FROMTHE ARMY

ACQUISITIONEXECUTIVE

The Advantages Of lSMART'

Imagine ror a moment, a soldier in an urban environment wearingnighrvision goggles incorporating new technology that paints an imageon the soldier' retina. As he looks around, the image changes. Herealizes b is cut offbum his unit and pinned down hya bidden sniper.He needs only 15 seconds of discraction to ger away. Reacrung downto a small unit scrapped to his side, he punches a lew keys and rhe uniremirs a signal thar is aauaIly an audio decoy. The idea is [0 1001 rhesniper into rhinking the soldier is somewhere else. Only ir doesn'twork. Or ar least that is the feedback bum rhe virruaJ reality simulationin which rhe soldier is partidparing.

This vignette is one example ofhow we in rhe acquisition communitywill use Simulation and Modeling ror Acquisition, Requiremenrs and1l:aining (SMAR'I) [0 give the 21sr cenrwy soldier more protection,more relevant information, and more lerhality than ever before. Thecapabilities we will gain in the nen few years to simulate technology,scenarios, and environmenrs will yield multiple benefirs [0 oursoldiers.Simulation also offers us the potential ror substantial savings.

SMART is a strategy thaI uses simulation [0 evolve a weapon system

bum concept [0 design, [0 test, to production, [0 rraining, and ultimarelyto rhe field Ofcourse, we do these things now. We do them sequentially.Whal is different about SMART versus how we conduct these activi.ties

today is thar aspects ofeach will be carried out simulraneously. Throughmodeling and simulation, we have a medium in which [0 ask [Oughquestions early on and con.tinuously. ~ will no longer rely solely on ahardware prototype to give us the information we need [0 make sounddecisions. And, because we are not timited by hardware, our trade spacewill remain wide open. Idon't mean just ourdesign rrade space, bUl alsohow we will develop doctrine ror new or upgrnded equipmenr and howwe will £rain our soldiers to use £hat equipment.

SMART can be employed at rhe very beginning of the requiremenrsprocess. Using simulation, we can, ror example, explore rheadvanrages thar technology can deliver [0 a tight infantry brigade. Whalpieces of equipmenl will be required? What will rhey do? Insimulations, we are not bound by reality; rheref.Ore, we can proposecapabitities rhar do not yet exist, model them, and then sit down andput the proposed equipment rhrough irs paces. From this, we canreline our requiremenrs.

Once we know rhese requiremenrs, we can creare a virruaJ prototypethar incorporates aetuaJ technological capabilities and, again usingsimulation, we can exercise the prorotype to assess irs performance andimpact on rhe battlefield. Ifperf.Ormance and impact on the battlefieldare not adequate, we can make changes to the design when it's leastexpensive and still have at our disposal maximum opportunity rorexploring other innovative solutions.

imultaneously, while we are refining and designing our equipmentto meer perf.Oanance requiremenrs, we can leverage many of the same

simulations to develop the doctrine and racties for employing theproposed piece of equipment as well as develop rraining techniques.Herein lies one of the mosr fundamenra! and powerful aspects ofSMART. We are no longer bound by a tinear process. Simulation cangive us an "aU-encompassing view" of the interrelated aspects of theproposed system. With simulation, we have rhe luxury ro "build a tittle,test a little." That's what SMART will provide, th flexibility and theopportunity to explore aU the attributes of the developing system.These attributes include not only the sysrem's performance, butassocialed docrrine, produdbility aspectS, maintenance aspectS,suppottabiliLy, and £raining.

SMART is also imponanr to our efforrs to improve our ability 10 proveout and test designs and systems integration At present, test design,planning, and rehea.tsal are limited because of rhe time and costinherent in tive lest and ev-d1uation. As weapon systems increase in costand letbatiLy, some attributes of sysrems are better tested in simulationbecause ofaJfordability or safety isSUes.

Using modeling and simulation in accordance with our SMART visiongives Anny program managers greater flexibility in managing cost,schedule, and perfonnance. Cutting cycle lime is hard to do, but it canbe done. The "big three" autom......er.; reduced from 5 years to 3 yearsthe time needed to proceed bum concept approvaJ ro production. Inanother example dose ro home, it took 38 Sikorsky drafters 6 monthsto come up with working drawings for the Super Stallion's outSidecontours. Using Compuler Aided Design, il rook one engineer 1month to accomplish the same rask ror rhe Comanche helicopter.SMART will take this a Step further. It will fi:x:us nor only on cyde time,but on how the requiremenrs are generated and how our soldiers can£rain on new or upgraded systems. This focused efforr will help todrive cosrs down.

SMART is a coocept that begins ro harness the power of rhe digira!information age. Through modeling and simulation, the Annycommunity gains an "electronic agility" never bef.Ore available to us.We can now visualize the effectiveness of a SYSlem as we wrire irsrequiremenrs. The ultimare execution of SMART, as described in thevignette of the soldier and the audio decoy, offers the acquisitioncommunity an effective means of engaging rhe soldier direetly in rileacquisition process. Instead of learning lessons the bard way, 00 tara!battlegrounds like Mogadishu, rhe soldier in rhe vignette can developinsighrs into whether equipment designs need to be m0di.6ed orchanges in racties are necessary, or both. The application ofSMART willchange our thinking, will cerrainly have a major impact on our futuremilirary capabilities, and will provide the means [0 field an Anny AfterNext unmatched in capability.

Paul J. Hoeper

..

.25

.28

.....51..53

...........55

ARMY

RDResearch

DevelopmentAcquisition

FEATURES

ABOUT THE COVER

Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements and Training-eommonlyknown as SMART-is an initiative to integrate modeling and simulation into themateriel acquisition process. The goals are to reduce the time required to fieldsystems, reduce total ownership costs, and increase the military utility of fieldedsystems.

Interview With Paul J. Hoeper, Assistant Secretary of the Anny ForAcquisition, Logistics And Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2Simulation Based Acquisition Is SMART For The Anny

LTG Pauf J. Kern and Bien M. Purdy .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5SBA: The Revolution Is Coming! De Patncia Sanders .. . 8Simulation Based Acquisition: Can We Stay The Course?

Walter W Hollis tNith Anne Patenaude) . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 11Comanche: Virtually Revolutionary LTC Deborah J. Chase .............•.•...15DaimlerChrysler Digital Design Arthur Anderson .... . • , • , ..••••. , ,17AMSAA's SMART Contributions

LTC UndeII Townsel Je, Pat O'Neill, and Joan Lee .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...20SMART T&E: The Virtual Proving Ground Rick Cozby. . . . ..•. , ... _. .23OASA(ALT) Assessment And Evaluation OfficeHosts SMART Conference

Paul D. Amos and WiHiam A Reed . .. . . .

SMART And Dual-Use Technology Dt: TOOmas H. Killion

Some Brief Observations On The Future Of Anny SimulationBran Ferren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Virtual Aircraft Loadings Jennifer Napiecek and Ford Cook 38The Past, Present, And Future Of The COG Program SBndyLong.. . .41SWORD Weapon System Concept For The 21 st Century

William C. Reeves Je, Ronald A Smith, and MAl lAwrence W McRae Je .....•. _.•.•....46The Y2K Challenge: A Corporate Perspective PhIlP 0Jttis ...........•....49Extreme Vision Full Spectrum Imaging For The 21st Century

David L Jemings .

Delta Contracting Sharon R. Brown .

The Army's Environmental Technology Oversight ProcessJoseph S. Vallone. Donald R. Mis Je, and Peter F. Tuebner PE ....

Software Testing On The M1A2 AbramsKevin L Hous8r and DonaJd B. SaJsman 57

O&M Of Iowa And Milan Anny Ammunition Plants LTC Jyuji D. Hewitt 59PMO Fields A COTS-Based Fire Control System Rene c. KiebIer . . . 62Military District Of Washington Acquisition Reform Dt: Edna L Diggs 63Spare Parts Conversion William L Smithson 65New Motion Platform Receives Long-Awaited Man-Rating PaeHlggins ..67High-Tech Corrosion Prevention RodneyT WiLson 69Adopting Commercial Technology For Spiral Modernization Of TWVs

MAl Philip Sd'Joerrg, Jeffrey Hamel, Rick Engel.Eddie Gataa, Lyt'IIl Jones, and Regis Luther _ _ 71

Professional Publication of the RD&A Communityhttp://www.dacm.sarda.army.mil/publications/rdal

PAUL J. HOEPERAssistant Secretary

of the Army(AcqUIsitIOn, Logistics

and Technology)GEN JOHN G. COBURN

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Materiet Command

EDITORIAL ADVISORYBOARD MEMBERS

LTG PAUL J. KERNDirector, Army AcqUlsllJon Corps

LTG WILLIAM H. CAMPBELLDirector of Information Systems for Command,

Control, Communications and ComputetSLTG JAMES M. LINK

Deputy CommandIng GeneralU.s. Army Materiel CommandMG JOHN M. LE MOYNE

Assistant DCSPERKEITH CHARLES

Deputy AsSistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Policy

Office of the ASA(AL7)DR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Research & Technology

Office of the ASA(AL7)MG JOHN S. PARKER

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Medical Research

and Materiel CommandDR. LEWIS E. LINK JR.

Director of R&DU. S. Army Corps of EngineersHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-In-ChiefExecutNe Secretary

Editorial Advisory Board

EDITORIAL STAFFHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-in-ChiefDEBRA L. FISCHER

ExecutJve EditorCYNTHIA HERMES

Managing EditorHERMAN L. SURLES JR.

Assistant EditorSANDRA R. MARKS

Technical RevIeW

To contact the Editorial Office call (703) 805-1035/36138 DSN,655-1035/36138. Articles should be 5ubm~tted10: DEPARTMENTOF THE ARMY. ARMY RDA. 9000 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101,FOAT BELVOIR VA 22060-5561. Our fax nunbef ., (703) 80s­~218. E-mail: blelchehOaaesa.belvolr.army.mll.

Army RD&A (ISSN 0892-8657) ia published bimonthly by theAcquLsfUon Career Management OffICe. Articles reflectview$ of the a.hors and should not be interpreted as officialopinion of the Department of the Army or any branch, com­mand. or agency of the Army. The purpose I, to Instructmem~rs of the Army Acquisition Corps and Workforce rel­

live to RO&A processes. proc&dures, technJques. and man--)amant philosophy and to dlssemlnete other Infonnatic>npertinent to the professional development of the ArmyAcqLlI!liftiQn Corps and WOrkforce. Private SUbscriptions andmtes are available trom the Superlnlendent of Oocl,lments,~.S. Government Printing Office, Washlng1on, DC 20402 or~2) 512·1800. PerlQdlC41ls official postage p.eid at FortBelvoir, VA, and additIonal post offices. POSTMASTER:Send address change$ to OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,ARMY RDA, 9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR,VA 22060-5567. Articles may be reprinted if credit is given toAnny RO&A and the author. Unlen otherwise indicated. ell»hotographs are from U.S. Army sources. Approved fOf" pub­lic rel@ase; distribution is unlimited.

rnedUn Is 8PfX'Nf'd far rhe official cIssetlJnaI10n of ma_to keep Jl'ldtvdJals wllhm the Army knOwI6CkJeBb/8 _01

tJlTfJfJt and fJIT)(Igtng dBveJoJ)lT)fiJlltS WIthin theit Bf8BS ofexpertJS6'or t/le p<JrpO<5e 01 enhandng Ih6if profassKXJiJl dev%pmer1r.

By Ofder of the Secrel8pY of lhe Army'.DENN~ J REIMER

Genetaf. UMedSratesArmy

~~~~AdmiIlIsitatJ'; As5JStant to 1/>8

SecteJaty of !he Anny05815

MAY-JUNE 1999PB 70-99-3

INTERVIEW WITH PAUL J. HOEPERASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

FOR ACQUISITION,LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY AND

ARMY ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE•

Interviewed by Army RD&A Editor-in-Chief Harvey Bleicher•

May-Jrme 1999

decisions I make as a manager. By assigning the right people to theright positions, managers acrually determine how successful thefuture is going to be. In fact, one of our best ways co accomplishthis i to develop the people who are currently in ti,e sy tem. Weneed co look at the available opportunities and make sure that theright people are placed in the right jobs because they will be helong after many of us are gone. I think mat the most importan[.decisions that any acquisition executive makes are human resourcedecisions-and career development is a big pan of d,at.

Army RD&A: In view of the continuing DOD downsizingeffort and, consequently, the hrinking pool of Defense"contractors, what .initiatives are necessary to promotecompetition and prevent materiel costs from skyrocketing?"

Hoeper: That'S a tough question. 1want to emphasize though,tllat most ofour programs are not dependent on a ingle supplier.There is a lot of pretty gcxxl competition. \~-e've had numerouseconomic tudies and, empirically, these studies indicate that twoindependent competitors are adequate to achieve effectivecompetition. We are in that situation right now.

A fuirly shon-renn problem mough is ,'erCical integration. This iswhere one company buys other companies and the result is tha$one company makes a lot of the components and subcomponents

of me finished product. In this scenariO,some critical components, ubsysterns, Or

subcomponents may be produced as theresult of inadequate competition.However, I do believe this is a very short­term problem and that most of the vertica.!integr'dtion will go away over time. Butrigllt now, we need to keep all eye on thatsituation.

AnllY RD&A: So it's an issue that'sbeen around for a while?

Hoeper: Yes, although it's been toughrecently because we have had so many bigmergers. For e.xample, one companmight buy ti,e only twO suppliers of aparticular type of photo-optical e1ectricomponent. We usually deal with thisproblem during the merger process. Ifact, the Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD) reviC\ mergers and sometimconcludes that they inllibit competitionOSD might then request the parentcompany to use particular techniques tomaintain a competitive environment.There are mechanisms in place to ens

2 AnnyRD&A

Army RD&A: What would you like to accomplish during yourtenU1'e as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)?

Hoeper: The key thing mat every ASA(ALT) needs to accompli h isto provide soldiers the weapons and materials they need. As 1notedin my swearing-in speech, our job is to supply the soldiers with whatmey need to get to the fight quickly, wi.n decisively, and come backalive. I am serving as the ASA(AU) during an interesting time,because as we tran ition to a differenr type of Anny, we have newtypes of opeC"dtionaJ requirements. The WdY me Atmy operates nowchanges both our acquisition requirements and where we must fillthe pipeline. This impacts our entire bu ine s process and ourapproadl to doing business. In pan, what l'd like to accomplish ito change those things in our business process that are required tomeet furure Atmy operational needs.

AI7I1Y RD&A: What qualillcations do you bring to thisposition tlIat you feel will be of greatest benefit in ach1evingyour objectives?

Hoeper: I believe that every executive muSt be able to manageand lead. In addition, 000 acquisition executives must unden.-mndOOD busin s processes bec3use the acquisition business can bevery difficult. My dad was in acquisition for the Air Force and I grewup hearing about acquisition around thedinner table. Actually, rve been interestedin mililll.ry a quisition all my life.Army RD&A: Having served in

government, industry, and academia,do you tb.i.n.k there is a commondenominator for success regardless ofwhere you are?

Hoeper: Most ucce CuI people areprobably successful because they combinedifferent factOrs. However, J don't thinkthere's anyone fommla thac works forevery person. [believe that an active mindis the most likely common denominator.My predecessor, Gilbert F. Decker, is aterri.fic guy with a very active mind, butsomebody wim completely different skillsand experiences from mine; yet he iscertainly very successful. I hope that I wiilbe as succes ful in this position as Gil.

Al7ny RD&A: What priority do youplace on career development programsfor the Army Acquisition Corps?

Hoeper: The decisions I make for theworkforce are reaUy the most important

3An"yRD&A

The smaller effons often result from average people just crying rodo a little better everyday. If someone makes an 8 or 10 percenrimprovement in their work, and JUSt keep doing d1at every year,they make a lor of headway. As I nored in some of my speeches,w.uren Buffett didn't become America's greatest investor by buyinga lot of companies and hitting home ruru; in the tock market. Hebecame America' greatesr investor by consistendy getting a little bitbener rerum than everyone else.

I've hi~ghted a couple of our big acquisition reform effons surnas Fasr Track and WRAP, but I think me maIler efforts are reallygoing ro payoff as well. Just because someone isn't involved \viththe bigger programs doesn't mean mer still can't do something foracquisition reform; it's jusr a matter of figuring out how to do a joba ~tt1e bit bener this year than last year. That'S how we'll get memost benefit for the Army and the Deparunent of Defense.

Anny RD&A: Some people contend that with former Secretaryof Defense Perry's departure the push for total and completeacquisition reform bas subsided. What is your opinion?

Hoeper: I was privileged ro work with Secrerary Williamj. Perry andhis team-Paul G. Kaminski Ifonner Under Secrerary of Defense forAcquisition <md Technology] and R. Noel Longuemare [fonnerPrincipal Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition andTernnologyl-and u1ey were all great people who did great work.The current Under Secretary of Defen e for Acquisirion andTechnology Dr. .Iacqu s S. Gansler is also doing great work. I feelevery bit as pushed by Dr. Gansler as l was by Kaminski andLonguemare. I really mink d13l Dr. Gill1sler is going to make someimportant gains. He's tr)'ing to determine how our DefenseDepanmem can gain access to the total industrial base rhat's available,and he's using acquisition refoffi1 to help him acl1ieve that goal.

A17t1y RD&A: What are your thoughts on privatization andoutsourcing?

Hoeper: To get me best systems for our soldiers, and me bestArmy for America, we must use whatever organization is mostcapable of providing what we need. At tin1es that's going to be aprivate company, and at orher time, depending on therequirem nts, it will be a government organization.

AnllY RD&A: How would you assess the quality ofpersonnelin the Army Acquisition Workforce?

Hoeper: I rhink ir's ftbulous. The people Iwork with directly arerop-lligbr minkers and managers; they are a1rruistic and provide anextraordinary value to America. Additionally, me people I meet inthe field, "110 I don't work with daily, have many of mese san1equalities. I think this is the resulr ofthe great leadership in d1e Armymat penneates our acquisition community. l can tell you widl allsincerity, I mink mis is a great organization.

You can go anywhere-to the PEO , to d1e conunands, or toEurope, and )'ou will see top-Bight people who are thoughtful,diligem, and cn.>arive.

When you ger into mese senior-level positions, panicularly as meArmy Acquisition E.xecutive, no one ever comes ro you with a lot ofgo<xl-news stories. All the e3S')' things are solved by me peoplebelow you. By d1e time someming gelS to my office, it'S a bigproblem. It can be very liusu-..ring to work on that problem, but thequalley ofme people Iwork with certainly makes my job murn easier.

Anny RD&A: You recently stated that ma.ximizing operationalcapabilities in the digital battlespace is oue of your highestpriorities. How do you plan to achieve this, and bow is theArmy's overall plan for digitization progressing?

!:Ioeper: Of course, it's nor necessarily my priority be<.'3use I takemy lead from the Army Chief of Staff. The Chief says this is what theArmy needs, and my job is to provide the equipment ro make thathappen.

There are some interesting changes to maximize our operationalcapabilities. We used to view equipment in terms of platforms, andtalk about one platform in relation to another. In other words,we'd talk about a tank in relation to anOd1er tank and maybe an

May-June 1999

•.

• competirion, and I believe they are working well._ Anny RD&A: Modernization through spares (MTS) iscurrently a very important initiative in the acquisitioncommunity. What is MTS and what do you believe it will dofor the Army?

Hoeper: I d1ink it is one of the best ways to ensure thar our,. currem vehides and components are comparible wirh the Army

After Next In other words, MTS allows us to modernize our-currenr vehides 0 thai they work well with the vehicles we aregoing ro buy in rhe furure.

• \Ve are acrually incorporating MT concepts in planning for our• furure acquisitions. One of these concepts is called open

ard1irecrure. lr is where we cry to keep the architecture of a system• open SO thar "brain transplants" and other revisions can be made.

Ln the past, this option was nor available and rechnologie did norecessarily ftcilitate use of MTS. We rill have a lor of equipmem

that may not lend itself to MTS. However, MTS is one of our keymethods for keeping the force modem and keeping our currentvehicles interoperable with d1e vehicles we plan to field betweennow and the Army After ext. We need to do more of ir.Anny RD&A: The Army has a number of acquisition reform

initiatives underway. Could you address those initiatives that.. you believe offer the greatest potential for improving the way

the Army carries out its acquisition process?• Hoeper: When I was in OSD, we looked at the variou Servicesand compared them wid1 earn other. I had a lot of involvementwith acquisition reform efforts when I served on the AcquisitionReform Task Force and the Defense Science Board. Ye-MS ago.when we initially began looking ar acquisition reform, we be~eved

.. the Army was far behind in its reform efforts. But dUring my lasty=r in OSD, 1 realized d1at the Army had really leapfrogged overthe other Services.

• We have implemented acquisition refonn effons SUd1 as MTSand Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs) extremely well.In faCt, we're getting a lot of value out of VECPs because ofimprovements to that program.

• Additionally, a larger elfon is Fast Track. The Fasr Trackinvolvement with the f'Urure cout Cavalry Sysrem (FSCS)/fmcer isa tremendous example of acquisition reform because ir provides amurn fu.srer way ro go from an S&T program to a lidded s)'srem.We can probably cur 4 years off the avemge acquisition cyde byusing the Fasr Track approarn. For exan1ple, if the total effon for

.the FSCS/Iracer is 12 years, we could probably reduce it to 8 yearsby using the Fast Track approarn. The Fast Track approach is reallynnovative. Anomer big Army acquisition refom1 effon is thew.ufigbting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP). . ..

I want to emphasize that, in addition to the large acqUISllJonreform elfons, there are numerous smaller effons. People tend tolook only at the big on s and assume that only someone of great

"genius can make a contribution. 1bat's not the case.

needed [0 discover new and bener ways to exploit technologicalcapability and digitization.

I believe we're going to have to do more of that type of thinkinin a proce we call spiral development. In faet, [ think this processwill prove that some of our weapon systems may have multipLapplications. For exan1ple, at times we purchase an item for aspecific purpo e but later realize that it has other uses.Furthermore, we may find the purchased item is more valuable forthe od1er uses than fOr what it was originally intended. I believewe're going to find that out with some of ourweapon systems. ~still have difficulty thinking about a system of systems becausewe're so used to thinking about one platfonn versus anothetplatfonn.

Am,y RD&A: A number of years ago, a criticism of theArmy's acquisition process was that when we developedsomething, we tried to make it do everything for everybody.But it now sounds like a good idea,

Hoeper: It is a good idea. Granted, we don't quite know how todo it well yet. We talked earlier about 12·year acquisition cycles. Klthe beginning of that cycle, we establish some requirements, menaward a contract to meet mose requirements. What are meserequirements based on? They are based on some perceived threat oroperational scenario 12 [0 1; years in the future. How accurate areour perceptions looking 12 years into the future? Because of this'uncertainty, we're trying to develop an approach that allows us toborn change what we build and to evolve me requirements over tim;

Not too long ago, we actually built equipment that had obsolet~

partS before it was even fielded, mostly because of computerd1ips. For example, we designed in a chip, but the contractostopped making it because newer chips had more capability, andpeople wanted more capability. However, we already had the'older chip designed into our equipment. We have gotten a l~

smartet about that.We are now using open architecture so we can change those

chips as newer ones become available. We've already done someof this with the Comanche.

Anlry RD&A: What advice would you offer to someoneconsidering a career in Army acquisition?

Hoeper: If someone has the ability, then Army acquisition is a..good career move for a number of reasons, I've worked in bothprivate industry and in governmem, and 1 can tell you that t'*­government has excellent training opportunities. In fuct, the folkswe train are highly valued both within and outside the Army. Wepick good people, train mem well, and provide memopportunities to learn and grow in their jobs. From what I've seen,mere are more opportunities in the Army than there are in thacquisition industry as a whole.

So if you're a young person coming into the Army acquisitionfield, you're going [0 get great opportuniti and tremendousformal and infom131 training. ~ all know me importance afonnal training, but how much of what you know was learnedthrough infOnnal training from your peers and co-workers?

AU my Life I've said that I wanted to work with mart peoplThat's one of the reasons why [ sought this job and why I'm happyto have it-I get to work witl1 so many smart people. Furthennor~,

everyone in th Acquisition Workforce gets to do that. Thepeople are really sharp.An,ry RD&A: Is there anything else that you would like to

address?Hoeper: Yes there i . lJke my associate , I find Army acquisitior!

an exciting and d1allenging field. LTG Paul J. Kern, my MillDeputy and the Director of the Army Acquisition Corps, who IS

very involved in acquisition, has expressed similar views. [addition, Keith Charles, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Plans, Programs and Policy, teUs me that working in Armyacquisition is the most gratilYing experience of his career.

aaack helicopter in relation to an oppo ing attack helicopter. Itwas a very platform·based approach and we used a platform·basedacquisition strategy (this tank's getting old so go look for the nexttank, or this helicopter's getting old so replace its platform).

We're now moving to a more capabilities-based approach wherewe look across all the platforms and say, "Here's the capability wewant in the banle space. How does our whole system of platformsand our whole system of communication systems create thatcapability?" That's what digitization is really about. I['s somewhatnew but, for the first time, we're looking at capabilities that areprovided by the interrelationships among the systems. ~'re

basically doing that by working with, or through, tl1e AnnyExperimental Campaign Plan and then saying here's what we canuse from this system and this experiment. I think we're going tohave a chance to go even further with that.

This issue of Anny RD&A is largely devoted to Simulation andModeling for Acquisition, Requirements and Training (SMART).

MART allows us to inregrate many concepts in1Ultaneously andexplore requirements concurrently with system design,technology insertion, logistics, training, and so on. Basically, wesay, "Here's what we think we want. Let's sin1Ulate it, and then let'sstart using it" We can explore the implications of using oursy terns in tandem with one another to accomplish a missionwithout actually exercising all the live systems at a training center.Because we conduct these ass sments vittually, we can explorethousands of scenario by changing the attributes of our existingand future systems. We may discover new ways to incorporateSecond Gener'<ltion Forward Looking Infrared across our aircraft,artillery, and armor system platforms to increase operationaleffectiveness. Using SMART, we can afford to gather all the data

4 Army RD&A May-JUlie 1999

"

Figure 1.

SIMULATION BASEDACQUISITION

IS SMART FOR THE ARMYforces are continuously acting to shapehow we conduct the business ofacquisition. The first shaping force isthe influence of me Digital InformationAge. With the ever-expanding Internetand pinoff technologies such aselectronic commerce, we are movinginto an environment where more andmore of our interactions are conductedby exchanging electrons.

The second force is the recognitionthat technology is evolving at a greaterrate than ever and, because of theDigital Information Age, is available tolarger segments of the globalpopulation. The tllird force is thecominued "pinch" in the Defensebudget. Although the economy isdoing well, feder.u budget surplusesare earmarked for expenditures otherthan Defense, which means we need tomodernize with the goal of redUcingtotal ownership costs. When looking atthe e forces, we immediately recognizethat an additional strain is the varyingrates of change brought about by the'eforces (Figure 1). Typically, bu iness,social, and political processes changeincrementally; but technology in thelast s veral years has changed at anexponential rate and will continuechanging exponentially for theforeseeable future. Admittedly, this is adifficult environment in which to work,but by employing the SMART concept,we can harness these forces and putthem to work for us.

Digital InformationTechnology

The Digital Infomlation Age, which ischaracterized by tJle exdlange of digitalinformation over digital networks, willlikely have a profound impact on howthe Acquisition Workforce is organizedin the future. One can project tJlatorganizations will evolve from focused

Social Change

SMARTSBA and SMART involve more than

just the use of M&S in an acquisitionprogram. MART, as a concept,recognizes that several influential

LTG Paul J. Kern and

Ellen M, Purdy

Time

Technology Change

primary concern to the Army, but werecognize tbat we cannot achieve themthrough the efforts of tbe acquisitioncommunity alone. Ir requires rhecombined, integrated efforts of theAcquisition Workforce along with therequirements and training commu­nities, hence the name SMART.

Social, Political and Economic Systems Change Incrementally, butTechnology Changes Exponentially!

CIlenc:'".c

U

IntroductionEarlier this year, the Office of

Assessment and Evaluation, Office ofthe As i tam Secretary of the Army(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)

.hosted the second annual SimulationBased Acquisition (SBA) Symposium.

'The conference was billed as theSimulation and Modeling forAcquisition, Requirements and Training

• ( MARl) Conference because for theArmy, SBA is SMART.

)< SBA is an Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD) initiative to reform theacquisition process so that theacquisition community uses modelingand simulation (M&S) robustlythroughout the acquisition life cycle.The goals of SBA are to reduce tJle time

• to field systems, reduce total ownershipcosts, and increase the military utility of

lie1ded systems. These goals are of

•

MaY-lIllie 1999 Army RD&A 5

Figure 2.

From the book "Unleashing the Killer App" by Larry Downe Chunka Mui

2020

Example:The Personal

Computer

Pentium Pro

I 1286

1995

through M&S. AU three communitiesbecome involved in all facets of theacquisition Ufe cycle from the time amateriel olution to a needed capabilityis determined umil the fielded system is·retired.

[n tead of building and testing inhardware, much of the acquisitioneffort i executed virtually. [t is easierand quicker to make changes to.electron than it i to make changes toatoms. Virtual prOtotypes allothousands of design iterations at littleexpense. ot only can we conduct ourdesign and engineering in a morerobust manner, but systemstakeholders who traditi nalIy have hadlittle impact on the developing designno, have tremendous influence:"Logisticians, production engineers, andtrainer • who were often the first to betraded against performanc • have theopportunity to "weigh in" withproposed de ign attributes long beforetile first physical prototype is built.

100,000

lao08

1,000

1970

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

Transistorsper Chip

1,000,000,000

based on an ov rmatch capability.Maintaining overmatch becomesincreasingly difficult in the face ofrapidly changing technology. Moore'Law states that proces ing powerdouble every 18 month, while costsremain constant (Figure 2). Overmatchcapability depends on informationdominance, which depends oninformation technology, which dependson processing capacity. Processingpower i cheap and Widely available,which means the oppo ition has accessto the same "raw" technology. If wewant to maintain our edge. we have tobe SMART.

SMART TechnologyLeveraging

How does thinking MART and beingSMART allow us to leveragetechnological innovation withinconstrained budgets? It enables theuser, developer, and trainer 1.0

collaborate by assimilating data digitally

Moore's law: Every 18 MonU1s, ProcessingPower Doubles While Costs Hold Constant

weapon-system or mission-areaacquisition programs and research,development and engineering centers(RDEC ) to entities where individualparticipate in integrated digitalenterprises that are based onacquisition events. Currently existing"rice bowls" and "stovepipes" willbecome so integrated thatorganizational boundaries will blur andseNe only admini trative needs ratherthan facilitating the execution ofspecific acquisition missions.

The "operational concept" used toconduct acquisition will inevitably beshaped by the digital exchange ofinformation. Operation traditionallyconducted via the «waterfall" approachwiU become more iterative becausedigital information technology providesthe means of simultaneouslyas imilating mas ive amounts ofinformation. [t Is a faCt of phy iologythat tbe human brain cannot integratemore than seven 1.0 nine conceptssimultaneously. With informationtechnology, the ability 1.0 integratedisparate concept becomes nearlylimitle . Collaboration among users,developers, trainers, logi ticians,costers, etc., can occur continuouslyand concurrently.

Technology OpportunitiesAnd Budget Constraints

To addres acquisition issues in acollaborative and concurrent mannertakes on new significance when oneconsiders the pace of technologicaldevelopment and the continuedrestrictions placed on the Defensebudget. At first gl;lI1ce, it would seemthe two are mutually exclusive.Without the budget, we c.1.nnO( takeadvantage of technological innovation.Fortunately, t1lat is not the case if wethink SMART.

Model and simulations are vety muchproducts of the Digital InformationAge. They provide u the very meansneeded to rapidly iterate through thevarious acqui ition functionssimultaneously. In tead of evolving aconcept; creating a design to executethe concept; testing the design;creating the tactics, techniques, andprocedures; and then training oursoldiers on the manufacturedequipment; M& allows these activitiesto occur sinmltaneously through virtualprototypes. This significantly hortensthe time required to conceive, build,test, and field a system.

Shortened acquisition time i key. Weno longer have the luxury of thetraditional 8 to 15 years needed to fielda sy tern. The Army After Next (AAN) is

6 Army RD&A May-JUlie 1999

ArmyAfterNext

... Paths 10 the Future

ConclusionWhen thinking about how to achieve

AAN, we tend to think in tenn ofdigitizing the force. What thatdigitization is really doing is integratingthe force (Figure 3). We've alreadydetermined we need to operate in asy tem of ystem, combined armenvironment to be effective. ow weneed to do the same for how weoperate in our acquisition endeavors.M&S is the means for digitizing ouracquisition activities and 'thusintegrating our activities.

LTC PAUL J. KERN is the MilitaryDepuO'to the As islant Secretary ofthe Army (Acquisition, LogisticsClnd Teclmology), Cllld DiTector,Army Acquisition C01pS. He al 0

sel'ves as the Director, Acqui itionCareer Management.

ELLEN 111. PURDY is a SeniorOperations Resew-ch Analyst in theQ[fice of Assessment andEvaluation, Office of the AssistantSecretary ofthe An1~Y (Acquisition,Logistics and Technology). heholds an M.S. degree inengineering management fromThe George Washington Universityand a B.S. in cbemical engineeringfrom the Unil'ersify of outbFlorida.

on investment in the double· Md triple­digit range .

Army RD&A magazine are articles bythe Product Manager for the ComancheCrew Support Sy tem, from the ArmyMateriel Systems Analysis Activity, theTest and Evaluation Command, andothers. Each of these activities andmany others throughout the Arm)' areleveraging M& technologies tocollaborate and coUectively work i uethat traditionally were addressed instovepipes. Also included in this issueis an article by Dr. Patricia Sanders, theDOD Director for Test, ystemsEngineering and Evaluation, in whichhe discusses the steps OSD is taking to

institutionalize SBA throughollt DOD.Walter Hollis, Deputy nder Secretaryof dle Army (Operations Research) hasproVided an article that outlinessuggestions for modi1)ring current Armypractice to tran 'ition use of simulationto a more robust, collaborative processthat allows us to capitalize on theadvantages of SBA. Adding industryperspectives are article by ArthurAnderson, Senior Manager for VehicleArchitecture and Packaging, AdvanceProduct Creation, DaimlerChry lerCorp.; and Bran Ferren, President,Research and Development andCreative Technology, Walt Disney[magineering. Ferren i a member ofthe Army Science Board and hasprovided some thought·provokingsuggestions for how the Army cancapitalize on simulation technology.Hi comments are worthy of eriousconsideration given Disney'experience in leveraging M&Stechnology for their research anddevelopment when faced with acorporate policy that in ists on returns

Maintain Combat Overmatch

Figure 3.

For program managersbuilding future systems

and upgradingexisting systems,

adopting aSMART approach

likely means a changein acquisition strategy

and the programbaseline.

J\fore Than A VisionWhat is encouraging for the Army is

that MART is moving beyond simply avision and is beginning to be executedin our acquisitiOn programs. RDECs,

.. battle lab , etc. induded in th is issue of

We can afford to take a more iterativeapproach, allowing the requirements toevolve as the system evolves. Instead ofoverly specifYing our requirements, we

,can "build a little, test a little, learn anawful lot." uch an approach keep ourperformance.cost trade space at amaximum and allows for the adapt'ltionof technological advances. What ideally

tr results in the end is a fielded sy tern inwhich all attributes, such as

,performance, cost, supportability,producibility, operability, and training,have been optimized. This applies notonly to our new systems but to ourlegacy system as well. If welook at AAN,

" it i highly likely that, in our constrainedbudget environment, probably 70

>percent of AAN equipment exists in thefield today. For AAN, exi ting systemswill need upgrading, but very few brandnew pieces of equipment will be addedto the inventory.

For program managers building futuresystems and upgrading existing systems,

9lldopting a SMART approach likely•means a change i.n acquisition strategyand the program baseline. This is a

• painful prospect, no doubt. Whenviewed across the entire Life cyde of dlesystem, however, the upfront investmentin the appropriate M&S tools will re ult

1n Significant returns in terms of co tavoidance, greater military utility, andlower upport costs. An additionalignificant benefit is a "leave behind"

capability to effidenrly and effectivelyidentify the design changes needed to

... upgrade our systems in the future.

May-June 1999 ArmIJRD&A 7

Dr. Patricia Sanders

Simulation Based Acquisition:

THEREVOLUTION

ISCOMING!

IntroductionThe American Revolution ended

Oct. 17, 1781, when British GeneralLord Charles Cornwallis surrenderedhi Army at Yorktown, VA. Thus beganthe new republic, breaking from pasttraditions. The rebellious colonialsachieved victory against a military forcesuperior in training, equipment, andmanpower. Mo t histOrians credit theAmerican victory to a combination ofinnovative tactics, willpower, and theaid of outside interests. The enduringrevolutionary form of government ofthe United tates of America i a uniqueand unqualified uccess.

Revolutionary change in our Defenseacquisition process is essential. Oursystems continue to cost too much, take100 long to develop, and-oncefielded-often require immediateupgmding of obsole Cent technology.But revolutions take time, effort, andmoney; and a successful revolutionrequires dedication and commitment atthe individual level, as well asinnovation, willpower, and dedicationat the organizational level. Makingprecisely that point while addressingthe Anny's Simulation and Model.ing forAcquisition, Requirements and Training(SMART) Conference on Jan. 28, 1999,BGJoseph Yakovac, Assi tant Deputy forSystems Management and HorizontalTechnology Integration, Office of theAs istant Secretary of the Army

8 ArmyRD&A

(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology),said: "To make a revolution a realityrequires an entrepreneurial spirit." Thisalso applies 10 Simulation BasedAcquisition (SBA). Like the willpowerthat drove the American RevolutionSBA can succeed in revolutionizin~acquisition only if we have the de ireand perseverance to make it happen.

VisionWe have a constant vi ion driving SBA.

This vision was carefully crafted andapproved in September 1997 by theDOD Executive Committee onModeling and Simulation AcquisitionCouncil ,vith input from an industrysteering group operating under theauspice of the National DefenseIndu trial Association. The vision is asfollows:

An acquisition process inwhich DOD and industry areenabled by robust, collab­orati"tJe use of simulationtechnoiogy that is integratedacro s acquisition. phases andprograms.

Goals And StrategySBA is a strategy for change

deliberately intended to sati fy threegoal:

• Substantially reduce time, re­sources, and risk associated with theentire acquisition proces ;

• Increase quality; military worth, and

supportability of fielded systems whilereducing their operating and su tainingco ts throughout the total life cycle;.;and

• Enable Integrated Product and.Process Development (IPPD) across theentire acquisition life cycle.

The SBA strategy is driven by ourbelief that it is compelling that we meetthese goals, that the effectivene s of •modeling and simulation (M&S)applied to acqui ition has already been'proven, and that the technology irapidly evolving to enable therequirements of this strategy.

The fLrst two goals will resulr from theachievement of the third. IPPD evolved.in industry as an outgrowth of effortssuch as concurrent engineering to'improve customer satisfaction and ~

competitiveness in a global economy.But DOD has not reaped the fullben fits of IPPD because we do nothave the tools to allow respective users ~'

to "touch and feel" the item until aphysical prototype is built. SBA enables'"IPPD by providing a collaborative,.,virtual context for system development.The underlying key technology is the •computer, which provides a dimensiondescribed by Assistant Secretary of the •Army for Acqui ition, Logistics anlj,Technology Paul J. Hoeper as "elec­tronic agility."

This electronic agility is the enablingcornerstone of BA, providing the ~following: )

• Concurrent consideration. As earlydesigns take shape, concurrent..,consideration by the different functionalareas to analyze the design in tenns o~

training, force lethality, deployment,maintenance, man-machine interfacemanufacturing proces es, materials,environmen[, erc.

• Rapid iteration. Because of the ..capabilities of simulation and computertechnology; iterations of design trade~ .can occur qUickly and extensiveevaluation of the trade space can occur ~before decisions are made. This is the 1

power of electronic agility.• Robust assessment. The design

trades include operational performanceacross a wide spectnlm of scenarios:~human inter~aces, system-tQ-systen\.,Lnterfaces, life-cycle sustainment,production materials, manufacturing.processes, co t, etc.

• Synthetic environment testing. The'system is virtually "wrung out" in thecomputer before time and money ire'pent on physical prototypes. Hoeper~

has stated, "Whenever possible, wemust reduce the need for costly,repetitive live te ting."

imply stated, when physical-

May-lillie 1999

prototypes are built, SBA ,,,ill providebetter form, fit, and function the first

.. time without expensive rework. As Dr.Jacques Gan ler, Under ecrerary of

• Defense (Acqui ition and Technology),said of SBA in the Feb. 1, 1999, issue ofDefense News: (it] "gives you the abilityto make lots of tradeoflS in COSt andperformance, early-on." increased useof M&S by the U.S. commercialautomotive industry, by the aerospace

• industry, and in Defense programs hasproduced dramatic results.

RoadmapDuring the past year, DOD has

developed a "Roadmap" for SBA-a listof recommendations for policy,

·education, technology development,and architecture designs forestablishing SSA. The task force thatdrafted th document consisted ofrepresentatives from the military

~ departments and Defense agencies. Inaddition, an industry steering group

~panicipated to identify the top

priorities for SBA planning.The Roadmap is undergoing extensive

coordination within government andindustry. Currently, a draft "strawman"implementation plan is used to assignre ponsibility and prioritize activities toestablish SBA. The Roadmap and thedraft strawman implementation plando not contain all the answers. In fact,the preci e templates and standards toimplement SBA are evolving. We planto have a series of preliminary and thenfollow-on SBA experiments to "build-a­little, test-a-little" to arrive at a commonset of designs for SBA to be usedthroughout industry and DOD.

The essence of SBA is not limited tothe technical environment, butincludes the following:

• The technical engineering envi­ronment exploiting the power ofcomputer and simulation technology;

• A reborn acqui ition culture ofnew polit)' and regulation, direction,education, priority. and funding to takeadvantage of SBA; and

• A new process bringing togetherthe separate system developmentfunctional areas of government andindustry into a seamless, moothlyLinked, and rapidly operating team.

The technical architecture in theRoadmap idemifies the follOWing basicfeatures of SBA: collaborative envi­ronments (CEs) , distributed productdescriptions (DPDs), a DOD andIndustry Resource RepOSitory (DIRR) ,and standards. A brief discussion ofthese features follows.

Collaborative EnvironmentA CE is an enduring collection of

resources, people, processes, and toolsassembled to attack a given problem.Basically, a CE exploits informationtechnology ro permir people to worktogether and share commoninformation, models, simulations, anddata in real time.

CEs are designed to create groupingsof tools, people, and processes to fosterreuse and interoperability. The intent is

Gateway to DistributedDOD and Industry

Resource Repository1

~ ~

r-

It- t-~ =

Both the DIRR and DPDs

• are interconnected using web technology• have a configuration control process• use encrypters/firewalls for access control

IPM ReqUire~

~ources

e C:ores~

Eooar~

Collaborative Environment

Distributed Product Description (DPD)

~s~~

..

SBA reference systems architecture

May-TUlle 1999 ArmyRD&A 9

to be able to work across functionalareas, across acquisition phases, andacross programs.

Distributed ProductDescription

The simple definition of DPD is a 3-Drepresentation of a system thatcombines data and other characteristicsassociated with a given product and itsinherent interrelationships to itsenvironment. This include associatedprocess data (e.g., system function,requirements, manufacturing processes,and cost data) and features such as ·userselectable views.

The OPO, which is the responsibilityof the project/program manager (PM),is the authoritative collection ofprogram information. Users could viewtile DPD as a one-stop shopping centerfor any information about a product.The OPD will include one or moresystem representations for oth rs touse as they "play" the system in theirsimulations.

Interconnected via web technology,the DPD elements appear (to the user)to be a single, logically unified productrepresentation. As a product developsduring initial stages, the OPOassociated with the product matures inparallel with it. These productrepresentations within the DPO willenable IPPO and integrated productteams (IPTs). When prOVided theappropriate automated support toolsand schema, the CPT members will haveaccess to and work with the sameinformation reSident in the DPD.

DOD And Industry ResourceRepository

The DIM is intended to be acoll.ection of pointers in a web­technology-based, distributed repos­itory of DPDs, tools, information, andgeneric infrastructure components foruse within and reuse acrossprograms-the union of capabilitiesprovided by all CEs. The DIRR could beviewed as a card catalog. This virtualrepository will be built on the existingModeling and Simulation ResourceRepository developed by the DefenseM&S Office.

StandardsCertain formats are essential for

interchange of information andimeroperability. The Roadmap rec­ognizes the need to establish anessential set of standards for M&Sinteroperability and reuse. The M&Scommunity will need to develop a set ofappropriate data interchange formatsto support the interchange and flow of

10 Army RD&A

product information. The relationshipamong the key BA architecturalcomponents is shown in theaccompanying chart.

ervice initiatives are underway tosignificantly improve SBA processesand understanding. Specifically, theArmy has identified four "Flagship"programs for special attention andSMART application. They are theCrusader, Apache upgrade, FutureScout Cavalry System, and the CloseCombat Tactical Trainer.

Program AssessmentThe following questions can be used

by indiViduals to asses progress inapplying SBA principles to theirprograms:

• Ooes the M&S plan address the fullsystem life cycle, with reuse acrossphases?

• Does the M&S funding profile sup­port the M&S strategy?

• Ooes the acquisition strategy call fora OPO?

• Does the acquisition strategy placethe DPD in the Modeling andSimulation Resource Repository?

• Is the program a part of any CEs?• What M&S is leveraged from other

programs?• Does the program leverage High­

Level Architecture and other standards?• Is interoperability outside the

program a priority?• I testing and evaluation integrated

with the M&S strategy?• Has the program formed

government/industry JPTs, includingone for M&S? Are IPT membersempowered to make decisions to takeadvantage of SBA technology?

• Are incentives identified for indus­try to assist in, or develop, necessaryproducts and services to support SBAimplementation?

• Ooes the acquisition strategy callfor sharing M&S with industry (viaIPPD) beginning as early as sourceselection and continuing thoughout theprogram's life?

ConclusionWe have the constant SBA vi ion, the

architectural concept announced in theRoadmap, the developing implemen­tation plan, and an emerging set ofexperiments to refine the concepts. Weare preparing the appropriateeducational and regulatory changes.The military Services are beginning tomove ahead in their program , and wehave identified several necessaryactions, ranging from leadershipcommitment to technologydevelopment. In adcUtion, we have

assembled a list of questions to assessprogress toward SBA. Have we coveredall the bases? Remember BG Yakovac'basic requirement for a revolution?"Entrepreneurial spirit is essential. ,

I challenge you to look foropportunities to apply SBA,communicate your interest, devise newmethods, bring in outside interests, andstrive to break from past traditions. •The SBA Revolution is coming. Are youready to be one of the revolutionaries? .

DR. PATRICIA SANDERS is theDOD Director, Test, Systems ...Engineering and Evaluation. Sheis responsible for ensuring the~

effective integration of all'iengineering disciplines into thesystem acquisition process, andforoversight of DOD's Major Range.and Test FaCility Base and thedevelopment of test resources such~as instrumentation, targets, and.other threat simulators. She chairsthe Defense Test and Training'Steering Group, the Systems •Engineering Steering Group, andthe Acquisition Council on'Modeling and Simulation. Backedby more than 24 years of DODexperience in test and evaluation,modeling and simulation,resource allocation, and strategicplanning, Sanders is a Fellow q('the American institute ojAeronautics and Astronautics(AlAA). She was awanied the 1998 1

AlAA DeFlorezAwardfor Modelingand Simulation in recognition ofinspiration and 'relentless'"advocacy in implementing th&.disciplined use of modeling andsimulation in the DOD weapon"systems acquisition process. She,has a doctorate in mathematicsfrom Wayne State University and isa graduate of the Senior Executiv&. .Fellow Progmm at the John EKennedy School of Governmen~~Harvard University. -

...

May-June 1999

•

•

SIMULATION BASEDACQUISITION:

CAN WESTAY THE COURSE?

Walter W. Hollis(with Anne Patenaude)

Proper implementation ofsimulation based acquisitionrequires a coordinated effort

from each functional disciplineand modeling and simulation domain.

IntroductionSimulation Based AcqUisition (SBA) is

,.an Office of the Secretary of Defenseinitiative to promore the collaborative

se of simulation in the acquisitionprocess. The goal of this initiative is toreduce the time, resources, and riskinvolved in acquisition. The Army hasextended that strategy to include the

.. requirement and training commu­nities in a concept called Simulation'and Modeling for Acquisition,Requirements and Training (SMART). Iam concerned that the currentdirection of SBA activities in DODrepresents a new program start for the

acquisition community, an impressionthat tends to distance the functionalcommunities and program managers(PMs) who are using simulation well.

Many in these communities arealready using simulation to accomplishtheir diverse missions and do nor seethe immediate connection between thisextension of the SBA Program and whatthey do in their daily activities. Moreimportant, many PMs already usesimulation to support their acquisitionstrategy. Whar we need is not a newstart, but a means for PMs andfunctional communities to achievecollaboration. The required step,

beyond the current application ofmodeling and simulation (M&S) in theacqUisition of a weapon system, is todevelop simulation technologies formore than one function (e.g., trainingor testing) or for multiple acquisitionprograms. Proper implementation ofSBA requires a coordinated effOrt fromeach functional discipline and M&Sdomain.

In this article, I discuss why I feel SBAdoes not require a new-start level ofeffort and/or funding and offersuggestions for modifying our currentpractices to capitalize on theadvantages of SBA. I make theserecommendations to you, couched inthe terms of our current acquiSitionprocess, and offer suggestions forpolicies and processes to increase SBAbenefits.

BenefitsThe benefits of SBA and simulation

technologies are easily recognized inconcept exploration. For many years,simulation supported the conceptexploration phase as a means ofexperimenting. The Combat Develop­ment Experimentation Center (CDEC)at Fort Ord, CA, designed experiments

May-TIme 1999 ArmyRD&A 11

Figure 1.Hypothetical cost-pertormance trade space for direct fire system

•

RangeIOkm

dous benefit to the PM and the combatdeveloper if a crude cost-performance.trade·off could provide informationduring the requirements evaluation iJl!oconcept exploration. This wouldenable better concept evaluation by thedeveloper and an ability to include life­cycle cost.

For this cost-performance trade-off tooccur, our acquisition process mustincorporate an early partnership"between combat and materieldevelopers. This does not exist today.'!'Under our current system, a combatdeveloper (the ultimate user of acombat system) states that therequirement for a new weapon systemis to "kill" at 10 kilometers (Figure 1). ~Clearly, from the user's perspective, thecapability to kill at 10 kilometers is verYdesirable. However, me user has noreal appreciation for what thiscapability will cost and how it will·translate into combat effectiveness.The user can only make an informedrequirement decision after the materiedeveloper define the cost-performancecurve and evaluates variouperformance alternatives in a combatsimulation. Simply stated, the combatand materiel developer must parmerearlier in the concept explorationphase of the acquisition process. . ~.

Using the CAN concept, the PM andthe system manager can evaluate hodesign and requirement decisionsmight impact program cost. TheCrusader Program is an example of an,.

5km

Cost for a-------- --- ---------------- ---------- -----------.",....-- system capable of

: killing at 10 k.m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o

Cost for a :,...- system capable of :: killing at 5 kID !, 0, 0, 0

: 0

$

to arrive at requirements supportingthe most cost·effective solution.

Performance Versus CostOne of the concerns we have in the

acquisition community is resolvingsystem requirements when the designto meet performance requirements isnot feasible in terms of cost,performance, or schedule. To state itmore accurately, how do we determinethe most cost-effective requirements?In our current system, me combatdeveloper determines me requirementsand produces an OperationalRequirements Document that dictateswhat the materiel developer mustproduce. There would be a tremen·

Virtual PrototypesThe SBA strategy enables the

extension of the CDEC experimentaldesign concept in a computer.Concepts under evaluation can now beexamined in a series of hundreds ofquick experimental runs. Thecomputer-simulated experiments canthen provide a basis for dedding whichconcepts hould be adopted as a virtualprototype, rather than actuallydeveloping hardware prototypes as wasdone in the past. Once we have a basisfor computer experiments, we cancreate numerous options to run manyexperiments, in many environments,overnight if we like. This offers atremendous opportunity to explore andanalyze alternatives.

When we gather information fromthese simulation experiments andnarrow requirements, we will have theseeds for new tools relative to ti,e newhardware, which, if properly tended,will proVide an engineering level ofdetail. Simple simulations can then beused to formulate a basis for a Cost Aan Independent Variable (CAIV) analysis

Figure 2.The Crusader

Programwas able

to evaluaterequirements

againstavailable

technologiesin simulations

such as thiscrew

simulator.

in which troops participated in conceptdesign. The e experiments were usedto examine the effectiveness of newconcepts and to develop tactics andtechniques to improve the effectivenessof current systems. Although some ofthese concepts were poorly embodiedwith other hardware, the simulationexperiments provided a means toexplore tactics and techniques withcompeting equipment designs. Some ofthese designs eventually becameprototypes such as helicopter-mountedmissiles. In fact, this effort was the basifor deploying UH-l helicopters withmounted Tube-launched, Opticallytracked, Wire-guided (TOW) missiles toVietnanl.

12 An"y RD&A MaY-lIme 1999

failure technology because of theadvantages Cited above.

The Army's Grizzly Program Office hasmade strides in designing a physics offailure plan to support the design,testing, and support of the GrizzlySysrem (Figure 3). Because of budgetconstraints, the Gri7.zly PM is using arobust modeling and simulationapproach to identify the critical parts,functions, and components; and usingelectronic "mock.ups" to addresssupportability issues.

Model Building AndMaintenance

Another important issue i buildingand maintaining these models. Ideally,planning for simulation to be usedrobustly throughout the life cycle of aprogram should be done at programinception. Models should be developedas part of the acquisition strategy andincorporated in the evaluation strategy.By the time test, training, and logisticsplanners are involved, they should hedesigning rhe test and u ingsimulations built by others. Theyshould not be re pon ible for buildingthe simulations themselves. This alonewill shorten the development cycle of aprogram and benefit the program aswell as the partiCipating functionalcommunities. For example, this yearthe Army is spending $10 to $20 millionfor live Apache training because flightsimulators were nO( in place when tl,esystem was fielded. These unnecessarycOStS are not unique to large programs.

This is one of the tenets of SBA­achieving early collaboration amongthe functional disciplines. How canlogisticians use physics-based Simula­tions to determine what might break?Traditionally, reliability engineer havepredicted system reliability usingstatistics from hisrorical failure rates.Through use of physics-based modelingtechniques, we can better analyze thefailure mechanisms and complex root·cause failure modes associated with ourystems in the operational envi·

ronment. One advantage of a physicsof failure approach to reliabilityprediction is that it can be appliedearlier in the design process to analyzefailure frequency, failure cost, andcriticality of failure, thus optimizing thedesign for reliability. This collaborativeeffon by the testing and logisticscommunities transcends individualprocesses.

To accomplish this, we need ro decideearly to evolve physics-based, stress­related failure prediction models thatcan be used to identify failure·pronecomponents and redesign them tooptimize reliabiliry. Grearer knowledgeof the mechanics of failure will permir amore precise prediction of when afailure may occur. In addition, thelogistics community benefits by beingable to better predict spare pansrequirements and by performingproactive maintenance on potentiallyfaulty components, thus avoidingcostlier and catastrophic failures. Everyprogram should include physics of

Figure 3.The GriZZly Program has developed a physics of failure plan that includesrobust use of modeling and simulation of weapon systems such as the GrizzlyCombat Obstacle Breacher.

Which Approach?At this point, we can pursue one of

two approaches. One is to develop aphysics model of what we want, sometype of software that industry can use todevelop virtual prototypes. The otherapproach is to develop specifications

~ and then have prototypes built to thesespecifications. The process by which

-.the government trades simulations withindustry during this developmentprocess and the reqUired resources forthis effort need additional study beforewe can help the acquisition community

.. implement SBA.

acqUISItion program mar used earlyanalysis of the program's requirementsand design to evaluate COSt andperformance issues. The PM and userrepresentatives were able to maketrade-off decisions by examining results

"of a model that showed changes infO.rce effectiveness based onincremental changes in weighr, co r,and performance (Figure 2).

Physics Of Failu.reAs the process moves from concept

exploration and requirements devel­opment into program development, mybiggest concern is how much can weinvest in "physics of failure." This is the"long pole in the tent." Ifpredictions of~eliability cannot be done in

imulation, we will have difflculty~mplementing the SBA strategy. Physicsof failure processes are reasonablyadvanced for electronic programs but

~embryonic for mechanical systems. Weshould be able to simulate a life·cycle

• process that can successfully predicrfailure in the field. The benefir ofdeveloping these extends beyond rhetesting proce s to include sustainmentof the system...

Combat Development ToolNow we are at that point in the

'process where BA can be used as acombar development tool. In fact, itshould be used jointly by governmentlaboratories, .5. industry, and, withthe right security and proprietary

... safeguards, by foreign companie Onecan imagine soliciring, frnm manysources, virtual prototype ideas of how

,the requirements can be sarisfied. Thiscould truly be a collaborative

• environment, one of the elements inthe SBA strategy.

May-Julie 1999 Ann!! RD&A 13

In the new parachute program,approximately 3,500 live jumps wiU beneeded during operational testing toattain confidence in reliabilityrequirements. If a high-fidelitysimulation existed, some of these jumpscould have been simulated in a virtualexcursion.

Another chaUenge beyond buildingmodels to expand use of simulationtechnology is designating whomaintains the models and keeps themcurrent. The commitment to investadequate resources in configurationcontrol during (or throughout) the lifeof the program is an unresolved SBAissue. The configuration control andmaintenance of models and simulationsare critical in validating input to virtualenvironments, in interfacing withdifferent thr ats, in interacting withother weapon systems, and inmodernizing the weapon system. Forexample, if a piece of a kit is fielded anda training simulation is developed basedon the currently fielded system, whathappens if the kit is modernizedthrough spare parts? As we build newsystems, or modernize them throughspares, it will become more critical tobuild "hooks" into the weapon systemto enable us to stimulate the sensors orhook into physics models similar to avirtual proving ground.

Other ChallengesOther challenges that need to be

explored are high.fidelity, real-worldsimulations; total ownership costmodeling; manufacturing; logistics;realistic training simulations (includingfog of war) in virtual environments;dual-use simulations for acquisition andtraining; and continued development ofrepresentations of an entity as an objector as a set of performance tables inWarfighters Simulation 2000, an Armywarfighting simulation.

One benefit of computer simulationthat will be relevant to SBA, yet notactively pursued, is harnessing the latestprocessing capability onboard weaponsystems for training, repair diagnostics,condition monitoring, etc. Theautomobile industry is applying thiscapability by using onboard diagnosticswhen servicing cars.

SummaryI've just provided several suggestions

to modify our. current acquisitionprocess to capitalize on the advantages

14 Army RD&A

Ideally, planningfor simulation

to be used robustlythroughout the

life cycleofa program

should be doneat program inception.

I

of SBA. Many of these cannot beachieved solely by a weapon systemprogram office or another individualproponent. Tbe DOD and the Servicesmust work together to apply SBA totheir programs. ome of that work hasstarted; in faCt, I've tited some of thecurrent collaborative efforts to applythe SBA strategy. However, we mustalso capitalize on the efforts in the usercommunities by providing enablingpolicies and practices.

Concurrently; we must ensure thatpolicies are in place for thedevelopment and use of standards. Ibelieve that the standards beingdeveloped for command, control,communications, computers, andintelligence (C4l) interfaces; functionaldescriptions of the battle space; objectdefinitions; and terrain databases willeventually contribute to widespreadcollaboration and savings. The Armyrecently requested information fromPMs on their largest modeling-and­simulation-related cost drivers. I wantto ensure that the standards we aredeveloping are, in fact, targeted againstthe real cost drivers.

What else is necessary? Continuingeducation of acquisition program officepersonnel and the functionalcommunities is very important. Wemust get tbe word out on botb thesuccesses and the stumbling blocks. Wealso need to assist PMs in achieving thevision we've established. Tbe DefenseSystems Management College recentlypublished an SBA handbook forprogram offices. Perhaps a simulationsection in Army RD&A magazine would

also be helpful. It could publicize some'of the lessons learned from modelingand simulation.

ConclusionSBA is SMART for the Army and is a

very promising method for improving.the process of acquiring weaponsystems. There are many elements inthe strategy being pursued.Collaboration and early identificationof models are two of the keys. We needto take these elements and provide PMs ..and functional communitie the~

direction and policies to implementthem. Ou.r challenge is to provide that'direction couched in terms of how theytransition their use of simulation nowto a more robust, collaborative process. ,We must be prepared to "stickwitb" theSBA process and not be discouraged if,..first attempts do not meet all ourexpectations. •

WALTER W. HOWS is the Deputy ~Under Secretary of the Arm~

(Operations Research). He is agraduate of the National WarCollege and holds a master's 1degree from The GeorgeWashington University. In addi­tion, Hollis has received three ..Presidential Rank Awards,one Presidential DistingUishedExecutive Award, and four ~

Department of the ArmyE:r:ceptional Civilian ServiceAwards. ,.

ANNE PATENAUDE is a Division•.Manager with the Test andEvaluation Group of Science'Applications International Corp.(SAlC). She is a retired Army Field 'Artillery Officer who formerlyserved in the Office of the Deputy.Under Secretary of the Army(Opel"ations Research), and shf!-<has a master's degree in.mathematics.

- I ~

...

May-lillie 1999

rework, despite being designed andmanufactured at two separatecompanies with different facilities andtooling. The accompanying figureprovides a comparison of tile benefitsrealized in the design process usingCATIA compared to the standard designprocess without CATIA.

It is a relatively tandard practice totest the design of flight controls in asystem integration laboratory (SIL).Therefore, it should not be surpri ingthat we have incorporated the practiceinto the Comanche Program. In fact,we have gone further than simplecommon practice. The ComancheFlight Control System IntegrationLaboratory (FCSD..) not only includesactual flight hardware and software, butalso includes representation of theComanche cockpit. The FCSrL is tied tothe Comanche MEP SIt for maximumsystem integration. This configurationallows the test team to "fly" systems toevaluate their performance in acontrolled environment before they areflown on tbe prototype aircraft.

The EDS at Stratford, cr, is anotherexample of innovative appJication ofmodeling and simulation for acquisitionbecause it provides an early opportunityto compare crew station functions torequirements. The EDS' six-degree-of-

RAH-66 With CATlA CH-53 Without CATlA

Tooling Two-step process Eight-step process

Component 95% first time fit 35% first time fit

Wiring harne ses Umited rewotk Extensive rework

Hydraulic lines Umited rework Extensive rework

Design process comparison

LTC Deborah J. Chase

Design And TestingThe design process was dependent on

Computer-Aided Three-DimensionalInteractive Application (CATIA), whichintegrates aircraft design, documen­tation, tooHng and manufacturing,simulation tools, and Manpower andPersonnel Integration (MAN PRJ NT)input into a common digital database .The outcome of the prototype designusing CATIA was that the fuselage andtailboom were joined with norequirement for either fixtures or

Comanche ProgramA joint venture between equal

partners, the Comanche Programdivides the workload equally betweenBoeing Helicopter, Philadelphia, PA,and Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, CT.Boeing designed most of the Mis ionEquipment Package (MEP) , flightcontrol system, and empennage (thetail assembly of an aircraft). ikorsky isresponsible for the majority of thefuselage, main rotor, landing gear,propulsion system, armament, andcrew station de ign.

The iterative process of garnering userinput to fine-tune the weapon systemdesign allows us to claim a virtuallyrevolutionary approach.

COMANCHE: VIRTUALLYREVOLUTIONARY

Introduction"The inventions of the past twenty years

threaten to revolutionize Armyorganization and tactics" (Roots of

, Strategy 2, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,PA, 1987, page 452). Such was the claimof noted military historian and strategist,AntoineJomini, in his writings circa 1839.]omini was by no means overzeaJous inhis assertion. The magnitude oftechnological advances between 1815

"and 1830 is credited with thrusting usinto the Industrial Age (Paul]ohnson, 'IbeBirth of the Modern, Harper Collinspublishers, ew York, NY; 1991). Duringthe same period, apoleon overwhelmedEurope with his revolutionary use of themilitary prindple of "maneuver." We are

..currently engaged in a similarrevolutionary period. Advances intechnology are occurring at abreathtaking pace, providing the toolsthat allow Army leadership to conduct aRevolution in Military Affilirs withoutsending soldiers into harm's way. An..objective of the revolution is to create an

• environment in which the application oftechnology is driven by doctrine; the

• converse of what has held truehistorically. Our tool for achieving this

.. particular objective is Simulation andModeLing for Acquisition, Requirementsand Training (SMART).

Revolutionary ApproachBecause the history of simulation is

closely related to the history of aviation,it was "second namr .. for the Program

~ Executive Office for Aviation (PEO­Aviation) to include simulation from the

tinception of the Comanche Program.ntil recently, however, the application

of simulation has generally been limitedto training device. The advances incomputer processing capability,

.. especially those of the past 15 years,have allowed us to revolutionize the

"application of modeling and simulationthroughout the Comanche Program.

• Computer-aided de ign (CAD) andcomputer-aided manufacturing (CAM)tools simplified a complex design

.. challenge, and system integration labsaid our ability to evaluate system design.

'But most important, the warfighter now..)las an early opportunity to evaluate

weapon system design through ourability to emulate crew station functionsin the Engineering Design Simulator

.. (EDS), demonstrate maintainabilitythrough live simulations, and model

• 1Comanche capabilities during ArmyWarflghting Experiments (AWEs). Theevaluations are early enough in thedevelopment program to allowmeaningful feedback during the design

~ process and for the program strategy.

May-/ulle 1999 Army RD&A 15

...

ConclusionThe Comanche Program has

implemented a revolutionary approacto the application of modeling andsimulation tools throughout meacquisition and requirementsdevelopment process. We are not onlyusing simulation for traclitional trainingand design applications, but are al 0

taking the design process co newdimensions_ Our most innovative use~

of simulation allows the Comancl1e toparticipate in warfighting experimentsthat proVide feedback not only for thedoctrine development process, but alsoin the aircraft design and, ultimately, tothe Comanche development program ,.itself. The summation of our modeling.and simulation efforts for acquisitionrequirements, and training supportsthe claim that Comanche is a leader in avirtual revolution.

Future PlansFuture plans include the addition of.

another CPC that will be used for avariety of purpose , including trainingaviators prior to Force Development11:: t and Evaluation and Limited UserTest. Further, to address the need to ...establish interoperability with Legacysystems, we are d fining the nature of.our involvement at the CentralTechnical Support Facility (CTSF) atFort Hood, TX. Whether we participatein the CTSF via a virtual link with thePEO's Aviation Integration Facility orthrough a physical presence ,vith aCPC, we will achieve interoperability~

with the Army Battle Command Systemprior co the arrival of the first'production aircraft.

unprecedented both in its magnitudeand in its timing so early in adevelopment program. It is an excellentexample of a simulation designed to gaininput from solrliers who represent future 1

Comanche crew chiefS. 10 adclition, wecollected the input in sufficient time tofine-tune maintainability before theaircraft is fielded.

..LTC DEBORN-J J CHASE is the

Product Manager for the'"Comanche Crew Support System.She has a master's degree inaeronautical science from Embry-·Riddle Aeronautical Universi~X

and is a gradu.ate ofthe Comma;{d"and General ta.!J College and theProgram Managers Cou.rse at theDefense Systems ManagementCollege.

MEP for evaluation in FY02·03. Sixadd itional aircraft containing the armedreconnais ance and armanlemcomponents of the MEP would follow inFY04. The fire control radar (FCR) wasnot scheduled to be included until FYlO.

From th A\VE, we learned that thewarfighters were most intere ted inseeing the full MEP as soon as po ible.Consequently, we modified theengineering and manufacturing devel­opment process to accelerate MEPdevelopment and provide prepro­duction prototype (PPP) aircraft 'vithproduction-representative MEP capabil­ity, including the FCR, in FY04.

Unmanned Aerial VehiclesWe are also u ing the CPC with the

Advanced Tactical Combat Model in athree-part Manned-Unmanned ConceptExploration Program (MUM CEP) , anAdvanced Concepts and Technology UProgram, to explore a link betweenunmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) andComanche. The intent of the MUM CEPis to explore teaming between rotary­wing and UAV reconnaissanceplatforms. Ultimately, we will explorethe notion of controlling UAVs from theComanche. Our application of lessonslearned from the first two MUM CEPsincludes an expansion of the COlIlJInchecrew station software functions.

MaintainabilityDevelopment Test

In July 1998, an Integrated ProductDevelopment Test Team, comprised ofrepresentatives from me ComancheProgram Management Office, l'RADOCSystem Management Office, BoeingSikorsky Supportability and Engineering,and contracting finns, in adrlition toaircrafr mechanics, conducted theMaintainability Development Test(MD1), a live simulation u ing prototypeaircraft no. 2.

The primary objective of me MDT wasto reduce the risk associated with thematuration of maintainability byidentifying and resolving issues prior cothe PPP design phase. To that end, theMDT was designed co identify potentialmaintainability issues, influence designfor maintainability, gather data showingmean time to repair, and validatemaintenance procedures and tools.

The MDT identified 265 issues orconcern for which correspondingintegrated produce team will proposecorrective or mitigating strategies.Although many small design changes willbe needed to implement therecommendations, there were nosurprises among the items that arosefrom the MDT. The MDT is

freedom hydraulic motion, seat shakers,and aural cues assist in creating arealistic physiological environment. 10the EDS, Army aviators assigned to theArmy Training and Doctrine Command(TRAnOC) y tern Manager forComanche are conducting a series ofpart-task evaluations of specific crewstation functions. The part-taskevaluations will culminate in the CockpitAnalysis Program, during which the fullMEP will be emulated to evaluate pilottask loading. The timing of theevaluations allows for adjusonenrs to thesymbology and the software thatcontrols crew station functions beforeaircrafr design is final. Previously,warfighters clid not have an opportunityto evaluate crew station functions or taskloading until after Mt fielding.

Further, the EDS and the FC It areused together as engineeringdevelopment tools to evaluate handlingqualities during the design process andto assist in the design of a Comanche­unique envelope cueing system. Theenvelope cueing system will allowaviators to fly the Comanche at theextremes of its maneuverability andagility envelope without causingdamage or reducing the life of dynamicaircraft components.

10 addition to being tested in the EDS,the software for the crew stationfunctions is ported to the ComanchePortable Cockpit (CPC). A CPC ilocated at the Aviation Maneuver BattleLab, Fort Rucker, Ai, where experiencedcombat aviators assigned to theTRADOC System Manager aredeveloping and t sting Comanchetactics, techniques, and procedure(TTPs). The timing of the effOrt willallow uS to deliver TTPs with the aircraft.

AWEIn November 1997, a CPC was used to

represent the Comanche in the AWE atFort Hood, TX. The AWE allowed u tosimulate a future aviation brigademission with Comanche. We did this bycreating a virtual simulationenvironment using a network ofsimulation devices and simulationmodels interfaced with the All SourceAnalysis System and the ManeuverControl System. The results of the AWEled us to conclude that we must developinteroperability between the Comancheand legacy systems. More important, thesimulation of Comanche capabilitiesduring the AWE created such positivefeedback that it showed we mustaccelerate MEP development.

Prior to the AWE, we planned toprovide six early operational capabilityaircraft with a limited, reconnaissance

16 AnllY RD&A•

May-Jlllte 1999

From Industry . ..,

DAIMLERCHRYSLERDIGITAL DESIGN

CATlA to create 3-D math models ofone of the engines that would be usedin the car. They made rapid progresswithout any physical mock-ups, andlearned that it was critical to be able toshare the data to discover whethercomponent had problems fining in thecar. Data management, data control,and graphic display were key to theoverall project, as was a datamanagement system to handleproblems while keeping everyoneupdated in real time.

Arthur Anderson

The visualization of the Dodge Intrepid's overall vehicle system for engineeringpurposes proved to be graphically appealing enough to be used for productsales brochures.

Interactive Application (CATlA)software developed by France'sDassault Systemes, running on IBMworkstations, that the cyber age reallybegan to dawn at the company. Aroundthat time, Chrysler also beganbenchmarking other companies thatwere using digital design extensively­most notably Boeing, which eventuallydesigned its 777 jet entirely withoutphysical mockups.

In 1995, during the development ofthe new Dodge Stratus compact sedan,Chrysler's engineering team used

CATIAIn the 1970s, Chrysler began

..Switching to computer-aided design(CAD) and computer-aided

.,-nanufacturing (CAM) software to helpspeed up product development(although engineering "masters" werestill kept on paper). But it wasn't until1989, when Chrysler adoptedComputer-Aided Three-dimensional

IntroductionFans of the Winter Olympics were the

first to see them. In February 1998,Chrysler Corp. (now DaimJerCbryslerCorp.) debuted a new series of

... advertisement during the WinterOlympics that took viewers on a

'''vinual" tour of how the 1998 Dodge• Intrepid sedan was created. The

advertisements showcased the fully.. digital design process now widely used

to develop vehicles at DaimlerChrysler.Digital, or "paperless," design is

nothing new, but Chrysler was the firstauto company to unite all of its deSignand development software on acommon database-resulting in a trulyintegrated system. Before doing that,each department had different

~ computers and software packages,which made it nearly impossible to

'unite the hundreds of thousands ofdesign details in cyberspace.

And before that, Chrysler, along withevery other automaker, created andstored engineering data on paper

,. drawings. But each time a design was...amended, it was an extremely time­consuming process to update a masterblueprint, distribute copies, and collectout-of-date drawings.

With a rapidly evolving design,blueprints literally became obsolete assoon as they were created. No wonderjt took automakers upwards of 6 yearsto develop a single vehicle ...

May-Tillie 1999 ArmyRD&A 17

18 Army RD&A

Images created for engineering visualization illustrate the level ofdetail in CATIA that was required for accurate analysis. Oncecreated, these data are used to detect possible componentinterferences-such as with the intake manifold-as well as toensure trouble-free assembly and service of various componentsand structures.

CATIA ExampleThe impact CATIA

desi.gn proce can be seen in thedevelopment of the engine intakemanifold. Engineers responsible forcreating t11e manifold have open accessto the "hard poims" of th engine bayand hood structures and can create anoptimal shape to fit within them. Afterthe shape is developed, computersimulations are run to ensure thltmanifold reaUyfits in the vehicle andhas optimized airtlow. Using real-timeupdate , if the de ign of we hood ischanged, engineers can qUickly modiJYtheir manifold design.

Before CATlA, each new componentdesign required that a new phy icatprototype be designed, fitted, andtested. With CATIA, hundreds orthousands of simulations can be runbefore a singLe prototype isconstructed. Using other computer.rool such as airflow analysis software,engineers can create a d sign thatoptimizes the performance of th!l.­manifold-not just the shape.

Design ZonesIn the initial design process, a vehicle

is diVided into "geographical" ZOnes.Meet.ings are structured around the ezones, as well as around specific,systems tbat may overlap differentzones. In a single meeting, Chryslerwould have up to 100 engineer(employees and supplie.rs) pre entingidea, making suggestions, movingcomponents, and reviewing changes.

Ln the old days, when engineers got'together in meetings with two­dimensional repre entations, theywould have a lot of disagreement anddebate, depending on the individualviewpoint and understanding of eachengineer. Now, with 3-D visualization,it's immediately obvious what isn'working, and everyone can beginworking on a ·olution.

Nowadays, design zonesindividual certification of theirand structures. After aU zones makesure their parts fit together, there is anoverall review to ensure entire y terns"fit, as well as meet other objectives such,as styling, appearance, and ease ofmanufacturing.

May-June 1999

Functional PrototypesMaking a functional prototype is alsO"

simpler using DMA. Electronic fLIescontaining the DMA engineering daw.can be transferred to one of twoprototyping methods to make aphysical model.

One is Fused Deposition Modeling(FDM) , which u e a polyester or w

full-scale shape of the vehicle isreviewed on screens t1,at fill an entirewall. Before computers, it took days toredraw the exterior design in full scaleon paper. Each design is reviewed,critiqued, and revised. Once thatprocess is compLete, digitized data ofeach design are sent to a CATlAdataba e ca.lled CATIA DataManagement (CDM). Once t1Ie CDMdatabase has enough de igns, theengineering staff begins building aDigital Model Assembly COMA) of theentire vehicle.

At thi poim, a powerful graphicssystem is invaluable. It can generateinteractive images for numerousmodels, with multiple processors foranalysis. This is where the work ofengineers responsible for differentaspects of the vehicle comes togetherin cyberspace. as the overall vehicletruly begin to take shape. In addition,the suppliers who conrributecomponents and systems forDaimlerChrysler's vehicles are alsorequil'ed to use CATIA and have thesame access to data as the company'sengineers. Thi communicateengineering data from numeroussources in a single language.

Initial Design ProcessHere's how it all comes together.

De igner create basic concept drawingsusing electronic sketchpad. Electronicketcbpad nOt only ave time over

paper draWings, but they actuaUyprovide designers greater opportunityfor creativity. Changes ,Lee simple tomake. Each design i a "liVing"document within the computer, andmodificatiOn are fairly imple to do orundo. The computer allows designersto create a multitude of design iterationsi.n the same amount of time it previou Iytook to do one paper drawing, thusoptimizing the fin.a1 design.

Once the ba ic de ign are complete,they can be reviewed in full scale. In thecase of exterior design, for instance, the

Chrysler Data VisualizerThe visualization olution was

developed by Hugh Cummings, acomputer systems developmentsupervi or at Chrysler. He createdoftware called the Chrysler Data

Visualizer (COY), which applied thegraphics power of Silicon Graphicsworkstations. In a nutshell, CATIAcreates engine ring models, and CDYvisualizes them in a real-time,interactive format.

•

•

than 1,500 interference, fit, and designissues in the Intrepid before the firstphysical prototype was built. Engineerslearned how their parts interacted andfit, and pans were placed where theybelonged long before any tooling wasdeveloped.

Simultaneous Engineering. Perhapsmost important, CATJA and DMA allowdifferent engineers to analyzecomponents and Structures in realtime, making "simultaneous engineer­ing'" possible. This allows more designsolutions to be created and evaluatedduring the early phases of productcreation-not after a vehicle has beenextensively Cand expensively) tooled.In addition, this process allows moretesting. Before accurate computersimulations were possible, physicalprototypes had to be built to performcostly and time-consuming evaluationsand tests.

Crash Testing. In the case of crashtesting, computer simulations canaccurately predict how a structure lv:ilJbehave under various conditions,which leads to improved srrucruralintegrity. These simulations are notonly more informative than earliermethod , but also less expensive.

Aerodynamics. Engineers performingaerodynamic evaJuations use data fromOMA along with computational fluiddynamics to enhance wind-tunneltesting. The combination of theory andexperimentation also helps hone anoptimum design before tooling isordered.

Graphically complete visualizations prove to be very powerful communicationtools to convey spatial relationships and design concepts relative to various"design zones" within the entire vehicle.

,compound to create a 3-D shape. Witha special vacuum metalization processthat introduces metal-Uke properties tothe surface of the model, pans made byFDM can sometimes be directly

/> evaluated on a test car.The other prototyping method is

tcalled Laminated Object Manu­facturing, which uses thin layers of

~ paper that are cu t to shape and gluedtogether to create a component.

BenefitsWhen all of the design iterations of

!'each component and structure of a newvehicle are completed, they are fed

ack into CATlA to create an all­inclusive representation of the vehicleon the CDY. In other words, the wholevehicle can be called up on creen to bea embled, rotated inspected,'dr sected, and rea sembled-all in aninteractive environment. This avestime and, by derivation, money.

Fit, Finish, and Design. For example,one crucial step in the creation of any

"vehicle is installing-"decking"-the

power train and chassis to the body.Using old-style design aids, it mighttake up to 1 month to install prototypecomponents because of all theundiscovered interferences betweenparts and structures. In the case of the1998 Intrepid, the DMA processresulted in successfully decking allprororype assemblies into the vehicle in15 minutes the first time.

Another example from the Intrepidinvolved the placement of the oil filter.Once the Intrepid was completely"assembled" with the CDY, engineersdiscovered that, although the oil fLlterfit within the confines of the engine bay,it couldn't be unscrewed and removed.Years ago, in all likelihood this problemwouldn't have been discovered untillate in the development process, whena physical protorype was constructed.However, with the COY, the structurearound the oil filter was qUicklyredesigned on the computer. TheIntrepid now has one of the easiest oilfilters in the world to remove.

D,';\A identified and resolved more

ConclusionActual vehicle prototypes are created

and tested-hundreds of times, in aUconditions and climates. Only whenengineers are satisfied by the results arethe vehicle ready for volum.e production.But even then, Inanufucturing is not asfraught with complications as it once wasbecause stfilctures and components arethoroughly "proofed" in cyberspace,instead of on the shop floor. The benefitsof the OMA process-reduceddevelopment time, lower cost, and higherquality-are playing a big part inD:timJerChrysler's engineering successes.

ARTHUR ANDERSON is the eniorManager for Vehicle Architectureand Packaging, Advance PmductCreation, DaimlerChrysler" Corp.He has a B.S. in mechan­ical engineering from PurdueUniversity.

May-JlIlle 1999 Army RD&A 19

Crusader performance analyses to assistthe Department of the Army (DA) injustifying to the Office of the Secretaryof Defense and Congress the decision toswitch from liquid propellant to solid,propellant (SP). These analyses werealso u ed in subsequent efforts toreafftrm the Crusader SP designapproach in light of other existing anddevelopmental SP field artillery systems.

LTC Lindell Townsel Jr., Pat O'Neill,and Joon Lee

ARMYMATERIELSYSTEMSANALYSIS

ACTIVITY'SSMART

CONTRIBUTIONS

Rapid Force ProjectionInitiative

AMSAA supported the Rapid ForceProjection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced-lConcept Technology Demonstration(ACTO) in developing command~control, and communications (C3)algorithms and measures ofperformance; certifYing performancedata; and verifYing and validatingdistributed simulations.

In the C3 area, AMSAA develope~

algorithms, validated stand-alonemodels, and established measures 0'performance. Simulations, bothconstructive (Combined Arms andSupport Task Force Evaluation Model)and distributed (Modular Semi­Automated Forces), were updated_t.9reflect the performance of the RFPItactical Wide Area Network. Thalgorithms simulated the mainfunctions and limitations of theEnhanced Position Location ReportingSystem. In addition, the U.S. Army

Modeling And SimulationAMSAA:s M&S capabilities provide

tools that upport analysis of bothindividual systems and systemsemployed in combined armsenvironments. These tools range fromdevelopment of component-level,physics-based models to force-on-forcet'simulations. This M&S providescomprehensive system performanceprediction capability that can be usedto make trade-offs and investmentdecisions prior to extensive and costlyhardware development and testing.

Active involvement in the ArmScience and 'fechnology Objective(STO) process has enabled AMSAA to'examine how emerging technologies.can satisfY future Army requirementsand support the timely transition ofwarfighting technologies from thetechnology base to materiel and system'­specific applications.

As the Army's executive agent forverification, validation and accreditation(YV&A) of item-level performancemodels, AMSAA assists model developerswith developiog and executing V&Vplans to ensure that M&S accurately~represents actual systems.

Crusader AnalysesAMSAA:s analyses of the Crusader

provided the program manager (PM)with valuable insight into the potentialproblems and payoffs of variousautomotive and armament designoptions. The analyses also enabled thethe PM to make informed decisions asthe Crusader entered the detaileddesign stage of Program Definition andRisk Reduction development.

In 1996, AMSAA conducted a series of

performance data, and M&S verificationand validation (Y&V) (Figure 2).

AMSAA:s materiel system analysesfocus on subsystem and systemperformance and examine costperformance, and risk trade-offs:Performance analyses evaluate targetacquisition of sensors; deliveryaccuracy; hit probability; lethality ofdirect and indirect fire weapon systems;air and ground mobility; reliability; andcommand, control, communications,computers, and intelligence (C4I)systems.

IntroductionSimulation and Modeling for

Acquisition, Requirements and Training(SMART) is the process for integratingmodeling and simulation (M&S) andtechnology into acquisition functions(requirements generation, design,development, test and evaluation,training, manufacturing, and fielding)and programs. The potential benefits ofSMART are to reduce process time,required resources, and risks associatedwith acquisition functions, as well asincrease quality and supportability offielded systems. In simplest terms, M&Sis used to support analysis and training.

The Army Materiel Systems AnalysisActivity (AMSAA) provides timely,reliable, and high-quality materiel andlogistic systems analysis throughout theacquisition life cycle (Figure 1). AMSAAdevelops M&S to support its analyses aswell as analyses conducted for otherArmy agencies and DOD. For example,AMSAA supports M&S development forArmy and DOD training by providingsystem models, certified system

20 ArmyRD&A May-JlIne 1999

ko-IAMSAA Provides Critical Analysis for Entire Life Cycle I

• MS-O MS-I MS-II MS·IIIPre-MS-O Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Concept Program Engineering & Production &Exploration Definition & Risk Manufacturing Deployment

Reduction Development

... STOJATD/ACTD Analyses 1

'.Concepl Ana~sel I

R",UI_nts Analyses

CoslfTechnology Performance Trade.Qffs

1nv_1 Slrategy Anllys..

... I Performance Analyses I~ Rellabllity, Engineering, Physics of Failure, Acqulsltlon Relo""

~ Support 10 AnalyllOli 01 AllernaUves IITechnical Risk Ana~_

.. M&S Developrnent, VV&A, and Support PIlIns IDesign Produclbility & Rapid Manufacturing..

I Level of Repair, ProvhiJonlnih & SustAlnment Analyses I,I IInduolrlal Ba.. Analy...

,F-. Projection An,lyon

.. WlI__Loglsllca AnIIyus

... Men_Studla I

Figure 1.

• Communications-Electronics Command'sSystem PerfolTuance Model was validated. IAMSAA's "Value-Added" to Materiel Systems Analysis I

It The RFPI used live, virtual, andconstructive simulations to evaluate the

... poteotial benefits of the RFPI force. AMSAA ARMYAMSAA played a key role in verifying andvalidating simulators and computer- Certified Data

~ generated force simulations. AMSAA System •Virtua(:J livealso designed interoperability tests, Performancel Physical

4analyzed test results, and suggested Effectiveness Algorithms~dlanges to ensure terrain compatibility •.. and a fair fight. In addition, AMSM Models & ~stru~

~ provided certified system performance Simulation V&V supportdata (target acquisition, delivery •f--i accuracy, and lethality).

'Future Scout And CavalrySystems Analysis Products..System

AMSMs capabilities for integrated .:. Concept Analysisco t and performance trade-off analyseswere used to support the Furure Scout .:. Investment Strategy Analysis

• and Cavalry System (FSCS) .:. Technical Trade-Off AnalysisComparative PerfolTl1ance Exploratory - Cost

~ 'Analysi (CPEA). The CPEA's primary - PerformanceIrt objective was to determine whether the .:. M&S Development I V&VFSCS concept was potentially berter at

performing the Scout missions thancurrent Scout baseline ground vehicles. Figure 2.

• The results of the CPEA were key to the

.May-Tillie 1999 AmlllRD&A 21

-

Army's decision for a joint U.S.·U.Kcout Advanced Technology Demon·

stration (ATD).In coop ration with Army labo­

ratories; research, development, andengineering centers; and the Army Costand Economic Analysis Center; AMSAAused the analyses to develop item-levelperformance estimates, to assess thetechnical risk, and to determineexpected life·cycle co ts of each of thesubsystem alternatives.

The Army technology base reviewresulted in significant insights, such asdefining potential hardware alter­natives in each of the subsy tern areas.AM AA integrated concept subsystemperformance estimates using a figure ofmerit approach. The aggregate per­formance was correlated with cost andrisk. The result was a betterunderstanding of the cost, per­formance, or risk trade-offs that impactthe final system requirements, costtargets, source election, and ATD.

Logistic Systems AnalysisWholeSale, retail, force projection,

and sustainment analyses, togetherwith logistics methodology and modeldevelopment, comprise the corefunctions of logistic systems analysis.These core functions cover thepectrum of Army logistic needs, from

the development and refinement ofnew logistic models to the evaluationand analysis of innovative or modifiedlogistic concepts.

War Reserve ComputationThe Optimum tockage Requirements

Analysis Program (OSRAP) is a stockagecomputation model that allows the userto determine stock lists in support ofweapon system readiness for wartimeand contingency operations. Themodel calculates operating levels andreorder points for Class IX items, withthe goal of producing an optimum costolution while meeting the

performance goals of the supplysystem. OSRAP is used to performsensitivity analysis with user-adjustedinput parameters that include failurefactors, order shipment times,densities, intenSity factors, and usagefactors.

In addition to computing wartime orcontingency packages for Class IX spareparts, OSRAP is being developed for thefollowing applications:

• Incorporation into the GlobalCommand and Control System;

• Expansion to other supply classes(Class I, II, mB, lfip' and IV); and

• Incorporation into the Army War

22 ArmyRD&A

Re erve Automated Proce s.Comparison of current war reserve

computations with OSRAP resultsdemonstrates the pOtential forsignificant cost reductions. Forexample, the current war reservesprocess-based on days of supplymethodology-produced a reqUire­ment of $1.7 biUion compared to tbeOSRAP requirement of $1.28 billion,which reduces Class IX costs 25 percent.

Level Of Repair AnalysisAMSAA performs a Level of Repair

Analysis (LORA) to assist PMs and majorubordinate comma.nds (MSC) in

evaluating and supporting maintenancepolicy decisions on major weaponsystems while minimizing total supportcosts. The Computerized OptimizationModel for Predicting and AnalyzingSupport Structures (COMPASS) is theArmy's standard model for a LORA.

COMPASS analyses are key to weaponsystem support decisions such as repairversus discard of components,contractor versus organic repair, andcritical design trade-offs for manpowerrequirements. Other major applica­tions include analyses of requirementsfor the Integrated Family of TestEquipment and for the Direct SupportElectrical System Test Set.

Acquisition And TechnologySupport

In 1997, the Industrial EngineeringActivity was incorporated into AMSAA.This provides AMSAA with a broad baseof industrial engineering capabilities toassist PMs and MSCs.

In the production engineering area,AMSAA personnel assist PMs by servingOn integrated product tearns, performingassessments, and providing producibihtyengineering and planning support.

Acquisition ReformIn the acquisition reform area., AMSAA

is the Army's executive agenr forreliability and maintainabiUty standard­ization reform. As such, AMSAA staffserve on the Army Materiel Command(AMC) Acquisition Reform Lmple­mentation Assessment Team andsupport both the DA and AMCRoadshows.

The AMSAA-pion ered Physics ofFallure (poF) Program develops designand analysis tools to predict reHabihtyand ro minimize potential redesign at thecomponent level. PoF is based on thebasic principle that it is important notonly ro understand how things work, butto understand how dlings fall under theintended operational environments.

Business And ResourceAnalyses

As a result of the October 1998 •integration of AMSAA wirh the AMCManagement Engineering Activity,'AMSAA is now re ponsible for theexecution of the AMC EngineeringProgram. This includes directing theWorkload Ba ed Manpower ReqUire­ment Program and the WorkloadBased Staffing Analysis Program, as wellas ensuring that there is integrated, •validated input to the Army Workloadand Performance System. In addition,AMSAA is respon ible for conductingand overseeing outsourcing andprivatization analyses and commercial ..activity studies.

Conclusion _AMSAA developed an integrated set of

models and simulations ro performmateriel and logistic systems analyses toassist decisionmakers throughout the ~r'Iacquisition life cycle. Additionally, ~

AMSAA supports the development,verification, validation, and accreditation.of both Army and DOD models andsimulations for analysis and training.

.....LTC LINDEll To\VNSEL JR. is a

Senior Analyst and Team Leader intbe Simulation Brancb, CloseCom.bat Analysis Division, AMSAAHe has a B.S. degree in businessfrom. FlO/ida State University and ~

an M.B.A. from Old DominionUnive1"Sity. T"

PKr O'NEILL is tbe Chief of the .Com.mand, Contr-ol, Comm.un­ications, Computers, lntelligence,urveillance and Reconnaissance/ ..

Mobility Branch at AMSAA He hasa B.A. degree in matbematics and.computer science from Loyola.College and an M.s. degree incomputer science from JobnsHopkins Unive'rsity.JOON LEE is an Electronics j.

Engineer in tbe Command, Control, ~Communications, Computers, In-......telligence, Surveillance andReconnaissance/Mobility Branch atAMSAA He has B. . degrees in botb •electrical engineering andaerospace engineering from tfW'o ~

UniVel7>ity ofMaryland.

May-TIme 1999

SMART TEST AND EVALUATION:

THE VIRTUAL PROVING GROUNDIntroduction

TIle Virtual Proving Ground (WG) is thetester's contribution to the Army'simulation and Modeling for Acquisition,

Requirements and Training (SMARl).. initiative. This article looks at some of the

current and emergingVPG capabilities thatf enable the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation

Command (TECOM) to do its part \vithinMARl" to reduce cos!, cycle time, and risk

.. during the acqui ition process. TECOM isdoing more with fewer resources, while

>-increasing the quality of testing for itscustomer-the soldier.

VPGAssetsTECOM initiated VPG development as a

means of leveraging the power of thecomputer to create battlefield

~ environments for testing Army systems.VPG capabilities include development of

'1synthetic battlefield environments;realistic battlefield stimulalion of systemsunder test; data coUection, reduction, andanalysis; and automated test planning,control, execution, and reporting. The

~ VPG battlefield environments includemany physical and virtual domains. In the

'physical domain, we have created testfixtures and facilities that providebattlefield stress to hardware systems,including dirty electromagneticenvironments for our command, control,communications, computers, and

...intelligence (C41) system tests. In thevirtual realm, we provide stress tosoftware systems, information del.iverysystem , and to deosionmaking toolsavailable to cOll'urumders on today'sbattlefield.

•."XPG Capabilities

Everyone involved in the acqUIsItIonprocess, whetller they are programexecutive officers, progtanl managers(PMs), testers, or evaluators, is margedwith finding ways to use modeling and

• simulation to reduce acquisition cycle time

May-JUlie 1999

Rick Cozby

and cost. Parrnering with programexecutive officers and PMs is therefore akey component of the VPG Program. 'nlefollowing VPG-related capabilitie arecurrenlly providing PMs and ornercustomers ",ith cost-avoiding simulation,test, and evaluation tools. Thesecapabilities were developed to addressspeci.fic customer requirements. Some oflllese tools are fuUy or partiaUy funded byllle customers, and many of the embeddedsimulations are provided by the customer.Because of the rnpidJy evolving narure ofmodeling and simulation, the list is nor aU­inclusive. TECOM innQ\'ations in testmodding and simulation support occurcontinuously to answer specificacqui ition progr-am issues.

C41 Synthetic Balllefield Enuiromnent.The dil>lJibuted nature of C41 demandssimulation and stimulation temniquesimply to allow testing to beaccomplished. The Virtual ElectronicProving Ground provides tile necessarysynthetic batllefield electromagneticenvironments.

Simulation support modules usesrandard Army training simulations, umas the Corps Batlle Simulation and theCombat Se,,~ce upport Training SupportSystem, to provide direct digital inputstimulation intO mctical comm,tnd andcontrol systems. To date, this capabilityhas been used in numerous test ,mdtraining events around the world, yieldingmore than 40 million in cost avoidancecompared to the co t of live exeroses.

The Simulation Testing OperationsRehearsal Model (STORM) is a brigade andbelow (-'II simulation, stimulation, andinstrumentation package. Initiallydeveloped in partnership willl the .S.

Army Operational Test and EvaluationCommand to test dle Force XXI BatdeCommand Brigade and Below Systemusing smaller numbers of live units,STORM will have many applications totesting and training at brigade and belowechelons. Using STORM, we expect a COStavoidance of more than 1 million per testcompared to the cost ofconventional tests.

The Vinual Battlefield EnvironmentFacility is a dosed-loop facility thatgenerates Ii\'e ignal to provide realisticinputs into systems under test andemulate those friendly, enemy, or civilsignals that the test item would encounterin its operational environment. Thiscapability amieves in 10 minutes whatwould normaUy require hundreds offlighthours in an open-range facility.

Ai,. Defense Missile Flight Environment,Testing of air defense hardware andsoftware is supported by models andsimulations that reduce the requirementfor launching targets, firing test missiles,and telemetering flight data. Mo t of thesimulation tools discussed below areowned, maintained, and operated by tilerespective program office or itscontracrors as pan of its overallsimulation, test, and evaluation process.

Th Guidance Te t and SimulationFacility i a fuU hardware-in-the-loop(HWll.) guidance simulator for the PhasedArray Tracking 10 Intercept Of Target(pATRIOT) System, providing endgamegeometry and miss dist.'IIlce in lethalityanalyses.

The flight mission imulator provides acontrolled em~ronment of varioussimulated target signarure and electroniccountermeasure inputs ro the systemsurveillance function, as weU as imulmedmissile responses for the guidancefunction.

The multifunction simulation modelsPATRIOT searc!l, rrack, and engagementcapabilities under radar loading.

Army RD&A 23

The PATRiOT Advanced CapabilitySimulation provides a high-fidelity digitalsimulation of the surveillance function,missile dynamics, and lethaUty function forpreflight predictions and postflightreconstruction of flight tests.

The Counter Anti-Radiation Missile is adigital imulation of antiradiation missileperformance against the PATRIOT System.

Tactical Missile Flight Environment. TheSimulation(fest Acceptance Facility (STAF)is an HWIL simulator for nondestructivetesting of "live" millim ter-wave radar­guided missiles using multiple computer·based test scenarios under simulatedenvironmental conditions. Conventional,destructive acceptance tests of theLO GBOW missile, for example, cost$12.5 million annually. The STAFsimulationltest method only costs $1.8million pet year. Data links with the MissileResearch, Development and EngineeringCenter will soon allow importing modelsof missile subsystems and targetenvironment and exporting test data fordistributed testing.

Electro-Optical Environment. TheElectro-Optical Sensor Flight EvaluationLaboratory proVides a nondestructiveenvironment for six-degree-of.freedomtests of missile infrared (IR) seeker andguidance subsystems throughout the lifecycle.

The Electro-Optical Thrget AcquisitionSystem Evaluation Laboratory provides anm target environment for testing opticaltarget acquisition and weapon·sightingsystems.

The Dynamic Infrared Scene Projectordisplays realistiC, repeatable, complex illscenes in the entrance aperture of illseekers, weapon-Sighting systems, andnight vision sensors, simulating a dynamicbattlefield environment. Dynamicscenarios provide multiple moving targets,clutter, and countermeasures to assesstarget derection, recognition, andidentification probabilities over mostoperational battlefield environments.

Chemical Threat Environment. Becauseof extreme hazards and severe restrictionsassociated with chemical and biologicaldefense testing, all testing in Liveenvironments is conducted with agentsimulants, and all testing with live agents isconducted in ynthetic (chamber)environments.

The Detector Test System (DTS) is anenvironmentally controlled chambersystem for automated testing of chemicalpoint detectors. The DT providesrepeatable, automatic, dynamic dissem­ination of multiple agent challenges inreusable, transportable, environmental

24 AmtyRD&A

chambers. Tests are monicaredelectronically for real-time evaluation.The DT in support of AutomaticChemical Agent Detector Alann testing iscredited with reducing the test cost byS2.5 million.

Man·in·Simulant Test sampling patchesplaced between the chemical protectivesuit and the skin of the test operatorcapture simulant that has penetmted thesuit. The sampling patches are assayed forquantity and location of penetration. Acomputer model predicts the humanphysiological response to commensuratelive agent penetration.

Transport Environment. Rail impactmodeling provides for multibody dynamicsimulation of weapon systemsundergoing the MIL-STD-810 rail impacttest, using commerdal computer softwareand hardware. Doing these tests insimulation early (at one-third the cost of alive test), in partnership with the MilitaryTraffic Management Command, allows forany necessary redesign when it is rna tcost effective. The simulation is validatedby substHntiallive testing.

Trailer stability modeling uses the ArmyResearch Laboratory's high·performancecomputer tools and dynamic systemmodels to predict the safety performanceenvelope of liquid-carrying tanker trailersin high-speed traffic maneuvers. Test datafrom safe, low-speed maneuvers are usedto validate the model for high- peed,unsafe maneuvers, elim.inating the needfor physical testing beyond theperformance envelope.

Test course terrain database modelsprovide on- and off-road surfacecharacteristics for application to HWIL orcomputer-based mobility, transportability,or other complex vehicle imulationefforts. TECOM terrain models have beenu ed to drive the U.S. Army TankAutomotive Research, Development andEngineering Center (fARDEC) and theUniversity of Iowa motion-basedsimulators. A rec nt program usedAberdeen lest Center terrain data to test ahigh·mobility trailer on the TARDECSimulator, avoiding 12,000 miles of livetesting and a cost of $240,000.

System·Environment Intetface Models.The Flight Test Simulation Station (FI'SS)runs the BoeinglSikorsky Comanchedynamic flight model and providessynthetic test scenarios [0 conduct testingwithout flying the hardware prototype.verification and vaI.idation areaccomplish d side-by-side with live testingof the hardware prototype.Enhancements to the FTSS include a linkto receive telemetry data from live flighttests for real·time integration with the

Comanche cockpit simulator.The moving target simulator (MTS)

provides for immersing a system with fire ..,control software into a synthetic targetenvironment. Computers project a'controlled target onto the interior surfaceof an air·supponed hemispheric screen.Instrumentation measures system inputsand outputs, mOnitoring the response ofthe system to characterize itsperfurmance, withOut a shot being fired.The MTS saves about $40,000 pet test, ...compared with field testing, whileproviding more and bener data.

The combat vehicle engineeringsimulation immerses fire control systemsoftware, as a model, into a simulated test ~

environment before a hardware prototypeis built. v.ilidated models of the test'range, target motion, tank hull motion _(from the 'OOIDEC model), ammunitionrmjecrory, gunner input, andatmospheriCS, interact with the firecontrol model, all in the computer. Thesimulation generates th same kind of.rmcking error data that a live testgenerates.

The firing impulse simulator (FIS)provides dynamic loading on large caliber •gunsysterns (105 mm t08 inch) to test therecoil system; gun cradle endurance; and •the shock load on weapon, fire control'-1and auxiliary components. During thefirst year of its operation, the FIS resultedin cost avoidance of 20 million to itscustomers compared with firing liverounds to obtain the sanl loading effect.

ConclusionThe VPG is essential to the success of the

Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, 't'

Requirements and Training initiative.TECOM welcomes the opportunity to •share VPG capabilities with othercommands, program offices, andresearch, development, and engineering ~

centers to fully achieve the goals ofSMARTfor the Army. For additional infocma·'tion, visit the VPG website athttp://vpg.apg.army.mil. ~

---------------- ~

RICK COZBYis the Chiej Simulationand Technology Division, HQ'TECOM He has a bachelor's degree ...in electrical engineering fromVanderbilt University, an MS inadministration from Central.,Michigan University, and is a87'aduate of the Command an'd"General Staff College. Cozby is Level ...111 certified in test and evaluationand is a major in the U.S ArmyReserve.

May-June 1999

Paul D. Amos and William A. Reed

OASA(ALT)ASSESSMENT AND

EVALUATION OFFICEHOSTS

SMART COINFERENCE

• • •Discussions Target Current, Future Issues•

Industry CEO Panel. Left to right are Panel Moderator Dr. Herb Fallin,OASA(AL7); Tom Rabaut, United Defense L.P; Michael D. Bolon, GeneralDynamics Land Systems; and Robert Thurber, Intergraph Corp..

events of the past year, including thenotion that SMART is an expansion ofSBA. He also outlined the conferencegoals to provide an update to the Armycommunity on the progress towardimplementing SBA initiatives and toexpand the concept of SBA into SMART.

In his opening address, conferencesponsor LTG Paul J. Kern, MilitaryDeputy to the Assistant Secretary of theArmy (AcqUisition, Logistics andTechnology) and Director, ArmyAcquisition Corps, highlighted theArmy's entrance iOlo the digitalinformation age-an age that requires aradical change in how the Armyconducts the business and performs thefunction of acquisilion. Kernemphasized that modeling andsimulation (M&S) is one of the mostpowerful digital tecbnologies at theArmy's disposal.

PanelsKern also cbaired the Senior

Leadership Panel, which consisted ofLTG William H. Campbell, Director ofInformation Systems for Command,Control, Communications andComputers (OISC4); LTG Randall Rigby,Deputy Commanding General, U.S.Army Training and Doctrine Command(TRADOC); Walter Hollis; and MarkSchaeffer, Deputy Director, Test,Systems Engineering and Evaluation!Systems Engineering, Office of theUnder Secretary of Defense forAcquisition and Technology Seniorleadership recommendations included

Opening RemarksDr. Herb Fallin, Director, Assessment

and Evaluation, OASA(ALT), providedopening conference remarks bysummarizing some of the key SMART

addition, Paul J. Hoeper, AssistantSecretary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and TechnoLogy (ASA(ALT));Walter Hollis, Deputy Under Secretaryof the Army (Operations Research); andBG Joseph Yakovac, Assistant Deputyfor Systems Management andHorizontal Technology Integration,OASA(ALT) presented keynote addresses.

IntroductionThe Office of Assessment and

Evaluation, Office of the AssistantSecretary of the Army (Acquisition,

...Logistics and TechnoLogy) (OASA(ALT))hosted the second annual SimulationBased Acquisition (SBA) Symposiumearlier this ye.ar in San Antonio, TX.The 2~·day conference, billed as theSimulation and Modeling forAcquisition, Requirements and Training

" (SMAR1) Conference, included seniorleadership and industry CEO panels,

.. requirements and training panels, andbreakout sessions and oUlbriefings. In

May-JUlie 1999 AmlyRD&A 25

assigning a knowledge manager topublicize available tools (i.e., themodeling and simulation resourcerepository); devising a more effectiveproce S to involve TRADOC insimulation suppon plan (SSP)development; and working with thecost community to develop appropriatecost models and tools.

The Industry CEO Panel, moderatedby Or. Fallin, consisted of Tom Rabaut,President and CEO of United DefenseL.P; Roben Thurber, Co-Founder,Director, and Executive Vice Presidentof lntergraph Corp.; and Michael D.Bolon, Division Vice President for theAdvanced Amphibious As ,llIlt Vehicle(AAAV) Program at General DynamicsLand ystem. Rabaut provided anindustry perspective on whatrequirements are needed to continuethe evolution of MART. Next, Thurberhighlighted Intergraph's participationin the development of integratedproduct data environments (IPDE)and noted that the rPDE process hasbeen adopted by all ServiceorganiZations and several governmentagencies. Bolon concluded the IndustryCEO Panel by noting that the AAAVProgram ha incorporated many of thetechnologies and processes prescribed

I I

"The SMART concept

provides a vehicle for

executing the various

acquisition reform

initiatives that are

part of the Army's

modernization

effort."

-Ellen PurdyOASA(ALT)

I

26 Army RD&A

by SMART. ~Ie also expounded on tbecontinued need for a greateracceptance of thi new process and itstools.

Keynote AddressesIn his remarks, ASA(AlT) Hoeper

emphasized that acquisition reform is acontinuing priority for America's Army.Hoeper referred to SMART as one of theArmy's key initiatives, and he discussedhow SMART supports building thefuture Army and benefits the soldier.

HoUls addressed the issue of M&S asan e sential ingredient in theacquisition process. He noted. thatsome of the recent advances in M&Shave allowed the movement of testingand evaluation (T&E) previouslyconducted in the field, to the computer.He al 0 cited some of the pitfalls inusing simularion for T&E andconcluded rhar making the rigbtinvestment will allow us to capitalize oncomputer capabilities.

Yakovac proposed developing thetechnology to import Virtual targetsinto live tr.lining ranges. This approachprovides more realistic rraining thanthe "pop-up" targers used roday.

Featured SpeakersSeveral addirional subject marrer

experts from government and industrygave presentations during theconference. Charles Nietubicz, ActingDirector, Corporate Information andComputing Center, Army ResearchLaboratory (ARL), acquainted theaudience wirh some of the capabiJitiesof the ARL. He noted that ARL is host toone of four DOD Major SharedResource Centers for High PerformanceComputing (HPC) and provide rheArmy and the DOD research,development, test, and evaluationcommunity with tate-of-tbe·art HPCcapabilities.

An address by Gary Jones, Director ofTechnology, Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary for Defense (Logistics),highlighted the notion tllat in today'senvironment, decisionmakers are datarich and information poor. Heproposed development ofan integrateddata environment that allows universalaccess to meaningful information.

Ellen Purdy, Senior Op rationsRe earch Analyst, Office of Assessmentand Evaluation, OASA(ALT), pre eoreda briefing on "Keeping it inPerspective." She nored, "The SMARTconcepr prOVides a vehicle forexecuting the various acquisition

reform initiatives tI,at are part of the •Army's modernization effort." _

Two additional speakers proVidedluncheon addresses. Thomas Edwards,Deputy to the Commander, CombinedArms Support Command, used ahumorous and thought-provokingformat to deliver his remarks. HisgHmpse of the future brought home a <very seriou' and real problem-tilecon istem lack of logisticalrepresentation during ti,e early stagesof sysrem development.

LTC Nancy Currie, U.S. ArmyAstronaut, d railed her us of M&Sduring the mission planning and>­rehear'al stages of her December 1998shurtle mission. As r.he Shuttle Arm­Operator on this hi torical mi sion,Currie connected the first rwo U.S. andRussian components of the 1

international space station. Currietrained for this operation solely in a ~

synthetic environment. She pointedour that NASA conducts almosr all'mi sion rehearsals and a large portion ~

ofT&E using M&S.

Additional PanelDiscussions ...

Vern Bettencourt, former Director ofthe U.S. Army Modeling and SimulationOffice (AMSO) , and. current ScientificAdvisor to TRAnOC, chaired theAdvanced Concepts and Requirements(ACR) Panel. He preceded the paneldiscussion with remarks on the role of-'the Army tandards Process in theimplementation of MART. Mtetintroducing members of the ACR Panel, •Benencoun initiated the exchange byaddre ing the need for a change in therequirement generation process andits accep'tance by the acquisition'"communiry. 'n,e nexr peaker, Roy.Reynolds, Director, TRAnOC AnalysisCenter, White Sands Missile Range, ~

reinforced the notion of a "tight" linkberween the ACR and the research,development, and acquisition (RDA)..domains. Alan Resnik, Assistant DeputyChief of Sta.ff for Comba.Developments, HQ TRAnOC, providedthe next presenration. He stressed that"'the S P must begin during concept.exploration and continue evolVingthroughout the system's life cycle. The~final ACR !".lnel speaker was Or. HankDubin, Te·chnical Director of the U,S••Army Operational Te t and EvaJuationCommand.. Dubin proposed a new,'"better framework for linkingrequirements, performance specifi­cations, and T&E.

May-jlllle 1999'\

TEMO Panel.Left to right areMG Leroy Goff,HQ TRADOC; BGJames J.Love/ace,ODCSOPS; andBG William Bond,STR/COM.

PAUL D. AMOS was an AcquisitionAnalyst with Science ApplicationsInternCtlional Cmp., McLean, VA,wben be wmte tbis article. Hesupported the Analysis Division,OASA(ALT). A major in the u.s.Army Reserve, Amos holds a B.S. inmarketing from North GeorgiaCollege and is pursuing an M.S. inin/onnalion management fromCentral Michigan University.

WILLIAlvI A. REED i a SeniorAnalyst/Engineer with cienceApplications International C07'p.,McLean, VA. He is currentlysuppor·ting the Analysis Division,OASA(ALT). He holds an M.S. inin/ormation systems from GoldenGate University and a B. incomputer sciencefrom ChaminadeUniversity in Honolulu, HI.

ConclusionIn his summation of the conference

proceedings, Kern termed tileconference a success, noting that itresulted in continued actions toinstirutionalize and evolve SMART. Thenext SMART Conference i tentativelyscheduled for early 2000.

develop and employ the DPD/ EM bebetter defmed.

Author's Note: An after-actio" reviewcontaining all the panels' recom­mendations was submitted to Kernand Hollis (in his /'Ole as Ami)' M&proponent) following completion oftheconference. All recommendations wereapp/'Oved for implemen.tation.

not. They recommended that T&Eparticipation be energized to suppOrtSSP development. They alsorecommended developing a process sothat developers avoid using biasedthreat and environment modeLs.

Participants in the Training e sionrecommended reinforcing AMSO'sintegrating role, exploring distributedsimulation to create a synthetiC trainingenvironment link to the Army BattleCommand System, and haVinginteroperability between legacy andfuture systems.

Those in the Operations Se sionfound that there is a need for higherfidelity image generation to suppOrtnight operations and for an automatedterrain feature extraction capability.They recommended that trainingprograms, leader developmem, andsoldier support be embedded in theSMART vision.

Conferees in the SE Sessionrecommended that command, control,communications, computers, intelligence,surveiUance, and reconnaissance andsynthetic natural environment M&Srequirements be integrated. Finally,this session noted that the Army doenot have a single agency monitoring theArmy's synthetic natural environmemactivities.

Investigating an open team structurethat includes industry, findingopportunities for funding pre­Milestone 0 activities, and changingArmy regulation and TRAOOCpamphlets to suppon SMART werethree recommendations put forth fromparticipants in the RequirementsSession.

FinaHy, participams in the SEMSession recommended that the Armypromote developmem of a digitalproduct description (OPD) and EM asearly in the product developmentprocess as pOSsibLe. They alsorecommended that the technicalarchitecture the community uses to

Breakout SessionslBackBriefs

The conference culminated with backbriefs summarizing the results ofbreakout sessions held during the

.. conference. These working ses ionswere convened to solicit fresh ideas andencourage participants to identifyissues and make recommendations forhow to institutionalize SMART.Breakout session topics includedOperations, Logistics, T&E, SE,Requirements, Training, SmarrEnterprise Modei (SEM), and

... Standards.Participants in the Standards Session

recommended greater participation byprogram managers (PMs) indevelopment of SMART standards. [naddition, they recommended that PMsidentify program threat modelingrequirements as early as possible andtilat SE tratification be reinvigorated toidentify commonality across domains.

Those in the Logistics Sessionrecommended that tIle logisticscommunity be more involved in SSP

.deve!opmenr. They also recommendedleveraging the Operation and Supporr

.( Co t Reduction Program to supportmodel development. Finally, theyrecommended that the DefenseAcquisition University developappropriate course content for

~inclusion in the logistic acquisitioncurricuLum.

T&E Ses ion participants said that theT&E leadership is "onboard" relative tothe SMART effort, but the tester are

The Training, Exercises, and MilitaryOperations erEMO) Panel was chairedby MG Leroy Goff; Deputy Chief of Stafffor Training, HQ TRADOC. Goff

~ reviewed the changing nature of thetraining environment and stated thatthe SMART challenge is to' improveforce readiness by fielding future M&Straining support systems thatincorporate trainabUity, usability, andfightability features. BG James J.

• Lovelace, Director of Training, Office ofthe Deputy Chief of Staff for Operationsand Plans (ODCSOPS), emphasized theneed for early implementation ofSMART in the acquisition process. BG

to William Bond, Commanding General,U.S. Army SimuLation, Training, :md

--< Instrumentation Command, concludedthe TEMO Panel discussion byemphasizing the need to "Join thePieces SMART·ly." He proposed tllat theRDA, ACR, and TEMO domains join(through a synthetic environment (SE»to optimize SMART implementation

... and execution.

II'May-lillie 1999 Artily RD&A 27

Ir

SMARTAND

DUAL-USETECHNOLOGY

Dr. Thomas H. Killion

$88 million ($21 mill.ion from the DUAP,$21 million from Army agencies, and

46 million from industry). Inaddition, the Army received funding forparticipation in 42 projects in FY98with a total value of $83 million ($20million from the DUAP, 20 millionfrom Army agencies, and $43 million ~from industry). Anexampleofaprojectsponsored under the DUAP S&T effortis an initiative undertaken by ITTAutomotive (now part of ContinentalTeves) to adapt automotive antilockbraking systems and low-speed tractioncontrol technology for High MobilityMultipurpose Wheeled Vehicles(HMMWVs) and medium-duty trucks toenhance safety and improve low-speedmaneuvering.

Dual-Use S&T Program •In FY99, fi.mding and responsibility

for the dual-use effort was transferred L

to the Services and the DUAP wasrenamed the Dual-Use (DU) S&TProgram. Under the DU S&1' Program,the Army will continue to pursue cost­shared technology partnerships wiindustry, combining DU 5&1' funding(5.25 percent), Army agency core 6.2funding «25 percent), and industryfunding (250 percent). The matchingfunds from the DU S&T Program and

The use of modelingand simulation

for product design,performanceprediction,and upfront

trade-off analysescan greatly accelerate

the developmentprocess.

variety of dual-use science andtechnology (5&T) efforts. By Jaw, theseprojects were executed through cost­sharing agreement with industry,which contributed at least 50 percent ofthe COSt of each project.

The Army was an aggressiveparticipant in the DUAP 5&1' effort,receiving funding for participation in38 projects in FY97 with a total value of

Dual-Use Program EvolutionAn l;arly dual-use program, the

Technology Reinvestment Project,provided clear evidence that DOD andindustry can work together to developtechnologies that meet both tIleirneeds. In FY97 and FY98, under theauspices of the Dual-Use ApplicationsProgram (DUAP) , the Office of theSecretary of Defense and th Servicescosponsored the establishment of a

IntroductionDual·use technology is defined as

having both military application andsufficient commercial potential tosupport a viable industrial base. Byincreasing the use of these technologiesin Defense systems the Army can takeadvantage of the same competitivepressures and market-driven efficienciesthat have led to accel rateddevelopment and savings in thecommercial sector. This approach,which leverages commercial productioncapabilities, will benefit the Armythrough reduced development costsand potentially reduced productioncosts. The key is to identify where theArmy and industry have mutual interestsand can work together to developtechnologies that meet bmh Defenseand commercial needs.

28 ArmyRD&A...

Mlly-Jtme 1999

~

from industry provide a strong.. incentive for Army agencie to adopt

this new way of doing business. One of.. the central goals of the program is to

attract nontraditional suppliers using"Other Transactions or Cooperative~Agreements," which provide greaterflexibility and fewer burdensomeregulations than traditional contracts.The ITT Automotive effort cited earlier• is an excellent example because thissector of ITT previously had never donebusiness with DOD.

SMARr And Dual-Use• Technology

Both the Army and the private ector• are exploring innovative methods for

redUcing costs and time for productdevelopment. Simulation and Modeling

"for AcqUisition, Requirements andTraining (SMART) is an essential

II- component in the success of these.. acquisition reform efforts. The use of

modeling and simulation for product. design, performance prediction, and

upfrOnt trade-off analyses can greatly....accelerate the development process.The investment by Chrysler Corp. (nowDaimler Chrysler Corp.) in its new devel-

opment facilities and simulation capa­bilities is just one example of theprivate sector's interest in applying

MART-type proce ses to reduce cycletime and development costs.

Under the DU S&T Program, the Armyhas sponsored a number of effortsinvolving the development orenhancement of SMART tools. Theprimary sponsors of these efforts havebeen the National RotorcraftTechnology Center (NRTC) at the NASAAmes Research Center and the NationalAutomotive Center (NAC) at the ArmyTank-Automotive Research, Develop­ment and Engineering Center(TARDEC). The RTC (rotary-Wingvehicles) and the NAC (groundvehides) are major dual·use centersestablished by the Army to collaboratewith and leverage the privare ector inthe development of criticaltechnologies .

NRTC ProjectsRepresentative SMART-related efforts

at NRTC include two projects that arecontributing to the development of asuite of Integrated Helicopter DesignTools (IHDTs). The projects are

directed at developing and demon·strating an integrated conceptualand engineering design environmentfederation, based on commondistributed object de ign principlesthat will support trade·off andsensitivity analysis throughout thedevelopment life cycle of a rororcraft.The project's technology productsinclude demonstration and validationof an integrated, distributed designengineering software environment forrotorcraft. Products will supportinteractive, multidisciplinary, plug-and-play engineering design tools,applications, and databases. Thissupport will result in an estimated 30·percent design process improvementand a projected 2;-percent reduction incomponent design and tework fordevelopment of military and/orcommercial rotorcraft.

As requirements for rotorcraft designshave become more demanding,development costs have increasedsignificantly, and development time hasgone from years to as much as adecade. Sharply constrained budgetsdictate a reversal of this trend ifrotorcraft are to remain competitive

ProgramManagement

Staff 011oactrlneIT.cdca Rana81 &bfb jfj Tra'nlng Conte..

DIS~:::~~.. lsEI

Electronic BattlefieldLocal-semlautomatedl

Distributed

o

l"""!'~""'''''-~~''' ObJect~rientedl:mil 1<;1 Infrastructure

KJ ~1[6Je;~1The APDF

facflitates PMImmersion

in theDevelopment

Process

I Rapidly ReconfigurableVCrew Station Simulation

User Interaction ..l..L I J

rnl. O~~--~ IgI IJ

Collaborative l..--.#~:::~Co~nc~O~~"~-\"-L~':;~~~'_~~~~Design

Environment '-.::::;"-"

Des~n 11:1)]Optlmization. ffiiiI IBDS-D BanJefJdd Distributed Simulalion-Developm<nw I

L ~~====~===:::!~ DIS Disuibur.ed lmeractiv. Simulation

, 'I:." ---::==================~==============::::JNAG automated product development framework (APDF)

May-JUlie 1999 Army RD&A 29

•

and affordable. The mOT Programsupports the vision of the Anny Mate.rielCommand's Task Force on WeaponsSystems Acquisition Cycle Improve­ment "[T]o field better and affordablecombat materiel in the shortest time."Applying this technology to futureplatfonn programs, such as the JointTransport Rotorcraft, may result inestimated savings of 250 million p ryear during a 3-year development lifecycle.

NAC ProjectsSimilar to NRTC, the NAC is

developing advanced modeling andsimulation tools for productconceptualization and design and trade­off analyses. NAC has initiared anambitious, integrated program involvingfour interlocking, intermeshed effortsthat will, when completed, constitute anunequaled "man-in-the-Ioop" simulationand collaborative design capabillty toupport the SMART process (see figure

On Pag 29).The first project focuses on the

development of an Automated ProductDevelopment Framework (APDF) foradvanced ground vehicles. This projectis directed at developing capabUities tofiU the mo t critical technological gapinhibiting the creation andimplementation of the SMART vision.This gap is the inability to effectivelycombine the different engineering andfunctional domains that make up theacquisition process. The resulting-ystem will provide the Army designcommunity 'vith the eqUivalent of anInternet capable of handling theexchange of information that isconsidered e sential for participation intomorrow' conunercial world. Thiswill allow program/project/productmanagers (PMs) and program executiveofficer to be more involved in theproduct development process and toaccess remote modeling and simulationtools to monitor the progress of asystem and its conformance to systemrequirements. This will ultimatelyreduce design time.

The second NAC project addresses thedevelopment of a Virmal DistributedCollaborative Environment (VDCE).Under this effort, an analyticalprototyping and simulationenvironment is being developed, whichis interactive and prOVides real-timedocumentation of each elemem in theprocess. The VOCE will allowdistributed users supporting Armyprojects to have the ability tocollaborate using realistiC Army modelsin real time in an integrated dataenvironment.

30 Ann! RD&A

The integrated, efficienttechniques and tools

embodied in theSMART concept

are readily applicableto both commercial

and militaryproduct developments.

Thi project will also allow theinclusion of part visualization in theAPDF described previously, providing aconnection between the product dataand design rationale developed in theAPDF and the e-commerce network thatwill suPPOrt products in the field. Partvi ualization will help realize thesignificant reductions of costs insourcing and order processing alreadydemonstrated in the commercial sector.

The rhird AC project involvesdevelopment of an Advanced Ground­Vehicle Research Visual System, whichwill provide a highly realistic andaccurate depiction of a virtual world forsimulation-based ground vehicleoperations, testing, training, andrelated activities. This system willprovide a realistic, interactive,"im_mersive" virtual sinluLation of thereal-world environment for groundvehicle operarors, allowing repeatable,ea ily instrumented testing of man­nlachine interfaces.

Implementation of this visualizationcapability will enhanc TARDEC'sability ro bring the customer (thesoldier) into the design anddevelopment loop to evaluate systemdesign and operation capabilities.Enhanced visualization capabilities willmove sy tem designers, developers,evaluators, and customer toward thetime- and cost-efficient "virtual provingground," and away from significantlymore expen ive and time-consumingfunctional testing done with prototypeor production vehicle system .

The final. project, the Vehicle andHeavy EqUipment Virtual ProvingGround (YHEVPG), seeks to create aninternationally unique capability bylinking four of the world's mostadvanced driver and "hardware-in-the­loop" simularors a,'ailable at TARDEC

with ti,e University of Iowa, and by rcreating common high-fidelity, off-roadVPG environments.

The Army will use the resultingenvironment as a synthetic banlefield, ~

and other government agencies andindustrial firms will US it for productdevelopment. The VHEVPG will ..integrate distributed interactivesimulation, physics-based modeling,and virtual environment beingdeveloped by the NAC, the National •Science Foundation, and theIndusuylUniversiry Cooperative ResearchCenter for Virtual Proving Ground­Simulation, with both governmem andindustry participation.

The VHEVPG project will include"proof of concept" demonstrations forsystems design, acqui ition, and life­cycle suPPOrt proce es. The linkedcapabilities of these simulators will ~allow modeling and imulation of awide range of expected operatingscenario for nearly all heavy-duty ~

military ground-based vehicle systems.

ConclusionThe integmted, efficient techniques'"

and tools embodied in the SMARTconcept are readily applicable to botllcommercial and military producr,....developments. The Army dual-useeffort, through the RTC and NAC, iscoinvesting with the private sector inthe development of tools to enable theSMART concept. Ultimately, this effortwill provide new design environments'and methods ro shorten the acquisitionprocess and reduce de"elopment cost,thereby benefiting both the Defense"and commercial secror .

-----------------,

DR. THOMAS J-I. KlLLION has •served since inception ofthe DUAPas the Army's Dual-Use Program'Manager' in the Office of theDeputy Assistant ecretary of theArmyfor Research and Technology.'He was recently detailed to the "­Advanced Systems and ConceptsOffice 0/ the Defense Threat'Reduction Agency as anOperations Reseanh Analy t; Hehas a Ph.D. in experimenta(psychology from the University 0/Oregon.

May-June 1999

SOMEBRIEF

OBSERVATIONSON THE FUTURE

OF ARMYSIMULATION

Bran Ferren

Note: Ibis article is an excerptjrom an addendum t.o the 1997Summer Study on Battlefiehl

isualizatiQltprepared by the Anny~ Science Boa"d, oj which Bran

Ferren is a member. It has been• embellisbed somewhat to accom­

modate the jon" and style oj thispublication.

Introduction• There are two kinds of people in dleworld: Those who believe there are

~ two kind of people, and those who do~ not. Beyond this, I really do believe

there are two kinds of people, who aredivided by the way they approach new,Product development. Requirementspeople and Big Idea people.

_ Requirements folks believe inresearching meir subject thoroughly.

"They talk to their customers, do.. research, study the competition, build

prototypes, hold focus groups, etc. Theendgame to their efforts is arequirementS document. Once agreed

• to by their management, this•document is "tossed over dle transom"to omers tasked with building it. When

~the document is completed anddelivered, everyone eagerly waits to~ee if the product is successful. If so,

... the requirements were met andeverybody basks in the reflected glory'of a job well done. If not, the searchbegin' for the guilty party. The

~ reqUirementS process (and people) arefamiliar to most who are employed by,or work with, the Army. (You can tell if

r you are in a Requirements organization

•May-lillie 1999

if you have viewgraph projectors inyour conference rooms.)

Big Idea folks use an altogemerdifferent process. They firmly believethat it's a waste of time to talk to dleircustomers. Doing this will never resultin innovation, ju t incrementaladvances, and mis bores mem. Big Ideapeople are convinced that mey know alot more dlan anyone else about dleirsubject and the best ming anyone elsecan do is follow tbeir creative vision.The motion picture busine s dependson a Big Idea creative process. Youdon't ask the audience to direct themovie. You hire the best people withcreative vision you can find, give mem alot of money, and basically trust meirinstincts (usually based upon meirtrack record and me effectiveness ofmeir "pitch"). (Instead of viewgraphs inthese conference rooms, you findartWork, models, budgets, and often­great passion.)

It's important to note mat neidlerprocess is intrinsically superior. Eachcan be appropriate to address a widevariety of challenges. In fact, some ofthe greatest organizations have learnedhow to accommodate me strengdls ofboth kinds of minking. The only titdecomplication in merging me memodsof these two kinds of people togedleris basically dley hate eadl other! Theyapproach the world from suchdifferent perspectives that theyfrequently don't share a commonlanguage, let alone mutual respect orcompatible work memods. In myexperience (coming from an

organization dlat absolutely reqUiresbodl types of thinking), me only way toget this kind ofcolJabomtion to work isto establish a clearly defined process..In this approach, borh partiesunderstand that mey will eventually beheard and dlat dleir ideas will be givena fair hearing, Even dlen, it's still very,very tough.

Interestingly enough, dle .S. Armyhas on occasion had great success inmilizing born Big .Ideas andRequirements on a single project. Takefor example me former Chiefof Staffofthe Army, retired GE GordonSullivan, who had the inspired vi ionto "Own The ight." That was a BigIdea. As he said, just give him a way tofight equally well at nighr as during meday. and he'd be happy. All Big Ideascan be expressed clearly in onesentence. His Big Idea was an easilyunderstandable vision that in turn gaveme Requirements people working innight vision, mdar, communications,etc., what dley needed to get to work.

This roundabout introdUCtion is myway of suggesting mat it's time forsome new Big Ideas in Army Modelingand Simulation (M&S). Basically, I'msuggesting iliat there are techniquesavailable that could significantlychange me way we mink about bomthe art and sdence and me value ofsimulation.

OverviewClearly, mere are significant M&

issues fating me AmlY as we move intothe future. Many of mese are being

Army RD&A 31

addressed by my colleagues with awealth of accumulated experience ingovernment M&S, r would like toextend the discussion a bit to includesome topics that perhaps lie outside ofwhat is generally discussed, I feelstrongly that these topics could havemeasurable impact on both thedirection, and effectiveness, of theArmy's future mission.

Let's face it, simulation is a very newfield. Even though some of us are stillwaiting for this "computer thing" toblow over, most are convinced thatsimulation is valuable and here to stay.Nonetheless, we need to remindourselves that we are still prettyclueless about its full potential,Evangelizing about this stuff is a littlelike trying to convince the WrightBrothers that frequent flyer miles isgoing to be the path to their long-termsucces . It's in tructive to note that weare just barely beyond the Kitty Hawkstage of Army M&S. The fun part iswhat lies ahead,

lb get there, we must continue toinvest in M&S research anddevelopment (R&D), and not foolourselves into thinking that theresearch is done and that now it'ssimply a matter of productization,We've barely scratched the surface ofwhat is possible. The good news is thatthere is real momentum building, Thedanger is that we are starting to believethat we have all of the right answerswhen it's not clear to me that we'reeven asking all of the right questions.Please take these observations in thespirit with which they are intended: aninformal heads-up on some ubjectsthat could have impact on our futuresuccess. As always, I will happily deferto people more expert than r aboutwhy it may, or may not, be sensible (oreven possible) for the Army to pursuethese approaches.

Approaches To SimulatorDesign And Development

So where are we in the evoluticn ofsimulators a11fYW«Y? Is this a mature,well-understood science, or are wesHU learning and, if so, what?I'm afraid some people are so caughtup in the successes of simulation thatthey may forget that M&S is an art andscience in its infancy. While some of usneed to spend our energies fieldingthe current generation of systemshardware, the rest of us need to keepdreaming, With the current pace oftechnology. if we can dream it today,

we can build it tomorrow!Our near-term issues tend to revolve

around one central question: Howgood does a simulation have to be tobe an effective training tool? Fordiscussion purpo es, I'd like todescribe what seems to me to be thegenerational evolution of militarytraining simulation-past, present, andfuture, Granted, the boundaries arefuzzy, but dividing our progress intothese categories has helped me thinkabout what may come next.

This issue of ''what's next" has alwaysbeen an elusive one. For example, inthe entertainment industry, thepioneers of live theater neveranticipated the success or impact ofmotion pictures. Later, dle Hollywoodstudio people didn't appreciate theimportance of a new invention called"Television," And in turn, the Network]V folks didn't think cable would beanything other than a technical meansto provide programming to areas withweak reception, Instead, cable hasturned out to be a narrowcastingmedium, which is rapidlyovershadowing broadcasting in bothviewership and scope. It's anybody'sguess today if you ask a cableexecutive, "What' oextt'

Here's the list. (By my assessment, atthis point in time we are just gettingready to move into the SixthGeneration of training simulation,)

Generation I: The first real trainingsimulators arrive-The link, Aviationterrain boards, and various teleoperatedminiatures, Also, a whole collection ofdedicated hardware-based "trainer"usually designed to perform one ormore very specific tasks.

Generation II: Simulators incor­porating electronic image generators,Infinity optics, multi-OaF motionbases, etc, These new technologies areemployed to bring a new degree ofrealism to the simulations, as well as toprovide much greater flexibility inmodel complexity and systemdynamics, Somewhere betweenGeneration II and Generation Ill, westart to see serious integration ofweapons systems, avionics, sensors,and a variety of realistic threats.

Generation III: More immersiveexperiences, including virtual reality(YR) head-mounted displays and verywide field of view (FOY) imaging (Le"multiprojector domes).

Generation IV: Multiple GenerationIT or ill devices networked togetherusing shared databases, Higher fidelity,

Simulation Network (SIMNET),Distributed Interactive Simulation'"(DIS), etc, We start to see higlllyimmersive interactive environments(YR, Core Automated Virtual ~

Environment (CAVE), etc.) evolving tothe point of usefulness.

Generation V: (This is where we are ~

now). Introduction of stochastics toproVide uncertainty, virtual realitysynthetic humans, adaptive databases •(e.g" synthetic "mud" that a tank canget stuck in and leave tracks),increased use of texture and dynamiclighting effects to enhance reality, early ­photorealism, early on-platformembedded simulation. Photorealisticand multispectral imaging capability'have allowed simulation to movebeyond training into becoming aserious mission rehearsal tooL

What's AheadGeneration VI: SpeCial environ­

mental effects and "eight senses'"multisensory coordinated stimulation 'to enhance reality. 1 say "eight senses"because it seems to me that we use this"'"number to do the kind of work that isrelevant to simulation-based training.These are sight, hearing, smell,'"taste, touch, temperature, orientation!balance, and our sense of the passageof time. Why on earth do we persist insaying that people have only fivesenses? This includes the use ofcomplex-wide dynamic-range inputsand special effects to increaseimmersion and human sensory ~

loading. The intent of all of this is toprovide an emotionally rich experiencethat can increase the stress loading ofthe participants, There is an emphasis'on story-based scenarios with a high •degree of interactivity andunpredictability. It will employ fully'embedded simulation with veryrealistic sensory channels. (This hasn'thappened in training applications yet:but is easily in reach as it is a known artin entertainment industry Simulators.) ..This approach was first seen several.years ago in simulation-basedattractions created for Theme Parkentertainment venues. For example~

Disney's "Star Tours"" or Universal's"Back to the Puture '" ") ,

Generation VII: Embedded (on­platform) simulation capable dfl­running hyper-real time scen,trios tohelp the soldier make in-processbattlefield decisions, (Not onl}~

possible, but nearly trivial, in 10 to 20years-please see "BIG IDEA ALERT" in

May-/lme 1999

Let's face it,simulation is avery new field.Even thoughsome of us

are still waitingfor this

"computer thing"to blow over,

most are convincedthat simulation is

valuable andhere to stay.

benefit of higher fidelity be? Also,are there alternatives to tra­ditional approaches to increasingsimulationfulelity? First of all, whatis the Army's d fu1ition of fidelity intraining simulation? I have yet to findone definition (but 1 have foundmany). Most people I've talked toequate fidelity with visual imagingquality (expressed as pixels, polygons,dynanlic range, lumens, frame rate,etc.). 1 don't buy dlis. Life isn't justabout pixels. It's abour how accurately(technically, experientially, andemotionally) the simulator conveys dleexperience of doing the real thing. Ithink that there is an argument to bemade thaI enhancing both sensoryloading (beyond the visual channel)and emotional resolution (a keycomponent of fidelity when you'retalking about human beings) willprovide a more effective trainingexperience.

By emotional resolution I mean howlhe information being delivered isperceived by lhe observer. Think backto things you saw on TV that reallymoved you, things that createdmemories and feelings that were somoving as to be unforgettable. For me,watching Neil Arm trong set foot onthe moon, watching PreSidentKennedy's assassination, and witness­ing the Challenger disaster all qualiJy.

beyond Generation V w-ill helptrain solders better, faster, and/orcheaper? Should we stop theprogress of next generationsimulation R&D because what wehave now is simply good enough tomeet the Army's needs for theforeseeable futu1'e? One approacll isto build some tricked-out "nextgeneration" Simulators, run peoplethrough them, and then do someperformance tests to find out if traininghas been enhanced. Of course, it willtake some real thought and time tofigure out how to really measuresimulator training effectiveness. I havemy doubts that this can be done aseasily as many would like to dlink. It'soften quite frustrating to quami1)rhuman experiences. But I think theremay also be a less analytical approach,more like dle Core Business approachused by some in industry to deCidewhat must be kept in house versuswhat's OK 10 fatnl out. If we believethat M&S is, and will continue to be,core to the Army's future business,then we must keep developing eachnext generation of simulators tounderstand their value. Besides, what ifHenry Ford had thought the cars of hisday were good enough and didn't starthis own company? Or more to thepoint, what if no one had ever declaredthat OUI Army needed to "Own TheNight"? The war in Iraq mighl have hada very different outcome.

Does the ARMY really need higherfidelity simulation? Don't testsshow little or no benefit fromhigher fidelity? It's been trendy overthe past few years to claim we don'tneed ,I lot ofbells and whistles in oursimulators to do effective tmining. I'vehean/ lots of talk like "things likemotion bases and higb definitionimaging just add costs witboutbenefits. " Far be it for me to doubt tbewords of our experts, btlt let's not fallimo tbe tmp of tbinking one canevaluate "success" by just looking at afew test scores. Wbile tbis is certainlybelpftll information, it does notnecessarily tell tiS what we mally needto know. Just because a soldier cansboot a simulator well doesn't meanbe can sboot a real gun well. Andjustbecause he can sboot a realgun well intraining, doesn't mean be can do it ontbe battlefield, in combat. We need tobave tbe world's best watfigbters-notjust the world's best simulatorjockeys!Just whal do we really mean bJI

high fidelity, and what might the

A little Q&A And AnArgument With Myself

next section.) Storytelling method­or ology will come into common use for

designing immersive simulationenvironments for tr"dining applications.

~ By this pOint, immersive displaytechnology and high-performancecomputing will now be readily

~ available to the warfighter (individuallyor crew served).

Generation VIII: You believe thesimulation is the real thing, The only

~ difference to the trainee is he or she(hopefully) won't really die if theymake a big mistake. (This will happen

• 30 years into the future, if we payattention; 50 if we don't).

.. So, should we 'wish to, we couldnow tUJ Generalion VI trainingsimulation. Why should we care? Ithink there is a real need in the Army

• for new "Generation VI" type ofsimulation to train our soldiers moreeffectively in conditions of human

• sensory overload (you know, likeduring battle). By definition, oldiersare professional sensor fusers. The

... modern electronic battlefield (not tomention military operations odler thanwar (M001W» is going to tax theoverload recovery of the soldier andcommander up to (and beyond) their

,limits. The ability for our people toeffectively fuse information (not justdata) is their only chance of making

.. consistently correct decisions. It isimportant to note that while theamount of information is risingexponentially on the modern

• electronic Net-Centric battlefield, theamount of knowledge is remainingrelatively constant. We have pretty

• much the same number of countries,bad guys, and issues as we always have.Imagine a haystack widl a constant

•number of needles, but withexponential hay growth. A scientist

~ would call it a rapidly deteriorating• signal-to-noise ratio. That's the

battlefield of the future and we need totrain to be ready for it.

We MUST upgrade our simulation, capability to give our troops a sense of

what this will feel like before they haveto do it for real. Our current

~ imulators are woefully inadequate inthis regard. On our best day, weiprovide the soldier with a largelYj

•intellectual experience. What's neededis an emotional one as well.How do tve know that technology

May-Jlllle 1999 Army RD&A 33

trade the ability to achieve bigemotional responses for accuracy."Rich, complex sensory inputs aredominant. Adrenaline is good. Youwant [Q make it scary? 'fum out the ..lights and bring in the boogie man.This is about master stOrytelling, notjust technical resolution. It' Stephen ~

King time rather than Albert Einstein.The relevant skill set is the verybedrock upon which Hollywood'ssuccess is built: storytelling. To make •this work, you need all of thecapabilitie required to do phy ics·based Simulation (although, granted, ­you can often lighten up on thecientist ), D a multidisciplinary

team of great storytelling professionals. _Tbese folks include writers, specialeffects people, lighting designers,motion control engineers, sounddesigners, and theatrical control ~system specialists. Much attention getsfocused on the "look and feel" and"environmental" aspects of the·simulation experience. The motto is"Fake it-uyou can get away with it."

• Bad SUnulation. To some degree, •this is what most of us in thesimulation business do most of thetime (sigh...). Although it's the most-..common form of simulation, itcertainly isn't what rno t of u start outstriving for! The resources andinfrastructure necessary to do badsimulation are readily availableworldwide. Perhaps not urprisingly;the co ts can be even greater thansucce fully implementing either of theother twO approaches. From an Army .,perspective, we've made great progresson the scientific simulation front.However, on the storytelling side,'we've barely cratched the surface. Thisisn't surprising as storytelling has, tothe best of my knowledge, never even "been identified as a relevant dimensionof training simulation. Let's fix this. Iguess part of the problem is that we.don't even have a good vocabulary tobegin the discussion. Even the word ~

storytelling seems too soft and fuzzy touse in polite Anny company. This is too .bad because every gre-at military leaderI've ever met or read about (as well asevery great teacher for that matter) isL

(or was) a great storyteller. Effectivetorytelling is a core competency of

leadership! }..J.

Could a storytelling·basedapproach to simulation prOvidetraining advantages to the Army? If.you believe that creating a more

it follow that the stimulatory input tothe trainee should be as rich andcomplete as is practical.

By employing Special Effectstechnology as an alternative to bruteforce elevation of audiovisual fidelity, 1believe we can achieve a superior effectat a much lower co t.

The question remains: Will it trainour soldiers better? Let' not pend toomuch time worrying about it and justquickly build one to fLOd out. If it isn'treadily apparent that it i substantiallybetter, then we bave our answer.

So bow good is good enough? Isthere no point of diminishingrernrns? Well. for mo t application ,reality is good enough. When oursimulations reach the quality level atwhich they are indistingui hable fromreality (to a calibrated humanobserver-or me!), we don't need togo any further. We aren't even close tothis level of reality in most trainingsimulations today. The good news isthat we can do much useful simulationwork with appreciably less than perfectresults. But the debate surroundinghow good i good enough will persistuntil we achieve perfection (and cantben back off; hould we so choose).

Are there jimdamentally differentways of approaching simulation(Sllch as those employed in theentertainment ind~try) or do allof us "skilled in the art" ofsimulation llSe the same process,approach, and methods? Ifyou pokearound, three different schools ofdesigning imulations seem to emerge.They are as follows:

ScientificlReality-Based Sim­ulation. By this approach, thescientific accuracy of the model rules.You try as hard as you can to faithfullyreproduce what the real world systemactually doe (or would do). Accuracycounts more than ae thetics. Reality,rather than the perception of reality, isd,e goal. To make thi tuff work reallywell, you need real cientists, expertswith a Jot of eJqJerience, good data,patienc , and a big wallet. Physicsrules, and it is generally agreed thateverything in the simulation should bemeasurable and reducible toquantitative parameters.

• Story-Based Simulation. Thesepeople take a very different approach.They feel free to exercise completetheatrical licen e. Reality is oftencon idered somewhat irrelevant, butth perception of reality is critical. We

The technic.'1l resolution of all of theseexperiences was ordinary. Theemotional re olution, however, wasextraordinary and indelibly etchedthese events into my p~1'che.

I believe that the fidelity of a givensimulation should be viewedholistically. That is, it should be thoughtof simultaneously from its technicaland emotional perspectives to achieve abalanced view of its effectiveness. Forexample, if you want to u imulationto teach someone what it's like to drivean old Bradley under real battleconditions, you need to consider theentire experience, not ju t imagingaccuracy and control response. In thereal world, the Bradley crew will likelyfind that the weapon sight eyepiecefogs over (especially in July at FortBenning-or in Bo nia), the controlsare loose and slippery; the provided-by­lowest-bidder intercom stinks, and thediesel exhaust fumes flowing back intotheir faces aren't much help either. It'sreally noisy, it shakes them around, andthe damn engine lugs down wheneverthey turn it hard. Also, when they shoota 25 nun cannon or fire a missile about2 feet from their head (and they'reeffectively sitting in a tin can), itbecomes VERY LOUD.

Our present Bradley simulators donot even attempt to duplicate thisexperience. They are calm, wellmannered, and behave predictably.This is more than I can say for any ofthe five or ix: Bradleys I've driven.Today's imulation bardware reallyteaches our troop how to driveBradley simulator not necessarilyBradleys. Granted, this i valuable butit could be so mucb more.

This higher level of fidelity that "reallife" provides is increasingly (and cost­effectively) approachable in simulationsby utilizing modern special effectstechnology. This expertise wasdeveloped by the motion picture,th.eater, rock & roll, and theme parkcommunities to do more compelling,creative storytelling to keep pace or beabead of an audience's risingeJqJectations. The reason to apply thesetechniques and technologies to ourtraining simulations is straightforward.It is to create simulation eJqJeriencesthat would expose the trainee to anexperience that much more closelyemulates the sensations of what actualwarfighting i all about. If we believethat much of th value of Simulation isto develop a good set of reflexes, then

34 AnllY RD&Ar

May-Julie 1999

millions and get them to do mings theywouldn't otherwise be capable o~ notto mention keep meir ventures (orempires) well funded and positionedfor success.

Is the use of "Requirements~ todefine the development of certainM&5 systems an ouunoded concept,and if so, are any of the alternativesused by industry applicable to theArmy? IF we all agree mat we need tobe able to get from the R&D phase toworking hardware, it would seemworthwhile to consider transitioningfrom oue current requirements-baseddevelopment process to a rapidprototypingtparrnering model forsome of these experiments. Anessential aspect of mese collaborationsis the effective use of rapidprototyping. Basically, you THINK OFIT > MOCK IT UP > TRY IT OUT >DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN (QIDCKLY).

This process of rapid iteration turnsout to be very effective in quicklydiscovering what research efforts workwell enough to pursue for furtherdevelopment. It requires a specialbreed of "can do" people and greatsupport technology; but it can workspectacularly well. Incidentally, therapid prototyping approach seems tobe suitable for both hardware- andsoftware-hased projects.

AnllY RD&A 35

50 bow does one decide whichapproach is superior? A basic issue isthe cost of failing versus me price ofguaranteeing success. The govern­ment requirements-based contractingsystem is designed to prevent failure bydefining what is desired in theminutest detail. While on the surfacethis seems like a sensible thing to do, itcan have some big drawbacks:

• Ln that you will be heldaccountable for failing, me tendency isto be conservative. With longprocurement cycles, this almostguarantees the delivery of somewhatoutdated systems.

• To avoid misunderstandings andclose loopholes, projects tend togenerate staggering quantities ofpaperwork. This is expensive toproduce, process, and respond to. Itcan add enormous cost and, due toexcessive complexity, invites errors.

• Things change (faster thanrequirements documents can)!

What' the alternative? More andmore commercial companies aresuccessfully turning to a partneringwork model. You elect and qualify

By employingSpecial Effectstechnology asan alternativeto brute forceelevation ofaudiovisual

fidelity, I believewe can achievea superior effect

at a muchlower cost.

shortchanged and value engineered todeath. I'm suggesting that as a partialsolution to this dilemma, we couldmake more effective u e of OUf limitedresources by thinking lessquantitatively and more qualitatively.This is where the skills of the storytellercome intO play. 1have heard more thanone combat veteran proclainl that thefirst 20 minutes of Steven pielberg'sfilm "Saving Private Ryan" i the bestdepiction of war they've ever seen.This is an example of masterstorytelling-by a team of masterstorytellers.

As mis skill set applies to Armytraining simulation, me ·'theatrical"result might be less technicallyaccurate, but could still be a moreeffective training tool. I would arguethat in many (but clearly not all) of theArmy's applications, this would be anacceptable trade. We might get morebang for our buck, and better soldiermotivation as well.If you're at all tempted to dismiss the

relevance of storytelling skills to theArmy, keep in mind matal/ofour mostcompelling political and militaryleaders have b en master storytellers. Ibelieve that great storytelling skills arevirtually synonymous with leadershipskills (Lincoln, Reagan, Eisenhower,Churchill, and-God forbid-evenHitler, were brilliantly effectivespeakers/storyteller). All of theseleaders had the ability to inspire

1

May-Jlllle 1999

compelling and realistic simulationxperience could be valuable, the

answer is yes. My gut (fully biased)instinct is that this is a productive

.. direction to explore. Let's find out.Why not put together a diversemultidisciplinary team (including folks

y with strong storytelling skills) and tryit. Doing more effective torytellingand training within today's technicallimitations would be their obj ctive.

~ We might just get to see what happenswhen the best of the best in the Army,Industry, and Hollywood decide to

·collaborate. The key would be to bringtogether the right people in the rightkind of facility to do a collaborative

• development project. It would beinteresting to see what happens whenyou empower people who put

..storytelling fLrSt and ask them to createa simulated training experience,people who are concerned as muchabout the impression of reality as

• reality itself, That's nice. But give me a real

simulation example. Say you are in-our new Bradley (or better stll! anMlA2) simulator and you want a greatsound of an explosion (the nice "teeth

...rattling" kind). You basically have twochoices. The "scientific" approach is togo into the field and faithfully record areal explo ion and then play it back inthe simulator. It might even sound OK.;Ibe storytelling approach is to go to aHollywood sound effects studio and

• "build" an emotionally compellingeffect from a collection of library

• noises, ynthesizers, computerizedsignal processors, etc. When you hearthe final result played back in theimulator (or movie theater), [

guarantee the created sound wlIl bemore "real" than the original. If it's

.done right, the audience is never awareof the process. The final result justseems right for the situation.• Many (often most) of the decisionsmade hy the Simulator design team are

~ compromises because oue technologycan't do everything we want it to as'well as we would like, and when it can,we often can't afford it. This is ceetainlytrue of the inlagery part of ourimulators. With appropriate wallet

power, they could get 10 times betterand still not be close to the fidelity we

-humans experience every day by justwaking up and opening our eyes. Sowe make value judgments based upon~bat we think is inlpOrlant, what wecan do, and what we can afford to do.

• More often than not, everyone feels

preferred vendors and then youproceed forward together tounderstand the problem and createsolutions. When it works weU, you cansave enonnous amounts of time andmoney and get a deliverable that isoften a much bener fit with the enduser's real (a opposed to paper)requirements. It also allows you toreact quickly to new discoveries anddevelopments as you move towardcompletion. This approach has allowedDisney to deliver complex theme parkattractions in the requisite 3 to 4 years,and effectively farm out 80 percent ofthe work to contractors.

The downside to this hared risk"going where no person has gonebefore" stuff, is that on any givenproj ct you will periodically fail-thedreaded (often career-ending) "F"word. Failure costs both time andmoney, occasionally lots of both. 1£ it isa really fundamental screw up, it couldjeopardize an entire program. So whytake this chance? Becau e the upsidesavings in time and money (andperformance gains realized) often canCae outweigh the risks. In addition,there is often a value in fulling. R&Disn't the same as war. To the contrary;the lessons learned by periodicallyfailing at a really tough and challengingproject can teach you a great deal,without being severely damaging. Thekey is to realize quickly whensomethmg isn't working and move on.

J believe that if an R&D enterpriseisn't failing (and recovering) at a fairlyregular rate, it isn't tackling problemsdlat are hard enough.

New Simulator TechnologiesAnd Applications

Are there relevant sources ofsimulatiou technology outside DODor the industries with which we arealready connected? Can the Armyleverage commercial technologydevelopment efforts to enhance theperformance of its projects? Yes, andwe should proactively design certainArmy simulation systems to takeadvantage of new low-cost processes,tools, and hardware. Some facts to helpcalibrate our point of view: the SonyPlayStation n or Nintendo Ultra-64home game machines each cost lessthan 200. Either will outperform atypical 5-year-old desktop ComputerGraphi Interface (CGI) workstation,originaUy costing about 35,000. Thereare massive efforts underway in thegaming industry to create tools and

36 ArmyRD&A

authoring environments for theseplatforms that are scaleable and veryuser friendly They were designed withDIS in mind. There is ongoingexperimentation to place these systemsin a multiplayer DIS environment viathe Internet. Already, there is moresimulation software (called games)written for these machines than hasever been written for any DefenseImage Generation (lG).

Am I seriously suggesting that weconvert the Army's simulation IGprocess to run on consumer and toycomputation platforms? WeU, kind ofLet's face it, it is becoming a PC-/game­based computation wodd. TheMicrosofts and Imels of the world havewon. The faster we can get with theprogram and start leveraging thistechnology and TALE T pool thefaster we will be able to drive the costsdown and the performance up. Thissru/f isn't r ady to solve most of ourproblems yet. Wim our input, however,it could become usable in the very nearfuture. We should be studying andexperimenting widl it NOW. Imaginethe visual computation power of 200Nintendo machines networkedtogemer to work as a single IG. Thissystem could outperform ANYArmy IGin u e today. The consumer technologycompanies won't do this kind ofdevelopment work. The governmentsinlUlation market just i n't big enoughto get them to pay anention. Besides,mey're probably not me best folksaround to run Defense progranlS. Tomake this stuff work, we will have toidentify the appropriate new resourcesand develop new relationship andnew mechanisms for collaboration.But ifwe can do so, the increase in ourco t/performance ratio for applicablesimulations will be huge.

Finding the right balance of COTS(Commercial Off.The.Shelf) VersusGOTS (Government Off-The-Shelf).Perhaps it's an unspoken law of nature,but it seems that our government hasto be completely bipolar on majorpolicy issues. The COTS versus GOTSdebate is no exception. I would like tocaution that while I believe mere isenormous leverage to be gained frommigrating entertainment industrystorytelling kills and consumerelectronics/gaming technology intoArmy imutation thinking, there willalways be some Army-specific skills thatbould be kept in-house. For example,

don't expect entertainment people to

know about weapon systems, training,doctrine, inteUigence, or warfightetrategic skills. However, knowing how ..

to create compeU.ing experiences; dolow-cost, high-performance comput- ~

ing; support large- cale networksimulations; build graphics-modelingsoftware is (or will be) their stock and..trade. Ln mese areas not only will it befutile for me Army to try to compete,but a waste of energy and .resources.We need to focus on understanding ~what the core Army simulation skillsset is (and will be) and remain worldclass at dlat. We also need to be sinlply"brilliant at getting other industries' ,technology and skills leveraged againstour real-world challenges. For many.who are more accustomed to doing mereverse, mis will be a new experience. .

Lf I had to guess at an ideal ratio for_the future, it would be 10 percentGaTS and 90 perc nt COTS. Just don't ...underestimate how hard it will be to beworld class at that Army 10 percent. In·terms of attracting and retaining top,talent, procurement, and systemsintegration, it will probably be among­the toughest technical missions the •Army will face.

....Are there S01Jte huge new

applications jor simulation thatwe're stmply overlooking? BIG LOEAALERT! How about a distributed andadaptive battlefield C4I+S (CornmandrControl, Computers, Communications,Intelligence, and Simulation) archi­tecture utilizing EMBEDDED HYPER-.REAL-TIME SIMULATION (HRTS) toassist the warfighter while in theaterand in ballie? Why should imulationbe limited to oJJ.line mission planniniapplications? And for goodness sakes, ,let's stop thinking that the Holy Grailof simulation is to get it to run in real­time. I want orders of magnitudebetter man realtime! Here's why: '

Consider a network of battlefieldsystems with enough computerhorsepower onboard that virtually l

every component can run high-,performance simulations as abackground task. When I say high\.;performance, I mean they can run atone hundred (or one million) timesreal-time speed, the sorts of ..simulations that now run at onehundredth of real time. With !hi'~

capability onboard you could runscenarios to predict the possible"outcomes of a ballie while fighting andquite possibly make decisions matwould positively affect the outcome.•

rMay-Jlllle 1999

Now you're thinking "yeah right," you...can't run simulations that fast even on

~ our biggest supercomputers. I agreeit's impractical now. But in 15 or 20

... years, it wilJ be technically trivial.Thanks to a whole variety of rules ofthumb like Moore's Law, we practically

~ know this for a fact. Given the leadtime to field new technology in theAnny, we should be working on the

• necessary topologies and architecturesNOW

Imagine a scenario where thebattlefield C4l+S network is

·continuously reoptimized as it works.~ Areas of congestion or excessive

latency would be automatically routed• around. In this manner, the "stress" on

the technical systems and warfighters... could be better accommodated.

_Software-based control panels (touchscreens?) would automatically label

It themselves and display dle m.in.jmumamount of information necessary to do

> the complete job at hand. Spectrumwould be intelligently andtransparently reallocated where it

ould do the most good. Information• Warfare attacks and computer virus

threats would be automatically... identified and fought with the software

equivalent of a biologically immunesystem (running as a simulationbackground task) AND fieldedhardware would have a much longer>useful life because it could be "rebuiltand upgraded" remotely, on the fly.

> Here are some omer examples of~what mis could do for us:

• Make battlefield communicationssystems more survivable and self·optimized for speed and throughput,

'irrespective of configuration changes~ or battle induced damage.

• When much-faster-man-real-time~ simulation becomes practical, me

~ warfighter would have a predictive toolavailable, online in the field, and.mtegral to meir weapons, mobility, andcommunication systems.

~ • Give commanders me ability to•update or redefine the fu nctionality ofkey attributes of their systems on thefly while deployed.

'ALlow for a more seamless transition"and handoff from the simulated

.. environment to the real world.• Allow me results of simulation to

directly affect tlle functionality of a..... system while actually in use (radler

than be limited to training and pre­tConstruction design engineeringroles).

!.. • Break me cycle of delivering

•

outdated systems to me fLeld becauseof long procurement cycles. In aperfect world, if me field systems couldbe completely reconfigured by loadingnew software, it would have a muchlonger u eful life wim higherperformance. Ifyou could "upgrade onthe fly," the benefits could beincredible.

• Java-esque object-oriented applettechnology (or object-orientedprogramming (OOP) languages likeSqueak-a follow on to Smalltalk)could let small, cheap processorsembedded in future portableequipment perform like workstationsdo now. I£ the tank commander needsan animating 3·0 graphic of me threatituation over the next hill, he would

get me dara and me graphics softwarenecessary to display it. Once viewed,bom me dara and me display programare purged, ready for me next task.This approach would also enhance mesecurity integrity of capturedhardware, as little sensitiveinformation would need to be storedin non-volatile system components.

Once we have this simulationtechnology embedded in ourwarfighting systems, tile would alsoget the capability to log the dataflow oj the systems in adive use.Not only would this provide au~Jique opportunity to review whatactually happened, but also thesame data could be used to "finetune" the aI/line simulations. Thiskind oj heuristic self-learningbehavior could enhance ovenllatchby making the "brilliant"battlefield systems smarter alldhighly adaptive to the specificthreats and tactics faced in eachnew threat environment. Believeme, I fully understand why this isgoing to be very difficult to make real.I also appreciate that adding this ideaofHR7S to the battlefield could causeas much damage as it could good.Why do it? Because it's inevitable. Ithas to happen as oul' simulationtechnology cominues to moveforward. What I'm really suggesting isthat the sooner we realize tbis, thesoonel' we can craft a vision of thefuture that will accommodate it. To dothis soonel· ,-atber than later willhopefully allow us to do a moresensible migration to the nextgenerations of M&S, the intenl is tofurtber empower our warfighters.

Why now? What's the hurry with//tocking up story-based trainingsimulations and launchi~/g -[lito aserious R&D program toinvestigate next gelte1'ationembedded HRTS? Because we'verecently reached me point in theevolution of computer and specialeffects technology where we CAN do it.To realize this vision would requireradical changes in how our large-scalesystems get designed and imple­mented. I£ we don't start minkingabout mi now (and the way we thinkis in part by pending serious R&Ddollars), our enemies might very wellget to u e it in combat before we do. Astrange artifact in the evolution of newtechnology in me military is tllat thosewho start last often have the greatesttechnological edge because mey aren'tburdened wim aging legacy systemsand me perceived (often mistaken)need to remain "compatible."

To quote Sun Tzu in his yetunpublished technological sequel toThe Art ofWar, "Go Figure."

A Final RequestFor those of you who make your

living in Army simulation, I urge you tolook into me future to create your ownnew vision of where M&S could be in20 years. If you can inlagine it now, itwill men be possible. Go visit a themepark, or see a movie, or attend a rockconcert, and mink about how aspectsof mese experiences could make whatyou do more e.ffective. Go hug an artistor omer kind of toryreller and,together, go cause orne troublel Anyone of you could invent me Big Ideathat will initiate the next greatgeneration of simulation technology.All it takes is some patience, creativit);vision, and a lot of passion to get itdone. Don't believe my simple ideas;go invent your own. I know one ofyoureading mis has what it tlmes, and thensome. Remember, we've barelyscratched me surface.

BRAN FERREN is President,Research and Development andCreative 7ecbnology, Wall Disneylmagineering. He is also a memberofthe Anny Science Board.

AnllY RD&A 37May-June 1999

~~-~~~~~~~=======------"-

IntroductionThe Military Traffic Management

Command Transportation EngineeringAgency (MTMCTEA) performs virrual(simulated) aircraft loadings usingmotion analysis software and three­dimensional compurer-aided engineer­ing (3-D CAE) models of equipmemand aircraft cargo bays. These virtualaircraft loadings aid in evaluating thecomparibility between militaryequipment and military transportaircraft dUring the development phaseof the acquisition process. Inaddition, when test loading is notpractical, this procedure is used todevelop loading procedures in videoformat.

In recent years, MTMCTEA engineershave applied this technology totransportability assessments of theLongbow Apache Attack Helicopter(AH-64D), the Non-DevelopmentalAirlift Aircraft (NOAA), and ComancheReconnaissance and Attack Helicopter(RAH-66) acquisi.tion programs.

38 Army RD&A

VIRTUALAIRCRAFTLOADINGS

Jennifer Napiecek and

Ford Cook

Longbow Apache (AH-64D)In 1994, we used ffimion analysisoftware and 3-D CAE models to

perform virrual test loading of sixLongbow Apaches in a C-5 aircraft andthree in a C-17 aircraft. The 3-D CAEmodel of the Longbow Apache wereprovided by the contractor, and the 3-DCAE models of the aircraft cargo bayswere developed by MTMCTEApersonnel. The aircraft models werebased on published drawings and werelimited to box-like simplifications of thetrue interior of the aircraft. ThisreqUired personal knowledge of theaircraft and repeated conversationswith loadmasters to COnfICffi or denypossible interference areas that werebrought inro question because of thelimitations of the aircraft models. Themmion analysis oftware, the 3-D CAEmodels, some tenacious gathering ofraw data, and personal experienceenabled MTMCTEA engineers mdetermine if the required number ofAH-640 could fit into the aircraft, thedisassembly and loading sequence

Figure 1.Six Longbow Apaches on a C-S aircraft

required for each load, and thefeasibility of restraining these loads to ..the aircraft floor. The resulting analysesshowed thaL it was indeed possible, 'with limited clearances, to load andrestrain six Longbow Apaches and all"transportability ground supportequipment inside a C-S aircraft (Figure1) and three inside a C-17 aircmft. ~

In ApriJ 1998, the Progmm Managerfor the Longbow Apache conducted anacrual test loading of six longbowApaches and aU ground supportequipment into a C-S aircraft. ~predicted by the virtual test loading, aUsix aircraft and ground supportequ ipment fit inm the C-S. Originally,the Program Manager had scheduled a~test loading for the C-17 also. However,the integrated product team membersdecided that this test could be deleted,from the test schedule because of theAH-640's similarity to the AH-64A andbecause the MTMCTEA virtual testloading demonstrated that three AH- ~640 could be successfully loaded intoa C-17 airer.tft. Eliminating this test

May-June 1999

•

1

•

i

Figure 2.Top graphic shows aircraft during loading process. Bottom graphic shows four Comanches loaded onto a C-17 aircraft.

• avoided approximately 50,000 in costsfor tbe Program Manager.

NDAA• In 1994, MTMCTEA used this virtual

J aircraft loading procedure to analyzethe cargo capacity of two NOAA

,. candidate aircraft. The purpose of theNOAA Program wa to determine ifslightly modified commercial aircraft

~ could be purchased at reduced cost inlieu of the C-17. To be a viable airliftsolution, the e aircraft needed to becapable of transporting common DOD

Jo 'equipment requiring C-17 airlift.MTMCTEA engineer analyzed thefeasibility of loading the Family of

• Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMlV) 5-lOntruck, the M915 tractor, 20-foOt

May-JUlie 1999

International Organization forStandardization (ISO) container'S, andOther large items into two potentialNOAA aircraft. The two aircraft had thesame basic cargo bay structure, butdiffered in the width of the side-loadingdoors. By using 3-D modeling andmotion simulation lOols, we were ableto verify and cballenge claims made bythe contraclOr about certain vehiclesfitting inside the aircraft.

Our results showed that it wasimpossible to load the FM'rv into theaircraft with the regular ,,~dth doorwithout the FM'IV physically contactingthe door, thereby requiring additionalclearance allowed by an extra wide door.In addition, our results howed that two150 containers could not be loaded side

by side in either model. In anotherscenario, we were able 10 load twOFMTVs side by side, but the procedurerequ ired lowering the overall vehicleheight by everal inche. The analysisdetermined this height and showed theresulting clearances between the FMIVcab and internal aircraft sidewalls.The e virtual aircraft loadings allowedDOD personnel 10 make informeddecisions regarding both the mechanicaland operational feasibility of Loadingvarious pieces of equipment in thealternative commercial aircraft.

Comanche (RAH.66)In January 1998, MTMCTEA engineers

performed a virtual loading of aComanche into a C-130 aircraft. The

AnnyRD&A 39

...

However, with the rapid developmentof computer technology and theavailability of skilled programmers, weexpect virtual aircraft loading tools to ...become more user friendly andaccurate. With this goal, we areinvestigating emerging virtualenvironment technologies and buildinga 3-D model database of militaryvehicles, equipment, and trans­portation assets that will facilitate the ..realization of this interactive, high­re olution, load-planning tool.

May-Jllne 1999

JENNIFER NAPlECEK is a ProjectEngineer at the Military Traffic ..Management Command Trans­portation Engineering Agency.She holds a bachelor's degree in •mechanical engineel"ing ji-01n theUniversity a/Virginia.

FORD COOK is a enior Engineer.working on mechanical systemsimulation at the Military TraffiCManagement Command Trans- ,pOrlation Engineering Agency. Heholds both a bachelor's and amaster's in mechanical engineer- ...ing jivm the Virginia PolytechnicInstitute.

ConclusionSetting the pace for acqulSltlOn

reform, MTMCTEA has developed andsuccessfully applied a virtual aircraft •test loading procedure. This procedureallows engineers to determine, early inthe acquisition process, if, and how, a <piece of equipment will fit into theintended transport aircraft. If aproblem appears likely, designers canmodify the equipment prior to physical ~

prototyping and manufacturing, thusellrninating costiy hardware redesignand test loadings later on in the ...a.cquisition life cycle. We have appliedthe procedure to everal acquisitionprograms and demonstrated howmodeling and simulation tools can beused to reduce costs and schedules andprovide valuable insight in the designand acquisition of military equipment.

Future EnhancementsThe current cargo bay models, though

fairly effective, are based on the AirForce published clearance drawingsand are limited in detail to box-likesimplifications of the true physicalinteriors. In some cases, this imposesfal e restriction on cargo stowageareas. This problem is acute whenevaluating tight-fitting load config­urations such as the Apache andComanche helicopter systems thatexceed published clearances, but donot necessarily exceed true physicalboundaries. To increase the fidelity ofthe aircraft models, MTMCTEA isdeveloping highly accurate digitized3-D models of each primary transportaircraft (C-130, Co;, and C-l?). Thesenew models will be used in ouranalyses instead of the current cargobay models. Increased fidelity of theaircraft models will result in aSignificant improvement in the accuracyof our virtual aircraft loadings.

Virtual loading currently require anin-depth knowledge of the 3-Dmodeling and motion analysis softwarepackages. VIrtUal loadings al 0 requireconsiderable time to set up the correctparameters to simulate the actualmovement of the item being loaded,repositioning of the aircraft ramps,knowledge of the sequence of the itemsbeing loaded, and substantial computerhardware re ources not readilyavailable to aircraft load masters.

With the rapiddevelopment of

computer technologyand the availability

of skilled programmers,we expect virtual

aircraft loading toolsto become more

user friendlyand accurate.

meet its C-17 transportability require­ment. Most likely, actual testing willnot be requ ired.

40 AmryRD&A

helicopter model used for this analysiswas equipped with moveable joints atthe main landing gear and the tail casterwheel to simulate the realisticrotational and translational movementof these mechanisms. The analysisshowed that numerous main landinggear adjustments and tail caster wheeladjustments are required to load thehelicopter into the aircraft to avoidcontact between the helicopter andramp during loading, and between thehelicopter and the interior of thefuselage once it is inside the aircraft.

Because of the tighr clearancesbetween the helicopter and the aircraftat the floor and the ceiling, thehelicopter must be in the fully"kneeled" position to be completelyloaded into the aircraft. This results inclearances of les than 1 inch betweenthe helicopter and both the C-130 floorand ceiUng. Following the virtualloading of the Comanche into theC-130 a video showing the loadingprocedure was developed and providedto the Program Manager and contractor.

The virrual loading of fourComanches into a C-17 aircraft wasperformed in June 1998. For thisanalysis, the main landing gear and raillanding gear were locked in their fullyextended positions. The tail cas terwheel, which is an additional groundsupport item of equipment, was notused for this analysis. The analysiSconfrrmed that four Comanches wouldfit inside the C-17, as required by theystem spedfication (Figure 2). This

analysis also determined the loadingprocedures necessary to fit all fourhelicopters into the C-17 and identifiedthe need for shoring to increase rampclearance to pr vent the nose of thehelicopter from physically contactingthe ramp during loading.

Ongoing Virtual AircraftLoadings

Currently, MTMCTEA is working on avirtual aircraft loading of eightComanches in a Co; aircraft. Thelanding gear will be fully extended forthis analysis, as ill the C-l7 analysis. Weare also working on a virtual aircraftloading of the Marine Corps AdvancedAmphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).The sam techniques as previousanalyses will be used to load the AAAVonto the C-l7 aircraft. These analyseswill show .if eight Comanches can betransported in a Co; and if the AAAV will

ACMO Announces 11 SelecteesFor Competitive Development Group Program

Year Group 2000 Competitive Development Group Selectees

Name Org=ization Location Career Field

Marietta Allen OASA(ALl) National Capital Region Program Management

Thomas Benero Corps of Engineers Folt Worth, 'IX Contracting

David Bundy STRICOM Orlando,FL Program Management

Denise De La Cruz. TECOWEPG Folt Huachuca, AZ Test & Evaluation

<luis Grassano PEO-GCSS National Capital Region SPRDE-

John Hart STRICOM Orlando,FL SPRDE

Vicki Long AMCOM Dayton, Ohio Contracting

Willard Meyer IQC Kerkrade, Netherlands Manufacturing &Production

Michael Padden TAOJM Warren,MI SPRDE

Daniel Pierson STRICOM Orlando,FL SPRDE

Kathy Salas U.S. Army Korea Yongsan, Korea ContractingContracting

Congratulations to the Year Group (YG) 2000 Competitive Development Group(COG) selectees! The Acquisition Career Management Office is pleased to announcethe YGOO CDG selectees as shown above. These individuals were chosen as a directresult of the YGOO COG Selection Board that was held in December 1998.

The foUowing article summarizes the CDG Program selection criteria, applicationproce s, and selectee demographics for the first three COG Program year groups.

THE PAST, PRESENT, A D FUTUREOF THE COMPETITIVE

DEVELOPMENT GROUPPROGRAM

Sandy Long

1'-

r~

:~

!l-

"­

.'-It:

:;..

I.L IntroductionNow in its third year, the Competitive

... Development Group (COG) Program­~ sponsored by the Army Acqui ition

Corps (MC)-is still going strong, and• till "looking for a few good men and

women." The purpose of thisto- professional development program is

to provide intensive leadership training• and experience opportunities for

competitively selected GS-12 and GS-13

May-Julie 1999

Corps Eligible (CE) and AAC members.When an individual is selected for theCOG Program, he or she is placed in apOSition on the Army AcquisitionExecutive Support Agency Table ofDistribution of Allowances for a 3-yearperiod. During these 3 years, the COGselectee is rotated through assignmentsand training opportunities as outlinedin the COG selectee's IndividualDevelopment Plan (!DP).

The COG selectee develops his or herIDP in conjunction with AcquisitionCareer Management Office (ACMO)representatives, a Functional Acqui­sirion Specialist (PAS), the selectee'snew supervisors, and the AcquisitionCareer Management Advocate (ACMA).Although a promotion is notguaranteed as part of the program, theprogram is structured to make COGselectees highly competitive for higher

Am,y RD&A 41

. ISurvey Results IndicatE

level responsibilities widtin the MCand the Army: Ifa CDG selectee has notbeen competitively selected for apromotion at the completion of the 3­year period, the ACMO and U.S. TotalArmy Personnel Command will workwith the selectee to locate a positionthat is appropriate for the selectee, theMC, and the Army. Whether the CDGselectee leaves the program as a resultof a promotion or completes the 3-yearperiod, the selectee will be accessedinto the Me.

Even though the CDG Program is nowin its third year as mentioned earlier, itis still undergoing changes. This articleprovides information on bowpersonnel were selected for the CDGProgram in the past, what qualificationsthey possess, and some of the changesbeing made to improve the program'sapplication process.

Selection CriteriaIndividuals ace selected for the CDG

Program through a competitiveselection board process. The CDGSelection Board, which is comprised offive GS-lS MC members and at leastone colonel, receives guidelines fromthe Deputy Director for AcquisitionCareer Management (DDACM) for usein evaluating and recommendingindividuals for the CDG Program. Theboard member is also instructed toview the applicant's entire file and ratethe applicant on his or her potential tobecome an effective future leaderwithin the MC and the Army.

Starting with YGOl, instructions to theboard will be changed to indicate thatan applicant must be Corps Eligible,Level ill certified, and possess two ofthe follOwing attributes: an advanceddegree, multiple certifications,experience in two or more organi­zations, or experience in two or morecareer fields. (See Table 1 on Page 44.)

Board DocumentsThe documents provided to the board

are listed in Table 2 on Page 44. Theboard member reviews the applicationto assess and score the individual. Pastboards have indicated that pacts of theapplication are easier to review andprovide a more accurate picture of theapplicant than others. Based on thisfeedback, the DDACM has madeadjustments to the documentsprovided to the board.

The Acquisition Civilian Record Brief(ACRE) is by far the document mostfrequently reviewed. It is usually thefirst document seen and is a snapshotof information on the applicant.

Applicants hould ensure thar theirACRE provides the best possible pictureof their achievements to date. on-MCmember can obtain ACRB updatesupport by contacting their localAcquisition Workforce SupportSpecialist (AWSS). MC members canobtain ACRB update support bycontacting the FASs.

The Senior Rater Potential Evaluation(SRPE) is a valuable tool that can beused by the senior rater to identify the

Did you know that you may be missing outon a wonderful career opportunity because ofa misunderstanding about the CompetitiveDevelopmenr Group (COG) Program? Asurvey of all Corps Eligible (CE) membersconduCted in January-February 1999confirmed that there are many misperceptionsabout the COG Program. Th.e purpose of thesurvey was to determine the reasons for thereduced number of applications to the YearGroup YGOO COG Program. The responsesreceived by the Acquisition CareerManagement Office (ACMO) were very helpfuland have revealed a need for clearerinformation about the COG Program. Theaccompanying chart hows the statisticalresponses from the survey: This article alsoincludes several of the recurring commentsthat were made by respondents.

The tOP three responses to question no. 4,Reasons for not applying /0 YGOO CDG,provided some insigbtful information aboutthe misinformation or misunderstanding thatsurrounds the COG Program:

I de not wish to reIoaJJe.Relocation is nOl necessarily a part of the

COG Program. Once selected, individuals arerelocated only when they cannot receive theexperience necessary to meet the goals andobjectives of the CDG and the ArmyAcquisition Corps (MC). To dare, only sevenCOG selectees have been reqUired to relocateand, in each instance, the selectee bas agreedvoluntarily to relocate.

I did not feel I bad a chana at beingselected.

To compete for a COG position, an individualmust be a G5-12/1.3 (or be at an equivalent payband) and be a CE member. If you met thesetwo basic requirements, you bad a chance atbeing selected for the program. Ifyou feel youare lacking a specific kill or qua!i.flcation, dlereare numerous ways the ACMO can assist you inobtaining that skill or qualification. Seek outopportunities to make yourself morecompetitive.

I was ecnu:enred what my optums arid/oropportunities would be at the rompletio1lof the program.

At the completion of the program, the COGmembers are accessed into the MC and placedInto a permanenr position at an increased level

applicant's potential ability. The boardreviews this document extensively and '..relies heavily on the senior rater'scomments and the ranking of theapplicant as compared to his or her ~

peers rated by the same senior rater.Boaed comments have indicated thatthis document is often not provided, •not completely filled in, or does notclearly identify the top performers.

In an effort to gain feedback about theCOG Program from the CE population, 4

of responsibility. While the program does notguarantee a promotion, by virtue of thetraining and experience received, CDGselecrees will have the credentials necessary fora competitive edge when competing for vacantCritical Acquisition Positions. •

Recurring comments from the surveyincluded the following:

Commetrt: The program looks as if itdiscriminates against people over 40, or withinspecific ethnic categories.

Response: The COG Selection Boardconsiders individuals without information on ..race, national origin, age, sex, or otherpersonal information. The average age of theCOG selecree is 46, and the race and nationalorigin demographics on COG selecrees to dareis approximately 49 percent female, Sl percentmale, and approximately 2S percent minority

Comment: The package is extensive andcumbersome to complete. "

Response: Ifyou completed an applicationpackage for an acquisition board the previousyear, only updates to the package are required.The process has been streamlined as much aspo ible while still providing the boardenougb information on which to base a rating.

Comme1lt: The COG Program offers'nothing that I can't get within my ownorganization already.

RespollSe: This is correct for some •individuals. All of the training and experiencethaI is avai1ahle to COG members is avai1able toother Army Acquisition ~rkforce personnelas well, and if your Organization is willing to·suppon an Individual Development Plan asintensive as that nf a COG, then you arecorrect. The CDG Program allows anindividual the opportunity for some intensive •training and it affords the COG member anopponunity to obtain experience withinmultiple organizations and career fields.

Comment: Ifelt my supelVisor would not besupportive.

Response: ACOG position is nothing more ~

than a new position; the only difference is thatyou apply through a selection board process.You are removed from your current positionand placed in a new position on the Army'

42 Army RD&A May-/u1Ie 1999

----===~===================:=::====:::::::::==_----J ----'

a survey of all CEs was conducted in... February 1999. (See sidebar starting on

Page 42.) One recurring commentreceived from this Corps Eligible Surveywas that many CEs did not apply for theCOG Program because of difficultyobtaining an SRPE. Because this is sucha valuable tool, new procedures for

.. obtaining SRPEs will be implementedfor the YGOI COG Selection Board.The applicant will only need to submitthe senior rater's name and e-mail

address. The ACMO will request theSRPE directly from the enior rater. Toimprove the quality of the SRPEs, theDDACM will emphasize, during allbriefings to senior leadership, theimportance of tbe SRPE and the needfor consistent evaluations by the seniorrater.

Six performance appraisals and theassociated support forms are alsorequired with the application. Tbeseprovide the board with a historical look

at the accomplishments of the applicantfrom the supervisor's perspective. Theboard bas indicated that support fonnsare not very useful, but the appraisalshelp provide a historical picture of theapplicant's achievements. The boardshave noted that for some individuals,appraisals from year to year do norchange. This indicates that there is nogrowth on the part of the individual.Appraisals and senior rater commentsshould be specific to accomplishments

ICDG Program MisperceptionsAcquisition Executive upponAgency Thble of

Yes NoDistribution and Allowances. Once you areassigned [0 a COG position, you are dern.il.ed to I. Apply for YGOO? V 188multiple experience opportunities and report

How learned about the opportunityto new supervisors. Application to the COG 2.Program and acceptance into the program

Q)G Announcement 34does not require your current supervisor'sapproval.

MC Home Page 24•

Comment: 1have applied in past years and Postcard ootificatioo Z3have not been selected, and I'm not sure why.

RespollSe: AlLhough the ACMO cannot MC Roadshow 17• explain to each individual why they were not

selected, this article provides some extensive Word of mouth 16statistics about those individuals who wereselected. These statistics should be reviewed ACMAJAWSS 12and increased attention applied where

Apply for CDG previously?necessary. 3. 61 156

eommetll: It is tOO difficult to obtain a If yes, what years?

Senior Rater Potential Evaluation (SRPE) from 1997 29my Senior Rater.

ResjHJIase: The 1998 COG Selection Board 1998 32requested infonnation about the Senior Rateronly, and the ACMO requested the SRPE from 4. Reasons for not applying to YGOO CDG.the Senior Rater. This process seemed to make

Doo't wish to relocate 113it easier for the applicant and resulted ineveryone having an RPE for the board_ That

I bad 00 chance of selection 76

· process was nOI followed for the YGOO COGSelection Board, bur will be reinstared for Coocerned aboll1 options aodlor 68future COG Selection Boards.

The COG Program was established to ensure opportunities at completioo of program

the future leaders of the MC and the Army are Don't fully understand Q)G 52trained and provided as much experience aspossible. '(be program is imiIar to othet Too busy to complete my package or was 00 52dvilian sector programs that have been put in travdplace to groom middle managers for future

Don't want to commit to a 3-year program 48leadership positions within an organization.The COG Program is intended to be a

Doo't wish ro change organizations 42competitive process for all those who qualify.The applicant's package is reviewed and rated Doo't wish to jeopardize current po,itioo 42as a whole so that all qualificatio.ns countequally and the lack of one element is nol a Don't know what Q)G is 26disqualifYing fu.ctor, Applicants should taketime to ensure that their packages include all My supervisor was not supportive 18infonnation and present their best attributes.

CE status not confirmed in tinie 15Assistan~"C in huilding your packet can be• obtained by contacting your local Acquisition

NoSRPE 14Workforce Support Specialist (AWSS). He orhe is willing and able to assist you in ensuring I am considering leaving the governmenr 13

that you "look your best" for the board. Yourcareer is your responsihility, but the ACMO I'm being considered for promorioo 7stands ready to assist you in any way possible.

· May-June 1999 ArmyRD&A 43

'---

YG97 YG98 YGOO YGOl

ACRB ACRB ACRB ACRB -Performance Performance Performance PerformanceAppraisal! Appraisal! Appraisal! Appraisal!Support Forms Support Forms Support Forms Support Forms(last 3 required) (last 6 requested; (last 6 required) (last 6 required)

last 3 required)

Signed AAC SignedAAC SignedAAC Signed AACMobility Mobility Mobility MobilityStatement Statement Statement Statement -

Most recent Most recentSF50 SF50

-Assignment Assignment DA Form DAFormHistory History 2302 2302

-Senior Rater Senior Rater Senior Rater Senior RaterPotential Potential Potential PotentialEvaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation

(ACMO requested (ACMO will requestfrom Senior Rater) from Senior Rater)

Additional Selection Criteria (Note: The CDC SektWnBottrrlwillWl'lSiderotkrfddbrS in its dR1ihertttims as appropriate.)

Table 2.Required documentation for COG Program application process

GS-13 GS-13 GS-12!13 GS-12!13MCfCE MC!CE MCfCE MC!CE

Level II Level II LevelID LevelID

Des~ed Desired Desired Must possessat least two ofthe SelectionCriteria listedbelow.

•

CDG DemographicsAs you can see from the COG

demographics (Table 3), COG selectees •have some pretty impressive ...qualifications. Each selectee has at leasta bachelor's degree. In addition, COG _applicants who show extensiveexperience in more than one career \field or within multiple locationsand/or organizations have been' "­selected more often than those •applicants who have remained in onejob, in one career field, and at one •location. A review of the COGdemographics also shows that almost '

during a given year and provide a clearevaluation of the applicant'S major "#­

achievements that provide a basis for •future increased responsibility and tleadership roles.DA Farm 2302 is helpful to the board

in that, if written weU, it addsinformation to me experience block ofthe ACRB. The selection board ...recommends that applicants emphasizeachievements and not just identifyduties. The space on this form is ..limited for a reason. The writer mustbe concise when describingachievements. The board also requeststhat Times New Roman 12 pitch printbe used for this form, a practice marwill be required for furure boards.

A mobility statement must be signed ­and submitted wim each application.This will be used in the event a COGselectee chooses to move to gain the <

required or requested experience. Themobility statement is also required foraccession into the MC, which, asindicated earlier, occurs at the ..completion of the 3-year period. COG >

demographics (Table 3 on Page 45)show that only 7 of the 50 COG ~

selectees to date have requiredgeographical moves. All of those moveswere voluntary.

In an effort to streamline the ..,application process, the ACMO hasstandardized the application packetsfor all MC selection boards. FurureCOG Program applications need onlyinclude an updated and signed ACRB, a •signed mobility statement, the six mostrecent performance appraisals, ~information on how to contact the ~

senior rater, an SF50, and a OA Fonn2302. If an application for the COGProgram was submitted the year before,a complete new packag is not·necessary, only updates to the packageare required. Efforts are underway toestablish central acquisition files on all •CE members, which will contain thismaterial and eliminate the "applicationprocess" in furure years.

-

~---

30

YGOl

30

YGOO

25

YG98

25

YG97

Master's Degree

Multiple Level ill Certifications

Experience in two or more organizations

Experience in two or more career fields

Table 1.COG Program selection criteria

Education Level

Certification Level

Experience

Experience

Certification Level

Additional SelectionCriteria

Positions Available

MinimumRequirements

Eligible Population

44 AnnyRD&A

~~May-Jlllte 1999

Table 3.CDG Program selectee demographics

SANDY LONG is an AcquisitionProponency Officer in theACMo. Sheholds a B.S. degree in informationsystems management from theUniversity of Maryland and iswithin two courses ofcompleting hermaster's degree in managementinformation systems from theUniversity of Maryland. She iscertified in the communications/computers and program manage­ment careerfields.

YG97Home OrganizationlLocation Upon Selection$outh<rn Region

•J'EO-M.ID (HuntsWU;~ 1• PEO-AVN (Huntsville, AL) 3• PEO·TACMSL (HlWtsville, AQ I• AMooM (Hunrsville, AL) 3• ooE (Huntsville, AQ 1• ooE (Ft. Worth, TX) 0• SMDC (HwttsviIle, AQ 1• STRIooM (Orlando. FL) 0• TEooM (Ft. Huaehue:t, AZ) 0• TEXooM (Ft. Hood, TX) I

TBDo

YG98 YGOO

1 00 02 05 00 00 1I 03 30 t0 0

0 00 12 1

1 00 II 00 00 0I 10 02 0I 00 02 00 0

2 00 0t 0

00

5 (20%)o

Ioo

oII

oo

1oo3I1

Ioo121

2 (8%)o

CentralR<gion• PEO-GCSS (Warren, Ml)• AMooM (D.tyton, OH)• TAooM (Warren, Ml)

NatiorW Capital Region• PEQ.C3S (Ft. Belvoir, VA)• PEO-GCSS (Arlington, VAi• PEO-SfAMIS (Ft. Lee, VA)• CEooM (Ft Belvoir, VA)• DSSW (Washington, DC)• HQDA (Washington, DC)• INSCOM (Ft. Belvoir, VA)• MIMe (Alex2lldri3, VA)• SOCOM (Ft. Bragg, NC)• 5.\IDC (Arlington, VA)• TEooM (APG. MD)• USAG (Ft. Me:ode, MD)

Other• roc (Kerkrade,Netherlands)• u.s. Army Korea Contracting Agency

(yang"",. Korea)

Northern Region• PEQ.C3S (Ft. Monmouth, NJl• ARDEC (Pje:ttinny Arsenal, NJl• CEooM (Ft. Monmouth, NJl

ax;. Requiring Geographical Move.• VolUDt2I)' Move.• Involun Moves

TBD To be deunnmed.

success of theprogram. Adjust,ments will bemade to the COGProgram to ensurethe quality ofthose selected re­mains at the samehigh level set bythe first threegroups of COGselectees. Selection to the COGProgram is an outstanding opportunityfor all CE and AAC members.Supervisors and senior raters shouldencourage their eligible subordinatesto compete and take advantage of thisexceptional opportunity to expandtheir knowledge and experience. TheCOG Program is intended not only tobenefit those selected, but the futureAAC and the Army.

YG97 YG98 YGOONwnbcr 01 Applicants '700 '400 "IOU

wnb<r ofCOGs Sd«ted 25 (.\.5%) 25 (6.2%) 11 (11%)PromotiooHOGS·14 (asotMatch2J.1ffl) 10 (4O'lI» 2 (8%) 0Qu2lific:ations-Educauon, Training,and Expcdmcc

Highest Education Level• No Degree or College 0 0 0

• Bachelor's D'll"" 1(4%) 2 (8%) 6 (55%)• One Master"sD~ 22 (88%) 19 (76%) 4 (36%)• More than one Master's Degr« 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 1 (9%)

r.ertificltion I1vd• No Level m Certification 0 1 (4%) 0

• One Level m C<rti&:aboo 14 (56%) 8 (32%) 5(46%)

• T"", Level m c.ci6catioos 8 (32%) 14 (56%) 4 (.l6%)

• Mor< th>n "'"' Level m Certifications 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 2 (18%)

Ex'Pt=nencc• Experience in ODe orpniutioo 2(8%) 4 (16%) 2 (18%)

• Experi= in twoo~oos 6 (24%) 7 (28%) 0• Expe:rimcc in more than two o.rpnizations 17 (68%) 14 (56%) 9 (82%)

• .l:.>:perience in one career field (Cf) 5 (20%) 6 (24%) 6 (55%)

• Experience in twO~.s 15 (60%) 13 (52%) 4 (.\6%)• Experience in more than two O:s 5 (20%) 6 (24%) 1(9%)

Prim:,,")' eare... Field Ul?"n Selection• Acquisition Logistics 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 0• Billin.... eost~ and Financi.l 5 (20%) 1 (4%) 0

... M=gemem

• Communicaciom-eomputer Systems 0 1 (4%) 0

• f'..omr.lCting(~ Constnl<:rioo) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) 3 (27.3%)

• Mllnufaetwing and Produaion (including 0 1 (4%) 1 (9%)Qwlity fusurance)

• I'rogr= Man.&=ent 5 (20%) 10 (40%) 3 (27.3%)

• Systems l'IarmiDg. Research, Development, 8 (32%) 3 (12%) 3 (27.3%)and Engine<ring

• T.,. and Evalwrim 1(4%) 4 (16%) 1(9%

ConclusionThe COG Program will continue to

grow and prosper because the AAC andthe OOACM are fully committed to the

half of the YG97 and YG98 COGselectees have experience ln elthermultiple career fields or organizations.

Table 3 also identifies the variouslocations from which COG selectees arecbosen. As you can see, the locations

l> are varied from areas like Huntsville,AL, and Fort Monmouth, NJ, to moredistant location like Korea and theNetherlands.

To date, the promotion rate of COGselectees has been exceptional.Although a promotion is not

• guaranteed as part of the COGProgram, a large percentage of COGselectees will bave a competitive edgewhen competing for vacant pOSitions.Currently, there are 11 YG97 and 3YG98 COG selectees that have beenpromoted to GS-14. Keep ln mind that

~ YG97 selectees have not yet enteredtheir third year in the program andalready 11 selectees have beenpromoted.

May-Julle 1999 ArmyRD&A 45

SWORDWEAPONSYSTEM

CONCEPTFORTHE

21ST CENTURY

IntroductionHow can leap-ahead technology get

onto the battlefield of the 21st centuryand provide added value to thewarfighter in supporting situations likethe following?

The year is 2006, As theyoung soldier looks in thevalley in the direction of thesuspect enemy artilleryposition, another volley ofrockets can be heard in thedistance, The section leaderyells, "INCOMING, .. aseveryone jumps into theirfighting positions and bracesthelnselves for impact, Withsweat running down his

46 Army RD&A

William C. Reeves Jr.,Ronald A. Smith, and

MAJ Lawrence W. McRae Jr,

fOl'ehead and his heartpounding in his throat, helooks out and catches aglimpse of the outgoingrockets from the SWORDbattery as they streak acrossthe sky to intercept theincoming volley. Withinseconds, all incoming 1'Ocketsare destroyed and the all-clearsignal is given. As he climbsout of his position and looksQI'ound, he knows his tmit hascheated deatb. With a smileon his face, be takes a lastlook over his shoulder andsees the crew of the SWORDpreparing for another attack.

This anicle describes the technologyprogram evolution of a weapon systemconcept to address the 21st cenrnrywarfighter's need as depicted in theabove scenario. The resulting fmngbattery is the Short-Range MissileDefense With Optimized RadarDistribution (SWORD) weapon systemconcept.

Mission NeedThe technology program process

begins with a mission need or •requirement. The Army has a limitedcost-effective active defense capabilityagainst small radar cross section (RCS)threats such as short-range ballisticmissiles (SRBMs), artillery, mortars,cruise missiles, antiradiation missiles(ARMs), unmanned aerial vehicles •(UAVs), and rotary-wing launched air-to­ground missiles. This mission need isdefined in the Enhanced Counter AirCapability (ECAC) Mission Need ...Statement (MNS) developed by the U.S.Army Training and Doctrine Commandand the Eighth U.S. Army (EUSA) .,Operational Need Statement (ONS) foractive defense to counter the NorthKorean 240 mm multiple rocketlauncher threat. )

The new threats of choice by themajority of countries in the world arethe low-cost, low-observable, saturation­type artillery rockets that can be used inany weather. These threats have no •guidance controls; therefore, the enemy ,must put a high number of threats on atarget to get some level of performance.This combination of all-weather andsaturation threats drives the proposedystem concept definition.The accompanying chart is an ~

unclassified summary of missionrequirements and ONS. As shown in thechart's objectives, both the ECAC MNSand the EUSA ONS will compeldevelopers of the SWORD weaponsystem to institute specific operationalcapabilities. ~

Technology DevelopmentTo address the mission needs

depicted in the chart, the Army is usinghit-to-kill technology to achieve asignificantly lower cost for killing those "saturation targets haVing low­observable Res. A high probability-of­kill missile is command guided by aradar communicating with the missile's"small radio frequency (RF) transceiverall the way to the target intercept. Thetarget is destroyed by the kinetic energyof the body-to-body impact. Through­out the last decade, the U.S. Army Space

May-/tltle 1999

ECAC MNS Requirements

Primary Threats: Rockets,Mortars, Artillery, and UAVs

Secondary Threats: Aircraft,Cruise Missiles, ARMs, andSRBMs

EUSA ONS

240 mm Rockets

SWORD Objectives

>5 Intercepts of 240 mmRockets per Second

I-=:-:-,,------:--c::----:::---::-:----:---::::--------:----,..-- ...,.....~-,.__--.-

Fielding: As Soon as Possible As Soon as Possible In 2006, Based on AdequateFunding Starting in FY99

No New Force Structure

All Weather

Low Cost per Kill

Minimal Increase in NewFcrce Structure

All Weather

NA

Maximize Use of EXistingForce Structure

All-Weather Capable

<$20K per Missile inProduction Quantities

Mission and operational needs and SWORD objectives

i' and Missile Defense Command (SMDC)Weapons Directorate, HuntsVille, Ai,has developed this hit-to-kill tech­nology, which is specifically applicableto this unique air defense mission.

~ Research and development for theinterferometric acquisition and firecontrol radar (FCR) technology wasinitiated by SMDC as a result of theneed for a fIXed-site point defense ofnational missile defense assets againstthe re-entry vehicle submunitions

.. threat during the 1980s. The conceptconsisted of X-band interferometricacquisition and FCR and a radar-guidedgun-launched smart projectile for hit·to-kill engagements OUt to 25kilometers. This radar subsystemconcept uses the enhanced state-of-the-

.art digital, electrical, or optical signalprocessing to obtain a l-gigahertz(GHz) proce sing capability. With thissignal processing capability, the radarubsystem can obtain centimeter range

resolution while mitigating most of theground clutter and multipath.

~ The angular differential accuracy ofthe radar subsystem for the missileand target is obtained by using~terferometer principles to measureDoppler imaging of the objects. Thisangular differential accuracy of the radarsubsystem also allows the removal of a

~mi sile' eeker subsystem to perfonnhit-to-kill missions again t specific

May-Jllne 1999

threats at lower tier air defense ranges.The .5. Army Aviation and Missile

Command's Missile Research, Develop­ment, and Engineering Center(AMCOM-MRDEC), Redstone Arsenal,AL, developed the missile interceptortechnologies. MRDEC also developedpropulsion motor cases, smallcommand and guidance mechani.sms,inertial measurement units, autopilots,and lethality enhancers to supportmultiple .5. Army missions.

SWORD Weapon SystemConcept

Responding to the potential threatfrom hostile nations and terrorists withlow-cost proliferated weapons such ascruise missiles, SRBMs, UAVs, and short­range rockets, DOD made theatermi sile defense (TMO) a top priority.MOC responded to the need for a low

cost-per-kill weapon system to negatethe short-range capability of thesethreats by selecting an interferometricacquisition and FCR with an RFtransceiver-guided, high probability-of.kill missile.

This weapon system concept requiresthe acquisition and FCR to have a veryaccurate endgame tracking of both thethreat and the missile. The weaponsystem's ability to track both the targetand the missile is dependent ontheir size, engagement geometry,

atmospheric conditions, number ofengagements per second, and otherrelated parameters. Most of theseparameters are not controllable;however, incorporating an RFtransceiver as an active transponderwith a ground-based acquisition andFCR subsystem can enhance thesignarure of the missile. This approachof command guiding a missile toperfonn hit-to-kill missions requirestwo important operations: detenniningthe precise location of the missile withrespect to the threat at all times duringthe engagement and providing deliveryrate of guidance update commands to

allow the missile to correct itsflightpath toward the threat. Themissile's onboard transceiver and radarelectronic subsystems allow both ofthese essential operations to occur.

The SWORD weapon system conceptconsists of two major subsystems: an X­band interferometric scanning phasedarray acquisition and FCR, and a low­COSt, command-guided 3.75- to 4-inchclass missile. The operational SWORDradar is a 5-meter baseline X-bandinterferometric radar that is an all­weather class radar with the capabilityto perform 360-degree on-the-movesearch, detect, track, and classifyfunctions, as well as simultaneouslyengage multiple threats. The SWORDmissile will have a boost-sustain motor

AnnyRD&A 47

.....

to provide the required lemal velOCityand an inertial measurement unitproduced by Honeywell Inc. to measureme missile orientation while in ilight.

SWORD will also have a MOOG Inc.proven-design hot-gas generator toprovide the missile divert capability anda Technovative Applications Inc.proven-design RF transceiver and off­me-shelf autopilot control subsystemfor the missile command controlcapability. A proven lemality enhancermechanism will be incorporated intothe missile system to obtain a higherprobability of kill.

The SWORD system weapon conceptis an optimized sensor-shooter-killercombination mat minimizes the timefrom threat detection to threatdestruction. The SWORD can providecontinuous protection of forward-areamaneuver forces or can be strategicallypositioned to defend strategic andtactical fixed-site assets and criticalcommand, control, communicationsand intelligence (C3I) nodes. TheSWORD weapon system can operateautonomously or with existing C31TMD and air defense architectures.

Becau e of its tactical size, the SWORDinterferometric acquisition and FCR canbe mounted on wheeled or trackedvehicles. A 3.75-inch class baselinemissile design is reqUired to provideenough firepower to counter high­volume saturation-type threats. Themissile can be fired from a deepmagazine launcher such as the MultipleLaunch Rocket System.

Although the SWORD weapon systemconcept is optimized to address thestressing high-volume saturation threatmis ion role, the system's performanceobjectives include the capability to assistin other active air defense mission rolessuch as artillery, monars, UAVs, ARMs,SRBMs, rotary-wing launched air-to­ground missiles, aircraft, and low-flyingcruise missiles. For example, using theforward-area active defense C31 nodes,the SWORD radar can hand off itengaged threat launcher's predictedposition to a coumerfire artillery batteryor other engageable shooters dUring thebattle. The SWORD radar can be usedduring battle for cueing, precisionpoiming, and tracking data tocompatible sensors and shooters forcoordinated multitiered kinetiC ordirected energy theater missions.

Proposed SWORD AIDTo prove that an operational concept

has merit, an advanced technologydemonstration (ATO) consisting of twomajor phases is proposed. The fIrstphase will use an existing X-band dish

48 Army RD&A

antenna with a 5-meter baseline FCRwith elevation and azimuthervomechanism, and a 3.75-inch class

hypervelocity mis ile (without thelethality enhancer sub ystem) to

command guide the missile to asurveyed stationary target at specificranges. This phase will validate the FCRcommand-guidance algorithm and themissile's response to the FCR.

The fIrst step consists of integratingthe existing subsystem hardware(without the lethality enhancersubsystem) into a missile. The nextstep will integrate the interferometricFCR (with processor and electronics)and the missile into a completeoperational system. Because the radarused in the AID has a limited field ofview and power output, the target'scross section will be enhanced. Theenhanced target will match the RCSreturn expected from a fully populatedscanning phased array X-band 5-meterbaseline FCR and a I-GHz signalprocessor (which will be completed forthe second phase of this proposedATO). The proposed exit criteria for thefirst phase includes obtaining searchand track angular differential accuracyrequired for 240 mm rocket engage­ments and command guiding a missileto a stationary target within therequired miss distance.

The econd phase of the proposedATO will use a fully populated scanningphased array X-band 5-meterinterferometric acquisition and FCRwith an enhanced I-GHz signalproces or and radar command-guided3.75-inch class hypervelocity missile(With lethality enhancer). The objectiveof thi phase is to command gUide amissile to hit and kill an unenhancedsurrogate 240 mm rocket. Theproposed exit criteria include obtainingsearch and track angular differentialaccuracy reqUired for hit-co-killintercept, command guiding a missileco a stationary target within requiredmiss distance, and command guiding amissile to a hit-ta-kill intercept.

ConclusionAfter a mission need or requirement is

identified for mitigating a specificthreat, the materiel developer definesthe weapon system concept to meet thedesired need. To prove that theweapon system concept has merit, anAID with approved exit criteria fromthe Army combat developer and usercommunity is propo ed.

The proposed SWORD AID is the firsttep by SMOC to introduce leap-ahead

technology co meet air and missiledefense needs into the tactical theater.

If the proposed SWORD AID issucce fuJ, and the Army goes forwardwith deployment, the WORD systemcould transition into a fast-trackacquisition program. This would beginwith an engineering manufacturingdevelopment effort during thestationary target miss distance testscheduled in the second phase of thedemonstration. The delivery of the fteStWORD platoons could stan in the

founh quaner FY06.

WILLIAM G. REEVES JR is theDirect01; Weapons Directorate,Missile Defense and SpaceTechnology Center; SMDG. He hasmore than 29 years ofgovernmentexperience in science andengineering. He earned his B.s.degree in physics and his master'sdegree in business administrationfrom Alabama A&M University,Normal, Ai.

RONAIJJ A SMiTH is the SWORDProgram Team Leader in the'·Weapons Directorate, MissileDefense and Space TechnologyCentet; SMDC. He has 31 years of"government service, including 16year at SMDC working insurvivability, testing, and systemsengineering disciplines. Smithreceived a B.S. degree inmechanical engineering fromCatholic University ofAmerica inWashington, DC, and an M.5.degree in engineering manage­ment from the Florida Institute ofTechnology.MAj LA\VRENCE W. MCRAE JR. is

the Test and Integration Officer inthe Weapons Directorate, MissileDefense and .pace TechnologyCenter, SMDG. He received abachelor's degl-ee in businessadministration fmm TuskegeeInstitute and a mastet· 's degree inpmcurement acquisition manage­ment from Webster University.McRae is also a graduate ofthe Air~Command and StaffCollege.

May-JlIne 1999

Phillip Curtis

From Industry .

THE Y2KCHALLENGE:

A CORPORATEPERSPECTIVE

IntroductionThe chaUenge for supremacy on the

year 2000 (Y2K) battlefield has beendaunting to the military as well as to itspartners in the corporate world. Today,every Army functional proponent,program executive office, programmanager, and major command isworking hard to meet Y2K milestones

~ and ensure that their systems will beoperable during the new millennium.TRW Corp. faces the ame challenges.

The EnvironmentIt is common knowledge that the Y2K

problem stems from a computerprogramming convention that usedtwo-digit year fields instead of four-digityear field in software, hardware, andfirmware. This could cause manycomputer programs and devices to failas they attempt to calculate against theyear "00," failing to recognize that the

.. year is actually 2000 instead of 1900. Inaddition, many programs may interpretother coding or special instructions inan undesirable fashion, resulting in

"unpredictable calculations or ashutdown. The pmential impact of thison TRW's operations is substantial andhas already manifested itself on somesystems that provide forecasting

- functions beyond the year 2000.Obviously, the Y2K problem is not

limited to a single area within TRWInformation technology is used tosupport or perform many of ouroperations. Therefore, we rely on avariety of computers, information

~ systems, devices, and outside vendorsto perform our internal businessoperations (finance, personnel,contracting, and facilities management)and those in support of our customersin DOD, other federal agencies, stateand local government, and the private

¥ sector. While there are clearlysignificant technical issues associatedwith the Y2K problem, TRW sees Y2K asa distinct business and leadership issueto be resolved for our externalcustomers, internal corporate systems

... and infrastructure, and our multiplesupporting vendors. In addition tothese Y2K issues, there is concern thatthe corporate world faces the prospect

f litigation related to corporateproducts, services, and operations.

~ TRW Y2K Program InitiativeTRW relies on a Vear 2000 Program

Office to coordinate and support

May-Tune 1999

executive oversight of all Y2Kcompliance activities throughout thecorporation. The general objectives oftbe Year 2000 Program include thefollowing:

• Increase awareness ofY2K issues;• Coordinate lessons learned among

the business groups and corporateprojects;

• Assess adequacy of ongoing Y2Kprojects;

• Provide best practices related totools, processes, and strategies;

• Provide the framework for progressreports, issues, and plan; and

• Provide information and recom­mendations to corporate leadership onissues impacting TRW at the enterpriseleveL

TRW business units and corporatestaff have specifically identifiedmanagers to orchestrate our corporate­wide Y2K efforts. These effortsgenerally equate to those identified inDOD's five-phased approach fromawareness to implementation. Thechain of responsibility extends from thecorporate level down to individualmanagers. Major efforts currentlyunderway include continuous moni-

toring and reporting, risk assessmentand mitigation, internal audit andcompliance, and vendor and partnermanagement. Our program mustcontinue to focus on ensuring thesafety of our workforce, preventingbusiness interruptions to our clientsand me corporation, and minimizingour risk.

Millennium ReadinessTRW's Year 2000 Program Office is

continuing to verify our internalsystems, complete comprehensivereviews of our product lines, andmanage our supplier and servicecompliance efforts. We are alsoreviewing our contract base to ensurecompliance in areas where we proVidesystem development and integration,information technology services, andengineering services to a diversespectrum of customers.

Specifically, TRW is pursuing thefollowing activities:

• Providing Y2K progress reports on aregular basis to the executivemanagement committee and to generalmanagers or managing directors withinthe busine s units;

AnnyRD&A 49

• Continuing the strategies of re­placing key compmer systems in certainbusiness sectors and remediating anumber of other legacy systems(migration to Y2K-compliant versionsand completion of testing);

• Sustairting our effons for internalsystems in five major areas: businesscomputer ystems (financial andmaterial re ource planning ystems),research and development facilities(including automotive and systemsdevelopment research centers), desk­top systems, technical infrastrucrure(networks and telecommunication)and other infrastructure (elevator,environmental control, and securirysystems);

• Continuing to verify the Y2K­compliance status of TRW suppliers andservice providers;

• Completing testing and imple­mentation to prepare us for the centurychange in enough time to continuenormal operations; and

• Communicating our Y2K progre

Corporate RelationshipsWhile mOSt organizations are dealing

with the prinCipal systems under theirdirect control, they must also evaluatethe capabilities of their partners andvendors. For example, a number oflegal staffs may be exchanging carefuUyconstructed documents relevant totheir compliance status.

This exchange of knowledge requiresthe requester to identify and describewhat compliance really means to theirbusiness operations. RealisticaUy, thiseffort calls for coUaboration amongsystems personnel, business ubjectmatter experts, and legal mff to obtainthe key information commensuratewith appropriate legal safeguard . Thiis generally accomplished with officialcorrespondence among partners. Thisrype of dialogue allows the re pectivepanies to determine where eacb standsregarding Y2K-specific criteria and toobtain assurances for continuedfunctioning of corporate practices,systems, and devices. Companies mustthen evaluate risk areas and developrelevant contingency plans. Clearly,this effort requir s independentassessment by the principal players of aspecific busines process as they judgethe capabilities of their partners anddetermine future alliances. Forexample, TRW adheres to theAutomotive lndu try Action Groupprocess for automotive supplier

50 Army RD&A

TRW's Year 2000Program Office

is continuingto verify our

internal systems,complete

comprehensive reviewsof our product lines,

and manageour supplierand service

compliance efforts.

management. This proce s is based onthe u e of a broad (2,000-plusquestions) Y2K urvey and leveragesthe activities of automotivemanufacturers to manage suppliersdeemed to be high ri k.

TRW is also identifying businesspractices that may be impacted by theY2K issue. In general, this requirescareful crutiny of our contractual baseto identify our responsibilities, measurespecific Y2K clauses or concern , andensure that we meet acqui itionrequiremems such as the FederalAcqui ition Regulation Y2K contractlanguage. This assessment aI 0 extendsto various products such as tho e in oursupply chain management, systemsintegration, and alllomotive sectors.

Y2K CustomersTRW is re pan ible for providing a

variery of ervice that continue toincrea e becau e of customer demand.Initially, significant support wasprovided for end-to-end services suchas assisting clients with Y2K awareness,inventory, assessment, migrationplanning, renovation, te ting, andimplementation activities. As D c. 31,1999, draws closer, client needsbecome greater and ervices reflect therequirement to focus on testing andvalidation suppOrt. Recently, manyclient directed dleir attention to thegeneraI areas of ri k management andcontinuity of business operations in aY2K environment.

While many business enterprise have

pursued orne form of planning andidentification of ri k areas, it isimportant to con ider the potentialfailure of various fixes and their impact.This approach provide theopportunity to e tablish policies andprocedure to deal with the pendingoperational impact. If feasiblealternative are not addressed, theimpact could be deva tating to normalbu iness transactions. 1n addition,problems outside the company's directcontrol may occur, such as poweroutages, upply chain managementdi ruption , or other provider services.Becau e most bu ine enterprises donor have the luxury of conducting acomprehensive end-to-end te t for Y2Kcompliance of their system, seniorleaders must apply their best judgmentin dealing with potential problems.Various methods, processe , and toolscan be employed, but the primary focusmust be on identifying the greatest riSksand having remedies in place shouldfailures occur.

ConclusionWill we really be finished with our

work when the calendar changes toJanuary 2000' Probably not.Collectively, the private sector and thegovernment will face a number ofchallenge. These may include ongoingfixe or remediation actions for othersystems preViously set aside on aprioriry basis. In addition, tinle wiUcontinue to reveal system, interface,and device problems requiringmodifications and maintenance. Boththe goverrunent and the private sectorcan benefit from TRW' Y2K efforts. Wenow have a very powerful portfolio ofknowledge from which to match ourinformation technology assets againstour fundamental business proce es.

PHiLLIP CURTIS is a SeniorManager in Ihe ystems CilzdInformation Tech/tO/ogy Group ofTRW Corp., McLean, VA. Heprevious~y served in the u.s. Annyin multiple command and staffposilions. I Ie has a 8.S degreefrom the u.s. Military Acadell~p

and an M.s. degree from theUniversity ofSouthern California.

May-Jlllle 1999

•

EXTREME VISIONFULL SPECTRUM IMAGING

FOR THE 21st CENTURY

David L. Jennings

IntroductionDigital imaging has exploded at

Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) with a variety•of vi ual systems used to documenttesting and research projects for DOD.From ultra high-speed imaging systemsu ing la er Light for illumination, tointeractive test reports, ATC has some ofthe most diverse and sophisticated visualinstrumentation capabilities in the Army.

Ultra High-Speed Imaging- The djgital revolution ha made it

possible to capture a visual sequence ofup to eight separate images at aneqUivalent 100 million frames persecond. Ultra high- peed imaging isdefined as recording peeds above onemillion frames per second. High-speed

'imaging is recording video images atfaster than the nonnal 60 field, 30 framesper second, up to one million frames persecond.

The recorded programmable imagesare displayed on a high-resolutionmonitor within half a second of capture.

'Variable exposure and interframe timesto 10 nanoseconds allow accuraterecording of the fastest events. Thisportable computer-controlled imagingsystem is rugged enough to withstandthe shock and vibration associated with~weapon systems te ting.

One of the major benefits to engineersstudying test phenomena is tile ability toview the test results immediately. "Ourproductivity and customer ati factionhas increased rremendou ly with onsiteverification of test data." states Mark

tern, Leader of the TechnicalPhotographic Section of ATC.Combining ultra high- peed imaging

May-JulIe 1999

technology widl portable lasers enablesengineers and scienti ts to see lbeunseen.

Aberdeen Test Center has designed aportable monochromatic laserUluminator system from commerdal off­the-shelf items for recording high­explosive test phenomena remm Iy. Dr.c.l. Francis, a physicist at ATC, states,"We've raken a technique developed atLawrence Livermore ational Laboratory,by Larry Shaw and his colleagues, andmoved it from the Iaborat0'1' to the fieldwith a portable system." The camerashutter in the ponable version isynchronized with laser pulses to

Uluminate the subject. One example ofhow this application is used is to studythe formation of a shaped charge from aviper \·varhead. A narrow bandpassoptical ftlter centered on the laserfrequency removes self-iIIumjnation,created by the warhead ignition, butpas es the laser Light to the camera. Theresult is a dear picture of the fomlationof shaped charges as they develop atspeeds in excess of 29,000 feet persecond.

Just as technology in weapons andsoldier suppon systems has developedover tile years, so has the ability todocument and analyze these systemswith high-speed and ultra high-speedcamem systems. These visual recordshave enabled engineers and scientists toview the sabot separation of a projectileas it exits a gun muzzle or to tudy theeffects of high-speed braking on theperfomlance of tracked vehides. Theimage acqui ition process hasprogressed from waiting for hours tohave a roU of mm processed chemicaUy

to only seconds for a digital image to bedisplayed in near real time. Not only isthis a tremendous savings of labor hours,but it also represents a benefit to dleenvironment and COSt savings indlemical handling, disposal, and wastewater treatment.

All systems used by ATe are designed orbuilt to specifications tilat permit them tobe Iran ported and used in the mostextreme environmental and explosiveconditions. Camera are in the line offire daily as they capture the downboreexit of a projectile as it leaves the bane!of a tank. The camera po itioned in frontof the gun records the inlage off of amirror angled to view direcdy down thebarrel. The subsequent imagedocuments the flight of the projectile asit appears to come direcdy at the camem.Full motion is recorded at peeds up to4,500 frames per second or up to 40,500frames per second in split frame mode.Up to 5,120 images can be stored indigital memory for review.

A digital image converter ystem(capable of recording up to 24 images atan equivalent 20 mmion frames persecond) has been used to provide criticalinformation not pteviously available withconventional high-speed Iilm cameras.This test involved firing a 120 mmprojectile at a spaced armor target. Asensor placed behind the first armorplate provided dara until the projectiledestroyed it. It was not previou lyknown if the projectile broke cleanlythroUgll the first plate or if the spaucloud from the plate was moving fusterthan the projectile, cauSing the sensor tobe destroyed before the accurate darawas received. One theory was the spaU

AmryRD&A 51

A35mmremote camera

recordsthe type of

environmentin which digital

and film imagingsystems

are used atthe U.S. Army

AberdeenTest Center.

cloud could have been responsible forthe sensor destruction, which if true,would seriously degrade the analysis.With the ultra high-speed imager, it waspossible to record a visual image to verifythat the projectile traveled 17 inchesbefore it outdistanced the spall cloudand destroyed the sensor. The visualproof of the sensor destruction validatedthe data provided by the sensor to thepOint of destruction. Thi visualinformation had never before beenavailable in a portable field environmentwith immedjate onsite analysis. Thecamera produces an image resolution of2,000 by 2,000 pixels. A pixel is thesmallest resolvable picture element in asolid-state imaging de.>ice. The 2,000 by2,000 pixel file is equivalent to an 11.4­megabyte digital file that can bedownloaded to a Tagged Image FileFormat (IlFF). The image can also berecorded onto a 4- by 5-inch colornegative from the phosphorus screen.

High-Speed VideoAnother premier digital imaging system

used at ATC records up to 1,000 framesper second in color with more than 5seconds recording time at a resolution of512 by 384 pixels. The camera producesan instant high·speed image that can bedownloaded to analog or digital mediafor further image evaluation.

Ballistic range cameras are used daily atATC to document the performance ofprojectiles. These production roundsare tested to ensure the integrity ofammunition lots being sent throughoutDOD for use by our soldiers. Theballistic range camera records a singleimage at 1,134 by 486 pixels. The image

52 A,.,nt RD&A

is instantly rransmined to the testdirector or customer for immediateevaluation. A digital X-ray records theprojectile inside the fireball while theinfrared camera records any burningresidue at the breech. Instead of waitinguntil firing has been completed, imagesare transmitted at near real time, alongwith target impact data, to the engineersand customer during the test for onsiteanalysis. The ballistic range cameraproduce a single black and white imageunless the more sophisticated colorsystem is used. The color systemincorporates three prism cameras mixedthrough a central element creating thecolor image. The ballistic range camerahas replaced the 35 mm smear cameraon production acceptance tests.

Film TechnologyTraditional phorography and high­

speed motion picture technology is stillin use at ATC to augmem and providecapabilities not available with digitalimaging. Combining the best aspects ofchemical Iilm-based technology with thelatest digital innovations, ATC providescustomers throughout DOD with criticaltest information consisting of the bestquaJjty product available. The digitalsystems meet the immediate need forspeed, while film technology meets theneed for higher resolution.

Striving to increase productivity hasalso benefited the environment byreducing the amount of chemical wasteused in film processing. Five years ago,nearly 1.75 million feet ofmotion picturefilm was processed each year. This wastime consuming and costly. Entire guncrews and engineers had to wait until the

film was processed to verify the projectileand other instrumentation was working:properly before continuing with the test.Digital imaging has reduced the annualamount of film processed to less than250,000 feet.

Digital imaging continues torevolutionize the way data are captured,transmirted, and stored at ATe. "Wecu rrently use a hybrid approach todocumentation, combining the best ofdjgital imaging and Iilm technology, toprovide the most cost-efficienr and timelyproduct for our customers," says RobertHagan, Lead Visual InformationSpeciaJjst at the Image Processing Lab.

ATC follows the data collection cyelewith an excellent presentation and testreporting multimedia team. The teamuses nonlinear digital editing suites toproduce videotapes and also authorsinteractive test reports that ineludeaudio, text, video, digitized film, stillimages, and graphs. The multimediareports are released on compact disc(CD). A web page is available atwww.atc.anny.mlliiic to keep updatedon the latest developments at ATC'sInternational Imaging Center.

Future InitiativesAs computers and communications

evolve on a daily basis, the InternationalImaging Center continues its explorationof the breakthroughs in science andtechnology and how they can be adaptedto test documentation. "One area thatlooks promising for the future isconnecting the ultra high-speed imagingsystem to a micro cope to documentinteractions," states William Nori, SeniorLmaging Specialist under contract to ATe.Full flight video tracking, from firing toimpact, is currently being developed to ..augment the array of visualinstrumentation. Cine-radiography andunderwater high-speed imaging ofwarhead and target interaction are {WO

other areas in which ATC is working todevelop another tool designed to see theunseen. ..

DAVID L. JENNINGS is the Leader ofthe International imaging Jeam atthe Us. Anny Aberdeen Test Center.He has a B.A degree in journalismand mass communications fromNew Mexico State University and anM.S. degree in instructionaltechnology from Towson StateUniversity. He is also a member ofthe Range Commanders Council,Optical Systems Group.

May-lIllie 1999

A CompetitiveProblem-Solving Acquisition . •

DELTACONTRACTING

Sharon R. Brown

'-IntroductionThe Holston Army Ammunition Plant

(HSAAP) in Kingsport, TN, wasconstructed in the early 1940s tomanufacture large quamities ofRDXIHMX high explosives. Now anelemem of the Industrial OperationsCommand (lOC), me plant was used

_ significantly during World War 11, theKorean War, Vietnam, and DesertStorm. However, peacetime usage hasbeen declining significantly during thepast 10 years, with a correspondingincrease in the price per pound ofRDXs/HMXs. As a result, more and

• more IOC customers are taking theirbusiness elsewhere (offshore), causinga further decline in production and agreater increase in price. At the sametime, the replenishment mission forHSAAP remains high. Replenishment is

the requirement to producereplacement stocks as directed byDefense Planning Guidance. HSAAPhas me entire replenishmem missionfor DOD RDXs/HMXs. DOD peacetimerequirements for high explosives rangefrom ;00,000 pounds per year to about2 million pounds per year. This vastdifference between DOD peacetimerequirements and its replenishmentcapaCity was the challenge Iileing IOCto keep and/or bring back RDXsIHMXscustomers.

E?qJlosives ManagementAlternatives Team

In March 1997, MG James w. Monro,then Commanding General of the IOC,chartered a small multidiseiplined teamto "compete the problem" of thepeacetime and replenishmem missions

surrounding high explosives and meHSAAP. The Explosives ManagementAlternatives Team (XMAT) was formedto develop and execute an acquisitionstrategy through contract award for me"peacetime and replenishmentrequirements of RDXs/HMXs and formanagement of the HSAAP Iilcility."The XMAT was comprised of thecontracting officer, who also served asthe team leader; a programmanagement engineer; twO industrialbase specialists; one productionspecialist; a contract specialist; and anattorney.

The StrategyThe XMAT developed a strategy that

calls for maximum industryinvolvement in both defining andsolVing the problem, while maintaining

May-Jutle 1999

To maintain the Delta contracting environment,i.e., the competitive nature of this acquisition,

the XMAT devised a two-step acquisition processwhere the best offerors would be selected

in the first step, and the best offerselected in the second step.

ArmyRD&A 53

One of thekey elements

in XMAT'ssuccessful

Delta acquisitionwas practice.

TheXMATpracticed scoringoral presentations

during thefirst phase of

the acquisition,and the contractors

practiced submissionof their technical plans.

full and open competition. Thiscontracting method is called "Delta"contr"dccing. It is an outgrowth of dleconcept of Alpha contracting whichinvolves a sole-source contractor fordevelopment of the scope of work, thesolicitation procedure, and theeventual contract. Delta contractinguses .this same type of contractorinvolvement throughout dle acquisitionprocess, but maintains this relationshipwith multiple contractors on acompetitive basis.

The flfSt step in developing Deltacontracting was to identify theproblems to be solved. Four problemswere identified that would remain partof the olicitation and be the eventualscope of contract performance:obtaining a suitable peacetime supplyof RDXsIHMXs, ensuring replen­ishment for these items, developing aresearch and development plan for 21stcentury RDXsIHMXs, and developing afacility use plan for the HSAAP.

The second step was to solicitmaximum industry involvement. ThefollOWing approaches were used toadvenise this acquisition strategy and

54 ArmyRD&A

invite participation: multiple announce­ments in the Commerce Busilzess Da.ily,presolicitation conferences, caU forconcept papers, an Internet home pagethat displayed the acquisition strategyand erved as a multipurposecommunication tool, and XMATinterviews widl trade journals andnewspapers. As a result of the conceptpapers and questions and answersexchanged on the home page, theacquisition strategy was developed. Theacquisition strategy would be a full andopen competition, with the ability toolve the four problems as the primary

cr.iteria. To maintain the Deltacontracting environment, Le., thecompetitive nature of this acquisition,the XMAT devi ed a two-step acquisitionprocess where the best offerors wouldbe selected in the first tep, and the bestoffer selected in the second step.

The initial solicitation was issued widlthe following criteria: experience, pastperformance, financial status, and thetechnical plans. These criteria weredeveloped so that only the very bestofferors with the very best chance ofwinning the eventual contract wouldadvance to the next phase. Acompetitive range was established onthis basis. For 6 months, the XMATcorresponded intensively with thesuccessful offerors from the initialsolicitation, inviting them to the H AAPfacility, sharing the maximuminformation about the products, thefacility itself, and the problems. Thistrategy allowed the contractors to

devise their own unique solutions tothe four problems and did not providea preset scope of work.

Th second solicitation contained thecontractual provisions of a fa.cility-usecontract (the RDXs/HMXs were on aseparate requirements solicitation);however, the performance plansconsisted of eight blank sheets ofpaper, two per problem. Offerorssubmitted their solutions on tbeseblank sheets. A practice se sion washeld where the offerors submitted theirplans and the XMAT determinedwhether the plans would be sufficientto evaluate and be meaningful as aconenlct requirement.

The second set of eV'dluation factorswere the overall cost to thegovernment, technical plans, and anoverall risk assessment.

Lessons LearnedOne of the key elements to XMAT's

successful Delta acquisition waspractice. The XMAT practiced scoringoral presentations during the firstpha e of the acqui ition, and thecontractors practiced submission ofdleir technical plan. Protection ofinformation was also a key part of theXMAT success. A major reason that thiswas possible was the small size of the t

XMAT and me protocol that the XMATdeveloped to gather and provideinformation. All offerors had to beconfident that the XMAT would notreveal their unique plans to anotherofferor and that the XMAT would adviseeach offeror fairly. During the opendiscussion phase, the XMAT publisheda protocol on how information wouldbe shared. This provided a vehicle forall parties to understand how thei.rinformation would be used and howthe XMAT guaranteed aCCtlracy and.protection of me information.

A fLllal lesson learned was that for acompetitive Delta acqu isition to be ofmost value for the buying agency, theagency must clearly discern from eachofferor "wbat's in it for them." This wasa premi. e of the XMAT acquisition andallowed each contractor to discu s whataspects of the problem solution best fittheir corporate strategies and what theroc could do to make the final contractmore attractive for each of me offerors.

ConclusionAs demon trated by thi proces,

which took approximately 1; months, a..competitive problem-solving acqui­sition can be accomplished in a timelyand effective manner through u e ofDelta contracting techniques.

Of

SHARON R. BROWN is the JOCContracting Officer for' both theRadford and Holston ArmyAmmunition Plants at Radford, VA,and Kingsport TN, respectively,and served as the XMAY:Contracting Ofli:cer and TeamLeader. he has a B.A degree inEnglish literature from theUniversity ofNebraska.

May-Jlllle 1999

THE ARMY'SENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

OVERSIGHT PROCESSIntroduction

The Army is committed to being aleader in envirOlUnental stewardship forits instaUations, facilities, training areas,and weapon systems. It must continueto use its resources wisely to meet itsmilitary and civil responsibilities withoutcompromising its role as anenvironmental steward. Technology canhelp the Army meet these responsibilitiesby improving it ability w conservenatural resources, reduce environmentaloperating costs, and field systems Widlminimal or no ad,'erse environmenl<1.Iimpact.

In view of the Army' environmentalrespon~ibilities, the Assistant Secretary of

.. the Army for Research, Development andAcquisition (ASA(RDA)) (now AssistantSecretary of the Army for Acquisition,

I'- Logistic and Technology (ASA(ALT)) andth As istant Secretary of the Anny forInstaUations, Logistics and Environment(ASA(lLE)) (now ASA for Installations andEnvironment) established an environ·

[1 mental technology m,magement processon May 2, 1997. The goals are to focusenvironmental technology programs onuser needs, support efforts to provide ascienc base for the future, and integratethe efforts of environmental technologyprincipal investigawrs w support the

~ Army's environmental strategy.The Army's approach to managing

environmental technology useseconomic analyses to identify the bestprojects for fundi.ng based on the AmlYmission and environmental urgency,potential COSt avoidance, investment

.. costs, and program risk. This approachwas developed and implemented in1997.

Management ProcessThe Army's environmental technology

management process was formulated to.. focus the Army's research and

development (R&D) effons on fulJillingrequirements in a timely and cost·efficient manner. This process isevolving and will undergo refinement asit matures. The Army's goal is to achieve,through technology development and

.. explOitation, environmentally compat­ible installations and systems without

May-Jltfte 1999

Joseph S. Vallone,Donald R. Artis Jr., and

Peter F. Tuebner P.E.

comprom1 Ing readiness or tralnillg.Concurrent with establishment of theenvironmental technology managementprocess in May 1997, the ASA(RDA) andASA(JLE) eSl<'lblished an EnvirolUnentalTechnology Technical Council (ETIC).ETIC members are senior Army leadersat the headquarters and directoratelevels.

The mission of the ETrc is to provideguidance and direction to theenvironmental technology community,focusing on science and technology anddemonstt'J.tionJvalidation funded workto satisfy user research, development,tesr, and evaluation (RDT&E)requirements. This process will producethe Army's Environmental TechnologyProgram Plan. The goal is to fundprograms now to avoid future costs.

After the appl'Oval of program funding,the ETIC will provide oversight toensure it is progre ing to resolverequirements. Adjustments to theprogram will be made when necessary toensure the requirements have beenresolved.

Additional environmental technologyoversight responsibilities will beadministered by the EnvironmentalTechnology Integrated Process Team(ETIPT), which is a working groupsupporting the £lTC, and technologyteams (ITs) representing each of theem~ronmental pillars (compliance.conservation, pollution prevention, andrestoration). The ITs are composed ofmembers from the R&D community, aswell as the eventual u ers of the newtechnology. The Plexus Scientific Corp.,an independent contractor, provideseconomic analysi and program supportto dle ETIPT.

Requirement IdentificationIn October 1997, the ITs were asked to

submit their program plans based ontheir tOP five requirements. The TIsidentifted requirements using the ArmyEnvironmental Technology Needs Survey(TNS) , which documents and priodtizesrequirements. The programs to resolvethese requirements were fonnulated forinclusion in the Program ObjectiveMemorandum (pOM) 00-05 submission.

The Assistant Chief of Staff forInstallation Management is theproponent for the tedlllology needsprocess. The TNS documents tech­nology needs from four usercommunities: users responsible forinstallation infrastructure, users frommajor commands (MACOMs) thatdevelop and manage weapon systems,MACOMs that use those weapon systems,and agencies responsible for collectingand tracking needs related toinfrastructure and weapon systems.In November 1997, each TI submitted

its high-priority requirements andidentified resource needs (funded andunfunded) i.nduding RDT&E; pro­curement; and Army Operation andMaintenance funds needed to develop,field, and exploit technology to resolveR&D requirements. RDT&E funds werecategorized as follows: program element,project, task, and work package.

Funding was identified for FY96through FYOS. Funded and unfundedefforts may exist simul-taneously for aparticular requirement's resolution. Lnthe near term (FY98 or FY99) , nounfunded requirements were supportedOr reprogrammed. Unfunded require­ments begin no earlier than FYOO.

The rIs were asked to provide theoperating costs !O "live" with the currentenvironmental problem and theoperating costs once the correctivetechnology was fielded. These costswere used to compute the expected costavoidance for each requirement and thepayback period to recoup the investmentCOSt. The cost data submitted for each ofthe requirements were analyzed by theETIPT for consistency and reliability.

Prioritization MethodologyAn economic analysis was perfonned

on each of the requirements. Where data

Army RD&A 55

gaps existed, the TIS were asked torevalidate their data. The data werereviewed again and, in consultation withthe Army COSt and Economic AnalysisCenter (CEAC) , an economic analysismodel named ThrboBPR was elected tocompute the payback period, rerum-on­investment, and net present value (NPV)of the potential cost avoidance for each ofthe programs. Three criteria wereselected that represented the mostimportant goals of the environmentaltechnology management process. Theywere the ratio of cost avoidance toinvestment; pillar priority, which reflectedthe environmental and mission urgencyof the requirement; and programmaticrisk, which reflected the risk of success orfailure of the requirement based on howthe program for each requirement wasdeveloped. Each program was assigned ascore in each of these areas andprioritized based on its score. Theprocess and prioritization was presentedto the ETIC, which then grantedapproval to present the proposedprograms for funding.

TurboBPRThrboBPR is a business process

reengineering support tool developed for000 by SRA International Inc. It wasrecommended by CEAC because it closelymirrors the goals of the environmentaltechnology management process.ThrboBPR is a Wtndows-based programthat allows the user to build a strategicplan, linking mission, vision, goals,performance measures, and strategies. Itgives the user the framework to analyzeopera.ting and investment costs anddetermine potential cost avoidance.

The Tfs entered their data imoThrboBPR. Required data were theoperating cost of living with theenvironmental problem as it currendyexists, the cost of developing and fieldingthe technology to solve the problem, andthe potential cost avoidance if thetechnology is developed and fielded.

CEAC InvolvementThe CEAC validated the prioritization

process, reviewed the data, identifieddiscrepancies and inconsistencies,oversaw the input of the data intoThrboBPR, and recommended the finalprioritization method. The CEACconcluded that the assumptions,constraints, and methodology used byeach tearn were Logical, reasonable, andcomplete; that each TI's estimate of costsand benefits appeared to be realistic andwere derived after much thought,analysis, and discussion; that theapproadl used for estimating costs isconsistent across the alternatives and

56 Army RD&A

across pillars; and the TIs used properin£Iation and discounting rates.

Prioritization CriteriaOnce the lurboBPR results were

obtained, prioritization criteria weredeveloped using the ThrboBPR results ordata submitted by the TIs. The criteriawere total investment cost in FY98dollars, total unfunded requirement (in"then year" dollars), cost avoidance tototal investment ratio (CVIR), unfundedrequirement to total cost avoidance ratio,programmatic risk, a check to see if eachrequirement complies with DODguidance, and mission/environmentalurgency.

Three of the prioritization criteria wereselected because they closely repre­sented the most inlportant goals of theenvironmental technology managementprocess: CVIR, mission/environmentalurgency, and programmatic risk.

Prioritization ResultsThe results of the rating process

produced a prioritized list of programs.All of the top rwo programs within eachof the four pillars rank within the upperhalf of those efforts considered prioritiesin the Environmental TechnologyProgram. 1his prioritization reflects theimporlance of the mission/environmentalurgency factor. It was felt that d1is factorshould dominate based on its inlporlanceas defined by the TIS,

ConclusionThe goals of the environmental

technology management process are tofocus environmental teclmology pro­grams on u er needs, support efforts toprovide an adequate science base for thefurure, and integrate the efforts ofenvironmental TIS to support the Anny'senvironmental strategy. Meeting thesegoals requires a wise use of the Anny'sIimited resources.

The results of identifying all the costand benefit data, economic analysis, andprioritization efforts reveals that for aninvestment of $312 million (NPY, FY98dollars), there is the potential to avoidspending $4 billion (NPY, FY98 dollars)over a 17-year period. This is asignificant investment, but it reveals thepotential to save considerable resources.More work needs to be done to refinethese dollar amounts, but the analysisreveals that environmental teronology isa wise investment The realities oftoday's budgets make it unlikely that d1isprogram could be funded in its entirety,but the potential cost avoidances makesit imperative that some type ofinvestment begin now. As the programmaUlies, cost estimating will be refined,

and the program's success willdemonstrate the wisdom of thisapproach, The final result will be farfewer environmental problems, moreefficiem use of resources, and inlprovedmilitary readiness,

Authors' Note: Secretary of the ArmyLouis Caldln"a issued a policymemorandum Feb. 10, 1999, promul­gating/codifying the Army's newEnvironmental Quality Technology(EQl) Program. In addition to hispraisefor tbe Anny team responsible fortbis achievement, tbe rrumw challengesthis new partnln"ship to seek BQT"esolution ofhigh-priority requirementsencompass-Ing environment, safety, andbealtb across tbe total Anny.

JOSEPH S. VNLONE is the Assistantfor the Environment and7echnology, Office of the AssistantSecretary of the Army (Installationsand Environment), and serves asco-chair for the £TIPT He has abachelor of architecture from the,University of New ltJrk School ofArchitecture and EngineeringDesign.

DONALD R. ARTIS JR is theTechnology Staff Manager forEnvironmental Quality, BattlespaceEnvironments and MilitaryEngineering Technology, Office of"the Assistant Secretary of the Ar-my(Acquisition, Logistics andTechnology), and serves as co-chairfor the £TIFT He has a B.S. degree inaerospace engineering from theUniversity ofTexas at Austin and an'M.S. degree in publicadministration from Old DominionUniversity, Norfolk, VAPETER F TUEBNER is a Project

Managerfor Plexus Scientific Corp.,Silver Spring, MD, He has a B.S. ~degree from the Us. MilitaryAcademy, an M.M. degree inbusiness from NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL, and anME degree in civil engineering andenvironmental science from ..McNeese State Univer. ity, LakeCharle, LA He is a registeredProfessional Engineel- in Virginia, •

May-June 1999

..

_IntroductionThe first Low Rate tnitial Production

• MlA2 Abrams tank, produced byGeneral Dynamics Land Systems(GOLS) , was built in ovember 1992and has been fielded since October1995. This was the first Abrams tank

• ystem containing downloadablesoftware vice finnware. Why publish an

• article on oftware testing of the MlA2tank system when the tank has been inproduction for more than 6 years' The

• answer is because software develop­ment (or, more appropriately, oftware

-11.aintenance) for the MlA2 tank is anongoing process that will continue well

.. after the last MlA2 tank rolls off theproduction line; and with softwaremaintenance comes software testing.

Abrams Tank Program, .. Program Manager (PM) of the Abrams

Tank COL James C. Moran manages the, development of MlA2 software thatcorrects prioritized software troublereports, development of tanker (u er)-

... generated enhancements, and fieldingof a software release approximatelyevery 18 months. As these softwarecorrections and enhancements are

"developed, several iterations of testing"are performed at a mlnimum of four

levels before the software is ready for~ submission to the .S. Anny Aberdeen

Proving Ground (APG) for software• safety release (SSR) and beta (user)Jesting.

The software developer generates.changes to enhance the capability ofthe tank or to correct bugs in the

10 system software at its lowest level, the• computer software unit (CSU) which is

referred to as a package. A CSU isp similar to a program that performs a

specific operation. When the CSU is"Combined with several other CSUs thateidler directly or indirectly interact with

• each other, the resulting block of• software is a computer softwarecomponent (CSC). When the CSCs are

~ ~mbinedwith other CSCs that operatein one of the tank's "black boxes" or

'line replaceable units, the result is acomputer oftware configuration item(CSC/). Finally, when all of the tank's

• .SCIs are combined, the result isknown as system software. These four

, levels of software generation translateto four logical phases for conducting'software tests as depicted in theaccompanying chart.

May-JUlie 1999

SOFTWARETESTINGON THEM1A2ABRAMSTANK

Kevin L. Houser andDonald B. Salsman

Software TestingAs the software developer creates a

new program or modifies an existingsoftware unit, he or she also formulatesand develops software test cases andprocedures to verify that the completedsoftware operates correctly. Once theCSU has been tested and verified, it isintegrated with other CSUs. Together,these are logically cohesive to themodified CSU, thus creating a CSc.

At the CSC level, the developer againconducts a series of tests to verify thatthe modified software operatescorrectly and interfaces with otherpackages that are directly or indirectlyassociated with the modified CSU. Thedeveloper determines how compre­hensive the testing must be to verify notonly that the modified softwarefunctions correctly, but also that itinteracts properly with other units thatuse the output from the modified unit.This is referred to as regressionanalysis, and the output of regressionanalysis is a matrix of tests to verify that

modified software operates correctly.At a minimum, the developer must

conduct tests to verify the correctoperation of all units that are directlyaffected by the modified CS . In otherwords, if a unit is dependent onanother unit that has been modified,then the dependent unit must also betested. In addition, the developerconducts tests on other integrated unitsthat are indirectly affected by themodified CSU. For example, assumePackage A is modified, Package Bdirectly interfaces to Package A, and athird unit (package C) directlyinterfaces with Package B, but notPackage A. In this case, becausePackage B is directly dependent onPackage A, it must be tested.

Additionally, because Package C isindirectly affected by Package A, thedeveloper must decide whetherPackage C should be tested. Typically,the developer's decision whether totest indirectly affected units is based onthe safety inlplications and mission

ArmyRD&A 57

MIA2 Software Test LevelscriticaLty of the unit. Once the C C isverified to operate correctly, it isintegrated in an iterative proce withthe remaining modified C C until theentire configuration item, or CSCI, isrebuill.

At the CSCI level, the software isdownloaded and tested on the targethardware as an entire package usingsoftware test de criptions. These testdescriptions verify that the completedsoftware performs in accordance withthe CSCI software requirementSspecification. Tests at the CSCllevel areconducted by an independent group ofengineers at GDLS and witne sed byboth GDLS quality assurance personneland government personnel.

After all CSCls that constitute theMlA2 tank system software have beentested, a fina1 developer phase of tests isconducted at the system level. ystem­level testing is performed with all CSClsinterfaced to each other anddownloaded in the GDLS systemintegration laboratory, and on a full-upMlA2 tank that replicates the fieldedtank configuration. There are morethan 5,000 test teps at the system levelto verify that the new software functionscorrectly.

Functional tests are performed on theentire system software to verify that thecombination of all hardware andsoftware operates correctly. Thesefunctional tests are categorized by themajor operational capabilities of thetank such as command and control, fLfecomrol, diagnostics, power manage­ment, data management, and aUlD­motive and navigation. These tests areperformed by a separate group ofengineers at GDLS and are alsowimessed by government personnel.Upon completion of the system-leveltest phase, the software is packaged ona CD-ROM and sent to APG for the finaltwo government pha e of the testprocess, SSR and beta (user) te ting.

Software Safety ReleaseThe U.S. Army Test and Evaluation

Command at APG has the responsibilityfor issuing the SSR for the MlA2 tank.The objective of the SSR is lD en urethat the vehicle is safe to operate withthe new software and that there is nodanger to the tanker or adverse impactson the vehicle sy tern.

Following delivery of the systemsoftware, the software is downloaded tothe APG test tank. This tank has beenfully instrumented to record all data andutility bus traffic to a sist in fault

isolation if an event occurs. Testinginvolve exercising a majority of thecapabilities associated with the tank toverify correct and safe operation. Thesecapabilitie include moving andshooting Bve round at targets.

Upon completion of the SR, adetailed Jest report is produced thatid~ntifies the strengths and weaknesseof the new software. If no majorproblems are identified, a safety releaseis issued. The safety release allows thenew software to be installed on fieldedvehicles; however, a beta (u er) test itypically conducted as a final measureof the quality of th oftwate.

Beta Testingp ro this point, engineer and

technicians conducted all testing, andall te t steps were done "by the book."The difference in beta testing is that it isconducted by senior enlisted soldiers(brought to the te t ite from FortKnox) who put the vehicle and softwarethrough its pace. These soldierprovide a flavor of how they are trainedand how they u e the tank bysubjecting the tank ro many of thescenarios experienced in a realisticmission.

Before using the tank, the Fon Knoxpersonnel are provided a trainingsession on the change made 10 thesoftware. The oldiers then perform allnormal operations of the tank-fromgunnery exercises to preventativemaintenance. Training device are alsoinstalled 10 ensure lIlat no interferenceproblems are encountered. if no majorproblems are found during the oldierte ting, the PM Ab ranlS , with theconcurrence of the u er committee,releases the new software for fielding.

•

..Conclusion

The software te t process on the MlA2tank is detailed and comprehensive.•Although the tank has been illproduction for years, softwar~

development and testing continue, and.future software releases are planned.

long as the tank i fielded and in u e,the necessity for software maintenancewill be an ongOing requirement. ;.

KEVIN L. NOU. ER is a eniorProject Engineer at the U.S Army~

Tank-automotive and h"mamentsCommand in Warren, MI, andmanages tbe U.s. and ForeignMilitary Sales MIA2 Tank Software.,Maint(mance Programs. He holdsa B.SM.£. from Wayne State'

niversity and an M.. incomputer information systemsfrom the University of Detmit, •Detroit, MI.

DONALD B. SALSMAN is a Senior7e t Engineer at the U. S. AI-myTank-automotive and Al-mament •Command, Warren, MI, andmanages the U.S and Fm'eign'Military ales MIA2 Tank Soflwa~ ...Testing Program. He bold a B. .degree in marine engineering'technology from CaliforniaMaritime Acaden~y, Vallejo, CA

} .1 '

May-/u1le 1999

..

•

..

OPERATIONS ANDMAINTENANCE

OF IOWA AND MILANARMY

AMMUNITIONPLANTSLTC Jyuji D. Hewitt

troduction• The Army is undergoing areengineering process to become moreletbal and more mobile in the 21stcentury. Simllarly, production of

"'ammunition to uppor! tbe Army'sneeds is also changing. During the pastdecade, funding for ammunition hasJ:!ecreased 50 percent. The ammu­nition production base could be

'characterized as ooe of decliningworkload, declining budget and aginginfrastructure. This funding decline,

• coupled with high infrastructure coststo maintain ammunition facilities, hasll'esulted in the Army receiving fewerproducts for each procurement doUar

• pent.~ In an effort to encourage wide-range

consideration of this situation, the~ Industrial Operations Command (l0C),

a major subordinate command of theArmy Materiel Command (AMC),challenged both government and'ndustry to help solve its munitions

mission problem: "How does the Armyoptimize the COSt of infrastructurerequired ro maintain critical productionfacilities ro achieve Defensereplenishment and peacetime trainingrequirelnents?"

One industry response to thisproblem is an innovative partnershipbetween industry and government.Mason & Hanger Corp. (MHC) andGeneral Dynamics Ordnance Systems(GDOS) propo ed and formed a newjoint venture called AmericanOrdnance Limited Liability Corporation(AO LLC).

This unique partn r hip combinedthe operator of tbe Army's twolargest government-oy."'ed, contractor­operated Load, Assemble and Pack(LAP) plants. Furthermore, itsynergized the trengths of each entity'sparent corporation-Mason & Hanger,with its more than 45 years of operatingammunition plants. and GeneralDynamics, with its domestic and

international marketing network. Thisbold approach aligns with currentacquisition reform initiatives, transfersmore of the government oversight ofplant management functions toindustry, and addresses issues relatingto infrastructure costs.

On July 22, 1998, the 10C awarded a5-year, facility-use contract to AO LLCfor the operation of two of its LAPplants, Milan and Iowa ArmyAmmunition Plants. This noncom­petitive award take advantage of thepartnership formed by AO LLC and thegovernment to reduce the cost ofammunition production whlle maIn­taining the highest standards of qualityand safety.

The Joint VentureAO LLC is a stand-alone company that

is led by its own president. Itscorporate tfuCture, however, isunique, and its overhead functions are[zed to its needs. By managing two

• t

j t

May-/llnf 1999

The ammunition production basecould be characterized asone of declining workload,

declining budget, andaging infrastructure.

Ann1J RD&A 59

....

TOTAL BENEFITS SUMMARYGOVERNMENT

• 5-Vr.Savings: St15M and Possibly 10re• Conlrols Production Capabilities

• Future Firm-Fixed Pricing• Opportunity to Reduce

InIrastructure

• More Technical and OperationsEx pertisc to Resolve ExistingProblems

• Optimize Technical Expertise Fromoncompetition

• Morc Flexibility and Agility

• Potential for Less O"ersighl S

• Immediate Facilities-Use Contract atBoth Milan and Iowa

• Profit Sharing and Private Investment

• 0 Equip Ownership Hassles

• Commercial Practices• Opportunity for Total Customer

Partne.ring

AMERICAN ORDNANCE

• More Stability for Planning &Investment

• Flexibility to Maximize FacilitiesCapabilities

• More Competitive• Increased Technical Expertise

• World Market Opportunity• More Incentive to Market Wider

Range of Products and Capabilities

• Opportunity for Total CustomerPartnering

• Scrve as Stable Be t- nlue LAPCapability

American Ordnance Is A Win-Win

For All Customers

...

...

plants, AO LLC can leverage itsoverhead and martly reduce thefootprint using best·business practices.Common overhead staffs will reside ascenters of excellence, with either theMilan or Iowa Army Anununition plantas the lead center. Initial conceptsinclude consolidation of communi­cation and managemenr informationsystems.

In an effort to keep overhead costslow, general and administrativefunctions that do not routinely supportdirect operations will be acqUiredthrough parent organizations on an as·needed basis via purchased servicecontracts. Typically, these types ofservices include marketing, legalsupport, and unique engineeringsupport.

The arrangement with the Army isrelatively straightforward: AO LiCmanages and operates the Iowa andMilan Army Ammunition PLants.commits to a 2D-percent guaranteedprice reduction in the IOC workloadedlAP prices, and provides up to $10million in private investment forcontinuous improvement. The Armyagrees to indemnification and a 5-yearfacility-use noncompetitive firm·fixed­price contract with AO LLC. This

undertaking by both parties presents adeal that shares both benefits andcommitments.

Contract SpecificsThe contract used to execute the

agreement is the facility-use contract.This contract is comprised of a zerocost agreement characterized by thenecessary plans that stipulate theoverhead efforts. Additionally, anadvance agreement and two basic orderagreements (BOAs) are attached, onefor supplies and another for services.

The overhead efforts are establishedin detail through six plans. These aremaintenance, security, safety, property,environmental, and fire plans. Theseplans, funded by the contractor,describe the performance requirementsof the contractor and designate theappropriate compliance regulations.Additionally, the contract sets forth theagreements for facility use conditionsfor other government work andnongovernment tenants.

The advance agreement sets forth theconcepts to acbieve quality, partnering,and pricing agreements. Price matricesare a unique feature of this agreement.The Army and AO LLC agreed to setcatalog prices based on quantity for 24

ammunition products. Additionally, theadvance agreement described perform-'ance guarant.ees and the conditions forAO lie's $10 million investment over 5years for effiCiency and safety.improvements for the Iowa and Milanfacilities.

The BOAs are straightforward. Thesupply BOA lists tbe types orammunition items that may berequested for production. The servicesBOA Lists the various activities needed ~

to maintain the facili.ty. These includemaintenance of inacrive industrialfacilities (MllF) and active industrialfacilities, layaway of inactive facilities:demilitarization, and environmental.services that, because of theirunstructured nature, are cost-plus·agreements.

Cost Savings ..A significam benefit of this

arrangement is the use of firm-fixed ,catalog prices for 24 ammunitionproducts thar are budgeted in th'e'Program Objective Memorandum(POM) and presented in the AO lie-'president's February 1998 5-yeabudget submission. Savings accumu­late over the course of the contract.Based on the projected workload of the

•Mal/-Tllne 1999

-

.,tasks are to be performed, not how toperform them.

Partnering was a crucial tool toaccomplish this effort. First, MHC andGOOS partnered to form AO LLG.Second, partnering within thegovernment convinced higher levels ofmanagement that a radical approach wasa good deal. Third, partnering betweenthe IOC personnel, the industrycontracting team, and personnel at the[Wo plants helped to work out the deal.Finally; partnering relationsbips wereformed between IOC and AMC's PMs asthe price matrix developed and wasoffered to other PMs.

SummaryThe formation of AO LLC and the

Army's acquisition reform initiativesprovided the potential for $115 millionin savings during the next 5 years.Through the efforts of the IOC, therequirements of the government arebeing met without compromising theindustrial base. The Army; through theuse of a price catalog, can receiveammunition items al a guaranteedprice. Although it is not envisioned, themarketplace bas the businessresponsibility to close unneededfacilities and to maximize use ofretained facilities and lines that bring ina reasonable profit. The S-year contractwith AO liC provides the government astable technical workforce whoseprocesses become integrated for boththe Milan and Iowa Army AmmunitionPlants. The chan on Page 60summarizes the benefits to AO liC andthe Army.

LTC jYUJi D HEWITT isCommander of tbe iowa ArmyAmmunition Plant. He boldsmaster's degrees in systemsmanagement from the Floridainstitute of Technology and inphysics from the University ofNewHampshire. He has also completedthe Ordnance Basic andAdvancedCourses, the Army ManagementStaff College, tbe Army Commandand General Staff College, and tbeJoint and Combined Warfightingxhool

Price Savings On OtherWork

The analysis of the available marketmix showed that not ortly will the IOCbenefit from these cost savings, butother government sectors will as well.By becoming more competitive,program executive offices and programmanagers (PMs) can choose to use AOliC as a best value to their needs.Other work should benefit at nearly thesame pace as workloaded items.However, the IOC cannot guarantee therate of savings because the Army cannotcontrol what prime contractors do, nordoes the Army know if primecontractors will want to help reducework requirements that drive overhead .Projected savings from othergovernment work are estimated at

50.6 million. As stated for workloadeditems, savings are predicated ongovernment estimates during the 5-yearperiod.

they are the functions necessary to carefor the facility, such as MIIF or layaway ofindustrial facUities. Savings of more than

4 million are expected in this area.More than $34 million of $70 million

is subcontracted. Therefore, there islittle opportunity for savings based onreduced overhead costs. For example,overhead impact is minimal forenvironmental restoration, productionsupport, and equipment replacementprojects. Furthermore, M1IF costs areortly $3 million and are decreasing asmost layaways become caretakerfunctions.

Applying AcquisitionReform

The joint venture effort challengedthe Army and industry to create aninnovative solution and use acquisitionreform initiatives. Alpha contractingand pannering were the mostprominently used initiatives to makethis solution a reality.

Alpha contracting allowed thecontractor and the Army to establishconditions that would meet the Army'srequirements, simultaneously removecostly and unnecessary requirements,and incorporate commercial and best­business practices wherever possible.In using this process, the Armyremoved several nonvalue-addedregulations and requirements. Many"how-to" scopes of work converted toperformance-based scopes of work.The Army is shifting the risk ofperformance to AO liC by stating what

. Reduction or Prices.1brough Overhead

Price reduction is common~throughout this joint venture. Thereare many ways to lower prices. A keypaint in the overhead reduction is thatcost savings make all programs with AO

• liC Ie s expensive. Passing theseavings to customers further reduces

the cost of ammunition production..AO LLC has submitted the followingplan for overhead reduction:

• Increase workload through U.S.!worldwide competition;

, • Rent from commercial reuse;J' Reduce plant footprint;

• Improve productivity;Direct personnel cuts; and

• Reduce Army contractual prescrip­tions, regulations, and oversight that'l-dd to overhead cost.

[wo ammunition plants for 5 years, it isestimated that the Army will spend nomore than 334.1 million on theseproducts. AO LLC, because of its

, efficiencies and guaranteed catalogpricing, will save the Army $59.1million during this time period.Through the use of the catalog andprice guarantees, the Army can nowissue contracts for these items withoutfurther negotiations, thereby saving

.. time and resources.

eduction Of Prices1brough Services

• AO liC predicts it can save costs forservices during the 5-year period of thecontract. Services are not overhead;

AO LLC Business PlanAn analysis of the available products

required reveals that clear.opportunities exist for the industrialbase. AO LLC intends to position itself

.. to win a large portion of this availablework, which should allow for moregovernment savings.

~ The AO liC business plan assumesconsiderable risk. The burden to

• .....:>mpetitively win production work inyears 2001 through 2003 shifts heavily

• to the contractor. This knowledge ofthe marketplace creates an immediateneed to attain cost efficiencies so that

,AO liC will become the industry'S bestvalue to the Army and other customers.The basis for cost savings is crucial.These savings are predicated on

'government projections stated in the• POM; for example, 1.6 million roundsof MI07, 155 mm artillery for thecontract period.

May-JUtle 1999 AnnyRD&A 61

PMO FIELDS A COTS-BASEDFIRE CONTROL SYSTEM

••

Introduction'lbe Product Manager's Office (PMO) for

the Paladin/Field ArtiUery AmmunitionSupply Vehicle (FAASV) has developed acommerdal off-the-shelf (COTS)replacement for the vehicle's Automatic FireConcrol System (AFCS), saving mUlions ofdollars and resolving obsolete parr is uesthat have plagued the program for years.The original M109 self-propelled howitzerdid not have an AFCS when it was added tothe Army inventory. During the Paladinproduct improvement program, Ole AFCSwas added as an upgrade to allow targetingwithout positioning procedures. Designedto military standards, the Al'CS wasexpensive and, unfortunately, obsoleteshoedy after production began. Paladinfaced a critical shortage of proces orcomponents, forcing one redesign and thepossibility of a cost-prohibitive "lifetimebuy" from the vendor.

AFCS XXIThe new COTS replacement, dubbed

APCS XXI, provides the Paladin (now theM109A6) with a computer having superiorprocessor capabilities, COl'S components, acommercial operating system, and softwarethat is portable to-and compatible with­similar fire concrol systems. Most impor­tant, it allows the Army to upgrade the AFCSeasily if future requirements mandate.

Paladin's original AFCS had five LineReplaceable Units (LRUs). The AFC XXIupgrade combines the functionality of threeprevious LRUs (ballistics compurer/weaponcontrollec. communications processor, andcontrol unit) into a single box-the AFCSXXI Computer Unit (ACU)

During full-scale engineering develop­ment, the Paladin was designed under strictmilitary specifications, resulting in a fullydefined Tecllnical Data Package (TOP) attime of production. Developers believedolat this methodoLogy provided the highestquality and lowest price for both theweapon sy tem and the spare partsrequired for field repair. Initially, AFCSproduction went well because all of thecomponents used in the design were readilyavailable. However, problems with obsoleteparts began to surface. At first, theproblems were minor, and alternatecomponents were identified andincorporated into the production baseline.UnfortUnately, the problems became morecritical and the production vendor appealedto the government to consider a lifetimebuy of certain processor componentsbefore they were no Ionget available. As analternative strategy to this lifetime buy, the

62 ArmyRD&A

Rene C. Kiebler

government rede igned the original AFCat considerable cost.

After the redesign, production proceededmoothly for abour 2 year.;. As 1995 ended,

however, concerns about obsolete parts forthe APCS resurfaced. The AFCS vendorproposed another redesign using the latesttec!lnology at a co t to the government of24 million. With DOD embracing new

ptinciples of "streamlined acquisition," thisp"oposal was not well received. ThePalarlinlFAASV PMO studied many options,including adapring a commerciallyavailable computer.

The COTS ApproachTo study the feasibility of a COTS

approach, an Integrated Product Team(11'1') was fonned. The team wascomprised of teclmical "-,<pens from thePaladinlFAASV PMO; the U.S. Army Tank­automotive and Armaments Command'Armament Research, Development andEngineering Center (TACOM-ARDEC)(Picatinny Arsenal, NJ); Mei Tecllfiology;Sec!lan Electronics; and United Defen eLP.-l'aladin ProdUCtion Division. In a fewmonths, the lPT conduded that usingcommercial technology was indeedfeasible. The team prepared performancespecifications and contract language todevelop, test, and incorporate acommercial AC into Paladin production.Because performance (not militaryspecifications) drove de ign requirements,COTS tecllfiology was pernlitted.

The IPT faced a 15-month deadline tocomplete an industry-comp<lrativeevaluation, down-select a si.ngIe vendor,complete an integrated design, modifyexiSting software for compatibility with d,enew processor, conduct softwarevalidation!verification, conduct integrationtesting, and produce production hardware.The principles of ri k management wereused to focus resources on issues d,e /PI'felt had the highest risk. By establishing asingle integration lab ;Uld an integrated testprogram, the IYf coordinated, re-created,and resolved problems at eac!l member'slocation on similar test configurations.This saved travel time and expensepreViously required to resolve integrationissue.~. Additionally, the IPT combined a lotof the preproduction verification, softwareintegration verification and validation, andoperator/independent evaluator testing.

SummaryAs a result of the team's efforts, major

component parts of the AFCS XXI areinterc!langeable with standard commercial •components. The system arc!liteeture isopen and meets both i.nternational and~

U.S. industry standards. The computer'soperating system is conunerdally available, •and the software to operate the system isportable. This allows the software to bereused on other indirect fire control ..system . Additionally, there are no detailedTOPs. An LRU·level drawing is providGd..with a set of Circuit-card performancespecifications to purcllase spare and repair ..parts.

The AFC XXI computer unit received fullmateriel release by the TACOMCommanding General JUSt 19 mondlS after j

a COTS computer was proposed by thePMO. The total co t savings and avoidanc~ •was $27.3 million, not including life cycle_.operational and maintenance cost savings.

It is important to note that COTSrec!lnology has benefited the program inother ways: -'"

• Higber capacity hard drives have beensubstituted at Ole same approximate pricea those provided previously.

• Because of Ole expansion capacity in the"'COTS AC , Paladin's commercial digital.displ1ly, whicll presents situation awarenessdata to the section chief, can be upgraded.

• The open architecture of the AFCS XXIaUows the)oim ught Weight-155 OLW·155) •Program Office to reuse softwaredeveloped for d,e Paladin.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense.commended Paladin's AFCS XXI U'T duringa formal ceremony on June 11, 1998.walter B. Bergmann II, Executive Directorof Log; tics Management at d,e Defense,Logistics Agency, presented the team a ~

citation and award for "outstandingperformance in the inlplement1ltion of theDefense StandardiZation Program. n Carroll"Gagnon, Product Manager Paladin/FAASV,accepted d,e award on behalf of his team. ~

,.. ....RENE C KIEBLER is the Associate

Pmduct Manager for" Plcoduetion~

and Engineering in the PMO for the ~

PaLadin/FAASV fie is a graduate ofthe Rochester institute ofTechnoLoff; ~and holds an M.S. degree in,.engineering management.

MaY-lillie 1999

Emulating Private Sector Practices . . .

MILITARYDIS-rRICTOFWASHINGTONACQUISITIONREFORM

Purchase Card ProgramEmpowerment and training of

customers in micropurchasing ($2,500and less) has resulted in greaterefficiencies. The key to success iskeeping the training simple andremoving nonvalue-added proceduresfrom the process. In 1'-Y96, 25,212purcha e card transactions were made;in FY97, the number jumped to 39,249transactions (92 percent usage); and inFY98, more than 50,000 transactionswere made.

Center to provide paperless transmittalof contract support docum nts. An"intranet" between both activities wascreated using a Windows NT server.Documents are placed in a ecurefolder on this server, and personneifrom both activities have access codesfor "read and write" permissions.Documents can be revised while workis in progress. Savings are measured inreduced processing time. Our plan forFY99 is to implement the use of theACQUIlINE purchase request systemthrough a pilot program approved byDr. Oscar and to expand on the use ofthe Internet.

partnership withVA, was our acqui­for "getting the

PartnershipsEstablishing a

DynCorp, Reston,sition strategy

Dr. Edna L. Diggs

maintenance services, and identifyingthose contracting areas in whichcentralized processing would yield costsavings. Satellite offices wouldcontinue to perform contract admin­istration, simplified acquisition, andsome construction contracting. Theirmain focus would continue to beresponsive customer support. Thisconcept may yield savings of $12million by FY01.

With the new organization in place,business practices such asempowerment, paperless contracting,partnerships, best value and oralproposals, and commercial itemcontracting were identified as modelsfor reform. This article addresses a fewof tbese initiative

Paperless ContractingThe decision to consolidate all

contracting automated system hard­ware at the MDWAC with sateUite officeshaving communication Jinks to thecemral computer yielded an annualcost avoidance of $442,000. To gear upfor paperless contracting by the newmillennium, Standard ProcurementSystem hardware was installed atMDWAC, and PCs were installed atsatellite office . A paperles process viathe Internet was also developed. Totest the concept, MDWAC teamed withthe Jnformation Systems Software

Introduction.. Picture this: It's 7 a.m. I arrive at the

office to a de k piled high with work.On top is a "To Do List" that reads:

I" 1. Manage imperatives.2. Review Department of the Army's

• Functional Area Assessment recom-• mendations.

3. Consider acquisition reform legis­lation.

All of this before my first cup of coffee!Ib say the least, this gives new meaningto the slogan "We do more before 9

• a.m. than most do in a day."" Integrating various skiU sets and

backgrounds into task force teams to;lccomplish organizational goals is thestrategy of choice. Therefore, my strategy

" ror accomplishing these tasks is to use anintegrated teaming approach. Ok, where

.. do I begin? The first priority is d,at cup of~ coffee, very strong, no sugar.

Step 2 i to as emble a team, and step3 is dec.isionmaking.

As "The Gtlardian of Our Nation's,. Capital," the U.S. Army Military DistrictI'-..¢ Washington (MOW) conducts

security or di aster rehef operatlons III

nhe National Capital Region (NCR).provides base operations support forU.S. Army and other DOD organizations

'" throughout the NCR, and conductsofficial ceremonies and public evelllSon behalf of the U.S. governmelllcivilian and military leadership. To

'support these missions, MOWcontracting office obligate approxi-

• mately 200 miUion annually.Just as the private sector reevaluates

its business practices to remain• competitive, 0 too doe the Army The

Army's Force XXI initiative ha'prompted MOW to establish an MOW

..XXl. An FY96 functional areaassessment study recommended theuse of major command centers withsateUite offices as the best structure for

.. Force XXI contracting upport. Toimplement this strategy at MOW; I'assembled a team composed of the~MDW Civilian Personnel Director and

resource management and acquisitionto principals. This resulted in the

establi hment of the MOW Acquisition, Center (MDWAC) at Fort Belvoir, VA,

I-- ,~,.ith sateUite contracting oftlces at FortMeade, MD; Fort Hamilton, NY; and~Forts Myer and A.P Hill in Virginia.

Endorsed by Dr. Kenneth J. Oscar,,.. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the ArmyI for Procurement, MDWAC marked its~fficial opening with a ribbon-cutting

4::eremony in FY98. Its three primary'function are processing centralized

'contracts (those valued at $250,000 andmore) awarding Army-wide contractssuch as information technology

Ma.y-June 1999 ArmyRD&A 63

installation-wide maintenance workback on track." The transfer of thecontract to the MDWAC from anotheragency with unfinished contractadministration functions resulted inwork not being accomplished onschedule and strained relationships.Both parties could not agree onsolutions. Finally, both parties agreedto participate in a partnering workshopfacilitated by a consulting group.Problems were listed with suggestedsolutions. Smaller teams metconsistently to work out problem areas.Within 6 months, progress wasmeasured on a scale of 1 to 10. With 10being highest score, the effort receivedan 8. To excel in using this concept,participants must have open andcontinuous communication, mutualtrust, and respect for each other.

The lessons learned were as follows:o Parmer in tiers. Some of the most

difficult problems can be resolved byjust seeking solutions from theworkforce. Involve all tiers of theworkforce.

• Set measurable standards or goals;i.e., vacant quarters are turning over in28 days versus 58 days. This may assistin developing new ways to improveoriginal goals.

• Establish informal partnering ses­sions.

Best Value And OralProposals

We began our search for the bestmethods of contracting and "whittleddown" the list during the year. Weviewed ourselves as a competitivebusiness, armed for entry into the 21 tcentury. The result was a new methodof contracting: best value and oralproposals. Oral presentations were firstperformed at our Fort Meade satelliteoffice on the Job Ordering ContractaOC). Because this was the first use ofa JOC, it was briefed to the HQOA JOCSteering Committee. Fol.lowing thisbriefing, various Army and civilianorganizations requested additionalinformation. Several goals have beenaccomplished, the most significantinclude a 40 percent reduction inacquisition processing time, eliminationof lengthy written proposals, opencommunication between governmentand potential contractors, and areduction in both government evaluationcosts and contractor proposal costs.

Best value and oral presentationsal.low "face to face" interactions. Inaddition, they enable the government todistinguish between offerors with theexpertise to ful.ly satisfy therequirements and offerors whose

64 ArmyRD&A

"written professional" proposals arenot representative of their ability toperform the work. It also forces theofferors to initially submit their "best"proposals. This method also requiresextensive planning and preparation.

Lessons learned are compiledthroughout the process. Some of thepresolicitation lessons learned were todevelop an independent governmentestimate, hold acquisition strategymeetings, apPoint board members, andprepare training modules. Trainingshould also be scheduled throughoutthe process.

Evaillation plat. lessolls learned:• The evaluation plan is critical to the

process, and the team should becomeinvolved during the early stages.Provide to the team a workbookdescribing evaluation procedures andan evaluation book about each offeror.

• FoJJow the evaluation pLan explicitlyand evaluate oral proposalsimmediately after the briefing.

• Ensure Sections L (evaluationfactors) and M (award factors) of thesolicitation package mirror those of theevaluation plan.

o The decision whetller to use colorsor numerical scores is crucial.Whichever is decided, the narrative foreach rating mu t be clear and reflect therating assigned.Solicitation lessons learned:

• Charge a fee equal to the cost ofreproducing the solicitation and unitprice book.

• Schedule a presolicitation confer­ence at least 3 weeks after release toindustry.

• Provide spacious and comfortahlefacilities for the team.

• Answer all technical questions byamendment. Presolicitation conferenceminutes are included in tl1isamendment.

• AJJow at least 45 days from issuanceof the solicitation for the date of receiptof proposals.

• Request past performance data 3weeks prior to receipt date forproposals. This provides a jump-startto the evaluation process.Ora/ presentation lessons learned:

• Provide clear instructions to ensureoverhead slides are prepared properly.

• The Request for Proposal shouldhighlight the fact that these slidesshould be the offeror's technicalproposal and the government willaccept no other written information.

• Provide spacious and comfortablefacilities.

• Contractor personnel presentingthe briefing must be the functional

personnel; i.e., the project manager,quality control chief, and/or alternate~project manager.

• Ratings are based strictly on contentof the offeror's presentation and notthe briefer.

• Videotaping the briefing is a critical"decision. Freedom of Information Act.requirements must be considered. Thetapes were reviewed by the Staff JudgeAdvocate prior to legal approval of thecontract. In addition, the SoleSelection Authority reviewed the tapes.Some of the contractors requested a"copy of the tapes. •

• Each offeror was given 2 hours topresent his or her briefing. When thepresentation was completed, the SoleSelection Evaluation Board met for ~about 1 hour and formulated questionfor the offeror based on the-(presentation. ..

• Major problems cited by the boardwere its unfamiliarity with the evaluationprocess and scheduling difficulties.Therefore, the decision to use oral "proposals should be carefully reviewe~

and made on a case-by-case basis.• Debriefing should be held within 5.

days after being requested by offerors.

ConclusionUse of commercial busines practices

will modernize our contracting process.In fact, signlficant improvements havealready heen achieved sincimplementing these new practices. Asthe Army continues to reevaluate itself,"MOW will also continue to redesign itsprocesses, further strengthening itsposition as "The Guardian of Our«Nation's Capital."

One year later at 5:30 p.m., and after 'ifzillion meetings, a thousand reports,..and hundreds of cups of coffee, thework is complete. Until tomorrow,7 a.m. that is ...

DR. EDNA L DiGGS is tbet

Principal Assistant Responsible forContracting for the u.s. Army'"Military District ofWashington. She.has both a B.S. degree and an MS.degree in education from tJitrUniversity of Southern California"an M.B.A from the Florida instituteof Technology, and a doctorate'degree from Nova University, F4An Army Acquisition Corpsmember, she is LevellIl certified i1'1acquisition and is a member ofthe...National Contract ManagementAssociation.

May-June 1999

Short RangeUnmanned Aerial VehicleSystem.

SPAREPAR SCONVERSION

..Introduction. Budget cuts and downsizing drivesmarter decisions. Under the Joint

• Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle0TUAV) Project Manager's direction,the JTUAV Team initiated an effort to

~ inve tigate taking existing unusableassets and with nominal additional"effort convert those assets imo usableneeded spare/repair parts.

• The Hunter Short Range UnmannedAerial Vehicle (UAV) is intended for usein combat opemtions where near real·

l-- time information feedback is neededmanned aircraft are unavailabie, 0;.'cessive risk or other conditions

..render use of manned aircraft less thanprudent. Designed to operate morethan 200 kilometers beyond the frontHnes for more than 8 hours, the 1,600-

'" pound (takeoff weight) UAV enablescommanders to look deep into enemyl:hrilory. Carrying day/night video.~ensors, the UAV transmitsreconnaissance, surveillance, and targetacquisition information in near realtime back to ground control and

-mission monitoring £ations.Addilional payload capabilities includelaser target designation and~ommunicationsrelay. These UAVs canopemte under Jimjted adverse weather'Conditions and are rtlgged enough toland on unimproved runways.

Acquisition of tbe UAV system began,,.in FY89 through a competitiveacquisition and subsequent award of~o contracts for evaluation hardwdTewith a follow-on competition for a"single·production contract. Afterextensive technical evaluation testing(TET) and Limited user testi ng (LUT), a

I,.fow.rate production (LRP) contmct wasawarded. The two TET/lUT (Phase I):Jystems were then used to train soldierswho would be using the newer LRPrPha e 11) systems. Once the newer LRP

I-. UAV systems became available, theolder TET/lUT systems were placed intorage at Fort Huachuca, AZ.

_ J even LRP Hunter UAV systems were~oduced and delivered. Each consistsof 56 subsystems and more than 4,800line-replaceable units. Although the

~Hunter acquisition program wasterminated in 1996, the Army is

r<eI!Irrently using the residual Hunterassets as an interim capability. One~stem is at Fort Hood, TX, and oneystem is at Fort Huachuca, AZ. The

remaining systems a.re used for payloaddemonstrations and testing or are

M ay-JUHe 1999

William L. Smithson

stored in operationaL condition at thecontractor's depot.

TET/LUT Parts ConversionUAV spare and repair parts were

intended to come from the system'sproduction lines. However, in anacquisition decision memorandumdated Jan. 31, 1996, the UnderSecretary of Defense for Acquisitionand Technology terminated the HunterUAV acquisition program. As a re ult,the production lines were shut down,leaVing spare and repair partsrequirements largely unfilled.

FollOWing rerminarion of the Hunter

UAV acqUISItiOn program, the ]TUAVProject Office assessed the feasibiliry ofpurting the TET/LUT systems back intoservice. Because of their heavy useduring soldier training and thesignificant changes in the hardware andsoftware baselines that occurredbetween tile Phase 1 TET/LUT systemsand the LRP systems, the JTUAV ProjectOffice determined that a completerefurbishment and retrofit of theTET/lUT systems was required prior toreturning them to flighr status condition.This expense was cost prohibitive.

Since the TET/LUT systems would notbe used in an operarional environment

Army RD&A 65

•

Conversion Parts Depot Flow Process

~ ~ 8 c:JCompare Generate I Depot Asset RemovalABCLs D1~7 I SME Inventory, Transfer

I Review To TRW

~ c:J 1 ~Supply

Depot I Stock IDemand ..Data IPT •

•

~ ~IStock I~.-I MRS 11-01.1--

~ ~I and T 1.....--.-1 Planning

Ir~

1--1 MRS I

GLOSSARY: ABeL: As-built configuration list; SME: subject matter expert; MRB: materiel reviewboard; 1&T: integration and test

again, the ]TUAV Project Office beganinvestigating converting these unusableassets into usable spare and repair partsfor the seven LRP systems. The ]TUAVProject Office and its contractorperformed a comparison study todetennine the number of parts thatcould be placed in the inventory and thecost trade-off to get them there. Theresults of the study determined that alarge number of LUTffET parts wereidentical to or interchangeable with LRPparts, and that converting the part foruse in LRP systems could achieve up toa 10 to 1 return on the investment.

Based on the outcome of this study,the ]TUAV Project Office and itscontractor, through the integratedproduct team (IPT) process, agreed ona Spare Parts Conversion Plan. OnOct. 30, 1997, the ]TIJAV Project Office'sSupporting Contract Activity put theconversion effort under contract.

First, a spare and repair partsconversion candidate list was preparedby matching the TET/LUT and LRPsystems in the configuration statusaccounting system. A team composed ofcontractor and ]TIJAV Project Officepersonnel began sorting TET/LUT systemassets. Once the effort was underway,additional items were identified andadded to the conversion candidate list.Thbles were set up to stage and inventorythe parts prior to moving them to thedepot. After inventorying and marking

66 AnnyRD&A

the items, parts were delivered to thecontractor's facility, documented asreceived, and transported to the depotwarehouse for disposition.

After the parts went through the 12­step conver ion parts depot flowprocess (see chart), they were placedinto the spare and repair partsinventory and made available fordistribution to suppOrt fielded andfieldable systems.

Return On InvestmentThe depot IPT monitors and tracks the

success of the effort by determining afigure of merit. The figure of merit isthe cumulative cost of the partrecovered (the cost of new Phase Uparts) plus a 15-percenr nOtional fee.This number is then divided by the totalcost expended on the conversionprocess at any time.

The higher the figure of merit, thegreater the value of recovered parts inrelation to what was pent toaccomplish the effort. A figure of meritof 4.6 means that for every dollar spentto accomplish the conversion, there is again of $4.6 in usable converted spareand repair parts. The spare and repairpans that have been retrieved to datehave proven that the return on theinvestment is on track. As of May 1,1998, the figure of merit was .6. At thetime this article was written, the entireconversion effort was expected to be

completed by the end of March 1999and to yield the minimum return orrinvestment of al lea t 10 percent.

ConclusionThis effort sbows that with a little

imagination, a little capital, and'minimal but meaningful managementguidance and support, significantoperating and support COSt savings can..be achieved.

'\.

WIlliAM L. SMITHSON is aC01ifiguration Management Officerin the Configuration ManagemenrDivision, System Engineering anq,Production Directorate, MissileResearch, Engineering and Devel<opment Center, u.s. Army Aviation.and Missile Command, and iscollocated in the joint TacticalUnmanned Aerial Vehicle Proj~L.

Office. He holds a B.S. degree fromAthens State Univel' ily. He is amember of the Army Acquisition.C01PS and is Level IJl certified insystems planning; and researd'J";­development, and engineering;.and Level 11 certified in programmanagement. •

May-June 1999

..

~Ride Motion SimulatorReady To Rock ..

•

'"

NEW MOTION PLATFORMRECEIVES

LONG-AWAITEDMAN-RATING

Rae A. Higgins

...Introduction

They're rockin' and rollin' in the U.S.Army Tank-automotive and Armaments

ommand's Tank Automotive Research,Development and Engineering Center(TACOM-TARDEC) Physical Simulation~boratory. In late September 1998,engineers and scientists on the TARDEC>Motion Base Technologies (MB1) Teamreceived "man-rating" on their new ridemotion simulator (RMS)-a goal

"achieved after muc.b testing, aoalysis,and good, old-fashioned hard work.

-Man-rating a simulator means that asafety release that documents thequipment as afe for humans to ride

has been obtained. That is, the occupantinvestigating the ride dynamics sits in a

..cab mounted onto the moving platformof the RMS. It ride just as if theC1ccupant were in a real milltary vehicletraveling over real terrain."AnnMarie Meldrum, an ElectricalEngineer on TACOM-TARDEC's MBTTeam, described the RMS as a new six­.degree-of-freedom simulator housed in'J4RDEC's Physical Simulation Lab. It

-c1n reproduce the ride dynamics of anymilitary ground vehicle over secondaryroads and various cross-countryterrains. A variety of vehicles, bumpcourses and seating configurations

oner, commander, driver) can easilybe simulated and re-created on theItMS. BasicaUy, the operator programs·t to simulate any vehicle traveling overany terrain to ascertain any number ofuser-machine interface factors.

May-Jlllle 1999

RMS DesignThe hexapod design ofdle RMS enables

longitudinal, lateral, vertical, roll, pitch,and yaw motion positions. In fact, itsperformance specifications Rre quiteinlpressive. Its latelrai, longitudinal, andvertical displacement is capable of plusor minus 20 inches. Its roll, pitch, andyaw displacement is capable of plus orminus 20 degrees. It can acceleratetranslationaUy up to 2 g's. (The tenn g'srefers to a urnt of force equal to thegr-dvity exerted on a body at res!.)

The RMS features a reconfigurable cab;vi ual capabijitie with an Evans andSutherland 3-Channel Image Generator3000 High Derysiry; and audiocapabilities with AudioWorks2, a 3-Dspatial sound-rendering hardware­software package. Its inside cab payload(the total weight of passengers,instruments, equipment, etc.) canaccommodate up to 600 pounds.

Simulation Lab TestingSoldiers can clim!;> into the simulator

before going to the field and gain abetter understanding of how mey andtheir hardware will perform while inmotion. This includes an evaluation ofaudio and visual systems for high­fidelity, and real-time operator-in-the­loop simulations. According tosimulation experts at TACOM-TARDEC,simulation testing is important becausefield testing is expensive, timeconsuming, and dangerous.

"You can work a lot of bugs out here

[in the sinlulation lab] and focus fieldtesting on some of the bigger problemareas," said Victor Paul, an ElectricalEngineer on the MBT Team. Forin tance, engineers can't simulate orreplicate a very important factor in thelab: the environment, according to Paul."We can't sinmLate mud, dirt, rain, orother environmental effects," heexpLained. That, he added, must beinvestigated in the field. However, theuser can be placed in a dynamicenvironment. Engineers can investigatehow a user performs certain tasks lIchas reading a text display or pushing aparticular button while in motion.

One of the outstanding ch<ltacteristicsof the RMS is that it not only replicatesride dynamics, but it can also replicatetho e ride dynamics repeatedly formore accurate test data.

The simulator has a reconfigurablecrewstation environment, whereengineers can study human.-machineinteraction wim dynamic controllers,displays, and apparel (such as helmetsor nuclear-biological-cllemical equip­ment). The new RMS will also assist insoldier-machine interface developmentand crew workload and task­performance investigations. Forexample, engineers favor simulatorslike the RMS because they offerrepeatability. The RMS helps determinea soldier's ability to perform tasks in adynamic environment as well as howhis or her performance would beaffected by adding other tasks.

Artily RD&A 67

ConclusionThe future of the RMS certainly looks

bright and busy. The TACOM·TARDECsimulation teams are working orrintegrating a real-time soldier-in-the...loop environment with a vehicledynamics model so that investigatorscan get feedback from both simulatorsand occupants. In other words, a drivewill literally "drive" the RMS over avirtual terrain. Both the driver in theRMS and the occupants of the,.Crewstation(furret Motion BaseSimulator (commander and gunner).will feel every pothole, ditch, and bumpalong the way.

Engineers are interested in inves- '"tigating ride and human use factors forthe commander, gunner, and drivenThis will be simulated in the virtualworld so design teams can participate+in distributed interactive simulation(DIS) exercises. Members of the MBTteam and their colleagues in TARDEC's,Vehicle Electronics area are developingsoftware for the DIS.

RAE A HiGGINS is a Public AffairsSpecialist assigned to Headquarters,.u.s. Al·my Tank-automotive a1?9_Armaments Command, Warren, MI.be holds a bachelor's degree in

communication from OaklandUniven;ity, Rochester; MI, and is agraduate ofthe Defense In/onnanSchool's PublicAffain; Officercours€.

Hue, Raben Culling," Kelley stated.Once Kelley concurred and ent hi

input to the HUe, Meldrum and hercolleagues began to ee the light ar theend of tlle proverbial tunnel.

On Sept. 18, 1998, TACOM-TARDECDirector Jerry L. Chapin met with the •principal members of the MBT Team,Culling, and several members of theHUC to discuss the RMS man-ratingprocess. Finally, 10 days later, Chapinauthorized the RMS as a man·rated"simulator. "This expanded capabilityallows us to raise the performance level •of modeling and simulation within theArmy" Chapin said.

The first simulation was run in late1998. It demonstrated the system'shardware features, and full audio~"

visual, and motion capabilities in asynthetic environment.

Type And Test Protocols"From there, we had to establish a

'type' protocol," Meldrum explained.The prindpal investigators submitted amemorandum listing specific testparameters and equipment to be u edin testing. The HUC reviewed it andmade additional recommendations.The 'te t' protocol described the actualtest 10 be performed, who would ridein the simulator, how long it would beoperated, etc.

Paul described the test protocol as"fining inlO" the type protocol. He alsoexplained that once the TARDECdirectot approved a type protocol,subsequent test protocols could godirectly to the chairman of the H C.Paul also said that a test protocol wouldbe mandatory for each test run on theRMS. Once the type protocol wasestablished, TACOM's Safety Office alsohad to approve it. Moreover, ifadditional hardware was investigated,the Safety Office was respon ible forapproving any modifications to thestructure.

Patrick Kelley, a Safety Engineerassigned to TACOM-Warren's SafetyOffice, explained that the type protocoloutlined the operational limits for theRMS when human test subjects wereused. "If a given test that is cheduledto be run with human tcst subjects goesoutside those limits set in the typeprotocol, then tlle test protocol mustbe reviewed and approved by tlleTACOM Human U e Comminee. As amember of the TACOM HUC, I reviewthe protocols from a safety standpointand provide my concurrence ornonconcurrence to the chairman of the

simulator that will activate during anysystem failure or undesirable motion.Meldrum, Paul, and Engineer Harry J.Zywiol Jr. demonstrated how and whenthe interlocks are designed to engage."afety is o. 1," Meldrum saidemphatically. Paul echoed this byexplaining that a good ponion of thework on the RMS thus far had beentesting and retesting the interlocks.

The analyst then made suggestionabout how to make the RM safer. Forexample, they recommended usingnonskid safety tape on the cab floor andinstalling a five-pOint occupant safetyharness and ingre s/egres handles.

TECOM then issued a memo to theTACOM Safety Office in mid·July statingthat the system was safe for soldier usein accordance with its approvedprocedures.

Man-Rating ProcessThe man-rating process required a

metiCulous adherence to a step-by-stepcheckli t. Engineers and scientists onthe MBT Team logged many hours ofhard work. The first step in the processrequired the development of a SystemAnaly i Report to document what thesystem is, what it is capable of doing,and identify its components. The reportalso contains an analysis that identifiesevery potential hazard that can occurwhile operating or riding the simulatorand it cause, effect, severity, andprobability.

Engineers on the MBT Team knewprecisely how safe the RMS had to be forit to be man-rated. Safety; Paul said, wasparamount from the beginning and was"designed" into the imulator.

MTS Systems Corp., Eden Prairie, MN,developed and ubmitted the RMSSystem Analy is Report in February1998. The report then had to beapproved. Safety Office repre entativesfrom both TACOM and the U.. ArmyTest and Evaluation Command(TECOM), Aberdeen, MD, met to teviewand approve the teport's findings.Next, TECOM as well as TACOM's SafetyOffice and the Human se Comminee(HUC) gathered to ob erve the RMS inaction. This, Meldrum said, was called aSafety Release Meeting.

The Safety Release Meeting was heldJuly 8, 1998. According to the chairmanof TACOM's HUC, Robert Culling(TACOM-TARDEC), "The safetycertification process used torecommend approval for volunteers tooccupy the ride motion simulator is anexcellent example ofteaming. From thecontractor who installed theequipment, the TECOM reviewer, to theTACOM Safety Office, to the ArmyResearch Lab/Aberdeen's HumanResearch and Engineering Directorateand legal representatives, to theTACOM-TARDEC engineers who work(with) the simulator ... the focus ismaximum safety for the volunteer."

Members of the HUC also include TomKirby and AI Reid, TARDEC; David Kuhn,Legal Office; Patrick Kelley; Safety Office;Moh in ingapore, Army ResearchLab/TACOM; and Ron Williams (ad hoc),TACOM Clinic.

"The [safety releaseI meeting was a bighurdle to overcome. The team wentthrough a failure and effect sheet andthen te ted and retested every one ofthe RMS safety interlocks," Meldrumsaid. Safety interlocks are automaticsafety mechanisms built into the

68 Artm RD&A May-Tu"e 1999

•

A New Era Dawns At TACOM•

HIGH-TECHCORROSION PREVENTION

Rodney T. Wilson

Among the attendees at the 00250 signing ceremony for release to the Armyof the first FMTV truck with enhanced corrosion prevention were MG John F.Michitsch (far right), PEa, Ground Combat and Support Systems; C. LaRoyHammer (second from right), Senior Vice President, Tactical Vehicle Systems,Stewart & Stevenson Services Inc.; and COL Kenneth R. Oobeck (fourth fromright), PM, Medium Tactical Vehicles.

~.

Introduction... The U.S. Army Tank-automotive andArmaments Command (TACOM)marked the dawn of a new era with itsrecently initiated High-Tech CorrosionPrevention Program for the Army's

L amily of Medium Tactical Vehicles.fFMTVs). A vision for tomorrow and aparadigm for efficiency, reliability,availability, and maintainability, thisinnovative program fights "runaway"

"maintenance costs and deterioration ofthe Army's truck fleet caused bycorro ion. This program, managed bythe Project Manager's Office, MediumTactical Vehicles (pMO-MTV), Program>Executive Office, Ground Combat andSupport Systems, will significantlyenhance the durability of the Army's

O'FMTVs into tile 21st century.This program is expected to extend

@he useful life of tlle Army's FMTVsfrom the current 10 years to 15 or more

'lyears while significantly reducingoperation and maintenance costs.Applying curting-edge tecllOo!ogy, the

..program employs a variety ofmultifaceted processes and designmethodologies to create a tiereddefense against corrosion.~

Corrosion TestThe FMTV contract with Tactical

.Vehicle Systems in Sealy, TX, a divisionof Stewart & tevenson Services, Inc.

- &S), requires extensive corrosiontesting during the low-rate productionpbase for tbe FMTVs. To accomplishthis, the Transportation ResearchCenter, an S&S subcontractor,. nducted an accelerated corrosion

test on a selected vehicle.-~'Ibe vehicle wa tested in two highlycorro ive simulated field environments:i3 hours in a heat and humiditychamber and a 4-hour drive on a very

corrosive muddy track consisting of wetsand and mud well saturated with salt.FoUowing 10 test cycles, me vehicle wascleaned and a I-hour corrosion andmaintenance inspection was conduct­ed. This testing phase continued for 7monms, 24 hours a day, until 200 testcycles were completed. More than 300Test Incident Repons yielded valuableinformation regarding those areaneeding improvement.

Corrective Action PlanThe PMO·MTV and &S establi hed a

cross-functional integrated processteam (IPT) to address the problemsdiscovered during testing and to makesuggestions on how to extend meuseful life of the FMTVs from 10 yearsro more than 15 years.

The lPT rook two major approac1les:performing corrosion tests comin­uously ro enhance validation, and

May-Julte 1999 AnnyRD&A 69

70 Army RD&A May-JUlie 1999

ConclusionThe TACOM-S&S IPT worked togethe.c.

to defeat a common enemy--<:orrosion.This pioneering effort, initiated by COLKennem Dobeck, Project Manager forMedium Tactical Vehicles, places meTACOM FMTV corrosion preventioqprogram well mead of other programsand holds promise for even greaterstrides in barding corrosion into the21st cenrury.

Moline, IL, and Steyer Inc. of Austria,twO S&S subcontractors. Of thes4,000, approximately 3,000 vehicleshave been shipped to Hawaii and~

Korea. To galvanize the remaining fleetof approximately 75,000 trucks, thegovernment wiU spend nearly $40million. The projected operation andmalntenance cost avoidance, howevet,is predicted to be at least triple thatamount. This is truly a case of spending'dollars wisely-upfront-to reduceov rall life-cycle costs during theextended useful life of the FMTVs.

Related EffortIn a related effort, a 22-year

accelerated corrosion-resistance tes!'was initiated on two new productionFMTVs in August 1998 at AberdeenProving Ground, MD. The purpose wasto validate the more than 15-year FMTVlongevity requirement and to studtother possible efforts to improvecorrosion prevention even further. .,

>IRODNEY T WILSON is a

Mechanical Engineer in theTechnical Management DivisionOffice of the Project Manager forMedium Tactical Vehicles. He hetsa bachelor's degree in mechanica,jengineering from TuskegeeUniversity and a master's degreein engineering science from th~

State University of New l'brk atBuffalo. ..-

GalvanizationGalvanization, a process that features

the use of hot-dipped sheet metal inmanufacturing truck cabs, emerged as amajor enhancement to FMTV corrosionprevention. The sheet metal cab,formed by traditional manufacturingprocesse is later coated and sealed foradditional protection. Thus far,approximately 4,000 cabs have beengalvanized by McLaughlin Body Co. of

in lieu of metal tubes, using a bra sradiator tank and hose fittings, andinstallation of an aluminum surgetank. More than 400 changes to newparts and processes were incorporatedby S&S and its vendors. In addition, amajor block change to theconfiguration of the previouslyapproved FMTV design occurred inlate 1997.

The suppliers of each majorcomponent were tasked to implementor validate one or more of the abovecorrosion prevention measures inaccordance with decisions by the IPT.This rype of coordination ensuredaccelerated validation of corrosionprevention.

Galvanized cab

EnhancementsEnhancement included the use of

new materials such as stainless steel,electroless nickel, chip-resistantpanels, improved design processes,increased electrostatic deposition coataccessibility, elimination of dis imilarmetals and component entrapmentareas, increased controls onpretreatment and paint areas, use ofhigh-temperature flexible rubber hoses

interfacing with industrial firmsto explore current or emergingstate-of-the·art corrosion preventiontechnologies. These firms includedOcean City Research Center, ChryslerCorp. (now DaimlerChrysler), GeneralMotors Corp., and Bethlehem Steel Inc.Lehigh University also played a key role.Additional data were obtained frommarine studies and dle National Societyof Corrosion Engineers.

The IPT examined nearly 500 potentialcorrosion prevention enhancementsand developed a corrective action phmto incorporate corrosion preventiondesign enhancements into the currentFMTV production line and changerequirements for future contracts.

ADOPTINGCOMMERCIAL

TECHNOLOGY FORSPIRAL MODERNIZATION

OF ARMY TACTICALWHEELED VEHICLES

MAJ Philip Schoenig, Jeffrey Hamel,Rick Engel, Eddie Garcia,

Lynn Jones, and Regis Luther

Maximizing the use ofcommercial technologies

and the benefits of commercialresearch and developmentis a continuous challenge

to the Army program managerin the materiel developmentof a tactical wheeled vehicle.

IntroductionThe Directorate of Combat

Developments for Transportation,Combined Arms Support Command~CASCOM) and the Army Trans­portation Center are updating the'operational requirements for tacticalwheeled vehicles (TWVs) in supponof Force XXI operations, Theseoperational requirements mandatethat Army trucks operate longer, goraether, and survive on the battlefield.• The Tactical Wheeled VehicleRequirements Management Office(lWVRMO) , Fort Eustis, VA, ensuresthat these requirements are

'adequately documented before thelJlateriel development processbegins. In fact, lWVRMO is the solet1nanager for 'lWV requirements forthe U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

• Command. As new-start truck,programs are phased out becau e oflimited resources, materiel devel-

-<Spers and their industry partnersJ.l1ust be creative in meeting the ForceXXI operational requirements,"Spiral modernization" using recap­italization of our legacy fleets is thep?ocess to meet these requirements.~Recapitaljzation is the replacementor retrofitting of an existing system asII result of mechanical aging,technological obsolescence, or exces-

sive maintenance expense. The ulti­mate goal is to equip the Army withTWVs that aee safer, more reliable,and less costly.

Program. Manager'sPerspective

Maximizing the use of commercialtechnologies and the benefits ofcommercial research and develop­ment (R&D) is a continuous chal­lenge to the Army program manager(PM) in the materiel development ofa 1WY. Because of the ever-increasingcost of R&D, PMs are continually

looking for ways to leverage theirR&D funds by working with thecommercial R&D establishment, Thisis becoming even more necessary asthe number of new-stan programs isreduced throughout DOD, effectivelydriving the cost of military R&Dhigher on a cost-per-unit basis.

One specific area in which theProgram Manager for Heavy TacticalVehicles (pM-HTV) has successfullyused commercial R&D effons is vehiclesafety and restraint systems. Inparticular, the PM-HIV established aDual-Use Application Program that uses

Mlly-Jrme 1999 ArmyRD&A 71

•

IntegratedNondevelopmental Items

Oshkosh Truck Corp. (OTC) ,another DOD contractor, engineerstrucks for markets where unique,~

innovative designs outperformgeneral-purpose eqUipment in alltypes of terrain. OTC usescommercial engines, transmissionsaxles, suspensions, tires, vaLve.s.pumps, etc., bur designs and buildsthem into severe-duty vehicles witcapabilities much greater thancommercial off-the-shelf vehicles.These commercial components havebeen developed, tested, and provenfor an intended market and are thenadapted for use in the unique oJ...specialized applications. These caninclude concrete mixers, snowblowers, or tactical vehicles such asthe Palletized Load System (PLSHeavy Equipment Tran porrer (HET),or Heavy Expanded Mobility TacticalTruck (HEMTT). "

The Oshkosh RET and PLS vehiclesare classified as integrated non~

developmental items. Because oftheir specialized application, thecommercial components such aengines, transmissions, axles, an?

Army maintenance units orFreightliner. The new M915A4s areexpected to provide the Armyvirtually new vehicles and.considerable savings in futureoperation and sustainment costs. •

haul tractor. (More than 330,000FLD120 have been sold since itsintroduction io 1988.) As such, theArmy capitalizes on a proven, highlysuccessful design that includes thelatest in commercial truck tech­nology. Furthermore, Freightliner'smilitary trucks are built using thesame productioo operations thatmanufacture hundreds of commercialvehicles per day-leveraging theeconomies of scale afforded byvolume component purchasing andhigh-capacity production lines.

In 1998, Freightliner signed a newcontract with the Army to buildapproximately 2,000 M915A4 gliderkits. This innovative program adaptsa standard commercial practice tomeet an Army need of modernizingaging line-haul tractors. Thisextended service program (ESP)represents acquisition reform inaction. Spearheaded by the U.S.Army Reserve, the Army andFreightliner team upgraded theexisting fleet of 2,000 aging M915tractors manufactured approximately18 years ago. The M915A4 glider kitis based on the modern FreightlinerM915A2 design and consists of a newcab, chassis, electrical system,antilock braking system, andautomatic transmission. The onlyreused components from the oLdtrucks are the original engine andrear-axle assembly. The kits can bebuilt into finished trucks by either

Leveraging The EconomiesOf Scale

Freighdiner Corp. 's military trucksare the closest to commercial-baseditems that the Army buys. The Army'sfleet of more than 2,000 M915A2line­haul tractors, M916Al Iight­equipment transporters, and M917Aldump trucks is solidly based onFreighrllner's best selling commercialmodel, the FLD120 heavy-duty line-

commercially available technologies toimprove the safety of truck cabs. Twocommercial systems that are beingevaluated are the Inflatable ThbularStructure (ITS) and the InflatableThbular Torso Restraint (ITTR).

Similar to an air bag, the ITS is usedby BMW as a "head-restraint system"in new-production vehicles. Itprotects the occupants duringrollovers and prevents occupantejectioo by inflating in a diagonaldirection across the window. A sensorcontrol detects impact or imminentrollover and inflates the system.

The 11TH employs the same conceptas the ITS except it is installed in theexisting shoulder harness. Uponactivation, it controls the occupant'movement during a frontal collisionor a rollover. The 11TH is 6 to 8 inchesin diameter when inflated. Thisprovides more positive control of theoccupant and spreads the protectionmore evenly across the chest area thana standard shoulder belt.

SPIRAL MODERNIZATION(The cyclical insertion of technology and modernization)

Joint Vision 2010

Modernization Through Spares (MTS)

Operations & Support Cost Reductions (OSCR) Value EngineeringOther LCM Initiatives and Programs

h-

..72 ArmyRD&A May-II/lie 1999

....

I'"tires were integrated into a chassissystem that meets the Army'soperational requirements. In newerpTe vehicle programs with PM-HTY,such as the HEMIT ESP and HET

.Technical Insertion Program, OTCagain uses a number of commerciallydeveloped components and inte­grates them into an enhanced vehiclesystem. The use of commercialeomponents reduces development

l:;nd production costs and improvesserviceability.

Commercial R&DItinvestigative Techniques

,In late 1997, the Family of MediumTactical Vehicles (FMTV) Program~xperlenced isolated incident ofcracked flywheel housings, predom­inately on the 4x4 Light Medium

~actical Vehicle (LMTV). An inves­tigation was undertaken to verify that

p.-t!l:ere were no workmanship orRuality issues with the crackedhousings and to determine theenvironment where these vehicleswere operated. The investigation of'the flywheel housing cracks alsorevealed incidents of driveshaftfailures, all on the 4x4 LMTV variants.TThe team speculated that these

failures were related and soughtmore information on the motion ofthe power train in a continuous high­speed highway environment. The

lImethod used to study the motion ofthe power train was a vibration modal~a1y is. This is the method used in!;be automotive industry to correctmany noise, vibration, and harshness(NVH) problems. The conclusionwas that controlling the dynamicdrive-line imbalance and raising thepowerpacks' natural frequency out ofthe operating range would correctdie drive-line and flywheel hou ingilailure mode .

In late 1998, the U.S Army AberdeenTest Center at Aberdeen ProvingGround, MD, successfully completed

....vllidation testing of six Stewart &'Stevenson FMTV vehicles. Thesevehicle were retrofitted with newlyfdesigned nodular iron flywheelhousings by Caterpillar Inc. andi'fi€wly designed driveshafts fromM.eritor. Each vehicle completed12,000 miles of endurance andWlidation testing without incident.This resting culminated more than 8months of work by a team of

M ay-June 1999

government and industry TWVand automotive speciali r. Teammembers included representativesfrom the .S. Army Tank-automotiveand Armaments Command, Stewart &Stevenson, Caterpillar, Meritor,EG&G Structural Kinematics,Effective Technology Inc., AllisonTransmission, and Michigan ScientificCorp. Commercial R&D techniquesin NVH used in the automotiveindustry played a vital part in theinvestigation and subsequent repairof this FMTV problem.

Future PossibilitiesTo help maximize shrinking Army

R&D dollars, the National AutomotiveCenter (NAC), located at the U.S.Army Tank Automotive Research,Development and EngineeringCenter, Warren, Ml, collaborated withthe automotive industry to identifydual-use technologies that can benefitboth Defense and commercialindustrie and structure cooperativeprograms. Stewart & Stevenson,Lockheed Martin Corp., and NAC havepartnered to produce a hybrid electricversion of a 5-ton FMTV cargo truck.A functional prototype hybrid electricvehicle (HEY) was displayed at the1998 Association of the U.S. Armymeeting in Washington, DC.Prop.rietary technology developed byLockheed Martin for commercialtrucks and buses will provide theFMTV HEV with significantimprovements in fuel economy,acceleration, brake lining, andreduced exhaust emissions. OTC isalso pursuing a similar dual-use R&Deffort with AC called the Oshkosh"Sealed Hood" concept. This conceptwill use commercial automotivetechnologies such as multiplexing andfully integrated flat panel displays.

ConclusionStrategies to meet operational

requirements that include leveragingthe economie of scale, integratingcommercial components, andparrnering of government andindustry will allow us to acquire asmuch capability a resources willpermit. Ultimately. the strategy ofteaming to efficiently adoptcommercial technology in the "spiralmodernization" of our legacy fleetswill allow the Army's TWV to driveinto the next millennium.

MAj PHILiP SCHOENIG is aCombat Developer for 7iWs in theDil"ectorate of Combat Develop­ments for Transportation atCASCOM; Fort Lee, VA He has a B,Sdegree in business administrationfrom Fitchburg State College and amaster's degree in managementwith a concentration in logisticsmanagement from the FloridaInstitute ofTedmology.JEFFREY HA1\.1EL is the Assistant

PM-PIS for the Deputy for SystemAcquisition, TACOM; Warren, MI.He has a B.S. degree in mechanicalengineering from tbe University ofBuffalo and has completed theAdvanced Program Managementcow-se at the Defense SystemsManagement College.

RICK ENGEL is Director ofGovernment Vehicle Sales atheightliner C01p. He served morethan 26 years in the u.s. Army,retil-;ng as a colonel in the ArmyAcquisition Corps.

EDDIE GARCiA is the Manager inthe Government MarketingDepartment at OTC. He has aB.B.A degree in marketing fromSoutbern Methodist University.

LYNN JONES is the MarketingAdministrator in the GovernmentMarketing Department at OTC.he has an AS. degree in business

from Cardinal Stritch University.REGIS LUTHER is the Director of

Engineeringfor the Tactical VehicleSystelns Division of tewart &tevenson, Houston, TX. He has a

8.S. degree in chemical engi­neering from Youngstown StateUniversity, an M.S. degree inchemical engineering with aconcentration in thermodynamicsand nondestructive testing fromjohns Hopkins University, and anM.B.A. from the University ofHouston.

AnllY RD&A 73

CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

From The DirectorAcquisition CareerManagement Office

Wim the rapid approach of summer comes me equally rapidapproa h of me June deadline for completion of the IndividualDevelopment Plan (IDP). I would like to take this opportunity toemphasize again me importance of updated personnel files. TheArmy Acqui ition Corps (AAC) require each member, milicary andcivilian, ro complete an fOP no later man June 30, 1999. I wouldlike all upervisors to ensure mat this happens. Designed to reOectyour current and future training requirements for a 5-year period,the lOP i a critical document for acquisition profe iona.l andmeir supervisors to identify and track their career objectives. Wehave created an autOmated proce S to facilitate me developmentand modification of lOPs. You can find me automated lOP athttps://rda.rdaisa.sarda.army.miJ/ldp/ldpprod/idpslart.htm.

The LOP i one ofewo critical componen ofyout personnel file.The second is the Acqu i ition Civilian Record Brief (ACRB) forcivilian , or me Officer Record Brief (ORB) for military personnel.You hould update these fonus annua.lly. They are used by ArmyAcqUisition Workforce (AAW) members 10 certify eligibility tocompete for career-enhancing opportunities. The ACRB, like meORB, is an automated record lhat consolidates personnel data,education, experience, certification level. as ignments, andtraining data. If me information on your ACRB is not current, youre trict your ability to compete for exciting career opportunities.Effective July 1999, the automated ill!' must be approved beforestudents can apply for a course offered by the Defense Acquisition

niversity. Additionally, the ID!' will be the official repository forall your accompli hments under the continuou learningrequirement. Revisions to the automated !DP will make it an evenmore valuable tool for identifying and tracking an acqui ilionprofessional's career objectives in me areas of experience,education, and training. The Mobile Acquisition CareerManagement Office (MACMO) is In place pecifically to give youthe information you need to understand these important records.

I would like to direct your attention to the Under ecretary ofDefense (Acqui ition and Technoloh,),) Continuou LearningPolicy, effective Dec. 15, 1998. This policy requires civilian andmilitary acqu' ition professionals to participate in continuouslearning activities that augment me minimum education, training,and experien e tandards established for certification purposesfor their career fields. Acquisition personnel who have compleLedme certification requirements for the po itions mey are in shallearn a minimum of 80 continuous learning points every 2 years,from me date ofcertification for the position held or from the dateof me prior 2-year continuous learning certification. (IndiViduals 'who are not certill.ed in me position mey hold are pectcd toconcentrate on obtaining certillcation.) You can get a copy of mepolicy at bttp://www.acq.osd.m.illar/#otherhol.

We are pleased to announce the selections for mc Year Group2000 ompetitive Development Group shown on Page 1 in misissue. As you may already know, dlis career development programprOVides leadership-intensive training and experienceopportunities for competitively selected G -12 and -13 CorpsEligible and AAC members. Be sure to read the article on theCompetitive Deve.lopment Group (CDG) Program on Page 41,which discusses CDG Program selection criteria and

74 Army RD&A

demographics as well as CDG career opportunities. I encouragesupervisor of eligible personnel to emphasize the excitingbenefit of this program for expanding knowledge andexperiencc. 1 would also like to congratulate the 19 AAC omcersselected 10 attend Senior eevice College and me 40 graduates ofme Materiel Acquisition Management Cour e at me .. ArmylogisticS Management College, Fort Lee, VA, who are Iisted onPages 7S and 76 of mis magazine. I also want 10 pOint you to Lhearticle on The Army aLional Guard Acquisition Corps StrategicPlan on Page 75.

As you may have heard, me 1999 Army AcquisitioflWorkf rce/Corps Roadshow erie has a new name. ArmyAcquisition Workforce 2000 was chosen becau e ir moraccurately conveys mat Keith Charles, Deputy Director forAcquisition Career Management, and the MACMO arecommunicating ongoing AAW and AAC initiatives. Thesecommunication provide one-on·one career coun;ellng andfeedback from the aeld. ~.

My office is always available to prOVide the information youneed to help advance your acquisition career. Our phonnumber can be found on the AAC home page athttp://dacm.sarda.army.m.illcontacts/.

AAC's 10th AnniversaryThe AmlY Acqui ition Corps (AAC) was established Ocl. ~

1989, by approval of the .. Army Chief of taB'. This year willmark the AAC's 10th anniversary, and me Director of Acquisitiol't

areer Management (DACM) LTG Paul J. Kern has announcedplans to coounemora.te the occasion during the week of the 1999Association of the .. AmlY (AUSA) Annual Meeting, Oct. 11-13,1999. Planned activitie includc a pictorial review of me AAC shistory displayed in the Pentagon's main corridor, a ho pitalityuite and exhibit at the AU A annual meeting, and an AAC Ball.The DACM requestcd volunteers to form a process action tea.c;l

(pAT) to plan the AAC 10th anniversary commemoration. SeniorAAe personnel have enthu iasticaUy responded to this reques4"and meir continued suppon is essential in conveying me "fieldperspective." In addition to forming a PAT, me DACM approvedcreation of an as oclation for all Active component acquisitionmilitary and civilian personnel. The association will be agovernment organization mat serves as a regional ource of Cinfonnation and history.

The PAT will define me goals of me commemoration. idem;specific events associated with the cRmpaign, recommend astrategy for implementation of pla.ns, and establish theassociation. Additionally, the PAT will ensure thatcommemoration updates are provided to the Army AcquisitiouWorkforce and mat a web ite is created for posting information.

The AA Ball will be held OCL. 10, 1999, in the Wa hington, D ,area. The association's inaugural ceremony will take place duriqgthe AAC Ball. Di tinguished gue ts are expected LO includemembers of the Omce of the ecretary of Defense SLaff, Lheecremriat and omer Army taB', and enior AAC military and

civilian personnelFor additional information, contact Tony Echol in Lhe

Acquisition Career Managem nt Office at 03) 604-7145, ds664- 1 5.

AAW Southern RegionalHeadquarters Established

To improve communicarions a.nd career management suppato me Army Acquisition Workforce AAW). Keim Charles. Dep'!.Director for Acquisition Career Management, has establi hed apilot program for the Southern Region of me AAW in tHuntsville edstone Ars nal, AL, geographical area. Tb

Mny-Ju"e 1999

CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

Alvin HopkinsAnn COttiCraig Spisak

Amelia Hatchettharon johnson

Samuel jones

~Robert SzersynskiRusty Weiger

•

Wayne BrunoJennifer Chew

colt CrossonCatherine Doolos CPT

CPTCPTCPT

Army National GuardAcquisition Corps Strategic Plan

In December 1998, MG Roger chultz, Director, Army NationalGuard (ARNG), approved a stralegic plan that will integrate theArmy Acquisition Corps (MC) and the ARNG. The ARNG fullysupports the MC and this new integration plan. The four·panrtrategy outlined in this plan is the result of a September 1998meeting between Schultz and Keith Cbar!e , Deputy Director,Acquisition Career Management, Office of the Assistant Secretaryof the Army (Research, Development and AcqUisition) (nowAcquisition, Logistics and Technology).

The fir t pan of the plan applies to acquisition po ition and~ersonnel identification. Prior to the September 1998 meeting,the ARNG began analyzing acquisition-related po itions andidentifying personnel with acqui ition education or experiencewho could leverage their skills to achieve ARNG's acqui itionobjectives. A number of acquisition·related positions have beenidentified. When individuals are identified, they will be notifiedand provided guidance on accession to the AAe.

Tbe second pan of the plan addresses the development of careerpaths and career progres ion for ARNG acquisition personnel.Some potentially qualifying positions \vitllin the ARNG structureinclude force integration and readiness officers, directors ofinfonnation management, and contracting officers. The ARNG isalso reviewing Title 10 positions with acquisition-related mis ions.Career paths for personnel will be developed to ensure both theeffective implementation of the strategy and the officer's career<;!evelopment.

In the third parr of the plan, the ARNG is pursuing use of

40 Graduate From MAM CourseFony students graduated from the Materiel Acquisition

Management (MAM) Course, Class 99-002, at the U.S. ArmyLogistics Management College, Fon Lee, VA. The course ran fromjan. 11 to Feb. 26, 1999. The graduates induded one allied officerfrom Senegal and five officers from japan.

The Distinguished Graduate Award was presented to CPT GeraldDavis Jr., who is a signed to Fort Rucker, AL.

Research and development, testing, contracting, requirementsgeneration, logistics. and production management are examplesof the materiel acquisirion work as ignments offered to thesegraduates. The names of the graduates are Ii ted below.

Rank Name Rank NameMAj James Blanco CPT Todd LambCPT Eva Branham CPT Robert LongCPT Eric Cathcart CPT Louis Mayo

Ted Chelette MAj Mamadou MbayeBrian Cummings CPT Michael MurrahRonald utchember CPT Mark ealGerald Davis MAj Masahiro OkawaDonald Dehnel CPT Mirsuru 0 awaRonnie Dix CPT joel PhillipPatrick Erickson CPT Susan PoolerJohnny Figueroa MAJ Willard RobinsonDaniel Fuller CPT Edward ShepherdJean Grotophorst CPT Allen tephanRichard Hall CPT Raymond StricklandMichael Harris SFC Miranda Sumb!inGeorge Holland MAJ Dorotlly"lhneyhillDaniel Irwin CPT Paul TerrellKenichi Kajikawa CPT Steven Wall

MAJ Masahiko Kawasaki CPT Anthony WimerCPT james Kennedy MAj Hideaki YoneJrura

MAjCW2CPTCW3MAjCPTCPTCPT

Competitive Development GroupSuccesses

The Acquisition Career Management Office is pleased to reportthe Competitive Development Group (COG) uccess for YearGroups 199 and 1998. The following COG selectees have beenpromoted to GS-14 by the following organizations:

Year Group 1997PEa-AviationTest and Evaluation CommandArmy Materiel CommandOffice, Assistant ecretary of the Army(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)PEa-AviationArmy MaLeriel CommandOffice, Assistant Secretary of the Army(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)PEO-Air and Missile DefensePEO-AviationYear Group 1998

PEa-Air and MissUe DefensePEa-AviationPEa-Intelligence, Electronic Warfure andSensors (temporary promotion)

, Congratulations to all! Your accomplishments directly reflectour goal for the CDG Program-tO develop the best leaders forthe Army of the 21st century.

Change To ASI G1The additional skW identifier (ASI) G1 has been changed from

purchasing agent to contracting agent to more accurately reflectme duties that ASI G1 personnel perform. ASI G1 positionsrequire soldiers qualified as contracting noncommissioned officersto assist in the planning and execution of purchasing andcontracting taSks at po ts, camps or stations, and on contingencymissions.

To receive the ASI GI, soldiers mllSt succe fully complete the~courses CO 101· Basics of Contracting, CON 104 - Fundamentalsof Contra t Pricing, and CON 234 - Contingency Contracting.Course rou be completed at the Defense Acquisition University

r at other accredited colleges and universities. The ASI G1 isrestricted Lo use with military occupational specialties (MOSs) 92A(skill levels 3 and 4), 92Y (skiU levels 4 and ;), and 92Z only.However, the Director, Acquisition Career Management Office mayaWard the ASI Gl to soldiers with other than MO 92A, 92'1; and92Z on an exception·to-policy basis. If you have any que tions,oontact MAj Phil Yacovoni (703) 604-7106, DS 664-7106, or&:-maiJ: yacovonp@sarda.army.miI.

Southern Regional Headquaners opened in March. MaxineMaples has been apPOinted as the Special AssistantlRegionaiDirector for Acquisition Career Management Initiatives in the

... Southern Region.This pUot program SUPPOtts the AAW, acquisition career

management advocates, program executive officers, programand product managers, and commanders in the nine· tate area(Tennes ee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mis issippi, Arkansas,Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) that comprises the SouthernRegion. Thi concept treamJines Lhe acquisition upporttructure and will help enhance communication to and from the

'field to provide better and more accessible suppott to AAWmembers in that region.

For more information, contacr Tony Echols in the AcqUisitionCareer Management Office at (703) 604-7145, DS 664-7145, Ore-mall: echolsa@sarda.army.miJ.

May-Jlllle 1999 ArmyRD&A 75

CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

..

PERSCOM Notes.

19 AAC Officers Selected ForSenior Service College

Congratulation to the 19 Army Acquisition Corps (AAC)officers selected to attend Senior ervice College duringacademic year 1999-2000. The selected officers and the scboolsthey will attend are listed below.ARMY WAR COLLEGE, CARLISLE BARRACKS, PA

LTC Damian P. BiancaLTC StevenJ. CoxLTC David B. CrippsLTC(PJ Cbarles F. McMasterLTC(PJ John A. MerkwanLTC(PJ David P. MillerLTC Ainsworth B. MiUsCOL Dwight E. Tbomas

INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE OF THE ARMED FORCES,FORT McNAIR. VA

l.TC(p) Joseph A. DursoLTC Mark W JonesLTC Nickolas G. JusticeLTC Harry W McClellanLTC Robert D. OggLTC Carl M. Tegen #

ACQIDSITION FELLOWSHIP, UNTVERSllY OF TEXAS,AUSTIN, TX

LTC(P) Manhew J. FairLTC Midlael E. Johnson[rc(p) James D. Wargo

AIR WAR COLLEGE, MAXWELL AFB, ALLTC PhiJlip D. MacklinLTC(P) lbmmie E. ewberry

Changes At AMBYvette Handifield is the new Certification Manager at the U.S.

Total Army Personnel Command' Acquisition Managemetl,\Branch (AMB). Hancl.ifield previously worked at the JoinI'ersonnel Property Shipping Office, Fort Belvoir, VA. J.

Several additional personnel changes are planned dUring thnext few months. Two current assignment officers will /jdeparting AMB. MAJ Steve Leisenring, the COL AssignmenOfficer, will assume new duties at the Defense ContracManagement Command; and MAJ Dwayne Green, the LTFA53197 Assignments Officer, is headed to an assignment iSaudi Arabia. ~

Effective May 15, 1999, MAJ Steve Decato will become thAssignm~nts Officer for both MAJ and LTC FA53s, ancl MAJ ]'aNorr,s will become the Assignments Officer for both MAJ anLTC FA97s.

MAJ Kimberly Hancock will teplace Decato as the Di tributioManager. Hancock was previously as igned as a SystemAutomation Engineer at the U.. Army CommunicatiClJ,1Electronic Command.

Effective June 15, 1999, MAJ Paul Myrick wiU move from 11LTC FA51 Assignments De k to the COL Assignments Desk. Thnew I:fC FA51 Assignments Officer will be MAJ Brian WinteWlOters .......s previously assigned to the Program Analysis anEvaluation Office in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff. ..

The AMB personnel chart, whidl lists phone numbers ane-mall addresses, is available on the Army Acquisition Co;Vhome page at http://dacm.sarda.army.milIcontactsttapc.b

Personnel Demo ProjectUnderway

Effective F b. 10, 1999, the .S. Army Conreacting CommandKorea (U ACCI<) became the first Army agency to participate inthe DOD Civilian Acqui ition Workforce Per onnelDemonstration Project.

Director of Conreacting Perry Hicks was the fLfSt Armyemployee assigned to the Demo Project. Other initialparticipants are as foUows: Diana Hacmonson-Walls, Chief, Policyand Plans Brandl; Bobbie Cole, Chief, Adminisrcation Brandl,Henrietta White, Chief, Conreact upport Division; Stephe~Bradford, Deputy, Comract Operation Division; arl Stubbert,Chief, Technical and Contract Admin Division; I{,.thy Salas, Chlef,Services Brandl; Joseph Arnaud, Chief, Compliance Brandl;Pamela Hastings, Chief, on-Appropriated Fund Brandl; RonaldParrish, Chief, Information Management Office; Brian Smith,Chief, Quality Assurance Brandl; ancl Charles Wilder 11, ContractAttorney.

ACCI{ is especially thankful for the expert guidance providedby Tony Echols, Army Project Officer, Acqui ition CareerManagement Office, and Doby Nicklas, DOD Civilian AcquisitionWorkforce Personnel Demon lration Project Office, and for theirwillingne to reaveI to Seoul to train U ACCK personnel on theproject. [n addition, Jerold Lee, suppOrt slaff, was particularlyhelp~l in prOviding advance infonmation and etting up thetrallllllg.

There are many who made the rcansition to the Demo Projectsuccessful. U ACCK would like to recognize the foUo,,~g

people: Rosetta McFall, Civilian Personnel Division' ScottMcCue, Resource Management; Kim Ye., Civilian Pe~onnelAdvisory Center; and Dave Gerdis, Ken Starke, Cindy Barnes, and

arabeth Walker Civilian Personnel Operating Center, Taegu· forexpediting paperwork that allowed SACCK to be the first Armyagency to lmplemem the Demo Project.

Finally, Diana Harmonson-Walls, Project Leader for USACCK,and Bobbie Cole, Demon tration Historian, helped assi tmanagers and supervisors with the reansition and arecommended for a job weU done.

temporary tours of active duty as the primary tOol to place ARNGpersonnel in product and project manager (PM) offices, Theintent is to place these personnel in organizations that will fieldignificant amounts of equipment to ARNG units between 1999

and 2005. They will ecve as coordinators and team chiefs forfielding equipment to ARNG units throughout the United State.Personnel from tile receiving ARNG units will be assigned to PMoffice whenever practical,

The last part of the plan is the most ambitious and aggre siveand involves the request and approval from Congress foradditional fuJI-time personnel. Sixty individuals wiU be placed invarious acqui ition fields to meet ARNG requirements. Thesepersonnel will back-up tare government and ARNG acquisitionefforts during peacetime. In addition, they will serve on arotational basis with those ARNG personnel projected for PMpositions. Where fea ible, a portion of the e personnel will beas igned to work ,,~thin PM organizations to gain experience inpreparation for possible PM assignments. The e personnel willbe critical in enhancing the Army' capability to support thesoldier. The PM organization will provide full-time careerprogres ion for ARNG Acquisition Workforce and MC members.

The purpose of this four-part sreategic plan is to provide theframework for ARNG participation in the MC. When this articlewas written, an implementation plan had been developed, andfinalization was expected by the end of tbe econd quarter ofFY99. P'.trts of this progcam are already being executed, and theARNG plans to have it fully inlplemented no later than FY03.

76 Arm RD&A May-June 1999

The Operational Experience ProgramBecause of the continued dovmsizing of active forces, civilians

are be::ing tasked more frequently to fill a quiSi!ion positions oncehcld only by miJitary personnel. While this pmctice Involves amajor cuLtural change, it provide the Army more flexibility tomeet futUre challenge and increases competition for senior leveljobs, re,ulting in the best-qualified leader, Thu, the need toestablish closer ties between the acquisition and warfightercommunilies is now greater than ever, The more insightacqui ition personnel have of the warfighter in an operationalenvironment, the more their understanding of soldier, weapon,and equipment interface is enhanced,

To funher enhance d1is understanding, the Army acquisitioncommunity is offering an Operational Experience Program to all Army

quisition Workforce (MW) members, This program places greatemphasis on soLdier, weapon, and equipment interface in an actualfield environment. MW members will be given the opponunity togain first-hand experience in operational environments. futUreexpan ion of Il,e pl'Ogram will indude a greater variety of operational~riences. including profession.lI military education opportUnities.

The Army's AcqUisition Career Management Office (ACMO) has.parrnered with several of the Army' premier wamg/ller training

rganizations to develop d1is Operation.lI Experience Program. Somepanicipaling organizations are the National Training center (NTq,Fon Irwin, CA; d,e Joint Readiness Training center ORTq, Fan Polk,U\; and the .S, Atmy Contracting Command, Seoul, KOrea,

Operational experience assignmentS will typically last from 1 to 3Weeks, with some lasting up to 6 months, Assignments will be in ametical environment (with ldiers in a fieLded unit), Typicalassignments may indude the foUowing:

• Assignments at TC indude orientation visilS with the opponunityto observe brigade and battalion force-on·force warflg/lling exen:ises,

vemight bivouacs with the opposing force, and l'Otalions through the

AmlY Materiel Command's Science Advisor's Office located at NTC toserve as the communications link belWCen d-.e soldier and me .resean:hand deve10pmeJll COmmu nity.

• At jRTC, individuals will have the opponunity to observe andpanicipate in readiness training exercises at ti,e squad and platoonlevels. Individuals wiU be is ued TA-SO (field equipment) anduniforms, and will participate in overnight bi"ouacs in d,e fieldwith soldiers.

• At the ,. Anny Contraeting Command, eoul, Korea. panidpantswill have the opponunity 10 prepare and panicipat in contingeng'exercises, develop contingency contracts fur requiring activities. workwidl personnel of the Contract Administrati,,,, Brandl to resolveproblem contraClS. and suppon the Contract Service Bmndl in d,epreparation of contingency contracts and Bood damage contractswithin the command's entire mealcc of operations. Participants inthese assignments must be able to endure wearing Mi ion OrientedProtective Po&ure IV gear (gas mask, pcotecti,'C dothing, eoc.) for shonperiods of time.

1be ACMO is accepting applications fur operational experiencescurrentiy announced in me Army EdlicatiOIl, 7/'aining andE:rperience (AElJ:,) Catalog. The AETE caLlIog can be accessed undccthe Career De,'e!opment section of Mes webSite:http://dacm.sarda.army.mil Opemtional experience assignmentswill be funded b)' ACMO; however, a panicipant's organization will stiUbe responsible for funding the panicipant's salary: Announcements inthe AETE catalog will provide additional information on eachexperience and det.'LiIed instructions on bowMW members can applyfor their desired experience.

A board to select pani.cipanlS for current assignments is scheduledfor June 22, 1999. Interested individuals muS! submit dleirapplications by June 1 , 1999, to be considered for d1is board. Forfurther infonnation, MW members may also conrad the ACMO pointSof conL"\Ct listed in the AETE catalog.

Raytheon Earned ValueManagement System Validated

During a ceremony late Last year at the Pentagon, Paul J. Hoeper,Assistant ecretary of d,e Army (AcqUiSition, Logistics andTechnology), presented an official letter of certification for avalidated Earned Value Management System (EVMS) to FredHissong, President of the Raydleon Demilitarization Company(RDC) ,

ROC was recognized for its EVMS that has been implemented attbe Johnston Atoll hemical Agent Disposal System site, ademilitarization facility used to de troy lethal chemical agents andmunitions stored atjohnston AtolL ROC's EVMS is compliant withthe DOD/industry EVMS guidelines. ROC is the first ChemicalDemilitarization Program contractor site to be validated,

Otber artendees at the Pentagon ceremony included JamesBacon, Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization; Dr,Theodore Prociv, Deputy Assistant ecretary of the Army forChemical Demilitarization; and Shay Assad, President and CEORaytheon Engineers and Con tructors.

which includes depot maintenance as weU as upply suppon, forthe entire Apache weapon system. The objective is to reduce theoverall Arm support cost, inlprove parts avaiJability, maintainaircraft readiness, and provide funds for modernization,

AFATDS is the only heavily software-oriented command andcontrol (C2) weapon system in the mix of 10 Section 816 pilotprogram selected, AFATDS is d,C digitized Force XXI baseline firesuppor! (FS) C2 system for AmlY and U.S. Marine Corps firingplatoons through echelons above corps. 11 automates, coordinates,and integrates air-, land·, and sea·based fire optimizing FS solutionsbased on commandcr's guidance and aU available FS assets,

An OSD-sponsored PEO YSCOM Conference was held in mid­April 1999 to foeu on this new product suppon paradigm,

Army RD&A 77

~ NEWS BRIEFS

USD(A&T) Selects Three ArmySection 816 Pilot Programs

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition andTo chnoLogy (USD(A&T)) has fonnaUy identified 10 piJot programs(3 from the Army, 3 from the Navy, and 4 from the Air Force) tofulfill the requirement of ectlon 816 of the Strom Thurmond

ational Defense Authorization Act for FY99. This congre sionaldirective required ti,e Secretary of Defen e to designate 10 "PilotPrograms for Testing Program Manager Performance of Productuppon Ove.rsight Responsibilities for Life Cycle of Acquisition

I'r;pgram ," The 10 programs identified by the USD(A&T) werecontained in a repon submitted to the Pre ident of the Senate.TJle repon identified management actions that arc planned toimprove progranl manager oversight and ensure proper life-cycleupport for the e progrartls, The three Army pilot programs

selected are M-l Abrams, AH-64 Apache, and the Advanced Field. err Tactical Data System (Ar-ATDS),

• T}le Abram tank proVides heavy 3ffilor superiority on theb~tdeJield, The Abrams Program is unique in that it has productstQrOUghOUl its life cycle: MlA2 System Enhancement Program(5EP) in research and development, MlA2 in production, MlAl in'lliStainment, and Ml in upgradeldispo al. The AbranlS AGT 1500engine and its m an time between failure is an operational concern

I!I a major opetlltions and suppon cost driver for the Army,The AH·6 Apache attack helicopter's mission is to conduct rear,

c!t>se, and deep operations; deep precision suike; and providearmed reconnaissance and security when required in day, nig/H,~ d adverse weather conditions. Apache prinle vendor suppon iscomprehen ive approach to proVide wholesale logistics suppon,

number of Army transactions went from 2.4 million inFY97 to 3.1 million in FY98, an incre.'lSe of approximately29 percent. ..

Use of the card has allowed the Army to meet missionrequirements with fewer people and accommodat'workforce reduction. The Army eliminated 76 spaces fromcontracting offices worldwide during Program ObjectiveMemorandum 98-03 as part of the implementation of theArmy Contracting Functional Area Asse sment.

Goals for expanded use of the card in FY99 follow:• Government-to-government transactions,• Tran portation payments,• Commercial training through coUege and universities

(up to 25,000),• Payment vehicles for larger contracts, and• VISA convenience checks. -tIn addition, development of the Electronic Data

Interchange process for invoice reconciliation and'payment will result in reduction of the Defen e FinanceAccounting System bill.

As we move into the new millennium, the card iexpected to revolutionize the way government doesbusiness. The Army will continue to take the lead 'fufinding ways to further streamline its purchasing proces.§buying supplies and services better-Easter-cheaper, and srtiImaintain the integrity of the procurement proces .

Point of contact for this article is Dorothy Hindman,(703) 681-3417.

From TheAcquisitionReform Omce•••

PATRIOT Spares Catalog ALPHA ContractThe PATRiOT Spares Catalog ALPHA Contract Integrate{1

Process Team (IIYf) used the Alpha contracting concept todevelop, evaluate, negotiate, and award a fixed-price,redeterminable 5-year catalog contract covering 119PATRIOT mi sile system complex electronic andmechanical spare items with Raytheon Co. The contrawas de igned to incorporate the key objectives 2reduction of administrative lead times (AU), productionlead times (pLn, and administrative cost savings whilemaintaining a fair and rea onable price. The contract hasan estimated potential value of more than 166 millionover the performance period. The IPT negotiatedsignificant savings of more than $65 million off thepropoed cost and, through their knowledge of tllgovernment's requirements, were able to identify manyareas of cost that could be eliminated or reduced.

The contract contains a unique pricing model developedby the Lead Price Analyst that provides a tool for pricingany quantity from one each to the maximum quantity Iieach line item, while taking into consideration residualminimum-buy material and required lot acceptance tttsresidual material. This pricing model ensures re id

Army Pu.rchase Card Performance material is held for future government requirements. TheThe Army continues to lead DOD in purchase card doUars pricing model makes po ible the reduction of AiT to

spent and number of transactions. For FY98, purchases on month for all items. Shortening the PLT by 10 to 20the Army card totaled 1.4 billion versus 1.1 billion in months significantly reduce the quantity and doliarsFY97, an increase of 27 percent. Tbe number of Defense needed to support the PATRIOT missile system. The a~transactions totaled 7.4 million in FY98, of which the Army of this contract will avoid cost to the government iexecuted 42 percent, versus 27 percent each for Air Force excess of 6.1 million in AiT based on bUying 1 each of 1l'9and Navy; and 4 percent for other Defense agencies. The J spare items during the first year. If the Army Aviation an

Acquisition And Logistics ConferenceThe Army's Acquisition and Logistics Initiatives

Conference, sponsored by Headquarters, Army MaterielCommand, was held late last year in Washington, DC.Conference hosts were Team Command, Control,Communications, Computers, Intelligence, ElectronicWarfare and Sensors (C4IEW ), which includes the ArmyCommunications-Electronics Command; the ProgramExecutive Office (PEO), Command, Control, andCommunications Systems (PEO-C3S); the PEO,Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (PEO-lEWS);and an industry partnership conSisting of The lnt rnationalSociety of Logistics and SAVE International, "The ValueSociety."

For nearly 600 industry and government participants, itwas an opportunity to interact with senior leaders in aseries of discussions and panels about the continuingreform and evolution of Army business practices.Highlighting "The Journey to Reduce Operation andSupport Costs" as its theme, the conference focu ed on theArmy's efforts to institutionalize efficient and effectiveacquisition and logistic practice. The endgame is todevelop a Link among acquisition and logistics, overarchingfinancial management, and partnering with industry toobtain and maintain higb-quality, affordable equipment forthe warfighter of the next millennium.

Several training sessions were conducted during theconference. The sessions were condensed version oftraining courses developed to train the Army workforce andits industry counterpart about new ways of doing business.Equipment displays demonstrated that acquisition reformhas taken hold and is producing positive results. One suchdisplay; the Control Display nit (CDU) of the ANJPRD-12Radio Direction Finder, was redesigned by Team C4IEWS asa modernization through spare initiative. The new CDUwas purchased using performance-based requirements toobtain commercial technology and is field maintainable,u er friendly; durable, and reliable. The unit cost has beenreduced 48 percent. Operation and support cost avoidanceare estimated at $11 million over 10 years.

Point of contact for this article is Kenneth Brockel, (732)532-2394, DSN 992-2394.

78 Ann RD&A May-Jlllle 1999

ACQUISITION REFORM

. BOOKS

"mentor" companies still involved in the Small BusinessAdministration's 8(a) program. This innovative part of theMentor-Protege Program allows for the transfer of a wealthof knowledge gained through the mentor' participation inthe 8(a) program.

Mevatec's three Mentor-Prorege Agreements, valued atapproximately 1 million, were executed with AnalyticalServices Inc., WESTEC International, and Soft Access. Alithree agreements are adm;nistered under the ASMDCSystems Engineering and Technical Assistance Contract(SETAC) in Huntsville, AL.

The three protege are currently providing support to avariety of DOD programs. Under the Mentor-ProtegeAgreement, the e 8(a) firms plan to concentrate onimprovement of their DOD-related engineering andanalysis services, as well as acquiring training and supportin the areas of business infrastructure and overall businessdevelopment.

Mevatec Corp. estimates that between 5500,000 and 3million in subcontracting opportunities will be availablefor their proteges during the period of performance of theagreements. As a protege, each company is eligible to beawarded a sole-source SETAC subcontract from Mevatec. Itis Mevatec's intent to set aside SETAC work for each ofthe e companies, as well as to assist them in securingfuture non-SETAC work.

Point of contract for this article is Denise Owens,(256) 955-3947.

+ Mentor-Protege ProgramThe Army SmaU and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

bffice, Army Space and Mi sile Defense Command(A MDC), and Mevatec Corp. are responsible for half of theMentor-Protege 8(a) pilot program agreements withinDOD. The ASMDC awarded the fir t Army Mentor-Protegeagr ement between a graduated 8(a) and another 8(a) fIrmit" October 1997. In the 18 months since that award,

evatec Corp., headquartered in Huntsville. AL, hasentered into two more such agreements making it thelarge t upporter of this pilot program.

The DOD Mentor-Protege Program provides incentives formajor DOD contractors to assist small disadvantagedbodsines es in the development and improvement of theirbusiness capabilities. The men[Qr also assists them inncrea ing their participation as ubcontractors and

supplier under DOD and other government andcommerdal contracts.

The late t augmentation to this DOD-wide program is the8(a) pilot program, which allow graduated 8(a) firms to

Missile Command buys three of each item each year, coStavoidance over the life of the contract through FY03 would!?e 90.9 million. The dedicated commitment of allparticipants enabled the team to complete the ALPHAproces , making award 85 days from contract justificationand approval.

Point of contact for this article is Dianne B. Landtroop,(256) 876-9855, OS 746-9855

•Project Leadership:

rom Theory to Practice~y Jeffrey K. Pinto and othersproject Management Institute, 1998Reviewed by LTC Kenneth H. Rose (USA, Ret.), aProject Manager with the Waste Policy Institute inSan Antonio, TX, and a former member of the ArmyAcquisition Corps.

,in project management literature, a generally accepted a.xiomsuggests that projects u uaUy fujI not on techniml merit, but onmatters related [Q people. Authors then usually proceed toprescribe technical tools in gmll detail, giving shon hrift [Q

1eadership skill that would counter the threat they ju t defined.{rojectLeadership: From Theory to Practice byJeffrey K. Pinto, PegThomas, Jeffrey Trailer, Todd Palmer, and MjcheJe Govekar breaks'this mold and focuses on leadership in project managementenvironments. The book offers a solid grouniling across a broad"'dflge of theory, then waIks the reader through application of thetheory in the practical context of project management. At less th,Ul150 pages, the book appe:us at first to be one of those easy rr..oadslilt popu1'lte today's bookstores. It is not. It is densely packed

with concepts and models for action that should be perused witht care, not for mere awareness. but for understanding,

retentiOn, and future application.The authors discuss principal theories of leadership, bridging

contingency and universal perspectives. They favor a

tr'dflsformational approadl thar enables a leader to link people andtasks to achieve success in dynamic, often cllllOtiC environm nts.They describe accountability for resuLts as a key to project success,and they provide a model and procedures for establishing andcontrolling accountability within the project team.

The projecl vision, which is often linLe more than motivationalmush, receives serious treatment as an essential foundation forproject success. The authors describe the role and effects of aproje<:t vision and provide a disciplined development approachthat goes fur beyond the cheerleading approach that often seemsto be in vogue.

Team building and ethics both receive candid, direct treamlentthat addresses promiSes and pitfuUs, and charts a course fornegotiating a uccessful tranSit through these chaUenging areas.

111e authors present an exceJJent integration of leading andmanaging. showing the essential role thar each plays in projectstrategy. And, politics rears its nOl-so-ugly head as an eternal aspectof any project-<Jne that, if handJed weJJ, can be a key toinfluencing others in achieving project goals.

The last chapter provides a synthesis of the book's importantpoints. restating the basic prem;se dlat project management is a"leader-intensive undertaking" and that leadership is not a one­best-way task, but rather a many-faceted collection of decisions,anitudes, and al1:ions.

Project Leadership: From Theory to Practice is a continuousjourney. and the book bould be taken as a whole to receive the fullbenefit. It offers a di tinct contribution to project managem ntLeadership literature for new or experienced project managers.

Army RD&A 79

LETTERS 'ear Sir:

I'm a GS-0346-13 Logistics Management Specialist atthe U.S. Army Tank-automotive and ArmamentsCommand, an AMC [U.S. Anny Materiel Command]subordinate in Warren, MI. The articles on AMC'sLogistics Reform Efforts [Page 7] and SupportingTraining Systems Through Fixed Price Contracts [Page12] in the ovember-December 1998 edition of ArmyRD&A were pretty exasperating.

For years we've been patting ourselves on the back forexcellence and providing leader the deci ive edge, andsuddenly, aLI our institutions and methods (depots,IMMCs [Integrated Materiel Management Centers],inventory and CCSS [Commodity Command tandardSystem]) are wasteful, cumbersome, and ob olete.Benevolent, smart contractors, operating under"flexible" contracts are going to fix everything, huh?It would all ring truer if the talk of reform was not

coming from the same top management that advancedtheir careers by creating and nurturing the currentbureaucracy, which was an end unto itself-it justifiedtheir empires. It is wasteful, it doesn't work, and topmanagement long ago abdicated control, accountability,and responsibility. Now, they're going to keepthemselves in the top lots overseeing the process ofgiving away the farm to beltway bandits.

Before the ME [Army Acquisition Executive] and theSecretary of the Army allow that to happen, I suggest abold experiment: Contract out AMC management, keepthe low-priced workforce and well developedinfrastructure. Make it an offense punishable bydismissal to create an acronym or a named "reform"effort. Judge everything and everybody by what they DO.

Let's define the JOB, let's DO the job. Perhaps the rejob is smaller than we've long said it is (in truth ipeacetime it is). We seem to be ready to acknowled&the hollowness of the "excellence' of our logistics systemas fostered by the forgiving conditions of peacetime an.fat defense budgets. Now we need to also recognize thadoing it for less total outlay (as might be the case withentirely contracted-out logistics support system) doenot necessarily mean that it is being done better, or evethat you have a tenable system that can get the job donas well as the current system could if it was propermanaged, or done at all in the crucible of a shooting waagainst a potent adversary.

John F. CzoykowskiTACOM

PERSONNELA Farewell

From The ACMO Director ~

hortly before this issue ofArmy RD&A went to press;I was selected to be the enior 1ilitary As istant to the

nder ecretary of Defense for Acquisition andTechnology, Dr. Jacques Cansler. I want to extend myheartfelt appreciation to all the people that haveassisted me a Director of the Acquisition CareerManagement Office (ACMO). 1 look forward to OU1f~

continued association in future endeavors.

COL Edward Cerutti

to ATEC will include responsibility for all TECOM teranges (including Aberdeen Test Center) and foinstallation management of Yuma Proving Ground,Dugway Proving Ground, UTi and White Sands Mis ilRange, M.

The Test and Experimentation Command (TEXCOwill remain at Fort Hood, TX, and be redesignated thArmy Operational Test Command (AOTC). The OPTEEvaluation Analysis Center (EAC), located at APG, ~the Operational Evaluation Command (OEC), located iAlexandria, VA, will be consolidated into a ne'subordinate command of ATEC, the Army EvaluatiQCenter (AEC). AEC will be headquartered in AlexandriVA. However, EAC personnel will remain located at AP

The new organization will be responsible for.developmental and operational test and evaluatiocurrently being performed by TECOM and OPTEC, It

will report to the Army Vice Chief of Staff via tlle AssistaVice Chief of taff. •

Consolidation Of Army Testing

IAs a result of an Army Science Board recommendation

approved in June 1996, the Department of the Army hasannounced the consolidation and reorganization ofArmy testing commands. The consolidation of the .s.Army Operational Test and Evaluation Command(OPTEC) and the Army Materiel Command's (AMC's)Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM) into the U.S.Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) is not adownsizing initiative, but a step to improve the efficiencyof Army testing and evaluation.

Effective Oct. I, 1999, OPTEC will be shifted to ATECand assume its name. The headquarters of ATEC willremain at OPTEC's current location in Alexandria, VA.TECOM will now be a subordinate command of ATEC

and will remain located at Aberdeen Proving Ground(APG) , MD. TECOM will be renamed the ArmyDevelopmental Test Command (ADTC). AMC will retaininstallation management responsibility for Al'G andAberdeen Garrison operations. The transfer of TECOM

80 Amll RD&A May-/une 1999

PurposeTo instruct members of the RD&A community relative to RO&A processes, procedures, techniques and management

philosophy and to disseminate other information pertinent to the professional development of the Army AcquisitionWorkforce.

ARMY RD&A WRITER'S GUIDELINES

About Army RD&AArmy RD&A is a bimonthly professional development magazine published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of

the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition). The address for the Editorial Office is: DEPARTMENT OF THEARMY, ARMY RD&A, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FT BELVOIR VA 2206o-S567. Phone numbers and e-mailaddresses for the editorial staff are as follows:

Subject MatterSUbjects may include, but are not restricted to, professional development of the Army's Acquisition Workforce, RD&A

program accomplishments, technology developments, policy gUidance. information technology, and acquisition reforminitiatives. Articles containing footnotes are not acceptable. Acronyms used in manuscripts and with photos must bekept to a minimum and must be defined on first reference.

Length of Articles

Articles should be approximately 1.500 to 1,600 words in length. This equates to approximately 8 double-spacedtyped pages, using a 20-line page. Do not submit articles in a layout formal Submit text in separate files fromillustrations.

bleicheh@aaesa.belvoir.army.mil (703)805-1035IOSN 655-1035fischerd@aaesa.belvoir.army.mil (703)805-10381DSN 655-1038hermeSC@aaesa.belvoir.army.mil (703)805-1034IOSN 655-1034sur1esh@aaesa.belvoir.army.mK (703)805-1036/DSN 655-1036marbS@aaesa.belvoir.army.mil (703)805-1oo7IOSN 655-1007

Dalatax: (703)8OS-42181DSN 655-4218

Harvey L. Bleicher, Editor-in-ChiefDebbie Fischer, Executive EditorCynthia Hermes, Managing EditorHerman l. Sur1es, Assistant EditorSandra R. Mar1<s. Technical Review

J-

·-Photos and Illustrations

A maximum of 3 photos or illustrations. or a combination of both, may accompany each article. Photos may be blackand white or color. Illustrations must be black and white, in PowerPolnt, and must not contain any shading,screens, or tints. Submit Illustrations In separate files from text Not all photos andlor illustrations may be used andthey will not be retumed unless requested.

Biographical SketchInclude a short biographical sketch of the authorls. This should include the author's educational background and

current position.

Issu4January-FebruaryMarch-AprilMay..JuneJuly-AugustSeptember.QctoberNovember-Oecember

•

Clearance

All articles must be cleared by the author's security/OPSEC office and public affairs office prior to submission. Thecover letter accompanying the article must state that these clearances have been obtained and that the artide hascommand approval for open publication.

Offices and individuals submitting articles that report Army cost savings must be prepared to quickly provide detaileddocumentation upon request that (1) verifies the cost savings; and (2) shows where the savings were reinvested.Organizations should be prepared to defend these monies in the event higher headquarters have a higher priority use forthese savings. All Army RD&A articles are cleared through SARD-ZAC. SARD-ZAC will clear all artiGles reporting costsavings through SARD-RI. Questions regarding this guideline can be directed to SARD-ZAC. Acquisition CareerManagement Office. (703) 604-7103. DSN 664-7103.

Submission DatesAuthor's Deadline

15 October15 December15 February15 April15 June15 August

Submission ProceduresArticle manuscripts (in MS Word) and illustnations (in PowerPoint) may be submitted via e-mail to

bleicheh@aaesa.belvoir.army.mil, or on a 3 112-inch floppy disk via U.S. mail to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMYRO&A. 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Photos may be e-mailed for review purposesonly, but glossy prints must be sent via the U.S. mail. All submissions must include the author's mailing address, offICephone number (DSN and commercial), and a typed, self-adhesive retum address label.

May-Jutle 1999 AnnyRD&A 81