multi-mission radar POR with these capabilities. Sentinel radar requirements are directed at the air surveillance and track mission in support of C-RAM C2 and short-range air defense capabilities, including cruise missiles.
In contrast, the requirements of Product Manager Radars, within the Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS) Project Office of Program Executive Office Missiles and Space (PEO MS), are focused on counter- battery target acquisition capabilities for the counter battery and C-RAM sense and warn mission areas.
Additionally, the U.S. Army Com- munications – Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center has demonstrated an air surveillance capability with the Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar. Within the S&T com- munity, government labs and industry have technology that can improve radar time-power, tracking accuracy, sub- clutter visibility, and search/track range. Tis
includes Advanced Electronically
Scanned Array; digital beam forming; and gallium nitride transmit and receive microwave modules.
Tese improvements, individually or in combination, could be key enablers for a future multifunction, multi-mission radar capability. Regardless of the mis- sile interceptor solution, there will be interdependency between the multi- mission launcher/interceptor defended area and the supporting surveillance and track capability.
Additional operational efficiencies result when radars are used within an archi- tecture, in a mutually supporting role or mode through an integrated network environment. Transition of S&T to radar programs may be needed to enable mission planning of radar modes as well
as search tailoring techniques needed to realize these efficiencies.
THE ROLE OF NIE Te semiannual NIE can provide an excellent venue for evaluating how radar, launcher, and/or interceptor technologies contribute to the protection of mobile, semimobile, and expeditionary elements in an integrated network environment. Radar and launcher capabilities will be integrated under a system-of-systems net- worked communications architecture.
Te C2 will be the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, which provides entry into a net-centric environment that facilitates communica- tions and exchange of sensor and weapon data among the surveillance sensor, fire control sensor, multi-mission launcher, and interceptor.
Data collected during NIEs will provide an operational understanding of the suit- ability of radar and launcher technology, as well as a technical understanding of capabilities and limitations in an inte- grated network environment. Separately, laboratory testing and intercept flight testing of interceptor technology will pro- vide the detailed data needed to assess lethality and multi-mission capabilities of candidate interceptor technologies. Te laboratory assessment will verify that the technology is suitable
for its intended
unit architecture and that it reflects Army computing environment standards of the Common Operating Environment, which supports the Agile Process.
CONCLUSION Using the Agile Process in radar, launcher, and interceptor acquisition will ensure that technical and system integration maturity are suitable to meet capability gaps, supporting incremental delivery of early, low-cost, multi-mission capability.
For S&T, QRCs, and industry technol- ogy, a transition plan should be developed early in the process with options for tran- sitioning technology to a POR based on key milestones. Within PEO MS, the IFPC Inc 2-I program is a good example of how technology transition and cur- rent capabilities are brought together under incremental “blocks” of early multi-mission capabilities. Te IFPC Inc 2-I system will operate as an integrated network of sensors and interceptors. Te NIE, in line with the Agile Process, will provide the technical data and operational feedback on incremental solutions for bat- tlespace awareness, defense planning, and networked sensor and interceptor architec- ture capabilities.
Te Agile Acquisition timelines change how we acquire, test, and field technol- ogy while ensuring that Army technical standards for network infrastructure and tactical network communications are met. NIE recommendations and weapons test- ing will shape these timelines and provide the gates and key milestones for early, incremental modernization and transition of technology to the Soldier, depending on HQDA objectives and priorities.
For more information, contact Boyd Collins in the CMDS Project Office at 256-876-0875.
MR. PATRICK M. DUGGAN is Director, Systems Engineering and Integration in the Cruise Missile Defense Systems Project Office of Program Executive Office Mis- siles and Space. He holds a B.S. in physics and a B.S. in computer science from Hen- derson State University, and an M.S.E in aerospace engineering from the Univer- sity of Alabama in Huntsville. Duggan is Level III certified in systems planning, research, development, and engineer- ing, and is a member of the U.S. Army Acquisition Corps.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 111
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212
