A comparative analysis of ship operational test and evaluation in the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy.

276 Pages·5.4 MB·en_US

by  Joseph, Kenneth William.;Hoivik, Thomas H.

—
DUDLEY KNOa
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOO*
MONTEP^Y CA 93343-5101

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOFTHIS PAGE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
la REPORT SbCURITYCLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED 1b RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
2a5ECUmi YCLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYOF REPORT
2b. DECLAS^IFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved forpublic release;
distribuLion is unlimited
4 PERFORM NG ORGANIZATION REPORTNUMBERS 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
I
6a. NAME OFPERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
(ifapplicable)
Naval Postgraduate School Naval Postgraduate School
Code 36
6c ADDRESS (City, State, andZIPCode) 7b ADDRESS (City, State, andZIPCode)
Monterey, CA, USA 93943-5000 Monterey, CA, USA 93943-5000
8a NAME OF FUND NG/SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL § PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION I (ifapplicable)
8c. ADDRESS (City, State, andZIPr.nr1e) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM FTO3FCT- TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO NO NO ACCESSION
r
11. TITLE (IncludeASeCcuOriMtyPCAlaRssAifiTcaItiVonE) ANALYSIS OF SHIP OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION IN THE
UNITEDSTATES NAVY ANDTHE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
12.PERSONALAUTHOR(S) Kenneth W. Joseph
13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15\ PAGE COUNT
Master's Thesis FROM TO December 1992 266
SUPPLEMENTARYNOTATION
16.
The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the olticial
policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
17. COSATI CODES 18 SUBJECTTERMS (Continueonreverseifnecessaryandidentifybyblock number)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP operational test and evaluation, ship test and evaluation, ship acceptanc
acceptance trials
19. ABSTRACT (Continueonreverseifnecessaryandidentifybyblocknumber)
This thesis provides a comparative analysis ofship Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) in the United State
Navy (USN) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). It also reviews the acceptance and introduction into servic
procedures for warships in both Navies, including the input from OT&E. This study analyses USN and RAN Sh
OT&E organisation, policy, and procedures, and then compares and contrasts the two systems. The study finds th
the RAN OT&E system, although originally based on USN OT&E philosophy, now differs in the importano
interpretation, application and focus of OT&E. It concludes that to achieve efficient and effective trials an
acceptance of the new higher risk warships currently under construction, the RAN OT&E system needs to be revise*
A model for OT&E in the RAN is proposed based on the principles derived from the USN system. Tl
recommendations include the initial conduct of OT&E in land based test sites, followed by dedicated "Whole Ship
OT&E
for the first of class.
». distribution/availabilityofabstract 21 ABSTRACTSECURITYCLASSIFICATION
g] UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED SAME AS RPT DTIC USERS UNCLASSIFIED
[~J [~J
&.UAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (IncludeArea Code) 22c OFFICE SYMBOL
homas H. Hoivik [phone] Code AS/Ho
)DFC 1M1473, 84MAR 83 APRedition maybe used untilexhausted SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OFTHIS P^
Allothereditionsareobsolete UNCLASSIFIED
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
SHIP OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION
IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
by
Kenneth William Jpseph
Commander, RoyalAustralian Navy
Bachelor ofElectrical Engineering,
University ofNew South Wales, 1976
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
December 1992
ABSTRACT
This thesis provides a comparative analysis of ship Operational Test and
Evaluation (OT&E) in the United States Navy (USN) and the Royal Australian
Navy (RAN). It also reviews the acceptance and introduction into service
procedures for warships in both Navies, including the input from OT&E. This study
analyses USN and RAN Ship OT&E organisation, policy, and procedures, and then
compares and contrasts the two systems. The study finds that the RAN OT&E
system, although originally based on USN OT&E philosophy, now differs in the
importance, interpretation, application and focus of OT&E. It concludes that to
achieve efficient and effective trials and acceptance of the new higher risk warships
RAN OT&E A
currently under construction, the system needs to be revised. model
for OT&E in the RAN is proposed based on the principles derived from the USN
system. The recommendations include the initial conduct of OT&E in land based
test sites, followed by dedicated "Whole Ship" OT&E for the first of class.
in
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
1. Introduction
2. Field of Study
3. Importance of Research Effort
OBJECTIVES
B. 2
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
C. 3
D. SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 4
E. WHY STUDY USN OT&E? 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
F. .... 5
1. Archival Research 5
2. Personal Interview Research 7
3. Research Analysis 7
G. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 7
H. ORGANISATION OFTHESIS 8
II. OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION BACKGROUND 9
A. PURPOSE OF T&E IN DEFENCE ACQUISITION 9
B. TYPES OF SHIP TEST AND EVALUATION 10
1. Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) 10
2. Production Acceptance Test and Evaluation (PAT&E) 10
3. Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) 10
4. The Difference between DT&E and OT&E 1
5. Operational Effectiveness and Operational Suitability 13
IV
AUSTRALIA'S DEFENCE ENVIRONMENT
C. 15
1. Strategy 15
2. Australian Defence Budget and Policies 16
3. U.S. Versus Australia 17
4. United States Navy Versus Royal Australian Navy 20
OT&E BACKGROUND SUMMARY
D. 21
USN SHIP OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION
III. 23
A. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE ACQUISITION PROCESS 23
...
B. TYPES OF USN SHIP TEST AND EVALUATION 25
Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) 25
1.
2. Production Acceptance Test and Evaluation (PAT&E) 25
3. Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) 25
C. OT&E IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS 26
1. Statute Requirement 26
OT&E
2. Contributions at Major Milestones 27
D. US OT&E ORGANISATION 29
1. Policy Maker and Overseer 31
2. Sponsor 32
3. Developing Agency 32
&
4. Operational Tester Evaluator 33
5. User 33
6. Coordinator 34
E. USN OT&E POLICY 34
Independence 35
1.
2. Use of Contractors 36
3. T&E Planning 36
4. Combined DT&E and OT&E 37
5. Modeling and Simulation 38
6. Foreign Weapons Evaluation 38
OT&E
7. Funding 39
8. Land Based Test Sites 39
OT&E
9. Ship 40
F. SHIP ACCEPTANCE 42
1. Policy 42
2. Definitions 42
3. Responsibilities 43
4. Procedure 43
OT&E
5. Ship Acceptance and 46
G. USN OT&E PROCEDURES 46
1. From the User Requirement to the OT&E Test Plan 46
2. Assessment of Operational Effectiveness 51
3. Assessment of Operational Suitability 54
OT&E
4. Reporting 56
OT&E
5. Coordination 57
OT&E
6. Personnel Selection and Training 58
H. USN OT&E IMPLEMENTATION - THE DDG-51 PROGRAM 59
1. Critical Issues 59
2. DDG-51 OT&E Program 60
3. 'Whole Ship' OT&E 65
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE OT&E ISSUES 69
I.
1. Impact of Budget Cutbacks 69
2. Operational Realism 70
USN OT&E SUMMARY
71
J.
OT&E
1. Importance of 71
2. Need for OT&E 71
3. OT&E Agency Independence 72
4. T&E Delineation 72
5. Whole Ship OT&E 72
VI