National Academies Press: OpenBook

Necessary DoD Range Capabilities to Ensure Operational Superiority of U.S. Defense Systems: Testing for the Future Fight (2021)

Chapter: 5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges

« Previous: 4 Digital Infrastructure Needs for Operational Testing
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 63
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 64
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 65
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 66
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 67
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 68
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 69
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 70
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 71
Suggested Citation:"5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges." 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 72

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.

5 Speed-to-Field: Restructuring the Requirements and Resources Processes for DoD Test Ranges Delivering new systems into the field as quickly as possible should be one of the main goals of the Department of Defense (DoD) testing and evaluation (T&E) system, but that speed should not come at the cost of losing the rigor of that T&E. Satisfying both of these conditions—enabling speed-to-field while maintaining the rigor of DoD’s operational test and evaluation in today’s world of highly complex technologies—is becoming increasingly difficult for today’s DoD ranges. Indeed, a large portion of DoD’s T&E ranges were developed in the 1950s and suffer from outdated equipment that is expensive to maintain and increasingly inadequate to meet the testing demands of the future, such as hypersonic weapons and multi-domain operations (MDOs). Many of DoD’s ranges will require substantial investments in modernization just to meet current operational testing needs and much more to prepare for the future. This chapter summarizes the challenges with current range infrastructure investments processes and lays a foundation for Congress and DoD work together to ensure appropriate funding to modernize and recapitalize DoD ranges in order to meet the needs of the modern battlefield and the intricacies of modern weapon systems. The emphasis of this chapter is how DoD can better determine current and future testing needs, evaluate the existing range capabilities, identify range facility shortfalls, develop strategies to fund both current operations and long-term capital investments, and improve speed-to-field. In order to provide adequate funding, requirements for test and evaluation of weapons and systems must be accurately defined early in the program acquisition cycle. Testing discussions often occur late in program development, meaning that testing gaps are identified late, and the ranges may not be equipped to conduct appropriate testing. Understanding how test ranges currently fund modernization efforts and prepare to meet testing requirements is critical for developing new strategies to improve the responsiveness, effectiveness, and flexibility of the test enterprise. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS DRIVE RANGE FUNDING INVESTMENTS Test range operating and maintenance costs are funded by their owning Service, but some execution costs are reimbursed by the test customers. Each program has a set of T&E requirements that are typically established in the acquisition cycle of the program. The program manager and testers must ensure that test resource requirements are identified early in the acquisition cycle, that they are documented in the initial test and evaluation master plan (TEMP), and that modifications and refinements are reported in the TEMP updates. The services make test resource decisions based on what they predict they will need in 3 to 5 years PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 63

according to the requirements documents in the TEMPs. Once testing needs are prioritized and established, they are difficult to modify. It is critical to note there is no stable funding process where program funds are put aside for future OT&E needs. Funding for recapitalization and modernization of the ranges is driven by the testing requirements set in the acquisition process of the program. If a Service Other Transaction Authority (OTA) or DOT&E sets an operational testing requirement calling for capabilities not yet available at a test range, the range works with the program manager, the range sponsor, or the Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) to obtain the necessary funding and develop the capability to meet the testing requirement. There are a variety of drawbacks for operational testing from the current piecemeal requirements process. A lack of defined and achievable requirements at initial approval of the program test strategy results in unreliable cost and schedule estimates. The committee also observed that program funding to support the ranges results in a large number of individual capability projects, but there are few resources to develop infrastructure to connect and integrate these capabilities. Additionally, if program requirements are the driving force for prioritizing range investments, then the ranges are not preparing for the next-generation capabilities that may be needed in the next 10 to 15 years. Finding 5-1: Program test requirements drive funding for the ranges, so recapitalization and modernization for broader testing use is not incentivized. COLORS OF MONEY FOR RANGE MODERNIZATION AND MAINTENANCE Currently, there is a complex funding stream to operate tests, address deteriorating test assets, and modernize test ranges. During the site visits, the committee had discussions with range personnel that were aimed at developing a better understanding of range funding for modernization and sustainment. The funding profiles of the test ranges are not identical, but in general they rely primarily on reimbursables from their customers or indirect costs through appropriations. Figure 5-1 illustrates the various sources of funding for the test ranges, which are further decribed throughout this chapter. However, consistent and aggregated data appears to be unavailable on how funding for range modernization, operation, and maintenance is allocated, what the overall requirements are, as well as the resulting capability gaps and deferred maintenance levels. The 23 major range and test facility bases (MRTFBs) secure a significant portion of their approximately $4 billion funding through indirect costs paid via appropriations, but they are restricted by law from recovering indirect costs from the majority of their customers. However, non-MRTFBs can secure indirect costs from customers, which can be a substantive portion of their funding profile. Resources specific to a particular test must often be developed and funded from the program managers’ research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) budget (CRS, 2020a; CRS, 2020b). Program managers and testers must ensure that test resource requirements are identified early in the acquisition cycle and that they are documented in the initial TEMP. Requests for test resources are also outlined in the TEMP. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 64

FIGURE 5-1 Institutional funding sources for DoD test ranges, including Major Range and Test Facility Base Investments and Modernization (MRTFB I&M) funding, the Joint Mission Environment Test Capability (JMETC) program, military construction (MILCON), the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP), and the Test and Evaluation/Science and Technology (T&E/S&T) program. SOURCE: Budget amounts for JMETC, CTEIP, and T&E/S&T from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2021 (Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Estimates. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2022/budget_justification/pdfs/03_RD T_and_E/RDTE_Vol3_OSD_RDTE_PB22_Justification_Book.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2021). Budget amount for MRTFB I&M provided by TRMC upon request. Range Funding from Service Programs Each of the services has an understanding of its own test ranges and capabilities and is tasked with managing and operating its designated MRTFB activities. Department of Defense Directive 3200.11 and DoDI 3200.18 state that the TRMC reviews and certifies the proposed T&E budgets.1 The services must also coordinate any proposed changes to T&E capabilities and infrastructure with TRMC before making those changes. The funding processes from the services to support tests at the ranges differ, but brief descriptions of those processes are provided to illustrate their complexity. The Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) oversees eight testing locations and provides direct support to Army Futures Command for independent operational testing and evaluation. Funding for Army operational testing is through the program managers and directed to ATEC for the control of the funds. Weapon system program managers use RDT&E funds to reimburse supporting commands for costs directly related to their tests. 1 Department of Defense Directive 3200.11. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/320011p.pdf?ver=2018-10-24-083959-987. Accessed June 1, 2021. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 65

The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) is the Air Force’s agency responsible for operational testing over five detachments and three operating locations. AFOTEC has direct control of OT&E funds for all Air Force programs. Costs associated with the initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) are RDT&E-funded, and the costs of OT&E are funded with operations and maintenance (O&M) funds. The Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR) commands the Navy's independent OT&E activity and reports directly to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). CNO funds the development of generic test resources for use in OT&E, but the program manager uses the program’s RDT&E funds to support the support the execution of the test program. Investment Programs to Support Range Modernization For priority areas listed in the National Defense Strategy, the services and the test ranges have additional resources outside the program funds for building test capabilities and infrastructure. TRMC administers approximately $500 million in investments annually to address shortfalls in T&E capabilities. Those investments are spread out across three investment programs, briefly described below. The mission of the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) is to develop or improve major test capabilities that have multi-service utility. TRMC administers CTEIP through a corporate investment approach to combine Service, Defense, and other government agencies T&E needs, to maximize opportunities for joint efforts, and to avoid unwarranted duplication of test capabilities. CTEIP focuses investments on projects that will have high productivity returns on investment. Projects under the CTEIP support two basic tasks: investments to improve the test capabilities base (Joint Improvement and Modernization [JIM] projects) and the development of near-term solutions to test capability shortfalls in support of ongoing operational test programs (Resource Enhancement Project [REP]). The services typically use a competitive process to determine how to use CTEIP funding to pay for test range investments. The test ranges themselves track their investment needs through their internal strategic planning processes and the services guide the funding decisions. Another TRMC-administered investment program is the Test and Evaluation/Science and Technology (T&E/S&T) Program. T&E/S&T is approximately a $100 million investment program established in 2002 to exploit new technologies and expedite their transition from the laboratory to the T&E community. Currently, test technology areas include cyberspace, directed energy, electronic warfare, high- speed systems, net-centric systems, unmanned and autonomous systems, advanced instrumentation systems technology, and spectrum efficient technology. The Joint Mission Environment Test Capability (JMETC) program prioritizes interoperability by providing funds for robust distributed infrastructure (network, enterprise resources, integration software, tools, reuse repository) and technical expertise to integrate live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) systems for test and evaluation in joint systems-of-systems and cyber environments. There are a few additional resources available to test ranges that can be applied to modernization efforts. Test ranges can obtain funds from the military construction (MILCON) program,2 3 MRTFB Institutional (direct appropriations), the Spectrum Relocation Fund, the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program, and Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) Investment & Modernization (I&M) funding. Furthermore, RDT&E and O&M funds can be used for unspecified minor military construction projects to support test and evaluation activities, for projects costing not more than $6 million. (Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 2805 – Unspecified minor construction) This amount was raised in 2017 and alleviates total reliance on the slow and uncertain process for obtaining MILCON funding. However, during the committee site visit to the Atlantic Test Range (ATR), personnel indicated that the $6 million limit forces the construction of low-cost or temporary structures and does not address significant 2 DoD Directive (DoDD) 4270.5. 3 U.S. Code Title 10 - Chapter 169: Military Construction and Military Family Housing. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 66

facility refurbishment costs that generally exceed the limit. ATR personnel also said that additional range modernization would be possible with their existing level of resources but that the severe limitations on mixing funding streams cannot accommodate shifting priorities or emerging test needs. Maintenance and Repair of Test Ranges Many test facilities with aging infrastructure still have high usage rates. The Strategic Plan for Department of Defense T&E Resources from March 2013 noted, “Due to age and outmoded technology, many test facilities are increasingly difficult to sustain and/or maintain. Obsolescence and deterioration contribute significantly to increased levels of maintenance, reductions in reliability, and an overall increase in operating costs. Services are under pressure to keep existing ground test facilities viable and relevant to meet immediate and forecasted needs. Across all services, there has been a downward trend in T&E military construction (MILCON) appropriations to address ongoing maintenance, sustainment, and modernization needs of our T&E facilities. Further analysis is required (e.g., recapitalization rate) to provide a comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs and investments.”4 Funding to address aging infrastructure competes with program test requirements. This results in deferred maintenance, which can result in increased costs for test operations as well as higher costs to replace the capability compared with costs associated with earlier mitigation. Personnel from Eglin and Edwards Air Force Bases highlighted concerns regarding funding shortfalls for maintaining legacy systems. Personnel from Naval Air Station Point Mugu spoke of how nearly one-third of their I&M budget goes directly toward maintenance on existing infrastructure, and personnel from Point Mugu pointed out that it is ultimately the customers who bear the financial brunt of aging infrastructure costs. The Air Force Test Center reported in 2021 that current funding is insufficient for maintaining critical test facilities, including wind tunnels and anechoic chambers (Department of the Air Force, 2021). The report states that the insufficient funding for these facilities results in a high risk for failure and a reduction in the range’s capabilities and capacities. Finding 5-2: There are inadequate funds for the maintenance and sustainment of DoD test range infrastructure and capabilities, and costs due to deferred maintenance continue increasing. According to a Government Accountability Office report, DoD reported approximately $100 billion in deferred maintenance and repairs across all DoD facilities between FY2009 and FY2014, and further determined that over those years DoD spent only 79% on average of the estimated facilities maintenance requirements (GAO, 2016). While this report covers more than DoD ranges only, the fact that GAO’s site visits included Eglin Air Force Base and Aberdeen Proving Ground suggest that ranges may also be underspending on deferred maintenance. As a result, prior budgetary allocations for facility maintenance and sustainment are unlikely to address current and projected deferred maintenance costs. If the range capabilities and infrastructure are not adequately maintained, they cannot achieve optimal performance and may have a reduced service life, which directly affects operational test schedules, program and range budgets, and program mission. 4 House report 114-102 to accompany House report 1735, p356. 2015. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt102/CRPT-114hrpt102.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 67

STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE TEST RANGE MODERNIZATION If test and evaluation processes are initiated in the formative stages of a program, the test ranges can provide feedback on the test requirements based on available range capabilities and resources. Should the program tests require new capabilities or infrastructure repair, this strategy will maximize the time available to the ranges to prioritize investments in modernization and maintenance. Additionally, these discussions are key for determining how M&S can be used for test as well as the types and volume of data required and generated during test. These elements are key for accurately determining investment needs for test instrumentation, infrastructure, personnel, and timing. Bringing OT&E into the program acquisition cycle early will enable the: 1. Identification of appropriate test requirements. 2. Identification of any range shortfalls in testing capabilities. 3. Establishment of funding streams to ensure the ranges will be ready to do appropriate testing when the system is ready to be tested. 4. Examination and facilitation of synchronization between operational and developmental testing requirements early in the acquisition process. Given the multi-domain dimensions of the battlespace and the emergence of connected and concurrent kill chains, many programs will also need to be tested in an integrated environment, where the program interacts with other systems and across domains. Preparing a program for multi-domain testing requires discussions across the services. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which charters and oversees efforts to develop joint operational and integrating concepts for joint missions during joint concept development, provides a unique opportunity for the services to examine validated test infrastructure requirements for connected concurrent kill chains and MDOs. Currently, the role of DOT&E is to serve as an advisor to JROC and its subordinate boards and coordinate with the Functional Capabilities Boards in its endorsement of Joint Capabilities Integration and Development Systems (JCIDS) (CJCSI, 2018). JCIDS provides the baseline for documentation, review, and validation of capability requirements across the Department. The committee supports this collaboration and seeks to add clarity to the goals of the collaboration through the following recommendation: Recommendation 5-1: The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) should consult regularly with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (who is an advisor to the JROC) about the test requirements for systems considered by the JROC. This consultation should include an evaluation of current testing capabilities, facilities shortfalls, and plans to address these shortfalls. Given DoD’s annual programming and budgetary cycles, an annual report on the evaluations and the JROC outcomes could be timed to align with the annual acquisition Program Review. The Program Review is a time-based event where key stakeholders on an acquisition program gather to discuss the progress of their program. For several next-generation DoD technologies, test capabilities still need to be developed. As an example, replicating environments for hypersonic systems is challenging, given their long flight distances and unique physical situations, including extreme temperatures in flight and impact on surrounding air flow. Designing facilities to test hypersonic systems can be costly and as challenging as designing the system itself. The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense publishes a baseline standard for cumulative obligation and expenditure rates, and included in that publication are standards for RDT&E. The main goal of the practice is to ensure that DoD spends the funds appropriated by Congress in a timely manner. However, the projected expenditure rates are progressively failing to meet the execution benchmarks for many accounts (Conley et al., 2014). These projections are important because the timing of the programs PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 68

can negatively affect test range investments, making it challenging to have enough funding to develop appropriate capabilities. A recent analysis on the reliability and accuracy of projected expenditure rates concluded that services do not appear to be planning or expecting to meet benchmarks from the onset of the program’s budget process (Daniels & Harrison, 2020). Test infrastructure to integrate and validate new technologies requires customization and long lead times on infrastructure preparation, which is not executable within projected benchmarks, especially for expenditure rates. Test investment programs historically achieve expenditure benchmarks in their third year, and applying Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) expenditure benchmarks to the beginning of a test modernization effort can place critical test technologies at risk of not getting started or maintaining funding as well as limiting range modernization to test advanced technologies. This limits DoD in its ability to initiate and complete required range modernization. Recommendation 5-2: The Office of the Secretary of Defense should either allow an exemption or set shallower expenditure benchmarks for the first 2 years of test modernization programs. This will reflect realistic expense curves for the technologies and projects needed to test next generation programs and complex integration. In addition, the ability to perform minor military construction has proven invaluable in enabling OT&E in spite of the uncertainties in the MILCON process, but the current limit of $6 million over-constrains the military services and DoD, given the typical costs of even modest test infrastructure construction and facility refurbishment. Congress has previously authorized minor MILCON via RDT&E or sustainment funding in Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 2805, but the current approval process and limitations on project size prevent the use of an effective tool for addressing many range shortcomings. Conclusion 5-1: New mechanisms and funding limits for applying minor military construction are necessary for responsive test and evaluation activities. Once testing requirements are better and earlier defined, shortfalls are identified, and funding requirements are calculated, there must be better and simpler ways not only to fund current test operations, but also to ensure needed recapitalization and modernization of DoD’s ranges. Testing needs will also likely shift during the program engineering and development process as well as from the increasing sophistication of testing technologies. For example, a program may identify a data analysis platform or virtual environment early in the acquisition process, but advances in those technologies could affect testing costs. Additionally, as acquisition cycles become shorter, test ranges need to access resources for modernizing their capabilities quickly. This likelihood was raised during the Atlantic Test Range site visit and illustrates the lack of program funding agility to accommodate shifting OT&E needs. Therefore, ranges need flexibility to move investments to accommodate testing changes. Finding 5-3: Resources for test ranges to modernize their capabilities quickly are currently inadequate as acquisition cycles are becoming shorter and testing needs shift over the course of project development. Conclusion 5-2: There exists a need for the Department of Defense to pilot new process and authorities for funding ranges and infrastructure to make them simpler, more responsive, and more effective. To this end, DoD could conduct a pilot study, using one of the emerging technologies identified in the DoD National Strategic Plan, and determine the adequacy of the current ranges to provide needed test and evaluation; identify shortfalls in equipment, software, and personnel; and determine the cost to remedy these shortfalls. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 69

As part of this tabletop study, DoD could evaluate its budget and financial management processes with a view towards simplifying and accelerating the operations, modernization, and recapitalization processes. Those evaluations could reveal alternative budgeting and financial management processes, including changes in law and regulation, to enable the ranges to act quickly to provide test and evaluation services for current and future requirements. DoD could also consider the use of a working capital fund specifically for the ranges across DoD. This pilot study could include an evaluation of processes to control costs, such as a rate board made up of customers to evaluate rates charged. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 70

To strengthen the effectiveness of the pilot program, it could: 1. Operate under the general supervision of the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 2. Offer flexibility in funding authorities, such as those stated in the pilot for agile software development (NDAA, 2019). 3. Create a working capital fund to cover operational, recapitalization, modernization and sustainment costs of ranges, with funding mechanisms designed to mitigate program cost- driven incentives to forego testing. 4. Prioritize and correct capabilities gaps in a selected joint technology area with multi-domain test requirements and broad range enterprise implications, such as: a. End-to-end operational evaluation of hypersonic weapons, b. Connected concurrent kill chain operations as a capstone OT&E activity. 5. Simplify resource allocation, financial management, acquisition and any other processes or rules that impede rapid, effective and efficient funding of ranges and infrastructure, including: a. Software-enabled capabilities and the maintenance of software over time, b. Modeling and simulation support. 6. Test the simplified processes using the capabilities gaps identified above, 7. Ensure appropriate cost control through a rate board made up of range customers as part of the new working capital fund mechanism, 8. Include in the pilot project representatives of all affected agencies, who will have decision- making power for their respective agencies, and 9. Notify Congress of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 18 months of enactment, including: a. Identified barriers in policy, regulation or statute, to identification and documenting validated test infrastructure requirements; range modernization; and sustainment of new or orphaned capabilities. b. Identified barriers to funding the development, sustainment, and execution of mission-level operational assessments that focus on multi-system and multi- technology integration for kill chains and joint all-domain operations. By completing these tasks, DoD will be able to better determine testing requirements expected from the ranges and be better able to fund current and emerging requirements quickly enough to make a difference. REFERENCES CJCSI (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs Instruction). 2018. Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and Implementation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). Washington, DC. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/CJCSI%205123.01H.pdf?ver=2018- 10-26-163922-137. Conley, K.M., Dominy, J.R., Kneece, R.R., Mandelbaum, J., and S.K. Whitehead. Implications of DoD Funds Execution Policy for Acquisition Program Management. Alexandria, VA. https://www.ida.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/Publications/IDA_Documents/SFRD/2014/P- 5164.ashx. CRS (Congressional Research Service). 2020a. Defense Primer: RDT&E. Washington, DC. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10553.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 71

CRS (Congressional Research Service). 2020b. Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E): Appropriations Structure. Washington, DC. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44711.pdf. Daniels, S.P. & T. Harrison. 2020. Actual Obligation Rates versus Comptroller Projected Obligation Rates. Center for Strategic & International Studies. Washington, DC. https://csis-website- prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public/publication/200302_ObligationRates_v6.pdf?IXrtypFFWHGlMOEzYu94GT.G..bz6ccq. Department of the Air Force. 2021. Assessment of Air Force Test Center. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2016. Report to Congressional Committees: Defense Facility Condition, Revised Guidance Needed to Improve Oversight of Assessments and Ratings. Washington, DC. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-662.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2021. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2021. Key Challenges for Effective Testing and Evaluation Across Department of Defense Ranges: Proceedings of a Workshop—In Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), 2019. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. Public Law 115-232. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 72

Next: 6 Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations by Actor »
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!