Final Report on Phase 1A

Florida Advanced Training Range (FATR)

30 Jun 2023

FATR TEAM
Robert Polumbo, Maj Gen (ret) USAF, Mumbles Group, LLC
HD Polumbo Jr., Maj Gen (ret) USAF, The Polumbo Group, LLC
David Lowe, LCDR (ret) USN, Streaker Lowe , LLC
Richard Miller, CAPT (ret) USN, PHAROS Mission Critical Solutions, LLC
James Philpitt, CAPT (ret) USN, Subject Matter Expert
Leonard Coleman, Col (ret) USAF, Scientific Research Corporation/VP, Operational Testing
Jeremy Jetton, Scientific Research Corporation/Chief Technology Officer

1
Overview__________________________________
In the Spring of 2022, The Roosevelt Group (TRG) published “From the sea floor to outer space:
The value of Florida Ranges to existing and future military missions” (see Reference 1). The
report, commissioned by the Florida Defense Support Task Force (FDSTF), highlighted the need
to develop a “range-of-the-future” for joint force testing and training to ensure America’s
continued global reach and power. General (Ret) Mike Holmes, former Commanding General of
Air Combat Command, summarized this requirement by stating “Future success for the US
military must be built on a foundation of joint test and training-across the barriers posed by
domains and services. Florida ranges possess all the tools future leaders will need to build and
train the forces America needs.”

In the report, TRG stated “Florida’s range of the future must provide demanding, high-fidelity,
next-generation environments for the development of relevant joint warfighting capability.
They must also facilitate a wide range of advanced training, from tactical employment exercises
to theater-level rehearsals.” The development of the Florida Advanced Training Range (FATR) is
the next step in advancing the recommendations identified in the report:

• Harness Available Capacity & Modernize Florida’s Range

• Sustain Mission Assurance
• Develop the Integrated All-Domain Range of the Future

Through a grant from the FDSTF, the University of West Florida (UWF) assembled the FATR
Team consisting of consultants, subject matter experts (SME) and an industry partner, Scientific
Research Corporation (SRC), to execute the recommendations of TRG report and complete
Phase 1 of the FATR. The objective of this phase is to provide the development and proof of
concept of a joint, all-domain training environment for Florida military units shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Florida Military Training Areas

2
Table of Contents____________________________

List of Acronyms………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8

Scope of Project……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Deliverable A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15

Deliverable B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25

Deliverable C……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Deliverable D……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………54

Additional Supporting Activity………………………………………………………………………………………………….63

Tasks and Deliverables for Phase 1B Execution………………………………………………………………………..71

List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………72

List of References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..164

3
List of Acronyms____________________________
Advanced Battle Management System……………………………………………………………………………….ABMS
Air Combat Command……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ACC
Agile Combat Employment…………………………………………………………………………………………………….ACE
Air Combat Maneuvering……………………………………………………………………………………………………..ACM
Air Combat Simulator…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ACS
Adaptive Electronic Steerable Array…………………………………………………………………………………….AESA
Air Education and Training Command………………………………………………………………………………….AETC
Area Frequency Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………………….AFC
Air Force Frequency Management Agency……………………………………………………………………….AFFMA
Air Force Materiel Command……………………………………………………………………………………………..AFMC
Air Force Reserve Command………………………………………………………………………………………………..AFRC
Air Force Research Laboratory……………………………………………………………………………………………..AFRL
Air Force Special Operations Command…………………………………………………………………………….AFSOC
Air Interdiction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….AI
Altitude Reservation………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ALTRV
Advanced Live, Virtual, Constructive……………………………………………………………………………………ALVC
Air Mobility Command…………………………………………………………………………………………………………AMC
Army Spectrum Management Office………………………………………………………………………………….AMSO
Avon Park Air Force Range…………………………………………………………………………………………………APAFR
Air Refueling……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………AR
Air Route Traffic Control Center…………………………………………………………………………………………ARTCC
Anti-Submarine Warfare………………………………………………………………………………………………………ASW
Air Traffic Control………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ATC
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace…………………………………………………………………………………ATCAA
Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center…………………………………………………………………..AUTEC
AESA Extensible Emitter Emulator……………………………………………………………………………………….AXEE
Basic Fighter Maneuvers……………………………………………………………………………………………………….BFM
Basic Surface Attack……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….BSA
Chinese Aerospace Science……………………………………………………………………………………………………CSA
Close Air Support…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..CAS
Command and Control…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….C2
Combat Mission Ready…………………………………………………………………………………………………………CMR
Common Operating Picture…………………………………………………………………………………………………..COP
Composite Training Unit Exercise…………………………………………………………………….COMPTUEX/C2EX
Contiguous United States…………………………………………………………………………………………………CONUS
Combat Search and Rescue………………………………………………………………………………………………….CSAR
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense……………………………………………………………………………….DASD
Defensive Counter Air……………………………………………………………………………………………………………DCA
Destruction of Enemy Air Defense………………………………………………………………………………………DEAD
Department of Defense…………………………………………………………………………………………………………DoD
Digital Integrated Air Defense System………………………………………………………………………………..DIADS

4
Distributed Interactive Simulation………………………………………………………………………………………….DIS
Digital Radar Warning Receiver…………………………………………………………………………………………DRWR
Deployed Unit Complex………………………………………………………………………………………………………..DUC
Electronic Attack……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..EA
Environmental Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………………………..EA
East Area Frequency Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………..EAFC
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range…………………………………………………………………………………….EGTTR
Electromagnetic Interference………………………………………………………………………………………………..EMI
Environmental Impact Study…………………………………………………………………………………………………..EIS
Enterprise Range Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ERP
Equipment Spectrum Guidance Permanent Working Group………………………………………….ESGPWG
Electronic Support Measures………………………………………………………………………………………………..ESM
Electronic Warfare………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….EW
Federal Aviation Administration……………………………………………………………………………………………FAA
Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Jacksonville………………………………………….FACSFAC JAX
Frequency Assignment Subcommittee……………………………………………………………………………………FAS
Fifth Generation Advanced Training Waveform………………………………………………………………5G-ATW
Florida Air National Guard…………………………………………………………………………………………………FLANG
Florida Army National Guard…………………………………………………………………………………………..FLARNG
Florida Advanced Training Range…..…………………………………………………………………………………….FATR
Florida Defense Support Task Force……………………………………………………………………………………FDSTF
Fiber Optic Towed Decoy……………………………………………………………………………………………………FOTD
Frequency Panel………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………FP
Fallon Range Training Complex……………………………………………………………………………………………FRTC
Gulf Area Frequency Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………..GAFC
Gulf of Mexico Water/Airspace……………………………………………………………………………………….GOMEX
Government Reference Architecture…………………………………………………………………………………….GRA
Hardware-In-The-Loop………………………………………………………………………………………………………….HITL
High-Level Architecture…………………………………………………………………………………………………………HLA
Helicopter Maritime Strike Wing Atlantic…………………………………………………………………HSMWLANT
In Accordance With……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….IAW
Integrated Air Defense System……………………………………………………………………………………………..IADS
Infantry Brigade Combat Team……………………………………………………………………………………………..IBCT
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers…………………………………………………………………….IEEE
Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee…………………………………………………………………….IRAC
Information Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………INFOSEC
Information, Surveillance and Reconnaissance……………………………………………………………………….ISR
Information Technology……………………………………………………………………………………………………………IT
Joint, All-Domain Command and Control……………………………………………………………………………JADC2
Joint, All-Domain Operations……………………………………………………………………………………………….JADO
Jacksonville Range Complex and Operation Area………………………………………………………JAXOPAREA
Joint Frequency Allocation-to-Equipment Process………………………………………………………………JFAEP
Joint Spectrum Center……………………………………………………………………………………………………………JSC
Joint Spectrum Interference Resolution…………………………………………………………………………………JSIR

5
Key Leader Engagement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………KLE
Logistic, Equipment and Training……………………………………………………………………………………………LET
Large Force Exercise………………………………………………………………………………………………………………LFE
Live Mission Operations Center………………………………………………………………………………………….LMOC
Large Scale Combat Operations……………………………………………………………………………………………LSCO
Military Communications-Electronics Board……………………………………………………………………….MCEB
Mission Data File………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….MDF
Medical Evacuation………………………………………………………………………………………………………MEDEVAC
Multi-Domain Emitter Threat……………………………………………………………………………………………….MET
Multi-Function Display………………………………………………………………………………………………………….MFD
Multifunction Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System……………………..MIDS-J
Man-In-The-Loop…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………MITL
Military Operations Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………..MOA
Maintenance, Repair and Operation…………………………………………………………………………………….MRO
Major Range and Test Facility Bases…………………………………………………………………………………MRTFB
Modeling & Simulation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………M&S
Military Training Routes……………………………………………………………………………………………………….MTR
Naval Air Forces Atlantic…………………………………………………………………………………………………AIRLANT
National Airspace System………………………………………………………………………………………………………NAS
National Defense Strategy…………………………………………………………………………………………………….NDS
National Guard Bureau…………………………………………………………………………………………………………NGB
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account……………………………………………………………..NGREA
Next Generation Jammer………………………………………………………………………………………………………NGJ
Non-classified Internet Protocol Router……………………………………………………………………………….NIPR
Navy, Marine Corps Spectrum Center…………………………………………………………………………………NMSC
National Telecommunications and Information Administration……………………………………………NTIA
Naval Surface Warfare Center……………………………………………………………………………………………NSWC
Operating Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….OPAREA
Offensive Counter Air……………………………………………………………………………………………………………OCA
Operation Control Center……………………………………………………………………………………………………..OCC
Outside Continental United States…………………………………………………………………………………OCONUS
Operational Flight Program……………………………………………………………………………………………………OFP
Operations and Maintenance………………………………………………………………………………………………O&M
Organization, Management and Operational Structure……………………………………………………..OMOS
Operational Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………….OPSEC
Open System Enclave…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….OCE
Office of Primary Responsibility…………………………………………………………………………………………….OPR
Office of the Secretary of Defense…………………………………………………………………………………………OSD
Operational Test and Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………………OT&E
Off-The-Shelf…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………OTS
Operation Test and Training Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………..OTTI
Programmable, Affordable Threat System……………………………………………………………………………PATS
Program Executive Officer Tactical Aircraft……………………………………………………………….PEO-TACAIR
Pinecastle Range Complex……………………………………………………………………………………………………..PRC

6
Ready Aircrew Program…………………………………………………………………………………………………………RAP
Real-Time Electromagnetic Defense Capability……………………………………………………………….REDCAP
Red Force Command and Control………………………………………………………………………………………..RFCC
Range Operating Authority……………………………………………………………………………………………………ROA
Range Operation Control Center…………………………………………………………………………………………ROCC
Radio Relay Unit……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………RRU
Radar Warning Receiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………RWR
Software Defined Radio…………………………………………………………………………………………………………SDR
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense………………………………………………………………………………………SEAD
Secret Internet Protocol Router…………………………………………………………………………………………….SIPR
Synthetic-Inject-To-Live…………………………………………………………………………………………………………SITL
Spectrum Analyzer…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..SA
Surface-to-Air Missile……………………………………………………………………………………………………………SAM
Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance……………………………………………………………………………..SCAR
Secure LVC Advanced Training Environment………………………………………………………………………SLATE
Spectrum Management Office……………………………………………………………………………………………..SMO
Spectrum Planning Subcommittee………………………………………………………………………………………….SPS
Scientific Research Corporation……………………………………………………………………………………………..SRC
Space Systems Command……………………………………………………………………………………………………….SSC
Special Use Airspace………………………………………………………………………………………………………………SUA
Surface Warfare……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………SUW
The Adjutant General……………………………………………………………………………………………………………TAG
Tactical Datalink……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….LINK16
Tactical Intercepts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….TI
Technology Maturation…………………………………………………………………………………………………Tech Mat
The Roosevelt Group……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..TRG
Technology Readiness Level……………………………………………………………………………………………………TRL
Threat System Management Office…………………………………………………………………………………….TSMO
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………….TTP
Test and Training Space Needs Statement………………………………………………………………………..T/TSNS
Unit Operation Center………………………………………………………………………………………………………….UOC
United States Air Force………………………………………………………………………………………………………..USAF
United States Army……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….USA
United States Coast Guard………………………………………………………………………………………………….USCG
United States Marine Corps……………………………………………………………………………………………….USMC
United States Navy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….USN
United States Space Force……………………………………………………………………………………………………USSF
University of West Florida……………………………………………………………………………………………………UWF
Undersea Warfare Shallow Water Training Range……………………………………………………………USWTR
Virginia Capes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..VACAPES
WarRoom-In-A-Box……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..WIAB

7
Executive Summary__________________________
The Florida peninsula offers a unique environment well-suited for joint, all-domain training not
available or accessible anywhere else in the contiguous United Sates (CONUS). The air, land and
sea training areas offer a world-class, realistic environment for military units to train like they
will fight in future conflicts. By the end of this decade, over three hundred 5th generation F-35
aircraft will be based in the southeastern region of the US not to mention hundreds of other
aircraft from all four branches of the military that operate in the air domain (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Fighter Units and Aircraft in Southeast Region

Land, sea, space and cyber forces will also join the air domain to conduct joint, all-domain
training and mission rehearsals utilizing Florida’s training areas reflecting similar geography of
pacing threats. Figure 3 depicts the similarities in geography of an overlay of the southeastern
US and the mainland of China.

Figure 3: Overlay of Florida Training Areas on the South China Sea

8
Actual combat battlespace will be contested and congested with strategic, all-domain
integrated air defense systems (IADS), air, land and seaborne threats, long range-hypersonic
weapons, electronic warfare and space/cyber effects. Our training ranges must be able to
replicate this environment for our military units. Currently, Florida ranges can’t simulate this
battlespace which forces units to deploy to ranges in the Western US or as far as Alaska to train
against a realistic threat scenario. In Phase 1 of the project, the FDSTF tasked the FATR team to
provide the concept development to create a training environment extending from Gulf to
Atlantic over the entire peninsula of Florida.

Three major areas require significant effort and coordination with federal, state and local
agencies. Technology innovation, special use airspace (SUA), and new electromagnetic
spectrum (ESM) certifications are the most challenging areas facing the development of the
FATR. The technology innovation with the most promise in the next two years (technology
readiness level/TRL 9), are programmable, affordable threat systems (PATS) networked with an
advanced live, virtual, constructive (ALVC) architecture. The team’s industry partner, Scientific
Research Corporation (SRC), has created a family of PATS called Multi-Domain Emitter Threat
systems (MET). These mobile systems, in Figure 4, are a new generation of affordable threat
emitters being contracted and tested by the US Army’s, Threat System Management Office
(TSMO). Figure 5 shows the specific capabilities of each system and the area of electromagnetic
spectrum (ESM) requiring certification. The team successfully utilized the MET-Low system in
the Phase 1A demonstration described in the Deliverable B section of this report.

Figure 4: PATS-Multi-Domain Emitter Threat (MET) Systems

9
 Figure 5: MET Systems Capabilities

The second technology improvement, and the most technically challenging, is the development
of an ALVC environment. Currently, the Department of Defense (DoD) has created an LVC
environment utilizing the Link 16 datalink network (Figure 6). However, 5th generation aircraft,

Figure 6: Current Link 16 LVC Architecture

including the F-22 and F-35, are unable to fully participate in this architecture due to
technological issues. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH in
concert with ACC’s Fed Lab at Beale AFB, CA are working to resolve the issues for 5th generation
and future weapon systems. Figure 7 depicts four significant areas of on-going research.

10
 Figure 7: 5th Generation Technology Innovation

The experts working these issues are confident the technology will be ready for testing in
CY2025. In the meantime, the FATR team will utilize the current Link 16 architecture utilizing
the government-owned Digital Integrated Air Defense System (DIADS) during the development
and demonstration of the prototype MET/ALVC system. The transition to a synthetic-inject-to
live (SITL) ALVC architecture using 5G-Advanced Training Waveform (5G-ATW) will occur during
the build out of the joint, all-domain FATR in Phase 3. This blended LVC technology depicted in
Figure 8 will be a significant future upgrade for the Florida ranges.

Figure 8: Future, ALVC Architecture

In Phase 1, the FATR team worked in coordination with Air Combat Command (ACC), Florida Air
and Army National Guard (FLANG/FLARNG), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), Air Force
Material Command (AFMC), Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Air Mobility
Command (AMC), Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), Naval Air Force Atlantic
(AIRLANT) and Space Systems Command (SSC). The primary objective of Phase 1 is to show
proof of concept of combining live threat emitters with a blended live, virtual, constructive
11
environment to provide Florida units the capability to conduct realistic, all-domain training. Due
to FDSTF grant timelines, Phase 1 was divided into two subphases 1A an 1B. The effort in Phase
1A, reflected in this report, includes the demonstration of the PATS/ALVC architecture to TRL-6
in a controlled environment. Phase 1B will expand the technology demonstration of the
prototype system to TRL 7 on location at Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR). Our primary
customer for developing the FATR is the FLANG/FLARNG. The FLANG is scheduled to transition
to F-35A aircraft in CY 24, which requires an advanced training range complex that supports 5th
gen capabilities and functionality to prepare our military for a potential all-domain fight with a
peer competitor. Ultimately, the intent of the FATR is to improve the training and test
environment for all Florida stakeholders to include the units listed in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Stakeholders/Florida Units

All Phase 1A deliverables and tasks were completed on budget and on schedule to the extent
possible given the subdivision of tasks and short duration of the phase. The following
deliverables are still in coordination and will be fully implemented when the appropriate service
branch completes the approval process:

• Deliverable A-FATR operations manual approval by United States Air Force

(USAF)/United States Navy (USN)
• Deliverable C-Airspace proposal approval by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
• Deliverable D-MET spectrum certification by USAF/USN spectrum management offices
(SMO)

The following report will provide a detailed account of the team’s in-depth effort to develop a
viable concept for creating the Florida Advanced Training Range to provide world-class training
for Florida military units. All material highlighted in YELLOW indicates work in progress.
12
Scope of Project_____________________________
The overarching objectives of Phase 1 were to develop the resource requirements, operational
processes, technological architecture and airspace/spectrum authorizations required for the
FATR. The phase was further divided into two sub-phases 1A and 1B to meet the requirements
of the FDSTF fiscal year grant cycle. The tasks and deliverables for Phase 1A are listed below:

PHASE 1A

Tasks

1.1 Define logistics, equipment and unit training requirements

1.2 Develop organizational, management and operational structure of FATR
1.3 Develop and demonstrate PATS/ALVC prototype system (TRL 6)
2.1 Coordinate and seek FAA and Air Traffic Control (ATC) approval for airspace framework
and processes
2.2 Coordinate and seek spectrum certification for threat emitters and communication
network
3.1 Coordinate support and utilization of DoD resources and installations

Deliverables

A. Operational manual (draft) outlining the requirements, organizational structure and

processes for the FATR
B. PATS and ALVC prototype system demonstrated in a controlled environment
C. Coordinated and approved ATC corridor procedures to link regional military airspace to
utilize the FATR
D. Coordinated and approved frequency spectrum management procedures

Tables 1-3 below, list Florida’s warning and restricted areas and the military units that utilize
the airspace.

Table 1: Warning Areas Utilized for Training

Warning Area Location Unit Utilization Service/Command/ARTCC

W-155/151/470 GOMEX/Panhandle 33FW/325FW/53WG/1SOW USAF/96 TW/JAX Center
W-168 GOMEX/Sarasota 6ARW/927ARW/33FW/325FW USAF/23WG /MIA Center
Deployed units
W-174 GOMEX/Key West 482FW/CSG/Deployed units USN/NAS Key West/MIA Center
W-465 FL Straits/Miami 482FW USN/NAS Key West/MIA Center
W-497 Atlantic/Cape 125FW/920RQW/SLD45 USSF/SSC-SLD45/JAX Center
Canaveral
W-136/137/138/140 Atlantic/Jacksonville 125FW/CSG4/VP-8/HSM USN/JAX Center
EWTA 1-6 GOMEX/Gulf of Mexico 33FW/325FW/53WG/1SOW USAF/96 TW/JAX Center

13
 Table 2: Restricted Areas Utilized for Training

Restricted Area Location Unit Utilization Service/Command/ARTCC

Avon Park Air Force Range Avon Park FL 33FW/325FW/125FW USAF/23WG/MIA Center
R-2901 482FW/920RQW
Pinecastle Range Complex Ocala National CSG4/33FW/325FW/125FW USN/FACSFAC JAX/JAX Center
R-2906/2907/2910 Forest FL 482FW/111AR/53IBCT/HSM
Eglin Ranges R-2914/15/18/19 Eglin AFB FL 33FW/53WG/325FW/1SOW USAF/JAX Center

Table 3: Military Units Utilizing Florida Training Areas

Military Unit/Service/Command Location Weapon system(s)/Mission

125th Fighter Wing/USAF/FLANG Jacksonville ANG Base FL F-35A/Operational Fighter Unit
53rd IBCT/USA/FLARNG Camp Blanding FL HMMWV/Motorized Infantry
111th Aviation Regiment/USA/FLARNG AASF#1 Cecil Field FL CH-47F, UH-60M/Air Assault, Air Mobility
325th Fighter Wing/USAF/ACC Tyndall AFB FL F-35A/Operational Fighter Unit
33rd Fighter Wing/USAF/AETC Eglin AFB FL F-35A/Formal Training Unit
53rd Wing/USAF/ACC Eglin AFB FL A-10, F-15C/E/EX, F-16, F-22, F-35A,
MQ-9, HH-60G/W, HC-130J/Operational Test &
Evaluation
482nd Fighter Wing/USAF/AFRC Homestead ARB FL F-16/Operational Fighter Unit
920th Rescue Wing/USAF/AFRC Patrick Space Force Base FL HC-130J/HH-60G CSAR, Air Refueling, Airdrop
6th Air Refueling Wing/USAF/AMC MacDill AFB FL KC-135 (KC-46 CY24)/Air Refueling
927th Air Refueling Wing/USAF/AFRC MacDill AFB FL KC-135/Air Refueling
1st Special Operations Hurlburt AFB FL AC/MC-130, CV-22, MQ-9, U-28, SpecOps
Wing/USAF/AFSOC
Multiple P-8 and HSM units/USN/CNAL NAS Jacksonville FL P-8/ASW, SUW, ISR//MH-60R ASW/SUW/SAR
CSG 4/USN/CFFC Naval Station Norfolk VA Multiple aircraft types/Carrier Strike
HSM-40, 46, 48, 60/USN/CNAL Naval Station Mayport FL MH-60R/Maritime Strike/ASW
Space Launch Delta 45/USSF/SSC Patrick Space Force Base FL Multiple spacecraft/Space Launch Unit

From December 2022-June 2023, UWF, the FATR team and SRC completed Phase 1A. A project
of this magnitude, duration and limited funding was divided into distinct phases. Phase 1 is
funded by the FDSTF and is limited in scope to developing a single prototype system for
demonstration at APAFR to be ready for a one-year technology demonstration in Phase 2. The
tasks included in Phase 2 includes installing an additional system prototype system on PRC and
linking an operation/communication network across the peninsula. When appropriate, the
report includes information on resources and funding necessary to complete the development
of FATR through Phase 2. This report will only focus on these two phases and will detail the
tasks and deliverables of Phase 1A. The report will also utilize information developed during
this phase to update the tasks and deliverables for Phase 1B.

14
Deliverable A: Develop Operation Manual
Outlining Requirements, Organization and
Processes
Overview

Deliverable A included the development of an operation manual outlining the requirements,

organizational structure and processes of the FATR. The tasks required to complete this
deliverable were divided into two sub-tasks: Task 1.1- Define Logistics, Equipment and Training
Requirements; Task 1.2-Develop the Organizational, Management and Operational Structure.
The primary land ranges and over-water airspace to be utilized during Phase 1 and 2 of the
FATR project are depicted in Table 2 and 3 on page 9. The build out of the FATR from Gulf to
Atlantic in Phase 3 will include the panhandle land impact ranges, military operations areas
(MOA) and the Gulf of Mexico over-water airspace (GOMEX).

The primary land range for Phase 1 and 2 is Avon Park Air Force Range, located in the center of
Florida (Figure 10). The range (R-2901) is operated by the 598th Range Squadron (598 RANS)
under the command of the 23rd Wing (23 WG) at Moody AFB, GA. The range provides joint,
air/land training for active and reserve component military units. Figure 11 depicts AFM13-
212_APAFR_Supp which provides operating instructions for the range (see Reference 1).

Figure 10: Avon Park Air Force Range Figure 11: AFM13-212 APAFR Supplement

Additionally, Pinecastle Range Complex (Figure 12), located in the northern part of Florida, is a
Navy range operated by Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX).
The complex includes restricted areas R-2906/2907/2910 providing joint, air/land training for
active and reserve component military units. Figure 13 depicts the Pinecastle Range Complex
Handbook which provides operating instructions for the range (see Reference 2).
15
 Figure 12: Pinecastle Range Complex Figure 13: PRC Handbook

Objective

The FATR will be a blended LVC environment overlaying current land ranges and over-water
airspace. The environment will be utilized by units to enhance specific training requirements,
develop unique scenarios and execute mission exercises. Task 1.1 included defining necessary
logistics, essential equipment and most importantly each unit’s training requirements. Task 1.2
included the development of the organization, management and operation of the FATR
culminating in an operation manual to be utilized by each unit to optimize their mission
training. The overall objective of Phase 1B will culminate in a three-week technology
demonstration in an operational environment to show proof of concept of a functional OCC and
a MET/ALVC prototype system located at APAFR. In addition, a FATR operation manual,
included in this report (initial draft in Appendix A.2), will be fully completed and submitted for
incorporation in the APAFR and PRC range manuals at the end of Phase 1B.

TASK 1.1-Define Logistics, Equipment and Training Requirements

Task 1.1 was essential to framing the requirements, organizational structure and processes for
the FATR in Phase 1 and 2. Through key leader engagements, cross-tell with military range
experts and development of the ALVC strategy, a list of critical resources and requirements for
installations, training ranges and units were identified. Using this list of requirements, our team
conducted installation visits, range site surveys and interviews with Florida military units to
develop an operational plan to resource FATR through Phase 2. The development strategy for
Phase 1 was primarily influenced by the unit training requirements received through interviews
with the commanders and training managers for each unit. Each unit listed in Table 3 was
interviewed and/or researched to determine their specific missions and training requirements.
A unit requirements worksheet (reference Appendix 1) was completed for the Florida units
currently utilizing APAFR and PRC training ranges. Table 4 depicts each unit’s specific mission
training requirements based on threat, missions and weapon employment events.
16
 Table 4: Unit Training Requirements

Unit Threat Missions Live/Inert weapons

employment
125 FW Strategic/Integrated, all- OCA-SEAD/DEAD/ESCORT, AI, CAS, Y/Y
domain system (IADS) DCA, ISR
482 FW Strategic/Integrated, all- DEAD, OCA, DCA, AI, CAS, CSAR Y/Y
domain system (IADS)
920 RQW Tactical/Integrated, all- CSAR, Air Refueling, Airdrop, Y/Y
domain system (IADS) Command and Control
33 FW Strategic/Integrated, all- OCA-SEAD/DEAD/ESCORT, AI, CAS, Y/Y
domain system (IADS) DCA, ISR
325 FW Strategic/Integrated, all- OCA-SEAD/DEAD/ESCORT, AI, CAS, Y/Y
domain system (IADS) DCA, ISR
53 WG Strategic/Integrated, all- Operational Test & Evaluation Y/Y
domain system (IADS) All Conventional Missions
6 ARW/927 ARW Strategic/Integrated, all- Air Refueling, Command and N/N
domain system (IADS) Control (ABMS/JADC2)
VP-8 Strategic/Integrated, all- Anti-Submarine Warfare, Surface N/N
domain system (IADS) Warfare, C2, ISR
HSM- Tactical/Integrated, all- Maritime Strike, ASW, SUW, SAR, Y/Y
40/46/48/50/60 domain system (IADS) MEDEVAC
CSG 4 Strategic/Integrated, all- OCA-SEAD/DEAD/ESCORT, AI, CAS, Y/Y
domain system (IADS) DCA, ASW, ASUW, ISR
53 IBCT Tactical/Force-on-force CAE, Maneuver force on force, Y/Y
Surface and Air Threats CAS, Air Assault, Recon
111 AR Tactical/Integrated, all- LSCO, Air Assault, Air Mobility Y/Y
domain system (IADS)

The development strategy was significantly influenced by the limited funding available to
successfully demonstrate proof of concept for the blended LVC environment at the two
locations initially identified. After receiving the FDSTF funding for Phase 1B, it was determined
only (1) MET/ALVC prototype system and (1) OCC could be setup and demonstrated. APAFR was
selected as the optimum location to set up the OCC and a MET/ALVC prototype system. No
UOC will be included in Phase 1B. Since an OCC and UOC are very similar in form and function,
the absence of the UOC will not detract from the 3-week operational demonstration of the
MET/ALVC prototype system. In addition to the OCC, MET/ALVC prototype system, other
critical logistic, equipment and personnel (LEP) requirements are required for Phase 1B to
include radio relay units (RRU), software defined radios (SDR), antennae arrays, Link 16 datalink
networks, classified communication systems, and a logistic/operation contract. Table 5
summarizes the LEP requirements and costs to develop the OCC and MET/ALVC prototype
system for the demonstration in Phase 1B. The overall LEP cost for Phase 1B is $140K. The table
includes (in yellow highlights) the option to locate a MET system at PRC during a future Navy
Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX). The funding requirement for this effort is $40k
and currently not funded under the FDSTF Phase 1B grant. The team is currently negotiating
with the Threat System Management Office (TSMO) and SRC to seek their funding support for

17
this initiative. If the effort is successful, the results of the MET demonstration at PRC will be
included in the Phase 1B final report. In addition, the 325 Fighter Wing at Tyndall AFB in
Panama City, FL was offered a MET system to utilize for a 3-week period from unit funding of
$80k to transport, setup and operate the equipment with certified technicians from SRC. As of
the submission of this report, no agreement has been reached. If the effort is successful, the
results of the MET demonstration at Tyndall will be included in the Phase 1B final report.
Figure 14 shows a geographic depiction of the LEP laydown for the Phase 1B demonstration.

Table 5: Phase 1B Logistic, Equipment and Personnel (LEP) Requirements

Location OCC UOC MET/ALVC RRU/SDR LINK SIPR Secure Transport/Setup Total
Cost Cost Cost 16 Cost Storage 3-wk Demo Cost
Cost Cost Cost
APAFR OCC MET-H/ALVC Y * * * Y
$20K TSMO/$40K SRC $0 $0 $0 $80K $140K
PRC N MET-L (C2EX) * N N N $0
$0 TSMO $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K $40K
TOTAL ITEM $80K $140K
COST $20K $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K $180K
* Denotes installation/unit will have service funded equipment by the end of Phase 1B

In Phase 2, a significant amount of LEP requirements will need to be completed prior to the
start of the estimated 12-month technology demonstration. The procurement and setup of
MET/ALVC systems, OCCs/UOCs and communication network will be required to have a
functional environment for units to participate in the technology demonstration. The planning
also includes operation and maintenance personnel supplied by a contract between the funding
source(s) and the company identified to lead the FATR project in Phase2. This effort will only be
completed with significant funding from sources most likely at the federal level to include
Congress, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), service branches, National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) and Combatant Commands (COCOM). The optimum plan
will be to locate an OCC at the MacDill DUC and FACSFAC JAX for command and control (C2) of
APAFR and PRC operations, respectively. In addition, each participating unit will require a UOC
to schedule, develop scenarios, interact with LVC environment and debrief demonstration
events. Table 6 lists the estimated LEP requirements and cost to resource every unit identified
for Phase 2 inclusion. The ability to resource the entire list of units will be dependent primarily
on funding but also on the unit’s availability to participate, technology to connect the unit’s
weapon system to the network and ability to provide appropriate facilities to locate a UOC at
the location for Phase 2.

18
 Table 6: Phase 2 Estimated Logistic, Equipment and Personnel Requirements

Location OCC PATS RRU/SDR LINK16 SIPR Secure # Ops/Mnx Total

UOC Cost Cost Cost Storage 1yr-Contract Cost
Cost
APAFR UOC MET-H * * * * 2/1
$0 $400K $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.1M $1.5M
PRC UOC MET-H Y N N N 2/1
$60K $400K $2K $0 $0 $0 $1.1M $1.562M
MacDill DUC OCC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
FACSFAC JAX OCC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
125 FW UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
482 FW UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
920 RQW/ UOC N Y * * * 2/0
SLD 45 $20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
33 FW UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
325 FW UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
53 FW UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
6/927 ARW UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
VP-8 UOC N * * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175K $195K
HSM Units UOC N * * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175K $195K
CSG4 UOC N Y * * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
111 AR UOC N Y N * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
53 IBCT UOC N Y N * * 2/0
$20K $0 $2K $0 $0 $0 $175K $197K
TOTAL COST $340K $800K $26K $0 $0 $0 $4.65M $5.816M
* Denotes installation or unit will have service-funded equipment at the beginning of Phase 2

The total LEP estimate for Phase 2 is approximately $5.816M. This estimate does not include
the support each service will need to contribute to modify/upgrade their weapon systems to
“connect” to the ALVC network. These upgrades may include operational flight program
modifications (OFP), pods mounted on the weapons system, inclusion of a software defined
radio (SDR), embedded training modules and other necessary equipment. This list of
installations and units is the complete list of all organizations interviewed during Phase 1A. If a
limitation in funding or technological issues is identified, Phase 2 can be completed with fewer
units participating in the technology demonstration. The goal is to have at least one unit from

19
each of the Air Force, Navy and Army to participate in the one-year demonstration to show
capability for joint force LVC training.

TASK 1.2-Develop the Organizational, Management and Operational Structure

After defining the requirements in Task 1.1, the organizational, management and operational
structure (OMOS) of the FATR was developed. The main objective of Task 1.2 was to develop
the FATR as a blended LVC environment overlaying current airspace and ranges to minimize
changes or additions to current operations for military units. The OMOS was also developed to
conform to current command and control (C2) architecture, datalink, and communication
networks recognized by the services. The focus areas for developing the OMOS centered
around these five pillars:

• Cross-tell and best practices of other military test and training ranges
• Previous blended LVC technology demonstrations
• Current, DoD-owned, affordable, off-the-shelf (OTS) technology (TRL 7 and higher)
• Service research laboratory development to insure compatible technology transitions
• Incorporate the AF Operational Test and Training Infrastructure (OTTI) plan

Organization

The concept development of the OMOS for Phase 1/2 of FATR was limited in scope to only
include APAFR and PRC land impact ranges (yellow/red) and the overwater warning areas (blue)
as depicted in Figure 14 and 15. The ATCAA/ALTRV areas (green) is airspace being coordinated
with military units and the FAA to allow aircraft to transition from overwater airspace to land
impact ranges. The specifics of the airspace proposal will be detailed in the Deliverable C
section of this report.

Figure 14: OMOS for Phase 1B Prototype Demonstration

20
In Phase 1B, a single OCC will be located at APAFR. The OCC will coordinate with participating
units and the APAFR Range Operation Control Center (ROCC) to schedule, develop scenarios,
support execution of the demonstration and collect feedback from the military units. A
MET/ALVC prototype system will also be located at APAFR combined with a Link 16 datalink
network and an RRU communication architecture. Technicians from Scientific Research
Corporation will be on location remotely operating the MET/ALVC system in conjunction with
the US government-owned Digital Integrated Air Defense System (DIADS) application. The
3-week prototype demonstration is scheduled for May 2024. Results and lessons learned from
the demonstration will be utilized to improve the OMOS and develop the technology
demonstration plan for Phase 2. Figure 15 depicts the OMOS plan for Phase 2. The
organizational structure includes locating an OCC at MacDill DUC and FACSFAC JAX with UOCs
at as many participating units as funding allows. The OCC located at APAFR during Phase 1B will
be converted to a UOC to be utilized for deployed unit operations at the airfield. As mentioned
earlier, the goal will be to have at least one Air Force, Navy and Army unit with a UOC located at
their base, station or post.

Figure 15: OMOS for Phase 2 Technology Demonstration

The MacDill OCC will primarily coordinate technology demonstration events for APAFR and
FACSFAC OCC will coordinate for events at PRC.

Management

The management of FATR will include the procurement of equipment, facility setup and
contracting personnel to operate and maintain the OCC/UOCs and blended ALVC environment,
to include the communication network across the peninsula. This effort will include extensive
coordination with installation and unit facility managers; development of information
technology (IT) architecture; communication network setup; scheduling of training events;

21
coordination of training scenarios; maintenance, repair and operation (MRO) of the FATR
environment; compilation of data and feedback processes; and contract compliance and
reports. In Phase 1B, the FATR team and Scientific Research Corporation, in coordination with
supporting commands, installations and military units, will manage the 3-week prototype
demonstration scheduled for May 2024.

The management of the FATR after Phase 1 will ultimately be determined by the DoD in
conjunction with the funding source(s). The most likely management option for the Phase 2
technology demonstration will be a contract agreement between a private company and the
funding source(s). Task 4/Deliverable D for Phase 1B (depicted in the Recommendations for
Phase 1B Execution section at the end of the report) specifies the team’s effort to coordinate
the OMOS transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2.

The vision for Phase 3 assumes the DoD finds merit in the blended ALVC environment and
programs funding for the build out and operation of the FATR in the future. The management
of Phase 3 will likely have three options for DoD to develop: (1) DoD contractor agreement with
a private company; (2) DoD programmed and operated; or (3) a combination of contractor and
DoD operated. The future management portion of FATR will become clearer during Phase 1B
when a company is selected to lead the project and funding source(s) are acquired for Phase 2.

Operation

Since FATR is a blended ALVC environment overlaying the Florida airspace and ranges, the
operation of FATR will run in concert with all current military operations on the peninsula.
The controlling agencies for all SUA and the ROA for the land impact ranges remains the same.
All scheduling, operations and instructions will be IAW the SUA operation manual. Utilization of
the FATR ALVC environment will include coordination with the appropriate OCC depending on
the required training scenario. During Phase 1B, an OCC will be located at APAFR to
coordinate all technology demonstration events with the ROCC during the 3-week period in
May 2024. The coordination will include scheduling events; development of profiles; creating
the live, virtual and constructive environment; execution, data capturing and recording unit
feedback for the demonstrations.

In Phase 2, the OCC at APAFR will be converted to a UOC for use by units deploying to the
airfield for agile combat employment (ACE) training. Two new OCCs will be located at MacDill
DUC and FACSFAC JAX for the one-year technology demonstration. These OCCs will have the
same responsibilities as previously described above. However, key functions including updating
application software, communication architecture, MRO of the FATR environment and updating
all the UOCs will become a focal point of the OCCs support role. Each OCC will have the specific
support priorities listed in Table 7. UOCs will coordinate with the appropriate OCC depending
on the location for the training event. When multiple locations will be used during a training
event, the land impact range will set the priority of which OCC to coordinate FATR support
requests. OCCs will primarily be utilized for joint/large force exercises (LFE) and can be used as

22
a white force for the execution of any unit training event if requested. In many cases, each UOC
will be able to plan, coordinate, execute and debrief daily training events utilizing the ALVC
environment of the FATR with minimal coordination with the OCC or ROCC. Figure 16 depicts an
example of a training coordination worksheet that will be transmitted from a UOC to an
OCC/ROCC.

Table 7: OCC Support Priorities

OCC Support Priorities MacDill DUC FACSFAC JAX

1. Land Impact Range APAFR (R-2901) PRC (R2906/7/10)
2. Overwater Airspace W-470/168/174 W-136-140/497
3. Service Branch USAF, USA, USSF USN, USMC, USCG

Figure 16: Training Coordination Worksheet Example

23
In order to integrate the FATR environment into the current Florida military training areas, a
draft operation manual was created and coordinated for inclusion in the APAFR and PRC range
operation manuals depicted in Figure 12 and 13. The FATR operational manual draft (see
Appendix A.2), when completed and approved by the ROAs in Phase 1B, will be included as a
supplement to AFM13-212 (see Reference 2) and PRC Handbook (see Reference 2). The manual
will include instructions to schedule, develop training scenarios, operate live emitters, include
virtual and constructive entities, operate in the LVC environment and allow detailed debrief of
training events. The FATR operation manual draft has been submitted to the 598 RANS and PRC
for coordination with USAF and USN headquarters for inclusion as a supplement in the
respective range operation manuals. Further coordination and final approval for the
supplement will be expected during Phase 1B and included in the final report.

Summary
Task 1.1 and 1.2 have been completed with the primary focus of developing a concept to
improve Florida training areas and increase the joint force’s combat capability. The team
believes the completion of Deliverable A has built a solid foundation for successful transition to
the operational demonstration in Phase 1B. Defining and resourcing requirements, developing
technology and processes and operating the FATR will be work in progress through Phase 2.

24
Deliverable B: PATS/ALVC Prototype System
Demonstrated in a Controlled Environment
Task 1.3-Development and demonstration of PATS/ALVC prototype system (TRL 6)

Overview

Defining the term LVC is mandatory for bounding and shaping the discussion of the PATS/ALVC
prototype. For the FATR, LVC represents all aspects of live, virtual, and constructive training
systems. LVC is the injection or supplementation of synthetic (e.g., simulators) and constructive
systems/effects into live platforms and their onboard system controllers, regardless of
warfighting domain (e.g., air, land, sea, space, and cyber). The constructive injection includes
scenario generation, threat emulation, physics and effects-based modeling and simulation
(M&S). Collectively, the injection of synthetic and constructive effects into live platforms is best
termed synthetic-inject-to-live (SITL) LVC and is the basis for creating a blended LVC
environment.

Another key aspect of the instantiation of SITL LVC is encryption. Because of the proximity of
threat nations to and persistence of overhead systems around the FATR, an encrypted
environment is mandatory. Where synthetic and constructive entities are “hidden” from plain
sight, air and surface-based platforms are not. However, the effects from both Red (threat) and
Blue (friendly) systems, in the training environment, are likely not hidden from enemy
detection. This is where virtual (synthetic) and constructive training characteristics are
maximized. Encrypting the training architecture is mandatory to mitigate risk of operation
security (OPSEC) and information security (INFOSEC) concerns and release of classified tactics,
techniques, and procedures (TTP). The FATR will operate in an encrypted training environment.

The FATR will leverage previous LVC advanced technology demonstrations and maturation
projects from across the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop the final deliverable – an
advanced training range combining all aspects of LVC technology to create a blended LVC
training environment taking advantage of the air, land, and sea space that is in and around the
Florida peninsula.

Objective

Due to the abundance of 5th generation platforms in and around the state of Florida, the FATR
will provide an operationally representative training environment that will allow soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians the ability to train in an operationally representative
environment emphasizing INFOSEC/OPSEC and minimizing the collection of TTP by our
enemies. The blended LVC training environment will primarily focus on 5th generation systems
and platforms (e.g., F-35 and Next Generation Jammer/NG), while providing a challenging
training environment for ground forces at the squad, company and battalion levels. It will also

25
allow for 4th generation platform and systems (e.g., EA-18G/F-15E and Next Generation
Electronic Warfare Planning and Management – EWPMT) to train as a joint force against pacing
threats in a contested and operationally representative environment.

Development

The FATR will be based on a combination of live and constructive threats systems that will
create the blended LVC training environment. At the heart of the live threat systems is the MET
family of systems which will have (4) variants: Low, Medium, High, and a scalable AESA Multi-
function array (AXEE). Each of the systems will be mobile and transportable, deployable by land
and potentially by sea. They will operate stand alone or as a network connected system
replicating an advanced Integrated Air Defensive System (IADS). All the MET systems will have
the ability to provide multiple threat emulations within the frequency spectrum as depicted in
Figure 17. Although each system is only capable of emitting one threat frequency at a time, the
system will be capable of remotely reprogramming via a wireless network through a SDR to
emit another threat frequency in less than 60 seconds. MET will have “receive” capabilities as a
spectrum monitoring/surveillance system and replicate threat waveforms as follows: electronic
attack (EA), early warning radar, target engagement radar, and missile uplink/command link
signals. Figures 4 and 5 in the executive summary section display the four MET systems and
detail capabilities of each (AXEE capabilities are still in the development phase but will reflect
the MET-H system with significantly more power and an AESA antenna).

Figure 17: MET Frequency, Bandwidth, Power and Antenna Specifications

Constructive threats and the Common Operating Picture (COP) for Phase 1A of the technology
demonstration will be provided by the DIADS, which is a US government-owned, open-source
software application. DIADS has been a part of electronic warfare (EW) analysis for many years,
dating back to its origins from the Real-Time Electromagnetic Defense Capability (REDCAP).
DIADS was a centralized rehost of the REDCAP distributed Integrated Air Defense System
(IADS). Given the DIADS legacy, it has been used for EW analysis since its development from the
REDCAP hardware-in-the-loop (HITL)/man-in-the-loop (MITL) software. DIADS has increased its
role in the integrated EW test process providing stimulation capability as a stand-alone, and
more frequently, as a player in a distributed set of models and simulations. Because of its
REDCAP lineage, it was initially only a real-time model and was used mainly in live and virtual
26
test capabilities. What provides DIADS uniqueness is its current use at the Air Force Flight Test
Center, Edwards AFB, California, in the complete EW test process from analysis to installed
system test. This is essential in developing an integrated EW test process. It is used today in LVC
modes for both the test and training communities. DIADS has been and will be a key player in
several distributed virtual simulations and installed test facilities. In the test domain, DIADS was
the key opposing forces player in the F-22 Air Combat Simulator (ACS) program. In the training
domain, DIADS is integrated with the Red Forces Command and Control (RFCC) system at Nellis
AFB, NV, as well as the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) at Naval Air Station Fallon, NV.
DIADS was able to participate efficiently in these distributed simulations via continuous support
of standard High-Level Architecture (HLA) and Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS), as well
as several specialized interfaces. Other models and simulations typically use DIADS to represent
a test capability that best meets the requirements of a specific test. DIADS does not provide a
full mission simulation, but instead focuses on air picture generation and command and control
processes inside a typical IADS. Within this context, DIADS provides a timing and spatial
synchronization of the sensor, weapons and command and control (C2) elements that allows it
to be used in any level of simulation and the informational content to allow for evaluation of
hardware, techniques and tactics, as well as stimulation of virtual and live hardware. DIADS
works with other models to provide that capability, and in the end, evaluate future weapon
system capabilities while providing the COP for integrated and advanced training events.

To provide a full SITL LVC training capability, synthetic injects (effects produced in synthetic
training devices or simulators) are required. Due to the time and funding required to create a
complex training architecture of this nature, synthetic injects from distributed simulators will
not be included until Phase 2 of the FATR technology demonstration. However, synthetic injects
from DIADS to actual aircraft will be attempted in Phase 1B, time and funding permitting.
Amplifying information will be provided in the Phase 1B final report.

Architecture of the Phase 1A PATS/ALVC Demonstration

The architecture for Phase 1A of the PATS/ALVC demonstration consisted of a MET-L being
controlled remotely (wirelessly) by DIADS via an SDR. The message protocol used is the legacy
DIS message format. DIS is an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard
protocol used primarily in modeling and simulation (M&S) and has proven applicability to the
LVC training environment. The framework of the architecture starts with DIADS providing C2 to
the MET system and injects a constructive threat indication into the training environment. Once
commanded by DIADS, the SDR remotely sends a signal to the MET-L to initiate a low power
threat emission that attempts to stimulate a rotary wing aircraft’s radar warning receiver (RWR)
flying in close proximity (1.65 nm) to the MET-L system. This demonstration architecture was
developed over the course of Phase 1A and was setup for a demonstration in a controlled
environment. Figure 18 illustrates the demonstration schematic.

27
 Figure 18: Phase 1A Demonstration Schematic

Demonstration Summary

The Phase 1A demonstration (Part 1) was completed at the SRC facility in Huntsville, AL on
Wed, 7 June 2023. Participants included the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) from
Redstone Arsenal, SRC MET engineering team, FATR Program Manager and Technical Lead and
members of the 41st Rescue Squadron from Moody AFB, GA. A mission briefing was held on
Tue, 6 June 2023 to ensure all participants were familiar with the PATS/ALVC architecture,
scope of the demonstration and all critical demonstration parameters and profiles. The briefing
also allowed the technical team to better understand the combat systems onboard the HH-60W
helicopter. The 41st Rescue Squadron flies the HH-60W Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR)
helicopter with the APR-52(V)1 RWR, Common Missile Warning System and ALE-47
Countermeasures Dispenser. The threat warning and indications system is integrated on both
the pilot and co-pilots’ digital multi-function display (MFD). The threat display is appropriately
called the “Ring of Fire” because the display takes highest priority when threat indications are
received and is located on the highest level of the MFD. Figure 19 shows the APR-52(V)1 digital
electronic support measures (ESM) equipment and the pilot’s MFD.

28
 Figure 19: HH-60W ESM Equipment and MFD

The MET-L system was programmed to be able to emit multiple waveforms (one at a time)
representing different surface-to-air threat systems. As depicted in Figure 20, the HH-60W flight
profile included a holding point approximately 1.65 NM southeast of the SRC facility and a
northwest to southeast racetrack pattern, exposing all four quadrants of the RWR to the MET-L
emissions.

Figure 20: HH-60W Flight Profile for PATS/ALVC Demonstration

Sixteen passes were performed using seven different profiles and four distinct threat
waveforms. The profiles consisted of a combination of racetrack patterns, hovering at altitudes
ranging from 1000-1500 feet above ground level and performing multiple 360 degree turns to
expose all quadrants to the threat indications at close range. The HH-60W was only able to
accurately identify and display one of the four threat waveforms under the high-power MET
setting. This was anticipated due to the preset Mission Data File (MDF) loaded in the ESM

29
system. The 40-minute flight event was accomplished in the presence of two persistent RF
signals; one of the signals was emanating from the Restricted Area south of the Redstone
Arsenal Airfield and the other was emanating from the vicinity of the Huntsville International
Airport. By conducting passes without the MET emitting, the crew identified the two persistent
signals and their azimuth in the operating area which allowed them to confidently discern the
accuracy of the MET emission and azimuth. Waveform D was correctly indicated and displayed
in the pilot’s MFD as an advanced surface-to-air threat system that was confirmed to be in the
MDF of the aircraft.

A flight debrief was conducted with the crew of the HH-60W. All the passes were reviewed and
discussed. The crew confirmed the aircraft’s successful reception, identification and displaying
of the appropriate indication on the RWR for Waveform D. The aircraft commander
summarized the successful demonstration with the following statement: “This was value added
because we only get to see this (current threats) in the simulator.” These are compelling words
from the warfighter and motivation for the team to continue forward on developing the FATR.

Due to software updates, the DIADS portion (Part 2) of the architecture was completed
successfully in a separate demonstration on 28 Jun. Overall, the entire architecture, as
depicted in the Figure 18 schematic, functioned completely as designed and met the
requirements of TRL 6. Reference Appendix B.1 and B.2 for a complete synopsis of the Phase
1A demonstration overview, architecture, profiles and execution. The team is now ready to
develop the PATS/ALVC prototype system to show proof of concept in an operational
environment (TRL 7) in Phase 1B.

Architecture of the Phase 1B Demonstration

The PATS/ALVC technology demonstration in Phase 1B will be similar in scope but will be
conducted on an operational training range in central Florida using a MET-H system. The range
to be used is the APAFR and live participants will again consist of rotary wing platform(s) from
Air Force and Army units, as well as potential support from the Helicopter Maritime Strike Wing
Atlantic (HSMWL) and the Maritime Patrol Wing ELEVEN, both based in Jacksonville, FL. HSMWL
flies the MH-60R multi-purpose helicopter with an ALQ-210 ESM suite and various other digital
ESM capabilities on their experimentation aircraft. Wing ELEVEN flies the P-8A and is equipped
with the ALQ-240 ESM system in conjunction with the ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD)
to provide situational awareness and defensive self-protection capability, respectively, against
RF threat systems.

Another platform of opportunity is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornets, from the
Naval Air Forces Atlantic, are currently flying with an Operational Flight Program (OFP) that was
modified to include SITL LVC training injects as part of the Secure LVC Advanced Training
Environment (SLATE) Technology Maturation (Tech Mat) project. The SLATE Tech Mat project
was conducted on behalf of Program Executive Officer Tactical Aircraft (PEO-TACAIR) in 2021.
As part of Phase 1B, the technology demonstration will utilize an OCC setup in a hangar facility
located at the APAFR. The OCC will consist of a server rack with processors that will include the

30
software host system. The server rack will likely resemble a Live Mission Operations Center
(LMOC located at Hill AFB in Ogden, UT) server called WarRoom. For this technology
demonstration, there is an opportunity to install a WarRoom-In-A-Box (WIAB) that will act as an
actual WarRoom server surrogate. The WIAB will have a host software package to include:
DIADS and a data recording/debriefing capability; multiple monitors to display the COP, DIADS,
and other pertinent data feeds; and switches and connectors to control an SDR. It is anticipated
there will be a tactical datalink (Link-16) with the requisite NSA-certified encryption available at
the APAFR complex. A graphical depiction of this schematic is shown below in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Phase 1B PATS/ALVC Technology Demonstration Schematic

Phase 1B will culminate in a three-week operational demonstration scheduled for May 2024.
Due to the complexity and INFOSEC/OPSEC aspects of a multi-domain training range included in
Phase 2, the FATR team will be required to interact and partner with U.S. Department of
Defense organization(s), individual services and reserve components. Government-furnished
equipment (GFE) will be required (e.g., MIDS-J terminals and Crypto Mod keys for Link-16) in
order to create the fully functioning blended LVC training environment required to prepare the
joint force for the peer fight. This is even more evident with recent open-source reporting that
China is basing an electronic listening post in Cuba. A fully encrypted, multi-domain blended
LVC training environment is the only way to overcome these enhanced security risks.

31
The FATR team would like to thank the 23 WG at Moody Air Force Base, GA for their
participation in the demonstration and their continued support in Phase 1B. The following
photos (Figure 22) are added to recognize the exceptional team effort of the event.

Figure 22: Photos of MET/ALVC Prototype Demonstration at SRC, 7 Jun 2023

32
Deliverable C: Coordinated and Approved Air
Traffic Control Corridor Procedures to Link
Regional Military Airspace to Utilize the FATR
Task 2.1: Coordinate and Seek Federal Aviation Administration and Air Traffic Control
Approval for Airspace Framework and Processes

Overview

As part of the Phase 1A FATR project work, our team reviewed various operational concepts
being utilized within the Department of Defense, interviewed various DoD aviation-centric
commands located across the state of Florida, documented their high-level training
requirements, and reviewed the current military use airspace construct over and around Florida
as defined in the National Airspace System (NAS) documentation from the FAA. Considering all
that information, a confluence of four unique factors makes a reevaluation of the military use
of airspace over and around the Florida peninsula a strategic imperative. The four most
significant factors are: (1) the Florida ranges and holistic complex of military-use airspace/sea-
space; (2) the 2022 NDS identification of the Peoples Republic of China as a strategic competitor
and pacing threat necessitating the requirement for our military to provide more joint force,
all-domain test and training operations; (3) air, land, sea, space, cyber weapon systems
capabilities and training requirements, and; (4) the planned 5th generation aircraft basing
laydown for the southeastern United States.

This section will cover the background of each of these four topics, outline a concept of how
best to connect existing portions of current military use airspace and optimize range
capabilities to enhanced weapon systems training for the joint force. Our team’s role is to
coordinate a consolidated airspace proposal with the Florida units for submission to the FAA
and ATC.

The goal of the consolidated airspace proposal is neither a complete redesign, baseline change,
nor is it a significant revision. The plan would only add temporary use Air Traffic Control
Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) and/or an Altitude Reservations (ALTRV) to connect existing SUA
offshore Warning Areas to overland Restricted Areas and MOAs. By doing this at scale, and
holistically across Florida, the airspace necessary to support realistic training for the joint force
can be achieved in Florida with minimal impact and disruption to the NAS. Ultimately, this
proposal will need to be fully coordinated by DoD with the FAA and its Air Route Traffic Control
Centers (ARTCC) across the southeastern United States.

33
Objective

The objective of the task is to assist Florida-based military units and their headquarters in
developing a consolidated airspace change proposal for FAA consideration that will address the
issues identified in the overview. The team laid the framework for Task 2.1 in Phase 1A and will
continue to assist the military commands in the FAA submission and final approval process.
Ultimately, the decision to coordinate and submit the airspace change request will be made by
each respective DoD stakeholder that chooses to utilize the FATR environment. Our team has
no official standing to make an airspace change request. During the initial coordination in Phase
1A, our team encountered broad agreement from the Florida units on the proposed changes,
but more importantly, the consensus that a consolidated DoD coordination effort would be
more efficient than multiple individual FAA requests from various local units located around the
state.

The Florida Ranges and Airspace Complex

With twenty-three major military and DHS installations in Florida, across four services and the
USCG, military aviation has a long and storied history in Florida, not to mention major economic
implications. Much of that history derives from the legacy of the build-up and early years of the
United States’ involvement in World War II when today’s, modern military complex in Florida
was born. Florida was a natural place in the 1930s-1940s for aviation training as it had
abundant airspace over both land and water, land areas available for bombing practice and
other aviation-related ordnance testing and training. Further enhancing this premier airspace
in Florida were, and still are, the prevailing climate and weather conducive to reliable, year-
round Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flying conditions. Additionally, Florida presented numerous
ocean surface and subsurface areas for naval testing and training as well. All those factors still
exist in Florida today. What has changed in the last 65+ years, in addition to reducing the WWII
military base footprint, has been the addition of access to and from space surrounding the
Florida peninsula, along with the tremendous growth of commercial aviation and development
of the NAS to regulate it via the FAA. Florida’s major range complexes today are depicted in
Figure 23.1 They include robust sea and airspace in offshore areas on either side of the
peninsula.

1
Figure source: “From the sea floor to outer space: The value of Florida Ranges to existing and future military
missions.” Spring 2022. Pg. 11. Enterprise Florida available at: https://www.enterpriseflorida.com/wp-
content/uploads/Florida-Range-Report-Spring-2022.pdf.

34
 Figure 23: Overall Florida Military Range Complex Highlights

Offshore Airspace

To the west, the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) has been described by the
Secretary of Defense as “…an irreplaceable national asset used by the Department of Defense
(DoD) to develop and maintain the readiness of our combat forces and is critical to achieving
the objectives contained in the National Defense Strategy. The unique capabilities present in
the region have been developed over decades through the investment of billions of taxpayer
dollars and countless hours of effort by federal, state, and private organizations and local
citizens. No other area in the world provides the U.S. military with ready access to a highly
instrumented, network-connected, surrogate environment for military operations in the
Northern Arabian Gulf and Indo-Pacific Theater.”2 The totality of the EGTTR provides over
150,000 nm2 of surface and airspace, making it the largest over-water DoD test and training
area in the continental United States. “When coupled with approximately 465,000 acres of land
managed by Eglin Air Force Base, and the surrounding installations of the Naval Surface

2
Report to Congress, Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, May 2018. Document Number: 03012018T098

35
Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City, Tyndall AFB, MacDill AFB, and Naval Air Station (NAS) Key
West [and Navy controlled range space surrounding the lower Keys], this area cannot be
replicated as it provides one of the DoD’s most diverse, highly instrumented areas.”3

To the east of Florida, the Jacksonville Range Complex and Operating Areas (JAXOPAREA)
encompasses offshore, nearshore, and onshore OPAREAs, ranges, and Special Use Airspace
(SUA). Components of the JAX Range Complex encompass 50,090 square nautical miles (nm2)
of sea space and 62,596 nm2 of SUA off the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida, as well as 20 square miles of inland range area in north-central Florida. This
complex consists of targets and instrumented areas, airspace, surface OPAREAs, and inland
range facilities. It also includes the Jacksonville Undersea Warfare Shallow Water Training
Range (USWTR), the first underwater training range, designed and built for use by Air, Surface,
and Undersea participants in the shallow-water area that is the most difficult real-world anti-
submarine warfare environment.

Still to the east and south of the Jacksonville Complex is the Eastern Range, extending more
than 10,000 miles from the Florida mainland through the South Atlantic and into the Indian
Ocean. It includes the launch facilities at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and a network of
instrumentation stations, including Malabar and Jonathan Dickinson tracking annexes, and
downrange sites. Space Launch Delta 45 and the Eastern Range assets continue to provide a
vast network of radar, telemetry, and communications instrumentation support to facilitate the
safe launch of all Department of Defense National Security Space, National Aeronautics Space
Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, commercial and Naval
Ordnance Test Unit’s support to the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs missions.

Overland Airspace and Associated Ranges

The on-land ranges and associated airspace for the FATR technology demonstration includes a
MET/ALVC system positioned at APAFR and possibly a second MET/ALVC system positioned at
the Navy’s PRC. More details regarding the MET/ALVC prototype systems, their laydown and
phasing in FATR through Phase 2 are provided in the Deliverable A section of this report.

APAFR provides a sustainable, world-class training complex focused on advanced, realistic, and
relevant training for joint, interagency, and multinational partners, excelling in air-ground
integration and ACE operations (Figure 24). The facility is commanded by the 598th Range
Squadron whose mission is to deliver mission-ready support facilities, infrastructure, base
operations support services, logistics, fire services, environmental services, and
communications support assuring success in training for their customers. The range provides
106,000 acres of day/night training space, has an 8,000-foot uncontrolled runway, and 13
different Military Training Routes (MTRs) and 7 established air refueling tracks. It also includes
189 sq. miles of restricted airspace.

3
Ibid.

36
 Figure 24: APAFR Restricted Areas and MOAs
PRC is an unfenced area within the Ocala National Forest, with the eastern edge located
approximately 2 miles west of Florida SR 19 and the Camp Ocala campgrounds, and 1/2 mile
west of the Farles Lake campground Figure 25. Military aircraft fly at low altitude over the
forest, and drop practice, inert or live bombs and/or shoot their cannons in the middle 450
acres of the range. Aircraft will also fly low over the forest, northwest of nearby Lake George
on the St. Johns River, bisect the lake at low altitude on a southeasterly heading, and drop inert
500 lb., 1000 lb., or 2000 lb. bombs or mines in a Navy controlled impact area in the southeast
quadrant of Lake George. Restricted Area airspace in the form of R-2906, R-2907A/B/C, and R-
2910A/B/C/D/E overlies all range area, all bounded by the Palatka 1 and Palatka 2 Military
Operating Areas (PALATKA ONE MOA; PALATKA TWO MOA), extending from just south of the
city of Palatka to just north of the town of Paisley. Depending on potential wildfire conditions,
aircraft can fire 20mm, 25mm and 30mm cannon rounds, drop Mk 76 and Mk 106 practice
bombs and live Mk 82 series 500 lb. bombs (Mk 82/BLU-111/BLU-126 series, GBU-12 LGB, GBU-
38 JDAM) bombs on the range. Inert Mk82 series, Mk83 series (1000 lb.) and Mk84 series (2000
lb.) bombs may be dropped at any time regardless of fire conditions. PRC is the only place on
the East Coast where the Navy can do live impact training. The Navy drops nearly 20,000 bombs
a year on the site.

37
Figure 25: PRC Restricted Areas and MOAs

38
Existing Airspace Summary

The airspace associated with all these land impact ranges is highlighted in Figure 26 below.4

Figure 26: Key Special Use Airspace Over Florida and Surrounding Waters

It is this unique combination of not only the airspace and associated aviation ranges, but also
the sea, subsea, space and cyber space ranges spanning the state that creates the unique value
proposition for military training in Florida. It enables the potential training space encompassing
500 nm x 400 nm (200,000 sq/nm of air, land, sea, space, cyber potential) from the EGTTR to
the Atlantic. How to better link these existing airspace areas for temporary durations in
support of joint force training is the focus of the airspace change proposal in this narrative
along with the accompanying draft of an airspace change request developed for use by joint
military units in requesting tactically significant training space.

This combination of ranges and infrastructure is also coupled with distinctive geography that
can provide a bespoke solution to training for the National Defense Strategy’s identified “pacing
challenge.”

National Defense Strategy Focus and the “Florida Fit”

What has also changed more recently has been the identification of the People’s Republic of
China in the 2022 National Defense Strategy as the most significant threat and a “pacing
challenge” for U.S. forces. This recognition of the decades-long rise of Chinese power to rival
U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific theater brings new value to the combined air-land-sea test and

4
Created from Florida 3D Military Range tool available at: http://florida3d.demo.s3-website.eu-west-
2.amazonaws.com

39
training range complexes across Florida. As previously depicted in Figure 3 , Florida and its
holistic complex of ranges, sea space and airspace present a unique ability to connect multiple
air, land and sea areas due to lack of bordering states or other countries. The geographic
circumstance is also unique in that it reasonably represents and fits the configuration of the
area in the South China Sea; a recognized area where increased friction and interactions could
lead to the outbreak of hostilities in the Western Pacific.

Florida’s unique military range complex presents a robust, joint warfighting, all-domain
opportunity for the military to practice with the forces required, and at the scale needed in a
combined arms manner. It is perhaps the only place in the world where the anticipated anti-
access, area denial strategy anticipated from China inside the Western Pacific’s first island chain
could be replicated at scale for testing, training, and exercises. In their 2022 analysis of the
Florida Range Complex, The Roosevelt Group noted that, “the concept of Joint All-Domain
Operations (JADO) is not new but has emerged in recent years as the one true competitive
advantage of the United States and its allies and partners.”5 Consistent with JADO, is the
evolving concept of Joint, All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) to provide the network,
data storage and analysis, data transmission, and ultimately decision superiority that comes
from connecting massive amounts of data. The 5th Gen F-35 is a key capability node given its
enhanced networking and data link capabilities. As such, the ability to better leverage the
existing Florida airspace and range complex is a strategic imperative.

The Roosevelt Group also highlighted a conclusion in their report regarding the unique Florida
geographic “fit” to the strategic inflection point facing the United States that summed it up
best:
“As the United States and its allies bring Joint All-Domain Operations to maturity, the
integrated Florida range-of-the-future will take on new significance. Its most important
use could well extend beyond the development of new all-domain architectures and
employment doctrine, to the campaign-level rehearsal of a full-scale conflict between
the United States and its pacing adversary.”

Bottomline: the Florida ranges and linkages through the FATR concept are the only place in
CONUS where the joint force can operationally train with live forces for our most difficult
potential fight.

Operational/Tactical Local Training Requirements

To effectively train joint forces in integrated employment of capabilities against adaptive and
determined threats, military forces must practice, rehearse, and adapt their TTPs in both
building-block, unit-level training as well as when integrated together into larger joint force
packages. The complex of ranges in Florida affords the joint force the potential to do this in
ways that are either very difficult, or even impossible in other locations. The robust air, sea
surface, subsurface, land, space and cyber ranges in Florida enable this combination of live

5
“From the sea floor to outer space,” Pg. 6.

40
forces like no other. Particularly in preparation for a potential conflict in the South China Sea
region which is heavily dependent on the maritime and air domains, Florida ranges provide this
unique ability to combine these force types at the scale required to simulate both long-range
fires and stand-off outside of long-range threats. Properly connected, the airspace over and
around the Florida peninsula, coupled with the enhanced threat emitters provided in the FATR
concept, enables the networking a sensor data from 5th Gen aircraft in training in tactical and
operational relevant ways better replicating the way they will have to fight in support of the
joint force. These 5th Gen air domain requirements are further amplified below.

F-35 pilots are required to perform the full spectrum of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions at
all altitudes from surface to 50,000 feet. The F-35 Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) tasking
requires pilots to maintain proficiency in the following primary mission sets:

• Offensive Counter Air (OCA)

• Defensive Counter Air (DCA)
• Tactical Intercepts (TI)
• Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM)
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD)
• Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR)
• Close Air Support (CAS)
• Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM)
• Basic Surface Attack (BSA)
• Instrument Proficiency

In accomplishing this training, F-35 pilots require predictable and stable access to suitable low
and high-altitude airspace. The RAP requirements of the F-35 dictate what events pilots must
complete within a given year to build the essential skills necessary to be Combat Mission Ready
(CMR). The ability for F-35 pilots to execute training events at high altitudes is required for
many of the primary mission sets listed above. Failure to meet RAP requirements during a
given cycle may result in additional training requirements and loss of CMR status.

A critical capability enhancement of the 5th Gen F-35 is its ability to network information to not
only other F-35s flying in formation, but also with other ground, sea, and air assets. This
provides enhanced ability for F-35 formations to work multiple missions sets in real-time; for
example: a formation may be performing SCAR and SEAD functions while at the same time
maneuvering towards a target area to conduct BSA or CAS missions as well. The entire time,
the aircraft are linking and sharing information about the battlespace they are sensing. To do
this effectively, tactical requirements may dictate a multi-aircraft formation. Figure 27 is an
example of such a F-35, 8-ship formation supported by an airborne command and control
aircraft with enemy fighters and enemy surface-to-air missile threats. The desired tactical
formation and threat profile requires a 3-dimensional space of approximately 160 miles long by
100 miles wide and from the surface to 50,000 feet high to effectively train pilots to employ the
F-35’s capabilities as identified through various F-35 unit interviews and tactical discussions.

41
 Figure 27: An 8-Ship F-35 Tactical Formation

The challenge the FATR Team identified, and depicted in Figure 28 below, is the lack of these
larger airspace connections between the plentiful airspace available over the offshore Warning
and training areas, and the Restricted Areas and MOAs that exist over the land ranges such as
at Eglin AFB, PRC, and APAFR. While multiple MTRs exist (samples displayed in yellow) that do
provide physical airspace connectivity, these MTRs tend to be rather narrow and would limit
the ability of 5th Gen fighters to fly in tactical maneuver formations while transitioning from
over water to over land operations as they approach the ranges/targets.

Figure 28 : Current Overwater and MTR Transitions to Over Land Range Complexes
42
Planned F-35 Basing Laydown for the Southeastern United States

Furthermore, as Figure 2 previously highlighted in the executive summary of this report, within
the next several years, there is a planned basing laydown of 300-400 F-35, 5th Generation
fighter aircraft across the Southeastern United States all within a 500-mile flying radius of
Florida and its range complex. These aircraft and aircrew will require “backyard” ranges readily
available to maintain their CMR ratings. While both the Air Force and Navy have other air
training ranges in the western United States and Alaska that east-coast based aircraft will
occasionally travel to for training and exercise events, it is not possible based on time, cost, and
airframe life, for east coast-based aircrew and aircraft to continually travel that distance for
routine training requirements. “Backyard” ranges must be configured in such a manner to
enable 5th Gen capable tactics, techniques, and procedures to be practiced for proficiency.
With the potential airspace and threat emitter changes proposed within the FATR plan, this
capability, and more, are possible across Florida’s range complex. Without these changes, pilots
from the various fighter wings operating F-35 and future advanced fighters will be unable to
accomplish various required flying events in the manner called for by their tactics, techniques,
and procedures (TTPs) and will be unable to effectively “train as they will fight,” particularly in
air-to-ground missions sets.

Proposed Airspace Changes: ATCAAs & ALTRVs to Support Enhanced Training Requirements

Taking into consideration all the facts and information discovered throughout the preceding
sections, and multiple fact-finding discussions with representatives of military aviation units
based across Florida, the airspace challenge identified by the FATR Team was how to better
leverage the existing NAS structure and range complexes, with minimal disruptions, to support
holistic joint force training.

For the planned initial Phase 2 technology demonstrations utilizing the new MET threat systems
at APAFR and PRC, existing MTRs and ALTRVs can support single aircraft or small formations
performing limited operations. However, for larger force exercises, including 5th Gen aircraft,
to fully benefit from the MET placement at ranges like APAFR and PRC for Phase 2 and beyond,
a connective ATCAA “shelf” will be required to bridge between an existing Warning Area and a
Restricted Area/MOA.

It is important to note that these ATCAAs do not necessarily represent simultaneous, nor
continuous use. It is envisioned that each would be established for intermittent, short time
periods when training or exercise evolutions are planned. They would still be subject to FAA
approval/authorization in-situ and could be modified and/or canceled for use depending on
prevailing conditions of weather, air traffic, and other issues that impact on the NAS.

Figures 32-37, at the end of this section, summarize the proposal of these “shelves” to connect
the offshore and onshore airspace. Starting in the northeast and moving clockwise around the
peninsula, this plan utilizes the following offshore warning areas to create new connections into
both APAFR and PRC:

43
 • W-136 – W-139
• W-497
• W-174
• W-168
• W-470

The ATCAAs from the Atlantic Ocean Warning Areas are appreciably shorter as the ranges from
the western edges of the Warning Areas to the eastern edges of the Restricted Areas/MOAs
tend to be in the 40–50-mile range distance. Ideally, these short distance ATCAAs would be
available for discreet time durations from 18,000 – 35,000-foot altitudes (FL 180 – FL 350) to
enable full tactical employment of a F-35 tactical formation as it moves inland to ingress the
range Restricted Area.

Alternatively, when airspace constraints limit the altitude block, the ATCAA could be
established in a 10K foot increment, selected by ATC, that affords the least impact to other
commercial and general aviation operations. While the reduced altitude block does limit some
tactical maneuvering flexibility, a 10K foot block still allows multi-aircraft formations
maneuvering in their tactical configurations, as well as the opportunity to employ opposition
“red” aircraft for an improved tactical training benefit.

Each ATCAA could be established for any discrete training event in any one of the following two
altitude block options if the entire FL 180 – FL 350 is not available:

• FL 250 – FL 350
• FL 180 – FL 280

For training events that will include air-to-ground weapons employment into a range complex,
the lower altitude block can be established as a step-down into the appropriate MOA and
Restricted Area associated with that range.

On the other coast, the Gulf of Mexico Warning Areas have longer approach distances of 100–
170-miles in length. As such, to minimize the volume of airspace activated by use of these
ATCAAs, the longer routes could also be established in a continuous 10K foot altitude block
utilizing one of the two identified above. This will afford greater flexibility for ATC to enable
commercial and general aviation to continue to operate both above and below any ATCAA shelf
activated for the limited duration the ATCAA activation is in effect. Figures 29 and 30 below
highlight these two options.

44
 Figure 29: Side Profile View of ATCAA Reduced Altitude Block Concept (FL 250 - 350) from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

Figure 30: Side Profile View of ATCAA Reduced Altitude Block Concept (FL 180 - 280) from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

As further flexibility in these longer ATCAAs from the western side of the peninsula, a stepdown
in altitude from one altitude block to another could be accommodated. While altitude block
changes are not desirable as they create another artificial limitation imposed during live

45
training, if it means the difference between completing the training event or cancellation due
to ATC concerns, a stepdown could likely be accommodated on a shelf with over 100 miles in
distance between Warning Area and the connected range. If this altitude block change were
required, it would best be accommodated prior to the 50NM distance from the range as
depicted in Figure 31 below. This step down would create further flexibility for brief periods of
military use during the training event while still allowing for the flow of commercial and general
aviation aircraft both above and below these corridors.

Figure 31: Side Profile View of ATCAA Tiered Step-Down Concept from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

Additionally, the time of ATCAA activation can be utilized during both day and night which may
afford greater deconfliction options with commercial and general aviation operations.

The list of coordinates and figures on the following pages provide proposed boundary
information and controlling authority for the initial concept proposal of the six ATCAAs.
Altitude options for each are as described above.

46
• W-136 – W-139 to PRC (The Daytona Shelf)
o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 30°19’00”N., long. 80°59’47”W.; to lat.
29°51’15”N., long. 81°02’02”W.; thence southeast along a line parallel with and
12 NM from the shoreline to lat. 29°03’16”N., long. 80°38’35”W.; to lat.
28°50’00”N., long. 80°29’00”W.; to lat. 28°57'56''N., long. 81°28'24''W.; to lat.
29°36’21”N., long. 81°32’19”W.; to the point of beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC

Figure 32: The Daytona Shelf

47
• W-497 to APAFR (The Melbourne Shelf)
o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 28°24’31”N., long. 80°29’52”W.; thence south
along a line 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline to lat. 27°31’14”N., long.
80°14’58”W.; to lat. 27°30'01"N., long. 80°48'19"W.; to lat. 27°41'21"N., long.
80°53'59"W.; to lat. 27°44'41"N., long. 81°03'59"W.; to lat. 27°44'46''N., long.
81°13'59''W.; to lat. 28°00'01''N., long. 81°13'59''W.; to the point of beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Miami ARTCC

Figure 33: The Melbourne Shelf

48
• W-174 to APAFR (The Naples Shelf)
o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 25°44'01"N., long. 82°29'59"W.; to lat. 25°45'01"N.,
long. 81°53'00"W.; thence counterclockwise along a line 12 NM from and
parallel to the shoreline; to lat. 25°37'00"N., long. 81°40'10"W.; to lat.
25°36'01"N., long. 81°39'59"W.; to lat. 27°32'31''N., long. 81°07'23''W.; to lat.
27°04’01”N., long. 81°16’59”W.; to lat. 27°04’01”N., long. 81°24’59”W.; to lat.
27°35’44”N., long. 81°42’14”W.; to the point of beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Miami ARTCC

Figure 34: The Naples Shelf

49
• W-168 to APAFR (The Sarasota Shelf)
o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 27°00'31"N., long. 82°55'10"W.; to lat. 26°36'42"N.,
long. 82°29'40"W.; to lat. 26°10'01"N., long. 82°16'59"W.; to lat. 27°04’01”N.,
long. 81°24’59”W.; to lat. 27o53’31”N., long. 81o51’59”W.; to the point of
beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Miami ARTCC

Figure 35: The Sarasota Shelf

50
• W-470 to APAFR (The Lakeland Shelf)
o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 29°42'30"N., long. 84°00'00"W.; to lat. 28°56'00"N.,
long. 83°31'00"W.; to lat. 28°05’00”N., long. 83°31’00”W.; to lat. 27°04’01”N.,
long. 81°24’59”W.; to lat. 27o53’31”N., long. 81o51’59”W.; to lat. 28o00’01”N.,
long. 81o20’59”W.; to lat. 28°00'01''N., long. 81°13'59''W.; to the point of
beginning
o Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC

Figure 36: The Lakeland Shelf

51
 • W-470 to PRC (The Ocala Shelf)
o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 29°42'30"N., long. 84°00'00"W.; to lat. 28°56'00"N.,
long. 83°31'00"W.; to lat. 28°24’00”N., long. 83°31’00”W.; to lat. 28°53'39''N.,
long. 81°33'56''W.; to lat. 29°36’21”N., long. 81°51’19”W.; to the point of
beginning
o Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC

Figure 37: The Ocala Shelf

The ATCAAs outlined above, coupled with the offshore Warning Areas, approximate the
required 160 x 100-mile airspace for effective F35 tactical employment and operational joint
training. All six potential ATCAAs narrow in width as the distance to either the APAFR or PRC
decreases recognizing the outer limits of the Restricted Airspace and MOAs supporting those
range operations. The utilization of the larger offshore Warning Areas enables the initial
tactical set-ups to approximate the 160 x 100-mile configuration prior to closing the width
approaching over land airspace.

52
Summary

Throughout Phase 1A of the FATR concept development, the focus on regional airspace has
been to primarily understand the training needs of military units across Florida and document
their requirements. The team then designed an initial architecture to better connect existing
SUA providing a reasonable balance between military test/training requirements,
commercial/general aviation routes and defense/commercial space launch access. Balancing
those competing demands has led to the development of a draft, consolidated Test and
Training Space Needs Statement (T/TSNS) prepared for use by Florida-based military units and
their higher headquarters to start coordination with the FAA for approval of these newly
proposed ATCAA shelves. The draft T/TSNS proposal has been submitted to the stakeholders for
coordination and can be reviewed at Appendix C.

Phase 1B will involve the finalization of the T/TSNS by the military units and their engagement
with FAA to pursue approval. While technology demonstrations in Phase 1B and 2 can be
conducted using existing, smaller MTRs and ALTRVs, eventual approval of the proposed ATCAA
shelves will enable tactical and operational training for the joint force in a realistic, all-domain
battlespace replicating the threat environment of a pacing threat. Once proven, the flexibility
of Florida’s geography and ranges can enable configurations that are operationally relevant to
almost any scenario involving joint, air, land, sea, space and cyber scenarios.

53
Deliverable D: Coordinated and Approved
Frequency Spectrum Management Procedures
Task 2.2-Coordinate and Seek Spectrum Certification for Threat Emitters and Communication
Networks

Overview

As part of the Phase 1 FATR project work, our team identified a new family of threat emitter
systems along with the various equipment required to establish a data-link network and the
connectivity between nodes in the FATR to enhance training on the Florida ranges. Part of
enabling this capability is ensuring the spectrum certifications required to transmit on the
various systems. Since the FATR project has no official standing with various federal agencies to
request spectrum authorization, the team’s role in this process is to assist in identification of
requirements and ensure ranges, other participating organizations and military units have the
appropriate information to submit the formal spectrum requests. In preparation for Phase 2
and beyond, our team also prepared requirements for the creation of increasingly congested
and contested electromagnetic spectrum (ESM) environments with enhanced threat networks
and ensure the participating organizations and military units have the information necessary to
request spectrum authorization. Finally, we provide support through key leader engagements
with various service headquarters to facilitate the processes described below.

Objective

The main objective of Task 2.2 is to deliver pacing threat emitters and a communication
network for use on the Florida peninsula to enhance the value of military training on Florida
ranges. The following is a list of anticipated equipment requiring spectrum certification for
Phase 1 and 2: PATS, Link 16 datalink network and software defined radios (SDR), to include the
associated radio relay unit (RRU), propagating network waveforms. To utilize these emitters
and networks, appropriate spectrum authority for use must be obtained. This deliverable
section addresses the standard processes by which that authority will be obtained. The Phase 1
and 2 operational schematics described in Deliverable A depict the current network concept
and location for equipment requiring local spectrum certifications.

Background

The complexity of the larger spectrum management processes throughout the DoD and the U.S.
federal government interagency, particularly as they relate to finding viable spectrum
allocations, allotments and assignments for new systems and global operations, is partially
overcome in the FATR project due to the simple fact that the FATR requirement is to replicate
advanced threat waveforms operated by potential adversaries. Representative of these
systems are surface-to-air (SAM) systems with NATO designations such as the SA-17 (Figure 38),

54
SA-20, and SA-22 for example. As a result, FATR’s spectrum approval coordination must focus
on the process to certify viable PATS and obtain operating authority within the frequency
ranges and with waveforms those threat emitters transmit, commonly within the 70 MHz – 18
GHz range.

Figure 38: Typical Road-Mobile SA-17 Launcher System

Currently, the FATR project is collaborating with the Scientific Research Corporation (SRC) who
has created a family of PATS called Multi-Domain Emitter Threat systems (MET). These mobile
systems are a new generation of affordable threat emitters that are being contracted and
tested by the U.S. Army, Threat System Management Office (TSMO). The initial DoD
certification process for these systems supporting Phase 1 and eventually Phase 2 will be
initiated by SRC and processed by TSMO. This deliverable narrative describes the process in
more generic terms such that any other future threat emitters and communication equipment,
potentially developed by another enterprise, will follow the same approach via different
requesting organizations.

Spectrum Certification

All spectrum dependent equipment/systems owned and operated by the DoD require spectrum
certification. Spectrum certification is a mandated process to ensure: (1) the operational
frequency band(s) and type of services are in conformance with respective national and
international tables of frequency allocations; (2) the equipment conforms to applicable
standards, specifications, regulations, directives, and statutes, and (3) approval is provided to
authorize expenditure of funds for the procurement/development of RF dependent equipment.
55
The majority of DoD operational spectrum issues are processed through the Frequency Panel
(FP) structure of the Military Communications-Electronics Board (MCEB). The MCEB is a DoD
organization that is composed of communications and information systems directors from the
Joint Staff, the Services, and selected DoD agencies, together with invited non-voting members
from other DoD components and other government departments. Its mission is to obtain
coordination on military communications-electronics matters among DoD components,
between the DoD and other governmental departments and agencies, and between the DoD
and representatives of foreign nations; to coordinate operational guidance and direction to
DoD components; to furnish advice and assistance to the DoD and its Components on military
communications-electronics matters; and to inform the DoD Chief Information Officer Council
of communications-electronics matters that require high-level attention.

The MCEB FP is a panel of technical experts, drawn from the components that are represented
on the MCEB, that reviews, develops, and coordinates studies, reports, and DoD positions for
consideration by the MCEB in the areas of radio frequency engineering and spectrum
management. Specific issues concerning the use of spectrum are divided among permanent
working groups.

Equipment spectrum certification is supported by the MCEB FP Equipment Spectrum Guidance

Permanent Working Group (ESGPWG) and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA)6 Spectrum Planning Subcommittee (SPS) and Frequency Assignment
Subcommittee (FAS). Figure 39 illustrates the spectrum certification process.

Figure 39: The Spectrum Certification Process

6
As defined in Chapter 10 of the NTIA Manual of Regulations & Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency
Management.

56
Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation, DD Form 1494 Process

The spectrum certification process begins when a program manager submits a DD Form 1494,
Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation, to the frequency management office of the
pertinent military service:

• Army, the Army Spectrum Management Office (AMSO)

• Air Force and Space Force, the Air Force Frequency Management Agency, (AFFMA)
• Navy and Marine Corp, the Navy Marine Corp Spectrum Center (NMSC)

This application must be coordinated through the FP of the MCEB before funds are authorized
for the development of any new equipment that will radiate electromagnetic energy. An
application is also required for equipment receiving RF, if protection is desired. This review
process is called the Joint Frequency Allocation-to-Equipment Process, or as it is commonly
known, the J-12 Process.

An approved DD Form 1494 establishes that a particular system has a valid spectrum
requirement. The approved DD Form 1494 is later used for frequency assignment. In parallel
with the J12 process, the Frequency Assignment Subcommittee (FAS) of the Interdepartmental
Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) must assign a frequency for any transmitting equipment prior
to its operation. Additionally, the applicant must coordinate with the local frequency manager
in the proposed area of deployment.

The DD Form 1494 is submitted at four different stages of an acquisition program and the
process repeats itself for each. The purposes of these submissions follow:
• Stage 1. Planning or Conceptual: Advises on feasibility of getting spectrum support and
recommends modifications or changes in frequency bands needed to get spectrum
support.
• Stage 2. Experimental: Provides guidance for assuring spectrum support in later stages
and is needed before obtaining frequency assignments for experimental testing.
• Stage 3. Developmental: Provides guidelines for assuring operational spectrum support
needed before obtaining frequency assignments for developmental testing.
• Stage 4. Operational: Certifies availability of spectrum support needed before making
operational frequency assignments.

Figure 40, on the following page, provides an example of the DD Form 1494 and its required
information.

57
Figure 40: Example of a DD Form 1494

58
DD 1494 Submissions for MET Family-of-Systems

The DD 1494 process has been initiated for the SRC family of MET systems. TSMO served as the
“Program Office” for the SRC DD1494 submissions. TSMO currently has Stage 2-Experimental
certifications, and the following submissions were accomplished or scheduled for submission:

• MET-Low and MET-M (MET-L with directional antenna): Stage 3-Developmental DD1494
updated to include additional Florida-based locations and will be submitted by TSMO to
the Army Spectrum Management Office (ASMO) in July 2023 (See Appendix D.1)
• MET-High Stage 3-Developmental DD1494, with additional Florida-based locations, will
be submitted by TSMO to ASMO following a critical design review

Stage 3 certifications will be sufficient for the duration of Phase 1 and Phase 2 follow-on
technology demonstration. If DoD accepts the MET family of systems for broader employment
across the FATR complex, or for use in other locations post-demonstration phase, a Stage 4-
operational certification request will be required.

Local Frequency Managers

For Phase 1, and follow-on Phase 2 technology demonstration, the planned MET-High locations
are APAFR and PRC.

The local frequency manager for APAFR is located at the 23rd Mission Support Group, based at
Moody AFB in Georgia. (229-257-9793 // https://usaf.dps.mil/teams/23CSPWCS).

The local frequency manager for the PRC is coordinated through FACSFAC JAX to the NMSC
Office Southeast, SOPWG NAVY PRI, based at NAS Jacksonville in Florida.
(904-542-5843 // https://usff.navy.deps.mil/sites/NAVIFOR/NMSC/SitePages/Home.aspx)

Operationalizing Spectrum for Phase 3 and Beyond

Assuming successful Phase 2 technology demonstrations and Phase 3 implementation by DoD,

it is envisioned that multiple PATS will be available for deployment around the Florida peninsula
and not just within the boundaries of dedicated military installations, facilities and ranges.
Florida’s unique geography affords an ability to “reconfigure” the state with different PATS
laydown footprints enabling rapid configuration of different IADS networks to match required
contested and congested training scenarios.

To support this, five distinct types of PATS siting locations are envisioned:
• Utilization on established DoD military ranges (consistent with Phases 1 & 2)7
• Utilization on other, non-range DoD facilities and installations8

7
Anticipate first post-Phase 2 range for addition into FATR would be Eglin AFB.
8
Tyndall AFB or other coastal positioned DoD facilities would be priorities.

59
 • Utilization on other federal facilities (ex: USCG stations around the state of Florida)9
• Utilization on other state or local government-controlled facilities (ex: Forestry Service
fire watch towers)
• Utilization on private property

Additionally, multiple ranges could be simultaneously involved in larger training scenarios or

joint force exercises, each equipped with one of more PATS in a variety of the locations
indicated above. As a result, future spectrum authorizations may require additional procedures
and processes to support this.

Spectrum Management Off-Installation

When military organizations plan to operate equipment outside the installation property but
operating in association with that range or installation, the unit must coordinate the use of
frequencies with the Area Frequency Coordinator (AFC). There are eight AFCs, each manned by
one of the Services, and each responsible for a geographic area. The AFCs are responsible to
their military department for administrative purposes and to the MCEB for policy guidance. The
AFC’s role is to ensure spectrum use will not interfere with any installation’s spectrum-
dependent systems.

AFCs maintain close liaison and coordination on matters of mutual interest with other military
and civil frequency coordination activities in, among and within line-of-sight to their areas of
operation. They minimize electromagnetic interference at, among, and within line-of-sight of
national and military test and training ranges and with all civil and non-military federal activities
within their electromagnetic environment. Much of the Florida panhandle falls within the Gulf
AFC (GAFC) and the remainder of the peninsula is under the Eastern AFC (EAFC).

Gulf Area Frequency Coordinator

Eglin AFB
Florida west of 83°W

Eastern Area Frequency Coordinator

Patrick SFB
Florida east of 83°W

Three designated Major Range and Test Facility Bases (MRTFB) are in or adjacent to Florida.
These are significant test installations, facilities and ranges which are regarded as "national

9
NOTE: Initial discussion with USCG District 7 Commander was favorable towards pursuing a future MOU/MOA to
potentially position PATS units on Coast Guard facilities pending legal and spectrum management reviews. United
States Coast Guard Spectrum Management Office (CG-672) is anticipated to be the lead on spectrum management
review for the Coast Guard.

60
assets” and spectrum deconfliction is particularly acute with the AFCs around these facilities.
MRTFBs around Florida include:
• Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC),
Andros Island, Bahamas
• Eastern Test Range (SLD 45), Patrick SFB, FL
• Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (96th Test Wing), Eglin AFB, FL

Since multiple PATS configured into an IADS network will likely be associated with one of
Florida’s ranges serving as the primary target, all remotely located, off-site PATS associated
with the core range will be managed and have coordination done by the “parent” range and
Service that is managing/running the training and/or exercise. If multiple ranges controlled by
different Services are involved, the Service who is establishing the overall training requirement
shall lead the coordination of spectrum authorizations with all stakeholders across the FATR
elements being utilized. Two Operational Control Centers (OCC) will be resourced and located
at MacDill AFB, FL and FACSFAC in Jacksonville, FL prior to Phase 2 (reference Deliverable A
section on operational command and control of each OCC). In addition, Unit Operation Centers
(UOC) will be located at each participating military unit with the ability to develop electronic
warfare scenarios utilizing the live emitter systems as well as real-time, remote operation of the
systems during actual training events.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)

EMI may be caused by friendly, enemy, neutral, or natural sources. Interference must be solved
on a case-by-case basis with resolution by the lowest level capable within the spectrum
management structure. Interference not able to be resolved at the lowest level must be
reported and elevated to the next responsible agency. The Joint Spectrum Center’s (JSC) Joint
Spectrum Interference Resolution (JSIR) team is on call 24 hours a day and is capable of global
deployment with its equipment.10

The following minimum information is required in a JSIR report:

• Affected System Frequency

• Network Control Station & Principal User
• Other Stations/Units Experiencing Interference
• Location of Affected System
• Operating Mode of the Affected System: Frequency Agile, Pulse Doppler, Search,
Upper/Lower Sideband, etc.
• GPS Affected
• Interference Frequency, Bandwidth, and Signal Strength
• Interference Characteristics: Continuous, Intermittent, Random, or Characteristic
Pattern; Varied or Constant Amplitude; Noise and/or Pulsed

10
CJCSM 3320.02E; JOINT SPECTRUM INTERFERENCE RESOLUTION (JSIR) PROCEDURES, dated 20 May 2022.

61
 • System Impact and Circuit Reliability

• Interference Cause(s) and Source(s):

o Dates and Times
o Resolution: Specific Actions Taken to Mitigate, Nullify, Identify
o Source(s) of & Resolve Interference
o Resolution Status
o Request for Resolution Assistance

JSC can be reached at:

JSC Help Desk, JSIR Team and Duty Officer
Phone number: (410) 293-HELP (4357)/9850/9819
DSN 281
NIPRNET: [email protected]
SIPRNET: [email protected]
JWICS: [email protected]
NIPRNET: http://www.disa.mil/Services/Spectrum/Occupational-Support
SIPRNET: http://intelshare.intelink.sgov.gov/sites/jsir
JWICS: http://intelshare.intelink.ic.gov/sites/jsir/default.aspx

Summary

At the conclusion of Phase 1A, we ensured the DD1494 process has been initiated for the MET-L
and MET-H systems anticipated for further development in Phase 1B and beyond into Phase 2.
Coordination with the Air Force is ongoing for the placement of a MET-H system at APAFR for
the technology demonstration. Additionally, although not formally in the scope of Phase 1B,
there is a possibility of MET-L systems on loan from TSMO for placement at PRC and Tyndall
AFB to enhance the demonstration capability and span of participants utilizing the larger range
footprint.

Supporting the preparation for demonstration of advanced emitter(s), included in Phase 1B will
also be the completion of the design of a datalink network across the peninsula to support
operations and communications. These early demonstration phases will leverage the Link-16
network, a current datalink network owned and operated by the DoD. In addition to the MET
emitters at ranges, the Phase 1B effort will also include the analysis, design and recommended
placement of data/radio relay units in appropriate locations as well as connecting an operation
control center with unit operation centers at participating military units. This will ensure
connectivity between designated sites in the FATR demonstration for Phase 2 and beyond.
Spectrum requests will be developed in Phase 1B to support this communication architecture.

62
Additional Supporting Activity_________________
Task 3.1-Coordinate Support and Utilization of DoD Resources and Installations

Overview

The FATR team determined early in the project that concept development would require
significant key leader engagements (KLE) at all levels of the Federal government, Department of
Defense (DoD), and State of Florida stakeholders. The engagements were primarily focused on
leadership at key installations and the principal training units located in Florida that would
benefit from advanced training range opportunities across the peninsula. Lastly, cross-tell with
managers of numerous training ranges located in other regions across the military enterprise
proved valuable in the concept development of a prototype range in Florida.

Objective

The objective of Task 3.1 was to gain support across the joint force to enable utilization of
existing DoD infrastructure. The team used the following summary (Figure 41) from the 2022
National Defense Strategy plus a map of the FATR concept overlaying the South China Sea area
of operations as our main attention step for engagements with decision makers to set the stage
for answering the questions: “why does the state/region/nation need FATR?” Additional
emphasis was placed on the requirement for a new 5th generation training construct outlined
by the units interviewed during the engagements. The most significant training requirements
mentioned consistently by the units the upgrade to programmable, affordable threat systems
(PATS) to replace obsolete emitters currently in use on Florida’s ranges; significantly larger
training areas up to 160nm long and 100nm wide; and the ability to conduct joint force training
while practicing long range kill chain targeting techniques against a pacing threat array.

Figure 41: National Defense Strategy and FATR Overlay

63
Key Leader Engagements

The team engaged with leaders from Headquarters Air Force, Air Combat Command (ACC), Air
Mobility Command (AMC), Air Force Material Command (AFMC), Air Force Special Operations
Command, Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Air and Army National Guard units
(ANG/ARNG), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), Naval Air Forces Atlantic (AIRLANT), US
Space Force (USSF) and Space Systems Command (SSC).

The primary focus of Phase 1A was to develop ‘proof of concept’ for combining live threat
emitters with a blended LVC training environment to offer Florida units the capability to
conduct realistic, local training without having to deploy regularly to western US ranges. The
team talked directly with commanders of Florida units to learn about their unique training
requirements for a high-end fight against a peer competitor.

Using this process for gathering unit training requirements, our team divided engagements and
discussions during Phase 1A into the following three categories of key leaders:

• Department of Defense (DOD) offices associated with Operational Training and

Readiness including Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directorates, National
Guard Bureau (NGB) and all military services including the Air Force, Space Force, Navy,
Marine Corps, Army, and Coast Guard including major commands, fleet commands and
their subordinate units.

• State entities and offices in the southeast region of the US including Governors’ national
security teams, defense alliances, legislative staffs, adjutant generals, and economic
development teams associated with military installations.

• Federal government entities, including US congressmen, the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The engagements covered the entire spectrum of discussions from simple courtesy calls to in-
depth, in-person office calls and virtual meetings covering the concept development of an
advanced training range spanning the Florida peninsula from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic
Ocean. Figure 42 depicts the KLE conducted during Phase 1A and includes engagements already
scheduled for Phase 1B. Appendix E provides a complete list of key leader engagements with
the date of the meeting, their title/office location and the highlights of the discussion.

It is notable that during most of these calls and meetings spanning six-months of Phase 1A,
each of the key leaders expressed some level of support for FATR and requested to be updated.
Some of the leaders we engaged have budgetary control over key aspects of military training in
the Southeast region and offered their direct support for the development of an advanced
training range spanning the peninsula of Florida. It was obvious to the team that the advanced
training ‘opportunities’ outlined in the FATR concept were of major interest to all military

64
leaders interviewed. KLE will continue to be an important task during every phase of this
project.

Key Leader Engagements

Federal DoD
• Congress • OSD
• Rep Scott Franklin FL District 18 • Mr. Greg Knapp, Force Education/Training
• Rep Jake Ellzey TX District 6 • EW/LVC Joint Study Group
• Rep Carlos Gimenez FL District 28 • Navy
• Rep Mario Diaz-Balart FL District 26 • RADM John Meier, COMNAVAIRLANT
• Rep Gus Bilirakis FL District 12 • CDR Mary Robinson, FACSFAC JAX/CO
• Mach 1 Caucus • Space Force
• Rep Mike Waltz FL District 6 (Jul) • Col Mark Shoemaker, SLD45/CV
• Rep Matt Gaetz FL District 1 (Jul) • Air Force
• Sen Rick Scott FL (Jul) • PACAF
• Rep Kathy Castor FL District 14 (Jul) • Gen Ken Wilsbach, Commander
• FAA • ACC
• FATR airspace proposal presented at Eastern • Lt Gen Russ Mack, DCOM
Airspace/Range Conference • Maj Gen Dave Lyons, A3
• NGB • Maj Gen Mike Koscheski, 15AF/CC
• Lt Gen Marc Sasseville, NGB/CV • AETC
State • Maj Gen Phil Stewart, 19AF/CC
• Legislature • AFMC
• Rep Paul Renner, SoH, District 19 (Jul) • Maj Gen Evan Dertien, AFTC/CC
• Sen Jay Collins, District 14 (Jul) • AMC
• FLANG/FLARNG • Col Adam Bingham, 6ARW/CC
• MG John Haas, TAG • AFRC
• Maj Gen Bryan Radliff, 10AF/CC
• AFSOC
• Brig Gen Jocelyn Schermerhorn, A3

Figure 42: Key Leaders Engaged During Phase 1A

Installation Support Plan

The team conducted multiple site surveys during Phase 1A to compile data on the current
resources and equipment already resident on key military installations and ranges across the
state of Florida. These surveys were designed to start with the installation commander to
determine the availability and viability of the facility to support Phase 1 and 2 FATR project
development and demonstrations. Our team visited APAFR, PRC, MacDill DUC and FACSFAC
Jacksonville during Phase 1A. A summary of key data and discoveries can be found in Table 6, in
Deliverable A section of the report. The following narratives provide relevant information on
each facility visit.

Summary of Visits

1. Avon Park Air Force Range, 10 Feb 2023

Rob Polumbo and Jake Polumbo

The team conducted multiple site visits to the Avon Park bombing range and concluded each
time, if properly modernized and updated, the facility could offer and provide control of
advanced training scenarios in all military domains for units located in the Southeast US. APAFR

65
could also host a functional OCC for demonstrating the PATS/ALVC prototype system in Phase
1B.

Notes from visit:

• The airport tower is the highest elevation on APAFR approximately 150 feet. Tower and
hangar roof are possible locations for a Radio Relay Unit (RRU) and other
communication equipment
• An ROCC is located in the tower including the primary Range Safety function; there are
no ATC controllers or published instrument approaches for the airfield.
• Office space is available in several facilities on the installation. Hangar offices are in the
same area as deployed unit workspace and could work for a FATR OCC or UOC. NIPR,
internet, phone, furniture is all available but there are currently no SIPR
terminals/secure area for classified operations; APAFR leadership is in the process of
furnishing these offices; Classified storage is possible in the deployed unit office
• Comm, antenna locations compatible for MET/ALVC prototype function (DIADS, ALVC
architecture for unclassified use only until SIPR and secure storage areas are installed;
5G-ATW waveform for SADL/Link16 datalink is also planned/funded for APAFR
operations but not yet in-place; 23WG plans on installing Link 16 capability at APAFR
• FATR operation manual will be required to provide units with instruction on all aspects
of utilizing the blended LVC range, scheduling, mission planning, operations, including
debriefing and safety issues. The operation manual will be formatted similarly with the
AFM 13-212 APAFR Supplement and coordinated with 598 RANS as a supplement to the
existing range manual
• Discussion on the organizational structure of FATR operational plan including possible
OCC location at MacDill DUC and the UOCs located at APAFR and each participating
Florida unit during Phase 2 technology demonstration (no decisions made at this point).
NIPR/SIPR/RRU/network connectivity TBD. Estimated cost for personnel, equipment,
setup, training TBD
• Discussed possible MET location: for prototype Phase 2 testing we agreed to have it
close to the ramp area for quick reaction to logistical, operational, troubleshooting,
fueling, maintenance issues and inclement weather storage. The location should be
optimized for reducing main lobe clutter for aircraft range entry (ATCAA or ALTRV W-
497/174/168). The two locations depicted in Figures 43 and 44 minimize conflict with
airfield operations and reduce RF clutter on a clockwise heading from 020-220.
• Other MET information: MET-L gas powered generator 6-8 hours of operation; shore
power 110V Classified/Unclassified signals MET-M/H diesel powered generator 6-8
hours of operation; shore power 110V/30A Classified/Unclassified signals

A few concerns were identified during multiple site surveys at Avon Park including MET
locations, spectrum certification, environmental impact study and safety impact of MET
emissions, security requirements, personnel, funding for classified operations at MacDill DUC

66
and APAFR, funding for additional personnel to oversee the FATR operation (contractor) and
incorporation of FATR operation manual as a supplement to AFM 13-212.

Figure 43: Possible MET-H location at APAFR

Figure 44: Expanded view of MET-H locations at APAFR

2. MacDill AFB Deployed Unit Complex Site Visit, 3 April 2023

Rob Polumbo and Jake Polumbo

Notes from visit:

Our team met with Lt Col Ryan and Buck McLaughlin regarding existing capabilities in the
Deployed Unit Complex. Discussion centered around these topics:

• Phase 2 office space for OCC for APAFR operations

• Currently no SIPR/Link 16/SADL/ACMI/classified briefing or debriefing capabilities
• No classified storage/SCIF available
• Possible location for MET system for Phase 3
• Spectrum certification/deconfliction with other MacDill units

67
 • Alert facility Mole-Hole
• Issues with the installation of 6ARW Link 16
• 290 JCSS/comm architecture
• Link 16 kits from ACC
The team also discussed on-site options for an OCC at either APAFR or the DUC:

• Phase 1B office space for operation center

• SIPR terminals
• Currently no Link 16/SADL/ACMI capability at either location
• Location for MET-H during Phase 1B setup and Phase 2 testing
• Draft FATR operation manual to include as a Supplement to AFM13-212

3. Pinecastle Range Complex Site Visit, 18 Apr 2023

Rob Polumbo and Rick Miller

Notes from visit:

The team visited both Pinecastle Range Complex and FACSFAC Jacksonville over a two-day
period. Key data and discoveries include:

• PRC exercise schedule for Aug 2023 - Aug 2024

• RRU at PRC on a tower primarily oriented towards the east to support afloat assets
offshore in the OPAREAs, approximately 125 feet height (Figures 45-47)
• Older, single-digit SAM simulators/emitters are still on site but mainly deployed for
COMPTUEX events (Figure 48)
• Confirmed the need to emphasize upcoming FATR “demonstrations”
• PRCs 2020 EA encompassed F-35s and expanded parameters for new aircraft
• Navy Black network available to transmit data "up the coast" via fiber lines to FACSFAC
VACAPES; USN and USMC units should be able to see and monitor as well

68
 Figure 45: RRU Tower at Pinecastle Range Figure 46: Equipment on RRU Tower

Figure 47: RRU Power and Control Unit Figure 48: Single-digit SAMs on Pinecastle

3. FACSFAC Jacksonville Site Visit, 19 April 2023

Rob Polumbo and Rick Miller

Notes from visit:

The team discussed the following information during the Jacksonville FACSFAC site visit:

• Commander drafted "support" letter for Phase 1B being reviewed by FACSFAC JAG.
• Agreed to coordinate FATR operation manual as a supplement to FACSFAC and PRC
range manual

69
 • Advised they have a contracted relay aircraft to link their shallow water ASW range data
from offshore back to shore; FATR team can possibly leverage this architecture as
airborne relay for L16 architecture
• Facilities have space for classified operations within ops center to support OCC/UOC
• Equipment/range systems are provided/serviced under contract NSWC Corona

Summary

In summary, our engagements, site visits and meetings with key leaders and stakeholders
resulted in broad support for the FATR concept. We received positive feedback and useful
inputs for the framework needed to move forward on a technology demonstration over the
next 12-18 months. Our list of potential Florida installations for MET system locations, OCCs
and UOCs have been identified in the Deliverable A section of the report. In Phase 1B,
additional support activity will again focus on KLE and DoD installation visits to gain support and
funding for the technology demonstration in Phase 2.

70
Tasks and Deliverables for Phase 1B____________
After six months of developing the concept for the FATR, the team has a much clearer picture
of the way ahead to make the project successful. Phase 1B must not only develop an
operational PATS/ALVC prototype and an operational network but also provide a pathway to
advancement into Phase 2. For this reason, a separate task and deliverable has been added to
coordinate the transition from a state-funded concept development project to a federally
resourced program of record. The following depicts the tasks and deliverables for Phase 1B:

PHASE 1B

Tasks

1. Develop, field and install Operation Control Center (OCC) at APAFR with completed FATR
operation manual
2. Develop, field and install PATS/ALVC prototype system on APAFR for demonstration in an
operational environment (TRL 7)
3. Coordinate with Service branches to submit airspace proposal, spectrum authorizations
and demonstrate processes when approved by the FAA and SMO
4. Coordinate Phase 2 support plan including engagement, resourcing, company partnership
and funding sources

Deliverables

A. Functional OCC at APAFR with completed FATR operation manual submitted for
incorporation in APAFR/PRC range manuals
B. Functional PATS/ALVC prototype system demonstrated at APAFR///3-week
demonstration tentatively scheduled for May 2024
C. Airspace proposal and spectrum authorizations submitted for APAFR/PRC and
demonstrated when approved by FAA and SMO
D. Phase 2 support plan coordinated

The challenges to completing the tasks and deliverables on time will be the delivery date and
testing of the MET-H system, spectrum certification at APAFR, completion of the Link 16
network at APAFR and coordination of weapon system support with the services. The FATR
team is confident these challenges will be overcome, and a successful demonstration will occur
on time and on budget.

71
List of Appendices___________________________
Appendix A.1: Unit Requirements Worksheet………………………………………………………………………….73

Appendix A.2: FATR Operation Manual……………………………………………………………………………………75

Appendix B.1: MET/ALVC Demonstration (Part 1)……………………………………………………………………94

Appendix B.2: MET/ALVC Demonstration (Part 2)………………………………………………………………….101

Appendix C: Consolidated Airspace proposal…………………………………………………………………………108

Appendix D.1: DD1494 MET-L…..……………………………………………………………………………………………138

Appendix E: KLE and Installation Support Report Log…………………………………………………………….146

72
Appendix A.1: Unit Requirements Worksheet_____
UNIT REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET
Version: 13 Apr 2023

UNIT: _______________ LOCATION: _____________________________________ DATE: _________________

POC: _________________________ PHONE: _______________ EMAIL: ________________________________
#/MODEL OF AIRCRAFT (WEAPON SYSTEM)/BLOCK/OFP/ALQ-213/P-5/P-6 CAPABLE/EW
TRAINING/MODES/LINK 16 (Include capability of the weapon system and installation the unit is
located):______________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
UNIT MISSION STATEMENT: __________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SPECIFIC MISSION DESCRIPTIONS: ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT EW/EA/DEAD/SEAD TRAINING REQUIREMENTS: ______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT FLORIDA RANGE UTILIZATION: _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT WARNING AREA AND MOA UTILIZATION: ___________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT ACMI SYSTEM/CAPABILITIES (P5/P6 pod and number at the installation):
_______________________________________________________
CURRENT SIMULATOR CAPABILITIES/#/LOCATION/DMON: ______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ALTRV PROCESS WITH ATC: __________________________________________________________________
IF SO, CURRENT PROFILES: ___________________________________________________________________
__________________________ ATC POC: ___________________________ PHONE: ______________________
UNIT SCHEDULING OFFICE/POC: ________________________________ PHONE: ______________________
EMAIL: ___________________________
RECURRING EXERCISES/DATES (FLORIDA RANGES): ___________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PARTICIPATING UNITS/SUPPORTING UNITS: ___________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STANDARD TRAINING MISSION SCENARIOS: ___________________________________________________

73
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUESTED LIVE THREAT EMITTERS (IE EW/VORONEZH SAM/SA-20 FROM 70MHZ-18GHZ): _______
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUESTED VIRTUAL (SIMULATOR) ENTITIES: ________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUESTED CONSTRUCTIVE ENTITIES: _______________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUESTED LVC SCENARIOS: ________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
WEAPONS/TACTICS/INTEL POC: ______________________________ PHONE: _________________________
EMAIL: ____________________________________ SIPR: ____________________________________________
ADDITIONAL REMARKS/REQUIREMENTS: _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
INTERVIEWER: _______________________________________________

74
Appendix A.2: FATR Operation Manual__________
Florida Advanced Training Range
Operation Manual
(Draft Jun 2023)

75
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS:

AREAS IN YELLOW WILL BE COMPLETED IN PHASE 1B PRIOR TO SUBMISSION FOR APPROVAL

Chapter 1 – Responsibilities

1.1. General Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

1.2. Organizational Structure………………………………………………………………………………………………xx

1.3. Other Agencies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

1.4. Weather……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

1.5. Range User…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx

1.6. Unit Feedback………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xx

Chapter 2 – Description of Range, Airspace and LVC Environment

2.1. General Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

2.2. Communications………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

2.3. Airspace……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

Chapter 3 – Operational Procedures

3.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xx

3.2. Blended Live, Virtual, Constructive Environment………………………………………………………….xx

Chapter 4 – Electronic Combat Ranges

4.1. Threat Emitters…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

4.2. Virtual Entities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx

4.3. Constructive Entities…………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

Chapter 5 –Range Operation Control Center, FATR Operation Control Centers, Unit Operation
Centers

5.1. Responsibilities.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………xx

5.2. FATR Operation Control Center for APAFR……………………………………………………………………xx

76
 5.3. FATR Operation Control Center for Pinecastle Range……………………………………………………xx

5.4. FATR Operation Control Center for Eglin Range TBD in Phase 3……………………………………xx

5.5. Unit Operation Centers.……………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

Chapter 6 –LVC Network, Datalink

6.1. Blended Live, Virtual, Constructive Network.……………………………………………………………….xx

6.2. Link 16 Datalink.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx

Attachment 1 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.………………………………………………………………………xx

Attachment 2 – TRAINING AND SCENARIO REQUEST FORM.…………………………………………………………xx

Attachment 3 – TRAINING FEEDBACK FORM……………………...…………………………………………………………xx

77
 Chapter 1

RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1. General Information. The Florida Advanced Training Range (FATR) is a blended live, virtual,
constructive (LVC) environment extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean overlaying
the peninsula of Florida (Figure 1). The development of the FATR has been funded by grants
through the Florida Defense Support Task Force and federal entities, including congressional
delegations and the Department of Defense (DoD). The primary objective of the FATR is to provide a
realistic, LVC environment for joint force training. The operation of the FATR is managed at two
Operations Control Centers (OCC) located at the Deployed Unit Complex (DUC) at MacDill AFB,
Tampa FL and Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facilities (FACSFAC) at NAS Jacksonville FL. The
OCC at the MacDill DUC and FACSFAC JAX will coordinate unit and large force training exercises with
Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) and Pinecastle Range Complex (PRC), respectively, to include
Restricted Areas, Military Operations Areas (MOA), Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA)
and Altitude Reservations (ALTRV). Each participating military unit will maintain a Unit Operation
Center (UOC) to coordinate training events with the OCC supporting each range. The OCCs and UOC
will be networked through information technology applications located at each operation center to
schedule, develop scenarios and interact real-time during training events. This operation manual is
the primary source document providing guidance for scheduling, planning, coordinating, executing
and debriefing training events on the FATR. The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for this
manual is TBD in Phase 1B. This manual will be incorporated in all participating Florida land ranges
and airspace operation manuals TBD.

Figure 1: Operational Schematic of FATR (Phase 2)

78
 1.1.1. The FATR operation manual has been reviewed and approved by applicable service
departments’ OPR for specific range operations. Units utilizing the FATR environment will
comply with all guidance, procedures and manuals of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Air Traffic Control (ATC), Range Operating Authority (ROA) and service Spectrum
Management Offices (SMO). The Range Operation Control Center (ROCC) will be the on-
scene authority for all range operations IAW the applicable range operation manual. Any
deviations from the procedures in this supplement require coordination and approval by the
offices listed above.

1.2. Organizational Structure. The organizational structure of each participating range is

determined by the ROA and service branch chain of command listed in the range operation manual.
A FATR OCC will be assigned to each participating range to coordinate scheduling, mission scenarios
and real-time interaction of the blended LVC network with the ROCC and UOCs. The development
of the processes, applications, communication and personnel for each OCC will be determined in
Phase 1B.

1.2.1. OCC Organization at MacDill DUC (Phase 2)

1.2.2. OCC Organization at FACSFAC (Phase 2)
1.2.3. OCC Organization at Eglin (Phase 3)
Reference range manuals for personnel, operations and sustainment, contact info
email/phone

1.3. Other Agencies. FAA/Air Route Traffic Control Centers; Spectrum Management Offices

1.3.1. Special Use Airspace (SUA): Restricted Areas; Warning Areas; Military Operations
Airspace (MOA); Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) and Altitude Reservation
(ALTRV). Units will be responsible for scheduling all SUA through the appropriate controlling
agency. Reference the following site developed by Enterprise Florida and the Florida
Defense Alliance for information on all Florida SUA (controlling and using agency).
http://florida3d.demo.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

1.3.2. Spectrum Management Offices

1.3.2.1. USAF

1.3.2.2. USN/USMC

1.3.2.3. USA

1.3.2.4. USSF

1.3.2.5. USCG

1.4. Weather. The FATR LVC training environment is very dependent on stable electrical and
communication network operations to generate live, virtual and constructive entities during a
training event. Users must be aware that inclement weather in and around the peninsula, not only

79
in the area of intended training, may impact the fidelity of the training environment. The ROA is the
OPR on decisions to cancel the FATR operation when system degradation is deemed unsatisfactory
or unsafe for the user(s).

1.5 Range User. Reference specific range operation manual

1.6 Unit Feedback. All units and personnel utilizing the FATR training environment are encouraged
to provide feedback to the OCC assigned to each range. A feedback form is attached (hyperlink file)
at the end of this supplement (Attachment 3) TBD in Phase 1B.

80
 Chapter 2

DESCRIPTION OF FATR LVC ENVIRONMENT

Figure 2.1. Depiction of Airspace Used in FATR Environment (Phase 2)

2.1. General Information. FATR is an LVC environment that overlays approximately a 500 by 400
nautical mile area extending from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean over the entire
peninsula of Florida (Figure 2.1). The FATR includes all air, land and sea airspace/ranges within the
200,000 sq/mile of area. All military services, to include the US Coast Guard, are approved to utilize
the range for test and training.

2.1.1. Capabilities. FATR offers all missions, weapon systems, weapons employment,
electronic warfare and counter measures to be used for test or training IAW each airspace/range
list of approved use.

2.1.2. Communications (Comm Card). Reference the communication data listed for each
airspace/range utilized for a test or training mission. Table 2.1 depicts the communication data for
FATR OCC and UOC locations TBD.

Table 2.1. Communications for FATR OCC and UOC Facilities

Include Communications/Contacts Table TBD

81
2.1.3. Hours of Operation. The FATR will be available at all times the intended airspace/range is
available for use.

2.1.4. Scheduling Procedures. Reference the scheduling process for the airspace/range of intended
use. Once the airspace/range is appropriately scheduled, utilize the FATR coordination process in
Attachment 2 to schedule and develop test or training scenario TBD.

2.2. Restrictions.

2.2.1. Reference and adhere to all restrictions listed for the airspace/range of intended use.

2.2.2. No weapons employment, kinetic effect or lasing are authorized on any live, virtual or
constructive entity included in the FATR blended LVC environment. Electronic warfare and
countermeasures against any entity must comply with the restrictions for the
airspace/range of intended use.

2.3. Ranges and Military Operations Areas (MOAs).

2.3.1. Reference and comply with all airspace/range instructions for the intended range of
intended use.

2.3.2. The FATR will include the following special use airspace (SUA): over water Warning
Areas, over land Restricted Areas/Military Operations Areas (MOA), Altitude Reservations (ALTRV)
and ATC Assigned Airspace (ATCAA). All these SUAs will be scheduled by each unit through the
appropriate Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) controlling the airspace/range of intended
use. All clearances to enter/exit SUAs must be requested by the controlling ARTCC. The FATR OCC
and UOCs have no Air Traffic Control (ATC) authority and should never be utilized to request
airspace/range clearances.

2.3.3. The live emitters utilized on the ranges are mobile (self-propelled or towed) and can
be operated at location or remotely via wireless radio communication. The detailed capabilities of
the emitters are listed in Chapter 4. The following figures depict the approved locations and
coordinates for the live emitters on each participating range. Alternate locations or mobile
scenarios can be requested through the scheduling process for the airspace/range of intended use.

Figure 2.2 APAFR FATR Live Emitter Locations

Figure 2.3 PRC FATR Live Emitter Locations

Figure 2.4 Eglin FATR Live Emitter Locations (TBD Phase 3)

82
 Chapter 3

OPERATIONS/WEAPONS DELIVERY PROCEDURES

3.1. Overview. Reference and adhere to all procedures listed for the airspace/range of intended
use.

3.2. Authorized Ordnance. No weapons employment, kinetic effect or lasing are authorized on any
live, virtual or constructive entity included in the FATR blended LVC environment. Electronic warfare
and countermeasures against any entity must comply with the restrictions for the airspace/range of
intended use.

83
 Chapter 4

ELECTRONIC COMBAT RANGES

4.1. Threat Emitters.

4.1.1. Airspace Restrictions. FATR live emitters will be located and operated IAW the
requirements of the airspace/range of intended use.

4.1.2. Scheduling. FATR live emitters will be scheduled and coordinated by assigned OCC
and/or participating UOC through the normal airspace/range processes listed in Chapter 2
of this supplement. The authority for emitter transmissions rests solely with the ROCC of the
airspace/range being utilized. The ROCC may grant authority for the OCC and/or UOC to
“control” live emitters during a unit’s scheduled training period (control means-turn emitter
on/off, reprogram emitter waveform, move emitter).

4.1.3. EC Range Operations. Flights performing weapons deliveries in conjunction with EC

training will conform to the weapons delivery procedures described in the operation manual
of the range being utilized. No weapons employment, kinetic effect or lasing are authorized
on any live, virtual or constructive entity included in the FATR blended LVC environment.

4.1.4. In addition to current EC assets listed in the range operation manuals, the multi-
domain emitter threat systems depicted in figure 4.1 will be utilized as live emitters in the
FATR environment. These emitters are produced by Scientific Research Corporation (SRC)
and are mobile, reprogrammable and can be operated manually at location or remotely
utilizing radio relay.

Figure 4.1. Multi-Domain Emitter Threat (MET) family of systems

84
Figures 4.2 and 4.3 provide the MET capabilities for the Low, Medium and High systems. The
emitters are programmed to provide a wide array of current threat waveforms and can be
reprogrammed at the site or remotely within minutes. An unclassified catalog with a classified
annex of available threat waveforms is available at each OCC/UOC facility TBD.

Figure 4.2, and 4.3. MET Capabilities

4.2. Virtual Entities. Virtual entities from man-in-the-loop (MITL) ground simulators can be included
in training scenarios. Instructions on coordination and development of scenarios with virtual
entities will be determined in Phase 1B.

4.3 Constructive Entities. Constructive entities from computer generated applications can be
included in training scenarios. Digital Integrated Air Defense System (DIADS) will be utilized to inject
threat entities in training scenarios. An unclassified catalog of available threats is available at
OCC/UOC facilities. Instructions on coordination and development of scenarios with constructive
entities will be determined in Phase 1B.

85
 Chapter 5

RANGE OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER AND FATR OCC/UOC COORDINATION

5.1. Responsibilities and coordination between ROCC/OCC/UOC TBD during Phase 1B

5.1.1. OCC/MacDill Deployed Unit Complex (DUC)

5.1.1.1. Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR)

5.1.2. OCC/Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facilities Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX)

5.1.2.1. Pinecastle Range Complex (PRC)

5.1.3. OCC/Panhandle operation center TBD in Phase 3

5.1.3.1. Eglin Range

5.1.4. UOC/Participating units

86
 Chapter 6

AIR COMBAT MANEUVERING INSTRUMENTATION (ACMI), DATALINK AND NETWORKS

TBD during Phase 1B

Chapter 7

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PROCEDURES

7.1. General. Reference and adhere to all procedures listed for the airspace/range of intended use.

7.2. UAS Operations. No weapons employment, kinetic effect or lasing are authorized on any live,
virtual or constructive entity included in the FATR blended LVC environment. Electronic warfare and
countermeasures against any entity must comply with the restrictions for the airspace/range of
intended use.

Chapter 8

GROUND LIVE-FIRE PROCEDURES

TBD during Phase 1B

Chapter 9

RANGE CLEARANCE AND RANGE MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

9.1. General. Reference and adhere to all procedures listed for the airspace/range of intended use.
FATR personnel will adhere to all ground safety instructions during operation and maintenance of
the ALVC system, communication network and components on the installation.

Chapter 10

GROUND TRAINING PROCEDURES

10.1. General. Reference and adhere to all procedures listed for the airspace/range of intended
use. FATR personnel will adhere to all ground training instructions during operation and
maintenance of the ALVC system, communication network and components on the installation.

87
 Attachment 1

FATR ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Complete list TBD in Phase 1B

Advanced Battle Management System……………………………………………………………………………….ABMS

Air Combat Command……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ACC
Agile Combat Employment…………………………………………………………………………………………………….ACE
Air Combat Maneuvering……………………………………………………………………………………………………..ACM
Air Combat Simulator…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ACS
Adaptive Electronic Steerable Array…………………………………………………………………………………….AESA
Air Education and Training Command………………………………………………………………………………….AETC
Area Frequency Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………………….AFC
Air Force Frequency Management Agency……………………………………………………………………….AFFMA
Air Force Materiel Command……………………………………………………………………………………………..AFMC
Air Force Reserve Command………………………………………………………………………………………………..AFRC
Air Force Research Laboratory……………………………………………………………………………………………..AFRL
Air Force Special Operations Command…………………………………………………………………………….AFSOC
Air Interdiction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….AI
Altitude Reservation………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ALTRV
Advanced Live, Virtual, Constructive……………………………………………………………………………………ALVC
Air Mobility Command…………………………………………………………………………………………………………AMC
Army Spectrum Management Office………………………………………………………………………………….AMSO
Avon Park Air Force Range…………………………………………………………………………………………………APAFR
Air Refueling……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………AR
Air Route Traffic Control Center…………………………………………………………………………………………ARTCC
Anti-Submarine Warfare………………………………………………………………………………………………………ASW
Air Traffic Control………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ATC
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace…………………………………………………………………………………ATCAA
Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center…………………………………………………………………..AUTEC
AESA Extensible Emitter Emulator……………………………………………………………………………………….AXEE
Basic Fighter Maneuvers……………………………………………………………………………………………………….BFM
Basic Surface Attack……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….BSA
Chinese Aerospace Science……………………………………………………………………………………………………CSA
Close Air Support…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..CAS
Command and Control…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….C2
Combat Mission Ready…………………………………………………………………………………………………………CMR
Common Operating Picture…………………………………………………………………………………………………..COP
Composite Training Unit Exercise…………………………………………………………………….COMPTUEX/C2EX
Contiguous United States…………………………………………………………………………………………………CONUS
Combat Search and Rescue………………………………………………………………………………………………….CSAR
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense……………………………………………………………………………….DASD
Defensive Counter Air……………………………………………………………………………………………………………DCA
Destruction of Enemy Air Defense………………………………………………………………………………………DEAD
Department of Defense…………………………………………………………………………………………………………DoD
Digital Integrated Air Defense System………………………………………………………………………………..DIADS

88
Distributed Interactive Simulation………………………………………………………………………………………….DIS
Digital Radar Warning Receiver…………………………………………………………………………………………DRWR
Deployed Unit Complex………………………………………………………………………………………………………..DUC
Electronic Attack……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..EA
Environmental Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………………………..EA
East Area Frequency Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………..EAFC
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range…………………………………………………………………………………….EGTTR
Electromagnetic Interference………………………………………………………………………………………………..EMI
Environmental Impact Study…………………………………………………………………………………………………..EIS
Enterprise Range Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ERP
Equipment Spectrum Guidance Permanent Working Group………………………………………….ESGPWG
Electronic Support Measures………………………………………………………………………………………………..ESM
Electronic Warfare………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….EW
Federal Aviation Administration……………………………………………………………………………………………FAA
Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Jacksonville………………………………………….FACSFAC JAX
Frequency Assignment Subcommittee……………………………………………………………………………………FAS
Fifth Generation Advanced Training Waveform………………………………………………………………5G-ATW
Florida Air National Guard…………………………………………………………………………………………………FLANG
Florida Army National Guard…………………………………………………………………………………………..FLARNG
Florida Advanced Training Range…..…………………………………………………………………………………….FATR
Florida Defense Support Task Force……………………………………………………………………………………FDSTF
Fiber Optic Towed Decoy……………………………………………………………………………………………………FOTD
Frequency Panel………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………FP
Fallon Range Training Complex……………………………………………………………………………………………FRTC
Gulf Area Frequency Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………..GAFC
Gulf of Mexico Water/Airspace……………………………………………………………………………………….GOMEX
Government Reference Architecture…………………………………………………………………………………….GRA
Hardware-In-The-Loop………………………………………………………………………………………………………….HITL
High-Level Architecture…………………………………………………………………………………………………………HLA
Helicopter Maritime Strike Wing Atlantic…………………………………………………………………HSMWLANT
In Accordance With……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….IAW
Integrated Air Defense System……………………………………………………………………………………………..IADS
Infantry Brigade Combat Team……………………………………………………………………………………………..IBCT
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers…………………………………………………………………….IEEE
Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee…………………………………………………………………….IRAC
Information Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………INFOSEC
Information, Surveillance and Reconnaissance……………………………………………………………………….ISR
Information Technology……………………………………………………………………………………………………………IT
Joint, All-Domain Command and Control……………………………………………………………………………JADC2
Joint, All-Domain Operations……………………………………………………………………………………………….JADO
Jacksonville Range Complex and Operation Area………………………………………………………JAXOPAREA
Joint Frequency Allocation-to-Equipment Process………………………………………………………………JFAEP
Joint Spectrum Center……………………………………………………………………………………………………………JSC
Joint Spectrum Interference Resolution…………………………………………………………………………………JSIR
Key Leader Engagement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………KLE
Logistic, Equipment and Training……………………………………………………………………………………………LET

89
Large Force Exercise………………………………………………………………………………………………………………LFE
Live Mission Operations Center………………………………………………………………………………………….LMOC
Large Scale Combat Operations……………………………………………………………………………………………LSCO
Military Communications-Electronics Board……………………………………………………………………….MCEB
Mission Data File………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….MDF
Medical Evacuation………………………………………………………………………………………………………MEDEVAC
Multi-Domain Emitter Threat……………………………………………………………………………………………….MET
Multi-Function Display………………………………………………………………………………………………………….MFD
Multifunction Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System……………………..MIDS-J
Man-In-The-Loop…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………MITL
Military Operations Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………..MOA
Maintenance, Repair and Operation…………………………………………………………………………………….MRO
Major Range and Test Facility Bases…………………………………………………………………………………MRTFB
Modeling & Simulation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………M&S
Military Training Routes……………………………………………………………………………………………………….MTR
Naval Air Forces Atlantic…………………………………………………………………………………………………AIRLANT
National Airspace System………………………………………………………………………………………………………NAS
National Defense Strategy…………………………………………………………………………………………………….NDS
National Guard Bureau…………………………………………………………………………………………………………NGB
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account……………………………………………………………..NGREA
Next Generation Jammer………………………………………………………………………………………………………NGJ
Non-classified Internet Protocol Router……………………………………………………………………………….NIPR
Navy, Marine Corps Spectrum Center…………………………………………………………………………………NMSC
National Telecommunications and Information Administration……………………………………………NTIA
Naval Surface Warfare Center……………………………………………………………………………………………NSWC
Operating Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….OPAREA
Offensive Counter Air……………………………………………………………………………………………………………OCA
Operation Control Center……………………………………………………………………………………………………..OCC
Outside Continental United States…………………………………………………………………………………OCONUS
Operational Flight Program……………………………………………………………………………………………………OFP
Operations and Maintenance………………………………………………………………………………………………O&M
Organization, Management and Operational Structure……………………………………………………..OMOS
Operational Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………….OPSEC
Open System Enclave…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….OCE
Office of Primary Responsibility…………………………………………………………………………………………….OPR
Office of the Secretary of Defense…………………………………………………………………………………………OSD
Operational Test and Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………………OT&E
Off-The-Shelf…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………OTS
Operation Test and Training Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………..OTTI
Programmable, Affordable Threat System……………………………………………………………………………PATS
Program Executive Officer Tactical Aircraft……………………………………………………………….PEO-TACAIR
Pinecastle Range Complex……………………………………………………………………………………………………..PRC
Ready Aircrew Program…………………………………………………………………………………………………………RAP
Real-Time Electromagnetic Defense Capability……………………………………………………………….REDCAP
Red Force Command and Control………………………………………………………………………………………..RFCC
Range Operating Authority……………………………………………………………………………………………………ROA

90
Range Operation Control Center…………………………………………………………………………………………ROCC
Radio Relay Unit……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………RRU
Radar Warning Receiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………RWR
Software Defined Radio…………………………………………………………………………………………………………SDR
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense………………………………………………………………………………………SEAD
Secret Internet Protocol Router…………………………………………………………………………………………….SIPR
Synthetic-Inject-To-Live…………………………………………………………………………………………………………SITL
Spectrum Analyzer…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..SA
Surface-to-Air Missile……………………………………………………………………………………………………………SAM
Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance……………………………………………………………………………..SCAR
Secure LVC Advanced Training Environment………………………………………………………………………SLATE
Spectrum Management Office……………………………………………………………………………………………..SMO
Spectrum Planning Subcommittee………………………………………………………………………………………….SPS
Scientific Research Corporation……………………………………………………………………………………………..SRC
Space Systems Command……………………………………………………………………………………………………….SSC
Special Use Airspace………………………………………………………………………………………………………………SUA
Surface Warfare……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………SUW
The Adjutant General……………………………………………………………………………………………………………TAG
Tactical Datalink……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….LINK16
Tactical Intercepts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….TI
Technology Maturation…………………………………………………………………………………………………Tech Mat
The Roosevelt Group……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..TRG
Technology Readiness Level……………………………………………………………………………………………………TRL
Threat System Management Office…………………………………………………………………………………….TSMO
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………….TTP
Test and Training Space Needs Statement………………………………………………………………………..T/TSNS
Unit Operation Center………………………………………………………………………………………………………….UOC
United States Air Force………………………………………………………………………………………………………..USAF
United States Army……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….USA
United States Coast Guard………………………………………………………………………………………………….USCG
United States Marine Corps……………………………………………………………………………………………….USMC
United States Navy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….USN
United States Space Force……………………………………………………………………………………………………USSF
University of West Florida……………………………………………………………………………………………………UWF
Undersea Warfare Shallow Water Training Range……………………………………………………………USWTR
Virginia Capes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..VACAPES
WarRoom-In-A-Box……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..WIAB

91
 Attachment 2

FATR TRAINING/SCENARIO REQUEST FORM

TBD in Phase 1B
Example Below

92
 Attachment 3

FATR TRAINING FEEDBACK FORM TBD in Phase 1B

93
Appendix B.1: MET/ALVC Demonstration (Part 1)_

94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Appendix B.2: MET/ALVC Demonstration (Part 2)_
OVERVIEW:

1) Test setup, picture of DIADS, Network switch, MET Server/controller, MET hardware,
Pulse capture.
2) Pictures of DIADS (Map View, MET Control Interface, Activate and stop buttons)
3) Picture of no waveform from Pulse analysis Instrument
4) Activation of MET Waveform from DIADS
5) Picture of Waveform D from Pulse analysis instrument
6) DIADS turns off waveform D, picture of no waveforms from instrument
7) DIADS activates Waveform B
8) Picture of waveform B from instrument
9) DIADS de-activates Waveform B
10) Picture of no waveform from instrument
TEST SETUP: To demonstrate the Digital Integrated Air Defense Simulation (DIADS) was
modified to support virtually controlling a MET-L emitter, the lab setup in Figure 1 was created.
The key components in this setup are labeled in Figure 2, and are described below:
1) DIADS Server – this is DIADS, v10.4.7, received from AVARINT on 8 May 2023.
2) Network Switch – this is an Ethernet switch and provides connectivity between the
DIADS Server and the MET Server/Client.
3) MET Controller – this is the embedded controller that provides the external interface to
command and control and other services.
4) MET Local Interface – this is the local operator display and was used to show commands
and assist in troubleshooting. It is not needed when the software is released.
5) MET SDR – this chassis is controlled and configured by the MET Controller and creates
the low power signals to be radiated.
6) MET HPA – this is the high-powered amplifier for the MET and provides the final stage of
RF amplification prior to the transmit antenna.
7) MET RF Load – this is an RF dummy load, used to attenuate the signal in a lab
environment. Since the MET-L was not connected to an antenna, this allows the RF
amplifier to be connected and used in a lab environment. When used in open air, this
device is replaced by the transmit antenna.
8) RF Pulse Analyzer – this is a piece of specialized test equipment used to verify the
output waveform and its parameters.

101
 Figure 1: DIADS MET-L Lab Setup

3. MET Controller 2. Network

1. DIADS Server
Switch

5. MET SDR
7. MET RF Load

6. MET HPA

4. MET Local Interface

8. RF Pulse Analysis Instrument

Figure 2: DIADS MET-L Lab Setup

DIADS SETUP: Once DIADS is started, the first step is to pair the MET-L controller with a system
in the DIADS environment. For our purposes, we selected M96 (Figure 3), which is how it is
referred to in the virtual environment. The block of commands in the lower left of Figure 3
show the paring sequence and allow the DIADS operator to verify the MET-L controller is
present and associated. On the local MET User Interface (from Figure 1), the MET operator can
also verify that a virtual entity is now in control of the MET-L hardware.

102
 Figure 3: External Interface Pairing

Once the entity is associated, it is populated on an air picture view, as shown in Figure 4. This
view shows an Exercise Controller (EXCON), and includes virtual, live and constructive entities.
When available, this view can also show truth data (location of aircraft taken from P5, P4, or
ADSB-Out), and engagements. This version of DIADS supports DIS (Distributed Interactive
Simulation), and the MET-L was configured to accept Protocol Data Units (PDU’s) that provided
information as to status (radiate or off) and waveform type. In support of future activities, the
MET Server will also provide information back to DIADS over the DIS PDU’s, to include
information about health, status, location, etc.

Figure 4: DIADS Air Picture View

Once the entity is populated in DIADS and registered as a system, the operator has access to
the screen in Figure 5. The controls are shown in the upper left-hand corner of Figure 5, and
include the ability to select a waveform, and to turn the system on or off. You can also remove

103
the system from the simulation in the boxes in the lower right-hand windows, and general
status information is on the right side of Figure 5.

Figure 5: Initial MET-L (M98) Interface Screen

As shown in Figure 6, to select and radiate a waveform, the operator will select a Waveform
(Ack is Waveform D, Track is Waveform B), and the MET will respond to the Activation signal
over DIS.

Waveform, Activate

Figure 6: User Control Interface and Waveform Activation

Waveform Verification: In order to verify that the DIADS PDU was received and properly
decoded, we used a Rohde and Schwarz FSW Signal and Spectrum Analyzer, shown in Figure 7.
This unit displays both time domain (pulse characters) and spectrum information (frequencies).
When it is blank (as shown in Figure 7), no pulse is detected.

104
 Figure 7: Rhode and Schwarz FSW Signal and Spectrum Analyzer

Demonstration Results: Using DIADS, the team activated an ACK waveform (Waveform D) in
DIADS, which is shown in Figure 8. Figure 9 shows the captured waveform and its associated
parameters. Following this, the waveform was deactivated from DIADS, and the pulse train
ceased.

Figure 8: DIADS Activation of Waveform D

105
 Figure 9: Measurement of Waveform D

To complete the demonstration, Waveform B (using DIADS) was activated as a Trk1 waveform
as shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows the captured waveform and its associated parameters.
Following this, the waveform was deactivated from DIADS, and the pulse train ceased.

TRK1 Waveform
(Waveform B)

Figure 10: DIADS Activation of Waveform B

106
 Figure 11: Measurement of Waveform B

Demonstration Conclusion and Summary: This demonstration successfully illustrated the

concept of using a virtual simulation to activate an open-air transmitter. The waveforms used
in this demonstration were the same as those successfully received by the Radar Warning
Receiver in the open-air test in Part 1. These demonstrations proved that the use of a virtual
simulation to control and activate Radar Warning receivers on live training units is feasible and
is a viable, cost-effective approach to using low-cost emitters to train US Air Force pilots and
their crews.

107
Appendix C: Consolidated Airspace Proposal (Test/
Training Space Needs Statement--T/TSNA)

TEST/TRAINING SPACE NEEDS STATEMENT (T/TSNS)

FLORIDA ADVANCED TRAINING RANGE

MODIFICATION OF FLORIDA SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
CONNECTING OFFSHORE WARNING AREAS TO
ONSHORE RANGE-RELATED RESTRICTED AIRSPACE AND MILITARY OPEATIONS AREAS

Proponent Names:
____, Air Combat Command
____, Air Education and Training Command
____, Air Force Material Command
____, Air Force Reserve Command
____, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic
____, National Guard Bureau
____, Space Systems Command

____, 325th Fighter Wing/USAF/ACC

____, 53rd Wing/USAF/ACC
____, 33rd Fighter Wing/USAF/AETC
____, 96th Test Wing/USAF/AFMC
____, 482nd Fighter Wing/USAF/AFRC
___, Carrier Strike Group FOUR/USN
____, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) Jacksonville
____, 125th Fighter Wing/USAF/FLANG
____, SLD 45/USSF

108
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Overview / Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………… 5

1.1 Concept / Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
1.1.1 Florida Range Complex……………………………………………………………………………….. 5
1.1.2 Strategic Imperative: China…………………………………………………………………………. 8
1.1.3 Advanced Generation Weapon Systems……………………………………………………… 9
1.1.4 Basing…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
1.2 Summary of Requested Changes…………………………………………………………………… 10
Chapter 2: Operational Requirement/Justification…………………………………………………………. 11
2.1 Overview of 5th Gen F-35 Aircrew Program Requirements……………………………… 11
2.2 Anticipated Utilization……………………………………………………………………………………. 13
2.2.1 Florida-based F-35s……………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.2.2 Navy Composite Training Unit Exercise………………………………………………………. 13
2.2.3 Other F-35/5th Gen Aircraft………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.3 Operational Command Specific Requirements/Justifications by Unit……………. 13
2.3.1 325th Fighter Wing……………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.3.2 53rd Wing…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.3.3 33rd Fighter Wing………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.3.4 482nd Fighter Wing……………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.3.5 125th Fighter Wing………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
2.3.6 Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Jacksonville…………………………….. 13
2.3.7 Carrier Strike Group FOUR………………………………………………………………………….. 14
2.3.8 (TBD) 96th Test Wing…………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Chapter 3: Concept/Proposed Actions…………………………………………………………………………….. 14
3.1 Creation of New ATCAAs………………………………………………………………………………… 14
3.1.1 The Daytona Shelf ATCAA…………………………………………………………………………… 15
3.1.2 The Melbourne Shelf ATCAA……………………………………………………………………….. 16

109
 3.1.3 The Naples Shelf ATCAA………………………………………………………………………………. 17
3.1.4 The Sarasota Shelf ATCAA…………………………………………………………………………….18
3.1.5 The Lakeland Shelf ATCAA…………………………………………………………………………… 19
3.1.6 The Ocala Shelf ATCAA………………………………………………………………………………… 20
3.2 Altitude Considerations………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
3.2.1 Atlantic Coast ATCAAs…………………………………………………………………………………. 21
3.2.2 Gulf Coast ATCAAs………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
3.3 Timing Considerations……………………………………………………………………………………. 25
3.4 Electronic Countermeasures………………………………………………………………………….. 25
3.5 Chaff and Flare Restrictions…………………………………………………………………………….25
3.6 Supersonic Restrictions…………………………………………………………………………………..25
Chapter 4: Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
4.1 No actions alternative……………………………………………………………………………………. 25
4.2 Use of alternate airspace……………………………………………………………………………….. 25
4.3 Actions considered but not advanced…………………………………………………………….. 25
4.3.1 Entire redesign/baselining of Florida airspace…………………………………………….. 26
4.3.2 Deploying for all unit level training……………………………………………………………… 26
Chapter 5: Air Traffic Control Coordination……………………………………………………………………… 26
Chapter 6: Other Interest Potential…………………………………………………………………………………. 27
6.1 Recreational Areas…………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
6.2 Native American Reservations, Lands or areas of special interest………………….. 27
6.3 Grazing and/or farming………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
6.4 Endangered Species……………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
6.5 Wildlife sites…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
6.6 Hunting and fishing………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
6.7 Archeological sites…………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
6.8 Population centers, communities, noise sensitive areas………………………………….28
6.9 Ongoing litigation that may be impacted……………………………………………………….. 28
6.10 Other training airspace actions that may be impacted…………………………………. 28

110
 6.11 Regional actions by other MAJCOM or military services………………………………. 28
6.12 Consultation with other state/federal agencies……………………………………………. 28
6.13 Other aviation interest groups……………………………………………………………………… 29
6.14 Other interested or affected parties…………………………………………………………….. 29
Chapter 7: Engagement Planning Phase…………………………………………………………………………… 29

111
1. Executive Summary.

1.1. Concept/purpose.
A confluence of four unique factors makes a reevaluation of the military use of airspace
over and around the Florida peninsula a strategic imperative. Those four significant factors
are: (1) the Florida ranges and holistic complex of military-use airspace/sea-space; (2) the
2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) identification of the People’s Republic of China as a
strategic competitor and pacing threat necessitating the requirement for our military to
provide more joint force, all-domain test and training operations; (3) air, land, sea, space,
cyber weapon systems capabilities and training requirements, and; (4) the planned 5th
generation aircraft basing laydown for the southeastern United States.
The goal of the consolidated airspace proposal is neither a complete redesign, baseline
change, nor is it a significant revision. The plan would only add temporary use Air Traffic
Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) and/or an Altitude Reservations (ALTRV) to connect
existing Special Use Airspace (SUA), offshore Warning Areas to overland Restricted Areas
and Military Operations Areas (MOAs). By doing this at scale, and holistically across Florida,
the airspace necessary to support realistic training for the joint force can be achieved in
Florida with minimal impact and disruption to the National Airspace System (NAS).

1.1.1 Florida Range Complex.

Florida’s major range complexes today are depicted in Figure 1.11 They include robust
sea and airspace in offshore areas on either side of the peninsula. These test and
training range areas are supported by dozens of installations and commands based in
Florida to leverage the abundant airspace over both land and water, land areas available
for bombing practice and other aviation-related ordnance testing and training. This is
complemented in a joint warfighting context by significant range space at sea, both
surface and subsurface, as well as access to space and cyber space from Florida.

11
Figure source: “From the sea floor to outer space: The value of Florida Ranges to existing and future military
missions.” Spring 2022. Pg. 11. Enterprise Florida available at: https://www.enterpriseflorida.com/wp-
content/uploads/Florida-Range-Report-Spring-2022.pdf.

112
 FIGURE 1: Overall Florida Military Range Complex Highlights

In total, the SUA over and around Florida is depicted in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2: Special Use Airspace Over and Around Florida

113
However, a challenge identified, and depicted in Figure 3., is the lack of larger airspace
connections between the plentiful airspace available over the offshore Warning and training
areas, and the Restricted Areas and MOAs that exist over the land ranges. While multiple
Military Training Routes (MTRs) exist (samples displayed in yellow) that do provide physical
airspace connectivity, these MTRs tend to be rather narrow and would limit the ability of 5th
Gen fighters to fly in tactical maneuver formations while transitioning from over water to over
land operations as they approach the ranges/targets.

FIGURE 3: Current Military Training Routes Have Limited Utility for F-35 / 5th Gen Aircraft
Tactically Approaching Over Land Range Complexes

114
 1.1.2 Strategic Imperative: China.
The People’s Republic of China was identified in the 2022 National Defense Strategy
as the most significant threat and a “pacing challenge” for U.S. forces including
advanced air and surface-based defense capabilities. This recognition of the decades-
long rise of Chinese power to now be able to rival U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific theater
brings new value to the combined sea-air-land test and training range complexes across
Florida. As shown in Figure 4., Florida and its holistic complex of ranges, sea space and
airspace present a unique ability to connect multiple land, sea, and air areas due to lack
of bordering states or other countries. The geographic circumstance is also unique in
that it reasonably represents and fits the configuration of the area in the South China
Sea; a recognized area where increased friction and interactions could lead to the
outbreak of hostilities in the Western Pacific.

FIGURE 4: Scaled Overlay of the Southeastern United States, Southeast Asia, and Portions of the
Florida Range Complex in a Scripted Geography Configuration

The Florida complex of military ranges in their totality represents the only place in the
CONUS where our operational Joint Force training can occur in an all-domain manner

115
replicating the geography, conditions, and scale for our most difficult potential fight.
Florida SUA takes on an increased value as it can be coupled with adjacent sea/undersea
and space ranges not found anywhere else in this configuration.

1.1.3 Advanced Generation Weapon Systems.

As an illustrative example of the expanding training space requirements of newer
generation weapon systems, the emerging and evolving capabilities and tactics of the F-
35 are increasing the requirement for improved airspace complexes with increased
volume to meet training needs. These evolving tactics manuals, USAF Weapons School
and Navy Fighter Weapons School guidance, fighter integration standards, and modern
threat replications, all point to the need for greater scale of ranges and connecting
airspace to support training operations. Further discussion is provided in Section 2 of
this document.

1.1.4 Basing.
As Figure 5. highlights, within the next several years, there is a planned basing
laydown of 300-400 F-35, 5th Generation fighter aircraft across the Southeastern United
States all within a 500-mile flying radius of Florida and its range complexes. These
aircraft and aircrew will require “backyard” ranges readily available to maintain their
CMR ratings. “Backyard” ranges must be configured in such a manner to enable 5th Gen
capable tactics, techniques, and procedures to be practiced for proficiency. Without
these changes, pilots from the various fighter wings, carrier air wings, and Marine
aircraft groups operating F-35 and future advanced fighters will be unable to accomplish
various required flying events in the manner called for by their tactics, techniques, and
procedures (TTPs) and will be unable to effectively “train as they will fight,” particularly
in air-to-ground missions sets.

116
 FIGURE 5: Planned F-35 Basing Laydown Posture in the Southeastern United States

1.2. Summary of Requested Changes / Proposed Structure.

Taking into consideration all the information highlighted in Section 1.1, the airspace
challenge identified is how to better leverage the existing NAS structure and range
complexes, with minimal disruptions, to support joint force training. In a nutshell, the
proposal is to create a temporary connecting airspace shelf in the form of an ATCAA for
each of five offshore Warning Areas to link airspace in tactically relevant ways to onshore
ranges such as Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) and Pinecastle Range Complex (PRC).
Further details and discussion are provided in Section 3 of this document regarding the
proposed airspace changes.

117
2. Operational Requirements / Justification.

2.1 Overview of 5th Gen F-35 Ready Aircrew Program Requirements.

F-35 pilots are required to perform the full spectrum of air-to-air and air-to-ground
missions at all altitudes from surface to 50,000 feet. The USAF F-35A Ready Aircrew
Program (RAP) tasking requires pilots to maintain proficiency in the following primary
mission sets:
• Offensive Counter Air (OCA)
• Defensive Counter Air (DCA)
• Tactical Intercepts (TI)
• Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM)
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD)
• Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR)
• Close Air Support (CAS)
• Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM)
• Basic Surface Attack (BSA)
• Instrument Proficiency
The F-35B Training and Readiness Manual (NAVMC 3500.111A) for the USMC F-35B and the
VFA F-35 matrix of the COMNAVAIRPAC/COMNAVAIRLANT Squadron Training and
Readiness instruction (COMNAVAIRPAC/COMNAVAIRLANTINST 3500.1B) for the Navy and
Marine Corps F-35C outline nearly identical mission sets.

In accomplishing this training, F-35 pilots require predictable and stable access to suitable
low and high-altitude airspace. The RAP requirements of the F-35 dictate what events pilots
must complete within a given year to build the essential skills necessary to be Combat
Mission Ready (CMR). The ability for F-35 pilots to execute training events at high altitudes
is required for many of the primary mission sets listed above. Failure to meet RAP
requirements during a given cycle may result in additional training requirements and loss of
CMR status.

118
 A critical capability enhancement of the 5th Gen F-35 is its ability to network information
to not only other F-35s flying in formation, but also with other ground, sea, and air assets.
This provides enhanced ability for F-35 formations to work multiple missions sets in real-
time; for example: a formation may be performing SCAR and SEAD functions while at the
same time maneuvering towards a target area to conduct BSA or CAS missions as well. The
entire time, the aircraft are linking and sharing information about the battlespace they are
sensing. To do this effectively, tactical requirements may dictate a multi-aircraft formation.
Figure 6. is an example of such a F-35, 8-ship formation supported by an airborne command
and control aircraft with enemy fighters and enemy surface-to-air missile threats. This
typical tactical formation and threat profile requires approximately 100 x 160 miles of
airspace to effectively train the employment of the F-35’s capabilities as identified through
various F-35 unit interviews and tactical discussions.

FIGURE 6: Example of an 8-Ship F-35 Tactical Formation

119
2.2 Anticipated Utilization.

2.2.1 Florida-based F-35s.

While precise certainty on the total number, basing locations and timing of F-35
force structure in Florida is still open to change, it is anticipated the state will shift from
currently basing approximately 50 F-35s in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) to likely supporting
over 200 by FY29. During this same timeframe, as the number of aircraft increases, the
anticipated collective utilization of these six new ATCAAs proposed would increase from
an estimated 16 hours per month in FY24 to approximately 68 hours per month in FY29.
This would support a notional 34 training events with a temporary ATCAA activation in
one of the six designated ATCAAs for approximately one-hour during aircraft ingress to
the range and then again for approximately one-hour during aircraft egress from the
range for each event.

2.2.2 Navy Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX).

East coast-based Navy Carrier Strike Groups routinely conduct 2-3 COMPTUEX
events in the Jacksonville Operating Areas each calendar year. In the execution of those
exercises, Navy aircraft routinely access the PRC and occasionally APAFR. As the Navy
carrier air wings further transition to F-35 squadrons, it is anticipated that COMPTUEX
events will also utilize the Atlantic-based ATCAAs depicted herein consistent with the
current pace of COMPTUEX events.

2.2.3 Other F-35/5th Gen Aircraft.

As indicated in Section 1.1.4, an additional 100-150 F-35s are anticipated to be
based within a 500-mile distance of Florida and may also occasionally utilize the ranges
and request temporary ATCAA activations consistent with the procedures and training
events that Florida-based F-35s conduct. These would be intermittent in nature due to
their more distant basing and for short periods of time if/when they temporarily
reposition to Florida bases for training.

2.3 Operational Command Specific Requirements/Justifications by Unit.

2.3.1 325th Fighter Wing (Placeholder for 325FW specific insert)
2.3.2 53rd Wing (Placeholder for 53WG specific insert)
2.3.3 33rd Fighter Wing (Placeholder for 33FW specific insert)
2.3.4 482nd Fighter Wing (Placeholder for 482FW specific insert)
2.3.5 125th Fighter Wing (Placeholder for 125FW specific insert)
2.3.6 Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) Jacksonville (Placeholder
for FACSFAC JAX specific insert)
2.3.7 Carrier Strike Group FOUR (Placeholder for CSG4/COMPTUEX specific insert)

120
 2.3.8 TBD: 96th Test Wing (Placeholder for 96TW specific insert)

3. Concept / Proposed Actions.

3.1. Creation of New ATCAAs.

To better leverage the existing NAS structure both offshore and onshore with the range
complexes to support holistic joint force training while minimizing disruptions, this proposal
creates a connective ATCAA “shelf” to bridge between an existing Warning Area and a
Restricted Area/MOA. Six different ATCAAs are outlined in the following subsections. It is
important to note that these ATCAAs do not necessarily represent simultaneous, nor
continuous use. It is envisioned that each would be established for intermittent, short time
periods when training or exercise evolutions are planned. They would still be subject to FAA
approval/authorization in-situ and could be modified and/or canceled for use depending on
prevailing conditions of weather, air traffic, and other issues that impact on the NAS.
Starting in the northeast and moving clockwise around the peninsula, this plan utilizes
the following offshore warning areas:
• W-136 – W-139
• W-497
• W-174
• W-168
• W-470
to create new connections into both APAFR and PRC.

121
 3.1.1 The Daytona Shelf ATCAA.
The proposed ATCAA connecting the W-136 – 139 complex to PRC is reflected in
Figure 7. and includes the coordinates and information as outlined.

W-136-139

PRC

FIGURE 7: The Daytona Shelf

• W-136 – W-139 to PRC (The Daytona Shelf)

o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 30°19’00”N., long. 80°59’47”W.; to lat.
29°51’15”N., long. 81°02’02”W.; thence southeast along a line parallel with and
12 NM from the shoreline to lat. 29°03’16”N., long. 80°38’35”W.; to lat.
28°50’00”N., long. 80°29’00”W.; to lat. 28°57'56''N., long. 81°28'24''W.; to lat.
29°36’21”N., long. 81°32’19”W.; to the point of beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC

122
 3.1.2 The Melbourne Shelf ATCAA.
The proposed ATCAA connecting W-497 to APAFR is reflected in Figure 8. and
includes the coordinates and information as outlined.

W-497

APAFR

FIGURE 8: The Melbourne Shelf

• W-497 to APAFR (The Melbourne Shelf)

o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 28°24’31”N., long. 80°29’52”W.; thence south
along a line 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline to lat. 27°31’14”N., long.
80°14’58”W.; to lat. 27°30'01"N., long. 80°48'19"W.; to lat. 27°41'21"N., long.
80°53'59"W.; to lat. 27°44'41"N., long. 81°03'59"W.; to lat. 27°44'46''N., long.
81°13'59''W.; to lat. 28°00'01''N., long. 81°13'59''W.; to the point of beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Miami ARTCC

123
 3.1.3 The Naples Shelf ATCAA.
The proposed ATCAA connecting W-174 to APAFR is reflected in Figure 9. and
includes the coordinates and information as outlined.

APAFR

W-174

FIGURE 9: The Naples Shelf

• W-174 to APAFR (The Naples Shelf)

o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 25°44'01"N., long. 82°29'59"W.; to lat. 25°45'01"N.,
long. 81°53'00"W.; thence counterclockwise along a line 12 NM from and
parallel to the shoreline; to lat. 25°37'00"N., long. 81°40'10"W.; to lat.
25°36'01"N., long. 81°39'59"W.; to lat. 27°32'31''N., long. 81°07'23''W.; to lat.
27°04’01”N., long. 81°16’59”W.; to lat. 27°04’01”N., long. 81°24’59”W.; to lat.
27°35’44”N., long. 81°42’14”W.; to the point of beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Miami ARTCC

124
 3.1.4 The Sarasota Shelf ATCAA.
The proposed ATCAA connecting W-168 to APAFR is reflected in Figure 10. and
includes the coordinates and information as outlined.

APAFR

W-168

FIGURE 10: The Sarasota Shelf

• W-168 to APAFR (The Sarasota Shelf)

o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 27°00'31"N., long. 82°55'10"W.; to lat. 26°36'42"N.,
long. 82°29'40"W.; to lat. 26°10'01"N., long. 82°16'59"W.; to lat. 27°04’01”N.,
long. 81°24’59”W.; to lat. 27o53’31”N., long. 81o51’59”W.; to the point of
beginning
o Time of Designation: Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Miami ARTCC

125
 3.1.5 The Lakeland Shelf ATCAA.
The proposed ATCAA connecting W-470 to APAFR is reflected in Figure 11. and
includes the coordinates and information as outlined.

W-470 – to – APAFR (Lakeland Shelf)

W-470

APAFR

FIGURE 11: The Lakeland Shelf

• W-470 to APAFR (The Lakeland Shelf)

o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 29°42'30"N., long. 84°00'00"W.; to lat. 28°56'00"N.,
long. 83°31'00"W.; to lat. 28°05’00”N., long. 83°31’00”W.; to lat. 27°04’01”N.,
long. 81°24’59”W.; to lat. 27o53’31”N., long. 81o51’59”W.; to lat. 28o00’01”N.,
long. 81o20’59”W.; to lat. 28°00'01''N., long. 81°13'59''W.; to the point of
beginning
o Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC

126
 3.1.6 The Ocala Shelf ATCAA.
The proposed ATCAA connecting W-470 to PRC is reflected in Figure 12. and includes
the coordinates and information as outlined.

PRC

W-470

FIGURE 12: The Ocala Shelf

• W-470 to PRC (The Ocala Shelf)

o Boundaries: Beginning at lat. 29°42'30"N., long. 84°00'00"W.; to lat. 28°56'00"N.,
long. 83°31'00"W.; to lat. 28°24’00”N., long. 83°31’00”W.; to lat. 28°53'39''N.,
long. 81°33'56''W.; to lat. 29°36’21”N., long. 81°51’19”W.; to the point of
beginning
o Intermittent by NOTAM
o Controlling agency: FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC

127
3.2 Altitude Considerations.

3.2.1 Atlantic Coast ATCAAs.

The ATCAAs from the Atlantic Ocean Warning Areas are appreciably shorter as the
ranges from the western edges of the Warning Areas to the eastern edges of the
Restricted Areas/MOAs tend to be in the 40–50-mile range distance. Ideally, these short
distance ATCAAs would be available for discreet time durations from 18,000 – 35,000-
foot altitudes (FL 180 – FL 350) to enable full tactical employment of a F-35 tactical
formation as it moves inland to ingress the range Restricted Area. Alternatively, when
airspace constraints limit the altitude block, the ATCAA could be established in a 10K
foot increment, selected by ATC, that affords the least impact to other commercial and
general aviation operations. While the reduced altitude block does limit some tactical
maneuvering flexibility, a 10K foot block still allows multi-aircraft formations
maneuvering in their tactical configurations, as well as the opportunity to employ
opposition “red” aircraft for an improved tactical training benefit.
Each ATCAA could be established for any discrete training event in any one of the
following two altitude block options if the entire FL 180 – FL 350 is not available:
• FL 250 – FL 350
• FL 180 – FL 280
For training events that will include air-to-ground weapons employment into a range
complex, the lower altitude block can be established as a step-down into the
appropriate MOA and Restricted Airspace associated with that range.

3.2.2 Gulf Coast ATCAAs.

On the other coast, the Gulf of Mexico Warning Areas have longer approach
distances in the 100–170-mile range. As such, to minimize the volume of airspace
activated by use of these ATCAAs, the longer routes could also be established in a
continuous 10K foot altitude block utilizing one of the two identified above. This will
afford greater flexibility for ATC to enable commercial and general aviation to continue

128
to operate both above and below any ATCAA shelf activated for the limited duration the
ATCAA activation is in effect.
As further flexibility in these longer ATCAAs from the western side of the peninsula,
a stepdown in altitude from one altitude block to another could be accommodated.
While altitude block changes are not desirable as they create another artificial limitation
imposed during live training, if it means the difference between completing the training
event or cancellation due to ATC concerns, a stepdown could likely be accommodated
on a shelf with over 100 miles in distance between Warning Area and the connected
range. If this altitude block change were required, it would best be accommodated prior
to the 50 miles distance from the range. This step down would create further flexibility
for brief periods of military use during the training event while still allowing for the flow
of commercial and general aviation aircraft both above and below these corridors.
The concept of different altitude block options and a tiered approach are outlined in
examples shown in Figures 13-16 below. These depict profile views of the airspace
altitudes as aircraft transition from a Warning Area offshore to a Restricted Area
onshore. The goal of providing different altitude block options within each ATCAA is to
afford the corresponding ATC the greatest flexibility in accommodating requirements of
all airspace users.

129
 FIGURE 13. Side Profile View of ATCAA Full Altitude Block Concept from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

FIGURE 14. Side Profile View of ATCAA Reduced Altitude Block Concept (FL 250 - 350) from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

130
FIGURE 15. Side Profile View of ATCAA Reduced Altitude Block Concept (FL 180 - 280) from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

FIGURE 16. Side Profile View of ATCAA Tiered Step-Down Concept from
Over Water Warning Area to Over Land Restricted Area/Range

131
 3.3 Timing Considerations.
Additionally, the time of ATCAA activation can be utilized during both day and night
which may afford greater deconfliction options with commercial and general aviation
operations.

3.4 Electronic Countermeasures.

Advanced threats and evolution of current tactics requires the use of electronic
countermeasures (jamming pods). This request includes the use of ALQ-188, ALQ-184, ALQ-
131, and any future developed jamming pods to be used in the new ATCAAs.

3.5 Chaff and Flare Restrictions.

Chaff and flare expendable countermeasures will not be used in the ATCAAs.

3.6 Supersonic Restrictions.

No changes to existing supersonic restrictions are requested as part of this proposal.

4. Alternative Courses of Action.

4.1. No actions alternative.

Without changes to the Florida Complex ATCAAs as proposed, joint force training
utilizing 5th Gen fighter aircraft will be precluded from conducting USAF RAP or USN/USMC
equivalent required flying events in accordance with established longer range TTPs for
multiple missions including missions such as SEAD, SCAR, CAS, and BSA. In addition,
integration with other joint forces for realistic training will be restricted.

4.2. Use of alternate airspace.

Given the common commercial air routes into the peninsula, the growing demand for
space launch activities on the Eastern Range at Cape Canaveral SFS and NASA/John F.
Kennedy Space Center, and the military testing requirements over the Gulf range and into

132
 Eglin AFB, the use of alternative airspace was deemed to be more disruptive to the NAS
than leveraging the existing proposal designated SUA around Florida and creating short
term, temporary connectors via ATCAAs as the most viable option for flexible access in
ingress and egress to APAFR and PRC at the tactical ranges required, formation
maneuvering room, station keeping and safety buffers required.

4.3. Actions considered but not advanced.

4.3.1. Entire redesign/baselining of Florida airspace.

Due to the impending arrival of the F-35 at various Florida-based units, this option
would be prohibitive due to the time required for a total airspace redesign or baselining
to include existing Restricted Areas and MOAs.

4.3.2. Deploying for all unit level training.

This option would be excessively expensive to implement requiring multiple
deployments by the various Florida-based units to fulfill AP requirements for each
assigned pilot. This option would incur significant additional costs in moving hundreds
of support personnel and flying operations to alternative locations. Scheduling
availability in other CONUS airspace complexes combined with the amount of RAP
events make this option ineffective for future F-35 training requirements. Furthermore,
most alternative locations lack the airspace required to effectively train at the distances
and scale required by F-35 TTPs and also have very limited-to-no opportunities for joint
force integration with live forces.

5. Air Traffic Control Coordination.

[SECTION PENDING ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT WITH ATREPs and ARTCCs]

133
6. Other Interest Potential.
The anticipated impacts of proposed actions on each of the potentially affected areas are
listed below.

6.1. Recreational areas: (Parks – Federal, state, local).

There are several national wildlife refuges, national and state forest lands located across
Florida the ATCAAs will pass over or adjacent to. However, due to the high altitudes of the
ATCAAs proposed, there are no anticipated negative effects.

6.2. Native American Reservations, Lands, or areas of special interest.

The ATCAAs proposed do not pass over any known reservation lands.

6.3. Grazing and/or farming.

Due to the high altitudes of the ATCAAs proposed, there are no anticipated effects to
any grazing or farming assets.

6.4. Endangered species.

Due to the high altitudes of the ATCAAs proposed, there are no anticipated effects to
any endangered species.

6.5. Wildlife sites.

Due to the high altitudes of the ATCAAs proposed, there are no anticipated effects to
hunting or fishing.

6.6. Hunting and fishing.

Due to the high altitudes of the ATCAAs proposed, there are no anticipated effects to
hunting or fishing locations.

134
6.7. Archaeological sites.
There are no known archaeological sites involved in the ATCAAs proposed.

6.8. Population centers, communities, previously identified or potential noise sensitive

areas.
Due to the high altitudes of the ATCAAs proposed, there are no anticipated effects on
any population centers or noise sensitive areas.

6.9. Ongoing litigation that may be impacted.

There is no known ongoing or pending litigation involving the areas of the ATCAAs
proposed.

6.10. Other training airspace actions that may be impacted by this initiative.
Unknown.

6.11. Regional actions by other MAJCOM or military services.

This proposal is a regionally coordinated effort across the joint force based across
Florida. There are no other known regional actions that would be impacted.

6.12. Consultation with other state/federal agencies.

This concept and proposal have been coordinated and supported at the state level with
the Florida Defense Support Task Force (FDSTF) which is established pursuant to Florida
Statute §288.987 and the Florida Defense Alliance which is established pursuant to Florida
Statute §288.980(1)(b). The Adjutant General of the Florida National Guard has
coordinated on the development of this proposal and is in concurrence with the approach.
Representatives of the State of Florida Department of Transportation have also received
briefings on the concept. Several members of the Florida state legislature have also been
briefed on the concept. At the federal level, outside of various DoD entities that have been
briefed, the U.S. Coast Guard has been coordinated with for potential future employment of

135
 advanced threat emitters at their facilities to compliment this concept of using Florida
ranges by being able to create more complex congested and contested integrated air
defense networks for training. Additionally, several members of the Florida federal
congressional delegation and members of the congressional Mach 1 Caucus have been
briefed and are supportive of the concept.

6.13. Other aviation interest groups and agencies.

Consultation with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the National
Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), Air Transport Association (ATA), Florida’s Department
of Transportation (FDOT) and local airport commissions and/or Fixed Base Operators (FBOs)
will be conducted to minimize impacts to all agencies and stakeholders.

6.14. Other interested or affected parties.

None known.

7.0 Engagement planning.

Due to the high-altitude nature of this airspace request, no negative effects are
anticipated to the surrounding communities that will require engagement. If there are
concerns raised, the nearest proponent military command based in Florida will ensure that
the intent for users of the FATR to remain at higher altitudes above a level that would
impact the local community is clearly communicated.

136
 FLORIDA ADVANCED TRAINING RANGE
MODIFICATION OF FLORIDA SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
CONNECTING OFFSHORE WARNING AREAS TO
ONSHORE RANGE-RELATED RESTRICTED AIRSPACE AND MILITARY OPEATIONS AREAS

Proponent Signatures

__________________________________
NAME, RANK, SVC
TITLE, COMMAND

__________________________________
NAME, RANK, SVC
TITLE, COMMAND

__________________________________
NAME, RANK, SVC
TITLE, COMMAND

__________________________________
NAME, RANK, SVC
TITLE, COMMAND

__________________________________
NAME, RANK, SVC
TITLE, COMMAND

__________________________________
NAME, RANK, SVC
TITLE, COMMAND

137
Appendix D.1: DD1494 MET-L__________________

138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
Appendix E: KLE and Installation Support Report
Log
Federal government (Congress, FCC, FAA)

Date/Location Key Leader/ Title Results/ Key Takeaways

4 Feb 2023 Rep Jake Ellzey Rep Ellzey is a founding member of the Mach 1
Phone call US Congressman Caucus and a retired USN aviator. The FATR
(Appropriations team had discussions regarding a blended LVC
Committee) training range across the Gulf of Mexico
Texas District 6 (GOM). Ellzey said when the time is right, he
would like the FATR team to brief the Mach 1
Caucus including the technology needed to
build out the training range. He would like to
see FATR extended to the west side of the Gulf
of Mexico and incorporate coastal TX bases.

8 Feb 23 Rep Scott Franklin The Congressman expressed support for FATR
Washington DC US Congressman but was concerned that FAA support might be
Virtual (Appropriations challenging. He offered to arrange another
Committee) meeting with key members of the Florida
Florida District 18 delegation - plus the other three members of
the Mach 1 Caucus (including Republican Reps.
Mike Garcia of California, Scott Franklin of
Florida, and Jake Ellzey and August Pfluger of
Texas).

22 Feb 2023 Ms. Kathy Ferguson FATR team met with Kathy to discuss
Virtual Senior Advisor, The congressional assistance via defense budget
Roosevelt Group inserts and language. Kathy agreed to let us
review the final language proposal given our
inputs from FATR Concept development.

17 Mar 2023 Rep Scott Franklin Follow-up meeting with the Congressman to
Virtual answer questions and discuss FATR concept in
more detail. Agreed to arrange future
meetings with congressman in Appropriations
including Rep Rob Wittman. Advised we

146
 should get started now with info briefs that
lead to Congressional language and inserts for
FY25 Budget.

22 Mar 2023 Rep Jake Ellzey Touched base with Rep Ellzey and gave him an
Phone call Follow-up update on the progress we are making on the
FATR. FATR team will continue informing him
on progress.

3 Apr 2023 Sen Rick Scott’s Staff Contacted his Chief of Staff and Mil Liaison;
Washington DC FL US Senator (SASC) continuing to update.
Phone call

7 Apr 2023 Dr. Paul Bonicelli Via a connection from Jerry Lavely, reached
Email Sen Scott’s National out to Dr. Bonicelli to set up a formal
Security Advisor discussion on FATR.

147
State Entities (Governors, Legislators, TAGs, Defense Alliances)

Date/Location Key Leader/ Title Results/ Key Takeaways

12 Mar 2021 Maj Gen Jim Eifert, During multiple briefings and discussions with
27 Jun 2022 The Adjutant General FL TAG starting in 2021, Gen Eifert expressed
APAFR Florida National Guard support for the FATR concept and helped at
On-site any level including Florida Air Guard and
Florida Army National Guard.

29 Dec 2022 Dr. Lucy Greene, Virtual meeting with Dr. Lucy Greene. She
Virtual Consultant for MOODY feels our FATR vision for upgrading of the
SUPPORT Team Defense ranges is the first concrete proposal she’s
Alliance heard along those lines. Moody’s Avon Park is
a primary focus for Moody AFB.
She asked for assurances that the range will
not be removed from 23d Wing responsibility
as this new concept develops. She’s interested
in F-35 training and wants to remain in the
fighter business in addition to their Rescue
Mission and the Air Ground Operations Wing.
Moody is perfect for training and has had
many training missions in the past. Dr. Greene
feels there should be state of Georgia
involvement in FATR as Moody is important to
South Georgia.

148
US Department of Defense (OSD, Joint Staff, NGB, ANG/ARNG and Military Services)

Date/Location Key Leader/ Title Results/ Key Takeaways

11 Dec 2022 Maj Gen Bryan Radliff Gen Radliff supported our efforts on FATR
NAS JRB Ft Commander, 10 AF and approved our interviews with the 482
Worth TX FW and 920 RQW regarding their unit
Virtual training requirements.

20 Dec 2022 Lt Gen Marc Sasseville Gen Sasseville supported our efforts on
Arlington VA Vice Chief, NGB FATR and asked us to continue to remain
Email synced up with Maj Gen Eifert, TAG of
Florida.

20 Dec 2022 MG John D. Haas MGEN Haas supported our FATR Concept
Virtual FLARG leadership and put us in touch with COL Felix
Rodriguez

22 Dec 2022 Lt Gen Russ Mack, Deputy Gen Mack expressed support for the FATR
Langley AFB VA Commander ACC concept and asked us to keep him apprised
Virtual of our progress. He understands our desire
to enhance training for 4th and 5th Gen
Units in the SE region of the US - all
Services - and ultimately in all Domains. He
also supports our efforts to focus initially
on RC units to ensure they can train for
pacing-threat mission scenarios without
constant deployments out west. Finally, he
emphasized Emitter development and
deployment more so than LVC
enhancements.

22 Dec 2022 Col Russell Cook Col Cook expressed support for our FATR
Moody AFB GA Commander, 23 WG efforts and made two SMEs available to
Virtual FATR for FL range planning: Maj Harrold for
Attack and Maj' Combs for Rescue (Cc’d).
Both are senior weapons officers at Moody
for their respective missions and can
provide some background for the FATR
concept within constraints for
classification/releasability. He offered to
keep us posted on Agile Flag planning and
wants to have a Wing level tactics

149
 discussion on improved training options via
APAFR range improvements.

26 Dec 2022 Maj Gen Phil Stewart, 19th 19 AF/CC expressed support for our FATR
Randolph AFB AF Commander concept and approved coordination
TX w/33FW
Virtual

5 Jan 2023 COL Rodriguez, The FATR team provided COL Felix
Virtual LTC Mike Adler Rodriguez and LTC Mike Adler a briefing on
FLARNG the concept including ideas on how their
soldiers might benefit from our efforts.
They appreciated information on the MET
threat emitter options but feel the systems
would likely benefit only their future
training requirements, but not their current
training in older equipment. The US Army
is centrally managing the APR-39 Treat
Warning Receivers and FLARNG has zero in
stock for any of their helicopters. There is
no live training going on in that regard.
Their crews go to Hunter AAS and train in
simulators when it comes to threat
reactions and avoidance. COL Rodriguez
agreed to fill out our Unit Training
Worksheet. He expressed support for our
FATR concept.

17 Jan 2023 Maj Gen Mike Koscheski Gen Koscheski expressed support for our
Shaw AFB SC Commander, 15 AF efforts in Florida and suggested we
Virtual interview the 325 FW Commander at
Tyndall AFB FL to ensure we are aware of
upgrades to over-land and over-water
training ranges and airspace near Tyndall.
He emphasized the importance of our
emitter development over the LVC
enhancements just like Lt Gen Mack did.

17 Jan 2023 Maj Gen Thomas Grabowski, Maj Gen Grabowski expressed support for
Virtual Commander Georgia Air our FATR concept and feels this concept is
Guard necessary due to limited local training
capabilities for his current and future units.
He’s well versed in the Marine Corps
attempts to upgrade Townsend Range and

150
 his efforts to connect the range to the over-
water Atlantic Warning Area airspaces. He
does not think the Marine Corps will make
much training time available on Townsend
since they use it all the time. He feels
Georgia Tech Research Institute has a
similar effort underway and recommends
we get with them to understand what
they’re trying to do. He asked who our
engineering expertise was, and I explained
SRC’s capabilities and current efforts with
the US Army and TSMO. He has a POC
working at Savannah named Lt Col
‘Tracker” Thomas who’s trying to connect
the dots on all of this regarding emitters.
He feels it’s connected to ABMS Family of
Systems and recommended we check into
that too. He recommended we consider
briefing the Georgia Military Defense
Commission and a former Secretary of the
Navy who is currently the Chairman of the
Commission: William Ball. He also
recommends we brief Congressman Austin
Scott at some point who’s on the HASC.

23 Jan 2023 Mike Dolby Mike was willing to discuss USFJ efforts on
Virtual Chief, Joint Airspace range modernizations
Management & Bilateral
Operations (J32) US Forces
Japan

23 Jan 2023 Lt Col Stephen Thomas Lt Col Thomas invited the FATR team to
Virtual Commander, Air Dominance visit the CRTC to see how they train for
Center Large Force Employment, 5th and 4th
Generation assets.

23 Jan 2023 Regina ‘Gina’ Tyrrell FATR team briefed her about the concept
Huntsville AL TSMO Liaison to OSD R&E using TSMO products (MET systems) to
Virtual provide live threat emitters on training
ranges. She is now working directly for
TSMO. Linked Gina up with SRC reps. Will
coordinate a trip to SRC for a hands-on
demonstration/petting zoo visit to see the
MET system and provide a more in-depth

151
 overview of the FATR concept.

26 Jan 2023 Col Jack Arthaud Col Arthaud expressed support for our
Eglin AFB FL Commander, 33 FW efforts on FATR and recommended
Virtual connecting with his Wing Weapons officer
and the 96 Range Group to discuss unit
training requirements.

27 Jan 2023 Col Jesse Hamilton, Col Hamilton is supportive of FATR concept
Virtual Commander 920th Rescue including providing enhanced emitters to
Wing train against. He is supportive of airspace
changes as well, albeit ceilings and floors
for many of his assets will be significantly
different than those required for fighters.
Mentioned that the eastern ATCAA the
125th is considering from W497 over to
APAFR goes across the Patrick-area and it
would be ideal from a lat/long perspective
for 920th-based assets. POCs: 39 RQS
LtCol Paul Golando; 321-494-1172;
[email protected]
301RQS: Lt Col Mel Bonifacio; 321-494-
8111; [email protected]

27 Jan 2023 Maj Kevin Hand Discussed the lines of effort to network F-
Eglin AFB FL Director, F-15C CTF (AATC) 15C/E/EX aircraft into the prototype
Virtual PATS/ALVC architecture. Said they were
coordinating the system protocols used
previously with AFRL to Maj Hand to
determine the best way ahead.

30 Jan 2023 Gen Ken Wilsbach Gen Wilsbach expressed support for our
Hickam AFB HI Commander, PACAF efforts; asked us to continue the discussion
Email with Brig Gen Chris Niemi, PACAF A5/8

31 Jan 2023 Mr. Greg Knapp Reviewed FATR concept and discussed the
Orlando, FL DASD, Personnel & MET system as part of other OSD projects
Virtual Readiness/Force Education & supporting EW training. Greg requested we
Training re-engage with BG John Nipp regarding
another EW training project at OSD (Range
Modernization Spectrum Tool) that could
be complementary to FATR. Asked us to
arrange for OSD P&R/FE&T Mil Deputy (Lt
Col Aaron Cavazos) to see the MET system

152
 in Huntsville. Scheduled for Mar 2023.

1 Feb 2023 Col George Watkins Col Watkins expressed support for our
Tyndall AFB FL Commander, 325 FW efforts on FATR and approved our interview
Virtual of his units regarding their training
requirements. He also asked for SRC to
brief him on the PATS capabilities.

1 Feb 2023 Maj Ray Tierney Briefed the ACC Federal Lab Director, 9th
Beale AFB CA Director, Fed Lab Reconnaissance Wing, about the goals,
On-site objectives, and phases of the FATR
proposal. Advised him of our interest in his
lab and airborne experiments with open
architecture communications and links for
both 4th and 5th Gen aircraft. He
appreciated the briefing.

2 Feb 2023 Gil Martinez Mr. Martinez and his team briefed their
Univ of Director for OSD EW study ongoing study on DoD EW training effort.
Maryland ARLIS The FATR concept will be mentioned in
Virtual their report. Requested to be considered
for the Phase 2 planning and exercise
portion of their study.

6 Feb 2023 Erik Gardner PM at NIWDC Spoke with Erik and one of his IPT leads
South Carolina Atlantic (Ryan Longshore) about FATR. The SC
Virtual equivalent of the FL Defense Support Task
Force is interested in collaborating on an
extension of the FATR up the east coast of
the US to accommodate the offshore
ranges north into GA and SC. Erik and Ryan
are working on an advanced EW training
project for OSD. They would like to use
FATR as a place to test their prototype(s)
for advanced EW effects. Will coordinate a
visit to FL to discuss Modeling, Simulation &
Analysis (MS&A) for EW effects with the
FATR team and members of the MS&A
community.

6 Feb 2023 Lt Col Grant Hillman Lt Col Hillman is the 33FW Weapons officer
Eglin AFB FL 33 OSS/OSK and offered his support for FATR
Phone call coordinated efforts with the 125FW and
325FW for F-35 training requirements.

153
8 Feb 2023 Maj Gen Evan Dertien Maj Gen Dertien discussed the test
Edwards AFB AFTC/CC upgrades to the GOMEX airspace and
CA provided contact information for the 96
Phone call Test Wing at Eglin AFB FL to coordinate
efforts.

9 Feb 2023 Winston Bennett Mr. Bennett provided current information

WPAFB OH 711/HPW/RHW on AFRL’s LVC connectivity R&D. There are
Virtual still significant technology gaps, and these
challenges may push the FATR timeline
significantly to the right.

13 Feb Col James Roche Col Roche was briefed on the FATR concept
Hickam AFB HI PACAF, A8X and discussed challenging issues facing
Virtual INDOPACOM and the PMTEC initiative for
their AOR. He recommended engagement
with INDOPACOM/J7 and 350 SWW. He
also will set up a meeting w/ACC/A5/8, Brig
Gen Niemi

14 Feb 2023 Maj Eric Wallace Maj Wallace provided information on the
Langley AFB VA ACC/A8S R&D conducted at the Fed Lab at Beale AFB
Virtual CA. Significant technology gaps remain in
producing a blended LVC environment. He
estimated 2028 for F-35 inclusion into the
ALVC network.

15 Feb 2023 RADM John F. Meier RADM Meier discussed his intent for
Norfolk VA COMNAVAIRLANT training: maximize quality, repetition of
Virtual training events; deny TTPs to adversaries;
responsible use of flying hour program; no
blue forces used as “Red Air;” the need for
accelerated improvements outside of POM
timelines; He expressed support for a
PATS/ALVC prototype on Pinecastle Range
Complex and provided contact information
for FACSFAC commander - CDR Mary
Robinson - to coordinate that effort.

15 Feb 2023 BG John Nipp, 184th BG Nipp is participating in the OSD study on
Camp Shelby, Sustainment Command, EW and LVC training improvements. He is
MS Commander working on improvements and upgrading
Virtual Camp Shelby MS in the areas of Cyber and
EW training. FATR team provided him a

154
 briefing on PATS capabilities, and he
introduced us to the Gulfport CRTC
commander Jeff Kirby for crosstalk on
upgrading ranges. Connected BG Nipp to
COL Felix Rodriguez FLARNG G-3 for
crosstalk

16 Feb 2023 Dale Marks Mr. Marks expressed support for our
Eglin AFB FL 96 TW/DV project and wants to make sure we sync
Virtual efforts by coordinating range utilization,
spectrum management to optimize OTTI
vision. We set up a MET capes brief for
their technology director.

17 Feb 2023 Maj Gen Dave Lyons Gen Lyons expressed support for the FATR
Langley AFB VA ACC/A3 concept and offered his staff’s assistance
Virtual on airspace and frequency spectrum
management. FATR team will coordinate
support through Col Brian Gebo, A3A and
provide him a PATS briefing.

1 Mar 2023 Ulf Jinnestrand Met with Ulf to discuss the Swedish Army
Swedish Army COS (Major General Karl E. Engelbrektson)
Liaison (ODU) visit with FL TAG. They discussed a
Phone call partnership between Sweden and the FL
Army NG. FATR could be used as a ground
maneuver force training range.

2 Mar 2023 CDR Mary Robinson, Joined by XO, CDR Tyler Kendall, and
NAS USN Commanding assorted staff members. This was follow-
Jacksonville FL Officer Fleet Area up to the 15 Feb mtg with CNAL, RADM
Virtual Control and Meyer, and CDR Robinson was supportive
Surveillance Facility of exploring further FATR emitter
Jacksonville FACSFAC implementation at PRC. Also, indicated she
would be the lead in the state of Florida for
the Navy to coordinate any required
airspace changes. Agreed to schedule a
visit in April for FATR team, and working on
emitter requirements, airspace, and
spectrum management/permissions issues.
Subsequently, connected us with Mr. Scott
Collins, FACSFAC Spectrum Management
Office to begin spectrum-related issue
discussions and Pinecastle range director,

155
 Mr. Don Heaton.

3 Mar 2023 Maj Alex Esson, Luke AFB FATR team interviewed F-35 Luke Weapons
Virtual wing weapons officer Officer about Ranges and Airspace:
-He built a blended LVC environment
on the BMG ranges using the AFRL
concepts attached.
-Luke architecture may be our initial
approach to FATR (Phase 1/2) until
the Fed Lab technology matures.
-He said DIADS is unable to
realistically provide RED
threats/weapons employment due to
classification level of F-35 RCS so a
man-in-the-loop, with appropriate
clearance, must be actively
monitoring/manipulating the fight via
the WarRoom server.
-He also discussed types of live
emitters used on the range (at least
6+ different ones). The LCTE version
#2 is the only program of record and
under contract with the AF. Its capes
and costs are similar to the MET-H
system. Leeroy said the total price for
the modernization of the BMG Range
including emitters, personnel, and
sustainment is $150M since 2016.
- Also mentioned an initial investment for
FATR would probably run $25M
— reminded us yet again that the real
price tag for an Advanced (backyard) Range
is driven by sustainment costs
— said it takes one of the biggest
Amplifiers (400W) on the market for a
threat emitter to reach out to 150 miles
($200k)
– he said his team was able to treat
the emitters as UNCLAS out in the field by
using ‘programming parameters’ that don’t
connect to any specific real-world threat
system
— the wing’s Training Officer simply

156
 sends programming parameters to the field
technician each day to load on to the
emitters (which are then erased on power-
down each day)
-- the Luke array is only a 40x50 mile
wide array/MEZ
— includes 1 or 2 emitters that
provide main beam capabilities
— said the Luke array uses
microwave transmitters
— and a Raspberry Pie Interface
— suggested FATR use Starlink
— the range group field technicians
put up a "Cluttered Site Design" using old
crates, vehicles, boxes etc. that gives the F-
35 pilot a difficult environment to SAR Map
at 'long’ range
— said the WarRoom server sits
inside LMOC
-- said the Threat SPO does not
openly support the Luke array/setup (they
recommend real ARTS emitters)
-- said ACC intends to fund each CAF
base for up to 5 LCTEs Ver 2 NFI
— 8-month lead time to
order/receive LCTE Ver 2.

14 Mar 2023 Gen (ret) Tod Wolters Met with retired General Tod Wolters
Virtual (SACEUR and EUCOM CC) on FATR.
He expressed interest in the concept
and supported our efforts. Agreed to
discuss the concept with other Senior
DOD officials. Highlighted the
requirement for joint air, land, sea
training opportunities.

15 Mar 2023 Erik Gardner, NIWDC Atlantic Spoke with Erik about efforts he is
Naval Project lead, OSD EW/LVC coordinating across the Southeastern US
Information Study (refer to the previous discussion with MG
Warfare Center Grabowski) and the Southwestern US
Atlantic training ranges. FATR could be an integral
Charleston SC part in linking the two LVC training range
Virtual complexes for multi-domain training.

157
 Erik mentioned he wants to see the MET
family of systems.

17 Mar 2023 Dale Marks Expressed support for the FATR Concept.
Eglin AFB FL 96 TW/DV
Virtual

17 Mar 2023 Rep Scott Franklin FATR Phase 1 Update and funding estimate
Lakeland FL US Congressman Florida discussion for Phase 2; Rep Franklin agreed
In-person District 18 to arrange meetings with w FL CODEL and
Mach One Caucus to garner support on
airspace proposal and set a timeline for
FY2025 FATR funding

23 Mar 2023 Lt Col Aaron Cavazos, P&R Continued coordination with their team
OSD P&R Josh Weaver, OSD R&E including a visit to SRC in Huntsville, AL to
OSD R&E Gina Tyrell, TSMO look at the MET family of systems. Will
TSMO Erik Gardner, NIWDC Atlantic continue to engage with these individuals
NIWDC Atlantic since they all occupy senior billets
In Person associated with EW training systems.

24 Mar 2023 Maj Gen Eifert, FL TAG, Updated the TAG and his replacement, MG
St Augustine FL MG Haas, Commander, Haas on our progress. Expressed continued
Virtual FLARG support for the FATR concept.

24 Mar 2023 Col Gebo Briefed Col Gebo and his staff on MET
Virtual ACC/A3A capabilities and FATR airspace proposal; he
expressed support for the FATR concept.

31 Mar 2023 Lt Col Kyle Jansen Briefed Lt Col Jansen and his staff on MET
Virtual Commander ACC TRSS capabilities and FATR concept
Det 9

3 Apr 2023 Col Adam Bingham, Col Bingham supports our FATR concept
MacDill AFB FL Commander 6th Air Refueling development and agreed to let his staff
In person Wing coordinate with us on Airspace and
Spectrum support

3 Apr Site survey Deployed Unit Met with Lt Col Ryan and Buck McLaughlin
MacDill AFB FL Complex, MacDill AFB regarding existing capabilities in the
On-site Deployed Unit Complex.

MacDill DUC visit discussions included:

-Phase 2 office space for
operation control center (OCC) for APAFR

158
 operations
-Currently no SIPR/Link
16/SADL/ACMI/classified briefing or
debriefing capes; no classified storage/SCIF
-Possible location for MET
system for Phase 3/spectrum
cert/deconfliction with other MacDill
units/Alert facility Mole/Hole
-Installation Link 16
issues/6ARW
-290 JCSS/comm
architecture/Link 16 kit could come from
ACC.

Continued discussions on options for an

Ops Center at Avon Park:
-Phase 1B office space for operation center
-SIPR
- Currently no Link 16/SADL/ACMI
capability
-Location for MET-H during Phase 1B setup
and Phase 2 testing
-Draft FATR operations manual to include
as a supplement to AFM13-212

3 Apr 2023 Maj Paul Martin, Commander Maj Martin agreed to assist the FATR Team
MacDill AFB FL 290th JCSS with FATR Operational System Design and
In person schematic if Florida Air National Guard
provides MPA Days for the work.

3 Apr 2023 Lt Col Jerry Lavely (retired) Agreed to facilitate KLE meetings with Sen
MacDill AFB FL Lobbyist for Sen Rick Scott Rick Scott and other key FL Political leaders.
In person

5 Apr 2023 Col Paul Shoemaker Col Shoemaker appreciated our briefing on
Patrick Space Commander, SLD45 FATR and directed his staff to review
Wing further correspondence from our team.
Virtual

11 Apr 2023 Michael Weglein Senior Good discussion on FATR with Michael from
Phone call Policy Advisor to Congressman Mast’s office in DC. He
Congressman Mast FL understands the concept and felt the
18th District Congressman would support if asked - but

159
 would not likely lead the effort to gain
support since FATR "doesn’t fall in his
District". FATR team explained that the
range was a state of Florida concept and he
understood. He said he’d be willing to take
a follow-on briefing as we approach Phase
2, and the Congressman would likely attend
the next update.

11 Apr 2023 Maj Paul Martin Discussed FATR communication network

MacDill AFB FL Commander, 290 JCSS and requested ideas on equipment, setup,
Virtual and operations

14 Apr 2023 Col Matt Bradley, Col Bradley expressed support for concept
Eglin AFB FL Commander, 53 WG development for the FATR and emphasized
Virtual and Kevin Burns, Chief the different range requirements for Test
Technology Officer versus Training; also pointed out the
limiting factors on the NTTR and JPARC (too
small). Recommended we get in touch with
Devin Cate Executive Director Air National
Guard, NGB and TRMC director George
Rumford. Mr. Burns contacted his
counterpart, Mike Contratto, in the 96th
Test Wing. He confirmed the FATR team
has presented sufficient details to him, Mr.
Marks, and the 96th Range Group, to
include XPO (airspace). Mr. Marks also
related to Kevin Burns that he has a
particular interest in staying current on
MET threat emitter developments. 96th
also understands all the airspace use
challenges around GOMEX, including civil,
which will probably not be trivial in this
FATR endeavor.

17 Apr 2023 Michael Corcoran, Mike understands the concept and agrees
Virtual Congressman Gimenez’s the 'advanced training platform' here in
Military Legislative Assistant Florida might benefit the joint force
especially given the degree of difficulty
associated with training against a pacing
threat; he visualized potential benefits to
the Congressman’s home district
(Homestead) while still viewing the FATR as
a state of Florida concept.

160
19 Apr 2023 Site Survey FACSFAC Successful visit
Jax FL
On-site

27 Apr 2023 VADM (ret) David C. Nichols Corresponded via Email to brief the admiral
Virtual Email on FATR. Offered an in-place briefing

28 Apr 2023 Brig Gen J. Schermerhorn A3 Initial contact with IMA Col Kevin Merrill
Phone call at AFSOC USAF Mobilization Assistant to the
AFSOC/A3 phone 850-884-2319/2211.
Col Merrill said ‘there are some compelling
reasons this may be beneficial to AFSOC’ as
the command looks to train and integrate
more in the high-end environment.

9 May 2023 MSG Andrew Hennessy Expressed interest in coordinating their

Panama City FL Dept of the Army Regional joint, all-domain requirements and shared
In Person Representative (DARR) FAA, contact information; FATR updates to
Eastern Service Area, follow. CW3 Holly Denny is the Camp
Southern Region Landing Airspace Manager; SFC Mara
Desk: Gordon works Range Operations and
404 305-6918 Airspace; CW4 Adam Denny is the Air
Cell: 404 317-1045 Traffic and Airspace Manager for the Army
National Guard.

11 May 2023 Col Russ Cook, Commander Cleared the FATR team to initiate the FATR
Virtual 23d Wing, Moody AFB GA Ops Center plan at APAFR with Lt Col Ryan
as the coordinating authority. His wing
team is in the process of completing the
gateway at Avon and purchasing the Link
16 radio needed asap. Timeline will depend
on when they get the radio (typically
backlogged), but the money was
committed at $750k for network
infrastructure this week. Col Cook passed
these action items off to his replacement,
Col Sheets. Lt Col Thad Ronnau is his POC
for the HH-60W support to the emitter
project test at Huntsville. Col Cook passed
the 598 RANS Support request to Lt Col
Ryan. Timing and priority will be important
to their support for FATR during Phase 1B
and will depend on support requirements.

161
24 May 2023 Mach 1 Caucus: All Members expressed support for the
Virtual Congressmen Pfluger TX, FATR concept, and each mentioned the
Franklin FL, Garcia CA, and need to accelerate our timeline. Pfluger
Stewart UT and Franklin will mention FATR to
Congressman Rob Wittman to get “Report
Language'' drawn up for the HASC.
Congressman Garcia mentioned we needed
to get on at least one COCOM’s Unfunded
List.

24 May 2023 Col M. Bradley, Commander Col Bradley offered insight into the Test
Phone call 53rd Wing, Eglin AFB FL Range upgrades needed in the Gulf of
Mexico Ranges. Expressed continued
support for FATR.

30 May 2023 Col Tony Alexander IMA to Discussed FATR with his EA and will
Virtual AFSOC A-3 schedule full discussion with the next A-3.

5 Jun 2023 Lt Col Alex Esson, Luke AFB Lt Col Esson offered a copy of their Range
Virtual Weapons officer; follow-up Coordination Sheet including these steps:
discussions 1. their IPs fill out to request for services
they need on each mission. It is updated in
real time by referencing links on the range
SharePoint for which emitters are
operational and their locations (they move
often). There are different tabs at the
bottom for various LFE missions. That
generates a coord sheet and emails it to
players in the range management office. If
the planners have a SAM-1 then we pass
directions to him at the brief, if we don't
then we put Zulu start times or range based
DLOs in the remarks of each emitter.
2. For operations, their emitter procedures
are a little different than at other bases.
We have our range contractors start the
threats up and make sure they are
functional, but then they hand over
operational control of the emitters to SAM-
1. SAM-1 is either a retired fighter pilot on
a side contract, or if we don't have enough
of them available then an IP at Luke. They
use the AF Program of Record called War
Room as their interface mechanism. It has

162
 a function in it called eSAM-1 where you
select an emitter and activate, track, and
guide beams as appropriate relative to a
TSPI source provided by the aircraft. For
the actual flight operation, they use wing
classified standards.
3. For squadron scheduling, schedulers
‘buy’ the airspace 3 weeks out in a standard
range war fashion. Then if you own the
airspace, you get all the emitters and
services in that airspace that are available
on a given day.

9 Jun 2023 Rep Gus Bilirakis, FATR team briefed the congressman, and
Clearwater FL FL District 12 he expressed support for our concept and
Virtual offered to connect us to Senators Rubio
and Scott.

12 Jun 2023 RADM John Meier Updated Phase 1A and requested support
Norfolk VA CNAL in Phase 1B from FACSFAC JAX, PRC and
Virtual CSG4. He was pleased with our progress
and offered his command’s support for
Phase 1B.

13 Jun 2023 Rep Carlos Gimenez, Provided the FATR concept briefing. He
Miami FL FL District 28 offered his full support for the project and
In person asked for follow on meetings to discuss
how he could provide specific support
requirements in the next phases.

29 Jun 2023 Lt Gen Russ Mack, Deputy Updated Phase 1A and requested support in
Langley AFB VA Commander, ACC Phase 1B from ACC. He was pleased with
Virtual our progress and offered his command’s full
support for Phase 1B. He will arrange a
meeting in mid to late August with him, his
new A-3 and Deputy A-3, plus the new A-
5/8/9 and ACC Chief Scientist. Suggested we
also brief his replacement (current 15AF CC)
and the deputy HAF/A-3 who is the Executive
Agent for FAA coordination. Also suggested
we brief USAF Air Warfare Center
Commander when possible for synergies with
current WSINT training done on the West
Coast with US Navy.

163
List of References (references are included as
separate documents)_______________
Reference 1. The Roosevelt Group Report, From the sea floor to outer space: The value of
Florida Ranges to existing and future military missions, Spring 2022

Florida Range Report Spring 2022.pdf

Reference 2. Avon Park Air Force Range AFM 13-212, August 2021

AFM13-212_APAFR Supp_13 Aug 21.pdf

Reference 3. Pinecastle Range Complex Handbook, 2/1/22 REV 8.0

PINECASTLE RANGE COMPLEX HANDBOOK REV 8.0.pdf

164