Technologies to enhance what Soldiers ‘see’ in complex, congested environments promise to improve the information available to make decisions quickly. 

by Dr. Richard Nabors, Dr. Robert E. Davis
and Dr. Michael Grove

Information overload! How many people have suffered from the feeling? A 2009 study, published by the University of California, San Diego, stated that an average American in 2008 consumed an average of 34 gigabytes of information every day from more than 20 different sources. And this was before the smartphone became ubiquitous. Such a deluge of information could overload even a powerful computer, let alone the average American.

As information technology has become more available to the military, it presents Soldiers in complex operational situations with significantly more information than in the past, and in a broader variety. Just as the average American can be overwhelmed by data, Soldiers receiving information from multiple sources in addition to their own senses can suffer from information overload, decision gridlock and mental exhaustion.

On the battlefield, Soldiers cannot afford to be mentally or physically fatigued. They do not have the leisure to sort through every bit of information, or the time to judge the value of the information received. Yet Soldiers must do these things, and they must do them quickly and decisively, constantly adapting to the changing situation. At the same time, information is often clouded by the “fog of war,” limiting the Soldier’s ability to make reality-based decisions on which their lives and others’ depend.

To allow maximum latitude to exercise individual and small-unit initiative and to think and act flexibly, Soldiers must receive as much relevant information as possible, as quickly as possible. Sensor technologies can provide situational awareness by collecting and sorting real-time data and sending a fusion of information to the point of need, but they must be operationally effective. Augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) are the solutions to this challenge. AR and MR technologies have shown that they make sensor systems operationally effective.

NEW TACTICAL REALITY
In augmented reality, computer-generated or real-world sensory content is placed on top of a Soldier’s view of the real-world environment. (U.S. Army photo)

DIGITAL, REAL WORLDS UNITE

AR digitally places computer-generated or real-world sensory content on top of a Soldier’s view of the physical, real-world environment. In MR, the scanned information about the user’s physical environment becomes interactive and digitally manipulable. AR and MR function in real time, bringing the elements of the digital world into a person’s perceived real world and thus enhancing their current perception of reality. Examples of AR and MR familiar to any National Football League fan are the blue and yellow overlays that appear on the television screen showing the line of scrimmage and the first down line, respectively. This overlay is intuitive and designed not to distract from the game, requiring no training and significantly enhancing the fan’s experience.

On a Soldier’s display, AR can render useful battlefield data in the form of camera imaging and virtual maps, aiding a Soldier’s navigation and battlefield perspective. Special indicators can mark people and various objects to warn of potential dangers. Soldier-borne, palm-size reconnaissance copters with sensors and video can be directed and tasked instantaneously on the battlefield at the lowest military echelon. Information can be gathered by multimodal (visual, acoustic, LIDAR or seismic) unattended ground sensors and transmitted to a command center, with AR and MR serving as a networked communication system between military leaders and the individual Soldier.

When used appropriately, AR and MR should not distract Soldiers but will give pertinent information immediately, so that a Soldier’s decision will be optimal and subsequent actions relevant and timely. AR and MR allow for the overlay of information and sensor data into the physical space in a way that is intuitive, serves the point of need and requires minimal training to interpret. Thus both information overload and the fog of war are diminished.

INFORMATION IS POWER

On the future battlefield, increased use of sensors and precision weapons by U.S. adversaries, as well as by the U.S., will threaten the effectiveness of traditional 20th century methods of engagement. Detection will be more difficult to avoid, and deployed forces will have to be flexible, using multiple capabilities and surviving by reacting faster than the adversary.

As networks of sensors integrate with greater numbers of autonomous systems, the need for faster decision-making will increase dramatically. With autonomous systems becoming more prevalent on the battlefield, adversaries who do not have the same human-in-the-loop rules of engagement may be quicker than the U.S. to effectuate lethal responses. Because speed in decision-making at the lowest military echelon is critical, accelerating human decision-making to the fastest rates possible is necessary to maximize the U.S. military’s advantage.

AR and MR are the underpinning technologies that will enable the U.S. military to survive in complex environments by decentralizing decision-making from mission command and placing substantial capabilities in Soldiers’ hands in a manner that does not overwhelm them with information. As such, the Army has identified AR and MR as innovative solutions at its disposal as it seeks to increase Soldier safety and lethality as a priority of its modernization strategy.

MEETING THE CHALLENGES

The challenge for AR and MR is to identify and overcome the technical barriers limiting their operational effectiveness to the Soldier. For example, as Soldiers’ operational information needs become more location-specific, the need for AR and MR to provide real-time, immediate georegistration will be increasingly important. To prevail in this near-term technical challenge and several others like it, the Army research and development (R&D) community is investing in the following technology areas:

NETWORKED COMMUNICATION
A vision of the Army’s future augmented reality capabilities. Augmented reality and mixed reality will provide a networked communication system between military leaders and the individual Soldier in the field. Information will be gathered by a variety of unattended ground sensors and transmitted to the command center. (U.S. Army graphic)

• Technologies for reliable, ubiquitous, wide-area position tracking that provide accurate self-calibration of head orientation for head-worn sensors.
• Ultralight, ultrabright, ultra-transparent display eyewear with wide field of view.
• Three-dimensional viewers to provide the Soldier with battlefield terrain visualization, incorporating real-time data from unmanned aerial vehicles and the like.

In the mid term, R&D activities are focusing on:

• Manned vehicles developed with sensors and processing capabilities for moving autonomously, tasked for Soldier protection.
• Robotic assets, teleoperated, semi-autonomous or autonomous and imbued with intelligence, with limbs that can keep pace with Soldiers and act as teammates.
• Robotic systems that contain multiple sensors that respond to environmental factors affecting the mission, or have self-deploying camouflage capabilities that stay deployed while executing maneuvers.
• Enhanced reconnaissance through deep-penetration mapping of building layouts, cyber activity and subterranean infrastructure.

In the far term, the R&D community can make a dent in key technological challenges once AR and MR prototypes and systems have seen widespread use. Research on Soldier systems will help narrow the set of choices, explore the options and reveal available actions and resources to facilitate mission success. This research will focus on automation that could track and react to a Soldier’s changing situation by tailoring the augmentation the Soldier receives and by coordinating across the unit.

In more long-term development, sensors on Soldiers and vehicles will provide real-time status and updates, optimizing individually tailored performance levels. Sensors will provide adaptive camouflage for the individual Soldier or platform in addition to reactive self-healing armor. The Army will be able to monitor the health of each Soldier in real time and deploy portable autonomous medical treatment centers using sensor-equipped robots to treat injuries. Sensors will enhance detection through air-dispersible microsensors, as well as microdrones with image-processing capabilities.

In addition to all of the aforementioned capabilities, AR and MR will revolutionize training. Used as a tactical trainer, AR and MR will empower Soldiers to train as they fight. For example, Soldiers soon will be able to use real-time sensor data from unmanned aerial vehicles to visualize battlefield terrain, providing geographic awareness of roads, buildings and other structures before conducting their missions. They will be able to rehearse courses of action and analyze them before execution to improve situational awareness. AR and MR are increasingly valuable aids to tactical training in preparation for combat in complex and congested environments.

IMAGE IDENTIFIED
As a result of improvments in AR and MR, real-time sensor data from unmanned aerial vehicles will allow Soldiers to better visualize battlefield terrain, providing geographic awareness of buildings, roads and other structures before a mission. (Image courtesy of U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center)

CONCLUSION

Currently, several Army laboratories and centers are working on cutting-edge research in the areas of AR and MR with significant success. The work at the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command and the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) is having a significant impact in empowering Soldiers on the ground to benefit from data supplied by locally networked sensors.

AR and MR are the critical elements required for integrated sensor systems to become truly operational and support Soldiers’ needs in complex environments. It is imperative that both technologies mature sufficiently to enable Soldiers to digest real-time sensor information for decision-making. Solving the challenge of how and where to use augmented reality and mixed reality will enable the military to get full value from its investments in complex sensor systems.

For more information or to contact the authors, go to www.cerdec.army.mil.

RICHARD NABORS is associate director for strategic planning and deputy director of the Operations Division at the U.S. Army CERDEC Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He holds a doctor of management in organizational leadership from the University of Phoenix, an M.S. in management from the Florida Institute of Technology and a B.A. in history from Old Dominion University. He is Level I certified in program management.

ROBERT E. DAVIS is the chief scientist and senior scientific technical manager for geospatial research and engineering at ERDC, headquartered in Vicksburg, Mississippi, with laboratories in New Hampshire, Virginia and Illinois. He holds a Ph.D. in geography, an M.A. in geography and a B.A. in geology and geography, all from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

MICHAEL GROVE is principal deputy for technology and countermine at NVESD. He holds a doctor of science in electrical engineering and an M.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Florida, and a B.S. in general engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is Level III certified in engineering and in program management.

Related Links:

“How Much Information? 2009 Report on American Consumers,” Dec. 9, 2009, news release w/link: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/general/12-09Information.asp

Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center: https://www.cerdec.army.mil/inside_cerdec/nvesd/

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center: http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

Working group identifies new suite of technologies to boost aircraft survivability.

by Mr. Mark Calafut

U.S. Army aviation faces a diverse threat environment, spanning broad categories of threats from ballistic munitions and guided missiles to directed energy and cyber weapons. It also spans generations of technology, ranging from constantly evolving sophisticated systems to widely proliferated legacy equipment. The modern threat environment presents both a technical challenge and a moving target to Army aviation. Historically, the science and technology (S&T) community has played an important role in developing advanced technologies to outpace the evolution of the threat. In an increasingly challenging threat environment, S&T is now even more critical.

This has driven the S&T community not only to begin developing nontraditional technologies for advanced protection, but also to establish new practices and processes to evaluate them. In May 2016, the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC) and the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) jointly formed an advanced protection working group to answer key questions for Army aviation. In its first year, the goal of the advanced protection working group was to identify the best technologies to protect the future force. The working group began its analysis from the fundamental premise that there is no “silver bullet” technology capable of addressing all future threats and operational scenarios. Instead, the solution for future aircraft survivability would be a range of technologies to avoid, detect and defeat the emerging threat. This group would identify that solution.

CERDEC and AMRDEC structured the working group to include both breadth and depth of technical knowledge, as well as to engage with the intelligence, requirements and acquisition communities. The core team of the working group was responsible for performing technical analysis and developing the group’s recommendations. The team was composed of technical experts from within CERDEC and AMRDEC, as well as from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, the Institute for Defense Analyses and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory. The core team also regularly consulted with subject matter experts (SMEs) from other government and academic organizations, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Air Force Research Laboratory. To ensure that the technical analysis was performed in the broader context and to facilitate engagement with the stakeholder community, the group also included representatives from the intelligence, requirements and acquisition communities.

The advanced protection working group began by adapting proven system engineering processes that are measurable and repeatable into a standardized method to evaluate technology. The group used this method to determine the performance of technologies with respect to classes of threats rather than with respect to any individual threat. This approach was intentionally designed to identify technologies whose capabilities span multiple threats and provide broad protection.

To ensure that all technical options were considered, the working group performed market research, conducted technology surveys and initiated discussions with SMEs. The working group initially identified 160 technologies; after review, it narrowed this list to 70 unique technologies for formal evaluation. These technologies include advanced sensors, defensive electronic attack capabilities and signature reduction technologies. A quantitative methodology enabled the working group to perform sensitivity analysis and assess the specific benefits and risks associated with each potential technology.

PROCESS OF PROCESSES
The working group performed market research, conducted technology surveys and talked with SMEs before identifying 160 promising technologies. The list was narrowed to 70 unique technologies for formal evaluation after review. (SOURCE: CERDEC)

DISPARATE TECHNOLOGIES

Technology evaluation was inherently challenging across this wide range of disparate technologies. The working group categorized the 70 technologies into several subareas, including topics such as aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)—electronic systems to detect and defeat threats—and vulnerability reduction—technologies to reduce the damage a threat delivers to the aircraft and crew. To minimize subjectivity in the analysis, the working group established a process of processes, where each of these technology subareas was evaluated with a process appropriate for its characteristics and technical maturity. For example, in the area of ASE, there are experimental data and established modeling and simulation (M&S) tools available from across DOD. For many ASE technologies, including traditional electronic support sensors and electronic attack countermeasures, it was appropriate to use historical data or M&S tools to assess performance. In contrast, in the area of nontraditional susceptibility reduction (NTSR), the working group was specifically looking for unconventional concepts that had not been previously considered for the survivability application. The NTSR assessment included technology options ranging from wild ideas that push the limits of the possible to proven components adapted from different applications. In many cases, NTSR technologies did not have appropriate M&S tools to support an assessment similar to the one conducted for ASE. Therefore, a unique assessment was developed specifically for the NTSR subarea. This process included an initial technology assessment followed by a selection process performed through structured SME assessment. To maximize objectivity, each technology was assessed by experts from different backgrounds to obtain multiple data points and provide a full perspective.

Overall, the working group engaged more than 15 SMEs to assess the 70 technologies. The experts evaluated each technology according to the process for its technology area and assigned a numerical value to its performance. They also provided confidence representing the body of evidence behind the performance value. In the next step, stakeholders developed weights for each evaluation criterion based on priority, and the working group calculated a normalized composite score for each technology. This score represents a concise estimate of the relative performance of each technology.

After assessing the technologies individually, the working group determined the optimal suite of technologies. The working group envisioned a spectrum of technologies integrated into a layered survivability suite. When a threat is encountered, the survivability suite autonomously employs appropriate technologies throughout the tactical timeline to maximize survivability. This concept makes the most effective use of each technology available to defeat the threat given the unique parameters of an engagement. The working group systematically combined the highest-scoring technologies and considered technology dependencies to create candidate technology suites. The more threat characteristics that a technology suite addressed and the higher the priority of those characteristics, the greater the protection capability of the suite. Finally, the working group went beyond performance and considered the potential multifunctional applications of the suite and calculated the platform’s size, weight and power requirements. The working group then agreed on a recommended technology suite for future survivability. The group will use these processes to refresh its technical solution and road map every three years, or more frequently if events drive a significant change in the threat picture or the state of technology.

GETTING AT THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM
Technical experts from across an array of disciplines and research organizations make up the working group’s core team. They work to generate solutions to challenging S&T problems. (SOURCE: CERDEC)

10-YEAR ROAD MAP

The last step was the creation of a common 10-year technology development road map. The agreement on a common road map also has driven participating organizations to alter their planned S&T investments and more closely coordinate development efforts into common programs. This includes cross-cutting S&T areas that will require the joint attention of multiple laboratories, on topics such as M&S, power generation and storage, and common architectures that enable compatibility and data exchange. The road map was designed to include the development of enabling technologies with broad applicability, as well as more targeted efforts specifically designed to invest in identified S&T gaps.

To balance and manage risk, the road map includes critical decision points. Often, potential leap-ahead technologies are technically immature and high- risk. For these elements, the road map includes one or more critical decision points, where the result of technical analysis or a technology maturity assessment determines whether investment should continue. This allows the S&T community to contribute to Army aviation by providing new advanced technologies as well as by determining the practical viability of potential leap-ahead technology paths.

The working group completed its first phase of analysis in July and has established the common objectives and decision points for the S&T community. Over the coming months, the group will present its results and recommendations to Army leadership for review and concurrence.

SEEKING SURVIVABILITY
Infantrymen with 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team (“Iron Brigade”), 4th Infantry Division (3-4 ABCT), conduct an air assault in August with 3rd General Support Aviation Battalion, 10th Combat Aviation Brigade during the U.S. Army Europe Combined Resolve IX exercise at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany. Army S&T is pursuing aircraft survivability technologies across a spectrum of technologies and areas of expertise. (U.S. Army photo by Capt. Scott Walters, 3-4 ABCT)

CONCLUSION

The advanced protection working group already has led to several major benefits for the S&T community. Foremost among these is the repeatable process it has established to assess a broad portfolio of technologies together and in an objective manner. This facilitates the development of common S&T programs and demonstrations, improves targeting of investments and return on investment, and documents the contribution of each technology to the larger solution. Overall, the activities of the advanced protection working group demonstrate that S&T is about much more than technology: It’s about creating and using balanced processes to help the Army identify cross-domain solutions to its most challenging problems.

For more information or to contact the author, go to www.cerdec.army.mil.

 MARK CALAFUT is a senior engineer overseeing the research portfolio for the Electronic Warfare Air/Ground Survivability Division within CERDEC’s Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate. He holds an M.S. in electrical engineering from Stanford University, an MBA from Carnegie Mellon University, and a B.S. in engineering and a B.A. in economics from Swarthmore College. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

The next generation of Army combat vehicles will need to include manned, unmanned and optionally manned variants that include the most advanced protection, mobility, lethality and power generation capabilities to ensure that our Soldiers can survive first contact and defeat any adversary.

by Mr. Andy Steel

The modern battlefield has combined the air, land, sea, space, cyber and information battlespace into blended domains as simultaneous operations must be conducted over a dispersed battlefield. This requires the Army to design, equip and train forces capable of defeating adversaries with advanced capabilities to prevail in complex and multidomain environments. While the Army’s current fleet of ground vehicles maintains a tactical overmatch or close parity with our adversaries, additional upgrades are proving challenging to these platforms given their current size, weight and power limitations. The ability to add evolving technologies to existing ground vehicles is rapidly diminishing as the weight-bearing capability, power generation and available footprint to support these technologies has exceeded the original design.

Our adversaries have paid careful attention to the last decade and a half of combat operations conducted by U.S. forces and modified their tactics, techniques and procedures to hide from our strengths and exploit our vulnerabilities. When U.S. forces deploy, the enemy usually is operating from a “home field” advantage or is at least in position and prepared for conflict. Adversaries are well aware of the disadvantages of giving U.S. forces the time to deploy, position and amass firepower in an uncontested environment before any potential engagement. They understand that letting U.S. forces gain superiority in any domain can raise their likelihood of failure immensely.

Survivability in the future battlespace will be challenging. Our near-peer adversaries have combined enhanced long-range sensors with the effects from long-range precision fires. This is forcing a careful review of the requirements for future combat vehicles. Army leadership recognizes that the Army must develop the critical enabling technologies to support the next generation of combat vehicles. Increased capabilities, including advanced mobility, lethality and power generation, are required to operate smartly in the current operational environment.

LASER FOCUSED A SMALLER FOOTPRINT
The Army is looking to leverage investments in high-energy laser applications to develop vehicle platforms with improved operational capabilities at significantly smaller sizes, offering defense capabilities against unmanned aerial vehicles, rockets, artillery and mortars.

Additionally, vehicle survivability can be greatly increased with intelligent sensors that are integrated with the hardware, software and effectors to create an overarching, layered system of passive and active self-defense measures. Examples include protective systems that could prevent an adversary weapon system from engaging a U.S. platform or identify an incoming threat and electronically render it ineffective or physically engage to defeat its lethal mechanisms. These overlapping and multi-aspect methodologies would sequentially complement each other to defeat adversarial capabilities and protect friendly forces.

To expand its combat capability, the Army is exploring the use of unmanned vehicles teamed with manned control vehicles to support a yet-to-be defined role in multidomain operations. Surviving first contact and dominating in the dispersed battlespace will require the integration of a range of ground and air systems: semiautonomous, fully autonomous, optionally manned, tethered and untethered. Autonomous unmanned systems will have the maneuverability to travel over complex terrain and environments with greater capabilities than their manned counterparts. These systems will extend the reach of U.S. forces and will allow them to initiate contact with their adversaries under the most favorable conditions. These platforms will extend the maneuver force’s understanding of the combat environment, increase survivability and extend lethality. Autonomous systems also will perform some of the dangerous, physically demanding and mundane tasks required of Soldiers.

FUTURE TREADS
To develop and field the next generation of combat vehicles, the Army needs to overcome the current problem: Adding new capabilities and systems is complicated by the weight-bearing and power-generation constraints of the original platforms. (Images courtesy of DASA(R&T))

Areas of specific focus supporting the Army’s next generation ground vehicles include:

Sensors. Improved sensors will provide increased capability to detect, recognize, identify and locate entities rapidly and precisely, at extended distances and with greater image resolution.

Directed energy and energetics. The Army is investing to leverage the effects of directed energy in lethal, nonlethal and protection applications that can lead to reduced logistics and vehicle platforms that have significantly improved operational capabilities at significantly smaller sizes. For example, Army investments in high-energy laser applications are leading to effective defense capabilities against airborne threats, including unmanned aerial vehicles, rockets, artillery and mortars.

Power generation and management. The Army is investing in vehicle platforms that require less fuel yet have greater operational range and generate more power, improving mobility, survivability and lethality.

Advanced armor materiel solutions. Army science and technology is investing in lighter and more capable armors that can, when augmented with other layers of defense capabilities discussed in this article, improve survivability while enhancing operational combat effective range.

Vehicle protection suites. The Army is making investments in active and passive protection systems that allow for reduced armor requirements (weight), enable pre-shot understanding of the threat and post-shot protection from incoming threats. Vehicle protection applications that optimize passive armor and active protection systems allow for a decrease in vehicle size, thus improving deployability, mobility and protection.

Maneuver robotics and autonomous systems. Investments in semiautonomous, fully autonomous, optionally manned, tethered and untethered ground and air systems will expand the next generation ground vehicle’s understanding of the operational environment, increase survivability and potentially extend lethality.

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
Surviving first contact in the dispersed battlespace of the future will require a range of ground and air systems to extend the maneuver force’s situational awareness, increase survivability and enhance Soldiers’ lethality.

Army leadership faces profound challenges in developing its next-generation combat vehicle to protect Soldiers on the modern multidomain battlefield. Soldiers need the capability and skill to deploy rapidly, close with and destroy adversaries throughout the battlespace. The Army’s goal is to focus its vehicle technology investments to develop a generation of vehicles that are not only more lethal and survivable than current combat platforms but much smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient and intelligently interconnected for shared battlespace awareness. The following two articles on the Army’s development of Robotic Wingman, its first armed and unmanned ground vehicle, and the potential applications of artificial intelligence illustrate the critical enabling technologies the Army is pursuing to increase Soldiers’ operational capabilities and survivability. Army leadership is fully engaged to provide Soldiers with the best possible capabilities for future combat operations.

For more information, contact the author at carl.a.steel.civ@mail.mil.

 ANDY STEEL is the deputy director for the Ground Maneuver portfolio in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology. He holds an M.S. in national strategic studies from the U.S. Naval War College and a bachelor’s degree in medical sciences from The Pennsylvania State University. He is Level I certified in acquisition.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

 The Army’s first armed and unmanned ground vehicle is in the works.

by Mr. Thomas B. Udvare

In 2014, the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) and the U.S. Army Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) teamed up to integrate a remote weapon system on a robotic vehicle to see if that system could become certified on a Scout Gunnery Table VI course, the same course used to train and qualify ground combat vehicle crews.

The vehicle was a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), and its “brain” was the TARDEC-developed Robotic Technology Kernel. ARDEC contributed the prototype wireless system known as the Picatinny Lightweight Remote Weapon System, which it had developed. The command-and-control HMMWV consists of the Warfighter Machine Interface, developed in-house at TARDEC, which controls and operates the robot and weapon system. Collectively, this Wingman capability allows Soldiers in a command-and-control vehicle to remotely operate an unmanned ground vehicle weapon system.

Initial experiments have met with limited success, but the Wingman program has ignited further investigation into weaponized robotics and how keeping the Soldier-in-the-loop could mitigate many of the gaps seen in today’s autonomous systems.

In 2016, the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD) joined the Wingman team with its target acquisition and tracking system, the Autonomous Remote Engagement System. With the addition of the NSWCDD, the Wingman program received three years of funding to demonstrate the technology. The program will culminate in a military utility assessment at an Army national training center or equivalent between 2019 and 2020. TARDEC engineers say Wingman is the research and development (R&D) community’s first step toward weaponized robotics.

AIM HIGH
The ARES optical system, developed by the NSWCDD, is mounted on ARDEC’s Picatinny Lightweight Remote Weapon System and coupled with an M240B crew-served weapon. These are two of three subsystems that make up the Wingman.

TACTICAL ADVANTAGE

“The Wingman technology developed today will be foundational for tomorrow’s advanced fighting vehicles,” said Dr. Robert Sadowski, TARDEC chief roboticist. “The Wingman technology will extend the warfighters’ reach and direct-fire engagement range, allowing our Soldiers to dominate more terrain while keeping them out of harm’s way.”

TARDEC is leading the Wingman development effort with technical partners ARDEC, NSWCDD and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), which provides the analysis necessary to assess the Wingman technology from a Soldier’s perspective for operational and training purposes.

Military ground elements in first contact with the enemy often uncover obstacles, suffer the highest casualties and become decisively engaged, limiting friendly freedom of maneuver. Capable autonomous systems could provide a tactical advantage for these operators. However, aggressive state and nonstate actors are also pursuing the development of armed lethal robotics. As the level of autonomous capability increases, automation will spiral into weaponized systems. Unmanned systems deployed by our adversaries could impact the advantage our current reconnaissance forces have in the fight for information and increase the already high mortality rates of these units.

The Wingman technology demonstration program will investigate how to use unmanned assets to project lethality and move effectively with a mounted formation and engage ahead of or along with manned platforms without increasing manpower requirements. The team believes that unmanned assets can reduce casualties by extending the reach of the warfighter through unmatched advanced situational awareness, platform autonomy and targeting in a weaponized unmanned ground vehicle (UGV).

Wingman will begin to develop the concept of operations and tactics, techniques and procedures to integrate weaponized, unmanned systems into the current force and increase operational standoff.

Initiating contact with UGVs gives commanders flexibility and maneuver space to effectively respond to enemy threats, and eliminates some of the risks of casualty extraction. The Wingman technology will allow friendly commanders the ability to disperse manned systems without creating exploitable gaps and seams in their own formation.

TECHNICAL ADVANTAGE

In 1997, a computer named Deep Blue beat world chess champion Gary Kasparov. By 2005, two amateur chess players using three personal computers won a chess tournament against supercomputers and grand masters. Teaming amateurs with computers produced a significant advantage over the computers or the grand masters.

Current autonomy technologies aren’t as capable at their tasks as Deep Blue was at its in 1997. Most have gaps in the perception and cognition areas. The use case for lethal robotic ground systems requires a Soldier-in-the-loop in order to pull the trigger. Wingman seeks to combine the perception and judgment of the Soldier with the speed, power and precision of the machine to produce an effective unmanned ground weapon system.

Currently fielded autonomous ground systems require a high degree of Soldier oversight and tend to be limited to a specific mission. They often fail to meet warfighter expectations because of limitations in the autonomy or robustness of the integrated hardware and software systems. These constraints make it difficult to field an effective weaponized robotic platform. The Wingman technology demonstrator will address some of these limitations with today’s autonomous technology by developing manned-unmanned teaming behaviors to iteratively define and decrease the gap between autonomous vehicle control and the required level of human interaction.

“Unlike other autonomous systems that seek to eliminate the operators, weaponized autonomous systems will leverage the Soldier-in-the-loop to automate operations and enhance the Soldier’s reach,” said Keith Briggs, TARDEC’s technical manager of the Wingman program.

The prototype system complies with DOD Directive 3000.09, “Autonomy in Weapon Systems,” and will be used as a surrogate to inform the development of future unmanned weapon systems.

ROBOTIC VEHICLE SUBSYSTEMS

The Wingman Weaponized Robotic Vehicle is an M1097 HMMWV and contains three primary subsystems:

First is the TARDEC-developed Robotic Technology Kernel (RTK), the autonomy system for planning and controlling the vehicle’s mobility. RTK contains driving cameras for remote operation, LIDAR sensors (light detection and ranging) for object classification, stereo cameras for terrain classification, computers for computation, radios for communication, and all the essential hardware, cables and mounts. The system can be manually driven through teleoperation or autonomously driven through waypoint navigation.

The second subsystem is lethality, which uses the Picatinny Lightweight Remote Weapon System. That system can use an M134 Gatling-style minigun or an M240B machine gun. Wingman is currently investigating changing the M240B for an ARDEC-developed Advanced Remote Armament System. This will provide additional capabilities, such as an externally powered, purpose-built weapon to improve reliability and accuracy, the ability to load and clear the weapon remotely and an increased stowed ammunition load without decreasing aim or stabilization.

The Autonomous Remote Engagement System (ARES) is the third subsystem. It provides automated engagement capabilities to decrease target acquisition time with vision-based automatic target detection and user-specified target selection. This system will decrease engagement time and overcome wireless control latency through video tracking, user assisted fire-control and control of the weapon.

ON ITS OWN
The Robotic Wingman vehicle maneuvers semiautonomously through a Scout Gunnery Table VI course at Fort Benning, Georgia, in late 2017. This is the same course manned combat vehicles and their crews must pass before moving on to live fire training; there is thus plenty of data about how manned vehicles handle the course, which the unmanned Wingman’s performance can be measured against.

COMMAND-AND-CONTROL VEHICLE

The Wingman Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) is currently using an M1151 HMMWV as its command-and-control (C2) vehicle. The C2 vehicle contains the Soldier-machine interface that the Soldier uses to remotely operate the weaponized robotic vehicle. Five Soldiers currently man Wingman’s C2 vehicle. In front sit a driver and a vehicle commander. In the rear seats are a wireless remote weapon system operator, the robotic vehicle operator and a manned machine gun operator through the hatch. The Soldier in the hatch also uses a Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System to designate targets and send the coordinates to the robotic vehicle for engagement.

The C2 vehicle contains the TARDEC–developed Warfighter Machine Interface, which provides customized interactive displays for the vehicle commander, robotic vehicle driver and remote weapon system operator. These interfaces will be expanded to accept voice commands to naturally communicate with the robot and provide real-world data on the surrounding environment.

ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION

The Wingman program will assess the performance and feasibility of the technology against a Scout Gunnery Table VI course, which the Army uses to train and certify crews for Army combat vehicles. The course also evaluates the vehicle’s ability to move, shoot and communicate. Generally, a crew and its vehicle must pass the Table VI course—during which they engage both moving and stationary targets—annually, before participating in live fire training or deploying. Putting a robotic vehicle through the Table VI course will allow the team to quantify the tactical performance of an armed UGV and directly compare this to how manned platforms perform.

During a Table VI, the vehicle crew conducts 10 engagements on 16 targets. Target ranges vary depending on the weapon system, and target types vary from infantry silhouettes to armored vehicle silhouettes. To pass, the crew must obtain 700 out of 1,000 possible points. The Wingman program plans to field the first robotic vehicle to obtain a certification on this course.

MODELING AND SIMULATION

Along with hardware and software, -TARDEC, NSWCDD and ARL are standing up a modeling and simulation capability through the development of a Wingman System Integration Laboratory (SIL), which will be used to develop and verify software before conducting expensive live testing. The lab also will make it easier to conduct Soldier virtual experiments to inform and develop future capabilities and train Soldiers before they use the system in live experiments on the range. The SIL integrates the real-world vehicle software within a simulated environment for rapid prototyping, software development and early assessment of interactions between the manned vehicle team and the vehicle.

WINGMEN
From left, the Wingman command-and-control vehicle and the unmanned Wingman. The command-and-control vehicle is mounted with a Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System providing target designation and handoff capability. Equipped with unmanned mobility, automated target tracking and a remotely operated weapon system, the robotic Wingman vehicle permits engagement of targets from covered positions. (U.S. Army photos by Keith Briggs, TARDEC Ground Vehicle Robotics)

CONCLUSION

Current autonomous systems face many issues in the areas of perception, cognition, classification and communications—which prevent fielding effective unmanned weapon systems, especially in hostile environments—Wingman will address these issues by exploring new ways to use the situational awareness of the Soldier-in-the-loop to supplement these capabilities and mitigate gaps in critical areas. As the R&D community’s first step toward weaponized robotics, Wingman aims to reduce casualties and increase standoff for Soldiers, especially those units in first contact.

For more information, go to https://www.army.mil/tardec.

THOMAS B. UDVARE is the deputy technical manager of the Wingman JCTD and works on the Ground Vehicle Robotics team at TARDEC. Previously, he was deputy team leader of the Medium Platform Autonomy team and was the deputy program manager on the Autonomous Mobility Applique System program. Before joining TARDEC, he worked as an aircraft electronic technician at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan. He has a B.S. in electrical engineering from Lawrence Technological University.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

 A back-and-forth interplay of government and commercial funding and research has brought AI to the edge of a breakthrough.

by Dr. Alexander Kott

Few fields of technology are as paradoxical as artificial intelligence (AI). For one thing, since its official inception in the mid-1950s, AI has experienced multiple cycles of boom and bust. Time and again, AI would be proclaimed a miracle technology; an intense hype would build up and last for a decade or so, only to be followed by an equally intense disappointment and sense of
abandonment. Similarly, human emotions around AI seem to run to extremes.

Back in the 1950s, many a life was changed by fascinating visions of the future depicted in the robot stories of Isaac Asimov. Sixty years later, science and technology experts, including astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have warned that humankind could be extinguished by AI. It is hard to imagine more passionate attitudes toward what is, after all, merely software.

This brings to mind yet another paradox: As soon as a research topic in AI achieves practical maturity, it is invariably demoted to “just a computer program.” Thirty years ago, finding an efficient route on a complex, realistic map while taking into account traffic conditions and road closures was considered a major topic of AI research. Today, it is merely a GPS app on your smartphone, and nobody calls it AI anymore.

While no definition of AI seems quite adequate for such an unconventional field of endeavors, one way to describe AI is the ability of computer-enabled agents (e.g., robots) to perceive the world, reason and learn about it, and propose actions that meet the agent’s goals. Equipped with AI, agents—whether purely computer-resident, like a highly sophisticated version of Amazon’s Alexa, or physical robots—become capable of autonomy. Autonomy means the ability of a system to perform highly variable tasks with limited human supervision (e.g., dealing with unpredicted obstacles and threats). Another often-heard term, machine learning, is a subfield of AI; it refers to improving machine knowledge and performance via interactions with the environment, data, people, etc.

The last few years have seen dramatic yet uneven advances in AI in application to both physical robots and software-only intelligent agents. Some capabilities, like answering questions (IBM’s Watson), “deep learning” (Google’s TensorFlow machine learning) and self-driving cars, have achieved significant breakthroughs. But others see ongoing exploration without any dramatic advances—yet. Almost all initial breakthroughs (all of those named above) came, to a large extent, from government’s pioneering research funding. Only later, when the research efforts showed commercial potential, were they picked up by industry, which then invested much more in these technologies than the initial government funding.

Considering the recent, enormous growth of interest in AI shown by both the public and industry, the interplay between government and commercial investments is interesting and complex. Published estimates of global commercial investment in AI (including autonomy) vary widely, between $20 billion and $50 billion per year. The major commercial markets include retail, telecommunications, financial, automotive and industrial assembly robots. In comparison, the Army’s science and technology (S&T) investment in AI and autonomy is two to three orders of magnitude lower. If so, why should the Army bother? Why not let industry take the lead and wait until its enormous investments produce the AI technologies the Army wants?

First, the Army S&T community is well aware of the industry efforts and products; it uses these products extensively in Army-focused research, often tailoring them as needed. In their autonomy research, for example, Army scientists and engineers use industrial or industry-supported robotic platforms, such as iRobot’s widely used small unmanned ground vehicle PackBot and the popular Robotic Operating System (ROS)—open-source middleware supported by a number of corporations. (See “How Many Robots Does It Take?” Page 269.) Computers and processors also come from industry: NVIDIA Corp.’s graphic processing unit, which helps accelerate deep learning, is one example, as is IBM’s TrueNorth chip, which emulates brain neurons for power-efficient computations. For machine learning, Army S&T uses well-developed software tools such as TensorFlow.

At the same time, the focus of the Army S&T community is on problems that are quite distinct and are not going to be addressed by commercial applications. For example, much of Army research and development (R&D) investments in autonomy are focused mainly on autonomous convoys traveling in adversarial environments on terrain other than conventional roads; on robotics for manned-unmanned teams for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition and breaching; and on AI for military intelligence data analysis. These are not yet areas of significant interest to commercial developers, who focus on lucrative consumer markets.

Furthermore, there are deep, foundational differences in the scientific and technical challenges that Army-specific AI problems present, and which are not typical—or at least not a high priority—compared with the problems targeted by commercial investments. For example, AI and machine learning for self-driving cars, although initially spurred by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Grand Challenge competitions, are currently being developed by industry and optimized for relatively orderly, stable, rule-driven, predictable environments, such as the highways and streets of modern cities. Nothing could be further from the environments where the Army-specific AI will have to operate—unstructured, unstable, chaotic, rubble-filled urban combat.

As another example, the recent explosion of successes in machine learning has been connected with availability of very large, accurate, well-labeled data sets, which can be used for training and validating machine learning algorithms and, given lengthy periods of time, for the learning process. But Army-relevant machine learning must work with data sets that are dramatically different: often observed and learned in real time, under extreme time constraints, with only a few observations (e.g., of the enemy techniques or materiel); potentially erroneous, of uncertain accuracy and meaning; or even intentionally misleading and deceptive. In other words, some of the very foundations of commercial AI algorithms diverge strongly from what the Army needs.

TIP OF THE RESEARCH SPEAR
Popular technologies that are sold commercially, such as intelligent personal assistants on mobile devices and driverless cars, began with government research funding and were matured later through industry. (Image by posteriori/Shutterstock)

MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING

Human-agent teams—Soldiers teamed with robots and other intelligent systems operating with varying degrees of autonomy—will be ubiquitous on the future battlefield. These systems will selectively collect and process information, help Soldiers make sense of the environment they’re in, and—with appropriate human oversight—undertake coordinated offensive and defensive actions.

Many will resemble more compact, mobile and capable versions of current systems such as unattended ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and fire-and-forget missiles. Such systems could carry out individual actions, either autonomously or under human control, collectively provide persistent and complete battlefield coverage as a defensive shield or sensing field, or function as a swarm or “wolf pack” to unleash a powerful coordinated attack.

In this vision of future ground warfare, a key challenge is to enable autonomous systems and Soldiers to interact effectively and naturally across a broad range of warfighting functions. Human-agent collaboration is an active research area that addresses calibrated trust and transparency, common understanding of shared perceptions, and human-agent dialogue and collaboration. Army S&T is focused on the fundamental understanding and methods to design and develop future Army autonomous systems that will interact seamlessly with Soldiers.

One function with technology that has relied on a foundation of government research is question answering—the system’s ability to respond with relevant, correct information to a clearly stated question. The recent question-answering successes of commercial technologies like IBM Watson and Apple’s Siri are based on several decades of government leadership in related research fields.

They work well for very large, stable and fairly accurate volumes of data, like encyclopedias. But such tools don’t work for rapidly changing battlefield data, which can be distorted by adversaries’ concealment and deception. Commercial question-answering systems cannot support continuous, meaningful dialogue in which both Soldiers and artificially intelligent agents develop shared situational awareness and intent understanding. The Army is performing research to develop human-robotic dialogue technology for warfighting tasks, using natural voice, which is critical for reliable battlefield teaming.

Also critical is the self-organization of robotic team members. By leveraging available commercial technologies like the Robotic Operating System and commercial robotic platforms, Army scientists are performing research to address Soldier-robotic teaming on complex ground terrain. For example, the Army recently demonstrated leader-follower driving of resupply trucks in which several unmanned vehicles autonomously follow a human-driven truck, on narrow forest roads with tree canopy, at tactically appropriate speed and with long gaps between the trucks.

When a team includes multiple artificial agents, or when multiple teams must work together, new challenges arise: decentralized mission-level task allocation; self-organization, adaptation, and collaboration; space management operations; and joint sensing and perception. Commercial efforts to date have largely been limited to single platforms in benign settings. Within the Army, some programs like the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology Collaborative Technology Alliance (MAST CTA) have been developing collaborative behaviors for unmanned aerial vehicles. Ground vehicle collaboration is challenging and is largely still at the basic research level. The Army’s long-term focus is on enabling collaboration among large numbers of highly dissimilar entities, such as large and small teams of air and ground robots, as well as human Soldiers, distributed over a large contested environment. To address such challenges, ARL has started Distributed and Collaborative Intelligent Systems and Technology, a collaborative research alliance between academic scientists and ARL government scientists.

FROM CHAOS, ORDER
Army AI and machine learning involve unique challenges for Soldiers, including operations in unstructured, unstable, rapidly changing, chaotic and adversarial environments where gathering information is difficult, and the information gathered may be potentially erroneous, misleading and deceptive. (Image courtesy of ARL)

MACHINE LEARNING

Machine learning is a key precondition for human-agent teaming on a battlefield, because agents will be neither intelligent nor useful unless they are capable of learning from experiences and adapt what they know while acting on the battlefield. For example, ARL has been working on learning algorithms for small ground robots that are able to learn the conditions of the ground (wet, slippery, sandy, etc.) and learn the appropriate modifications that control the turns and the speeds of their tracks. In another example, academic scientists collaborating with ARL in the framework of the recently completed MAST CTA developed a small rotorcraft that can execute aggressive maneuvers while flying through unfamiliar, highly cluttered indoor environments. The rotorcraft does so by continually learning the probability of collision directly from an onboard video camera. It recognizes new scenes and continually updates its knowledge.

Machine learning, although not yet capable of addressing the complexities of battle, has seen dramatic advances using “deep learning” computer algorithms known as deep neural networks. To deal with the unique nature of Army-specific machine learning, ARL is researching specialized extensions to commercial algorithms such as the TensorFlow software toolkit.

Yet another challenge that is uniquely exacerbated by battlefield conditions is constraints on the available electric power. Commercial AI relies on vast computing and electrical power resources, including cloud computing reachback when necessary. Battlefield AI, on the other hand, must operate within the constraints of edge devices: Computer processors must be relatively light and small and as frugal as possible in the use of electrical power. Additionally, the enemy’s inevitable interference with friendly networks will limit opportunities for using reachback computational resources.

IN THE AI LOOP
Thanks to advances in AI, human-agent teaming and machine learning, Soldiers will provide commanders with real-time information about the enemy gathered from a variety of different sources, including possible courses of action, which will help them to make better decisions in battle. (Image courtesy of ARL)

HUMAN LEARNING

Human learning and training for the complex battlefield of the future needs AI for building realistic, intelligent entities in immersive simulations. The Army principle of “train as you fight” places high importance on training experiences with the realism to match operational demands. Immersive training simulations must have physical and sociocultural interactions with the fidelity to meet the training demands of strategic and operational planning and execution. Modeling and simulation capabilities must also match the complexity of the operational environment so that simulated interactions enable effective transfer of skills and knowledge to the operational environment.

Game-based training provides cost–effective development of immersive training experiences. Still, game-based training is not a silver bullet. Mismatches between the gaming environment and the real world may cause unintended effects, such as giving users an unrealistic framework for combat. Army training simulations need to include realistic sociocultural interactions between trainees and simulated intelligent agents. The actions of human actors teaming with robots and other intelligent agents will be pervasive in the complex operational environments of the future.

Army training simulations build on advances in commercial game engines like Unreal, which powers the game “Kingdom Hearts III,” and adapt that kind of action role-playing to meet the unique needs of the Army in programs like the $50 million Games for Training, overseen by the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation.

ARL is also at the cutting edge in computer generation of realistic virtual characters that are needed to enable realistic sociocultural interactions in future Army training applications. More than once, Hollywood studios have sought technologies from the ARL-sponsored Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California to create realistic avatars of actors. These technologies enable film creators to digitally insert an actor into scenes, even if that actor is unavailable, much older or younger, or deceased. That’s how actor Paul Walker was able to appear in “Furious 7,” even though he had died partway into filming.

game of drones
Scientists gather information about unmanned aerial vehicles in August through an Army alliance of government, academic and commercial partners known as the Micro-Autonomous Systems and Technology Collaborative Technology Alliance. The Army’s long-term focus includes collaboration among highly dissimilar entities—teams of large and small air and ground robots and Soldiers—spread over large contested environments. (U.S. Army photo by Jhi Scott, ARL)

CONCLUSION

That is a glimpse of perhaps the greatest paradox of AI: its looming power to erase the divide between the real and the imaginary, the natural and created. To defy, indeed, the very notion of artificial.

For more information, contact the author at alexander.kott1.civ@mail.mil.

ALEXANDER KOTT is chief scientist at ARL. From 2009 to 2016, he was chief of ARL’s Network Science Division. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and a Master of Engineering from Leningrad Polytechnic Institute.

Related Links:

“How ‘Furious 7’ Brought the Late Paul Walker Back to Life,” The Hollywood Reporter, Dec. 11, 2015: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/how-furious-7-brought-late-845763

Robot Operating System: http://www.ros.org/

NVIDIA: http://www.nvidia.com/object/ai-computing.html

Google TensorFlow: https://www.tensorflow.org/

IBM’s TrueNorth: http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/brain-chip.shtml

MAST CTA: http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?Action=93&Page=332

DCIST: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=304 

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

An eight-month assignment as chief of contracting in Kandahar yields an abundance of lessons learned.

by Maj. Michael Z. Keathley

The commander’s intent for U.S. Army Expeditionary Contracting Command – Afghanistan—the clear, concise expression of what the force must do and the conditions it must establish to accomplish the mission while allowing subordinates the greatest possible freedom of action—directs Soldiers and civilians to “stay left of bang,” “exploit the data” and “leave lasting footprints.”

These three axioms have worked well to produce successful contracting operations. But between the seemingly simple principles and the successes is a universe of best practices based on lessons learned in contracting environments that are anything but simple. As the ever eloquent Mike Tyson once said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

As the chief of contracting at Regional Contracting Office – South (RCO-S) at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, from November 2016 to July 2017, I had the opportunity to see these three directives in action, to apply them in the operation of RCO-S and, along the way, to survive the punches and to learn a few lessons about expeditionary contracting operations.

The chief of contracting at RCO-S is responsible for the contract administration of the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) task order for southern Afghanistan. LOGCAP, dating to 2007, is the primary contract vehicle for base life-support services—everyday services such as electricity, waste management and dining facility operations—at all enduring and contingency bases in theater. RCO-S provided support and oversight of about $300 million worth of contracts in FY16. Like all other U.S. Army organizations, RCO-S had a mission statement. Ours was simple: “provide professional contracting support, on time, to the warfighter.”

RCO-S, responsible for three locations supporting nearly 8,000 Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines and civilians, consisted of me, my noncommissioned officer in charge, a civilian administrative contracting officer (ACO) and three quality assurance representatives (QARs). The three locations were reachable only by helicopter and required significant prior planning and coordination to schedule visits. To support the contingency contract administration services mission, I and one civilian held ACO warrants that gave us authority to direct the LOGCAP contractor. All RCO-S personnel were located at Kandahar Airfield, save one QAR who lived at one of our outlying bases.

RCO-S has been supporting contracting operations in southern Afghanistan for more than a decade, and it has seen its personnel turn over every six months to a year. My assessment of its operation when I arrived was overwhelmingly positive, but one of my intentions was to leave it better than I found it. Our day-to-day challenge was to apply the commander’s intent to accomplish our contracting mission. Managing a life-support contract serving so many people across such a large footprint is complex, to say the least. Doing so with simple guidance was fundamental to our success.

Michael A. Cooper is a DA civilian supporting Expeditionary Contracting Command – Afghanistan at Bagram Airfield. All ECC-A personnel, civilian and uniformed alike, follow their commander’s intent to “exploit the data, leave lasting footprints and stay left of bang.” Relentless oversight of the contractor and audits, both scheduled and unannounced, were key to preventing a contracting “bang” such as spoiled food in a dining facility. (U.S. Army photo by ECC-A)

USING CONTRACTOR OVERSIGHT TO AVOID THE BANG

This axiom means, essentially, to identify and mitigate issues or risks before they became problems, i.e., be proactive versus reactive. We accomplished this through relentless oversight of the contractor.

The performance work statement (PWS) for the LOGCAP contract in the south contained 75 “lines,” or services to be performed. For example, one line was waste management. The contractor was expected to execute that service in a particular way, on a particular schedule, using particular manuals and instructions, all detailed in the PWS. This “parent” service encompassed “child” services: emptying dumpsters, servicing portable toilets, operating a landfill, etc. Each service was assigned a risk rating of high, medium or low. (See Figure 1)

RATING RISK
Each service the contractor provided to installations in Afghanistan under the PWS was rated high, medium or low risk during the author’s tenure as chief of contracting at RCO-S. The author’s team conducted regular in-person checks on high-risk services like dining facilities, since they could decrease Soldiers’ readiness if not provided properly, and audited low-risk services as time allowed. (SOURCE: The author)

To ensure that the contractor upheld its end of the contract and avoided service disruptions, my QARs conducted periodic audits of performance lines. An audit was as simple as an on-the-spot observation or as detailed as reviewing the contractor’s execution of a task. My QARs conducted an average of more than 100 audits each month on most PWS lines for the LOGCAP task order, a significant increase compared with the practices of previous staffs. Our goal was to audit all high- and medium-risk services each month, including all parent and child services. That schedule gave my team frequent opportunities to witness contractor performance and to identify opportunities to mitigate perceived or possible issues.

On several occasions, particularly in dining facilities, my QARs and I made on-the-spot corrections relating to cleanliness, waste management and food preparation. For instance, we noticed that one of the dining facilities was temporarily storing food waste immediately outside the dining facility, violating a regulation that trash was to be kept at least 250 feet from the building at all times. Food waste brings insects, rats and other vermin, all unacceptable visitors in a dining facility. A quick discussion with the dining facility manager resolved the issue, which was minor but could have grown into a bigger problem if not addressed.

My office was allotted only three QARs, so we relied heavily on contracting officer’s representatives (CORs) to perform surveillance of the contractor. QARs are specially trained on how to read and interpret a PWS and are very familiar with the associated technical manuals the contractor is contractually bound to follow. A QAR is also well-versed in the basics of contracting—what is expected of the contractor as well as the government. My QARs kept the pulse of the contractor with regard to performance across the breadth of the LOGCAP contract, but I had only three of them, and they couldn’t be everywhere, all the time. By contrast, 33 CORs were available, on average, throughout our three locations; however, the execution of their COR duties was often secondary to their primary job.

The CORs monitored all performance lines and recorded their findings monthly in the COR Tool (CORT). CORT is an online database for collecting the numerous COR reports submitted each month, simple digital files answering pertinent questions on contractor performance. This database is accessible to the CORs and all contracting officers assigned to a given contract. A monthly requirement for the ACOs at RCO-S was to review these forms to ensure their validity and accuracy and accept them into CORT. This review, I found, was essential as some CORs submitted hurried work, much of which was unhelpful from a contracting perspective.

Maj. Gen. Richard G. Kaiser (left), Commanding General of Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) met with Col. Carol Tschida, Commander of the Expeditionary Contract Command-Afghanistan (ECC-A) on Dec. 1, 2016 in Bagram Airfield to discuss ways to improve the partnership between CSTC-A and ECC-A in order to keep our Soldiers and civilians ready to support the Afghan counterparts.
The ECC provides operationally-enabling direct contracting support to CSTC-A, United States Forces (USFOR-A) and other warfighters across the full spectrum of military operations in Afghanistan. The ECC soldiers and civilian contracting experts, in coordination with Contract Enabling Cell (CEC) helps CSTC-A requirements owners prepare and coordinate contracting support plans and oversight in their Train, Advise and Assist (TAA) mission. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Egdanis Torres Sierra)

My team and I quickly discovered that all the CORs had other jobs to do. For example, some CORs were infantry platoon leaders, responsible for planning and executing combat patrols almost daily. Such an operations tempo is not conducive to effective surveillance of contractors. It became apparent that each organization slated to deploy should determine what its COR requirement will be and identify individuals likely to have the most time to devote to that task. Ample foresight benefits both the unit supplying the CORs and the contracting office.

CORs in the LOGCAP environment are invaluable to the ACO. However, it was difficult to monitor all 33 of them closely. On more than one occasion, one of our CORs issued direction to the contractor, something they do not have the authority to do. In each instance, I required retraining for the COR. In retrospect, to stay left of bang, I think it would’ve been more beneficial for me to conduct that training personally. I also should’ve mandated that every COR training session contain my personal instruction regarding the limits of their authority and the potential ramifications of violating them.

COR training must explain in great detail how the contractor can misinterpret a COR’s opinion as an official government request. For example, if a COR mentions to the contractor, “The trash pickup for this site needs to be changed to one hour later,” the contractor could interpret that as direction from the government. Only a contracting officer can make such a change, so it’s important that CORs choose their words carefully when talking to the contractor.

CORT posed another time-consuming challenge for the RCO-S team. The tool is not an intuitive one, which presents problems when warfighter units arrive in theater. There is a rather steep learning curve in gaining access to the system, negotiating the site and uploading reports. Without fail, units and civilians slated to deploy should train the people who will be serving as CORs before they leave the United States, so that the CORs can hit the ground running and use the tool effectively in theater.

Cessna C-208B Grand Caravans, used by the Afghan air force as basic training aircraft and light lift aircraft, sit on the ramp at Kandahar Airfield, March 3, 2016. From November 2016 through July 2017, the author served as the chief of contracting at Regional Contracting Office – South at Kandahar Airfield, from which position he oversaw the LOGCAP contract that provides essential “life support” services like food and facilities maintenance to U.S. military installations in southern Afghanistan. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert Cloys)

VALIDATING DETAILS BIG AND SMALL

We constantly received data from the contractor indicating work it had completed and other performance markers. “Exploiting” this data consisted of delving into the finite details to validate it in an effort to prevent the contractor from painting a one-sided picture. This is not to suggest that the contractor was known to submit fraudulent data. Rather, it was important that the RCO-S team, as the administering office, be vigilant to ensure that what the contractor was providing was accurate.

Most of the data collected by the LOGCAP contractor was published daily, weekly and monthly on Contract Data Requirements Lists from the contractor’s contracts management division. For example, the contractor provided my office a daily water production report that listed how much non-potable and potable water was on hand, produced and issued. (The contractor is required to maintain a certain number of days’ worth of water supply.) Once a month, I tasked my QARs to go to the water production site while the contractor recorded the daily numbers, to observe how it was done. This task served two purposes: Besides making sure the contractor was reporting water production data accurately, it demonstrated to the contractor that its data was being monitored and validated. Service orders, work orders, fuel issuance and billeting management were other areas where we visited work sites to ensure that the contractor was reporting data accurately.

Something I could have done better to exploit data was arming myself with appropriate manuals or regulations. I routinely made unannounced observations, but rarely did so with the guidance of an appropriate supporting manual. In many parts of the LOGCAP PWS, for example, the requirement would be simply that “the contractor will conduct food service operations in accordance with Technical Bulletin, Medical (TB MED) 530, Tri-Service Food Code.” This supporting publication is over 300 pages long and discusses everything from the maximum lead content acceptable in food to the capacity of the kitchen drainage system.

In retrospect, at least weekly I should have found a specific requirement in a referenced manual, regulation or publication and checked the contractor’s compliance. This wouldn’t have been to “catch” the contractor in the wrong but simply to enforce the requirements. This also would have made it crystal clear that the government was enforcing compliance not only with the large items in the PWS, but the minutiae as well.

Left to right, Col. Joshua Burris, Expeditionary Contracting Command – Afghanistan commander; Sgt. 1st Class Katrina Tolbert, noncommissioned officer in charge for RCO-S; the author; and Command Sgt. Maj. Charles Williams. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Jeremy Kinney, 410th Contracting Support Battalion)

LEAVING A BETTER SYSTEM

Before I entered the contracting career field, I served in the maneuver community as an armor officer in the 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. In that community, “leave lasting footprints” meant “constantly improve your battle position.” Looking at the concept from a contracting perspective, I considered it an edict to make systems and processes better than I found them, to improve the contracting support that each subsequent RCO chief can provide the warfighter.

Management of CORs is one area I focused on improving. At RCO-S, we managed our active CORs through face-to-face interaction and by using a few tools we created. The first tool was our COR tracker: a spreadsheet containing COR names, locations, email addresses, phone numbers, the date they were appointed as a COR and, most important, the number of days remaining until their redeployment back to their home station. This information gave us everything we needed to manage each person and to ensure that we identified their replacements before they departed theater.

Another tool in our COR management was our audit tracker. Established at RCO-S long before I arrived, it laid out all the PWS lines of the LOGCAP contract and provided the name of the COR assigned to each. It also displayed the risk rating for each PWS line, which drove the frequency of audit. The tracker also listed what audits were due for which PWS line for each month, and provided a column to indicate if the audit had been completed as well as a column for pertinent comments. These tools gave us the necessary awareness of our CORs’ status and the status of their reports. (See Figure 2)

KEEP TRACK
The audit tracker, established by previous RCO-S staff and shown here in generalized form, helped the regional contracting team manage the work of CORs scattered around southern Afghanistan installations. During the author’s time as chief of contracting, the team averaged 100 audits a month on all service lines of the task order. (SOURCE: The author)

As I write this, my RCO-S replacement and his team are carrying on with the timely contract support the warfighters in Afghanistan have grown accustomed to.

My advice to anyone going to Afghanistan as part of this support is to ask themselves these three questions once a day: What am I doing to stay left of bang? How am I exploiting the data the contractor is giving me? How am I leaving lasting footprints, and making systems and processes better for those who come after me? If all else fails, look to the contracting officers, contracting specialists and other contracting professionals to your left and right. They possess a wealth of historical know-how.

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for 16 years now, and all the while we’ve been conducting contracting support. There isn’t a single coalition service member who isn’t supported by a contract in some capacity, be it the food he eats or the electricity she uses. While the commander’s intent may change from time to time, the three simple axioms executed by the motivated, professional and knowledgeable personnel of RCO-S and U.S. Army Contracting Command have been integral to maintaining that support, whether we were aware of it or not.

For more information, contact the author at Michael.z.keathley.mil@mail.mil. For more information about Army Contracting Command, Expeditionary Contracting Command – Afghanistan’s parent command, go to http://acc.army.mil/about/.

MAJ. MICHAEL Z. KEATHLEY is the executive officer of the 922nd Contracting Battalion at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He holds an MBA in acquisitions and contract management from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and a bachelor of liberal arts in criminal justice from Northwestern State University. He is Level II certified in contracting.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

Development of a government-led architecture specification promises to transform Army aviation mission systems.

by Mr. Scott Wigginton and Mr. William “Bill” Jacobs

Mission systems provide crucial elements of our warfighting capabilities—in the case of aviation mission systems, components integrated directly onto an air vehicle and encompassing traditional avionics (communications, navigations and displays, for example) as well as specific warfighting capabilities (weapons and sensors).

Current methods of acquiring these systems, however, lead to duplication of effort and a multiplicity of requirements for different contractors providing essentially the same capability. The Aviation Development Directorate (ADD) of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Command (AMRDEC) is researching new methods of acquiring aviation mission systems through a government-led architecture specification. This specification will describe the desired system characteristics, or “-ilities,” such as reusability, portability and interoperability, and document enforceable requirements for these characteristics. This approach will foster competition and reuse across systems, and reduce timelines for managing obsolescence and acquiring new capabilities.

A NEW APPROACH NEEDED

Military services develop aviation mission systems from a program-centric perspective. In other words, each program is singularly responsible for satisfying its system performance requirements. This approach makes sense from the program manager’s perspective, as they are able to manage cost, schedule and performance. The disadvantage, however, is that contractor-unique solutions are likely to preclude any component reuse across programs.

Often, the Army acquires the same basic capability multiple times through independent procurements, each with unique sets of requirements implemented by different contractors. Additionally, any modifications or modernization almost certainly will have to come from the initial contractor, impeding a program’s long-term supportability by limiting competition.

Throughout the life cycle of a system, many common functions need upgrading, with repeated development, integration, testing and qualification. Using a program-centric approach may reduce initial development cost and schedule, but it sacrifices long-term affordability and supportability by making it impossible to share the upgraded capabilities across programs. Additionally, nonfunctional requirements such as openness, interoperability, upgradability and maintainability become secondary to system performance requirements and are often compromised in favor of near-term program performance.

Overall, this program-centric perspective results in a loss of competition and innovation and increases long-term costs.

DOD acquisition processes focus on what performance is required and not how it should be implemented, providing limited insight and understanding of the reasons behind the “how.” When the government procures a capability this way, it inherits the business objectives of the contractor, which may not align with those of the government. The organization’s business and technical goals influence the architecture of that system, substantially affecting its life cycle. The government needs a systematic method to convey a system’s characteristics accurately from a broader, enterprise perspective. This method would drive architecture decisions for the system and lay the groundwork for development and sustainment decisions.

DOD has tried to tackle these challenges through an open systems architecture (OSA) approach that combines business and technical objectives that yield systems with severable modules that are subject to competition. But program-centric attempts and broad mandates to implement an OSA have yet to adequately improve life cycle affordability, enable competition or shorten fielding timelines in the aviation community. This is because achieving and assessing many life cycle characteristics such as openness are subjective and are pursued without coordination between the program offices and other stakeholders. To achieve the potential benefits of an OSA, the Army needs to apply a comprehensive, systematic approach across the aviation enterprise.

FIGURE 1: SENSIBLE REQUIREMENTS
The JCAS takes a multitiered approach to provide enforceable, traceable requirements for future procurements to conform to explicitly stated standards, processes or practices. The strategy is designed to lead to systems that are implemented in a specific, consistent manner. (SOURCE: AMRDEC)

SHIFTING PERSPECTIVES

ADD is investigating an approach to prioritize the government’s business and technical objectives as part of the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD), a science and technology program to demonstrate transformational vertical lift capabilities to prepare DOD for decisions regarding the replacement of the current vertical lift fleet. The JMR Comprehensive Architecture Strategy (JCAS) supports efficient development and sustainment of open and interoperable aviation mission systems.

The JCAS is based on analyzing, documenting and tracing the government’s business and technical goals, including key business drivers (for example, affordability, time to field, tactical overmatch, etc.), policy and processes. This analysis and documentation result in enforceable architecture requirements for aviation mission systems.

The JCAS provides a layered architectural management approach to inform and constrain subsequent development activities. It also provides enforceable, traceable requirements for future procurements to conform to explicitly stated standards, processes or practices. (See Figure 1.) It specifies a measure or verification method to prove desired characteristics or attributes. By providing traceability of the desired attributes and the means for achieving them, the strategy will lead to systems that are designed and implemented in a specific, consistent manner to achieve enterprise goals.

The JCAS proposes three levels of architectural management: reference architecture, objective architecture and system architecture. Throughout these levels, methods exist to enable identified improvements or changes as the JCAS matures. (See Figure 2.)

FIGURE 2: THE ARCHITECTURE OF DEVELOPMENT
The three-level JCAS system was developed by AMRDEC’s ADD as a way to eliminate shortcomings in the current method of acquiring avionics systems and improve cost and interoperability. JMR-TD’s capstone event, planned to begin this year, will provide proof of concept.(SOURCE: AMRDEC)

The reference architecture, the highest level of architecture in the JCAS, is intended to guide and constrain the development of subsequent levels of architectures. The reference architecture represents strategic-level interests by combining stakeholder concerns reflecting both business and technical perspectives. Its requirements are independent of a specific solution but still support desired stakeholder objectives, such as affordability and interoperability, in a common, consistent manner.

A reference architecture provides common language and terminology, guides the application of technology, supports traceability of requirements to validate future architectures and provides a method to adhere to common standards and patterns. It facilitates the development of cross-platform capabilities by constraining the ability to develop unique architectural approaches. Options within the reference architecture apply to all programs within the organization’s influence and include elements such as purpose, principles and standards.

The objective architecture derives from the reference architecture and represents a way to identify opportunities for commonality across related programs, such as in a family of systems. Whereas the reference architecture is an overarching set of options, the objective architecture represents the selections that meet the desired technical and business decisions for the family of systems. The objective architecture documents the tailoring and refinement by an organization to meet the missions of the related programs, as well as documentation of the methods to meet the requirements defined in the reference architecture.

At the lowest level of architectural specification is the system architecture, which the procuring organization develops by further refining and tailoring the objective architecture to satisfy the performance requirements of a specific system. The system architecture further guides and constrains the architectural principles and methods that the system developers may use while still adhering to the higher-level organizational objectives. Because the system architecture is focused on architectural principles, it does not prescribe the system design and implementation decisions, leaving flexibility for many potential designs.

TAKING CHARGE
A UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter, right, and a CH-47 Chinook helicopter, both from the 2nd General Support Aviation Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment Task Force Rough Riders, land in August before inserting paratroopers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, during an aerial response force exercise at Camp Taji Military Complex in Iraq. It is in the government’s best interest to develop an aviation mission systems architecture that will encourage shared capabilities. (U.S. Army photo by Capt. Stephen James, 29th Combat Aviation Battalion)

CONCLUSION

The JMR-TD is pursuing a series of demonstrations to mature various concepts of open systems. The final event, the capstone demonstration, begins with anticipated awards in June 2018 and runs through the end of 2020. It will help mature and validate the JCAS concept by determining if multiple related programs can use the same systematic approach to architecture to achieve desired characteristics. In the long term, the requirements to achieve these characteristics, which may provide the basis for a new generation of mission systems, will be encapsulated in a best-of-breed specification that leverages the observations and learning gained through the JMR demonstrations.

To achieve the desired life cycle characteristics for air vehicles, the government must take a leading role in describing and specifying the architecture of its aviation mission systems. Ultimately, the JCAS is intended to be a basis for future procurements of aviation mission system capabilities, reducing the likelihood that individual programs will develop unique and difficult-to-support solutions. Such an approach will be needed to achieve and maintain capability overmatch in a rapidly changing world with ever-evolving threats.

For more information, email usarmy.redstone.rdecom-amrdec.mbx.amrdec-add@mail.mil with the subject line “AL&T Article: Strength in Architecture.”

SCOTT WIGGINTON is an experimental developer for avionics integration on rotary-wing aircraft for ADD. He holds an M.E. and a B.S in computer engineering from Old Dominion University with minors in electrical engineering and in modeling and simulation. An active leader in the Future Airborne Capability Environment Consortium, he also leads international research to align open standards. He is Level III certified in engineering and Level I certified in information technology, test and evaluation, and science and technology management. He is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC).

WILLIAM “BILL” JACOBS, a project engineer within the JMR project office, leads the Joint Common Architecture, the JCAS and the capstone demonstration efforts. He holds an M.S. in systems engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School and a B.S in aerospace engineering from San Diego State University. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the AAC.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

A drone directed by one or more Soldiers through uncontested skies is a thing of the past. Army aviation is developing collaborative and intelligent systems for manned and unmanned fleets in contested air-space.

by Mr. Kevin Kee

Future warfare will present challenges to Army aviation assets not seen since the contested airspace of World War II. Communication, navigation and command-and-control systems will be degraded and jammed, and aircraft will encounter air defense threats with new capabilities. While sobering, these challenges offer an opportunity to leverage autonomy and teaming in both manned and unmanned aircraft.

Army aviation uses a manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) capability first fielded in 2009. This capability provides full-motion vid-eo in an AH-64E Apache cockpit from an RQ-7 Shadow or MQ-1C Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft system (UAS). It also offers mul-tiple levels of control of the UAS, from the ability to view and control the electro-optic payload and laser designator to remotely con-trolling the vehicle’s flight. These systems allow the MUM-T operator to identify and fix the laser designator at targets, allowing HELLFIRE and other smart missiles to guide to and destroy the target. MUM-T is enabled by the Mini-Tactical Common Data Link, which transmits UAS or aircraft sensor video to a ground or airborne One System Remote Video Terminal. With this capabil-ity, UAS can provide reconnaissance, targeting and security to an Army brigade.

PICKUP AND DELIVERY
AMRDEC’s Aviation Development Directorate (ADD) conducts autonomous dual-lift operations with two RMAX UAS carrying a 20-pound payload through a set of hover and low-speed maneuvers at Moffett Federal Airfield, California, in September. The helicopters are an autonomous flight resource developed by ADD and have been used for numerous flight experiments since 2002. (U.S. Army photo)

MANNED PLATFORMS
The MUM-T link, while providing great operational benefit, has also introduced new challenges to the manned aircraft fleet. In the AH-64E, both the pilot and the gunner must balance the needs and requirements of flying the aircraft with the operation and control of the UAS over the MUM-T link. Much like driving while talking on a cellphone, multitasking limits the effectiveness of the capabil-ity.

To address these shortcomings, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) is increasing in-vestment in human machine interface (HMI) technologies to reduce MUM-T workload. A touch interface, voice commands, and a head-tracker that knows where the pilot or gunner is looking are promising technologies in this area.

RDECOM is expected to reach a major milestone in its Synergistic Manned Unmanned Intelligent Teaming program, which focuses on assessing new technologies in the areas of HMI, decision aiding and autonomy as well as new ways to employ those technologies. In 2019, RDECOM will demonstrate an air mission commander that uses one crew station to manage up to eight unmanned systems to execute scout, attack and air assault missions with less workload than is required to control one UAS today.

UNMANNED PLATFORMS
Current UAS platforms have served the Army well in counterinsurgency operations by offering a durable, relatively cost-effective plat-form with a sensor and, on the Gray Eagle, HELLFIRE missiles. In Iraq and Afghanistan, these unmanned platforms are able to cir-cle high above the battlespace, providing continuous information to the commander. In the future, however, such uncontested envi-ronments are likely to be the exception. Current UAS platforms require a runway for operations, and their limited airspeed means that they must be operated from many locations to provide the coverage required, requiring many more platforms and infrastructure to support operations.

The rise of UAS platforms has also led countries all over the world, including the U.S., to develop counter-UAS systems. These sys-tems vary but generally have the ability to jam or degrade data links and GPS signals, or to simply shoot down the UAS. Commercial UAS platforms have been hacked numerous times, degrading the platform, so this possibility must be considered for any existing or future Army UAS.

These factors are driving a need to develop new UAS platforms that balance endurance with greater speed and range. Most important is the ability for the UAS to operate independently of a runway, so that a division or brigade does not have to depend on a fixed air base. RDECOM is exploring these platform configurations and developing ways to increase survivability while driving down cost. The rapidly growing commercial industry offers new opportunities to team and leverage commercial advances.

Moving in the right
Direction
Current large UAS platforms like this Gray Eagle provide important capabilities but need a runway to take off. These systems also have lower airspeeds and depend on data links and GPS signals. Future systems will need to be more independent to operate in a complex battlespace. (Image courtesy of AMRDEC)

A NEW DOG IN THE FIGHT
The combination of new UAS designs and HMI technologies enables the next level of MUM-T capability: true teamed operations. Current MUM-T missions involve many Soldiers, including the pilot, the MUM-T controller and ground control station operators. All of these Soldiers must coordinate and hand over control of individual UAS platforms while coordinating with other aircraft on the mission. But the Army could take a lesson from game hunters to streamline this manpower-intensive process. Every game hunter knows the value of using a hunting dog or a bird dog to find prey or retrieve game, and this relationship between hunter and dog pro-vides a model for what true teaming should be.

The operational concept can be as simple as the pilot directing the UAS to provide reconnaissance of a particular area, so that the UAS—like the bird dog—would travel to the objective without continuous monitoring. A much more complicated MUM-T mission could involve multiple UAS platforms and manned platforms locating and tracking a target and then maneuvering to engage and de-stroy it.

This complex coordination of manned and unmanned platforms is enabled by RDECOM investment in airspace command-and-control systems that can translate a high-level group command—to scan an area, for example—into specific orders for each aircraft. Additionally, the system must have a self-healing capability to rapidly determine whether a UAS has to return to base or is destroyed and would, as a result, require a manned or unmanned platform to continue its task. These future MUM-T systems also would enable ground commanders to assign tasks directly to air platforms, demonstrating a new level of combined arms coordination.

CONTROLLING CONTROLS
Currently fielded teaming capability provides the crew of an AH-64E Apache with full-motion video and multiple levels for controlling a UAS while balancing the demands of flying the aircraft. (Image courtesy of AMRDEC)

AUTONOMOUS OPERATIONS
The ultimate goal of air systems is fully autonomous operation for all aviation mission sets. Already RDECOM has demonstrated an autonomous cargo delivery system called Autonomous Technologies for Unmanned Aerial Systems (ATUAS). In December 2011, it became the first aerial system to deliver cargo in theater, for the U.S. Marine Corps. Two aircraft deployed for a six-month demon-stration period that was extended to 2 1/2 years. RDECOM is building upon this success to explore autonomous operations for other aviation missions.

Fully autonomous operations are less vulnerable to data-link jamming since an autonomous vehicle can act on its own, given initial commands from an operator, and does not require constant updates. When fully realized as a swarm, this capability provides an op-erational benefit greater than what manned aviation could provide alone. These benefits come with the added challenge of platform complexity, however. Manned aircraft and human pilots have the ability to adapt to any condition on the battlefield, including system failures, changes in weather conditions and adjusting the mission based on new information. An autonomous or artificial intelligence pilot requires programming to exhibit these humanlike behaviors to provide the same flexibility. Additionally, starting in 2019, RDECOM will explore autonomous reconnaissance and target acquisition in complex environments where the enemy is hidden or camouflaged.

Any autonomous system has to interface with a Soldier at some point, and this is another technology focus. The automotive industry provides some examples and recommendations as it develops similar standards. Imagine, in the not-too-distant future, sitting in the driver’s seat of an autonomous car watching a movie and not having to pay attention to the road. If you were fully engrossed in the movie, it would be very difficult to take control of the car if the auto-steering system suddenly disengaged. You would need even more notice if you were traveling on curvy roads during icy weather. And how would such a system operate if the car were struck by light-ning? The Army needs to explore the same issues and develop systems that can degrade gracefully—slowing and landing an aircraft in a safe area, for example, as soon as the autopilot starts failing.

Current aircraft undergo block upgrades to modify hardware and software to improve performance and capability. The software of any weapon system is underpinned by system architectures, which are traditionally difficult to modify or upgrade. Much research is being done in this area, but for future air systems, what’s needed is development of open system architectures that are designed to make adding, upgrading and swapping components easy. For an autonomous system, the use of machine learning, the continuing pace of commercial and government research, and upgrades to the autonomy system from operations are going to stress the tradi-tional block upgrade scheme. Similar to smartphones, the autonomous UAS of the future will require the ability to securely update and obtain the latest security patches and algorithm updates.

Last—but most important for any autonomous system—is trust. Global investment in autonomy and artificial intelligence is massive and growing every year, and new technologies appear frequently. The specific technologies required to demonstrate an autonomous system are not completely understood yet, but it is likely that the algorithms will exhibit learning behavior.

For a Soldier to fully trust an autonomous system requires a thorough understanding of the system design and its behavior at any point. The operational requirement for the system, however, will require more flexibility and more humanlike behavior to truly pro-vide operational benefit. It is important to balance these two demands, both to ensure safety and to provide trust in the system.

RAVEN VISION
Staff Sgt. Justin Higginbotham, a U.S. Army Reserve Soldier from the 346th Military Police Company, launches an RQ-11 Raven at Fort Riley, Kansas, in October. The Raven increases operational visibility in austere environments, helping Soldiers see the battlespace from above. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by 1st Lt. Kirk Westwood)

CONCLUSION
Developing the future of collaborative and intelligent air systems involves continually balancing investment priorities in MUM-T and its enablers. Investment and innovation will occur throughout the joint community, industry and academia, and the Army must be ready to adjust investment in response to these external sources. Especially important is coordination in the DOD Autonomy and Air Platform Communities of Interest to leverage investments and share knowledge.

RDECOM has already had success in demonstrations of the ATUAS cargo delivery system and technologies that will lead to the field-ing of MUM-T. Over the next decade, the organization will build upon this success to develop and demonstrate new UAS platforms, autonomy and teaming technologies. This will culminate in a series of demonstrations to highlight the capability and its benefit to the Army. Overall, RDECOM’s focus in this area will ensure that the Army’s manned and unmanned aircraft are ready to overmatch any potential adversary.

For more information about AMRDEC, part of the RDECOM, go to https://www.amrdec.army.mil/ or contact usar-my.redstone.rdecom-amrdec.mbx.pao@mail.mil.

MR. KEVIN KEE is an aerospace engineer at AMRDEC at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

By Col. Richard Haggerty

Imagine yourself as the Project Manager (PM) of an Acquisition Category (ACAT) III basket portfolio who has just been tapped to lead an ACAT I Special Interest cyber-Information Technology (IT) program with direction from Congress to immediately deliver capability to all Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) across the Department of Defense (DoD). Additionally, your first task as the PM is to brief Congressional members and staffers on your plan to execute this program, despite a lack of personnel, a defined requirement document, or an acquisition strategy.

What do you do?

A good place to start is an assessment of applicable Lessons Learned. Unfortunately, these lessons all point to a spotty track record of government-managed information technology (IT) programs:

• “Large projects not only fail more often, they deliver less… 50% of IT projects with budgets over $15 million dollars run 45% over budget, are 7% behind schedule, and deliver 58% less functionality than predicted.” 1
• “The government has wasted billions on botched IT projects that fail to deliver promised – or any – functionality and have been mothballed.” 2
  Even Gall’s Law clearly warns us that a complex system that works evolves from a simple system that worked. Conversely, a complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work.

Now what do you do?

Perhaps an application of industry lessons learned is the answer. As PC computing started to proliferate the enterprise in the 1990’s, the average lag between a requirement and software application delivery was three years. DoD’s answer to decrease development time was new software development standards and minimal tailoring of acquisition standards. Industry leaders instead sought to keep pace with the market and accelerating technology, but often cancelled projects and/or delivered partial capability in frustration as the gap continually expanded. Out of necessity for corporate survival, Agile was born in industry.

Agile Software Development describes a set of values and principles for software development under which requirements and solutions evolve through collaborative efforts of small self-organizing cross-functional teams.

As Agile evolved over the decades, it found its way into DoD weapons system programs. Yet countless reports and case studies of large-scale IT programs highlight the incongruity between agile development methodologies in industry and the cumbersome bureaucratic governmental processes unable to take full advantage of them.

FIGURE 1 – Agile Software Development Manifesto 6

These government and industry lessons learned drove three core principles for building the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE) program of record:

• Maximum use of acquisition tailoring
• Iterative capability drops
• Organizational culture
• Acquisition Tailoring

PMs often complain that there are too many restrictions in place to streamline programs, or they require special authorities similar to the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force or U.S. Special Operations Command’s ability to rapidly deliver capability. I respectfully disagree.

• DoD 5000.01: “MDAs and PMs shall tailor program strategies and oversight, including documentation of program information, acquisition phases, the timing and scope of decision reviews, and decision levels, to fit the particular conditions of that program, consistent with applicable laws and regulations and the time-sensitivity of the capability need.”
• Better Buying Power: “Unnecessary and low-value added processes and document requirements are a significant drag on acquisition productivity and must be aggressively identified and eliminated,”
• FAR Part 1.102-4: “The absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the team to innovate and use sound business judgement that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority.”

There are countless other references encouraging, if not directing, acquisition professionals to tailor programs based on sound business decisions. Unfortunately, the stigma associated with acquisition tailoring insinuates cutting corners, incomplete staffing, and/or excessive levels of risk. It additionally levies demands on a system that was not built for streamlined operations. Program tailoring often requires accelerated staffing, flat decision-making constructs, and requires acquisition leaders to accept some elements of risk that would otherwise be deferred during long and cumbersome staffing processes. It’s this organizational discomfort, not restrictive policy that often dissuades acquisition tailoring.

The PCTE Acquisition Strategy outlines a tailored approach to conduct pre-milestone risk reduction activities, then formally enter the acquisition system at Milestone B. During staffing a senior member of an organization tried to convince us to insert a Milestone A into the strategy so the program “looked more traditional and acceptable to the establishment”, despite the non value-added time and effort it would bring to the program. This discussion is more representative of the obstacles to acquisition tailoring than the actual policy.

Iterative Capability Drops

Poorly performing projects “have often used a ‘big bang’ approach­—that is, projects are broadly scoped and aim to deliver functionality several years after initiation. This has too often resulted in overdue, ineffective projects that fail to keep up with the rapid pace of technological innovation.” 3

This theme of IT projects collapsing under their own schedule as technology and requirements eclipsed the clumsy acquisition processes was prevalent in numerous reports and case study lessons learned. The solution was best articulated in a 2014 MITRE report that translated the principles of the Agile manifesto into four core elements. 4 These became the driving vision for not only the PCTE acquisition strategy, but the organizational culture.

• Focusing on small, frequent capability releases
• Valuing working software over comprehensive documentation
• Responding rapidly to changes in operations, technology, and budgets
• Actively involving users throughout the development to ensure high operational value

Using these as a guide, the team kicked off the PCTE program less than seven days after being formally designated by the Army to manage this program of record with an Industry Day that brought in more than 100 companies, organizations, and members of academia. During that same event we also initiated a Cyber Innovation Challenge (CIC) targeting a niche capability within the PCTE requirement; the CIC down-selected paper proposals to seven selected vendors who participated in a week-long demonstration to Cyber Mission Force evaluator. One vendor with considerable experience in the cyber community remarked that “this was the first cyber fly-off we’ve ever participated in.”

The CIC results in Other Transactional Authority (OTA) contract awards to industry. Coupled with efforts under other existing cyber contracts, these CIC efforts feed the first of several pre-Milestone B iterative PCTE capability drops to keep pace with technology, threat, and training requirements while also reducing programmatic risk. The first PCTE CIC OTA awards are scheduled for October 2017, with a second CIC event kicking off in Spring 2018. The programmatics, however, are only one element of success.

Organizational Culture

Managing an ACAT I program without people is challenging, especially during a federal civilian hiring freeze. But it is also a golden opportunity to assemble a team that has the right organizational culture to make a large DoD IT project successful.

A valuable lesson learned articulated in the Defense Acquisition Guide observed that “experience indicates that cultural changes must occur if programs are to implement Agile effectively, and that institutional resistance to these changes can prove especially hard to overcome. However, we believe that with strong leadership, a well-informed program office, and a cohesive and committed government and contractor team, Agile could enable the DoD to deliver IT capabilities faster and more effectively than traditional incremental approaches.” 5

It’s simple to publish a command philosophy or a new policy, but those documents do very little in shaping organizational culture. The PCTE team continues to use the Agile Manifesto to not only guide the program’s strategy, but also the organization’s culture. At the risk of using trite colloquialisms, every member of the team is brought into a flat organization where personal responsibility, initiative, and creativity are not only rewarded, but mandated. In How the Mighty Fall, Jim Collins expressed it best: “Any exceptional enterprise depends first and foremost upon having self-managed and self-motivated people, the #1 ingredient for a culture of discipline. While you might think that such a culture would be characterized by rules, rigidity, and bureaucracy, I’m suggesting quite the opposite.”

In June 2017, while performing the duties of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, Mr. James MacStravic vowed to drive out what he called “the stupid” from DoD’s IT buying practices. Specifically, the department’s tendency to apply processes that were designed for complex weapons systems – including massive, slow delivery increments and exhaustive testing procedures. Coincidentally, Mr. MacStravic was the Milestone Decision Authority for PCTE at that time and had just approved the innovative and unconventional PCTE Acquisition Strategy 30 days prior. Without question, he helped shape the organizational culture, as well as the program’s strategy.

Driving Out “The Stupid”

Poring over lessons learned and case studies on acquisition programs, most professionals will think to themselves, “how could this have ever happened?” It’s only after some time in the seat that PMs realize how easy it is to be the topic of a case study.

As we pored over the lessons learned on large DoD IT efforts, it became clear that the Persistent Cyber Training Environment program had to take an unconventional approach to be successful. We needed to heavily tailor the acquisition process, commit to an Agile-like strategy for iterative capability drops, and shape focus on an organizational culture that could not only think outside the box, but manage a program outside of it.

PCTE has clearly embraced Agile development and is embracing leading edge methods for streamlining this complex program. These efforts are driven by necessity as well as a pure desire to deliver this key capability to Warfighter’s.

References:

1 – Bloch, Michael, Blumberg, Sven and Laartz, Jürgen. Delivering Large-Scale IT Projects on Time, On Budget, and On Value.” McKinsey, October 2012, http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value. Accessed on 10 September 2017.

2 – GAO-15-290 Report to Congressional Committees, “High Risk Series, An Update.” February 2015, http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668415.pdf. Accessed on 11 September 2017.

3 – GAO-15-290 Report to Congressional Committees, “High Risk Series, An Update.” February 2015, http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668415.pdf. Accessed on 11 September 2017.

4 – Modigliani, Peter J and Chang, Su. “Defense Agile Acquisition Guide: Tailoring DoD IT Acquisition Program Structures and Processes to Rapidly Deliver Capabilities.” March 2014, https://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/defense-agile-acquisition-guide-tailoring-dod-it-acquisition-program. Accessed on 6 September 2017.

5 – Modigliani, Peter J and Chang, Su. “Defense Agile Acquisition Guide: Tailoring DoD IT Acquisition Program Structures and Processes to Rapidly Deliver Capabilities.” March 2014, https://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/defense-agile-acquisition-guide-tailoring-dod-it-acquisition-program. Accessed on 6 September 2017.

6 – Figure 1. Schiller, Fabian. “Agile Planet. A Travel Guide to the Agile Universe.” learnpub.com, 2 November 2014, https://leanpub.com/agileplanet. Accessed on 7 September 2017.

Col. Richard Haggerty grew up in San Diego, California and enlisted in the United States Army as a senior in high school. After four years he accepted a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in 1993. Over his 30 year career, Col. Haggerty has flown attack helicopters and served in various command and staff positions in the conventional Army and Special Operations Forces. He currently leads a project office supporting test and evaluation, joint training, special operations and cyber.

Col. Haggerty has operational and combat deployments to Kuwait, Bosnia, Thailand, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is married to the former Kimberly Way of New Jersey, and they have two sons: Nicholas and Maverick.

This article is a winner in the 2017 Maj. Gen. Harold J. “Harry” Green Awards for Acquisition Writing competition. A special supplement featuring the winning entries is online now, and will accompany the print version of the April – June 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine. If you wish to be added to the magazine’s mailing list, subscribe online; if you’d like multiple subscriptions, please send an email to armyalt@gmail.com.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

By Lt. Col. Rachael Hoagland

When people learn that I spent a year as a Training with Industry Fellow at Amazon.com, Inc. I get asked, “Did you meet Jeff Bezos? Did you get to work on the drones?” Or, “You must have seen some really cool technology.” Yes, I attended quarterly all hands with Jeff Bezos but we never had a one on one conversation. No, I did not work on the drone project. Yes, I did see some really cool technology. Every time someone asked one of the questions I had already been asked a hundred times I asked myself what it was that I was really learning.

The experience was so much more than just seeing a new technology or meeting one person. So, here are my top five lessons learned while working at Amazon.com. I hope these thoughts will provoke discussion and inspire curiosity.

1) Location Matters

I was initially shocked to learn how many people had worked for a large Information Technology (IT) company prior to working at Amazon or were leaving Amazon to go work at another large IT company. The location of Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle, WA allowed for talent to move around in different companies without moving physical locations, thus allowing Amazon to recruit the best of the best in their respective fields.
While some may view talent moving between companies as a negative thing, in reality, it’s very positive. Having people with diverse experiences work in different companies means that new perspectives and ideas are constantly being generated, rather than relying on those with the same experiences doing the same things, just with a different company name or logo. This made me ask myself, has the Army located our project management offices strategically in the best way?

When it comes to building Army vehicles, locating the project management office near Detroit, MI—home of the American automobile industry—it is absolutely right. But when it comes to information technology, I believe we have miscalculated. It is no secret that Silicon Valley is known for being home to many of the world’s largest IT companies, yet the Army has no IT project management offices there. Instead, most of our IT offices are in Aberdeen, MD and Fort Belvoir, VA. These locations cause us to hire employees who are less familiar, and engaged with, the current IT trends, usually a retired military member who owns a flip phone and has no social media account but is willing to stay in the area.

We need to ask ourselves, who do we want building our software? Do we want people who all look the same with the same background and same experience? If the answer is no, then the project management office needs to be in a location which supports more than just the government organization; it needs to be in a location where we can attract diverse, young, and energetic talent.

2) Yes Works

Saying yes is not something Government Acquisition is known for. Maybe it is our training, the type of people we hire, or the way the system is setup, but in government acquisitions the default answer is, “No,” and too often, “I can’t do that, if I do I will go to jail,” with a follow up citation of some statute or regulation that supports their answer. However, the problem is not the statue or the regulation; it is how people choose to interpret and administer them, which leads to processes being implemented that are the same as they have always been done, even if they are not the most productive or effective. We hire smart people but do not empower them to make changes or experiment with new things, which is why they so often say no.

There were a few key fundamentals I observed at Amazon that supported employees saying yes. First, they decentralized decision making; second, they encouraged teams to self-organize and self-manage; finally, they empowered decision making at the lowest level. Implementing these ideologies would be a major culture shift for most of our program offices, but I think it is important to apply them to government acquisition. It is time to change our culture from a “no” organization to a “yes” organization.

3) Custom versus Configurable

Do we really need a custom product or could we use an industry product and configure it to fit our needs? Configurable software products offer customers the ability to take advantage of all the innovations industry has to offer. Custom software is expensive; development is slow; upgrades are difficult, slow, costly and are sometimes unreliable. These can all cause the government to fall behind the rest of industry relatively quickly. It might seem as though building a custom solution would better fit the requirements, but the opposite may be true. Highly configurable software provides the user with more options, thus allowing them to adapt to changing environments.

4) Requirements Change

When it comes to developing software solutions we often try to plan everything upfront without building in any flexibility. Flexibility lets us react to unexpected changes and take advantage of breakthroughs. While at Amazon I watched how requirements shifted and changed as new breakthroughs were discovered. This kept the speed of development very high.
In government acquisition, we find similar breakthroughs but are unable to take advantage of them because we are not authorized to make changes to our requirements within the program offices. To change requirements there is a drawn out process that often makes the discovery irrelevant because the by the time you get approval the moment for implementation has passed. Changing requirements will empower us to make monumental changes instead of incremental changes.

5) Companies Care

While living and working in Seattle I was able to spend time with military recruiting teams from Amazon, Starbucks, and Microsoft. What I found most encouraging was that the companies not only focused on hiring veterans, they also focused on education. Amazon Web Services (AWS) offers a free AWS Educate membership to transitioning service members and military spouses. Starbucks offers all employees a free college education if they work an average of 20 hours a week. For veterans, they will also pay for one child or spouse to earn their college degree as well. Microsoft provides certifications to transitioning services members that provides 18 college credit hours upon course completion.

Final Thoughts

There are a lot of similarities between the lessons I gained while working at Amazon and those I learned as an Assistant Project Manager in Special Operations Forces Command (SOCOM). A large number of the project management offices are located with the user community. There is a culture of saying “yes,” which aids in getting the mission done right as quickly as possible. They decentralize decision-making. Configurable products are the norm. Calculated risk and experimentation are acceptable, which often changes requirements or drives new ones. Finally, there is a considerable focus on education. SOCOM is proof that these processes work within the government construct.

The future of our national security depends upon a culture shift in the acquisition community. We have an obligation to work within the statutory and regulatory requirements, but we also have a responsibility to learn how to govern the processes so that we better meet the user’s needs.

Lt. Col. Rachael Hoagland is currently an assistant executive officer in HQDA CIO G-6. Previously, she served as a Training with Industry Fellow at Amazon.com, Inc. She has held assistant project management jobs in the U.S. Special Operations Command and Project Manager Tactical Radios within PEO Command, Control and Communications – Tactical. Prior to entering the Acquisition Corps, she taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and held several roles as a military intelligence officer.

This article is a honorable mention in the 2017 Maj. Gen. Harold J. “Harry” Green Awards for Acquisition Writing competition. A special supplement featuring the winning entries is online now, and will accompany the print version of the April – June 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine. If you wish to be added to the magazine’s mailing list, subscribe online; if you’d like multiple subscriptions, please send an email to armyalt@gmail.com.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

Targeted S&T supports new directions in network modernization by focusing on command, control, communications and intelligence capabilities for expeditionary operations featuring active electronic warfare.

by Ms. Nora Pasion

Army senior leaders have identified network command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I) as one of the Army’s six modernization priorities. Consistent with guidance from the chief of staff of the Army (CSA), the Army will move away from the existing network modernization path that lacked survivability, effectiveness, interoperability and suitability, and toward an expeditionary network enabling the Army to fight and win in all environments and against all enemies. To support this way forward, the Mission Command Network Modernization Implementation Plan will drive the development of the future Army network through four lines of effort (LOEs):

• Unified network.
• Common Operating Environment.
• Joint and coalition interoperability.
• Survivability and mobility of command posts.

The Network Modernization Implementation Plan defines each LOE in support of the CSA’s intent. LOE 1, unified network, will address unified transport and the supporting network enablers to provide assured network transport in a contested and congested environment. The second LOE, Common Operating Environment (COE), will focus on integrating the Joint Information Environment (JIE) and the associated applications that support commanders and leaders at echelon.

LOE 3 addresses interoperability in both JIE and mission partner environments, and supports the overall COE. Lastly, LOE 4 addresses the mobility and survivability of command posts (CPs), focusing on the capabilities that enable combat formations to conduct distributed mission command in an increasingly contested and congested environment against a peer adversary. This plan is grounded in the CSA’s first principles of modernizing to achieve critical operational requirements.

To provide warfighters with the necessary equipment to support the CSA’s modernization objectives, the Army is investing in science and technology (S&T) in the following network C3I and enabling areas: tactical communications and networking; assured positioning, navigation and timing (PNT); electronic warfare (EW); and cyber-electromagnetic activities (CEMA); mission command applications; persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); and command post.

Following this article are three articles addressing select S&T concepts and research that support the network C3I portfolio across the near term (through 2025), midterm (2026-2035) and far term (beyond 2035): sensing in complex and congested environments; future Army Networks; and novel distributed processing approaches.

DATA Transfer Duty
Combat Cameraman Spc. Christopher Bellafant tests a data transmission system as part of tactical digital media training at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in October. Army S&T investments in network modernization are focused on expeditionary, mobile and agile capabilities that increase combat effectiveness and improve decision-making and targeting. (U.S. Army photo by Dan Lafontaine, Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical)

TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING

To ensure information dominance on the battlefield, the Army’s tactical network must provide assured communications in contested, congested and degraded environments. This supports communications at the point of need and enables timely, decisive action. Army S&T investments are addressing these challenges through the research and development of automated and intelligent networks, anti-jam voice and data, autonomous platform communications, spectrum situational awareness (SA) and high-bandwidth commercial technologies.

ASSURED PNT

Unified land operations in multidomain environments require Army forces to access and integrate capabilities across space, cyber and EW domains to gain and maintain PNT superiority in support of joint operations. Transmission platforms that support unified land operations with unified action partners (or, “military forces, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and elements of the private sector with whom U.S. Army forces plan, coordinate, synchronize, and integrate during the conduct of operations,” according to Army Doctrine Reference Publication 3-0, “Unified Land Operations”) must be assured and secure to deliver on-time situational awareness that allows operational units to act quickly and outmaneuver adversaries.

U.S. forces need the ability to prevent, degrade, eliminate and mitigate threats aimed at joint unified land operations while preserving friendly freedom of movement and action. S&T investments provide technologies that enable monitoring and control of the navigation warfare environment. Supported capabilities include electronic protection, support and attack; denying PNT capabilities to adversaries; and demonstrating -quantum-based, GPS-independent, ultra-high precision PNT in any environment. Other research efforts include developing modular GPS-independent sensors, open architecture sensor fusion capability and leading DOD’s PNT modeling and simulation collaborative initiative.

WHAT’S ON THE HORIZON?
An Expeditionary CEMA Team member surveys the battlefield near the mock city of Razish at the NTC in May as part of a training rotation for the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division under the CEMA Support to Corps and Below Initiative. Led by the U.S. Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER), the initiative started as a pilot to explore cyberspace capabilities and doctrine, and grew to encompass the integration of cyber with warfighting disciplines such as EW, information operations, intelligence and network operations. (U.S. Army photo by Bill Roche, ARCYBER)

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

EW provides an advantage over the adversary by enabling forces in operational areas to conduct electronic attack (EA), EW support (ES) and electronic protection (EP), in combination with other tactics. Army S&T investments are providing EW technologies for the mid and far term to enable ES, EA and SA through the foreseeable future. Research efforts are also producing standards-based, multifunction platforms in support of the Army EW strategy for unified land operations in 2025 and beyond.

CYBER-ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITIES

Technologies are needed that harden critical network and weapon systems and protect these vital assets from emerging cyber threats as well as those that exploit the electromagnetic spectrum. These S&T investments deliver technologies that enable the resilience to fight through an attack and to acquire SA by leveraging tactical assets. These investments are expected to provide rapid access and effects to gain an advantage over adversaries.

Research efforts are also developing system architectures that support a war-fighting network platform in order to increase interoperability across operational domains, decrease the burden of training and enable the tactical delivery of cyber-electromagnetic effects.

MISSION COMMAND APPLICATIONS

Mission command applications must rapidly correlate and integrate data into useful information, enable rapid and accurate SA and reduce the number of Soldiers required for command post operations. Key capabilities include a common operating picture and awareness of cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum, which support commanders and leaders at all echelons and enable all warfighting functions.

Army S&T investments are delivering decision-support tools that implement standardized digital plans, model-based decision tools, automated sensor feed discovery, predictive visualization and machine learning to improve Soldier understanding, response time and accuracy, regardless of the tempo of operations.

TOMORROW’S COMMAND POST
The Missouri Army National Guard’s 35th Aviation Brigade sets up a command post under the Milky Way in May 2017 at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California, in support of the 155th Armored Brigade Combat Team’s NTC rotation. Army S&T investments will support mobile, scalable, tailorable command posts through servers, infrastructure and vehicle and equipment packages. (Mississippi National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Tim Morgan, 102nd Public Affairs Detachment)

PERSISTENT ISR

To overcome range limitations and deliver accurate long-range precision and area fires, Army S&T provides capabilities that enable assured maneuverability through continuous battlespace SA. Enhanced SA reduces tactical surprise and prevents detection. Additionally, these assets increase the probability of target acquisition and deliberate operational engagement to defeat adversaries in an attack. S&T investments in this area include affordable, precision, standoff target identification and geolocation capabilities for mounted and dismounted Soldiers.

These programs are intended to assure speed and protection for ground forces. Complementary investments will include autonomous sensing of potential threats, sensor interoperability, multifunctional sensing, automatic target acquisition and data processing and synthesizing for Soldiers and units to employ for exploiting and disseminating information.

COMMAND POSTS

CPs enable commanders and their staff to visualize, comprehend, direct and synchronize operations continuously in all phases of unified land operations. CPs must enable units to conduct distributed operational mission command ranging from while en route to a crisis, during early entry to major combat operation and while rapidly integrating warfighting functions.

These CP capabilities are necessary to facilitate planning, collaboration and synchronized unified land operations with unified action partners, while reducing electronic and physical signatures to prevent hostile detection and targeting from enemy fires. Additionally, CP infrastructure must be deployable, mobile and survivable in a fast-paced, lethal fight. Army S&T investments will support a mobile, scalable and tailorable CP with improvements to CP infrastructure (including servers), power generation systems, vehicle and equipment packages, and other enabling technologies.

WEEDING OUT DIFFERENCES
Sgt. Joshua Burnette of 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division instructs a member of his squad during Exercise Orient Shield 2017 at Camp Fuji, Japan, in September. The exercise is designed in part to enhance U.S. and Japanese combat readiness and interoperability at the tactical level, which is also a focus of S&T efforts for C3I. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Christopher Lange)

CONCLUSION

Focused network modernization is critical to achieve the Army’s desire to fight and win in any environment against any foe. In support of the Army’s top modernization priorities, Army S&T develops network C3I and enabling technologies in tactical communications and networking; assured PNT; EW; cyber-electromagnetic activities; mission command applications; persistent ISR; and CP technologies.

Collectively, these technologies enable expeditionary, mobile, agile, survivable, situationally aware and interoperable capabilities that increase combat effectiveness and improve -decision-making and targeting in future conflicts. To enable the Army to execute the conduct of war and remain prepared for war, these efforts are critical to aligning modernization efforts with the Army’s first principles.

For more information, go to https://www.army.mil/asaalt.

NORA PASION is director for the C3I portfolio in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology. She received an M.S. in industrial engineering and a B.S. in electrical engineering from New Mexico State University. She is Level III certified in engineering and Level I certified in S&T management and information technology. She holds active certifications for Certified Information Systems Security Professional and Certified Ethical Hacker.

Related link:

AUSA Eisenhower Luncheon, Oct. 10, 2017, including Gen. Milley’s keynote speech: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/557394/ausa-2017-eisenhower-luncheon

 

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

 Research in several areas will mature new capabilities to make Future Vertical Lift possible.  

by Mr. Todd Turner and Mr. Matthew Simone

In the future, Army aviation systems will need to operate in an anti-access and area denial (A2AD) contested airspace against adversaries that have advanced capabilities that constrain freedom of maneuver. To be effective in these environments, future aviation systems will need extended range, increased situational awareness and higher speed to maneuver into positions of advantage, survive and engage the adversary. There also will be a need for increased use of unmanned systems to penetrate this contested airspace.

The investments in the air systems science and technology (S&T) portfolio are dedicated to discovery, innovation and transition of products to enable U.S. technical superiority and combat overmatch for current and Future Vertical Lift (FVL) systems. The portfolio is invested in five broad areas of research:

• Platform design and structures to focus on extending the range and speed of vertical lift systems.
• Investments in power to ensure that systems can achieve higher speeds and improved efficiency to achieve extended ranges.
• Mission systems technologies to ensure that once the platform is in the operational environment, it can provide the desired lethality and survivability.
• Unmanned aircraft autonomy and teaming to extend reach and lethal effect while also providing the ability to penetrate A2AD environments.
• Investments in maintainability and sustainability to ensure that platforms are capable of high operations tempo while reducing logistics demand.

ONE POSSIBILITY The JMR-TD is demonstrating platform and mission systems technologies to help the Army make decisions about FVL capabilities, which could look like this hypothetical rendering. The demonstrator effort is managed jointly by a team led by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC). (U.S. Army graphic by AMRDEC VizLab)

PLATFORM DESIGN AND STRUCTURES

Ultimately, the desired effect on the battlefield for aviation systems, whether assault, attack, lift, reconnaissance or medical evacuation, is provided by the platform. That platform may be manned, optionally manned or unmanned, depending on mission and environment. The focus of S&T in platform design is to support FVL. S&T in this area encompasses concept development and design analysis through system development and demonstration.

This includes current efforts such as the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) and future efforts such as Next Generation Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems (NGTUAS). The JMR-TD is demonstrating platform and mission systems technologies in support of FVL. NGTUAS is focused on the development and demonstration of technologically feasible and affordable unmanned air vehicle technologies and capabilities that provide improvements in flight performance, survivability and reliability. Long-term efforts are focused on vertical lift technologies that enable both high speed and efficient hover.

A BIRD IN THE HAND
Spc. Derek Opthof of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division winds up to throw an RQ-11 Raven unmanned aerial vehicle to scan the field where Soldiers had just jumped from an aircraft during a deployment readiness exercise at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in July. This kind of teaming between unmanned systems, Soldiers and manned systems is an important area of investment and research for Army aviation. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Andrew Lee)

POWER

One of the most important areas of technology needed to dominate the future operational environment is aircraft power systems. This area includes technologies that advance the capabilities of turbine engines and drivetrains. Current vertical lift turbine engines and drivetrains are designed to operate at a fixed speed and lift; forward movement is produced by adjusting the pitch of the helicopter rotor blades. These turbine engines and drivetrains are optimized for this fixed speed but are at their limit of efficiency and power.

To meet the requirements for range and speed with maximum efficiency, technologies like variable-speed turbine engines and multispeed transmissions are being developed. To build these future power systems, new turbine designs, materials and components will need to be developed through innovative manufacturing capabilities like additive manufacturing. Additionally, engine designs will need to be highly reliable to meet the demands of the future operating environment, which will be fast-paced and require much longer operation between maintenance sessions than today’s aircraft. Leap-ahead technologies like hybrid-electric power systems are also being investigated and developed. These technologies combine the efficiency of electric motors and optimized engines, not unlike current hybrid-electric cars. Combining all of these new technologies and capabilities will be required in order to enable the FVL aircraft to meet all of its future requirements.

MISSION SYSTEMS

The goal of the mission systems area is to mature and validate man-machine mission equipment software and hardware technologies to enable overmatch and survivability in the future operating environment. If the airframe, engines, transmission and rotors are the body of FVL, then the mission systems can be thought of as the eyes, ears and brains. To allow for a holistic approach to mission system development and employment, open systems architectures will be required to allow Soldiers to “plug and play” future reconnaissance, survivability and lethality systems.

Current sensors and payloads are federated, meaning they don’t interoperate much. In order to install updated payload equipment, an aircraft upgrade would likely need to be developed, which would increase cost and aircraft downtime. The Army’s air systems S&T portfolio is conducting research in multifunctional sensors so as not to overload the size, weight and power of the aircraft. An example of this type of sensor would be one that has a combination of situational awareness and targeting capabilities.

The mission systems also need to be designed so that the FVL aircraft can operate anywhere, anytime and in any weather condition. This calls for systems that increase situational awareness and survivability but also reduce the cognitive burden on pilots that can come with data overload from these advanced sensors. New types of algorithms for artificial intelligence are being researched and developed to create this new pilot modality, called “supervised autonomy,” whereby pilots oversee instead of execute lower-level flight functions. Speaking at an aviation forum held Sept. 7, 2017, by the Association of the United States Army, Maj. Gen. Bill Gayler, commander of the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Alabama, said supervised autonomy would “aid a human in the loop and augment the pilot rather than replacing the pilot.” All of these new advanced capabilities will transform the way FVL is operated and will enable survivability in the fast-paced, dynamic future operating environment.

UP AND AWAY
Chief Warrant Officer Natalie Miller, assigned to Company B, 2-238th General Support Aviation Battalion, leaves Greenville, South Carolina, in February 2017 aboard a CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift cargo helicopter, bound for a weeklong training mission focused on high-altitude flight operations. FVL platforms will need to operate at extended ranges and endure difficult conditions longer and with less-frequent maintenance. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Roberto Di Giovine)

AUTONOMY AND TEAMING

In the future, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may be used to extend the reach of manned systems while removing the Soldier from dangerous conditions. Potential applications include reconnaissance, attack, resupply and casualty evacuation. Research in this area is focused on technologies for the next generation of UAS to support manned-unmanned teaming in combined arms operations. This includes a wide spectrum of research, from control interfaces to advancing autonomous behaviors.

Research in these areas needs to be conducted in parallel to realize the potential of unmanned systems. Common human-machine interface efforts are focused on human-system interface designs to improve mission effectiveness in airborne operations. Areas of investigation include cockpit designs with advanced cueing, controls and displays. In autonomous teaming, the focus is on the development of autonomous algorithms to allow one pilot to control UAS, and cognitive decision aids to reduce the time a Soldier has to spend in direct control of a UAS. The long-term goal is to extend UAS capability beyond remote control or teleoperation to truly autonomous capability, to allow combined manned-unmanned platform teaming in contested environments, through the realization of systems that adapt to changing battlefield conditions.

MAINTAINABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Maintainability and sustainability focus on the development of technologies and methodologies to enable more reliable designs, the ability to forecast component failure, and technologies to reduce maintenance and the logistics burden, one of the biggest cost drivers for Army aviation. Specific areas of research include integrated health management, efficient component design for optimized reliability, material failure modes, and the effects of thermomechanical and electromagnetic loading. The iterative goals are to move from maintenance based on time-on-aircraft to condition-based maintenance and, ultimately, to predictive maintenance.

SUNSET ON THE APACHE
Army aviation S&T is investing in a portfolio of enabling technologies as a precursor to fielding a replacement for the AH-64 Apache helicopter, including these from the North Carolina Army National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 130th Aviation Regiment, positioned in the Mojave Desert in May at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. (Mississippi National Guard photo illustration by Staff Sgt. Tim Morgan, 102nd Public Affairs Detachment)

CONCLUSION

The S&T investment in air systems is positioned to deliver the next wave of capabilities that will ensure that our vertical lift and UAS are capable of providing close air support and maintain U.S. dominance on the battlefield. The following articles discuss in more detail some specifics of the FVL S&T portfolio: architecture specification, collaborative air systems and aircraft survivability.

For more information, contact Todd Turner at todd.m.turner.civ@mail.mil.

 TODD TURNER is the portfolio director for air in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology (ODASA(R&T)), in Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in technology management from University of Maryland University College and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Bucknell University. He is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC), and is Level III certified in engineering and in science and technology management.

 MATTHEW SIMONE is the deputy portfolio director for air for ODASA(R&T). He holds an M.S. in engineering management from Catholic University of America, and an M.S. and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech. He is a member of the AAC and is Level III certified in engineering.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

An S&T objective looks to ‘ExPED’ite and improve processing and exploitation of the avalanche of raw intelligence data.

by Mr. Michael Pellicano and Ms. Danielle Duff

At the tactical level, a commander depends on the depiction of accurate and timely battlefield situational understanding on the common operating picture (COP) to support the decision-making process. This picture is directly influenced by intelligence analysts using an institutionalized workflow called tasking, collection, processing, exploitation and dissemination, which turns raw intelligence data into actionable intelligence that is then fed into the COP.

Over the previous decade, driven by the demands of war and technological advances, significant enhancements in the capabilities of sensors and collection platforms have led to collection systems that generate extraordinarily large amounts of data, which has the potential to provide a rich and more accurate understanding of the battlefield. Unfortunately, the wealth of data overwhelms analysts’ ability to turn it into actionable intelligence. To put this in perspective, William M. Arkin writes in his book “Unmanned: Drones, Data, and the Illusion of Perfect Warfare,” that “the amount of visual data collected each day [is] five seasons’ worth of every professional football game played—thousands upon thousands of hours.”

But drones are just one of the many sensors on the battlefield. Arkin notes that “the next generation of wide-area motion imagery sensors will be capable of collecting 2.2 petabytes per day, bringing 450 percent more data into the network than all of Facebook adds on a typical day.” As a result, data is left unprocessed, unexploited and unavailable for future analysis. This inefficiency leads to gaps in situational awareness and sometimes duplicative collections.

The Defense Science Board in February 2011 came to a similar conclusion, stating: “[T]he rapid increase of collected data will not be operationally useful without the ability to store, process, exploit, and disseminate this data. … Current collection generates data that greatly exceeds the ability to organize, store, and process it.” There are not, and never will be, enough analysts to review the massive amount of raw intelligence collected on the battlefield.

To complicate this already difficult problem, the Army is consolidating analytic personnel, setting up centralized sites outside of conflict zones where specialized Soldiers can support operations by focusing on exploiting sensor data. However, legacy systems were not designed to move this amount of data across the network or support the collaborative analyst workflows needed to support decentralized processing, exploitation and dissemination (PED).

The Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC), a subordinate organization of U.S. Army Materiel Command’s Research, Development and Engineering Command, initiated the Extensible Processing Exploitation and Dissemination (ExPED) Science and Technology Objective (STO) in October 2016 to improve the process of converting raw sensor data into usable situational understanding. A STO is a three- to five-year critical science and technology (S&T) project that has direct oversight from the Warfighter Technical Council, a one-star-level governing body that addresses strategic program topics, recommending and reviewing major new S&T investment efforts. The STO comprises several research focus areas combined under one program to work collaboratively on high-priority Army capability gaps, which for ExPED is “developing situational understanding.”

The program title, ExPED or Extensible PED, refers to the desired capability to adapt Army PED operations based on mission needs and available resources such as sensors, computers and human analysts. Under optimal conditions, tactically deployed intelligence analysts will develop and refine the intelligence COP by combining data from multiple organic and strategic sensors with the help of advanced processing resources and subject matter experts who may be distributed around the world. The tools used to perform PED must support these distributed workflows and also adapt to more constrained conditions where networks or limited timelines don’t allow for an enterprise solution.

The ExPED effort began with an intensive effort to analyze and study the PED process, by observing and interviewing analysts to determine what architectures, systems and sensors exist in the tactical environment and how these capabilities are used to create intelligence products. The program then created a PED model and ran it through different scenarios to see where breakdowns might occur. Along the way, this effort identified the following top-level problems: the lack of automated processes to support multiple sensor and multiple intelligence (multi-INT) data; the high probability of missing significant events as data volume increases; and the lack of awareness of sensor collection plans.

With these findings, the ExPED team started an extensive system engineering process that identified basic PED use cases and then developed sequence diagrams to define how current PED processes functioned and to identify areas where applying S&T resources could have high payoff in PED workflows. The program designated three focus areas: PED architectures; data processing and analytics; and collaboration and visualization.

GETTING THE BIG PICTURE
Spc. Clayton P. McInnis, a human intelligence analyst with 1st Battalion, 155th Infantry Regiment of the Mississippi Army National Guard, reviews reports in the unit’s tactical operations center in June, at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. The ExPED STO is designed to improve the conversion of large amounts of raw sensor data into usable situational understanding. (Mississippi National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann, 102d Public Affairs Detachment)

OPEN ARCHITECTURES IMPROVE INTEROPERABILITY

Recent combat operations necessitated focusing intently on immediate PED needs—narrowly targeted, evolutionary improvements, without appreciation for broader capability alignments; integration into the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise; or life cycle cost. For the sake of speed, new sensor systems were developed and fielded as stovepiped systems, each with a dedicated processing system and dedicated analyst. This allowed for faster design, development and testing, whereby the engineers controlled all aspects of the system. In addition, sensors and PED systems are stovepiped within security boundaries because of classification of the systems or the data they collect. However, valuable information could be shared across security boundaries if the proper processes were in place.

These stovepipes hinder the ability to conduct multi-INT analysis, to hand off targets between sensors (cross-cue) or to share data with other systems. Stovepiped systems also present unscalable and unsustainable costs for the doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership and education, personnel and facilities aspects of maintaining the ISR enterprise.

Instead, sensor solutions need to use industry standards, be scalable—capable of handling a growing amount of work—and built on open architectures designed to support rapid integration of new capabilities by making it easy to add, upgrade and swap components. These architectures should adapt to the echelon in which they will operate, provide a framework for distributed PED and facilitate integration with other systems.

Data services, an essential architectural component, must provide data management and delivery to the right user; this includes enabling access to joint, interagency, multinational, NATO, allied and national operations. Some currently fielded sensor architectures provide sensor data and status. However, these architectures are not tailored for tactical environments with limited communications, cannot be easily reconfigured during missions and are not designed to support multi-INT fusion—the process of comparing and correlating data from multiple sources and disparate types, including human inputs, collected signals, measurements and imagery, and then generating more useful observations.

The ExPED program is investigating and developing sensor architecture prototypes that will dynamically tie together PED resources (sensors, analytics and analysts) across the tactical space. This will provide the ability to reconfigure resources in changing conditions and make better use of constrained tactical bandwidth, thus increasing awareness and discovery of significant events.

GATHERING INTEL—THEN WHAT?
A Soldier with the Regimental Engineer Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment assembles an RQ-11 Raven unmanned aerial vehicle during a surveillance mission in May during Saber Junction 17 at the Hohenfels Training Area, Germany. Saber Junction is designed to assess the readiness of the regiment, which is assigned to U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR), to conduct unified land operations, with an emphasis on operational and tactical decision-making, among other skills. The collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence play an indispensable role in accurate, timely decision-making in combat. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. William Marlow, Viper Combat Camera
Team, USAREUR)

REDUCING

ANALYST WORKLOADS

The Army continues to add sensors that are capable of collecting greater volumes of data, but we can’t afford to move all of the data around our networks, and we don’t have enough analysts to look at all of it. Analytics provide process automation, smart logic, computation and threat trending that expose nuggets of relevant information to the analysts.

Taskable automated and semiautomated multi-INT analytics and processing—whereby the user (or multiple users simultaneously) can seek and detect particular features for a particular mission or at a specific time, for example, a red truck or people with white shirts—are needed closer to the sensor to increase the Army’s ability to manage and exploit the breadth and scale of collected data. Distributed data processing—using multiple computers across different locations to divide the processing load—can help reduce the amount of network traffic by filtering and compressing data as it moves through the network, increasing system performance in bandwidth-limited environments. These capabilities will create opportunities to leverage remotely stored data to glean new insights.

ExPED is investing in the development of prediction, fusion, correlation and alerting capabilities that are critical to managing the big data challenge and are necessary to reduce an analyst’s workload. ExPED is working with Army and industry stakeholders to define standards for analytic interoperability so that more sophisticated mission-specific solutions can be built from existing analytic toolsets.

To validate these standards, the ExPED program is developing multi-INT analytics to merge radar tracks, full-motion video and electronic signals to provide greater confidence in the data and lessen the time for alerts to significant events. The analytics also need to be scalable and extensible so that the user can execute them wherever it makes sense across the tactical space. For example, an analytic can run on a multisensor platform, ground station or sanctuary, depending on the mission’s concept of operations and communications links.

COLLABORATION AND VISUALIZATION

As the Army moves more toward centralized PED sites, collaboration is going to be all the more important. The Army has been realigning how it organizes and employs its human analysts as part of the PED process. One idea is setting up centralized sites outside of conflict zones where specialized Soldiers can focus on exploiting sensor data and feeding situational awareness back to theater. However, bandwidth constraints will limit scalability of this solution. Additionally, analysts who are not on the ground lack the mission context to fully exploit the data.

Reliance on the current system of countless chat windows to collaborate is inefficient and not scalable. Therefore, the Army requires a solution that allows for PED operations to move seamlessly between tactical and remote PED analysts.

Usability and software interface design are critical for handling, filtering and understanding the data and analytics, as well as providing an environment for analysis and user collaboration. Development and integration of techniques for big data visualization, collaboration and workflow management are essential for common understanding. These tools will enable management of tasks across echelons, provide mission context to facilitate situational understanding and reduce cognitive burden on analysts.

The ExPED program is developing a sensor COP to support all parts of the PED process, from tasking sensors to exploiting data to use of the intelligence. This includes developing an interface that is tailorable to all users in the PED process, including mission managers, exploitation analysts and analysts at every echelon. The ExPED sensor COP is a shared collaborative environment where all parties can interact and conduct their respective tasks and workflows—in real time, if communications allow.

The ExPED sensor COP is extensible, allowing applications to be built into it. This will allow data to move from one phase to the next with collaboration along the way, and will task and automate processes effectively to reduce analyst workload.

ALL TOGETHER NOW
An AH-64 Apache attack helicopter provides security while CH-47 Chinooks drop off supplies to Soldiers with Task Force Iron at Bost Airfield, Afghanistan, in June 2017. The Soldiers’ mission is to provide accurate fires capabilities in support of Task Force Southwest and Afghan national defense and security forces during current operations. One of the objectives of the ExPED STO is to identify sensor solutions with scalable open architectures that will adapt to the echelon in which they will operate in a tactical environment, thus facilitating integration with other ISR systems and the sharing of valuable information using the proper security boundaries. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Justin T. Updegraff, Resolute Support Headquarters)

CONCLUSION

Current Army PED operations are not extracting the maximum amount of intelligence from existing sensors. The Army can get additional value by better leveraging the opportunity for multi-INT processing and exploitation, cross-cueing between sensors, forensic analysis and increased awareness and use of available resources.

The S&T community has the opportunity and imperative to work outside the narrow bounds of acquisition programs of record in order to design and demonstrate standards-based interoperable systems. By implementing a common framework of interoperable PED components, such as those being developed and demonstrated under the ExPED STO, Army PED operations will realize improvements in efficiency and capability such as:

• Moving processing closer to sensors to improve the timeliness of actionable intelligence and reduce the bandwidth necessary to transmit raw data.
• Automated or semiautomated cross-cueing of sensors for faster target acquisition and tracking.
• Use of advanced analytics to increase the speed and effectiveness of extracting intelligence from high-volume and high-speed sensor feeds.
• Better leveraging of distributed sensors, processing systems and analysts to execute ISR missions.

Commanders rely on situational understanding to make timely decisions, but more data does not equal situational understanding. Understanding will be accomplished only by providing analysts with the tools to process, exploit and disseminate the extensive amount of sensor data collected across the battlefield.

For more information or to contact the authors, go to www.cerdec.army.mil.

MICHAEL PELLICANO is a lead engineer in the CERDEC Intelligence Systems and Processing Division. He holds an M.S. in electrical engineering from Stevens University, and an M.S. in business administration and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Penn State University. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC).

DANIELLE DUFF is a senior engineer who oversees the research portfolio for CERDEC’s Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate, Intelligence Systems and Processing Division. She holds a master of electrical engineering from the University of Delaware and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech. She is Level III certified in engineering and in test and evaluation, and is a member of the AAC.

Related Links:

“X Marks the Spot,” Army AL&T magazine, April – June 2017: http://usaasc.armyalt.com/?iid=151974#folio=40

“Counterinsurgency (COIN) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operations,” Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Intelligence, February 2011: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2010s/ADA543575.pdf

CERDEC Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate: https://www.cerdec.army.mil/inside_cerdec/i2wd/

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

Human performance optimization aims to take Soldiers to higher and higher peaks of physical and mental fitness.

by Dr. Stephen Muza and Ms. Mallory Roussel

Let’s flash back to the U.S. military in 2006.

The U.S. had been engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom for five and three years, respectively. In a post-9/11 environment with a higher operations tempo and longer and more frequent deployments, the U.S. military had an ongoing need to enhance mental and physical resilience and decrease injuries among deployed service members.

In June of that same year, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences hosted a conference titled “Human Performance Optimization in the Department of Defense: Charting a Course for the Future,” with the goal of developing a strategic plan for human performance optimization (HPO). That conference marked DOD’s acknowledgment of the importance of promoting warrior wellness and modernizing, training and structuring the force by leveraging cutting-edge science and technology (S&T) that would optimize the performance of servicemen and women in all stages of their careers. Such an approach would set the conditions for a more lethal force by ensuring that warfighters would be ready to respond to present and future threats. The conference was when the HPO effort officially emerged.

Flash forward to 2017, when knowledge and technologies to enhance and sustain warfighters’ health, well-being and performance as part of the HPO effort continued to evolve. DOD now considers HPO fundamental to accomplishing the military’s mission. For the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), HPO is a newer, shorter term to describe the research that the small Army medical lab in Natick, Massachusetts, has been doing for more than 50 years.

WEARABLE INFORMATION
A Soldier puts on an Equivital chest harness, which incorporates USARIEM’s ECTemp algorithm to record heart rate changes over time. The heart rate indicates how much blood flows to muscles and the skin, from which researchers can extrapolate how much heat is being generated and lost by the body. Medics and leaders looking to prevent heat illness in Solders can monitor Soldiers’ body temperatures if the ECTemp technology is included in a wearable monitor like the chest harness. (U.S. Army photo by David Kamm, RDECOM)

CONTINUOUS OPTIMIZATION

The USARIEM team prioritizes Army readiness by engaging in essential medical research focused on optimizing servicemen and women’s health and performance during training and on the battlefield. “USARIEM partners with DOD, other federal entities, universities, nonprofits and industry stakeholders extensively to answer military-relevant questions and optimize Soldiers’ health, resilience and performance,” said Col. Raymond Phua, commander of USARIEM.

USARIEM’s location at Natick Soldier Systems Center, a 30–minute drive west of Boston, puts the lab in close proximity to the extensive academic, federal and commercial knowledge and research assets of the Northeast corridor, giving researchers access to top potential collaborators. USARIEM is one of the very few labs in the world where all aspects of HPO come together.

While the lab looks at HPO through a biomedical or a bioengineering lens, USARIEM’s holistic approach to attaining an “optimized performance state,” as Dr. Karl Friedl, USARIEM’s senior research scientist for performance physiology described it, sets the lab apart. Friedl also explained that the unique and critical research capabilities that USARIEM provides to the DA, DOD and the nation are the synergy of subject matter expertise on performance, nutrition, environmental stressors and biomedical modeling from civilian researchers and Soldier scientists.

“The Army will always have Soldiers holding terrains in parts of the world that have extreme environments, and as long as we continue to encounter threats near and far, warfighters will always encounter risks,” Friedl said. “This makes an optimized performance state sound like an elusive goal. While we cannot eliminate these risks, we can mitigate them.

“USARIEM is the only lab that has looked at all aspects of Soldiers’ physical and cognitive performance, in terms of health, occupation and the environments they work in. We aim to sustain the health and fighting ability of warfighters by developing military medical doctrine and technology that will give war-fighters the ability to meet the physical and cognitive demands of any combat or duty position, accomplish the mission and continue to win present and future fights.”

USARIEM’s internationally recognized research leaders are executing and supporting key products and strategic doctrine shifts, which include the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) project to examine the knowledge, skills, abilities and other attributes associated with military occupational specialties (MOSs), as well as the Army surgeon general’s 2020 strategy of shifting to a system of health through the areas of performance and nutrition, with the goal of attaining high-quality, longer lives free of preventable disease, disability, injury and premature death.

Here are some of the emerging USARIEM technologies, medical doctrine and future research efforts to optimize warfighter health and performance in a variety of occupational environments and situations.

FUEL FOR THE BODY A Soldier uses COMRAD, an online resource that gives troops, military dietitians and food service officers the opportunity to learn about the nutritional value of the food they eat. The database is the result of a collaborative effort between NSRDEC, USARIEM and DOD’s Human Performance Resource Center. (U.S. Army photo by Mallory Roussel, USARIEM)

EMERGING USARIEM TECHNOLOGIES

The Estimated Core Temperature (ECTemp) algorithm accurately estimates a Soldier’s core body temperature simply by analyzing heart rate changes over time. Physiologically, heart rate reflects both the blood flow to the muscles and the rate of blood flow to the skin, containing information about both heat production and heat loss from the body. ECTemp can be incorporated into wearable technology, such as a chest harness with a physiological status monitor, which mission leaders and medics can monitor with a phone to detect if one or more Soldiers are at increased risk of heat illness. USARIEM developed ECTemp based on years of physiological data collected from multiple studies. By providing accurate core temperature information, the ECTemp can help military leaders make timely, critical training and mission decisions in hot, humid and unpredictable environments. The ECTemp has opened the door to future monitoring apps and wearable technology for the military.

Unit leaders can use the Altitude Readiness Management System (ARMS), an Android-based app, to plan missions with appropriate expectations. By using data from more than 25 years of USARIEM’s altitude studies, ARMS predicts how likely Soldiers are to experience acute mountain sickness during a mission, and how severely. ARMS also calculates how much time Soldiers need to complete missions and acclimate to a variety of altitudes. Unit leaders can use this easily accessible information to alter high–altitude missions before deployment in order to prevent hypoxic events. The app is now fielded on the Nett Warrior platform and is being fielded through the -TRADOC online app store this year.

The Soldier Water Estimation Tool (SWET) is an Android-based smartphone app and mission planning tool that can predict average water needs for groups of Soldiers for defined periods of time. The app uses a validated, updated sweat prediction equation based on five decades of USARIEM’s research on sweat loss and hydration. A unit leader can plug in the temperature, humidity, cloud cover, type of clothing worn and Soldiers’ workload. The app does the rest of the work. SWET supports the use of real-world planning in military settings in a variety of outdoor conditions. The app is now fielded on the Nett Warrior platform and, along with ARMS, is also being made available on the TRADOC app store this year.

The Performance Readiness Bar (PRB) is a calcium- and vitamin D-fortified snack bar developed to optimize bone health in basic trainees. The snack bar was distributed at Fort Benning, Georgia, in the summer of 2017 and will be distributed at all four Army basic training locations in 2018. Calcium and vitamin D have already been proven to be necessary nutrients to improve bone health. However, USARIEM researchers’ findings indicated that basic trainees needed higher-than-average amounts of calcium and vitamin D to support bone health during initial military training.

According to the Military Health System, recruits often arrive at basic training with poor calcium and vitamin D status, making their bones more vulnerable to stress fractures and other injuries. PRB is one solution to this problem that will reduce attrition and personnel costs associated with initial military training, increasing Army readiness.

The Occupational Physical Assessment Test (OPAT) was part of the TRADOC Soldier 2020 initiative, which would help set the standards necessary for Soldiers—male and female—to perform in combat MOSs. USARIEM researchers broke down those specialties into essential physical capabilities that a Soldier needs to be trainable for a given specialty.

Throughout 2016, USARIEM researchers conducted more than 27 field studies in initial military training settings at Fort Benning, Georgia, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, administering a robust battery of physical performance tasks and questionnaires before and after training. This effort resulted in the OPAT, which contains a battery of four tests: a standing long jump, a medicine ball throw, an incremental squat lift and an interval aerobic run. During this project, the USARIEM team validated the predictive ability of the OPAT to accurately place Soldiers into seven combat specialties.

As a result of their efforts, the OPAT was fully implemented starting in 2017; it is now required for all Army candidates seeking to enter active, reserve or National Guard duty. The USARIEM team now is conducting a longitudinal study in which it is following volunteers for the next two years of their service to assess how successful they are in their assigned specialties after receiving their OPAT results. This data will provide the Army information on injury and dropout rates in basic training, showing how much time and money used to rehabilitate and recycle Soldiers could be saved.

The Combat Rations Database (COMRAD) is an interactive, educational website that provides warfighters and military dietitians with information about military rations and the potential for affecting warfighters’ diets and mission readiness. With COMRAD, warfighters and dietitians can view nutrition information for entire menus and even specific food components, like drinks and side dishes, in three types of rations: Meals, Ready to Eat; First Strike Ration; and Meal, Cold Weather/Long Range Patrol. COMRAD is based on a nutritional database created in collaboration with USARIEM’s Military Nutrition Division. All nutritional information is accurate, and all menu components have been chemically analyzed, making COMRAD the go-to application for precise, easily accessible nutrition information on individual items, menus and daily food intake.

EDIBLE READINESS
The Performance Readiness Bar, a calcium- and vitamin D-fortified snack bar developed under the research guidance of USARIEM’s Military Nutrition Division, will soon be available Armywide. The new snack was prompted by military health researchers’ realization that basic trainees are doubly vulnerable to bone injury. (U.S. Army photo by Mallory Roussel, USARIEM)

FUTURE RESEARCH TO

OPTIMIZE THE WARFIGHTER

Warfighters engage in combat in all kinds of environments, including cold weather, such as in the Arctic. The question is: Are they prepared? USARIEM is conducting multiple research efforts, called Cold Weather Dexterity in Arctic Warfare, related to cold weather fighting protection. One of the biggest problems Soldiers can face is the loss of hand function and manual dexterity in the cold. This can happen when Soldiers do not wear gloves, causing the blood flow to the hands and fingers to decrease. Yet Soldiers can also experience reduced touch sensation and fine-motor dexterity by wearing gloves.

Either scenario could prevent warfighters from using their weapons or other sophisticated equipment that is required for the mission. USARIEM is collaborating with U.S. Army Alaska and the U.S. Army Mountain Warfare School to research and develop technologies to increase warmth and blood flow to the fingers and face. This effort could optimize performance in Arctic missions while preventing frostbite and other cold weather injuries.

Because of the unique multistressor environment of Army basic combat training, musculoskeletal injuries are common in recruits. The ARIEM Reduction in Musculoskeletal Injuries (ARMI) Study is a four-year research collaboration between USARIEM and the U.S. Army Public Health Center to develop evidence-based, actionable recommendations to Army leadership for strategies to reduce musculoskeletal injuries in basic combat training without reducing training standards. USARIEM researchers will be tracking 4,000 recruits throughout and for two years after basic combat training to identify risk factors and evaluate the effectiveness of ongoing musculoskeletal injury prevention and related initiatives.

Bullets and rockets are not the only things servicemen and women contend with when they deploy. Often, gastrointestinal illnesses, like travelers’ diarrhea, can decrease Soldiers’ performance, prompting USARIEM’s Nutrition Interventions. For the last few years, researchers from USARIEM and the Combat Feeding Directorate of the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC), an element of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (-RDECOM), have been working together to understand the complex relationship between our health and the tens of trillions of microorganisms—including at least 1,000 known species of bacteria—living in our intestines. USARIEM researchers have conducted a series of field studies, from Natick to Pikes Peak in Colorado to Norway to characterize how different military stressors affect the gut microbiome and impact war-fighter health. Some of these studies have shown that high altitudes, high physical stress and diet affect Soldiers’ gut health. USARIEM researchers plan to start testing for dietary interventions based on the findings of these and future gut health studies.

SWET THE DETAILS
Operations in extreme heat or cold, or at high altitude, can be unpredictable. Decades of USARIEM research informs the SWET app, left, and the ARMS app, which give unit leaders objective information to adjust deployments and prevent disastrous casualties. (U.S. Army photo by Mallory Roussel, USARIEM)

CONCLUSION

In the perpetually changing world of U.S. military S&T, HPO is one of the newer terms and efforts. Yet USARIEM has been doing research on HPO for decades and will continue to do so. By tapping into civilian and military expertise in performance, nutrition, environmental stressors and modeling, as well as additional local and international partnerships with academic, federal and commercial knowledge and research assets, USARIEM has been able to generate knowledge, products and technologies that optimize the performance of servicemen and women throughout their careers.

For more information, go to www.usariem.army.mil.

STEPHEN MUZA is the deputy director, science and technology, at USARIEM. He holds a Ph.D. in physiology and biophysics from the University of Kentucky, an M.S. in physiology and pharmacology from the University of North Dakota and a B.A. from Miami University. After seven years of active-duty service in the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army, he served in a civilian research physiologist position in 1991 and became USARIEM’s Thermal and Mountain Medicine Division chief in 2012. He was appointed to his current post in September 2016. In addition to conducting numerous hypobaric chamber and Pikes Peak research studies, he has led biomedical expeditions to the base of Mount Everest, Nepal, and the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. He is an international expert in environmental physiology and medicine with an emphasis in high-altitude medicine, and serves on many scientific panels, including those of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and the Defense Health Agency.

MALLORY ROUSSEL is a science writer for the Science Strategic Management Office of USARIEM and a research fellow in the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education program. She holds a B.A. in English from Boston University. She has written about diverse subjects, from anatomic avatars to mission planning technology and military nutrition interventions.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

Inherent in the coming internet of battlefield things are challenges that commercial products don’t face. But those products might have solutions to the Army’s problems, which is why ARL and its partners are exploring novel distributed processing approaches, a domain the Army practically invented.

by Dr. Raju Namburu and Dr. Michael Barton

Distributed processing—using multiple computers to run an application—is not a new idea. But as technology advances, opportunities arise for new and novel distributed processing approaches that take advantage of nascent network-based communication, computing systems, innovations in algorithms, and software.

First realized around 1983 at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland, distributed processing has evolved over several decades as information technology has expanded exponentially. It will be a key technology for future Army operations, especially complex Soldier situational awareness.

As computer and network capabilities grew, distributed processing also grew to mean multiple, interconnected processors or computers working together to perform a common calculation or to solve a common problem. The Ballistic Research Laboratory, predecessor to the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), implemented network communication protocols—now known as internet communication protocols—for communication among four processors.

With each generation of distributed processing, more capable processors are pushed further out into organizations and society with more functionality, greater interaction and improved communication among different tiers of processing with greater integration among them, culminating in the internet of things: the proliferation of processors, mobile devices and sensors that are embedded in the physical objects—appliances, vehicles, buildings and other items—that surround us in our daily lives.

THE SHAPE OF
NEXT-GEN PROCESSING
ARL has internal programs aimed at the capabilities of the next generation of distributed processing, and is working with partners at academic institutions and in industry. (U.S. Army graphic by Peggy Frierson, Defense Media Activity)

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS COOKIES

Today, a primary motivator for novel distributed processing is recognition of the enormous potential that resides in both the unused and dedicated processing power of many connected devices and the need to know more, sooner, and to leverage that knowledge to affect immediate future events. In the same way that every webpage you visit serves up advertisements based on browsing habits, the Army needs to be able to do something similar with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems so that Soldiers get served up what they need for superior situational awareness.

The Army faces directly analogous technical challenges—-Soldiers need to know more and sooner (situational awareness) to allow rapid, decisive action. Now, and even more so in the future, the battlespace is characterized by highly distributed processing, heterogeneous and mobile assets with limited battery life, communications-dominated but restricted network capacity, and operating with time-critical needs in a rapidly changing hostile environment. Capabilities to be developed for the Army for enhancing situational awareness in contested battlefield environments are different from traditional commercial applications, which are targeted at exploiting the consumer. Essentially, the Army needs to be Facebook in reverse—exploiting the data for the use of the consumer, not exploiting the consumer for the use of data.

Distributed processing is one of the essential technologies for maintaining overmatch in the land domain in various operational and contested environments, including cyber and artificial intelligence. Some examples of future operational environments where innovative distributed processing approaches are essential include:

• Real-time situational awareness.
• Distributed machine learning and relearning.
• Distributed intelligence.
• Human-machine teaming.
• Delivery of big data analytics at the right place in a timely manner.
• Operations in megacities.
• Cooperative and collaborative engagements.
• Cyber and electromagnetic engagements.
• Accelerated learning.
• Augmented reality.

HOW WE GOT HERE

Large, expensive computers with interconnected processors were available to a small number of expert users in the 1980s. By the 1990s, the industry had moved away from custom processors to commodity chips, co-processors and shared software. The concurrent growth and proliferation of internet-enabled distributed processing, most notably in applications like SETI@home (the University of California, Berkeley-based Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, with 5 million internet-connected devices) and in processors like Rosetta@home (molecular biology, with 1.6 million internet–connected devices or processors). For these applications, algorithmic innovations took advantage of unused computer time donated by people worldwide.

They also benefited from the asynchronous nature of applications, in which every calculation is independent of every other calculation. These projects showcased more than a billion operations per second to achieve exascale computing. Exascale computing is not achievable by any single supercomputer that exists today.

By the 2000s, the internet brought about service-oriented architectures with seamless web access. Later, hardware virtualization allowed software to emulate an entire computer infrastructure, which culminated in the popularity of hosting pictures and other personal data in the cloud. We refer to the cloud as distributed processing, since it literally is distributed all over the world. But its purpose is to centralize computing infrastructure. It relieves the end-user organizations of having to invest individually. DOD’s Distributed Common Ground System is an excellent example of cloud computing at the edge.

As opposed to cloud–computing, emerging technologies in ad hoc networked mobile devices, the internet of battlefield things, special purpose robotics, unmanned vehicles and social networks will produce enormous amounts of data. It is critical for Army scientists to explore novel distributed processing approaches for Army-specific applications, especially those distributed approaches that have potential to enhance the speed of decision-making.

THREE EVOLVING NOVEL APPROACHES

Distributed processing “at the edge” is a new paradigm in which we see convergence of computer processing with low-power processing, intelligent networking, algorithms and analytics as one entity, as opposed to stovepiped technologies. Distributed processing at the edge—referred to as edge computing, fog nodes, cloudlets, micro data centers and micro-clouds—is simply localized, trusted, resource-rich computers that are connected.

Edge computing requires a lightweight solution using containers for distributed processing. Instead of a physical canister that stores things, these containers optimize computer data by processing it near the source of data. The draw is that containers can be tailored to single solutions, such as a machine-learning container or a video-processing container. Army scientists want to figure out how to harness the benefits of edge computing with containers while navigating the challenges of doing it with mobility, such as intermittent bandwidth, ad hoc networking and policy-based environments.

Emergent computing is another evolving form of distributed processing. Information processing and control emerge through the local interaction of many simple units that exhibit complex behavior when combined. Intelligent software agents are in this arena: sophisticated computer programs that act on behalf of their users to find trends and patterns.

There are also multiagent systems that are loosely coupled networks of intelligent agents that interact to solve problems outside of what any one agent would accomplish.

Neural-inspired computing is fast becoming an option for low-power novel distributed processing. Neural-inspired computing mimics the neurons and synapses of a biological brain. Another characteristic is that communication processing in neurons and synapses uses efficient digital or analog techniques such as two-dimensional (2-D) atom-layered nanotechnologies. An example of 2-D is a crystalline material that has a single layer of atoms with unusual semiconductor and neuromorphic characteristics at the nanoscale.

In addition to continuous innovations in scalable algorithms and software, future computing architectures like quantum networks, data flow computing, and cyber- and electromagnetic-secured heterogeneous processors are going to play a role in overcoming distributed processing shortcomings that surface in military scenarios.

INFORMATION FOR ACTION
Soldiers need to know more and sooner—without being overwhelmed with information—to allow rapid, decisive action. (U.S. Army illustration)

DISTRIBUTED PROJECTS FOR DISTRIBUTED RESEARCH

ARL is working toward the capabilities of the next generation of distributed processing, in collaborative projects with academic institutions and industry and in internal programs.

External collaborative programs that address challenges with distributed processing from algorithms and theory include the international technology alliance with the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense, the internet of battlefield things, distributed and collaborative intelligent systems and technology, the U.S. Army High Performance Computing Research Center, the Center for Distributed Quantum Information and ARL’s -Single-Investigator Program, executed through the Army Research Office.

There are also internal projects that lay some of the foundation. For example, we work with IBM, Purdue University and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in understanding the programming and use of neuromorphic processors—brain-inspired computing. These neuromorphic processors have proven quite adept at machine-learning tasks, yet consume 1,000 times less power than conventional processors.

CONCLUSION

The Army has been at the forefront of computing and distributed processing and continues to make investments in related research to shape how the future Army will fight and win. The complexities of distributed processing become more clear as the way in which humans will engage with distributed artificially intelligent systems becomes more defined.

The reliance of intelligent systems on wireless communication and networked processes makes them vulnerable to cyber, physical and electronic attacks. Thus, it is necessary to develop technologies that mitigate those risks and keep systems functional in the face of such attacks. In the current and future world, this requires innovations in distributed processing and computation on and off the battlefield.

For more information, contact the authors at raju.r.namburu.civ@mail.mil or joseph.m.barton12.ctr@mail.mil.

RAJU NAMBURU is chief of the Computational Sciences Division at ARL. He has more than 100 publications in various journals and refereed papers in international conferences and symposiums in the areas of computational sciences, computational mechanics, scalable algorithms, network modeling and high-performance computing. He is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a member of the U.S. Association for Computational Mechanics. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Minnesota, and received master of engineering and bachelor of engineering degrees in mechanical engineering from Andhra University in India.

MICHAEL BARTON, a senior scientist for Parsons Corp., provides contract support to ARL. He has been at APG since 2001. His entire career has been in physics-based modeling and simulation and high-performance computing. He previously served as a consultant in the aerospace industry; as a contractor supporting the Air Force at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, and NASA in Ohio; and with the Boeing Co. in Seattle. He received his Ph.D. and his B.S. in engineering science and mechanics from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and his master of engineering degree in aeronautics and astronautics from the University of Washington.

Related links:

Army High Performance Computing Research Center: http://ahpcrc.stanford.edu/

SETI@home: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Rosetta@home: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

International Technology Alliance: http://nis-ita.org/

Internet of Battlefield Things: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=3050

Distributed and Collaborative Intelligent Systems and Technology: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=3049

ARL’s Center for Distributed Quantum Information: http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=2424

ARL’s Computational Sciences Campaign: http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=2514

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

By Mr. Paul C. Manz

Global Position System (GPS) signals are extensively used by a multitude of Army and Joint military products and applications. GPS is highly accurate, affordable, and pervasive. Most typical GPS-based systems automatically listen for GPS signals, use these signals to determine the exact location of the GPS satellites in the sky, and then (when it sees at least four GPS satellites) use this information to precisely determine the system’s geo-location coordinates (i.e. X, Y, Z) on Earth. Because these GPS signals contain data from their extremely accurate on-board satellite clocks, they can also be used to synchronize time across multiple systems. Thus, GPS is a simple, yet effective, tool which enables many military position, navigation, and timing (PNT) related capabilities used to maintain combat overmatch against the enemy. These GPS-enabled capabilities include indirect fires which support the Maneuver Commander in performing essential tactical operations such as “Movement to Contact.”

FIGURE 1 – The Terrain Masking Problem

The Problem

Knowing where your weapon system is located and where the target is located are two of the five critical requirements for accurate predicted indirect fires. Additionally, many indirect fire Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) use GPS to deliver lethality exactly where it is required to quickly defeat enemy targets with minimal collateral damage, even when the enemy target is very far away. Unlike most typical GPS-based systems, some indirect artillery and mortar fire PGMs must “hot start” or pre-load the locations where GPS satellites are in the sky (i.e. GPS ephemeris data) in order to rapidly start looking for and navigating off these GPS satellites within a few seconds after exiting the weapon system.

Why is “hot start” GPS data important?

Similar to pulling your car out of the garage after a two week vacation and turning on your vehicle’s navigation system (i.e. “cold start”), it can take up to two minutes to acquire and start navigating off of GPS if you don’t pre-load this GPS data. Since the time of flight for many such PGMs can be under one minute, this means the PGM may never navigate and can become an unguided “lawn dart.”

Where does “hot start” GPS data normally come from?

Usually a handheld Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR), or other GPS device co-located with the weapon system shooting the PGM, transfers the GPS Satellite information it sees in the sky to the PGM using a specialized Fuze Setter device. Unfortunately, if a weapon system and its co-located DAGR are located in a vertically-challenged terrain environment (ex. at the bottom of a deep valley in Afghanistan or in an “urban canyon” location), the required visibility of at least four GPS satellites in the sky may be terrain-masked during certain times of the day (see Figure 1). This terrain-masking effectively prohibits GPS-based PGMs from being fired (i.e. making the weapon system not “precision capable”) since not enough “hot start” GPS satellite data can be preloaded to rapidly acquire, track, and navigate off of GPS.

The Solution

PEO Ammunition, Joint Center Picatinny Arsenal, and its other Army research, development, and acquisition (RDA) partners have designed, developed, and successfully tested an innovative system-of-systems solution called Network Assisted GPS that provides complete “hot start” GPS satellite data for PGMs—even in the presence of almost full terrain masking! Network Assisted GPS takes advantage of multiple, sunk-cost, acquisition Programs of Record across multiple PEOs and deployed across multiple Services. Leveraging these deployed capabilities and combining them with a modest amount of new software “glue”, Network Assisted GPS is a reasonable cost, non-traditional program that will dramatically increase the availability of indirect artillery and mortar fire PGMs in vertically-challenged terrain environments.

How does it work?

The US Air Force (USAF) GPS Operations Center (GPSOC) publishes the exact location of the GPS satellites orbiting around the Earth several times each hour on a classified network. Joint Battle Command – Platform (JBC-P) is managed by PEO C3T and similarly has centralized Network Operations Centers (NOCs) at a few key sanctuary locations around the globe. These JBC-P NOCs are always connected to the same classified network as the GPSOC and are also always connected via Satellite Communications (SATCOM) to JBC-P systems on the ground. These terrestrial JBC-P systems are found in most vehicles as well as Tactical Operations Centers (TOCs). The Advanced Field Artillery Tactical System (AFATDS) is co-located with JBC-P in these TOCs. AFATDS is the command and control system that generates fire missions which tell who, what, where, when, and how to shoot enemy targets. AFATDS is connected via tactical terrestrial communications to all targeting systems and indirect fire weapon systems in the area of combat operations.

Network Assisted GPS works by having the JBC-P NOC request the GPS satellite location data continually published by the USAF GPSOC and “pushes” this small amount of GPS data down to each and every terrestrial JBC-P on a periodic basis whenever ­SATCOM bandwidth is available. When a Call-For-Fire message comes into AFATDS from a targeting system, AFATDS processes this message and then sends another message to the appropriate weapon system to initiate and conduct an indirect fire mission against a specific target. With Network Assisted GPS, AFATDS also “subscribes” to GPS satellite location and related data from JBC-P over the TOC’s Local Area Network (LAN) using the TOC’s Data Dissemination Service (DDS). AFATDS subsequently “pushes” this GPS information to all these same weapon systems on a periodic basis. This information includes ALL the potential GPS satellites a weapon system should be seeing on that side of the Earth (i.e. as if its location was not terrain-masked and shooting from a “world is flat” position). Whenever the indirect fire weapon system receives a precision fire mission from AFATDS, it loads ALL this potential GPS satellite location data provided by Network Assisted GPS (i.e. GPSOC to JBC-P NOC to JBC-P to AFATDS to Weapon) onto the PGM in lieu of the much lesser number of satellites usually seen at a terrain-masked firing position.

When the PGM is subsequently fired, it utilizes this “hot start” data to immediately start acquiring GPS satellites as they become visible in the sky. As the PGM rises in elevation and clears terrain-masking features (ex. flies out of the valley and above the ridgeline), it sees more and more GPS satellites. Once at least four GPS satellites come into view, the PGM starts navigating and is now able to complete its precision engagement on the target even when the weapon position location saw less than this minimum number of GPS satellites in the sky.

FIGURE 2 – Network Assisted GPS

One More Thing

The PGM also needs to know about Ionospheric Correction data (automatically calculated by the DAGR when its sees multiple GPS satellites) since the GPS signals are “delayed” when passing through the Earth’s Ionosphere. This “delay” must be reflected in high-precision, accurate, time calculations which are an essential part of using GPS. Network Assisted GPS developed an innovative local-to-the-weapon-system Ionospheric Correction Extrapolation (ICE) software function. ICE can accurately estimate Ionospheric Correction data using only one GPS satellite along with the information passed down from JBC-P through AFATDS to the weapon system. This enables weapon systems to still be considered “precision capable” by AFATDS and shoot GPS-based PGMs when their firing positions are almost completely terrain-masked.

It Works!

The Government conducted a system-of-systems live fire test of all the aforementioned elements of Network Assisted GPS (see Figure 2). This live fire test was conducted at Yuma Proving Grounds and went a successful 5-out-of-5 precision indirect fire missions using only one real GPS satellite in the sky (i.e. needed for ICE to work) with the balance of “hot start” data provided via Network Assisted GPS.

Since Network Assisted GPS was specifically designed to work automatically in the background when all of its required system-of-systems elements are present, it is totally transparent to the user. Other than general awareness, no special training is required by most warfighters.

Extending the Goodness of Network Assisted GPS

There are many different applications across the Services that can benefit from Network Assisted GPS just as it is built right now. For example, a dismounted warfighter has been under triple canopy jungle for an extended period of time. The warfighter is masked from “hearing” relatively weak GPS satellite signals through the dense tree foliage but is still able to occasionally get stronger communication signals. The warfighter may generally, but not exactly, know where he is but needs more accurate position information to perform the mission. To determine his exact position, the warfighter or one of his platoon mates would usually have to go out into a larger jungle clearing with a reasonable open view of the sky. They would then have to stay
in this open clearing for a relatively extended period of time – one or two minutes – to obtain accurate “cold start” GPS position information. This exposed time in the open increases their potential risk to enemy observation and threat of hostile fire. Leveraging Network Assisted GPS and ICE, the warfighter could rapidly obtain “hot start” GPS position information in a much shorter period of time (i.e. single digit seconds) to determine his exact position.

Network Assisted GPS was designed in a modular fashion and can also be modified/expanded to address other critical PNT-related problems and capabilities. For example, the mechanisms and “building blocks” established in Network Assisted GPS for current P(Y)-Code GPS applications can be leveraged to support new M-Code GPS applications as well as GPS augmentation capabilities such as Pseudolites. Both these new sources of GPS signal must similarly be pre-loaded to support precision indirect fire operations. Network Assisted GPS also provides a known reference source of GPS information that can easily be used to determine if the signals being heard are true.

The Bottom Line

Network Assisted GPS … Coming Soon to a Precision Fire Mission Near You!

Mr. Paul Manz currently serves as chief scientist for PEO Ammunition at Picatinny Arsenal, the Joint Center for Weapons and Ammunition. He is a multiple-certified senior member of the Army Acquisition Corps and certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt with more than three decades of experience spanning the entire materiel development life cycle from science and technology through production and deployment. He recently won the 2016 Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Workforce Individual Achievement Award in Engineering.

This article is a winner in the 2017 Maj. Gen. Harold J. “Harry” Green Awards for Acquisition Writing competition. A special supplement featuring the winning entries is online now, and will accompany the print version of the April – June 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine. If you wish to be added to the magazine’s mailing list, subscribe online; if you’d like multiple subscriptions, please send an email to armyalt@gmail.com.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

From the tangible to the cognitive, squad weapons to casualty care to performance-enhancing training, Army S&T is exploring and finding materials, technologies and methods in six focus areas to provide land forces the capabilities they’ll need for overmatch.

by Ms. Karen M. Burke and Lt. Col. Eric J. Wagar

Twenty years from now, Soldiers and small units will operate very differently than they did during the last two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Multi-Domain Battle Operating Concept emerges in the next 10 years, Soldiers will fight in multidomain environments characterized by dispersed, high-tempo operations that require small units to act independently in denied and austere regions.

Soldiers will operate with shorter lines of sight and a reduced standoff advantage in their intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and long-range strike capabilities. Dense electromagnetic environments will make it difficult to establish and maintain persistent, trusted communication links. Soldiers will also face large, culturally diverse populations of noncombatants with whom they will need to communicate and who they will have to monitor for threats and protect from engagements, particularly in increasingly crowded urban regions such as coastal cities.

Mitigating the impacts of these emerging challenges calls for Army science and technology (S&T) investments in Soldier lethality that account for the world’s complexity—operational, technological, societal and cultural. The three articles that follow highlight examples of capability investments in innovative, technologically advanced, potentially game-changing solutions focusing on 3-D enriched urban terrain visualization, improved performance and resilience, and augmented and mixed reality.

HELPING HANDS
Lt. Col. Tyler Harris, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon at Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC), Fort Bragg, North Carolina, works remotely with a physician assistant during a surgical procedure in May. The surgical scenario explored the feasibility of training physician assistants to perform lifesaving measures when there isn’t time or capability to get service members injured in theater to a surgeon in time. Future operational threats like anti-access and area denial could make it difficult to evacuate Soldiers to surgical treatment. (U.S. Army photo by Eve Meinhardt, WAMC)

DIMENSIONS OF LETHALITY

What makes a Soldier and a small unit lethal? The Army’s S&T investment strategy addresses this question in both tangible and intangible ways.

Tangible materiel elements of lethality include Soldier and squad weapons, communications, situational awareness and protection systems that allow Soldiers to shoot, communicate, maneuver and survive in varied terrain and phases of conflict. Capabilities that support a Soldier’s lethality include foundational training in executing missions and individual tasks, prolonged field medical care to treat injuries and sustain optimal performance, and physical and cognitive augmentation solutions such as wearable powered devices and nutrient delivery methods that increase strength and endurance. These will help direct Soldiers and squads and provide the speed of information that is becoming the cornerstone of overmatch.

Equally important are the less tangible lethality capabilities that contribute to total Soldier and small unit performance, such as cognitive aids, conditioning, leadership and resilience training. These intangible enabling technologies work in concert with Soldiers and their equipment to create a professional, well-equipped force.

To maintain the Army’s strategic, operational and tactical advantages, Army S&T is exploring and identifying materiel and nonmateriel solutions in six key areas of Soldier lethality that leverage technology advances to offer land forces the vital capabilities they will need in the mid- to far term. These six areas are Soldier and squad weapons; Soldier protection and equipment; situational awareness; physical and cognitive performance, along with Soldier-optimized performance; prolonged field medical care; and training.

SOLDIER AND SQUAD WEAPONS

Small units require weapon systems that enhance lethality, accuracy and mobility to achieve and maintain overmatch against current and emerging adversaries’ technologies and operating tactics. Just as our adversaries invest in improving their weapons technology, Army S&T has the responsibility to modernize our legacy weapons ammunition and accessories.

S&T support for next-generation weapon investments includes research into lighter-weight materials, improved ammunition design and penetration, modular component designs and integrated enabling technologies such as fire controls, optics and powered rails. The Army’s improved weapons and munitions need to be able to defeat adversaries who are using partial and full defilade to protect their positions and equipment, limiting the effects of our direct-fire small arms and indirect fire systems. In response, Army S&T seeks to reduce the precision, size and weight of counter-defilade capabilities for small units, putting counter-defilade in the hands of Soldiers and small units in combination with more lethal weapons and enablers, to keep pace with and overmatch the capabilities of adversaries.

AUGMENTED TRAINING
Sgt. 1st Class Taikeila Dale uses the Mk-19 simulator with augmented reality head-mounted display while visiting the Army Research Laboratory – Orlando, Florida, in August. Researchers at ARL-Orlando developed the trainer, which enables training in smaller spaces and has a shorter reset time to provide more opportunities to refine necessary skills. (U.S. Army photo by C. Todd Lopez)

SOLDIER PROTECTION AND EQUIPMENT

Army S&T seeks a balance of protection, mobility and the impact of such enhancements on lethality. It boils down to a weight race, as the Army adds equipment to the Soldier kit faster than it can reduce weight through materials research, miniaturizing components and integrating capabilities into ergonomically designed systems and components.

Research continues on lower-weight protection options for increased mobility and lethality as emerging directed-energy and ballistic threats proliferate. We also seek to reduce battery-related Soldier load with research on power harvesting, battery chemistries and energy management—all with the goal to extend dismounted Soldier operations for a 72-hour mission using adaptive systems that supply continuous power generation for up to six days.

Army S&T is exploring bio-enabled and protective materials that combine protection against multiple environmental, detection and ballistic threats for clothing and individual equipment. It is also looking at signature management technologies to decrease the probability of a Soldier being seen and heard because of the thermal, electromagnetic or visual characteristics of the gear they wear and carry. Midterm body armor research focuses on vital torso protection against ballistic and blast threats, adding to earlier research on technologies that reduce Soldier-generated electromagnetic and auditory signatures.

A related research area is developing mechanisms to understand human response and injury in blast, ballistic and directed-energy trauma. Army S&T also seeks to create injury-based performance criteria to support readiness determinations and product design.

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Information overmatch, by allowing Soldiers to surprise the enemy, increases the chance of mission success. Army S&T is developing strategic technologies to enhance our ability to outthink and outmaneuver an adversary with Soldier-wearable technologies. Small units must have situational understanding and a common operating picture to operate in close contact with the enemy and to conduct continuous security operations.

To achieve state-of-the-art situational awareness, Army S&T is investing in three areas:

• Advanced sensors and displays for dismounts—Our focus is on low-cost Soldier-borne sensors, combat optical weapon sights and imaging and non-imaging sensors for individual and crew-served applications. These sensors will provide day-or-night capabilities enabling precision targeting and pointing, target marking and designation and obtaining accurate target locations at extended ranges.
• Soldier system interfaces and integration—These tactical system interfaces and decision aids reduce the cognitive overload caused by too much visual information, and support the 3-D visualization of mission command and sensor data to enhance tactical decision-making during dismounted operations.
• Soldier data management—We are developing Soldier-borne data management and distribution technologies whereby Soldiers can assess and maintain situational awareness and understanding, to enable real-time decision-making during dismounted operations. Hardware and software development address Soldier-centric integration and analysis of wired and wireless data management technologies, including Intra Soldier Wireless technologies and architectures, low-power sensor networks and Soldier-borne information assurance solutions.

Emerging wearable technologies provide an unprecedented ability to collect high-resolution data continuously over significantly longer periods compared to the handheld and head-borne display systems in use today. Sensor data, combined with advanced modeling techniques and machine learning, have the potential to enhance cognitive performance and provide state-of-the-art situational awareness.

SOLDIER PERFORMANCE

Soldier load, a combination of cognitive and physical stressors, has increased as battlefield scenarios become more complex and Soldiers’ gear increases with the proliferation of capabilities and technological advances. Army S&T addresses physical and cognitive performance through our medical and human system integration (HSI) communities. Current operating concepts assume that Soldiers can comprehend large amounts of dynamic, complex data arising from dense, urban, technology-laden terrain, and make efficient and effective decisions.

Our research focuses on predicting the range of Soldier comprehension given varying quantities of information and tasks, in varying environments. Army S&T aims to enable Soldiers and small units to maneuver rapidly and engage adversaries in all environments, from dense urban areas to deserts, rolling terrain, mountains and jungle, and to operate in distributed small units as well as larger formation missions. S&T investments in medical and nonmedical augmentation technologies look to improve Soldier performance while reducing the physical, perceptual and cognitive workload and enabling units to operate at a sustained high tempo.

Applying HSI principles and practices before designing equipment is a key to achieving physical overmatch in a dynamic operating environment and improving Soldier and team performance. HSI applications include man-machine interface, brain-computer interaction and joint human-intelligent agent decision–making, with a focus on early integration of humans and systems. Common human-machine interfaces ensure that Soldiers have flexible, tailorable analytic tools for laboratory-grade, high-resolution assessment of dismount-robot interactions in complex environments.

The S&T medical community is the major contributor to research on optimizing Soldier performance, through its individualized regimens of nutrition, “nutraceuticals,” pharmaceuticals and synthetic biology to prevent disease, speed recovery and augment human performance. Some of the major goals are to manage fatigue effectively, optimize nutrition and maximize physical and cognitive performance in dynamic operating environments. The field of Soldier–optimized performance delivers technologies that combine physical, metabolic and cognitive sensors to enable Army leaders to make decisions faster and to sustain resilience, protection and mobility.

UHM, WHAT?
The Army’s Enhanced Combat Helmet uses composite fibers developed from UHMWPE—high-performance, ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. The inset image, obtained using scanning electron microscopy, reveals a permanent indent from a test bullet on the surface of polycarbonate material, in contrast with polyurethane urea elastomer materials, where no damage was observed after impact. (U.S. Army illustration)

PROLONGED FIELD MEDICAL CARE

The Army’s last 16 years of contingency operations have demonstrated that surgical intervention within 60 minutes of injury—the “golden hour”—significantly increases the chances of casualty survival. Because operational threats such as anti-access and area denial challenge the Army’s ability to evacuate Soldiers to surgical treatment within that hour, Army S&T is researching medical materiel and knowledge solutions to accelerate delivery of lifesaving medical care. Our two major programmatic efforts are prolonged field care and autonomous evacuation.

Prolonged field care will enable medical personnel, such as combat medics and battalion surgeons, to stabilize wounded personnel for extended periods of time until evacuation is feasible. The capability initially will consist of advanced medical devices to control bleeding from wounds for which tourniquets are not effective, and a closed-loop, extracorporeal (that is, outside the body) life support system to provide lung and kidney function to patients who need it.

When medical evacuation is not feasible, the Army will use autonomous ground or air platforms, in conjunction with autonomous life support equipment, to move casualties to surgical care facilities. These platforms also will be useful for resupplying medical personnel during sustained operations. Army S&T investments in autonomous systems and advanced medical devices will provide tomorrow’s force the dramatic increase in survival rates that the Army’s first aeromedical evacuation brought to wounded Soldiers in Korea.

NEW NEEDS FOR TRAINING

Increasingly complex equipment, the rise in speed of conflict and increasing demands for diverse skills, such as cyber and languages, are driving Army S&T to research state-of-the-art methodologies and tools to support learning and training. These tools must outpace the learning demands arising from complex environments and provide Soldiers the expertise and confidence to synthesize information, rapidly make decisions and act upon those decisions to outmaneuver adversaries.

New training technologies and environments will allow Soldiers to train and rehearse warfighting skills such as faster decision-making to gain the advantage of speed over adversaries, with integrated capabilities such as intelligent agents that challenge the Soldier to improve individual and team performance and develop agile, adaptive leaders. As Army training missions increase, S&T has the challenge of replicating sufficient knowledge and time for every small unit on dispersed and varied battlefields. Investments in training tools such as simulations and synthetic training environments will increase retention, enhance situational awareness for cognitive overmatch, and improve Soldier and team performance while reducing training time and cost.

TOMORROW’S PATROL
By 2025, the Army sees ground troops conducting foot patrols in urban terrain with robots—called Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport vehicles—that carry rucksacks and other equipment. Unmanned aircraft could serve as spotters, according to the Army’s new strategy for robotic and autonomous systems. They could also deliver cargo, reducing reliance on rotary-wing support and facilitating sustainment. (U.S. Army image)

CONCLUSION

The future vision of land warfare is being shaped by today’s S&T investments across many mature and emerging disciplines. The capabilities described in this article will start to bear fruit in three to 10 years in rapidly advancing information technology and physical and cognitive augmentation technologies, with solutions expected in 10 years or beyond in such areas as biomaterials and artificial intelligence.

The Soldier lethality S&T portfolio is shaped by a diverse community of scientists, innovators, end users, technology and global forecasters, and intelligence experts who identify and define the challenges and threats of the future. It employs an iterative analytical process to continually refine its investments and priorities so that future Soldiers maintain the lethality advantage on the future battlefields that are being conceived today.

For more information on Soldier lethality investments, go to https://www.army.mil/asaalt.

KAREN M. BURKE is a program analyst from the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, currently assigned to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology (DASA(R&T)) as acting director of the Soldier lethality portfolio. She has over 20 years’ experience across Army S&T and program management, with expertise in HSI and joint program management. She holds an M.S. in engineering management from Western New England University and the Naval Postgraduate School and a B.A. in research psychology from Framingham State University. She is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps and a 2014 graduate of the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center Competitive Development Group/Army Acquisition Fellowship Program. She is Level III certified in program management and systems engineering.

COL. ERIC J. WAGAR is director of the DASA(R&T) Office of the Deputy for Medical Systems and the medical portfolio director. He holds a Ph.D. in immunology and virology from the University of Massachusetts Medical School and a B.S. in general biology from the University of California, San Diego.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

By Ms. Kristy Pottol and Mr. John Getz

Our Tissue Injury and Regenerative Medicine Program Management Office is tasked with a nearly impossible acquisition mission: to restore form, function and appearance to the wounded Warfighter post-catastrophic injury. The development costs are high, the programs are risky, the timelines are long, the commercial market is small and an enterprise-wide requirement is, to say the least, challenging to write. For our team, this is where innovation, opportunity and possibility thrive. Our Service Members are counting on us to be as innovative in our problem-solving battle as they are on the front lines, protecting and defending our freedoms.

The U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity has a unique role in the Army acquisition space. As the premier developer of world-class military medical capabilities, USAMMDA is responsible for developing and delivering critical products designed to protect and preserve the lives of Warfighters. These products include drugs, vaccines, biologics, devices and medical support equipment intended to promote readiness and maximize survival of casualties on the battlefield. However, USAMMDA’s TIRM PMO also works diligently to support our Service Members returning from the fight; many of whom are scarred both physically and mentally following catastrophic combat injuries.

The TIRM PMO looks to amplify the Department of Defense’s Manufacturing Innovation Institute (now branded as Manufacturing USA) investment by utilizing a “whole-of-government” approach as a force multiplier and tapping into the recent successes found within the exciting field of regenerative medicine. Our commitment to cross-coordination among non-Department of Defense government agencies has led to an identification of key barriers in regenerative medicine solutions that currently exist across the nation. This problem list was briefed at the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing in September 2015, on behalf of all agencies funding regenerative medicine. This focused coordination of the industrialization challenges became the catalyst for the newly established DOD Manufacturing Innovation Institute for regenerative medicine.

Only 15 months after the aforementioned briefing, the DOD announced $80 million in funding for the award of their first biomanufacturing effort under the Manufacturing USA program, with an additional $214 million pledged by industry partners. This award was completed and presented to the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute in Manchester, New Hampshire, to establish, through a public–private partnership, the BioFabUSA institute. This critical endeavor bridges the gap between early scientific research and later-stage product development by strategically advancing critical technologies to enable large-scale tissue product manufacturing efforts. Addressing manufacturing challenges early in the acquisition lifecycle reduces risk, thereby enabling accelerated development of new producible, sustainable and affordable technologies in this rapidly evolving area.

The whole-of-government approach continues to be a key success factor for the regenerative medicine field and for BioFabUSA. Representatives from all Armed Services and across all relevant government agencies, with expertise in some element of manufacturing and testing technologies, are included in the BioFabUSA technical working groups. We have assembled a voluntary intra-government Biomanufacturing Stakeholder’s Council to share lessons, successes, vision, goals and networking contacts, so that we can solve difficult problems by working to our collective strengths.

Key leadership from USAMMDA’s TIRM PMO is proud to champion this groundbreaking venture. While the focus of BioFabUSA is placed on the manufacturing and testing barriers for tissue engineering, having the oversight of this program embedded within the TIRM PMO ensures alignment with our acquisition programs and helps to leverage value propositions with our industry partners. The BioFabUSA business model mixed with the TIRM PMO’s development pipeline ensures that we mitigate development risk, increase opportunities for cost control, and provide thought-leadership in this emerging, regulated landscape. This strategic alignment will inevitably accelerate numerous medical products for treating our wounded Warfighters, which will contribute to Army readiness and save lives on the battlefield of the future.

The DOD’s $80M investment in this nascent field has catalyzed a public–private partnership that aims to upend traditional processes for biopharmaceutical development. Innovative public–private partnerships leverage the creativity of the free market and advance DOD objectives. ARMI has carefully selected trust agents via a Board of Directors with long track records of creating products that have positively impacted the world. The seemingly impossible challenge of developing tissue products on an industrial scale while also supporting the needs of our Service Members creates an unprecedented partnership. We fully expect that silos and stovepipes can and will be eliminated in the interest of advancing technologies to bring solutions to our wounded Warfighters.

The implementation of BioFabUSA is aimed to bring together an emerging and fragmented industry with targeted academic research to create a stable and growing tissue engineering industry that will literally change medicine and support Army’s challenging medical acquisition programs. To accomplish this, the main thrust of BioFabUSA’s diverse membership is focused on eliminating industrial manufacturing technology barriers through problem-solving centered on teaming and the creation of an “industrial commons” workspace. We expect to help promising new products reach the marketplace through a unification of knowledge, materials and equipment that may be shared between large and small organizations — quite revolutionary considering the possibilities that lie ahead.

One of our primary goals is to find novel ways to acquire the necessary products to treat our Service Members and provide the products they need, when they need them, and this program will certainly help to accelerate the delivery of these critical products to the Warfighter. We must be ready, so they can be ready, not only on the battlespace, but when returning home with profound injuries. As part of our mission, the TIRM PMO is called upon to provide the necessary elements and treatments to restore form and function to our severely injured men and women. Therefore, we must seek out ways to source these products, and we are excited about the tremendous potential of the BioFabUSA institute in helping to streamline the process of creating the end products we need.

BioFabUSA is focused on bringing together industry, academia and government to work on problems that are more difficult than any one institution alone can solve — it’s about encouraging partnerships to create our essential products and to fill critical medical gaps for Service Members. Through this innovative new BioFabUSA endeavor, we undoubtedly will accomplish significantly more, and in a much faster timeframe, by working together rather than competing against each other — it is a win-win situation for everyone.

Ms. Kristy Pottol is project manager of the Tissue Injury and Regenerative Medicine Project Management Office of the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity, Fort Detrick, Maryland, and also serves as the program manager for the Department of Defense BioFabUSA Institute effort. Ms. Pottol is a certified Defense Acquisition Professional, Program Management Level III, and a member of the Acquisition Corps. She holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Regis University, a Master of Science degree in accounting with emphasis on Information Systems from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and a Bachelor of Science degree in physics with an emphasis in biophysics from East Carolina University.

Mr. John Getz is a product manager in the Tissue Injury and Regenerative Medicine Project Management Office of the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity, Fort Detrick, Maryland. He also serves as deputy program manager for the Department of Defense BioFabUSA Institute effort. Mr. Getz is a certified Defense Acquisition Professional, Program Management Level II. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in biology with emphasis in chemistry from Millersville University of Pennsylvania.

This article is an honorable mention in the 2017 Maj. Gen. Harold J. “Harry” Green Awards for Acquisition Writing competition. A special supplement featuring the winning entries is online now, and will accompany the print version of the April – June 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine. If you wish to be added to the magazine’s mailing list, subscribe online; if you’d like multiple subscriptions, please send an email to armyalt@gmail.com.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

Facing an enemy intent on creating a highly contested electromagnetic environment, S&T investments in Army networks focus on mobility, redundancy, ease of use and detection avoidance. 

 by Mr. Seth Spoenlein, Mr. James Snodgrass, Mr. Michael Breckenridge and Dr. Brian Rivera

The expeditionary nature of the future force will require mobile, secure communication networks that are dynamic—able to survive in active electronic warfare environments and available in all environments to ensure continuous mission command. However, obtaining and sustaining the higher ground in a network context will not come easily in the future battlespace.

The enemy will have advanced technologies designed specifically to create a highly contested electromagnetic (EM) environment, disrupting our ability to communicate, degrading our performance and injecting uncertainty into our decision cycle. To address these challenges and provide robust EM defense of information exchange, we need to develop mobile communication networks that can make optimal use of the EM spectrum, enhance EM security and reduce the probability of detection or intercept.

In addition, the network must be resilient to attacks in both the cyber and land domains by responding and adapting much more rapidly than today’s networks. It must have low EM signatures and operate on-the-move. The entire network setup, from spectrum allocation to subnet configuration and security monitoring, must be automated to simplify network operation. Today’s tactical Army networks are reliant on conventional radio-frequency (RF) technologies, which limits our ability to maintain communications in a contested environment.

Therefore, Army science and technology (S&T) is investing in innovative mobile communication platforms that employ advances in RF and nontraditional portions of the EM spectrum; highly directed adaptive anti-jam antennas to mitigate effects of multipath interference; and new algorithms and software to predict network performance, enhance cybersecurity and provide network self-configuring and self-healing capabilities.

Maintaining persistent connectivity, or network resilience, amid the noncontiguous and disrupted communication links in a tactical environment will require an automated intelligence system. Automation and intelligent network switching capabilities will simplify Soldier operation and guarantee the ability to quickly adjust based upon the mission needs and the enemy’s action, in order to establish, adapt and maintain communication in a complex, contested environment.

To accomplish this network resilience and agility, Army S&T is looking to the use of multiple redundant network links, a diverse selection of alternate networks, and efforts to decrease the likelihood of disruption by an enemy. Network diversity will require separate physical connections to the tactical internet, the “final-furlong” squad area networks and long-haul networks. Effective network and spectrum diversity allows Army units to communicate regardless of what happens to the physical infrastructure over which those communications are transmitted.

GRID SEARCH
Sgt. Rogelio Hercules, the network operations noncommissioned officer in charge assigned to the 44th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, 2nd Theater Signal Brigade (TSB), configures equipment during Saber Guardian 17, a U.S. Army Europe-led, multinational exercise held in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in July. The future force is expected to be more expeditionary, and as a result will require dynamic communication networks capable of operating in active electronic warfare environments. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Brian Cline, 2nd TSB)

CHOICES MAKE THE DIFFERENCE

Commercial technology has implemented automated processes in mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) to autonomously transition media among differing network connections without user selection or decision-making about which network to use. For example, automated network selection occurs when someone walks inside their home with a cellular device; that phone is programmed to autonomously switch to a home Wi-Fi network that has higher throughput and better signal strength; the device also uses Bluetooth to automatically discover a smart high-definition TV to telecast video or a speaker system to stream audio. In this commercial implementation, the source and destination devices are linked over a network infrastructure with redundant, highly reliable communication links.

The same cannot be said for current tactical Army networks where users may be located in physically and logically separated subnetworks and where the reliability of communication links can be intermittent, especially in contested spectrum environments. Army units need the flexibility to discover and leverage all viable network options, allowing multiple pathways to critical networks and data sources.

For ease of interaction with the network, an automated network selection system must maintain awareness of all available network connections, the status of each link and the source and destination of data to traverse the network. This system automates the planning methodology practiced by units to designate the primary, alternate, contingency and emergency (PACE) means of communication used to build a mission-based communication plan.

In tactical Army networks, different communication solutions are available to provide connectivity between users across varied environments. These solutions vary widely by technology, protocol, throughput and other factors that must be evaluated for priority in a PACE plan. Most Soldiers are not specialists in establishing or maintaining the network. We must reduce the need for a Soldier to be an expert for every configuration interface of every network radio. An automated PACE system will ease Soldier interaction with data traversing the network without concern for how the data flows from source to destination. The automated network selection system can automatically, intelligently and seamlessly route data over the available network connections as the PACE plan executes.

Another major element of network resilience is the need to decrease the probability of detection, as well as jamming and other types of interference. Future systems will minimize, or at least control, the spectrum signature a unit produces during normal operations, in order to defeat detection and eventual disruption. The automated PACE system is also a means to mitigate spectrum interference. When an enemy is successful with interference, the automated PACE system can maintain user-to-user connectivity during primary link disruption, and allow continued communications for units to accomplish mission objectives. Development of solutions for use at-the-halt or near the tactical edge will include technologies from unconventional regions of the spectrum that are difficult to detect or jam, such as terahertz and ultraviolet radiation.

An increased understanding of the spectrum environment amid interference and congestion will enhance situational understanding by helping to pinpoint sources of interference and their targets, and this will enable persistent network connectivity. To achieve spectrum awareness, we will leverage every receiver on the battlefield as a spectrum sensor to yield relevant data for signals intelligence, electronic warfare and radio frequency communications. Often, the same dataset can be used to support related mission needs, such as those of electronic warfare or offensive cyber operations. The spectrum data not only feeds the network automation, but is also consumed by purpose-built systems that will effectively visualize this data and provide wide-scale situational understanding.

In addition, the Army will need to protect the network from adversaries attempting to geolocate our EM emissions and target them with long-range fires, making it critical to identify capabilities that lower the probability of detection and interception to increase network survivability. Future systems will minimize, or at least control, a unit’s spectrum signature in order to defeat detection and eventual disruption.

Successful operations will require the ability to use nontraditional portions of the EM spectrum and to make it harder for the adversary to deny spectrum use to the force. Army S&T is developing technologies to operate in multiple bands from low VHF to millimeter wave band and optical band. Each of these bands has different performance constraints and capabilities, but together they will enable a hybrid network that can adapt autonomously to electronic warfare attacks, connectivity problems or congestion, thereby increasing the resilience of Army networks.

Key to this is spectrum awareness. To achieve this, we are developing approaches to leverage every receiver on the battlefield as a spectrum sensor to yield relevant data for signals intelligence, electronic warfare and RF communications.

Longer-term, we are developing technologies to enable combined RF and cyber effects that increase the uncertainty of friendly forces’ locations in both the physical (RF) and cyber environments, as well as the use of quantum encryption methods to enhance network security.

HYBRID NETWORK
Soldiers assigned to the 44th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, 2nd TSB assemble a dedicated antenna to support the command post of the Georgia National Guard’s 648th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade during Saber Guardian 17 in July. The Army is developing technologies to operate in multiple bands, from low VHF to millimeter wave band and optical band, enabling a hybrid network that can adapt autonomously to attacks, connectivity problems or congestion. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Brian Cline, 2nd TSB)

CONCLUSION

The future Army network will possess intelligent automation, network resilience and situational understanding to enable automatic execution of PACE plans. The network will provide fast and reliable communications in anti-access and area denial environments. Simultaneously, flexible and tunable communication platforms will be less susceptible to detection and jamming.

Built-in network resilience is a foundational element of network EM security and reliability of operations. Implementation of components that enable spectrum diversity with failover -capabilities—the ability to switch to backup systems after the initial system fails—will achieve more resilient network performance. By coupling varied mission needs with available spectrum data, limiting the need for Soldiers to interact with configuration interfaces and automating PACE transition across a diverse network, we can enable units to meet multiple mission aspects with optimal bandwidth use, fast reconfiguration time and effective self-healing.

For more information, go to www.cerdec.army.mil or www.arl.army.mil.

SETH SPOENLEIN is associate director for technology, planning and outreach (TPO) in the Space and Terrestrial Communications Directorate at the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. He holds a Master of Engineering in systems engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology and a B.S. in computer engineering from Lehigh University, and is Level III certified in engineering.

JAMES SNODGRASS is an S&T portfolio manager assigned to CERDEC’s Space and Terrestrial Communications Directorate. He has nearly 20 years of Army acquisition experience, primarily with planning and integration of complex information systems. He holds a B.S. in business administration from Thomas Edison State University. He is Level III certified in program management and in information technology and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC).

MICHAEL BRECKENRIDGE is the deputy associate director for TPO. He has 10 years of Army S&T acquisition experience in network technology. He holds an M.S. in electrical engineering and a B.S in electrical engineering from Villanova University and is a member of the AAC.

BRIAN RIVERA is chief of the Network Sciences Division within the Computational and Information Sciences Directorate at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland. He holds a Ph.D., an M.S. and a B.S. in electrical engineering, all from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College. He has more than 25 years of experience in networking, network science and cybersecurity.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.

AMRDEC pursues two missile technology solutions to strengthen the Army’s hand in close combat.

 by Mr. Spencer Hudson and Mr. Shannon Haataja

One of the top U.S. Army modernization priorities is increased precision and effects at extended range in all operational environments. This is part of a broader strategy to make warfighting units more lethal to regain overmatch against peer and emerging threats. In response, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology’s lethality portfolio is investing in a layered, extended-range precision fires solution across operational levels to shape deep and close fights. The lethality portfolio represents science and technology (S&T) investments at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) and other contributing elements of the Army S&T enterprise.

The close fight, or close combat, is the final engagement phase, wherein U.S. ground forces maneuver to seize and control key terrain and destroy enemy forces. This fundamental building block of operational success may be challenged by highly capable peer threats, particularly in anti-access and area denial threat environments where U.S. forces may lack traditional close air support, and where U.S. anti-tank guided missiles may be outnumbered.

To address this gap, two midterm S&T investments in close combat missiles are focused on giving small expeditionary units increased stand-alone precision and lethal effects at extended ranges to enable freedom of maneuver to decisively defeat the enemy.

FIGURE 2: OBJECTIVE: OVERMATCH
MSET works by relaying sensor target inputs to a vehicle-mounted command-and-control and fire-control system. That system determines grid coordinates, generates flight paths and launches the appropriate number of missiles. Those missiles are guided via real-time waypoint updates to the target location, and image processors on the missile provide positive identification, target lock-on and track to terminal.

The Single Multi-Mission Attack Missile (SMAM) is an emerging precision loitering missile capable of engaging enemy tanks and other high-value targets out to 35 kilometers or farther. Loitering refers to a missile’s ability, when commanded by the operator, to fly a specified flight path to a known target location, circle in a holding pattern once in the target area, and engage or wave off and then re-engage the same or a different target of interest.

Soldiers operate the SMAM with a commercial -tablet-based controller. The system’s two-way data link provides full-motion video for positive target identification. The operator selects the target using a track box once it comes into the field of view. Image processing software then automatically locks on to and guides the missile to terminal engagement with no operator intervention required. The operator has the ability to wave off and redirect the missile to another target, making it extremely effective in urban terrain and helping to avoid collateral damage. (See Figure 1.)

SMAM includes a self-contained launch tube and a portable mast-mounted antenna. With a total weight, including the missile, of 50 to 70 pounds, the system is easily transportable and can be readily mounted on a range of Army ground vehicle or aviation platforms.

AMRDEC and partnering organizations have been developing this emerging capability for several years. The organizations achieved a major milestone in June 2015 with a successful proof-of-principle, live-fire range demonstration that resulted in direct hits on a 12-man mannequin array and a sport utility vehicle, both located 25 kilometers from the launch point.

The AMRDEC Enhanced SMAM S&T program, getting underway in FY18, will focus on precision navigation and targeting at extended ranges in contested, GPS-denied and electronic-jamming environments, as well as optimizing warhead technology to defeat main battle tanks.

AMRDEC is also working on another system: Missile Multiple Simultaneous Engagement Technologies (MSET) is a suite of technologies providing the capability to rapidly defeat swarming and dispersed threats, providing simultaneous multiple launch, control and supervised autonomous terminal engagement of multiple missiles against various targets.

MSET is configured as a kit that could be hosted on a variety of manned and future unmanned Army ground vehicles and aviation platforms. (See Figure 2.)This allows it to leverage existing organic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance targeting sensors such as small unmanned aircraft systems, day and night cameras and forward-deployed radars. Both SMAM and MSET are designed to directly accept precise target location coordinates transmitted over the tactical network from external targeting sensors.

AMRDEC initiated a rapid prototyping effort for MSET in 2016 that involved modifying and integrating existing technologies to demonstrate concept feasibility. The goal was for a single operator to be able to fire and control six loitering precision missiles against four static targets and two moving targets, using an Android application to simultaneously control the surrogate missiles and then sequentially perform the terminal engagements.

Targeting data was provided by a surrogate radar feed. AMRDEC successfully conducted extensive hardware-in-the-loop integration and testing, coupled with six risk-reduction flight test events over a nine-month period. This culminated in a proof-of-principle range flight demonstration conducted by AMRDEC in November at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.

Future AMRDEC S&T efforts on MSET will focus on developing image-processing algorithms to enable supervised autonomous terminal engagement, i.e., moving from “man-in-the-loop” to “man-on-the-loop,” where the operator can still observe an engagement while retaining the ability to abort the mission once the target has been positively identified by the operator. AMRDEC’s future efforts also will focus on developing key operator fire control and data link technologies that will scale the system up from six simultaneous engagements to as many as 20.

FIGURE 1: COVERING ALL THE OPTIONS
SMAM is capable of precisely targeting and defeating hard and soft targets at extended ranges and can be integrated on a range of Army ground vehicle and aviation platforms as well as maritime platforms. (Images courtesy of the authors)

CONCLUSION

S&T programs for SMAM and MSET will demonstrate key technologies to enable U.S. Army multidomain battle and the manned-unmanned teaming operating concepts of decentralized, expeditionary maneuver in contested environments. Once fielded, those technologies will provide brigade combat teams with precision strike capability at extended ranges against hard armor and high-value targets in scenarios that demand increased autonomy while providing increased Soldier survivability. These close combat investments are part of the lethality portfolio’s integrated strategy to achieve the Army’s precision fires modernization priorities.

For more information on MSET, refer to Sources Sought W31P4Q-17-R-0132, released June 22, 2017.

SPENCER HUDSON is a senior project engineer with AMRDEC and serves as the Ground Tactical Capability Area lead, managing and directing multiple ground S&T efforts established to address and support technology needs and gaps for both the Close Combat Weapon Systems Project Office and the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence. He holds an M.S. in aerospace system engineering and a B.S. in mechanical engineering, both from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC).

SHANNON HAATAJA is a project engineer with AMRDEC, serving as the Ground Tactical Capability Area deputy lead and the MSET project manager. He holds an M.S. in aerospace system engineering and a B.S. in electronics engineering, both from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the AAC.

This article is published in the January – March 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News, the premier online news source for the Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) Workforce.