UAV Annual Report FY1996

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs)

With the exception of Pioneer and Hunter (as existing systems), all DARP UAV developments are (or have been) ACTDs. Predator is the first DoD ACTD to transition to a formal acquisition program, and its lessons-learned are being applied to the DARP's newest system, the TUAV or Outrider. The others, Global Hawk and DarkStar (together with their Common Ground Segment), are complementary air vehicle designs within the HAE UAV ACTD, and have been underway since 1994.

Predator ACTD Transition

As the first ACTD required in large numbers, Predator has been "writing the book" on ACTD issues to be resolved, the reconciliation and phasing of full-acquisition features, and programming of sufficient funds. Four DoD-wide working groups are helping the Transition Integrated Product Team (IPT) resolve three major issues:

System numbers: What is the objective force size and allocation among users?
System configuration: Which capabilities are to be included in the production baseline, as preplanned product improve-ments (P3I), or as a ACTDs are quick-development programs designed to get mature technologies into the hands of users for early evaluation of operational utility; they normally cover two or three years, vs. ten equivalent years for the traditional acquisition program. Further, focus is on their essential capabilities and mission potential; thus, many of their features may need to be revisited, depending on each ACTD's outcome. The ACTD initiation process and ACTD outcome options are as follows:

(Image Size: 22Kb )

User Not Prepared to Acquire

User Wants to Acquire

Options:

Terminate (not cost-effective)
Place "on the shelf" (time not right)
Develop further (good idea; improve implementation)

In large numbers:

Enter acquistion process at the appropriate stage (=Predator)

One or a few:

Fix demonstrator to be operationally suitable and replicate as required

Funding: What is the total system cost, both investment and operations and support (O&S)?

Configuration modifications include:

Integration of IFF, UHF radio and active de-icing as part of the baseline; and
A (less mature) heavy fuel engine as part of the P3I program.

The Navy is deciding its course with respect to Predator marinization.

Funding is being identified to acquire new systems through FY 2000, to include their necessary development and support items. Total program cost will be identified in the FY 1998 President's Budget.

ACTD Lessons Learned

As a result of the Predator and other ACTD experiences, some additional features are being "designed-into" newer ACTDs. For example, the Predator ACTD had no projected procurement budget: at its outset (January 1994), nobody knew how well it would perform. Further, while ACTD unit costs may be low (often representing off-the-shelf [OTS], components), militarizing some capabilities and realizing logistics support needs both increase program acquisition costs. For example, while an ACTD Predator demo system cost about $15 million, a combat-ready production system (with configuration changes, added payload and link subsystems, and full integrated logistics support [ILS] provisions) requires about twice that sum.

By comparison, the TUAV ACTD includes funding provisions for transition plus significant out-year procurement funds. Eight IPTs are active to assure integrated system development. Thus, rather than committing prematurely to a production program before the ACTD results are known, early planning and an LRIP option will optimize the ACTD-to-formal acquisition transition process if the ACTD is deemed successful.

In parallel, an OSD policy document on Transition of ACTDs to the Acquisition Process has recently been published to guide all ACTDs, if successful. The key challenges to maintaining momentum during the transition period are:

Formalize military requirements and CONOPS (which drive configuration and numbers)
Complete any needed testing and documentation (especially if new features are to be added)
Assure system/force affordability (e.g., as ACTD criteria for the TUAV and HAE UAV production air vehicles)
Optimize the acquisition strategy
Program the necessary acquisition funding (as determined by the system's demonstrated utility)
Identify and program for life-cycle costs.

Future ACTDs

Future-year ACTDs are being defined for high-potential, maturing technologies, many of which will apply to UAVs in the key areas of payload options, information processing, and additional mission applications. The ACTDs initiated during FY 1996 and 1997 that are applicable to UAVs are indicated below.

UAV-Relevant ACTDs
Initiated in FY96	Initiated in FY97
Air Base/Port Biological Warfare Detection	Counter Concealment, Camouflage & Deception (CCD)
Battlefield Awareness and Data Dissemination	Counter-Proliferation II
Combat Identification	Cruise Missle Defense II
Counter-Proliferation	Global Grid Tactical Fiber
Joint Logistics	Integrated Collection Management
Miniature Air-Launched Decoy	Military Operations in Urban Terrain
Semi-Automated IMINT Processing	Rapid Battlefield Visualization
Tactical UAV	Survivable Armed Reconnaissance on the Digital Battlefield
	Unattended Ground-based Sensors (UGSs)
	Wide Area Tracking System

I see ACTDs as creating three opportunities. First, they give us the ability to reduce operational risk early in the acquisition process. Second, they provide us with an approach for compressing acquisition cycle timethe time it takes to develop and field weapon systems. And third, ACTDs are a mechanism for stimulating the innovations needed to implement a revolution in military affairs.

Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, USD(A&T)
Keynote Address at the ACTD Manager's Conference
Defense Systems Management College (DSMC), Ft. Belvoir, VA, 10 September 1996

UAV Concepts of Operation (CONOPS) (image size: 252Kb)