National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 The Future of Vulnerability Assessment
Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×

6
Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

After reviewing the vulnerability assessment methodologies, evaluating the cost, effectiveness, and deficiencies of these methodologies, and reviewing the Live Fire Test (LFT) law and the Department of Defense (DoD) Live Fire Test & Evaluation (LFT&E) program, the committee has come to the following conclusions.

  • Conclusions Regarding the Live Fire Test Law & the DoD LFT&E Programs

  1. The committee believes that the requirements in the Live Fire Test law have been interpreted in several ways and that these different interpretations have caused confusion and tension in the Live Fire Test programs. Nevertheless, the committee believes that the law is a valuable contribution to vulnerability assessment and to the design of survivable aircraft. Furthermore, it is satisfactory in its present form because of the waiver process. The committee believes that verification of vulnerability by live fire testing is necessary and that this law ensures that verification.

  2. The committee believes that the 1987 congressional Live Fire Test law mandates live fire testing of full-scale, full-up aircraft, including on-board ordnance, unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Defense. Therefore, any LFT&E program that has not received a waiver must conduct full-scale, full-up tests. This law was written because of Congress’s belief that the Services were reluctant to fully test the vulnerability of their systems as they were being developed. The program that evoked the law was the Army’s Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV). The AFVs were being purchased before their vulnerability was fully known. Because of Congress’s concern that a similar situation may exist for systems other than armored vehicles, it made the law applicable to all covered systems, including aircraft. According to the fiscal year (FY) 1988–1989 DoD Authorization Act Conference report, “The conferees intend that the Secretary of Defense implement this section (2366) in a manner which encourages the conduct of full-up vulnerability and lethality tests under realistic combat conditions, first at the sub-scale level as sub-scale systems are developed, and later at the full-scale level mandated in the legislation” (U.S. Congress, 1988).

  3. The committee believes that the 1988 Live Fire Test & Evaluation Guidelines and the 1989 Live Fire Test & Evaluation Planning Guide are not consistent with its interpretation of the LFT law. The Navy and the Air Force have interpreted the 1988 LFT&E Guidelines to imply that full-scale, full-up tests are not required. Furthermore, the LFT&E policies presented to the committee do not consider such tests to be cost-effective, particularly if on-board ordnance is included. Consequently, neither Service has developed LFT&E programs that contain full-scale, full-up Live Fire Tests. However, both Services strongly support the conduct of sub-scale inert and full-up tests throughout the development process. The Army policy on LFT&E supports

Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×

a “building-block” approach consisting of component testing through full-scale, full-up system testing that satisfies the Live Fire Test law. The Army also strongly supports subscale testing. The emphasis of its LFT&E program is on sub-scale testing, with limited full-scale, full-up testing to confirm the results obtained from the sub-scale testing. However, the Army LFT&E program for the RAH-66 did not contain firm plans for testing a full-scale, full-up helicopter; the full-scale testing was going to be conducted only if the sub-scale test results showed it to be necessary.

  1. Because all three Services believe that an LFT&E program plan that contains only sub-scale testing is in compliance with the law as interpreted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 1988 LFT&E Guidelines, no waivers have been requested. The OSD Live Fire Test Office has been unable to convince them that an LFT&E program that does not contain full-scale, full-up tests is not in compliance with the law. This conflict in interpretation is exacerbated by the fact that all of the current Service aircraft acquisition programs were under way at the time the law was written. Furthermore, the 1987 law made no provisions for funding these tests. It is difficult to make a major change, such as that required by the LFT law, in the middle of a test and evaluation (T&E) program without additional funding and schedule delays.

  2. The committee believes that a waiver is required to omit the full-scale, full-up tests. Congress recognized that there may be weapon systems for which a full-scale, full-up test program is unreasonably expensive and impractical when it wrote the LFT law. Therefore, it included a provision for the Secretary of Defense to grant a waiver from such tests, provided a plan for alternatives to realistic vulnerability testing is prepared.

  3. The committee believes that there are aircraft for which a full-scale, full-up test program is unreasonably expensive and impractical, and that there are aircraft for which a full-scale, full-up test program is neither unreasonably expensive nor impractical. Thus, there are programs for which a waiver is justified and programs for which a waiver is not justified. The committee also believes that in order to make the waiver process a viable alternative LFT path, the waiver process must be formalized. This formal process must contain a procedure that can identify when the full-scale, full-up tests are unreasonably expensive and impractical, and when they are not. This formal procedure would remove the threat of a stigma being associated with a waiver.

  4. The committee believes there should be no stigma attached to a waiver because the waiver is an acceptable alternative LFT&E path. Apparently, the Services are opposed to requesting a waiver for any program because of the apprehension that their program will suffer in some manner as a result of the waiver. They believe that a stigma will be associated with such a request. The Committee holds the opinion that the waiver is an acceptable alternate LFT&E path. The waiver is accepted by Congress as reasonable when the full-scale, full-up tests are certified by the Secretary of Defense to be unreasonably expensive and impractical, and an alternative plan for realistic vulnerability testing is proposed. No approval by Congress is necessary if the certification is given before the system enters full-scale engineering development.

  5. A serious problem in both the analyses and the Joint Live Fire Testing (JLF) of aircraft has been the omission of on-board ordnance as a critical component. It may be one of the largest contributors to vulnerability, particularly for aircraft that carry the ordnance internally. Alternatively, on-board ordnance may reduce the aircraft’s vulnerability by shielding critical components. Analysis and testing must be conducted both with and without on-board ordnance in order to properly account for this materiel.

  6. The stated intent of the full-scale, full-up tests mandated by the Live Fire Test law is to aid in design by providing information on any weaknesses sufficiently early in the design process to allow the weaknesses to be corrected. However, the Services and industry believe that the full-scale LFTs are conducted too late in the development cycle to have any impact on the design. The committee believes that if no major vulnerabilities are discovered in the full-scale tests, this information is of great value to the acquisition decision makers, and if a major vulnerability is discovered, it should be corrected. Other arguments against the full-scale, full-up tests are the facts that full-scale tests may be conducted on a nonrepresentative target and consume money that could be used for more of the earlier sub-scale tests. Counterarguments are that there is much to be learned from testing full-scale targets similar to the complete system and that sufficient funds need to be programmed for vulnerability testing. Vulnerability testing is an important T&E task in the acquisition process that has been significantly underfunded in the past. The committee believes there is a place for full-scale testing somewhere in the life of the aircraft. For those aircraft in which full-scale, full-up testing is unreasonably expensive and impractical during the full-scale development phase, later full-up tests on production aircraft that are no longer operational, such as done in the JLF program, can impact any subsequent modifications of the aircraft, as well as future aircraft designs.

  7. The implied intent of the Live Fire Test law is to force the consideration of vulnerability during the design process. In the programs the committee examined, evidence of early considerations of vulnerability was obvious. Thus, even though full-scale live fire tests had not been planned or conducted, the law has had beneficial effects. The committee believes that additional motivation to consider vulnerability in the design can be obtained by placing realistic design

Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×

requirements on the maximum amount of vulnerability allowed at program inception. This requirement on the design, coupled with appropriate live fire testing and the Live Fire Test law, would better meet the intent of the LFT law and good DoD design practice.

  1. The lack of a definition of the specific threat munitions to be used in design and in Live Fire Testing has resulted in considerable controversy regarding which threat weapons to use in the Services’ LFT programs. Even the cursory review of threats posed to the systems examined by the committee leads to the conclusion that the design threats are probably not the only threats likely to be encountered in combat. Furthermore, other threats likely to be encountered in combat may be more lethal than the design threats. This is particularly true for the C-17, and possibly the RAH-66. Nevertheless, the acquisition process must include a threat projection and a design threat selection as an integral feature; it is both necessary and feasible. Without it there is no real discipline in the development process, and the testing process is free to test against whatever threat it chooses, relevant or not relevant. The ambiguity in the phrase “munitions likely to be encountered in combat” makes it possible to put a system in an unfavorable position based on Live Fire Tests against threats for which the system was not designed.1 The committee believes that the design threat selected for some systems is not the major threat likely to be encountered when these systems are fielded. The design threat must be projected forward in time in order to prevent the system capabilities from falling behind the threat capabilities. There will be an understandable reluctance on the part of the intelligence community to make such a projection, but it can, and must, be done. Furthermore, the design threat must be reviewed at each milestone or other major decision point.

  2. Apparent separation of the oversight of vulnerability analysis from the oversight of live fire testing, both of which are part of the T&E process, has created a situation that is detrimental to the overall OSD vulnerability program. The committee is concerned that the apparent organizational separation of OSD review of vulnerability analyses and Live Fire Testing that currently exists could substantially impede a coordinated program to determine vulnerability policy, facility requirements, and model and data base development. The problem with the separation of the two oversight responsibilities is that there can be undue emphasis placed on one or the other methodologies. By making one office responsible for both, a proper sense of perspective and a synergistic, long-term development program can be achieved. Furthermore, the committee believes that oversight to the analysis/modeling methodology is a T&E issue. The committee believes that the separation may be a major contributor of the current problem. By combining the oversight of the two methodologies, the proper emphasis can be given to each methodology. The committee believes that in the future DoD environment of prototypes and deferred production, overall vulnerability reduction in the design can best be served by the integration of analyses and supporting live fire tests.

  • Conclusions Regarding the Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies

  1. Based upon its review of the two methodologies, the committee concludes that both vulnerability analysis and live fire testing, including the mandated Live Fire Testing, are essential in a mix peculiar to each aircraft development program. The committee believes that a primary application for these methodologies should be to aid in the design of aircraft throughout the development process. The proper design and validation of the vulnerability of an aircraft require a well-planned application of both methodologies, including analyses, sub-scale testing, and full-scale testing. The importance of early sub-scale testing to the design cannot be overemphasized. The analytical and testing aspects of vulnerability design and assessment must be not conducted independently. A consistent oversight of the entire process is required. In general, analysis/modeling is all that is available in the very early design stages, whereas confirming sub-scale testing is essential in the middle and later design stages. The sub-scale tests also provide information for the data bases that support the analysis/modeling efforts. Full-scale testing, because it occurs late in the development cycle, is used to discover any weaknesses of the total and integrated design.

  2. The committee believes that both methodologies need to be improved and that these improvements should be mutually beneficial. There appears to be a sufficient start of a modeling capability and weapons effects and materials data base to warrant an increased dependence on analysis/modeling for future vulnerability assessments as an aid in design. However, the committee also believes that the current analytical methodology and supporting data bases are not yet sufficiently robust, correct, precise, representative, and interactive to permit a total dependence on this methodology. Much work needs to be accomplished in the model development and in the accumulation of weapons effects and material Pk/h data bases. Consequently, live fire testing in the future should be oriented toward verifying the improved modeling procedures, extending the data base of weapons effects and material responses, and validating proposed design features and equipment for reducing vulnerability. The analysis/modeling methodology requires additional support to continue the development of models that account for all of the phenomena and damage effects observed in live fire tests and in combat. In particular, additional realistic sub-scale testing, both inert and full-up,

1

The Army’s DIVAD gun system was a victim of this practice. It met the documented target requirements but failed against nondocumented targets.

Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×

is necessary in order to continue the development of the Pk/h data base needed for improved models. This requires the development or improvement of test facilities that can perform such tests.

  • Conclusions Regarding the Vulnerability Programs for Aircraft

  1. The vulnerability of currently fielded U.S. aircraft will become more important in the future. Under present funding expectations, current aircraft are going to remain in the inventory for many more years. These aircraft are going to require product improvements because of the anticipated improvements in the weapons available to the Third World. One of these product improvements should be in the area of vulnerability reduction. No formal process currently exists to focus routinely on changes in the vulnerability of U.S. aircraft caused by the increase in weapon lethality. Such a routine vulnerability reduction review should be established. Vulnerability reduction as a means of achieving survivability enhancement is particularly important for existing aircraft that cannot take advantage of the new stealth technology.

  2. There is insufficient attention given to the requirement to design for vulnerability. DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.2 includes survivability as a critical system characteristic and requires that survivability objectives be defined initially at Milestone I and finally at Milestone II. However, no specific reference to vulnerability is made in DoDI 5000.2. Vulnerability requirements should be identified as part of the survivability characteristics and incorporated in development contracts.

  3. The collection of actual combat data on the vulnerability of U.S. aircraft is not given proper emphasis. Peacetime live fire testing, as well as computer-based modeling, would benefit greatly from a comparison with actual combat data. However, the procedures required to collect the proper data are not in place. In briefings provided to the committee, a list of lessons learned from the attempts to collect combat survivability data during Desert Storm, including the following: (1) existing official reporting systems were not adequate for capturing survivability data; (2) valuable records were destroyed because of established retention limits; (3) data questionnaires could not be completed adequately by field personnel on their own, (4) permission for data collectors to enter the theater was strongly resisted; and (5) arrangements to support the data collectors were not in place and were worked out with great difficulty for the few collection teams that did deploy.

  • Conclusions Regarding the Vulnerability Infrastructure

  1. The process of designing and testing for vulnerability is extremely complex and would benefit from continuous input and oversight from a broad range of experts in the vulnerability community. It is important that cooperation be established among the Services and between the Services and the Live Fire Test Office. The Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability (JTCG/AS) is an organization that has fostered this type of teamwork and inter-Service cooperation. However, it would be useful to have a standing board of vulnerability experts annually review the programs and plans with the Director, Test and Evaluation.

  2. The vulnerability community of the future most likely will become smaller in both the number of programs and the size of the infrastructure. The committee recognizes the fact that the Department of Defense is going to reduce the size, funding, and number of aircraft programs, both new and product improvements. There most likely will be a corresponding drawdown in the related vulnerability assessment activities, both in analyses/modeling and in testing. The committee believes that this drawdown should be carried out very carefully to ensure that essential vulnerability assessment personnel, capabilities, and facilities are not lost in the process.

Recommendations

Based upon the results of the committee’s study and the conclusions given above, the committee makes the following recommendations:

  • Recommendations Regarding the DoD Live Fire Test & Evaluation Program

  1. The committee recommends that the Director, Test and Evaluation, issue Guidelines that replace the 1988 Live Fire Test & Evaluation Guidelines and that more clearly conform with the requirements for the full-scale, full-up tests mandated by the Live Fire Test law. The binding force of the existing 1988 LFT&E Guidelines is unclear to the committee and to the Services, and should be replaced with a directive whose force is understood. The recommended directive should completely define the procedures and requirements for planning and conducting the Live Fire Test and Evaluation program for both sub-scale and full-scale tests. The directive should require the conduct of vulnerability tests under realistic combat conditions, first at the sub-scale level as sub-scale systems are developed, and later at the full-scale level mandated in the legislation. In addition, the directive should contain a formal process for requesting a waiver and the requirements for developing the alternatives to the realistic survivability testing of the full-scale, full-up system.

  2. The committee recommends that the Director, Test and Evaluation, formalize the waiver process by developing a risk-benefit assessment methodology that can be used uniformly to determine whether a full-scale, full-up test program for any particular aircraft is “unreasonably expensive and impractical.” The methodology must also be applicable to the evaluation of the alternate Live Fire Test program for the sub-scale targets. The process for

Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×

requesting a waiver, described in the DoD directive recommended above, should include a risk-benefit assessment methodology that quantifies the benefits associated with full-scale, full-up Live Fire Tests and the risks associated with waiving these tests. Such a methodology should give emphasis to early testing and, where possible, consider the desirability of Live Fire Testing of full-scale development prototypes and structural test models. Once the benefits and risks have been quantified, a decision can be made as to whether the full-scale, full-up tests are unreasonably expensive and impractical. The committee strongly believes that such a methodology is essential to the process of requesting a waiver.

  1. The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense take measures to ensure (a) that the LFT&E Guidelines are properly enforced by requiring either that covered systems be subjected to full-scale, full-up testing or that a waiver be obtained; (b) that any waiver be fully justified; (c) that the waiver process be uniformly applied; and (d) that no stigma be attached to the use of the waiver process. The committee believes that requesting a waiver is a legitimate procedure that must not adversely affect the program. The granting of a waiver does not eliminate all requirements for Live Fire Testing; an acceptable alternative realistic vulnerability assessment program must still be conducted. Furthermore, the availability of the risk-benefit methodology in recommendation will remove the arbitrary basis for granting a waiver currently in place and replace it with a logically based procedure used for other large-scale projects in which risk is involved.

  2. The committee recommends, for the full-scale, full-up Live Fire Tests, that the specific “likely to be encountered” munitions referred to in the Live Fire Test law be the weapon(s) specified in the requirements documentation for the system, projected forward to the time when the system is to be fielded. Furthermore, the threat should be reviewed and updated periodically at the milestone decision points to ensure that the specified design weapon(s) is representative of the major “likely to be encountered” threat(s) to the system. There has been considerable disagreement on what “weapons likely to be encountered in combat” means and what weapons should be used for system design and in the Live Fire Tests. The design weapon(s) specified in the requirements documentation must be the best estimate of the primary threat, projected forward to the time the system is to be fielded. Selecting threats for the design that are less lethal than others likely to be encountered is unacceptable. Furthermore, this design threat must be the threat used to satisfy the system tests mandated by the Live Fire Test law. Without this linkage between a realistic design threat and the test threat, the test agency can arbitrarily select threats that may not meet the user’s requirement for the system and that may jeopardize the future of the program. For the component and subsystem tests conducted during the design phase, the committee encourages the use of threats more lethal than the design threat when appropriate.

  3. The committee recommends that the Director, Test and Evaluation, expand the charter of the Live Fire Test and Evaluation program from its current oversight of those tests that are part of the congressionally mandated LFT program to include oversight of vulnerability assessment. This new OSD program, known perhaps as the Vulnerability Test and Evaluation program, would have broad oversight of the evaluation of the vulnerability of the system design throughout the lifecycle of the system and would be the Services’ advocate for the recommended integrated vulnerability evaluations at OSD milestone reviews. These evaluations would be accomplished using both analyses and live fire testing, including all of the Live Fire Testing mandated by the LFT law.

  • Recommendations Regarding the Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies

  1. The committee recommends that both the analysis community and the live fire testing community routinely include on-board ordnance in their assessments. A waiver to allow full-scale Live Fire Tests without on-board ordnance should be granted only after an examination of the results from alternate live fire tests of sub-scale components and their integration into analyses of the full-up aircraft carrying such ordnance.

  2. The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the multi-Service coordinated development and authorization for use of improved analytical vulnerability assessment models that are applicable to all military aircraft. The committee believes it is inevitable that the emphasis given to, and reliance on, the models will increase in the future as budget limitations force greater reliance on prototyping. Consequently, it is imperative that the models be improved. The current JTCG/AS-approved models could form the basis for the new models. The 1987 General Accounting Office (GAO) study on Live Fire Testing provides many suggestions on how to improve these models.

  3. The committee recommends that a long-term live fire test program be funded in which realistic components, subsystems, and systems are specifically tested to develop a data base to support the analytical models. The committee believes that improvements in the analyses/ models recommended above can be achieved only when properly supported by live fire testing programs and phenomenological investigations, and the committee is concerned that the present OSD Live Fire Test priorities do not adequately support this data base improvement. The funding for these tests should be provided by the Director, Test and Evaluation.

  4. The committee recommends that the Secretary of

Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×

Defense (a) establish a program to examine the combat data collected from Desert Storm for “lessons learned” regarding the susceptibility and vulnerability of U.S. and allied aircraft; and (b) develop formal, institutionalized procedures for collecting data in future conflicts, for ensuring that the data collectors have access to the theater, and for permanently storing the data. The combat survivability data collection program should reflect the importance of collecting and preserving the data and should be coordinated among the three Services through a joint agency, such as the JTCG/AS.

  • Recommendations Regarding the Vulnerability Programs for Aircraft

  1. Because of the expected service life extension of currently fielded U.S. military aircraft, the committee recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition establish a formal vulnerability assessment and reduction program for these aircraft. This program should require that all product improvement or upgrade programs to existing aircraft include vulnerability reduction as a major goal of the program.

  2. The committee recommends (a) that a vulnerability assessment program be an integral part of every aircraft acquisition program; (b) that vulnerability assessment and evaluation be a specific item examined at each formal milestone review; and (c) that adequate funds be appropriated to the program. The specific distribution of the funds between analysis/modeling and live fire testing for each program should be proposed by the individual Service, with OSD review and acceptance.

  3. The committee recommends that aircraft programs that become “prototype” programs, such as the RAH-66, not be excluded from live fire testing. The RAH-66 COMANCHE helicopter has recently been changed to a “prototype” program. The committee is concerned that the RAH-66 might be developed as a prototype without adequate consideration or testing of its vulnerability. If the decision is made at a later date to go into production with the prototype, it will be too late to correct any design weaknesses.

  4. The committee recommends that specific vulnerability requirements on the design be a part of the survivability objectives defined at Milestones I and II. These vulnerability requirements should be identified as part of the survivability characteristics and incorporated in the aircraft development contracts.

  • Recommendations Regarding the Vulnerability Infra structure

  1. The committee recommends that the Director, Test and Evaluation, establish a permanent Senior Vulnerability Assessment Board comprised of senior Services’ technical leaders, high-level OSD officials, and nationally recognized experts from industry and academia. This board would be advisory to the Director, Test and Evaluation, and chartered to review annually the proposed vulnerability assessment and budgets of DoD and to review the vulnerability assessment programs on specific aircraft programs as the need arises. This board would be similar to the boards already formed for conduct of coordinated 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3a Tech Base programs in the DoD. The committee believes that such a board would provide the Services with a “before-the-fact” input into the establishment of vulnerability policy and would lead to a better acceptance of this policy.

  2. The committee recommends that studies be conducted to determine if the existing Army, Navy, and Air Force vulnerability analysis community, test facilities, and infrastructure can be reduced proportionally to the expected overall infrastructure reduction within DoD. Project Reliance, the existing senior joint Services’ R&D cooperation group, should be charged with conducting the studies of how best to accomplish a meaningful infrastructure reduction. As a part of this consolidation study, mechanisms for accommodating unique Service needs in consolidated testing facilities must be developed in order to allow multi-Service acceptance of data derived from singularly designated facilities. The committee believes that this drawdown should be carried out very carefully to ensure that essential vulnerability assessment personnel, capabilities, and facilities are not lost in the process.

The Future

The committee recommends to the Secretary of Defense that the broad issue of how to both design and test for vulnerability in an austere future be studied. Present concepts of analyses and live fire testing for vulnerability may not be adequate in a future of reduced budgets, fewer fielded aircraft, fewer program starts, smaller procurement numbers, and more “storage on the shelf” of technology capabilities with less time to react to emergencies. When such a study has been completed and an effective process has been developed for vulnerability design and validation, OSD should consult with Congress regarding revisions to the LFT law that reflect this new process.

Reference

• U.S. Congress, 1988. FY88–89 DoD Authorization Act Conference Report, Live-Fire Testing (Sec. 802).

Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"6 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 1993. Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12470.
×
Page 64
Next: Appendixes »
Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!