RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
The future artillery- ammunition solution will influence enemy movement and turn the tide of the future battlefield.
MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK
The Army must deliver better 155 mm ammunition in the future to be able to defeat an adversary’s long-range systems. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Michael Gresso, U.S. Army Europe and Africa)
product. As the C-DAEM program progressed, engineers and analysts used the hierarchy to evaluate candidates across more than 100 operational scenarios by comparing both analytical and experimen- tal data. At the end of the competition, the tool calculated a score, but it was the unique way the team connected the data to the mission that enabled the tool to choose the best solution that delivered lethal effects at the increased ranges needed to defeat strategic enemy systems.
INDUSTRY DAY ACTION Army programs do not always choose to take technical risks early, because the acquisition process and program budget are not flexible. Te C-DAEM team tack- led these familiar challenges by tailoring its competitive process to communicate objectives instead of requirements, to
use modeling of real scenarios in place of single occasion testing, and to accelerate technology maturation. For example, the objectives hierarchy tool communicated program intentions instead of require- ments by allowing contractors to get credit for performance predictions and test reports that show understanding of their design.
Tis tool allowed the competitive process to evaluate more valuable information, such as performance of an electronic component, and then fast-track the knowl- edge gained from those smaller, more specific experiments.
Te C-DAEM team held an industry day in the fall of 2018, during which govern- ment officials put forward an opportunity for defense firms to adapt to the Army’s
changing conditions by outlining general operational objectives and the blueprint of the competitive process. Te two-day event, which included more than 100 people and 24 companies, featured repre- sentatives from the Army user community who presented operational context, such as how the enemy behaves, rather than detailed specifications.
Te event clarified the Army objectives to remove tactical threats and achieve extended ranges in accordance with guid- ance from the U.S. Army chief of staff. On the second day of the event, individ- ual sessions allowed each participating contractor 30 minutes to ask clarifying questions on the tactical circumstances that influence how, where and why a Soldier might use the weapon. Industry partners asked for further definition of potential threats and surroundings, and explained that additional clarification could help the detailed planning. Te C-DAEM team compiled this informa- tion and created the objectives hierarchy, but would need a flexible contract vehicle to keep the program on schedule.
THE OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY Te C-DAEM team leveraged the flex- ibility enabled by the DOD Ordnance Technology Consortium other-transaction agreement to implement the objectives hier- archy scoring process. Generally speaking,
https://asc.ar my.mil 17
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
