Gct 5 5 final

Annual ausa issue Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

Who’s Who Special Supplement

PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors

Combat Multiplier

www.GCT-kmi.com

Brig. Gen. David G. Bassett PEO Ground Combat Systems

October 2014

Volume 5, Issue 5

Exclusive Interview with: Stephen D. Kreider PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors

Situational Awareness O Full Motion Video O Night Vision Shock-Mitigating Seats O Squad Weapons

KMI Media Group offers ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS and SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES Who’s Who Sponsorships Detailed Organization Profiles Command Profile Sponsorships Q&A with Top-Level Command Leaders Product Profiles Highlight Your Product in the Military Niche Market Business Profiles Custom Materials for Custom Audiences Industry Event Reports Designed Specifically for Your Industry-Focused Event Resource Guides Program Management Updates; Contracts Guides; Products and Services Catalogs; Reference Guides Posters/Poster Sponsorships Agency Timelines; Command/Organization Anniversary Timelines; Message Posters CDs/DVDs Strategically Position Your Promotional CDs or DVDs with a Tip in Disc Carrier

To learn about advertising opportunities, contact Conni Kerrigan at connik@kmimediagroup.com or 301.670.5700 ext. 111

ground combat & TACTICAL ISR Features

October 2014 Volume 5, Issue 5

Cover / Q&A Who’s Who at PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors

8 Exclusive Interview with Stephen D. Kreider PEO IEW&S

16

24

Soldier Firepower

Brigadier General David G. Bassett

Warfighters these days are managed as systems that integrate weapons, ammunition and accessories, even down to the ensemble the warfighter wears, from helmet, armor and uniform to sunglasses and knee pads.

By Peter Buxbaum

PEO Ground Combat Systems

4

20

From integrated GPS to fully networked solutions, the technology surrounding night vision for everything from weapon sights to general observation is advancing rapidly.

By Jeff Goldman

Position, navigation and timing—building a better ‘you are here’ capability is a key Army program.

By Hank Hogan

The Cutting Edge

Departments

22

PNT

Blast-Attenuating Seats With energy- or blastattenuating seating installed in select ground vehicles, the U.S. military has been increasing survivability of its vehicle-based troops one seat at a time.

By Scott Nance

Industry Interview

2 Editor’s Perspective 3 intel 14 Innovations 27 Resource Center

W. Garth Smith

Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer MetaVR Inc.

28

The Authoritative Forum of Ground Combat Providing Comprehensive Expertise on Land Warrior Issues

“…the fact that the M113 is so old and has essentially been taken out of operational use makes the AMPV our most important funding priority in the near term.

Without it, our ABCT formations cannot employ the entire range of platforms necessary for them to perform their mission.”

— Brigadier General David G. Bassett

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR Volume 5, Issue 5 • September 2014

The Publication of Distinction for the Maneuver Warfighter Editorial Editor-in-Chief

Jeff McKaughan jeffm@kmimediagroup.com Managing Editor

Harrison Donnelly harrisond@kmimediagroup.com Copy Editors

Crystal Jones crystalj@kmimediagroup.com Jonathan Magin jonathanm@kmimediagroup.com Correspondents

Kathryn Bailey • Peter Buxbaum • Jeff Campbell Henry Canaday • John M. Doyle • William Murray

Art & Design Art Director

Jennifer Owers jennifero@kmimediagroup.com Ads and Materials Manager

Jittima Saiwongnuan jittimas@kmimediagroup.com Senior Graphic Designer

Scott Morris scottm@kmimediagroup.com Graphic Designers

Andrea Herrera andreah@kmimediagroup.com Amanda Paquette amandak@kmimediagroup.com

KMI Media Group Chief Executive Officer

Jack Kerrigan jack@kmimediagroup.com Publisher and Chief Financial Officer

Constance Kerrigan connik@kmimediagroup.com Editor-In-Chief

Jeff McKaughan jeffm@kmimediagroup.com Controller

Gigi Castro gcastro@kmimediagroup.com Trade Show Coordinator

Holly Foster hollyf@kmimediagroup.com

Operations, Circulation & Production Operations Administrator

Bob Lesser bobl@kmimediagroup.com Circulation & Marketing Administrator

Duane Ebanks duanee@kmimediagroup.com Circulation

Barbara Gill barbg@kmimediagroup.com Denise Woods denisew@kmimediagroup.com Data Specialist

Raymer Villanueva raymerv@kmimediagroup.com

DoD has long resolved itself to the fact that the retrograde from Afghanistan would be more challenging and more expensive than the drawdown from Iraq. Options are to either demilitarize/dispose of it, ship it home or give it to a friendly nation.

While disposal sounds simple when talking about equipment either too damaged or deemed redundant to current needs—it certainly isn’t cheap.

A heavy tactical vehicle weighing in at 32,500 pounds would cost between $9,100 and $10,100 to demilitarize, while costing anywhere between $23,800 and $107,400 to be returned to the United States. In 2013, the current count on the number of demilitarized vehicles is 2,215—which includes a basic Jeff McKaughan Editor cost per pound to demil and a general defraying of costs based on the local selling of scrap.

Although definitive numbers are not yet available, for the summer of 2013, it looks like the Army disposed of 266,000 items and returned 713,000 to the United States, representing 27 and 73 percent of the totals, respectively. Similarly, the marines disposed of 8,500 items and returned 28,500, or 23 percent and 77 percent, respectively.

Another option is the transfer of items to the local Afghan military. In fiscal year 2012, the Army alone reported a cost avoidance of at least $1.2 billion by transferring equipment. While the cost avoidance could be significant, it is unlikely that of the remaining equipment, much will be transferred to the Afghanistan military or police.

A recent government report alleged that between mid-March 2012 and mid-March 2013, the Army and Marine Corps shipped about 9,000 vehicles back to the states. Of that number, 1,034 were in excess of approved acquisition objectives with little documentation to support their need or the need for the shipment. While the report raises valid questions about the process, when it projects the cost of shipping for those vehicles between $5.9 million and $111 million, it raises an eyebrow. At $6 million, it seems we may have a bargain for returning equipment into inventory. $111 million swings the pendulum in the other direction. The reasons for the range can be explained (weight of item, routing and mode of transport) but it still seems that the range should be whittled down before asking for answers as to whether the reason for a shipment was valid or not.

Despite a few questions about the numbers in the report, the fact is that systems are in place for a reason and better accounting and decisionmaking as to what to do with each piece of equipment would save resources both short- and long-term. Hopefully, a more settled political situation in Afghanistan will take the pressure off the Mad Hatter’s dash to retrograde.

KMI MEDIA GROUP LEADERSHIP MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES A Proud Member of:

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

Geospatial Intelligence Forum

Military Advanced Education

Military Information Technology

Military Logistics Forum The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

Subscription Information

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

ISSN 2157-1503 is published six times a year

by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2014.

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S. All others: $75 per year.

Foreign: $159 per year.

Corporate Offices

SPECIAL SECTION: MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING

UAS Leader Col. Tim Baxter

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENT USTRANSCOM

Resource Aligner Vice Adm. William A. “Andy” Brown

www.GCT-kmi.com

May 2014

Volume 5, Issue 3

U.S. Army Project Manager UAS Project Office

Deputy Commander U.S. Transportation Command

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013 Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSON Acquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Rapidly Deployable ISR O Tactical UAS O Enduring REF Army Aviation O Wheeled Vehicles O Ammo

www.GCT-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans Affairs Forum

Reverse Auctions O Defense Transportation O Afghanistan Retrograde ILS O Supply Chain Efficiencies O DMSMS O Senior Logisticians

www.GIF-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.MAE-kmi.com

www.MIT-kmi.com

www.MLF-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

Special Operations Technology

U.S. Coast Guard & Border Security

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

KMI Media Group 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA Telephone: (301) 670-5700 Fax: (301) 670-5701 Web: www.GCT-kmi.com

2014

SOCOM Program Management Updates

SOCOM Leader www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Adm. Bill H. McRaven

May 2014

Volume 12, Issue 4

Commander SOCOM

Diver Gear O 3-D Training O Protective Gear Mulltinational Partnerships

www.M2VA-kmi.com

www.MT2-kmi.com

www.NPEO-kmi.com

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

www.CGF-kmi.com

INTEL

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Growing a Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force As part of a unit being formed from scratch, the Marines of the ground combat element integrated task force (GCEITF) have to obtain all their organizational gear and equipment from other existing units within the 2nd Marine Division.

Marines with the GCEITF recently conducted limited technical inspections, or LTIs, on radio equipment at the 8th Marine Regiment communications building and light armored vehicles at the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion ramp.

At the communications building, Marines performed an operations check on various radio equipment systems to ensure their operability in the field. “(Second Marine) Division assigns a unit and list of gear for us,” said Corporal Michael Fuentes, field radio operator with the communications section of the GCEITF. “We went through the gear with the (8th Marine Regiment) Marines until we found out that all of the radios are good.”

Next Generation Chemical Detector 1st Detect, a subsidiary of Astrotech, has reached a key milestone in the military’s test and evaluation process for multi-sample identifier detector solutions by being awarded one of the competitive prototype contracts for the Next Generation Chemical Detector (NGCD) program.

“1st Detect is well-positioned to be rapidly matured into a tactical sensor solution for defense and security applications along with our strategic teammate, Battelle, the prime contractor,” said Thomas B. Pickens III, chairman and CEO of Astrotech. Battelle brings 25 years of chemical and biological defense expertise. “We believe this collaboration, in alignment with government direction, will contribute to an accelerated development timeline for NGCD because the efficacy of product design iterations can be immediately vetted with actual chemical warfare agents,” he said.

“We are very excited about the award,” Pickens said. “1st Detect’s disruptive technology will allow us to provide our military with the proper technology needed to save lives.”

www.GCT-kmi.com

Any discrepancies with the equipment are able to be handled immediately to prevent possession of faulty gear, according to Fuentes.

“We don’t want to find out anything is broken when we are already in the field,” Fuentes said.

The equipment received included the Army/ Navy portable radio communications multiband manpack radio 117F, the AN PRC 150 military high-frequency radio and the AN vehicular radio communications 110 system.

“Communications gear is a key asset,” Fuentes said. “During ranges or patrols, this allows fast communication with the chain of command.”

Marines with Company B also received gear needed for their future mission. The GCEITF obtained five LAV 25s and one LAV logistical vehicle from 2nd LAR Bn. Marines unveiled the vehicles and looked over every wheel and door before denoting the vehicles ready for use. They then inspected each

piece of stock list level-three equipment, which contained the tools necessary for upkeep of the vehicles.

“We looked over the SL-3 gear for the vehicles because without them, they wouldn’t be mission effective,” said Corporal Pedro Zepeda, LAV gunner, Co. B., GCEITF. “If something breaks, we need the tools to fix it.”

The SL-3 gear included axes, colored flags, rope and hand tools such as wrenches to equip LAV crews with the gear needed to get through any situation. LAVs play a significant role in training, according to Zepeda.

“The LAV-25 is good to have because it allows for mobility in the field,” Zepeda said. “It is also a valuable reconnaissance asset.”

With a successful acceptance of gear, Marines with the GCEITF are one step closer to fulfilling the mission once training officially begins in October.

By Corporal Paul S. Martinez

JLENS Mission Ready Mission ready. That was the verdict for the U.S. Army’s A Battery, 3rd Air Defense Artillery, who was recently certified to operate Raytheon Company’s JLENS (joint land-attack cruise missile defense elevated sensor) radar to protect the National Capital Region (NCR) from cruise missiles and drone threats.

JLENS is a system of two aerostats, or tethered blimps, that float 10,000 feet in the air. The helium-filled aerostats, each nearly as long as a football field, carry powerful radars that can protect a territory roughly the size of Texas from airborne threats.

JLENS provides 360-degrees of defensive

radar coverage and can detect and track objects like cruise missiles, drones and airplanes from up to 340 miles away.

“When JLENS deploys to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., later this year, it will provide a powerful new capability to the National Capital Region’s Integrated Air Defense System (IADS),” said Raytheon’s Dave Gulla, vice president of Integrated Defense Systems’ Global Integrated Sensors business area. “With this certification, the soldiers now possess the skills to maximize the capabilities of JLENS to help defend our country from the growing cruise missile and drone threat.”

Correct MAAWS Photo In the September issue of Ground Combat and Tactical ISR, on page 15, we ran a news brief on Saab’s new framework contract with SOCOM for the company’s Carl-Gustaf man-portable weapon system MAAWS (multi-role, anti-armor anti-personnel weapon system). Unfortunately, we used an incorrect photo and are showing a Saab-supplied image here.

GCT 5.5 | 3

The

Cutting

Edge

The state of the art in night vision optics.

By Jeff Goldman, GCT Correspondent

From integrated GPS to fully networked solutions, the technology surrounding night vision for everything from weapon sights to general observation is advancing rapidly, with several companies offering innovative products designed to provide the soldier with a clearer view of the nighttime environment than ever before.

James Munn, president of ATN Corp., said the industry is on the cusp of several major advances in night vision technology. “As thermal imaging comes down in price, and with sensors that are chip-based as opposed to image-intensifier-tube-based, there’s a lot more we can do with the night vision and thermal units,� he said.

4 | GCT 5.5

www.GCT-kmi.com

A Mini Computer ATN is currently in the process of launching a full suite of products, Munn said, that offer both day and night thermal imaging, along with additional functionality such as Wi-Fi, geotagging, digital compasses and/or GPS. “Basically, your night vision device now has a mini computer built into it,” he said.

All of that functionality is available via ATN’s Obsidian Core.

“It’s a mini-computer built into a night vision device that allows you to do so much more than what a regular core has done in the past—recording in high definition, having Wi-Fi, having built-in compasses, GPS, accelerometers—all built in,” Munn said.

Munn said that kind of functionality can offer a wide range of significant benefits. “Whatever you’re looking at, you can record or send via Wi-Fi back to someone else that’s reviewing it and they can see what you’re looking at,” he said. “And with the GPS tracker, you can always come back and see where you were.”

An Integrated Solution Eric Garris, network systems strategist and chief engineer at Exelis, said his company’s current focus in night vision is the Tactical Mobility Night Vision Goggle (TMNVG). “It incorporates an integrated, full-color display and a camera-capture capability

www.GCT-kmi.com

that allows you to capture live imagery from the soldier view of the night-intensified image,” he said.

Together with Exelis’ Jagwire video content management solution and SpearNet radio, which offers a data transfer rate of 2 to 3 Mbps, the TMNVG then allows the soldier to transmit live video to a command and control unit. “We’ve integrated those three different products and joined them together as a unified product that we’re offering as the Individual Soldier System,” Garris said.

“So you have the goggle for the actual soldier for situational awareness via the display, the data radio with the SpearNet allowing transmission of data to and from the soldier, and then Jagwire being able to pull the video directly from the soldier to give the commander situational awareness of what’s going on in the battlefield like never before,” said Garris.

The Benefits of Integration There are several tangible benefits to that kind of system.

“Let’s say you have a scout going out on a mission to gather information on the front line,” Garris said. “If you have an analog device, he’s empowered to be able to see imagery at night. If you have a TMNVG, the commander can send him maps or positional information, so the soldier can see his individual position, and the commander can see live imagery of what the soldier’s seeing.”

One Exelis user, Garris said, has told him it’s transformed his decision-making process. “In Afghanistan, to make an assessment

GCT 5.5 | 5

at a platoon level as far as target acquisition, the commander would actually have to go to the front line to make an assessment before making a command decision so as not to make an error— whereas now, with this, you’re able to send that live imagery right back to command and control, allowing informed and very rapid decision-making,” he said.

The point is that an integrated solution like this reaches far beyond the functionality of a simple night vision goggle. “We’re providing a capability that a goggle alone or a radio alone or a content management solution alone would not provide,” Garris said. “So we’re hitting a different area of the market where there’s a bigger demand for intelligence, soldier security, protection of forces and rapid dissemination of information that traditional legacy devices can’t provide.”

Additional Functionality Andrew Owen, vice president of product management at FLIR, said most, if not all, of his company’s night vision weapon sights for the military are clip-on sights that are primarily used in conjunction with a day optic. “So once your day optic is on the weapon and it’s sighted and mounted, it stays on the weapon,” he said.

“The user doesn’t have to take off the day optic to use his sight, whether it’s I2 or thermal—they simply clip the thermal or the I2 sight onto the front of the weapon.”

Owen said FLIR is now adding additional sensors to these systems, such as digital magnetic compasses and internal digital video recorders. “We also have the ability to connect cameras together,” he said. “So you might have another user that has an observation device, and he sees a target—they want to get the shooter on target, so instead of trying to verbally walk him on, we have direct video sharing between one camera and the other. So both the shooter and the spotter are looking at the same scene, and that helps them coordinate their activities a lot more tightly.”

FLIR also offers a weapon sight that combines both I2 and thermal. “Users obviously see the benefit of a thermal sight for quick detection, and they see the benefit of the I2 sight, because you’re using visible light, so that gives you the ability to truly recognize target A versus target B,” Owen said. “So we’ve taken both of those imaging sensors and built them into a single weapon sight, and we’ve done that with an innovative single telescope or weapon sight.”

A Blended Sight The result is a blended sight that uses a single telescope to collect both visible light for I2 and infrared light for thermal. “The user can dial in as much or as little of either channel as he needs to or chooses to for that particular mission, for that environment and for that lighting condition,” Owen said. “He can be 100 percent thermal, 100 percent I2 or some blended percentage of the two that he can easily control with an adjustment.”

For bi-ocular night vision cameras, Owen said FLIR has mimicked game controllers with a joystick operated by the left thumb and a rotary knob operated by the right thumb. “When you look at the typical soldier these days, he’s somewhere between the ages of 19 and 26 years old—10 years ago, he was getting his training playing video games,” he said. “So what we’ve seen is, we give these soldiers a quick instruction—left thumb, right 6 | GCT 5.5

thumb, what it does—and it seems to resonate well with the users these days.”

Additional features like GPS and a digital magnetic compass can then provide location, and a laser rangefinder can provide range to target. “With a camera designed for geolocation, you know where you are by virtue of your own internal GPS, your digital magnetic compass is giving you bearing to target, and your laser rangefinder gives you distance to target and will instantly perform a target geolocation for you,” Owen said.

Differentiating Between Solutions Mike Alvis, president and CEO of B.E. Meyers, noted that in the image intensification market, there are only two Gen 3 night vision tube manufacturers in the world, both of them based in the United States: L-3 Communications and Exelis. As a result, Alvis said, differentiators between night vision solutions often come down to other features, such as cost, size, weight and ruggedness (SWIR).

For goggles in particular, Alvis noted, weight is often a key concern. “We’re offering a binocular night vision goggle which we feel is the best binocular night vision goggle in the world below the weight of 600 grams,” he said. “The danger when you do a lightweight night vision goggle is a lot of times you lose a lot of its ruggedness and its ability to withstand environmental factors—so we feel it’s the most rugged, most capable lightweight night vision goggle in the world.”

In addition to their improved performance, Alvis said, it’s also worth noting that Gen 3 night vision tubes last far longer than Gen 2, making it easy to justify the increased financial investment.

“A Generation 2 tube lasts about two and a half years, and a Generation 3 tube lasts about 10 years,” said Alvis. “Life cycle cost isn’t a performance parameter, but that has something do with it—how much it costs you to replenish it and replace it, maintain it, and keep it in your system.”

A Transition Point Alvis said night vision is currently at a transition point where digital output is often available within single types—thermal or image intensification—but not for night vision goggles that offer a fusion of the two. “If you’re ever going to see a digital goggle in the hands of soldiers, you’re going to see it digitally fusing image intensification and thermal IR images—and the challenges of that are still pretty great,” he said. “It’s definitely the next generation, but there’s a lot of work to be done.”

And that work, Alvis said, is unfortunately being slowed down by budget constraints. “With the downturn in the DoD market, people aren’t making the kind of money they did during Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ability for us to invest using our own money is much more limited,” he said. “So I wouldn’t be surprised if you see development stagnating a little bit as people try to adjust to the new environment.” In the meantime, he remarked that current night vision technologies are likely to be around for 20 or 30 more years.

Leveraging a Modular Approach Alan Page, president of the sensor systems division at the O’Gara Group, said the biggest sea change in night vision over www.GCT-kmi.com

the past several years has been the inclusion of multiple sensors in dismounted soldier systems. “These sensors include analog night vision tubes, digital low-light chips, thermal FPAs, and even SWIR,” he said. “Each sensor brings a unique spectral band with associated advantages and disadvantages.”

The idea is then to combine the inputs from all of those sources and present the operator with a combined image that highlights relevant data. “Night vision goggles can display GPS data, satellite or UAV imagery, moving maps, etc.,” he said. “Large aviation platforms have used this methodology for years—but with advances in digital signal processing and/or optical designs that allow overlaid images, this ability has been extended to dismounted troops.”

Page said that kind of functionality is best enabled with a modular approach. “What the user does, whether at the command level or at the unit level, is determine the best sensors for his needs, and then build a system that utilizes them,” he said. “Perhaps today’s operation needs an analog tube-based NVG with a clip-on thermal, but tomorrow they forgo the clip-on thermal in favor of a handheld SWIR imager and a rail-mounted thermal scope.”

allows overlay of additional data. “This HUD port makes the PVS21 a versatile platform that the user can build a modular system around,” he said. A recently introduced clip-on thermal module (COTM) can also be added to overlay thermal on top of the night vision scene.

Page said the industry as a whole is advancing rapidly in terms of both efficiency and miniaturization. “It’s still hard to beat an analog image intensifier tube for resolution or efficiency—but low-light digital solutions get better every year,” he said. “Thermal systems continue to get physically smaller and more efficient while increasing in resolution, leading to better packing solutions for dismounted troops.”

“SWIR systems are also coming down in size and cost, and improving in spectral response,” Page noted. “These changes have led to their incorporation in some major DoD rifle scope projects and clip-on projects. So I expect to see that sensor platform proliferate.”

Ultimately, Page said, several new technologies are making night vision a fascinating area to watch. “O’Gara is excited about the future.” O

A Rapidly Advancing Industry O’Gara’s AN/PVS-21 low-profile night vision goggle, Page said, allows the user to see both the intensified and un-intensified scene simultaneously, and includes a heads-up display injection port that

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at jeffm@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

Military Warriors, Maximize Your MOS • Your combat arms military occupational specialty (MOS) could reduce the credits needed to earn a Kaplan University associate’s degree in business or criminal justice by as much as 55 percent* • Other programs available • Evaluated MOSs include: Infantryman, Armor Crewman, and Cavalry Scout For comprehensive consumer information, visit www.kaplanuniversity.edu/student-consumer-information.aspx.

Kaplan University is regionally accredited. Please see our website for additional information about institutional and programmatic accreditation. *Based on maximum credit transfer. Actual transfer credits may vary. See the University Catalog for the Prior Learning Assessment policy.

Find out more and enroll at military.kaplan.edu or call 877.809.8445 (Toll Free).

Online | Accredited | Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) Consortium Member COMBAT ARMS_08/14

www.GCT-kmi.com

GCT 5.5 | 7

U.S. Army PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors

Intel Provider

Q& A

Improving Data Collection, Analysis and Dissemination Stephen Kreider Program Executive Officer U.S. Army PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors Stephen Kreider became the Program Executive Officer for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Md., in December 2012. In this position, he is responsible for the development, acquisition, fielding and life cycle support of the Army’s portfolio of intelligence, electronic warfare and target acquisition programs. These capabilities provide the soldier with the ability to detect, recognize and identify targets and collect, tag and mine intelligence which can be integrated into the tactical network to support force protection, maneuver and persistent surveillance and provide a more detailed understanding of the battlefield.

Kreider is a native of Summit, N.J. He holds masters’ degrees from National Defense University in national resource strategy, Florida Institute of Technology in management and Georgia Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering. Additionally, he is a United States Military Academy graduate.

Prior to his current position, Kreider served as the deputy program executive officer, Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. He was initially selected to the Senior Executive Service in October 2008.

Kreider’s other assignments include acting deputy program executive officer, Program Executive Office Integration; director, Combined Test Organization; program manager, Future Combat System (Brigade Combat Team); acting director and deputy director, Future Combat System Combined Test Organization, APG; commander of Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Ariz.; deputy for ballistic missile defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Washington, D.C.; product manager, Multiple Launch Rocket System Improved Launcher, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.; Department of the Army System Coordinator Multiple Launch Rocket System, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition), Washington, D.C.; project director and technical manager, Harry Diamond Laboratories, Adelphi, Md.; as well as numerous field artillery positions in the 3rd and 7th Infantry Divisions, including battery command, fire support officer, S-4 and fire director officer.

His military education includes the Industrial College of the Armed Forces Senior Acquisition Course, United States Army Command and General Staff College and United States Army Combined Arms Service Staff College.

8 | GCT 5.5

Q: What will be the biggest impacts to your programs that the budget will have in the next eight to 12 months? Are there any unexpected issues?

A: We continue to provide the best quality systems with the budget we were given to ensure that the soldiers both here and abroad have the capabilities that they need. That really has not changed much for us in our enterprise. The reality, though holistically of course, is the Department of the Army is looking for efficiencies and that will help the overall budget.

The Army’s research and development account took the biggest hit because the soldier personnel drawdown portion of the budget takes a while to trend lower. 2014 and 2015 are where most of the cut was to us, but we’ll start seeing it go back up a little bit.

We’ve already weathered the storm from our PEO IEW&S enterprise perspective, so from a PEO perspective my priorities really haven’t changed and I’ve not had to delay any programs in 2015.

The real budget change for us is the amount of dollars we get in overseas contingency operations (OCO) money—in other words, how much we are supporting in theater. In the last year, we’ve probably cut our support in half, and it continues to go down as a result of soldiers leaving theater. My concern with that budget is OCO is also supposed to include the dollars to reset the equipment. I’m concerned with 2015 and 2016— www.GCT-kmi.com

particularly 2016—because we don’t have the answer from Congress on sequestration. I don’t want to pre-suppose the worst case, so we’re continuing to operate. But my main concern is that I may not have the funds to reset what needs to be reset.

My other main issue is that we have so many of the quick reaction capability (QRC) programs specifically developed for needs during the war. The Army has found value in a number of those programs and wants to maintain them in the base budget. The issue is determining how to transition a program that was OCO to base funding; I have the largest portion of those programs across the different PEOs. We as an Army have not solved how to do all of that in a constrained environment. In some cases, when equipment comes back, we will simply wrap it up and store it—meaning we will not reset or continue to maintain it. If I do reset and maintain it, it’s immediately available if needed. If I don’t reset and maintain it, there is a chance of obsolescence and it may not be ready to immediately deploy even if it’s needed. It’s a balancing act that the Army is going through.

On the positive side, the lessons learned from all of the QRC programs have helped us work with the Army to better define our real requirements and better understand what is important, as opposed to what we believe we want. While we may have demonstrated a need for a particular program, in some instances, we need to divest ourselves of the idea ‘I need to have piece of equipment A across every unit of the Army.’ Because every unit of the Army is not going to go to war at one time, we put the capabilities in theater; when the units fall in, they use it, they come home and they leave the equipment there. As opposed to saying 100 percent of the force has widget X all of the time, we give widget X to just the portion of the force that’s deployed.

This practice creates efficiency in the longer term for our base budget. We’re relieving ourselves of the budget crunch because we’re not buying 100 percent of widget Xs anymore. We’re buying 40 percent and maintaining that 40 percent as being more relevant, which allows us to bring in new technology faster, as opposed to continuing to pay for the additional 60 percent of what’s required to fill up the rest of the Army. It’s a different mindset—it’s a contingency construct mindset that I think is much more positive, which has allowed us to deal with the budget cuts while not impacting the equipment capability to the soldiers.

Q: Were there any cultural issues that had to be overcome to change that policy?

A: I don’t know if it’s a culture issue. It’s an understanding issue.

You have a soldier who uses a piece of equipment and really likes it in theater; when they come back to the United States and don’t have it to train on, they naturally question why. They don’t necessarily understand the overall fiscal environment, and think, “Well, everybody should have it.” If we had an unlimited budget, I would agree 100 percent.

Q: What has it meant to the program for PEO to be designated as the single CREW (Counter Radio-controlled Electronic Warfare) manager?

A: The single CREW manager is a transition of the executive agency, which was the Navy, to the Army, meaning Secretary of the www.GCT-kmi.com

Army John McHugh is now the executive agent. Underneath him, the office that is responsible for the execution is called the single manager, so that’s been allocated to me.

The increased responsibilities now mean that I’m the original classification authority for not just Army CREW equipment, but for all the services. I’m the responsible agent for approving foreign military sales and technology transfer agreements for anything that is within this technology range.

It’s an expansion of those responsibilities for me individually, and so I needed additional support. We as a department realize that we worked in a low electronic warfare threatening environment for 12 years of war, as we were not competing against a peer in electronic warfare. When we go to a worldwide contingency regionalization construct, we are now going to be executing in an electronic warfare environment where there are peers—where there are threat capabilities that may not be peers but have a better capability than what we saw in OEF or OIF. The unknown is what’s going to impact me in managing this program moving forward. For example, does that mean I’m going to have expanded programs or have more work in those arenas and across the services?

Q: Accepting that everyone always wants to improve, is the Army or the PEO currently satisfied with the ability to perform persistent surveillance for both intelligence gathering and protection?

A: Everybody has a different definition or requirement of what they mean by persistent surveillance.

I think the ability to gather information significantly improved as a result of the two war efforts. Because of quick reaction capabilities and the OCO dollars, we’ve raised the level of individual sensors, increased the modality capabilities and improved their technological ability. But that brings another challenge: more data. The real issue is how do we manage the data to fuse it, correlate it and distribute it appropriately to the right people.

There’s been an increased capability. For example, I go from a regular video camera to a high-definition one. It’s a bigger type of information. Do I need all of that information? Do I need to see every camera’s HD picture? We can’t manage that from a data collection standpoint. We can collect the data, but where do we store it? Does everybody need it? The transition has become how to get to a persistent construct. The methodology of the construct has changed to ask, “How do I process that information so the camera gives me the 10 percent of the information that I really need an operator to see?”

In a Level 4 operating base, I can collect all the information I want in real time in the operations center, but do I need to send all that information to every other level? Does the soldier who leaves the base on a single squad need to have that on their handheld device? The answer is no. We can’t afford to do that. So the real challenge is to leverage those existing capabilities.

We have the ability, in a much smaller construct, to store that data locally where the sensor is doing some processing itself.

This will reduce the data that actually goes out over the radio or satellite, which in essence gives us more viable data taking up less space, allowing a more persistent capability.

GCT 5.5 | 9

U.S. Army PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors

Headquarters

Stephen D. Kreider Program Executive Officer

Dr. Richard H. Wittstruck Acting Deputy Program Executive Officer

Aircraft Survivability Equipment (PM ASE)

Col. Jong H. Lee Project Manager

Lt. Col. Kevin S. Chaney Product Manager Countermeasures

Lt. Col. Joseph R. Blanton Product Manager Sensors

Lt. Col. Joyce B. Stewart Product Manager Electronic Warfare Integration

Lt. Col. Kevin E. Finch Product Manager Info Warfare

Col. Jonathan B. Slater Product Manager Prophet

Electronic Warfare (PM EW)

Col. Joseph P. Dupont Project Manager

Michael E. Ryan Deputy Project Manager

Lt. Col. Kent M. Snyder Product Manager Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare

Terrestrial Sensors

Col. Anthony J. Sanchez Project Manager

Raef A. Schmidt Deputy Project Manager

Lt. Col. Shane M. Sullivan Product Manager Ground Sensors

Dina R. Hirsch Chief Financial Officer

James J. Maziarz Director of Logistics

Richard G. Audette Acting Director System of Systems Engineering

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (PM DCGS-A)

Col. Robert M. Collins Project Manager

James S. Childress Deputy Project Manager

Lt. Col. Donald L. Burton Product Manager DCGS-A Software Integration

Lt. Col. Laura N. Poston Product Manager DCGS-A Software Development

Michael V. Doney Product Director Machine Foreign Language Translation System

Peter W. Travis Product Director Counterintelligence Human Intelligence Automated Reporting & Collection System

Sensors-Aerial Intelligence (PM SAI)

Col. Thomas B. Gloor Christian E. Keller Project Manager Deputy Project Manager

Lt. Col. Gregory J. Gastan Product Director Aerostats

Kevin M. Coggins Product Director Positioning, Navigation & Timing

Lt. Col. R. Scott Feathers Product Manager Manned Aerial Reconnaissance & Surveillance Sensors

Robert Knowles Product Director Combat Terrain Information Systems

Lt. Col. Khoi Nguyen Lt. Col. Jon C. Product Director Haveron Sensors-Aerial Signals Product Director Intelligence Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities

Lt. Col. Robert Smith Product Director Navigation Capabilities Development

Lt. Col. Antonio D. Ralph Product Manager Electro-Optic/Infrared Payloads

Lt. Col. Chevonne Williams Product Manager SensorsUnmanned & Rotary Wing

Ronald Rizzo Product Director Sensors-Aerial Measurement and Signature Intelligence & Radars

U.S. Army PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors Q: The command post computing environment program is laying the groundwork for the intelligence and operations to come together. Can you tell me about that effort?

Q: It is fairly easy to collect a lot of data. How do you store and analyze it? Is your PEO involved in finding the right storage solutions for big data?

A: The command post computing environment (CP CE) is one of six common operating environments that the Army has, two of which have been assigned to PEO IEW&S as the lead: the CP CE and the sensor computing environment.

I liken them to a horizontal technology construct. We want to collapse in the command post the full mission command set of functions—intelligence, engineering, the barrier plan, the minefield plan, the weather, communications with the locals, and so on.

CP CE is determining how we bring all of that capability into a more efficient and effective construct. It’s best if we can create architecture and a construct that has everyone working with common equipment and a common language. I don’t care if the server is doing mission command work or intelligence work or engineering work—it should be on a common box.

Common hardware is the first construct we’re trying to get to from a CP CE, which reduces the amount of maintenance, parts and training the schoolhouse has to do. A percent of training ought to be common.

A: A portion of that does fall within this PEO, with PEO EIS having the primary responsibility for big data server architectures.

We are focused on the intelligence side, and that goes beyond just PEO EIS, which has an Army mission. My job is to focus in on the intelligence community as a whole. For the most part, I don’t care where information comes from; I will take everybody’s information and correlate it together. But we need that information to be in a common format. We can’t have the Navy calling it one thing, the Army calling it something different and DIA calling it another, because then we don’t have a common software query that can give us the information we need. Each service wants to be able to leverage all of the information, regardless of who gathered it.

We also need to be able to provide the end-user with the right amount of information they need for their task or mission.

The ability to leverage the right information in a timely manner and obtain the most relevant data is key. The idea is getting to a transparent data construct so we can share and, as a result, correlate and fuse information to get better results.

Q: What is the program status of Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) and what are your next steps?

Q: Is that more of a technology issue or more of a doctrine about how to share information?

A: DCGS-A is a confederation of hardware and software systems, which is something people continue to forget. There are nine programs of records that we collapsed into DCGS. Those programs supply connectivity, satellites, mapping capability, vehicles, interface and servers, and more. We don’t see much of that changing. We are focusing on the software component that fits on that architecture.

Increment 1 currently has two releases: release 1 is in the field, while release 2 is in the final stages of testing and will go to an operational test in April of next year. Actually, 85 percent of the force is already using it today under urgent requirements—anybody that’s in Afghanistan is using that software today.

Release 2 focuses on ease of use. This is a very complicated system which takes more than 700 different sensor types providing data and brings them all together into a single display construct.

The key was how to put architecture in place in the first increment. When we did, we didn’t make it the easiest or most intuitive for the soldier to use. We realized that and focused release 2 on that soldier/machine interface. We want to get to the point where a soldier can pick up their tablet-like device—without a two-week training class—and can intuitively begin using it.

The series of RFIs to industry for Increment 2 that we are putting out focus on the next step of technology. How do I bring it into a cloud environment? How do I ensure that the security of this vast amount of information is protected from inside and outside threats? Is it ensuring the relevancy of the data?

We are planning on three cycles of RFIs, which will result in a request for proposals. We want to make sure we have the right architecture and that we’re incentivizing and allowing industry to compete in order to lower cost and ensure that we’re getting the most relevant capabilities.

A: It’s both. Again, now we’re going to the cloud construct and considering the questions of how to manage data in the cloud.

Hypothetically, we have 10 systems that are connecting into the cloud. The current construct is that all the data resides on one server in one place. What happens now if one user is out of range of connecting to the server; do they no longer have the data? In a cloud construct, they may not have access to a server, but they might have connectivity to another node because they have line of sight.

When looking at the network and the data collected, should it go through a single server or should we use a cloud construct?

With those options and the amount of data, we now have a configuration management issue. That’s the technology construct that we are trying to work through both with DCGS-A Increment 2 and this whole construct of going to a cloud. It’s a data management issue, particularly for the Army in how do we move to a new configuration while continuing to operate when we lack an infrastructure.

For example, it is easy to say, “I’d like to have my cell phone construct capability for the Army.” However, the Army doesn’t fight in places that have a cell phone construct; soldiers are not always in fixed bases with fixed towers and fixed power. We don’t have that capacity in Afghanistan or in other places around the world.

The issue of gathering the information and coming in and out of the network is something the industry doesn’t do a whole lot of. We are pushing that construct. They may have some answers, but that’s not something that they need to serve the needs of their customers because they have a fixed architecture construct.

12 | GCT 5.5

www.GCT-kmi.com

Q: Much of the Army’s fixed wing assets are dedicated to the ISR mission. What improvements are being made to the Guardrail program and is there a status update for EMARSS (enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system)?

A: For the aerial ISR fleet, manned and unmanned aircraft, we have four lines of effort.

Line number one is unmanned aerial craft—the Gray Eagle UAS’s that have an EO/IR capability. There are 152 of them going to the Army, 18 of which are specific to the intelligence community, so we may put some special sensors on them. Milestone C has already occurred and we are getting to the final years of production and remain focused on fielding it to the fleet.

The second line of effort is Guardrail, which is primarily a signals intelligence collection system. It has existed for a while and, over the years, we have upgraded the capabilities as new technologies have become available. We are currently adding a visual capability, a full motion video sensor (coming in the next year) to each of the aircraft known as the 12X, and will have a fleet of 14 in the air, down from a total of 47 Guardrails today.

The third line of effort is what we call aerial reconnaissance low (ARL). We have a new program called ARL-E—ARL Enhanced—where we’ll take all nine of the Dash 7 aircraft and convert them to a Dash 8 platform. It will transform them from a single-sensor platform to a multi-sensor platform with plug-andplay capability. In the next three years, we will convert the whole fleet of ARLs into the new platform.

The last line of effort we call EMARSS. We are planning on 24 aircraft, all based on the King Air 350. Part of the reason Guardrail numbers are going down is because EMARSS numbers are going up. We will actually have four variants of EMARSS, each one with different capabilities, but with a significant amount of commonality in aircraft, tactical data links and control. Each will have a DCGS onboard, which allows them to connect information, fuse it and then connect with everything on the ground.

The first four EMD EMARSS aircraft have been completed.

We just completed the Milestone C move into production and employment last month—Brigadier General Bob Marion, PEO Aviation, and I co-hosted that—and we approved going into production.

For the other three variants, we are going to produce one of each, test it and then make a final decision based on the results.

Q: What role did the PEO have in and what were the big takeaways from the Unified Vision trial?

A: Unified Vision (UV) 14 was the second of three planned major NATO ISR trials. UV 14 had 200 different joint ISR capabilities, with about 2,200 personnel from 21 different nations coming together.

The United States contributed aerostat balloons, one flown in Yuma, Ariz., and another in Norway, and was able to demonstrate the connectivity of that data to the construct.

We also flew a Global Hawk—flying for the first time over parts of northern Europe—which collected data, sent it to a DCGS-A in Germany, vetted the information in the United States and then pushed it out to the operations floors of the various participating nations. www.GCT-kmi.com

The first trial, Unified Vision 12, was focused on identifying those interface control documents standards (STANAGs, standardization agreements) that we want to make common so we can share that information in a common construct for the decision-makers.

Building on that foundation, Unified Vision 14 investigated whether the architecture and the sharing of information going from top secret to secret to collateral could be orchestrated.

Unified Vision 16 is the culminating trial to provide a capability where NATO would bring its reaction force and validate the construct.

Q: How do you communicate with industry providers? How do you set it up so that if some small company does have a great idea, how do they communicate that with your team so that it’s not just the big boys that have a lot of the visuals to get it done?

A: The government set up this construct that if I put out a request—on FedBizOpps—it’s open to anybody. You learn that system and you spend as much time as you want looking for business opportunities across the board.

We also have industry days that we and the whole Aberdeen Proving Ground community participate in. It usually takes place over a week where everyone here discusses their priorities, capability gaps, and where the opportunities for industry might be. I view this as top-level.

The next level, the actual program manager that’s executing a program, will have a specifically focused industry day leading up to their next contract.

There are also requests for information posted on FedBizOpps that everyone can see and participate in.

Another option is for industry to submit white papers. In the near-term, AUSA is a big event for us as it gives us the opportunity to communicate with industry.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: The men and women serving in harm’s way and the taxpayer should know that the soldiers, civilians and contractors working on these systems are always operating with their best interest in mind to give them what they need to be able to do their operations.

There are significant challenges that come with fielding the most recent and the highest technology. We have to be good stewards of resources for our personnel and our country. We have to make some decisions; we can’t always have everything we want all the time because it’s a managed budget. Our job is focused on doing the best that we can for the taxpayer in the realm that we have responsibility for.

I’d also like to point out that we are about to reach a major milestone for the Army’s acquisition community—on October 13, we celebrate its 25th anniversary. There’s a lot of focus across the Army acquisition core on how we created the environment and recognizing some of the great soldier, civilian and contractor stewards of the process and their accomplishments.

I’d like to salute all the people who have been part of this fine tradition. O GCT 5.5 | 13

INNOVATIONS Ground Vehicle Systems Research and Development The Army has announced its intention to announce a request for project proposals for execution of a project award in support of ground vehicle systems research and development related to specified research area(s). The purpose of this announcement is to provide members of the National Advanced Mobility Consortium (formerly the Robotics Technology Consortium) and industry in general advanced notification of the government’s intent.

In July 2014, the government entered into another transaction agreement with the National Advanced Mobility Consortium (NAMC) in support of ground vehicle systems-related research and development prototype projects. It is the intent of the government to make project awards to members of the NAMC as a result of member project proposals submitted via the request for project proposals.

The anticipated research areas for project proposals include: • • • • • • • •

Lightweight Integrated MTVR Cab MTVR Common Hydraulic/Lubricant Systems Seat Restraint Development Single Cylinder Engine Technology Demonstrator Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Fleet Management Adaptive Response Floor System ARIBO Industrial Hygiene Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) Decision Support Toolset • Hull Deformation Reduction • Foundational Flooring System Design and Development

JIEDDO Counter-IED Integration Training Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has been awarded a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to support the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) Joint Center of Excellence (JCOE) Counter-IED Integration Training Program. SAIC is one of four awardees; the work will be performed domestically as well as globally.

The Joint Center of Excellence is JIEDDO’s lead organization for the train-theforce line of operation and is responsible for developing the training capabilities that enable the services’ and combatant commanders’ mission of preparing U.S. forces to defeat the IED threat. Under the BPA, SAIC will support the training, experimentation and

M249 Cheekrest The Army Contracting Command, on behalf of Project Manager Soldier Weapons, has announced a pre-solicitation for M249 extended cheekrests. The anticipated contract minimum is 9,250 M249 extended cheekrests, with an anticipated contract maximum of 170,000 over the run of the five-year contract.

The M249 extended cheekrest is used with the M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) and is an elevated plastic rest that provides improved eye relief when using taller optics.

14 | GCT 5.5

testing of new equipment and concepts; maintain a deployable capability in the field; facilitate individual, collective and strategic training; and validate and propagate IED defeat. SAIC will also assist with the development, installation, maintenance and disposal of training devices used in conjunction with IED-related training classes.

“This award provides SAIC the opportunity to continue supporting the JCOE Counter-IED Integration Training Program’s important mission,” said John Gully, SAIC senior vice president and general manager of the Army

and Air Force Customer Group. “This critical program prepares our forces to overcome IED threats and, as a result, save lives.”

Tactical Targeting Network Technology ViaSat Inc. has been awarded $54 million from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command for co-development and qualification of tactical targeting network technology capabilities for the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS). The MIDS JTRS joint development by ViaSat and Data Link Solutions is part of the U.S. government program to provide a migration path from the MIDS-LVT terminal to a

certified, reprogrammable, software-defined radio architecture for tactical data links.

The order was awarded under the MIDS Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract initially executed in March 2010 and recently expanded to a higher ceiling amount to accommodate additional awards.

Link 16 MIDS is a line-of-sight radio system for collecting and transmitting broadband, jam-resistant, secure data and voice across a variety of air, sea and ground platforms.

www.GCT-kmi.com

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Patriot Support Raytheon Company has received a $109 million Engineering Services contract for its Patriot Air and Missile Defense System.

The contract, issued by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is for ongoing technical support and services to the U.S. Army and Foreign Military Sale customers to ensure readiness of their Patriot systems.

“Customers around the world will benefit from the maintenance and upgrades that result from this contract— especially the technical baseline improvements designed to counter evolving threats,” said Ralph Acaba, vice president of integrated air and missile defense at Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems business. “The U.S. Army recognizes the importance of investing in Patriot sustainment, especially given the instability in the world today.”

Live-Fire Training Ranges Meggitt Training Systems has been awarded additional delivery orders worth $17.7 million to support the U.S. Army’s Targetry Systems program with TACOM, the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Warren, Mich. This brings Meggitt’s total program value to $30.5 million. As one of the U.S. Army’s largest weapon systems research and development organizations, the TACOM program provides equipment for livefire training ranges at U.S. Army installations worldwide.

Under these delivery orders, Meggitt will deliver more than 1,850 stationary and mobile infantry targets, more than 165 mobile and stationary field armored targets, target controllers and various interfacing devices.

Equipment will be delivered and installed within Army bases across the United States and Europe. These ranges are designed to develop and improve combat skills used to conduct military exercises, and facilitate participation in actual combat action.

The Army Targetry Systems program (ATS) is used to procure live-fire training ranges installed at various locations throughout the world. Similar systems are in service with forces in the United States, South Korea and Europe.

Ronald Vadas, president, Meggitt Training Systems, commented: “Meggitt’s long-standing association with the ATS program, coupled with the delivery of these new targetry systems, further solidifies our valued relationship with the U.S. Army. The Meggitt-provided systems will ensure our soldiers remain mission ready.”

www.GCT-kmi.com

Mojave Program Moves Forward DRS Technologies Inc., a Finmeccanica company, has successfully completed the Army’s critical design review (CDR) for the Mojave program, also known as the Target Location Designation System (TLDS). The passage of this critical program milestone moves the company closer to providing precision targeting capability to U.S. military forward observers in all battlefield environments.

The DRS Technologies Mojave/TLDS system is expected to revolutionize U.S. Army field artillery operations by reducing the size of current systems that make it difficult to conduct rapid target engagement when immediate strikes are needed. The Mojave/TLDS is designed to give forward observers the ability to acquire, target and request fire in austere environments with precision strikes without the need for mensuration. The introduction of quick and consistent precision grids can give maneuver commanders greater discretion when engaging targets. It can reduce the time to get artillery rounds on target, as well as the number of rounds needed for target destruction.

The added precision in turn can reduce fratricide and collateral damage.

DRS Technologies recently hosted the Program Manager-Soldier Precision Targeting Devices (PM-SPTD), TRADOC Capabilities Manager Fires Cells and other essential members of the government customer community at its Dallas, Texas facility for the design review.

With the successful completion of the CDR, DRS Technologies now moves the program to contractor and government testing.

The DRS Mojave/TLDS program utilizes employees at their Dallas and Melbourne, Fla., facilities to execute the engineering, manufacturing and development process and production for this high-priority U.S. Army program. “DRS employees at both facilities were crucial in the successful completion of this major milestone and the team is actively working towards testing the current production model of the Mojave system as they move into the next phase of the program,” said Shawn Black, vice president and general manager, DRS Network Computing and Imaging Systems. “Our suppliers on the program were also key to the team’s success by building sample hardware while conducting early tests to demonstrate the significant technologies of the Mojave design,” Black said.

DRS hopes to transition the program to production and fielding in 2016.

GCT 5.5 | 15

Combat Multiplier

Q& A

The Maneuver and the Punch for the Maneuver Warfighter Brigadier General David G. Bassett Program Executive Officer U.S. Army Ground Combat Systems Brigadier General David G. Bassett became the Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems in September 2013. He is responsible for the life cycle management of a complex and diverse organization with major defense acquisition programs, armored multi-purpose vehicle and Acquisition Category I programs (Paladin Integrated Management program, Abrams tank upgrades, Bradley fighting vehicles upgrades and the Stryker family of vehicles), and the M88 Hercules.

Bassett was commissioned through ROTC in 1988 into the Signal Corps with a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering from the University of Virginia. As a junior officer, he served in Germany in tactical positions as communications platoon leader, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and as battalion S4 and company commander in 123rd Signal Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division.

Following the Signal Officer’s Advanced Course and Advanced Civil Schooling at the University of Virginia, where he received a Master of Science in computer science, he was assigned to the U.S. European Command Staff, where he served as the requirements analysis and interoperability action officer on the J6 staff.

He transferred to the Army Acquisition Corps in 1999 and was assigned to Fort Monmouth, N.J., as operations officer, Communications and Electronics Command Software Engineering Center. Bassett went on to serve at Fort Monmouth as the chief software engineer for the Future Combat Systems Network and as Program Integrator and Product Manager, Future Combat Systems, Software Integration.

He then served on the Joint Staff as the ground maneuver analyst, Capabilities and Acquisition Division, J8.

From July 2009 to May 2012, Bassett served as the Army’s Project Manager for Tactical Vehicles within the Program Executive Office for Combat Support & Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS). In June 2012, Tactical Vehicles was restructured, and he was tapped to lead the Joint Program Office, Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, PEO CS&CSS through the Engineering and Manufacturing Development award from June 2012 to August 2012.

In September 2012, Bassett assumed responsibilities as the Deputy Program Executive Officer (DPEO) for CS&CSS. As the DPEO, he provided technical and managerial oversight for approximately 270 tactical wheeled vehicles, special-purpose vehicles and equipment, physical security equipment, petroleum and water systems, and other support systems/equipment for the U.S. Army and sister services, as well as foreign military sales.

Bassett is a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and a distinguished graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C. Q: No other main battle tank is as combat-proven (at least successfully) as the Abrams. Does the tank’s architecture, size and 16 | GCT 5.5

weight allow for it to grow in capability beyond its current version?

What are the expectations for the platform?

A: We continue to add capability to the Abrams tank, which is already a world-class vehicle. The Army is committed to an additional incremental upgrade to the Abrams tank that will give it greater lethality, protection and ability to carry the network and greatly reduced fuel consumption. The initial stage of this upgrade will address the system architecture (power and data management systems) to support inbound technology, specifically the Army’s network. Our industry partners are currently building prototypes of the selected technologies for this effort and the program recently completed its critical design review. We will drive down fuel consumption by integrating an auxiliary power unit rather than allowing the turbine engine to idle for long periods.

In the latter stage of this upgrade, we will improve the tank’s sights and sensors—centered on the integration of a new third-generation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) technology. Lethality improvements via upgrades to the gunner’s primary sight and commander’s independent thermal viewer, coupled with new FLIR technology, a color camera and a laser range finder, will enable the tank crew to take full advantage of the capabilities of a new advanced multipurpose round being developed by the Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems.

Of course, there are limits to how any vehicle can evolve over time, so we anticipate the Army making a decision in the FY18 timeframe on www.GCT-kmi.com

whether to improve the tank again through a follow-on incremental upgrade or initiating a new start program for a future main battle tank.

This will support new requirements generation, inform science and technology investments in key technology development areas, identify feasibility and key trades, and remain synchronized with the Army’s future fighting vehicle effort to promote commonality.

Q: Hopefully my math hasn’t failed me, but the M109 just passed its 50th birthday, coming first into service in 1963. Tell me about the M109A7 program (major elements differing from the A6, numbers to be modified, time frames, room for further enhancements)—is there room for an A8?

A: Your math hasn’t failed you. The M109A7 represents a significant and long-needed upgrade of the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer, which includes buying back space, weight, power and cooling (SWaP-C) to ensure the system remains relevant with room to add new capabilities in the future.

While the vehicle’s cannon will remain unchanged, the M109A7 will sport a brand-new chassis, engine, transmission, suspension and steering system and improved survivability to go along with an upgraded electric ramming system. The automotive systems are much more common with the Bradley fighting vehicle. In fact, in many cases, the M109A7 will adopt advanced technologies and designs first and the Bradley will receive some of these capabilities later through planned upgrades. This improved commonality across the armored brigade combat team (ABCT) formation will substantially drive down our cost of ownership.

The new 600-volt on-board power system is designed to accommodate emerging technologies and future requirements, as well as current requirements like the Battlefield Network. The on-board power system leverages technologies developed during the non-line-of-sight cannon program and ensures the system will have enough SWaP-C growth potential to last until 2050.

These improvements will ensure the system can keep pace on the battlefield with other members of the Army’s ABCT formation from both an automotive and technological standpoint. The system is engineered to increase crew force protection, improve readiness and vehicle survivability and avoid component obsolescence.

Q: There is obviously a difference in mobility requirements for a large open desert-type operation versus a more closed-in environment.

Accepting the premise that the heavy maneuver force is only as mobile as the slowest component, what are the mobility challenges facing the armored force? Are there lethality challenges?

A: The tracked vehicles that make up our ABCT formations offer the greatest mobility of any vehicles in the Army’s ground inventory.

Weight plays a role, particularly where bridges and road surfaces lack the capacity for the heavier vehicles. Distributing that weight across the area of the tracks as opposed to the smaller footprint of wheeled solutions gives tracked vehicles a marked advantage across virtually all off-road terrain mission profiles. Having a vehicle capable of fighting effectively and surviving on the modern battlefield is our top priority, and the combat vehicles our soldiers have relied on for more than a decade during the past two wars proved capable and adaptable.

Keeping them relevant as battlefield conditions changed and new threats emerged has taxed those systems to the limits of the systems’ www.GCT-kmi.com

space, weight, power and cooling (SWaP-C) design margins. Our planned incremental upgrades to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker, often referred to as engineering change proposal (ECP) upgrades, are specific modernization efforts aimed at restoring a platform’s lost capability, without major overhaul to the platform itself. We already talked about the details of those upgrades for the Abrams tank.

These ECPs don’t exceed the operational capability outlined in current system documents, but rather ensure that system performance is not further degraded and that Army mission equipment packages can be integrated in the future. They will also improve the vehicle’s ability to host the Army’s network and buy back performance. These ECP efforts represent the core modernization efforts going into our existing platforms.

Along with those upgrades, we needed to address the long-needed divesture of the M113 by replacing it with the armored multipurpose vehicle (AMPV) within the ABCT. AMPV restores the balance of protection, mobility, performance and capability so that those platforms can fight alongside the rest of the ABCT systems after being restricted for many years to the confines of field-operating bases. Our selfpropelled howitzer fleet gets the same treatment with the M109A7 upgrade along with a host of other improvements to that weapon system.

These upgrades and replacement programs posture the entire range of ABCT combat vehicles to operate effectively together. We don’t see any of them as the “slowest component” once these upgrades are made.

Q: AMPV is to replace the M113s still in the fleet. With the length of service of the M113 and the time it has taken to even begin a replacement program, what role can the PEO play in focusing the development and acquisition process when looking at possible programs to replace the Abrams, Bradley, Paladin and, farther down the road, the Stryker? Are there serious conversations taking place now about those replacement programs?

A: Even with the conclusion of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program last year, we continue to recognize the need to upgrade the infantry fighting vehicle as the Army’s most important capability gap in the ABCT formation. However, the fact that the M113 is so old and has essentially been taken out of operational use makes the AMPV our most important funding priority in the near term. Without it, our ABCT formations cannot employ the entire range of platforms necessary for them to perform their mission.

Our PEO is first and foremost focused on delivering the AMPV program on cost, on schedule and with all the capabilities outlined in the AMPV requirements document. We are committed to taking advantage of any and all opportunities to accelerate this program into production and make resources available to other key Army priorities if at all possible.

In this difficult budgetary environment, it is even more critical that we prioritize our investments in every portfolio. At sequestered budget levels, it is clear that the Army will be assuming risk across all of its modernization portfolios; the combat vehicles portfolio is no exception. AMPV, M109A7 and the ECP programs we’ve already talked about represent our most important near-term budgetary priorities. We are investing in the ABCT and Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT) formations and deferring critical investments to add mobility, protection and lethality to our IBCT formations with new capabilities for mobile protected firepower, lightweight reconnaissance vehicles, GCT 5.5 | 17

and ultra-light combat vehicles, as well as needed lethality upgrades to our Stryker formations.

Without additional resources and relief from sequestration, the funding in our portfolio is insufficient for us to keep our existing ABCT platforms ready and relevant, let alone allow us to replace, rather than upgrade, these platforms.

Q: How has the Stryker platform performed in recent conflicts?

A: Particularly with the last few rotations on the double V-hull (DVH) upgrade in Afghanistan, it is clear that the Stryker is an incredibly effective and survivable platform for its intended purpose as a fast, highly mobile medium-weight vehicle. The SBCT fills a critical role in terms of deployability, mobility, protection, speed and lethality that bridges the gap between the tremendous capability that an ABCT brings and the IBCT formation.

A total of 20 Stryker brigades have deployed to both OIF and OEF. Stryker was the only ground vehicle in combat through the duration of OEF and OIF that consistently maintained an operational readiness rate well above 90 percent—far exceeding any other combat vehicle.

The Stryker DVH emphasizes the Army’s dedication to providing the best possible protection for our soldiers. The successful coordination/cooperation of industry and defense that resulted in the rapid design, test, procurement and fielding of a much-improved Stryker vehicle has saved numerous soldiers’ lives.

Stryker DVH is not just a redesigned, unique V-shape hull, but also includes improved mine-resistant blast seating, improved fire suppression features and a robust suspension system that gives the soldiers a smoother ride, reduces shock and vibration and improves readiness. With the upcoming ECP for the DVH Stryker, we’re making an already capable vehicle even better with improved mobility, reliability and network integration.

Q: What does the cancellation of the GCV program say about the future of combat vehicle modernization?

A: The conclusion of GCV says more about the resource challenges that the combat vehicle portfolio faces than anything else. Sequestration put the portfolio in the difficult position where the Army could not afford both the development and production of the GCV vehicle while simultaneously addressing the remaining needs across the ABCT and SBCT formations (AMPV, M109A7 and ECPs on Abrams, Bradley and Stryker DVH). In the end, we needed to ensure readiness and capability across the entire formation and chose to defer GCV until those priorities had been met.

At the point of cancellation, the GCV development program was meeting requirements on budget and on schedule. The GCV program was concluded upon completion of the technology development (TD) phase in June.

As I mentioned earlier, new infantry and cavalry fighting vehicles remain the most critical requirement for the ABCT Formation. The Army is managing the development of new IFV capabilities under the future fighting vehicle (FFV) effort and has developed a three-phase plan to mature these critical combat vehicle technologies.

Phase I—Science & Technology Insertion: This phase engages the GCV vendors to conduct vehicle design excursions, starting from their current designs, enabling the Army to understand what can be achieved in platform reductions to size, weight and power versus what can be gained in performance (i.e., mobility, survivability, 18 | GCT 5.5

lethality, reliability). This effort began with unexpended FY14 funds from the GCV TD phase, issued as six-month letter contracts to the prime vendors. Follow-on with FFV FY15 and FY16 funding will refine GCV TD and Bradley fighting vehicle modification concepts and continue technology and integration assessments.

Phase I will be used to inform a potential new IFV requirement and ensure that current designs take advantage of maturing technologies that were not originally included due to the original GCV IFV program schedule.

Phase II—Art of the Possible: Phase II will be a full and open competition to conduct further conceptual designs and trade studies utilizing S&T technologies. These design excursions will be unconstrained by the current IFV requirements and will inform Army strategy for the possible development of a new requirement by identifying tradespace between the requirements and current technology.

Phase III—Converge: Phase III will be an option on the Phase II contract for vendors to provide robust system concepts to support an Army decision to restart an infantry fighting vehicle program (if resources are available) and Milestone A decision. These concepts will provide higher-fidelity capabilities, cost and risk assessments, and cost-operational effective analyses to support an analysis of alternatives. The result will be early prototype builds that include integration of Army and industry advanced technologies.

Q: How can the PEO and industry best share ideas and processes that can improve efficiency, reduce costs and deliver more capabilities to the warfighter?

A: Particularly in these challenging budgetary times, keeping clear channels of communication open with industry is even more critical.

We must be candid about expected programs and production volumes in order for industry to prioritize their own investment effectively.

That communication does not change what is often a hard reality that must be faced and hard decisions that must be made. A healthy, productive, efficient and responsive industrial base is critical to the Army’s ability to generate combat power now and in the future. But it is clear that we are in a period of diminishing resources where the volume of work is not and likely will not be what it was during the last 12 years of conflict. It is critically important that industry makes the structural changes necessary to remain both efficient and responsive.

We have tried to be open to arrangements that might incentivize industry to capitalize on commercial or non-defense work in existing manufacturing to offset losses in defense.

Ground combat systems are too critical to our nation’s security for a budget cut to be compounded by a loss of buying power if costs rise dramatically as industry workload decreases. The most competitive companies will manage this effectively and continue to offer outstanding value for the precious resources we can apply to our programs.

To better understand where the industrial base may be experiencing stress up and down the supply chain, the Army conducted in-depth supplier evaluations by deliberately assessing supply chain risk for each of the major 1st and 2nd tier suppliers. All assessments concluded that along with certain specialized tank system-level manufacturing skills (e.g., special armor integration and fire control system alignment), armor, transmissions and FLIR are the most critical and fragile supplier capabilities within the tank industrial base. www.GCT-kmi.com

We will therefore continue to focus any congressional funding toward those key capabilities.

However, we are required to also sustain the very important capabilities of our arsenals and depots. In fact, as you may know, in the FY14 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress specifically directed the Secretary of the Army to assign arsenals sufficient workload to maintain critical capabilities.

As the Abrams moves into Network Package production in FY17, the manufacturing planning team has been directed to review each component on the tank to best allocate workload across the both commercial and organic manufacturing base to lower cost and ensure key capabilities are maintained.

www.GCT-kmi.com

As those manufacturing teams identify candidates for arsenal work loading, we will be continuously exploring new types of public/ private partnerships with our depots and arsenals (Watervliet and Rock Island Arsenals support the tank program) to maintain critical organic capabilities that can be combined with commercial best practices. The Honeywell/Anniston Army Depot partnership has been the model for such arrangements for the Abrams TIGER engine program, as well as the General Dynamics Land Systems/Anniston army depot for the Stryker program. Wartime demands have put our infrastructure in need of major rehabilitation and upgrades. We need to reset our factories, including our organic capabilities, with modern, more flexible equipment that increase efficiencies at lower volumes. O

GCT 5.5 | 19

Position, navigation and timing—building a better ‘you are here.’

By Hank Hogan, GCT Correspondent encrypted military signal. Individual soldiers may, for instance, carry You have to one of these receivers, preferring them due to familiarity, ease of use know where you are or the presence of additional capabilities not found on their military to tell where you’re going. And counterpart. Even given that, the number of Defense Departmentif you want to rendezvous with someone at a precise point in time or specific GPS receivers represents a logistics burden and makes it costly share data faster with them, you’d better know when you are as well. to update the technology.

Those realities and the need to be better at position, navigation and What’s more, a significant change to that technology is on the way. timing (PNT) are the reasons behind a new program of record, Assured Starting in fiscal year 2018, in compliance with Public Law 111-383, PNT, which falls within the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office for the Department of Defense must buy receivers that work with M-Code, Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors. Kevin Coggins, Assured a new GPS signal that offers improved anti-jamming and other PNT product manager, detailed its overall goals. enhancements. Use of the new signal means that every GPS receiver in “It’s meant to assure our access to PNT information for our systems the entire military will eventually need to be upgraded, which requires and our soldiers. And not just assure access to that PNT information touching every piece of gear and every soldier potentially multiple but ensure the integrity of that PNT information. We need to make times with a technology refresh. sure that we’ve got trusted PNT when we get it,” he said.

There’s another challenge associated with the widespread use of Those simple-sounding aims entail numerous challenges. To GPS. Loss of the signal can cause a hiccup that ripples understand them, it helps to go over a bit of history through communications, weapons, sensors and other and technology. Twenty or so years ago, the Army and systems. That signal loss could be due to tall buildings other branches of the military digitized and put GPS in an urban area or signal jamming, something that is technology to work. The result was improved PNT with easier to accomplish because the transmission arises orbiting GPS satellites providing signals from which from orbit. Given that signal strength falls with the pinpoint positioning information is derived. Although square of the distance from transmitter to receiver, it several factors can impact the results, position informawill always be the case that a ground-based jammer will tion is frequently better than within a meter accuracy. be in a good position to swamp a GPS signal.

Just as important in an increasingly interconnected In considering this situation, Coggins invoked Carl world, the signals provide time information accurate to von Clausewitz, the 19th century military theorist.

100 nanoseconds or better. That allows distant locations Kevin Coggins Although he lived at a time when the steam engine was to synchronize clocks more tightly. In turn, that ups the the latest innovation, the German general had somerate at which data can be transmitted. thing to say about today’s technology.

With better PNT, the U.S. military improved its capabilities. Data “He talked about identifying an enemy’s critical dependencies and flowed faster, units coordinated better and targeting was more precise. then turning those into critical vulnerabilities. If you take away the Another consequence was that the number of GPS receivers soared. things that we’re critically dependent on, you take away our ability to Today, the number is huge, as can be seen by how many receivers are conduct our mission. We view PNT as a critical dependency,” Coggins found on each soldier and an armored fighting vehicle found in the said. thousands in the Army.

The military is responding to these interlocking challenges with “We have soldiers that carry five GPS receivers,” Coggins said. “I Assured PNT, a solution set formed after studying the landscape. may have eight to 12 GPS receivers on different variants of the Stryker.”

Broadly speaking, the solutions involve the addition of capability vecNot all of these are DAGRs—Defense Advanced GPS Receivers. tors and the use of a systems-of-systems architecture. The first entails A fraction will be civilian-grade GPS receivers that do not use the 20 | GCT 5.5

www.GCT-kmi.com

adding ways to ensure position, navigation and timing information are maintained in the event of a loss of the GPS signal. As for the second, in implementation this means that one assured PNT device will be on a soldier or piece of equipment. Everything else will get information from this master.

The Army is shifting focus from GPS receivers to PNT user equipment, Coggins indicated. This will allow the Army to attain a resilient PNT capability.

To see how this will work and explore the benefits, consider how PNT information can be maintained after a loss of the GPS signal.

There are ways to keep highly accurate time other than by using a satellite signal. Atomic clocks, which mark time by measuring the emissions of atoms, are the world standard for timekeeping, with the best so accurate they only lose one second every five billion years. Achieving that kind of performance requires cooling the atoms and conducting the measurements in a well-controlled setting, neither of which is easy to do with objects carried by a dismounted soldier.

Fortunately, soldier- and vehicle-borne PNT doesn’t need that degree of extreme time accuracy. DARPA, the Department of Defense agency engaged in advanced research, is working on making atomic clocks as small and portable as a computer chip. DARPA also has programs that seek to create chip-sized gyroscopes and inertial measurement systems, which would provide portable and highly accurate position information. Assured PNT is partnering with DARPA in these efforts, according to Coggins.

As for the systems-of-systems concept, consider a Stryker. One new-generation device could acquire a PNT signal and could then distribute it throughout the armored vehicle. It would be able to do this because there are standard interfaces that GPS receivers use. Thus, a carefully designed master unit can stand in for the GPS receiver that a host of other devices expect to see.

“By having the ability to have this one box support those standard interfaces, we’ve found that it’s as easy as taking the old one off and plugging the new one in. We’ve found that it just works because we do a lot of work to verify interface compliance,” Coggins said.

The creation of a single point of failure in new devices is mitigated in two ways. One is through carrying the proper inventory so that a working device is available to be swapped in as needed. The second is by having a very low rate of failure. The current DAGR devices have that low rate; Coggins indicated that the successor, which is a DAGR Distributed Device (D3), is also proving to be as robust.

There’s a fiscal bonus to this distributed approach. Currently, a fleet of 3,500 Strykers carries some 11,500 or more GPS receivers. With this new approach, there will be 3,500 GPS receivers, as the ratio of vehicles to receivers will be 1:1. As Coggins noted, the result of the distributed approach is a reduction in maintenance and operational expenses by more than 67 percent. He added that this belt-tightening will be happening at the same time as an increase in capability.

For soldiers, a distributed approach will pay dividends in other ways. For instance, the Defense Department mandate is that soldiers must use keyed, and therefore secure, GPS receivers. This means that they must carry keys and batteries for multiple devices. That burden will be reduced when there is only one PNT device, not many.

On top of that, soldiers may not have to give up their beloved commercial units. Assured PNT is working with the science and technology communities to develop a prototype device that will interface with smartphones and other GPS-enabled commercial devices. Working behind the scenes, the device, which resembles a hockey puck, will supply a low-power wireless connection to these commercial devices. www.GCT-kmi.com

The Army is shifting focus from GPS receivers to PNT user equipment that will allow the Army to attain a resilient PNT capability. [Graphic courtesy of U.S. Army]

The hidden technology will assure any device being used has access to trusted PNT data without the soldier having to think about it or do anything differently.

According to Coggins, Assured PNT has four sub-programs. Two are focused on PNT user equipment, one for mounted and the other for dismounted situations. The remaining two sub-programs involve developing anti-jamming technology and what are called pseudolites, a contraction of the phrase “pseudo satellites.” The idea is to augment the orbiting constellation of satellites with transmission sources that are much closer to the user. Because the resulting signals will originate nearer to the receiver, they will be much harder to jam.

There already are commercial implementations of pseudolites, such as those from Locata Corp. of Canberra, Australia. Assured PNT has put out an RFP for its own pseudolite prototypes, with a contract due to be awarded in the fourth quarter of 2014.

As part of the implementation of the systems-of-systems concept and the rollout of the new technology, forces will be at the best PNT assurance level. That is, forces may be in a situation where they don’t need as much protection, referred to as PNT Assurance Level 0, all the way up to those circumstances in which the need is for the highest degree of protection, or PNT Assurance Level 3. The use of different levels of assurance will help smooth the transition and also help make it more cost-effective, a critical need given tight budget constraints.

This means the Army will have the capability to scale units to the level of protection they require, resulting in significantly less cost for the taxpayer, according to Coggins.

In speaking of the future of Assured PNT and the rollout of solutions to the challenges of positioning, navigation and timing, he said, “There’s a window of time over the next several years, stretching all the way out to the 2020 timeframe, that cover how these technologies are going to start with some high-visibility demonstrations and field deployments.”

As Coggins said, “We’re not going to move slowly.” O

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at jeffm@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

GCT 5.5 | 21

Blast-Attenuating

Seats

Science and technology save lives from hidden threats.

By Scott Nance, GCT Correspondent

With energy- or blast-attenuating seating installed in select ground vehicles, the U.S. military has been increasing survivability of its vehicle-based troops one seat at a time.

Installed in mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles and some other vehicles, these unique seats use technology to help keep personnel riding within a vehicle from feeling the full effects of an improvised explosive device (IED), mine or other blast, should their vehicle encounter one.

“They’re absolutely critical for the survivability of the occupant. It is what the occupant is riding on and, essentially, it is the last line of defense in terms of protecting the soldier or the occupant because of the survivability features on the seat,” said Mike McDermott, program director for vehicle protection at BAE Systems, which has supplied blast-attenuating seating on MRAPs and the Bradleys. “It essentially provides the ultimate solution in terms of survivability in a blast event or a vertical attenuation-type event that the occupant’s going to see.”

These seats have saved American lives—and could save even more if the U.S. military were to expand their use on even more ground platforms, according to executives at companies that make the seats.

“Initially, the seats were deployed in MRAPs and light combat vehicles as a means of defeating overmatch conditions in the field.

This is a trend that is continuing, and with good reason. However, the place where they would have the biggest impact is in commonuse platforms like medium and heavy cargo trucks,” said Jim Carter, director of product development for survivability at QinetiQ North America, a Waltham, Mass.-based contractor which has been working on developing and deploying blast-attenuating seating technology for more than a decade. “In Iraq and Afghanistan, a high percentage of casualties were non-combat personnel on resupply missions. Expanding the requirement to these vehicles will provide those operators with enhanced protection.”

QinetiQ North America has been working with the U.S. military since 2003 to research the technology behind blast-attenuating seating, Carter said.

22 | GCT 5.5

“Starting in 2006, QinetiQ North America began refining and adapting the approach to better integrate it into the cramped spaces within vehicles. This has allowed us to meet a variety of operational and spatial requirements for vehicle retrofits and survivability upgrades,” he said.

It is likely that energy-attenuating seats will become more common as U.S. forces continue to battle asymmetrical threats, Carter predicted.

“The need to reduce vehicle weight and power requirements can come at a price in terms of armor and external blast protection. By integrating energy attenuation into the seats, lighter vehicles can be made more survivable and heavy vehicles less vulnerable to overmatch. In the end, the goal is to protect the warfighter,” he said.

BAE Systems’ McDermott said his company is working with combat vehicle teams, as well as light-, medium- and heavy-tactical vehicle teams within the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, to look at expanded deployment of blast-attenuating seats through “survivability upgrades or new vehicle configurations.”

Industry Trends Carter said that he sees a recent trend toward rating and adapting the seats to more general uses.

“Most of the early applications of the seating systems were responding to an urgent need. In these cases, the seats were generally designed to meet a specific change in velocity with a 50th percentile male occupant. In some cases, this meant that a lighter occupant did not receive the same protection in a particular event, or there was no protection provided in a lesser event,” he said. “To meet this, there has been work in the industry to provide active suspension systems with improved ride comfort. The downside to this approach is that they typically require power to operate. This adds a burden on the platforms at a time when the Army is looking to reduce power demands and better manage onboard resources. QinetiQ North America’s BlastRide technology provides active-like performance with a passive www.GCT-kmi.com

system that can adapt to various occupants and improve rideability without requiring power.”

Meanwhile, Santee, Calif.-based manufacturer MasterCraft Military has seen another trend with these seating systems, according to Kelli Willmore, the company’s vice president of business development.

“MasterCraft is currently witnessing quite a few of the ‘get rich quick’ seating companies exiting the business as large MRAP uparmored vehicles are no longer the choice of ‘boots on the ground,’” Willmore said. “Lighter and faster vehicles are the current choice of the armed forces, which has translated to needing a lighter, more affordable seat offering energy/blast-attenuating properties and ballistic protection.”

QinetiQ North America has more than 200 of its BlastRide seats (in three different variants) deployed on vehicles operated by NATO partner nations in Afghanistan, according to Carter.

“In a blast event, the system automatically resets, making it capable of handling both primary impulse and secondary impact.

This allows the seat to provide both protection and rideability for the warfighter, improving their effectiveness at the objective,” he said. “In addition, QinetiQ North America developed a number of innovations that better address actual use issues seen by the warfighter, including dispersed padding to allow room for gear such as hydration packs or rucksacks. This ensures that the occupant is seated properly to maximize both protection and comfort, while minimizing the need to ‘gear up’ when the vehicle reaches its objective.

“QinetiQ North America also recognized that most vehicle applications would not be a one-size-fits-all solution,” Carter added.

“Space claims (and requirements) vary dramatically from vehicle to vehicle and even within a vehicle. For example, the space available for the driver seat in a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle is largely different than the space in a Stryker. Within the Stryker, there are at least three different space claims (driver, troop and gunner).

What QinetiQ North America does is adapt the technology to the given space claim. In this way, we can maximize the protection level for every occupant while minimizing the impact on vehicle volume and weight.”

MasterCraft’s energy-attenuating products are a more affordable and lighter option to the “complicated and heavy ‘single event’ energy-attenuating seats currently found in the marketplace,” according to Willmore.

“MasterCraft’s simplicity in design provides an easy-to-install, lightweight product that performs and exceeds the outlined [vehicle manufacturer] requirements while keeping the competitive bottom line and budgetary restrictions in mind,” she said. “Additionally, MasterCraft’s technology allows for the product to be rebuilt or even replaced at a fraction of the cost over other seating systems, thus further reducing the overall cost of this important safety system over the life cycle of the vehicle.”

BAE Systems’ McDermott touts his company’s experience in aviation and transferred technology from crashworthy aviation seats into ground vehicle seats.

“Our seats, in general, go through rigorous testing before they’re ever put in theater to prove out the capabilities. They’re very, very capable,” he said. “We have a patented energy-attenuating system that is proprietary to BAE Systems and provides us with what we believe is a differentiator in the marketplace.” BAE Systems maintains an “occupant-centric approach” to developing its blast-attenuating seats, McDermott said. www.GCT-kmi.com

“We realize that the seat can’t do everything on its own,” he said, adding that “our system has to be a part of a total-vehicle system” which includes floor and seat integration and “how everything ties together.”

“One of the differentiators is that we look at the whole-system approach. We don’t look at it as a stand-alone seat. We look at the total integration of our system into a vehicle platform,” McDermott added.

BAE Systems also employs extensive modeling and simulation in its development of the technology, he said. “It provides us a very, very strong understanding of how our seats can perform in live fire or applications that the vehicle can see out in theater,” he added.

Future Technology The manufacturers are working on their systems to contain costs and make them lighter and even more effective.

Containing the costs of seats “is definitely a priority, as well as survivability and also comfort,” BAE Systems’ McDermott said.

“When we do our initial design phase, we try to take into account all aspects in our initial designs that will optimize our design for lightweight materials, low-cost designs and, ultimately, provide us with the best survivability available,” he said. “We do design-to-cost efforts—what we call DTC efforts—to make sure that when we do our initial design and testing, we’ve looked at all aspects of providing a low-cost, highly robust system that can withstand the requirements that are put out by our customer, which would be the Army or Marine Corps.”

BAE Systems makes every effort, upfront, to “have a very, very strong understanding of the requirements so in our initial designs we can make sure that we have an optimized seating solution right off the bat,” McDermott said.

It’s “always a trade-off” between cost control and working with lighter-weight materials, he said.

“You have to manage the balance of putting in the lightest-weight materials versus putting in the lowest-cost materials. We’re always looking at managing that balance,” he added.

QinetiQ North America is “always looking for ways to improve our seat performance while keeping the impact on the platform (in both cost and weight) down to a minimum,” Carter said.

“We are currently working on designs that will reduce our overall weight 25 percent while providing the same level of protection as our current models. In addition to that, we have been working towards better off-axis performance to protect against side blasts and improve federal motor vehicle safety standards performance. For cost control, our manufacturing team works to streamline the fabrication process and drive down costs,” he added.

Although MasterCraft has done “an exceptional job” of protecting a vehicle occupant’s torso, the next generation of safety seating systems will also need to concentrate on protecting an occupant’s limbs to truly increase a warfighter’s chances for survival in a conflict environment, Willmore said.

“Advancements in protecting the entire body will result from improved occupant envelope designs that integrate blast attenuation, deflection, and occupant leg and arm containment during an event,” she added. O For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at jeffm@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

GCT 5.5 | 23

Arming the warfighter for today’s multi-terrain battlefield and missions.

By Peter Buxbaum, GCT Correspondent Dekel, a project manager at Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) and a forAs warfighting has evolved in the last decade and a half, so has mer special forces officer in the Israel Defense Forces. “In the past, solthe conception of warfighters and their weapons. Warfighters these diers might go out on a 16-hour mission, do their work, and come back days are managed as systems that include the integration of weapons, to base to reallocate their ammunition and equipment for the next ammunition and accessories, even down to the ensemble the warfmission. Future missions are likely to be longer, 72 hours, a week or ighter wears, from helmet, armor and uniform to sunglasses and knee a month, and without the opportunity to change equippads. All these items allow warfighters to fight in variment. These conditions require more capable weapons.” ous environments, especially in urban areas.

“Individual solider weapons like the M4 carbine Likewise, the warfighter-carried weapon is not are continually being enhanced,” said Altavilla. “Rail merely an armament—it is a platform. The integration systems have made weapons modular as soldiers can of rail systems on weapons has enabled warfighters to swap out different sensors and designators as missions switch out accessories as needed for particular situarequire. The Army has introduced close combat optics tions, perhaps most notably for night vision equipment. onto the M4 via the rail system, which has allowed Weapons will continue to evolve along those lines to more effective engagement of adversaries at longer integrate a variety of new capabilities, including nondistances.” Alion provides science and technology suplethal options. port to several Department of Defense organizations Today’s soldier, and moreso, the soldier of the Amihai Dekel in the armaments arena. One study Alion conducted future, will be called upon to perform longer, more brought about improvements in the dust resistance, and therefore the challenging and more diverse tasks in a variety of different environreliability, of the M4. ments and situations.

The company that invented the standard 1913 Picatinny rail system “Weapons have become smaller, lighter, more modular and more for the M4 rifle is Knight’s Armament Co. “That has been our biggest capable,” said Pete Altavilla, assistant vice president for program mancontribution,” said C. Reed Knight III, the company’s vice president of agement at Alion Science & Technology. “They are capable of extended sales and marketing. “We have delivered over one million of those to standoff ranges and precision strikes with a minimum of collateral the U.S. Army and it has made a pretty big impact.” damage. They also provide the ability to fight under all weather condiBefore the advent of the 1913 rail, accessories had to be tions and at night, while many others can’t.” affixed to weapons permanently or in some sort of ad hoc fashion.

“The combat theater of the future could include everything from Some armaments manufacturers had their own proprietary rail open territory to close quarter battle in a single operation,” said Amihai

24 | GCT 5.5

www.GCT-kmi.com

systems which didn’t include interoperability with other platforms.

“The 1913 Picatinny rail was standardized not only on the M4 and the M16,” said Knight, “but to all platforms and weapons systems and even internationally.”

One trend that has become apparent in the realm of solider weapons is that armaments originally designed for special units or specialized personnel such as as snipers have transitioned over to more generalized use. One example is Knight’s M110, the first semiautomatic gun built as a sniper weapon from the beginning.

“Accuracy is what characterizes a sniper rifle,” Knight said. “Traditionally it has been difficult to achieve a balance between accuracy and reliability. But that is what we accomplished with the M110. It took over 10 years of development.”

Reliability in this context includes being able to accelerate the firing schedule beyond what is usual for sniper fire. That is the attraction of the M110 for the larger army. Since it can get off more shots than the typical sniper rifle with greater accuracy, it has found its place among more generalized soldier usage.

“It became more of a weapon for a designated marksman role,” said Knight. “They can get more follow-up shots than the usual sniper weapon. This is a product that changed what a soldier can do in the field. The Army wanted fast follow-up shots in target-rich urban environments and for that, they needed a higher firing rate as well as capacity.”

Another example of this phenomenon is ArmaLite Inc.’s AR-10.

“The AR-10 design is an ArmaLite original and is world-renowned for use as a precision rifle in a sniper support role,” said Walt Hasser, ArmaLite’s vice president of product management. “It is fast becoming the sniper’s primary choice of firearm on the modern battlefield.”

At the present time, ArmaLite does not have products in the U.S. military arsenal. “However, many of our designs are suited specifically for that application,” said Hasser. “The AR-10 is a versatile platform that gives the soldier extended range and power without a severe increase in weight or maneuverability. The added advantage of maintaining familiar architecture to the M4 or M16 keeps training requirements at a reasonable level. In any operating environment where engagement distances average beyond 300 meters, the AR-10’s 7.62-by-51 mm NATO cartridge outperforms its 5.56-by-45 mm counterpart in effective range, accuracy and lethality.”

ArmaLite has sold the AR-10 in the domestic commercial market as well as to domestic and international law enforcement organizations. “The AR-10 was recently adopted by certain police units in Brazil and has been very effective there in its role as a primary patrol rifle,” said Hasser.

Dekel sees IWI’s weapons as suitable to meet many of the demands of future combat conditions. One example is the Negev machine gun, originally manufactured as a 5.56 caliber weapon and which recently was adapted to 7.62 caliber.

“The Negev was designed to be a manhandled weapon,” said Dekel. “Soldiers can run with it because of its light weight. It weighs a little over 8 kilos (around 18 pounds), and has low recoil and a high rate of fire. The Negev is an operational machine gun that can be used for heavy fire support to maneuvering forces, yet it can also be operated one-handed. The barrels change easily and if the operator is out of machine belts, it can take a 5.56 magazine.”

IWI’s Tavor and X95 rifles are examples of more capable and diversified weapons coming in smaller packages. “We understood we needed to make smaller weapons,” said Dekel, “and we came to the conclusion that the bullpup configuration solves that problem.” www.GCT-kmi.com

It goes without saying that a weapon has to be accurate, lightweight and reliable. Integrating new systems or innovations can sometimes be challenging due to the sheer number of individual weapons in inventory. [Photo courtesy of DoD]

In a bullpup configuration, the magazine is located behind the trigger, shortening the overall length of the weapon while keeping the length of the barrel.

“The center of weight is towards the back. This allows the operator to handle the weapon more smoothly when standing or prone,” said Dekel. “It makes the weapon more suitable to close-quarters battle. The weapons have an ambidextrous safety catch and the magazine can be changed from the left or the right. The Tavor, because it is in a bullpup configuration, is a short weapon with a long barrel.

The size of the weapon makes it efficient for close-quarters battle and the longer barrel allows the user to deal with longer distances.”

IWI’s Dan sniper rifle was designed to address shots at longer and shorter distances. “This reflects our understanding of the modern battlefield,” said Dekel. “Shooters need to deal with both sides of the spectrum. Close-quarters combat requires precise shooting at shorter distances. The Dan 338 provides precision at all distances in a weapon that weighs under 15 pounds.”

IWI’s legacy weapon, the world-renowned Uzi, has also been upgraded over the years. What started out as an Israeli paratrooper weapon has now been adapted to a variety of special forces as well as homeland security missions. “It is a small weapon with a high rate of fire,” said Dekel. “We have made it more lightweight by incorporating more polymers and easier to use by applying ergonomics. The weapon is easy to handle while climbing up and down and can be worn under a civilian suit with the stock folded.”

ArmaLite’s engineering teams have been busy increasing the functionality and features of the company’s product lines, noted Hasser. “They are creating concepts that solve problems our endusers are faced with,” he said. “In the last year we have developed a recoil management capability that allows shooters to easily tune the system to their individual ammunition and shooting styles by adjusting the gas system and compensator. This allows the shooter to stay on target by recovering instantly during rapid fire strings, a feature appreciated by competitors and professional operators alike.

The same system allows the shooter to adjust rate of fire to be optimal for suppressed mode shooting, adverse conditions or a specific ammunition type.”

ArmaLite has also enhanced the architecture of its firearms to be optimized for modern shooting techniques and compatibility with current accessories. “Our hand guards are extended in length and reduced in outside diameter, providing a very comfortable grip, more surface area for braced shooting and maximum rail and keymod space for mounting optics and accessories,” said Hasser. “We’ve partnered with the best accessory providers in the business for pistol GCT 5.5 | 25

grips and buttstocks that incorporate modern design and technology.

Our guns are light, fast, accurate and comfortable to shoot.”

ArmaLite is constantly pushing its designers and developers to create next-level products that eliminate problems end-users face.

“In firearm design, that always means lighter, faster, stronger and more accurate,” said Hasser. “It also means versatility and multifunction features. Our designs integrate advanced coatings, materials and features that create better reliability with less maintenance and increased accuracy with less weight.”

The sniper rifle of the future, according to Altavilla, will be equipped with embedded electronic fire control systems. “It will take into account environmental factors, such as wind speed and humidity, all of which are currently calculated manually or by working with a spotter,” he said.

Altavilla also expects weapons to be equipped for scalable effects.

“We will see a lot more in the realm of lethal versus nonlethal and disabling technologies in a single system,” he said. “This will give the soldier the ability to deal with different situations without necessarily having to use lethal force.”

In the near term, this could be accomplished with an accessory that is attached to the individual weapon, such as a laser, that has the effect of disorienting or dazzling, or some sort of sonic device.

“In the longer term,” said Altavilla, “these options will likely be more integrated on the weapon platform.”

Optics will become more sophisticated with the addition of capabilities that will allow for the acquisition and transmission of tactical

information over tactical networks. “Weapons will be equipped with more powerful electronics for fire control and will evolve as a sensor platform as well as a lethal instrument,” said Altavilla.

“We are increasing our capability to provide a true custom shop by investing in our existing Premier Services Division,” said Hasser.

“This advancement elevates our research and development capacity and fosters an environment of constant evolution within our product lines and our company. The agility of the Premier Services Division allows us to get in and out of the development cycle quickly and integrate concepts laterally into existing product lines without pulling resources away from production. The Premier Services Division gives us an avenue to support the niche needs of very specific end-users.”

Knight would like to see the Army become more open to engineering improvements suggested by the company. “We put in over 30 engineering change proposals on the M110 over the seven years it has been in use and the Army did not accept any of them,” he said. “It wasn’t for budget reasons, because we also made cost improvements.

The Army could have a much better rifle. The Army needs to do more to motivate industry to make improvements.” O

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at jeffm@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

?

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

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

KMI’S family of Publications Geospatial intelliGence Forum

Technology

& Intel for the

Maneuver Warfighter

Ground combat & tactical isr military advanced education military loGistics Forum

SPECIAL SECTION: NED MANNED-UNMAN TEAMING

www.GCT-kmi.com

UAS Leader Col. Tim Baxter

May 2014 3 Issue

Volume 5,

Project U.S. Army Manager Office UAS Project

UAS O Enduring ISR O Tactical O Ammo Vehicles Rapidly Deployable O Wheeled Army Aviation

REF

military inFormation technoloGy military medical & veterans aFFairs Forum military traininG technoloGy

The Communication

Medium for Navy

PEOs

navy air/sea peo Forum special operations technoloGy u.s. coast Guard & border security

SPECIAL SECTION:

Launch and Recovery

World’s Largest

Submarine Facilitator Rear Adm. David Johnson Program Executive Officer Homeland Security, PEO Submarines Maritime

Distributed

Special Ops

Magazine

m www.NPEO-kmi.co June 2014 3

Volume 2, Issue

2013

SOCOM Protection & CBRN

PROGRAM MANAGEM ENT UPDATES

Response

O UUVs O Fire SuppressionProtection Helicopter Strategic Partnership Weapons O Precision Strike

SOF Enhancer Adm. Bill H. McRav en Comman der Special Operatio ns Comman d

www.SOTECH-km i.com

May 2013

Volume

Infrastructure Guardian

11, Issue

4

Rapidly Deployabl Robotics Technologe Networks O SOF y O Global Light SOF TrainingVehicles

Suzanne E. Spaulding Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate DHS

www.CGF-kmi.com

May 2014

Volume 6, Issue

3

DHS and Big Data O First Unmanned Capabilities Responder Gear O Corrosion O CBRN Detection Control

To learn about advertising opportunities, contact Publisher Conni Kerrigan at connik@kmimediagroup.com or 301.670.5700

26 | GCT 5.5

www.GCT-kmi.com

The advertisers index is provided as a service to our readers. KMI cannot be held responsible for discrepancies due to last-minute changes or alterations.

GCT RESOURCE CENTER Advertisers Index

Calendar

Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. ................................C4 www.ballaerospace.com Kaplan University....................................................................7 www.military.kaplan.edu Nammo.....................................................................................5 www.nammo.com UAV Solutions.........................................................................19 www.uavsolutions.com

October 13-15, 2014 AUSA Washington, D.C. www.ausa.org

December 1-4, 2014 I/ITSEC Orlando, Fla. www.iitsec.org

November 17-19, 2014 Expeditionary Warfare Conference Norfolk, Va. www.ndia.org/meetings/5700

December 4, 2014 C4ISR Breakfast Arlington, Va. www.ndia.org/meetings/592B

NEVER STOP LEARNING Considering a new degree? Searching for a new career field? Advising your troops on their education options? You need Military Advanced Education’s 2014 Guide to Colleges & Universities!

Check out the searchable database at www.mae-kmi.com for the details prospective students and advisors are looking for!

• Access all the survey answers from the hundreds of schools that participated in MAE’s 2014 Guide to Colleges & Universities • New and improved design makes it easier than ever to find what you’re looking for • Search the database by school name, state, online or brick-and-mortar schools • Compare and contrast institutions with all the info MAE used to score and designate our top schools

www.GCT-kmi.com

GCT 5.5 | 27

INDUSTRY INTERVIEW

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

W. Garth Smith Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer MetaVR Inc. Q: In what direction are your U.S. Army and Marine customers pushing technology and solutions?

A: We see the Army and Marines pushing to extend the capabilities of their JTAC simulation for close air support training with an emphasis on greater realism.

Q: Over the past few years, there has been an increase in activity in Africa.

How much emphasis are you placing on increasing your library for the continent?

A: We have built a 3-D virtual representation of the Somalian port city of Kismayo, which contains a variety of key environments for training, from dense urban neighborhoods to a built-up port area to a commercial airport. Customers can visualize the terrain in the latest version of our IG, Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG).

We populated the virtual city with hundreds of geographically specific culture models of buildings and other structures built from ground-level photographs taken on the streets of Kismayo. Due to the lack of publicly available photographs of Kismayo, we hired an in-country photographer to take thousands of high-resolution geo-tagged photographs, which our modeling team used for geolocating and modeling the culture. We built the terrain with our Terrain Tools for Esri ArcGiS from 50 cm per-pixel satellite imagery city coverage, blended into 15-meter natural view imagery of all of Somalia.

Because of its highly detailed geospecific nature, the terrain can be used for a variety of AFRICOM training purposes.

Q: The Army is increasingly experimenting with manned-unmanned teaming between Apache attack helicopters and unmanned systems. Is MetaVR a part of that project?

A: Our customer built their mannedunmanned teaming (MUM-T) simulation lab using our visuals for both their 28 | GCT 5.5

helicopter simulator and UAV virtual environment to facilitate interoperability and testing between the two platforms, using common 3-D terrain. The resulting integration helped verify and enable the helicopter pilot to, among other things, steer the camera payload and set waypoints for the flight path through a protocol that was verified through the Manned Unmanned Systems Integration Capability (MUSIC) demonstrations.

Our IG can stream real-time HDquality simulated video with KLV metadata using the H.264 protocol, which is indiscernible in composition from the real UAV video. This has enormous implications for the Army. Recently, the Army chose to team the Gray Eagle UAV as an armed scout with the Apache. We provide the virtual environment as an embedded training component for the universal ground control station that controls the Gray Eagle. These efforts recently resulted in the single largest sale in our company’s history.

Q: How does MetaVR match its R&D to what the military customer is going to be looking for one or two years out?

A: Key customers identify their needs far in advance of the marketplace by requesting certain capabilities. For example, our round-earth Metadesic terrain format was based on our UAV customers’ desire for whole-earth coverage. Because MetaVR does not perform contract labor software development, customers are often

willing to approach us with requests for important capabilities that would normally require a contract to implement with other vendors.

Similarly, our JTAC simulation capabilities resulted from a groundswell of feature requests from key customers. We embarked on R&D in 2006, which ultimately resulted in 40 percent of our revenue this year coming from JTACrelated simulation sales. Fortunately, our profitability enables us to sustain such development over several years before we see substantial sales from it.

Q: How are your terrain and model packages offered, and can they be updated?

A: Our Metadesic terrain format consists of a whole-earth model comprised of discrete terrain tiles that can be individually recompiled. This means that as new imagery becomes available, we can recompile just the areas that have changed, rather than rebuild a monolithic terrain model.

Our terrain model is routinely updated not only with imagery and elevation data, but also with 3-D content such as towns, cities and airports.

Often requests come from customers for terrain of some area on which they want to conduct training scenarios. Once we build terrain for a specific purpose, that terrain usually becomes available to all our U.S. government, NATO agency or contractor customers. Likewise, we update our 3-D model libraries in a similar manner, often from customer requests.

Once we build a given model, we add it to our model libraries, thus making it available to all our customers.

Customers can update our terrain by extending it with their own terrain, which can be built with our plugin for ArcGIS from their source data or OpenFlight databases converted to our terrain format. Customers can also add culture to the terrain and create patternof-life training scenarios with our new Scenario Editor. O

wgsmith@metavr.com www.GCT-kmi.com

December 2014 Vol. 5, Issue 6

Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

Brig. Gen. Michael S. Groen Director Marine Corps Intelligence Headquarters

Features Deployable Water Systems As much as anything else, lack of potable water for any deployed force is a point of failure if not adequately addressed.

Tactical Aviation Modernizing, improving protection, adding lethality and increasing the range of transport and attack helicopters alike.

Aerostats Making an old idea new again by putting lighterthan-air ships above borders or bases providing force protection.

Who’s Who Special Supplement

Weapon Sights Rounds on target is the name of the game.

Combat Medicine Seconds are important at the point of injury for a warfighter, and industry is delivering lifesaving responses.

Who’s Who at the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence This special section includes an interview with Maj. Gen. Austin S. Miller, commander of the Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE), along with a pictorial review of the leadership and team that make up the MCoE.

Bonus Distribution Special Operations Medical Association Symposium

Insertion order deadline: November 18, 2014  Ad materials deadline: November 25, 2014