MARCH–APRIL 2001 - asc.army.mil you are an individual who receives Army AL&Tmagazine and ......

MARCH–APRIL 2001MARCH–APRIL 2001

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-01-2

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-01-2

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimitedApproved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

If you are an individual who receives Army AL&T magazine andyou have changed your mailing address, do not contact the Army AL&TEditorial Office! We cannot make address changes regarding distri-bution of the magazine. Please note the following procedures if youneed to change your mailing address:

� Civilian members of the Army Acquisition and TechnologyWorkforce must submit address changes to their Civilian PersonnelAdvisory Center (CPAC).

� Active duty military personnel must submit address changes totheir Military Personnel Office (MILPO).

� Army Reserve personnel must submit address changes to theU.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) in St. Louis,MO.

� National Guard personnel must submit address changes to theArmy National Guard Acquisition Career Management Branch [email protected] or call DSN 327-7481 or (703)607-7481.

Your attention to these procedures will ensure timely mailing ofyour magazine.

IIMMPPOORRTTAANNTTIIMMPPOORRTTAANNTTNNOOTTIICCEENNOOTTIICCEE

March-April 2001; PB 70-01-2

DR. KENNETH J. OSCARActing Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

EDITORIAL ADVISORYBOARD MEMBERS

LTG PAUL J. KERNDirector, Army Acquisition Corps

LTG PETER M. CUVIELLODirector of Information Systems for Command,

Control, Communications and ComputersVACANT

Deputy Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Materiel Command

MG GEOFFREY D. MILLERAssistant DCSPER

MG JOHN S. PARKERCommanding General

U.S. Army Medical Researchand Materiel Command

ERIC A. ORSINIDeputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics

Office of the ASAALTDR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Research and Technology

Office of the ASAALTDR. LEWIS E. LINK JR.

Deputy Chief of Staff for R&DU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDONALD DAMSTETTER

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Policy

Office of the ASAALTHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Executive SecretaryEditorial Advisory Board

EDITORIAL STAFFHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-In-ChiefDEBRA L. FISCHER

Executive EditorCYNTHIA D. HERMES

Managing EditorSANDRA R. MARKS

A. JOSEPH STRIBLINGContract Support

To contact the Editorial Office call (703) 805-1034/35/36/38 orDSN 655-1034/35/36/38. Articles should be submitted to:DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE101, FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Our fax number is (703) 805-4218. E-mail: [email protected].

Achieving Interoperability Through International Cooperative Programs

BG John W. Holly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2The Joint Tactical Radio System

COL Michael C. Cox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5The Single Integrated Air Picture

LTC Michael Callahan and CW4 Stan Darbro (USA, Ret.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8The Single Manager For Conventional Ammunition

COL Jim Naughton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Joint Unmanned Ground Vehicles

LtCol Richard LeVan, USMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Javelin Weapon System: From Legacy To Objective Force

David M. Easterling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17The U.S. Army Fire Fighting Training Systems Program

Raul Ley-Soto and Alexander Fernandez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192000 Army Small Business Innovation Research Phase IIQuality Awards

Dr. Kenneth A. Bannister and James R. Myers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Yuma Routinely Tests Armored Vehicles And Direct-Fire Munitions

Chuck Wullenjohn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Integrated Combat Command And Control Software Update Process

LTC Bryan J. McVeigh, MAJ John J. Markovich,MAJ Earl D. Noble, and Ron Bokoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The U.S./German Environmental Technology ExchangeRaymond J. Fatz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Creative Solutions To Meet DOD’s Maritime Support NeedsCOL Sheila C. Toner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Addressing Soldier Needs Through Innovative PartnershipsDr. Kenneth A. Bannister, MAJ Lyndon F. Wrighten, and John H. Ruehe . . . . 33

Simulations: Changing The Paradigm For Operational TestingCPT Andrew E. Yuliano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Career Development Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44News Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Acquisition Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Acquisition

Logistics

Technology

Professional Publication of the AL&T Communityhttp://dacm.sarda.army.mil/publications/rda/

FEATURES

COVER

DEPARTMENTS

Army AL&T (ISSN 0892-8657) is published bimonthly by theOASAALT. Articles reflect views of the authors and not necessar-ily official opinion of the Department of the Army. The purposeis to instruct members of the Army acquisition workforce rela-tive to AL&T processes, procedures, techniques, and manage-ment philosophy and to disseminate other information perti-nent to their professional development. Private subscriptionsand rates are available from the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 or (202)512-1800. Periodicals official postage paid at Fort Belvoir, VA,and additional post offices. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900BELVOIR RD SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567. Articlesmay be reprinted if credit is given to Army AL&T and the author.Unless indicated, all photos are from U.S. Army sources.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

This medium is approved for official dissemination of materialdesigned to keep individuals within the Army knowledgeable of cur-rent and emerging developments within their areas of expertise forthe purpose of enhancing their professional development.

By order of the Secretary of the ArmyERIC K. SHINSEKI

General, United States ArmyChief of Staff

Official:

JOEL B HUDSONAdministrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army0101402

Interoperability requirements are now considered in virtually every systemsdevelopment program, and each Service acquisition executive coordinatesefforts to ensure these requirements are met.

2 Army AL&T March-April 2001

Sri Lanka, 2017In the wake of flaring hostilities in

the decades-old conflict between SriLankan forces and Tamil Tigers, U.N.observers found themselves swept unex-pectedly into the fray. The multina-tional force is composed of observersfrom the United Kingdom (U.K.) andseveral African countries. Their onlyoffensive weapon capable of halting thebelligerents’ armor formations was theU.K.’s limited number of WAH-64DApache Longbow helicopters. The U.K.version of this nearly 20-year-old attackhelicopter was limited in employmentbecause of the island country’s monsoonseason. Fortunately, they did have alarge stock of U.S.- and U.K.-developedCommon Missiles.

In less than 72 hours, a brigade ofU.S. forces equipped with FutureCombat Systems (FCS) and RAH-66Comanche helicopters was deployed byC-130s to the small airstrip still con-trolled by the U.N. forces. Employing theU.K.’s stock of Common Missiles on theFCS and Comanche, the U.S. brigadewas able to separate the warring fac-tions and re-establish peace. The U.S.brigade will remain in Sri Lanka foranother 30 days to assist in reparationsof the damage caused by the monsoonsand warring factions. The U.N. forceswill have their Common Missiles andother supplies replenished by the Car-rier Group’s Marine ExpeditionaryForce, which will be leaving the IndianOcean within a week.

IntroductionWhile the above is a fictional

account of a futuristic event, it high-lights the great potential gained by a

fully interoperable weapon system—the Common Missile—developed in aninternational cooperative program.Interoperability such as that describedpreviously, decreased national arma-ment budgets, access to offshore tech-nological expertise, and a shrinkingDefense industrial base all contributeto creating an environment thatrequires international cooperative pro-grams. However, regardless of how wellcooperative programs appear at aphilosophical level, the real challengeis whether they can be successful.

Structure For SuccessWithin the United States, interop-

erability is a key performance parame-ter. The best way to ensure interoper-ability is through a joint or an inter-national program with a key ally.However, the single most critical aspect

of a joint or an international programis a common need. Partners must pos-sess an operational requirement that issufficiently similar to allow for a com-mon solution. While the overarchingrequirement is essential, the “devil liesin the details.” The ability to clearlyharmonize the operational require-ments is paramount to a successfuland affordable program. This is accom-plished by a set of clearly delineatedprocesses for development with otherServices (e.g., Joint Requirements Over-sight Council or Joint OperationalRequirements Documents). However,with an international cooperative pro-gram, the processes are tailored to suitthe partner nations, their industries,and the system being developed.

An international cooperative pro-gram must first support the nationalpolicy of the partners. Without a

ACHIEVING INTEROPERABILITYTHROUGH INTERNATIONALCOOPERATIVE PROGRAMS

BG John W. Holly

Common Missile Factoids:The Real Program

• Cooperative Program: United States-United Kingdom• Joint Program: Army, Navy, Marines• Replaces Aging Hellfire and Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided Fleet• Objective Missile for Comanche—Candidate for FCS• Time-Phased Operational Requirements Document and EvolutionaryAcquisition Strategy• PDRR FY01-03, Development FY04-07, Production FY08-20• Competition Throughout Life Cycle• Concurrent Production and Planned Technology Insertion• Army Requirement: ~73,000 Missiles

March-April 2001 Army AL&T 3

clear-cut, national strategic interest ina teaming relationship and a long-termcommitment, any initiative is doomedto failure. Given this prerequisite, suc-cessful programs result from establish-ing the partnership from the begin-ning. This allows for a truly collabora-tive program rather than just acooperative program. Collaborationimplies that the partners jointly con-tribute to the solution of a commonrequirement, rather than merely pro-vide financial resources. Consequently,wisely selecting a partner(s) becomesan overriding concern. But a morepractical consideration also comes intoplay by limiting the number of partnersin the program. As a senior U.K.

Defence official stated recently duringa conference, “International programsare like car pools … two can generallyagree on arrival and departure times.Introduction of additional partners sig-nificantly complicates the entire deci-sionmaking apparatus.”

Economic ConsiderationsDeclining budgets, increasing costs

attributable to system sophisticationand complexity, and less than eco-nomic production rates underwriteinternational cooperation as a meansfor providing affordable systems to oursoldiers. This affordability dynamicincludes not only the associatedeconomies of scale derived from pool-ing production requirements, but thesynergy of leveraged technology aswell.

In 1970, 20 percent of research anddevelopment (R&D) dollars investedwithin the United States came fromDOD. In 1998, DOD’s share of invest-ment dollars had dropped to only 5percent. The dominant position hasbeen assumed by the commercial sec-tor investing in R&D activities focusedon profitability, not national security.While there are many benefits derivedfrom commercial R&D activities,Defense-unique requirements remain.Sharing the financial bill and the tech-nology benefits allows the partners toleverage technical expertise and fund-ing availability.

Recognizing that partners will eachhave different approval, political, andfiscal processes is an important facet.The approval process becomes vital toprogram initiation. Extended negotia-tions can actually impact in-servicedates as well as contract costs andschedules. Memorandum of Under-standing agreements must be timed toensure support by the respective finan-cial programming, budgeting, andoperational requirement processes. Asimple consideration such as synchro-nizing funding commitments to co-incide with different fiscal years is asmall detail with tremendous implica-tions. Fundamentally, the partnersmust understand each other’s bureau-cracy and adjust. Further, clear under-standing of each other’s national

expectations must be openly estab-lished. Expectations concerning dura-tion, commitments, schedule, financialcontributions, and industrial benefitsmust be understood and agreed to byall parties. Essentially, the partnersmust listen to each other on all aspectsof the program—not just listen to pro-gram supporters who tell you what youwant to hear.

Successful RelationshipsMany advocate that the most suc-

cessful cooperative programs are con-ceived through industrial teaming, notby government-to-government cooper-ation. I disagree. The best cooperativeprograms are grounded in agreementsbetween governments. Export controls,long-term political and fiscal commit-ment, and common-user requirementsare best accommodated through inter-government agreements. However, exe-cution of a multinational action canonly be accomplished by expandingthe government team to include indus-try partners and providing industrywith the freedom, flexibility, andauthority to make appropriate keydecisions.

Entering into a cooperative pro-gram, by default, brings an expectationof mutual benefits both on the battle-field and in the factory. While manywould advocate strict work-share

Lessons LearnedFrom OtherPrograms

• There must be strong anddedicated support both financiallyand politically throughout the life-time of the program by all parties’governments.

• Common and agreed-to pro-gram goals must be present from ini-tiation to completion.

• Senior-empowered managersfrom all partners must be involvedand committed to success.

• Limiting the number of part-ners diminishes decisionmaking andcoordination difficulties.

• Work share and cost share can-not always be met—flexibility withinacceptable standards must be under-stood—industry is best suited torealistically address work share.

• Technology transfer and exportlicensing, as well as language andcultural differences, are issues thatmust be anticipated and addressed.They can be overcome and shouldnot be considered impediments toprogram success.

• Trust, honesty, and speakingwith “one voice” results in no sur-prises and often leads to achievingmilestones.

"To mitigate potentialprotectionism and negative effects onU.S.-European defensetrade, both U.S. defenseindustry and governmenthave taken steps toimprove transatlantic cooperation."

—GAO Report 98-6,Defense Trade


ratios, I support theapproach that allowsindustry to negotiatethe best work-sharerelationship. Theoverriding factormust be to providethe best system toour soldiers. Strictwork-share ratios cancreate disincentivesto accomplishing thismost importantmission.

Realistically, theprime contractorunderstands that a successful interna-tional program will result only throughthe involvement of the partner nations’industries. Production sales will cer-tainly be influenced by the domesticcontent. Consequently, the contractoris in the best position to identify wherethe best-value approach to work allo-cation between countries lies, with aclear recognition that content from thepartner’s domestic suppliers will influ-ence the production orders.

Security And ProprietaryConsiderations

One of the most difficult aspects ofa cooperative program is addressingexport controls. Though the UnitedStates has made significant strides instreamlining and modernizing exportcontrol procedures, the desire andneed to protect sensitive nationalinformation remains. Ensuring thatcritical technologies are not compro-mised is essential to each partner’ssecurity and national competitive-ness. Within the United States, we have streamlined government-to-government procedures, resulting inimproved efficiency and reduced processing times. Additionally, we haveplaced the disclosure and releaseauthority at the appropriate level toassess both technological risk andcompetitive sensitivity. This ensuresthat knowledgeable individuals makeinformed decisions concerning therelease of both classified and unclassi-fied technical information.

Another new initiative is the use ofGlobal Program Licenses to provide an

umbrella authorization for theexchange of technical and productioninformation throughout the life of acooperative program.

TrustThe bedrock concept for ensuring

success revolves around trust. Experi-ence shows that if the fiscal and politi-cal considerations can be accommo-dated, trust between partners deter-mines the success of the program.Developing a common understandingto ensure problems and issues areidentified and resolved early allows thepartners to focus on solutions ratherthan the problems. This trust is essen-tially built over time and in manyrespects is more personal than pro-grammatic. Continuity of key person-nel and a commitment to cooperationand collaboration by those key individ-uals produces long-term success.

ConclusionInternational cooperative pro-

grams are both difficult and rewarding.Critics of international cooperativeprograms argue that these types ofprojects are more expensive and areinfluenced by political concerns. Crit-ics also argue that these programsresult in duplication of productionactivities and the associated loss ofeconomies of scale. This can be true,but only if we allow these detractors tobecome the primary focus and fail toprofit from past experience. However,the incontrovertible fact remains thatthe best way to ensure interoperabilitywith our coalition partners is throughan international cooperative program.

Currently, theUnited States and the United Kingdomhave begun to estab-lish a cooperativeprogram on our next-generation tacticalmissile. The CommonMissile Program hasbeen structured usingthe lessons learnedfrom past cooperativeendeavors. We arecommitted to the suc-cess of that programand, through that

commitment, expect to provide U.S.soldiers and Marines and U.K. soldierswith a superb system that exploits thelessons learned from previous coopera-tive programs.

In spite of the complexity andchallenges, the Army will continue topursue opportunities for internationalcooperative development and produc-tion. There are significant benefits tothe United States and our allies in con-tinuing these efforts, and we mustensure that our soldiers are the recipi-ents of the very best interoperablesystems.

BG JOHN W. HOLLY is the Pro-gram Executive Officer for TacticalMissiles. He is a graduate of theU.S. Military Academy and holdsan M.S. in mechanical engineer-ing from the Georgia Institute ofTechnology. Holly has alsoattended the Army Command andGeneral Staff College and theIndustrial College of the ArmedForces and completed the Ad-vanced Program Managementand Executive Program Managerscourses at the Defense SystemsManagement College. He is alicensed Professional Engineer inthe Commonwealth of Virginia.

Structure For Success• Common national goals• Limit number of partners• Wisely select partners• Industry is responsible for work share and work-shareallocation• Interoperability and requirements harmonization• Understand one another's systems


Author’s Note: The JTRS will be afamily of advanced, reliable, anddynamic communication platformsthat will be software reprogrammable,multimode capable, and network-able,while simultaneously providing voice,data, and video communications. Itsopen-system architecture will enableportability of waveforms across JTR sys-tems and technology insertion throughevolutionary acquisition or preplannedproduct improvement.

IntroductionMilitary engagements present one

of the most dynamic and hostile envi-ronments for systems deployment andusage. System elements are continuallymoving, reorganizing, appearing, anddisappearing, and the enemy is waginga physical and electronic informationbattle to destroy these systems. In thistype of environment, availability, inter-operability, and security are essential.

Legacy System InteroperabilityThe increase in DOD’s communi-

cations requirements has led to a largenumber of various types of radios, eachcapable of a particular mission andeach having unique characteristics fortransmission. DOD legacy systems aretypically single-band, single-moderadios that have limited expansioncapabilities. As a result, legacy systemsrequire complex solutions to be inter-operable with other systems and net-works. Use of proprietary standardsfurther complicates interoperability,resulting in problems with noninterop-

erable systems that require manualintervention to interchange informa-tion. Additionally, warfighters mustdeploy with a different radio and sup-port equipment for every systemneeded to interoperate, thus increasingtheir burden and logistics support.Because of this, requirements for a sin-gle radio that could be reconfigured tointeroperate with the legacy radio weregenerated, and private industryresponded with unique software-controlled reprogrammable radios.However, the proprietary designs ofthese radios and legacy radio wave-forms perpetuated maintenance andlogistical problems without truly pro-viding interoperability.

A Coordinated EffortEach Service within DOD began

separate programs to develop a com-mon radio system that would gain thebenefits of software-defined radios(SDRs). The JTRS was initiated to coor-dinate the efforts of all the Services indevelopment of a single family of inter-operable radios. The JTRS Programfacilitates development of a singlearchitecture for industry and DOD tobuild SDRs and waveform applicationsto interoperate with legacy radios, aswell as state-of-the-art waveforms tomeet increasing demands for informa-tion on a dynamic battlefield. Thisapproach allows the Services to grace-fully migrate from existing systems tonew capabilities while achieving trueinteroperability.

Technological ObsolescenceThe dramatic pace of advances in

communications technology, coupledwith the military’s traditionally longsystem-acquisition cycles, has resultedin the technological obsolescence ofnew systems before they are fielded.Costs have prohibited retrofitting oldsystems with improved capabilities,resulting in reduced military readiness.Current radio systems cannot be tech-nologically updated cost effectively.SDRs provide the opportunity for“future-proofing” via preplanned prod-uct improvements.

The JTRS is being developed as anetwork-centric family of communica-tion devices for DOD in support ofJoint Vision 2020 missions. Network-centric devices focus on networkedinformation rather than on individualradios. The JTRS is expected to provideinteroperability across all geographicaland organizational boundaries (hori-zontal, vertical, Service, and national).The JTRS will be capable of transmit-ting in voice, data, and video formatswhile operating in frequency bandsranging from 2 megahertz to 2 giga-hertz. To facilitate migration into theServices, the JTRS will maintain back-wards compatibility with selectedlegacy waveforms and provide cross-banding between disparate systems.

Centralized ManagementThe JTRS Program is a series of

related but independent joint ac-quisitions involving program man-agers from different Services for

Flexible Communications For Future Warfighters . . .

THE JOINT TACTICALRADIO SYSTEM (JTRS)

COL Michael C. Cox


decentralized execution and a central-ized management process for over-sight. The Army is the lead Service forthe joint activities. The program acqui-sition strategy for the JTRS is dividedbetween the Joint Program Office (JPO)and the Services’ acquisition centers.The JPO is responsible for defining,developing, validating, and maintain-ing the software communicationsarchitecture (SCA) (or standard) thatestablishes the interface between thehardware and software, and for acquir-ing software waveform applications.

The Services are responsible fordeveloping JTRS radio sets—to includeporting independently developedwaveforms, integrating the waveforms,and fielding the JTRS radio set as afinal product for the user. Each of theprocurements will be a joint effort,with the acquiring Service acting as thelead Service for each procurement. Thelead Service for individual procure-ments is selected through a manage-ment process. The JTRS Program willbe developed via a phased implemen-tation effort that balances operational

requirements, weapon system integra-tion issues, and funding constraints.

SDRs are becoming more com-mon. However, they are each built to adifferent proprietary architecture, havedifferent capabilities, are not adapt-able, and are not interoperable. Thestrength of the JTRS is that it intro-duces standardized architecture andsoftware waveforms that can be cross-banded to achieve interoperabilityobjectives.

Overall GoalAn overall goal of the JTRS Pro-

gram is to evolve to where waveformapplications are developed once, are“portable” (i.e., can be rehosted toother JTRS sets with minimum effort)to existing and future JTRS radio sets,are easily upgraded, and can addressjoint requirements across the Services.Underlying drivers for this include jointinteroperability, reduction of totalownership costs, and avoidance oftechnical and operational obsoles-cence. The JTRS acquisition approachaddresses these goals by focusing on

separate acquisition of waveformapplications and JTRS sets.

Traditionally, hardware and soft-ware have been acquired from thesame vendor. This approach does notguarantee any independence of thewaveform application and the particu-lar JTRS set. Without this independ-ence, waveform applications will behardware-specific and will not meetthe above goals.

Hardware Versus SoftwareThe proposed acquisition strategy

for JTRS is based on the concept ofindependent hardware and softwareprocurement. In this context (i.e., theJTRS), hardware includes all compo-nents and the necessary software infra-structure of an operating system, thecore framework (which is the imple-mentation of the standard architec-ture), and certain functional servicesrequired by the software waveformapplications. Software includes wave-form applications implemented asreuseable—portable software applica-tions that are independent of the


hardware host. Each total waveformincludes all functionality from theantenna to the end-user equipment.

Modular software radio technologyallows for the insertion of new algo-rithms and technologies, the quantita-tive characterization of waveform per-formance, and separation of the wave-form definition from implementationdetails to enhance portability. This canbe achieved through development of anopen, industry-accepted architecturethat provides the framework fordeveloping and evolving a family ofsoftware-programmable radios.

The JTRS SCA provides a set ofapplication programming interfaces tostandardize system control and inter-processor communications. The SCA isdefined around the Portable OperatingSystem Interface Standard applicationsprogram to provide for the portabilityof source-code applications across dif-ferent operating systems. CommonObject Request Broker Architecture(CORBA) middleware standards pro-vide interoperability among applica-tions on different processing machinesin heterogeneous-distributed environ-ments and provide for seamlessly inter-connecting multiple-object systems.

The JTRS provides a platform formultiple, simultaneous waveform stan-dards and services, where functionalitycan be changed via software down-loads. The benefits include increasedflexibility, smaller size, and potentiallylower cost. As requirements evolve andservices are improved or added, theJTRS can adapt rapidly to new tech-nologies and capabilities without theneed for major equipment changes orreplacements, thus providing invest-ment protection and quick response toa dynamic tactical environment.

Commercial InvestmentsThe SDR concept has significant

application in the commercial market-place. Therefore, it is desirable that theServices benefit from any advance-ments made in the private sector in thistechnology. In addition, technical obso-lescence can be managed by leveragingcommercial technologies and theirmarket-driven evolution. Again, thiscan also be addressed through thedevelopment of an open, industry-accepted architecture.

Government and industry haveformed a Software Defined RadioForum (SDRF), which acts as a radiostandards development body. TheSDRF has accepted the JTRS SCA as thebasis for further development and stan-dardization. Other standards organiza-tions, such as the Object ManagementGroup and the Institute of Electricaland Electronic Engineers Inc., are beingconsidered for formal standardizationof software-radio architectures. Oncethe SCA has matured, one of theseorganizations will maintain the JTRSsoftware architecture as a commercialstandard. This process avoids the highcosts associated with military-uniquestandards, costs that acquisition reformmandates seek to eliminate.

The acceptance of an industrystandard is usually a very lengthyprocess. Therefore, in practice, a defacto standard is accepted rather thanfirst defining and accepting a standard.While there is much interest in the JTRSarchitecture within the international,commercial industry, there is no guar-antee that SCA will be accepted as astandard. The likelihood of SCA beingaccepted increases as the SDRF contin-ues the formalization of software radioarchitecture and as the Services pro-ceed with hardware procurements andproduce the first few JTRS products.

ConclusionFrom the onset of the JTRS Pro-

gram, the government has encouragedthe use of commercial and nondevelop-mental items to satisfy the JTRSrequirement. Market research andstrong interest and involvement byindustry in the program have shownthat this is a viable concept. The estab-lishment of SCA as the standard bywhich all DOD-procured radios will bebuilt not only ensures interoperabilitybut also promotes competition. Thisensures that government radios willembody leading-edge technologies thatare commercially available.

The JTRS concept (i.e., softwareradio and SDR) has the potential ofbringing new capabilities to the battle-field. These new capabilities include:

• Advanced programmable infor-mation security capabilities;

• Adaptable frequency reuse andmanagement capabilities;

• Mobile, ad hoc networking capa-bilities (e.g., the new wideband networkwaveform); and

• New interoperability solutions(e.g., new cross-banding capabilities fordifferent systems and over-the-airdownloadable waveform applicationsfor near real-time upgrades and mis-sion upgrades).

SDRs offer a wide range of capabili-ties defined in software running on“common” hardware. SDRs allow forimprovements or enhancements with-out altering system design. SDR capa-bilities also enable users to acquirecommon hardware and to satisfy indi-vidual requirements with software thatfits each specific application (as in thepersonal computer marketplace).

The major advantage of an SDR(i.e., the JTRS) is its ability to be repro-grammed when the situation changesor improved software becomes avail-able. The technological advances takingplace in the world today require devel-opment of systems that are as flexibleand upgradeable as possible. The JTRSencompasses these concepts and pro-vides warfighters a flexible, adaptablecommunications capability that keepspace with evolving technology and thechanging battlefield environment.

COL MICHAEL C. COX is theDeputy Program Manager, JTRS,JPO, Arlington, VA. He has a B.S. inagricultural economics fromBrigham Young University and anM.A. in computer resource man-agement from Webster University.He has also completed the Com-mand and General Staff College,the Defense Systems ManagementCollege’s Program ManagersCourse, and the U.S. Army WarCollege.


IntroductionInteroperability requirements are

here to stay. As most acquisition pro-fessionals know, the August 1999 revi-sion to the Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01Arequires that system developmentprograms address interoperability fac-tors. Additionally, weapon systemsoperational requirements documentsnow have an interoperability key-performance parameter. Within eachService, a Program Executive Officer orthe Acquisition Executive coordinatesprograms to meet interoperabilityrequirements. Joint interoperability isa difficult problem because the lack ofa central acquisition organization todeal with synchronization and man-agement of joint weapon systeminterfaces.

BackgroundIn the Joint Theater Air and Missile

Defense (JTAMD) mission area, inter-operability has been a high prioritybecause of the mix of forces that

defend the battlespace and the poten-tial for civilian casualties and fratricide.Since the late 1980s, air picture inter-operability issues have been identifiedthrough various real-world and exer-cise scenarios. In 1988, the NavyAEGIS cruiser Vincennes incorrectlyidentified an Iranian airliner and shot itdown over the Persian Gulf, killing all290 passengers.

In April 1994, the tragic shootingdown of two Army BLACK HAWK heli-copters over Northern Iraq resulted inthe deaths of 26 people and furtherillustrated the need for a clear andaccurate air picture. Additionally, All-Service Combat Identification ExerciseTests have continually revealed short-comings in the joint air picture, but lit-tle progress has been made to addressthe joint capability problem. As such,in March 2000, the Joint RequirementsOversight Council (JROC) directed theServices to “stand up” the SingleIntegrated Air Picture SystemsEngineering (SIAP SE) Task Force to

begin working on part of the JTAMDinteroperability problem.

This article examines the SIAP SETask Force approach and structure, aswell as its impact on future interoper-ability efforts. SIAP is a warfightingconcept that will allow all elements inthe JTAMD architecture to have anaccurate, common view of objects inthe air space. Together with combatidentification capabilities, the SIAP isone of the building blocks for the over-all JTAMD 2010 operational concept. Itallows air defense shooters to confi-dently engage with their weapon sys-tems at the maximum range with lowrisk of fratricide. Currently, Army airdefense weapons employment isrestricted to areas where friendly air-craft operate. However, with theemerging cruise missile andunmanned aerial vehicle threat, allweapons must be able to engage attheir maximum range. In addition,SIAP is envisioned to support advancedengagement concepts that allow shoot-ers to use nonorganic sensors.

THE SINGLE INTEGRATEDAIR PICTURE

LTC Michael Callahan andCW4 Stan Darbro (USA, Ret.)

Joint interoperability is a difficult problembecause of the lack

of a central acquisition organizationto deal with synchronization

and management ofjoint weapon system interfaces.


Implementation StandardsThe development of a SIAP

has been hampered by differingapproaches to implementing the JointData Network (JDN, aka Link 16) stan-dards (MILSTD 6016A), including posi-tion location and timing differences, aswell as varying rule interpretations.Some of the systems impacted by thisdilemma include the Army’s PATRIOT,Forward Area Air Defense Commandand Control, Air and Missile DefenseWorkstation, the Air Force’s AirborneWarning and Control System, and theNavy’s AEGIS Weapons System. EachService may believe it has compliedwith MILSTD 6016A; however, whensystems are linked in a joint environ-ment, the air picture can differ signifi-cantly from one system to another.

Getting all systems to comply witha common standard would appear tobe a relatively simple task, but in prac-

tice it has been difficult. Each Servicehas made a significant investment inits systems, and the potential cost forchanges could be high. Because theServices believe they met their require-ments by implementing the MILSTD,they have no incentive to fund changesfor fielded systems to address interop-erability solutions. The JROC-directedSIAP SE Task Force coordinates theServices’ efforts to solve long-standingJDN implementation and interpreta-tion problems while preparing anarchitecture and road map that sup-ports the Theater Air and MissileDefense Capstone RequirementsDocument.

As with most joint efforts, the realdifficulty lies in the details of cross-Services implementation. In its con-cept for the task force, the JROC soughtto make the Services full participantsin the effort. The joint staff had previ-

ously worked through the BallisticMissile Defense Organization (BMDO)to achieve joint SIAP objectives, withthe Services involved through theirrespective BMDO or Link 16 userprograms.

The original Army position onSIAP work was that the BMDO shouldserve as the lead agent for SIAP.However, the BMDO was not anxiousto accept the lead and the Navy hadexpressed a desire to lead the effort.The JROC stated that joint interoper-ability is a four-Service problem andshould be resolved by the Services.Thus, the JROC construct addressedthe various concerns, including theArmy position, and assigned the Navyas the “Lead Engineer” for executingthe effort and the Army AcquisitionExecutive for overseeing the effort.The JROC further directed that the taskforce be composed of no more than


30 core task-force members workingwith the virtual staffs from each Serviceand agency (Figure on Page 9). BMDOand the Services were to provide fund-ing with a JROC review of the taskforce’s progress planned for 2 yearsafter standup.

The Services and BMDO initiated aworking group to draft a charter andprepare to stand up the organization.Charter preparation took about 60 daysand involved difficult negotiations toresolve all Service concerns. The issueof a “sunset” clause for the task forcewas highly debated with the solutionultimately left to JROC to review after 2 years. The Services were clearly con-cerned about the prospect of having tofund the organization for an indetermi-nate period.

The task-force charter addressedthe tough issues of Service equities andissue adjudication via the complexrelationship between the SE and theJTAMD requirements process. The taskforce also established an oversightcouncil consisting of the Service andBMDO Acquisition Executives andtheir designated three-star-level repre-sentatives. Funding issues weredeferred to a follow-on detailed imple-mentation plan.

CostsIn May 2000, the JROC reviewed

the progress toward standing up thetask force and approved a preliminaryfunding breakout that included fund-ing from all Services and BMDO. Theeffort was estimated to cost $60-80 mil-lion over 2 years (split into 3 budgetyears).

Settling on a financial manage-ment construct was no small task.Each Service has its own method forworking on joint programs, and theshort duration of the effort was new toeveryone involved. The financial man-agement construct ended up with theServices and BMDO reprogramming toa Navy program element for simplicityof execution. This was a positive stepin standing up the task force becausethe Services had to show trust by com-mitting funds to the program.

At the May review, the JROC alsocalled for the task force to provide a

detailed implementation plan describ-ing proposed work and the associatedcosts. This detailed implementationplan was to be the basis for approval offunding levels beyond an initial $4 mil-lion. The plan addressed many issuessuch as Service work share and systemsengineering team focus that had previ-ously been pushed to follow-on docu-ments. As of December 2000, the planis still in staffing with the difficult issueof work share among the Servicesremaining as an outstanding Armyissue. Regarding this issue and othersin the formation of the task force, theArmy can address issues through itsoversight role as provided by the JROC.

The organizational construct willrequire active oversight by the SIAPAcquisition Executive to protect Army(and other Service) interests and bal-ance them with progress on joint solu-tions to the air picture deficiencies.The end result will raise the visibility ofSIAP interoperability issues to the levelof Service assistant secretaries, whichmay provide the emphasis needed toachieve joint interoperability.

ConclusionSo what does all this mean for

Army acquisition and future interoper-ability efforts? Through the SIAP TaskForce, the JROC is pressing hard on

joint interoperability issues. It hastended to place responsibility with theServices where the vice chiefs havedirective authority, rather than inDefense agencies. This gives morecontrol to the Services, but it comeswith associated funding requirementsand issues of Service equity.

The SIAP SE Task Force conceptforces the Services to collaborate asstakeholders to address specific inter-operability issues. The Army mustactively participate in the SIAP SE TaskForce to protect its substantial invest-ment in its weapon systems, and tomanage required changes within soft-ware and system upgrade cycles. Thechallenge is to orient the task force onspecific improvements with a finitetimeline and evolve successful effortsor rapidly end efforts that fail to meetobjectives. The Army AcquisitionExecutive has set specific objectivesthat the SIAP SE must meet by July2001. These objectives will provide an opportunity to judge the suc-cess of this new method of address-ing interoperability.

LTC MICHAEL CALLAHAN isChief of the Air and MissileDefense Branch in the MissileSystems Division of the Office ofthe Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Acquisition, Logistics andTechnology. He has an M.S. degreein physics from the Naval Post-graduate School, and has had avariety of field artillery and airdefense-related acquisition assign-ments since 1989.

CW4 STAN DARBRO (USA,Ret.) is the Chief of SystemsEngineering for the Washington,DC, office of ELMCO Inc., and isthe Department of the ArmySystems Coordinator for SIAP andother developmental air defenseprograms.

The Single IntegratedAir Picture

Systems EngineeringTask Force

concept forcesthe Services

to collaborateas stakeholders

to address specificinteroperability issues.


IntroductionOne of the Army’s major contribu-

tions to interoperability of the Servicesis its role as Single Manager for Con-ventional Ammunition (SMCA). TheArmy maintains an industrial base thatprovides most of the explosives used inDefense weapon systems and loadsbomb and missile warheads for theother Services. The Army also providesammunition used in weapons such asM16 rifles, 20mm cannon (fired from avariety of fixed- and rotary-wing air-craft), Army and Marine Corps artillery(e.g., howitzers), Air Force Spectre gun-ships, and Navy guns. During Opera-tion Allied Force, the Army made amajor contribution to the Nation’s suc-cess without firing a shot—virtuallyevery munition used by the Air Forceand the Navy was either made in anSMCA facility or included major com-ponents and subassemblies manufac-tured in SMCA facilities.

BackgroundIn 1975, the Office of the Secretary

of Defense (OSD) directed the estab-lishment of SMCA. The Secretary of theArmy (SA) was designated the new sin-gle manager because the Army con-trolled the majority of the industrialbase. This made the Army proponentfor the manufacture and distribution of13 classes of ammunition and theoperator for the CONUS wholesale

ammunition storage system. Navy andAir Force resources and several instal-lations transferred to the Army. How-ever, the Services retained control ofdeveloping new munitions and pro-ducing Service-unique munitions.

DOD Instruction 5160.65 delin-eates SMCA responsibilities and struc-ture. It also divides conventional muni-tions into two categories—“SMCA-managed” and “Service-managed.” TheArmy’s SMCA facilities procure allmature SMCA-managed munitionsand provide an industrial capability tosupport the Services’ program, project,and product managers (PMs) in devel-opment and production of Service-managed munitions.

StructureEssentially, the SA delegates mis-

sion execution authority to the Com-manding General, Army Materiel Com-mand (CG, AMC). The SMCA Center atthe Munitions and Armaments Com-mand, Operations Support Command(OSC), Rock Island Arsenal, IL, imple-ments the SMCA mission.

The SA separately delegates acqui-sition authority to the Army Acquisi-tion Executive (AAE). The AAE furtherdelegates milestone decision authorityand contracting authority to programexecutive officers (PEOs) and heads ofcontracting activities. For most SMCAprocurements, these authorities flowback together in the OSC Headquarters

(OSC HQ). However, many ammuni-tion programs managed by PEO,Ground Combat and Support Systems(GCSS); PEO, Tactical Missiles; andDeputies for Systems Acquisition atvarious AMC major subordinate com-mands are not under direct control ofthe OSC.

To coordinate procurements fromthese different activities, the Armyrecently established the TRIAD Ammu-nition Management Committee. The TRIAD provides a family andcommand-level forum for integratingthe day-to-day operations of the con-ventional ammunition business. TheTRIAD leadership includes the CGs ofthe OSC and the Tank-automotive andArmaments Command (TACOM) andthe PEO, GCSS. A board of directorsthat includes the AAE and the CG, AMCsupervises the TRIAD.

Another individual responsible forthe integration of the conventionalammunition program is the Army’sDeputy for Ammunition/AMC DeputyChief of Staff (DCS) for Ammunition.This flag officer serves as a member ofboth the Secretariat and the AMC staff.In 1988, this organization was chargedwith the responsibility to function asthe Army’s executive agency in allammunition matters. On behalf of theSecretariat, the agency participates inDepartment of the Army-level councilsand decisions similar to those of thedirectorates of the Deputy for Systems

Contributing To Interoperability . . .

THE SINGLE MANAGERFOR CONVENTIONAL

AMMUNITIONCOL Jim Naughton


Management, and is the AMC staff leadfor ammunition matters.

The Deputy for Ammunition for-mulates the Army’s ammunition pro-gram and budget and represents theArmy to Congress and the OSD staff.He or she is the Army Executive Agentfor Insensitive Munitions, and the focalpoint for the recent law requiringSMCA review of procurement actionsfor impact on the National Industrialand Technology Base. The Deputy forAmmunition is also the Executive Sec-retariat for the TRIAD.

The last piece of the SMCA man-agement function is the ExecutiveDirector for Conventional Ammunition(EDCA). DOD requires the EDCA to bean Army flag officer residing in theNational Capital Region and to overseethe SMCA’s major activities as desig-nated by the SMCA Executor (CG,AMC). The EDCA functions as ombuds-man for the other Services when deal-ing with the SMCA. The current EDCAis the Deputy Commanding General(DCG) for AMC. He is supported in this

function by a small personal staffheaded by a Navy captain and an AirForce colonel. The SMCA structure isshown in the accompanying figure. Inthe following discussion, the term“SMCA” refers globally to any of theseagencies acting on behalf of the SA inhis capacity as SMCA.

ResponsibilitiesThe single manager has three

major responsibilities: wholesale logis-tics, acquisition of conventionalammunition, and management of theDefense ammunition industrial base.In its first function, the SMCA storesmore than 2 million tons of Servicemunitions at eight CONUS storageactivities. The Services are responsiblefor maintaining their ammunition andfor manning a small liaison element atRock Island, but the remaining costsare provided through Army resources.In addition, the Army provides demili-tarization support—1 million tons inthe last 8 years. The effectiveness of

SMCA logistics is seen in the low costfor this function—storage of ammuni-tion costs less than $100 a ton per year.No Defense operation of any conse-quence can take place without callingon the SMCA for logistics support.

The second function is the acquisi-tion of conventional ammunition. EachService funds the procurement ofammunition through its own appropri-ation. The OSC, on behalf of the SMCA,then accepts these funds and procuresthe ammunition. This represents theprocurement of nearly $1 billion ofammunition annually—the equivalentof an Acquisition Category 1 program.The SMCA also provides the infrastruc-ture for Service PMs to acquire muni-tions that have not transitioned toSMCA management. This networkincludes 9 active and 5 reserve ammu-nition plants, more than 100 contrac-tors, and the OSC SMCA center. TheSMCA is very successful in arrangingproduction at low costs for commonitems, as demonstrated in its recentaward for small-arms ammunition,


which saved the Services more than$200 million.

The most difficult mission of thesingle manager is the maintenance ofthe Defense ammunition industrialbase. The Service’s active inventory hasmore than 600 individual munitions,but less than 200 are procured in agiven Program Objective Memoran-dum window. Of the remainder, nearly100 are considered critical and requireplanning for replenishment within 3years. Industrial planning requires theSMCA to remain informed on the Ser-vices’ inventory of munitions, wartimerequirements, and future plans.

Let’s examine nitramine explosivesas an example. These explosives areused in nearly all munitions, from C4blocks to Trident missile motors. Thepeacetime requirement is small andcan readily be provided overseas atreasonable prices. However, thereplenishment requirement is approxi-mately 100 times greater than peace-time demand and can only be met bySMCA’s Holston Army AmmunitionPlant. Consequently, SMCA muststruggle to maintain viability at theHolston plant.

In 1998, Congress passed an addi-tional law to assist SMCA in industrialbase management. Section 806 of theDefense Authorization Act of 1999requires SMCA to examine the indus-trial base and make decisions onrestricting procurement depending onrisks to the base. While it does notsupercede the Competition in Con-tracting Act, the law provides an inter-esting twist because SMCA must evalu-ate procurements to determine the riskof full competition. The Army has dele-gated Section 806 authority throughthe AAE to the Deputy for Ammuni-tion. All procurements for conven-tional ammunition, including Service-managed munitions, must have a cer-tificate approved by SMCA. The newpolicy requires review of acquisitionstrategies and plans. If the Deputy forAmmunition finds a significant risk inan acquisition strategy, the AAE mustrender the final decision.

Recent Accomplishments

The ammunitionindustrial base has beenthrough tough times asthe Services reducedammunition procure-ments by using excessCold War ammunition tosupport training needs.Procurements in FYs 93-97 were the lowest inreal-dollar value sincethe end of the VietnamWar. The SMCA guidedthe industrial basethrough a major restruc-turing that saw the elim-ination of nearly 70 per-cent of the Nation’sammunition produc-tion capacity. Duringthis period, ninegovernment-ownedammunition plants weretransitioned to excessand one was sold.

SMCA also restruc-tured its approach to acquisition andnow uses multiyear procurements orlong-term requirement contracts. Thishas reduced the cost of 1 ton of ammu-nition by 30 percent since 1997. SMCAalso aggressively sought to reduce thecost of ammunition stockpile manage-ment. Stockpile management anddemilitarization of conventionalammunition remain two of the bestbargains in DOD. Because procure-ment costs are the predominant com-ponent of conventional ammunitionlife-cycle costs, the sum of these effortshas significantly decreased the life-cycle cost of the “typical” ton ofammunition.

Additionally, SMCA support was acombat multiplier in combat opera-tions in the Balkans and Persian Gulf,rapidly responding to the demands ofother Services for production andmovement of bombs and other muni-tions during these hostilities.

The Way AheadSMCA will most

likely evolve into asupport structurethat provides theServices the abilityto leverage off thelarge volume oftraining ammuni-tion and periodicreplenishment ofmunitions used inlesser regional con-tingencies. By main-taining the indus-trial base, SMCA willallow the Services tominimize the cost oftheir munitions pro-curements. Individ-ual procurementswill not always bethrough the SMCAcenter, instead beingmanaged as jointefforts through theammunition TRIAD,or independently

managed through the Services dealingdirectly with SMCA’s family of provensuppliers.

COL JIM NAUGHTON is theAssistant Deputy for Ammunition,Office of the Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology (OASAALT), andAssistant Deputy Chief of Staff forAmmunition, HQ AMC. He is agraduate of the Defense SystemsManagement College and has anM.S. in systems management fromFlorida Institute of Technologyand a B.S. in physics fromCarnegie-Mellon University.

By maintainingthe industrial

base, theSingle Manager

for ConventionalAmmunition

will allowthe Servicesto minimize

the cost of theirmunitions

procurements.


IntroductionBoth the Army, in its vision of

transformation, and the Marine Corps,to some extent through the Navy’sFuture Naval Capability (FNC), areundergoing revolutionary changes inhow their forces will be equipped tofight in the future. Both Services envi-sion future forces to be heavilydependent on robotic technologies.Congress has also expressed its beliefthat unmanned systems will be animportant element of our future force.The FY01 Appropriations Bill acknowl-edges this role by stating that “a goal ofthe Armed Forces is to achieve thefielding of unmanned, remotely con-trolled technology such that by 2015,one-third of the operational groundcombat vehicles will be unmanned.”Today, these systems are being devel-oped and fielded by the UnmannedGround Vehicles/Systems Joint ProjectOffice (UGV/S JPO), Redstone Arsenal,AL.

BackgroundDuring the late 1980s, the Services

began showing interest in outfittingtheir forces with a variety of roboticapplications to assist in missions thatincluded reconnaissance, surveillance,and target acquisition (RSTA); logistics;

minefield detection and neutralization;obstacle breaching; explosive ordi-nance disposal; physical security; andoperations in contaminated environ-ments. In 1989, DOD, the Army, andthe Marine Corps consolidated theirseparate efforts to develop battlefieldground robotic systems and estab-lished the UGV/S JPO under the Officeof the Secretary of Defense-managedJoint Robotics Program.

The Tactical Unmanned GroundVehicle (TUGV) Program was the JPO’sfirst program and served as the corerobotics program. The TUGV Programwas a joint Army and Marine Corpseffort to develop, produce, and procureunmanned RSTA systems. This effortincluded extensive user and project tri-als with surrogate UGVs to assess oper-ational benefits and liabilities andassist in refining requirements. Severalof today’s UGV/S JPO programs weredeveloped with the same concepts andby leveraging technologies from thiscore program. Although unforeseen atthe time, this early work provided thefoundation for what later became avision for future forces, including a sig-nificant capability in unmannedsystems.

The Army is undergoing a radicaltransformation with an end state of a

more responsive, deployable, agile, ver-satile, lethal, survivable, and sustain-able force that is capable of respondingto missions across the full spectrum ofconflict. Robotics will be a key and crit-ical element to achieve transformationobjectives. The Army took the first stepin its transformation by initializing twointerim brigade combat teams (IBCTs)at Fort Lewis, WA. These brigades areequipped with off-the-shelf equipmentto evaluate and refine the operationaland organizational (O&O) plan.

Robotics will be part of the IBCT.This unmanned capability isn’t matureenough to meet requirements of theobjective force, but continues toprogress. Validation of the O&O planand systems concepts and require-ments necessary to develop the Army’sfuture force will help shape the evolu-tion of robotics of the future.

Army Transformation StrategyThe common thread in key tech-

nology developments for the objectiveforce is the Future Combat Systems(FCS). The Army and the DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency areleading the FCS Program to create afamily of systems that is lethal, mobile,and survivable. While emphasis is onthe design of the “lightweight” vehicle

JOINTUNMANNED

GROUND VEHICLESLtCol Richard LeVan, USMC

Robotics will be a key and critical elementto achieve transformation objectives.


family, FCS will provide a commonbaseline capability with robotics in theforefront.

The FCS Program is pushing thetechnology envelope to make roboticswork in the operational environmentsnecessary to support the objectiveforce. Technologies such as non-line-of-sight communications, intelligentmobility, tactical behaviors, and artifi-cial intelligence are essential forunmanned operations and FCS tosucceed.

Navy FNCCoinciding with the Army transfor-

mation is the Navy’s FNC, which wasestablished in 1999 by the Departmentof the Navy (DON) Science and Tech-nology (S&T) Board. The FNC effortwill help prioritize applied S&T invest-ments to improve naval capabilities.The DON S&T Board approved 12FNCs representing the Navy’s highestpriorities to support future operationalforces. The FNC mission is to identifythose mature and evolving technolo-gies that, through focused investment,guidance, and management, can pro-vide near-term enabling capabilitiesfor the warfighter.

The Autonomous Operations FNCaddresses those critical technologiesthat would promote the Marine Corps’use of UGVs in an expeditionary war-fare campaign. The UGV S&T invest-ment will focus on accelerated devel-opment of technologies to fill criticalcapability gaps; will demonstrate thosetechnologies with operational forces—gaining customer feedback prior totransition; and will transition roboticstechnologies into acquisition pro-grams. The UGV Autonomous Opera-tions FNC Program is scheduled forexecution from FY02 to FY07.

Specifically, the UGV technologyproduct line will focus on technologiesthat address capability gaps in roboticmobility, survivability, durability, mod-ular sensors, navigation, and commu-nications. Demonstrations will focuson using UGVs to enhance the abilityof tactical commanders to rapidlydetect, identify, and remotely neutral-ize a variety of threats. The program’s

primary transition target is engineeringand manufacturing development(EMD) for the Marine Corps’ Gladiatorsystem and for emerging concepts forsmall, autonomous UGVs under themini/micro RSTA UGV effort.

Current And Future UsesUnmanned systems are being used

by our forces today, albeit in very lim-ited numbers and for very specific mis-sions, such as mine proofing andexplosive ordnance disposal. As such,these missions have laid a foundationfor the introduction of other missioncapabilities. As robotic technologieshave matured during the past decade,prototype systems were provided tosoldiers and Marines in the field. Someof these systems are used today by ourforces in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Germany,while others are in the various stages offurther development. The JPO contin-ues to develop and field these systemsfor use on the battlefields of tomorrow.

Standardized RoboticSystem (SRS)

Another important effort is theSRS, which is the core of the Panthervehicle teleoperation (VT). Panther is aturretless M-60 tank that pushes track-width mine-proofing rollers. The SRS isa kit that provides teleoperation capa-

bility to a variety of existing militaryvehicles. The SRS is a highly acceler-ated effort currently in EMD. Early ver-sion SRS kits are deployed with ourland forces in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Ger-many—a significantly expanded use ofrobotics by U.S. forces in the field.

The SRS is being developed using afamily of common components or linereplaceable units that can be appliedon many different platforms with mini-mal new development efforts. The SRSis transparent to the vehicle operatorwhile the vehicle is being operatedmanually. These kits are being hard-ened for use in standard militaryenvironments.

Man-Portable RoboticSystems (MPRS)

The MPRS Program provides light-weight man-portable UGVs to supportthe missions of light forces and specialoperations units. Current programfocus is on reconnaissance during Mili-tary Operations in Urban Terrain(MOUT). However, concept explo-ration for man-portable systems is onthe fast track for both maneuver andmaneuver-support missions. Exploringdifferent concepts, the JPO recentlysupported a very successful conceptexperimentation program (CEP) at theManeuver Support Center, Fort

Panther in operation


Leonard Wood, MO, for both engineertunnel and sewer reconnaissance andmilitary police missions.

Robotic Combat SupportSystem (RCSS)

The RCSS recently completed Mile-stone I, and a Request for Proposal wasissued. The objective of the RCSS effortis to develop and deliver systems toperform multiple engineer missions,including anti-personnel landmineneutralization, emplacement of ord-nance and munitions, smoke obscura-tion dispensing, wire obstacle breach-ing, and logistics transport. Future sys-tem upgrades will be added throughpreplanned product improvements.

A design objective is to develop theRCSS mission-module interface toenable snap-on and -off mission mod-ules. Maximum use will be made ofcommercial-off-the-shelf hardware andsoftware in achieving the objective. TheRCSS will replace miniflails, which, forthe last 10 years, have been involved incontingency asset mine-proofing oper-ations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia, andKosovo.

GladiatorGladiator is a Marine Corps effort

to fulfill requirements for an un-manned systems capability to meet itsmost dangerous missions, from Opera-tional Maneuver From The Sea to mili-tary operations on urbanized terrain

MOUT. The Gladiator system will alloworganic unmanned scout/surveillanceoperation with a day/night capability,and have “plug-and-play” adaptabilityto change mission modules—not onlyfor RSTA, but also for lethal and non-lethal weapon systems and nuclear,biological, and chemical surveillance.Gladiator is in the Concept and Tech-nology Development phase, with con-cept validation models being devel-oped. Follow-on efforts to developmini/micro RSTA UGV capability tomeet emerging concepts for small,autonomous UGVs will continue as thetechnologies mature.

DEMO IIIThe DEMO III Experimental

Unmanned Vehicle (XUV) Program, anArmy Research Laboratory AdvancedTechnology effort, is designed to pro-vide significant technology develop-ment for future unmanned systems.New and evolving autonomous vehicletechnology that emphasizes percep-tion, navigation, intelligent systemsarchitecture, and mission planning isbeing developed. Technology devel-oped in the DEMO III Program willserve as the catalyst for future systemcapabilities and programs.

ConclusionDeveloping and fielding effective

UGVs that lessen the dangers our sol-diers and Marines are exposed to is anawesome and challenging task. TheUnmanned Ground Vehicles/SystemsJoint Project Office is one of severalorganizations involved in meeting thisjoint challenge. These systems havealready proven their value for our sol-diers and Marines in the field, andtheir application supporting futureoperations is both widespread andunlimited.

LtCol RICHARD LEVAN is theProject Manager, UGV/S JPO. Heholds a B.S. in business from theUniversity of West Florida and anM.S. in management from theUniversity of Southern California.

MPRS during CEP

Developing and fieldingeffective UGVs

that lessen the dangersour soldiers and Marines are exposed

to is an awesome and challenging task.


IntroductionThe end of the Cold War and col-

lapse of the Warsaw Pact promptedDOD to change the way it planned forfuture conflicts. In issuing its firstQuadrennial Defense Review in 1997,DOD looked at the U.S. Defense strat-egy in relation to the world environ-ment. The Chief of Staff of the Army(CSA) realized that the Army needed torefocus its force structure to addressthe changing world environment andimprove its long-term capabilities toensure a viable future. He called thisprocess “transformation.” The Army’stransformation initiatives call for thefielding of an interim force in FY01 toserve as a wedge between the light andheavy forces. Following the fielding ofthis interim force, the Army’s objectiveforce will be developed and fielded inthe FY04-10 timeframe.

The accelerated fielding of theinterim force dictated that it beequipped with existing or off-the-shelfequipment. In this process, the capa-bilities of the Javelin Weapon Systemmade it a natural candidate not onlyfor the interim force, but for the objec-tive force as well.

Legacy ForceThe Javelin, previously known as

the Anti-Armor Weapon System–Medium (AAWS-M), is a fire-and-forget, medium-range, man-portableanti-armor missile system that replacesthe Dragon weapon system. It featurestop-attack and direct-attack modes, asoft-launch capability that enables thegunner to fire from enclosures or cov-ered firing positions, and the capabilityof defeating current and future armorin day and night engagements atranges exceeding 2,500 meters. Javelin’stwo major tactical components are its

round (missile sealed in a disposablelaunch tube), weighing 34 pounds, andits reusable command launch unit(CLU), weighing 14 pounds. Asignificant advantage over currentcommand-to-line-of-sight missiles isimproved gunner survivability becauseonce he fires he can move or refire atanother target.

Javelin is a jointly fielded weaponsystem for both the Army and Marines.Since 1996, Javelin has been fielded toArmy units located at Fort Benning,GA; Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Lewis, WA;Fort Stewart, GA; Fort Drum, NY;Korea; and Italy. Additionally, theMarines have fielded 12 battalions withJavelin since 1999.

One of Javelin’s earliest tests was inMarch 1997 during the AdvancedWarfighting Experiment (AWE) at theNational Training Center (NTC), FortIrwin, CA. The AWE is a series of exer-cises aimed at demonstrating progresstoward achieving the CSA’s vision forthe Army—Force XXI. During the AWE,light infantry battalions, armed with 18Javelin CLUs each, evolved into ahighly effective anti-armor force. Theirmission was to block strategic passesand deploy Javelin hunter-killer teamsaround the battlefield. These Javelin-equipped light-infantry battalions wereso effective that the “world-renowned”NTC opposing force (OPFOR) changedtactics in an effort to avoid them.

Javelin’s success during the AWEgained it both user and public praise asa superb weapon system. Based on thissuccess and the termination of theArmored Gun System in 1996, Javelinwas fielded early to the 82nd AirborneDivision to provide reliable anti-armorcapabilities that the 82nd lacked dur-ing its Desert Storm deployment. Theaffirmation of the decision to field

Javelin to the 82nd came during the82nd’s February 1999 NTC rotation.The task force, comprised of 1 tank and2 airborne battalions, deployed 40Javelin systems against NTC’s OPFOR.Javelin’s flexibility, coupled with itstremendous lethality, allowed the taskforce commander to demonstrate thesynergy capability when a light- andheavy-force mix is deployed in whatwas previously considered a heavy-only environment. During the defen-sive exercise of this NTC rotation, theairborne battalion that encounteredthe brunt of the OPFOR attack was ableto eliminate the OPFOR’s forward secu-rity element (FSE).

Using Javelin lessons learned fromthis battle, the task force leadershipincorporated Javelin in its offensivepreparations. During the offensiveattack, the task force positioned an air-borne battalion on a major enemyavenue of approach. Its mission was tostrip the enemy of the FSE, whichwould slow the enemy and allow anarmor battalion to attack the enemy’sflank. An airborne company equippedwith eight Javelin systems caught theOPFOR moving; the OPFOR couldn’tfind the well-emplaced and dispersedJavelin teams and proceeded to losetheir FSE and advanced guard mainbody.

Throughout this rotation, new doc-trine, tactics, techniques, and proce-dures emerged, showcasing the seem-ingly limitless potential of the Javelinsystem. It also highlighted the fact thata properly employed Javelin is virtuallyinvisible on the battlefield.

Interim ForceJavelin demonstrated success and

flexibility during AWE and NTC exer-cises, and with the 82nd Airborne

JAVELIN WEAPON SYSTEM:FROM LEGACY

TO OBJECTIVE FORCEDavid M. Easterling


Division during its 1999 NTC rotation.This made it an obvious choice forinclusion in the Army’s transformationplans. One of the Army’s first transfor-mation initiatives was the developmentof an interim force that includedbrigade combat teams (BCTs) formedas a wedge between heavy and lightforces. The BCTs are required to:

• Be deployable by C-130 within 96hours;

• Be combat capable upon arrival;• Be decisive in offensive action,

even from dismounted-infantryplatforms;

• Be optimized for use in close,complex, or urban terrain;

• Contribute to holistic survivabil-ity and force protection; and

• Be dependent on reduced sus-tainment footprints.

Based on these requirements,Javelin emerged as the ideal system forequipping the BCTs. In particular,Javelin has proven to be highly reliable,deployable, and versatile, and inher-ently capable of destroying bunkers,helicopters, and other materiel.Although its primary role is as aninfantry-dismounted platform, Javelinhas demonstrated its ability to be inte-grated with and fired from High Mobil-ity Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles andlight armored vehicles.

Javelin once again demonstratedits capabilities in its latest deploymentwith the 10th Mountain Division rota-tion at the Joint Readiness TrainingCenter, Fort Polk, LA. Using Javelin inits surveillance mode, search anddestroy teams were able to take thefight to the OPFOR, thus denying themrest. This rotation gave Javelin theopportunity to demonstrate and vali-date its close-range effectiveness andits ability to be used in Military Opera-tions in Urbanized Terrain.

Javelin was designed to minimizeits sustainment footprint. Its “wooden-round” concept means that mainte-nance is never required on the Javelinround. Currently, its CLU reliability ismore than three times better than therequirement. In addition, Javelin’sbuilt-in ability to load upgraded soft-ware indicates that improvements tothe system’s lethality can be realizedwithout taking the system out of thefield and without hardware changes.

Javelin’s advanced fire-and-forgettechnology and flexible capabilitiesmade it a natural choice for the Army’sinterim force, but with Javelin’s over-match reputation and potential forfuture improvements, Javelin was alsoselected for inclusion into the Army’sobjective force.

Objective ForceEven with Javelin’s current domi-

nance over any known armor threat,there are still opportunities for growthwithin the Javelin system as it supportsthe Army’s objective force. Thesegrowth areas include a Counter ActiveProtection System (CAPS), CLUimprovements, a K-charge warhead(discussed below), extended range, andintegration with unmanned groundvehicles (UGVs) and with the LandWarrior System.

The CAPS opportunity entailsdeveloping a third-generation CAPS forincorporation into the Javelin round todefeat any future armored vehicle’sactive protection system.

Improvements to the CLU focus onlocal area processing and could includeelectronic zoom, frame integration,and a bigger A-focal. Advantages ofthese CLU improvements are increasedthreat detection, increased recognitionrange, fewer gunner adjustments, andfaster lock-on.

A warhead improvement programwill replace the current Javelin war-heads with K-charge warheads. Thesenew warheads will improve lethalityagainst bunkers, buildings, armoredpersonnel carriers, and tanks. Mis-sile size and weight will remainunchanged.

The Marine Corps is consideringan extended-range (4 kilometers)Javelin as a possible solution for itsAnti-Armor Weapon System-Heavy,intended for a first unit equipped in2007. Incorporating an enhanced CLU,a larger flight motor, and a more robustseeker into Javelin will allow fire-and-forget performance at the 4-kilometerrange with minimal development risk.

The integration of Javelin on UGVswould lighten the soldier’s workload.Additionally, the ability to image andcommunicate between a Javelin missileand a remote gunner station has beendemonstrated. Efforts are planned tovalidate Javelin compatibility and func-tion with a robotic platform. This inte-

gration would allow the soldier todetect, designate, and engage “threat”systems from remote locations.

Finally, integration of Javelin withthe Land Warrior System would givethe Land Warrior-equipped soldier theability to fire Javelin from his system.Javelin software would be modified torun on Land Warrior equipment, allow-ing Javelin-required optic functions tobe performed by the Land Warrior ther-mal weapon sight, thus eliminating theneed for Javelin CLU. The CLU wouldstill be required for soldiers notequipped with the Land Warrior.

ConclusionBy including Javelin in the objec-

tive force, the Army has placed a voteof confidence in Javelin’s versatility andlongevity. This has opened real oppor-tunities for Javelin in the areas of For-eign Military Sales (FMS) and co-production with our allies. If our allieschoose to provide Javelin to theirtroops, our interoperability wouldpotentially allow for common repairand re-supply points. To date, morethan a dozen countries have requestedprice and availability information; twoFMS assessment cases have been con-ducted, and a third assessment case isbeing processed.

During the 1997 Soldier SystemsReview conference at Natick, MA, Mili-tary Deputy to the Assistant Secretaryof the Army for Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology LTG Paul J. Kern statedthat “If we are really good, and we are,the soldier of 2025 will be as effectiveas the tank of 1995.” A Javelin-equipped objective force could makethis statement true by 2010.

DAVID M. EASTERLING is anIndustrial Engineer in the Cost/Review and Analysis Branch of theJavelin Project Office. He has aB.S. in electrical engineering fromthe University of Colorado. Easter-ling is also a graduate of theArmy’s School of Engineering andLogistics Production EngineeringProgram and has completed theDefense Systems Management Col-lege’s Advanced Program Manage-ment Course.


IntroductionIn February 1997, the U.S. Army

Simulation, Training and Instrumenta-tion Command and the Office of theProject Manager for Training Devices(STRICOM/PM, TRADE) awarded itsfirst-ever contract for a commerciallyavailable training system using com-mercial practices as defined in theFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).Procurement of these systems was theresult of the U.S. Army’s Fire FightingTraining Systems (FFTS) Program,which was used to meet a congres-sional mandate to field FFTS at 19 ini-tial U.S. Army installations worldwide.Fielding of FFTS began in September1997 with funding provided by Con-gress in FY96, FY98, and FY99, and hasbeen completed at 17 of the 19 initialU.S. Army installations. Because ofthe success of this FFTS Program, fiveadditional U.S. Army installationswere added to the initial Basis-of-Issue Plan in February 2000.

FFTS are state-of-the-art trainingsystems that safely replicate flames,heat, and reduced visibility (usingsmoke obscuration) during residentialor aviation firefighting training sce-narios. They integrate proven, com-mercially available firefighting train-ing technology into structural (mobileand modular/fixed) or aircraft rescueand fire fighting (ARFF) training sys-tems. The modular/fixed structuralfirefighting training system is a three-

story, propane gas-fueled trainer withfour burn rooms. The mobile struc-tural firefighting training system is atransportable, self-contained (withbuilt-in propane gas and electricalpower sources), two-floor version ofthe modular/fixed structural firefight-ing training system. The ARFF traineris a transportable, self-contained, air-craft mockup (42 feet by 8 feet) with acockpit fire and exterior, rectangularfuel-spill fire simulation.

BackgroundPrior to procurement of the new

systems, the U.S. Army was trainingDOD civilian and military firefightersusing fossil-fueled techniques that

were hazardous to trainees, not easilycontrolled or repeated, and in somecases in violation of local environ-mental regulations. In 1996, Congressmandated that existing fossil-fueledfirefighting training be replaced withcommercially available, propane gas-fueled, computerized/programmable,logic-controlled firefighting trainingsystems.

ApproachFrom program inception,

STRICOM and PM, TRADE estab-lished an empowered integratedproduct team (IPT) to aggressivelywork with the users and proponentin developing an Operational

THE U.S. ARMYFIRE FIGHTING

TRAINING SYSTEMSPROGRAM

Raul Ley-Soto and Alexander Fernandez

The modular/fixed structural firefightingtrainingsystem


Requirements Document (ORD) basedon market research. The IPT was alsoinstructed to implement acquisitionreform initiatives and streamline tothe fullest.

Ultimately, Cost as an Indepen-dent Variable techniques were used tofinalize the ORD. Market research pro-vided insight to product characteris-tics, costs, and other customers, whichcontributed significantly to timelyproposal evaluations during sourceselection. The market research alsoallowed STRICOM and PM, TRADE toreduce the procurement schedulefrom an anticipated 12 months to 8months. Additionally, the IPT stream-lined the solicitation, limiting theentire Request for Proposal (RFP) to 17pages. The RFP contained no report-ing requirements and the Statement ofWork and Specification combinedwere only seven pages long.

The contract was structured toallow the government maximum flexi-bility in exercising its options. Unlikeprior contracts in which options weretied to 12-month periods or fiscalyears, the FFTS IPT structured itsoptions in a “4-year” period thatallowed the government wide latitudein acquiring additional systems asfunds became available. The Com-merce Business Daily announcement

release, the RFP release, and responsesto offerors’ comments were accom-plished by the IPT via onlinecommunication.

The TeamThe FFTS IPT demonstrated the

highest degree of teamwork, strivingto reduce life-cycle costs. Further, theteam consolidated trips and used tele-conferences to reduce travel expensesin an effort to maximize the procure-ment of FFTS hardware. This IPT was

fully empowered from its inception inaccordance with the guidance con-tained in AMC-P 70-27, Guidance forIntegrated Product and Process Man-agement. All IPT members activelycontributed to the decisionmakingprocess.

The team completed just-in-timetraining at key program intervalsincluding requirements definition,solicitation development, and sourceselection, which significantly con-tributed to an environment of open-ness and goal-oriented success. Firechiefs from each military installation(i.e., users) are active members of theIPT and are considered partners whensystems are fielded at their installa-tions. Through an overarching inte-grated product team, midlevelSTRICOM managers mentored theteam throughout the solicitationdevelopment and source-selectionprocess. In summary, this team isempowered to fully implement acqui-sition reform efforts.

OutcomeSource selection was completed in

record time, with contract awardsissued only 15 weeks after release ofthe solicitation. The FFTS contract wasawarded as a competitive, best-valueeffort fully using the commercial prac-tices defined in Part 12 of the FAR.

The mobile structural firefighting training system

The ARFF training system


The first modular/fixed structural fire-fighting training system was fielded atFort Monmouth, NJ, on Oct. 30, 1997.The first ARFF training system wasfielded at Fort Belvoir, VA, on March 6,1998. The first mobile structural fire-fighting training system was fielded atFort Lewis, WA, on June 26, 1998.

The benefits derived from thisparticular acquisition approach are asfollows:

• The per-unit firefighting trainingsystem price was lower than the pricequoted during the market research.This facilitated the purchase of moreunits during the initial buy than origi-nally envisioned.

• The life-cycle cost of ownershipof the firefighting training systemunits was kept low by requiring theuse of commercially available,industry-proven technology. A com-prehensive commercial 1-year war-ranty along with a 15-year service-lifewarranty for major structural compo-nents (as validated by the marketresearch) were also part of the pro-posal requirements. As a result, thewinning offeror’s firefighting trainingsystem units have been very reliable,and the cost of ownership has beennegligible.

• Close coordination with theusers has assured that facility consid-erations are common for each fire-

fighting training system site. This hasensured the lowest possible setup andmaintenance costs for each installa-tion by sharing site preparation designdrawings and information among allusers.

• Ninety-five percent of the pro-cured FFTS have been delivered on orahead of schedule because of the closegovernment/contractor partnership.

• Commercial documentation(operator and maintenance manuals)is updated regularly at no additionalcost to the government.

• Failed electronic/fire-generationcontrols are replaced with more effi-cient components at no additionalcost to the government.

The unique and innovativecontractor/government partnershiptaken by the IPT also resulted in sev-eral trainer improvements without anincrease to the trainer unit prices, aswould be the case with traditionalengineering change proposals. Forexample:

• The mobile trainers were givenan added capability to connect topermanent/fixed propane and electri-cal supplies.

• A three-story modular/fixedstructural trainer replaced a two-storytrainer specified in the contract.

ConclusionThe U.S. Army FFTS Program

represents the success that can beachieved through partnering aggres-sively, streamlining acquisitions, andimplementing acquisition reform ini-tiatives. Not only did the governmentacquire the required trainers at a costlower than any other civilian or gov-ernment customer, but the capabili-ties and training features of thetrainer are improved continuously(based on lessons learned throughoutthe production and fielding phases)at no additional cost to the govern-

ment. The FFTS Program is also anexample of the time and cost savingsachieved when acquisition reform andstreamlining initiatives are imple-mented throughout the acquisitionprocess.

Visit STRICOM’s Web site athttp://www.stricom.army.mil/PRODUCTS/FFTS/ for more informa-tion on the FFTS and other programs.

RAUL LEY-SOTO is a ProjectDirector at STRICOM/PM, TRADE,Orlando, FL. He has a B.S.E.E.degree from the University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign,and has more than 30 years ofexperience in the acquisition ofmilitary communications andtraining systems.

ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ isLead Project Engineer for FFTS atthe Naval Air Warfare Center,Orlando, FL. He has a B.S. degreein electronics and computer engi-neering from the University ofMiami and an A.A. degree in pre-engineering from Miami-DadeCommunity College.

The ARFF in use by the Fort Wainwright, AK, fire department


The 2000 Army Small BusinessInnovation Research (SBIR) Phase IIQuality Awards Ceremony was heldAug. 22, 2000, at the Pentagon. Paul J.Hoeper, then Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Acquisition, Logistics andTechnology (ASAALT), hosted the cer-emony. Hoeper was assisted with theaward presentations by Dr. A. MichaelAndrews II, Deputy Assistant Secretaryof the Army for Research and Technol-ogy; Jon Baron, former DOD ProgramManager, SBIR/Small Business Tech-nology Transfer (STTR), and now thenew Executive Director of the Presi-dential Commission on Defense andCommercial Offsets; and Dr. Robert S.Rohde, Deputy Director for LaboratoryManagement, Office of the ASAALT.

Established in 1994, the QualityAwards Program recognizes SBIRPhase II (research and development)efforts that exemplify the SBIR goal ofbringing innovative technologies andproducts to the marketplace. All ArmySBIR Phase II companies whose proj-ects conclude in a given fiscal year areeligible to compete for that year’squality awards. Award winners areselected based on the following threecriteria: originality and innovation ofresearch; relevance of the research tothe Army and its mission; and com-mercialization potential of theresearch, reflecting the primary goal of

bringing technology and products tothe marketplace.

Quality awards are presented toeach winning SBIR company as well asits sponsoring Army organization’stechnical director, technical monitor,and SBIR coordinator.

2000 Quality Award WinnersRecipients of the 2000 Army SBIR

Phase II Quality Awards and theirachievements are as follows:

Farance Inc., New York, NY. TheStudent-Centered Learning System,developed by Farance Inc., provides amajor paradigm shift in the owner-ship, maintenance, and security ofstudent records within the educationindustry. This component-basedarchitecture satisfies the user’s privacy,security, administration, and datamodeling needs. The system directlysupports the Army’s Personal LearningSystems Program for student-centeredlearning and contributes to the Army’sDistance Learning Program.

Accepting the award for FaranceInc. was the company’s President,Frank Farance. Also receiving awards for the Student-CenteredLearning System were Dr. Louis C.Marquet, Director of the U.S. ArmyCommunications-ElectronicsResearch, Development and Engineer-ing Center; James R. Schoening, SBIR

Technical Monitor; and Suzanne J.Weeks and Joyce A. Crisci, SBIR Coor-dinators.

Flow Inc., Portland, OR. Malaria isone of the world’s most prevalent dis-eases and was the leading cause ofmedical disability among U.S. militarypersonnel in Vietnam and Somalia.Developed by Flow Inc., the OptiMALassay is a field-ready test that permitsthe diagnosis of all four forms ofhuman malaria and aids in evaluatingmultiple drug-resistant malaria so thateffective therapy can be instituted.This diagnostic test also has greatpotential for civilian travelers, interna-tional relief workers, Peace Corps vol-unteers, and many other nonmilitarypersonnel working in malaria-endemic areas around the world.

The quality award was presentedto Dr. Michael Makler, CEO of FlowInc. Also receiving awards for theOptiMAL assay were COL Martin H.Crumrine, Director of the Walter ReedArmy Institute of Research; COLWilbur K. Milhous, SBIR TechnicalMonitor; and Herman F. Willis, SBIRCoordinator.

Production Products Mfg. & SalesInc., St. Louis, MO. Production Prod-ucts Mfg. & Sales Inc. developed the capability to measure strain-rate information on the inside oflightweight-composite vehiculararmor during a ballistic event. Thisprocess successfully integrates fiber-optic recording, high-speed demodu-lation, ballistic testing, and compositematerials to bring scientific advance-ments to practical engineering capa-bilities. Because of this development,the Army will be able to design armorthat will ensure the survivability offuture soldiers and their equipment.

Accepting the award for Produc-tion Products was Director of Researchand Development Kelli Corona-Bittick. Also receiving awards for thisproject were Dr. Robert W. Whalin,Director of the U.S. Army ResearchLaboratory; Dr. Bruce K. Fink, SBIRTechnical Monitor; and Dean Hudson,SBIR Coordinator.

ThermoAnalytics Inc., Calumet,MI. The Army’s next-generation

2000 ARMYSMALL BUSINESS

INNOVATIONRESEARCH PHASE IIQUALITY AWARDS

Dr. Kenneth A. Bannister and James R. Myers


weapon systems and tactical vehiclesmust be smaller, lighter, and moremaneuverable, yet still maintain a highdegree of survivability. Using the lat-est software engineering practices andtechniques, ThermoAnalytics Inc.developed a computer-aided engi-neering software tool that optimizes avehicle’s performance during the ini-tial design phase. The program can berun on any computer, and its cross-platform functionality and object-oriented programming maximizesintegration with other design tools.

Accepting the award for Thermo-Analytics Inc. was Keith Johnson, Pro-gram Manager, and Dr. Allen Curran,Principal Investigator. Also receivingawards for this project were Jerry L.Chapin, Director of the U.S. ArmyTank Automotive Research, Develop-ment and Engineering Center; TeresaGonda, SBIR Technical Monitor; andAlexander Sandel, SBIR Coordinator.

Cree Inc., Durham, NC. Currentand future DOD communication sys-tems will benefit from the develop-ment and availability of high-power,high-efficiency, solid-state amplifiers.The high-power GaN/AlGaN HighElectron Mobility Transistor (HEMT),developed by Cree Inc., has success-fully produced record power densitiesand X-band efficiency. This tech-nology also has wide potential in thecommercial sector and will be strate-gic to the competitiveness of largebusiness systems in radar, cellularbase stations, and microwave satellitecommunications.

Accepting the award for Cree Inc.was the Director of Advanced DevicesJohn Palmour. Also receiving awardsfor the HEMT project were Dr. RobertW. Whalin, Director of the U.S. ArmyResearch Laboratory; Dr. Kenneth A.Jones, SBIR Technical Monitor; andDean Hudson, SBIR Coordinator.

DCS Corp., Alexandria, VA. Vehic-ular accidents occur during nightoperations because of perceptual limi-tations when using image intensifier(I2) devices. The Night Driving Train-ing Aid (NDTA), developed by DCSCorp., provides instruction in the useof night vision goggles (NVGs) for driv-ing. The NDTA addresses basic I2 con-

cepts, NVG capabilities and limita-tions, driving techniques, and drivinghazards. In addition, the training aidprovides a variety of scenes and sce-narios in an interactive setting and is aviable means of conducting low-costtraining at the unit level where timeand money are limited.

Accepting the award for DCS Corp.was Carl Dubac, Chairman of theBoard, and Dr. John Ruffner, PrincipalInvestigator. Also receiving awards forNDTA were Dr. Michael R. Macedonia,Chief Scientist of the U.S. Army Simu-lation, Training and InstrumentationCommand, and Joseph M. Pellegrino,SBIR Technical Monitor and SBIRCoordinator.

Medical Analysis Systems Inc.,Camarillo, CA. U.S. military personnelhave significant health concerns aboutbeing deployed to malarious regions ofthe world. Medical Analysis SystemsInc. has developed a rapid assay fordetecting malaria parasites in infectedmosquitoes. The VecTest can beemployed in the field to continuouslymonitor for the most serious speciesof malaria. This information is criticalto preventive medicine teams as theyestablish and develop programs forinfectious disease control in militaryoperations.

Accepting the award for MedicalAnalysis Systems was Dr. Kirti Davé,Principal Investigator. Also receivingawards for the VecTest were COL Mar-tin H. Crumrine, Director of the WalterReed Army Institute of Research; MAJJeffrey R. Ryan, SBIR TechnicalMonitor; and Herman F. Willis, SBIRCoordinator.

Skiametrics Inc., Winchester, MA.The Universal Computed TomographySystem (UCT), developed by Skiamet-rics Inc., is a volume inspection sys-tem for rapid, 100-percent X-ray imag-ing of industrial and military compo-nents. UCT is designed to be flexibleand easily accommodate objects up to40 inches long by 9 inches in diameterfor total inspection. Selectable inspec-tion sequences provide a range of 100percent computed tomography imag-ing within a few minutes at relativelycoarse resolution and an hour at thehighest spatial resolution and contrast.

Using the UCT system, the Army candetermine the serviceability of individ-ual munitions quickly and with a highdegree of accuracy.

Accepting the award for Skiamet-rics Inc. was the company’s PresidentDr. Paul Burstein. Also receivingawards for the UCT project wereMichael Fisette, Technical Director ofthe U.S. Army’s Armament Research,Development and Engineering Center;Dr. Paul D. Willson, SBIR Tech-nical Monitor; and John Saarmannand Carol L’Hommedieu, SBIRCoordinators.

ConclusionThe small business community

plays a vital role in the readiness andeffectiveness of our Armed Forces. Itscreativity and innovative spirit willenable tomorrow’s warfighters to suc-cessfully overcome the challenges theyencounter on the battlefield. The SBIRProgram fosters this innovative think-ing, which in turn benefits the Army,the private sector, and our Nationaleconomy.

Note: An article on the SBIR andSTTR Programs begins on Page 33 ofthis magazine.

DR. KENNETH A. BANNISTERis the Army SBIR Program Man-ager at the Army Research Office-Washington, DC. He is active inthe American Society of Mechani-cal Engineers and is a member ofTau Beta Pi, Phi Kappa Phi, andthe American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

JAMES R. MYERS is an Analystwith BRTRC Inc. and supports theArmy Research Office in executingthe SBIR, Analytical Control TeamII, and STTR Programs. He holds aB.S. degree in health resourcemanagement from George MasonUniversity. He previously workedat the former Operational Testand Evaluation Command inAlexandria, VA.


When it comes to weapon systemsand munitions, the people employedat the U.S. Army Yuma ProvingGround (YPG), AZ, take what they doseriously. In a typical year, they firenearly 170,000 rounds; fly 4,000 airsorties; conduct 3,600 personnel andcargo parachute drops; and driveupwards of 100,000 miles on trackedand wheeled vehicles over ruggeddesert test courses. They bang, bump,bruise, and rock their equipment, butthe end result is materiel they areproud to hand to American soldiers inthe field because they know it’s thebest and most reliable anywhere.

One of the important test mis-sions at YPG involves testing combatvehicles, from their weapon systemsto their tracks. Major systems testedby the proving ground’s Combat Sys-tems Division include the M1A2Abrams Main Battle Tank and theM3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, thetrue workhorses of the Army’s mecha-nized and tank battalions.

Division personnel also work withthe Light Armored Vehicle and a vari-ety of other specialized systems. Theyroutinely fire 105mm and 120mm tankweapons, the 25mm chain gunmounted on the Bradley FightingVehicle, and TOW (Tube-launched,Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) mis-siles. All Army production acceptancetesting of tank training ammunition, aform of quality control, is performedat the proving ground. YPG is the onlyArmy proving ground with a NuclearRegulatory Commission license for fir-ing depleted uranium ammunition

using direct-fire weapons at extendedranges.

Division Chief Bill Rezin says thework that the men and women of hisdivision do is critical to the nationaldefense. “We’re responsible for thecomplete armored weapon system,”he says, “so the importance of what wedo cannot be minimized. The per-formance of the vehicles and theeffectiveness of their weapon systemsin a future conflict is, in large part,based on what we do right here,” headds.

That has been the case in pastconflicts, most recently in the Balkansand earlier during the Persian GulfWar. YPG tested much of the tankammunition used so effectivelyagainst Iraqi tanks on the sands of theMiddle East. The Abrams tank, thecenterpiece of the Army’s tank battal-

ions deployed to the Persian Gulf,underwent more than 100,000 miles ofgrueling desert road testing at theproving ground while under develop-ment in the 1970s and 1980s. Thatwas a good thing too because the airfiltration systems of engines installedin early tanks performed poorly in thedusty desert environment.

The combat systems firing range,which is partially completed, is in anarea of the proving ground that can beused both for developmental or opera-tional testing. The range encompasses3,460 acres and contains three lines offire for either stationary firing or firingon the move. There are also two“bump” courses on the range thatallow developers to fully exercise thefire control systems of tested vehicleswhile driving. A separate combat sys-tems maneuver area covers 5,930

YUMA ROUTINELY TESTSARMORED VEHICLES

AND DIRECT-FIREMUNITIONS

Chuck Wullenjohn

An M1A2 Abrams fires a 120mm projectile during an ammunition production acceptance test at the Red Bluff Firing Range at YPG.


acres. Vehicles operate on themaneuver range as they would incombat, even on a cross-countrybasis.

“One of the features of theseranges is that they enable us to notonly test the vehicle but also the inter-face between the soldier and the sys-tem. By doing this on a relatively smallscale early in the development cycle,testers are able to involve soldier-users much earlier than previously.This helps us identify weaknessessooner, which means we can correctproblems and improve the systemmore efficiently and inexpensively,”Rezin explains.

Two versions of the much-anticipated Tank Extended RangeMunition (TERM) have recently cometo YPG for firing on fixed mounts.There are currently two TERM efforts,but only one will be selected for finalproduction and fielding. One is theTERM KE (kinetic energy) built byAlliant Techsystems, and the other isthe TERM CE (chemical energy) builtby Raytheon. Both have electronic“brilliance” built into them. TheTERM competitors came to the prov-ing ground because of the extreme fir-ing ranges offered and the provingground’s ability to reliably recoverrounds.

“TERM will offer our tankers around which not only has the currentcapability of being able to defeatheavily armored targets in the line-of-sight mode, but will offer a beyondline-of-sight firing capability,” saysTest Director Terry Miller. “Thismeans less exposure to enemy fire forour soldiers for we’ll be able to destroyattacking armor long before they canharm us. TERM will enable us toretain our edge over enemy armoredforces in the future,” adds Miller.

One of the major intentions of thethinking behind the TERM round isfor it to seamlessly integrate into theM1A2 SEP+ (System EnhancementProgram) Abrams tank, with electron-ics encased in the projectile interfac-ing directly with existing fire controlsystems via a data link. The roundwill be transported, handled, loaded,

and fired like other 120mm rounds.The TERM will contain multiple seek-ers that allow it to defeat armored tar-gets in all types of weather. For long-range targets, TERM will enable coop-erative engagements with a Scoutvehicle or through the artillery firesupport network.

TERM will dramatically expandthe battlespace of the tank battalioncommander. TERM rounds will defi-nitely let American armored forces“reach out and touch” their oppo-nents—with lethal results.

Testing advanced weapons suchas TERM has recently become com-monplace at YPG. From global-positioning receivers used to accu-rately maneuver descending para-chute loads to 155mm artilleryprojectiles that will seek and destroyenemy targets, the expansive 1,300-square mile proving ground hasbecome a vital component of the U.S.military machine.

A framed color photograph nearthe main door of the Combat SystemsDivision office accurately summarizesthe feelings of men and womenthroughout the proving ground. Thephoto shows soldiers and their equip-ment crossing a wide river in Bosniaon a barge. Large lettering under thephotograph proclaims, “This is ourcustomer.”

“What we do is serious business,and we know it. Our mission is simplyto do the best humanly possible toprovide our soldiers with the finestequipment available to defend them-selves and our country. Our job is toput our motto and our beliefs intoaction each day. And I believe we do,”Rezin says.

CHUCK WULLENJOHN isChief of the Public Affairs Office atthe U.S. Army Yuma ProvingGround, AZ. He is a graduate ofHumboldt State University andhas completed postgraduate workat San Jose State University andHayward State University, all inCalifornia. He is a frequent con-tributor to this magazine andother military publications. He isalso an Active Reservist in the U.S.Coast Guard.

A photographer prepares a high-speed camera for test photos at YPG’s firing range.


IntroductionThis article reflects the experience

of the Abrams Tank System, BradleyFighting Vehicle Systems, and the ForceXXI Battle Command Brigade andBelow (FBCB2) Program Management(PM) Offices as they integrated theFBCB2 software into weapon plat-forms. Based on lessons learned, theauthors propose a process for the Armyto integrate software across platformsand systems. Headquarters, Depart-ment of the Army is currently develop-ing and assessing system-of-systemsmanagement options.

BackgroundWith our current modernization

process, a single unit frequentlyreceives multiple, separate, unsyn-chronized, and chaotic fielding of vari-ous new systems throughout the year.Each fielding adversely impacts theunit’s immediate readiness. Theprocess of turning in older equipment,drawing new equipment, conductingnew equipment training, and becom-ing proficient with the new equip-ment is both demanding and timeconsuming.

Units are further stressed by peri-odic updates and upgrades to the soft-

ware embedded in fielded systems. Inthe past, software upgrades werefielded based on their software pro-gram development schedule. Fromthe perspective of a single PM, the tur-moil may not be readily apparent, butthe combined effects among severalsystems become significant. Forexample, the software associated withthe Abrams tank alone includes thefollowing: its own operating software,the Global Positioning System (GPS),the Single Channel Ground and Air-borne Radio System (SINCGARS),Enhanced Position Location ReportingSystem (EPLRS) radios, and FBCB2.Maintaining compatibility among allof these systems within a given unit isa challenge for each of the PMs. Giventhe interdependencies among thesesystems, the Army can no longerafford the time and turmoil involvedin fielding and maintaining thesestand-alone systems. The Army mustshift paradigms from a stand-alone toa system-of-systems approach.

With the advent of digitizationand completion of the first series ofForce XXI experiments, the PMs forAbrams, Bradley, and FBCB2 recog-nized that many new or improvedintegrated combat command and

control (IC3) capabilities are depend-ent on specific equipment beingfielded simultaneously. To maximizewarfighting capability, ensure interop-erability, and preclude negativeimpacts to unit readiness, the pro-grammatic and technical changes forboth hardware and software must bestrictly managed.

The critical role of softwareconfiguration management (CM)demands a system be established thateffectively and economically controlsthe interdependencies and relation-ships among the host platforms andthe IC3 equipment. This article exam-ines these issues with regard to FBCB2and its integration in the Abrams andBradley Systems—the Team IC3approach. This approach accommo-dates both programmed and unantici-pated change while minimizing theimpact of those changes on the receiv-ing unit. While this approach is in itsinfancy, it provides a solid blueprintfrom which the Army can expand toincorporate a holistic system-of-systems approach to post-fieldingsoftware upgrades.

Team IC3 selected this approachbecause it was the best way to inte-grate the functionality of FBCB2

A Blueprint For The Army . . .

INTEGRATED COMBATCOMMAND AND CONTROL

SOFTWARE UPDATE PROCESSLTC Bryan J. McVeigh, MAJ John J. Markovich,

MAJ Earl D. Noble, and Ron Bokoch

“Uncontrolled spiral development is chaos.”—MG Robert E. Armbruster


within the Abrams System Enhance-ment Program (SEP) and the BradleyA3, both first-generation digitizedweapon platforms. Specifically, theTeam IC3 approach is designed toaccomplish the following:

• Develop and institutionalize asynchronized and disciplined processfor fielding planned and unanticipatedsoftware and hardware upgrades thataffect command and control (C2)capabilities for the Abrams SEP andBradley A3;

• Ensure the fielded version of IC3software is interoperable with the lat-est version of Abrams SEP, Bradley A3,FBCB2, GPS, Internet Controller soft-ware and hardware, SINCGARS, andEPLRS system software; and

• Ensure an open system archi-tecture design to facilitate futureupgrades and IC3 modules that areplanned for the future.

ConceptThe IC3 update approach requires

the identification and management ofa system-of-systems hardware andsoftware digitization package thatincludes FBCB2, vehicle and platformdigitization, related tactical communi-cations, tactical Internet protocols,and Tactical Operations Center C2 sys-tems. Within those packages, changesare implemented via one of two iden-tified paths: the capability upgradepath or the safety upgrade path. Thecapability upgrade path addresses pre-planned improvements, unanticipatedtechnological advances, and problemfixes not affecting sys-tem and plat-form safety. The safety upgrade pathaddresses critical safety-of-use relatedupgrades.

The following summarizes the IC3process:

• Each of the PMs with their primecontractors have established plansand schedules to update their softwareand hardware programs per their user-established requirements. Effectiveimplementation of a controlledchange process requires a PM to fullyunderstand each IC3 team member’ssoftware and hardware upgrade plans.

Reviews involving PM Abrams,Bradley, Tactical Radio Communica-tions Systems, and FBCB2 and theirrespective prime contractors are con-ducted on a biannual basis. Likewise,requirements development must beoriented on digitization packages andinvolve all of the respective U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command’sSystems Managers (TSMs). As thisprocess matures, it’s envisioned that aprioritized list of proposed capabilityupgrades will be approved by a Gen-eral Officer Steering Committee(GOSC). Once a digitization packageis defined and funded, materiel devel-opers work hand in hand using theestablished FBCB2 and platform Sys-tem Integration Laboratories (SILs) todevelop the required package items.

• Safety upgrades are exceptionsto this process. Safety upgradesaddress problems that cannot wait forthe next scheduled capability upgrade.

• All digitization package changesare coordinated by a tiered CMapproach. The CM process is evolv-ing, but as more PMs and ProgramExecutive Offices become involved,this body will become the key con-troller of established digitization pack-ages. Experience with early manage-ment of Embedded Battle Commandconfiguration indicates changes arebest implemented at the lowest level.

• The prime contractors forAbrams and Bradley (General Dynam-ics Land Systems (GDLS) and UnitedDefense Limited Partnership (UDLP)respectively) receive FBCB2,SINCGARS, EPLRS, and GPS software

as government-furnished equipment.The PMs for Abrams and Bradley areresponsible for obtaining all of thesoftware updates and changes fromthe aforementioned PMs and provid-ing them to their prime contractors forintegration and testing. Most of thesoftware products undergo independ-ent verification and validation prior tocommencing integration efforts.Weapon system prime contractors areresponsible for integrating updatedsoftware packages into their systemswith full C2 system developer support.

• PM, Abrams, Bradley, and FBCB2participate in a Central Technical Sup-port Facility (CTSF) interoperabilitycertification update upon completingthe capability upgrades. The CTSF cer-tifies overall system-of-system soft-ware interoperability. This processensures that all of the software fromthe respective programs is successfullyintegrated into the system-of-systemsoftware architecture. Safety upgradeswill not require full CTSF recertifica-tion. Modifications to the safetyreleases process are sought as appro-priate to accommodate both types ofchanges.

• To maintain control of baselineconfigurations in the field, GDLS/UDLP incorporates approved FBCB2software capability upgrades into sub-sequent programmed system softwareupdates. Coordinated safety upgradesare immediately implemented uponcompletion of the modified safetyrelease.

The critical role of softwareconfiguration management demands a system be establishedthat effectively and economicallycontrols the interdependenciesand relationships among the host platformsand the IC3 equipment.


The Road AheadThe Army’s Unit Set Fielding

Prime Directive is designed to mod-ernize and field a process that willaccommodate the system-of-systemsnature of the digital battlefield. TheIC3 approach is designed to workwithin that process and could beexpanded to encompass a holisticArmy approach to system-of-systemsblock software upgrades. The goal ofthis process is to provide the userscontrolled block upgrades every 12-18months.

The Army faces daunting chal-lenges in integrating more than 100systems into this approach. This willrequire decisions that affect system-of-systems requirements, functional-ity, capabilities, and Internet proto-cols. The impact of these decisions onall stakeholders must be considered.As a result, the CM process needs tobegin by controlling the requiredcapability for each block upgrade.This top-down perspective will ensurethat individual platforms will be builtto the same “macro” objective.

Digitization packages will initiallybe defined jointly by the respectivePMs and TSMs and approved by asystem-of-systems GOSC, headed bythe current system-of-systems man-ager, the Deputy Chief of Staff forOperations and Plans. The system-of-system software upgrades will need tobe resourced in bundles (by package)within the current planning, program-ming, budgeting, and execution sys-tem process. Funding to support this

approach across all platforms andsystems must be tied together. Thesystem-of-systems GOSC would con-duct annual budget planning sessionsto develop or update a 5-year planthat supports fielding by establishedpackages. To address unanticipatedchanges, resources also will need to be committed to support post-deployment software support.

A key enabler of this effort is theCTSF, which acts as the final certifica-tion authority before a block of fieldupgrades is released. In applying thismodel to the Army, the need for a“Super” CTSF is a logical corollary tothe Team IC3 process. The SuperCTSF will be an expanded version ofthe current CTSF and will be com-posed of multiple system-level SILssimilar to the IC3 approach. Addition-ally, the Super CTSF will be the focalpoint of software configuration anddigitization architecture, as well asprovide a single responsible authorityfor software integration prior to ablock upgrade being fielded to theArmy.

ConclusionThe Team IC3 approach is a seam-

less, integrated process that ensuressuccessful fielding of planned up-grades to IC3 software and accommo-dates unanticipated software changeswhile minimizing impacts to unitreadiness. Given the challenges facingthe Army today in terms of managingthe capability growth of its digital C2systems, this process is adaptable

Armywide. While the Team IC3approach is not a cure-all for the soft-ware upgrade challenges facing theArmy, it does provide a blueprint toensure a solid process for configura-tion control of system-of-systemsacquisition and fielding.

LTC BRYAN J. MCVEIGH holdsan M.S. degree in systems acquisi-tion management from the NavalPostgraduate School and is theDepartment of the Army SystemCoordinator for the Bradley Fight-ing Vehicle Systems.

MAJ JOHN J. MARKOVICHholds an M.S. degree in mechani-cal engineering from the NavalPostgraduate School and is theAssistant Project Manager forAbrams System Digitization.

MAJ EARL D. NOBLE holds anM.S. in computer engineeringfrom Clemson University, Clem-son, SC. He is the Assistant ProjectManager for Digitization forBradley Fighting Vehicles.

RON BOKOCH is a retired mil-itary acquisition officer workingfor Science Applications Interna-tional Corp. He acts as the Soft-ware Integration/Information Sys-tem Security Manager for PM,Abrams.

While the Team IC3 approach is not a cure-allfor the software upgrade challenges

facing the Army,it does provide a blueprint

to ensure a solid processfor configuration control

of system-of-systems acquisition and fielding.


BackgroundEnvironmental stewardship in the

United States and in Germany pres-ents common challenges to the mili-tary missions of both countries. Thereis a Master Data Exchange Agreement(DEA) between the United States andGermany that provides the frame-work to exchange data in a variety ofresearch and technology areas. Areasof research and data exchange proce-dures are more fully described andexplained in individual annexesincluded as addenda to the DEA. Thefour annexes discussed in this articlespecifically deal with the challengesassociated with resolving environmen-tal problems: hazardous materials/material substitutes/air (dealing withpollution prevention, waste minimiza-tion, material substitutes/recovery,and recycling); soil (focusing on soilcontamination and remediationissues); water (including water con-tamination, remediation, and purifica-tion); and demilitarization and dis-posal of conventional munitions.

The key individuals for theU.S./German (GE) EnvironmentalTechnology DEA are the Deputy Assis-tant Secretary of the Army for Envi-ronment, Safety and OccupationalHealth for the United States, and theExecutive Director of the FederalOffice of Defense Technology and Pro-

curement (Bundesamt für Wehrtech-nik und Beschaffung (BWB)) for Ger-many. U.S. and GE assistant projectofficers (APOs) coordinate and overseethe functions and operations of theU.S./GE DEA environmental annexes.U.S. and GE technical project officers(TPOs) for each environmental annexare assigned as technical leads andreport through the APOs.

Planning meetings are scheduledevery 6 months to discuss technicalproject results, evaluate progresstoward goals, coordinate future goals,and to foster relationships. General

meetings are held every 18 months,with the next one scheduled for June2001 in the United States.

ChallengesEnvironmental stewardship repre-

sents a vital component of the Army’smission in the United States as well asin Germany. This stewardship sup-ports mission readiness by complyingwith environmental laws, maintainingthe availability of training lands,cleaning up and preventing pollution,improving soldier/family quality oflife, and strengthening communityrelationships. Compliance andrestoration continue to be vital com-ponents of the Army’s environmentalprogram.

Many common challenges areassociated with environmental stew-ardship for both the U.S. and GE mili-tary missions. It is important to notethat these challenges may be dealtwith through joint demonstrated/validated technologies that result insignificant cost savings. These tech-nologies are especially valuable in thecurrent climate of close regulatoryscrutiny and shrinking technical andbudgetary resources.

The first step in a jointly demonstrated/validated technologyexchange is to identify locations forpossible remediation and to identify

Shared Challenges, Shared Successes . . .

THE U.S./GERMANENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGYEXCHANGE

Raymond J. Fatz

Environmentalstewardship

representsa vital component

of the Army’s missionin the United States

as well asin Germany.


possible technologies for demonstra-tion and validation. When this isachieved, the mutual technical criteriafor the demonstration project must beidentified. Identifying these criteria isessential for the technology to beaccepted for application in Germany.The U.S. proponents then identify andcoordinate U.S. industry, academia,and other parties that may benefitfrom participating in the demonstra-tion and validation process. The GEproponents then work with their localauthorities on the logistics of adoptingthe new technologies. Maximizing thebenefit of these technology demon-strations to the military mission ofboth countries requires a great deal ofcommunication, coordination, andcooperation between the proponentson both sides of the Atlantic.

Past Achievements The environmental annexes have

been some of the most active withinthe DEA. For example, technical per-sonnel have regularly attended plan-ning meetings every 6 months, andlarge delegations of U.S. and GE pro-ponents have met at general meetingsto evaluate progress, exchange techni-cal information, and set new goals forongoing efforts. Since its inception,the DEA has resulted in strong profes-sional relationships and increasedknowledge through information shar-ing. There have been many mutualbenefits gained from the data sharing.For example, the DEA has served as aprecursor for joint demonstrationprojects, one of which was a side-by-

side demonstration of U.S. and GEtechnologies to resolve a groundwaterproblem at Rhein-Main Air Force Basein Germany.

A Case In PointA good example of the type of

benefit resulting from the Environ-mental Technology DEA is the use ofelectrokinetic (EK) treatment of soils.EK treatment technology is used in theUnited States to remediate soils con-taminated with heavy metals. Heavymetal contamination is a problem atU.S. military ranges as well as at GEsites.

More than 130 grenade range sitesin Germany now receive a high level ofregulatory attention. Based on DEA-fostered interaction, the GE Ministryof Defense (MOD) is undertaking thedemonstration of an ex-situ EK reme-diation of metal-contaminated soil ona grenade range in Bergen, Germany.The GE MOD funds this technologydemonstration. The United States pro-vides technical input and reviewsprogress for this effort based on priorU.S. involvement in the EK remedia-tion and demonstration programs atthe U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWaterways Experiment Station andthe U.S. Army Environmental Center.

The EK project clearly illustratesthe effectiveness of hands-on sharingof expertise and resources to achieve acommon purpose: solving pressingenvironmental problems associatedwith military operations. The result isrefinement of a technology that couldimprove environmental cleanup

strategies at United States Army,Europe (USAREUR) and GE militarysites.

Future ActionsAt the most recent planning meet-

ing in early November 2000, attendeesdecided to continue to focus on theEK demonstration project. Otherenvironmental subjects were also dis-cussed. These included bio-basedhydraulic oils and lubricants, testchamber environmental effects,silicon-based surface coatings forships, plasma arc technology, andinorganic and organic contaminantsin soil.

Next MeetingThe next U.S./GE Environmental

Technology DEA general meeting willbe held in Arlington, VA, June 18-22,2001. This meeting will allow U.S. andGE counterparts to evaluate the suc-cesses and lessons learned from theenvironmental technologies currentlybeing demonstrated, as well as con-sider new and innovative technol-ogies for possible inclusion in futuredemonstration projects.

More InformationAdditional information on the

focus areas of the EnvironmentalTechnology DEA Annexes is availablefrom the U.S. TPO for each annex bycontacting Plexus Scientific Corp. inAlexandria, VA, at (703) 845-8492.

RAYMOND J. FATZ is theDeputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Environment, Safety andOccupational Health, and servesas the U.S. General Officer for theU.S./GE Environmental Technol-ogy DEA. He has a B.S. degreefrom the University of Marylandand completed graduate studies atthe University of Oklahoma.

A good example of the typeof benefit resulting from

the Environmental TechnologyDEA is the use of electrokinetic

treatment of soils.


IntroductionIn modern logistics, rapid force pro-

jection is key to meeting the challengesof international contingency operations.Within the Army, improving deployabil-ity is a key focus of the Army Chief ofStaff’s transformation efforts and visionfor the future. The U.S. Army’s Mili-tary Traffic Management Command(MTMC), which is a component com-mand of the U.S. Transportation Com-mand (USTRANSCOM), has a combinedmission of providing both logistical sup-port for peacetime sustainment andcontingency mobilization of the ArmedForces. VISA, VCC, and USC-02,described below, represent a highlycomplex, precedent-setting governmentteaming effort with industry to developcontractual solutions to strategic issues.

In simple terms, VISA stands for theVoluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreementand VCC for MTMC’s VISA ContingencyContract. USC-02 is the common namefor MTMC’s 2nd Universal Service Con-tract for worldwide ocean liner trans-portation services for DOD. Behindthese simple acronyms is a complexeffort by various groups of professionalsto weave several different programs andcontractual efforts into a workablewhole in support of DOD’s peacetimeand wartime missions.

While VISA, VCC, and USC-02 areseparate, they are designed to linktogether and support each other toencourage the U.S. commercial mar-itime industry to support DOD’swartime needs as well as enhance com-petition for DOD’s peacetime oceanshipping and transportation business.Together, they show the power of con-tracting to support DOD’s mission byusing recent acquisition reforminitiatives.

Let’s look at these three contractingresources and how they are linkedtogether. In reviewing DOD contingencyrequirements, the USTRANSCOM com-mander in chief (CINC) determined thatcontractual instruments were needed toensure a more rapid transition frompeace to war. Thus was born the genesisof a unique inter- and intra-agency gov-ernment teaming effort with industry todevelop contractual solutions to strate-gic issues.

Policy MeetingsUSTRANSCOM hosted several

policy-making meetings for Senior

Executive Service government managersand industry representatives. Agencyheads, including administrators, seniormilitary officers, and industry CEOs,met to confer on basic policy determi-nations. Working groups focused on var-ious aspects of DOD’s maritime needs,including pricing methodology, techni-cal requirements, contract drafting, andoperations planning. The workinggroups consisted of acquisition, pro-gram, and legal personnel from bothgovernment and industry. These groupsnot only dealt with contingency opera-tions planners but also with peacetimeshipping agencies to coordinate VISAcontingency contracting needs withpeacetime sustainment needs. VISArepresents a highly integrated effortbetween government and private sectorelements involved in the ocean trans-portation industry.

VISA provides for the commitmentof strategic sealift capability by the U.S.Flag Merchant Marines under the aus-pices of the Defense Production Act andthe Maritime Security Act. Under this

program, U.S. flag ocean carriers, bothsubsidized and unsubsidized, enter intovessel capacity commitments with theDepartment of Transportation’s Mar-itime Administration (MARAD). Thus,VISA involves the coordination of sev-eral national Defense-oriented pro-grams by both the MARAD and DOD.

Formal CommitmentOnce U.S. flag carriers signed a VISA

agreement with MARAD, the foundationwas in place and there was a formalcommitment by U.S. flag carriers tosupport DOD in time of crisis. However,DOD still needed very specific contrac-tual commitments by the liner industry.As such, DOD built on the VISA founda-tion. MTMC’s mission is to providecommercial liner service for the CINCUSTRANSCOM while the Navy’sMilitary Sealift Command (MSC) pro-vides organic and/or commercial ves-sels. So the next step was for MTMC andMSC to develop contracts to bindindustry to specific levels of either lineror vessel support at various stages of a

CREATIVE SOLUTIONSTO MEET DOD’S

MARITIMESUPPORT

NEEDSCOL Sheila C. Toner

MTMC’s 596th TransportationGroup loads military cargoat the port of Beaumont, TX.


contingency operation. ForMTMC, the VCC was the next step.

MTMC’s VCC is a contract withthose carriers that are VISA participants,which establishes the rates, terms, andconditions under which each contractorwill provide specific liner capacity in acontingency operation. For MTMC, thegoal was to meet the CINC’s wartimeneeds and ensure a rapid activation andgood planning data. Thus, a very spe-cific commitment was needed fromindustry so wartime planners wouldknow the load capacity, vessel speed,etc., that would be available whenrequired. Similarly, the commercial car-riers making these commitmentsneeded to know when TRANSCOMwould activate specific assets so theytoo could adequately plan and predicttheir commercial activities. Pre-established payment rates that willpermit rapid delivery of liner cargoesinto a theater of operations were alsodeveloped. VCC offerors could elect tosubmit rates pursuant to one of thethree approved methods: revenue-based rate, peacetime rate, or negoti-ated contingency rate. Procedures toimplement these various methodsrequired significant oversight effort onthe part of the Defense Contract AuditAgency.

The AwardsEach of the 17 VCCs awarded by

MTMC was individually negotiated. Inaddition to basic pricing methodologies,many additional issues arose during thejoint DOD/MARAD/industry discus-sions concerning the specifics of VISAand its implementing VCCs. Companioncontracts to the VCC, such as the VISA-Drytime Contingency Contract (VISA-DCC), were developed in parallel by theMSC for vessel commitments.

Pre-Priced ContractsThanks to the VISA-VCC contract-

ing agreements, the MTMC now has off-the-shelf pre-priced contracts for linerservices during contingency operationsthat can be activated at any time by theCINC USTRANSCOM. This VISA-VCCeffort is similar to the Civil Reserve AirFleet Program that has successfully pro-vided rapid access to the U.S. commer-cial airfleet in time of crisis.

MTMC’s action, coupled with theparallel VISA-DCC effort by MSC, essen-tially ensures that DOD is prepared toactivate strategic sealift at anytime, any-where in a seamless transition frompeacetime to contingency operations asopposed to the much less efficient priormethod of negotiating individual sealiftagreements on an individual basis whenrequired.

IncentivesMTMC paid each VCC contractor

$1,000 for providing a preliminary con-tingency plan upon signing the con-tract. However, this fee is not a signifi-cant incentive for the maritime industryto sign these contracts. What incentivedid MTMC offer industry? The incentiveis the final component of this complexand interwoven acquisition strategy,MTMC’s peacetime liner contract—USC-02. Following the signing of theVISA and VCC contracts, MTMC’s con-tracting professionals awarded USC-02for its peacetime shipping needs. Theaward was made to 21 ocean carriers toprovide an efficient, cost-effectivemeans of shipping Defense Transporta-tion System (DTS) cargo on approxi-mately 76 individual routes world-wide. DTS cargo is transported on theawardees’ regularly scheduled commer-cial routes, thus ensuring uninterruptedservice in global ocean transportationfor DOD. In addition, USC-02 provides

for the movement of military equip-ment in support of actual military con-tingencies and exercises. The USC-02contracts made extensive use of acquisi-tion streamlining. The solicitation wasissued under the guidelines set forth inFederal Acquisition Regulation Part 12(Acquisition of Commercial Items).

Contracts were awarded on thebasis of “best-value” evaluation criteriarather than the “low-cost/technicallyacceptable” method employed previ-ously under USC-01. These awards weremade on time and without protest. Thiscomplex contracting action, with anestimated value of $400 million over thelife of the contracts, supports bothDOD’s peacetime and wartime trans-portation missions by using VISA-VCCparticipation in the best-value evalua-tion process. As part of the best-valueevaluation process, award preferencefor these USC-02 peacetime contractswas linked to a carrier’s commitment tomeeting military requirements duringcontingency operations via enrollmentin the VISA and VCC. The preferencegiven to VISA participants in the award-ing of DOD’s peacetime shippingrequirements under the USC-02 con-tracts is seen as an incentive to encour-age carrier participation and commit-ment to meeting DOD wartime trans-portation needs.

ConclusionThis unique forward-looking, multi-

faceted effort shows the benefits of sev-eral government organizations workingtogether in a multidiscipled teamfocused on long-term strategic planningrequirements. The involved agenciesabandoned outdated procurementtechniques at all stages in the processand crafted business solutions toDefense problems using tailored mod-ern commercial acquisition techniques.This effort also showcases the ability ofArmy Acquisition Corps (AAC) profes-sionals to serve as wartime enablers andforce multipliers for our combat forces.

COL SHEILA C. TONER is theMTMC Principal Assistant Respon-sible for Contracting. She is a mem-ber of the AAC and is Level III certi-fied in both contracting and projectmanagement.

Containers areloaded aboard the

Chesapeake Bay in June 1999during Operation TURBO

CADS 99 at Sunny Point, NC.The port on the Cape Fear

River is home to MTMC’s 597thTransportation Group.


IntroductionThe primary mission of the U.S.

Army is to fight and win the Nation’swars and protect its vital interests. TheArmy conducts a wider array of mis-sions and is deployed in more areasthan in any time in recent history. Rec-ognizing this, the Army’s recent visionstatement says, “We will provide to theNation an array of deployable, agile,versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustain-able formations, which are affordableand capable of reversing the conditionsof human suffering and resolving con-flicts decisively.” The key to the Army’stransformation is to maintain techno-logical dominance and to leverageemerging technologies available in thecommercial market. Soldiers, the mostimportant Army resource, should beenabled, not encumbered by the explo-sion of new technologies. The correcttechnology in the hands of well-trainedsoldiers and combat leaders facilitatesmission accomplishment.

The Army maintains its technologi-cal edge by partnering with industryand academia. Agile, free-thinking,small (fewer than 500 employees), high-tech companies often generate innova-tive and significant solutions to meetsoldiers’ needs. The Army seeks to har-ness these talents through three innova-tive research and development (R&D)programs: the Small Business Innova-tion Research (SBIR) Program, the SmallBusiness Technology Transfer (STTR)Program, and the Advanced Conceptsand Technology II (ACT II) Program.

The SBIR and STTR Programsinvolve small businesses in early-stageR&D projects. These two programs pro-vide timely investment capital, enablingsmall businesses to rapidly developdual-use technologies, products, andservices to bring to the marketplace.Dual-use technologies are defined asthose that, first and foremost, benefitthe soldier and are commercially viable.

The ACT II Program encouragesbusinesses of all sizes to apply tech-nologies that are mature, or those thatare reaching maturity in the commer-cial sector, to address Army missionneeds. Ultimately, the Army SBIR, STTR,and ACT II Programs benefit the Army,the private sector, and the national

economy. Brief descriptions of each ofthese programs follow.

SBIR ProgramIn 1982, the U.S. Congress estab-

lished the SBIR Program in response togrowing concerns in the late 1970s andearly 1980s about the underrepresenta-tion of U.S. small businesses in federalR&D. Since that time, the purpose of theSBIR Program has been to increase theparticipation of small businesses in fed-eral R&D. Currently, the Army mustreserve 2.5 percent of its extramuralR&D budget (that part of the R&Dbudget that goes “out of house” for con-tracts to private companies) for com-petitively selected SBIR awards to smallbusinesses. The goal of the dual-useSBIR Program is to tap into the innova-tion and creativity of the small-businesscommunity to help meet Army R&Dobjectives. As an added incentive, thesesmall companies simultaneouslydevelop technologies, products, andservices that can be commercializedthrough sales in the private sector orsales to the government (e.g., theArmy).

Successful SBIR projects movethrough three phases. Army scientistsand engineers develop SBIR solicitationtopics that address current and antici-pated warfighting technology needs.These topics are subjected to rigorousreviews by the U.S. Army Training and

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) BattleLabs and the Army logistics community.Senior DOD R&D managers also reviewthe topics for compliance with nationaldefense priorities and requirements.Small businesses enter the SBIR processby submitting concepts in the form ofPhase I proposals against these topics.

Phase I is the entry point where acompany receives up to $70,000 for 6months to prove the feasibility of itsconcept. An option for a company toreceive up to $50,000 is available tofund interim Phase I/Phase II activitiesif the project is selected to receive aPhase II award. Phase II is a substantialR&D effort where a company gets up to$730,000 for 2 years to develop a dual-use technology, product, or service.SBIR is very competitive; about 1 in 10Phase I and 1 in 3 Phase II proposals areselected for an award.

Phase III, the commercializationphase, is the goal of every SBIR effort.During Phase III, the successful com-pany markets its dual-use product orservice to the government, the privatesector, or both. No SBIR funding is pro-vided in Phase III.

The Army participates with theNavy, Air Force, and six other DODagencies under the overall DOD SBIRProgram; however, as is the case withthe other DOD components, the Armyprogram is autonomously managed andseeks to support Army-specific goals

ADDRESSINGSOLDIER NEEDS

THROUGHINNOVATIVE

PARTNERSHIPSDr. Kenneth A. Bannister, MAJ Lyndon F. Wrighten,

and John H. Ruehe


within the framework of the DOD SBIRProgram.

STTR ProgramThe STTR Program, like the SBIR

Program, is a government-wide pro-gram that was Congressionally man-dated by the Small Business Researchand Development Enhancement Act of1992 in response to concerns raised bythe U.S. academic community.

The STTR Program shares the sameobjectives as the SBIR Program regard-ing increased involvement of smallbusinesses in federal R&D and the com-mercialization of innovative technolo-gies. STTR projects also require partici-pation by universities and colleges,several so-called Federally FundedResearch and Development Centers(FFRDCs) (such as the U.S. Departmentof Energy’s national labs), and certainother nonprofit research institutions.

Specifically, the STTR Program pro-vides an incentive for partnering smallcompanies and researchers at academicinstitutions, FFRDCs, and nonprofitresearch institutions to move emergingtechnical ideas from the laboratory tothe marketplace. Each STTR proposalmust be submitted by a team thatincludes a small business (as the primecontractor for contracting purposes)and at least one research institution,which have entered into a writtenagreement for the STTR effort. Also, theproject must be divided so the smallbusiness performs at least 40 percent ofthe work and the research institution(s)performs at least 30 percent of thework. The remainder of the work maybe performed by either party or a thirdparty. The STTR budget is determinedby an assessment of 0.15 percent of theArmy’s extramural R&D budget.

STTR moves through a three-phaseprocess similar to that of the SBIR Pro-gram. By law, STTR Phase I can be upto a 1-year effort with a maximum con-tract value of $100,000. However, Phase I efforts are currently limited to 6 months, but still valued at $100,000.Phase II STTR projects are 2-year effortsinvolving an award of up to $500,000.Because of the strong focus on formingpartnerships among academia andother nonprofit research institutions,the Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s)Army Research Office (ARO), the Army’s

lead agency for funding academicresearch, is the executive agent for theSTTR Program.

ACT II ProgramThe ACT II Program was estab-

lished in 1994 by the then Assistant Sec-retary of the Army for Research, Devel-opment and Acquisition (now the Assis-tant Secretary for Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology). The ACT II Programsponsors projects that would not other-wise be supported under the traditionalArmy R&D mission because of risk,unconventional approach, or lack offunded efforts. Each year, the Armyselects industry’s most promising tech-nologies, prototypes, and nondevelop-mental items for realistic demonstra-tions, in most cases with operationalArmy units, and then assesses theresults. The ACT II Program, as anexample of recent U.S. federal reforminitiatives, represents one of the mostresponsive acquisition strategies in theU.S. Army. Again, the ACT II Program isopen to all U.S. businesses.

Using a two-stage selection processdesigned to minimize the burden onindustry, the Army first solicits two-page ACT II concept papers respondingto mission requirements. Second, thosefirms providing the most promisingconcepts, as judged by the TRADOCBattle Laboratories and Army materieldevelopers, are invited to submit fullproposals. Firms submitting successfulproposals are awarded ACT II contractsto demonstrate their solutions to theBattle Laboratories in environmentsthat address rigorous battlefieldconditions.

Successful ACT II technology solu-tions then enter the Army’s traditionalR&D program, are selected for con-sideration for support by the ArmyWarfighter Rapid Acquisition Program,or transition directly to end items asnew starts or product improvements.The annual ACT II Program budget of$10-20 million targets 12-month proj-ects costing a maximum of $1.5 mil-lion each. The goal is to developdemonstration projects to meet Armyrequirements.

ConclusionThe Army SBIR, STTR, and ACT II

Programs involve aggressive outreach

efforts to “get the word out” to the com-mercial marketplace regarding oppor-tunities to help the Army meet its mis-sion needs. In part, the Army gets theword out through participation innational, regional, and local confer-ences with industry across the UnitedStates. Additionally, the Army has goneto great lengths to provide onlineaccess to comprehensive informationabout these programs via the WorldWide Web. For more information aboutthese programs, visit the ARO-Washington (ARO-W) Web site athttp://www.aro.army.mil/arowash/rt.Administered by ARL’s ARO, these pro-grams have proven to be an integralpart of the U.S. Army’s successful com-mitment to invest in today’s emergingdevelopmental and “off-the-shelf” tech-nologies to give our soldiers the advan-tages they need.

Note: An article on the 2000 ArmySBIR Phase II Quality Awards begins onPage 22 of this magazine.

DR. KENNETH A. BANNISTERis the Army SBIR Program Man-ager at ARO-Washington, DC. He isactive in the American Society ofMechanical Engineers and is amember of Tau Beta Pi, Phi KappaPhi, and the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science.

MAJ LYNDON F. WRIGHTEN isthe ACT II Program Manager atARO-Washington. He holds anM.S. degree in acquisition man-agement from Webster UniversitySchool of Business and Technologyand a B.S. degree in criminal jus-tice from South Carolina StateCollege.

JOHN H. RUEHE is a PrincipalAnalyst at BRTRC Inc. and pro-vides support to the ARO in execut-ing the ACT II, SBIR, and STTRPrograms. Ruehe is a RegisteredProfessional Engineer and holdsB.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engi-neering from the University of Illi-nois and the University of Florida,respectively.


IntroductionAlthough May 2000 was

ordinary by most standards,it was extraordinary for theU.S. Army Operational TestCommand’s Air DefenseArtillery Test Directorate.During the PATRIOTAdvanced Capability-Phase3 (PAC-3) Limited User Test(LUT) conducted at FortBliss, TX, simulation wasthe main vehicle in an airdefense operational test.Over the course of approxi-mately 4 weeks of testing,crews of the test player unit,the 2nd Battalion, 1st AirDefense Artillery Regiment,engaged multiple simulatedair breathing threat (ABT) and tacticalballistic missile (TBM) targets in 120realistic threat air battle scenarios. Dur-ing this phase of operational testing,not a single live aircraft or missile tookto flight. At the same time, however, alltesting was effective in terms of dataadequacy and cost reduction. In fact,with simulation at the helm via thePAC-3 Mobile Flight Mission Simulator(MFMS) test tool, the cumulative costof creating and engaging the enemytotaled approximately $600,000—lessthan the cost of firing a single PATRIOTmissile.

The MFMS ToolAt first glance, the MFMS appears

to be an ordinary military vehicle, butits capabilities extend far beyond that.The PAC-3 MFMS is a hardware-in-the-loop test system for PATRIOT that cansimulate a variety of enemy air vehiclesthrough pre-programmed threat airbattle scenarios. These threats includevarious types of TBMs, ABTs, and air-to-surface missiles. The threat targets haveprogrammable arrival times and desig-nated ground impact points thatrequire the PATRIOT system to engagemultiple targets simultaneously. Thescenarios are not a random generationof targets but rather a true-to-life repre-sentation of known PATRIOT threatsacross the globe. This feature signifi-cantly increases the realism factor ofthe air battle in each developedscenario.

While the mobility aspect of thesimulator is relatively new, the originsof the system are not. The Raytheon

Corp. PATRIOT Program Office origi-nated the flight mission simulator(FMS) in 1974 to create a tool for engi-neering and development. Eventually,Raytheon intended to use the FMS toolfor system developmental testing. Thegoal was to exercise and test thePATRIOT system without altering itstactical configuration. The fire unitequipment was set in normal configu-ration and connected via the PATRIOTradar to the FMS for artificial targetinsertion. Initial success came later thatyear when the first version of the FMSwas able to inject radio frequency (RF)signals into the system radar for onesimulated target. Within 4 years, theFMS had the capability to stimulate theradar with up to 10 targets. Numeroussoftware and hardware improvementshave followed. The test tool is nowcapable of stimulating the PATRIOTsystem with the maximum number oftargets allowed by the tactical systemsoftware.

Raytheon added mobility in 1995by creating a truck-mounted FMS—thiswas the evolution of the MFMS.

Although engineering, devel-opment, and testing were theoriginal goals of the FMS, thismobility allowed increasedflexibility for use in opera-tional testing. After an exten-sive verification, validation,and accreditation process, theMFMS was certified as aviable test tool.

The engagement controlstation (ECS) is tacticallyhard-wired to the radar set(RS), and the RS is hard-wiredto the MFMS. Additionally,the communications relaygroup (CRG) van is linked bywire to the ECS. The Informa-tion Coordination Centralcommunicates with the ECS

via the tactical PATRIOT Digital Infor-mation Link and communicates withthe Communications, Control, andCommand Engineering EnvironmentSystem (a communications simulator)via Tactical Digital Information Link-J(TADIL-J). This emulates a joint defensenetwork and ensures the system iscapable of communicating in a jointenvironment via the TADIL-J messagingsystem.

The Battery Maintenance Centerwires into the ECS to collect systemmaintenance and status data via itsremote maintenance monitor on thePATRIOT Automated Logistics Systemcomputer. Simulating the PATRIOTlaunching stations are two data transferunits (DTUs). One DTU in the ECS sim-ulates local launchers. The other DTU,located in the CRG, simulates remotelaunchers which, in reality, may belocated 10-30 kilometers from the restof the fire unit.

To create the scripted targets foreach scenario, the MFMS stimulates theRS by inserting the RF signals necessaryto emulate an actual track of that type

SIMULATIONS:CHANGING

THE PARADIGMFOR OPERATIONAL

TESTINGCPT Andrew E. Yuliano

Mobile FlightMission Simulator


in the RS search sector. Whenthe radar is operating in“active radiate” mode, a com-bination of both MFMS-generated and real tracks willappear on the PATRIOT manstations (operator scopes).Visually, the graphic repre-sentations of MFMS tracksare no different than those ofactual tracks. The operatorcan differentiate between realand simulated tracks byobserving the identificationfriend or foe (IFF) response ofthe track if it has a workingIFF system. Simply stated, areal aircraft will generate aninterrogation response,whereas the simulated aircraft willreturn no response.

Why Simulation?Testing of any new or upgraded

system entails two inevitable require-ments. First, testing must accuratelymirror the system’s operational envi-ronment as it would exist during awartime mission. Second, and perhapsmore challenging, is that the firstrequirement must support the data col-lection required for system evaluationand the corresponding test schedule. Inthe case of the PAC-3 system, theabsolute best test environment wouldbe one of multiple live TBM, ABT, andASM targets in flight while beingtracked and engaged by a mix of livePATRIOT missiles (PAC-2, GuidanceEnhanced Missile, PAC-3, etc.). Thismeets the first requirement as it mirrorsPATRIOT operations in a wartime envi-ronment. The stumbling block is thatcosts would be monumental. With livemissiles and aircraft flights as costly asthey are, simulation is the natural alter-native. Additionally, the continued pro-liferation of threat TBMs since Opera-tion Desert Storm makes the develop-ment of accurate threat representativetargets even more costly and challeng-ing. The one simulation tool that effec-tively satisfies much of the two opera-tional testing requirements for PAC-3 isthe MFMS.

The Bottom LineThe basic costs between a live

PATRIOT missile firing and use of an

MFMS differ immensely. Based on PAC-3 FY01 live-fire test projectedcosts, the funding required to fire a sin-gle PATRIOT missile at White SandsMissile Range, NM, is approximately$2 million plus the cost of the intercep-tor and target. This primarily includesfiring range time and equipment main-tenance. Because of the close proximityof White Sands to Fort Bliss, equipmenttransportation is not costly. However,live missile firings at alternate loca-tions, such as the Kwajalein MissileRange in the South Pacific, require upto three times the funding because ofincreased transportation and rangeoperation costs. Additionally, the fol-lowing factors cause overall costs to riseeven further:

• Research and developmental test-ing of the target missile flight profile,

• Multiple types of target missilesand target aircraft required,

• Extensive aircraft flying timerequired, and

• Significant wear and tear on thesystem as a result of live-missile firingsmandate extra repair parts and mainte-nance personnel.

Based on PAC-3 LUT figures, thecost of one MFMS scenario with 8 to 30simulated target engagements isapproximately $45,000. This includesoperational costs of the equipment andcreation, verification, and validation ofthe scenario for target adequacy. Signif-icant resource conservation is a directresult of factors such as the following:

• Simpler and more cost-effectiveverification and validation of targetflight profile for both missiles and air-craft; threat missile motion modeling iseasier than reproducing a real flyingvehicle.

• Significantly less system wear andtear and maintenance personnelrequirements.

• No physical reloads.• No flying-time requirements.

Lessons LearnedThe success of PAC-3 LUTs rein-

forces the feasibility of simulation inoperational testing. The MFMS test toolallows for required data collection andenables conservation of multipleresources. With test costs always a fac-tor throughout the projected fieldingand evaluation of any system, fundingconsistently weighs heavily on themind of any test officer. The MFMS hasdemonstrated a proven capability tocorrectly simulate the flight of threataerial vehicles that allows the opera-tional tester to collect system perform-ance data. Additionally, the only criticallimitations of the MFMS are the inabil-ity to simulate clutter and to stimulatemore than one fire unit at a time. TheFMS is also unable to adequately simu-late missile performance and lethality,thus necessitating hardware-in-the-loop, a flight test program, and otherperformance analysis tools. Despitethese shortcomings, it is an outstandingtool that has lifted strains on funding,personnel requirements, and man-hours for the PATRIOT system. Thecontributions of the MFMS will allowfor continued usage as a paradigm of a successful operational testingalternative.

CPT ANDREW E. YULIANO is aPAC-3 Experimental Test Officer,Air Defense Artillery Test Direc-torate, U.S. Army Test and Evalua-tion Command. He has a B.S.degree in engineering (computerscience major) from the U. S. Mili-tary Academy.

PATRIOT radar and MFMS configured for operation


First let me introduce myself. On Feb. 1, I assumedduties as Director of the Acquisition Career ManagementOffice, having served previously as the Director of theAcquisition Strategy and Customer Support Division atHeadquarters, Defense Contract Management Agency. Iconsider myself both fortunate and honored to have beenchosen to work with the dedicated professionals in theArmy Acquisition and Technology Workforce (A&TWF), for-merly called the Army Acquisition Workforce.

Why was the name changed? Simply to recognize thebreadth of occupations and skills that are directly involvedin the acquisition of our warfighting and support systems.The new name more accurately reflects the contributionsof all those dedicated professionals who are involved inevery aspect of system development, requirements deter-mination, technological innovation, logistics support, andfinancial and acquisition management.

Acquisition is a multifaceted process that requires theskills of many to ensure the best possible systems aredeveloped and fielded to our Army. The combined talentsand dedication of all participants are necessary if we are toachieve the goals and objectives set forth in the Army tran-sition plan and the objective force concept. A highly com-petent Acquisition and Technology Workforce is absolutelyessential to ensure a successful transformation of theArmy.

At the annual Army Acquisition Career ManagementWorkshop in Austin, TX, in January, we discussed numer-ous ideas to support the continued success of the A&TWF.We need innovative approaches to get where we need to goand, once they are defined, we need to make it happen!This year we will focus on the number of acquisition careermanagement programs and policies we have and the tech-nology support we have in place to carry out these pro-grams and policies.

I want to ensure that we have the right solutions, thebest tools, and responsive, user-friendly systems to sup-port the workforce. At the workshop, we also introducedour new Army Acquisition Career Management Handbook2001. This important resource is available from yourAcquisition Career Manager and can also be accessed onthe Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) home page athttp://dacm.sarda.army.mil/. I encourage you to look forthe article on the annual workshop in the next issue ofArmy AL&T.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the win-ners of the annual Acquisition Career Management Advo-

cate and Acquisition Career Manager of the Year Awards.The winners were announced at the workshop in Austin.The Acquisition Career Management Advocate of the Yearis Glenn Buttrey, who is employed in the Program Execu-tive Office, Aviation at Redstone Arsenal, AL, in the South-ern Region. Christi Steiner received the Acquisition CareerManager of the Year Award. She serves at Rock Island Arse-nal, IL, in the Central Region. Congratulations to these out-standing, dedicated professionals who are helping us makeit happen!

As you read this, the Army Acquisition 2001 Roadshowwill be well underway. The roadshow is a valuable vehicleto obtain the information you need to advance your acqui-sition career goals and to answer your acquisition careermanagement questions. Be sure to find out when the road-show will be in your region! The current schedule is onPage 38 of this magazine and can be found on the AAChome page at http://dacm.sarda.army.mil/news/2001roadshow.htm.

We have many challenges. I need your feedback oncurrent issues and more importantly your ideas for bettersolutions and tools. I look forward to working with you.

COL Frank C. Davis IIIDirectorAcquisition CareerManagement Office

Career Management Handbook,AETE Catalog Available

The Army Acquisition Career Management Handbook2001 and the Acquisition Education, Training & Experience(AETE) 2001 Catalog are now available from your Acquisi-tion Career Manager. Be sure to get your copy of theseimportant resources! The handbook provides basic infor-mation you need to both plan your career and take advan-tage of the unique opportunities available to you as anacquisition professional. The AETE 2001 Catalog serves asan important reference for career development informa-tion and outlines all training, education, and experienceopportunities available for military and civilian personnel.The catalog may also be accessed at http://dacm.sarda.army.mil/careerdevelopment.

Recruiting Briefings SupplementRoadshow Visits

Army Acquisition 2001 briefings began in February inthe National Capital Region. If you are a member of theArmy Acquisition and Technology Workforce (A&TWF), youare invited to attend these “roadshow” briefings scheduledthroughout the country this year. A team of experts fromthe Acquisition Career Management Office is prepared toprovide assistance to workforce members, including helpwith updating Acquisition Career Record Briefs, IndividualDevelopment Plans, and acquisition career goals.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

FROM THE DIRECTORACQUISITION CAREERMANAGEMENT OFFICE


In conjunction with many of the roadshows, acquisi-tion officer recruiting briefings are being held simultane-ously to give officers the chance to learn about the ArmyAcquisition Corps (AAC) and the wide variety of profes-sional and personal opportunities. In particular, captainsinterested in accession into the Army A&TWF are encour-aged to attend. Additionally, supervisors from all branchesand other Army acquisition professionals are encouragedto attend the briefings themselves and to support theattendance of quality military officers. Please watch forannouncements of a recruiting briefing in your area andconsult the AAC home page at http://dacm.sarda.army.mil/news/2001roadshow.htm for the current roadshowschedule.

Prior to attending a recruiting briefing, officers maywant to visit the AAC home page or the Total Army Person-nel Command’s Acquisition Management Branch Web siteat http://www-perscom.army.mil/OPfam51/ambmain.htm for general information. Specific questionsregarding recruiting may be directed to Army AcquisitionRecruiting Officer MAJ Jeannette Jones at (703) 604-7136,DSN 664-7136, or e-mail [email protected].

The roadshow schedule for March and April 2001 is asfollows:

APG, MD March 6-8Fort Detrick, MD March 19Natick, MA April 18-19CECOM, Fort Monmouth, NJ April 24-25ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ April 25-26

31 Graduate From MAM CourseIn December 2000, 31 students graduated from the

Materiel Acquisition Management (MAM) Course, Class01-001, at the Army Logistics Management College, FortLee, VA. The Distinguished Graduate Award was presentedto MAJ Karen D. Tomlin, who is assigned to the ProgramExecutive Office for Command, Control and Communica-tions Systems at Fort Hood, TX.

The 7-week MAM Course provides a broad perspectiveof the materiel acquisition process and includes a discus-sion of national policies and objectives that shape it. Areasof coverage include acquisition concepts and policies,research and development (R&D), test and evaluation,financial and cost management, acquisition logistics, forceintegration, production management, risk assessment,and contract management. Emphasis is on developingmidlevel managers to effectively participate in managingthe acquisition process. New DoD 5000 policies wereincorporated into the materials presented in this classoffering.

R&D, program management, testing, contracting,requirements generation, logistics, and production man-agement are some of the work assignment areas offered toMAM Course graduates.

Organizational Name ChangeThe Center for Professional Development and Training

at The University of Texas at Austin is now called The Cen-ter for Strategic Analysis (CSA). The CSA General OfficerReview Board, chaired by Director of the Army Acqui-sition Corps LTG Paul J. Kern, approved the name changeOct. 13, 2000. According to Dr. Jerry Davis, Center Director,the new name better reflects the center’s mission that hasevolved as a result of contractual taskings with the Acqui-sition Corps, the Army, and DOD to focus on long-termplanning and future Army and Defense strategies.

Using the university’s vast capabilities and those ofArmy War College fellows and Defense advisors, the CSAwill place greater emphasis on strategic studies, long-range planning, transition, military analysis, and innova-tive acquisition processes. Many of the ongoing programs,such as the Army Senior Service College Fellowship Pro-gram, will integrate the new strategic emphasis.

For additional information regarding CSA, contactJerry Davis at (512) 232-4554, [email protected]; or Jim Pollard at (512) 232-4560, e-mail [email protected].

Russo Becomes First DLAMPArmy Graduate

Late last year, David J. Russo, Director of ProgramIntegration in the Program Executive Office for Air andMissile Defense, Huntsville, AL, became the first Depart-ment of the Army employee and the first member of theArmy Acquisition Corps (AAC) to graduate from theDefense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP).DLAMP is the Congressionally mandated premier SeniorExecutive Service development program for senior DODleaders.

Russo received his diploma from then Deputy Secre-tary of Defense Rudy de Leon at a ceremony held in thePentagon. He also received a congratulatory letter fromthen President William J. Clinton.

Russo has more than 26 years of active federal service,is Level III certified in the AAC, and is a lieutenant colonelin the U.S. Army Reserve.

13 Officers Selected ForAdvanced Strategic Art Program

Thirteen officers from various military Services wererecently selected to participate in the Advanced StrategicArt Program (ASAP) at the U.S. Army War College, CarlisleBarracks, PA. Among the selectees was COL GenaroDellarocco, the first Army Acquisition Corps officer chosenfor the program. The ASAP is a rigorous program designedto provide commanders-in-chief with the finest campaignand theater strategists in the world. The ASAP class willgraduate in June 2001.



The ASAP joint-warfighting curriculum preparesstudents for planning positions on unified commandstaffs, on the Joint Staff, and for other demanding planningassignments.

“The program focuses on the nexus between nationalwartime strategy and theater strategy. The course will pro-vide students with a solid intellectual foundation in his-tory, theory, and strategy to develop a rich professionalperspective on theater operations,” said COL MichaelMatheny, ASAP Director.

The ASAP, now in its second year, is a key element ofthe vision for the U.S. Army War College—the center forstudy of strategic landpower issues—educating senior offi-cers of the Armed Forces in leadership and landpower.Each ASAP graduate will be awarded the additional skillidentifier of 6Z–Strategist.

Acquisition CandidateAccession Board Results

The annual U.S. Total Army Personnel Command(PERSCOM) Acquisition Candidate Accession Board(PACAB) convened Nov. 6-9, 2000, to review applications ofofficers for accession into the Army Acquisition Corps(AAC). The PACAB reviewed the records of 234 officersrequesting consideration for the AAC. Below is the list of121 officers from year groups 91-95 recommended foraccession. These officers are now controlled as FunctionalArea 51 (Acquisition Corps) and are managed byPERSCOM’s Acquisition Management Branch.

NAME YEAR BRANCHGROUP

Agustin, Gene Ariel 1994 INAleandre, Rodrigue 1991 SCAncira, Samuel Salanda Jr. 1994 FAAnderson, Joseph Scott 1993 INAtkins, Thomas Joseph 1993 ADBeall, Scott Thomas 1993 AVBorja, Ralph Taitano 1994 FABrennan, William Torrance 1992 ARByrd, Christopher M. 1996 TCCaldwell, Jeffrey Lamont 1994 ARCalhoun, John Clifton 1993 ODCannaday, Robert Lawrence Jr. 1994 SCChambers, Floyd 1991 QMClark, Philip Rhea 1993 FACockerham, John Lee Jr. 1994 ARComasdiaz, Angel Luis 1992 SCConatser, James Loren 1994 INCorreia, Carlos Albert 1994 QMCrank, Terry Gene 1994 ODCrespo, Luis 1993 MICude, Clarence Craig Jr. 1992 AD

Culclasure, Harry Raysor 1991 FADebany, Richard Burke 1992 AVDesilva, Roy Austin 1992 SCDevine, Craig 1991 SCDevine, Michael Joseph III 1992 SCDills, Jack Eric 1992 SFDurant, Jon Riley 1993 FAEdens, Clayton Warren 1991 SFEdwards, John Kennedy 1994 CMEllis, Bruce E. 1992 FAEverton, Michael Scott 1994 AGFisher, Richard Joseph 1994 MIFranklin, Francene Marie 1993 ODGonzalez, Tarolyn Y. 1993 MIGreany, Peter Nikolay 1992 INGreen, Lance Brandon 1992 INGreig, Amanda Pearson 1992 ENHamilton, Ronald Glenn 1994 MIHanner, Frank Edward Jr. 1994 TCHarris, David Thomas 1994 INHatchett, Barry M. 1992 ODHearon, Robert Wesley 1991 FAHetzel, Gregory Theodore 1994 INHofmann, Daniel Michael 1992 ADHolmes, Angela M. 1991 ADHowald, Charles Oliver 1994 ADHowe, Jason Alan 1993 AVHuff, Tom Takashi 1993 AVHunt, Kristen L. 1991 SCHunt, Philip Dwight 1991 FAIreland, Katherine W. 1991 SCJackson, William D. 1992 AVJacobson, Kathleen Jeanette 1993 ENJohnson, Ellsworth Ken 1993 ARJury, Matthew Alan 1993 AVKinn, Daniel David 1994 AVKioutas, Nickolas T. 1994 AVKlopotoski, Dean Tadak 1993 SCKram, Anthony Shane 1994 AVLaChance, Eric M. 1991 ENLackovic, Christopher Joseph 1993 FALaFlamme, Mark Henry 1991 INLaFontaine, David Ricardo 1993 INLaughlin, Kelly D. 1992 FALawless, Richard Jeff 1993 MILindquist, Robert B. 1993 QMLowrey, Douglas Scott 1994 INLozano, Francisco Javier 1993 ARLudwig, Eric Wilber 1992 AVLynch, Ingrid Winslow 1992 AVMartin, James Edward Jr. 1994 ADMazure, Paul David 1993 INMcGowan, Dennis Michael 1993 INMcGuire, Keith Quentin 1991 INMcLeod, Gary Scott 1994 AG



Messer, Kevin K. 1991 ADMills, James Christopher 1993 AVMomon, James Jr. 1994 FAMunster, Matthew G. 1991 ARNakano, Victor M. 1991 ENO’Connor, Ryan Patrick 1994 INOderkirk, Andrew David 1991 INOlmstead, Michael Gregory 1993 AVOquendo, Gregory 1992 ADPaige, Matthew Norman 1991 TCPasion, Angelito Galvez Jr. 1993 ARPearson, Mollie Anne 1993 ENPerkins, Russell Bryan 1991 INPhillips, Jeffery Eugene 1994 MPPhillips, Lewis Herschel 1993 SCQualls, Teddy Donald 1993 INRamos, Robert 1993 ODRansom, Audrey 1991 ODRansom, Wilton 1991 ODRew, Scott A. 1991 ODRiddick, James A. 1991 MIRivera, Jose Manuel 1994 MPRobison, Bryan Scott 1991 INSimpson, Jeffrey Scott 1993 ADSkeen, Ricky Lyn 1994 QMSmith, Granville Ronnell 1994 INSmith, Keith Allen 1991 INSnodgrass, William James Jr. 1993 SCStarks, Teresa Lavall 1994 QMStevison, James M. 1994 ODStewart, Donald George 1993 ODStewart, Laundette Alexandra 1994 QMStone, Jeffery Clark 1993 AGStiner, Mark Thomas 1993 AGTalbot, Mark Edward 1993 INTeran, Dora Elia 1994 ADTschida, Carol M. 1991 AVVanderschaaf, Reid Evan 1992 ENVarnadore, Marcus Ladell 1993 AVVerser, Garrett Jacobey 1994 ODWarner, Timothy A. 1992 QMWatts, Robert Earl 1994 INWebber, David Elliot 1993 AVWilliamson, John Klip III 1991 INWoodard, Guy Melvin III 1992 SF

Defense Acquisition University,Beyond 2000

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) is continu-ally moving forward in transitioning traditional residentDAU courses to distance learning via the Internet. This ini-tiative provides individuals wider access to courses and acost savings to DAU in travel and per diem. Many courseshave already been converted totally to online participationor transitioned to a hybrid configuration (part online and

part resident). Below is a list of courses currently availableonline or hybrid.

ACQ 101 Fundamentals of Systems Acquisition Management (online)BCF 102 Fundamentals of Earned Value Management (online)BCF 211 Acquisition Business Management (hybrid) CON 237 Simplified Acquisition Procedures (online)IRM 101 Basic Information Systems Acquisition (online)LOG 101 Acquisition Logistics Fundamentals (online)PMT 250 Program Management Tools Course (online) PQM 101 Production and Quality Management Fundamentals

(online)PQM 201 Intermediate Production and Quality Management (hybrid)SAM 101 Basic Software Acquisition Management (online)TST 101 Introduction to Acquisition Workforce Test & Evaluation

(online)

DAU will convert other courses in the near future. Forexample, at the time this article was written, ACQ 201 wasdue to be released as a hybrid course in March 2001. Thiswill require applicants to take the first part via the Internetand attend a 1-week resident class. Hybrid courses requirethe individual to first register for the resident class. Onceenrolled, applicants are automatically enrolled in theonline portion and notified by e-mail with the necessaryinstructions.

Another DAU initiative involves re-engineering PMT302. Plans call for splitting the course into two separateparts: PMT 302 and PMT 352. PMT 352 will be the newcourse required to obtain Level III certification in programmanagement (4-5 weeks). PMT 401 will be a new coursedesignated for personnel who have been selected or desireto become a program manager. The prerequisite for PMT401 will be PMT 352.

A source for information on the conversion of DAUcourses is the Army Training Requirements and ResourcesSystem Internet Training Application System (AITAS)located at https://www.atrrs.army.mil/channels/aitas/.The AITAS bulletin board displays current information onDAU courses.

Army personnel must use AITAS to apply for all DAUcourses, whether they are Internet, hybrid, or resident.Army acquisition workforce personnel must also have theDAU course(s) approved on their automated IndividualDevelopment Plan before applying via AITAS.

PERSCOM Notes . . .FY00 Acquisition Corps

Resident Command And StaffCollege Officer Selection Results

The FY00 Command and Staff College (CSC) SelectionBoard results for Academic Year (AY) 01/02 were releasedNov. 29, 2000. More than 70 Army Acquisition Corps (AAC)officers from year groups (YGs) 89 and 90 were selected for



resident attendance, and 55 AAC officers from YGs otherthan 89 and 90 were revalidated.

The CSC Selection Board has now completed the tran-sition from a four-look to a two-look selection process.Under the two-look system, 50 percent of each YG wasselected to attend the resident Command and GeneralStaff College (CGSC). Thirty percent of YG90 was selectedthis year. The remaining 20 percent of YG90, along with 30percent of YG91, will be selected by the FY01 board.

Allocation of seats for AY 01/02 has not been finalized,but the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’s AcquisitionManagement Branch anticipates approximately 60 seatsagainst the total population of 135 selectees, includingdeferments from other YGs. At the time this article waswritten, slating decisions were expected to be finalizedaround mid-February 2001.

Congratulations to the following officers selected forAY 01/02 CGSC resident attendance.

FY00 Colonel PromotionBoard Results

The release of any promotion list is always followed byan exhaustive data analysis to “map” the characteristics ofthe considered and selected populations. This article sum-marizes the analysis of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC)population for the FY00 Colonel Promotion Board.

Overall Acquisition Corps ResultsThe selection board chose 37 AAC officers for colonel

from all zones of consideration. Board members reviewedthe files of 53 AAC officers in the primary zone. From thispopulation, 29 were selected for promotion. The resultingselection rate of 54.7 percent was above the Army Compet-itive Category rate of 52 percent. Seven officers wereselected above the zone, a selection rate of 15.9 percent.The above-the-zone Army Competitive Category selectionrate was 9.5 percent. Additionally, one officer was selectedbelow the zone, a selection rate of 1.3 percent. The below-the-zone Army Competitive Category selection rate was3.8 percent.

Primary Zone PromotionsOf the 29 officers selected in the primary zone, 27 (93

percent) were either current or previous centrally selectedproduct managers (PMs) or acquisition commanders(ACs). Only 5 of the 37 selectees (14 percent) had not beenpreviously selected for Senior Service College resident orcorresponding studies prior to the FY00 Colonel Promo-tion Board. These five officers were in the primary zone forpromotion.

Twelve officers had DA 67-8 command Officer Evalua-tion Reports (OERs) in their file. Eleven of these officershad one DA 67-8 report; one officer had two DA 67-8reports. The split between above-center-of-mass (ACOM)reports and center-of-mass (COM)/center-of-mass-plus(COM+) reports was about 50 percent. The 12 officers whohad DA 67-8 reports in their files also had DA 67-9 com-mand reports (average of three reports) in their files aswell. The average number of DA 67-9 command reports forthe officers selected was two. The officers selected hadACOM and COM+ reports.

Five of the officers previously served as assistant pro-gram managers (APMs), three officers previously served asdeputy product managers (DPMs), and three officers pre-viously served as deputy directors. Eighteen of the officers(62 percent) had not previously served in any of thesepositions.

Almost 70 percent of the officers selected have servedtours in the Military District of Washington (MDW). Thenext two most common previous tour locations wereAlabama (41 percent) (Fort Rucker, Redstone Arsenal, andHuntsville) and New Jersey (28 percent) (Fort Monmouthand Picatinny Arsenal).

Nearly 66 percent of the officers selected have servedin the Army Materiel Command (AMC). The next three


Adomatis, Dennis PaulAnderson, Larry ScottBailey, William JamesBroek, Harold Dale Jr.Brown, Sharon LavonneBuhl, Harold Allen Jr.Bush, Michael JohnCauley, Timothy MarkColeman, Willie DeronConway, John PatrickCrick, Michael DeanDaniels, Mark RichardDeakins, Thomas AndrewDease, Charles PatrickDunlap, Ernest Lee Jr.Dupont, Joseph PeterFarmer, Michael PatrickFischer, William DennisFranks, Gregory CharlesGaare, DennisGlenn, Eric SeanGraham, Gordon LeeGrauel, David WilliamGreen, Gregory SeanGresham, Shawn PatrickGutierrez, Moises MotaHelm, Eric GordonHornstein, Richard JohnHossack, Timothy ClarkHoward, Paul DekleIngram, John MatthewJackson, Hope MichaelaJamison, Vernon LouisJernigan, Lafonda FayeJones, Michel GeraldKaczmarski, David MatthewKimbrough, Robert ShaneKiser, Douglas Jerome

Klinkhammer, Ian BradleyKros, Todd ChristopherLind, Susan McMurdyLockard, William MacLeanLong, Robert DerekLozis, Peter Paul IIILucas, Alex Pendleton IIIMarr, Charles ArthurMatlock, John Wayne Jr.McNulty, James Francis Jr.Milton, Stephen ThomasMortlock, Robert FredMurphy, Brian PatrickMurray, RandyPardew, Paul HamiltonPeel, Kevin SayrePerry, Christopher DouglasPickering, Raymond D.Robinson, Willie EarlRoss, James PatrickSanchez, Anthony JohnShelton, Robert WayneSosinski, Margaret AnneStein, Charles MichaelStroyan, Richard JayThomas, Brent AllenThompson, Brian LeeTice, Michael JayTodd, Thomas Hiram IIIVannoy, John MarshallVinson, Timothy JamesWalls, Charles Sebastian IVWeaver, Mickey EugeneWebb, Erik ChristopherWilson, Terry Mac Jr.Wolons, David ScottWoods, Jeffrey KurtZybura, Martin Adam


most common commands where officers served were theArmy Acquisition Executive Support Agency (AAESA) (59percent), the Defense Contract Management Agency/Defense Contract Management Command (24 percent),and the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) (21 percent).

Above And Below The Zone PromotionsAll officers selected above and below the zone were

current or former PMs or ACs. Almost 88 percent of theofficers selected have served in AMC. The next three mostcommon commands were AAESA; the Office of the Assis-tant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics andTechnology; and TRADOC.

TrendsBased on these statistics, officers competitive for pro-

motion to colonel generally are serving or have served asuccessful tour as a PM or AC and have received at leastone ACOM OER under the new DA 67-9 form—with strongsupporting narratives from senior raters. Overall file qual-ity was ACOM or COM (i.e., performed well in any posi-tions they have held). Other than tours as a PM or AC,there does not appear to be a pattern of duty positions orlocations that indicates selection.

Who Was Not Promoted?Of the 24 officers in the primary zone not selected for

promotion to colonel, 5 were either current or former PMsor ACs. Nineteen officers not selected for promotion hadnot served as a lieutenant colonel level PM or AC.

Six of the officers had served tours as APMs, and twohad served as DPMs. The remaining officers had notserved in either position.

Between 55 and 60 percent of the officers had served atour in the MDW. The next most common previous tourlocation was Alabama (Fort Rucker, Redstone Arsenal, andHuntsville). The three most common commands whereofficers served were AMC, TRADOC, and AAESA.

TrendsOfficers with straight COM OERs are not competitive

for promotion to colonel. Officers with COM+ and ACOMfiles are competitive if they have performed well (COM+ orbetter) as a lieutenant colonel PM or AC. Late selection forPM or AC can result in nonselection if the officer does nothave any, or a significantly less than average number of,PM or AC reports in their board file.

Duty positions (with the exception of PM or AC), dutylocations, and specific commands do not appear to influ-ence selection.

General ObservationsThe file quality of officers selected for promotion con-

tinues to be strong. Because of the tough competition, notall successful PMs/ACs will get promoted. Early selectionfor lieutenant colonel PM or AC can improve the chancesof selection simply because of the additional commandevaluations available for the board’s review (assuming theevaluations support promotion). COM evaluations shouldhave substantive narrative comments provided by seniorraters that focus on an officer’s potential.

SummaryCompetition for promotion to colonel remains very

high. Strongly documented duty performance is the key toselection. Additionally, it is important for officers in allzones to personally review their Officer Record Brief andmicrofiche to ensure the information is accurate and com-plete. Photos that are more than 2 years old, are in full-length format, are not current (e.g., awards), or that arenot particularly good should be replaced. The bottom line:promotion to colonel is very tough, and overall file qualityin addition to ACOM or COM+ performance while in lieu-tenant colonel PM/Command is crucial.

FY00 AAC Colonel SelecteesThe following is a list of acquisition officers selected

for colonel by the FY00 Colonel Promotion Board:


Beatty, William Darryl IIIBianca, Damian PatrickBianco, Stephen GerardBoshears, Steven RossBowman, MichaelBuck, Stephen DuaneBurke, John DennisConley, Joe EdwardCrosby, William TimothyCox, Steven JohnDavis, Lauren Steve Jr.Defatta, Richard PhilipDietrick, Kevin MichaelErnst, Adolph Henry IIIFox, Steven GrantGavora, William MartinGroller, Robert LouisGrotke, Mark LyndonHeine, Kurt Matthew

Hrdy, Russell JamesJanker, Peter StanlyKallam, Charles ThomasLeyva, Gabriel FigueroaMancuso, August Rodney IIIMartin, Edwin HarryMcCoy, Curtis LynnMcClellan, Harry Watson Jr.Mills, Ainsworth BlissNoonan, Kevin ShaunPadgett, Michael GaryPallotta, Ralph GeorgePecoraro, Joseph EdmondPrice, Nancy Lee SherkRasmussen, Valerie AnnSchmidt, Rodney Hunter

ChapmanSmith, MichaelSledge, Nathaniel Hawthorne Jr.


Force Protection EquipmentDemonstration III

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acqui-sition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with theJoint Staff, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, theNational Institute of Justice, and the Department of Energy,is hosting the Force Protection Equipment DemonstrationIII (FPED III), May 8-10, 2001, at Quantico Marine Base, VA.

The U.S. Army Product Manager, Physical SecurityEquipment, Fort Belvoir, VA, is coordinating the demon-stration of state-of-the-art commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)components and systems with DOD and other federalagencies, state and local law enforcement personnel, cor-rections agency decisionmakers, and others responsible forforce protection. The May 1999 FPED II attracted more

than 350 U.S. and foreign vendors with more than 1,000items of anti-terrorism and force protection COTS equip-ment demonstrated.

FPED III will showcase blast protective barrier systemsand windows, personal protective equipment, explosiveordnance disposal equipment, unattended ground sensors,ballistics mitigation equipment, night vision devices, first-responder equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles, andwaterside security equipment.

Major command and installation-level commandersand their representatives are encouraged to attend and seefirsthand the latest technological innovations from indus-try. FPED III is not open to the general public and requirespreregistration. Persons desiring to attend may registeronline at http://www.monmouth.army.mil/smc/pmpse/fped.

CONFERENCES


The Social Life of InformationBy John Seely Brown and Paul DuguidHarvard Business School Press, 2000.

Reviewed by LTC Kenneth H. Rose (USA, Ret.), a Manage-ment Consultant in Hampton, VA, and former member of theArmy Acquisition Corps (AAC).

Editor’s Note: This book was chosen for review from the AACreading list that appeared in the September-October 2000 issueof Army AL&T. The list was provided by LTG Paul J. Kern, Mili-tary Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisi-tion, Logistics and Technology and Director of the AAC.

Every now and then, a book comes along that can changethe way you see the world and how you view the future. TheSocial Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguidis a current example. The authors are neither naysayers norevangelists, but rather self-described technology enthusiastswho seek to temper what could be overly optimistic predic-tions of technology-based change with consideration of non-technical forces that will also influence the application of tech-nology to human needs.

The book comprises eight essays that address the socialcontext of information from different perspectives. The essaysstand alone and may be read independently or as a whole.

The authors begin with a caution about the infocentricview of technology’s potential effects that often defines theworld in terms of information. They describe “6-D vision” as aone-dimensional view that predicts the applica-tion of infor-mation technology will break down society into its funda-mental components of individuals and information. This willcause the six “Ds” of disaggregation, demassification, decen-tralization, denationalization, despacialization, anddisintermediation.

This view, rather than being one of greater clarity, is reallyone of social and moral blindness. It isolates information fromthe informational aspects of life and disregards everything else.It tends to take the most rapid point of change and extrapolateit grandly into the future without regard for peripheral forcesthat are coming together. Nuclear power is a good example.The optimistic predictions of the 1950s did not consider therise of environmentalism or a few thorny technical problems.

Brown and Duguid tackle electronic autonomous agents,popularly known as “bots,” that now roam or otherwise operatein just about every known computer domain. Optimismabounds about the abilities and roles of these bots in every-thing from simple ordering transactions to complex negotia-tions. Bots are assumed to learn as they go, but the authorsadvise that even if this were really possible, the bots would stilllack the rich stimuli from which humans acquire judgment.Bots “live a wretchedly impoverished social existence.” Simplyput, human and digital domains are distinct; human planning,coordinating, decisionmaking, and negotiating are significantlydifferent from automated information searches or followingdigital footsteps.

Information technology is supposed to be the key that willunlock the office gates and allow, even push, more people towork in their homes. Yet, office occupancy rates continue to

rise. And home workers drift back to office environments,sometimes rather quickly. Offices provide not only essentialsocial interactions, but also powerful learning environmentsthat exploit incidental learning, not just that which is formallystructured and delivered. Workers also soon discover thatbecause a cooperative network is absent in the home, simpletasks become time-consuming burdens that spill into privateand family life. A better approach may be to determine howtechnology can reinforce access to social networks and therebyenable people to work alone. But the real contribution of tech-nology may not be to allow people to work separately, but tosupport people who work together and make their interactionsmore efficient and productive.

The authors contrast the role of processes, the usual targetsof automation and re-engineering, with informal, improvisa-tional practices that actually keep an organization going. Theysuggest that informal collaboration and narration are the keysto problem solving—not a technical road map that seeksimpossibly to define all conditions and responses, but a rich,unstructured network that addresses novel situations. It is amatter of routine, standard processes and unpredictable, fuzzypractice. One should not be ignored in favor of the other;rather, the two should be combined to balance the formal andinformal, the structured and spontaneous.

Learning and knowledge are gaining importance as differ-entiators of organization performance as technology duplica-tion time decreases. According to Brown and Duguid, learningand knowledge in organizations require cultivation of knowl-edgeable works, and a tight information focus makes that diffi-cult. Focusing on information, explicitly stated in documentsand databases, ignores the central role of tacit knowledge thatresides only inside workers’ heads. The development, reten-tion, and transfer of knowledge depend on the interactions ofpeople in “communities of practice,” not just adherence to pre-scribed processes.

The authors counter predictions of massive decentraliza-tion via the World Wide Web with descriptions of “networks ofpractice” and “clustered ecologies” that indicate regional tech-nology clusters are not only alive and well, but also essential increating a proximal critical mass of needs and skills. They alsosuggest that the predicted demise of the organization in favorof self-organizing entrepreneurs fails to recognize that formalorganizations can also be extraordinarily productive. The twoapproaches are complementary and probably are here to stayas partners, not competitors.

Even the ubiquitous paper document, always on the soon-to-disappear list, gets a boost for longevity because it is a usefulmedium in a social context, not just a carrier of information.The practicalities of its predicted decline? A digitized libraryproject in the United Kingdom (U.K.) is approaching 10,000documents on file after 30 years of work; meanwhile, during1999, 100,000 new documents appeared in print in the U.K.alone.

In their final essay, the authors take on education, per-haps a topic of special interest for the U.S. Army with its effortsin distance learning. They describe enculturization—inter-acting with communities of practice and concepts—and peersupport as requirements for learning. Neither is met by atechnology-driven information delivery approach. Technology

BOOKS


can overcome geographic distance, but social distance is aharder problem. And, currently, technology is focused on inter-actions across time, not space. The authors suggest a recon-figuration of educational constituencies and components that will adapt technical opportunities to basic goals andconstraints.

Brown and Duguid close with a recapitulation of commonthreads that interweave throughout the book: resources andconstraints, tunnel-vision focus on information, and institu-tional evolution.

Information is an increasingly important part of what peo-ple do. It is a building block. As such, it has little value untilpeople extract raw material, shape it to fit some need, and thenstack it together in an organized way to fit an intended pur-pose. To do that, The Social Life of Information offers a cogentdiscussion of principal issues that clarifies the roles of cooper-ating forces. It offers a holistic foundation for a practical under-standing of information technology potential and a more com-plete design for the future.

This book is available online from Harvard Business SchoolPress at http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu.

BOOKS

NEWS BRIEFS

Army Enterprise AgreementExpanded

The Army and the Parametric Technology Corp. (PTC)recently concluded negotiations to expand the upgradeprovision of the Army Enterprise Agreement for the Pro/Esuite of engineering design automation software, DAAB07-99-A-H009, to include PTC’s Flexible Engineering Package.This will enable Army Pro/E users to purchase anotherproductivity-enhancing software tool at substantial dis-counts over its General Service Administration (GSA) sched-ule costs.

The Army Enterprise Agreement was negotiated in Sep-tember 1999 by the Product Manager, Small Computer Pro-gram (PM, SCP), Fort Monmouth, NJ, in response to anArmy Materiel Command (AMC) directive. This directiveresulted from an initiative to provide Army activities with acontract vehicle to acquire state-of-the-art software tools toemploy simulation-based acquisition techniques to acceler-ate development and reduce the cost of new Army systemsfor the 21st century.

The Pro/E software is a premier computer-aideddesign/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) pack-age used extensively by engineering personnel from thegovernment, industry, and academia. Army users of theCAD/CAM package include personnel from AMC laborato-ries and research, development, and engineering centers;Army depots and ammunition activities; Army Corps ofEngineers’ laboratories; Army Test and Evaluation Com-mand activities; the National Ground Intelligence Center;and the Army Transportation and Engineering Agency.

Key provisions of the Army Enterprise Agreement forthe Pro/E include the discounted purchase (5-15 percent offthe GSA price) of an Army Pro/E Enterprise configuration,“a la carte” purchases of the components of the Enterpriseconfiguration as well as other selected Pro/E modules/extensions, and upgraded software. The Army Pro/E Enter-prise configuration consists of the Pro/E Foundation withthe Advanced Assembly, Advanced Surface, and the DesignManagement (now called Pro/INTRALINK Workgroup Man-ager) extensions. The upgrade provision allows Army

Pro/E owners to upgrade their legacy licenses to the ArmyEnterprise Configuration for a nominal cost of $1,350 each.

The negotiated expanded provision allows for theupgrade of all Army-owned Pro/E license packages to PTC’snewly released Flexible Engineering Package. In addition tothe components of the above Army Enterprise configura-tion, this package includes PTC’s Behavioral Modeling,Mechanical Design, and ModelCHECK extensions. The costof this complete package for Army Pro/E owners is $2,000.However, those who have already upgraded their licenses to the Army Enterprise configuration may obtain thisexpanded package for $650.

The above provisions of the Enterprise Agreement aregood through Dec. 17, 2002. All provisions are open for useby authorized Army support contractors as long as the soft-ware in question is installed, maintained, and used at fed-eral facilities to support Army programs.

PTC subject matter experts are planning a series ofroadshows at key Army installations to demonstrate thecapabilities of the Flexible Engineering Package.

The entire Army Enterprise Agreement for the Pro/E,including complete ordering instructions, is available onPM, SCP’s Web site at http://pmscp.monmouth.army.mil/contracts/p-eds/p-eds.htm.

For further information or to schedule a PTC roadshowat your site, contact Emmanuel Nidhiry, (703) 617-5809, e-mail [email protected].

Yuma Dedicates NewMine-Detection Range

On Oct. 25, 2000, a specially designed state-of-the-artmine-detection range was dedicated at the U.S. Army YumaProving Ground. The new Department of Defense DesertCountermine Testing and Training Range will enable Armytest professionals to fully examine the very newest mine-detection hardware in a realistic desert environment, officialssaid.

Located on the Kofa Firing Range, the new multimilliondollar facility covers 455 acres and is surrounded by a


4-mile-long perimeter chain-link fence. Closed-circuit televi-sion cameras provide 24-hour surveillance. The new range isa result of a cooperative partnership between the ArmyMines, Countermine and Demolitions Project Office andYuma Proving Ground. A similar facility, featuring differentsoils, vegetation, and a more moderate climate is under con-struction at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

The primary mission of the new range is to test sensorsthat detect buried mines. While “real” buried landmines willbe used at the range, they will be neutralized in advance byremoving explosives from the fuse mechanisms.

The new range incorporates a number of fixed assets.These include a 3,600-square-foot operations center, miles offiber-optic cable to connect activities on the range with theproving ground network, covered vehicle and system storageareas, 35 miles of access roads, and nine improved vehiclelanes. All access to the lanes will be strictly controlled to pre-vent accidental traveling on a mined test lane.

The mine-detection sensors developed and tested at theproving ground will have a direct application to military tac-tical and humanitarian mine-clearing efforts throughout theworld.

Test Pilots Reap BenefitsOf Multi-Service Partnership

Training pilots to test military aircraft and their systemsis no easy task. Teaching students from different back-grounds and Services adds to the challenge but also yieldsmore rewards for all involved.

The U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (TPS) in PatuxentRiver, MD, is the official training facility not only for sailorsand Marines, but for Army soldiers as well. Here, militarypersonnel from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces andsome foreign military services come together for onepurpose—to learn to be test pilots.

The test pilot school at “Pax River” began 55 years ago with primarily a fixed-wing program. Soon after, theschool’s leaders realized the need for a rotary-wing curricu-lum, which was officially established in 1961. The Army hasbeen an integral part of the rotary-wing curriculum at TPSsince its beginning.

The Air Force has the only other test pilot school in thecountry, located at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, but it doesnot have a rotary-wing curriculum. Because the Army doesnot have its own school, all Army test pilots go through TPSat Pax River. “We are the Army’s test pilot school,” says CDRBob Stoney, TPS Commanding Officer.

In 1965, a Memorandum Of Understanding was signed by the Army and Navy officially establishing thepartnership.

Army aircraft have been flown at TPS since 1964.Between 1965 and 1981, soldiers worked alongside sailorsto maintain the school’s aircraft. When the school’s mainte-nance operation was turned over to DynCorp, the Army

continued to support its aircraft by providing money,instead of people, for maintenance.

An Army instructor joined the TPS staff in 1969. Soonafter, another Army instructor position was added. MAJMike Switzer has been assigned to TPS as the Senior ArmyInstructor for more than a year.

According to Switzer, “The strong common goal of safedevelopmental flight testing through detailed and compre-hensive curriculum found here at TPS, which is second tono other test pilot school, has benefited both the Army andNavy over these 35-plus years. The Army’s involvement andcommitment with aircraft and instructors brings a differentaspect to the school as well as assets. The Navy aircraft andinstructors provide the Army with a look at mission areasthat the Army has only recently become involved with likeflying off decks of various Navy aircraft carriers.”

TPS graduates two classes every year. Each class lasts 11months and usually has 36 students. Nine Army studentsare admitted to TPS every year—four in one class and fivein the other.

The Air Force and the Navy also exchange students foreach class. An Air Force student attends TPS at Pax Riverwhile a Navy student studies at Edwards AFB. Students fromforeign military services, like the Italian navy and the Cana-dian air force, also attend TPS.

“There are huge benefits to this arrangement. It’s a clas-sic win-win situation for everyone,” Stoney says. ElevenArmy aircraft are assigned to TPS with three UH-60A BLACKHAWKS serving as the core of the school’s helicopter cur-riculum. The Army also provides four OH-58C Kiowa heli-copters and four C-12C turboprop airplanes. Sometimesother Army aircraft like a CH-47 Chinook, an AH-64A, or anOH-58D are also used for specific evaluations and training.

The two Army instructors on the TPS staff have slightlydifferent testing backgrounds than their Navy counterpartsand can offer the students a different perspective on testingissues.

“We produce graduates for the Army and the benefit tothe Navy is having a wider variety of aircraft and staff at theschool. Diversity is a good thing and the Army instructorsbring diversity to the program,” Stoney says.

From this partnership, the Army gets qualified gradu-ates who are able to perform experimental flight tests. TheArmy requires its test pilots to be dually qualified. WhenArmy test pilots graduate from TPS, they specialize in heli-copter testing and are fixed-wing, test-pilot rated.

According to Stoney, “learning by osmosis is an unwrit-ten part of the school’s curriculum. Students are exposed toa lot of different backgrounds from instructors as well astheir fellow students. Fundamentally, it’s a good two-waystreet for everyone,” he adds.

For more information, call Renee Hatcher in the PublicAffairs Department at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River,MD, at (301) 342-7710.

NEWS BRIEFS


Army Organization Wins Dual-UseScience And Technology (DUS&T)

Achievement Award For 2000Dr. Delores Etter, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Science and Technology, presented the first annual DUS&TAchievement Award on Nov. 8, 2000, at the Commercial Tech-nology for the Warfighter Conference in Tysons Corner, VA.The DUS&T Achievement Award was established to recognizesuccessful dual-use projects and to honor DOD employeesresponsible for their initiation and execution.

This year’s award (for FY00 accomplishments) was pre-sented to Project Manager Brad McNett and Project Engineerand Team Leader Mark A. Mushenski, both from the U.S.Army’s Tank-automotive and Armaments Command’s(TACOM’s) National Automotive Center (NAC), for work doneon the DUS&T project, Electronically Controlled Active Brak-ing System for Medium Duty Vehicles. McNett and Mushen-ski both received trophies and will share a $5,000 cash award.The TACOM project was selected from 12 projects that hadbeen submitted by the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. Navyand Air Force runners-up also received trophies and cashawards of $2,500.

The DUS&T Program was established by the NationalDefense Authorization Act of FY 1998, which made dual-usetechnology development an acceptable alternative to tradi-tional development processes used by military departments.Through the DUS&T Program, a DOD agency partners withindustry to develop state-of-the-art technologies that areboth commercially viable and militarily relevant. Since itscreation, the DUS&T Program has funded more than 300projects totaling more than $900 million, with industry fund-ing more than half of the development costs.

Etter told the conference’s 250 attendees, “Our mission isto be sure that we are developing affordable and superiortechnology for the warfighter.” She went on to say that afford-ability is essential to provide “the superior technology neededby our warfighters.”

Contributions by the winner andrunners-up are described below.

Winner—Electronically ControlledActive Braking System for Medium DutyVehicles—TACOM/NAC and ContinentalTeves. The Electronically Controlled ActiveBraking System for Medium Duty Vehiclesproject was designed to advance the state-of-the-art technology for the AntilockBraking System (ABS) and the low-speedTraction Control System (TCS). The proj-ect also demonstrates the feasibility ofintegrating these technologies on a varietyof commercial vehicles including the HighMobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle(HMMWV). Specific tasks included deter-mining size and characteristics of the

HMMWV brake system platforms; developing requirementsfor the booster, master cylinder, and hydraulic control unit;designing and building the components; and integrating anddemonstrating the performance of the systems in winter andsummer test conditions. The braking system will provide thesoldier with greater stopping capability while maintainingcontrol of a vehicle, something already available in the pri-vate sector.

AM General, the current manufacturer of the HMMWVand commercial Hummer, notified Continental Teves (NAC’sindustry partner) that it was selected to adapt ABS/TCS to thenext generation A4 HMMWV version and the commercialHummer. With the HMMWV’s needs designed into the com-mercial product, the Army benefits directly by having theirABS units manufactured along with the commercial compo-nents. Because the military ABS units will be using commoncommercial parts and both ABS systems can be manufac-tured together on the same production lines, the resultingsavings will be passed along to the Army. Between 3,000 and4,000 HMMWV A4s will be produced each year. Without acommercial base to fall back on (estimated to be more than50,000 units per year starting in mid-2002), this will be acostly effort. The estimated cost for the ABS/TCS is less than$500 to $700 per vehicle with a commercial base and $2,500per vehicle without a commercial base, a savings of $1,800per vehicle.

Continental Teves plans to manufacture MK50 ABS unitsworldwide as well as provide product support. This benefitsthe Army by providing a readily available ABS system, therebyeasing the logistics burden.

Runner-Up—Renewal of Legacy Software Systems—Charles D. Caposell, Electronics Engineer, Naval Air SystemsCommand; and CPU Technology. This Navy project has thepotential of saving the Navy $1 billion in operations and sup-port costs over the next decade. The project has resulted in afamily of configurable processor frameworks called CFramethat will allow aging and obsolete hardware to be updatedwithout costly software rewrites and validation. Initial appli-

cations of the technologyinvolve modernizing a radarprocessing system and anairborne radar computer forthe F-16. The company iscurrently seeking opportuni-ties in the commercial aero-space community.

Runner-Up—Future AirNavigation and TrafficAvoidance ThroughIntegrated Communi-cations Navigation & Sur-veillance—Joel Arnold, Proj-ect Engineer, Air ForceResearch Lab; and RockwellCollins. This Air Force project has resulted in

AWARDS

DUS&T Award recipients (left to right) are JoelArnold (USAF), Charles Caposell (Navy), BradMcNett (Army), and Mark Mushenski (Army).


development and demonstration of a cost-effective solutionfor upgrading tactical fighters and general aviation (privateaircraft and business jets) to comply with FAA requirementsthat all aircraft be capable of reporting their Global Position-ing System position, altitude, heading, and airspeed. Theproduct is transitioning to both the military and commercialsectors.

MANPRINT In The Joint LW155Howitzer Program

Each year, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Per-sonnel sponsors a Manpower and Personnel Integration(MANPRINT) Symposium hosted by the Director forPersonnel Technologies. Last year’s event was held in CrystalCity, VA, Sept. 27-28. Based on feedback from the more than170 attendees, it was a huge success. The theme was“MANPRINT in Support of the Army’s Transformation Cam-paign Plan,” and the keynote speaker was GEN John M.Keane, Army Vice Chief of Staff.

Keane addressed some of the major issues facing today’sArmy. He highlighted the need for MANPRINT and its role inthe acquisition and modernization process, and stressed thatthe Army is committed to MANPRINT because “we have toget it right for our soldiers.” Following presentations by othersenior Army officials, LTG Timothy J. Maude, then ArmyDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, presented the annual1999 MANPRINT Awards.

It is notable that one of the awards recognized the suc-cess of a joint program. A MANPRINT Practitioner of theYear Award was presented to the Lightweight 155mm(LW155) Howitzer MANPRINT Team consisting of TimothyKogler, Diane Mitchell, Richard Kozycki, Charnetta Baugham,and Jim Faughn, all from the Army Research Laboratory’sHuman Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL-HRED);and Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeants Anthony Nicholas andJeffrey Altman.

The LW155 Howitzer MANPRINT Team represents one ofthe first truly joint teams to establish and effectively integratea strong MANPRINT program. The LW155 HowitzerMANPRINT Program is managed by Marine Corps COL SteveWard and executed by a Joint Army-Marine Corps staff aspart of the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Com-bat and Support Systems. The LW155 prime contractor isBAE SYSTEMS from the United Kingdom, which recentlyselected its U.S. partners to conduct more than 70 percent ofLW155 production in the United States.

The program is currently in the engineering and manu-facturing development (EMD) phase, having undergone aMilestone I/II review in FY96. The XM777 (the developmen-tal version of the LW155) will replace the M198 155mmHowitzer. It will meet or exceed all capabilities of the currentM198 Howitzer while reducing the system weight from

16,000 to 9,000 pounds. The LW155 Program entered formalacquisition status through a combined Milestone I/II review,bypassing the traditional program-definition and risk-reduction phases. The LW155 team had to work aggressivelyto complete the human factors engineering (HFE) evaluationand address human factors concerns early in the EMD phaseof the program.

A total of 64 HFE concerns were identified. Currently 60of these concerns have been resolved, and solutions to theremaining 4 are being sought. The ARL-HRED team mem-bers and the USMC gunnery sergeants used modeling toolsincluding TRANSCOM-JACK and the Improved PerformanceResearch Integration Tool (IMPRINT) to assess the XM777’sperformance and usability during EMD before weapons wereconstructed. Together, these modeling efforts represented anaggressive approach to reducing program risk by using state-of-the-art human factors modeling tools.

MANPRINT has been a critical element in the program’ssuccess to date. The application of MANPRINT tools andtechniques to assess the howitzer’s design and performanceearly in the EMD phase is estimated to have saved more than$6 million in design and development costs.

Defense Secretary HonorsArmy Science Board

During a special Pentagon ceremony on Jan. 8, 2001,then Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen paid tribute tothe Army Science Board (ASB) and its Chairman MichaelBayer for significant contributions to the future Army andjoint ground forces. Bayer was personally presented withthe Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award. The roleof the ASB is to provide independent outside advice onfuture technological trends and other warfighting issues.Members include distinguished individuals from industry,academia, and non-DOD government agencies.

Secretary Cohen termed the ASB an exceptional groupof individuals who have helped educate the Army and DODwhile “keeping us considerably ahead of catastrophe as werace into this century.” Cohen further credited the boardwith tackling a daunting array of topics critical to our futuredefense and with transforming a Cold War Army into alighter, more lethal, and better-equipped force.

Bayer was individually cited for exceptional distin-guished public service as ASB Chairman and for significantcontributions to the transformation of DOD’s joint groundforces and joint capabilities. Said Cohen: “Mr. Bayer consis-tently distinguished himself by providing inspirational lead-ership and visionary guidance to the Department ofDefense through leading numerous study efforts directlyimpacting on the success of the Department’s transforma-tion efforts.”

AWARDS


Defense ManufacturingTechnology Awards Presented

IntroductionThe second annual Defense Manufacturing Technology

Achievement Awards were presented late last year at theDefense Manufacturing Conference in Tampa Bay, FL. Twoawards were presented at the conference. The Army had thedistinction of participating in both of the award-winning proj-ects. One award honored an Army/university/industry projecton Advanced Optics Manufacturing. The other award recog-nized a tri-Services/industry project on Flexible Manufactureof Microwave Vacuum Devices. The awards are sponsored bythe Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Scienceand Technology and the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technol-ogy Panel.

These awards recognize those individuals most responsi-ble for outstanding technical accomplishments in achievingthe vision of the DOD Manufacturing Technology Program(MANTECH). That vision calls for a responsive world-classmanufacturing capability to affordably meet the warfighters’needs throughout the Defense system life cycle.

Listed by project category, recipients of the award, theirduty stations, and a description of their achievements are asfollows:

Advanced Optics ManufacturingTeam members in this category are Stanley P. Kopacz, U.S.

Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command’s Arma-ment Research, Development and Engineering Center(TACOM-ARDEC); Robert T. Volz, U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC;Walter N. Roy, U.S. Army Research Laboratory; Harvey M. Polli-cove, Director, Center for Optics Manufacturing, University ofRochester; Dr. Stephen D. Jacobs, Center for Optics Manufac-turing, University of Rochester; Donald Golini, President, QEDTechnologies, LTD; and William I. Kordonski, QED Technolo-gies, LTD.

Achievements: Optics are vital to DOD for precision guid-ance, reconnaissance, situational awareness, fire control, andautonomous weapons operation. Traditional optical shapesand materials are inadequate for next-generation systems suchas the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Comanche, andadvanced missiles and night-vision devices. The range, accu-racy, and imaging resolution of optical systems are directlyrelated to surface accuracy and finish. This team is creditedwith developing a revolutionary technology called magnetor-heological finishing (MRF), which takes the mystery out of pre-cision finishing. Optical surfaces are polished in a computer-controlled MRF slurry. This process provides extreme accuracyand stability that makes possible the fabrication and polishingof exceptionally precise spherical, aspheric, and nontraditionalfreeform optical shapes.

This technology will have a positive effect on every militarysystem that requires the fabrication of nonspherical optics. Acost avoidance of more than $100 million is forecast for appli-cations to include Stinger, Comanche, the Daylight TargetingSystem, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, the JointStandoff Weapon, and the Objective Crew Served Weapon.

As a result of this project, conducted through the ArmyMANTECH Program, the Q22 MRF machine is commercially

available and has received industry-wide acclaim. MRF is nowa fully accepted, standard manufacturing process and is receiv-ing widespread industrial-base application. In its first year ofcommercial availability, MRF won the optical industry’s twomost prestigious awards for technology innovation andachievement: the Photonics’ Circle of Excellence Award and theLaser Focus World Commercial Technology AchievementAward.

Flexible Manufacture Of Microwave Vacuum DevicesTeam members in this category are John Reinhardt, U.S.

Army Aviation and Missile Command’s Aviation and MissileResearch, Development and Engineering Center; Walter F.Spaulding, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory; John J. Olewnik,Office of Naval Research; Phillip H. Davis, American Competi-tiveness Institute (ACI); Peter Kolda, Communications & PowerIndustry (CPI), Palo Alto, CA; Bartley M. Gannon, NorthropGrumman; and Joel A. Christeson, Teledyne ElectronicsTechnologies.

Achievements: Traveling wave tubes (TWTs) are criticalcomponents for ground-based radars and missile seekers suchas the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) guided missile.This team is credited with improving the manufacturingprocesses and reducing the cost of producing the millimeter-wave class of devices. The projected cost avoidance to PAC-3alone is expected to be more than $19 million. The FlexibleManufacture of Microwave Vacuum Devices project is a tri-Service/industry effort that included $1.6 million from theArmy MANTECH Program.

Three companies—CPI, Northrop Grumman, and Tele-dyne—led by ACI, a nonprofit organization, shared their find-ings on manufacturing improvements for devices used in criti-cal segments of the power/frequency spectrum. CPI focused onthe higher frequency (millimeter wave) used in the PAC-3TWTs, developing a manufacturing capability for cost-effectivecoupled cavity devices. Northrop Grumman focused on thedevelopment of manufacturing improvements for lower fre-quency devices using new automation to greatly reduce costand increase yield. Teledyne focused on the manufacturingprocess for the midfrequency (Ka and Ku Band), specifically themanufacture and test of the critical helix element, leading tosignificantly improved yield and reduced cost.

ConclusionThe MANTECH awards discussed in this article are just

two examples of how cooperative efforts among DOD, industry,and academia can produce revolutionary processes and prod-ucts that fulfill military needs while greatly benefiting the pri-vate sector.

The objectives of the Army MANTECH Program are toadvance the state-of-the-art in manufacturing technologies,improve end-item quality through process control, leveragemultiple system needs, reduce costs and program risks of Armymateriel acquisitions, and transfer technology to the industrialbase. Further information on the Army MANTECH Programcan be obtained from the Web site located athttp://www.armymantech.com/.

The preceding article was written by Carol Gardinier, U.S.Army Materiel Command Program Manager for the ArmyMANTECH Program.

AWARDS


Dear Editor:We come today not to honor Caesar but to bury him or,

in this case, certification in the Army Acquisition Corps.Several years ago, after numerous onerous articles

appeared in major newspapers and magazines concerningmilitary acquisition blunders, Congress mandated that theArmed Forces develop a group of professional acquisitionspecialists. These specialists would be a group of select,trained, certified individuals who would enable the ArmedForces to procure materiel in a professional, efficient man-ner. This would guarantee that the government would getsuperior value for the ever-shrinking financial resources.

Certification requirements were developed and trainingprograms designed to produce these highly competent pro-fessionals. It was impressed upon employees how critical thiscertification and training was for career development andadvancement. For the first few years, the programs pro-ceeded smoothly and this highly trained corps began tospread out in the ranks of public service. There were evensome positive results.

Then, as with all admirably conceived government pro-grams, things began to go awry. Acquisition education pro-fessionals who deemed that certain courses required a mini-mum of 3 weeks to teach were told that 2 weeks would haveto suffice and, later, 1 week. All this was done in the name ofcost cutting.

I don’t want to sound totally negative. All the cost-cuttinginitiatives were not ill conceived. A concerted and admirableeffort was made to turn the introductory courses into Web-based self-study courses. This was an excellent decision topreserve and maximize scarce resources to dedicate to themore advanced learning opportunities.

Now bureaucracy has endeavored to stick its hands intothis noble process. Where certification once required com-pleting the required courses and obtaining endorsementfrom the proper superiors (that the experience requirementswere met), we must now traverse the paper trail to receivethe needed certification. Papers must be filled out, recordsobtained, initials (not signatures) acquired, documentationof complete work history of related experience, etc., etc., etc.,all must be routed through the proper channels.

I know I sound facetious and condescending here, and Imean to. I am no stranger to education. I came to the govern-ment with two bachelor’s degrees (engineering and econom-ics) and obtained a master’s while employed—paid for, Imight add, by myself and attended at night because “it wasn’tjob-related.” (While I dispute this considering that my jobentails, and still does, making investment decisions for themilitary. I have also been told, after applying to anothertraining program (the Master of Science/Industry WorkStudy) that I was already more educated than the Armydesired.)

I know this sounds like a case of sour grapes, but it allboils down to this: the government mandated an admirableprogram, designed a comprehensive course of study, andattached a prestigious reward to completing the require-ments. What we are now left with is a mandated program,with a gutted curriculum and a bureaucratic nightmare toobtaining the rewards of completing the requirements.

One of the nice things about college and universitycourses and degrees is that the requirements are prettystraightforward. Take the required classes, do the work, pass,and you get the degree. There were no courses cut from a fullterm to a third of a term and no need to document coursecompletion to unrelated authorities. And a simple audit ofyour records can prove that you have obtained the propercourse credits.

To the Acquisition Overlords who decree, “You must getcertified!,” I respond—why bother? I’d rather go back tocollege.

Yours truly,Curtis G. BeckerClifton Park, NY 12065-5120

Response:Dear Mr. Becker:

The certification process you refer to is the originalprocess whereby your supervisor, the first Senior ExecutiveService (SES) individual, or the General Officer in your chainof command could complete your certification. Changeswere made to that process to improve it, not to make it moredifficult. Because many of the supervisors, SES personnel,and General Officers were not certified in the same careerfield in which you were seeking certification, or were possiblynot even in the Acquisition Corps, many certifications werecompleted erroneously. These erroneous certifications, whilenot intentional, diminished the validity of those that werecertified correctly.

In conjunction with the Functional Chiefs for eachcareer program, the Army Acquisition Corps established anew process whereby individuals seeking certification wouldbe certified by someone in the same career field who hasachieved Level III certification themselves. These certifyingofficials were selected by the Functional Chief responsible forcertification in each career field and provided specific guid-ance on the process. This new procedure brings more disci-pline into the process and goes a long way to ensure thevalidity of each certification identified on Acquisition CareerRecord Briefs (ACRBs).

The process is actually quite simple. Individuals seekingcertification must only provide their ACRB and a copy oftheir work experience (resume or DA Form 2302) to theiracquisition career manager (ACM). The ACM coordinateswith the appropriate certifying official and the finalized certi-fication is returned to the individual.

Certification policy and procedures are outlined on theDirector for Acquisition Career Management (DACM) homepage at http://dacm.sarda.army.mil/policy. A list of ACMscan be found on that same home page athttp://dacm.sarda.army.mil/contacts.

Sandy LongActing Deputy DirectorAcquisition Career Management Office

LETTERS


Dear Editor:I recently read LTC Patrick Forrestal’s article titled

“Army Astronauts Energize The NASA Mission.” I foundit to be exciting and really neat to see the Army andNASA working together through the astronaut program.My goal is to become a full-fledged astronaut after col-lege—and the route I have always wanted to take is amilitary one. I am interested in LTC Forrestal’s e-mailaddress or postal address so that I may write to him toinquire about the opportunities that the military offersfor “wannabe” astronauts. Further, if your office has infothat would be helpful concerning this matter, please e-mail it to me. Thank you!

Scott Jones

Army AL&T Response:Dear Mr. Jones,

There are several ways to enter the astronaut pro-gram. Three types of crewmembers serve onboard thespace shuttle: payload specialists, pilot astronauts (the shuttle commander is also a pilot), and missionspecialists.

Payload specialists have a thorough knowledge of aparticular shuttle’s mission. They are usually neitherNASA employees nor career astronauts. Becoming a pay-load specialist is not usually a career that can be easilyplanned. An individual must have the right skills and bein the right place at the right time. This career path alsodepends on what mission the shuttle will have 20 yearsfrom now. Setting one’s sights on this position is notrecommended.

Pilot astronauts are typically military fighter pilots(they must be jet pilots) who graduated from at least onetest pilot school and have thousands of hours of flighttime with many combat missions and distinguished fly-ing crosses, etc. The bare minimum requirements are1,000 hours of flight time and at least a Bachelor of Sci-ence (B.S.) degree in engineering, biological science,physical science, or mathematics. They also usually havesome type of advanced degree in addition to a B.S.

Mission specialists are the most common type ofastronaut. They are usually engineers and have at least aB.S. degree in engineering, biological science, physicalscience, or mathematics and a minimum of 3 years oftechnical work experience. The average mission special-ist typically has at least one Ph.D. in a technical field andtypically has some flight experience.

The Army astronaut (there are also Air Force, Navy,and other types) typically falls into one of the above cat-egories but is not a NASA employee. Rather, an Armyastronaut is assigned to his or her duty station throughthe Army chain of command, much like a transfer. MostArmy astronauts are high-ranking officers (major orabove) and qualify for the position based on one of theabove categories. However, most military astronauts arefighter-jet test pilots. There are some helicopter pilotswho are mission specialists. Every 2 years, the opportu-nity arises for an astronaut candidate to apply through

his or her own unit. Eligible applicants must have anadvanced college degree (i.e., not engineering technol-ogy, but an actual engineering degree or a degree inphysics, chemistry, etc.). Applicants must make sure thattheir supervisor states on his or her officer evaluationreport or noncommissioned officer evaluation reportthat the best place for the applicant to serve the Army isas an Army astronaut. These reports actually contain asection where the senior rater or someone can suggestthe best location for this individual within the Army.

An online NASA factsheet is available at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/factsheets/asseltrn.html. This site has information on the astronautapplication process and other requirements. The pagealso links to astronaut biographies.

The best way to become an astronaut is to build agreat resume and keep applying yourself. Make sure thatyou select your career based on what you want to do inlife and not because you think that it will help with theastronaut selection.

For more information on astronauts and the astro-naut program, contact Lucy Lytwynsky in the AstronautAppearances Office at [email protected], orcall (281) 244-8857.

Dear Editor:I have read the last two articles on contingency con-

tracting [“Does The Army Need A Contingency Contract-ing MOS For NCOs?”; see September-October andNovember-December 2000 issues]. I am an NCO in theNational Guard. I am also an excepted technician, whichmeans I am a civilian wearing military clothing. Duringthe day, I have a warrant of $10 million. On the weekenddrills, in military status, I can’t purchase a thing.

We are always told that we need to be emulatingindustry and thinking out of the box, and MAJ Metts andMAJ Castrinos have done that and I compliment them,but I would suggest that they might even think a littlefurther outside the box.

The DOD and OPM have strapped new educationalrequirements on to contract specialists. They must haveboth a degree and 24 hours of business training. Thismakes it hard for the people who are currently in thecontracting field. The NCOs will be required to have thesame credentials, which means it will be even harder tofind NCOs that qualify.

I suggest that we reach for the stars and create awhole new career ladder that would take the NCOthrough to the officer corps. This would create incen-tives and challenges for those who are interested, but atthe same time, it would create a very elite organization.I know that NCOs were given commissions as WarrantOfficers based on their experience after Vietnam. And Iknow that if a comprehensive plan were put into action,a career plan could be devised that would include the

LETTERS


ascension to the officer corps. This would, perhaps,solve another problem—the dwindling supply of Acqui-sition Corps officers.

As you see, this is only in the embryonic stage and aradical concept to some. But Army regulations alreadymake allowances for direct commissions for procure-ment personnel. The problem with this regulation is thatit does not take into account that a person must be acaptain or higher to become a member of the Acquisi-tion Corps and the direct commission is restricted to therank of lieutenant, with age restrictions as well as others.

The National Guard is aging as is the regular Army.The world is very competitive and is drawing experi-

enced and government-educated people away at analarming rate. We must be competitive if we are to bemission capable.

Please pass this e-mail on to the majors as food forthought.

ThanksMike BelovskyContracting Officer

Army AL&T Response: Thank you for your letter. Ithas been forwarded to Majors Metts and Castrinos.

LETTERS

ACQUISITION REFORM

FORSCOM Conducts FirstReverse Auction

The Third Corps and Fort Hood Contracting Com-mand recently conducted the Army Forces Command’s(FORSCOM’s) first reverse auction, using the softwareavailable on the U.S. Army Communications-ElectronicsCommand’s (CECOM’s) Interagency Business Opportu-nities Page Web site. Fort Hood used this innovative e-commerce tool to obtain a 10.67-percent savings overthe estimated product price and significant qualityincreases.

The requirement was for 40 Pentium III, 650 MHz, 8-GB hard-drive-capacity CPUs, each with a 250-MB Zipdrive and optical mouse, estimated to cost $1,500 each.Subsequently, 40 Gateway Pentium III, 733 MHz, 15-GBhard-drive CPUs, each with a 250-MB Zip drive, a 1-MBvideo card, an Internet keyboard, and an optical mouse,were purchased at a final cost of $1,340 each. All mini-mum requirements were met, and exceeded in manycases.

Fort Hood conducted a private auction with foursmall-business General Services Administration (GSA)vendors. The vendors were selected through a marketresearch process. To keep a level playing field, eachcompany was classified as either a small or small-

disadvantaged business. Fort Hood spent approximately6 days preparing for the reverse auction and made thedelivery order award on the day the auction was com-pleted. Offerors were informally debriefed the day afterthe award.

Fort Hood was satisfied with the reverse auction andplans to hold other auctions for future requirements thatare acceptable for the auctioning process. In addition,Fort Hood foresees using reverse auction procedures toaugment other procurement methods, such as a two-step sealed bid process. During the first step, technicalrequirements are negotiated with the offerors. In thesecond step, a reverse auction is conducted to determinethe final contract price, and ultimately, the contractwinner.

CECOM has placed this new software on the ArmySingle Face to Industry Web site(http://acquisition.army.mil.default.htm) so the entireArmy can use it. Many companies that offer only low-bidreverse auction software charge a percentage of sales,whereas CECOM’s program is available to the entireArmy at no cost.


ARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567

PERIODICALSARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567

PERIODICALS

Date post:	10-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lehanh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times