00 ALT magazine Full Issue 200006 - USAASC · 2012. 5. 3. · PMs And Acquisition Commanders Of The...

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimitedApproved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2000

Headquarters Department of the ArmyPB-70-00-6

NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2000

Headquarters Department of the ArmyPB-70-00-6

November-December 2000; PB 70-00-6

PAUL J. HOEPERAssistant Secretary of the Army

(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)EDITORIAL ADVISORY

BOARD MEMBERSLTG PAUL J. KERN

Director, Army Acquisition CorpsLTG PETER M. CUVIELLO

Director of Information Systems for Command,Control, Communications and Computers

VACANTDeputy Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Materiel Command

MG GEOFFREY D. MILLERAssistant DCSPER

MG JOHN S. PARKERCommanding General

U.S. Army Medical Researchand Materiel CommandERIC A. ORSINI

Deputy Assistant Secretary for LogisticsOffice of the ASAALT

DR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS IIDeputy Assistant Secretary

for Research and TechnologyOffice of the ASAALT

DR. LEWIS E. LINK JR.Deputy Chief of Staff for R&DU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DONALD DAMSTETTERActing Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Policy

Office of the ASAALTHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Executive SecretaryEditorial Advisory Board

EDITORIAL STAFFHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-In-ChiefDEBRA L. FISCHER

Executive EditorCYNTHIA D. HERMES

Managing EditorSANDRA R. MARKS

A. JOSEPH STRIBLINGContract Support

TToo ccoonnttaacctt tthhee EEddiittoorriiaall OOffffiiccee call (703) 805-1034/35/36/38 DSN 655-1034/35/36/38. Articles should be submitted to: DEPARTMENT OF THEARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Our fax number is (703) 805-4218; e-mail:[email protected].

Comanche: Leading The Armys TransformationMG Joseph L. Bergantz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

The Aviation Force Modernization PlanJohn Johns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

The Revival Of Army AviationDr. Thomas C. Pieplow and Mike Boyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Brigade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle SystemMichael C. Padden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Making It All Happen: The Combined Test Team ConceptCourtland C. Bivens III and MAJ David R. Arterburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Corpus Christi Army Depot Partners With IndustryKresten Cook and Carol Bullington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Apache Prime Vendor SupportGary S. Nenninger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Annual Army Acquisition Workshop Sandra R. Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

PMs And Acquisition Commanders Of The Year HonoredKrystal M. Hall and Sandra R. Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Does The Army Need A Contingency Contracting MOS For NCOs?MAJ Mel M. Metts and MAJ Nick Castrinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Precision Artillery Round Testing Reaches A CrescendoChuck Wullenjohn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Outsourcing Army Modernization Runs Counter To Public InterestJames H. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Testing And Test Instrumentation In The FutureCOL Andrew G. Ellis and Mark P. Simon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

New Members Inducted Into CDG ProgramSandra R. Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Profit: A Misused And Misunderstood TermKenneth B. Connolly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Managing Expectations In Weapon Systems DevelopmentLTC(P) Michael E. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Standardizing The Inspection And Acceptance ProcessLTC Stephen D. Kreider, LTC Charles Basham, and MAJ Darryl Colvin . . . . . . . . . . .40

Production LevelingCOL James R. Moran and Wesley L. Glasgow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

The U.S. Army ISECs Technology Integration CenterJames H. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

A New Approach To Cross Training For The Corps Of EngineersMAJ Michael K. Wegler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Career Development Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55News Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Acquisition Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Army aviation modernization efforts are expected to yield substantive improve-ments in reliability, maintainability, and lethality.

AcquisitionLogistics

Technology

Professional Publication of the AL&T Communityhttp://dacm.sarda.army.mil/publications/rda/

FEATURES

COVER

DEPARTMENTS

Army AL&T (ISSN 0892-8657) is published bimonthly by theOASAALT. Articles reflect views of the authors and not necessarilyofficial opinion of the Department of the Army. The purpose is toinstruct members of the Army Acquisition Workforce relative toAL&T processes, procedures, techniques, and management philoso-phy and to disseminate other information pertinent to their profes-sional development. Private subscriptions and rates are availablefrom the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402 or (202) 512-1800. Periodicals offi-cial postage paid at Fort Belvoir, VA, and additional post offices.POSTMASTER: Send address changes to DEPARTMENT OF THEARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA22060-5567. Articles may be reprinted if credit is given to ArmyAL&T and the author. Unless indicated, all photos are from U.S.Army sources. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

This medium is approved for official dissemination of material designed tokeep individuals within the Army knowledgeable of current and emergingdevelopments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancingtheir professional development.

By order of the Secretary of the ArmyERIC K. SHINSEKI

General, United States ArmyChief of Staff

Official:

JOEL B HUDSONAdministrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army0027003

In our lifetime, aviation has removed the barriers of spaceand time. We are no longer limited to two-dimensional mobilityor restricted by the speed of our legs, horses, wheels, or tracks.Aviation provides us with remarkable capabilities across the fullspectrum of operations. That is why it is at the heart of theArmys transformation processincreasing lethality and surviv-ability of the total force, providing unrestricted mobility into andwithin the theater of operations, and providing unprecedented sit-uational awareness and battlespace integration.

As the Army transforms into the objective force, aviationsinherent qualities of responsiveness, deployability, agility, versa-tility, survivability, and sustainability will become even moreimportant. Vertical maneuver and envelopment will enable thefuture combined-arms organization to negate the effects of terrainand to conduct simultaneous operations at multiple locations,maneuver rapidly, and mass precision direct fires on enemy posi-tions. These are critical capabilities on nonlinear battlefields andin urban and complex operational environments.

As part of our full-spectrum force, Army aviation willexploit emerging technologies to enhance its existing overmatchcapabilities. Its principal and enduring missionsarmed recon-naissance and attack, vertical lift, and supportwill be executedby a restructured organization operating both legacy platformsand newly developed systems.

Space-based and aviation assets will contribute enormouslyto situational awareness. We will know where the enemy is, andwe will make contact on our own terms. For example, withunmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) patrolling an area, our attackaircraft can remain in a hidden position out of harms way. Oncea target is identified, the information will pass via datalink fromour UAV to the aircraft. The pilot then either engages the targetor passes the information to another platform. The enemy wontknow what hit him.

The RAH-66 Comanche will be the Armys future armedreconnaissance and attack aircraft. It will provide aerial recon-naissance with improved onboard sensors and connectivity toother sensors. It will possess enhanced digital connectivity forsituational awareness, meet the operational range requirementsfor deep operations, and perform the attack mission for the objec-tive force.

The AH-64D Apache Longbow remains the worlds premierattack helicopter and guarantees the Armys ability to maintaincombat overmatch in the interim force. The increased capabilitiesof Longbow provide early detection, target engagement, and pre-cision kill at standoff ranges. The Apaches lineage, evident inthe A model, is well established, with impressive performancesin Desert Storm and Bosnia. The Apache Longbow continues thatlegacy by demonstrating overwhelming dominance in initialoperational test and evaluation, as well as in Task Force XXIexercises where the after action report stated it was employed

with devastating effect, and wasthe most lethal killer in the exer-cise. Two recent demonstrationsverified Longbows expanded role.

This past summer, Apache par-ticipated in a demonstration with theHunter UAV at Fort Huachuca, AZ.The Apache co-pilot controlled theHunter system while performing hisnormal duties. Using the Hunter asan early-warning system, a route wascleared for the Apache to an observa-

tion point. The Apache was able to locate and identify targets upto 30 kilometers away in concert with the Hunter.

In September, a Longbow participated in the JointExpeditionary Force Experiment, demonstrating warfightingcapabilities with the Joint Surveillance Target Attack RadarSystem (JSTARS) aircraft. The Apache was able to transmit pri-ority fire zones with key targeting information, with the JSTARStargeting cell able to reassign targets with near-real-time accu-racy. Communication was through digital link while achievingfrequency-hopping security. Full situational awareness relative tomission graphics and threat arrays was also achieved. When cou-pled with the reconnaissance capabilities of the Comanche in theobjective force, this combined reconnaissance and attack capabil-ity will be impressive.

The UH-60 BLACK HAWK continues to fulfill the Armysutility requirements for air assault and air movement, commandand control, and combat service support. As the primary air vehi-cle to move ground forces throughout the area of influence, itunderscores the tactical agility required by the commander toshift forces rapidly throughout the battlespace.

The CH-47F heavy lift cargo helicopter will extend the capa-bility of the interim force for air movement, mass casualty evacu-ation, aerial recovery, and aerial resupply. As a force multiplier, itwill provide the commander with the ability to project air anddismounted ground forces to difficult terrain while deployingover greater distances.

The Future Transport Rotorcraft will be developed to fulfillthe heavy lift requirement for the objective force, capable of sig-nificantly greater range and payloads than the CH-47F. It willmeet the transport needs of the Future Combat Systems and pro-vide the means to accomplish future operational and tactical deepmissions.

Army aviation will undergo an organizational modernizationto meet its future mission requirements. Current legacy organiza-tions will be restructured into multifunctional aviation battalions(MFBs). Each MFB will contain a balanced blend of reconnais-sance, attack, and lift assets. This multifunctional force struc-ture emphasizes organizational flexibility through rapid taskorganizing.

In assessing the Armys transformation to a strategicallyresponsive and dominant force, it is evident that aviationsexploitation of the third dimension of operations will give ourcommanders options and advantages for overwhelming domi-nance within the future battlespace. Clearly, Army aviation willplay a central role in the Armys future.

Paul J. Hoeper

FROM THE ARMYACQUISITION EXECUTIVE

Aviations Pivotal Role In TheArmys Transformation

2 Army AL&T November-December 2000

IntroductionOn April 4, 2000, the RAH-66

Comanche Program completed a success-ful Milestone II review that accelerated itinto the engineering and manufacturingdevelopment phase of procurement. Keyto this was the realization that theComanche is on the cutting edge of theArmys transformation to a more respon-sive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal,survivable, and sustainable force capableof responding to missions across the fullspectrum of conflict.

Comanche designers got it right thistime. By factoring in evolving threats, theneed for deployability, multimissions,multiroles, and ease of upgrade, theydesigned Comanche for the future.Comanche will be Army aviations bridgeto a transformed force, and will fit theaviation communitys new multifunc-tional battalions much more than areconnaissance and attack helicopter.Comanches integrated communicationssystems, multispectral sensors, mobility,low observability, and high operationaltempo (OPTEMPO) combine to providethe ground commander unprecedentedinformation dominance in multiple envi-ronments and across the spectrum ofconflict. Studies show that when theComanche is teamed with the LongbowApache, total force effectiveness is expo-nentially increased.

Comanches digital, open-systemarchitecture is designed to facilitate futuregrowth and integration of commerciallydeveloped processors and other rapidlyevolving technologies. Provisions forgrowth and changes were planned fromthe initial design; therefore, Comanche

will evolve as technology and the threatevolve.

Comanche was designed as a system,not as a group of individual attributes. Itsmission equipment package and airframecombine to form a new tool for theground commanderone that is ready tosupport the evolving force.

Onboard SensorsComanches primary target acquisi-

tion system is the Second Generation For-ward Looking Infrared (FLIR), whichincreases target acquisition range by 50percent compared to FLIR systemsfielded today. Comanches futuristic mis-sion equipment package will reduceextended unmasking of the aircraft toevaluate large numbers of false targets.The Aided Target Detection/Classification(ATD/C) System receives sensor inputs,performs a set of pattern-matching opera-tions, and presents targets to the crew foridentification. Detected targets can thenbe shared with other combat assets or beused onboard for an engagement cycle.

The location and symbolic electronicmap overlay data, as well as targetimages or sensor video, can be transmit-ted to other users. Other Comanche sen-sors include the advanced solid-state dayTV, a radar warning receiver, a laserwarning receiver, and the radio frequency(RF) interferometer. Information fromthese sensors can be fused with fire con-trol data provided by predictive fire con-trol software to convey extremely accu-rate data.

Part of the Comanche fleet will beequipped with the Comanche radar.Comanche radar has the capability to look

at the environment in the millimeter-wavefrequency in addition to the infrared (IR)and visible spectrums. The fusing of thesetwo independent ATD/C systems (radarand IR) results in near-zero false alarms.Comanche also has an automated search-on-the-move capability and an automatedair search capability that significantlyenhances counter reconnaissance and thedetection of threat unmanned aerialvehicles.

Comanches sensors, coupled withthe man-in-the-cockpit, allow it to estab-lish a recognition and identification levelof situational awareness (SA) that othersurveillance assets cant always provide.The Comanche system and its crew identifytargets and generate and maintain trackfiles for all identified targets. Comanchewill reduce fratricide and provide com-manders with unparalleled knowledge ofthe battlefield. Additionally, Comanchewill have provisions for an integratedchemical sensor that automaticallydetects, classifies, and determines theconcentration of chemical agents. Provi-sions are also provided for airborne radio-logical survey sensors, and the cockpit isoverpressurized with filtered air to allowthe crew to operate in chemical-biologicalenvironments without being in a fullMOPP IV (mission-oriented protectiveposture).

Communications PackageThe modern digital battlefield is

characterized by Joint Contingency Force(JCF) Operations. These include a combi-nation of Army, Air Force, Navy, MarineCorps, NATO, and/or allied country com-bat forces. Our national military strategyimplies that battlefield geography willvary for most combat scenarios. Conse-quently, the JCF commander will tailorsupporting assets based on mission objec-tives, intelligence information, and enemyorder of battle. The accuracy and timeli-ness of information distribution will dra-matically influence operational success.

Comanche provides a systemsapproach to ensure the integration of bat-tle command functions. Data exchangeand communication protocols aredesigned for integration with other Ser-vices and allies. Shared data will providea common operating picture up and downthe chain of command.

COMANCHE:LEADING

THE ARMYSTRANSFORMATION

MG Joseph L. Bergantz

November-December 2000 Army AL&T 3

Integrated Communication Naviga-tion Identification Avionics (ICNIA) isthe term used to describe this systemjointly developed with the U.S. Air ForceF-22 Program. ICNIA has the ability todynamically reconfigure and time-sharecommon transmitters, receivers, RF front-end antenna interface filters, integratedmicrowave assemblies, and other compo-nents. Existing and growth capacity willallow the Comanche to meet simultaneityand latency requirements of multiband,multimode Communication NavigationIdentification (CNI) signals across theentire CNI spectrum. Comanche isdesigned to operate with radios and pro-tocols for the digital messages needed tocommunicate with any joint assets withinthe theater. Encryption is provided forsecure voice and digital information. Theaircraft communication system is nor-mally configured for a particular mission,thereby allowing Comanche to receiveand provide information to specified

operational assets based on a predeter-mined need. It then has the capability toadapt, in real time, to the changing mix ofplayers, providing relevant sorted criticalinformation to each combat element.

One of the many Comanche missionequipment packages is called TacticsExpert Function (TEF). TEF supportsmission planning, cockpit informationmanagement, survivability, weapon selec-tion, flight profile management, missioneffectiveness, and SA. SA of the digitalbattlefield is the ability to receive andcorrectly correlate information depictingthe status of friendly and enemy forces.SA takes data from diverse sensors, thencorrelates and processes the data toenhance the relative common battlefieldpicture.

Comanches extensive processingpower and algorithms can combineacquired information and data generatedby multispectral, onboard sensors toreduce predictive errors and provide an

accurate correlated picture. ICNIA canthen share the Comanche target data,including images or video, with other bat-tlefield combat assets. Target data accu-racy eliminates target ambiguity anduncertainty, thus reducing artillery orother external ordnance expenditure.ICNIA also allows tactical aircraft to useRF fire-and-forget missiles in place ofline-of-sight laser-guided missiles, pro-viding a new operational capability whenthe ground is obscured by weather condi-tions such as those experienced inKosovo.

Airframe And ArmamentDesigned with advanced, low-

observable technologies, Comanche canconduct deep operations undetected,providing a level of survivabilityunmatched by any other aircraft. Low-observable technology has significantlyreduced IR, radar, and acoustic signa-tures. Comanche will have an

RAH-66 Comanche

Comanche is....

Rapidly Deployable

Lethal

Survivable

Sustainable

Versatile

Agile

Responsive

It Embodies the Armys Vision


embedded air-to-air capability, whichrequires extreme agility and maneuver-ability including sideward and rearwardflight in excess of 80 knots. It has a self-deploy capability of 1,206 nautical milesand is designed and hardened for ship-board operations and for transportabilityon U.S. Air Force C-130 and larger air-craft. Comanche provides an inter-/intratheater independence not afforded bycurrent helicopters, freeing up valuablestrategic and theater airlift assets. At dis-tances up to 700 nautical miles,Comanche can be on-station in less than 5hours, ready to fight for the joint com-mander. Its flexible, lethal armament andfuel options allow Comanche to rapidlyreconfigure to meet changing threat orself-deployment requirements.

Sustainability In The FieldThe all-composite airframe design

provides numerous panels that allow easyaccess to line-replaceable parts. Otherfeatures are integrated onboard diagnosticsand prognostics with unprecedented main-tainability characteristics. An entire level oftraditional maintenance, the intermediatelevel, has been eliminated, resulting inComanche sustainment with dramaticallyfewer personnel and significantly lesssupport equipment than any other compa-rable helicopter in the world. Comancherequires only 2.6 maintenance man-hoursper flight hour, compared to 4.5 for theKiowa Warrior. Operationally, Comancheprovides a greatly reduced in-theaterlogistics footprint.

Supportability was key in initial con-tractor selection and continues to be a sig-nificant factor in all design trade-off stud-ies. This two-level maintenance systemallows Comanche to operate at a higherOPTEMPO in more austere environ-ments. The other key feature Comancheprovides is improved reliability. This isbecause of the embedded fault detectionand fault isolation system, which clearlyidentifies faults and helps maintenancepersonnel quickly repair or replace faultyitems.

Other Comanche FeaturesA discussion of numerous other inte-

grated Comanche features could fill vol-umes. Some of the more significant onesfollow.

Comanche is designed for continu-ous operations in a nuclear, biological,

and chemical environment. It is equippedwith a molecular sieve, regenerative filterthat removes biological and chemicalagents from the air. This filter alsoremoves water content from the air so itcan be refrigerated to cool the missionequipment package, the cockpit area, andvarious sensors.

A helmet-mounted display systemprovides pilots the capability to performheads-up flight while enhancing SA. Allinformation needed to maintain aircraftcontrol, operate mission-equipment pack-ages, and use aircraft weapons is pro-vided in the helmet-mounted display.

The crew stations are functionallyidentical and are designed to supportsingle-pilot operation from either station.

Cockpit displays provide imageryand aircraft situation data in a spatiallyrelevant manner. Controls and displaysare designed to provide multiple paths forpresentation of information and control ofsubsystems.

Color digital maps with customizedtactical, navigational, and cultural sym-bology overlays allow crewmembers toselectively arrange and update their mapaccording to the mission.

An automated aviation mission-planning system with cartridge-portableupdate and download capability facili-tates mission planning, rehearsals, anddebriefs, as well as rapid data transfer tothe aircraft.

Information DominanceFully integrated within the reconnais-

sance system of systems, Comanchescapabilities provide an overwhelmingsynergy with members of the joint recon-naissance community. The mission equip-ment package includes fire control capa-bilities, integrated FLIR, millimeterwave-length radar, and a suite of proces-sors and communications equipment. Thisequipment provides capabilities thatallow the Comanche to acquire, store,correlate, and present, in a commander-ready format, the must-have informa-tion needed to attain situational domi-nance. It is a combat system that far sur-passes existing platforms in survivability,versatility, maneuverability, lethality, reli-ability, and cost of ownership.

Comanches low-observable character-istics protect the element of surprise. Whencombined with the advanced sensor suite,

they provide effective standoff, allow-ing the Comanche to remain covert whilestill operating within the onboard arma-ment system range. This capability alsoallows the Comanche crew to correctlyidentify targets and reduce fratricideduring nonlinear operations.

Delivered PerformanceComanche will have the sensor pay-

load, weapons suite, and data ports to linkthe elements of the joint or coalitionwarfight. It can acquire and target mobilelaunchers or concealed deep threats forU.S. Air Force attack aircraft. It can alsoassist in maintenance of sea lines of com-munication or conduct show-of-forceoperations with the U.S. Navy, and canprovide deep reconnaissance, counterbat-tery, and anti-tank capabilities for theArmys Light Division/Brigade CombatTeams. Comanche delivers dominantmaneuver, precision engagement, andfull-dimensional protection resulting infull-spectrum dominance.

ConclusionThe U.S. Army must have a credible

air armed-reconnaissance capability foroperating over the extended distancesenvisioned in Army XXI warfighting con-cepts. Comanche, with its system-of-systems mission equipment package, pro-vides a multirole, multimission capabilitythat complements current helicopters,while dominating all operational spec-trums of warfare well into this century.

MG JOSEPH L. BERGANTZ isthe Program Executive Officer forAviation. He is a graduate of the U.S.Military Academy and holds mastersdegrees in aerospace engineeringfrom Georgia Tech and in engineeringmanagement from the University ofMissouri (Rolla). Bergantz has alsoattended the Armed Forces Staff Col-lege, the Army War College, and com-pleted the Program ManagementCourse at the Defense Systems Man-agement College.


Authors Note: The following articlecontains excerpts and paraphrased por-tions from the March 2000 Aviation ForceModernization Plan (AFMP) and is onlyintended to provide an overview. Keyobjectives of the AFMP, which are consis-tent with those of the Army modernizationstrategy, are as follows:

Transform to meet future warfight-ing requirements;

Maintain legacy warfighting capa-bilities through overmatch, digitization,and recapitalization; and

Focus science and technology(S&T) efforts to enable timely fielding ofthe objective force.

IntroductionThe AFMP supports the Army trans-

formation by establishing objectives andconditions for continued modernization.Simultaneously, the AFMP emphasizesreduced operations and sustainment costs,recapitalization, improved safety, interop-erability, survivability, and refines theaviation force structure. The AFMPaddresses the total Army to include theActive and Reserve components, and setsforth a sound modernization approachsupporting national military strategy,Joint Vision 2010, and the Army vision.

The resulting aviation force structureand capabilities will provide the interimand objective force with the lift, maneu-verability, situational awareness, and fire-power required to win on any battlefield.

Force StructureThe AFMP defines an objective force

structure to meet the Armys goals forstrategic responsiveness. Army aviationwill move to a four-helicopter fleet:RAH-66 (Comanche), AH-64D (ApacheLongbow), UH-60 (BLACK HAWK)variants, and CH-47F (Chinook).Representing a significant departure fromthe current pure-fleet battalions, theaviation multifunctional battalion (MFB)will be the basic warfighting unit underthe objective force structure. MFBs anddivisional aviation support battalions willhave the capability to detach a company-sized task force to conduct autonomousoperations while the parent unit operatesin a split-based manner from a distantlocation. In short, MFBs will allow offen-sive operations to be conducted whileproviding an asymmetric capability formobile strike and air maneuver opera-tions.

Transition To Objective ForceThe plan identifies a strategy to

achieve the objective force. Unlike theArmys ground force, aviation does nothave an interim aircraft. Thus, aviationmust transform directly from a legacyfleet to an objective fleet along with mod-ifying the associated force structure. Inthe near term, the transitional force willbegin taking shape in FY02 by establish-ing authorization levels at 80 percent ofthe Table of Organizations and Equip-ment requirement and by using AH-64As

and OH-58Ds to fill reconnaissance slotsin the aviation brigades until fielding ofthe Comanche. According to the strategy,all AH-1s will be retired by the end ofFY01, and both OH-58Cs and UH-1s willbe retired by FY04. Retirement of AH-1sis enabled by providing OH-58Cs to theArmy National Guard divisional attackand cavalry units to maintain aviator pro-ficiency until fielded with AH-64s byFY04.

In the midterm, as the Army contin-ues to divest legacy systems, FlightSchool XXI must be fully implemented,and the Army must continue to convert toMFBs. Flight School XXI will realignflight training to meet warfightingrequirements by producing aviators whoarrive at their initial duty station basic-mission qualified, proficient in their go-to-war aircraft, and ready to begin unittraining. To accelerate aircraft retirement,the Army will supply Active componentsat 80 percent of attack/reconnaissance andutility aircraft requirements. The Reservecomponent will be provided with UH-60sand AH-64s, but will be resourced atapproximately 80 percent of utility and23 percent of attack/reconnaissancerequirements until Comanche is fielded.

In the far term, the Army will com-plete the transition to the MFB and field-ing of the objective force structurerequirements. The attack/reconnaissanceforce in the Corps and the Active compo-nent divisional aviation brigades will beat 100 percent of the objective force

THE AVIATIONFORCE

MODERNIZATIONPLANJohn Johns


requirement by FY15; the Reserve com-ponent by FY18.

The AFMP addresses modernizationrequirements in each key mission area ofthe objective force: reconnaissance andsecurity, attack, utility and medical evacu-ation (MEDEVAC), and cargo.

Reconnaissance FleetThe current fleet of reconnaissance

aircraft consists of the OH-58D KiowaWarriora remanufactured OH-58C withtarget acquisition, avionics, and weaponsystem upgrades. The OH-58D wasdesigned to bridge the gap untilComanche is fielded. The first of the 387 OH-58Ds in the fleet turn 20 yearsold in FY06. The Kiowa Warrior safetyenhancement program provides minimumimprovements to keep the aircraft viableon the battlefield until it is retired. OH-58Ds will be completely replaced byComanche by FY13. Comanche is anarmed-reconnaissance, light-attack heli-copter that can perform missions through-out the spectrum of conflict. It providesenhanced survivability, maintainability,lethality, and unprecedented situationalawareness. Comanche will also providetactical targeting, prioritization, and threatinformation to commanders at all levels.The expected objective Comanche pro-curement is 1,213 aircraft.

Attack FleetThe attack fleet today consists of

Apache AH-64As and AH-64Ds, whichprovide unprecedented survivability,

firepower, and capability to fight world-wide, day or night, in adverse weather,and on obscured battlefields. The AH-64D Longbows millimeter-wave firecontrol radar, radar frequency interferom-eter, fire-and-forget radar-guided HELL-FIRE missile, and cockpit managementand digitization enhancements give theArmy attack helicopter technologicalsuperiority well into the 21st century.Program Objective Memorandum (POM)01-05 limited funding provides for 530Longbow production units, leaving morethan 200 AH-64As in the fleet. Theobjective force design and transition planretains 743 AH-64s and moves toward afull conversion of the AH-64As to theAH-64D configuration. Recapitalizationassessments to ensure reliability areongoing, as are required priority upgradesto the AH-64D fleet, including secondgeneration forward looking infrared radar,advanced rotor and drive systems, mod-ern aircraft survivability equipment, anddigitization. In the far term, the 600 AH-64Ds remaining in the fleet reachtheir replacement point in FY20.Alternatives are a new-start attack air-craft, an upgraded RAH-66, or remanu-facture of the AH-64D.

Utility FleetThe utility/MEDEVAC fleet consists

of various models of the UH-60. The UH-60L, a UH-60A upgraded with mod-ern avionics and medical equipment, isprogrammed to begin in FY02 and con-tinue through FY07. This aircraft will

provide first-to-fight units with theworlds most advanced battlefieldMEDEVAC helicopter. (The MEDEVACmission equipment package will beapplied to the UH-60M when the Mversion is available.) The foremost prior-ity in the UH-60 fleet is the UH-60Mrecapitalization program.

FY03 marks the culmination of theresearch, development, test, and evalua-tion efforts and the beginning of UH-60Mproduction. The program will extend theservice life of UH-60As and UH-60Lsthrough the FY25 timeframe and addresscockpit improvements necessary toachieve interoperability with groundforces. The Army objective is conversionof 60 UH-60As per year by FY06, theminimum rate required to offset addi-tional fleet aging. The objective numberof UH-60 aircraft is 1,437. The UH-60Xmodernization program will satisfy theobjective force range and 10,000-poundlift requirement with a new propulsionand drive system. The UH-60X will alsoincorporate mission equipment upgradesto include modern aircraft survivabilityequipment and crashworthy auxiliary fueltanks.

Cargo HelicopterThe Armys cargo helicopter, the

CH-47, is currently being revamped via arecapitalization program that includes anengine upgrade and partial rebuild of theCH-47D to the CH-47F improved cargohelicopter. These efforts buy back CH-47D lift capabilities, insert digital

Command and control platformsand avionics programs

must meet combined armsand joint requirements forcommand and information

interchange and target handoverand be compatible, interoperable, and supportable.


capabilities, and extend aircraft life byapproximately 20 years until the futuretransport rotorcraft is developed andfielded. The engine upgrade will beapplied fleetwide to restore lift capabili-ties lost through years of aircraft weightgain from modifications and engineeringchange proposals. The CH-47F modifica-tions are planned for 300 of the 431 air-craft fleet. Another priority CH-47upgrade requirement is the insertion ofmodern aircraft survivability equipment.

InteroperabilityCommand and control platforms and

avionics programs must meet combinedarms and joint requirements for commandand information interchange and targethandover and be compatible, interoper-able, and supportable. The Army hasdefined specific milestones, outlined inthe Army Digitization Master Schedule(ADMS), to achieve digital capabilities.The first division (4th Infantry Division)was digitized in FY00, the second divi-sion (1st Cavalry Division) will be inFY03, and the first corps (III Corps) byFY04. Most aviation digitization pro-grams were initiated prior to ADMS, andtheir schedules are subject to funding andproduction constraints. Army aviation hascritical communication needs and hasapproved procurement of systems such asthe Improved Data Modem, the JointTactical Radio System, and ARC-220High Frequency Radio to address thesedeficiencies. Additionally, as early as2003, Army aircraft will be mandated tocomply with global air traffic manage-ment (GATM) requirements in Europefollowed by other geographical regions.Funding is in place to meet 2003 GATMrequirements.

The requirements in the battlespacefor seamless sensor-to-shooter connectiv-ity and the Tactical Internet demand com-patibility between a maneuverable air-borne command vehicle and the TacticalInternet. This will ensure full exploitationof aviation resources.

Weapon System ModernizationAlso addressed in the plan is weapon

system modernization, which is essentialto maintain or improve system capabili-ties against an emerging threat and to pro-vide for aircraft self-protection. Majorweapon system modernization programsinclude the Longbow HELLFIRE missile,the modernized HELLFIRE, improve-ments to the Air-to-Air Stinger missile,and the Advanced Precision Kill WeaponSystem.

LogisticsThe objective plan for Army aviation

logistics focuses on transitional forcerecapitalization and modernization andprovides the roadmap to full-spectrumlogistical versatility. Future aviation logis-tics will incorporate total automation,strategic modularity, multifunctionality,and a reduced footprint. The plan for avi-ation logistics will capitalize on the effi-ciencies, effectiveness, and advancementsin equipment, training, and logisticaltechnologies.

Technology InsertionAlso addressed in the AFMP are S&T

programs that are needed to develop newaircraft to meet the evolving missionrequirements imposed by a changingworld situation. Future Army missionswill require aircraft capable of flying far-ther, flying longer, carrying more, surviv-ing more robust and dispersed threats,defeating a wider spectrum of targets in amore varied environmental and topo-graphical setting, and imposing less logis-tical demands on supply and maintenanceresources. To meet these goals in a timelyand cost-efficient manner requires an ade-quate and well-managed S&T effort.

SummaryThe AFMP aligns the aviation strat-

egy with the Army vision. Force structurerequirements are modified to ensureMFBs meet the needs of Army divisionrequirements and allow divestiture oflegacy aircraft. An overall reduction inthe number of rotary-wing aircraft, a cor-responding reduction in subsystemrequirements, and the accelerated retire-ment of legacy aircraft will allow realign-ment of aviation funding to help supportaviation modernization objectives. Whilethe strategy to achieve the objective forcerequires significant resourcing commit-ments, the transition strategy provides anexecutable interim plan to move aviationtoward this goal.

JOHN JOHNS is the PrincipalAssistant Deputy for Systems Acqui-sition at the Aviation and MissileCommand, Redstone Arsenal, AL. Heholds a B.S. in aerospace engineeringfrom Penn State University and amasters in aeronautics and astronau-tics from Purdue University.

The objective planfor Army

aviation logisticsfocuses on

transitional forcerecapitalization

and modernizationand provides

the roadmap tofull-spectrum

logisticalversatility.

IntroductionThe Army aviation fleet continues to be

the most mobile and destructive collectionof weapon systems in the Armys inventory.In fact, mission demands for Army aviationweapon systems have never been greater.These systems not only continue to be avital part of our global defense strategy, butare also a growing component of peace-keeping and humanitarian efforts, domesti-cally and internationally.

From a strategic perspective, more thanhalf of the Armys Active componentApache helicopter battalions were deployedoutside CONUS in 2000. Regardless, theArmy is accepting and executing this con-tinuing challenge despite four troublingtrends:

Many of the individual aircraft thatmake up the aviation fleet are reaching theouter edges of their intended service life.

The fleet is experiencing a continuingupward trend in downtime because of main-tenance and component reliability and obso-lescence problems.

Because of the problems associatedwith aging, the aircraft are often morecostly to maintain.

Virtually every aviation platformneeds some degree of recapitalization ormodernization.

These problems are not new, nor arethey unique to Army aviation. Similartrends can be found in most post-VietnamWar systems, before the development ofservice-life extension programs. Because offunding constraints and other equally signif-icant considerations, current solutions areoften developed in piecemeal fashion, fix-ing problems as they occur rather thanemploying a total systems methodology.The Armys challenge today is to developsolutions that are complementary,

consistent, and effective. As such, the Armyhas identified an initiative to craft a compre-hensive roadmap to address all readiness andsystem sustainment issues described above.This initiative is The Recapitalization ofArmy Weapons Systems, and applies to 21specifically selected Army weapon systems.Although the recapitalization initiative is stillin its formative stages, it has drawn the atten-tion of the Army Aviation and MissileCommand (AMCOM) and the ProgramExecutive Office for Aviation (PEO, Aviation)at Redstone Arsenal, AL. In particular,AMCOM and PEO, Aviation are developingsystematic and programmatic processes thatdefine how the Army aviation community willapply recapitalization theory to enhancecombat readiness and sustainability of theaviation fleet.

Distinguishing InitiativesBecause terms are sometimes used syn-

onymously for various weapon systems,which results in confusion, it is important tohave a common understanding and defini-tion of recapitalization so it is not confusedwith other efforts. Thus, the Army has iden-tified the following three distinct initiatives:

Modernization. The developmentand/or procurement of new systems withimproved warfighting capabilities.

Maintenance. The repair or replace-ment of end items, parts, assemblies, andsubassemblies that wear or break.

Recapitalization. The rebuild andselected upgrade of currently fielded sys-tems to ensure operational readiness and azero-time/zero-mile system.

There are two distinct facets of recapi-talization. First, it includes rebuild, whichrestores a system to a like-new condition inappearance, performance, and life expect-ancy as well as inserting new technology to

improve the systems reliability andmaintainability. Second, recapitalizationencompasses the application of selectedupgrades. These upgrades are done duringthe rebuild of a system and add warfightingcapabilities.

Why Recapitalization?Is there conclusive proof that recapital-

ization is necessary? Where are the data thatsupport the need for such a significanteffort? The message contained in the charton Page 9 is important to note because itshows the average age of some of theArmys current aircraft. Although the aver-age age of the CH-47D model is 11 yearsand the oldest CH-47D aircraft is 17 years,the average age of the actual airframe ismore than 29 years. In other words, theArmy has been applying upgrades andimprovements to the original Chinook, butmust again address the systems airframeand its dynamic components.

Directly related to the aging issue iscost per flight houranother indicator oftroubling trends. Depot level repairable(DLR) costs to field units have generallydeclined since 1996, but the amount of avi-ation maintenance support required fromcivilian contractors has risen dramaticallyduring the past 10 years. Some analyseshave shown that almost $200 million isbeing spent annually on contract mainte-nance support. A good deal of that supportis focused on local special DLR authoriza-tions for selected major components. Suchcosts can add as much as $1,000 per flighthour to the Apache.

Aviation safety of flight (SOF) mes-sages for Army systems are also increasing.(SOF messages are advisories issued to alertthe aviation community of potential prob-lems on particular aircraft.) There were nineSOF messages in 1995. Thirty-four SOFmessages have been issued so far in FY00(at the time this article was written), anincrease of 89 percent since FY99.

Component-related SOF restrictionscan be costly to the Army in areas otherthan system readiness. During the past 9months, Corpus Christi Army Depot(CCAD) expended more than 110,000 man-hours rectifying SOF problems associatedwith the Apache and Chinook. SOFs placean unprogrammed workload on soldiers andremove operational aircraft from the tacticalfleet at a time when the Army can leastafford it.

The Armys ability to sustain the aviationfleet has slowly but steadily declined duringthe past 9 years. Additionally, AMCOMsresponsiveness to field requisitions for

THE REVIVALOF ARMYAVIATIONDr. Thomas C. Pieplow

and Mike Boyd



components has steadily declined during thepast 8 years. AMCOMs goal is to fill partsrequisitions within 24 hours, 85 percent ofthe time, the first time. Presently, this goalis simply not being achieved.

Recapitalization of the total end itemand its components will address thosesafety, readiness, and sustainment issuesand, if structured correctly, will maximizethe limited fiscal resources. The key issuethat system managers face today is creatinga recapitalization strategy that complementsinvestment in new technology with equalconsideration given to sustainment needs.

Service Half-LifeA goal of the Army and the aviation

recapitalization effort is to identify specificmaintenance tasks necessary to achieve theservice half-life metric of all weapon sys-tems by 2010. The maximum service life ofthe Apache, BLACK HAWK, and Chinookhelicopters is 20 years, making their half-life 10 years. Therefore, the goal of aviationrecapitalization is to achieve an average agefor the entire fleet that never exceeds 10years.

How will this be accomplished? Whenaircraft are inducted into depot maintenanceprograms at CCAD or assigned to commer-cial sources, rebuild programs will bedesigned to ensure each airframe operatessafely and reliably for another 20 years.Dynamic and finite life components (thosethat are in constant motion during aircraftoperation, such as engines, gear boxes, rotorblades, and hydraulic pumps) will bereplaced with zero-time-since-overhaulcomponents or new components. New tech-

nical standards will require a full overhaul.The inspect and repair only as necessarystandard will not exist. Once an aircraft isrebuilt to the recapitalization standard, itwill be equal to a new production item interms of reliability, performance, and sus-tainability.

The half-life metric recognizes a posi-tive correlation between the cost to sustainan aviation system and its age. Withoutrecapitalization, three out of four aviationsystems will exceed the half-life metric in5 years. By 2017, more than 60 percent ofthe fleet will be beyond intended servicelife. With recapitalization, the curve shiftsin a positive direction, with all systems ulti-mately achieving an average age at orbelow their half-life.

Disciplined ApproachRecapitalization is not a quick design

fix; it must be a disciplined approach con-sisting of data collection and analysis, test-ing solutions, and implementing correctiveactionsparticularly with respect to com-ponent overhaul and replacement. All threeaviation systems selected for recapitaliza-tion are in the early stages of a recapitaliza-tion program. The BLACK HAWK UH-60A and Chinook CH-47D are now in adata collection stage to define componentchanges that must be incorporated intodepot maintenance programs performed byCCAD. Beginning in FY02, units willreceive UH-60A and CH-47D aircraft witha zero-time life and new technology.

Users will also begin seeing the samerecapitalization benefits for the UH-60L,UH-60M, CH-47F, and Apache AH-64A

and AH-64D. In addition, these platformswill have greater lethality.

ConclusionAviation recapitalization is an initiative

designed to improve system reliability,maintainability, and lethality. To accomplishthis, a true partnership is being forgedamong the sustainment community, the sci-ence and technology sector, the programmanagement community, and the industrialbase comprised of both commercial andorganic (government-owned and operated)sources. All are sharing the common objec-tive of ensuring that the Armys aviationfleet continues to be the best in the world.

DR. THOMAS C. PIEPLOW isChief of Depot Management atAMCOM, Huntsville, AL. He holds aB.A. in economics from NorthwoodUniversity, an M.B.A. from FloridaTech., and a doctorate in public admin-istration from Nova SoutheasternUniversity. He is a member of the ArmyAcquisition Corps and is Level III certi-fied in both the logistics and projectmanagement fields.

MIKE BOYD is Vice President forAviation Systems with CAS Inc.,Huntsville, AL. He is a retired MasterArmy Aviator and a CertifiedProfessional Logistician of the Societyof Logistics Engineers.


IntroductionThe Army is continually working on

identifying opportunities associated withnew and improved technologies. TheArmys vision of the future battlefieldindicates that conflicts will be enabledand driven by improvements in friendlyand threat situational awareness (SA),command and control (C2), and targetingtechnologies. Clearly, the foundationcapability to fight and win on the futurebattlefield will be substantially improvedby expanding SA through use of redun-dant systems that provide near-real-timeand relevant images. Studies and battle-field experience have demonstrated thatthis capability will be optimized if it

includes space, air, and ground systems.Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles(TUAVs) are a critical part of the triadsair leg.

The brigade TUAV system is beingdeveloped as an acquisition category(ACAT) II program under the cognizanceof the Project Manager (PM), TUAVs,Redstone Arsenal, AL. This groundmaneuver brigade unmanned aerial vehi-cle (UAV) will allow commanders to seeand understand their battlespace and gaindominant SA by providing a near-real-time, highly accurate, sustainable capabil-ity for reconnaissance, surveillance, targetacquisition, and battle damage assessment.The images and telemetry data from air

vehicles (AVs) can be used by brigadecommanders and their staffs in the tacticaloperations center, the brigades subordinatemaneuver battalions, direct supportartillery, or supporting aviation assets.

Acquisition StrategyThe Armys requirement to field a

capable ground maneuver brigade com-manders UAV system as quickly as pos-sible required acquisition reform andstreamlining initiatives to be imple-mented, including cost as an independentvariable and trading performance againsttotal ownership cost. Specifically, theacquisition strategy is based on a full andopen competition that required offerors

BRIGADE TACTICALUNMANNED AERIALVEHICLE SYSTEM

Michael C. Padden

The brigade TUAV system will be the commanders eye in the sky to provide continu-ous, responsive, timely, and detailed situational awareness.


to submit as part of their proposalsa performance-based specificationand statement of work based on a government-defined statement of objec-tives.The acquisition strategy included adetailed requirements analysis phase thatassessed and categorized all requirementsand grouped them into trade space. (Tradespace is a technique to prioritize require-ments against cost. As shown in theaccompanying chart, Group A is a higherpriority than Group B, and Group B is ahigher priority than Group C.)

During the requirements analysisphase, the PM and combat developerworked together to identify key perform-ance parameters (KPPs) and prioritize thethreshold requirements into trade spaceand group them as depicted in the accom-panying chart. The primary ground rulefor the prioritization effort was that initialproduction system configuration wouldmaximize the use of mature, commercial

off-the-shelf hardware to provide a no-bells-and-whistles system. It was under-stood that the system configuration wouldnot meet all threshold requirements, andthe system would be modified in produc-tion through a block-upgrade approach toachieve a time-phased incorporation ofobjective and growth capabilities.

Source-Selection ApproachA formal source-selection process

was used that included a two-phase evalu-ation. The first phase began with anevaluation to determine whether theofferors proposals met the minimum-entry requirements. Specifically, the pro-posals were evaluated based on the full-rate production price, system configura-tion, communication security, and airvehicle fuel requirement. For those offer-ors who met the initial screening criteria,a follow-on evaluation of each offerorsoral presentation and supporting

documentation was conducted. The firstphase concluded with the four best-quali-fied vendors being awarded firm-fixed-price contracts to conduct a flight systemcapability demonstration, with options tobegin engineering and manufacturingdevelopment (EMD) and low-rate initialproduction (LRIP).

The second phase of the source-selection process evaluated each vendorssystem against mission-representativeflight scenarios during a system capabil-ity demonstration. Vendor performancewas evaluated to determine the extenteach system met the KPPs and tradespace requirements. The demonstrationwas conducted at Fort Huachuca, AZ, andallowed each vendor a 3-week period todemonstrate performance during opera-tional tempo (OPTEMPO) exercises andtechnical tests. The demonstration was aninvaluable tool in establishing a baseline forassessing the suitability and operational


effectiveness of each system on a directlycomparable basis. The results were thenused in the technical evaluation of pro-posals and assessed against cost data todetermine best value. Based on this deter-mination, the government exercised theoption with the AAI Corp. to enter intoEMD and LRIP on a fixed-price incentivebasis for its Shadow 200 System to fulfillthe Armys brigade TUAV requirement.(Shadow 200 is the contractors name forthe brigade TUAV system.)

System DescriptionThe basic brigade TUAV platoon is

comprised of three air vehicles, twoground control stations integrated onHigh Mobility Multipurpose WheeledVehicles (HMMWVs), four remote videoterminals (RVTs) and antennas, oneportable ground control station (PGCS)and portable ground data terminal(PGDT), one HMMWV AV transport andlauncher trailer, one HMMWV personneland equipment transport and trailer, andassociated maintenance equipment.

The brigade TUAV air vehicle has awingspan of 13 feet, can carry a payloadof 60 pounds, has a gross takeoff weightof more than 300 pounds, and can loiterabove a target area 50 kilometers distantfor more than 4 hours. The ceiling for theair vehicle is 15,000 feet. It is equippedwith a basic electro-optic/infrared(EO/IR) payload that will be upgraded aspart of a block-upgrade program. Thesystem is compliant with the Joint Tech-nical Architecture-Army and DefenseInformation Infrastructure CommonOperating Environment and has com-mand, control, communication, computersand intelligence (C4I) connectivity to theJoint Surveillance Target Attack RadarSystem Common Ground System,Advanced Field Artillery Tactical DataSystem, and the All Source AnalysisSystem.

Program StatusThe brigade TUAV Program is in

Acquisition Life Cycle Phase II, EMD.The program is scheduled to begin InitialOperational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E)in April 2001, then undergo its MilestoneIII review with the Army AcquisitionExecutive for approval to begin production,fielding, deployment, and operational

support in September 2001. To acceleratethe production and fielding schedule, theacquisition strategy includes a secondLRIP decision in February 2001. Basedon approval of the second LRIP procure-ment, the prime contractor will be able tofurther refine and improve manufacturingand production processes and build up tofull-rate production. Additionally, anapproximate 7-month gap in the produc-tion process between the first LRIP andfull-rate production will be eliminated.Another benefit of the LRIP procurementis that it permits the Army to field abrigade TUAV platoon 10 months earlierthan originally planned. Based on theaccelerated acquisition strategy, the initialoperational capability of the brigadeTUAV is planned for the second quarterof FY02.

Block UpgradesThe brigade TUAV program will

employ a block-upgrade approachthroughout the systems life cycle. Thisapproach is a key element of the acquisi-tion strategy that will allow the PM tooptimize the use of program resources toenhance system configuration. Block 0 isthe configuration shown during the sys-tem capability demonstration. The BlockI configuration will be delivered as LRIPand be compliant with the KPPs and thetrade space requirements proposed by theprime contractor in its best-value system.The Block II configuration will be deliv-ered in full-rate production, will consistof the Block I configuration, and willincorporate modifications identified

during IOT&E and other improvementsto meet the Operational RequirementsDocument threshold and objectiverequirements. Further upgrades beyondBlock II will be incorporated based onfuture user requirements and the avail-ability of horizontal technology integra-tion insertion opportunities.

ConclusionAs the Army transforms into a rap-

idly deployable objective force, the roleof UAVs will become even more signifi-cant. The objective force will combinethe lethality and survivability of a heavyunit with the deployability of a light unit.To accomplish this, a significant portionof the objective force will consist ofscouts and military intelligence unitsequipped with UAVs. The brigade TUAVwill be the first step toward this capabilityand will be the basis of a single ArmyUAV system comprised of common C2elements and mission-specific AVs andpayloads. Clearly, the future is bright forArmy UAVs. UAVs intended for brigadeand higher headquarters in the near termwill be joined by micro- and mini-UAVsfor the small unit commander. UAVs,with their many payloads, will be thedominant eye for the future force com-mander and a significant force multiplier.

MICHAEL C. PADDEN is Chiefof the Acquisition Management Divi-sion in the TUAV Project Office. Hehas a B.S. from Eastern MichiganUniversity and an M.S. from WayneState University. He is a member ofthe Army Acquisition Corps and isLevel III certified in both programmanagement and systems planning,research, development, and engineer-ing. Additionally, Padden is a gradu-ate of the Defense Systems Manage-ment College Advanced ProgramManagement Course and the Compet-itive Development Group.

UAVs, with theirmany payloads,

will be thedominant eyefor the future

force commanderand a significantforce multiplier.


IntroductionThe U.S. Army aviation communitys

mission is to ensure that the most techno-logically advanced equipment is availablefor use by the U.S. Armed Forces. TheU.S. Army Aviation Technical Test Center(ATTC) at Fort Rucker, AL, focuses itstest and evaluation (T&E) mission onplanning, conducting, analyzing, andreporting on airworthiness qualificationand developmental tests of most aviationequipment (e.g., aircraft, aviation systemsand subsystems, and related equipment).The purpose of this T&E effort is toensure that all equipment used in the fieldis safe and of the highest quality for themen and women who use it.

Various DOD organizations testequipment to determine whether the man-ufacturers operational limits are accurateand whether established requirements arerealistic and achievable. These DODorganizations conduct performance, com-patibility, and effectiveness tests onequipment, asking questions such as Doall parts taken together work as a whole?Alterations and additions to the equip-ment are monitored and tracked through-out their life cycle.

As one of six test centers assigned tothe U.S. Army Developmental Test Com-mand at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD,ATTC performs aircraft-related testingthat includes initial envelope expansionand hardware and software changes.ATTC also monitors contractor andgovernment qualifications.

To increase efficiency, ATTC hasbegun implementing the Combined TestTeam (CTT) concept. The CTT conceptconsolidates all contractor, subcontractor,and government development and testpersonnel (and assets) to monitor all testand data requirements associated withfielding weapon systems. For aircraft-related testing, this includes all initialenvelope expansion, hardware and soft-ware changes, and both contractor andgovernment qualifications. DoD Regula-tion 5000.2-R states that integrated productteams be used to the fullest extent possiblefor product acquisition to allow for earlyidentification and resolution of problemswhen the cost to implement changes arelow and to decrease overall program risks.

CTTs are designed to eliminateredundant government and contractortesting, thereby mandating that traditionalindependent verification and validation be

abandoned in favor of a joint approach.CTTs also allow early government sys-tems evaluation, resulting in earlier feed-back to the contractor and sponsor.Finally, CTTs establish a governmentcapability for organic support (i.e., estab-lish expertise and methods for testingfrom within as opposed to testing fromthe outside). Piggybacking off otherorganizations greatly reduces the duplica-tion of flight test efforts. As long as thedata are accurate, independent reportingcan still be accomplished because thesedata can be used universally for identicalconditions.

The CTT concept will produce athoroughly researched product wellwithin the budget constraints of the past10 years. It is essential to reduce costsand yet still provide the finest equipment.By conserving resources, the Army

aviation community has succeeded. Thefollowing example illustrates the effec-tiveness of the CTT approach.

Wide Chord BladeThe wide chord blade (WCB)

(accompanying photo) was designed toincrease the hover payload, level flight,and maneuvering performance of the UH-60 family of helicopters, especially athigh gross weight and high-density alti-tudes. The WCB was also designed foruse on the S-92 currently undergoingflight testing for civilian certification.From November 1993 to October 1995,Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. conducted initialdevelopmental flight testing of the WCBunder Sikorsky independent research anddevelopment funding. Six configurationsof the WCB were flown on a single UH-60A/L test aircraft, and two

MAKING ITALL HAPPEN: THE COMBINEDTEST TEAMCONCEPTCourtland C. Bivens III and MAJ David R. Arterburn

UH-60 wide cord blade modification


configurations were flown on productionUH-60L aircraft. The production WCB ismade from the same mold as the S-92rotor blade and incorporates a widerchord; advanced airfoils; and a swept,tapered, anhedral blade tip.

In September 1998, the DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency,under the DOD Commercial Operationsand Support Savings initiative, funded theDual-Use Application Program (DUAP)for the WCB to reduce the time and costassociated with qualifying commercialoff-the-shelf equipment for use on mili-tary hardware. The DUAP resulted in a2-year agreement between Sikorsky andthe U.S. Army to share costs associatedwith qualifying the WCB. A naturalextension of the cooperative aspects ofthis agreement involved implementing anintegrated process team (IPT) to developan airworthiness qualification specifica-tion (AQS) and a combined test team forexecuting the flight test program.

In April 1999, the Program Man-agers Office, Utility Helicopter (PMO-UH) formed an IPT to develop anAQS for the wide chord blade. The IPTincluded personnel from ATTC, the U.S.Army Aviation and Missile Command(AMCOM) Aviation Engineering Direc-torate, and Sikorsky. The governmentand Sikorsky approved the AQS in May1999. As part of the AQS, the IPT rec-ommended that the government andSikorsky form a CTT to flight test thewide chord blade. The wide chord bladecombined test team consisted of person-nel from the AMCOM Aviation Engineer-ing Directorate, flight test personnel fromATTC and Sikorsky, and managementpersonnel from PMO-UH. The CTT wasresponsible for developing and executinga flight test plan for the qualification ofthe WCB installed on UH-60L and MH-60K helicopters. All recommenda-tions made by the WCB CTT requiredapproval by the Sikorsky Quality Assur-ance Board (QAB). This board includedsenior Sikorsky engineers and managersas well as a government representativefrom the AMCOM Aviation EngineeringDirectorate. The CTT finalized the flighttest plan in January 1999, and the QABapproved the flight test in March 1999.The first flight of the WCB occurredMarch 25, 1999. Flight testing of theWCB on the UH-60L was completed in

the third quarter of FY99 and on the MH-60K during the fourth quarter ofFY99.

One of the challenges of implement-ing the CTT was overcoming the institu-tional practices of both government andcontractor engineers. The governmentand contractor test communities have typ-ically conducted separate flight tests onthe UH-60 and have established flight testtechniques and data collection proceduresto support qualification.

The CTTs challenge was to reviewthe test techniques, data collectionrequirements, and aircraft configurationsrequired by both test communities to findways of combining tests to minimize thetime required to complete the flight test.The CTT eliminated many of the cost andschedule implications of redundant flighttesting typically required by the contrac-tor and government test organizationsprior to qualification. Furthermore, theflight test was conducted under a contrac-tor flight release (CFR) approved by theAMCOM Aviation Engineering Direc-torate, whose engineers were directlyinvolved in developing the flight testplan. This integrated approval processmade information required for the CFRreadily available and minimized the timerequired for CFR approval.

ConclusionIn the current environment of shrink-

ing Defense acquisition dollars and fewertechnical personnel to accomplish avia-tion testing and evaluation, innovativetest strategies are a requirement, not aluxury. Emphasis has been placed ondecreasing procurement times, increasingperformance, and reducing test and evalu-ation costs at all levels of the Armyacquisition process. The CTT approachwith joint contractor-government testingrepresents the evolution of testingmethodology and has benefited both thegovernment and industry. The WCB is anexample of the successful application ofthe CTT concept in developmentaltesting.

For the CTT concept to work, chosenpersonnel must provide a balance ofexperience, expertise, and training. ACTTs development and continued suc-cess depend on trust and confidence. AllCTT members must also hold preliminarydata in confidence. In early developmen-

tal flight testing, the contractor must havean opportunity to adjust to the designwithout fear of scrutiny. This ensures thatno invalid or inaccurate informationpasses through government channels todecisionmakers. Aircraft modification isa normal step in development, andinterim aircraft configurations may notresemble the final fielded configuration.The old adage The only thing you haveis your reputation is sound advice in theCTT.

While the CTT concept can beextremely positive and successful in allquantifiable regards, several significantpersonnel issues must be examined care-fully prior to and continually throughoutCTT formation. A team must be struc-tured to succeed without violating thecontractors responsibility for the product.A Memorandum of Agreement can beestablished stipulating the contractorsultimate responsibility and identifying theteam leadership. Another key factor thatmust be addressed is the establishment ofparallel supporting organizations, facili-ties, and equipment. In the future, theCTT concept will be the cost-effectiveway to conduct tests and evaluations andwill become even more essential tomateriel development within the U.S.military.

COURTLAND C. BIVENS III isChief Engineer of the Flight TestDirectorate at ATTC, Fort Rucker,AL.

MAJ DAVID R. ARTERBURNwas assigned as a Test Project Officerin the Flight Test Directorate atATTC, Fort Rucker, AL, at the timethis article was written. He ispresently serving as Chief, FlightProjects Office, AeroflightdynamicsDirectorate, NASA Ames ResearchCenter, Moffett Federal Airfield, CA.


IntroductionDepot-level maintenance is a dynamic

mix of changing priorities and stringentworkloads. With more than 30 percent ofthe Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD)workload coming from cross-Service cus-tomers, this makes depot-level mainte-nance more complex. Like the workforceat most DOD depots, a good portion of theCCAD workforce is eligible to retire dur-ing the next few years, potentiallyadversely impacting CCAD operations.One approach to deal with this is to estab-lish partnering efforts with industry. Effec-tive partnering will ensure that the CCADworkforce is provided with the right toolsat the right place at the right time.

It makes good business sense to com-plement our depot-critical skills throughpartnerships. We expect to improve capac-ity utilization at CCAD and, ultimately,improve readiness by having more systemsready for flight than in the logisticspipeline. We have core capabilities atCCAD, which when leveraged with pri-vate industry capabilities, will improve ourability to meet the needs of the Armysrecapitalization strategy.

Recapitalization StrategyCCAD Commander COL Mitch

Dockens is leading the CCAD/industrypartnering effort. CCADs leaders see amethodical, strategic approach to

partnering as a definite asset to modernizethe Armys aging fleet. It will take smoothwork integration at CCAD and smartpartnering to move from the currentinspection-based depot repair approach tothe robust rebuilding effort envisioned inthe recapitalization strategy.

In preparation for these partneringefforts, CCADs leaders have been imple-menting the depots strategic plan. Initiatedin 1998, the 5-year plan targets large cycletime reductions, increased workforce flexi-bility and responsiveness, and reducedmaintenance costs through re-engineeringdepot processes.

Within the constraints of limited fund-ing, successful CCAD/industry partneringefforts will be judged in terms of definitivecycle time and inventory reductions. Thatsa tall order. Its taking focus and commit-ment, but CCAD is up to that challenge.The depots new Business DevelopmentOffice is focusing on partnering to build astrong foundation to support all weaponsystems and subsystems overhauled andmaintained at CCAD.

Preparation TacticsNow to the specifics of our prepara-

tion. The CCAD Business DevelopmentOffice is developing partnerships based onthe regulatory statutes governing public-private partnerships. Four sections ofU.S.C. Title 10 cover about 70 percent of

current partnerships in depot maintenance.Partnering tools include workshare agree-ments, virtual prime vendor support agree-ments, direct vendor deliveries, and Mem-orandums Of Understanding (MOUs). Thetools that are used by the Business Devel-opment Office in each case will be basedon what is ethical, legal, and safe, and thatwhich makes good mutual business sensefor CCAD and its potential partners. Forexample, workshare through MOUs allowsCCAD to perform a specific portion of anentire work package. In workshare, eachpartner contributes technical, practical, orequipment capabilities to increase effi-ciency through the complementary use ofresources. Capital investments such asone-of-a-kind airframe fixtures and expen-sive test cells will serve as decision pointsfor entering such partnering arrangements.

Development of sound partnershipsincludes learning from those installationscurrently working effective public-privatepartnerships. It has meant research, study,and asking questions of mentors such asLeslie Mason, Anniston Chief Legal Coun-sel, and Gilda Knighton, Anniston ArmyDepot Business Office. The September1999 publication Public-Private Partner-ships for Depot-Level Maintenance, pre-pared by the Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (Logistics), is a goodinformation source and has helped usunderstand the positive impact that

Preparing For Recapitalization . . .

CORPUS CHRISTIARMY DEPOT

PARTNERS WITH INDUSTRYKresten Cook andCarol Bullington


current DOD partnering efforts have hadon DOD capacity, depot-level maintenancerates, and readiness impacts.

Applying PartnershipsCCAD leaders have entered into

MOUs with four major manufacturers:Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Honeywell, theBoeing Co., and General Electric (GE)Aircraft Engines. The goal is to combinethe unique attributes of both the depot andthe private sector to integrate Defense pro-duction, engineering, and logistics capabil-ities; and to eliminate duplication ofDefense resources. While these MOUs arenot contractually binding, they have beenentered into in the spirit of cooperationand exploration. We expect to continuebuilding upon these MOUs with industrypartners to maximize cross-pollination ofideas, best practices, and technologicaladvances.

Were intending to use an integratedapproach so that T700 engine parts can beforecasted, purchased, and shipped to anonsite staging warehouse where they willbe put into kits to support the Apache andBLACK HAWK helicopters. As a tenantorganization at the Naval Air Station, Cor-pus Christi, TX, CCAD is working withNavy Public Works to acquire an opera-tions warehouse for UH-60 major structurerepair kits as well as the T700 engine kits.The goal is to mesh CCADs overhaulexperience with the technical experienceprovided by a private-sector partner, whichyields direct delivery for CCAD worksta-tions. For example, the current method is toput an aircraft into the depot work process,inspect it, identify major structural compo-nents needing replacement, order them fromoriginal equipment manufacturers, andreceive the parts within 18 months. Underthe virtual prime vendor approach, CCADwill have a virtual kit of long lead timemajor structural components available onsitefrom the original equipment manufacturer(OEM) within 1 day. Depot artisans deservejust-in-time material managementthe rightmaterials at the right place at the righttimethereby reducing the need to havesurplus inventory.

Key to our planning will be the needto balance our process lines to return

overhauled systems to depot customersfield units to whom readiness ratesequate to training opportunities and flyablehours.

We must refine the partnering strate-gies we undertake while maintaining strin-gent quality standards for our aviation cus-tomers. We expect future alliances to allowCCAD to be the focused overhaul processprovider and maintenance integrator to ourcustomers. Well integrate the core compe-tencies of OEMs and other commercialsources to squeeze time for our aviationcustomers and, together, improve the fieldreliability and maintainability of over-hauled systems.

Admittedly, its a paradigm shift. Weat CCAD, as a workload integrator, mustunderstand core competencies. Only thencan we take full advantage of leveragingour competencies (once termed competi-tive advantages) with those that potentialindustry partners offer. Together, we havean extremely important opportunity andresponsibility to achieve greater efficien-cies as well as to compress repair andmaintenance timeframes for the fleet. Itultimately reduces the logistics footprintwhere we can combine our strengths inachieving these goals. It becomes a matterof understanding that leveraging and syn-ergy are the innovations to achieve thezero-time/zero-mile platform that is theArmys strategy for the helicopter fleet.

These MOUs have Sikorsky, GE,Honeywell, Boeing, and CCAD workingtogether to develop partnering and recapi-talization efforts. The language that isevolving is new, based on that middleground between the public and private sec-tor. Its a new perspective in which weshift from win-lose to working together toachieve common repair-cycle reductionand recapitalization goals.

SummaryPartnerships have their risks and

rewards. Together, well become muchmore attuned to accurate forecasting data.Well work together with the understand-ing that forecasting the need for specificquantities of materials represents risk toour partners, while low inventories meanextreme risk to depot production and Army

readiness. Partnering will mean maintain-ing solid production data from OEMsamust for reliability centered maintenance,a cornerstone of recapitalization.

Finally, the historical nonprofit andprofit dividing lines between public andprivate organizations must be addressed.With the funding issues it faces, CCADwill leverage the value of fair and reason-able compensation for unique competen-cies with its capability to minimize cycletimes and inventory investment. As a pub-lic entity, CCAD will concentrate on abest-value approach for the long term,using business and operations analysis tobuild partnerships for mutual benefit, andto make sound, ethical, legal, and financialdecisions. Ultimately, our goal is toachieve the near-zero-time standard ofrecapitalization and to improve the heli-copter fleet for our customersthe soldier,airman, Marine, and sailor.

For more information about CCAD,access our Web page at http://www.ccad.army.mil. An online tour is available bydouble-clicking CCADs brochure on theleft margin of the home page.

Postscript: In September 2000, justprior to this magazine going to press, theArmys Aviation and Missile Command,CCAD, and GE signed a $46 million tech-nical support/parts logistics agreement toreduce T700 engine depot repair turn-around time by 50 percent and increaseT700 time on-wing by 100 percent.

KRESTEN COOK is Chief ofCCADs Business Development Office.A professional engineer, he holds aB.S. in industrial engineering from theUniversity of Houston and an M.B.A.from Texas A&M University-CorpusChristi.

CAROL BULLINGTON is anIndustrial Specialist in the CCADBusiness Development Office. Sheholds a B.A. and an M.B.A. from TexasA&M University.


IntroductionMore than 6 years have passed since

the Clinton administration and Congressdirected DOD imperatives for acquisitionand logistics reform.

Two pilot programsthe M109A6Paladin self-propelled Howitzer and theAH-64 Apachewere designated by theArmy in spring 1998 for implementationof these imperatives. Following thisaction, in June 1998, an agreement wasreached for Apache using a novelapproach called the Apache Prime VendorSupport (PVS) contract. All of thedirected imperatives were met by thiscontract. However, this firm-fixed-priceagreement was returned without action bythe Army 15 months later because of thepotential financial management impact tothe Army Working Capital Fund (AWCF).

On Aug. 8, 2000, Dr. Jaques S.Gansler, the Under Secretary of Defensefor Acquisition, Technology and Logis-tics, sent a memorandum to the Army rec-ommending implementation of PVS withproposed changes to the negotiated agree-ment regarding sale of AWCF-ownedstock. While Army evaluation of ApachePVS Program options within the AWCFcontinues, I wish to focus my commentson the benefits of the proposed contractand how we may proceed with this andsimilar programs in the future.

BackgroundThere has been much policy discus-

sion and rhetoric about acquisition andlogistics reform, but little tangibleprogress. Numerous high-level panels,including the Defense Science Board andthe DOD Panel on Commercialization,have strongly recommended the adoptionof commercial best practices and compet-itive outsourcing of both major logisticsfunctions and life-cycle support of indi-vidual weapon systems. Review of majorcommercial operations by these panelsindicates the potential for 25-30 percentsavings in DODs $62 billion annual sup-port expenditure.

Congress has consistently supportedacquisition and logistics reform with for-mal legislative requests. For example, inSection 912 of the National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,Congress directed the Secretary ofDefense to submit an implementationplan for streamlining DODs acquisitionorganizations, workforce, and infrastruc-ture. As part of the plan, the Secretary ofDefense directed each military depart-ment to ensure entire life-cycle productsupport for at least 10 designated signifi-cant programs. Responsibility for thisrested with the program manager. Sec-tion 816 of the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 directed

the Secretary of Defense to designate 10Pilot Programs for Testing ProgramManager Performance of Product SupportOversight Responsibilities for Life CycleAcquisition Programs. In February1999, the Apache PVS was designated asan approach to help fulfill this require-ment. This was based on the fact that theApache contract guaranteed significantreductions in operations and sustainmentcosts and improvements in parts avail-ability and aircraft readiness. In addition,the contract provided substantial fundingfor reinvestments in modernization.

Underlying all of this emphasis onacquisition and logistics reform is thecritical need for fundamental changes inproduct support of systems that must bedeployed on short notice. Rapid deploy-ment of military forces demands an agile,almost just-in-time pipeline of munitions,fuel, repair parts, and technical expertisewith a small footprint. This effortresponds to Army Chief of Staff GENEric K. Shinsekis initiatives regardingthe future Army and force structure.

Apache PVS Meets Army NeedsApache PVS is a total systems

approach that ties the contractors eco-nomic success to the operational profileand readiness of the soldier in the field.The PVS firm-fixed-price-per-flying-hour

APACHEPRIME

VENDORSUPPORTLessons Learned

Gary S. Nenninger


contract includes shared savings provi-sions. The contract also calls for both a16-percent reduction in flying hour costsand a 20-percent increase in the annualflying hour program to support contin-gency operations and increased trainingrequirements. A reinvestment of morethan $320 million (20 percent of the con-tract value) is required to achieve reliabil-ity improvements and modernization. Inaddition, there are contract incentives foradditional cost reductions and reinvest-ments for any potential follow-on con-tract.

Performance-based guarantees forrequisition fill time and nonmission capa-ble supply response time ensure reducedsoldier workload and improved readiness.These benefits are enhanced by the addi-tion of more than 60 technical and supplysupport workers at the unit level to issuematerial and assist in troubleshooting,repair, fault diagnosis, and personneltraining. We believe that Apache PVSstill contains many beneficial featuresthat support the vision of a leaner, moreresponsive Army in the future.

Why Was The Initial PVSContract Returned?

Team Apache Systems, a Boeing-Lockheed team, was notified Oct. 4,1999, that the June 1998 negotiated con-tract could not be executed because of a

DOD policy decision stating that fundingfor PVS could not be removed from theArmy Working Capital Fund. Apacherepresents almost 20 percent of theAWCF activity. There was also concernthat if the Apache inventory was decapi-talized or removed from the AWCF,remaining systems would realize a signif-icant increase in recoverable costs or sur-charge. A United States Army AuditAgency (USAAA) review in April 1999concluded that while Apache did repre-sent a substantial portion of the AWCFand some short-term impact may occur,there would not be an appreciable long-term impact on the AWCF if appropriateinfrastructure adjustments were made.The USAAA also certified an enterpriseanalysis directed by the Assistant Secre-tary of the Army for Acquisition, Logis-tics and Technology that substantiatedsignificant savings to the Army during a20-year period even without any reduc-tion in the fixed overhead costs borne bythe AWCF surcharge.

It is disconcerting that industry maybe sent the wrong message, particularlyafter investing considerable financial andpersonnel resources in the Army decisionprocess. I believe that the real problemwith PVS was much deeper and broader.For several significant reasons, the PVSinitiative eventually died under its ownweight.

ConclusionThe lessons learned from both the

aborted Paladin program and the ApachePVS initiative are many and varied.Apache PVS, with its guaranteed costsavings, performance, and readiness ben-efits to the soldier, seems to have suffereddeath by analysis. Millions of dollars insavings have already been lost and criti-cally needed modernization efforts suchas target acquisition designation systemand pilot night vision system reliabilityimprovements must now be tracked sepa-rately under individual efforts. The ques-tion facing us today is: Is there a realcommitment to reform or are we mired inthe bureaucracy of Business as Usual?Clearly, the need to reform is far ahead ofeither our willingness or ability to reform.

GARY S. NENNINGER is theApache Deputy Program Manager.He was previously assigned as theChief, Logistics Management Divi-sion, Apache Program ManagementOffice. Nenninger holds a B.A. fromthe University of Missouri and hasattended the Defense Systems Man-agement College Program ManagersCourse at Fort Belvoir, VA.

Apache PVS isa total systems approachthat ties the contractors

economic successto the operational profile

and readinessof the soldier in the field.


IntroductionOne year ago, in presenting his vision

of the Army of the 21st century, Army Chiefof Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki called for thetransformation of the Army into a force thatis strategically responsive and dominantacross the full spectrum of operations.

The response to this call was clearlyevident at the annual Army AcquisitionWorkshop in Orlando, FL, Aug. 23-25,2000, where more than 200 conferees con-vened to examine key initiatives related toTransforming The Force. Attendeesincluded program executive officers (PEOs);deputies for systems acquisition (DSAs);acquisition commanders; and product, proj-ect, and program managers (PMs).

MG William Bond, Commanding Gen-eral, U.S. Army Simulation, Training andInstrumentation Command (STRICOM),welcomed participants and introduced PaulJ. Hoeper, Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Acquisition, Logistics and Technology(ASAALT) and Army Acquisition Executive(AAE). Hoeper opened the workshop byacknowledging the pivotal role the acquisi-tion, technology, and logistics community

will play in the transformation effort.Hoeper noted the importance of Armyrecapitalization efforts to ensure soldiershave what they need on the battlefield.Recapitalization, he said, is key to bothreadiness and the transformation. Hoeperalso noted that logistics revie

00 ALT magazine Full Issue 200006 - USAASC · 2012. 5. 3. · PMs And Acquisition Commanders Of The...

Documents

Transcript of 00 ALT magazine Full Issue 200006 - USAASC · 2012. 5. 3. · PMs And Acquisition Commanders Of The...