Understanding the whole of Army acquisition is exceedingly difficult, and that’s why ARDEC—to change its culture, improve decision-making and unleash its own agility—created an innovative combination of war gaming and business architecture. In doing so, it has created a blueprint for the rest of the Army, and DOD.

by Ms. Kathleen R. Walsh

Sometimes the best way to learn something is to do it.

A bunch of GPS coordinates is just a bunch of numbers. Plug them into a geographical information system, like Google Earth, and suddenly those numbers come alive as a real, concrete place.

That, in effect, is what the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) set out to do recently when it created a war game that used its business architecture. The war game itself was something of a ruse, in the same way that high school robotics competitions are, on the surface, about robots, but the real intent is creatively teaching math, engineering, computer programming and teamwork.

Similarly, ARDEC’s business architecture war game pitted two teams against each other to compete for an engineering services contract. But it wasn’t really about engineering services. It was an educational tool to turn the dull abstraction that is “business architecture” into something concrete that users could see and interact with as they competed for bragging rights in the game.

In creating the war game, ARDEC created a reusable tool that not only educates its workforce in business architecture, but also facilitates and improves any organizational decision at any level, including strategic decisions involving budget and planning, and even potential mergers and acquisitions.

A common framework for understanding what an organization does and why, making it possible to think about the organization in a holistic way, and to prepare for new projects efficiently. For large organizations facing changes to the external environment—like ARDEC—this framework for thinking helps reduce risk and keep the organization on track.

WHAT IS BUSINESS ARCHITECTURE?

Business architecture forms a standardized framework that enables an organization to comprehensively classify what it does, or what its capabilities are, through the creation of a common vocabulary, allowing any employee to view the organization through a common lens. That’s important because each organization within the Army acquisition enterprise must balance its physical, financial, intellectual or human resources with its limitations.

The problem with business architecture is that it is complex and sounds about as exciting as watching grass grow. But for those who understand it, business architecture is a powerful tool and just the thing that Army organizations must have to best support the Army’s needs as it continues to modernize. For ARDEC, it became a way for leadership to continue challenging conventional thinking about how a public sector organization should operate to begin a real culture change.

ARDEC Director John Hedderich believes that “we live in a relentlessly changing and fiercely competitive world and need to be ready for challenges we may not anticipate today. We need to be creative about how we define and solve problems to stay ahead of future threats and future enemies technologically. Outside-the-box thinking is crucial in putting us in a position to lead.”

The combination of business architecture and war gaming bridges disparate but complementary perspectives to accomplish just that. Business architecture aims to provide a holistic view of an organization—its policies, strategies and products—yielding important insight into capabilities, end-to-end value delivery and information. War gaming turned the abstract into something tangible and urgent that employees could use and interact with.

The model we developed at ARDEC can be adapted to any DOD organization.

A mission model helps an organization begin to understand what capabilities it should have to carry out its functions. The mission model adapts the principles of the “business model canvas,” a mapping strategy for commercial enterprises, to nonprofit organizations like the Army. ARDEC’s process for the mission model canvas was inspired by Steve Blank.

FIRST, WHY DO WE EXIST?

Think of Lego bricks labeled with a variety of capabilities, such as customer management, portfolio management or program management. Business architecture is made up of Lego bins that tell you which Lego bricks you have to play with, what those capability blocks can do, and who else is using them.

Business architecture has several parts. If an organization is just starting to develop a business architecture, it’s best to begin with a mission model (if the organization doesn’t have one), followed by the capability map.

A mission model is a business model for a nonprofit organization like the Army. The organization’s mission—why it exists—provides the means to know which Lego bricks we have, or should have. For ARDEC, the mission is to “lead research, development and engineering of systems solutions to arm those who defend the nation against all current and future threats, at home and abroad.”

The mission model lays out who ARDEC’s customers are and asks what ARDEC needs to do to provide value to each customer. So we ask, for example, “What does ARDEC have to do to deliver value?” An answer might be that we have to manage science and technology (S&T) projects.

Our mission model will have a whole list of activities we need to accomplish to do that, and we can use it to generate the list of Lego bricks that exist to accomplish those tasks. “Managing S&T projects” is a key activity that might lead us to identify capabilities such as “project performance management” and “project risk management.” Those capabilities are the building blocks to help develop plans that meet objectives to achieve our mission.

SECOND, WHAT DO WE DO?

A capability map is like a blueprint that represents bins of Lego bricks that the organization uses to organize its capabilities. Each item in the capability map is a Lego brick that represents something ARDEC does, or is capable of doing, to build projects and make decisions.

While business architecture should be used for any decision in the organization, for our purposes, each project that ARDEC undertakes is a Lego house. Let’s say I’m a project manager who needs to construct a Lego house. I’ll look in the Lego bin to see if I have enough pieces, and see if the pieces are the right size and color. Similarly, ARDEC needs to make sure it has the right organizational pieces, or capabilities, to achieve its strategy.

THIRD, HOW DO WE DO IT?

Let’s say I need to build a new roof for one of my Lego houses. First, I’d need to make sure that I have not only the capability (roof management), but also the capacity. Is someone else using those bricks? Do I need to hire more people skilled in roof management?

We have the same type of strategic discussions in our organizations. If we have multiple projects that require the same capabilities—maybe we’re working on three different artillery systems that all require modeling and simulation—we need to discuss whether we should outsource, hire more people or hold off doing the project. Business architecture is a great tool for analyzing risk and foreseeing resource issues rather than responding to them after they arise.

Randy Rand, senior associate for production and sustainment in the Munitions Engineering and Technology Center, described the value of his participation. “Applying business architecture at ARDEC enables us to better understand and map the interrelationships that drive our armaments enterprise,” he said, “and thereby to better achieve our strategic goals through technology and innovation, value-based business processes, ultimately delivering new and more effective products to the warfighter.”

WHAT CAPACITY DO WE HAVE?
A capability map is like a set of bins, where each bin is a broad category like “engineering management,” with building blocks inside the bins. The building blocks are more specific descriptions of what the organization being mapped can do—what kinds of engineering, for instance

A QUIET INSURGENCY

When I joined the Army team 12 years ago as a computer scientist, I quickly became frustrated by the lack of clear business rules. Army policies can be purposefully vague, leaving it up to the lower levels of the organization to determine how they want to implement them. That may work fine in some instances, but in large organizations that need to think and operate strategically as an enterprise, that vagueness can result in data that varies from group to group, making it hard to consume. When data can’t be consumed easily, it might as well be garbage.

In an effort to clear up the vagueness, we looked at several disciplines known for organizing “enterprise,” or big-picture, information, such as enterprise architecture, systems engineering and business architecture. We found that they shared architectural principles, such as designing for purpose and aligning efforts toward a common goal. However, they all had a similar problem: They all created two-dimensional pictures. The only way to show business architecture’s value was to add a third dimension to make it tangible.

Realizing that I needed to find a creative way to explain the value of building the architecture and promoting its value, I began a personalized outreach initiative across the organization. Twenty-two employees attended three days of business architecture classes because they became convinced of its value, not because it was required training. They spent the summer of 2017 in weekly three-hour workshops that I created and facilitated to generate the mission model and Levels 1 and 2 of the ARDEC capability map.

Although the capability map we created in those workshops is intriguing, managers still had difficulty visualizing how ARDEC could actually make business architecture work. How could I help them realize the value? I had to disrupt the way people thought about strategic planning. In a frenzied brainstorming session, we came up with a revolutionary idea: Business Architecture: The War Game.

For how the game eventually came to work, see “About the Game.”

A SURPRISE REVEAL

Two teams of ARDEC employees played the game for three days. On the final day of the game, the Tiger Team was declared the winner over Skunk Works. We held an after-action review with all of the participants and made clear the real purpose of the game. Most of the participants knew little or nothing about business architecture, and that was the point. We used the war game to drive home the message that business architecture can help make decisions at all levels of the organization.

Dan Crowley, chief of the Process Improvement and Management Group at ARDEC and a war game participant, said that he supports the development and use of a business architecture because “by adopting a business architecture, anyone in the organization is able to assess the capabilities and use this information to make quicker and better strategic decisions.”

War game participant Kevin Hayes, deputy director in the Enterprise and Systems Integration Center, observed that “business architecture can be used to support annual budget planning as it provides the ability to quickly see where weak areas of the organization are and make better investment trade-off decisions.” Managers can act in the role of the market team, determining which capabilities are necessary for investment. Just as, in the game, the budget proposal will contain capability investments and justifications. Managers, or higher-level organizations, now have data helping to drive decisions and support an enlightened strategic discussion.

Katherine Guarini and Dave Magidson, John Finno, and Rob Hendrickson study the war game created to help ARDEC understand the value of business architecture—itself a valuable tool for understanding what an organization is capable of, and how to manage those resources.

CONCLUSION

We have entered an age of disruption, where agility trumps scale and strategy takes on a new role and a new meaning. ARDEC Military Deputy Col. Richard Hornstein considers business architecture “a great leader and management capability for strategic leaders to decompose information and aid in the decision-making process.”

The business architecture war game is a powerful tool that can be used for any significant strategic undertaking that is fraught with uncertainty. As a planning tool, it raises the visibility of the make-or-break uncertainties that are sure to be common in modernizing the Army. The acquisition enterprise is so complex in its vast number of capabilities that it takes a tool like this to make it comprehensible to those who know only their little corner of it.

With a task as monumental as modernizing the Army—the largest service branch of the world’s largest bureaucracy—the ability to visualize organizations as a whole, and understand what they are capable of, matters more than ever.

I’m determined to show that business architecture can enable ARDEC—or any organization—to do a better job of looking at our capacity to execute our mission as the external environment changes. These changes might include budget cuts, hiring freezes and new requirements.

ARDEC, through its use of business architecture, is ensuring adaptability and flexibility to meet the challenges required to develop the future force. This model can be used by any Army organization—indeed, DOD itself—to think in a more holistic way and to promote organizational learning and continuous improvement.

As we continue to find new opportunities to apply business architecture concepts to improve our planning and execution of the armament research, development and engineering mission, ARDEC will remain relentlessly focused on developing the world’s best armament and munition systems for the warfighter.

For more information, contact the author at kathleen.r.walsh.civ@mail.mil.

KATHLEEN R. WALSH is a business architect at ARDEC. She is a Certified Enterprise Architect from Carnegie Mellon University, and holds a Master of Engineering degree in systems engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology and a B.S. in computer science from Ramapo College of New Jersey. She holds a Certificate in Leadership Dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania; earned certificates in game design, story and narrative development from California Institute of the Arts; received business architecture training from the Business Architecture Institute; and studied filmmaking at the Barrow Group in New York City. She holds professional memberships in the Association of Enterprise Architects, the Business Architecture Guild and the International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), and she has spoken at the Business Architecture Guild’s Innovation Summit, the IIBA Building Business Capability, the Twin Cities Business Architecture Summit and the National Defense Industrial Association’s systems engineering conferences.

Related Links:

Building Business Capability Interview Series: Kathleen Walsh: https://www.buildingbusinesscapability.com/bbc-interview-series-kathleen-walsh-us-department-defense/

 Lego Movie Video

This article will be published in the October – December 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. Terri Stover, USASAC Public Affairs

Morocco strengthens its capacity to stabilize region and fight terrorism through partnership with U.S.

The Kingdom of Morocco is currently the largest U.S. weapons buyer in the 53-country region covered by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). U.S. assistance to Morocco enhances its capacity to promote security and prevent acts of terrorism, and its ability to meet current and future threats. The support has had a positive impact beyond Morocco, in both the Middle East and Africa. Morocco is emerging as a major partner for regional stabilization efforts and fighting terrorism, which furthers U.S. security.

One of the United States’ oldest partnerships is with Morocco. According to the U.S. Department of State, “Morocco formally recognized the United States by signing a peace treaty in 1786. Full diplomatic relations began in 1905, and normal diplomatic relations were resumed after U.S. recognition of Moroccan independence in 1956. The two countries share common concerns and consult closely on regional security and sustainable development.”

Scott Huther, AFRICOM regional operations division chief at the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC), said the Kingdom of Morocco recently requested 222 M1A1 Abrams tanks in an upgrade to its tank fleet that began in 2016. The transfer of the Abrams tanks progressed rapidly, with the scheduled delivery to the Royal Armed Forces completed in August. This significant sale has assisted Morocco with building its capacity. DOD provided the vehicles through the Excess Defense Articles program, where excess equipment is offered at reduced or no cost to eligible foreign recipients on an “as is, where is” basis in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

“These tanks continue to modernize the Kingdom of Morocco’s military and will enhance its readiness to meet current and future needs,” Huther said. “The Moroccans are very astute regarding their equipment requirements, and the fact they chose to use our depot system to refurbish their tanks speaks to the strength of the relationship our militaries share. The customer has choices for where to obtain equipment, but because of the relationship between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Morocco, plus the total-package approach provided by the U.S. military, Morocco chose the M1A1 tank, our excess equipment.”

The U.S. Army’s top priorities include readiness to deploy, fight and win, and to modernize and evolve to build greater capabilities and capacities. However, the U.S. military cannot both engage in multiple conflicts around the world and modernize the force without enhancing the strength of partner nations. So, also included in the top Army priorities is enhancing the professional relationships, training and overall coordination with our allies and partners.

While multinational exercises are one way to do this, the initial building blocks that allow the U.S. to develop relationships with allies and partners are security cooperation and assistance. The security cooperation and assistance mission is a vital foreign policy tool, and sales of military equipment are part of it. USASAC, headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, manages and implements the Army’s security assistance programs and foreign military sales for more than 150 countries.

One of more than 50 Abrams tanks that were delivered to Morocco in June, bringing total deliveries to more than 170 of the 222 requested. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army)

Foreign military sales have a fundamental value to Army readiness and to the military’s interoperability with international partners. This is particularly important in the AFRICOM region, where supporting relationships is key to addressing the significant terrorist threats in the area.

According to Amy Weichel, chief of the Morocco Program Office for Main Battle Tank Systems at the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, the initial vehicles underwent a complete overhaul and were rebuilt at the Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. Anniston was responsible for the teardown and rebuild of the tanks, including all the components except turret armor. General Dynamics Land Systems installed the exportable turret armor at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio. Using this production process, which results in like-new vehicles, another 72 vehicles were produced.

Anniston and General Dynamics overhauled an additional 150 tanks through the Abrams integrated management process. This is a partnership between the two entities; Anniston does the teardown, General Dynamics does the reassembly. The rebuild of a used M1A1 tank with this process enables the installation of modifications and emerging technologies. The purchase was beneficial in employing U.S. personnel at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center during the early production.

“The tank production supports the U.S. industrial base, providing work to the depots and contractors, and can result in mutual costs savings with economies of scale,” Weichel said. “It also adds to the long-standing relationship between the U.S. and Morocco, allowing them to modernize their military forces.”

Huther also pointed out that “the U.S. Army’s modernization is like a domino effect—our partners, like Morocco, are pushing just as hard to have compatible and comparable equipment to ensure continued logistic support.”

Along with large systems, other necessary tools provided through foreign military sales include radios, training ammunition, spare parts, tools, training aids and simulators. Personnel training is also part of the program, which allows the Army to train partners on the equipment as well as to develop leaders in partner nations. “This is all part of the total-package approach, which ensures the capability is not only developed but sustained,” Huther said.

USASAC is the lead for the security assistance enterprise of U.S. Army Materiel Command, which is USASAC’s headquarters. Through the support of Army Materiel Command entities such as the industrial base and its life cycle management commands, USASAC is able to assist partners with their readiness, whether it be through new or excess material and equipment, or sustainment.

Huther also emphasized that evolving an Army Materiel Command line of effort is about setting the conditions for integrating new technologies and systems, and that each AFRICOM partner is doing this in its own way. “Every facet of the USASAC mission is in support of U.S. national security and is designed to support strategic readiness,” he said. “We will continue to look at ways to improve our processes and help ensure that when it’s time to conduct coalition operations, our partner nations are ready and indisputably capable.”

This article will be published in the October – December 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.

Tunisia’s navy is the embodiment of a true FMS partner for the U.S.

by Mr. Benjamin Posil

“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”

Henry Ford

The United States’ foreign military sales (FMS) program with the Tunisian National Navy is the embodiment of a security cooperation “win.” It has accomplished both the practical and ideological goals that the program is designed to advance and is a model that stakeholders in developing FMS programs can strive to replicate.

Defining Tunisia’s identity is an exercise in balancing competing influences. Tunisia exists both literally and figuratively between the haves and the have-nots. The culture of Tunisia, located in the center of North Africa, is influenced as much by its ties to Europe as by ties to its Arab neighbors. Much like its culture, Tunisia’s economy is also closely tied to North African and European markets. Surrounded by major oil-producing OPEC members, Tunisia possesses few of the petroleum resources that fill its neighbors’ coffers. Despite the lack of natural resources (or perhaps because of it), Tunisia has developed a relatively balanced economy that ranks among the highest in Africa.

Despite Tunisia’s emergence as the only sustained success story from the Arab Spring of 2010, Tunisia still faces existential challenges because of lingering regional instability. The volatility that defines the country’s borders—particularly with Libya to the east—has created a compelling need for enhanced border security, holistically comprising land, maritime and air components. The Tunisian government has chosen to leverage its security cooperation relationship with the United States effectively to strengthen naval capacity and counter the heightened threats the country faces—exemplifying one of the overarching purposes of U.S. security cooperation efforts, to “develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations.”

180506-N-UY653-182
MEDITERRANEAN SEA (May 6, 2018) Moroccan Royal Navy sailors participate in visit, board, search and seizure training aboard the Tunisian Navy MNT Khaireddine during exercise Phoenix Express 2018. Phoenix Express is sponsored by U.S. Africa Command and facilitated by U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, and is designed to improve regional cooperation, increase maritime domain awareness information sharing practices, and operational capabilities to enhance efforts to achieve safety and security in the Mediterranean Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ryan U. Kledzik/Released)

A CONFLUENCE OF EVENTS

The catalyst for the dramatic recent growth in the Tunisian navy’s FMS program was two separate but virtually identical cases. In 2009, the Tunisian government received $7 million in foreign military financing from the U.S. for enhancement of maritime security, as well as $7.5 million to complement Tunisian foreign military financing through the Building Partnership Capacity program. These two cases led to the delivery of 10 25-foot Response boats (nearly identical to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Response Boat-Small) and five 44-foot Response boats (similar to the Coast Guard’s Response Boat-Medium), along with a robust package of spare parts, training and support.

This large, singular injection of vessels into the Tunisian fleet amounted to a wholesale recapitalization of its existing territorial water patrol capability. The new vessels replaced the Tunisian National Navy’s aging small boats (smaller than 65 feet), which up to that point had been used for patrolling, search and rescue and interdiction.

The first 15 Response boats were delivered in 2011 as the country was still adjusting to the new realities brought about by the Jasmine Revolution. In a twist of irony, the instability caused by the revolution proved to be extremely fortunate for the Tunisian navy’s FMS program. The ousting of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali established several conditions that impacted the United States’ FMS relationship with Tunisia.

The first of these conditions was that the Tunisian military remained apolitical during the revolution. This deference to the will of the people instead of the orders of the long-standing president engendered a profound respect for the professionalism, competence and judgment of the military as an institution. This enabled the United States to continue its security assistance programs, provided added justification for investing U.S. funds, and ensured that the Tunisian military was well-positioned to justify future internal funding within Tunisia’s nascent democracy.

Second, the removal of the Ben Ali regime allowed for re-energized engagement with the United States. The final years of the regime were marked by a visible shift away from engagement with the United States, which by 2010-11 was impeding bilateral military efforts. Ali’s departure allowed for a reset in what had been for years a harmonious bilateral relationship.

The last major condition was a sequence of events set in motion by the revolution that dramatically increased the need for enhanced maritime security. One immediate result of the turmoil was a huge increase in the number of migrants taking to small vessels and attempting to cross the Mediterranean. This included Tunisian nationals looking for greater opportunity in Europe as well as other African nationals using Tunisia as a transit point.

With the nearest Italian islands roughly 45 miles away, Tunisian coastal waters became a key transit zone for refugees willing to risk their lives to reach Europe. Many of the vessels used for this journey were not seaworthy, and the Tunisian navy’s workload dramatically increased as it attempted to rescue thousands of migrants from doomed crossing attempts.

The Tunisian navy received 22 Response boats, ranging in size from 25 to 44 feet, between 2010 and 2013. These new vessels replaced the navy’s aging small boats, which had been used for patrolling, search and rescue and interdiction. (Photos courtesy of SAFE Boats International)

REGIONAL INSTABILITY

The security challenges for Tunisia were compounded as the Arab Spring spread across the region. The single most impactful event of this period for Tunisia was the fall of the Moammar Gadhafi regime in Libya in 2011. The destabilization of Libya dramatically increased the need for enhanced maritime security because of the amplified risk from smuggled goods, weapons and militants to and from Libya and the exponential increase in the number of migrants taking to small vessels and attempting to cross the Mediterranean.

After the success of the initial FMS cases in 2009, the United States increased foreign military investments in the Tunisian National Navy. Between 2010 and 2013, the Tunisian navy received 22 Response boats ranging in size from 25 to 44 feet, along with a large support package. The Tunisians also spent their own national funds to help purchase four 65-foot Archangels made by SAFE Boats International of Bremerton, Washington.

The Tunisian navy consistently shaped the expansion of its fleet to mirror its operational requirements. The focus on building significant sustainment capabilities into its FMS cases reflected an institutional awareness of the essential role of maintenance in capacity development. The Tunisian government’s willingness to make a significant financial commitment to complement the United States’ investment in a Tunisian institution reflects a level of partnership rarely seen with countries receiving foreign military financing.

Sailors from Tunisia and the guided-missile destroyer USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) simulate clearing a ship during a training exercise on April 25. The Tunisian navy operates with a level of professionalism that equals its European partners, and most of its officers supplement their training with developmental opportunities with navies and industry partners around the world. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Raymond Maddocks)

BUILDING ON SUCCESS

For recipients of foreign military financing from the United States, the concept of national defense self-sufficiency is a bit like a unicorn: People can picture what it looks like, but few have actually seen it materialize. Most recipients lack the will, organizational capacity and resources to generate domestic solutions to defense-related challenges.

The Tunisian navy took a step in that direction in 2015 with the commissioning of its first domestically produced frigate. The vessel, named Al Istiqlal (Independence), was the product of a public-private effort that leveraged the local industrial base. The procurement was run by the Tunisian navy and the entire effort, from funding to design and construction, was carried out domestically.

While the practical impact of vessels from this program will be minimal, at least initially, the symbolic meaning is significant. Moreover, the level of effort and resources it took the Tunisian navy to actually build its own frigate is representative of a highly determined and capable FMS partner.

So why has the FMS program with the Tunisian navy been so successful? Despite the significant maritime security responsibilities that Tunisia’s geography entails, its navy employs fewer than 5,000, roughly 10 percent of the Tunisian army’s total. There are several key factors that, when aggregated, illustrate why the Tunisian navy has been a far more willing and capable partner than its geographical location or moderate resources would suggest.

The Tunisian navy operates with a level of professionalism that is on par with its major European partners. The vast majority of its naval officers have supplemented their domestic professional military education with courses, exchanges and extended experiences with various navies and industry partners around the world. Unlike the corruption, competing agendas and misallocated resources that define a disproportionate number of FMS programs within U.S. Africa Command, the Tunisian navy has been able to channel its human and material capital into effective use of FMS procurements.

Another major component of the success is the value the Tunisian navy puts on maintenance. A visit to the naval base in Bizerte provides a window through which one can see firsthand the investment the Tunisian National Navy has made in developing repair facilities and technical expertise. Unlike other countries’ militaries, whose extensive financial resources allow for the outsourcing of maintenance support, the Tunisian navy has grown its maintenance capability organically. Today its capabilities are on par with commercial shipyards in the region. The combination of having the required elements on hand to conduct the actual maintenance as well as having the institutional focus to maximize these assets has made this capacity development possible.

Finally, the Tunisian navy has actively embraced international partnerships in a way that has allowed the organization to gain maximum benefit. Unlike its neighbors whose paths to independence created cultural fissures that still dramatically impact their foreign policy, Tunisia’s independence became an enabler of political relationships.

The break from France in 1956 left fewer lingering repercussions than the independence process in much of North Africa, and did not result in the Tunisians gravitating to an ideological hegemon at the expense of all other relationships. Tunisia has remained close to France while also building on historical and geographical ties with numerous other partners. Tunisia was even formally recognized as a U.S. major non-NATO ally in 2015.

As a result of these relationships, the Tunisians have been able to draw on both material resources and expertise from a wide range of sources. A look at its fleet shows vessels built in the U.S., Germany and Italy, among others. The Tunisian navy is a regular participant in multinational exercises such as Phoenix Express, sponsored by the U.S. Africa Command and conducted by U.S. Naval Forces Africa.

Operationally, the Tunisian navy regularly works with its European and African neighbors to address the ongoing humanitarian and security crises in the southern Mediterranean. The Tunisian navy is able to benefit from all of these relationships in a way that dramatically increases overall institutional capacity.

The Tunisian navy received 22 Response boats, ranging in size from 25 to 44 feet, between 2010 and 2013. These new vessels replaced the navy’s aging small boats, which had been used for patrolling, search and rescue and interdiction. (Photos courtesy of SAFE Boats International)

CONCLUSION

The Security Assistance Management Manual, the document that codifies the policies of the U.S. security cooperation program, does not provide a checklist for defining a “successful” program. It does, however, define ideological and practical objectives that the program is designed to develop, including:

Progression from development of a basic capacity to more capable assets.

The establishment of an organic ability to maintain those assets.

An eventual progression to self-sustainability.

Governing the capacity development aspect of security cooperation is the overarching goal of establishing a vested sense of “ownership” in the partner service. To reflect a true partnership at the most fundamental level requires a commitment of resources from both partners. The United States’ FMS program with the Tunisian navy has evolved over the past 10 years to reflect these ideological and practical objectives to a degree rarely seen in any FMS partner, let alone one working through the fiscal constraints and security challenges faced by the Tunisian navy program. This partnership provides the ideal model of security cooperation for other developing FMS partners to emulate.

For more information, go to http://www.dsca.mil/.

DISCLAIMER

The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the official position or view of the Department of Defense or any other governmental entity. References to this article should include the foregoing statement.

BENJAMIN POSIL is a security cooperation professional with more than 10 years’ experience in the field. He is a major in the Maryland Army National Guard, where he recently completed a 10-month deployment to Afghanistan. He has earned MBA degrees from the University of South Carolina and Wirtschaftuniversität Wien in Vienna, Austria, along with an M.S. in international relations from Troy State University. He also has a B.A. in international relations and Latin American studies from the University of Delaware. He is a Navy Acquisition Corps member and a certified program manager through both DAWIA (Level II) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Level III).

The author would like to give special thanks to Lt. Cmdr. Ryan “TBD” Guard for his insight and support.

This article will be published in the October – December 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 Research Laboratory’s new nanomaterial paves the way for efficient and green energy solutions.

by Ms. Jacqueline M. Hames

Like many great scientific advancements, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL) new nanomaterial was invented by accident. Materials engineers at ARL on Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, were trying to engineer a nanostructured aluminum alloy in January 2017 when, during polishing and hardness testing, they discovered the aluminum powder was disappearing—it was reacting with the water used in the polishing process to create hydrogen. While the discovery surprised ARL scientists, they knew they had come across something quite extraordinary.

“This is the main thing: It can generate power on demand in the field, wherever we need it,” Dr. Anit Giri, materials engineer with the Materials and Manufacturing Science Division at ARL, said of the powder.

A remote-controlled tank at ARL, powered by hydrogen-electric fuel, awaits demonstration. Fuel systems like this one eliminate the need for high-pressure hydrogen canisters that can pose an extreme hazard on the battlefield if ruptured.

EUREKA

The nanogalvanic aluminum-based powder came about as scientists were researching better, stronger materials for armoring Soldiers and vehicles—specifically, an aluminum with the strength of steel. This effort to make better materials for armor is ongoing, despite the excitement of new discoveries like the powder.

Dr. Chad Hornbuckle, materials engineer on the powder’s development team, explained that the original intent was to create a nanostructured aluminum alloy that would have increased strength, making a material that was lightweight like aluminum but comparable in strength to steel. A material on the nanoscale is less than 100 nanometers long, Hornbuckle said. (A nanometer is one-millionth of a millimeter; a millimeter is very small, but is visible to the naked eye.) The nanoscale is often used to measure dimensions of matter on an atomic level.

“All metals are made up of grains, similar to  sand on a beach, but instead of being sand, it’s whatever your metal is,” Hornbuckle explained. “We were trying to make a bulk piece of aluminum, but the grains themselves were on the nanometer scale.”

The aluminum material they were trying to create began as a powder, and during the usual analysis process, it had to undergo hardness testing, said Anthony Roberts, also a materials engineer on the development team. The team pressed the powder into a compact, a solid piece, to polish to a mirror shine for the hardness test. “Well, while we were polishing it, we noticed it disappeared, so we made another compact, and we start polishing it, and we noticed it started disappearing real quick,” Roberts said.

“A part of the polishing process is sandpaper and water, and we noticed that the water was reacting with it and it was disappearing. We found out it was creating hydrogen,” he said.

The hydrogen was created during a hydrolysis reaction: aluminum reacting with water to produce aluminum hydroxide, or aluminum oxide, plus hydrogen, Giri said. This reaction occurs with all aluminum, and normally the formation of an aluminum oxide layer inhibits the creation of hydrogen. However, in the case of the nanogalvanic aluminum-based powder, the reaction was disrupted—the aluminum oxide layer did not form.

Nanogalvanic aluminum powder’s scientific definition is a powder that consists of galvanic cells in nanoscale with aluminum as the anode, coupled with another element acting as the cathode; galvanic corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals make contact with one another in the presence of an electrolyte—any liquid that contains water—thereby forming a galvanic couple, the development team said. That means the powder is an electrochemical substance where the coupling of a positively charged electrode from the aluminum (anode) and a negatively charged electrode from another element (cathode) in water produces electricity.

“The powder has some aluminum with some extra additional elements, so what happens is, when the water comes in contact with the powder, some of these additional elements want to basically pull electrons from the water. So it essentially caused the water to break down,” Hornbuckle said. The water reacted with the extra elements in the powder and separated the hydrogen and oxygen. Because the reaction took place on the nanoscale, the powder could not form an encapsulating oxide layer and it continued to react with water, creating hydrogen. The hydrolysis reaction in the powder occurs at room temperature without any catalysts, chemicals or external power, making the powder a good source of on-demand hydrogen fuel.

Roberts watches the pressure gauge on a fuel canister, waiting for the nanogalvanic aluminum-based powder to react with water, releasing hydrogen to power a remote-controlled tank in a demonstration. Scientists discovered this hydrogen reaction accidentally in 2017 while trying to develop an aluminum alloy. (Photos by Jacqueline M. Hames)

DEVELOPING THE TECHNOLOGY

Robert Dowding, materials engineer and chief of the Lightweight and Specialty Metals branch, said that, to his knowledge, ARL is the only laboratory working on developing the nanogalvanic aluminum-based powder. “We’re doing a systematic investigation of these materials. We’re interested in what compositional range is going to work for us, what sort of microstructures are going to be important, how things are arranged—and then the process becomes important,” he said.

ARL is using a milling process to make the powder, which tends to be expensive, Dowding said. The lab is looking at other methods to make the powder that would be less expensive and more commonly available. Part of that process includes partnering with industry to find better, less expensive methods of production and distribution. At the time of these interviews, ARL has filed a patent application for the powder; once the patent has been issued, ARL will be able to license it to industry to aid its development.

“We are mandated by Congress per our mission lines to do R&D [research and development]—it is not our job [to], nor has Congress told us we should, be in the business of competing with industry for commercial markets,” said Joshua Houck, a representative from ARL’s Technology Transfer and Outreach Office. “What we’ve found is the best way, one of the least expensive ways, the Army can procure a capability, is by developing a technology that hopefully has what we call dual use.” A dual-use technology, one that has both military and commercial applications, enables ARL to license the technology to industry for mass production and then buy it back at a less expensive rate from a competitive market. When the government licenses its intellectual property—such as the nanogalvanic powder—to industry for production, the overall unit cost of the item drops considerably, and the Army is able to buy it back at a much lower cost than if it had kept the technology and made it at one manufacturer, he said.

“Also, here at the lab, doing basic and fundamental research, the technologies we generate aren’t necessarily commercial products,” Houck added. “We’ve got a material that can go through and generate hydrogen that goes into a fuel cell, but we aren’t making the fuel cell. We aren’t putting them into a package with a user’s manual for someone, so we need someone to make that product consumer-friendly.”

Within the Army itself, creating a consumer-ready product is done through, for example, the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, product managers and program executive offices, Houck said. But if a product is produced commercially, then the Army can buy it back and tailor it to military requirements.

Anthony Roberts, materials engineer, prepares a fuel canister for a remote-controlled tank demonstration. Nanogalvanic aluminum-based powder goes into the canister first, followed by water or any water-based liquid—liquids like coffee, sports drinks or even urine.

A LOGISTICAL DREAM COME TRUE

The powder is an exciting breakthrough for ARL and the Army, particularly for the logistics involved in energy distribution. “One of the major issues now with the distribution of energy is usually JP-8 in large bladders,” Houck said. JP-8, or Jet Propellant 8, is the fuel used in most military systems now. These bladders of JP-8 contain a large liquid volume and are somewhat fragile. “It is very difficult to airdrop liquids in these large bladders. They have a tendency to burst when they hit the ground,” Houck said.

“If you shoot them, they get a hole in them and stuff sprays out,” he continued. “So one of the advantages of this powder is it being a solid, whether it’s in powder form or compressed tablet form.” If shot, it will just break, maintaining all of its properties even in pieces. It won’t catch fire, it won’t explode—unlike what the high-pressure hydrogen fuel cylinders used today might do if they rupture. The powder gives the Army the ability to store “energy capacity, the ability to generate energy in a safe and nonvolatile form for transport,” he said.

The powder, which can be manufactured in any quantity, can be scaled down in volume enough that Soldiers could carry their own supply. “I can just have however much of it I want, again, either in powder or this Alka-Seltzer-type tablet form, and then pull it out and drop it to generate hydrogen where I need it,” Houck said.

To begin the reaction, the powder—loose or compressed—is mixed with water in a canister. The hydrogen that is created then feeds into a fuel cell, where it can generate electricity for vehicles, computer systems or anything that needs power. One kilogram of the powder can generate 4.4 kilowatt-hours of energy—enough to power 10, 60-watt incandescent lightbulbs for more than seven hours or the equivalent LED bulbs for over 50 hours, Giri said. And the only emission from the reaction is water—pure water, Roberts said.

If the reaction is created using a fixed amount of water, a Soldier could get back about 50 percent of the original water, with diminishing water returns, Giri said. Once the water source runs out, the Soldier would be out of power. Given an unlimited supply of water and powder, the reaction could continuously produce hydrogen for fuel. The source of water doesn’t have to be pure water, either—it can be any water-based liquid, like coffee, soda, wastewater, spit or even urine.

“We noticed that urine worked best so far in this reaction,” Roberts said. “We’re not quite sure if it’s because it is a little acidic, or if it’s because of the electrolytes in it or the salts in it that’s causing it to react a little bit faster. But we did notice [the reaction] goes almost twice as fast with the urine.”

The emissions from the reaction would not change, even if the water-based liquid were varied. “That’s the great thing. You could use urine to create this energy, right? And then what comes out on the other side is pure water. So then you could have drinking water again,” Roberts said.

‘EAT ME’

A new hydrogen fuel source, nanogalvanic aluminum-based powder, opens up many new possibilities, from standard fuel cells and internal combustion engines to on-demand battery power for personal devices, all the way up to a future that could include self-cannibalizing drones. While such a drone is just a pie-in-the-sky idea at the moment, the logistical implications are intriguing.

The conceptual drone’s structure would be made of bimetallic tubes, Dowding said. Inside the tube would be a layer of the nanogalvanic aluminum composition, while the outside would be made of conventional aluminum alloy. Water would flow through the actual structure of the drone, reacting with the layer of nanogalvanic aluminum to create hydrogen that would act as a secondary or emergency fuel source. Parts of the drone would, in effect, become sacrificial. “The idea is that you can have it eat away part of itself that is not very important to keep going and create energy from that,” Roberts said.

This would eliminate the need for a cumbersome fuel tank or power source, potentially making the drone smaller and more maneuverable.

CONCLUSION

Practical applications for the powder cover the spectrum of electrical power needs, in both the Army and commercially. ARL and the powder’s development team are currently working with U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center on the ZH2 tactical wheeled vehicle, a modified Chevrolet Colorado truck that will run on hydrogen-electric power. “The hydrogen was produced in a different manner, which is very cumbersome, expensive, not easy to do,” Giri said. “We are working with them to replace their method of producing hydrogen by our method.”

Hornbuckle believes the powder could be used commercially for on-demand charging of batteries for things like cellular phones, computers or a portable GPS while out hiking or camping. Houck said that the powder may help accelerate the move toward an electric economy. Two challenges with electric vehicles have been battery-charge locations and wait times, or the need for a high-pressure hydrogen cylinder that may pose an extreme hazard if involved in an accident. “That’s not going to happen with this technology,” he said. “I’m just going to have, you know, sand on the ground or a bunch of little tablets on the ground. The real idea is trying to see how this could jump-start or accelerate that move to an electric-based [economy], away from petrochemical, and this is sort of one more step in that process.”

Regardless of how it is applied—in the military or commercially—ARL scientists are confident in the powder’s potential. “Wherever you need power, you can use it,” Giri said.

For more information on ARL, go to https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm. For more information for industry, go to https://www.arl.army.mil/alnanogalvanicpowder.

JACQUELINE M. HAMES is a writer and editor with Army AL&T magazine. She holds a B.A. in creative writing from Christopher Newport University. She has more than 10 years of experience writing and editing for the military, with seven of those years spent producing news and feature articles for publication.

Related Links

Army discovery may offer new energy source: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=3036

Army discovery may offer new energy source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=oAE407SjFPM

This article will be published in the October – December 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.
Subscribe

Dr. Philip Perconti leads the Army’s “corporate lab” with the intimate involvement of warfighters, businesses, academia and other labs in a high-stakes, high-risk, no-time-to-waste environment focused on finding and developing blockbuster disruptive capabilities.

by Mr. Michael Bold

When Philip Perconti was 8 or 9, he discovered technology in the back of a television. Peeking into the back of his parents’ big color TV, he was spellbound by the glowing tubes. “It made me very curious about how things worked,” he said.

When the TV stopped working, he discovered how: “I noticed that one tube stopped glowing. My father and I took the tube to the drugstore, put it in the test stand (yup, they had those in drugstores back then), and found that it was defective. We bought the replacement tube, put it back into its slot, turned the TV on, and it worked again! I was hooked.”

That hook, and hard work, led him all the way to the directorship of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, some 45 years later.

After graduating from James Madison High School in Brooklyn, New York, Perconti joined the Navy. After one year in the Navy, Perconti knew he wanted to get a college degree. He not only got his bachelor’s, but followed that up with a master’s and a doctorate, all in electrical and computer engineering.

Since then, he has spent nearly 30 years working for the Army. “After the Navy, I co-opped with the Army at the night vision lab, and the rest is history,” he said. Perconti started out at the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD), eventually becoming branch chief for imaging technology. In 1996 he became director of the Electronics and Photonics Technology Office at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He returned to NVESD in 2000 as director of the Science and Technology Division, then moved to ARL in 2013 as director of the Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate before becoming acting director of ARL in April 2016. In June 2017, “acting” was removed from his title.

ARL, based in Adelphi, Maryland, is the Army’s premier laboratory for basic and applied research and analysis. With primary laboratory sites at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Orlando, Florida; and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, as well as dozens of other sites throughout the U.S. and in three other countries, ARL researches weapons and materials, sensors and electron devices, computational and information sciences, human research and engineering, vehicle technology, and survivability and lethality analysis. The laboratory consists of about 2,000 civilian and military employees with an annual budget of over $1 billion.

Researchers from ARL and Washington State University have discovered a new type of energetic material that could triple the energy content of well-known explosives such as the ones pictured here. ARL has discovered that engagement with academic and industry partners at the early stage of development is crucial to technology transition and transfer because it allows the Army to better understand the partner’s technology and, in turn, helps the partner to better understand the Army’s requirements. (U.S. Army photo)

Among Perconti’s accomplishments at ARL are:

Modifying its use of cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs). CRADAs allow Army and private sector researchers to set the terms for who does what research, who gets intellectual property rights, and who gets to develop what and for how long, while involving no exchange of funding. The new CRADA model has significantly lowered barriers for cooperation, enabling ARL researchers to more effectively transfer intellectual property to their partners, and has boosted the number of active CRADAs from 20 in 2014 to now more than 400.

Expanding ARL’s Open Campus, begun in 2014 by his predecessor, Dr. Thomas P. Russell, now the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology. Open Campus was designed to create a science and technology (S&T) ecosystem emphasizing interdependent collaborative research. Under Perconti’s leadership, ARL has leveraged more than $70 million in in-kind contributions for Army-focused research through Open Campus initiatives.

ARL Extended, with hubs at ARL West, at the University of Southern California; ARL South, at the University of Texas at Austin; ARL Central, at the University of Chicago; and ARL Northeast, at Northeastern University in Boston. ARL has also established CRADAs with regional universities and partners around each hub; ARL, for instance, has one CRADA that covers the entire University of Texas system.

Development of technology transfer, with small businesses licensing ARL intellectual property.

In an email exchange, Army AL&T asked Dr. Perconti about the future of ARL and its role in the Army.

Army AL&T: Everything we’re hearing about Army acquisition is about making it faster and more responsive. How does this new emphasis, along with the Futures Command, change ARL’s mission, if at all? Will you have to adjust Army S&T efforts to ensure quick transition of scientific knowledge and development of a rapid prototyping capability?

Perconti: ARL’s mission still remains the same. We’re the corporate laboratory for the Army, and our mission is discovery, innovation and transition of science and technology knowledge and capabilities that address the Army modernization priorities. We have strategically developed research programs that align with the Army’s priorities and are aggressively looking to develop disruptive technologies in those key areas.

The Army vision states the Army will be ready to deploy, fight and win decisively, against any adversary, in a joint, multidomain, high-intensity conflict, and will maintain its ability to conduct irregular warfare while simultaneously deterring adversaries anytime, anywhere, by 2028; ARL is looking at 2028 and beyond. ARL has a plenoptic view of science and technology: We look at our research through many lenses across time. ARL researchers focus on the future, while simultaneously looking to exploit breakthroughs for nearer-term innovation―for example, to address excessive wear in large-caliber gun tubes.

Recently, ARL connected long-running materials research in tantalum “cold spray” technology with collaborative partners to form the basis for new gun-tube material improvement programs. Tantalum is a high-temperature- and wear-resistant material that provides longer service life and is the only material tested that can withstand the higher temperatures of advanced propellants. Cold spray is the only technique developed that can apply a tantalum bore coating for large-caliber cannon tubes.

We always look for opportunities to roll out disruptive technologies as they emerge. If we have an S&T breakthrough with the potential to change the way the Army fights and wins our nation’s wars, then it is our responsibility to rapidly work to get that innovative technology pushed toward a transition partner. Early-onset partnering is a method ARL uses to quickly transition knowledge, ideas, information and technology. To effectively apply the science and technology ARL develops, it’s important to understand the capability gaps and how S&T can be used to meet the need. This is where partnering early with academia, industry, RDECs [research, development and engineering centers] and innovation hubs becomes crucial in order to develop a comprehensive partnership that is capable of delivering a product from a theoretical concept to a disruptive technology.

ARL is collaborating with Uber to develop a quieter rotor system for vertical takeoff and landing vehicles that could improve aeromechanic performance and advance the capabilities of unmanned aircraft systems. The organization has increased its use of CRADAs and other instruments to quickly transition research products to industry, RDECS, PEOs and the requirements community as soon as they show promise. (SOURCE: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency artist concept)

Army AL&T: How would you define “disruptive”?

Perconti: Disruptive is a term used to describe a drastic improvement to the way a technology is produced, enhanced or performs. The improvement is so great that it disrupts the linear incremental process in the advancement of a technology.

Army AL&T: In a speech you gave to the Federal Laboratory Consortium in May, you discussed the need for early involvement of the warfighter, academia and industry when developing new capabilities. Talk about that.

Perconti: The problems we face today are way too complex to solve either in isolation or sequentially. Early and intimate collaboration between warfighters, large and small businesses, academia and government labs is a must in the 21st century and a major objective of the Army Futures Command. In the current global environment, we no longer are afforded years of lead time in developing new capabilities for the Army. By bringing all parties together early in a collaborative environment, we can foster and accelerate new concepts, ideas and capabilities through an Army innovation ecosystem focused on delivering new capabilities as quickly as possible.

Army AL&T: ARL needs to respond to immediate needs from the field; to build capabilities needed in the next 10-25 years; and to look to the future for capabilities that will be required 30-50 years from now. How does the laboratory respond adequately to such a wide-ranging mission, and how does that affect the laboratory’s research priorities? How does the lab incorporate new strategic thinking about the way the Army of the future will fight? Talk about the long view versus quick capabilities.

Perconti: As the creators and custodians for the Army’s far-term S&T, ARL’s mission is to understand and translate cutting-edge science into actionable knowledge that will enable future Army capabilities. Often risk of failure is high in research, because project outcomes are uncertain. However, we learn from every experiment, and we use this knowledge to reduce the uncertainty in S&T options and to identify and quantify technology risk, so that our leadership has the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.

Army AL&T: Where do you see ARL doing its most important “revolutionary” work in the near term? How about the most important evolutionary developments? Discuss incremental versus disruptive technologies.

Perconti: Disruptive innovation is our sweet spot. We seek to change the way the Army fights and wins our nation’s wars by moving trajectories of technologies off the existing path and into new directions with the potential for greater warfighting capability―we want the U.S. Army to own technological surprise.

Take, for example, the Generation II Advanced Combat Helmet fielded to warfighters last spring. It’s 22 percent lighter than the legacy Advanced Combat Helmet, based on the use of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene and other materials. ARL developed the manufacturing science for this helmet as part of foundational research with academic and industry partners. ARL is working with its partners—PEO [the Program Executive Office for] Soldier, NSRDEC [the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center], industry, academia—on further enhancements in helmet technology to provide greater protection from ballistic threats and less burden for the warfighter.

Our next disruption will be in Soldier protection systems that use 2D materials, such as graphene and other lightweight materials. ARL researchers are focusing on designing new polymers for superior protection capabilities by unraveling the complex relationship between polymer chemistry, microstructure and energy absorption and, by doing so, increasing the materials’ ballistic protection properties to stand up against tougher threats that are certain to be developed by adversaries. If successful, this technology will set the precedent for protection with extremely light weight.

Army AL&T: What role do you see the lab playing in the new Futures Command? Does the work of the new Futures Command influence ARL’s funding?

Perconti: ARL was established in 1992 to become a world-class laboratory focused on gathering and generating land warfare technologies needed by the Army. Now, as the Army Futures Command [AFC] prepares to lead the Army’s future force modernization enterprise, ARL will emphasize its role as the Army’s corporate research laboratory by strengthening its focus on high-risk, high-payoff research, providing broader support for S&T across AFC, and representing AFC’s S&T interests across the worldwide scientific community.

ARL is further refining the way we look at S&T in support of the Army and how to quicken the transfer of knowledge that will lead to increased capabilities. The essential research programs focus our efforts to pursue the Army’s vision beyond 2028.

Army AL&T: Part of the Army’s efforts to speed acquisition include more collaboration with industry and academia. ARL’s Open Campus initiative has been successful in doing this. What can Army acquisition learn from ARL’s Open Campus?

Perconti: Through Open Campus, ARL has been successful in dramatically increasing the number of partnerships with industry and academia. These partnerships include CRADAs, CAs [cooperative agreements], licensing, joint publishing, joint development of IP [intellectual property], staff exchanges and the sharing of facilities. ARL has discovered that engagement with partners at the early stages of development is crucial to technology transition and transfer. The early engagement allows the Army to understand the partner’s technology and manufacturing capabilities while the partner better understands the Army’s unique requirements. This early mutual understanding shapes the opportunities for rapid acceleration of capabilities to the Soldier.

Perconti speaks with Gen. Daniel B. Allyn, then-vice chief of staff of the Army, during Allyn’s April 2017 visit to ARL. ARL was established in 1992 to focus on gathering and generating land warfare technologies needed by the Army. With the recent stand-up of the Army Futures Command, ARL will focus on high-risk, high-payoff research to support S&T across the new command and represent its S&T interests worldwide. (U.S. Army Research Laboratory photo)

Army AL&T: Talk about CRADAs. You’ve greatly expanded the use of CRADAs at ARL.

Perconti: A cooperative research and development agreement is an agreement between a federal laboratory and a nonfederal party to perform collaborative research and development in any area that is consistent with the federal laboratory’s mission. CRADAs are the most frequently used mechanism for formalizing interactions and partnerships between private industry or academia and federal government laboratories.

Under the statute that authorizes CRADAs [15 U.S.C. 3710a], a federal laboratory may provide personnel, services, facilities and equipment, but no funds, to the joint research and development effort. A nonfederal party may provide funds, in addition to personnel, services, facilities and equipment to the joint research and development effort.

ARL uses CRADAs with academic institutions or industry to maximize collaboration, minimize bureaucracy and yield mutual benefit by taking full advantage of our Open Campus efforts. The changing pace of science and technology around the country has necessitated that ARL transform and adapt its business practices and be proactive about identifying game-changing S&T across the country. ARL has stood up business-related efforts to improve business acumen, information technology and strategy management.

Moreover, ARL Extended is ARL’s effort to create strong, enduring S&T partnerships by co-locating Army research and development personnel in close collaboration with academia and industry. In this aspect of the Open Campus initiative, ARL Extended leverages regional expertise and facilities to accelerate the discovery, innovation and transition of science and technology. Close collaboration with universities, startups and established companies working in regionally specific technical subject areas will directly benefit the Soldier and ensure our nation’s future strength and competitiveness.

Army AL&T: The CRADA that ARL has with Uber sounds fascinating and a little off the beaten track. How is it going to make for quieter aircraft? How did that come about?

Perconti: The research from the ARL-Uber collaboration will potentially deliver unprecedented capability for quieter rotor systems in a unique stacked rotor configuration, which involves two rotor systems stacked on top of each other and rotating in the same direction. This rotor concept may enable vertical take-off and landing vehicles to be quieter, while maintaining or improving aeromechanic performance. Partnering was initially conceived when Uber engineers met the Army researchers at the American Helicopter Society Aerospecialist meeting in January 2018 and, soon after, three months of discussions began about a potential collaboration. This is a win-win partnership because Uber is looking for technology to enable its urban transportation (the air taxi, Uber Elevate) and the Army is utilizing connections to Uber and its top industry partners to accelerate enabling silent operations as a capability for the future unmanned aerial vehicle fleet for the Soldier.

A small unmanned Clearpath Husky robot, which was used by ARL researchers to develop a new technique to quickly teach robots novel traversal behaviors with minimal human oversight. (U.S. Army photo by Jhi Scott)

Army AL&T: How do we accelerate developing capabilities in electronic warfare, cyber and artificial intelligence (AI)?

Perconti: Future warfare will see a rise in autonomous systems, and the U.S. Army could face a major threat from weaponized autonomous platforms, ranging from human-in-the-loop to full autonomy, that use rules of engagement that are less restrictive than current U.S. policy permits. The future will see the emergence of adversarial AI, which will lead to machine-on-machine warfare that infiltrates human decision-making timelines. Success in this battlefield intelligence race will arise from increasing AI capabilities as well as uncovering unique and effective ways to merge AI with Soldier knowledge and intelligence.

In particular, ARL’s efforts in human-agent teaming look at both how humans—Soldiers—interact with agents—robotic entities—and how those agents can be used to interact with humans. Part of that interaction involves developing an understanding of how humans communicate with robots and vice versa. The ability to have robots interpret commands the same way that humans interpret them is huge, but a game-changing technology would be having the robot anticipate what needs to happen next. This level of adaptive behavior will provide an overmatch capability in this battlefield space.

The Army requires adaptive AI―AI that will learn with little or no supervision using small data sets collected organically, that will quickly and easily adapt to new tasks that will provide context and understanding in unstructured environments, and will defeat attacks from adversarial machines.

The U.S. Army AI Innovation Institute [A2I2, which will officially start in 2020] seeks to rapidly advance adaptive AI capabilities to enable fully autonomous maneuver. Adaptive AI will provide our warfighters with coup d’oeil—the ability to recognize with one glance the tactical advantages and disadvantages on the battlefield using a heterogeneous mix of unmanned ground and aerial platforms that rapidly learn, adapt and reason faster than the adversary in a complex environment.

ARL also sees an important connection between AI and cyber and electronic warfare (EW), because effective conduct of cyber and EW battle is becoming increasingly difficult without AI-based intelligent agents. ARL executes research in developing such intelligent agents. These would assist Soldiers in defensive and offensive tasks that often unfold in fractions of a second, too fast for a human cognitive cycle.

Army AL&T: What is technology transfer, and why is it important?

Perconti: Technology transfer at ARL is the process by which existing knowledge, facilities or capabilities developed under federal R&D [research and development] funding are used to fulfill public and private needs. Every year, millions of taxpayer dollars go into funding research and development, with the intent to have a return on investment and move innovations from the laboratory to the hands of the Soldier or the commercial marketplace. Technology transfer from ARL spurs the generation of small business startups or spinoffs. Technology transfer may also spin in viable technologies that meet the warfighters’ requirements.

Technology transfer is truly a contact sport, and it is through a close coordination and collaboration among government, industry and academia that we are able to rapidly accelerate technologies and capabilities to the warfighter. From the start of the Open Campus initiative and through the advent of the Army Futures Command, ARL embraces an agile and entrepreneurial mindset to be expeditious in transition of research products to RDECs, industry, PMs [program managers] and PEOs, and the requirements community as soon as they show promise. With this in mind, we are aligned and ready to support AFC and the cross-functional teams in the pursuit of mid- and far-term capabilities.

ARL is based in Adelphi, Maryland, with primary laboratory sites at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Orlando, Florida; and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, as well as dozens of other sites throughout the U.S. and in three other countries. Its efforts include collaborative research alliances (CRAs), collaborative technology alliances (CTAs) and other collaboration research entities, such as the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies (ICB) and the Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). (SOURCE: ARL)

Army AL&T: Talk about academic entrepreneurship. Why is it important?

Perconti: Academic entrepreneurship is a major force in the U.S. economy. A large fraction of U.S. startups, including those that resulted in creation of some of the world’s largest corporations, originated at universities, inspired by academic research results and started by professors and students who saw a business opportunity in the research. The U.S. Army S&T enterprise, including ARL, seeks to make greater use of this major intellectual and economic force. This can be―and is already being―done in a number of ways. Army scientists and engineers often work with academic entrepreneurs, both before and after the creation of a new business, thereby benefiting from ideas and research that underpin a budding company. Furthermore, collaborative research between academic entrepreneurs and ARL can result in novel ideas that the academic entrepreneurs translate into tangible products. These, in turn, may contribute to the security needs of the United States.

For more information, go to the ARL website at https://www.arl.army.mil/.

MICHAEL BOLD provides contract support to the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center. He is a writer/editor for Network Runners Inc., with more than 30 years of editing experience at newspapers, including the McClatchy Washington Bureau, The Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, the Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He holds a B.J. in journalism from the University of Missouri.

Related Links

Dr. Philip Perconti speaks to the Federal Laboratory Consortium: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?video=101

“New Science Club,” Army AL&T, July – September 2016: http://usaasc.armyalt.com/?iid=143668#folio=180

ARL’s Open Campus: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=2357

ARL’s Collaborative Technology and Research Alliances: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=93

ARL Extended: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/pages/3133/ARLExtendedOverviewv2.pdf

“U.S. Army, Uber sign research agreement,” ARL Public Affairs, May 8, 2018: https://www.army.mil/article/204882/us_army_uber_sign_research_agreement

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

by Mr. Steve Stark

Dr. Elizabeth Mezzacappa could seriously hurt you.

But if she did hurt you, it would be nonlethal and totally ethical (to understand why, you have to read the article she wrote, “Radical Futures,” in the July – September issue of Army AL&T magazine). Her laboratory got its start in nonlethal weapons, but just because they’re nonlethal doesn’t mean that they’d be pleasant.

That’s just one of the many cool things about our new pal, Liza—that’s Dr. Mezzacappa to you—from the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) Tactical Behavior Research Laboratory (TBRL) in Picatinny, New Jersey.

Another cool thing: She’s been on panels at a bunch of science fiction conventions. Seriously. In a recent interview, she said that the work TBRL is looking at in the near future would’ve been science fiction when she first started out.

“The coolest thing we’re doing,” Mezzacappa said, “is building the closest thing that the Army has right now” to the holodeck on “Star Trek.” (For you non-Trekkies, the holodeck is a virtual reality system that can create “solid” characters and objects as well as holographic projections to simulate specific vistas or scenarios.) That’s so the TBRL team can figure out all kinds of way-beyond-your-pay-grade things about—among other things—the neural reactions of Soldiers in particularly stressful situations—crowd control, for example. The computer can play any scenario that the artists create and the team can get tons and tons of data about tactical behavior.

In addition to cool, Mezzacappa is soft spoken, like the nicest therapist a person could have. And she’s working on weapons. But mostly she’s working on how Soldiers respond to those weapons—lethal and nonlethal—from both ends of the barrel.

Just take a look at the video. You’ll get it.

When the amazing “Radical Futures” article dropped out of the ether and into our laptops, our first thought was, “We are not worthy.” Meanwhile, Mezzacappa was thinking that Army AL&T wouldn’t be interested.

What? Seriously?

“Right before I submitted to you,” she said, “somebody in my lab gave us articles that you had published on AI [artificial intelligence] and swarms. … When I looked at that, you had high-level people” writing the articles in the magazine. “To me, that told me that you wouldn’t want something from me. I don’t have a title like that.”

Probably the first time in the last decade she’s been wrong.

WHAT? NO, WAIT. REALLY?

We were immediately intrigued when we wrapped our flabbergasted heads around the work her team does, which falls under the general heading of Inventing the Future of Warfare, and has a whole lot of bullet points beneath it, one of which would be: Testing Nonexistent Weapons.

We could go on. Better yet, do whatever you have to do to hustle on over to read Mezzacappa’s “Radical Futures.” It will be worth it.

Oh, and since the article was published, Mezzacappa said, her team has been “contacted by a company for collaboration and I was invited to speak at a London conference because of the article.” Could not have happened to a nicer person.

When Army AL&T talked with Mezzacappa in late July, she had just returned from being out of town and was marooned at home, her car’s battery having died while she was gone. She was more than happy to talk about the work that her laboratory does and the difficulties in publishing the laboratory’s research. In a general sense, Mezzacappa said, “Within acquisition, and perhaps because of the kind of area that I’m in, which is human subjects, with its own kind of methods and own kind of analysis, it’s been my observation that defense acquisition does not really have an outlet for the scientific work that we do.”

The problem, she said, is that mainstream psychological journals “don’t want to hear about guns. No psychologist, behavioral scientist, wants to hear about guns. Even within the Army where they have psychologists for Soldier support, they tend to do kind of general kinds of behavioral psychology,” she said. “They’re not comfortable dealing with how you make a Soldier more lethal.”

Or even how you create nonlethal weapons. Her laboratory, she said, “started off in nonlethal weapons and we slid into lethal weapons because that’s where the priorities are right now. So there’s no place for a lab like us to publish. The general behavioral science areas don’t like to deal with war, and the general Army publications aren’t set up to evaluate that kind of behavioral science.” She was quick to add that “might be changing. We’re starting to publish so that people might understand what we’re doing. The closest area [to what we do] is probably operations research and systems analysis. They’re the closest thing to putting a person in a situation and seeing how the performance is of the person, plus whether their systems are working.”

The original paper she wrote and submitted to a science journal, she said, was about a nonlethal weapon. “We were trying to generate obscuring requirements to protect vehicle mines. There’s personnel mines that traditionally blow up people, and they don’t want to blow up people anymore.” The question was, can we “make a nonlethal way to prevent people from removing the vehicle mines that we put out?” And how much obscurant would be necessary? “So we designed a test bed, which I believe is in the article, it’s that fog test bed. That was what the article was about.” Talking with Mezzacappa and her team is a continuous revelation of the fascinating and vital work that they do.

Perhaps fortunately for Army AL&T, that paper was rejected. Mezzacappa, for whom “persistent” might be an understatement, kept looking for venues to show the work TBRL does.

“I’m still trying to find a place for it.”

For writers guidelines and to submit articles, go to: https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-submissions/.

STEVE STARK is senior editor of Army AL&T magazine. He holds an M.A. in creative writing from Hollins University and a B.A. in English from George Mason University. In addition to more than two decades of editing and writing about the military and S&T, he is the best-selling ghostwriter of several consumer-health oriented books and an award-winning novelist.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: Aviation Rockets and Small Guided Munitions Product Office, Joint Attack Munition Systems Project Office, Program Executive Office (PEO) for Missiles and Space

TITLE: Product support integrator

YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 10

DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in life cycle logistics; Level I in program management

EDUCATION: M.S. in logistics, Florida Institute of Technology; B.S. in economics, Alabama A&M University

AWARDS: Employee of the Quarter and Team of the Quarter, PEO for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation

Helping to fill a documentation gap

by Ms. Susan L. Follett

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as the saying goes. For Brad Bledsoe, product support integrator and senior logistician for the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Missiles and Space (MS), that squeaking resulted in a unique opportunity to help improve sustainment policy for major weapon systems.

Bledsoe is assigned to the Aviation Rockets and Small Guided Munitions Product Office, part of the Joint Attack Munition Systems (JAMS) Project Office and the joint services lead for the 2.75-inch rocket program, also known as the Hydra-70. The Hydra-70 is a free-flight rocket with multiple warhead configurations; it has been the standard ground-attack rocket since it was first used in the Korean War.

“The Hydra-70 can fill a variety of roles against a wide spectrum of targets,” said Bledsoe. “Multiple types of warheads provide a solution to many tactical situations within a battle area by providing area suppression or high-explosive solutions for anti-personnel, anti-materiel, armored vehicles, bunkers and reinforced military operation in urban terrain targets. The Hydra can also provide target illumination, smoke screening, target marking and training.”

The system has undergone numerous modifications since it was first designed, including motor and nozzle configurations, fuze modifications and new warhead combinations. “Even with all those changes, the system basics have remained the same,” said Bledsoe. However, he noted, while the system meets the needs of the warfighter, it does not conform to current acquisition documentation standards required by the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)).

That’s something Bledsoe discovered when he was assigned to lead an integrated product team tasked with developing the life cycle sustainment plan (LCSP) for the newest variant in the Hydra-70 program, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System. An LCSP outlines the program manager and product support manager’s plan for formulating, implementing and executing a system’s sustainment strategy. It describes the approach and resources necessary to develop and integrate sustainment requirements into the system’s design, development, testing, deployment and sustainment phases. According to “DOD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” program managers are responsible for developing and maintaining an LCSP beginning at milestone A and for updating it at each subsequent milestone.

“LCSP development should begin in the earliest stages of the life cycle and should be updated regularly to ensure that it remains relevant,” Bledsoe explained. “But it’s really difficult to document those early milestones when you’re decades into production, which was the situation we were dealing with.”

The integrated product team determined that it lacked critical acquisition documentation and the milestone data to complete the LCSP in accordance with the requirements identified in “Army Regulation 700-127, Logistics Integrated Product Support.” The team put together a draft LCSP that was missing many key data elements and provided it to the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition policy and logistics (DASA(APL)), in the hopes of getting some guidance on resolving the issue.

Fellow PEO MS integrated logistics support specialists Wes Calloway and Jessica Daniel flank Bledsoe. (U.S. Army photo by Chuck Braziel, PEO MS)

Meetings with the DASA(APL) followed and helped identify gaps in current Army policy in addressing sustainment documentation for legacy systems. “There are a number of these legacy systems in the field—the HELLFIRE missile, for example—which means there’s a need to revise Army acquisition policy to include provisioning for them,” Bledsoe said. The DASA(APL) will use the LCSP for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System as a basis for updating regulations for systems of systems, and will then expand the effort to update regulations for LCSPs for other systems, including families of vehicles and families of ammunition. The goal of the effort is one foundational document for each system and a shorter document for each variant that spells out any differences.

Bledsoe learned a lot from his involvement with the LCSP effort and is grateful for the time and expertise of all of the participants in the effort, including representatives from the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Logistics Center, the JAMS Project Office and the Joint Munitions Command. “I really appreciate the DASA(APL)’s willingness to listen to our challenges. Their common-sense approach will help streamline acquisition policy and will allow for the continuous modernization of the force. Also, the burden on the workforce will be greatly reduced so we can concentrate on what really matters: getting capability to the warfighter.”

Bledsoe started his acquisition career in 2008, leaving a private sector sales position for an internship at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. As an intern, he joined the PEO for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (STRI), working with the Targets Management Office. “The targets office was an excellent opportunity because the threat requirement evolves quickly and the acquisition is fast-paced,” Bledsoe said. “Also, working in the test and training environment is exciting because you get to get out of the office for a live-fire or test event and see how systems perform in the field.”

The internship also exposed him to mentorship—something he continues to be involved in, despite an uneven start. “The mentor who was assigned to me didn’t have much time to assist me because of his busy schedule. However, another person stepped up and he helped me out on tasks, shared his knowledge, reviewed my work and pushed me outside of my comfort zone,” Bledsoe explained. “He gave me the confidence I needed to take on additional tasks.”

Bledsoe stayed with PEO STRI for nine years, and joined PEO MS a little more than a year ago. He and his mentor no longer work together but are still in contact, he said. “I often think about him when I meet someone just entering the workforce by letting them know that I would be glad to assist when they need it—so I can help provide guidance and insight to help develop their skills and confidence.”

His advice to junior acquisition personnel is to obtain required certifications early. “Once you acquire more responsibilities and get involved in a lot of different projects, it is challenging to find the time to take a week or more off to attend acquisition classes pertaining to your given area of work. Get it done early and take good notes.”

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

“Faces of the Force” is an online series highlighting members of the Army Acquisition Workforce through the power of individual stories. Profiles are produced by the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center Communication and Support Branch, working closely with public affairs officers to feature Soldiers and civilians serving in various AL&T disciplines. For more information, or to nominate someone, please contact 703-664-5635.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

First in a series of articles on how RDECOM is supporting the Army’s six modernization priorities.

by Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins

To prepare for the battlefield of the future, the U.S. Army must be ready to fight in a very different operational environment from any wars previously fought. The character of war has changed significantly, and the Army, along with its joint service partners, must be ready to deploy and fight in a high-intensity environment where all domains will be challenged. To rebuild readiness and modernize the force, the Army has refocused on six modernization priorities: long-range precision fires (LRPF), Next Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the network, air and missile defense and Soldier lethality.

In response to the Army’s shift, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) reviewed previously approved funding strategies and shifted emphasis from planned and ongoing work to focus on the new modernization priorities. While RDECOM’s Armaments Center leads the LRPF modernization effort, the nature of the threat, the technologies and the environment of future battlefields dictate that only a truly integrated approach will meet the Army’s requirements. Our six research, development and engineering centers and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, RDECOM’s corporate lab, are working together, along with domestic and international academic and industry partners.

The centers and lab also work closely with the eight cross-functional teams to develop a concept of operations and provide support in technical analysis, portfolio alignment, proposal and program briefings and coordinated modernization strategy development, as RDECOM plans its announced move from the U.S. Army Materiel Command to the Army Futures Command (AFC).

An M109A6 Paladin belonging to the 1st Battalion 82nd Field Artillery Regiment conducts a t fire mission in Torun, Poland while conducting Battery qualifications. The Battalion is part of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division training in support of Atlantic Resolve.

THE LONG-RANGE PRECISION FIRES FAMILY OF TECHNOLOGIES

A number of potential adversaries have missile systems that exceed the range of the Army’s currently fielded systems, so the Army has identified LRPF as its No. 1 modernization priority. This effort includes new artillery weapons—missiles, howitzers, shells and rockets—that are more precise and more lethal over a longer range. These new systems must have the capability to target and destroy or degrade the enemy’s anti-access and area denial (A2AD) systems to enable the joint force’s freedom of maneuver and action. This makes LRPF an excellent example of RDECOM’s threat-informed development, as well as an early test of the command’s ability to supply overmatch capabilities for Soldiers fighting on an as-yet-undefined multidomain operations battlefield.

To extend the range and destructive power of Army weapon systems, the RDECOM Aviation and Missile Center is working on the LRPF family of technologies, which will replace the Army Tactical Missile System that has been fielded for 35 years. The Precision Strike Missile is slated to replace the obsolete Army Tactical Missile System in 2023, with extended range (out to 499 km), along with improved GPS jamming resistance, increased rate of fire from one to two missiles per pod and lower cost per missile.

The Aviation and Missile Center is looking at projects to improve the energetics and efficiency of these weapons. Advances in energetics will result in longer-range weapons without additional volume or weight. The team is also studying the requirements and technologies necessary to expand into intermediate ranges with weapons that comply with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty—the 1987 bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union that limits both nuclear and conventionally armed missile ranges from 500 to 5,500 km. (Today, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan actively participate in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the United States.)

UPDATING THE HOWITZER

While the Army has fielded the Paladin howitzer for more than 25 years with only minor improvements, a new system has been developed to meet the needs of the current force. The updated Paladin Integrated Management System is much faster than its predecessor, enabling it to keep pace with the maneuver formations that it was designed to support. The range of the new Paladin self-propelled howitzer will increase from 22 km with standard rounds to 30 km with rocket-assisted projectiles.

Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 5th Artillery at Fort Riley, Kansas, tested the system earlier this year, driving the vehicle more than 60 miles per day while firing more than 100 projectiles daily.

While the state-of-the-art howitzer addresses critical issues of its earlier variants, a next-generation Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) prototype is being developed for fielding in 2025. The ERCA consists of two parts—a new rocket-boosted shell, the XM1113, and a longer howitzer barrel. The XM1113, which has a current range of 30 km when fired from the Paladin, was tested at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona in April this year.

The prototype was tested using the currently fielded Precision Guidance Kit, which is a fuze that turns a conventional artillery round into a semiguided one. During testing, the XM1113 projectile exceeded 60 km; the Army is working toward fielding systems that are capable of accurately striking targets 100 km away. The advanced hypersonic cannon shells that will reach 100 km will provide lethal options for commanders and reduce the need to shoot rockets that cost substantially more.

In addition to longer range, ERCA will have a longer cannon rifle tube, a fully automated ammunition loading system and a communications system that will work in GPS-denied environments. RDECOM’s Ground Vehicle Center is developing high-voltage components that will give the ERCA system more power to maintain overmatch against evolving threats. For example, by replacing a four-channel distribution box with a 12-channel high-voltage power controller, ERCA will not only have significantly more capability, but also improved reliability and safety. These changes will enable the system to distribute all of the electrical power that it can generate without negatively impacting space and weight.

Spc. Cody Jensen, truck driver, 147th Forward Support Company, 1st Battalion, 147th Field Artillery Regiment, Roslyn, S.D., guides an expended missile tube from a Multiple Launch Rocket System onto an empty truck bed as Pfc. Steven Smith, truck driver, 147th FSC, operates the winch system on Aug. 10, 2018. South Dakota Army National Guard Soldiers are participating in Northern Strike, a joint multinational combined arms live fire exercise at Camp Grayling, Mich. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Spc. Joshua Boisvert)

SMART, FAST, INTERCONNECTED WEAPONS

In multidomain operations, the Army anticipates that Soldiers will be attacked from land, sea, air, cyber and space, and they will need to perform a variety of missions quickly. Soldiers will not only need the most advanced weapons available, but they also will need to know which weapons will be most effective in different scenarios. While a weapon directed at a single target may result in destroying the target, other situations may require delivering artillery shells that amass over an area, loitering until needed.

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) is developing technologies to support collaborative weapons that are interconnected, precise and smart. By sharing sensing, computing and navigating capabilities using a network of sensors, these weapons will send information back to the warfighter, including situational awareness to make informed decisions.

These future collaborative weapons will need to create physical damage, as well as nonkinetic effects to jam communications systems, disturb sensors and stop electronics. To give Soldiers the flexibility, technical expertise and maneuverability to survive in multidomain operations, these collaborative weapons will need to deploy in both mounted and dismounted variants.

ARL scientists are also looking at ways to develop weapons that will accelerate from subsonic to supersonic speeds and morph into different shapes to adapt to emerging conditions, using information gathered from the enemy.

RDECOM’s Armaments Center is leading the Army’s integrated effort to modernize long-range precision fires, working with RDECOM’s six research, development and engineering centers, the ARL and domestic and international academic and industry partners. (U.S. Army photo)

COLLABORATING WITH THE NAVY AND AIR FORCE

In addition to working with hundreds of domestic and international industry and academia partners, RDECOM collaborates with other Army organizations, DOD laboratories and joint services to develop and test science and technology (S&T) efforts. The command shares information and discusses collaboration opportunities with Navy and Air Force counterparts during quarterly DOD lab sync meetings that each service hosts on a rotating basis. Working with the joint services provides opportunities to leverage technologies and capabilities across the DOD enterprise and reduces the risk of researching and developing the same or similar technologies.

In developing the approach for the Land Based Anti-Ship Missile Program, RDECOM’s Armaments Center is working with the Navy to leverage its expertise in maritime targets. The Army has not studied the unique challenges of finding and attacking ships since it disbanded the Coastal Defense Artillery in the 1950s.

The Army has the capability now to destroy targets from land to land and from land to air using long-range missiles, but multidomain operations will require additional flexibility for the weapons to operate in the maritime domain. The Land Based Anti-Ship Missile Program reflects a fundamental change in field artillery rockets and missiles. For the first time, the Army will have tactical missiles with seekers to precisely hit moved, moving or poorly located targets in an A2AD environment. (Poorly located targets are targets for which we lack precise information on where they are located—we may have had the precise location, but the target moved, for example.) These missiles will have significant impact on joint operations, including the Air Force and Navy, by giving them opportunities to conduct air and sea operations that may have been previously difficult or impossible to execute. RDECOM will continue to work with experts from the Navy to understand the problems that exist and work possible solutions.

The Army is also looking at best-of-breed technologies from all of the services, including the Air Force’s work in hypersonics. (See “Experiments in Hyperspeed,” Page XX.) The Air Force is developing novel concepts for airframes and propulsion that could be applicable for any Army mission that may require hypersonic munitions. These munitions will be more advanced and smaller, enabling aircraft to carry more munitions without adding weight or sacrificing firepower.

Gun crews of Battery B, 1st Battalion, 147th Field Artillery Regiment, Yankton, S.D., fire their Multiple Launch Rocket System at Camp Grayling, Mich., Aug. 10, 2018. South Dakota Army National Guard Soldiers are participating in Northern Strike, a joint multinational combined arms live fire exercise involving approximately 5,000 service members from 11 states and six coalition countries. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Spc. Joshua Boisvert)

CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COHESION

The Army Futures Command’s cross-functional teams have representatives from different functions and communities of expertise across the Army, including members of the S&T, materiel, acquisition, test, cost and estimate, contracting, analysis, capability and requirements, funding, intelligence and public affairs communities. The Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team, located at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, has two RDECOM employees dedicated to supporting the LRPF modernization priority, with reachback to two dozen RDECOM employees for support at any time. The LRPF Cross-Functional Team leveraged the Aviation and Missile Center’s S&T road map for missile investment as the basis for its deep strike missiles future plan.

As long-range precision fires is an integrated system of systems that supports and enables capabilities for aviation, missile defense, armaments and tank, automotive and Soldier systems, the LRPF Cross-Functional team works closely with other cross-functional teams through working groups. These working groups analyze modernization dependencies to ensure that capabilities and technologies align with portfolio investments.

The driving mission of the LRPF Cross-Functional Team is to enable technologies for cannons, munitions, rockets and missiles with enhanced precision and lethality effects at extended ranges in degraded A2AD operational environments. The team’s near-term goals are to develop cohesive modernization road maps to deliver technology for long-range precision fires and maintain Army S&T portfolio investments to support current and future overmatch capability gaps.

In looking to support the future of the Army, RDECOM is planning technology demonstrations with cannons, munitions, rockets and missiles with various ranges. Demonstrations began in May 2018 and are scheduled to continue over the next several years as the technologies transition to programs of record, which are fully funded, or become directed requirements, which are expedited requirements to fill an urgent need.

New York National Guard Soldiers assigned to Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery, load a round into a M777 Howitzer, on Fort Drum, Watertown N.Y., May 22nd, 2018. Soldiers from the 258 spent the past two weeks preparing to fire these weapons, which are much larger, and more powerful than the previous cannon’s they used. (N.Y. Army National Guard photo by Spc. Andrew Valenza)

CONCLUSION

As RDECOM transitions into the new Army Futures Command, it will continue to support the modernization effort by working on projects with internal and external partners to sharpen the Army’s competitive advantage. Leveraging the Army’s modernization strategy to fail early and fail cheaply, the centers and labs promote continuous experimentation and prototyping that reduces risk, demonstrates technical maturity and evaluates technical solutions to inform requirements for near- and far-term capabilities.

RDECOM uses the lessons learned from experimentation and prototyping to refine technology for capabilities that the warfighter will need to fight and win in multidomain operations. It has long shared those lessons learned with the Army Capabilities Integration Center and other partners. The command is now deeply involved in helping the Army design the new Army Futures Command to maximize its core competencies while achieving the greatest possible synergy with its new partners in that command.

For more information, go to http://www.rdecom.army.mil/ or contact RDECOM Public Affairs at 443-395-3922.

MAJ. GEN. CEDRIC T. WINS is the commanding general of RDECOM. Wins graduated from the Virginia Military Institute and was commissioned in the Field Artillery in July 1985. His military education includes Field Artillery Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the National War College, where he earned an M.S. in national security and strategic studies. Wins also holds an M.S. in management from the Florida Institute of Technology.

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

That sound you hear is the tick-tock of a super-accurate quantum clock, counting down the time until quantum information science enables a leap forward in cybersecurity, navigation, code breaking and all kinds of other puzzles.

 by Dr. Kimberly Sablon, Dr. Peter J. Reynolds, Dr. Fredrik Fatemi and Dr. Sara Gamble

There are strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of classical physics, unusual enough that they disturbed Einstein. This discovery stemmed from observations in the early 20th century on the nature of light and heat, and gave birth to the field of quantum mechanics, required to describe the behavior of atoms, photons and subatomic particles, as well as the universe as a whole. “Quantum” refers to the fundamental discreteness of nature—that at the smallest scales, measurements of energy, of light, of matter, and so on, come in indivisible packets.

Quantum mechanics revolutionized physics and continues to revolutionize science and technology today. Early research led to numerous technologies including lasers, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transistors and microprocessors. These advances leveraged certain properties of quantum mechanics but did not take advantage of all the odd phenomena that quantum mechanics embodies—such as that light is both wave and particle (matter-wave duality), and that a given electron, for example, can be two things at once until observation freezes it in one state (superposition).

In the 1970s, physicists merged quantum properties with information science, and by the 1990s it was clear that the marriage of these fields into quantum information science may have sweeping impacts, not only on defense applications, but also on the day-to-day lives of nearly everyone on the planet.

The tipping point for an appreciation of the importance of quantum information science came courtesy of mathematician Peter Shor. He developed an algorithm that leveraged quantum properties to factor very large numbers efficiently. While this may seem only like a mathematical curiosity, the importance of this algorithm cannot be overstated because the difficulty of the factoring problem is at the root of the encryption—known as the RSA cryptosystem—that encodes nearly every electronic transaction underlying secure government communications, emails, bank transfers, and so on. While traditional computers cannot crack RSA encryption on any timescale relevant to security considerations, quantum computers would render it useless. As a result of Shor’s insight, the Army and intelligence community immediately started investing in quantum computing research.

The United States has held a leading position in the development of quantum information science and associated technologies for many years. The Army, recognizing the importance of the field to the future fight, has even boosted its baseline investments since 2015 to explore capabilities in ultra-secure communications and networks and dramatically to improve precision sensing and timekeeping.

The United States, however, isn’t alone. Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Singapore, Russia, North Korea and Japan have all invested heavily in research into quantum information science. China established a $10 billion national laboratory primarily targeting pre-eminence in quantum communications and successfully launched a quantum satellite in 2016. After the satellite program’s success, China began building a nationwide quantum network for impenetrable military communications and financial transactions.

The House Science Committee recently announced plans for a 10-year National Quantum Initiative to increase America’s strategic focus on quantum information science. This effort will provide a greater degree of coordination between agencies, essential for successful capability development. Such a large initiative will depend on multiple investments and partnerships in academia, DOD labs and industry.

It’s important to understand the basic principles of quantum mechanics essential for information applications, as well as how quantum information science can enhance or establish certain technologies for the Army, including quantum cryptography and communication, quantum metrology (measurement) and sensing, and quantum computation and simulation.

The nonintuitive properties of quantum information science impact many technologies on the battlefield. The properties of superposition, wave-particle duality and entanglement are essential to a variety of current and future sensors and networks. (Graphic by U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center and the authors)

THE BASICS FOR QUANTUM COMPUTING

Three of the most important concepts to understand in quantum mechanics are superposition, matter-wave duality and entanglement.

Superposition is the counterintuitive ability of a quantum entity, such as an electron, to be in two states, “0” and “1”, simultaneously, such as the lowest energy level of an atom and its first excited state. However, the atomic state is only defined when it is measured: Until we “look” at the atom, it is in both states at once, with probabilities that can be manipulated with quantum operations. Such “quantum bits,” or qubits, are therefore unlike classical bits, which are in one state, either 0 or 1, whether we measure them or not. Quantum superposition is also at the heart of how the world’s most exquisite atomic clocks and magnetometers function.

Matter-wave duality – Light is often thought of as composed of discrete photons—particles—but simultaneously behaves like a wave, exhibiting interference like water waves. Remarkably, a particle with mass (atoms, etc.) can also interfere with its own path or movement, just like waves can. This nonintuitive property has led to “matter wave interferometers” for rotation sensing that could potentially outperform the best laser-based gyroscopes. (Gyroscopes can provide a reference for how an object is oriented in space, among other things, and airplanes and spacecraft use them to help maintain stability and to navigate.)

Entanglement – Two or more qubits can further demonstrate differences from classical bits: They can be entangled such that a measurement on one instantaneously determines the outcome of the other. Such nonclassical correlations persist even over long distances, seeming to enable information transfer faster than light. This disturbed Einstein, who dismissed it as “spooky action at a distance.” Ultimately, many experiments have shown that the information transfer is still limited to the speed of light as described below. However, the nonclassical correlations do indeed permit a type of communication security and computation unavailable to classical communications and computing systems.

QUANTUM TECHNOLOGIES

Quantum Cryptography and Quantum Communications

Quantum entanglement is expected to provide quantum networks with the ability to transmit quantum information with unparalleled security. An additional security advantage stems from the fact that qubit systems cannot be copied without fundamentally disturbing them. This means any attempted copying will absolutely be revealed, which makes this type of communication system very enticing to the Army.

Current uses of quantum cryptography and secure quantum channels primarily focus on the creation and distribution of quantum keys. Classical channels are still used to transfer information between two parties, but this information has been encrypted by quantum keys and is unreadable by the receiver without receiving the key over a quantum channel.

Ultimately, more complex quantum networks are envisioned that should provide the Army with a robust network secured not only by the protocols but also the inherent rules of quantum mechanics. To fully realize this, the Army is investigating distributed quantum systems that can store, process and transmit information using networks of entangled quantum memories. These are active areas of research within both Army laboratories and supported extramural efforts.

Quantum Metrology and Quantum Sensing

Quantum systems possess advantages over classical systems for some metrology—measurement—and sensing applications. One reason for this is that the transition frequencies of quantum atomic systems are exact, reproducible and identical within a particular element (e.g., rubidium or cesium). The well-defined transition frequency makes them excellent standards for clocks, with far better performance than quartz crystal oscillators such as those used in wristwatches. A second reason is that qubits can be exquisitely sensitive to environmental fields, such as magnetic or electric fields. While this sensitivity is one of the reasons building a quantum computer is difficult, it is also the reason qubits can be excellent sensors.

Quantum communication networks require the precise synchronization and stabilization that atomic clocks provide. When combined with quantum sensors for acceleration, rotation and gravity, these clocks will also ensure robust navigation in GPS-denied environments. Together, quantum-enabled enhancements such as these contribute to the assured position, navigation and timing capabilities crucial to the Army’s future success.

The application of quantum information science to general problems in sensing and metrology has shown that measurements can surpass classical detection limits. This enhanced sensitivity is of interest to the Army for a variety of applications, ranging from ultra-precise magnetometry to distinguish tank and submarine decoys from the real things, to precise chemical detection with limited sample volumes.

As a result of these varied applications, the Army has research programs related to quantum metrology and sensing, and is now targeting assured position, navigation and timing as a crucial area for increased investment.

Quantum Computation and Simulation

Quantum computers function via controlled initialization and manipulation of qubits to execute quantum algorithms like Shor’s. During these operations, qubits are placed in superpositions and entangled with one another. Recalling that quantum phenomena are tied to probabilities of being in certain states, we can understand that during a quantum computation, all of the possible results exist with some probability. Quantum algorithms function such that the probability of getting the correct answer upon measurement is enhanced while the probabilities of all of the incorrect answers are suppressed. It is these enhancements and suppressions together with state sampling (is the electronic state 1 or 0?) that can enable exponential processing improvements that make quantum computing so fundamentally different from classical computing.

Several physical platforms are viable candidates for building quantum computers. Although qubits based on trapped atomic ions, superconducting and semiconducting systems seem to hold the most promise for large-scale implementations, they are not the only ones, and the question is still open as to what type or types of qubits will enable the first quantum computer capable of solving classically intractable problems. While quantum computers large enough to run Shor’s algorithm for code breaking are decades away, when we have these computers they will be able to attack multiple problems of interest to the Army in addition to code breaking, like resource optimization, optimal war-gaming, efficient command, control, communications and intelligence, and maximal logistical support.

Quantum simulators can be thought of as special-purpose quantum computers suited to understanding specific problems, such as the design of novel materials. Quantum simulators are expected to solve some long-standing problems in physics and chemistry, including the origin of certain types of superconductivity, and for chemical (e.g., pharmaceutical drug or energetic material) design. This specialization removes many of the constraints that make general-purpose quantum computers decades away from realization, and, as a result, near-term quantum simulators may have a more immediate impact on Army capabilities, especially in materials design.

Complex quantum computers of the kind depicted in this conceptual rendering are decades away, but quantum clocks and other applications of the knowledge that quantum mechanics has discovered could be in wide use much sooner. (Graphic by Getty Images)

CONCLUSION

Quantum information science provides unprecedented advantages that are impossible under classical laws of physics. Some of these advantages that rely on superposition or matter-wave duality are already in the early stages of application in quantum clocks and sensors, while some involving multiparticle entanglement are further off, including quantum networks. Some will require decades of additional development, such as complex quantum computers.

Quantum mechanics has proven over and over that with each included quantum ingredient, revolutionary capabilities occur, and we should be confident that this will continue to occur. Untapped aspects of quantum information systems have the potential to yield far-reaching innovations and unprecedented technologies, with unparalleled precision, sensitivity, speed, information capacity and other decisive factors, and will help the U.S. Army pave the road to dominance for many years to come.

For more information, email Dr. Kimberly Sablon at kimberly.a.sablon.civ@mail.mil.

KIMBERLY SABLON is the director, basic research, in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology in Arlington, Virginia. She holds a Ph.D. in applied physics (microelectronics and photonics) from the University of Arkansas, and a B.S. in chemistry and physics from the University of the Virgin Islands.

PETER J. REYNOLDS is a senior research scientist at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT and an A.B. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley. He received the U.S. Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Senior Scientist in 2015, has been a Fellow of the Army Research Laboratory since 2007, and was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 1995.

FREDRIK FATEMI is the chief of the Quantum Technology Branch at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. He holds a Ph.D. in molecular physics from the University of Virginia.

SARA GAMBLE is a program manager at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s Army Research Office at Research Triangle Park. She holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in applied physics from Stanford University and a B.S. in physics from the University of Florida.

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

By Michael Bold

FORT BELVOIR, Va. (Sept. 27, 2018)—Innovation has improved the lives of our Soldiers and contributed immeasurably to their success on the battlefield, says Dr. Bruce D. Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology and the Army acquisition executive. And, he says, innovation will be critical to modernizing the U.S. Army.

That innovation will in large part be driven by critical enabling technologies—the equipment, technologies or methodologies that provide increases in the performance and capabilities to the Soldier. Critical enabling technologies is the theme of the October – December issue of Army AL&T magazine. In it, read about:

How the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center—to change its culture, improve decision-making and unleash its own agility—created an innovative combination of war gaming and business architecture. The game is a reusable tool that not only educates its workforce in business architecture, but also facilitates and improves any organizational decision at any level. See “GAME CHANGER.”

In the first of a series, Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins, commanding general, explains the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command’s (RDECOM) strategy for supporting the Army’s six modernization priorities, in “RDECOM’S ROAD MAP TO MODERNIZING THE ARMY: LONG-RANGE PRECISION FIRES”

The Tunisian National Navy and its foreign military sales (FMS) program with the United States is the embodiment of a security cooperation “win.” It’s a model that stakeholders in developing FMS programs can strive to replicate. Get on board with “SHIP SHAPE.”

It’s the worst-kept secret in Army maintenance units: The Army has been over-maintaining its equipment and its processes are not very efficient. Those concerns led to a study by the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity to assess Army preventive maintenance policy, methodology and execution. For the results, see “IF IT AIN’T BROKE…”

A nanomaterial that can generate power on demand in the field, wherever needed. Like many great scientific advancements, it was discovered by accident, at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Find out more in “JUST ADD WATER!”

“Hypersonic” describes any speed faster than five times the speed of sound, which translates to roughly 3,800 mph at sea level. But is speed enough to change the game? Does a missile flying at Mach 7 outperform one at Mach 3 on metrics other than speed? Apart from flying very fast, what does DOD—and what do its adversaries—think hypersonic weapons can accomplish? Explore the debate in “EXPERIMENTS IN HYPERSPEED.”

Test and evaluation is a perennial target of criticism for the time and cost it adds to acquisition programs. One way to minimize this impact is to use contractor-generated test data. As the acquisition community strives to accelerate acquisition timelines, using data derived from contractor testing could be more efficient, save on testing costs and speed fielding of equipment. Find out how in “SHIFT LEFT.”

Even if you’re a die-hard hard copy reader, there are many reasons to take a sneak peek online. Go to http://usaasc.armyalt.com/#folio=1 to read the e-magazine, or go to the archives at http://asc.army.mil/web/magazine/alt-magazine-archive/ to download the PDF version.

For more information on how to publish an article in Army AL&T magazine, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-magazine/ to check out our writers guidelines, upcoming deadlines and themes.

Stay in touch with USAASC!
Like: www.facebook.com/usaasc
Follow: www.twitter.com/usaasc
Connect: https://www.linkedin.com/company/usaasc
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usaasc
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/usaasc

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Army targets nontraditional partners with competition for next-generation, game-changing technological advances

By Dr. Bruce D. Jette, Army Acquisition Executive 

“Innovation is the result of critical and creative thinking and the conversion of new ideas into valued outcomes.”

—“U.S. Army Operating Concept, 2020-2040: Win in a Complex World”

In preparing to write this column, I thought broadly about the role that technological innovation has played in changing the nature of warfare over the years: robotics, night vision technology, air mobility, the internal combustion engine, GPS, radar, the internet, the machine gun, the chitosan bandage, freeze-drying technology (both food and blood) and even duct tape. I could go on and on, but my point here is that continued innovation—in forms both large and small—has improved the lives of our Soldiers and contributed immeasurably to their success on the battlefield, and will be critical to modernizing the force. Not only that, those innovations have created countless jobs and helped create untold wealth.

U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas, emerge from a secured building during Decisive Action Rotation 18-08 at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., June 6, 2018. Decisive Action Rotations at the National Training Center ensure Army BCTs remain versatile, responsive, and consistently available for current and future contingencies. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. JD Sacharok, Operations Group, National Training Center)

Recently, I have endeavored to reach out to traditionally nondefense small businesses that have never worked with the government but have great ideas and perhaps revolutionary innovations that could be of some benefit to the Army. In order to maximize the Army’s reach to industry, in 2014, while working in private industry, I created the Innovator’s Corner, a popular engagement opportunity at the Association of the United States Army’s (AUSA) Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington and more recently at AUSA’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. At this month’s AUSA Annual Meeting, the Innovator’s Corner will once again showcase individuals and small companies with unique products or services that can meet the needs of the Soldier.

A CATALYST FOR NEW TECH

I have long recognized that the Army must enhance engagements with the entrepreneurially funded community, small businesses and other nontraditional defense partners by: 1.) understanding the spectrum of technologies being developed commercially that may benefit the Army; 2.) integrating nontraditional innovators into the Army’s research and development ecosystem; and 3.) providing mentorship and expertise to accelerate, mature and transition technologies of interest to the Army.

Our office has been rapidly developing and implementing new, innovative and exciting opportunities to work deliberately with small, nontraditional Army partners, with a specific focus on streamlining or even eliminating cumbersome administrative barriers for Army engagement, developing mechanisms to work with the Army laboratories and test centers, and fostering transition to the Army program executive offices or organic industrial base. Through these efforts, the Army can:

• Provide seed capital to accelerate technology maturation.
• Provide access to collaborative research space at Army Open Campus locations across the country.
• Facilitate partnership opportunities with Army laboratories and test centers.
• Provide mentorship to transition technologies back to the government.

These innovative activities coalesce the collective expertise of entrepreneurs, technologists and warfighters, all with a vision for making an impact on the defense of our nation.

The first instantiation of this new concept is the Expeditionary Technology Search (xTechSearch), launched in June as a catalyst for the Army to engage with this promising business sector, driving American innovation for Army challenges and spurring economic growth. Aimed at attracting game-changing innovation, xTechSearch expands our sources beyond the traditional defense industrial base and provides access for pitching novel technology solutions directly to Army leadership.

Having come from industry and understanding the challenges associated with entering “the process,” I know firsthand that the Army must proactively and aggressively engage with innovators to see what new ideas, concepts, systems and subsystem components they can bring to the table. The next generation of enabling technologies required to achieve our modernization priorities may not currently exist—or they may, and not be apparent to the Army.

A four-phase competition, xTechSearch offers up to $1.95 million in prizes to discover innovative technology that will support the Army’s modernization priorities: long-range precision fires; Next Generation Combat Vehicle; Future Vertical Lift; the Army network; air and missile defense; and Soldier lethality.

The Innovator’s Corner, an area of the AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington and at its Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, is a well-attended venue where individuals and small companies can showcase unique products or services that can meet the needs of the Soldier and explore partnership opportunities with the Army. The Innovator’s Corner during this year’s annual meeting, Oct. 8-10, will feature the 25 semifinalists in the Army’s new xTechSearch competition, as many as 12 of whom will receive $125,000, six months to develop a proof of concept and an invitation to participate in the Phase IV proof-of-concept demonstration. (Photo by AUSA)

CONCEPT, PITCHES, PROOF

Phase I: The concept white paper contest is where eligible contestants describe their novel technology concept and outline its integration with one of the Army’s modernization priorities. This phase was completed in July, and the response was encouraging. We accepted 349 white papers, with 129 related to Soldier lethality; 25 addressing air and missile defense; 80 regarding the Army network; 39 for Future Vertical Lift; 51 related to the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, and 17 for long-range precision fires. In the category of “other,” eight papers were submitted that did not relate directly to a specified modernization priority. They may still be of value, offering a capability heretofore not militarily considered. Of the entrants, 125 winners received $1,000 each and an invitation to participate in Phase II.

Phase II: As many as 125 selected contestants will have the chance to compete in the xTechSearch technology pitches. Each contestant will complete an in-person technology pitch to a panel of Army experts and judges at select locations across the United States. The final number of Phase II winners had not been determined as of this writing, but up to 25 winners will receive $5,000 each and an invitation to participate in Phase III.

Cornell University Chemistry Professor Peng Chen, left, principal investigator in Army research that resulted in the first real-time visualization of single polymer chain growth, and Dr. Susil Baral, postdoctoral research associate, look at data while Dr. Chunming Liu, right, postdoctoral research associate, adjusts the microscope stage. In an example of the Army’s collaboration with academia on technologies critical to battlefield success, scientists at Cornell, funded by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, researched new analytical techniques for probing polymer dynamics and how to manipulate those dynamics to control polymer microstructure. (Photo courtesy of Cornell University)

Phase III: The xTechSearch semifinalists, as many as 25, will be featured at the Innovator’s Corner during AUSA’s 2018 Annual Meeting and Exposition, to be held Oct. 8-10 in Washington, with up to 12 winners receiving $125,000, six months to develop a proof of concept and an invitation to participate in Phase IV.

Phase IV: In the xTechSearch Capstone Demonstration, up to 12 selected finalists will demonstrate the proof of concept for their technology solutions to DOD, government and industry leadership to determine the winner of the $200,000 prize. If the winner does not have or understand how to establish a relationship with the government and Army, they will be shepherded through the process to ensure our access to them.

U.S. Sen. Richard (Dick) Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois, gives remarks Nov. 10, 2017 at ribbon cutting for the Army Research Laboratory Central the Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Chicago. Also on stage during the ceremony are , acting Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy, Research, Development and Engineering Command Commanding General Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins and ARL Director Dr. Philip Perconti.

CONCLUSION

The xTechSearch is a new way to link innovators directly with Army labs, with a focus on lowering the entrance barriers and spurring innovation. I look forward to sharing the results of the competition with you.

Private sector innovation is critical to the Army’s future and an important part of our strategy to provide the right capability to the Soldier at the right time. During my tenure, we will look everywhere for opportunities to accelerate innovation and deliver advanced technologies that will enable Soldiers to win our nation’s wars and come home safely.

Related Links:

xTechSearch website: https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/army-expeditionary-technology-search-xtechsearch/

“U.S. Army Operating Concept, 2020-2040: Win in a Complex World”:

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

A vigorous talent management strategy keeps the acquisition workforce prepared to tackle future threats.

By Mr. Craig A. Spisak, Director, Acquisition Career Management

Predicting the future: It’s one of Army leadership’s most difficult tasks. But we can’t always be a reactive force. Nor can we just defend the nation against current threats. We have to be prepared to defend against future threats. We can’t wait. We must be proactive.

One of the ways we work proactively is by managing our talent. We’ve often talked about career development as having the right person in the right place in the right job at the right time. Succession planning is another way of describing successful talent management.

A strategy that focuses on what type of talent we need within the Army Acquisition Workforce allows us to be synchronized and integrated across, up and down the chain, and across multiple commands. Initiatives focused on talent management allow us to have implementation plans and activities that filter down and are coordinated with individual acquisition commands and organizations.

Talent management initiatives created with the participation of stakeholders and partners across the enterprise help the entire community understand what we’re trying to accomplish. Because at the end of the day, we may not be able to do everything we want to do, but if we have to make tough decisions, we know what we’re going to do first and why. You have everyone on the team operating from the same playbook.

Visualize a series of concentric circles. The biggest circle is drawn around the entire Army Acquisition Workforce. And then, as people either self-select in some cases, or get thrust into situations in other cases, or rise to a certain grade in yet other cases, you get smaller and smaller circles. It’s from these smaller circles that eventually we’ll find personnel for key leadership positions:

• Program executive officer (PEO) and deputy PEO.
• Senior contracting official.
• Program manager (PM).
• Deputy PM.
• Chief engineer and lead systems engineer.
• Product support manager (program lead logistician).
• Chief developmental tester.
• Program lead, business financial manager.
• Program lead, contracting officer.
• Program lead, cost estimator.
• Program lead, production, quality and manufacturing.
• Program lead, information technology.

An agile talent management strategy enables the Army to prepare its acquisition workforce to tackle any future threats, and includes a number of vital components, including recruitment, outreach and engagement, and onboarding and mentoring. (SOURCE: U.S. Army DACM Office)

Talent management is a matter of setting the conditions for success. We remove all of the impediments and barriers so that, when we need 25 people with a certain competency or capability, we know right where to find them. We don’t wait for the need to arise and then go out and try to build that person.

What would success for talent management look like? It would mean that every time we need an individual or a group to solve a complex acquisition problem, every time we have a technical challenge, every time we need somebody in theater with a particular set of skills, we would already have considered that a possibility and would have developed that capability and talent in our community. We would know who and where they are.

The concepts behind talent management of the Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW) are:

• Identify high-potential and high-performing employees.
• Develop the talent pool early.
• Reinstate tools to help manage acquisition workforce talent.
• Implement strategies to use skills gained through training and other developmental opportunities.

We are implementing several initiatives to help our leaders identify and develop talent, including:

• Continuing to expand mentoring and fine-tuning our evaluation processes.
• Developing orientation briefings as an onboarding tool to acclimate new members to the acquisition profession.
• Creating civilian career models for every acquisition career field, similar to military acquisition models, and continuing to enhance this tool to provide our acquisition civilians and their supervisors with career guidance.
• Promoting developmental and rotational assignments to provide broadening opportunities for our workforce.
• Encouraging talented and high-potential personnel to apply to our centrally selected positions.
• Ensuring that talent management is nested with talent initiatives managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, such as competency development and key leadership position qualification programs.
• Implementing and standardizing a tenure agreement tracking mechanism for critical acquisition positions, including key leadership positions and centrally selected product and project manager and project and product director positions.
• Establishing guidance on the use of the senior rater potential evaluation (SRPE) for all Army Acquisition Workforce members in designated grades or broadbands.
• Developing program management position hierarchy and common nomenclature for use across the enterprise.
• Sustaining and executing the first civilian-only centrally selected product director board, providing opportunities to select high-performing civilians with leadership potential.

For talent management to thrive, you have to establish a methodology by which you can facilitate success. Providing people the necessary tools, such as the individual development plan and the SRPE, allows a much richer discussion about individual potential. Talent management is preparing the seed corn, a feeder population from which future leaders will emerge.

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Robert F. McKelvey III
COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: Cybersecurity and Electromagnetic Activities (CEMA) Combat Systems Division; Survivability Evaluation Directorate; U.S. Army Evaluation Center; U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
TITLE: CEMA evaluator and test manager
YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 14
DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in test and evaluation; Level II in program management
EDUCATION: M.S. in program management and public policy, Naval Postgraduate School; B.S. in mechanical engineering, Penn State University
AWARDS: Superior Civilian Service Award; Commander’s Award for Civilian Service; Achievement Medal for Civilian Service; Secretary of Defense Medal for Global War on Terrorism

It’s all connected

by Ms. Susan l. Follett

Turns out your kindergarten teacher was right: Learning to play nicely with others is a vital skill, no matter your profession. “Acquisition work always comes down to people,” said Robert F. McKelvey III, cybersecurity and electromagnetic activities (CEMA) evaluator and test manager for the U.S. Army Evaluation Center (AEC). “Everyone in the acquisition workforce has a job to do and sometimes those jobs are at odds with one another; that’s by design. Those intellectual impacts can lead to a better product for the Soldier and DOD, but we need to show respect for our co-workers and their missions across the community. If you can package your expertise in a respectful way that is useful to your customers on their schedule, you’ll be unstoppable.”

McKelvey is part of the CEMA Combat Systems Division within AEC’s Survivability Evaluation Directorate, which focuses on survivability, ballistic and nonballistic battlefield threats, live-fire evaluations and reports, vulnerability and lethality of Army and joint systems, and cybersecurity in assessing information assurance and interoperability.

AEC, a subordinate organization of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), “is the Army’s ‘Consumer Reports,’ ” said McKelvey, tasked with characterizing the readiness of a broad portfolio of programs for integration into the operational environment. Surprisingly, he noted, most Soldiers are unaware of the organization’s existence. “The typical Army unit does not routinely interact with AEC,” he noted. “But once they understand AEC’s mission and the multitude of systems being supported, Soldiers tend to be surprised with how much we actually do and have to offer in the realm of system effectiveness, suitability and survivability to ensure their safety on the battlefield.”

McKelvey studied mechanical engineering in college, with the goal of designing cars, but he switched to systems engineering after the events of 9/11. His work leading the vehicle dynamics team that was part of Penn State University’s entry into the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Grand Challenge attracted the attention of the Survivability Evaluation Directorate at a job fair. His first acquisition position was as a nonballistic survivability analyst working on Future Combat Systems within the Survivability Evaluation Directorate, and he has remained there for 14 years, tackling different assignments at increasing degrees of responsibility and difficulty.

“I’ve learned that there are lots of opportunities for motivated people to help move a project forward,” he noted. One of his first opportunities came not long after he was hired. “I had a great first mentor in Capt. Tom Stocks and a supportive division chief in Jim Myers. They took me under their wing and helped me build a strong foundation in the tenets of survivability.” In 2007, Myers put McKelvey in charge of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program, which introduced him to joint operations, support contracting and condensed schedules. “I managed to find my way through interoperability and compatibility assessments for government-furnished equipment suites for MRAPs,” he said. Eventually, McKelvey led efforts to ensure that the suites—additional equipment such as sensors, jammers and antennas—installed by the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command on MRAPs would be effective in an operational environment.

That background was invaluable in 2011 when McKelvey became lead evaluator and test manager on rocket-propelled grenade defeat systems and served as lead live-fire evaluator for the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV). “I planned, scheduled and executed the first test of homemade explosives on an M-ATV underbody improvement kit. That work, which included a relook of testbed soil, led to more repeatable and operationally realistic live-fire platform assessments,” he said.

In 2013, McKelvey joined a forward operational assessment team out of Fort Hood, Texas. During Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, ATEC deployed 21 forward operational assessment teams to the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters to assess new systems under combat conditions. McKelvey was selected as the survivability subject-matter expert and deployed to Afghanistan for six months. His primary job was collecting MRAP “black box cards,” assessing improvised explosive events and readingto correlate various intelligence feeds into actionable information for more survivable systems.

McKelvey, right, and FOA 20 Commander Col. Greg Applegate in Kabul, Afghanistan, prepare to travel to an assessment site in June 2013. At the time the picture was taken, McKelvey was dual-hatted as the FOA 20 survivability subject matter expert and acting deputy commander. Photo courtesy of the author.

A few years later, McKelvey was selected for a one-year developmental assignment as the assistant technical director of the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC), working directly with John Wallace, ATC technical director. He supported approximately 290 test center initiatives and had a hand in producing ATEC’s application for a national cyber range in collaboration with several Army organizations and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

McKelvey was selected for AEC’s Emerging Leaders Cohort in late 2016 and, as his individual project in that program, published a process guide for CEMA assessment of autonomous and robotic systems. As the lead cybersecurity evaluator for autonomous and robotic systems, he saw firsthand that there was confusion over what a cybersecurity and electronic warfare assessment should look like for those systems. “That confusion wasn’t being addressed elsewhere, so I set about creating a general process guide that was system-agnostic,” he explained. By separating programs from procedures and opening up his strategy for comment, he was able to gather input from more than 30 senior leaders across the acquisition community, “and the guide became a more useful tool on a faster schedule than I could have ever executed alone.” To read the guide, go to the online version of Army AL&T magazine.

The guide addresses a critical gap for two emerging acquisition areas: cybersecurity and autonomous systems. It has been piloted with the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation and the PEO for Combat Support and Combat Service Support (CS&CSS), McKelvey said, with PEO CS&CSS finding the guide to be useful with scoping of early contractor-led cybersecurity scans and electromagnetic activities. “This helps with identifying and addressing concerns early and ultimately expediting the fielding of these systems to the force,” he said.

When he’s not at work, McKelvey spends time “working with my hands alongside other people. One thing I’ve found is that whether you’re installing a can light, changing brake pads or building a stool, you’re more successful when you plan the work with an understanding of how the project will affect its surroundings.” That system-of-systems approach has been critical to his success, across defense acquisition and beyond it. “Sometimes the ‘system’ is a PowerPoint file, sometimes it’s a brainstorming session, sometimes it’s an armored brigade combat team, but a system-of-systems approach alongside supportive, motivated teammates makes work easier.”

Related Links

Process Guide

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

“Faces of the Force” is an online series highlighting members of the Army Acquisition Workforce through the power of individual stories. Profiles are produced by the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center Communication and Support Branch, working closely with public affairs officers to feature Soldiers and civilians serving in various AL&T disciplines. For more information, or to nominate someone, please contact 703-664-5635.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Willingness to be mobile is key to career development in the acquisition workforce.

by Ms. Jacqueline M. Hames

In Army acquisition, moving up might mean moving out—out of your comfort zone. Leadership in recent months has been encouraging mobility, or the willingness of workforce members to relocate for work, for one big reason: the development of the employee. “Leadership seems to unanimously find value in a person working in multiple organizations in multiple locations—that brings a wealth of perspectives to that person,” said Scott Greene, chief of the leader development branch for proponency and leader development at the Office of the Director, Acquisition Career Management (DACM), Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Leadership is looking for people with various senior raters—supervisors who rate employees annually on performance and potential—various organizations and, ideally, different locations, Greene said, but for the most part it is looking for willingness to do new things. “Getting people to experience differences grows them,” he said, and an employee with a diverse background brings added value to the organization. For example, having all the same senior raters on performance evaluations shows consistency within an organization, but no diversity of thought. Evaluations from different senior raters display a well-rounded perspective on an employee’s potential.

WHAT ABOUT BOB?

Sometimes people are just not willing to make drastic geographic relocations because of circumstances—family, ties to the community and so on—but that doesn’t necessarily preclude an employee from becoming mobile temporarily or regionally. Say someone named Bob may be a great assistant program manager at Fort Belvoir at the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Soldier, but there’s an advancement opportunity a few miles north at the Pentagon, a position that wouldn’t require Bob and his family to relocate. Taking that position reflects a readiness to be mobile, Greene said. In other words, Bob is showing his willingness to expand his experience and get out of his comfort zone. However—are you listening, Bob?—workforce members can also show their willingness to leave their comfort zones by accepting promotions in different geographic locations. “Best case, Bob is willing to move from Fort Belvoir up to Warren [Michigan] for an opportunity. That’s like super mobility. That’s wonderful!” Greene said.

Jason Pitts, chief of the Acquisition Functional Integration Branch at the DACM Office, presents DAWDF financial data to a group of acquisition professionals during the Back to Basics developmental conference in September 2017. DAWDF helps facilitate temporary rotations in other organizations, as well as education and training assignments, to broaden workforce experience. (U.S. Army photo)

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Geographic relocation can be daunting; however, if Bob meets his command’s requirements for moving, there are some key resources available to guide him through the process and potentially assist him in the move.

Each PEO has the authority to approve relocation incentives for its employees under the criteria outlined in “DOD Instruction 1400.25, Vol. 575, DOD Civilian Personnel Management System: Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives and Supervisory Differentials,” said Cary Cooper, a human resources specialist with the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center. Bob may be paid relocation incentives—a moving bonus or supplementary pay to cover moving expenses—if he relocates without a break in service to accept a position in a different geographic area that is likely hard to fill. He’ll need to be rated “fully successful” or equivalent in his last performance evaluation to be eligible for an incentive, the instruction states.

After meeting command requirements, workforce members should be sure to research the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) and the DOD National Relocation Program (DNRP). The JTR governs all permanent change-of-station entitlements, Cooper said. These regulations are applicable to all service members, DOD civilian employees and anyone else traveling at DOD’s expense. Chapter 5, Part B lists basic entitlements for current government employees given permanent change-of-station orders.

The DNRP is one real estate assistance option that can be authorized under the JTR, Cooper said. It is designed to assist eligible and authorized civilian transferees, like Bob, to relocate from one duty station to another on orders. The DNRP includes home sale and marketing incentives for DA civilians. These incentives can be offered to Bob if his move is covered by the mandatory mobility agreement outside of his commuting area, if his reassignment is management-directed or if he is a Senior Executive Service member going to another position. Each DOD agency establishes eligibility criteria for its organizations. Generally, Bob and other employees like him should meet the requirements for permanent change of station, be authorized to use these services by their command and ensure that their residence meets the criteria established in the JTR and DNRP. Cooper cautions that though employees are offered the use of this program, it is not guaranteed that an organization will authorize it. Interested employees should coordinate with their command’s human resources office to determine eligibility and receive further instructions.

LATERAL MOBILITY

If Bob’s family decides a permanent move isn’t feasible, another option for mobility is to take a temporary developmental assignment, Greene said. An employee’s organization can pay for these assignments, which may range from a few weeks to several months. These types of assignments will help employees broaden themselves laterally, he said.

“A focus on development assignments is huge,” Greene said. The command can offset the financial burden of developmental assignments with the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). Many requests for funding developmental assignments came in the past year. “Those are hard to say no to,” Greene said. “The board [Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Board] loves seeing those. And sitting on that board for the past handful of years, we’ve approved those.”

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 established the DAWDF, and the NDAA for FY16 made the program permanent. DAWDF is used to recruit, train and retain the acquisition workforce, Cooper said. It can provide funding for developmental assignments and training and education opportunities alike.

There are three categories under DAWDF: retention, recruitment, and training and development. These categories are further explained under 11 line items, which include things like leadership training, acquisition training forums and Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act certification equivalency. The DACM Office centrally manages DAWDF funds, Cooper said. Each command receives an allocation based on what it requests—so if Bob works in PEO Soldier and requested funds to support a six-month developmental assignment, the DACM would transfer funds to PEO Soldier to use, Greene explained.

Information for specific development assignments will be included in the assignment announcement from each deputy assistant secretary of the Army office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, Cooper said. The application process for a developmental assignment will vary depending on the organization, she said, but Bob should at least have a first-line supervisor and an organization representative approve the assignment.

Greene recommends that workforce members interested in a developmental assignment speak with their command G-1, even if there is no announcement for a developmental assignment.  “I would suggest that individuals self-advocate,” he said.

Mobility—through geographic relocation or temporary developmental assignments—is important to acquisition careers. It shows leadership the wealth of perspectives an employee has and how they can add value to the workforce at large.. (Image by Getty Images)

CONCLUSION

Mobility will give employees a larger perspective of the workforce and the wide variety of work it does. Different views of various climates in different organizations, making new contacts and gaining a better understanding of the acquisition community are critical to expanding work experience, Greene said. Mobility shows senior leaders you are willing to go above and beyond the call of duty and be challenged.

For more information on career planning, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/dacm-office/. For more information on the different DAWDF categories and how they break down, as well as program regulations, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/dawdf-program/.

JACQUELINE M. HAMES is a writer and editor with Army AL&T magazine. She holds a B.A. in creative writing from Christopher Newport University. She has more than 10 years of experience writing and editing for the military, with seven of those years spent producing news and feature articles for publication.

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Angela Arwood-Gallegos

COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: Small Business Programs, U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
TITLE: Procurement analyst and small business professional
YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 12
DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in contracting; Level II in small business; Level I in purchasing
EDUCATION: MBA, Webster University; B.S. in business management, Colorado State University – Pueblo
AWARDS: Army Office of Small Business Programs Small Business Professional of the Year; Commander’s Award for Civilian Service; Army Achievement Medal for Civilian Service; U.S. Army Materiel Command Recognition Certificate; Fort Carson Garrison Commander’s Award

By Susan L. Follett

Angela Arwood-Gallegos would like you to know that there’s nothing small about the work of a small business professional. From the number of tasks she juggles and the amount of information she needs to know to the economic impact, small business is a very big deal.

As a small business professional and procurement analyst for the U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC), Arwood-Gallegos provides counseling and training sessions to small business owners on individual procurement opportunities and helps prepare small business owners for federal contracts. She primarily supports three organizations: MICC – Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; MICC – Fort Carson, Colorado; and MICC – Fort Polk, Louisiana. She has also supported the Small Business Program offices at MICC – Fort Riley, Kansas, and MICC – Fort Hood, Texas.

“One common misconception of a small business professional is that all we do is review and sign DD2579s, the small business coordination form. That’s definitely not the case,” said Arwood-Gallegos, who served as a contracting officer for 10 years before transitioning to the small business career field two years ago. “I’m busier than I ever thought I would be. That’s another misguided perception of working for the government—that we have lots of free time on our hands. It’s the furthest thing from the truth. [When I started in acquisition] I knew I would find work to keep me challenged and busy; I just didn’t know that I would be this busy.”

Her work includes ensuring compliance with relevant sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, and assisting each installation with the development and performance toward annual and quarterly small business goals. She also plays a role in acquisition planning, developing market surveys and conducting market research, participating in source selections and reviewing acquisition strategies. Additionally, Arwood-Gallegos coordinates small business outreach events at MICC installations she supports, assists small businesses with payment issues, and works with the Office of Small Business Programs and the U.S. Small Business Administration in performing procurement management and surveillance reviews.

The MICC – Fort Carson team gathers for a picture March 20 at Colorado Technical University. The team hosted a Small Business Acquisition Forecast Open House at the university to educate small business vendors on the contracting process and the requirements that Fort Carson is looking to fill this year. (U.S. Army photo by Amber Martin, Fort Carson Public Affairs)

In May, Arwood-Gallegos was named the Small Business Professional of the Year by the Department of the Army Office of Small Business Programs as a result of the exceptional support she provided to MICC – Fort Carson and the 418th Contracting Support Brigade. Her implementation of the Army Small Business Program enabled MICC – Fort Carson to significantly exceed four of its five goals for FY17 and increased the small business vendor base for MICC activities at Fort Carson, Fort Polk and Dugway. As a result of her efforts, MICC – Fort Carson received the U.S. Small Business Administration Region VIII Administrator’s Small Business Advocacy Award. While serving remotely as the small business professional for MICC – Dugway, she worked closely with office personnel to set aside approximately $11.4 million in construction actions for small business vendors in Utah. As a result of that organization’s improvement in supporting local small businesses, it was named the Small Business Administration’s Contracting Office of the Year for 2017.

“Most vendors that I counsel are overwhelmed with the amount of work it takes to get registered to do business with the government,” said Arwood-Gallegos. “It is my job to help them find the right resources.”

If she were queen for a day, Arwood-Gallegos would make a couple of changes. “First and foremost, I would ease some of the stress by hiring more qualified people to assist in accomplishing the mission. Then, I would increase communication throughout the process—all the way up to the contracting officer for award—so that everyone involved has a good understanding of the requirement, documents get submitted with sufficient time and the information provided is complete,” she said. “It’s great when this happens, and I wish it could happen more often, particularly for the more complex requirements.”

Arwood-Gallegos, an Army spouse, got her start in the Army Acquisition Workforce after learning about it from a friend who was accepted into the Air Force Copper Cap Internship Program. “I researched the Army internship program and was fascinated with all it had to offer,” she said. She started her first acquisition post in 2006 with MICC and has been with the command ever since. “The more I learned along the way, the more I came to love the acquisition career field. I enjoy the challenges and the constant changes, and it does a great job of keeping me on my toes and energized.”

The biggest challenge that she faces in performing her job “is that there is too much of it and not enough people to keep up with it all.” Prioritizing, organizing and multitasking are keys to getting things done, she said, as are solid communication skills and being prepared for what’s next. “I integrate with the acquisition teams as early as possible so I have a good idea of what is coming before it gets here. When I can get involved in the acquisition early on, I have a better understanding of the requirement, and I’m able to foresee any potential challenges it may present. It also helps to reduce my review time.” When it comes to communication, she said, “all of the different forms are critical in this career field. It’s important to stay informed, to know the right time for soft skills versus hard skills, to be responsive, to be clear and concise when sharing information with others and to always keep an open mind.”

It’s easy to become overwhelmed with the constant changes of the acquisition career field, Arwood-Gallegos conceded. “Two quotes really help me: ‘A bend in the road is not the end of the road unless you fail to make the turn,’ and ‘Try not to become a person of success, but rather a person of value.’ ”

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

“Faces of the Force” is an online series highlighting members of the Army Acquisition Workforce through the power of individual stories. Profiles are produced by the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center Communication and Support Branch, working closely with public affairs officers to feature Soldiers and civilians serving in various AL&T disciplines. For more information, or to nominate someone, please contact 703-664-5635.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Coordinated contractor testing can help accelerate the acquisition process and improve the quality of equipment and programs.

 by Mr. Harry H. Jenkins III

Test and evaluation (T&E) is a perennial target of criticism for the time and cost it adds to acquisition programs. But there are ways to minimize this impact. One way is to use contractor-generated test data.

As the acquisition community strives to “shift left”―to accelerate acquisition timelines and thus support earlier decision-making―the use of data derived from contractor testing could be more efficient, save on testing costs and speed fielding of equipment. The project manager (PM) for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), the replacement for the M113 family of vehicles, is exploring the use of contractor testing and its impact on the acquisition process, especially when resources are constrained.

Typically, contractors test an article in accordance with their own test plan to determine broadly whether their design meets intended requirements. This testing is done in isolation with minimal input from the government, generally at the contractor’s own facilities. Contractual language added to the statement of work created the conditions for the AMPV contractor to successfully demonstrate the required performance specifications and for the government to obtain valid data to support the evaluation in one test, versus separate tests, saving time and money. The key is for the government and the contractor to share a common cause with the testing, creating advantages for each.

The PM AMPV’s effort dates to June 2016, when it described not only how the program office would be conducting contractor-driven developmental and reliability testing, but also the potential for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) to use these test data for evaluation purposes.

PM AMPV’s 2016 briefing on the subject gave rise to a white paper, coordinated between the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS), the PM’s parent organization, and ATEC and in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation. The white paper explored approaches, guidelines, procedures and other considerations that would promote the acceptance of contractor test data to support ATEC evaluation efforts.

Contractor developmental and reliability testing became part of the T&E program for the AMPV in its approved milestone B test and evaluation master plan. BAE Systems developed a detailed plan for its testing, which addressed design, engineering and production of the AMPV. The contractor test, conducted at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, was a two- to three-month test for each vehicle variant to “shake them down” and discover any design, quality and manufacturing issues early in the program. The contractor test design was to use government test facilities and government testers. It followed internationally accepted test operating procedures and the AMPV system’s operational mode summary and mission profile.

The operational mode summary and mission profile describe the test conditions in which the vehicle is to operate and the amount of time that critical pieces of equipment are operational during the mission. For example, the AMPV general purpose vehicle must operate in conditions comprising 34 percent primary road surfaces, 38 percent secondary and 28 percent cross-country and hilly cross-country road surfaces. In a given combat day, the vehicle’s mission command equipment will operate for 22 hours, its primary weapon will fire 387 rounds and its engine operate for 21 hours.

Combining this detailed information on operations tempo with the use of government test facilities, testers and test procedures has enabled the contractor to support the design and development of the system. For the government, it provides the opportunity to use contractor test data to augment planned government testing, thus enhancing sample size, allowing for longer testing and broadening performance measurements.

The recently developed Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, shown here at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, for testing, has nearly 80 percent more interior volume than the predecessor vehicle, and more power and survivability. The vehicle’s project manager is assessing how much contractor test data can replace government tests, which sometimes repeat the tests conducted by the manufacturer. (Photo by Mark Schauer, Yuma Proving Ground)

A WIN-WIN EQUATION

It is essential to the success of test planning using this expanded approach to create advantageous conditions for both the contractor and the government. This calls for contractually providing both the PM and ATEC the opportunity to review and comment on the contractor test plan so that they can shape it to fulfill the evaluation needs of the T&E community. The contractor wants to ensure that its equipment meets established performance specifications. The evaluator needs this verification to be performed a certain way for statistical validity.

There are additional conditions to be set in ATEC’s system evaluation plan as well, namely the T&E planning, execution and reporting guidelines to follow in order for ATEC to accept any program data provided by a contractor. For AMPV, this data covered primarily the areas of automotive performance, suitability and survivability, as the system has no offensive weapons.

The test planning also has to address where and how the testing is to be performed, under what conditions and for what duration (as described in the operational mode summary and mission profile), and how the data is to be collected and reported, among other factors. (See “Clear and Common Expectations.)

Presenting, addressing and approving the concept of the government using contractor data in the program’s approved test and evaluation master plan allows the necessary acceptance by T&E stakeholders. For developmental testing, the stakeholders are the PM, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation, the Department of the Army, the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of the Army for Test and Evaluation and ATEC.

The contractor test planning must address issues identified in ATEC’s system evaluation plan to justify reducing the government’s testing.

Contractually, the PM needs to ensure that the request for proposal and the subsequent contract describe the government’s expectations for conducting contractor testing and using contractor data. The contract must allow for review and approval of contractor test plans to enable the government to provide proper guidance.

The government uses various verification techniques (e.g., test, demonstration, inspection and analysis) to ensure that the systems or items being acquired meet performance requirements and the user’s needs. The type of verification techniques and the amount of T&E needed should be part of a contractor test plan. The government must ensure that proper procedures are part of the requirements verification portion.

The contract also needs to address an ATEC inspection of any nongovernment test facilities and ATEC monitoring of test execution. ATEC needs to observe contractor testing to ensure that the system operates in the manner that Soldiers will use it.

Contractor testing typically takes two forms. One form involves the contractors testing their systems in a stressing manner that can induce failures, thus causing contractors to resist sharing their test data. The other involves the contractors treating their equipment with kid gloves because they are afraid to break it. These concerns can make the contractor reluctant to release test results to the government that show multiple failures.

Then, when the system enters government testing, which replicates how the Soldier will use the system, testing uncovers a higher number of failures. This leads to delays to make time for redesigns, manufacturing and testing to ensure contractual compliance. Depending on the technology’s maturity—the technology readiness level—high failure rates may be acceptable. But if the technology readiness level is high (e.g., greater than 6 on the standard DOD readiness scale of 1 to 9), then high failure rates could indicate poor quality or design.

In short, bad news does not get better with time. It is always best to test in a robust, realistic way to identify failures early, providing time for correction if necessary, rather than hiding them by testing in unrealistic ways that pamper the system. Well-designed systems can operate as intended and do not induce delays in testing, thus satisfying requirements and saving test time and money.

KEEPING IT REAL

All parties involved must become comfortable with the risks of realistic testing. Contractors need to overcome the resistance to share data that may be critical of their design, as this early feedback is exactly what the Army T&E community needs. The Army needs to be receptive to early discovery of issues and provide feedback to the contractor to mature the product and achieve the desired end state. Early discovery minimizes the expense of corrective actions or design changes to mature a concept.

The PM and ATEC can accept contractor data from nongovernment test facilities, but no single approved process, policy or overall guidance exists to fit every testing scenario. Audits of test sites and reviews of testing procedures and reporting requirements are necessary to assess each scenario on a case-by-case basis. In some cases in which test data already exist, ATEC will need to assess the pedigree of the data.

Combining government and contractor testing is also important in supporting reliability growth, the maturation of a system to achieve optimum reliability over its expected operating lifetime. Testing to the expected life of a system can identify “infant mortality,” or failures that occur very early in the life of a system and are associated with design shortcomings; steady-state failures, which occur randomly following the infant mortality phase; and wear-out failures, which come at the end of the life cycle.

CONCLUSION

For AMPV, delays in contractor delivery significantly impacted the scheduled test execution. But because of the efforts of the T&E integrated product team in planning the contractor testing, the government was able to simply redesignate the executed contractor testing as government testing and saved several months of schedule, preventing a milestone slippage. Had this planning and these actions not taken place, it was unlikely that the program would have maintained the planned milestone schedule.

The bottom line is that use of contractor data to address test and evaluation requirements for acquisition programs is possible, but it will require cooperation and planning by the acquisition and T&E communities. The T&E community needs more than an agreement about the testing and data. What is needed is an agreed-to process to resolve questions and answers such as in the accompanying example quickly and easily.

In such cases, the T&E community will have to face the reality that its test, although combined with that of a contractor to reduce redundancy, must actually expand in scope to deal with the problems identified. Contractor testing ends up adding things the contractor normally would not do, but the overall benefit is the potential to reduce government testing on the back end. Also, additional testing may be required to determine if a solution was addressed effectively. This acceptance is key when combined testing is necessary for the sake of overall test or schedule reductions and efficiency.

Lastly, the test community must recognize that a combined test may gather more information, with greater cost or scope, than either of the two individually planned tests, as it is collecting data for two agencies. Nonetheless, the test can still reduce overall redundancy and create efficiency compared with two completely separate tests.

With the constant goal of streamlined acquisition and exercising better buying power, the use of contractor testing, with appropriate organizational coordination and planning, is a best practice to adopt.

For more information, contact the author at 443-861-9608 or DSN: 848-9608; or at harry.h.jenkins2.civ@mail.mil.

DISCLAIMER: While this paper was coordinated with PEO GCS, the views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of PEO GCS, the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, or the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.

________________________________________

CLEAR AND COMMON EXPECTATIONS

Let’s say a fuel efficiency test requires operating a vehicle for three hours at a stable speed, on a defined road course, using defined driver procedures. During the test, a tire fails. Clearly, the test must stop to replace the tire.

However, conflicts can arise when trying to restart the test. One agency may want to change the procedure to gather more information about why the tire failed and choose not to complete the efficiency test. Another agency may want to restart the test from the beginning to ensure that it can gather the fuel efficiency data (even though a tire may fail again before completion).

To combine contractor test data with government test data, several fundamental criteria must match: decision support, the data, test procedures, test execution, reporting and test article configuration.

Decision support—Tests are planned for different reasons. Testing by the contractor supports its design, engineering and production decisions (adequacy of drawings, accuracy of output, quality, design performance, reliability, etc.), whereas government testing supports assessment ratings to meet requirements and satisfy mission capability, while also supporting risk assessments of the factors the contractor used to support its test decisions.

Combined testing from the two sources must support both organizations’ decision-making. The contractor’s decisions weigh the cost and benefit to its bottom line, which means it may benefit the contractor not to address or correct deficiencies, based on the cost. The government’s decision-making is based on a separate analysis of cost and benefit, weighing additional factors such as mission effect, attrition of equipment and loss of life.

Data—Data are defined by format, measurement, collection and system-unique requirements. To combine two sources, procedures must ensure that all four factors match and that the instrumentation can collect all data needed. This data authentication process should be relatively easy to establish: Set a standard for data and instrumentation that both agencies will use.

Test plans and procedures—Users of the data (for the AMPV, BAE Systems and, for the government, ATEC and PM AMPV) all should agree on a common test procedure and execution. Each agency has an objective to accomplish, and the test plans are tailored to meet the data and decision-making needs of all users. A single planning procedure is necessary to ensure that all decisions and data can be combined as well, so as not to mix apples and oranges. Procedures must also incorporate the decision-making process to account for test outcomes that will require modifying future steps in the test process.

Test execution—Both agencies must agree in advance what they will do while executing the testing and, most important, what they will do when testing reveals something unexpected (higher- or lower-than-expected performance, or a failure). For example, the vendor may want to demonstrate a capability such as top speed, whereas the government wants statistical assurance of the same metric, which may require more samples. Additionally, the government may want to look at the top speed as the system gets older to see how time and usage affect this capability.

Reporting—Reporting could be one of the easiest aspects to combine between organizations. But again, how data support the parties’ decisions may tailor the reporting of findings. It is possible that test planning does not have to address reporting at all, as long as there is agreement between both agencies. How is the information shared, for example? Is a formal report required, or is a briefing chart sufficient? A spreadsheet with results, or a database?

Test article configuration—This aspect should also be easy to combine. However, the reality is that configuration can change based on how the data support decisions. In particular, it may be desirable to change the configuration for design and engineering purposes, but to keep it stable or fixed for requirements and mission capability assessment.

Take software updates, a frequent example. There should be a plan as to when updates will occur. If testing reveals the need for an unplanned software update, the teams must come together to determine when to insert it into the schedule and how this unplanned “fix” impacts testing: Does it need to start from zero, or can it continue from the cut-in point? If the update adds capability, what is the impact on evaluation of the system?

_______________________________________

HARRY H. JENKINS III is an Army test and evaluation command systems chair for the Mounted Systems Evaluation Directorate of the Army Evaluation Center. He holds an M.S. in engineering management from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a B.S. in engineering from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He has 26 years’ experience in acquisition, test and evaluation and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.

Related Links:

ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV)

https://www.peogcs.army.mil/ampv-platforms.html

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Tagg LeDuc

COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: Product Manager for Virtual Training Systems; Project Manager for Training Devices; Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation
TITLE: Electronics engineer
YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 11
DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in engineering; Level I in program management
EDUCATION: B.S. in electrical engineering technology, University of Maine

 By Susan L. Follett

If you’re looking for Tagg LeDuc, don’t try calling him at lunchtime. “I believe life is too short to take anything too seriously, so making a point to take a break for lunch at a specific time is a way to maintain some semblance of control for that period where you can take a breath, decompress and relax for a bit,” said LeDuc, electronics engineer for the Product Manager for Virtual Training Systems (VTS) within the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI).

In July 2017, LeDuc and a colleague travelled to San Francisco and, as part of a larger Army group led by Brig. Gen. Maria Gervais, met with Google representatives to discuss Googles technology capacities and how they might become a player in the training and simulation world. (Photo courtesy of Tagg LeDuc)

He’s usually pretty hungry anyway, since he spends much of his free time training for triathlons and other multisport endurance events, including a 29-mile swim-run race in Switzerland and a 70.3-mile triathlon in Estonia. “The acquisition position is multifaceted, just like being a triathlete,” said LeDuc. “To deliver a quality product, you need to put time into multiple activities and you need to be able to transition quickly from one to another.”

Formerly known as the Product Manager for Ground Combat Tactical Trainers, VTS falls within PEO STRI’s Project Manager for Training Devices, which provides Soldiers realistic training environments and equipment. VTS develops, fields and provides total acquisition life cycle management for precision gunnery, driver, route clearance, air and watercraft operation; satellite control and maintenance; and virtual training systems, supporting institutional, home station and contingency operations.

LeDuc’s job “is to take the Soldier’s needs and turn them into a functional requirement in a training device,” he said. “That ensures that the Soldier is training on the most relevant training systems available, keeping them on the forefront of the fight and alive for their families.” The short version of what he does for a living? “I tell people I work on very large video games. They always want to learn more when I say that.”

The biggest challenge he faces is one he shares with many who juggle multiple projects, deadlines and shifting priorities: last-minute requests with a tight deadline. “Last-minute taskers with a short fuse require me to stop work on all other activities. It’s disruptive to ongoing projects and often has lasting schedule effects, because of the time that’s diverted from that project to accomplish the last-minute tasker or the time it takes to resume the train of thought that was happening when the interruption occurred.” How does he overcome it? “By first communicating the change in priorities to my team and then by taking actions to prevent further interruptions from occurring till the tasker is complete,” he said.

LeDuc got his start in federal acquisition in 2001. “My first job out of college was working for the Navy’s Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division in Maryland. I was there for a little over four years, doing electrical design engineering—building and troubleshooting, with most of my work in the preliminary, pre-milestone A phase of the acquisition life cycle.” He then spent a few years in the private sector before coming to PEO STRI in 2008, where he works at the other end of the acquisition life cycle. “Most of my work for [the Product Manager for] VTS is post-milestone C, putting requirements into a contracting package and monitoring the contractor to ensure that they’re meeting those requirements.”

Tagg LeDuc and his wife and race partner, Reeli Reinu, check out the venue at a swim/run event in Switzerlands Engadin Valley in 2017. (Photo courtesy of Tagg LeDuc)

LeDuc noted that he has been fortunate to have had varied assignments over the years that he has been with PEO STRI. “Each challenge builds upon the previous one, to make the next product that much better for the Soldier,” he said. Those assignments have given him opportunities to take on various degrees of program management, and that exposure “helps bring the larger picture into the light and therefore better decisions and requirements development [have] occurred,” he added.

Among the most memorable was his work on the Maritime Integrated Training Simulator program, his initial foray into programmatic exposure. “That’s where I got my feet wet with collaborating with the multiple organizations that make a program possible, including communicating with finance, contracts and management levels in my own department.” One of his most challenging assignments was his work on a foreign military sales program. “The program had limited communication and slow response times, which was a detriment to maintaining the program’s schedule.” To ensure that the schedule stayed on track, the team identified “early and upfront” the importance of maximizing all opportunities to meet with the customer to resolve questions, LeDuc said. “We also leaned heavily on our own expertise to resolve questions when we were unable to get information from the client.”

Tagg LeDuc and his wife and race partner, Reeli Reinu, are congralated by Mats Skott, race director after completing a swim/run race in Switzerland in July 2017. LeDuc and Reinu were the top finishers among American co-ed teams. (Photo courtesy of Tagg LeDuc).

LeDuc noted that each program assigned to the Product Manager for VTS “is very dynamic, and lessons learned are pushed forward to the next program. My senior program directors talk about the days when they used typewriters and the introduction of WordPerfect changed their lives. Even though I don’t have the years they may have or [haven’t seen] the drastic changes, I’ve still seen small changes here and there that ultimately drive the method in which we go about our daily tasks.”

While most of those changes have improved the way his team works, he noted that not all of them are for the better. For example, he said, “I’ve seen changes in the regulations for attending conferences, due mainly to poor behavior on the part of someone who probably no longer works for the government anyway. It’s frustrating that we’re reduced to rules that govern the behavior of the worst employee, and it’s a detriment that we can no longer attend conferences—they provide a great opportunity for inspiration and problem-solving.” Industry days fill that gap, he noted, but often focus on finding solutions to a specific challenge. “A broader focus—on solving tomorrow’s problems—that’s where innovation comes from.”

Despite those challenges, he said, his work for PEO STRI has given him some great opportunities: travel to several countries, as well as “the chance to meet and work with some pretty amazing people, and a plethora of experiences that many only read about.”

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

“Faces of the Force” is an online series highlighting members of the Army Acquisition Workforce through the power of individual stories. Profiles are produced by the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center Communication and Support Branch, working closely with public affairs officers to feature Soldiers and civilians serving in various AL&T disciplines. For more information, or to nominate someone, please contact 703-664-5635.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

THEN & NOW

1970, 2018

Burns are among the nastiest wounds a person can experience, and the Army’s Burn Center has been working for more than 70 years to develop treatments that speed healing and recovery.

by Ms. Jacqueline M. Hames

A Soldier sustains devastating third-degree burns over 70 percent of her body when her Humvee is hit with an improvised explosive device. Her excruciating injuries leave her at risk for infection, terrible scarring and death. After being stabilized in the field, she is medically evacuated to the Army’s closest burn center, where highly trained surgeons treat her wounds, ensuring that she is protected from infection and organ failure. There, they can even give her brand-new skin to replace what was lost.

This is the future of Army burn treatment at the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research Burn Center at Joint Base San Antonio – Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

Renowned worldwide in 1970 for its cutting-edge treatment of thermal injuries—burns—the Burn Center proved the efficacy of a new burn cream, pioneered wound treatment and perfected skin grafts by that year, its 25th anniversary. Now entering its 73rd year, the Burn Center has not only maintained its reputation but continues to innovate with new skin substitutes and replacements, resuscitation techniques and inhalation injury mitigation.

To avoid giving burn patients too much intravenous fluid, which can create swelling that can cause life- or limb-threatening complications, the Burn Center developed Burn Navigator, manufactured by Arcos Medical Inc. The bedside computer helps guide resuscitation in burn patients. (U.S. Army photo)

BURN BUTTER

The antimicrobial burn cream Sulfamylon was introduced in January 1964, said Dr. Leopoldo C. Cancio, director of the Burn Center. The sulfonamide drug family, of which Sulfamylon is a member, is used to treat bacterial infections like bronchitis, eye infections and bacterial meningitis. That family of drugs has been around for decades, and the active ingredient in Sulfamylon, mafenide acetate, was not new. But using it as a cream to prevent infections in burn wounds was.

“Surgical Research Institute Enters 25th Year of Burns Research,” a February 1970 article in Army Research and Development Newsmagazine, the predecessor to this magazine, detailed how, after extensive laboratory study, investigators at the Burn Center put the drug into a water-soluble white cream to be applied topically to burned areas.

“That is the compound which that article refers to as ‘burn butter,’ and it is used to this day for the treatment of burn wounds,” Cancio said. “Since then, there have been a lot of other products that have come out and that we use for burn wounds treatment, but Sulfamylon was really the first and foremost of those treatments.”

In the 1940s and ’50s, an otherwise healthy adult with burns over 40 percent of his body had a 50-50 chance of surviving, said Dr. Basil A. Pruitt, former commander and director of the Burn Center. The survival rate improved by 1970; that year Pruitt, then a lieutenant colonel, told reporters that Sulfamylon successfully prevented infection in second- and third-degree burns covering up to 60 percent of the body, and reduced the bacteria count in burn wounds more effectively than any other known topical application.

“Today, if you have an 80 percent burn, you have a 50-50 chance of living or dying, and that’s real progress,” Pruitt continued. “That’s statistically documentable progress.” The medical staff at the Burn Center is responsible for that progress.

TREATMENT AND CARE

The delayed approach to surgery at the Burn Center in the 1970s meant leaving a burn wound open and debriding it—removing dead, damaged or infected tissue—daily in hydrotherapy to prepare the patient for a graft. While that approach was sound, it still left patients open to the risk of infection, even when Sulfamylon was applied.

“We don’t do that anymore,” Cancio said. Now, the center performs excision—the surgical removal of dead tissue—as soon as possible, especially if the patient has deep wounds, before grafting with the patient’s own skin or a homograft—donor skin.

Speed of care is a key factor with burn wounds, Pruitt said. If burned and dead tissue remains on the patient, it not only can increase the risk of infection, but also increase the amount of scarring that could occur, particularly if the wounds are deep. “You take it off, it limits any extension of tissue destruction by any invasive bacteria,” he said.

Another key factor in burn care is the patient’s ability to heal. Accelerating wound healing, particularly in patients with extensive wounds, is a goal of the Burn Center. Two future technologies, ReCell and StrataGraft, are closest to accelerating healing, Cancio said.

“ReCell is a technology in which we take a small biopsy of the patient’s normal skin, we scrape off the epidermal cells from that biopsy, we dilute them in a solution and we spray it onto the freshly excised wound bed. And those little skin cells grow and populate the wound bed and replace it with skin. So, sometimes ReCell is referred to as spray-on skin,” he said.

ReCell has completed Phase III clinical trials, meaning that the Burn Center is waiting to hear from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the manufacturing company that the product is available for purchase and, therefore, clinical use. “As I understand, that will happen pretty soon,” Cancio said.

StrataGraft is a ready-made, off-the-shelf skin substitute comprising two layers. One layer is an epidermal component—the outermost layer—and the other layer is a dermal component, the layer of tough connective tissue beneath the surface. “The epidermal component is derived from an immunologically privileged epidermis from neonates called NIKS cells. Those cells will not be immunologically rejected by the patient, unlike every other type of skin we might transplant from somebody else to a patient,” Cancio said.

NIKS, or near-diploid immortalized keratinocyte skin, is made with keratinocytes, cells that make up the vast majority of natural human skin and primarily protect skin from environmental damage, like bacteria.

NIKS cells used in the StrataGraft treatment “are basically a special type of skin cell that comes from somebody else and we put them on the patient’s excised wound bed and, ideally, this technology will go ahead and become part of the patient. And then over time, the patient’s own skin cells will grow into the product and replace the epidermal cells from somebody else with the patient’s own cells,” Cancio said.

StrataGraft is still in clinical trials, Cancio said. The Burn Center is participating in two of those trials; one to evaluate the product in patients with partial-thickness (second-degree) burns and another to evaluate the product in patients with full-thickness (third-degree) burns.

The Burn Center participated in the clinical trials of ReCell, a technology that deconstructs a small biopsy of a patient’s skin and dilutes it in a solution that can then be sprayed onto a wound. From there, the patient’s skin cells will populate the wound and regrow skin. (U.S. Army photo)

UNIVERSAL MODEL

The Burn Center has expanded its mission in the decades since 1970, from focusing almost exclusively on burns to encompassing many aspects of mechanical trauma as well as burn injuries.

“In a very real sense, the burn patient is the universal trauma model,” Pruitt said. “That is, everything that happens in the burn patient, in terms of organ system dysfunction, pretty much happens in mechanical trauma patients.” Patients who are shot, for example, experience the same changes that burn patients experience, except that mechanical trauma patients’ experiences are accelerated, causing life-threatening changes at a faster rate.

“So, the mission of the unit has expanded to include all of trauma, including combat injury patients, and it has, in the last several years, become the center of combat casualty care research by the integration of all three military services, Army, Navy and Air Force,” he said.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 mandated that the primary mission of the military health system is readiness, Cancio said. The center continuously brings in medical personnel from all over the armed services for team training. “We believe that this burn center contributes significantly to training people to be prepared to deploy to the combat zone and take care of severely injured patients,” he said.

The complexity of burn care is not just restricted to a skin problem. Major burns impact all organs and systems of the body, Cancio said, from the psychological, to the heart, lungs, kidneys and the patient’s ability to function from a physical and occupational therapy standpoint. “All those organ systems are affected by burn injury, so whether you’re a critical care nurse, a surgeon, whether you’re an occupational physical therapist or another therapist, respiratory therapist, you get excellent exposure to very critically ill patients at this Burn Center, so we feel that our training mission has only intensified with the publication of a mandate to focus on readiness,” Cancio said.

In recent years, the Burn Center hosted eight Japanese doctors who have gone on to be prominent burn surgeons and trauma surgeons in their home country, Pruitt said. Two Belgian army surgeons came to study, staying for six months each. The center also hosted the surgeon general of Norway, he said.

CONCLUSION

Pruitt, who retired from the Burn Center as a colonel after 27 years there, still teaches surgery at the Burn Center one day a week. He is particularly interested in the research and clinical studies the center has expanded into, such as the proper amount of resuscitation (intravenous) fluid for patients, computer-guided resuscitation and the mitigation of inhalation injury. Cancio is active in the management of the inhalation injury and computer-guided resuscitation programs.

During the early parts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, medical staff at the Burn Center noticed some burn patients were receiving too much resuscitation fluid in the first 24 to 48 hours after injury, Cancio said. The fluid is required to replace ongoing losses to the injured tissue and elsewhere in the body. “Some patients received a quarter of their body weight in saltwater over one day. When this fluid leaks into the arms, legs or abdomen, too much swelling can cause life- or limb-threatening problems,” he said.

To help avoid over-resuscitation and better guide resuscitation decisions, the Burn Center developed a computer called Burn Navigator, manufactured by Arcos Medical Inc. of Houston. “This product made it through the Army product acquisition process for use in battlefield medical treatment facilities and is also available commercially around the world,” Cancio said.

Combat casualties in the same wars experienced smoke inhalation injury rates that were twice as high as those in civilian burn centers because of the use of improvised explosive devices on personnel in vehicles. “To improve the care of patients with these and other severe lung injuries, the Army Burn Center became the home of a new program in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” he said. ECMO uses a pump to circulate blood through an artificial lung, removing carbon dioxide and oxygenating blood cells, which reduces the stress on the patients’ organs and helps them heal.

Cancio is quick to say that much has happened in the years since the publishing of the 1970 article and that there are many good burn centers across the country and worldwide; however, “many of the directors of burn centers across the U.S. in fact trained at this burn center throughout the period of time both before and after the article was written, and I think that’s one of the big contributions of this burn center to the quality of burn care. It didn’t just stay at one center, but it extended to other places through the training efforts of our predecessors,” he said.

Pruitt believes the Burn Center has had a demonstrable effect on the survival of many burn patients who otherwise would have died without the advances in clinical care and research the Burn Center provided over the years. In conventional warfare, particularly if there are lots of armored fighting vehicles, the number of burns ranges from one in 20 to one in five casualties, Pruitt said. “That’s why the Army has a real reason to continue to be the leader in burn and trauma research … the high incidence of burn injury as related to the type of warfare involved is a real reason for maintaining the support of the Institute of Surgical Research and Burn Center.”

For more information, go to http://www.usaisr.amedd.army.mil/12_burncenter.html.

 JACQUELINE M. HAMES is a writer and editor with Army AL&T magazine. She holds a B.A. in creative writing from Christopher Newport University. She has more than 10 years of experience writing and editing for the military, with seven of those years spent producing news and feature articles for publication.

Related Links 

AVITA Medical Announces Presentation of RECELL Device Clinical Trial Results, BusinessWire, June 26, 2018: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180626006659/en/AVITA-Medical-Announces-Presentation-RECELL%C2%AE-Device-Clinical

StrataGraft Skin Tissue in the Promotion of Autologous Skin Regeneration of Complex Skin Defects Due to Thermal Burns That Contain Intact Dermal Elements, U.S. National Library of Medicine: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03005106?term=stratagraft&rank=3

American Burn Association: http://ameriburn.org/who-we-are/governance/

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

That’s it—just five minutes. Click on over to https://www.cvent.com/d/wbqs2z and complete the Army AL&T magazine reader survey.

“Our reader survey is the ultimate quality check,” said Steve Stark, senior editor of Army AL&T, “because the response tells us how well we’re doing.” The magazine “is unique because nearly all of the articles are written not by writers but by readers who are expert in some acquisition field. But the audience is diverse—the acquisition workforce, but also Capitol Hill, industry and other stakeholders.”

“Surveys help us make sure that we’re covering what our audience needs,” he said. “We’re fortunate to have an amazing editorial staff that does its best to keep abreast of what’s going on in Army acquisition. But it’s a small staff with a small budget. That makes the insight we get from the survey, which we do every two years, so invaluable. We’ve got a smart audience and they respond with genuine insight.”

The survey runs until Nov. 2 and is completely anonymous. Results will be included in the January – March 2019 issue of the magazine and will be used to develop new features and themes for subsequent issues.

“There are roughly 40,000 members of the Army Acquisition Workforce—enough to fill Fenway Park,” said Stark. “So if we can harness that knowledge, we can continue to provide a publication with the information they need to help them do their jobs better.”

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

Been There, Done That

Modeling and simulation is a PM’s friend.

by John T. Dillard, Col., USA (Ret.)

One thing I always felt pretty confident about during my acquisition career was the ability to see the obvious. That may not sound like much, but believe it or not, you’ll encounter a lot of people who don’t have this skill. However, seeing the unobvious … Ah, now that was the ability of only clairvoyants and psychics, I thought.

But guess what: The right investment by the program manager (PM) in modeling and simulation (M&S) can help you do just that. How can this be? After all, the primary weakness of all models is the same as their strength—simplicity.

Seems a real balancing act. Philosopher William of Ockham (see Ockham’s Razor, or Occam’s Razor) advised us to keep things as simple as we can. Einstein voiced the same caveat with, “Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” It was mathematician Norbert Wiener who said, “The best model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat,” while statistician George Box advised, “Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

These fellows weren’t telling us not to model or simulate. They were simply warning us against excessive elaboration or build-out when modeling or simulating a product or system, since no system can be exactly represented by a simpler model.

So, how can a model that is not too complex and not too simple give us additional information we need to make technical or financial decisions?

I’ll provide some examples. But you should know upfront that modeling and simulation can support you in your management decisions through all phases of the acquisition life cycle. In the main, M&S will likely do this by reducing your sample size of test articles, saving you money, as well as providing early discovery of technical anomalies. And yes, just like the modeling and simulation evangelists tell us, M&S will help you reduce time and risk as well, while increasing the quality and readiness of the fielded system.

Those are the expected payoffs to your investment. Still have some doubts? I don’t blame you.

Sgt. Nicholas Maxim, acting as a member of the opposing force, builds and launches a simulated drone swarm during Exercise Dynamic Front 18 at the Joint Multinational Simulations Center, Grafenwoehr, Germany, in March. The right investments in modeling and simulation can save program managers money and time by turning up anomalies and problems early. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Kathleen V. Polanco, 7th Army Training Command)

QUANTIFYING THE UNKNOWNS

There are any number of models across various knowledge domains: cost or financial models, models for spare parts and usage of consumables and, of course, the technical components of your developing system. Focusing herein mostly on the latter, it often became apparent to me how many “unknown unknowns” were always lurking out there during any particular phase of development.

It is often said that complexity is best defined as many, different, interconnected parts and their interactions. A key component of complexity is the uncertainty of those interactions, and that’s where modeling and simulation gives us a hand. If we build our models right, with just enough granularity or detail, these efforts can actually save us from some misery.

We’re probably all familiar with flight simulators, helping to train pilots in the operation of their systems. But along the development path, we have no finished system to emulate or simulate. So that’s when the benefit of M&S can seem a little vague. And when you’re having trouble achieving some key performance parameter, the last thing you want to hear is that more research, development, test and engineering (RDT&E) money is needed for some model when you know that even the actual system probably doesn’t have enough funding. We have to see our investment in M&S as a risk-handling technique, since the worst we can do is proceed into uncertainty with a ready-fire-aim approach.

For example, during development of the Javelin anti-tank missile, engineers were uncertain as to whether the early design of the gimbaled seeker (the rotating assembly up front of the missile that “sees” the target) would be able to hold on to the target view throughout its climbing and diving flight pattern for autonomous top attack. Using a scale model of the eventual missile’s front end, the engineers literally mounted a gimbaled seeker contraption on the skids of a helicopter and flew a simulated path to determine whether there were enough degrees of freedom for the seeker’s movement.

It might have been an extra expenditure of funds not anticipated. But it was the best approach before having a finished missile to integrate, allowing the project team to go forward with design of other components.

And during the downrange initial operational test of the Army Tactical Missile System, when the very first of only 15 missiles to be fired didn’t hit the target and was scored a failure, it was our “hardware-in-the-loop” software model back at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, that told us it flew right where it was supposed to—but had the wrong targeting data for the gunners to input.

History is replete with examples of people who failed to adequately model before they began construction, including the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse of 1940 (unexpectedly swaying wildly in the wind and recorded on film), and the retrofitting of Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah Island in 2009, with breakwater crescent openings (a bit of an afterthought) to prevent internal water stagnation. The problem is no different with weapon systems.

M&S THROUGH THE WICKETS

During the materiel solutions analysis phase of the acquisition process, it’s common for PMs to invest in force-on-force modeling to predict combat value using key performance parameters of the new system. Other concept studies include such modeling to aid the analysis of alternatives effort.

Later on, during technology maturation and risk reduction, our prototypes will be early design models to demonstrate technology readiness levels and reduce risk by means of technical and operational discoveries during simulations. M&S efforts during both of these phases inform us as well as the user community.

With uncertainty resolving over time, we enter the engineering and manufacturing development phase, where M&S investments are still required as we learn more about our more mature “engineering design models.” Computer-assisted design and manufacturing are invaluable as we refine requirements and design while using developmental testing to validate maturing models. These operational models also help us better realize the logistical support plans that previously had been conceptual.

At this point there is likely a divergence of models: the real-world mission kind (test articles) that can fly, roll or swim throughout the multidomain battlefield, and the hardware (and software)-in-the-loop models. The latter are typically being run within computers to predict performance in a huge variety of conditions and scenarios via Monte Carlo simulations (multivariate probability distributions).

Both serve to inform project stakeholders, especially you, the PM. Often, we have to cut a deal with the operational testers to let us use something less than a full-up system for destructive testing. No sense firing a .50-caliber machine gun at a nuclear submarine—just use a panel (skin) from the side of one. (Sound crazy? Just read the account in “The Pentagon Wars” of the time some folks wanted to fire a tank main gun round at a combat-loaded Bradley Fighting Vehicle, just to see what would happen.) PMs must negotiate the use of models instead, to reduce the costs of test articles.

Army Reserve Soldiers Sgt. Cheng Thoa, left, and Sgt. Shawn Christensen with the 353rd Transportation Company out of Buffalo, Minnesota practice convoy operations on a virtual battlespace simulator on Fort McCoy, Wisconsin Aug. 7. (U.S. Army Reserve Photo by Staff Sgt. Anaidy G. Claudio)

SAVE THE BACON

Another bacon-saving episode—in this case, in the evolution of the Javelin missile project—was an engineering and manufacturing development field simulation that we felt would probably be more to satisfy bureaucrats’ demands than to learn anything new about our system. How wrong we were! With immature models and prototypical hardware and software, we found out unequivocally that our FLIR (forward-looking infrared) sensor sensitivity specification was validated—and there would thus be zero room for design trades on that aspect of the system.

With the production and deployment phase drawing near, and as stereolithography technology is advancing now to 3D printing, output models will still be used to prove out production planning and manufacturing processes using factory simulations. Low-rate initial production test articles will no longer be models, but production-representative—the real thing. And, as with the example above of the Army Tactical Missile System initial operational test and evaluation, M&S can still save the day by revising the test score as successful that was initially thought to be a failure. In that same three-month major operational test event on the very eve of system deployment to the Persian Gulf War, we were able to use over 1,000 simulated fire missions, done solely by computer model, to convince testers and other stakeholders to support the full-rate production decision.

Of course, during the operations and support phase we will be getting user feedback to help us elaborate evolving ideas for more capability through modifications, tech insertion and so on. Here again, logistical support tracking, reliability, failure modes and corrective analysis will be accomplished by rigorous configuration management, at the heart of which are recorded design drawings that model the actual thing being in the hands of users. And, of course, the training simulators are the devices we have developed in parallel to help users gain proficiency before actual use.

Spc. Olivia Silver, assigned to 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division scans for targets at the Gunfighter Gymnasium shooting simulation drill during the 2018 European Best Warrior Competition held at the 7th Army Training Command’s Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, Aug. 13, 2018. Competition winners will be announced for this year’s top junior officer, noncommissioned officer and Soldier during a concluding ceremony scheduled for Aug. 17, 2018. (U.S. Army photo by Kevin S. Abel)

CONCLUSION

So, without having to read a bunch of training material with boring terminology extolling the values of simulation-based acquisition, you have here what I hope is a convincing argument to make the investment when that open hand comes to you for M&S money. If done right, it’s going to help you see the unobvious before disaster strikes—and save you time and money as well. M&S will do that principally by making it possible to reduce test article sample size and discover anomalies early. I guarantee it.

It also falls upon you to continue beyond the initial investment throughout the life cycle and keep elaborating your model of the actual system. How much you are able to apportion to whom will be a difficult trade, as there never seems to be enough RDT&E money to go around, even for the actual system effort underway. How thoroughly to build out your model will also be a tough financial and technical trade. This is the stuff management is made of—having to make those decisions about resource allocation, not knowing how much they’re going to pay off. Your systems engineers and other technical folks can help here.

But make no mistake—if accomplished to the right degree, M&S will make it possible to tease out things to furnish the information you need. It might just save the day.

For more information, email the author at jdillard@nps.edu.

JOHN T. DILLARD, COL., USA (RET.), managed major weapons development efforts for most of his 26-year career in the U.S. Army. He is now a senior lecturer in the Systems Engineering Department of the Graduate School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, where he also serves as the technical representative for the Army’s new Master of Science programs in Systems Engineering Management.

This article will be published in the October – December 2018 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe