|FY98 Annual Report|
|Navy ACAT IC Program:||Prime Contractor|
|Total Number of Systems:||215||Raytheon E-Systems|
|Total Program Cost (TY$):||$3,576.1M||St. Petersburg, FL|
|Average Unit Cost (TY$):||$77.9M||Service Certified Y2K Compliant|
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION & CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT VISION 2010
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is a system of hardware and software that allows the sharing of radar data on air targets among ships. Radar data from individual ships of a Battle Group is transmitted to other ships in the group via a line-of-sight, data distribution system (DDS). Each ship uses identical data processing algorithms resident in its cooperative engagement processor (CEP), resulting in each ship having essentially the same display of track information on aircraft and missiles. An individual ship can launch an anti-air missile at a threat aircraft or anti-ship cruise missile within its engagement envelope, based on track data relayed to it by another ship. Program plans include the addition of E-2C aircraft equipped with CEP and DDS, to bring airborne radar coverage plus extended relay capability to CEC. CEP-equipped units, connected via the DDS network, are known as Cooperating Units (CUs).
As currently implemented, CEC is a major contributor to the Joint Vision 2010 concept of full-dimensional protection for the fleet from air threats. In concert with multi-Service sensor and engagement systems, it can contribute to a major expansion of the battlespace.
At-sea DT of CEC was conducted during FY90. An early operational assessment was conducted in FY94, based on results of at-sea DT, including missile firings at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility in Puerto Rico. Although there were significant test limitations, we concluded that CEC is potentially operationally effective and potentially operationally suitable. We also observed that this assessment must be tempered with the caveat that CEC has not undergone OT&E with the attendant operational realism. Approval to begin EMD (Milestone II) was granted in May 1995. An additional early operational assessment (OT-1A) of the airborne component of the CEC network was conducted in September 1995. In accordance with congressional guidance, the Navy certified IOC for CEC (EDM equipment) in late FY96. OT&E to support the initial LRIP decision was conducted in August 1997. Although CEC was assessed as being potentially operationally effective and potentially operationally suitable, significant problems were observed in Battle Group interoperability and in software reliability. In February 1998, the Navy acquisition decision authority granted approval for long lead funding for up to nine systems, and contract award for four systems. In early 1998, the acquisition decision authority chartered a Program Manager's Assistance Group (PMAG) to review CEC and the programs with which it must be interoperable. The group's recommendations included freezing the software configuration (Baseline 2) and decelerating CEC development so that associated system software (Aegis Weapon System (AWS) Baseline 6.1 and Advanced Combat Direction System (ACDS) Block 1) could reach maturity. The replanned program includes DT/OT in 1999 to ensure resolution of software maturity and interoperability issues, OPEVAL in 2000 vice 1998, and the full-rate production decision in 2001 vice 1999.
TEST & EVALUATION ACTIVITY
An Integrated Product Team (IPT) for T&E, formed at the end of FY97, convened on several occasions to address T&E issues in preparation for the OPEVAL, which has been delayed. At-sea integration testing was conducted with three ships configured with CEC AN/USG-2 hardware and Baseline 2 software: the aircraft carrier, USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67), equipped with ACDS Block 1, and two cruisers: USS HUE CITY (CG 66) and USS VICKSBURG (CG 69), both equipped with AWS 6.1. Interoperability problems were observed during integration testing with CEC software, the combat direction system software (ACDS Block 1 and AWS Baseline 6.1), and the software for the tactical data link command and control processor. These observations essentially validated the PMAG's conclusions and recommendations regarding immaturity of the associated combat system software.
TEST & EVALUATION ASSESSMENT
Serious deficiencies were observed during the at-sea integration testing that was conducted in early 1998 in preparation for the formal OT. These involved problems with CEC Baseline 2, as well as Aegis Baseline 6.1, ACDS Block 1, and the command and control processor for the tactical data links. In the case of Aegis, the Baseline 6.1 problems were of a severity that caused removal of the two cruisers from the deployment cycle. The cruisers will participate in the at-sea testing to resolve the Aegis Baseline 6.1 software stability issues before testing with CEC Baseline 2 software. Deficiencies were in the areas of track management, net operations, cooperative engagement, engagement support, composite identification, and link interoperability. Problems within each of these areas are being identified, analyzed to determine root causes, and solutions are being considered. This requires an intensive, cooperative effort with CEC Baseline 2, Aegis Baseline 6.1, ACDS Block 1, and the command and control processor for the tactical data links. These comprise a "system of systems," replete with interoperability challenges, as well as the potential for significant progress toward realization of a single integrated air picture for Battle Group units. The interoperability challenges are seen as the major obstacles at this point, and the Navy is addressing these.
In the IPT meetings, synchronization of the OPEVAL with fleet deployment schedules was (and remains) a major challenge. This is due in part to the requirement to have an adequate number of ship CUs. From an OT&E perspective, ensuring that enough CUs participate in the CEC net during end-to-end (detection through intercept of targets representing anti-ship cruise missiles) testing, is critical to achieving a realistic environment for operational evaluation of this complex system prior to its delivery to fleet operators. This is a test adequacy issue that is among the key drivers for the OPEVAL.
The current TEMP is no longer descriptive of the program or the associated T&E. The requirement for a new TEMP is recognized and is being addressed by the T&E IPT.