National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26181.
×
Page R15

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further Editorial Correction NECESSARY DOD RANGE CAPABILITIES TO ENSURE OPERATIONAL SUPERIORITY OF U.S. DEFENSE SYSTEMS: TESTING FOR THE FUTURE FIGHT Committee on Assessing the Physical and Technical Suitability of DoD Test and Evaluation Ranges and Infrastructure Board on Army Research and Development Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by Contract W911NF-18-D-0002 with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: xxxxxxx International Standard Book Number-xxxxxxx Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/26181 Limited copies of this report may be available through the Board on Army Research and Development, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-3111. Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/26181. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE ON ASSESSING THE PHYSICAL AND TECHNICAL SUITABILITY OF DOD TEST AND EVALUATION RANGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE DANA “KEOKI” JACKSON, NAE,1 MITRE Corporation, Chair DARRYL AHNER, Air Force Institute of Technology KAREN BUTLER-PURRY, Texas A&M University GRAHAM V. CANDLER, University of Minnesota GORDON FORNELL, United States Air Force, Retired DERRICK HINTON, Scientific Research Corporation ROB KEWLEY, stimlytics.cloud, LLC LAURA J. MCGILL, Sandia National Laboratories HANS MILLER, MITRE Corporation HEIDI C. PERRY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory GARY POLANSKY, Sandia National Laboratories KARL F. SCHNEIDER, Department of the Army, Retired WILLIAM WILSON, Carnegie Mellon University Staff LIDA BENINSON, Senior Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Study Director WILLIAM “BRUNO” MILLONIG, Director, Board on Army Research and Development (BOARD) STEVEN DARBES, Program Officer, BOARD CHRIS JONES, Senior Finance Business Partner, BOARD CAMERON MALCOM, Research Assistant, BOARD CLEMENT MULOCK, Program Assistant, BOARD RYAN MURPHY, Program Officer, Air Force Studies Board LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator, Board on Physics and Astronomy SAMUEL ZINKGRAF, Research Assistant, BOARD (through May 2021) Consultant ROBERT POOL, Writer NOTE: See Appendix D, Disclosure of Unavoidable Conflicts of Interest. 1 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

BOARD ON ARMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT KATHARINA MCFARLAND, U.S. Army (retired), Chair MICHAEL BEAR, BAE Systems, Vice Chair ANDREW ALLEYNE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign DAVID AUCSMITH, University of Washington JAMES BAGIAN, NAE2/NAM,3 University of Michigan JOAN BIENVENUE, University of Tennessee LYNN DUGLE, Independent Consultant JOHN FARR, United States Military Academy at West Point GEORGE “RUSTY” GRAY III, NAE, Los Alamos National Laboratory WILLIAM HIX, U.S. Army (retired) GREGORY JOHNSON, Lockheed Martin DUNCAN MCGILL, Mercyhurst University CHRISTINA MURATA, Deloitte ADITYA PADHA, Deloitte ALBERT SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc. GEOFFREY THOME, SAIC JAMES THOMSEN, Seaborne Defense, LLC JOSEP TORRELLAS, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Staff WILLIAM “BRUNO” MILLONIG, Director STEVEN DARBES, Program Officer SARAH JUCKETT, Program Officer TINA LATIMER, Program Coordinator CAMERON MALCOM, Research Assistant CLEMENT MULOCK, Program Assistant CHRIS JONES, Senior Finance Business Partner 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. 3 Member, National Academy of Medicine. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface Our nation’s warfighters go into combat to fight and win equipped with weapon systems that must operate under the harshest conditions, against determined and capable adversaries. They rightfully expect that these weapons have been tested and proven effective under operationally relevant conditions, against realistic threats that represent the battlefield they will confront. The Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) test and training range enterprise makes possible this essential developmental and operational testing, and these key resources for national security rest on the dedicated contributions of thousands of military personnel, civil servants, defense contractors, and representatives of national laboratories, federally funded research and development centers. They are at the heart of the range enterprise, and labor under extremely challenging conditions, generally unseen and unknown to the public due in spite of the criticality of their work. The future viability of DoD’s range enterprise depends on addressing dramatic changes in technology, rapid advances in adversary military capabilities, and the evolving approach the United States will take to closing kill chains in a Joint All Domain Operations environment. This recognition led DoD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), the Honorable Robert Behler, to request that the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine examine the physical and technical suitability of DoD’s ranges and infrastructure through 2035. The study committee brought a diverse set of perspectives and expertise to the questions posed in the statement of task, with members from industry, academic and government backgrounds, versed in the application of emerging technology, the operational use and test of advanced weapon systems, the rapidly changing landscape of digital technologies, and the organizational and budgetary complexity faced by the OT&E community and the range enterprise. The committee readily acknowledges that the extraordinary diversity of DoD missions and test environments, and the large quantity of range locations and installations, precluded an exhaustive evaluation of all range capabilities and gaps in relation to the future OT&E landscape. Nevertheless, the committee is confident that the findings and conclusions described in this report represent common themes fully supported by a survey of several of the most significant ranges, and an extensive review of prior studies and reports on OT&E needs and the implications for the range enterprise. The committee also notes that this unclassified study addresses certain key challenges and solutions at a general level due to the sensitive nature of many U.S. military capabilities and the intelligence gathered on current and future threats posed by U.S. adversaries. The combined background in national security matters of the committee underpins its belief that this report’s recommendations address DoD’s overarching range enterprise needs, while recognizing that the second, classified phase of this study will provide important additional detail and context regarding the test and evaluation requirements for the ranges posed by new weapons capabilities and threat characteristics. The committee is grateful for the contributions of a wide range of noted experts and thought leaders in military weapon systems development, test and evaluation; innovation and emerging technologies; software-intensive systems and digital capabilities; and the operational challenges both current and future faced by the U.S. military. Likewise, we received outstanding support from representatives of many test and training ranges spanning warfighting domains across land, sea, air, space and cyberspace, who contributed their time and insights Many of the experts who participated in the study’s workshops and committee meetings have a distinguished record of public service, including in the military, and we thank them for that service to our nation. We also are pleased to acknowledge the gracious support from Mr. Robert Arnold, Senior Advisor of Sustainable Ranges, and Dr. Raymond O’Toole, acting Director, PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

Operational Test and Evaluation, in providing connections and access to key officials, DoD resources, and reference materials that were indispensable to the study committee. It has been a privilege to work with these dedicated public servants and subject matter experts on this important priority for the nation’s defense. Keoki Jackson, Chair Committee on Assessing the Physical and Technical Suitability of DoD Test and Evaluation Ranges and Infrastructure PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

Acknowledgments The committee would like to thank the following individuals for providing input to this study: ANDRE’ “DRE” ABADIE, U.S. Army Futures Command JAMES AMATO, Army Test and Evaluation Command ZACH BARBER, Nevada Test and Training Range LISA BARNEBY, Point Mugu Sea Range STEPHEN BEARD, Missile Defense Agency ROBERT BEHLER, Former Director, Operational Test and Evaluation MARC BERNSTEIN, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) ASHTON BURKE, Test Resource Management Center DEVIN CATE, U.S. Air Force ERIC CLINTON, Institute for Defense Analyses VICTORIA COLEMAN, U.S. Air Force CHRIS COLLINS, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering RYAN “RHINO” CONNER, Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority, U.S. Air Force MICHAEL CONTRATTO, 96th Test Wing JAMES COOKE, U.S. Army DENNIS CRALL, Joint Staff J6 FRONEY CRAWFORD, Institute for Defense Analyses MISSY CUMMINGS, Duke University BILL DARDEN, Atlantic Test Range EVAN DERTIEN, Air Force Materiel Command JESSIE DIETZ, Pacific Multi-Domain Training Experimentation Capability FRED DRUMMOND, Office of the Secretary of Defense JASON ECKBERG, U.S. Air Force VIV EDWARDS, Nevada Test and Training Range JOHN ELLIS, Missile Defense Agency FRED ENGLE, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness ERIC FELT, Air Force Research Laboratory JOHN FIORE, Naval Surface Warfare Center MATT FUNK, NAVAIR Acquisition and Tech Support Division JOHN GARSTKA, Office of the Secretary of Defense JEFFREY GERAGHTY, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base CONRAD GRANT, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory WILLIAM GREENWALT, American Enterprise Institute DEREK GREER, NAVAIR Integrated Battlespace Simulation and Test ED GREER, Formerly with the Office of Developmental Test & Evaluation ROBERT GRIMES, Nevada Test and Training Range SCOTT HOSCHAR, Atlantic Test Range ARTHUR HUBER, Air Force Materiel Command PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

CHRIS JARBOE, Atlantic Test Range PAUL KAWSHNAK, Aberdeen Proving Ground PAUL KETRICK, National Cyber Range Complex MICHAEL LABER, Point Mugu Sea Range EDGAR LACY, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division BRIAN LEONG, Pacific Multi-Domain Training Experimentation Capability PETER LEVINE, Institute for Defense Analysis RYAN “CHEECH” LUCERO, Nevada Test and Training Range MIKE MACKINAW, Pacific Multi-Domain Training Experimentation Capability JOSHUA MARCUSE, Google DONALD MARTIN, Nevada Test and Training Range BARRY MOHLE, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division CARL MURPHY, Test Resource Management Center BRIAN NOWOTNY, Test Resource Management Center J. OKUMA, Institute for Defense Analyses DANIEL OSBURN, 412th Test Wing RAYMOND O’TOOLE, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation BRENT PARKER, Pacific Multi-Domain Training Experimentation Capability DAN PATT, Thomas H Lee Partners JOHN PEARSON, Office of the Secretary of Defense Air Warfare JANE PINELIS, Joint Artificial Intelligence Center CARROLL “RICK” QUADE, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation JACK RILEY, Pacific Multi-Domain Training Experimentation Capability STEVE ROGERS, Air Force Space Command LEE ROSEN, SpaceX DANIEL ROSS, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division ROBIE SAMANTA ROY, Lockheed Martin GEORGE RUMFORD, Test Resource Management Center DAVID SAYRE, Missile Defense Agency SCOTT SBUKOFF, Pacific Multi-Domain Training Experimentation Capability HERMAN “HEMET” SCHIRG, Nevada Test and Training Range CAPT WILLIAM SELK, Commanding Officer, VX-1 KENNETH SENECHAL, NAVAIR ARUN SERAPHIN, Senate Armed Services Committee JASON STEWART, Atlantic Test Range JACOB SUGGS, Missile Defense Agency ROBERT TAMBURELLO, Test Resources Management Center MICHAEL TAYLOR, SpaceX NEIL THURGOOD, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army BRYAN TITUS, Air Force Space Command GIL TORRES, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division RODNEY TRAYLOR, Nevada Test and Training Range ANDREW TREE, Point Mugu Sea Range DAVID TREMPER, Office of the Secretary of Defense EDWARD TUCKER, Arnold Engineering Development Complex ROBERT VARGO, Atlantic Test Range JEFFREY WHITE, Secretary of the Army MICHAEL WHITE, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering KEVIN WILLIAMS, Missile Defense Agency LEMUEL WILLIAMS, Missile Defense Agency PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION x

GEOFFREY WILSON, Test Resource Management Center ERIC “GLOCK” WRIGHT, Nevada Test and Training Range GREG ZACHARIAS, Chief Scientist, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation PETER “ZUPP” ZUPPAS, Nevada Test and Training Range The committee would also like to express its gratitude to Maya Thomas and Christopher Lao- Scott, Research Librarians at the National Academies Research Center, for their assistance with fact checking. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xi

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:   Sharon Beerman-Curtin, Strategic Marketing Innovations, Russel Caflisch, NAS, New York University, Stephen Di Domenico, Coldsquared Consulting, Kathleen Dussault, Lemon Grove Associates, James Michael Gilmore, Institute for Defense Analysis, Lester Lyles, NAE, Independent Consultant, Chris Maston, Georgia Tech Research Institute, and Julie Ryan, Wyndrose Technical Group. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John Tracy, NAE, Boeing (retired). He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xii

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 5 Study Charge, 6 Military Ranges Past, Present, and Future, 8 Fundamental Themes, 9 Five Categories of Solutions, 12 References, 17 2 AN ENVISIONED FUTURE FOR OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION 18 The Future of Warfighting, 18 The Envisioned Future of Military Test Ranges, 21 Enabling the Envisioned Future of Military Ranges, 25 References, 27 3 TESTING FOR FUTURE COMBAT: MULTI-DOMAIN OPERATIONS, CONNECTED CONCURRENT KILL CHAINS, AND MITIGATING ENCROACHMENT 29 Testing for the Multi-Domain Battlespace, 30 A Joint Program Office to Support DoD Multi-Domain Testing Needs, 36 Mitigating Encroachment to Support Future Combat Testing, 39 References, 44 4 DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR OPERATIONAL TESTING 47 Modeling and Simulation, 47 Increasing the Usability and Value of Data, 55 References, 62 5 SPEED TO FIELD: RESTRUCTURING THE REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES PROCESSES FOR DOD TEST RANGES 63 Program Requirements Drive Range Funding Investments, 63 Colors of Money for Range Modernization and Maintenance, 64 Strategies to Improve Test Range Modernization, 67 References, 70 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY ACTOR 72 The Recommendations—By Stakeholder, 73 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task and Completion Matrix 77 B Site Visit Summaries 79 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiii

C Committee Member Biographies 85 D Disclosure of Unavoidable Conflicts of Interest 89 E Abbreviations and Acronyms 90 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiv

Next: Executive Summary »
Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Rigorous operational testing (OT) of weapon systems procured by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is fundamental to ensuring that these sophisticated systems not only meet their stated requirements, but also perform under realistic operational conditions when faced by determined adversaries employing their own highly capable offensive and defensive weaponry. DoD's test and training range enterprise provides the geography, infrastructure, technology, expertise, processes, and management that make safe, secure, and comprehensive OT possible. The challenges facing the nation's range infrastructure are both increasing and accelerating. Limited test capacity in physical resources and workforce, the age of test infrastructure, the capability to test advanced technologies, and encroachment impact the ability to inform system performance, integrated system performance and the overall pace of testing.

Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems assesses the physical and technical suitability of DoD test and evaluation ranges, infrastructure, and tools for determining the operational effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and lethality of military systems. This report explores modernization, sustainment, operations, and resource challenges for test and evaluation ranges, and makes recommendations to put the DoD range enterprise on a modernization trajectory to meet the needs of OT in the years ahead.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!