Gct 4 2 final 061413

The Publication of Distinction for the Maneuver Warfighter

Helmets O Transparent Armor O Warrior GearHandheld Comms O Logistics Simulation

Warrior Equipper

Kevin M. Fahey

PEOCombat Support & Combat Service Support

June 2013 Volume 4, Issue 2

www.GCT-kmi.com

Maneuver Center of exCellenCe

THE LOCKHEED MARTIN TEAMJLTVLOCKHEED MARTIN I BAE SYSTEMS

The Lockheed Martin Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is production-ready and blast-proven. Our vehicles have been through a rigorous boot camp of mountainous and desert terrain. They’ve driven over 160,000 combined miles. And while JLTV is heavy on force protection, Army and Marine helicopter lift tests also show it is light and transportable. Its dual performance for both the Army and the Marines makes it the most affordable choice for any mission. Equipped with Lockheed Martin’s systems integration experience and BAE Systems’ innovative protection, we’re making sure JLTV is secure, reliable and ready to go.

www.lockheedmartin.com/jltv

HEAVY ONPROTECTION.

LIGHT ON WEIGHT.

308-66062_LightOn_GCT.indd 1 5/20/13 3:05 PM

Cover / Q&AFeatures

Kevin M. FaheyPEO

Combat Support & Combat Service Support

16

Departments Industry Interview2 editor’s PersPective3 intel4 PeoPle14 innovations25 technology intel27 resource center

Kathryn B. hasseDirector,Tactical Wheeled VehiclesProgram Director,Joint Light Tactical VehicleLockheed Martin

5equiPPing warriorsTop-ranked military procurement leaders tell Congress equipment for warriors has improved enormously in the past decade of war, but further innovative advancements are critically needed.BY DAVE AHEARN

8handheld coMMsWe look at the latest in communications and how they provide the information edge for warfighters, giving them lifesaving intel on enemy locations and more.BY MARc SEliNgER

21transParent arMorWhile it is critical for combatants in transit to maintain situational awareness by scanning the surrounding terrain, the windows they peer through must protect well against incoming enemy fire. We discover how much progress is being made in transparent armor.BY HENRY cANADAY

23logistics siMulationLogistics support training is just as critical to the mission as the training provided to soldiers for battlefield operations. Step into the boots of a supply sergeant and find out why.BY cAlViN PilgRiM AND KATHRYN BAilEY

u.s. arMy Maneuver center oF excellenceSpecial two-page pictorial spread featuring HQ leaders and directorates.

saFeguarding warriors’ headsThe warrior headgear of choice has come a long way from the steel pots of prior wars. We look at new materials and systems that offer greater protection and advanced comfort for combatants.BY JoHN M. DoYlE

June 2013Volume 4, Issue 2ground combat technology

19 12

“Two things about the future are certain: Some of the threats

will be different, but some of the

platforms we have will be the

same. Only with a long-term view of priorities, threats,

requirements and opportunities

can we best make decisions about capability sustainment and modernization investments.”

– Kevin M. Fahey

THE LOCKHEED MARTIN TEAMJLTVLOCKHEED MARTIN I BAE SYSTEMS

The Lockheed Martin Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is production-ready and blast-proven. Our vehicles have been through a rigorous boot camp of mountainous and desert terrain. They’ve driven over 160,000 combined miles. And while JLTV is heavy on force protection, Army and Marine helicopter lift tests also show it is light and transportable. Its dual performance for both the Army and the Marines makes it the most affordable choice for any mission. Equipped with Lockheed Martin’s systems integration experience and BAE Systems’ innovative protection, we’re making sure JLTV is secure, reliable and ready to go.

www.lockheedmartin.com/jltv

HEAVY ONPROTECTION.

LIGHT ON WEIGHT.

308-66062_LightOn_GCT.indd 1 5/20/13 3:05 PM

28

Can you imagine Europe without U.S. battle tanks? Feels like only yesterday, but it was 20 years ago when you could see M1A1s on the nightly news involved in the Bosnian War. Ten years ago, there wasn’t a tank in sight when I stepped ashore from the USS Nicholas (FFG 47) for a goodwill visit at Port Neum, Bosnia. That was the first visit to Bosnia by any warship since the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914, part of a period of events that caused the start of World War I. Heavy human tolls led to the heavily defensive tanks debuting in France during World War II, and holding a pres-ence on the continent for nearly seven decades.

Europe’s last 22 U.S. tanks left in April, closing another chapter in the end of an era. “For those of us who’ve got a little frost on the roof, that was a big, momentous act,” said Special Operations Command Europe Commander Major General Michael S. Repass at the annual Special Operations Forces Industry Conference. “If you talk to the Europeans and senior U.S. policy folks about what’s going on in Europe, it’s really an increase in three areas,” he said. Ballistic missile defense, cyber, and special operations forces are the three, none of which require slow, heavy tanks.

As the weight lightens and the mission shifts, the means for innovative ways to get troops to the fight remains. At the Navy League Sea Air Space Exposition, Marine Corps Commandant James F. Amos cited the expeditionary fighting vehicle as one program that turned out to be unaffordable in these tight fiscal times. “That doesn’t mean that the requirement goes away” for Marines to obtain the capability to get from ship to shore quickly, he said. While much of the focus will be on upgrading existing platforms, some new systems will be obtained, like V-22 Ospreys, which Amos called a “game-changer” for rapid vertical lift transport.

In a National Defense Industrial Association Executive Briefing, Major General Kenneth D. Merchant shared a game-changing example where a V-22 was able to retrieve troops under fire in a location that couldn’t be reached in time by helicopter.

Merchant, director, Global Reach Programs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, is responsible for airlift, air refueling, training and special operations programs.

He was in his 12th day on the job and so was I. The other thing we had in common then and now is the support of a knowledgeable team. You’re a valuable part of the team—if there’s an aspect of ground combat technology you’d like to see covered, let me know. Whether it’s the evolution of armor as old as helmets or new as handheld communications, let’s explore how government and industry work together to bring our warriors the best solutions to accomplish the mission. Hooah!


Editorial

EditorJeff Campbell [email protected] EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected] Editorial ManagerLaura Davis [email protected] EditorsSean Carmichael [email protected] Hobbes [email protected] Ahearn • Kathryn Bailey • Henry Canaday John M. Doyle • Calvin Pilgrim • Marc Selinger

art & dEsign

Art DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected] Graphic DesignerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected] Designers Scott Morris [email protected] Papineau [email protected] Paquette [email protected] Waring [email protected]

advErtising

Account ExecutiveLee Benswanger [email protected]

KMi MEdia groupPublisherKirk Brown [email protected] Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected] Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected] Vice PresidentDavid Leaf [email protected] McKaughan [email protected] Castro [email protected] & Communications ManagerHolly Winzler [email protected] Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

opErations, CirCulation & produCtion

Operations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected] & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected] Gill [email protected] SpecialistsRaymer Villanueva [email protected] Walker [email protected]

a proud MEMbEr of:

subsCription inforMation

Ground Combat TechnologyISSN 2157-1503

is published seven times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2013.

Ground Combat Technology is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the

U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S.

All others: $65 per year. Foreign: $149 per year.

CorporatE offiCEs

KMI Media Group15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300

Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USATelephone: (301) 670-5700

Fax: (301) 670-5701Web: www.GCT-kmi.com

ground CoMbat tEChnology

Volume 4, Issue 2 • June 2013

edItor’S PerSPectIVe

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence

Forum

www.BCD-kmi.com

June 2012Volume 1, Issue 1

www.BCD-kmi.com

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Border Protector

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border PatrolU.S. Customs and Border Protection

Wide Area Aerial Surveillance O Hazmat Disaster ResponseTactical Communications O P-3 Program

Integrated Fixed Towers

Leadership Insight:Robert S. BrayAssistant Administrator for Law EnforcementDirector of the Federal Air Marshal Service Transportation Security Administration

SPECIAL SECTION:

Border & CBRNE Defense

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.GCT-kmi.com

Ground Combat

Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Military Logistics Forum

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans

Affairs Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com www.NPEO-kmi.com

Carrier Craftsman

Rear Adm. Thomas J. Moore

U.S. Navy Program Executive OfficerAircraft Carriers

Presidential Helicopter O Shipboard Self-Defense O Riverine Patrol CraftPrecision Guided Munitions O Educational Development Partnership

www.npeo-kmi.com

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

SPECIAL SECTION:CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY OPTIONS

Military Training Technology

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Special Operations Technology

www.TISR-kmi.com

Tactical ISR Technology

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard Forum

KMI MedIa Group LeadershIp MaGazInes and WebsItes

Jeff CampbellEditor

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffIntel

Abrams Tanks to be Converted for Saudi Arabia

General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Mich., has been awarded a $39 million firm-fixed-price contract to change an existing contract for conversion of M1A2 vehicles to the M1A2S configuration.

This new contract is in support of foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia. Work will be performed in Lima, Ohio, with an estimated completion date of January 31, 2014.

One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., manages the contract.

Army NIE Obtains Enhanced Wideband

Networking Capabilities

Harris Corp. delivered enhanced wideband networking capabilities to the middle tier of the brigade combat team (BCT) at the Army Network Integration Evaluation (NIE).

Soldiers at the NIE were able to stay connected and communicate seamlessly across the tactical network via Falcon III manpack and handheld radios using the latest release of the Adaptive Networking Wideband Waveform (ANW2). The new release supports networks with up to 30 users through new protocols that intel-ligently identify and allocate available channel bandwidth to meet the Army’s needs at the mid-tier level of the network.

Harris developed the new ANW2 release based on direct feedback from soldiers during past NIE events. The increased node count and dynamic channel alloca-tion provides greater capacity and oper-ating flexibility at the important mid-tier layer. This new version of ANW2 will serve as the mid-tier wideband networking waveform for the Army in connection with Capability Set 13, which involves the initial rollout of an integrated tactical network to BCTs.

Missile Excels at Longer Range in TestsThe Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Javelin

joint venture recently demonstrated the ability of the Javelin missile to engage targets beyond its current maximum range requirements during a series of tests at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

During the Army tests, the Javelin system acquired and engaged targets up to 4,750 meters.

“These tests prove that, under favorable condi-tions, Javelin can have reliable, solid performance

as a close-combat weapon system well beyond the current maximum range requirement of 2,500 meters,” said Duane Gooden, Javelin Joint Venture president and Raytheon Javelin program director. “There were two direct hits on the threat represen-tative target at the extended range.”

Demonstrating Javelin’s extended range perfor-mance will further enhance survivability of the dismounted Javelin gunner in combat.

Army to Gain Chemical Processing Plant Modernization

The Army has granted BAE Systems a $27 million contract to complete construction of a state-of-the-art and energy-saving chemical processing facility at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee.

The new facility, when finished later this year, will transform and modernize the way acetic acid and acetic anhydride are produced, stored and handled at the plant for manufacturing military explosives.

“This is one of the most important projects at Holston since it opened in 1942,” said Jerry Hammonds, vice president and general manager of BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, which manages and operates the plant. “The facility will signifi-cantly reduce energy usage and cut other costs, saving money for the Army and for taxpayers.”

The Holston plant is an Army-owned, contractor-operated site that produces a range of explosive fills, such as RDX and HMX, for artillery and other munitions. Since World War II, chemicals such as acetic acid and acetic anhydride have been

processed at a 110-acre site located seven miles from the main plant. A rail corridor and a series of pipelines currently carry the chemicals back and forth during manufacturing. The new processing facility, in comparison, will occupy just 10 acres on the main site. It will improve operating efficiency at the plant, decrease production and maintenance costs, and reduce safety and environmental risks associated with transporting and pumping chemi-cals.

The facility, designed by BAE Systems for the Army, will also utilize combined-heat-and-power technology—also called cogeneration—to produce steam from natural gas to process the chemicals. The resulting electricity will be able to power at least 90 percent of the entire plant, a major step forward in meeting Holston’s goal of energy independence.

The $27 million contract initiates the final phase of construction, which began in 2011. The total cost of the Army project will be approxi-mately $143 million, the largest single investment at Holston.

Armed Services to Receive Hardware to Deter Friendly Fire Incidents

BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Greenlawn, N.Y., is being awarded a contract change to provide identification friend or foe gear for U.S. and allied forces.

The $8 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract exercises an option for procurement and repair of common (identification friend or foe) digital transponder (CXP) hardware for the Army, Navy, and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Thailand, South Korea and Denmark.

Work will be performed in Greenlawn, N.Y., and is expected to be completed in August 2015.This contract combines purchases for the Army ($6 million, 75.3 percent); Navy ($1 million,

13.4 percent); and the governments of Saudi Arabia ($380,568, 4.8 percent); Denmark ($289,314, 3.6 percent); Korea ($203,511, 2.6 percent); and Thailand ($26,682, 0.3 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., manages the contract.

www.GCT-kmi.com GCT 4.2 | 3

Colonel Edward M. Daly, who has been selected for the rank of brigadier general, commandant, U.S. Army Ordnance School, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Lee, Va., has been assigned as deputy commander, 1st Theater Sustainment Command, Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan.

Colonel Joseph P. Harrington, who has

been selected for the rank of brigadier general, executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., has been assigned as deputy commander, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas. He was previously announced as deputy commander, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.

Navistar International announced the appoint-ment of Dennis “Denny” Mooney as group vice president, global product develop-ment. Mooney succeeds Ramin Younessi, who is leaving Navistar to pursue other opportu-nities. Mooney joined Navistar in 2009 as vice president, global product

development, where he has been responsible for developing a fully inte-grated global engineering group.

General Dynamics announced that David K. Heebner, executive vice president and group exec-utive of the company’s Combat Systems group, has been appointed group executive of the Information Systems and Technology group. Mark C. Roualet, president of General Dynamics Land Systems, will succeed Heebner as executive vice president and group executive of the Combat Systems group. Gary L. Whited, senior vice president and general manager for General Dynamics Land Systems’

domestic operations, will succeed Roualet as presi-dent. The appointments are effective immediately.

Raytheon announced that it is consolidating its businesses to stream-line operations and that the board of directors has elected Thomas A. Kennedy, Ph.D., to the new position of executive vice president, chief oper-ating officer. Kennedy previously served as vice president, Raytheon Company, and president of Integrated Defense Systems.

Lockheed Martin announced that Angela Heise, a vice president with Information Systems & Global Solutions, is a 2013 Federal 100

Award winner, a Federal Computer Week award for bringing change to federal technology.

Lisa Pauley, senior vice president, human resources and administration, and Andrea Chavez, director of manufacturing and test operations with Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., have been recognized by the Manufacturing Institute, Deloitte, University of Phoenix and the Society of Manufacturing Engineers with Women in Manufacturing Science, Technology, Engineering and Production Awards for excellence and leadership in manufacturing.

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffPeoPle

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffIntel

Army Obtaining More Hydra-70 Rockets

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products recently was awarded two contracts by the U.S. Army including $210.4 million for the production of Hydra-70 air-to-ground rockets and $13.5 million for engi-neering services in support of the Hydra-70 rocket program.

The Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, Ala., awarded the contracts. Final deliveries under this order are expected to be completed in early 2015. General Dynamics has been the system integrator for the produc-tion of Hydra rockets since 1996. The Army orders Hydra rockets for all branches of the U.S. military and select allies.

“General Dynamics has supplied Hydra rockets to U.S. warfighters and to several of the nation’s closest allies for more than 15 years,” said Steve Elgin, vice president and general

manager of armament systems for General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products. “Our long-held experience in managing the Hydra program allows us to work closely with the Army to deliver a weapon that is affordably built and dependable in action.”

Hydra rockets are composed of two main components: the MK66 rocket motor and the warhead. The rocket’s warhead varies to meet a wide range of mission requirements. The 2.75-inch diameter rocket can be mounted on most helicopters and some aircraft.

General Dynamics’ work on the Hydra rocket is done from the company’s Camden, Ark., and Springboro, Ohio, facilities, which

have approximately 375 employees combined. Engineering service support and program management are performed at General Dynamics’ technology center in Williston, Vt., which employs more than 300 workers.

Col. edward M. Daly

www.GCT-kmi.com4 | GCT 4.2

Top-ranked military procurement leaders told Congress that equipment for warriors has improved enormously in the past decade of war, but further innovative advancements are critically needed.

In a hearing before the House Armed Services Commit-tee (HASC) tactical air and land forces subcommittee, both lawmakers on the committee and the witnesses outlined shortcomings such as the crushing weight of 21st-century equipment that makes warriors less agile, the need for armored vests and uniforms tailored for female warfighters, and much more.

The HASC panel heard detailed testimony from first-rank acquisition leaders who must attempt to find the best gear for soldiers and Marines, even in a time of intense fiscal austerity at the Pentagon.

Those at the witness table included Army Brigadier General Paul A. Ostrowski, program executive officer, soldier; Peter B. Bechtel, director, capabilities integration, prioritization and analysis for the Army; Marine Corps Brigadier General Frank

L. Kelley, commander, Marine Corps Systems Command; and Marine Corps Brigadier General Eric M. Smith, director, Capa-bilities Development Directorate for the Marine Corps.

Background

Equipment for American combatants has improved steadily from the unprotected deerskin that many Revolutionary War fighters wore centuries ago. The Civil War provided rifles that were vastly superior to muskets. World War I contributed hel-mets that might deflect an enemy round, and World War II saw those helmets grow to offer protection to the side and back of the head. The Vietnam War contributed the flak jacket, and it improved further in the Gulf War.

While additional gains have been seen in the past decade, witnesses at the hearing said far more needs to be done to improve safeguards for those in harm’s way.

During the hearing, the discussion covered a wide array of issues, including combatants carrying more than 100

Witnesses, laWmakers decry heavy loads carried By comBatants.By dave ahearn

gct correspondent


pounds of gear, adequacy of protective vests, safeguards against enemy rounds and IED detonations, the ability of camou-flage patterns to conceal warfighters from the enemy, helmet designs, how to power electronic gear with fewer heavy batteries, lighter-weight ammunition, flame-resis-tant uniforms, communications, night vision goggles, weapon sights and much more.

The greatest concern voiced by both lawmakers and witnesses was the heavy load that warriors must carry.

For PEO Soldier, the aim is, wher-ever practicable, to cut weight burdening warfighters, with Ostrowski explaining an ongoing effort “aimed at lightening that load.” For example, he noted that the old outer tactical vest weighed 33.5 pounds in a size medium, while the improved outer tactical vest is 4 pounds lighter, even as it provides a better fit. Also, the soldier plate carrier system eliminates another 8 pounds or so. And field commanders now are permitted to assess the risk of a given mission and—if a low risk is perceived—permit warfight-ers to wear less heavy armor.

A machine gun is 9 pounds lighter than the former model. And PEO Soldier has gone to war against the heavy load of bat-teries that warfighters carry to power gear on an increasingly electronic battlefield, ranging from laptops to UAV controllers, and night vision gear to laser range finders. “We are developing ways to provide lightweight power solutions,” Ostrowski said, such as a conformal battery that follows the contours of the body for comfort and can provide electrical power for multiple pieces of equipment.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said placing a heavy burden on a warfighter can “cost us lives,” because that weight makes a combatant less agile when attempting to avoid enemy fire, for example.

There is “a long-term cost with respect to weight,” she told the military procurement leaders. “I’m concerned we’re over-loading soldiers,” resulting at times in skeletal injuries. “There is too much weight on the belt, and too much weight on the soldier,” she warned.

Bechtel said, however, that solutions are underway, with a 10 percent reduction in weight loads thus far, and a goal of reaching a 15 percent reduction, focusing on such areas as battery weight.

He also noted that weight on a soldier can be lessened by having some items handled by robotic systems or in vehicles.

Ostrowski said timely logistics can mean resupply of key items is assured at frequent intervals. If resupply is guaraunteed, then an individual warrior may not need to carry as much of a given item on a mission. Smith agreed, saying that “enhancing the logistics piece does go a long way toward lightening the load” on the individual combatant.

Likewise, Kelley said that as logistics improves, the weight load on warriors declines. To help spur further weight reduc-tions, Kelley urged working with industry on research and devel-opment of lighter weight systems.

However, Smith cautioned, no weight reduction can be con-templated if it entails reducing protection from enemy fire or IEDs.

“Protection is paramount,” Smith said, adding that he “won’t sacrifice any protection for increased comfort,” whether male or female combatants are involved.

Aside from tactical vests, body armor also has been developed to protect the pelvic area from weapon blasts, shorts called the pelvic protection system. Ostrowski said the system counters blasts that otherwise would affect the pelvis, femoral arteries and lower abdominal organs. Some 60,881 sets of the system have been fielded to units in Afghanistan, and “the PPS is saving lives,” he emphasized.

He also noted that weight on the warfighter can be reduced with a universal controller for a panoply of unmanned systems, instead of having a unique controller for each unmanned asset.

And weight can be shaved off by powering electronic gear with something other than hefty batteries. Kelley observed that ways must be found to reduce battery usage. That can involve using solar generating systems, Smith said.

Female Warriors

Sanchez said she is concerned that traditional vests, while helping to protect combatants against enemy threats, often are ill suited and uncomfortable for female personnel.

However, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) said that the improved outer tactical vest, including the vest for female warriors, boasts improvements that are “tremendous.”

Previously, with the old vest, “it was very difficult for a woman to raise her arm to fire a rifle,” Tsongas said. “I commend you for your work” in producing better body armor, citing PEO Soldier centers such as the Natick Soldier Center in her state.

Ostrowski noted that new body armor specifically made for women has greatly increased comfort, with a goal of fielding 600 sets of the female-design wear by August. And “we will always field female body armor” when women deploy to theater.

A second lieutenant helps a private first class try on new body armor designed for female warriors, the generation iii Female improved outer Tactical Vest. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


For more information, contact GCT Editor Jeff campbell at [email protected] or search our online archives

for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

Kelley said when new gear is devel-oped, it is critical to ensure that it works well, which can be tested by giving it to a Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad to use in real-world situations.

This should involve providing the Marines with everything they are likely to carry into combat to see how it all works together, rather than having combatants test just one item at a time, he said.

The squad members should be asked how they feel about the warrior gear system when first issued it, and then how they feel when they have finished the test.

Smith noted that “a Marine lance corporal is not shy” about providing an honest assessment of how well a piece of gear works.

Sanchez also asked whether gear can deteriorate over time, and what kind of shelf life can be expected from various types of equipment that soldiers and Marines use.

Ostrowski responded that some items must be replaced over time, and those replacements are made. Just how long a given piece of gear may last, he said, “depends on individual soldiers,” and how much wear they put on it. But this issue is carefully monitored.

For example, to ensure that armored plate inserts worn in vest pockets are not deteriorating, plates are X-rayed periodi-cally, such as halfway through a tour of duty and at the comple-tion of the tour, Ostrowski said. A plate typically “does wear out over time,” he added.

In developing new gear for warriors, it is important not only to have Marines test it, but also to ask them what they would most like to have, Kelley observed.

“The first thing is, we sit down with the operating force. They give us input before we set the requirements” for new systems, Smith said. “They will say their piece.”

To be sure, “sometimes they don’t get what they want,” but ultimately they do get what they need, Smith explained.

camo uniForms

In designing camouflage uniforms that are unnoticed by the enemy, blending into the background terrain, enormous effort has been poured into research, Ostrowski reported.

For example, “over 120,000 data points” were gathered and analyzed, he said. Funding for work on camo advancements is included in the recently released administration budget for Department of Defense funding in fiscal year 2014, he said.

One problem with Marine Corps uniforms is that they don’t dry out rapidly—a key point when the U.S. military is pivoting to the Pacific, where many nations have tropical or moist cli-mates, Smith continued. For example, he cited the rainy climate on Okinawa. Average monthly precipitation on Okinawa ranges from more than 4 inches to more than 10 inches.

Also, Smith stated, it is important that uniforms are flame retardant.

Weapons, helmets

Sanchez also expressed concern that some weapons may malfunction, saying that when warriors were asked about reli-ability, “20 percent of them said they had a complete and total jam of their rifle.” Is it time, she asked, to procure a more reli-able weapon?

Ostrowski said figures show the M4 has generally been reliable—a requirement for 600 rounds being fired before any stoppage has easily been exceeded. In testing in 2010, there were typically 3,692 rounds fired between failures, he observed.

“We have made over 92 modifications and adjustments to that weapon system,” improving its accuracy and reliability, he stressed.

That said, however, Ostrowski assured the panel that the indi-vidual carbine competition will move forward. “Absolutely we are competing this,” he added.

Weapons will be rigorously evaluated, he continued, predict-ing that “accuracy will be compared [with candidate weapons] side by side. Reliability will be compared side by side. Life cycle cost will be compared side by side. Compatibility will be com-pared side by side.”

Another problem for soldiers is the impact on their heads caused by detonations of enemy weapons or other causes. Here, Ostrowski said, it is critical to be able to assess just how much force a warfighter may have absorbed. The answer is the Genera-tion II Helmet Sensor, which compiles data on injury incurred in a blast. He predicted that physicians will be able to use data from the sensor to better diagnose and develop treatments for warriors injured by blasts or other events. Some 19,000 sensors have been provided to soldiers deploying to theater. O

An electronics engineer with the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering command, holds a polymer conformal battery while wearing a soldier wearable integrated power system within a combat vest. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


military radios lose Weight, But gain capaBilities and poWer.By marc selinger

gct correspondent

U.S. troops on the battlefield want the same kind of voice and data communica-tions technology at their fingertips that civilians have at home with smartphones. But warfighters also need their devices to be more rugged and, in some cases, more capable than what is sold in stores.

Companies that make military handheld radios and associated equipment say they have made great strides in recent years in meeting these military requirements. But they acknowledge that their work is far from over, as the military, like the civilian world, is constantly looking for the next best thing.

“We’re always bringing out new prod-ucts,” said Chris Heavens, vice president and general manager of AR Modular RF, which makes amplifiers that boost the range of tacti-cal radios. “The market is demanding in terms of speci-fications.”

First-time users

In many cases, troops are getting handheld radios for the first time. Most dis-mounted U.S. Army soldiers currently do not have radios, forcing them to communi-cate with fellow squad mem-bers mainly by yelling or using hand signals, said Bill Rau, director of communi-cation products for General Dynamics C4 Systems.

The Army has begun fielding new handheld radios, including the AN/PRC-154A Nett Warrior, which allows team leaders to communicate within their units and with higher head-quarters, and the AN/PRC-154 Rifleman Radio, which allows soldiers to talk and text with each other. Both are built by General Dynamics and Thales Communications, weigh about 2 pounds and can be stored in pouches on a soldier’s uniform.

“By connecting all the soldiers to [the Army’s communications] network, it’s going to allow all the soldiers to change the way they do their missions,” Rau told Ground Combat Technology.

The new radios are part of Capability Set (CS) 13, a new Army communications net-work that reflects lessons learned in Afghani-stan and Iraq and at the Network Integration Evaluation field exercise held in mid-2012, said Major General N. Lee S. Price, who leads the Army’s Program Executive Office for Com-mand, Control and Communications-Tactical (PEO C3T).

“The advanced communications capabili-ties of CS 13 will give U.S. forces a significant advantage over our adversaries,” Price said. “For the first time, the troops closest to the fight will have real-time voice and data com-munications.”

Also part of the CS 13 capabilities is the Harris Corp. Falcon III AN/PRC-152A, which provides simultaneous voice and high-speed data. The 2.5-pound radio was deployed to the first Army brigade combat teams to receive CS 13 equipment, according to Ken Arndt, who manages the company’s line of handheld ISR and accessory products.

“In a nutshell, [the 152A] brings the tactical Internet right down to the foxhole,” Arndt said.

The Army Rifleman Radio and Nett Warrior programs could soon have additional competition. Harris expects to receive government approval to offer its newest handheld radio, the RF-330E-TR, to the programs.

“The government is open-ing up the program to industry

competition, so basically they’re going to have a test and evaluation” for additional radio sup-pliers, Arndt explained. “If you’re compliant with all of the requirements, then you’re able to bid on delivery orders for that program.”

more capaBility

Most war zones lack the kind of wireless network infrastructure that supports mobile communication devices in the United States. But makers of military radios and related equipment said they have found ways to get around those limitations.

Chris Heavens

Bill rau


For instance, new networking technology allows handheld radios to communicate even when their users cannot see each other. The result is expected to be greater reliability.

“If there are, say, six of us together and we’re all talking together with a traditional radio, as long as we all see each other or the radio has line of sight, we’ll all hear each other,” Rau said. “But if we’re having a conversation and you happen to go down in a basement or behind a building or into a ditch, we might not know that you disappeared. With these networking radios, they form their own network and every radio bounces through the other radio, so if there’s a group of us, you might be getting my signal directly from me but you’re also going to hear my voice as relayed by the other five guys. In the event that one guy loses line of sight to whoever was talking, the other guys will ricochet that voice around the network and get to him.”

Networking also allows for more robust transmissions, as the radios share and integrate the voice communications they hear.

“The radio gets multiple copies and then it combines them digi-tally so it only plays one stream to the operator,” Rau explained.

Networking also helps radios operate in rugged terrain. Unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with a Rifleman Radio have demonstrated the ability to connect troops on opposite sides of a mountain in operational tests, according to Rau.

“If I’ve got five guys on one side of the mountain and five guys on the other, they’re talking amongst themselves but one group can’t hear the other,” he said. “If I fly the UAV above them, the UAV sees both groups and joins both their networks and connects them together.”

Raytheon and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency developed a system that allows a small group of handheld radios to connect to a larger network and share voice, text and full-motion video across the battlefield. The Mobile Ad hoc Interoperability Network GATEway (MAINGATE) system places two notebook-sized devices on a HMMWV or other military vehicle and provides an “industry-leading” capacity of 10 megabits per second, or enough to play 27 videos at the same time, the company said. More than 100 units are now deployed.

“What we provide is the equivalent of what the cell phone industry has with their microwave towers,” said George Vardakas, director of

advanced networks at Raytheon Integrated Commu-nication Systems. “But it needs to work on the move.”

Vardakas described MAINGATE as unique because it addresses the need to integrate all the communica-tions that occur in the lower-echelon networks into a common brigade-wide network. The system was successfully tested at the Army’s Network Integration Evaluation field exercise in late 2012, he said.

AR Modular RF’s new AR50-T1 radio ampli-fier, which will be mounted in Special Operations Command vehicles, contains additional circuitry to operate under heavy jamming and prevent radios in the same location from interfering with each other, Heavens said. It also has a bigger “heat sink” or fins to disperse heat generated by the amplifier and there-fore allow the radio to send larger and longer data transmissions.

To help airmen at remote Thule Air Base in Greenland communicate by handheld radio and other devices, a network of repeaters was installed. The Ter-restrial Trucked Radio effort, or TETRA, resulted from a partnership between the Air Force and Greenland Contractors, which operates and maintains the base.

“By installing repeaters in well-placed locations, radio coverage was expanded to cover all of Thule’s defense area with continuous communication,” the Air Force said.

Companies are also installing GPS-tracking devices on handheld radios to allow different units to see each other with the goal of improving collaboration and reducing fratricide.

“It’s become very important that the Army knows where Private Jones is every minute,” Rau said. “They want to see a dot on a map that is updated where he is. And so when you know where everybody is on the battlefield and everybody knows where everybody else is, it certainly changes the dimension of how you go ahead and fight.”

To help search-and-rescue personnel find downed pilots and other isolated forces more quickly, Boeing has enhanced its Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) handheld radios for the Air Force. A software upgrade allows a rescue pilot and the isolated person to text message each other securely, the Air Force and Boeing said. Previously, the isolated person could only communicate with the inbound rescue pilot using voice. This enhancement adds to the current capability of the isolated person to use satellites to exchange messages with the Joint Search and Rescue Center.

In addition, a hardware and software upgrade for CSEL allows a rescue pilot to “ping” an isolated person’s radio, the Air Force said. Using onboard distance-measuring equipment, that ping helps the pilot pinpoint the location of the isolated person.

While designing its new SRX 2200 intra-squad communication radio to operate even in austere environments, Motorola Solutions found that “the military’s requirements are similar to those of public safety,” company spokesman Tom McMahon told Ground Combat Technology. “So we included many features that are found in our radios designed for police, fire and emergency services customers, such as dual microphones—one on the front and the other on the back of the radio—to eliminate background noise and enhance audio quality.”

Another feature of the SRX 2200 in austere environments is that the radio can be used as a modem to connect a secure smartphone, such as Motorola’s new AME 2000, to military networks.

U.S. Army 1st lt. Matthew laney programs his AN/PRc-152 Tactical Radio for a tactical satellite operation during the first 1st Squadron, 89th cavalry Regiment, H. J. Mcchrystal competition at Forward operating Base Sharana. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Army]


“This is particularly useful when warfighters need access to data communications in the field where there isn’t any system infrastruc-ture available,” McMahon said.

Motorola also included ergonomic features “such as large controls that are well-spaced and easily located, even when wearing gloves,” he said. “The prominent top display is easy to read at a glance and dim-mable for extra security.”

The Marine Corps has been using an earlier version of the Motor-ola radio since 2006.

less Weight, more poWer

Like other defense contractors, radio makers spend much of their time trying to make their products lighter and more energy efficient.

“Every ounce is king,” Rau noted. “Every ounce that you don’t ask a soldier to carry is an ounce he can use for something else—water or food.”

Weight-reduction efforts include using the latest processors and ensuring other circuitry and software operate as efficiently as possible. A smooth-running radio extends battery life, which means a soldier can carry fewer batteries on a mission.

Boeing streamlined its Tactical Compact Communications Relay (TCCR) to lighten the device, which is mounted on small unmanned aircraft to extend the range of handheld radios, according to company spokesman Richard Esposito. The TCCR now weighs 1 pound, down from 1.6 pounds.

“Internal components were redesigned to share components and take advantage of lightweight technologies, which resulted in the sig-nificant weight reduction,” Esposito told Ground Combat Technology. “We were able to lean out the metal enclosure as well.”

Aaron Brosnan, vice president of business development at Thales Communications, said his company’s new tactical radios incorporate “state-of-the-art in circuitry and power management designs, thereby reducing power consumption by as much as 20 percent.”

Thales expects that its next-generation Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radio, the MBITR2, will benefit troops who currently have to carry two radios—one to connect to legacy networks and the other for high-speed, networked data—as the MBITR2 consolidates both functions into one device. It uses technologies based on Thales’ narrowband AN-PRC-148 MBITR and wideband AN/PRC-154 Rifleman radio.

“Coupled with the ever-increasing suite of equipment already being carried by today’s modern soldier, the size, weight and power burden of the additional radio can severely restrict the warfighter’s ability to execute the mission,” Brosnan said. “The MBITR2, in a single radio, provides the interoperability with the legacy nets while also providing the soldier access to the emerging network architecture for critical data and video services.”

Accessory makers are putting their products on diets, too, noted Doug Moses, marketing manager for active communications at 3M Personal Safety, which makes Comtac radio headsets.

“We look at things like how do we go from double-A to triple-A batteries, how do we use smaller electronics, how do we use lighter-weight materials for the cushions around the ears and the headbands,” Moses explained. “Those are all things that we and our competitors in the marketplace are working on.” O




HeaDquarters

Maneuver Center of exCellenCe

Maj. Gen. H.R. McMaster

MCoE Commanding

General

Command Sgt. Maj. Miles S. Wilson

Armor School CSM

Col. David B. Haight

Infantry School Commandant

Command Sgt. Maj. Mark Moore

Garrison Command CSM

Col. Paul J. Laughlin

Armor School Commandant

Donald M. Sando Director of Capabilities

Development and Integration

Command Sgt. Maj. James J. Carabello

Post CSM

Col. Robert Eugene Choppa MCoE Chief of

Staff

Command Sgt. Maj. Timothy A. Guden Infantry School

CSM

Col. Jeffrey Fletcher Garrison

Commander

CDIDDotDDotDots

Maneuver Center of excellence(MCOE)

nCoaU.S. Army

Armor School(USAARMS)

DOTS — Directorate of Training SustainmentDOT — Directorate of Training

DOTD — Directorate of Training & DoctrineCDID — Capabilities Development & Integration Directorate

Int & Synch Office

OCOAOCOI

U.S. Army Infantry School

(USAIS)

rtBRanger

316 Cav BDeA-BOLC III

AR FunctionalInter StudentOfc

DSTE

197 In BDeIN Functional

DSTE

192 In BDeBCT

Maneuver - slCConcepts

Development Division

support operations

Division

training Development

Division

tactics Instr DivisionMCCC

fleet Maintenance

Division

Publication support Division

Combined arms Integration

Division

supply and services Division

Doctrine and Collective tng

DivisionLessons Learned

In -alC11B/11C ALC

soldier requirements

Division

ar -alC19K/19 D ALC

91A/M ALC

Mounted requirements

Division

Warrior leader Course

Ground system Material

Directorate

Maneuver Battle lab

traDoCCapability Mgr

HBCTSBCTIBCTBFSBSoldier

Platform B/C Combat ID

198 In BDe11B/C OSUT

194 ar BDe19D/K OSUT63A/M AIT

DSTE

199 In BDeBOLC I

I-BOLC IIIAirborne

G2 G3 G4 G6 G8Magazine Museum

qao

PersonalStaff

GarrisonStaffDHR

GarrisonStaff

DPTMS

GarrisonStaffDOL

GarrisonStaffDRM

NECFort

BenningLibrary

MCOECSM

MCOEDCG

MCoe HqChief of staff Garrison Hq

Commanding GeneralManeuver Center of excellence

SpecialStaffG1

InnoVatIonS

Small Tactical Multi-Payload Aerostat SystemCarolina unmanned vehicles Inc.

• HMMWV/MRAP-compatible

trailer carrier with all equipment

• Helikite lifting aerostat

• Gyro-stabilized camera

payload

• Other possible payloads

include:

• Networked comm payload

• Acoustic gunfire detection

Carolina Unmanned Vehicles

Inc. (CUV) has announced the

delivery of the Rev-1 version of the

small tactical multi-payload aerostat

system (STMPAS), for deployment

to Afghanistan. STMPAS combines

the ground and airborne hardware

from CUV and payloads developed

by Georgia Tech Research Institute

(GTRI) for the Army Rapid Equipping

Force. CUV provided the aerostats

and all ground operating equipment

and GTRI developed the payloads.

STMPAS consists of several

optional ISR payloads attached

under a small tethered blimp, called

a Helikite, and a trailer carrier that

stores the Helikite and the required

winch, sensors and helium tanks.

The STMPAS blimp can fly at

1,000 feet for low-cost, long-term

coverage for 24 hours a day for a

week or more without maintenance

or downtime. It operates for weeks

at a time at a fraction of the cost of

comparable aircraft or unmanned

air vehicles.

Traditional aerostats cannot

operate in high winds unless fairly

large, typically with 200 pounds of

lift or more. This large size makes

them unsuitable for deployment

to small isolated bases. Helikites

have lifting surfaces that generate

aerodynamic lift to support the

blimp in winds which would drive

traditional designs into the ground.

With the Helikite, STMPAS can

be smaller and more mobile than

traditional aerostat systems yet still

operate in high winds.

Sorensen SG 1000V DC Power Supplyametek Programmable Power

• Extends capabilities to high-voltage applications

Ametek Programmable Power has extended its

Sorensen SG Series high-power DC power supply line

with the introduction of the new SG 1000V, which can

supply up to 1,000V DC for applications such as testing

photovoltaic (PV) inverters and electric vehicles.

The Sorensen SG Series is suited for a very broad

range of applications, including test and measurement

for devices such as PV inverters and electric vehicles,

semiconductor processing, electroplating, and for imagers

such as CT and MRI scanners that are used as luggage

scanners for homeland security, according to the company.

The new 1000V DC model of SG Series power

supplies can provide up to 15 kW in a 3U package. The

SG 1000V, for example, can supply up to 15 A in the

standard 3U package. Users also can select from 5-kW

and 10-kW models. For users who need more output

power, up to five 15-kW units can be connected in parallel

to supply up to 75 kW.

Customized Optical ComponentsPrecision Glass & optics

• Specialized for shortwave infrared imaging (SWIR) applications

• Designed to optimize shortwave infrared imagery

Precision Glass & Optics (PG&O), optical manufacturers specializing in precision thin

film coatings, customizes optical solutions for SWIR imaging applications. Enhanced thin

film optical coatings from PG&O are ideal for imaging through environmental conditions

such as night time, fog, smoke and water vapor, according to the company. PG&O’s

SWIR filters enhance performance to deliver higher-quality images with greater detail than

is possible without the use of optimized filters.

PG&O designs SWIR optical components to obtain the best optical quality and

imaging performance in low-light, moonlight and starlight conditions. The company also

provides high-performance turnkey optical solutions for a variety of military, defense,

avionics, industrial and biomedical applications. All coatings are manufactured to military

specifications, including metal and dielectric mirrors, beamsplitters, filters, antireflection

coatings, neutral density filters, transparent electro-conductive coatings, and other hard

and dense optical coatings needed for high performance and durability.


Compiled by KMi Media Group staff

PRC-155 Manpack RadioGeneral Dynamics

• Two-channel radio successfully completed secure radio-

to-radio voice and data communications tests through

the on-orbit Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)

satellite network

• Only off-the-shelf radio to successfully demonstrate this

capability

• Uses same cell phone technology powering commercial

smartphones

• Secure calls can be made from anywhere in the world

General Dynamics C4 Systems has announced that two

AN/PRC-155 Manpack radios successfully completed secure

radio-to-radio voice and data communications tests through

the Mobile User Objective System satellite network, as part

of a scheduled MUOS end-to-end system test. The PRC-155

radio is part of the handheld, manpack, small form fit (HMS)

family of radios.

Using the final version of the MUOS waveform, the

two-channel PRC-155 Manpack radio successfully transmitted

voice and data communications to the orbiting MUOS satellite,

through the MUOS ground station and back to a second

PRC-155 Manpack radio. This is the first time that any military

radio has communicated with the MUOS space-ground

network, which will ultimately extend the reach of the soldiers’

network to even the most isolated locations.

“The PRC-155 is the only government-owned, off-the-

shelf radio to demonstrate this capability. Using the same

cell phone technology that powers commercial smartphones,

military and government personnel can make secure calls and

exchange critical information from anywhere in the world,” said

Chris Marzilli, president of General Dynamics C4 Systems.

The PRC-155 Manpack radios also demonstrated the

capability that allows soldiers to network their communications

using the MUOS system, connecting them to one another

wherever they are deployed, on foot, from land vehicles, ships,

submarines and aircraft.

The radios used during the MUOS test were among the

first delivered to the Army through a contract to produce more

than 3,800 PRC-155 Manpack radios.

The General Dynamics-developed, non-proprietary

MUOS waveform used for the test delivers high-speed voice

and data communications at 16-times greater capacity

than the military’s current Ultra High Frequency satellite

communications system.

The two-channel PRC-155 Manpack radio also runs

the essential waveforms from the joint tactical networking

center library. They include the soldier radio waveform,

which connects dismounted soldiers to the network, and the

wideband networking waveform.

Using the PRC-155’s two-channel capability, soldiers

operating on any of these waveforms on one channel can

interconnect with soldiers using another waveform on the

second channel.

Sense-making System for Robotsaptima

• Architecture borrows from neuroscience of human perception and

sense-making

• Prototype developed for DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office and the U.S.

Army Research Laboratory’s Cognitive Robotics team

• Expected to lower pre-mission preparation costs, minimize the need for

human intervention and increase mission flexibility

Aptima has developed Cognitive Patterns, a knowledge-based,

collaborative sense-making system for robots to better recognize, adapt

to, and intelligently work with their human counterparts in novel situations.

First, the high-level knowledge on board the robot is combined with lower-

level sensor data so the robot can recognize a situation as much as possible

on its own, just as humans do. Second, when confronted with ambiguous

information or scenarios that don’t match its current knowledge, the system

blends existing concepts to generate new knowledge for the robot, akin to the

sense-making mind. Networked with the robot, the human operator can adjust

how it categorizes objects, people and environments, boosting the robot’s

high-level knowledge and its ability to draw conclusions from its sensory data.

The ROS-compliant technology is expected to advance a new class of

robots with higher-level decision-making. “Even with their state-of-the-art

sensors, robots aren’t capable of recognizing what they haven’t seen before,

which severely limits their usefulness,” said Webb Stacy, Aptima’s principal

investigator for the Cognitive Patterns contract. “They’re designed to operate

from the bottom up. If the images hitting its camera don’t match what’s in its

brain, they’re unable to understand what would be clear to us, which requires

lots of ‘hand-holding.’”

Soldier Systems BatteryPanacis

Panacis has introduced a new

soldier systems battery called

SharePack. It features integrated

power management, distribution

and scavenging functions within a

high energy rechargeable lithium ion

battery. The system is designed to

power soldier-worn C4I equipment

while reducing the weight borne by the

soldier and his logistical footprint.


Kevin M. Fahey was selected for the senior executive service in February 2000. As the Program Executive Officer for Com-bat Support & Combat Service Support [PEO CS&CSS], he is responsible for all activities necessary to develop, produce, field and sustain tactical vehicle systems and force projection equip-ment that supports and safeguards our armed forces fighting across the globe. He is responsible for the life cycle management of 350-plus diverse systems, to include all of the Army’s tactical wheeled vehicles [including the family of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles and the joint light tactical vehicle] and criti-cal soldier support systems [force projection equipment, petro-leum and water systems, construction and material equipment, tools and diagnostics equipment], across 24 product lines. He oversees the execution of a multi-billion dollar annual budget for combat support and combat service support equipment and develops a workforce of over 1,100 employees. In October 2012, Fahey also assumed duties as the joint program executive officer for the MRAP family of vehicles, which are being transitioned to service-led responsibility throughout fiscal year 2013.

During his tenure as the Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems, he was responsible for the life cycle management and systems integration of the Army’s ground combat vehicle programs, leading Army transformation for the future force. His portfolio included the heavy brigade combat platforms such as the Abrams, M113 and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, along with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team and the Joint Lightweight Howitzer Systems. In 2007, he was identified by the Department of Defense to lead the Army’s MRAP program, delivering over 9,000 MRAP vehicles in less than 24 months to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of an urgent combat need.

Operating as the deputy program executive officer for ammunition, he was responsible for management of critical Army ammunition programs and personnel. He effectively man-aged cost, schedule and performance parameters across the Army’s ammunition programs to include equipping soldiers with combat ammunition, and providing fire combat and ammuni-tion training support for dismounted soldiers, combat and tacti-cal vehicles, helicopters, naval vessels and high-performance aircraft.

As the senior technical executive, close combat arma-ment systems, Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Fahey served as the research and develop-ment director for armament and munitions systems. He was the senior technical expert of smaller, lighter and more lethal

munitions which increased mobility and counter-mobility of the Army’s operating forces.

Q: What changes have you instituted at CS&CSS recently?

A: As the joint force winds down operations in theater, you might think the acquisition team’s work would wind down too, but our team remains incredibly busy for two important reasons. First, the decrease in war procurement is offset by a substantial increase in retrograde and sustainment-related work. That’s a change, but it does not necessarily mean less work. The other driver includes the new defense strategy and the Army’s Capstone Concept, which emphasize new capabilities like the joint light tactical vehicle [JLTV] and more comprehensive approaches in areas like operational energy and contingency basing. As a result, we are working through at least three or four changes.

First, last summer we stood up the Joint Program Office for JLTV as a colonel-level project manager and rebalanced a number of product offices across CS&CSS to improve functional portfolio alignment. This created our Project Manager for Transporta-tion Systems to handle tactical vehicles and watercraft, placed a tremendous amount of key support systems into PM Force Projection, and focused us for a successful JLTV engineering and manufacturing development phase.

Warrior EquipperCS&CSS Succeeds amidst austerity, urgent needs and a new type of War

Q&AQ&AKevin M. Fahey

Program Executive OfficerCombat Support &

Combat Service Support


Second, in October 2012, Joint Pro-gram Executive Officer responsibility for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles [MRAPs] moved from the Marine Corps to the Army. That’s a second hat I wear in addition to CS&CSS, although the CS&CSS team is certainly essential to all of the MRAP’s life-saving successes and respon-sible for Army MRAPs. We’re currently transitioning all MRAPs to service-led man-agement, planning for the Army’s MRAP family of vehicles’ future, and preparing to stand down the Joint Program Office by October.

Third, we are improving our focus on operational energy and battlefield effi-ciency. Last year PM Mobile Electric Power [MEP] returned to PEO CS&CSS from PEO C3T. On the modern battlefield, operational energy equates to combat power, and the joint force needs reliable, efficient power wherever it goes. PM MEP’s theater focus and product innovations improve our abil-ity to provide energy to remote and austere operations, tailored to the meet the power and force sustainment demands of individual war fighting units. We are also standing up an office for contingency-basing infrastructure. The joint force needs a standard, rapidly deployable and resource-efficient way to live in the field, and our team is moving forward to make that happen.

Finally, we are fully engaged in the Army’s developing Strate-gic Modernization Planning effort. Two things about the future are certain: Some of the threats will be different, but some of the platforms we have will be the same. Only with a long-term view of priorities, threats, requirements and opportunities can we best make decisions about capability sustainment and modernization investments—particularly in a resource-constrained environ-ment. By focusing on managing capabilities within and across equipment portfolios, the effort underway coordinates planned investments to prioritize needs, respond to emerging threats and link science and technology advances to future program insertions. Spread across a 30-year time horizon, aligning S&T projects with requirements developers and acquisition leaders is an important step in preparing the Army for the future.

Q: In the joint light tactical vehicle program, now that you have seen candidate JLTVs, are you confident that the Army and Marine Corps will be able to obtain high-mobility vehicles able to perform well against contemporary threats?

A: Yes. During the technology demonstration [TD] phase, we asked contractors to consider the realm of the possible. The prototypes developed and tested during TD helped us appreciate levels of technological maturity and affordability in order to shape the program for success. Focused on efficient, affordable solutions that meet our balanced protection, payload and performance criteria, the three engineering and manufacturing development phase vendors are moving ahead. Each recently completed a design understanding review, an intensive, week-long review

held at the vendor’s site. Based on the program’s success to date and feedback from the reviews, it appears that each vendor will certainly be competitive. JLTV is the best structured program I’ve seen, and the benefits we’ve reaped from cost-informed trade analyses and competitive prototyping continue to pay dividends for the taxpayer and the future joint force. I am confident that—on our present course—JLTV will leap our automotive performance, protected mobility and battlefield network capabilities forward for the joint force.

Q: How would the new JLTVs well serve warfighters, and more generally, why do those who stand in harm’s way have a genuine need for better vehicle platforms?

A: We fielded the HMMWV in a totally different era. In the 1980s, no one worried about improvised explosive devices threatening our deployed forces. In addition, we expected the enemy’s shape and location to be fairly well defined. The battlespace changed. For Iraq and Afghanistan, we modified up-armored HMMWVs, but the vehicles weren’t designed to perform with the weight of armor and still have useable payload capacity. The MRAPs—and later, M-ATVs—could carry a protected payload, but they were far less maneuverable. JLTV is designed to buy back that protected pay-load in a maneuverable vehicle that also includes improvements in maintainability, supportability and performance—and the first vehicle fielded specifically to carry the Army’s network. MRAPs and HMMWVs may be with us for quite some time, but JLTV will let us best match the right vehicle to the right situation.

Q: Are you confident that the JLTV program can move ahead on schedule, thanks to proven technologies?

A: Yes. Our cost-informed trades analysis carefully considered mature technologies, and we do not anticipate any delays. One major framing assumption that enabled us to shorten JLTV’s

A soldier assigned to Headquarters “Hammer” Troop, 1st Brigade combat Team, 1st cavalry Division, checks to ensure proper vehicle light function of a HMMWV at Fort Hood, Texas. [Photo courtesy of DoD]



EMD phase schedule from 48 to 33 months was that industry had ready designs that could move into production quickly. Our EMD selection criteria demanded mature designs, and our recent design understanding review results have confirmed that fact. Through-out the phase, the JPO is using separate product director teams for each vendor to ensure regular oversight across competitive prototypes, conducting ongoing performance testing, providing scheduled progress updates to the services and [the office of the secretary of defense] every six months, and consistently focusing on affordability, mature technologies, greater reliability, performance and commonality. I think that the recent design understanding reviews confirmed that we’re on the right course. The three con-tract vendors already have vehicles and are scheduled to deliver 22 full prototypes this August, and I believe JLTV is well on its way.

Q: Will the future JLTVs provide savings in operating costs, ver-sus existing conventional military vehicles, thus helping to reduce outlays in a time of defense funding austerity?

A: We intend for the future JLTV fleet to result in a lower life cycle cost and smaller overall logistics footprint than a similarly sized legacy force. In fact, the final production down-select will consider life cycle cost alongside production cost and capability in the selec-tion criteria. The JLTV on-the-move fuel efficiency is equivalent to the legacy fleet, but the JLTV offers greater capability. The JLTV will be more mobile, [able to] carry more payload and will offer more protection than the current armored HMMWVs. In addition, JLTV is improving fuel consumption at idle, which is significant. By building efficient vehicles with a focus on greater reliability, per-formance and commonality while reducing the maintenance ratio, we are confident that the JLTV program will deliver a leap ahead in tactical wheeled vehicle capability.

Q: How are MRAPs doing in theater to protect personnel from IED blasts, and are any upgrades needed for the MRAP?

A: We measure MRAP vehicles’ real success by the most important metric: lives saved. We may never know how many lives were truly saved, but there is no doubt that MRAPs made a big difference. We also continued to adjust to changing threats with near-continuous upgrades. As we start to draw down theater operations, these will continue, but we are being very careful to match upgrades to the threat and support priority needs from field commanders. Other upgrades may be done at home, and as the services make more decisions on their MRAP fleets’ future, we’ll be ready to posture these vehicles for future requirements.

Q: And what is your assessment of survivability of the M-ATV? Are further enhancements needed here?

A: The M-ATV has been an important advancement in protected mobility—able to go where other MRAPs had difficulty but still with impressive protection. It’s been the right vehicle for our cur-rent situation, and it’s been a vehicle responsive to new needs. For example, as a result of a joint urgent operational needs statement, the M-ATV team successfully designed an underbody improvement kit in just 30 days. The kit improved the underbody structure of the baseline M-ATV vehicle to better distribute and mitigate the blast effects across the vehicle structure.

Further enhancements depend in large part on theater com-manders’ needs and service decisions about these vehicles’ future. Again, as we start to draw down, we will continue to make changes, but we are being very careful to match upgrades to the threat and support priority needs from field commanders.

Q: With the potential of a further $500 billion of defense outlay reductions possible, in addition to $487 billion already outlined, what cost-saving and efficiency moves have you already instituted at CS&CSS?

A: In our business, where the taxpayers entrust us with so many resources, we always make it a point to carefully consider all of our spending actions—from the vendors we select to the way we travel and manage programs. On the program side, the CS&CSS team has led the way in implementing DoD’s “Better Buying Power” and “Should Cost” initiatives and by managing more intentionally within and across each capability portfolio. Some of these ideas seem simple enough, but doing them well can be as difficult as it is important. Take the JLTV program, for example, where key Better Buying Power elements helped us maintain a competitive focus, decrease variants, reduce risk and save $320 million by shorten-ing the EMD phase from 48 to 33 months. Moreover, the Army is the only service to apply “Should Cost”—focusing on the best value through efficiencies—to its ACAT III [acquisition category] programs. We have a large number of these at CS&CSS, and after piloting this for the Army we expect substantial cost savings and cost avoidance in our programs.

Q: What are some of the key lessons learned about vehicles that CS&CSS has amassed in the past decade of combat, during the first wars of the 21st century?

A: Across the acquisition community, we learned a great deal about quickly meeting urgent warfighter needs; about the importance of maintaining an in-theater presence to understand requirements firsthand; and about the difference the right capability can make—whether an MRAP, a shower system or a reliable field generator. We have also seen the challenges of integrating C4ISR systems and mission equipment onto various vehicles, and the importance of managing these systems in early vehicle design and throughout the life cycle. But I think we’ve also learned about the future. The Army’s Strategic Modernization Planning effort reminds us to look broadly across portfolios and to consider technological maturity, future support requirements, sustainment planning and key sci-ence and technology insertion opportunities. Tomorrow’s threats may be different, and we are thinking about how we may use today’s systems down the road.

Q: Do you have any closing thoughts about the men and women of CS&CSS who execute the mission each day?

A: I could not be more proud of this team. In the face of rapidly changing requirements, urgent battlefield needs and now some sub-stantial fiscal uncertainty, they continue to deliver what our troops need every day. These acquisition, logistics, contracting, engineer-ing and business management professionals diligently ensure the joint force has what it needs from before it hits the field until the moment they all come home. I’m very thankful to be a part. O

As the U.S. military confronts two chal-lenges—increasing threats around the world and diminishing budgets at home—helmet manufacturers are looking for the key to keeping troops safe, sound and comfortable.

Both industry and its government cus-tomers are on a quest for an industrial Holy Grail: a combat helmet with more ballistic protection than ever before, but that is lighter than previous models.

Experts think the key is a form of ther-moplastic resin and composite material, which can be up to 40 percent tougher than aramid fiber protective materials such as Dupont’s Kevlar or Teijin’s Twaron, but also lighter in weight—a boon for today’s troops loaded down with body armor and batteries for all manner of communications and high-tech gear.

The U.S. military is looking to replace the helmets used by the Army and Marine Corps with an enhanced combat helmet (ECH) that will offer even more protection from bullets, blunt trauma and bomb frag-ments.

Head protection has been improving since the M1 steel pot helmet—introduced in World War II—was phased out in the 1980s. Next came the personal armor system for ground troops (PASGT) helmet. It was the first to uti-lize the strong, heat-resistant aramid synthetic fiber, Kevlar, developed by DuPont.

While DuPont makes the Kevlar fiber, other companies—such as textile firms and garment makers—may form it into products such as body armor vests.

The PSGT was replaced starting in 2003, by the Army’s lighter advanced combat helmet (ACH), and the Marines’ lightweight helmet (LWH), which is slightly heavier than the ACH despite its name. The two, made with Kevlar, are otherwise similar.

The ECH program is being overseen by the Marine Corps, which awarded a $3 mil-lion low rate production contract in March to Ceradyne Inc. of Costa Mesa, Calif. Helmets made under the initial order went to both the Army and Marine Corps. Ceradyne was the only one of four vendors to meet all the government requirements, although “there

was some drop-off in performance that the government wanted resolved. We believe the issues have now been resolved,” said Marc King, president of Ceradyne Armor Systems. He said the company expects to go to full rate production this spring.

“Right now there is a lot of pressure of budgets globally and in the U.S. We know our customers have pressure, budget constraints,” said Shitij Chabba, DSM Dyneema’s global business sector director. One solution is a resin-free ballistic tape technology which still uses the polyethelene polymer but skips the process of making it into a fiber and then con-verting it into a unidirectional composite. “We straight away go from a polymer to a tape,” he said, adding that eliminating those manufac-turing steps “helps reduce the cost and we pass that cost savings on to our customers.” The tape, manufactured in a 63-inch-wide roll, can be combined with unidirectional composites to achieve “a kind of cost-performance bal-ance” for customers, he said. The tape-based composite has lower ballistic protection than HB80 but it’s still very high, Chabba said,

the quest continues For lighter, But tougher, comBat helmets.

By John m. doyle

gct correspondent


For more information, contact GCT Editor Jeff campbell at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories

at www.gct-kmi.com.

adding that 100 percent tape-based solution can still offer protection, depending on the customer’s requirements.

Chabba said Dyneema is taking a two track strategy for developing new products: radical innovation to develop next generation breakthrough technologies and micro inno-vation to develop products targeted toward the immediate needs of the marketplace. “We have a lot of exciting stuff in the pipeline,” he noted.

DSM Dyneema, with production facilities in Greenville, N.C., makes a unidirectional composite material, known as HB80. The HB80 composite, a polyethylene fiber com-bined with resin and laminated together under pressure, offers users a choice: They can get the same protection currently pro-vided by aramid fiber helmets but at a lighter weight, or they can get greater fragmentation and ballistic protection without increasing helmet weight, Chabba said.

Meanwhile, other helmet manufacturers continue to supply the ACH and LWH combat headgear, and the heavier PASGT helmets to some foreign customers. ArmorSource, which supplies ACHs to the Army, is finishing off a four-year contract to supply lightweight advanced ballistic helmets to NATO’s Main-tenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA). The Hebron, Ohio-based company also sells to the Italian army and Israel’s border guards. Revision Military, based in Essex Junction, Vt., has won contracts with the Danish and Norwegian militaries to supply its Batlskin Cobra helmet, with an ultra-high molecu-lar weight polyethylene shell with a more rounded shape than the ACH.

BAE Systems, which also makes the ACH, has a small contract with New Zealand land forces but does most of its business with the U.S. Marine Corps, which buys its LWH through the Defense Logistics Agency. In February, BAE Systems received a $28 mil-lion order from the Marines for additional production of lightweight helmets. The order was an option on an existing 2010 contract for the LWH, first produced by BAE Systems in 2012. The cumulative value awarded thus far under the contract is approximately $56 million. “Right now, all of our manufacturing and major contracts are all made with aramid materials,” said Eric Gavelda, director of warf-ighter protection for BAE Systems. “On the thermoplastic side, we’re going to be using that as we look at the Army’s Soldier Protec-tion System,” an Army acquisition initiative to provide soldiers with head-to-toe protec-tion that is lighter and interoperable.

Ceradyne makes helmets for the U.S. Marine Corps and Army, but also in small quantities for overseas customers from Asia to South America. “International customers only buy in small quantities. When they buy large quantities, they buy them from China because they’re cheap,” said King.

Revision Military’s founder and CEO Jonathan Blanshay also said there is market growth in Latin America, Africa and to a lesser extent Asia. “Brazil is a very big growth market with the Olympics and World Cup coming,” he said. There are pockets of growth in Asia, such as Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, “but not Korea or Japan,” he said, because their troops seldom deploy outside their borders or if they do, only do so in small numbers.

The lightest helmet BAE Systems makes is the LWH for the Marines. But “we have an active program working on taking weight out of the final … density of our helmet system,” said Gavelda. The Army is seeking bids for a lighter version of its ACH. “The most recent solicitation was 10 percent lighter than their original design. So we’re actively pursuing that now,” he said.

“I’m working on a new, lightweight hel-met,” said Yoav Kapah, president and chief executive officer of ArmorSource. “My goal is that by AUSA [the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in October] I will be with a helmet that would be 750 grams [1.65 pounds] total weight, including everything.” He said the new design’s ballistic protection “will be equal, if not higher, than the ACH.”

But if a lighter, sturdier helmet is the Grail quest, then providing protection from rifle bullets is the hunt for the Great White Whale.

Revision Military’s Blanshay said it is something his company is working on “but it’s not commercial yet. It’s something we will submit to the U.S. Army. The only way to do it and not make the helmet too heavy, he said, is with “polyethylene, not Kevlar—without turning it into 10 pounds.”

Face protection, both facial shields and mandible protection for the lower jaw, is being developed by BAE Systems, Revision Military and ArmorSource. But Ceradyne—acquired last year by 3M—is not interested in face plates or shields. “Troops don’t want that. It fogs up, gets dirty, it’s hot and humid. Also, they’d rather have goggles,” said King. Instead, the company has developed the Mohawk helmet that, in conjunction with Wilcox, integrates a removable mandible

along with power supply bar to eliminate the need for a separate power source.

Face protection, combined with addi-tional equipment like radios, video cameras and night vision goggles, poses another chal-lenge: integration of all the add-ons without unbalancing the helmet or negating the sav-ings in weight achieved through the use of lighter materials.

“In our industry, the big challenge is complete head protection,” said ArmorSource’s Kapah. Imagine a helmet like the one used by motorcyclists that protects the face as well as the head, he said. “This is the first [challenge], and the second one is integrated systems that will provide all the services for the soldier in combat, which include communications, night vision and everything lightweight and integrated in the helmet, without all the adapters and everything that we have right now.”

Noting the “huge trend toward integra-tion and lower weight,” Ceradyne’s King said, “It’s great to have new, lighter weight materi-als, but if all you are doing is lightening the helmet shell and adding all this other junk, are soldiers really better off?”

Most helmet makers say their biggest concern for the future is that both military forces and deployments will shrink and there will be less and less need for state-of-the-art helmets. “If no one’s shooting at me, do I need a new helmet?” asked King. “The ACH is fine for training,” he said.

Their comments came as the war in Iraq has ended, and the force drawdown is under-way in Afghanistan.

“The budget is so tight, and most of the armies of the world are holding back the money, but with the first incident, they will want the helmets right now and in huge quantity,” predicted Kapah, adding that it will be tough “to be able to satisfy those require-ments. The biggest challenge is how do you plan your production? And what capacity you have? And how quickly can you respond?”

“The risks won’t be just for the manufac-turers,” said Blanshay. “The industrial base will be hollowed out, and the next time there’s a big need for helmets or other protec-tive gear, there will be fewer players and less capacity and less expertise to do it. So there [are] consequences,” he added. O


Making transparent armor is tough. The ultimate aims are stopping threats from penetrating vehicles while allowing soldiers to maintain situational awareness in all environments, explained Anthony Dolan, leader of the Vehicle Armor Team at the United States Army Tank Automo-tive Research, Development and Engi-neering Center (TARDEC).

“Most transparent armor solutions consist of layers made from soda-lime glass and plastic,” said Dolan. “Between each layer is a material that bonds the different pieces together after being pro-cessed in an autoclave. The number of layers in each solution and their respec-tive thicknesses can be varied to achieve different ballistic protection capabilities.”

TARDEC is seeking to improve the overall durability of transparent armor, which must be robust enough to with-stand impacts and extreme temperature environments without a degradation of performance. Dolan said major improve-ments in transparent armor can be achieved through the use of transparent ceramics, which are much harder than glass and provide improved ballistic per-formance.

For example, Technology Assessment & Transfer makes transparent Spinel, a hard ceramic the company has been developing over a dozen years in col-laboration with a Small Business Innova-tion Research (SBIR) program, according to President Lawrence Fehrenbacher. “Nobody had been able to scale it up; we have done that now,” Fehrenbacher said.

Technology Assessment has also made the Spinel product much lighter and

harder, half the weight of glass armor and hard enough to resist sand erosion. “Glass armor is so heavy, you can’t replace it in the field,” Fehrenbacher said.

Fehrenbacher argued that Spinel out-performs another transparent ceramic, Sapphire. “We are not as hard as Sapphire, but for a given level of ballistic protection, Spinel is lighter.”

Technology Assessment has just fin-ished qualifying Spinel for the Army. “We have a window with Spinel and several backing layers of polymer laminates for stopping armor-piercing projectiles,” Feh-renbacher explained. “We deal with the more severe threat of armor-piercing. That is much harder than for opaque armor, which can put tiles together and stop it.”

The Army specifications were very hard to meet, and Fehrenbacher said these specs had never been met before. Technology Assessment had its new Spinel windows on two vehicles in the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles for a durability test that had many tough requirements.

The Technology Assessment exec sees plenty of applications for Spinel, both on combat vehicles and as windows for electro-optical sensors, for example on new destroyers. “The Army is looking to up-armor special vehicles now,” Fehrenbacher noted. Lockheed Martin placed a large order for Sapphire for its High Mobility Artillery Rocket System years ago. “At that time, we could not scale up. Now we can.”

Technology Assessment has made an agreement allowing ArmorLine to

produce Spinel. The company has built a 78,000-square-foot facility south of Charlotte, N.C., and installed a 200-ton press, “the largest in North America,” Fehrenbacher said. “They have just produced 75 windows.”

The Spinel product is costly, with the powder more expensive than glass and a requirement to heat it to 3,000 degrees. But Fehrenbacher argued better durability gives Spinel a lower life cycle cost because it will not have to be replaced as often as cheaper materials. But he is not confident that military procurement offices will buy based on lifecycle, rather than initial, cost.

What counts is how the virtues of Spi-nel can be provided in commercial-scale production. “Technology Assessment & Transfer developed the processes to make larger plates than had been made before,” said Lawrence Shaffer, general manager of ArmorLine. “Our mission is to scale it up further and commercialize the product. This and other transparent ceramics have been around for a long time, but they could not be made in the sizes and volumes needed for ground vehicles.”

Shaffer’s firm, with $20 million in pri-vate equity, is doing just that, for vehicles like the HMMWV or the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT A4). “Sev-eral companies knew how to make Spinel, but no one had the equipment to make it in larger sizes. Our investors provided the capital to deliver that capability.”

Transparent Armor

vehicle WindoWs Become tougher, While also Becoming lighter.By henry canaday, gct correspondent


For more information, contact GCT Editor Jeff campbell at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories

at www.gct-kmi.com.

The ArmorLine exec believes he is now in a unique position to succeed. Another firm can make aluminum oxynitride trans-parent armor with “similar properties, but not as large as we can,” he noted. And he said that there are issues with scaling up Sapphire sizes. “We have the capability to make Spinel plates 30 by 50 inches, big enough for any military vehicles.”

Like Fehrenbacher, Shaffer emphasized the huge weight advantage Spinel has. He estimated that Spinel windows are 60 percent thinner and 60 percent lighter than the standard glass and polycarbonate alternative for transparent armor.

Cost is the big hurdle. Like all ceramic materials, Spinel is made in a batch pro-cess and the cost to produce is directly related to volume. Shaffer noted that the cost of powder, the cost of converting it to plates and then the cost of polishing the plate are the three main components of the total price. “ArmorLine’s unique manufacturing capabilities now offer the lowest-cost option to convert the powder to plates. The other components of the cost will come down with scale and, with that volume, the conversion costs will also come down. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing.”

Shaffer estimates that volume will bring Spinel down to three to four times the cost of conventional glass-based trans-parent armor. But he said that cost differ-ence is justified with significant reductions in overall lifecycle costs for the transparent armor and for the vehicle systems. “Spinel transparent armor is lighter, so vehicles can carry more payload, improve their fuel economy and have more range. It is also much more durable. If used as the strike-face, outer layer, Spinel significantly improves abrasion resistance and the win-dow will last longer in service.”

ArmorLine sees prospects for using Spinel in the HMMWV’s possible replace-ment vehicle, the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV). Shaffer believes the JLTV procurement has been down-selected to three vendors, and all of them still have weight challenges. “They have used all the conventional methods to get the weight of the vehicle down. We are an unconven-tional alternative that offers significant weight savings without compromising pro-tection.”

Weight is always a crucial consider-ation in developing transparent armor. Transparent Armor Solutions is a women-owned small business that has recently

been funded by TARDEC to develop a modular system of transparent armor for a Class 3a all-temperature solution. This design is a next-generation version of the company’s Gemini armor system. “The current single-laminate Class 3a all-tem-perature weighs 58 pounds per square foot,” explained David Jungk, director of engineering. “Using advanced technolo-gies, including air-gap, we achieve weights as low as 42 psf.”

These solutions use two different con-structions for the A-and-B laminates. The TARDEC effort simplifies this approach by using two laminates of the same con-struction, thus making an A-and-A armor system. This method of using the same construction for both layers reduces part count and logistics burden, thus easing the job of procurement departments. The TARDEC effort has been demonstrated using conventional materials at 50 psf, but TAS now has A-and-A solutions at 45 psf for Class 3a all-temperature and at 52 psf for Class 4a all-temperature.

One of the main risks with air-gap technologies is moisture ingression into the air gap. The modular armor system developed by TAS and TARDEC addresses this risk by designing the system for easy maintenance, allowing the two halves to be separately quickly. If moisture does penetrate the seal, then the air gap can be cleaned and the desiccant replaced. TARDEC is currently testing this solution against the Transparent Armor Purchase Document 2352 requirements including ballistics, vibration, humidity and thermal shock.

“The Gemini Modular Armor System is ideal for tactical wheeled vehicles that may see a variety of threat requirements,” Jungk said. “Ideal candidates would be the [JLTV], upgraded HMMWVs and even mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles.” He also sees them as perfect for Special Opera-tion Command’s ground mobility vehicles.

Further developments by TAS in trans-parent armor include: exterior coatings for abrasion resistance; transparent indium tin oxide coating for deicing windshields and Smart Glass by TAS for on-demand tinting. “The Smart Glass by TAS technol-ogy is a recent addition to our capabilities,” Jungk said. “It allows the user to control tinting of the glass from visible to less than 1 percent light transmission.” The primary benefit for armored vehicles would be hiding occupants from potential threats,

but the technology could also be used to minimize solar heating for the comfort of vehicle occupants.

Another highly diversified firm that works in this field is PPG Aerospace, which produces transparent armor products for military vehicles, buildings, rail, commer-cial and industrial applications, explained David Palermo, global segment manager for Transparent Armor and Specialty Prod-ucts. “PPG Aerospace transparent armor products are differentiated by our proprie-tary technology, quality, volume produced, robustness and our understanding of cus-tomer needs,” Palermo said. “We are also able to offer customers support around the world through our global network of Application Support Centers.”

PPG’s transparent armor products are used both by manufacturers of military vehicles around the world and by the orga-nizations that refurbish these vehicles. “The U.S. Army’s quality control programs ensure our products do not deviate in per-formance,” Palermo said. “These require-ments continually validate the robustness of PPG transparent armor solutions against a variety of threats.”

PPG exploits its experience in aero-space to make transparent armor with high optical clarity, resistance to de-lamination and light-transmission values that exceed specifications. “These attributes provide soldiers with increased situational aware-ness across the entire viewing area with normal or enhanced eyesight,” Palermo noted.

PPG materials have played an impor-tant role in the rock-strike requirements that are being developed in military speci-fications. Palermo said the intent of these new specifications is to raise the in-field performance standards that must be met by all transparent armor products in order to improve mission readiness of military vehicles.

Palermo observed that PPG is now developing holistic approaches to decrease the weight of its transparent armor. It is also working on polycarbonate replace-ments to improve maintenance of the armor and increase its service life, all while ensuring the armor remains affordable. O


On a November evening, a fires brigade commander in Afghan-istan prepares to execute an offensive maneuver. He requests an update on the Army tactical missile system rockets resupply and the maintenance status on the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). His supply sergeant queries the Battle Command Sustain-ment Support system (BCS3) for the last location of the convoy transporting the rockets, and also opens a maintenance unit status report for progress on the MLRS repair. Determining that the convoy left two hours ago and the MLRS is still in the shop but all parts are available for the repair, the sergeant then verifies the estimated time of arrival will be six hours for both shipments to the brigade. Finally, an additional query regarding personnel confirms that two additional soldiers are scheduled to arrive one day ahead of schedule.

Did this up-to-date fire and personnel support data contrib-ute towards a successful attack? Yes, it did; however, the events described were actually part of a simulated exercise using the BCS3, underscoring the fact that logistics support training is just as critical to the mission as the training provided to soldiers for battlefield combat operations.

“Simulations are used to train commanders and staffs in proce-dures and a wide range of offensive and defensive operations without having to deploy,” said Robert Sears, senior subject matter expert for Sustainment System Mission Command, BCS3’s product office under Project Manager Mission Command. “BCS3 allows sustainment soldiers to gain experience in how they would support the fight from a logistics perspective without going to the field to conduct resource-intensive force-on-force exercises.”

BCS3 provides real-time logistical map-based operational capabili-ties to commanders at all echelons, and includes a logistics reporting tool (LRT) for sustainment status reports, supply and equipment in-transit visibility (ITV), and resource (personnel) asset visibility. It is one of the logistics tools within Mission Command and provides sustainment information in the Command Post Computing Environ-ment (CP CE). The CP CE is one of several computing environments nested inside the Army’s common operating environment, and aims to simplify systems architecture for command-and-control capability development at tactical echelons.

“As we began to support simulations in the 1990s, it was necessary to travel to each site to set up a server suite,” said Bill Patteson, lead

Bringing a skilled and coordinated Force to Battle staFF training.

By calvin pilgrim and kathryn Bailey


field support representative for the BCS3 Simulations and Stimula-tions (Sim-Stim) team. “However, in 2011, the National Simulation Center at Fort Lee, Va., began hosting the BCS3 simulation team and the National Data Portal (NDP). While we conduct many of the 12 major annual exercises on post, the portal allows us to support exercises worldwide from the Fort Lee location, thus affording cost savings to the Army.”

Exercises are tailored to unit requests, generally last 10 days and include participation from the active Army, Reserve component and the National Guard. The BCS3 architecture allows an organization to execute a myriad of sustainment operations. In more complex situations, the BCS3 architecture can be expanded to accommodate a greater number of systems, sometimes called BCS3 clients.

To ensure the most realistic experience for sustainment support soldiers, the BCS3 Sim-Stim team stimulates the scenarios by inject-ing data. The injected data test the responses of sustainment person-nel. The types of simulations exercised are part of two well-known logistics federations: the Multi-Resolution Federation (MRF) and the Entity Resolution Federation (ERF). MRF uses warfighter simulation (WARSIM) for the combat model and Logistics Federation (LOGFED) for the logistics model. ERF interfaces to Mission Command Systems via the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation as the combat model and Joint Deployment Logistics Model as the logistics model.

The actual scenarios vary depending on the training requirements, so the BCS3 Sim-Stim team closely coordinates each exercise to ensure the exercise meets the command’s expectations. For example, a command may state that it needs to prepare for an upcoming deploy-ment and want their soldiers to learn how to track Class I items (food, water and other comfort items). The simulation then pushes out a sup-ply status to the user’s BCS3 terminal, but withholds Class I updates.

“Units determine which classes of supply they want to exercise and the simulation allows them to manually report logistics data via the logistics reporting tool,” said Patteson.

The simulated environment begins when logistics data flows from the LOGFED (logistics) server through a gateway to the LOGFED Sim-Stim client, which then feeds to the BCS3 main gateway. The gateway pushes that data down to the BCS3 clients. It is in the Sim-Stim cli-ent where the unit task organization and tracked items list, a crucial listing of the commodities commanders deem necessary to complete their mission, are built and passed to the BCS3 NDP and the training BCS3 clients (training audience) via the main gateway.

The output is unit basic load (UBL) data from warfighters’ simula-tion (WARSIM), provided by Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation, and supply point data from LOGFED, which is packaged and distributed to all the BCS3 gateways and client systems in the exercise architecture. The UBL data provides several classes of supply, from Class I through Class IX. This data is sent in the form of a logistics status report message and posts data in the running estimate reports, combat power, as well as the LRT.

Using the data from WARMSIM, a unit can use BCS3 to monitor degradation of stocks. For instance, users can set the UBL to send out an alert if fuel supplies reach 75 percent. Or, users can track ammuni-tion resupply by setting an alert to sound after 100 rounds are shot. On the LOGFED side, the simulation teaches users how to track the convoys carrying the supplies.

“Convoys are visible on the common operating picture in BCS3, and the ITV information sent from LOGFED can be published to the battle command server so other Army battle command systems, such as command post of the future and command web, can subscribe to

them and see the convoys on their common operation picture,” said Patteson.

Another popular capability is the logistics factor file, which allows the user to set logistics factors that affect their status in the areas of planning, consumption factors and planning days for supply and status thresholds. This functionality allows unit leaders to weight the afore-mentioned factors and determine their readiness status to conduct combat operations.

Units also request BCS3’s combat power capability for an all-inclusive analysis of their logistics readiness to perform their missions. “Combat power for an organization is one of the major capabilities of BCS3. It displays Air and Ground Class VII, Maintenance, Class V, Class III Bulk and personnel status so that a commander can obtain a realistic picture of the organization’s posture,” said John Woyansky, another BCS3 Sim-Stim team member.

Training for Sim-Stim operations is available to units, and LRT is the most requested module. Users appreciate that they can use LRT to submit a report from the lowest level and then have the data automati-cally populate at each echelon based on the unit’s task organization. A new LRT enhancement includes equipment grouping, which allows a user to use a default grouping such as combat, assault and tactical vehicles, and tracked, which contains major combat equipment such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, Bradley fighting vehicles and other assets.

The BCS3 Simulation Team continues to improve the system’s interface, and as BCS3 is modernized and migrates into a web-enabled environment they are also migrating the Sim-Stim environment to remain similar to the web-enabled environment. The applications, or widgets, for the new LRT, combat power, in-transit visibility, asset visibility and unit task organization are either already in use or will be by fiscal year 2014.

“We will continue to improve on the interface, and as BCS3 changes to a web-based system, so does LOGFED to ensure the train-ing audience has a logistics simulation provider for exercises now and into the future,” said Woyansky. O

Calvin Pilgrim is PdD for Sustainment System Mission Com-mand. Kathryn Bailey is a public communications advisor, Project Manager Mission Command.



Figure 1: link between logFED and BcS3 in a simulation environment


Toy Landmine (or Just What Every Kid Needs!)

Out of Hong Kong—

and hoping they mean

training—comes a toy

landmine. This “comes

with everything you

see here” claymore-

looking “toy” landmine is

described as having three

primary elements: the

main housing, a smoke

generating “means,” and

a triggering device. The

triggering device includes

a rammer for striking the

container to release the smoke, and a delay mechanism. The sole purpose of the

delay mechanism appears to be able to stretch out the smoke release over a longer

period of time.

Target Designation and Mobile Control Station

From Russia comes a brief

description of a mobile target

designation and mobile control

station on a wheeled chassis

separated into three sections.

Far forward is the driver/

operator section, which is fairly

standard to the already in-service

vehicle.

Behind that is the commander’s

control section, accommodating

the commander primary control

station, automated workstations,

power supply control hardware,

life support hardware elements,

cooling and air conditioning

systems, signal processing and

control hardware for the active-

passive radar complex, ground

computer-aided control system

for target distribution among

launchers, and communication and

navigation hardware complex. The

last element is the unmanned rear

compartment that accommodates

the antenna station (protected by

a radio translucent cover). The

primary antenna is articulated at the

rear wall of the rear compartment

and is raided and lowered from

this location.

The control station roof

accommodates the mast, with

hardware, for a covert narrow-

band low-power radio line-of-sight

data exchange channel.

The Russians report that

this design represents expanded

operating performances and better

reliability.

Blast Attenuating Seat

Details of a blast attenuating seat from Allen Vanguard

have been released. The design relates to a system and

method of armed forces vehicle seating which reduces the

potential for injury to occupants when the vehicle is subjected

to a landmine or similar explosive device. The seats are floor,

ceiling or wall mounted and include a trailer arm which allow

deflection while providing stability. This arrangement isolates

the occupants from the chassis of the vehicle via a pneumatic

or other shock absorber. These seats can also be combined

with shock absorbing/isolating foot rests, leg restrain systems

and an occupant four-point harness to offer a completely

integrated system. This integrated system reduces acceleration/

deceleration-related injuries, shock injuries to the lower legs,

flailing injuries to the lower legs and internal collision injuries.

Other options and alternatives are also described.

technlogy Intel Compiled by KMi Media Group Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan

Dynamic Protection

Russian armor has long made use of dynamic or reactive armor.

This dynamic protection concept comprises a body, a cover and an

explosive. Explosive-filled cartridges of high-strength, ball-shaped

steel, fill the body (sometimes referred to as the cartridge) of the unit

section. Inside the cartridge is a detonator, sensitive to compression

and deformation. The explosive steel balls are arranged in layers

within the body, and are activated once the body is penetrated by

an armor-piercing or explosively-formed penetrator. The counter

explosion is designed to disrupt the penetration ability of the

incoming round.

Hatch Design for Russian 2S19 Self-Propelled Gun

A hatch is a hatch, but the size of the side hatches of the 2S19

turret is large enough to require an assist device. Since the doors do

not compromise ballistic protection, that also means they are heavy.

Uraltransmash claims that this design eases opening while preserving

protection levels and the tightness of the seal.


The Navy’s shift to the Pacific inspires our twelfth title and website...

OUR INAUGURAL ISSUEwill support the Navy with the latest program developments in air and sea for Congress, the executive branch, other services and industry.

Contact Nikki James at [email protected] or 301-670-5700 to participate in the inaugural issue!

INAUGURAL ISSUECover Q&A:

Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, PEO Aircraft Carriers

Special Section:

Carrier Onboard Delivery Replacement

Features:

Ship Self-Defense

Riverine Patrol Craft

Precision Guided Munitions

Program Spotlight:

Presidential Helicopter

AUGUSTCover Q&A:

Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, PEO Tactical Air Programs

Special Section:

Mine Warfare

Features:

Airborne ISR

Vibration Control

Ship Life Cycle Management

Program Spotlight:

LCS

OCTOBERCover Q&A:

Rear Adm. David Lewis, PEO Ships

Special Section:

USV/UUV Systems and Launch and Recovery Technologies

Features:

Biofuels

Maritime ISR Capabilities

Asia Focus

Program Spotlight:

F-35

DECEMBERCover Q&A:

Rear Adm. Paul Grosklags, PEO Air ASW, Assault and Special Mission Programs

Special Section:

Shipboard Fire Alarms and Control Systems

Features:

Modeling & Simulation in Ship Design

Fleet At-Sea Replenishment

Corrosion Control

Program Spotlight:

DDG1000

OUR 12 TH TITLE

COMING IN JUNE!

advErtisErs indExAptima ............................................................................................27www.aptima.comAR Modular RF ...............................................................................11www.arworld.us/propvidLeupold & Stevens ..........................................................................C4www.leupold.comLockheed Martin ............................................................................C2www.lockheedmartin.com/jltv

The

adve

rtis

ers

inde

x is

pro

vide

d as

a s

ervi

ce to

our

read

ers.

KM

i can

not b

e he

ld re

spon

sibl

e fo

r dis

crep

anci

es d

ue to

last

-min

ute

chan

ges

or a

ltera

tions

.

gct reSource center

CalEndar

July 11-12, 2013Warrior Expo EastVirginia Beach, Va.www.adsinc.com/warriorexpo

July 31-August 1, 2013Military Vehicles Conference & ExhibitionDetroit, Mich.www.militaryvehiclesexpo.com

September 24-26, 2013Modern Day MarineQuantico, Va.www.marinemilitaryexpos.com

October 21-23, 2013AUSA Annual MeetingWashington, D.C.http://ausameetings.org/annual/

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

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

Want to REACH the decision-makers inthe DEFENSE COMMUNITY

KMI’S FAMILY OF PUBLICATIONS

?

BORDER & CBRNE DEFENSE

GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE FORUM

GROUND COMBAT TECHNOLOGY

MILITARY ADVANCED EDUCATION

MILITARY LOGISTICS FORUM

MILITARY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

MILITARY MEDICAL & VETERANS AFFAIRS FORUM

MILITARY TRAINING TECHNOLOGY

NAVY AIR/SEA PEO FORUM

SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY

TACTICAL ISR TECHNOLOGY

U.S. COAST GUARD FORUM

To learn more, call KMI Media Group at 301.670.5700

June 2012Volume 1, Issue 1

www.BCD-kmi.com

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Border Protector

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border PatrolU.S. Customs and Border Protection

Wide Area Aerial Surveillance O Hazmat Disaster Response

Tactical Communications O P-3 Program

Integrated Fixed Towers

Leadership Insight:Robert S. BrayAssistant Administrator for

Law EnforcementDirector of the Federal Air

Marshal Service Transportation Security

Administration

SPECIAL SECTION:

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

Carrier Craftsman

Rear Adm. Thomas J. Moore

U.S. Navy Program

Executive Officer

Aircraft Carriers

Presidential Helicopter O Shipboard Self-Defense O Riverine Patrol Craft

Precision Guided Munitions O Educational Development Partnership

www.npeo-kmi.com

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOsI N A U G U R A L I S S U E

SPECIAL SECTION:

CARRIER ONBOARD

DELIVERY OPTIONS

Human-Centered Engineering

To learn more about Aptima, see article on page 15:

Boston ▪ DC ▪ Dayton ▪ Orlando | www.aptima.com

Sense-making System for Robots


Kathryn Hasse is responsible for Lock-heed Martin’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) EMD program and production cap-ture.

In October 2003, Hasse was named director of advanced concepts, where she was responsible for assessing the tactical wheeled vehicle market and for success-fully negotiating a license agreement with HMT Vehicles Ltd for exclusive rights to their high mobility transport vehicles for the North American and associated foreign military sales markets. She later led the successful acquisition of HMT Vehicles Ltd.

Hasse has a Bachelor of Arts in eco-nomics and political science from Wellesley College.

Q: What types of products and services are you offering to military and other govern-ment customers?

A: When people think of Lockheed Mar-tin, many of them think “airplanes”—but that’s only part of the corporation’s port-folio. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control [2012 sales $7.5 billion] has been in the ground-vehicles business for more than three decades, and we’re responsible for many of the platforms that the U.S. Army, the Marine Corps and numerous allied nations rely upon every day. We pro-duce not only precision-guided ATACMS missiles and GMLRS rockets, but also the vehicles that launch them—the HIMARS and M270-series mobile launchers. We’re the prime contractor on Common Vehicle, an extremely mobile reconnaissance vehi-cle capable of high speeds across unforgiv-ing terrain, and we also lead the LAV-C2 mobile command-and-control vehicle pro-gram for the Marines.

We are one of three JLTV competitors in the program’s engineering, manufactur-ing and development [EMD] phase, and our assembly line has begun producing the 22 test vehicles that we will deliver to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps for evaluation later this summer. We believe our JLTV design strikes a crucial balance between

cost and outstanding overall capability.

Q: What unique benefits does your com-pany provide its customers in comparison with other companies in your field?

A: Lockheed Martin Corporation is a world leader in high-technology systems and products. Our workforce comprises 80,000 scientists, engineers and information tech-nology professionals who are committed to providing superior systems for those who go into harm’s way to protect our free-dom. We are able to exploit that enormous wealth of intellectual capital when we design and field our products. So, not only do we offer systems that often transcend existing technologies—we make things that work reliably. Our ground vehicles are known both for their capability and their dependability. For example, Lockheed Mar-tin HIMARS and M270A1 mobile launchers have achieved readiness rates of 99 and 98 percent respectively. Lockheed Martin’s award-winning experience in managing performance-based logistics programs for ground platforms enables increased system readiness and lower ownership costs.

Q: How are you working to strengthen the security of your solutions?

A: Nearly every day brings a new headline about an elaborate cyber-attack, interna-tional or corporate espionage, or attempts to steal proprietary and classified informa-tion. As the world’s largest defense contrac-tor we are hyper-aware of these activities, and we understand that any breach can

have grave national-security implications. We can’t provide details about how we protect our information, but we can say that we devote very significant amounts of talent and resources to ensure its security.

Q: Are you currently developing new prod-ucts and services relevant to military and government customers that you hope to bring to the market in the future?

A: There are several in addition to JLTV. Our Havoc eight-wheel-drive armored modu-lar vehicle is a contender in the Marine Personnel Carrier competition. Lockheed Martin also is a pioneer in unmanned ground vehicles technology, and there are two current UGV programs that show promise for future applications. We were recently awarded a contract to develop and test the autonomous mobility applique system, which is a kit that can be installed on existing military vehicles to enable autonomous or semi-autonomous convoy operation. Also, we are continuing develop-ment of the squad mission support system [SMSS], a six-wheeled, car-sized robot that is demonstrating capabilities ranging from autonomous intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to resupply missions and unburdening soldiers’ heavy packs. The Army has indicated that it is likely to pur-sue an SMSS-like development contract around the 2016 time frame.

Q: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

A: I’d like to thank U.S. Army and Marine Corps for their ongoing leadership and cooperation on JLTV. I also want to con-gratulate our team on their commitment to ensuring that the Army and Marines get the vehicle they want and the vehicle they need. Our team members are laser-focused on controlling cost and getting the tech-nological solution right. We believe we’re offering a great vehicle, and I’m confident that the upcoming evaluation period will bear that out. O

InduStry InterVIeW ground combat technology

Kathryn B. HasseDirector, Tactical Wheeled Vehicles

Program Director, Joint Light Tactical VehicleLockheed Martin


Insertion Order Deadline: June 14, 2013 • Ad Materials Deadline: June 21, 2013


Maj. gen. h. r. McMastercover and in-Depth interview with:

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence

Featurestactical weapon sightsCheck out the latest in tactical weapon sights, including advances to match the greater range of some newer ammo. We focus on the new sights that companies are developing, and on the various types of sights that permit the warrior to take down the enemy at a safe distance.

night vision systemsSlipping up on the enemy in the dark, warriors are invisible. But they can see the enemy clearly, thanks to night vision systems, including newer assets that provide clear black-and-white views instead of the old green scene.

ruggedized computersWarriors on the field of combat can access a universe of data ranging from intel, to aerial video from UAVs, to cartography. But it all has to work dependably in the rough, jarring environment of a combat zone, and that is where ruggedized computers are at their best.

July 2013Vol. 4, Issue 3NEXTISSUE

Special SectionMobile electrical PowerWhile warriors once carried just a rifle, some grenades, a canteen filled with water and little else, the 21st-century combatant is an electronic netted node, needing plentiful electrical power. See how that need can be met efficiently and effectively.

[email protected] | www.LEUPOLD.COM | POrTLAnD, OrEgOn, U.S.A.

For our Freedomover a century oF experience and a

liFetime oF u.s. based liFe cycle support.

leupold tactical optics: designed, machined and assembled in the u.s.a.

Gct 4 2 final 061413

Documents

Transcript of Gct 4 2 final 061413