1. Mr. Rick Lockhart Deputy Director, DT&E OUSD(AT&L) November 18, 2004
Aerial Targets Status An OSD View NDIA Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium
Mr. Rick Lockhart
Deputy Director, DT&E OUSD(AT&L)
November 18, 2004

2. Purpose
Describe OUSD(AT&L) initiative to reinvigorate Systems Engineering (SE)
Provide OSD DT&E perspective regarding targets
Discuss future challenges regarding use of aerial targets in T&E
Describe DSB Aerial Targets Study

3. USD(AT&L) Imperatives
"Provide a context within which I can make decisions about individual programs"
"Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support processes"
"Help drive good systems engineering practice back into the way we do business"

4. How Defense Systems is Responding
Formed a new Systems Engineering organization :
Institutionalizing Systems Engineering across DoD
Setting policy for implementation, capturing best practices
Setting standards for training and education
Conduct Program Reviews (System Assessments)
Provide leadership information to support decision making
Assist program offices in implementing disciplined Systems Engineering
Continue to support and provide oversight of DT&E
Conduct outreach with industry, academia, associations, individual programs, and others

5. Defense Systems Organization
Source: DS Memo, Subject: Defense Systems Organizations
and Management Adjustments, dated January 16, 2004
Defense Systems
Director Dr. Glenn Lamartin
Principal Deputy Mr. Mark Schaeffer
Systems Acquisition
Dr. Lamartin
Systems Engineering
Mr. Schaeffer
JF Integration
Robin Quinlan
Systems & Mission Integration
Dr. Garber
JF Application
James Durham
JF Operations
Jay Kistler
Air Warfare
Dianne Wright
Land Warfare &
Munitions
Anthony Melita
Naval Warfare
Darlene Costello
Missile Warfare
Kent Stansbury
Treaty Compliance
Tom Troyano
Enterprise
Development
Bob Skalamera
Developmental Test
& Evaluation
Rick Lockhart
Assessments &
Support
David Castellano

6. Systems Engineering Organization
SE Policy
SE Education and Training
SE Best Practices
SE Handbooks / Guidebooks
SE Outreach
SE Champion
Systemic Analysis
RTOC / VE
Corrosion
Strategic Planning
SE Forum
Commercial Standards
Modeling & Simulation
DT&E Policy
DT&E Education and Training
DT&E Best Practices
Test Ranges & Facilities
DTRMC Interface / Liaison
DT&E Outreach
DT&E Champion
Targets Oversight and Coordination
JDEP
DSOC
M&S
JT&E
Director
Systems Engineering
Mark Schaeffer (SE)
Program Support and Assessments (DAB / OIPT)
DAES Assessments
T&E Oversight
SE & T&E Support to PMs
SEP and TEMP staffing for OSD review / approval
Program Support Reviews
Software Engineering Policy/ Practice
CMMI-AM Pilot
Aircraft Survivability
Section 804
Deputy Director, Systems Engineering
(Enterprise Development)
Bob Skalamera (ED)
(Developmental Test & Evaluation)
Rick Lockhart (DTE)
(Assessments and Support)
Dave Castellano (AS)

7. What We Have Done to Revitalize System Engineering
Issued Department-wide SE policy requiring a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)
Established SE Forum to ensure senior-level focus
Established SE as theme for 2004 PEO / SysCom Conference
Instituted system-level program reviews to aid PMs
Working with Defense Acquisition University to revise curricula
Instituting a renewed emphasis on M&S
Leveraged close working relationships with industry and academia
Integrating DT&E with SE policy and assessment functions — focused on effective, early engagement

8. Importance of DT&E in Acquisition (DT&E is a critical part of good SE)
Provides an opportunity to find problems early (Learn) — Failure in DT&E is OK
Provides information about risk and risk mitigation
Assesses technical performance and system maturity
Provides indication of program's development progress
Confirms weapon system meets technical requirements
Confirms weapon system's readiness to enter IOT&E
Provides essential information on which to base acquisition decisions

9. Importance of Targets in Acquisition
Robust Developmental Testing is integral to successfully fielding weapons
to ensure they work when and how they're supposed to
Threat representative targets are a critical resource to adequately test weapon systems :
Evaluate effectiveness of weapon systems against the threat — in an operationally realistic environment
Conduct Live (End-to-End) System Testing

10. OSD Target Concerns For years, target efforts have been :
Low priority
Under funded
Complexity underestimated
Lagging behind advancements of threats
Current shortfalls are impacting T&E :
Full scale targets
Supersonic Seaskimming Targets (SSST)
Threat " D "

11. Aerial Target History Terminated 1980 Operational In Development
Today
25 Years Later
1980
Operational
AQM – 37
BQM – 34
VANDAL
QF – 4
BQM – 74
AQM – 37
BQM – 34
VANDAL
QF – 4
BQM – 74
In Development
In Development
GQM – 163
BQM – 167
Terminated
Firebrand
SLAT
Firebolt

12. Full Scale Shortfalls Navy ceased QF-4 operations in FY2004 :
Navy will use AF QF-4s for future full scale target tests
AF QF-4s not compatible with Navy ranges
Limits full scale tests to 2 AF ranges
AF target and range capabilities are not adequate for all test requirements :
F/A-22 program T&E adversely impacted
Inventory of AF QF-4s projected to deplete in FY2011 :
Development of follow-on target lagging behind
Decision and program start required immediately to prevent gap

13. SSSTs Numerous false starts to develop a replacement SSST :
Resulted in great expense and yielded no targets
Allowed inventory of legacy SSSTs to be depleted
Delays in GQM-163 development resulted in FY rationing of few remaining VANDALs :
4 Different ship test programs shared 3 targets — 7 Required
3 Different ship test programs shared 1 target — 5 Required
Sharing targets results in compromise of test objectives, increases complexity and risk of scheduling, and adversely impacts realism and adequacy of test

14. Threat " D " Emerging threat, currently fielded in one foreign Navy
Flight profile unlike any target in current US inventory
Required for T&E of :
SM-6 – CIWS
SM-2 block IV (ER) – DDX
SM-2 block IIIB (MU) – SSDS
ESSM – MFR/DBR
RAM-III
Studies underway, but no solution identified or funded

15. Challenges to Future T&E
Future threats make T&E using live targets more difficult :
Advanced cruise missile and aircraft threats may be too difficult to replicate
Operational realism may be impossible due to range safety constraints of stressing targets
Future programs may have to rely more on Modeling and Simulation (M&S) :
Verification and Validation (V&V) of most M&S today is performed through comparison to live test data
V&V of future M&S may depend on limited or "piecemeal" live test data

16. OSD Targets Review
Concerns raised by DOT&E and DT&E during DAES process
AF and Navy directed to brief USD(AT&L) on status and plan to solve target issues
Briefing was held August 02, 2004
Focus was on full-scale and subscale aerial targets
Outcome :
OSD will continue to monitor progress
Review after 6 months
Conduct DSB study on future target requirements

17. Defense Science Board Aerial Targets Study
Co-sponsored by USD(AT&L) and DOT&E
Emphasis is on future threats, and representative targets :
FY 2005 – 2020
Possibility of common targets and control systems across Services
Fidelity of targets, and portions of flight profiles necessary for adequate training and T&E
Alternatives to using aerial targets for training and T&E
Specialized range, instrumentation, or facility requirements for T&E or training
Alternatives for replication of Threat " D "

18. Summary
Emphasis on robust DT&E is a critical part of AT&L efforts to reinvigorate SE :
Robust DT&E requires threat representative targets
Need to increase priority and funding for targets
Need to address how we will test our weapon systems against advanced threats
OSD is taking an increased interest in Service target programs

19. Developmental Test and Evaluation ensures :
Our weapons perform as designed and meet Warfighter requirements. Systems work when and how they're supposed to
OUSD(AT&L) Systems Engineering website :
OUSD(AT&L) Developmental Test and Evaluation website :

21. Back-ups

22. DT&E Organization Structure
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST & EVALUATION
Rick Lockhart (SES)* 2B
*(4 AT&L Billets)
Contract Support Team
Jay White (PM)
Sandy Stanford
Joe Angsten
Tom Ballew
Dorothy Guy
Bill Molino
Mo Perry
Joe Terlizzese
Fred Myers* 2B
Lt Col Rich Stuckey (O-5)* 2B
Larry Paulson* 2B
Dr. Elizabeth Rodriguez-Johnson 2B

23. BQM-74E Subsonic, 0.8 M Recoverable Surface or air (C-130) launched
BQM-74F vs. -74E
BQM-74F
Subsonic, 0.8 M
Recoverable
Surface or air
(C-130) launched
BQM-34S
Subsonic, 0.8 M
Recoverable
Surface or air
(C-130) launched

24. Subsonic, subscale aircraft target Recoverable
MQM-107
Subsonic, subscale aircraft target
Recoverable
BQM-167A
Subsonic, subscale aircraft target
Relatively large payload
Recoverable

25. Launched from VANDAL launcher
MQM-8G VANDAL
To be replaced by GQM-163C
COYOTE (SSST)
Supersonic, 2.25 M
Non- Recoverable
GQM-163A COYOTE
Supersonic, 2.5 M
Non- Recoverable
Launched from VANDAL launcher
MA-31
Skimmer/diver
Supersonic, 3+ M
Non- Recoverable
Air launched from QF-4
HARPOON
Subsonic, 0.9 M
Non- Recoverable
Air launched from F/A-18

26. Can also be flown manned Launch platform for AQM-37C & MA-31
FGN Kormoran
Subsonic, 0.9 M
Non- Recoverable
Air launched from
FGN Tornado
QF-4 Phantom
Can also be flown manned
Launch platform for AQM-37C & MA-31
Recoverable
AQM-37C
High altitude, supersonic, M 3+
Air launched from QF-4
Non-Recoverable

27. Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS)
SDTS-R, ex-DD 964
SDTS, ex-Decatur with towed
radar reflector barge