00 alt magazine full issue 200106 - usaasc · debbie fischer-belous executive editor cynthia d....

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-01-5

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-01-6

NOVEMBER—DECEMBER 2001NOVEMBER—DECEMBER 2001

In This Issue:

• Army Posture Statement

• TWI Workshop

• Threat Materiel Solutions

In This Issue:

• Army Posture Statement

• TWI Workshop

• Threat Materiel Solutions

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

On September 11, the United States entered anew era. Without warning, we became part of aworld where terrorists strike and kill innocent peopleon American soil because they hate us and what werepresent. These evildoers intended to fill us withfear, and steal our safety and security. They failed.

As we recall the madness of that day, we alsoremember the extraordinary courage of our firefight-ers, police, and emergency medical teams. Weremember the generosity of Americans who lined upto donate blood, volunteer their services, and offerother types of assistance. We remember peoplethroughout the world who shared our shock, sad-ness, and readily gave us their support. The evildo-ers intended to bring us to our knees and change ourway of life. They failed.

Instead of retreating to our homes, Americanswent to work. We filled our houses of worship. Weshowed the world how proud we are to be Ameri-cans. We brought flags out of our closets and putthem on display. We sang God Bless America, and theworld joined us in a huge chorus. The evildoersintended to isolate us and keep us from going aboutour normal business. They failed.

They united Americans with all others in the civi-lized world and sparked a war of good against evil. Itis a difficult war to fight. Evil has no army, no navy,no air force. It hides in the bustle of big cities andthe shadows of rock formations and caves. Its onlyface belongs to its elusive leader. It has no borders.Its network extends to some 60 nations. Still, goodwill prevail.

With the longest history in special operationsand the greatest number of forces, the U.S. Army hasan integral role in this global campaign against evil.Our goal is the complete destruction of internationalterrorism—nothing less. And, we are ready. Today’sArmy is prepared.

Tomorrow’s Army will be even more prepared.As our transformation continues, we will becomeeven more capable of battling terrorism and otherasymmetric threats. In fact, our work has taken onan even greater importance—and urgency—sinceSeptember 11. On that day, we saw our future moreclearly. We saw a future where cities are battle-grounds and innocent people are targets, a futurewhere adversaries possess the capability to wage waron American soil, and a future where deterrence isno longer sufficient.

Relative to this ominous future, we know theArmy’s Transformation Campaign Plan is right ontarget. It needs little, if any, alteration. In fact, itneeds to be accelerated. This edition of Army AL&Tmagazine highlights our plans for the Army’s Objec-tive Force, our long-term development effort. Thisfuture force will maximize advances in technologyand organizational adaptations to revolutionizeland-power capabilities. As the Army works todevelop and acquire the technologies for the Objec-tive Force, the Legacy and Interim Forces will ensureArmy readiness. Ours is a comprehensive plan tobecome a lighter, more mobile, more sustainable,no-less-lethal force. It’s tailor-made for our uncer-tain world.

As we go forward, we are ever-mindful of thegreat sacrifices of the brave men, women, and chil-dren who died so needlessly on September 11. Wecontinue to keep them and their loved ones in ourthoughts and prayers. We hope that the completedestruction of international terrorism will somehowhelp to ease their pain.

Dr. Kenneth J. OscarActing Army Acquisition Executive

FROM THE ARMYACQUISITION

EXECUTIVEA World Changed

November-December 2001; PB 70-01-6

DR. KENNETH J. OSCARActing Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

EDITORIAL ADVISORYBOARD MEMBERS

LTG JOHN S. CALDWELL JR.Director, Army Acquisition Corps

LTG PETER M. CUVIELLODirector of Information Systems for Command,

Control, Communications, and ComputersLTG ROY E. BEAUCHAMPDeputy Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Materiel Command

MG GEOFFREY D. MILLERAssistant DCSPER

MG JOHN S. PARKERCommanding General

U.S. Army Medical Researchand Materiel Command

ERIC A. ORSINIDeputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics

Office of the ASAALTDR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Research and Technology

Office of the ASAALTDR. LEWIS E. LINK JR.

Director of R&DU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDONALD DAMSTETTER

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Policy

Office of the ASAALTHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Executive SecretaryEditorial Advisory Board

EDITORIAL STAFFHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-In-ChiefDEBBIE FISCHER-BELOUS

Executive EditorCYNTHIA D. HERMES

Managing EditorSANDRA R. MARKS

A. JOSEPH STRIBLINGContract Support

To contact the Editorial Office call (703) 805-1034/35/36/38 orDSN 655-1034/35/36/38. Articles should be submitted to:DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE101, FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Our fax number is (703) 805-4218. E-mail: [email protected].

The Army’s Metaphoric Stock SplitLTG John M. Riggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Objective Force SystemsLTG Kevin P. Byrnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Transforming Institutional Training And Leader DevelopmentLTC Gordon K. Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Knowledge DominanceKeith J. Masback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

AMC Integration For The Objective ForceChristopher S. Rinaldi, Albert S. Wedemeyer, and Michael R. Galvas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Warfighting Doctrine DevelopmentLTC Barry R. Hendricks and LTC Walter H. Orthner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

C4ISR ArchitecturesSteve Klynsma and MAJ Thomas Scott, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Combat Support And Combat Service Support TransformationLTC Brian R. Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Virtual Proving GroundLTC Mike Landers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The AAC Annual Training With Industry Orientation WorkshopSandra R. Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Threat Materiel Solutions For Army AcquisitionJeffrey L. Langhout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The FY02 Army Posture Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Improving Digital Terrain With Artificial Intelligence

MAJ James J. Donlon and Dr. Kenneth D. Forbus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Intelligent Agents: Tools For The Command Post And Commander

LTC Michael Bowman, Dr. Gheorghe Tecuci, and Mihai Boicu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34The Developmental Firing Range At Wallops Island

COL Andrew G. Ellis and Ronald L. Frailer Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Lessons Learned From The GMLRS IPT Process

Douglas Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39The Airdrop Certification Process

Sandy White and Nora Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Assessing Effects Of Live Fire On The Enhanced M1A2 Tank

Mike Cast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43New Medical Technology For The Injured Soldier

LTC Todd H. Furse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Rapid Detection Of Infectious Disease Outbreaks

MAJ Julie Pavlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Career Development Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Acquisition Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58News Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

FEATURES

DEPARTMENTS

Army AL&T (ISSN 0892-8657) is published bimonthly by theOASAALT. Articles reflect views of the authors and not necessar-ily official opinion of the Department of the Army. The purposeis to instruct members of the Army acquisition workforce rela-tive to AL&T processes, procedures, techniques, and manage-ment philosophy and to disseminate other information perti-nent to their professional development. Private subscriptionsand rates are available from the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 or (202)512-1800. Periodicals official postage paid at Fort Belvoir, VA,and additional post offices. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900BELVOIR RD SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567. Articlesmay be reprinted if credit is given to Army AL&T and the author.Unless indicated, all photos are from U.S. Army sources.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

This medium is approved for official dissemination of materialdesigned to keep individuals within the Army knowledgeable of cur-rent and emerging developments within their areas of expertise forthe purpose of enhancing their professional development.

By order of the Secretary of the ArmyERIC K. SHINSEKI

General, United States ArmyChief of Staff

Official:

JOEL B. HUDSONAdministrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army0128806

In Memory Of Those LostOn September 11, 2001

The Army AL&T editorial staff conveys its deepest sympathy tothe families of LTG Timothy J. Maude, former Army Deputy Chief ofStaff for Personnel; Mr. Ernie Willcher, a former Army AssociateDeputy General Counsel; and the hundreds of other military andcivilian personnel who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.

THE ARMY’S METAPHORICSTOCK SPLIT

LTG John M. Riggs

2 Army AL&T November-December 2001

Our Legacy, Their Destiny—We owethe very best Army possible to the sonsand daughters of America who will bewearing the uniform in the future . . .A great Army was provided to us,we should do no less for those whofollow. . . .

—LTG John M. RiggsDirector Objective Force Task Force

IntroductionA stock split is defined as “an

increase in a corporation’s outstandingshares without a corresponding changein the shareholders’ equity or the valueof the corporation.” When a companysplits its stock, the share quantity leapsahead. Today, America is in a uniqueposition as the shareholder of the mostpowerful Army in the world. And thegood news is that America’s shareshave just increased threefold. Our mag-nificent Army has announced a sort of“stock-splitting” strategy to increase itstechnological capabilities and globalrelevancy for continued near- andlong-term ground warfare superiority.

Where We’re HeadedThe original share is a full-

spectrum-capable and dominantground force currently undergoingcontinuous modernization efforts. Thestock-splitting strategy actually beganon Oct. 12, 1999, when the Secretary ofthe Army and the Army Chief of Staffarticulated a vision entitled “The ArmyTransformation,” which is designed toposture the Army to better meet thedemands of the 21st century. Thistransformation strategy capitalizedinto a 3-for-1 metaphorical stock splitcharacterized by three distinctiveground force implementations: theLegacy Force (recapitalization and

selective modernization for currentforce improvements and enhance-ments), the Interim Force (the transi-tional force that assimilates near-termtechnologies), and the Objective Force(the emergence of the new and futur-istic ground force combined withportions of the Legacy and InterimForces). These three forces are beingsimultaneously developed and will col-lectively converge and transpose to asingularly superior and relevantground force that will be strategicallyresponsive and capable of dominatingevery point on the spectrum of militaryoperations.

How We’ll Get ThereThe Army transformation has

begun. The Legacy Force is currentlybeing recapitalized and modernized.State-of-the-art enhancements wereinspired and influenced by past warexperiences, training lessons learned,and today’s global threats.

Currently, the Army is planningnear-term fielding of an Interim Forcethat will be the transitional force lead-ing the way in achieving the revolu-tionary and evolutionary future force,namely the Objective Force. TheInterim Force development begins withthe current implementation and field-ing of two Initial Brigade-size CombatTeams at Fort Lewis, WA. These InitialBrigade-size Combat Teams will haveoff-the-shelf and selected specializedstate-of-the-art equipment that will befielded in accordance with an approvedModified Table of Organization andEquipment. The critical benefit gainedfrom these initial teams will be thegeneration of the lessons learned andinsights needed to quickly achieve theInterim Force capabilities that willenable thorough evaluation and refine-

ment of the Operational and Organiza-tional (O&O) concept for future forces.From this, newly developed tactics,techniques, and procedures willemerge, thereby establishing the criti-cal conditions necessary for ensuringrefined development of the InterimForce. After the first Interim ArmoredVehicles are fielded and an InterimForce O&O model is validated, theseteams will be redesignated as InterimBrigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). Theirgoal is to bridge the gap between thecapabilities of today’s force and theObjective Force.

IBCTs will be the vanguard of thefuture Objective Force. They will havelimited full-spectrum capability andwill be available for apportionment tothe warfighting commanders-in-chief.The first of these IBCTs will be avail-able for deployment in May 2003, withthe second projected to be available inMay 2004. These IBCTs will also havethe capability to deploy anywhere inthe world in 96 hours.

Between 2008-2010, the first unitsof the Objective Force will be fielded.The Army refers to this milestone as the Objective Force First UnitEquipped. Ultimately, the ObjectiveForce will have the capability to deploya combat-capable brigade anywhere inthe world and perform a full spectrumof military operations.

A Soldier-Centric Force The Objective Force will provide

the National Command Authority(NCA) an increased range of optionsfor regional engagement, crisisresponse, and sustained land-forceoperations. The Objective Force will bea force that embodies the decisivewarfighting lethality of today’s mecha-nized forces with the strategic respon-

November-December 2001 Army AL&T 3

siveness of today’s light forces. TheObjective Force will be designedaround Future Combat Systems (FCS),which will incorporate state-of-the-arttechnologies and capabilities, as well asintegrate stovepipe functions we cur-rently get from today’s combat arms,combat support, and combat servicesupport forces. FCS will in turn be engi-neered, developed, and built specifi-cally and coherently around the soldier.The most lethal weapon on the battle-field will be the soldier. This translatesinto having an embedded, networked,and collective battlefield consciousnessto make the soldier a diverse multimis-sion combat warrior who dominatesground warfare across the spectrum ofmilitary operations.

America’s DestinyThroughout this metaphoric three-

way stock split and subsequent capital-ization regarding the Army transforma-tion process, readiness will remain ournumber one priority for the LegacyForce. The Army must fulfill its non-negotiable contract with the Americanpeople—to fight and win the Nation’swars. Therefore, the Army must sustainand recapitalize its Legacy Force toguarantee critical warfighting readi-ness. To accomplish this, the Army willrecapitalize selected legacy formations,in both Active and Reserve compo-nents, to enhance key armored andaviation systems as well as enhancelight force lethality and survivability.Part of this Legacy Force requirement isto divest those systems that are no lon-ger supportable given today’s fiscalrealities.

This entire process will be achievedby incorporating new and superiortechnologies that transcend the entireforce as it moves across timelines. Theculmination of this process is bestunderstood as a journey that distinctlytakes us toward a superior, dominating,and scalable future Army force—theObjective Force.

The Army’s metaphoric stock splitis immensely and imminently crucialto America’s future. Because the Armyis a premier strategic element ofnational policy, it must continue its 2-century-old tradition of serving ourcitizens well in peace and in war. Tocontinue this vital task, the Army mustchange! The requirement to changeand transform today’s Army is based onthe security challenges of a vastly dif-

ferent and dangerous 21st century andthe need to respond more rapidly anddecisively across the full spectrum ofmilitary operations. Thus, the Army hasinitiated a bold, yet necessary, set ofinitiatives that will transform it into anArmy that will remain relevant whileprotecting our Nation in the future!This will be the Objective Force!

What’s The Objective Force?The Objective Force will be the

force that achieves the Army’s transfor-mation objective. It will be a force thatis responsive, deployable, agile, versatile,lethal, survivable, and sustainable. TheObjective Force is based on capabilitiessupported by leading-edge technolo-gies that will focus on four criteria.First, the Objective Force will be asoldier-centered force. Objective Forcesoldiers will be intrinsically equippedand integrated with leap-ahead tech-nologies that provide them internettedair, ground, and space knowledge-based and lethality capabilities. Mak-ing these soldiers an integral part ofthis “system-of-systems” enables themto dominate across the spectrum ofmilitary operations. Second, the Objec-tive Force will capitalize on technolo-gies that enable it to employ precisionengagement on land with significantimprovements in lethality, range, andaccuracy. Third, the Objective Forcewill acquire the speed and agility inpositioning and repositioning to ensurethe joint team dominates land maneu-vers. Fourth, the Objective Force willserve as a strong deterrent to potentialadversaries by providing the NCAgreater flexibility through a broaderrange of strategic options.

Task Force GenesisThe culmination of the Army vision

is having the Objective Force achievedominance across the full spectrum ofmilitary operations. That means thepath must be carefully mapped andmanaged by our best professionals.This is being realized through a pro-grammatic and organizationalapproach. Secretary of the ArmyThomas E. White and Army Chief ofStaff GEN Eric K. Shinseki havedirected the formation of a task force toexecute the mission of synchronizing,integrating, and assessing activitiesrelated to building the Objective Force.This task force is known as the Objec-tive Force Task Force (OFTF).

The OFTF is the single, overarch-ing, integrating activity within theDepartment of the Army that providesthe direction, means, and impetus forthe Objective Force. Objective Forceefforts are associated with develop-ment of each of the Army domains:Doctrine, Training, Leader Develop-ment, Organization, Materiel andSoldiers (DTLOMS-pronounced “det-lomes”).

OFTF MissionThe mission of the OFTF is to

ensure the realization of the ObjectiveForce. The OFTF integrates all aspectsof the Army transformation to acceler-ate the delivery of the Objective Forceto the Army. The OFTF provides themeans to enable senior Army leaders toassess progress in developing theObjective Force and synchronize alllinked Objective Force programs withtheir integration into the Army. OFTFefforts are synchronized with the ongo-ing Army Transformation CampaignPlan with the focus on achieving initialObjective Force capabilities thisdecade. Modernization of the LegacyForce and attainment of an InterimForce support the goals and processesused in the pursuit of the ObjectiveForce. Lessons learned will be sharedby all elements of the transformationprocess.

ConclusionThe articles featured in this issue of

Army AL&T provide an in-depth per-spective of the transformation effortsand processes to achieve the ObjectiveForce. This endeavor is not just aboutimproving today’s most powerful Armyon the planet, it is about continuingand ensuring the “Free World’s” sover-eignty over emerging factions thatthreaten future world peace and, ulti-mately, freedom.

LTG JOHN M. RIGGS is theDirector of the Objective ForceTask Force. He most recently servedas the Commanding General of theFirst U.S. Army, Fort Gillem, GA.He holds a B.A. in political science,an M.A. in personnel managementand administration, and has com-pleted a National Security Fellow-ship at Harvard University’s JohnF. Kennedy School of Government.


IntroductionThe Army has embarked on a

revolutionary path of change toensure that the best Army in theworld today remains fully preparedfor the strategic challenges and oper-ational demands of tomorrow. Trans-formation is the watchword for thispath, and the Objective Force is thedescription for the Army of thefuture. Our enduring goal and chal-lenge is to sustain the dominantqualitative edge of the Army over allpotential adversaries.

Transformation to the ObjectiveForce is conceptually about a revolu-tion in the way the Army fights. Itrequires a science and technology(S&T) effort that focuses on yieldinga knowledge-based operational capa-bility, while increasing strategicdeployability and operational andtactical mobility.

A Complex ChangeArmy transformation is about

more than just procurement ofequipment. It also integrates theadvancements in Doctrine, Training,Leader Development, Organization,Materiel and Soldiers (DTLOMS);

installations; and business processes.This new way of fighting will becomea reality only through fielding ofequipment organized into effectivesystems. Ultimately, these systemsmust be integrated into units andmanned by trained soldiers, whoremain the Army’s enduring andmost important “system.” Further-more, for transformation to succeed,it will be absolutely essential to iden-tify, develop, and incorporate newtechnologies into effective systems.When it comes to Army systems, theOffice of the Deputy Chief of Staff forPrograms has the programmatic lead,including future systems for theObjective Force.

Role Of Force Development During transformation, the role

of the Army staff’s Force Develop-ment Directorate remains much thesame as it was in past decades—con-verting requirements into capabili-ties that can be used by soldiers andunits. The end result will be thedevelopment of systems that can beimplemented by technologically fea-sible and fiscally affordable pro-grams. To achieve the ambitiousgoals of fielding a more responsive

and capable force in the future—theObjective Force—the Army must findways to harness the revolutionarybreakthroughs in S&T and convertthem into viable systems and, ulti-mately, into programs that comprisefuture years’ Army budgets.

Transformation TimelineTransformation is a 30-year

process that depends on technologi-cal developments, funding levels,and unit availability. The desiredcharacteristics of the Objective Forcedescribed in the Army vision areresponsiveness, deployability, agility,versatility, lethality, survivability, andsustainability. The materiel means ofachieving these characteristics arestill being developed, and will be foryears to come.

Transformation will spandecades, not just years. Thus, theprocess of developing and fieldingsystems for the Objective Force willbe ongoing and will include currentsystems, projected systems, and onesthat are now only in the conceptualphase. Some systems that exist in theArmy today, the Javelin anti-armorweapon system for example, are rela-tively modern in their capability andtechnological advancement. As such,these systems will be part of theArmy inventory for many years—cer-tainly into the period when ObjectiveForce units are coming into exis-tence—2010 and beyond. Other sys-tems, such as the Comanche helicop-ter and Crusader advanced fieldartillery system, are entering theforce within the next 5 years or so,and will likewise be integral compo-nents of the future force for decadesto come. Finally, other systems suchas the Future Combat Systems(FCS)—the “system-of-systems” thatcomprise the foundation of theObjective Force—are in the earlystages of S&T exploration and maynot actually be converted intodeployable systems until the end ofthis decade or beyond. Managing

OBJECTIVEFORCE

SYSTEMSLTG Kevin P. Byrnes

Fielding Capabilities ForTomorrow’s Requirements


and balancing all of these systems—present, next-generation, andfuture—represents a major challengeto successful transformation of theArmy and a particular responsibilityof the Army’s force developmentprocess.

Materiel SolutionsAs mentioned earlier, the Army is

not simply about individual plat-forms or pieces of equipment, butrather about systems that compriseall elements—DTLOMS—harmo-nized together in functional organi-zations or units. Materiel solu-tions, however, in the form of well-conceived, professionally developed,acquired, and tested hardware sys-tems, remain a decisive element ofthe Army’s future effectiveness.

The harnessing of new technolo-gies within these materiel systems iswhat gives such exciting promise tothe Army’s ongoing transformationefforts. In fact, it is the key to ourfuture! As such, it is also the integralpart of the Army’s research, develop-ment, and acquisition budget, whichamounts to $19.1 billion for FY02. Of that amount, more than 60 per-cent will be devoted to investing inObjective Force systems, includingthose systems that are available nowand will be retained for continueduse or systems that will be fielded inthe future.

The seedbed for innovative tech-nological advances in these systems,especially the ones yet to be devel-oped, can be found in S&T effortsthat are exploring revolutionary tech-

nologies. Of these investments ($8billion between now and FY07), 96percent are being devoted to devel-oping technologies for ObjectiveForce systems.

Objective Force SystemsAmong the Army’s Objective

Force systems, the development ofFCS is the central materiel focus,with 37 percent of S&T funding beingused to find and develop the newtechnologies needed for this system-of-systems. The Army is also seekingto simultaneously mature anddevelop technologies for other sys-tems that will be essential to achievefull-spectrum dominance, which isthe intended hallmark of the Army ofthe future.


One of the more prominentefforts is in the area of command,control, communications, comput-ers, intelligence, surveillance, andreconnaissance (C4ISR), which hasthe overarching goal of improvingcomprehensive situational awarenessfor the future Army. Advanced sen-sors, intelligence and electronic war-fare systems and techniques, andspecialized electronics and computersystems are a few of the areas offer-ing great promise. Examples of otherpromising areas include rotorcrafttechnology, technologies to enhancethe future infantry soldier, technolo-gies to improve deployability andreduce logistics demand, advancedtraining tools and methods, simula-tion tools, and technologies toimprove survivability and lethality.

Achieving a decisive edge in theall-encompassing area of informa-tion technology is a broad theme ofthe Army’s technological pursuits,but by no means is it the only one.Another goal is the imperative to sig-nificantly improve strategic respon-siveness. This will require revolution-ary advances in numerous technol-ogy areas to produce not only lighterand more easily sustainable forces,but also forces that simultaneouslypossess even greater lethality andsurvivability than those of today’sArmy. These challenges are formida-ble, but are also well within the realmof technological potential.

A specific example of technologi-cal potential is the Common Missile,currently under development for useas a future Objective Force munition.This particular acquisition initiativeaims to develop and field a commonmissile for use in multiple groundand air platforms, from current tofuture systems, including both theComanche and possibly the FCS. Thegoal of this program is to tap intonew technologies that can yieldincreased capability and greateroperational flexibility while simulta-neously reducing the logistics burden

and ownership costs to the entireforce. This type of innovativeapproach is what the Army needs toenable successful transformationthrough technological advances andconcurrently keep costs and com-plexity within appropriate bounds.

Combat-Capable UnitsThe Army plans to use the Unit

Set Fielding (USF) concept to imple-ment the Army vision of becomingstrategically responsive and domi-nant across the full spectrum ofoperations. USF describes both astrategy and process involving theassembly and issuance of a set ofseveral individual, interactive sys-tems to a particular unit. Related tothis process is the concurrent fieldingof all required support, such asranges, training aids, ammunition,spare parts, and personnel.

Collectively, these processesfocus on providing the greatest capa-bility, not necessarily the largestnumber of individual systems, bysynchronizing fielding plans anddeconflicting demands on soldiers.Overall, this “balanced” approach offielding systems-of-systems ratherthan simply individual pieces ofequipment means that the Army willget far greater value for its invest-

ment throughout the transformationprocess.

ChallengesThe Army’s goal of developing

and fielding an Objective Force torealize the full potential of revolu-tionary new technologies is wellunderway. Many systems that will bepart of this force are being intro-duced into the Army in synchronizedsets of equipment. Others, such asthe FCS, will be introduced by theend of this decade. Transformation isindeed a process or path, not simplya destination. As such, it will requirea sustained and focused effort toyield the dramatic improvementsenvisioned by tapping into S&Tbreakthroughs in the 21st century.Objective Force systems will cover abroad spectrum of capabilities, func-tions, and specialties. While the FCSis the most visible and promisingexample of the future Army, othersystems are also being developed andwill comprise a larger part of the totalArmy effort. Ultimately, the synergyof all Objective Force systems willyield the full potential of a trans-formed Army, which is another rea-son why the USF process is so criticalto improved capabilities.

ConclusionSustained S&T efforts coupled

with efficient processes to field sys-tems once they are developed areindispensable for the promises oftransformation to become futurerealities. The Army has already begunto transform, and continued supportwill be required to preserve themomentum already established.

LTG KEVIN P. BYRNES is theArmy Deputy Chief of Staff forPrograms. He has a B.A. degree ineconomics and business adminis-tration from Park College and anM.A. degree in management fromWebster University.

The Army’s goalof developingand fielding

an Objective Forceto realize

the full potentialof revolutionary

new technologiesis well underway.


IntroductionIn October 1999, the Army Chief of

Staff (CSA) initiated a comprehensivetransformation of the Army to create amore responsive, deployable, agile, ver-satile, lethal, survivable, and sustain-able force capable of missions acrossthe full spectrum of conflict. Soonthereafter, the Commanding General(CG), U.S. Army Training and DoctrineCommand (TRADOC) directed aninternal study to identify potentialmodifications to processes, products,and organization. The purpose was toensure that the Army’s institutionalfoundation continues to contribute tothe readiness of the operational forceas well as support its transformation tothe Objective Force. This continuingstudy focuses on the skills, abilities,and characteristics that future soldiersand leaders must possess; changing thetraining and leader development edu-cation systems; and creating an organi-zational structure that will most effec-tively and efficiently support require-ments of the full-spectrum operationalenvironment. Each of these factors iscritical in ensuring that TRADOC pro-duces well-trained soldiers and compe-tent, confident leaders for today’s Armyas we transition to the Objective Force.

On June 1, 2000, the CSA directedthe CG, TRADOC to convene an ArmyTraining and Leader DevelopmentPanel (ATLDP) to review, assess, andprovide recommendations for thedevelopment and training of our 21stcentury leaders. A summary of theresults of the panel’s work includingspecific findings and recommenda-tions is available at http://www.army.mil/features/ATLD/ATLD.htm. A sec-ond panel, focusing on noncommis-sioned officers, is in session as of thiswriting. This study will be followed by awarrant officer study.

Based on the internal TRADOCstudy and the findings and recommen-dations of the ATLDP officer study,TRADOC is preparing a strategic planto redesign the Army’s institutionalbase to optimally support both the cur-rent and future operational force. Wewill achieve this through robust andrelevant training and leader develop-ment programs delivered by a stream-lined, technology-enhanced organiza-tional structure. We will leverage tech-nology to create virtual links betweenthe institutional training base and

units to facilitate on-demand soldieraccess. We believe this information-age approach will minimize the work-force and equipment requirementsassociated with the current World WarII era training model.

Training at the senior levels willcontinue to focus on strategic leader-ship. Overall, we seek to achieve a revi-talized professional military educa-tion system grounded in hands-on experiential training supported by thefollowing:

• Common core instruction in allcourses of the three education systems(officer, warrant officer, and noncom-missioned officer) will facilitate career-long, progressive, and sequentialleader development. Where appropri-ate, common core tasks will be hori-zontally aligned across the three edu-cation systems to provide an opportu-nity for officers, warrant officers, andnoncommissioned officers to traintogether on tasks they will performtogether in the field.

• Distance learning technologywill expand educational access andopportunities. Virtual linkage betweencombat training centers (CTCs) andschoolhouses worldwide will facilitatesharing of real-time operational experi-ences.

Warfighting TrainingSoldiers and leaders must be com-

petent in the warfighting capabilitiesand doctrine required to execute oper-ations in a full-spectrum environment.They must be knowledgeable andexperienced in analyzing their unit’sbattlefield operation and sustainment

capabilities. The warfighting modulewill teach leaders standard U.S. Armytechniques and procedures for tacticaldecisionmaking and the tacticalemployment of brigades and battalionsin full-spectrum operations. Warfight-ing training will be tactically focused,hands-on, and involve an execution-oriented training module. The war-fighting module will culminate with asimulation exercise to test the ability ofleaders to rapidly make decisions andsynchronize all of the battlefield func-tional area systems within the frame-work of full-spectrum operations. Theintent of the warfighting curriculum isto produce officers, warrant officers,and senior noncommissioned officerswho are proficient in maneuvering,supporting, and sustaining brigade,battalion, and company units.

Branch/Tactical TrainingThe foundation of Objective Force

unit competency is world-class branchtechnical and tactical training. The roleof the branch school is paramount dur-ing the initial stages of a leader’s career,the time when an individual receivesgrounding in branch-specific systemsand equipment. Branch schools willcontinue to provide functional trainingin the new education system, butmuch of this training will increasinglybe delivered through distance learningand training support to soldiers andunits in the field. Branch schools willcontinue to fill the role of a subjectmatter expert and provide a reachbackcapability for soldiers outside ofschool. Branches will continue to sus-tain the arms profession.

TRANSFORMINGINSTITUTIONALTRAINING ANDLEADER DEVELOPMENTLTC Gordon K. Rogers


Resident CurriculaTo provide the skills, knowledge,

and attributes required in the ObjectiveForce, resident school curricula willincreasingly focus on teaching thenature of war as opposed to merely thescientific conduct of war. The ObjectiveForce operational environment de-mands leaders who can reason andmake decisions in new and unexpectedsituations. The Objective Force leadermust visualize, describe, and directoperations in the field in both linearand nonlinear conditions in a full-spectrum environment.

Resident curricula will be designedto instill an appreciation for end statesand conditions, centers of gravity, deci-sive points, culminating points, andlines of operation. Objective Forceleaders must understand operationalreach, approach, and pause and tempoof battle. They must be able to planand execute simultaneous and sequen-tial operations. They must also be ableto articulate their vision and intent totheir subordinates for planning andexecution. The new curricula will teach leaders to be mission-focused,performance-oriented, and instill atrain-as-you-fight philosophy in theirunits. Objective Force leaders will bethe doctrinally sound, primary trainers,who know themselves and can build ateam fostered by life-long learning andmentorship.

Emerging InitiativesThe ATLDP concluded that two

periods occur in an officer’s careerwhen institutional experience plays acritical role: initial entry when theinstitution prepares an officer to leadsmall units, and promotion to majorwhen the institution prepares an offi-cer for field-grade responsibilities in awider variety of staff, command, andleadership positions at the tactical andoperational levels. Based on panel rec-ommendations and emerging conclu-sions of the TRADOC study, a compre-hensive review and revision of officer,warrant officer, and noncommissionedofficer professional military educationis underway. Several emerging educa-tional initiatives that will affect the offi-cer education system are included in acomprehensive institutional leaderdevelopment campaign plan. Some ofthese initiatives are discussed below.

Basic Course The Basic Officer Leaders’ Course

focuses on initial leader developmentfor all second lieutenants. Phase I, con-ducted prior to branch technical/tacti-cal training, is designed to meet newlycommissioned lieutenants’ expecta-tions and develop small-unit leaderswith a common warfighting focus andwarrior ethos. This phase embeds acommon Army standard for small-unitfighting and leadership and provideshands-on, tactical leadership training.A combined arms cadre provides stu-dents with continuous feedback onleadership performance. Phase IIprovides training on platoon-level,branch-specific, tactical and technicalskills. The purpose is to develop tacti-cally and technically competent andconfident small-unit leaders who haveestablished a bond with their com-bined arms peers and are ready toassume leadership positions. TheInfantry School will run Phase I pilotsin FYs 01 and 02.

Intermediate Level Education (ILE)Under Officer Personnel Manage-

ment System XXI, ILE will be imple-mented no later than the fourth quar-ter of FY03. ILE prepares individuals forsuccess as field-grade officers regard-less of their career field, branch, orfunctional area (FA), giving them botha common core of Army operationalinstruction, and career field, branch, orFA education. The Command and Gen-eral Staff College will develop and pilotthe ILE common core curriculum inFY02. It will also develop and pilot theAdvanced Operations and WarfightingCourse to be taught to operationscareer field officers at Fort Leaven-worth, KS, in FY03.

Tactical Commanders Program The Citizens Advisory Commission

(CAC) will redesign the Tactical Com-manders Development Program(TCDP) to better prepare battalion andbrigade commanders for full-spectrumoperations, provide more experience-based commander training, expandReserve component participation, andembed a virtual CTC experience. Revi-sions to the TCDP will be developed in FY02 and piloted and implementedbeginning in FY03.

CAC EffortsThe CAC will create a program of

instruction that provides expandedknowledge of Army Service Compo-nent Command (ASCC) and Army force(ARFOR) structures as well as missionsfor officers. The ASCC plans the re-deployment of ARFOR in a joint forceenvironment, including reconstitution.The ASCC is also responsible for satis-fying training, administrative, andlogistics requirements for ARFOR.Required distributed courseware willbe available at the time officers areassigned to an ASCC headquarters.Development and piloting of thiscourseware is expected in FY03 anddistribution in FY04.

Similar professional military edu-cation initiatives for warrant and non-commissioned officers will followbased on the findings and recommen-dations of the CSA Army panel ad-dressing the development and trainingof our 21st century leaders (noncom-missioned and warrant officers).

ConclusionTo successfully field and imple-

ment the Objective Force, soldiers andadaptive leaders should be developedusing a focused approach. TRADOCmust provide the Army with soldiersand leaders having standards-basedcompetencies who can successfullylead and train their units while fullyintegrating combined-arms capabili-ties in a full-spectrum operationalenvironment. This combined-arms,full-spectrum operational approach isthe foundation for developing curriculathat support our training and educa-tion requirements and the strategicunderpinnings for the humandimension.

LTC GORDON K. ROGERS is aSenior Military Analyst in theTRADOC Transformation Direc-torate. He received a B.S. fromJacksonville State University andan M.A. from Webster University.He is also a graduate of the JointForces Staff College.


IntroductionFor as long as mankind has waged

war, commanders have sought domi-nant knowledge of the battlespace todefeat their enemies while minimizingtheir own losses. In the absence of thatknowledge, great battle captains reliedon an innate ability to take fragmentsof information about the battlefieldand sense the opportunities for theirown forces and the vulnerabilities oftheir adversaries. Still others masteredmilitary history in hopes of applyinglessons from the past to their currentand planned operations. Desert Stormprovided us with a glimpse of thefuture and represented the first warwhere technology-enhanced access toinformation made a decided differencein the outcome of engagements, bat-tles, and the campaign. Superior battle-space knowledge, combined with ahighly trained, well-equipped force,enabled coalition commanders todirect their forces with near impunity.

As technology evolved in ways wecould not imagine, and we worked toleverage those advances to provide rel-evant knowledge to commanders atevery echelon, the operational environ-ment changed as well. The contempo-rary global security environment isboth complex and ambiguous. Unrestand conflict scenarios range from com-petition among states to failed statesunable to withstand the strains ofresource scarcity, population growth,and ethnic and religious militarism.

Our current and potential foeshave proven to be knowledgeable andadaptive, and they constantly seekways to counter, often in an asymmet-ric fashion, our significant advantagesin people, training, and technology. Inrecognition of this shifting andambiguous threat, the Army is chang-ing to meet the challenge. The uncer-tain nature of potential future adver-

saries mandates that the Army have arapid, decisive capability to respondacross the full spectrum of operations,while operating within joint and coali-tion constructs. The Army will remainthe premier land force, optimized forthe challenges of the 21st century as itmoves toward its future state, theObjective Force.

ChallengesThe principle operational chal-

lenge for the Objective Force is thetranscendent requirement for early andcontinuous application of strategicpower in all dimensions of the battle-space and in all operations. The Objec-tive Force will respond with trained,disciplined, and expertly led soldiersequipped with highly lethal, leading-edge weapon systems. The force will beenabled by precise knowledge at thepoint of decision obtained by leverag-ing expert personnel and advancedinformation technologies. The Objec-tive Force accepts a reduced level ofarmor-based protection to gain strate-gic responsiveness. This risk is miti-gated by increased tactical and opera-tional speed, versatility, agility, sustain-ability, and lethality.

Perhaps the single greatest enablerfor the bold vision of the ObjectiveForce is dominant battlespace knowl-edge. This knowledge will allow thefuture force to develop the situationwithout using “movement-to-contact”techniques by engaging opposingforces with beyond-line-of-sight andnon-line-of-sight capabilities. In turn,the capabilities will also allow the forceto precisely dictate the time and cir-cumstances under which it will con-duct close engagement. Recognizingthis as both an awesome challenge anda remarkable opportunity, Army intelli-gence and the entire intelligence, sur-veillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)

battlefield functional area (BFA) aretransforming to meet the challengeand seize the opportunity.

Army intelligence leaders envisionan integrated “mud-to-space” Armyintelligence team projecting knowledgeat the point of decision and empower-ing the Objective Force to see first,understand first, act first, and finishdecisively. Although this vision ad-dresses the full scope of Army transfor-mation (Legacy, Interim, and ObjectiveForces), this article focuses only onpreparations to meet the needs of theObjective Force.

The Army intelligence communityis challenging the status quo; seekingbetter ways of doing business; andlooking for advancements across Doc-trine, Training, Leader Development,Organization, Materiel and Soldiers-Policy (DTLOMS-P). The bedrock ofthis transformation is a world-classintelligence team made up of soldiers,Department of the Army civilians, andcontractors focused on the needs ofcommanders at every echelon.

To be mission-capable, the Objec-tive Force must possess integratedknowledge of the battlespace in alldimensions, and the Army intelligencecommunity must contribute signifi-cantly to creating unprecedented situa-tional awareness in space and time byreducing the uncertainty and “fog ofwar.” The demands of Objective Forceoperational concepts create a de factocontract with Army intelligence to “getit right” so that no future commanderis surprised.

Another vision for Army intelli-gence transformation is the creation ofthe “tactical infosphere” for ObjectiveForce commanders, analogous in somerespects to a Navy carrier battle grouptoday. As this Navy entity sails the seas,it creates a sphere (subsurface, surface,and aerospace) in which it enjoys an

KNOWLEDGE DOMINANCEKeith J. Masback

See First, Understand First,Act First, And Finish Decisively


informational overmatch, precludingsurprise and preserving freedom ofaction. Army intelligence, operatingwithin and integrating the broaderconstruct of the ISR BFA, will be inte-gral to operations as commanders seekto visualize, describe, and direct.

Army intelligence efforts will bedirected at translating, orchestrating,and synchronizing the commander’sknowledge requirements with opera-tions. This will be accomplished withan adaptively packaged forward intelli-gence force, including area experts andtailored systems. This force will becapable of reaching from mud to spaceand to national, joint, and coalitionentities (from joint platforms tonational-level knowledge centers) forinformation and knowledge. The intel-ligence force will also be prepared togather information to supplement andexpand on the significant capabilitiesof the Future Combat Systems (FCS).

The Army intelligence team willintegrate information from all possiblesources on the battlefield, across everyBFA, including FCS, Comanche, andbrilliant weapons. This will be com-bined with data collected from beyondthe range of organic sensors. Enabledby a robust information transport layer,commanders will gain knowledge in amanner tailored to enable decisions.The goal is instantaneous, continuous,near-certain knowledge allowing theObjective Force commander to plan,rehearse, and execute at a speed andcertainty that no opponent can match,regardless of the environment.

Science And TechnologyAlthough this vision of the future

relies on broad, sweeping changeacross DTLOMS-P, our ongoing work inthe world of science and technology(S&T) and research, development, andacquisition is a particularly importantarea for Army intelligence transforma-tion. Relative to S&T, Army intelligencehas a unique dual mission. Not onlymust we seek technological advancesto enable our vision, but our skilled,agile team must protect the tremen-dous investment that the Army is mak-ing to realize leap-ahead capabilitiesfor the Objective Force. This demandscountering foreign intelligence activi-ties, along with identifying and correct-ing security vulnerabilities. A cadre of

security, foreign disclosure, and coun-terintelligence professionals spreadthroughout the Army are our warriorsin this battle, helping commandersassess and mitigate risk from a com-plex and diverse network of threats. Asour education and training programsheighten awareness and our efforts todefeat attempts to gain access to ourinformation continue, we believe thatwe can preserve the promise of combatovermatch for the Objective Force.

Additionally, Army intelligenceefforts must be geared to seeking outthose key investment areas that holdthe best promise for assuring our abil-ity to deliver the knowledge edge to theObjective Force. Effective S&T is inte-gral to each of the Army intelligencecore competencies. Clearly, S&T priori-ties and energy must focus precisely onmodifying or developing technologythat can help gather, process, organize,store, and retrieve large amounts ofdata, information, and knowledge.Concurrently, we must be able to shareinformation and collaborate with lead-ers and other knowledge workers. Ulti-mately, these efforts will support deci-sionmaking and enhance other actions.

S&T efforts must also focus on pre-senting and visualizing in ways thatcomplement the individual thinkingpreferences of commanders and lead-ers. The dominant challenge for realiz-ing the Army intelligence vision is thatof integration, and our efforts mustreflect this. It will also be necessary toleverage the S&T investments of oursister Services, the national intelligencecommunity, other governmental agen-cies, and the cutting-edge S&T pro-grams of the commercial and academicsectors.

AcquisitionArmy intelligence is assuredly

“ahead of the curve.” By continuallyassessing the operational environ-ment and conducting thorough, intro-spective evaluations during the last 10 years, the Army ensured that its key systems are optimized for full-spectrum operations with the Objec-tive Force. In particular, we benefitedfrom the great work of our acquisitioncommunity, specifically, the ProgramExecutive Office for Intelligence, Elec-tronic Warfare and Sensors; the Pro-gram Executive Office for Command,

Control and Communications Systems;and the Army Space Program Office.Collectively, these offices reduced thenumber of Army intelligence systemsfrom 19 to 9, increased interoperability,moved to a multi-intelligence capabil-ity, used best-business practices to rap-idly put advanced capabilities into thehands of soldiers, and ensured that allsystems would have roll-on/roll-offcapability on C-130-type aircraft.Building on these achievements, we arepoised to enable Objective Force suc-cess with five key systems which, whencombined in an integrated architec-ture, will help deliver the knowledgeedge. These systems are the AerialCommon Sensor; Tactical UnmannedAerial Vehicle; Prophet (tactical levelsignals intelligence system); the Dis-tributed Common Ground Station-Army; and our piece of the Army BattleCommand System, the All SourceAnalysis System.

ConclusionArmy intelligence and the ISR BFA

are critical to Objective Force missionsuccess. Furthermore, superior ISR andcutting-edge information operationsare integral to the emerging opera-tional tenets of the future Army. TheArmy intelligence leadership has a boldvision to achieve this challenge. Aworld-class team, working collabora-tively using the most technologicallyadvanced tools available, along withour joint and national partners, areuniting to provide the Objective Forcewith the knowledge edge. No surprises,no more meeting engagements, liftingthe fog of war—Army intelligence is“always out front!”

KEITH J. MASBACK is a SeniorIntelligence Professional serving asthe Director of the Army Intelli-gence Master Plan in the Office ofthe Army Deputy Chief of Staff forIntelligence. He has a bachelor’sdegree in political science fromGettysburg College and has com-pleted the Postgraduate Intelli-gence Program.


IntroductionThe Army vision for the Objective

Force (OF) is “A force that is responsive,deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, sur-vivable and sustainable” at any pointalong the spectrum of operations, any-where in the world. Achieving thisvision will require a multitude of inno-vative and integrated technologies. TheArmy Materiel Command (AMC) andits subordinate research, developmentand engineering centers (RDECs) andArmy Research Laboratory (ARL) pro-vide a synergistic team to integratetechnology for the Objective Force.

To focus on the Objective Force,the AMC Commanding General hasestablished a Technology IntegrationBoard (TIB) and an AMC OF IntegratedProduct Team (IPT). The TIB is com-posed of the Technical Directors fromthe AMC RDECs, the ARL Director, theAMC Deputy Chief of Staff for Re-search, Development and Acquisition(DCSRDA), and the AssistantDCSRDA/Science and Technology(S&T) Advisor. The TIB provides broadguidance to the AMC OF IPT.

The AMC OF IPT, which consists ofsenior acquisition personnel represent-ing each of the RDECs and ARL, meetsat AMC Headquarters. Figure 1 showsthe AMC organizations represented onthe IPT and most of the key stakehold-ers in the Objective Force community.The mission of the AMC OF IPT is toprovide integrated materiel developerand acquisition management expertiseto the Objective Force community.

Materiel DevelopmentFuture Combat Systems (FCS) are

essential to the Objective Force, andthe AMC OF IPT is engaged in advanc-ing three efforts to facilitate technologytransfer between the AMC RDECs andFCS industry teams. These are a techni-cal library, an overarching CooperativeResearch and Development Agreement(CRADA), and a risk-management pro-gram. The following paragraphsdescribe each of these.

The technical library is a Web-based information system that pro-vides FCS industry teams access to acomprehensive database of AMC S&Tprograms. The database is organized byscience and technology objectives andincludes relevant information regard-ing the purpose, performance metrics,technology readiness level, anddescription and point-of-contact infor-mation for each program. It is updatedperiodically according to the Depart-ment of the Army (DA) review processknown as the Army Science and Tech-nology Working Group (ASTWG). Thetechnical library ensures that all of the

FCS industry teams have equal accessto the AMC S&T programs.

The second effort is the overarch-ing CRADA (Figure 2). The purpose isto standardize and streamline the busi-ness arrangements between the AMCRDECs and the FCS industry teams.The overarching CRADA will includecorporate business arrangements com-mon to all RDECs, yet will still provideflexibility to accommodate individualindustry teams. Potential commonbusiness arrangements includeexchange of data, trademarks, patents,inventions, joint inventions, and pro-prietary and protected information.Under the umbrella of the overarchingCRADA, cooperative projects will benegotiated between the RDECs andFCS industry teams in coordinationwith AMC Headquarters. The coopera-tive projects will include businessarrangements specific to the RDECs.Potential specific business arrange-ments include scope of work, person-nel resources, transfer of funds, testing,and test facilities. The overarchingCRADA will encourage government

AMC INTEGRATIONFOR THE OBJECTIVE FORCE

Christopher S. Rinaldi, Albert S. Wedemeyer, and Michael R. Galvas

In addition to providing technologyas a materiel developer, AMC also provides

acquisition management expertiseto the Objective Force community.

AMC personnel have acquisition managementexpertise in all stages of the acquisition life cycle,

and they provide it to the Objective Force communityin various forums.


and industry teaming and will ensureequitable treatment for all participants.

The third effort initiated by theAMC OF IPT is a risk-management pro-gram. Risk management is a methodfor tracking program execution used byprogram managers (PMs) for develop-ment and production programs. ForS&T programs, each AMC RDEC cur-rently employs its own methods formonitoring cost, schedule, and per-formance. A pilot program was initi-ated to develop a standardized report-ing process for risk management ofS&T programs associated with theObjective Force. This pilot programincludes periodic red, yellow, or greenevaluations of risk that display the like-lihood of occurrence and significanceof impact on achieving the statedobjectives of the program. The two S&Tprograms selected for the pilot pro-gram are the Multi-Role Armament andAmmunition System and the Compact

Kinetic Energy Missile. Depending onthe results of the pilot program, thiseffort may be expanded to include allObjective Force S&T programs per-formed by the RDECs.

Acquisition ManagementIn addition to providing technol-

ogy as a materiel developer, AMC alsoprovides acquisition managementexpertise to the Objective Force com-munity. AMC personnel have acquisi-tion management expertise in allstages of the acquisition life cycle, andthey provide it to the Objective Forcecommunity in various forums.

First, AMC participates in theObjective Force Task Force (OFTF)Council of Colonels and two-star levelIPT meetings, Training and DoctrineCommand (TRADOC) Objective Forcewargaming exercises, the DA ASTWGprocess, and the FCS industry teamquarterly process reviews. By partici-

pating in these forums, AMC can pro-vide integrated support to the Objec-tive Force.

Second, the PM, FCS uses variousIPTs to supplement his staff and man-age the program. Examples includeanalysis, operational, system, techni-cal, and cost IPTs that provide inde-pendent objective evaluations ofindustry team progress. The membersof these teams are predominantly tech-nical acquisition experts from the AMCRDECs, ARL, and the Army MaterielSystems Analysis Activity.

Third, AMC is contributing to thedevelopment of the draft FCS Acquisi-tion Strategy via coordination andreview by the appropriate subject mat-ter experts. AMC professionals have aproven track record of moving prod-ucts through the acquisition life cycleto the field. Further, a new solicitationis currently being prepared for the nextphases of the FCS Program. To prepare

Figure 1.


the solicitation, the PM, FCS hasorganized a Primary CompositionTeam and a Staff Review WorkingGroup to write and review the docu-ments. AMC RDEC and OF IPT person-nel are contributing members on bothof these groups.

ConclusionAMC is fully engaged and an active

participant in the OF Program. Tofocus and expedite efforts on theObjective Force, the AMC Command-ing General has established the TIBand the AMC OF IPT. The AMC OF IPTis developing three products to facili-tate and integrate materiel develop-ment: a technical library, an overarch-ing CRADA, and a risk-managementprogram. AMC is also providingnumerous personnel with acquisitionexpertise from both headquarters and

the RDECs who are integratedthroughout the Objective Force com-munity. AMC is committed to theObjective Force.

CHRISTOPHER S. RINALDI isthe Chair of the AMC OF IPT ondetail from the Tank-automotiveand Armaments Command'sArmament Research, Developmentand Engineering Center. He has aB.S. in mechanical engineeringfrom Manhattan College, an M.S.in mechanical engineering fromRensselaer Polytechnic Institute,and is a registered ProfessionalEngineer. Rinaldi is a member ofthe Army Acquisition Corps and isLevel III certified in systems plan-ning, research, development andengineering.

ALBERT S. WEDEMEYER is anAMC OF IPT member representingthe Communications-ElectronicsCommand RDEC. He is a graduateof the U.S. Military Academy, hasan M.S. in industrial engineeringfrom Stanford University, and is aregistered Professional Engineer.

MICHAEL R. GALVAS is anAMC OF IPT member representingthe Aviation and Missile Com-mand RDEC. He has a B.S. inaeronautical and astronauticalengineering from Purdue Univer-sity and a master’s degree inmechanical engineering from theUniversity of Toledo.

Figure 2.


IntroductionUntil it achieves the capabilities

of the Objective Force, the Army willbe a hybrid force comprised of manyunit types at various levels of mod-ernization. Our warfighting doctrinemust account for these differences. Itmust also emphasize the distributed,noncontiguous operations requiredin Joint Vision 2020. It must addressthe complete range of potential tacti-cal and operational missions anddiverse operating environments. Thisincludes open rolling terrain, closeterrain, and the equally challengingcomplex urban terrain that hasbecome the battlefield of choice formany adversaries. Most important,this doctrine must be comprehensiveand embrace the full spectrum ofmilitary operations, providing a con-ceptual basis for the rapid transition,without loss of momentum, acrossthe spectrum of operations. It mustbe relevant to Legacy Force units andadaptable to Interim Brigade CombatTeams and Objective Force units.

In the near term, the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command(TRADOC) is conducting an inte-grated rewrite of key Army concepts,doctrine, and strategic plans to ad-dress full-spectrum operations in thejoint, interagency, and multinationalenvironments. TRADOC will focus ondoctrine and warfighting conceptsthat enable joint synergy to maxi-

mize lethality and survivability. Jointcapabilities for precision maneuverand engagement, particularly theengagement of moving ground tar-gets, will demand concepts and asso-ciated capabilities for joint, real-time,fully integrated sensor-to-shooterlinks and exponential advances inthe Army’s precision engagementcapabilities.

BackgroundDoctrine provides military organ-

izations a common philosophy, lan-guage, purpose, and unity of effort. Itprovides insight and wisdom gainedfrom our collective experience withwarfare and is the body of thoughton how the military fights in thepresent to near term with currentforce structure and materiel.

The Army’s warfighting doctrinalfield manuals (FMs) provide thefoundation for our operating princi-ples and are designed to serve theunits in the field today while lookingtoward the requirements of thefuture. They help commanders deter-mine the proper course of actionunder circumstances existing at thetime of decision and establish a com-mon perspective from which to planand operate. On June 14, 2001, thedoctrinal foundation for the Armytransformation was firmly estab-lished with the publication of FM 1,The Army, and FM 3-0, Operations.These FMs map the course on howthe Army will fight and train for thenext 5 to 7 years as we move towardthe Objective Force. Across the Army,various doctrinal proponents arereviewing and rewriting FMs toensure every tactic, technique, andprocedure (TTP) can be traced andcrosswalked to these two new manu-als. These two manuals also mark thetransition to the new FM numbering

WARFIGHTINGDOCTRINE

DEVELOPMENTLTC Barry R. Hendricks

and LTC Walter H. Orthner

Doctrine providesmilitary organizations a

common philosophy,language, purpose, and

unity of effort. It providesinsight and wisdom

gained from ourcollective experience

with warfare and is thebody of thought on how

the military fightsin the presentto near term

with current forcestructure and materiel.


system that will align Army manualswith joint Service manuals.

Doctrine HierarchyArmy warfighting doctrine is

organized in a three-tiered hierarchythat provides a structure for develop-ing and implementing doctrinalpublications. Tier 1, Army, is thehighest-level tier and includes publi-cations that offer a broad perspec-tive on Army operations. There are132 Tier 1 FMs including FM 1 andFM 3-0. Tier 2, Proponent, is the sec-ond tier, and it is designed to cap-ture the bulk of proponent-levelFMs. There are currently 227 Tier 2FMs and they include all the propo-nents’ principal doctrinal publica-tions along with FMs covering func-tions, units, and the employment ofsoldiers and systems. Tier 3, Refer-ence, is the final tier, and it containsinformation that seldom changesand could apply to any soldier or

unit. There are currently 132 Tier 3FMs and they include tasks such asproviding first aid, physical training,and marksmanship.

Doctrine Development The development of the Army’s

warfighting doctrine follows a formal,traditional, and time-consumingprocess that requires careful plan-ning and continuous coordination.The development process may take18 to 24 months to produce the fin-ished product. Numerous tasks areinvolved including research, analysis,writing, editing, internal and externalstaffing, and approval. This timelinevaries depending on whether theFM is being newly written or revised,the scope and complexity of thematerial, the extent of the staffing/review required, and the level of theapproval authority. The six phases areassessment, planning, development,

production, print and dissemination,and implementation and evaluation.

Once published, the new orrevised doctrine will be integratedinto the proponents’ training plans.Tactical units implement the doc-trine and provide feedback and rec-ommended changes to the propo-nent. Finally, the combat trainingcenters and the Center for ArmyLessons Learned conduct assess-ments of the doctrine. The normalshelf life for doctrinal publications is5 years. At a minimum, 36-48 monthsfollowing publication date, propo-nents will conduct a formal review oftheir FMs. The purpose is to assessthe usefulness and accuracy of thedoctrine, which may lead to addi-tional changes.

Transformation DoctrineTo support the Army transforma-

tion, TRADOC is facilitating thedevelopment of doctrine on the


familiar three axes of the Army trans-formation under the provisions ofthe final draft of TRADOC Regulation25-36, The TRADOC Doctrinal Litera-ture Program. Along the first axis,TRADOC is developing TTPs for theInitial Brigade Combat Team. Alongthe second axis, TRADOC is revisingdivision and corps doctrine to link itwith joint and multinational doc-trine. Finally, along the third axis,TRADOC is revising existing Armydoctrine in accordance with the Doc-trine Master Plan, which is a priori-tized listing of all Army, joint, multi-Service, and multinational doctrinemaintained by the TRADOC DeputyChief of Staff for Doctrine and usedto obtain and prioritize limited re-sources for doctrine development.

The recent publication of FM 3-90 (formally 100-40), Tactics, and thepublication of other key doctrinalpublications in the very near futureexpand on the doctrine in FM 1 andFM 3-0, and contain key concepts ofthe Army vision that set the stage forthe Army transformation. Theseother publications include FM 3-91(formally 71-100), Division Opera-tions; FM 3-93 (formally 100-7), Deci-sive Force: The Army in Theater Oper-ations; FM 4-0 (formally FM 100-10),Combat Service Support; FM 5-0 (for-mally 101-5), Army Planning andOrders Production; and FM 6-0 (for-mally 100-34), Command and Con-trol. As revisions to these publica-tions become necessary around 2006or 2007, the effort for developingBrigade Combat Team doctrine willmerge with the need to execute theDoctrine Master Plan. Thus, transfor-mation tenets will be incorporatedinto fundamental publications toreflect transformed doctrine as wemove to the Objective Force.

The various TRADOC proponentschools and centers are developingInitial Brigade Combat Team doc-trine and TTPs using the initial forceoperations and organizations as aframework. The doctrinal materialconsists of a small set of core publi-cations (Tier 1) to guide the trainingand early organizational refinements

of the Initial Brigade Combat Team. Italso consists of follow-on doctrinalpublications (Tier 2) that support thecore publications derived from unittraining, lessons learned, and unitfeedback. The management of Tier 2doctrine is decentralized to propo-nents who determine timelines, con-tent, and scope.

Division and corps doctrines arebeing revised to address the com-mand and control and support re-quirements of the Initial BrigadeCombat Team. This will provide therequisite “hooks and links” for jointand multinational operations. Armydoctrine must not only be compati-ble, but also be embedded in currentand emerging joint and multina-tional doctrine that addresses thecapabilities of the Initial BrigadeCombat Team, and eventually theObjective Force. Development ofdivision doctrine continues, andcorps doctrine will surely followpending the approval of the interimdivision operations and organiza-tions and the corps redesign, cur-rently scheduled for FY04.

The Army vision, announced byArmy Chief of Staff GEN Eric K. Shin-seki in October 1999, gave TRADOCthe opportunity to incorporate keyconcepts of that vision into doctrine.As the Army transforms, Initial Bri-gade Combat Team doctrine willeventually be integrated into theDoctrine Master Plan, at which pointthe key concepts will be included inall publications and become trans-formed doctrine.

A total of 26 Tier 1 Initial BrigadeCombat Team initial draft field man-uals were produced by the proponentschools and centers and delivered toFort Lewis, WA, in the spring of 2000.The Initial Brigade Combat Team istesting and providing input on thesedoctrinal publications, which willhelp develop and refine future doc-trine. These doctrinal manuals arescheduled for final staffing the firsthalf of 2002. Currently, the divisionand corps doctrines have progressedfar enough in their developmentprocess where effective and feasible

corresponding drafts are being pro-duced. These drafts will be staffed,subsequently approved, and used asa guide in the architecture processprior to ratifying the Initial Opera-tional Capability of the first BrigadeCombat Team (projected for May2003). This ratification will allow formeaningful support and focusedtraining, and will establish deploy-ment capabilities mandated by thestated Army vision.

ConclusionThe Army’s future doctrine must

enable core warfighting capabilitieswhile increasing strategic responsive-ness and dominance over an ex-panded range of mission environ-ments and threats. As such, efforts toshape Army doctrine will continuethroughout the mid- and far term. Bythe midterm, we will reform our doc-trinal development process so that itcontinues to reflect the best availablethought on the art and science ofmilitary operations. In the far term,this process will ensure that an inte-grated rewrite of fundamental doc-trine is accomplished to provide rele-vant warfighting doctrine for theObjective Force.

LTC BARRY R. HENDRICKS isa Doctrine Staff Officer in theOffice of the Deputy Chief of Stafffor Doctrine, TRADOC Headquar-ters. He received a B.B.A. fromNorth Georgia College and anM.A. from West Virginia Univer-sity. He is also a graduate of theCommand and General StaffCollege.

LTC WALTER H. ORTHNER is aDoctrine Staff Officer in the Officeof the Deputy Chief of Staff forDoctrine, TRADOC Headquarters.He has an M.S. in logistics fromthe Florida Institute of Technologyand is a graduate of the Com-mand and General Staff College.


IntroductionAdvances in weapon lethality, as

envisioned for the Objective Force,have traditionally necessitated thedevelopment of heavier or moretechnologically advanced armor toprotect the warfighter. However, tomeet its strategic goals, the ObjectiveForce must provide lethal combatovermatch with less weight andgreater agility. This requires the Armyto move from a platform-centric to anetwork-centric architecture, provid-ing greater situational awareness.This situational understanding, alongwith greater mobility, more lethalprecision weapons, and integratedjoint capabilities, will obviate theArmy’s traditional reliance on heavyarmor for force protection. Multi-functional weapon systems withinFuture Combat Systems (FCS) arekey, but the real revolution in war-fighting brought about by the Objec-tive Force is the integrated, multi-tiered command, control, communi-cations, computers, intelligence,surveillance, and reconnaissance(C4ISR) network. Battles will be wonor lost based on the network’s abilityto provide the situational pictureallowing the commander to see andunderstand first.

A Different ArchitectureC4ISR architecture for the Objec-

tive Force will be substantially differ-ent from the architecture of today’stactical communications infrastruc-ture. Current architectures rely on astable, semifixed supporting infra-structure established on elevated ter-rain. Relocating elements (signalnodes) of this infrastructure is nottrivial and often results in lengthyperiods of degraded communications.During these periods, the commanderrisks losing touch with the flow of thebattle. The Army science and technol-ogy community is developing newtechnologies supporting commandand control (C2) on-the-move. Thesetechnologies will free commanders

from today’s rigid infrastructure andallow them to focus on the battle.Commanders will be able to roam thebattlefield at will, continually main-tain situational awareness data feeds,and effortlessly direct subordinatecommanders.

The architecture of the ObjectiveForce C4ISR network will includemechanisms for graceful degradation,dynamic reallocation of spectrumand bandwidth, information assur-ance, authentication, and autocon-figuration. It will be high-bandwidth,long-range, robust (e.g. anti-jam),secure (anti-hacker), and covert. TheFCS will also depend heavily on theC4ISR network tying together its ma-jor functional areas of direct fire, in-direct fire, infantry assault, intelli-gence, and reconnaissance. Thearchitecture will enable collaborativefires (both direct and indirect) andreduce sensor-to-shooter timelines.The Objective Force Unit of Actionwill have organic C4ISR assets thatpermit unrestricted operations any-where in the world. The networkmust be of sufficient reliability androbustness to permit simultaneousmultiuser and multiprecedent con-nectivity. Obviously, as with the earlier commander’s scenario, such connectivity requires terrain-

independence. Therefore, the Objec-tive Force C4ISR architecture willinclude satellite and airborne com-munication nodes, as well as themore traditional terrestrial links, pro-viding network connectivity andrange extension.

The Objective Force will operatein a geostrategic environment en-compassing a trend toward a non-linear, multidimensional battlespace.The emphasis will not only be onjoint interdependence and combinedinteroperability, but also on an inher-ent capability to interact with non-governmental organizations, privatevolunteer organizations, and indige-nous infrastructures. Internetted“systems-of-systems” that operateseamlessly across the tactical, opera-tional, and strategic levels will be key,including a robust and large reach-back capability that enables split-based operations. CONUS-based“sanctuaries” will facilitate intera-gency collaboration while providing aportal to the tactical arena. Com-mand, control, communications, andcomputers (C4) information tech-nologies thus arguably become themost significant common denomina-tors across all the technologies andconcepts being considered for theObjective Force.

C4ISRARCHITECTURES

The Objective Force Key Enabler

Steve Klynsma andMAJ Thomas Scott, UK


InfrastructureTo understand and manage the

complexity of the networks requiredfor the Objective Force, the Army isbeginning to document the architec-tural infrastructure supporting it.Architectures provide a mechanismfor understanding and managingcomplexity. The DoD C4ISR Architec-ture Framework Document Version2.0 defines architecture as “the struc-ture of components, their relation-ships, and the principles and guide-lines governing their design and evo-lution over time.” C4ISR architectureprovides for the examination ofprocesses and system implementa-tions in the context of mission opera-tions and information requirements.Architectures are generally composedof three specific views, which to beconsistent and integrated, must haveexplicit linkages between them. Such

linkages are also needed to provide acohesive audit trail from integratedmission operational requirementsand measures of effectiveness to thesupporting systems and their charac-teristics, and to the specific technicalcriteria governing the acquisitionand development of the supportingsystems. The three typical architec-ture views are as follows:

• The operational view describesthe tasks and activities, operationalelements, and information flowsrequired to accomplish or support amission or functional area. Opera-tional views are generally independ-ent of organization, force structures,and technology.

• System views depict the func-tional and physical automated sys-tems, nodes, platforms, communica-tion paths, and other critical ele-

ments that support the information-exchange requirements and war-fighter tasks described in the opera-tional architecture views.

• The technical view is the mini-mal set of rules governing thearrangement, interaction, and inter-dependence of system parts or ele-ments. Technical views facilitate inte-gration and promote interoperabilityacross systems and compatibilityamong related architectures. Essen-tially, they prescribe the technicalimplementation standards and con-ventions—such as building codes—on which the architecture depends.

GridsC4ISR architecture will form the

backbone of the FCS and the Objec-tive Force and will enable the effec-tive application of all other capabili-ties, including operational movement

C4ISR Functional Areas


and maneuver, tactical maneuver,vertical envelopment, mobile strike,and close combat. The ObjectiveForce C4ISR architecture will need toencompass logical sensor, informa-tion, and engagement grids, whichare internetted via a physical com-munications grid to provide a virtualinternetted C4ISR infosphere. Thisseamless integration at multiple lev-els will involve information exchangeinterfaces to support mission plan-ning across echelons, sensor infor-mation for battlespace awareness,and beyond-line-of-sight targeting.

The sensor grid will logicallyconnect organic manned, un-manned, remote, platform, and sol-dier sensors along with nonorganicArmy, joint, and coalition capabili-ties. A ubiquitous and robust sensorgrid will contribute significantly to amore comprehensive and moreaccurate joint common operatingpicture, locate key enemy capabili-ties for destruction, enable reliablebattle damage assessment, andenhance the ability of the com-mander to employ forces more effec-tively. Improved situational under-standing provided by the sensor gridwill also strengthen survivability andforce protection, allowing the forceto preserve combat power.

The information grid will logi-cally provide commanders at all ech-elons with sophisticated battlespacemanagement tools and capabilitiesto transform battlespace awarenessand understanding into executableactions. Advanced C4ISR capabilities,including automated decision aidsand collaboration tools, will enablecommanders to make qualitativelybetter decisions faster than theenemy, thus thwarting the enemy’sability to respond.

The engagement grid will lever-age enhanced battlespace awareness,engagement quality target informa-tion, distributed battle damage

assessment sensors, and sharedknowledge of the commander’sintent to plan and execute synchro-nized lethal and nonlethal effects onthe adversary. Like the sensor andinformation grids, the engagementgrid is a logical construct enablingcoordinated and collaborative fires,dependent on the communicationsgrid.

The communications grid willprovide a ubiquitous “always-on” vir-tual back-plane to support commu-nications among all battlefield enti-ties. Extended range and redundantcommunication networks will ex-pand the commander’s reach andensure continuous connectivity viamultiple pathways. The global infor-mation infrastructure in which theObjective Force will function mustprovide ubiquitous data transportand information to the warfighter,independent of location, degree ofmobility, or platform dynamics. Theinformation infrastructure will use aheterogeneous mixture of availablemedia including civilian fiber opticcable plants; landlines; and terres-trial, airborne, and satellite-basedwireless services. This infrastructurewill likely be a mix of both civilianand military systems. The communi-cations grid will be supported by theemerging Warfighter InformationNetwork-Tactical and the Joint Tacti-cal Radio System.

ConclusionThe C4ISR architecture must

provide for the integration of allthese systems into a seamless,dynamic, and extensible informationtransport system that is scalable andhas security appropriate to the mili-tary mission and the informationwarfare threat. A C4ISR architectureprovides the only truly integratingmechanism for the Objective Forceinformation requirements discussed.It incorporates information technol-

ogy consistently, controlling the con-figuration of technical componentsand ensuring compliance with tech-nical “building codes” through theuse of interdependent views. Thedevelopment of this architecture willbe evolutionary as concepts andtechnology increase in fidelity overtime. The multilevel C4ISR architec-ture will provide an essential mecha-nism for understanding and manag-ing the extremely complex require-ments, standards, and implemen-tation details of the Objective Force.

STEVE KLYNSMA is a LeadNetwork Engineer working for TheMITRE Corp. in support of theArmy Office of the Director ofInformation Systems for Com-mand, Control, Communications,and Computers. He graduatedfrom the U.S. Military Academy in1983 and has an M.S. in commu-nications and computers from TheGeorge Washington University.

MAJ THOMAS SCOTT is theUnited Kingdom (U.K.) ExchangeOfficer in the Office of the Directorof Information Systems for Com-mand, Control, Communications,and Computers. He was educatedat Glasgow University, CranfieldUniversity, and Kings College Lon-don. He has a B.S. in mechanicalengineering with a specializationin engineering management, anM.S. in the design of informationsystems, and an M.A. in defensestudies. He is also a graduate ofthe U.K. Joint Services Commandand Staff College.


IntroductionObjective Force operations will

deviate dramatically from present-day operations. Support and sustain-ment operations must change dra-matically to support the operationalreach and increased tempo of ma-neuver forces that conduct decen-tralized operations throughout theextended battlespace. This effortrequires that we break from businessas usual and attack our deployment,support, and sustainment efforts innew and different ways. The successof the Objective Force depends onthe seeds we sow today in the com-bat support (CS) and combat servicesupport (CSS) transformation.

Not Business As UsualCS/CSS transformation will dra-

matically change the way our Army issupported and sustained as part of ajoint force. CS/CSS transformationmust ensure that Army forces arecapable of deploying rapidly to sup-port current and future operationalforce deployment goals and caneffectively support and sustain thefull spectrum of synchronized jointArmy operations. To achieve this, wemust enhance strategic responsive-ness and meet deployment timelines;reduce the CS and CSS footprint incombat zones; and finally, reduce the

cost of generating and sustainingforces without reducing warfightingcapability or readiness.

We know that some things willnot change. As always, joint forcecommanders will get what theydeserve—better support than theiradversaries. Performance will still bejudged based on the ability to pro-vide the right stuff at the right timeand place. We will continue to projectforces to trouble spots around theworld, and our national economicovermatch will fuel that effort; how-ever, some things must change.

Our past systems were ineffi-cient. Joint force commanders (JFCs)

traded agility and freedom of maneu-verability for their world-class sup-port. Reliance on a large logisticsfootprint and the operational burdenof its protection forced JFCs to tem-per their appetite in terms of dis-tance, intensity, and operation dura-tion. In addition, the size of the sup-porting and sustaining forces reducedforce closure because of additionalstrategic lift requirements.

Logistics VisionThe Army Chief of Staff’s logistics

vision states, “In terms of sustain-ability, the logistics footprint will bereduced. For this to occur, the num-bers of vehicles deployed must becontrolled, reach capabilities mustbe leveraged, weapons and equip-ment designed in a systems ap-proach, and projection and sustain-ment processes revolutionized.”

If the Army is to realize the fullpotential of this vision, it mustaddress three factors. First, the Armymust invest in equipment that ismore reliable and consumes fewerresources. Second, the Army mustreplace its inventory-based sustain-ment culture with a distribution-based system that allows command-ers to maneuver with only what theyneed for a particular mission, free ofexcess. Finally, sustainment forma-

COMBAT SUPPORT ANDCOMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT

TRANSFORMATION Sowing Seeds For The Objective Force

LTC Brian R. Layer

The Army must overcomethe tyranny of physics.

We must use scienceand technology

and our associatedacquisition process

to procure more capableand less demanding

equipment.


tions will have to change to accom-modate this new logistics system.

The Physical ChangeThe most challenging factor

involves equipment. The Army mustovercome the tyranny of physics. Wemust use science and technologyand our associated acquisition proc-ess to procure more capable and lessdemanding equipment. In otherwords, no reduction in sustainmentfootprint will come without a re-duced demand for supplies. To ad-dress this problem, the Army mustchange the criteria used to acquirenew equipment. The costs associatedwith sustainment must be balancedwith the costs of acquisition so thatavoidable sustainment costs areaverted during the procurementprocess rather than paid for, like atax, by the operational force. Forinstance, we may pay more for afamily of ultrareliable systems withcommon components and embed-ded diagnostics/prognostics, but thiswill avoid operating costs and reducethe footprint downstream. Moreimportant, the Army must exploreand invest in more efficient tech-nologies. Future systems must besmaller, lighter, more reliable, capa-ble, and survivable.

A Paradigm ShiftThe next factor that must be

addressed is the cultural shift froman inventory to a distribution sys-tem. Timely, reliable information isthe backbone of this system. As sus-tainment operations become moreprecise, our reliance on assured com-munications and powerful informa-tion systems becomes a prerequisiterather than a luxury. The need fortotal asset visibility is absolutebecause as safety stocks decline, cor-rect information becomes a safetynet. The distribution system must belinked to maneuvering-unit opera-tions and provide logistical situa-

tional understanding, total asset visi-bility, actual and projected consump-tion rates, and positive control toend users from all sources.

Completing The PuzzleInformation alone, however,

won’t deliver the goods. An agile, effi-cient transportation system is alsorequired. The operational force isdesigned to fight over greater dis-tances. While this alone drives anincreasingly vertical distribution sys-tem, the nonlinearity of the futurefight accentuates this need. Reducedinventory requires an efficient distri-bution system that allows appropri-ate packaging at the national orintermediate staging base for deliv-ery through the distribution systemwithout repacking. This means thatcommonality must be designed intoour transportation systems regard-less of mode.

The final factor—organizationalredesign—results from the success ofthe first two. Reducing demand andemployment of a distribution-basedsystem will enable the Army to fielddifferent, smaller, more-efficient sus-tainment formations that enable thecombat force to accomplish missionswithout reducing JFC options. How-ever, for this to become a reality, theArmy must do the following:

• Develop a deployment infra-structure to meet stated deploymenttimelines—a brigade in 96 hours, adivision in 120 hours, and five divi-sions in 30 days—wherever Armyforces are stationed;

• Develop improved strategicmobility platforms that allow combatformations to deploy from theirCONUS or intermediate stagingbases;

• Develop air-transportable plat-forms capable of rapid relocation byin-theater lift assets;

• Develop transportation systemsthat rapidly traverse the extendedbattlespace;

• Enhance installation capabili-ties to project and sustain forcesusing split-based operations;

• Develop unitized and modularforces that can deploy directly intooperations with minimal or noreception, staging, onward move-ment, or integration;

• Develop alternative theateropening capabilities that enable andimprove over-the-shore logistics aswell as airfield development andenhancement;

• Reduce system weight and cubeof systems while increasing surviv-ability and improving deployability;

• Reduce power and energyrequirements;

• Develop systems with real-timediagnostics and prognostics thatsupport higher operational readinessof all systems;

• Develop ultrareliable and fail-safe designs that reduce unantici-pated equipment failure; and

• Develop systems that are inter-operable with other Army, joint, andmultinational systems.

ConclusionThe Objective Force requires a

change in how the Army fights onfuture battlefields. To achieve this,the Army must change how it con-ducts business today. The CS/CSStransformation enables it to do justthat.

LTC BRIAN R. LAYER is theBranch Chief for CS/CSS Transfor-mation, Office of the Army DeputyChief of Staff for Logistics. Hereceived a B.A. from the U.S. Mili-tary Academy and an M.A. fromMichigan State University. He alsoholds an M.M.A.S. from the ArmyCommand and General StaffCollege.


IntroductionThe U.S. Army Simulation, Train-

ing and Instrumentation Command(STRICOM) provides training, testing,instrumentation, and simulation solu-tions to the Objective Force. Whethermodeling new concepts, virtual proto-typing of capabilities previously onlyenvisioned, developing tools to facili-tate testing of new concepts, or provid-ing training products and services,STRICOM supports the developmentand deployment of the Objective Force.

OrganizationSTRICOM is organized around the

virtual, constructive, live simulation,and testing domains and has four proj-ect managers (PMs) and two specificdirectorates.

The PM for Combined Arms Tacti-cal Trainers (PM, CATT) focuses on vir-tual training simulations. PM, CATTprovides focused management of theClose Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT)and support to the U.S. Special Opera-tions Command. The CCTT consists ofcombat vehicle simulators and emu-lators operating interactively in acombined-arms synthetic environ-ment representing a battlefield on real-world terrain.

Another product is the AviationCombined Arms Tactical Trainer –Aviation (AVCATT-A) reconfigurablemanned simulator. AVCATT-A is an avi-ation company/team collective trainerproviding the warfighter a mobile,transportable combined-arms syntheticenvironment where aviation andground maneuver units train as theywill fight—as a team.

The Engagement Skills Trainer(EST) 2000 is a laser-based, small-armsindoor training range that supportstraining and evaluation of individualmarksmanship and of soldiers in judg-mental use of force (shoot/don’t shoot)

scenarios. The EST 2000 is trans-portable for use by units deployingoverseas in peacekeeping, stability, andsupport operations.

The AC-130U Aircrew/Mainte-nance Training Device and Testbed is avirtual simulator that supports initialqualification, currency, and mission-specific training of AC-130U aircrewsand malfunction-troubleshooting train-ing of both AC-130U aircrews andavionics maintenance technicians.

SimulationThe PM for Warfighters’ Simulation

(PM, WARSIM) focuses on constructivesimulations. In partnership with theNational Simulation Center, PM,WARSIM develops and sustains con-structive simulations. These simula-tions primarily support the Army’scommand and staff training require-ments, from company/battalion com-mand and staffs through echelonsabove corps and joint task force levels,across the full-mission spectrum(stability and support operationsthrough mid- or high-intensity con-flict). WARSIM is the next-generationcomputer-based command and controlconstructive simulation training systemthat will eventually replace corps battlesimulation.

An integral component is the low-er level constructive simulation, OneSemi-Automated Forces (OneSAF).OneSAF are compatible, next-generation computer-generated forces,from entity up to brigade level, sup-porting all modeling and simulation(M&S) domains with an emphasis onhuman-in-the-loop and non-human-in-the-loop.

Tactical Simulation (TACSIM) is anintelligence training simulation systemthat provides warfighters a single ro-bust intelligence simulation model.TACSIM provides simulated intelligence

collection and reporting through userorganic communications andprocessors.

The Digital Battlestaff SustainmentTrainer collectively simulates tacticalsituations and resultant message trafficto stimulate the command, control,communications, computers, intelli-gence, surveillance, and reconnaissance(C4ISR) systems in a unit’s tacticaloperations center.

Virtual Training The PM for Training Devices (PM,

TRADE) is the Army Materiel Com-mand (AMC) executive agent for allinstrumentation and Tactical Engage-ment Simulation Systems (TESS) at themaneuver combat training centers(National Training Center, Joint Readi-ness Training Center (JRTC), and theCombat Maneuver Training Center),soon to expand to our home-stationtraining as well. The PM is responsiblefor training systems and instrumenta-tion to support live-fire ranges and Mil-itary Operations on Urbanized Terrain(MOUT) home-station and deployedunits. Products include the following:

• Multiple Integrated LaserEngagement System 2000—an inte-grated laser-based training system thatprovides commanders direct-fire force-on-force training for individuals, vehi-cles, and weapons.

• JRTC MOUT-InstrumentationSystem (JRTC MOUT-IS)—providesautomated data collection and feed-back, command and control of MOUTexercises, and interactive target systemsto support a battalion-size force.

• The Live Environment TrainingSystems Strategy—encompasses a“system-of-systems” to be used in con-ducting future live training. This willinclude a set of standards and architec-tural guidelines to enable development

THE VIRTUAL PROVING GROUNDLTC Mike Landers

First Sighting Of The Objective Force … In Our Cyber Sandbox


of flexible, effective, interoperable, andmaintainable live-training productssuch as TESS and live training instru-mentation (LTI). It will also includeinterfaces with the virtual and con-structive domains, giving this system anacross-the-board training capability.The common training instrumentationarchitecture is the enabling architecturethat specifies the components andinterfaces for all LTI products andestablishes the standards for develop-ment, test, and deployment of thosecomponents.

The PM for Instrumentation, Tar-gets and Threat Simulators (PM, ITTS)manages major ITTS required for tech-nical and operational test and evalua-tion as well as operates and maintainsthe targets for test and training for theU.S. Army. Products and servicesinclude the following:

• Mobile Automated Instrumenta-tion Suite—the live instrumentationsuite supporting operational and forcedevelopment testing of current andfuture weapon systems.

• Threat Simulator/SimulationProgram Plan—a process co-chaired bythe AMC Commander and the ArmyAcquisition Executive that provides ameans to identify and compile totalArmy requirements for threat materielsolutions.

• Virtual Targets Program—createshighly detailed, 3-D geometry modelsfor use in M&S. These virtual targets aretypically created by collecting data fromactual hardware to produce a high-fidelity model that can be used inradar-signature analysis and in a widerange of other simulations.

STRICOM’s Operations and Sup-port Directorate is devoted to soldierwarfighter tools in every aspect. Thisdirectorate provides program manage-ment for life-cycle support and opera-tions. It also plans and manages anintegrated logistics support andmateriel readiness program to supportdevelopment and fielded systems.Logistics and operational supportencompass traditional elements oflogistics plus “turn-key” operations fortraining systems and combat trainingcenters. Readiness includes thoseefforts mentioned above and procure-ment, reprocurement, modification,and life-cycle management of fielded

equipment. The sun never sets on thisdirectorate when it comes to providingsupport to operational commands.

STRICOM’s Engineering Direc-torate plans, manages, and executes anintegrated life-cycle modeling, simula-tion, and instrumentation engineeringprogram for the command. This pro-gram includes technology-basedresearch, front-end analysis, design,testing, production, fielding, and post-deployment. Additionally, the direc-torate manages the horizontal technicalintegration process across commandprograms or products and serves as thetechnical lead for research, processmanagement, and integration of theadvanced distributed simulationenvironment.

A key facility operated by the Engi-neering Directorate is the CentralFlorida Technology Development Cen-ter (CFTDC). The CFTDC is a multiuseresearch and development facility com-prised of the Innovation Center and theM&S Testbed. The Innovation Center isa multimedia facility used for demon-strating M&S technologies, distancelearning, and team building amongjoint Service, Army, federal, state, aca-demia, and national and local indus-trial partners. The M&S Testbed is areconfigurable, interoperable labora-tory for exploring distributed simula-tion technology and conducting experi-ments related to Army-approved sci-ence and technology objectives.

The Road AheadFuture training environments are

not simply devices or infrastructure,but a blend of necessary training capa-bilities permitting the future com-mander to take training to soldiers,wherever they are. It means embeddedsimulations, reachback capabilities,and a necessary link to a support struc-ture geared to soldiers receiving train-ing where they need it instead of “goingto training.” The common traininginstrumentation architecture will per-mit interoperability of legacy systemswith the emerging embedded simula-tion needs of the Objective Force.OneSAF ensures interoperabilitybetween the Army’s next-generationvirtual simulator (CCTT) and construc-tive simulation (WARSIM). The LiveEnvironment Training Strategy is thebridge from live to virtual and con-structive simulations with TESS andLTI. The Army Test and Training Inter-

operability Conference, chaired by thePM, ITTS, works solutions from theground up for integrating test andtraining equipment, standards, andarchitecture.

InteroperabilitySTRICOM emphasis on the Objec-

tive Force is not limited to products andservices. The Product Manager for Sim-ulation Technology Integration (PM, STI)has two focus areas: requirements inte-gration and Army transformation. Thisoffice will facilitate support to cus-tomers by coordinating integratedrequirements across the command.Working relationships with the combatand training development communitywill provide the command an ObjectiveForce focus through an organizationspecifically dedicated for that purpose.

Another STRICOM organizationemerged from the outset with a futurecapabilities mindset. On Aug. 18, 1999,the U.S. Army awarded a 5-year con-tract to the University of Southern Cali-fornia to create the Institute For Cre-ative Technologies (ICT). ICT’s mandateis to enlist the resources and talents ofthe entertainment and game develop-ment industries and to work collabora-tively with computer scientists toadvance state-of-the-art training simu-lation. The talents of ICT members andvisionaries in the entertainment indus-try have already provided an environ-ment from which to launch a variety ofconcepts. These concepts range fromanimated representations of newequipment or system possibilities toglimpses of potential interactive train-ing environments with “synthespians”(synthetic actors powered by artificialintelligence engines and graphics ofphoto-real quality), all with a goal of anenvironment that can make the soldiersweat.

ConclusionSTRICOM is prepared to support

the Army’s training, testing, instrumen-tation, and simulation needs for trans-formation to the Objective Force.

LTC MIKE LANDERS is the Product Manager, STI atSTRICOM. He holds a master’sdegree in systems technology (C4I)from the Naval PostgraduateSchool and a bachelor’s degree inbusiness (marketing) from GeorgiaCollege.


IntroductionWhat can one expect to gain

from participation in the Army’sTraining With Industry (TWI) Pro-gram? On July 13, 2001, 12 ArmyAcquisition Corps (AAC) officers—alljust beginning the TWI Program—had this and other questions an-swered at the 4th annual AAC TWIOrientation Workshop in Springfield,VA. The purpose was to acquaint par-ticipants with the intricacies of theTWI Program. Other attendeesincluded outgoing TWI participantsand senior personnel from the Acqui-sition Career Management Office(ACMO), Office of the Assistant Sec-retary of the Army (AL&T), and theU.S. Total Army Personnel Com-mand’s Acquisition ManagementBranch (AMB). Also included for thefirst time since these orientationsbegan were representatives from sev-eral of the participating industries.

Program BackgroundInitiated in the 1970s, the Army’s

TWI Program is a work-experiencetraining opportunity that takes se-lected officers out of their militaryenvironment for 1 year and exposes

them to the latest civilian businesspractices, organizational structuresand cultures, technology develop-ment processes, and corporate man-agement techniques. The result is anopportunity to broaden one’s careerand to strengthen technical compe-tency, problem-solving skills, andleadership abilities.

Opening RemarksJim Welsh, AAC TWI Program

Proponency Officer in the ACMO,and orientation host, introducedCOL Frank C. Davis, Deputy Directorfor Acquisition Career Managementand ACMO Director, and LTC TomHogan, Chief, AMB, for openingremarks. Both stressed the value ofthe TWI Program in expanding anofficer’s professional developmentand knowledge. Their remarks set thetone for the workshop by demon-strating that the acquisition leader-ship is committed to the TWI Pro-gram. Davis specifically outlinedsome of the unique opportunitiesprovided by the TWI Program andurged program participants to learnas much as possible during their cor-porate assignments. The responsibil-

ity for success, he added, is on partic-ipants. As such, he called on them tohave an open mind, ask questions,and gain an understanding of howindustries function in a variety ofareas such as program management,contracting, and test and evaluation.

Hogan reminded officers of theleadership skills they bring to theTWI position. He also urged the newparticipants to make the most oftheir year with industry and to usethe TWI experience to improve theirvalue to the Acquisition Corps.

IDPsMAJ Cris Boyd, ACMO Propo-

nency Officer and Chief, InformationManagement Team, reviewed proce-dures for maintaining one’s Individ-ual Development Plan (IDP), a criti-cal document for identifying andtracking career objectives. In addi-tion, the IDP is used to update con-tinuous learning points earnedthrough attendance at seminars orconferences and participation inother professional activities. He em-phasized the need to work closelywith one’s supervisor in career plan-ning and in developing education,

Opportunities Abound . . .

THE AAC ANNUALTRAINING WITH INDUSTRY

ORIENTATIONWORKSHOP

Sandra R. Marks


training, and experience goals. Boydconcluded by summarizing the certi-fication process and listing AACmembership requirements.

Personal PerspectiveMAJ Leslie L. Lewis, an FY00 TWI

participant, gave an insider’s per-spective on her experience, offeringideas on what to expect and what todo to get the most out of the pro-gram. Lewis recently completed herTWI tour as a Product Manager inthe International Data Services Divi-sion of AT&T Solutions in Bridge-water, NJ. She said that prior to be-ginning her assignment, she had noidea of the magnitude of what shehad to coordinate or the scope of herresponsibilities. She was also appre-hensive about her reception by thecompany’s civilian workforce. Lewistook the advice of her FY99 predeces-sor and used the 90-day introductoryperiod to interface with the accountmanagers, salespeople, marketingand contracting representatives,engineers, and other managers shewould be working with at AT&T. Shefound that people valued the oppor-tunity to provide information.

Lewis offered a few recommen-dations for getting the most out ofthe TWI Program: Realize you’re notgoing to change anything; let yoursupervisor know what you mightwant to do and what you expect togain from your experience there; beopen to new challenges and newideas; ask for the hard jobs; and don’tget bored. She concluded by statingthat the 12-month tour goes fast! Theprogram, she added, is really whatyou make of it. MAJ Lewis enthusias-tically endorsed the program and theopportunity to work in the corporateworld.

Ethical ConsiderationsAl Novotne, a lawyer in The

Office of The Judge Advocate Gen-eral, HQDA, provided some guidance

on ethics and standards of conduct.He began by reminding program par-ticipants that they are trainees, notofficial Army representatives. He cov-ered such areas as “unauthorizedcommitments” that could compro-mise the Army’s position and “insideinfo” that is not available to the pub-lic. Referencing several U.S. codes, healso offered advice on copyrights,patents, and intellectual property.Novotne concluded with a summaryof the rules governing gifts, awards,and bonuses from TWI hosts.

USASD OverviewCPT Sheila E. Campbell, Com-

mander, U.S. Army Student Detach-ment (USASD) at Fort Jackson, SC,provided an overview of the detach-ment’s mission, organization, andactivities. She highlighted USASD’srole in providing high-quality finan-cial and personnel support for offi-cers selected to participate in theTWI Program. The USASD is basicallya personnel action center for inpro-cessing, outprocessing, financing,budgeting, civil schooling, tuition,and textbooks.

Connie Scott-Blue, primaryAgency Program Coordinator forUSASD, presented an informationbriefing on the use and benefits ofthe government travel charge card.She outlined the application process,types of accounts and available carddesigns, card limits, and cardholderresponsibilities.

Reporting ResponsibilitiesPaula Bettes, Acquisition TWI

Manager at AMB, summarized pro-cedural considerations associatedwith the TWI Program. She beganwith an outline of the program, theselection criteria, and the selectionprocess. Bettes also outlined proce-dures for submitting interim trainingreports that document progress inachieving training objectives, finaltraining reports that summarize the

ability to meet one’s objectives, TDYrequests, and academic evaluationreports.

TRICARE OverviewThe day’s briefings concluded

with a presentation by Eileen Mejia,Marketing Director, Northeast Sec-tion, TRICARE. TRICARE, formerlythe Civilian Health and Medical Pro-gram of the Uniformed Services(CHAMPUS), is the managed healthcare program for Active duty Servicemembers, retirees, and their families.Mejia spoke about TRICARE PrimeRemote, a new program to addressthe needs of Active duty personnelwho are in assignments such as TWIthat are geographically distant fromtraditional health care services atmilitary installations. Mejia providedinformation on eligibility require-ments, enrollment procedures, andbenefits.

ConclusionThe orientation was termed a

“great success” by the participants. Inparticular, they enjoyed attendanceby industry representatives andbeing able to hear about the experi-ences and “lessons learned” from anFY00 TWI graduate. Next year’s TWIorientation is tentatively scheduledfor July 11-12, 2002.

SANDRA R. MARKS, anemployee of Science ApplicationsInternational Corp. (SAIC), pro-vides contract support to the ArmyAL&T magazine staff. She has aB.S. in journalism from the Uni-versity of Maryland, College Park.


IntroductionIf you are an Army weapon system

program manager (PM) or a member ofa research, development and engineer-ing center (RDEC) concerned about theforeign threat to your program, then thisarticle is for you. There is both a processand an Army organization in the acqui-sition community that provide the ac-quisition and testing communities withthreat products (hardware and simula-tions) needed to satisfy their threatanalysis and testing objectives. Theprocess, entitled the Threat Simulator/Simulation Program Plan (TSPP), ischartered by the Army Materiel Com-mand (AMC) and supported by theArmy Acquisition Executive (AAE). Theorganization that provides threat mate-riel identified by the TSPP process is theThreat Systems Management Office(TSMO).

The TSMOTSMO develops threat products and

acquires actual foreign materiel in sup-port of Army acquisition. TSMO is amanagement office under the PM, In-strumentation, Targets and Threat Sim-ulators (ITTS). PM, ITTS is part of theSimulation, Training and Instrumenta-tion Command (STRICOM), a majorsubordinate command (MSC) of AMC.

As the chartered threat materieldeveloper for the Army, TSMO is institu-tionally funded to develop and providethe Army acquisition and testing com-munities with threat products. In mostcases, TSMO delivers the threat prod-ucts it develops or acquires to the ArmyTest and Evaluation Command’s(ATEC’s) Threat Support Activity (ATSA).ATSA operates and maintains the threatsystems and provides them for develop-mental and operational testing. Othersimulator, foreign materiel, and simula-tion products developed by TSMO areeither provided to various users or deliv-ered to and maintained by the TSMOthreat facility at Redstone Arsenal, AL.This facility allows users access to threatsimulations via distributed methods foruse in developmental testing, analysis,and experimentation.

Threat products, whether actualforeign equipment or hardware or soft-

ware simulators, must be validated inassociation with the intelligence com-munity as part of the threat develop-ment process. TSMO accomplishes thethreat validation process through anestablished Army program supervisedby the Test and Evaluation ManagementAgency (TEMA). Each threat validationeffort is managed via a Threat ValidationWorking Group (VWG) chaired byTEMA. VWG membership includes rep-resentatives of the intelligence commu-nity and other appropriate stakeholders.A threat product validation reportsigned by TEMA and approved by theDOD Director for Operational Test andEvaluation ensures that threat productsdeveloped by TSMO accurately repre-sent the threat.

TSPPNow you know there is an organiza-

tion that is chartered and funded to pro-vide validated threat products in sup-port of the acquisition community. Butas a PM or RDEC manager, how do youget your threat materiel needs into thesystem? The answer is amazingly sim-ple: interface with the TSPP process.

The purpose of the TSPP process isto identify and compile Army threatmateriel requirements, clearly articulateand prioritize those needs, and cham-pion them through the Army ProgramObjective Memorandum (POM)process. An integrated product team(IPT) chaired by the AMC Deputy Chiefof Staff for Research, Development andAcquisition (DCSRDA) drives the annualTSPP process. The TSPP process waschartered by the AMC CommandingGeneral (CG) and supported by the AAEin 1997, with PM, ITTS assigned as theSecretary. Voting membership includesone representative from each programexecutive office (PEO) and one repre-sentative from each AMC MSC.

Also included in the IPT are repre-sentatives from the Office of the ArmyDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence(DCSINT), the Training and DoctrineCommand (TRADOC), and the ATEC.

IPT observers also include the Office ofthe Assistant Secretary of the Army forAcquisition, Logistics and Technology(OSAALT), the Office of the ArmyDeputy Chief of Staff for Operations andPlans (ODCSOPS), and TEMA.

Threat product requirements arenormally collected via an annual datacollection process. Data collection isachieved by onsite visits to project andproduct management offices and meet-ings with developer representatives ineach PEO and in each of AMC’s MSCs.Coordination for data collection is han-dled via PEO and MSC IPT members.Data are collected between Februaryand July.

If you want to get your threat ma-teriel needs into the TSPP process, youhave two routes: Submit them duringannual data collection or submit themto your PEO/MSC representative. If yourthreat materiel needs are identified inthe TSPP, funds from the testing budgetoperating system can potentially beused to acquire or develop these threatproducts. Remember that the TSPP IPTcompiles threat simulator/simulationneeds and consolidates them into a pri-oritized list. This Army prioritizationguides funding of threat products.

The TSPP provides an appropriateforum to ensure that all parties involvedwith the acquisition and testing ofweapon systems play a role in deter-mining threat product needs. The TSPPalso provides a single voice for threatmateriel requirements within the Army’sresearch, development, and acquisition(RD&A) community. In addition, theTSPP process interfaces with the otherServices to address potential duplicationand seek funding from joint forums.

TSPP’s Value The value of the TSPP is fourfold.

First, the TSPP process brings togetherprogram representatives, testers, andthe intelligence community. This isimportant because the TSPP IPTprocess fills a gap in the Army acquisi-tion process. Until the TSPP’s inception,no standard procedure adequately tiedtogether defined threats with Five-YearTest Program (FYTP) resourcing for thetest and evaluation community’s System

THREAT MATERIEL SOLUTIONSFOR ARMY ACQUISITION

Jeffrey L. Langhout


Evaluation Plan and Threat Test Sup-port Packages. This is also true for FYTPresourcing of threat products identifiedin a program’s Simulation Support Plan(SSP) and Test and Evaluation MasterPlan. Too often, lack of documentedprocedures forces individual programsto shoulder common threat costs.

The second reason why the TSPP isvaluable is because it provides a singleprioritized view of the RD&A threatproduct requirements to senior Armyleadership. Unfortunately, there are notenough dollars to develop or purchaseevery threat product requested. How-ever, with a united ATEC, PEO, AMC,TRADOC, and intelligence effort rela-tive to threat materiel needs, the acqui-sition community can make a strongercase for unfunded threat needs.

The third reason for the TSPP’svalue is that it confirms the intelli-gence community’s position. Becausethe Army DCSINT and the TRADOCDCSINT are voting members, they andother intelligence community members can thoroughly review each threatproduct identified via the TSPP process.This gives the intelligence communityan opportunity to either confirm thethreat application or challenge whether

the need is still valid. This extremelyimportant voice helps to ensure thatthe Army is spending its threat materieldollars on needed products.

Finally, the TSPP is valuablebecause it helps to ensure that TSMOprovides the right threat materiel to theright customers at the right time.

Maturation Of The TSPPThe TSPP process is in its fourth

year of use and continues to be refinedand improved. During the first fewyears, the PEOs and MSCs have cometogether in processing their threatmateriel needs and in consolidatingtheir priorities. ATEC, TRADOC, and theintelligence community became IPTmembers during the last year and havea key role in the continued success ofthe TSPP process. All TSPP IPT membersrealize the importance and signifi-cance of consensus among PEO, AMC,TRADOC, ATEC, and intelligenceorganizations.

ConclusionThe Army Materiel Command has a

unique organization and process dedi-cated to ensuring Army weapon systemdevelopers, testers, and research per-

sonnel are provided with the threatmateriel needed to support their pro-grams. The TSPP provides the mecha-nism for the acquisition and testingcommunity to get their needs into aformalized process that supports POMdevelopment for threat materiel. Fi-nally, the TSPP provides a strong net-work of intelligence, acquisition, andtesting professionals dedicated toensuring Army weapon systems aredeveloped and tested in proper threatenvironments.

JEFFREY L. LANGHOUT isChief of the Business DevelopmentOffice in the Threat Systems Man-agement Office. He holds a Masterof Science and Engineering fromthe University of Alabama,Huntsville, and a Bachelor ofIndustrial Engineering from Au-burn University. He is a memberof the Army Acquisition Corps andis Level III certified in both pro-gram management and systemsplanning, research, developmentand engineering.

Threat Simulator/Simulation Program PlanPurpose OrganizationAuthority

• Identify, compile, and prioritizeArmy threat materiel require-ments supporting the acquisitioncommunity

• Clearly articulate threat materielneeds to the Army staff

• Champion threat materiel solu-tions through the POM process

April 18, 1997, AMC CG directed:• AMC DCSRDA initiate andsustain the TSPP• PM, ITTS facilitate the TSPP

May 5, 1997, AMC DCSRDAdirected:

• Use of IPT process• IPT Executive Secretary to bethe TSMO• AMC DCSRDA to be the IPTchair

May 9, 1997, AAE directed:• PEO participation as TSPPIPT members

IPTAMC DCSRDA (Chair)

MembershipTACOMAMCOMSBCCOMCECOMSTRICOMARLAMSAAHQDA DCSINTHQ TRADOC

DCSINT

ATECPEO, AviationPEO, AMDPEO, C3SPEO, GCSSPEO, IEW&SPEO, Tactical

Missiles

Observers

OASAALTODCSOPS

TEMA

AMCOM: U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command; AMD: Air and Missile Defense; AMSAA: Army Materiel SystemsAnalysis Activity; ARL: U.S. Army Research Laboratory; C3S: Command, Control and Communications Systems; CECOM:U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command; GCSS: Global Combat Support System; IEW&S: Intelligence, Elec-tronic Warfare and Sensors; SBCCOM: U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command; TACOM: U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command.


On July 30, 2001, Secretary of the Army Thomas E. Whiteand Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki jointly pre-sented the FY02 Army Posture Statement before the U.S.House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Defense. That statement, edited to meetspace limitations in this magazine, is provided below. Theentire document upon which the testimony is based, TheArmy Posture Statement, can be accessed athttp://www.army.mil/aps/01.

The Army Vision

We want to talk to you today about where weare in achieving the Army Vision. In our tes-timony, we will describe the magnificent work

the Army has done in recent months and identify the chal-lenges we continue to face. There is still much work to bedone, but the Army has moved out. It is transforming incomprehensive and profound ways to be the most stra-tegically responsive and dominant land force of the 21stCentury—decisive across the entire spectrum of militaryoperations.

To meet the national security requirements of the 21stCentury and ensure full spectrum dominance, the Armyarticulated its Vision to chart a balanced course and shed itsCold War designs. The Vision is about three interdependentcomponents—People, Readiness, and Transformation. TheArmy is people—soldiers, civilians, veterans, and families—and soldiers remain the centerpiece of our formations.Warfighting readiness is the Army’s top priority. The trans-formation will produce a future force, the Objective Force,founded on innovative doctrine, training, leader develop-ment, materiel, organizations, and soldiers. The Visionweaves together these threads—People, Readiness, andTransformation—binding them into what will be the Armyof the future.

Achieving The VisionLast year, the Army took the initial steps to achieve the

Vision. One step was the continued realignment of ourbudget priorities, generating investment capital by cancel-ing or restructuring eight major Army procurement pro-grams. Unfortunately, the Army has had to eliminate orrestructure 182 programs over the past decade and a half. Itis not that these systems and capabilities were unnecessary;rather, our resource prioritization made the programs un-affordable. Joining with the Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency in a cooperative research and development

effort, we began to streamline our acquisition process tofocus and accelerate the development and procurement ofenabling technologies for our Objective Force. To reducethe risk from the capability gap between our heavy andlight forces, the Army developed a concept and began toorganize an interim capability until the 21st Century Objec-tive Force is fielded. The Army also completed a compre-hensive study of how it trains soldiers and grows them intoleaders, knowing that the capabilities of a transformedArmy will reside in competent, confident, adaptive, and cre-ative people.

The People In our fiscal year 2002 budget, we continue to empha-

size people, the core of our institutional strength. Well-being—the physical, material, mental, and spiritual state ofsoldiers, families, and civilians—is inextricably linked to theArmy’s capabilities, readiness, and its preparedness to per-form any mission.

To improve well-being, we are offering technology-based distance learning opportunities; working to improvepay and retirement compensation; working with theDepartment of Defense to guarantee that TRICARE meetsthe needs of our soldiers, retirees, and their families;improving facilities maintenance; and modernizing singlesoldier and family housing. The much welcomed increasesin housing allowance and efforts to reduce out of pocketexpenses is an important step toward restoring faith withour soldiers and their families. The health care provisions inthe fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act forour soldiers, retirees, and family members represent thetypes of significant improvements the Army continues toseek for the force’s well-being. Sustained Congressionalsupport for important well-being initiatives helps us recruitand retain a quality force.

Indeed, the pay raise, pay table reform, and retirementreform, as well as diligent efforts by leaders at all levels ofthe Army helped us exceed our recruiting and retentiongoals in fiscal year 2000. Attention to the well-being of ourpeople will keep trained and qualified soldiers and civiliansin the Army in the years to come.

ManningIn fiscal year 2000, we started a four-year effort to in-

crease personnel readiness levels. The Manning Initiativeredistributed soldiers to fill all personnel authorizations in

THE FY02 ARMYPOSTURE STATEMENT


every active component combat division and cavalry regi-ment, but by doing so, we accepted some risk in the institu-tional base. This effort exposed the serious gap that hasexisted in the aggregate between manning requirementsand authorizations. It is possible that we will need toincrease personnel authorizations to meet all requirements,dependent upon ongoing reviews of overall Army missions.Meeting the requirements with the active component, how-ever, is not enough. As mission demands necessitateincreased use of our reserve components, we must bolstertheir full-time support requirements to better keep themready and available. Manning the entire force will reduceoperational and personnel tempo and improve both readi-ness and well-being.

The fiscal year 2002 budget increases for enlistmentand retention bonuses will enable the Army to sustain itsrecent recruiting and retention successes. Funding forchange-of-station moves helps to ensure we can place sol-diers when and where they are needed to man units atdesired grade and skill levels, and further advance theArmy’s transformation.

ReadinessReadiness is a top priority. It means we must be pre-

pared to execute strategic missions across the full spectrumof operational requirements around the globe. Our militaryformations must be able to conduct a range of activitiesfrom engagement, to stability and support operations, towarfighting. On any given day, the Army has nearly 125,000soldiers and 15,000 U.S. civilians forward stationed in over100 countries around the world. Our fiscal year 2002 budgetsupports our most critical readiness requirements, althoughwe have accepted moderate risk in the level of funding foractive component air and ground OPTEMPO [operationaltempo] to decrease, and possibly halt, the rate of deteriora-tion of our facilities and augment training enablers.

Measuring the readiness of the Army to respond to theNation’s call requires accuracy, objectivity, and uniformity.Our current standards are a Cold War legacy and reflect nei-ther the complexity of today’s strategic and operationalenvironments nor other important factors. Near-term fac-tors encompass the overall capability of units to deploy andinclude training enablers such as training ranges, institu-tional support, and depot maintenance; full time supportfor our reserve components; and installation support. Long-term readiness factors affect the Army’s ability to fightin the future and to retain quality personnel. We are re-examining how to measure Army readiness in the near-term, the long-term, and across the range of missions wemay be expected to undertake. This new reporting systemwill provide timely and accurate information on the statusof the Army’s readiness, with measurements that are rele-vant and quantifiable, to enhance the ability of command-ers to make the best possible employment decisions. It willalso give the American people a more accurate assessmentof how ready their Army is to do what it is asked to do.

TransformationThe third thread of the Vision requires a comprehensive

transformation of the entire Army. This complex, multi-yeareffort will balance the challenge of transforming the opera-

tional force and institutional base while maintaining atrained and ready force to respond to crises, deter war and,if deterrence fails, fight and win decisively. Transformationis far more extensive than merely modernizing our equip-ment and formations. It is the transformation of the entireArmy from leader development programs to installations tocombat formations. All aspects—doctrine, training, leaders,organization, materiel, and soldiers—will be affected.

Transformation of the Army’s operational force pro-ceeds on three vectors—the Objective Force, the InterimForce, and the Legacy Force. All are equally necessary to ourNation’s continued world leadership. The Objective Force isthe force of the future and the focus of the Army’s long-termdevelopment efforts. It will maximize advances in technol-ogy and organizational adaptations to revolutionize land-power capabilities. The Interim Force will fill the currentcapability gap that exists between today’s heavy and lightforces. Today’s force, the Legacy Force, enables The Army tomeet near-term National Military Strategy commitments.Until the Objective Force is fielded, the Legacy Force—augmented or reinforced with an interim capability—willcontinue to engage and respond to crises to deter aggres-sion, bring peace and stability to troubled regions, andenhance security by developing bonds of mutual respectand understanding with allies, partners, and potentialadversaries. It must remain ready to fight and win if neces-sary, giving us the strategic edge to allow transformation.

The Army’s fiscal year 2002 budget supports procure-ment and upgrade of important Legacy, Interim, and Objec-tive Force systems. It procures 326 Interim Armored Vehi-cles [IAVs] and five Wolverine systems. It also continuessupport for the Abrams-Crusader common engine programand both the Abrams and Bradley upgrade programs.

As the Army works to develop and acquire the tech-nologies for the Objective Force, the Legacy and InterimForces will guarantee Army readiness. Our most pressingconcerns this year include the modernization and recapital-ization of selected Legacy Force systems.

Legacy ForceRecapitalization and modernization efforts are neces-

sary to ensure current and near-term warfighting readiness.Currently, 75 percent of major combat systems exceed engi-neered design half-life and will exceed design life by 2010;system operation and sustainment costs are up over 35 per-cent, and aircraft safety of flight messages are up 200 per-cent since 1995. We must judiciously modernize keyarmored and aviation systems in the Legacy Force toenhance force capabilities. We will further digitize theAbrams tank to increase situational awareness and remanu-facture early model Bradley infantry fighting vehicles toimprove lethality, situational awareness, and sustainability.We will procure new systems like the Crusader howitzer toincrease force effectiveness, reduce friendly casualties, easelogistics support requirements, and improve deployability.Crusader will maximize the total capabilities of the LegacyForce. Fielding the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiledefense upgrade and the Theater High Altitude AreaDefense system will significantly increase our in-theaterforce protection. Current Legacy Forces will benefit fromupgrades and enhancements to proven systems. InterimForces will demonstrate the power of developmental and


off-the-shelf communications and intelligence capabilities.The Army has made the hard decisions for selective mod-ernization to sustain combat overmatch. What is needed iscontinued support for our prudent investment strategy tokeep our force strong and credible.

Concurrently, the Army will selectively recapitalizeLegacy Force equipment to combat the rapid aging of ourweapons systems. The fiscal year 2002 budget takes a stepin this direction by providing additional funding to depotmaintenance in preparation for recapitalization.

Interim ForceThe fielding of the Interim Force fills the strategic gap

between our heavy and light forces and is an essential steptoward the Objective Force. The key component of theInterim Force is the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT),the first two of which are being organized at Fort Lewis, WA.On July 12, 2001, we announced the selection of the nextfour brigades to transform to IBCTs: the 172nd InfantryBrigade (Separate) at Forts Richardson and Wainwright inAlaska; the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light) at FortPolk, LA; the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) atSchofield Barracks, HI; and the 56th Brigade of the 28thInfantry Division (Mechanized) of the Pennsylvania ArmyNational Guard. The IBCT’s primary combat platform, theInterim Armored Vehicle (IAV), will fulfill an immediaterequirement for a vehicle that is deployable any place in theworld, arriving ready for combat. The IAV will consist of twovariants, a mobile gun system and an infantry carrier withnine configurations. The IAV will achieve interoperabilityand internetted capability with other IBCT systems by inte-grating command, control, communications, computer andintelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.Congress supported the IBCT concept with an additional$600 million in the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense AppropriationsAct for IAV procurement and for organizing the secondIBCT. The Army has programmed resources to field six toeight IBCTs.

The Army will train and test soldiers and leaders in thedoctrine and organization of these new units to ensure thatthey can respond to operational requirements. An IAV-equipped battalion-sized element will undergo training andinitial operational testing and evaluation to guarantee sys-tem suitability and effectiveness. Innovative applicationsand technology insertion in supporting forces will completethe IBCT package and enable full operational capabilitiesfor the first IBCT in 2005.

Objective ForceThe Army’s ultimate goal for transformation is the

Objective Force. Operating as part of a joint, combined,and/or interagency team, it will be capable of conductingrapid and decisive offensive, defensive, and stability andsupport operations, and be able to transition among any ofthese missions without a loss of momentum. It will belethal and survivable for warfighting and force protection;responsive and deployable for rapid mission tailoring andfor the projection required for crisis response; versatile andagile for success across the full spectrum of operations; andsustainable for extended regional engagement and sus-tained land combat. It will leverage joint and interagency

reach-back capabilities for intelligence, logistical support,and information operations while protecting itself againstinformation attacks. It will leverage space assets for com-munications; position, navigation, and timing; weather, ter-rain, and environmental monitoring; missile warning; andintelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Objec-tive Force will provide for conventional overmatch and agreater degree of strategic responsiveness, mission versatil-ity, and operational and tactical agility. With the ObjectiveForce, the Army intends to deploy a combat-capablebrigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, a division in 120hours, and five divisions in 30 days. Our ability to quicklyput a brigade-size force on the ground, with the balance ofa division following a day later, fills a current gap for credi-ble, rapid deterrence. The Objective Force will offer realstrategic options in a crisis and change the strategic calcu-lations of our potential adversaries. The Army with Objec-tive Force capability will provide the National CommandAuthorities with a full range of strategic options for regionalengagement, crisis response, and land force operations insupport of the Nation.

Science And TechnologyAdvances in science and technology will lead to signifi-

cantly improved capabilities for the Objective Force. TheArmy is programming over $8 billion for science and tech-nology efforts to begin fielding the Objective Force by theend of the current decade. This effort seeks to resolve anumber of challenges: how to balance sustained lethalityand survivability against ease of deployability; how toreduce strategic lift requirements and logistical footprintrequired in-theater; how to mitigate risk to our supportforces and to forces in-theater; and how to ensure digitized,secure communications to provide battlefield awareness atall levels of command. The Army will find the best possibleanswers while maintaining the ready, disciplined, androbust forces our Nation demands, our allies expect, andour adversaries fear.

Future Combat Systems (FCS), a system of systems, isone of the essential components for the Army’s ObjectiveForce. To accelerate development of key technologies, theArmy partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Pro-jects Agency in a collaborative effort for the design, devel-opment, and testing of FCS while simultaneously redesign-ing the force. The fiscal year 2002 budget funds FCS demon-strations of system-of-systems functions and cost sharingtechnologies. Forces equipped with FCS will network firesand maneuver in direct combat; deliver direct and indirectfires; perform intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissancefunctions; and transport soldiers and materiel. Over thenext six years, the Army will demonstrate and validate FCSfunctions and exploit high-payoff core technologies, includ-ing composite armor, active protection systems, multi-role(direct and indirect fire) cannons, compact kinetic energymissiles, hybrid electric propulsion, human engineering,and advanced electro-optic and infrared sensors.

Institutional TransformationThe Army’s fiscal year 2002 budget funds schoolhouse

training at 100 percent. This is a first. It funds U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) transformation


initiatives to include expansion of One Station Unit Training,establishment of a land warfare university, basic officer lead-ership course enhancements, establishment of an accessioncommand, and quality assurance initiatives.

As the combat formations are being transformed, theArmy’s institutional base—schools, services, facilities, andinstallations—must also change to support both the Objec-tive Force and current mission requirements. TRADOC pro-duces tactically and technically proficient soldiers and lead-ers and the doctrine and concepts for operational success.The Army must train soldiers—in simulations, on ranges,and in exercises—and grow them into leaders who arecapable of executing rapid and seamless transitionsbetween missions throughout the spectrum of operations.Training must continuously improve and respond to emerg-ing technologies. We must recapitalize and modernizeranges, distance learning centers, Army schools, and com-bat training centers to keep pace with changes in forcestructure, technology, and the global environment.

Training And Leader DevelopmentKey to transformation is the training and leader devel-

opment necessary for producing adaptive soldiers andleaders who can lead and succeed in both joint and com-bined environments while capitalizing on the latest battle-field technologies. The Army Training and Leader Develop-ment Panel (ATLDP) has concluded its in-depth study ofissues affecting the Army’s culture and its training andleader development doctrine. The ATLDP surveyed andinterviewed over 13,500 officers and spouses. Follow-onstudies of the noncommissioned officer and warrant officercorps will be conducted over the next six months. The pri-mary objectives of the panel were to identify skill setsrequired of Objective Force leaders and to assess the abilityof current training and leader development systems to cul-tivate those skills. Study participants addressed issues thatincluded well-being, job satisfaction, training standards,and the officer education system. This study represents acandid self-assessment by the Army; it seeks to restore faithwith soldiers and set a course for improving all aspects ofthe Army’s culture by bringing institutional beliefs andpractices in line. To that end, some steps have already beentaken, including adapting the officer education system tomeet the needs of the transforming Army; eliminating non-mission compliance tasks that interfere with warfightingtraining; allocating full resources to our Combat TrainingCenters; and protecting weekends for the well-being of sol-diers and their families. It is a testament to the strength ofany organization when it is willing to take such a candidlook at itself, and this kind of healthy introspection charac-terizes a true profession.

The fiscal year 2002 budget funds development of train-ing, training products, and materials that support residentand unit training programs. It provides for the analysis,design, development, management, and standardization ofprocesses and practices; integration and operations of Armytraining information systems; and automation of the train-ing development process. In the area of leader develop-ment, it allows schoolhouse trainers to adapt training pro-grams for future leaders and increases training supportfunding for aviation and specialized skill training. Further,the budget funds active component unit training OPTEMPO

and supports critical training enablers. Our Combat Train-ing Center program remains the proving ground forwarfighting proficiency, and we currently have scheduledten brigade rotations through the National Training Center,ten brigade rotations through the Joint Readiness TrainingCenter, and five brigade rotations through the CombatManeuver Training Center.

Logistical TransformationWe will transform logistical services and facilities to

enhance readiness and strategic responsiveness. Today,logistics comprises approximately 80 percent of the Army’sstrategic lift requirement, creating a daunting challenge todeployability. Prepositioning stocks and forward presencesolves only part of the problem. Currently, the Army hasseven brigade sets of equipment forward deployed on landand at sea with an eighth brigade set being deployed in fis-cal year 2002. As we fundamentally reshape the way theArmy is deployed and sustained, we will ensure logisticstransformation is synchronized with the needs of the opera-tional forces and supports Department of Defense and Jointlogistics transformation goals. The Army is examining howto reduce the logistical footprint in the theater of operationsand to reduce logistical costs without hindering warfightingcapability and readiness. Approaches already being ex-plored are recapitalization, common vehicle chassis design,a national maintenance program, and an intermediate bas-ing strategy for force protection. We are synchronizing thecritical systems of the institutional Army with our operatingforces to ensure the transformation of the Army is holisticand complete.

ConclusionThe Army has embarked on a historic enterprise. Rec-

ognizing that the forces we can provide to the combatantcommands are becoming obsolescent in a changing strate-gic environment, the Army is transforming. With the sup-port of the Administration and Congress, the Army hascharted a course that will better align its capabilities withthe international security environment, enhancing respon-siveness and deterrence while sustaining dominance atevery point on the spectrum of operations. The Army trans-formation is the most comprehensive program of change ina century and is already underway. It comes at a propitiousmoment. We live in a time of relative peace. Our Nation’seconomic strength has given us a period of prosperity. Adecade of post-Cold War experience has provided us strate-gic perspective, and American technological power gives ustremendous potential. We have seized this opportunity toguarantee our strategic capability and our non-negotiablecontract with the American people well into this century.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Com-mittee, we thank you once again for this opportunity toreport to you today on the state of your Army. The pro-grams, schedules, and funding levels described in this state-ment, however, may change as a result of Secretary Rums-feld’s strategy review, which will guide future decisions onmilitary spending. With the continued support of theAdministration and Congress, the Army will have theresources to remain Persuasive in Peace, Invincible in War.We look forward to discussing these issues with you.


IntroductionAny military professional will attest

that understanding terrain is funda-mental to planning and conductingoperations. Our reliance on maps andother representations of terrain is evi-dent in military products and proc-esses at the tactical, operational, andstrategic levels of planning. Today, therelatively widespread availability ofdigital terrain data (DTD) has enabledhigh-tech adaptations of map andimagery data for uses such as simula-tion, command and control (C2), andreconnaissance. However, we have yetto harness the full potential of thisresource.

To support many planning tasks,we need to go beyond mapping andvisualization to produce task-specificinterpretations of terrain data. Geo-graphic information systems (GISs)provide an excellent foundation forproducing such visualizations, butthese are not sufficient to produce thekinds of terrain analysis needed by mil-itary analysts and commanders. Werecently demonstrated that artificialintelligence (AI) can help bridge thisgap by automatically producing mili-tary interpretations of terrain data fortrafficability analysis. We believe thatthe qualitative spatial reasoning tech-niques used in that application can beextended to address a wide range ofmilitary terrain analysis tasks and ben-efit current and emerging applicationssuch as C2 tools and simulations.

The ProblemMilitary planners have long under-

stood the need for special-purposeinterpretations of map data. Let’s con-sider the overlays produced to describethe environment for the intelligencepreparation of the battlefield (IPB). Tomake effective military use of a tradi-tional map, military intelligence ana-lysts produce overlays depicting mili-

tary terrain trafficability, potential en-gagement areas, and key terrain, just toname a few.

For complex tasks such as militaryplanning and operations, these over-lays help identify and communicatewhat is critically important about thatterrain (e.g., trafficability for militaryvehicles) while ignoring unnecessarydetails. These simplifications enable usto optimize use of maps by describingthe environment according to usefuldistinctions.

Today, many military tasks havebeen automated and even transformedby modern technology. Digital terraindata have made it possible to conductcomputer-based military planning andoperations using the digital equivalentof maps. Currently, however, we havenot yet realized the digital equivalent ofthe high-level interpretations of thedigital maps—the equivalent of thedoctrinal overlays produced in IPB. GISsoftware allows for storing and manip-ulating terrain data in general ways,but cannot perform military terrainanalysis. As a result, current C2 toolscannot demonstrate the sophisticatedunderstanding of terrain needed bymilitary planners the way an intelli-gence analyst does using an overlay.

Qualitative Reasoning There is a wide range of C2 appli-

cations, simulation environments, andplanning tools being developed andfielded that use digital terrain data forcomputer-based map displays. All ofthese applications support some formof reasoning about the impact of thatterrain on military operations. Typicaldeterminations include path planning,rates of movement, visibility and fieldsof fire, and site selection. The commonapproach is to access the feature cod-ing of GIS primitives (i.e., polygons,arcs, or rasters) in the DTD through aGIS and use the GIS-provided facilities

to support the desired determinations.This is a sensible place to start becausethese systems provide powerful anduseful facilities for digital mapping,perform complex transformations ofthis data, and solve common geospa-tial problems. However, these GIS com-putations are quantitative, relying onvisualization tools and extensive userinteractions to provide the qualitativeinsights needed in military applica-tions. In contrast, most human reason-ing about geographic space appears toreflect a qualitative interpretation ofthat space.

While valuable contributions willcome from many areas of AI, we be-lieve that qualitative reasoning in par-ticular has much to offer. Qualitativerepresentations can depict terrain datathat are encoded as many continuousproperties into discrete, conceptuallymeaningful units.

Qualitative spatial representationscarve space into regions based on acombination of physical constraintsand task-specific constraints. Relativeto military trafficability, for example,identifying unrestricted versus re-stricted areas is useful because of thedifferent effects that such terrain hason the movements of various militaryunits.

Generally, it rarely matters whysuch areas are restricted or severelyrestricted. Indeed, such areas may beso designated because they representan aggregation of smaller areas wheretrafficability factors result from variousterrain features such as vegetation,slope, hydrography, and surface rough-ness. This corresponds to what a hu-man analyst does when he or she pro-duces a combined obstacle overlay (fig-ure on Page 33).

These qualitative spatial represen-tations describe space according toparameters directly relevant to therequired task. These representationsoften need to be firmly rooted in aquantitative, diagrammatic representa-tion for a variety of technical reasons.Digital terrain data provide this dia-grammatic description in a way that isconvenient for reasoning systems toaccess and manipulate. We use thisquantitative information (e.g., featurecoding of terrain features or specificcoordinates of a unit) in qualitativespatial reasoning. For instance, usingqualitative spatial descriptions for traf-ficability helps determine routes in a

IMPROVINGDIGITAL TERRAIN WITH

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEMAJ James J. Donlon and Dr. Kenneth D. Forbus


general way and helps cal-culate time-distance esti-mates about travel overthose routes (e.g., can theyget there in time?).

Using qualitative de-scriptions also allows com-puters to perform morehuman-like reasoning andexplanations. In otherwords, by identifying andusing these conceptuallymeaningful units, comput-ers can become intelligentand articulate, describing,for example, how restrictedand severely restricted areasof terrain contribute to theidentification of avenues ofapproach, or potential bat-tle positions.

Proof Of ConceptIn studies at Northwestern Uni-

versity, we applied these techniques totrafficability analysis problems as partof the High Performance KnowledgeBases Program. This research, sup-ported by the Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency, shows howGISs can be used to support qualita-tive spatial reasoning. We automati-cally generated combined obstacleoverlays (COOs) and complex factoroverlays (CFOs) to answer terrainanalysis and trafficability questionsrelated to planning and conductingmilitary operations. The GIS data rep-resented the terrain in the Straits ofHormuz region. The GIS coding of thisterrain data described vegetation,hydrology, slope, and road networks.This array of coverages and the terrainin the area provided an opportunity totest these techniques, and the resultsare promising.

The CFOs and COOs were used bymilitary personnel to judge correctnessand plausibility of trafficability resultsconsistent with U.S. Army practice. Inall tested areas, correct CFOs andCOOs were created, and trafficabilityquestions (e.g., maximum speed inparticular regions) produced correctanswers.

Generating CFOs and COOs pre-sented the opportunity to produce qual-itative spatial descriptions that corre-spond to authentic descriptions pro-duced by military analysts. It alsoallowed modeling of the well-establishedterrain analysis practices that use those

descriptions. A variety of trafficabilityand path-finding queries, producingauthentic results and compellingexplanations grounded in qualitativereasoning, were also supported. Thisdemonstrated that qualitative reason-ing enables computer systems to pro-duce relevant, high-level descriptionsof terrain that support automated rea-soning and correspond closely tohuman understanding of terrain.

ApplicationAutomating the production of

COOs and CFOs suggests that manysuch intelligence tasks that are stilldone manually can be similarly pro-duced. While military planners cur-rently spend hours or days producing avariety of overlays and estimates for anarea of operations, this techniquecould allow the same descriptions tobe produced immediately, on demand.Qualitative descriptions can also pro-vide richer representations of the envi-ronment to support higher-fidelityplanning and simulations.

Consider a classic military strategyproblem in simulation: massed fires. Ifyou assign three units to attack a local-ized enemy, simulated units willchoose paths to get to that enemy andthen attack it. Such simulations aresusceptible to the problem of naivepathfinding. Suppose the quickest pathto the enemy involves a tightly con-strained mobility corridor, forcing yourunits to travel it one at a time (units incolumn). The enemy, who would havebeen overwhelmed had your forces

converged all at once, canthen destroy each of themin turn as they enter theclearing.

Good military plannerssolve this problem differ-ently. They specify pathsthat the units will take andspecify synchronizationconstraints (i.e., “usingthese axes of advance,attack at 0400”). Goodcommunication is essentialto good force coordination.

Understanding theimpact of terrain on unitmovements (provided byoverlays in current militaryplanning) is essential inexpediting these determi-nations and enabling effi-cient communication. We

believe computers can use this type ofqualitative reasoning to achieve thesame effectiveness in communicatingbetween tools and humans, as well asbetween automated reasoning proc-esses. Providing this type of interactionbetween a human planner and ourmap-based tools could provide bettersupport to planning, simulation, andC2.

ConclusionAs computer-based planning, sim-

ulation, and C2 mature, sophisticatedand natural representations of spacewill be necessary to make optimum useof terrain descriptions. The researchpresented in this article represents apromising first step toward the sort ofintelligent applications that could bepart of future command-post software.

MAJ JAMES J. DONLON is theDirector of the Knowledge Engi-neering Group at the U.S. ArmyWar College. He received a B.S.degree from the University ofDelaware and an M.S. degree fromNorthwestern University, and he ispursuing a Ph.D. in computer sci-ence at George Mason University.

DR. KENNETH D. FORBUS is aProfessor of Computer Science andEducation at Northwestern Uni-versity. He received his Ph.D. fromthe Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.


IntroductionYou are a brigade commander, 72

hours into the fight, and running on caf-feine and catnaps. Your operations offi-cer is briefing you on possible coursesof action (COAs) for a new mission. Herecommends a COA and explains theadvantages. Something about the COAbothers you, but you just can’t put yourfinger on it. Fatigue, stress, or someother distraction is keeping you fromrecalling something that would make adifference in this decision. You makeyour best judgement and drive on, butyour gut feeling leaves you thinking thatthere was a better way—if you had justhad more time or a clearer head!

Our decisions are a function of oureducation, training, experience, andpersonal preference. There is ample evi-dence that the decisions we make understress are generally not as good as thosewe make when we are well rested, com-fortable, and relaxed. Thus, the U.S. mil-itary selects commanders based on theirdemonstrated ability to make gooddecisions under adverse conditions.

Revisit the opening scenario. Thesituation and the environment are thesame, but this time you have anothertool to assist you. An intelligent agent,trained by you to remember the lessonsof a lifetime, will help you decide. Theintelligent agent is software that runs oncommon computers and accesses datafrom your battle command systems andplanning tools, regardless of whetherthey are powerful networked computersystems or handwritten notes andsketches.

The intelligent agent does not carehow cold it is or how much sleep youhave had. In seconds, it evaluates theCOAs and presents you with a list ofstrengths, weaknesses, and issues foreach of them. You quickly scan the list,discarding some and nodding agree-

ment with others, until you come to theone or more gems that you recognize asbeing critical to the decision. Based onyour own judgement and the recom-mendations of your staff, but nowarmed with a few additional key consid-erations, you make your decision.

These considerations might bebased on planning guidelines youlearned in a classroom, an after actionreview from an exercise you partici-pated in, or on new enemy tactics. Theintelligent agent combines the things acomputer does best—sorting and siftingthrough data—with the things a humandoes best—learning from a lifetime ofexperience. It provides concise, relevant,and explainable considerations thatcommanders can take into accountwhen making decisions. This is ourvision for the use of intelligent agents inthe command post of the near future!

Learning Agents LaboratoryDecision support and expert sys-

tems have been around for a while. Todate, they have produced more hypethan service, and they have played avery limited role in military systems.Even with today’s rapid growth in com-puting power, most software productsclaiming to be intelligent don’t solvecomplex, real-world problems.

The George Mason University(GMU) Learning Agents Laboratory(LALAB) is taking a novel approach tothe creation and use of intelligentagents to solve complex problems. Thegoal of GMU’s research is to developmethods and tools that allow users withminimal computer skills to easily build,teach, and maintain intelligent softwareagents.

GMU’s initial research was part ofthe Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA) High PerformanceKnowledge Base (HPKB) project. Addi-

tional support was provided by the U.S.Air Force Office of Scientific Researchand the Army Battle Command BattleLaboratory. The work continues in theDARPA Rapid Knowledge FormationProject, still supported by the Air Forceand now also supported by the ArmyWar College. The goal of HPKB was totest the claim that with the latest artifi-cial intelligence (AI) technology, largeknowledge bases could be quickly builtand updated. GMU-DARPA researchindicates that with the right approach,intelligent agents can meet this goal.

Acquiring KnowledgeA major stumbling block in building

intelligent systems that solve problemsequal to a human subject matter expert(SME) is the “knowledge acquisitionbottleneck.” This bottleneck comesfrom the requirement to transfer knowl-edge from an expert, through a knowl-edge engineer, to the computer. Theknowledge engineer must learn whatthe expert knows and how the expertuses that knowledge. The engineer thenuses various tools and techniques tobuild a knowledge base. This is a long,painful, and inefficient process.

The GMU approach, called “Disci-ple,” is a theory, methodology, and toolset in which an SME directly constructsan intelligent agent. In this approach,SMEs teach the agent to perform vari-ous tasks in a way that resembles howthey would teach an apprentice or stu-dent. They give the agent examples andexplanations, and supervise and correctits behavior.

The traditional approach to create auseful knowledge base requires verycomplex steps, including the creation ofan ontology that defines relevant termsand relationships from a problem do-main, the definition of problem-solvingrules, and the validation and update of

INTELLIGENT AGENTS:TOOLS FOR THE COMMAND POST

AND COMMANDERLTC Michael Bowman, Dr. Gheorghe Tecuci, and Mihai Boicu


these rules. In general, these tasks re-quire the creation of formal computerrepresentations, a task that only aknowledge engineer can accomplish.

In the Disciple approach, complextasks are replaced with simpler ones.Instead of creating an ontology, theexpert updates and extends an initialontology imported from existingsources of knowledge. Further, insteadof defining a complex problem-solvingrule, the expert identifies and explainsan example solution from which Disci-ple learns a general rule. In lieu of de-bugging a complex problem-solvingrule, the expert critiques specific exam-ples of agent problem solving fromwhich Disciple updates correspondingrules.

The expert will not need to createformal computer representations, justunderstand information generated byDisciple. Finally, the expert will notneed to provide formal explanations,just informal hints that will guide Disci-ple in generating possible explanationsfrom which the expert will choose.

Disciple’s history, capabilities, andinner workings are described in detail inDr. Gheorghe Tecuci’s Building Intelli-gent Agents: An Apprenticeship Multi-strategy Learning Theory, Methodology,Tool and Case Studies, Academic Press,1998. Recent papers describing im-proved capabilities are also available onthe GMU LALAB Web page athttp://lalab.gmu.edu.

A Sample ApplicationAs part of HPKB, the GMU LALAB

developed a Disciple agent to critiqueCOAs for ground-combat operations.The COAs were provided by the Armyand came in a standard format consist-ing of a multiparagraph description anda tactical sketch.

The Disciple COA agent identifiesstrengths and weaknesses of a COA withrespect to the principles of war and thetenets of Army operations as describedin Army Field Manual 100-5. A generalunderstanding of the principles andtenets exists, but military experts dis-agree on their application. The GMULALAB’s goal was to create a tool thatcontained this common understandingwhile being flexible enough to allowrapid personalization by the SME train-ing and using the agent. The following isan example of a strength identified byDisciple in a COA for the principle ofsurprise:

“There is a strength with respectto surprise in COA411 because theenemy is unlikely to be prepared forthe heavy concentration of combatpower applied by the Blue-forcemain-effort during its penetration. Inthis action, the main-effort is apply-ing a force ratio of 10.6, which ismore than double the recommendedforce ratio of 3.0. Applying this muchcombat power for this penetration islikely to surprise the enemy and isindicative of the proper applicationof the principle of surprise.”

Building Disciple AgentsThe development of a specific Dis-

ciple agent includes two main proc-esses: ontology development and agenttraining. Building the domain ontologybegins with importing background mili-tary knowledge such as unit echelonsand capabilities from existing sources ofknowledge. Additional terms and rela-tionships identified by the expert areadded as necessary. The Disciple-COAontology was built by importing manyterms needed to model the COA do-main from a research knowledge basedeveloped by Cycorp, called CYC.

Training a Disciple agent is an itera-tive process of showing it how to solveproblems based on examples, letting theagent attempt to solve other problems,and providing the agent explanationsfor why these solutions are right orwrong. A strength of this approach isthat the expert does not have to be per-fect or comprehensive when conductingagent training. Flaws in training showup naturally when Disciple tries to solveproblems on its own. The expert merelyhas to examine Disciple’s solutions andprovide explanations regarding where itwent wrong.

Experimental Results The Disciple methodology and

agents have been tested with other sys-tems as part of DARPA annual HPKBProgram evaluations. In summary, theexperimental results show that Disciple-based agents were highly effective inknowledge acquisition and complexproblem solving, outperforming othersystems developed to solve similarproblems.

In August 1999, the GMU LALABconducted a knowledge-acquisitionexperiment to demonstrate that it ispossible for military experts to directly

train Disciple agents. Four Army officerssuccessfully trained Disciple agents thatcritiqued COAs. Commenting on theusefulness of Disciple, LTC John N.Duquette stated, “The potential use ofthis tool by domain experts is only lim-ited by their imagination—not their AIprogramming skills.” We believe this isthe first time SMEs with no prior knowl-edge or engineering experience success-fully trained intelligent agents to solvecomplex problems.

ConclusionThis article briefly presented a

vision for using intelligent agents in amilitary command post, describedsome of the challenges, and presentedthe Disciple approach to overcomingthose challenges. The long-term goal ofthe GMU LALAB is to develop technol-ogy that allows typical computer usersto directly build intelligent agents andknowledge bases as easily as they usepersonal computers for text processing.This will change the way intelligentagents are built, from being pro-grammed by a knowledge engineer tobeing taught by an SME, and will con-tribute to a generalized application ofagent technology in all areas of humanactivity.

LTC MICHAEL BOWMAN was astudent at the Army War College anda Ph.D. candidate at GMU at thetime he wrote this article. He receiveda B.S. degree from Ouachita BaptistUniversity and an M.S. degree fromthe Naval Postgraduate School.

DR. GHEORGHE TECUCI is Pro-fessor of Computer Science, Directorof the GMU LALAB, and a memberof the Romanian Academy. He re-ceived M.S. and Ph.D. degrees incomputer science from the Poly-technic University of Bucharest andanother Ph.D. degree in computerscience from the University of Paris-South. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and 5books, most of them in artificialintelligence.

MIHAI BOICU was a Ph.D. stu-dent in computer science at GMUand a Graduate Research Assistant inthe GMU LALAB at the time he wrotethis article. He has published morethan 15 papers and is a member ofthe American Association for Artifi-cial Intelligence.


IntroductionSGT John Scaglione saw the action

firsthand. “I looked up and [the enemy]was about 3,700 meters away and there’sBMPs [Russian infantry fighting vehi-cles] and T-72s sitting on the ridge. Thewhole brigade on line, within 3 seconds,had let loose with their first rounds.Moving about 20, 25 miles an hour, it’slike a cavalry charge toward the Iraqiemplacements. And all you could see,every time we shot, was a massiveexplosion. The turrets were flipping 40,50 feet in the air.” (From Frontline,episode 1407T, broadcast date Jan. 28,1997.)

During the battle of Medina Ridge,the 1st Armored Division defeated Iraqiforces in less than an hour. Hundreds ofIraqi tanks and armored vehicles weredestroyed with only a single Americancasualty. U.S. Armed Forces were able toengage the enemy at ranges in excess of

2 miles, well beyond the range of theSoviet-made Iraqi tanks.

The advantage of engaging theenemy outside his effective range wasnever better demonstrated than duringthe Gulf War. Today’s ammunition com-munity continues to leverage techno-logical advances that extend the lethal-ity of U.S. ground and naval forces todistances greater than thought possible.Future ammunition and armamenttechnologies will continue to expandthat engagement arena on severalfronts.

The pursuit of greater lethality atextended ranges is a DOD priority. TheU.S. Army is developing a new ammuni-tion suite for the Future Combat Sys-tems that will rapidly engage a full spec-trum of anticipated targets such astanks, self-propelled and towed artillery,infantry fighting vehicles, and helicop-ters out to 50 kilometers. Currently

under development, the Tank ExtendedRange Munition will provide extendedlethality against non-line-of-sight tar-gets out to 10 kilometers for traditionaldirect-fire systems like the Abrams Tank.

Similarly, the Navy’s Office of NavalResearch is developing new ammuni-tion capabilities that will extend navalgun lethality beyond 100 nautical miles.This will provide land-based forces withmuch-needed naval surface fire support(NSFS) that was lost when battleshipswere decommissioned. Extended rangeNSFS is essential not only to supportground forces as they gain a criticalfoothold on beachheads, but also toprovide sufficient standoff distance forfuture fleet safety. Current items indevelopment or under considerationinclude the Extended Range GuidedMunition, the Barrage Round, theGuided Best Buy Projectile, and theAffordable Near-term Support Round.

Test CapabilityTest site location is a major chal-

lenge in managing long-range ammuni-tion acquisition programs. Programmanagers responsible for long-rangeweapon programs must adequately ver-ify ammunition performance and eval-uate effectiveness. The Army Test andEvaluation Command (ATEC), compris-ing 37 percent of the Army’s real estate,is one of the largest, most comprehen-sive, and diverse DOD providers of testservices and facilities for conductingthese experiments. Ranges at DugwayProving Ground, Yuma Proving Ground,and White Sands Missile Range provide

Partnering For Success. . .

THE DEVELOPMENTALFIRING RANGE

AT WALLOPS ISLANDCOL Andrew G. Ellis and Ronald L. Frailer Jr.

Launch of rocket-assisted projectile fromthe developmentalfiring range


extended-range, indirect-fire test serv-ices and now, through a unique part-nership, the U.S. Army Aberdeen TestCenter (ATC), Aberdeen ProvingGround, MD, has recently expanded itslong-range, indirect-fire test capabilitywith the developmental firing range atWallops Island.

The NASA Wallops Flight Facility(WFF) at Wallops Island, VA, is locatedonly 180 miles southeast of ATC. WFFserves NASA as a national resource forproviding low-cost integration, launch,and operation of suborbital and smallorbital payloads. Partnership arrange-ments with Wallops’ Navy tenants andother major users, including the Army,promote Wallops’ test facility resources.

WFF provides ATC with a desig-nated test site and access to indigenousexpertise and instrumentation includ-ing C-band tracking radars, telemetrydata acquisition, meteorological datacollection, and surveillance radars. Thetest site offers a practically unlimitedfiring range and a wide safety footprintas shown in Figure 1. The relatively

shallow water that extends outwards of50 nautical miles permits recovery oper-ations using current techniques. Com-bined with the technical expertise ofATC, the ammunition community has aunique East Coast capability thatexpands ATEC’s long-range testingcapability.

Several organizations have beenbrought together to provide customersthe desired test services, making thistruly a joint-use facility. Partners andparticipants include the Army ResearchLaboratory (ARL); ATC; the Naval AirWarfare Center-Aircraft Division(NAWC-AD); the Navy Explosive Ord-nance Disposal (EOD); the Naval Sur-face Warfare Center-Dahlgren Division(NSWC-DD); Naval Undersea WarfareCenter (NUWC); the Space and NavalWarfare Systems Command (SPAWAR)Systems Center, San Diego, CA; and theWFF.

ARL and ATC, collocated at Aber-deen Proving Ground, MD, have teamedto provide technical test services andresources and data collection at the

Wallops Island test site. These includehigh-speed digital and film photogra-phy, telemetry units and receivers,internal ballistic pressure measure-ments, Weibel tracking radars, andammunition and gun services. ATCserves as a point of contact and overallcoordinator for test services at WFF.

NAWC-AD conducts its own testand training exercises at WFF for itsNavy customers. NAWC-AD also sup-ports the developmental firing rangewith services including contract aircraftservices and boat and dive assets forrecovery operations. Recovery of testhardware is possible and may providedevelopers with a valuable post-testanalysis capability. Traditional recoverymethods have already been demon-strated on larger ammunition itemssuch as 155mm Army and 5-inch Navyprojectiles.

The Mk5 Recovery Team out of theSPAWAR Systems Center provides anadditional source for recovery opera-tions at WFF. The team is part of themarine mammal program and consists

Figure 1.The developmental firing range is located on Virginia’s Wallops Island adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean.This map highlights thedownrange area and depicts the typical firing azimuth.


of Navy handlers and trained Californiasea lions. The diving ability of thesetrained mammals expands the dive timeavailable for recovery operations andalso extends the range available forrecovery. Prior to deployment, the ani-mals are trained to recognize specificprojectile shapes and attach liftingdevices tailored to the test items.

NSWC-DD has vast naval gunexpertise and has provided test hard-ware and coordination with Navy EODfor additional dive and recovery capa-bility. Technical guidance on naval ord-nance and program management hasalso been provided for Navy ammuni-tion development programs.

Future InitiativesNavy program managers, in con-

junction with ARL and ATC, are explor-ing additional capabilities for the testsite. The Navy’s Surface Combat Sys-tems Center Facility at WFF, alreadyused to train officers and enlisted per-sonnel in operating the AEGIS CombatSystem, has additional resources inplace including surveillance radar andcommunication equipment that couldhave testing applications.

Future test instrumentation is alsobeing developed. A shallow wateracoustic scoring system is being devel-oped under the NUWC’ Soft ImpactLocation Capability (SILC) Central Testand Evaluation Investment Program.

The conceptual design is depicted inFigure 2. This would allow impact scor-ing of projectiles and enhance our abil-ity to locate test items for recovery inthe Atlantic Ocean. This capability isanticipated to be online in FY05.

ConclusionThe developmental firing range at

Wallops Island adds additional testingoptions for ammunition program man-agers. In concert with current ATECcapability, the facility enables the Armyto address the full spectrum of test re-quirements. Specifically, this rangeoffers unlimited flight trajectories, inboth vertical and horizontal compo-nents, for long-range ammunition.Equally as significant, the firing rangeprovides a wide safety footprint fordevelopmental items.

This effort highlights the advan-tages of partnering and creative prob-lem solving to address current andfuture testing issues of significant con-cern to the Army and DOD. The result isa state-of-the-art testing facility thatrelies on the shared expertise of theArmy, Navy, and NASA to accomplishthe ammunition acquisition test andevaluation mission.

WFF provides our researchers anddevelopers with a unique capability totest and evaluate ammunition at ex-tended ranges. This capability is criticalto our Armed Forces and enables them

to continue to win on tomorrow’s bat-tlefield with minimal casualties.

COL ANDREW G. ELLIS wasthe Commander of the AberdeenTest Center when he wrote thisarticle. He has since retired fromActive military Service. He has aB.S. in engineering from the U.S.Military Academy and an M.B.A.from the Florida Institute of Tech-nology. He is also a graduate of theU.S. Army Command and GeneralStaff College and the Army WarCollege.

RONALD L. FRAILER JR. is aTest Project Engineer at theAberdeen Test Center. He holds aB.S. in aerospace engineering fromthe University of Maryland at Col-lege Park and an M.S. in adminis-tration from Central MichiganUniversity. Frailer is an ArmyAcquisition Corps’ Corps Eligiblemember and is Level III certified intest and evaluation engineering.

Figure 2.SILC conceptual drawing


IntroductionThe Guided Multiple Launch

Rocket System (GMLRS) engineeringphase was among the first engineer-ing efforts to include an integratedproduct team (IPT) process. Butdespite the fact that this process ledto many design decisions that pro-vided a better product for the money,it fell far short of expectations and itspotential. The resulting problems—communication, cooperation, andcoordination (the three C’s)—couldeasily be blamed on bad manage-ment decisions. However, we wouldthen be overlooking basic issues thatwere the impetus for management’sphilosophy, which ultimately resultedin the shortcomings of this IPTprocess.

There were two basic issues thatmade this IPT process less effectivethan it could have been. First, thecontractual arrangement did not fullyincorporate the IPT process, and sec-ond, funding was insufficient to fullyimplement the process. This articleaddresses these issues and how theycontributed to the problem areasmentioned earlier.

The Three C’sBefore we discuss the contracting

and funding issues, let’s briefly lookat the three primary problem areas.The first thing that should be noted isthat all three of these areas concernthe “integrated” and the “team” partof IPT. Each area is distinct, yethighly correlated. It is also importantto note that the IPT process requiresthat contractor and government per-sonnel act together as an integratedteam.

Communication in an open andintimate manner is required for anintegrated team, but this is very diffi-cult when members of the team areseparated by hundreds of miles.Because travel costs make it econom-ically infeasible to meet face-to-faceon a regular basis, there is a need for

long-distance communication.Phone conversations are part of this,but are not sufficient for the level ofrequired communication. As such,communications can be greatlyenhanced with the use of video tele-conferencing (VTC). However, therewere not enough VTC facilities avail-able to the GMLRS IPT, and the facili-ties that were available were inade-quately equipped for communicatingtechnical data.

Cooperation is directly related tocommunication, but is virtuallyworthless if IPT members do notopenly discuss issues and facts in acooperative manner. One such prob-lem of the GMLRS IPT was that thecontractor did not want to get into amoney-losing situation. Therefore,senior contractor managers wouldnot empower their people to makedecisions or to openly discuss facts atlower IPT levels. This lack of coopera-tion was a direct result of the con-tractor management philosophy,which is discussed later.

Coordination is the final require-ment for a team, and one of the ben-efits of the IPT process is that teammembers with various levels ofexpertise work together to not onlyget the best overall design, but also tomake the best use of personnel. Thecontractor seemed unwilling toaccept government data, analyses, or

recommendations, which resulted inmany shortfalls because the govern-ment was keenly aware of whichdesign characteristics would providethe most effective system at the bestprice.

Contractual ArrangementIt would be easy for the govern-

ment to put all the blame for theshortfall of the GMLRS IPT processon the prime contractor and, in fact,a cursory look (especially from thegovernment’s point of view) wouldcertainly indicate that the contractorwas the main contributor to the defi-ciencies with the three C’s previouslymentioned. However, the contractor’smanagement philosophy that causedthese problems was driven by thecontract. Although the contract men-tioned the IPT process and directedthe contractor to follow this process,it also contained much status-quolanguage that opposed this process.

The IPT process calls for cooper-ation between the government andthe contractor in developing theGMLRS design, which means that thegovernment is demanding a certainlevel of authority in the designprocess. However, the contract stillassigns total responsibility for thedesign and its cost to the contractor.If the government wants some designauthority (which is necessary for an

LESSONS LEARNEDFROM THE GMLRS

IPT PROCESSDouglas Love


IPT process), then the governmentmust accept some of the responsibil-ity for the final design and its costs.

One of the key incentives in thecontract is performance awards forthe contractor based on technicaland budgetary performance. Thegovernment’s primary goal is to getthe best product for the money (non-recurring and recurring), and thisrequires more emphasis on technicalperformance, often at the expense ofthe budget. However, in actuality,performance against a budget ismuch more objective (thus, easier toascertain) than against technicalparameters. As a result, the budgetgets higher recognition during per-formance evaluations, and getshigher priority with the contractor,leading to friction between the con-tractor and the government. The gov-ernment wants more effort on thetechnical side, but the contractorsees that as a budget buster. Theresponsibility for both budget andtechnical performance falls totally onthe contractor, therefore, the con-tractor gives more priority to budget-ary concerns—much to the chagrinof government personnel who nowfeel left out of the process.

Insufficient FundingThe IPT process is advertised as a

cost-savings approach to acquisition.As such, during the initial phases ofacquisition, IPTs are often providedlower funding levels. In reality, the

IPT process requires more upfrontfunding to provide later paybacks inproduction and logistics savings,which makes investment in the IPTprocess worthwhile. Insufficientfunding can also have a negativeimpact on an IPT’s ability to attractrequired expertise from both the gov-ernment and the contractor.

As previously noted, budget playsa big role in driving the contractor’smanagement philosophy. Budgetarygoals not only take priority (thusdriving management decisions), butthey also limit upfront activities thatcan save money in the future. Inaddition, budgetary goals can causeadverse relationships between thecontractor and the government. Forexample, the government wants thecontractor to explore alternativesthat have potential for performanceimprovements or cost reductions,but the contractor sees these as addi-tional expenses in terms of time andmoney that may have no payback.Budgetary constraints also drive thecontractor to implement untesteddesigns because testing delays theschedule and expends funds.

RecommendationsAlthough the IPT process has

resulted in some significant gains forboth the government and industry,several changes must be made tomake the process more effective.Specifically, the government mustreplace the status-quo contractual

language and primarily address lev-els of effort and desired system char-acteristics. The government mustalso provide competent and reliablepersonnel to participate in the IPTprocess. Funding should be sufficientfor the required activities and flexibleenough to cover unforeseen prob-lems or to implement changes thatprovide good economic returns. Thecontractor also needs to cooperatefully with the government and beadequately compensated.

ConclusionIt is abundantly clear that the

primary burden for a successful IPTrests with the government. But thegovernment must recognize thatpartial implementation of the IPTprocess will fall far short ofexpectations.

DOUGLAS LOVE is a SystemsAnalyst in the MLRS Project Office,Army Aviation and Missile Com-mand, Redstone Arsenal, AL, andserved as Lead Analyst for theGMLRS. He has a B.S.I.E. degreefrom the Georgia Institute of Tech-nology and an M.S. in engineeringmanagement from the FloridaInstitute of Technology.

Although the IPT processhas resulted in some significant gainsfor both the government and industry,

several changes must be made tomake the process more effective.


New materiel destined for air-borne units requires airdrop certifi-cation, which is the process thatensures that an item is suitable foruse in an airdrop environment.Some items are certified prior tofielding while others are certifiedafter fielding. Certification is theresult of testing by the U.S. Army Testand Evaluation Command’s (ATEC)Operational Test Command’s Air-borne and Special Operations TestDirectorate (ABNSOTD) at FortBragg, NC.

Airdrop certification becomesofficial when airdrop rigging proce-dures are published in the appropri-ate training manual. Approval of theprocedures results from operationalairdrop testing conducted to validatedraft rigging procedures, which areprovided by the airdrop materieldeveloper at the Soldier Systems

Command in Natick, MA. Whenrequired, the Developmental TestCommand (DTC) at Yuma ProvingGround, AZ, also a subordinate com-mand of ATEC, conducts develop-mental airdrop testing.

The process that a program man-ager (PM) uses to obtain an airdropcertification for an item depends onthe item under development. Forexample, if the item is to be worn bythe soldier in conjunction with eithera static line (SL) or military free-fall(MFF) parachute, it must not inter-fere with the parachute’s deploymentor pose a safety or health hazard.

In the case of SL and MFF, theairdrop item will require airdrop suit-ability evaluation. A safety recom-mendation for airborne usage is sub-mitted to the DTC safety releaseauthority. DTC then provides a safetyrelease to the ABNSOTD so that oper-

ational airdrop testing can be con-ducted with representative user sol-diers. The subsequent airdrop testreport validates the item’s riggingprocedures and is published in eitherField Manual 57-220 (Static LineParachuting Techniques andTraining) for SL personnel airdropsor Field Manual 31-19 (Military Free-Fall Parachuting Tactics, Techniques,and Procedures) for MFF operations.

Relative to a new vehicle or otherheavy equipment, the PM may struc-ture the acquisition strategy to fieldthe item without airdrop certificationif it is not specifically required in theOperational Requirements Docu-ment (ORD). The PM accepts the riskthat the item may not be airdropsuitable without further designchanges. If the item is destined forissue to airborne units, the PMshould program funds for the item to

Low-velocity airdrop (heavy drop)MFF parachutists in free-fall

THE AIRDROPCERTIFICATION PROCESS

Sandy White and Nora Campbell


be airdrop certified once the designis finalized, and have it certified dur-ing programmed operational testingbefore fielding to airborne units.

Not all ORDs are cross-walkedwith the Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP)that makes airdrop requirements apart of the overall program. The U.S.Army Training and Doctrine Com-mand (TRADOC) has recognized thatmany items arriving at airborne unitsrequire airdrop certification in vary-ing user-desired load configurations.Therefore, TRADOC sponsors a ForceDevelopment Test and Experimenta-tion Program with the ABNSOTD toprovide airdrop certification foritems fielded to the XVIII AirborneCorps.

Personnel airdrop testing con-ducted by the ABNSOTD involvesevaluating the item for airdrop suit-ability, survivability, and effective-ness. A common misunderstandingregarding personnel airdrop testing isthat the certification only means thatan item is safe to jump. In additionto being evaluated for safety, the itemis also evaluated for operationaleffectiveness after the airdrop. If itdoes not survive the airdrop or willnot function as designed after theairdrop, it is useless to the para-trooper. For example, if a new radiois carried inside the paratrooper’srucksack during an airdrop, and if itcannot withstand an impact of 22feet per second, it merely addsunnecessary weight to the jumper’scombat load. For this reason, PMsshould not plan on having theiritems airdrop certified until alldesign improvements have beenmade and the item is production rep-resentative. This is also true of heavydrop items. If the crew cannotquickly derig the new vehicle orheavy equipment and move it off thedrop zone, it can easily become a tar-get rather than an asset.

Regardless of the item beingdeveloped, if the ORD does not spec-ify airdrop certification, the PMshould cross-walk the ORD with theBOIP prior to development. If theitem is destined for airborne or spe-cial operations deployment, combatdevelopers should determine airdropcertification requirements. The PM’searly involvement with ATEC is alsohighly recommended so that the fullscope of testing requirements can becommonly understood. Require-ments can then be more realisticallyintegrated into the PM’s milestoneschedule.

Airdrop certification, which vali-dates an item’s suitability, survivabil-ity, and operational effectiveness inan airborne environment, is animportant element in the Army’sacquisition process. It must not beoverlooked if we truly want to pro-vide the world’s best equipment toour soldiers in the field.

SANDY WHITE is Chief of thePersonnel Airdrop Test Branch,Airborne and Special OperationsTest Directorate, Fort Bragg, NC.He has a B.S. in business adminis-tration from the University ofAlbuquerque, an M.S. in systemsmanagement from the Universityof Southern California, and isLevel III certified in test andevaluation.

NORA CAMPBELL is Chief ofthe Editorial Branch, Airborneand Special Operations Test Direc-torate, Fort Bragg, NC. She is aTechnical Editor who has morethan 13 years of editorial andwriting experience.

Airdropcertification,

which validatesan item’s

suitability,survivability,

andoperational

effectivenessin an airborneenvironment,

is an importantelement

in the Army’sacquisition process.

It must notbe overlooked

if we truly wantto provide

the world’s bestequipment

to our soldiers

in the field.


IntroductionAs the Army transforms itself for

the 21st century by developing a“system-of-systems” that interoperatesseamlessly on the battlefield, it is alsoadding digital-age enhancements tofielded weapon systems such as theAbrams M1A2 tank.

In 1994, the Army contracted Gen-eral Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) todesign system enhancements to theM1A2. In 1995, GDLS was awardedanother contract to supply 240 of theenhanced M1A2s, with delivery sched-uled to begin in 1999. The resultingM1A2 Systems Enhancement Packageincludes an embedded version of thetank commander’s display unit for colordigital terrain maps, an improvedthermal-imaging sighting system thatgives the tank gunner increased range,and an improved system for managingthe tank’s temperature. The enhance-ment package also includes improveddata processing, an enhanced position-location reporting system, a radio-frequency digital communications sys-tem, and an improved crew intercom.

Component VulnerabilityAdding the new components to the

M1A2 made it necessary for the Army toevaluate its vulnerability to threats thetank might encounter. The Army Devel-opmental Test Command’s AberdeenTest Center (ATC), the Army ResearchLaboratory (ARL), the Army EvaluationCenter (AEC), the Army Ordnance Cen-ter and School (OC&S), and other Armyorganizations are working as a team toconduct live-fire vulnerability tests onthe enhanced M1A2.

ATC prepared a detailed test planand will prepare a final report on thelive-fire tests, which began in October2000 at ATC ranges at Aberdeen ProvingGround (APG), MD. As the tester, ATCcontrols the ranges used for 16 shotsthat will provide data on ballisticthreats; the data-collection instrumen-tation; operation, maintenance, andrepair of test systems; data collectionand documentation; and transmittal ofdata to supporting agencies and the test“customer”—the Army Training andDoctrine Command (TRADOC) Sys-tems Manager/Abrams Tank System.ATC also conducts post-shot inspec-tions and reviews data and damage

assessments as a member of the Dam-age Assessment Team.

ARL’s Survivability/Lethality Analy-sis Directorate (SLAD) prepares a pre-shot predictions report and M1A2 dam-age assessment list, a tool used todetermine how shot damage can affectsystems operations. SLAD also collectsvarious test data and assesses probablecrew casualties, vehicle vulnerability,and loss of vehicle mobility and fire-power. SLAD helped prepare the testplan and will assist in preparing thefinal report. Additionally, SLAD chairsthe Damage Assessment Team, whichincludes TRADOC representatives and ateam from the OC&S. SLAD is alsopreparing a detailed damage assess-ment report.

AEC is the lead for independentlyevaluating test results and for preparingthe live-fire test and evaluation strategy,the event design plan, and the systemevaluation report. AEC also reviewsATC’s test plan, observes testing, andevaluates damage assessments and thefinal test report.

The OC&S team prepared a battle-field damage assessment and repair(BDAR) support plan, a key part ofATC’s test plan. The team also conducts,documents, and prepares an evaluationreport of BDAR, which is included inthe final test report.

Complex Assessment ProcessAccording to Paul Kuss, SLAD Sys-

tem Leader for the Abrams Tank Sys-tem, the damage assessment processcan be complex because the analysis ofshot damage must cover a broad spec-trum of interactions between threat andtarget at component, subsystem, andsystem levels. He also said that theprocess involves thorough planning,

accurate data review, detailed analysis,and comprehensive reports coveringtest results and damage assessment.

In developing the live-fire strategy,AEC chose munitions that posed acredible threat, based on historicalanecdotes. These included munitionsthat penetrate or perforate armor toproduce ballistic shock, blast, and frag-menting or spalling effects. Some of themunitions detonate above the vehiclerather than on impact, and some testshots involve static detonations ratherthan firing projectiles from a gun.

“The intent is to ensure that, withthe new digitized components, there isno degradation in the M1A2’s surviv-ability,” said AEC’s Lawrence Kravitz,who chairs the Army integrated processteam (IPT) for planning, conducting,and evaluating live-fire tests. He alsosaid the tests are part of four phasesproposed in the overall evaluation strat-egy. With 16 shots, AEC is trying to sam-ple the universe of threats against thetank and relate them to componentsthat may be vulnerable.

Testing Various ConfigurationsATC is not only testing fully opera-

tional M1A2s, but also lesser configura-tions that are sufficient for determiningthe effects of live fire on various com-ponents. Most of the tests are con-ducted at ATC’s Vehicle Vulnerability/Survivability Test Range. ATC’s high-tech Depleted Uranium ContainmentFacility, also known as the “superbox,”was used for some shots.

Kravitz said that knowing the vul-nerability of components to live fire isimportant because the failure of even asingle item can impair the tank’s abilityto operate. Testing at ATC is designed toenable evaluators to assess how

ASSESSING EFFECTSOF LIVE FIRE

ON THE ENHANCEDM1A2 TANK

Mike Cast


damage to one component or system inthe tank could adversely impact theoperation of other components. Kravitzexplained, “That means looking at acriticality analysis or some kind of func-tional diagram of the vehicle and tryingto imagine how a component’s failurecould affect other components electri-cally, mechanically, or hydraulically.”ARL does the associated modeling and,after the test is completed, refines themodel based on the demonstratedresults.

Predictions Refine TestingAccording to Kuss, before any

munitions are fired or detonated, ARL’sSLAD makes pre-shot predictions basedon carefully calculated constructedcomponent-level vulnerability modelsand/or engineering test experience.These predictions help testers structurelive fire to obtain data with an optimaluse of test resources. Additionally, thepredictions help determine the spareparts needed to repair damage so thatfurther testing can be conducted with-out delay.

The prediction process started ayear or two before the live-fire execu-tion. Although the IPT began to form in

mid-1997, prior to that time, the pro-gram manager tasked SLAD to deter-mine whether a live-fire program wasneeded. An engineering analysis wasperformed, but some questionscouldn’t be answered because the effectof design changes on the vulnerabilityof the system was not known.

The Damage Assessment Listdeveloped with TRADOC’s input relatesdamage from testing to various “kill”categories. A kill indicates a loss infunction shortly after sustaining dam-age that cannot be repaired by a crewon the battlefield. A mobility kill meansthe tank would become incapable ofexecuting controlled movements; afirepower kill indicates loss of ability to provide controlled direct fire; acommand-and-control kill indicatesloss of command-and-control func-tions; a tactical kill indicates loss of tac-tical functions; and a catastrophic killmeans the tank sustained severe dam-age that couldn’t be economicallyrepaired.

Although M1A2 enhancementsraised questions, previous test pro-grams helped the Abrams tank incorpo-rate improvements that reduced its vul-nerability as it developed into the pres-

ent weapon system. Transitioning fromthe M1A1 to the M1A2, the Army signif-icantly reduced ballistic vulnerability byadding dual, redundant componentsand data buses and distributing electri-cal power systems so all power controlswere not in one place, Kuss concluded.

Testing BDARKravitz noted that an important

element of the test program was assess-ing the crew’s ability to repair damageon the battlefield and to keep their tank in the fight. In fact, a goal ofTRADOC—which is a participant in thelive-fire tests—is to provide battlefielddamage repair and recovery. TRADOC’srole is to help the Army assess a crew’sability to repair a tank damaged byenemy fire, as well as test and refinestandard procedures for battlefielddamage assessment and repair.

After each shot, a report is preparedand incorporated with the informationfrom ATC and ARL. The main objectiveis to get the tank back into the battle. Ata minimum, it should have a “limp-home” capability. Now, with the BrigadeCombat Team and “fast-fix forward,”BDAR is going to play a much largerrole than it has previously.

ConclusionLessons learned from live-fire test-

ing on the M1A2 should be applicableto similar weapon systems. Said Kravitz,“With the particular model of tank thatwe’re testing, we try to generalize andincorporate modifications or survivabil-ity enhancements into the whole uni-verse of tanks. We also try to communi-cate the nature of the test programhere, the nature of the threats to thisvehicle, and aspects that should beconsidered in other test programs.”

MIKE CAST is a Public AffairsSpecialist with the Army Develop-mental Test Command at APG. Hehas a B.S. degree in journalismfrom Arizona State University. Fornearly 20 years, Cast has held vari-ous Army positions in writing,editing, and photography.

An M1A2 with Systems Enhancement Package takes a hit at an ATC range.


IntroductionThe Army Science and Technology

(S&T) Master Plan and the Army Med-ical Department Modernization Planare key elements in defining strategiesand priorities for future combat casu-alty care medical technologies. In par-ticular, the Army S&T Master Plan pro-vides direction for development ofmedical technologies while the ArmyMedical Department ModernizationPlan outlines investment strategies formodernizing military forces.

Combat casualty care moderniza-tion efforts include both forward resus-citation and stabilization treatment.This encompasses improved proce-dures for controlling hemorrhaging,revised resuscitation guidelines, andimproved diagnostics and monitoringof injured personnel.

Battlefield mortality factors indi-cate that approximately 50 percent ofdeaths occur as a result of hemorrhag-ing, with remaining deaths splitbetween central nervous systeminjuries and bacterial infection. Thereduction in time that is often allottedfor troops to deploy necessitates lighterand smaller equipment. This will hope-fully be addressed by Army transforma-tion plans that call for conversion ofthe Army into a light, mobile forcerequiring deployability of a brigadecombat team within 96 hours afterliftoff, a warfighting division in 120hours, and five divisions in 30 days.Medical forces’ mobility must be equalto the warfighters they support. Inaddition, as unit functions modularize,they must support containerized

equipment for rapid deployment. Thepriority of evacuation systems is para-mount when considering the extendedbattlespace and lack of specialized carein theater. Therefore, new and im-proved platforms must be consideredin future development. Some of theArmy’s medical modernization initia-tives are discussed in the remainder ofthis article.

Soldier (Medic) InitiativesThe medic is the critical link for

providing care to the seriously injuredsoldier. Next to the physician andphysician’s assistant, the medic is thefirst line of defense in providing criticalcare on the battlefield. When this arti-cle was written, the 91W Program wasscheduled to begin Oct. 1, 2001. It willenhance the U.S. Army’s forward med-ical capability through improved initialand sustainment training of medics.

Training will focus on improvingtrauma treatment and stabilizationskills through national certification asan emergency medical technician(EMT) prior to graduation.

Controlling hemorrhaging isimperative to saving lives on the battle-field. Recent development of the dryfibrin sealant bandage could poten-tially reduce blood loss from battlefieldinjuries up to 85 percent. In animalstudies, the hemostatic dressing hasstopped hemorrhaging when applieddirectly to an injury. Further humanclinical testing will be required. How-ever, early results indicate this productcould have lifesaving impact on futurebattle injuries.

In the future, the miniaturizationof medical equipment such as thedigital X-ray system, vital sign monitor,and lab test device will change howcare is provided within the forward

NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGYFOR THE INJURED SOLDIER

LTC Todd H. Furse

The medic is the critical linkfor providing careto the seriously injured soldier.Next to the physicianand physician’s assistant,the medic is the first line of defensein providing critical careon the battlefield.


area. More durable and smallerequipment originally designed for hos-pital applications is now becomingavailable for field use. The ultrasoundscanner, a technology previously toobulky for field use, is now available in aportable hand-held unit that can pro-vide images of internal organs used toevaluate internal bleeding. Anotherexample is an electrically powered oxy-gen generator (under development)that will eliminate the need for bulkyoxygen tanks.

Communications InitiativesMedical Communication for Com-

bat Casualty Care (MC4) is the Army’smedical communication architectureand is fully integrated into all echelonsof medical care. MC4 connects data-bases; administrative procedures; med-ical diagnostic, monitoring, and treat-ment systems; and evacuation plat-forms. Health care providers at alllevels of care will be able to exchangeinformation via digital, audio, video,and electronic media. Integratingmedical information across health careechelons facilitates world-class serviceto soldiers. Some of the MC4 subcom-ponents under development are dis-cussed below.

The Personal Information Carrier.This device provides a transportablemedical record that is stored electroni-cally on a microchip and retained bythe soldier. Prototypes are the size ofthe soldier’s dog tag and provide com-prehensive personal readiness data inaddition to critical medical data. Initialdesign criteria include a read/writecapability so that information can bereadily updated through a specialreader, and memory to store a speci-fied amount of information.

The Warfighter Physiologic StatusMonitor. This is an active-status devicethat uses biosensors placed eitherdirectly on the soldier or indirectly onthe uniform to monitor a soldier’s real-time status. This sensor not only gen-erates vital signs data (heart rate, bloodpressure, respiration rate, body tem-perature), but it also monitors sleepand alert status, energy balance, psy-chological status, workload capacity,and stress. This wearable wireless sys-

tem can log sensor information andtransmit it to a centralized data center.Further study is required to definealgorithms and develop measurementsto accurately report the soldier’s status.

The Warrior Medic. This is an inte-grated system used in conjunction withthe Land Warrior tactical network andhas been dubbed the soldier’s “911 sys-tem.” Warrior Medic can alert themedic/commander of an existing casu-alty, make an emergency call for help,and identify and locate battlefieldcasualties. In addition, as an informa-tion system (similar to a personal dataassistant), it allows the medic to recordinitial treatment, request assistance,and provide reference guides for treat-ment assessment.

Telemedicine. Another componentof MC4 involves using video and audioconferencing to either exchange infor-mation or consult with a patient at aremote location. Telemedicine hasbeen touted as the solution to provid-ing critical surgical support to the far-forward battle zone. Telemedicine hasbeen successfully used in treatingpatients in Operation Desert Storm,Somalia, and Kosovo. The general con-sensus is that availability of bandwidthand power requirements, coupled withdurability of equipment, make this aless than desirable option for far-forward wartime applications.

Evacuation InitiativesThe Armored Treatment Vehicle

(AMTV) Program’s demise and thepending decision on the ArmoredEvacuation Vehicle’s (AMEV’s) contin-ued development have left groundevacuation platforms in a state ofuncertainty. This becomes an increas-ing concern as medical capability onthe battlefield decreases and the needfor patient evacuation increases.

The Medical Evacuation rotarywing UH-60Q replaces the UH-1V andupgrades the UH-60A helicopter withan additional materiel upgrade, whileoptimizing the aircraft for a medicalevacuation mission. The UH-60Q canevacuate casualties as far forward asthe situation permits; conduct combatsearch and rescue; perform shore-to-ship evacuation; and move medical

equipment and personnel in emer-gency situations. The helicopter’sassets include an equipment storagearea, onboard oxygen and suction,electric power for equipment, a combatlitter system, and a hoist. The naviga-tional system includes a global posi-tioning system, a forward lookinginfrared system, and tactical air naviga-tion equipment. Communicationcapabilities support all functions ofMC4 for command and control andtelemedicine, data bus, and high-frequency multiband radio.

Conclusion Battlefield casualty experience

indicates that approximately 50 per-cent of battlefield deaths result fromhemorrhaging, with remaining deathssplit between central nervous systeminjuries and bacterial infection.Although the number of injured sol-diers who receive hospital care hasdeclined steadily, battlefield mortalityremains at 20 percent with no demon-strable decline, and is becoming thefocus of advanced technology develop-ments. Experience has also shown thatthe more rapidly medical treatment isavailable to injured soldiers, the greaterthe chance for survival.

The emphasis of new medicaltechnology on the battlefield focuseson saving lives and will have a signifi-cant impact in decreasing battlefieldmortality.

LTC TODD H. FURSE com-pleted this article in partial fulfill-ment of MEL 1 requirements whileserving as an Army War CollegeFellow assigned to the Center forStrategic Analysis, University ofTexas at Austin. He holds a B.S.degree from the University ofNebraska and an M.P.H. degreefrom the University of Oklahoma.Furse is an Army National GuardOfficer on Active duty (AGR),assigned to the U.S. Army MedicalCommand as the Senior ArmyNational Guard Advisor, Fort SamHouston, TX.


IntroductionWargamers, screenwriters, and

novelists have described the impactof a microbial invasion on the UnitedStates. Military, law enforcement,and public health authorities havelong predicted and planned for adeadly infectious disease outbreak inthe United States, either intentionallyintroduced by terrorists or through anatural worldwide outbreak of akiller flu. In fact, multiagency exer-cises have confirmed that the abilityto detect and track an outbreak isessential in dealing with this chal-lenge. Early detection is particularlyimportant for a quick and effectiveinitial response. Tracking the poten-tial epidemic is essential for manag-ing the ongoing response, targetingresources, and evaluating interven-tion effectiveness.

Earlier detection ofillness syndromes at thecommunity level cangreatly reduce the timeneeded to identify anoutbreak. This results ina more rapid responseand a significant reduc-tion in illness and death.The response couldinclude targeting limitedassets (e.g., personneland drugs), equippingcivil government leaderswith outcome-based“exposure” estimates,and using risk communi-cation methods to

reduce the spread of panic and civildisruption.

DOD-GEISThe Department of Defense-

Global Emerging Infections Surveil-lance and Response System (DOD-GEIS) was established in 1997 to pro-mote surveillance of emerginginfections, integrate and improvepublic health practices, enhanceresponse capabilities to new diseaseoutbreaks, and support training andcapacity building to combat emerg-ing infections. The hub of the DOD-GEIS, located at the Walter ReedArmy Institute of Research (WRAIR),works closely with all branches of themilitary in both CONUS and overseaslocations.

ESSENCEDOD-GEIS is a leader in develop-

ing a prototype community-basedmedical surveillance system calledESSENCE (Electronic SurveillanceSystem for the Early Notification ofCommunity-based Epidemics).ESSENCE is used for the early detec-tion of infectious disease outbreaksin military populations.

In May 2001, DOD-GEIS wasawarded Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (DARPA) funding tocontinue developing an advancedbiosurveillance system calledESSENCE II. For this project, DOD-GEIS teamed with several institutionsunder the leadership of the JohnsHopkins University Applied PhysicsLaboratory (JHU/APL). The focus ofthe 4-year project is to develop andtransition an advanced, epidemio-

logically based biosur-veillance system that willuse diverse health indica-tor data to rapidly iden-tify, define, and guideresponses to bioterroristattacks or other emerginginfectious outbreaks incivilian, military, ormixed communities.

ESSENCE II will buildon previous efforts byAPL’s biosurveillance sys-tem and DOD-GEISESSENCE. OtherESSENCE II team mem-bers include The GeorgeWashington University

RAPID DETECTION OFINFECTIOUS DISEASE

OUTBREAKSMAJ Julie Pavlin, MC

Earlier detectionof illness syndromes

at the community levelcan greatly reduce

the time neededto identify an outbreak.

This results in a more rapid responseand a significant reduction

in illness and death.


School of Public Health, the JohnsHopkins University BloombergSchool of Public Health, CarnegieMellon University, Cycorp, and IBM.Total funding for the institutions par-ticipating in this collaboration ismore than $8 million.

ESSENCE currently tracks syn-dromes based on a patient’s signsand symptoms recorded during adoctor’s visit instead of specific diag-noses that may rely on laboratory orother diagnostic procedures. Thesyndromic surveillance system per-forms a daily analysis of outpatientdata from Washington, DC, area mili-tary treatment facilities (MTFs).Emergency rooms and primary care,internal medicine, pediatric, familypractice, flight medicine, and occu-pational health clinics are includedin the system. Because of the uniquenature of their patients, infectiousdisease clinics are also included. Thesurveillance system includes 104clinics in 21 different locationswithin a 50-mile radius of downtownWashington, DC.

CodingA Standardized Ambulatory Data

Record (SADR) is generated andmatched with patient demographicdata for every patient encounterwithin DOD. The provider fills in theSADR with applicable diagnoses fromthe International Classification ofDiseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modi-fication (ICD-9-CM), along with thepatient’s disposition and other data.All encounters are coded near thetime of encounter even if the causeof illness is not evident during thevisit. Most ICD-9 codes chosenreflect this prompt diagnosis andmay include syndrome-based codessuch as cough and fever in additionto presumptive diagnoses such aspneumonia or influenza.

The SADR information is sent toa centralized database at the TricareManagement Agency (TMA). Dataare fed directly to a secure computerat DOD-GEIS, allowing daily capture

of data from the Washington areaclinics. This information is usuallyreceived within 1 to 3 days of the ini-tial patient visit. Most important,collection of these data puts no addi-tional reporting requirements on cli-nicians or clinic administrators.

Because significant variabilityexists in reporting among providersand clinics, similar ICD-9-CM codesare grouped together in nine syn-dromes that best represent notice-able signs, symptoms, and diagnoses.Grouping the codes decreases thedata’s variability and allows moreaccurate monitoring of the patientvisit types. Establishing baseline lev-els of these syndrome groups for theWashington area allows daily moni-toring of fluctuations. Significantchanges can be quickly detected.

Historical DataExpected numbers of syndromes

for each of the groups are calculatedusing historical data. The daily countof reported syndromes is plottedagainst the expected number ofcases. Any data points significantlyhigher than the number of expectedcases could signal an unusualincrease or decrease in a reportedsyndrome.

Off-the-shelf geographic infor-mation software is used to map thereported syndromes using patients’home zip codes. The data used forgeographical viewing are updateddaily. Mapping data points helpsdetermine if a syndrome outbreakincludes a geographic componentand may aid in locating the source ofthe disease outbreak. Mapping alsohelps in predicting the extent of theaffected population.

System ExpansionESSENCE II will greatly expand

the current system. A key additionwill be an alert system for notifyingwhen any syndrome group exceedsits normal range, as well as appropri-ate response protocols. Otherplanned enhancements include cap-

turing a broader range of health indi-cator data such as pharmaceuticaldisbursements, laboratory requestsand results, and radiological requestsand results from MTFs. Other non-medical health indicators that will beexplored include school absenteeismand transit usage. These would be aseparate but complementary andconfirmatory source of data formodels.

The partnership with JHU/APLwill allow military and civilian com-munities in the Washington, DC, areato incorporate and coordinate infor-mation. Developing a syndromicsurveillance system that best servesthe entire region is important.Including data from civilian emer-gency rooms and managed careorganizations as well as other healthindicators will greatly enhanceESSENCE II’s ability to rapidly detectan emerging outbreak.

In the wake of terrorist attacks onSept. 11, 2001, ESSENCE has beenexpanded into other areas of theUnited States with relatively largenumbers of military personnel. AllMTFs in the United States send datato the TMA system that can beobtained and analyzed in a similarfashion. DOD-GEIS is exploring col-laboration with other public healthpersonnel in the military to set upsimilar systems in their locations.

MAJ JULIE PAVLIN, MC, is theChief of Strategic Surveillance forthe DOD-Global Emerging Infec-tions Surveillance and ResponseSystem at WRAIR. She is a board-certified preventive medicinephysician who served previouslyas a national and internationalconsultant on medical biologicalwarfare and terrorism whileassigned to the U.S. Army MedicalResearch Institute of InfectiousDiseases.


Shortly after returning for his second tour as Sec-retary of Defense in January 2001, Donald Rumsfeldreleased his Rumsfeld’s Rules. First published in 1974and revised in January 2001, these rules reflect theDefense Secretary’s observations and lessons learnedfrom his former assignments as Chairman of Presi-dent Ford’s transition team, White House Chief ofStaff, a U.S. Naval aviator, a member of Congress,NATO Ambassador, Secretary of Defense, Middle EastEnvoy, business executive, Chairman of the U.S. Bal-listic Missile Threat Commission, and other experi-ences. What follows from the DOD Link Web site aresome of Secretary Rumsfeld’s rules we found mostinteresting. We welcome your comments.

On Serving In The White House• Don’t begin to think you’re the President. You’re

not. The Constitution provides for only one.• Learn to say “I don’t know.” If used when appro-

priate, it will be often.• If you foul up, tell the President and correct it

fast. Delay only compounds mistakes.• Preserve the President’s options. He may need

them.• You and the White House staff must be and be

seen to be above suspicion. Set the right example.• Don’t blame the boss. He has enough problems.

On Keeping Your BearingsIn The White House

• Don’t think of yourself as indispensable or infal-lible. As Charles De Gaulle said, the cemeteries of theworld are full of indispensable men.

• Have a deputy and develop a successor. Don’t beconsumed by the job or you’ll risk losing your balance.Keep your mooring lines to the outside world—family,friends, neighbors, people out of government, and peo-ple who may not agree with you.

• If you are not criticized, you may not be doingmuch.

On Doing The Job In The White House• Don’t “over control” like a novice pilot. Stay loose

enough from the flow that you can observe, calibrate,and refine.

• Test ideas in the marketplace. You learn fromhearing a range of perspectives. Consultation helps

engender the support [that] decisions need to besuccessfully implemented.

• Look for what’s missing. Many advisors can tella President how to improve what’s proposed or what’sgone amiss. Few are able to see what isn’t there.

On Serving In Government• Beware when any idea is promoted primarily

because it is “bold, exciting, innovative, and new.”There are many ideas that are “bold, exciting, innova-tive, and new,” but also foolish.

• Treat each federal dollar as if it was hardearned; it was—by a taxpayer.

• Public servants are paid to serve the Americanpeople. Do it well.

• If in doubt, don’t.• If still in doubt, do what’s right.

On Politics, The Congress, And The Press• The winner is not always the swiftest, surest, or

smartest. It’s the one willing to get up at 5:00 a.m. andgo to the plant gate to meet the workers. (Unknown)

• If you try to please everybody, somebody’s notgoing to like it.

• The most underestimated risk for a politician isoverexposure.

• Don’t necessarily avoid sharp edges. Occasion-ally they are necessary to leadership.

• Remember where you came from.

For The Secretary of Defense• When cutting staff at the Pentagon, don’t elimi-

nate the thin layer that assures civilian control.• Napoleon was asked, “Who do you consider to

be the greatest generals?” He responded saying, “Thevictors.”

On Business• Reduce the layers of management. They put dis-

tance between the top of an organization and thecustomers.

• Know your customers.

On Life (and other things)• Simply because a problem is shown to exist

doesn’t necessarily follow that there is a solution.• The most important things in life you cannot

see—civility, justice, courage, peace. (Unknown)

RRuummssffeelldd’’ss RRuulleess

As the Army gears up to fight the war on terrorism, theArmy Acquisition and Technology Workforce will be asked,indeed compelled, to respond to ever-changing priorities.First and foremost, we must ensure that the Legacy Force isready, deployed, and sustained for the coming operations.Repair parts, ammunition, and all categories of supplies willbe procured, stocked, deployed, and replenished in supportof tactical operations. Program offices and engineers willprocure and install the latest hardware and softwareupgrades on existing systems. Logisticians will handle themyriad of details necessary to ensure that all changes areincorporated into the logistics system and the right “stuff”is delivered to the right place at the right time.

Simultaneously, the transition to the Interim BrigadeCombat Teams (IBCTs) needs to be completed and thoseunits made combat ready. This new war will require theArmy to operate across the full spectrum of operations. Allcapabilities must be fully manned and ready for action.Again, the challenges will fall directly on the acquisitionworkforce to increase the pace of production, integration,fielding, and support for the IBCTs.

As we accomplish all of these actions, defining andplanning for the Objective Force continues, now with agreater sense of urgency. The U.S. Army has always been aleader in exploiting technology to improve lethality and sur-vivability, and to offset larger forces on the battlefield. Thishas not changed; in fact, it is now even more important.Digging enemies out of rugged terrain is a nasty business,as is operating in built-up areas. Our combat forces willneed all the enhancements and leverage that technologycan provide. Our leadership needs your suggestions ontechnology that may have been previously overlooked formilitary application or evolving technology that will give usthe decisive edge in times to come.

As in the past, the acquisition workforce is in a positionto have real and immediate impact on operations to come.While we mourn the losses of Sept. 11th, 2001, we must stillfocus our minds and talents on doing all that we can toassist those on the front lines of this war, wherever thoselines may fall.

COL Frank C. Davis IIIDirectorAcquisition CareerManagement Office

Program ManagementLevel II Certification

Effective FY02, the Defense Acquisition University’s(DAU’s) PMT 250 (Program Management Tools course) isrequired for Program Management Level II certification(only for those who are not already Level II certified). Thecourse lasts 9 weeks and is offered every 2 weeks.

The first 8 weeks and 3 days are reserved for students tocomplete the first eight modules. They can complete themat their own pace, but must successfully finish the first eightmodules at least 5 calendar days prior to the scheduled enddate. The class end date is posted on the DAU home pageat http://www.dau.mil (click on DAU Virtual Campus) andon the Army Training Requirements and Resources System(ATRRS).

The critical part of this course is the last 4 scheduledclass days, which are Monday through Thursday. Duringthese 4 days, the student must be available full time toparticipate and successfully complete modules 9 and 10.These modules require the formation of teams and comple-tion of group assignments, and other training is notpermitted.

AASSKK TTHHEE AACCMMOO .. .. ..Are you interested in select leadership training and

experience opportunities? Are you ready to take the stepthat will completely change your career? Then the Competi-tive Development Group (CDG) Program is for you. This 3-year professional development training program offersexpanded leadership training and experience opportunitiesfor competitively selected GS-12 and -13 (or equivalent per-sonnel demonstration broadband level) Corps Eligible (CE)and Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) members.

The CDG Program provides members with the leader-ship training, education, and career-broadening experi-ences necessary to assume future Army acquisition leader-ship positions. It provides challenging and rewarding devel-opmental assignments and gives members an edge whencompeting for promotions.

To foster greater interest in the CDG Program, theAcquisition Career Management Office (ACMO) hasdevoted this Ask The ACMO article to some of the mostfrequently asked questions about this highly regardedprogram.

Is it easy to apply? Yes, the only requirements are thatan applicant be a CE or an AAC member and be Level IIIcertified in an acquisition career field. Application packagesmust include a signed Acquisition Career Record Brief(ACRB), a completed Senior Rater Potential Evaluation(SRPE), your three most recent performance appraisals,your resume, a signed mobility statement, a data self-certification form, and your most recent SF-50.

Why should I apply? If you desire career-broadening,multifunctional experiences that will prepare you for a vari-


CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

FROM THE DIRECTORACQUISITION CAREERMANAGEMENT OFFICE

ety of acquisition leadership positions, not to mention anincrease in your marketability, you should apply. Anotherreason to apply is that numerous senior-level acquisitionpositions are expected to be available during the next fewyears as the result of a large number of retirements.

Is it difficult for you to schedule, or have you beendenied, training, education, and developmental opportuni-ties in your current position? Do you want a change? If youanswered “yes” to these questions, or if promotional oppor-tunities in your current organization are limited, you shouldapply to the CDG Program!

Will I have to relocate? Relocation for CDG members israrely required. To date, all geographic moves have beenvoluntary (10 since the program’s inception in 1997). NoCDG members have had to relocate to a nonpreferred geo-graphical region—these moves are only necessary when amember cannot receive the experience necessary to meetthe goals and objectives of the AAC and the CDG Program.

“Since I am from the Washington, DC, metroarea, there were numerous career-broadeningassignments available locally. There was never afear of having to relocate. I found this to be truewhen talking to other CDG members as well.”

—Steve Tkac, YG01, promoted 2001What if I don’t get promoted after 3 years? Although the

program doesn’t guarantee promotion, statistics haveshown that CDG members have an edge when competingfor promotions. Seventy-nine percent of year group (YG) 97and 74 percent of YG98 personnel have been promoted toGS-14 (or equivalent personnel demonstration broadbandlevel) positions. CDG members are best-qualified appli-cants selected through a competitive selection boardprocess. Participation in the program increases a CDGmember’s competitiveness for developmental assignmentsthroughout the acquisition community. Additionally, mem-bers are provided centrally managed education and trainingopportunities designed to provide leadership developmentexperiences in a structured and highly visible program.

“Without the CDG Program, I never wouldhave been promoted as soon as I was. The experi-ence and training that the CDG Program affordsits members provides a great competitive edgewhen competing for job vacancies. The DODleadership is looking for multifunctional leadersof tomorrow, and the CDG Program prepares youfor such a challenge.”

—Bernie Gajkowski, YG01, promoted 2001Is the application package difficult to put together? I

don’t know if I have time. The application package is notdifficult to assemble. Most workforce members already havetheir resume, a recent SF-50, their ACRB, and their lastthree performance appraisals. Senior raters fill out theSRPE, and the other forms only require a signature. You canupdate your ACRB by contacting your regional AcquisitionCareer Manager (ACM). To identify your ACM or to accessthese forms, go to http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil and clickon Your Acquisition Career Management Team or Forms.It’s that easy.

“The small amount of time it took to preparemy application package was well worth the chal-lenging and rewarding experiences that the CDGProgram offers. Your career is what you make ofit, take the next step.”

—Amelia Hatchett, YG98, promoted 1999and 2000

It’s too competitive. Do I really have a chance of beingselected? Yes, the CDG Program is competitive, and it’sdesigned that way. As a result, it is the premier leadershipdevelopment program within the AAC. However, if yourexperience, training, and education demonstrate a desirefor continuous learning and career-broadening opportuni-ties, you probably have what it takes to be competitive forthis program. The ACMO is looking for individuals whohave leadership potential for the 21st century.

My agency managers don’t encourage participation insuch programs.What should I do? A supervisor’s responsi-bility is to encourage and support his or her employee’scareer development. In fact, career development is a statedmission of the ACMO and AAC policy. Keep in mind thatapplication and acceptance to the CDG Program does notrequire your current supervisor’s approval. If you areselected for the CDG Program, you are assigned a new posi-tion within the Army Acquisition Executive SupportAgency’s Table of Distribution and Allowances.

For more information about the CDG Program, contactyour ACM or contact Maria Holmes at (703) 604-7113 [email protected]. To determine the name ofyour ACM or to contact current CDG members, go to theWeb site listed previously. This site also addresses a numberof misconceptions about the program such as mobility, pro-motion, and application issues and will help you betterunderstand the benefits of the CDG Program. Please don’tpass up this opportunity—take the next step!

45 Graduate FromMAM Course

In August 2001, 45 students graduated from theMateriel Acquisition Management (MAM) Course, Class 01-004, at the Army Logistics Management College, Fort Lee,VA. Five international officers were among the students:two from Japan, one from South Korea, one from Malaysia,and one from Romania. The Distinguished Graduate Awardwas presented to MAJ Vincent F. Malone.

The 7-week MAM Course provides a broad perspectiveof the materiel acquisition process and implementationand includes a discussion of national policies and objec-tives that shape the process. Areas of coverage includeacquisition concepts and policies, research and develop-ment, test and evaluation, financial and cost management,acquisition logistics, force integration, production manage-ment, risk assessment, and contract management. Empha-sis is on developing midlevel professionals to effectivelymanage the acquisition process.

Research and development, program management,testing, contracting, requirements generation, logistics, and




production management are some of the materiel acquisi-tion work assignments offered to MAM Course graduates.

PERSCOM Notes . . .SSC Selection Board ResultsResults of the Senior Service College (SSC) Selection

Board were released Aug. 7, 2001. The board selected 23members of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) to attendSSC during academic year (AY) 02/03. Two of the officersselected were revalidated from the AY 01/02 list. The AAChad 382 officers eligible for selection to SSC and had aselection rate of 7.1 percent. The Army selection rate was7.7 percent.

Selectees were all former or current product managersor acquisition commanders. The majority of selectees (70percent) were year group (YG) 81-82 officers; the remaining30 percent were evenly split between YGs 80 and 83. Allselectees had at least one command Officer EvaluationReport in their board file. Generally, selectees had an abovecenter of mass (ACOM) or COM(+) performance file overalland a COM(+) performance in command. In addition,selectees had an average of 1.6 command reports in theirboard file.

Each officer selected for attendance at SSC was sent aletter from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’s(PERSCOM’s) Acquisition Management Branch (AMB)explaining how to access the PERSCOM Officer CareerManagement Knowledge Center. The letter also contains asynopsis of each SSC and available fellowship. Officers willprovide their SSC preferences online through the Knowl-edge Center. Selectees may choose to attend resident SSC,enroll in the Army War College Distance Education Programfor AY 02/03, or decline. SSC selectees normally attend theArmy War College, the Air War College, the Acquisition Fel-lowship at the University of Texas (Austin) (UT-Austin), orthe Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). The latterthree choices have limited seats. ICAF and UT-Austin tendto be the two programs for which there are more officerswanting to attend than available seats.

Further, ICAF has special considerations: officers whoare joint Service officers and have been awarded an addi-tional skill identifier of 3L are ineligible to attend, and 50percent plus one of the attendees (by branch) must beassigned to a joint position immediately following school.Therefore, it is important that selectees give as much con-sideration to their second and following choices as they doto their first choice.

The SSC alternate list is not formally published; how-ever, officers selected as alternates will receive a letter in theDecember 2001 timeframe that informs them of their sta-tus. AMB will only be given the list of officers who are con-sidered high alternates (those officers who are most likely tobe activated to attend SSC). AMB does not expect to receivethis list until mid-December.

The names of selectees are listed below. An asteriskindicates those officers revalidated from the AY 01/02 SSClist. All selectees are lieutenant colonels.

Abercrombie, Henry Harris, Earnest Bonheim, Michael Jones, Kermit Brewster, Robert Jones, Raymond Chasteen, Gregory McNerney, Catherine Colon, Angel Moshier, Timothy Coutteau, Charles Mullin, Edward Crizer, Scott *Noonan, Kevin *Davis, Darrell Scarbrough, Jess Driessnack, Charles Sears, George Goddette, Timothy Sutton, Brian Greene, Harold Williams, Curtis Hansen, Richard

FY02 Army Experimental TestPilot Board

A U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM)board will convene on or about Feb. 18, 2002, to select avia-tors best qualified to participate in the Army AviationExperimental Test Pilot Training Program. This board willreview and select both commissioned and warrant officers.Commissioned officers selected to attend the U.S. NavalTest Pilot School (USNTPS) are automatically accessed intothe Army Acquisition Corps, where they will serve for theremainder of their careers. Warrant officers will continue tobe managed by PERSCOM’s Warrant Officer Division.

For commissioned officers to be eligible, they musthave a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline orhard science, be a captain or major, have at least 7 years ofactive federal service, be branch-qualified prior to atten-dance at USNTPS, and have a minimum of 700 hours totalflight time.

For warrant officers to be eligible, they must have anassociate’s degree with above-average grades; have com-pleted college courses in algebra, calculus, differentialequations, and physics (or mechanics) with above-averagegrades; and be a chief warrant officer 2 or higher. In addi-tion, candidates must have completed military educationlevel for current grade prior to attending the test pilot train-ing program, have 1,000 total flight hours, and have suffi-cient time remaining upon completion of training to com-plete the Active duty service obligation.

Highly desirable qualifications for commissioned offi-cers include successful completion of college courses inmechanics (solids, fluid, flight), thermodynamics, aerody-namics, control theory, and advanced mathematics, withabove-average grades; experience in complex aircraft suchas the CH-47, UH-60, AH-64, OH-58D, and/or fixed-wingmilitary aircraft; and rating as an instructor pilot, instru-ment flight examiner, or maintenance test pilot. Pilot-in-command flight hours are weighted accordingly in theselection process.

Anyone in a position to recommend and endorse anapplicant is urged to make a thorough appraisal of thatapplicant’s flying ability, operational experience, motiva-tion, adaptability, and ability to communicate orally and inwriting.



All FY02 Experimental Test Pilot Board applicationsmust be received at PERSCOM no later than Jan. 11, 2002.Applications must include an official transcript of collegecredits; a copy of the aviator’s most current DA Form 759,Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate-Army; andendorsements by an instructor pilot or standardizationinstructor pilot commenting on the applicant’s flying abil-ity. Both commissioned and warrant officer applicationsshould be mailed to Commander, U.S. Total Army Person-nel Command, ATTN: TAPC-OPB-E (MAJ Bochonok), 200Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0411.

Experimental test pilot assignments will be based onthe Army’s needs. Initial tours will be served at the AviationTechnical Test Center, Fort Rucker, AL, or the AviationApplied Technology Directorate, Fort Eustis, VA. USNTPSgraduates will serve in experimental test pilot or organiza-tional staff positions that directly affect the type, design,and configuration of Army aircraft.

For additional information, view our Web site athttp://www.perscom.army.mil/OPfam51/experimental_test_pilot_info.htm or contact MAJ Jeff Bochonok at DSN221-2800, (703) 325-2800, or [email protected]; or CW3 Kimberly Young at DSN 221-5251, (703)325-5251, or [email protected].

FY01 Major PromotionBoard Results

The FY01 Major Promotion Board results were releasedAug. 28, 2001. This article analyzes the board results.

Acquisition Corps ResultsBoard members reviewed the files of 136 Army Acquisi-

tion Corps (AAC) officers in the primary zone of considera-tion for promotion. From this population, the boardselected 111 officers. The resulting primary zone selectionrate of 81.6 percent is 2 percent higher than last year. Therewere 31 AAC officers considered for above-the-zone promo-tion, and the board selected 17. The above-the-zone AACselection rate is 54.8 percent, which is 20 percent higherthan the Army average of 34.3 percent. In addition, one offi-cer was selected below the zone.

Trends For SelecteesSelection to major is primarily a reflection of how an

officer performs in his or her basic branch assignments.Most AAC officers have few, if any, Officer EvaluationReports (OERs) from acquisition assignments when theMajor Promotion Board considers them. Many officers arestill completing basic branch assignments, Reserve OfficerTraining Corps recruiting, Active component/Reserve com-ponent assignments, or attending advanced civil schooling.Thus, AAC officers are judged against the same criteria asbasic branch officers.

Second lieutenant OERs have been purged from offi-cers’ files and were not reviewed by the promotion board.The most important discriminator continues to be com-pany command OERs, and board members appear to use

command reports as the measure of an officer’s ability tosucceed as a major.

With a majority of the officers receiving “one block”command DA Form 67-8 OERs, the senior rater narrativewas extremely important in determining the strength of anOER. Senior rater narratives that quantified an officer’s per-formance when the profile did not, sent a clearer picture tothe board on the “true block check” (i.e., best officer in acommand, top 5 percent, 3 out of 10.) Additionally, seniorrater narratives that focused on an officer’s potential weregenerally more effective than OERs that focused on how theofficer performed. Officers with overall center-of-mass(COM) files and “top block” COM command OERs were atrisk for promotion. The new DA Form 67-9 OER eliminatesthe confusion for the board by clearly communicating thesenior rater assessment on officers they place above centerof mass.

Performance in basic branch assignments, especiallycompany command, appeared to be the board’s focus. The message is clear: seek company command, do well, and maintain a high level of performance on all otherassignments.

The names of AAC officers selected for promotion tomajor are shown below. An asterisk indicates a below-the-zone selection.

MAJOR PROMOTION LIST BRANCH

Acostarobles, H. SCArner, Justine A. SCBailey, Michelle M. AVBamburg, James A. AVBarrie, Robert L. AVBassett, Thomas C. TCBecker, Glenn B. AGBell, Arrita D. MIBoerjan, Robert A. MIBristol, David P. AVCash, Jonathan G. SFCashman, Michael S. INCathcart, Eric R. ODChambers, Floyd QMClements, Andrew F. FACote, Courtney P. AVCote, Jeffrey A. MPCrockett, Jeffrey L. SCCulclasure, Harry R. FACummins, Robert W. AGDavila, Tony O. MIDevine, Craig E. SCDevries, Lambert D. FADixon, Ernest III ODDove, Michael J. ODEdens, Clayton W. SFFerguson, Cary V. TCFerreira, Jay M. OD



Fugate, Thomas M. AVFullmer, Shane N. ARGautreaux, Jay P. AVGloor, Thomas B. MIGreene, Willie B. AGGrimes, John H. ODHall, Lamar W. ARHall, Richard M. FAHarris, Michael W. FAHearon, Robert W. FAHelms, Robert A. MIHerres, Roger A. TCHight, William B. FAHilton, Norman A. INHollingsworth, S. SCHolmes, Angela M. ADHughes, Frederick J. QMHunt, Kristen L. SCHunt, Philip D. FAHunter, Michael D. CMJames, Kenneth T. AGJennings, Marvin R. MIJohnson, Jason T. QMJohnston, Vincent F. CMJones, Richard D. ODKastanek, Kerry W. MIKennedy, James R. AVKim, Yu Shik ADKirk, Eric D. QMKrause, Karl S. FAKreun, David R. MILaChance, Eric M. ENLaFlamme, Mark H. INLee, Cedric D. ODLee, Jong Hyuk AVLopez, Harold W. ENLudwig, Steven E. ARLynch, Christopher AVMatt, Michael S. MIMay, Charles H. ENMcCaa, Ramona M. MIMcGhee, Alonzo B. MIMcGuire, Keith Q. IN*McRae, Timothy MIMesser, Kevin K. ADMilner, Michael W. ARMinners, Bradford A. AGMobley, Kevin D. AVMorano, Anthony M. MPMoses, Kathaleen D. ADMunster, Matthew G. AR

Murrah, Michael R. ENNakano, Victor M. ENNash, Kevin M. ARNix, Timothy G. SFNugent, John O. AVOderkirk, Andrew D. INOdum, Marcus J. MIO’Neill, John B. AVParodi, Michael A. SCPassapera, Pedro R. SCPerkins, Russell B. INPerry, Sharlene J. ODPeterson, Samuel L. ARPhillips, Mark E. QMPiatt, Eric A. SCPooler, Susan D. MIRew, Scott A. ODRiddick, James A. MIRobare, William M. ADRobison, Bryan S. INRodriguez, Michael MIRussell, William M. MISanner, Michelle A. SCSantiago, Derek A. TCSchertler, Patrick AVSchirmer, James W. AVSchliesman, Steven AGShepard, Benny L. ADSherman, Cynthia M. MIShore, Thomas F. QMSigler, Robert R. CMSmalls, Douglas E. MISmith, Charles H. AGSmith, Keith A. INStephan, Allen H. AVStephens, Bryan J. MPStewart, Maurice H. SCSumner, Lance L. SCTerrell, Paul D. ARTschida, Carol M. AVTyler, Scott A. ARTyson, Rodney D. QMVanyo, Kevin A. ARVitale, Joseph L. AGWall, Steven T. SCWatiti, Tom W. SCWilliams, Kevin D. AVWilliamson, John K. INWitherspoon, Willie FAWizner, Anthony M. AR



FY02 COL/GS-15 PM/AC SlateThe U.S. Total Army Personnel Command recently released the FY02 Colonel (COL)/GS-15 project manager (PM)/acqui-

sition command (AC) slate. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the personnel listed below are lieutenant colonel promotable.

NAME SLATEBianca, Damian P. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE GROUND BASED INTERCEPTORBianco, Stephen G. CONTRACTING COMMAND KOREA Bowman, Michael NIGHT VISION/RECONNAISSANCE SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ACQUISITIONBuck, Stephen D. SIGNALS WARFAREBurke, John D. TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLESCrosby, William T. CARGO HELICOPTERSDefatta, Richard P. SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSEDietrick, Kevin M. WARFIGHTERS SIMULATIONErnst, Adolph H. III GROUND APPLICATIONS PROGRAM OFFICEFox, Steven G. TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIESGavora, William M. AVIATION APPLIED TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATEGrotke, Mark L. DCMC SPRINGFIELDHeine, Kurt M. JOINT LAND ATTACK CRUISE MISSILE DEFENSE ELEVATED NETTED SENSOR SYSTEMHrdy, Russell J. CRUSADERJanker, Peter S. FIRE SUPPORT ARMAMENTS CENTERJohnson, Michael E. (COL) JOINT BALLISTIC MISSILE TARGETSKallam, Charles T. DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT COMMAND (DCMC) MIDDLE EASTMartin, Edwin H. DCMC SAN FRANCISCOMaxwell, Jody A. (COL) COMMON MISSILEMcCoy, Curtis L. BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE SYSTEMSMills, Ainsworth B. DCMC PHILADELPHIANenninger, Gary S. (CIV) AVIATION MAINTENANCE SUPPORT SYSTEMSNoonan, Kevin S. COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINERSPallotta, Ralph G. APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERPecoraro, Joseph E. DEFENSE SUPPLY SERVICE WASHINGTONPrice, Nancy L.S. DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AND ARMY TRANSMISSION SYSTEMSRasmussen, Valerie A. INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CENTER, FORT LEESchmidt, Rodney H.C. DCMC RAYTHEONSledge, Nathaniel H. ARTILLERY MUNITIONS SYSTEMSSmith, Michael NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE X-BAND RADARTo Be Announced DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AND ARMY SWITCHED SYSTEMS Sutton, James C. (CIV) MINES, COUNTERMINE, AND DEMOLITIONS


Philadelphia-based La Salle University and the U.S.Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense(USAMRICD) are working together for mutual benefitthanks to the efforts of Dr. Gerald P.H. Ballough from LaSalle and Dr. Margaret Filbert from USAMRICD.

During university recesses over the past 7 years, Bal-lough, an Associate Professor of Biology at La Salle Univer-sity and former National Research Council Associate atUSAMRICD, has returned to the Neurotoxicology Labora-tory at USAMRICD to continue his research. Currentlyconcentrating on ways to circumvent damage from nerveagent exposure, Ballough and Filbert conduct research andoffer guidance to student researchers, many of whom areamong the top science majors at La Salle.

Recognizing the research education contributions ofUSAMRICD to La Salle students, the university presented

an engraved plaque to both Filbert and USAMRICD.“Thank you to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute ofChemical Defense for providing excellent research andcareer opportunities to La Salle students over the last 6years. We look forward to many more years of continuedcooperation,” said Dr. Margaret MacManus, Dean of LaSalle University’s School of Arts and Sciences.

COL James A. Romano Jr. accepted the award onbehalf of MRICD, thanked the university for the recogni-tion, and acknowledged the efforts of Ballough and otherinstitute researchers and staff who participate in guidingfuture scientists. He said that the institute strives to pro-vide a bridge for young scientists and encourages researchfor the benefit of American soldiers and U.S. allies. In addi-tion, he acknowledged the efforts of Ballough and theentire team of scientists at USAMRICD, many of whomrecruit bright talent and offer encouragement and guid-ance to summer hires and interns.

La Salle University RecognizesUSAMRICD


Warranties: Planning,Analysis, And ImplementationBy James R. BrennanMcGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 1994

Reviewed by Roy A. Pellegrino, Command WarrantyProgram Manager at the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ.

The author’s intent in writing Warranties: Planning,Analysis, and Implementation is to clarify the meaning ofwarranties and provide guidance as to the planning, analy-ses, and application of effective warranties in consumer,commercial, and military business sectors. The majority ofdiscussion, however, deals with the military sector.

In Brennan’s opinion, it has become obvious, especiallyin the military sector, that warranties have been poorly con-ceived and less than diligently implemented. With thisbook, Brennan aims to provide practical insight to suppliersand customers that will result in benefits to each—a win-win situation regarding warranties.

Chapters 1 and 2 describe essential warranty principlesincluding realities of warranties, types of warranties, riskissues, and reliability considerations. In addition, theauthor stresses the importance of product reliability in thewarranty process.

Chapter 3 discusses warranty legislation in all threesectors, including the now repealed Title 10, U.S.C. Sec.2403, Major Weapon System Contractor Guarantees.

Chapters 4 and 5 explain the concept and applicationof fixed-price repair warranties and performance guaran-tees, respectively. The author stresses the importance ofhow warranties are structured so that the better the reliabil-ity, the better the supplier’s profits and the higher the cus-tomer’s product satisfaction level.

Chapters 6 and 7 describe the trade-offs requiredbefore preparation of the warranty requirement and themethodology of warranty costing, respectively. The authordiscusses key trade-off issues, the trade-off process, andtrade-off examples. Additionally, he stresses the need forMonte Carlo simulation techniques for warranty costing.

Chapter 8 develops the warranty-negotiating processbetween supplier and customer. The author stresses theimportance of detailed supplier and customer preparation,good-faith cooperation, and patience to enhance the likeli-hood of a win-win outcome.

Chapter 9 develops a cost-effectiveness analysismethodology. Because not all warranties are cost-effective,it is the customer’s responsibility to make estimatesthroughout the development program relative to the likelycost-effectiveness of the warranty on product fielding.

Chapter 10 discusses the implementation and adminis-tration of the negotiated warranty. The author places heavyemphasis on thorough databases for product tracking, ade-quate staffing for efficient warranty administration, sup-plier or customer review boards, and good will as importantingredients for success.

Chapter 11 addresses the development process for war-ranties including the importance of thorough planning,activities required during each program phase, warrantyalternatives selection factors and processes, contractordevelopment activities, and the importance of the warrantyteam.

Chapter 12 examines the future of warranties. Brennanprojects what it will take relative to quality and reliabilitylevels for suppliers to survive in the 21st century, and theassociated impact on warranty duration and coverage.

Brennan provides a book that clears up misconceptionsrelated to development and administration of both com-mercial and government warranties. As the governmentadopted warranties in an attempt to resolve existing qualityand logistical problems, misconceptions arose that affectedthe development and implementation of warranties. Eachchapter provides sufficient detailed information for individ-uals with limited warranty knowledge to develop and nego-tiate cost-effective warranties.

The only drawback to this book is that it still referencesTitle 10, U.S.C. Sec. 2403, which was repealed in November1997. The new government warranty requirement appearsin the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 46.7,Warranties.

Brennan provides an excellent presentation of all facetsof the warranty process. With the information provided inthis book, individuals should gain an excellent understand-ing of warranty characteristics. I highly recommend thispublication to anyone wishing to explore the world ofwarranties.

100 Profiles of SergeantsMajor of Color:Black Americans Who Pavedthe Way for Others to FollowBy Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Harold Hunt (USA, Ret.) Hunt Enterprises, Hanover, MD, 2000

Reviewed by Joe Sites, Vice-President/Director ofDefense Systems, BRTRC Inc., Fairfax, VA.

The author, CSM Harold Hunt, had a distinguishedcareer in the Army. He served his final Active duty assign-ment as CSM of the U.S. Army Laboratory Command. Huntalso served previously in prestigious assignments thatincluded CSM of the U.S. Corps of Cadets at the U.S. Mili-tary Academy; CSM of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, “TheOld Guard”; and in the 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry “Toma-hawks” Regiment.

Hunt dedicated the book to CSM Louis C. Perry and allsergeants major who over the years have made a differ-ence—regardless of their race, creed, or color. In the dedica-tion, Hunt states that his purpose in writing the book is tobring recognition to many individuals whose satisfaction

BOOKS


came from knowing that they were doing their duty to thebest of their ability. In view of Hunt’s truly outstanding serv-ice, his recognition of others who preceded him and hisappreciation for what they did is especially meaningful.

Although the book only allocates slightly more than onepage per each of the 100 chosen representatives, each biog-raphy is concise and informative and tells the story of indi-viduals who made great contributions, not only to the Armybut also to the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and NationalGuard. More important, they made great contributions toour Nation. Included in this list of male and female heroesare CSMs who served in the Civil War, the Spanish Ameri-can War, World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, VietNam, and Desert Storm.

It is difficult to select specific examples from such a dis-tinguished list; therefore, to illustrate the wide variety ofexperiences, the following examples are provided. The firstindividual in the book, Joseph R. Allen, is a veteran ofDesert Storm.

A number of CSMs who served during the Civil War arealso included in the book. For example, as the result of thebattle of Chapin’s Farm near Richmond, VA, on Sept. 29,1864, 13 black soldiers received high decorations. The fol-lowing winners of the Medal of Honor are also highlighted:Alfred B. Hilton, Christian A. Fleetwood, and Thomas R.Hawkins. Further, on July 12, 1863, at the battle of Fort Wag-ner, SC, 1,500 black soldiers of the 54th and 55th Massachu-setts Colored Regiments sacrificed their lives. Among thesurvivors, William H. Carey won the Medal of Honor.

The CSMs in this book not only won military battles,they also excelled in the fields of education, training, sports,and moral leadership. For instance, CSM Edward Crook Jr.won an Olympic gold medal for boxing.

CSM Gary K. Simons is quoted as saying, “God hashelped me get through a lot of difficult times in my life, andmy family has been very supportive. And this country is thegreatest on earth. I feel so proud when I put on this uni-form.” In reading this book, one is left with the feeling thatSimons’ words could be those of each of the CSMs whoseshort histories are provided. In turn, we can all be proud ofthese great Americans to whom we owe so much. Weshould also be appreciative for the author’s work in bring-ing their stories to our attention.

Reviewer’s Note: Although not included in the book,CSM Oscar Jackson, who was my colleague and friend in the101st Airborne Division in Viet Nam, should also be recog-nized. Jackson obtained an advanced degree after retiringfrom the Army and became a Minister of Music in Killeen,TX.

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge(PMBOK® Guide)—2000 EditionProject Management Institute, 2000

Reviewed by LTC Kenneth H. Rose (USA, Ret.), a ProjectManagement Instructor for ESI International, residing inHampton,VA, and a former member of the Army Acquisi-tion Corps.

Project management is an evolving craft. No stonetablets exist that prescribe procedures to be used now andfor all time. Recognizing this, the Project ManagementInstitute has issued A Guide to the Project ManagementBody of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—2000 Edition, anupdated version of its comprehensive collection of gener-ally accepted tools, techniques, and practices.

This new edition is neither a totally new view of theproject management world nor a bits-and-pieces revisionof an existing text. It is a thoughtful next step taken underthe guidance of experience and collective judgment of abroad range of practitioners. A brief preface describes whatis new, giving readers an overview of value added and aroadmap in finding new information.

The book retains its original general format. However,readers may notice small, subtle changes in graphics, fonts,and layout that allow improved clarity of presentation. It isavailable in softcover, hardcover, and CD-ROM, meeting theneeds and interests of all potential users.

Risk management is the area of most significant expan-sion. This area was a bit thin in the 1996 edition, but notanymore. Chapter 11, Project Risk Management, was rewrit-ten to include six newly defined processes—risk manage-ment planning, risk identification, qualitative risk analysis,quantitative risk analysis, risk response planning, and riskmonitoring and control. The new approach brings riskmanagement into its rightful place as a critical element ofproject success and provides readers with a practicalmethodology, not just general theory or good advice.

Another significant contribution of this edition is amatrix that maps the relationships among the 9 projectmanagement knowledge areas, the 5 process groups, andthe 39 project management processes. Most readers woulddo this anyway. The published matrix provides a direct,readily available resource for “the big picture” of projectmanagement.

Earned value management is recast using the newer,simpler terms of planned value, earned value, and actualcosts versus the previous acronym soup of BCWS (budgetedcost of work scheduled), BCWP (budgeted cost of work per-formed), and ACWP (actual cost of work performed).Earned value concepts are integrated into several knowl-edge areas, showing the connection of this powerful controltool across the life of the project.

Several knowledge areas include new tools, showingthat the PMBOK® Guide itself is an example of progressiveelaboration. This latest edition adds detail to areas that pre-viously had been only generally described. Readers will findmuch more utility in this text that describes not only whatto do but also how to do it well.

Other improvements include more emphasis on cus-tomer focus, stronger linkage to organization strategy, andgreater acknowledgement of the role of project offices.Sharp-eyed readers will also notice standardization of termsand correction of previous errors throughout the text.

As an approved American national standard (ANSI/PMI99-001-2000), the PMBOK® Guide—2000 Edition is a must-have resource for anyone involved in project management.It provides enhanced knowledge for practitioners and willbe a foundation for project management professional certi-fication testing beginning in 2002. Obtain a copy now, learn

BOOKS


The Brand You50: Fifty Ways toTransform Yourself from an“Employee” into a Brand thatShouts Distinction, Commitment,and Passion! By Tom PetersAlfred A. Knopf Inc., New York, 1999

Reviewed by LTC John Lesko (U.S. Army Reserve), a Deci-sion Coach and Group Facilitator for Anteon Corp. Lesko is amember of the Army Acquisition Corps and a frequent con-tributor to Army AL&T. He can be contacted [email protected].

Tom Peters dedicates The Brand You50 to MJ, Oprah,and Martha. So the reader must ask, what can a member ofthe Defense acquisition workforce learn from Michael Jor-dan, Oprah Winfrey, and Martha Stewart? On first examina-tion, it would seem that these celebrities have absolutelynothing to do with research and development or the pro-curement of emerging national Defense capabilities. How-ever, after reading The Brand You50, this reviewer nowthinks otherwise.

The Brand You50 serves as the third leg of the three-legged stool in Tom Peters’ 50Lists Series of managementguidebooks. These books aim to revolutionize today’swhite-collar, knowledge-based workforce. In this reviewer’sopinion, such a goal truly qualifies as a WOW project. TomPeters delivers with a book design that makes for a quickand easy read. The author’s word choice and conversationalstyle are consistent with the other books in this series.Common design elements of the series are listed below.

• Each chapter is 4-6 pages long and focuses on either athought-provoking story or an insightful observation.

• Each chapter begins with a fairly clear thesis state-ment, which Peters labels “The Nub,” and ends with sug-gested “Things To Do (TTDs).”

• Each chapter holds your attention as the author citeskey statistics, outlines relevant business trends, or refersyou to additional readings.

According to Peters, “Brand YOUs take charge of theirown lives…They are not water-walkers…They know that BigCo. ain’t going to take care of them from cradle (age 21) tograve (age 65). They know that they are skills dependent,distinction dependent, network/Rolodex dependent, proj-ect (WOW project) dependent, and growth dependent.”Defense acquisition workers could benefit by adoptingthese traits.

So why would Tom Peters dedicate his book to MJ,Oprah, and Martha? Peters claims “Real Brand YOUs don’tneed full names.” People recognize their achievements asbeing bigger than life, audacious, and unique. All of thesecelebrities are at the top of their respective games, and theyhave achieved a level of distinction that sets them apartfrom their contemporaries. They are peerless, committed toexcellence, and their passion serves as an example for allothers.

On that note, perhaps it is time for each acquisitionworkforce member to re-examine his or her distinction,commitment, and passion. Further, as acquisition profes-sionals, we should look beyond the cynicism frequentlyheard when discussions turn to the Army’s new black beretor to the latest recruiting slogan. Being An Army of One orAn Acquisition Corps of One might just be a good thing if itinstills distinction, commitment, and passion.

BOOKS

Acquisition And Logistics:From Reform To Excellence

The Acquisition Reform Office has been renamed theAcquisition Excellence Office, reflecting the changing role ofacquisition and logistics in the Army’s transformation. Ledby Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White and Army Chiefof Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki, the Army is committed to fun-damental change to ensure the Nation’s security interestsare preserved in the face of the dramatically changingrequirements of the 21st century.

The acquisition and logistics reform legislation and ini-tiatives of the last decade have changed Army businessprocesses and partnerships with industry in significant andpositive ways. Taking these reform measures to the nextlevel of excellence is vital to achieving the new Army vision.By leveraging new technologies and applying a synthesis ofsound business practices, innovation, and leadershipexpertise, the Army will continue to maximize force mod-ernization, reduce total ownership costs, and significantlyreduce cycle times.

Today’s acquisition and logistics decisions will enablethe Army to sustain and recapitalize the Legacy Force andfield an Interim Force even as it transforms its presentstructure to achieve and sustain the Objective Force—acombat brigade deployable anywhere in the world in 96hours, a division on the ground in 120 hours, and five divi-sions on the ground in theater in 30 days.

Commitment and hard work throughout the Army’sacquisition, logistics, and technology communities will berequired to meet these tough challenges and achieve thenew Army vision. Given the progress that has been made todate, there is every reason to believe that the Army willachieve its fundamental goals and take acquisition andlogistics from reform to excellence.

For additional information, contact Monti Jaggers at(703) 681-7571 or [email protected].

ACQUISITION EXCELLENCE

from it, and provide comments to PMI so that the next edi-tion will be better still.

This book is available from the Project ManagementInstitute bookstore at www.pmibookstore.org or may bedownloaded free at www.pmi.org.


CD-ROM Test Reports AvailableDo you want to read a paper test report or take a virtual

tour of the test? The U.S. Army Operational Test Command(OTC) Airborne and Special Operations Test Directorate(ABNSOTD) at Fort Bragg, NC, provides the plan, the report,and other associated test documentation on a CD to its cus-tomers. The ultimate product is called a CD-ROM Test Report,and the first one was produced in January 2001.

The final production is a multimedia presentation thatincludes documents, images, videos, music, and well-thought-out hyperlinks. Also included with the CD-ROM isthe software necessary to view, print, and navigate the variousdocuments or key information associated with each project.This format not only tells the story of the test, but also pro-vides supporting documents and images that were notincluded in the report.

CD-ROM publishing is the most efficient way to organizeall the files about one project in one convenient package. Allthe documents relating to each test are easily accessible,whether the customer needs to print a document, copy andpaste text or graphics, or perform a search using keywords.The search link, included on the CD, will generate a list of allthe documents that contain the keywords or phrases that theuser specifies. For example, if users do not know the exact filename, but they know some keywords that might be includedin the document, all they need to do is use the search optionconveniently located at the main menu. The search feature isjust one of the user-friendly tools that are included on the CD.The following paragraphs address some of the other featuresof this multimedia report.

Instead of wondering how to open the CD, it is set toautomatically run once it is placed into the CD drive. Theautorun is linked to a welcome screen that automatically ac-cesses the proper files, loads them, and starts the main menu.

The main menu is the remote control or the browserpage that enables users to go to a preferred location on theCD. The main menu is designed specifically for each project.There is no guesswork involved; the main menu and sub-menus consist of buttons for viewing or printing documentsand photographs and playing videos. Bookmarks or hyper-links also make it easy for the user to navigate through thedocuments.

The hyperlinked photographs and video selections areintended to show the user any problems or damages encoun-tered during a test as well as many of the typical events. Theexecutive summary video, with voice-over narration by thetest officer, tells the story of the major events of the test. Otherphotographs that relate to the test but are not included in thetest report are easily accessible from the same CD. Alsoincluded is a video that shows the testing capabilities ofABNSOTD. From the airdrop of personnel, heavy equipment,and cargo, to the operational field testing of new weapons,equipment, and techniques, this unique organization ensuresthat soldiers can get to where they have to go—and fight andwin once there.

Forward thinking has allowed ABNSOTD to produce adynamic CD-ROM test report that incorporates interactivephotography and video in a manner that enhances test docu-mentation, thus making it more useful to our customers. So,before you read the paper copy of our test reports, take a vir-tual tour of the test instead.

This article was submitted by Nora Campbell, Chief of theEditorial Branch, ABNSOTD. For further information aboutthe CD-ROM Test Report, contact her at (910) 396-2613, DSN236-2613, or at [email protected].

Natick Leads Individual SoldierTransformation Effort

As the Army continues its transformation to the ObjectiveForce for 2020 and beyond, the U.S. Army Soldier and Biologi-cal Chemical Command (SBCCOM) Natick Soldier Center(NSC) is taking the lead in an effort to transform the individ-ual soldier.

With a substantial influx of research and developmentfunding, the Objective Force Warrior (OFW) Program will bethe Army’s flagship program to develop a revolutionary war-rior concept and will serve as an Objective Force transforma-tion pillar next to the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The pro-gram began in October 2001 with competing industrial teamsdeveloping concepts for a revolutionary future warrior. Theprogram will conclude in September 2008 with system-leveldemonstrations of up to two competing designs. A contractsolicitation package is currently being developed and shouldbe released in the December 2001 timeframe.

Using the Army’s soon-to-be-fielded Land Warrior as abaseline and point of departure, the OFW Program willdevelop revolutionary advances in soldier lethality, individualsurvivability, communication, power sources, soldier mobilityand sustainability, and human performance. Early and con-tinuous integration of all system and subsystem componentswill be the key to the success of the OFW Program.

By employing a contracting approach similar to thatbeing used for the FCS, the Army will award competing inte-gration contracts/agreements to industry teams. These teamswill be charged with developing a warfighter concept byleveraging ongoing Army, Defense Advanced Research Pro-jects Agency, and other DOD science and technology invest-ments, and by introducing the latest commercialtechnologies.

The Army is also seeking to entice “nontraditional”industrial players into the program as well. To attract thesenontraditionals, Natick will employ a new contracting/agreements approach that cuts red tape and makes it easierfor companies to do business with the government.

For more information about NSC or SBCCOM, see theWeb site at http://www.sbccom.army.mil.

NEWS BRIEFS


ARMY AL&T WRITER’S GUIDELINEShttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/

Army AL&T is a bimonthly professional development magazine published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,Logistics and Technology). The address for the Editorial Office is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY AL&T, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FTBELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the editorial staff are as follows:

Harvey L. Bleicher, Editor-in-Chief [email protected] (703)805-1035/DSN 655-1035Debbie Fischer-Belous, Executive Editor [email protected] (703)805-1038/DSN 655-1038Cynthia Hermes, Managing Editor [email protected] (703)805-1034/DSN 655-1034 Sandra R. Marks, Contract Support [email protected] (703)805-1007/DSN 655-1007Joe Stribling, Contract Support [email protected] (703)805-1036/DSN 655-1036

Datafax: (703)805-4218/DSN 655-4218

PurposeTo instruct members of the AL&T community about relevant processes, procedures, techniques, and management philosophy and to dissemi-

nate other information pertinent to the professional development of the Army Acquisition and Technology Workforce (A&TWF).

Subject MatterSubjects may include, but are not restricted to, professional development of the Army’s A&TWF, AL&T program accomplishments, technology

developments, policy guidance, information technology, and acquisition reform initiatives. Acronyms used in manuscripts, photos, illustrations, andcaptions must be kept to a minimum and must be defined on first reference. Articles submitted to Army AL&T will not be accepted if they havebeen scheduled for publication in other magazines.

Length of ArticlesArticles should be approximately 8 double-spaced typed pages, using a 20-line page, and must not exceed 1,600 words. Articles exceeding 1,600

words will not be accepted. Do not submit articles in a layout format or articles containing footnotes, endnotes, or acknowledgement lists of individ-uals.

Photos and IllustrationsA maximum of 3 photos or illustrations, or a combination of both, may accompany each article in a separate file from the manuscript. Photos

may be black and white or color. Illustrations must be black and white and must not contain any shading, screens, or tints. All electronic files ofphotos must have a resolution of at least 300 dpi (JPEG or TIFF). If they do not meet this requirement, glossy prints of all photos must be submittedvia U.S. mail, Fedex, etc. Photos and illustrations will not be returned unless requested.

Biographical SketchInclude a short biographical sketch of the author/s that includes educational background and current position.

ClearanceAll articles must be cleared by the author’s security/OPSEC office and public affairs office prior to submission. The cover letter accompanying

the article must state that these clearances have been obtained and that the article has command approval for open publication.Offices and individuals submitting articles that report Army cost savings must be prepared to quickly provide detailed documentation upon

request that verifies the cost savings and shows where the savings were reinvested. Organizations should be prepared to defend these monies in theevent that higher headquarters have a higher priority use for these savings. All Army AL&T articles are cleared by the Army Acquisition CareerManagement Office.

Submission DatesIssue Author’s DeadlineJanuary-February 15 OctoberMarch-April 15 DecemberMay-June 15 FebruaryJuly-August 15 AprilSeptember-October 15 JuneNovember-December 15 August

Submission ProceduresArticle manuscripts (in MS Word) and illustrations/photos (300 dpi JPEG or TIFF) may be submitted via e-mail to

[email protected], or via U.S. mail to the address in the first paragraph at the top of this page. All submissions must include theauthor’s mailing address; office phone number (DSN and commercial); and a typed, self-adhesive return address label.


In the wake of growing global instability, diverse and increasingly complexthreats pose a direct challenge to our national security and our national defense. Ourmilitary must be decisive in all areas of the operational spectrum. We cannot focus ononly one area at the exclusion of others; we must broaden our capabilities.

The multitude of threats, coupled with rising worldwide political uncertainties,is in opposition to the sovereignty of all nations. This vast multitude of threats rangesfrom domestic disasters on the left side of the spectrum to conventional and nuclearwar on the right side of the spectrum. In addition, there are environmental andhumanitarian challenges that must be addressed. Combined, these threats comprisethe “full-spectrum threat.”

This full-spectrum threat evolved primarily from post-Cold War insurgencies,contingencies, and conflicts to today’s multiple global threats. Awareness of globalthreats was made possible as the result of information technology (IT). IT accessibilityand affordability provide the capability to attain a large volume of data at phenomenalspeed. Further, information-based technology, devices, and weapons give our enemiesknowledge-enhanced capabilities that serve as substitutes for their lack of militarypower.

The full-spectrum threat also empowers radical elements, terrorist organiza-tions, and law-defiant subcommunities to become destructive enemies of sovereignstates. These groups will continue to emerge and gain momentum toward global insta-bility and disruption of diplomatic harmony. Global terrorist activities supported bycounterfeit and fanatic religious and political groups impose equal challenges formaintaining global stability and peace. As a united Nation, we must be prepared tofight and win the next battles, ranging from homeland defense, to global defense, tomajor theaters of war.

This full-spectrum threat denotes the wide range of military operations ourNation must be capable of resolving anytime, anywhere, and at any level. Our Army isfully conscience of these multiple threats, and we are rapidly employing numerousenhancements to change the way the Army organizes and fights. The roadmap to dothis is the Army Transformation Campaign Plan, a direct result of the Army vision. Thiscritical transformation will result in a superior world-class ground force defined as theObjective Force. This Objective Force will enable our soldiers to decisively fight andwin the first—and all subsequent—terrestrial battles at any point across the spectrumof military operations.

LTC Derek L. AndersonOffice of the Objective Force Task Force

SPECTRUM OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

PERIODICALSARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567

PERIODICALSARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567