The Evaluation of Military Vehicle Concepts Ronald A. Liston Land Locomotion Laboratory, U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Center ABSTRACT This paper proposes the treatment of vehicle concept evaluation on the basis of a systems analysis approach. The author suggests that vehicle parameters be divided into pre­ dictable and statistical characteristics. These include trans¬ portability, aerial transportability, weight, dimensions, pay- load, range, highway and off-road performance in the former category and initial cost, producibility, reliability, main­ tainability, and effectiveness in the latter. Descriptions of each characteristic are presented. MUCH OF WHAT YOU WILL READ in this paper will likely impress you as neither startling nor new. Further, you may be disappointed to find that a usable systems analysis as ap­ plied to land vehicles is not offered simply because one is not yet available. What is new about this paper is a dem­ onstration implying general acceptance by a growing num­ ber of Government agencies of the application of systems analysis to the evaluation of vehicles. Tentative steps in this direction in the past (1, 2)* became confused in the search for the proper selection of weighting factors, param­ eters to be considered, and even in the basic approach, so that many have been hesitant to propose a systems approach. However, the demands for improved vehicles to be achieved at lower cost and in a shortened time span have made the systems analysis approach inevitable. Before discussing the subject at hand, it is necessary that we examine the process by which a vehicle progresses from a desire on the part of a solider in the field to a piece of equipment in his motor pool. In looking at this process I am aware that many readers are quite familiar with its de­ tails. However, the majority are not, making it desirable to establish a common starting point. SYSTEM FOR DEVELOPING VEHICLES The system for developing vehicles is an orderly affair with many checks and counterchecks that act at each step in the cycle. The fact that the system sometimes takes too much time and too much money is as much a result of its application as it is of the system. I will argue for a system more strongly oriented in basic engineering terms and more insensitive to corporate structure. An approach based on such an attitude may overcome a major shortcoming of the present system itself, which is its lack of a mechanism per­ mitting the rapid assessment of the effects of changes in requirements and the analysis of the relative merits of the concepts at the outset of a development program. The present system itself is excellent in many respects. Foremost is the statement by the ultimate customer of the characteristics of the product. The value of such an attri­ bute can be measured by the huge sums of money that the automotive industry must spend to establish the desires and wants of its customers. The industry could avoid many hours of apprehension if the customer was committed to a specific style and color before a single line was drawn on paper. The user, or customer, in the development cycle is rep­ resented by the Combat Development Command (CDC). Although the need for a new vehicle may have many sources, the normal origin for vehicle requirements is CDC itself. Because CDC is concerned with the establishment of tacti­ cal doctrine, it is most natural that the type of vehicle re­ quired to support the doctrine would evolve as a natural con­ sequence. After CDC convinces itself that a new vehicle is required and that the vehicle is essential to the Army's long range program or to the implementation of tactical doctrine, a request is submitted to establish a QMR (Qualitative Mate­ riel Requirement). This request is sent to the Office of the *Numbers in parentheses designate References at end of paper. Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24