[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss-gnuradio] FCW: Army racing the clock for Objective Force

From: John Gilmore
Subject: [Discuss-gnuradio] FCW: Army racing the clock for Objective Force
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:25:57 -0800

[Another recent military SDR story, mentioning the JTRS Joint Tactical Radio.]


  Army racing the clock for Objective Force

BY Dan Caterinicchia <mailto:address@hidden>
Nov. 4, 2002

The Army is in an all-out sprint as it tries to meet the aggressive 
timetable for fielding its new strategy for using information technology 
to improve the service's warfighting capabilities.

The Army is using new training, acquisition and development techniques 
in its attempt to field the Objective Force by the end of the decade. 
The Objective Force is a strategy to develop advanced IT tools, vehicles 
and weapons that will make the Army's armored forces better able to 
survive an all-out fight. The first unit is scheduled to be equipped in 
2008, with initial operational capability by 2010. But there are still 
some questions about whether the efforts to develop new training and 
buying strategies will be enough to meet the deadlines.

The Army has devoted 97 percent of its fiscal 2003 science and 
technology budget to develop the Objective Force, including Future 
Combat Systems (FCS), which will equip Army vehicles with information 
and communications systems to give soldiers capabilities for command and 
control, surveillance and reconnaissance, direct and nonline-of-sight 
weapons firing, and personnel transport.

"The good news is that we have all the support of our leadership," said 
Army chief information officer Lt. Gen. Peter Cuviello during last 
month's Association of the U.S. Army's annual meeting in Washington, 
D.C. But "we're not moving fast enough on transformation or getting 
capabilities in the field now."

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, which monitors space and 
military programs, said that "an 'initial' operational capability of 
some pieces is doable by 2008," but other pieces won't be ready until 
about 2015.

"Dribbling out various FCS pieces over a period of years is going to 
create doctrine and training problems for the users," Pike said. "In 
principle, these are manageable, but in practice, managing these 
problems will be a real headache for the troops. Worth the trouble, and 
worth the wait, but translating PowerPoint into power projection is 
easier said than done."

Cuviello said the Army is addressing training through its Advanced 
Distributed Learning program and other Web-based methods that not only 
supplement traditional classroom instruction but also refresh deployed 

Furthermore, as the service increasingly adopts commercial technologies, 
training becomes easier, Cuviello said. He added that the Army's 
commercial strategy also is reflected in the service's recent requests 
for proposals. In those RFPs, "you don't see a lot of [research and 
development] because we're hoping to save it all for procurement," he said.

Col. William Johnson, FCS program manager, said the Army is "rallying 
itself around" the program, which is viewed as a catalyst for the 
service's overall transformation into the Objective Force.

Johnson said FCS is a "soldier-centric system" that will enable an Army 
brigade to network and share information with all military services and 
U.S. allies in a coalition environment. He added that the Army is 
currently talking to coalition partners in Asia and Europe to get their 
input on FCS'architectural development efforts.

FCS' emerging designs for the first unit with advanced capabilities 
include this scenario: about 2,145 soldiers capable of being deployed 
worldwide within 96 hours in a C-130 aircraft for "intratheater 
agility," Johnson said.

The FCS lead systems integrator team, Boeing Co. and Science 
Applications International Corp., was awarded a $154 million contract in 
March and is responsible for developing an operational architecture that 
will link the communications components of systems so that the Army can 
determine requirements for air, land and space environments, Cuviello said.

"We don't know what the platforms are," he said. "We have an 
architecture to tie those together, but there's no meat to it" because 
critical issues such as bandwidth and information exchange requirements 
have not been resolved. "We can't tell if there's massive needs for each 
[ground or airborne] platform. We don't know yet."

The Army, working with the Boeing/SAIC team, last month awarded 68 
additional contracts, totaling more than $8 million, to more than 25 
companies to develop the FCS specifications, said Jerry McElwee, Boeing 
vice president and FCS program manager.

The lead systems integrators' primary concern is meeting the Army's 
aggressive schedule, which is achievable, McElwee said.

"From the [lead systems integrator] perspective, once we've designed it, 
we'll buy the [parts] just in time, integrate, validate and move on," he 
said. "We have the will. We have the funding. Technology will continue 
to develop at its current pace or faster, and we will meet the Army's 

The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) will play an important role in 
FCS, Cuviello said. JTRS uses software-centric radios that can be 
programmed to patch users into various radio frequencies. "We know JTRS 
is the key to this thing and will be embedded in all of these 
platforms," he said.

Steve Marion, program director for FCS supplier management at Boeing, 
said an RFP to be released in January will include the full scope of 
architectures and specifications. McElwee added that FCS' system design 
and demonstration phase, slated to begin next spring pending DOD 
approval, is estimated to cost between $5 billion and $7 billion.

Lt. Gen. John Riggs, director of the Objective Force Task Force, said a 
white paper, "The Objective Force in 2015," examines all aspects of the 
service's ongoing transformation. The report, currently in draft form 
and scheduled for completion Nov. 15, was preplanned and is not a 
reaction to concerns that the Army's timelines are unattainable, Riggs said.

"The questioning of aggressive timelines is healthy," he said.


Objective Force to link Army, intelligence

The Objective Force's intelligence capabilities will require 
synchronization with the other military services and national security 
agencies. The problem with such coordination is not technology, but 
establishing new tactics, techniques and procedures, said Lt. Gen. 
Robert Noonan Jr., Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

Noonan said he has been conducting high-level meetings with intelligence 
stakeholders to explain the Army's needs. That way, policies can be 
changed to declassify information at a certain level, and it can be sent 
to a commander in the field as soon as possible.

"It's a policy issue, not a technology issue," Noonan said. "My goal is 
'Google with a clearance' to just get what I need for my portion of the 
battlefield," as opposed to current methods that flood commanders with 
superfluous data from numerous sources.

Some security personnel have expressed concerns over the implications of 
declassifying and sharing intelligence, but the feedback from leaders 
has been overwhelmingly positive, he said.

"DOD leaders discuss transformation" 
[Federal Computer Week, Oct. 18, 2002]

"Official: Army needs more tech to fight terror" 
[Federal Computer Week, April 15, 2002]

"Boeing gets the call for DOD radio" 
[Federal Computer Week, July 1, 2002]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]