Air Force Test and Evaluation - F/A-22 Raptor Paper

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 23rd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

Write and submit a one-page SINGLE-SPACED abstract on the major acquisition program F/A-22, focusing on the T&E aspect of that program.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp36.p...

I have provided 2 sources, but feel free to USE ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL YOU FIND SUITED TO WRITE THE ABSTRACT!!

The paper must be in APA format and must include any references that you use to develop your findings.


Submission Instructions:

  • Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.
    •APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to APA (6th edition) style and formatting.
    •Length of paper: up to one-page SINGLE-SPACED
    •Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.

  • Unformatted Attachment Preview

    Air Force Test & Evaluation GuideBook HQ USAF/TE Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 6 1.1. Purpose and Scope 6 1.2. Other Mandatory Documents 6 1.3. Updating this Document 6 1.4. How to Use This Document 6 1.5. Establishing the Undeniable Need for T&E 7 Chapter 2 HIERARCHY OF TEST AND EVALUATION POLICY AND GUIDANCE 9 2.1. Overview 9 2.2. Title 10 and the “Testing Statutes” 9 2.3. New Era of Collaboration 16 Chapter 3 RELATIONSHIPS WITH OSD 17 3.1. Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 17 3.2. OSD T&E Oversight 18 3.3. Interoperability Watch List 18 Chapter 4 T&E SUPPORT TO THE REQUIREMENTS PROCESS 20 4.1. Operational Requirements Development and Review 20 4.2. Review of Requirements Policies impacting T&E 20 4.3. AOA Participation, Development and Support 21 Chapter 5 T&E SUPPORT TO THE ACQUISITION PROCESS 22 5.1. Planning for Evolutionary Acquisition (EA), Incremental and Spiral Development 22 5.2. Testing In Support of EA, Incremental and Spiral Development 22 5.3. Program Management Directive (PMD) 22 5.4. Integrated Support Plan (ISP) 22 5.5. COA Development 23 5.6. Technology Development Strategy (TDS) 23 5.7. Test and Evaluation Strategy 23 5.8. Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMP) 24 5.9. Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP) 24 5.10. Integrated T&E Inputs to Request For Proposal (RFP) 24 Chapter 6 INTEGRATED TESTING (SEAMLESS VERIFICATION) PROCESS 25 6.1. Discovery 25 6.2 Early Involvement 25 Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 2 6.3. Integrated Test Planning 25 6.4. Integrated Test Execution and Reporting 27 Chapter 7 INTEGRATED TEST TEAM TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES 28 7.1. Why the Changed Terminology? 28 7.2. ITT Formation and Management 29 7.3. Integrated Initial Test Design (IITD) 30 7.4. Common T&E Database and Data Management 30 7.5. Data Management 30 7.6. Certification Readiness for Operational Testing 31 Chapter 8 INTEGRATED TEST TEAM (ITT) PRODUCTS 33 8.1. Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES) 33 8.2. Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Development 33 8.3. Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP) 33 8.4. Integrated Test Concept 34 8.5. Integrated Test Plan (ITP) 34 Chapter 9 DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION 36 9.1 Purpose 36 9.2 Benefit of DT&E to Acquisition Managers 36 9.3 Benefit of DT&E to the War Fighter 37 9.4 Guidance Covering DT&E 37 9.5 Persistent Involvement of Testers in Acquisition 37 9.6 Important Early DT Involvement 37 9.7. DT&E Templates 38 Chapter 10 OPERATIONAL TESTING FOR AQUISITION 40 10.1 Initial Test Design 40 10.2. Operational Test - Test Concept (OT TC) 40 10.3. Operational Test Plan 41 10.4. Operational Test Readiness Review 41 10.5. Contractor Involvement in OT&E 41 10.6. Working with Contractor Testers 43 10.7. Government Oversight 43 10.8. Contractor Responsibilities 43 10.9. Limitations on Contractor Involvement in OT&E 43 Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 3 10.10. System Contractors 44 10.11. System Contractor Support to OT&E 44 10.12. Support Contractors 44 10.13. Executing OT 45 10.14. Report OT 45 10.15. MAJCOM Operational Testing 45 10.16 TD&Es 46 10.17. WSEP 47 Chapter 11 SPACE SYSTEMS TEST AND EVALUATION 50 11.1. National Security Space (NSS) System Acquisition Process 50 11.2. NSS Acquisition Phases 50 11.3. Key Decision Points 50 Figure 11.1. NSS 03-01 vs. DoDI 5000.2 Acquisition Phases 51 Chapter 12 SECURING T&E RESOURCES 52 12.1. Test Capabilities and Facilities 52 Figure 12.1 T&E Resource Needs Through Program Development 52 12.2. Test and Training Ranges 52 12.3. Air Force Test and Training Ranges 53 Chapter 13 DEFICIENCY REPORTING 54 13.1. Accurate Categorization of DRs 54 13.2. Contractor-Based DR Systems 54 13.3. When to Start Deficiency Reporting 54 Chapter 14 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS 55 14.1. Testing in Support of Rapid Response Process (RRP) 55 14.2. Foreign Materiel Program (FMP) 55 Attachment 1 GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 56 References 56 Abbreviations and Acronyms 58 WSEP—Weapon System Evaluation Program www—World Wide Web Terms 61 Attachment 2 LEGISLATION IMPACTING TEST AND EVALUATION 71 Title 10 USC-Section 139 -- Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 71 Title 10 USC-Sec.2366 -- Major Systems and Munitions Programs: -- Survivability Testing and Lethality Testing Required Before Full-Scale Production 72 Title 10 USC-Sec.2399 -- Operational Test and Evaluation of Defense Acquisition Programs Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 4 74 Title 10 USC-Sec.2400 -- Low-Rate Initial Production of New Systems 76 Title 10 USC-Sec.2302 -- Definitions [excerpts relevant to T&E] 78 Title 10 USC-Sec.2430 -- Major Defense Acquisition Program Defined 78 Chapter 140-Sec.2377 -- Preference for Acquisition of Commercial Items 78 Figure A2.1. Cross References in Title 10’s Testing Statutes. 80 Attachment 3 REVIEWING CAPABILITIES BASED REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTS 81 A3.1. Background 81 A3.2 Initial Capability Document (ICD) 82 A3.3 Capability Development Document (CDD) 83 A3.4 Capability Production Document (CPD) 86 A3.5 88 Other Good Sources of Information Attachment 4 REVIEWING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS 89 Attachment 5 TEMPLATE: INTEGRATED TEST TEAM (ITT) CHARTER 91 A5.1. The ITT Charter. 91 A5.2. Template. 91 Attachment 6 TEMPLATE: TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY (TES) 93 A6.1. Content Coming Soon!. 93 Attachment 7 TEMPLATE: TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN (TEMP) 94 A7.1. Signature Requirements for Multi-Service TEMPs. 94 A7.2. Recommend Signature Page Template. 94 Attachment 8 TEMPLATE: OPERATIONAL TEST PLAN 97 Attachment 9 TEMPLATE: OPERATIONAL TEST FINAL REPORT 100 Attachment 10 AIR FORCE T&E RESOURCES and ORGANIZATIONS 102 A10.1 AFMC Key Test Facilities 102 Figure A10.1 Major Range Test Facility Base Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 103 5 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose and Scope This Guide contains useful information, guidance, best practices, and lessons learned about test and evaluation (T&E) and related subjects that were not published in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 99103, Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation, and other 99-series documents. While it is intended to supplement and expand on the policies and guidance in official HQ USAF/TE documents, this Guide is NOT directive in nature. The Guide is a compilation of information from many sources and, while we have made every attempt to ensure its contents are in line with Air Force and OSD level guidance, some inconsistencies may exist. If any are found, please contact AF/TEP – suggested changes are appreciated. 1.2. Other Mandatory Documents Because of AFI 99-103’s broad applicability across many functional areas, this Guide must be used in conjunction with policies and best practices from those other communities. As a minimum, readers must be familiar with the following: DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System; National Security Space (NSS) Acquisition Policy 03-01; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01D, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, CJCS Manual (CJCSM) 3170.01A, Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System; AFI 10-601, Capabilities Based Requirements Development, and AFI 63-101, Operation of the Capabilities Based Acquisition System. 1.3. Updating this Document User participation is essential for developing and updating this guide. All Air Force testers are strongly encouraged to contribute by submitting new or revised material directly to HQ USAF/TEP, 1530 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1530. Electronic inputs may be sent to AF/TEP Workflow (AFTEP.workflow@pentagon.af.mil). Acquisition and requirements community inputs are also welcome. This guide will be updated as often as practical. Inputs should be applicable to a broad range of T&E or related activities and provide more than just a narrow view of any specific T&E activity. Do not submit entire documents for inclusion in this Guide, but send excerpts and reference those documents instead. Edit long documents down to a few salient ideas and pages or paragraphs by omitting unnecessary detail. Include a suggested chapter location, or recommend a new chapter in which the information should be located. 1.4. How to Use This Document AFI 99-103 gives a broad, horizontal view of the entire acquisition process, and this guide provides the in-depth view and “between the lines” explanations. Much like AFI 99-103, parts of this document are organized chronologically while the rest is organized by subject matter. For example, there are chapters describing the integrated T&E process as it begins during the Pre-Concept Refinement Phase, continues from Milestone (MS) A through the Production and Deployment Phase, and culminates in the Operations and Support Phase. Details about other elements of the T&E process are collected in the remaining chapters under appropriate subject headings. The chapters that mirror the flow of AFI 99-103 and Figure 1.1 below provide greater depth and detail. Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 6 MS MS MS A B C Concept Refinement Technology Development Production & Deployment System Development & Demonstration LRIP ICD Stage I ICD Stage II FSA Plan FSA AoA Plan CDD AoA Operations & Support FRP CPD AoA Modifications AoA AFROCC RSR JROC AFROCC AFROCC RSR RSR JROC FOC IOC AFROCC RSR JROC Capabilities Based Requirements Development (AFI 10-601) Select ADM MDA SAMP SAMP PMD TDS Concept Decision SAMP ISP DAB Operations & Support DRR DAB ISP DAB FRP Decision COA Operation of Capabilities Based Acquisition System (AFI 63-101) T&E Strategy TEMP EOA Tester Involvement ITT Stand Up OA TEMP TEMP OA LFT&E IOT&E Integrated Government T&E Contractor Testing FDE FOT&E OT&E Certification Figure 1.1 Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation (AFI 99-103) NOTE: All acronyms in this figure are defined in Attachment 1. 1.4.1. Figure 1.1 was developed through close collaboration between HQ USAF/TEP, SAF/AQXA, and HQ USAF/XORD. It shows the acquisition process as the “master clock” for the integration of requirements, acquisition, and T&E events and activities. Figure 1.1 represents flow of a notional program through the acquisition process and does not precisely pinpoint the locations of every possible event, document, or activity. Many events, documents, and activities are not shown to maintain readability. This Guide explains when and where omitted items fit into the processes. 1.4.2. Determining what you should be doing at any point in a program is simple if you know what acquisition phase your program is in. Key activities taking place in each process are stacked vertically as indicated by the dashed vertical lines. For example, if program XYZ is approaching a MS-C decision, you can see what kind of T&E support documents and activities are required by looking vertically down the MS-C line. 1.5. Establishing the Undeniable Need for T&E T&E must demonstrate capabilities today that will be needed tomorrow in combat. When a system is called for combat duty, the need is immediate and there’s no time to reconsider if the system will operate as designed. Warfighters need assurance that when they risk their lives, the systems provided will do the job for which they were designed. Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 7 1.5.1. Program managers (PM) are given responsibility to develop and/or sustain systems in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible consistent with the public’s trust and the warfighters’ safety and welfare. PMs must somehow gain data and knowledge about systems in their charge to ensure those systems are progressing as national leaders direct and expect. T&E is the principal means of gaining the required empirical knowledge to keep national leaders informed and ensure programs are progressing as planned. 1.5.2. The purpose of T&E in general is to mature system designs, manage risks, identify and help resolve deficiencies as early as possible, and ensure systems are operationally effective and suitable. The Air Force T&E community plans for and conducts integrated T&E as an efficient continuum known as seamless verification in collaboration with the requirements and acquisition communities. 1.5.3 A continuous flow of credible T&E data about the development and continued sustainment of combat systems is needed to keep systems and warfighters ready for combat. Warfighters must plan before the fight how they will engage the enemy. If equipment deficiencies exist and are both known and documented, war planners and war fighters can plan around such deficiencies. Again, T&E information is crucial link in this critical process. Figure 1.2. The Undeniable Need for Testing. Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 8 Chapter 2 HIERARCHY OF TEST AND EVALUATION POLICY AND GUIDANCE 2.1. Overview Statutory direction for T&E flows down from Congress through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), to the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD interprets public laws, statutes, Executive Orders, and overarching policies and develops and implements its own policy using DoD Directives (DoDD), DoD Instructions (DoDI), DoD Regulations (DoD-R), and policy memos. These regulations and policies expand upon statute and direct how the DoD carries out congressional intent. DoD direction may be more restrictive than congressional direction, but can never be less restrictive. Often additional requirements are added at department or component level. Within DoD, congressional direction to the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) is frequently delegated in writing to various offices within the Secretary’s staff. 2.1.1. Service headquarters further interpret congressional and DoD policies by developing Servicespecific T&E policies and guidance that direct how T&E will be carried out in each Service. Service organizational units develop their own organizational policies, and so the hierarchy of direction flows down to the lowest practical units conducting T&E. Again, each step of the hierarchy can impose more restrictions than the level above, but can never be less restrictive. 2.1.2. Specific Service T&E policy documents are listed below so that testers working on multiService programs may read and understand the policies of their counterparts in the other Services. 2.1.2.1. The Air Force issued Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 99-1, Test and Evaluation Policy, as overarching T&E policy directly supported by AFI 99-103, Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation, AFI 99-109, Test Resource Planning, all developed by HQ USAF/TE. 2.1.2.2. The Army issued Army Regulation 73-1, Test and Evaluation Policy, and Department of the Army Pamphlet 73-1, Test and Evaluation in Support of Systems Acquisition, both developed by HQ Dept of the Army, Test and Evaluation Management Agency (TEMA). 2.1.2.3. The Navy issued Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Instruction 5000.2, Implementation of Mandatory Procedures for Major and non-Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major and non-Major Information Technology Acquisition Programs, developed by OP 091. 2.1.2.4. The Marine Corps issued Marine Corps Order 3960.2B, Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity. The MCO is focused on OT&E and should be used in conjunction with SECNAV 5000.2. 2.1.2.5. The four operational test agencies (OTA) collectively issued a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA] on Multi-Service Operational Test and Evaluation that is updated annually. 2.2. Title 10 and the “Testing Statutes” Congress was concerned about past abuses where the DoD inappropriately rushed systems into production without adequate testing. They gave high priority to testing requirements, creating four key statutes in Title 10 that specifically address T&E, the full text of which is in Attachment 2, Legislation Impacting Test and Evaluation. Each of these statutes gives mandatory direction for testers. Although relatively short, they are often misunderstood, misquoted, or misused. Additional statutes are cited that help explain the terms used in these four key statutes. Following is a brief Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 December, 2004 9 history of each, why they were enacted, explanations of difficult subsections, and commonly misunderstood concepts. Excerpts are taken from the Acquisition Law Advisory Panel’s Report to the United States Congress. 1 These statutes are occasionally updated via changes in Public Law (P.L.). 2.2.1. Section 139, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. 2.2.1.1. This statute created the Director, OT&E (DOT&E) in 1983 and articulated his responsibilities. 2.2.1.2 See Attachment 2 of this document for more information. 2.2.2. Section 2366, Major Systems and Munitions Programs; -- Survivability Testing and Lethality Testing Required Before Full-Scale Production. 2.2.2.1. Originally enacted in the FY 1987 National Defense Authorization Act, Title 10 §2366 required survivability and lethality testing to be carried out sufficiently early to allow design deficiencies to be corrected prior to full-rate production.2 Senate and House conferees stated their belief that “live-fire testing is a valuable tool for determining the inherent strengths and weaknesses of adversary, U.S. and allied weapon systems. The conferees intend that the Secretary of Defense implement this section in a manner which encourages the conduct of full-up vulnerability and lethality tests under realistic combat conditions, first at the sub-scale level as sub-scale systems are developed, and later at the full-scale level mandated in this legislation. [ ] The conferees intend this type of developmental testing to be performed as part of the responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition.3 (italics added) 2.2.2.2. This section was implemented in the DoD 5000-series and now appears in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. 2.2.2.3. While all Services agree that LFT&E is absolutely necessary, the Air Force maintains that the statute cannot be applied equally to all types of weapon systems. Different systems have significantly different survivability and vulnerability requirements and combat tactics after being hit by enemy munitions. For example, tanks and ships are designed so they can sustain multiple hits from enemy fire and still remain in the fight. In contrast, aircraft are designed such that when they take a hit, they leave the battle space and return to base and therefore cannot be tested using the same LFT&E strategy, or using the same test plans that might be used for tanks or ships. 2.2.2.4. Disagreement often occurs about what kinds of system modifications or upgrades “affect significantly the survivability” of the system when determining if LFT&E is required. How stringently should the statute be enforced? Some changes significantly impact overall survivability Some of this section’s information comes from “Streamlining Defense Acquisition Laws, a Report of the Acquisition Law Advisory Panel to the United States Congress, January, 1993,” also known as the “Section 800 Report.” See Chapter 3, Service Specific and Major Systems Statutes. This report gives a brief summary and background of each statute, how the statutes are carried out in practice, and recommendations and justification for changes to the statutes. The Panel’s work is instructive because it illuminates many contentious issues and problems with these stat ...
    Purchase answer to see full attachment

    Tutor Answer

    Joelda
    School: Rice University

    Attached.

    Running Head: F/A-22 RAPTOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM

    F/A-22 Raptor Acquisition Program
    Student Name
    Institutional Affiliation

    1

    F/A-22 RAPTOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM

    2

    In the early 1980s, the U.S under the leadership of President Reagan decided that there
    was a need to develop a new generation of advanced tactical fighter planes that would lead the
    air superiority around the world. The F-15C Eagle had been the plan that was unbeaten as a
    fighter plane but there was a need to plan for the future especially at the time when the U.S was
    on constant threat of imminent attack by the Soviet Union among other threats. The leadership at
    the time knew that the country needed a futuristic fighter plane that would fight and succeed in
    the combat in the 21st century (Bolkcom, 2005).
    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics was granted the contract to design and develop the F/A-22
    Raptor after it won the contr...

    flag Report DMCA
    Review

    Anonymous
    Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

    Similar Questions
    Related Tags

    Brown University





    1271 Tutors

    California Institute of Technology




    2131 Tutors

    Carnegie Mellon University




    982 Tutors

    Columbia University





    1256 Tutors

    Dartmouth University





    2113 Tutors

    Emory University





    2279 Tutors

    Harvard University





    599 Tutors

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology



    2319 Tutors

    New York University





    1645 Tutors

    Notre Dam University





    1911 Tutors

    Oklahoma University





    2122 Tutors

    Pennsylvania State University





    932 Tutors

    Princeton University





    1211 Tutors

    Stanford University





    983 Tutors

    University of California





    1282 Tutors

    Oxford University





    123 Tutors

    Yale University





    2325 Tutors