Document text
UNCLASSIFIED
AD NUMBER
ADB009251
LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.
FROM:
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't, agencies
only; Test and Evaluation; OCT 1975. Other
requests shall be referred to Office of the
Program Manager SINCGARS, Attn: AMCPM-GARS,
Fort Monmouth , NJ 07703.
AUTHORITY
SINCGARS , D/A ltr, 9 Feb 1977
THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED
THIS REP0rT has been dpi
™ ... ,„L1C "
N0 RESTRICTIONS are IMt*n N
,TS USE AND DISCLOSURE, ^
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT B
APPROVED for
DisTPIBUTI0N
PUBLIC RELEASE;
UNLIMITED,
•UH5113
VHF-FM PORTION OF THE SINGLE I
CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE v
RADIO SUBSYSTEM
CONCEPT FORMULATION PACKAGE
APPENDIX JL
COST & OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS
OCTOBER 1975 .<.0
D D C
jJHSHEMj
! FEB 24 1378
Tmr.i.AssmKD _
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION of THIS PAGE fWTien r>Bl« Fnlxred)
DOCUMENTATION PAGE
It report number
2. GOVT ACCESSION NO
^VHF-FM Portion of the Single
Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Sub-
system Concept Formulation Package# App-
endix IV*^qOST AND OPERATIONAL JFFECTIVE
READ INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
T'S CATALOG NUMBER
,NE.SS
7> AUTJAOi
M2*
BIS.
S INCGARS Special Task Force
TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity
Decisions, Designs, Incorporated
T. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
DAMO-SGTF
Pentagon, Rm 1A272
Washington, D.C. 20310
I’l. U
PO RT~ »1»»lt&PCOVEFl
:al kep <w t * /
- Oct 75# /
Technici '
Jan
G ORS.
^TfPP^i'fi"lJMBER
B. CONTRACT OR GRANT WJMBERfe.)
N00014-75-^0426^
N00014-73/G-I
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
ARE/. 4 WORK UNIT NUMBERS
tt. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of the Army
\ ODCSOPS, S INCGARS STF
Washington, D.C. 20310
PAGES
31
Ta.'mOnTtORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESS (il ditlorent from Controlling Ollio)
IS. SECURITY CLASS. ( ot thlt report)
UNCLASSIFIED
15*. DECLASSIFICATION-DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol -hie Eeport)
Distribution is limited to US Governmen
and Evaluation; Oct 75. Other requests f
referred to: OfrTce of the Program Manag
AMCPM-GARS, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 077
t agencies only; T e s t
or this document must be
er S INCGARS , ATTN:
03 (Autovon 99-54141)
17. distribution
STATEMENT (ol the eb.trecl entered In Biock 20. K dttlerent trom Report;
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
D D C ,
EiEfra
r\
FEB 24 197T
UltaanrE
D
19.
K
KEY WORDS /Continue on revere, .id. 71 oeceery «</ >dent„y » Week numft.O /CTNCCARS'I
single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Subsystem (.SINCGARS)
Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis
Figure of Merit
Relative Performance
Relative Worth .
- m—ii ■ . if mui Identify by block number)
ABSTRACT fCOTltoue <a remM ei* » iteceeeerr rarmi r r
A his appendix is a compilation of two separate and distinct cost
and operational effectiveness analyses (COEA) which were
conducted to evaluate the four alternatives recommended to satisfy
the SINCGARS-V requirements.
FORM
I JAM 73
[ ACGESSIPn fw |
KTIJ
While Seciloa □
m
Suit Section
WAKMUiiCED
□
^ BY
......
' DI'T3l3WOf/*VAIU9ILm COOES
| DIsL AVAIL and/or SPECIAL
f
y |
I;
VHF-FM PORTION OF THE SINGLE
CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE
RADIO SUBSYSTEM
|
CONCEPT FORMULATION PACKAGE 1
APPENDIX K
COST & OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
OCTOBER 1975
I
HEADQUARTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310
D D C
nr
[iT’JZE'SSiM
pi
^ FEB 24 1976
UlkEiynns!
D
DISCLAIMERS
The citation of trade names and names of manufacturers
in this report is not to be construed as official
Government indorsement or approval of commercial
products or services referenced herein.
DISPOSITION
Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do
not return it to the originator.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Definitions
References
DISCUSSION
Integration of TRADOC and DDI Evaluations
Cost Considerations
COMSEC Options and Costs
Electronic Warfare Threat Implications
Industrial and Technology Base
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED APPROACH
ANNEX A - TRADOC COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS STUDY FINAL REPORT
ANNEX B - CONTRACTOR DEVELOPED COEA
ANNEX C - MEMORANDUM ON FUTURE SUPPORT OF AN/VRC-12 AND AN/PRC-77
PAGE NUMBER
iii
iv
IV-1
IV-1
IV-1
IV-1
IV-1
IV -2
IV -2
IV-3
IV-3
IV-3
IV-3
A-IV-1
B-IV-1
C-IV-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PAGE NUMBER
IV-1
Figure of Merit Summary Developed by TRADOC COEA
IV-4
IV-2
Relative Performance Indices
IV-5
IV-3
Composite Relative Performance Indices
IV-6
IV-4
Utility Summary Developed by DDI COEA
IV-6
IV-5
Relative Utility Summary
IV-6
IV-6
Summary Cost Estimates
IV-7
IV-7
Comptroller of the Army Recommended Cost Position
IV-7
IV-8
Relative Cost Comparison
IV-7
IV-9
Relative Worth Matrix
IV-8
IV-10
Comptroller of the Army Approved 15-Year COMSEC
Equipment Life Cycle Cost Estimates, 100% COMSEC
IV-8
IV-11
Relative Worth for 100% COMSEC
IV-8
iv
- “
APPENDIX IV
COST AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
1. INTRODUCTION.
(1) SINCGARS-V as a combat support system precludes direct translation of the classical meas-
ure of the force effectiveness as it is commonly applied to weapons systems which directly engage
and destroy the enemy. The attempt to ascribe a quantifiable measure of force effectiveness for a
SINCGARS-V alternative is further complicated by the l^ck of accurate data by which any given com-
munications, e.g., a radio transmission, can be assigned a value relative to its impact on the
conduct of the battle. Studies presently underway, such as the COMSEC Priorities Evaluation, may
provide this type of information for use in subsequent analysis to support an ASARC Il/DSARC II
decision.
(2) Two distinct and separate cost and operational effectiveness analyses (COEA) were con-
ducted to evaluate the four alternatives recommended to satisfy the SINCGARS-V requirements. The
COEA performed by the TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity (TRANSANA) is at Annex A. The collateral
analysis conducted for the SINCGARS Special Task Force by Decisions and Designs, Inc., (DDI)
(Contract No. 00014-73-C-0149) is at Annex B.
b. Purpose. The purpose of this Appendix is to:
(1) Integrate the results of the evaluations at Annexes A and B;
(2) Incorporate additional cost information from the cost analysis brief (CAB) developed as
a result of the Comptroller of the Army analysis of the ECOM Comptroller's independent parametric
cost estimate (IPCE) and the baseline cost estimate (BCE) prepared by the Project Manager,
SINCGARS ;
(3) Provide consideration of the COMSEC costs and options which are available as a result of
the radio alternative selected;
(4) Extend additional consideration to the implication of the postulated EW threat for the
post-1985 time frame;
(5) Assess the impact of changing technology upon logistical support of the current family of
SINCGARS-V equipment.
c. Definitions. Terms and acronyms used herein are contained in Annex A of Appendix I, TOD.
d. References. References are contained in Annex F of Appendix I, TOD.
2. DISCUSSION.
a. Integration of the TRADOC and DDI evaluations.
(1) Both evaluations developed a figure of merit, or military value, for each alternative
based upon performance characteristics and user requirements. Performance characteristics of
each alternative were evaluated to gain a perspective as to the relative performance applicable
to each alternative. It cannot be asserted that a difference in alternative scores is a direct
or precise reflection of their relative effectiveness. The relationship between these scores,
however, does provide an indication as to the alternative's performance and thereby its contri-
bution to successful combat mission performance.
(2) The TRADOC COEA uses mathematical equations to quantify performance characteristics of each
alternative, wherever possible. Subjective evaluations are made for those characteristics which
could not be mathematically quantified. While these measures of performance were aggregated into
common areas, there is visibility within the TRADOC model to permit comparison between the
alternatives for each characteristic. Table IV-1 is a composite of the assessment developed by
TRADOC for each candidate alternative. The Figures of Merit normalized to Alternative #1 (the
base case) are displayed in Table IV— 2. From an examination of Table IV— 2, it can be inferred
that Alternatives #3 and H offer significantly improved performance over the base case. Table
IV-1
!
;
r
*
e
B
1
a
a-blehIv!2fforeiLti°^^L0ffthe ?lter?ati"eS ba86d °" wei8hti"8 the relative performance indices
fThpnJ 2l f * h f ^ °f F^1"8 by the Percent of equipment of each configuration deployed
ince is realiled°h T depl°yed by ““figuration is used because no enhancement to perfom-
!“* dS T ^ ? ] ^“iP^nt in storage.) Table IV-3 is in a form where a comparison can
be made for the relative worth of the TRADOC and DDI evaluations.
nf <? ThC °DI evaluati°n employed a methodology different from the TRADOC evaluation. Analysis
oLential Lnir^°?/eqUfremest8iWaS ^ ^ deVelop utillty “^ves and functions to reflect the
nn^ ±bIi °f e3Ch alternative t0 the combat mission accomplishment. Visibility,
within the DDI model is possible for each performance characteristic. Table IV-4 (Utility Summary)
tZLi a8fC8fed miJitary value aa“b alternative derived for subordinate Ljor
dimensions of value. Table IV-5, Relative Utility Summary, portrays the utility for each alter-
native normalized to the base case. y
(4) A comparison of Tables IV-4 and IV-5 with Tables IV-1, IV-2 and IV-3 shows there is
over^h^hnr11" bTeCn T C?EA’8 1X1 th3t Alternatlves if 3 and H offer enhanced performance
over the base case in each evaluation. v
b. Co st Considerations.
_ ““rln8 the conduct of the TRADOC COEA, the only cost estimates available for comparison
orovlSnc a6 ? , C°f e8tlmate8 <LCCE>- A“ IPCE a"d a BCE, derived from the LCCE and
£th ^e CO^I e£fo« °T were deveioped by the Project Manager concurrent
with the COEA effort. Table IV-6 summarizes the results of the LCCE, BCE and IPCE. These cost
estimates do not include COMSEC or ECCM procurement costs.
a™ (2) 1Table sh0WS the recommended Army cost position, derived from the Comptroller of the
Army analysis of the IPCE and BCE. H OI tne
(3) Table IV-8 shows the relative costs of the alternatives to the base case for each of the
cost esimates listed in Tables IV-6 and IV-7.
(4) Performance values and cost estimates are combined to establish the relative worth for
teanat Tb®sejvaluea are 8hown Table IV-9 for both the TRADOC and the DDI evaluation
models and are normalized to the base case, Alternative #1.
c. COMSEC Options and Costs. Both COEA's considered the capability of radio alternatives to
accept a COMSEC module. Neither evaluation considered the COMSEC cost impact caused 6y the method
of interfacing the radio and COMSEC module. This impact is driven by the radio capability to share
circuitry and functions with the COMSEC device, thereby reducing the combined cost of a secured
radio. ALTERNATIVE H is the only radio which is capable of accommodating these features through
(seeUTablf r^iof^ W°.dule' This “Polity crffers a significant potential cost savings
(see Table IV-10) in COMSEC equipment procurement and support. The current Army VINSON program
11 provide Applique COMSEC modules in quantities equivalent to approximately 25X of the radio
(AA0) * LCCE'S for a11 C0MSEC °P«°ns (including VINSON) procured
to 100* of the radio AAO are listed in Table IV-10. As indicated, VINSON is two to three times as
costiy as the VANDAL COMSEC options. The following is the estimated cost avoidance which is avail-
able (only with Alternative H) if the VANDAL TOP HAT is procured in lieu of the VANDAL Applique:
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
TOP HAT vs APPLIQUE
VANDAL Applique
VANDAL TOP HAT
$ 752.9
$ 554.8
$198.1 x 0.75 - $148. 5M
1°8^ the $148, 5M equates to an annual cost penalty of $1.98M per year for each
additional 13! of COMSEC modules procured against the radio AAO.
IV_11 8h0WS relative worth comparison of the alternatives based on recommended
costs for 1003! COMSEC implementation. (Costs are based on 25* VINSON and 753! VANDAL COMSEC
equipments.)
(2) In addition to the COMSEC related cost benefits which Alternative #4 provides, there are
two other considerations. The NSA is currently pursuing the VANDAL development as a TOP HAT module.
Si
i ,
IV-2
— - - .
V*r,“ * roP HAI *”d“1= f“ «* logistical auSo« .U. SmhL™'' APPll,U'
d. Electronic Warfare (EW) Threat Implications. The SIKCGARS-V ROC summxiiH ...a *.v i
requirement for ECCM protection by directing that the new STNCCARq v R0C summarized the user's
minimize susceptability to hostile EU aruJici ^ ^ SINCGARS-V equipment be designed to
electronic countermeasures Se m thtlll il’ 1 ' • ^ctronic warfare support measures and
further evaluate dTJ Sad^ I reference 3«- User requirements were
using the approved Middle East I and I^SS^oJLn I^cenari™? an<1 Perf0manCe Envelopes
wlaa'lca^rSfL". *L1lSr^°L^i«Ve Pr°1"t“‘ ** «. «h,r-
to quantify the Impact which aophl.tlcatad EW wllJ p!fy“«th«'“l“ bSSLl^TT ““*
has not been developed. (See Parasranh if i„„a. n /i a7 aynamic Dattlefield of the future
to attempt destruction of critical 8coLiunications which*’!^]’!! ^ a^ enemy Can be expected
techniques, or employ jamming to isolate friendlv’ element a f 1 thro“gb dlrection finding
activities. This requires serious consideration^ a 8 fro“ higher echelon command and control
ECCM hardware techniques built into eacJ SttSs-V ™dio. ' the ™ threat throu«h
antenna p^SLo^ (SS) l Asll LTal ^ °T deSi*ned t0 a steerable null
Appendix n! m! S'thesf ECCM Wdlte t SNAP'8 iS contalned in paragraph 3c (2) of
against a jamming threat of^r^tuan ^8 P™Vlde Varylng de«ree8 «f Protection
J ng tnreat, they offer virtually no protection against enemy direction finding.
potential usefSness o? 6 2 ?? * p8eud°rand°“ hopping fashion. Discussions of the
protection. The application of eithfr ECCM^echnique will Jesuit ^n^he r8 ^ add^lonal ECCM
for both Alternatives #3 and #4. unnique will result in the same cost differential
economical^support oftL't^ent Telli y 5 TaTilTT Capabllity £°* ^d-try to continue
5SWS= six^rssz'sis^-
ss =2=; If
ptovi,“ i”ig“ f°r °»
.ubjL.' to f°r "■ °f «—»> ™«.i
and relatively expensive ECCM capability (i e ^a SNAPl^hi*^ e2ulpped with only a limited
«pt «. cn^^fccuou :,uLmh^21r”c«;„«V"“r'
'rssxrsfis^: ivz^iv™ t,di” vl11 be““ *.
of obsolete technology . continues t0 shlftp ^e Army must assume the total burden of the support
u.tfb« £•££ r^lTllZ ST, iX^LSSS^ f^T ““ “ — “«'•
^g^rlTSulr^
counter the EW threnr mid ..I... pability of the recommended alternative to
present this thf Probability of communications is not quantifiable at
capability for direct Jn't^VhiJ IZl
IV-3
TABLE IV-1
'
k
\
f
r
t
f
FIGURE OF MERIT SUMMARY
{Developed by TRADOC COEA)
ALTERNATIVES
PAMvinm att ON
RAKTS FOR RANKING
#1
#2
#3
#4
LUNr iLiUivni
MANPACK
Performance
13.84
14.36
16.43
17.50
(297. of 11Q*)
Weighted Performance
502.60
525.81
675.96
700.65
MPE**
12.97
13.06
15.39
16.11
Weighted MPE
471.87
480.55
630.69
657.12
VEHICULAR with
Performance
13.93
15.58
16.89
17.61
40-watt Power
Amplifier
Weighted Performance
592.51
637.29
693.70
725.45
(547. of 1IQ)
MPE
11.87
13.72
15.15
16.11
Weighted MPE
525.32
571.06
614.66
663.70
AIRCRAFT
Performance
15.10
16.52
16.85
17.83
(177. of I1Q)
Weighted Performance
643.25
668.7 0
673.13
707.68
MPE
12.46
14.57
14.34
15.87
Weighted Performance
570.32
626.82
616.55
655.36
* I IQ - Initial Issue Quantity
** MPE - Mission and Performance Envelopes
i
4' i
I
■*
TABLE IV-2
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDICES
(TRADOC Figures of Merit Normalized to Alternative #1)
CONFIGURATION
BASIS OF RANKING
#1
ALTERNATIVES
n #3
#4
MANPACK
Performance
1
1.04
1.19
1.26
Weighted Performance
1
1.05
1.34
1.39
MPE
1
1.01
1.19
1.24
Weighted MPE
1
1.02
1.34
1.39
VEHICULAR
Performance
1
1.12
1.21
1.26
Weighted Performance
1
1.08
1.17
1.22
MPE
1
1.16
1.28
1.36
Weighted MPE
l
1.09
1.17
1.26
AIRCRAFT
Performance
1
1.09
1.12
1.18
Weighted Performance
1
1.04
1.05
1.10
MPE
1
1.17
1.15
1.27
Weighted MPE
1
1.10
1.08
1.15
TABLE IV- 3
BASIS FOR RANKING
Performance
Weighted Performance
COMPOSITE RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDICES*
ALTERNATIVE #1 ALTERNATIVE # 2 ALTERNATIVE #3 ALTERNATIVE #4
Weighted HPE
* Based on percentage of equipment deployed for all configurations.
TABLE IV-4
UTILITY SUMMARY
(Developed by DDI COEA)
MAJOR DIMENSION OF VALUE
Operational Acceptability
Technical System Utility
Overall Military Value
ALTERNATIVE #1
0.6863
0.3399
0.5131
ALTERNATIVE #2
0.7267
0.3858
0.5563
ALTERNATIVE #3
0.7430
0.6503
0.7067
ALTERNATIVE #4
0.7Q57
0.6450
0.7204
TABLE IV- 5
RELATIVE UTILITY SUMMARY
(Data of Table IV-4 Normalized to Alternative #1)
ALTERNATIVE #1
Operational Acceptability
Technical System Utility
Overall Military Value
ALTERNATIVE #2
ALTERNATIVE #3
ALTERNATIVE #4
IV-6
I
TABLE IV-6
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES
(FY 76 Constant $, Millions)
RESFARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
INVESTMENT
OPERATING
* SUPPORT
TOTAL
ALTERNATIVE
#1
LCCE/
BCE
IPCE
LCCE/
BCE
IPCE
LCCE/
BCE
IPCE
LCCE /
BCE
IPCE
0
0
226.6
245. 9
158.0
447.0
384.6
692.
in
4.1
4.2
490.0
613.6
147.2
530.0
641.3
1147.
#3
12.3
17.9
480.9
567.9
170.2
280.2
663.4
866.
#4
42.0
33.2
435.7
497.3
121.0
240.9
598.7
777.
f
i
1
I
r
/
TABLE IV-7
COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY RECOMMENDED COST POSITION
(FT 76 Constant $, Millions)
ALTERNATIVE
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
INVESTMENT
OPERATING
& SUPPORT
TOTAL
111
0
226.6
318.0
544.6
in
5.0
490.0
335.0
830.0
in
17.0
480.9
155.0
652.9
#4
42.0
435.7
133.0
610.7
TABLE IV-8
RELATIVE COST COMPARISON
(Data of Table IV-7 Normalized to Alternative #1)
ALTERNATIVE
LCCE/ BCE
IPCE
COA
#1
1
1
1
in
1.67
1.66
1.52
in
1.72
1.25
1.20
H
1.53
1.11
1.12
1
1
IV-7
TABLE IV-9
RELATIVE WORTH MATRIX
(Data Normalized to Alternative #1)
ALTERNATIVE
it 1
n
#3
H
*Weighted MPE's were used
TRADOC COEA*
BCE
IPCE
COA
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.64
0.64
0.70
0.70
0.96
1.0
0.84
1.15
1.14
to derive relative worth.
DDI COEA
BCE
IPCE
COA
1.0
1.0
1.0
0o 65
0„ 65
0.71
0.80
1.10
1.15
0.92
1.26
1.25
TABLE IV-lQ
1C . ^uririnuLLEK Ur THE ARMY APPRnVFn
5 -YEAR COMSEC EQUIPMENT LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATE
(FY 76 Constant $ Millions)
100% COMSEC
ALTERNATIVE
#1
#2
#3
#4
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
INVESTMENT
OPERATING
& SUPPORT
TOTAL
1
835
66
902
1
835
66
902
1
798
66
865
1
591
57
649
' d e vi ce s ''comp le t e MtSSJ" “i*0 VINS0HS- ^ C0MSEC
Alternative #4 uses VANDAL TOP HAT, ^ 3nd ^ USe VANDAL Appliques;
ALTERNATIVE
#1
it 2
it 3
#4
TABLE IV-11
RELATIVE WORTH FOR 100% COMSEC
(Using COA Recommended Costs)
TRADOC COEA
1
0.89
1.14
1.47
DPI COEA
1
0.9
1.31
1.61
IV- 8
ANNEX A (TRAD PC COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS STUDY FINAL REPORT) TO APPENDIX IV (COST AND OPERATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS)
This Annex contains a summary of the TRADOC COEA of the SINCGARS-V study on pages IV-A-6 through
IV-A-12. The TRADOC COEA was distributed separately as indicated in the cover letter below; it
has been omitted here because of its size.
«>
?
I
I
ATCD-SC-E
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND
TORT MONROE, VIRGINIA iJGM
12 September 1^75
SUBJECT: Combat Developments Study Final Report: Cost and Operational
Effectiveness Anslysis (COEA) for the VHF/FM Portion of the
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Subsystem (SINCGARS-V)
HQBA (DAMO-SGTF)
WASH DC 20310
1. Reference, Letter, DAMO-SGTF, HQDA, Combat Developments Study
Directive: Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) for
the VHF/FM Portion of the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio
Subsystem (SINCGARS-V), 25 February 1975.
2. The SINCGARS-V COEA Final Report (lnclosure 1) is submitted in
response to the referenced study directive.
3. This headquarters has reviewed the Final Report and concurs in
the conclusions and recommendations.
4. It should be noted that the cost and performance findings unquestion-
ably rank alternatives 3 and 4 over alternatives 1 and 2. However, the
difference between the performance of alternatives 3 and 4 are signifi-
cantly influenced by the qualitative measures used where quantitative
measures of performance were not available. An analysis of the quantitative
differences between alternatives 3 and 4 indicated that the margin between
the two was very narrow. A further subjective analysis of alternatives 3
and 4) based on the finl draft Trade Off Determination, Trade Off Analysis,
and Best Technical Approach, did support the conclusion that alternative 4
is the preferred alternative for further development.
5. Follow-on actions will address the development of measures of effective-
ness and the elimination of qualitative measures from any aggregation of
the performance figures of merit.
flj,
/’*•
\
A-IV-1
1
J
12 September 1975
ATCD-SC-E ^
SUBJECT: Combat Developments Study Final Report: Cost and Operational
Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) for the VHF/FM Portion of the
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Subsystem (SINCGARS-V)
6. The study plan indicated that a 16/8 division force structure would
be considered in the COEA. The AAO associated with the current force struc-
ture as provided by ECOM in their LCCO computations, was used to
develop a comparative base. The 125% AAO investigated in the sensitivity
analysis closely approximates the 16/8 division force and provides an
estimate of costs to support the larger force.
7. This action is identified with TRADOC ACN 23362.
1 Incl
W. H. VINSON, JR. '*
Major General, GS
Deputy Chief of Staff
for Combat Developments
CF: w incl
HQDA (DAMO-SGTF) - 15
HQDA (DAMO-RQC) - 1
HQDA (DAMO-TC) - 1
HQDA (DAMO-ZD) - 1
HQDA (DANO-FI) - 1
HQDA (DALO) - 1
HQDA (DAMA-CS) - 1
HQDA (DACA) - 1
HQDA (DAPE) - 1
HQDA (DUSA(OR)) - 1
Cdr
AMC, ATTN: AMCCP-E/AMCRD-SI - 5
USA CINCPAC Spt Gp (MOCG-OP) - 1
ECOM, ATTN: AMSEL-CE/AMSEL-RD/AMSEL-NL - 12
USA CA Cen & Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO-C - 2
USA Log Cen, ATTN: ATLC-M - 2
USA TRASANA, ATTN: ATAA-TCD - 5
Comdt
USASIGS, ATTN: ATSN-CTD - 10
PM, S INC GARS - 10
Cdr
USA0C6S, ATTN: ATSL-CTD
USA Admin Cen & Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATSG
USA Nuc Agcy, ATTN: ATCN
USA Intel Cen 6 Sch, ATTN: ATSI-CTD
USAARMC & Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-CD
USAMMCS, ATTN: ATSK-CT
USAAVNC S Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATZQ-D-MS
USA Health Svc Comd
A-IV-2
n
ATCD-SC-E
SUBJECT:
12 September 1975
Combat Developments Study Final Report: Cost and operational
Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) for the VHF/FM Portion the
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Subsystem (SINCGARS-V)
CF: (Cont)
MASSTER, ATTN: ATMAS
FORSCOM, ATTN: AFCE/TRADOC-LO - 2
Comdt
USAIS , ATTN: ATSH-CTD-MS
USAES, ATTN: ATSE-CTD
USAADS, ATTN: ATSA-CTD
USA IMA, ATTN: ATSU-CTD
USATSCH, ATTN: ATSP-CTD
USAMPS, ATTN: ATSJ-CTD
USAQMS
USAFAS, ATTN: ATSF-CTD
DIRNSA ATTN: S45
CINCUSAREUR, ATTN: AEAGE/ATFE-LO-AE (XRADOC 1,0) - 2
3
A-IV-3
ACN 22362
AD
TRASANA
COST AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 1-75
SINGLE CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE
RADIO SUBSYSTEM (VHF/FM)
VOLUME I
SEPTEMBER 1975
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Transmittal of this document outside
the Department of Defense must have
prior approval of the US Army Signal
School.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US ARMY TRADOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANCiE
NEW MEXICO 88002
Incl
A-IV-4
TRASANA
COST AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 1-75
SINGLE CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE
RADIO SUBSYSTEM (VHF/FM)
VOLUME II
t
SEPTEMBER 1975
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Transmittal of thii document outside
th* Department of Oefanse mutt have
prior approval of the US Army Signal
School.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US ARMY TRADOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE
NEW MEXICO 88002
A-IV-5
U JUH III,. J I III IIJII-BPB
-r-mrT"r
SW — • v "
— • -- • - , ,
s'. 1 -"lit-1'
SUMMARY
PURPOSE
This cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) documents the
results of a study that was made to determine which of four alternatives
was the most cost and operational effective VHF/FM combat net radio sub-
system. The alternatives are defined In the SINCGARS-V* Tradeoff Analy-
sis and Tradeoff Determination.
BACKGROUND
The capability of the Army to provide Integrated and secure or securable
VHF/FM combat net radio communications Is deficient In the areas of size,
weight, rellabllity/avai lability /maintainability (RAH), comnunl cations
security (COMSEC), electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM ), electro-
magnetic capability (EMC), and nuclear and nonnuclear hardening. To cor-
rect these deficiencies, the SINCGARS-V Required Operational Capability
(ROC) was approved by the Department of the Army prior to the Implementa-
tion of AR 71-9. It provides a basis for the completion of advanced
development programs.
The SIIICGARS-V Special Task Force requested the assistance of US Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) In December 1974; a study direc-
tive was Issued by Department of the Army on 25 February 1975. The sub-
sequent study plan was approved 6 May 1975.
The SINCGARS-V program Is a follow-on to the development program of the
Tactical Radio Communications Svstem. The proposed alternatives range
from the conceptual phase to the subsystem advanced development category
of the validation phase.
This study provides an Initial COEA which takes the place of the prelimi-
nary appraisal for support of a letter of agreement. Preliminary
appraisals are a requirement of TRADOC Regulation 11-8.
ASSUMPTIONS
Relative to this study the following were assumed;
a. The results of the Integrated Tactical Connunlcatlons System
(INTACS) studv will not Invalidate recommendations of this COEA.
4 Single channel ground and airborne radio subsystem, VHF/FM
lx
A-IV-6
-
- ,. - ii n.,.~i.;.>'afi>^!.i.i-i«Jj
b. The radio wire Integration (RWI) approach selected by INTACS
will not invalidate the final candidate that results from this COEA.
c. The basis of issue (BOI) for the recommended candidate will be
the same as the BOI for the current family of VHF/FM combat net radios.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives for the VHF/FM combat net radio subsystems are as follows:
a. Retain the current VHF/FM combat net radios and incorporate
planned and essential product improvements. (This alternative is the base-
line against which other alternatives will be compared.)
b. Product improve the current VHF/FM combat net radios.
c. Replace the current VHF/FM family with the AN/VRC-78 radio set.
d. Replace the current VHF/FM family with a new combat net radio.
METHODOLOGY
Basically, the methodology, as outlined in the study plan, was structured
as follows:
Effectiveness Investigation. An operational effectiveness model is not
available for use In this COEA. In lieu of a classical effectiveness
methodology, the analytical approach centered on performance of
al ternatlves.
Measure of Performance Development. Critical performance areas were
defined and performance parameters were derived to describe these areas.
A hierarchy of measure of performance (MOP) descriptors was developed in
the broad areas of operability, dependability, and physical characteristics.
Derivation of Functional Relationships. Mathematical models which func-
tionally relate the MOPs were derived to produce a quantified assessment
of performance. When a mathematical model could not be developed or sup-
ported, a qualitative assessment was made and a quantified value of this
assessment was derived.
Methodology Testing. The analytical methodology was tested on data Input
of the United States AN/VRC-43 and the British VK/VRC-353. Results were
In consonance with user expectations and indicated that the analytical
methodology was technically sound.
Performance Analysis. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to (1) demon-
strate that equations (mathematical models) respond to changes in the
1
folate critical Input parameters, and (3) demonstrate
that aggregation techniques do not destroy the objective analysis.
sh1fD fLCCQlC«Sai0f*?WnerS^P Eva1uat1on- The life cycle cost of owner-
shlp (LCCO) evaluation reflected the relative cost of ownershlo for each
alternative. It was centered on the evaluation of the iSS cSst data
°f analyt1cal schemata which allowed for analyses (!j?-
the COMSEC Jonf1g^at1o™!ntenanCe Md procuren,ent costs) a"d changes In
ouantlfToH1*^1'0" Assessment. This assessment Identified, analyzed, and
SIncmIJ 3 S5 res^rce implication In deployment of a partlcu Ur
rSS^l ?^erna5 ve* Data and analytical techniques Inherent In the
(FSS) were Ijilized (FCIS) ^ F°rCe Stratl‘ficat1on System
arMa3l3enin?’ Relatlye rankin9s of the alternatives were based on the
achieved performance figures of merit (FOM) In the following categories:
. Performance
. Weighted performance
requirements j°n perfonnance enve1°Pe W (performance compared to
. Weighted MPE
Cost Performance Analysis. Relative worth measures were develooed for
aAUe?SativebMPFd °i we19h^-nonweighted performance per given dol-
lar. Alternative MPE values and force Implication assessments were then
ntegrated Into the measures to select the dominant alternative.
ANALYSIS
sensUI vfty! addreSSed three 9enera1 areas: Performance, cost, and rank
Performance analysis was accomplished for the manpack, vehicular and
airborne configurations. It considered performance alone, wrfJmance
compared with the user-provided MPEs, weighted performance (Inclusion of
ded,Ut'lfS)’ sfld "eishted M|,E' A1 terFSt 1 - dip" SiSnt 0? a
Fo! f^Mch d°"""t sd,stOT b«ed °» th. delated
Cost analysis was based on LCCO and force Implications. The study con-
ducted In accordance with AR 37-18, MIL-STD 881, and ECOMP 11-4, Vofume 7,
xl
I
?
>
used a model developed by Communications/ Automatic Data Processing Labor-
atory. The cost analysis revealed that alternative 1 - retain the cur-
rent VHF/FM combat net radios and incorporate planned and essential pro-
duct Improvement - Is the least expensive alternative* alternative 4 was the
next least expensive.
The rank sensitivity analysis was based on performance, utile allocation,
aggregation, and cost.
Performance sensitivity revealed the following:
a. The HOPS were sensitive to all input parameters except receiver
sensitivity and noise figure for the case that was examined.
b. Critical parameters which have the most impact on the MOP were
identified and are listed In order of relative Impact.
c. The additive, equal weight FOM is sensitive to the input
parameters.
Utile allocation sensitivity revealed that by varying the utile alloca
tion by one performance factor at a time within a calculated spread,
no change in the rank ordering of alternatives was possible in any
configuration.
Aqqregatlon sensitivity revealed that the percentages of agreement of the
various forms with the additive forms vary inversely with the range ot
the input parameters which describe the alternatives.
For LCCO sensitivity, rank ordering to 125 percent and 75 Percent varia-
tions in Army acquisition objective (AAO) was determined and Alternative
1 remained the least expensive for each variation.
RELATIVE WORTH
The Individual performance of each alternative In the different configu-
rations -manpack, vehicular, and airborne -were sunned to obtain an
overall FOM. The weighted performance scores were considered the best
Ucifhtod ftrfommt Totili
01 tom t tv*
jn
,
| Can*)' Hon
f»rf
42.17710
i
40.45199
50.16310
48.59485
52.94106
Wt Hrt
1738.359
1131.1
2042.779
1988.02
2133.775
m Pcrf
37.30948
31.35309
44.07031
43.43102
4Q.0C9S6
*t *t rcrf
1W*7.$13
1078.421
1061.894
1813.G3G
1976.178
Mnk Order
S
4
2
3
1
| *25 khz
••SO klw
xli
i
A-IV-9
..... J
— »■ n', ■
1
i
indicators of alternative performance. A performance threshold was
developed using the scenario developed MPE and utility weights. This
threshold establishes the minimum acceptable performance level. As
RELATIVE WORTH COMPARISON
Alternative
ToUl Wt
Performance
Lao (*0
Relative
Performance
Relative
Coat
Relatl ve
Worth
1
1738.359
387.0
-
-
-
2
1831.8
885.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
3 (25 kHi)
2042.779
888.4
1.1152
.9746
1.1443
3 (SO kHz)
1988.02
888.4
1 .0853
.9746
1.1136
4
2133.775
586.7
1.1849
.8555
1.3817
stated In the I/A-approved ROC and validated in the scenario analysis,
Alternative 1 does not meet the minimum acceptable performance level and
was not considered in the calculations of relative worth. The relative
worth of each of the remaining alternatives was calculated by the
equation:
RU
Performance of Alternative
Performance of Basecase
LCCO of Alternative
LCCO of Basecase
Alternative 4 provided the best relative worth and is the most cost and
operationally effective alternative.
SUBJECTIVE FACTORS
Those areas In which subjective factors have a potential impact on the con-
clusions of this analysis were assessed. The results were as follows:
The Impact of the scenario which describes the forces, terrain, type con-
flict, and threat fall Into two areas: MPE and the evaluation of
environment-sensitive MOP. Analysis reveals that the MPE which would be
developed should encompass the probable (lower limit) and possible (upper
limit) operational requirements. Furthermore, the MOPs are sensitive to
scenario changes, but the relative rankings of the alternatives are not
affected by these changes.
The cost and performance data that were provided indicated no change from
current procedures In maintenance and other logistical support measures.
xlii
A-IV-IO
■in . iiMiiii.m nm
J.IIU 1. .1
, ■- . ,A- — ^ jas
Operationally, the principal impact of improved failure rates and repair
times of the alternatives is a significantly improved operational avail-
ability for the individual user. This means that a tactical leader or
firepower element retains a radio communications capability which might
otherwise be lost due to maintenance failure. In turn, better maneuver
capability and increased firepower control is provided the conriander.
Therefore, the impact of Improved operational availability is highly
significant on the battlefield even though the actual Impact cannot be
measured in terms of firepower and maneuver.
The MOPs which addressed individual and collective training were not used
in the rankings of the four alternatives. A review of the tradeoff analy
sis and tradeoff determination indicated no expected change in require-
ments for any of the alternatives. COMSEC and ECCM were the only areas
where performance can be improved by increased training.
In terms of flexibility, Alternative 4 - deployment of a new combat net
radio - is enhanced by its adaptability to a design which would incorpo-
rate the Improved anclllaries. No constraints would be Imposed by add-on
interface adapters and no compromises would be required in the ancillary
design in order to Integrate with a fixed radio design.
FINDINGS
The relative rankings achieved by the alternatives through considerations
of performance, LCCO, user requirements, and relative worth are summarized
as follows:
Relative Rankings
A1 ternative
Performance
LCCO
User
Requi rements
Relati'
Worth
1
4
1
4
_
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the analysis, the following conclusions were derived:
Performance
a. Alternative 4-a new combat radio using advanced technology -
will perform better than the other three alternatives.
b. Alternative 4 will better satisfy stated user requirements.
A-XV-ll
Cost Analysis
a. Alternative 1 - the current VHF/FM net radio subsystem - Is
least costly.
!*■
b. The assessment of force Implications with respect to the deploy
ment of a particular alternative could not be translated to force unit
costs since the required level of detail was not available for this Ini-
tial COEA.
Relative Worth Analvsls
a. The best performance per dollar values was provided by Alter-
native 4.
b. Alternative 4 Is the preferred alternative based on Its capabll
ity to meet user requirements.
c. Follow-on actions can be used to reduce uncertainty of perform-
ance factors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reconmendatlons are as follows:
a. Alternative 4 be accepted as the preferred alternative for fur-
ther development.
b. Follow-on actions Identified in Appendix V be accomplished for
Inclusion In the COEA update For ASARC II.
xv
A-IV-12
ANNEX B (CONTRACTOR DEVELOPED COEA) TO APPENDIX IV (COST AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS)
This Annex contains a summary of the DDI COEA of the SINCGARS-V study. This COEA study has been
published as two separate documents; they have been omitted here because of their size.
A Technical Report
SINGLE CHANNEL GROUND AND AIRBORNE
RADIO SYSTEM (SINCGARS) EVALUATION MODEL
Dr. J.O. Chinnis, Dr. C.W. Kelly II!
Mr. R.D. Mincklcr, Dr. M.F. O’Connor
Sponsored by
The Director, SINCGARS Special Task Force
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans
Department of the Army
and
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Contracts N00014-75-C-0426 and N00014-73-C-0149
September 15, 1975
□ECI5inn5 ann nEEIEfE. IflCI.
Suite 100, 7900 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
(7031 821-2828
The views end conclusions contained In this document arc those of'the authors and should not be **
repressing the offical policies, either expressed or implied, of the Department of the Army, The Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or the U.S. Government.
B-IV-1
SUMMARY
Introduction . This report describes the development,
validation, and utilization of a multi-attribute utility
model for use by the SINCGARS Special Task Force (STF)
in evaluating the military utility of a series of alter-
native radio systems. The model was programmed to be inter-
active and was made available to the SINCGARS staff to allow
further analyses.
Background and Approach. The SINCGARS Special Task
Force was established by the Army Chief of Staff for the
purpose of defining and recommending an optimum solution for
meeting the Army's requirement to ensure that a prescribed
level of suitable Very High Frequency (VHF) -Frequency
Modulated (FM) Combat Net Radios (CNRs) will be available in
the Army inventory in the post-1980 time frame. To this
end, the SINCGARS STF defined the following four alternative
courses of action for comparison/evaluation with respect to
satisfying the Army's requirements for CNRs:
• Alternative 1. Retain the current VHF-FM CNRs
(which consist of three families of radios) with
minor product improvements.
• Alternative 2. Develop and ultimately procure a
product-improved version of the current VHF-FM
combat net radios that will operate with a 25 KHz
channel spacing.
• Alternative 3. Continue development and ultimately
procure Radio Set, An/URC-78.
• Alternative 4 . Develop and ultimately procure a
new family of VHF-FM combat net radios.
The objective of the research described in this report
was to develop and test a multi-attribute utility model to
be used to assist the SINCGARS STF of the U.S. Army in
evaluating _ the military utility of alternative Combat Net
Radio configurations. Of particular importance during the
development of the model was the need to provide an analytic
tool which would accept "last minute" changes in data and
would also enable a user to conduct "what if" analyses on an
interactive basis. A multi-attribute utility model was
developed which would systematically quantify the utility of
alternative radio systems. The model utilizes as inputs
the technical performance characteristics of a radio system.
i
B-IV-2
The results indicate that Alternatives 3 and 4 are
superior to Alternatives 1 and 2, mainly due to differences
in technical system utility. Further examination of the
results indicated that this superiority with respect to
technical system utility is due to a significant improvement
with respect to both dependability and technical performance.
Technical system utility is a multiplicative combination of
these two factors.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are both far superior to the
Korean War System (KWS) . Alternative 2, however, is only
slightly superior to Alternative 1 with respect to both
technical system utility and operational acceptability.
The foregoing results were based upon the information
which was available with regard to the various alternative
radio systems. The flexible structure of the SINCGARS
Evaluation Model, however, has enabled the SINCGARS STF to
continue to use the model:
• With new or modified input data.
• To conduct "what if" analyses on an iterative,
interactive basis in response to queries that have
been received.
In so doing, the SINCGARS STF has attained an increasingly
better understanding of all of the factors involved in the
evaluation of the alternative systems and a greater degree
of confidence in the recommendations which have been made
based upon the use of the model.
Methodological Implications. The following two addi-
tional observations are also important from the standpoint
of decision analytic theory:
• The evaluation of alternative systems is very
closely related to system design, so the evalua-
tion model must be very flexibly structured with
respect to possible changes in inputs in order to
permit meaningful "what if" analyses. For exam-
ple, the range of a technical performance charac-
teristic over which a utility function is assessed
should not be the entire physical performance
range of a general system, for this will cause the
model to be quite insensitive. If specific alter-
natives which will not change are to be evaluated
for purpose of choosing among them, the range of
a performance characteristic should be the range
for the alternatives under consideration. However,
when the designs of developmental or conceptual
systems are being evaluated, then the range of a
technical performance characteristic over which a
utility function is assessed should reflect the
minimum feasible to the maximum feasible performance
range of those systems.
ii
B-IV-3
1
p;
i
l
i
*
f
The results indicate that Alternatives 3 and 4 are
superior to Alternatives 1 and 2, mainly due to differences
in technical system utility. Further examination of the
results indicated that this superiority with respect to
technical system utility is due to a significant improvement
With respect to both dependability and technical performance.
Technical system utility is a multiplicative combination of
these two factors.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are both far superior to the
Korean War System (KWS) . Alternative 2, however, is only
slightly superior to Alternative 1 with respect to both
technical system utility and operational acceptability.
The foregoing results were based upon the information
which was available with regard to the various alternative
radio systems. The flexible structure of the SINCGARS
Evaluation Model, however, has enabled the SINCGARS STF to
continue to use the model:
With new or modified input data.
To conduct "what if" analyses on an iterative,
interactive basis in response to queries that have
been received.
In so doing, the SINCGARS STF has attained an increasing
better understanding of all of the factors involved in the
evaluation of the alternative systems and a greater degree
of confidence in the recommendations which have been made
based upon the use of the model.
Methodological Implications. The following two addi-
tional. observations are also important from the standpoint
of decision analytic theory:
The evaluation of alternative systems is very
closely related to system design, so the evalua-
tion model must be very flexibly structured with
respect to possible changes in inputs in order to
permit meaningful "what if" analyses. For exam-
ple, the range of a technical performance charac-
fcvrifj1C °Ver which a utility function is assessed
should not be the entire physical performance
range of a general system, for this will cause the
model to be quite insensitive. If specific alter-
natives which will not change are to be evaluated
tor purpose of choosing among them, the range of
a performance characteristic should be the range
alternatives under consideration. However,
when the designs of developmental or conceptual
systems are being evaluated, then the range of a
Per formance characteristic over which a
U, Tity function is assessed should reflect the
minimum feasible to the maximum feasible performance
range of those systems.
iii
B-IV-4
•i
!
<
I
:
\
1
T
'
* ■
— —
riose attention must also be given to the defini-
tion of scenarios as conditioning variables m the
equation Sf alternative systems. The scenarios
should be so defined that not only will they be
representative of the situations in which the
alternatives will operate and thus ^he
assessment of the expected utilities of all of t
alternative systems, but also they must serve t
discriminate clearly among the alte™atl^dSJ* '
These goals are not usually compatible, and an
in-depth analysis of which goal to pursue must be
accomplished in order to decide upon the defini-
tion of scenarios.
UNCLASSIFIED
ANNEX C (FUTURE SUPPORT OF AN/PRC-77 AND AN/VRC-12 FAMILIES OF RADIOS) TO APPENDIX IV (COST AND
OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS)
'
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND
FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY 07703
A t ' S C L - R D - 0
22 SEP 1975
t
I
T
/*■
j
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SUBJECT: Future
COL THOMAS C. NELSON
Director, S1NCGARS Special Task Force
DAMO SGTF
Support of AN/VRC-12 and AN/PRC-77
1. References:
a. Your telephone request to me 11 Sep 75 requesting our
opinions as to when subject radio might become non-supportable
b. Telephone conversations between yourself and personnel
of the US Army Electronic Devices and Technology Lab (ECOM)
above subject.
c. Our telephone conversations during week of 15 Sep 75.
2 Status of both the AN/VRC-12 and AN/PRC-77 systems with
respect to future availability of parts is as follows, based
on our knowledge of technology and judgement as pertains to
economic factors.
(1) AN/PRC-77: This system has been redesigned, modularly,
to replace germanium devices (which are in increasing short
supply) with silicon devices. In fact, some modules usl"9
integrated circuits have been employed. The future availability
of silicon devices has been confirmed by suppliers for a
period of 10-15 years depending on economic factors such as
reprocurement of the system and procurement of maintenance
spares .
(2) AN/VRC-12: Motorola plans to discontinue production
of germanium transistors. Their cut-off date for acceptance
of orders is Jan 76 They grow their own material and thus
must know of any large transistor buys by Oct 75 in order to
make a sufficient quantity of germanium crystals to fill
transistor orders anticipated to be received by Jan 76. Their
production line will continue running to approximately mid-76
to complete production on orders received bafore the cut'otT
date. In view of this, two alternatives are being considered:
Strengthen Americo'i Peace Power
— Buy U. S. Sovings Bondi
UNCLASSIFIED
i
;
' i
c-iv-i
UNCLASSIFIED
AMSEL-RD-0 22 Sep 75
SUBJECT: Future Support of AN/VRC-12 and AN/PRC-77
(a) FY-77 and FY-78 reprocurements are possible provided
the Government contracts for a "buy-out" from Motorola on
those devices. they produce, sufficient to supply approximately
10,000 radio sets and sufficient maintenance spares for the
life of the equipment.
(b) A funded FY-76 Product Improvement Program Is
planned which Includes the substitution of critical semi-
conductors. It is anticipated that production of the Improved
set could begin In FY-79/80,
3. Based on our analyses It appears both the AN/VRC-12 and
AN/PRC-77 systems will be supportable for 10-15 years, that
Is until the 1985-1990 time frame.
E. L. BOWMAN
Colonel , SlgC
Deputy Director, RDE/L
2
l
J
UNCLASSIFIED
C-IV-2