thedrifter
02-21-09, 09:17 AM
DOD Reports Faults In C2 Programs
By Michael Fabey
Two key command and control (C2) systems being developed by the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force still need quite a bit of polishing, according to a recent report by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).
In its annual report released early this month, the DOT&E found developmental issues with both the Marines’ Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) and the Air Force’s Battle Control System-Fixed (BCS-F).
Of the two, the CAC2S received the worst marks. Meant to be the primary air operations planning and C2 tool for commanders and staff within the Marine Aircraft Wing, the CAC2S “performed poorly” during its operational assessment (OA) during the past fiscal year, DOT&E said.
“As the current CAC2S is currently at high risk for successful fielding, the Marine Corps should revisit alternatives for meeting the requirement in the CAC2S capabilities production document,” the DOT&E reported. “Additionally, the acquisition program baseline schedule is no longer achievable and requires updating.”
During the OA, the DOT&E said, the Marines found “CAC2S software is unstable,” with a mean time between operation failure well below the requirement.
The DOT&E was kinder in its assessment of BCS-F, saying that recent improvements in system development had addressed “many” of the earlier reported deficiencies in the system, which was meant, among other things, to marry NORAD and FAA radars to prevent terrorists from using hijacked aircraft for another 9/11-like attack (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 11).
But, the DOT&E pointed out, BCS-F still relies on the emergency interim system it was supposed to replace for key workload functions.
Also, echoing another concern raised by a Pentagon Inspector General (IG) 2008 report, the DOT&E pointed out that the BCS-F development has been hindered by requirements creep.
“The program is suffering from the accumulation of additional warfighter requirements,” the DOT&E reported. “Although the system meets many of the requirements in the approved operational requirements document [ORD], users have used the deficiency reporting and review process to create new requirements, effectively increasing thresholds for some requirements. This is happening, in part, because the ORD no longer reflects the user’s actual requirements.”
Initially contracted at a cost of roughly $30 million about five years ago, the BCS-F could grow to be 10 times that amount, according to the IG.
Image: USMC
Ellie
By Michael Fabey
Two key command and control (C2) systems being developed by the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force still need quite a bit of polishing, according to a recent report by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).
In its annual report released early this month, the DOT&E found developmental issues with both the Marines’ Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) and the Air Force’s Battle Control System-Fixed (BCS-F).
Of the two, the CAC2S received the worst marks. Meant to be the primary air operations planning and C2 tool for commanders and staff within the Marine Aircraft Wing, the CAC2S “performed poorly” during its operational assessment (OA) during the past fiscal year, DOT&E said.
“As the current CAC2S is currently at high risk for successful fielding, the Marine Corps should revisit alternatives for meeting the requirement in the CAC2S capabilities production document,” the DOT&E reported. “Additionally, the acquisition program baseline schedule is no longer achievable and requires updating.”
During the OA, the DOT&E said, the Marines found “CAC2S software is unstable,” with a mean time between operation failure well below the requirement.
The DOT&E was kinder in its assessment of BCS-F, saying that recent improvements in system development had addressed “many” of the earlier reported deficiencies in the system, which was meant, among other things, to marry NORAD and FAA radars to prevent terrorists from using hijacked aircraft for another 9/11-like attack (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 11).
But, the DOT&E pointed out, BCS-F still relies on the emergency interim system it was supposed to replace for key workload functions.
Also, echoing another concern raised by a Pentagon Inspector General (IG) 2008 report, the DOT&E pointed out that the BCS-F development has been hindered by requirements creep.
“The program is suffering from the accumulation of additional warfighter requirements,” the DOT&E reported. “Although the system meets many of the requirements in the approved operational requirements document [ORD], users have used the deficiency reporting and review process to create new requirements, effectively increasing thresholds for some requirements. This is happening, in part, because the ORD no longer reflects the user’s actual requirements.”
Initially contracted at a cost of roughly $30 million about five years ago, the BCS-F could grow to be 10 times that amount, according to the IG.
Image: USMC
Ellie