Table 5-1. Considerations Affecting ComparisonsThe WARRAMP process: • Has an unconstrained supply of ammunition • Has undegraded command, control, and communications (C3) • Has state-of-the-art target acquisition capabilities • Has state-of-the-art weapon and munition technology • Always simulates theater densities of weapons and equipment |
b. WARRAMP Rates versus Historical RTO. From Table 5-2 It can be seen that the most pronounced difference found in this comparison exists for 105mm/light tube types. The difference is greater at the 30-day rate than the 180-day rate. 155mm/medium rates compare more closely with AHART results, 203mm/heavy still closer. None, however, fall within the 95 percent confidence limits of a normal linear distribution.
|
Table 5-2. WARRAMP Rates vs Historical RTD |
|||||
|
TUBETYPE |
Average RTD |
95% Confidence interval |
Standard deviation |
WARRAMP rate |
|
|
30-day |
180-day |
||||
|
105mm |
62.9 |
3.9 |
55.9 |
200 |
180 |
|
155mm |
39.0 |
2.4 |
30.2 |
100 |
45 |
|
203mm |
21.9 |
1.5 |
18.6 |
30 |
20 |
|
Light |
50.2 |
3.0 |
56.8 |
|
|
|
Medium |
39.0 |
2.4 |
30.2 |
|
|
|
Heavy |
23.7 |
1.2 |
20.1 |
|
|
|
All |
38.4 |
1.5 |
43.4 |
|
|
|
* As a result of considerations in Table 5-1, WARRAMP rates should be expected to be less than average RTD. |
|||||