Army Acquisition and C4I
Working as I do in the Military Acquisition area- I do Developmental Test on Navy aircraft mission systems, a few of the buzzwords are familiar to me, as well as the optimistic tone. That being said there’s goodness here too. Firm Fixed Price Contracts should be the norm, but unfortunately the industry heavy hitters can command Cost Plus, which is just what it sounds like. For example, the Navy pays for software, finds faults, and then pays to have it fixed. Lookin’ at you, Boeing. The Army’s being smart, but then again this is a relatively small effort- $39M USD is a drop in the bucket. I also like commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) as if saves tax dollars by freeing components from MilSpec standards, which can boarder on the ridiculous. That’s for another post and another time. For now, Army, meet your new C4I system coming to you via Systematic.
Defense Tech
Army Selects New Battle-Management System
By: Matt Cox
The U.S. Army has selected Systematic to provide the service with a new command and control, and battle-management system designed to direct digital information across handheld, mounted and command post mission command systems.
The contract, a Firm Fixed Price and Time and Material with a one-year base and four one-year options, is valued at approximately $39 million, according to a recent Army press release.
Systematic’s SitaWare will provide scalable and seamless information sharing across systems and devices, taking a significant step toward the Army’s continued evolution of its Command Post Computing Environment, according to Army officials.
“SitaWare provides an out-of-the-box solution to synching mission command data across echelons and provides a leap forward in the Army’s goal of migrating to a common architecture,” said Lt. Col. Shane Taylor, product manager for the Army’s Tactical Mission Command, part of the Program Executive Office Command, Control and Communications-Tactical.
“It meets two of our needs in that it will provide soldiers within a Command Post with simplified, improved C2 (command and control), as well as better interoperability with coalition forces. Additionally, it provides the basis for the Army’s initial, common framework that we will use to converge warfighting functions.”
As a scalable command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) system, SitaWare supports infrastructure services to deliver digital information across handheld, mounted and command post mission command systems. Acting as a digital mediation service between the devices, it enables the processing and delivery of mission command data to commanders regardless of the device, the release states.
The commercial-off-the-shelf product will provide a key part of the CP CE infrastructure, which the Army anticipates fielding to its first unit in fiscal year 2019, Army officials maintain.
Command Post Computing Environment, or CP CE, will begin to eliminate the necessity for separate hardware, reducing commanders’ need to “mentally” fuse digital information displayed on multiple systems, across different screens and with different user interfaces.
“We are seeking to rapidly simplify the large amount of C2/SA (situational awareness) capabilities and to make them scalable in support of early entry through mature combat operations,” said Col. Troy Crosby, project manager for Mission Command, part of PEO C3T. “The procurement of SitaWare products, combined with our other developmental efforts, will provide those critical simplified, modular capabilities.”
CP CE is one of six computing environments that make up the Army’s Common Operating Environment (COE), a collection of technologies and standards that bring stovepiped systems onto a common foundation, allowing the Army to deliver warfighting capabilities as software applications, according to Army officials.
Category: Politics
Okay, okay! I thought the whole problem was solved when Grace Hopper wrote COBOL. Instead, we get CLUTTER?
I think I glazed enough eyes over with this without getting into the evolution of computer programming, and there’s enough in here for a good round of Buzzword Bingo. But I thought folks may like to see where the tax dollars are going; some good, some no much.
Don’t get me started on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
*grin*
did you say clitoral ship??? just asking…
Buzzword bingo – a favorite. When my lefty daughter did a post on Facebook gushing feminist cliches, I debated commenting simply “Bingo!” but was afraid she would either understand and be pissed off at me for life, or worse, think I was agreeing with her.
Hahaha…I was having flashbacks to my pre-retirement days sitting through PP briefs.
OK, is it scary that I actually understand all that? And that to me it appears pretty straight-forward.
As for Admiral “Amazing” Grace Hopper – we (I) still use COBOL, but that is for business management data purposes, not for C and C on a battlefield. Not nearly agile enough for that. But in her honor I have a clock that runs backwards in my office, as well.
My concern for any software is to ensure that security is maintained religiously. More so for OTS stuff, since the bad guys can get a copy of it as well and reverse engineer it to find the security holes.
Well, there’s a few minutes of my life I’ll never get back. Is there a Cliff Notes version for those of us out of the loop? (Whatever loop it is?)
/s
They are buying some commercial, off-the-shelf software to help commanders coordinate all the info they get on the battlefield so they can kill more of the bad guys while keeping the good guys safe.
There y’go.
Thanks, Gray. I thought so, but at my age, I don’t take much for granted. All those geewhiz words ‘fused me.
I could be wrong, but here’s a possible explanation for what’s going on:
For a long time, the Army has wanted to use computers not just as a tool for things such as logistics, but also down to the level of tactical operations. For example, do we take the hill by direct assault, do we flank it, or do we bypass it entirely? Something that might seem like a relatively simple decision, but also something very difficult to teach a machine how to decide to do.
The general intent, at least at this point, is not so much to replace human commanders as it is to make them smarter.
As it happened, the DoD handed the problem a few years ago to the wizards at DARPA who gave it a project name, CATO, and then farmed out parts of it to others including the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Some of the machine learning work SRI did was spun off into the public sector as the Siri personal assistant application for the iPhone.
CATO was designed to be modular so that parts such as Siri could be developed independently but fit in a common framework. The name for the framework has evolved over time; it now apparently goes by the handle CP CE. One of the questions the press release doesn’t seem to answer is whether SitaWare fits into the CP CE framework by replacing an existing module, or if it’s something entirely new.
FFP contracts don’t work with programs that need research and development. No one would bid on them or crap would be delivered. There is a reason why only America has GPS satelites, frequency hopping comms, worldwide air mobility, etc.
Ahhhhh, Russia developed their own gps. Called GLONASS. Just sayin’.
GLONASS doesn’t work. And has never worked.
Maybe they get it to work with a FFP contract to Amazon.
Google is your friend.
Thank Hollywood’s Ms. Lamarr for bringing us frequency hopping. And no, it isn’t ‘Hedley’.
Hey, it’s 1873; you can sue her!
Thanks for the memories, AW1Ed..being a former graduate of DAU, understood every word you wrote..👍
If any of you ever have trouble falling asleep, try reading the FAR or the DFAR (look that up in your Funk and Wagnall)….or check out the Life Cycle Process..*Yawn*
😉
This might be a move forward. The multiple provider model up to this point has produced an internal arms race of competing systems and infrastructure. All of which are impossible to keep straight or truly master at the organizational level.
If this is bringing unity of effort to the ABCS efforts, then it is a good first step.
As someone who works in Defense Acquisition. The contract type is not all goodness. The T&M portion concerns me greatly. Especially if it is associated with the software/integration. T&M is the least restrictive cost reimburseable contract type generally appropriate for high risk development efforts or one s that have poorly defined requirements.
4 years working with FAR and NATO. Interesting story, my nephews’ wife and I were talking about SABINE and one of the aircraft I was involved in purchasing when it came up that her father knew about a certain enlisted guy that screwed the Belgiqe’s out of almost 1.5$million on a project NATO wanted in 85. I laughed and said, “Yeah, that was me. I told them 85k was budgeted and that’s what they would get.” Not happy campers, but it was a great time to be in the USAF.
Not sure if COTS components are robust enough to last long in combat…