Military catastrophes teach IDEAL students about strategic planning and leadership.

by Debra Valine

Desert One, the 1980 attempt to rescue 52 American hostages in Iran, failed. America’s Delta Force, formed just three years earlier, lost eight men, seven helicopters and a C-130.

Task Force Smith, the first U.S. Army ground maneuver unit to enter combat in Korea, in July 1950, was supposed to be a show of strength to delay North Korean troops advancing near Osan.  Some 150 American infantrymen were killed, wounded or missing. The North Koreans were delayed only seven hours.

In Tunisia’s Kasserine Pass, the U.S. Army experienced defeat in its first engagement with German troops during World War II. German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and his Afrika Korps broke through an Allied defensive position Feb. 20, 1943, killing more than 1,000 American troops and taking hundreds of prisoners.

Robert Moore, deputy to the commanding general of the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC), used these examples to illustrate the need for strategic planning and leadership, during the Army Acquisition Workforce’s Inspiring and Developing Excellence in Acquisition Leaders (IDEAL) course Aug. 31 at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The six-month course, designed for Army civilians at GS-11 through GS-13, prepares participants to lead people and teams effectively.

Moore spoke to 31 workforce members during the course, explaining that the lessons learned from those three events show that strategic planning and better preparation would have helped to successfully accomplish the missions.

“All the things you have been studying are caught up in these three events,” Moore said. As strategic planners looking at the current fight (now – 2025), the next fight (2026 – 2035) and the future fight (2036 – 2050), use lessons learned from these events to help make sure those kinds of things do not happen again, he advised.

He used USASAC as an example of the importance of building a team, walking the class through the USASAC hierarchy and the worldwide partners it takes for the foreign military sales mission to succeed. USASAC, a subordinate command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, develops and manages all foreign military sales and security assistance programs for the Army, to build partner capacity, support combatant command engagement strategies and strengthen U.S. partnerships.

“As a leader, you are a team of teams,” Moore said. “You do not do this by yourself. As you work and plan, it is about bringing your team together. You have to look at where you are today and where you want to be tomorrow. As you plan, it has to be a collaborative effort. There has to be a culture of trust, teamwork and partnerships.”

Moore reminded the group of the importance of the Army values and the Army Civilian Corps Creed. “These are not new to you. I know you have seen them before. These are values to instill in employees, personal traits to which all employees should aspire and a code of conduct to follow; it’s about doing the right thing.”

There are various attributes of leaders, he said:

• Seers—Individuals who are “living in the future,” who possess a compelling vision of “what could be.”
• Architects—Those who are adept at building systems that elicit contribution and facilitate collaboration.
• Connectors—Those with a gift for spotting the “combinational chemistry” between ideas and individuals.
• Mentors—Those who give power away rather than hoard it.
• Guardians—Vigilant defenders of core values and enemies of expediency.
• Bushwhackers—Those who clear the trail for new ideas and initiatives by chopping away at the undergrowth of bureaucracy.

Moore gave some tips for senior leaders, starting with instituting a reading program to enhance leadership skills and maintain currency in functional areas. He recommended a few of his personal favorites: “The Hard Hat,” by Jon Gordon; “Start with Why,” by Simon Sinek; and “Make Your Bed,” by Adm. William H. McRaven.

Other tips include: “Focus on the objective, not the obstacles,” he said. “Incentivize organizational objectives. Understand what is going on with areas of operation, but engage at your level and above. Build relationships and networks. Don’t accept the status quo. How can that process, operation, etc., be improved? Be ruthless in managing your time. Don’t confuse activity with results, be at crucial meetings and briefings, and don’t get captured by the trivial. And think, ‘What’s good for the Army,’ versus ‘What’s good for me.’ ”

One of the challenges Moore said he had to overcome as a leader was confidence in himself. “You have to believe you can do it.”

For more information, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/programs/inspiring-and-developing-excellence-in-acquisition-leaders-ideal/.

DEBRA VALINE is a public affairs specialist with PROJECTXYZ Inc., working in the Command Information Office of USASAC at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Previously, she was the chief of public affairs for the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville. She holds a B.S. in psychology from the University of Maryland, University College.

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Bell’s experience with the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator shows the effectiveness of government-industry collaboration to deliver advanced technologies to the warfighter—and points out ways that such partnerships could be even stronger.

by Mitch Snyder

“The Army of 2028 will be ready to deploy, fight, and win decisively against any adversary, anytime and anywhere, in a joint, multidomain, high-intensity conflict, while simultaneously deterring others and maintaining its ability to conduct irregular warfare.”

U.S. Army Vision

An ever-changing landscape and rapidly evolving technologies make it vitally important for industry and government to work together to deliver game-changing capabilities to our military quickly and efficiently.

Conceptually it’s simple: Government and industry need to have a shared vision, collaborate and better use acquisition tools.

Although this appears to be challenging, Bell has a strong public-private partnership that proves it is possible.

Imagine progressing from a clean-sheet design for an affordable and reliable aircraft with twice the speed of legacy aircraft and three times the range to flying this high-performance aircraft in six years. Our experience working on the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) is an example of how an effective partnership between industry and the government can bring technologies into reach faster. Bell, its partners on Team Valor and the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center have worked side by side to design and develop the V-280 Valor. Dec. 18, 2018, marked one year of sustained flight and testing for the V-280, proving it can deliver overmatch potential at a sustainable cost.

As the conflicts our military encounters are increasingly complex and dynamic, we need to capitalize on the lessons learned from rapid-advancement programs like the JMR-TD to modernize our forces. The modernization process should leverage commercial innovations, warfighter feedback, prototyping and cutting-edge science.

FROM PROGRAM TO ACTUAL CAPABILITIES

There is clear willingness on all sides to move out aggressively to make sure our military retains the means to deter or defeat any adversary. Army leadership is fostering a renewed culture of innovation and smart risk-taking with the establishment of the U.S. Army Futures Command and cross-functional teams aligned with the Army’s modernization priorities. The strategy has one focus: to make troops and units more lethal to deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars.

Our industry is constantly looking at new ways to turn technology and engineering prowess into solutions for our national security challenges. We have the innovative thinkers, technical know-how and a highly trained workforce ready to compete for funding, once we know the requirements.

The participants in the JMR-TD program work in an environment of cooperation, shared vision and shared risk. There is also a commitment by industry to use its own funds to ensure success.

We were able to learn from more than 400,000 operational flight hours on our fleet of V-22 Ospreys, allowing us to rapidly develop and mature technology for the V-280. The results are an aircraft with suitability characteristics (reliability, maintainability, logistics supportability) that are as outstanding as its effectiveness and survivability characteristics (range, speed, payload, invulnerability, crashworthiness). The V-280 Valor is affordable to acquire and maintain while still delivering exceptional capabilities, such as twice the speed and range of a legacy rotorcraft. It also uses open systems architecture—a statutory requirement for new DOD programs.

The challenge on both sides is how to make the acquisition process more of an enabler. It should be more open and collaborative. Instead, it is still a sequence of verification steps that isn’t agile enough to keep up with the speed at which industry can move, nor with how fast our military needs the equipment. Agile acquisition entails clear and concise high-level requirements, (partially) funded prototyping and a transition plan to turn experimentation into programs.

Bell’s V-280 in the JMR-TD effort accomplished the first steps by taking an identified gap in warfighter capability, investing industry and government funds at a 5-1 ratio to rapidly develop and mature technology, and creating a flying aircraft that delivers twice the range and speed of legacy rotorcraft. The Army should take credit for technology maturation achieved under this effort by determining a similarly innovative acquisition path to deliver a revolutionary capability for warfighters at a sustainable cost and years ahead of current schedule projections.

CONCLUSION

The current Army leadership is battle-tested. It knows how to guarantee our nation’s security. Our military is looking for innovative ideas and capabilities that match its unique circumstances, and it is our responsibility as an industry to equip the warfighter today with the tools of tomorrow.

The Army has a thoughtful path to modernize. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Futures Command to streamline processes, unleashing the power and creativity of the Army and industry together.

To turn this potential into programs of record, the government must act quickly with industry to recognize the significant advances in technology, clearly define the final operational requirements, define an acquisition path that avoids unnecessary duplication and apply funding.

Smart investments are those that deliver game-changing capability with room for future improvements, without breaking the budget.

We fully support the Army as it refines and executes the plan to meet security challenges with smart, bold acquisition and modernization reforms. Our partnership of industry and government is working well. If properly executed, this partnership will deliver capability to warfighters at a sustainable cost, years ahead of current schedule projections.

For more information, go to https://www.bellflight.com/military/bell-v-280 or contact Michael Reilly, senior public affairs specialist, at mreilly@bellflight.com.

MITCH SNYDER is president and chief executive officer of Bell. Before being named CEO in October 2015, he was executive vice president of military business, responsible for providing strategic direction, overall management and performance for all of Bell’s government programs. He spearheaded several of the company’s most significant initiatives, including the V-22 program, and led the manufacturing centers. Before joining Bell, he held several senior leadership positions at Lockheed Martin Corp. in engineering, business development, manufacturing and program management. He worked with customers throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Kansas State University, where he is an alumni fellow and Hall of Fame inductee selected for his distinguished service throughout his career in industry.

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

The Army teams NVESD with General Micro Systems to put multifunction video display at all crew stations inside the MRAP mine-clearing vehicle.

by Chris A. Ciufo

Keeping U.S. warfighters prepared on the battlefield, at sea or in the sky is highly complex, requiring DOD to work with outside contractors to procure hundreds if not thousands of systems to effectively meet its needs. These top-tier prime contractors then team with myriad subcontractors to help complete the work. For more than 35 years, General Micro Systems (GMS) was one of those subcontractors, helping to build rugged, high-density, high-performance, conduction-cooled computing systems for military applications.

That changed in 2017, with the U.S. Army awarding GMS its first prime contract (then worth $88 million over three years) to supply powerful, rugged server and display systems for the multifunction video display (MVD) software the Army had created. The goal was to offer complete visibility within Medium Mine Protected Vehicles (MMPV) Type II by integrating full-motion video from all sources at all vehicle crew stations into a single, unified user interface on each display.

This story actually started years before GMS won the contract. The company received a referral to a lab—the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) within the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center—that thought GMS might provide prototype hardware for software the Army had developed as a way of providing a consistent user interface to the displays in the MMPV Type II. With decades of experience working with the Army as a subcontractor and trusted adviser, GMS helped NVESD create a demonstration system that proved the lab’s concept. (The initial design story was told in “Many Eyes, Same Picture,” in the July – September 2015 issue of Army AL&T magazine, page 114.)

Now, more than three years later, we can look more closely at the relationship between the Army and GMS that made this project a success. The experience has been eye-opening and demonstrates how effective technology partnerships benefit all stakeholders—including the warfighters whose lives are on the line.

THE INITIAL DESIGN

The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) family of vehicles, which includes the MMVP Type II, provides Soldiers with highly survivable, multimission platforms capable of mitigating improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades, explosively formed penetrators, underbody mines and small arms fire threats, which produce the greatest number of casualties in overseas contingency operations. However, earlier versions of the vehicles had disparate systems for each vehicle operator or combat engineer, such as the driver, the second-seat operator for night vision, the gunner who controls the remote turret gun, and other operators managing various functions of the MMVP Type II, sensors, interrogation arm and a semiautonomous robot. Each crew member has a separate mission, which meant that no crew member had access to what the others were seeing and operating. If one were incapacitated for any reason, the others could not take over that person’s role without leaving their own console. As well, each user interface was specific to that station—meaning that another crew member might not immediately be able to operate another’s console interface when needed.

By moving from disparate systems on the platform for each operator in the MMVP Type II vehicle, each could work at his or her crew station with access to all of the sensors on the vehicle, including video sensors and even the tactical Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System. With the MVD software presenting a consistent, modular user interface to all crew stations, any operator can perform the functions of or get access to the functions of any other crew station. (See Figure 1, Page xx.) This helps balance workload and increases situational awareness, as additional eyes can see each video feed and sensor input on any display.

CONNECTING THE SYSTEMS

These kinds of modern military systems present significant challenges. To make the MVD system possible requires networked, high-performance, interconnected smart display systems, sensors, video processors and a server mounted inside the MMVP Type II vehicles on which to run the Army-created software. This software is hardware-independent and uses a modular, plug-in-based VICTORY-conformant Army architecture—meaning new enabler systems can be added without modifying the existing code. One goal was eliminating the stovepiped nature of individual systems that do not interoperate or intercommunicate.

The first challenge was technical. Traditionally, disparate systems come from different contractors and, almost by definition, are not interoperable. For many reasons, including bidding, contract and development times, military systems are typically deployed using computer technology that is one or two (or more) generations behind what is offered in current consumer devices. This MVD application, however, required the processing of extremely high volumes of video encoded as data messages with very minimal delay (low-latency processing), which demanded the best-available and latest-generation technology from the civilian world. For example, servers running Intel’s latest processors were needed; however, they are not battle-hardened.

From the operator’s standpoint, delays of as little as a single video frame from when something happens outside the vehicle to when it’s displayed on the user interface can cause motion sickness, because the images lag behind what the operator’s body is feeling in the vehicle. That meant the technology required to take input from the sensors, process it and then display it on the networked crew workstations in near-real time demanded today’s highest-performance digital signal processing capabilities.

ENTER GMS

Another challenge for this MVD program was an extremely tight budget. If it couldn’t be completed within the budget, it wouldn’t happen—leaving warfighters without advanced mine-clearing capabilities. As described in the previously referenced article, NVESD decided that using multiple vendors for different system components made hitting the budget target impossible. In addition, it seemed likely that using the traditional subcontractor-prime contractor mechanism would add unnecessary cost. The only way this project could be completed within budget was to have one vendor supply all the necessary hardware components and also informally advise on the system integration architecture.

NVESD had several hardware choices to complete the original prototype—from a rackmount server to a rugged workstation. With funding for a commercial off-the-shelf upfront design and improved in-vehicle architecture, GMS provided a proof-of-concept version of its rugged, conduction-cooled server while helping the Army decide that converting the sensor data to video-over-Internet Protocol packets on a network was a scalable approach to the system problem.

As the Army demonstrated the system for early feedback, requirements evolved, and GMS was able to add more capability and expand functionality, ultimately helping complete the initial proof-of-concept program on budget.

EARLY DEVELOPMENT PHASE

As the program evolved from concept phase and through multiple early demonstrations, the company and NVESD began working more on the remaining design challenges. This included transitioning each of the system components from laboratory-grade prototypes to full military-standard, conduction-cooled, production components capable of operating at minimal cost in the extreme environments of the MMVP Type II. Performance requirements also evolved, and as GMS migrated its standard product servers from one generation to the next in response to market conditions, the MVD system was able to take advantage of those gains while still using GMS commercially available, rugged off-the-shelf hardware.

As GMS evolved its hardware, the Army continued writing its own software while preparing for the eventual integration into the vehicle, a process typically left to a prime contractor. At some point in the program’s evolution, the Army had decided that not only would the addition of a traditional prime contractor add unnecessary expense to the program (and likely push it out of budget), but that it would be the Army that integrated and installed the MVD system into MMVP Type II vehicles.

From that point, the Army, following protocol, put the design out for bid in its usual process. While competitors to GMS were considered—weighing factors such as lead time, price, performance and decades of building similar rugged, high-density, high-performance conduction-cooled systems—in every case, NVESD determined that the GMS system was the best choice and awarded GMS the prime contract in an open competition. Instead of working through a prime—which would have added cost—making GMS the prime contractor allowed the Army to purchase complete and assembled kits with cables and final documentation. The Army would do the integration and installation into the vehicle.

Interestingly, even as the Army started the final, open bidding process, the requirements evolved again, requiring bidders and GMS to add performance into the system to meet the new requirements. For example, because the GMS architecture is modular, meaning it is built using standardized “compute engines” that can be independently implemented in different systems, GMS was able to add media converter channels and upgrade from a previous-generation Intel server processor to the Intel Xeon E5 server processor. As described earlier, military systems are typically generations behind commercial technology, but this modular approach allows GMS’ mobile battlefield server in MMVP Type II to use the same processor that is available from Apple in its latest iMac Pro series of desktop computers and can be updated when more advanced processors comes out.

CONCLUSION

The uncommon partnership—with GMS helping to design and build the systems and the Army actually creating the software and then installing it in the MMVP Type II itself—should pay great dividends over time for both the Army and GMS. The approach is already saving significant engineering and integration dollars and allowing Soldiers and service personnel to become familiar with installation, networks, servers, video and software—developing additional skills that will be valuable for them after they leave the service.

Overall, NVESD was able to bring much-needed (and current) capability to the battlefield, with mine-clearing technology that is expected to be more effective as the MMVP Type II vehicle is upgraded and deployed. And while the technology existed in the civilian market, partnering with GMS to implement its modular servers and displays enabled NVESD to bring the MVD system onto the battlefield faster, which will allow the warfighter to get the job done even better. MVD is a real-time system with the future clearly in sight, thanks to a real partnership.

CHRIS A. CIUFO is chief technology officer and vice president of product marketing at GMS. He is a veteran of the semiconductor, commercial off-the-shelf and defense industries, where he has held engineering, marketing and executive-level positions. He has published more than 100 technology-related articles. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and materials science from the University of California, Davis, and participates in defense industry organizations and consortia. 

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Advances in commercial wireless enable Army mobile tactical internet.

by Charlie Kawasaki

Our adversaries possess increasingly sophisticated communications and information technology (IT), allowing them to leverage advanced wireless technology and smartphones while actively moving in ground vehicles. They are also able to execute cyber and electronic warfare attacks in tactical settings that can cause substantial, intermittent and lasting damage to U.S. defense forces’ ability to communicate.

U.S. forces continue to advance their tactical networks to counter these emerging threats, enable new forms of maneuver and maintain integration with military IT services available stateside—all while taking advantage of rapid innovation from the commercial IT industry. Specific to network modernization, communicating securely with command-and-control and other units within the increasingly communications-reliant battlefront landscape is critical to ensure the success of the mission and the safety of warfighters. However, as the battlefield evolves and missions require units to be mobile and support myriad tactical capabilities (Wi-Fi, LTE [Long Term Evolution, a standard for high-speed wireless communication for mobile devices and data terminals], etc.), critical communications infrastructures are becoming more difficult to establish and maintain.

Additionally, innovations in the cloud, “internet of things,” sensors, robotic and autonomous systems, analytics, artificial intelligence and deep learning are driving tactical network developers to consider deploying warfighting systems that are highly reliant on high-performance computing and storage. Yet, in the face of potentially degraded communications, those resources may only be available if deployed all the way out to the individual warfighter or small teams conducting operations in austere and hostile environments, such as forward operating bases or combat vehicles—locations known as the tactical network’s edge.

Four capabilities that enable DOD and warfighters to modernize their tactical networks and maintain overmatch through communication and IT are command post mobility, secure wireless communications, cybersecurity and edge computing. Advances in mobility and secure wireless enable DOD and warfighters to quickly relocate command posts in theater and give commanders more flexibility and options to maneuver.

Edge computing enables warfighters to gain access to data and software previously available only at large data centers—including access to cloud services even when wide area network (WAN) access is down. Tactical cybersecurity solutions are increasingly important for warfighters, especially in light of increasing cyberattacks on our tactical networks.

COMMAND POST MOBILITY

U.S. Army and Marine Corps tactical networking and command post programs widely acknowledge the critical need to improve mobility. The current state of the art for tent-based command posts requires hours of setup, including thousands of feet of copper wiring, which delays network availability and results in a dangerous lack of situational awareness for commanders.

Currently, troops who jump from one location to another typically do so in phases, with tent infrastructure, generators, network servers and satellite links going up first, followed by the running of cables to provide the local area network command post support. This process translates into long delays in availability of critical information services, which, in turn, can lead to increased vulnerability of people and their systems.

Defensive postures of the past applied to a much more stationary battlefield environment. It was simply assumed that communications would be limited as warfighters moved from position to position. But technology advances by adversaries demand that our warfighters have the same secure communications experience while on-the-move as they do at-the-halt. At the same time, communications solutions must be delivered in a smaller form factor—whether to fit on the back of a Soldier or in a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.

And the fight does not stop just because you are moving. This is why defense forces need networking on-the-move capabilities. On-the-move means communications components that are smaller, ruggedized to adapt to mobility over any terrain, and reliable in the face of unanticipated conditions such as poor power sources and extreme temperatures.

In other words, situational awareness cannot wait until troops establish an at-the-halt position. Entering a dynamic tactical environment “blind” puts warfighters at a significant disadvantage, which can lead to loss of life and mission failure. There is a need to ensure that transportation vehicles and aircraft operators can communicate directly with a warfighter’s headset—and vice versa—while en route to the destination.

True mobility demands innovation and modernization designed to reduce size, weight and power requirements. Not only do dismounted Soldiers need mobility, but so does the network infrastructure to support them.

All else being equal, communications equipment can never be too small, too light or too power-efficient. In contrast to legacy data-center-style, rack-mounted equipment, new generations of equipment designed for tactical and expeditionary use are becoming available with enterprise-grade networking and security technologies.

SECURE WIRELESS

The DOD shift from wired to wireless battlefield and in-theater communications has been slowed by warfighters’ not being able to securely transmit classified information over wireless networks. Without the confidence to share classified data securely, warfighters lose situational awareness relative to adversaries who can move faster and accept more security risk. This is particularly problematic when it comes to how defense units have historically operated in tactical environments.

While it was possible in the past for warfighters to use Wi-Fi, LTE and other radio types to transmit classified data, it was prohibitively expensive and required both ends of the connection to be staffed with Soldiers cleared to take possession of classified cryptographic hardware. As a result, wireless Internet Protocol networking was primarily limited to site-to-site, WAN communications, and warfighters did not have the ability to use mobile devices for classified warfighting operations.

To enable mobility for warfighting, the National Security Agency established a program called Commercial Solutions for Classified. This program enables DOD organizations to transmit classified information using commercial-grade encryption solutions, eliminating the need for expensive, difficult-to-use classified equipment.

A new class of deployable small wireless access systems is bringing the benefits of classified wireless access to warfighters in the field, allowing warfighters to use commercial smartphones, tablets and laptops to access classified information over Wi-Fi and LTE.

CYBERSECURITY

Cyber has emerged as a new warfighting domain, and DOD is considering cyber at the same level as traditional land, sea and air warfighting domains.

Many experts believe that cyberattacks will soon have the capacity to destroy physical infrastructures and kill humans if unauthorized individuals gain access. Because of these frightening possibilities, the Marine Corps is testing deployments of cyberwarriors at the tactical edge as part of a longer-term project to incorporate cyber best practices into tactical units, thus addressing a set of threats and challenges in tactical cyber, including:

Limited visibility into cyberthreats—Cybersecurity technologies of yesterday are too large and expensive to deploy, leaving tactical networks ill-equipped with the mobility and scalability needed in a cyber warfighting environment. Without the right technologies in place, Soldiers’ views into the threat landscape can be restricted and even at times inaccurate, as real-time situational awareness of cyberthreats is impaired.

Shortage of cybersecurity skills in tactical settings—A response to cybersecurity threats on the battlefield must come in real time, as the difference between waiting hours and days versus seconds and minutes to respond could have dire consequences. Yet, the shortage of cyber specialists readily deployed and available in tactical environments makes real-time response difficult if not impossible. And even for tactical operators in the field, maintaining multiple systems can be overwhelming.

More vulnerability at the tactical networks—The electronic footprints of current tactical networks are often easy to discover, and the closeness of adversaries in battlefield environments makes it easier for communications to be intercepted, which is all the more heightened given how tactical networks are traditionally dispersed. Internal and external cyberthreats at the edge of the network challenge DOD when it comes to rapid detection and response.

EDGE COMPUTING

Innovations in the internet of things, sensors, analytics and artificial intelligence promise entirely new warfighting capabilities, serving as force multipliers and enabling new levels of situational awareness. New robotic and autonomous systems promise to reduce the number of warfighters in harm’s way, while speeding our ability to project force on the battlefront.

Advances in cloud, high-performance computing and storage are key enablers for these systems—driving tactical networks to deploy warfighting systems that rely heavily on high-performance computing and storage. But in the event of degraded long-distance communications caused by cyber and electronic warfare attacks, those computer and storage resources may only be available if deployed to the tactical network’s edge. Tactical networks need data center-like computer, networking and storage capabilities at the edge to support applications, including:

Situational awareness, mission command and command-and-control applications.

Signal and image data gathering and analytics workloads.

Emerging internet of things and sensor fusion-based applications.

Cybersecurity and virtual desktop infrastructure solutions.

Additionally, as DOD enterprise IT moves to the cloud, tactical networks must unify access to data and applications from the enterprise level to the tactical edge. This means deploying cloudlike services at the tactical edge of the network, so that data is available at the edge even when WAN connectivity is unavailable.

At the same time, the internet of battlefield things is raising the table stakes significantly when it comes to the volume and complexity of devices and sensors in tactical environments that can be compromised. From wearables on the troops themselves to connected tanks, helicopters and drones, interconnectivity through the internet of things is only an advantage as long as it is secure, trusted and available.

A new class of modular, tactical data centers is becoming available for tactical and expeditionary programs, capable of hosting cloud and storage, artificial intelligence and analytics applications. Using ultra-small form-factor modules for computer, storage and networking functions that reduce size, weight and power requirements, these systems can be deployed dismounted, at forward operating bases, in command posts, and on ground vehicles and aircraft—supporting a diverse array of use cases in disconnected, intermittent and limited environments.

U.S. forces are taking advantage of commercial IT advances to maintain overmatch, reduce costs and ultimately modernize their tactical networks in order to stay one step ahead of increasingly well-equipped adversaries.

For more information about new IT technologies transforming the battlefield, go to www.pacstar.com.

CHARLIE KAWASAKI, Certified Information Systems Security Professional, joined PacStar in early 2005. He is the chief technical officer, leading numerous innovation programs and developing tactical solutions for secure wireless, cybersecurity and data center applications. He is part of the PacStar team that recently won the networking equipment awards for both the U.S. Army Transportable Tactical Command Communications and U.S. Marine Corps Networking-On-The-Move vehicle-mount and deployable tactical communications programs. He has more than 35 years’ experience in cybersecurity, software and network engineering, and systems integration. He serves on the board of the Technology Association of Oregon, is vice chair of the Oregon Cybersecurity Advisory Council (www.cyberoregon.com), and is co-founder of Northwest Cyber Camp (www.nwcyber.camp).

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Reimagining the Army’s logistics enterprise resource planning systems.

by Jim Kinkade and Jay Chung

If the Army could start over today, it would not choose to design the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system landscape as it exists now. It would not seek systems designed to serve one specific function and siloed based on functionality; hardware, software, governance and budgets would not be decentralized; business intelligence would not be scattered across dozens of data warehouses; contractors would not hold intellectual property hostage; and governance and change management processes would not lead to wait times measured in years.

Of course, there is no starting over. Our Army—the world’s most powerful land force—is engaged in more than 120 countries. More than 1 million Soldiers must be equipped and more than 800,000 pieces of equipment must be procured or maintained—and all synchronized in a way that generates sustainable readiness. This cannot be achieved without essential functions currently executed or managed within three ERPs: the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), the Global Combat Support System – Army (GCSS-A) and the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS). An organization uses an ERP system to execute and integrate the core functions (e.g., finance, logistics, procurement and human resources) of its mission.

However, continuing with the status quo is not a realistic option, either. As the Army’s top leaders have identified, several factors make it paramount that savings be harvested from every corner of the Army. Two factors in particular—the relentless requirement for Army engagement on every continent and the requirement to modernize or replace several of the Army’s “Big Six” weapon system fleets concurrently—are compelling everyone from the secretary of the Army on down to identify opportunities for savings.

While Army leaders seek savings from every budget line, it makes sense to look closely at its billion-dollar ERP landscape. It is not too late to put the Army on a path to a rationalized, more effective, less expensive way to run its business. It is not too late to bring powerful new technologies to bear to free precious resources, allowing the Army to focus on its core competency of preparing for combat.

But this renaissance in Army logistics will require help from the Army’s acquisition professionals to procure the expertise to manage, sustain and modernize its ERPs in a different way. The Army needs to shift from buying capacity to buying outcomes; from gatekeeping to enabling users; and from decentralized, competing priorities to a unified mission focus through the support of its acquisition leaders.

SURVEYING TODAY’S LANDSCAPE

The Army has made great progress over the past 10 years in the transition from dozens of standardized management information systems and home-grown systems to its current landscape of seven ERPs. And access is in the right hands: One or more ERPs are represented in every supply room, motor pool and orderly room—not to mention every headquarters from company to corps.

Logistics ERPs have undoubtedly improved Army effectiveness. LMP permits visibility and management of national-level stock and organic industrial base production down to the shop floor. GCSS-A integrates all unit-level supply and maintenance transactions into a single system. GFEBS replaced more than 80 legacy systems and standardizes financial, asset and accounting data across all three Army components—active, Reserve and National Guard. (See Figure 1.) Most desired core ERP functionalities have been fielded and are in sustainment mode, except Army aviation, which is scheduled for GCSS-A Increment II.

But even in sustainment, costs have ballooned. Different program offices operate each ERP. Years of customizing core functionalities and of decentralized hardware and software strategies have made ERP integration efforts costly and have spawned integration applications such as the Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program Hub and Logistics Information Warehouse.

Most troubling is user communities’ real or perceived lack of return on investment. Some users complain of lengthy requirements-gathering sessions with multiple rounds of prioritization and approval, followed by extended wait times (six to 12 months) for low-complexity change requests. Often they discover that requirements have been misinterpreted when enhancements are finally delivered.

LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE REIMAGINED

Careful observation of the most successful private sector ERP implementations reveals essential characteristics that the Army should consider mandatory for its future logistics enterprise system. That system must be:

Governed and funded by a single entity.

User-centric, with an architecture that maximizes self-service.

Able to rapidly respond to change and introduce new functionality.

Scalable—up or down—for both infrastructure and services.

Acquired as an outcome-based managed service.

Transforming the Army’s disparate ERPs into an enterprise with these characteristics will be hard, but it can be achieved with three major efforts: Consolidate ERP sustainment; consolidate business intelligence and analytics; and finally, collapse different ERPs into a unified ERP.

LOGISTICS SYSTEMS SUPPORT UNDER ONE ROOF

The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command’s (CECOM) Software Engineering Center is spearheading the initial steps toward the first effort. CECOM recently announced plans to explore consolidating sustainment across its ERP portfolio. We applaud leaders for taking these steps but suggest they prepare for an even bolder one. Additional centralization between core ERP sustainment (owned by CECOM) and modernization efforts (owned by the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology) would make it easier for Army leaders to prioritize between investments in current versus future capabilities—and help fully optimize life cycle management of the Army’s logistics systems.

Acquisition professionals can readily see benefits of this consolidation, including improved visibility into requirements and better buying power that can drive cost savings. Also, the ability to prioritize spending across a larger pool of requirements, using combined resources, will ensure that the most impactful requirements are addressed—not just the top priority for a slice of the enterprise.

Further, ERP support service contracts should shift away from buying capacity to buying outcomes. When requirements are not well-defined, using multi-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts or blanket purchase agreement-like strategies can help mitigate risk to the Army. By leveraging these acquisition vehicles, the Army can award more highly targeted and smaller task orders to a handful of pre-qualified vendors. Task orders could take the shape of firm fixed-price contracts for specified outcomes, shifting the risk to vendors and allowing the vendor and the Army to share the benefits of rapid and efficient delivery.

Business intelligence in the LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE

The wide-scale deployment of ERPs enabled organizations to harvest mass amounts of data to enhance their decision-making processes, a process commonly referred to as business intelligence. In the early years of ERPs, business intelligence development relied on a few technical experts working with key “super users” to gather requirements and then build and deploy reports. The process was slow and often not scalable (i.e., replicable on a larger scale). The inability to deliver these capabilities efficiently on a large scale led to an emphasis on extreme consensus, through prioritization across multiple organizations.

The result was reports that often did not meet users’ specific requirements. Users were also left believing their data was locked away, beyond their reach. Thus began the era of local data marts. Today, the Army is flooded with an uncountable number of local data marts, from enterprise-wide systems like the Logistics Information Warehouse and the Army Workload and Performance System to smaller, localized battalion or brigade databases. The proliferation has led to tremendous cost in terms of resources consumed and multiple versions of “truth.” (See Figure 2.)

In contrast, in the private sector, today’s self-service analytics technologies have all but eliminated the need for “super users,” report developers and redundant data marts. Instead, ordinary users are empowered to create their own reports and conduct their own analytics through intuitive self-service applications like Tableau and Qlik.

To unlock the same outcomes in the Army, ERP sustainment organizations and program offices must get out of the report-generating business. They need to shift the responsibility for analytics and report-creation away from centralized information technology (IT) organizations to actual users. They should invest in self-service analytics tools and grant regular users access to data. Then, to make these changes permanent, they should eliminate budgets for report development and decommission local data marts.

LOGISTICS IN THE CLOUD

Having completed the transformative steps of consolidating sustainment and democratizing business intelligence and making it available for everyone to access, regardless of background or position, the Army can proceed toward the most significant step of modernizing its ERP landscape: collapsing siloed functions and user bases into a single, unified ERP. Skeptics of such a consolidation will cite organization-specific complexities and unique Army requirements. However, transitions like this happen every day in industry. Companies as diverse as food and beverage and clothing sales have successfully consolidated ERPs after mergers and acquisitions.

The bottom line is that the Army’s focus should be on increasing readiness and lethality, not hosting software. For the Army to free up the millions of dollars needed for modernization and sustaining its high operations tempo, it is imperative to find leap-ahead efficiencies; marginal changes will not move the needle. Fortunately, recent advances in secure, cloud-based computing and storage are allowing industry and U.S. intelligence agencies to unlock tremendous savings in operating costs, while also having access to cutting-edge applications in the cloud.

Of course, for the Army, more than savings is at stake: Near-peer adversaries are seeking every opportunity to achieve parity with the U.S. in any domain. “One of the surest ways for our Army to ensure ‘IT overmatch’ is to get into the cloud,” as retired Lt. Gen. Susan Lawrence, former Army chief information officer/G-6 who now leads the Army and Air Force portfolio within Accenture Federal Services’ national security practice, said recently.

The Army should seize the opportunity for overmatch and plan for its unified logistics ERP to operate from the cloud. Beyond the strategic advantages that will accrue, moving away from fixed government data centers to cloud-based managed services will also allow for more precise and efficient ways to pay for what is needed. As the Army’s cloud-based environment automatically scales up or down based on consumption, a “pay by the drink” model will derive costs directly from usage, as opposed to basing them on fixed labor pools and fixed hardware costs. This approach will eliminate the requirement for the Army to plan, program and budget for IT infrastructure procurement, maintenance and refresh.

CONCLUSION

The business economics today are simply different from just a few years ago. Even complex ERP services can now be delivered in a relatively low-risk and cost-effective way, primarily because of the modern capabilities of cloud technology. Unlike the Army’s experience with outsourcing LMP in the 1990s, today the Army can transition ERPs into outcome-based managed services and then change contractors at any time, without fear of losing control of its data or intellectual property.

With a few bold decisions, the Army can take advantage of proven technologies, transform its logistics enterprise, improve effectiveness, generate significant savings and liberate resources that can be used to ensure that our Army remains the most feared and respected force on the planet.

For more information, contact the authors at james.d.kinkade@accenturefederal.com and jay.m.chung@accenturefederal.com.

JIM KINKADE is senior manager for Supply Chain Operations at Accenture Federal Services and leads the company’s Army logistics portfolio. Before joining Accenture, he spent nearly 30 years as an Army logistician and led several large, complex logistics operations, including warehousing, repair and accountability for the Army’s largest pre-positioned combat equipment set and implementation of an innovative, long-term combat equipment storage program. He holds an M.S. in systems management from the Naval Postgraduate School, an M.S. in national resource strategy from the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy and a B.S in accounting from the University of Southern California.

JAY CHUNG is senior manager for Supply Chain Analytics at Accenture Federal Services. He has more than 15 years of experience working with clients in the defense, industrial manufacturing, consumer goods, retail, and food and beverage sectors to leverage enterprise applications, commercial best practices and analytics to transform their supply chain operations. He holds a B.S. in supply chain management and marketing from the University of Maryland.

Related Links

AL&T article on GFEBS deployment: https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2009/4_OctNovDec/articles/54_General_Fund_Enterprise_Business_System_(GFEBS)_Transforms_Army_Business_200904.pdf

AESIP site: http://www.eis.army.mil/programs/aesip

Logistics Information Warehouse (LIW): https://www.army.mil/article/54896/logistics_information_warehouse

LIW portal: https://oampro.logsa.army.mil/oamcustomlogin/faces/index.xhtml?bmctx=E9E369AB1BDC30440DDCF11EB5C147D1&contextType=external&challenge_url=%2Foamcustomlogin%2Ffaces%2Findex.xhtml&request_id=-5304877999384493870&authn_try_count=0&locale=en_US&resource_url=https%253A%252F%252Fliw.logsa.army.mil%252Fliwportal%252F

RFI for Unified ERP Capability Support Services: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=452a877807a235b5f60078a264032fd2&tab=core&_cview=0

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Benjamin Little

COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: Product Manager for Virtual Training Systems, Project Manager for Training Devices, Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation

TITLE: Systems engineer

YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 9.5

DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in systems engineering; Level I in program management

EDUCATION: B.S. in computer engineering, University of Central Florida

by Ms. Susan L. Follett

When Ben Little is not at his office at the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), you can find him in his kitchen or working around his house. Both places provide lessons that he uses in his work as a systems engineer for the Product Manager for Virtual Training Systems (PdM VTS). “In both of these areas, similar to being at work, you have to devise creative solutions to achieve your goal. When I have a home project I want to do or a dish I want to make, I research how to do it, buy supplies and tools and execute the process, with the final result of a completed project or a delicious meal. Similar processes are followed throughout the acquisition of a training device.”

Formerly the Product Manager for Ground Combat Tactial Trainers, PdM VTS is part of the Project Manager for Training Devices, which provides realistic training environments and equipment. PdM VTS develops, fields and provides total acquisition life cycle management for precision gunnery, driver, route clearance, air and watercraft operation, satellite control and maintenance virtual training systems supporting institutional, home station and contingency operations.

Little is responsible for working with customers, stakeholders and contractors to define, develop and deliver training systems that meet cost, schedule and performance requirements and provide effective training to ensure the combat mission readiness of every Soldier that receives training. “Proper training can save lives, and without adequate training and training devices, warfighters will be ill-prepared for the duties and tasks they will face while deployed,” he said.

“Whenever I tell people about my job, the one thing that always catches their attention is the travel,” noted Little. “Traveling is a frequent occurrence on the job, and I’ve been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to travel to places I’ve always wanted to go—as well as some places that I never thought I’d go—and I have enjoyed them all.” Among the places he’s visited are Germany, Korea, Hawaii and Alaska, often to deliver or upgrade a training system. “It’s really gratifying to see something we’ve worked on finally in the hands of the users, in different locations and for different types of training. It’s also gratifying to have the opportunity to get their feedback—hearing their comments and questions first-hand is invaluable.”

After working in industry for a few years as a contractor for PEO STRI, Little learned about an internship within the organization and decided to apply. “I saw working for PEO STRI as an opportunity to get closer to the fight and have a greater impact on the training devices we provide our Soldiers—to be involved with the development of training systems from inception to delivery to the warfighter,” he said. But he noted that his first acquisition position, engineering intern, came with a steep learning curve. “For someone who was recently out of college and wasn’t prior service, much of being an engineering intern was learning the processes and the lingo, as well as the roles of people and agencies within the Army acquisition community.”

Transitioning from private industry to the public sector also gave him a perspective on how both components operate in the acquisition process. “When I was working in private industry, the challenge was to work within the cost, schedule and performance constraints that were set by the client. Now I’m on the other side of that equation, as part of the team that establishes those parameters.”

For Little, one of the most important points in his career was the first time he oversaw a project from inception to delivery—in this case, an upgrade for a virtual gunnery training system. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command updated training standards, which necessitated changes to the system. “Being responsible for coordinating meetings with stakeholders, conducting negotiations with the contractor, holding working groups to develop the product, leading test events and delivering the product to the site was an exciting experience that gave me opportunities to learn at every point along the way,” he said. “The lead engineer on the program was always there to guide me if I had any questions and supported my ability to manage the project.”

His biggest take-away from the project was confidence. “For me, acquisition was far removed from anything I learned in college, so there was a lot to learn. But I worked through the entire process and was able to go to the lead engineer when I had questions, and when it was all done, I realized I had learned a great deal and was confident more in my abilities as a result.”

No matter the project, he added, “communication and teamwork are key. In any acquisition program, there is too much for one person to do it all and you have to be able to engage the resources around you. You won’t know everything, so ask for help. You can’t do everything, so learn how to prioritize tasks and delegate what you can.”

For Little, the biggest payoff  in being part of the Army Acquisition Workforce is “being a part of the Army family where career development and personal development are equally important. The amount of consideration and care that is exemplified through the recognition of career milestones, personal life milestones and through the camaraderie that is exemplified throughout the organization is unmatched. I’m grateful for the support that VTS provides to its workforce.”

For those looking to advance their careers, he added, “don’t be afraid to ask questions, but be prepared to learn the information given. There are many Army acquisition professionals who came before you who have a lot of knowledge to offer. The more you can learn from them, the better an acquisition professional you will become.”

This article is published in the January – March 2019 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

FROM THE ARMY ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE 

BRUCE D. JETTE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LINES

Army’s new policy seeks cost-effective solutions in managing IP that balance the interests of government, industry and the warfighter

“We must be careful to ensure that the policies and practices governing intellectual property provide us with the necessary access to effectively support our weapons systems, but do not constrain delivery of solutions to the warfighter and do not dissuade commercial innovators from partnering with us.”

Secretary of the Army Dr. Mark T. Esper

Dec. 7, 2018

The Army continues to advance on a number of modernization and acquisition reform initiatives designed to develop and deliver new capabilities to warfighters more rapidly and cost-effectively than ever before. The latest is a new policy on the management of intellectual property (IP) signed by Secretary of the Army Dr. Mark T. Esper on Dec. 7. More than ever, IP is playing a critical role in our ability to modernize our weapon systems and maintain technological overmatch against our peers and near-peers.

IP is defined as “creations of the mind”—inventions, unique manufacturing processes, discoveries—in which owners are granted exclusive rights to control the use and dissemination. When discussing IP in the context of a weapon system or business system, we are often referring to technical data, like blueprints, drawings, technical specifications or computer software used in the system.

As a scientist, patent holder and former small business owner, I know that IP is the lifeblood of any company. It must be protected and fairly compensated, especially if we plan to attract the cutting-edge innovations of nontraditional companies that are so necessary in today’s environment. I also understand, however, that some IP is critical for the Army to be able to sustain its weapon systems over their long life cycles.

Through early planning for sustainment and appropriate investment in IP, we will give ourselves options. These options may improve readiness, reduce sustainment costs and increase availability—all critical factors in an Army facing unprecedented challenges from emerging threats, proliferation of technology and rapid innovation by our adversaries.

A BALANCED APPROACH

Developing a policy that carefully balances the goals of fostering private innovation with long-term sustainment considerations was my direction to Dr. Alexis Laselle Ross, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for strategy and acquisition reform, who spearheaded this entire effort and worked across all stakeholders to make the Army IP policy a reality.

This new, balanced approach represents a significant change in the way we manage IP. Historically, we have defaulted to one of two scenarios. We either demand more data and rights than required, which is costly and can drive away companies, especially nontraditional innovators not accustomed to working with DOD. Or, we wait until late in the acquisition process to negotiate IP rights, which may lock us into long-term, costly, sole-source arrangements with original equipment manufacturers.

The new approach is much more nuanced. It discourages a one-size-fits-all attitude and requires that we consider the unique needs of each weapon system and its components as we develop the IP strategy. Four key principles underpin the new policy:

Foster open communication with industry.

The Army must be transparent and open with industry early and often. With a continuous dialogue, we can better articulate our technical and software data requirements, rights and intentions early, so that both parties are on the same page regarding mutually beneficial license arrangements. Most importantly, we want to ensure these early discussions are protected. The new policy requires that extra steps be taken to protect all IP-related discussions.

Plan early and develop a customized IP strategy.

No two acquisition programs are alike. As such, data requirements and rights should not be treated the same. Each system will have different sustainment and modernization needs across its life cycle. Therefore, it is important that we train all of our workforce professionals, especially in program management and contracting, to assess these short- and long-term needs and develop a customized strategy aligned to those needs.

Negotiate custom data and licenses.

After carefully assessing the needs, we must negotiate for the appropriate—not all—IP to support them. We should seek to develop creative and flexible approaches to IP so that we don’t overpay for or stifle industry innovation. We will look to industry to help us develop such custom licenses.

Negotiate early in process for competitive prices.

As good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars, we must leverage economic principles when negotiating prices. To that end, the new policy encourages setting prices as early as possible in the process so that they are competitive.

CONCLUSION

This new policy is the first step in a cultural change within the Army. The next step is more detailed implementation guidance to the field, which we are developing for release in early 2019. We also assembled a team of experts from across the Army to identify what additional processes, guidance and training may be required to ensure that the policy is having its intended effect.

My objective is to empower and enable our workforce professionals to think differently and act appropriately to ensure that our organizations, policies, processes and tasks that consume time, money and manpower deliver real value.

In closing, I wish you and your loved ones a happy and healthy 2019!

Related Links 

Army Directive 2018-26 (Enabling Modernization Through the Management of Intellectual Property), Dec. 7, 2018: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN14261_AD2018_26_Final.pdf

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Additive manufacturing holds great potential, but much work remains to be done for the Army to get to additive nirvana.

by Steve Stark

Additive manufacturing shines with promise. The discipline, also known as 3D printing, holds the promise of being the most powerful, efficient and versatile method of manufacturing, enabling a whole new world of products—complex shapes, compound geometries and compound materials that no designer could envision without it. It also holds the promise to speed logistics, reduce waste in materials and processes, and enable customization to a degree unimaginable with conventional manufacturing—and more.

“The Army wants to be at the forefront of this advancement in technology,” said Dr. Philip Perconti, director of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), at the opening of the new Advanced Manufacturing, Materials and Processes (AMMP) manufacturing innovation center in Harford County, Maryland, near Aberdeen Proving Ground, in October. Additive manufacturing, he continued, is at a pivotal stage in development, and the Army is basing strategic investments in agile manufacturing and material processing programs to leverage technology breakthroughs for rapid prototyping and development. He said that he foresees the mobile production of “replacement components to alleviate distance delays and provide performance enhancements and new capabilities through optimization of complex architectures and integrated functions.”

That vision sums up the Army’s effort to drive additive manufacturing technology forward and fulfill its potential to positively impact virtually every Army system. With aging and in many cases decaying organic manufacturing capabilities at depots around the country, the technology is a natural fit for the Army as it upgrades organic manufacturing. ARL is partnering with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences in the AMMP effort. The center also launched its AMMP consortium.

In pursuit of its additive future, the Army has stood up the Additive and Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence at the Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center, Illinois. There’s a robust community of practice on milSuite. Defense Acquisition magazine devoted its entire November-December 2016 issue to additive manufacturing. All of this means that additive is very much in the Army’s sights, but it has a long way to go to meet its potential.

A YOUNG FIELD

Invented in the mid-1980s by Charles Hull, who went on to found 3D Systems Inc., additive manufacturing is still very much a young field, especially when compared with the thousands of years that humans have been manufacturing. Conceived by Hull as stereolithography, the process still bears that imprint: 3D-printing design files have the designation “.stl,” for stereolithography (or standard tessellation language), but both are backronyms created to fit the initials. There are seven types of additive processes with their own pros and cons, and new methods within those process categories are being developed all the time.

For the Army, additive is attractive for how it can improve readiness. But readiness is a broad category, encompassing logistics, sustainment, repair and much more. From buildings to motor parts to aerial systems, additive offers the possibility of creating nearly on-demand anything, on-demand anywhere.

In theory, instead of traveling to an operational environment with tons of gear, units could go with just enough equipment to get established, then set up machines that could additively produce on the spot the equipment or structures they need from local resources. That—manufacturing at the point of need—is a major feature of additive.

And while the Army does position additive capabilities in operational areas to produce parts and equipment at the point of need, mostly the Army is printing parts, plastic or metal, to enhance readiness and make the sustainment process more sensible and speedy, said Mike Nikodinovski, mechanical engineer and additive expert at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

Many of these efforts are a matter of experimenting with the technology to see where and how it works best.

“We’ve been repairing parts for the M1 Abrams. … We’ve done projects cross-Army and with the Marine Corps where we printed things like impeller fans,” Nikodinovski said in an interview with Army AL&T. “A lot of the things we’ve been doing are just basic one-for-one replacement. What can you do with additive for a part that’s traditionally manufactured? A lot of that gets at sustainment, and that’s what we’re trying to stand up at Rock Island—give them the capabilities so they can print metal parts, especially if you want … long-term procurement for parts where you only need a couple, vendors are no longer in business and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money to set up tooling. Can additive be used to supplement the sustainment process, where I can just, say, print three parts and save all the time it would take to find vendors or set up the tooling?”

That kind of exploratory effort is happening in various places around the Army—the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) and its subordinate organizations TARDEC, ARL, the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center, the Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center, the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) and the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center; in addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Army has already used additive to produce buildings, weapons, food and robots and to repair tank parts. Yet none of that really approaches the gleaming possibility of on-demand anything.

It’s hard to overstate just how profoundly different additive is from conventional manufacturing. And that means much has to be done to better understand the discipline, to build knowledge for design and to develop the necessary training.

THE TRAINING QUESTION

While 3D printing makes additive manufacturing seem dead simple—and if you’re talking about simple objects that you’d create on a MakerBot, maybe it is. But for the kind of solutions the Army seeks, it is anything but simple. Which makes the training all that much more important.

The U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command and the Training and Doctrine Command have the Soldier side of the training effort, and the center of excellence and RDECOM have the civilian side.

Training will have to account not only for engineering in three dimensions, but also machines, materials, processes and more. “That’s a huge undertaking,” said Edward Flinn, director of advanced manufacturing at Rock Island Arsenal, in an interview. “We need to not only train the people who are going to touch and run the machines, but train the troops and the engineers on the capabilities of and how to design for AM.”

Additive is so fundamentally different in nearly every aspect, the training is critical. (See sidebar, “Thinking in Volumes,”)

“You’ve got to train the Soldier on the capabilities of the technology along with how to actually use the machine,” Flinn said, “Then there’s how to teach the design community themselves the benefits of additive so they can start designing for it.”

According to Megan Krieger, mechanical engineer at the Engineer Research and Development Center, her organization has “a project through Makerspace for installations, so not quite as advanced as what we’re talking about, but we’re able to get maker spaces into the MWRs [morale, welfare and recreation facilities] at libraries, basically across all installations in order to teach the fundamental hobbyist perspective.” That, Krieger said in an interview, is “so that people, when they get into their [military occupational specialty] where they use additive manufacturing, they’re already a little bit familiar with the technology, because if people are passionate about making things, they’ll learn it a lot better than if they’re just thrown into it.”

The Army still isn’t 100 percent certain where additive belongs, although it has lots of ideas. Nor is it possible to fully grasp what additive will be able to do in the near-, mid- or far-term. The discipline is, as Perconti noted, at a pivotal stage in its development. There is much the Army needs: materials developed for additive, and the design tools necessary to both limit the inherent possibilities and exploit them.

MATERIALS SCIENCE

“There are different levels of challenge within [additive manufacturing],” said Dr. William Benard, senior campaign scientist in materials development with ARL in Adelphi, Maryland, in an interview.

“The Army’s near-term efforts are looking at readiness, and in research, one of the simpler things is to just design new materials that are easier to print with, more reliable to print with, [the] properties are well understood—that kind of thing as a substitute, sort of a more direct approach to support of existing parts.

“One of the areas of investment that ARL is making to support this, and I know others in the RDECOM community are looking at it as well, is, really, new design tools for additive,” Benard said.

That effort is “basically to handle the complexity of new materials, understanding how they’re going to work, mixing materials, changing the properties as a function of location—that’s for really high-performance parts. And that’s sort of the long-term vision. You have the near-term, which is replacing what already exists, and then the mid-term … which is consolidation of parts, but it’s essentially a functional equivalence of some assembly that we have. And then the longer-term view is designing things for additive, taking full advantage of this new geometric space. The far term is what can we get by mixing and modulating materials in sort of a voxelized fashion. Now, that’s way down the road, but there are really interesting things that come as a function of that.”

Voxel combines the words volume and pixel to describe the smallest unit of a 3D digital object.

THE ADDITIVE EQUATION

There are also significant questions to be answered about the economics of additive. a smart article in Defense AT&L magazine in December 2016, “Getting AM Up to Speed,” lays out issues of speed versus cost in additive. The author, Stacey L. Clarke, then-deputy director of systems engineering for RDECOM at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, shows the tension between speed and cost.

When time is the driver, cost is less of a factor. When cost and manufacturing reproducibility—both major concerns in Army acquisition—are primary drivers, things slow down. When is it worth spending $5,000 on a product to get it now rather than waiting six months for a product that costs only $500? “That’s a question that probably needs to have an equation,” Clarke said in an interview with Army AL&T. There are other variables to add to that equation, such as how critical the need is or what else might be dependent on the product.

That equation might also need to take into account such variables as the speed with which developments are being made in the discipline. Another significant variable is where the Army puts its money. For the most part, the Army is focusing its efforts on its modernization priorities, and it will be up to industry and academia to develop the breakthrough technologies.

The Army’s focus is what additive can do today. “We as scientists and engineers can talk about material properties and print bed temperatures and print heads and all this kind of stuff, but the senior leadership is looking at, ‘So what? How does this technology improve readiness? How can I keep systems and Soldiers ready to go?’ And that’s what we’re learning,” said Tim Phillis, expeditionary additive manufacturing project officer for RDECOM’s Armament Research, Development Engineering Center’s Rapid Fabrication via Additive Manufacturing on the Battlefield (R-FAB). R-FAB is essentially an additive manufacturing facility in a 20-foot shipping container.

“There are lots of areas that the Army is looking into, and DOD and other organizations are looking into, for 3D printing,” said Dr. Aura Gimm. At the time Army AL&T interviewed her, she managed the Army’s university-affiliated research center program at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which recently produced 4D (the extra dimension is motion) flexible robots via additive. “It’s one thing to create decorative parts, but it’s something else if you’re trying to create a load-bearing or actuating parts that could fail,” Gimm said.

The vast majority of the objects created with additive, Gimm said, are essentially decorative. A plastic-polymer mockup of a gear-shifting mechanism for a car design or a reproduction of a missing drawer pull may be nice to have, but the Army requires much more out of the military-specification articles it procures.

Some, though, like Humvee gas caps and the junctional tourniquet created by the Army Rapid Equipping Force’s (REF) Expeditionary Lab (Ex Lab), are not a great deal more substantial in terms of their physical structure, but are considerably more useful than decorations.

However, the point that Gimm made is something that Army scientists and engineers have to keep in mind: Items made for the operational Army have to withstand considerable stresses. “The standardization and making sure that we have metrology or the metrics to test and evaluate these parts,” Gimm continued, “is going to be quite critical, for [items made with additive] to be actually deployable in the field. Because one thing that we don’t want is to have these parts … not work as expected.”

That’s something that Perconti emphasized in his remarks at the opening of the AMMP Center. “Ultimately, the goal for us is to enable qualified components that are indistinguishable from those they replace. Remember, when you take a part out of a weapon system and replace it with an additive manufactured part, you’re putting lives on the line if that part is not fully capable. So we have to be very sure that whatever we do, we understand the science, we understand the manufacturing, and we understand that we are delivering qualified parts for our warfighters.”

from dust IT CAME

To get things to work as expected and up to Army standards is no simple task. AMRDEC has been working with General Electric Co. to produce parts for the T700 motor, which powers the Apache and Black Hawk helicopters.

“It’s kind of like a demonstrator project for additively producing significant engine components,” said Kathy Olson, additive manufacturing lead in the Manufacturing Science and Technology Division of the U.S. Army Manufacturing Technology program at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, in an interview. “There’s been some successes already with doing full builds of the parts,” she continued. The project is mainly geared toward gaining knowledge, she said, so the part won’t be part of a helicopter that Soldiers are flying. Yet.

In part, that’s because the motor parts have not been tested and qualified at the Army’s standards. “It’s more of a knowledge transition,” Olson said. It’s intended to show “that we can build these significant parts.”

AMRDEC produces each part on a laser-powder bed machine, then goes post-production. Jeff Gaddes, mechanical engineer and Olson’s colleague at AMRDEC, described the production process for using the machine that produces the metal parts. “We spread a layer of powder over a plate. It’s very even, basically like a windshield wiper. So you wipe that powder across so you’ve got a nice thin, consistent layer of powder, and then your laser comes in, melts where it needs to melt, so you’ve got regions of melted powder and regions of unmelted powder. Then you drop your build-plate down a little, and then you wipe powder over the whole deal, so you’ve got fresh powder covering the entire bed,” he said.

“You have a high-powered laser that comes in and selectively melts [and fuses] regions of that, and you wipe more powder across and the laser will come in and selectively melt regions of that.” Each layer the machine adds is a slice of the digital design. As the process continues, the “volume” that holds the powder and the part fills up.”

“In the end,” Gaddes continued, “you take it out of the machine, shake the loose powder off and you’ve got your final part. Then about 70 percent of the work is in the post-processing, removing the powder, post-[processing] heat treatment, machining it if necessary, removing it from the build plate—that type of work.” The metal dust that’s left can be reused.

Having a finished part is not the same thing as being able to use the finished part, Olson emphasized. The part has to be qualified, a process that assures that the part meets quality standards. Qualifying a part is no simple matter. The materials have to meet the Army’s standards, and so does the machine that’s making the part.

To qualify a part made with additive, “you’ll go through the process of qualifying your material and writing your material [specifications] for whatever material you’re going to use,” she said. “Then you have to qualify your machine and make sure it’s producing repeatable parts, and then qualify the process for the part that you’re building, because you’ll have likely different parameter sets for your different geometries for the different parts [that] you’re going to build.

“It’s not like you can just press a button and go. There’s a lot of engineering involved on both sides of it. Even the design of your build-layout is going to involve some iteration of getting your layout just such that the part prints correctly,” Olson said.

“That’s one of the challenges,” said Rock Island’s Flinn. “How much test and evaluation is going to be needed, and how willing are engineers going to be to approve a requested change without it? With manufacturers saying that AM powder metal is similar to casting in strength, the push for approval is only going to grow. Yet AM material specifications are still being developed, so the engineering community has little data to verify those claims, and testing each individual component will just delay acceptance of AM.” That doesn’t even take equipment variations into account. “Process and equipment variation in metal printing is such that certification of individual machines is pretty much a requirement,” Flinn said.

Another challenge is the variety of different ways to print metal, which is where the Army wants to go. The kinds of metal printing change all the time, RDECOM’s Phillis said, “because people are always coming up with new ideas. From a commercial standpoint, you’ve got the laser-powder bed. You’ve got things like Desktop Metal and Markforged, where they’re extruding a metal powder as part of a filament like a polymer filament to make a part. You’ve got binder-jetting, which is like glue and metal that gets put into a sintering oven. That goes through a couple of processes where it finally gets sintered. HP just came out with one that’s similar. And then you have deposition, where you just spray powder or wire into a laser or plasma [heat source] and that melts, like [using] a large welder. People are coming up with different stuff. Those [in addition to metal and ceramic slurry printing] are what’s commercially available right now. Universities may be working on something completely different. That’s what makes it a problem. There’s not just one technology that can do it all. There are many different technologies.”

THE ADDITIVE SWEET SPOT

The Army stood up its Additive and Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence at the Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center to establish the organizational structure, with the attendant policies, equipment and methodologies to immediately address Army readiness. It will also aid in the growth of additive manufacturing in the Army organic industrial base by developing the business case for it, according to Flinn.

“Right now, the big win for additive manufacturing is tooling,” he said. “I’m talking about tool holders, fixtures, patterns, investment and injection molds, assembly aids; all that stuff that’s tied to traditional manufacturing that people don’t immediately think about when they think AM. Yet the time and cost savings in tooling can provide breakthroughs in meeting readiness,” he said. The beauty of this approach is that changes in the tooling process don’t require an engineering change.

“You can get quick turnaround on tooling. The design process takes place, but the manufacturing can take place in days instead of weeks,” as opposed to the traditional way that tooling has to get up to speed for manufacturing, Flinn said. “For prototyping or for mainstream manufacturing, I can have a tool made [additively] and up and running in 24 hours. We’ve experienced that here [at Rock Island] on a process where we were getting 50 percent scrap. We changed the tooling on it and basically eliminated the scrap completely.”

This business of figuring out where the additive sweet spot lies is one of the things that REF’s Ex Lab and RDECOM’s R-FAB are helping the Army understand, either inside or outside the battlespace, Phillis said.

“What missions can we solve? We’re finding all kinds of things. Humvees are being dead-lined because they don’t have gas caps. Or the gas cap breaks. When they order it, they’ve got to sit there for 30 days or 45 days or however long it takes to get that through the supply system.

“If we can produce it in a couple of hours, now we’ve got a truck that’s ready for use while we’re waiting for the supply system to catch up. And that’s the big piece that we always want to emphasize, that this is for emergency repair or temporary missions only. We are not doing field printing to replace” the manufacturer, he said. That can only be done to supplement the supply system and with the maker’s knowledge. Any time a Soldier wants to engage R-FAB, the part must be ordered through the supply system before R-FAB can produce a replacement.

That shows where additive technology is useful. It shows not just how the discipline can work for the Army, but where it should work. R-FAB wants to know where additive manufacturing has intervened to help readiness.

CONCLUSION

Conventional manufacturing has been around since the dawn of time. Additive has been here for about 25 years, and that shiny surface of possibility has scarcely been scratched.

Right now, one of the major impediments to additive is physics itself. There is only so hot you can make a polymer, only so fast you can squeeze it out of a nozzle.

“There are definitely physical limits [to additive manufacturing]. I can only pump so much laser power into a metal-powder bed without burning everything up. Inputting too much heat can cause a distortion and the whole thing just melts away,” said AMRDEC’s Gaddes.

“In every different type of additive process, they have some sort of physical limitation that’s associated with them. … Most of the materials that we’re manufacturing [with] right now are not really designed for additive. They’re legacy materials.” For example, a nickel-based alloy, Inconel 718, “is a welding alloy, which makes it relatively easy to additively manufacture, but it really wasn’t designed for additive.”

The big breakthroughs in additive seem most likely to come with new materials and processes and new design tools. “When we start designing our materials for additive manufacturing, that’s when you can really start to see some performance gains, I believe,” Gaddes said.

Additive manufacturing will allow Soldiers deployed in remote outposts around the world to print virtually anything they need, from food to shelter to weapons, or even new skin cells to repair burned skin. Efforts are underway to create replacement body parts and custom-made medical devices.

The replicator from “Star Trek” worked by rearranging molecules to create whatever was needed. We’re a long way from that, but the Army, as Perconti noted, is working to “develop the additive manufacturing tools that will leverage machine learning, information-fusion capabilities and the like to seamlessly integrate various designs, various digital manufacturing techniques and to bring things all the way from concept to final design in the components, quickly and inexpensively.” That’s the Army’s future.

For more information on the Army’s additive center of excellence, go to https://www.dvidshub.net/news/297208/ria-jmtc-hosts-amc-summit-discuss-additive-manufacturing-way-forward.

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. He is Level II certified in program management.

Related Links:

https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/u-s-army-lab-converts-water-bottles-into-3d-printer-materials-138685/

https://3dprintingindustry.com/tags/u-s-army/

https://3dprint.com/118070/us-army-3d-print-custom-meals/

https://3dprint.com/9865/us-army-3d-printing-food/

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/545823/3-d-printing-building-aces

https://www.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/p/Defense-ATandL—November-December_2016

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Sidebar to Complex Geometry

By Steve Stark 

Additive manufacturing demands a whole new way of thinking, and we’re not even close to what’s possible in this exciting technology.

One of the best ways to understand how different the approach has to be for additive manufacturing is to think of objects as things that exist in space—volumes. The designer also needs to think of the capacity of the machine as the volume that contains the printed object’s volume, because, for the most part, the object can be no larger than the printer. (That’s “for the most part” because in some cases, printed objects can be larger than the printer, and there are robotic printers that can print in free space, subject to the law of gravity, at least on Earth. But each is still a volume in terms of design.)

The geometries of that volume can be quite precise and quite complex. They can also be simple. Additive doesn’t care. The software used for printing an object breaks it into slices; each object is made up, essentially, of stacks of slices. Each of those slices, in turn, is made up of voxels. To understand the concept of the voxel, it’s a portmanteau word, a mash of volume and pixel.

Those voxels can be as small or as large as the design requires, but they have to be within the capability of the machine that will print the design.

“When you break a volume into essentially three-dimensional pixels, the idea would be that each voxel—each pixel within your volume—could have different properties because either it’s a different material when we’re mixing materials, or alternatively we’re modulating materials,” said Dr. William Benard, senior campaign scientist in materials development with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. “For example, dynamic alloying, or even changing the properties of a particular alloy by modulating the process as we print.” In other words, to add particular properties to the object, a printer could deposit different types of metals in close proximity, and they’d be alloyed as a laser melts them.

“You already have some degree [of control in manipulating materials] in conventional manufacturing, and so we’ll profile the material at different places,” Benard said. “When you cast something, it’s not going to be identical, but you don’t have very much option to control it. It’s largely a function of the process and the part geometry. There are some things you can do to sort of nudge [the material] here and there. But with additive, there’s really this unprecedented potential.” To have real control of each voxel, he said, “is really far down the road.”

This is not only about shapes but also about the composition of materials and the deliberate blending of materials to gain a particular result. The desired goal, Benard said, is “that the material might perform a substantively different function. So a good example is in electronics packaging. We may print a volume that has both conductive elements and dielectric elements.”

Dielectrics, Benard said, are materials that both resist against electricity and have some capacity to store it. What interests scientists about dielectrics is what is known as the dielectric constant and the strength of the dielectric. “We care about both,” he said, “but we care about the dielectric constant for the design of the normal operating performance of a device (antenna, capacitor, etc.), while the dielectric strength sets the operating bounds—essentially how much charge we can safely apply before the device fails catastrophically.”

With that in mind, he said, “We might place a microchip and then print around that to get a solid volume, which would make it much more mechanically robust. We could print in the electrical contact as part of the volume, as opposed to having it be a discrete wire.”

That means that additive manufacturing has the potential to “design electronics with embedded antennas, for instance. So we can use … metal traces to now make antennas.

“But we may want different dielectrics, and now we’re going to use different-property materials on the dielectric side, depending on what the properties of the antenna need to be. There have also been demonstrations of embedding things like wave guides. That can be optimal wave guides, akin to a fiber, and these can all be embedded in a structural member. So you could theoretically use glass fiber both as a reinforcing agent, to make the member stronger but also for optical communications at the same time.”

But as wonderful as that flexibility and manipulability of materials in design sounds, Benard was quick to caution that we’re not there yet, because creating such structures also brings in variables that have to be foreseen.

To illustrate that in the context of the antenna, he said, “I’m using my fiber optic as a structural member, but I’m also using it for communications. But now, as I strain the lever arm that it’s reinforcing, that may modulate the properties of the fiber, which will affect my communications. It gets into a very complex space. It gives lots of opportunity for high performance. There’s also a lot of opportunity for unintended consequences.”

For Benard, one of the most important things that the Army can do as it moves forward with additive manufacturing is to create the digital design tools that will be necessary for structures that are complex not only in their geometry, but also in materials. That’s why “we’re building digital design tools to help manage that complexity and help understand what the impacts are going to be,” he said.

Because of this approach to an object as a volume, giving designers the inherent ability to digitally explode it into a million or more tiny voxels, “there’s all kinds of functions and ways you can build these in all different sizes and scales.” There’s “a lot of opportunity, but also a lot of complexity that you’ve now got to manage on the design side. Very exciting, but very challenging at the same time.”

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Additive manufacturing is all the rage, but why?

by Steve Stark

Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, gets people—and the Army is no exception—very excited because of its apparent potential to make virtually anything, even body parts or replacement organs.

But how? What makes it so special?

Imagine a baker decorating a cake, using a bag with a nozzle to squeeze out a fine line of frosting in a pattern. But the baker keeps adding lines on top of existing lines, eventually building up the layers into a form.

That, in a basic sense, is how additive manufacturing works: A machine deposits material sequentially, layer upon layer, or slice by slice, hardening the material as it goes, until the object is finished. Sometimes, like the baker’s method, there’s a nozzle depositing each layer until the shape is complete. That’s analogous to what’s known as material extrusion, probably the most well-known technology in the additive manufacturing portfolio of technologies. A nozzle deposits a heated plastic polymer (which usually comes in spools of fat, colored fishing line) that cures as it cools. MakerBots do material extrusion.

With other processes—such as with powder-bed fusion, which constructs objects using metal or plastic dust and heat, or vat photopolymerization, which uses a light-sensitive liquid plastic polymer—there’s no nozzle, but the layering process is essentially the same. (Vat photopolymerization, also known as stereolithography, was the first method of 3D printing. Seeing a video of the technique can make it appear truly magical: A form is created, almost invisibly, layer by layer, in a vat of liquid and, when complete, rises out of the liquid as if from some digital womb.)

This layer-by-layer approach enables the transformation of a virtual, 3D model into a physical object. In theory, that single design can be customized endlessly, depending on the need.

DESIGNING MAGIC

But how do we get from idea to design to magic?

Designs can begin with a 3D scanner, which works much like a 2D scanner you might use for a photograph but with an added dimension. Or a designer can build a virtual model entirely in computer-aided design (CAD) software. The resulting CAD file, which has the .STL file extension (for stereolithography or other unwieldy backronyms), then can be printed with the appropriate machine.

Software divides the design into slices, and each slice represents one pass on the machine. With hundreds or thousands of passes—or more—the machine assembles the object, slice by slice. Depending on the kind of process, that can done with wire, polymer filament, powders, liquids, gels, mixtures of glues and materials, and slurries. ASTM International (previously the American Society for Testing and Materials) notes seven primary manufacturing processes. Within those exists a growing list of more specialized methods. It is entirely possible that more have been developed since ASTM’s survey of the state of the art. That’s how fast the technology moves.

QUICK AND CUSTOM

Quick custom design and build is one of the great promises of additive manufacturing as a category. In theory, every pair of shoes that every Soldier wears could be custom fit and printed to match the contours of a Soldier’s feet. Indeed, at least one major athletic shoe brand makes a shoe that’s entirely additively manufactured, although it’s not customized to each pair of feet. Yet.

That customization possibility extends to both very large objects, such as the buildings that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Automated Construction of Expeditionary Structures program is making, to the extremely small, such as the 4D robots (the fourth dimension is motion) that the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently developed. Dr. Xuanhe Zhao and his team created “soft, magnetic, 3D-printed structures that can transform their shape almost instantaneously by the wave of a magnet.”

That speed is the real breakthrough, Zhao said in an interview with Army AL&T, but the use of nanomaterials is nothing to sneeze at. Currently, he said, “the drawback of existing [4D] structures is that their movement [is] very slow.”

Zhao, an associate professor at MIT and a researcher at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, said, “What we developed is basically a new material system for 3D printing.” In additive manufacturing, conceptually, the process, the design and the materials are all equally important. Zhao’s team’s new method places nanomagnetic particles strategically within the soft plastic. The placement and orientation of the materials enable controlled, rapid movement. “We use a new stimulation method, which is magnetic.” Watching video of the structures is a bit like watching muscles twitch.

Indeed, Zhao, said, that’s the point. “You can reach the level of energy density and the power density of real muscles. So now, we can make it move very fast and forceful.”

Zhao said the technology that he and his team invented has real promise for biomedical devices that can be customized, but neither the printer nor the ink for the method they used existed, so they had to invent them. “We invented a printing method and the ink so that … researchers can print structures that they want—different shapes of robots, different shapes of actuators—and when we apply a magnetic field, you can actuate it or you can move this object.”

Watching the structures move, it’s not hard to imagine why Zhao said the team envisions them in medical applications. “We are actually trying to simulate the functions of the heart, so the heart beating, and muscle contraction inside the human body. And also, we are making this kind of magnetic materials, 3D-printed into, for example, catheters. But those catheters, you know, are smart. … They can steer themselves inside the human body. For example, in the blood vessel, they can make turns. … So that indeed is one … project we are working on.”

‘ADDITIVE DOESN’T CARE’

Human beings have been making things for thousands of years. The word “manufacturing” actually means “handmade,” coming from the Latin for hand (manu) and made (factum), despite current connotations of machine-made.

Doing something for thousands of years means that an almost intuitive understanding of the materials and processes has been passed down from generation to generation. Sloughing off the knowledge built from thousands of years of doing the same thing and perfecting it evolutionarily is not an easy task, and that can be a serious problem for designers—that and the addition of potentially millions more variables into the manufacturing process.

Most often, the complex objects that we manufacture today are made up of lots of smaller, much less complex parts made in bulk, then fastened together. Each of those pieces needs to be cast or machined or forged or milled, and then someone has to assemble them. Additive manufacturing is most intriguing because it makes things holistically, with all the parts built together as one, and can potentially transform hundreds or even thousands of parts into just a few. At the very least, this opens up the possibility of much quicker prototypes, which has the Army excited.

Mike Nikodinovski, mechanical engineer and additive manufacturing expert in the Materials Division at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, said that an example he often uses to demonstrate the difference between legacy manufacturing and additive is a hole.

“If you drill a hole in a part,” he said, “usually it’s in a straight line because that’s the only thing that you can do with a drill,” he said, “But additive doesn’t care about that. If I want that hole to be twisty and do different things, now, designers … can design for something different, because the limitations of traditional manufacturing are gone. Now they can say, ‘I can do all these crazy different things.’ ” That’s one of the benefits, but also one of the problems. Sometimes it makes sense to do something completely outside any box ever made, but other times, not so much.

It’s more than a radical change when everything you know about how to design and build an object are out the window.

“When you deal with a material that’s been forged or cast for centuries, there are a lot of assumptions built into the selection of the material and the manufacturing method,” said Dr. William Benard, senior campaign scientist in materials development with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in Adelphi, Maryland. According to Benard, ARL’s research and development portfolio is divided into campaigns that reflect the Army’s priorities. Senior campaign scientists work across the organization to develop and coordinate research strategy and to communicate and interface with the broader research communities—DOD, national labs, industry and academia.

That deep institutional and engineering muscle memory in manufacturing simply does not exist in additive, which has only been with us since the mid-1980s. That’s not much more than a couple of ticks of the historical clock compared with the thousands of years that humans have been casting, forging, cutting, milling and drilling.

“That’s where we really have to do the research to understand how the materials behave differently,” Benard said. “It’s not that they’re so fundamentally different, it’s just building up the knowledge base that we have with other manufacturing methods.”

Not only that, said Benard, “I think the scale of the design space that is opened up makes it very challenging to develop good intuition. This is one of the areas we are working on—design tools to manage complexity and help identify non-intuitive optimal designs. The tools have to address the complexity of selecting and placing different materials in a volume, or modulating the material properties, to satisfy constraints and performance objectives that exist in multiple intersecting fields and dimensions—for example, looking at thermal, mechanical and electrical performance of high-power electronics packaging.”

Same Technology, Different Result

Part of the potentially endless advantages of additive is the capability to easily produce dead-simple to ragingly complex objects. So, while we would seem to be a long way from printing a new human heart, the Rapid Equipping Force’s Expeditionary Lab (Ex Lab) in Afghanistan recently designed and printed a specialized tourniquet component to help stanch blood flow from a Soldier’s groin wound in the field.

This junctional tourniquet is just one of the hundreds of projects that the Ex Lab, which is essentially an engineering and fabrication facility in a box—in this case, a 20-foot shipping container—has created as the result of Soldiers’ requests. “Among other fabrication processes, we use four additive manufacturing machines, which we run 24 hours a day, and what we’re building is going right into the hands of U.S. Soldiers. That’s a small piece of where the Army is with additive manufacturing in the deployed environment,” said Angel Cruz, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) project lead, REF Ex Lab, in an interview.

“Everything that Ex Labs build is custom. A Soldier comes in with a mission-capability shortfall that can be solved by a materiel solution, and then the engineers we have downrange brainstorm with the Solider and build the custom solution on-site. If we can’t build it there, we have it built somewhere within RDECOM and ship it forward. Ex Labs provide a truly unique and powerful capability accessed directly by deployed Soldiers.”

There are probably too many advantages to the Ex Lab approach to list, but at the very top is the capacity to get unique equipment that does not currently exist to Soldiers very quickly. The Soldier brings an idea or a problem directly to the engineers, and they collaborate on a design that can be hammered out right then and there. The junctional tourniquet originated with special operations medics, Cruz said. They found it very difficult to stanch blood flow with the standard tourniquet in groin wounds. These medics were using chewing tobacco containers and applying them with ace bandages.

The medics brought the tobacco container method to the Ex Lab engineers and within hours had several printed prototypes to test and select the best one. And that’s just one of the many solutions that’s come out of the Ex Lab.

Similarly, according to Tim Phillis, the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Rapid Fabrication via Additive Manufacturing on the Battlefield (R-FAB) is a factory in a box. “R-FAB only has additive with 3D scanning capability, as well. It’s only polymer printing because that technology and those pieces of equipment were the ones we felt were the most ready for expeditionary use. And that’s the whole thing: How do we get this technology to the tactical level?”

CONCLUSION

Additive’s seemingly endless possibilities mean that the Army has a lot of work to do in figuring out what capabilities make sense to take forward, what capabilities to develop, and where they all belong. That’s the focus of a lot of the Army’s efforts, from building nanorobotic components to aircraft engines, to standing up the Additive and Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence at the Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center.

We are not yet—nor likely will be ever be—to the point where we will have the Replicator from “Star Trek.” But additive has opened, and continues to open, a host of possibilities for the Army to explore.

For more information, go to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/, which has a detailed rundown of the different processes for items made with additive manufacturing. The website https://3dprinting.com has considerable coverage of the additive manufacturing industry, from home and educational use to industrial capabilities.

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. He is Level II certified in program management.

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

The Rakkasans and a university are innovating 3D printing to direct traffic at the tactical level.

by First Sgt. Robert Clark and Capt. Aimee Valles

Innovation is about finding new and sometimes unexpected solutions to complex problems. Soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team “Rakkasans,” 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) have informally teamed up with Vanderbilt University to leverage emerging technologies in innovative ways.

The 3rd Brigade Combat Team fosters a culture of innovation from the highest-ranking officer to the lowest enlisted Soldier. Col. John P. Cogbill, commander of the Rakkasans—a Japanese word meaning “falling umbrella men,” given to Soldiers from the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team during post-WWII occupation—encourages Soldiers and leaders in the brigade to think critically, collaborate and find creative solutions to complex problems.

Seizing an opportunity to do just that, the Soldiers of Company B “Breacher,” 21st Brigade Engineer Battalion, a company in the Rakkasan Brigade, recently worked with the Wond’ry Makerspace at Vanderbilt University to employ 3D printing to fix problems that were historically addressed with little more than 550 parachute cord and 100 mph tape—also known as duct tape—common items found in every Army unit and widely on the internet.

INNOVATION IN ACTION

Among the challenges that the Rakkasan Soldiers face is how to sustain operations and maintain readiness in remote and austere environments. During quarterly brainstorming sessions and brigade innovation forums they realized that 3D printing technology could offer materiel solutions to some of these challenges.

They invited Dr. Kevin Galloway, director of making and a research assistant professor in the Vanderbilt University Mechanical Engineering Department, to an innovation event sponsored by the Rakkasans to explore these ideas. In this open setting dedicated to sharing and exploring ideas, Galloway and Rakkasan leaders discussed how to turn ideas into action.

Soldiers from Breacher Company visited Galloway’s Wond’ry Makerspace, a state-of-the-art prototyping laboratory with 3D printers, fiber arts, mold-making and casting materials. Breacher Company leaders and Galloway’s team had an opportunity to work together to bring concepts to life. “The rapid fabrication tools available today have significantly lowered the barriers to advance innovative ideas,” Galloway said in an interview. “With a little technical training, anyone can quickly learn how to harness the power of these tools to validate early stage ideas before more resources are invested.”

The Soldiers presented the difficulty of developing easy-to-fabricate and easy-to-use visual marking systems to Galloway’s team. Soldiers employ a variety of marking systems as visual signals across the battlefield. These signals help direct traffic, maintain unity and spacing between Soldiers, and, perhaps most importantly, designate safe zones and lanes for weapon systems. The problem the company faced was that its current systems were bulky and not standardized within the unit. For a marking system to be effective, it must be easy to carry and use, and universally recognizable to Soldiers across the entire unit. With Galloway’s help, the Soldiers explored ways to develop a standardized marking system.

THE LINKS THAT BIND

Marking systems are more complex than a single VS-17 panel, a cloth marker commonly used to allow pilots to identify friendly units from the air during the day, or a single luminous chemical light during the night. During a recent .50-caliber machine gun training, Sgt. 1st Class Jesse Frederick, a platoon sergeant in the company, was inspired by the links that hold the .50-caliber ammunition in place. He had seen these links used to hold chemical lights together, but realized that they could be welded together to hold multiple chemical lights (of different colors) in a standardized system. Frederick created a prototype of the marking tool he envisioned.

Initially, he molded a rudimentary holder in the shape of two links to house two chemical lights and a grommet to hold a strip of VS-17 panel. There were some initial design flaws in the prototype; the holes were too small and did not push to the middle of the chemical light, and the material was flimsy and would likely break if carried over long distances in a pocket or a backpack. However, with Galloway’s help and a little bit of computer-aided design work, a 3D printer was producing a more precise and durable marking system within 30 minutes.

Once the initial product was complete, Breacher Company progressed to the casting and molding room. There they learned how to create silicone molds that could be filled with resin to batch- fabricate holders without the use of a 3D printer. After all, there may not be a 3D printer and a dedicated laboratory in the remote and austere environments where the company may have to operate.

Now, several weeks after that initial visit, Breacher Company has produced hundreds of these systems and can offer the Rakkasan Brigade a standardized and effective marking system for both day and night operations.

CONCLUSION

The marking system is just one of the latest collaborations between the Rakkasans and Vanderbilt University, and more projects are ongoing. “This partnership from the beginning has been very rewarding,” Galloway said. “Soldiers have lots of ideas and challenges to share. Creating this opportunity for them to see how the latest technology could be used to advance their idea while creating real-world challenges for students to advance their skills, it’s a win-win situation.”

The collaboration between the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Vanderbilt could serve as a model for the rest of the Army. “This type of symbiotic relationship between tactical units and partner universities could, if scaled, greatly accelerate the velocity of innovation efforts, providing the Army with a more ready and lethal force,” Cogbill said. “Formalizing these relationships is exactly the kind of initiative that the Army Applications Lab at the Army Futures Command is looking to facilitate.”

For more information about the Wond’ry Makerspace at Vanderbilt University, go to https://www.vanderbilt.edu/thewondry/.

FIRST SGT. ROBERT CLARK is company first sergeant of Company B, 21st Brigade Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team Rakkasans. He previously served as a platoon sergeant in the same company, as well as an instructor at the prestigious Sapper Leader Course. He is sapper and Ranger qualified and is a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

CAPT. AIMEE VALLES is company commander of Company B, 21st Brigade Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team Rakkasans. Previously, she was brigade engineer for the Rakkasans and an observer and coach trainer at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California. She holds a B.S. in leadership studies with minors in sociology and military studies from Texas A&M University. She is sapper qualified and is a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Master Sgt. Keita N. Lyles

COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: 902nd Contracting Battalion, 418th Contracting Support Brigade

POSITION AND OFFICIAL TITLE: Battalion sergeant major and senior enlisted adviser

YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 8

YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE: 20

DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in contracting

EDUCATION: B.S. in business administration, Columbia Southern University; associate degree in general studies, Colorado Technical University

AWARDS: Joint Service Commendation Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal (four oak leaf clusters (OLCs)), Army Achievement Medal (four OLCs), Meritorious Unit Citation, Army Superior Unit Award, Army Good Conduct Medal (fifth clasp), National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal (one campaign star), Iraqi Campaign Medal (two campaign stars), Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (Numeral 3), Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (Numeral 7), NATO Medal, Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal; Driver’s Badge, Sharpshooter Qualification Badge, German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency (Gold); Transportation Corps Distinguished Order of St. Christopher Award; Sergeant Audie Murphy Award

by Susan L. Follett

When Master Sgt. Keita Lyles joined Army acquisition in 2010, the noncommissioned officer (NCO) acquisition community was relatively small. But being part of a small community has paid big dividends, in the form of easing the transition to a new military occupational specialty (MOS) and helping her find mentors and advisers who she continues to rely on. “I’ve been very fortunate to find several leaders across my career path—[MOS] 51Cs as well as non-acquisition personnel—and I’ve pulled on their jacket tails and consistently sought their advice.”

Lyles, battalion sergeant major and senior enlisted adviser for the 902nd Contracting Battalion at Joint Base Lewis – McChord, Washington, came to acquisition from the Transportation Corps. “A friend of mine at the time who was part of the original group of NCOs who transferred to the 51C career field mentioned to me that switching over was a good career choice to look into,” she said. At the time, Lyles was in Germany, preparing for a 15-month deployment as a squad leader and mission commander. “After experiencing as many leadership roles as I could, there were only a few remaining growth opportunities in transportation, and I knew it was time for a change. I thought that [switching to the Acquisition Corps] would not only benefit my career and my family—it was also the best option for when I make the transition to the private sector after retirement.”

The transition from transportation to acquisition “was a little scary at first,” she conceded. “After being somewhat of an expert in my old career field and holding several leadership positions, having to start over from scratch and learning new skills—some of which were very demanding and detailed—was a major adjustment.” She advises other NCOs making the transition to stay focused and motivated throughout the process. “Get everything out of each experience, from networking to taking notes on how to complete a contract you don’t have experience with or a briefing or report needed after a mission. Everything we do and the relationships we build make us that much more valuable and user-friendly.”

One thing that eased the transition was the camaraderie of the people she worked with. “Our career field was and is very small, and there was always a sense of family in everything we did and at every opportunity we met,” she said. “Whether it was coming together during our annual training exercises or preparing for the NCO of the Year competition, everyone … had a ‘one team, one fight’ mindset and we took care of one another. We all knew each other, which was really nice when we heard each other’s names across the world.”

She noted that her key developmental assignment—serving as brigade staff NCO for the 411th Contracting Support Brigade in Korea—was the most valuable one of her career so far. “That assignment challenged me to push myself outside of my comfort zone of always being that worker bee behind the scenes. I’m one of those dedicated hard workers who doesn’t like being in the limelight, but that’s not possible in this role. I did so many different things—setting up teleconferences or putting together a retirement ceremony, for example—and was the face of the organization within the community. I was the first female president of the area’s Sergeant Audie Murphy Club, was photographed at all kinds of events, and took part in 5Ks and half-marathons. The most challenging aspect was figuring out how to do everything and be everywhere, as often as I could.”

Fortunately, she had lots of support from leadership and her coworkers. “I came across so much knowledge and genuine care for Soldiers from so many leaders,” she said, including brigade commanders Col. Americus Gill, Col. David Ware, Col. Johnny Broughton; staff officers Lt. Col. Marty Plys, Lt. Col. Paul Tomcik and Lt. Col. Michael Harris; and her direct leadership, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Redecker, Maj. Maurice Hudson and Master Sgt. Stephanie Bennett.

Lyles also found a lot of value in the Defense Acquisition University courses she took, particularly those in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) fundamentals, advanced contracting, joint contingency contracting and emergency acquisition. “They taught me a lot: a plethora of FAR information, preparing for deployment and confirming my leadership style as well as that of the leaders I worked with.”

Lyles’ background and accomplishments were factors in her acceptance into the Training With Industry program in 2016, when she was one of two NCOs selected for that year’s cohort. She spent 12 months in the Contracts Management Division of Microsoft’s Cloud Infrastructure and Operations in 2016 and 2017. “I really enjoyed the bonding and transparency of the work environment there,” she said. “I learned a lot about industry contracting, and how Microsoft became one of the leaders in the cloud industry.”

The most important lesson Lyles has learned on and off the job is the importance of networking. It takes many forms, she said: “Keeping boots on ground, interacting with the warfighters’ organizations, learning how we can best help them with their needs and ensure that they know who we are, keeping a good line of communication and educating them as often as needed to get exactly what they need to be sustainable. Get out of your cubicle—meet your customers, build relationships within the base and surrounding communities, and have a good line of communication with leaders and customers.”

Mindset is important too, she said. “I always remind everyone, junior or senior, new or seasoned acquisition personnel, to look at the glass as being half full. Contracting experiences differ from stateside, outside the U.S. and in deployment areas, so have patience and an open mind.”

This article is published in the January – March 2019 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 And Now

1993 & 2019 

Training For The Future

Force 2025 and beyond will need a new training system to thrive in ambiguity and chaos—the synthetic training environment. The Army’s picking up speed to get there.

By Jacqueline M. Hames and Margaret C. Roth

A four-man team of Soldiers sits in a nondescript building on Fort Belvoir, Virginia, each at his own desk, surrounded by three monitors that provide them individual, 3D views of an abandoned city. On screen, they gather at the corner of a crumbling building to meet another team—represented by avatars—who are actually on the ground in a live-training area, a mock-up of the abandoned city. They’re all training together, in real time, to prepare for battles in dense urban terrain.

That’s the central goal of the Synthetic Training Environment (STE)—immersive, integrated virtual training—presented Oct. 10 during a Warriors Corner session at the 2018 Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington. The Army has been working toward this kind of fully immersive training experience for decades, and leadership hopes to have it operational as early as 2025.

In May 1993, Army RD&A Bulletin, the predecessor publication to this magazine, dedicated several articles to the concept and execution of distributed interactive simulation (DIS), “a time and space coherent representation of a virtual battlefield environment” that allowed warfighters across the globe to interact with one other as well as computer-generated forces, according to John S. Yuhas, author of the article “Distributed Interactive Simulation.”

BETTER, FASTER, STRONGER

While the name of the program seems to emphasize individual simulation units, its overarching purpose was to bring together thousands of individuals and teams virtually in real time. Central to DIS was the idea of interoperable standards and protocol, allowing each community—“trainer, tester, developer and acquisitioner”—to use the others’ concepts and products, Maj. David W. Vaden wrote in “Vision for the Next Decade.”

The article explained that “distributed” referred to geographically separated simulations networked together to create a synthetic environment; “interactive” to different simulations linked electronically to act together and upon each other; and “simulation” to three categories—live, virtual and constructive. Live simulations involved real people and equipment; virtual referred to manned simulators; and constructive referred to war games and models, with or without human interaction. Sound familiar?

DIS has much in common with STE. Both provide training and mission rehearsal capability to the operational and institutional sides of the Army (i.e., Soldiers and civilians). They even share the same training philosophy: to reduce support requirements, increase realism and help deliver capabilities to the warfighter faster.

Users of STE will train with live participants and computer simulations, with some units training remotely. However, STE takes virtual reality training to a new level altogether by incorporating advances in artificial intelligence, big data analysis and three-dimensional terrain representation.

Current training simulations are based on technologies from the 1980s and ’90s that can’t replicate the complex operational environment Soldiers will fight in. They operate on closed, restrictive networks, are facilities-based and have high overhead costs for personnel, Maj. Gen. Maria R. Gervais, commanding general for the U.S. Army Combined Arms Training Center and director of the STE Cross-Functional Team, said in an August 2018 article, “The Synthetic Training Environment Revolutionizes Sustainment Training.” Those older technologies also can’t support electronic warfare, cyberspace and megacities, the article explained. For example, Soldiers in the 1990s could conduct training using computers and physical simulators—like the ones showcased in Charles Burdick, Jorge Cadiz and Gordon Sayre’s 1993 “Industry Applications of Distributed Interactive Simulation” article in the Army RD&A Bulletin—but the training was limited to a single facility and only a few networked groups; the technology wasn’t yet able to support worldwide training with multiple groups of users in real time, like the Army proposes to do with the STE.

Gervais presented a promotional video during “Warriors Corner #13: Synthetic Training Environment Cross-Functional Team Update,” which said the STE will provide intuitive and immersive capabilities to keep pace with the changing operational environment. The STE is a Soldier lethality modernization priority of the U.S. Army Futures Command.

“With the STE, commanders will conduct tough, realistic training at home stations, the combat training centers and at deployed locations. The STE will increase readiness through repetition, multi-echelon, multidomain, combined arms maneuver and mission command training. And most importantly, the STE will train Soldiers for where they will fight,” said Gen. Robert B. Abrams, then-commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, in the same video. Abrams is now commander of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea. Today, simulations in the integrated training environment do not provide the realism, interoperability, affordability and availability necessary for the breadth of training that the Army envisions for the future. The STE will be able to do all that—it will be flexible, affordable and available at the point of need.

“This video helps us get to shared understanding, and also awareness of what we’re trying to achieve with the synthetic training environment,” Gervais said during the AUSA presentation. “But it also allows us to understand the challenges that we’re going to face as we try to deliver this.”

CHALLENGES AHEAD

“We don’t have the right training capability to set the exercises up,” said Mike Enloe, chief engineer for the STE Cross-Functional Team, during the presentation. “What I mean by that is that it takes more time to set up the systems that are disparate to talk to each other, to get the terrains together, than it does to actually have the exercise go.”

The Army’s One World Terrain, a 3D database launched in 2013 that collects, processes, stores and executes global terrain simulations, has been the “Achilles’ heel” of STE from the start, Enloe said. The Army lacks well-formed 3D terrain data and therefore the ability to run different echelons of training to respond to the threat. The database is still being developed as part of the STE, and what the Army needs most “right now from industry is content … we need a lot of 3D content and rapid ways to get them built,” Enloe said. That means the capability to process terrain on 3D engines so that it can move across platforms, he said, and steering clear of proprietary technologies. The STE is based on modules that can be changed to keep up with emerging technologies.

The Army also needs the ability to write the code to develop the artificial intelligence that will meet STE’s needs—that can, to some extent, learn and challenge the weaknesses of participants, he said.

Retired Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, 32nd vice chief of staff of the Army, emphasized during the presentation that the Army needs to move away from the materiel development of the STE and focus on training as a service. “I believe that a training environment should have two critical aspects to it,” he said: It should be a maneuver trainer, and it should be a gunnery trainer.

CHANGING THE CULTURE

Brig. Gen. Michael E. Sloane, program executive officer for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), said the leadership philosophy of STE’s development is about fostering culture change and getting Soldiers capabilities faster. “We have to be proactive; the [cross-functional teams] have to work together with the PEOs, and we’re doing that,” he said. “Collectively, we’re going to deliver real value to the Soldier, I think, in doing this under the cross-functional teams and the leadership of the Army Futures Command.”

Many organizations are involved with STE’s development. The U.S. Army Combined Arms Center – Training and the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command capability managers are working requirements and represent users. PEO STRI is the materiel developer. The U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence is responsible for the infantry, armor and combined arms requirement. And finally, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)) serves as the approval authority for long-range investing and requirements.

With the Futures Command and ASA(ALT) collaborating throughout the development of STE, Sloane believes the Army will be able to reduce and streamline acquisition documentation, leverage rapid prototyping, deliver capabilities and get it all right the first time.

Gervais reminded the AUSA audience in October that she had spoken about STE at the annual meeting two years ago, explaining that the Army intends to use the commercial gaming industry to accelerate the development of STE. “I did not believe that it couldn’t be delivered until 2030. I absolutely refused to believe that,” she said. In 2017, the chief of staff designated STE as one of the eight cross-functional teams for Army modernization, aligning it with Soldier lethality.

Since then, STE has made quite a bit of progress, Gervais said. The initial capability document for the Army collective training environment—which lays the foundation for STE—was approved in 2018. The Army increased its industry engagement to accelerate the development of STE, according to Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark A. Milley’s direction, which led to the awarding of seven other transaction authority agreements for One World Terrain, followed by a user assessment in March 2018. In June, Secretary of the Army Dr. Mark T. Esper and Milley codified STE in their vision statement. “We’re postured to execute quickly,” Gervais said.

In the meantime, she said, there has been a focused effort to increase lethality with a squad marksmanship trainer in the field to allow close combat Soldiers to train immediately. The Army also developed a squad immersive virtual trainer. “We believe we can deliver that [squad immersive trainer] much quicker than the 2025 timeframe,” she said.

CONCLUSION

STE is focused on establishing common data, standards and terrain to maximize interoperability, ease of integration and cost savings, Gervais said. With the right team effort and coordination, she believes STE can be delivered quickly. Perhaps in a few short years, STE can achieve the lofty goal that DIS had for itself, according to Yuhas: Revolutionize the training and acquisition process for new weapon systems.

For more information on virtual training in the 1990s, go to https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/archives/1993/May-Jun_1993.PDF. For more on immersive training today, go to https://www.dvidshub.net/video/631823/ausa-2018-warriors-corner-13-synthetic-training-environment-cross-functional-team-update.

Related Links:

USAASC info page: https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/synthetic-training-environment-ste/

https://www.army.mil/article/210105/the_synthetic_training_environment_revolutionizes_sustainment_training

https://www.army.mil/article/201274/army_synthetic_training_environment_inches_closer_to_reality

This article is published in the January – March 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Robots should rescue Soldiers, not the other way around. So the U.S. Army Research Laboratory is developing software to help robots pick themselves up after a fall.

by Jacqueline M. Hames

Most real-life robots are a long way from their sentient science-fiction counterparts. You could even categorize them as a little bit helpless, prone to falling over. That may be cute for a robotic toy dog but it is decidedly undesirable for a robot in the field tasked with clearing improvised explosive devices (IEDs). “We hope that we can prevent that situation from ever being a problem again, where the robot can right itself and return to the vehicle so the Soldier isn’t tempted to risk his own life for the sake of a robot,” said Dr. Chad Kessens, a research scientist at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

In 2011, Kessens took a training course with Soldiers in which they learned how to use robots for finding and identifying roadside IEDs. “Through my interactions with the trainers who had actually used robots in Iraq and Afghanistan, I found out that one of the major problems they have is the robots they’re using for this turn over more often than they would like—even once is a problem,” Kessens said. One of the Soldiers that Kessens worked with said that, after 20 minutes of trying and failing to right his robot—which was potentially near an IED—he got out of his vehicle, hustled over to the robot and rescued it because he valued the robot so much. When Kessens heard about this Soldier’s experience, he immediately wanted to solve the problem.

“My role,” Kessens said, “is to do robotic manipulation research that will positively impact future Army operations.” He and the rest of ARL’s Autonomous Systems Division’s advanced mobility and manipulation team want to understand how robots can right themselves so that the future Soldier has semi- or fully autonomous robots on the battlefield.

BOT FLIPPING 101

The problem, as Kessens sees it, is that today’s robots are unable to reorient themselves after experiencing a disorienting event, like falling into a ditch or being knocked over. The solution, then, is to give robots the ability to self-right. To do that, the robots need to be more aware of the space they are in and how they can move in that space. Kessens has developed a two-part software package, referred to as self-righting software, to give the robots that ability. The first part of the software is for analyzing the robot’s structure, while the second part is for planning and executing self-righting maneuvers.

“My job as an Army researcher is to really understand the entire problem,” Kessens said. His main goal is to understand the robot’s morphology using the analytical part of the self-righting software. Morphology is the study of the forms of things; in this instance, Kessens is studying the robot’s shape, where its joints are and how they are oriented in relation to one another, how heavy the limbs are relative to one another, and all the other different parameters that go into the physical makeup of a robot. “How does [the morphology] affect its ability to self-right, and under what circumstances can it not self-right?”

The goal of the software is to encompass as many varieties of robotic systems as possible; therefore, the research has to be relatively generic. However, all research has to start with a set of control parameters: Kessens and the research team assume that the software will be used for robots with rigid bodies, and that have sensors that can determine what configuration the robots are in and in what direction gravity is acting, Kessens said. “So we need something, a sensor like an IMU—inertial measurement unit—or we could use just accelerometers or inclinometers. There are different ways to get that information,” he said.

An IMU is the sensor in a smartphone that changes the screen from vertical to horizontal, and vice versa, when the phone is turned sideways—what happens when you flip your phone to look at a photo, for instance. IMUs “are relatively cheap and pretty ubiquitous, so it’s not a leap to assume that a robot would have such a senor,” Kessens said. The team is also considering the size of the robot in its analysis. Larger robots tend to have more computing power, but robots that could fit in the palm of your hand are limited in how much memory they have and how much processing they can do in real time, he said.

“When I talk about having these two pieces [of software], the analysis piece can happen before the robot ever hits the field, and it will generate maps for the robot that can be stored fairly compactly, in terms of memory … but still be able to use [the maps] without requiring a great deal of processing,” Kessens said. The idea, he continued, is to use the analytical side of the software to do a thorough assessment of the robot’s morphology beforehand and then capture that information in a compact form to run as a separate piece of software on the robot that the robot would then use to navigate and self-right. The assessment determines all of the orientations a robot could stably sit in for a given joint configuration on a given ground angle, Kessens said. The software figures out how those states connect with one another, forming the map—kind of like the way a human remembers how to get up a certain way from a particular starting position, like lying on your back. “Once you’ve done it, you know how, you don’t have to think about it much because you can access that knowledge,” he said.

Of course not all of the Army’s current robotic systems have the same morphology—not all of them are tracked with a single arm, like iRobot’s 510 PackBot or Qinetiq’s Talon—and future robots will be even harder to predict. “Future robotic systems may be significantly more complex—we may have a humanoid robot, and we’re going to want that humanoid robot to be able to pick itself up,” Kessens said. This futuristic variety presents an interesting challenge for Kessens: How do you tell a variety of robots, both current and future, how to right themselves? Through painstaking research, careful analysis, a little bit of trial and error and a small Lego-like robot.

ROBOT IN MOTION

The robot used in the team’s research is made of a shoebox-sized blue base, two white, tapered arms on each side, and a red, jointed appendage that carries a counterweight. All the parts were 3D-printed on the team’s own printer. It is able to sense its orientation and send a signal back to the researcher asking permission to self-right. However, this robot is just a research platform, said Geoff Slipher, division chief for the Autonomous Systems Division. He noted that research is still in the early stages, and emphasized that the test robot’s capabilities aren’t what the team envisions for final systems. “It’s not intended to be anything that the Army would ever intend to field. … It allows us to ask and answer research questions. So, our product is not a robotic system; our product is knowledge about how to make robotic systems perform better,” Slipher said.

In a demonstration, Jim Dotterweich, a research scientist working with Kessens, placed the research robot on a wooden ramp on the floor in the center of a room-sized square, steel frame. The frame, or rigging, held motion-capture cameras that in an actual experiment would record the robot’s movements. The robot’s Lego-like exterior allows researchers to attach reflective globes—motion-capture markers—of varying sizes in hundreds of configurations. The camera system locates the markers in the near-infrared spectrum to find joints and record dynamics of the robot, Dotterweich explained.

Dotterweich conducted the demonstration, hunching over a computer on a fold-out table to send the self-right command to the robot. Slowly, the robot pushed itself halfway upright using its arms. And then, in one quick movement, it twisted and jumped to a fully upright position, drawing a gentle cheer from the other researchers.

For their research, Kessens and his team generated a series of maps for different ground angles—different degrees of inclination, like a steep slope—using their software. They start the robot in varying configurations, like lying upside down or on its side, before running a path-planning algorithm to move the robot through the map, Kessens said. “We generated experimental data and matched it to the model data and showed that, yeah, our maps are doing a pretty good job of saying what states the robot could actually be in,” he said. The team also conducted several experiments wherein the robot would be given a random starting configuration before righting itself.

The self-righting software can be adapted to most rigid-body robots. Anything that has arms, legs, wings or flippers—in this case, a rigid appendage that is used specifically to flip a robot over, not to be confused with aquatic flippers—can be used. “Things that are soft or curve continuously, like an elephant trunk, would be a lot more difficult for the software to handle,” Kessens said.

In August 2018, ARL partnered with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to assess the self-righting ability of the U.S. Navy’s Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robotic System—a lightweight, tracked robot similar to the PackBot that can be carried like a backpack. The self-righting software helped to determine the best ways for that system to self-right with the assistance of the Hopkins lab’s range adversarial planning tool. The tool, which uses adaptive sampling—a method to efficiently search the space of possible robot configurations—helped the software work faster to generate self-righting maps for the Navy’s system, Kessens said. In other words, the planning tool quickly found different ways the robot could be configured, which allowed the self-righting software to plan maneuvers faster.

CONCLUSION

Moving robots around, from a simple nudge to an outright backflip, may seem unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Sure, your bomb-sniffing bot being able to right itself is useful and keeps you safe, but what does robotic mobility really mean for the Army?

The software being developed at ARL can help the Army create its own robotic systems and help the Army purchase commercial systems, Kessens said. Understanding the self-righting abilities of commercial systems gives the Army a reference point for comparing robots, he explained.

The self-righting software in particular, Slipher said, is relevant to the development of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle—some of these vehicles will be optionally manned or fully autonomous in the future. “We can envision a circumstance where those robots are out in a situation far away from help, either human or other robotic partner help where they would roll over or need to right themselves,” he said. “And so the basic research that Chad is doing is laying the groundwork for a transition path into larger robotic systems so we understand the physics and how the autonomy and the physical substantiation of the robot, how those two things interact, so that when … we actually have a design for a vehicle … then we can understand, OK, here are the requirements that would feed into that in order to build a self-righting capability.”

The Army is interested in making robots go fast and making them agile and adaptive, Slipher said, and though technology like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s cheetah robot is interesting in terms of raw physicality, it’s not quite what the Army’s after. “What we want is capability, that capability needs to have a purpose and that purpose needs to serve, needs to be able to enhance some sort of mission effectiveness,” Slipher said.

JACQUELINE M. HAMES is an 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 

ARL website: https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm

Video sidebar on other robotic projects Dr. Kessens is working: 

This article is published in the April-May 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Change happens because people find that the changes work for them. In its quest for modernization, the Army can learn a great deal from one of the world’s leading authorities on organizational development.

by Michael Bold

Few have studied more intensely the way that organizations large and small navigate through times of great change than Dr. John P. Kotter. First as a professor at Harvard Business School, and now as a professor emeritus and as co-founder and chairman of Kotter International, a consulting company he started in the wake of the overwhelming response to his research, he has become the go-to authority on leadership and change. His 20 books have sold millions of copies in over 150 languages.

His goal, as Kotter International’s website puts it, is to “help mobilize people around the world to better lead organizations in an era of increasingly rapid change.” As the U.S. Army stands up the Army Futures Command, and Army acquisition enters a period of profound change aimed at getting better capabilities to Soldiers faster, Army AL&T talked with Kotter in October about change and leadership. Kotter is not an expert on the military, but Army leadership’s sense of urgency and resolve impresses him.

“When it comes down to tactics, what we’ve learned … is that if you get a group of people who understand the basic argument—in [the Army’s] case, how much the world has changed since the traditional system for acquiring new systems, weapon systems and the like, and the time horizon that was acceptable, how much that is out of line with current reality—that’s something really … the word ‘revolutionary’ is not a big overstatement.”

Kotter warns, though, that even the best of intentions to face reality can be overwhelmed by today’s rapidly evolving technologies. “Everything needs to be accelerated to put up with just the speed with which [technology evolves] and the uncertainties and the less capacity to predict that we have today versus 10 years ago, much less versus 50 years ago or further,” he told Army AL&T.

In the interview, Kotter elaborated on the requirements necessary for leading change successfully.

A SENSE OF URGENCY

To lead an organization in a time of change, creating a sense of urgency is vital. Maintaining that sense of urgency is just as important as creating it, Kotter said.

“How often do people get stalled in producing the size of change at the speed they want these days?” he asked. “And the answer continues to be all the time, especially for large and complex and old institutions. And it’s just because it’s tough. Large and old and complex institutions have structures and policies and systems and culture and all kinds of habits, and a staff that thinks a certain way. And changing all that in a significant way toward something that makes sense in terms of the current or the anticipated future environment is just tough. And people start making it tougher by getting it wrong, right at the beginning, by creating far too little sense of real urgency around whatever the critical issues are.”

Warning your workforce that it’s change or die doesn’t work without also outlining a vision for the future, Kotter said. Sometimes you have to blow an air horn to wake up a slumbering workforce. “But blowing an air horn in their ear the third time and then the 20th time and then the 600th time doesn’t work,” he said. “All they’ll do is focus on trying to stop you and your air horn. They won’t be paying any attention to whatever the real issues are.” That creates an anxiety-driven false sense of urgency, he said.

A STRATEGIC VISION

That sense of urgency can’t be limited to agreeing that something is wrong with an organization, Kotter said. Leaders also need to point the way to better times ahead. “What our consultants have learned is that they want to get to work with an organization to get masses of people to the point where they think, a) yes, something has to change, and b) there’s the real actual opportunity out there. That is to say, if we make the change, that things will be better. … This isn’t just a running away from, it’s a running to something. If the employee believes that the vision makes sense and is excited about it, they will be willing to step up to the plate and help.”

Once an adequate number of people in the organization are buying into the vision, Kotter said, “what we have found is that you’ve got the conditions started from which you can do a lot of other stuff. But at least you’ve got the conditions that aren’t going to lead you to take off, to think that indeed you’re making great progress, and then to discover that everything kind of slows down on you because in the background people either think this isn’t necessary or this is stupid or it’s not my job or a million other reasons why they inadvertently don’t help, or become blockers.”

To help leaders develop a clear, coherent vision for the future, Kotter developed a five-minute rule. “A good vision can be explained, and explained in a way that’s clear enough and also emotionally compelling enough, without 53 PowerPoint slides. It can be done verbally in a relatively short period of time, we discovered—hence that so-called five-minute rule.” If the leader couldn’t explain the vision in five minutes, “it usually meant that it was just not clear in their own heads, which means their capacity to communicate it and make it clear in anybody else’s heads, much less get them excited about it, just wasn’t there. Because a vision is not an operating plan.”

IT TAKES AN ARMY

Enlisting an army of true believers is vital to effecting real change, Kotter said. Develop a group of people who buy into the need for change and who want to be a part of it, and organize them in a way that enables them “to become your first phalanx of folks out there spreading the word.” And don’t just use them as an echo chamber, he said, but sound them out for ways to get to the desired goal. “They can come up with ideas that you and I would never dream of that are relevant within their context and within the culture that they’re in.” That, in turn, gets other people’s attention and “gets them moving toward that feeling of ‘we got to do something,’ and this is too important. … And they start infecting or attracting more and more people and it just kind of grows, and more and more people help out, coming up with more ideas to attract more people.

“The whole thing eventually gets to the point where, like I say, you’ve got huge numbers of people with a real sense of urgency around the relevant issue, and you’ve got something that you can build off of and has some real chance of a) producing change and, b), producing sustainable change that doesn’t just get pushed back by the forces of history.”

COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE

A strong vision for the future of an organization doesn’t do any good if you don’t let people know what it is, Kotter said. “Number one is forget the fantasy that four people in a communications department is going to do it for you. You want to start with as many people who kind of understand it and can talk about it as your initial team, and you want that to grow. But you want as many people as humanly possible talking about this. There is no such thing as undercommunicating on this stuff.”

Every meeting, every encounter, every group email is an opportunity to explain your vision, Kotter said. “You get people to understand, to buy in, when you get enough music played loud and long enough in surround sound. Surround sound is in a sense they hear it from their peers, they hear it from their bosses, and they start to hear it from their subordinates. … You get the music played on a regular basis and in surround sound and growing in terms of how many speakers you got out there that are actually blasting it out, and you’ve got a chance then of being able to catch people’s attention and win over their hearts and minds on this.”

CULTURE CHANGE

Organizations, when looking to move in a new direction, often say they want to change their culture. Indeed, culture change is often at the top of the list of organization objectives. But Kotter says the very nature of culture means that it will be the last thing an organization can change.

“Culture is air. It’s mist,” he said. “Good luck trying to grab it and twist it into some new form.” Kotter points to the 30 years following World War II, when anthropologists discovered islands in the South Pacific that had had no contact with modern technology or civilization. Anthropologists studied how these groups made decisions on feeding their families, seeking shelter and solving conflict.

“When they started studying how cultures came about, the pattern was very clear,” he said. “You’d have a group of people who would come together, they would start trying to focus on some task, which could be anywhere from living together or building something or holding a social event. If the way they went about doing that task actually worked … they said, yeah, this worked, we’re doing fine. They would then either repeat it or repeat it with some small improvements. And this kind of rinse-and-repeat cycle over time would start to create what we call behavioral norms, which is just the way people did things. I mean, nobody had to keep reinventing this stuff; after a while it became a habit. This is how we fish, this is how we build huts.”

Eventually, Kotter said, these ways of performing tasks became the group’s culture—norms of behavior and underlying assumptions or beliefs about what is good, what is bad and what is valued or not valued, that are shared by a group of people.

“Culture changes the same way,” he said. Groups are either unsatisfied with current practices or think there might be a better way. “That’s step one. Step two is if it works and it’s pretty unambiguous that indeed this produces a better result. They communicate that, there’s a little bit of cheering and high-fiving, and then you do your rinse and repeat.” Eventually the new habits replace the old, and the culture has changed.

“And, as it turns out, that exact same pattern is what we find when we study businesses or units of the government, or nonprofits or health or education or any organization,” Kotter said. “… So culture as a word can come up earlier in the discussion, but it’s not changing it. That happens all as a result of all these other actions.”

CONCLUSION

Leading change requires not just intellect, but emotion, too, Kotter said. “If there are principles that we have found that seem to cut across all industries, all sizes of organizations, public and private … one is that change happens because it’s not just a head exercise, it’s a head and a heart exercise. Change happens not just because people have to, because it’s their job, but because they want to.”

That emotional buy-in allows for the rapid change that today’s technologies require. “That’s why some of these startups, even when they grow to some size—not hundreds of people, but thousands of people—continue to move at speeds that seem incomprehensible to older organizations. It’s because they build, indeed, a solid management structure … but they don’t lose that kind of want-to, voluntary, into it for something emotional, network-type organization that helped get them started when they were very young.”

On the other end of the spectrum are organizations (such as the Army) that “keep the number of people who are in a sense empowered to help produce change small and controllable,” Kotter said, without recognizing that a strict hierarchical organization is “built much more to produce efficiencies and reliability just to get the job done. It wasn’t invented to change itself … or to invent radically new ideas that can do things radically better.”

For more information, go to https://www.kotterinc.com/.

_______________

KOTTER AT A GLANCE

Kotter graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a B.S. in electrical engineering in 1968 and an M.S. in management in 1970. He then completed his Doctor of Business Administration in 1972 at Harvard Business School and joined the faculty. In 1981, at age 33, he received tenure and a full professorship, and was later named the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership. Kotter retired as a full-time faculty member from Harvard in 2001. In 2008, he co-founded Kotter International. (Among Kotter International’s early clients was the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Alabama, in 2009. As the war in Afghanistan intensified, Kotter helped the center create a strategy to successfully process a backlog of pilots through the training program.)

Kotter first received widespread attention in the spring of 1995, when his article, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” was published in the Harvard Business Review. In very short order, the article jumped to the top of the Review’s reprint list.

A book, “Leading Change,” followed the next year, becoming an international best-seller. In 2011, Time magazine said “Leading Change” was one of the 25 most influential business management books ever written. In “Leading Change,” Kotter devised an eight-step process for change management and leadership (since updated in his 2014 book, “Accelerate”):

• Create a sense of urgency: Help others see the need for change through a bold, aspirational opportunity statement that communicates the importance of acting immediately.
• Build a guiding coalition: A volunteer army needs a coalition of effective people—born of its own ranks—to guide it, coordinate it and communicate its activities.
• Form a strategic vision and initiatives: Clarify how the future will be different from the past and how you can make that future a reality through initiatives linked directly to the vision.
• Enlist a volunteer army: Large-scale change can occur only when massive numbers of people rally around a common opportunity. They must be bought-in and urgent to drive change—moving in the same direction.
• Enable action by removing barriers: Removing inefficient processes and hierarchies, for example, provides the freedom necessary to work across silos and generate real impact.
• Generate short-term wins: Wins are the molecules of results. They must be recognized, collected and communicated—early and often—to track progress and energize volunteers to persist.
• Sustain acceleration: Press harder after the first successes. Your increasing credibility can improve systems, structures and policies. Be relentless with initiating change after change until the vision is a reality.
• Institute change: Articulate the connections between the new behaviors and organizational success, making sure they continue until they become strong enough to replace old habits.

____________________

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 Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Missouri.

This article is published in the April-May 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Third in a series of articles on how Combat Capabilities Development Command, formerly the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command and now part of Army Futures Command, is supporting the Army’s six modernization priorities.

by Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins

When Soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry dropped from UH-1 Huey helicopters into a small clearing in the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965, they became part of what is considered the first large-scale helicopter assault and the first large-unit engagement of the Vietnam War. Though immediately surrounded by thousands of North Vietnamese soldiers, American forces were able to combine air assault with the more traditional heavy artillery support to keep from being overrun. Hundreds of American Soldiers died during the battle that followed, but the air support was one key reason they were able to inflict a much heavier toll on the North Vietnamese army.

Helicopters were indispensable during the Vietnam War because of their ability to take off and land vertically and to hover in a country noted covered in dense jungle. They were used to transport Soldiers and supplies to the war zone, conduct reconnaissance missions, strike targets and evacuate injured Soldiers for treatment. Many years later, Army aviation continued to play an important role in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the varied desert and mountainous terrain presented problems including limited maneuverability and brownout conditions. Helicopters remain critical to Army operations, but some of the vertical-lift platforms in current use are more than 50 years old. To achieve the performance that next generation aircraft will require, we are working on many critical areas including lethality, survivability, lighter and stronger airframes and rotors and advanced manned and unmanned teaming.

ONE TEAM, ONE PLAN

Before moving into the U.S. Army Futures Command and becoming Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC), the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) launched an across-the-board campaign plan to gain greater visibility of our operations and become more effective and efficient. This campaign continues to scrutinize our integrated technology development, how we manage our talent and other resources and how we communicate this to our partners and the American public.

As part of that campaign, we reorganized our portfolio and management structures to mirror the Army’s modernization priorities, naming a lead center for each modernization priority. While the CCDC Aviation and Missile Center leads science and technology (S&T) for Future Vertical Lift—the Army’s third modernization priority—our eight major and three international centers and laboratories work together to interface with both the requirements community and the cross-functional teams developed as part of the Futures Command. This synergy enables our labs to produce a unified position and focus on the most critical technologies required for future vertical lift.

CCDC supports the Future Vertical Lift team at multiple levels, providing a dedicated S&T representative who provides aviation expertise, access to our labs to exchange technology, war-gaming exercises for collaboration and problem solving, and subject matter expert and program development support.

The command also brings the expertise of and relationships with its extensive network of domestic and international academic and industry partners, the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Aviation to develop and demonstrate new technologies for future vertical lift that will provide increased range, protection, lethality, agility and mission flexibility.

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE FUTURE FIGHT

We are developing and demonstrating several technologies for future vertical lift to inform concepts of operation and retain air power in multidomain operations, which will require commanders to fight with joint forces across multiple spheres to defeat adversaries.

The Integrated Mission Equipment for Vertical Lift Systems is a digital backbone of open architectures that will enable the Army to update and modernize equipment much faster and more effectively than currently fielded systems. This technology will not only meet evolving vertical lift requirements, it may be used on other platforms in the future, including combat vehicles. The flexible backbone will enable a plug-and-play capability, which will allow the Army to update systems easily with new technology. An added benefit will be the ability to increase readiness by programming the aircraft with the right capabilities for a mission before the aircraft departs.

In March 2018, the Aviation and Missile Center conducted demonstrations on Modular Missile Technologies, a line of modular open systems architecture test missiles. The missiles were launched from a fixed stand and flew the ballistic path the team had planned. The highly adaptable open architecture hardware and software design of the Modular Missile Technologies will not only reduce life cycle costs for future aviation weapons, but also will provide greater flexibility and the ability to make improvements rapidly.

Another area that we are exploring is air-launched effects, including unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles. These can be launched from current platforms such as an Apache attack helicopter or a Gray Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle, or from platforms still in development, such as the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA). These platforms will contain a variety of payloads to degrade or destroy advanced unmanned aerial systems and provide support to troops on the ground.

The Aviation and Missile Center is developing a FARA prototype, which will be a smaller variant than the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft that is also in development. These future aircraft systems will have multiple types of unmanned aerial systems with lethal and nonlethal effects that can operate in communications- and GPS-denied environments.

WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO

Based on multidomain operations concepts, emerging requirements for Future Vertical Lift include the ability to fly farther and faster, to carry heavier payloads, be easier and less expensive to sustain, to team with unmanned systems and perform certain optionally piloted missions.

Aviators need to be able to operate day or night in all types of weather, including degraded environments such as sand, smoke, smog, clouds, fog, rain, snow, and brownout or whiteout conditions. Degraded visual environment (DVE) technology will enable operations including the ability to see the enemy without being seen, which will greatly increase lethality and survivability. Part of readiness is being able to operate in different environments, so DVE will make a critical impact when it’s fielded by increasing combat power as well as preventing mishaps.

To support aviation survivability, we are exploring innovative technologies that will warn aircrews of incoming small-arms or machine-gun fire early enough time for them to take evasive action and launch a counterattack. These universal threat detection techniques will outpace evolving threats with coordinated effects that will detect, avoid or defeat threats by reducing platform susceptibility and vulnerability.

A number of our efforts that will enable Future Vertical Lift to perform both manned and unmanned operations link directly to the Army’s priorities including robotics, autonomy and artificial intelligence (AI).

For example, we are leveraging multiple areas of expertise across the command including engineers who can produce technology that allows platforms to perform complex navigation, and a communications system that will operate in anti-access and area denial environments. To support this effort, we started the Advanced Teaming for Tactical Aviation Operations program in FY19. Both industry and DOD have invested in this effort, so our challenge is to rapidly select the best components from industry that will work on military aircraft.

MULTI-TASKING SENSORS

Existing sensors are used for a single purpose, but it is no longer sufficient to have separate sensors for targeting, survivability and navigation. As a result, we are developing multipurpose sensors that will not overload the size, weight and power of the aircraft and will reduce the cognitive burden on pilots from data overload. These next-generation, multifunction electro-optical and infrared sensor systems will provide situational awareness in anti-access and area denial environments and automate targeting capabilities.

DEMONSTRATORS AND PROTOTYPES

The Aviation and Missile Center is working closely with industry to design and build a Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator for Future Vertical Lift, which will incorporate existing and experimental capabilities that demonstrate vertical lift capabilities for future vertical lift programs. The Army is using the technology demonstrator to conduct ground and flight demonstrations to help inform requirements for next-generation Army aircraft.

Additionally, the Army already has directed competitive prototypes for the FARA to be developed by the Aviation and Missile Center. The FARA will be a light-attack and reconnaissance aircraft that will be able to avoid radar detection and operate in densely populated megacities. Requirements for the FARA include enough AI to fly unmanned at least part of the time, a secure communications network to control specialized drones, an open architecture, speed up to 235 miles per hour and the ability to reach targets 155 miles away. The Army plans to conduct flight testing on the prototypes in 2023 and make a procurement decision in 2024, then field this new capability to a combat unit soon afterward.

TEAMING WITH PARTNERS

CCDC has hundreds of cooperative research and development agreements with many industrial partners, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Karem Aircraft Inc. and AVX Aircraft Co. Our academic partners on Future Vertical Lift include Penn State University, the University of Maryland and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Our international partners are the United Kingdom, France, Israel and Germany. These agreements enable both parties to trade access to labs, equipment, data and other resources for technical knowledge.

We also lead the Vertical Lift Research Center of Excellence program, a collaborative effort between government and academia to develop, evaluate, demonstrate and test advanced vertical lift technologies.

The aviation community is close-knit, fostering critical transition and knowledge-sharing across organizational lines. We have developed a road map to transition critical technologies in the short, medium and long term. This will ensure future increments of vertical-lift platforms will maintain overmatch well beyond initial operational capability and full operational capability. We have transition agreements with both the Aviation Center of Excellence and PEO Aviation on critical efforts to ensure both the requirements and acquisition communities are ready to transition on time.

CONCLUSION

Under the Army Futures Command and as a critical member of the Future Force Modernization Enterprise, we are informing new concepts of operation and expanding what’s possible in many critical technologies, including those required for Future Vertical Lift. These technologies will provide commanders with increased reach, protection and lethality where they are most needed—on the battlefield of the future.

MAJ. GEN. CEDRIC T. WINS is the commanding general of Combat Capabilities Development Command. 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 holds an M.S. in management from the Florida Institute of Technology.

CLOSING THE GAPS

As we develop critical technology for Future Vertical Lift, we are working on several capability gaps that need to be addressed to maintain overmatch in multidomain operations. These capability gaps include the ability to:

• Conduct aerial reconnaissance and security operations in extreme environmental conditions;
• Conduct aerial sensing in obscured and unobscured conditions;
• Conduct joint and combined arms air-ground operations;
• Defeat or suppress enemy air defense systems;
• Operate in contested airspace;
• Detect, identify and locate enemy weapon systems to protect aircraft and related systems across all domains during joint and combined arms air-ground operations.

This article is published in the April-May 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

Staff Sgt. Adriane Dunklin

COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: 626th Contracting Team, 902nd Contracting Battalion, Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Joint Base Lewis-McChord

TITLE: Contract specialist

YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 7

YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE: 18

DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in contracting

EDUCATION: M.S. in management and Bachelor of Professional Studies in business and management, Excelsior College; certifications in workplace mediation, and arbitration and mediation, Mediators without Borders Institute

AWARDS: Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Meritorious Unit Citation, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Combat Action Badge

By Susan L. Follett

Based on what Staff Sgt. Adriane Dunklin has learned about contracting, the animated character Gumby would make a great addition to the acquisition workforce. “The most important thing is to be resilient and flexible,” she said. “The acquisition field is constantly changing. You have to be able to conform to the changes and continue to support the mission.”

Dunklin is a contract specialist for the 626th Contracting Team. Her organization is aligned with I Corps to support the Pacific Pathways missions, and she is the central point for getting requirements into a contract and delivered throughout all phases of the mission. The 626th is part of the 902nd Contracting Battalion within the Mission and Installation Contracting Command at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, which provides support to Army and Air Force customers on the joint base as well as Army requirements at Yakima Training Center, Washington. “I could be supporting one mission today and it will completely change in a week or so,” she said. “As an acquisition professional, you have to be able to deal with the everyday changes without any impact to the warfighter. You never know what is going to happen from one day to the next.”

A big part of Dunklin’s work is teaching her mission partners about how the acquisition process works and what documents they need to get their requirements submitted on time. She relies in part on certifications in arbitration and mediation to help address that challenge. “Those certifications help me recognize and resolve conflict, and taught me a lot about different personality and leadership types and how to deal with all kinds of people,” she said. “All of those skills help me develop relationships, which are an important part of the work I do.”

Dunklin has been in acquisition for almost seven years. “Before coming to this field, I was a truck driver. I knew that I did not want to drive 18-wheeler trucks when I got out of the military, so I made the decision to transition to the acquisition career field.” For her, the transition was an easy one. “The hardest part was getting the right person to actually write my recommendation letters,” she said, adding that Soldiers who are interested in acquisition should research the field first. “Get as much information as possible. It is a very appealing field, and there is great potential for success on active duty and after you’ve left the service.” But, she added, be prepared to work for it. “This field is not your ordinary MOS [military occupation specialty], and getting through the school will not be a cakewalk. There is way more to the acquisition workforce than what is presented online, and talking to someone that is already in the field will be very beneficial to you.”

Dunklin knows about that firsthand. “During my first year, I had the chance to get trained by civilian personnel who have been in the acquisition workforce for 15 years or more. Working alongside them and learning the contracting craft was one of the best perks of the job for me,” she explained. “I was able to get the one-on-one training that every acquisition professional needs, and I was able to really pick their brains and get way more knowledge than I would get at the schoolhouse.”

Her first acquisition assignment was at the U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) – Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, and it provided a front-row seat to learning how the contracting process worked when it came to acquiring products for the Army as a whole versus just buying for individual units. “I was able to see the complete acquisition process from the beginning to the end,” Dunklin said. “Seeing the start of the development of new equipment for the warfighter was a great experience. As contracting professionals, we are always told how our work directly impacts the warfighter; being able to see it from the planning to testing phases is amazing.”

She held several roles at ACC – Redstone, including contract specialist and quality assurance specialist. “Those positions taught me so much about how contracting and quality assurance work together to get the best service and products to the warfighter,” she said. It also made her a better contract specialist. “As a quality assurance specialist, you are dealing with the contract after it is written and the work is being performed. I learned to really pay attention to how the statement of work or the performance work statement is written, and to make sure that the contractor is performing to the standard of the contract,” she explained. “A poorly written contract does more than just waste the government’s money—it will directly impact the warfighter. I learned to make sure that everything with the contract and the accompanying documents are exactly what the customer and warfighter need so that there is no delay on the battlefield.”

She also learned the importance of asking questions and seeking out help from others, including her mentor, Latanya Jackson, contracting officer at ACC – Redstone. “Always be the person who’s not afraid to ask questions,” she advised. “If you don’t know something or if something is a little confusing to you, ask for more clarification. The best thing that you can do is seek knowledge and lean on your civilian counterparts. They have a wealth of knowledge that is available to you—all you have to do is ask.”

This article is published in the April-June 2019 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

Acquisition Soldiers field forward-deployed SFAB tactical network modernization on the fly. 

by Amy Walker

The Army is pushing full steam ahead with network modernization efforts that are making today’s forces more mobile, expeditionary, simplistic and hardened. To inform rapid modernization, it is leveraging developmental operations (DevOps) constructs and other expedited acquisition processes to field innovative expeditionary tactical network and radio communication equipment packages to new and existing unit formations.

This incremental DevOps process is a proven industry practice that places developers side by side with Soldiers and commanders in operational units, thus enabling the Army to evaluate potential technology concepts and solutions earlier and more frequently, collect feedback in real time and generate new requirements as needed. As part of this process, the Army is putting lessons learned and Soldier feedback to work to continually enhance satellite and radio tactical network transport equipment, as well as the way it is fielded and employed on the battlefield.

The Army is standing up new unit formations, such as security force assistance brigades (SFABs), which are providing advise-and-assist support to Afghan Security Forces. The 1st SFAB returned from its nine-month deployment to its home station at Fort Benning, Georgia, in December. The 2nd SFAB from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will take its place this spring. The Army has begun fielding efforts for the 3rd SFAB at Fort Hood, Texas, and the 4th SFAB at Fort Carson, Colorado.

While traditional fielding, from planning to deployment, can take up to two years to complete, the Army stood up, equipped, trained and prepared the 1st SFAB for deployment to Afghanistan in less than a year. The unit deployed with the equipment needed to carry out its mission safely and effectively; however, because of the condensed timeline, the program offices had to complete fielding some of the non-mission essential equipment after boots had already hit foreign soil.

Capt. Domoniqué Hittner, assistant product manager for Satellite Communications for the Project Manager (PM) for Tactical Network, and Capt. Jonathan Dodge, assistant product manager for Helicopter and Multi-Mission Radios for the PM for Tactical Radios (PM TR), were deployed in Afghanistan with their fielding teams in support of these first SFAB fieldings. Both organizations are part of the Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical (PEO C3T). Hittner and Dodge worked hand in hand with the unit, including Maj. Anthony Nocchi, communication officer (S-6) for the 1st SFAB. In this Q&A, the three officers provide the insights and lessons they learned on fielding and training forward-deployed units in today’s rapid acquisition environment.The PM for Tactical Network provided new equipment training and fielding on SCOUT satellite terminals to the 1st SFAB in Afghanistan in September 2018. At far right is Capt. Domoniqué Hittner, assistant product manager for Satellite Communications, who observed that it was important to conduct thorough site visits to see what assets were available. “You don’t know what you don’t know until you are there on the ground,” she said. (U.S. Army photo)

1. How do the capabilities you helped field support the SFAB mission?

Hittner: SFABs require expeditionary communications equipment so they can rapidly deploy to theater and can be more agile during their mission support, which encompasses a wide area of operations. As part of the capability set that supports the 1st SFAB’s network, our team validated, fielded and trained the unit on SCOUT ground satellite terminals, which provide satellite capability to enable tactical network connectivity. Fielding these easy-to-use systems gives the SFABs a lightweight, easy-to-transport communications capability, which can be scaled up or down to support small team to large brigade-sized elements.

Dodge: The tactical radios we fielded in Afghanistan included the Leader Radio and single- channel, data-only radios. These radios supported the secure but unclassified (SBU) network that enabled the Soldiers to pass data across the network from their end-user devices. Additionally, during deployment, PM TR installed the mounted configuration of the Leader Radio on the 1st SFAB’s vehicles, which provided connectivity so commanders had better access to situational awareness data. The vehicle systems we integrated helped to provide SBU data and voice communications seamlessly between mounted and dismounted elements. The SBU network enables units to connect into commercial networks to share data, imagery and messaging among team members.

2. Were there any benefits in fielding a forward-deployed unit versus one at home station?

Nocchi: The benefit lay in the ability to really focus on the new equipment training. The Soldiers were all in the same location and could dedicate additional time to hands-on training with the new equipment without some of the competing requirements found at home station. While I’d prefer to field new equipment before deploying, the project managers were very supportive and we were generally successful. The 1st SFAB owes a lot of its success with the new systems to the acquisition community for fielding equipment as fast as they could, getting the manufacturer to provide the equipment and then following up with outstanding training and support.

Hittner: Timelines, the unit’s availability and equipment production will always play a factor in new equipment training and fielding. Any time you are fielding in the continental United States, the unit has a great deal of other mandatory training and preparatory efforts to focus on, especially the SFABs. These new units are setting a new stage to fight on. So on top of preparing for their missions, they have to prepare to become a new formation, so there are a lot of tasks involved—live fires, additional training, monitoring, all the different tasks needed to get the unit prepared to serve in its new capacity.

Because we fielded the 1st SFAB while they were deployed, we received dedicated time to focus purely on training. They were able to pick it up faster, and it saved the unit a lot of time. We were also able to support the unit through all of its reception, staging, onward movement and integration events and in-country tasks required to operate in that area of responsibility.

Dodge: Our embedded team provided mission essential training and support to the 1st SFAB’s lower tactical internet [radio] network. Because I was deployed with our team, I was able to travel to over a dozen locations in Afghanistan over a period of four months to assist with fielding and training.

In total, we fielded over 500 radios and integrated systems into 66 vehicle platforms spread out over Afghanistan. I was able to assist SFAB advisory teams in setting up their radio networks and accompanied them on missions to identify and troubleshoot any issues with new equipment. As part of the developmental operations construct, the Soldier feedback we were able to gather on product performance allowed us to make positive changes to the unit’s communications architecture while they were still in theater.

3. Did you do anything different as far as the training itself was concerned?

Nocchi: The SCOUT training went well but required some refinement, which was expected due to the circumstances and makeup of the class: Some Soldiers had extensive network experience and some had very little. We are recommending and attempting to schedule new equipment training for general purpose users and new equipment training for technical users and Signal officers, which will teach the operators what they need to know based on what equipment they’ll be operating and at what level.

Hittner: The PM Tactical Network training team designed and developed a training set for the

SCOUT system to support the unit’s specific mission requirements, enabling them to successfully perform their mission training completion. We put the unit’s feedback to work and developed a condensed general user training set to support new SFAB Soldiers. PM Tactical Network takes Soldier feedback from training events and shapes training packages to suit a unit’s needs, taking into account missions, Soldiers’ military occupational specialties, age groups, etc. With the numerous rapid acquisition efforts the Army is conducting, the PM is staying innovative in the way we train by delivering a concise yet diverse training set.

We are streamlining training, making it shorter and more user-friendly, more intuitive and more technologically enhanced to match the needs and expectations of a new generation of Soldiers. We reworded manuals and reduced portions of the training to make them more clear and suitable for general users, and we employed a lot of hands-on training.

4. What lessons did you learn from your deployment that could help future fielding efforts or other PM fielding deployments?

Dodge: Having a “green suiter” lead fielding efforts makes coordination with units much easier, as we understand how operational units work and can thus better plan around their mission. Coordination and ensuring that the project manager is on the same page as the unit is essential. I was closely tied with the brigade and battalion staff to keep them aware of all acquisition efforts, so they could redirect me as necessary in support of their missions and timelines. While the program office is responsible for fielding, the unit should be the driving factor in determining who gets assets first. The unit is the customer!

We are also continuing to use Soldier feedback to implement changes to streamline and improve fielding and training. For example, when we first started fielding the 1st SFAB, some of the radios were fielded incrementally as parts became available, rather than fielding the system as a complete set. But we learned quickly that it was more efficient to field the entire system at once to enable the unit to train as they fight.

Hittner: New formations like the SFABs rely on us for guidance in the fielding and training process. I wouldn’t say we had any significant challenges, but [we had] opportunities to learn. You don’t know what you don’t know until you are there on the ground, so we conducted thorough site visits to see what assets were there. One thing the site visits revealed was the need to coordinate shipping. We streamlined supply support by proactively and very closely cross-coordinating across entities before shipping, including the unit on the ground, the warehouse and the shipping entities. It is also important to closely monitor tracking numbers to stay ahead of any unforeseen shipping issues and to keep a fluid shipping line from point A to point B.

Synchronization is key to fulfilling the unit’s requirements. A lot of planning and coordination enabled us to expedite shipping and we are able to provide a smooth, fairly seamless transition of equipment from the United States to Afghanistan. The next time when we go back to field another forward-deployed unit, the lessons learned will make everything more expeditious.

This fielding effort has also made coordination with our vendors much smoother and our relationships with all of our PM logisticians, and the units forward-deployed much stronger. The Army often talks about being ready to deploy and support any time we are called, and that includes the acquisition community, folks in the background, all the civilians and all of the partners. It’s important that we can rapidly pull together to make these missions successful, whether supporting from home station or deployed with the unit. Units will always need new technologies. If we have the ability to field them all in the U.S., that’s great; if not, we need to remain flexible.

To enable your team and others to be successful, it’s important to understand the scope of the mission and really project= the plan out as far as you can with the information you have at hand, and be flexible enough to overcome the changes and potential roadblocks that may arise down the road. Remaining flexible has been vital to the success of this last fielding, and it will definitely help us with future fieldings as well. It’s important to note that this mission is ongoing. I think the biggest takeaway is to just give Soldiers grace when they are deployed. Everyone that has worn this green suit before understands what it’s like to be deployed, whether it’s missing your family or just the many things happening there, all of the expectations, the hard work, the long hours that you put in, and the time you have to sit back and reflect. Do anything you can to support them.

For more information, go to the PEO C3T website at http://peoc3t.army.mil/c3t/ or contact the PEO C3T Public Affairs Office at 443-395-6489 or usarmy.APG.peo-c3t.mbx.pao-peoc3t@mail.mil.

AMY WALKER has been the public affairs lead at PM Tactical Network for the last nine years, and was the public affairs lead at PEO C3T for the previous two. She has covered most of the Army’s major tactical network transport modernization effort, including Army, joint and coalition fielding and training events worldwide. She holds a B.A. in psychology, with emphasis in marketing and English, from the College of New Jersey.

This article is published in the April-May 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

As a DOD employee, you’re eligible for TSA Precheck—have you opted in?

Jacqueline M. Hames

From having to book the cheapest flight to departing at odd hours and enduring multiple, long layovers—plus all the “regular” travel snags—government air travel can be a real pain in the neck. Security lines in particular are time-consuming and uncomfortable. The long waits in crowded lines, the removal of shoes and jackets, ensuring that liquids are not only in an appropriate clear bag but also placed in the X-ray bin for scanning—it’s stressful. However, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) makes it easier for DOD employees, reducing the security hassles with the TSA Precheck program.

ON THE FAST TRACK

The program—an absolutely free perk of being a DOD employee—was launched in 2011 for frequent flyers; it opened to eligible members of the general public in December 2013. The public must pay a fee and undergo a basic background check to earn the Precheck qualification. But DOD employees need not pay, as they have already completed the requisite background check. More than 200 U.S. airports and 54 airlines currently participate in the program. Most participating travelers wait less than 5 minutes in the security line, though TSA notes that passengers can still be selected for random searches or be redirected to normal security lines at any time.

Oh, and did you know? You can use the program for personal travel. Just enter your DOD identification number when making airline reservations.

“I have found the Precheck provisions for TSA screening procedures to be absolutely essential for government travel,” said Michael K. Beans, chief of the Human Resources Division at the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Opting-in is easy—you just register your DOD identification number on milConnect and in the Defense Travel System. Once registered, travelers can enjoy the program’s central benefit: expedited security screenings. You won’t have to remove shoes, belts or lightweight jackets, and you won’t have to take your laptop, tablet or liquids out of your carry-on. (That’s as long as your liquids comply with the 3-1-1 rule: you can carry 3.4-ounce or smaller bottles, in one quart-sized clear, zip-top bag, with one bag per passenger.)

Beans, who often carries official electronic devices and printed documents that require special attention for their security, said that the program allows him to focus on the accountability of those items and the official nature of his trip.

That’s certainly a blessing for travelers juggling official documents and equipment—but imagine the possibilities for vacations! Once becoming a Precheck member, DOD employees can bring children under 12 with them through the expedited screening lines. Travelers ages 13 and older must use the regular security lines if they aren’t a Precheck member.

OPTING IN

But wait—how do you register a DOD identification number? First, log in to milConnect and click on the My Profile tab. Then, click Update and View My Profile from the drop-down selections. You’ll see your personal information displayed; scroll down until you come to the TSA Precheck Program line—now, click the box and save your work.

The next step is to register your DOD identification number in the Defense Travel System. Save the number to the “known traveler number” field in your personal profile—this will ensure that all future official travel lists you as Precheck-qualified. For detailed instructions on how to enter the number into your profile, go to https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/How_to_Enter_Your_DoD_ID.pdf. Don’t forget to click save when you’re done.

Fantastic! Now you’ll speed through security lines at the airport—with your shoes on.

For more information on the Precheck program, go to https://travelprecheck.org/index.html.

Related Links

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/467648/tsa-precheck-makes-traveling-easier

This article is published in the April-May 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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

It’s only been since the early 1990s that CPR training has been available to the general public, and this simple training has saved countless lives. MRMC’s ‘Stop the Bleed’ campaign aims to save even more lives with training to treat traumatic hemorrhage.

by Ramin A. Khalili

For Col. Michael Davis, the problem isn’t the blood—as a reconstructive surgeon by trade, it’s never been about the blood—rather it’s the way Hollywood always make the blood look so … bloody.

“It’s not like a horror movie,” said Davis, director of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command’s Combat Casualty Care Research Program (CCCRP), talking about the mechanics of traumatic bleeding and perception versus reality. “You’re never going to see projectile bleeding from a patient like you do on the screen, but people always think they will.”

Said Davis, “And that’s a barrier, I think … a problem.”

It’s a problem for the military, certainly—as hemorrhage remains the No. 1 killer on the battlefield, and thus a chief concern for Davis and his team—but it’s also a growing problem for American citizens on the home front, often manifesting itself in the kind of nightmarish fashion that builds those barriers, either consciously or not. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, trauma is the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S. for people under 46, accounting for nearly 50 percent of those fatalities. But dive deeper into those numbers and you find the remnants of a slew of recent mass trauma events, like the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut; the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; and the 2015 Amtrak train derailment in Philadelphia. The message, then, has become overwhelmingly and tragically clear: Preparedness and vigilance are now requirements as injuries formerly confined to faraway combat zones now occur randomly and unpredictably on American street corners.

Enter the “Stop the Bleed” campaign.

A HOMEGROWN EFFORT

Launched at the White House in late 2015 via presidential proclamation, “Stop the Bleed” is a federal outreach program designed to save lives by teaching American citizens the simple basics of military-tested bleeding control: steps like using tourniquets to stanch blood flow and packing open wounds with clean gauze. These same steps have contributed to a 67 percent decrease in fatalities caused by extremity bleeding during recent U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to previous U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Based on that success rate and the CCCRP’s overall expertise, the National Security Council tasked the program with developing the campaign in direct reaction to the aforementioned domestic incidents, with the goal of fostering a new brand of national resilience at the grassroots level.

Indeed, “Stop the Bleed” is the reason Davis now straddles foreign combat zones and the U.S. home front as part of his daily duties. For him, the connection—and cooperation—between the two worlds has never been more clear. The campaign, which operates as an unfunded mandate and thus without any spending authority, has grown dramatically via a grassroots marketing effort grounded primarily in simple, word-of-mouth outreach. For extra heft, the CCCRP has begun working with a variety of stakeholders to develop a codified set of bleeding control training techniques and education guidelines. The goal: Combine resources across the federal and private sectors to usher the campaign to the general public, where individuals can learn lifesaving skills from registered trainers across the country. “Saving a life is something everybody can do,” said Davis. “We just have to find a way to teach that, to translate those basics of military medicine to a larger audience.”

That larger audience has certainly materialized—and quickly—as the analog-style outreach effort has led to successful licensing of the “Stop the Bleed” logo to more than 300 corporations, universities, government agencies and nonprofit entities worldwide as of early 2019. The licensing process, which is free to entities using the logo for educational purposes, gives the CCCRP, as the copyright owner, oversight as to who exactly is promoting the campaign and how that promotion is taking place.

Notable U.S. licensees include The Walt Disney Co., the American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts of America, along with hundreds of police and fire departments across the country, all of whom pledge to promote the proper tenets and techniques of the campaign. As a testament to the desire for such simple yet valuable information, the “Stop the Bleed” campaign so far has processed licensing requests from Italy, Canada, the United Kingdom and Belgium.

“When we go out to schools and teach these bleeding control courses, we don’t even have to ask kids to put down their phones,” said Dena Abston, executive director of the Georgia Trauma Commission in Rossville, Georgia. “That’s how engaged they are—that’s how much they want to learn these skills.”

Georgia state lawmakers are equally enamored, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money into a new effort that would install one dozen bleeding control kits inside each of the state’s more than 2,300 schools—more than 27,000 kits in all. In addition, efforts are underway to train at least 10 administrators in each of those schools in bleeding control techniques.

Said Abston of the campaign’s popularity, “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

THE IMPACT OF LIFESAVING ACTION
But when it comes to saving a life, to physically inserting oneself into a mass trauma scene and becoming an active bystander, there are still barriers to overcome, that “gore factor” being chief among them.

“Hollywood movies always show blood squirting everywhere,” said Gregory Tony, newly installed sheriff of Broward County, Florida, and owner of the active shooter response training company Blue Spear Solutions LLC. “But the reality can be much less dramatic from a visual standpoint.”

Said Tony, “I can recall arriving at a shooting scene one time where the victim—a female shot in the upper neck and back—was lucid and providing detailed information about the shootings.”

It’s that kind of firsthand experience that has driven Tony, an early “Stop the Bleed” licensee and adopter, to push the campaign into his immediate community and beyond. By speaking directly and specifically to key local stakeholders as part of a coordinated action plan, he said, he’s been able to allay those fears, break down the barriers and convey the importance of immediate action and its overall impact.

“Most people have a fear of working with or touching blood, but we figured out how to get more supporters and participants,” said Tony. “Our greatest success comes when we talk with people like school officials, local legislators, church pastors and business owners about the severity of excessive bleeding, and paint a full picture of the community impact of learning bleeding control techniques.”

To that end, Tony has teamed with those same types of entities in Florida and North Carolina to teach bleeding control fundamentals to both children and adults, including work with the students and families at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the site of a horrific school shooting in February 2018 that left 17 people dead and another 17 people injured.

“Unfortunately our first responders are now the everyday civilians,” said Max Schachter, whose 14-year-old son, Alex, was one of the victims in that shooting. “We know this is going to happen again, and so we need to solicit all Americans to learn how to ‘Stop the Bleed.’ ”

Lori Alhadeff, whose 14-year-old daughter, Alyssa, also died in the Parkland shooting, talks about the campaign in the same manner; to her, it’s a clear imperative. “Bleeding control training and equipment should now be mandatory for every school, teacher [and] student,” she said.

As a result of Tony’s work in the wake of the Parkland shooting, Florida state senators are drafting legislation mandating implementation of the “Stop the Bleed” campaign in every school in the state, a clear nod to the importance of young children and teens in this equation.

“Youth is the key ingredient to success here,” said Tony. “Kids have the greatest opportunity for impact, for immediate response and for the long-term continuity of this national campaign.”

An instructor with “Stop the Bleed” licensee Blue Spear Solutions LLC teaches bleeding control techniques in July to students from Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Blue Spear has worked with students and families at the school, where a mass shooting on Feb. 14, 2018, killed 17 people and injured another 17. An effort is underway in the Florida Legislature to mandate the “Stop the Bleed” campaign in every school in the state. (Photo courtesy of Gregory Tony, Blue Spear Solutions LLC)

CONFIDENCE, COMPETENCE, RESULTS
Back in his office at Fort Detrick, Maryland, Davis pulls a bright orange tourniquet from his desk drawer and spins the plastic windlass around with his fingers, tightening the cordage for a brief second before releasing the tension. He does this once, twice, three times. He understands the apprehension in the face of traumatic bleeding, he said, but he also knows that empowerment is the best tool to fight those fears.

“Nobody’s mentally prepared for a trauma scene,” he said. “Everybody always thinks, ‘this is overwhelming,’ and ‘this is above my capacity’ … but I can assure you it is not.”

Granted, while the steps for aiding a trauma victim are (ideally, at least) relatively basic, there’s a clear and dramatic difference between dealing with massive bleeding cases in a clinical versus a real-world environment. Even Davis admits, “Trauma is just a totally different animal in the field.”

Still, the tenets of the “Stop the Bleed” campaign are designed to simplify the process and mitigate the knowledge gap between medical professionals and those active bystanders willing to save a life. That process begins with locating the site of bleeding on the victim, then applying immediate and firm pressure before applying a tourniquet about two to three inches above the wound to help stop the bleeding—making sure to then twist the tourniquet rod tightly before securing it with both the built-in clip and the VelcroTM safety strap (depending on your tourniquet model). Finally, if the wound is still bleeding, pack it with gauze; “use more than you think you need,” said Davis. This last part is of special importance; emergency room doctors note that while it’s best to use clean gauze to pack a wound, anything absorbent will work, even if it’s dirty. As the (rather pithy) saying goes in the ER, “We can treat a live patient with an infection, but we can’t treat a dead one.”

Indeed, it’s the simplicity of that message that has resonated so deeply with so much of the American public. Stories of real people using those techniques to save lives are submitted to the CCCRP weekly from across the country. The campaign even took center stage recently through a series of public service announcements featuring the cast of the CBS television network’s medical drama “Code Black.” Campaign partner the American College of Surgeons engineered appearances from notable actors Rob Lowe and Marcia Gay Harden as a part of that effort. Even Abston, with offices based out of tiny Rossville, Georgia, was interviewed by NBC “Nightly News” late last year for her work with the campaign.

“They sent a camera crew all the way up here from Atlanta because they were so interested,” she said.

CONCLUSION
For Davis, this is the way it was always supposed to go: a simple, lifesaving message backed by science, results and military might—a message easy enough to teach quickly yet powerful enough to save lives. It recognizes that, whatever the statistical likelihood of mass violence may
be, bleeding control skills increasingly are used in daily, around-the-house types of situations and—as the campaign likes to note—in more rural areas of the country, with the states of Iowa and Montana becoming “Stop the Bleed” license holders expressly to combat farming injuries.

As someone who previously served as chief of reconstructive surgery at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, during deployment in Operation Enduring Freedom and then as deputy commander of the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research in San Antonio, Texas, Davis can attest to the power of “Stop the Bleed” because he’s seen it in action.

“This is the tool that’s going to save lives,” said Davis, still fiddling with the tourniquet in his hand, still watching it tighten and release. “Mass trauma is easily the biggest health crisis of this generation, and so we’ve got to be prepared … we’ve got to spread the word.”

For more information, go to https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/well/live/bleeding-first-aid.html.

RAMIN A. KHALILI is a communications manager with PotomacWave Consulting, providing contract support as the knowledge manager for CCCRP, a position that includes an administrative role for the “Stop the Bleed” campaign. Before assuming his current role, he spent more than a decade as a broadcast journalist, working in a number of cities in the U.S. During that time, he earned an Associated Press Award for his work in Phoenix, before securing a position as chief NASA correspondent for CBS in Orlando, Florida. He holds a B.A. in communications from Penn State University.

This article is published in the April-May 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

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