US Brigade Combat Teams and all that...........

[buglerbilly]

BCTM Increment 1: FCS Successor Moves Ahead with Low-rate Production

01-Mar-2010 18:01 EST

Concerns about cost overruns, vehicle design, and contract structure prompted the Pentagon to cancel the US Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) program in June 2009.

Instead of a single FCS contract, the Pentagon directed the Army to set up a number of seperate programs to undertake parts of the FCS program. One of those programs is the Brigade Combat Team Modernization (BCTM) Increment 1. The BCTM Increment 1 capabilities – which include ground robots, UAVs, ground sensors, and vehicle (B-Kit) network integration kits – are planned to be fielded to 7 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams beginning in 2011.

A Boeing/SAIC team recently received a $138 million contract from the Army for low-rate initial production of the brigade sets for the BCTM Increment 1 capabilities…

Under the contract, the Boeing/SAIC team will equip an Infantry Brigade Combat Team with networked capabilities, along with associated system engineering and program management support.

As the prime contractor, the Boeing/SAIC team is responsible for the development and production of BCTM Increment 1. Low-rate initial production will allow for the capabilities to be fielded to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division for initial operational test and evaluation beginning in 2011.

The contract award follows a production review of the BCTM Increment 1 program by the Defense Acquisition Board in December 2009.

The capabilities that will be produced under BCTM Increment 1 [pdf] include:

•Network Integration Kit (B-Kit): provides initial network connectivity to transfer sensor and communication data to and from existing tactical wheeled vehicles. The kit consists of an integrated computer system hosting communications and radio systems, limited battle command and Systems of Systems Common Operating Environment software that will be initially integrated onto the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) platform.

•AN/GSR-9/10 Unattended Urban and Tactical Ground Sensors (U/T-UGS): performs mission tasks such as perimeter defense, surveillance, target acquisition, and situational awareness, including chemical, radiological, nuclear and early warning; includes multi-mode sensors for target detection, location and classification and an imaging capability for target identification.

•XM501 Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS/ NETFIRES): provides soldiers with a networked unmanned launch missile system capable of extended range targeting and precision attack; consists of deployable, platform-independent Container Launch Unit, which consists of a computer and communication system and 15 Precision Attack Missiles (PAM).
[NOT a glistening success in recent testing!]

•XM1216 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV): used to conduct extended reconnaissance of urban and complex terrain and subterranean areas to gain reconnaissance information; provides information regarding buildings, field fortifications, tunnels, sewers, subways, bunkers, facilities, and other structures in support of military operations.

•XM156 Class I Block 0 Unmanned Aerial System (CL I UAS, RQ-16A T-Hawk): provides the infantry with reconnaissance and surveillance and target acquisition; uses autonomous flight and navigation but will interact with the network and soldier to dynamically update routes and target information; provides dedicated reconnaissance support and early warning to the squad and platoon level.

Article from DiD.........

[buglerbilly]

Army’s New Mod Plan Under Fire

By Greg Grant Friday, March 12th, 2010 3:39 pm

It turns out, that when Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled the Army’s FCS program last year, the service’s flagship modernization effort didn’t really stop. It just got a name change and a bit of reorganization. Instead of trying to outfit brigades with a vast “system-of-systems” — vehicles, drones and the network — the Army is now building smaller “capability packages” of weapons and communications gear that can prove useful to small units fighting today’s wars.

The Army is also developing a new infantry fighting vehicle known as the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) to replace the Bradleys in its heavy brigades. The service plans to spend roughly $24 billion over the next five years on these various modernization projects.

Last December, the Army got approval from DOD to begin low rate production of the first capability package of FCS remnants, which it calls “Increment 1,” for a single test brigade. These include small robots, a small hovering aerial drone, motion sensors that affix to walls for troops to leave in cleared rooms, a ground sensor, the surface-to-ground missiles known as the non-line of sight launch system (NLOS-LS) and a network kit to tie all together sensors and radios.

“Buying less more often,” is the Army’s new modernization mantra, said Maj. Gen. Keith Walker, who directs modernization efforts, on a conference call with reporters last month. The new approach is supposed to better account for rapid technology changes as well as the highly adaptable irregular fighters the Army has been battling over the past decade.

The first capability package will equip the 3rd BCT of the 1st Armored Division, which has been designated as an Evaluation I-BCT, and is expected to deploy to Afghanistan sometime in 2012. Testing over the next year will see if the communications network and radios work with the IED jammers that equip all vehicles, Walker said.

Yet, the Army’s new decentralized approach has not solved some serious performance and reliability problems with the new technologies that may result in big changes to the Army’s planned buy.

At a hearing this week before the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, GAO’s Michael Sullivan said DOD acted prematurely in giving the Army the go-ahead to begin Increment one low-rate production: “Although the Army will argue that it needs to field these capabilities as soon as possible, none of these systems have been designated as urgent and it is not helpful to provide early capability to the warfighter if those capabilities are not technically mature and reliable.”

The Army says it’s following a “test-fix-test” development strategy. Soldier feedback from testing the new gear is resulting in modifications to almost all of it, said Walker. The “Class I UAS,” fondly known to some as the flying beer keg, is too noisy, soldiers told Walker. If it was quieter it would be much more useful, they said; plus it’s a “real pain” to fuel.

A new, upgraded drone will be fielded in a few years, Walker said. Soldiers also complained about the poor picture resolution from the wall sensors, “you could get a better picture from your cell phone.” An improved sensor is on the way, he said.

Walker was plenty displeased with recent tests of the NLOS-LS, where the missiles missed four out of six shots against a mix of targets; the Army is evaluating what caused the targeting failures.

Army spokesperson Paul Mehney said GAO’s criticism wasn’t really fair because the test equipment is “pre-production.” The whole idea was to run the new stuff through field tests and see what works and what doesn’t. Most of the reliability issues noted by GAO are already being fixed as the Army “expected issues,” specifically on reliability.

New reliability tests are scheduled for September. OSD told the Army to report back on the reliability of the Increment 1 equipment, along with the network, in an interim progress report April 2nd. Another report is due in December, providing data from the September tests.

As for GAO’s claim that none of the new technologies are urgent, Mehney said combatant commanders have identified the need for better network connectivity between soldiers, sensors, drones and command posts. The Increment 1 network will provide that connectivity between small units and higher echelon command posts. “The Army is not going to field Increment 1 systems until systems performance is sufficient to satisfy the capability requirements of the soldier,” he said.

Chief weapons buyer Ashton Carter directed the Army to conduct an operational test of an infantry battalion equipped with today’s gear in a simulated fight some time in fall 2011. Then, compare that battalion’s performance with a battalion equipped with the Increment 1 gear, running through the same scenarios.

The equipment will be tested in an “Afghan-like fight,” yet not just against a simulated Taliban opponent, in other words ragtag guerrilla fighters. The tests will feature more advanced “hybrid threats” in irregular wars, “a more Hezbollah type capability, something beyond what you find in Afghanistan,” Walker said. The outcome of that test will decide which bits of gear go to full rate production and which are chopped.

Army modernization prime contractor Boeing provided an emailed statement via spokesperson Matt Billingsley:

“Boeing and its partners continue to work closely with our Army customer on the development of Brigade Combat Team Modernization program. The Limited User Test conducted late last summer identified areas to further improve the reliability, availability, and maintainability of Increment 1 platforms. Working together with the Army and utilizing a “test, fix, test” approach that involves soldiers earlier in the development cycle, we are confident that Increment 1 capabilities will be ready for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation by the Army in FY11. Indeed, more than 95 percent of the hardware and software recommendations from the Limited User Test have been implemented as we prepare for the FY10 testing cycle and low-rate initial production as approved by the Defense Department.”

[buglerbilly]

Congress Hears Army Won't Field Ineffective Gear

(Source: US Army; issued March 12, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- There's still room for improvement with equipment that will be fielded to Soldiers as part of enhanced brigade combat team modernization, but equipment will not go to the field if it is ineffective.

Lt. Gen. William N. Phillips, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, told members of the House Armed Service Committee air and land forces subcommittee, March 10, that the Army wants to get technology to the Soldiers as fast as possible, but realizes some equipment that makes up Increment 1 isn't as ready as other equipment.

"We know that within those packages ... each item may not be as mature as the other items," Phillips said. "We are not going to field anything that is not suitable, effective, on the field of battle for our Soldiers."

The Army recently got approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to proceed with Low Rate Initial Production on one set of equipment. Increment 1 systems include the Network Integration Kit, the Class I Unmanned Arial System, the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, Urban-Unattended Ground Sensors, and Tactical-Unattended Ground Sensors.

Issues with some Increment 1 equipment include noise and sensor weight, for instance.

"Some of them are about almost twice the weight they should be," Phillips said of sensors in the package. He also said that the Class 1 UAV has issues with noise. "It's a noisy system that we need to reduce the decibels on the field of battle."

But Philips said Soldiers like the capability the equipment provides. "The current Class 1 UAV weighs about 17 pounds, it provides a hover-stare capability," he said. "Soldiers like this system, it provides great intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, great situational awareness of what's happening on the battlefield."

The Army will conduct more testing on equipment included in Increment 1, before moving ahead with plans to equip a second and third BCT with the equipment. Eventually, a total of nine BCTs are expected to see the Increment 1 set equipment, though Lt. Gen. Robert P. Lennox, deputy chief of staff, G-8, said fielding of that technology won't happen unless it is ready.

"We think we are on a path to demonstrate those capabilities -- that we can accomplish those capabilities. I want to ensure this committee that if the capabilities do not measure up, we will not go forward with those capabilities and we will not put them in the hands of our Soldiers," he said.

Lennox and Philips also discussed Army efforts to address the hazards of improvised explosive devices in theater, reducing the weight of equipment on Soldiers, further development of the M-4 Carbine and efforts to find a follow-on carbine.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Army Chief of Staff rolls out plan for 21st century Army


Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gen. Casey speaks during the AUSA 2010 Army Installations Symposium & Exposition.
05:49 GMT, April 6, 2010 SAN ANTONIO

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. asked the crowd of about 2,000 how they were doing and after a hearty "Hooha" response, he proceeded to tell them how they were doing.

Casey iterated statistics and time lines for the present while laying out a future for Soldiers of the 21st century, unveiling the Installation Management Command's campaign plan during the Association of the United States Army's 2010 Army Installations Symposium & Exposition, March 29.

"What you do is so important to the long-term health of this force," Casey said, adding he wanted to personally deliver the operational context of the plan and stressed leadership focus on change as the Army moves forward.

He said objectives set in 2007 to rebalance a force stretched from current demands by 2011 were already, or nearly met this year and included supporting strategic objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan; sustaining Soldiers, families and the civilian workforce; establishing an integrated management system for Army business operations; implementing leadership development; and continuing to transform the Army for an uncertain future.

A first priority for Army rebalancing was growth, said Casey. Originally slated for an increase of 74,000 Soldiers by 2012, with 65,000 on active duty and the rest in the Reserve and Guard, the objective was met in 2009.

"We're three years ahead of time and it wasn't a moment too soon with the plus up in Afghanistan," Casey said.

Readjusting dwell time - the amount of time Solders spend at home between deployments - was significant for Casey.

"It's clear to me the most important thing we can do in the Army to restore balance is increase the time Soldiers are at home; not just so they can spend time with their families - that's important - but so they can recover themselves."

Casey cited a scientific study completed last year concluded Soldier recovery between deployments takes 2-3 years for a one-year deployment. He said 70 percent of the active force will have a two-year dwell time and 80 percent of Reserve and Guard a four-year dwell by 2011. The remaining force will be included in the schedule by 2012.

"When you see a unit that's had 18 months at home, it's light years different than 12 months at home. You can already see the impact," Casey said.

Planned since 2004, all 300 Army brigades were set to convert to modular organizations as part of rebalancing. Casey said 90 percent are completed; the rest will convert by the end of the year.

"Taken together, modular reorganization and rebalancing is the largest organizational change of the Army since World War II," he said, "and we've done it while we've deployed 150,000 Soldiers over and back to Iraq and Afghanistan every year. That's a lot of moving parts."

Casey discussed the process of moving 160,000 Soldiers with skills necessary in Cold War, to skills which are more relevant today.

He said the Army has already stood down 200 tank companies, artillery batteries and stood up corresponding numbers of civil affairs, psychological operations, special forces and military police units.

"We're about two-thirds of the way through that and will be done by the end of the year."

Casey was positive on Base Realignment and Closure, saying that although 380,000 Soldiers, civilians and families will be on the move in the next two years, the effort will result in better-quality facilities and an exponential jump in opportunity.

He announced a new rotational model that brought several gasps from members of the audience. Casey said rotational schedules originally drawn up in 2005 were not implemented as a result of demand. But with drawdown in Iraq, he said he is seeing a way ahead and will publish deployment schedules for the next three years in the next 60 days.

Casey also asserted that the Army has fiscal challenges to confront as a result of eight and one-half years of war, but said he can see meeting objectives as set out for this year.

"The money is in the [20]11 budget and it's a matter of executing now, we'll be in a much better place at the end this fiscal year than four years ago."

Consolidate, assess and refine - those are the three things that I see going on over the course of the rest of this year as we build the 2017 program, Casey said.

"We need to refine this great Army and I say refine rather than adapt. We're in pretty good shape but there are still things we could do differently."

----
L.A. Shively

[buglerbilly]

Army Preparing for Mountainous, Battalion-Sized Test

(Source: U.S Army; issued April 14, 2010)

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. --- The U.S. Army is planning a rigorous, large-scale Limited User Test, or LUT, of its Increment 1 Early Brigade Combat Team technologies at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., later this year. The evaluation will test robots, sensors, UAVs and a battlefield network in Afghan-like mountainous terrain.

Spanning a 35-kilometer area, the 2010 LUT will be more than five times larger than the 2009 LUT which tested the same technologies on the company level scale in the five-kilometer area known as Adobe Village.

"We had a company-sized test last year -- a very small footprint in Adobe Village. This year we have a battalion and we have added two more villages," said Maj. Gen. Keith Walker, director of the Army's Future Force Integration Directorate, Fort Bliss, Texas. "In 2011 we will spread the brigade a good 70 kilometers."

The test range for the 2010 LUT -- designed in part by Afghan war veterans -- is a large next-step in an incremental testing approach aimed at preparing the first unit to deploy to Afghanistan with Increment 1 technologies: the U.S. Army's 3rd brigade, 1st Armored Division.

"In 2012 - the first IBCT will deploy to Afghanistan and it will take with it the first capability package," said Walker.

The LUT will test sensors such as the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, or SUGV, robot in urban and non-urban environments such as 80,000-square foot buildings, caves and mountains.

"We've put a village up in the mountains for complex terrain and non-line-of-sight situations. We got to be able to pass information across the network at significant distances," said Jerry Tyree, Director of the Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF), Program Executive Office Integration. "The unit will be spread out. There will be a Forward Operating Base and a mountain village." As one of their objectives during the exercise, soldiers will have to raid, take over and sustain operations from the mountain village, Tyree said.

The 2010 LUT will not only add more space, people and terrain to the test; it will include more equipment and assets such as the Shadow and Raven UAS, said Paul Mehney, spokesman for PEO Integration. The idea is to place more stress on the battlefield network by increasing the ranges as well as the number of nodes, he said.

"The thrust of this is to make sure that the network with the radios will perform up to standard in these types of higher stress environments," said Mehney.

The Increment 1 technologies, which include the SUGV, Tactical and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors, Class 1 UAS and "networked" vehicles -- are designed to share voice, video and sensor data across the force in real time using high bandwidth waveforms such as Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) and Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW).

"Right now the IBCT does not have a terrestrial-based digital network. We are offering it to them. All they do now is share position location information at the squad leader, platoon level. Now, we are giving them fusion of data and screens to project it ---it is robust, scalable and long range," said Col. John Wendel, program manager, Infantry Brigade Combat Team.

In early technical performance measures, SRW has demonstrated an ability to move sensor information at ranges up to 12 kilometers and WNW demonstrated an ability to connect nodes 20 miles apart; These ranges, which still need to be proven out in formal testing, represent an exponential increase over the previous year.

In fact, key aim of the expanded 2010 LUT will be to test the repairs and reliability "fixes" made as a result of lessons learned from the 2009 LUT.

"We have fixed everything. All of those repairs and corrective actions are built into the software, the hardware and the training plans to make sure we are doing things right and that we are not going to have repeats of failures. We have also done accelerated destructive testing to find new failures that haven't occurred yet in the field and we have fixed those," said Wendel.

The LUT will also test Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles configured with Network Integration Kits (NIK) allowing them to link to the battlefield network, view sensors feeds and share information across the force; among other things, the NIKs include a Joint Tactical Radio Systems Ground Mobile Radio (JTRS GMR), an Integrated Computer System and a Blue Force Tracker display screen.

"By putting the NIK in Humvees and MRAPs, we're kind of doing a retrograde with what has already proven itself in combat. The NIK is the something we are testing as part an integration kit to pull all these sensory inputs from the other systems," said Col. Randy Lane, AETF commander.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Army Eases Into Modernization

Apr 22, 2010



By Paul McLeary

The U.S. Army’s newest iteration of its modernization plan cleared a major hurdle on Dec. 22, when it was approved to begin Low-Rate Initial Production of the first increment.

The Increment 1 package—formerly part of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program axed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates last April (DTI July/August 2009, p. 19)—includes a network integration kit, small unmanned ground vehicle, Class I unmanned aerial vehicle, unattended ground sensor and the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS).

Boeing, an FCS holdover, remains the prime contractor for development and production of Increment 1, which is to be fielded to Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) starting in 2011. The first unit to receive the equipment will be the 3rd Infantry BCT, 1st Armored Div., of Ft. Bliss, Tex.

The Army will continue testing Increment 1 assets over the next two years, with plans to grow and demonstrate network maturity and system reliability. It will take until at least 2025 to field all the capability sets.

But all of that progress, and jettisoning of the tainted FCS moniker, doesn’t mean the program is without problems.

The NLOS-LS, a joint program between the Army and Navy, recently saw the failure of four of six shots during an Army limited user test (LUT). “I think one of the things we’ve learned is that we will never go into a LUT sequence again with new functionality or modes,” says Michelle Lohmeier, Raytheon’s deputy vice president for land combat. The LUT should “be the graduation exercise where everything has been fully vetted.” She says the underlying cause for two of the four misses has been identified and remedied, while the other two failures are being evaluated. Raytheon and corporate partner Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which builds the container launch unit (including the computer and communication system), along with the Army and Navy, will “finalize the details of a plan forward” by May.

Likewise, Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, deputy commander of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (Arcic) who is overseeing the modernization process, told DTI earlier this year that the Army’s next-generation vehicles weren’t without their issues. When it comes to the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, “I don’t think we challenged ourselves enough on fuel efficiency, for example,” he said. “I think we could do a lot better. We didn’t get any hybrid vehicles, we didn’t get anybody using alternative fuels.” When reminded that one of the rejected proposals was, in fact, a hybrid design (submitted by Northrop Grumman and Oshkosh), Vane agreed “we set the bar too low,” but didn’t elaborate as to why the design didn’t advance in the competition.

Then, of course, there is the Army’s other big ground vehicle program, the Ground Combat Vehicle, which is set to replace FCS’s Manned Ground Vehicle. The Army released a request for proposals to industry in late February. Rickey Smith, director of Arcic, says the Army is looking at a modular approach to vehicle development in everything from the type of armor that will be used to the network package. He calls it an “open-architecture approach,” which in layman’s terms means you “slap a box in, pull a box out every two years or whatever . . . you’ve got to make it more modular in the sense of upgrading it as you go.”

This means building the vehicle with the ability to be easily upgraded as technologies and missions change. “You have to be thinking about that in the most open sense of architecture,” Smith continues, “not only in the sense of hardware but in the physical device and space and capacity.” On the equipment side, if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the Army anything, it’s that “the ability to grow and change is an operational requirement,” as Vane said. “You are going to change it,” the only question is when, and in what way?”

On the communication side of the modernization project, the Army has been working on the perennially troubled Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) for years. Despite cost overruns and technical issues, it is sticking with the program. Today’s radios cost $10,000-30,000, according to Smith. A JTRS Ground Mobile Radio could cost 5-10 times that amount, he says, adding that these are ballpark figures.

Vane expressed concern over the cost of the radios, calling them “ridiculously expensive.” But Smith counters that the Army needs them. “Reprogrammable radios are the future, but how do you get there?”

With Bettina H. Chavanne.

Photo: US Army

[Ecky]

NLOS-LS is cancelled. US Navy has not commented yet about implications for LCS - can you fit a short Mk41?

From Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4596224&c=AME&s=LAN)

By KATE BRANNEN
Published: 23 Apr 2010 13:08 PRINT | EMAIL

After completing a review of its precision fires portfolio, the U.S. Army is recommending the Defense Department cancel the Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) program.

Army senior leaders decided on the move at an April 22 meeting, according to sources. Because NLOS-LS is an acquisition category 1 program, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter will have the final say.

Originally part of the Army's Future Combat Systems program, NLOS-LS is also intended for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship. It is being developed by Netfires LLC, a joint venture between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, which builds the system's container launcher unit.

After poor test results earlier this year, the Army had to decide whether to pay for additional tests and fixes and accept schedule delays, or cancel the program.

The NLOS-LS Precision Attack Missile failed to hit its target four out of six times during a flight-limited user test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., between Jan. 26 and Feb. 5. The Army determined that fixing the system's problems would delay the program more than a year and keep it from being included in the first brigade set of Increment 1 equipment of the Brigade Combat Team-Modernization program, Maj. Gen. Keith Walker, commander of the service's Future Force Integration Directorate, told reporters in Fort Bliss, Texas, earlier this month.

In addition to performance troubles, members of Congress and Army officials have also raised concerns about the cost of NLOS-LS.

In the Army's budget request for 2011, each Precision Attack Missile costs $466,000. Once the missile reached full-rate production, both the service and industry expected that number to fall. Raytheon said in a March letter to the Army that the company planned to reduce the average unit production price to $198,000 for the Army's acquisition objective of 9,942 missiles.

Still, concerns remained.

"It's very expensive," said Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, deputy chief of staff for Army programs, responding to a question from Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., at an April 15 hearing of the Senate Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee.

Lennox told Thune the Army is reviewing the system as part of an overall precision fires capability portfolio review.

"The Army needs options for precision targeting moving vehicles with a more cost-effective munition," read an early briefing chart on the precision fires portfolio review.

"We're going through and saying what gap does this fill, and then looking at the cost of it and looking at the benefit for soldiers," Lennox said. "We're taking it very seriously."

In an e-mailed statement, Raytheon said it was disappointed by the decision to cancel the NLOS-LS program.

"To date the NLOS-LS program is 90 percent complete with system design and development. Raytheon is the leader in precision technology and recognizes the warfighters' critical need for immediately responsive, all-weather precision fires. We stand ready to continue development of this important capability should the customer decide to resume the program," the company statement said.

DoD Buzz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/23/nlos-ls-dies-just-cost-too-much/#axzz0lxj7PPYK) is running a similar story.

[Gubler, A.]

NLOS-LS is cancelled. US Navy has not commented yet about implications for LCS - can you fit a short Mk41?

And people complain about the media getting stories wrong...

NLOS-LS isn't cancelled yet. The US Army just doesn't want to pay for it and has passed the buck to the higher levels to make them either pay for it or cut it. I know its a little bit more complex than black or white but please try and keep up.

As to LCS there are other options. The "shortest" MK 41 VLS,, the ESSM sized SDSS, is far too big and heavy (the later being the most important factor) to replace NLOS-LS CLUs however there is another VLS. The Mk 48 GMLS could be fitted in place of NLOS-LS for weight but in different parts of the ships. Though why would you? Its the missile not the launcher that is important.

If NLOS-LS PAM is cancelled then maybe the USN and others will need to look at surface launched allaternatives like weaponised Chukars (aka Samson and Delilah) and surface launched JAGM, Hellfire, etc.

[buglerbilly]

There are Israeli and UK options that are cheaper...................

Remotely Operated, Organic Precision Attack Missile



IAI has unveiled at the event a new and unique operational concept providing dismounted and maneuvering forces an organic, precision attack capability utilizing simple 'dial a strike' concept, employing the new vertically launched, supersonic guided missile called 'Jumper'. The missile's length is 180 cm and its diameter is 15 cm. Each launch unit weighs about 1.5 tons can be deployed by air, or land and operate in an unattended mode, without requiring support or presence of operators.

The launch system covers a radius of 50 kilometers and uses vertical launch to set the missile on course at any direction, without pre-launch slewing or elevation. The launch unit can be loaded with several types of missiles stored in sealed container-launchers weighing about 90 kg each, carrying pre-configured with anti-personnel, anti-structure or penetrating warheads. The missile is propelled by a two-phase rocket motor with low signature and the supersonic speed means that its acoustic signature is also minimal. The missile is stored in sealed containers, each launch unit packs eight missiles and a command control and communications unit. The missiles are using highly accurate GPS/INS guidance, driving four steering surfaces at the aft section.

Enhanced GPS/INS will derive accuracy levels comparable to other precision guided weapons. In the basic configuration the missile is designed to be effective against stationary targets designed by geographical coordinate, and is unaffected by visibility and weather conditions. An optional laser guidance enhancement will enable the weapon to hit at even higher precision, enable limited 'man in the loop' capability and address moving targets.

According to IAI sources, compared to costly electro-optical guidance systems, the entire GPS/INS guidance system can be produced at significantly lower costs, making the new missile affordable for employment at lower formations, such as the platoon level. IAI is also addressing similar (and complementary) capability by employing network-centric laser-guided weapons capability. According to IAI officials, the two trends are expected to merge in the future to address evolving market opportunities.



British MoD Embraces Loitering Weapons as Part of an Enhanced Precision Attack Operational Concept

The need for a weapon capable of loitering over the battle area, instantly responding to targets being exposed for very short period time, was identified during an early assessment phase under the UK’s IFPA (Indirect Fire Precision Attack) Assessment Phase 1 (AP1) program was concluded in 2005. Such weapons maintain long persistence over the battle area, maintaining concealed enemy elements, including air defense and surface missiles units at risk, when being prepared for launch. The second phase of the IFPA Assessment Program (AP2) is nearing conclusion, as it is re-assessing the planned mix of munitions against latest Defense Planning assumptions and scenarios informing the balance of investment between the currently envisaged mix of 155mm munitions, rockets and Loitering Munitions. MBDA and QinetiQ are part of the Ministry of Defence’s Joint Integrated Program Team (IPT), expected to deliver the final results soon

The loitering weapon (LW) capability is being addressed by Team LW - a consortium comprising MBDA, QinetiQ, Roxel and Thales UK (the Team CW lead companies) plus the best in class in industry including appropriate SMEs and Academia, Blue Bear Systems Research, Cranfield Aerospace, Cranfield University, Lockheed Martin UK INSYS, Marshalls SV, Meggitt, Selex Sensors & Airborne Systems, Ultra Electronics and VEGA. Backed by £10million invested by the industry members in risk reduction aspects of the proposed system, the team launched the first loitering munition concept vehicle, named Fire Shadow, in April 2008, validating its endurance and maneuverability goals.

Officially launched at the Farnborough Air Show in July 2008, the loitering munition assessment phase is part of the overarching 'Team Complex Weapons' (Team CW) joint industry -MoD development roadmap. The assessment phase of the LW program is expected to conclude by 2011, to be followed by full scale development decision. The actual weapon could be introduced into service incrementally, beginning in 2011.

'Fire Shadow' will be designed to meet the UK’s requirement for an affordable weapon with an operating range exceeding 100km, and terminal attack precision in the 'sub-metric' CEP range (Circular Error of Probability). To meet complex rules of engagement, the weapon will features Man In The Loop (MITL) operation, enabling a human operator to overrule the weapon's guidance and divert the weapon's flight path or abort the attack and return to loiter mode in conditions where friendly forces are at risk, prevailing conditions do not comply with rules of engagement, o, where an attack could cause excessive collateral damage.

The loitering weapon will be targeted by Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) assets such as Watchkeeper and be compatible with other battlefield systems. The LM will be capable of loitering in the target area for around 10 hours and will be particularly effective in air-defense and ballistic missile suppression missions, and support operations requiring extended persistence, such as asymmetric counter-terror or operations in urban environments. Following launch, Fire Shadow will cruise to its loitering area the battle zone, where the weapon will be able to receive real-time target information from a range of sources in a potentially network or infocentric enabled environment. Such sources could include ISTAR aircraft or surveillance UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles) or even from an operator on the ground.

The goal set by the British MoD is to procure the Fire Shadow as a low-cost munition, at a unit cost comparable to that of a Guided MLRS round. Yet due to its extended persistence over the battlefield, Fire Shadow is expected to offer improved 'yield', having higher probability of engaging valuable targets over its extended mission.

Whether these options can be Marinised for potential LCS Ops is a different question but they remain CHEAPER options and are more than suited to Army Ops..............

[Tim]

And people complain about the media getting stories wrong...

NLOS-LS isn't cancelled yet. The US Army just doesn't want to pay for it and has passed the buck to the higher levels to make them either pay for it or cut it. I know its a little bit more complex than black or white but please try and keep up.

As to LCS there are other options. The "shortest" MK 41 VLS,, the ESSM sized SDSS, is far too big and heavy (the later being the most important factor) to replace NLOS-LS CLUs however there is another VLS. The Mk 48 GMLS could be fitted in place of NLOS-LS for weight but in different parts of the ships. Though why would you? Its the missile not the launcher that is important.

If NLOS-LS PAM is cancelled then maybe the USN and others will need to look at surface launched allaternatives like weaponised Chukars (aka Samson and Delilah) and surface launched JAGM, Hellfire, etc.

Hmm. Do you think a surface launched JAGM or Hellfire variant would be an acceptable replacement, considering the range issue? Both missiles seem quite short ranged when you put them next to NLOS or some of the AShMs carried by fast attack craft, but then I don't know anything about the sorts of distances involved in littoral combat and don't know how the LCS is intended to be utilised in the anti-surface role.

Bug, cheers for that article on the Fire Shadow, the thought of a navalised variant is very interesting. From my admittedly ignorant perspective a loitering munition with the capability to be cued onto targets from a variety of sources (in the hypothetical case of the LCS, an MH-60 or drone) would seem like a real asset, particularly in light of the targets the LCS is likely to engage.

[Gubler, A.]

JAGM, Hellfire, etc aren't the best replacement for PAM in their current form. But there is no reason either missile can't be launched vertically like PAM and follow a lofted trajectory to the target to provide that over the horizon range. PAM is about the same size as a JAGM or Hellfire the major difference being the lofted flight path. Even without such a modification a direct fire guided missile would provide some of the anti fast boat capability. Without a long range missile then more helos (manned or unmanned) will be needed to carry the missile to the target. The whole point of NLOS-LS is you just need the recce unit to find the target and the missile makes its own way there.

NLOS-LS was originally developed for two missiles: PAM and LAM, the later being a loitering missile which was cut for funding purposes. The US Navy has been lucky enough for the US Army to bear the burden of much of the funding for NLOS-LS for a system they don't need as much! Now if it is cancelled and the US Navy doesn't pick up the tab they will have to find something else and probably pay more... Since the weapon is near fully developed I can imagine the US Navy will stick with it.

[Zen9]

My suspicion is that Fireshadow will be marinised for the RN at some stage, as a cheap and low intesity alternative to more heavyweight land attack options, like Harpoon or TLAM, or SCALP-N. It also mates with the Army and gives the Marines access to the capability prior to establishing land bases.

Might be develope-able for the anti fast boat role at long ranges.

Would be nice to see some developments like this for air dropped torpedos, I stilll hear nothing about UAV-Helicopters for ASW support.

[buglerbilly]

Network Kits, Vehicles Prepare for Limited-User Test

(Source: U.S Army; issued April 23, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- At Boeing labs in Huntington Beach, Calif., engineers are integrating the equipment and software that forms the backbone of the Army's Brigade Combat Team Modernization effort: the network.

Network Integration Kits are the centerpiece of the network component of the BCT Modernization program. The kits include both new and existing equipment as well as new software. Each part of the kit must be tested to ensure it works as expected when connected -- and engineers are doing that today.

The NIK software and equipment is moved through three phases of testing and evaluation, including a phase where software is tested strictly on desktop computers -- entirely inside a virtual environment. At one lab, for instance, some 3 million lines of code are being validated to ensure their compatibility.

Another testing phase puts software back onto its host hardware, where the equipment is integrated and validated in a bench environment. Finally, both the software and hardware are tested together in a real-world environment, by being integrated into combat vehicles and tested at Fort Bliss, Texas.

Existing NIK components include the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System, the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System, the High Frequency radio, UHF SATCOM, Future XXI Battle Command Battalion/Brigade and Below, and Blue Force Tracker.

New components of the NIK include the Integrated Computer System, which runs the Department of Defense's System of Systems Common Operating Environment, and the Joint Tactical Radio System, Ground Mobile Radio. The JTRS (pronounced "jitters" ) GMR has up to four transceivers, each capable of running a different waveform. A single channel of the radio, for instance, can move data equivalent to 120 SINCGARS radios.

The combination of ICS and JTRS GMR ties everything in the vehicle together and pushes information to the existing FBCB2 display panel. The radio also ties multiple vehicles together. The radios seek each other out, and attempt to build ad-hoc networks between themselves.

In fact, the JTRS GMR ties vehicles, Soldiers, and sensors together along with anything that communicates on more than a dozen radio waveforms and communications bandwidths. The JTRS GMR handles the communications capability, the ICS running SOSCOE brings the information together, and the FBCB2 system displays results to the Soldier.

"We fuse all that imagery through the Network Integration Kit and pull it together and put it on his common operating picture, the FBCB2 screen that is on all of his platforms that have NIKs," said Col. John Windall, the program manager for IBCT under PEO Integration.

Imagery comes from equipment such as the Class 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the tactical and urban Unattended Ground Sensors, and the Small Unattended Ground Vehicle. Additionally, information added by one Soldier in one vehicle -- such as an image of an enemy combatant, tagged with information about that enemy -- can be shared across the network by all Soldiers that need to know.

"The Soldier can now see where his blue force is and the icons that represent red forces that have been in contact," Windall said. "It's really putting the data together and making it accessible. And then that network has this great range, great redundancy and capability -- it's a robust and scalable network."

That robust, scalable network -- the heart of which is the JTRS GMR -- recently demonstrated an ability to network with its nearest neighbor, more than 20 miles away.

"We had WNW up and it is pinging for other nodes on the network," said Jerry Tyree, director of integration, director of operations at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. "Unplanned, it joined the network with another vehicle ... about 20 miles away. And, after it joined, and they saw it joined ... they passed an image over that."

Tyree said more tests need to be done to validate that extended capability -- but that "it's very encouraging, very initial ... significantly a step forward from where we have been."

Ultimately, the NIKs will be installed into Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles, Humvees and other Army tactical vehicles. The NIK allows equipped vehicles to pass data, including such things as imagery with Soldier-inputted annotation, voice, and both Soldier and enemy position from any of the information systems, into the network. That information can be shared across the network by other NIK-equipped vehicles.

Twelve NIK-enabled vehicles will participate in an upcoming Limited User Test at Fort Bliss and White Sands so Soldiers from the Army Evaluation Task Force can test the equipment in a more real-world-type environment. Those 12 vehicles include five MRAP-ATVs, six Caiman MRAPs, and one MaxxPro MRAP.

It's at White Sands where the JTRS GMR is, for now, being installed into tactical vehicles. Engineers there find ways to route cables through the vehicles and where to place the equipment. They are also faced with questions such as should the radio equipment be inside the crew compartment -- already packed with equipment on some vehicles -- or outside, where it is more vulnerable to damage.

In a work bay at White Sands, a Soldier and Marine install equipment into an MRAP vehicle. The bulk of that equipment is in a rack on the outside of the vehicle, in an exposed compartment meant to hold Soldier's gear. Included on the rack is both the JTRS GMR and power supply equipment.

Tyree said it's possible that some of the new equipment could be moved inside the cabs of the vehicles they serve, because the GMR actually could replace some of what's in the cab already.

"There are three radios inside the cab of that vehicle now," he said. "There are some other radios in here that the GMR could really do the job of."

But the inside of the MRAP cab is crowded, and Tyree said if equipment that's inside could be removed due to the addition of the GMR, and the GMR remained outside the vehicle, that would clear up room for Soldiers inside.

The next step for the BCT Modernization and for testing of the JTRS GMR is the LUT in August and September. Soldiers will be hard on the equipment, said Windall, and the Department of Defense will use information from the LUT to make decisions on the future of the program.

"Pretty much it's a make or break year for the program, and a LUT will inform that decision on fielding," Windall said. "But right now we are moving forward and the Army has bought the first brigade's worth of the equipment and we are putting them on M-ATVs right now."

-ends-

[Tim]

JAGM, Hellfire, etc aren't the best replacement for PAM in their current form. But there is no reason either missile can't be launched vertically like PAM and follow a lofted trajectory to the target to provide that over the horizon range. PAM is about the same size as a JAGM or Hellfire the major difference being the lofted flight path. Even without such a modification a direct fire guided missile would provide some of the anti fast boat capability. Without a long range missile then more helos (manned or unmanned) will be needed to carry the missile to the target. The whole point of NLOS-LS is you just need the recce unit to find the target and the missile makes its own way there.

NLOS-LS was originally developed for two missiles: PAM and LAM, the later being a loitering missile which was cut for funding purposes. The US Navy has been lucky enough for the US Army to bear the burden of much of the funding for NLOS-LS for a system they don't need as much! Now if it is cancelled and the US Navy doesn't pick up the tab they will have to find something else and probably pay more... Since the weapon is near fully developed I can imagine the US Navy will stick with it.

Ahh right, I didn't realise how much of a difference the lofted trajectory could make. It would have been interesting if LAM had continued development, the loitering munitions concept seems like it could provide a pretty fast response option. Fireshadow could potentially be quite promising, and as Zen9 pointed out, in the land attack role (not that that's particularly relevant to LCS) it'd be a much more cost effective option than lobbing Harpoons and the like at soft targets.

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Army Modernization Strategy Stresses Affordability

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 28 Apr 2010 17:52

Affordability is gaining prominence in U.S. Army modernization plans, according to a strategy paper released April 28.

The 91-page paper, "2010 Army Modernization Strategy," presents a three-prong approach to acquisition: Develop and field new capabilities, procure upgraded capabilities, and field and distribute capabilities in accordance with Army priorities and the Army Force Generation model.

"The 2010 Army Modernization Strategy explains how we will bring the Army back into balance to meet our current and future challenges," writes Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, deputy chief of staff for programs, in an accompanying memo dated April 23.

Lennox first discussed the new strategy at the Association of the U.S. Army conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in February, when he described it as an "affordable modernization strategy."

"Our plans depend on a steady stream of predictable funding to field capabilities to soldiers," he wrote in the memo.

Moreover, modernization decisions will require thorough cost-benefit analysis, he says.

This is the first Army modernization strategy to incorporate Defense Secretary Robert Gates' guidance concerning the Future Combat Systems program and describes the Army's replacement effort: the Brigade Combat Team Modernization approach. It is also the first strategy to address the changes needed to adapt to the cyclical deployment process, also known as the Army Force Generation model.

The strategy also incorporates direction from the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). According to the paper, within the QDR two key objectives were established:

■ Rebalance capabilities of America's Armed Forces to prevail in today's wars, while building the capabilities needed to deal with future threats.

■ Reform the Department's institutions and processes to support the urgent needs of the warfighter better; buy weapons that are usable, affordable and truly needed; and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and responsibly.

The paper can be found at http://www.g8.army.mil/.

[buglerbilly]

Army Slaps Gear On Chopping Block



By Greg Grant Thursday, April 29th, 2010 4:34 pm

The Army unveiled its 2010 modernization strategy this week and we had a chance to ask Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, deputy chief of staff for programs, about the service’s plans and what’s new. Affordability, that’s one thing that’s new.

The Army modernization plan contains the usual keywords and phrases such as versatile, networked and full spectrum. But the Army’s new weapons, vehicles, aircraft and sensors must also be affordable, Lennox said today, echoing other military leaders who realize that federal deficits are viewed by some lawmakers as a national threat.

As the Army’s top buyer, Lennox said he’s demanding a cost benefit analysis of all existing as well as new systems and what value they bring to soldiers. Weapons systems that are redundant or that fail to provide for soldiers fighting today’s wars will fast fall out of favor. Getting new technologies and gear to soldiers quickly has also moved up in importance. “Speed matters,” said Lt. Gen. William Phillips, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition.

A review of the Army’s vast weapons portfolios revealed an outdated requirements process that was outdated and uninformed by current lessons learned. Too much war gaming was done on big conventional battle scenarios, Lennox said, which led them to do some “dumb” things, like stocking up on weapons that aren’t terribly relevant in irregular wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

A good example of a weapon that meets the Army’s new criteria is the 120mm precision mortar round (with an initial buy of 5,000 rounds) which the Army is rushing to the Afghan theater. An example of a weapon that does not: the Non-Line of Sight-Launch System (NLOS-LS).

Lennox said the Army hasn’t made an official decision on what to do with NLOS-LS, but he made it pretty clear that the program has lost favor among the Army leadership. File NLOS-LS under redundant. He listed a number of precision indirect fire systems that would appear to fit a very similar bill as NLOS-LS: the Multiple Launch Rocket System, the Excalibur 155mm precision round, the 120mm precision mortar round, joint fires such as JDAMs, helicopter fired Hellfire missiles.

Battlefield experience from Iraq and Afghanistan has also influenced the Army’s decision on the way forward with NLOS-LS. “The amount of expenditure of precision indirect fire weapons has not been through the roof, it’s been less than we expected… We were surprised to find that there wasn’t more precision being fired.”

As for the other technological “spin outs” which will go to infantry brigades, a collection of sensors and robots, Lennox acknowledged that they’ve had their share of problems, but he believes the fixes have been made and will be evident in the next round of tests scheduled for September.

Another big piece of the modernization strategy is providing troops in even the most remote parts of Afghanistan with what is essentially a mobile wi-fi hot spot providing voice and digital communications, what the Army calls “battle command on the move.” In the U.S. we have cell phone towers and relay stations every few hundred feet providing iPhone and Blackberry users constant connectivity. That’s not the case in Afghanistan.

“In the places we fight, you have to take the network with you. Our radio systems are built-in cell phone tower mesh networks,” Lennox said, It’s a cutting edge when you have to carry wireless cell phone towers with you.” WIN-T and the Army’s piece of the Joint Tactical Radio System will provide that mobile big pipe, he said. The Army expects the costs for those radios to come down over time. The key is to get the network right. Once the network is built out, the Army can plug in a variety of mobile devices.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/29/army-slaps-weapons-on-chopping-block/#ixzz0mb7HzplD

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Army Tests IBCT Networking Equipment

May 6, 2010



By Michael Fabey

The U.S. Army is putting Increment 1 Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) equipment through technical tests this spring.

The tests are meant to make sure the software and equipment — essentially spinouts from the canceled Future Combat Systems networking soldiers, sensors and components to provide a much more complete picture of the combat environment — are ready for the higher and more demanding testing level.

The equipment and software are further advanced than when the Army put the components through a limited user test in September 2009, program officials say.

Specifically, according to Army spokesman Paul Mehney, the Army lacked the advanced waveform for the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).

Still, the early versions of the equipment proved it would support operational requirements, Mehney said, and the Army got the go-ahead for limited low-rate initial production (LRIP) after those earlier tests.

Now, with greater bandwidth that provides more robust image and data transfer and additional waveforms, the Army is ready to put the IBCT through tests at a battalion level over greater distances for longer periods of time.

Instead of covering a village, Mehney said, the Army will be testing the equipment over several villages, increasing the range by a factor of five for six.

Furthermore, at the small battalion level, the equipment and other capabilities will be tested with other platforms – such as Shadow and Raven UAVs, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles or MRAP all-terrain vehicles (M-ATVs).

Those types of capabilities are being used, he said, in today’s current combat environment and need to be tested with the networked vehicles and Increment 1 capabilities.

“We will be testing this combination of equipment because that is what the first operational unit will have for use in Afghanistan,” he said.

“The 2010 evaluations will stress the network and all of this hardware together in order to ensure functionality and doctrine development.”

It’s all part of preparing for a new combat environment.

“You don’t have a front line anymore,” he said, adding that informational awareness is becoming the focus of the capability packages being developed through the networked IBCT.

The upcoming testing rounds will put the equipment through the rigors of classified and greater threat environments.

“What you’re now truly beginning to do is stretch the network,” Mehney said.

In those tests, the Army also will be integrating new JTRS waveforms and upgrading GPS signals. The unattended ground sensors will feature better resolution and increased battery power.

The testing thus far has even yielded other equipment enhancements.

For example, the Army has developed a device to get data and information directly to the soldiers instead of just into their vehicles or platforms.

[buglerbilly]

House Whacks U.S. Army Modernization Effort

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 12 May 2010 19:00

House authorizers remain unimpressed with the U.S. Army's Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Modernization program and are cutting $891 million from the service's 2011 funding request, according to congressional documents.


A soldier tests a Class 1 Unmanned Aircraft System, part of Increment 1 of the Brigade Combat Team Modernization program. (U.S. ARMY)

For 2011, the Army requested $1.6 billion for research and development for the BCT Modernization program and $682.7 million to procure two brigades' worth of equipment included in Increment 1 of the program.

In its markup of the 2011 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee is authorizing the purchase of only enough gear to equip one brigade.

Citing poor performance results, the committee cuts all $682.7 million in procurement funds in its markup. That includes the $350.6 budgeted for the Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) program, which, as the committee notes, the Army is seeking to cancel.

NLOS-LS is the most costly item within the early infantry brigade combat team. Without it, Increment 1 equipment now consists of the Tactical and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors, the Class 1 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle and the Network Integration Kit. The equipment was originally developed as part of the Future Combat Systems program.

Based on the cancellation of NLOS-LS, the committee concludes that existing program funds will provide for brigade sets 1 and 2.

The Army has awarded a low-rate initial production contract to Boeing for the first brigade's set of equipment. After a second limited user test this fall, the Army plans to seek permission to buy sets 2 and 3.

Within the procurement funding cuts are $44.2 million for the Class I UAS, $29.8 million for the Unattended Ground Sensors, $176.5 million for Network Integration Kits, $20.6 million for the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle and $61.6 million for fielding support.

The committee cuts an additional $208.3 million in research and development funding based on the NLOS-LS termination and "expected contract overhead savings," according to congressional documents explaining the committee marks.

Of the $891 million cut, $433 million is directly related to the change of plans for NLOS-LS.

Explaining the other funding cuts, the committee cites the equipment's poor performance during the 2009 limited user test. During that test, many of the systems demonstrated "performance, reliability and operational concept problems," making it "premature" to invest in additional brigade sets, the committee notes.

Army officials have told Congress that the service has found fixes for the problems and has already begun implementing them. They have also said that if the systems do not meet expectations during this fall's limited user test, the Army will not field them.

The committee is particularly concerned with the performance and cost of the Network Integration Kit, a set of computers and radios, including the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Ground Mobile Radio, that are mounted onto vehicles to provide connectivity within the brigade.

The kits showed problems during the 2009 test; however, the Army is quick to point out that they were relying on early versions of the JTRS radios and that more advanced radios and software will be available for this fall's test.

Despite these improvements, the committee remains concerned that the 2010 test will not include enough network nodes and that these will be operating in an unencrypted format, unexposed to network interference like jamming, according to the documents. Without a bigger, more robust test, the committee worries it still doesn't have enough information about the network integration kits' capability.

"The committee also notes that even if the [Network Integration Kits] perform as planned, they may provide little additional capability to [early infantry brigade combat team] units and will likely be very expensive," an excerpt from the committee's mark up reads.

The committee says it is not sure the network kit is worth its $1 million price tag.

[buglerbilly]

Moved to Irregular Warfare section...........

[buglerbilly]

Chiarelli Praises U.S. Army Aviation Community

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 25 May 2010 18:51

The rest of the U.S. Army has a lot to learn from the service's aviation community and how it manages its portfolio of weapon systems, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli says.

Chiarelli is leading the service's capability portfolio reviews, a series of cost-benefit analysis studies intended to determine whether or not the Army is making the right investments. For instance, the precision fires portfolio review led to the cancellation of the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, among other decisions.

Chiarelli discussed the aviation and combat vehicle reviews at the Army's recent Armor Warfighting Conference at Fort Knox, Ky.

Chiarelli described the aviation branch as "the most responsive organization" throughout the process. Because helicopters and other lift assets are in such high demand in Iraq and Afghanistan and the equipment has been reset so many times, the aviation community keeps excellent tabs on where everything is and the status of it, Chiarelli said.

"It has really come to light as we've done these portfolio reviews, they really understand what they have and why they have it," he said. "I mean I asked, 'Where did that requirement come from?' to other folks and … it's like I just asked them to define the theory of relativity - only for some of them that would be easier, the system is so convoluted."

The Army is also conducting a combat vehicle portfolio review that includes the new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) in its analysis.

"We'll talk about GCV and how it fits into the force structure," Chiarelli said in an interview following remarks.

"If you look at anyone of these systems as an individual system, you can sell just about anything. But, when you look at entire portfolio, you can start to see where we have duplication in different systems or maybe we're overinvesting in one and underinvesting in another."

When the number of systems is reduced, it results in a number of second- and third-order effects, Chiarelli said. "If I take one vehicle out of the inventory, the impact that that has from maintenance to parts to logistics to everything else is just huge."

The combat vehicle review is also examining how the Army will distribute Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in the future.

When he canceled the Manned Ground Vehicles component of the Future Combat Systems program, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the Army to devise a plan to integrate MRAPs into the force.

The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did the analysis work last summer and recommended putting about 3,700 vehicles into the Army's tables of organization and equipment, particularly for Combat Support and Combat Service Support units, according to Chiarelli. The rest of the vehicles would be put into packaged sets available to units getting ready to deploy but not be part of their standard equipment, he said.

"At the same time we're relooking that to see if it doesn't make some sense to put MRAPs in our active formation and not put the lion's share into these combat sets that would be made available to units who need them to deploy," Chiarelli said. This means putting more MRAPs down at the unit level, he said.

"So our initial look at integration of MRAPs is to put about 3,700 into our combat formations and make capability sets available both for units to train with and deploy with. But with the combat vehicle portfolio review, we may look at getting into those sets and providing more down to unit level for training."

[buglerbilly]

U.S. Army Studies Options for Future Force

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 23 Jul 2010 20:07

By December, the U.S. Army will complete a number of studies to help it determine what the force will look like for the next six years, according to a memo from Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger, deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, head of Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), is leading the effort to design the force for 2013-18, according to the memo, signed by Bolger on July 6. Bolger recently replaced Gen. James Thurman, now in charge of Army Forces Command, in the G-3/5/7 role, which is part of TRADOC.

The memo outlines the study schedule and pinpoints who is in charge of the various efforts.

Dempsey must complete analysis of "the Army's most critical brigade level force design, force mix issues, and Warfighting Functional Strategies," in time to influence the Force Management Review for the Pentagon's next two program objective memorandums, the memo states.

By December, TRADOC must complete its assessments and recommendations for the future force. Those assessments need to consider upper-level guidance, lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, and insights from the Army's Unified Quest war-gaming exercise, according to the memo.

One of the Army's key goals for the 2013-18 period is to increase the time at home between deployments for the active and reserve forces.

For 2012-14, the Army wants to provide its soldiers in the active force two years at home between one-year deployments and four years at home for the reserve component, according to the memo.

For 2015-17, the Army wants to increase those numbers to three years at home for the active force and five years for the reserves.

From 2012 to 2014, the Army plans on 20 brigade combat teams (15 in the active component and five in the reserves) and 90,000 "worth of enablers" to support combatant command requirements. Those numbers drop to 15 brigade combat teams (12 active and three in the reserves) and 72,000 worth of enablers.

"Requirements will increase for Army forces to conduct overseas engagements activities over this period," the memo says.

The Army needs to develop a "strategic narrative and identify" a transition point for moving to three years at home between deployments for the active force, and five years at home for the Army National Guard and Reserve, according to the memo.

The Army also is carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of other options - for example, 27 months between nine-month deployments versus the one- to three-years ratio, the memo says. That study is expected to be completed in August.

The office of the Army vice chief of staff, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, is responsible for developing and revising generating force requirements "based on new policy and programs." That won't be completed until November, the memo says.

The Army's G-8 office and the office of the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology will develop a revised modernization strategy, with a deadline of Sept. 1.

According to the memo, the Army is conducting analysis in all of these areas throughout the summer, with campaign modeling to begin shortly.

Toward the end of August, Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, is expected to provide guidance for the 2013-17 spending plan. Casey is being updated throughout the process and will begin the approval process for the finalized plans later in the fall.

Work on the 2014-18 plans will continue through next summer.