The Navy thinks nothing of
spending billions for new ships, aircraft, and weapons – even ones with
questionable performance – and yet what does the Navy spend on testing of these
systems? Only a tiny fraction, by comparison. Worse, what does the Navy spend on threat
surrogates to ensure that the testing they do engage in is meaningful? Almost nothing. In fact, in many cases, there are no
realistic threat surrogates which means there is no realistic testing
possible.
Let’s take a wander through
the DOT&E 2016 Annual Report and see how widespread this problem is.
Submarines
– The Navy lacks a realistic diesel submarine or surrogate which is necessary
for testing the BQQ-10 submarine sonar system.
“Perform
an ASW event against a high-end, diesel-electric, hunter-killer submarine …”
Torpedoes
– The Navy lacks realistic, threat-representative torpedo surrogates.
“In
September 2015, the Navy completed a formal study that identified capability
gaps in currently available torpedo surrogates and presented an analysis of
alternatives for specific investments to improve threat emulation ability. The
Navy has since taken the following actions to address the identified capability
gaps:
-
The Navy received funding through an FY16 Resource Enhancement Project (REP)
proposal and is currently in development of a threat-representative high-speed
quiet propulsion system.
-
The Navy submitted an FY17 REP proposal to develop a General Threat Torpedo
(GTT) that is intended to expand upon the propulsion system under development
and provide representation of threat torpedoes in both acoustic performance and
tactical logic.”
Lack of a suitable surrogate
hinders Zumwalt testing.
“The
threat torpedo surrogates currently available for operational assessment of the
Zumwalt-class destroyer have significant limitations in their representation of
threat torpedoes.”
Cruise Missiles – The Navy lacks representative cruise missile surrogates.
“…although
SeaRAM has demonstrated some capability against ASCM threats, the lack of ASCM
surrogate targets to adequately represent advanced ASCM threats combined with
the paucity of test data does not support a meaningful and quantitative
assessment of SeaRAM’s ability to provide the DDG 51 class with an adequate
self-defense against threat ASCMs.”
DOT&E’s
recommendation:
“Develop
threat surrogate aerial targets that adequately represent advanced ASCM
threats.”
Closely related to realistic
threat surrogates is the need for realistic test bed platforms for Aegis. As DOT&E suggested,
“Provide the necessary funding to support the
procurement of an advanced air and missile defense radar [AMDR/SPY-6] and
Aegis-equipped SDTS [Self Defense Test Ship] that are needed to support Aegis
Modernization, advanced AMDR DDG 51 Flight III, and ESSM Block 2 operational
testing.”
The lack of a realistic test
bed – meaning a representative SDTS – jeopardizes Aegis modernization,
AMDR/SPY-6 development and fielding, the Burke Flt III, and ESSM. What is the Navy spending on those
programs? Billions. What is the Navy spending on obtaining a
realistic SDTS? Zero. The Navy is willing to risk ships and crew to
save an infinitesimally small amount of money.
Here’s a thought … The Navy is
desperately trying to early retire the Aegis cruisers. Why not convert one of them into an
Aegis/AMDR SDTS? The ship is there –
already paid for. The equipment is
already mounted. It only needs to have
some simple automation added.
As a point of interest, the
current SDTS is the former USS Foster, DD-964, a Spruance class destroyer. Given that the bulk of our surface fleet
consists of Aegis vessels – and soon to be AMDR/SPY-6 – the need for a
representative SDTS is overwhelming.
The Navy thinks nothing of
spending billions on highly questionable platforms like the LCS, Zumwalt, Ford,
and LPD-17 but balks at spending the money necessary to actually test new
weapons and platforms. That’s utterly
illogical. That’s the Navy.
