GCT 3-4 (Aug. 2012)

August 2012 Volume 3, Issue 4

www.GCT-kmi.com

Vehicles Acquirer

Scott J. Davis

Program Executive OfficerGround Combat Systems

The Publication of Distinction for the Maneuver Warfighter

Abrams SEP V2 O Hydration SystemsBradley Fighting Vehicle Overview

Jennifer A. HitcHcockInterim Director, U.S. Army Tank Automotive ResearchDevelopment and Engineering Center

Interview with:

GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE SPECIAL

REPORT

The low-risk, balanced and affordable GcV for america’s infanTrymen from america’s

Team of proVen sysTems inTeGraTors

Ground Combat teChnoloGy auGust 2012 Volume 3 • Issue 4

Features CoVer / Q&a

departments

2

3

4

14

27

Editor's Perspective

Intel

People

Innovations

Resource Center

Industry InterVIew

16

Steve FranzSenior Director

Program Management Ground combat Vehicle ProgramGeneral Dynamics Land Systems

28

Scott J. DavisProgram executive officerGround combat Systems

12

Bradley Fighting Vehicle OverviewWe look at the Bradley and its upgrade programs that are taking a venerable veteran of the wars and making it better.By christian Bourge

20

Abrams SEP V2the Abrams is the premier main battle tank, one envied around the world. Although the Abrams has been around for decades, it still is a cutting-edge combat platform, thanks to continuing upgrades such as those in the SeP Version 2.By Dave Ahearn

22

Hydration SystemsA dehydrated warrior may not bring much to the fight. fortunately, there is a wide array of water storage systems to quench the thirst of combatants. And if pure water isn’t available to refill storage systems, purification assets provide the solution—often while using little or no fuel.By Dave Ahearn

5 GCV Program Overvieweven in a time of defense cutbacks, the Ground combat Vehicle program is still active and moving forward. We look at multiple benefits the GcV would offer warriors, in exclusive interviews with senior leaders of competing GcV providers.By Dave Ahearn

9 GCV Systems and Subsystemscheck out what would be on the new ground combat vehicle that eventually will replace the Bradley fighting vehicle and Stryker.By Dave Ahearn

11 GCV CapabilitiesAs a ground combat asset designed after September 11, the ground combat vehicle will offer combatants marked advancements over existing rides.By Dave Ahearn

TARDEC

exclusive interviewJennifer A. Hitchcockinterim Director, U.S. Army tank Automotive researchDevelopment and engineering center24

If $500 billion of looming defense program cuts are done thoughtlessly—and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says they are like a “meat ax”—the perverse effect of these cuts could be to drive up spending on each piece of hardware the Pentagon buys.

Does that sound impossible? We asked Bob Stevens, chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, the

largest defense contractor, if he is concerned that those looming defense budget cuts in January may create severe problems. Specifically, we asked whether spending cuts involving major reductions in the number of items the Pentagon buys could cause the price of each item to soar.

For example, Lockheed Martin made the F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Originally, the Pentagon was to buy 750 F-22s, but fewer than 190 were made so development costs were spread among far fewer planes. That was a key reason the average cost per plane soared to $412 million, even though producing one more plane cost just $140 million.

Is Stevens concerned that the same could happen to the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter if its buy is reduced greatly?

Stevens said he is concerned, but stressed that this could be a problem in any Department of Defense procurement program involving any contractor. The problem of reduced purchases of defense hardware “has a broader application beyond the F-35,” he said.

Before work begins on a weapons program, military and contractor leaders perform calculations: How many of a given weapons platform will be produced, over what time, and what capabilities will it wield?

“Early on—working with our government counterpart—we conceptualize how a program is going to unfold: volume, quantity, timing, capabilities,” Stevens explained. But if sometime later “that volume is reduced,” that will upend earlier calculations—so too much capital and capacity is dedicated to the program, driving up costs per item produced.

This problem, he cautioned, “is broadly observed across all platforms [that DoD buys] throughout our industry. And it is a concern, and it is an element that drives up the cost of programs.” Legislators should think long and hard about how mindless automatic spending cuts can make defense platforms more costly.

Dave AhearnEditor

The Publication of Distinction for the Maneuver Warfighter

edItorIal

EditorDave Ahearn [email protected] EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected] Editorial ManagerLaura Davis [email protected] EditorLaural Hobbes [email protected] Bourge • Peter Buxbaum Henry Canaday • Jeff Goldman • William Murray Leslie Shaver

art & desIGn

Art DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected] Graphic DesignerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected] Designers Amanda Kirsch [email protected] Morris [email protected] Waring [email protected]

adVertIsInG

Account ExecutiveJason Perkins [email protected]

KmI medIa GroupPublisherKirk Brown [email protected] Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected] Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected] Vice PresidentDavid Leaf [email protected] McKaughan [email protected] Castro [email protected] AssistantCasandra Jones [email protected] Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

operatIons, CIrCulatIon & produCtIon

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected] SpecialistsArielle Hill [email protected] Johnson [email protected] Walker [email protected] Villanueva [email protected] Winston [email protected]

a proud member oF:

subsCrIptIon InFormatIon

Ground Combat TechnologyISSN 2157-1503

is published nine times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2012.

Ground Combat Technology is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the

U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S.

All others: $65 per year. Foreign: $149 per year.

Corporate oFFICes

KMI Media Group15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300

Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USATelephone: (301) 670-5700

Fax: (301) 670-5701Web: www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Ground Combat teChnoloGy

Volume 3, Issue 4 • August 2012

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

KmI medIa Group maGazInes and websItes

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence

Forum

www.BCD-kmi.com

June 2012Volume 1, Issue 1

www.BCD-kmi.com

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Border Protector

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border PatrolU.S. Customs and Border Protection

Wide Area Aerial Surveillance O Hazmat Disaster ResponseTactical Communications O P-3 Program

SPECIAL SECTION:Integrated Fixed Towers

Leadership Insight:Robert S. BrayAssistant Administrator for Law Enforcement/Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service

Border & CBRNE Defense

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.GCT-kmi.com

Ground Combat

Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Military Logistics Forum

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans

Affairs Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Special Operations Technology

www.TISR-kmi.com

Tactical ISR Technology

www.USCGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard Forum

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffINTEL

Bradleys Upgraded Ahead of Schedule, Under Budget

BAE Systems completed Bradley Urban Survivability Kit III (BUSK III) upgrades to 236 U.S. Army Bradley A3 fighting vehicles stationed in Korea one month early and 20 percent under budget.

BUSK upgrades enhance the protection, capabilities and func-tionality of Bradley combat systems in urban operations.

“These upgrades greatly improve the survivability of the Bradley fighting vehicle. Our joint U.S. government/BAE Systems Team Bradley continues to work to keep soldiers safe while being a good steward to the American public by providing BUSK III in both a time and cost efficient manner,” said John G. Tile, director of Bradley programs, BAE Systems.

In an article for Army.mil, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Glenn Dean, who serves as product manager for Bradley, said that the joint USG/BAE Systems BUSK III installation team applied approxi-mately 2,400 total modification

work orders (MWOs) and repairs on 236 Bradley fighting vehicles, finishing a month earlier than projected and 20 percent under budget—constituting roughly $700,000 in savings.

The BUSK III, conceived by U.S. Army commanders in the field (designed and built by BAE Systems in Santa Clara, Calif., and York, Pa., respectively), allows the U.S. Army’s Bradley infantry fighting vehicle to better adapt to the rigors of urban combat. BUSK III incorpo-rates four modifications including a blast-proof fuel cell, a blast resis-tant driver’s seat, a turret surviv-ability system and an emergency ramp release.

The recent BUSK MWO in Korea began in January 2012, under the BAE Systems Technical Support contract.

The next scheduled stop for the team is Fort Carson, Colo., where the 4th Infantry Division’s Bradleys will undergo the BUSK III installation.

Army Acquires $15.8 Million of UAVs; Contract Could Total $65.9 Million

AeroVironment Inc. announced it received a $15.8 million firm-fixed-price authoriza-tion to perform in providing RQ-11B Raven UAV systems. The award from the Army is the initial portion of a contract action with a total projected value of $65.9 million.

The order includes RQ-11B Raven systems, new miniature gimbaled payloads and initial spares packages, and is funded from the Army’s fiscal year 2012 procurement budget. Delivery of systems, spares and payloads is to be completed by April 30, 2013.

AeroVironment unveiled its Mantis line of miniature gimbaled sensor payloads on April 1 at the Army Aviation Association of America symposium in Nashville, Tenn. Weighing 450

grams, the ruggedized, multi-axis Mantis i23 houses an electro-optical and infrared thermal video sensor in addition to a laser illuminator.

The single payload replaces two separate sensor payloads on the Raven air vehicle, deliv-ering daytime and nighttime capabilities from a single package.

“The U.S. Army has more than 1,700 Raven systems in its inventory with an ultimate goal of more than 2,300 systems,” said Roy Minson, AeroVironment senior vice president and general manager, unmanned aircraft systems. “Since winning the Army’s small unmanned aircraft system competition in 2005, we have focused on delivering highly reliable, highly capable Raven systems and on continuously enhancing their

capabilities. The new miniature gimbaled payload is the latest example of cost-effective improve-ments that will benefit soldiers directly through enhanced situational awareness.”

The RQ-11B Raven unmanned aircraft system is a 4.2-pound, backpackable, hand-launched sensor platform that provides day and night, real-time video imagery wirelessly to a portable ground control station for over-the-hill and around-the-corner reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition in support of tactical units. U.S. armed forces use Raven systems extensively for missions such as base security, route recon-naissance, mission planning and force protection. Each Raven system typically consists of three aircraft, two ground control stations and spares.

U.S. Firm Establishes Overseas Office

ReconRobotics Inc., Edina, Minn., has established its interna-tional headquarters in Lugano, Switzerland, signaling a signifi-cant advancement in the company’s three-year global expansion. Known as RRI Global SAGL, the new wholly-owned subsidiary of ReconRobotics will oversee all sales, marketing and customer service operations outside of North America. North American activity will continue to be managed from the Edina corporate headquarters.

Barry E.T. Harris MBE, the company’s director of international programs, will lead RRI Global and direct the growth of its inter-national reseller network, which currently extends to 33 countries.

“Having firmly established our leadership in micro-robot systems within the U.S. military, federal and local law enforce-ment agencies, we now aim to heighten our focus on broadening our already well-established international footprint,” said Alan Bignall, president and CEO of ReconRobotics. “We believe that the need for sublimely simple life-saving technology is universal among military and police, and we believe that Barry Harris and his team are ideally positioned to fill this unmet tactical capability around the world.”

More than 3,500 of the company’s Recon Scout systems have been deployed by the U.S. military and international friendly forces, and by hundreds of law enforcement agencies, worldwide. Operators use the Recon Scout system to determine the layout of enclosed spaces, identify potential IEDs and fix the location of friendly, indigenous or enemy personnel. The Recon Scout XT weighs 1.2 pounds, and can be deployed in five seconds and thrown up to 120 feet.

www.GCT-kmi.com GCT 3.4 | 3

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffINTEL

Army REF Issues Broad Agency Announcement for Research

The Army Rapid Equipping Force (REF) issued a broad agency announcement (BAA) for competitive selection of basic and applied research. The REF will use the white paper and proposal to evaluate prospective offerors to make determination for award (if any).

BAA technical areas of interest are:• Dismounted IED defeat measures• Dismounted operations support• ISR shortfalls• Small combat operating post support operations• Dismounted blue force training• Counter ambush• Non-lethal messaging• Advanced escalation of force support• Entry control point operations• Route clearance support

Weapon Performs Well in Tests by Rapid Equipping

Force

Textron Defense Systems announced its BattleHawk squad-level loitering munition completed a successful demon-stration for the U.S. Army’s Rapid Equipping Force at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in Socorro, N.M.

Amid the rugged terrain of south-central New Mexico, the range offered an operationally realistic environment for several mission scenarios, including non-line-of-sight target prosecu-tion and stand-off attack across a mountain peak.

The Rapid Equipping Force demonstration debuted several system enhancements that Textron Defense Systems has incorporated into its BattleHawk system since its introduc-tion as the Tactical Remote Aerial Munition, or T-RAM, in 2011.

Among these are improved maneuverability in moun-tainous terrain; upgraded dual, high-resolution digital cameras for more comprehensive target detection and tracking; and moving target tracking during terminal guidance maneuvers. Also demonstrated was the system’s ability to execute the operator’s pre-programmed flight path as evolving battlefield conditions demand.

“We believe that the BattleHawk squad-level loitering munition exhibits all of the attributes that the Army looks for in emerging technologies—effective performance, afford-ability, simple operation, minimal training and immediate applicability to warfighter needs,” said Senior Vice President and General Manager Ellen Lord of Textron Defense Systems.

“We have listened to our customer in designing and refining the system, and the results are self-evident in the product’s performance during the recent demonstration. We continue development of the system with the end-user’s needs in mind.”

DARPA Contract Aims for New Amphibious Ground Vehicle

DARPA awarded Ricardo, Inc., Belleville, Mich., a $9.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract toward devel-opment of a new heavy, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) with func-tional requirements intended to mirror the Marine Corps’ amphibious combat vehicle.

This award covers a 12-month base period, which may be followed by two successive 12-month options. The total value including options is $27.6 million.

Ricardo will perform the research and development effort entitled “FANG (Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation) Ground Vehicle.” FANG aims to foster development of the new vehicle. The contractor will stage a series of FANG challenges, prize-based design competi-tions for progressively more complex vehicle subsystems, culminating in the design of a full IFV.

Work is expected to be completed by June 17, 2015.

Army Major General William B. Garrett III, was selected for appoint-ment to the rank of lieutenant general and assignment as deputy commanding general/chief of staff, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, N.C. Garrett most recently served as chief of staff, U.S. Forces-Iraq, Operation New Dawn, Iraq.

Brigadier General James H. Dickinson, commanding general, 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, was named commanding general, 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Colonel Daniel L. Karbler, who has been selected for the rank of brigadier general, commandant, U.S. Army Air Defense School, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, Okla., was named commanding general, 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

L-3 Communications named Steve Kantor to be president of the company’s Electronic Systems Group, succeeding James W. Dunn, who is retiring. L-3 also named Les Rose to be vice president of L-3 and president of the company’s National Security Solutions Group.

Rheinmetall AG announced Armin Papperger will take

over chairmanship of the Executive Board from Klaus Eberhardt, and Helmut Merch will become chief financial officer, succeeding Herbert Muller.

Retired Army Command Sergeant Major Edwin Perez joined Peduzzi Associates Ltd. of Alexandria, Va., as an associate.

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffPEOPLE

www.GCT-kmi.com4 | GCT 3.4

GCV Program Overview

U.S. ground forces are poised to gain life-saving protective technologies when the ground combat vehicle (GCV) arrives on the field of battle. But just when that might occur is increasingly open to question—not because the technologies can’t be devel-oped, but because of program delays and the issue of money, as Congress is wrestling with plans for huge defense spending cuts that may soon become gargantuan.

At a minimum, the GCV development and production has already been delayed by a full year, with low rate initial produc-tion beginning in 2018 instead of 2017 and full rate production in 2021 instead of 2020, because of an earlier move to send out a new request for proposals and by a contract award protest.

Additionally, the program may be delayed further in a pro-gram stretch-out to save $1.3 billion. That’s part of $487 billion in defense program cuts over 10 years, contained in the Pentagon budget plan for fiscal year 2013.

But things may become worse if $500 billion of further mili-tary program reductions automatically take effect in January, as an existing deficit reduction law mandates, with cuts hitting a huge array of programs.

Delays in the GCV program would occur despite the fact that this next-generation platform would bring myriad benefits to the Depart-ment of Defense, and to warriors who go into harm’s way. The delays would occur even though the GCV is the top-ranked priority among ground systems acquisition programs for the Army. It would provide warriors with network interoperability, mobility and lethality.

Perhaps most importantly, in this era of asymmetric warfare, the GCV will have the ability to take a harsh hit from an IED or RPG, while still protecting the three crew members and nine-combatant infantry squad. So the more the GCV is delayed before it is deployed on the battlefield, the longer it will be before its protections are pro-vided to warfighters.

Fortunately for them, the GCV will be designed and built by a major vehicle producer: either BAE Systems or General Dynamics.

BAE Systems has impressive experience, having built well over 6,000 Bradley fighting vehicles, which the GCV would replace. The Bradley has offered impeccable credentials, with a chain gun and machine gun, acting as an armored personnel carrier, a cavalry scout vehicle, a command and control vehicle, an air defense platform and more.

Two Top Teams ensure GCV will proTeCT warriors, Curb CosTs.by DaVe ahearn

GCT eDiTor


But the Bradley, first appearing in 1981, is a decades-old asset, while the GCV will offer a 21st-century design created in the post-September 11 environment of asym-metrical warfare.

That heritage of building thousands of vehicles is a point BAE Systems stresses, arguing that it augurs well for bringing the GCV in on budget and on schedule.

BAE Systems is offering a cutting-edge GCV that would boast a dramatic propulsion system, a hybrid-electric drive that offers both power and mileage. BAE includes the former United Defense, builder of the Brad-ley and other major armored platforms. BAE Systems Land & Armaments also offers a version of the MRAP, as well as the RG33 and RG35 vehicles.

Mark Signorelli, BAE Systems vice president and general manager–weapons, emphasized that hybrid drive represents mature technology, in use over millions of miles traveled by high-efficiency economy cars, but also by enormously heavy, huge assets such as railroad locomotives. “In the mining, forestry and construction industries, they’ve gone almost exclusively to hybrid or diesel electric drives for those applications, because of the reli-ability,” Signorelli noted. “When you have one of those 100-ton dump trucks, you can’t afford for one of those to be down for very long, because they are expensive to buy and expensive to repair. Or they’re expensive to have not in operation.”

Caterpillar, he observed, builds a diesel-electric bulldozer, but didn’t advertise that fact until hybrid drive became widely admired.

Hybrid electric offers many benefits, Signorelli said.It is economical, using perhaps 10 to 20 percent less fuel than

conventional power plants. The Pentagon has multiple programs to cut the use of petro fuels from unfriendly nations, programs to cut energy use by planes, vehicles, ships and posts/bases in the United States and abroad.

Hybrid electric drive has muscle—enormous torque, or twist-ing power, that can move even a heavy vehicle up a steep grade. And there is no waiting for that torque to become available, as is the case with a conventional engine that must rev up to reach a high-torque point: “The reason we selected a hybrid solution was for vehicle performance,” he explained. “A lot of people assume we did it for fuel efficiency, and some other reasons. But the real answer is, when we looked at the performance requirements of the vehicle, hybrid electric drive was the most efficient way to deliver that performance, and that performance is in terms of torque, hill climbing capability, acceleration, top speed.”

Hybrid electric drive also saves weight, further increasing vehicle performance, slashing about four tons from total vehicle heft, he said. The internal combustion engine can meet average power requirements, while the GCV battery packs can provide the added drive needed to meet peak power needs.

Servicing a hybrid power system is cheaper and easier: Techni-cians only need to pull from the vehicle the part that malfunc-tions, such as a battery pack or electric motor or engine, rather than the entire system, Signorelli continued. “So we ease main-tainability” of the GCV.

The hybrid plant will produce ample electrical power not only to move the vehicle, but also to operate lasers and the weapons of tomorrow, even those not yet in the concept phase. “We’ve accommodated all of those sorts of technologies in the vehicle design, in the sensor architecture, in the vehicle processing architecture—all of those kinds of things are there, so that when the technology is mature enough, we can make that an integra-tion exercise, not a technology development exercise,” Signorelli said.

There also would be ample juice for communications systems, sensors, jammers, microwave weapons and more. While BAE Systems can’t be sure now just what weapon systems, comms and other devices will be developed for insertion on the GCV, it is clear that they will demand ample amounts of electricity, he stated.

Finally, the hybrid plant will generate more than enough electrical power to recharge all the electrical gear that warfight-ers now carry, such as comms, GPS and navigation systems, and more. That means combatants could use far fewer batteries, lessening the crushing load that many warfighters must carry on the battlefield.

The BAE Systems GCV also would offer substantial security for combatants against IED blasts and other enemy threats. At the same time, in low-risk environments, a commander may decide it is safe to remove modular protection packages from the GCV, making it 15 tons lighter. “If you are in a humanitarian operation, you may be operating in a vehicle that’s 55, 57 tons, because you don’t need a lot of the protection,” he stated. However, “if you are

The BAE Systems version of the ground combat vehicle. [Image courtesy of BAE Systems]


in a high-threat environment, you may have all of the protection packages on, and that weight may grow to 70, 72 tons, depending on what threats the commander is trying to protect against.”

He noted that BAE’s vast experience is bolstered by major-league teammates in the BAE GCV effort: Northrop Grumman contributing C4ISR units and integrating command and control systems; Saft providing energy storage capabilities; iRobot as ground vehicle integrator; QinetiQ North America contributing the hybrid electric drive system; and MTU providing the engine. “We are all very focused on low risk solutions, mature technolo-gies that are understood,” Signorelli observed, adding that mem-bers of the BAE Systems GCV team have worked together in the earlier Army Future Combat Systems ground vehicle program.

That wealth of experience, he continued, means the BAE GCV team will be able to bring the GCV to reality on time and at low cost.

General Dynamics (GD) weighs in with a GCV design that offers a low-risk approach with mature, well-tried technologies, with team leaders emphasizing decades of military vehicle design and production experience critical to bringing the GCV in on bud-get and on schedule—even when that Army-mandated schedule calls for production vehicles rolling off the line just seven years after contract award.

That was the main message that the two General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) GCV leaders provided in an interview: Steve Franz, senior director, program management–ground combat vehicle Program, and Bob Sorge, senior director for the GCV

Infantry Fighting Vehicle program. The IFV will be the first iteration of the GCV, with other variants follow-ing later.

In a program where a new vehi-cle must be designed, developed and produced in a space of just seven years, this is no time to be experimenting with the unknown and untried technologies, they said. Rather, the GCV program requires time-tested technologies and com-panies.

Sorge explained it this way: “Keeping our eye on the seven years to the first production unit’s delivery, we chose mature technologies that didn’t need development, so that the thrust of our activity would be integration of proven technology to lower risk going into the EMD [engineering, manufacturing develop-ment] program and to ensure the delivery in seven years.”

Bob Sorge

Halogen, HID, LED, Infrared, Thermal

Permanent, Portable & Handheld UnitsRemote Control or Fixed UnitsIndustry Leading Warranties

308.278.3131 www.golight.com [email protected]


And it is vital that the team using those proven technologies must have corresponding experience. “We know that a major combat vehicle can be developed and delivered in seven years, because we’ve done it,” Sorge said. “We did it with the original … Abrams tank. We developed and delivered the first production vehicle of that in just under seven years.”

The GD proposal for the GCV would be operationally effec-tive and affordable, a key point in times of constrained defense budgets, they predicted. “We know how to keep the affordability of the vehicle by the way you design it,” Sorge said.

GDLS offers both the legendary Abrams main battle tank and the Stryker wheeled vehicle, and the strength of experience gained over seven decades of designing, producing and sustain-ing military vehicles, Sorge observed. As the prime contractor, GD will coordinate the different elements of its GCV proposal.

Franz stressed that there is vast team experience not only in GDLS, but also in the individual members of the GDLS team. Combined, companies on the team “touch about 70 percent of the fleet that’s out there today,” he noted, referring to the many different major U.S. military vehicles.

Aside from GD’s own position as one of the biggest defense contractors, it has assembled a GCV program team that includes some heavy hitters. For example, there is Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor, providing such items as the turret and lethal and non-lethal effects.

Raytheon also contributes hit avoidance if enemies attack the GCV, indirect vision and sensor integrator expertise. Raytheon will provide the RPG protection system and sensor integration. Another GD division, GD C4S, provides the network and com-munications suite, “so we can integrate seamlessly with the network,” Franz continued. And the GD GCV team also includes MTU Detroit Diesel, or Tognum America, one of the largest engine makers, with more than a century of integration experi-ence in combat systems worldwide.

Importantly, all members of the GDLS team have a common approach to creating this mobile machine of war, including a strong emphasis on containing costs, Franz explained.

The team companies are “designing to the cost target,” he said. “We have a very strong process that our entire team has internalized, which is to design to a very strict allocation of cost. So when you talk about the affordability, and those things that are going to happen in the future, we’re well positioned top to bottom to make sure that we control that cost … just like we did on the [Abrams] tank.”

Sorge outlined one way that the GDLS team controls cost: “One more point on using mature technologies: Because they’re more mature, the risk of what the cost might be is much reduced, because they [already] exist. We know what they cost.” And using mature technologies also helps the GDLS team meet Army schedules for the GCV program, because there are no time-consuming problems when an untried technology fails to work as planned, he noted.

Another way that surprise delays are avoided is in the proven engine for the GDLS GCV, Sorge continued. It is already devel-oped and in use. “We’ve chosen a production diesel engine, mod-ern, high efficiency, very high power depth, and that’s the MTU

883. We’ve also picked the major components from the Abrams transmission, which is also in production, and just rearranged them to better fit the space in which we have to operate in the GCV. But it’s all the same production components.”

The foremost need of warfighters is, of course, to oper-ate safely and survive against a treacherous and unpredictable enemy, and here the GDLS GCV delivers, Franz said, thanks to GD producing survivable platforms such as the Abrams and Stryker.

From a double V hull design to deflect IED blasts, to “an entire survivability suite that has protection across the entire spectrum of threats,” the GDLS GCV helps warriors survive enemy attacks, he continued. “That includes an active protection system provided by Raytheon. It includes a significant amount of government provided armors that are encompassing the crew and soldier squad. And I think we have a very good overall design approach for the vehicle, so that the arrangement of that crew and squad, as well as the armament system, provides the best arrangement from a vehicle perspective.” The GCV will accom-modate combatants ranging from a “90th percentile female soldier to a 90th percentile male,” Franz and Sorge explained.

Not only will those personnel be able to fit easily in the GDLS GCV, but their bulky and increasingly heavy gear will be accommodated as well, including body armor, rifles, ammo, food, provisions and more, adding up to several tons that the GCV must carry.

The GDLS GCV also is designed so that the military won’t have to make any expensive changes in its heavy-vehicle infra-structure, Sorge said. Rather, the vehicle will fit on existing heavy equipment transport trailers, railroad cars and on mobile bridges.

prior ConTraCTs

In the initial Army GCV program, BAE Systems received a $450 million technology development (TD) contract for its work on a GCV design, and General Dynamics was awarded a $439.7 million pact. That TD phase led up to the engineering manufac-turing development phase. The overall GCV program ultimately may be worth up to $40 billion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimate.

A third potential competitor that was vying to provide the GCV, SAIC, was earlier bumped out of the running when it was not selected by the Army. SAIC protested that it should have received a contract, but the GAO denied the protest.

Just what the GCV ultimately will look like is still to be deter-mined. But whatever form the GCV finally takes, it is clear it will represent the state of the art in protection for those in harm’s way, while providing them with a signal advance in ride quality, communications and more. O

For more information, contact GCT Editor Dave Ahearn at [email protected] or search our online archives

for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.


When the ground combat vehicle (GCV) first appears in theater later in this decade, it will be a 21st-century platform designed to accommodate cutting-edge technologies in an integral package, rather than having unanticipated systems tacked on awkwardly.

The GCV will have systems meeting myriad warfighter needs: protection from IEDs and RPGs, panoramic situational awareness, comms networking to provide combatants with winning knowl-edge of the enemy and battlefield, and more.

Most of all, the GCV will be able to host not only the most advanced systems extant today, but also will welcome technologies not even in the concept phase now—without expensive redesigns.

The GCV will be built either by a team led by BAE Systems or a rival team led by General Dynamics Land Systems, two stellar military vehicles firms. Their top-ranked GCV program leaders spoke with Ground Combat Technology about the systems that will make the GCV a truly impressive asset. We also queried some of the best systems providers about what may be added to the vehicle.

bae sysTems

Whether it’s modular armor that can be custom-tailored to the expected threat, comms systems and sensors, or futuristic weap-ons such as electric rail guns, the BAE Systems GCV will be able to accept those assets without drastic, expensive vehicle redesigns, according to Mark Signorelli, BAE Systems vice president and general manager, weapons.

He noted that the BAE GCV can add up to 15 tons or so of armor when a mission traverses high-threat areas. But when entering low-threat areas, such as those typical in disaster relief missions, that 15 tons of armor can be stripped away, making the vehicle lighter and saving fuel.

To provide added protection in the high-threat areas, “there are some unique active protection and active sensor technologies that we provide in the vehicle that are sort of foundational to that next generation of active protection systems that we see emerg-ing, probably not in the next five years, but probably in the next 10 to 12 years,” Signorelli said.

“We’ve built a tremendous capacity into the vehicle for ease of integration of new technologies,” he explained. “We know that there are new technologies that are emerging, under develop-ment, some of them just being concepted. We wanted to provide a platform that was able to easily integrate those technologies when they came along. You don’t have to build a new vehicle” to add a newly developed technology.

One reason the BAE Systems GCV would be able to accept new systems, including those with large electrical power demands, is that the BAE GCV would have hybrid electrical propulsion, with

ample excess electrical juice to support systems ranging from computers to lasers.

“Comms, sensors and situational awareness are all integral to our vehicle design,” Signorelli said. “What is unique is not only to provide power for the systems we have today but for our systems in the future that may be emerging. I think as systems get more capable, they typically take more power. We can accommodate a large increase in power requirements for the systems that we have.” Systems of the future that might go on the GCV could include “high power microwaves, high energy lasers,” he predicted.

BAE Systems is in discussions with Northrop Grumman and others about lasers, for example. Northrop Grumman provided the high-energy laser on the former airborne laser anti-ballistic-missile program.

“With a megawatt on the [GCV electrical] bus, we believe that we can start being able to accommodate lasers up to 70 to 100 kW on a GCV type platform,” Signorelli continued.

Another science fiction weapon that may become reality is a rail gun, able to hurl a projectile multiple times farther than the biggest artillery.

“We’ve done some studies around electromagnetic rail guns” that might someday be mounted on the GCV, he said. “Although I’ll be honest, that technology is probably a couple of generations away from being mature enough for a ground vehicle. Our analysis says that with a GCV platform, we can provide not only the power, but also the cooling and space required to integrate those technologies onto a combat vehicle.”

The GCV, the leading ground combat requirement for the Army, already has been delayed for a year as a second request for propos-als was issued, and by a protest filed against an award of contracts. Further delays may occur in the ongoing fiscal year 2013 defense budget process.

General DynamiCs lanD sysTems

The General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) GCV would host new technologies ranging from comms to protection, according to Stephen Franz, GDLS senior director, program management, GCV program, and Bob Sorge, GDLS senior director for the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) program. The IFV will be the first variant of the GCV.

Sorge noted that another General Dynamics division, GD C4 Systems, is a member of the GCV team, and GD C4S has immense depth of knowledge of comms that may go on the GCV.

“They are the developer and provider of the WIN-T [Warfighter Information Network-Tactical] radio system and its continued devel-opment, so they know what’s going to be going forward with the WIN-T,” Sorge observed.

GCV Systems and SubsystemsVehiCle will hosT aDVanCeD sysTems wiThouT CosTly reDesiGns.by DaVe ahearn

GCT eDiTor


“They’re also the HMS [Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit] JTRS [Joint Tactical Radio System] radio provider,” he added. “So they’ve got a lot of … inside knowledge of what we’re going to be integrating now and in the future as far as the communications suite and the command and control suite.”

The open architecture on the GDLS GCV will be able to accommodate active protection systems that can shield war-riors in the GCV from incoming enemy weapons. The GDLS GCV will also be able to incorporate systems that can locate the source of enemy fire, and will be able to integrate nonlethal systems as they are developed, Sorge said.

Ge inTelliGenT plaTforms

For the GCV to succeed, it must meet three key criteria. It must be affordable. It must be low risk. And it must be capable of being deployed as soon as possible. That was the assessment of Lawrence Schaffer, Business Development with GE Intel-ligent Platforms (Bracknell) Ltd.

Criteria such as those typically point towards a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) solution. COTS solutions are char-acterized by their relatively low cost, their high technology readiness level and their ready availability. The latter two are perhaps particularly important in light of the recent delay in the program.

One of the most demanding and important subsystems in the GCV is the 360 degree situational awareness vision system. This system must provide high visual acuity with very low latency as well as a 360 degree view around the vehicle. These three characteristics are extremely challenging to meet and generally require a custom-developed solution, which entails development time and cost.

But GE’s IPS5100 High Performance 360 degree situational awareness visualization system not only meets the challenging performance and functionality requirements; it is also a COTS solution. Capable of processing real-time video and connecting to up to 20 cameras and up to four visual displays to present a full panoramic display to in-vehicle, under-armor operators, its SWaP—size, weight and power—characteristics make it ideal for the confined space within the GCV.

Based entirely on open industry standards, including 3U VPX, it can be easily integrated into new or existing tactical vehicle software, hardware and human/machine interfaces. GE’s IPS5100 is available at technical readiness level 6 and can be extended to include capabilities such as slew-to-cue weapons pointing, motion detection and archive recording.

GE’s IPS5100 contains a software framework for rendering video input from the cameras into a format that can be pre-sented on the individual crew station displays. In the IPS5100, the software providing the visual display and management functionality is comprised of several components.

The first component is the application software, which processes the real-time gigabit Ethernet digital video streams coming in via the 10 gigabit Ethernet fiber optic interface. This video input framework processes the raw video stream coming from the cameras.

The second component is the visualization software, which runs on the high performance video graphics card. The processed video from the first component is post-processed digital video data, which then generates the deliverable view and makes it avail-able for distribution to the operator stations.

The visualization software on the IPS5100 stitches individual video camera inputs into a real-time panoramic, or other user-defined, display. Multiple remote displays can be connected simply via Gigabit Ethernet connections to an external Ethernet switch, effectively creating a plug and play 360 degree local situational awareness display.

The final component in the IPS5100 solution is a client control protocol. The client control protocol is similar to an application programmers interface which describes how to communicate and manipulate a 360 degree local situational awareness environment. The control protocol is a UDP/TCP messaging interface.

safT

As part of BAE Systems’ GCV team, Saft is supplying its ultra high power lithium-ion batteries to support the technology devel-opment phase of the program, the company told Ground Combat Technology.

Saft’s batteries, which are comprised of ultra-high-power, high voltage VL 5U cells, will power the vehicle’s hybrid electric drive system, allowing more efficient vehicle operation. An example of the added capability offered by the battery is a boost in accelera-tion that will draw from both the internal combustion engine and the battery. In addition, Saft’s energy storage system will provide thermal management and include battery monitoring software that communicates the battery’s status, charge level and other critical data back to the vehicle, while also acting as a high-power traction motor battery.

Saft’s contribution of an ultra-high-power energy storage system will allow BAE Systems to prove the advantages of Li-ion technology in this hybrid electric vehicle. Utilizing the Li-ion bat-tery allows the engine to be optimized for the platform’s specific role. Other advantages of Li-ion technology include a smaller and lighter-weight battery to reduce the overall size and weight of the system; lower life cycle costs; long calendar life; and higher power-to-weight ratio compared to traditional vehicle battery technologies.

The GCV program adds to Saft’s growing list of military vehicle prototypes for which Saft has supplied the energy storage system. Saft has an extensive heritage in designing and building high power, lightweight batteries that meet the demands of modern, sophisticated military vehicles. BAE Systems has been a strong supporter of Saft batteries, as evidenced by the use of Li-ion bat-teries systems on numerous platforms including in the non-line-of-sight cannon vehicle, and potential use in the now-canceled Future Combat Systems Manned ground vehicles. O






U.S. ground combat forces are about to gain a far superior vehicle with competence and capabilities designed for the 21st-century battlefield, in place of the 1980s-design Bradley fighting vehicle.

The ground combat vehicle (GCV) will have more space for personnel and will be able to accom-modate a full nine-combatant squad with all their heavy gear. Each GCV also would have a crew of three.

To kick off the vehicle program, the first GCV variant would be the infantry fighting vehicle. Other variants would follow later.

The GCV will keep warfighters safe with modular armor that can be matched to the threat. Beyond that, the GCV will have an architecture designed to accommodate active protective systems, guarding against incoming enemy weapons. The GCV also will be able to host a system to identify and locate the source of enemy fire.

While something that weighs tens of tons is no sports car, the GCV likely would be a bit faster than the M1A2 Abrams, a tank able to roar down the road at 42 mph and to move off road at 30 mph.

The GCV also will be able to get to the battlefield rapidly, wher-ever it may be, thanks to transportability in a C-17, as well as by railroad and ship.

Contractors have been given leeway in meeting general require-ments, but it is clear that the GCV will be a formidable foe, likely bristling with a cannon, a machine gun and a non-lethal weapon. That last item recognizes the changing nature of warfare and the treachery of the enemy: While war once meant massed armies and aircraft fighting over a vast battlefield, with combatants in uniform and planes clearly labeled by nationality, the current foe hides in civilian populations, assembling and storing weapons in or beside schools, hospitals, mosques and other sensitive areas, knowing that U.S. military leaders don’t wish to risk injury to non-combatants. A non-lethal weapon can mean taking out the enemy without that risk, with the added benefit of having a live enemy who may divulge critical intelligence about enemy intentions.

Among other capabilities, the GCV would be fully networked, with a state-of-the-art command and control suite. That can mean better situational awareness and the ability to gain intelligence about threats. The GCV must be able to accept comms systems, including radios and other gear now in development and testing.

The GCV also will have the capability to provide exportable elec-trical power, to support the enormous array of electronic gear that warfighters now carry. Ample electrical power also could be used to power future weapon systems that are not even in the concept

phase now. Lasers, rail quns, microwave nonlethal weapons, and more may be developed in coming years.

In equal measure, the GCV will be able to accommodate pro-tective systems countering enemy threats not seen on current battlefields.

Because the GCV will be in service for decades, perhaps its foremost capability will be an openness to change, an architecture that will permit installation of technologies developed in the far future—without having to tear up or make radical changes in the vehicle.

Another key capability in the GCV will be systems assuring that vehicle occupants, such as the nine-person squad, will know the situation on the ground before they venture outside the GCV. The vehicle crew, including the commander, also will receive that situational awareness.

Unmanned systems will dovetail with the GCV, providing robotic assets that can perform critical missions without placing humans in harm’s way.

Taken together, cutting-edge GCV capabilities reflect the fact that it is a platform designed in the post-September 11 world, incorporating myriad lessons learned in a new and more challeng-ing form of combat. O

warriors Gain spaCe, proTeCTion anD more wiTh The GrounD mobiliTy VehiCle.by DaVe ahearn

GCT eDiTor

GCV Capabilities

This experimental 32-megajoule electromagnetic laboratory rail gun, seen in testing, may lead to a rail gun that could be fitted on the future ground combat vehicle, which will be designed to accept future technological innovations. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


The Bradley fighting vehicle, a vener-able veteran of multiple wars, remains an integral part of U.S. ground infantry operations and a much-improved key plat-form. But with the Army planning to end production of the armored troop carrier later this year, a group of U.S. lawmak-ers aims to funnel an extra $140 million into the program to protect against cuts that the legislators argue would sideline a skilled labor force and downstream suppli-ers needed to ensure the nation’s defense posture.

Army plans to shut down BAE Systems production of new M-2 Bradleys as well as remanufacturing of existing combat vehicles at its York, Pa., facility are backed by the Obama administration. But given the 2009 demise of the Future Combat Systems vehicles program and that effort to provide a new generation of military ground vehicles for the warfighter, critics also say the plan to shutter Bradley facili-ties ignores that it will be years before a replacement for the venerable Bradley will be ready for combat.

The Ground Combat Vehicle currently in development to replace the Bradley in heavy brigade combat team use is not slated to come online until 2017, which because of already certain delays will become 2018. (See full special report in this issue.)

Given such concerns, the House Armed Services Committee and House Appropriations Committee have both

approved an additional $140 million in spending on top of the $148.193 million Department of Defense request in the 2013 defense authorization and 2013 defense appropriations bills for the pro-gram, ensuring additional retrofitting for existing Bradleys.

House Armed Services Committee tactical air and land forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) told Ground Combat Technology that the additional funding was needed specifi-cally to keep the Bradley production line open after DoD submitted an unrealistic budget for the essential program.

“We don’t think the budget was realis-tic.” said the chairman, who spearheaded the House’s additional funding effort. “They had no money for shutting down [the line] and to open things up again. We weren’t sure it cost more than shutting it down and opening it up again. People we talked to weren’t sure it would cost any more than to open up again. It seemed like the prudent thing to do” to fund con-tinued Bradley operations.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee mark-up of its spending bill states that the additional funding is needed to provide powertrain and electri-cal improvements to the vehicle. These are beyond planned upgrades to the vehicle’s track, suspension and forward looking infrared systems to ensure bet-ter support for the Joint Tactical Radio

System, Battle Command System, Warf-ighter Information Network-Tactical, and Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared. Those radio and other programs are expected to come online this fall if they pass muster in ongoing testing at the Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Roy Perkins, director of market cre-ation for BAE Systems, said the closure of the Bradley manufacturing, even tempo-rarily, would affect the ability to provide them for combatants in the future.

“We support additional funding for the Bradley program,” said Perkins. “As we’ve mentioned before, the industrial base for Bradley is designated to be closed for up to three years of shutdown. This money will keep the Bradley production going. We want to say thank you [to law-makers].”

In the face of congressional efforts to keep BAE’s production line in place, the Army doesn’t seem to want it. General Raymond T. Odierno, Army chief of staff, said in February that the vehicle “hasn’t done very well” in terms of survivabil-ity, adding that “we lost more Bradleys than any other combat platform” in Iraq despite not having used the vehicle the previous five years in that theater.

But Perkins countered that much of the Bradley survivability numbers cited by critics are based on data prior to implementation of the Bradley urban

baCkers mounT sTronG efforT To saVe muCh-improVeD fiGhTinG VehiCle.by ChrisTian bourGe

GCT CorresponDenT

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Overview


survival kit up-armoring systems, noting that since the improvement was installed there has been only a single person killed in the vehicle. “We’ve significantly improved survivability of Bradley,” he said. “Bradley is a very survivable vehi-cle.”

Nevertheless, he acknowledged issues with the Bradley related to its growth potential, noting that the increase in both soldier size and the logistical impact of the equipment packs since the vehicle went into use in the early 1980s makes the vehicle tight for a soldier in 2012. Perkins said the 20 percent total growth in the size of the typical American sol-dier—when those combatants are loaded into a vehicle with their packs—means the Bradley can’t house a fully outfitted squad of soldiers. Because of this, the platform isn’t being used for missions needing to transport a great number of people, but they are employed for things such as recon work that take a small crew of three plus a couple more soldiers in the back.

“That is primarily Bradley’s weak-ness,” he said. “It’s about the limits of its growth margin. Bradley survivability isn’t really the issue now. It’s growth margin capability and squad capabilities. You don’t have the room to grow the soldier.”

Despite these issues, Perkins said that the planned production shutdown doesn’t mean the Army wants to abandon the Bradley platform. In fact, he noted that they plan to keep the vehicle in the field for the next 30 years. For their part, BAE envisions Bradleys being transitioned to

roles similar to that served by Vietnam-era M113 armored personnel carriers, such as for combat engineering.

With Senate appropriators expected to largely follow the Obama administration’s wishes on the issue and Senate authorizers remaining silent on the matter, just how the funding issue will play out also remains up in the air. A May 15 statement of admin-istration policy by the White House Office of Management and Budget in response to the House Fiscal 2013 defense autho-rization bill expressed objection to the additional Bradley upgrade funding, citing the current “fiscally-constrained environ-ment.”

A spokeswoman for Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), offered a little more detail, say-ing only that they can’t speculate at this point what will be in the final Senate bill or what will happen in conference.

For his part, Bartlett raised the specter of the damage not only to BAE’s workforce and the future of the Bradley, but for the industrial contractors that feed the pro-gram and their workers, arguing that if the line is stopped it’s uncertain whether downstream vendors will survive, much less be able to return to supplying vehicu-lar components when needed in the future.

“What the Bradley does is extend not only to York but also beyond York to about 10,000 employees across multiple districts and states to keep the Bradley line and Bradley functioning,” said Per-kins.

Sources on and off Capitol Hill deal-ing with the matter indicated that the

issue is certainly on the radar of the com-panies involved. It’s one of the myriad of issues DoD contractors and their employ-ees are facing under the threat of the defense budget cuts planned for next year under the sequestration deal hashed out between Congress and the White House.

“The industrial base is a big problem,” said Bartlett. “If the Bradley is shut down, the down-the-line industrial contractors will have no one to sell to.”

Perkins added that the viability of their York facility is also a concern that should not be overlooked given that it’s home to work on four out of five Army combat systems and two out of four Marine Corps combat systems.

“The big thing I think [it] is impor-tant to understand is that the Army doesn’t get misled,” said Perkins. “We acknowledge there will be less need for a combat vehicle product. But if you have an extra program that comes into place, York is a flexible manufacturing facil-ity. It’s not just Bradley. York as a whole has this flexible capability to do signifi-cant changes and modification to support other programs. And if you don’t have a major program like Bradley going on, everything else is going to be impacted. It’s hard to start back up facilities and the lines.” O

For more information, contact GCT Editor Dave Ahearn at [email protected]

or search our online archives for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Overview


INNOVATIONS

Rugged Blade Uninterruptible Power SupplyAcumentrics

Acumentrics has announced its powerful

and portable Rugged Blade uninterruptible

power supply (UPS). Far lighter in weight than

most rugged UPS products, this double on-line

conversion UPS brings a new level of power

density to a wide range of military applications

and environments.

Acumentrics used advanced technologies

in power conditioning, high performance

digital controls and innovative high frequency

conversion to create the Rugged Blade UPS.

Despite being lightweight, it provides

1250VA/1000W of AC or DC output power

and is scalable up to 8 kilowatts. The UPS

is approximately 60 percent lighter than the

company’s current 1250VA product at 28

pounds with the optional Li-ion battery pack

and 33.5 pounds with the lead acid battery

pack.

It is a slim 1U profile at 1.75 inches high,

17 inches wide and 21.75 inches deep. Its

small package and lighter weight make it the

ideal solution for supporting combat mission

communications and surveillance applications.

Featuring Acumentrics’ unique Flo-Thru

technology, the Rugged Blade UPS utilizes

a heatsink tunnel design and gasket-sealed

enclosure that offers maximum protection

for components from the damaging effects

of moisture, airborne particles and other

contaminates in the operating environment.

The device's variable speed fan and heat

monitoring algorithms provide the airflow rate

for ideal cooling while minimizing noise.

Acumentrics Rugged Blade UPS features a

choice of battery pack options: light, long cycle

life Li-Ion or low maintenance, valve-regulated

lead acid batteries. Batteries are enclosed

in a user-replaceable battery pack for rapid,

hot-swap field replacement.

This product accepts a wide range of

voltage and frequencies, while providing

clean, reliable AC and DC power as well as

seamless input transition from AC shore power

to DC power to the battery. The Rugged

Blade UPS provides “true worldwide input,”

offering compatibility with global voltages and

frequencies. It accepts AC input power from 80

VAC to 265 VAC and 47 to 440 Hz as well as DC

input of 22 VDC to 32 VDC volts.

MAINGATE Radio System Raytheon

In anticipation of the next critical phase of the Army’s Network Integration Evaluation

(NIE), Raytheon Co. completed a series of tests that showed that its vehicular radio system

maintained large-scale networks, without the need for fixed infrastructure.

At the same time, the system delivered key capabilities such as voice, text and full motion

video to the battlefield, an essential attribute of the mid-tier network that the Army will be

evaluating at the NIE this fall.

During testing, Raytheon linked 43 radios, or nodes, in a constant, continuous network,

delivering seamless network capability, even in hilly, urban terrain that often causes other

networks to break apart. Raytheon’s Mobile Ad hoc Interoperability Network Gateway

(MAINGATE) provided industry-leading data rates that enable soldiers to simultaneously view

multiple full motion video streams and engage in chat sessions. They can also hold voice

conversations and download high resolution images from drones and other sources.

“The experience from more than 20 years of deploying networked communications

in theater ensures user requirements are understood,” said Jeff Miller, director of tactical

communication systems for Raytheon’s Network Centric Systems business.

“MAINGATE is affordable, easy to use and scalable, from the 43 nodes that were tested,

up to 128 nodes in a single network. MAINGATE is the highest performing system available to

the Army today, with an unmatched network capacity in excess of 10 megabits per second,

which lets a soldier view at least 27 videos at the same time,” Miller added.

Another feature of MAINGATE is the ability to quickly start up and establish the network,

with average network formation time of less than three minutes from a cold start. Other

networks can take up to 20 minutes.

MAINGATE is in production with 200 units deployed in theater. It is composed of a high-

throughput radio that uses the Next Generation Mobile Ad Hoc Networking Waveform that

was recently provided to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Tactical Radio System library.

HID LiteboxStreamlight

Streamlight introduced a new

version of its super-bright, rechargeable

HID LiteBox searchlight featuring a

heavy-duty 12-volt DC power cord

that can be connected to the lantern

to provide continuous operation.

The portable lantern features high

intensity discharge technology, providing

professional and consumer users with an

ultra-bright light that can illuminate objects

more than one mile away with its long-range

beam.

The new model gives users the flexibility of

using the lantern as a corded light, by plugging

the included remote power cord into a DC

power source.

The lantern combines a 35-watt

high intensity discharge Xenon lamp with

Streamlight’s deep-dish parabolic reflector

technology to deliver 3,350 lumens and

one million candela peak beam intensity.

The searchlight produces a long-range,

high intensity focused beam. The lantern’s

90-degree swivel neck allows users to aim

the beam precisely where it is needed for

optimized task lighting.

The lantern includes a 10-foot cord that

can be plugged into a 12-volt DC power source.

The zero-maintenance 12-volt, 7.2 Amp/hour

sealed lead acid battery is rechargeable up to

500 times, and operates the HID lamp for up

to 1.75 hours per charge. The lantern will run

indefinitely when using the power cord, while

continuously charging the light’s battery.


Compiled by KMi Media Group staff

Radio Extends Network to Dismounted CombatantsHarris Corp.

Harris Corp. introduced a powerful new

handheld radio that connects dismounted war-

fighters to emerging wideband tactical networks.

Lightweight and portable, the Falcon III

RF-7800-HH provides unprecedented access

to information by allowing warfighters to

communicate by voice, video and data anywhere

on the battlefield. The 7800M wideband handheld

supports network-enabled missions through

applications such as video, collaborative chat

and situational awareness. It uses the field-

proven Harris Adaptive Networking Wideband

Waveform, which is used in more than 20,000

radios.

“The newest Falcon III radio delivers the

power of a wideband tactical internet down

to the dismounted soldier,” said Brendan

O’Connell, president, international business,

Harris RF Communications.

PTT Radio SystemCambridge Consultants

Cambridge Consultants and Iridium Commu-

nications have successfully completed initial trials of

new key components of the world’s largest push-to-

talk (PTT) radio system: the Department of Defense

Distributed Tactical Communications System (DTCS).

DTCS enables soldiers in isolated areas to

communicate without the need for ground infrastruc-

ture, and in locations where they often can’t pick up

a geostationary satellite’s signal unless they move to

higher ground.

This will allow soldiers in remote combat zones to

communicate and exchange mission-critical data at

the touch of a button, using handheld PTT radios, via

the netted group call communication system which is

supported by Iridium’s global satellite network.

AAR ToolsCubic Defense

After-action reviews, or AARs, are an integral part of ground combat training events

because they allow exercise participants to thoroughly assess and critique individual

and group performance to ensure operational success on the battlefield.

Cubic Defense Applications, the defense systems segment of Cubic Corp.,

recently demonstrated new AAR technologies. Cubic also highlighted advanced laser

engagement simulation systems for dismounted soldiers and vehicles that make use of

commercial wireless technologies.

IAMD IBCS Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman successfully

completed the critical design review (CDR)

for the Army Integrated Air and Missile

Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System

(IBCS).

The CDR provided an in-depth

assessment, by a government team

of experts and managers, that the IBCS

design is programmatically and technically

realistic and attainable. The successful

review determined the IBCS detailed design

satisfies cost, schedule and performance

requirements and demonstrates the maturity

for proceeding with full-scale fabrication,

assembly, integration and test.

In addition to the Integrated Air and

Missile Defense Project Office, the IAMD

community of interest organizations

participating in the CDR included: Office

of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Missile

Defense Agency, Army Program Executive

Office Missiles and Space, Army Fires

Center of Excellence, Training and Doctrine

Command Capability Manager for Army

Air and Missile Defense, Army Lower Tier

Project Office, Army Counter-Rocket,

Artillery and Mortar Project Office, and Army

Cruise Missile Defense System Project

Office.

“The Army and Northrop Grumman

IBCS team has made substantial progress

on this important program that will bring

innovative, affordable and life-saving

capabilities to the warfighter,” said Kelley

Zelickson, vice president of air and missile

defense systems for Northrop Grumman

Information Systems. “With this significant

milestone achieved, we look forward to

an early demonstration of IBCS combat

capability during the IAMD exercise planned

for 2013.”

The IBCS program resulted from

analysis of Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom

operations to improve mission command as

a top priority for reducing fratricide incidents

and implementing an enterprise approach to

command and control.

IBCS will establish an open systems,

network-centric system-of-systems solution

for integrating sensors, weapons, and

battle management command, control,

communications and intelligence systems.

IBCS uses a plug-and-fight approach to

ensure current and future systems can be

easily incorporated, allowing warfighters to

take advantage of integrated Army and joint

sensors and weapons. The IBCS enterprise

environment focuses on warfighter decision

processes and tools to optimize time-critical

engagements.

Northrop Grumman’s IBCS industry

team includes Boeing, Lockheed Martin,

Harris Corp., Schafer Corp., nLogic Inc.,

Numerica Corporation, Colsa Corp.,

EpiQ Inc., Space and Mission Defense

Technologies, CohesionForce Inc.,

Millennium Engineering and Integration Co.,

RhinoCorps and Tobyhanna Army Depot.


Vehicles AcquirerPEO GCS Advances Vehicle Programs to Enhance Warrior Safety

Q&AQ&A

Scott J. Davis serves as the program executive officer of ground combat systems, where he is responsible for managing the portfolio of ground combat vehicle modernization programs for the United States Army.

Selected for the Senior Executive Service in November 2005, Davis previously served as the deputy program executive officer, PEO Integration, and was accountable for the organization and management of acquisition programs designed to support Brigade Combat Team (BCT) modernization.

An Army Reserve officer, he is currently assigned to the assis-tant secretary of the Army (acquisition, logistics & technology) and has held a variety of positions from platoon leader through battalion executive officer.

He began his career in 1986, serving as a mechanical engineer, program manager, light combat vehicles. He was then assigned as the lead project engineer, line of sight anti-tank system; lead proj-ect engineer, command and control vehicle; and assistant product manager, Bradley Linebacker, Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems Project Management Office. In 1997, he became the deputy product manager, Infantry Carrier Vehicle Variants, PM BCT. His subse-quent assignment was director of engineering, Future Combat Systems.

From 2005 to 2008, he was assigned as the deputy program manager of operations—senior executive service, PM Future Com-bat Systems (BCT). He then served as the deputy program manager of platform integration (SES), PM Future Combat Systems (BCT), before accepting the responsibility as deputy program executive officer, PEO Integration.

He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineer-ing from Michigan Technological University and a Master of Science degree in industrial engineering from Wayne State University. His military training includes the engineer officer basic and advanced courses, Combined Arms Staff Services School, Command & Gen-eral Staff College, and the advanced program manager’s course, Defense Systems Management College.

Q: What improvements have you made recently in PEO Ground Combat Systems?

A: From a Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems [PEO GCS] perspective, key lessons learned have emerged from the Vice Chief of Staff—Army’s Capability Portfolio Review [CPR] process. Critical to PEO GCS is being able to provide a holistic view of the portfolio to enable Army leaders to make better decisions. Three years ago, at the outset of the CPR initiative, PEO

GCS did not have sufficient analytical tools in place to support decisions that affected the entire combat vehicle portfolio. Since then, we have developed, in conjunction with the Army analytical community, the Capability Portfolio Analysis Tool [CPAT], which provides PEO GCS with the ability to evaluate highly complex modernization optimization problems over multiple capability sets of platforms, mission roles, and funding profiles in terms of capability, cost and schedule. The tool was well received when it was first used to support the CPR process in August 2011. While we understand that CPAT will not answer every analytical question that arises, CPAT gives us the unique capability to assess our portfolio holistically and support the CPR process.

With CPAT in use to support portfolio investment decisions, PEO GCS initiated the development of a program-centric trade analysis tool that holistically analyzes a platform at the sub-system level. The Whole Systems Trades Analysis Tool [WSTAT] has been developed and implemented in the PM GCV and Bradley modernization initiatives and has assisted decision makers in understanding the trades in both the requirement and techni-cal arenas. WSTAT evaluates systems in performance, unit cost, operations and support cost, growth and risk areas—we have found this to be an extremely beneficial approach to engaging leadership in challenging acquisition decisions. As we continue

Scott J. DavisProgram Executive Officer

Ground Combat Systems


to focus our efforts on the sustainment and modernization of our ground combat systems, we are developing an industrial base analytical tool to identify risk areas within the industrial base of our Tier II and III suppliers.

Q: Can you shed some light on the non-developmental testing effort that the ground combat vehicle [GCV] has completed?

A: The acquisition decision memoran-dum [ADM] directed the Army to conduct an operational and technical assessment of non-developmental vehicles [NDV] as part of a three-pronged acquisition strategy for the technology development phase of the infantry fighting vehicle. Contractor-developed designs and con-tinued analysis of alternatives [AoA] make up the other two prongs of the acquisi-tion strategy.

NDV technical and operational assess-ments began in January on select vehicles. Operational assessments concluded in early June at Fort Bliss, Texas. We have learned a great deal about the capabilities of existing combat platforms through the technical and operational assessments. Results from both the technical and opera-tional assessments will be analyzed and fed into the AoA when final assessments conclude next month. It would be prema-ture to discuss emerging results as indi-vidual components without completion of all assessments and a full and thorough analysis of results.

The overarching theme from soldiers during the NDV was they really ‘need a vehicle that deals with the capability gaps we’ve had in other vehicles.’ The soldiers liked the direction taken by the Army in seeking a vehicle that’s as versatile, lethal and adaptive as the individual warfighter.

Q: With plans moving forward for lean defense budgets, what cost-cutting moves have you advanced for PEO GCS?

A: Overall, the Army is taking a fundamentally different approach to acquisition—one which emphasizes affordability throughout the acquisition cycle and challenges requirements to avert cost and schedule risk in our programs. This is evident in programs like GCV, as well as others, where we have already shown success in revising military requirements to avoid unnecessary cost.

As PEO GCS moves forward to modernize the Army’s legacy ground combat systems and develop new systems to meet future requirements, we are faced with austere economic conditions that

constrain our resources and demand innovative approaches to accomplish our mission. Based on this increasingly constrained fiscal environment, the Acquisition Enterprise is being forced to ‘do more without more.’ Our success in developing and deliver-ing ground combat capabilities depends on our ability to adapt to the environment, transform our culture, and change the way we operate. Simply stated, we must become more efficient and remain accountable for how we manage and employ the resources provided by the taxpayer.

In fiscal year 2011, PEO GCS achieved $136 million in cost avoidance and savings, and has currently achieved $78 million to date for FY12. We are continuing to improve our performance

Soldiers with 24th Brigade Support Battalion, 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team control robots during training at Camp Dehdadi II, Afghanistan. [Photo courtesy of DoD]

3rd Battalion, 156 Infantry Regiment, attached to 1st Battalion, 156th Armor Regiment of the 256th Brigade Combat Team, on patrol in the Bradley fighting vehicle. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army/Command Sgt. Maj. Steven Stuckey)


by implementing a quality management system [QMS] which focuses the organi-zation’s resources on top priorities using facts and metrics. Performance is every-one’s responsibility and the QMS ensures everyone in the organization understands their role in achieving results.

Q: There have been discussions about shutting down the Abrams and Bradley programs for a few years. Could you give us an outline of how this would work?

A: The industrial base is critical to the Army’s success and we are actively engaged with industry and our Tier II/III suppliers on how to best mitigate risks to ensure we maintain a robust and healthy combat vehicle industrial base. The Army is not ‘shutting down’ the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center [JSMC] in Lima, Ohio. The Army remains focused on completing current Abrams SEP Ver-sion 2 tank production requirements, while simultaneously initiating future tank modernization, recapitalization and foreign military sales efforts. This means that production lines will slow down and level off, but production will not cease at JSMC. This production ‘pause’ of U.S. tanks will allow the Army to focus its limited resources on the development of the next generation Abrams tank instead of building more of the same M1A2 SEPv2 tanks that have exceeded their space, weight and power limits.

Q: How do you assess progress in enhancing survivability of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle?

A: As operations in theater heightened in 2006 and 2007, the Army Requirements Review Board approved operational need statements to improve Bradley systems for the fight on the urban battlefield. At that time, temporary, bolt-on appliqué kits proved to be an effective solution. In 2008, the Army developed mate-riel solutions to address capability gaps to permanently change Bradley vehicle baseline capabilities. Upgrades were in the form of add-on armor [AoA], Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles II, and Bradley Urban Survivability Kit [BUSK] I, II, III.

BUSK I provides the commander with additional defense against small arms and sniper fires, along with system protection from low-hanging power lines. Enhanced sight optics protection also helps prevent damage from hand-launched projectiles.

BUSK II provides advanced survivability seats to increase soldier safety during under-body improvised explosive device [IED] blasts, restraints so the floor plates and ammunition do not create second-ary projectiles during blasts, and an upgrade to the fire extinguish-ing system. The majority of BUSK II installations are complete.

BUSK III is currently being installed on vehicles in Kuwait and Korea, and within the U.S. in Texas, but has already been mounted on FY09 remanufacture and FY10 reset production vehicles. Improvements include an emergency egress ramp, containment of the fuel cell during an IED attack, enhanced seating protection, and

advanced protection for the gunner and commander from second-ary projectiles.

Because of the complexity of the BUSK III modification, which includes removing the turret for installation, approximately 300 man hours are needed to complete each modification effort. All BUSK components are tested and receive a safety confirmation from the U.S. Army Developmental Test Command in Aberdeen, Md. Procurement of the BUSK III effort is scheduled to be complete in January 2014.

Q: How is the Stryker program progressing? How do you rate the vehicle’s performance on the field?

A: The Army’s more than 4,187 Stryker fleet includes 10 variants of the flat-bottom platform and an additional seven variants of the double V-hull design. A total of 17 Stryker brigades have deployed to both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The deployed fleet successfully increased operational miles ten-fold compared to garrison/peacetime deployment—an estimated 40 million miles while exceeding operational readiness requirement.

The new threat in Afghanistan led to an urgent requirement to change the design of the flat-bottom Stryker vehicles to a more survivable double V-hull model. Design, test, production and field-ing were accelerated to get this new design into the hands of the soldier within 18 months. The Stryker fleet continues to maintain an overall readiness availability rate of more than 96 percent in Afghanistan and throughout that region.

Currently, Army engineers are designing and implementing important Stryker vehicles upgrades. The efforts are focused on technologies that will provide the platform a stronger engine, improved suspension, more on-board electrical power and next-generation networking and computing technology. Phase 1 of the Stryker engineering change proposal [ECP] will lead to a prelimi-nary design review and the construction of a demonstrator vehicle

A Stryker rounds a corner seeking insurgents. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


sometime next summer. Phase 1 includes a series of key improve-ments to the platform designed to improve the overall performance of the Stryker, computing and on-board electronics capabilities. The Strykers receiving the ECPs will be better equipped to receive a host of new networking gear already being outfitted on vehicle platforms.

Q: What improvements have you seen recently in the capability of robotic systems to save warfighters’ lives?

A: As we look at the battlefields of the future, one cannot help but see robots at the forefront. Budget reductions, cuts to troop-end strengths and asymmetric threats have forced researchers to address where potential robotic systems can not only replace soldiers in harm’s way but also enhance the capability of the force. Moving forward, robotic systems have to be able to func-tion with limited oversight and control by the soldier. They need to evolve to become a member of a squad capable of performing a mission without burdening the solider for guidance, navigation and manipulation typical of today’s fielded tele-operated systems.

The Robotic Systems Joint Project Office [RS JPO] is continu-ally looking to improve autonomous capabilities so systems can perform multiple missions, have modular payloads and be able to work within a teaming environment. The RS JPO is leveraging both internal and external talents through established working relationships with all four services’ technology bases and by iden-tifying near, mid and long- term needs for UGVs. The autonomous

mobility appliqué system currently being developed by the RS JPO will be an appliqué kit that can be fitted to any ground vehicle in the motor pool and will allow it be become piloted autonomously. This appliqué kit would consist of a series of cameras and sensors that would be fitted to the vehicle. The first increment calls for tactical wheeled vehicles to be fitted with the system, followed by route clearance vehicles, and finally ground combat systems.

Q: Do you have any closing thoughts about your operation and the men and women who staff it?

A: The men and women who serve in this organization are simply amazing—we have some of the most competent and dedicated individuals within the acquisition community. We conduct invaluable work providing tremendous equipment to our men and woman who selflessly serve our country with honor.

While our systems have been meeting the challenges posed by asymmetric threats, the battlefield is and will continue to be ever-changing. In order to ensure our soldiers maintain their dominance and continue to defeat our adversaries, we must mod-ernize our ground combat fleet and develop new systems that are adaptable, versatile, and affordable. The PEO GCS team is up to the task and will continue to provide affordable, integrated and robust ground combat systems, and ensure the success of our warfighters across the full spectrum of military operations today and into the future. O

September 25-27, 2012Quantico, VA

To showcase your products and services, please contact: Charlie Baisley at 703.812.2741 [email protected] Jaymie Nielsen at 980.328.8801 [email protected]

Sponsored by

Marine Corps League

Endorsed by

M

ARIN

E CO

RPS

SYSTEMS COMMAND

Co-Sponsored by Endorsed by


When something is the best, the tempta-tion would be to leave it unchanged. But the Abrams M1A2, even though many see it as the best main battle tank currently fielded, has undergone extensive changes, with still more improvements now occurring.

The original Abrams, the M1, was designed in the 1970s and first went into service in the 1980s. Repeated upgrades, however, mean it is anything but outdated. It is adapting rap-idly to new realities on the battlefield that are imposed by a cunning and highly adaptable enemy employing RPGs and IEDs.

The system enhancement package (SEP) provided many advancements, including comms and other gear, to help the Abrams M1A2 adapt to the new threat environment.

There also was the tank urban survival kit (TUSK)—developed by Abrams producer General Dynamics Land Systems and the mil-itary—to help the tank survive in crowded, densely developed areas where shadowy insurgents can strike from any direction and any elevation.

Although the Abrams has tough armor on the front, the urban threat required add-ing reactive armor on the sides, slat armor on the back and belly armor to shield crews against an IED blast. The massive vehicle had enough armor that it weighed 60 to 69 tons, depending on the version. And the TUSK gains included a transparent armor

gun shield, a thermal sight for the M240B 7.62 mm machine gun and other items. A remote weapon turret meant a warrior could operate a gun from a safe spot inside the tank, without being exposed to enemy fire. The CROWS II system includes a video screen and joystick to control the weapon.

To further protect personnel, the fuel tank is designed not to cause an explosion inside the tank if it is hit by enemy fire. And if the ammo storage is hit, it is designed to direct the blast toward the outside of the tank, rather than going inward toward the crew. Finally, if a fire erupts inside the tank, an automatic system detects the blaze and extinguishes it.

And there were other upgrades, such as night vision for the driver.

Now comes another major stride for the Abrams, the SEP version 2. So what does the Abrams boast in its latest version?

To further protect the crew from enemy weapons, the latest SEP uses better armor: depleted uranium clad in steel. And there can be active protection systems to throw incom-ing enemy weapons off course.

In electronics, the new Abrams is light-years beyond the original M1 version, offering new command and control systems. There is ample air conditioning to keep that hard-ware—and the crew—cool. Forward looking infrared thermal sights for the commander

and other electronics can be operated quietly, without turning on the huge 1,500 hp turbine engine, thanks to an auxiliary power unit.

Those electronics include features such as color screens, advanced netted comms to keep the crew fully informed about enemy movements, and more, with gear ranging from SINCGARS to FBCB2. In a nod to older technology, there also is a phone on the tank exterior that troops can use to contact the crew.

As cutting edge as the current Abrams may be, further advancements doubtless will be developed as technological breakthroughs occur in coming years and decades, and the tank is being readied now for those advance-ments, with open architecture that means installing future systems will be accom-plished without expensive rework, new wir-ing and the like.

Some improvements already are at hand, such as the continuous electronics enhance-ment program, or CEEP, that adds to the upgrades of the SEP and the TUSK packages.

CEEP provides warfighters with new-design digital systems, including sensor displays, colored maps and situational aware-ness. There will be displays for each of the four crewmembers (commander, driver, gunner and loader). Other features in CEEP include vehicle monitoring, dismounted command and control and remote diagnostics.

a GreaT baTTle plaTform beComes eVen beTTer wiTh The sep Version 2.

by DaVe ahearn

GCT eDiTor

Abrams SEP V2


One SEP improvement was the auxiliary power unit (APU), which allows use of elec-tronics without having to run the turbine engine. But with CEEP, an even greater advancement is a better battery that means the APU is no longer needed.

Rather than just relying on the view from the periscope to tell where the vehicle is and where it’s headed, the driver has a wide field of view screen, GPS and an inertial position-navigation asset that informs a color digital terrain map.

As a fighter, the Abrams is tough to beat, a mobile arsenal. There is a 120 mm M256 smooth bore cannon, a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun, and a commander’s .50 caliber M2HB. To supply those weapons, the Abrams can carry 42 rounds for the cannon, 11,400 rounds for the 7.62 mm, and 900 rounds for the .50 caliber. Then there are 32 screening grenades, and 210 rounds of 5.56 mm ammo. The cannon can fire different kinds of rounds against enemy armored vehicles, personnel and low-flying aircraft.

Despite the 69.54-ton weight of the cur-rent Abrams M1A2, it can be transported inside a C-17 Globemaster or C-5 Galaxy. Its generous ground clearance of 19 inches helps to lessen the impact of IEDs.

It can roar over a 42-inch-high obsta-cle, and its turbine engine can run on a wide array of fuels, ranging from gasoline to diesel, and JP-8 aviation fuel. While not an economy car, the Abrams can roll 265 miles on a tankful, and it can cross a 9-foot trench. And though it is no Corvette or Shelby Mustang, the Abrams can acceler-ate from zero to 20 mph in only 7.2 seconds, impressive for its weight class.

Eventually, the Abrams will be replaced, but not immediately. Its replacement will be the ground combat vehicle (GCV), the first combat transport designed in the post-September 11, 21st-century era. The GCV will be able to carry a crew of three and a nine-warrior squad. But the GCV won’t be produced even at low rates until 2018 at the earliest, and perhaps much later if defense budget problems persist. (Please see GCV Special Report in this issue.)

Meanwhile, the Abrams tank rules as the premier main battle tank, deployed by the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and Iraq. O

For more information, contact GCT Editor Dave Ahearn at [email protected]

or search our online archives for related stories at www.gct-kmi.com.

An Abrams SEP Version 2 accelerates under cloudy skies. [Photo courtesy of DoD]

A C-17 delivers a Marine Corps Abrams to Afghanistan. [Photo courtesy of DoD]

An Abrams tank pauses in open terrain. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


Although some military hardware is of use mainly in combat zones, there is one class of gear that has equal value in theater and in stateside maneuvers: storage and purification hydration systems.

Water in streams and lakes can be polluted no matter where in the world it flows. That is true in domestic areas that seem to be pure, such as the Snake River winding past the Grand Tetons in Wyoming, which has been found to carry contamination.

Fortunately for those engaged in ground combat, they can be assured of potable water sufficient to keep them fully hydrated. Some hydration gear can store already purified water.

waTer sToraGe sysTems

BAE Systems provides water storage bladders that can be car-ried in Modular Lightweight Load Carrying Equipment (MOLLE) packs, with the water containers flanking either side of a long range assault pack. Up to three of the 100-ounce bladders can be carried.

For convenience, each container has a drink tube located on the warfighter’s shoulder. And the system is easy to maintain and keep free of mold or other microorganisms.

Last year, BAE recorded a milestone, having produced more than 15 million MOLLE packs.

Another firm providing water storage systems is CamelBak, offering water carriers with 30- to 100-ounce capacities.

CamelBak offers a Chem Bio Reservoir X that can be used during chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear attacks, and the firm also offers the Linchpin, with a 100-ounce water capacity in a pack that also carries up to 1,850 cubic inches of supplies including ammo, carbine magazines, glasses and other items. It’s available in various colors, including multi-cam.

Blackhawk offers hydration packs, reservoirs, bottles and canteens. For example, the Stingray hydration pack includes a 100-ounce hydration system. It is protected by an antimicrobial treatment, and the supply tube comes with the Bite Me bite valve and a quick-disconnect system.

There is a 3-D mesh back panel with frame, and an external hydration reservoir access. The pack boasts internal pockets and dividers. There are vertical-opening pockets on both sides.

For the netted warrior, there are dual antenna ports. The pack is 19 inches long by 10.5 inches wide and eight inches deep in the main compartment, and 11 inches long and wide by 2.5 inches deep in the front compartment.

waTer purifiCaTion sysTems

Before Louis Pasteur discovered the existence of microorgan-isms, people often drank polluted water without knowing why they were becoming ill. Once the existence of germs became known, boiling water was a way of making polluted drinking water safe and potable, though that was hardly a simple or easy approach for filling the massive hydration needs of armies.

In the 20th century, modern purification systems were devised that treated polluted water with filters, settling tanks, chlorine and activated charcoal to remove foul odors and bad tastes. Finally, the new technology of reverse osmosis

The Mobile MaxPure water purification system. [Photo courtesy of WorldWater & Solar Technologies]

while makinG waTer safe, some sysTems also proViDe eleCTriCiTy.by DaVe ahearn

GCT eDiTor

Hydration Systems

Above: The Aspen 5500M water purification system. [Photo courtesy of Aspen Water]Right: The CamelBak pack provides room for gear. [Photo courtesy of CamelBak]


membranes—water seeps through them, and even tiny micro-organisms are screened out—was developed, which permitted modest to substantial amounts of water to be rendered safe for troops. And then ultraviolet (UV) light, a germ-killer, came into widespread use.

Among the larger systems is the Series 5.0, a system that for years was made by L-3 Communications. L-3 spun off a large sec-tion of itself to form a new independent company, Engility, that includes the 5.0 water purification product.

The 5.0 is man-portable, easily stowed in a small vehicle and then carried by one or two personnel to the bank of a nearby stream or other water source. After that, it takes about four minutes to make the 5.0 operational; shutting it down takes less than five minutes. For convenience, it comes in a high-impact Pelican carrying case. It only weighs about 70 pounds (dry), but it can crank out more than 1,000 gallons a day of sparkling water, using reverse osmosis technology, UV lighting, sediment filters, carbon filters and more.

It is 25 inches long, 20 inches wide and eight inches high. The 5.0 needs 24 volts DC current, but it can be adapted to a wide variety of electrical power sources.

To support smaller warfighter groups, other Engility systems are available down to 350 gallons a day, a system weighing a mere 20 to 25 pounds. Or a four-unit rack can produce 4,000 gallons daily.

Need even more? WorldWater & Solar Technologies has a solar-powered Mobile MaxPure water purification unit that can produce up to 30,000 thirst-quenching gallons per day, working with polluted fresh water. Working with salt or brackish water, the unit can crank out 3,000 to 4,000 gpd.

Because it is solar powered, it needs no fuel supplies, mean-ing no fuel convoys to support it. Fuel convoys are a frequent target of the enemy. And despite the solar-cell power supply, Mobile MaxPure operates even at night, thanks to batteries that the solar panels charge during the day.

Getting to the water purification process itself, Mobile Max-Pure uses reverse osmosis, UV lighting and filters to provide safe liquid for warfighters. Options can be added, such as chlorination or activated charcoal filters.

Thanks to generous power output from the solar cells, the Mobile MaxPure can not only run the water purification unit, it also can provide electrical power to recharge the growing array of electronic gear that soldiers must carry. Recharging

means those troops don’t have to carry a heavy load of disposable batteries

to power their gear.Aside from use in com-

bat zones, the Mobile Max-Pure also is employed in

disaster areas, produc-ing pure water so that displaced disaster victims don’t become sick.

H y d r o - P h o t o n Inc., of Blue Hill,

Maine, offers the handheld SteriPen water

purification system, in the

Protector or Defender versions. Using ultraviolet light, the units in seconds kill common waterborne disease microorganisms in clear water, such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa. Those pollutants include giardia and cryptosporidium. The olive drab Protector is intended for use by military personnel.

Defender destroys over 99.9 percent of bacteria, viruses and protozoa, including cryptosporidium and giardia, and disinfects a liter of water in 90 seconds. The AA-battery-powered Defender involves no pumping, warming up, filters, testing or waiting. The unit weighs 5.7 ounces.

CamelBak has the HydroLink In-Line Microfilter, with a usable filtering life of 79 gallons. Designed for use with Camel-Bak reservoirs, it allows users to collect water from any source and filter it as they drink.

The hollow fiber sub-micron filter removes sediment, bac-teria such as the fecal organism E. coli, protozoa (giardia and cryptosporidium) and cysts. It provides a 0.2 micron absolute pore size. It can be used with standard water purification treat-ments such as iodine or chlorine to remove viruses. An activated carbon filter removes halogens, such as chlorine or iodine.

CamelBak also provides the All Clear system, a 0.75-liter bottle. It works this way: A warrior fills the bottle from a stream that may be polluted. Then the combatant places the lid on the bottle, a lid with a UV light that he turns on to purify water in the bottle in just one minute. There can be 80 refills for All Clear, which ground combat troops can buy themselves.

Aspen Water Inc. provides systems able to purify thousands of gallons per day, while using minimal electricity and running quietly so as not to create noise that the enemy could hear. The Aspen 3300 can purify up to 3,300 gallons of water, even if that H2O contains chemicals or bio-agents, as long as it is fresh water rather than salt water.

That electricity to power it can come from a wall plug, a vehicle or a solar cell system, with some of the electrical power going to a UV light that kills contaminants ranging from anthrax to polio organisms.

Another water purification system is human-powered, need-ing no electricity. The Aquamira water purification system can involve a bottle that a soldier fills from a stream, with a filter and top that he puts on the bottle. Then he squeezes it to force the water through the filter, so it comes out clear and pure.

Even lighter is another warrior-powered system with a filter on the end of a straw that can be inserted into a stream for the combatant to drink. Or, with the similar Frontier Pro, water can be pulled through a filter to fill a bottle or backpack water container. These McNett units are sold directly to soldiers at PX stores.

Sure Aqua Corp, of Epping, Australia, has a water purification product, AquaSafe Straw, that requires no fuel or electricity.

It is a tube that can be slipped into a glass of impure water, like a straw. Then the combatant drinks the water through the purifier. It can last for months, providing up to 500 liters of potable water. Using membrane technology, it filters out 99.9999 percent of bacteria. O




Jennifer A. Hitchcock was assigned as interim director of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineer-ing Center in Warren, Mich., after former TARDEC Director Grace Bochenek was selected to be the first chief technology officer at AMC Headquarters in Huntsville, Ala. Hitchcock was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in January 2011 as the executive director for Research and Technology Integration (RTI) at the U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), TAR-DEC. She commands more than 21 years of technical leadership and managerial experience in mobility and power and energy technolo-gies, system engineering, acquisition, and program management. She served as the acting director of RTI from April 2010 until her official appointment to the SES and RTI director in January 2011. She is responsible for leading the research and integration of Army ground vehicle mobility, power and energy, survivability, and robotic and vehicle electronic architecture technologies. She is responsible for ensuring that concepts, analytics, analysis and system simulation are completed for all ground vehicle technology drive system integra-tion solutions to meet emerging Army battlefield challenges. She leads more than 500 associates in five technical business areas, and is the executive responsible for the planning, execution, funding and selection of technology programs the Army will pursue to align and transition to acquisition programs.

Q: What changes are you instituting at TARDEC since you assumed your current post on March 11?

A: My goal during my tenure was to keep TARDEC moving forward. TARDEC is a great organization with relevance to the current and future Army. However, there have been some notable accomplish-ments at TARDEC since I’ve been the interim director. For example: TARDEC received national recognition when we opened the new Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory [GSPEL] in April, and since then we’ve received many requests from outside organizations for collaboration and partnerships. But the requests are not just for power and energy-related projects; we have seen an increase in TAR-DEC’s activities across the board in areas such as integration, robotics, modeling and simulation, sustainment support, and survivability.

Q: At a time of constrained fiscal resources in the Department of Defense, with the price of fuel delivered in theater at roughly $400 per gallon, what steps can be instituted to increase fuel efficiency on existing and future military vehicles?

A: We are currently doing many things to help make vehicles lighter and more efficient. We are developing and integrating new materials for armor and vehicle structures that are lighter and safer. We are doing extensive research in advanced electrification of vehicles, bat-teries, fuel cells, and fuels and lubricants that will help reduce con-sumption, and could even increase the overall performance of ground vehicles.

Q: What will the new GSPEL do first to further fuel efficiency goals? What role do you foresee for fuel cells as vehicle propulsion systems?

A: The GSPEL’s eight-in-one lab has unique capabilities that cannot be found anywhere else. It allows us to link man-in-the-loop simulators with our dynamometers and test individual systems or entire vehicles with up to five axles under extreme weather conditions. This enables us to enhance the vehicles for their duty cycles and drive more fuel-efficient systems. The GSPEL’s battery, fuel cell and air filtration labs allow us to test in safe, controlled environments where tests can be repeated and refined before these items even leave the bench. Our research in power and mobility is vital to helping reach energy security goals that will enable our military to have the energy it needs, when it needs it, to accomplish the mission. Our fuel cell tests have been encouraging so far. We are currently testing fuel cells on small robots

Jennifer A. HitchcockInterim Director

U.S. Army Tank Automotive ResearchDevelopment and Engineering Center

Innovation LeaderRobotics, Survivability and More to Advance Vehicles

Q&AQ&A


TARDEC


Jennifer A. HitchcockInterim Director

Colonel Charles DeaseMilitary Deputy

Charles CoutteauActing Executive Director of Research and Technology

Integration

Bruce BrendleActing Executive Director of

Product Development

Marta TomkiwChief of Staff

James OverholtSenior Research Scientist

for Robotics

Magid AthnasiosExecutive Director of

Engineering

David GorsichChief Scientist

TARDEC

that allow them to operate up to four-times as long as conventional batteries. We are also testing a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Hawaii with the Air Force and Navy.

Q: What innovations do you see in robotics on full-sized vehicles that might, for example, involve fuel convoys in theater able to navigate on their own with no personnel driving them?

A: We are currently testing leader/follower tech-nology that could eliminate the need for some soldiers participating in dangerous fuel convoys. This technology could free them from the duty of driving so they can spend time performing other tasks. We are also testing robotic systems designed to do dull, dirty and dangerous jobs at military installations and forward operating bases that would free the soldier up for other activities.

Q: How close are we to seeing military vehicles that can drive themselves on, for example, logistics missions, able to determine how to maneuver around buildings or other obstacles and continue to the objective?

A: One of the biggest factors to overcome in the field of robotics and autonomy is public acceptance. The military has been using this technology to distance soldiers from the danger of unexploded ord-nance for a while, but the notion of vehicles that drive themselves is not readily accepted by the general population. Drive-by-wire technology currently exists that would eliminate the need for some soldiers in convoys. Testing and evaluation is continuing on this.

Q: Concerns have been expressed that $500 billion of automatic defense spending cuts will occur in January. What cost cuts or efficiency moves have you instituted in TARDEC?

A: We have taken many steps to become more efficient at TARDEC. For example: We conduct biannual portfolio reviews of our projects to measure progress and adjust efforts for maximum effective-ness and efficiency. Another way we have become more efficient is through collaboration and partnerships with other organizations. Relationships like the Advanced Power and Technology Alliance between the DA [Department of the Army] and DOE [Department of Energy] help eliminate duplication of effort and allow us to share data and research that makes us more efficient and effective.

Q: What are some of the key projects that TARDEC currently is advancing?

A: There are several projects now underway.Meeting the operational energy needs of the Army: We conduct

research, development and integration in a variety of areas to help meet the operational energy needs of the Army. Our work in advanced combustion engines and transmissions, lightweight structures and materials, energy recovery and thermal management, alternative fuels and lubricants, hybrid propulsion systems and batteries,

and the analytical tools to conduct modeling and simulation are instrumental in helping reach the Army’s energy security goals.

Autonomy and force protection technology: TARDEC’s ground vehicle robotics [GVR] team is a leader in the efficient development, acquisition and integration of robotic and autonomous capabilities. Our experts leverage the best available technology from industry, academia and government to build and sustain robust robotic capa-bilities. Through autonomous perception and navigation, intelligent tactical behavior, and command and control, GVR further develops the Army’s ability to foresee, diagnose and avoid possible battlefield threats.

Occupant-centric survivability: TARDEC’s survivability team has adopted an occupant-centric approach that starts inside the vehicle with the soldiers—our most valuable asset—and designs systems that help them survive a variety of attacks, including gunfire, rocket propelled grenades, mines and IEDs.

Modeling and simulation: Concepts, analysis, systems simula-tion and integration are at the heart of everything TARDEC does. Our modeling and simulation programs significantly shorten the development cycle, which leads to faster technology integration into the vehicles.

Technology integration: Our systematic approach to research and technology integration ensures components and systems will perform as intended when integrated with the entire system. This approach allows us to balance the technology with the requirements, costs and performance, and to make trade-offs that help field new technologies.

Q: Will electric motors, with their superior torque and hill-climbing ability, likely become common in military vehicles?

A: We are conducting research and testing on the advanced electrifi-cation of vehicles and developing new ways for these systems to work together while balancing mobility and survivability needs for ground vehicles. The areas we are working to overcome are cost and reliabil-ity of these components in a military environment. O

??

The Prototype Integration Facility (PIF) at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), where the first five "super configuration" mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) prototype vehicles equipped with Capability Set 13 assets are being built. The MRAP configurations include Soldier Network Extension (SNE), Point of Presence (PoP), Vehicular Wireless Package (VWP), MaxxPro MRAP and MRAP-Lite. [Photo courtesy of DoD]


TARDEC

NATION’S LARGEST INTELLIGENCE EVENT

geoint2012.com

adVertIsers IndexAmerican Innovations .............................................................................. 27www.americaninnovations.comGeneral Dynamics Land Systems.............................................................. C2www.gdls.comGolight Inc. ................................................................................................. 7www.golight.comLeupold ...................................................................................................... C3www.leupold.comMaster Pull ................................................................................................ C4www.masterpull.comModern Day Marine .................................................................................. 19www.marinemilitaryexpos.comUSGIF ......................................................................................................... 27www.geoint2012.com

The

adve

rtise

rs in

dex

is p

rovi

ded

as a

ser

vice

to o

ur re

ader

s. K

MI c

anno

t be

held

resp

onsi

ble

for d

iscr

epan

cies

due

to la

st-m

inut

e ch

ange

s or

alte

ratio

ns.

GCT RESOURCE CENTER

Calendar

September 18-20, 20122012 Maneuver ConferenceColumbus, Ga.www.fbcinc.com

September 25-27, 2012Modern Day MarineQuantico Marine Base, Va.www.marinecorpsexpos.com

October 22-24, 2012AUSA Annual MeetingWashington, D.C.www.ausa.org

November 12-14, 2012Next Generation of Light Armored Vehicles SummitWashington, D.C.www.lightarmoredvehiclessummit.com/

Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

Lt. Gen. John M. Paxton Jr.CommanderU.S. Marine Corps Forces Command

Hybrid Vehicle Systems

HMMWV MECV Rebounds

Marine Personnel Carrier

Insertion order Deadline august 29, 2012 ad Materials Deadline September 5, 2012

Special RepoRt

Amphibious Combat Vehicleprowl through the next system that will whisk Marines from ship to shore and onward to the objective on land, able to demolish enemy combat vehicles, fire from standoff distances and maneuver with an abrams tank.

BonuS DiStRiBution

Modern Day Marine

September 2012Volume 3, Issue 5NEXTiSSue

Marine Corps Systems Command


Steve Franz became senior director-pro-gram management for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program for General Dynam-ics Land Systems in September 2011. He joined the company in 1991 and has worked on many Army and Marine Corps combat vehicle development programs. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point in weapon systems engineering and a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Georgia Insti-tute of Technology in Atlanta.

Q: What is your approach for meeting the GCV needs?

A: Our GCV program approach is straightfor-ward: We give the warfighter what they ask for. Our team’s longstanding relationship with the warfighter provides us a broad understanding of their needs. This relationship, combined with our world-class systems engineering, allows us to quickly grasp the requirements and provide solutions that meet the need.

Our design approach is equally straight-forward. We have specifically chosen mature technologies to keep the design achievable in seven years. We have integrated these tech-nologies in a soldier-centric approach, keep-ing soldier’s needs forefront in our effort. This guiding philosophy of soldier first allowed us to quickly converge on a design concept.

Our teaming philosophy follows the same clear-cut approach. We chose the best of the best. And we are capitalizing on that proven dependability and expertise of those team members.

When you understand your customer’s needs, you pick the right team, choose the best subsystem solutions and integrate them with a proven systems engineering approach, the job is straightforward.

Q: Who are the principal teammates on your team and what are their responsibilities?

A: We have an unmatched team who are involved in the development, integration and sustainment of over 70 percent of today’s combat vehicle fleet.

General Dynamics Land Systems is the prime contractor and overall system integra-tor for our team’s infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) design and is also providing the auto-motive system and chassis. Lockheed Martin is providing our integrated turret subsystem and training system. Raytheon is delivering sensor and hit avoidance capabilities. General Dynamics C4 Systems provides our network and communications suite integration. Tog-num America provides our powerpack inte-gration.

Q: What do you see as the most critical capability that GCV brings to the warfighter?

A: Ten-plus years of continuous combat expe-rience shows clearly that soldier protection is of paramount concern. The Army needs pro-tected mobility along predictable routes, both on- and off-road, with armor and other means of protection adaptable to the situation. Cur-rent and product-improved infantry fighting vehicles don’t provide the full infantry squad the protected mobility they require to operate effectively across the spectrum of operations.

Q: Given the importance of protection, how critical is active protection technology to the GCV and to your solution?

A: Active protection systems allow a sig-nificant weight savings to combat vehicles against the higher end threats that the GCV will encounter. This savings is so significant as to demand the pursuit of solutions other than passive armors. While passive armor technologies have matured significantly, they are not effective against higher end threats without adding tons of extra armor. Reactive

armors are an improvement but still do not provide near the weight savings that truly active systems provide.

Q: Are you concerned about the weight and size of the GCV IFV concepts?

A: No. The GCV IFV will be operating along-side the Abrams, which is in the same weight class. Vehicle weight class is the most critical factor in determining the overall design of any combat vehicle. For the IFV, we have to fully protect the three crewmembers and nine-soldier squad. We must provide over-matching and suppressive fire power to sup-port dismounted operations. We must provide accommodations for all the gear the soldiers need and all the provisions the vehicle needs to accomplish the mission. We must be able to move that entire package of protected capability around on the battlefield in all environments, keeping up with the other elements of the force. Using a soldier-centric design approach with these needs, the vehicle gets into a heavy vehicle weight class quickly.

Q: How realistic is the Army’s seven-year schedule to first production vehicle?

A: We are very confident that we will achieve the GCV IFV schedule. We have done this in the past on Abrams. Our other programs like Stryker double V hull have even exceeded all schedule expectations and we are capitalizing on those experiences. We know it can be done and we are committed to doing it on GCV.

Q: Are you concerned about the affordability of the GCV IFV program?

A: Affordability is always key to achieving final product fielding. Our approach relies on proven technologies and avoids risky and potentially extended development cycles. We are integrating subsystems that meet the strict interpretation of TRL 6 maturity as a minimum and, where possible, have sought even more mature technologies. Conse-quently, the accuracy of our estimates is high and the risk is low. O

Steve FranzSenior Director

Program Management-Ground Combat Vehicle ProgramGeneral Dynamics Land Systems

INDUSTRY INTERVIEW Ground Combat Technology


[email protected] | www.LEUPOLD.COM | POrTLAnD, OrEgOn, U.S.A.MODErn DAy MArInE #1535 | AUSA AnnUAL COnfErEnCE #3803

For our Freedomover a century oF experience and a

liFetime oF u.s. based liFe cycle support.

leupold tactical optics: designed, machined and assembled in the u.s.a.

GCT 3-4 (Aug. 2012)

Documents

Transcript of GCT 3-4 (Aug. 2012)