Gct 5 5 final

CombatMultiplier

Brig. Gen. David G. BassettPEOGround Combat Systems

Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

October 2014Volume 5, Issue 5

www.GCT-kmi.com

Situational Awareness O Full Motion Video O Night VisionShock-Mitigating Seats O Squad Weapons

Exclusive Interview with:Stephen D. KreiDerPEOIntelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors

Who’s Who special supplement

PEO IntEllIgEncE, ElEctrOnIc WarfarE and SEnSOrS

AnnuAl AusA issue

Who’s Who SponsorshipsDetailed Organization Profiles

Command Profile SponsorshipsQ&A with Top-Level Command Leaders

Product ProfilesHighlight Your Product in the Military Niche Market

Business ProfilesCustom Materials for Custom Audiences

Industry Event ReportsDesigned Specifically for Your Industry-Focused Event

Resource GuidesProgram Management Updates; Contracts Guides; Products and Services Catalogs; Reference Guides

Posters/Poster SponsorshipsAgency Timelines; Command/Organization Anniversary Timelines; Message Posters

CDs/DVDsStrategically Position Your Promotional CDs or DVDs with a Tip in Disc Carrier

KMI Media Group offersADDITIONAL PRODUCTS and

SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES

To learn about advertising opportunities, contact Conni Kerrigan at [email protected] or 301.670.5700 ext. 111

ground combat & tactIcaL ISr

The Authoritative Forum of Ground Combat Providing Comprehensive Expertise on Land Warrior Issues

24Soldier FirepowerWarfighters these days are managed as systems that integrate weapons, ammunition and accessories, even down to the ensemble the warfighter wears, from helmet, armor and uniform to sunglasses and knee pads.By Peter BuxBaum

Cover / Q&AFeatures

Brigadier general david g. BaSSett

peoGround combat systems

16

Departments Industry Interview2 editor’S perSpective3 intel14 innovationS27 reSource center

w. garth Smithco-founder and chief operating officermetaVR inc.

October 2014Volume 5, Issue 5

28

4the cutting edgeFrom integrated Gps to fully networked solutions, the technology surrounding night vision for everything from weapon sights to general observation is advancing rapidly.By Jeff Goldman

20pntposition, navigation and timing—building a better ‘you are here’ capability is a key army program.By Hank HoGan

22BlaSt-attenuating SeatSWith energy- or blast-attenuating seating installed in select ground vehicles, the u.s. military has been increasing survivability of its vehicle-based troops one seat at a time.By Scott nance

“…the fact that the M113 is so old

and has essentially been taken out of operational use

makes the AMPV our most important

funding priority in the near term.

Without it, our ABCT formations cannot employ the entire range

of platforms necessary for

them to perform their mission.”

— Brigadier General David G.

Bassett

8

who’S who at peo intelligence, electronic warFare and SenSorS

Exclusive Interview withStephen D. KreiderPEO IEW&S

DoD has long resolved itself to the fact that the retrograde from Afghanistan would be more challenging and more expensive than the draw-down from Iraq. Options are to either demilitarize/dispose of it, ship it home or give it to a friendly nation.

While disposal sounds simple when talking about equipment either too damaged or deemed redundant to current needs—it certainly isn’t cheap. A heavy tactical vehicle weighing in at 32,500 pounds would cost between $9,100 and $10,100 to demilitarize, while costing anywhere between $23,800 and $107,400 to be returned to the United States. In 2013, the current count on the number of demilitarized vehicles is 2,215—which includes a basic cost per pound to demil and a general defraying of costs based on the local selling of scrap.

Although definitive numbers are not yet available, for the summer of 2013, it looks like the Army disposed of 266,000 items and returned 713,000 to the United States, representing 27 and 73 percent of the totals, respectively. Similarly, the marines disposed of 8,500 items and returned 28,500, or 23 percent and 77 percent, respectively.

Another option is the transfer of items to the local Afghan military. In fiscal year 2012, the Army alone reported a cost avoidance of at least $1.2 billion by transferring equipment. While the cost avoidance could be significant, it is unlikely that of the remaining equipment, much will be transferred to the Afghanistan military or police.

A recent government report alleged that between mid-March 2012 and mid-March 2013, the Army and Marine Corps shipped about 9,000 vehicles back to the states. Of that number, 1,034 were in excess of approved acquisition objectives with little documentation to support their need or the need for the shipment. While the report raises valid questions about the process, when it projects the cost of shipping for those vehicles between $5.9 million and $111 million, it raises an eyebrow. At $6 million, it seems we may have a bargain for returning equipment into inventory. $111 million swings the pendulum in the other direction. The reasons for the range can be explained (weight of item, routing and mode of transport) but it still seems that the range should be whittled down before asking for answers as to whether the reason for a shipment was valid or not.

Despite a few questions about the numbers in the report, the fact is that systems are in place for a reason and better accounting and decision-making as to what to do with each piece of equipment would save resources both short- and long-term. Hopefully, a more settled political situation in Afghanistan will take the pressure off the Mad Hatter’s dash to retrograde.

The Publication of Distinction for the Maneuver Warfighter

editorialEditor-in-ChiefJeff mckaughan [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison donnelly [email protected]

Copy Editorscrystal Jones [email protected] magin [email protected]

CorrespondentsKathryn Bailey • Peter Buxbaum • Jeff CampbellHenry Canaday • John M. Doyle • William Murray

art & designArt DirectorJennifer owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers andrea Herrera [email protected] Paquette [email protected]

Kmi media groupChief Executive OfficerJack kerrigan [email protected] and Chief Financial Officerconstance kerrigan [email protected] mckaughan [email protected] castro [email protected] Show CoordinatorHolly foster [email protected]

operations, circulation & productionOperations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected] & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected] Gill [email protected] Woods [email protected] Specialistraymer Villanueva [email protected]

a proud member of:

Subscription informationGround Combat & Tactical ISR

iSSn 2157-1503is published six times a year

by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2014. Ground Combat & Tactical ISR is free to qualified members of the u.S. military, employees of the u.S. government and

non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S. all others: $75 per year. Foreign: $159 per year.

corporate officesKMI Media Group

15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA

Telephone: (301) 670-5700Fax: (301) 670-5701

Web: www.Gct-kmi.com

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

Volume 5, Issue 5 • September 2014

KMI MEDIA GROUP LEADERSHIP MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES

www.GCT-kmi.com

UAS Leader

Col. Tim BaxterU.S. Army Project Manager UAS Project Office


May 2014Volume 5, Issue 3

www.GCT-kmi.com

Rapidly Deployable ISR O Tactical UAS O Enduring REFArmy Aviation O Wheeled Vehicles O Ammo

SPECIAL SECTION:MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans Affairs

Forum

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

SOCOM Leader

Adm. Bill H. McRaven

CommanderSOCOM

Diver Gear O 3-D Training O Protective Gear Mulltinational Partnerships

May 2014 Volume 12, Issue 4

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

Program Management Updates

SOCOM2014

Special Operations Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Reverse Auctions O Defense Transportation O Afghanistan RetrogradeILS O Supply Chain Efficiencies O DMSMS O Senior Logisticians

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Resource Aligner

Vice Adm. William A. “Andy” Brown Deputy CommanderU.S. Transportation Command

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENTUSTRANSCOM

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSONAcquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Military Logistics Forum

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard & Border Security

EdItor’S PErSPEctIVE

Jeff McKaughanEDIToR

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffIntEL

Growing a Ground Combat Element Integrated Task ForceAs part of a unit being formed from scratch,

the Marines of the ground combat element inte-grated task force (GCEITF) have to obtain all their organizational gear and equipment from other existing units within the 2nd Marine Division.

Marines with the GCEITF recently conducted limited technical inspections, or LTIs, on radio equipment at the 8th Marine Regiment commu-nications building and light armored vehicles at the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion ramp.

At the communications building, Marines performed an operations check on various radio equipment systems to ensure their operability in the field.

“(Second Marine) Division assigns a unit and list of gear for us,” said Corporal Michael Fuentes, field radio operator with the communications section of the GCEITF. “We went through the gear with the (8th Marine Regiment) Marines until we found out that all of the radios are good.”

Any discrepancies with the equipment are able to be handled immediately to prevent possession of faulty gear, according to Fuentes.

“We don’t want to find out anything is broken when we are already in the field,” Fuentes said.

The equipment received included the Army/Navy portable radio communications multiband manpack radio 117F, the AN PRC 150 military high-frequency radio and the AN vehicular radio communications 110 system.

“Communications gear is a key asset,” Fuentes said. “During ranges or patrols, this allows fast communication with the chain of command.”

Marines with Company B also received gear needed for their future mission. The GCEITF obtained five LAV 25s and one LAV logistical vehicle from 2nd LAR Bn.

Marines unveiled the vehicles and looked over every wheel and door before denoting the vehicles ready for use. They then inspected each

piece of stock list level-three equipment, which contained the tools necessary for upkeep of the vehicles.

“We looked over the SL-3 gear for the vehicles because without them, they wouldn’t be mission effective,” said Corporal Pedro Zepeda, LAV gunner, Co. B., GCEITF. “If something breaks, we need the tools to fix it.”

The SL-3 gear included axes, colored flags, rope and hand tools such as wrenches to equip LAV crews with the gear needed to get through any situation. LAVs play a significant role in training, according to Zepeda.

“The LAV-25 is good to have because it allows for mobility in the field,” Zepeda said. “It is also a valuable reconnaissance asset.”

With a successful acceptance of gear, Marines with the GCEITF are one step closer to fulfilling the mission once training officially begins in October.

By Corporal Paul S. Martinez

1st Detect, a subsidiary of Astrotech, has reached a key milestone in the mili-tary’s test and evaluation process for multi-sample identifier detector solutions by being awarded one of the competitive prototype contracts for the Next Generation Chemical Detector (NGCD) program.

“1st Detect is well-positioned to be rapidly matured into a tactical sensor solution for defense and security appli-cations along with our strategic team-mate, Battelle, the prime contractor,” said Thomas B. Pickens III, chairman and CEO of Astrotech. Battelle brings 25 years of chemical and biological defense exper-tise. “We believe this collaboration, in alignment with government direction, will contribute to an accelerated development timeline for NGCD because the efficacy of product design iterations can be immedi-ately vetted with actual chemical warfare agents,” he said.

“We are very excited about the award,” Pickens said. “1st Detect’s disruptive tech-nology will allow us to provide our mili-tary with the proper technology needed to save lives.”

Mission ready. That was the verdict for the U.S. Army’s A Battery, 3rd Air Defense Artillery, who was recently certified to operate Raytheon Company’s JLENS (joint land-attack cruise missile defense elevated sensor) radar to protect the National Capital Region (NCR) from cruise missiles and drone threats.

JLENS is a system of two aerostats, or tethered blimps, that float 10,000 feet in the air. The helium-filled aerostats, each nearly as long as a football field, carry powerful radars that can protect a territory roughly the size of Texas from airborne threats. JLENS provides 360-degrees of defensive

radar coverage and can detect and track objects like cruise missiles, drones and airplanes from up to 340 miles away.

“When JLENS deploys to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., later this year, it will provide a powerful new capability to the National Capital Region’s Integrated Air Defense System (IADS),” said Raytheon’s Dave Gulla, vice president of Integrated Defense Systems’ Global Integrated Sensors business area. “With this certification, the soldiers now possess the skills to maximize the capabilities of JLENS to help defend our country from the growing cruise missile and drone threat.”

Next Generation Chemical Detector

In the September issue of Ground Combat and Tactical ISR, on page 15, we ran a news

brief on Saab’s new framework contract with SOCOM for the company’s Carl-Gustaf man-portable weapon system MAAWS (multi-role, anti-armor anti-personnel weapon system). Unfortunately, we used an incorrect photo and are showing a

Saab-supplied image here.

Correct MAAWS Photo

JLENS Mission Ready

www.GCT-kmi.com GCT 5.5 | 3

From integrated GPS to fully networked solutions, the technol-ogy surrounding night vision for everything from weapon sights to general observation is advancing rapidly, with several companies offering innovative products designed to provide the soldier with a clearer view of the nighttime environment than ever before.

James Munn, president of ATN Corp., said the industry is on the cusp of several major advances in night vision technology. “As thermal imaging comes down in price, and with sensors that are chip-based as opposed to image-intensifier-tube-based, there’s a lot more we can do with the night vision and thermal units,” he said.

By Jeff Goldman, GCT CorrespondenT

The

The sTaTe of The arT in niGhT vision opTiCs.

CuttingEdge

www.GCT-kmi.com4 | GCT 5.5

a mini CompuTer

ATN is currently in the process of launching a full suite of products, Munn said, that offer both day and night thermal imag-ing, along with additional functionality such as Wi-Fi, geotagging, digital compasses and/or GPS. “Basically, your night vision device now has a mini computer built into it,” he said.

All of that functionality is available via ATN’s Obsidian Core. “It’s a mini-computer built into a night vision device that allows you to do so much more than what a regular core has done in the past—recording in high definition, having Wi-Fi, having built-in compasses, GPS, accelerometers—all built in,” Munn said.

Munn said that kind of functionality can offer a wide range of significant benefits. “Whatever you’re looking at, you can record or send via Wi-Fi back to someone else that’s review-ing it and they can see what you’re looking at,” he said. “And with the GPS tracker, you can always come back and see where you were.”

an inTeGraTed soluTion

Eric Garris, network systems strategist and chief engineer at Exelis, said his company’s current focus in night vision is the Tactical Mobility Night Vision Goggle (TMNVG). “It incorporates an integrated, full-color display and a camera-capture capability

that allows you to capture live imagery from the soldier view of the night-intensified image,” he said.

Together with Exelis’ Jagwire video content management solu-tion and SpearNet radio, which offers a data transfer rate of 2 to 3 Mbps, the TMNVG then allows the soldier to transmit live video to a command and control unit. “We’ve integrated those three different products and joined them together as a unified product that we’re offering as the Individual Soldier System,” Garris said.

“So you have the goggle for the actual soldier for situational awareness via the display, the data radio with the SpearNet allow-ing transmission of data to and from the soldier, and then Jagwire being able to pull the video directly from the soldier to give the commander situational awareness of what’s going on in the battle-field like never before,” said Garris.

The BenefiTs of inTeGraTion

There are several tangible benefits to that kind of system. “Let’s say you have a scout going out on a mission to gather information on the front line,” Garris said. “If you have an analog device, he’s empowered to be able to see imagery at night. If you have a TMNVG, the commander can send him maps or positional information, so the soldier can see his individual position, and the commander can see live imagery of what the soldier’s seeing.”

One Exelis user, Garris said, has told him it’s transformed his decision-making process. “In Afghanistan, to make an assessment


at a platoon level as far as target acquisition, the commander would actually have to go to the front line to make an assessment before making a command decision so as not to make an error—whereas now, with this, you’re able to send that live imagery right back to command and control, allowing informed and very rapid decision-making,” he said.

The point is that an integrated solution like this reaches far beyond the functionality of a simple night vision goggle. “We’re providing a capability that a goggle alone or a radio alone or a content management solution alone would not provide,” Garris said. “So we’re hitting a different area of the market where there’s a bigger demand for intelligence, soldier security, protection of forces and rapid dissemination of information that traditional legacy devices can’t provide.”

addiTional funCTionaliTy

Andrew Owen, vice president of product management at FLIR, said most, if not all, of his company’s night vision weapon sights for the military are clip-on sights that are primarily used in con-junction with a day optic. “So once your day optic is on the weapon and it’s sighted and mounted, it stays on the weapon,” he said. “The user doesn’t have to take off the day optic to use his sight, whether it’s I2 or thermal—they simply clip the thermal or the I2 sight onto the front of the weapon.”

Owen said FLIR is now adding additional sensors to these sys-tems, such as digital magnetic compasses and internal digital video recorders. “We also have the ability to connect cameras together,” he said. “So you might have another user that has an observa-tion device, and he sees a target—they want to get the shooter on target, so instead of trying to verbally walk him on, we have direct video sharing between one camera and the other. So both the shooter and the spotter are looking at the same scene, and that helps them coordinate their activities a lot more tightly.”

FLIR also offers a weapon sight that combines both I2 and thermal. “Users obviously see the benefit of a thermal sight for quick detection, and they see the benefit of the I2 sight, because you’re using visible light, so that gives you the ability to truly recognize target A versus target B,” Owen said. “So we’ve taken both of those imaging sensors and built them into a single weapon sight, and we’ve done that with an innovative single telescope or weapon sight.”

a Blended siGhT

The result is a blended sight that uses a single telescope to collect both visible light for I2 and infrared light for thermal. “The user can dial in as much or as little of either channel as he needs to or chooses to for that particular mission, for that environment and for that lighting condition,” Owen said. “He can be 100 percent thermal, 100 percent I2 or some blended percentage of the two that he can easily control with an adjustment.”

For bi-ocular night vision cameras, Owen said FLIR has mimicked game controllers with a joystick operated by the left thumb and a rotary knob operated by the right thumb. “When you look at the typical soldier these days, he’s somewhere between the ages of 19 and 26 years old—10 years ago, he was getting his training playing video games,” he said. “So what we’ve seen is, we give these soldiers a quick instruction—left thumb, right

thumb, what it does—and it seems to resonate well with the users these days.”

Additional features like GPS and a digital magnetic compass can then provide location, and a laser rangefinder can provide range to target. “With a camera designed for geolocation, you know where you are by virtue of your own internal GPS, your digital magnetic compass is giving you bearing to target, and your laser rangefinder gives you distance to target and will instantly perform a target geolocation for you,” Owen said.

differenTiaTinG BeTween soluTions

Mike Alvis, president and CEO of B.E. Meyers, noted that in the image intensification market, there are only two Gen 3 night vision tube manufacturers in the world, both of them based in the United States: L-3 Communications and Exelis. As a result, Alvis said, differentiators between night vision solutions often come down to other features, such as cost, size, weight and ruggedness (SWIR).

For goggles in particular, Alvis noted, weight is often a key concern. “We’re offering a binocular night vision goggle which we feel is the best binocular night vision goggle in the world below the weight of 600 grams,” he said. “The danger when you do a lightweight night vision goggle is a lot of times you lose a lot of its ruggedness and its ability to withstand environmental factors—so we feel it’s the most rugged, most capable lightweight night vision goggle in the world.”

In addition to their improved performance, Alvis said, it’s also worth noting that Gen 3 night vision tubes last far longer than Gen 2, making it easy to justify the increased financial investment. “A Generation 2 tube lasts about two and a half years, and a Gen-eration 3 tube lasts about 10 years,” said Alvis. “Life cycle cost isn’t a performance parameter, but that has something do with it—how much it costs you to replenish it and replace it, maintain it, and keep it in your system.”

a TransiTion poinT

Alvis said night vision is currently at a transition point where digital output is often available within single types—thermal or image intensification—but not for night vision goggles that offer a fusion of the two. “If you’re ever going to see a digital goggle in the hands of soldiers, you’re going to see it digitally fusing image intensification and thermal IR images—and the challenges of that are still pretty great,” he said. “It’s definitely the next generation, but there’s a lot of work to be done.”

And that work, Alvis said, is unfortunately being slowed down by budget constraints. “With the downturn in the DoD market, people aren’t making the kind of money they did during Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ability for us to invest using our own money is much more limited,” he said. “So I wouldn’t be surprised if you see development stagnating a little bit as people try to adjust to the new environment.” In the meantime, he remarked that cur-rent night vision technologies are likely to be around for 20 or 30 more years.

leveraGinG a modular approaCh

Alan Page, president of the sensor systems division at the O’Gara Group, said the biggest sea change in night vision over


the past several years has been the inclusion of multiple sensors in dismounted soldier systems. “These sensors include analog night vision tubes, digital low-light chips, thermal FPAs, and even SWIR,” he said. “Each sensor brings a unique spectral band with associated advantages and disadvantages.”

The idea is then to combine the inputs from all of those sources and present the operator with a combined image that highlights relevant data. “Night vision goggles can display GPS data, satellite or UAV imagery, moving maps, etc.,” he said. “Large aviation platforms have used this methodology for years—but with advances in digital signal processing and/or optical designs that allow overlaid images, this ability has been extended to dismounted troops.”

Page said that kind of functionality is best enabled with a mod-ular approach. “What the user does, whether at the command level or at the unit level, is determine the best sensors for his needs, and then build a system that utilizes them,” he said. “Perhaps today’s operation needs an analog tube-based NVG with a clip-on thermal, but tomorrow they forgo the clip-on thermal in favor of a hand-held SWIR imager and a rail-mounted thermal scope.”

a rapidly advanCinG indusTry

O’Gara’s AN/PVS-21 low-profile night vision goggle, Page said, allows the user to see both the intensified and un-intensified scene simultaneously, and includes a heads-up display injection port that

allows overlay of additional data. “This HUD port makes the PVS-21 a versatile platform that the user can build a modular system around,” he said. A recently introduced clip-on thermal module (COTM) can also be added to overlay thermal on top of the night vision scene.

Page said the industry as a whole is advancing rapidly in terms of both efficiency and miniaturization. “It’s still hard to beat an analog image intensifier tube for resolution or efficiency—but low-light digital solutions get better every year,” he said. “Ther-mal systems continue to get physically smaller and more efficient while increasing in resolution, leading to better packing solutions for dismounted troops.”

“SWIR systems are also coming down in size and cost, and improving in spectral response,” Page noted. “These changes have led to their incorporation in some major DoD rifle scope projects and clip-on projects. So I expect to see that sensor platform pro-liferate.”

Ultimately, Page said, several new technologies are making night vision a fascinating area to watch. “O’Gara is excited about the future.” O

Military Warriors, Maximize Your MOS

For comprehensive consumer information, visit www.kaplanuniversity.edu/student-consumer-information.aspx.Kaplan University is regionally accredited. Please see our website for additional information about institutional and programmatic accreditation.*Based on maximum credit transfer. Actual transfer credits may vary. See the University Catalog for the Prior Learning Assessment policy.

Find out more and enroll at military.kaplan.edu or call 877.809.8445 (Toll Free). Online | Accredited | Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) Consortium Member

COMBAT ARMS_08/14

• Your combat arms military occupational specialty (MOS) could reduce the credits needed to earn a Kaplan University associate’s degree in business or criminal justice by as much as 55 percent*

• Other programs available

• Evaluated MOSs include: Infantryman, Armor Crewman, and Cavalry Scout

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories

at www.gct-kmi.com.


Stephen Kreider became the Program Executive Officer for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors at Aberdeen Prov-ing Ground (APG), Md., in December 2012. In this position, he is responsible for the development, acquisition, fielding and life cycle support of the Army’s portfolio of intelligence, electronic warfare and target acquisition programs. These capabilities provide the soldier with the ability to detect, recognize and iden-tify targets and collect, tag and mine intelligence which can be integrated into the tactical network to support force protection, maneuver and persistent surveillance and provide a more detailed understanding of the battlefield.

Kreider is a native of Summit, N.J. He holds masters’ degrees from National Defense University in national resource strategy, Florida Institute of Technology in management and Georgia Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering. Additionally, he is a United States Military Academy graduate.

Prior to his current position, Kreider served as the deputy program executive officer, Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. He was initially selected to the Senior Executive Service in October 2008.

Kreider’s other assignments include acting deputy program executive officer, Program Executive Office Integration; director, Combined Test Organization; program manager, Future Combat System (Brigade Combat Team); acting director and deputy director, Future Combat System Combined Test Organization, APG; commander of Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Ariz.; deputy for ballistic missile defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Washington, D.C.; product manager, Multiple Launch Rocket System Improved Launcher, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.; Department of the Army Sys-tem Coordinator Multiple Launch Rocket System, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition), Washington, D.C.; project director and technical manager, Harry Diamond Laboratories, Adelphi, Md.; as well as numerous field artillery positions in the 3rd and 7th Infantry Divi-sions, including battery command, fire support officer, S-4 and fire director officer.

His military education includes the Industrial College of the Armed Forces Senior Acquisition Course, United States Army Command and General Staff College and United States Army Combined Arms Service Staff College.

Q: What will be the biggest impacts to your programs that the budget will have in the next eight to 12 months? Are there any unexpected issues?

A: We continue to provide the best quality systems with the budget we were given to ensure that the soldiers both here and abroad have the capabilities that they need. That really has not changed much for us in our enterprise. The reality, though holistically of course, is the Department of the Army is looking for efficiencies and that will help the overall budget.

The Army’s research and development account took the big-gest hit because the soldier personnel drawdown portion of the budget takes a while to trend lower. 2014 and 2015 are where most of the cut was to us, but we’ll start seeing it go back up a little bit. We’ve already weathered the storm from our PEO IEW&S enter-prise perspective, so from a PEO perspective my priorities really haven’t changed and I’ve not had to delay any programs in 2015.

The real budget change for us is the amount of dollars we get in overseas contingency operations (OCO) money—in other words, how much we are supporting in theater. In the last year, we’ve probably cut our support in half, and it continues to go down as a result of soldiers leaving theater. My concern with that budget is OCO is also supposed to include the dollars to reset the equipment. I’m concerned with 2015 and 2016—

Stephen KreiderProgram Executive Officer

U.S. Army PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors

Intel ProviderImproving Data Collection, Analysis and Dissemination

Q&AQ&AU.S. ArMy PEO IntEllIgEncE, ElEctrOnIc WArfArE & SEnSOrS


particularly 2016—because we don’t have the answer from Con-gress on sequestration. I don’t want to pre-suppose the worst case, so we’re continuing to operate. But my main concern is that I may not have the funds to reset what needs to be reset.

My other main issue is that we have so many of the quick reac-tion capability (QRC) programs specifically developed for needs during the war. The Army has found value in a number of those programs and wants to maintain them in the base budget. The issue is determining how to transition a program that was OCO to base funding; I have the largest portion of those programs across the different PEOs. We as an Army have not solved how to do all of that in a constrained environment. In some cases, when equip-ment comes back, we will simply wrap it up and store it—mean-ing we will not reset or continue to maintain it. If I do reset and maintain it, it’s immediately available if needed. If I don’t reset and maintain it, there is a chance of obsolescence and it may not be ready to immediately deploy even if it’s needed. It’s a balancing act that the Army is going through.

On the positive side, the lessons learned from all of the QRC programs have helped us work with the Army to better define our real requirements and better understand what is important, as opposed to what we believe we want. While we may have demon-strated a need for a particular program, in some instances, we need to divest ourselves of the idea ‘I need to have piece of equipment A across every unit of the Army.’ Because every unit of the Army is not going to go to war at one time, we put the capabilities in theater; when the units fall in, they use it, they come home and they leave the equipment there. As opposed to saying 100 percent of the force has widget X all of the time, we give widget X to just the portion of the force that’s deployed.

This practice creates efficiency in the longer term for our base budget. We’re relieving ourselves of the budget crunch because we’re not buying 100 percent of widget Xs anymore. We’re buy-ing 40 percent and maintaining that 40 percent as being more relevant, which allows us to bring in new technology faster, as opposed to continuing to pay for the additional 60 percent of what’s required to fill up the rest of the Army. It’s a different mindset—it’s a contingency construct mindset that I think is much more positive, which has allowed us to deal with the budget cuts while not impacting the equipment capability to the soldiers.

Q: Were there any cultural issues that had to be overcome to change that policy?

A: I don’t know if it’s a culture issue. It’s an understanding issue. You have a soldier who uses a piece of equipment and really likes it in theater; when they come back to the United States and don’t have it to train on, they naturally question why. They don’t neces-sarily understand the overall fiscal environment, and think, “Well, everybody should have it.” If we had an unlimited budget, I would agree 100 percent.

Q: What has it meant to the program for PEO to be designated as the single CREW (Counter Radio-controlled Electronic Warfare) manager?

A: The single CREW manager is a transition of the executive agency, which was the Navy, to the Army, meaning Secretary of the

Army John McHugh is now the executive agent. Underneath him, the office that is responsible for the execution is called the single manager, so that’s been allocated to me.

The increased responsibilities now mean that I’m the origi-nal classification authority for not just Army CREW equipment, but for all the services. I’m the responsible agent for approving foreign military sales and technology transfer agreements for anything that is within this technology range.

It’s an expansion of those responsibilities for me individually, and so I needed additional support. We as a department realize that we worked in a low electronic warfare threatening environ-ment for 12 years of war, as we were not competing against a peer in electronic warfare. When we go to a worldwide contingency regionalization construct, we are now going to be executing in an electronic warfare environment where there are peers—where there are threat capabilities that may not be peers but have a bet-ter capability than what we saw in OEF or OIF.

The unknown is what’s going to impact me in managing this program moving forward. For example, does that mean I’m going to have expanded programs or have more work in those arenas and across the services?

Q: Accepting that everyone always wants to improve, is the Army or the PEO currently satisfied with the ability to perform persistent surveillance for both intelligence gathering and protection?

A: Everybody has a different definition or requirement of what they mean by persistent surveillance.

I think the ability to gather information significantly improved as a result of the two war efforts. Because of quick reaction capabilities and the OCO dollars, we’ve raised the level of indi-vidual sensors, increased the modality capabilities and improved their technological ability. But that brings another challenge: more data. The real issue is how do we manage the data to fuse it, correlate it and distribute it appropriately to the right people.

There’s been an increased capability. For example, I go from a regular video camera to a high-definition one. It’s a bigger type of information. Do I need all of that information? Do I need to see every camera’s HD picture? We can’t manage that from a data col-lection standpoint. We can collect the data, but where do we store it? Does everybody need it? The transition has become how to get to a persistent construct. The methodology of the construct has changed to ask, “How do I process that information so the camera gives me the 10 percent of the information that I really need an operator to see?”

In a Level 4 operating base, I can collect all the information I want in real time in the operations center, but do I need to send all that information to every other level? Does the soldier who leaves the base on a single squad need to have that on their hand-held device? The answer is no. We can’t afford to do that. So the real challenge is to leverage those existing capabilities.

We have the ability, in a much smaller construct, to store that data locally where the sensor is doing some processing itself. This will reduce the data that actually goes out over the radio or satellite, which in essence gives us more viable data taking up less space, allowing a more persistent capability.


Headquarters

Stephen D. KreiderProgram Executive

Officer

Dr. Richard H. Wittstruck

Acting Deputy Program Executive Officer

electronic Warfare (PM eW)

Col. Joseph P. Dupont

Project Manager

Lt. Col. Joyce B. Stewart

Product ManagerElectronic Warfare

Integration

Michael E. RyanDeputy Project

Manager

Lt. Col. Kevin E. Finch

Product ManagerInfo Warfare

Lt. Col. Kent M. SnyderProduct Manager

Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare

Col. Jonathan B. Slater

Product ManagerProphet

terrestrial sensors

Col. Anthony J. Sanchez

Project Manager

Raef A. SchmidtDeputy Project

Manager

Lt. Col. Shane M. Sullivan

Product ManagerGround Sensors

U.S. ArMy PEO IntEllIgEncE, ElEctrOnIc WArfArE & SEnSOrS

aircraft survivability equiPMent (PM ase)

Col. Jong H. LeeProject Manager

Lt. Col. Kevin S. Chaney

Product ManagerCountermeasures

Lt. Col. Joseph R. Blanton

Product ManagerSensors

James J. MaziarzDirector of Logistics

Lt. Col. Gregory J. Gastan

Product DirectorAerostats

Kevin M. Coggins Product Director

Positioning, Navigation &

Timing

Lt. Col. Robert Smith

Product DirectorNavigation Capabilities

Development

Robert KnowlesProduct DirectorCombat Terrain

Information Systems

Lt. Col. Antonio D. RalphProduct Manager

Electro-Optic/Infrared Payloads

sensors-aerial intelligence (PM sai)

Col. Thomas B. GloorProject Manager

Lt. Col. Jon C. Haveron

Product DirectorTactical Exploitation

of National Capabilities

Lt. Col. R. Scott Feathers

Product ManagerManned Aerial

Reconnaissance & Surveillance

Sensors

Lt. Col. Chevonne Williams

Product ManagerSensors-

Unmanned & Rotary Wing

Lt. Col. Khoi NguyenProduct Director

Sensors-Aerial Signals Intelligence

Ronald RizzoProduct DirectorSensors-Aerial Measurement and Signature

Intelligence & Radars

Christian E. KellerDeputy Project Manager

distributed coMMon ground systeM-arMy (PM dcgs-a)

Col. Robert M. Collins

Project Manager

Lt. Col. Laura N. Poston

Product ManagerDCGS-A Software

Development

James S. Childress

Deputy Project Manager

Michael V. DoneyProduct DirectorMachine Foreign

Language Translation

System

Lt. Col. Donald L. BurtonProduct ManagerDCGS-A Software

Integration

Peter W. TravisProduct Director

Counterintelligence Human Intelligence

Automated Reporting & Collection System

Richard G. AudetteActing Director

System of Systems Engineering

Headquarters

Dina R. HirschChief Financial

Officer

Q: The command post computing environment program is laying the groundwork for the intelligence and operations to come together. Can you tell me about that effort?

A: The command post computing environment (CP CE) is one of six common operating environments that the Army has, two of which have been assigned to PEO IEW&S as the lead: the CP CE and the sensor computing environment.

I liken them to a horizontal technology construct. We want to collapse in the command post the full mission command set of functions—intelligence, engineering, the barrier plan, the minefield plan, the weather, communications with the locals, and so on.

CP CE is determining how we bring all of that capability into a more efficient and effective construct. It’s best if we can create architecture and a construct that has everyone working with com-mon equipment and a common language. I don’t care if the server is doing mission command work or intelligence work or engineer-ing work—it should be on a common box.

Common hardware is the first construct we’re trying to get to from a CP CE, which reduces the amount of maintenance, parts and training the schoolhouse has to do. A percent of training ought to be common.

Q: What is the program status of Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) and what are your next steps?

A: DCGS-A is a confederation of hardware and software systems, which is something people continue to forget. There are nine programs of records that we collapsed into DCGS. Those pro-grams supply connectivity, satellites, mapping capability, vehicles, interface and servers, and more. We don’t see much of that chang-ing. We are focusing on the software component that fits on that architecture.

Increment 1 currently has two releases: release 1 is in the field, while release 2 is in the final stages of testing and will go to an operational test in April of next year. Actually, 85 percent of the force is already using it today under urgent requirements—any-body that’s in Afghanistan is using that software today.

Release 2 focuses on ease of use. This is a very complicated system which takes more than 700 different sensor types providing data and brings them all together into a single display construct.

The key was how to put architecture in place in the first incre-ment. When we did, we didn’t make it the easiest or most intuitive for the soldier to use. We realized that and focused release 2 on that soldier/machine interface. We want to get to the point where a soldier can pick up their tablet-like device—without a two-week training class—and can intuitively begin using it.

The series of RFIs to industry for Increment 2 that we are putting out focus on the next step of technology. How do I bring it into a cloud environment? How do I ensure that the security of this vast amount of information is protected from inside and out-side threats? Is it ensuring the relevancy of the data?

We are planning on three cycles of RFIs, which will result in a request for proposals. We want to make sure we have the right architecture and that we’re incentivizing and allowing industry to compete in order to lower cost and ensure that we’re getting the most relevant capabilities.

Q: It is fairly easy to collect a lot of data. How do you store and analyze it? Is your PEO involved in finding the right storage solutions for big data?

A: A portion of that does fall within this PEO, with PEO EIS hav-ing the primary responsibility for big data server architectures. We are focused on the intelligence side, and that goes beyond just PEO EIS, which has an Army mission. My job is to focus in on the intelligence community as a whole. For the most part, I don’t care where information comes from; I will take everybody’s information and correlate it together. But we need that informa-tion to be in a common format. We can’t have the Navy calling it one thing, the Army calling it something different and DIA call-ing it another, because then we don’t have a common software query that can give us the information we need. Each service wants to be able to leverage all of the information, regardless of who gathered it.

We also need to be able to provide the end-user with the right amount of information they need for their task or mission. The ability to leverage the right information in a timely manner and obtain the most relevant data is key. The idea is getting to a transparent data construct so we can share and, as a result, cor-relate and fuse information to get better results.

Q: Is that more of a technology issue or more of a doctrine about how to share information?

A: It’s both. Again, now we’re going to the cloud construct and considering the questions of how to manage data in the cloud.

Hypothetically, we have 10 systems that are connecting into the cloud. The current construct is that all the data resides on one server in one place. What happens now if one user is out of range of connecting to the server; do they no longer have the data? In a cloud construct, they may not have access to a server, but they might have connectivity to another node because they have line of sight.

When looking at the network and the data collected, should it go through a single server or should we use a cloud construct? With those options and the amount of data, we now have a con-figuration management issue. That’s the technology construct that we are trying to work through both with DCGS-A Increment 2 and this whole construct of going to a cloud. It’s a data man-agement issue, particularly for the Army in how do we move to a new configuration while continuing to operate when we lack an infrastructure.

For example, it is easy to say, “I’d like to have my cell phone construct capability for the Army.” However, the Army doesn’t fight in places that have a cell phone construct; soldiers are not always in fixed bases with fixed towers and fixed power. We don’t have that capacity in Afghanistan or in other places around the world.

The issue of gathering the information and coming in and out of the network is something the industry doesn’t do a whole lot of. We are pushing that construct. They may have some answers, but that’s not something that they need to serve the needs of their customers because they have a fixed architecture construct.

U.S. ArMy PEO IntEllIgEncE, ElEctrOnIc WArfArE & SEnSOrS


Q: Much of the Army’s fixed wing assets are dedicated to the ISR mission. What improvements are being made to the Guardrail program and is there a status update for EMARSS (enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system)?

A: For the aerial ISR fleet, manned and unmanned aircraft, we have four lines of effort.

Line number one is unmanned aerial craft—the Gray Eagle UAS’s that have an EO/IR capability. There are 152 of them going to the Army, 18 of which are specific to the intelligence com-munity, so we may put some special sensors on them. Milestone C has already occurred and we are getting to the final years of production and remain focused on fielding it to the fleet.

The second line of effort is Guardrail, which is primarily a signals intelligence collection system. It has existed for a while and, over the years, we have upgraded the capabilities as new technologies have become available. We are currently adding a visual capability, a full motion video sensor (coming in the next year) to each of the aircraft known as the 12X, and will have a fleet of 14 in the air, down from a total of 47 Guardrails today.

The third line of effort is what we call aerial reconnais-sance low (ARL). We have a new program called ARL-E—ARL Enhanced—where we’ll take all nine of the Dash 7 aircraft and convert them to a Dash 8 platform. It will transform them from a single-sensor platform to a multi-sensor platform with plug-and-play capability. In the next three years, we will convert the whole fleet of ARLs into the new platform.

The last line of effort we call EMARSS. We are planning on 24 aircraft, all based on the King Air 350. Part of the reason Guard-rail numbers are going down is because EMARSS numbers are going up. We will actually have four variants of EMARSS, each one with different capabilities, but with a significant amount of commonality in aircraft, tactical data links and control. Each will have a DCGS onboard, which allows them to connect informa-tion, fuse it and then connect with everything on the ground.

The first four EMD EMARSS aircraft have been completed. We just completed the Milestone C move into production and employment last month—Brigadier General Bob Marion, PEO Aviation, and I co-hosted that—and we approved going into production.

For the other three variants, we are going to produce one of each, test it and then make a final decision based on the results.

Q: What role did the PEO have in and what were the big takeaways from the Unified Vision trial?

A: Unified Vision (UV) 14 was the second of three planned major NATO ISR trials. UV 14 had 200 different joint ISR capabilities, with about 2,200 personnel from 21 different nations coming together.

The United States contributed aerostat balloons, one flown in Yuma, Ariz., and another in Norway, and was able to demonstrate the connectivity of that data to the construct.

We also flew a Global Hawk—flying for the first time over parts of northern Europe—which collected data, sent it to a DCGS-A in Germany, vetted the information in the United States and then pushed it out to the operations floors of the various participating nations.

The first trial, Unified Vision 12, was focused on identify-ing those interface control documents standards (STANAGs, standardization agreements) that we want to make common so we can share that information in a common construct for the decision-makers.

Building on that foundation, Unified Vision 14 investigated whether the architecture and the sharing of information going from top secret to secret to collateral could be orchestrated. Unified Vision 16 is the culminating trial to provide a capabil-ity where NATO would bring its reaction force and validate the construct.

Q: How do you communicate with industry providers? How do you set it up so that if some small company does have a great idea, how do they communicate that with your team so that it’s not just the big boys that have a lot of the visuals to get it done?

A: The government set up this construct that if I put out a request—on FedBizOpps—it’s open to anybody. You learn that system and you spend as much time as you want looking for business opportunities across the board.

We also have industry days that we and the whole Aberdeen Proving Ground community participate in. It usually takes place over a week where everyone here discusses their priorities, capa-bility gaps, and where the opportunities for industry might be. I view this as top-level.

The next level, the actual program manager that’s executing a program, will have a specifically focused industry day leading up to their next contract.

There are also requests for information posted on FedBizOpps that everyone can see and participate in.

Another option is for industry to submit white papers. In the near-term, AUSA is a big event for us as it gives us the opportu-nity to communicate with industry.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: The men and women serving in harm’s way and the taxpayer should know that the soldiers, civilians and contractors working on these systems are always operating with their best inter-est in mind to give them what they need to be able to do their operations.

There are significant challenges that come with fielding the most recent and the highest technology. We have to be good stewards of resources for our personnel and our country. We have to make some decisions; we can’t always have everything we want all the time because it’s a managed budget. Our job is focused on doing the best that we can for the taxpayer in the realm that we have responsibility for.

I’d also like to point out that we are about to reach a major milestone for the Army’s acquisition community—on October 13, we celebrate its 25th anniversary. There’s a lot of focus across the Army acquisition core on how we created the environment and recognizing some of the great soldier, civilian and contractor stewards of the process and their accomplishments.

I’d like to salute all the people who have been part of this fine tradition. O


InnoVatIonS

JIEDDO counter-IED Integration training

science applications international

corporation (saic) has been awarded a

blanket purchase agreement (Bpa) to

support the Joint improvised explosive

Device Defeat organization (JieDDo) Joint

center of excellence (Jcoe) counter-ieD

integration training program. saic is one of

four awardees; the work will be performed

domestically as well as globally.

the Joint center of excellence is

JieDDo’s lead organization for the train-the-

force line of operation and is responsible for

developing the training capabilities that enable

the services’ and combatant commanders’

mission of preparing u.s. forces to defeat

the ieD threat. under the Bpa, saic will

support the training, experimentation and

testing of new equipment and

concepts; maintain a deployable

capability in the field; facilitate

individual, collective and strategic

training; and validate and

propagate ieD defeat. saic will

also assist with the development,

installation, maintenance and

disposal of training devices used

in conjunction with ieD-related

training classes.

“this award provides saic

the opportunity to continue

supporting the Jcoe counter-ieD

integration training program’s important

mission,” said John Gully, saic senior vice

president and general manager of the army

and air Force customer Group. “this critical

program prepares our forces to overcome

ieD threats and, as a result, save lives.”

M249 cheekrest

the army contracting command, on

behalf of project manager soldier Weapons,

has announced a pre-solicitation for

m249 extended cheekrests. the anticipated

contract minimum is 9,250 m249 extended

cheekrests, with an anticipated contract

maximum of 170,000 over the run of the

five-year contract.

the m249 extended cheekrest is used

with the m249 squad automatic weapon

(saW) and is an elevated plastic rest that

provides improved eye relief when using

taller optics.

ground Vehicle Systems research and Development

the army has announced its intention to announce a request

for project proposals for execution of a project award in support

of ground vehicle systems research and development related to

specified research area(s). the purpose of this announcement is to

provide members of the national advanced mobility consortium

(formerly the Robotics technology consortium) and industry in

general advanced notification of the government’s intent.

in July 2014, the government entered into another transaction

agreement with the national advanced mobility consortium

(namc) in support of ground vehicle systems-related research and

development prototype projects. it is the intent of the government

to make project awards to members of the namc as a result of

member project proposals submitted via the request for project

proposals.

the anticipated research areas for project proposals include:

• lightweight integrated mtVR cab

• mtVR common hydraulic/lubricant systems

• seat Restraint Development

• single cylinder engine technology Demonstrator

• tactical Wheeled Vehicle Fleet management

• adaptive Response Floor system

• aRiBo industrial hygiene

• condition-Based maintenance plus (cBm+) Decision support

toolset

• hull Deformation Reduction

• Foundational Flooring system Design and Development

tactical targeting network technology

Viasat inc. has been awarded $54

million from the space and naval Warfare

systems command for co-development and

qualification of tactical targeting network

technology capabilities for the multifunctional

information Distribution system Joint tactical

Radio system (miDs JtRs). the miDs

JtRs joint development by Viasat and

Data link solutions is part of the u.s.

government program to provide a migration

path from the miDs-lVt terminal to a

certified, reprogrammable, software-defined

radio architecture for tactical data links.

the order was awarded under the

miDs indefinite Delivery/indefinite Quantity

contract initially executed in march 2010

and recently expanded to a higher ceiling

amount to accommodate additional awards.

link 16 miDs is a line-of-sight radio system

for collecting and transmitting broadband,

jam-resistant, secure data and voice across a

variety of air, sea and ground platforms.


Mojave Program Moves forwardDRs technologies inc., a Finmeccanica company, has successfully

completed the army’s critical design review (cDR) for the mojave

program, also known as the target location Designation system

(tlDs). the passage of this critical program milestone moves the

company closer to providing precision targeting capability to u.s.

military forward observers in all battlefield environments.

the DRs technologies mojave/tlDs system is expected to

revolutionize u.s. army field artillery operations by reducing the

size of current systems that make it difficult to conduct rapid target

engagement when immediate strikes are needed. the mojave/tlDs

is designed to give forward observers the ability to acquire, target

and request fire in austere environments with precision strikes without

the need for mensuration. the introduction of quick and consistent

precision grids can give maneuver commanders greater discretion

when engaging targets. it can reduce the time to get artillery rounds on

target, as well as the number of rounds needed for target destruction.

the added precision in turn can reduce fratricide and collateral

damage.

DRs technologies recently hosted the program manager-soldier

precision targeting Devices (pm-sptD), tRaDoc capabilities

manager Fires cells and other essential members of the government

customer community at its Dallas, texas facility for the design review.

With the successful completion of the cDR, DRs technologies now

moves the program to contractor and government testing.

the DRs mojave/tlDs program utilizes employees at their

Dallas and melbourne, Fla., facilities to execute the engineering,

manufacturing and development process and production for this

high-priority u.s. army program. “DRs employees at both facilities

were crucial in the successful completion of this major milestone and

the team is actively working towards testing the current production

model of the mojave system as they move into the next phase of the

program,” said shawn Black, vice president and general manager,

DRs network computing and imaging systems. “our suppliers on

the program were also key to the team’s success by building sample

hardware while conducting early tests to demonstrate the significant

technologies of the mojave design,” Black said.

DRs hopes to transition the program to production and fielding

in 2016.

live-fire training ranges

meggitt training systems has been awarded

additional delivery orders worth $17.7 million

to support the u.s. army’s targetry systems

program with tacom, the u.s. army contracting

command in Warren, mich. this brings meggitt’s

total program value to $30.5 million. as one

of the u.s. army’s largest weapon systems

research and development organizations, the

tacom program provides equipment for live-

fire training ranges at u.s. army installations

worldwide.

under these delivery orders, meggitt

will deliver more than 1,850 stationary and

mobile infantry targets, more than 165 mobile

and stationary field armored targets, target

controllers and various interfacing devices.

equipment will be delivered and installed within

army bases across the united states and

europe. these ranges are designed to develop

and improve combat skills used to conduct

military exercises, and facilitate participation in

actual combat action.

the army targetry systems program (ats)

is used to procure live-fire training ranges

installed at various locations throughout the

world. similar systems are in service with

forces in the united states, south Korea and

europe.

Ronald Vadas, president, meggitt training

systems, commented: “meggitt’s long-standing

association with the ats program, coupled with

the delivery of these new targetry systems,

further solidifies our valued relationship with

the u.s. army. the meggitt-provided systems

will ensure our soldiers remain mission ready.”

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Patriot Support

Raytheon company has received a $109 million engineering

services contract for its patriot air and missile Defense system.

the contract, issued by the u.s. army aviation and missile

command, Redstone arsenal, ala., is for ongoing technical

support and services to the u.s. army and Foreign military sale

customers to ensure readiness of their patriot systems.

“customers around the world will benefit from the

maintenance and upgrades that result from this contract—

especially the technical baseline improvements designed to

counter evolving threats,” said Ralph acaba, vice president

of integrated air and missile defense at Raytheon’s integrated

Defense systems business. “the u.s. army recognizes the

importance of investing in patriot sustainment, especially given

the instability in the world today.”


Brigadier General David G. Bassett became the Program Execu-tive Officer for Ground Combat Systems in September 2013. He is responsible for the life cycle management of a complex and diverse organization with major defense acquisition programs, armored multi-purpose vehicle and Acquisition Category I programs (Paladin Integrated Management program, Abrams tank upgrades, Bradley fighting vehicles upgrades and the Stryker family of vehicles), and the M88 Hercules.

Bassett was commissioned through ROTC in 1988 into the Signal Corps with a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering from the University of Virginia. As a junior officer, he served in Germany in tactical positions as communications platoon leader, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and as battalion S4 and company commander in 123rd Signal Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division.

Following the Signal Officer’s Advanced Course and Advanced Civil Schooling at the University of Virginia, where he received a Mas-ter of Science in computer science, he was assigned to the U.S. Euro-pean Command Staff, where he served as the requirements analysis and interoperability action officer on the J6 staff.

He transferred to the Army Acquisition Corps in 1999 and was assigned to Fort Monmouth, N.J., as operations officer, Communica-tions and Electronics Command Software Engineering Center. Bas-sett went on to serve at Fort Monmouth as the chief software engineer for the Future Combat Systems Network and as Program Integrator and Product Manager, Future Combat Systems, Software Integration. He then served on the Joint Staff as the ground maneuver analyst, Capabilities and Acquisition Division, J8.

From July 2009 to May 2012, Bassett served as the Army’s Project Manager for Tactical Vehicles within the Program Executive Office for Combat Support & Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS). In June 2012, Tactical Vehicles was restructured, and he was tapped to lead the Joint Program Office, Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, PEO CS&CSS through the Engineering and Manufacturing Development award from June 2012 to August 2012.

In September 2012, Bassett assumed responsibilities as the Dep-uty Program Executive Officer (DPEO) for CS&CSS. As the DPEO, he provided technical and managerial oversight for approximately 270 tactical wheeled vehicles, special-purpose vehicles and equipment, physical security equipment, petroleum and water systems, and other support systems/equipment for the U.S. Army and sister services, as well as foreign military sales.

Bassett is a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and a distinguished graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C.

Q: No other main battle tank is as combat-proven (at least successfully) as the Abrams. Does the tank’s architecture, size and

weight allow for it to grow in capability beyond its current version? What are the expectations for the platform?

A: We continue to add capability to the Abrams tank, which is already a world-class vehicle. The Army is committed to an additional incre-mental upgrade to the Abrams tank that will give it greater lethality, protection and ability to carry the network and greatly reduced fuel consumption. The initial stage of this upgrade will address the sys-tem architecture (power and data management systems) to support inbound technology, specifically the Army’s network. Our industry partners are currently building prototypes of the selected technologies for this effort and the program recently completed its critical design review. We will drive down fuel consumption by integrating an aux-iliary power unit rather than allowing the turbine engine to idle for long periods.

In the latter stage of this upgrade, we will improve the tank’s sights and sensors—centered on the integration of a new third-gener-ation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) technology. Lethality improve-ments via upgrades to the gunner’s primary sight and commander’s independent thermal viewer, coupled with new FLIR technology, a color camera and a laser range finder, will enable the tank crew to take full advantage of the capabilities of a new advanced multi-purpose round being developed by the Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems.

Of course, there are limits to how any vehicle can evolve over time, so we anticipate the Army making a decision in the FY18 timeframe on

Brigadier General David G. BassettProgram Executive Officer

U.S. Army Ground Combat Systems

Combat MultiplierThe Maneuver and the Punch for the Maneuver Warfighter

Q&AQ&A


whether to improve the tank again through a follow-on incremental upgrade or initiating a new start program for a future main battle tank. This will support new requirements generation, inform science and technology investments in key technology development areas, identify feasibility and key trades, and remain synchronized with the Army’s future fighting vehicle effort to promote commonality.

Q: Hopefully my math hasn’t failed me, but the M109 just passed its 50th birthday, coming first into service in 1963. Tell me about the M109A7 program (major elements differing from the A6, numbers to be modified, time frames, room for further enhancements)—is there room for an A8?

A: Your math hasn’t failed you. The M109A7 represents a significant and long-needed upgrade of the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled how-itzer, which includes buying back space, weight, power and cooling (SWaP-C) to ensure the system remains relevant with room to add new capabilities in the future.

While the vehicle’s cannon will remain unchanged, the M109A7 will sport a brand-new chassis, engine, transmission, suspension and steering system and improved survivability to go along with an upgraded electric ramming system. The automotive systems are much more common with the Bradley fighting vehicle. In fact, in many cases, the M109A7 will adopt advanced technologies and designs first and the Bradley will receive some of these capabilities later through planned upgrades. This improved commonality across the armored brigade combat team (ABCT) formation will substantially drive down our cost of ownership.

The new 600-volt on-board power system is designed to accommo-date emerging technologies and future requirements, as well as cur-rent requirements like the Battlefield Network. The on-board power system leverages technologies developed during the non-line-of-sight cannon program and ensures the system will have enough SWaP-C growth potential to last until 2050.

These improvements will ensure the system can keep pace on the battlefield with other members of the Army’s ABCT formation from both an automotive and technological standpoint. The system is engineered to increase crew force protection, improve readiness and vehicle survivability and avoid component obsolescence.

Q: There is obviously a difference in mobility requirements for a large open desert-type operation versus a more closed-in environment. Accepting the premise that the heavy maneuver force is only as mobile as the slowest component, what are the mobility challenges facing the armored force? Are there lethality challenges?

A: The tracked vehicles that make up our ABCT formations offer the greatest mobility of any vehicles in the Army’s ground inventory. Weight plays a role, particularly where bridges and road surfaces lack the capacity for the heavier vehicles. Distributing that weight across the area of the tracks as opposed to the smaller footprint of wheeled solutions gives tracked vehicles a marked advantage across virtually all off-road terrain mission profiles. Having a vehicle capable of fighting effectively and surviving on the modern battlefield is our top priority, and the combat vehicles our soldiers have relied on for more than a decade during the past two wars proved capable and adaptable.

Keeping them relevant as battlefield conditions changed and new threats emerged has taxed those systems to the limits of the systems’

space, weight, power and cooling (SWaP-C) design margins. Our planned incremental upgrades to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker, often referred to as engineering change proposal (ECP) upgrades, are spe-cific modernization efforts aimed at restoring a platform’s lost capabil-ity, without major overhaul to the platform itself. We already talked about the details of those upgrades for the Abrams tank.

These ECPs don’t exceed the operational capability outlined in cur-rent system documents, but rather ensure that system performance is not further degraded and that Army mission equipment packages can be integrated in the future. They will also improve the vehicle’s ability to host the Army’s network and buy back performance. These ECP efforts represent the core modernization efforts going into our existing platforms.

Along with those upgrades, we needed to address the long-needed divesture of the M113 by replacing it with the armored multipurpose vehicle (AMPV) within the ABCT. AMPV restores the balance of pro-tection, mobility, performance and capability so that those platforms can fight alongside the rest of the ABCT systems after being restricted for many years to the confines of field-operating bases. Our self-propelled howitzer fleet gets the same treatment with the M109A7 upgrade along with a host of other improvements to that weapon system.

These upgrades and replacement programs posture the entire range of ABCT combat vehicles to operate effectively together. We don’t see any of them as the “slowest component” once these upgrades are made.

Q: AMPV is to replace the M113s still in the fleet. With the length of service of the M113 and the time it has taken to even begin a replacement program, what role can the PEO play in focusing the development and acquisition process when looking at possible programs to replace the Abrams, Bradley, Paladin and, farther down the road, the Stryker? Are there serious conversations taking place now about those replacement programs?

A: Even with the conclusion of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program last year, we continue to recognize the need to upgrade the infantry fighting vehicle as the Army’s most important capability gap in the ABCT formation. However, the fact that the M113 is so old and has essentially been taken out of operational use makes the AMPV our most important funding priority in the near term. Without it, our ABCT formations cannot employ the entire range of platforms neces-sary for them to perform their mission.

Our PEO is first and foremost focused on delivering the AMPV program on cost, on schedule and with all the capabilities outlined in the AMPV requirements document. We are committed to taking advantage of any and all opportunities to accelerate this program into production and make resources available to other key Army priorities if at all possible.

In this difficult budgetary environment, it is even more critical that we prioritize our investments in every portfolio. At sequestered budget levels, it is clear that the Army will be assuming risk across all of its modernization portfolios; the combat vehicles portfolio is no exception. AMPV, M109A7 and the ECP programs we’ve already talked about represent our most important near-term budgetary priori-ties. We are investing in the ABCT and Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT) formations and deferring critical investments to add mobility, protection and lethality to our IBCT formations with new capabilities for mobile protected firepower, lightweight reconnaissance vehicles,


and ultra-light combat vehicles, as well as needed lethality upgrades to our Stryker formations.

Without additional resources and relief from sequestration, the funding in our portfolio is insufficient for us to keep our existing ABCT platforms ready and relevant, let alone allow us to replace, rather than upgrade, these platforms.

Q: How has the Stryker platform performed in recent conflicts?

A: Particularly with the last few rotations on the double V-hull (DVH) upgrade in Afghanistan, it is clear that the Stryker is an incredibly effective and survivable platform for its intended purpose as a fast, highly mobile medium-weight vehicle. The SBCT fills a critical role in terms of deployability, mobility, protection, speed and lethality that bridges the gap between the tremendous capability that an ABCT brings and the IBCT formation.

A total of 20 Stryker brigades have deployed to both OIF and OEF. Stryker was the only ground vehicle in combat through the duration of OEF and OIF that consistently maintained an operational readiness rate well above 90 percent—far exceeding any other combat vehicle.

The Stryker DVH emphasizes the Army’s dedication to providing the best possible protection for our soldiers. The successful coordina-tion/cooperation of industry and defense that resulted in the rapid design, test, procurement and fielding of a much-improved Stryker vehicle has saved numerous soldiers’ lives.

Stryker DVH is not just a redesigned, unique V-shape hull, but also includes improved mine-resistant blast seating, improved fire suppression features and a robust suspension system that gives the soldiers a smoother ride, reduces shock and vibration and improves readiness. With the upcoming ECP for the DVH Stryker, we’re mak-ing an already capable vehicle even better with improved mobility, reliability and network integration.

Q: What does the cancellation of the GCV program say about the future of combat vehicle modernization?

A: The conclusion of GCV says more about the resource challenges that the combat vehicle portfolio faces than anything else. Sequestra-tion put the portfolio in the difficult position where the Army could not afford both the development and production of the GCV vehicle while simultaneously addressing the remaining needs across the ABCT and SBCT formations (AMPV, M109A7 and ECPs on Abrams, Bradley and Stryker DVH). In the end, we needed to ensure readiness and capability across the entire formation and chose to defer GCV until those priorities had been met.

At the point of cancellation, the GCV development program was meeting requirements on budget and on schedule. The GCV program was concluded upon completion of the technology development (TD) phase in June.

As I mentioned earlier, new infantry and cavalry fighting vehicles remain the most critical requirement for the ABCT Formation. The Army is managing the development of new IFV capabilities under the future fighting vehicle (FFV) effort and has developed a three-phase plan to mature these critical combat vehicle technologies.

Phase I—Science & Technology Insertion: This phase engages the GCV vendors to conduct vehicle design excursions, starting from their current designs, enabling the Army to understand what can be achieved in platform reductions to size, weight and power ver-sus what can be gained in performance (i.e., mobility, survivability,

lethality, reliability). This effort began with unexpended FY14 funds from the GCV TD phase, issued as six-month letter contracts to the prime vendors. Follow-on with FFV FY15 and FY16 fund-ing will refine GCV TD and Bradley fighting vehicle modification concepts and continue technology and integration assessments. Phase I will be used to inform a potential new IFV requirement and ensure that current designs take advantage of maturing technolo-gies that were not originally included due to the original GCV IFV program schedule.

Phase II—Art of the Possible: Phase II will be a full and open competition to conduct further conceptual designs and trade stud-ies utilizing S&T technologies. These design excursions will be unconstrained by the current IFV requirements and will inform Army strategy for the possible development of a new requirement by identifying tradespace between the requirements and current technology.

Phase III—Converge: Phase III will be an option on the Phase II contract for vendors to provide robust system concepts to support an Army decision to restart an infantry fighting vehicle program (if resources are available) and Milestone A decision. These concepts will provide higher-fidelity capabilities, cost and risk assessments, and cost-operational effective analyses to support an analysis of alterna-tives. The result will be early prototype builds that include integration of Army and industry advanced technologies.

Q: How can the PEO and industry best share ideas and processes that can improve efficiency, reduce costs and deliver more capabilities to the warfighter?

A: Particularly in these challenging budgetary times, keeping clear channels of communication open with industry is even more critical. We must be candid about expected programs and production volumes in order for industry to prioritize their own investment effectively. That communication does not change what is often a hard reality that must be faced and hard decisions that must be made. A healthy, productive, efficient and responsive industrial base is critical to the Army’s ability to generate combat power now and in the future. But it is clear that we are in a period of diminishing resources where the volume of work is not and likely will not be what it was during the last 12 years of conflict. It is critically important that industry makes the structural changes necessary to remain both efficient and responsive.

We have tried to be open to arrangements that might incentivize industry to capitalize on commercial or non-defense work in existing manufacturing to offset losses in defense.

Ground combat systems are too critical to our nation’s security for a budget cut to be compounded by a loss of buying power if costs rise dramatically as industry workload decreases. The most competitive companies will manage this effectively and continue to offer outstanding value for the precious resources we can apply to our programs.

To better understand where the industrial base may be experi-encing stress up and down the supply chain, the Army conducted in-depth supplier evaluations by deliberately assessing supply chain risk for each of the major 1st and 2nd tier suppliers. All assessments concluded that along with certain specialized tank system-level manufacturing skills (e.g., special armor integration and fire control system alignment), armor, transmissions and FLIR are the most criti-cal and fragile supplier capabilities within the tank industrial base.


We will therefore continue to focus any congressional funding toward those key capabilities.

However, we are required to also sustain the very important capa-bilities of our arsenals and depots. In fact, as you may know, in the FY14 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress specifically directed the Secretary of the Army to assign arsenals sufficient workload to maintain critical capabilities.

As the Abrams moves into Network Package production in FY17, the manufacturing planning team has been directed to review each component on the tank to best allocate workload across the both commercial and organic manufacturing base to lower cost and ensure key capabilities are maintained.

As those manufacturing teams identify candidates for arsenal work loading, we will be continuously exploring new types of public/private partnerships with our depots and arsenals (Watervliet and Rock Island Arsenals support the tank program) to maintain critical organic capabilities that can be combined with commercial best prac-tices. The Honeywell/Anniston Army Depot partnership has been the model for such arrangements for the Abrams TIGER engine program, as well as the General Dynamics Land Systems/Anniston army depot for the Stryker program. Wartime demands have put our infrastruc-ture in need of major rehabilitation and upgrades. We need to reset our factories, including our organic capabilities, with modern, more flexible equipment that increase efficiencies at lower volumes. O


You have to know where you are

to tell where you’re going. And if you want to rendezvous with someone at a precise point in time or share data faster with them, you’d better know when you are as well.

Those realities and the need to be better at position, navigation and timing (PNT) are the reasons behind a new program of record, Assured PNT, which falls within the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors. Kevin Coggins, Assured PNT product manager, detailed its overall goals.

“It’s meant to assure our access to PNT information for our systems and our soldiers. And not just assure access to that PNT information but ensure the integrity of that PNT information. We need to make sure that we’ve got trusted PNT when we get it,” he said.

Those simple-sounding aims entail numerous challenges. To understand them, it helps to go over a bit of history and technology. Twenty or so years ago, the Army and other branches of the military digitized and put GPS technology to work. The result was improved PNT with orbiting GPS satellites providing signals from which pinpoint positioning information is derived. Although several factors can impact the results, position informa-tion is frequently better than within a meter accuracy. Just as important in an increasingly interconnected world, the signals provide time information accurate to 100 nanoseconds or better. That allows distant locations to synchronize clocks more tightly. In turn, that ups the rate at which data can be transmitted.

With better PNT, the U.S. military improved its capabilities. Data flowed faster, units coordinated better and targeting was more precise. Another consequence was that the number of GPS receivers soared. Today, the number is huge, as can be seen by how many receivers are found on each soldier and an armored fighting vehicle found in the thousands in the Army.

“We have soldiers that carry five GPS receivers,” Coggins said. “I may have eight to 12 GPS receivers on different variants of the Stryker.”

Not all of these are DAGRs—Defense Advanced GPS Receivers. A fraction will be civilian-grade GPS receivers that do not use the

encrypted military signal. Individual soldiers may, for instance, carry one of these receivers, preferring them due to familiarity, ease of use or the presence of additional capabilities not found on their military counterpart. Even given that, the number of Defense Department-specific GPS receivers represents a logistics burden and makes it costly to update the technology.

What’s more, a significant change to that technology is on the way. Starting in fiscal year 2018, in compliance with Public Law 111-383, the Department of Defense must buy receivers that work with M-Code, a new GPS signal that offers improved anti-jamming and other enhancements. Use of the new signal means that every GPS receiver in the entire military will eventually need to be upgraded, which requires touching every piece of gear and every soldier potentially multiple times with a technology refresh.

There’s another challenge associated with the widespread use of GPS. Loss of the signal can cause a hiccup that ripples through communications, weapons, sensors and other systems. That signal loss could be due to tall buildings in an urban area or signal jamming, something that is easier to accomplish because the transmission arises from orbit. Given that signal strength falls with the square of the distance from transmitter to receiver, it will always be the case that a ground-based jammer will be in a good position to swamp a GPS signal.

In considering this situation, Coggins invoked Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th century military theorist. Although he lived at a time when the steam engine was the latest innovation, the German general had some-

thing to say about today’s technology.“He talked about identifying an enemy’s critical dependencies and

then turning those into critical vulnerabilities. If you take away the things that we’re critically dependent on, you take away our ability to conduct our mission. We view PNT as a critical dependency,” Coggins said.

The military is responding to these interlocking challenges with Assured PNT, a solution set formed after studying the landscape. Broadly speaking, the solutions involve the addition of capability vec-tors and the use of a systems-of-systems architecture. The first entails

Kevin Coggins

posiTion, naviGaTion and TiminG—BuildinG a BeTTer ‘you are here.’By hank hoGan, GCT CorrespondenT


adding ways to ensure position, navigation and timing information are maintained in the event of a loss of the GPS signal. As for the second, in implementation this means that one assured PNT device will be on a soldier or piece of equipment. Everything else will get information from this master.

The Army is shifting focus from GPS receivers to PNT user equip-ment, Coggins indicated. This will allow the Army to attain a resilient PNT capability.

To see how this will work and explore the benefits, consider how PNT information can be maintained after a loss of the GPS signal. There are ways to keep highly accurate time other than by using a sat-ellite signal. Atomic clocks, which mark time by measuring the emis-sions of atoms, are the world standard for timekeeping, with the best so accurate they only lose one second every five billion years. Achieving that kind of performance requires cooling the atoms and conducting the measurements in a well-controlled setting, neither of which is easy to do with objects carried by a dismounted soldier.

Fortunately, soldier- and vehicle-borne PNT doesn’t need that degree of extreme time accuracy. DARPA, the Department of Defense agency engaged in advanced research, is working on making atomic clocks as small and portable as a computer chip. DARPA also has programs that seek to create chip-sized gyroscopes and inertial mea-surement systems, which would provide portable and highly accurate position information. Assured PNT is partnering with DARPA in these efforts, according to Coggins.

As for the systems-of-systems concept, consider a Stryker. One new-generation device could acquire a PNT signal and could then dis-tribute it throughout the armored vehicle. It would be able to do this because there are standard interfaces that GPS receivers use. Thus, a carefully designed master unit can stand in for the GPS receiver that a host of other devices expect to see.

“By having the ability to have this one box support those standard interfaces, we’ve found that it’s as easy as taking the old one off and plugging the new one in. We’ve found that it just works because we do a lot of work to verify interface compliance,” Coggins said.

The creation of a single point of failure in new devices is mitigated in two ways. One is through carrying the proper inventory so that a working device is available to be swapped in as needed. The second is by having a very low rate of failure. The current DAGR devices have that low rate; Coggins indicated that the successor, which is a DAGR Distributed Device (D3), is also proving to be as robust.

There’s a fiscal bonus to this distributed approach. Currently, a fleet of 3,500 Strykers carries some 11,500 or more GPS receivers. With this new approach, there will be 3,500 GPS receivers, as the ratio of vehicles to receivers will be 1:1. As Coggins noted, the result of the distributed approach is a reduction in maintenance and operational expenses by more than 67 percent. He added that this belt-tightening will be hap-pening at the same time as an increase in capability.

For soldiers, a distributed approach will pay dividends in other ways. For instance, the Defense Department mandate is that soldiers must use keyed, and therefore secure, GPS receivers. This means that they must carry keys and batteries for multiple devices. That burden will be reduced when there is only one PNT device, not many.

On top of that, soldiers may not have to give up their beloved com-mercial units. Assured PNT is working with the science and technol-ogy communities to develop a prototype device that will interface with smartphones and other GPS-enabled commercial devices. Working behind the scenes, the device, which resembles a hockey puck, will supply a low-power wireless connection to these commercial devices.

The hidden technology will assure any device being used has access to trusted PNT data without the soldier having to think about it or do anything differently.

According to Coggins, Assured PNT has four sub-programs. Two are focused on PNT user equipment, one for mounted and the other for dismounted situations. The remaining two sub-programs involve developing anti-jamming technology and what are called pseudolites, a contraction of the phrase “pseudo satellites.” The idea is to augment the orbiting constellation of satellites with transmission sources that are much closer to the user. Because the resulting signals will originate nearer to the receiver, they will be much harder to jam.

There already are commercial implementations of pseudolites, such as those from Locata Corp. of Canberra, Australia. Assured PNT has put out an RFP for its own pseudolite prototypes, with a contract due to be awarded in the fourth quarter of 2014.

As part of the implementation of the systems-of-systems concept and the rollout of the new technology, forces will be at the best PNT assurance level. That is, forces may be in a situation where they don’t need as much protection, referred to as PNT Assurance Level 0, all the way up to those circumstances in which the need is for the highest degree of protection, or PNT Assurance Level 3. The use of different levels of assurance will help smooth the transition and also help make it more cost-effective, a critical need given tight budget constraints. This means the Army will have the capability to scale units to the level of protection they require, resulting in significantly less cost for the taxpayer, according to Coggins.

In speaking of the future of Assured PNT and the rollout of solu-tions to the challenges of positioning, navigation and timing, he said, “There’s a window of time over the next several years, stretching all the way out to the 2020 timeframe, that cover how these technologies are going to start with some high-visibility demonstrations and field deployments.”

As Coggins said, “We’re not going to move slowly.” O

The Army is shifting focus from GPS receivers to PNT user equipment that will allow the Army to attain a resilient PNT capability. [Graphic courtesy of U.S. Army]


at www.gct-kmi.com.


With energy- or blast-attenuating seating installed in select ground vehicles, the U.S. military has been increasing survivability of its vehicle-based troops one seat at a time.

Installed in mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles and some other vehicles, these unique seats use technology to help keep personnel riding within a vehicle from feeling the full effects of an improvised explosive device (IED), mine or other blast, should their vehicle encounter one.

“They’re absolutely critical for the survivability of the occupant. It is what the occupant is riding on and, essentially, it is the last line of defense in terms of protecting the soldier or the occupant because of the survivability features on the seat,” said Mike McDermott, program director for vehicle protection at BAE Systems, which has supplied blast-attenuating seating on MRAPs and the Bradleys. “It essentially provides the ultimate solution in terms of survivability in a blast event or a vertical attenuation-type event that the occupant’s going to see.”

These seats have saved American lives—and could save even more if the U.S. military were to expand their use on even more ground platforms, according to executives at companies that make the seats.

“Initially, the seats were deployed in MRAPs and light combat vehicles as a means of defeating overmatch conditions in the field. This is a trend that is continuing, and with good reason. However, the place where they would have the biggest impact is in common-use platforms like medium and heavy cargo trucks,” said Jim Carter, director of product development for survivability at QinetiQ North America, a Waltham, Mass.-based contractor which has been working on developing and deploying blast-attenuating seating technology for more than a decade. “In Iraq and Afghanistan, a high percentage of casualties were non-combat personnel on resupply missions. Expand-ing the requirement to these vehicles will provide those operators with enhanced protection.”

QinetiQ North America has been working with the U.S. military since 2003 to research the technology behind blast-attenuating seat-ing, Carter said.

“Starting in 2006, QinetiQ North America began refining and adapting the approach to better integrate it into the cramped spaces within vehicles. This has allowed us to meet a variety of opera-tional and spatial requirements for vehicle retrofits and survivability upgrades,” he said.

It is likely that energy-attenuating seats will become more com-mon as U.S. forces continue to battle asymmetrical threats, Carter predicted.

“The need to reduce vehicle weight and power requirements can come at a price in terms of armor and external blast protection. By integrating energy attenuation into the seats, lighter vehicles can be made more survivable and heavy vehicles less vulnerable to over-match. In the end, the goal is to protect the warfighter,” he said.

BAE Systems’ McDermott said his company is working with combat vehicle teams, as well as light-, medium- and heavy-tactical vehicle teams within the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, to look at expanded deployment of blast-attenuating seats through “survivabil-ity upgrades or new vehicle configurations.”

indusTry Trends

Carter said that he sees a recent trend toward rating and adapting the seats to more general uses.

“Most of the early applications of the seating systems were responding to an urgent need. In these cases, the seats were generally designed to meet a specific change in velocity with a 50th percentile male occupant. In some cases, this meant that a lighter occupant did not receive the same protection in a particular event, or there was no protection provided in a lesser event,” he said. “To meet this, there has been work in the industry to provide active suspension systems with improved ride comfort. The downside to this approach is that they typically require power to operate. This adds a burden on the plat-forms at a time when the Army is looking to reduce power demands and better manage onboard resources. QinetiQ North America’s BlastRide technology provides active-like performance with a passive

By sCoTT nanCe, GCT CorrespondenT

Blast-Attenuating

sCienCe and TeChnoloGy save lives from hidden ThreaTs.Seats


system that can adapt to various occupants and improve rideability without requiring power.”

Meanwhile, Santee, Calif.-based manufacturer MasterCraft Mili-tary has seen another trend with these seating systems, accord-ing to Kelli Willmore, the company’s vice president of business development.

“MasterCraft is currently witnessing quite a few of the ‘get rich quick’ seating companies exiting the business as large MRAP up-armored vehicles are no longer the choice of ‘boots on the ground,’” Willmore said. “Lighter and faster vehicles are the current choice of the armed forces, which has translated to needing a lighter, more affordable seat offering energy/blast-attenuating properties and ballistic protection.”

QinetiQ North America has more than 200 of its BlastRide seats (in three different variants) deployed on vehicles operated by NATO partner nations in Afghanistan, according to Carter.

“In a blast event, the system automatically resets, making it capable of handling both primary impulse and secondary impact. This allows the seat to provide both protection and rideability for the warfighter, improving their effectiveness at the objective,” he said. “In addition, QinetiQ North America developed a number of innovations that better address actual use issues seen by the warfighter, including dispersed padding to allow room for gear such as hydration packs or rucksacks. This ensures that the occupant is seated properly to maximize both protection and comfort, while minimizing the need to ‘gear up’ when the vehicle reaches its objective.

“QinetiQ North America also recognized that most vehicle applications would not be a one-size-fits-all solution,” Carter added. “Space claims (and requirements) vary dramatically from vehicle to vehicle and even within a vehicle. For example, the space available for the driver seat in a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle is largely different than the space in a Stryker. Within the Stryker, there are at least three different space claims (driver, troop and gunner). What QinetiQ North America does is adapt the technology to the given space claim. In this way, we can maximize the protection level for every occupant while minimizing the impact on vehicle volume and weight.”

MasterCraft’s energy-attenuating products are a more afford-able and lighter option to the “complicated and heavy ‘single event’ energy-attenuating seats currently found in the marketplace,” accord-ing to Willmore.

“MasterCraft’s simplicity in design provides an easy-to-install, lightweight product that performs and exceeds the outlined [vehicle manufacturer] requirements while keeping the competitive bottom line and budgetary restrictions in mind,” she said. “Additionally, MasterCraft’s technology allows for the product to be rebuilt or even replaced at a fraction of the cost over other seating systems, thus further reducing the overall cost of this important safety system over the life cycle of the vehicle.”

BAE Systems’ McDermott touts his company’s experience in avia-tion and transferred technology from crashworthy aviation seats into ground vehicle seats.

“Our seats, in general, go through rigorous testing before they’re ever put in theater to prove out the capabilities. They’re very, very capable,” he said. “We have a patented energy-attenuating system that is proprietary to BAE Systems and provides us with what we believe is a differentiator in the marketplace.” BAE Systems maintains an “occupant-centric approach” to developing its blast-attenuating seats, McDermott said.

“We realize that the seat can’t do everything on its own,” he said, adding that “our system has to be a part of a total-vehicle system” which includes floor and seat integration and “how everything ties together.”

“One of the differentiators is that we look at the whole-system approach. We don’t look at it as a stand-alone seat. We look at the total integration of our system into a vehicle platform,” McDermott added.

BAE Systems also employs extensive modeling and simulation in its development of the technology, he said. “It provides us a very, very strong understanding of how our seats can perform in live fire or applications that the vehicle can see out in theater,” he added.

fuTure TeChnoloGy

The manufacturers are working on their systems to contain costs and make them lighter and even more effective.

Containing the costs of seats “is definitely a priority, as well as survivability and also comfort,” BAE Systems’ McDermott said.

“When we do our initial design phase, we try to take into account all aspects in our initial designs that will optimize our design for lightweight materials, low-cost designs and, ultimately, provide us with the best survivability available,” he said. “We do design-to-cost efforts—what we call DTC efforts—to make sure that when we do our initial design and testing, we’ve looked at all aspects of providing a low-cost, highly robust system that can withstand the require-ments that are put out by our customer, which would be the Army or Marine Corps.”

BAE Systems makes every effort, upfront, to “have a very, very strong understanding of the requirements so in our initial designs we can make sure that we have an optimized seating solution right off the bat,” McDermott said.

It’s “always a trade-off” between cost control and working with lighter-weight materials, he said.

“You have to manage the balance of putting in the lightest-weight materials versus putting in the lowest-cost materials. We’re always looking at managing that balance,” he added.

QinetiQ North America is “always looking for ways to improve our seat performance while keeping the impact on the platform (in both cost and weight) down to a minimum,” Carter said.

“We are currently working on designs that will reduce our overall weight 25 percent while providing the same level of protection as our current models. In addition to that, we have been working towards better off-axis performance to protect against side blasts and improve federal motor vehicle safety standards performance. For cost control, our manufacturing team works to streamline the fabrication process and drive down costs,” he added.

Although MasterCraft has done “an exceptional job” of protect-ing a vehicle occupant’s torso, the next generation of safety seating systems will also need to concentrate on protecting an occupant’s limbs to truly increase a warfighter’s chances for survival in a conflict environment, Willmore said.

“Advancements in protecting the entire body will result from improved occupant envelope designs that integrate blast attenuation, deflection, and occupant leg and arm containment during an event,” she added. O


at www.gct-kmi.com.


As warfighting has evolved in the last decade and a half, so has the conception of warfighters and their weapons. Warfighters these days are managed as systems that include the integration of weapons, ammunition and accessories, even down to the ensemble the warf-ighter wears, from helmet, armor and uniform to sunglasses and knee pads. All these items allow warfighters to fight in vari-ous environments, especially in urban areas.

Likewise, the warfighter-carried weapon is not merely an armament—it is a platform. The integration of rail systems on weapons has enabled warfighters to switch out accessories as needed for particular situa-tions, perhaps most notably for night vision equipment. Weapons will continue to evolve along those lines to integrate a variety of new capabilities, including non-lethal options.

Today’s soldier, and moreso, the soldier of the future, will be called upon to perform longer, more challenging and more diverse tasks in a variety of different environ-ments and situations.

“Weapons have become smaller, lighter, more modular and more capable,” said Pete Altavilla, assistant vice president for program man-agement at Alion Science & Technology. “They are capable of extended standoff ranges and precision strikes with a minimum of collateral damage. They also provide the ability to fight under all weather condi-tions and at night, while many others can’t.”

“The combat theater of the future could include everything from open territory to close quarter battle in a single operation,” said Amihai

Dekel, a project manager at Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) and a for-mer special forces officer in the Israel Defense Forces. “In the past, sol-diers might go out on a 16-hour mission, do their work, and come back to base to reallocate their ammunition and equipment for the next mission. Future missions are likely to be longer, 72 hours, a week or

a month, and without the opportunity to change equip-ment. These conditions require more capable weapons.”

“Individual solider weapons like the M4 carbine are continually being enhanced,” said Altavilla. “Rail systems have made weapons modular as soldiers can swap out different sensors and designators as missions require. The Army has introduced close combat optics onto the M4 via the rail system, which has allowed more effective engagement of adversaries at longer distances.” Alion provides science and technology sup-port to several Department of Defense organizations in the armaments arena. One study Alion conducted

brought about improvements in the dust resistance, and therefore the reliability, of the M4.

The company that invented the standard 1913 Picatinny rail system for the M4 rifle is Knight’s Armament Co. “That has been our biggest contribution,” said C. Reed Knight III, the company’s vice president of sales and marketing. “We have delivered over one million of those to the U.S. Army and it has made a pretty big impact.”

Before the advent of the 1913 rail, accessories had to be affixed to weapons permanently or in some sort of ad hoc fashion. Some armaments manufacturers had their own proprietary rail

By peTer BuxBaum, GCT CorrespondenT

arminG The warfiGhTer for Today’s mulTi-Terrain BaTTlefield and missions.

Amihai Dekel


systems which didn’t include interoperability with other platforms. “The 1913 Picatinny rail was standardized not only on the M4 and the M16,” said Knight, “but to all platforms and weapons systems and even internationally.”

One trend that has become apparent in the realm of solider weapons is that armaments originally designed for special units or specialized personnel such as as snipers have transitioned over to more generalized use. One example is Knight’s M110, the first semiautomatic gun built as a sniper weapon from the beginning. “Accuracy is what characterizes a sniper rifle,” Knight said. “Tradi-tionally it has been difficult to achieve a balance between accuracy and reliability. But that is what we accomplished with the M110. It took over 10 years of development.”

Reliability in this context includes being able to accelerate the firing schedule beyond what is usual for sniper fire. That is the attraction of the M110 for the larger army. Since it can get off more shots than the typical sniper rifle with greater accuracy, it has found its place among more generalized soldier usage.

“It became more of a weapon for a designated marksman role,” said Knight. “They can get more follow-up shots than the usual sniper weapon. This is a product that changed what a soldier can do in the field. The Army wanted fast follow-up shots in target-rich urban environments and for that, they needed a higher firing rate as well as capacity.”

Another example of this phenomenon is ArmaLite Inc.’s AR-10. “The AR-10 design is an ArmaLite original and is world-renowned for use as a precision rifle in a sniper support role,” said Walt Hasser, ArmaLite’s vice president of product management. “It is fast becom-ing the sniper’s primary choice of firearm on the modern battlefield.”

At the present time, ArmaLite does not have products in the U.S. military arsenal. “However, many of our designs are suited spe-cifically for that application,” said Hasser. “The AR-10 is a versatile platform that gives the soldier extended range and power without a severe increase in weight or maneuverability. The added advantage of maintaining familiar architecture to the M4 or M16 keeps training requirements at a reasonable level. In any operating environment where engagement distances average beyond 300 meters, the AR-10’s 7.62-by-51 mm NATO cartridge outperforms its 5.56-by-45 mm counterpart in effective range, accuracy and lethality.”

ArmaLite has sold the AR-10 in the domestic commercial market as well as to domestic and international law enforcement organiza-tions. “The AR-10 was recently adopted by certain police units in Brazil and has been very effective there in its role as a primary patrol rifle,” said Hasser.

Dekel sees IWI’s weapons as suitable to meet many of the demands of future combat conditions. One example is the Negev machine gun, originally manufactured as a 5.56 caliber weapon and which recently was adapted to 7.62 caliber.

“The Negev was designed to be a manhandled weapon,” said Dekel. “Soldiers can run with it because of its light weight. It weighs a little over 8 kilos (around 18 pounds), and has low recoil and a high rate of fire. The Negev is an operational machine gun that can be used for heavy fire support to maneuvering forces, yet it can also be operated one-handed. The barrels change easily and if the operator is out of machine belts, it can take a 5.56 magazine.”

IWI’s Tavor and X95 rifles are examples of more capable and diversified weapons coming in smaller packages. “We understood we needed to make smaller weapons,” said Dekel, “and we came to the conclusion that the bullpup configuration solves that problem.”

In a bullpup configuration, the magazine is located behind the trig-ger, shortening the overall length of the weapon while keeping the length of the barrel.

“The center of weight is towards the back. This allows the opera-tor to handle the weapon more smoothly when standing or prone,” said Dekel. “It makes the weapon more suitable to close-quarters battle. The weapons have an ambidextrous safety catch and the mag-azine can be changed from the left or the right. The Tavor, because it is in a bullpup configuration, is a short weapon with a long barrel. The size of the weapon makes it efficient for close-quarters battle and the longer barrel allows the user to deal with longer distances.”

IWI’s Dan sniper rifle was designed to address shots at longer and shorter distances. “This reflects our understanding of the modern battlefield,” said Dekel. “Shooters need to deal with both sides of the spectrum. Close-quarters combat requires precise shooting at shorter distances. The Dan 338 provides precision at all distances in a weapon that weighs under 15 pounds.”

IWI’s legacy weapon, the world-renowned Uzi, has also been upgraded over the years. What started out as an Israeli paratrooper weapon has now been adapted to a variety of special forces as well as homeland security missions. “It is a small weapon with a high rate of fire,” said Dekel. “We have made it more lightweight by incorporat-ing more polymers and easier to use by applying ergonomics. The weapon is easy to handle while climbing up and down and can be worn under a civilian suit with the stock folded.”

ArmaLite’s engineering teams have been busy increasing the functionality and features of the company’s product lines, noted Hasser. “They are creating concepts that solve problems our end-users are faced with,” he said. “In the last year we have developed a recoil management capability that allows shooters to easily tune the system to their individual ammunition and shooting styles by adjusting the gas system and compensator. This allows the shooter to stay on target by recovering instantly during rapid fire strings, a feature appreciated by competitors and professional operators alike. The same system allows the shooter to adjust rate of fire to be opti-mal for suppressed mode shooting, adverse conditions or a specific ammunition type.”

ArmaLite has also enhanced the architecture of its firearms to be optimized for modern shooting techniques and compatibility with current accessories. “Our hand guards are extended in length and reduced in outside diameter, providing a very comfortable grip, more surface area for braced shooting and maximum rail and key-mod space for mounting optics and accessories,” said Hasser. “We’ve partnered with the best accessory providers in the business for pistol

It goes without saying that a weapon has to be accurate, lightweight and reliable. Integrating new systems or innovations can sometimes be challenging due to the sheer number of individual weapons in inventory. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


grips and buttstocks that incorporate modern design and technology. Our guns are light, fast, accurate and comfortable to shoot.”

ArmaLite is constantly pushing its designers and developers to create next-level products that eliminate problems end-users face. “In firearm design, that always means lighter, faster, stronger and more accurate,” said Hasser. “It also means versatility and multi-function features. Our designs integrate advanced coatings, materi-als and features that create better reliability with less maintenance and increased accuracy with less weight.”

The sniper rifle of the future, according to Altavilla, will be equipped with embedded electronic fire control systems. “It will take into account environmental factors, such as wind speed and humid-ity, all of which are currently calculated manually or by working with a spotter,” he said.

Altavilla also expects weapons to be equipped for scalable effects. “We will see a lot more in the realm of lethal versus nonlethal and disabling technologies in a single system,” he said. “This will give the soldier the ability to deal with different situations without necessarily having to use lethal force.”

In the near term, this could be accomplished with an accessory that is attached to the individual weapon, such as a laser, that has the effect of disorienting or dazzling, or some sort of sonic device. “In the longer term,” said Altavilla, “these options will likely be more integrated on the weapon platform.”

Optics will become more sophisticated with the addition of capa-bilities that will allow for the acquisition and transmission of tactical

information over tactical networks. “Weapons will be equipped with more powerful electronics for fire control and will evolve as a sensor platform as well as a lethal instrument,” said Altavilla.

“We are increasing our capability to provide a true custom shop by investing in our existing Premier Services Division,” said Hasser. “This advancement elevates our research and development capac-ity and fosters an environment of constant evolution within our product lines and our company. The agility of the Premier Services Division allows us to get in and out of the development cycle quickly and integrate concepts laterally into existing product lines without pulling resources away from production. The Premier Services Divi-sion gives us an avenue to support the niche needs of very specific end-users.”

Knight would like to see the Army become more open to engi-neering improvements suggested by the company. “We put in over 30 engineering change proposals on the M110 over the seven years it has been in use and the Army did not accept any of them,” he said. “It wasn’t for budget reasons, because we also made cost improvements. The Army could have a much better rifle. The Army needs to do more to motivate industry to make improvements.” O


at www.gct-kmi.com.

Want to reach the decision-makers in the defense community?

To learn about advertising opportunities, contact Publisher Conni Kerrigan at [email protected] or 301.670.5700

With a unique concentration on senior military officers and DoD leadership, KMI Media Group focuses on distinct and essential communities within the defense market. This provides the most powerful and precise way to reach the exact audience who procures and deploys your systems, services and equipment.

KMI Media Group offers by far the largest and most targeted distribution within critical market segments. Sharp editorial focus, pinpoint accuracy and depth of circulation make KMI Media Group publications the most cost-effective way to ensure your advertising message has true impact.

KMI’S family of Publications

UAS Leader

Col. Tim Baxter

U.S. Army Project

Manager

UAS Project Office


May 2014

Volume 5, Issue 3

www.GCT-kmi.com

Rapidly Deployable ISR O Tactical UAS O Enduring REF

Army Aviation O Wheeled Vehicles O Ammo

SPECIAL SECTION:

MANNED-UNMANNED

TEAMING

Submarine Facilitator

Rear Adm. David Johnson

Program

Executive Officer

PEO Submarines

Strategic Partnership O Fire Suppression O UUVs

Precision Strike Weapons O Helicopter Protection

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

www.NPEO-kmi.com

June 2014Volume 2, Issue 3

SPECIAL SECTION:

Launch and Recovery

SOF Enhancer

Adm. Bill H. McRavenCommanderSpecial Operations Command

Rapidly Deployable Networks O SOF Light Vehicles

Robotics Technology O Global SOF Training

May 2013 Volume 11, Issue 4

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

2013 SOCOM

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UPDATES

May 2014Volume 6, Issue 3

www.CGF-kmi.com

Homeland Security, Maritime Protection & CBRN Response

DHS and Big Data O First Responder Gear O Corrosion Control

Unmanned Capabilities O CBRN Detection

Infrastructure Guardian

Suzanne E. SpauldingUnder Secretary for the National Protection and Programs DirectorateDHS

Geospatial intelliGence Forum

Ground combat & tactical isr

military advanced education

military loGistics Forum

military inFormation technoloGy

military medical & veterans aFFairs Forum

military traininG technoloGy

navy air/sea peo Forum

special operations technoloGy

u.s. coast Guard & border security


Advertisers index

Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. ...............................C4www.ballaerospace.comKaplan University ...................................................................7www.military.kaplan.eduNammo ....................................................................................5www.nammo.comUAV Solutions ........................................................................19www.uavsolutions.com

gct rESourcE cEntEr

CAlendAr

October 13-15, 2014AUSAWashington, D.C.www.ausa.org

November 17-19, 2014Expeditionary Warfare ConferenceNorfolk, Va.www.ndia.org/meetings/5700

December 1-4, 2014I/ITSECOrlando, Fla.www.iitsec.org

December 4, 2014C4ISR BreakfastArlington, Va.www.ndia.org/meetings/592B

The

adve

rtis

ers

inde

x is

pro

vide

d as

a s

ervi

ce to

our

read

ers.

KM

I can

not b

e he

ld re

spon

sibl

e fo

r dis

crep

anci

es d

ue to

last

-min

ute

chan

ges

or a

ltera

tions

.

NEVER STOP LEARNING

• AccessallthesurveyanswersfromthehundredsofschoolsthatparticipatedinMAE’s 2014 Guide to Colleges & Universities

• Newandimproveddesignmakesiteasierthanevertofindwhatyou’relookingfor

• Searchthedatabasebyschoolname,state,onlineorbrick-and-mortarschools

• CompareandcontrastinstitutionswithalltheinfoMAEusedtoscoreanddesignateourtopschools

Consideringanewdegree?Searchingforanewcareerfield?Advisingyourtroopsontheireducationoptions?YouneedMilitary Advanced Education’s2014 Guide to Colleges & Universities!

Checkoutthesearchabledatabaseatwww.mae-kmi.comforthedetailsprospectivestudentsandadvisorsarelookingfor!


Q: In what direction are your U.S. Army and Marine customers pushing technology and solutions?

A: We see the Army and Marines pushing to extend the capabilities of their JTAC simulation for close air support training with an emphasis on greater realism.

Q: Over the past few years, there has been an increase in activity in Africa. How much emphasis are you placing on increasing your library for the continent?

A: We have built a 3-D virtual repre-sentation of the Somalian port city of Kismayo, which contains a variety of key environments for training, from dense urban neighborhoods to a built-up port area to a commercial airport. Custom-ers can visualize the terrain in the latest version of our IG, Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG).

We populated the virtual city with hundreds of geographically specific cul-ture models of buildings and other struc-tures built from ground-level photographs taken on the streets of Kismayo. Due to the lack of publicly available photographs of Kismayo, we hired an in-country pho-tographer to take thousands of high-res-olution geo-tagged photographs, which our modeling team used for geolocat-ing and modeling the culture. We built the terrain with our Terrain Tools for Esri ArcGiS from 50 cm per-pixel satel-lite imagery city coverage, blended into 15-meter natural view imagery of all of Somalia.

Because of its highly detailed geospe-cific nature, the terrain can be used for a variety of AFRICOM training purposes.

Q: The Army is increasingly experimenting with manned-unmanned teaming between Apache attack helicopters and unmanned systems. Is MetaVR a part of that project?

A: Our customer built their manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) simula-tion lab using our visuals for both their

helicopter simulator and UAV virtual envi-ronment to facilitate interoperability and testing between the two platforms, using common 3-D terrain. The resulting inte-gration helped verify and enable the heli-copter pilot to, among other things, steer the camera payload and set waypoints for the flight path through a protocol that was verified through the Manned Unmanned Systems Integration Capabil-ity (MUSIC) demonstrations.

Our IG can stream real-time HD-quality simulated video with KLV meta-data using the H.264 protocol, which is indiscernible in composition from the real UAV video. This has enormous impli-cations for the Army. Recently, the Army chose to team the Gray Eagle UAV as an armed scout with the Apache. We provide the virtual environment as an embed-ded training component for the univer-sal ground control station that controls the Gray Eagle. These efforts recently resulted in the single largest sale in our company’s history.

Q: How does MetaVR match its R&D to what the military customer is going to be looking for one or two years out?

A: Key customers identify their needs far in advance of the marketplace by request-ing certain capabilities. For example, our round-earth Metadesic terrain format was based on our UAV customers’ desire for whole-earth coverage. Because MetaVR does not perform contract labor soft-ware development, customers are often

willing to approach us with requests for important capabilities that would nor-mally require a contract to implement with other vendors.

Similarly, our JTAC simulation capa-bilities resulted from a groundswell of feature requests from key customers. We embarked on R&D in 2006, which ulti-mately resulted in 40 percent of our revenue this year coming from JTAC-related simulation sales. Fortunately, our profitability enables us to sustain such development over several years before we see substantial sales from it.

Q: How are your terrain and model packages offered, and can they be updated?

A: Our Metadesic terrain format consists of a whole-earth model comprised of dis-crete terrain tiles that can be individually recompiled. This means that as new imag-ery becomes available, we can recompile just the areas that have changed, rather than rebuild a monolithic terrain model. Our terrain model is routinely updated not only with imagery and elevation data, but also with 3-D content such as towns, cities and airports.

Often requests come from customers for terrain of some area on which they want to conduct training scenarios. Once we build terrain for a specific purpose, that terrain usually becomes available to all our U.S. government, NATO agency or contractor customers. Likewise, we update our 3-D model libraries in a simi-lar manner, often from customer requests. Once we build a given model, we add it to our model libraries, thus making it avail-able to all our customers.

Customers can update our terrain by extending it with their own terrain, which can be built with our plugin for ArcGIS from their source data or Open-Flight databases converted to our ter-rain format. Customers can also add culture to the terrain and create pattern-of-life training scenarios with our new Scenario Editor. O

[email protected]

InduStrY IntErVIEW ground combat & tactical ISr

W. Garth SmithCo-founder and Chief Operating Officer

MetaVR Inc.


FeaturesDeployable Water SyStemS as much as anything else, lack of potable water for any deployed force is a point of failure if not adequately addressed.

aeroStatS making an old idea new again by putting lighter-than-air ships above borders or bases providing force protection.

Weapon SightS rounds on target is the name of the game.

Combat meDiCine Seconds are important at the point of injury for a warfighter, and industry is delivering lifesaving responses.

taCtiCal aviation modernizing, improving protection, adding lethality and increasing the range of transport and attack helicopters alike.

December 2014Vol. 5, Issue 6

Insertion order deadline: november 18, 2014 ad materials deadline: november 25, 2014

Cover and In-depth IntervIew wIth:

brig. gen. michael S. groendirector

marine corps Intelligence Headquarters


who’s who speCIal supplementWho’S Who at the U.S. army maneUver Center of exCellenCethis special section includes an interview with maj. gen. austin S. miller, commander of the maneuver center of Excellence (mcoE), along with a pictorial review of the leadership and team that make up the mcoE.

bonUS DiStribUtion Special operations medical association Symposium

Documents

Gct 5 5 final