I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA TRACER / FSCS - - PDF document

▶

Dec 13, 2022 28 likes •349 views

I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA TRACER / FSCS Combined Analysis zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA United Kingdom and United States John A. Hunt, zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

SLIDE 1 United Kingdom and United States TRACER / FSCS Combined Analysis zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Presentation to 16 ISMOR

2nd. September 1999
I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Paul R. Syms. DERA John A. Hunt, zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA DERA William J. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Ktondak, TRAC(L) UWUS TRACEWFSCS Combined Analysis Paul R. Syms zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA John A. Hunt William J. Krondak ~ ~..i zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Absirack The armies of both the United Kingdom and the United States have recognized their need for replacement of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (Tracked) (CVR(III. the High Mobiliry Multi- purpose Wheeled Vehicle zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (HMMWy) scout, andthe Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV)

scout. The UK

conducted studies on a development effort known as the Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACERJ while the US Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved a Mission Nee& Statement for a Future Scout and Cavalry @stem (FSa). The UK and Ussigned o memorandum of understanding in July 1998 to accomplish a cooperative Project DefinitionlAdvanced Technologv Demonstration phase to meet the requirements. To support this effort. the UK Director Science (Land) and the US Deputy Undersecretary of the Army (Operations Research) signed Terms of Reference for a combined analysis to underpin the programmatic and acquisition decisions by the UK and US. Analysts from both countries established an operational anolysis working group ondprepared a Combined Analysis Plan (CAP). The CAP was signed in March 1999. This paper outlines the combined analytic approach. Included are the following:

a. The settings and scenarios, to include cooperotively developed common ond shared scenorio;.
b. The technical

analysis, including the innovative Integrated @stems Measures approach;

c. The operational effectiveness anolysis, to include discussion of the various models and

how to achieve a huly combined anolysis that will support both nations' decisions.

SLIDE 2

SLIDE 3 Background Pre 1997 - UK and US each conduct research on ground scout technologies Mar 97 - US and UK began Cooperative Program Exploratory Analysis Apr 97 - US Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated Mission Needs Statement (MNS) zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Nov 97 - Terms of Reference for Analysis drafted at Operational Analysis Working Group meeting in UK. Signed by Mr. Hollis, DUSA(0R) for US and Mr. Larcombe (Director Science (Land)) for UK Feb 98 - MOU signed by US Jul 98 - MOU signed by UK following Strategic Defence Review Jan 99 - Project DefinitionIAdvanced Technology Demonstration contracts signed by US and UK with two competing consortia Mar 99 - Combined Analysis Plan signed by US and UK

1. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Introduction. Many countries in the European and North Atlantic community recognize that

they must cooperate to develop and produce affordable and interoperable military systems for their future security needs. In the area of ground-based surveillance and reconnaissance, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (US) recently began a cooperative Project Defmition (PD) and Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) phase to build a new manned ground scout vehicle. A combined UK and US government analysis effort will parallel the PD/ATD phase and inform the government leaders regarding the development decisions at the end of the phase. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA ‘ 4 .

2. Background.

2.1. Both UK and US military leaders recognized that a ground scout provided certain capabilities that could not be met by aerial surveillance and reconnaissance platforms or by other intelligence

means. The existing systems, the UK’s Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) and

the US High-Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) and Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicles (CFV) were effective but aging. They did not have the platforms to incorporate the new technology becoming available through research and development. Thus, both nations sought to develop a replacement for the existing systems. After extensive research, the countries investigated whether a cooperative development was feasible. The chart shown here illustrates the steps taken to create a cooperative development program as well as a combined analysis. Note that the combined analysis terms of reference were drawn up in anticipation

f the signing of the

Memorandum of Understanding for cooperative development and highlight the excellent working relationship between analysts in the UK and US. 2

SLIDE 4

SLIDE 5 Study objective and approach zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA The objective of this Combined Analysis is to determine the most cost effective ground scout system to replace the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle ( C N ) and the High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) used by US forces, and the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance Tracked (CVR(T)) used by UK forces. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 2.2. The PD/ATD phase zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA lasts 42 months. The two competing consortia are Team Lancer and SIKA

Intemational. Team Lancer is GECMarconi and AMs Vehicles of the UK

teamed with Raytheon and United Defense of the US. SIKA Intemational includes British Aerospace and Vickers Defence Systems of the UK teamed with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics of the US. Both teams will work to create what they believe to be the systems that best meet the requirements specified in the Combined Operational Requirements Document (CORD) developed by the UK and US user

communities. They will build and test an integrated demonstrator vehicle.

. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA ,l ,

3. Study objective. The government analysis conducted in the combined analysis

program by UK and US analysts will help to make national authorities “informed customers” regarding the proposals from the industry consortia. The specific study objective (shown in the chart above) is to determine the most cost effective ground scout system to replace the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA HMMWV, Bradley CFV and CVR(T).

4. Study approach. The study approach was developed through creation of the Combined Analysis

Plan (CAP). The CAP included input from agencies shown on the chart above. They included the US Army Armor Center (USAARMC), Project Manager Future Scout and Cavalry System (PM FSCS), US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA), and US Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center (TRAC). United Kingdom contributors included the Directorate of Operational Requirements (Land), Project Manager TRACER, Specialist Procurement Services (SPS) and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which includes the Centre for Defence Analysis (CDA). 3

SLIDE 6

SLIDE 7 ~ Study management ~~ ~ Study management

i zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Steering

Z l zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

I Andy Lane Roy Willoughby zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA UK zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Operational Anslysb Working Group us I I CmeraVSettiaes I 1 I I ' Ipaulsyms , BiilKmodakl I , I TechnologiesPerfonnance Operational Effectiveness John Hunt Paul Symr Rod Eaton I I cost I 4.1. Study management. The chart above describes the combined study management structure. Note that the Joint Program Office and a General Officer Steering Committee provide input to the Combined Study Advisory Group. The co-studj directors are

Mr. Alan Dixon of the Directorate

Science (Land) @Sc(L)) and Mr. Mike Bauman of TRAC. The operational analysis working group (OAWG) comprises four sub-groups working under the leadership of Mr. Andy Lane of DSc(L) and

Mr. Roy

Willoughby of TRAC. 42 Study modules. The study approach used a hierarchical structure of questions derived from the study objective. The questions were then gathered into logical groupings related to GeneraYSetting, TechnologiesRerfomance, Operational Effectiveness, Cost and Integration. The analysis working group then created and assigned a series of study modules that would address the questions. As each module is completed, its output will be used as input to answer the hierarchical structure of

questions. The study modules are being addressed in a time schedule broken in segments. This

provides management a tool to help allocate resources and assess progress. 4

SLIDE 8

SLIDE 9 CAP study modules zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 4.3 Scope of the study modules. The Combined Analysis Plan zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (CAP) consists of 21 separate study modules which are divided into Technical, Operational Effectiveness, Cost and Integration. The relationships between them are indicated by the lines. . . zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA T' . zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 5

SLIDE 10

SLIDE 11 Critical study questions Level One Question : What are the cost and effectiveness values of TRACEWFSCS options? Level Two Questions: General (G) What are the settings to be used? Technical (T) What are the integrated system performance, cost and Operations (0) What is the operational effectiveness of each alternative? cost (C) risk estimates for each alternative? What is the cost of each alternative?

5. Critical zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

study questions. The chart above shows the top level question related to the study

bjective and the level zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

two sub-questions. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA I n the following sections, the level three questions assigned to each subgroup will be shown and the analytic tools and methods highlighted. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 6

SLIDE 12

SLIDE 13 Technical analysis questions zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Level Three Technical Questions: T-I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA . What are the performance and risk estimates for potential subsystem T-2. What i s the optimal mix of TRACERFSCS technologies (e.g. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA sensors, T-3. What are the most risk-adjusted zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA cost effective sub-systems technologies

T4. What techniques

are required for the operator to make most effective use of T-5. What are the best technology solutions that should be integrated into the technologies, correlated to cost? weapons, and signature management)? and system level concepts? potential new TRACEWFSCS technical capabilities?

6. Technical Analysis.

, . 6.1 Technical questions and modules. The questions for the technical analysis are shown zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA in the chart above. The analysts then developed modules to address the questions. Because of the expected resource requirements associated with module fulfillment and because some of the questions had already been addressed extensively in the prior research and analysis, the OAWG prioritized the modules. Priority one modules are shown on the left. Priority two modules are shown on the right. Several unique issues arose and were addressed by the technical anaiysis working group. Among them was the issue of survivability. The question arose "What constitutes a scout kill?" The analysts agreed that more than the naditional mobility kill, firepower kill, or catastrophic kill assessments were needed. The reason was that the scout is supposed to provide information about the battlefield to its higher headquarters and adjacent units. T h u s the analysts developed a scheme to include sensor k i l l s and communications kills in scout survivability. A second unique issue was how to address logically the many system and subsystem capabilities that had to been examined to enable assessment of the existing and proposed future concepts. The UK proposed an approach called integrated systems measures zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (ISMS). 7

SLIDE 14

SLIDE 15 t i zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA . Tech n zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA i ca I an a I ys i s ____ Technical Analysis & Integrated Systems Measures (ISM) Approach:

A M S M E R A

effort

Provides item level performance

analysis

Examines Scout functions in vignettes
ISMS

are measure of integrated performance of the system

Links capabilities

with functions to determine the most appropriate system design and allows trade-offs to be made * Survivability packages

C41 Capabilities

Acquire info and targets Communicate informatio TRACERIFSCS m zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 6.2. Technical analysis and integrated systems measures. AMSAA and zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA DERA agreed to use an integrated technical analysis and integrated systems measures (ISM) approach for t h i i analysis. The technical analysis feeds the operational effectiveness (OE) analysis with technical data, and the ISMs and cost analysis with cost-performance data. 6.2.1. The technical analysis provide item level analysis of the components

f the new scout zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

system. It will assess the relative capabilities of a variety of sensors, survivability suites, command, control, communications, and computer packages, armament, as well as mobility and reliability concepts. It will do t h i i using a variety of engineering level models zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA and high resolution combat models. The technical analysis and ISM will support use of cost as an independent variable (CATV) analysis. 62.2. The ISMs are high level measures of the behavior or function of a system. ISM measures what a system is supposed to do to meet the mission requirements placed upon it by military commanders. It is not a demand on the form of the system or implementation

f a solution. For example,

survivability i s a behavior, while armor capable of defeating a given threat is demand on the form

f the system and does n
t

allow the govemment or industry to meet the survivability requirement using a n alternative technology or approach. Taking the integrated approach, survivability is dependent on a variety of things other than just armour; these include sensor range, mobility, vehicle profile, weapons, and sensor countermeasures. ISMs differentiate between measures, metrics, and the subsequent requirements: for example, “speed” is a measure, 30 kmlh is a metric, and “vehicle speed shall be at least 30 k”’ is a requirement. I S M analysis will support modification of the requirements based on tradeoffs during the study.

SLIDE 16

SLIDE 17 General setting questions Level Three General Questions: G-1, What mission needs as stated in the CORD and MNS need to G-2. What are the missions, threats, environmental conditions, and G-3. What are the interfacing systems at the platform, force and be further defined and analyzed? terrain assumptions? jointlcombined levels? zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

7. General Setting.

7.1. Setting questions andmodules. What settings to use in the operational analysis composed the level two question for this group. The level three questions shown on the next chart are being addressed through appropriate modules that define the missions, scenarios and environmental conditions under which the alternatives are to be examined The mission needs question is being addressed through a review of existing doctrbe' and scout requirements. The issues to be explored in the module include mobility requirements to assess the need for tracks or wheels, the survivability requirements, and the armament

requirements. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

To answer the second question zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

threat satisfactorily, environment and terrain issues, the operational analysis working group (OAWG) concluded that a number of scenarios and combat simulations would have to be used. Some of the scenarios are common scenarios, that is, both the US and UK will use the same scenario in their

wn simulations. Other scenarios are shared. Shared scenarios

will be used in a combat simulation by one

f the nation's analysts and then the results shared with the other nation's analysts and used

to fulfill the study module requirements and answer the critical study questions. The question on system interfaces will be addressed through evaluation of the scenarios that use a variety of units (formation reconnaissance, battlegroup scouts, armored cavalry regiments, division cavalry, etc.), as well as a variety ofjoint and combined environments that will bring to bear a wide variety of supporting and cooperating sensor and weapon systems. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA All these will have to be integrated through command and control systems to achieve the lid1 joint and combined operations capability. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 9

SLIDE 18

SLIDE 19 Scenario spectrum zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 7 . 2 . zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Scenario spectrum The scenario spectrum proposed for use and currently under development includes a wide range of settings. It includes major regional conflicts as well as

perations
ther

than war. The terrains range f r

hilly, mixed terrain that is very restrictive for mobility and lie

sight to open desert terrain. The missions range fiom attacks and defensive operations to zone reconnaissance operations in a operations other than war environment. One of the unique accomplishments

f this study has been the development of common scenarios. The UK analysts

and military gamers assisted the US in the development of a common scenario at TRAC White Sands Missile Range in 1998. The US assisted the UK in the development of a common scenario at DERA F

t Halstead in early 1999. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 7.2.1 For certain scenarios, the weather and threat environments will be altered to conduct excurs-

ions. For example, one scenario excursion

will include f a l l i n g snow to examine mobility and sensor capabilities, and another excursion will include precipitation and heavy fog. Environmental conditions such as high winds and 'hot and high' atmospheres, both of which could limit the use

f unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), will also be considered.

7.2.2 Threat excursions will include improved conventional weapons, the use of chemical weapons, and sensor countermeasures. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 10

SLIDE 20

SLIDE 21 Level Three Operations Questions: zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 0-1. What is zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA the ability of each alternative to satisfy the commander's critical information requirements? zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 0-2. What i s the operational effectiveness of each alternative from a system perspective and from a force-on-force perspective under varying battlefield conditions? 0-3. What are the operational effectiveness levels achieved on the UK guided missile TRACEWFSCS alternative? Should this capability be integrated

n future TRACEFUFSCS platforms in a medium Force?

04. What is the effect of other C41SR linkages and long range mmmunications? Module approach: M-0.3 Operational effectiveness M-0.4. TRACEWFSCS C41 interactions

8. Operational effectiveness analysis.

8.1. Operational effectiveness questions and modules. The questions to be addressed by the

perational effectiveness analysis are shown on the chart above and continued on the next chart.

Four modules have been developed to address the questions. Two are shown on this chart, Note that the fmt question relates to how the scout system will satisfy the commander's critical information requirements. When the commander and staff do a mission assessment for an upcoming operation, they determine what information they must gather to increase their chances for achieving success. Establishing a set of critical information requirements thus enables the intelligence staff and subordinate u n i t s to focus their reconnaissance and surveillance efforts. The second question will be addressed by combat simulations. The third question relates to the U K employment of specialist overwatch variants carrying long range guided weapons to engage targets identified by the scouts. The fourth question relates to how will the commander control and communicate with a scout if it is built with the capability to penetrate deep into enemy territory to gather information.

SLIDE 22

SLIDE 23 Operational analysis questions zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Level Three Operations Questions (continued): zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 0-5. What is zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA the effect of using long range standoff killers assisting zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 06. What is the survivability of each altemative? zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 0-7. What are the interactions

f the TRACERFSCS with other reconnaissance

ground scouts? systems, such as UAVs and airborne radar systems, as well as other combat and combat support systems like the attack helicopter, artillety. engineer reconnaissance. fixed wing assets and electronic warfare? 0-8. what is the preferred method o f employment of t h e British TRACERIFSCS? Module approach (continued): M-0.5. TRACEWFSCS C41 interactions M-0.4. Ground reconnaissance tactics zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 8 3 This chart continues the discussion of the operational effectiveness questions and modules. 8.2.1 Standoff killers refers to artillery and missile systems as well as helicopters armed with guided weapons that can be used in a ‘fie and forget’ mode. 8.2.2 Note the question regarding survivability. The operational effectiveness analysis will take the data and assessments fiom the technical analysis and the ISM and evaluate the resulting concepts in both high resolution force-on-force simulations as well as corps and division-level combat models. . . 8 . 2 . 3 The question on interactions is to determine the optimum mix of manned ground reconnaissance and other tactical reconnaissance systems, particularly UAVs, to achieve the reconnaissance aims, and ultimately, to ach& a successful battle outcome. This is driven by both nations’ desires to procure a cost-effective and robust tactical reconnaissance capability. 8.2.4 The question on preferred methods of employment is aimed particularly at the GW overwatch vehicle, and its use to counter enemy reconnaissance. It will be addressed primarily using the Janus wargame, possibly in combination with less detailed @ut also less costly) manual w a r g h g . 12

SLIDE 24

SLIDE 25 I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Operational effectiveness

n zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

13 PDkTD milestone Review

WE- zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

TRACER/FSCS - _."-

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Operational effectiveness

analysis. The operational effectiveness zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

(OE) analysis is divided into three segments. Each contributes to the followipg segment and builds on previous work. 8.3.1 Segment one. During segment

measures of effectiveness (MoEs) and measures of performance (MOPS) will be developed. These will use input from the technical analysis, and scenario input regarding the unit mission and scout mission. The critical information requirements mentioned earlier will feed the development of MoE and MOP. It should be noted that the analysis has to respond to the subtleties of reconnaissance and scouting, and traditional, attrition based MoEs such as loss-exchange ratio are inappropriate. The development of MoEs to measure battle outcome is one of the greatest technical challenges of the programme. The models will also be enhanced to enable them better to represent new technologies and reconnaissance

tactics. They will construct

the scenarios designated by the General Settings subgroup and get the implementations

approved. They

will gather data fbm the technical analysis and from intelligence sources to load the combat models with the best data available. The models being used include brigade and battlegroup level interactive t

s like Janus, and also the US Combined Aqns and Support Task Force Evaluation Model (CAST- FOREM), the UK Analysis Tool for Land Systems (ATLAS), and corps and division-level simulations l i e Vector-in-Commander (VIC) and the UK Generic Land Aggregation Model (GUM). 8.3.2. Segment two. During segment two, the analysts will zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA run the scenarios in the models, assess the various altemative concepts for the ground scout, share the output with their counterparts, and develop reports and briefmgs to support a general officer Affordability Review in early 2001. 13

SLIDE 26

SLIDE 27 Cost zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA analysis questions Level Three Cost Questions: C-I. What is the estimated cost of each potential technology? C-2. What are the training, logistics and manpower requirements zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA C

. What is the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of each alternative? C-4. What are the potential development costs of building TRACEWFSCS variants for a medium force? impacts for each alternative? ' 8.3.3. Segment three. Segment three will address any unanswered questions, update the analysis based on the emerging contractor proposals and provide the necessary information to inform the decision to move to the next phase in the development program. That decision will take place in mid-2002. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

9. Cost analysis questions and approach. The chart above shows the cost questions and cost

module approach. The costing method will include building a full life cycle cost estimate to include research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and operation and sustainability (O&S) cost for each alternative. In addition, the modules will include a trainiig impact assessment, a logistics impact assessment, thanpower requirements, and evaluation of the technology costs associated with the promising new technologies that may be applied to the scout system. The cost analysis will also include a module that assesses the costs of developing variants of the scout, particularly the UK guided weapon carrying variant.

SLIDE 28

SLIDE 29 Summary zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA The Combined Analysis Program contains many challenges: Analytical: Integrated System Measures Cost as an Independent Variable Common and Shared Scenarios Innovative Measures of Effectiveness Integration of Results Management: National differences in acquisition analytical support Analysis of classified technologies Highly demanding schedule 15 - zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA TRACER/FSCS m zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA ","I"

10. Summary. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

The TRACEIUFSCS combined analysis is an ambitious study but certainly one with high-level management and oversight. Several new or innovative methods are W i g used or

explored. They include the integrated systems measures approach, the cost zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

as an independent variable method, the common and shared scenarios, the development of non-traditional measures of effectiveness and performance, and fmauythe challenging integration of the results to meet the decision needs of the leaders in two independent nations. The challenge is great. We hope to be able to report out the results of this work to a future ISMOR '?J. 15

SLIDE 30

SLIDE 31 Any questions? zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Poul zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA R zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Sums. CDA(ffA)). DERA: prs.vms@dero.g0v.uk John A. Hunt, Lond@stems, DERA: johunt@dera.g0v.uk Williom

J. Xiondak. TRAC Fort Leavenworth: kronahkw@roc.army.mil
Dr. Paul R @ms zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

principcl scientist in the LcmaYAir Studies Department of the Centre

for Defence Analysis, which is part of the UK Defence Evoluntion a n d Research Agenqv (DERA)). He received o Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Biologvfiom Brunel University8 and a doctorate in entomologvfrom the University

f London's Queen Maiy College. He h

a s worked in militaiy

perational

analysis for ten

years. He con be contacted on (1959) 514362,

f a . (1959) 516027.

r by e-moil at prsyms@derogov.uk.
Mr. John A. Hunt is the DER4 Technic01

Monoger for the TRACER Progromme. He graduatedfiom the University

fLondon's Imperial College with a Bachelor of Science degree i

n Mechanical Engineering and has o Master of Science degree in Military Vehicle Technology from RMCS. He is a Chortered Mechanical Engineer who has been working on the UK TRACERprogromme since the early 1990s and iE contactable on e-moil ot jahunt@era.gov.uk

Mr. William
J. Krondak serves a

s the Director ofJoint ond Combined Operations analysis for TRADOC Anolysis Center# Fort~avemwrth,

Kansas. He received o Bachelor of Science degree

in Mathemoticsfrom the University

fNebraska
nd o Masters degreefrom the University
f
Oklahomo. He groduatedfiom the Armed Forces Stoff College in No$olk

Virginias and the US. Army Wor College at Corlisle Borrocks, Pennsylvania. He con be reochedot (913) 684-9209. f a . (913) 684-9191, or e-moil ot krondoh@troc.ormy.mil.

SLIDE 32