By Scott R. Gourley U.S. Army representatives used the venue of the 2012 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition to outline a wide range of fielding, modernization and sustainment activities for its fleet of manned and unmanned ground combat systems. Scott Davis, U.S. Army Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems (GCS), says the Program Executive Office (PEO) is currently looking across the entire portfolio of ground combat systems in an effort to use common processes and identify areas of innovation with which the Army can derive financial savings. To that end, since I ve come on the job we ve spent a lot of time and energy developing some portfolio analysis tools, Davis explained. One tool in particular allows us to look at the entire combat vehicle portfolio by mission role rather than by platform. Historically, people talked about Bradley or Abrams or MRAP platforms, but this tool allows us to look at [them in terms of] mission role requirements like mortar carriers or infantry vehicles or howitzers or medical evacuation vehicles along with all of the systems either in this portfolio or outside this portfolio that could satisfy those mission roles. As part of that, we are able to look at the capabilities of each of these candidate systems that could fill those mission roles as well as their relative cost development costs, production costs, or sustainment costs. Then, within the portfolio and within a fixed amount of money, we can make recommendations to Army leadership as to which platforms are best suited for which mission roles; not only platform to platform but also at levels of modernization for each of the platforms. The power of the portfolio analysis tool has allowed us to react very quickly, he added. So now, if the Army has adjustments to its resources, we can build the resource limitation into the model, rerun it, and then come back to Army leadership and say, With this new set of numbers, here is how we would reprioritize where we are going with our modernization efforts. So it s a pretty powerful tool. We are still getting it in the fore with the planning, but we did use it to a great extent to help in the last POM [program objective memorandum] for this portfolio. He pointed to other PEO GCS efforts to monitor and address the overall health of the industrial base down through second-, third- and lower-tier suppliers. We re paying very special attention to those elements of the supply base to make sure that we protect the ability to deploy and support our forces going forward, regardless of what happens with some of the budget pressures that we are going to face, he said. Heavy Brigade Combat Team Within the PEO GCS organization, COL Bill Sheehy, project manager, Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT), offered the HBCT platform portfolio as a representative example of stated service leadership priorities to modernize and prepare for the next fight. 42 ARMY January 2013
U.S. Army/SPC Ryan Hallock Referring to the presentation by the Army s Vice Chief of Staff earlier at the AUSA Annual Meeting, Sheehy noted, He wants incremental improvements to what we have today already, and I will tell you that is what the Army is doing with the HBCT. It has funded those efforts to incrementally improve the HBCT, and part of that is in preparation for the next fight. His number one priority within that [modernization effort] is the network, and we have worked to ensure that we can host the network on our platforms in the HBCT. Noting engineering change proposals (ECPs) for the Army s Abrams and Bradley vehicles, he added, Those January 2013 ARMY 43
BAE Systems Right, preparations are under way to begin limited user testing of the PIM (Paladin Integrated Management) self-propelled howitzer at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. Below, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) will replace the aging M113 Family of Vehicles for five mission roles general purpose, mortar carrier, Mission Command, medical evacuation and medical treatment. contracts have been awarded to our OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems and the intent, the scope, and the purpose of those ECPs is to host the network onboard our combat platforms. All the work being done is based around the ability to host those networks: whether there is power, whether there is space, and so on. Along the same lines of incremental improvements to Scott R. Gourley, a freelance writer, is a contributing editor to ARMY. the howitzer program, Paladin PIM [Paladin Integrated Management] is preparing to start limited user testing [LUT] at Yuma Proving Ground [Ariz.], he continued. The LUT brings soldiers onboard to run through some missions. The primary focus of the PIM program is automotive in nature, he said. It improves the power and other systems onboard like the rammer, but we have retained the same cannon and fire control systems. So we are bringing the system forward through reliability of the automotive elements, but we have retained the lethality of our current cannon system. The final element of HBCT fleet improvement involves replacement of the current M113 series of vehicles with a new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program. Sheehy said that a defense acquisition board (DAB) is currently scheduled for AMPV in the January 2013 time frame, with successful DAB results paving the way to identify a milestone entry point for AMPV and allow release of a request for proposals to industry. As you look across the formation you see improvements going on across the board to keep the HBCT relevant and continuing to maintain the combat overmatch that it enjoys now, he summarized. When the Vice Chief of Staff speaks to modernization and the network you can trace that to dollars and efforts going on within the HBCT to support that prioritization. U.S. Army 44 ARMY January 2013
The new ground combat vehicle currently being developed is the next-generation infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and will replace the IFV configurations of the Bradley. Technology phase contractors are providing different design approaches and are executing on plan. BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle In addition to modernization of current fleet platforms, PEO GCS encompasses the new acquisition of the ground combat vehicle (GCV), the next-generation infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) that will replace the IFV configurations of the Bradley. According to COL Andrew DiMarco, project manager, GCV, the program is currently executing across three prongs directed by the August 2011 acquisition decision memorandum (ADM). Those prongs called for a technology development (TD) phase competition, a simultaneous examination of nondevelopmental vehicle options, and update to the base analysis of alternatives (AoA) for GCV that supported Milestone A (entry into TD phase). Noting that the 2012 AUSA Annual Meeting fell about the halfway point on the GCV technology development phase, DiMarco said, The competition with our two primes BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems continues to go well. They are executing according to their plans and according to the schedule that I have. The second prong is our look at nondevelopmental vehicles. We are about to bring that to conclusion with a final report being drafted now [late October 2012] and being prepared for review before it is ultimately provided to the Army and the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] on what we saw both operationally and effectively, he said. He added that the AoA update was nearing completion with the plan to finish the analytical work in 2012 and provide the initial draft report to support the capability production document and Joint Requirements Oversight Council processes. Current plans project a Milestone B decision in the December 2013 time frame. DiMarco emphasized the importance of program competition, acknowledging that the TD contractors are not only executing on plan but also providing two different design approaches that are allowing the Army to develop greater understanding of capabilities and possibilities. In addition, one of the [important] things about the three-prong approach is continuing to assess that balance in our requirements, the cost/affordability and technical maturity, he said. Stryker Brigade Combat Team Ongoing activities within the Stryker family of vehicles include production, fielding and modernization efforts. On production we are building brand new double V- hulls through December [2012], and we are fielding those as soon as we release them, said David Dopp, project manager, Stryker Brigade Combat Team. We have started building the exchange vehicles as well. You really can t tell much difference between an exchange vehicle and a brand new vehicle, Dopp explained. [NOTE: The first exchange vehicle was on exhibit during the AUSA Annual Meeting in the General Dynamics Land Systems exhibit.] It involves taking some of the components of some of the older flat-bottom vehicles usable components that we can re-use and integrating them onto a brand new double-v structure. We have built only one so far, but we think as we prove that process out we can reduce the cost in comparison to a brand new vehicle by 30 40 percent. There are some process issues we have to work, but we think it s a good thing, and we have approval to build 47 exchange vehicles that we will take deliveries on between January and April 2013. Then right after that we start our last run of flat-bottom vehicles: the NBCRV [Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle]. It s one of our most complex and expensive systems, which is one of the reasons we are just finishing that build and buy now. We are currently planning to build 100 of those stretching out into fiscal year 2014, he said. Emphasizing that those figures reflect all currently known production, Dopp acknowledged that there have been some discussions about a third brigade of double V- hull vehicles, but that s all an Army requirement issue and a funding issue. January 2013 ARMY 45
The first vehicle in the Stryker Double V-hull (DVH) exchange program was completed in October. The DVH replaces the flat-bottom hulls of Stryker vehicles with a slanted double V shape that deflects roadside bombs better than the flat-bottom iteration. U.S. Army Turning toward Stryker ECP modernization, Dopp said, Stryker was an interim vehicle, but as COL Sheehy said, it s all about being compatible with the network. So that s the [essential] driver of the ECP program: to make sure we can integrate the future force network. He added that current Stryker ECP planning efforts involve looking across both flat-bottoms and double Vs and seeing which ECPs apply to which vehicle based on limited funding. Robotic Systems Along with the manned combat platforms, the GCS portfolio planning also involves an array of unmanned vehicle platforms. In the last 10 years of the fight we have been in, robots have proven themselves to be very useful and very capable, said Lt. Col. Ben Stinson, U.S. Marine Corps, project manager for the Robotic Systems Joint Project Office (RS JPO). We have lost approximately 800 robots since 2005 as combat casualties, and I like to equate that to 800 soldiers, In addition to its manned ground combat systems, the Army uses a variety of unmanned systems, such as the Talon robot, which has saved soldiers lives performing explosive ordnance disposal missions in Afghanistan. sailors, airmen and marines whose lives or limbs have been saved through the use of a robot. When we procured these robots some 7,000 of them now over the last 10 years with almost 4,000 of them in the fight right now we did it via the urgent universal need statement and joint urgent operational needs method, he said. Now there are a lot of robots out there with a lot of different controllers, parts and chassis. So our challenge in the next couple years is going to be to sustain what s out there, use that investment to bridge the gap until we get robot programs of record through the services, and make them more common and interoperable. Referring to a consortium created between RS JPO and industry, Stinson credited the effort with the creation of an interoperability profile. Stinson s office has already released Version 0.0 of the profile with plans to release a Version 1.0 update this month. We also work with industry and our labs with their science and technology efforts to shape what industry is working on for us in the robot community with a road map, he continued. That road map is designed to help industry understand where the near-term, mid-term and far-term technology areas are for inclusion in robots. Because we have purchased so many robots, and as we go into a period of fiscal austerity, we are going to have to figure out which ones we will keep and sustain to bridge the gap that I mentioned, he said. The other robots we are going to have to divest smartly. We are going to transition those to other services if they want them, then to other government agencies, and finally down to state and local law enforcement or other agencies and institutions of higher learning. That is the Army s plan and the Marine Corps plan as well to take care of robots as we go into the future, he concluded. As we align our programs, we are working right now with all the services to come together with a strategy that will allow us to get economies of scale and to create more of the interoperability that we need to share robots across the services. General Dynamics 46 ARMY January 2013