RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
The C-DAEM team tackled these familiar challenges by tailoring its competitive process to communicate objectives instead of requirements.
engineers to use the same tool to inform design decisions before prototyping begins.
Te objectives hierarchy assessed each contractor against four factors: schedule, performance, cost and long-term viability. Te program office used the performance factor in the hierar- chy, known as a range-weighted lethality index, to evaluate the number of rounds to achieve a specific amount of damage done against various enemy targets, across increasing increments of range. Tis allowed the program office to “weight” the perfor- mance based on range achieved, and relate it to the amount of damage done.
Te range-weighted lethality index also evaluated the impacts of different weather conditions, terrains, target backgrounds, countermeasure combinations and target characteristics. After receiving feedback at the conference, the C-DAEM team announced the objectives hierarchy as the program office’s primary method of data collection in order to ensure the best design solution moved forward in development, and made the hierarchy available upon request.
By the end of the competition, the competitors provided analyt- ical and experimental data to complete the range-weighted lethality index. Te winning solution, a 155 mm smart projec- tile offered by Raytheon, offered significant range and lethality benefits, while managing technical risk early to realize its full potential. Te C-DAEM team evaluated each competitor using the objectives hierarchy to fully understand the risks associated with the technical development of each solution.
With the help of the Army’s Data Analysis Center, the team completed statistical analysis of target engagement to characterize the performance of each solution’s explosive and fully understand its destructive abilities. Te C-DAEM team also worked with the Combat Capability Development Command Armaments Center
to collect experimental flight data and flight-simulation model- ing to estimate range in different weapon systems and in different conditions.
Ultimately, the Raytheon concept scored highest in its range- weighted lethality index because it addressed the Army’s problems with a reasonable level of risk. It offered exceptional performance against countermeasures and significantly increased range oppor- tunities. It also offered the Army a long-term area-effects solution by presenting opportunities to complete upgrades in the future.
CONCLUSION Te future artillery-ammunition solution will influence enemy movement and turn the tide of the future battlefield.
Te C-DAEM team collaborated with industry partners through multiple conferences and created a selection tool using the feed- back received, to incentivize iterative development to advance the right solution for the Army. Te team succeeded because the government emphasized flexibility and the contractors took some risks.
Te government leveraged the DOD Ordnance Technology Consortium other-transaction agreement for its efficient and effective selection process that encouraged industry partners to form relationships within the consortium and align prototyp- ing to the objectives hierarchy. Te hierarchy tool enabled the C-DAEM team to select an artillery weapon capable of defeating and changing enemy behavior at longer ranges. Te C-DAEM program may not have had the budget of the Avengers, but now the Army is one step closer to mirroring its success on tomor- row’s battlefield.
For more information, go to
https://jpeoaa.army.mil/jpeoaa/.
JAMES A. SARRUDA works for PM PACM within JPEO A&A at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, currently serving as the branch chief for the C-DAEM program. He holds a Master of Engineering degree in mechanical engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology, a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Lafayette College, and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.
LT. COL. BRIAN ADKINS is the product manager for PACM within JPEO A&A at Picatinny Arsenal. He holds an M.S. in systems engi- neering from George Mason University and a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Virginia Tech. He is Level III certified in program management and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.
https://asc.ar my.mil 19
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
