1. Development Test Overview
Test Stage
Dates
Major Test Events
Decision Supported
Planned
Completed
Analysis
Test & Analysis
Test Proven
DT-1A
MS B
DT-1B
DT-IIA
Total Test Point Burn Down
Program
Plan
MS C
Current Test Results and Bottom-Line on Progress to Plan
“System capabilities demonstrated as marginal,
DT assessment to meet COIs assessed as moderate risk”
Release / Classification Statement

2. Progress on CTPs and TPMs
CTPs Threshold Status Path Forward Decision
Supported
CTP1 XXXXX ISE prior to IOT&E IOT&E cert
CTP2 XXXXX Tested CDR
CTP3 XXXXX Spiral upgrade (Block 5) N/A
CTP4 XXXXX ISE prior to IOT&E IOT&E cert
CTP5 XXXXX Post IOT&E upgrade FRP
before IOC, SW drop 1.1
“Based on the DT accomplished to date, the RTO has identified no critical deficiencies impacting Warfighter needs”

3. DT Assessment of KPPs DT Assessment CDD/CPD KPPs KPP #1: Range
KPP #2: Payload
KPP #3: etc
KPP #4: etc
DT Assessment Y G
COI 1 – MFHBCF requirements not met, will increase mx activity and reduce aircraft availability.
COI 2 – Mission Planning hampered by insufficient processing capability.
COI 3 – Infil / Exfil capability degraded by limitations in RF threat detection and jamming.
COI 4 – Terminal / Objective area operations degraded by flight director coupled mode limitations.

4. DT Assessment of COIs TEMP COIs DT Assessment
COI 1: Can the XXX effectively execute offensive air support missions in the intended environment?
COI 2: Can XX mission preparation and preflight operations enable operational missions?
COI 3: Etc
COI 4: Etc
DT Assessment Y Y
COI 1 – MFHBCF requirements not met, will increase mx activity and reduce aircraft availability.
COI 2 – Mission Planning hampered by insufficient processing capability.
COI 3 – Infil / Exfil capability degraded by limitations in RF threat detection and jamming.
COI 4 – Terminal / Objective area operations degraded by flight director coupled mode limitations. Y G

5. Top-Level Risks for Test
Risk: FoS / SoS
Drivers:
Mitigation:
Date:
Risk: Performance
Drivers:
Mitigation:
Date: 5 4
Risk: Test Resources
Drivers:
Mitigation:
Date:
Risk: Concurrency
Drivers:
Mitigation:
Date:
Likelihood (y) 3 2 1
Risk: KPP
Drivers:
Mitigation:
Date:
Risk: Schedule
Drivers:
Mitigation:
Date: 1 2 3 4 5
Consequence (x)
High Risk
Medium Risk
Low Risk

6. DT Test Summary
Responsible Test Organization Conclusions, Observations, Strengths, Weaknesses, Recommendations
Program on track to resolve issues prior that would prevent successful entry into low-rate production
CTPs have been met
DRs are being addressed/resolved
KPP # 4 currently not met, but impact to mission is low
Recommend program enter Low-rate Initial Production
PM Assessment
“System Currently Provides Marginal Utility,
Program on Path to Achieve Military Needs”
“Recommend Program Continue to Next Test Phase”

7. BACKUPS

8. COI 1: Can the XXX effectively execute offensive air support missions in the intended environment
DT&E Assessment – High Risk
Part 1 Deficiency Reports not resolved prior to IOT&E
Report # XXX –
Report # YYY –
Critical weapons characterization testing not performed during DT&E
Lack of data to make an assessment prior to IOT&E
COI 1 – MFHBCF requirements not met, will increase mx activity and reduce aircraft availability.
COI 2 – Mission Planning hampered by insufficient processing capability.
COI 3 – Infil / Exfil capability degraded by limitations in RF threat detection and jamming.
COI 4 – Terminal / Objective area operations degraded by flight director coupled mode limitations.

9. COI 2: Will the XXX training support system operation and maintenance by typical users?
DT&E Assessment – Low Risk
Training Systems Plan has been approved
Initial cadre crew training is complete
COI 1 – MFHBCF requirements not met, will increase mx activity and reduce aircraft availability.
COI 2 – Mission Planning hampered by insufficient processing capability.
COI 3 – Infil / Exfil capability degraded by limitations in RF threat detection and jamming.
COI 4 – Terminal / Objective area operations degraded by flight director coupled mode limitations.

10. COI 3: Etc DT&E Assessment –
COI 1 – MFHBCF requirements not met, will increase mx activity and reduce aircraft availability.
COI 2 – Mission Planning hampered by insufficient processing capability.
COI 3 – Infil / Exfil capability degraded by limitations in RF threat detection and jamming.
COI 4 – Terminal / Objective area operations degraded by flight director coupled mode limitations.

11. DT Assessment of Requirement Shortfalls
Rating
Explanation
KPP 1 - Environmental Protection
Describe test phase CTP accomplished such as M&S, Measurement Lab, SIL, HWIL, OAR. Impacts to design and / or system maturity
KPP 2 - CNS / ATM
xxxx
KSA 1
CTP 1
XXXX
TPMs, Etc. Y Y Y Y R
Highlight RED items in main part of brief or in risk cube
Assessment relative to existing capabilities (example, C-130 AMP compared to C-130J, C-130E/H, etc.)
“5 of 8 KPPs rated Green, 2 Yellow, 1 Red
8 of 12 KSAs rated Green, 3 Yellow, 1 Red
27 of 35 CTPs and TPMs rated Green, 3 Yellow 5 Red”

12. 50 Open Medium and Low Priority”
Deficiency Reporting
OPEN, ONPC and CPRT yellow sheets
Part *I
Part I
Part II
Part III
Approved previously 4 23 70 48
Approved since DT event 3 10
Draft 1
Total 8 34
4 significant deficiencies which are documented in other formats than a Yellow Sheet
The impact to COI resolution is understood
The safety concerns and technical risk caused by all open deficiencies is mitigated through
Flight envelope
Documentation or training
Workaround procedure
Inspection
Burn-down plan
Items highlighted in blue will be covered on subsequent slides
“10 Open Hi-priority,
50 Open Medium and Low Priority”

13. Limitations to Scope of DT
Impacts To COI Resolution Due To Incomplete Testing
Concerns And Mitigation
LPIA Radar Altimeter
TCAS/SFI
Design problems have yet to be fixed – systems removed from IOT&E configuration
Flight Director – Coupled ILS / Approach
System performance inadequate – modes will have restricted use in IOT&E
Flight Director – Coupled Go-Around
Non-functional in current software – prohibited for IOT&E
Flight Director deficiencies will impact IOT&E assessment, but work-arounds will allow mission accomplishment