w w w . N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E M A G A Z I N E . O R G ■ $ 5 . 0 0

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4

Marines to Fight alongside robots

Government Offers Cyber Help

To Small Biz

army Helicopters to Fly Farther, Cut Cost

With new Engine

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 1

NDIA’S BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

VOLUME XCVIII , NUMBER 722

WWW.NATIONALDEFENSEMAGAZINE.ORG

News Features

Viewpoint

17 Budget Cuts, Inadequate Planning Puts Munitions Industrial Base in Peril

Industry officials worry that rigid peacetime requirements will not give munitions manufacturers the flexibility needed to ramp up production if a war begins.

BY BOB SERAPHIN AND RICH PALASCHAK

18 Opportunities Abound in NATO Defense Market

NATO is investing in a wide array of needs, including information technol-ogy, command and control, chemical and biological defense, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

BY KATERINA WRIGHT AND

ALEKSANDAR D. JOVOVIC

Cybersecurity 24� A new cybersecurity framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology will create a voluntary infor-mation-sharing regime between industry and government. Company officials say that it may help small- and medium-sized businesses save money on network infra-structure and reduce the risk of cyber-attacks.

Cover Story 26� The Army is set to soon start a competition for a new helicopter engine that will be 50 percent more powerful and 25 percent more fuel-efficient than current equipment. The engine is planned to be installed in all Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, and could also be integrated into the Army’s future rotorcraft fleet.

January 2014Twitter.com/NationalDefense Facebook.com/NationalDefense

www.NationalDefenseMagazine.org/blog

Exclusive content on

our blog

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 1

Cover: Photo-illustration / Defense Dept., Thinkstock images

Marine Corps 34� Technology is evolv-ing at such a rate that Marines could be fight-ing alongside ground robots in as little as 10 years. What remains to be seen is whether the Defense Department will have enough fund-ing to invest and procure the systems.

2 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

January 2014

volume xcviii number 722

EditorSandra I. Erwin (703)247-2543SErwin@ndia.org

Managing Editor Stew Magnuson(703)247-2545SMagnuson@ndia.org

StaFF WritEr Dan Parsons(703)247-2585DParsons@ndia.org

StaFF WritEr Valerie Insinna(703)247-2542VInsinna@ndia.org

dESign dirEctor Brian Taylor(703)247-2546BTaylor@ndia.org

EditoriaL aSSiStant Yasmin Tadjdeh(703)247-9469YTadjdeh@ndia.org

advErtiSing Dino Pignotti(703)247-2541DPignotti@ndia.orgFor additional advertising information, go to the Index of Advertisers on the last page.

National Defense Magazine2111WilsonBlvd.,Suite400Arlington,VA22201

ChaNgE of aDDrESS:http://eweb.ndia.org

LETTErS To ThE EDITor:NationalDefensewelcomesletters—proorcon.Keepthemshortandtothepoint.Letterswillbeeditedforclar-ityandlength.AlllettersconsideredforReadersForummustbesigned.Letterscanbeeithermailedto:Editor,NationalDefense,2111WilsonBoulevard,Suite400,Arlington,VA22201ore-mailedtoletters@nationaldefensemagazine.org.

SuBSCrIPTIoN aND rEPrINTS:Editorialfea-turesinNationalDefensecanbereprintedtosuityourcompany’sneeds.Reprintswillbecustomizedatyourrequestandareavailableinfour-colororblackandwhite. ForinformationregardingNationalDefensesubscriptiontermsandrates,pleasecall(703)247-9469,orvisitourwebpageatwww.ndia.org.

NDIa MEMBErShIP:TheNationalDefenseIndustrial

Association(NDIA)isthepremierassociationrepresentingallfacetsofthedefenseandtechnol-ogyindustrialbaseandservingallmilitaryservic-es.Formoreinformationpleasecallourmember-shipdepartmentat703-522-1820orvisitusonthewebatwww.ndia.org/membership

National DEfENSE (ISSN 0092–1491) is published monthly by the National Defense Industrial Association(NDIA),2111WilsonBlvd.,Suite400,Arlington,VA22201–3061.TEL(703)522–1820;FAX(703)522–1885.advertising Sales:DinoK.Pignotti,2111WilsonBlvd.,Suite400,Arlington,VA22201–3061.TEL(703)247–

2541;FAX(703)522–1885.TheviewsexpressedarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseofNDIA.Membership ratesintheassociationare$30annually;$15.00isallocatedtoNationalDEFENSEforaone-yearassociationbasicsubscriptionandisnon-deductiblefromdues.AnnualratesforNDIAmembers:$40U.S.andpossessions;DistrictofColumbiaadd6percentsalestax;$45foreign.Asix-weeknoticeisrequiredforchangeofaddress.PeriodicalpostagepaidatArlington,VAandatadditionalmailingoffice.PoSTMaSTEr: Send address changes to National DEFENSE, 2111Wilson Blvd, Suite 400,Arlington,VA 22201–3061.The titleNationalDEFENSEisregisteredwiththeLibraryofCongress.Copyright 2014, NDIa.

20 Navy Program rewards Money-Saving Technologies

AnOfficeofNavalResearchprogramishavingsuccessintegratingtechnolo-giesintoexistingprogramsinordertosavefunds. By EDWARD LUNDQUIST

Mobile Technology

22 funding for Military Mobile Technology flattens as Demand rises

Militarypersonnelanddefenseagencyofficialsareclamoringtohavethelat-estmobiledevices,butbudgetcutshavelimitedprocurement.

By yASMIN TADJDEH

Cybersecurity

24 New Cyber framework aimed at Small, Mid-Tier Defense Companies

Anewcybersecurityframeworkmayhelpsmallandmedium-sizeddefensecontractorsmanageriskandshareinformationwiththegovernment.

By STEW MAGNUSON

Cover Story

26 fuel-Efficient Engine to Increase range, Power of army helicopters

TheArmyisdevelopinganewengineforBlackHawkandApachehelicop-tersthatwillboostpayloadandloitertime,allwhilesavingonfuelcosts.

By VALERIE INSINNA

Rotorcraft

30 Decline of u.S. helicopter Procurement on the horizon

TheU.S.military’shelicopterprocure-mentwillbecutinhalfoverthenextdecade,expertssay.Companieshavetheireyesoncommercialsalesandunmannedaerialvehicledevelopment.

By VALERIE INSINNA

Small Arms

32 Efforts Continue to replace army, air force Small arms

ArequestforproposalsisexpectedinJanuaryforahandguntoreplacetheM9.

By DAN PARSONS

Marine Corps

34 Budgets Permitting, Marines Could Be fighting alongside robots by 2020s

IndustryisdevelopingautonomoustechnologiesthatmayhelprobotscarryMarines’suppliesorfightinfuturewars.

By DAN PARSONS

37 Marine Corps Plays Part in a Shrinking Military Vehicle Industrial Base

Therearenoupcomingnew-startvehicleprogramsfortheMarineCorps,andupgradestoexistingequipmentmaynothelpsustainmanufacturersoftacticalwheeledandcombatvehicles.

By STEW MAGNUSON

Departments

4 readers’ forum

7 President’s Perspective BudgetDealGivesDefense BreathingRoom by Lawrence P. Farrell Jr.

8 Defense Watch Ruminationsoncurrentevents by Sandra I. Erwin

9 Inside Science + TechnologyTacklingthemilitary’stoughestproblems

by Dan Parsons

10 Ethics Corner

11 from the National Defense Blog

12 Business + Industry NewsWhat’snewandnextfortheindustrialbase

by Valerie Insinna

14 homeland Security News Monitoringthehomefront by Stew Magnuson and Dan Parsons

39 NDIa News

40 NDIa Calendar CompleteguidetoNDIAevents

44 Next Month Previewofournextissue

44 Index of advertisers

4 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E • J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4

EOD Doctrine: Why We Need It� In the September article, “Combat Expe-rience of Bomb Disposal Teams Should Be Codified,” Jeff Trumbore made a com-pelling argument for joint EOD doctrine to capture lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan so that that we might not have to learn the hard way again, “on-the-fly,” at great cost in future conflicts.

It is an important and timely discussion. If we are to develop joint EOD doctrine — and we should be clear that we are talking about operational level doctrine, not tactics, techniques and procedures — we ought to consider what it should address.

Many of the lessons relate to IEDs, but we already have joint counter-IED doctrine, so do we need EOD doctrine as well? The short answer is “yes.”

First, many of the doctrinal les-sons related to IEDs, such as how we organize joint EOD forces, apply broadly to EOD activities in general, not just countering IEDs. Second, the doctrinal publications that do address EOD, such as Joint Pub 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, are incomplete in their treatment of EOD and are not an obvious place for planners to look for infor-mation on its capabilities. And third, the EOD career field has grown dramatically since its inception in 1941, and more than 70 years of expanding roles and missions have never been codified in joint doctrine. With the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan fresh, now is the time to redress this defi-ciency.

Interservice Responsibilities for Explo-sive Ordnance Disposal, issued in 1992, addresses some doctrinal roles, but telling a joint force commander that Navy EOD handles any ordnance found seaward of “the high water mark” while Army EOD covers “the land mass areas” does not pro-vide him much useful information. A joint force commander needs to know why he needs EOD troops and how he is going to control them.

Although all EOD technicians attend the same core training at the Naval School Explosive Ordnance Disposal, each of the services takes a different approach to orga-nizing, training and equipping its EOD forces. Joint doctrine would make those dif-ferences plain and articulate their relevance to planners.

Joint doctrine helps to define roles and

missions, in other words, who does what. For example, the line between the doctrinal roles of combat engineers and EOD is not always clear, even though their capabili-ties vary greatly. Combat engineers breach minefields while EOD teams render safe and exploit IEDs, but who should clear

roads of IEDs?

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we experimented with using a mix of infantry, combat engi-neers (explosive hazard clearance teams) and EOD for route clearance. There ought to be lessons that we can codify as doctrine so that we can organize, train and equip the joint force for future contingencies.

Combat engineers also have a doctrinal mission to destroy explosive remnants of war, but EOD teams are better trained for large-scale demolition operations and iden-tifying and recovering enemy ordnance for exploitation.

There are appropriate and complemen-tary roles for engineers and EOD; doctrine would help to define them. EOD forces cannot effectively breach a minefield by probing on their hands and knees in a meter-wide path, and when engineers blow IEDs in place, they destroy evidence that could be exploited to defeat the network that planted them. Doctrine would help a joint force commander understand what force he needs for a particular mission and what its capabilities and limitations are. Joint Engineer Operations does not answer all of these questions.

Many tactical EOD tasks lend them-selves to strategic and operational level activities such as stability operations, coun-

terinsurgency, counterterrorism, foreign internal defense, defense support to civil authorities, force protection and humani-tarian mine action. Joint doctrine exists for many of these activities, but there is little mention of EOD. Landmines and UXO are a worldwide scourge that stymie economic development and undermine food security. Helping partner nations recover from war and transition to long-term stability is an

enduring U.S. interest, and remediating explosive hazards is a contribution the EOD force can make to public diploma-cy. Humanitarian demining has typically been taught by Army Special Forces or combat engineers, but EOD forces are particularly well suited to this work in a supporting or supported role.

In the aftermath of an event like Boston or Oklahoma City, or worse, a sustained terrorist bombing campaign, the joint EOD community could sup-port civil authorities. Joint EOD doc-trine would help to define the role of EOD in these operational tasks and provide a benchmark to organize, train and equip EOD forces for such employment.

There is often resistance to doc-trine by those who worry that it constrains creativity, leads to wooden thinking, or makes us predictable.

By capturing the theory and practical experience of warfare, doctrine permits improvisation based on agreed upon prin-ciples and best practices. Rather than stifle initiative, doctrine is meant to enable it. When solving complex operational prob-lems, it is much better to start from an authoritative body of knowledge than build ad hoc solutions from scratch.

Since the beginning of the EOD career field in 1941, more than 300 joint service EOD technicians have been killed in the line of duty, nearly half since Sept. 11, 2001. We have paid a steep price for the knowledge we have gained, we ought to capitalize on it while we can.

Marc TranchemontagneR3 Strategic Support Group

Unmanned Aviation� Regarding the Oct. 18 article, “Flying Drones in U.S. Airspace Not As Easy As It Looks,” I don’t get this rush to fill the U.S. skies with unmanned aerial vehicles. UAVs were built and fielded for two main

apply broadly to EOD activities in

Readers’ Forum

Story continues on page 6

Exhibit POC: Luellen Hoffman, 703-247-9460

Reserve online at www.ndia.org/exhibits

NDIA supports the warfighters and first

responders through our divisions, local chapters,

affiliated associations and events.

NDIA 2013 events attracted over 31,000 attendees

from government, industry and academia.

NDIA has over 1,600 corporate members, 94,000 individual members

25th Annual SO/LIC Symposium & Exhibition – 4880Feb 10–12, 2014 Washington, DCExhibit POC: Allison Hitchner, ahitchner@ndia.orgMeeting POC: Meredith Hawley, mhawley@ndia.org

15th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference – 4720April 8–10, 2014 Hyattsville, MDExhibit POC: Allison Hitchner, ahitchner@ndia.orgMeeting POC: Molly Holt, mholt@ndia.org

2014 Global EOD Conference & Exhibition – 4950April 30–May 1, 2014 Ft. Walton Beach, FLExhibit POC: Luellen Hoffman, lhoffman@ndia.orgMeeting POC: Molly Holt, mholt@ndia.org

2014 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference – 4890May 20–22, 2014 Tampa, FLExhibit POC: Luellen Hoffman, lhoffman@ndia.orgMeeting POC: Meredith Hawley, mhawley@ndia.org

2014 Pacific Operational Science & Technology Conference – 4540August 26–27, 2014 Honolulu, HIExhibit POC: Luellen Hoffman, lhoffman@ndia.orgMeeting POC: Tia Pitt, tpitt@ndia.org

28th International Symposium on Ballistics – 4210Sept 22–25, 2014 Atlanta, GAExhibit POC: Allison Hitchner, ahitchner@ndia.orgMeeting POC: Kari King, kking@ndia.org

SOLD OUT2014 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference – 4890

SOLD OUT2014 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference – 4890May 20–22, 2014

SOLD OUTMay 20–22, 2014 Tampa, FL

SOLD OUT Tampa, FLExhibit POC: Luellen Hoffman, lhoffman@ndia.orgSOLD OUTExhibit POC: Luellen Hoffman, lhoffman@ndia.org

Promoting national Security Since 1919

nDia DefenSe exhibit guiDe

Maximize Your Reach & Budget!america’s top rated Defense exhibitions for 2014 (as of october 17, 2013)

6 N A -

reasons: To get an observation aircraft air-borne for ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) for long periods of time behind enemy lines without the need for life support systems and to take pilots out of danger. Neither of these apply to civilian situations. If you need a pilot on the ground to fly these, put him in the air.

An aircraft that has the range and abili-ties of serious aircraft for airborne observa-tion not required to operate behind enemy lines is far cheaper and easier to build and for a pilot to operate.

I’m not talking about the little “hobby-like” aircraft that have no range or serious capabilities. There are already thousands of pilots needing to build time in aircraft pre-paring for a career to fill all those expanding airlines pilot rolls, and to replace retiring commercial pilots. And if a sheriff needs a UAV to go look for a lost hiker, he can call one of us retired fighter pilots who can take up a local Cessna and do it for almost free.

Andy RhudeSent by email

Keeping the A-10 in Operation� Regarding the September story, “Fight to Keep A-10 Warthog in Air Force Inventory Reaches End Game,” I am a taxpayer, not an aviator, so I have a bit of a dispassionate view of this issue.

It seems that the single greatest flaw of the A-10, an exceptionally reliable piece of

military hardware in the inventory, is that they are already paid for. The reason we jettison so much of our well-functioning equipment is not that it fails to work or work well. It is only because it is already bought and paid for. No one will get a pro-motion, award or good efficiency report by advocating the DoD keep effective equip-ment already in the inventory.

John HandySent by email

Abrams Industrial Base� In reference to the October story, “Over Army Objections, Industry and Congress Partner to Keep Abrams Tank Production ‘Hot,’” the article carelessly conflates and confuses two separate issues: man-ufacture of new tanks and upgrade of existing tanks. The debate is over upgrad-ing existing tanks to bring the entire inventory up to a com-mon standard. The Army has a long history of penny-pinch-ing foolishness on this matter.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, all Army moderniza-tion was prioritized around fielding increments to Force Package 1 (FP 1), then FP 2, and only then to FP 3 units, roughly “forward deployed,” “CONUS active” and finally “Guard and Reserve,” respectively.

Like most programs, the Abrams went through a series of improvements through-out its production, starting with the M1, the IPM1, the M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP and M1A2SEPv2.

Early on, the Army reasoned that it was cheaper to slightly upgrade an advanced model than to fully upgrade an early model tank, so the tendency was to keep further upgrading ever smaller subsets of the lat-est models into yet-further advanced ones, while the hindmost remained untouched.

Such shortsightedness had consequences. Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United States launched Operation Desert Shield. While M1A1-equipped forward deployed units sat and watched, CONUS units deployed with M1 tanks, and lo and behold, they

then had to execute an in-the-ater swap, units trading in their M1 for M1A1 tanks, along with all the training and maintenance and logistics involved, not to mention the duplication of shipping. Fortunately, Saddam Hussein sat back and let us pro-ceed through that “goat rope” at our leisure.

On this issue, the Army is demonstrably wrong.

Chester A. KojroRolla, MO

Email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org

confuses two separate issues: man-

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, all Army moderniza-tion was prioritized around fielding increments to Force

then had to execute an in-the-ater swap, units trading in their M1 for M1A1 tanks, along with all the training and maintenance and logistics involved, not to

2014 HUMAN SYSTEMS CONFERENCE“The Human in Defense Systems: Progress & Challenges”

A forum designed to increase dialogue between the Human Systems S&T community, Weapon System Developers and System Engineers Focus areas will include:• Systems Interface and Cognitive Processing (SI&CP)• Protection, Sustainment and Physical Performance (PS&PP)• Personnel, Training and Leadership Development (PTLD)• Social, Cultural Behavioral Understanding (SCBU)

Arlington, VA • Feb. 4-5, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4350

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 7

The budget agreement that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced Dec. 10 called for

delaying a portion of sequester for two years and proposed $85 billion in “light touch” savings over 10 years.

Ryan and Murray are the co-chairs of the 29-member congres-sional conference panel that was assigned the task of finding savings to offset 2014 and 2015 sequester hits for discretionary accounts. The spending bill, known as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, passed the House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate.

The outlines of the agreement, only minutes after they were released, began receiving vigorous protests from the fiscal conser-vative side. And although the most strident objections are coming from the right, the left-leaning caucus is not happy, either. It is a deal not likely to make anyone totally happy, so that must mean it has a chance of succeeding.

There are two central issues here. One is what went into the deal. The second is what it means for defense.

The agreement was achieved through a combination of waste reduction, elimination of special carve-outs for some corporations, modifications to feder-al retirement programs — both civilian and military — increases in airline fees, pension insurance premiums and an extension of sequester for manda-tory spending for an additional two fiscal years — 2022 and 2023. This last provi-sion garners an addi-tional savings of $28 billion.

The agreement specifies that $22 billion of the $85 billion goes to deficit reduction. This leaves $63 billion to be shared between defense and non-defense discretionary spending for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, to reduce a portion of the sequester cuts sched-uled to be effective in those two years.

So it is not an increase in spending, but a reduction in the cuts scheduled under the Budget Control Act and the sequester trig-ger. For example, the Budget Control Act specifies the discretion-ary total for fiscal year 2014 to be $967 billion ($498 billion for defense, $469 billion for non-defense). The agreement reduces sequester for each account by $22.5 billion, raising defense to $520.5 billion and non-defense to $491.8 billion for fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2015, the Budget Control Act total was $995 billion ($512 billion for defense, $483 billion for non-defense).

In fiscal year 2015, the agreement reduces sequester by $9 bil-lion for each account, raising defense to $521.4 billion, and non-defense to $491.8 billion. So once again, and to be clear, this deal does not add money to discretionary accounts. It merely reduces the cuts scheduled to take place in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 by $63 billion, spread between defense and non-defense — a $22.5 billion reduction for each in fiscal year 2014 and a $9 billion

reduction for each in fiscal year 2015. And the Budget Control Act totals for fiscal years 2016 through 2021 remain the same.

So what does it mean for the Defense Department specifi-cally? Keep in mind, first, that the new total for defense is not exclusively for the Defense Department. It is for a collection of security functions including the military. The Defense Depart-ment receives around 95.5 percent of the defense total, so the $520.5 billion for defense gives a budget number for the depart-ment of $497 billion in fiscal year 2014 and $497.8 billion in fiscal year 2015.

These numbers are essentially flat compared to fiscal year 2013 spending. But a flat line is better than further cuts, and sig-nificantly, it returns to regular budget order as the deal requires Congress to assign committee allocations. In other words, it is a budget.

This is huge for the Defense Department as it will allow the services to balance their accounts, which currently they are unable to do under sequestration. They need a return to regular order. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno has already said

the deal will permit the service to address some of its readiness issues.

One other thing this will do for the ser-vices is give them two years to address the necessary force struc-ture adjustments they will need to make to live within the Budget Control Act limits on discretionary spend-ing through fiscal year 2021.

As already mentioned, there are some significant headwinds on both sides to this deal, but there is some countervailing pushback to these objections from congressional leadership. House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, has already come out against these objections from his side of the aisle. Comments from the left seem to indicate support for the arrangement, though not total satisfaction.

The right is not happy to give relief to the spending restraint inherent in sequester, while the left would like more spending on the social side, such as an extension of unemployment benefits. But both sides seem willing to compromise to avoid a reprise of the October government shutdown disaster.

In summary, this is not a grand bargain, but it gives the Defense Department and the military services some breathing room to make the necessary adjustments before Budget Control Act spend-ing constraints are re-imposed in fiscal year 2016.

In the long run, the federal budget is not on a sustainable path, but the bipartisan cooperation exhibited by the Ryan-Murray panel gives some reason to hope that more can be done in the same spirit.

President’s Perspective by lawrence p. farrell jr.

Email your comments to lfarrell@ndia.org

Budget Deal Gives Defense Breathing Room

8 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

Tensions are brewing in the defense contracting business over government efforts to secure rights to manufacturers’

intellectual property. The clash pits military buyers who want to break up suppliers’ monopolies against companies whose livelihood depends on keeping tight control over their designs.

With the Defense Department under pressure to slash costs as budgets shrink, officials are targeting weapons programs for potential savings. They are particularly keen on reducing the cost of weapons maintenance and production by opening up the market to new competitors.

To do that in a market that is dominated by single-source manu-facturers, the Defense Department needs what is known as “rights in technical data.” When the Pentagon buys a weapon system, it retains unlimited rights to the data if the item was designed with government funds. But when a product is financed by a private company, the firm keeps full control of the intellectual property and the government is simply a buyer.

Except in limited circumstances, contracting officials cannot dis-close a private company’s proprietary data outside the government.

As the Pentagon in recent decades has become more dependent on the private sector for high-tech equipment, it now realizes that many of the existing arrangements restrict the government from seeking competing bids for maintenance or production of that equipment unless the manufacturers grant data rights. For most suppliers, that equates to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In the spare-parts and equipment repair business, particularly, manufacturers fear so-called aftermarket vendors who take other companies’ designs and make them for a bargain price. Pentagon program managers would like to benefit from the cutthroat deals but cannot legally release design data to competitors without the manufacturer’s permission.

Friction over data rights has ebbed and flowed in cycles over the past several decades. The tensions are once again becoming palpable as the defense budget falls, said Jason A. “Jay” Carey, a government contracting attorney at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP.

“The government is being significantly more aggressive trying to obtain data rights,” Carey said. “That effort is driven by a desire to use the data for follow-on procurements.”

Frustration on both sides is coming to a head. The origins of the conflict can be traced back to the mid-1990s, when the Defense Department saw its R&D budgets collapse and decided it should tap into the commercial market for innovation. The thinking was that the government would save money and benefit from industry’s investment. “As a result, the government was very solicitous of industry intellectual property rights,” Carey said. The attitude was, from the private sector’s standpoint, quite reasonable.

What sowed the seeds of the current discontent were contracts agreed upon years ago in which data requirements were not well defined. Deals were negotiated on the basis of fairly limited data delivery, Carey said. The Pentagon is now searching for less expen-sive options to maintain its aging equipment and finds that, in some cases, it cannot compete the work because the original manufac-turer owns the IP, he noted. “You don’t have the options you need to pursue a full and open follow-on competition.”

Some military agencies have begun demanding IP rights without properly compensating the contractor, said Carey. “That is the envi-ronment we are in right now.”

The cards are being stacked against contractors, as the Pentagon has Congress’ full backing on this issue. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act includes provisions that strengthen the govern-ment’s ability to obtain unlimited data rights. Under the law, govern-ment officials would be allowed to release a contractor’s data outside the government if the data is necessary for the integration of the item into a larger system. DoD and Congress believe this flexibility is needed to ensure market competition, Carey said. The law would permit the government to give a company’s data to other contractors, which is a nightmare scenario for most manufacturers. Nobody yet knows the potential ramification of this rule, he said. The Defense Department has been rewriting its procurement regulations for about a year to reflect the new statute. And whatever final regula-tions are adopted could come down on industry as a big bombshell.

As IP disputes become more frequent, contractors confront a dilem-ma. They can agree to their customers’ demands or take them to court.

Disagreeable contractors risk angering their customer and jeop-ardizing future work, Carey said. A contracting officer can issue a bad performance rating, which would prevent the contractor from competing for future work. “The customer can bring a significant amount of pressure to bear,” he said.

The topic was discussed last month at an industry conference, where Air Force acquisition official William LaPlante urged execu-tives to engage in constructive dialogue with the government.

“Industry has a legitimate business case. We get that,” LaPlante said. “But we have to have that discussion,” he added. “We need a compromise where government has appropriate data rights and industry can stay competitive. We can get the best deal for everyone.”

Carl A. Avila, director of advanced weapons and missile systems at Boeing, said there are “alternative ways to get the government what it wants without having to share all our investment and IP. We don’t want our competitors to benefit from our investment,” Avila said. “The dialogue has to continue to find that middle ground so the government can have more control of a program.”

Finding an acceptable compromise will not be easy, said Tom Keck, vice president of Air Force programs at Raytheon Missile Sys-tems. “We’re not really motivated to release data. Where it makes sense, that’s fine,” he said.

Attorneys suggest that, to get beyond this impasse, the govern-ment should consider licensing agreements so companies are com-pensated for their IP.

There is no easy solution, said Louis D. Victorino, an attorney at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

“Free and open competition is a fundamental tenet of procure-ment policy,” he said. “But unless the government chooses to fund all R&D costs, it needs manufacturers’ data rights.”

If the government wants rights, he said, it should pay for the R&D. Unless the Defense Department can find a way to satisfy industry’s concerns, he said, it soon will find that companies are not going to be willing to invest upfront R&D money.

The debate is unfolding as contractors are being asked by a cash-strapped Pentagon to invest in technology. As one executive noted, industry CEOs will have to ask themselves before they compete for Pentagon work: Do I want to risk losing control of my intellectual property?

Defense Watch by sandra i. erwin

Email your comments to serwin@ndia.org

DoD Clashes With Suppliers Over Data Rights

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 9

When revolutionary new technologies like unmanned air-craft become commercially available, the tendency is to

focus on all their wondrous potential uses instead of the ethical and public safety concerns the proliferation of such technologies create.

Whether human organ transplant or cloning, emerging technolo-gies typically receive critical, multi-disciplinary scrutiny and over-sight during development through academic study.

At the University of North Dakota, remotely piloted aircraft are receiving the same rigorous vetting from the UAS Research Com-pliance Committee, which is overseeing the Grand Forks County sheriff’s department’s use of unmanned aircraft in law enforcement and public safety activities, said member Barry Milavetz, associate vice president for research and economic development at UND.

“With any research on emerging technologies, the federal govern-ment wants to know that we are meeting certain criteria,” he said. “Those are transparency, risk versus benefit analysis and adherence to local community standards.”

Animal and genetic research are held to the same standards, he said. Aside from Milavetz, an organic chemist who works with recombinant DNA, the committee has in its ranks a historian, a professor of religion and philosophy, a rancher and a professor of social work.

William Semke, associate professor of engineering at UND, said some of the most powerful multi-spectral sensors can read foot-prints in a field long after the person who made them has fled. That sensitivity can be built into a camera that weighs less than a pound and be flown on small, homemade unmanned aircraft. That incredible capability must be reconciled with public concerns over privacy before the Federal Aviation Administration allows UAS in the national airspace in 2015.

Nationwide, there are a dozen law enforcement agencies using unmanned aircraft to carry out their duties. All have internal poli-cies on the appropriate use of the machines. None, other than the Grand Forks sheriff’s department, has such comprehensive third-party oversight of their activities.

Alan Frazier — an assistant professor of aviation at UND’s John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences, UAS pilot and Grand Forks deputy sheriff — oversees the department’s UAS activities. The effort is a joint collaboration between the sheriff’s office, the university and two unmanned aircraft manufacturers: Monrovia, Calif.-based AeroVironment and Draganfly Innovations, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

The sheriff’s department and the city police force operate four small UAS models, including the AeroVironment Qube quadcopter and the hand-launched Raven, commonly used by the Army and Marine Corps.

The goal of the department’s research is to develop a concept of operations for using small UAS in law enforcement and public safety, Frazier said.

“We want to determine how effective these are as law enforce-ment tools,” Frazier said. “What can we do and what can we not do?”

Grand Forks city police and county deputies are preapproved by the committee to use flying robots for five missions: searches for criminal suspects, searches for lost or missing persons, disaster assessment, crime scene and traffic accident photography and monitoring traffic conditions at special events. The committee must review and approve other uses of the technology by the sheriff’s

department or city police.“There are no federal laws that mandate we do this,” Milavetz

said. The FAA is charged with regulating and maintaining the safety of U.S. skies. Its integration plan does not include creation of an ethical code for UAS operation.

“We believe the federal government eventually will conclude this is the best way” to regulate the uses of unmanned aircraft for com-mercial and law-enforcement purposes, he said.

While the public is primarily concerned with individual privacy, data management is the real issue, Milavetz said. Devising reason-able limitations on how data is collected, who is collecting it and how it is stored is the best protection of privacy, he said.

“The police flying over your house while tracking a suspect and not keeping any of the data is different from someone flying a [UAV] over and taking a picture and posting it on Facebook,” he said.

The department was declared mission-ready in March. In May, it flew its first mission searching for a drowning victim in Minto, N.D. The sheriff’s department has flown seven missions in total, includ-ing a search for an injured person who walked away from a traffic accident, photography of erosion control measures in a nearby state park, a sexual assault scene and monitoring a train-vehicle traffic accident.

So far, 27 law enforcement and fire department sensor system operators have been trained. Sensor operators and their pilot part-ners have completed more than 200 simulated law enforcement missions. The FAA last year awarded the sheriff’s department a 16-county license to fly UAS in the national airspace, which is the largest authorization in the United States.

“It has been a learning experience,” Frazier said. “Some of the things we thought we could do, we couldn’t do that well. Some things we never thought about or imagined we were able to do very well. You can sit there and hypothesize, but until you get out there and do it, you just don’t know what works and what doesn’t.”

When monitoring traffic, the committee authorized filming only vehicles and only with real-time video to identify bottlenecks leav-ing a concert venue. In most circumstances, they are not allowed to save data or imagery, especially if residences or people are in the frame, Frazier said.

“There’s really no reason to do that,” he said. “If we are flying a UAV to help with traffic coming out of a Britney Spears concert, we are interested in capturing video of vehicles. … We would certainly delete the footage immediately if we somehow took photos of an individual or a residence.”

Thomasine Highcamp, who chairs the UAS compliance commit-tee, said the specific approach Grand Forks has taken to its use of UAVs in law enforcement likely would not work everywhere. The list of approved uses for the technology are place-specific, she said, adding that the social and political differences are great enough within North Dakota alone that the city’s rules likely wouldn’t fly in communities farther west.

“So far we’ve approved five protocols in which the UAVs can be used,” she said. “But just because this works here doesn’t mean that it will work elsewhere. It depends on the community. That’s the community standards piece of the puzzle.”

Inside Science + Technology by dan parsons

Email your comments to dparsons@ndia.org

Academics Tackle Domestic Drone Ethics

10 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

November marked the one-year anniversary of the release of the resource guide to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,

and should serve to remind all defense contractors of the critical importance of keeping their compliance program current and effective.

While not binding, the guide provides insight into the Depart-ment of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission’s views on the act’s enforcement. Jeffrey Knox, principal deputy chief of Justice’s fraud section, said at a conference after its release that officials will act consistently with the guide, and that it should be treated similarly to the U.S. attorneys’ manual.

With that in mind, one sentence from the guide is of paramount importance: “In appropriate circumstances, DoJ and SEC may decline to pursue charges against a company based on the com-pany’s effective compliance program.”

Without an effective compliance program, enforcement agen-cies are more likely to pursue charges when violations occur. Key to any effective program is constant, ongoing assessment of specific risks and participants. This includes maintain-ing constant vigilance to ensure that every practicable step has been taken and is tailored to prevent infractions, and to flush out those that inevitably occur.

When violations surface, the enforcement agencies want to know if the incident was aber-rational, or whether it was the result of a half-hearted or haphazard compliance program.

Here are some key areas that should be assessed in reviewing an FCPA compliance program.

First, one size does not fit all. It is clear in the guide that cookie-cutter compliance programs are generally ill conceived and inef-fective because resources inevitably are spread too thin, with too much focus on low-risk markets and transactions to the detriment of high-risk areas.

There is no such thing as a universal anti-corruption compliance program. For example, the compliance policies for doing business in Europe or the Americas may not necessarily be directly applied in sub-Saharan Africa, and vice versa.

Sound policies must be developed, tailored and carefully adapted to each market or line of business, and even different regions within a business. Companies should always assess changes in their prac-tices that may have an impact on a compliance program.

Has the company expanded into emerging markets? Has the

company acquired other companies in risk areas? If so, make sure that the compliance program has taken these new risk areas into consideration. If a program that covers the United States is the same as the one for a highly corrupt, emerging market, then an adjust-ment is in order.

Next, conduct due diligence on third-party intermediaries.One important tenet of any effective FCPA compliance program

is an ongoing review of those who are doing business with and on behalf of a company and who have contacts with government officials in that role.

A company’s list of these third-party intermediaries changes over time. What is known about their business practices? They should have a reputation for being above board in their dealings in emerg-ing markets. A company should know when the latest due diligence was performed, and who carried it out. References for each third-party intermediary should be in the corporate files.

When it comes to intermediaries, “we had no idea what he was doing” is little help as a defense.

Actions a company takes to prevent infrac-tions will help reduce prosecution exposure should a violation occur.

Lastly, companies need to investigate poten-tial violations.

Whenever a potential violation is discov-ered, a firm must have a game plan for how best to investigate and respond. Often, the initial facts brought to the attention of man-agement do not involve a clear-cut violation,

and not every circumstance will warrant a full-blown internal investigation.

However, a company must uncover the facts to allow it to ana-lyze potential liability, and take proactive steps to remedy any issue discovered. Failure to respond typically makes matters worse, not better. The potential consequences of a head-in-the-sand approach are possible civil, criminal and regulatory penalties.

In addition, learn from any investigation conducted. Problems that surface in one division of a company, may call for investigation of other divisions. Likewise, the facts surrounding a potential FCPA violation may implicate other legal obligations.

For example, the Federal Acquisition Regulation mandatory dis-closure requirements are triggered when a contractor has “credible evidence” of “a violation of federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code” or “a violation of the civil False Claims Act” in connection with a government contract.

Although the FCPA is not in Title 18, many violations such as bribery of a foreign official may also constitute a Title 18 offense.

In sum, companies constantly must reassess their risk, and then implement, or add to, their anti-corruption compliance program to prevent problems from reoccurring.

Ethics Corner by Matt Cannon and RogeR SCott

Anti-Bribery Law Demands Vigilance

Joseph Reeder, ChairmanGreenberg Traurig LLP

Glenn BaerG.D. Baer & Associates, LLC

William BirkhoferJacobs Engineering Group

J. Kelly BrownEMSolutions Inc.

Beverly ByronByron Butcher Associates

Dale ChurchVentures & Solutions LLC

Vincent Ciccone RASco Inc.

Margaret DiVirgilioConcurrent Technologies Corporation

Steven GaffneyDynCorp International, LLC

R. Andrew HoveHDT Global

John IllgenNorthrop Grumman Information Systems

Stephen KellyBattelle

James McAleeseMcAleese & Associates

Richard McConnM International Inc.

William MooreLMI

Graham ShirleyThe Pegasus Group Inc.

Lawrence Skantze

NDIA EtHICS CoMMIttEE

Matt Cannon is a shareholder and Roger Scott is an associate in Greenberg Traurig LLP’s litigation practice group. Cannon is the former lead prosecutor for the LOGCAP working group. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.

“Without an effective compliance program, enforcement agencies

are more likely to pursue charges when

violations occur.”

ar

my, t

hiN

ks

to

ck

, air

for

ce

, 3D s

ys

te

ms

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 11

From the National Defense Blog

Laser Weapons Score Big Against Drones, Mortars

Laser beams that can replace bullets and missiles have been a tantalizing

prospect for decades, but the Pentagon has been less than enthusiastic. Directed-energy is what experts consider a “disrup-tive” technology that upsets the status quo. The notion that military forces would ditch proven kinetic weapons and take chances with light beams has made lasers a tough sell so far.

The Army tested a 10-kilowatt laser and beam director mounted on an eight-wheel

20-ton truck. It engaged more than 90 60mm mortar rounds and sev-eral unmanned aerial vehicles from less than two miles away. A sur-rogate radar was used to queue the laser.

The Boeing Co. is the prime contractor for the demonstration program. The Army has spent about $13 million to $20 million a year on the project since 2006. The 10-kilowatt commercial laser — packaged in a 5x4-foot box — is made by IPG Photonics in Mas-sachusetts.

The recent tests mark a “big step in the proof of high-energy lasers,” said Terry

Bauer, program manager at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Hunts-ville, Ala. READ MORE: http://bit.ly/IPos2M

www.NationalDefenseMagazine.org/blog

Aerospace Sector Embraces 3D Printing ■ Small, inexpensive 3D printers can create plastic toys, jewelry or other objects in a matter of hours. Now, the technology is being used by large aerospace companies.

Advanced, more expensive printers can now make parts for aircraft engines, said Hugh Evans, vice president of corporate development and ventures for 3D Systems, a Rock Hill, S.C.-based company. “It’s going into aerospace at a very fast rate because you can 3D

print aircraft engine parts and take weight out,” Evans said.

Three-D printing is a subset of additive manufac-turing processes, which are shaking up the traditional methods of making goods. Manufacturing normally takes an object and subtracts from it by whittling or drilling. Three-D printing adds layers of a substance —often a plastic — to create an object. The method only requires a user to download a blueprint. Because the process utilizes fewer materials, it can save companies

money, as well as allow them to create parts on the fly. READ MORE: http://bit.ly/19i1zzi

International Weapons Market Challenges U.S. Firms■ The U.S. weapons industry is the 800-pound gorilla in the glob-al arms market. But maintaining that dominance could become increasingly difficult, experts warn, as buyers demand more eco-nomic benefits from arms purchases.

U.S. companies will continue to be favored in competi-tions for advanced systems that few countries can pro-duce such as high-tech military aircraft

and missile-defense systems. But they may struggle in the future to win international deals based on technological merits alone, said Peter Nicholas Lengyel, president and CEO of Safran USA, the American subsidiary of France’s aerospace giant Safran Group.

In most countries, governments are under growing pressures to justify big-ticket purchases of weapon systems, and they expect arms manufacturers to provide local jobs and other economic rewards. “Governments have to be able to explain to their people why they are buying from a foreign company” rather than produce domestically and protect the nation’s workforce, Lengyel said in an interview. READ MORE: http://bit.ly/1fdxQZi

Air Force Seeks Lower Cost Satellite Communications■ Military satellites have become extravagant luxuries. Com-mercial bandwidth leases also are entering the “too expensive” category as defense budgets shrink.

For the Defense Department’s satellite communications buy-ers, the pressure is on to find lower cost alternatives.

“We need innovative approach-es” for providing space-based services, said Lt. Gen. Ellen Paw-likowski, commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, in Los Angeles.

Pawlikowski, who oversees a $10 billion military space port-folio, spent the past two years surveying the private sector for money-saving ideas. She found that there are lots of good deals to be had from commercial space vendors, but to take advantage of those deals, the Air Force needs to revamp its buying methods.

“A different strategy would be for us to go out and leverage the bargain basement aspects of the satcom business,” Pawlikowski told National Defense in a telephone interview from Los Angeles Air Force Base. READ MORE: http://bit.ly/1d836GW

ar

my, t

hin

ks

to

ck

, air

for

ce

, 3D s

ys

te

ms

12 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E • J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4

It can be difficult for a soldier to blend into surrounding terrain when

an adversary is equipped with infrared and thermal sensors, but a new camouflage suit may be able to conceal users’ heat signatures.

The NEMESIS “turkey suit” made by Gore and Raven Aerostar can reduce the range of detection by visual, near-infrared and short-, medi-um- and long-wave infrared sensors, company officials said.

The NEMESIS textile randomly breaks up and dissipates body heat so that the user’s silhouette is no longer visible when seen through an infrared device, said John Holcombe, Gore’s business leader for advanced military products.

“Our goal is to actually make the system basically match the clutter of what you see in the environment,” he said. “You actually want some hot spots, some cold spots. You want it to look non-human.”

“We’re trying to reflect the energy from the environment and scatter it,” he said. “We’re also trying to let the heat from the body still escape randomly as well, so it’s not all going toward the sensors.”

Thermal sensors can effectively detect body heat from about 5,000 feet away, but the suit cuts that dis-tance by more than half, he said.

It comprises a jacket, pants, hood and face shield and is worn as an overgarment. Like a ghillie suit used by snipers, the textile mimics leaves, which helps hide the outline of the body and dissipate heat outward. The suit also incorporates a netting-like material that helps with ventilation.

Other suits provide concealment by insulating the user to prevent heat from being detected by a sensor. That method only allows a little heat to escape, rendering the wearer not only very hot, but still visible, Holcombe said. “The last thing we want to do is create a baked potato — wrap them in foil, now you’ve trapped all the heat inside.”

Gore’s suit works instantly in a variety of climate and weather conditions, though there are some exceptions. For example, it would not be viable in a 120-degree desert where living organisms are much colder than the surrounding environment, he said.

Multiple military services have tested the suit, said Sean McDearmon, Gore’s Army branch specialist. Users found that they were easily able to move around and

that the suit’s coverage and venting kept them cooler in warm climates.

Although the company has made sales, officials would not disclose the customer or quantity of purchases.

Gore is targeting special operations cus-tomers in the near term, but the suit would also be a good fit for Army snipers, scouts or reconnaissance teams, McDear-mon said. Each suit costs $2,900, but bulk prices would be less.

BY VALERIE INSINNABusiness + Industry News

SOLDIER EQUIPMENT

New Suit Conceals Heat Signatures

GO

RE

, TH

ER

MO

SC

IEN

TIF

IC, R

AY

TH

EO

N

Business + Industry News

� Ground forces are continually looking for ways to increase situational awareness on the go, but collecting live video from a moving vehicle can often be tricky in rough terrain that jostles sensors and cameras.

Falck Schmidt Defense Systems and Raytheon have partnered to launch the long-range reconnaissance and surveil-lance forward looking infrared system, a mast-mounted sensor installed on a wheeled or tracked vehicle.

Denmark-based defense contractor Falck Schmidt developed the mast. Ray-theon manufactured the FLIR, a variant of its long-range advance scout surveil-lance system.

It allows troops to collect infrared imagery in a moving vehicle while the sensor is fully elevated, officials said.

“When you have a precision optic, you need a very stable base ... or else it just sits up there and shakes, like you put your sensor on the end of a fishing pole,” said Pius Boehm, Raytheon’s project manager. Most legacy masts have that problem, he added.

In tests on an M113 tracked vehicle, the system showed it could capture imag-ery even while traveling at speeds of 50 miles an hour on a paved road and 30 miles per hour through bumpy terrain, such as a field, said Steen Garnaes, chief sales officer for Falck Schmidt.

The mast used in testing reached almost 10 feet when fully extended, but customers have the option of purchasing masts of different heights.

They are made of lightweight compos-ite materials and are mechanically driven, meaning that technicians don’t have to worry about leaks like they would with hydraulic systems, Garnaes said.

“If they are penetrated with small arms fire, the worst that could happen is that a section [of the mast] collapses, but the rest of the mast will be able to run up and down,” he said.

The system has already been demon-strated to Danish land forces, and the next step is proving the technology to the U.S. Army, Jan Falck Schmidt, president and CEO of Falck Schmidt Defence Systems, told reporters at a recent conference.

The company has yet to try the tech-nology on wheeled or unmanned ground vehicles, said Boehm. “The wheeled vehi-cles will be a much more simpler environ-ment.”

SURVEILLANCE

Sensor Allows Troops To Collect Infrared Images from Vehicles

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 13

� As the neutron-detecting material Heli-um 3 grows ever more expensive and scarce, companies that make radiation detectors are looking for alternatives offer-ing better performance at a comparable price.

A new product, the RIIDEye X manufactured by Thermo Scientific, replaces Helium 3 with a material called CLYC.

Not only can CLYC be used to identify gamma and neutron radiation, “we actu-ally doubled the detection efficiency for neutrons for the same volume of Helium 3,” said Jim Monde, the company’s director of homeland security and defense.

The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security are phasing out pro-curement of devices that use Helium 3, but Thermo is among the first companies to integrate CLYC into products, he said. CLYC is still expensive, but prices will decrease as use of the material becomes more widespread.

Besides the use of CLYC, the RIIDEye

X incorporates other changes that dif-ferentiate it from legacy RIIDs, or Radia-tion Isotope Identification Devices, Monde said. RIIDs analyze the spectrum of radia-tion in order to identify specific radioac-tive materials. For example, the RIIDEye X identifies gamma and neutron radiation within solids, liquids and semi-solids and can be used on food or people.

Thermo improved detection accuracy through a patented algorithm that allows

the device to identify radiation in real time.

A different algorithm enhances the detection of special nuclear materials such as plutonium. Most RIIDs are set to identify special nuclear materials within a pre-pro-

grammed scan time, which can potentially give incorrect results, he said. RIIDEye X is preprogrammed to identify special nuclear materials after 30 seconds, but if more information is needed for accurate results, the device will alert the user and recommend additional time.

The company also increased the detec-tor’s ruggedness and designed it to be more user friendly, with a color-coded display and raised buttons so that some-one wearing a hazmat suit is easily able to work it, Monde said.

“Most legacy RIIDs in the field today don’t normally perform extremely well in most environments, such as mechanical shock and vibration, so we really concen-trated on making this a very ... rugged isotope identification device.”

For instance, every side of the device can survive 3-foot drops onto concrete. “You will not see another RIID be able to accomplish that,” Monde said.

RIIDEye X was introduced in October, but the company has been testing it for months with potential customers such as the Departments of Energy and Defense, he said.

“The Department of Defense, they are extremely hard on their equipment, and they are very, very happy that they’ve got something that can take a very, very rough environment,” he said.

SENSOR TECHNOLOGY

Email your comments to VInsinna@ndia.org

New Technologies Boost Radiation Detector Effectiveness

GO

RE

, TH

ER

MO

SC

IEN

TIF

IC, R

AY

TH

EO

N

Mass notification systems designed to inform the public, workers or

other groups of a crisis date back to the age of rotary phones.

Several high-profile incidents over the last decade have spurred legislation to force organizations and other entities to put these systems in place. The Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007 prompted Congress to make notification systems mandatory on campuses, and the Fort Hood, Texas, shoot-ing in 2009 did the same for military bases.

Messages transmitted during mass shoot-ings, terrorist attacks or natural disasters have traditionally been simple commands to members of the public to either evacuate or shelter in place.

But the rapid proliferation of mobile devices is now blending with cloud com-puting, GPS and the Internet to take crisis communications to a new level, said an industry executive.

“We see a convergence happening using mobility, cloud and IP,” said Guy Miasnik, president and CEO of AtHoc Inc., which specializes in mass notification services.

Now ubiquitous smartphones mean that everyone carrying such a device can act as a sensor in a crisis, he said at the Milcom conference in San Diego.

Mass notifications typically flowed in one

direction, but can now go both ways.A typical crisis notification normally has

four steps. A report is sent. That is often a 911 call or it could be someone pulling a fire alarm. Next, the information is processed at some kind of command-and-control cen-ter. Then messages are pushed out to first responders and members of the public.

Some of those messages may be directed at ordinary people caught up in the crisis.

Accountability is the final step when managers want to know where everyone is located. That’s where GPS-enabled devices are important.

Bi-directional communications means they can send texts. “I’m okay,’ or ‘I’m not okay. Send help.” They can send pictures or video of what is happening at their location, along with location data, Miasnik said.

This is all converging with a similar trend in the police and emergency realm with NG-911, or next-generation 911, which is also seeking to leverage these new capabili-ties.

Cloud computing and communications over IP means that it is easier to put stan-dards in place, Miasnik said. That would allow a command center to push out more detailed information to the public such as maps of where the crisis was occurring. The Navy is moving in this direction with all

its crisis communications driven by cloud computing, he added.

Multi-modal ways to push out and receive messages are still preferred, he said.

“Five or six ways to communicate with people is great and provides redundancy, but without a unified approach, you can actually create confusion,” he added.

These are crises after all. “When bad things happen, you don’t

know what will fail,” he added.Lt. Col. Ed Mattison, the Army’s chief

information office/cybersecurity and mobility technology lead, said the service has struggled to meet its mass notification requirements. Relatively few personnel on a base have government-issued cell phones, and they are mostly senior officers. Lower ranking service members and their families have their own devices.

“We will be challenged by these imple-mentations since 90 percent of soldiers don’t have a government-furnished device,” he said at the conference.

Base emergency notifications are still sent via email to desktop computers or on phone lines, he said.

“If we are talking about bringing in the other million-plus folks with their personal devices we run into a lot of issues,” Mattison said. There are security and privacy impli-cations, and other legal issues the Army is working through, he added.

14 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4 14 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

Crisis Mass Communications to Enter New Age

by Stew MagnuSon and dan parSonSHomeland Security News

th

iNk

st

oc

k, c

us

to

ms

aN

D b

or

De

r p

ro

te

ct

ioN

th

ink

st

oc

k, c

us

to

ms

an

d b

or

de

r p

ro

te

ct

ion

■ Monitoring and policing 7,000 miles of border shared by the United States and its northern and southern neighbors has always been a tall order for Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol.

In an era of increasingly scarce fund-ing, CBP officials are finding unmanned aerial vehicles a valuable tool for funnel-ing resources to trouble spots along those lengthy land boundaries.

“It’s a force multiplier is what it is,” said Jim Knoell, director of air operations at National Air Security Operations Center Grand Forks, N.D.

CBP’s unmanned aircraft fleet has come a long way since its only Predator crashed during a nighttime mission in Arizona in 2006. It now operates 10 MQ-9s, most of which are concentrated at bases in Arizona and Texas. They have flown a col-lective 18,000 hours. Grand Forks is the headquarters of CBP’s unmanned aircraft mission.

It is the training center for all of the Department of Homeland Security’s un-manned aerial vehicle pilots and sensor

operators, said Supervisory Air Interdic-tion Agent Kevin Kriegh.

CBP operates a total 300 aircraft — the largest law enforcement air force in the world. Grand Forks is also the only operat-ing location for the northern border.

CBP welcomed an expanded fleet of unmanned aircraft authorized by Congress

in recent years, but also needs to focus on the infrastructure to keep those Predators aloft and operational, Knoell said.

The agency was authorized to have 24 Predators as late as 2012, but budget con-cerns have capped the fleet at 10.

Knoell said the CBP has enough air-craft, but needs upgraded sensors. At the

Predators Allow Border Agencies to Reallocate Resources

16 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E • J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4

CU

ST

OM

S A

ND

BO

RD

ER

PR

OT

EC

TIO

N, T

HIN

KS

TO

CK

� The Department of Homeland Security’s information technology needs in 2014 will be driven by trends such as big data analytics, the ubiquity of mobile devices and a new emphasis on finding insider threats, executives who work closely with DHS say.

Cloud computing, social media and the need for more cyberse-curity are other trends that will fuel IT acquisition in the depart-ment, said Tony Celeste, director of U.S. civilian agencies at Brocade, which provides network services.

The department needs to take advantage of these trends in a time when its budgets are being scrutinized heavily, he said.

Like the Defense Department, DHS is in the process of consoli-dating data centers to save funding and create efficiencies.

It’s new Data Center 1 and Data Center 2 complexes are intend-ed to provide services to the 22 component agencies.

“Not all 22 are taking advantage of this, but they are rapidly start-ing to adapt and move applications into this world instead of doing their own,” Celeste said.

The relatively new department brought networks from its almost two dozen legacy agencies into the mix, and work will continue at making them more efficient, he said.

Market research the company has carried out shows that 79 per-cent of federal IT managers believe that forces such as thin-client mobile devices, cloud computing and cybersecurity needs will place larger burdens on their networks. An almost equal percentage of respondents said they don’t have the capacity to handle it, Celeste said.

“The traditional networking infrastructure with its hierarchies are not capable of supporting today’s requirements and future require-ments that are going to be placed on the network,” he said.

Brocade is offering two products, ethernet fabric and software defined networks that are intended to “flatten out networks” so they are less dependant on hardware such as switches, routers and controllers.

Paul Christman, vice president of public sector at Dell Software, said his DHS customers are telling him that they are concerned about insider threats in the wake of the Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning cases.

Big data analytics and social media will be used for a more holistic approach to finding data leaks, he said. It is not only cyberespionage being conducted by foreign intelligence services, but rogue insiders, that will drive IT security trends in 2014, he predicted.

There will be an emphasis on behaviors of individuals rather than enforcing policies, he said.

That may mean DHS watching the Internet habits of its employ-ees both at work and in their private lives, and on nongovernment issued mobile devices.

This is raising a host of policy and privacy issues within DHS that leaders are tackling now, he said.

“I think they are on the right path,” he said. The idea is to look at these habits and predict and possibly pre-

vent the next data leak, he said. Employees who have high-level security clearances do have to submit to a certain amount of scru-tiny into their personal lives, he noted.

Celeste added that mobility will require more encryption “on the edge,” meaning in devices such as smartphones and tablets.

Everything from cars to televisions are being hooked up to the Internet, he noted.

“That dependency is a risk from a security standpoint,” he added.

Email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org

Rooting Out Insider Threats Among DHS’ Top Priorities, Execs Say

Correction: In the Dec. 2013 story “Micro-Aircraft Declared Safe to Fly in U.S. Skies,” the name of the aircraft maker was incor-rect. The company’s name is Applied Research Associates.

core, drones are simply machines to carry sensors aloft, he said.

“What we would really like is more upgraded sensor packages to put on the birds. At this day and time, 10 is very ef-ficient for us,” he added.

Using a collection of sophisticated sen-sors, the aircraft can detect border cross-ings and provide video and radar data from as high as 29,000 feet. Using multi-spectral cameras, LIDAR (light detection and ranging) and synthetic aperture radar sensors, a Predator can provide “change-detection” data to Border Patrol agents. The aircraft flies over and surveys a pre-determined area, then flies over the same area later.

Software helps detect the differences in the images provided. The method can be used to spot tire tracks or footprints cross-ing the U.S. border that are invisible to the naked eye.

It allows “us to see if there is anything at all going on in that area,” Knoell said. “If there is, we can focus resources to that location. It’s a great tool for monitoring

large expanses of border.”CBP officials have sought to widen

their mission by offering other law en-forcement and public safety agencies support, Kriegh said. In 2013, they aided the Federal Emergency Management Agency in monitoring the seasonal flood-ing of the Red River, which runs through Grand Forks. As an enabler of information gathering, the Predators assist firefighting efforts and the management of sporting events like the Super Bowl, Kriegh said.

“Obviously we operate an unmanned aircraft, but more importantly we share information through networks,” he said. “We are border security law enforcement support — that’s our job.”

DE

FE

NS

E D

EP

T.

cu

st

om

s a

nd

bo

rd

er

pr

ot

ec

tio

n, t

hin

ks

to

ck

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l d e f e n s e 17

ViewpointBy BoB Seraphin and rich palaSchak

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno has warned about a return to the hollow Army that resulted from post-Vietnam War reductions in defense funding. He said the nation must avoid a dangerous repeat.

Another outcome that must be avoided is a hollow industrial base, particularly the ammunition base. The nation’s munitions industrial base requires careful attention now to ensure its ability to meet the needs of the services in the future.

Concern over the health of the muni-tions industry is not new. As early as 2007, munitions professionals in government and industry concluded that reductions in defense spending were inevitable and that steps had to be taken to soften their impact. Several efforts since then have produced positive, but not decisive, results and have identified areas requiring further work.

Decision makers in the Defense Depart-ment and Congress were alerted to the risks and costs of allowing a repeat of the near collapse of the munitions industry in the 1990s. Between fiscal years 1985 and 1994, ammunition procurement declined by 80 percent. Little consideration was given to the effects of this decline on the long-term viability of the industrial base, and little planning was done to sustain the sector. In short order, 70 percent of production capability was permanently lost, along with much of a highly skilled workforce. Sub-sequent recovery was long and expensive.

Preparation of a “strategic master plan” was begun under the auspices of the Army’s program executive officer for ammunition. The intent is to ensure the industrial base is sized and configured to meet current and future requirements. This work is ongoing.

The Army’s single manager for conven-tional ammunition (SMCA) is responsible for procuring ammunition items that are common to the services. The SMCA, in collaboration with industry, has developed management tools that are of great value in current operations.

The industrial base assessment tool and the minimum sustaining rate database are now used to analyze proposed ammunition procurement budgets. Through an iterative process, potential negative impacts on the munitions industrial base are identified beforehand. The services are thus afforded the opportunity to mitigate those impacts

by adjusting budgets.While the industry must be configured

and maintained to produce munitions required for war reserve and training stocks, difficulties arise in determining those requirements. The computer-based process is scenario-dependent, and includes many assumptions. It produces specific quantities of specific munitions, but these can, and do, vary widely with changes in scenarios or the assumptions that are fed into the computer models. At root, then, munitions require-ments figures are best guesses.

The industry must be agile and flex-ible to meet unexpected changes. Past history provides many examples of overde-pendence on rigid requirements and little regard for flexibility.

In the Vietnam conflict, requirements for 20 mm ammunition were severely under-stated. At times, acceptance tests of 20 mm lots, fresh off production lines, were being fired while the remainder of the lots was simultaneously being loaded onto nearby C-141 cargo planes destined for Vietnam.

Also during the Vietnam War, there were occasions when Air Force combat aircraft were sent out on missions with just one bomb because of shortfalls in inventory cou-pled with a desire to maintain sortie rates.

At the end of the first Iraq War, which lasted only six days, the Army had only one and a half day’s supply worldwide of 25 mm high explosive incendiary trac-

er ammunition, not counting basic loads, based on the ongoing expenditure rates.

During the second Iraq War, industry received requests for urgent production of 30 mm ammunition that could not be hon-ored. Previously, requirements had been set so low that production lines had been closed and their reconstitution would have taken 15 months.

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan gener-ated enormous demand for small-caliber ammunition. Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri, the nation’s premier source for small caliber ammunition, was unable to meet the demand. The single manager for conventional ammunition con-tracted with two overseas sources in South Korea and Israel to supplement deliver-ies. When Israel subsequently became involved in hostilities, it redirected produc-tion to support its own forces, and those contracted deliveries to U.S. forces ceased.

War reserve estimates have been wrong in the past. While a future industrial base must be capable of providing war reserves, it must also retain sufficient flexibility to compensate rapidly when errors become evident. Absent that flexibility, the ability to adequately support war fighters is at risk.

A number of actions can assist the muni-tions professionals in ensuring there is a capable and efficient industry for future needs.

Change is needed in the requirements process. Demands will evolve, drastically in some cases, to reflect planned changes in national strategy and reductions in force structure. Given these profound chang-es, the assumptions used in generating requirements via computer models should be critically questioned, and appropriate adjustments made where warranted. Plan-ning will likely envision production lines being shut down and then called upon to resume operation. Assumptions about the ability of a closed line to resume produc-tion, as well as the time and cost of doing so, must be carefully examined. Included should be specifics concerning the avail-ability of trained workers.

The budget process must be reviewed. The Army’s single manager for convention-al ammunition has the ability to analyze proposed budgets to identify potential neg-ative impacts on the industry. The SMCA exercises authority over procurement of ammunition items that are of common

Budget Cuts, Inadequate Planning Put Munitions Industrial Base in Peril

de

fe

ns

e d

ep

t.

18 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

usage, but not those that are service unique. These “non-SMCA” items constitute a sig-nificant percentage of all munitions pro-cured, and therefore significantly affect the industry.

Nevertheless, inclusion of non-SMCA items in the munitions database is optional. At this time, the Army and Marine Corps have opted in, but the Navy and Air Force have not. It appears that they have declined because of a dispute over who will pay the attendant administrative costs if they do participate. Prompt resolution of this mat-ter by the office of the secretary of defense would be helpful.

Tactical missiles are not classified as ammunition, and are budgeted in separate accounts not subject to SMCA authority. On the other hand, they require compo-nents that are produced by the munitions industry, and are dependent on the sector’s continued viability. As with non-SMCA items, inclusion of tactical missiles in the munitions database would be a positive step, and should be considered by the office of the secretary of defense.

From the outset, the SMCA’s assess-ment capabilities were planned to be used routinely in the annual budget formulation process. Instead, the decision was taken to revise the Joint Conventional Ammunition Policy and Procedure to require such usage, on the grounds that adoption would be faster and easier. Publication of the revision has now been in process in this joint arena for more than two years. Speedy comple-tion would be a positive step.

The industry must leverage technology. Adequate support of relevant technolo-gies provides a significant multiplier effect, reducing the cost of munitions. It also fosters retention of highly trained engineers and scientists in a field that requires many years to achieve full productivity.

The Defense Department and the military services support a number of manufactur-ing technology programs that seek afford-able, timely production and sustainment of defense systems. A program tailored to the specific needs of the munitions industry should be devised and funded. In particular, the application of improvements to produc-tion lines during periods of shutdown would provide cost and efficiency benefits.

Continued support of research-and-development funding for munitions related projects will ensure that the United States retains its technological edge well into the future.

Today, budget cuts are already being felt and some capabilities and workforces are being pared back. Impending cuts will bring more of the same. Defense officials must become, and remain, sensitive and

responsive to the difficulties encountered by munitions manufacturers. They should be proactive in asking for information, look-ing for signs of distress and seeking oppor-tunities that will provide assistance in cases where intervention is warranted.

The United States must support inter-national sales to allies. The services are moving to ensure that plans for munitions buys include adequate consideration of the continued health of the industrial base. This is not the case when international sales of munitions are being considered. In some cases, increases in production levels represented by those sales, when added to U.S. requirements, can be enough to ensure continued viability. Conversely, disapproval of international sales can diminish the abil-ity of the industry to support U.S. forces adequately.

Further, the reluctance of the U.S. mili-tary to permit companies to sell ammuni-tion with new capabilities or state-of-the-art technology to even its closest allies is coun-terproductive. It frustrates efforts to foster interoperability with allies, leaves markets open to technologically equivalent com-petitors and forfeits opportunities to reduce the costs of U.S. production.

A new Defense Department initiative seeks to ensure that new munitions devel-opment efforts include concurrent pursuit of designs for exportability. This is welcome and will be beneficial in the future, provided that the initiative remains adequately fund-ed. Existing ammunition products, however, do not benefit from this effort.

It is imperative that sustaining critical munitions production capabilities become a prime consideration in decisions concern-ing international sales, especially during periods of reduced U.S. funding.

Requirements calculations and budget-ary plans for fiscal year 2015 and beyond must be consistent with efforts to achieve a right-sized munitions industrial base. With-out an assured, capable and efficient sup-ply of munitions, armed forces and their weapon platforms are of little use. ND

Bob Seraphin, a former House Appropri-ations Committee staffer, is a consultant to the Munitions Industrial Base Task Force. Rich Palaschak is a member of the National Defense Industrial Associa-tion’s Industrial Committee of Ammuni-tion Producers.

th

iNk

st

oc

k

Opportunities Abound in NATO Defense MarketViewPoint

By KateRina wRight and aleKSandaR d. JoVoVic

European defense, a traditional high-value market for transatlantic players, continues to be challenging. Facing similar seques-tration initiated cuts in the United States, defense firms have become accustomed to news of stagnant investment, equipment and personnel reductions, and uncertainty about future requirements across the Euro-pean continent.

And yet, amidst these market pressures, industry on both sides of the Atlantic can find both a dose of certainty and growth in perhaps a pleasantly surprising partner: NATO.

Kicking off a series of awards, Lockheed Martin Corp. was given a contract valued up to $100 million in September to design the active network infrastructure for the new NATO headquarters in Brussels, while ThalesRaytheon Systems secured $180 million this June to enhance NATO’s air command and control system. In an era of austerity, NATO is offering real and signifi-cant opportunities in the near future.

Two buyers of particular interest to industry, aptly hidden behind bland acro-nyms, are NCIA (NATO Communications and Information Agency) and the NSPA (NATO Support Agency). NSPA managed more than 24,000 contracts valued at more than $2.85 billion in 2012, and a nearly identical sum in 2011. NCIA has recently announced more than $1.3 billion — and up to an additional 30 percent in smaller awards — in opportunities over the next two years.

The biggest investment area under the latter organization is the communication infrastructure services segment, driving roughly $1.1 billion in future business opportunities. Two major programs fuel much of this spending — the upcoming NATO satellite communications program valued at $680 million over the next 15 years, and the NATO communications and infrastructures program, a best-value award estimated in the range of $77 million.

Additionally, the NCIA operates mul-tiple small-scale programs that are well suited for specialized firms looking for entry opportunities in the areas of cloud

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 19

th

ink

st

oc

k

computing security, data security, mobile device security, malware analysis and cyber-intelligence.

One of the largest and most talked about opportunities on the horizon is the upcom-ing information-technology modernization program estimated at $240 million over five years. The first work package is the heart of the project, providing for data cen-ter consolidation, the new NATO private cloud, the bulk of hardware and the core integration and program management.

A number of other opportunities can be found in the areas of command and control — investments in chemical and biological defense, environmental functional servic-es, maritime C2 and GIS tools — intel-ligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counter explosive solutions and functional services for electronic warfare. Air C2 seg-ments include software-based elements, support and enhancements to NATO’s air command-and-control systems and ballistic missile defense support, upgrades and com-munications programs.

Navigating NATO, however, requires patience, and may prove particularly chal-lenging given current reorganization efforts, which involve a dizzying array of agencies. The NCIA was created in July 2012 as the fusion of NATO CIS Services Agency and NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency, as well as the NATO Air Command and Control System Manage-ment Agency, the active layered theater ballistic missile defense program office, and disparate information technology support functions of NATO headquarters and other agencies.

Similarly, in July 2012, the former NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency, the NATO Airlift Management Agency and the Central European Pipeline Agency merged to form the NATO Support Agen-cy. While the new structure should allow for greater efficiencies and centralization of business opportunities, it also leads to short-term challenges.

In the aggregate, NATO still faces some gaps in cohesion and communication across program areas. Delayed implementation or absence of opportunity portals and online information is partially a victim of this lat-est reshuffling, and NATO has been notori-ous about delaying requests for proposals and bid awards. As with any major orga-nization, approval and authorization chan-nels require time, and programs are often subject to scope revisions and clauses to mitigate potential risk. Defense companies must appreciate the importance of patience and process.

Firms on both sides of the Atlantic are not sitting idle on the sidelines, and com-

petition is intensifying. The ballistic missile defense systems engineering and integra-tion contract, for example, has attracted more than 80 prospective bidders from 15 nations. There are more than 10,000 firms registered with NATO, around 800 registered with the NCIA alone. Multina-tional primes, European majors and special-ized subcontractors are eying opportunities, attracted by the agency’s recent adoption of “best value” contracting, aimed at the greatest overall benefit in an acquisition when balanced against costs. This offers an alternative to the traditional preference for “lowest cost, technically compliant bids.”

To best position within NATO, primes and their partners must demonstrate and ensure interoperability in theater. Follow-ing recent alliance operations, many mem-ber countries have become increasingly frustrated after investments in national-level systems have failed to effectively operate or share information with their allied partners. Member nations, as a con-sequence, are looking to implement NATO capability for national use. This top-down versus bottom-up approach to interoper-ability places responsibility on NATO to provide plug-and-play systems to ensure capability is delivered and accessible to all members.

Primes should think through their supply chain from both a business development and an implementation perspective. Unlike in the United States, where set-aside alloca-tions ensure small business access and par-ticipation, NATO has no such benchmarks

or quotas. Moreover, published prime con-tract award data suggests that a select few countries — the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Belgium — dominate both the number and value of awards, with many smaller countries reporting no prime contract intake.

As primes often default to the same pre-ferred partners, they should seek a partner diversification strategy — with teammates from smaller, underrepresented member nations, and specialized, innovative firms.

While growing diversity of subject mat-ter experts can lead to integration chal-lenges, if primes can proactively address and mitigate this risk, more effective coop-eration can be achieved.

Though NATO will face budget pres-sures alongside its members and organi-zational transition poses some near-term challenges, industry is increasingly looking to NATO as an attractive business part-ner. Primes are finding that the benefits, beyond just additional source funding, are twofold: Visibility with 28 member states and access to a new network of partners and teammates for future innovation and development, with possibilities extending even beyond the alliance. ND

Katerina Wright (kwright@avascent.com) is a senior analyst at the consulting firm Avascent Europe’s Paris office. Aleksandar Jovovic (ajovovic@avascent.com) is a senior associate at the firm’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

20 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

COMMENTARYBY EdwARd LuNdquisTThe Office of Naval Research tech-

nology insertion program for savings (TIPS) provides funding to integrate mature tech-nologies into existing programs where they can reduce operational and maintenance support costs.

“We’re looking for emerging technolo-gies that can save the Navy money, and help get them across the finish line to the fleet and force sooner so the sailor and Marine can benefit from their use,” said ONR’s Director of Technology Transition Initiatives Bob Smith.

Sailors might find a tool at Home Depot that they like better than what they’ve been issued on their ship. “If we can prove it does the same job or does it better, and we can do it faster or for less, we’ll pay for that last bit of research or testing to make it sailor or Marine ready,” Smith said.

Digital dental X-rays, which can be displayed on a computer screen to track changes from previous visits to the dentist, is one example. “We found that the same type of equipment can be used to find and monitor cracks on aircraft,” Smith said. “Instead of sorting through files and looking at piles of devel-oped film, we can compare digital X-rays and determine which cracks are growing and need to be fixed. If it works, we’ll purchase more.”

That idea came from the chief technology officer at an aviation depot. The TIPS funding enabled Naval Air Station North Island in California to test and evaluate the idea.

“Resource sponsors are usually focused on their specific needs. But their success may be appli-cable elsewhere. With TIPS, we do a lot of seam-crossing,” said Smith.

TIPS provides up to $2 million for up to two years of research. “These are projects that are not without risk, but the risk is not high,” Smith said.

A key criterion for selection is a demonstrated ability to deliver a return on investment. That may include reduced maintenance or operating costs; or increased safety,

efficiency, reliability or availability.One TIPS project involved the instal-

lation of connectors for destroyer sonar systems, making it possible to replace assemblies and cables without drydocking the ship to access the sonar dome.

Projects have proven successful at addressing organizational challenges like maintenance facilities that have operations and maintenance funds but little to no research dollars.

“It takes forward-thinking managers will-ing to invest some of their time and effort

to make their operations or process more efficient and effective,” said Smith.

An executive review group of two-star flag and general officers reviews the nomi-nations and makes the decision for the department. There is an annual selection process.

Steve Southard, technology transition director within the chief technology office at Naval Sea Systems Command in Wash-ington, D.C., said TIPS provides funds that can help program offices complete the development of a technology and transi-tion it without having to go through their normal budget process.

Southard said there is a rigorous process to evaluate and review the proposals by program executive officers.

Candidates for TIPS funding must show that they will save money.

One recent project identi-fied a better way to remove sound-absorbing material from the hulls of decommissioned submarines.

The tiles, usually several inch-es thick, have to be removed for recycling before the hull can be dismantled. Previously it was done by hand with chisels. The

Navy Program Rewards Money-Saving Technologies

Fiscal Year 2015 TIPS Proposal AllocationThe Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) .............................................4

The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) ...........................................6

The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) ...................4

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) ..............................2

The Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP).......................................2

Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) ...............................................2

USS Ticonderoga CG-47 NAVY

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 21

TIPS project identified a heat process that works faster.Southard said the actual cost benefit hasn’t been realized yet,

but the project had to provide a compelling business case analysis to have been approved and selected for funding.

“We usually have quite a few proposals to consider. It isn’t a lot of money, but sometimes it can be just what’s needed to kickstart a program,” said Southard.

Another example is the composite patch technologies for alu-minum structures. This was in response to a fleet problem with the aluminum superstructures of CG-47 Ticonderoga-class cruis-ers where the aluminum was degrading and cracking. TIPS funded a project to provide a lower cost solution for sealing the cracks and reinforcing the aluminum plate. This project is on its way to a successful transition.

The Navy also is taking advantage of gaming technology to create an immersive virtual ship environment and interactive courseware. According to John Freeman, director of surface pro-grams at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Orlando, Fla., the virtual simulation of the littoral combat ship (LCS) readiness control officer console on the bridge allows trainees to take a virtual tour of the ship.

“When you’re sitting at the watch station, your avatar can move to any space on the ship,” Freeman said. TIPS funding was used to transition the technology to LCS.

“With your avatar, you can walk around, open hatches, climb ladders. You become the watch stander,” said Capt. Rich Brown, commanding officer of Surface Warfare Officer School in New-port, R.I. “In the simulator you don’t just do it, you do it until you get it right.”

The transportation exploitation tool is another success story.Greg Butler, division director for

the Naval Supply Systems Com-mand Global Logistics Support fleet movement and systems support office, saw an opportunity to help transportation planners reduce unde-rused transportation capacity.

“We’re developing a transporta-tion exploitation tool that helps a transportation planner find unique options to get a shipment to where it needs to be efficiently and eco-nomically,” Butler said. “We are look-ing for conveyances with unused capacity that we can utilize and thereby contribute to increasing the efficiency of the defense transporta-tion system.”

The tool looks at many different Defense Department scheduling sys-tems that have details on schedules, routings, aircraft and vessel capacity and then provides multiple solutions for the logistics planners to work with.

“We wanted to put a ‘Kayak-like’ capability on transportation plan-ners’ desktops that mimicked the same one used when ordering travel tickets online for their family,” said Butler. “Just like with Kayak, Trav-elocity or Orbitz, I can make an operational decision based on cost or schedule and find the solution that

best fits the requirement.”Naval Supply Systems Command’s chief technology office

nominated the financial air clearance transportation system mod-ule for TIPS funding.

“U.S. Transportation Command has over 1,000 missions a day flying, sailing or moving, and although the use of transportation assets is closely scrutinized to drive efficiencies, most automated scheduling systems are not connected,” said Butler. “With the assistance of the Office of Naval Research and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, we developed interfaces that merged and synchronized information from various systems and presented the user with routing and cost avoidance opportunities.”

The system has proven its value in a real-world situation. A ship in Rota, Spain, had to get underway for a mission in Libya, but needed a new clutch assembly.

“We identified the part stateside, and got it to Norfolk for the next scheduled flight to Rota,” Butler said. The transportation tool, however, found an Air Force C-5 flying an Army mission from Charleston, S.C., to Afghanistan. It had a planned refueling stop in Rota. The part was sent to Charleston, and the ship was able to get the part 23 hours sooner than the originally scheduled flight from Norfolk.

Smith recognized that just because TIPS programs are expected to save money doesn’t mean they will. A successful transition rate of 70 percent still means that 30 percent of the projects started will fail.

There’s a fine line between saving money and avoiding spending money. “We’re all about getting that exciting new technology, and getting it across the finish line where we can leverage it and use it,” said Smith. ND

Email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org

- Honor Code

for more information visitwww.USFraudAttorneys.com/integrity

CHARLOTTE • NC • US

“We will NOT Lie,Steal or Cheat,

nor Tolerateamong us

anyone who does.”

22 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

By yasmin TadjdehFunding to incorporate smartphones

and tablets in Defense Department offices and on battlefields has stagnated even as demand for devices is rising.

At the National Security Agency, employees want devices similar to the ones that can be purchased at most retailers, said Debora Plunkett, director of the NSA’s information assurance directorate.

To keep up with demand, the NSA is exploring devices that can be kept secure — particularly in a classified network — while offering the latest in technologi-cal advancements, Plunkett said in November at an Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association symposium in Wash-ington, D.C.

“User’s expectations are lead-ing to the development of … these technologies, which will continue to change the security paradigm and present new chal-lenges for us,” Plunkett said. “It is not only our user’s expectations driving the capability require-ments, but the rapid pace of innovation is also causing the user … to demand the latest and greatest technologies that are available in the domestic mar-ket.”

Uniformed and civilian work-ers are clamoring to get their hands on the latest technology — such as iOS and Android enabled devices — that industry promises will make communication and productivity more streamlined.

But as budgets slide, acquiring new high-tech devices is becoming less feasible, experts said. Funding for mobile devices will be flat as the military grapples with budget cuts and sequestration.

“For the Army, my mobility budget is decreasing,” said Rick Walsh, mobile lead at the Army’s office of the chief informa-tion officer/G-6. “Our funding for mobile is very small.”

Peter Ziomek, mobile director at the CIO office for the Department of the Navy, said the “mobility budget is flat, but declining.”

However, the department has taken steps to save money without cutting mobile

capabilities over the past few years, he noted.

With what funding is available, the Pen-tagon will likely have to purchase devices that may still have some kinks in them, said Jennifer Carter, component acquisi-tion executive at the Defense Information Systems Agency.

“We’re not waiting for things to be perfect and fully mature. We’re getting capabilities that are out there quickly and then we’re continuing to enhance those capabilities,” Carter said. “We really worked

hard to close the gap with industry.”Mobile technology can change rapidly,

she said. DISA is working to keep up pace with innovation in the domestic market that churns out new devices multiple times a year.

“The technology in mobile devices changes so fast that we really can’t afford to do business the way it’s been done previously,” Carter said. “This also requires a little bit of a change on the user’s part. They’re not quite used to getting a capabil-ity that’s not perfect, where the operation still has some time to mature.”

Tastes in the types of devices preferred by users are also changing.

For the last decade, BlackBerry devices

have been the number-one choice for the Defense Department. Despite the device’s popularity, one senior service official pre-dicted Army BlackBerrys will largely be replaced in the future.

“We expect over the next several years that the majority of users that are currently using BlackBerrys will migrate to an iOS or Android device and they will leave the BlackBerry service,” Lt. Col. Ed Mattison, Army CIO/G-6 cyber security director-ate and mobility technical lead, said in November at the Milcom Conference in San Diego.

Starting on Jan. 1, the Army will allow commands to trade out current legacy BlackBerrys for BlackBerry10, Android or iOS enabled devices.

As budgets are cut, getting any new device in the hands of servicemen and civil-ian workers is challenging, leaders said.

To help with costs, one often mentioned alternative could be a “bring-your-own-device” policy, also known as BYOD. Should it be imple-mented, defense employees in the field and in offices could use their own personal device for work tasks, poten-tially saving the department countless dollars in acquiring new technology.

However, BYOD is fraught with uncertainty, some have said. Personal device use could lead to major security breaches if just one device on a network is compromised.

While there is a high demand for a BYOD pol-icy among young service-men, it is unlikely that the military will adopt it in the near future, said Rear Adm. Robert E. Day Jr., assistant commandant for C4IT/CIO

and commander of Coast Guard Cyber Command.

“Most of us are not going down that road yet because we’re waiting for the security piece, the [human resources] piece, the legal piece, all to come into place,” said Day. “[But] our workforce is going to expect that. That 25-year-old … is going to say, ‘I really don’t want to carry four devices around, why can’t you integrate?’”

Walsh agreed that a BYOD policy was unlikely to come to fruition soon.

“BYOD is a great concept — the oppor-tunities are wonderful there — but we as an Army right now are not going to embrace BYOD,” he said.

More studies need to be done before the

Funding for Military Mobile Technology Flattens as Demand Rises

th

iNk

st

oc

k

military would approve a BYOD policy, he said. Furthermore, it is not a technological problem that is impeding on implementa-tion of the policy, he noted.

“Technology is not an issue. It’s political. It’s the political part, the union part, the people part, that make BYOD … difficult,” said Walsh.

For example, would the Army have to pay servicemen or civilian workers who check their devices in the evening? he asked. In a time of tight budgets, pay-ing employees overtime for mobile device checking would be controversial, he said.

More mobile devices are being used for office work, said Day.

“This is the workplace of the future. It’s not anchored, going back to your office and transcribing your notes. It’s going out and actually doing the work and capturing the data,” said Day.

As mobile technology becomes more prevalent, better office productivity apps are needed, said Carter.

“The office capability is important,” said Carter. “We have a high priority for work-ing those capabilities into mobile devices so people can carry most of their standard office functions with them on their mobile device and therefore be able to be produc-tive.”

Better authentication methods and com-mon access card (CAC) enablement are also high on the agency’s list of needs, Carter said. The CAC serves as a form of ID across the Defense Department, and provides access into various buildings and computer systems. DISA wants to bring this same authentication to mobile devices, she said.

“The CAC enablement is an agency-wide [need],” said Carter. “That’s an area where we could really use more ideas and solutions to be able to make that authen-tication piece for the users simplified. We want to make sure we know who is using the device.”

CAC mobile authentication options need to be affordable and cannot be too bulky, she said. Users cannot be expected to lug around large attachments that latch onto the mobile device, she said.

Built-in, embedded security is a high priority, Plunkett said.

“We can no longer afford to think of secu-rity as an add-on, to be considered follow-ing the design and the initial development. Addressing security as an afterthought will likely degrade the user experience [and] cause development inefficiencies,” Plunkett said.

It is not uncommon for a company to present Plunkett with a “really great product” and then subsequently ask her to

secure it, she said. By that time, “it is too late.”

“We ask industry to address security as soon as possible in the development cycle … and to incorporate security requirements and design into devices and applications as essential, critical, foundational functional-ities,” Plunkett said.

Soldiers in the field need devices with a longer battery life, said John Wilcox, direc-tor of communications and CIO/J6 for U.S. Special Operations Command.

“[The] number-one SOF problem, for-ever and ever and ever, is power,” said Wilcox. “We still have work to do on the power side.”

SOF is also in need of better video com-pression software in mobile devices, he said. Additionally, the command needs more

bandwidth to process the wealth of full-motion video streams it receives, he said.

Maj. Gen. Stuart M. Dyer, director of cybersecurity and acting deputy CIO in the office of the CIO/G-6 of the Army, agreed that bandwidth is a tough problem to solve in a tactical environment.

“I think the issue in the tactical environ-ment is always going to be one of constraint of resources. In the tactical environment, what we’re trying to do is give [servicemen] the ability to have the information they need when they need it,” said Dyer. “If we could design and optimize our devices so they operate very elegantly, very efficiently in very low-bandwidth environments, … to me, that’s a key sell right there.” ND

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 23

Email your comments to YTadjdeh@ndia.org

th

ink

st

oc

k

25th ANNUAL SO/LIC SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITIONJoin us for this 25th Anniversary Symposium!

“Seamless SO/LIC: Government and International Partnerships, Supported by Industry, for Global Employment”

Engage with senior-level Speakers, decision-makers, and subject-matter experts from throughout the SO/LIC community.

Visit the exhibition hall to see the latest in SO/LIC-related technologies and products.

Washington, DC • Feb. 10-12, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4880

24 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E • J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4

BY STEW MAGNUSONA National Institute of Standards

and Technology framework intended to help companies and organizations bolster their cybersecurity may have a big impact for small- and mid-tier defense contractors, experts said.

The draft of the cybersecurity frame-work was released at the end of October, and NIST was gathering comments until Dec. 13. Its overarching goal is to set up voluntary information sharing regimes for each of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors identified by the Department of Homeland Security.

The framework is mostly directed at smaller companies and can help them implement standards and follow risk man-agement principles and best practices, said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance. That is particularly true in the defense industrial base, where larger companies are seen as being ahead on cybersecrity.

“In general, these organizations do state-of-the-art cybersecurity. They have tremen-dous resources in scope and scale — among other things,” Clinton said.

However, further down in the supply chain, companies don’t have the same financial wherewithal and expertise, he noted.

The Presidential Executive Order — Improving Critical Infrastructure Cyber-security released in February — called for NIST to create the framework. The executive order was a result of a recalcitrant Congress, which has had difficulty passing major bills such as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

A lot can be accomplished under the framework and executive order without the need for further legislation, cybersecu-rity executives told National Defense.

The defense and the financial services sectors are seen as two industries that are at the forefront of cybersecurity. Con-cerned about reports of China-based hack-ing enterprises stealing vast amounts of intellectual property, the Defense Depart-ment initiated the defense industrial base cyber security and information assurance program in 2007.

It was designed to gather reports on net-work intrusions, scrub the data to ensure

the company contributing the information remained anonymous, and then push out reports to other participants. The program, administered by the chief infor-mation office, has since expanded, and is now serving as a model for the framework.

The framework includes principles that will reach across all sectors such as risk management, said Tom Conway, director of network security firm McAfee Federal. Companies need to know what assets are most at risk, pri-oritize, and take action to protect them.

“That is something the DIB has been doing for a while,” he said.

Keith Rhodes, chief technology officer at Qin-etiQ North America, said perfect security is impossible.

“You have to take a posture of always being under attack. That is just the nature of the beast,” he said. Once a company accepts that fact, then it can move on to identifying its most critical assets and boost-ing security around them.

“It is about risk. Understanding your threats, the vulnerability and value of assets that may or may not be compromised,” he said.

He lauded the information-sharing regime the framework puts in place.

“We have to be able to tell others, and others have to be able to tell us, what they see, what they know, what’s happening,” Rhodes said. “Without that, you really can’t know what the threat is. You’re looking through your soda straw, but you don’t really have the broader purview.”

Clinton and the others interviewed praised the voluntary nature of the NIST framework, even though it is a result of there not being any legislation to mandate participation.

“A lot of the larger organizations are probably already doing — or are in some cases — doing more than what is in the framework. They will raise their hand,” Clinton said. “But we want those small- and mid-size firms to adopt the framework. They are perhaps the target audience.”

However, these smaller companies have to see that volunteering their time and

resources is worth their while, he added.“If you want the framework to be sus-

tainable as a voluntary system, which is what the administration is committed to, then it has to be cost effective,” Clinton said.

“It is clearly unsustainable to expect smaller firms to be continually making uneconomic investments in security. They won’t do it. Nobody can do it,” he added.

Conway said there are potential cost sav-ings to participating in information sharing when companies don’t have to build or buy redundant infrastructure. Plus, there is also a shortage of cybersecurity personnel. Smaller firms “can leverage somebody else’s smart person.”

There is also the question of incentives, which may assist some of these lower-tier

New Cyber Framework Aimed at Small, Mid-Tier Defense Companies

TH

INK

ST

OC

K

companies in achieving their cybersecu-rity goals. Those may require legislation, though.

There could be accelerated depreciation for network security products, tax credits for companies that agree to put cybersen-sors in place, limits on liability and insur-ance reform, Conway said.

Rhodes said it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure these

small companies have the incen-tives to participate in a voluntary system.

“That means there has to be a good carrot and stick, and right

now, there seems to be neither,” he said.

Incentives for defense firms to strengthen their cybersecurity, especially on certain sensitive programs, can be built into con-tracts, Rhodes said. That is what they do after all — compete for Defense Depart-ment business. The government has to choose which parts of the standards apply to defense contracts and insert them into requests for proposals.

Those who write the RFPs should state: “Prove to all of us that you won this contract because you had the smartest approach to security based on the evalua-tion criteria that we put in,” Rhodes said.

That kind of “carrot” would not require additional legislation, he added.

Defense Department agencies can show they are “serious about this by putting specificity into the evaluation criteria and actually evaluating based on those criteria,” Rhodes said. “Then I have all the incentive in the world. Because that’s the business I’m in.”

Conway said, “‘Fast moving and fluid’ are usually not used to describe regulations.” A voluntary system builds in flexibility.

Prescriptive or regulatory based mea-sures restrict progress, he said.

“Look at where the technology has gone over the past three years with all the iPads and Android equivalents,” he noted.

Since the draft framework was released, Clinton has been a vocal advocate of beta testing the information sharing system. The purpose would be to avoid a fiasco similar to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act insurance exchange website.

“We do what any large firm would do when launching a large product and service. We reach out directly into the target audi-ence and conduct a systematized beta test,” he said.

All sorts of unexpected difficulties will come up, he said. “We know that because that’s what always happens.”

After the bugs are worked out, then there can be a systematized cost-benefit analysis, and some key questions can be answered for the small- and mid-sized firms

that are worried about their bottom lines.What is it going to cost a company to

implement the framework? How beneficial is it? How much security do you get? A beta test with agreed upon metrics can determine what is cost effective and what isn’t, Clinton said.

The biggest threat to small businesses is uncertainty, he added.

“If you’re not sure what you’re going to get … firms tend not to make those kinds of investments,” Clinton said.

A beta test can go forward without leg-islation, he said. Afterwards, there needs to be an independent assessment carried out jointly by industry and government, he said.

“We don’t want somebody putting their thumb on the scale here making it seem more cost effective than it is for political purposes,” he said.

Clinton said the Department of Home-land Security, which will be charged

with setting up the system, can get the ball rolling on the beta test soon after the final frame-work is released in February.

DHS has coordinating coun-cils comprising government and

industry members for all 16 sec-tors, so the organizations are already in

place, he added. It needs to be a true collaboration, with

government as a partner, and not trying to manage the whole enterprise by sending out orders, Clinton said.

“We’ve got the structures in place to do this, and do it properly. It will cost a little money, but not a lot,” he added.

Rhodes agreed. “It’s a paper exercise if you don’t test,” he said.

That calls up the question of whether there will need to be costly cybersecurity centers for each of the sectors. The finan-cial services sector and some state and local governments are already doing this. The Defense Department’s chief information office has located its DIB cyber security information sharing program in Arlington, Va., less than a mile from the Pentagon.

Conway said: “At the end of the day, I think it is beneficial to have people in the same location, eating bad pizza in the middle of the night, rolling up their sleeves to solve a problem. That is always going to be needed.”

But ultimately it should move to machine-to-machine communication, where networks can respond automatically to a threat similar to a body’s immune system. The network identifies a threat and takes action without people in the loop, he added. ND

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 25

Email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org

TH

INK

ST

OC

K

BY VALERIE INSINNADuring the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Black Hawk helicopters were regularly flown at higher altitudes and in hotter temperatures than their engines were

designed to withstand. With underpowered engines in those conditions, each helicopter could only carry five soldiers at a time — about half of an 11-person squad.

The Army over the next decade plans to phase out legacy equipment and introduce a new, more powerful engine that will be able to take a full squad twice as far, all while burning less fuel. Through the Improved Turbine Engine Program, or ITEP, the service will replace the T700 engines that power its Black Hawk and Apache helicopters.

When the Army fielded General Electric’s T700 engine in the 1970s, it required that an engine be able to transport a squad at 4,000 feet in 95-degree Fahrenheit temperatures.

“What they’ve learned through Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in other theaters, is that’s not sufficient to cover the globe,” said Jerry Wheeler, vice president of the Advanced Turbine Engine Co. (ATEC), a joint venture between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.

ATEC is one of the participants in an Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate initiative called the Advanced Afford-able Turbine Engine program, a science and technology effort that is a precursor to the improved turbine engine program of record.

No engine will be fielded at the conclusion of the AATE pro-gram, but it has given ATEC and General Electric a head start in developing the technologies the Army will need for its future engine. The ITEP competition is slated to begin this year, as the science and technology program comes to a close.

The goal of the AATE program is to develop a 3,000-shaft horsepower engine around the same size as the T700, which weighs about 450 pounds. The engines will be 50 percent more powerful and 25 percent more fuel-efficient. The new engines also will have a longer lifespan and lower maintenance costs.

The requirements for the improved turbine engine have not been finalized, but the AATE program is designed to help reduce the risk of developmental technologies that will likely be pulled into the ITEP program, said Gary Butler, engine systems team leader at the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate.

“We’re providing a technology foundation to achieve the bet-ter fuel efficiency metrics and better horsepower to weight to get … more power in that same envelope,” he said.

With the ITEP engine, commanders will not have to choose between fielding a high-powered engine and saving money on fuel, said Lt. Col. Roger Kuykendall, Army program manager of common engines.

“ITEP is the best of both worlds,” he said. The engine will expand the helicopter’s flight ceiling to

26 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E • J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4

General Electric’s GE3000

AH-64 Apache DEFENSE DEPT.

Caption here to look like this right here like this. CREDIT

Fuel-Efficient Engine to Increase Range, Power Of Army Helicopters

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 27

meet the Army’s new requirement — an altitude of 6,000 feet in 95-degree weather, he said.

Black Hawk and Apache helicopters can fly in those conditions now, he said. But with the new engine, a Black Hawk’s range and the number of troops it can carry will double.

The Black Hawk is the Army’s most versatile aircraft and is able to accomplish missions ranging from trans-porting troops to conducting air assaults. Today, when an 11-person squad is assigned to carry out a mission 150 miles away, two Black Hawks are needed to transport the troops, and the aircraft would have to stop halfway through the flight to refuel and pick up ammunition, Kuykendall said.

Doing that requires more personnel and more convoys

on the road that are subject to improvised explosive devices, thus increasing risk to troops and equipment, he said.

In order to carry a full squad, commanders could use a CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter, which burns more fuel, Wheeler said. Neither option is ideal.

The Apache would be able to loiter significantly longer if equipped with an ITEP engine, Kuykendall said. “If you did it with a current engine, maybe you can’t take all your ammo with you or all your rockets. You have got to cut down ammunition and add more fuel. So now they can stay on [station] longer with the full complement of their weapons.”

As part of an analysis of alternatives, the Army has studied how long loiter time would be increased

ATEC’s HPW 3000

NEW ENGINE GOALS

• 50% more powerful

• 25% more fuel-efficient

• Longer lifespan

• Lower maintenance costs

Caption here to look like this right here like this. CREDIT

28 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

with an ITEP engine. Because the analysis isn’t due until the end of January, Kuykendall could not offer specific data.

The engines would cut fuel consumption and there-fore cost, an enticing prospect during a period of fiscal austerity. Using data from the past five years, the ser-vice estimates the engines will save 14 million gallons of fuel a year if flying hours remain the same, he said.

The Army plans to release a request for proposals for the ITEP engine by the end of spring. Competitors would progress through a technology development phase ending in fiscal year 2019, followed by an engineering-and-manufacturing development phase. Low-rate initial production would start after a Mile-stone C decision scheduled for 2023.

Although the service wants to retain two contrac-tors through EMD, which would include testing the engine and integrating it with aircraft, “unfortunately I don’t think the funding is there to do that,” Kuyken-dall said. Because of budget pressures on the program, the service may be forced to downselect to a single vendor earlier in the com-petition, he said.

Supporting multiple vendors through a competition is expensive, said a government worker who is affiliated with the program but is not allowed to speak to reporters. However, having contractors compete with each other though a longer span of development may help to drive down cost and risk for the Army, resulting in a better product.

“It has a lot of general officer [support]. We understand the importance of it and the cost savings we can get from it. It’s just unfortunate that with the fiscal constraints that the Army is under right now, some hard choices have to be made,” he said.

The service will ultimately purchase 6,215 engines, 10 percent of which are spares, to replace those in the Black Hawk and Apache, Kuykendall said.

It may buy even more ITEP engines for the Army’s next-genera-tion family of rotorcraft, called future vertical lift. The Army plans on fielding light, medium, heavy and ultra-heavy versions of the aircraft, officials have said. Initial operational capability is planned for 2034.

The Army will likely install the engine in at least some of the variants, but because requirements for future vertical lift are still in the works, Army officials have yet to decide which versions will incorporate the engine.

The hope is that engines will at least be installed in the light and medium aircraft, Wheeler said.

Kuykendall is working with other Army officials to mesh pro-duction timelines so that the future vertical lift program can incor-porate the ITEP engine into its development. The service wants to avoid a repeat of the failed Comanche program, which sought to build an advanced attack helicopter and its engine at the same time. Every time a requirement changed for one program, the other would have to make adjustments, Kuykendall said.

“What I would like to do is to get an ITEP production model done during the future vertical lift tech development phase,” he said. If the Army’s program executive office for aviation decides to use the new engines in those aircraft, “it reduces [its] risk. They’ll have an engine to plan around.”

PEO aviation has upgraded the T700 every decade since its introduction and is currently replacing its 701-Cs with D-models. But for the most part, the 40-year-old engine’s design has peaked, Kuykendall said.

“If you wanted to squeeze something else out of this engine, you’re only going to get maybe an extra 100 shaft horsepower,

maybe one or two improvements to fuel efficiency,” he said. After five years of design and development, the Advanced

Affordable Turbine Engine program is winding down. Both ATEC and General Electric have built and demonstrated two engines, Butler said.

Incumbent General Electric is offering the GE3000, a 3,000 horsepower engine that weighs roughly the same as the T700. General Electric officials did not respond to requests for comment.

The GE3000 sports new materials and cooling configurations and a more aerodynamic design than its predecessor, the company website said.

ATEC has developed the HPW 3000, which officials said would secure a 25 percent improvement in fuel efficiency, saving 50 mil-lion gallons a year.

It would lower production and maintenance costs by at least 20 percent and save $4.5 million in maintenance costs, according to company materials. When combining savings from fuel efficiency, maintenance and logistics, ATEC estimates its engine will cut total costs by $1 billion compared to the legacy T700.

Besides those savings, the HPW 3000 gives Apaches at least an extra 48 minutes of loiter time and a 3,330 increase in lift capacity, allowing the aircraft to carry a full load of fuel and weapons, the company said. It would also double the Black Hawk’s range and payload.

Wheeler would not say whether Apache or Black Hawk air-frames would need to be modified in order to accommodate the engine. “Our goal since day one in configuring the engine was to pursue a drop-in capability,” he said.

The first engine completed durability tests in July, and the com-pany was pleased with the results, Wheeler said. “It validated that the program’s goals are within reach.”

The second engine began performance tests in September, and will move on to sand ingestion tests after that, he said.

During performance tests, technicians collect data on each of the engine’s components, such as how they respond to high pressure and hot temperatures, Butler said. They also measure horsepower and fuel efficiency to ensure the engine is meeting program goals.

For sand ingestion tests, “we actually have a rig set up to throw sand into the engine and measure the capability of that engine to tolerate that sand ingestion,” he said. “That’s usually not a typical test we do in S&T, but we thought that would be a good demonstra-tion vehicle” to drive down risk before the ITEP program of record begins. ND

Email your comments to VInsinna@ndia.org

UH-60 Blackhawk defense dept.

JANUARY• Small Arms• Marine Corps Programs

FEBRUARY• Communications Technology• Naval Systems

MARCH• Cybersecurity• Rotorcraft Technology

APRIL• Tactical Wheeled Vehicles• Navy Ships

MAY• Special Operations Forces• Unmanned Systems

JUNE• Border Security• Coast Guard

JULY• Space• Nonlethal Weapons

AUGUSTMega Directory• Directory of Defense Corporations• Directory of Military Acquisition Programs

SEPTEMBER• Air Power• Expeditionary Warfare

OCTOBER• Combat Vehicles• Ground Combat Technology

NOVEMBER• Science and Technology• Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

DECEMBER• Simulation and Training

The topics listed in this calendar only comprise about one-third of the editorialcontent each month

Editorial calendar subject to change. Visit www.NationalDefenseMagazine.org for the latest updates.

2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE EDITORIAL CALENDAR

For advertising information contact Dino Pignotti at dpignotti@ndia.org or (703) 247-2541

By VALERIE INSINNAAfter a decade-long period of surging

sales and rapid expansion, the military heli-copter buying boom is coming to an end.

Experts and industry officials expect to see the rotorcraft market contract as U.S. military procurement decreases. Helicop-ter companies, like other defense busi-nesses, are seeking to expand their share of the commercial sector and are increas-ingly pursuing opportunities in the field of unmanned aircraft.

At the industry’s peak, the Pentagon spent more than $10 billion a year on rotor-craft. That spending will likely be cut in half between 2011 and 2018, said a report by the Teal Group.

“We have innovation, but no money,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group and author of the report. “It’s sort of the opposite of the fixed-wing aircraft industry, where there’s money but no innovation.”

When the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began more than a decade ago, the Army rushed to replace and upgrade its aging helicopters needed to provide firepower and transportation.

From 2003 to 2012, rotorcraft produc-tion worldwide totaled 11,275 units worth $136.9 billion. Of that, $92.1 billion came from military sales. The defense segment grew at a rate of almost 8 percent per year between 2003 and 2008, the report said. Then, from 2008 to 2012, the value of deliveries rose almost 70 percent.

While U.S. military procurement of heli-copters deflates by half in the next decade, the international and civil markets are set to expand from 2013 to 2022, Aboulafia told National Defense. Companies would still be larger than they were before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars even if they shrank by one third.

“In industry, we’ve had this amazing growth path over the past decade. It would take a serious amount of shrinkage to do damage to this larger indus-try,” he said. “It will hurt, but will it be a catastrophic failure of the industrial base? No. It’s just not going to be that bad.”

Five major prime con-

tractors — Boeing, Sikorsky, Eurocopter, AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter — are expected to dominate at least 96 percent of the rotorcraft market. U.S. companies Boeing and Sikorsky will lead military sales. France’s Eurocopter, now called Airbus Eurocopter, will remain top of the pack in the commercial sector, followed by British-Italian owned AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter, which is located in Hurst, Texas.

Different corporate strategies and high profits will likely keep the industry from consolidating, but Bell would be the most likely to be absorbed as part of a merger, the report said. If business does not improve for Bell’s parent company Textron, it could sell the rotorcraft company in order to keep its other subsidiaries afloat, Aboulafia said.

The problem is “no one really knows what Textron is. Is it a defense prime? Is it a horizontal conglomerate that can spin off all of its units? Is it an asset manager?” he asked. “No one really knows.”

For three decades, the rotorcraft industry has been fixated on the possibility of a new-start program to replace the Army’s Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance helicopter manu-factured by Bell. After two failed attempts, the newest procurement effort — called armed aerial scout — is stalling.

The man in charge of buying helicopters for the Army, Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, con-siders armed aerial scout the service’s num-ber-one need. He told National Defense that he doesn’t know whether the Army will have the funding needed to proceed with the program.

Delays or cancellation of the program are

possibilities, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology Heidi Shyu, said in October.

Rotorcraft companies have already poured millions into the competition. Boe-ing, AgustaWestland, Bell and EADS North America, which has been rebranded as Airbus, flew aircraft during a 2012 dem-onstration to the Army. EADS proposed a Eurocopter design. Sikorsky has also devel-oped its S-97 Raider as a possible Kiowa replacement, but it is not scheduled to fly until 2014.

With no sign from the Army that it will soon start a competition, the only new helicopter program in the works is the joint multi-role demonstrator initiative.

The Army hopes JMR will validate the technologies it will need for the future ver-tical lift family of rotorcraft that is planned to replace its current fleet. Officials have said they want aircraft that can achieve speeds in excess of 230 knots and fly at altitudes of 6,000 feet during a 95-degree Fahrenheit day.

The four competitors for the joint multi-role competition are split between big-name firms and up-and-coming rotorcraft companies. Four major helicopter makers have paired off into two teams — Boeing-Sikorsky and Bell-Lockheed Martin. AVX Aircraft Co. and Karem Aircraft, neither of which has built an operational aircraft, are also submitting designs.

The competition could come down to a battle between differing rotorcraft technol-ogies. AVX and the Boeing-Sikorsky team are offering compound helicopters with coaxial rotors. Bell-Lockheed and Karem have put forward tilt-rotor designs.

The Army has historically been reluc-tant to adopt novel rotorcraft technolo-gies such as V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors. That, coupled with an oncoming decade of lean Defense Department budgets, have left

some observers question-ing whether the program will ever come to fruition.

Aboulafia, for one, is not optimistic. He believes the Pentagon will ultimately opt for upgrades or more traditional replacements for legacy aircraft.

“Does the Army typi-cally pay any kind of pre-mium at all for speed or range? No. In other words, they would have to be pretty compelling break-throughs to get the Army to really start buying large numbers of these,” he said.

The service is trying to

30 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

Decline of U.S. Helicopter Procurement on the Horizon

Boeing-Sikorsky

JOINT MULTI-ROLE COMPETITORS

Karem Aircraft

Bell-Lockheed Martin

AVX Aircraft Co.

work out a balance between how much force structure and new technology it will need for the future, said Frank King, AVX’s vice president of sales and market-ing. Whether future vertical lift survives will ultimately depend on the level of priority the service gives the program and the amount of funding it can secure from Congress.

“With cost being so important in today’s environment, that will probably play a big factor. The firm that can produce some-thing that gives tremendous performance capabilities, maneuverability, and can be done in a low cost manner, I think will be sitting very pretty.”

Commercial rotorcraft giant Airbus Group is sitting out the JMR competi-tion. With Eurocopter’s X3 demonstrator capable of flying more than 230 knots, Airbus was considered a frontrunner before pulling out to focus on its armed aerial scout offering.

The other services have limited rotor-craft needs. The Air Force is set to award Sikorsky a contract for a combat search-and-rescue helicopter, but only if funding survives the budget ax. Down the road, it will also need to replace its Bell UH-1N Hueys, the report said.

The Navy, meanwhile, is replacing its Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawks with the larger MH-60R version.

Foreign military sales, especially to Asian countries, are another opportunity, the report said. South Korea needs a new light helicopter to replace its MD 500s, while Japan has a requirement for a new utility aircraft. India also has announced plans to procure 133 helicopters for its army and 64 for its air force.

With military procurement waning, industry is looking toward the civil rotorcraft market, where there is increased demand coming from the oil industry, law enforce-ment, first responders and border protection agencies. Teal’s report forecasts a total of about 10,000 aircraft worth about $60 bil-lion to be sold between 2013 and 2022.

Eurocopter and AgustaWestland find themselves well positioned for this para-digm shift, Aboulafia said. Both companies have been focusing on the international and commercial segments for years because of difficulties in breaking into the U.S. defense market, which is dominated by domestic companies.

For instance, Eurocopter and Agus-taWestland have signed agreements to form in-house production lines with China and Russia, respectively. These countries need helicopter assets for their burgeoning oil and gas industries. Russia will build the AW 139, and China will manufacture a version

of the EC175, the report said.Eurocopter and AgustaWestland are also

developing new aircraft designs, in addition to their more traditional offerings. Agus-taWestland is currently building prototypes of its AW609 tiltrotor, the report said. Eurocopter is developing the X3 into a civil aircraft called LifeCraft, which is scheduled for its first flight in 2018.

A strategy emphasizing traditional rotor-craft may bode well for the European com-panies, Aboulafia said. “It’s unlikely we’re going to have some big paradigm shift over here [in the United States] that leaves them in the dust.”

Of the U.S. companies, only Bell has recently unveiled a completely new com-mercial design, the report said. Its 525 Relentless, a medium-lift helicopter that is the first commercial rotorcraft to offer fly-by-wire controls, is scheduled for a first flight in 2014.

Even smaller firms are seeking commer-cial sales. If AVX is unsuccessful in its joint multi-role bid, the company may venture into the civil market, King said. The com-mercial sector may be more likely to pay for AVX’s designs, which have better per-formance in high temperatures and higher altitudes.

“It’s in the parts of the world that are hot and high that most people are forecasting the increase in the commercial market, and of course our configuration gives you that capability,” he explained.

As demand for unmanned aerial systems increases, some rotorcraft companies plan to branch out into remotely-piloted tech-nologies.

Small UAS manufacturer AeroViron-ment and Eurocopter are exploring a part-

nership.“This cooperative agreement creates the

opportunity for both companies to explore expanding into new markets and develop new capabilities to meet future customer needs,” Roy Minson, senior vice president and general manager of AeroVironment’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems business seg-ment, said in a statement.

Such cooperation will be valuable for Eurocopter as it further develops its unmanned product strategy, said Clive Sch-ley, the company’s senior vice president of strategy and company development. Over the past few years, Eurocopter has ven-tured into the development of unmanned technologies, including a version of its E145 helicopter that can fly autonomously or be controlled remotely by pilots at a ground control station. The unmanned E145 first flew last year.

Boeing is also developing an unmanned version of its AH-6 Little Bird light helicop-ter, said Dave Koopersmith, the company’s vice president of attack helicopters.

AVX is focusing primarily on the JMR competition for the time being, but also has its eyes on the UAS market, particularly when U.S. commercial airspace is opened to remotely-piloted aircraft.

“Our payload capability, using the dual ducted fans and the counter-rotating rotors would be ideal in that market, whether it was for spray application, fertilizer applica-tion, pipeline patrols, firefighting, off shore platform security [or] law enforcement. All of those markets I think will have a tremen-dous growth in UAV applications,” King said. ND

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 31

Email your comments to VInsinna@ndia.org

the teal group

Military Rotorcraft Sales Set to Fall in U.S.; Civil Market Recovers to Higher Level

32 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

By DAN PARSONS Fresh off a failed attempt to find a

new primary service rifle, the Army is set to help the Air Force replace the sidearm the U.S. military has used for three decades.

The Air Force will spearhead an effort to find a suitable replacement for the Beretta M9 pistol, introduced in 1985. The Army, which is a mutual partner in the endeavor, scrapped in 2013 a five-year effort to replace the M4 carbine.

Whereas the M4 rifle is generally well regarded by troops in the field, surveys conducted by the military have shown a consistent lack of confidence in the M9 9 mm handgun.

There is no formal requirement for what is called the “modular handgun” yet, but a request for proposals is expected in January, according to Air Force officials. A three-year analysis of commercially avail-able handguns will follow to find the best replacement for the M9 and the more con-cealable M11, a 9 mm Sig Sauer.

“The M9 is a good gun,” an Army Special Forces captain told National Defense. But “many of their core components have a tendency to break, especially on the older models.”

Major issues with the M9’s durability are the barrels, frames and locking blocks, he said. Nearly every structural element of the weapon has a tendency to break, espe-cially guns that have been in continual use since the weapon’s introduction 30 years ago, he said.

The lifecycle of an M9 is about 17,000 rounds, though the Army only requires that they last through 5,000 firings. The new pistol is expected to have a 25,000 round service life. Special Forces troops reach those thresholds fairly quickly, but even conventional troops are finding fault with weapons that are decades old.

“While a conventional force may only shoot 200 rounds a year, [Special Forces] especially can do 2,500 or more. It’s kind of unreasonable to expect them to last decades when you’re replacing everything every two years or so,” he said.

The Army currently has 238,000 M9 pistols. It plans to buy 265,000 replace-ments.

Special Forces have begun to migrate away from the M9 and have carried the P226, a .40-caliber handgun built by Sig Sauer that is more concealable than the M9. Some have begun to carry the Glock

19, a 9 mm pistol with a polymer frame that cuts down weight and size. Glock is overwhelmingly the sidearm of choice for U.S. law enforcement and is standard issue for many foreign militaries.

“I have seen a lot of Glock 19s floating around the military recently,” the Special Forces captain said. “Of course, Special Forces uses them, but I have seen both Air Force and Navy personnel with them.”

In outfitting the Afghan National Army, the U.S. military conspicuously opted for the Smith & Wesson 9 mm Sigma pistol, another popular handgun for law enforce-ment officers. The Pentagon bought more than 20,000 Sigmas for the ANA and Afghan National Police Force, according to reports.

Those and other commercially avail-able handguns have simply outgrown the M9, technologically. Beretta has developed newer firearms that meet many of the Army’s needs, as has Sig Sauer, Browning and Colt, to name only a few.

Unlike almost all new tactical sidearms, the M9 lacks an integrated Picatinny rail for attaching tactical lights and lasers. A long, thick handle makes it unsuitable for a wide range of users. It also features a relatively heavy trigger pull, according to information from the Army.

The safety selector is located at the rear

end of the slide among grooves meant to improve grip when cocking the pistol. Troops have a tendency to accidentally acti-vate the safety while cocking or reloading the weapon, a definite drawback in close-quarters combat.

The M9’s open-slide design has become largely outdated among tactical pistols. The large opening in the top of the gun from which the spent shells are ejected leaves the mechanism inside vulnerable to obstruction. Its barrel also cannot accept a suppressor, which the Army and Air Force would prefer in a new sidearm.

Congress has challenged plans to replace the M9 with a new handgun. In a report on the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Commit-tee recommended upgrading existing pis-tols with new slides, frames and barrels as needed. The Marine Corps has undertaken a similar effort, but has also returned in part to the heavier 1911-A1 that was the U.S. service pistol from World War I to the Vietnam War.

“The committee notes that the M9 pistol has been a reliable pistol with consistent and reasonable life-cycle costs,” the report said. “The committee is aware that the Marine Corps has upgraded the M9 pistol with a series of product improvements that has extended the life-cycle of the program and improved the weapon’s capabilities.”

The HASC report recommended that both the Air Force and Army consider product improvement programs for their sidearms based on the Marine Corp’s plan. Yet, it also recommended $300,000 for

Efforts Continue to Replace Army, Air Force Small Arms

Beretta M9 pistol air force.

the replacement program in fiscal year 2014, the full amount included in President Obama’s budget request to Congress.

Charley Pavlick, a contracted project officer for the Modular Handgun Sys-tem working with the Army, previously told National Defense that “no practical upgrades can provide the sort of capabilities we need in a new pistol.”

Still, military services are ensuring that the Beretta lasts long enough to see troops through the war in Afghanistan, if not longer. The Army in September 2012 announced it ordered 100,000 new M9s and that the handgun will remain its official sidearm for at least five years.

A Beretta spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

A similar two-pronged strategy of upgrad-ing existing weapons while seeking to replace them may have been an influence in the death of the Individual Carbine Compe-tition to replace the M4. After five years and $14 million, the Army last summer canned a program to replace the rifle when eight commercially available designs failed to pass its reliability standards.

A scathing post-mortem report by the Pentagon’s own watchdog found that not only did the Army waste money searching for a carbine replacement, but there was no need for a new rifle in the first place. The Army can wait another 10 years to replace the M4 with no negative repercussions, an inspector general report said.

“The Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, did not justify the requirement for a new carbine … and inappropriately approved and validated the requirements document used to support the establish-ment of the individual carbine program.”

The Army failed to negotiate a lower per-unit cost with Colt before launching a competition to replace the rifle, even though the assistant secretary of the Army said that at a “reasonable price,” the Army would continue to purchase M4 carbines, the report said.

“As a result, the Army wasted about $14 million on a competition to identify a source to supply new carbines it does not need. In addition, the Army plans to spend $2.52 billion over a 20-year life cycle to procure and maintain 501,289 carbines that its own analysis suggests can be delayed for another 10 years with no impact on readiness.”

A 2006 memo from the assistant secre-tary stated the Army did not have a require-ment for higher performance on which to base a competition, the report said.

Mark Westrom, who owns Armalite Inc. — the company responsible for the original rifle design that became the M16 family of weapons — said the choice to move ahead with the IC competition was political, rather than of military necessity.

Members of Congress, especially Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., have hammered the Army over its failure to replace the M4. Coburn amended the 2013 NDAA with language condemning the M4 for insuf-ficient reliability, range and power. The bill also funded the carbine competition and required a progress report to the House Armed Services Committee.

The 2014 budget request contained $70.8 million for the two-path carbine program. Of this amount, $18.9 million was requested for 12,000 M4A1 carbines and $48.6 million was requested for 29,897 new, individual carbine weapons. The bud-get request also contained $10.3 million for M4 carbine modifications. But the Army has not delivered a report on the carbine competition to Congress, a requirement of the 2012 NDAA. The committee therefore was concerned that the $70 million budget request was “too high given the individual carbine program’s current down-select and evaluation schedule as well as the require-ment to provide a business case assessment.”

The committee recommended $48.8 million instead for the IC competition, a decrease of $22 million from the Army’s initial request. It also recommended fully

funding the M4 improvement program at $10.3 million.

“Incremental improvement of the M4 is absolutely acceptable,” Westrom said. “But when folks are trying to sell guns, they come up with operational theories that to the great unwashed sound legitimate. Coburn pressed the Army and with a lot of cohorts, probably forced the Army to do the carbine trials.”

The inspector general’s report agreed that the upgraded M4A1 fulfills the Army’s requirements for a new carbine.

“The Army’s carbine requirement did not involve fulfilling a capability, but was rather a legal requirement for additional units (quantity),” the report said.

It goes on to say that the Army was betting against the field that its current weapon would outperform the eight rifles industry offered up to replace it.

The service was “willing to invest the $20-plus million in the competition for the confidence that no alternate design was available with significantly improved per-formance over the M4A1,” the report said.

The Army plans to continue fielding the M4A1 carbine and upgrading older M4s to that rifle, which has a heavier barrel and a fully automatic setting rather than the three-round burst setting on the M4.

Should the fiscal year 2014 NDAA pass Congress, it could keep the carbine com-petition alive. The bill contains funding for both the M4A1 improvement program and for a continuation of the competition past the point at which the Army canceled the program.

Of eight competing designs, none of the rifles passed reliability standards required during the second of three phases of the competition. The NDAA requires that the Army continue to the third and final phase of the competition, in which three of the top contenders will be tested by soldiers in the field. ND

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 33

Email your comments to DParsons@ndia.org

U.S. Army M4A1 rifle THINKSTOCK Glock 19 pistol WIKI COMMONS

34 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

By DAN PARSONSWithin five years, Marines could head into battle alongside autonomous robotic trucks carrying water, ammunition and other gear. By the end of the decade,

troops could be fighting with unmanned ground systems that com-municate, duck and fight like humans, according to scientists work-ing with the military.

With fiscal upheaval in the Pentagon, it is uncertain how much funding will be available to purchase robotic systems, but industry and military laboratories are working on the Marine Corps’ behalf to develop technologies and drive costs down, said Roy Byrd, direc-tor of government relations and Marine Corps programs at ITT Exelis. Because of the budget crunch, labs like the Office of Naval

Research are focused on retrofitting existing vehicles and systems with autonomy kits that will allow them to operate without a human in the driver seat.

“The science and technology focus is developing autonomy enablers, not platforms,” Byrd said. “The [science and technology] challenge, like for everyone else, is affordability. The service cannot afford, nor is it reasonable, to spend hundreds of thousands of dol-lars more on sensors.”

Byrd spoke on behalf of ONR at the National Defense Industrial Association’s annual Expeditionary Warfare Conference in Ports-mouth, Va. Robots will be able to work and fight alongside Marines within 10 years, he said. Autonomous systems will first be devel-oped to act as force multipliers by carrying supplies, evacuating

Budgets Permitting, Marines Could Be Fighting Alongside Robots by 2020s

The Ground Unmanned Support Surrogate defense dept.

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 35

casualties and eventually will create new concepts of operations for ground troops, he added. But their widespread introduction is heavily dependent on affordability, given constrained Marine Corps spending.

“Aside from possibly a few niche applications, autonomous ground vehicles are unlikely to be effectively integrated into the operational force until implementation costs come down,” Byrd said. “Marines cannot afford to have an autonomy package that costs substantially more than the base vehicle platform itself.”

ONR plans to develop robots that can autonomously connect Marines in the field with supplies and medical evacuation. That includes driverless point-to-point navigation for routine and emer-gency resupply, and casualty evacuation for small units ashore. ONR is developing, in concert with industry, an autonomy retrofit kit that can be easily and affordably installed in the service’s exist-ing vehicles. There will be a demonstrator for these capabilities on an internally transportable vehicle — which fits into a V-22 Osprey — by fiscal year 2016, Byrd said. Ideally the kit will cost under $25,000.

Lockheed Martin successfully retrofitted two K-MAX helicop-ters with autonomous flight computers. The aircraft have delivered millions of pounds of cargo to Marines at forward operating bases in Afghanistan.

Troops at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory have exten-sively tested two vehicles that can operate without human drivers

by way of add-on autonomy kits. The Cargo Unmanned Ground Vehicle, an autonomous 7-ton truck developed by Oshkosh Defense, is designed to reduce the number of troops needed to run supply convoys — a frequent target of insurgent ambushes and roadside bombs.

Using the autonomous drive system, Marines can reduce the per-sonnel required for a typical convoy by 19 percent. An eight-truck resupply mission, for instance, could be carried out by 26 troops instead of 32. As the technology matures, that number likely will reduce. The trucks can be set to continuously run designated routes with complete autonomy or be remotely driven by someone at a ground station or riding in another truck. Because the autonomous drive system is retrofitted onto existing vehicles, with the flip of a switch they can be driven manually. But the trucks only reduce the number of Marines needed to transport supply rather than elimi-nating them from the cab.

“Current technology is largely based on remote-control systems with humans always in the decision loop, largely limited to line-of-sight communications and dedicated single-purpose platforms,” Byrd said. “ONR’s objective is to bring to the Marine Corps tech-nology that will allow increasing levels of autonomy … relieving the human of physical and cognitive burdens.”

Gen. John Paxton Jr., assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, said technology has made small units more capable, but cannot solve all the problems Marines face in combat. He warned in Octo-ber of becoming too reliant on technologies that could potentially cause, rather than alleviate, logistics challenges from ship to shore and between bases and Marines in the field.

“Now we are doing things with a platoon that 10 years ago you would have to go to a brigade to do in terms of maneuver and mul-tiple lines of communication and things,” Paxton said in October at the Association of the United States Army’s annual conference in Washington, D.C. “The corollary is you now have power problems, and logistics sustainment problems, lift problems that are endemic to a platoon and company size units that you would used to not even worry about.”

Lt. Gen. Richard P. Mills, Marine Corps deputy commandant for combat development and integration, witnessed Marines use some semi-autonomous vehicles during field exercises in 2012. Mills told National Defense then that he is open to any technology that would improve efficiency and keep troops safe.

The systems must be thoroughly tested before being bought in

The Legged Squad Support System darpa

36 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

large numbers. The same fiscal constraint that makes autonomy attractive compels the services to vet them heavily and choose wisely, he said.

“Our decision is going to be tough because we don’t have a lot of money. So we have to make sure these things are well thought through,” Mills said. “Sometimes failure is just as valuable as suc-cess. We may find out it’s a nice thing to have but it doesn’t really work on the battlefield.”

Marines have also trained with the ground unmanned support surrogate, a four-wheeled gas-powered offroad vehicle retro-fitted with a robotics kit that allows it to automatically follow a Marine at a specified distance or navigate routes autonomously from point to point. Smaller and more agile than a 7-ton truck but lightly armored, the GUSS, devel-oped by Blacksburg, Va.-based TORC Robotics can evacuate casualties from combat situations, do small-unit resupply and carry gear for a squad.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is nearing final testing of a robotic mule that is purpose built to carry supplies for Marines on the move.

The Legged Squad Support System, or LS3, represents the lat-est evolution of a technology DARPA has poured $54 million into since 2009.

DARPA’s goal was to build a robot that mimics the load-bearing abilities of an actual mule, so troops could pile their gear onto it while traveling. More specifically, they aimed to create a robotic platform that could carry multiple 40-pound packs and walk at least 29 miles in a day without intervention. The mule eventually will provide auxiliary power to troops in the field, reducing their reliance on bulky batteries.

The LS3 will undergo a two-week test in March at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center 29 Palms, Calif. Other tests are scheduled at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in Bridgeport, Calif., and at Ft. Benning, Ga. Final tests are tentatively set to coincide with the 2014 Rim of the Pacific exercises.

The robotics development timeline calls for LS3-style autono-mous ground vehicles acting as “wingmen” sometime before 2022. That will require advanced machine intelligence that behaves in a reasonable, appropriate and transparent way that Marines under-stand, Byrd said. The system must interact with human teammates in natural ways such as speech, gestures and physical contact, he added.

“Autonomous machines [will be] serving as an additional squad member demonstrating independent tactical maneuver and actions,” Byrd said. “Robots with advanced intelligence will operate with an infantry squad behaving much as another human.”

That means robots should recognize and adapt to tactical situa-tions and threats the same way a human would. Not only should the robots be able to take cover when fired upon, but the system should instinctively place itself between incoming fire and human

troops, Byrd said.Beyond 2023, the prob-

able capabilities and missions of autonomous systems become less clearly defined, Byrd said. ONR is seeking what it calls “integrated multi-role systems” that can think on the fly, interact seamlessly with troops and pos-sibly carry weapons.

“Advanced learning and rea-soning skills will allow complex tactical behaviors,” he said. “Sys-tems may be weaponized with no human in the loop.”

Achieving that level of perfor-mance requires advancements in sensor technology and com-puting algorithms that detect threats and direct a system’s behavior, said Craig Woolsey, an associate professor of aerospace and ocean engineering at Vir-ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

“It’s not about the vehicle, it’s about the sensors and the algo-rithms,” Woolsey said. “There’s no such thing as an autono-mous vehicle. They are built by

humans to help people. … The person is either a passenger or a supervisor or maybe an antagonist.”

Woolsey is focused on developing software to improve environ-mental perception of sensors mounted on vehicles. Rather than machines simply “seeing” an environment, they need to understand how certain factors can affect their capabilities and be able to pre-dict changes as a human would, he said.

“Our focus is perception and cognition for autonomous vehicles operating and increasingly cooperating in dynamic and uncertain environments,” Woolsey said. “Not only are the environmental characteristics changing — the weather, the conditions, possibly traffic that you have to deal with — but there might also be antagonists. That requires real-time adaptive behavior and human-machine interaction.”

The latter is a difficult cultural and technological hurdle to overcome because Marines must learn to trust that robots will act in the troops best interest at the appropriate time, he said. Autonomous systems must understand that snow or rain could hinder their ability to move through an environment, for example, and must follow a small-unit leader’s orders without him having to modify the way he would communicate with any subordinate human, Woolsey added.

DARPA is studying many of those technological challenges through its Robotics Challenge that began in October 2012. The competition is asking engineers from industry and academia to develop ground robots capable of executing complex tasks in “dan-gerous, degraded, human-engineered environments and use tools and equipment ranging from hand tools to vehicles.”

The program is scheduled to run 27 months with three individu-al competitions. A virtual competition was held in June. Real-world trials began in December and will conclude with another series of competitive tests at the end of 2014. ND

Email your comments to DParsons@ndia.org

TerraMax Unmanned Ground Vehicle oshkosh

K-MAX UAS lockheed martin

By STEW MAGNUSON Whether it’s munitions, space, com-

bat vehicles or submarines, maintaining the industrial base for sectors unique to the military has been a growing concern.

A halt in new-start programs caused by declining budgets has sent up warning flares from companies that are worried about permanently losing the capability to produce hardware.

The Marine Corps has singular needs as well, particularly for amphibious vehicles that support ship-to-shore operations.

But when a spokesman for one of the service’s major contractors was asked if his company was concerned about the Marine Corps vehicle industrial base, he said there was no such thing.

“Their vehicle purchases are not sig-nificant [enough] to create an ‘industrial base’ as we know the Army’s combat vehicle industrial base today,” Peter Keat-

ing, spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems, said in an email.

“They’ve not executed a design and development effort for a new combat vehi-cle since the [expeditionary fighting vehi-cle] program was canceled by the secretary of defense,” he said.

The mine resistant, ambush protected tactical wheeled vehicles the service pur-chased were off-the-shelf designs, he noted.

“The above is why I would have difficul-ty commenting on [a] U.S. Marine Corps ‘industrial base,’” Keating added.

Mark Signorelli, vice president and gen-eral manager for combat vehicles at BAE Systems — GD’s main competitor in the amphibious vehicle market — mostly agreed.

“While there isn’t what I would call a unique Marine Corps industrial base, the

Marines are an important part of both the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base and the combat vehicle industrial base,” he said.

There are some singular characteristics in some platforms that are developed or delivered to the Marine Corps, but they are a component of those categories, he added.

The expeditionary fighting vehicle was one of those unique platforms. It was designed to be launched from a ship miles away from shore, sail as it if were a boat, then change into a fighting vehicle after it reached land. After GD Land Systems and the Marine Corps spent more than a decade developing the program, it was canceled in 2011 because it could not meet performance requirements.

Since then, no vehicle program devoted to the Marine Corps has gotten underway.

The follow-on Amphibious Combat Vehicle program is still being “studied.” The land-based Marine Personnel Carrier program is on hold. There was no money in the fiscal year 2014 budget allocated to it.

Signorelli said the tactical wheeled vehi-cle and combat vehicle industrial bases are at risk. There are two components to both: the engineering and development side and the manufacturing side.

As far as capabilities that are at risk of atrophy or perhaps disappearing altogether,

Marine Corps Plays Part In a Shrinking Military Vehicle Industrial Base

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 37

MRAP Cougars in production. defense dept.

38 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

the Marine Corps’ amphibious vehicles fit that description, he said.

“In that engineering base, there is a unique set of design characteristics and parameters that are associated with the amphibious vehicles that are complementary to the larger combat vehicle industry,” he said.

The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle program is currently keeping the engineer-ing portion of that sector alive, Signorelli said. It was hoped that the Amphibious Combat Vehicle would dovetail with that program and keep the momentum going, but now there is a possibility that both these programs may slip, he added.

“We are in discussions with both the Marine Corps and the Army about the potential impacts of that gap, or the loss of that capability,” he said.

Tom Stevenson, lead for logistics and sustainment at the Marine Corps’ program executive office land systems, said industri-al base issues are taken into account when the service does its business case analyses for programs.

It looks at the risks associated with all the potential strategies.

“We will try to balance risk with cost. [The analysis] takes into consideration what does the industrial base look like, where is support needed. Are there politi-cal implications for one strategy against another? What is the most cost effective way to do this?” he said.

While there aren’t any big, new-start vehicle programs on the horizon, there are plenty of business opportunities with the Marine Corps, mostly in the form of upgrades and refurbishment of equipment returning from battlefields, Stevenson said.

“As we’re starting to retrograde that equipment now and looking down-stream at the expected continued fiscal austerity, we all in DoD are faced with doing more with less money,” he said. The refurbishment and upgrade work is split between organic sites — military par-lance for government-owned depots — and the private sector. The service wants to keep both active, he said.

“That is what we are always striving for — where we can find that sweet spot in there. Where we can get the most effective work, bringing the skill sets of both the organic and commercial side to the table in the most cost effective way we can,” he said.

While there may be fewer new procure-ment programs in the future, contractors should “swing around” and look to other opportunities, he said.

“The equipment we have is critical to sustain. ... The things Marines are going to take into battle are still going to need to be

taken care of,” he said.Whenever equipment is brought back,

upgraded and overhauled, there is a need for spare parts.

PEO land systems spokesman David Branham noted that Oshkosh Corp. last spring won a $192 million contract to build 164 firefighting vehicles for Marine Corps airbases.

However, that work is taking place at the company’s factory devoted to firefighting equipment, and did not stem the loss of hundreds of workers being laid off at the Oshkosh military vehicle factory, the Mil-waukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Upgrades are planned for three of the MRAP tactical wheeled vehicles returning from the field, the Cougar, the Buffalo and the All Terrain Vehicle variant.

The Marine Corps is also participating, with the Army, in the Joint Light Tacti-cal Wheeled Vehicle program, which will eventually replace the Humvee.

Signorelli said the engineering and devel-opment phase is nearly wrapped up on JLTV, with only some minor adjustments to be made. There isn’t much left to be done for the cadre of engineers the company employs in regard to that program, he said. However, the program will help boost the manufacturing part of the industrial base once it gets under way, he added.

Meanwhile, there is an upcoming pro-gram to keep the remaining Humvees in service, Stevenson said.

“We are working through how the Hum-vee is going to be sustained,” said Stevenson. Request for proposals for a sustainment modification initiative are expected in early 2014, he said.

The now nearly 40-year-old Amphibi-ous Assault Vehicles will also have to be kept running as the Marine Corps awaits decisions on how it will proceed with the next-generation of ship-to-shore vehicles,

Stevenson said.General Dynamics’ Keating struck a pes-

simistic note when it came to the Marine Corps’ upgrade and refurbishment work.

“The Marines have pursued a course of upgrading vehicles with enhancements provided by suppliers and installed at their West and East Coast depots. From time to time they have contracted for upgrades by suppliers, but rarely used the original equipment manufacturers,” he said.

Signorelli said Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades are keeping BAE’s manu-facturing division running for the time being, but that work may wrap up by 2015.

An AAV survivability upgrade program — if BAE is successful in winning that con-tract — will sustain a small core of workers in the amphibious vehicle category.

As far as manufacturing, Signorelli said “we are in a bathtub. What we are trying to avoid is not only being in the bathtub, but taking it out of the house,” he said.

Stevenson said the Marine Corps is aware of the risks to the vehicle industrial base.

“We treasure that competition. We are full believers in Better Buying Power 2.0 and the idea that competition helps to lower the price,” he said.

Signorelli said: “What we see over time is one or two major development programs, then upgrades, engineering changes, mod-ernization efforts that add to the volume, but probably don’t sustain the core capa-bilities,” he said.

The question is what comes after that.“Is the Marine Corps going to find itself

in a position where there is only one com-petitor without something like an Amphib-ious Combat Vehicle program to come around and provide some more volume?” Signorelli asked.

There is a possibility that one of the two companies vying for this work may exit the sector entirely, he said. ND

Email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org

Amphibious Assault Vehicles navy

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 • n a t i o n a l D e f e n s e 39

■ National Defense Industrial Association affiliate Women In Defense awarded five HORIZONS scholarships this fall, said Brenda McKinney, director of the program.

“WID leaders and members are celebrat-ing the 25th anniversary of the scholarship program this year,” said McKinney. “Thanks to members, companies and chapters, we exceeded our goal and raised just over $52,000 for scholarships.”

The 2013 recipients are: Michelle Shevin-Coetzee, $20,000, International Affairs, Arabic minor, George Washington University; Christina Michelle Beasley, $10,000, International Security, George-town University; Ann Margaret Castner, $10,000, Applied & Computational Math-ematics, University of Notre Dame; Lauren

Sloane Speakman, $9,000, International Security, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; and Brittany Yalaman-chili, $4,000, Pharmacy, Rutgers School of Pharmacy.

Recipients were chosen from 28 appli-cants, who came from all parts of the nation.

The HORIZONS Scholarship Program encourages women to pursue careers relat-ed to U.S. national security and defense and to provide development opportunities to

women already working in these fields. Since 1990, HORIZONS has made 121 awards of $233,388.

The scholarship competition is open to rising juniors and above, including graduate level,

to further educational objectives of women who are U.S. citizens

already employed in or planning careers in defense or national security.

The scholarship focuses on selected fields such as cybersecurity, government relations, engineering, computer science, physics, mathematics, business, law, inter-

national relations, political science, military history and economics.

Awards are based on academic achieve-ment, participation in defense and national security activities, field of study, work experience, statements of objectives, rec-ommendations and financial need.

Details are at: http://wid.ndia.org/hori-zon.

Meanwhile, WID has established a new chapter in Ohio, said National President Karen Conti.

“The Greater Ohio Valley Chapter increases access to defense professionals in Ohio so they can receive benefits of NDIA and WID.” Established in August, the chap-ter is the 21st.

The chapter president is Deborah Tank-ersley of Northrop Grumman.

Cultivating and supporting the advance-ment and recognition of women in all aspects of national security is the mission of Women In Defense. The organization has about 4,400 members nationwide.

The chapter website is at http://wid.ndia.org/chapters/GreaterOhioValley.

Women In Defense Awards HORIZONS Scholarships

By JOHN CROSByMore than 50 members and guests of the National Defense Indus-

trial Association toured the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center in Indi-ana in September to witness military operations and capabilities during the Bold Quest 13.2 exercise.

U.S. forces and those of 11 other coalition nations during the exercise assessed the integration of joint fires, maneuver and network operations in a live/virtual environment to enhance combat effectiveness, reduce fratricide and increase situational awareness.

“Bold Quest is a joint staff-sponsored capability demonstration … geared to assess systems and test new processes before actual operational deployment,” said Chuck Rattè, a representative of the joint staff. “NDIA gets a look at how its manufacturing contracts for hardware and software development are used in a real-world testing situation.”

NDIA Central Indiana Chapter President Carl Boss said, “The oppor-tunity here … is for industry partners to understand what happens to the items we manufacture, whether it’s cyber or hardware, and see how it is implemented by the military in the field. It gives us a window to see the real world application of our products and how it affects the war fighter.”

NDIA attendees toured the facility’s operations area, including mock villages, prisons and railway systems. They viewed a live demonstration of a war game simulator and received an operations brief.

“We’re trying to grow the relationships between the National Defense Industrial Association and the small businesses across Indiana with a focus on the military to help develop that economic piece of the pie,” said Ted Markley, treasurer for the NDIA Crane Chapter. “Bold Quest is particularly interesting because you’re actually testing and evaluating products, making changes and immediately getting them back out to the war fighter.”

NDIA NewsIndiana Chapters Witness Bold Quest Live-Virtual Training Exercise

Indiana National Guard members take part in the Bold Quest 13.2 exercise at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center in Indiana. SGT WILL HILL

40 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

January6-10Defense Systems Acquisition Management CourseCharleston, SC www.ndia.org/meetings/402A

10Battlespace Awareness and C2: Defining the FutureMcLean, VA www.afei.org/events/4A10

15Legislative Information Division Breakfast – Rep. Robert AndrewsArmy & Navy Club, Washington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/4LD2

21U.S.-Austria Defense Industry DayWashington, DC www.ndia.org/meetings/4770See our ad on p. 42

28-29Live Fire Test & Evaluation Workshop

Washington, DC“Live Fire Testing – More Effective Weapons, More Survivable Platforms”• This conference will be held at the SECRET/U.S. ONLY classification. www.ndia.org/meetings/4390

30Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) APBI Washington, DC www.ndia.org/meetings/4090See our ad on p. 42

February4-5Human Systems ConferenceArlington, VA www.ndia.org/meetings/4350 See our ad on p. 43

5Legislative Information Division Breakfast – Rep. Ander CrenshawArmy & Navy Club, Washington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/4LD3

6C4ISR BreakfastArlington, VA

• Bi-monthly series focusing on OSD and defense intelligence at the operation and tactical levels, addressing topics such as: secure information sharing; data strategy; persistent ISR; and intelligence collection and analysis. www.ndia.org/meetings/492C

11M&S Leadership Summit

Hampton Roads Area, VA• Leaders from across the Modeling & Simulation Community of Practice assemble to identify potential priorities that can be undertaken by the M&S Congressional Caucus.www.trainingsystems.org

10-1225th Annual SO/LIC Symposium & ExhibitionWashington, DC www.ndia.org/meetings/4880See our ad on p. 43

20Embassy/Defense Attaché Luncheon Series - Japan

Washington, DC• Maj. Gen. Hikita will describe the future of the Japanese Self Defense Forces according to Japan’s new National Defense Program Guidelines and discuss Japan’s evolving capabilities and regional role. www.ndia.org/meetings/447C

25-27Munitions Executive SummitMorristown, NJ www.ndia.org/meetings/4650See our ad on p. 43

March4Legislative Information Division Breakfast – Sen. Angus King (Tentative)Army & Navy Club, Washington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/4LD6

4Women in Defense Annual DinnerMcLean, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/4WI1

5Women in Defense National ConferenceMcLean, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/4WID

13Coalition Information Sharing: Building IT to LastWashington, DCwww.afei.org/events/4A05

For more information and online registration, visit our website: www.ndia.org. Or contact our Operations Department at (703) 247-9464.

NDIA Calendar

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 41

10-14Defense Systems Acquisition Management CourseAnnapolis, MDwww.ndia.org/meetings/402B

17TRIADLas Vegas, NVwww.ndia.org/meetings/414T

18-192014 Precision Strike Annual Review (PSAR 14) Springfield, VA“PSAR-14 —Precision Engagement—Staying Relevant in a Dangerous World”www.ndia.org/meetings/4PPRSee our ad on p. 42

25-26Modern Infrastructure: Increasing The Business Value of ITSeattle, WA

25-26Mastering Business Development WorkshopSeattle, WAwww.ndia.org/meetings/407C

26DIB Supply Chain SummitSeattle, WAwww.ndia.org/meetings/4320

April3Legislative Information Division Breakfast – Rep. Mo BrooksArmy & Navy Club, Washington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/4LD8

3C4ISR BreakfastArlington, VA

www.ndia.org/meetings/492D

8-1015th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference/Defense Tech Exposition

Hyattsville, MD• Featuring:- FY 15 Budget Request for DoD S&T Programs -OSD and Military Services priorities for technology initiatives-Capability needs from the COCOMs www.ndia.org/meetings/4720

112014 NDIA Annual Award Dinner AWARD WINNER - Mr. Gary SiniseMcLean, VAwww.ndia.org/dinnerSee our ad on p. 43

15-16National Logistics ForumWashington, DC• Hear from senior Pentagon-based logistics policy offi cials as they address the austere budgetary environment and its impact on support for the Warfi ghter and sustainment of a viable logistics industrial base.www.ndia.org/meetings/4730

15-17MODSIM World 2014Hampton, VA

• MODSIM World is a unique multi-disciplinary conference for the exchange of modeling and simulation knowledge, research and technol-ogy across industry, government and academia.www.modsimworldconference.com

30-MAY 1Global Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Conference and ExhibitionFort Walton Beach, FL“Preserving Hard-Fought Gains; Building Capability and Sustaining Capacity”• Annual EOD Program Review, Technology Displays in Exhibit Hall, EOD Warrior Memorial Ceremony, and more…www.ndia.org/meetings/4950

May1Legislative Information Division Breakfast – Gen. Mark Welsh, USAFArmy & Navy Club, Washington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/4LD0

4-5Annual Acquisition SysmposiumNorfolk, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/4ACQ

5-72014 Tactical Wheeled Vehicles ConferenceReston, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/4530

7-8Iowa-Illinois Chapter Midwest Small Business Government Contracting SymposiumMoline, ILwww.ndia-ia-il.org

8Embassy/Defense Attaché Luncheon Series - AustraliaWashington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/447D

12-15Joint Armaments Forum & ExhibitionPhoenix, AZwww.ndia.org/meetings/4610

For more information and online registration, visit our website: www.ndia.org. Or contact our Operations Department at (703) 247-9464.

42 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E • J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4

“PSAR-14 – Precision Engagement — Staying Relevant in a Dangerous World”

Highlights will include:

This annual review will focus on global presence and will describe both the new strategic environment, as well as needed characteristics of future strike weapons & systems.

Special Award Presentation Ceremony: The William J. Perry Award

Are you currently doing business with Austria or seeking to do so?

Join Austrian MOD and industry representatives in discussions and presentations describing U.S.-Austria defense marketplace trends and opportunities.

N D I A F E A T U R E D E V E N T S

Hear CTTSO present ‘combating terrorism’ requirements in support of:

• more than 100 government agencies• state and local governments• law enforcement organizations• national first responders

COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNICAL SUPPORT OFFICE (CTTSO) ADVANCE PLANNING

BRIEFING FOR INDUSTRY (APBI)

Washington, DC • January 21, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4770

U.S-AUSTRIA DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAY

Washington, DC • January 30, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4090

Scan this with your QR Code reader

2014 LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION DIVISION (LID)

BREAKFAST SERIES Event Number Date Speaker

4LD2 January 15 Rep. Robert Andrews4LD3 February 5 Rep. Ander Crenshaw4LD6 March 4 Sen. Angus King (Tentative)

4LD8 April 3 Rep. Mo Brooks4LD0 May 1 Gen. Mark Welsh, USAF

All LID Breakfast Series events are held at the Army-Navy Club on Farragut Square, 901 17th St, NW,

Washington, DC.

For more information, please contact Ms. Jennifer Sprinkel, CMP, CGMP at jsprinkel@ndia.org or refer to the Schedule of Events page

on the NDIA website.

Stay tuned for updated LID Breakfast Series events!

PRECISION STRIKE ANNUAL REVIEW (PSAR 14)

Springfield, VA • March 18-19, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4PPR

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 • N A T I O N A L D E F E N S E 43

N D I A F E A T U R E D E V E N T S

“Maintaining a Responsive Munitions Enterprise . . . Persevering in an Uncertain Landscape”

The purpose of this year’s Munitions Executive Summit will be to address the challenges of maintaining a stable and relevant munitions enterprise amidst an un-stable DoD budget outlook.

“The Human in Defense Systems: Progress & Challenges”

A forum designed to increase dialogue between the Human Systems S&T community, Weapon System Developers and System Engineers Focus areas will include:• Systems Interface and Cognitive Processing (SI&CP)• Protection, Sustainment and Physical Performance (PS&PP)• Personnel, Training and Leadership Development (PTLD)• Social, Cultural Behavioral Understanding (SCBU)

2014 HUMAN SYSTEMS CONFERENCE

Morristown, NJ • February 25-27, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4650

MUNITIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMIT

Arlington, VA • Feb. 4-5, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4350

Presentation of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Award to Gary Sinise

~Black Tie Event~

Join industry and government representatives to honor an outstanding entertainer who has been a staunch advocate of America’s servicemen and servicewomen. His dedication to our nation’s active duty defenders, veterans, and first responders has become a tireless crusade of support, service, and gratitude to those who protect our freedom and serve our country. You might know him as “Lieutenant Dan” from the movie Forrest Gump or as detective Mac Taylor on CSI: New York.

Learn about Gary Sinise at http://www.garysinisefoundation.org/presskit.

Join us for this 25th Anniversary Symposium!

Engage with senior-level Speakers, decision-makers, and subject-matter experts from throughout the SO/LIC community.

Visit the exhibition hall to see the latest in

SO/LIC-related technologies and products.

25TH ANNUAL SO/LIC SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITION

McLean, VA • April 11, 2014 • www.ndia.org/dinner

2014 NDIA ANNUAL AWARD DINNER

Washington, DC • Feb. 10-12, 2014 • www.ndia.org/meetings/4880

The Harmon Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . usafa .org/AreasOfGiving/Corporate_Giving . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Leidos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . leidos .com/engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Leupold & Stevens Tactical Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www .leupold .com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 2

Rabon Law Firm, PLLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www .Usfraudattorneys .com/integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

SKB Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www .skbcases .com/military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4

Yellow Ribbon Fund, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www .yellowribbonfund .org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 3

44 N at i o N a l D e f e N s e • J a N u a r y 2 0 1 4

For information on advertising in National Defense, contact the International Advertising Headquarters or your regional advertising office.

Vice President, AdVertising Dino K. Pignotti(703) 247–2541 Fax: (703) 522-4602dpignotti@ndia.org

cOOrdinAtOr, AdVertising Mike Harrell(703) 247–2576 Fax: (703) 522-4602mharrell@ndia.org

Advertising Headquarters is located at:2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400Arlington, VA 22201Advertising Fax: (703) 522-4602

AdVertising regiOnAl Offices

• northeastern United states & canada (CT, DE, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT)

Jo B. Lievsay, Partner(256) 233–6925Fax: (703) 522–4602Natl_Def_Lievsay@att.net

Lievsay Associates25433 Queensbury Dr., Athens, AL 35613

• southeastern United states and Metro dc Area (AL, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV & DC)

Jim Barros (805) 584-2130Fax: (805) 584-3796jim@barrossales.com

6480 Katherine Road # 72 Simi Valley, CA 93063

• south central United states(AR, KS, LA, MO, OK, TX)

Bill Powell(281) 251–0565Fax: (281) 251–8555citadel62@aol.com

J/J/H/S Inc.18103 Mahogany Forest Drive Spring (Houston), TX 77379

• Western and north central United states(AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, MI, MN, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OH, OR, SD, UT, WA, WI, WY)

Jim Barros (805) 584-2130Fax: (805) 584-3796jim@barrossales.com

6480 Katherine Road # 72 Simi Valley, CA 93063

international Advertising Headquarters

tactical communications■ Building and launching complex, highly protected communication satellites are expensive tasks, and the press and govern-ment watchdogs put most of their focus on these two issues when it comes to the high cost of space systems. But fielding and integrating the terminals is 20 to 30 times more expensive that the cost of the spacecraft and rockets. The Air Force and contractors are now looking at ways to reduce the high cost of terminals.

space Programs■ The Pentagon is growing increasingly concerned about vulnerabilities and over-dependence on in its space-based systems. A peer or near-peer competitor going head to head with the U.S. military may disrupt or destroy communications links in an anti-access/area denied scenario. Some ground forces are already devoting some of their training for a “day without space” to see how they perform without the support of satellites. Meanwhile, a concept called the joint area layer network, which would provide temporary communication nodes if satellites were knocked out, is being studied.

Arctic strategy■ The melting of Arctic ice is creating new passageways for ships, presenting both security challenges and economic oppor-tunities to the United States. In November, the Defense Department unveiled its Arctic strategy, which called for increased focus on protecting the homeland, greater cooperation with allies in areas such as hu-manitarian relief, anti-piracy missions, and the need to preserve freedom of the seas. National Defense investigates the tech-nologies the Navy needs to accomplish its Arctic mission. What is the military likely to invest in during a strained fiscal climate?

simulation Market■ Military simulations were once leaps and bounds ahead of commercial prod-ucts, but investments in everything from medical simulations to entertainment gaming have closed that gap. Over the past few years, more and more commercial simulation products have caught the eyes of the defense industry — a trend that will only grow. Meanwhile, defense simulation companies are seeing a need to expand their markets as the Defense Depart-ment’s fiscal situation remains uncertain. National Defense explores the changing simulation industry.

Amphibious Operations■ When a massive typhoon struck the Philippines in November, the Marine Corps was shouldered with providing the ravaged islands with humanitarian relief, which is the service’s primary self-imposed duty within the U.S. National security posture in the Asia-Pacific region. National Defense investigates the impact of budget cuts and a lagging shipbuilding schedule on the military’s intent to police the Pacific Ocean.

future of Unmanned Aviation■ The Federal Aviation Administration has only a year left to meet its congres-sionally mandated 2015 deadline to integrate unmanned aircraft into the U.S. national airspace. The recently published “roadmap” that outlines how the agency will meet that goal is one more docu-ment clarifying steps in a saga that has consistently missed every milestone set for integration. National Defense lays out what that means for a technology that is expected to eventually pour billions into the U.S. economy.

JANUARy 2014 Index of AdvertisersInteract with the companies whose products and services are advertised in National Defense.

Advertiser interact Page no.

Next Month