By Ann Roosevelt
FT. MONROE, Va.–The Army has a list of rank order capabilities for modernizing its brigade combat teams (BCT) with associated resources that reflect today’s conflicts, but is adaptable for changing environments, an official said.
“We recommended to the Department of the Army the best list of capabilities the BCT doesn’t have,” Rickey Smith, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center-Forward (ARCIC), part of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), told reporters here Sept. 15.
That list reflects the priorities from theater commanders, the state of technology and an acknowledgement that the environment and technology–and fiscal resources–change, often quickly.
“If the Army looses money, it has the list and can cut,” Smith said, leaving the highest priority items in place. This hews to the Army’s desire for an affordable modernization plan.
TRADOC has been briefing its BCT incremental modernization plan and operational requirements document for a new ground combat vehicle to senior service leaders, and in the near future will brief the new Army Secretary John McHugh, who was sworn in yesterday.
The new ground combat vehicle would replace the canceled manned ground vehicle portion of the Future Combat System (FCS), terminated by Defense Secretary Gates. It was Gates who killed the vehicle portion of FCS and told the services to focus on current conflicts and incorporate lessons learned in its plans now, rather than focusing on a later time.
Task Force 120, where Smith was chief of staff, looked at “what are the highest value items we can put in brigade combat teams that are not already there, list them by operational value, rank order, and given a resource number.”
The first capability package for fielding in 2012 includes spinouts from the FCS program, plus accelerated items.
While the rank ordered list is not for public consumption as it has yet to be finally approved, Smith said the Class 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, produced by Honeywell [HON], is “high on the priority list.”
Here, for example, the incremental fielding approach works in the Army’s favor as it “can make it easier to forecast funding,” and take advantage sooner of mature technology, he said.
For example, while the Class 1 is not in its final form, the ability to field capability every two years means the Army could buy the current version for four years, or two capability sets, and stop, or move to buying the newest version. “We’re not laying out 30-40 year timelines.”
Capability doesn’t always have to be equipment, either, Smith said. A language and culture capability was rated in the top five on the list, because of its operational value for small units who often work directly with populations.
The Human Terrain Team capability was also highly rated for its ability to help commanders understand and better frame operations.
The incremental approach also provides industry with time to ramp up production lines, and in some cases, allow competition for “who provides the best bang for the buck,” Smith said.
Similarly the network linking soldiers to each other and their equipment will be fielded in a package, incrementally upgrading software and waveforms.
“The biggest shortfall is in the network,” Smith said. The connectivity is there, but not the capacity. That means some acquisition programs would have to change.
For example, in the Joint Tactical Radio System, the Handheld/Manpack/Small Form Fit version “is doing well.” Therefore, decisions could revolve around potentially increasing the number of handheld radios, or perhaps increasing the number of vehicle mounting adaptors so soldiers can get in a vehicle and plug in their radios.
The incremental approach allows time for new capabilities to be brought in with all their associated kit: the doctrine, organization, and training pieces required.
“We want to do it in small steps,” Smith said.
The incremental, shorter time horizons, will be associated with Army Force Generation, as BCTs return from deployment, reset, train individually and as a unit and are ready to redeploy. The complete packages will be fielded to a BCT, as early in the training cycle as possible.
The Army is already considering the second incremental capability package slated for 2013-2014. It is still early in the process and requires additional analysis, Smith said.
One example is the Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) vehicle, under development by Lockheed Martin [LMT], initially for the Future Combat Systems program. “Do we know if in 2014 it will be go-to-war ready…not lab ready?” Smith said. The Army will know more in about a year.
The incremental modernization cycle is expected to continue, and reflect the changing nature of operations the Army conducts. Mixed with lessons learned from current conflicts and service activity, modeling and simulation, warfighter assessments, and testing, more capabilities will be examined and considered for operational value and priority listing. The cycle will continue for modernizing BCTs, and in the future, the Army will be examining doing something similar with its other formations, such as combat aviation.