• Military Suppliers & News | Armed Forces International
  delicious tags: suppliers industrial military defense

permalink: link(z): Y2010 | M03 | D62 | L1
posted under: Defense, del.icio.us
tagged: Defense, Industrial, military

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

Business firms generally choose to compete within one or two areas of strength. These areas of strength are often referred to as distinctive competencies, core competencies, or competitive priorities. Among the options for competition are price (cost), quality, delivery, service, and flexibility. An ever-increasing number of firms are choosing to compete in the area of flexibility. Generally, this has meant that the firm's major strength is flexibility of product (able to easily make changes in the product) or flexibility of volume (able to easily absorb large shifts in demand). Firms that are able to do this are said to have flexible capacity, the ability to operate manufacturing equipment at different production rates by varying staffing levels and operating hours, or starting and stopping at will. Specifically, manufacturing flexibility consists of three components: (1) the flexibility to produce a variety of products using the same machines and to produce the same products on different machines; (2) the flexibility to produce new products on existing machines; and (3) the flexibility of the machines to accommodate changes in the design of products.

↑ top

Flexible Manufacturing Systems

A flexible manufacturing system (FMS) is a group of numerically-controlled machine tools, interconnected by a central control system. The various machining cells are interconnected, via loading and unloading stations, by an automated transport system. Operational flexibility is enhanced by the ability to execute all manufacturing tasks on numerous product designs in small quantities and with faster delivery. It has been described as an automated job shop and as a miniature automated factory. Simply stated, it is an automated production system that produces one or more families of parts in a flexible manner. Today, this prospect of automation and flexibility presents the possibility of producing nonstandard parts to create a competitive advantage.

The concept of flexible manufacturing systems evolved during the 1960s when robots, programmable controllers, and computerized numerical controls brought a controlled environment to the factory floor in the form of numerically-controlled and direct-numerically-controlled machines.

For the most part, FMS is limited to firms involved in batch production or job shop environments. Normally, batch producers have two kinds of equipment from which to choose: dedicated machinery or unautomated, general-purpose tools. Dedicated machinery results in cost savings but lacks flexibility. General purpose machines such as lathes, milling machines, or drill presses are all costly, and may not reach full capacity. Flexible manufacturing systems provide the batch manufacturer with another option—one that can make batch manufacturing just as efficient and productive as mass production.

↑ top

Objectives of FMS

Stated formally, the general objectives of an FMS are to approach the efficiencies and economies of scale normally associated with mass production, and to maintain the flexibility required for small- and medium-lot-size production of a variety of parts.

Two kinds of manufacturing systems fall within the FMS spectrum. These are assembly systems, which assemble components into final products and forming systems, which actually form components or final products. A generic FMS is said to consist of the following components:

• A set of work stations containing machine tools that do not require significant set-up time or change-over between successive jobs. Typically, these machines perform milling, boring, drilling, tapping, reaming, turning, and grooving operations.
• A material-handling system that is automated and flexible in that it permits jobs to move between any pair of machines so that any job routing can be followed.
• A network of supervisory computers and microprocessors that perform some or all of the following tasks: (a) directs the routing of jobs through the system; (b) tracks the status of all jobs in progress so it is known where each job is to go next; (c) passes the instructions for the processing of each operation to each station and ensures that the right tools are available for the job; and (d) provides essential monitoring of the correct performance of operations and signals problems requiring attention.
• Storage, locally at the work stations, and/or centrally at the system level.
• The jobs to be processed by the system. In operating an FMS, the worker enters the job to be run at the supervisory computer, which then downloads the part programs to the cell control or NC controller.

↑ top

Benefits of FMS

The potential benefits from the implementation and utilization of a flexible manufacturing system have been detailed by numerous researchers on the subject. A review of the literature reveals many tangible and intangible benefits that FMS users extol. These benefits include:

• less waste
• fewer workstations
• quicker changes of tools, dies, and stamping machinery
• reduced downtime
• better control over quality
• reduced labor
• more efficient use of machinery
• work-in-process inventory reduced
• increased capacity
• increased production flexibility

The savings from these benefits can be sizable. Enough so that Ford has poured $4,400,000 into overhauling its Torrence Avenue plant in Chicago, giving it flexible manufacturing capability. This will allow the factory to add new models in as little as two weeks instead of two months or longer. Richard Truett reports, in Automotive News, that the flexible manufacturing systems used in five of Ford Motor Company's plants will yield a $2.5 billion savings. Truett also reports that, by the year 2010, Ford will have converted 80 percent of its plants to flexible manufacturing.

↑ top

Limitations of FMS

Despite these benefits, FMS does have certain limitations. In particular, this type of system can only handle a relatively-narrow range of part varieties, so it must be used for similar parts (family of parts) that require similar processing. Due to increased complexity and cost, an FMS also requires a longer planning and development period than traditional manufacturing equipment.

Equipment utilization for the FMS sometimes is not as high as one would expect. Japanese firms tend to have a much higher equipment utilization rate than U.S. manufacturers utilizing FMS. This is probably a result of U.S. users' attempt to utilize FMS for high-volume production of a few parts rather than for a high-variety production of many parts at a low cost per unit. U.S. firms average ten types of parts per machine, compared to ninety-three types of parts per machine in Japan.

Other problems can result from a lack of technical literacy, management incompetence, and poor implementation of the FMS process. If the firm misidentifies its objectives and manufacturing mission, and does not maintain a manufacturing strategy that is consistent with the firm's overall strategy, problems are inevitable. It is crucial that a firm's technology acquisition decisions be consistent with its manufacturing strategy.

If a firm chooses to compete on the basis of flexibility rather than cost or quality, it may be a candidate for flexible manufacturing, especially if it is suited for low- to mid-volume production. This is particularly true if the firm is in an industry where products change rapidly, and the ability to introduce new products may be more important than minimizing cost. In this scenario, scale is no longer the main concern and size is no longer a barrier to entry.

However, an FMS may not be appropriate for some firms. Since new technology is costly and requires several years to install and become productive, it requires a supportive infrastructure and the allocation of scarce resources for implementation. Frankly, many firms do not possess the necessary resources. Economically justifying an FMS can be a difficult task—especially since cost accounting tends to be designed for mass production of a mature product, with known characteristics, and a stable technology. Therefore, it is difficult to give an accurate indication of whether flexible manufacturing is justified. The question remains of how to quantify the benefits of flexibility. In addition, rapidly-changing technology and shortened product life cycles can cause capital equipment to quickly become obsolete.

For other firms, their products may not require processes at the technological level of an FMS. IBM found that a redesigned printer was simple enough for high-quality manual assembly and that the manual assembly could be achieved at a lower cost than automated assembly. Potential FMS users should also consider that some of the costs traditionally incurred in manufacturing may actually be higher in a flexible automated system than in conventional manufacturing. Although the system is continually self-monitoring, maintenance costs are expected to be higher. Energy costs are likely to be higher despite more efficient use of energy. Increased machine utilization can result in faster deterioration of equipment, providing a shorter than average economic life. Finally, personnel training costs may prove to be relatively high.

For some firms, worker resistance is a problem. Workers tend to perceive automation as an effort to replace them with a tireless piece of metal that does not eat, take breaks, or go to the bathroom. To combat this perception, many firms stress that workers are upgraded as a result of FMS installation, and that no loss of jobs ensues. Despite any problems, use of flexible manufacturing systems should continue to grow as more firms are forced to compete on a flexibility basis and as technology advances. It has shown many advantages in low- to mid-volume, high-mix production applications. Future systems will probably see lower and lower quantities per batch. FMS can somewhat shift emphasis in manufacturing from large-scale, repetitive production of standard products to highly-automated job shops featuring the manufacture of items in small batches for specific customers. The increased availability of flexible manufacturing technology will also give multi-product firms more choices of how to design production facilities, how to assign products to facilities, and how to share capacity among products.

permalink: Flexible Manufacturing Systems
posted under: Automation, Manufacturing
tagged: Automation, automotive, engineering, inventory, lean, Manufacturing, material-handling, robotics

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

• Enriching the customer. This requires a quick understanding of the unique requirements of individual customers and rapidly meeting those requirements.
• Cooperating to enhance competitiveness. This includes better intraorganizational cooperation and may extend to interorganizational cooperation—such as supplier partnerships and virtual relationships.
• Organizing to master change and uncertainty. This involves utilizing new organizational structures provided by such techniques as concurrent engineering and cross-functional teams.
• Leveraging the impact of people and information. This places great emphasis on the development of employees through education, training, and empowerment.

Implementing Agile Manufacturing

Finally, the two authors prescribe a series of internal and external initiatives for successful implementation of agile manufacturing. The internal initiatives include the following:

• Business process reengineering. This is the rethinking and radical redesign of business processes so that dramatic improvements in critical areas can be achieved.
• Management planning and execution tools. This involves the use of such techniques as manufacturing resource planning, real-time manufacturing execution systems, production planning configurators, and real-time threaded scheduling.
• Design for manufacturability/assembly. The results include modular products that allow for future upgrades, fewer parts for enhanced reliability, and recycling.
• Reorganization processes. Process reorganization could include the use of flexible manufacturing systems or cellular manufacturing.
• Intraorganizational cooperation. This form of cooperation calls for the use of employee empowerment/involvement techniques and employee education and training.

External initiatives include:

• Interorganizational cooperation. This means early supplier involvement in product and process designs, training suppliers in such activities as vendor-managed inventories, and joint research efforts.
• Supply chain practices. The use of outsourcing, schedule sharing, and postponement of product design are included.
• Information technology. Some companies are using technology to improve supply chain improvement. For example, the move from centralized, mainframe computing to decentralized, client and server computing.
• Point-of-sale data collection. Reductions in order entry time are being achieved with electronic data interchange (EDI), radio frequency communications tools, bar coding, and electronic commerce.

The authors feel that flexibility provided by agility may emerge as the most important competitive priority of the early twenty-first century, as competition is expected to ensure that manufacturers will increasingly need to adapt readily to market shifts. Ford Motor Company has reportedly invested $350 million in new, agile manufacturing equipment at its Cleveland Engine Plant. A Ford Vice President describes the move as the heart of lean manufacturing.

permalink: Beyond Flexible Manufacturing: Agile Manufacturing
posted under: Automation, Manufacturing
tagged: Automation, engineering, flexible-technology, inventory, Manufacturing, material-handling, robotics, sourcing

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

British company BAE received the award from the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Life Cycle Management Command. Under the $74 million contract, BAE will procure long-lead material kits to support a rebuild of Bradley vehicles damaged in combat zones.

BAE says the new contract will fund the purchase of 101 kits to reset and upgrade Bradley Operation Desert Storm Situational Awareness vehicles to a pre-combat readiness.

“The restoration of the Bradley sustains its life and provides a reliable and efficient vehicle for our war fighters as they complete their missions,” Joe McCarthy, BAE Systems Heavy Brigade Combat Team System vice president and general manager, said in a statement.

“The procurement of these essential parts will help to ensure that we provide the best possible modernized vehicle to our customer.”

permalink: Army TACOM Contracts for Bradley Resets
posted under: Armored Vehicles, Contractors
tagged: army, bradley, LON:BA, reset, TACOM

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

The GCV program is a development effort headed by the U.S. Army and is designed to develop the next generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle. “BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman have been pre-eminent suppliers of combat systems to the U.S. Army for more than 50 years,” said Mark Signorelli, BAE Systems’ vice president and general manager of Ground Combat Vehicle. “Our team looks forward to working side by side with the Army and its Soldiers in the development of the new Ground Combat Vehicle. Collectively we bring the proven experience, the latest technology and cultures of innovation and service to the Army’s effort to develop a new generation of fighting vehicles.”

BAE Systems will serve as the prime contractor in this partnership. It is the world’s largest producer of combat vehicles, having fielded more than any other company in the world. The company is the top supplier to the U.S. Army’s Heavy Brigades, one of the largest suppliers to the U.S. Department of Defense and the second largest defense company in the world.

Northrop Grumman will serve as the C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) lead, responsible for integration of command and control hardware and software, computers and communications equipment, sensors and sensor suites for intelligence gathering and force protection, and other functionality that requires ‘plug and play’ with the internal network or provides situational awareness across external networks.

permalink: BAE and Northrop Announce GCV Teaming Agreement
posted under: Armored Vehicles, Contractors
tagged: army, c4isr, Defense, GCV, LON:BA, news, northrop-grumman, NYSE-RTN

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

• Style Guide | Wikinews
  tags: news reference

permalink: link(z): Y2010 | M02 | D26 | L1
posted under: Admin
tagged: links, style guide

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

The development phase will span over seven years and include three phases. Through the 27 months first phase (TD) the Army will be able to test, evaluate and demonstrate Critical Technology Elements (CTE’s) and formalize a set of requirements, for the subsequent full system design phase. Later this year, the Army is planning to issue up to three cost-plus contracts for the TD phase, to be selected, used on ‘best value’ contracting strategy. This phase will evaluate three concurrent developments, designed to meet the Army’s requirements, based on relatively mature technologies (TRL 6+); prototypes of specific subsystems will also be evaluated. This phase will culminate with the preliminary design review and Milestone B scheduled for early 2013.

The next phase will be Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD), screening out one of the three TD contractors, based on ‘best value’ represented by the three proposals. This phase will include the prototype fabrication, ballistic survivability testing of armor coupons, turret and hull, followed by the delivery of first prototypes by the end of 2014. These vehicles will go through extensive safety, mobility and limited user tests, providing operational insights about the new platform’s performance.

By early 2016 the prime contractor for the Production and Deployment phase (P&D) will be selected. First production vehicles are scheduled to be delivered 7 years from the initial award of the TD contracts.

Initial operational capability of the first battalion, fielding 29 IFVs is expected by mid 2018, with a full brigade fielded within a year. In total, about 62 vehicles will be produced through the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) to equip combat units by the time the GCV enters full rate production in mid 2019.

The Army hasn’t limited the participation of international companies, although traditionally the Pentagon requires domestic prime contractors for programs of such magnitude. It is anticipated that at least some international cooperation could be achieved, at least regarding the survivability suite of the vehicle. While the Army has spent hundreds of millions on the development of advanced, lightweight armor for the FCS family of vehicles, these armor solutions have not yet reached maturity level required for the TD phase, at least regarding the threat levels considered for contemporary conflicts. Therefore, U.S. manufacturers could be relying on foreign technology to achieve the required protection. In past programs, including the Bradley reactive armor, the Stryker’s RPG protection and some of the MRAP vehicles, the U.S. is relying on foreign armor solutions, and the GCV could follow suit as well.

In its directives for industry about the GCV survivability suite, the Army has not specified a mandatory to of hit avoidance (soft and hard kill systems – APS) or advanced lightweight armor, developed by the Army, except for the Base Level EFP armor, Level 1 kinetic armor for front, skirts and roof and Level 1 EFP armor. All other protection means are open for suggestion by industry. The Army has recently completed the evaluation of seven APS systems – three domestically developed systems and four provided by international suppliers. This evaluation was mandated by congress.

permalink: Army TACOM Requests Proposals for GCV
posted under: Armored Vehicles
tagged: Armor, fcs, GCV, Manufacturing, MRAP, pentagon, prototyping, stryker, survivability, TACOM

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

Carter and Army officials met Feb. 12 for the material development decision, but that approval was delayed while service officials answered Carter’s questions about acquisition strategy. The Army wants to issue the RFP before finishing its formal analysis of alternatives, an unusual move that Carter eventually approved.

The RFP indicates that the award will be a cost-plus contract, not the fixed-price deal that President Obama’s administration favors for most large weapon programs. Army officials have said that cost-plus contracts during the technology development phase allow for more innovation and risk-taking.

Bidders will have 60 days to respond.

permalink: Army to Issue GCV RFP
posted under: Armored Vehicles
tagged: Armor, army, combat, FedBizOps, GCV, pentagon, TACOM

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

During a high-level meeting February 12, officials expressed concern about the weight of the proposed vehicle, which had grown to around 70 tons, more than three times the level initially planned, Reuters reports. Officials also underscored the Pentagon’s desire to ensure a real competition for the new vehicle, which analysts said was likely to be dominated by General Dynamics Corporation (NYSE:GD) and BAE Systems (LON:BA).

One source, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer declined to sign a decision approving the Army’s development plan at the meeting, due to a “little disagreement” over the Army’s contracting strategy. A second source said the impasse could spell a serious setback for the program, which is to replace the ground vehicle part of the Army’s Future Combat Systems modernization program, which defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled last year.

Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) and SAIC (NYSE:SAI) were the prime contractors for the overall FCS program, while General Dynamics and BAE were teamed to develop the program’s ground vehicles.

“It’s serious. They have to decide what they want the vehicle to do,” said the second source, who was also unable to speak on the record.

The U.S. Army’s proposed budget for fiscal 2011 includes $934 million in research funding for development of the new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). The Army had intended to release a final request for proposals for the program in late February, with an eye to awarding up to three contracts in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, and a possible winner-take-all decision in fiscal 2013.

Army spokesman Paul Mehney confirmed the meeting meeting with senior defense officials, but referred all questions about its outcome to the Pentagon. No comment was immediately available from a Pentagon representative about the meeting or the Army program. Defense consultant Jim McAleese said the program had run into several problems, including rising costs triggered by the extra weight of armour added to better protect troops against roadside bombs.

At the same time, the Pentagon was trying to tamp down the program’s cost, given the assumption that heavy combat brigades would play a less important role in future conflicts, he said. Pentagon officials were also adamant about the need for a competition between General Dynamics, BAE and possibly other companies, but that could delay the possible fielding of a new vehicles by two to three years, McAleese said.

Other companies were unlikely to enter the fray, given the head start the General Dynamics and BAE already had through their work on the FCS ground vehicles, unless the government decided to fund development of prototype vehicles, he added. The FCS program foresaw $6 billion of funding to begin procurement of 300 vehicles in 2013. The Army’s most recent plan eyed the start of low-rate production in fiscal 2016.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson said it was clear that the program was facing “considerable delays,” and said it could run into further problems if Gates, who had promised to safeguard funding for the program, left his job before the FCS replacement program was put in place.

permalink: US Army, Pentagon at Odds Over GCV
posted under: Armored Vehicles, Contractors
tagged: BCT, fcs, GCV, lightweight, LON:BA, NYSE-BA, NYSE-SAI, NYSE:GD, pentagon

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010

Today, we are fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere while simultaneously preparing for an increasingly complex and uncertain future. For the foreseeable future, the international security environment may best be characterized by persistent conflict – protracted confrontation among state, non-state, and individual actors who are increasingly willing to use violence to achieve their political and ideological ends. To adapt to the vagaries of persistent conflict, the Army is adapting our doctrine, organization, training, leader development programs, and the delivery of materiel with which we equip and outfit our Soldiers and units, as well as the methods we employ to put the right tools in the hands of our Soldiers before they are put in harm’s way. This year – 2010 – we are fundamentally changing how we modernize the Army. We are shifting away from a focus on the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program as the centerpiece of our modernization effort, to one that emphasizes getting the right capabilities in the hands of our Soldiers to win the wars we are in, while developing the versatile capabilities required for future challenges. We refer to this new approach as “Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Modernization”.

Cancelling FCS

Since its inception in 2003, the FCS program was the center of Army modernization efforts. The FCS program included a family of manned and unmanned, air and ground systems, all connected by a distributed, integrated network, that would operate as a “system of systems”. The plan called for developing and fielding the family of systems to 15 BCTs over 29 years. In July 2004, the Army added plans to deliver selected “Spin-Outs” of FCS technologies and systems to BCTs as they mature in development. As the program evolved, adjustments were considered such as trimming the number of manned ground vehicle (MGV) variants while continuing with fielding the Non-Line-Of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) and the Infantry Fighting Vehicle plus delivering “Spin-Out” capabilities to all BCTs. Additionally, in May 2008, we adjusted the fielding priority for “Spin-Outs” from Heavy BCTs to Infantry BCTs to better meet warfighter demand.

On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates announced his proposed adjustments to the defense program as part of the President’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2010. The Secretary’s decisions had an immediate and major impact on our FCS-centric modernization effort. He terminated the MGV portion of FCS, directing that we “reevaluate the requirements, technology, and approach – and then re-launch the Army’s vehicle modernization program….” Secretary Gates further directed the Army to “accelerate the initial increment of the program to spin out technology enhancements to all combat brigades,” and retain and deliver software and network development program in increments, while noting the lack of a clear role in our modernization plan for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles which are saving so many lives in Afghanistan and Iraq today. His intent for these bold adjustments was clear – to better reflect the lessons that we were learning from ongoing operations and better posture Army forces for a broader range of future challenges.

Subsequently, the Department of Defense issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) on 23 June 2009, directing the Army to cancel the FCS BCT acquisition program. The Army viewed this as an opportunity to address the remaining elements of the FCS program, and to take advantage of the lessons learned and the technological advances from the FCS program to shape a new approach to BCT Modernization. First, the Army issued a partial termination notice for the program. With Congressional approval, the Army later terminated the NLOS-C Special Interest Program. We restructured the System Development and Demonstration contract with the Boeing Company to focus on the development of Spin-Out capabilities as part of the first incremental capability package. The restructured contract stipulates that Boeing will deliver one Brigade set of early capabilities, the bulk of our first Capability Package. Pending results of ongoing Increment 1 testing and evaluation, the Army has the option to contract with Boeing to deliver two additional BCT sets and can then procure subsequent packages from the original equipment manufacturers. Additionally, the Army will harvest the software, hardware, and engineering developments from the FCS program for future developmental programs.

To ensure we are developing and fielding relevant capabilities with maximum versatility in a rapidly changing security environment, the Commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), General Martin Dempsey, was charged with developing recommendations for affordable BCT modernization and to determine the operational requirements for the new GCV. Given 120 days to accomplish the first phase of this effort, he established Task Force 120 (TF 120) to evaluate the Army’s short- and long-term modernization requirements and ensure that the proposed solutions mitigated the Army’s highest risk capability gaps. In early September 2009, TF 120 delivered its recommendations to senior Army leaders focusing on capability packages, GCV operational requirements, and BCT network integrated architecture. Now approved, these recommendations form the basis for the incremental modernization of all Army BCTs.

Our new BCT Modernization Plan is closely linked in time, space, and purpose with our force generation model – the Army Force Generation Model, or — by which we continuously provide Combatant Commanders with trained and ready forces they require to implement the national defense strategy. Broadly stated:

Our goal is to build a versatile mix of tailorable and networked organizations, operating on a rotational cycle, to provide a sustained flow of trained and ready forces for full spectrum operations and to hedge against unexpected contingencies at a sustainable tempo for our all-volunteer force.

As we’ve witnessed in recent operations, there will continue to be a clear demand for a mix of Army combat forces that can operate effectively in all types of terrain against a combination of conventional, hybrid, and irregular threats. It is this variable mix of Army forces that provides the “versatility for the broadest plausible range of conflicts” sought by the Secretary of Defense. So what might a sustainable force package from the Army look like in about 10 years? What would be the result of a decade of BCT Modernization? While the precise force mix would be determined by the mission(s), we envision providing a pool of Heavy BCTs (some equipped with the GCV), Stryker BCTs, and Infantry BCTs, all enabled with an enhanced network and packages of relevant capabilities with access to MRAPs necessary for their assigned missions.

BCT Modernization Plan

As we have already discussed, our BCT Modernization Plan is informed by the comprehensive lessons learned from more than eight years of war, focuses on the evolving needs of our warfighters in a rapidly changing security environment, and exploits the knowledge and technologies developed under the FCS program. But instead of making one modernization decision and then applying it across the Army over two or more decades as we have typically done in the past, the BCT Modernization Plan recognizes that modernization decisions must be made incrementally to stay ahead of the demands of the security environment and the needs of our warfighters. Our new plan emphasizes the role of battle-tested Soldiers in the development of new equipment, provides for the incremental delivery of the network, incorporates MRAP vehicles into our formations, accelerates the fielding of Capability Packages across all BCTs, and initiates a new GCV.

The Army will capitalize on many of the investments made in the FCS program and leverage that body of knowledge into the BCT Modernization plan to expedite the delivery of capabilities to the Warfighter. The FCS program matured 44 critical vehicle technologies and the Army has opened the plans of these technologies, called the “MGV Body of Knowledge,” to industry so that they can see and potentially use the investment in these technologies as they formulate plans for the GCV. Incorporating the MGV body of knowledge into the BCT Modernization plan will expedite the delivery of capabilities to the Warfighter and capitalize on the Army’s investment to date.

Soldier-In-The-Loop Feedback

A critical practice continued from the FCS program is the use of Soldier feedback on emerging capabilities. The Army Evaluation Task Force () – a brigade-sized unit- created in 2006 at Ft. Bliss, Texas, provides immediate feedback during the testing and evaluation of new technologies, organization, and training initiatives. As you might expect, battle-tested Soldiers are not shy about telling Army combat developers and industry designers what works and what doesn’t.

I refer to [AETF Soldiers] as the Army’s test pilots. They test it out before putting it in the hands of Soldiers. The ability to have the Soldier use it in an operational environment and for them to give feedback to us…is absolutely essential.

-Maj. Gen. John R. Bartley, Program Executive Officer, Integration

Constant feedback from Soldiers – operating in units as they would on the battlefield – is vital to ensuring new systems meet operational needs. This process informs the development and integration of enhanced capability packages as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures for the current and future force.

Combat-experienced Soldiers at AETF test emerging systems to failure and provide instant feedback to product manufacturers, which helps drive the delivery of a better product to the Warfighter. Experienced Soldiers, such as Sergeant Tucker Platt, find real value in the AETF’s mission. “This will directly affect the future Army,” he said. “And it feels good to know that what we’re doing now and what we are testing is going to benefit and possibly save Soldiers’ lives in the future.” Soldier-in-the-Loop participation in the development process reduces the risks associated with developing new systems and focuses the collective effort on providing new capabilities that perform as intended from the outset.

Army Network Modernization

The Army’s network is crucial to enabling operations across the spectrum of conflict. The network supports leaders in making timely, informed decisions and underpins organizational agility, lethality, and sustainability. It allows Soldiers to know where other friendly forces and civilian populations are, where the enemy is reported, and which weapon systems are available at any given time. The network links Soldiers on the battlefield with space-based and aerial sensors, robots, and command posts. This provides the situational awareness necessary to apply lethal and non-lethal force with the precision demanded by the security environment.

The Army’s strategy connects the Soldiers into the network so they have the right information at the right place and time. Components, such as the Network Integration Kit and Common Controller, were designed to provide control of unmanned systems, fused sensor data, and distribute information to a common operating picture. The Warfighter Information Network (Tactical) (WIN-T) is designed to extend the network ultimately to the company level for BCTs and provide real-time information, such as high definition imagery, from surveillance sources. The Joint Tactical Radio System () was developed specifically to resolve radio interoperability issues among all services. It will provide Soldiers at the tactical level with connectivity at extended ranges, including voice, data, and video, enabling them to move information from platoon to higher-level command posts in any terrain (including urban and mountainous areas). JTRS “networks” radios together using every radio as a relay and is less vulnerable to cyber-threat compared to current radios. As a “software-defined” radio, JTRS also enables the integration of emerging technologies without replacing hardware. The network also includes software to enable greater situational awareness and collaboration. The BCT Modernization Plan emphasizes the importance of the network as the key enabler for operations across the spectrum of conflict in austere and complex environments.

Maintaining technological advantage is a constant challenge. Therefore, the Army must field the network with the embedded capacity to receive incremental updates and improvements as technologies mature and needs evolve. With non-proprietary wave forms and open standards, competition will inform future investments and application development will be cheaper and quicker. The Army conducts a comprehensive series of operational and technical tests and evaluations to ensure the interoperability of network components prior to unit fielding. Network upgrades will provide support for multiple forms of communication (voice, data, and video); display and disseminate information using common data formats and protocols; and improve interoperability with Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational partners. Network integration will incrementally move the Army towards a single and expanding joint network.

Incorporating MRAPs into Formations

Over the past few years, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) have proven to be the most deadly and difficult threat in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have made a significant investment in a new class of wheeled-vehicles to provide increased protection for US ground forces. The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle – known simply as the MRAP – has been developed in multiple variants and has saved many lives by providing essential mobile protection for our Soldiers and other personnel operating on the ground. We continue to invest heavily in developing countermeasures for the continuously evolving IED threat, but the MRAP is here to stay in Army formations for the foreseeable future. The Army will incorporate packaged sets of MRAPs into BCTs and other formations as part of the of the ARFORGEN cycle. We also intend to provide MRAPs for home station training and at our major training centers. In selected units (such as sustainment brigades, and medical, route clearance, and explosive ordnance units), they will replace current vehicles. As with all major critical items of equipment, the Army will maintain MRAPs in the operational float and wartime reserve stocks.

Accelerated Capability Package Fielding

In order to accelerate and incrementally field mature technologies, TF 120 recommended BCT Modernization capability development priorities, under a plan that fields capabilities as integrated packages based on Warfighter needs, technological advances, and available resources. Capability Packages provide a disciplined process for outfitting units with the latest materiel and non-materiel solutions in anticipation of, or response to, the evolving challenges of the security environment. For example, Capability Packages may include doctrine, organization, materiel, and training solutions to address the highest priority needs. This reduces risk to Soldiers and mission success. These packages will fill capability gaps, as integrated sets of solutions and aligned with the budget cycle, to deliver solutions incrementally and synchronized with the ARFORGEN process. By fielding capabilities aligned to ARFORGEN, Soldiers will have the right capabilities at the right time to accomplish their mission. The best capabilities available at that time will go to the Soldiers who need them the most, based on a continuous assessment of missions, threats, and warfighter needs. This incremental approach will enable leaders to make timely, resource-informed decisions and will help ensure that we provide the best available technologies to fulfill urgent requirements for Soldiers in the fight.

We have reevaluated and assessed technologies under development, against current high risk capability gaps, and continue to evolve our incremental approach, while terminating those programs and technology-development efforts that are no longer relevant or cost-effective. The Army will continue to develop many of the original FCS “Spin-Out” technologies that demonstrate near-term operational value. The most mature of these systems, such as the Unattended Ground Sensors, Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, Non-Line of Sight Launch System, and the Class 1 Unmanned Air Vehicle, collectively termed “Increment 1 capabilities,” are part of the first capability package the Army intends to field to the 3rd BCT, 1st Armored Division at Ft. Bliss, Texas, in 2011. The Army will continue to mature these Increment 1 capabilities to deliver block upgrades of the above systems as well as new systems such as the Common Controller and Counter IED variant of the Armed Reconnaissance Vehicle Assault-Light as part of the second capability package starting in 2013. Other capabilities previously developed under the FCS program, such as the Class IV Unmanned Air System () and the Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment Transport (MULE-T) and MULE-Countermine (MULE-CM) unmanned ground vehicle, were cancelled following the Army’s reevaluation of these systems. We concluded that the Class IV UAS was no longer a cost-effective solution since current force UAS can sufficiently meet requirements with product improvements to existing systems. Likewise, we also determined that two large robots (MULE-T and MULE-CM) did not meet rapidly changing threats, nor address the Army’s most critical future mission needs.

This focus on delivering the best and most mature capabilities, along with realizing resource savings from cancelled FCS technologies, will accelerate fielding of Capability Packages to 29 BCTs by 2016 (compared to the previous program of fielding “Spin-Outs” to just 13 BCTs by 2016) and to all BCTs by 2025.

Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

We have reevaluated the requirements, technology, and approach to developing a new GCV program. We reviewed all current fighting vehicles to determine whether to sustain, improve, divest, or pursue new vehicles based on operational value, capability shortfalls, and resource availability. This analysis exposed an aging fleet of vehicles with a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle as the most pressing demand. The M113, designed decades ago, is no longer survivable on today’s battlefields, while the Bradley Fighting Vehicle which proved so successful in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and many times since, has limited capacity for enhancing its mobility, survivability, and power generation for the network.

Perhaps even more important than in some previous conflicts, protected mobility is essential for mission success. Combat vehicles must give Soldiers the option of maneuvering off-road to avoid IEDs placed along predictable routes, and offer greater protection against IEDs when the mission requires travel on roads. These same vehicles must also provide better mobility to operate in cities. Additionally, Soldiers need better communication and information sharing-on-the-move, both mounted and dismounted down to the lowest level. Applying these lessons to the Army BCT Modernization Plan addresses current operations and helps ensure the Army remains an effective force into the future.

Task Force 120 worked with elements from across the Army, Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, and Key Allies to codify operational requirements for a new GCV. The Task Force members emphasized the lessons learned from eight years of war and grounded projections of technology in developing GCV requirements. To refine and validate those requirements further, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army sponsored a Ground Combat Vehicle Blue Ribbon Panel to inform TF 120 efforts. The panel applied input from Joint-Service partners, experienced former Army Leaders, think tank analysts, and representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as Army Soldiers and leaders with a wide range of operational experience. The unvarnished input received from the Panel was instrumental in identifying characteristics and features needed in the new GCV.

Our new GCV seeks a versatile range of capabilities. Our goal is for the GCV, carrying an infantry squad, to equal or surpass the under-belly protection offered by MRAP, the off-road mobility and side protection of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and operational mobility of the Stryker. Developing the new GCV will not be an easy task, but the current and anticipated future security environments demand this combination of capabilities. On-board armaments will provide precision lethality overmatch against adversary systems and limit collateral damage. The GCV platform will also integrate the network to maintain situational awareness in urban and other operations. While the new vehicle will provide sufficient space and electrical power to support the network, it calls for adequate growth potential to ensure the ability to integrate upgrades and new technologies.

Applying lessons from FCS, Stryker, Bradley and Abrams, we believe our approach to GCV development and procurement will be a model for acquisition reform, with an incremental development approach including competitive prototyping to enable production of the first vehicle by fiscal year 2017. Capabilities incorporated in subsequent increments will be informed by changes in the security environment and enabled by the maturation of advanced technologies.

Conclusion

We are a Nation at war. The security environment is uncertain and complex, and the pace of change is accelerating rapidly. It is the Army’s responsibility to provide current and future ground force commanders with relevant capabilities that provide “the maximum possible versatility for the broadest plausible range of conflicts.” We must simultaneously adapt current capabilities and develop the new capabilities required to win today’s wars, and hedge against an uncertain future. We must learn from both past failures and triumphs. Our BCT Modernization Plan is the blueprint for accomplishing that monumental task. We will incrementally develop and field new capabilities based on advanced technologies, synchronized with our ARFORGEN process. We will be continuously informed by current operations and guided by the insights and experiences of battle-tested Soldiers and the evolving needs of our warfighters. We will field an expansible network with the capacity for incremental upgrades which will connect Soldiers and platforms into a coherent fighting force of unmatched power. We will fully leverage the investments our Nation has made in the MRAP family of vehicles to save the lives of our Soldiers while accomplishing the most dangerous missions. We will accelerate the development and fielding of incremental capability packages to stay ahead of the threat or respond rapidly to surprise. And we will develop and begin fielding a new Ground Combat Vehicle within seven years that will enhance the options available to our joint force commanders for operations across the spectrum of conflict. With the continued leadership and unwavering support of the Administration and Congress, the American Soldier will continue to be the most respected and capable combatant in the world.

permalink: BCT Mod: Versatile Capabilities for an Uncertain Future
posted under: Defense, Land Forces
tagged: abrams, afghanistan, army, BCT, bradley, Defense, fcs, GCV, george-casey, het, ied, iraq, MRAP, robert-gates, robotics, stryker, survivability, sustainability, Texas, tradoc

subscribe: via RSS | via Email
connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Bookmarks | Facebook

taktik(z), Inc. © 2010