommunications EWEW BranchBranch Figure 12. SLAD Command Structure

SLAD’s principal mission is to ensure that Soldiers and the systems they operate can survive and function on the battlefield. SLAD is committed to assisting the Army in achieving its modernization goals by helping acquire systems to help Soldiers survive in all environments against the full spectrum of

25 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

battlefield threats. These threats include conventional ballistics, EW, information warfare (IW), electromagnetic environment effects (E3), and nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) SLAD performs a variety of functions: conducts investigations, experiments, simulations and analyses to quantify SLV of Army and selected foreign weapon systems, to include systems of systems; provides well-documented, timely, technical judgments on complex SLV Issues; provides advice and consultation on SLV issues to ATEC, HQDA, PEOs, PMs, evaluators, combat developers, battle labs, intelligence activities, and selected other DA and DoD activities; performs special studies and makes recommendations regarding tactics, techniques or design modifications to reduce vulnerability and enhance survivability and lethality of Army materiel; and, develops tools, techniques and methodologies for improving SLV analysis. SLAD is headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, with sites at White Sands Missile Range, NM, and Ft. Monmouth, NJ (see Figure 13).

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey Information Warfare, C4I

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Nuclear, Biological, White Sands Chemical Effects Missile Range, New Mexico Ballistic Vulnerability/Lethality Electronic Warfare Information Warfare Figure 13. SLAD Activities

SLAD’s value to the Army is based upon its SLV scientific and engineering skills and its analytical tools used to conduct SLV investigations, simulations, and lab/field experiments. A Memorandum of Agreement establishes the relationship between ATEC and ARL/SLAD with respect to evaluation of Army systems. SLAD provides support in the area of survivability/lethality analysis based on requirements provided by ATEC.

26 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

G. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA)

AMSAA is the Army’s key provider of materiel and, logistics, and industrial systems analysis to support Army decision making throughout the entire materiel life cycle (i.e., from technology development through system disposal). AMSAA’s primary mission is to conduct responsive and effective systems analyses for equipping and sustaining the U.S. Army and our Soldiers. AMSAA’s analytical efforts help the Army save money, field equipment faster, field more reliable, effective, survivable, and supportable equipment, reduce risks, increase safety, and support the enhancement of Warfighter capabilities. AMSAA is part of the Research, Development, and Engineering Command, which reports to the Army Materiel Command (AMC). Figure 14 depicts AMSAA’s hierarchical command structure.

Army Materiel Command (AMC)

Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM)

AMSAA Director FCS Integ Team

Technical Director Deputy Director Current Ops TF

JTCG-ME* Office Joint Data Center

JMEMs**

Strategic and C4ISR, Mobility, Weapon Systems Logistics Analysis Management Operational & CBRN*** Analysis Division Division Analysis Division Support Division Analysis Division

Strategic/ Intelligence Director Spt Surveillance Maneuver Concepts & Research, Reconnaissance Systems Policies Development & Acquisition Financial & Command Control Artillery & Personnel Field Studies Communications Aviation Systems Special Studies

Security, Facilities Mobility & Soldier & Info Mgmt Resource Studies Power & Energy Systems

Admin Services Chem Demil Reliability

* Joint Technical Coordinating Group/Munitions Effectiveness ** Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals *** Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Figure 14. AMSAA’s Command Structure

AMSAA is organized and focused on five core business areas: item/system performance and investment strategies; Modeling and Simulation (M&S); acquisition and technology support; logistics analysis; and business and resource analysis. These interdependent core competencies allow AMSAA to provide the

27 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Army with unique analytical capabilities spanning the full spectrum of Army Transformation and the ability to respond quickly to issues related to Current Operations.

AMSAA is the Army's Center of Excellence for item/system level performance analysis and certified data for all weapon/materiel systems. In accomplishing its materiel systems analysis mission, AMSAA analyzes the performance and combat effectiveness of conceptual, developmental, and fielded systems. AMSAA has developed and uses unique models, simulations, and methodologies to predict critical performance variables, such as weapon accuracy, target acquisition, rate of fire, probability of inflicting catastrophic damage, and system reliability. AMSAA is responsible for the generation of these performance and effectiveness measures and for ensuring their standard use across all major Army and Joint studies. AMSAA conducts and supports various systems analyses, such as: analyses of alternatives (AoAs), system cost/performance tradeoffs, early concept and technology tradeoffs, weapons mix analyses, technical risk assessments, force protection analyses, and requirements analyses. These analyses, as well as AMSAA’s subject matter expert (SME) advice and consultation are used by AMC, the Army, and DoD leadership in making acquisition, procurement, and logistics decisions in order to provide quality equipment and procedures to the Soldiers. AMSAA's M&S capabilities support the development, linkage, and accreditation of live, virtual, and constructive simulations, and provide unique tools that support systems analysis of individual systems and the combined-arms environment. AMSAA maintains a significant number of models and simulations, most of which were developed in-house to address specific analytical voids. This M&S infrastructure provides a hierarchical modeling process that is unique to AMSAA and allows for a comprehensive performance and effectiveness prediction capability that can be utilized to make trade-off and investment decisions prior to extensive and expensive hardware testing. AMSAA is the Army's executive agent for the VV&A of item/system level performance models. In this role, AMSAA assists model developers with the development and execution of verification and validation plans to ensure new models and simulations faithfully represent actual systems. AMSAA serves as the Army's Executive Agent for reliability and maintainability (R&M) standardization improvement by developing and implementing reliability and maintainability acquisition reform initiatives. AMSAA develops and applies reliability-engineering approaches and tools that assess the reliability of Army materiel and recommends ways to reduce life cycle costs. Those tools support ATEC/AEC and private industry as they design, test and evaluate systems under development to help achieve reliability goals. The Physics of Failure (PoF) program pioneered the development of design and analysis tools to predict reliability and minimize potential redesign at the component level by utilizing computer-aided engineering tools in the analysis of root-cause failure mechanisms during the system design process. PoF is also

28 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

utilized on existing systems to determine the root cause of failures experienced in the field and evaluate potential redesign/modification alternatives. As the Army's center for materiel systems analysis, AMSAA provides the in- house technical capability to support Army and DoD decision-makers throughout the entire materiel acquisition process in responding to analytic requirements across the full spectrum of materiel. It is critical that the Army have access to AMSAA's integrated analytical capability that provides timely, reliable, and high quality analysis on which Army leadership can base the complex decisions required to shape the future Army. AMSAA has developed an integrated set of skills and tools focused on its core competencies to be responsive to the breadth and depth of systems analysis requirements critical in supporting Army Transformation decisions and Current Operations related issues. AMSAA is headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD with sites at Redstone Arsenal, AL, and Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. Figure 15 depicts AMSAA's geographical locations.

Satellite : Letterkenn , PA Redstone,

AMSAA HQs – APG,

Figure 15. AMSAA Locations.

AMSAA’s unique mix of analytical skills, expertise and core capabilities are vital in supporting Army Transformation and Current Operations related decisions. AMSAA’s organizational structure (as depicted in Figure 15) is well suited to support the needs of the Test and Evaluation community. AMSAA has strengthened their working relationship with AEC to assist in the identification/development of the analytical requirements needed to support critical Army evaluation decisions and reviews. AMSAA has the right of first refusal on these efforts and will be conducting these analyses whenever possible. AMSAA’s early involvement in the T&E planning process will promote better quality, more-timely and more cost-effective evaluation products for AEC and the Army decision makers. AMSAA’s three materiel and logistics systems analysis divisions provide essential data, analysis, advice and consultation used in supporting critical evaluation and assessment decisions. The Command

29 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), Mobility, and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Analysis Division, and the Weapon Systems Analysis Division focus on weapons systems performance from both the force projection and effectiveness aspect (i.e., application) as well as the vulnerability and survivability (i.e., protection) aspects of the system. The Logistics Analysis Division is responsible for the field data collection and analysis, assessment and evaluation of logistical concepts policies, and wholesale/retail systems, and evaluating the economic and resource implications of current and future logistical practices. Although AMSAA is strictly an analytical organization which does not conduct actual field testing, its analytical role is critical to the Army decision making process and the T&E community.

30 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

III. Chemical and Biological T&E Community

R&D facilities, T&E capability developers, and T&E assets from within the Department of Defense are made available to ensure adequate testing and evaluation is performed on our nation’s chemical and biological warfare defense capabilities. A brief description of the primary facilities, T&E capability developers, and assets are listed below:

A. Army Dugway Proving Ground. In addition to the capabilities outlined in Section II, DPG’s chemical and biological test facilities consist of the Combined Chemical Test Facility with 35 test suites supporting live-chemical-agent liquid, vapor, and aerosol testing; the Life Sciences Test Facility with multiple live-biological-agent test chambers at the Biosafety Level-3 (BSL-3) with aerosolization capability, comprising 32,000 square feet of which 3,500 square feet is BSL-3 laboratory space; Materiel Test Facility with three environmentally controlled, vehicle-size live-chemical-agent chambers, the largest of which is 30x50x50 feet; test grids, and instrumentation for CB stimulant field and chamber tests; and the Ambient Breeze Tunnel for biological stimulant system tests; and the Active Standoff Chamber for testing standoff detectors with simulants. DPG has a limited capability for transportable instrumentation to support simulant tests and operational tests in off-site environments. U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC), located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. ECBC is the nation’s principle research and development center for non-medial chemical and biological defense and develops technology in the areas of detection, protection, and decontamination. Their facilities consist of BSL-3 and live-chemical-agent and simulant-aerosol- particulate bench chambers; CB protective filter and mask testing with live agents and simulants; small animal live agent testing; limited field simulant and interferent testing; two hazardous material explosion facilities for testing military unique chemical and industrial material; aerosol simulant chambers; non- traditional agent chamber; and the Aerodynamic Research Laboratory, comprising approximately 11,000 square feet of experimental aerodynamic facilities that include four wind tunnels for component and materials tests; and a 5 mph Breeze Tunnel, which primarily supports early R&D phases.

B. Air Force

The Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) is the operational test activity of the Air Force and utilizes the BSL-1 lab for simulants at Eglin Air Force Base. Eglin Air Force base facilities consist of stimulant vapor challenge test chambers, several test ranges, and an outdoor decontamination pad for use with chemical simulants. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

31 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

facilities, located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base consist of a BSL-3 lab and chemical stimulant test chambers.

C. Navy

Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Dahlgren Virginia. The mission of the Navy at Dahlgren focuses on research, development, test, and evaluation in the fields of military safety testing, integrated warfare systems, weapons and ammunition, sensors and directed energy, and homeland and force (military personnel and equipment) protection. In support of their force protection mission, Dahlgren operates a CB test center for ship systems with capabilities including BSL-3, biotoxin and chemical agent simulant test capabilities; materials T&E laboratory for small-scale component, small and large coupon test samples—fully equipped for dynamic mechanical materials test methodology; corrosion laboratory; large coupon dynamic environmental test chambers; ship wash-down decontamination test facility with simulant; small-weapons post-decontamination functionality testing range; and small-scale component and material decontamination tests using simulants.

D. Product Director, Test Equipment, Strategy, and Support (PD TESS) PD TESS was established in 2005 by The Joint Program Executive Office, Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD). The mission of PD TESS is to support the T&E community with the development of test capabilities to adequately test and evaluate chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear (CBRN) systems. It accomplishes this by delivering an integrated approach in support of the CB community approved infrastructure plan. The dynamic nature of the expanding CB threat necessitates an increased requirement for state-of-the-art technology and analytical tools to test and evaluate equipment being developed by CBDP community for the warfighter. Through frequent coordination with the CBDP community to include the T&E Executive, JPEO-CBD, the Joint Requirements Office (JRO), service combat developers, operational test agencies (OTAs), and the Science and Technology (S&T) community, PD TESS performs gap analysis studies and identifies T&E requirements that support a fully integrated T&E investment strategy for the CBDP.

32 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Figure 16 reflects the organizational structure of PD TESS.

AssistantAssistant SecretarySecretary ofof thethe ArmyArmy (Acquisition,Logistics,(Acquisition,Logistics, && Technology)Technology) (ASA(ALT))(ASA(ALT))

JointJoint ProgramProgram ExecutiveExecutive OfficeOffice ChemicalChemical && BiologicalBiological DefenseDefense (JPEO-CBD)(JPEO-CBD)

ProductProduct Director,Director, TestTest Equipment,Equipment, StrategyStrategy andand SupportSupport (PD(PD TESS)TESS)

BusinessBusiness DeputyDeputy DirectorDirector AcquisitionAcquisition ManagerManager

ContractsContracts RangeRange SupportSupport

T&ET&E Strategy/FacilityStrategy/Facility AdministrativeAdministrative DevelopmentDevelopment

SenseSense LaboratoryLaboratory SenseSense LaboratoryLaboratory SenseSense ShapeShape Shield/SustainShield/Sustain Threat/SimulantThreat/Simulant (BIO)(BIO) (Chem)(Chem) FieldField Figure 16. PD TESS Organization

33 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

IV. T&E Resource Management Structure

The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process is the DoD’s primary resource management system. The process takes a long- term outlook at needs and prioritizes operational requirements within given fiscal constraints. It supports planning, program development and budget preparation, and execution for both the Army and CBDP. The Annex to this document, “Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance” provides details of this process.

A. Army T&E Funding.

To map resources to areas of management concern, the Army uses a structure consisting of resource packages known as Management Decision Packages (MDEPs). Each MDEP describes a particular organization, program, or function and records the resources needed to get an intended output. Collectively, MDEPs account for all Army resources, and give the Army a key resource management tool. One of the principal uses of MDEPs is to provide a structural basis for competing for resources with other program undertakings. This is accomplished by partitioning the MDEPs into six groupings called Program Evaluation Groups (PEG). The six PEGs are: Manning (MM), Training (TT), Organizing (OO), Equipping (EE), Sustaining (SS), and Installations (II). Of the six PEGs, the Equipping PEG covers the majority of the T&E community funding by addressing the integration of new doctrine, training, organization, and equipment to develop and field warfighting capabilities for the Active Army, Army National Guard (ARNG), and United States Army Reserve (USAR). The PEG focuses mainly on research, development, and materiel acquisition. It also considers operating and support costs to field weapons and equipment as well as the costs of incremental sustainment and combat development.

The Test Joint Capability Area (JCA). Within the EE PEG, MDEPs are grouped by Joint Capability Areas. A JCA consists of a set of MDEPs that represent a common function on the battlefield or a common activity of the supporting Army infrastructure. The MDEPs in the EE PEG are grouped into 18 JCAs. The Test (TEST) JCA consists of the three MDEPs shown in Table 1:

MDEP Description Appropriation RL02 Army Test Range Infrastructure RDTE/MCA RL04 Analysis and Evaluation RDTE RL07 T&E Instrumentation RDTE/OPA/ACFT/MSLS/WTCV Table 1. TEST JCA MDEPs

34 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Each of the three MDEPs in the TEST JCA is composed of a series of Program Elements (PE). Each PE corresponds to a specific operation or function relative to the MDEP contained therein. Across the three TEST JCA MDEPs, there are a total of 19 different PEs. Table 2 provides the alignment of these PEs and projects with the T&E organization.

Organization PE / Project Title MDEP ATEC (DTC) AA7700 Provision of Industrial Facilities RL07 BA5000 Provision of Industrial Facilities RL07 CA4002 PIF for Other RL07 GC2001 PIF2 OMNIBUS RL07 MA9000 Provision of Industrial Facilities RL07 665601/F30 Army Test Ranges and Facilities RL02 665602/628 Test Technology & Sustaining Inst RL07 665801/M53 Developmental Test Cmd/Center Spt RL02 665702/128 MET Support to DTC Activities RL02 ATEC (OTC) 665712/V02 ATEC Activities RL02 665712/001 ATEC IOTE RL02 665602/62C Modeling & Simulation Instrument. RL07 ATEC (AEC) 665716/302 Army Evaluation Center RL04 SMDC 665301/614 U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll RL02 665605/E97 DoD HELSTF RL02 664759/983 Major T&E Investment USAKA RL07 PM ITTS 664759/984 Major Technical Test Instrumentation RL07 664759/986 Major User Test Instrumentation RL07 664256/976 Army Threat Simulator Program RL07 664258/238 Aerial Targets RL07 664258/459 Ground Targets RL07 MA6700 Special Equipment for User Testing RL07 SLAD 655604/675 Army Survivability Analysis & Evaluation RL04 Support AMSAA 665706/541 Materiel Systems Analysis RL04 Table 2. TEST JCA Program Elements by Organization

35 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Figure 17 illustrates the linkage between the Army T&E Program Elements and the Test JCA MDEPS.

6 PEGs Total 3 Test JCA 18 JCAs Total 19 Testing PEs Army Wide MDEPS

AD (Air Defene) AMM (Ammunition) AVN (Aviation) BC (Battle Command) BSPT (Base Support) CSS-A (Cbt Serv Spt – Automation) CSS-O (-Other) CSS-T (–Transportation) Manning FCS (Future Cbt Systs) FS (Fire Support) AA7700 BA5000 Training IEW (Intel, Elect Warfare) CA4002 GC2001 Organizing MAN (Maneuver) MOB (Mobility) MA6700 MA9000 Sustaining NBC (Nucl, Bio, Chem) 664256 664258 Installations S&T (Science & Technol) 664759 665602 SLDR (Soldier Systems) RL07

665604 665716 Equipping TEST RL04 665706 ZOTH (Z-Other) RL02 665301 665601 665605 665702 665712 665801

Figure 17. MDEP Flowchart

Within the EE PEG, requirements and funding are grouped into “Roots”. Each root contains a unique set of projects that are grouped together based on common functions or to facilitate management. Within the Test JCA there are four roots: Army Test Infrastructure -- Provides RDT&E for the direct support of test operations at ATEC ranges, HQ ATEC and test directorate personnel, FOT&E, JT&E and OT&E of ACAT II-III systems where no system PM has been assigned, and civilian and contract salaries for ATEC and HELSTF. T&E Instrumentation – Provides RDTE and OPA funding for the development and procurement of instrumentation, targets, and threat simulators on Army test ranges. Test Analysis and Evaluation – Provides RDT&E for civilian salaries and support of continuous evaluation, materiel systems analysis and studies, and for integrated survivability and lethality analyses for all major and designated non- major Army systems (Information Warfare, Ballistic/Live Fire, Electronic Warfare, Chemical/Biological Warfare, and Electromagnetic Environmental Effects).

36 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Kwajalein Atoll – Provides for integrated space and missile defense testing, comprehensive testing of Ground Based Mid Course Defense technologies, monitoring and analysis of missile launches from Asia and daily tracking, analysis, and reporting of space objects. Supports installation and major range and test facility activities as well as DoD operational space activities. Table 3 shows the alignment of the Test JCA PEs/projects to their respective root:

Root PE/Project/SSN Title MDEP Army Test 665601/F30 Army Test Ranges and Facilities RL02 Infrastructure High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility 665605/E97 RL02 (HELSTF) 665702/128 MET Support to DTC Activities RL02 665712/001 ATEC IOTE RL02 665712/V02 ATEC Activities RL02 665801/M53 Developmental Test Cmd/Center Spt RL02 T&E 664256/976 Army Threat Simulator Program RL07 Instrumentation 664258/238 Aerial Targets RL07 664258/459 Ground Targets RL07 664759/984 Major Technical Test Instrumentation RL07 664759/986 Major User Test Instrumentation RL07 665602/628 Test Technology and Sustaining Inst RL07 665602/62C Modeling & Simulation Instrument. RL07 AA7700 Provision of Industrial Facilities RL07 BA5000 Provision of Industrial Facilities RL07 CA4002 PIF for Other RL07 GC2001 PIF2 OMNIBUS RL07 MA9000 Provision of Industrial Facilities RL07 MA6700 Special Equipment for User Testing RL07 Test Analysis Army Survivability Analysis & Evaluation 655604/675 RL04 and Evaluation Support 665706/541 Materiel Systems Analysis RL04 665716/302 Army Evaluation Center RL04 Kwajalein Atoll 664759/983 Major T&E Investment USAKA RL07 665301/614 U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll RL02

Table 3. Test JCA Root Structure

Program Element Descriptions

The following discussion represents extracts from Congressional Descriptive Summaries, RDT&E R-2, R-2A Exhibits, as well as the P-40 Budget Item Justification sheets. These forms are updated semiannually and summarize what each program element funds. These descriptions are not all inclusive and do not include funding amounts.

37 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

1. 665601 Army Test Ranges and Facilities

Project F30 - Army Test Ranges & Facilities: Finances the operation of the DT ranges and test centers, to include those that are associated with the Major Range and Test Facility Base. This includes indirect test operating costs not appropriately billed to test customers, replacement of test equipment and revitalization/upgrade projects to maintain current testing capabilities and improvements to safety, environmental protection, efficiency of test operations, and technological advances. This program does not finance reimbursable costs directly identified to a user of the DT ranges. These direct costs are borne by materiel developers and project/product managers in accordance with DoD Directive 3200.11 and DoD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14R. It also provides for integrated test planning plus safety assessment/verification. Developmental test capabilities at each test range have been uniquely established, are in place to support independent T&E requirements of funded weapon programs, and are required to assure technical performance, adherence to safety requirements, reliability, logistics supportability, and quality of materiel in development and production. Current testing capabilities are not duplicated within DoD and represent what is needed to assure acceptable risk to the Soldier as new technologies emerge into fielded weapons systems. This project also funds the indirect test costs associated with rapidly testing field systems and equipment needed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) such as individual solder protection equipment and countermeasures for improvised explosive devices (IED) and rocket propelled grenades.

2. 665602 Army Technical Test Instrumentation & Targets

Project 628 - Test Technology & Sustaining Instrumentation: This project finances critical front-end investments for the development of new test methodologies, test standards, advanced test technology concepts for long- range requirements, future test capabilities, and advanced instrumentation prototypes for DTC. These capabilities support the developmental testing requirements of current Army systems and those supporting Army Transformation, such as building the Army’s network-centric test capability using the Department of Defense Architecture Framework to integrate live, virtual, and constructive models in realistic live and synthetic environments. Sustaining instrumentation maintains existing testing capabilities at DTC test facilities by replacing unreliable, uneconomical, and irreparable instrumentation, as well as incremental upgrades of instrumentation and software, to assure adequate test data collection capabilities. This PE develops and sustains developmental test instrumentation and capabilities that provide the data necessary to support acquisition milestone decisions for all commodity areas throughout the Army and in direct support of all Army Transformation elements.

38 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

Project 62C – Modeling and Simulation Instrumentation: This project provides a critical foundation necessary to develop and sustain ATEC’s current and future modeling and simulation instrumentation efforts critical to testing and evaluating the increasingly complex systems of the Army Future Force. Funding from project 62B, Operational Testing Instrumentation Development, was recently merged with this project. As a result this project also finances the technical development, enhancement, upgrade and maintenance of essential operational test instrumentation necessary to achieve cost effective data collection, reduction, analysis, telemetry, and processing. As digitization and transformation of the battlefield continues, this effort allows OTC to modernize and develop its non-major instrumentation to be more robust, reliable, and less intrusive. It also supports multiple instrumentation development efforts that will lead to improved command and control, increased mobility, and expanded remote data collection capabilities.

3. 665702 Meteorological (MET) Support to Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation Activities

Project 128 - Meteorological Support to Developmental Test Command (DTC) Activities: This project provides standard and specialized weather forecasts and data for test reports to satisfy Army/DoD RDT&E test requirements, such as, (1) Unique atmospheric analysis and sampling to include atmospheric transmittance, extinction, optical scintillation, infrared temperature, aerosol/smoke cloud dispersion characteristics, ballistic meteorological measurements, snow characterization and crystal structure; (2) Test event forecasting to include prediction of sound propagation for ballistic firing tests, specialized prediction of light levels and target-to-background measurements and predictions for electro-optical testing and ballistic artillery/mortar firing; (3) advisory and warning products such as go/no-go test recommendations for ballistic and atmospheric probe missiles, smoke obscurant tests, hazard predictions for chemical agent munitions disposal, monitoring dispersion of simulant clouds for chemical/biological detector tests, simulated nuclear blasts, and weather warnings for test range safety. Provides technical support to Army PEOs, PMs, and the DTC test ranges and sites. Develops methodologies and acquires instrumentation and systems that allow meteorological teams to support current and future Army/DoD RDTE requirements. This PE finances indirect meteorological support operating costs not billable to customers and replacement/upgrade of meteorological instrumentation. Direct costs for meteorological support services are not funded by this PE, but are borne by the customer (i.e. materiel/weapons developers and project/product managers) in accordance with DoD Directive 7000.14R.

39 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

4. 665712 Support of Operational Testing

Project V02 – ATEC Activities: This project finances recurring costs for OTC that are essential for conducting realistic and continuous testing in the critical areas of equipment, doctrine, force design and training. These recurring costs include civilian pay, core requirements for test support contracts, temporary duty, supplies and equipment. OTC, through its directorates, performs detailed planning, execution, and reporting of initial operational test and evaluation, and force development test and experimentation. This project also finances similar recurring costs for OTC’s Test and Evaluation Coordination Offices, as well as HQ ATEC.

Project 001 - ATEC IOTE: This project funds the Army's direct costs of planning and conducting Multi-Service OT&E (MOTE) of programs without an Army PM and Army requirements of Joint T&E (JT&E) to evaluate concepts and address needs and issues that occur in joint military environments. JT&E is chartered to conduct T&E and provide information required by Congress, OSD, the Unified Commands, and DoD components relative to joint operations. Also funds Follow on Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) done after the full production decision to assess system training and logistics, to verify correction of deficiencies identified during earlier testing and evaluation, and to ensure that initial production items meet operational effectiveness, suitability and supportability thresholds.

5. 665801 Program-wide Activities

Project M53 – Developmental Test Command/Center Support: This project finances civilian labor and support costs for the technical direction and administrative functions of HQ, DTC and is required to support the accomplishment of assigned developmental test missions. It includes staff/management functions of resource management, safety, security, environmental, strategic planning and Automated Data Processing Equipment (ADPE)/information technology support for command-wide databases in support of the developmental test mission with oversight and management responsibility of all DTC ranges and test centers.

6. 665716 Army Evaluation Center

Project 302 - Army Evaluation Center: Funds the Army Evaluation Center mission of evaluation and test design. AEC is the Army’s independent evaluator for both technical and operational tests of developmental systems for all Army acquisition programs. AEC provides integrated technical and operational evaluations, and life-cycle Continuous Evaluation of assigned Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP), Major Automated Information Systems, and In- Process Review (IPR) programs for major milestone decisions, materiel changes, and materiel releases in support of the Army Acquisition Executive and force

40 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

development. AEC develops the evaluation strategy, designs technical and operational tests, and evaluates the test results to address a system’s effectiveness, suitability, and survivability. AEC has the lead in the planning and execution of Army live fire tests and continuous evaluations through its evaluation and test design responsibilities. This project funds the salaries of civilian employees assigned to the evaluation and test design missions and associated costs including temporary duty, support contracts, supplies, and equipment. Additionally, this project funds the “early involvement” initiative whereby ATEC liaison personnel are co-located with PEOs. This initiative leverages science and technology that lead to cost savings and design efficiencies early in a system’s development, thereby avoiding more expensive product improvement programs later in a system’s life cycle. In support of ongoing contingency operations and GWOT activities, AEC is focusing much of its evaluation workload towards the evaluation of RFI systems, IED task force systems, and urgent materiel releases.

7. 665301 Army Kwajalein Atoll

Project D614 – U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll: Funds the government- managed/contractor-operated USAKA/RTS to support test and evaluation of major Army and DoD missile systems, and to provide space surveillance and space object identification in support of U.S. Space Command and NASA scientific and space programs. Programs supported include Army missile defense demonstration/validation tests, ICBM development and operational tests, U.S. Space Surveillance Network, and NASA Space Transportation System (Shuttle), and orbital debris experiments. This program also provides funds for the contractors to accomplish installation operations and maintenance (O&M). Funding is required to maintain minimal O&M support to include facilities maintenance and repair, transportation, medical, food services, education and information management to the self contained islands of USAKA.

8. 665605 DOD High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF)

Project E97 - DoD High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF): Provides funding for HELSTF to support Tri-Service HEL research and development and damage, vulnerability, propagation, and lethality laser testing as well as HEL weapon system testing. HELSTF also supports testing of laser effects for targets ranging from material coupon testing up through full-scale static and dynamic targets, explosive targets, and testing of targets in a simulated space environment. Funds the upgrade to its mission control systems, develop state-of-the-art HEL diagnostic capabilities, data reduction, and a mobile HEL diagnostic test suite to support development, operational and system of systems testing for potential HEL weapons in the Army Future Force in all relevant combat environments.

41 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

9. 664759 Major Test and Evaluation Investment

Project D983 - Major Test and Evaluation (T&E) Investment - USAKA: Funds the purchase of major Improvement and Modernization (I&M) equipment for USAKA/RTS. Provides for the upgrade of radars, telemetry, optics, range safety, communications, command/control and other equipment required to maintain RTS as a national test range. These upgrades are key elements to maintaining a state of the art sensor suite and to the success of TMD and GMD test missions and STRATCOM’s Space Surveillance Network and Space Object identification operations.

Project D984 - Major Technical Test Instrumentation: Develops and acquires major test instrumentation to perform developmental testing of weapon systems at DTC ranges and test centers. Projects are designated major based on their visibility, assessed relative technical risk (medium-high), schedule risk, cost (generally greater than $1M/yr or $5M total project) and applicability to other mission areas or services. These projects are technically demanding, state of the art, unique instrumentation assets or suites intended to meet technology shortfalls, and generally result from development programs managed by a professional project management team.

Project D986 - Major User Test Instrumentation: Finances the development of major field instrumentation for Operational Testing (OT), Force Development, Test and Experimentation (FDTE), and AWE for OTC to support Army Transformation. Each initiative is directly tied to tactical systems that support each of the five Joint Functional Concepts outlined in the Army Modernization Plan. These initiatives, such as the Operational Test-Tactical Engagement System (OT-TES) will allow the Army to test all current and future combat systems in a force-on-force operational environment, and provide the necessary tools to collect, store and analyze data from the digital battlefield. These efforts respond to Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) and Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO) demands to conduct more realistic, more accurate, and comprehensive evaluations at reduced costs by virtually replicating a greater number of troop resources in force-on-force testing.

10. 664256 Threat Simulator Development

Project D976 – Army Threat Simulator Program: Finances the design, development, integration and fielding of realistic mobile threat simulators and simulation products utilized in Army training, developmental tests and operational tests. These products are utilized to populate test battlefields for ATEC- conducted developmental and operational tests, and to support PEO-required user testing in System Integration Laboratories and hardware/simulation-in-the- loop facilities. Simulator development is responsive to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and General Accounting Office guidance for the Army to conduct

42 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

operational testing in a realistic threat environment. Army threat simulator and threat simulation products developed or fielded under this program support Army- wide, non-system specific threat product requirements. Each capability is pursued in concert and coordination with existing Army and tri-Service capabilities to eliminate duplication of products and services while providing the proper mix of resources needed to support Army testing and training.

11. 664258 Target Systems Development

Project D238 – Aerial Targets: Provides for the development, acquisition, operation, storage, update, and maintenance of realistic high performance threat surrogate or acquired, multi-spectral aerial targets and of virtual target computer models of aerial targets. Modern weapons require test, evaluation, and training using threat representative aerial targets to assess their effectiveness on the battlefield. This program encompasses a family of rotary and fixed-wing targets; full-scale, miniature and subscale targets; virtual targets; ancillary devices; and their control systems. In order to stress systems under test, aerial targets must have flight characteristics, signatures, and other performance factors that emulate the modern threat. This project also funds the long-range planning to determine future target needs.

Project D459 – Ground Targets: Funds Army efforts to support T&E of advanced weapon systems and Army Transformation by developing surrogates, acquiring foreign equipment, and developing virtual target computer models of ground vehicle targets. These products are required to adequately stress weapon systems undergoing T&E. This tasking includes long-range planning to determine future target needs; the centralized management of the ground target research, development, test and evaluation processes; execution of the validation process; acquisition of foreign equipment; and continuing maintenance, storage, and the enhancement or update of developed and acquired targets to ensure availability for test and evaluation customers. This project also manages the use of current assets and operates a centralized spare parts program.

12. MA6700 Special Equipment for User Testing

Special Equipment for User Testing: This program provides funding for PM ITTS to procure instrumentation and threat simulators to support operational testing requirements.

13. 665604 Lethality/Survivability Analysis

Project D675 – Army Survivability Analysis & Evaluation Support: This project finances the investigation of the survivability, lethality and vulnerability of designated Army systems to all battlefield threats. This project provides lethality and survivability data of potential systems in the Stryker and Future Forces to achieve a symmetric mix of force effectiveness. The analysis is integrated

43 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

across all battlefield threats (i.e. conventional ballistic, electronic warfare, and directed energy). The results are used in the following ways: by each PM and PEO to direct weapon system development efforts and structure product improvement programs; by ATEC when they provide system evaluation in support of milestone decisions; by the user to develop survivability/lethality requirements, doctrine and tactics; and by decision makers in formulating program/product decisions. Additionally this project supports survivability analysis, information warfare, and information operations of Army communications, electronic equipment, and digitized forces against friendly and enemy threats. It provides field threat environment support for Electronic Warfare Vulnerability Analysis (EWVA), analyzes vulnerabilities of foreign threat weapons and C4ISR and Intelligence Electronic Warfare (IEW) systems to U.S. Army EW systems. It also provides threat weapon electronic design data to countermeasure developers and technical capability information to the intelligence community; supports Army initiatives in vulnerability reduction of C4I/IEW systems against battlefield threats, including information warfare; analysis for understanding potential vulnerabilities of Digitized Force developmental systems; supports Army Warfighting Experiments and associated Information Operations Vulnerability Assessments for Digitized Force Architecture; supports vulnerability analysis of situational awareness data of the Transformation Force. Analysis includes survivability and vulnerability analysis of ground systems of the Stryker and Future Force for Army Transformation and other Army ground combat systems; Army air defense and missile defense systems; Army aviation systems and UAVs; Army fire support weapons (smart and conventional); Horizontal Technology Integration systems, ATD initiatives, and proposed survivability enhancements to weapon platforms.

14. 665706 Materiel Systems Analysis

Project M541 – Materiel Systems Analysis: This project finances Department of the Army civilians at AMSAA to conduct its mission of materiel systems analysis. In particular, it funds civilians to conduct analysis efforts in the areas of item/system level performance, data development and certification, and M&S. This project funds AMSAA’s materiel systems analysis mission, whereby AMSAA analyzes the performance and combat effectiveness of conceptual, developmental, and fielded systems using models, simulations, and methodologies to predict critical performance variables, such as weapon accuracy, target acquisition, rate of fire, probability of inflicting catastrophic damage, and system reliability. This project finances AMSAA’s development and/or certification of performance and effectiveness data to be used across all major Army and Joint studies. It supports AMSAA’s conduct of various systems analyses, such as: AoAs, system cost/performance tradeoffs, early concept and technology tradeoffs, weapons mix analyses, technical risk assessments, force protection analyses, and requirements analyses. AMC, PEO/PM, ATEC/AEC, DA, and DoD leadership rely on the results of these analyses and AMSAA’s advice and consultation to make acquisition, procurement, and logistics decisions

44 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

that provide quality equipment and procedures to our Soldiers. In addition, this project finances AMSAA's M&S capabilities, which support the development, linkage, and accreditation of live, virtual, and constructive simulations, and provide unique tools that support systems analysis of individual systems and the combined-arms environment. AMSAA’s models and simulations allow for comprehensive performance and effectiveness predictions that can be utilized to make trade-off and investment decisions prior to extensive and expensive hardware testing. This project’s funding also allows AMSAA, as the Army's executive agent for the VV&A of item/system level performance models, to assist model developers in developing and executing verification and validation plans. Finally, this project finances AMSAA’s role as the Army's Executive Agent for reliability and maintainability standardization improvement, wherein AMSAA develops and implements reliability and maintainability acquisition reform initiatives. As part of this mission, AMSAA develops and applies reliability- engineering approaches, including the PoF program, to assess the reliability of Army materiel and recommend ways to reduce life cycle costs both during the system design process and post-production.

15. Production Base Support and Industrial Facilities

GC2001 Weapons and Other Combat Vehicles: This program provides funding to DTC to establish, modernize, expand or replace test facilities used in production testing of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) and their components. Funding will support upgrade and replacement of technically or economically obsolete production test instrumentation to ensure that complete and accurate test data is collected and that safety and environmental hazards are minimized. Modernization of test instrumentation and equipment generally provides increased automation and efficiencies, improved data quality and quantity and cost avoidances to Army PMs.

BA5000 Communications and Electronics Equipment: This program provides funding to DTC to establish, modernize, expand or replace test facilities used in production testing of communications and electronic materiel. It sustains Army production test capabilities through upgrade and replacement of instrumentation and equipment that is technologically and/or economically obsolete. Modernization of test instrumentation and equipment generally provides increased automation and efficiencies, improved data quality and quantity and cost avoidances to Army PMs.

MA9000 Other Support Equipment: This program provides funding to DTC to establish, modernize, expand or replace test facilities used in production testing of general support equipment, including trucks, trailers, generators, soldier support equipment, etc. It sustains Army production test capabilities through upgrade and replacement of instrumentation and equipment that is technologically and/or economically obsolete. Modernization of test instrumentation and equipment generally provides increased automation and

45 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

efficiencies, improved data quality and quantity and cost avoidances to Army PMs.

CA4002 Support Equipment and Facilities (MSLS): This program provides funding to DTC to establish, modernize, expand or replace test facilities used in production testing of missiles and missile components. It sustains Army production test capabilities through upgrade and replacement of instrumentation and equipment that is technologically and/or economically obsolete. Modernization of test instrumentation and equipment generally provides increased automation and efficiencies, improved data quality and quantity and cost avoidances to Army PMs.

AA7700 Support Equipment and Facilities (ACFT): This program provides funding to DTC to establish, modernize, expand or replace test facilities used in production testing of aircraft and aircraft components. It sustains Army production test capabilities through upgrade and replacement of instrumentation and equipment that is technologically and/or economically obsolete. Modernization of test instrumentation and equipment generally provides increased automation and efficiencies, improved data quality and quantity and cost avoidances to Army PMs.

B. Chemical and Biological Defense Program Funding

While the Army is the Executive Agent for The Chemical and Biological Defense Program, it is an OSD-funded program whose funding is not directly managed by the Army. The Chemical and Biological Defense Program T&E Division of TEMA,provides T&E oversight for all CBDP programs and develops and implements a T&E infrastructure investment strategy that identifies and integrates T&E infrastructure requirements. The following PEs and projects are used to accomplish this investment strategy:

1. 0603384BP Chemical/Biological Defense (Advanced Technology Development)

Project TE3 - Test & Evaluation (ATD): This project supports the development of test and evaluation methodologies and protocols as new science and technology efforts are discovered that support development and operational testing. It includes the coordination of methodology development within the CBDP investment strategy and the ongoing development of requirements for S&T infrastructure core capabilities.

46 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

2. 0603884BP Chemical/Biological Defense (Advanced Component Development and Prototypes)

Project TE4 – Test and Evaluation (ACD&P): This project funds the Product Director Test Equipment, Strategy, and Support (PD TESS) under JPEO CBD (JPM NBC-CA) who supports the Milestone Decision Authority, Joint Project Managers, and the T&E community with the development of test capabilities to adequately test and evaluate chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense systems throughout the life cycle acquisition process.

3. 0604384BP Chemical/Biological Defense (System Development and Demonstration)

Project TE5 – Test and Evaluation (SDD): This project continues the funding of PD TESS in the same way as paragraph 2 above.

4. 0605384BP Chemical/Biological Defense (RDT&E Management Support)

Project DW6 – Major Range and Test Facility Base: This project provides operations and maintenance support for testing DoD Chem/Bio defense materiel, equipment, and systems from concept through production at Dugway Proving Ground, an MRTFB activity, to include civilian and contractor labor, repair and maintenance of test instrumentation, equipment and facilities, and replacement of test equipment.

Project MS6 – RDT&E Management Support:: This funding is provided for supporting the CBDP Test and Evaluation Executive, who is responsible for identifying, developing, and managing test infrastructure and technology requirements to support DT and OT of DoD CBD systems. It funds contractor support, Operational Test Activity’s early involvement in test strategy development for new technologies, and travel for CBDP-related meetings and conferences.

5. 0607384BP Chemical/Biological Defense (Operational System Development)

Project TE7 – Test & Evaluation (Op Sys Dev): This project provides revitalization and technology upgrades of existing instrumentation and equipment at DPG in support of their Chemical and Biological mission.

47 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

V. Summary As stated in the introduction, this document is a broad overview of Army Test and Evaluation and provides an introduction to the primary policy documents, the test and evaluation community, and the manner in which Army T&E is institutionally funded. The Army Test and Evaluation Strategic Plan provides additional information and specific actions necessary to guide the Army T&E community toward the achievement of its stated vision, mission, and goals. Additionally, the Test Resource Management Center’s Strategic Plan offers a wealth of information gathered from each of the Services regarding technology focus areas specifically targeted at building a tri-Service infrastructure that will be capable and available to meet the testing and evaluation needs of our weapon systems and military materiel. Additional information regarding the Army test and evaluation community and current activities may me obtained on the Army Test and Evaluation page located on AKO. For questions and comments regarding this document, or for specific questions, please feel free to contact one of the following: • Janet Garber, TEMA Director (703) 695-8996; [email protected] • Larry Leiby, TEMA Deputy Director/ Chief, T&E Policy & Programs Division (703) 695-7389; [email protected] • Scott Henry, Chief, T&E Resource Division (703) 614-4318; [email protected] • Terri Kocher, Chief, CBDP T&E Division (703) 614-9222; [email protected] • Veronica Atkinson, TEMA Administrative Assistant (703) 695-8999; [email protected]

Office of the Chief of Staff, Army U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Management Agency DACS-TE (Room 2C139) 200 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-0200

48 An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

49 Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation

ANNEX

Army Test and Evaluation Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Guidance

September 2007 Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

Table of Contents

Topic Page

I Purpose and Goal A1

II Background A1

III Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution Overview A2

A. Planning A2

B. Programming A2

C. Budgeting A3

D. Execution A3

E. PPBE Biennial Cycles A3

IV TEST Joint Capability Area Appropriations A5

A. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army A5

B. Other Procurement, Army A5

C. Aircraft Procurement A6

D. Missile Procurement A6

E. Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army A6

F. Military Construction A6

V The Test and Evaluation Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process A8

A. Test and Evaluation PPBE Priorities A8

B. Requirements and Risk Definitions A10

C. Prioritization Process A10

Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

Table of Contents

VI The Chemical and Biological Defense Program, Test and Evaluation Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process A12

A. Chemical and Biological Defense Program – Program Objective Memorandum (POM) Process A13

B. Chemical and Biological Defense Program – Military Construction Process A14

VII PPBE and Presidents Budget Supporting Submissions A14

A. The Resource Formulation Guidance A14

B. Major Range Test Facility Base Activity Exhibits A15

C. President’s Budget Justification Book Exhibits A16

VIII Additional General Guidance A16

IX PPBE Milestones and Events A17

A. POM Milestones and Events A17

B. PBR Milestones and Events A18

C. TEMA POM Milestones and Events A18

D. Other Key Program and Budget Development Milestones and Events A18

X Summary A19

Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

I. Purpose and Goal

As global challenges continue to face our nation, funding will continue to be constrained. The Army test and evaluation community ensures scarce funds are wisely spent to provide sound analysis, timely, safe, effective, and efficient test and evaluation capabilities to the acquisition and warfighter community. The TEMA Resources Division serves as the proponent for Army Test and Evaluation (T&E) resources at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and is charged with developing and defending the Army T&E budget to the Army, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and Congress.

The strategy upon which this annex is based endeavors to provide a fundamental understanding of the overarching Army PPBE process that will assist the T&E community in planning, programming, budgeting, and executing resources to build, replace, modernize, and sustain critical T&E infrastructure such buildings, hangars, laboratories, and test ranges. It also provides important concepts, key milestones, and basic guidance in the development of The Test Joint Capability Area (Test JCA) Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and Program and Budget Review (PBR) cycles, in order to maintain the T&E infrastructure that has served the Army well in recent acquisition programs. The planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process is a team effort that requires the coordination and cooperation of everyone within the T&E Community.

II. Background

The Army Plan (TAP) is the Army’s foundational planning document that provides strategic planning, priorities, and programming guidance. TAP is broken down into four sections, the Army Strategic Planning Guidance, the Army Planning Priorities Guidance, the Army Program Guidance Memorandum, and the Army Campaign Plan.

− Section I, Army Strategic Planning Guidance (ASPG) encompasses the Army guidance within national, OSD, and Joint directives; provides Army leadership’s vision, direction, strategic objectives, and serves as the principle expression of the Army institutional strategy.

− Section II, Army Planning Priorities Guidance (APPG) links guidance to strategic objectives and produces supporting, prioritized capabilities and metrics.

− Section III, Army Program Guidance Memorandum (APGM) uses capabilities to provide programming guidance, identifies objectives and resources tasks by six (6) Program Evaluation Groups (PEGs), and helps link operational tasks and associated resources to Army Title 10 functions, providing the start point to build the Army Program Objective Memorandums (POM). The Title 10 functions are Manning, Training, Organizing, Equipping, Sustaining, and Installations.

-A1- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

− Section IV, Army Campaign Plan (ACP) directs the planning, preparation, and execution of Army operations and Army transformation within the context of ongoing strategic commitments including the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The ACP applies to Army Commands (AC), Army Service Component Commands (ASCC), Direct Reporting Units (DRU), program executive offices (PEO), program management offices (PM), HQDA Staff, and supporting agencies and activities. III. The Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution (PPBE) Overview

The PPBE process helps build a comprehensive plan in which budgets flow from programs, programs from requirements, requirements from missions, and missions from national security objectives. The process takes a long-term outlook at needs and prioritizes operational requirements within given fiscal constraints. The process supports planning, program development and budget preparation, and execution for all DoD programs.

The main objective of the PPBE process is to establish, justify, and acquire the fiscal and manpower resources needed to accomplish the assigned missions in executing the Defense Strategy. The details of this process for the Test JCA and the CBDP are slightly different and explained in Sections V and VI respectively.

A. Planning

The planning phase considers the size, structure, manning, equipping, training, and sustaining of the Army force. The planning phase provides for the effective and efficient use of resources in establishing and maintaining military capabilities required to accomplish Army missions. TAP is refined through objectives planning that features Total Army Analysis (TAA). TAA determines required Army capabilities through modeling and simulation that encompasses a 9-year planning cycle. TAP begins as a draft and is refined into a final plan that states the POM force levels. This process results in fiscally constrained guidance and priorities - for military forces, modernization, readiness and sustainability, and supporting business processes and infrastructure activities.

B. Programming

The programming phase distributes a comprehensive and detailed allocation of forces, projected manpower, dollars, and materiel to competing requirements for a six- year period in accordance with the Defense Planning Guidance and The Army Plan. During this phase, the Army POM is reviewed and alternatives are presented to senior Army leadership to allocate resources to support Army roles and missions by asking the following questions:

-A2- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

− How big will the Army be? (civilian and military) − What forces will it contain? (force structure) − What will the Army buy? (equipment) − Where and what will the Army build? (MILCON) − What are expected resource constraints?

C. Budgeting

The budgeting phase converts program decisions on dollars and manpower into congressional appropriations. Budget formulation converts the first two years of the program in the POM into the Budget Estimate Submission (BES). The budget justification process presents and defends the estimates before Congress. Army commands and installations begin budget development by means of their Command Budget Estimates (CBE) based on the latest Program Budget Guidance (PBG) from HQDA that reflects fiscal levels approved for the POM. The major goal of budgeting is to maintain consistency with the POM. The formal phases of budgeting are formulation, justification, and execution.

D. Execution

The execution phase applies resources, achieves objectives, makes adjustments based on feedback, and accounts for funds. Budget execution applies congressionally approved resources, consisting of the authorized manpower and appropriated funds, to carry out the approved program. The procedure entails apportioning, allocating and allotting funds; obligating and disbursing them; and evaluating associated reports to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources. During the execution phase, the Army may request supplemental appropriations and budget amendments to fund critical requirements occurring out of cycle, for example, requirements related to “contingency operations”.

E. PPBE Biennial Cycles

In 2003, the Department adjusted its planning, programming and budgeting procedures to support a two-year cycle that result in two-year budgets. The revised process is described in Management Initiative Decision (MID) 913, dated May 22, 2003. The concept in MID 913 is consistent with submission of a biennial Department of Defense (DoD) budget that is part of the President’s Budget request to Congress for even-numbered fiscal years (FY) for example the FY 2008 President's Budget submitted to Congress in February 2007, contained justification material for both FY 2008 and FY 2009.

In the even/on-years of the four-year PPBE cycle, a POM and Budget Estimate Submission (BES) is required. The POM and BES provide a six-year plan from the DoD Components organized into program categories, such as conventional forces or special operations and by type of resource, such as funding or manpower. The POM is the submission sent to OSD for an internal review by the Program Analysis and Evaluation

-A3- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

(PAE) programmers. Primarily OSD Comptroller budget analysts scrutinize the BES submission. Prior to the FY03-07 POM and BES, these reviews happened sequentially. At present, the reviews occur at the same time. Therefore, at any given moment in the Army Staff there are multiple years being managed in one of the PPBE phases.

In the odd/off-years of the four-year PPBE cycle, no POM or BES is required. Instead, a Program Budget Review (PBR) is conducted which focuses on execution performance and other criteria or factors set by Senior Army Leadership. During the odd/off-year cycle, the Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG) and Joint Planning Guidance (JPG) are not updated unless the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) decides it is necessary. The PBR process is a direct result of MID 913 whereby Program Change Proposals (PCPs) and Budget Change Proposals (BCPs) are used to update financial decisions made during the POM.

Essential changes to the program are made using PCPs and changes to the budget are made using BCPs. PCPs are resolved through Program Decision Memorandums (PDMs) and BCPs through Program Budget Decisions (PBDs). BCPs and PCPs are limited to a single issue and must identify resource reductions to offset any program or budget cost growth; offsets are required for net zero sum balance. Any agency submitting a PCP or BCP must submit them through their appropriate Principal Staff Assistants.

The Army submits PCPs that address issues over a multi-year period, and identify areas to take additional risk to OSD no later than 1 August. PCPs are limited to items that exceed $250M across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). A BCP is submitted, if the items are less than $250M, the budget year is affected, and serious program or policy implications exist. A caveat to these criteria is that Combatant Commanders may submit up to six PCPs regardless of dollar threshold.

The Army submits BCPs to OSD no later than 1 October. BCPs consider fact-of-life changes that include cost increases, schedule delays, management reform savings, workload changes, funding execution experience, and Congressional action. As mentioned previously, BCPs may involve FYDP years if total cost is less than $250M and the budget year is affected.

To execute the PPBE process, the Army uses six groupings called Program and Evaluation Groups (PEGs) to support planning, programming, and budget. The six PEGs are Manning (MM), Training (TT), Organizing (OO), Equipping (EE), Sustaining (SS), and Installations (II). Each PEG programs and monitors resources and independently establishes requirements, recommends priority, and develops separate 1-N list.

-A4- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

IV. TEST Joint Capability Area Appropriations

Section IV of An Overview of Army Test and Evaluation is the foundation, which begins the POM or PBR and should be used as a reference when developing requirements. There are five (5) appropriations for which the Test JCA has oversight responsibility or provides input, as shown in Table 1. For those Test JCA activities that identify and justify the need for new facilities or construction the MILCON project planning and budgeting process is initiated to obtain approval and authorization of Military Construction, Army (MILCON, A) or Military Construction, Defense (MILCON, D) funding.

Appropriation Treasury Code Category Period RDTE 21-2040 RDTE, Army 2 Years OPA 21-2035 Other Procurement Army 3 Year ACFT 21-2031 Aircraft Procurement 3 Years MSLS 21-2032 Missile Procurement 3 Years WTCV 21-2033 Wheeled Track Combat Vehicle Multi-Year

MILCON (A) 21-2050 Military Construction Army Multi-Year MILCON (D) Military Construction Defense Multi-Year Table 1: Test JCA Appropriations

A. Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, Army (RDTE, A)

This appropriation covers the costs of RDTE efforts performed by contractors and T&E activities, including procurement of end items, weapons, equipment, components, materials, and services required for development of equipment, materiel, or computer applications software; its Developmental Test (DT) and its Operational Test (OT) and Evaluation. In addition, any expenses for the operation and maintenance of major range and test facilities, which have as a primary mission, as determined by workload, the conduct of development testing will be funded and executed by the RDTE appropriation.

B. Other Procurement, Army (OPA)

This appropriation covers the production engineering in support of current production of equipment procured under these appropriations from commercial source or at an Army installation. OPA also includes non-developmental engineering in support of production needed both in advance of, and in conjunction with, quantity procurement to aid the manufacture of type classified/adopted end items and their components and parts. OPA also covers the initial production facilities or special tooling, special test equipment required to establish production capability for single end items. This appropriation also funds necessary rehabilitation and layaway of industrial facilities in Production Base Support Army Management Structure (AMS) codes when those facilities are required for mobilization or future production. During the production phase,

-A5- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

this appropriation also funds salaries, benefits, TDY, office automation, administration, and supplies for Program/Project Managers belonging to Program Executive Officers.

C. Aircraft Procurement (ACFT)

This appropriation covers the procurement, production, modification, modernization, engineering, and acceptance testing during production periods of major aircraft and related ground support end items of equipment required for operational use, general service use, addition to inventory upon delivery to the Army and when not an appropriate RDTE cost.

D. Missile Procurement (MSLS)

This appropriation covers the procurement, production, modification, modernization, engineering, and acceptance testing during production periods of major missile end items of equipment required for operational use, general service use, addition to inventory upon delivery to the Army and when not an appropriate RDTE cost.

E. Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army

This appropriation is for the procurement of; procurement, production, modification, engineering, and acceptance testing during production periods of major weapons and tracked combat vehicle end items of equipment required for operational use, general service use, addition to inventory upon delivery to the Army and when not an appropriate RDTE cost.

F. Military Construction (MILCON)

MILCON funds are distributed across 13 separate appropriations and support requirements for new construction or major facility repair across the military departments and defense agencies. This appropriation is a multiple year appropriation usually available for obligation for five years. A MILCON project requires authorization and appropriation for the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of temporary or permanent public works, military installations, and facilities for the Army.

The Congressional authorization of major construction projects represents the result of planning, programming, and budgeting efforts. A project develops from a determination that additional facilities are required. The requirement is defined, given a priority ranking, and placed in competition with other projects for available resources and reviewed by the Program Review Board (PRB). The PRB is a continuing body that assists program managers for the military construction appropriations in preparing their programs. The PRB also assists the program manager for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) (ASA (RDA)) in formulating the annual procurement authorization for construction of facilities funded by research

-A6- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

appropriations. This includes projects funded by the Military Construction, Army (MCA), Army Family Housing (AFH), as well as DoD appropriations.

The MILCON program involves a series of reviews by the Office of the Secretary of Army, (OSA), OSD, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress. Until the MILCON program becomes law, program changes continue throughout the review process. DoD 7000.14-R, volume 2B, chapter 6, requires that the design of all construction projects be at least 35 percent complete or, alternatively, that a parametric cost estimate based on a 15-percent-complete design be completed prior to submission to Congress. This allows for submission of an accurate budget estimate based on the project design. There is a deliberate one-year lag between the Army's normal biennial programming and budgeting system and the MILCON process. MILCON programming, unlike other programming, requires an additional year for project design effort.

To submit MILCON-Army projects, the IMCOM, ACs, ASCCs, DRUs, PEOs, and PMs must identify projects for the first year of its POM a year before it is submitted to HQDA. During the budget year (BY), the Army presents each project in the MILCON program before OSD, OMB, and the Congress. OSD reviews the construction projects contained in the Army's BES early in the budget year through the Program Budget Decision process. Before submission of the President’s Budget, the Army makes OSD- directed revisions to the program to the Congress in January. During this year, the final designs and Request for Proposals (RFPs) for Design and Build projects of the first- year projects are completed.

Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) funds may be used for minor construction costing $750,000 or less, the statutory cost limitation. At Government- owned installations, construction projects costing over $750,000 are normally funding through the MILCON appropriation; however, the RDTE appropriation may fund construction supporting unique items in research, development, test, or evaluation if facilities are contractor operated and maintained. Congressional notification is required prior to obligation of funds.

Using RDTE funds for construction or improvements having general utility is not authorized for projects over $750,000. Construction projects costing more than $750,000 with Other Procurement, Army (OPA) or RDTE funds normally require congressional notification; and should not be pursued without prior specific project funding approval at the programming level. OPA funds may be used in lieu of MILCON, RDTE, or OMA funds under special circumstances, for time-sensitive installation of communications-electronics equipment and systems, to include site preparation and construction required to support this equipment.

Once a project is designated as a specific MILCON project for programming in the first two years of the POM, appropriate project programming documentation in coordination with the project proponent is required. DD Form 1391 (Project Construction Justification Document), is the principal DoD and Army form that indicates the facility needs through the command channel to obtain funds for the requirement and

-A7- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

is submitted to OSD, OMB, and the Congress. Construction needs are first identified and documented in the Real Property Master Plan (RPMP).

The MILCON, Army appropriation program managers are: The Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM), for the MCA and AFH appropriations; The Director, National Guard for the MCA National Guard appropriation; and The Chief, Army Reserve, for the MCAR appropriation.

V. The Test and Evaluation Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Process

The PPBE process includes four phases of the budget process: planning, programming, budgeting, and execution. Likewise, the Army T&E process consist of four phases, however, The Acquisition Integration Division of the Investment Directorate in the Army Budget Office (ABO) is responsible for managing and supervising the integration of the Army's RDTE appropriation throughout all phases of the PPBE process.

The RDTE Team within ABO directly manages the formulation, justification, defense, and execution of all the RDTE Budget Activities (BA) 6 - Management Support Activities-Test & Evaluation. The three remaining phases: planning, program development and budget preparation (PPB) is the responsibility of the TEMA Resource Division.

T&E develops a POM and PBR for Test JCA during the appropriate even and odd year cycles respectively. Test JCA is one of many JCA activities within the Equipping PEG’s (EE PEG) responsibility. The EE PEGs charge is to align resources to achieve the goals and timelines of the ACP and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) decisions.

Test JCA competes with all other requirements identified by EE PEG programs and activities, therefore, developing a sound and defendable program for T&E activities ensures that projects are properly and reasonably funded in accordance with current financial policies and that the budget documentation submitted is adequate to justify the programs presented to the Army, OSD, and ultimately Congress.

A. Test and Evaluation PPBE Priorities

POM and PBR guidance can change with each submission, therefore, until OSD/HQDA staff distributes specific guidance, general investment guidance for the building of the Test JCA POM follows the Equipping PEG guidance prescribed in the draft Army Program Guidance Memorandum (APGM). Each organization in the Test JCA will build its program using the following general priority scheme:

-A8- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

− Fund T&E capabilities required to develop future forces while simultaneously “spinning out” future force capabilities that will enhance the effectiveness of current forces.

− Fund T&E capabilities required to strengthen the Army’s contribution to joint and combined warfighting and special operations modernization.

− Analyze the correlation between manpower and funding in program and budget submissions to assure manpower affordability.

− Provide financial “checks and balances” that promotes efficient and effective allocation of funds and ensures the cost of defense programs are realistic and affordable

The T&E PPBE process allows the opportunity to take a long-term perspective of the needs of the T&E Community and prioritize operational requirements within given fiscal constraints and impacts multiple years. The PPBE Cycle for the upcoming POM (FY10-15) is explained and shown in the PPBE Overview in Figure 1:

Figure 1: PPBE Overview

− Prior Year(S) (PY) - The fiscal year(s) prior to the current fiscal year − Current Year (CY) - The fiscal year that we are presently in (also known as the execution year) − Budget Years (BY) - The fiscal year following the current year

-A9- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

B. Requirements and Risk Definitions

Typically, all requirements are captured in a POM build. The following definitions for requirements and risk are currently how the Army staff articulates requirements that Test JCA organizations use in the development of their programs and are subject to change with the release of each POM and PBR guidance.

− Critical is a requirements level that if not fully funded, will jeopardize Modernization and Transformation efforts, to include FCS, future forces, and the readiness of current forces. This level presents maximum risk to Modernization and Transformation execution and provides resources to execute a program at the minimum capability.

− Validated is a requirements level that satisfies the Modernization and Transformation requirements without major degradation and thus presents minimum risk to Modernization and Transformation execution. If your organization cannot fund to this level then a Band 2 UFR is created.

− Requested requirements identify all remaining portions of the total requirement of a program assuming unconstrained resources and thus present no risk.

Test JCA programs/projects fall within an MDEP and compete in HQDA prioritization process that operates within a zero change guideline. If something new is added then something currently listed goes unresourced. The objective of prioritization is to establish definitive force capabilities at specific funding levels. Each MDEP that falls within the core program level are considered fully executable and critical to the Army program. As additional funding levels are added to the core level, additional force capability is programmed.

C. Prioritization Process

For each applicable Program Element (PE), the Test JCA organization will develop a “1-N” list of required programs/projects/items. This list should be developed at the lowest level possible within the PE in other words at the individual task level within each project where feasible. Each organization must make every effort to fund, at a minimum, to critical requirements level. If your organization cannot fund to this level then a Band 1 Unfinanced Requirement (UFR) is created. Figure 2 illustrates the prioritization process of the “1-N” list.

-A10- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS T&E Activities − PM ITTS Program, Projects, Items o Aerial Targets o Ground Targets o Army Threat Simulator 1 Program RESOURCED o Major Technical to Instrumentation RESOURCED “N” o Major User Test AT RISK Instrumentation − SMDC UNRESOURCED o Major T&E Investment o DoD HELSTF PROGRAM YEARS o Kwajalein Atoll

Figure 2: Prioritization Process for 1-N List

Requirements that fall within your available funding will be considered higher priority than any program or project unfunded. Consequently, requirements submitted with a “must fund” rationale will include a thorough justification that explains why another program or project previously funded within the submitting organization’s total obligation authority (TOA) cannot be unfunded. Fig 2 provides an illustration of how requirements are represented using the CUP Model.

CUP Model

RQMT ID: # A record (RQMTID) in Brim = Requested the database is Band 3 UFR represented as a Cup Band 3 Not Allowed RUFR Increment • Only one cup is allowed per Key7

Validated level

Band 2 Band 2 VUFR Increment UFR

Band 1 CUFR Critical level UFR Band 1 ORGID Increment Amount Filled = Funded level Funded SYNC

Serial number: MDEP_APE_APPN_CMD_USFU_COMPO_CP Key4 Evolution POM 08-13 Key5 POM 09-13 Key6 of Detail FDIIS current Key7 POM 10-15 Figure 1: Prioritization Process for 1-N List

-A11- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

VI. The Chemical Biological Defense Program Division - Test and Evaluation Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Process

As referenced in Section IV B, of An Overview of Test and Evaluation, the Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) is an OSD funded effort. The Army as Executive Agent designated the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD) to manage acquisition of CBD materiel and the CBDP T&E Executive to provide T&E subject matter expertise and oversight of T&E events, documents, and infrastructure. The T&E Executive determines the adequacy of T&E and establishes the prioritized T&E capabilities needed for adequate T&E and the associated T&E Infrastructure Investment Strategy. The T&E Executive and TEMA, work with the JPEO-CBD and the Joint Science and Technology Office (JSTO) to provide T&E budget submission input to the CBDP POM to ensure adequate T&E infrastructure funding.

The CBDP T&E budget submission supports those T&E capabilities required to establish a range of T&E capabilities, methodologies, and tools, which are geared to improve operational realism of tests and ability to address evolving threats. The CBDP T&E capabilities projects are aligned with the JPEO acquisition and with the JSTO Science & Technology (S&T) programs IAW the Joint Requirements Office-Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JRO-CBRND) Joint Priorities List (JPL) and Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) for passive defense. This procedure results in the CBDP POM being an integrated S&T, T&E, and acquisition budget that establishes the baseline and process for all future CBDP budget submissions.

The Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) T&E Executive Agent coordinates Test & Evaluation and development of Test & Evaluation capabilities to support all mission areas requiring CBRN defense capability. There are four (4) elements of CBDP funding:

− Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) DW6 project • Funds test operating costs, sustainment, and revitalization/ modernization (indirect test costs) • Required by Chemical and Biological Defense-specific mission, but not attributable to a specific test/customer • Includes Guards for surety materials, power, safety and environmental monitoring, indirect test costs • Funds requirement to meet NDAA requirements and preclude passing unauthorized costs to customers

− T&E Capabilities: Test fixtures, Instrumentation, Procedure development and validation, and associated documentation and Test Operating Procedures (TOPs)

-A12- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

− New test technologies and methodologies: scientific data and methodologies which support T&E capabilities development

− T&E Executive Mission and Early Involvement • Funds T&E infrastructure investment planning and oversight of T&E capabilities development • Funds early involvement of Tester/Evaluator Personnel to support investment planning and development of early T&E Strategies • Prior to Program Initiation (S&T and transition to acquisition), participation in ACTDs, test strategy development, operational assessment of new technology applications • Operational T&E personnel participation in DT events including test plan development and ensuring data is collected to support operational test and evaluation

A. Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) - Program Objective Memorandum (POM) Process

The Implementation Plan for Management of the Department of Defense Chemical Biological Defense Program (DoD CBDP) describes the CBDP POM process. The JRO-CBRND leads the development of the DoD CBDP POM Strategy with support from the JPEO-CBD, JSTO, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the T&E Executive. The Program Analysis and Integration Office (PAIO) supports the JRO- CBRND led POM development by providing POM analysis and justification. The JRO- CBRND and PAIO review available planning documents and develop POM Planning Guidance to assist in the CBDP POM build. In complying with the guidance, CBDP provides acquisition and fielding data for defense requirements to the JRO-CBRND.

Based on the Planning and Programming guidance, user’s priorities, and best business practices, JRO-CBRND and PAIO conduct select program reviews with Project Managers, as required, validate and prioritize POM and UFR submissions, and recommend allocation of available resources within Total Obligation Authority (TOA) and assessing trade-off. This process will ensure critical requirements/programs are funded to the extent possible within TOA (bills vs. bill payers); that critical UFRs are justified to solicit additional TOA; and the POM Report Card is developed against OSD’s Guidance and JRO’s Baseline Capabilities Assessment/Modernization Objectives.

The JRO-CBRND projects risk based on shortfalls and deficiencies and the PAIO finalizes the draft POM and develops supporting documentation/justification. The CBDP T&E Executive provides the T&E infrastructure input and reviews the CBDP POM and supports the JRO-CBRND through the Functional Capabilities Board processes. The JRO-CBRND forwards the POM through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and the Army as Executive Agent to the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (ATSD(NCB)) for approval.

-A13- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

B. Chemical and Biological Defense Program MILCON Process

Currently, the DoD Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) has no process in place that identifies MILCON program managers. Requirements relevant to MILCON cited under subparagraph (d) of 50 USC 1522 are as follows: “Funding requests for the program shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of Defense for each fiscal year as a separate account, with a single program element for each of the categories of research, development, test, and evaluation, acquisition, and military construction. Amounts for military construction projects may be set forth in the annual military construction budget. Funds for military construction for the program in the military construction budget shall be set forth separately from other funds for military construction projects. Funding requests for the program may not be included in the budget amounts of the military departments." . The Army as Executive Agent for the CBDP will assume responsibility for management of the CBDP Physical Infrastructure Program under oversight of the Special Assistant for Chemical Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization Programs (SA (CBD&CDP)). Execution of management responsibility will be assigned by the Army and funded out of the CBDP’s defense-wide appropriation for Budget Activity Six. The CBDP MILCON program will operate under administrative control of the Army in a manner similar in nature to the relationship established between the Army’s ACSIM and the Chemical Demilitarization Program.

In accordance with established procedures and policy, The Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OSD(C) will incorporate approved justification documents, DD Forms 1391, and other exhibits for submission in the President’s Defense-Wide MILCON Budget. Once authorized and appropriated, OSD(C) shall provide the planning and design funds and construction funds to SA(CBD&CDP) for execution by the appropriate DoD construction agent

The above concept is expected to be approved by the SA (CBD&CDP) NLT December 2007 for integration into the CBDP FY10-15 POM build and subsequent Budget Estimate and President’s Budget submissions.

VII. PPBE and President’s Budget Supporting Documentation

A. The Resource Formulation Guidance

The Resource Formulation Guidance (RFG) is a multi-volume document that provides guidance on all phases of the Army's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process. The RFG will be published electronically on the PPBE Portal at https://www.ppbe.army.mil/. Users must subscribe to the PPBE Portal to gain access to the RFG web page. Users can submit a subscription request on the PPBE Portal via the “Subscribe” link. There are five (5) Volumes of the RFG published:

-A14- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

− Volume 2: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution − Volume 3: Integrated Program and Budget Data Call − Volume 5: Preparation of the Program and Budget Review and the President's Budget Exhibits

− Volume 7: Budget Execution − Volume 9: Automation Products and Procedures Volume 3 of the RFG announces the data submission requirements for all Army Commands (AC), Army Service Component Commands (ASCC), Direct Reporting Units (DRU), program executive offices (PEO), program management offices (PM), and other operating agencies in support of the program and budget development process. It also provides an overview of the timeline from the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) perspective that TEMA uses to develop specific for program and budget guidance and timelines distributed to the T&E Activities.

B. Major Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB) Exhibits

The RDTE Team in ABO also prepares input to recurring budget schedules and reports i.e., the annual National Science Foundation Report, and the MAX Schedule C (Conduct of RDTE) Schedule for OMB. They also direct preparation of special, separate Test & Evaluation exhibits for OSD-the Major Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB) Activity exhibits.

TEMA consolidates MRTFB Exhibits from all T&E Activities twice annually. An exhibit is submitted for each MRTFB activity. TEMA reviews, packages and submits the MRTFB Exhibits that are prepared to support the President’s Budget request submission in the August timeframe. The exhibits are the same as the submission to the Director, DoD Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) in support of the President’s Budget during the March timeframe.

The MRTFB Exhibits reflect the total funding from all sources to be executed at each MRTFB activity. Instructions to complete the exhibits are provided in DoD Financial management Regulation, Volume 2B, Chapter 19.

C. President’s Budget Justification Book Exhibits

In support of the President’s Budget request, the Services submit the following budget exhibits: Army Procurement Backup Books (P-Forms) and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDTE) Descriptive Summaries (R-Forms) to USD (C) and the DoD oversight committees of Congress immediately following the transmittal of the PB.

-A15- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

The T&E Activities submit R-Forms that briefly and accurately describe and displays the Army’s programs and clearly reports senior Army leadership decisions. The R- Form, when submitted to Congress, presents the position of the Department of Defense and will not contain language criticizing, questioning DoD, HQDA decisions, or any reference to internal Army or DoD planning documents such as PBDs and PDMs.

The R-1 document, which provides a breakout of all RDTE appropriations by program element, displays each program’s title, budget activity, and dollars for the prior, current, and budget year(s). In addition, the R-1 includes DoD component summaries by appropriation, budget activity, and MFP. When submitting R-Forms, the Resource Formulation Guidance that is released prior to the preparation of each POM or PBR will provide specific guidelines and instruction.

To submit the R-Forms, T&E Activities must use the P&R Forms software, a web- based application, found at https://aim.altess.army.mil/prforms. Once all forms are submitted, budget data is transferred from Resource Formulation System (RFS) at each file position. Any change in the database between file positions is highlighted in red in the P&R Forms application and must be imported to the forms during update. Completing the P&R Forms on time is critical. Any forms not received from the field by the given suspense dates will be pulled by HQDA and therefore not submitted as part of the justification books to support the President’s Budget.

VIII. Additional General Guidance

− Address all statutory, legislative, programmatic, and budgetary requirements prior to completion of POM build.

− Conduct civilian work-year affordability reviews to ensure consistency with statute, policy guidance, and established controls to fully resource authorized `levels.

− Ensure that funding supports the current authorized civilian manpower to meet critical workload requirements.

− Comply with Congressional items of interest, Program Decision Memoranda, Program Budget Decisions and other adjustments in order to avert potential decrements in future program, and budget reviews, for example fuel increases/decreases.

− Identify and fully fund all environmental management costs, including remediation of all Class I environmental hazards.

− Consider and apply, where appropriate, business transformation techniques to improve effectiveness and cost efficiency to T&E projects and programs in support of Army initiatives.

-A16- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

IX. PPBE Milestones and Events

A. Army POM Milestones (even/on-year) Date Event Purpose Oct- EE PEG receives Training and Doctrine Determine preliminary priorities, identify new Dec Command’s (TRADOC) Capability Needs initiatives and redundancies in support of POM Analysis (CNA) and conducts FD Capability Assessments. Sep- EE PEG receives ACP and/or Changes Assist FD Division Chiefs in recommending how Nov and conducts JCA and PEG level mission to resource the ACP within fiscal constraints. analysis in support of POM. Nov- EE PEG receives/adjusts to results of Any resulting PBD/PDMs will potentially dictate Dec OSD Integrated Program & Budget changes to the PBR strategy. Changes may be Review of the Army BES submission. subtle or require a significant adjustment of the equipping investment strategy developed during PBR. Nov- EE PEG conducts Program Executive To identify PEO issues/considerations for POM. Jan Office (PEO) Road Shows Reviews Dec EE PEG conducts Army Equipping To analyze FYXX execution and better define Conference #4 (AEC4) UFRs in order to set conditions for FYXX programming. Dec EE PEG receives/responds to QDR PDMs QDR may result in subtle changes or may and the QDR Report. require a significant adjustment of the equipping investment strategy developed during PBD. Early Chief of FDF (FCS JCA Chief) briefs all Chief of FDF, identify FCS complementary Jan other Division Chiefs on FCS systems requirements needing help from other core/complementary requirements and the JCA/Divisions. programmatic way ahead. Late EE PEG conducts a Three Star Azimuth To confirm EE PEG: facts, assumptions and Jan Check broad programming objectives for POM; programming guidance for select high visibility requirements.

Late FCS Off-site To determine EE PEG funding proponency of Jan both development and procurement of FCS complementary systems and Spin-Outs. Jan- EE PEG Division Chiefs participate (as a The WSR is the forum for life cycle weapon Feb Tri-Chair) in Weapon System Reviews system and equipment funding requirements to (WSR) for select Acquisition Category be presented for cross-PEG integration and is (ACAT) I, ACAT II and Special Interest the primary opportunity for Program Managers programs. (PMs) and the Life Cycle Management Commands (LCMs) to present their current and emerging requirements to the PEGs. Feb EE PEG Division Chiefs conduct Joint Set conditions for the EE PEG 2 Star Off-site. Capability Area (JCA) Reviews at the The JCA Review is the first forum in which Director level TEMA Directorate can recommends requirements and/or funding changes for approval. Apr EE PEG conducts its 2-Star Off-site To finalize the EE PEG’s proposed investment strategy for POM. Identifies enhancements and offsets. Provides EE PEG Co-Chairs the PEG level context and understanding necessary to approve the proposed enhancements and

-A17- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

offsets. Apr-Jul EE PEG receives/responds to Army To adjust/recommend the Army’s equipping programming guidance (TGM, investment strategy for POM in support of EOH prioritization, etc.) decision making prior to submission to OSD in the early Aug timeframe.

B. Army PBR Milestones (odd/off-year) Date Event Action Early Jan Issue PBR Guidance TEMA Mid Jan Identify potential PCPs and BCPs to TEMA T&E Activities Jan-Feb PBR Brief T&E Activities with proposed changes Early-Mid Feb EE PEG JCA Review TEMA Mar EE PEG 2-Star Off Site TEMA Aug 1 PCPs due HQDA Aug (mid) PCP dispositions due HQDA Sep 1 Detailed programmatic/budget for accepted HQDA PCPs Oct 1 BCPs due HQDA

C. TEMA POM Milestones Date Event Action For Late Sep/Early TEMA POM Kick-Off Meeting TEMA/T&E Activities Oct Oct PPBE Guidance Sent to T&E Activities TEMA Nov POM Build Sheets due to TEMA T&E Activities Nov-Mid Dec POM Brief – Pentagon 2C139/Location TBD T&E Activities Dec MRTFB Exhibits to TRMC (POM Lock) TEMA/T&E Activities Jan R-Forms to HQDA TEMA/T&E Activities Late Dec-Mid Complete the Analysis of the Test JCA POM TEMA Jan Mid-Late Dec Critical UFR Information Papers Due T&E Activities Late Dec Remaining POM Build Sheets Due to TEMA T&E Activities Late Jan Back Brief Activities on FYXX-XX Test JCA TEMA POM submission Late Feb EE PEG JCA Review TEMA Mar MRTFB Exhibits to TRMC (Pres Budget) TEMA/T&E Activities Apr EE PEG 2-Star Off Site TEMA

D. Other Key Program and Budget Development Milestones Date Event Action Oct Initial Publication of Resource HQDA G8 Formulation Guidance, Volume 3 Dec MRTFB Exhibits to TRMC (POM Lock) TEMA/T&E Activities Jan P & R Forms TEMA/T&E Activities Late Jan Draft P&R Forms due to OSD HQDA/TEMA

-A18- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

Early Feb Final Forms due to OSD HQDA/TEMA Feb FY 20XX PB submitted OSD to Congress Dec and Mar MRTFB Exhibits to TRMC (Pres TEMA/T&E Activities Budget) Mar Schedule 8 for Dollars and Manpower TEMA/T&E Activities/ACs due to HQDA Mar Commander’s Narrative Assessment T&E Activities/ACs

X. Summary

The Test and Evaluation PPBE guidance must be in synch with the Army PPBE guidance, The Army Plan (TAP), the Army posture statement, and the Army modernization plan. The Army modernization plan states, “the first priority for the Army is to successfully pursue this war…“the next and related priority is to strengthen the Army’s contributions to joint and combined warfighting capabilities by fielding new systems, inserting new technologies and capabilities into existing systems…” T&E is essential for the success of Army modernization plan implementation.

In support of the Army guidance, this annex provides the T&E community the necessary information, data, processes, and procedures necessary for test and evaluation to more efficiently and effectively develop a realistic and justifiable program. One that identifies the Army T&E requirements of today as well as in the extended program years.

Our management initiatives will continue to evolve the content and structure of our community to better position us to support the Army’s changing needs. An approved community-wide strategy for investment, linked to and supportive of the Army’s Modernization Strategy, will enable us to better build and defend our resource requirements.

-A19- Annex – Army Test and Evaluation PPBE Guidance

References

a. Annex A to The Army Program Guidance Memorandum FY2008-13

b. Army Campaign Plan (ACP) Change 2, dated 30 Sep 05

c. Army Program Guidance Memorandum FY2008-2025

d. Defense Acquisition Guidebook, http://akss.dau.mil/DAG/

e. DFAS-IN Manual 37-100-2007, (http://www.asafm.army.mil/secretariat/document/dfas37-100/fy2007/37-100- 2007.asp)

f. DoD Directive 3200.11, DoD Major Range and Test Facility Base Summary of Capabilities, dated 2002

g. DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), DoD 7000.14-R, Volume 2, Chapter 4, Volume 2B, Chapter 19 dated June 2004 h. DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) 7000.14-R, Volume3, Chapter 17, Appendix C, dated December 1996 i. DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), DoD 7000.14-R, Volumes 2A, and 2B, (http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr), dated June 2006 j. FY 2003 NDAA k. How the Army Runs. Chapter 5, Force Development. The Army Campaign Plan l. Joint Service Chemical And Biological Defense Program Fy08-09 Overview DRAFT Army Program Guidance Memorandum (APGM), dated Nov 05 m. Management Initiative Decision (MID) 913 n. OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget. o. Resource Formulation Guide (RFG). Chapter 1, Introduction, Volume 3 p. Resource Formulation Guide. Volume 2A q. Test and Evaluation Management Guide. Chapter 15, Test Resources, January 2005, Fifth Edition r. The Army Plan, Sections I, II, III, IV

-A20-