rr Aerospace Rep >) ae For OL, Baw TOR93(: 6 a AS-93-00386 Copy No._ DSPHI “Preserving The Air Force’s Options” (wu) 1 Prepared by Guido W. Aru and.Cari T. Lunde DEFENSE SUPPORT PROGRAM Space Program Operations * 23 April 1993 ~ Programe Group ‘THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION E| Segundo, CA 90245 Prepared for ’ SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER US AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND Los Angeles Air Force Base Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 Contract No, F04701-88-C-0089 COMPETITION SENSITIVE FORMATION — Secondary ditritution authorized 19 U.S. Government ‘agancles and The Aercapece Corporation ony: For Official Use Only: 23 Apel 1993. Other ‘equeats shall be referred 1¢ SMCIMJ. ‘DerTHUCTION NOTICE ~ Fo nad docomy ftom the proces nD 3200334, teary GLARETEATION MAMEIMGL MOTICE~ done pects wis Wis gocumat re ee SERINE Sustereicieastcarnteemegtnn ata occas. SSSR ARES Str ce ne ae soe er on se ee Acree cwememerceansn tance” meena —ON UNCI (7SIFIED_ Aerospace Repor-~* eee TOR-93(34 DSP-Il - "Preserving The Air Force’s Options” (U) Prepared by: Guido W. Aru, Project Mi Carl T. Lunde, ineering Specialist System Analysis Electronic Systexis Department Defense Support Program Electronics And Sensors Division Approved by: Ed, Barbara K. Ching, Assoc. Pringifal Director Everitt V. Bersinger, Ffincipal Director Systems Engineering : Defense Support Program Defense Support Program Space Program Operations USAF - in R. Kidd, Colonel, USAF Director For System Engineering System Program Director Hees ae Defense Support Program Defense Support Program NOTICE: The Informed in w Technical Operating Report is devatoped for a particular program andl thersfore not necessary of broader technical apoicabity. UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIL Abs. . (U) {U} The Ait Force is committed to the development of the Follow-on Early Warning System (FEWS) to replace the Defense Support Program {DSP}. Potential technical risks tie ahead few, if any, programs have ever become cheaper, lighter, or faster during EMD. in addition, fiscal uncertainties ie ahead ~- these are particularly vexatious since they are subject to higher Jovet Dob, Congressional, and Executive polices. priorities, and direction. As a result, DSP will tthely be around tonger than antisipated. tt is prudent, then, ta fully explore, understand, and considar the slternstives available to the, Air Force should the FEWS program experience technical or programmatic delays, redirection, or cancellation. {U} itis within this context, as well as Avrospace’s role as general systems engineer for the Air Force, that this report has been prepatad -- exploring potential evolutionary upgrades to the OSP which preserve the Air Force's options for space-based Tactical Warning and Anack Assessment (TW/AA), These upgrades are designad to enhance the DSP's capabilities to meet ‘the post-Cold War New World Orderrequirements while simultaneously redueinglife-cycte costs in-line with the President's proposed budget reductions. Technology insertion and Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P' options are explored which, if exercised, provide near-term enhancements and cost savings prior ta FEWS FOC or a fow-cost and towerisk alternative should the FEWS program be canceled. If the evolutionary DSP upgrade program outlined herein as DSP-II is pursued, it will require approximately $1 billion in funding through FYSS versus $5 hillion for FEWS. in addition, OSP-! offers the potential far over $10 billion in totat tife-cycle cost savings through 2075. UNCLASSIFIED tame" = April, 1993 Page v(aaa UNC /~SIFIED om eet Preface 1U) (U} Tho purpose of this Technical Operating Report (TOR) is to explote eiternatives and methods to praserve the Air Force's options for Space Based Tactical Werning and Attack Assessment Systems, Although the Alt Force, specilically Air Forco Spoca Command |AFSPACECOM) and the Air Force Program Executive Office for Space (ARPEO/SPI, is committed to the development of the Followon Early Watning System (FEWS) to replace the existing Defense Support Program (OSP), there are potential technical risks ond fiscal uncertainties which may adversely impact the schedule or the very future of the FEWS program. The fiscel uncertainties are particularly troublesome in thet they are outside the direct control of the Air Force and are drjven by higher-level DoD, Congressional, and Executive policies and budget priorities. Ase result, it ig prudent to fully explore and understend tha alternatives aveilable to the Air Force should the FEWS program experience delays or face caneeilation. It is within this context, 28 well as within Aerospace’s role a8 general system engineer tor the Air Force, that this report is prepared. {U) There are two principal objectives of this report: the fret is 10 examine the role of DSP as a safety net for FEWS in the event of FEWS schedule slias or program cancellation as discussed above, and the second is to examine the benefit from potential near-term enhancements to the DSP to provide improved interim capabilities prior to FEWS. Both of these objectives are accomplished by examining the application, of Pre-Plenned Product Improvements (P8) and Tachnology Insertion options to upgrade the DSP. In order to control cost and risk, while simultsneously providing for nesr-term performance enhancements, alternatives are delineated for progressive Pl and technology insertion retrofits to DSP-1 Satellites 27 through 25, culminating with the advent of DSP-II 6s Sotollite 26, Evolutionary enhancements to the DSP. ground segment are also examined. Options are provided for near-term centralization of processing to reduce Operations and Maintenance (O&MI costs using System 8 for the Globai Mission (Strategic) and Talon Shield for the Theater Mission (Tactics). (U) In considering the type of evolutionery upgrades to apply to DSP4l, the Draft FEWS Operational Requirements ocument (ORO), dated October 1992, wat used as the source requirements document. The performance requirements and design/implementation specified in the Draft FEWS ORD ware belanced agsinst military utility, cost, risk, end schedule. Integteted Weapons System Manegemenc {iWSMI concepts, which encourage consideration of other than 100% solutions {ie., cost-effective methods to provide the 80% to 90% solution!, were also applied in the development of the DSP upgrades. Options fér adaitional DSP performance enhancements to approach the 100% solution (az defined by the Draft FEWS ORO) are provided along with their Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) impact end risk. (U) Many of the concepts presented within this report were an outgrowth of the OSP/Briliant Eyes Synergy Study conducted between November, 1992 and February, 1993 in response to tasking from the Office of the Secretary Of Defense (OSD) and SAF/AQ to examine synergy issues and concepts betwaen OSP, FEWS, and Briliant Eyes, The results of the OSP/BE synergy study were rejected by the study's Steering Committee and the AFPEO/SP because the synergistic DSP/BE system felled to meet all of the design and implementation devait specified by the Droft Follow-on Eerly Warning System (FEWS) Operational Requirements Document (QRDI. In particular, the synergistic OSP/BE system feild to provide'crosstinks between all sataltes and on-board mission processing on all satellites. In the proposed concept, only Briliant Eye's satelites had crosslicks ang on-board mission processing. Thus, these results were not cartied forward to AFSPACECOM, SAF/AG, nor tho OSD. Thay are documented herein, however, so that whan a re-evaluotion of the prottacted nuclear warlighting survivabity requirements driving crosslinks and on-board mission processing is conducted ~~ in light of budget priorities and the New World Order -- these ‘ideas will have been preserved and available for further study snd/or implementstion. UNCLASSIFIED DSP.lt "Preserving The Air Force's Options” - April, 1993 rege ihUNCLEESipRED of > Acknowledgements (U) {U) This Technical Operating Report (TORI is the result of many thousands'of man-hours spent sinco November developing, analyzing, and fessessing various potential evolutionary upgrades to the Defense Support Program (DSP]. These studies involved not only Aerospace Corporetion personnel, but also personnel from Aerojet Electronic Systems Oivision, TAW, Tecolote, and the US Air Force. (U) The authors wish to thank all of those who contributed to this.study. In particular, the following people are recognized for their significant contributions to this aftort: (U) The Aerospace Corporation: Lou Bodnar for his anelysis of the DSP-lI weights and volumetric envelopes; Charlie Dippel for his ‘support to the sensor studies; Petricia Enns for her analysis of spacecraft sub-systems; Tony Gregory for his invalvable insight into Britfant Eyes in support of the DSP/BE synergy study; Mike Jacobs for his critiques of DSP/BE synergistic system performance; Kam Lee and Paul Montag for their satellite GAP availablity enelyses; Benjamin Savagian for his analyses of SGLS/SDLS uplinks/downlinks ‘and future crosslink concepts; Ted Stinis for conducting raviews of the DSP and FEWS requirements; Tom Stocker for his support ‘of the performance analysis; David Truong for his work on launch vehicle interfaces; and Allen Tungseth for his analysis of the attitude control and propulsion systems. (U} Aerojet Electronic Systems Division: For their analysis of DSP evolutionary concepts and potential DSP synergy with Bri the following people ere recugnized: Cestleberry, Cal Ches! ‘Amiel Shulsinge iant Eyes, Mullooly, DSP Program Manager; Harvey Clouser, DSP/BE Synergy study leader; Dick John Conklin, Gene Dryden, Martha Fortson, Guners Grabis, Dick Lehmann, Ellen Linder, Ken Marks, and (u) TRW: Arnold Gslloway end Art Terry for their evaluation of the DSP spacecraft section of the DSP/BE synorgy study. {U) Tocolote: Linda Huang for her contributions to DSP/BE synergy study cost analysis of DSP-II. {U) Atlas Launch Vehicle SPO: Colonel Mork Lacalllade, Program Maneger Atles Il; Major Milt Tucker, Deputy’ Program Manager Atlas Il; end Captain Belley for their help in understanding the cepebilties, volumetric constraints, and limitetions of the Atlas IJAS launch vehicle. (U) The euthors also recognize Roger Hell, Major (sel.), USAF, for his outstanding effort in leading the DSP/BE synergy study. He suffered riGny Gueling'late-night snd weekend hours helping develop the concepts presented herein. Of even grester significance, Major (sel.) Hall ‘endured presenting some of thesé concepts to less-then-receptive audiences while managing to not become e friendly-fire statistic. UNCLASSIFIED DSP-I "Preserving The Air Force's Options" - April, 1993 Pege ixCY aes oul (u) i NY {U) This Technical Operating Report (TOR) is divided into seven sections, including the Executive Overview, the main body, and tive appendices. {U) The Executive Overview is 27 pages in length and provides a top-level review at the DSP evolutionary upgrade program known as DSP-II, The cost, risk, performance, end schedule of the DSP-II program is summarized here. Top-level comparisons to the FEWS program are also provided. {U) The mein body of the report, OSP-I = Preserving The Alr Force’s Options, is 113 pages in iength. It provides e deteiled description of the DSP-II program, including the satellite, launch vehicle, and ground processing sub-systems. Options for transitioning from today’s DSP-| system to the DSP-II system are also reviewed here. {U) Appendix A - DSP-l! Space Segment Deteils provides-e low-level description of the DSP-II satellite and launch vehicle. ‘The technology insartien and Pre-Planned Product Improvement (F°l} approach employed to oreate the DSP-I satellite is also delineeted. (U) Appendix B - DSP-!! Ground Segment Details provides a thorough description of the DSP-lI Global and Theater Systems as well as @ description of the ground segment transition approach. (U} Appendix C - DSP! Cost And Schedule presents the DSP-lI program schedule, life-cycle cost estimates, and the methodology behind the cost estimetes. Details of Tecolote’s and Aarospace's quasiindepandent cost estimates are delineated. 1) Appendix D - DSP-l Capabilities And Performance desctibes the performance analysis used to estimate DSP-II system performance. In addition, a summary of system performance is presented along with the deviations from the draft FEWS ORD. (U) Appendix & - DSP-II/ Britient Eyes Synergy presents a potentiel concept for a synergistic DSP-lI / BE systém. The ‘operationel concapts, cost, performance, and schedule are reviewed. The topic of DSP-II/ BE synergy is not discussed in any ‘of the other sections of this report. ~ UNCLASSIFIED DSP-II "Preserving The Air Force's Options” - April, 1993 : Pegiuneasy” NED Tabla Of Contents (U) Abstract (U) « Preface (U) . Acknowledgdments (U) 66.0. se cece cece ece rete eee eee ix DSP-l) Executive Overview (U) .. EX1 DSP- "Preserving The Air Force's Options” (U) ........ 2.6.6. 1 Purpose (U) 3 DSP-II Concept Overview (U) W DSP-Il Space Segment And Transit 18 DSP-It Ground Segment And Transition Options _ : . 55 DSP-II Cost And Schedule (U) . oe DSP-II Capabilities And Performance {U) . 79 ‘Comparative Assessment Ot FEWS And D: 93 Conclusions (U)...... 107 Appendix A - OSP-Ii Space Segment Details (U) .......-...- Al DSP-i{ Space Segment Overview ae : DSP-j] Sensor (U) . = DSP-Il Spacecraft w DSP-if Launch Vehicta (U) : Transition Options And Schedules Ww). UNCLASSIFIED DSP-I! "Preserving The Ait Force's Options” - April, 1993, aaa Page xiDSP-lI "Preserving The Air Force's Options* - April, 1993, Table Of ce (Continued) (U) ‘Appendix B - DSP-II Ground Segment Details (U) ........... Bi DSP-I! Ground Segment Overview (U)....... . B3 Mission Processing Architecture (U) . . . Bt Risk Assessment {U) .. . - B39 Transition Options And Schedules (U) . Ground System Survivability Issues (U) . Appendix C - DSP-II Cost And Schedule (U) ....-+--. eee. ee Ci DSP-II Schedule (U) wae C3 DSP-ti Life Cycle Costs {U) . - C7 DSP-II Cost Estimation Details (U) C19 Appendix D - DSP-I Capabilities And Performance (U) . D1 DSP-I| Capabilities Overview (U) . Performance Analysis (U) DSP-II Performance Summary DSP-II Deviations From Draft FEWS ORD Appendix E - DSP-II / Brilliant Eyes Synergy (U) Executive Summary (U) ... 22... eee eee ee eee Potential BE Enhancements To Maximize Synergy (U) . . . DSP-II / BE Synergistic System Operetionel Concept (U) . £-29 Performance Assessment (U) . Cost Assessment (U) ..... Potential BE Cost And Risk Reduetions u) . Summary {U) «6.6 - UNCLASSIFIED ( beacateaet 3 2) Page xiio—~ ai — @ CY DSP-II “Preserving The Air Force's Options" EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW (U) April’23, 1993 . Presented By , Guido W. Aru And Carl T. Lunde Presented To Colonel John Kidd (A){U) The puro0s0 of this Technical Operating Report (TORI is to explore alternatives and methods to preserve the Air Force's options for Space: Based Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment Systems. Althoughi thie Air Force, specifically Air Force Space Command (AFSPACECOM) tnd the Air Force Program Executive Office for Space (AFPEO/SPI, is committed to the development of the Follow-on Early Warning System {FEWS) to replace the existing Defense Support Progrem (DSP}, there are potential technical risks and fiscal uncertainties which may adversely impact the schadule of the very future of the FEWS program, The fiscal uncertainties-ere particulérly troublesome in that they are outside the direct control of he Ar Force and ae driven by highe-Jevel DaD, Congressional, and Executive poles and budget priorities. Aso result itis prudent to fully explore and understend the alternatives available to tha Air Force should the FEWS program experienes delays of face cancellation, It is within this context, as well as within Aerospace’s role as generel system engineer for the Ait Force, that this repart is prepared. {U) There are two principal objectives to this report: the first is to examine the role of DSP as a satety net tor FEWS in the event of FEWS schedule slips or program cancellation as discussed above, and the second is to examine tha benefit trom potential near-term enhancements to the DSP to provide improved interim capabilities prior to FEWS. Both of these objectives are accomplished by examining the application of Pre-Planned Product Improvements (Pl) and Tachnoiogy Insertion ations to upgrade the DSP, in order to control cost and risk while Simultaneously providing for near-term porformance enhancements, elternatives are delineated for progressive Pi and technology insertion retrofits to DSP-| Satellites 21 through 26, culminating with the advent of DSP-I! as Setellite 26. Evolutionary enhancements to the DSP (ground segment ete also exernined, providing options for near-term cantralizetion of processing to reduce Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs using System 8 for the Global Mission (Stretegic) and Talon Shield for the Theater Mission (Tactical). {U) In considoring the type of evolutionary upgrades to apply to DSP-1, the Draft FEWS Operational Requirements Document (ORD), dated October 1982, wes used as the source requirements document. The performance requirements and design/implementation specified in the Draft FEWS ORD were balanced ageinst military utity, cost, risk, and schedule. Integrated Weapons System Management (IWSM) concepts, which encourage consideration of other than 100% solutions .., cost-effective mothods to provide the 80% to 90% solution), were also applied in the development of the DSP upgrades. Options for additional OSP performance enhancements to approach the 100% solution (as defined by the Draft FEWS ORD! aie provided along with their Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) impact and risk. {U) This report also compares the cost, risk, performance, and schedule of the FEWS program with the upgraded DSP program (DSP: The two programs ere also considered in the context of the "Changing Acquisition Environment” as defined by the report: “DoD Space Investment Strategy - A Report To The SAF/AQ", prepared by: AFMC Space And Missile System Center and AFSPACECOM. The nature of the changing acquisition environment and the priority of the system development factors 's discussed on the Callawing page. UNCLASSIFIED DSP-II- Executive Overview - April, 1993 Page EX-2oO UNC) Pos|FieD oN Nd ejense Peron Purpose (U) eX Explore Alternatives And Methods To Preserve The, Air Force's Options For Space-Based Tactical Warning And Attack Assessment Systems ° Examine The Role Of DSP As A Safety Net For FEWS In The Event Of FEWS Schedule Slips Or Program Cancellation - Evaluate Near-Term DSP-I Enhancements To Provide Improved Interim Capabilities - Assess Continuation Of An Evolving DSP As An Alternative To FEWS (Safe Exit) - Apply iWSM Concepts To Evaluate Other Than 100% Solutions © Evaluate Evolutionary Upgrades To DSP-I - Examine Pre-Planned Product improvement (P*1) And Technology Insertion Options - Provide Near-Term Performance Enhancements Through Satellite 21-25 Retrofits - Balance Performance And Risk Against Cost And Schedule * Compare FEWS With Upgraded DSP-I (DSP-I1} a - Compare Cost, Risk, Performance, And Schedule - Provide Options For Additional DSP Performance Enhancements - Evaluate Programs Within The Context Of The Changing Acquisition Environment UNCLASSIFIED DSP-il - Executive Overview - April, 1993 Page EX-3