Putting Better Technology Into Soldiers’ Hands Faster · the University of Texas-Austin, conducts focused, long-term, theoretical and applied research and development in electrodynamics

ARMY ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY AL&T9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101FT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567

http://asc.army.mil

Headquarters Department of the Army | PB-70-07-02 | Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

April - June 2007

Putting Better Technology Into Soldiers’ Hands Faster

ASC_0330_Cvr_cc.indd 1ASC_0330_Cvr_cc.indd 1 4/6/2007 1:00:11 PM4/6/2007 1:00:11 PM

creo

Distributed Learning

Traininganytime anywhere

FREE Individual Army Trainingfor Active Army, National Guard, Reserves and DA Civilians

DL Training Options:Access the Army training portal via AKO to register and take DL training.• Army e-Learning — 2,600+ Web- based IT, Rosetta Stone foreign language, business, leadership and personal development courses. 30+ certification prep programs (MCSE, A+, CISSP, Cisco, Oracle)• Army Learning Management System (ALMS) — delivers MOS Web-based training. Manages training information, provides training collaboration, scheduling and career planning capabilities.• 231 Digital Training Facilities (DTFs) — check your base information for a location near you.

DL Training Benefits:• Promotion Points (1 point for every 5 hours) and college credit for enlisted personnel.• Continuous Learning Points for civilian employees.• Retirement Points for Reservists (1 point for every 3 hours).• Life long learning.• Supports Army Force Generation.• Reduces cost per trained Soldier.• Increases readiness.• Provides greater stability for Soldier families.

Distributed Learning System (DLS) — Army e-Learning, ALMS & DTFswww.us.army.mil, Self Service, “My Training” or www.dls.army.mil

yArme

yArmLearning

Throughout history, the Army has focused on Soldier needs,combat requirements and the lessons of history as oppor-tunities to build a force that is the most powerful, most

capable and most respected in the world. Army science andtechnology (S&T) has had a major role in our success.

Through our S&T program, we pursue technologies to enablethe Future Force while simultaneously seeking opportunitiesto enhance Current Force capabilities. We develop technol-ogy through investments in the three S&T components:

• For the near-term, demonstrating mature technology in relevant operationalenvironments and facilitating technology transition to acquisition programs.

• In the mid-term, translating research into militarily useful technology applications.

• In the far-term, conducting research to create new understanding fortechnologies that offer paradigm-shifting capabilities.

The Army’s laboratories and research, development and engineering centerssupport the focused research and technology development necessary to enableour Army to maintain its preeminence within the world. Army scientists andengineers execute their work in world-class Army facilities and also in cooper-ation with industry, academia and other government scientists and engineers.

In addition, the Army currently maintains four University Affiliated Research Centers that partner with industry and Army laboratories to transition new knowledge and novel technology concepts for further de-velopment. The Institute for Advanced Technology (IAT), established withthe University of Texas-Austin, conducts focused, long-term, theoreticaland applied research and development in electrodynamics and hyperve-locity physics. IAT’s primary focus is to enable military applications forelectromagnetic gun capabilities.

The Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), established with the Universityof Southern California, performs research in advanced simulation and immersive environments. The ICT enlists and leverages the resources andtalents of the entertainment and game development industries to work collaboratively with Army computer science experts in graphics, audio andartificial intelligence. This collaboration has been critical in improving the re-alism and usefulness of simulation for Soldier training and mission rehearsal.

The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, established with the MassachusettsInstitute for Technology (MIT), performs research in nanotechnologies for Sol-dier protection and survivability applications. Nanotechnology is the designand creation of novel materials or devices at the nanometer scale, often atthe level of individual atoms and molecules. Finally, the Institute for Collab-orative Biotechnologies (ICB), established by the University of California-Santa Barbara, in partnership with MIT and the California Institute of Tech-nology, researches the processes, structures and features found in nature and biology. ICB is developing revolutionary technological innovations in

bio-inspired materials and energy, biomolecular and infraredsensors, bio-inspired network science and biotechnologicaltools targeted to a broad spectrum of Army needs.

It is within the very nature of mankind to question how thingsare done and this natural curiosity is essential to the progressthe S&T community continues to make. As technology be-comes more and more advanced, it opens the opportunity toreassess how we go about making progress. The system-of-systems (SoS) approach to technology is one area that is chal-

lenging us to question how we are conducting technology developmentand ask the question, “How do we do this better?”

The initial Future Combat Systems versions will require approximately 33million lines of software code, and subsequent systems will undoubtedlycontain ever-more lines of code. While we can tweak our software devel-opment tools and methods, it is uncertain that they will be up to the taskof developing future systems. Recently, Carnegie Mellon University’s Soft-ware Engineering Institute (SEI) conducted a year-long study to investigateultra-large-scale (ULS) systems software. This study addressed the ques-tion, “Given the issues with today’s software engineering, how do we buildfuture systems that are likely to contain billions of lines of code?”

SEI brought together engineering experts with software and systems expert-ise from various institutions and organizations across the country to par-ticipate. The study indicated something that we all knew, but didn’t trulyappreciate — the magnitude of the impact that our SoS would have onhow we do business. That increased code size brings with it increasedscale in multiple dimensions; number of people employing the system;amount of data stored, accessed and manipulated; even to the number ofconnections and hardware systems required. This poses challenges thatstrain the foundations of current software development. The sheer scale ofULS systems will change everything. People will not just be ULS systemusers, they will be elements of the system. Software and hardware failureswill be the norm rather than the exception. ULS system acquisition willbe simultaneous with its operation and will require new methods for con-trol. A broad, multidisciplinary research agenda for developing the ULSsystems of the future, like our SoS, is required and the S&T community hasshouldered this challenge.

The U.S. Army is the most powerful land force on Earth. Still, there is nonatural law that says that we will always remain that way. People willmake that happen. People are central to everything we do in the Army. In-stitutions do not transform — people do. Platforms and organizations donot defend the Nation — people do. Units do not train, they do not stayready, they do not grow and develop leaders, they do not sacrifice and theydo not take risks on behalf of the Nation — people do. That is why eachand every one of us has an important role in keeping the U.S. Army themost powerful, most capable and most respected land force in the world.

From the Army Acquisition Executive

A Better Army Through Focused Research and Technology Development

Claude M. Bolton Jr.Army Acquisition Executive

ARMY AL&T

1APRIL - JUNE 2007

PB 70-07-02

CLAUDE M. BOLTON JR.Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logis-tics and Technology and Army Acquisition Executive

EDITORIAL BOARDLTG STEVEN W. BOUTELLEChief Information Officer, G-6LTG WILLIAM E. MORTENSENDeputy Commanding General, AMCLTG JACK C. STULTZChief, U.S. Army Reserve/Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve CommandLTG N. ROSS THOMPSON III Director, Army Acquisition Corps and Director,Acquisition Career ManagementLTG STEPHEN SPEAKESDeputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-8TINA BALLARDDeputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Procurement, Office of the ASAALTDR. JAMES R. HOUSTONDirector of R&D, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWIMPY PYBUSDeputy Assistant Secretary for ILS, Office ofthe ASAALTEDWARD W. WALTERS IIIDeputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Performance Planning, Office of the ASAALTKARL F. SCHNEIDERAssistant DCS, G-1DR. THOMAS H. KILLIONDeputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the ASAALTTHOMAS E. MULLINSDeputy Assistant Secretary for Plans, Programsand Resources, Office of the ASAALTCOL JONATHAN JAFFINActing Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command CRAIG A. SPISAKDirector, U.S. Army Acquisition Support CenterMICHAEL I. RODDINExecutive Secretary, Editorial Board

EDITORIAL STAFFMICHAEL I. RODDINEditor-in-ChiefCYNTHIA D. HERMESExecutive EditorROBERT E. COULTASDepartments EditorMEG WILLIAMSSenior EditorWHITNEY F. KOENINGEREditorKELLYN D. RITTERManuscript EditorNOJAE KIMLayout and Graphic Design

To contact the Editorial Office:Call (703) 805-1034/1035/1038 or DSN 655-1034/1035/1038

Articles should be submitted to: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY AL&T, 9900BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567.

Our fax number is (703) 805-4218.E-mail: [email protected] [email protected].

April - June 2007

DCGS-A — Creating the Army’sIntelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Net-CentricEnterprise SystemEdward T. Bair

Page 4

DCGS-A — Lessons Learned Developing the Army’s Premier Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) PlatformCOL Henry E. Abercrombie

Page 8

ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS &TECHNOLOGY

BG Genaro Dellarocco DiscussesRDECOM Systems of Systems Integration (SOSI)Michael I. Roddin and Cynthia D. Hermes

Page 36

Actionable Intelligence for the Warfighter — Achieving Army ISR Net-Centricity Through a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Greg Wenzel and Eric Yuan

DCGS-A Version 2 (V2) System — A Key Element in the Army’s Net-Centric ISR Arsenal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20LTC Robert Snyder, Dana Collier and Michael G. Ajhar

DCGS-A V3 — An Innovative Approach to Design and Development Between Government and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Alan S. Hansen and LTC Daniel Cunningham

DCGS-A V4 Innovations for the Warfighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32LTC Calvin Mitchell

International Technology Centers (ITCs) Search the World to Bring New Technologies to the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Mike J. Dudley and Ken Deylami

Providing Life Cycle Management (LCM) Support for Rapid Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50LTC Jonathan D. Long

Features

ASC_0330_ALT_Apr-June 2007_V13_CC.qxp 4/13/2007 2:03 PM Page 1

2 APRIL - JUNE 2007

ARMY AL&T

April - June 2007

ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS &TECHNOLOGY

For more news, information and articles, please visit the USAASC Web site athttp://asc.army.mil. Click on the Army AL&T Magazine tab located on the bottomof the flash banner in the center of the page.

Army AL&T Magazine (ISSN 0892-8657) is published quarterly by theASAALT. Articles reflect views of the authors and not necessarily officialopinion of the Department of the Army. The purpose is to instruct membersof the Army acquisition workforce relative to AL&T processes, procedures,techniques and management philosophy and to disseminate otherinformation pertinent to their professional development. Privatesubscriptions and rates are available from the Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 or(202) 512-1800. Periodicals official postage paid at Fort Belvoir, VA, andadditional post offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes toDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY AL&T, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567. Articles may be reprinted if creditis given to Army AL&T Magazine and the author.

Call for 2007 Army AcquisitionAward Nominations

There is no greater time than the present torecognize Army acquisition professionalswhose outstanding contributions andachievements merit special recognition andreflect accomplishments that have beenmade in direct support of Soldiers and theArmy’s business transformation initiatives.

The season for submitting nominations for the2007 Army Acquisition Awards has arrived.Three of the awards the U.S. Army Acquisi-tion Support Center (USAASC) will be coor-dinating the call for nominations and runningthe award boards for are the Army AcquisitionExcellence (AAE) Awards; the Product/ProjectManager (PM) and Acquisition Director ofthe Year Awards; and the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Awards.

USAASC Director Craig A. Spisak has approved a new timeline that allows for alonger call for nominations period for theseawards. This will give more preparation timeto the organizations that would like to sub-mit nomination packets. All organizationsemploying Army acquisition professionals arestrongly encouraged to submit nominations.

For more information regarding the awards,please go to the Acquisition Awards section ofthe USAASC Web site (http://asc.army.mil).Questions regarding the awards may be directed to [email protected].

Technological Advances in High-FieldPhysics and Lasers Yield Potential UsesMichael I. Roddin

Page 66

Training the 21st-Century Joint Force Ben Ennis

Page 60

By order of the Secretary of the Army

PETER J. SCHOOMAKERGeneral

United States ArmyChief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROWAdministrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army0708704

This medium is approved for official disseminationof material designed to keep individuals within the Army knowledgeable of current and emergingdevelopments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professionaldevelopment.

Departments

Features

Deployed Developmental Testers — ATEC’s Experimental Test Pilots in Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56MAJ Rob Willis and MAJ Brian Orwig

The 25th Army Science Conference (ASC) — Charting the Future of S&T for the Soldier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Dr. John A. Parmentola and Robert Khan

Wise and Witty — Seven Nobel Laureates Address 25th Army Science Conference (ASC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Meg Williams

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) Past, Present and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80MAJ Shane Robb

Cannon Artillery — An Update on the Army’s Current and Future Munitions Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84COL John Tanzi

AAE/ASAALT and PEO Aviation Discuss the Army Aviation Modernization Plan at AUSA ILW Symposium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Robert E. Coultas

Career Development Update... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Worth Reading ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Contracting Community Highlights .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98


ARMY AL&T

3APRIL - JUNE 2007

Distributed Common Ground Systems-Army (DCGS-A)PEO IEW&S’s initiatives have led to full DCGS-A development anddeployment. DCGS-A provides the U.S. Army fully integrated,timely and actionable battlefield intelligence. As PEO Edward T.Bair illustrates in his article, DCGS-A establishes the core frame-work for a worldwide, distributed, network-centric, system-of-systems architecture that conducts collaborative intelligence oper-ations and uses multisource intelligence products to aid real-timebattle command. Further, his organization’s other articles describehow DCGS-A has developed the necessary Service-Oriented Ar-chitecture to link the Army’s business and computational resources(organizations, applications and data) to achieve the desired resultsfor Army intelligence analysts and battlefield commanders.

RDECOM SOSIBG Genaro Dellarocco, RDECOM SOSI Deputy CommandingGeneral, discusses his organization’s mission, initiatives andcapabilities, and how SOSI integrates the various technologiesbeing developed at RDECOM laboratories around the globe.He also discusses RDECOM’s Joint collaboration initiativeswith the other services, the Department of Energy and the In-ternational Technology Centers (ITCs), and how RDECOM SOSIis fulfilling its mission of providing the right technology at theright place at the right time. A second SOSI article relates howRDECOM uses its ITCs to constantly search the globe for state-of-the-art equipment and basic/applied reseach opportunities.The final SOSI article describes the Army Materiel Command’sRapid Support Network and how RDECOM SOSI is supportingimmediate warfighter battlefield requirements initiated throughreal-time life cycle management acquisition, logistics and technology (AL&T) sustainment conduits.

The balance of this edition focuses on a wide array of informationimportant to AL&T Workforce members to include: the U.S. ArmyTest and Evaluation Command’s development and fielding of effec-tive combat systems for aviators; technological advances in laserresearch and their potential use in the near future; highlights fromthe 25th Army Science Conference; and how Force XXI BattleCommand Brigade and Below is providing unprecedented situa-tional awareness for battlefield commanders and their Soldiers. Inaddition, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Capabil-ity Manager-Cannon provides an update on cannon artillery andmunitions programs and future artillery system lethality. Also,don’t miss conference coverage updates provided by our staff writ-ers Ben Ennis, Meg Williams and Robert E. Coultas.

Michael I. RoddinEditor-in-Chief


SGT Jason D. Schwien, Bravo Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment(Recon), 10th Mountain Division (Light), leads his squad along a trail highin the Hindu Kush Mountains during a patrol near Kamdesh, NuristanProvince, Afghanistan, Aug. 10, 2006. Soldiers like Schwien continue topush the limits of human endurance and the equipment, weapons andcommunications systems that U.S. Forces are employing in this harsh,extremely desolate region, punctuated by violent sectarian, ethnic andeconomic conflict. This issue is dedicated to the U.S. Soldiers whoselflessly serve on Freedom’s Frontiers with honor and distinction. (Photoby Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images®. Used with permission.)

This edition of Army AL&T Magazine features articles from Program Executive Office(PEO) Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (IEW&S) and the U.S. Army Re-search, Development and Engineering Command’s (RDECOM’s) Systems of Systems In-tegration (SOSI) Office. Both organizations are showcasing some of the latest develop-ments coming out of their respective science & technology and research & developmentprograms to better address Soldier equipment and communications requirements asU.S. Forces continue to wage the global war on terrorism.


4 APRIL - JUNE 2007

ARMY AL&T

DCGS-A — Creating the Army’s Intelligence,Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)

Net-Centric Enterprise SystemEdward T. Bair

My intention is to return the focus where it

belongs, to the Soldier struggling to kill or

avoid being killed and to his commander

struggling to master the remorseless logic of carnage.

— Max Boot, War Made New (Technology,

Warfare and The Course of History)

DCGS-A V2 has clearly demonstrated its ability to meet tactical challenges on theground in Iraq providing a range of ISR capabilities to support intelligencerequirements for security patrols and peace enforcement, and force-on-forceengagements to counterinsurgency/counterterrorism operations. Here, SSG MiguelRamirez from Charlie Troop, 8th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th InfantryDivision, provides security during a joint presence patrol with Iraqi security forceelements near Ameriya, Iraq, last November. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Martin K.Newton, 982nd Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)


The Distributed Common Ground Systems-Army (DCGS-A) is leading theway in providing Future Force capabilityfor today’s fight. DCGS-A is the Army’sground portion of a Joint intelligenceenterprise that unifies the collection,processing, analysis, extraction, queryand visualization capabilities for tacticalenvironments. The efforts in this areawill benefit our warfighters by combin-ing the preceding functions along withcreating a predictive intelligence analysisenvironment that enables effective, dynamic battle command.

DCGS-A became reality through theProgram Executive Office (PEO) Intelligence, Electronics Warfare andSensors’ (IEW&S’) rapid response toArmy G-2 acceleration efforts and field-ing of an initial DCGS-A capability intheater to meet the most pressing opera-tional needs. This fielded effort, ini-tially called the Joint Intelligence Opera-tions Center-Iraq (JIOC-I), is theDCGS-A Version 2 (V2) capability andhas been fully transitioned to theDCGS-A program office. DCGS-A issuccessfully merging the best capabilitiesof numerous Current Force systems

with the best emerging technologies, tocraft an enduring hardware and softwarearchitecture that will be operationallyrelevant now and for the Future Force.The DCGS-A road map will ease therapid integration of internally developedinnovative ISR capabilities and tech-nologies from Future Combat Systems,our Joint service partners and coalitionforces, while minimizing costs from un-necessary rework.

DCGS-A — Leading Transformation StrategyThe DOD and Army transformationstrategies are designed to create a moreefficient, effective, capable and cost-effective warfighting force. Transforma-tion can be described as the adoption ofa strategic vision to harness discontinu-ous or disruptive technological, organi-zational and infrastructural changes toincrease the agility of U.S. combatpower against existing and emergingthreats. A critical requirement for Armytransformation is an ISR capability thatcan adjust or scale to match both exist-ing and evolving threats during its lifecycle. Clearly, the current war on terrordemands an ISR enterprise that can

improve force effectiveness in operationsranging from traditional maneuverforce-on-force engagements to nontradi-tional operations other than war mis-sions, such as humanitarian aid andpeace enforcement. The DCGS-A archi-tecture, in its current level of execution,has demonstrated its robustness and abil-ity to meet these challenges as demon-strated by the fielded DCGS-A V2 andsoon-to-be-fielded DCGS-A V3 andHuman Domain Workstation products.

The vision and architecture laid out forDCGS-A has been flexible enough, bothin form and process, to quickly absorbdeveloping capabilities from the theater,the schoolhouse, lab and industry. Froma development and architectural perspec-tive, the key lesson learned, while devel-oping the initial DCGS-A capability, isthat high-performance enterprise systemsare built from a solid internal core andexecute a defined strategy to delivervalue to the edge points — in this case,our warfighters. The creation of an ISRenterprise, therefore, calls on DOD andthe Army to leave behind the existingcomfort zones of “stovepipes” and theirsingle-purpose business rules and adopt

ARMY AL&T

5APRIL - JUNE 2007


an architectural philosophy and en-abling techniques that permit our sys-tem to continually adapt, scale andoffer new capabilities while remainingeconomical and efficaciously support-ing combatant commanders and theirSoldiers on danger’s frontiers.

Service-Oriented Architec-ture (SOA) Encapsulates the VisionThe DCGS-A development is unique,not only within the DOD community,but also within the broader universe ofinformation technology (IT) theory andpractice. DCGS-A is based on an SOAthat helps define discrete IT software andsystem service capabilities that are discov-erable, invocable and reusable by anyother service or end user. While SOAscurrently exist in many commercial mission-critical systems, DCGS-A repre-sents their first tactical warfighting imple-mentation within DOD. The ProjectManager (PM) DCGS-A was taskedwith assisting these existing Programs ofRecord (PORs) in identifying and distill-ing their key data assets and analytic ca-pabilities and services, enabling their usein the end-state DCGS-A enterprise.

The POR analysis and distillationprocess is a critical driver to the

acquisition and sustainment processesthat will be used in ongoing DCGS-Adevelopment and deployment. The factthat we are currently involved in a wardemands that we operate in a flexiblemanner, balancing prudent design risksagainst the reward of rapidly providingcritical information that can save Soldiers’ lives. The development of en-terprise information technologies neces-sitates an acquisition environment thatsupports situations where it may not bepossible for the end user to articulateexact requirements. Our solution tomeeting this dynamically changing situation was the implementation

architecture chosen for DCGS-A thateasily enables incremental developmentand continual refinement as the require-ments become better defined. The SOAstrategy permits us to explore how wecould refactor, rather than completelyrecode, capabilities from the existingservices set that would enable us to meetthe user-requested capabilities or effects.

The PM DCGS-A created a strategicroad map that keeps the transforma-tional end state in sight while address-ing significant current needs. The roadmap outlines a crawl, walk, run model.This means that while the ultimate aimis to create the perfect, fully capable,transformational, net-centric enterprise,it will be accomplished in a stepwisefashion. Our requirement is that theprocess be reasoned and deliberate withclear warfighter-relevant deliverablesalong the way. This process allowed usto deploy interim capabilities to thefield such as DCGS-A V2 and DCGS-A Fixed without compromising theprogram’s long-term effectiveness.

Implementing the DCGS-ASOA VisionThe first, or “crawl,” phase consists ofthe process of inventorying potentialPOR services and generating a broad

6 APRIL - JUNE 2007

ARMY AL&T

The DCGS-A platform provides an ISR capability that is robust, scalable and tailorable to meet both existingand evolving battlefield threats. Here, U.S. Army Soldiers from 3rd Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment,25th Infantry Division, provide security for Iraqi engineers responding to a major oil pipeline attack byinsurgents. (U.S. Air Force photo by SSGT Samuel Bendet, 30th Space Communications Squadron.)

DCGS-A’s SOA has enabled incremental development and continual refinements despite a constantlychanging operational environment in the theater of operations. As requirements continue to manifestthemselves, DCGS-A will dynamically change to meet those new challenges. Current and future Joint andcoalition operations will rely heavily on the capabilities this architecture brings to the fight. (U.S. Armyphoto by SSG Bonnie Corbett, 982nd Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)


set of specifications to provide guidanceto our industry counterparts. Thesespecifications serve as catalysts for livelyand pointed discussions that provide astrong theoretical and practical basis forDCGS-A’s initial executions.

In addition, the use of prior work doneby the U.S. Air Force, specifically theDCGS Integration Backbone (DIB),enabled DCGS-A to make a quick starttoward its objective system. DCGSDIB adoption and implementationstarted us walking on the road to service-enabling Army systems. Initialwork on DCGS-A V3 uses the DIB tointerface with the Joint MetaData Cata-log (MDC). While V3 was being devel-oped, we were afforded the opportunityto assimilate the Joint Intelligence Oper-ations Capability. DCGS-A, like anyenterprise system, consists of a wide rangeof transactional information processingcapabilities. These transactional capa-bilities require an institutional memoryrepository or warehouse. In the com-mercial world, a data warehouse is adatabase geared toward an organization’sbusiness intelligence requirements. Inthe DCGS-A enterprise, the JIOC-I capability served this key function.

The JIOC-I data warehouse ingestsdata from the various operational sys-tems at regular intervals and distributesmined, analyzed and packaged infor-mation across the enterprise. JIOC-Ifacilitates the analysis of historical op-erational performance over time, whichis needed to refine future operationalmission execution. These capabilitieswere productized and deployed asDCGS-A V2. The assimilation ofJIOC-I into the DCGS-A enterpriseprovided total validation of the PM ac-quisition approach and the decision toimplement an enterprisewide SOA ar-chitecture. This was further leveragedthrough DIB infrastructure integrationand a visualization capability called the

Multi-Function Workstation (MFW)that permitted integration of the bestportions of these programs into our“walk” phase called DCGS-A V3.

V4 Proof of Concept (PoC)DCGS-A V3 proves that PORs can besuccessfully integrated in a loosely cou-pled, nonproprietary, incrementalmanner. DCGS-A V3 includes func-tionality from JIOC-I, access to theJoint MDC through the DIB, visuali-zation capabilities through the use ofan MFW and collaboration with theArmy Battle Command System. In effect, V3 helped us transition fromthe crawl phase to the walk phase.Building on the successes of V3, theV4 PoC is accelerating us into theDCGS-A enterprise “run” phase.

The DCGS-A V4 PoC was builtaround two fundamental service-oriented components. The first was afully developed Enterprise Service Bus(ESB) with a complementary businessprocess management capability, and thesecond was a thin-client browser-basedportal. An ESB is a loosely coupled,highly distributed and scalable integra-tion infrastructure framework that connects, controls and mediates the in-teractions between applications. The ESB enables the objective DCGS-A V4

system to scale beyond the ingestion-based, hub-and-spoke-type V3 initialimplementation. This is the ideal di-rection or infrastructure to grow orevolve from V3 and build V4. It wasalso consistent with the road map mi-gration from walk to run. The DCGS-A V4 PoC, first demonstrated in thesummer of 2006, integrated multiplePOR capabilities making them visiblethrough the use of the thin-clientbrowser-based portal. DCGS-A V4,when delivered, will be an open andflexible ISR enterprise system that willsupport the current fight and be easilyextended by recomposing or integrat-ing new services as they become avail-able or when required to meet the Future Force’s needs.

EDWARD T. BAIR is the PEO IEW&S.He is responsible for executive leadership,oversight, direction and total cost ownershipfor Army IEW&S modernization strategiesand program capabilities. Bair holds a B.S.in industrial management from Purdue Uni-versity, an M.S. in national resources strat-egy from the National Defense Universityand is a Defense Acquisition University Se-nior Acquisition Capstone Course graduate.

ARMY AL&T

7APRIL - JUNE 2007

DCGS-A V4 will deliver anopen and flexible ISR enterprisesystem when it is fielded.Here, SGT Stephen Cribeenleads fellow 561st MilitaryPolice Co. Soldiers up a hill toprovide area security. TheseSoldiers are attached to the10th Mountain Divisionoperating in Parwan Province,Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photoby SFC Dexter D. Clouden,55th Signal Co. (CombatCamera).)


8 APRIL - JUNE 2007

ARMY AL&T

DCGS-A — Lessons Learned Developing the Army’s PremierIntelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Platform

COL Henry E. Abercrombie

E nterprise: (a) a project undertaken or to be undertaken,

especially one that is important, difficult or that requires bold-

ness or energy, (b) a plan for such a project, or (c) participation

or engagement in such projects.

— Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

DCGS-A’s SOA will better support Soldier tactical requirements and provide military intelligence analystsunprecedented access to diverse databases and advanced analysis tools. Here, SPC Victor Ramos (left) andSSG George Castro from Bravo Co., 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, gatherinformation following a residential raid of a suspected insurgent in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 6, 2007. (U.S. Armyphoto by SGT Tierney P. Nowland.)


The preceding definition accurately describes not just the DistributedCommon Ground System-Army(DCGS-A), but also the process bywhich it has been undertaken andmanaged. Other articles in this maga-zine will discuss the architecture, specific program technology, militaryintelligence, strategic import andDCGS-A’s use in operational art. Thisarticle is intended to review for pro-gram managers in DOD and civilianagencies, who are building enterprisesystems, some techniques we used inDCGS-A. Let me begin by definingDCGS-A and its supporting concepts.After these points are discussed, I will

provide observations gathered from delivering each initial execution’s component of the DCGS-A enterprise.

DCGS-A DefinitionsDCGS is a family of fixed and deploy-able multi-source ground processing sys-tems that support a range of ISR systemssuch as national or commercial satellitesystems and unmanned aerial systems.DCGS, when fully operational, will pro-vide continuous on-demand intelligencebrokering to achieve full-spectrum domi-nance so that American and coalitionforces can change the course of events inhours, minutes or seconds. The envi-ronment provides physical and electronic

distribution of ISR data, processes and systems, as illustrated in the figure onPage 10.

The Army’s contribution — and a keyDCGS component — is DCGS-A.DCGS-A is the Army’s enterprise plat-form for ISR. DCGS-A’s objective is tointegrate in a seamless enterprise 10 Pro-grams of Record (PORs) that comprisethe bulk of the Army’s ISR capabilities.

Managing Paradigm ShiftDCGS-A’s development has not beenas much a technical challenge as one ofchanging the philosophical and opera-tional context of the way ISR platforms

ARMY AL&T

9APRIL - JUNE 2007


are designed, developed, implementedand, ultimately, acquired. Transforma-tion has recently become a very popularphrase in DOD organizational con-cepts. In managing enterprise systemdevelopment, the critical question intransformation, or of going from an In-dustrial Age to an Information Age mil-itary, is the objective quantification ofthe value that distributed, networkedforces bring to modern combat.

This networked or enterprise questionis not uncommon in commercial in-formation technology (IT) projectsthat require the upgrading or transi-tioning of legacy systems to a moremodern system execution. In thatcontext, the calculus of return on investment is much more sharply

defined than in the one DCGS-A exists in. The additional challenge inthe DCGS-A program was the need toexplain to and align the stakeholderswith the new vision while also gainingtheir confidence as to its technicalbasis and capabilities. Each POR hadits own prime contractor(s), manage-ment structure and constituency. Fu-ture Combat Systems (FCS) and ourJoint service partners that were de-pendent on some of our sensors formission requirements were also keyfactors in our development strategy.In order for the net-centric, imple-mentation DCGS-A Joint vision toprevail, the Project Manager (PM)DCGS-A had to convince each groupof two things. The first was that theessential value/contribution of their

individual program would be effec-tively leveraged and, the second, wasthat the DCGS-A architecture wouldyield a system that was greater thanthe “sum of its parts” to combatantcommanders and their Soldiers.

At PM DCGS-A, we developed a tech-nical program management philosophythat was broad in its applicability andfocused in operational execution. Thisoverall philosophy was derived directlyfrom the program name. We werelooking for a truly distributed systemthat leveraged the capability of com-mon elements and would not lock theArmy into a costly proprietary solu-tion. It was important that we notmake the same mistakes pointed outby Jeff Cares in his book, Distributed

10 APRIL - JUNE 2007

ARMY AL&T

DCGS-A Development Evolution

ACS – Aerial Common SensorASAS – All Source Analysis PlatformBCT – Brigade Combat TeamBde/Bn – Brigade/BattalionCDD – Capabilities Development DocumentCOOP – Continuity of OperationsFoS – Family of SystemsIPV6 – Internet Protocol Version 6

JTRS – Joint Tactical Radio SystemKPP – Key Performance ParameterNCES – Net-Centric Enterprise ServicesNECC – Net-Enabled Command CapabilityOEF – Operation Enduring FreedomOIF – Operation Iraqi FreedomQRC – Quick Reaction CapabilitySA – Situational Awareness

SCI – Sensitive Compartmented InformationSW – SoftwareTCM – U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) CapabilitiesManager

TPE – Theater Provided EquipmentWIN-T – Warfighter Information

Network-Tactical

Key


Networked Operations (Foundations ofNetwork Centric Warfare). His key ob-servation: “The military communityoften confuses IT-enhanced, rarefied In-dustrial Age processes with distributednetworked systems that are truly trans-formed for the Information Age.” Thelessons learned from DCGS-A’s success-ful development to date can help futurepractitioners to distinguish betweenthese two and to manage the rapid de-velopment of a truly transformed “distributed enterprise.”

Managing Legacy System toEnterprise TransformationThe plan for developing the DCGS-Aenterprise was straightforward andbased on a sound acquisition strategy.The key strategy in controlling costsand mitigating risks involved modify-ing the existing PORs so that theywere enterprise-enabled in a concretelymeasurable fashion. This was doneusing these acquisition strategy stepsand can be widely applied to any simi-lar situation:

• Web-enable each POR to the fullestextent possible. This can start withsomething as simple as identifying auniform resource locator hypertextendpoint for the functionality. Fromthis starting point, use differing lev-els of sophistication all the way up toa Representational State Transfer orfull Web service.

• Enforce data-level interoperabilitythrough the use of wrappers andadapters following a wrap-and-adaptstrategy. These wrappers or adapterswould be designed to conform to in-teroperable specifications. The infra-structure supporting these should bemessage-based with, at the lowestlevel, appropriate application pro-gram interface.

• Make widespread use of eXtensiveMarkup Language (XML) taggingand construct a meta-data capability.

• When able, use the service-enablinginfrastructure of the DOD-provenDCGS Integration Backbone (DIB).

Determine What EnterpriseComponents Already ExistMost programs start with a definedsingle-service requirements set.DCGS-A, as is the case in all enter-prise projects, had a set of require-ments derived from the DCGS-A Ca-pabilities Develop-ment Document thatencompassed the ag-gregated select num-ber of individual re-quirements fromeach of the individualPORs along withother intangiblestakeholder require-ments that are part ofmost organizations’enterprise vision.Therefore, the firststep was to inventoryeach POR’s relevantcapabilities and mapthem against an en-terprise infrastructure that ensured thefunctionality covered was complete.Additional considerations between a

standard DOD acquisition processand DCGS-A is that the DCGS-Aprogram had an immediate opera-tional deployment window it had tomeet and that the system would beinitially put together at a government-owned Systems Integration Labora-tory (SIL). This operational fieldingwindow was routinely acceleratedfrom the originally stated programdelivery schedule to meet operational

rotation require-ments and the overallArmy Force Genera-tion commitments.The SIL conceptyielded advantages asit accelerated ourability to integratenew technologies.The most critical les-son was to immedi-ately address how toinventory the data,spot redundanciesand evaluate this in-ventoried dataagainstseveral factors. Thedata inventory process

consisted of conducting a series of Sol-dier characterization user studies andtool surveys and engaging government,

ARMY AL&T

11APRIL - JUNE 2007

The plan for developing

the DCGS-A enterprise

was straightforward and

based on a sound

acquisition strategy. The

key strategy in controlling

costs and mitigating risks

involved modifying the

existing PORs so that

they were enterprise-

enabled in a concretely

measurable fashion.

PM DCGS-A quickly translatedpressing field requirements in Iraqinto productized systems for deliveryto the fight. Here, PFC NichellSauls, an intelligence analyst fromthe 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, monitorsa computer in the brigade securitysection on Jan. 20, 2007. Sauls ispart of a group of Soldiers andAirmen who provide security andweather information to pilots fromthe Multi-National Division-Baghdad.(U.S. Army photo by SFC RickEmert.)


as well as civilian, subject matter ex-perts in each program.

The next step was to map the user (con-sumer research in a commercial environ-ment) against a workable system model.Because DCGS-A is primarily an aggre-gated software system, the unifiedmodel used was the model/view/con-troller pattern. This was critical becauseit permitted us to map the inventoriedcapabilities against agenerally acceptedsoftware pattern. Inhis book, A TimelessWay of Building,Christopher Alexanderstates that each patternrepresents a decisionthat must be madeand the correspondingconsiderations that go into that deci-sion. From this model, service specifica-tions were developed and mappedagainst an execution of the enterprise asa Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA).

SOA expresses a software architecturalconcept that defines the use of servicesto support software users’ requirements.

The DCGS-A Version 2 (V2)BaselineThe U.S. Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) haddeveloped a significant capability thatenabled Soldiers advanced analysis capability through accessing a large

number of databasesand advanced analysistools. The tremen-dous and insightfuleffort that allowedthis to happen is de-scribed in anotherDCGS-A article inthis magazine. Thecontribution and ef-

fort as a result of this developmentcannot be understated. Given thatthis development has been adequatelycovered, I will continue describingDCGS-A enterprise development.

DCGS-A V3 — Building AnEnterpriseBased on previous work, V3 develop-ment was able to rapidly enhance theV2 system. To meet the pressing fieldrequirements in Iraq, the informationcontained in the service specificationsand user surveys needed to be quicklyproductized for delivery to the fight.The approach with the least risk was totake select high-value components high-lighted in the POR survey and quicklymake them ready to work in an enter-prise context. This was accomplishedby using two well-known enterprise ar-chitecture patterns defined earlier —the wrapper and adapter patterns.

The wrapper allows switching of im-plementations of application functionswithout impact to other communica-tions partners by encapsulating (ortransforming) messages in some fashion, typically XML. This is onecomponent in implementing a loosecoupling of an enterprise’s elements.


ARMY AL&T

V3’s success is just a step

in the overall process to

build on operational

interoperability with

NCES and full FCS

functionality.

PM DCGS-A’s technological innovation has resulted in fielded ISR systems that benefit warfighters today and promise combatant commanders even greaterintelligence analysis capabilities tomorrow. Here, SPC Timothy Foltz (left) and SSG Chris Bertomeu from Headquarters Co., 5th Battalion, 3rd Stryker BCT, 2ndInfantry Division, provide security during a joint patrol with Iraqi army soldiers near Salhea, Iraq, last November. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Antonieta Rico, 5thMobile Public Affairs Detachment.)


The adapter seeks to place emulationsor filters around or within businessprocesses to affect the loose coupling’ssecond half. The result of this was thefirst step in the DCGS-A implementa-tion framework that formed the basisof all future develop-ment. We were very fortunate thatINSCOM, with G-2support, had createdthe enterprise’s datawarehouse portioncalled the “brain.”This valuable contri-bution could nothave been leveraged,however, had we notcarefully followed thestep-by-step opera-tional plan illustratedearlier to transformlegacy systems into anintegrated enterprisecontext that permit-ted us to prepare andfield a fully func-tional subset of therequired DCGS-Acomponents asDCGS-A V3.

Another key experience accrued fromthis process’s execution was that we al-most became victims of our success.The rapid and successful SOA-basedintegration of V2 into V3, followed byV3’s fielding, left many feeling that wehad reached the end state. While thisoperational capability is extraordinary,the enterprise target of having all therelevant information quickly availableto the core users regardless of temporalor geographic location in a seamlessfashion is still not complete. V3’s suc-cess is just a step in the overall processto build on operational interoperabil-ity with NCES and full FCS function-ality. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill,“it is the end of the beginning” and

certainly not as far as we can go with thefoundation we have built. Perhaps thisis the most important process lesson.

We also reached out to other pro-grams and agencies that were develop-

ing components thatwe could leverage.From the DODDCGS community,we incorporated theU.S. Air Force-developed DIB to enhance Joint inter-operability. We havebeen working withboth the NationalGeospatial Agencyand National SecurityAgency to be compli-ant with accessingtheir most availableinformation and in-telligence productsand leveraging theirmost advanced devel-opments. We arecurrently workingwith the Product Director for Intelli-gence Fusion to host

the latest DCGS-A developmentswithin the ASAS platforms.

DCGS-A V4 is now bringing enter-prise capabilities to maturity as follows:

• ISR component to battle command.• Actionable intelligence.• Running estimates.• Planning and collaboration capabilities.• Modularity and scalability.• Mobility/transportability.• Distributed operation capability.• Supports the Evaluation BCT.• Provides full data access, including

BCT sensors.• Intelligence fusion.• Net-centric compliance.• NECC and interoperability.

The final lesson we learned is that it isimportant to keep the end state inmind. If not, it is easy to settle for in-termediate success. The successfulproduction so far of DCGS-A V3, andthe imminent arrival this year ofDCGS-A V4, would not have beenpossible without the use of a cleartechnical development methodologythat permitted the aggregation of abroad range of software products andcapabilities to be harnessed so that allavailable data could be made availableto warfighters without temporal or geographic limitations. A key compo-nent — multiple source exploitation— which includes signals intelligence,geospatial intelligence, measurementand signals intelligence, ASAS and otheropen source intelligence-gathering capa-bilities, will help DCGS-A V4 achievefull POR capability. The use of aclearly directed capability inventory,best practices in the use of enterpriseintegration patterns and a solid datawarehouse and application serverframework has permitted us to field asystem that is benefiting our warfight-ing customers every day and promiseseven greater capabilities tomorrow.

COL HENRY E. ABERCROMBIE is the

PM DCGS-A, Program Executive Officefor Intelligence, Electronic Warfare andSensors, Fort Monmouth, NJ. He has aB.S. in business management from Al-abama A&M University and a master ofstrategic studies from the U.S. Army WarCollege. He is also an Adjutant GeneralAdvanced Course and U.S. Army Com-mand and General Staff College graduate.Abercrombie is an Army Acquisition Corpsmember and is Level III certified in pro-gram management.

ARMY AL&T

13APRIL - JUNE 2007

The successful production

so far of DCGS-A V3

would not have been

possible without the use

of a clear technical

development

methodology that

permitted the aggregation

of a broad range of

software products and

capabilities to be

harnessed so that all

available data could be

made available to

warfighters without

temporal or geographic

limitations.



ARMY AL&T

Actionable Intelligence for theWarfighter — Achieving Army ISRNet-Centricity Through a Service-

Oriented Architecture (SOA)Greg Wenzel and Eric Yuan

The Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) program

faces the unprecedented task of integrating 13 Army intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) Programs of Record (PORs),

spanning more than 7 intelligence domains. For example, human intelli-

gence (HUMINT) will be consolidated into a single capability that provides

warfighters and intelligence analysts integrated views of the operational

environment threat from “space to mud.” This effort is every bit as

challenging as it sounds. Add to this challenge the requirement for Joint

interoperability with the larger ISR community — including the other

armed services, national agencies and coalition forces — and the challenge

seems insurmountable at worst, cost and time prohibitive at best.

Project Manager (PM) DCGS-A is delivering actionable intelligence through SOA and net-centric ISR programs toenhance interoperability across platforms and divergent systems. Ultimately, Soldiers will benefit from being able tosend and receive ISR data in near-real time. Here, Soldiers from 1st Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 101st AirborneDivision, patrol the streets of Shaab in northeast Baghdad, Iraq, last October. (U.S. Navy photo by MC1 Keith DeVinney,Combat Camera Group Pacific.)


Indeed, the challenge might be insur-mountable if the DCGS-A programtook a more traditional approach tointegration such as platform homo-geneity, point-to-point integration oreven message-broker middleware. In-stead, DCGS-A is employing an SOAapproach using Web services to achievethe goal of net-centric ISR systems interoperability.

Traditional Approach LimitationsTo exchange information among sys-tems using platform homogeneity, all

legacy systems would need to be mi-grated to a single monolithic technologyplatform with identical data structures,programming lan-guages and softwareconfigurations. This is not only costprohibitive and timeconsuming, but is alsoundesirable because itwould adversely im-pact system perform-ance and degrade adaptability throughvendor lock-in. Looking beyondDCGS-A, migrating all ISR community

systems to a common technology plat-form is unrealistic because of the variousplatform standards already in use and

the hundreds of millions of dollars in-vested to date.

Point-to-point inte-gration involves tyingone system to anotherby writing code thattranslates messages

from the source system into a formthat is understandable by the targetsystem and vice versa. Specifically, this

ARMY AL&T

15APRIL - JUNE 2007

DCGS-A is employing an

SOA approach using Web

services to achieve the

goal of net-centric ISR

systems interoperability.


approach uses the underlying, usuallyproprietary, Application ProgrammingInterfaces as the access mechanism.This approach is widely considered“tightly coupled” because the interfacebetween the sourceand target systems isbuilt unique to thosetwo systems. Hence,the integration capa-bility can’t be lever-aged across other systems. Additionally,whenever the systemsoftware and datastructures are altered,programmers mustchange the integrationcode accordingly.This creates significantcost, maintenance andscalability problems.This scalability issue,which analysts call the“N2 problem,” (handling data volumeand path issues using sensible defaultsand defined target lists) escalates expo-nentially as new systems are introducedinto a network of integrated systems.

Using a point-to-point approach,DCGS-A would need to build andmaintain 156 unique system interfacesto achieve full integration between the13 PORs. Elevate this scalability con-

cern to the broaderISR community andthis integration ap-proach becomeshighly impractical andextremely costly.

A traditional messagebroker middlewareapproach resolves theN2 problem by introducing a middle-ware “hub” thatserves as the message-handling intermedi-ary. Instead of communicating withone another usingunique “one-off ”

interfaces, the systems interoperateusing publish-subscribe style messagesbrokered by the centralized middle-ware hub. This “hub-and-spoke” ap-proach, often referred to as Enterprise

Application Inte-gration, is imple-mented usingcommercialproducts such asMQSeries®,Tibco®, WebLogic® and webMethods®.Although effec-tive in well-defined andclearly scopedenterprise settings, this approach is cen-tralized withinan enterprise(intra-enterprise), technology- dependent and

platform-centric, rather than distrib-uted across enterprises (inter-enterprise),open and net-centric. It offers limitedscalability and adaptability that is insuffi-cient for large-scale, cross enterprise, net-centric environments such as DCGS-Aand the broader ISR community. Thesetraditional integration approaches are depicted in Figure 1.

Net-Centricity and ISR TransformationThe DCGS-A program is transformingthe Tasking, Processing, Exploitation,Dissemination (TPED) IntelligenceCycle, an inherently sequential andplatform-centric process, to the newnet-centric Tasking, Posting, Processing,Use (TPPU) paradigm. AlthoughTPPU encompasses all TPED func-tions, it refactors them into a moreopen, dynamic and leveraged capability,making data available immediately forprocessing into actionable intelligence.The TPPU vision has some profoundarchitectural implications as follows:

• Pull Versus Push. Information flowsare no longer just a one-way “push,”


ARMY AL&T

Figure 1. Traditional Integration Approaches

Point-to-Point Integration for POR Systems Hub-and-Spoke Integration for POR Systems

As leveraged information

services supplant large

monolithic applications,

the traditional system

boundaries begin to

disappear and ISR

applications can be

dynamically assembled in

new ways to support

changing missions

and immediate

commanders’ needs.


but will be both push and “pull.”TPPU systems allow users to selec-tively retrieve only the data that is ofinterest to them.

• Collaboration. Because “post beforeprocess” becomes part of the normunder TPPU, the discrete informa-tion provider to information proces-sor to information consumer chainis blurred and the sequential TPED“pipeline” is morphed into a many-to-many collaborative network.

• System-to-System. Many traditionalISR “stovepipe” systems architec-tures were built to support onlyhuman-system interfaces, but theynow must support system-to-systemintegration as well. For example, in-stead of a user querying all systemsfor data on a regular basis, a Webportal may periodically query avail-able ISR systems on a user’s behalf

and alert the user of any time-critical intelligencedata.

• Open Services. In aTPPU environ-ment, as leveragedinformation serv-ices supplant largemonolithic applica-tions, the tradi-tional systemboundaries begin todisappear and ISRapplications can bedynamically assem-bled in new waysto support changing missions andcommanders’ immediate needs. Thetraditional stovepiped systems willgive way to a set of net-centric tech-nology services that can be leveragedacross the ISR community.

As the Army’s next-generation intelli-gence technology ca-pability provider,DCGS-A is designingaround these andother architecturetenets to support thefuture needs ofwarfighters and intel-ligence analysts.

Achieving Net-CentricityInstead of using sim-ple point-to-point orhub-and-spoke inte-

gration, DCGS-A is achieving net-centricity through SOA and Web services by constructing a set of lever-aged ISR service interface specifications.These application and data interfacespecifications provide a layer of

ARMY AL&T

17APRIL - JUNE 2007

Once an ISR organization

achieves system

interoperability by

conforming to the

interface specification, it

gains the benefit of

interoperability with all

“networked” ISR systems

that also conform to the

interface specification.

Soldiers like SPC Andrew Ruhlman above are already benefiting from next-generation intelligence technology beingdeveloped by PM DCGS-A. New architecture tenets are supporting warfighters and intelligence analysts. Ruhlman,assigned to the 37th Armored Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, maintains radio contact withfellow platoon members during a patrol near Tal Afar, Iraq. (U.S. Air Force photo by SSGT Jacob N. Bailey, 1st CombatCamera Squadron.)


abstraction that allows for system in-teroperability regardless of the interop-erating systems’ underlying technologyinfrastructure, including hardware,software and data structures. Thesenet-centric “over-the-wire” specifica-tions serve to establish the standardformats and protocols that participatingsystems employ to exchange data andperform services, thereby making theintegrating architecture platform-, programming language- and vendor-independent. The interface specifica-tions serve as the DCGS-A SOA’sbuilding blocks and are built using Webservices-based open standards such aseXtensible Markup Language; Simple

Object Access Protocol; and UniversalDescription, Discovery and Integration.

The DCGS-A program’s goal is toachieve interoperability with thebroader ISR community, not justamong DCGS-A PORs. To this end,the interface specification developmenteffort continually works to be more andmore inclusive so that the specificationgains the broadest applicability in theISR community. The specifications define more than 130 ISR services addressing HUMINT, geospatial intelli-gence, signals intelligence, measurementand signatures intelligence, and allsource domains, and incorporates the

DIB standards. DCGS-A is currentlyworking with and expanding involve-ment with other ISR organizations anddata standards working groups to im-prove and evolve the interface specifica-tions. The DCGS-A SOA integrationarchitecture is illustrated in Figure 2.

The advantage of this SOA approach isself-evident. With SOA/Web services,DCGS-A can publish services to theISR “network” using a standard inter-face specification and then the decisionto interoperate and the effort of inte-grating is pushed out to ISR commu-nity organizations that wish to accessthose services by “plugging into the


ARMY AL&T

MFWS

Browser

Portal

FCS WMI

Others

SENSORS AND SOURCES (PRODUCERS)

ISR DOMAIN SERVICES

USER-FACING

SERVICES(Consumers)

DCGS-A SERVICES NETWORK

Dissemination

Messaging

Mediation

Security

Application

User Assistant

Discovery

Storage

Enterprise SystMgmt

MI Core/Composite

Services

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES(DIB, SOSCOE, NCES Compatible)

AllSource

Services

IMINTServices

MASINTServices

SIGINTServices

CI/HUMINTServices

WeatherServices

TerrainServices

Figure 2. DCGS-A SOA Integration Approach

CI/HUMINT – Counter & Human IntelligenceDIB – DCGS Integration BackboneFCS WMI – Future Combat Systems Warfighter

Machine Interface IMINT – Imagery IntelligenceMASINT – Measurement and Signals Intelligence

MFWS – Multi-Functional WorkstationNCES – Net-Centric Enterprise ServicesSIGINT – Signals IntelligenceSOSCOE – System of Systems Common Operating

Environment

Key:


network.” This promotes scalabilityby delegating the integration effort outto the network of ISR organizations.Once an ISR organization achieves sys-tem interoperability by conforming tothe interface specification, it gains thebenefit of interoperability with all“networked” ISR sys-tems that also con-form to the interfacespecification. A sin-gle integration effortreaps the benefits ofall the systems net-worked via the inter-face specification —Metcalfe’s Law. Met-calfe’s Law states thatthe value of atelecommunicationsnetwork is propor-tional to the squareof users of the system(n2). First formu-lated by Robert Met-calfe in regard to the Ethernet, his lawexplains many of the network effectsof communication technologies andnetworks such as the Internet andWorld Wide Web. Users gain addi-tional information sources throughunanticipated data providers as theyare published and plugged into thenet. This is the essence of net-centricity. The DCGS-A set of serviceinterface specifications is the criticalenabler for the rapid integration of systems into a DCGS-A ISR services“marketplace” that will significantlybenefit the Army and the ISR commu-nity at large.

From an acquisition perspective, theSOA approach also provides great ben-efits and cost savings. Once the initialcapability is in place, the DCGS-Aprogram can more easily enhance, oreven entirely replace, legacy systemsand deliver greater capability towarfighters with no adverse impact on

operational continuity. The DCGS-AWeb services-based interface specifica-tion driven approach can reduce theintegration effort by an order of mag-nitude allowing a much more rapid“time-to-capability” for warfighters.Interoperability is achieved through

compliance with acommunity-endorsed,open standards-basedset of interface speci-fications, which sub-stantially reduces thenumber of interfacesrequired to develop,maintain and achievea critical element in the evolution tonet-centricity.

Net-CentricityInvolves MoreThan TechnologyISR effectiveness de-pends on technology

and on processes, people and organiza-tions. Working with the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command Ca-pability Manager, DCGS-A PORs andother intelligence community subjectmatter experts, DCGS-A is aggres-sively examining operational scenariosand systems architecture in applyingmodular force structure, TPPU andservice-oriented concepts to addressthe operational, acquisition and orga-nizational aspects of Army ISR forcetransformation. DCGS-A is not sim-ply trying to reuse existing POR capa-bilities, but is striving to integratethose capabilities in innovative ways tosupport future ISR missions.

Leading commercial organizations, in-cluding Amazon®, eBay®, Google™,Dell™ and countless others, have un-equivocally proven the net-centricpower of interface specification-driveninteroperability using SOA and Webservices technologies. The Army and

the larger ISR community can applythese same technologies to achievesimilar net-centric transformationalimprovements. At PM DCGS-A, webelieve that we owe it to our combat-ant commanders and their Soldiers tocapitalize on technologies that aretransforming the world today.

GREG WENZEL is a Principal with BoozAllen Hamilton’s Information Technology(IT) Team focusing on emerging technolo-gies applied to client business needs. He is a recognized leader in the areas of business-to-business exchanges, SOA, dis-tributed simulation, grid computing and net-centricity. Wenzel holds a B.S. incomputer science from Clarion Universityof Pennsylvania and an M.S. in computerscience from Johns Hopkins University.

ERIC YUAN is an Associate and SeniorSystem Architect with Booz Allen Hamil-ton’s IT Team. He has more than 13 yearsof professional experience in software de-velopment and IT consulting in both thecommercial and public sectors. He is currently supporting PM DCGS-A inareas such as SOA standards and specifica-tions, system-of-systems evolution andgovernance, architecture methodologiesand IT portfolio management. Yuan holdsa B.S. in computer science from TsinghuaUniversity, Beijing, and an M.S. degree insystems engineering from the University of Virginia.

ARMY AL&T

19APRIL - JUNE 2007

DCGS-A is aggressively

examining operational

scenarios and systems

architecture in applying

modular force structure,

TPPU and service-

oriented concepts to

address the operational,

acquisition and

organizational aspects of

Army ISR force

transformation.



ARMY AL&T

DCGS-A Version 2 (V2) System —A Key Element in the Army’s

Net-Centric ISR ArsenalLTC Robert Snyder, Dana Collier and Michael G. Ajhar

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A)

provides combatant commanders and their Soldiers

fully integrated and timely intelligence on the battle-

field. The DCGS program establishes the core framework for a

worldwide distributed, network-centric, system-of-systems

architecture that exponentially enhances collaborative

intelligence operations, analysis and production. The DCGS

Integration Backbone distributes intelligence, surveillance and

reconnaissance (ISR) data, processes and systems. This permits

all echelons to simultaneously gain critical contextual informa-

tion in near real-time.

The best source of intelligence collection on the battlefield is a U.S. Army Soldier. DCGS-Ahopes to make intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination even better for Soldiers likeSFC Eric Schloneger, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, shown here on a combat patrol near TalAfar, Iraq, last April. (U.S. Air Force (USAF) photo by SSGT Aaron Allmon, 1st Combat CameraSquadron (1CCS).)


The DCGS-A will consolidate the func-tions of 12 Programs of Record (PORs)into a unified, integrated ISR capability:

• All Source Analysis System-Light.• Analysis and Control Team-Enclave. • Block II Analysis and Control Element.• Common Ground Station.• Counter- and Human-Intelligence

Management System.• Prophet Control.• Integrated Meteorological and

Environmental Terrain System-Light.• Digital Topographic Support

System-Light.• Guardrail Ground Processing.• Tactical Exploitation System.• Ground Control System. • Enhanced Trackwolf.

DCGS-A’s V2 configuration is specifi-cally tailored to have a regional focuscapable of continuous collection/analy-sis to provide direct support and over-watch to operationally engaged units.

Origins of DCGS-A V2 CapabilityThe DCGS-A V2 capability was signifi-cantly accelerated by the preliminarywork done on the Information Domi-nance Center (IDC) and, more recently,the Joint Intelligence Operations Capability-Iraq (JIOC-I). The IDCconcept involved IDC nodes or exten-sions, deployed and manned by U.S.Army Intelligence and Security Com-mand (INSCOM) in theater (Iraq andAfghanistan) or established in INSCOMTheater Intelligence Brigades and Groupsand other non-INSCOM units locatedworldwide. These worldwide extensionsare continuously linked to the IDC via anumber of communications means —common user circuits, strategic commu-nications links and dedicated satellite terminals — to provide access to INSCOM’s dollar database andCONUS-based analysts. Tailored ana-lytical products are generated, frequently

on a quick-response basis, to meet adeployed team’s immediate needs.The IDC also provides tactical over-watch (TO) on current and potentialtrouble spots worldwide, providing di-rect support to contingency operationswith intelligence sup-port and intelligenceoperations-relatedproducts should theneed arise.

Collectively, the abilityto communicateworldwide permits thesmall number of ana-lysts resident in theIDC to provide intelli-gence support and tai-lored intelligence as-sessments and products rapidly and effi-ciently. The Project Morning Calm ini-tiative that began in late 2003 validatedthe new technology and techniques fromthe Korean peninsula operational envi-ronment. In response to the acute needsof Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF ), thecritical IDC capabilities proven in Koreawere further developed into the JIOC-I,which acts as a virtual data repository in-gesting information from a comprehen-sive network of sensors and data sources,regardless of echelon. The JIOC-I, as aquick-reaction capability, was assembledfrom commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)and government-off-the-shelf (GOTS)hardware and software intended to rap-idly augment and dramatically improveISR capabilities in the OIF area of opera-tions. The evolving threat and nature ofthe counterinsurgency fight necessitateda quick-reaction augmentation of exist-ing ISR capabilities and systems residingin theater.

The JIOC-I goals were to:

• Improve the overall effectiveness ofall-source intelligence fusion and in-formation sharing in support of OIF.

• Enable tactical elements below divi-sion level to report information andreceive alerts at tactically useful clas-sification levels.

• Improve agility of collection cuing,tasking and integration of theater assets.

• Serve as a founda-tion for collabora-tive overwatch, in-cluding tipping/cuing, indicationsand warnings, andeffects-based target-ing at all levels.

The JIOC-I also in-creased situationalawareness and transi-tional memory byproviding a consoli-

dated, theaterwide data repository with“institutional memory” between in-coming and outgoing units and pro-vided historical context and linkagesfor operational planning. The IDC’sevolution laid the foundation for theJIOC-I, which in turn has laid thefoundation for the DCGS-A V2.DCGS-A V2 will leverage the U.S. in-formation technology advantage byconsolidating disparate data sets andapplying advanced data retrieval andvisualization tools available at everyechelon, thereby ensuring timely, de-liverable and actionable intelligencewhere and when it is needed most.The dynamic nature of theater intelli-gence plays a significant role inDCGS-A V2, which is why new data-bases, data sources and tools are con-tinually being updated.

The JIOC-I formally transitioned tothe DCGS-A POR in June 2006 formanagement and sustainment. TheProgram Executive Officer (PEO)Command, Control, Communica-tions, Computers, Intelligence, Sur-veillance and Reconnaissance and theProgram Manager (PM) DCGS-A

ARMY AL&T

21APRIL - JUNE 2007

The IDC provides TO on

current and potential

trouble spots worldwide,

providing direct support to

contingency operations

with intelligence support

and intelligence

operations-related products

should the need arise.


adopted and will continue to enhancethe architecture thatpermitted the JIOC-Ifunctionality as aproven practical ini-tial system to be read-ily assimilated intoDCGS-A andlaunched within theavailable budget. Ul-timately, DCGS-Awill satisfy criticalwarfighter ISR needs.

DCGS-A V2 BenefitsOperationally, DCGS-A is already reap-ing huge benefits for combatant com-manders and their Soldiers as follows:

• Rapid Fielding to Tactical Units. Bythe end of calendar year 2006, theINSCOM/DCGS-A fielding teamshad fielded DCGS-A V2 to 11 BCTsand three theater-level units in Iraq

as well as 7 of the 10 Army divi-sions and 3 of 4Army corps. Themobile trainingteam, consisting ofcontractors and non-commissioned offi-cers, trained morethan 200 Soldiers atthe various fieldinglocations in Iraq.Each training eventwas tailored to the

individual unit’s specific unit mis-sions. In many cases, trainers performed one-on-one training toensure any and all specific require-ments were met.

• Servers Down to Bridgade Level. Thefielding package included databaseand application servers on Secure In-ternet Protocol Router (SIPR) andJoint Worldwide Intelligence Com-munications System to each BCT.

This allowed the BCT and subordi-nate battalion (on the same BCTforward operating base (FOB)) toquickly access the V2 services anddatabases without the latency associ-ated with inter-theater communica-tions. The BCT servers also servedas complementary backups to eachother. As an example, if a BCT’sSIPR server went down, the BCTcould reach the same services and in-formation from the division serveron the same FOB without incurringany latency constraints.

• Rapid Response to Theater Require-ments. Static and dynamic databasesources were quickly added to the V2database and discoverable by all users.

• Increased Analyst Speed. Most ana-lysts valued the time V2 saved byconsolidating sources discoverable byone search process and the corre-sponding mentor support providedat BCT level.


ARMY AL&T

The JIOC-I was assembled

from COTS and GOTS

hardware and software

intended to rapidly

augment and dramatically

improve ISR capabilities in

the OIF area of operations.

INSCOM and the JIOC-I are providing strategiccommunications links and dedicated satellite terminalsthrough the IDC to ensure battlefield commanders andtheir troops are receiving intelligence analyses quickly.Here, 1LT Michael Campbell, 4th Squadron, 14th CavalryRegiment, 172nd Striker Brigade Combat Team (BCT), leadsa combat patrol through Sinjar, Iraq, last summer. (USAFphoto by SSGT Jacob N. Bailey, 1CCS.)


Lessons Learned FromDCGS-A V2 ConfigurationThere were several major benefits re-sulting from the leading-edge workundertaken by INSCOM in DCGS-AV2 development.

• Because of the sig-nificant amount ofreal-life researchconducted in devel-oping the IDC/JIOC-I capabilitiesand the PM DCGS-A’s implementationof sound acquisitionprinciples early inthe program, sup-portability issueswere addressed up front and this in-vestment will yield greatly reducedlife-cycle ownership costs.

• The choice convergence on a service-oriented architecture system as thebase of the DCGS-A architecture ensured that highly reliable COTSproducts could be effectively used inthe program. This helped to ensurethat the high-mission profile opera-tional requirements and equipmentsustainability was maintained with aminimum of contractor support.

• The purchase of spares along withthe procurement of end items againaided in the reduction of life-cyclecosts and eased cross-leveling responsibilities.

• The importance of the informationassurance effort cannot be overstatedor overlooked. Because JIOC-I wasa quick-reaction capability, the documentation effort had to playcatch-up to the fielding effort andindividual units were responsible forthe accreditation process. PMDCGS-A is developing type accredi-tation documentation to speed upthe process and take the burden offthe receiving units.

The INSCOM IDC and JIOC-I initia-tives provided incredible intelligencevalue and were great successes in theirown right. Cumulatively, they formedthe basis for the DCGS-A V2 programand their value to the intelligence com-munity continues. INSCOM and PM

DCGS-A should bothbe justifiably proud oftheir productive andeffective partnershipduring transition ofthe JIOC-I to theDCGS-A POR, an effort that will benefitthe intelligence com-munity for years to come.

Theater Operations Co.INSCOM, the PEO Intelligence, Elec-tronic Warfare and Sensors executiveagent for DCGS-A (Fixed), has beeninstrumental in ad-dressing the re-quirements of theDCGS-A (Fixed)configuration.Since 2002, INSCOM has accelerated, by 5 to 10 years, fieldingof the DCGS-A(Fixed) site to itsorganic military in-telligence brigades(MIBs).

The 513th MIB,the 66th MI Groupand the 500th MIBconfiguration arethe most mature.As such, the The-ater Operations Co. of those unitsconsiders DCGS-Aas its primary en-abler to supportBCT demand for

information while setting conditionsfor theater engagement and securitycooperation, early warning, precisionaction and collateral damage reduc-tion. The Theater Operations Co.leverages DCGS-A in the fixed facilityto produce actionable intelligence thatprovides commanders and Soldiers aunique level of shared situational un-derstanding delivered with the speed,accuracy and timeliness necessary tooperate at the highest potential.

The actionable intelligence paradigmincludes eight initiatives: Every Sol-dier a Sensor, Human Intelligence Re-vitalization, TO, DCGS-A, RedTeaming, IDC, Pantheon Project andProject Foundry. The MIB, enabledby DCGS-A (Fixed), manages five ofthe eight initiatives: TO, DCGS-A,Red Teaming, IDC and ProjectFoundry. These precepts require a

ARMY AL&T

23APRIL - JUNE 2007

The dynamic nature of

theater intelligence plays a

significant role in DCGS-

A V2, which is why new

databases, data sources and

tools are continually being

updated.

DCGS-A V2 is already helping battlefield commanders shape theirrespective environments through ISR products that deliver intelligenceanalyses quickly and accurately to Soldiers with “boots on the ground.”Here, SGT Jerry Shelton, 1st Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment,82nd Airborne Division, communicates with the Fire Direction Center atContingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq, last June. (U.S. Army photoby SSG Alfred Johnson, 55th Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)


mindset and culture change relative tointelligence collection and Soldierplacement to changethe current system ofvertical echelons to asingle integrated net-work with relevantinformation accessibleby all Soldiers.

The Theater Opera-tions Co. supportsthe warfighter withmultidisciplined, full-spectrum intelligenceactivities that resultin relevant data andon-demand supportto improve warningand reaction time,provide situationalunderstanding in support of theaterengagement and security cooperation,force protection operations and precision action by engaged forces.Operationally responsive, the TheaterOperations Co., through TO, usesDCGS-A to convey all intelligence

disciplines as one intelligence appara-tus to provide sustained recognition in

order to identifythreats and provideindications and warn-ings, prevent battle-field ambiguity andcover-down on tacti-cal and operationalintelligence gaps, andsupport emerging re-quirements and en-gaged forces. Addi-tionally, the TheaterOperations Co.’sprincipal missionfocus in support ofengaged forces in-cludes: ISR opera-tions, indications andwarning, ground

order of battle, precision engagement,mobility and information security. Regionally focused operations enableday-to-day interaction and process refinement with engaged forces andprovide extensive synergy in Joint andcombined operational environments.

The Theater Operations Co. supportsengaged forces using DCGS-A with adetailed set of refined business prac-tices currently in place within the or-ganization’s single-source intelligenceproduction sections. Each section(Measurement and Signals Intelli-gence, Imagery Intelligence, SignalsIntelligence and Counterintelligence/Human Intelligence) has developed, oris developing, a set of procedures thatbuild credibility with the unit on theground, streamline the requirementsprocess and are Web-enabled to reducedissemination time.

The single-source production sectionsare tied together by the collection man-ager through the command and controlvisualization center responsible formaintaining focus on the engagedforces’ requirements and battle rhythm.This Battle Captain Visualization cen-ter is also directly responsible for thecross-queuing of requirements amongthe individual single-source producers,enabling requirements managers toquickly identify the intelligence gaps,


ARMY AL&T

Because of the significant

amount of real-life research

conducted in developing

the IDC/JIOC-I

capabilities and the PM

DCGS-A’s implementation

of sound acquisition

principles early in the

program, supportability

issues were addressed up

front and this investment

will yield greatly reduced

life-cycle ownership costs.

An M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle crew from 1st Battalion, 36th InfantryRegiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, moves into overwatchposition during a combat patrol in Tal Afar, Iraq. DCGS-A V2 is helpingSoldiers on point identify potential enemy threats more quickly and withgreater reliability. (USAF photo by SSGT Aaron Allmon, 1CCS.)


and adjust taking and production re-quirements to support emerging battle-field requirements for engaged forces.

INSCOM’s goal is to achieve DCGS-A(Fixed) Early Capability at the fiveMIBs by the end of FY07. That goalwill be mitigated by funding andschedule constraints. However, capa-bilities at the 513th MIB and 66th MIGroup are mature enough to allow forthe next phase of operationalizing thesystem, which includes installation ofDCGS-A V4 and the operational in-stanciation of DCGS-A V2.

LTC ROBERT SNYDER is the Deputy

Director of Futures, Headquarters INSCOM.He was the Lead Project Officer for JIOC-IDCGS-A V2. Prior to this assignment, hewas the Current Analysis Chief on the U.S.Forces Korea J2 Staff where he was intro-duced to many of these intelligence capabil-ities through Project Morning Calm. Heholds a B.S. in criminal justice from theUniversity of Nebraska.

DANA COLLIER is the GovernmentLead for the INSCOM DCGS-A (Fixed)Program Management Office. PMDCGS-A has been delegated as the Executive Agency for DCGS-A (Fixed)

to INSCOM at Fort Belvoir, VA. She

has a B.S. in psychology from California State University. Collier is an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel with more than23 years in the MI Combat Developmentand Materiel Development arenas.

MICHAEL G. AJHAR is a General Dy-namics contractor and the Systems Inte-gration Manager at the 513th MIB, FortGordon, GA, where he is responsible forDCGS-A integration. Ajhar is a retiredArmy Signals Intelligence Chief WarrantOfficer with more than 27 years of experi-ence in intelligence production, collectionmanagement and systems integration.

ARMY AL&T

25APRIL - JUNE 2007

UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters from 2ndSquadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment, lift offfrom FOB McHenry, Iraq, carrying Soldiersfrom 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment,for an aerial patrol over the HawijahDistrict of Kirkuk Province, Feb. 12, 2007.(U.S. Army photo by SFC Michael Guillory.)



ARMY AL&T

DCGS-A V3 — An Innovative Approach to Design and Development Between

Government and IndustryAlan S. Hansen and LTC Daniel Cunningham

The Army has developed an array of intelligence Programs of Record (PORs)

possessing exceptional capabilities. A common element shared with all intel-

ligence systems are their unique ground processing facilities. However, the

ability to share data or cross-correlate information between intelligence systems in

near real-time is extremely difficult and rarely occurs in operational environments.

The Joint Intelligence Operations Capability-Iraq (JIOC-I) is an Army G-2/U.S. Army

Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) initiative that recently transitioned to

Project Manager Distributed Common Ground Systems-Army (PM DCGS-A). This

effort merges various intelligence products into a unified operational view providing

the Soldier with a more accurate representation of situations and events while fol-

lowing the Army DCGS-A program’s system architectural goals.


ARMY AL&T

27APRIL - JUNE 2007

SPC Aaron Lawrence, 1st Battalion, 13th ArmorRegiment, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division,maintains radio contact with local units followingan improvised explosive device detonation nearTarmiya, Iraq. Better ISR products and analyseswill help U.S. troops pinpoint insurgents morequickly before triggermen can rein destruction oninnocent Iraqi citizens. (USAF photo by TSGTRussell E. Cooley IV.)

In December 2005, the Army G-2and INSCOM fielded a Quick-Reaction Capability (QRC) calledJIOC-I. Deployed on a flat network,JIOC-I provided Soldiers with ameans of obtaining intelligence dataseamlessly across multiple echelons,right down to the individual warfighter.The JIOC-I system’s primarystrengths are its ability to ingest data-bases and sensor information from asmany sources as possible, and thenconnect this information to the analysts and operators hosted on thenetwork. JIOC-I also provides theSoldier access to an array of analyticaltools necessary to support counter-terrorist and counterinsurgency opera-tions. In June 2006, JIOC-I missionmanagement was transitioned to PMDCGS-A. Formally named DCGS-AVersion 3 (V3), the effort merged theDCGS-A Spiral 4 program using theJIOC-I as the systems baseline.

Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate (I2WD)The U.S. Army Research, Develop-ment and Engineering Command(RDECOM) I2WD has providedtechnical and engineering support on

the Common Ground Station (CGS)program for the past several years andcurrently supports the PM on theDCGS-A mission. PM DCGS-Aturned to I2WD and its unique capa-bility with intelligence systems prod-uct development, which includedknowledge of existing POR systems,and its core infrastructure and on-sitefacilities. The I2WD, located at FortMonmouth, NJ, has recognized theneed for net-centric integration expe-rience and advancedtechnology insertionin support of theArmy’s next genera-tion intelligencegathering systems.PM DCGS-A initi-ated the developmentof a Systems Integra-tion Laboratory(SIL) hosted atI2WD. The SIL isan outgrowth ofwork performed on the CGS pro-gram, internal technology-based(tech-based) initiatives in informationfusion and various other intelligenceproducts and exploitation tools.Moreover, the I2WD SIL has

provided technical support on legacysystems such as CGS, GuardrailCommon Sensor, All Source AnalysisSystem (ASAS) and other POR sys-tems projected for migration to thefuture DCGS-A.

As currently established, the SIL is agovernment-managed venue possess-ing state-of-the-art infrastructurewith the capability to host and sup-port the development, integration

and testing ofDCGS-A productsand services. Fur-ther, the SIL pro-vides an operational,modeling and simu-lation environmentfor user communitiesto host their prod-ucts for demonstra-tion. In addition,the SIL offers an in-dependent environ-

ment permitting users the ability to“bench test” or validate through in-teraction in a realistic synthetic envi-ronment and permit system configu-ration management before produc-tion and fielding.

The SIL is an outgrowth

of work performed on

the CGS program,

internal tech-based

initiatives in information

fusion and various other

intelligence products and

exploitation tools.


Current federation connectivity existsbetween the SIL and other major pro-gram participants. These participantsinclude operational activities such asINSCOM’s Information DominanceCenter, the Army DCGS Fixed Sitesand Joint Improvised Explosive DeviceDefeat Organization; research and de-velopment SILs including the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Defense GroundSystem-Experimental (DGS-X);DCGS-Navy; Future Combat Systems(FCS) Command, Control, Commu-nications, Computers, Intelligence,Surveillance and Reconnaissance(C4ISR) Laboratory; U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Life

Cycle Management Command; andindustry contractor facilities. Using afederated SIL approach has allowed in-dependent development of systemproducts at dispersed contractor andgovernment sites, has enabled initialad-hoc system testing through simula-tion and has provided immediate feed-back on system design and functional-ity to system developers.

In responding to the Army’s Currentand Future Force warfighting require-ments, with respect to the DCGS-Asystem architecture JIOC-I QRC ob-jectives, decision makers identified sig-nificant project initiatives and goals. A

primary target goal is the developmentof V3 to provide a common frame-work, leveraging the strengths ofJIOC-I and incorporating them into aDCGS-A enterprise. In conjunctionwith this goal, the DCGS-A V3 initia-tive would design and fabricate for theoperator/analyst a Multi-FunctionWork Station (MFWS) having 4-D visualization, mapping services and an analyst tool suite supporting datamining, correlation, link analysis andinteroperability with the existing ArmyBattle Command System (ABCS). Theinitial capability is scheduled for deliv-ery to the Central Technical SupportFacility (CTSF) at Fort Hood, TX, fortesting and accreditation. Finally, theDCGS-A V3 build must possess thedesign flexibility to support migrationof functionality and capabilities fromexisting POR intelligence systems.

Acquisition and Development ModelThe design, development and fieldingof the DCGS-A V3 capability has fol-lowed a nontraditional approach by


ARMY AL&T

The DCGS-A SIL is providing next generation net-centric integration capabilityand advanced technology insertion for today’s and tomorrow’s intelligencegathering systems to enhance Soldier battlefield situational understanding.(Photo courtesy of DCGS-A SIL.)

System/FunctionalityABCS Interoperability ServicesDIBWork Suite Software Enhancements

Map Visualization ServicesMFWSSoftware IntegrationTesting and Fielding

Responsible ProponentOverwatch SystemsRaytheon Corp.Science Applications InternationalCorp. (SAIC)TEC/Northrop Grumman Corp. (NGC)I2WDI2WD/AIIPM DCGS-A/NGC/SAIC

Figure 1. DCGS-A V3 Primary Systems’ Functions and Proponents


having the I2WD laboratory facilityperform the integration and pre-deployment testing of a fielded opera-tional system. Designated as the prod-uct development lead, I2WD workedside-by-side with industry contractorsand other government agencies in thisunique combination of expertise towarda common goal of fielding the V3system on a very short schedule. As thelead, I2WD carried out all PreliminaryDesign Review and Critical Design Re-view functions normally performed byan industry Lead Systems Integrationcontractor. Figure 1 on Page 28 lists themajor team members and their associ-ated system functional area. By usingthe federated SIL approach already described, concurrent design and devel-opment for the major system elementsenabled the aggressive schedule requiredto meet PM DCGS-A program require-ments. In addition, by designating a

government entity as the lead, the PMand other government managers hadunrestricted instantaneous access to thedevelopment process.

As illustrated in Figure 2, the plannedgovernment/industry integration andtest schedule for the DCGS-A V3 sys-tems and capabilities was conducted atthe I2WD SIL facility Septemberthrough October 2006 with a sched-uled deployment soon thereafter. Theschedule clearly shows the short devel-opment cycle driven by the effort. Asseen in the schedule, the developmentteam performed extensive systems andintegration testing compared to thetime spent on development, conse-quently helping to mitigate potentialintegration difficulties. For theDCGS-A V3 development and fielding, I2WD and PM DCGS-A decided on an incremental approach

by phasing in new capabilities overtime, thereby ensuring an achievablefielding schedule. The ability to incor-porate the entire functionality in aninitial build as required by the U.S.Army Training and Doctrine Com-mand (TRADOC) Capabilities Man-ager (TCM) was clearly unfeasible inthe target time frame because of thevast list of capabilities required andtheir complexity to implement. There-fore, the TCM prioritized functionalcapabilities into major capability areasand the development team worked to-ward scheduled incremental releases.

The highest priorities concerned wereaccess to data by all echelons from battalion to theater, the use of an en-terprise data management architectureand the provision of ISR data reachoperations. In addition to the data in-teroperability requirements, enhanced

ARMY AL&T

29APRIL - JUNE 2007

DIB – DCGS Integration BackboneIATT Docs – Interim Authority to Test

SSL – Secure Socket LayerSSO – Single Sign-On

SW – SoftwareTRR – Technical Readiness Review

Key:

Figure 2. DCGS-A V3 Integration and Testing Schedule


functionality would be required to sup-port the user with visualization ofgeospatial products and contextual datain conjunction with “all source” analysistools. A benefit of using an incrementalapproach permits the operators to workwith the system capabilities and provideinput back to the engineering teams onimprovements, enhancements or newfunctions not previously considered.

Another critical issue in planning theDCGS-A V3 development processconcerned using the DCGS Integra-tion Backbone (DIB). As a buildingblock for net-centricity, the DIB pro-vides a means to share informationacross the intelligence enterprise.Being developed by the USAF, theDIB presented the V3 program withunanticipated challenges as it necessi-tated a synchronization of releases that

required adjustments to the overall V3software integration schedule. In addi-tion, as with the DIB, the FCS architec-ture and system applications will alsohave a direct impact on the DCGS-Asystem design and im-plementation. As FCScapabilities — for ex-ample Level 1 Fusionand Sensor Manage-ment functions — arebeing leveraged byDCGS-A, these updateswill also influence theDCGS-A system’sschedule and opera-tional capability. There-fore, having an incremental approach al-lows the design team to mitigate anyunanticipated effects encountered withnew DIB releases and FCS functionalityon the other system software.

AccomplishmentsAs a precursor to this effort, I2WDachieved a major milestone with DIBintegration into an overall DCGS-Aarchitecture. I2WD designed, devel-oped and implemented a ResourceAdapter software component betweentarget POR systems and the DIB.This exposed POR intelligence prod-ucts to the enterprise service. TheDCGS-A Spiral 4 demonstrationshowed that it was possible to transferdata from Army POR systems, such asCGS, ASAS-Light, Integrated Meteo-rological and Environmental TerrainSystems, and Advanced Field ArtilleryTargeting Designation System, usingthe DIB, and that Army POR datacould be displayed on the USAFDGS-X Portal. As far as we know, thiswas the first application of the DIB ona system. Another DCGS-A V3“alpha” (V3.0a) system build accom-plishment was the integration and de-livery of four Work Suites to theCTSF in June 2006, and formal train-ing for its staff. This currently placesthe V3.0a Work Suites under CTSFformal Configuration Management.The delivered systems are designatedunder an Interim Authority to Test,thereby following a path leading to-ward final field certification of system

hardware and soft-ware components.

The near-term ap-proach for theDCGS-A V3 projectincludes obtaining anInterim Authority toOperate by the endof 2007. This willpermit formal inter-operability testing

with the other POR systems and pro-vide a pathway to certify V3 as afielded capability.


ARMY AL&T

Former Secretary of the Army Dr. Francis J. Harvey (left) and Army Chief Information Officer/G-6 LTGSteven W. Boutelle (center) review digital maps and imagery produced for C4ISR systems by theConfiguration Management Shop, CTSF, during a visit to Fort Hood. Looking on are LTG Thomas F. Metz(center right), then III Corps and Fort Hood Commanding General, and COL Evin Planto (right), Office ofthe G-6. (DOD photo by Grazyna Musick.)

The DCGS-A V3 build

must possess the design

flexibility to support

migration of functionality

and capabilities from

existing POR intelligence

systems.


Furthermore, a noteworthy success wasthe horizontal integration at brigadebetween ABCS andthe JIOC-I system.This now provides op-erators and command-ers with quicker andmore reliable access toDCGS-A intelligenceinformation. Never-theless, the most sig-nificant accomplish-ment and consequenceof the effort resideswith transitioning V3to the DCGS-A V4 ef-fort that is currentlyunderway.

The Way AheadThe DCGS-A V3 program has suc-cessfully demonstrated that govern-ment and industry teams can work ina cooperative environment toward aquick-reaction solution together, whilehaving a government entity lead the

effort. This initiative has provided anunprecedented capability and function-

ality for Soldiers inthe field for intelli-gence gathering anddata exploitation. TheDCGS-A V3 effortaddresses core tech-nology areas by pro-viding a unified dis-play of intelligenceproducts to the opera-tor on the MFWSwhile using the DIBarchitecture. For thefuture, the DCGS-ASIL will continue per-forming experimentallaboratory work on

emerging technologies in support ofPM DCGS-A. As the feasibility ofthese technologies matures and attainsTechnology Readiness Level 6 or be-yond, I2WD envisions using the SILrather than a full production environ-ment for initial integration and testing.

This methodologyprovides the bestoption for PMDCGS-A to incor-porate newer capa-bilities or technolo-gies while mitigat-ing risk on the future DCGS-Aproduction contractand subsequentproduct improve-ments using theI2WD SIL as andadjunct to the fu-ture LSI contractor.

Another goal forthe V3 effort is toobtain formal Cer-tification to Oper-ate in the field,leading to classifica-tion of the system

as a Limited Unit Production (LUT).By attaining the LUT designation, thefielded system will have full field andlogistic support and not suffer fromidentification as a piece of laboratoryequipment. In addition, the V3 devel-opment team will fulfill capabilitiesleft out of the V3.0 system build, suchas full interoperability of ABCS atbrigade and other echelons. Other up-grades may include any necessary sys-tem enhancements and additional soft-ware functionality initiated by users inthe field for a V3.01 system build con-ducted in March 2007. Most impor-tantly, the V3 system potentiallymoves from an associate to a core bat-tle command membership, providing apath toward the future ArmywideDCGS vision.

ALAN S. HANSEN is the Program Development Lead for the DCGS-A V3program in support of PM DCGS-A.Hansen is also the Senior Technical Advi-sor for information fusion technologies de-velopment at RDECOM I2WD. Heholds a B.S. in electrical engineering fromPratt Institute and is Level III certified inprogram management and systems planning,research, development and engineering.

LTC DANIEL CUNNINGHAM is thePM Intelligence Fusion. He holds a B.S.from the U.S. Military Academy and hismilitary education includes the Field Ar-tillery Officer Basic and Advanced courses,the Combined Arms Service Staff School,the Command and General Staff College,the Material Acquisition ManagementCourse, the Program Manager’s ToolsCourse, the Program Management OfficeCourse and the Program Manager’s SkillsCourse. Cunningham is Level III certifiedin program management and is an ArmyAcquisition Corps member.

ARMY AL&T

31APRIL - JUNE 2007

The DCGS-A V3 Work Suite with MFWS Laptop will greatly enhancebattlefield commander and Soldier situational understanding throughbetter ISR integration capabilities. (Photo courtesy of Joseph Walerko,U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development andEngineering Center.)

A benefit of using an

incremental approach

permits the operators to

work with the system

capabilities and provide

input back to the

engineering teams on

improvements,

enhancements or new

functions not previously

considered.



ARMY AL&T

DCGS-A V4 — Innovations for the WarfighterLTC Calvin Mitchell

The Distributed Common Ground Systems-Army (DCGS-A) is

the premier platform program for enterprise enablement of in-

telligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) information

technology (IT) assets. It is the Army’s ground portion of a Joint intel-

ligence, network-centric enterprise that unifies collection, processing,

analysis, extraction, query and visualization ISR capabilities for the

tactical environment. DCGS-A is an enterprise-enabling legacy, with

stovepiped systems to make them more responsive, extensible and dy-

namic to provide warfighters with more higher quality actionable in-

formation than ever before. The DCGS-A platform, delivered in incre-

ments, will result in a combined, integrated system with capabilities

of the whole substantially greater than the sum of its parts.

DCGS-A V4, when fully operational, will provide continuous on-demand intelligence brokering to achievefull-spectrum dominance so that U.S. and coalition forces can react to ISR reports in a matter of minutesinstead of hours. Here, LTC Drew Meyerowich (center), Commander, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Brigade CombatTeam, 25th Infantry Division, discusses operational plans based on intelligence provided by his counterpartin the Iraqi 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Feb. 1, 2007, near Zanjaliah, Iraq. (U.S. AirForce (USAF) photo by MSGT Andy Dunaway.)


ARMY AL&T

33APRIL - JUNE 2007

With Version 4 (V4), the DCGS-Aprogram takes the next step towardthe DCGS-A objective of creating anet-centric, Web-enabled, enterprise-based and open architecture for ISRsystems. The DCGS-A end-state ar-chitecture will be capable of support-ing multiple, simultaneous, worldwideoperations through scalable and mod-ular system deployments. The result-ing enterprise architecture will inte-grate the current disparate ISR sys-tems via a Service-Oriented Architec-ture (SOA), providing a consolidatedand interoperable system of access forall DCGS Web-based services, appli-cations, tools and information.

The DCGS-A V4 program imple-ments many technical innovations overprevious DCGS-A iterations. In keep-ing with the crawl, walk, run approachto integrating the various Program ofRecord (POR) domains DCGS-A nowruns, V4 builds on and integrates all ofthe relevant capabilities of the success-ful V2 and V3 DCGS-A iterations,while bringing new capabilities andproviding the infrastructure founda-tion for future capabilities that were

never before possible. This article dis-cusses the innovations that the DCGS-A V4 program brings to bear to armour warfighters with the ISR capabili-ties needed to win the fight now andin the future.

SOADCGS-A implementsSOAs, which are de-fined by the idea thatthere exists within anenterprise, discrete ITcapabilities or servicesthat are discoverable,usable and reusableby remote users andapplications. Theseservices specify therules under whichthey provide capabili-ties and exchange in-formation. In the context of DCGS-AV4, the capabilities and data fromeach ISR domain are exposed as serv-ices available across the enterprise,rather than only to the traditionalusers of each domain’s capabilities.This architecture enables the informa-tion from each previously stand-alone

ISR system to be combined as fusedworkflows to provide more relevantand actionable information forwarfighters than ever before. The serv-ices approach enables easy integration

of new capabilities asthey become avail-able, without requir-ing changes to exist-ing capabilities. TheSOA foundation en-ables rapid develop-ment of new work-flows and capabilitiesacross the entire ISRspectrum and inter-operability with othersystems to meetwarfighter needs bothtoday and in the fore-seeable future.

As promising as an SOA is, the pathcan be a rocky one, but through care-ful management and planning, it canbe incremental. It is not an all ornothing integration approach, and thelong-term benefits are without ques-tion. V4 uses an Enterprise ServiceBus (ESB) as its SOA implementation

The resulting enterprise

architecture will

integrate the current

disparate ISR systems via

an SOA, providing a

consolidated and

interoperable system of

access for all DCGS

Web-based services,

applications, tools and

information.


to provide a man-ageable, well-structured infra-structure onwhich to integratevarious SOA com-ponents. ESBsconnect, controland mediate theinteractions be-tween applicationsand services.

Possibly, the mostimportant benefit of using an ESB torealize an SOA is that business logic,previously implemented in each intel-ligence application,can be moved into aseparate businesslogic engine with fullenterprise visibility,making the inte-grated system moreflexible and betterable to addresschanging business re-quirements, such as,in DCGS-A’s case,the need for moresophisticated fusionthan is availabletoday.

Multi-Intelligence (INT)ThreadsWhile significant steps have beentaken to provide actionable fused in-formation across domains in the exist-ing ISR systems, for the most part, thefusion of data from the various INTs isleft to the analysts. Because of theirarchitecture, state-of-the-art when theywere developed, the current INT sys-tems that provide fusion cannot beeasily and quickly modified to meetevolving warfighter requirements.Most use tightly coupled interfaces toother INT systems, making them ex-tremely difficult to maintain and

upgrade. The SOA approach employed by V4 consolidates existingdomain software and enables the

creation of newmulti-INT threadsthat do not exist incurrent PORs such ascollection planning,common operationalpicture, cross-queuingsensors, multi-INTfolders and others.In the past, newthread developmentrequired a significantsoftware develop-ment effort. WithV4, new threads be-come more of a busi-

ness logic configuration task than asoftware development exercise, en-abling DCGS-A to more quicklymeet evolving ISR requirements.

ConsolidatedPortal and MultifunctionWorkstation(MFWS)The V4 systemuses a portal asthe primary userinterface. Theportal enablesusers — assumingadequate commu-nications band-width — access to

the DCGS-A V4 system regardless ofwhere they are located in the DODenterprise. DCGS-A V4 also providesthe foundation to enable access fromvirtually any device capable of sup-porting a standard Internet browser,including personal digital assistantsand other lightweight access devices.The DCGS-A MFWS remains a criti-cal V4 component and is used prima-rily for applications not well suited toa portal, such as streaming data. Tothe extent possible, the portal andMFWS have a common look and feelto enable analysts to easily switch be-tween user interfaces.

Consolidated InfrastructureV4 consolidates multiple independentINT software systems into a singlesoftware infrastructure reducing serverfootprint, simplifying maintenance, re-ducing costs, increasing performance


ARMY AL&T

The SOA foundation

enables rapid

development of new

workflows and

capabilities across the

entire ISR spectrum and

interoperability with

other systems to meet

warfighter needs both

today and in the

foreseeable future.

DCGS-A V4 will enhance battle command response to enemyinsurgent movements, leading to greater accuracy in estimatingpotential targets. Here, SSG Bill Hatzman, Troop C, 4th Squadron,14th Cavalry Regiment, radios civilian movement information nearthe Iraq/Syria border. (USAF photo by TSGT Andy Dunaway.)

Intelligence analysis and information fusion provided by DCGS-A V4 will ensure that operational unitson the ground receive actionable intelligence rapidly. Here, U.S. Army Soldiers from 5th Battalion,20th Infantry Regiment, patrol the streets of Adhamiya, Iraq, with their Iraqi security force counterpartslast December in an effort to decrease sectarian violence and insurgent activity. (U.S. Army photo bySPC Jeffrey Alexander, 982nd Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)


and improving overall system securityand reliability. V4 also enables consol-idation of disparate INT data stores.In V4, the common functionalityneeded by multiple INT domains,such as enterprise access and query,collaboration, messaging, integrationinfrastructure services, the DCGS In-tegration Backbone(DIB) Metadata Cata-logue, portal frame-work, maintenance,communications hard-ware configuration andthe gateways to thelarger ISR enterprise,are all provided by thecore system infrastruc-ture, which reduces oreliminates functionalduplication, while pro-viding a common lookand feel for analystsacross the entire system.

Consolidated ModularFootprintFrom a hardware perspective, V4 uses aconsolidated server farm for all process-ing, providing more capability on lesshardware than the same stand-aloneINT systems in use today. In addition,V4 can be deployed in modules basedon mission type, enabling the rightfootprint sizing. As time progressesand processors become more powerful,

the footprint will continue to shrink,increasing mobility and reducing bothcapital and operational costs, all whileincreasing reliability.

The V4 SOA is an optimal way tobuild an integrated enterprise becausethe ESB streamlines SOA implemen-

tation. AlthoughSOA can be builtwithout an ESB, theESB allows businesslogic to be removedfrom the applicationsit integrates, exposedas Web services, andexecuted as a separateand configurablenon-coded process,greatly simplifyingand speeding cre-ation of new systemcapabilities. From

DCGS-A’s perspective, this meansmore advanced ISR fusion for battle-field commanders from existing andnew basic services.

V4 SOA implementation is key toachieving the DCGS-A vision of anintegrated, flexible, scalable, reliableand easily programmable ISR system.V4 provides the foundation that willenable warfighters to receive sophisti-cated, fused, timely and actionable in-formation based on raw data from all

current and future INT capabilities ina single system. In addition, DCGS-AV4 will employ Joint standards, protocols and services in a commonDIB-based architecture to enhance interoperability and integration.

Through the effort of government and industry subject matter experts, including ISR users from the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command Ca-pability Manager, working in concertwith the integrated product teams andtheir associated working groups, theProject Manager (PM) DCGS-A andindustry team is diligently working toensure the Army’s vision for a premierenterprise-enabled ISR platform.

LTC CALVIN MITCHELL is the PMFixed and Mobile Systems, DCGS-A. Heholds a B.S. in business management fromGrambling State University, an M.S. inmateriel acquisition management from theFlorida Institute of Technology and anM.A. in computer resources and informa-tion management from Webster Univer-sity. Mitchell’s military education includesthe Aviation Officer Basic and AdvancedCourses, Combined Arms Services StaffSchool, the Materiel Acquisition Manage-ment Course, Army Command and Gen-eral Staff Officer Course and the ExecutiveProgram Managers Course at the DefenseSystems Management College.

ARMY AL&T

35APRIL - JUNE 2007

V4 provides the

foundation that will

enable warfighters to

receive sophisticated,

fused, timely and

actionable information

based on raw data from

all current and future

INT capabilities in a

single system.

DCGS-A V4 will be capable of supportingmultiple, simultaneous, worldwide operationsthrough scalable, modular systemdeployments. Here, Soldiers from 1stBattalion, 68th Armored Regiment, 3rdBrigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division,conduct a population patrol operation in asmall village adjacent to Forward OperatingBase Warhorse, Iraq, last October. (USAFphoto by TSGT Michele A. Desrochers, 4thCombat Camera Squadron.)



ARMY AL&T

BG Genaro Dellarocco Discusses RDECOM Systems of Systems Integration

(SOSI)Michael I. Roddin and Cynthia D. Hermes

On Feb. 7, 2007, BG Genaro Dellarocco,

Deputy Commanding General (DCG) for

the Research, Development and Engineer-

ing Command (RDECOM) SOSI, met with Army

AL&T Magazine staff to discuss his organization’s

mission, initiatives and capabilities.

RDECOM SOSI takes its mission seriously: “To provide the right technology at theright place at the right time!” Here, SGT Nicholas Fate, 1st Brigade Combat Team,4th Infantry Division, relies on that technology to help him safely locate a weaponscache in a field near Mushahda, Iraq, last year. (U.S. Navy (USN) photo by MC1Michael Larson.)


Army AL&T: How does RDECOM’smission, to provide “the right technol-ogy at the right place at the righttime,” translate directly or indirectlyinto support for combatant command-ers [COCOMs] and their Soldiers onthe battlefield?

Dellarocco: We’ve got a lot of initia-tives in the pipeline in different stagesof development and ifwe can make thatpiece of equipment ordevice better, and itworks for thewarfighter, it’s on thebattlefield as soon aspossible. We have afairly significant bat-tlefield presence. Wehave the Science andTechnology Acquisi-tion Corps Advisor[STACA] who is part of the Multi-National Forces Iraqstaff. We are now onour sixth one. Theseare past O-6 level commanders or pro-gram managers [PMs] who go down-range and have earned quite a positive

reputation for providing informa-tion and support to thewarfighter. They ensure theright technology is deliveredat the right time in terms ofbeing a gatekeeper for Iraq.

Sometimes the right time isa couple of years, par-

ticularly with

basic technology research and new pro-totypes, which, for safety reasons, mustbe matured to the right level before wedeploy it for Soldier use. The rightplace may be Afghanistan or someother location. We’ve discovered somenew technology through JIEDDO[Joint Improvised Explosive DeviceDefeat Organization] to take there forpotential fielding. Not all technology

works in the mannerwe hoped it wouldgiven variations inenvironmental condi-tions. Every technol-ogy has the right timeand must go to theright place. Whenthe technology isready, we’ll take it tothe Soldier.

RDECOM has aglobal presence in 13countries. This in-cludes science advi-sors and Interna-tional Technology

Centers [ITCs]. We havethree O-6 commands forinternational technol-ogy integration. Theyare globally located inTokyo, Japan; London,England; and Santiago,Chile. We have scientistsand engineers whogo out

to industry, academia and defense mil-itary organizations to talk to them andsee what kind of technology they’vedeveloped that we can integrate intoour own R&D [research and develop-ment] initiatives. Also, we have sci-ence advisors at each of the COCOMs.We put RDECOM FAST [Field Assis-tance in Science and Technology(S&T)] STATs [S&T AssistanceTeams] in Iraq, and we’re up to about15 teams in country now. That’s beena very successful program for us.These men and women have beenaround R&D institutions for years,they belong to our command and theysupport our mission. That’s anotherpiece of how we’re actively supportingour warfighters and bringing technol-ogy to the field.

We’re also working with the RapidEquipping Force [REF]. I serve as theMilestone Decision Authority for them.We work to directly support them, andwe provide a lot of different types andlevels of support. For instance, CBSTelevision just gave us permission to usethe word “MacGyver.” We’re putting

volunteers — civilian engineers and sci-entists — in direct support of unitsoperating downrange in Iraq andcalling them “MacGyver teams.”So what are they going to do? Well,

what did MacGyver do? They’regoing to help provide battlefield-

expedient solutions.

ARMY AL&T

37APRIL - JUNE 2007

BG Dellarocco, DCG, RDECOM SOSI, discusseshis organization’s Joint collaborations with the

U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the DOE,among others, during his interview with ArmyAL&T Magazine. (U.S. Army photo by Richard

Mattox, Program Executive Office EnterpriseInformation Systems.)

We’re putting volunteers

— civilian engineers and

scientists — in direct

support of units operating

downrange in Iraq and

calling them “MacGyver

teams.” They’re going to

help provide battlefield-

expedient solutions. The

REF has some shops over

there and we’re bending

metal to see what works.


The REF has some shops over thereand we’re bending metal to see whatworks. We envision using these teamsas much as a recruiting tool for civil-ians, engineers and scientists as for ex-pedient resolution of emerging require-ments on the ground in the desert.

Because RDECOM is at a crossroadsof so many Army communities, anddue to the complexity of the acquisi-tion process when viewed across abroad range of commodities and tech-nology maturity, we are forced to de-velop advanced processes and tools tohelp us get our job done. To addressthis, we have established an EnterpriseIntegrated Product Team [IPT] thatfocuses on system-of-system enablingprocesses and tools in the areas of

Systems Engineering, TechnologyDemonstration, Modeling and Simula-tion [M&S] and Knowledge Manage-ment. This activity, coupled with ourtechnology integration efforts, is en-abling us to balance between Currentand Future Force activities whileachieving advancements in the way weoperate. A great example is the STEM[Science and Technology EnterpriseManagement] knowledge managementsystem. STEM is a collaborative effortacross all the S&T Army commandsand ASAALT [Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology] that enables us toview all of our S&T programs acrossmultiple views, supports coordinationfor operations in theater, enables collaboration across multiple

commodities and links us to the re-quirements activities in the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command[TRADOC] and in the program executive offices/program managementoffices (PEOs/PMOs).

Army AL&T: You mentioned thepipeline before. Historically, how dothe requirements from the battlefieldcome into the pipeline?

Dellarocco: Requirements from thebattlefield come to us in various forms,such as Joint Operational Needs State-ments, Immediate Warfighter Needs,10-liner requirements documents orsomething similar. They come inthrough our people, including theREF — who we send downrange —


ARMY AL&T

RDECOM SOSI takes initiatives that are in their development pipeline and makes that piece of equipment or device better. If it meets Soldier requirements, it’s onthe battlefield as soon as possible. Here, SPC Joshua Milstead, 506th Regimental Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, performs a battle-site zero on his rifle atthe small arms range at Forward Operating Base Rustimiyah, Iraq, last year. (USN photo by PH1 Bart A. Bauer.)


our STACAs, the STATs and feedbackfrom just about any source, frankly, in-cluding various Army Materiel Com-mand [AMC] sources. RDECOMCommand Sergeant Major [CSM] Al-civar brought back many lessonslearned. He was very active with thenoncommissioned officers and otherCSMs and put a structure in place toleverage their expertise that had beenoverlooked before. A lot of kudos goto him because he’s been able to collecta lot of valuable data and feedback.He’s got quite a network establishedand has done a really terrific job. Wehave an IPT that is focused on currentoperations support, and the FAST andthe IPT work together along with theAgile Development Center. I just re-organized the staff and put a colonelover all the current operations/force ac-tivities, and we’re spinning up to sup-port more JIEDDO activities as well.We’re going to become one of themajor sources of support for JIEDDOthrough our R&D and S&T initiativesand breakthrough technology.

Army AL&T: Current indicators esti-mate that 80 percent of the Army’sS&T enterprise is being managed byRDECOM. What are some of the keyS&T initiatives that RDECOM isworking on for the Army, especiallythe new SOSI initiative? What com-prises SOSI and how is it benefitingthe Army’s technology integrationacross Future Combat Systems [FCS]?

Dellarocco: We’re a staff elementtechnically focused on resource infor-mation and a catalyst to bring technol-ogy in, get it evaluated — a clearing-house if you will. Our command is13,000 strong with another 5,000contractors within the lab structureand we’re located all over the UnitedStates. What isn’t widely known isthat we have an agreement and reach-back capability with the Department

of Energy [DOE]. We’re associatedwith nine of their labs directly and wedo a lot of collaboration work withthem. We’ve been fostering that rela-tionship for the last 4 years. We’reworking a lot in terms of interagencycollaboration as well, and we’veteamed with the Navy on some criticalprojects. Last summer, we formallyengaged with the Office of Naval Re-search. RADM William E. LandayIII, Chief of Naval Research, and MGRoger A. Nadeau, CG RDECOM, re-viewed potential programs for collabo-ration. When we performed the datacall, it resulted in 17pages of collabora-tion programs. Pre-viously, no one knewthat because it was alot of engineers talk-ing to engineers.We’re reaching out tothe U.S. MarineCorps and the U.S.Air Force as well, tosee where potentialexists for collabora-tive efforts and wherewe can share test re-sults, research andtechnology transference. We alreadydo a lot of collaboration with theMarines, and we’re seeking to expandthat relationship by establishing formalties with my Marine counterpart.

We do everything from tactical evalua-tions to strategic road maps and sup-port the ASAALT staff in that regard.We support Chief Scientist Dr. ThomasH. Killion and his staff in executing hisgoals and functions. We are organizingan initiative to support the Army Ex-perimentation Task Force [AETF] atFort Bliss, TX. This office was origi-nally established to support FCS —and then the war occurred. Our focusthen shifted to the current fight. Whatwe’re now doing — although we still

have a lot of dual-use type develop-ments with FCS in supporting spinouttechnology and rapid fielding — iswe’re supporting other critical projectsas well. We’re now getting organized tosupport FCS and TRADOC AETF ef-forts at Fort Bliss. It’s an 8-year project.We’re spinning up to do that and pro-vide on-site support to various organi-zations developing technology for Sol-diers. We provide a lot of other sup-port such as M&S, training aids andtechnology development in integratingmany of their systems.

We have numerousCooperative Researchand DevelopmentAgreements — morethan 300 — withuniversities and col-leges throughout thecountry and a fewoverseas. We’re injust about every as-pect of industry aswell. One notableout of the Army Re-search Lab [ARL] isthe Army ResearchOffice [ARO] in Tri-

angle Park, NC. ARL and ARO havebeen in existence since World War II,so they have a rich heritage of support-ing Army R&D and S&T initiatives.

We’ve contributed to about 17 Nobellaureates. [See related story on Page76 of this issue.] We’ve funded, inpart and at some point in their careers,some of the research that went intotheir award-winning studies. Ofcourse, we fund a lot of research atuniversities and in the private sector aswell. We also contribute to a lot ofpatents and venture capital-type re-sourcing where appropriate. TheSmall Business Innovation Research[SBIR] program is also part of our or-ganization. SBIR was just realigned

ARMY AL&T

39APRIL - JUNE 2007

We evaluate technology

integration and provide

mission information for

the warfighter and

decision makers. The

future of land warfare

depends on the Army’s

ability to incorporate

S&T into the Future

Force.


from ARL to SOSI within RDECOMthis past fall and we are formally em-bracing the process. There is a lot ofroom for growing a better return oninvestment [ROI] and we’re takingsome positive steps to do that for theArmy. I think we can probably in-crease our ROI fairly well in the nextfew years by applying Lean Six Sigmaprinciples and techniques. We’velooked at all of our processes to seewhat we could improve. We foundareas where we could improve and re-fine our business processes so that wecan spend our money more efficiently.This will benefit everything frompatents to platform interjections tobattlefield solutions, near term. It’s aninteresting program with unlimitedroom for development, and we’re justnow scratching the surface.

As far as S&T initiatives go, RDE-COM takes science fiction and bringsit to reality. That’s the essence of a lotof our research in our labs and our Re-search, Development and EngineeringCenters [RDECs]. Some of the scien-tific discoveries are literally stuff thatyou might have read about in comicbooks or science fiction magazines, orsaw on television or in movies over theyears. Additionally, the Army’s Great-est Inventions program is managedhere at RDECOM. We do basic re-search (6.1) — that’s where a lot of thisstuff comes from. During 6.2 research,we get the application going and thenget the platform integration in 6.3 and6.4. We bring science fiction to realityusing the right technology and findingthe right place for it at the right time,all to fulfill battlefield requirementsthat benefit our Soldiers.

Army AL&T: You mentioned ITCs.How is the ITC presence actuallymanifested in technology integrationand the research support that you’redoing for specific organizations?

Dellarocco: Our robust ITC presenceaccomplishes several things. The factthat we have a uniformed O-6 repre-senting RDECOM, AMC and theArmy to become the technology am-bassador, the intent from a strategicstandpoint is that it provides us a pres-ence and a line of communication formany different international compa-nies, government agencies, universitiesand ministries of defense. So it’s an-other avenue where the ITCs con-tribute to the warfight by offering uptheir techniques or technologies to usfor us to evaluate and see if we canadopt that technology to existing fieldrequirements or future projects. Wehave a process to integrate, evaluateand then send those techniques ortechnologies to one of our RDECs orlaboratories for further understandingof what the technology actually does.Occasionally, we buy things directlyfrom overseas and field them for a par-ticular mission, solving technologychallenges that way. We also workwith academia within a particularcountry. Our guys are out there talk-ing about technology developmentfrom the standpoint of meeting imme-diate Soldier requirements. What thehost country gains are:

• Political benefits with interaction be-tween the U.S. and the host countryon a scientific level.

• Respect and intellect ability of scien-tists in the international world.

• Joining of the brightest science-minded people on a truly inspirationalcollaboration effort in one location.

• Economic impacts if we adopt some-thing and go into a joint venture orbuy something from them based ontheir technology development.

So there are a lot of win-win situationsout there that we foster in the R&Dand S&T communities.

Army AL&T: In your experience,have other countries or companiesbeen pretty forthcoming with theirtechnology?

Dellarocco: They come forward withit generally. It’s proprietary in manycases, and we understand the rules thatare associated with that. That’s whatthey hope for; they want us to buytheir technology because it works. Alot of the innovative technological de-velopment is evolving and is no longerbased solely in the United States or afew other technologically advancedcountries. It’s a global market econ-omy. Just look at the tremendoustechnological innovations and prod-ucts coming out of China, Korea, Tai-wan, Japan, India, Europe and Aus-tralia, among others. All those coun-tries have great technology bases. Wemonitor and look at them, establishrelationships to understand the tech-nology and try to leverage their tech-nology to benefit our Soldiers on thebattlefield. It’s the same way in Eu-rope where there are dozens of coun-tries that have special niches — every-thing from software writing to lensgrinding. This is also true of Canada,South America and Mexico. We hadnot really looked at Latin America asbeing a source of technology, but Mex-ico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile have afairly robust technology developmentcapability. Having a presence thereshows that we’re interested in theireconomy and the way they do busi-ness. There are some geopolitical posi-tive spinoffs as well to establishingthese working relationships.

Army AL&T: We are hearing a lot ofbuzz about AMC’s Rapid Support Net-work [RSN] and we know that RDE-COM is a major catalyst behind that.How is AMC leveraging RDECOM’sprocedures and capabilities into a focused, integrated and responsive


ARMY AL&T


network concentrating the AL&Tcommunity’s robust S&T capabilitiesto meet immediate warfighting needsthrough the RSN?

Dellarocco: We have a gap within thesupport structure of AMC and withinthe Army. PEOs and PMs have apretty robust process and support net-work. In AMC, they are called LifeCycle Management Commands[LCMCs]. There we put several or-ganizations together to support thePEOs/PMOs who are developingequipment, communications systemsand weapons platforms for our Sol-diers and the logistics systems that willsustain them. We feed the technologyinto the PMs via the RDECs and

industry and that’s how they get sup-ported. We have a group of customerssuch as the REF, the Asymmetric War-fare Group, JIEDDO and TechnologySupport Working Group that have re-quirements for support and materielsolutions and have funding. Whenthey come in with a funded require-ment, where do they get their supportfrom? Well, each LCMC is assignedparticular customers to support. Tocomplicate this process even further,many of these customers cross severalLCMC competencies. For instance,the REF and JIEDDO touch justabout every lab we have on the R&Dside and they touch a lot of PEOs andPMs as well.

So what was the AMC structure tosupport this very small, but high-profile, group of customers with directimpact on the battlefield? Previously,we weren’t organized to do that. Butnow, the RSN does two things. Firstof all, it establishes a process for life-cycle management of rapid acquisitionthat didn’t exist before. AMC is agreat command. It has a tremendouslogistics reputation and capability. Italso has a tremendous R&D and S&Tcapability — both are well known andrespected worldwide. What is notwidely known, but is germane to thevery foundation of the command, istheir contracting capability. The ac-quisition centers support every PEOand PM in the Army. So we needed

ARMY AL&T

41APRIL - JUNE 2007

RDECOM’s MacGyver teams are going to provide battlefield-expedient solutions to meet Soldier requirementson the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, Soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field ArtilleryRegiment, 25th Infantry Division, fire their M119A1 105mm Towed Howitzer during a fire mission outsideForward Operating Base Kalsu, Iraq, last November. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Sean A. Foley.)


to harness all three of those majorcommand capabilities into a processto support these special customers andto do it rapidly, given the vital natureof their business. That was the intentbehind the RSN. It’s embryonic, andwe’re still writing the processes for it.So the RSN will fill the void for life-cycle management of those types ofcustomer requirements. We’ll manageit here out of SOSI, in coordinationwith the AMC G-3. It’s pretty inter-esting stuff.

Army AL&T: I don’t think our read-ers have a firm grasp of what SOSI isand what it does. In just a few sen-tences, could you summarize basically

what SOSI is and the support thatyou’re providing?

Dellarocco: We’re a staff element ofRDECOM Headquarters. SOSI wascreated for integration of all technolo-gies that are being worked on withinRDECOM labs. The hope is we willbe able to eliminate duplicated effortsbetween the separate RDECOM or-ganizations as well as save time andmoney. We evaluate technology inte-gration and provide mission informa-tion for the warfighter and decisionmakers. As you can imagine, there’s alot of information to process, evaluateand then translate into potential capa-bilities. We evaluate it, disseminate it

and package it. The future of landwarfare depends on the Army’s abilityto incorporate S&T into the FutureForce. Lots of coordination is in-volved — that’s the integration aspect.From a SOSI aspect, we touch justabout every platform the Army has inone way or another. We are consoli-dating S&T efforts that accelerate FCStechnology transition.

SOSI’s organizational mission is to de-liver the right technology informationat the right time — for the decisionmaker and the warfighter. To accom-plish this wide-ranging mission, somekey SOSI initiatives focus on tech-nology integration and capability


ARMY AL&T

Soldiers depend on the Army’s corporatelaboratory to deliver the scientificdiscoveries, technological advances andanalyses that provide warfighters thecapabilities with which to execute full-spectrum operations. ARL’s investmentportfolio is focused on maturingtechnologies for transition to the RDECs,PEOs/PMOs and Army Test andEvaluation Command (ATEC). Here(inset), an ARL scientist experiments withemerging laser technology. (U.S. Armyphoto courtesy of ARL.) A Soldier from1st Brigade Combat Team, 125th FieldArtillery Regiment, Minnesota ArmyNational Guard, practices firing a non-lethal laser in preparation for a convoysupport mission, Scania, Iraq, lastNovember. Technology he is using in thefield today is a result of ARL researchconducted at an RDEC or ATEC facility.(U.S. Army photo by 1LT JohnMastbergen.)


assessment by leveraging the globaltechnology base; enterprisewide tools,processes and capabilities; and inte-grating M&S and technology demon-stration activities.

Now, do we touch missiles? Yes, butwe don’t do a lot of R&D with themissile defense guys per se. We dohave a missile capability that does tran-scend that. Do we do medical? Well,yes, we support the medical commu-nity as well. We collaborate with theRDECs and the Medical Research andMateriel Command, but they havetheir own R&D-focused activities.That’s part of SOSI’scoordination efforts.

Army AL&T: Youmentioned beforethat RDECOMserves as a clearing-house for informa-tion, especially tech-nology information.How is that informa-tion integrated among the PEO andLCMC communities?

Dellarocco: My predecessor, BGMark Brown, gets all the credit for es-tablishing that process. We’ve got a lotof commodities, including survivabil-ity, and stood up 11 IPTs, stretchingfrom hardware to software to informa-tion technology integration. The IPTshave membership from the TRADOCand LCMC community and the otherservices as appropriate. Working to-gether, the IPTs perform technologyassessments and develop road maps towork things around. The DOE is alsopart of our IPT. Some of the IPTs aresmall, about 40-50 people, while oth-ers are more than 150. All told, the11 IPTs tap about 800 people on anygiven day. We put the information to-gether from every source, from the in-ternational guys to the guys buying the

newspapers. We look at this informa-tion, determine what’s useful and thenpass it to the people who actually havethe authority to make decisions,whether it’s the lab, the ASAALT staffor other decision makers.

Army AL&T: What total dollaramount is expended annually by RDE-COM for basic S&T research? Howmuch is spent on applied research?How much is spent on advanced tech-nology development?

Dellarocco: While our annual operat-ing budget exceeds $5 billion, about

half of our S&Tbudget is Congres-sional Adds and it’swell over a billiondollars. The Presi-dent’s Budget, cou-pled with the Con-gressional Adds, is re-ally the core of ourS&T and R&Dfunding. Another

very large mission and part of ourbudget is engineering matrix support,which surpasses the budget levels ofour S&T. So we have two very largemission areas. We provide the engi-neering support for most of the PEOsand PMOs in the Army, as well as forother defense agencies that may comein with reimbursables to hire our tal-ents. We provide a good source of en-gineering support. So when you thinkabout the 13,000-plus employees, a lotof them provide PEO/PMO supportand that’s in the neighborhood ofabout $1.7 billion annually. It’s apretty hefty budget, but then again, wetouch every aspect of AL&T one wayor another, directly or in support, toget the right technology at the rightplace at the right time. And we havefun bringing science fiction to reality.This is the best job for a new one starthat the Army Acquisition Corps has

to offer, and I’m extremely proud ofwhat the SOSI family does to supportour COCOMs and Soldiers at the “tipof the spear” every day!

MICHAEL I. RODDIN is the U.S. ArmyAcquisition Support Center StrategicCommunications Director and ArmyAL&T Magazine Editor-in-Chief. He hasB.S. degrees in English and journalismfrom the University of Maine and an M.A.in marketing from the University ofSouthern California. Roddin is a formerArmy Advertising Program Manager andthree-time Army Keith L. Ware JournalismAward recipient. In 2005, he was selectedby the Secretary of the Army for Editor-of-the-Year Honors.

CYNTHIA D. HERMES is Executive Ed-itor of Army AL&T Magazine. In her 27years of government service, she hasworked as an editor for both the Army andNavy. Hermes previously worked at theNavy Tactical Support Activity (NTSA) ed-iting U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircraftprocedural and tactical manuals. She wasalso a program analyst at NTSA managingthe government contract for file conversionof these manuals from print to CD-ROMand overseeing mass CD-ROM productionand distribution.

ARMY AL&T

43APRIL - JUNE 2007

I’m extremely proud of

what the SOSI family

does to support our

COCOMs and Soldiers

at the “tip of the spear”

every day!



ARMY AL&T

International Technology Centers(ITCs) Search the World to Bring

New Technologies to the FieldMike J. Dudley and Ken Deylami

The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command’s

(RDECOM’s) overarching goal is to support the current fight and

the Current and Future Force by adding innovative technologies

and reducing the size and weight of technological pieces and platforms

for Soldiers. With RDECOM comprising 80 percent of the Army’s sci-

ence and technology (S&T) enterprise, it is important that this organiza-

tion remain on the forefront of technology. To maintain this cutting-edge

position, RDECOM’s ITCs are constantly searching the globe for state-of-

the-art equipment, cooperative opportunities with allied and friendly

nations, and both applied and basic research opportunities.

The M93A1 Fox Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance System (NBCRS) vehicle detects, identifies andmarks areas of nuclear or chemical contamination, and reports accurate information to supported commandersin real time. The NBCRS can also collect soil, water and vegetation samples for analysis. Hazards to crewmembers are minimized through the presence of vehicle NBC collective protection and through positiveoverpressure with heating and cooling for the crew. (U.S. Army file photo.)


The U.S. Army has the lead in bring-ing forward technologies that willmeet Soldier needs and improve capa-bilities within our own force and thoseof our coalition partners. The ITCswere established to help meet this ob-jective. Their mission is to find thegreatest technology and to leveragepartnerships to bring new develop-ments to the field quickly and keepabreast of new research and develop-ment (R&D) trends leading to theS&T breakthroughs of tomorrow. Thenine ITCs search the world for emerg-ing technologies from internationalcommercial industry, universities andgovernment and military R&D organi-zations involved in S&T. In addition,they seek out opportunities to meetwith foreign S&T sources and workfeverishly to develop strong relation-ships and build partnerships with

other overseas and domestic U.S. gov-ernment offices; Research, Develop-ment and Engineering Centers(RDECs); and the U.S. Army Re-search Laboratory (ARL) to supportthe Army’s S&T investment strategy.

Global Search for S&T Developments The ITC’s primary goal is to seekniche capabilities that can’t be founddomestically or technologies that aresuperior to our own. The ITCs arelooking for “juicy technology” —those exciting innovations that meetthe relevant technology needs of ourSoldiers in the field and provide theArmy a significant return on invest-ment (ROI). The goal is to find andassess technology to provide Armyleadership with those developmentsthat reduce Soldier load, increase

deployment speed, enhance the abili-ties and capabilities of outfitting theCurrent and Future Force and preventtechnological surprise on the battlefield.

The ITCs, as the international tech-nology scouts for the U.S. Army, knowwhere the state-of-the-art technologiesare located and/or are being developed.The nine ITCs located throughout theworld work through an interconnectednetwork of contacts to fulfill their re-spective missions. The figure on Page46 depicts the ITC office locations(United Kingdom (U.K.), Germany,France, Japan, Australia, Singapore,Argentina, Chile and Canada). Manyof these offices are collocated with theU.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Researchand the U.S. Air Force’s Office of Sci-entific Research counterpart technol-ogy search teams. This supports a

ARMY AL&T

45APRIL - JUNE 2007


highly collaborative tri-service relation-ship, allowing the Army to share information and leads with our sisterservices. Sometimes the other servicesare looking for solutions to similar re-quirements, and the ITCs can collabo-rate fully on potential solutions. Forexample, the Navy is looking for alter-native power and energy technologysolutions for ships while the Armyneeds the same technology, but at amuch smaller scale, weight and size toplace on several different tacticalwheeled vehicle platforms.

In the event that the ITCs discover orare tipped off about a nascent technol-ogy, they can leverage the ForeignTechnology and Science AssessmentSupport (FTAS) program to bring thetechnology to fruition. This programis designed to provide limited “seedmoney” to develop technologies that

aren’t yet ready for full funding by theU.S. Army’s RDECs or ARL but areclose. The FTAS program providesopportunities for RDEC and ARL researchers to apply for funding to

undertake this development until theITC-discovered technology is suffi-ciently mature for full funding by theRDECs or ARL.

The ITC Network Concept at WorkBased on the vision of BG GenaroDellarocco, RDECOM Deputy Com-manding General for Systems of Sys-tems Integration (SOSI), key informa-tion from the ITC’s global “network,”such as available potential technologysolutions to the Army’s current and fu-ture materiel requirements, points ofcontact and updated information oninternational S&T activities and or-ganizations, will soon be available in-stantaneously. The ITCs are develop-ing a secure online tool that enablesauthorized users to have instant accessto this information. The updates fornew technologies and organizations


ARMY AL&T

The XM101 CROWS system integrates the MK19Grenade Machine Gun, M2 Machine Gun, M240BMedium Machine Gun and the M249 SquadAutomatic Weapon. The weapons operate from alarger ammunition supply than that of standardcrew-served weapons. With larger combat loads,the weapon is reloaded less, keeping the crewinside the vehicle and less prone to insurgentsmall-arms fire. (U.S. Army file photo.)

U.S. Army International Technology Centers (USAITCs)


entered by the ITCs in the online ITCNetwork tool will be date-sensitive toensure authorized users are accessingthe latest information. The networkwill also contain contact informationfor the U.S.-based international mili-tary and government offices the ITCsinteract with to achieve their missionobjectives, facilitating more efficientand productive technology leveragingfor our Soldiers in the field.

The ITC network tool, which willallow for global searches of all tech-nologies in the system at the touch of a button, will be maintained by designated authorized administratorsfrom each ITC and will reside inRDECOM’s S&T Enterprise

Management environment. The net-work will eventually include severaladded functions for providing sum-maries of new technology finds toRDECOM technol-ogy integrated productteams (IPTs), RDECs,ARL or directly to theRapid EquippingForce (REF) or JointImprovised ExplosiveDevice Defeat Orga-nization (JIEDDO) in support of theArmy’s Current andFuture Forces.

To keep on top of Soldier needs, theITCs hold semiannual conferences to

discuss the latest requirements fromthe field and to focus their priorities,including what types of technology theITCs need to find. They learn what

the IPTs, RDECs andARL are working on,discuss U.S. ArmyTraining and Doc-trine Command capa-bility needs and ascer-tain where the gapsare in S&T programsand where they needto focus their tech-nology searches.From this meeting,they return to their

posts around the world with a targetedtechnology search list. They search for

ARMY AL&T

47APRIL - JUNE 2007

The ITCs are looking for

“juicy technology” —

those exciting innovations

that meet the relevant

technology needs of our

Soldiers in the field and

provide the Army a

significant ROI.

The Buffalo heavily armored vehicle is being used by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan for routeclearing and counter-IED activities. Since their deployment to Iraq in 2003, Buffalo vehicles employed with explosiveordnance disposal teams and engineer units have taken more than 1,000 IED hits without a loss of life. The heavilyprotected Buffalo is a central element in the U.S. Army’s counter-IED “hunter-killer” concept that protects convoys againstthe threat of mines and IEDs. The vehicle’s equipment enables engineers to inspect suspected objects from a safe distance,using a robotic arm and video cameras operated from the relative safety of the protected cabin. Large windows of armoredglass provide good visibility to the sides of the vehicle to enable effective operation on route patrols and dealing withsuspected IEDs. (U.S. Army file photo.)


technologies in the following broadareas: network, biotechnology, robotics,current operations support, survivabil-ity, counter-improvised explosive devices (IEDs)/countermine, supporta-bility/maneuver sustainment, powerand energy, enterprise management,nanotechnology and lethality. The goalis to find the best technology anywherein the world to ensure RDECOM isable to get the right technology at theright time and place for the warfighter.

ChallengesThe ITCs strive to ensure that the bestSoldiers in the world have the bestequipment in the world. To do this,they examine international basic re-search, applied research efforts, keepabreast of advanced technology devel-opment, evaluate nondevelopmentalitems, commercial-off-the-shelf equip-ment or technologies that may meetU.S. Army requirements and, if they

do, enable advancement of Army S&Twhile saving development time andcost wherever possible.

One of the challenges ITC personnelface is false engineering promises.Companies occasionally make exagger-ated claims about a particular piece oftechnology, and those claims that areplausible must be tested. For technol-ogy with current operations applica-tion, the ITCs forward their technol-ogy “finds” to the RDECOM AgileDevelopment Center, the REF andJIEDDO to ensure technology is fullytested in relevant conditions. If thetechnology meets the requirement, theREF or JIEDDO buy it for expediteddelivery to Soldiers in the field.

Another challenge the ITCs face isproving the ROI to the Army for their efforts. The ITCs, with theirglobal presence, can seem costly at

approximately $9 million per year, es-pecially with long lead times in the ac-quisition life cycle before the benefit ofa piece of technology is evident. Thepace of searching for new technologies,sifting through the many leads andthen getting them through the assess-ment and evaluation phases does notalways lend itself to instant success sto-ries. However, when the ITCs find amuch-sought-after technology, the costsavings can be significant — years indesign and production time and mil-lions of dollars. This translates to amore efficient and effective productfor Army use.

A third challenge faced by the ITCs isthe so-called “not invented here syn-drome.” Sometimes the ITCs discovercomplete systems, components or al-ternative practices that have the poten-tial to greatly enhance performance of existing systems. However, these


ARMY AL&T

An M109A6 Paladin 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer, similarto the howitzer depicted here, fired a guided Excaliburprojectile a distance of 15 kilometers Sept. 15, 2006, at YumaProving Ground (YPG), AZ. The XM982 Excalibur rounddetonated within 7 meters of its target. Excalibur is the nextgeneration of projectiles being developed for the Army’sconventional tube-artillery weapons platforms. (Photocourtesy of the YPG Public Affairs Office.)


discoveries occasionally face skepticswho doubt their usefulness becausethey originate outside the U.S. To ensure the best technology is availablefor our troops, it is critical for both theArmy research community and themateriel developers to keep an openmind to discoveriesfrom abroad. TheITCs have workedtirelessly to breakthrough the not in-vented here syndromeby hosting seminars,facilitating visits andencouraging U.S. researchers to dialogwith their interna-tional counterpartsand examine and testtheir technology. Asa result, the ITCshave garnered praisefrom top Army lead-ership for their efforts to promote international armaments cooperation.

SuccessesThe ITCs have enabled win-win situa-tions for the United States and itscoalition partners. The equipmentthey have found and recommended forArmywide integration has saved count-less Soldiers’ lives and millions of dol-lars in development costs, and has alsoproven to be highly effective on thebattlefield. One well-publicized pieceof equipment that has been broughtinto the Army’s inventory due in partto ITC efforts is the Buffalo, devel-oped in South Africa. The heavily ar-mored Buffalo vehicle is designed togive patrols a closer look at suspectedIEDs. The vehicle is taller than a tankand equipped with a robotic arm thathas a pitchfork-like hand and a camerafor viewing hard-to-reach areas.

Other ITC equipment finds have in-cluded the Chemical Detector (U.K.),

the Common Remotely OperatedWeapon Station (CROWS) (Australia),the Excalibur (Sweden) and the Fox(Germany). The Chemical Detector isa lightweight chemical agent detectorthat exceeds the Joint Chemical AgentDetector’s requirements for personal

warning and protec-tion. By using thispiece of technologyfrom the U.K., theArmy saved 4 yearsand $330 million inR&D costs. TheCROWS is designedto allow Soldiers toshoot from variousvehicles while movingunder cover. TheArmy saved 2 yearsand $20 million indevelopment costs byadopting this piece ofequipment. The Ex-

calibur is a precision-guided, extended-range munition that improves accuracyfor the 155mm artillery projectile.This Swedish invention saved theArmy $57 million in R&D costs. TheFox is a type of mobile laboratory thattakes air, water and ground samples,and analyzes them instantly for signs ofweapons of mass destruction. This in-vention saved the Army 14 years in de-velopment time as well as millions incost avoidance.

ITCs’ ImportanceThe ITCs are an essential part of theS&T process. In addition to locatingand recommending the aforemen-tioned equipment for Armywide use,the ITCs have been integral in provid-ing the best technologies from aroundthe world to both our Soldiers and ourallies. The ITCs have raised the capa-bility and interoperability of ourtroops and have proven to be a drivingforce in getting S&T developmentsinto the hands of Soldiers quickly.

The equipment they have found hassaved countless Soldier lives as well assaved the Army and taxpayers millions ofdollars. By accessing technologies thatare already in development overseas, theITCs are able to meet Soldier needs inan efficient and effective way and free uplimited resources for additional R&Dand S&T initiatives that address emerg-ing Soldier field requirements.

MIKE J. DUDLEY is the Director, Interna-tional, Interagency, Industrial and Academia(3IA) Directorate, RDECOM SOSI. He isresponsible for identifying promising cutting-edge technology from all sourcesoutside the U.S. Army’s labs and RDECs sothat the technology can be evaluated for itspotential to meet the needs of both the cur-rent and future Army. He holds a B.A. insociology from the University of Virginiaand an M.A. in national security and strate-gic studies from the U.S. Naval War Col-lege. He is a Defense Acquisition Corpsmember, a graduate of the Defense Leader-ship and Management Program, the DODExecutive Leadership Development Pro-gram, Senior Executive Leadership Courseand the U.S. Army Defense AmmunitionCenter and School.

KEN DEYLAMI is the Program Manager,ITCs, in the 3IA Directorate, RDECOMSOSI. Prior to this position, he spent 7years providing engineering support to theU.S. Army weapon systems, and 5 yearsproviding service at the U.S. Army TankAutomotive Research, Development andEngineering Center’s National AutomotiveCenter in the advance technology platformsgroup, involved in technology search, evalu-ation and demonstration programs primarilyfor tactical wheeled vehicles. He holds aB.S in mechanical engineering from OxfordGrant University, U.K., and an M.S. in au-tomobile engineering from Cranfield Uni-versity, U.K.

ARMY AL&T

49APRIL - JUNE 2007

The ITCs are an essential

part of the S&T process.

In addition to locating

and recommending the

aforementioned

equipment for Armywide

use, the ITCs have been

integral in providing the

best technologies from

around the world to both

our Soldiers and our allies.



ARMY AL&T

Providing Life Cycle Management(LCM) Support for Rapid AcquisitionLTC Jonathan D. Long

The Rapid Support Network (RSN) is a U.S.

Army Materiel Command (AMC)-wide effort

to support immediate warfighter needs

(IWNs) requirements initiated by combatant com-

manders through real-time support within the LCM

acquisition, logistics and technology (AL&T) com-

munity. The purpose of the network, which was di-

rected Dec. 28, 2006, by GEN Benjamin S. Griffin,

AMC Commanding General, is to provide focused

AL&T support to special customers, including the

Rapid Equipping Force (REF), Joint Improvised Ex-

plosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO),

Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) and Technology

Support Working Group (TSWG). The U.S. Army

Research, Development and Engineering Command

(RDECOM) Systems of Systems Integration (SOSI)

office is leading the effort for AMC.


AMC’s support for the program execu-tive office/program management office(PEO/PMO) community is well or-ganized and already establishedthrough the Life Cycle ManagementCommands (LCMCs). However, for asmall group of high-profile customers,such as REF and JIEDDO, a gap inAMC’s LCM support exists. First,these customers aren’t assigned to aparticular LCMC and, in fact, theiractual needs cross multiple LCMCs.Second, they need rapid support andthe RSN helps to fill that void.

The RSN is not an organization, butrather a much-needed process, leverag-ing existing AMC procedures and ca-pabilities into an integrated and re-sponsive network, focusing the AL&Tcommunity’s robust capabilities tomeet IWNs as illustrated by the figureon Page 52. Currently, special cus-tomers do not benefit from AMC forcontracting, logistics and technologysupport to rapidly get warfighters whatthey need. The RSN will integrateand synchronize access to the LCMCs’extensive AL&T capabilities to sup-port rapid customer fulfillment requirements, improving AMC’s

response to the warfighter from weeksand months to hours and days.

BG Genaro Dellarocco, DeputyCommanding General (DCG),RDECOM SOSI, describes the RSN as“harnessing the jetstream of AMC” be-cause AMC alreadyprovides AL&T sup-port for Army prod-ucts through systemsand processes that arealready in place. Ac-cordingly, the support provided by theRSN will streamline the rapid acquisi-tion process and provide better docu-mentation so rapid acquisition can beinstitutionalized within the largerArmy acquisition model.

An integrated process team (IPT) wasorganized to establish the RSN’s oper-ational policies and procedures and tofine-tune the rapid acquisition supportprocess. The IPT is co-chaired by theRDECOM SOSI and AMC G-3(Current Operations). It consists of

more than 40 members, including rep-resentatives from AMC, the LCMCs,

RDECOM, REF,JIEDDO and the As-sistant Secretary ofthe Army for Acquisi-tion, Logistics andTechnology(ASAALT). Thisteam of experts hasmet weekly since De-cember 2006 throughteleconferences todiscuss how to bestimplement the RSNand work processsub-teams. The IPT

will continue to meet until the pilotprogram is launched.

Process and Goals The RSN process, based on the exist-ing AL&T network resident within theLCMCs, is designed to focus the capa-bilities of acquisition workforce expertsto meet emergent needs. The RSNseeks to pull the LCMC capabilitiesforward in the acquisition timeline tosupport initial requirements develop-ment, ensuring that needs can be tech-nically met and sustained once fielded.

ARMY AL&T

51APRIL - JUNE 2007

The RSN is a process that leverages existing AMC logistics procedures and capabilities into ahighly integrated and customer-responsive network addressing immediate Soldier battlefieldrequirements. Here, Soldiers from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team fire anillumination flare from their M1129 Stryker Mortar Carrier in an effort to expose terroristsplanting roadside bombs near Mosul, Iraq, last summer. (U.S. Air Force (USAF) photo byTSGT Jeremy T. Lock.)

The support provided by

the RSN will streamline

the rapid acquisition

process and provide better

documentation so rapid

acquisition can be

institutionalized within

the larger Army

acquisition model.


To do this, the RSN will focus existingLCMC capabilities to develop new solutions for the complex challengesfaced by Soldiers. The nature of thethreat conditions change daily and sodo the projects currently being workedby RSN special customers.

A primary reason AMC is undertakingthis effort is to better support therapid acquisition process. In the past,AMC’s AL&T capabilities were not in-volved up front in the sustainmentplanning for the REF, JIEDDO,

AWG or TSWG. These four cus-tomers are focused on fulfilling immediate requirements — those ful-filled in 180 days or less — and thushave been pulled ahead of the tradi-tional materiel development and ac-quisition capabilities. TraditionalArmy acquisition programs, which fol-low the DOD 5000 process, have beenviewed as requiring too much time tomeet IWNs.

The DOD 5000, The AcquisitionProcess, series is necessary for prudent

planning for and sustainment of major weapons programs. However,Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom(OEF/OIF) have proved there is a needto address IWNs with acquisition programs that are more responsive. By focusing a network dedicated tosupporting immediate requirements,the RSN initiative addresses a processgap in Army acquisition for IWNs.

The RSN is able to support the para-digm change of acquisition responsetime “from weeks and months to days


ARMY AL&T

AAE

T

S

C

W

A

R

F

I

G

H

T

E

R

RDECOM

RDEC

AMC G-3

PEO/PMs

Sustainment Flow

Acquisition Flow

ASC

USASAC

AMC

GENERATING FORCE OPERATING FORCE

ASAALT MILDEP DCG

Acq & Tech

DCG OPERATIONS &

READINESS

Iraq

Afghanistan

COCOM

Life Cycle Management

Commands

Aviation/Missile

Communications/Electronics

Joint Munitions

Soldier/Ground Systems

LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT

Materiel

Management

Industrial

Enterprise

Sustainment

Engineering

Insertion

Developmental

Engineering

Tech Insertion

Field Assistance in

Science &

Technology

Contracting

LARs

CapabilityGap

Task to LCMC

Requirements Packet

Match Commodity

AFSBs

A Seamless Interface

Special CustomersREF, JIEDDO, TSWG, AWG

The RSN will support the rapid acquisition process to meet IWNs by helping special customers such as REF, JIEDDO,AWG and TSWG speed their requirements through the existing acquisition process. An incoming requirement passesthrough the RSN and into the proper LCMC for analysis and, ultimately, procurement and fielding.

Acq & Tech – Acquisition and TechnologyASC – U.S. Army Sustainment CommandCOCOM – Combatant CommanderLAR – Logistics Assistance Representatives

MILDEP – Military DeputyOpns – OperationsTSC – Theater Support CommandUSASAC – U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

Key


and hours” by progressing through thevarious traditional development phasessimultaneously rather than sequen-tially. With the DOD 5000 structure,each product idea must pass through aset milestone before it can move to thenext phase with a normal time framefor meeting simplified requirements at180-plus days. The RSN will helpcondense the initial materiel develop-ment process into 39 days by movingpossible solutions through various ac-quisition phases concurrently. Deci-sions can be worked up front similarto milestones A, B and C in the first39 days. For example, instead ofspending 30-90 days looking at possi-ble technical solutions to a problem, a“quick-look” technical solution isworked by the RDECOM Agile De-velopment Center (ADC) within 72hours. Developing an acquisition planand contracting for the requirementswould take an additional 19 days orless, rather than 6 months to 1 year.

RSN brings the Army one step closer tofulfilling the LCMC promise — tounite the Army AL&T functions of thePEO and AMC sustainment structures.Traditionally, AMC has been viewed aslogistics and technology-focused andthe PEOs as acquisition-focused. Infact, the technical expertise for all threefunctions (AL&T) resides within theLCMCs. For engineering support, thePEOs rely on the technological expert-ise of engineers within AMC’s Arma-ment Research, Development and Engineering Center organizations, asthey depend on the LCMC AcquisitionCenters for procurement. In terms oflogistics support, most of the equip-ment the PEOs field is sustained by theLCMC sustainment centers. The coreacquisition capabilities are AMC capa-bilities with the exception of formalproduct management, which is theArmy Acquisition Executive’s (AAE’s)function. With these capabilities

networked, rapid acquisition customerscan outsource their AL&T processes tothe RSN. The LCMC construct,through the RSN,will add more value tothe Soldier and willsupport, not interferewith, the customer’srequirements. To agreat extent, theLCMCs are engagedin “RSN-like”processes today, butthere’s no overarchingmechanism in placethat can focus the bestof each of these on a single IWN. TheRSN pulls all efforts together into oneprocess and then matches up a require-ments need with the best LCMC or-ganization to develop and execute it.

The RSN will add value Armywide byfocusing sub-processes within a singleLCMC to lean the rapid acquisitionprocess overall, making it a great can-didate for the Six Sigma approach.Currently, rapid acquisition is handledon a case-by-case basis, which includeslearning curves for each acquisition.By placing the acquisition within asingle LCMC, each product will be

procured by an organization that is al-ready acquiring, sustaining and man-aging that commodity, thereby mini-

mizing the learningcurve associated witha new industry or in-dustry business prac-tices. This familiaritywith a given com-modity will reducethe time required for that acquisition,increasing overall effectiveness and efficiency.

Filling the GapsIn reviewing the current rapid fieldingmethods, several potential areas forimprovement were identified. TheArmy Field Support Brigade (AFSB),which is ultimately responsible forsupporting and sustaining the productonce in theater, is often not involvedin the rapid acquisition process. Inmany cases, AFSBs don’t find outabout products until they show up inthe field and need to be fixed. Addi-tionally, PEO/PM involvement shouldhappen up front. A match betweenthe requirement and the program thatcan meet and ultimately serve as the

ARMY AL&T

53APRIL - JUNE 2007

The RSN will add value

Armywide by focusing

sub-processes within a

single LCMC to lean the

rapid acquisition process

overall, making it a great

candidate for the Six

Sigma approach.

The RSN will pull LCMC capabilities forward to support initial development, ensuring that Soldierrequirements can be met technically and are sustainable in operational environments. Here, two M1A2Abrams tanks from the 5th Cavalry Regiment provide overwatch security for Soldiers from the 2nd BrigadeCombat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, during a search and seizure mission in the Al Doura district ofBaghdad, Iraq, March 2007. (U.S. Army photo by CPL Alexis Harrison.)


life cycle manager for the productwould result in a better overall acquisi-tion process if coordinated prior to ac-tual product acquisition. The PEOs/PMs must be aware of the procure-ment process from the start. After all,they may have to manage the productonce it’s fielded and has proven to be acandidate for broader fielding.

Another potential area for improve-ment involves current rapid acquisi-tion projects that have not been pro-cured through the LCMC most famil-iar with a given item. By goingthrough the established acquisitioncenter, the learning curve for procure-ment is minimized. A huge misper-ception is that the current acquisitioncenters should be bypassed if you want to quickly field products. This is

simply not true, and the RSN conceptwill prove that when used to its fullestextent. The procurement process,worked through an LCMC Acquisi-tion Center, yields the best solutionfor our Soldiers and can do so in theshortest amount of time with an ex-pected decrease in total project cost. Arapid acquisition requirement will besent via the RSN into an LCMC in anaccelerated time frame. The expecta-tion is that within 72 hours, the RSN,working with the ADC, will have aninitial assessment in terms of feasibilityand the time it will take to field the re-quirement back to its customer. Fromthere, developing a materiel solutionbegins, and the experts in the LCMCsassume responsibility for supportingtheir customer’s requirements.

Finally, AMC needs to be involved insustainment solutions up front — onesthat are workable long after the REFfielding teams are gone. That’s wherefollow-up and final recommendationscome into play. Currently, a unit is is-sued an IWN product — fire-resistantgloves, for example — and they usethe gloves, and they’re great, allowingSoldiers to do their jobs and remainsafe. But what happens when theunit’s tour of duty is over? The Sol-diers go home and take with themproduct knowledge and the final rec-ommendation — that all units in aparticular situation should be issuedfire-resistant gloves. A final recom-mendation and an action plan must beformalized about that unit’s experienceso that other Army units can benefitfrom the collective experience as well.


ARMY AL&T

Operations tempo certainly hasn’t slowed down for the Soldiers serving on the front lines of OEF/OIF.Ongoing combat operations and the need to address Soldier battlefield requirements have necessitatedacquisition programs like the RSN that are more responsive to emerging needs and immediate tacticalrequirements. Here, Soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division board a CH-47 Chinook helicopter atCamp Blessing, Afghanistan, on Jan. 26, 2007, in preparation for yet another patrol on mountainousterrain. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Michael L. Casteel.)


Challenges and BenefitsOne of the most significant challengeshas been getting all parties within theRSN to agree on a common languageto describe theprocesses being exe-cuted. The LCMCseach have differingways of describingsimilar processes andprocedures, and thedevelopment of acommon language en-sures that everyoneunderstands what isbeing discussed andwhy. This is a chal-lenge that we are resolving, because theRSN is using existing processes andprocedures, not developing somethingcompletely new.

From a benefits standpoint, one of thegreatest RSN successes has been thesincere desire of everyone involved tosupport the network and see it succeed.The RSN will, ultimately, support Sol-diers with new and better equipmentmore quickly and efficiently, resulting

in Soldier systems that are more surviv-able and lethal than ever before.

Another benefit to those working theRSN process has beentheir involvement indeveloping the net-work’s solutions. TheRSN processes weredeveloped and vettedat the level of thosewho will be involvedin executing themwith positive results.Each LCMC has de-scribed how theprocess will be con-

ducted, and the best practices are beingculled from each for a set of commonprocesses that will be used throughoutthe RSN and weapons and communi-cation systems LCM.

For those in the field, the RSN’s estab-lishment will result in a more synchro-nized sustainment capability for thoseproducts that Soldiers need quicklyand, in some cases, a better materielsolution to requirements because of a

wider range of experts involved intheir development. Beyond the short-term benefits to the field, the RSNwill also help the Army with long-termplanning, as the outcomes of eachfielded product will be captured andstudied. Those products that success-fully meet Soldier requirements can beconsidered through the CapabilitiesDeveloped for Rapid Development forfielding to all units. In addition, theinstitution of a common language andprocesses for the RSN could providean evolutionary model for rapid acqui-sition in future Army regulatory guid-ance, policies and procedures.

Looking ForwardThe RSN is already being put to thetest. A pilot program was launchedduring the first quarter of 2007. Thepilot program is actually processing in-coming REF and JIEDDO require-ments and running them through theRSN to see if it can meet expectedtime frames. Through AMC’s creationof a strong acquisition support net-work, which can rapidly field and sus-tain the products our Soldiers in thefield need most, we are one step closerto being Army Strong.

LTC JONATHAN D. LONG is the Mili-tary Deputy Director for RDECOM SOSI.He is responsible for the centralized man-agement and synchronization of interna-tional, industry and academic outreach,technology search and collaboration effortsto support the Army’s research, developmentand engineering programs. He holds B.S.degrees in business and fine arts from Lewisand Clark College and an M.B.A. in marketing management from ClaremontGraduate University. He is a U.S. ArmyCommand and General Staff College gradu-ate and is certified Level III in contracting,Level II in program management and LevelI in quality assurance, logistics and informa-tion technology management.

ARMY AL&T

55APRIL - JUNE 2007

The RSN will, ultimately,

support Soldiers with new

and better equipment

more quickly and

efficiently, resulting in

Soldier systems that are

more survivable and

lethal than ever before.

By focusing a network dedicated to supporting IWNs, the RSN bridges a process gap in Army acquisitionfor supporting U.S. and coalition forces on the battlefield. Here, a U.S. Soldier, embedded with the Multi-Iraqi Transitional Team, 4th Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division, tries to positively identify aninsurgent before shooting during an operation in Buhriz, Iraq, as his Iraqi counterpart looks on. (USAFphoto by SSGT Stacy L. Pearsall.)



ARMY AL&T

Deployed Developmental Testers — ATEC’s Experimental Test Pilots in

Operations Enduring and Iraqi FreedomMAJ Rob Willis and MAJ Brian Orwig

As members of the Army Test and Evaluation Command’s

(ATEC’s) Forward Operational Assessment (FOA) teams,

Army experimental test pilots (XPs) from the Aviation

Technical Test Center (ATTC) continue to deploy to Iraq and

Afghanistan, embed with active units, and offer near- and

long-term benefits to the development and fielding of effective

combat systems for our aviation warfighters.

XPs have flown up to 350 combat hours as embedded pilots-in-command and air missioncommanders during 6-month deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, pilots from the 101stCombat Aviation Brigade provide air support during Task Force No Mercy last July over Tal Afar, Iraq.(U.S. Air Force photo by SSGT Jacob N. Bailey, 1st Combat Camera Squadron.)


Although some XPs have prior back-grounds as maintenance test pilots, in-structor pilots, safety officers and ar-mament officers, the job is not aboutmaintenance or logistics — it’s aboutmission. And despite the advancedengineering degrees held by most, a hangar full of protractor-wieldingMicrosoft® Excel wizards isn’t sufficientto ensure that a newflight control system,weapon or softwareversion will be suit-able for use in amulti-mission combatenvironment.

A typical aviation testteam includes flighttest engineers, instru-mentation technicians,program management(PM) personnel, man-ufacturer representatives and many others. It is critical that somebody inthis group understand the warfighter’sperspective — the end user who will ultimately employ the system goinghead-to-head with the enemy. There issimply nothing that can supplant recentfirsthand combat experience and ex-tended face-to-face living with an opera-tional unit. ATTC is now entering itssixth FOA deployment cycle with itsninth and tenth deployed XP.

ATTC deploys its testers as ATEC FOAteam members, who rotate every 6months. FOA team members representall branches, and collect feedback onnewly fielded systems, from improvisedexplosive device-sniffing robots to theCommand Post of the Future. How-ever, ATTC XPs are the only membersso far on the FOA Team who are bothembedded data collectors and embeddedoperators, flying and fighting with thehost unit. This participation in the

FOA mission highlights ATTC’s great-est resource — the unique skills and ca-pabilities of its people.

Direct Support in TheaterThe FOA XPs provide significant di-rect support benefits to their hosting

units, addressing amyriad of rapid field-ing initiatives andaviation airworthi-ness issues. The de-ployed XP providesthe hosting combataviation brigade anorganic force mod-ernization officer“with teeth.” He isan “in-person” liaisonrepresenting both thetesting and acquisi-tion communities, facilitating communi-cations with PM of-fices, the Aviation

Engineering Directorate (AED) andequipment manufacturers. When anAH-64D Apache helicopter unit ar-rived in theater with a unit-purchased

gun-mounted laser pointer in early2005, the embedded XP coordinatedwith PM Longbow Apache and AEDto have the system formally tested andcertified, quickening its integrationinto the fight. When a 701D enginehot-start anomaly surfaced with de-ployed UH-60L Black Hawks, an em-bedded XP staffed the approval of anew engine starting procedure, andthen provided instruction to all af-fected Black Hawk units in theater.

Many deployed aviators will attest that training on newly fielded systemscoincided with numerous simultane-ous predeployment activities. In pastcases, including the UH-60 BlackHawk and CH-47 Chinook CommonMissile Warning System (CMWS),Blue Force Tracking, and the Lot 8and Lot 9.1B Longbow Apache heli-copters, fielding and training wassomewhat hastily conducted immedi-ately prior to the units loading aircraftonto ships. Embedded XPs who hadbeen directly involved in the testing ofsuch systems can aid in the under-standing of new functionalities and the

ARMY AL&T

57APRIL - JUNE 2007

ATTC XPs are the only

members so far on the

FOA Team who are both

embedded data collectors

and embedded operators,

flying and fighting with

the host unit. This

participation in the FOA

mission highlights

ATTC’s greatest resource

— the unique skills and

capabilities of its people.

An embedded XP was instrumental in developing new engine starting procedures for UH-60L Black Hawksafter 701D engine hot-start anomalies surfaced in theater. Here, UH-60 Black Hawk crews from 2ndSquadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment, benefit from the new procedures as they lift off from Forward OperatingBase McHenry, Iraq, last November. (U.S. Army photo by SFC Michael T. Guillory, 982nd Signal Co.(Combat Camera).)


in-theater development of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs).The first combat deployment of themuch-anticipated Modernized TargetAcquisition and Designation System iscurrently underway, and ATTC has anXP embedded with the only unit em-ploying it. In these ways, recent, ro-bust flight-test experience can augmentthe New Equipment Training process.

With in-theater operations tempo dou-bling or tripling normal garrison an-nual flying hours, brigade and battalioncommanders also seem to welcome thefree pilot labor, especially given thatthe additional aviators, usually majorsand chief warrant officers, have typi-cally completed 2,000-3,000 hours ofpilots-in-command (PC), instructor pi-lots and/or maintenance test pilots.XPs have returned from 6-month

deployments having contributed up to 350 combat hours as PC and airmission commanders. Although theyintegrate into the host unit’s AircrewTraining Program to fly those hours intheir primary aircraft, the XPs arecross-qualified in numerous rotary- andfixed-wing aircraft, and are indeed atthe service of all battalion commandersfor many other critical functions.

CONUS-Based Global WarOn Terrorism (GWOT) Test SupportSince January 2005, eight ATTC XPshave supported six divisions/task forcesand embedded to fly UH-60L, AH-64D and OH-58D Kiowa helicoptersin Iraq, as well as UH-60L and AH-64A helicopters in Afghanistan. Thisbroad experience base with regard tosystems, missions and environments is

invaluable to feedback into ongoingGWOT test and development pro-grams. Upon returning to ATTC, theXPs reintegrate into their “real jobs,”performing test planning, executing andreporting, but with a broader perspec-tive on the results’ operational relevance.

The enhancement to mission-focusedtesting in support of GWOT is ar-guably most significant in the attack-reconnaissance mission, where the fieldmanuals have practically been rewrit-ten. As today’s attack pilot veteranswill confirm, typical missions don’t in-clude handfuls of helicopters hoveringabreast while targeting tanks at 5 kilo-meters. Instead, teams of two aircraftconstantly move and communicatewith ground forces in urban terrain,and aircrews are challenged to employtargeting sensors and weapons at much


ARMY AL&T

XPs who were directly involved in testing of the CH-47 Chinook CMWS were instrumental in training deployed aircrews on systems’ functionalities and indeveloping corresponding TTPs while deployed in theater. Here, 10th Mountain Division (Light) Soldiers load equipment/supplies into a CH-47 Chinook helicopterfollowing a search and seizure mission in the mountainous region near Landikheyl, Afghanistan, last November. (U.S. Army photo by CPL Bertha A. Flores, 55thSignal Co. (Combat Camera).)


closer ranges and higher velocities thanbefore. Firsthand experience with theseTTPs enables the XP and test team tocraft more relevant test matrices.

Getting the developmental test right isespecially crucial in evaluating newsystems that don’t have dedicated operational testing(OT) events programmed. Newtactical lasers, enginebarrier filters, heat-seeking missile de-fense systems andother survivabilitymodifications are allexamples of recentGWOT requirementswithout OT events.During initial testingof the AH-64DApache CMWS, theuse of representativemission profiles in the testing matrixrevealed alarming and previously unknown system limitations. A por-tion of the system was subsequently

redesigned and is being retrofitted fordeployed units. In a separate surviv-ability test program, in-house combatexperience and a continued close rela-tionship with the tactical communityled to the tweaking of the test matrixto reflect current TTPs in support ofthe maiden deployment.

SupportingArmy Transfor-mationIncorporating recentcombat experienceinto Army transfor-mation programs iscrucial for the futuresuccess of many sys-tems. Final designsof many transforma-tional systems aremost able to be influ-enced during the de-velopmental stages of

the acquisition life cycle. Experiencesand insights from FOA deploymentshave already proven invaluable in thedevelopment and test planning stages

of Apache Block III crewstation design,unmanned aerial system control andintegration, digital communicationsdevelopments and the UH-60M BlackHawk upgrade program. Not surpris-ingly, the ATTC commander assigneda redeployed OH-58D Kiowa WarriorXP as the upcoming test director forthe YRH-70A Armed ReconnaissanceHelicopter, which is currently under-going system evaluations and develop-mental testing.

XPs represent a low-supply, high-demand resource in the test commu-nity, and there is a near-term opportunity cost in pulling them outof their day job to deploy for sixmonths. But in doing so, they con-tribute to ATEC’s critical FOA mission,providing host units with direct acquisi-tion support while facilitating ongoingdevelopment of GWOT programs andtransformation efforts. This initiative isalready helping to ensure that new air-craft, weapons and systems are bettertailored to meet combatant command-ers’ and warfighters’ collective needs intoday’s and tomorrow’s fight.

MAJ ROB WILLIS is an XP at ATTC, FortRucker. He has a B.S. in aerospace engi-neering and an M.S. in systems engineeringfrom the University of Virginia, and anM.A. in National Security and StrategicStudies from the Naval War College. He isan Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) officerLevel II certified in both test and evaluationand program management.

MAJ BRIAN ORWIG is an XP at ATTC.He has a B.S. in environmental engineeringfrom the U.S. Military Academy and anM.S. in aerospace and aeronautical engi-neering from the University of Washington.He is an active duty AAC officer.

ARMY AL&T

59APRIL - JUNE 2007

XPs represent a low-

supply, high-demand

resource in the test

community, providing

host units with direct

acquisition support while

facilitating ongoing

development of GWOT

programs and

transformation efforts.

An AH-64 Apache helicopter ATTC XPcrew conducts mission-focused CMWSflare separation testing in September 2005.(ATTC photo by Paul Reynolds.)



ARMY AL&T

Training the 21st-Century Joint ForceBen Ennis

The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education

Conference (I/ITSEC) is billed as the world’s largest gathering

of military, industry and academia focused on training and

simulations. “Training transformation continues to be influenced by

technology advancement while responding to the requirements of

combat and security operations on a broad front,” related RADM

Fredrick L. Lewis, U.S. Navy (USN) (Ret.), President, National Training

and Simulation Association. Lewis feels that modeling and simulation

(M&S) plays a vital role in preparing trainees to perform their best in

challenging, real-world circumstances. Likewise, he views M&S as

more than a desirable asset and, in many cases, indispensable to

national preparedness and national security.

Soldiers from the U.S. Army’s B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment (Recon) (3-71st Cav), 10thMountain Division (Light), participate in combat training at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), FortPolk, LA. The training at JRTC simulates/replicates combat situations the Soldiers will face once deployed. The3-71st Cav will finish their 16-month rotation to Afghanistan in June 2007. (U.S. Army photo by MSGT JohanCharles Van Boers.)


The recent I/ITSEC theme focused on“Training the 21st-Century JointForce.” Lewis moderated an I/ITSEC-sponsored Joint general/flag officerpanel. The panel was chaired by Dr.Paul W. Mayberry, Deputy Under Sec-retary of Defense (DUSD) (Readi-ness). Other panel members includedVADM James K. Moran, Commander,Naval Education and Training Com-mand (NETC); LTG Thomas Metz,Deputy Commanding General/Chiefof Staff (DCG/CoS), U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command(TRADOC); MG Jason Kamiya,Commander, Joint Warfighting Center

and U.S. Joint Forces (USJFCOM)Director of Training; BG DouglasStone, CG, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command(MAGTFTC); BG S. Taco Gilbert III,Director, Air Force Smart Operations(AFSO) 21, Office of the Secretary ofthe Air Force (OSAF); and RDMLCynthia A. Coogan, U.S. Coast Guard(USCG), Director of Reserve andTraining. The panel addressed serviceand organization matters of specificconcern while examining training pol-icy influences and how they felt M&Sshould transform to help solve their respective training challenges. A

summary of panel members’ trainingtransformation comments and M&Simplications follows.

DUSD (Readiness)Mayberry praised the ingenuity, cre-ativity and products that private indus-try brings to the training challengesDOD is trying to resolve. Accordingto Mayberry, DOD wants to focus ontransforming the Joint force to be amore capable, integrated operation.Overall, he feels the major trainingtransformation challenges and oppor-tunities require that DOD build andshare industry successes, establish

ARMY AL&T

61APRIL - JUNE 2007


standards and close the military serv-ices gaps and seams that require cre-ative thinking and ideas. “In the Jointarena, we need to make training trans-formation a reality. This requires ap-propriate interchanges between variousservices and the interchanges neededto become routine,” Mayberry re-marked. The challenge is com-pounded because theacquisition process istoo long and the re-quirements process isnot well understood.“As we look out tothe future, we con-tinue to face thesetypes of irregular war-fare scenarios inwhich U.S. forces arecurrently fightingwhich will include se-curity, stability, transition and recon-struction operations (SSTRO), in thetraditional ‘stable’ of major combatoperations,” he added. “Certainly we,as an armed force, make tremendouscontributions to those SSTRO areas,

but it would be much more effectivewithin the context of bringing all ofour national and coalition powers tobear,” Mayberry concluded.

Commander NETCMoran gave his perspective of howthings are changing in the USN andwhat that means in terms of challenges

for training Sailors.The new age Sailor iscalled the “Sea War-rior.” The Sea War-rior is matched withthe position andtrained to fit the posi-tion at a certain cost.

A major Navy train-ing challenge is thatthe number of shipsis increasing and

manpower is decreasing as the Navymoves toward the total combat ship.The total combat ship will be modu-lar, stealthy and optimally manned.Moran, using the Littoral CombatShip as an example, described the new

modular ship.“She is optimallymanned. She hasa core crew of 75.She is modular,which means thatyou’re going toput a weapon sys-tem on her andthen take it off,”he explained.“You’re going toput a sensor plat-form on her andthen take it off.So how do youman that ship andhow do you trainthe crew? We re-alized the oldmanning modulewould not work

for the modular ship, so we’re buildingwhat we call ‘hybrid Sailors’ who willhave skill sets drawn from multipleratings. The train-to-qualify process ishuge for us,” Moran continued.

He contends that some skill sets,such as computer analysts, will be thesame for all services, so the trainingand M&S effort should be the samefor all services. In fact, Moran pro-posed that the services bundle thetraining and build simulators thatsupport all services at a significantcost savings to DOD.

DCG/CoS TRADOCThe Army is building a brigade-basedArmy. Metz feels this is a great strat-egy, but he is concerned that theArmy may be trailing in a trainingstrategy to support the new brigadecombat teams (BCTs). As part of this“train up,” the Army needs to learnhow to grow brigade commanders.“I am not worried about the individualSoldier,” Metz commented. “I amconcerned about the leader of the


ARMY AL&T

In the Joint arena, we

need to make training

transformation a reality.

This requires appropriate

interchanges between

various services and the

interchanges needed to

become routine.

An MQ-1 Predator student pilot and student sensor operator pilot “fly” aPredator Unmanned Aerial System during a training session inside a GroundControl Station cell. (USAF photo by TSGT Kevin J. Gruenwald.)


Soldier. How does the leader reallylearn how to use all of these pieces ofequipment together so that they getmore than the sum of the individualpieces of equipment? At the brigadelevel and above, it’s too expensive tomobilize to train the leaders. Weneed to teach leaders to draw asmuch as possible from the systemsthey use. Simulation can certainlyhelp train future Army leaders,” Metzcontinued.

Metz firmly believes that a good wayto promote M&S is to reward leadersfor using the systems. Building onthese technological capabilities, Metzexplained the bandwidth/combatpower relationship and how M&Stechnology can increase combat powerexponentially. “I sincerely believe wecan bring M&S into the combat zone

to train troops,” Metz suggested. “As acommander in Iraq, I stressed that oncetroops rested they needed to be retrainedto keep their combat skills sharp. TheM&S community can help us do that.Simulation will helpmaintain high inten-sity capability andshare experiences fromcombat.”

Likewise, Metzstrongly believes thatthe Joint Task ForceCommands cangreatly benefit fromsimulation to helpwhat he refers to asthe “human dimen-sion.” “From the corps commander,to the multinational commander tocorporal — our successes rest in the

human dimension,” Metz added.“How do you model culture?”

USJFCOM Director of Training

Kamiya echoed Metz’scomments related toaddressing the humandimensions that ourmilitary faces. Hefeels M&S systemsare good at enablingtraining, but we needM&S to replicate theeffects of all elementsof national policysuch as diplomacyand economics. “Wemust realize the envi-

ronment is much more than the mili-tary,” Kamiya emphasized. “We needto model political, military, economic,

ARMY AL&T

63APRIL - JUNE 2007

We must realize the

environment is much

more than the military.

We need to model

political, military,

economic, social,

infrastructure and

information factors in

support of effects.

The USN is moving toward the total combat ship thatwill be modular, stealthy and optimally manned.Realizing the old manning module would not workfor the modular ship, the Navy is training “hybridSailors” who will have skill sets drawn from multipleratings. Here, a Sailor signals the launch of anaircraft from the catapult on an aircraft carrier’sflight deck. (USN photo by PO3 Rob Gaston.)


social, infrastructure and informationfactors in support of effects. Solutionsaren’t necessarily found in the militaryranks.”

Kamiya wants the military services andprivate industry to consider the follow-ing challenges that M&S can have sig-nificant impact on:

• We need to ask the question, “Are wedoing the right thing, not whetherwe’re doing things right?” Wherecan industry help?

• We need a rapid database develop-ment accessible to the total force.

• We need help in expanding distrib-uted learning capabilities.

• We need support in being a serviceprovider for training the NationalGuard for homeland defense and civilsupport missions. We need to makeit available in a seamless transparentway to our Reserve forces as well.

CG MAGTFTCStone’s command trains all Marineswho go into Afghanistan and Iraq.He believes innovative technologywill, ultimately, help improve train-ing. He said he has the ground andspace to train but cannot adapt as fastas the enemy. “The enemy changesfaster than we can adapt on theground, there-fore, we needsimulation [toclose the gap],”Stone pointedout. “The train-ing needs to be live, virtual,constructive andinteroperative,and it would bebetter if wecould do moretraining at homestation. We

need simulation to help fight andwin. The Marines are building thelargest combined arms military opera-tions on urban terrain facility inDOD, and we need to create all ofthis in simulation.”

Stone gave a real-world example ofhow the Marines used simulation to


ARMY AL&T

Paratroopers from the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, FortBragg, NC, are hooked up as they prepare for a nighttime static linejump from a USAF C-17 Globemaster III aircraft. The paratroopersand the aircraft were training as part of Exercise Joint ForcibleEntry. (USAF photo by TSGT Jerry Morrison.)

DUSD (Readiness) Dr. Paul Mayberry praised the ingenuity, creativity andproducts that private industry brings to the training challenges DOD is tryingto solve. Here, a private industry representative demonstrated his company’sM&S capabilities at the recent I/ITSEC. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox,Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems.)


solve a serious problem — how to prevent High Mobility MultipurposeWheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) fromflipping over and being destroyed. TheJoint Conflict and Tactical SimulationHMMWV Egress Assistance Trainerwas used to simulate HMMWVs flip-ping over and give Marines confidencein exiting overturned vehicles. Stone

feels industry can help by continuingsimilar production and technologicalinnovations with a wartime mentality,and to help develop decision-makingtools and unique methods to trainfrom a strategic perspective the Ma-rine’s junior leaders of tomorrow.Once developed, all simulation toolsneed to be thoroughly integrated.

Director AFSO 21, OSAFGilbert refers to the current situationin the U.S. Air Force (USAF) as “TheBurning Platform.” According toGilbert, resource constraints continueto mount, equipment continues to age,manpower costs are escalating and en-ergy costs are rising dramatically.Therefore, the simulation heights forthe USAF are continuing to be pushed.Gilbert is optimistic about where simu-lation will take his service in the future.“The USAF has created a marriage be-tween process improvement and flighttraining, but we have only scratchedthe surface. I feel we are underutilizingthe investment we have.”

USCG Director of Reserveand TrainingCoogan emphasized that the USCGwants to ensure the training providedis performance-based. Referring to allCoast Guardsmen as ‘The Performer,’Coogan remarked, “The Performer isthe center of our universe. We striveto equip people to ensure perform-ance. The challenge is to reduce high-cost training. The deepwater systemsplatform is the USCG future. Thechallenge is using simulators to trainthe crew, and we are excited about re-ceiving our first small-boat simula-tors,” Coogan concluded.

BEN ENNIS is a Public Affairs Specialist atthe U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center.He has a B.S. degree in business from theUniversity of Colorado and an M.B.A. inmarketing from Atlanta University. Ennis isa former Army Reserve Advertising Chiefand has attended numerous military schools,including the Command and General StaffCollege and Defense Information School.

ARMY AL&T

65APRIL - JUNE 2007

Marine LCPL Roberts tallies his score during 9mm pistolqualification. From individual small-arms weapons tocrew-served weapons platforms, Soldiers, Sailors, Marinesand Airmen can benefit tremendously from a combinationof live, virtual and constructive training. (USN photo byCPO Eric A. Clement.)

A USCG crewman salutes as he steps aboard the medium endurancecutter CGC Campbell (WMEC 909). The USCG is actively trainingcrewmen using M&S. Simulation training is performance-based and hashelped crewmen adjust to a wide range of homeland security missions.(USCG photo by PO3 Luke Pinneo.)



ARMY AL&T

Technological Advances inHigh-Field Physics and

Lasers Yield Potential UsesMichael I. Roddin

In December 2006, Army Acquisition Executive and Assistant Secretary of

the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Claude M. Bolton Jr.

met with University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) Assistant Vice Chancellor

for Research Michael J. Zeleny and Lead Physicist and Diocles Director Dr.

Donald P. Umstadter to tour UNL’s Diocles world-class laser laboratory and

learn more about UNL’s laser research initiatives and advances the university

is making in high-field physics.

UNL researchers operate the new Diocles laser from a state-of-the-art control room. The control room is used to remotelycontrol and acquire data from experiments, which are conducted behind a radiation-shielded wall. (Photo courtesy of UNLUniversity Communications.)


Unveiled in August 2006, Diocles isthe latest in a new generation of com-pact lasers that help researchers pro-duce very brief pulses of extremely in-tense light. Known as femtosecondoptical pulses, they are employedthrough an ultra-high-intensity lasersystem that helps scientists study theinteractions of light with matter at thehighest attainable field strengths. UNL’sDiocles has the highest combination ofpeak-power densities and repetitionrates of any laser in the United States,delivering 100 Terawatts at 10 Hertz.

When focused, Diocles is capable ofdirectly increasing an electron’s massrelativistically by 20 times.

This latest advance in high-fieldphysics and laser research enablesUNL scientists to generate the samelevel of intense light (in the form of X-rays) in a room-sized configurationthat formerly could only be producedby a huge synchrotron acceleratormore than a mile in circumference.What does this mean in lay terms?UNL Diocles Director Umstadter says

“We can create a tiny ‘sun’ in the labo-ratory at the focus of the laser.” If thisis reminiscent of the nexus where sci-ence and science fiction converge,you’re not far off, especially if you area Marvel® Comics Spiderman or DocOck fan and remember the 2004 Spi-derman 2 movie.

High-Field SciencePhysics, traditionally referred to as thescience of matter and energy and ofinteractions between the two, attemptsto measure the physical properties,

ARMY AL&T

67APRIL - JUNE 2007


interactions, processesor laws that scientistsencounter as theystudy natural or mate-rial world phenomena.High-field sciencephysics is based on thecreation of extremelyhigh peak-power levelsby squeezing pulseswith modest energylevels into ultra-shorttime frames. Whenfocused, these pulsescreate electric fieldstrengths rivaling thosethat bind the inner-most electrons of anatom to its nucleus.

Umstadter and his research team arepioneering this relatively new physicsresearch endeavor called high-field sci-ence. Their studies involve the non-linear optics of ultra-high-intensitylasers interacting with plasmas, alsoknown as ionized gas. The extremelight created by the new laser is enabling applied scientific explorationinto applications for advanced

radiation sources andparticle accelerators.

Moving forward, re-searchers don’t knowthe depth yet of whatcan be discovered, be-cause the interactionof light with electronsis highly nonlinear athigh intensities andnew physical regimescan only be entered athigh photon energies.However, scientific ex-pectations are highthat the UNL laser re-search studies of elec-tron correlations inatoms and molecules

will unlock new knowledge that willlead to specific commercial and indus-trial applications in the very near future. Scientists contend that the un-derstanding of electron correlations isvital to modern technology. Supercon-ductors, quantum computers and novelnanomaterials are based on the unusualproperties of electron correlations.

Diocles Laser ResearchNamed for inventor Diocles, who iscredited with inventing the first para-bolic reflector in 200 B.C., the labora-tory uses this device as a focusing ele-ment to increase the intensity of lightfor experimentation purposes. As Um-stadter explains the process, Diocles be-gins with a modest amount of energyfrom a short pulse, then stretches thepulse and sends it through a series ofamplifiers and titanium sapphire crys-tals to pump up its power. Whatmakes Diocles capable of deliveringsuch high power is a compressionstage, where the stretched, amplifiedpulse is compressed back into a veryshort, extremely powerful pulse. Thisprocess prevents damage to the ampli-fiers and allows the powerful lightbeam to hit a parabolic reflector thatfocuses its power to extreme intensities.

UNL officials purport that the focusedDiocles laser light is the strongest pro-duced on Earth, creating conditionsonly found in stars like the sun. Ac-cordingly, any material subjected tosuch conditions becomes heated to ex-treme temperatures and pressures, and


ARMY AL&T

UNL Diocles Director Dr. Donald P. Umstadter(left) orients Army Acquisition Executive Claude M.Bolton Jr. to the university’s ongoing high-fieldscience and laser research prior to a Diocles labdemonstration. (Photo courtesy of UNL UniversityCommunications.)

UNL scientists use ultra-powerful light applications to perform a variety of functions. For instance, theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency provides funding to UNL for developing radiation sources thatcan be used to diagnose cracks in turbine blades before they can lead to catastrophic jet engine failure.(Photo courtesy of UNL University Communications.)

This latest advance in

high-field physics and

laser research enables

UNL scientists to

generate the same level of

intense light (in the form

of X-rays) in a room-sized

configuration that

formerly could only be

produced by a huge

synchrotron accelerator

more than a mile in

circumference.


converts the material to the fourthstate of matter — plasma. Umstadter’sresearch team uses Diocles to study,under highly controlled conditions,the interactions of light with thehottest fire ever produced in a labora-tory setting.

Umstadter is confident that the Dio-cles laser has the potential for reachingthe highest light intensity ever pro-duced by any laser in the world. Hecontends that Diocles’ compact, ultra-fast, high-intensity laser can producemore power than 100,000 HooverDams in bursts lasting only 30 bil-lionths of one millionth of a second.“When you focus the laser to its high-est intensity, you are creating condi-tions that have never been produced

on Earth,” Umstadter remarked. “Infact, we can produce pressures that aregreater than those at the core of the sun.”

Umstadter and his research group areconfident that such extreme conditionsare likely to lead to new scientific dis-coveries and, eventually, to new tech-nologies and applications in the science,medical, industrial/manufacturing, de-fense and security sectors. For example,Diocles produces gamma rays (X-rays)that can “see through” 4-inch-thick steelto detect bomb or nuclear material hid-den in cargo containers, or help engi-neers pinpoint hairline fractures in jetturbine engines and bridge and build-ing infrastructures. Because lasers aresmall and relatively inexpensive, themedical community could potentially

use this laser technology as a protonsource for cutting-edge cancer therapy.Obviously, the lessons learned from future UNL studies could benefit ongo-ing Department of the Army laser re-search studies and experimentation atthe Army’s labs. Ultimately, Umstadterhopes to discover what happens to mat-ter when it interacts with light at itsmost intense state. The Diocles laser isthe best way to produce such extremelight, and he hopes his team’s researchinitiatives will raise high-field physicsand laser research to the next level.

MICHAEL I. RODDIN is the U.S. ArmyAcquisition Support Center Strategic Com-munications Director and Army AL&TMagazine Editor-in-Chief. He has B.S. de-grees in English and journalism from theUniversity of Maine and an M.A. in mar-keting from the University of Southern Cal-ifornia. Roddin is a former Army Advertis-ing Program Manager and three-time ArmyKeith L. Ware Journalism Award recipient.In 2005, he was selected by the Secretary ofthe Army for Editor-of-the-Year Honors.

ARMY AL&T

69APRIL - JUNE 2007

A technician adjusts the new Diocles laser in the Extreme LightLaboratory at UNL. The powerful, ultra-fast, compact laser has helpedput the university at the forefront of high-field physics and laser research.(Photo courtesy of UNL University Communications.)

UNL scientists use the Diocles ultra-high-intensity laser system to study the interactions of light withmatter at the highest attainable field strengths. (Photo courtesy of UNL University Communications.)



ARMY AL&T

The 25th Army Science Conference (ASC) —Charting the Future of S&T for the Soldier

Dr. John A. Parmentola and Robert Khan

The ASC, sponsored by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and

Technology (ASAALT), has been held every 2 years since it’s inception in 1957. In his

keynote address to attendees at the first ASC, U.S. Army Chief of Research and Develop-

ment LTG James Gavin said, “I am delighted to see a meeting here. I would sooner see a meet-

ing of the scientists than our top military people here because we want ideas, we need your

assistance. We’re dealing with an exceedingly difficult problem in a dynamic period of our

Nation’s history. We need your help in every way possible for you to give it to us.”

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s John Hopkins (left) talks about the PackBot fuel cell and battery with Claude M. Bolton Jr. (middle), AAE/ASAALT,and John J. Young (right), Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), at the 25th ASC.

* U.S. Army photos by Richard Mattox, Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems.


The 25th ASC was held in Orlando,FL, on Nov. 27-30, 2006. This presti-gious event celebrated 50 years of Armysponsorship of innovative science andtechnology (S&T) for our Soldiers andmarked a significant milestone for theArmy S&T community. In his letter to25th ASC attendees, U.S. Army ViceChief of Staff GEN Richard A. Codyechoed Gavin’s words from the firstASC. “Our emerging technological in-novations must provide the strategic ad-vantages our Soldiers need to alwaysstay one step ahead in today’s danger-ous environment. The Army is lookingto its scientists and engineers to con-tinue to direct their talents and energiesin support of the Soldier,” wrote Cody.

The 25th ASCThe ASC follows in a long tradition ofessential scientific activities that areneeded to further scientific investigationand inquiry. The ASC focuses entirelyon research that is relevant to the Armyand its mission. It brings Army scien-tists and engineers together with thosefrom academia, industry, other govern-ment agencies and our foreign partnerswho are focused on Army issues. It is aunique forum, where scientists and en-gineers concerned with addressing Army challenges from anywhere in the

world, can openly and freely discuss thelatest advances in research covering 16disciplines relevant to the Army mis-sion. The conference also:

• Addresses the latest ideas being pro-posed by world leaders in their re-search fields.

• Initiates new partnerships and collabo-rations through the exchange of ideas.

• Allows attendees to acquire new knowl-edge through dialogue and discussion.

• Enables young Army researchers togrow personally and professionally byengaging world leaders in their fieldsof research relevant to the Army.

• Enables scientists and engineers topresent their latest research results tothe world community working onArmy problems.

The major product that results fromthis forum is a peer-reviewed ConferenceProceedings, which contains more than80 seminal papers of high quality andrelevance to the Army mission. These80 papers were selected from a peer re-view of more than 900 submittals. TheConference Proceedings package is dis-tributed to major libraries worldwideand serves as an official reference forthose who contributed original researchpapers to this prestigious and highly

ARMY AL&T

71APRIL - JUNE 2007


relevant publication. In addition,there are collaborations, partnerships,new ideas and the expansion of humannetworks to further advance ArmyS&T. The ASC communicates theArmy vision to a very broad worldcommunity as well as to Congress,which ultimately decides on the ArmyS&T budget annually. There is noother opportunity for Congress or, forthat matter, anyone else to experiencethe breadth and depth of the Army’sS&T program other than through theASC. In this sense, the ASC is criticalto the Army so long as S&T is re-quired to fulfill the Army’s missionnow and in the future.

Since its inception, the ASC has grownfrom a small gathering of Armyscientists and engineers to an in-ternational event attended bymore than 1,600 people from 30different nations. Authors of themost outstanding technical pa-pers presented at the conferencereceive special recognition andawards. In addition, an Interna-tional Collaboration Award wasinaugurated at the 25th ASC torecognize contributions from theworld community that have sig-nificant potential for benefitingour Soldiers.

Theme and ExhibitsThe theme for the 25thASC, TransformationalArmy Science & Technology— Charting the Future ofS&T for the Soldier, em-phasized the S&T com-munity’s importance inproviding leading-edge ca-pabilities for Soldiers nowand in the future. An ac-knowledgement of thepast, recognition of theimpressive accomplish-ments of the present andenthusiasm for the future

was evident throughout the confer-ence. More than 70 exhibitors fromthe Army, industry, academia and in-ternational partners presented majorinnovations at the S&T showcase thatfeatured S&T advancements that arehaving, or will have, impacts onwarfighting capabilities.

At various locations throughout theS&T showcase were focus areas de-voted to key capabilities that enablethe Army to carry out its mission toshoot, move, communicate, sense, pro-tect and train. The technologies andsystems displayed within these focusareas date back from the first ASC in1957, to the modern day systems used in Iraq and to products being

developed for the Future Combat Sys-tems (FCS) and Future Force. As anexample of the dramatic advancementsthat have occurred over this period,visitors were able to compare a Sher-man Tank, a current-day Stryker andan Unmanned Ground Combat Vehi-cle with FCS application.

SpeakersThe 25th ASC also featured 24speeches and presentations by DODand Army leadership, international de-fense S&T community leaders, Armyand U.S. Marine Corps (USMC)warfighters and eminent scientists —including seven Nobel Prize winners,strategic thinkers and futurists, andthose promoting education in mathe-matics, science and engineering for ourNation’s youth. You can see and hearthe guest speakers’ 25th ASC speechesand presentations by accessing the De-fense Acquisition Web site at http://view.dau.mil/ dauvideo/view/channel.jhtml?stationID=1994197044.

In this article, we present highlights ofsome of the conference’s presentations.Dr. John Parmentola, the Army’s Di-rector of Research and LaboratoryManagement and the ASC’s lead or-ganizer and moderator, introducedArmy Acquisition Executive(AAE)/ASAALT Claude M. Bolton Jr.,

sponsor and host for the 25thASC. Bolton welcomed the audi-ence and spoke briefly about capa-bilities that the Army S&T com-munity is working on in varioustechnical areas. He noted that thegreatest challenge facing the Armyis recruiting and retaining quali-fied people. Bolton stated,“Everything we do in the Armystarts with people, and we as a Na-tion are not producing enoughqualified people to meet existingrequirements.” Professor ColinGray, the Chair in International


ARMY AL&T

Dr. John Parmentola, Director of Research and LaboratoryManagement, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Research and Technology, was master of ceremonies for the25th ASC in Orlando.

John J. Young, Director, Defense Research and Engineering, OSD,addresses the 25th ASC’s participants about the government’srefined contract award processes.


Politics and Strategic Studies atthe University of Reading in theUnited Kingdom (U.K.) and, attimes, an advisor to the U.S.government, presented a strate-gic look at security threats inthe 21st century. LTG PaulVan Riper (USMC, Ret.) elo-quently and lucidly presentedhis views on future warfightingcapabilities necessary to succeedin the future environment thatGray described.

The Army has sponsored 30eminent scientists who havewon Nobel Prizes. Seven ofthe Army-sponsored Nobel Laureatesaccepted invitations to speak at the25th ASC. (See related story titledWise and Witty – Seven Nobel Laureates Address25th Army ScienceConference on Page76 of this issue.)

Dr. Leroy Hood,President of the Insti-tute for Systems Biol-ogy in Seattle, WA,gave the audience afantastic glimpse intothe future of medi-cine, where theanalysis of a drop ofblood taken fromsomeone remotelyand analyzed will en-able a timely diagno-sis of that person’s state of health.

AwardsAuthors of the most outstanding pa-pers in each of 16 technical categoriesreceived Best Paper Awards at the clos-ing banquet. Three of the 16 Best Pa-pers were further selected as the high-est quality research efforts presented at the conference. Author(s) of theoverall best paper received the Paul A.

Siple Memorial Award, while authorsof the two next best papers receivedbronze medallions.

The InternationalCollaboration Awardwas presented tothose authors whosework was selected bya panel of scientificpeers and deemed tobe the most outstand-ing collaborative re-search effort betweenU.S. Army and for-eign scientists that expanded and en-hanced the Army’s re-search and technol-ogy program whilebenefiting the scien-tific interests of the

collaborating foreign scientists.

The list of oral paper presenters in-cluded seven Junior Science and Hu-manities Symposium winners from2005 and 2006. Papers presented bythese students will be included with80 other papers from authors in gov-ernment, academia, industry and foreign nations that will be publishedin the 25th ASC Proceedings.

Additionally, a group of eCYBERMISSION winnersfrom the local area toured the S&T Showcase. Winnersof the 2005 and 2006 Research and DevelopmentAwards were also recognizedat the conference.

Best Paper AwardsInternational CollaborationAward winners were: Dr. DirkR. Klose, Dr. Israel Mayk, Anthony Tom, Andrew Chan,Mike Mai, Gunther Kainz,Joseph Hnat and BernardGore (Software Design) from

the U.S.; Heinz-Bernd Lotz, AlfredPfaendner and Hans-Peter Menzlerfrom Germany; Cyrus Aiken, DavidBryant and LTC James Derosenrollfrom Canada; Herve LeGoeff, LionelKhimeche and LTC Patrick Bezombesfrom France; LTC Dror Schwartz, LTCAmir Ziv and LTC Ehud Kauf from Is-rael, for their paper titled Simulationand C2 Information Systems Connectiv-ity Experimentation (SINCE) Project.

The 25th ASC Paul A. Siple MemorialAward winners were: Dr. DattatrayaDandekar, Dr. James W. McCauleyand W.H. Green from the U.S. ArmyResearch Laboratory (ARL); Dr. NeilK. Bourne from the University of

ARMY AL&T

73APRIL - JUNE 2007

Our emerging

technological innovations

must provide the strategic

advantages our Soldiers

need to always stay one

step ahead in today’s

dangerous environment.

The Army is looking to

its scientists and engineers

to continue to direct their

talents and energies in

support of the Soldier.

Claude M. Bolton Jr., AAE/ASAALT and ASC host, addresses several ofthe Army’s most notable S&T accomplishments, including the ongoingFCS program, the largest and most complex effort the Army has everundertaken.

GEN Benjamin S. Griffin, U.S. Army MaterielCommand (AMC) Commanding General, discussesAMC’s numerous S&T contributions to both theArmy and the Joint community.



ARMY AL&T

Manchester, U.K.; Dr. Mingwei Chenfrom Johns Hopkins University andTohoku University of Sendai, Japan,for their paper titled Global MechanicalResponse and its Relation to Deformationand Failure Modes at Various LengthScales under Shock Impact in AluminaAD995 Armor. This paper was also se-lected as the best paper in the Ad-vanced Materials and ManufacturingTechnology technical category.

The first bronze medallion wasawarded to Dr. Matthew Spenko ofStanford University, Dr. Karl Iag-nemma of the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT) and Dr. JimOverholt of the U.S. Army Tank Au-tomotive Research, Development andEngineering Center (TARDEC), fortheir paper on High Speed HazardAvoidance for Unmanned Ground Vehi-cles in Emergency Situations. This paperwas selected the best paper in the Un-manned Systems technical category.

The second bronze medallion went toDr. Bradley W. Schilling, Dr. StephenChinn, Dr. Lew Goldberg, Dr. AlanD. Hays and Dr. C. Ward Trussellfrom the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development

and Engineering Center (CERDEC),for their paper titled End-PumpedMonoblock Laser for Eyesafe TargetingSystems. This paper was selected thebest paper in the Sensors and Informa-tion Systems technical category.

Best paper awardees in the 13 othertechnical categories were:

• Dr. Kamal Sarabandi from the Uni-versity of Michigan and GeorgePalafox of CERDEC, for their paperReducing Antenna Visual SignatureUsing Meta-Materials, in the Infor-mation Technology/Command, Con-trol, Communications, Computer,Intelligence, Surveillance and Recon-naissance category.

• Dr. Raul Radovitzky, Dr. Zisu Zhaoand Dr. Ludovic Noels of MIT; andDr. Sean Mauch of the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology, for theirpaper titled Lagrangian Simulation ofPenetration Environments via MeshHealing and Adaptive Optimization,in the Advanced High PerformanceComputing in Physical Sciences andEngineering category.

• Professor Michael Hinton, Dr. T.Andrews, Dr. Philip Church, Dr. IanCullis, Dr. Steven Gilbert, Dr.Michael Hamblin and Dr. DavidPorter of QinetiQ Co.; Dr. B. Proudof Cambridge University; and Dr. A.Pullen of the Imperial College, all inthe U.K., for their paper titled Penetrating Buildings in Urban Operations - Towards Weapons Design by Simulation, in the LethalityTechnologies category.

• Dr. Parimal Patel, Gary Gilde and Dr.Alex Hsieh of ARL for their paper ti-tled Improved Low-Cost Multi-hitTransparent Armor, in the Force Pro-tection/Survivability category.

• Dr. Peter Schihl, Dr. Walter Bryzik,Laura Hoogterp, Harold Pangilinanand Ernest Schwarz of TARDEC fortheir paper titled Modeling JP-8 FuelEffects on Diesel Combustion Systems, inthe Power and Energy category.

• Susan Robinson, Antonio Roque,Dr. David Traum and AshishVaswani of the University of South-ern California (USC) Institute forCreative Technologies; Charles Her-nandez of ARL; and Bill Millspaughof Tec-Masters Inc., for their papertitled Evaluation of a Spoken Dia-logue System for Virtual Reality Call

Dr. Thomas Killion, Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Research and Technology and theArmy’s Chief Scientist, highlighted some of thelatest technologies Army S&T is working on,including avatars that allow human to virtualhuman interaction.

Dr. Roger Lough, Chief Defence Scientist,Defence Science and Technology Organisation,Department of Defence, Australia, explained thathis country’s S&T endeavors include quantitativeanalysis, strategic analysis, advanced engineeringand support.

U.K. Ministry of Defence Director General(Research & Technology) Phil Sutton addresses the25th ASC concerning potential security threatsand what the scientific community is doing toabate them.


for Fire Training, in the ImmersiveTechnology category.

• Dr. Peter Tikuisis of Defence Re-search and Development Canada forhis paper titled Target Detection,Identification, and MarksmanshipUnder Various Types of PhysiologicalStrain, in the Behavioral Sciencesand Human Performance category.

• Dr. Xiugong Gao and Dr. PrabhatiRay of the Walter Reed Army Insti-tute of Research, Dr. RadharamanRay of the U.S. Army Medical Re-search Institute of Chemical De-fense, and Dr. Peter Barker and Dr.Yan Xiao of the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, for theirpaper titled Anti-Cytotoxic and Anti-inflammatory Effects of the MacrolideAntibiotic Roxithromycin in SulfurMustard-Exposed Human Airway Ep-ithelial Cells, in the Biomedical Tech-nologies category.

• Dr. Kevin O’Connell and Dr. EvanSkowronski of the U.S. Army Edge-wood Chemical Biological Center,Jonathan Leshin and Dr. Kenneth L.Dretchen of Georgetown Universityand Dr. Andrea Weeks of GeorgeMason University, for their paper ti-tled Discovery and Characterization ofNovel Signatures from the RicinusCommunis (castor bean) Genome, inthe Biotechnology category.

• Dr. Shubhra Gangopadhyay, StevenApperson, Dr. Keshab Gango-padhyay, S. Subramanian, Dr.Shameem Hasan and Dr. RajeshShende of the University of Missouri-Columbia; and Dr. Deepak Kapoor,Steve Nicolich and Paul Redner ofthe U.S. Army Armament Research,Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), for their papertitled Novel Nanostructured EnergeticMaterials, in the Nanotechnologycategory.

• Dr. Manijeh Razeghi, H. Lim, Dr.Alan A. Quivy, M. Taguchi, S. Tsaoand W. Zhang of Northwestern Uni-versity’s Center for Quantum De-vices, for their paper titled InfraredImaging With Self-Assembled InGaAsQuantum Dot Infrared Photodetectors,in the Microelectronics and Photon-ics Technology category.

• Dr. Mohammad Qasim and Dr.Leonid Gorb of ARDEC; Dr. JerzyLeszczynski of Jackson State Univer-sity’s Computational Center for Mol-ecular Structure and Interactions;and Particia Honea of the Universityof Mississippi Medical School, fortheir paper titled Molecular Structure

Determines Chemical Reactivities and,thus, Transformation Pathways, in theEnvironmental and EngineeringGeosciences category.

• Dr. Latha Kant, Dr. Farooq Anjumand Dr. Kenneth Young of TelcordiaTechnologies, for their paper titledDesign & Analysis of Scalable Network-Centric Warfare Mechanisms, in theAdvanced Modeling and Simulationcategory.

Conference survey results and numer-ous remarks by attendees indicatedthat an overwhelming majority foundthat the information and opportunitiespresented during the conference werevery beneficial and that the 25th ASCwas the best ever. The conference en-abled the Army S&T community toengage a very broad audience on theS&T challenges underpinning Armytransformation to the Future Force.Many presentations were once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to hear extraor-dinary individuals expound on theirown research and unique insights intothe future of S&T. The collaborationsand partnerships formed and informa-tion exchanged at the conference willundoubtedly reap numerous andunimaginable dividends in the future.

DR. JOHN A. PARMENTOLA is Direc-tor of Research and Laboratory Manage-ment, Office of the ASAALT. He has aB.S. in physics from the Polytechnic Insti-tute of Brooklyn and a Ph.D. in physicsfrom MIT.

ROBERT KHAN is a Senior ProgramManagement Analyst with Dynetics Inc.He has a B.S. in civil engineering and construction technology from TempleUniversity and an M.S. in systems management from USC.

ARMY AL&T

75APRIL - JUNE 2007

Retired USMC LTG Paul Van Riper stronglyadvised the S&T community to study the newcounterinsurgency field manual about to be issuedto find ways it can support warfighters and defeatworldwide terrorism.

According to Dr. Colin Gray, Chair, InternationalPolitics and Strategic Studies, the University ofReading, U.K., the security threats we face in the21st century are a return of a great powerconflict, climate change, uneven development inthe world, overpopulation, resource shortages,nuclear wars and terrorism.



ARMY AL&T

Wise and Witty — Seven Nobel Laureates Address 25th Army Science Conference (ASC)

Meg Williams

• Dr. Charles H. Townes, 1964 NobelPrize in physics for the invention ofthe laser and maser.

• Dr. Leon Cooper, 1972 Nobel Prizein physics for his studies on the the-ory of superconductivity.

• Dr. Leo Esaki, 1973 Nobel Prize inphysics for electron tunneling in solids.

• Dr. Leon M. Lederman, 1988 NobelPrize in physics for the neutrinobeam method and discovery of themuon neutrino.

• Dr. Robert F. Curl, 1996 Nobel Prizein chemistry for the discovery offullerenes.

• Dr. David M. Lee, 1996 Nobel Prizein physics for discovering superfluid-ity in helium-3.

• Dr. John B. Fenn, 2002 Nobel Prizein chemistry for identification meth-ods and structure analyses of biologi-cal macromolecules.

The laureates brought slides and view-graphs and told the stories of their famous discoveries. It was like havinga front-row seat to the seminal sciencelectures of the past half century — itwas sublime. To see the laureates’ pre-sentations, go to www.asc2006.com.To watch their filmed speeches, go to

The U.S. Army celebrated its past scientific accomplishments,

showcased current experiments and research, and welcomed

current and future scientists to the 25th ASC, Nov. 27-30,

2006, in Orlando, FL. It was a rare treat and great honor for the

more than 1,600 participants to hear speeches from seven Nobel

Laureates who earned their prizes while they worked on Army proj-

ects. After they finished speaking, many people in the audience

brought their programs to be autographed and had their pictures

taken with the great scientific minds of the past 50 years:

Dr. Leo Esaki, the 1973 Nobel Prize winnerin physics, shares his inspiration with ASCattendees. (U.S. Army photo by RichardMattox, Program Executive Office EnterpriseInformation Systems (PEO EIS).) Depicted inthe inset photo, Dr. Leo Esaki (right) carriesone of the first Sony tape recorders to a1958 European electronics conference. Atleft is Dr. William B. Shockley, 1956 NobelPrize winner in physics. (Photo courtesy ofDr. Leo Esaki.)


the Defense Acquisition University’sWeb site at http://view.dau.mil/dauvideo/view/channel.jhtml?stationID=1994197044.

Dr. John Parmentola, Director of Re-search and Laboratory Management,Office of the Deputy Assistant Secre-tary of the Army for Research andTechnology, said that the U.S. Armyhas sponsored and supported 30 NobelPrize winners over the years. “We findthrough our experiences and inquiriesa profound intelligence in the naturalworld, which is much greater than ourown,” Parmentola said. “There arerare moments in human history wherethe very few have had the fortune andtalent to touch this intelligence withtheir minds, albeit for a brief moment.They are the rare ones who at that raremoment are the first to understandsomething that no human has under-stood before.”

“Through this process we call research,these remarkable individuals bring cer-tainty to an uncertain world,” Parmen-tola continued, “and, as a result, theirprofound discoveries lead to further dis-coveries and numerous innovations tohelp improve the human condition andgive us all hope that we can achieve abetter world for all mankind.”

The seven Army-sponsored Nobellaureates spoke of the “creative fail-ures” that propelled them to theirwinning discoveries. They all alsopointed out that such discoveries arenever found by only one person, butrather teams of researchers; and theydelved into the mindset it takes topress toward a goal. Following aresome of their nonscientific storiesthat the Army Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology Workforce can applyto its daily work ethic.

Experts Are Not Always RightEsaki, one of the participants in thequantum revolution, said his success indiscovering the Esaki Tunnel Diode,the first quantum electron device, in1947 could be credited to his willing-ness to move to new environments andquestion authority figures during hisyounger years. It was very commonfor Japanese workers to stay with onecompany for their entire careers. Esakidid not follow that path, moving froma small Japanese company to Sony tothe IBM Watson Research Center inthe United States. He presented his“Five Don’ts” for anyone interested inrealizing his or her creative potential.“Who knows,” Esaki said, “it mayeven help you win a Nobel Prize.”

• Don’t allow yourself to be trapped bypast experiences. If you allow your-self to get caught up in social con-vention or circumstances, you willnot notice the opportunity for a dra-matic leap forward when it presentsitself. We have a “judicious mind”and a “creative mind.” More impor-tant is the creative mind. We workfrom the age of 20 to 70. We useour creative mind until we are 45.The crossing point is 45. Then heturned to the crowd and winked, “Ifyou are olderthan 45,don’t believemy theory.”

• Don’t allowyourself to beoverly at-tached to anyauthority inyour field oryou risk los-ing sight ofyourself.

• Don’t holdon to whatyou don’tneed. We

have easy access to an enormousamount of information. In terms ofmemory, the human brain has notchanged much since ancient times.Constantly input and delete informa-tion and only save the truly vital andrelevant information.

• Don’t avoid confrontation. At timesit’s necessary to put yourself first anddefend your own position. Fightingis sometimes unavoidable for thesake of self-defense.

• Don’t forget your spirit of childhoodcuriosity. It is a vital component forimagination.

Esaki displayed his playful spirit whenhe showed a photograph of himself andanother Nobel Laureate, Dr. William B.Shockley, taken at a 1958 Europeanelectronics conference (Page 76). Work-ing for Sony at the time, Esaki took thelatest Sony development, a tape recorder— a very large device in its first incarna-tion. The first stop before arriving inEurope was New Delhi, and he demon-strated the recorder for the customs offi-cers. “It was the first time they had seensuch a thing and they wanted to buy it,”Esaki recounted. “Someone asked if itrecorded English. ‘No,’ I told him, ‘it’sstill in development stage and it recordsonly Japanese.’”

ARMY AL&T

77APRIL - JUNE 2007

Dr. Charles H. Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in physics, is often referred to asthe Father of the Laser (and Maser). He is also known for his scientific research inmicrowave spectroscopy, quantum electronics, radio and infrared astronomy andastrophysics. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox, PEO EIS.) The historical image(inset) depicts Dr. Townes (left) and his colleague James Gordon at ColumbiaUniversity (circa 1954) with Townes’ second maser. (Photo image courtesy of theInstitute of International Studies, University of California-Berkeley.)


Keep an Open MindTownes, the inventor of the laser,echoed Esaki’s advice to stay true toyour own ideas. “We have to be will-ing to differ with senior people in ourfield,” he advised. “We have to be will-ing to differ with the majority. Wehave to be willing to explore new ideas.I had convinced myself that the maserhad to work. I had the idea in 1951and we first got it working in 1954.”

As they outlined how they had cometo their important discoveries, many ofthe seven Nobel Laureates emphasizedhow important it is to have interac-tions between different scientific andengineering fields, people, industriesand universities. “It is important forus to be open-minded and explorethose things that we don’t know aregoing to pay off,” Townes continued.“Once I had the idea for the laser, Icould see applications for communica-tions, precise measurements, cuttingand burning. But I never dreamed thelaser would be useful to medicine. I’memotionally very moved when some-one tells me that laser surgery savedtheir eye or reattached their retina. Inever dreamed that would happen.”

Lee, who devoted his career to low-temperature physics, noted that he wasinfluenced by the work of biology re-searchers: “I like to think of science asa worldwide web — everybody help-ing everybody else,” Lee said. “We

compete — but we also pull eachother up by our collective bootstraps.One of the most exciting things aboutour business is that we have these in-teractions that are so meaningful.”

Don’t Lose Your Sense ofHumorNot only did these men unravel mys-teries of the natural world, but theyalso could throw down a one-liner.Take Lederman, the Rodney Danger-field of theoretical physicists. After

Parmentola recounted Lederman’smany accomplishments during his in-troduction, Lederman quipped, “I likeintroductions like that. Sometimesthere is a negative aspect to fame andrecognition. I was on a crowded traincoming out of Chicago when itstopped at the local mental hospital.A nurse and a bunch of patients weregoing on an outing and they all scram-bled onto the train. The nurse wasmaking sure everyone was there andwas doing a head count, ‘One, two,three, four,’ then she looked at me andsaid, ‘Who are you?’ I said I was LeonLederman, Nobel Prize winner. Shesaid, ‘Yeah right, five, six…’”

Lederman spent 3 years in the ArmySignal Corps during World War II.While in the military, Ledermanhelped develop Doppler radar. “And itwas to my chagrin many years laterthat I got a speeding ticket from a po-lice officer using Doppler radar,” he

said. “And the police officer was usingit all wrong. Any kid knows that theDoppler radar direction has to beroughly parallel to your speed. It doesn’t have to be exactly parallel, butif it is 90 degrees away, you have no ve-locity component, and the policemanhad no velocity component. I ex-plained that clearly to the judge —who nevertheless asked me to pay my fine. After that, I decided that alljudges should have a 5th grade physics education.”

Tell Your Wife That Diamonds Are Not Forever“Carbon is really remarkable in the va-riety of manifestations that it has,”said the man who discovered the buck-minsterfullerene, Curl. “Graphite isused in pencils and as a lubricant;while the diamond, of course, is orna-mental and is also used in cutting andas a coating material. Graphite is themost stable, diamond is not as stableas graphite, so diamonds are not actu-ally forever, but it takes longer thanmost people care about for a transfor-mation to take place.”

Age 85 Is the New 45No doubt Fenn would disagree withEsaki’s assertion that our judiciousmind takes over at age 45. Fennjoined Yale University faculty in 1962.In 1987, when he reached the manda-tory retirement age, he fought age


ARMY AL&T

Dr. David M. Lee, 1996 Nobel Prize winner inphysics for his collaborative work on low-temperature helium-3, was one of the ASC’sdistinguished presenters. (U.S. Army photo byRichard Mattox, PEO EIS.)

Dr. Leon M. Lederman, 1988 Nobel Prize winner inphysics for his work on neutrinos, is also creditedwith helping the Army develop Doppler radar. (U.S.Army photo by Richard Mattox, PEO EIS.)

Dr. Robert F. Curl, 1996 Nobel Prize winner inchemistry, discovered the buckminsterfullerene, alsoknown as “Bucky Balls,” a stable molecule made ofpure carbon. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox,PEO EIS.)


discrimination and a university-mandated move to a smaller laboratoryspace. He remained at Yale and was70 years old when he began work onwhat would become his Nobel Prize-winning discovery. When Fenn wonthe Nobel Prize in 2002 for his workin mass spectrometry, he was 85.

Fenn studied combustion and setabout to study chemical reactions inflames the same way physicists studiednuclear reactions. In other words,bang two molecules together and makethem react.

“To do that,” Fenn explained, “weneeded to somehow get a lot of kineticenergy and high velocity into fuel mol-ecules and oxygen molecules. I de-cided we wanted to build a molecularbeam apparatus with a lot of pumpingspeed and see if we could get a colli-sion between two different reactants.Now, this was a very naïve idea. I senta proposal for this idea to the NationalScience Foundation and they fundedus. When one of my postdoctoratestudents got one look at a couple of32-inch diffusion pumps — nothingwould do until we could get thosepumps. I was scared to death, but itturned out to be the smartest thing weever did because having a lot of pump-ing speed meant that we could cover

up a lot of er-rors. Further-more, once westarted gettingresults and peo-ple came to thelab, they tookone look at theapparatus andsaid, ‘Very nice,but not for us.’So we had thefield to our-selves for a verylong time.”

Continue to Invest in Research“I think it’s just wonderful how muchthe Armed Services have contributedto basic science and exploration,”Townes told the ASC audience. “Un-fortunately, our industry no longerdoes that. Industry just can’t putmoney into exploration that may notpay off for another 10 years. How-ever, as a country we must, and as a

people, we must. Just look at thelaser. It cost $30,000 to produce thefirst laser and the payoff every year isprobably tens of billions of dollars.It’s been said that all of the researchdone is less than one week’s worth ofinvestments in applications. Sciencepays off. We’ve got to remember thatand devote our energies and our fi-nances to doing it.”

Cooper seconded Townes. “It is theunexpected dividend of profound fun-damental research that gives us payoffsin totally unexpected directions,” hesaid. “Consider the technology wetake for granted for civilian and mili-tary use — things like communica-tions, computers, electronics, medicalimaging and laser surgery would nothave existed without the fundamentalscience of Maxwell, Einstein, Lorentz,Kamerlingh Onnes, Schrodinger,Heisenberg, Dirac and many othersworking on problems that were so eso-teric that no practical person wouldhave funded them. It’s almost impos-sible to predict what technologies willflow from fundamental science. Fromthe work of Charlie Townes, who wasstudying radiology, we have laser sur-gery and compact discs.”

“At a time when funding is limited,”Cooper continued, “those of you whoare responsible for dispensing fundsfind it difficult to think of the futurewith all the current needs that have tobe satisfied. This troubles me. It’s justa way of saying you’re eating your seedcorn. You have to balance the im-mense needs of the present against theneeds of the future. I would like tothink that when you celebrate the 50thanniversary of the ASC, you will findpeople like myself who can proudlysay that our work was supported bythe Army Research Office. It’s not aneasy job and I wish you good luck.”

MEG WILLIAMS provides contract sup-port to the U.S. Army Acquisition Sup-port Center through BRTRC TechnologyMarketing Group. She has a B.A. in Eng-lish from the University of Michigan andan M.S. in marketing from Johns HopkinsUniversity.

ARMY AL&T

79APRIL - JUNE 2007

Dr. Leon Cooper, 1972 Nobel Prize winner inphysics, emphasized the importance of balancingpresent operational needs against investments forfuture scientific discoveries. (U.S. Army photo byRichard Mattox, PEO EIS.)

Dr. John B. Fenn, (right) shown here with the two postdoctoral students whohelped him assemble the molecular beam apparatus with its giant 32-inch diffusionpump at Yale University in the early 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Dr. John. B. Fenn.)Inset photo: Dr. Fenn (today) is known for his ground-breaking work in massspectrometry. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox, PEO EIS.)



ARMY AL&T

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2)

Past, Present and Future MAJ Shane Robb

In the mid-1990s, when FBCB2 was first fielded, it was still an emerging

technology with plenty of room for improvement. It is now undergoing

major system redesigns to capitalize on new technologies and incorporate

important lessons learned. FBCB2 is fast becoming a Joint program with a

new version of software called FBCB2-Joint Capabilities Release (JCR).

FBCB2-JCR will vastly improve the system, overcoming many of the previous

version’s shortfalls. FBCB2-JCR will provide the foundation necessary for the

U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) to converge fully on a single com-

mon FBCB2-based system for platform battle command called Joint Battle

Command-Platform (JBC-P). JBC-P will meet Joint command and control

(C2) and situational awareness (SA) requirements and will include new hard-

ware, dismounted solutions and beacon capabilities. As FBCB2 evolves into

FBCB2-JCR and later JBC-P, it will improve and become more user-friendly

and capable for the Soldiers who employ it.

Radio transmissions via SINCGARS allow unit commanders to track subordinate platoons on FBCB2 throughrepresentative icons on their digital map displays. Here, SGT Rafael Perez from Apache Co., 1-23 InfantryRegiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, talks on the radio and pulls security at acourtyard in Ghazaliya, Iraq, during a combined cordon and search with the Iraqi army on March 24, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Tierney Nowland.)


When FBCB2 was fielded, CPTMichael D. Acord, Commander, BravoCo., 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regi-ment, 4th Infantry Division (4ID),heralded it for the capabilities it pro-vided. “I realized its full potential dur-ing a night mechanized infantry attack.If you have never been on such an at-tack, let me paint you a picture. Imag-ine yourself on top of a loud vehiclemoving toward your objective. Younavigate using a map and small flash-light. Radios blare in your head. Youbarely know where you are, much lesswhere your three platoons and associ-ated infantry squads are located,”Acord related. “FBCB2 mitigates thoseconditions. With FBCB2, I could ‘see’the locations of all three platoons rep-resented by their icons on my digitalmap. These icons were real-time posi-tion updates being transmitted via ra-dios [Single Channel Ground and Air-borne Radio System (SINCGARS) andEnhanced Position Location and Re-porting System]. When we made con-tact, the platoons sent spot reports thatposted as icons directly on my map.This aided me in confirming my readof the enemy. The lit map provided aclear picture of the terrain. Line-of-sight analysis allowed me to determinethe intervisibility lines and where wewould likely make contact with theenemy,” he concluded.

Improved Friendly ForceIdentificationFBCB2 has improved unit SA exponen-tially. Commanders and leaders havemore efficient and effective C2 of theirunits, and FBCB2 enables them toadapt more quickly than the enemy. Inshort, it enables battle command.Equally important, FBCB2 has servedas an input for combat identification(CID) to inform “engage/don’t engage”decisions. Numerous reports from Op-erations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom(OEF/OIF ) indicate that many lives on

the battlefield were saved using FBCB2to help prevent fratricide incidents.(Editor’s Note: For more informationon CID, see the article on Page 34, January-March 2007 Army AL&TMagazine or go to http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/current/issue/articles/34_A_Holistic_Approach_to_Combat_Identification _200701.pdf.)

FBCB2 serves as the C2/SA link be-tween platforms andthe C2/SA systems lo-cated in the operationscenters at all levels.On April 7, 2003,during OIF, for exam-ple, senior leaders at thePentagon were able towatch in near real-timethe 2nd Brigade Com-bat Team, 3ID, advanceas they drove intoBaghdad. Never beforehad such an accuratepicture of reality on theground been available at all levels of com-mand simultaneously. Its significance issummed up by this statement from 3ID’sOIF After Action Report written in May2003. “The single most successful C2 sys-tem fielded for OIF was the FBCB2-BlueForce Tracking (BFT) system. It is impor-tant to mention that the FBCB2 systemused during this operation was not

fielded to facilitate division C2, butrather to facilitate tracking of friendlyforces at echelons above division. Evenso, BFT gave commanders situationalunderstanding that was unprecedentedin any other conflict in history.”

Current System LimitationsAlthough FBCB2 performed admirably,it has its limitations. A significant limi-tation learned during recent operations

was that many of the numerous, service-specific C2/SA systems are not inter-operable. This lack ofplatform-level interop-erability prevents thesharing of vitalfriendly, enemy andother survivability information, and increases the risk ofinterservice fratricide.

The Joint Require-ments Oversight Council (JROC) rec-ognized the capability gap that incom-patible service-specific C2/SA systemspresented and, after an exhaustivestudy, issued JROC Memorandum(JROCM) 163-04, which directed thatthe USMC adopt FBCB2 for bothplatform and dismounted applications.

ARMY AL&T

81APRIL - JUNE 2007

When the system is

turned on, the nearest

TSG will detect it and

begin to act as its server.

The vehicle’s FBCB2-JCR

will transition from TSG

to TSG as it moves across

the battlefield, providing

uninterrupted

connectivity.

FBCB2 is the interim Joint system being developed for fielding in 2007 by PM FBCB2 and MarineCorps Systems Command. The new system will address interoperability and platform/componentcapability challenges, vastly improving on current system performance. Here, 2nd Light ArmoredReconnaissance Regiment Marines patrol the streets of Karabilah, Iraq, during a counterinsurgencyoperation. (USMC photo by LCPL Shane S. Keller, 2nd Marine Division (Combat Camera).)


As a result of that directive, the Pro-gram Manager (PM) FBCB2 begandeveloping an interim Joint system(FBCB2-JCR). In parallel, the U.S. Army Training and DoctrineCommand Capability Manager(TCM) for Platform Battle Commandand CID began the extensive processof documenting the Joint C2/SA re-quirements for a new JBC-P systemthat would meet U.S. Army, USMC,special operations forces and aviationcommunity requirements as well asthose of the other various componentswithin the Joint force.

FBCB2-JCR is the interim Joint system under development by PMFBCB2 and Marine Corps SystemsCommand. Testing began in March2007 and will address many interoper-ability gaps identified during OEF/OIFcombat operations.

Capabilities-Based Improvements There are three primary developmentefforts that are part of FBCB2-JCR:network, database and software.FBCB2-JCR will redesign the terres-trial network making it area-based ver-sus hierarchically based. The systemwill work similar to a cell phone net-work. With this architecture, platoonleaders are not limited to specific

servers withinthe unit.Rather, theirsystems will automaticallyconnect to anyTactical ServicesGateway (TSG)— similar to amobile cellphone tower —on the battle-field. Whenthe system isturned on, the

nearest TSG will detect it and begin toact as its server. The vehicle’s FBCB2-JCR will transition from TSG to TSGas it moves across the battlefield, pro-viding uninterrupted connectivity.

FBCB2-JCR will greatly improve thedatabase process by initially loadingonly a small, unit-sized and much sim-plified database on each hard drive.The system would then “learn” the restof the database as it receives informa-tion from other users on the net.FBCB2-JCR will eliminate the need tocreate a massive database that must beupdated and manually copied ontoevery hard drive.

FBCB2-JCR will rewrite the FBCB2software making it more modular andreusable. Thissupports cre-ation of otherbattle com-mand productsthat could reusethe core com-ponents ofFBCB2-JCRsoftware, andadd new soft-ware compo-nents for newproduct-specificfunctionality.

Perhaps the most important improve-ment of all is interoperability.FBCB2-JCR will be fielded to boththe Army and USMC during 2007,and will increase compatibility withother C2/SA systems across the Jointforce. The Movement Tracking Sys-tem has incorporated JCR softwareand will be almost fully interoperablewith FBCB2-JCR. This will improvethe Common Operational Picture(COP) at all levels, help to reduce therisk of fratricide and better enable real-time battle command.

Family-of-Systems (FoS)JCR will be followed by a completelynew FBCB2 variation called JBC-P.JBC-P greatly improves on FBCB2 andis the Army’s and USMC’s solution tocomply with JROCM 163-04 and fullyconverge on an integrated platformlevel C2/SA system. JBC-P is an FoSthat can share C2/SA across the Jointoperational environment from variousplatforms with disparate missions andrequirements. The JBC-P product linewill consist of the following FoS:

• JBC-P Full. This will be the stan-dard computer, screen and software.It will include integrated Global Po-sitioning Systems and will be thesame size or smaller than the currentFBCB2 V4s. Users will be able to


ARMY AL&T

Depicted below is a working JBC-P prototype developed by NorthrupGrumman. When fielded, JBC-P will deliver unprecedented Joint forceinteroperability and compatibility. (Photo courtesy of Northrup Grumman.)

FBCB2-BFT was the most successful battle command system fielded duringOEF/OIF. The system provides an unprecedented capability to track friendlyforces at echelons above division. Here, Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 68thArmored Regiment, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, setup a perimeter after drawing enemy fire during a population patrol operationnear Forward Operating Base Warhorse, Iraq, last September. (U.S. Air Forcephoto by TSGT Michelle A. Desrochers, 4th Combat Camera Squadron.)


remove the screen from its mount andmove it to different locations withinor around the platform — up to 15feet away. Select leaders’ vehicles willalso receive a dismountable personaldigital assistant-like product that candock with the full capability, but whendismounted, can continue to receiveand send C2/SA information whilethe users are a short distance fromtheir platform (up to 300 meters).

• JBC-P Partial. The partial capabilitydescribes those systems that require alevel of interoperability with JBC-Pbut may not use the same hardwareor software to achieve that interoper-ability. An example of a partial capa-bility system is that designated forrotary-wing aircraft. The aircraftmust be able to share C2/SA, but thecockpit environment requires differ-ent hardware and simplified user interfaces. Partial also includes astand-alone hand-held product thatwill provide C2/SA to dismountedinfantry, special operations forces, reconnaissance units and other userswho require a man-portable JBC-Pversion with integrated communica-tions. This capability will integratedismounted forces into the COP forthe first time.

• JBC-P Beacon. This is a 1-way bea-coning device to populate the COPwith Blue (friendly force) position location information tracks for CIDpurposes. Beacons will be less expen-sive than Full versions of JBC-P andwill be fielded in enough quantitiesto ensure at least one for every twoplatforms is sending position reportsto the COP. Beacons will also aid inCID with a primary objective of informing “engage/don’t engage” decisions and preventing fratricide.

JBC-P will enable warfighters todownload and send digital pictures.They will have a free draw “John Madden” type capability and will have

enhanced collaboration tools such aschat. Vectors projected on the screenwill indicate direction of main gun en-gagements. JBC-P will highlight anddisplay friendly units in different userselectable colors and sizes on theiruser-defined COP display. It will storemessages that are sent but not receivedand then resend or forward themwhen the addressee reenters the net.JBC-P will be able to display “snailtrails” or retrace the movement oficons back through time. In short,JBC-P will provide numerous new ca-pabilities that greatly increase the SAof Joint leaders and commanders, andsignificantly enhance their ability toprovide effective C2.

The capabilities envisioned for JBC-Pare coming soon to the Joint force.The evolution of FBCB2 to FBCB2-JCR and then to JBC-P is scheduledto correlate with the Army’s SoftwareBlocking (SWB) schedule. The cur-rent version of FBCB2 (V6.5) corre-lates with SWB 2. FBCB2-JCR willbe fielded in conjunction with SWB 3and JBC-P (Version 1) will be fieldedin conjunction with SWB 4.

Since FBCB2’s emergence onto thebattlefield, commanders and leaderswho have used it in combat recognizedits significance and have used it to

great effect. FBCB2 has provided unprecedented SA to all levels of command, and it has provided an en-hanced means of enabling battle com-mand for commanders and leaders. AsFBCB2 evolves into FBCB2-JCR andlater JBC-P, it will only improve, be-coming more user-friendly and capa-ble. With an increase in interoperableC2/SA systems’ quantity, leaders andcommanders will have a more accurateJoint battlefield picture. JBC-P willfurther improve situational under-standing and decision making, andwill assist Joint leaders by making iteasier to mass both effects and forcesat a critical point in an operation.Most importantly, JBC-P will helpkeep our Joint warfighters alive by in-creasing combat effectiveness and en-suring fratricide prevention.

MAJ SHANE ROBB is a RequirementsOfficer, TCM-Platform Battle Command/CID, Headquarters, U.S. Army ArmorCenter, Fort Knox, KY. He holds a B.A. inpolitical science from Brigham Young Uni-versity, and his military education includesthe Air Defense Captains Career Course,Combined Arms and Services Staff School,Air Defense Officer Basic Course ForwardAir Defense, Air Defense Basic Course andU.S. Army Acquisition Basic Course.

ARMY AL&T

83APRIL - JUNE 2007

FBCB2 has provided unprecedented SA to all levels of command providing enhanced battle command whenand where it was needed most. Next generation JBC-P will build on system success and provide evenbetter situational understanding in the very near future. Here, SPC Jeremy Turner, C Troop, 8th Squadron,10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 4ID, provides security during a presence patrol in Ameriya, Iraq, lastNovember. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Martin K. Newton, 982nd Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)



ARMY AL&T

Cannon Artillery – An Update on the Army’sCurrent and Future Munitions Programs

COL John Tanzi

This article’s purpose is to educate the greater Acquisi-

tion, Logistics and Technology Workforce about the

status of current and future artillery cannon systems

and munitions. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com-

mand (TRADOC) Capability Manager-Cannon (TCM-Cannon)

is a client-oriented Commanding General (CG) TRADOC

agency that ensures the integration of warfighting require-

ment domains of doctrine, organization, training, materiel,

leadership and education, personnel and facilities for all

assigned systems. TCM-Cannon acts on behalf of the CG

TRADOC on matters pertaining to chartered cannon artillery

and munition systems.

Soldiers prepare to fire the new M777A1 LW155 Howitzer during operational testing atTwentynine Palms, CA. The M777A1 is used by both Army and USMC artillerymen. Thenew M777A1 is the first towed (digitized) cannon platform designed to fire PGMs. (U.S.Army photo.)


TCM-Cannon strives to provide reli-able cannon platforms and munitions.Their primary objective is to ensurethat the managed systems meet userrequirements, are affordable for theArmy and are delivered to Soldiers in a timely manner. Current managedprograms follow.

Current Cannon SystemsM119A1/2 105mm Towed HowitzerStatus: FY05 Congressional Supple-mental funding was received in June2005. Efforts continue to stretchavailable M119A1/2 assets to meetModular Force needs. As units movefrom reconstitution to reset, to theModular Force structure or to a de-ployed status, their priority continuesto increase. Assets are being allocatedin accordance with this guidance.U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG)units are currently converting to theModular Force. Some units are sched-uled to convert from the M109A6 Pal-adin 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer,M198 155mm Towed Howitzer orM270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systembefore new production M119A2 How-itzers are available. Fort Sill, OK, andthe U.S. Army Armament Research,Development and Engineering Centerrecently began concept exploration todigitize the M119A2 fleet with TowedArtillery Digitization. This will im-prove the systems’ ability to meetModular Force concepts and pave theway for the use of near and precisionguided munitions.

M109A6 Paladin 155mm Self-Propelled HowitzerStatus: As units modularize outthrough 2008, all M109A5 Howitzerswill be replaced with M109A6 Pal-adins/M992A2 Field Artillery Ammu-nition Support Vehicles (FAASVs).The Paladin is expected to be in the Army’s inventory until 2050.Therefore, a national recapitalization

program is being implemented for thePaladin/FAASV. This program allowsthe Paladin/FAASV to be upgradedwith the newest technologies, includ-ing Modular Artillery Charge System(MACS), Excalibur ammunition racksand the Paladin Digital Fire ControlSystem, which allows the platform tofire Precision Guided Munitions(PGMs) and inductively set fuzes.

M198 155mm Towed HowitzerStatus: The M198 recently finishedundergoing a breech modification toenable the system to fire our newestpropellant, the MACS.

M102 105mm Towed HowitzerStatus: Currently there are 171 how-itzers still in service in the ARNG.The M119A2 will replace this systemover the next few years.

Future Cannon SystemsM777/M777A1 Lightweight 155mmHowitzer (LW155)System: The LW155 will eventuallyreplace all M198 Towed Howitzers inStryker Brigade Combat Teams(SBCTs). This system will provide lo-cation, directional reference and digitalcommunications with the Fire Direc-tion Center. The M777 will provide

close and deep fire support, counter-fire and interdiction fires to supportoperations in both the Army and U.S.Marine Corps (USMC), and be rap-idly deployable to any region and op-erable under any climatic conditions.The M777 will be the first towed (digitized) cannon platform designedto fire PGMs.

Status: Currently, there are 94 M777sbeing produced for the USMC. TheArmy has finalized fielding to the ArmyField Artillery and Ordnance Schools.The Army finalized fielding to theSBCTs during the first quarter of FY07.

Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) System: This system is a variant in theFuture Combat Systems (FCS) Family-of-Systems. The NLOS-C uses a com-mon chassis within the FCS Family ofVehicles and has similar interoperabil-ity, mobility and survivability charac-teristics. This program leverages thework done on the Crusader Programand will have similar advanced capabil-ities on its platform. The NLOS-Cprovides networked, extended rangetargeting and precision attack of pointand area targets with a suite of muni-tions that include special purpose capabilities. The NLOS-C provides

ARMY AL&T

85APRIL - JUNE 2007

Soldiers from A Battery, 3rd Battalion, 29th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd BCT, 4th Infantry Division (4ID),fire their M109A6 Paladin 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer during an operational mission in support ofOperation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). (U.S. Army photo by SGT Jack Morse, 982nd Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)


sustained fires for close support and destructive fires for tactical standoffengagement. The system’s primarypurpose is to provide responsive firesin support of combat battalions andtheir subordinate units in concert withLOS, Beyond-LOS and NLOS exter-nal and Joint capabilities. The systemprovides flexible support through itsability to change effects round byround and mission by mission. Thesecapabilities, combined with rapid re-sponse to calls for fire and rate of fire,provide a variety of effects on demandto the battlefield commander.

Status: The new fielding schedule isstill being drafted, but overview brief-ings show the first initial operating capability will be in 2014, with full operational capability by 2017. Theprogram will deliver 8 NLOS-Cs to theArmy by 2008, and will field 18 plat-forms from 2010-2012. The test plat-form fired more than 2,000 roundsfrom January 2003 to March 2006.The program is also reviewing bids forits Large Caliber Ammunition Resup-ply requirements as the system will beresupplied without the crew handlingthe projectiles. This will be a monu-mental achievement in the artillerycommunity as currently all ammu-nition is fed manually

into current plat-forms. Live firetesting of this sys-tem was conductedat Yuma ProvingGround (YPG), AZ,in November 2006.

MunitionsXM982 Excalibur System: Excaliburis an extendedrange projectilethat attacks high-payoff and danger-ous targets in all weather and all ter-rain types to support the close fight,while minimizing collateral damagethrough concentrated lethality and in-creased precision. The Excalibur isGlobal Positioning System (GPS)-guided, making it the Field Artillery’sfire-and-forget munition of choice. Itprovides the capability to attack per-sonnel and soft skin vehicles, as well asreinforced bunkers at ranges exceedingcurrent 155mm munitions capabilities.

Status: Advanced Early Fielding wasapproved by the Army Resource andRequirements Board in March 2005.Acceleration of Advanced Field ArtilleryTactical Data System (AFATDS) soft-ware and a Portable Fuze Setter is alsorequired. Successful firing of multiple

inert and live projectiles at YPG hasvalidated a Circular Error Probable(CEP) of less than 10 meters at allranges. Excalibur’s maneuverabilitywas also demonstrated by conductinga 15-degree offset shot and having the projectile impact approximately 7meters from the target. A Front EndDemonstration was conducted June13-16, 2005, in conjunction with theFire Support Test Directorate, to vali-date AFATDS software and Excaliburtactics, techniques and procedures(TTPs). Some minor deficiencieswere found with the AFATDS soft-ware and revisions to the TTPs weresuggested. Software issues were sub-mitted to Raytheon and ProgramManager AFATDS.

MACSSystem: MACS uses a “build-a-charge”concept in which increments are identical to all others in the same lotdesignation, eliminating the need todispose of unused increments. Unusedincrements are retained for future use.MACS consists of two propellingcharges, the M231 and the M232, andassociated packaging. It is compatiblewith all current and planned 155mmfield artillery weapon systems.

Status: MACS is materiel released. TheProject Manager Combat Ammunition


ARMY AL&T

An M777 Howitzer provides close and deep fire support. This howitzer is used by both Army and USMCartillerymen and will become the first towed cannon platform to fire PGMs. (U.S. Army photo.)

An M109A6 Paladin from the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery Regiment,4ID, fires a high-explosive round downrange in support of coalition forcemaneuver units operating in Diyala Province during OIF. (U.S. Army photoby SSG William L. Davis, 982nd Signal Co. (Combat Camera).)


Systems (PM CAS) began working toreformulate MACS to optimize MACSfor the 39 caliber systems. TheM232A1 was type classified 24 in May2005 and materiel released in Novem-ber 2006, but will not be released tocannon units until the AFATDSBlock II software is released. Thereformulated MACS will increasetube wear life and reduce blast-overpressure.

Multi-Option Fuze Artillery (MOFA)and the Portable Inductive ArtilleryFuze Setter (PIAFS)System: The M782 MOFA fuze is aninductively set fuze used with burstingprojectiles. It has four functions:point detonating, delay, time andproximity. Due to its multiple op-tions, the burden of tracking multiplefuzes in the logistics train is simplified.MOFA replaces eight fuzes currentlyin the inventory. The inductively set

fuze can be set with the PIAFS and isalso compatible with automated am-munition handling equipment forthe NLOS-C.

Status: MOFA is currently in the pro-duction, fielding, deployment and oper-ational support phase of the Life CycleSystem Management Model. MOFAwas type classified in September 1999and was materiel released in November2005. This fuze is for War Reserveonly and will not be used for training.

Advanced Cannon Artillery Ammuni-tion Program (ACAAP) System: ACAAP is a product im-provement program based on replen-ishing our current stockpile of 105mmand 155mm cannon artillery ammuni-tion. The entire ACAAP suite of mu-nitions has ballistic similitude or oneset of firing tables for all projectiletypes. Additionally, ACAAP will pro-vide the artillery cannoneer the abilityto change all rounds from Boat Tail toBase Bleed in the field.

Status: A Capability Production Doc-ument (CPD) for the 105mm Pre-formed Fragment projectile is cur-rently being staffed. CPDs are cur-rently being developed for the 105mmand 155mm family of munitions.

Projectile Guidance Kit (PGK) System: PGK is a low-cost, fuze-sizedmodule intended to replace a “NATOstandard” fuze on conventional105mm and 155mm ammunition.

GPS provides location and time dur-ing flight while an Inertial NavigationSystem (INS) determines trajectoryand makes continuous corrections en

route to the target. PGK reducesdelivery errors by improving pro-

jectile accuracy with the aid of GPSand INS. PGK is being designed toprovide approximately 30 meters (In-crement 1) CEP at all ranges. PGK isa complementary system to Excalibur,not a competitor. PGK provides moreefficient suppression versus Excalibur’spoint precision.

Status: Currently, the Army is leverag-ing Navy Guidance Integrated Fuzetechnology. The munitions industry isaggressively investing research and de-velopment dollars to design this sys-tem. The Army continues to monitorthe Navy’s Pathfinder Program as a de-velopmental risk mitigator. On Feb.23, 2006, TRADOC approved thePGK Capability Development Docu-ment and forwarded it to HQDA forapproval. PM CAS received five pro-posals from a request for proposal andare presently conducting the technicalevaluations to determine which con-tractors to select for the technology development phase.

For more information on cannon plat-forms and munitions systems, visit theFires Knowledge Network Web site athttps://www.us.army.mil/suite/portal/index.jsp.

COL JOHN TANZI is the TCM-Cannon,Fort Still, OK. He holds a B.S. in biologyfrom Norwich University and is a graduateof both the Field Artillery Officer AdvancedCourse and U.S. Army Command andGeneral Staff College.

ARMY AL&T

87APRIL - JUNE 2007

Here, an NLOS-C test platform fires a round lastyear at a test range at YPG. Likewise, successfulfiring of Excalibur at YPG has resulted in a CEP ofless than 10 meters at all ranges. (Photo courtesyof the YPG Public Affairs Office.)

The new Excalibur extended rangeprojectile will provide artillerymen withincreased precision and concentratedlethality. (U.S. Army photo.)



ARMY AL&T

AAE/ASAALT and PEO Aviation Discuss the ArmyAviation Modernization Plan at

AUSA ILW SymposiumRobert E. Coultas

More than 300 attendees converged in Arlington, VA, to

get an update on Army aviation at the 2007 Association

of the United States Army (AUSA) Institute of Land War-

fare (ILW) Aviation Symposium and Exhibition, Jan. 17-19, 2007.

Co-sponsored by the Army Aviation Association of America, the

theme for this professional development forum was “Sustaining

Army Aviation and Transforming for the Future.” Speakers included

Army Acquisition Executive (AAE)/Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASAALT) Claude M.

Bolton Jr.; Program Executive Officer (PEO) Aviation Paul Bogosian;

PEO product managers; Army commanders; current and former avi-

ators; and aviation professionals from private industry.

The Chinook helicopter has been a mainstay in the Army’s arsenal since the Vietnam era, and new variationswill keep it in service for at least another 20 years. Here, paratroopers from the 3rd Battalion, 187thInfantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, and Iraqi troops from the 4th Iraqi Division, board a CH-47helicopter after participating in Operation Vegas in the Samarra, Iraq, area last year. (U.S. Army photo byJeremy L. Wood.)


During the opening remarks, Boltondescribed the Army Aviation Modern-ization Plan’s (AAMP’s) status. “Thingsare going relatively well and consis-tently in what we said we were goingto do. We have the same story yearafter year, meaning we are on trackwith what we are supposed to bedoing,” he reported. “After the Co-manche program’s termination, wemade promises to ourselves, industry,the SECDEF [Secretary of Defense],the President of the United States andto Congress, most importantly, that ifwe were allowed to take the money thatwe were going to spend on the Co-manche program, we would modernizeArmy aviation; and that’s what we’vebeen doing.” Bolton said he learned a valuable lesson during the Light Utility Cargo Program testing aboutcommercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) pur-chases. “We discovered that in DOD,let alone the Army, we have no policyfor buying COTS for our testing, re-source or requirements communities.

So, MG [James] Myles, [Commander,U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Com-mand], myself and others are going totake this opportunity to spend a littlebit of money and figure out what wereally must do to buy COTS products,and then put policies in place so thatthe next time we purchase a COTS, theprocess is a bit easier. We are also goingto offer those policies to our overseascolleagues and perhaps they will usethem as well. We are not delaying theprogram; we are onschedule to deliverthat capability to Soldiers.”

Bolton added that al-though the AAMPhas been a challenge,it is going relativelywell. “It’s not easy.A lot of hard workhas gone into thisacross the entirecommunity —

government, contractors and Congresshave to keep this on track because wehave the responsibility to get the capa-bility to our warfighters as quickly aspossible.”

New ChallengesBolton used a football analogy to de-scribe future challenges. “For the past50 years, we’ve won our conferenceand the National Title every year.That’s not bad — it’s a great track

ARMY AL&T

89APRIL - JUNE 2007

During his opening remarks, AAE/ASAALT Claude M. Bolton Jr. gavehis assessment of the AAMP and challenges that lay ahead for Armyaviation. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox, PEO EnterpriseInformation Systems (EIS).)


record. But, now we are moving intoa different conference with teamnames like interoperable, system-of-systems, lean and coalition. If we en-gage the new competition with the oldstrategy we have been using to trainour people, ‘only quarterbacks need toshow up for practice this year,’ howmany games do you think we will win?In other programs, I’ve had to termi-nate contracts or delay things, andwhen I ‘peel back the onion’ to take alook at these things, I find it’s not be-cause of bad people or malice, but thatwe have not trained or educated thosefolks. Congress has realized that andhas already passed a law this year thatwe [the Army] are going to do some-thing in the requirements area, so I be-lieve they will have other things for us.But the Army is not waiting. We areworking on how we can provide train-ing and education for this group sothat they can meet future challenges,”Bolton explained.

Who Makes it Happen?Bolton explained that people are theArmy’s most precious asset and are re-sponsible for the current state of theAAMP. “Without your brain power,ingenuity, insights and energy, none ofthe charts I put up today would be areality. Taking $15 billion and spread-ing it across a group of programs isone thing — it’s another thing to

bring it home interms of reality. Thebottom line is thatwe are trying to pro-vide a capability inreal time to our war-riors, because theyare at war and theyneed it. What Ineed from each ofyou is your contin-ued support, energyand effort to makeall of this possible.

We have the world’s best Army andthe world’s best aviation, which is atribute to the people. People are cen-tral to everything we do in the Army.Institutions do not transform andmake all this happen. Platforms andorganizations do not defend a nationthe last time I checked — people dothat and will continue to do that,”Bolton predicted.

PEO Aviation UpdateDuring his presentation, Bogosian in-dicated that he expects aviation unitsto remain in theater when Americanground forces redeploy, and that for

the next 5 years, aviation budgets willremain approximately what they arenow ($6 billion for FY07). “We arebringing effect to the fight. We’re getting products to warfighters and fulfilling our requirements as materialdevelopers to field and develop capabil-ity. It’s a very robust budget and, as acommunity, we should be very pleasedwith it. It’s a direct effort of the [avia-tion] community at large ensuring thatwe put programs that have substanceinto effect. We executed those pro-grams and convinced the leadershipthat we are able and will be able to getwarfighting capability to the aviationwarriors as quickly as possible.”

Bogosian said that one of the unfore-seen consequences of the ComancheArmed Reconnaissance Helicopter(ARH) Program’s termination was thescaling back of the service’s invest-ment, with only $99 million of theArmy’s $6 billion aviation FY07budget set aside for science and tech-nology (S&T). “One of the glaringomissions that came from the Co-manche termination was the fact thatwe did not drive any portion of that


ARMY AL&T

PEO Aviation Paul Bogosian expects aviation units to remain in theaterwhen American ground forces redeploy, and that for the next 5 years,aviation budgets will remain about the same as they are now ($6 billionfor FY07). (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox, PEO EIS.)

Bell Helicopter Textron has contracted with the Army to produce theforce’s next generation of ARHs. The ARH will replace the battle-testedbut aging OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Helicopter Fleet. (Bell Helicopterphoto by Ed Garza and Ben Gillian.)


investment into aviation S&T. Whenyou consider the oddity of that, in thesense that the Comanche was the greattechnology driver for Army aviation,when we terminated it and directedthe dollars into near-term capability,we abandoned a substantial portion ofhow we were going to lay out S&T forthe future. I have taken this on per-sonally and will continue to do so toensure that we pay the appropriate at-tention to reviving our S&T accounts.It’s not so much the degree of invest-ment that’s a concern — it’s how weare driving that investment and howwe are focusing it. In 2026, are wegoing to be facing major upgrades onour platforms? Are we going to bring

these platforms in for upgrades to in-sert new technology? Probably not,”Bogosian remarked. He also men-tioned that he and others in the avia-tion community are working on the“the vertical lift requirement” that theArmy needs.

Bogosian also discussed Lean SixSigma (LSS) initiatives and said they“seem to have staying power,” but hewants aviation to “have the flexibilityto take on new missions” and not be-come locked into process over prod-uct. “LSS evaluations are essential re-sponsibilities. We must ensure that weask ourselves the right questions —how do we maintain effective opera-

tions, and how do weensure that in the endit’s not the processwe’re managing, butthe product that we’remanaging? That willbe the focus that wewill continue to havein PEOs.”

Bogosian predictedthat condition-basedmaintenance will be

expanded throughout Army aviation.“We have to put sensors on those air-craft and take advantage of the insightsthose sensors are providing for main-tainers. It means managing the data isthe smart thing for the maintainer inevaluating the results.” Bogosian indi-cated that integration will remain achallenge and that it will be time-consuming and costly to insert tech-nologies into the common operatingenvironment and battle command. “Itis going to take a long time to field aFuture Combat Systems Army andalso support the modular brigades oftoday,” he said, adding that airspacemanagement will remain an issue inthe future as more manned and un-manned aerial systems come into play.

Recalling what Army aviation did 10to 15 years ago, Bogosian remarked, “Itmust have been right. When you lookat how these aircraft are performing incombat, and then when you look atthe things we are bringing forward,specifically unmanned systems, you seehow quickly we can respond and howadaptive a community we are. Let’scontinue to pursue our virtues. Let’ssustain this partnership. Let’s reinforcethe fact that when the Army gives us amission, we can execute it and get thebest return for our investment andcontinue to see to the future. Armyaviation will be around a long time andthe Army and the Nation will be betterfor it,” he concluded.

ROBERT E. COULTAS is the ArmyAL&T Magazine Departments Editor. Heis a retired Army broadcaster with morethan 30 years of combined experience inpublic affairs, journalism, broadcastingand advertising. Coultas has won numer-ous Army Keith L. Ware Public AffairsAwards and is a DOD Thomas JeffersonAward recipient.

ARMY AL&T

91APRIL - JUNE 2007

“Army aviation is demonstrating its power, versatility and adaptability in very important confrontations inAfghanistan and Iraq,” remarked former Army Chief of Staff and AUSA President GEN Gordon R. Sullivan(U.S. Army, Ret.). “Without Army aviation, the Army would not be as strong and adaptable as it is today.”Here, pilots from 1st Battalion, 101st Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, provide air support overTal Afar, Iraq, from their AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter. (U.S. Air Force photo by SSGT Jacob N.Bailey, 1st Combat Camera Squadron.)

AAE/ASAALT Claude M. Bolton Jr. (center), confers with LTG Russel L.Honoré, Commanding General (CG), First U.S. Army (left), and MGVirgil L. Packett II, CG, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, AL,during the AUSA ILW Aviation Symposium and Exhibition. (U.S. Armyphoto by Richard Mattox, PEO EIS.)


The Honorable Kenneth J. Kreig,Under Secretary of Defense for Ac-quisition, Technology and Logistics

(USD(AT&L), has set a goal for the DODacquisition workforce to become a “highperforming, agile and ethical workforce.”Our intent is to meet or exceed this expecta-tion for our own Army Acquisition, Logistics and Technol-ogy (AL&T) Workforce. In April 2006, Army AcquisitionExecutive and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisi-tion and Technology (ASAALT) Claude M. Bolton Jr. ap-proved the Army Acquisition Human Capital Strategic Plan(HCSP) to provide the direction to transform the ArmyAL&T community into a more diverse and versatile work-force, better postured to support the Army’s mission. It alsoestablishes a forecasting framework to assess the “health” ofArmy acquisition and provides important human capital in-sights to our acquisition leaders.

The ASAALT Balanced Scorecard™The Balanced Scorecard is a strategic road map used to accomplish the AL&T mission. It’s comprised of five over-arching strategic objectives (end results) including com-pletely aligning with the USD(AT&L’s) goal of shaping ahigh-performing, agile and ethical workforce. It also ex-plains the ways and means this goal is to be achieved:

• Promote Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) leadership development.

• Promote workforce professional development.• Match the workforce to the work requirement.• Promote a professional military acquisition corps.• Resource the acquisition workforce.

We are aligning and integrating our goals with the DODhuman capital indicatives with our HCSP by creating amore flexible acquisition professional through the ASAALTCompetitive Development Group Program. This plan cre-ates leaders with a broader perspective through diverse expe-riences and advanced leader development training. We areestablishing a comprehensive, data-driven workforce analysisand decision-making capability by using Lean Six Sigma, theNational Security Personnel System and Balanced Scorecard

to ensure the use of measurable desired outcomes to guideprogress in our programs.

The U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center (USAASC) ob-jective to maximize the Army acquisition automation toolsto enhance career planning and development has somepromising innovations to streamline our career managementprocess. One example is a certification process that auto-mates coursework completion and continuous learningpoint posting, has Acquisition Career Record Brief edit ca-pability and features virtual Defense Acquisition WorkforceImprovement Act (DAWIA) certification.

We are targeting promotion of professional development formilitary and civilian personnel by matching the workforce tothe Army’s needs by creating a supervisor outreach programto assist acquisition supervisors in guiding the professionaldevelopment of their people. Also, we are constantly com-municating our message to the AL&T Workforce throughArmy AL&T Magazine, Army AL&T Online Monthly andthe newly reconstructed USAASC Web site. Additionally,LTG N. Ross Thompson, Military Deputy to the ASAALTand Director for Acquisition Career Management, and hispredecessors have traveled to our acquisition communities tokeep an open dialogue with the workforce.

Various Army initiatives and routines readily support theUSD(AT&L) goals, including the Army Acquisition Ca-reer/Leader Development Program. This program has threeprogressive developmental levels for employees to move for-ward throughout their career and develop competitive quali-fications as well as functional leadership competencies:

• Technical foundation is the base for development that isaccomplished by achieving Level III certification and ac-quiring a thorough understanding of the technical aspectsof their respective acquisition career fields (ACFs).

• In the broadening experience stage, employees strive to develop multifunctional knowledge and awareness and to obtain Level II certification in an additional ACF.

• Once assigned to positions at the strategic leadership level,success is dependent on acquired skills.

To ensure that the proper training is available for developingtomorrow’s strategic leaders, adequate resources are required.

Resource Management ChallengesAAC education is funded through Operations and Mainte-nance Appropriation (VAQN) —“Funds Education, Training,Experience and Assignments Necessary for Career Progression

From the Acquisition Support Center Director

CA

REE

R D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

UPD

ATE


ARMY AL&T


for Military and Civilian Members of the AAC.” The FY07HQDA Critical President’s Budget (PB) is $6.109 million.The current PB funding position is $4.803 million. The finalVAQN is $4.74 million and is based on the final funding let-ter dated Nov. 13, 2006. This brings a year of execution chal-lenges including:

• Incremental funding that causes timing issues with con-ducting boards and class registration.

• Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) Operations andMaintenance Army restrictions to travel, conferences andtraining reduces effectiveness, and VCSA memo restrictinghiring to current Army civilians unless a waiver is ap-proved to hire from outside the federal government.

• Requirements growth creates shortfalls for functional area(FA) courses.

AAC funds for education, training, experience and assign-ments are essential for career progression for military andcivilian AAC members per DAWIA Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter87. This includes advanced degrees, leadership training, op-erational experience and developmental rotation broadeningassignments from accession through all stages of career pro-gression leading to the most senior acquisition positions.Funding provides a framework for the AAC’s continuing ed-ucational and professional development requirements perDAWIA and the USD(AT&L) policy on continuous learn-ing for the Defense Acquisition Workforce.

Army Acquisition Certification StatusThe first indicator on the “health” of the AL&T Workforce’sprofessional development is certification for the work beingdone. Based on our data as of Dec. 31, 2006, the distribu-tion of the Army military and civilian acquisition personnelby acquisition position category for those certified for cur-rent position requirements, is only 38 percent of the totalArmy acquisition workforce meeting position requirementsfor certification. Based on available service data from earlyFY06, the Army lags the other services in this area.

The systems planning, research, development and engineer-ing and contracting career fields are nearly 50 percent of theacquisition workforce and 62 percent of the required certifi-cations. Business, cost estimating, financial managementand life-cycle logistics have relatively major densities in theworkforce and comparatively low certification levels. Wehave instituted a Supervisor Outreach Program to educateand enable acquisition supervisors on acquisition career development requirements and have personally engaged the senior leaders in the Army acquisition community to

support and enforce acquisition professional development.We fully expect marked improvement in all areas this yearand for many years to come.

Certification TrainingThe Army needs to make a stronger commitment to certifi-cation training to ensure our workforce’s continued profes-sional development. At the beginning of each fiscal year, theArmy communicates its training needs to the Defense Acqui-sition University (DAU). The Army submitted its FY08 re-quest to DAU the first quarter of FY07. In FY08, the Armyis requesting nearly 11,000 resident quotas. If recent pastperformance is any indication, the Army will use all of thequotas it’s allocated. The Army Quota Managers take everyopportunity to place students seeking training into classes.

Theoretically, DAU resident quotas are a finite resource. Intruth, DAU is adept at adding capacity to accommodateservice needs during the academic year. In FY06, DAUadded approximately 1,720 resident quotas. The Army wasable to make good use of all available quotas, above and be-yond the allocation, and continued to fill necessary residentcourses as long as the Army could afford the inevitable tem-porary duty (TDY) costs. Approximately 40 percent ofArmy resident quotas are filled by students who must travel.

Budget challenges aside, the Army continued to send acquisi-tion workforce members to certification training, and we willcontinue to do so. Routinely, program executive offices(PEOs) and other commands pay the TDY cost associatedwith certification training when the DAU training budget isconstrained. In fact, to ensure there are ample DAU funds inFY07, the Army is allocating its managed DAU dollars onlyto priority 1 students. The commands of priority 2 studentsand above pay their own way. This may change if more train-ing dollars become available, but this prudent policy is in linewith the other services’ practices and helps to ensure we don’thave to turn away critical priority 1 students.

DAU allocated an additional $200,000 to the Army forDAU training in 2006. But even then, USAASC con-tributed an additional $360,000 to meet workforce trainingdemands. Aside from the funding that PEOs, other com-mands and USAASC contribute, the Army also funds andprovides DAU training through the Army Logistics Manage-ment College, Huntsville, AL, to its newly assessed acquisi-tion personnel at the Basic Qualification Course (BQC).Students receive a Level II education in program manage-ment and contracting. The FY06 BQC cost the Army$2,342,042 with more than half that cost coming from

CA

REER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT U

PDA

TEARMY AL&T

93APRIL - JUNE 2007


TDY costs. This proved to be an acceptable manner inwhich to conduct the necessary training required for certifi-cation, but we are always looking for alternate forms of edu-cation that lead to employee certification but at lower over-all cost to the government.

In addition to DAU training, the Army has developed andinitiated many additional programs to develop an agile andethical acquisition workforce including FA51, CP-14 SeniorLeadership Development and Career Program 40 courses.

Preferred OutcomesThe following is the Balanced Scorecard’s desired end state:

• To promote professional development and ensure that edu-cational and developmental opportunities are the rightones for the acquisition workforce.

• To provide training and education that actually enhancesprofessional development.

• To increase employees’ job satisfaction, build a better“bench” and get the right people in the right job at theright time.

• To retain a skilled and experienced workforce through ourSenior Service Schools and provide proper placement aftergraduation.

By following these criteria, the Army will create agile, multi-functional acquisition professionals prepared to successfully leadand manage complex acquisition organizations and projectmanagement challenges in constrained resource environments.

For more HCSP information, contact David Duda at (703) 805-1243/DSN 655-1243 or [email protected].

Craig A. SpisakDirector, U.S. Army

Acquisition Support Center

Practical Project Management:What is the Program’s Technology Management Plan?

COL John D. Burke

A Milestone B or C decision or, best of all, a full rate produc-tion go-ahead is quite an accomplishment for a project manager(PM). Once a PM has achieved one of these peak events, theinevitable “good idea” factory will go into full steam. Thesegood ideas could include new engines, new software, sensors,payloads, commonality with other platforms, simulations, mod-els, logistics monitoring devices, maintenance improvementequipment and human factor engineering. Of course, most ofthese come with limited funding and the expectation that thehost platform will help fund the technology transition.

How does a PM manage technology to take advantage ofcandidate program improvements while preserving the pro-gram’s approved cost, schedule and performance goals? ThePM has to be in front of the technology curve and deter-mined not to react and induce program disruption. Success-ful technology planning depends on anticipation, feasibility,best-value evaluation and timing.

AnticipationA technique to catalogue and index the various candidate tech-nologies is the Technology Assessment Transition Management(TATM) process. This model was used in the Unmanned Air-craft Systems (UAS) Project Management Office (PMO), thenexpanded to Program Executive Office (PEO) Aviation andeventually to PM Joint Robotics Office (Unmanned GroundVehicles). The TATM is based on the Defense AcquisitionUniversity method that will assist a project office upon request.TATM Proof of Concept can be found online at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=142628.

The PM or PEO can use the TATM to identify the coreprogram with each of the sources, maturity and eventualcut-in of various technologies. Candidates can come in re-sponse to safety or obsolescence, from planned product im-provements or from other federal agency research and devel-opment (R&D) and industry internal R&D investments.The value of a single “horseblanket” depiction of all thetechnology candidates shows the time-to-event alignment ofnew technologies in context of the core program.

When technology candidates are proposed for inclusion intoyour program, the top level questions should be:

CA

REE

R D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

UPD

ATE


ARMY AL&T


• What identified need does this technology satisfy? Forexample, the need to meet DOD or legal mandates forsmart identification tags.

• Is the proposal funded by the offeringorganization to includetransition andengineering sup-port? Often the funding for a technol-ogy candidate is only for the B-Kit.

• Are there other competing candidatesthat can meet the mission with less risk,cost or complexity?

• How does the technology candidate’s timingrelate to the established program schedule?For example, if a technology matures in themiddle of a block cycle on major weaponsystems with block upgrades programmed 3-5 years in ad-vance, then the next opportunity may be 5-7 years later.

• Who is the champion of the initiative?

FeasibilityThe Technical Readiness Level (TRL) is one means to applya standard against the candidate technology. TRL of 1-4typically means the technology is undergoing basic engineer-ing and scientific principles to prove-out in a prototype atthe lab. TRL of 5-7 represents the levels of maturity whereserious consideration for inclusion on the platform shouldoccur. An excellent TRL paper is located at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/AQ201S1v10Complete.pdf.[Note: Use upper case letters where shown.]

The PM has to establish a screening process for the individualtechnology candidate such as an improved electro-optic (EO)and infrared (IR) sensor fusion software. What is the maturityof the individual software? Has the design been vetted withthe platform and other intra-system components? How willwe test and evaluate on an individual basis and then on a sys-tem level? How should fleetwide dissemination of the softwareand training of users and maintainers be accomplished?

Feasibility criteria for a PM boils down to a go/no-go crite-ria. Is the proposal in the program office’s best interest, andare resources available to form a technology insertion team— usually an ad-hoc team — to evaluate the technology formore development? The PM must remember that each ofthese technologies has constituent interests from industry,other federal agencies and even Congress. Thus, the criteriaand means to adapt technologies should be consistent andclear to all concerned, as you will be asked to defend yourdecisions later on.

Best-Value EvaluationWhen the TATM list of all can-

didate technologies is shownfrom present to 3, 5 and 10

years out, the maturity-to-timerelationship becomes evident.

The further out technologyTRL 7 is achieved, the less certain the technology will

prove-out today. This is a normal time/value relation-ship that can be normalized in terms of risk and economics.

To evaluate a candidate technology like multi-spectral fu-sion, the PM team should use the existing cost of the EO/IRsensor on the system today as a base case. Similar to dis-counting a financial note due in 5 years, create the high andlow spread of cost and complexity of the future capabilityagainst today’s sensor. If the payoff is below the cut-linethen the candidate technology should be rejected. An alter-native is developing a plan to decrease either the maturity orcost risk and rerun the analysis.

The process described above was used to develop the Armyapproach for a common EO/IR and laser designation sensorused for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) andthe Warrior UAS system. The multidisciplined team metover the course of 12 months with periodic reviews with theArmy Vice Chief of Staff and the Army Acquisition Execu-tive. We reduced the cost and performance variance of acommon sensor to an acceptable trade-off when comparedto the existing strategy of pursuing two separate sensors fortwo separate platforms.

TimingTrying to synchronize the weapon system platform, sub-systemsand then technology candidates is a time-intensive task. Eachelement has multiple organizational, financial and technical as-pects. When multiplied across a complex weapon system, PMscan find themselves in situations where only the most intenselymarketed technology candidates are brought forward.

The program budget build or Program Objective Memoran-dum (POM) process begins in the fall of the year for thebudget year 2-7 years out. PMs will begin their program

CA

REER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT U

PDA

TE

95APRIL - JUNE 2007

To evaluate potentialtechnology candidates for a

common EO/IR and laser designation sensorfor the ARH and Warrior UAS, the PM used TATM to

conduct a best-value evaluation. Here, an OH-58D KiowaWarrior helicopter from 1st Battalion, 4th Cavalry Regiment,1st Infantry Division, provides cover for troops on the groundin Samarra, Iraq. (U.S. Air Force (USAF) photo by SSGT

Shane A. Cuomo, 1st Combat Camera Squadron.)

ARMY AL&T


POM submission in October 2007 for the FYs 10-15 POMperiod. When the POM submission timeline and theTATM spreadsheets are overlaid, PMs can easily see when toinclude technology transitions in the POM submission.This kind of overlay is essential to show a cohesive adapta-tion of technology into the base program.

Organizing for Technology TransitionThe aviation community established a general officer boardwith the commanding generals of the U.S. Army AviationCenter and the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command,with PEO Aviation and the Director of the Aviation andMissile Command Research and Development EngineeringCenter as the signatories. This group meets twice a year toreview and prioritize the Aviation Science and Technologyand R&D initiatives and candidates.

The PM is responsible for signing technology transfer agree-ments (TTAs) for initiatives coming out of the Army R&Dcommand or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencywith their counterpart in these commands. The inherentpower of signing or not signing these TTAs is the credibilitygiven to the R&D proposal showing the target host platformis committed to transitioning the technology.

The PM has to determine which part of the office will be re-sponsible for technology transition. Depending on the inter-est and disposition of the PM and Deputy Project Manager(DPM), either the DPM or Engineering Division Chief is theresponsible official. As a PM, I decided to lead the technol-ogy assessment team consisting of key leadership within thePMO. A PM should expect that one or two seasoned engi-neers with multidisciplinary experience are needed in an ac-quisition category (ACAT) I or basket project office to man-age the TATM process, answer queries about new technologyand conduct program level assessments of new ideas.

Managing the ProcessManaging technology insertion is a necessary function forsuccessful programs. A PM has to anticipate, assess for fea-sibility and value and then time the insertion to gain maxi-mum performance at the least disruption and cost. ACAT Iand basket project offices have to set aside managerial andengineering time and resources to set up a disciplined andrepetitive process. That process succeeds with defined crite-ria on how technology candidates will be assessed, priori-tized and included in the base program plan.

A successful PM will establish the required oversight, under-stand the various interests and accept the intensity of organiza-tions and people who want to help improve the base programthrough technology insertion. Success is a positive response tothe rhetorical question “Am I managing the program’s technol-ogy or is it managing me?”

COL John D. Burke is the Deputy Director, U.S. Army Aviation,HQDA G-3/-5/-7. He concurrently serves as the Director for Un-manned Systems Integration. He has nearly 20 years of projectand product management experience in Army programs.

CA

REE

R D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

UPD

ATE


ARMY AL&T

Our author points out, “successful technology planning depends onanticipation, feasibility, best-value evaluation and timing.” The UAS PMO usedthese techniques and the TATM process on several very successful productlaunches. Here, CPL Jerry Rogers, 1st Battalion, 13th Armor Regiment, 3rdBrigade, 1st Armored Division, assembles a Raven UAS near Taji, Iraq. TheRaven is being used to track potential insurgent forces operating in the vicinity.(USAF photo by TSGT Russell E. Cooley IV, 1st Combat Camera Squadron.)


Worth Reading

Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

Michael R. Gordon and GEN Bernard E. TrainorPantheon, 2006

Reviewed by Scott Curthoys, a retired U.S. Army Military Intelligence and Foreign Area Officer. He is currently workingas a Counterintelligence Analyst contracted to a federal agency.

Bookstore shelves are groaning under the weight of bookson the war in Iraq. Some are well written and provide thereader with an understanding of a very complex puzzle; others have been written merely as a vehicle for the authorto espouse his or her own political views on the reasons theU.S. went to war. Whatever the author’s motivation, thesheer number of books is reflective of the significance thatthe conflict in Iraq, and its aftermath, has for this country.

Despite the emotions surrounding the attacks of Sept. 11,the U.S. invasion of Iraq may rank as the defining momentof the first half of the 21st century. If the United States suc-ceeds in installing representative democracy in a region un-familiar with the concept, it would deprive those who advo-cate terrorism of some of the long-standing grievances thatfuel their cause. On the other hand, if the current attemptat building a new Iraqi nation fails, and this is not a slightpossibility, then the United States and its allies face a farmore perilous course in protecting themselves from thosewho practice terror in the name of their god. Moreover, theseeds of a failure in Iraq were likely sown prior to the firstshot of the war being fired.

In their book, Cobra II, authors Michael R. Gordon andGEN Bernard E. Trainor (U.S. Marine Corps., Ret.) providea clear and riveting look at the military planning that wentinto the invasion of Iraq. Moreover, they give the reader adeep look into the lack of planning concerning postwar Iraq. The disconnect between planning for the invasion andnot planning for the occupation, the failure to follow up asuccessful campaign with a workable plan to secure Iraq, isthe most prominent thread running through the book.

This disdain for the “mushy” aspects of a military campaignshould not be a surprise for those familiar with PresidentBush. As far back as Oct. 11, 2000, during a debate withhis opponent, then candidate George W. Bush dismissed theconcept of using troops for nation-building. “I think ourtroops ought to be used to fight and win war,” Bush stated.What is absent from this thinking, of course, is an under-standing that war does not end with a referee’s whistle; itoften transforms into something that requires different objectives and resources.

What is evident in Cobra II is that the chaos of postwar Iraqis not just the result of circumstances, but can be traced to de-cisions made by the military and the civilian administrationprior to and during combat.

Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld exercised farmore influence in the planning process for the invasion thanhis “it’s not my plan” public pronouncements indicate. Theauthors discuss, in great detail, Rumsfeld’s interest in the inva-sion plan. Specifically, they cite his constant pressure to limitthe size of the invasion force, his alterations to the time-phasedforce and deployment list, and the fact that he did not directU.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to designate a head-quarters to secure postwar Iraq. Coupled with this almost unprecedented interference in what was normally considered“general’s business” was an increasingly dysfunctional militarystructure. This was characterized by a marginalized JointChiefs of Staff, a CENTCOM staff in Tampa that requirednear constant care and feeding by subordinate headquarters intheater, and a Defense Secretary that took umbrage at the suggestion of one of his generals that the occupation of Iraqwould require several hundred thousand troops.

This last point is indicative of why the failure to secure post-war Iraq could have been avoided. Rumsfeld’s concept of atransformed military — to essentially do more with less —did succeed during the march to Baghdad. In moving upand down the military structure from platoon battles to thedecisions of battlefield generals, this book chronicles the

WO

RTH R

EAD

ING

ARMY AL&T

97APRIL - JUNE 2007


impact of American technology. Improved reconnaissanceand surveillance tools, precision guided munitions and ahigh degree of cooperation between the services allowed theUnited States to invade with a small force and move rapidlytoward its objectives. However, this reliance on a small, fast-moving force had two consequences that, the authorsindicate, were ignored during planning.

The first is that a small force would not have a sufficientnumber of troops on the ground to occupy Iraq. Even withthe forlorn hope that the Iraqis would police themselves, theUnited States did not even have enough occupying forces tosecure all of the suspected weapons of mass destruction sitesprior to inspection. The second is the appearance of the Fedayeen on the battlefield.

Cobra II lays bare the misperceptions that guided the planning and strategy of both sides. Saddam Hussein wasconvinced that the principal threat to his regime was frominternal unrest. He did not consider invasion by the UnitedStates to be a big threat, as even Iran ranked higher as achallenge. As a result of this perception, Saddam establishedthe Fedayeen, ostensibly to combat an internal uprising untilthe Republican Guards arrived. The United States misreadthe foe and focused on destroying the Republican Guards asthe main objective — completely missing the significance ofthe initial appearance of Fedayeen on the battlefield. As theauthors point out, the first Marine casualty was killed by aman in civilian clothing riding in a pickup truck. Thetroops engaged in combat quickly adapted and began engag-ing the Fedayeen. However, the significance and impact ofthese irregulars was not realized at CENTCOM, as was evident when the CENTCOM Commander considered relieving the V Corps Commander, U.S. Army LTGWilliam “Scott” Wallace, when he stated that U.S. forces hadnot planned for irregulars on the battlefield. U.S. ArmyGEN Tommy R. Franks (now retired) was focused on a rapidadvance to Baghdad while his field commanders were tryingto reduce the effects of the Fedayeen on their logistics.

The strength of Cobra II lies in the fact that it is not the his-tory of a single battle, the story of a highly decorated unit orthe biography of a single general at war. Instead, it is a com-prehensive and dispassionate examination of 18 months ofplanning and the resulting invasion — explained with clarityby authors who understand the military and its unique culture.

This issue’s feature article highlightshow the Army’s use of an innovativestrategic sourcing effort led to the

award of contracts that will yield a savings ofmillions from cell phone and wireless com-munication acquisitions. These savings weremade possible by the teaming of the Infor-

mation, Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial Con-tracting Center acquisition workforce and its customers.

In addition to the feature story and the regular DAR Coun-cil Corner article, I introduce to you Karen Moser, the newDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Procure-ment) (DASA(P&P)) Competition Manager and Ombuds-man. In the article, Moser, who comes to us from the U.S.Army Materiel Command, covers stewardship, personal ob-jectives and measuring success. Moser’s extensive acquisitionexperience will be an asset as she reinvigorates the DASA(P&P)Ombudsman and Competition Advocate programs.

Also featured is the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Officefor Simulation, Training and Instrumentation contractingfor robotics on the battlefield, and some insights and experi-ences faced by civilians supporting contingency and exercisesupport contract operations. I would like to send my thanksto the military and civilian personnel in these positions, whodemonstrate every day a unique courage and professionalismin supporting our warfighters.

We appreciate support from the field in providing materialfor publication, and we hope you are finding the submis-sions informative and interesting. For more information,contact Emily Clarke at (703) 696-1675/DSN 426-1675 [email protected].

Ms. Tina BallardDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Policy and Procurement)

CO

NTR

AC

TIN

G C

OM

MU

NIT

Y H

IGH

LIG

HTS


ARMY AL&T

Contracting Community Highlights


CO

NTR

AC

TING

CO

MM

UN

ITY H

IGH

LIGH

TSARMY AL&T

99APRIL - JUNE 2007

Army Contracting Saves Millions on Wireless Services and Devices

The U.S. Army is expecting to shave nearly $4 million from its cell phone and wireless e-mail bills this year withoutreducing service, thanks to an innovative strategic sourcingeffort that is restructuring how the Army purchases wirelessservices and devices.

The Army Contracting Agency (ACA), in a Joint effort with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Information Technology Commodity Council and the Defense Telephone Service-Washington (DTS-W), recently launched a comprehensivestrategic sourcing initiative to leverage the military’s buyingpower and optimize purchasing of wireless devices and serv-ices. The end result is newly negotiated blanket purchaseagreements (BPAs) with the four major wireless providers —Cingular (now AT&T), Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile — aswell as a number of smaller, regional providers. These newagreements consolidate numerous older contracts and pro-vide the greatest level of discounts to date for Army users,while enhancing overall service levels.

Benefits extend beyond the Army, as the new contracts havebeen made available for use by all DOD personnel. TheArmy and USAF alone expect to save an estimated 20 to 30percent of the roughly $50 to $100 million the two spendannually on wireless devices and services.

In the past 5 years, the use of cell phones and wireless e-maildevices such as the BlackBerry® have grown tremendously.With increased competition and technological advances, theindustry itself has undergone significant change. In the past2 years, the number of national wireless providers has been

cut in half because of mergers, while smaller, pay-as-you-goproviders have emerged as potential consumer vendors.

Within the Army, change in wireless usage has been equallyfast paced. Cell phones and BlackBerry devices have becomeinvaluable tools for busy Army personnel on the go. Inmany instances, cell phones are replacing pagers and landmobile radios. Minutes of usage have continued to increasesteadily, while the wireless use price per minute has droppedan estimated 40 percent over the last 3 years.

Despite the increased usage among Army personnel and therapidly evolving wireless marketplace, the Army wasn’t tak-ing advantage of the opportunities to optimize its wirelessbuying. Army wireless users were scattered across multipleservice contracts representing a broad range of pricing plans,many of them sub-optimal. Additionally, many users wereon plans that were not sized correctly. They either had toofew minutes, resulting in overage charges, or had too manyminutes, resulting in wasted minutes and higher pricing.

The Army’s wireless strategic sourcing was initiated in 2006 inresponse to a DOD-wide strategic sourcing effort that identi-fied wireless services and devices as primary candidates to gen-erate savings. In a Joint effort with the USAF and DTS-W,the Army launched a team to develop an acquisition strategyto maximize savings in wireless purchases. The Army, DTS-W and the USAF worked to develop the acquisition strategyas well as the final BPAs to negotiate with suppliers.

Bryon Young, newly appointed ACA Director, sponsored theinitiative and was instrumental in providing guidance and sup-port to the team as well as coordinating efforts with the USAF.“This was an important effort, not only because we expected wecould achieve substantial savings, but also because we wanted todemonstrate we could successfully satisfy cross-service require-ments using the strategic sourcing process,” he explained.

Critical to the initiative’s success was the formation of across-functional sourcing team of wireless experts and acquisition professionals from across the Army. Led byRobin Baldwin, who at the time was Chief, AcquisitionSupport Branch for the Information, Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center(ITEC4), the core team included representatives from theACA, Army Office of Small and Disadvantaged BusinessUtilization, ITEC4 and Army Program Executive Officefor Enterprise Information Systems. As recommendationswere developed, a broader stakeholder group was engagedto provide feedback and guidance. Supporting Baldwin


throughout the effort were Linda Van Collie, ITEC4-WestContracting Officer, and Calvin Knight, Network EnterpriseTechnology Command/9th Army Signal Command Chief,Base Communications Division.

“The effort was a great success — the Army/USAF/DTS-W/wireless industry partnership was exceptional,” said Bald-win. “We armed ourselves with information on how indus-try buys wireless hand-held products. Being the wirelesshand-held industry’s biggest individual customer is notenough to bring about great terms, conditions and pricing.It is knowing the recent terms and condi-tions negotiated by large businesses thatcounts. Knowing the benchmarks andconcentration of Army and USAF wirelesshand-held spending brought about a greatoutcome for DOD. Strategic sourcing isall about being educated consumers, andwe were!” he exclaimed.

Continuing their analysis of Army wirelessspending, the team identified numerous du-plicative and uncoordinated contracts withthe Army’s four primary suppliers. In thesecontracts, they found many pricing plans andprice points that were not competitive withcurrent market rates — legacy rates from older plans or inde-pendently negotiated plans by individual Army organizations.

The team also examined user requirements by analyzingusage data and gathering qualitative feedback through userinterviews. The team determined that many users were pur-chasing more minutes than they were actually using. A sig-nificant portion of wireless minutes that the Army pur-chased were going unused.

Finally, the team researched wireless industry trends as wellas best practices of other government agencies and commer-cial firms for controlling wireless costs and developing optimal supplier agreements. This research pointed to threekey strategies for improving the Army’s wireless sourcing:

• Enterprise Agreements. Negotiating agreements at the enterprise level allows an organization with the Army’s sizeand scope (and DOD more broadly) to take advantage ofvolume-based discounts and reduce administrative costs associated with managing multiple contracts.

• Rationalize Existing Contracts. Performing a comprehen-sive review of existing contracts allows an organization toeliminate older, sub-optimal contracts while identifying

the best contracts to serve as benchmarks for negotiatingfuture contracts.

• Practice Demand Management. Taking a critical view ofuser needs and usage allows organizations to match usersto the most appropriate plans.

Overall, the team’s market analysis suggested significant savings could be achieved with the successful implementation of these three strategies.

In March 2006, the Army signed its first BPA with VerizonWireless. Over the next several months,additional BPAs were signed with Sprint,Cingular and T-Mobile, as well as selectedsmaller providers. The new BPAs replaceall existing wireless agreements and all newwireless purchases are being made throughthese contract vehicles. Army personnel aretransitioning to the new plans as their cur-rent service contracts expire.

“This is an important savings opportunity,”Young remarked. “We have to ensure thatall organizations understand the terms ofthese new agreements and adopt them assoon as practical.” Each BPA covers the

range of wireless devices identified by the strategic sourcingteam as being required by Army personnel. This includescell phones, wireless e-mail devices (such as the BlackBerry)and wireless broadband devices (modem cards), as well aswireless accessories.

Administration of the new agreements is being performed atthe Army ITEC4-West at Fort Huachuca, AZ. However,BPA ordering is decentralized, allowing local contracting of-fices to place orders and administer them for their customers.To view detailed terms and conditions for the BPAs, go tohttp://www.itec4.army.mil.

Currently, the Army is transitioning existing users over tothe new BPAs. Based on initial analysis, the BPAs have beena tremendous success in moving users to improved pricingplans that are better aligned with actual usage. Total savingswill increase as more users transition to the existing BPAs.

For more information about wireless strategic sourcing, contact James Kuhl at (520) 538-8244 or [email protected]. For information about Army strategic sourcing, contact COL Tony Incorvati at (703) 325-3309 or [email protected].

CO

NTR

AC

TIN

G C

OM

MU

NIT

Y H

IGH

LIG

HTS


ARMY AL&T


CO

NTR

AC

TING

CO

MM

UN

ITY H

IGH

LIGH

TSARMY AL&T

101APRIL - JUNE 2007

DASA(P&P) Welcomes New Competition Managerand Ombudsman

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement and Policy) (DASA(P&P)) Tina Ballard welcomes Karen Moseras the new Competition Manager and Ombudsman for theArmy acquisition community. Moser, on board since No-vember 2006, is assigned to the new Business Operationsand Enterprise Systems Directorate. Coming from the U.S.Army Materiel Command as a Senior Procurement Analyst,she also brings staff work experience in U.S. Air Force spacesystems contracting.

Moser began her federal career as a Procurement Agent Internwith the Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus,OH. Shortly thereafter, she joined the base procurement of-fice at the 2750th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase (WPAFB), OH, and later became a Procurement Analystat the base’s Acquisition Logistics Division. She then attainedpositions as a Contractor Negotiator and Procurement Ana-lyst at the U.S. Aeronautical Systems Division at WPAFB.

The Ombudsman position has been unencumbered forsome time. By definition, an ombudsman is chartered tofunction independently and charged with representing theinterests of the public by investigating and addressing com-plaints or other issues. Moser, who is tasked by and reportsto the DASA(P&P), said her objective is to provide over-sight for the Army, review and respond to contractors’ questions regarding terms and conditions of contracts and to

investigate complaints. “I will regard the program as a suc-cess if all parties are satisfied that their concerns have beenhandled fairly, whether or not they like the answer,” she said.

As the competition manager, Moser provides staff support toBallard, who is also the Army Competition Advocate. Sheworks closely with the Army’s major commands’ policy de-partments to maximize and enhance the government’s abilityto leverage the benefits of market-based competition to en-sure each command receives the best available prices, qualityand innovation from private industry as the governmentcontracts for systems, products and services.

“In promoting competition in contracting, we face a partic-ularly challenging environment,” Moser explained. “Giventhe critical need for funding operations and providing con-tract support in Iraq and elsewhere in support of the globalwar on terrorism, these funding constraints and short-noticerequirements have made advance planning more difficultand continue to consume a considerable amount of our con-tracting personnel’s time and energy.”

Moser said that as the contracting environment becomesmore challenging, the need has never been greater to ensurethat taxpayers get the most for their money. “Areas we ex-pect to examine closely include services, which comprise alarge and increasing share of our total contracting dollars,and software, where recent Government Accountability Of-fice decisions serve as a reminder of the need for closescrutiny of our business arrangements. While we are mov-ing into a difficult new environment, we are confident thatour Army acquisition workforce will be up to the challengeand will align the Army staff to provide the best supportpossible,” she proclaimed.

Karen Moser can be contacted at (703) 696-4458/DSN426-4458 or [email protected].

Battlefield Contracting — A Personal View

Jake M. Adrian

Contracting on the battlefield is just that — contracting in an often dangerous and extremely diverse operational environment. Daily threats working and living at CampVictory, Baghdad, Iraq, include random bullets coming in

DASA(P&P) Tina Ballard presents the Achievement Medal for Civilian Service toKaren Moser, the new Competition Manager and Ombudsman for the Armyacquisition community. (U.S. Army photo by MAJ Robert Dutchie.)


over the wall and mortar and rocket attacks. Other threatsinvolve attacks on the base life support supply chain, the oppressive summer heat and the muddy mess during thewinter wet season. The old slogan, “It’s not just a job, it’s anadventure!” holds true every day — and then some!

On June 14, 2004, I started working for the U.S. Army Sus-tainment Command (ASC), a subordinate U.S. Army MaterielCommand (AMC) organization. Hired as a contract special-ist, my first 11 months were spent as a cost/price analyst forthe Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III, a$22 billion program that was competitively awarded to Kel-logg, Brown & Root Services Inc., in December 2001. LOG-CAP III is the Army’s largest contingency contract, supportingmore than 100,000 troops spanning a theater of operationsthat includes Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Republic of Georgia and Djibouti. My duties included task order proposalevaluation for allowability, allocability and cost, and direct ne-gotiations for base life support, theater transportation mission,bulk fuel and the Army oil analysis program. I evaluated pro-posals and negotiated task orders covering por-tions of Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. From myperspective, I was helping the customer and thetaxpayers get the most “bang for their buck,” anddoing it from the comfort of Rock Island, IL,and Houston, TX.

In 2005, I was in various ammunition rota-tions learning about supply contracting and theins and outs of the Federal Acquisition, DefenseAcquisition and Army Federal Acquisition Regu-lations, and attending classes to become DefenseAcquisition Workforce Improvement Act Levels Iand II certified. In May 2006, I was assignedmy permanent duty location at LOGCAP III,this time on the contracting side and, again,from the comfort of Rock Island.

In late August 2006, I “threw my name into the hat” to de-ploy to the LOGCAP forward office in Iraq. I wanted to domy part and go the extra mile for my country. I left RockIsland on Oct. 26, 2006, and spent a week at the CONUSreplacement center. On Oct. 29, I sat down at my new deskin the AMC LOGCAP-Iraq office at Camp Victory.

My second week in country, our team traveled to Camp Ana-conda, Balad, Iraq, for the main LOGCAP-Iraq task orderpost-award road show that includes the base life support, the-ater transportation mission and corps logistic support services’task orders covering the bulk of Iraq. Our road show includedbriefing customers on the LOGCAP contracting process, al-lowing customers to raise any concerns and bringing all thestakeholders together in one room. It was during these briefs,given by the LOGCAP-Iraq Deputy Program Director JanaWeston, that I realized what I thought I knew about LOG-CAP was nothing compared to how it really works.

Contingency contracting, and specifically LOGCAP III, is acompletely different “animal” when you are out in the fieldand in the thick of it. Things that seemed so simple or ob-vious to me back in my cozy cubicle took on a whole differ-ent meaning once I got to Iraq. You can talk about taskorder support, but you don’t know what it really means untilyou see it and depend on it as our Soldiers do.

Back in Rock Island, water is drawn from the MississippiRiver, cleaned and delivered through an elaborate networkof pipes and, ultimately, pumped out of your faucet. Youbuy food at a grocery store or restaurant. Electricity hap-pens when you flip a switch. In Iraq, approximately 11 mil-lion gallons of water per day must be desalinated, purified

CO

NTR

AC

TIN

G C

OM

MU

NIT

Y H

IGH

LIG

HTS


ARMY AL&T

In Iraq, nearly 11 million gallons of water must bedesalinated, purified and distributed by truck or pipelineevery day to meet the Army’s battlefield requirements.Here, a flatbed truck and trailer prepares to leave CampArifjan, Kuwait, for the front lines. (U.S. Army photo byRichard Mattox, Program Executive Office EnterpriseInformation Systems (PEO EIS).)

U.S. Army mechanics from AMC Forward Combat Equipment Battalion, Camp Arifjan, makenecessary adjustments to a newly installed M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank engine. LOGCAPensures that Soldiers have the supplies, tools and space they need to perform their logisticssupport missions. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Mattox, PEO EIS.)


CO

NTR

AC

TING

CO

MM

UN

ITY H

IGH

LIGH

TSARMY AL&T


and distributed by truck. Food is delivered to the dining fa-cility by armored trucks via military convoy, making it sus-ceptible to improvised explosive devices and roadside attacksall the way from Kuwait to Camp Victory. For electricityyou flip a switch, just as you do in the United States, butthe electricity comes from gas-burning generators — gaswhich has to be delivered in the same manner as the food.

It was hard to understand the magnitude and challenges ofcontracting in a contingency environment from a cozy cubi-cle in Rock Island. Being out in the field has shown me theerrors in my previous thinking. Working in a deployableenvironment has shown me why things were proposed theway they were. I learned why a piece of equipment Ithought had no added value may actually be the differencebetween life and death for a Soldier on the battlefield.

Despite all the threats, hardships and inconveniences, contracting is a force multiplier and the mission must getaccomplished. Contracting on the battlefield and the over-seas assignments that go with it are filled with hardships.However, because of contracting services, warfighters are eating hot meals in an air-conditioned building, they aregoing back to a mattress and a bed, and their lives are madea little easier. This makes contracting on the battlefieldworthwhile.

For more information, contact Jake Adrian at (312) 732-427-0566/DSN 987-0566, when prompted, enter 1, then3009#, or [email protected].

Editor’s Note: For Army contracting professionals interested in volun-teering for overseas duty, AMC/ASC is accepting nominations for itsnew Deployable Civilian Contracting Cadre (DCCC) pilot program.The DCCC is designed to establish a cadre of highly trained and ex-perienced civilian contingency contracting officers. See our October-December 2006 issue, Pages 54-57, or go to http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2006/4_OctNovDec/articles/54_AMC_Establishes_a_Deployable_Civilian_Contracting_Cadre_200604.pdf, to learnmore about the DCCC. If you are interested in volunteering foroverseas contracting positions, contact LTC Robert Shelton, ArmyContracting Command (ACA)-Northern Region, at (757) 788-3624/DSN 680 or [email protected]. You may also contactLTC Robert Brinkman, ACA-The Americas, at (210) 295-6147/DSN421 or [email protected]. For informationabout contingency contracting in Iraq, contact Carolyn Creamer at(703) 696-5030/DSN 426 or [email protected].

JAKE M. ADRIAN is an ASC Contract Specialist at LOGCAP-Iraq.

Army Contracting in Saudi Arabia

Willie Travis and Steve Jaren

There are still places in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whereyou can imagine Lawrence of Arabia’s experience riding hiscamel across the desert. These days, when you see the SaudiArabian National Guard (SANG) riding their “camels,” theyare actually Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs), an earlierStryker vehicle variant. Residents still ride real camels inSaudi, but SANG only rides them for ceremonial events.Contracting in Saudi doesn’t involve camels, but it still pro-vides interesting and challenging opportunities that some-times make you feel like you’re riding one of those hump-backed beasts.

Our MissionThe primary weapon system for SANG is the LAV. Thisprogram is managed by Program Manager (PM) LAV, War-ren, MI. The Office of the Program Manager (OPM)-SANG Modernization Program coordinates fielding of thesevehicles in country by providing training and logistics sup-port to the Saudis under a separate service contract. Addi-tionally, SANG provides other contracting support such asworking construction efforts associated with the LAV pro-gram, transitioning other military systems to the LAVs andsupporting equipment including various simulators.

The OPM exercises principal authority over the moderniza-tion effort’s planning, direction, execution and control. Thisauthority includes all SANG elements, missions, functionsand requirements. OPM-SANG has provided training andsupport for some of these weapons and other security serv-ices for more than 34 years.

The OPM-SANG Acquisition Management Division(AMD) is involved in all phases of contracting, starting withpre-award functions and concluding with all aspects of post-award functions. SANG procurements include equipment,training and support services; large facilities construction;information technology equipment/services; medical equip-ment; and consumable supplies. OPM’s contracting author-ity flows from the U.S. Army Materiel Command’s Office ofCommand Contracting. OPM’s Principal Assistant Respon-sible for Contracting is April Miller and the Contracting Ac-tivity Chief is Jeffrey Parsons.


CO

NTR

AC

TIN

G C

OM

MU

NIT

Y H

IGH

LIG

HTS


ARMY AL&T

Though OPM has a unique mission — because what we dofalls under foreign military sales (FMS) — we still conductour contracting per the same acquisition regulations andprocedures that other Army contracting activities follow.Most of the support we provide is for the Riyadh area, butour responsibility covers the entire kingdom, ranging fromJeddah and Mecca on the west coast to Damam and Hofufon the east coast. We work with numerous contracts in-cluding cost-reimbursable, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixedprice and cost-plus-award-fee. We also award a large num-ber of highly complex service and construction contracts.The current dollar amount of OPM contracts awarded andadministered by AMD is more than $273 million.

Working and Living the Saudi ExperienceWorking at AMD affords the opportunity to meet and workwith a diverse group of people from the U.S. and with vari-ous foreign nationals hailing from such countries as thePhilippines and neighboring Arab countries. For some ofour civilians, this is the first time they have worked with theU.S. military. Even though Arabic is the national language,in many cases English is the lingua franca for doing businessin the kingdom. AMD personnel also work as “advisors” tovarious Saudi professionals by helping them develop profes-sionally in the contracting field with technical assistance indeveloping contract vehicles, where SANG conducts bothpre-award and post-award contract functions. Supportingboth LAV and SANG health affairs is a robust construction

program that is jointly managed by OPM and SANG, andranges from the building of military ranges to the construc-tion of multiple building complexes.

U.S. labor laws don’t apply to service contracts in Saudi, butlabor laws do exist. The Saudi labor law is a combination ofour national and their local labor laws into a single docu-ment. The Labor Law — its formal title — currently has245 articles, and in many respects, addresses many of thesame areas covered under U.S. labor laws. Section 2, ChapterVI establishes the work day as no more than 8 hours in oneday and the work week as no more than 48 hours. BecauseSaudi Arabia follows the Hijra (Islamic) calendar, Friday is“a day of the weekly rest for all workers.” The Labor Lawdoes have a few unique differences from U.S. labor laws.One concept under Section 4, Chapter IV discusses the calculations for an end-of-service reward based on the num-ber of years a worker has been employed by a company.This is a monetary award (different from a pension) thatemployees are entitled to for meeting the conditions of theiremployment agreement.

AMD offices and living facilities are all on the same largecompound that is known by the Arabic word “Eskan.” Thisroughly translates as a large, sprawling facility containing awide range of quality-of-life support including recreationand morale support activities. Because this is an overseas as-signment, additional benefits are provided that would not

The OPM-SANG AMD staff. Front row (left to right): Danyl Apilado, Alicia Arizo, Mary Ann Justiniani, Vanessa Siron, Wendy Takeguchi, Yolanda Lillard, ChristineMoreno and Willie Travis. Second row (left to right): Kim Robinson, Loraine Montgomery, Richard Kim, Morris Francis and Ronald Johnson. Third row (left to right):Steve Jaren, Larry Smith, Mohammed Karar, Ann Marie White, Herman Goodwin, Joe Libbey and Ben Chaib. (U.S. Army photo courtesy of Willie Travis.)


normally be found in a CONUS assignment. There is fullyfurnished housing and OPM provides employees their ownvehicle. Additional leave is provided to make the time be-tween visits with loved ones less difficult, and some airfaretravel home is provided at no cost. During travel, there arenumerous opportunities to spend time in Riyadh. There arealso other recreational opportunities around the kingdomsuch as diving in the Red Sea or playing golf at the Profes-sional Golfers’ Association of America course in Riyadh. Wetake pride in keeping our contracting skills fined-tuned byensuring that all of our people take Defense AcquisitionUniversity courses or equivalents, at least once a year, be itin CONUS or other worldwide sites. Our National Con-tract Management Association chapter also holds monthlymeetings and separate one-day workshops such as our recentFMS seminar.

For more information about OPM-SANG and AMD, visit https://www.opmsang.sppn.af.mil. For informationabout working in a challenging and rewarding environmentsuch as Saudi Arabia, visit the Army Civilian Personnel On-line Web site at http://cpol.army.mil for AMD employ-ment opportunities.

Willie Travis is the OPM-SAND AMD Chief. He can bereached at (966) 498-2480, ext. 5334/DSN 318-252-3900,ext. 5334 or [email protected].

Steve Jaren is the OPM-SANG AMD Contracts Branch Chief.He can be reached at (966) 498-2480, ext. 5330/DSN 318-252-3900, ext. 5330 or [email protected].

Mortuary Service Contract Saves Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) $80,000 Annually

In September 2006, the Europe Regional Contracting Office(ERCO) awarded a requirements contract for mortuary serv-ices for the 21st Theater Support Command, U.S. ArmyMortuary Affairs Detachment, Landstuhl-KirchbergCaserne, Germany. Prior to this contract, MTFs were in-curring the cost of moving remains from the point of demiseto final disposition. In addition, the local contracting of-fices responsible for nonmedical contracting support usedthe government purchase card to arrange for transportationand burial of the deceased.

Based on these costs, ERCO explored contracting optionsthat would assist the detachment in accomplishing its mis-sion, and awarded a single requirements contract that has re-duced overall costs, streamlined the process and decreasedadministrative burden. The resulting award included a state-ment of work that clearly identified requirements and per-formance expectations. The contractor’s area of responsibil-ity requires the movement of human remains from an areacovering the west and south of Germany including Heidel-berg, Wuerzberg, Hannover and Giessen, as well as border-ing countries such as Switzerland, Austria, The Czech Re-public and France.

The local MTFs will experience an estimated aggregate costsavings of $80,000 annually. These savings are accompaniedby a decrease in the MTFs’ administrative burden as a resultof having only one contract vehicle to monitor versus multi-ple purchases from multiple funeral homes at each location.Most importantly, this consolidated contract allows moresuitability in managing the difficult task of providing dispo-sition of remains on behalf of authorized members and de-pendents concerning mortuary affairs requirements.

Margaret Otto, Level III Contracting Officer/Specialist, de-veloped this acquisition strategy and resulting contract. Shehas worked for ERCO for nearly 6 years and exemplifies thehighest standards of contract administration. ERCO is col-located with the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center nearKaiserslautern, Germany, and is run by MAJ Kevin Butlerand 12 staff members.

Army Members on DAR Committees and FAR Teams Recognized

There are more than 200 DOD civilians and service mem-bers who are part of the Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR)Committees and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) teams.There are about 50 Army personnel who serve on these committees and teams as permanent, rotational, supplemen-tal advisors or ad hoc members from HQDA, the U.S. ArmyMateriel Command (AMC), U.S. Army Contracting Agency(ACA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Mili-tary Surface Deployment and Distribution Command(SDDC). The successful implementation of the statutes, ex-ecutive orders, DOD policy and other regulatory directivesin the FAR and the DAR supplements are very dependent onthese volunteers who typically take this responsibility on as

CO

NTR

AC

TING

CO

MM

UN

ITY H

IGH

LIGH

TSARMY AL&T



an additional duty. As committee and team members, theybring subject matter expertise, general policy advice andworking experience, and represent the Army and DOD indeliberations on issues presented in the FAR and DFARScases. The committee and teamwork are of the utmost im-portance across the entire DOD acquisition community.The current Army representatives on DAR Committees andFAR teams are listed below:

DAR Committee Members

Construction/A-E/Bonds Parag Rawal, USACE

Contract Administration Jean Kampschroeder, HQ AMC

Contract Finance Susan Orris, HQ AMCWallace Riggins, HQDA

Contract Placement Debra Parra, ACA-Information Technology E-Commerce and Com-mercial Contracting Center(ITEC4)

Contract Pricing Mike Gallagher, HQ AMC rotational-Cost AccountingStandards

David Harrington, HQ AMC rotational-Insurance and Pension

Susan Orris, HQ AMC rotational-Pricing

Vacant-rotational-Incentive Contracts

Contract Services Bob Friedrich, HQDAKathy Love, HQDA alternate

Cost Principles Mike Gallagher, HQ AMC

Debarment, Suspensions and Christine McCommas,Business Ethics HQDA

Emergency Procurement Patricia Logsdon, ACA-The Americas

Margaret Patterson, Counsel, HQDA

Karl Ellcessor, Deputy Counsel, HQDA

Alfred Moreau, Deputy Counsel, HQDA

Environmental Dr. Tom Kennedy, National Guard Bureau (NGB)

Government Property Ann Scotti, HQDA

International Acquisition Steve Linke, HQDACraig Hodge, Counsel, HQ AMC

Labor Gregory Noonan, Chair, USACE Alfred Moreau, Deputy Counsel,

HQDA

Patents Data and Copyrights Alan Klein, HQDAAndrew Romero, AMC, U.S.

Army Communications-Electronics Command

Quality Assurance Douglas Waller, HQ AMC (temporary)

Small Business Paul Gardner, Deputy Chair, HQDA

Nancy Small, Alternate, HQDA

Streamlined Acquisitions/ Vera Davis, ACA-ITEC4 Information Technology rotational

Carmelia Rush, ACA-ContractingCenter for Excellence, rotational-Simplified Acquisitions

Systems Acquisition/ Jean Kampschroeder, HQ Research and Development AMC-rotational-Systems

AcquisitionSusan Boblitt, AMC Research,

Development and EngineeringCommand Rotational-R&D

Taxes Chair, Margaret Patterson, HQDA

Transportation Frank Giordano, SDDCRosemary Kemp, Alternate,

SDDC

Utilities Rafael Zayas, USACEDon Juhasz, HQDA

CO

NTR

AC

TIN

G C

OM

MU

NIT

Y H

IGH

LIG

HTS


ARMY AL&T


FAR Team MembersAcquisition Strategy Jean Kampschroeder, Permanent

Member, HQ AMCMelissa Rider, Alternate, U.S.

Army Intelligence and SecurityCommand

Rotational Member Paul Gardner, Deputy SmallSmall Business Business, HQDA

Acquisition Finance Rotational Members

Cost Accounting Standards Mike Gallagher, HQ AMCCost Principles Mike Gallagher, HQ AMCInsurance and Pension Mike Gallagher, HQ AMCFinance Susan Orris, HQ AMCPricing Susan Orris, HQ AMC

Acquisition ImplementationPermanent Member Tony Anakor, HQ AMC

Acquisition Law Rotational Members

Debarment, Suspension and Christine McCommas, Business Ethics HQDA

Labor DOD Gregory Noonan, Chair, USACE Taxes Margaret Patterson, Chair,

HQDA

Acquisition Technology Permanent Member Stephanie Mullen, HQ ACA

Ad Hoc MemberConstruction/Architecture George Harris, NGB

and Engineering

Other recent committee and team members who deserve theArmy’s thanks and appreciation are as follows:

DAR Committees: April Miller, HQ AMCCommercial Products/Practices, Contract Administration, Systems Acquisition and Pricing; FAR Team: Acquisition Strategy

Construction Committee Karen Thornton, USACEQuality Assurance Committee Diana Meyer, HQ AMCTransportation Committee Frank Galluzzo, SDDCAcquisition Strategy Team Tom Watchko, HQ ACA

Acquisition Strategy Team Kathy Love, HQ ACAalternate

For more information, contact Barbara Binney, DAR Coun-cil Member, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Policy and Procurement, at (703) 604-7113.

Robots Take on Risky Job to Save Soldiers’ Lives

Kristen Dooley

The U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office for Simulation,Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) provides contract,logistic and engineering support for procuring and replacingrobotic systems. In FY06, PEO STRI awarded $88 million inrobotic systems contracts. Approximately 4,000 of these ro-bots perform contingency operations in Southwest Asia(SWA) combat zones. These unmanned ground systemsallow Soldiers to safely investigate potential improvised explo-sive devices and anti-personnel mines. “The robots performmissions that are inherently dangerous to the warfighter, suchas explosive ordnance detection and disposal,” said GlennDaens, a PEO STRI Acquisition Logistician.

The robotic sys-tems supportingcontingency opera-tions in SWA re-quire human opera-tion and associatedequipment. How-ever, much of therisk associated withinvestigating explo-sives is alleviated bythe use of robots.“A good example ofthis is the utiliza-tion of robots inthe Explosive Ord-nance Disposal[EOD] mission. In

the past, an EOD technician would suit up in heavy gear,probe suspicious items and disarm or dispose of the explo-sive,” explained Daens. “EOD technicians can now performthis mission using a robot to identify explosive ordnance

CO

NTR

AC

TING

CO

MM

UN

ITY H

IGH

LIGH

TSARMY AL&T


An EOD robotic Talon™ is gainfullyemployed, Jan. 6, 2007, by the 184thEOD Robotics Team stationed inBaghdad, Iraq. (U.S. Army photo bySPC Jonathan Montgomery.)


using various sensors and, in some cases, can disarm the de-vice or dispose of it by blowing it in place, all while main-taining a safe distance.”

Chartered by Army Acquisition Executive Claude M.Bolton Jr., the PEO for Ground Combat Systems is dele-gated as the full-line authority for centralized manage-ment of projects, while PEO STRI provides acquisi-tion support. Additionally, robots are being acquiredfor other organizations including the U.S. MarineCorps, U.S. Special Operations Command,Joint Improvised Explosive Device DefeatOrganization, U.S. Navy OrdnanceDisposal and the U.S. Army RapidEquipping Force. The RoboticSystems Joint Project Office (RSJPO) repairs, supports and sus-tains all robotics systems.Their role has grown signifi-cantly to satisfy the needs ofthe warfighter in Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.

According to Contract Specialist Duane St. Peter, continuedgrowth is expected as more line units request robots. “Newrobotics requirements are frequently generated due to rapidlychanging tactics, techniques and procedures. As the numberof fielded systems grows, the logistical support required willincrease as well,” he commented. “RS JPO was familiar withPEO STRI based on past business relationships and wasseeking an acquisition center that had the capacity and desire

to accept new requirements and rapidly turn those require-ments into contract actions. PEO STRI accepted the chal-lenge and has awarded more than $100 million in contracts

since 2005 in direct support of RS JPO.”

PEO STRI has contributed to the robotics program since2005 through the acquisition and replacementof systems, spare parts and training required for

RS JPO to pursue its mission. In addition tosupporting the RS JPO, PEO STRI provides in-

teroperable training and testing solutions, pro-gram management and life-cycle support for theArmy’s most advanced training systems around

the world. Simulations help our Soldiers honetheir individual and collective skill sets, rehearse their

missions and return to their families safely when theirmissions are complete. PEO STRI responds quickly tocritical, emerging requirements with innovative acquisition

and technology solutions and is dedicated to putting thepower of simulation into the hands of America’s warfighters.PEO STRI stands ready to support the RS JPO’s estimated$200 million in contract actions during FY07.

Kristen Dooley is a PEO STRI Public Affairs Specialist. She can be reached at (407) 384-5224 or [email protected].

CO

NTR

AC

TIN

G C

OM

MU

NIT

Y H

IGH

LIG

HTS


ARMY AL&T

In Army AL&T Magazine’s January-March 2007issue, we inadvertently did not include Glen W.Maylone as an additional author to the article“Rock Island Arsenal JMTC Brings Gold ShingoPrize to the Arsenal.” Mr. Maylone’s author biogra-phy follows. We apologize forany inconvenience.

Army AL&T Magazine Staff

GLEN W. MAYLONE is a Business Develop-ment Specialist for the Rock Island ArsenalJoint Manufacturing and Technology Center,where he supports the Business Office andMarketing Department. He holds a B.A inmanagement and communications and anM.B.A. from Concordia University of Wiscon-sin. He is Defense Acquisition Workforce Im-provement Act Level II certified in productionquality management and program manage-ment, and is a U.S. Army veteran.

CCoorrrreeccttiioonn

The iRobot Corp. PackBot is a rugged, lightweight robotdesigned to conduct EOD; hazardous material handling;search, surveillance and reconnaissance; hostage rescue; andother tasks. Employment of robots to complete repetitiveand often dangerous tasks keep Soldiers out of theimmediate line of fire. (Photo courtesy of iRobot Corp.)


Distributed Learning

Traininganytime anywhere

FREE Individual Army Trainingfor Active Army, National Guard, Reserves and DA Civilians

DL Training Options:Access the Army training portal via AKO to register and take DL training.• Army e-Learning — 2,600+ Web- based IT, Rosetta Stone foreign language, business, leadership and personal development courses. 30+ certification prep programs (MCSE, A+, CISSP, Cisco, Oracle)• Army Learning Management System (ALMS) — delivers MOS Web-based training. Manages training information, provides training collaboration, scheduling and career planning capabilities.• 231 Digital Training Facilities (DTFs) — check your base information for a location near you.

DL Training Benefits:• Promotion Points (1 point for every 5 hours) and college credit for enlisted personnel.• Continuous Learning Points for civilian employees.• Retirement Points for Reservists (1 point for every 3 hours).• Life long learning.• Supports Army Force Generation.• Reduces cost per trained Soldier.• Increases readiness.• Provides greater stability for Soldier families.

Distributed Learning System (DLS) — Army e-Learning, ALMS & DTFswww.us.army.mil, Self Service, “My Training” or www.dls.army.mil

yArme

yArmLearning

Throughout history, the Army has focused on Soldier needs,combat requirements and the lessons of history as oppor-tunities to build a force that is the most powerful, most

capable and most respected in the world. Army science andtechnology (S&T) has had a major role in our success.

Through our S&T program, we pursue technologies to enablethe Future Force while simultaneously seeking opportunitiesto enhance Current Force capabilities. We develop technol-ogy through investments in the three S&T components:

• For the near-term, demonstrating mature technology in relevant operationalenvironments and facilitating technology transition to acquisition programs.

• In the mid-term, translating research into militarily useful technology applications.

• In the far-term, conducting research to create new understanding fortechnologies that offer paradigm-shifting capabilities.

The Army’s laboratories and research, development and engineering centerssupport the focused research and technology development necessary to enableour Army to maintain its preeminence within the world. Army scientists andengineers execute their work in world-class Army facilities and also in cooper-ation with industry, academia and other government scientists and engineers.

In addition, the Army currently maintains four University Affiliated Research Centers that partner with industry and Army laboratories to transition new knowledge and novel technology concepts for further de-velopment. The Institute for Advanced Technology (IAT), established withthe University of Texas-Austin, conducts focused, long-term, theoreticaland applied research and development in electrodynamics and hyperve-locity physics. IAT’s primary focus is to enable military applications forelectromagnetic gun capabilities.

The Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), established with the Universityof Southern California, performs research in advanced simulation and immersive environments. The ICT enlists and leverages the resources andtalents of the entertainment and game development industries to work collaboratively with Army computer science experts in graphics, audio andartificial intelligence. This collaboration has been critical in improving the re-alism and usefulness of simulation for Soldier training and mission rehearsal.

The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, established with the MassachusettsInstitute for Technology (MIT), performs research in nanotechnologies for Sol-dier protection and survivability applications. Nanotechnology is the designand creation of novel materials or devices at the nanometer scale, often atthe level of individual atoms and molecules. Finally, the Institute for Collab-orative Biotechnologies (ICB), established by the University of California-Santa Barbara, in partnership with MIT and the California Institute of Tech-nology, researches the processes, structures and features found in nature and biology. ICB is developing revolutionary technological innovations in

bio-inspired materials and energy, biomolecular and infraredsensors, bio-inspired network science and biotechnologicaltools targeted to a broad spectrum of Army needs.

It is within the very nature of mankind to question how thingsare done and this natural curiosity is essential to the progressthe S&T community continues to make. As technology be-comes more and more advanced, it opens the opportunity toreassess how we go about making progress. The system-of-systems (SoS) approach to technology is one area that is chal-

lenging us to question how we are conducting technology developmentand ask the question, “How do we do this better?”

The initial Future Combat Systems versions will require approximately 33million lines of software code, and subsequent systems will undoubtedlycontain ever-more lines of code. While we can tweak our software devel-opment tools and methods, it is uncertain that they will be up to the taskof developing future systems. Recently, Carnegie Mellon University’s Soft-ware Engineering Institute (SEI) conducted a year-long study to investigateultra-large-scale (ULS) systems software. This study addressed the ques-tion, “Given the issues with today’s software engineering, how do we buildfuture systems that are likely to contain billions of lines of code?”

SEI brought together engineering experts with software and systems expert-ise from various institutions and organizations across the country to par-ticipate. The study indicated something that we all knew, but didn’t trulyappreciate — the magnitude of the impact that our SoS would have onhow we do business. That increased code size brings with it increasedscale in multiple dimensions; number of people employing the system;amount of data stored, accessed and manipulated; even to the number ofconnections and hardware systems required. This poses challenges thatstrain the foundations of current software development. The sheer scale ofULS systems will change everything. People will not just be ULS systemusers, they will be elements of the system. Software and hardware failureswill be the norm rather than the exception. ULS system acquisition willbe simultaneous with its operation and will require new methods for con-trol. A broad, multidisciplinary research agenda for developing the ULSsystems of the future, like our SoS, is required and the S&T community hasshouldered this challenge.

The U.S. Army is the most powerful land force on Earth. Still, there is nonatural law that says that we will always remain that way. People willmake that happen. People are central to everything we do in the Army. In-stitutions do not transform — people do. Platforms and organizations donot defend the Nation — people do. Units do not train, they do not stayready, they do not grow and develop leaders, they do not sacrifice and theydo not take risks on behalf of the Nation — people do. That is why eachand every one of us has an important role in keeping the U.S. Army themost powerful, most capable and most respected land force in the world.

From the Army Acquisition Executive

A Better Army Through Focused Research and Technology Development

Claude M. Bolton Jr.Army Acquisition Executive

ARMY ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY AL&T9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101FT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567

http://asc.army.mil

Headquarters Department of the Army | PB-70-07-02 | Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

April - June 2007


ASC_0330_Cvr_cc.indd 1ASC_0330_Cvr_cc.indd 1 4/6/2007 1:00:11 PM4/6/2007 1:00:11 PM

creo