TST102

BS1011

tst102_common_sraw_temp.pdf

Home >Engineering homework help >Mechanical Engineering homework help >TST102

TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN

FOR SHORT RANGE ANTI TANK WEAPON

(SRAW)

ACAT II

Program Manager Ground Weapons Marine Corps Systems Command Quantico, Virginia

January XXXX

TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN

FOR

SHORT RANGE ANTI-TANK WEAPON (SRAW)

ACAT II SUBMITTED BY ______________________________________________________ Program Manager Ground Weapons DATE CONCURRENCE ______________________________________________________ Program Executive Officer of Developing Agency DATE ______________________________________________________ Operational Test Agency DATE ______________________________________________________ User's Representative DATE COMPONENT APPROVAL ______________________________________________________ Component Test and Evaluation Director DATE ______________________________________________________ DoD Component Acquisition Executive DATE

OSD APPROVAL ______________________________________________________ Director, Operational Test and Evaluation DATE __________________________________________________________ Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation DATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 – INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................

1.1 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................

1.2 MISSION DESCRIPTION ............................................................................

1.3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION .............................................................................

1.3.1 System Threat Assessment ................................................................

1.3.2 Program Background .........................................................................

1.3.2.1 Previous Testing..................................................................

1.3.3 Key Capabilities .................................................................................

1.3.3.1 Key Interfaces .....................................................................

1.3.3.2 Special Test or Certification Requirements ........................

1.3.3.3 Systems Engineering (SE) Requirements ...........................

PART II – TEST PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE ............................

2.1 T&E MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................

2.1.1 T&E Organizational Construct ..........................................................

2.2 COMMON T&E DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS .....................................

2.3 DEFICIENCY REPORTING ........................................................................

2.4 TEMP UPDATES ..........................................................................................

2.5 INTEGRATED TEST PROGRAM SCHEDULE .........................................

Figure 1 – Integrated Test Program Schedule ................................................

PART III – TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY ....................................................

3.1 T&E STRATEGY ..........................................................................................

3.2 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK...................................................................

3.3 DEVELOPMENTAL EVALUATION APPROACH ...................................

3.3.1 Mission-Oriented Approach...............................................................

3.3.2 Developmental Test Objectives .........................................................

3.3.3 Modeling and Simulation ...................................................................

3.3.4. Test Limitations .................................................................................

3.4 LIVE FIRE EVALUATION APPROACH ...................................................

3.4.1 Live Fire Test Objectives ...................................................................

3.4.2 Modeling and Simulation ...................................................................

3.4.3 Test Limitations .................................................................................

3.5 CERTIFICATION FOR IOT&E ...................................................................

3.5.1 Assessment of Operational Test Readiness .......................................

3.6 OPERATIONAL EVALUATION APPROACH ..........................................

3.6.1 Operational Test Objectives ...............................................................

3.6.2 Modeling and Simulation ...................................................................

3.6.3 Test Limitations .................................................................................

3.7 OTHER CERTIFICATIONS .........................................................................

3.8 RELIABILITY GROWTH ............................................................................

3.9 FUTURE TEST AND EVALUATION .........................................................

PART IV – RESOURCE SUMMARY ...............................................................................

4.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................

4.1.1 Test Articles .......................................................................................

4.1.2 Test Sites and Instrumentation ...........................................................

4.1.3 Test Support Equipment ....................................................................

4.1.4 Threat Representation ........................................................................

4.1.5 Test Targets and Expendables ...........................................................

4.1.6 Operational Force Test Support .........................................................

4.1.7 Models, Simulations, and Test-beds ..................................................

4.1.8 Joint Operational Test Environment ..................................................

4.1.9 Special Requirements.........................................................................

4.2 FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................

4.3 MANPOWER/PERSONNEL TRAINING ....................................................

4.4 TEST FUNDING SUMMARY .....................................................................

APPENDICES

Appendix A BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................

Appendix B ACRONYMS ..............................................

Appendix C POINTS OF CONTACT .....................................

PART I - INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose. This document describes the total T&E planning from component development

through operational T&E into production and acceptance for the SRAW. It focuses on the overall

structure, major elements, and objectives of the SRAW T&E program and is consistent with the

SRAW Technology Development Strategy, Acquisition Strategy, Capability Development Document

(CDD), System Threat Assessment, and Information Support Plan. It is also consistent with, and

complementary to, the SRAW Systems Engineering Plan. The SRAW is an ACAT II program listed

on the OSD T&E Oversight List. It will be operated by the United States Marine Corps.

1.2. Mission Description. The SRAW mission is stated in the Systems Initial Capability

Document dated 20 OCT 2003 and the Capability Development Document of 30 NOV 04. The

ICD states that an operational requirement for a weapon to replace the AT4 and M72 by providing

a system with a higher hit probability, greater lethality, longer effective range, and increased

reliability. Key features of threat military doctrine are the mobility, firepower, and protection

offered by tanks and armored infantry fighting vehicles. Enemy tanks, with their technological

sophistication and numerical superiority, are a formidable threat against which the AT4, M72A2,

and SMAW-HEAA are deficient.

1.3. System Description. The SRAW system is a fire-and-forget weapon which can be carried

into combat by an individual Marine. The SRAW will be used to track, engage, and defeat tanks

and armored vehicles from all aspects. The system weight limit of twenty pounds and the

requirement to defeat advanced heavy armor initiatives mean that a very large

performance-to-weight ratio of the warhead is necessary. The SRAW must also be usable for

Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). It must be capable of being safely fired from

enclosed positions such as masonry rooms that measure 15' × 12' × 7' (4.57m × 3.66m × 2.1m) and

possess 20ft² (1.86m²) of ventilation, and bunkers with front and rear vent area of 15ft² (1.4m²)

each. Special tests of the sound pressure level and toxicity when the SRAW is fired from specified

enclosures must be conducted during weapon system development. The SRAW is to have a

minimum safe engagement range of 16 meters. Furthermore, the desired low cost of the SRAW

system will require innovative accuracy enhancement techniques at the longer ranges.

Conventional high-accuracy inertial sensors and missile seekers are precluded by the system cost

requirements. Since the SRAW is to be fire-and-forget, the initial aiming performance of the

gunner will have an enormous effect on the system accuracy. Presently, limited data exists as to

gunner aiming performance. This performance will be measured during SRAW development.

1.3.1. System Threat Assessment. Potential enemy threats confronting the United States in the

near to long-range period are fully explained in the Marine Corps Long-Range Plan (MLRP) and

the Marine Air-Ground Task Force Master Plan (MMP) of June 2000. Marine Corps forces could

face a variety of threats throughout the world and must be prepared to fight in all climates and

terrain. The most probable areas are the Middle East/Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

1.3.1.1. While employed against threat forces in the areas mentioned in the previous paragraph,

the SRAW will be subjected to various countermeasures used against antitank missiles. The

missile itself can be classified as a guided munition by the Army Materiel Command

- Smart Weapons Management Office's (AMC-SWMO) definition in its "Guide to How

Countermeasures Affect Smart Weapons" published in January 1992. Since it is not a "smart

weapon", it is not susceptible to most countermeasures (CM), such as chaff or flares, used against

missiles found in the "smart weapon" category. However, the AMCSWMO has determined that

the sensor/fuze section of a guided munition may be vulnerable to CM.

1.3.1.2. Since the target acquisition function for the SRAW is performed optically by the Marine

firing the weapon, and not by the missile or launcher, the system itself is not considered vulnerable

to acquisition CM such as obscurants. However, CM may affect the Marine's ability to acquire a

target and select an aim point. Any electrical component of the missile could be susceptible to

electronic CM. The Target Detection Device (TDD) of the SRAW may be vulnerable to signature

alteration of the target. Active jammers would have significantly less effect on the missile's

guidance as those functions are performed internally by the inertial guidance system. Directed

Energy Weapons (DEW) and projectiles could be used to destroy the missile prior to impact on the

target, but at present they are classified as only potential threats by the AMC-SWMO. The SRAW

may also be vulnerable to high-powered microwave energy (HPM), which may be capable of a

"hard kill", causing meltdown of electronic circuitry in the SRAW missile, or a "soft kill" in the

form of redirected current in the missile's circuits, or failure of the circuitry in the guidance or

TDD. This is known as "electronic upset". Further details of the threat to the SRAW are discussed

in the System Threat Analysis Report (STAR) for the SRAW, which is classified. The contractor

has also performed a classified System Countermeasures Analysis.

1.3.2. Program Background. Successful development of an improved LAW as specified in the

ICD would materially increase the combat effectiveness of Marine Corps units by supplementing

the fires of medium and heavy anti-tank weapons. This would provide the flexibility dictated by

the continued and increasing emphasis on mechanized combat in future warfare. Furthermore, the

ICD and CDD outline the increasing importance of built-up areas in both developed and

developing nations. The ICD specifies that the SRAW needs to achieve its tactical goals not only

on the conventional battlefield, but also in the urban environment. No weapon system capable of

performing the SRAW mission (defeating main battle tanks fitted with explosive reactive armor

and/or supplemental armor at short ranges in a low-cost, man-portable system) currently exists in

the US military. Thus the SRAW system will augment the presently weak infantry short-range

firepower.

1.3.2.1. Previous Testing. Omitted for training purposes.

1.3.3. Key Capabilities: The Key Performance Parameters, Key System Attributes, and

Additional Attributes are listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

1.3.3.1. Key Interfaces. The SRAW system will be capable of interfacing with the current night

vision sight or similar devices at the time of fielding in order to provide a night capability.

1.3.3.2. Special Test/Certification Requirements. Omitted for training purposes.

1.3.3.3. Systems Engineering (SE) Requirements. Omitted for training purposes.

Key Performance Parameters

Development Threshold Development Objective

Minimum range 17 meters 17 meters Maximum range > 600 meters > 800 meters Probability of hit (stationary target)

.5 (400 meters) .7 (400 meters)

Probability of hit (crossing target)

.5 (200 meters) .45 (250 meters)

.6 (200 meters) .55 (250 meters)

Operational Availability .95 .95 Warhead Defeat capability T-80 MBT w/ explosive

reactive armor T-80 MBT w/ explosive reactive armor

Table 1 Key Performance Parameters

Key System Attributes Development Threshold Development Objective Reliability .95 .95

Table 2 Key System Attributes Additional Attributes Development Threshold Development Objective Transition Time: Carry to Fire

20 seconds 15 seconds

Table 3 Additional Attributes

2. PART II - TEST PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE

2.1. T&E Management.

2.1.1. T&E Organizational Construct

2.1.1.1. Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) has overall responsibility for

the SRAW program. Essential responsibilities of the PM CBG/SRAW Project Officer,

MARCORSYSCOM, include:

Prepare the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)

Staff for comments and approval through the Commanding General, Marine Corps

Combat Development Center (MCCDC), the Director, Marine Corps Operational Test

and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA), and submit to the Commander, Marine Corps

Systems Command for approval.

Coordinate the Developmental Test (DT) Reports prepared by the hardware

contractors, development activity, and any relevant test agencies.

Publish a final Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) report.

Provide guidance and direction to the development activity, Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWC-DD), Dahlgren, VA.

Certify, to the Director, MCOTEA, that the system is ready and safe for OT&E. This

certification is based on a certification letter from the development activity.

2.1.1.2. Naval Surface Warfare Center-Dahlgren Division (NSWC-DD), Dahlgren, VA.

NSWC-DD will serve as the development activity and will provide the necessary technical,

administrative, and contractual support for the successful completion of the program. NSWC-DD

is responsible for coordinating, monitoring, and reviewing all contractual schedules/milestones,

test plans, designs, documentation, testing, test results, training, reports, and costs. Specific

responsibilities include:

Provide engineering and technical support for test execution.

Prepare the Detailed Test Plan (DTP) for developmental testing and submit to

COMMARCORSYSCOM, (PM CBG) for staffing and promulgation.

Incorporate failure definitions and scoring criteria prepared by MCOTEA for the test

program, with input from MCCDC and MARCORSYSCOM.

Prepare a final Government DT&E report for inclusion in the Marine Corps Program

Decision Memorandum (MCPDM) package.

Prepare a safety certification letter and submit it to the COMMARCORSYSCOM (PM

CBG) stating whether the weapon system met/did not meet design criteria, is safe/not

safe to proceed into OT&E, and is recommended/not recommended to enter

production.

Manage the provision of requisite test hardware and contractor engineering and

technical services required to support Developmental Test (DT) and Operational Test

(OT).

Administer the SRAW program, per COMMARCORSYSCOM (PM CBG) guidance.

2.1.1.3. Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA). The Director,

MCOTEA, is responsible for the field execution and coordination of operational testing and

evaluation (OT&E). His representative shall arrange for MCOTEA's participation in

developmental testing, as appropriate, to support OT&E objectives. MCOTEA responsibilities

shall include the following:

Ensure that operational testing is effectively planned, conducted, evaluated, and

reported with emphasis on adequacy, quality, credibility, and validity.

MCOTEA, with input from MCCDC and MARCORSYSCOM, will prepare failure

definitions and scoring criteria for testing. Prepare the Test Planning Document (TPD),

Detailed Test Plan (DTP) for IOT&E and the Operational Test & Evaluation Outline

(Part IV) of the TEMP.

Monitor developmental tests and review the DTP to ascertain which portions of DT&E

will contribute to the accomplishment of OT&E objectives. Assess the readiness of the

SRAW for operational tests.

Present an independent evaluation of test results directly to the Commandant of the

Marine Corps (CMC).

2.1.1.4. CG, FMF Lant/CG, FMF Pac. Responsibilities include providing resources to support

operational testing per the approved TPD. Appoint a test coordinator who will serve as the on-site

test director.

2.1.1.5. Others. During all developmental testing, data will be recorded by Reliability,

Availability and Maintainability (RAM) personnel. Data will be gathered from all tests and used in

logistic and life-cycle cost analyses. For each test conducted, the contractor will provide test

reports to the appropriate government official. All field incidents will be reviewed by a test team.

If needed, a failure analysis report will be required from the contractor.

2.2. Common T&E Database Requirements. Omitted for training purposes.

2.3. Deficiency Reporting. Omitted for training purposes.

2.4. TEMP Updates. Omitted for training purposes.

2.5 Integrated Test Program Schedule. See Figure 1 for the time sequencing of the Test and

Evaluation process. Included are the program milestones and the contractor testing plans. The

decision to proceed beyond limited production will be made at the Full Rate Production decision

meeting. Several steps critical to the overall success of the SRAW development effort have already

been completed. The warhead development process was completed during the Technology

Development Phase.

The ICD has addressed a need for a multipurpose SRAW with the capability to defeat main battle

tanks, assault fortified positions/obstacles, and mark or burn enemy positions while conducting

close combat operations. This TEMP addresses only the antitank variant of the SRAW for this

increment. Future variants will be addressed subsequent to this milestone, and will be included in

an updated TEMP.

Fiscal Year

03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

Milestone MS B

MS C

Phases Technology Dev. Eng. & Man. Dev. Production Sustainment

Dev. Contract

X X X

PDR X

CDR X

Contractor Testing (DT-1)

X X X X X

Gov’t. DT (DT-2)

X X X

Prod Readiness Review

OTRR X

LRIP X

IOT&E X

FRPDR X

FOT&E X X X

Figure 1 Integrated Test Program Schedule

3. PART III – TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY

3.1. T&E Strategy. In contrast to previous USMC TEMPs, which addressed developmental and

operational testing separately, Part III of the SRAW TEMP describes the full continuum of testing

at both the subsystem and system levels. In doing so, this document outlines an integrated SRAW

strategy that promotes integrated developmental and operational testing (IDT/OT) while

preserving organizational-unique policy and regulatory requirements. Specifically, Part III

documents developmental testing (contractor and government), integrated system testing and

dedicated operational testing that supports fielding decisions that when integrated at the system

level, provide capabilities described in the SRAW CDD.

The objective of IDT/OT is to: 1.) maximize opportunities to collect operationally relevant data;

2.) optimize use of limited T&E time and resources; and 3.) identify problems of an operational

nature at the earliest opportunity. Whenever possible, attempts will be made to maximize DT&E

test cases to provide OT&E-relevant data. Every effort will be made to avoid collection of

duplicate data by combining test events and consolidating data requirements to reduce redundant

testing during follow-on IDT/OT and/or OT events.

IDT/OT involves collecting OT&E-relevant data from appropriate DT events with a focus on

achieving both DT and OT objectives. The responsible test organization will perform the tests

while MCOTEA collects data points to supplement OT&E data. If MCOTEA determines the data

are operationally relevant and remains unaltered by the developing contractor as the program

matures, MCOTEA has the option to carry these data forward to dedicated OT&E.

The T&E WIPT members will have the option to review contractor test plans and procedures and

provide comments to the program office. If possible, IDT/OT modifications that do not

significantly impact schedule or cost will be negotiated by the program office with the contractor,

and the appropriate changes for the DT&E test scenarios will be incorporated to partially satisfy or

collect data against an operational requirement.

MCOTEA will request acknowledgement from the PEO of the IDT/OT activities and events

documented in the OT&E plan and coordinate OT&E plans for acknowledgement from the DT

community to use DT data.

3.2. Evaluation Framework. Table 4 lists the Critical Technical Parameters. All test objectives

for the Technology Development phase have been met.

Table 4 Critical Technical Parameters

3.3.0. Developmental Evaluation Approach. New initiatives in chemical energy warhead

development sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the US

Army, and the USMC have the potential to significantly increase the lethality of small Chemical

Energy (CE) anti-tank projectiles and missiles. These initiatives include the Javelin Weapon

Critical Technical Total Events Technical Test Scheduled Decision Parameter Objectives Site/Facilities Test Time Supported Accuracy/Range Stationary TGT

DT-1 >.5Ph at 400 meters

NAWC China Lake, CA

Q2 20XX CDR

DT-2 >.5Ph at Q3 20XX MS C 600 m (T)

>.5Ph at NAWC China Lake

800 m (O) Accuracy/Range Moving TGT

DT-1 .5 Ph at 200 meters

NAWC China Lake, CA

Q2 20XX Q3 20XX

CDR MSC

DT-2 .45 Ph at NAWC 250 m China Lake, (crossing

target) CA

Lethality DT-1 Classified Aerojet Test site, Soccoro AZ

Q3 20XX PDR

DT-2 Classified NAWC Q4 20XX MSC China Lake Minimum DT-2 16 meters NAWC Q3 20XX MS C Arming Distance China Lake CA Weight of system DT-1 23 lbs NAWC China

Lake, CA Q4 20XX CDR

DT-2 <20 lbs MS C NSWC Q4 20XX Dahlgren, VA Length of DT-1 40 inches Factory Q4 20XX CDR System DT-2 <40 inches Factory Q420XX MS C

System Warhead Program, Javelin Alternate Warhead Program, DARPA Advanced CE Warhead

Program, and warhead upgrades to the Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided (TOW)

Missile program. Progress has been made in both tandem shaped-charge warheads (primarily

direct attack) and in explosively formed penetrators (top attack). Fusing, guidance and control,

sensor, and propulsion developments in programs such as Javelin, NLOS, AAWS-M, and TOW

can be used by the SRAW program. These developments enable the required SRAW performance

to be achieved in a relatively compact and inexpensive weapon system. Limited referencing and

guidance and control technologies developed by the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and other

fluidics research developed by DARPA, the US Army, US Navy, and USAF may be useful to the

SRAW program.

3.3.0.1 DT&E Events, Scope of Testing, and Basic Scenarios. During the EMD Phase, the

contractor will conduct sufficient testing to demonstrate the objectives of the previous section. The

DT test program will be performed in two phases. The first phase consists of developing,

fabricating, and testing nine engineering model missiles. When this phase is completed, the design

will be frozen, and 125 more missiles will be fabricated, tested for quality assurance, and used for

qualification testing. This period of testing will take approximately 24 months to complete. The

following list represents major testing events:

3.3.0.2 Hardware/Software Integration testing, Hardware-In-The-Loop (HWIL) testing with

Government oversight, Environmental testing, HERO testing, Software stress testing Contractor,

development testing Hardware verification testing, Fuze development testing, Contractor missile

technical evaluation Qualification testing (e.g. countermeasures, transportability, etc.)

3.3.0.3 For certain key tests such as lethality or flight tests, the government shall send

representatives to monitor the contractor tests. Human Factors Engineering will be of great

importance during the SRAW development. The man-machine interface plays an important role in

overall system performance and is thus an important part of the weapon system design. The

requirements placed on the gunner must be realistic and must be interactively tested with real

gunners and real system mockups during the SRAW development. Detailed procedures will be

provided in the Detailed Test Plan (DTP). Input to the DTP shall be provided by the contractor and

any relevant government test agency.

3.3.0.4 The government shall approve contractor test plans prior to execution. Table 5 lists the

type and quantity of components to be tested. Tables 6, 7, and 8 list the developmental testing

scheduled during the program.

3.3.0.5 Subassembly Developmental Testing:

a. Airframe. The prime contractor will design, document, and fabricate missiles for eject

tests, warhead and rocket motor subcontractor safety qualification tests; conduct mechanical

and thermal analyses of airframe components; perform loads tests on structural components

and joints.

b. Launcher. The prime contractor will design, document, and fabricate the launcher;

conduct a mechanical analysis of the launcher; conduct drop tests with the launcher and

composite airframe.

c. Target Detection Device. The prime contractor will design, develop, and conduct

subsystem tests on the Target Detection Device (TDD) and components. Because the TDD

could be susceptible to potential CM and is important to mission success, it will be

thoroughly tested in both natural and manmade environments (i.e. heat, cold, weather,

obscurants, etc.)

d. Batteries/Power Supply. The prime contractor will develop, qualify, and conduct

verification of the thermal battery and power distribution system.

e. Electronics Development. The prime contractor will design, fabricate, breadboard, and

test the guidance and control circuitry; design and develop the warhead electronic packaging;

conduct electromagnetic interference testing; design, modify, integrate and test HWIL

hardware and software.

f. Telemetry. The prime contractor will design, develop, and fabricate telemetry circuitry to

support developmental testing. The contractor will also evaluate and select the telemetry

transmitter and receiver.

g. Inertial Sensor Assembly (ISA). The prime contractor will monitor the design,

fabrication, and testing of the prototype/breadboard ISA, produced by a subcontractor. The

prime contractor will perform system integration and acceptance testing of Engineering

Model ISAs.

h. Warhead. Warhead development and testing will be conducted by the warhead

subcontractor. The design has been defined at the end of the Demonstration and Validation

phase; structural and electrical interfaces between warhead, safe & arm device and missile

structure will be defined by the end of the risk reduction program. The lethality of the

warhead has been successfully demonstrated both during static tests and during a full-up

missile flight test. The prime contractor will monitor pre-production qualification testing

(PPQT) testing by the subcontractor.

i. Rocket Motor Development. The rocket motor subcontractor has developed and tested a

heavy-wall design; flight-weight motors and casings have been fabricated and tested, and gas

generator interface requirements established. The prime contractor will monitor

subcontractor PPQT tests.

j. Jet Reaction Control Assembly (JRCA). The JRCA design will have been validated and

tested by the end of the technology development phase. Selection of materials and methods

of fabrication will be complete; gas generator design configuration and interface has been

established. Valve Body and Structural Base designs will be reviewed and updated; the aft

closure release mechanism will be integrated. The prime contractor will conduct shock,

vibration, temperature, and cold gas actuation testing. Any problems will be evaluated and

corrected and designs finalized by the Critical Design Review. Tactical JRCA components

will be tested to include proof, acceptance, cold gas actuation, environmental (i.e. vibration,

shock, temperature), and gas generator tests (3 low temperature, 2 high, 1 nominal).

k. Gas Generator. The gas generator subcontractor will verify performance of the gas

generator prior to delivery. The prime contractor will monitor these tests.

l. System Development/Integration. The prime contractor will assemble and conduct

acceptance and environmental tests on 9 Engineering Model missiles and conduct integration

tests of the missiles with launchers.

m. The prime contractor will conduct environmental qualifications, electromagnetic

interference and HERO testing on the 125 missiles selected for Technical Evaluation (DT

II); conduct safety certifications (man-rating); conduct technical flight tests, to include

eject-only, accuracy, and full-up warhead flight testing.

3.3.1. Mission-Oriented Approach. Omitted for training purposes.

3.3.2. Developmental Test Objectives. After a successful Technology Development and

Milestone B decision, the SRAW program will transition into Engineering Manufacturing

Development (EMD). Any deficiencies in the weapon system will be corrected. The system will

become man-rated. Critical technical parameters not specifically demonstrated during the previous

phase will be addressed during EMD. Failures will be reported in accordance with the Failure

Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS), and used for assessment of

reliability. Detailed procedures will be provided in the detailed test plans. The objectives of EMD

DT&E are to successfully develop and demonstrate a weapon that will meet the physical

parameters set forth in the development specification, possess sufficient lethality to satisfy the

Marine Corps' requirement, and can be manufactured at a low cost. Specific objectives include:

Validating performance parameters, freezing the system design.

Building qualification hardware, and evaluating the design through qualification testing.

Verifying the lethality of the weapon system under realistic stand-off, velocity, angular

velocity, and component packaging conditions.

Verifying the accuracy and aerodynamic properties of the missile.

Demonstrating compatibility of all interfacing components/systems/subsystems,

especially the warhead, fuze and safe-and-arm device.

Analyzing SRAW susceptibility to countermeasures, to include target signature alteration,

active jammers, directed energy weapons and projectiles, high-powered microwaves, and

target camouflage and deception measures; enemy-induced electromagnetic interference

(EMI); hazards of electromagnetic radiation to ordnance (HERO). These tests should be

conducted to realistically simulate the actual threat.

Demonstrating MOUT capabilities.

Verifying compliance with the development specifications.

Providing data for more realistic cost estimates.

Obtaining data on the gunner aiming performance and gunner compatibility with the

launcher.

Obtaining a safety certification and man-rating.

Successfully demonstrating production-level components both individually and integrated

into a full-up system (missile and launcher).

Obtaining preliminary data for RAM, Human Factors and ILS assessments.

3.3.3. Modeling & Simulation (M&S). Omitted for training purposes

3.3.4. Test Limitations. The size, weight, and materials of the components and systems tested

during SRAW Technology Development phase will differ somewhat from the eventual production

model. Initially, breadboard components will be tested in laboratory and field tests. Subsystems

and modules will be tested before being assembled into actual flight-test missiles. Preliminary

flight tests shall be conducted with accuracy-configured missiles equipped with a dummy warhead

and ballistically matched to the tactical system. Once components have been successfully

demonstrated both at the breadboard level and integrated into the flight test missiles,

improvements in size, weight, design layout, and materials can be performed to produce a

production-level component.

3.4. Live Fire Test and Evaluation Approach. A formal Live Fire Test and Evaluation under Title

10 U.S. Code, Section 2366 "Major systems and munitions programs: survivability testing and

lethality testing required before full-scale production," with its associated independent report to

Congress, is not required for SRAW. However, certain developmental tests are planned. Tables 6,

7, and 8 list the full-up warhead test flights and lethality tests planned for both the nine

Engineering Model test flights and the technical evaluations (Techeval/DT II).

3.4.1. Live Fire Test Objectives. Omitted for training purposes.

3.4.2. Modeling & Simulation (M&S). Omitted for training purposes.

3.4.3. Test Limitations. Omitted for training purposes.

3.5 Certification for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. The purpose of the Initial

Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) of the Short Range Antitank Weapon (SRAW) is to

ensure that the system meets the mission needs and minimum operational performance

requirements identified in the CPD. This testing will evaluate the SRAW when it is employed by

the typical Marine user in a realistic environment. MCOTEA will plan, conduct, and report the

results of all operational testing.

3.6. Operational Evaluation Approach. An IOT&E of the SRAW will be conducted by

MCOTEA prior to the Full Rate Production Decision. The following paragraphs describe the

operational effectiveness and operational suitability Critical Operational Issues that are essential to

the evaluation of the SRAW's ability to perform its mission. The IOT&E will be conducted with

preproduction prototypes of the SRAW system. These prototypes must be representative of the

production system.

3.6.0.1 Operational testing of the SRAW will be conducted in four phases. During each of these

phases, data will be collected on the system which will be used to evaluate the operational

effectiveness and operational suitability of the SRAW. Throughout Phases I – IV, the SRAW will

be employed by properly trained Marines, in an operational environment.

3.6.0.2 Phase I will be approximately two weeks long and will include training of the Marines,

utilizing the contractor provided training program, and evaluation of that program. A pilot test to

evaluate the test program and the data collection and evaluation system will also be conducted

during this phase. An operational test readiness review (OTRR) will be held prior to advancing to

Phase II.

3.6.0.3 Phase II will consist of a series of tactical scenarios using a rifle platoon-sized unit against

representative threat targets. These scenarios will include day and night, and offensive and

defensive scenarios. MOUT operations will also be conducted during this phase of the test. This

phase of the test will be conducted at MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.

3.6.0.4 Phase III will integrate a platoon equipped with SRAW into a unit conducting a

Combined Arms Exercise (CAX) at MCAGCC, 29 Palms, CA. This phase will provide data on the

performance of the SRAW in a combined arms environment and will include comments from the

unit leadership and the Tactical Exercise Evaluation Control Group (TEECG).

3.6.0.5 Phase IV will evaluate the portability and transportability of the SRAW on amphibious

ships. This evaluation will be conducted by a squad-sized unit at the San Diego Naval Base and

Landing Force Training Command, Pacific. Marines will embark, debark, and travel through

various amphibious ships, as well as conduct dry net operations.

3.6.0.6 Susceptibility to enemy countermeasures will be operationally tested to the degree that

safety will allow. OT&E results will be adjusted to account for the effects of unverifiable

countermeasures based on an assessment of the capabilities of current threat countermeasures. It is

anticipated that DT data will be adequate to support the evaluation of the lethality of the SRAW.

3.6.0.7 Separate environmental testing will be conducted to cover environmental conditions not

encountered during the four phases listed above. It is anticipated that the extreme cold weather

requirements will have to be tested at a site other those for phases I – IV.

3.6.0.8 Operational Effectiveness Issues

(a) Will a Marine wearing full combat equipment, cold weather clothing, and/or MOPP

clothing, be able to carry the SRAW, and engage and destroy both stationary and moving

enemy armored vehicles with the SRAW?

(b) Will the SRAW enhance the chances of survivability of Marines firing it in comparison

to the current LAW system?

Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT)?

(d) Will a Marine be able to satisfy the conditions set forth in (a) above with a SRAW at

night, if equipped with the current night vision sight or goggles?

3.6.0.9 Operational Suitability Issues

(a) Is the reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) of the SRAW suitable for

operational employment?

(b) Is the SRAW logistically supportable?

employ this system in an operational environment?

(d) Does the SRAW function within current doctrine, tactics, and organization?

(e) Are the transportability and deployability of the SRAW suitable for operational

employment?

(f) Does the design of the SRAW incorporate sound human engineering principles?

(g) Is the SRAW safe for Marines to employ?

(h) Does the embedded software function properly in an operational environment?

3.6.1 Operational Test Objectives. All Critical Operational Issues listed in paragraphs 3.6.0.1

and 3.6.0.2 will be addressed during the IOT&E. Operational effectiveness and operational

suitability objectives for the SRAW will be examined by means of a thorough test and evaluation

which addresses each of the system requirements, as stated in the SRAW ROC/CDD. Operational

effectiveness objectives include: mission performance, survivability and vulnerability, and

cooperative systems. Operational suitability objectives include: RAM, deployability and

transportability, personnel selection and training, organizational impact, concept of employment,

logistics support, human factors and safety, and software.

3.6.2 Modeling and Simulation. Omitted for training purposes.

3.6.3 Test Limitations

(a) The effects of weather and terrain will be limited to those at MCB Camp Pendleton, CA;

MCAGCC 29 Palms, CA; and Naval Base, San Diego, CA.

(b) Availability of amphibious ships will limit the extent of amphibious compatibility testing.

data collected during DT firings will be combined with OT data for the system evaluation. Only

those missile firings conducted without contractor involvement and in a representative combat

environment will be combined with OT firing data.

3.7 Other Certifications. Omitted for training purposes.

3.8 Reliability Growth. Omitted for training purposes.

3.9 Future Test and Evaluation. Omitted for training purposes.

4. PART IV - RESOURCE SUMMARY

4.1. Introduction. Omitted for training purposes.

4.1.1. Test Articles. The Engineering and Manufacturing Development Statement of Work

requires that the contractor deliver the following items: 125 Technical Evaluation (DT II) systems

12 inert mock-ups six cut-away mock-ups one flight model guidance & control unit. These items

will be used for testing of the weapon system's lethality, accuracy, and performance. See Table 5

for a list of test articles required for DT and OT.

4.1.2. Test Sites and Instrumentation. Tables 6, 7 and 8 list the facilities, equipment, and test

support services required to successfully complete developmental testing.

4.1.3. Test Support Equipment. Tables 9 and 10 list the government test services and facilities.

4.1.4. Threat Representation. Omitted for training purposes.

4.1.5. Test Targets and Expendables. The SRAW targets are to be Government-Furnished

Equipment (GFE).

4.1.6. Operational Force Test Support. See Table 5 for a list of test articles required for OT.

The following long-lead time, high-cost items will be needed for the IOT&E:

a. 103 Operational Evaluation (IOT&E) systems;

b. Training device(s) to be used as a low-cost alternative to actual IOT&E weapon systems

to train Marines participating in IOT&E;

c. Five T-72 target tanks (two must be operational);

d. Three BMP-2 target vehicles (two must be operational);

e. Four armored vehicle remote control kits;

The above items are based on testing of the anti-armor warhead. Additional mission warhead types

(i.e. bunker buster and flame variants) will increase/change the above requirements

4.1.7. Models, Simulations, and Testbeds. Omitted for training purposes.

4.1.8 Joint Mission Environment. Omitted for training purposes.

4.1.9. Special Requirements. Special requirements are to be determined by the contractor as

necessary to meet the SRAW requirements.

4.2. Federal, State, and Local Requirements. Omitted for training purposes.

4.3. Manpower/Personnel and Training. Omitted for training purposes.

4.4. Test Funding Summary. Omitted for training purposes.

Table 5 Test Articles

Subsystem test Duration of test Scope Location Full Qualification Tests: Vendors S&A Device ISA Propulsion Gas Generator Warhead

12 Weeks 12 Weeks 12 Weeks 12 Weeks 12 Weeks

Specified Env’t

NAWC China Lake, Ca

Ordnance Induced Failure Tests: Propulsion Gas Generator

4 weeks 4 weeks

NAWC China Lake, CA

Countermeasures testing 4 weeks Specified Env’t

Aberdeen, MD

Engineering Model Tests: Hardware in the loop tests Subsystem Integration and testing: 2 Missiles for prequel at Newport 7 flight test missiles for eject tests 5 flight test missiles w/telemetry 2 flight test missiles w/warhead

13 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 4 weeks

Loral

Limited Missile Qual Test 8 weeks Loral Preliminary EMI & ESD Tests 4 weeks W/o

Ordnance Loral

Preliminary HERO Tests 4 weeks NSWC Dahlgren, VA

Launcher tests: Round retention w/slug Closure release test 4 weeks

8 weeks

Immersion Drop tests closures

NAWC China Lake, CA

EM missile acceptance, vibration and temp tests

4 weeks Pre-flight Testing

NAWC China Lake, CA

EM Missile eject tests 7 each Remote launch

NAWC China Lake, CA

EM Missile flight test w/telemetry 5 each Remote Launch

NAWC China Lake, CA

EM Missile flight test w/ warhead 2 each Remote Launch

NAWC China Lake, CA

Table 6 Subsystem Tests

Test Number/Duration

of tests Scope Location

Airframe load test 4 weeks Launch force loads Loral Newport Beach

JRC Bench Checkout

20 weeks breadboard Loral

Guidance and control bench checkout

20 weeks breadboard Loral

TDD Bench checkout

20 weeks breadboard Loral

Launcher checkout 20 weeks functionality Loral Ordnance Dev’t tests: Propulsion E&V Warhead E&V Gas Generator

16 weeks 16 weeks 16 weeks

Subcontractor Verification w/ Loral oversight

Loral

Subsystem Acceptance Tests: JRC Guidance & Cont’l Tgt detect device S&A device Inertial Sensor Telemetry

4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks

Loral verification of final product

Loral

Subsystem Env’t Tests: JRC G&C TDD Airframe S&A device ISA Telemetry

4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks

Loral verification of final product

Loral

Table 7 Electro-Magnetic Missile Tests

DT-2 Tests Number/Duration Scope Location Weapons prequel flight test 8 each NAWC Weapon Env’t qual tests Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

11 each 11 each 11 each

NAWC

Fire through Brush test 2 each NAWC Weapon safety qual test 17 each NAWC Safety cert tests (man rating) Firing from enclosures

43 each 3 each

NAWC

Weapon performance Flight tests 32 weeks NAWC Final EMI & ESD tests NAWC Final HERO tests NAWC

Table 8 DT-2 Tests

Gov’t Service or Facility Time Frame Test Period Comments NAWC China Lake

Env’t test facility Solar Radiation Temperature Altitude Water Immersion Vibration Acceleration Sensing, photo, tape recording, timing Missile Assembly and Integration area

3 Explosive safe rooms 25 lbs of class 1.1 exp 115VAC, 1 phase 20A 2 explosive storage bunkers

June 06-March 07

May 05-Nov 06

Continuous

NSWC Dahlgren, VA HERO Tests Facilities and services

Aug 05-Sep 05 Aug 06-Sep 06

1 week 1 week

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

Countermeasure tests Test range and support CM devices, materials Targets Equipment storage facilities

Office area 115 vac Van power 20kVA Storage for secret mat’l Facilities and support personnel

June 06-July 06 2 weeks

Edgewood, MD CM tests Aerosols tests Facilities and support personnel

Yuma Proving Ground Parachute test facility Aircraft Crew Rigging Pallet material Tower drop facilities

Mar 07-Apr 07 2 weeks

Lapes Test Facility Aircraft Crew Rigging Pallet Material Loadmaster services

March 07-Apr 07

2 weeks

Table 9 Government Test Services and Facilities

Item Time frame Test period Comments Facilities

NSWC Dahlgren, VA

HERO Test facility NAWC

Aug 05-Sep 05

1 week

Missile assy area May 05-Nov 05 1 week Equipment

Aircraft for LAPES and parachute test LAPES parachute test rigging and pallets Stationary and moving armor targets Reactive Armor Stationary Armor target Enclosure test building Instrumentation for enclosure test:

Sound pressure level Toxic gas sensor

AN/PVS-4 night sight AN/PVS-7B night vision goggles NBC Gear Paratrooper Jump pack

Mar 07-Nov 07

July 05-Aug 05

June 05-May 07

July 05-Aug 05

Jan 07

TBD

1 week

Continuous

TBD

Services Aircraft flight crew for LAPES Enclosure Test instrumentation support personnel

March 07-Apr 07

Jan 07

2 weeks

1 week

Table 10 Government Furnished Facilities, Equipment, and Services

APPENDIX A. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Marine Corps Required Operational Capability (ROC) for Improved Light Anti-Tank Weapon

(ILAW), 6 August 1999. ROC INS 1.04a.

B. Marine Corps Required Operational Capability (ROC) for a Short Range Anti-tank Weapon

(SRAW), 3 September 1999. ROC INS 1.11

C. JROC Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) for a Short Range Anti-tank Weapon (SRAW), 20

October, 2003.

D. JROC Capabilities Development Document for Short Range Anti-Tank Weapon (SRAW), 20

November 2004.

E. SRAW Broad Agency Announcement, DARPA/NSWC #81-1 SRAW, N6092188-Q-B051.

F. SRAW Phase I Evaluation and Down Selection Procedures Plan (including Annex containing

the Measures of Effectiveness Criteria for Phase I Results and Phase II Plans).

G. Acquisition Plan for the Balanced Technology Initiative Short-Range, Anti-Tank Weapon

Program, NSWC Acquisition Plan Number DL-88-03.

H. Statement of Work for the SRAW Phase II Concept Development.

I. Statement of Work for the SRAW Technology Development Phase.

J. SRAW EMD Program Plan (Preliminary), 25 February 2003.

K. MIL-STD-882, System Safety Program Requirements.

L. NAVORD OR-44942 Weapons System Safety Guidelines Handbook.

APPENDIX B. ACRONYMS

6-DOF 6-Degrees of Freedom AMC-SWMO Army Materiel Command — Smart Weapons Management Office AAWS-M Advanced Antiarmor Weapon System — Medium CE Chemical Energy CG Commanding General CMC Commandant of the Marine Corps DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DEW Directed Energy Weapon DT Developmental Test DTP Detailed Test Plan DT&E Developmental Test and Evaluation EM Engineering Model EMD Engineering Manufacturing Development EMI Electromagnetic Interference EOA Early Operational Assessment ESD Electrostatic Discharge FRACAS Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System FY Fiscal Year G&C Guidance & Control GFE Government Furnished Equipment HERO Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance HPM High-Powered Microwave IER Independent Evaluation Report ILAW Improved Light Anti-Tank Weapon ILS Integrated Logistics Support ILSMT Integrated Logistics Support Management Team IOT&E Initial Operational Test & Evaluation IPR In Progress Review ISA Inertial Sensor Assembly JRCA Jet Reaction Control System LAPES Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System MCAGCC Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center MCCDC Marine Corps Combat Development Command MCO Marine Corps Order MCOTEA Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity MCPDM Marine Corps Program Decision Memorandum MARCORSYSCO M

Marine Corps Systems Command

MOS Military Occupational Specialty MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain NAWC Naval Air Warfare Center

NLOS Non-Line-Of-Sight NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center OPEVAL Operational Evaluation OT Operational Test PDA Principal Development Activity PEO Procurement Executive Officer PPQT Pre-Production Quality Testing RAM Reliability, Availability and Maintainability RHA Rolled Homogeneous Armor ROC Required Operational Capability S&A Safe & Arm SDI Strategic Defense Initiative SRAW Short Range Antitank Weapon TDD Target Detection Device TECHEVAL Technical Evaluation TEECG Tactical Exercise Evaluation Control Group TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan TOW Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided Missile TPD Test Planning Document

APPENDIX C. POINTS OF CONTACT

TITLE NAME ORG COMM/AV PHONE

Omitted for training purposes.