Downloaded from https://www.everyspec.com b. The evaluation, and to a lesser degree the system assessment, will assess system capability in required climatic and realistic battlefield environments, including natural, induced, and countermeasure (including information assurance) environments. c. The evaluation provides a judgment of how operationally effective, suitable, and survivable the system performed with respect to accomplishing its intended mission in its intended environment based on the requirements documented in the CDD/CPD.
The evaluation provides a determination on the progress that has been made toward the required operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability and on the adequacy of system progress in meeting the require- ments at a given future point in system acquisition. The evaluation (or assessment) may assess system suitability benefits and burdens when compared with systems already fielded or deployed. 6–4. Data sources for independent evaluations and assessments a. Developmental tests. See chapter 4. b. Operational tests. See chapter 5. c. Foreign comparative testing. See paragraph 3–10. d. Models and simulations.
Models and simulations (M&S) provide a set of analytical tools with applications in physics and engineering for components, subsystems, and systems; one-on-one system performance, few-on-few system, and force-on-force combat utility and effectiveness. Simulation capabilities include live, virtual, and construc- tive. Ownership and operation of these M&S depend on use application and include organizations responsible for requirements determination, technology research, system development, system and unit training, independent analysis as well as test and evaluation. The system evaluator will determine availability of and the need for M&S analyses during development of the SEP.
Evaluators must ensure the M&S used are accredited before use. (See AR 5–5 and AR 5–11.) e. Market investigation. The materiel developer plans and collects data and provides an assessment of the ability of commercial market place to fill operational requirements stated in the CDD/CPD for a system. f. Other military services, other U.S. agencies, foreign governments, and data collected by private industry. When acquisition is being considered from these sources, then existing or currently programmed data and reports should be requested to support the evaluation. In the case of foreign government, agreements may be in place or needed to support the exchange of such data. g.
Warfighting experiments. Warfighting experiments are conducted by battle labs, Army proponents, and Joint Forces Commands to provide data and insights in support of the requirements determination process, the force development process, and the technology transition process. They examine the effectiveness and ability to achieve warfighting concepts, the military utility and burden of new or existing technology, and the contribution of new ideas in doctrine, training, leader developments, organizations, and soldier specialties. They are not elements, as such, of the acquisition process.
While not designed as rigorous tests to support acquisition decision reviews, they may, and generally will, contribute data to system evaluations and should reduce requirements for testing, particularly in early acquisition phases. Warfighting experiments support the Chief of Staff, Army (CSA) approved Army Experimentation Campaign Plan and use representative soldiers in as realistic operational environment as possible via live, virtual, or constructive simulation. (See AR 71–9). (1) Advanced warfighting experiments. The advanced warfighting experiments (AWEs) are culminating efforts in the process to evaluate major increases in warfighting capability.
They cross DTLOMS domains and synergistically combine new force structure, doctrine, and materiel to counter a tactically competent opposing force. A single AWE normally includes several technologies, materiel concepts, and systems in various stages of acquisition. AWEs are sponsored by USATRADOC and approved and resourced by the CSA. (See AR 71–9.) (2) Concept Experimentation Program. CEP is an annual program executed by USATRADOC for commanders who have requirements determination and force development missions for specific warfighting experiments. Experiments are discrete events investigating either a materiel concept or a warfighting idea. h. Force development test/experimentation.
The force development test/experimentation (FDT/E) is a USATRADOC test and experimentation program supporting its force development processes by examining the effectiveness of existing or proposed concepts or products of doctrine, training, leader developments, organization, and soldier develop- ments (DOTLPF). FDT/E may be used for either stand-alone DOTLPF efforts or for DOTLPF efforts supporting a system acquisition program. In support of system acquisition programs, FDT/E may be stand-alone, related to, or combined with OT and should be identified in the TEMP.
Before the LRIP decision (MS C), FDT/E will be used to assist in defining and refining concepts of employment, logistics, training, organization, and personnel. Data from these FDT/E should also assist in determining essential and desirable system capabilities or characteristics. Prior to the FRP decision review, FDTs are conducted for systems with significant DOTLPF impact (normally ACAT I programs) to assess the status of DOTLPF products prior to IOT. FDT may be used to verify correction of DOTLPF fixes at initial operational capability when DOTLPF are the only significant issues remaining after the FRP decision review. i. Advanced concept technology demonstration.
The advanced concept technology demonstration is an OSD spon- sored, user-oriented and dominated demonstration. The ACTD provides a mechanism for intense involvement of the warfighter while incorporation of technology into a warfighting system is still at the informal stage. A successful 25 AR 73–1 • 1 August 2006