![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/3WENA5W4EJFV7IFRT4N4HQLYCI.jpg\")
How are you assessing what can be done through government science and technology projects versus the gaps you need industry to fill?<\/b><\/p>\n
Donald Coulter, senior science and technology adviser at the Network CFT:<\/b>\u00a0That was one of the things we learned and are getting better at, even as we operate multiple capability sets at the same time. We see the lessons learned, we\u2019re seeing the questions that we need to answer and the questions we need to ask earlier on, and we\u2019re looking at those design goals and looking at all the potential things \u2014 whether it\u2019s government off-the-shelf, whether it\u2019s commercial off-the-shelf, whether it\u2019s academia. We\u2019re looking at all the potential sources and solutions and then saying: \u201cHow do those help us achieve that goal?\u201d<\/p>\n
We\u2019ll continue to measure those out in regard to the experimentation plan. That allows us to quantify the effectiveness of different potential solutions as part of the solution.<\/p>\n
Now that CS 21 is out, what would you have done differently and will now implement for experiments, critical design reviews and deliveries of future capability sets? What will you maintain from the CS 21 process?<\/b><\/p>\n
Winterle:<\/b>\u00a0We\u2019re fielding quite a few new capabilities all the time. It\u2019s important to meet with brigade commanders and senior leaders in the brigade to drive home how important the training aspect is and learn these new systems, but also work with them around their schedule, the systems of systems integration-level training, which is crucial because it\u2019s not enough to learn how to use your radio \u2014 it\u2019s performing a data connection for something else. You have to know how that works.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve totally revamped a lot of the training courses we started with in capability set fielding to the extent to where if that radio touches six things, those six things are in the room during the radio training.<\/p>\n
You\u2019re approaching the critical design review for CS 23. Where does the experimentation stand? What else must get done before the review?<\/b><\/p>\n
Maier:<\/b>\u00a0There are a lot of run-up events for this particular design review. Between preliminary design review, which was April 2021, and critical design review, which is April 2022, there\u2019s a whole series of touchpoints, soldier experimentation and test events.<\/p>\n
An indirect answer to your question: We just got done with our [second] lab-based risk reduction [effort]. On top of that, we have technical tests in January. On top of that, we have a couple of adversarial and cyber tests coming up.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s three or four major test events between now and the critical design review, and then a few more even after CDR just to make sure we\u2019re good from a test strategy. While it\u2019s important to get technology out to units as quickly as possible, it\u2019s important to also overlay, make sure that we have that robust test and experimentation process. That ends up being very significant.<\/p>\n
While we\u2019re leaning forward on capability set \u201823 and getting ready for CDR, we\u2019re also leaning forward on capability set \u201825. I have an armored brigade combat team characterization ongoing right now. We\u2019re doing peer reviews with 3rd Infantry Division.<\/p>\n
We have parallel tracks of events.<\/p>\n
Where are you in the design phase for CS 25?<\/b><\/p>\n
Coulter:<\/b>\u00a0We just had our capability set requirements review that laid out design goals and capabilities we\u2019re looking at in \u201825, in \u201827 and beyond. We\u2019re moving to a functional review next year.<\/p>\n
A lot of the science and technology that\u2019s going in, even at capability set \u201825 \u2014 we\u2019ve already been executing S&T, we\u2019ve already published where we want to go. Industry is tracking that, and they\u2019re bringing things to experiments as well. We\u2019re demonstrating some of that stuff at Project Convergence events. We\u2019ve tested out some technical perspective and performance perspective things at like NetModX. We\u2019re continuing to do that annually and evolve that.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re getting closer and closer and refining it, and the beauty of having these capability set requirements reviews and for future capability sets is we\u2019re asking the same exact questions that we ask in the preliminary design reviews and the CDRs [so] we know exactly where we\u2019re driving to and what the holes in our knowledge are that we need to get clarity on as we continue forward.<\/p>\n
When will experimentation for CS 25 take place? Is the characterization event part of experimentation?<\/b><\/p>\n
Winterle:<\/b>\u00a0The first major one is a battalion-level armored brigade combat team characterization using prototyped systems. That is in the fourth quarter of 2021. It\u2019s earlier than what we would normally do, it\u2019s slightly earlier than what we did for the Strkyers. Typically it takes six to nine months just to get the equipment ready to start one of those events. We\u2019re starting a little earlier based on what we learned on Strykers and the same kind of mounted systems, what we learned in CS 21 characterization. We\u2019re able to cheat forward and start that event a little earlier.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s really the first field experiment, if you will, if you don\u2019t count the [brigade combat team communications] on-the-move [pilot] and the things that we\u2019ve already done, which you could really say translates to or is more along the lines of capability set \u201825.<\/p>\n
Maier:\u00a0<\/b>I think one of the reasons for starting that armored brigade combat team characterization early is they had something like seven or eight different armored platforms up in PEO Ground Combat Systems, and we have to make sure the kit works with a few variants of Strykers. Really looking at making sure we get each of the different variants scheduled, available [and ready for] training. I think a lot of that takes a lot of extra coordination, so that early engagement helps.<\/p>\n
Col. Shane Taylor, project manager for tactical network at PEO C3T:<\/b>\u00a0But the early start to that will have kit on the ground in January down at Fort Stewart in Georgia.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s difficult to forecast what you need ahead of time. Is there a more efficient model for predicting what you need, as opposed to having to make predictions in a three- to five-year budgeting cycle?<\/b><\/p>\n
Maier:<\/b>\u00a0Getting that early user feedback definitely helped not only inform the design but also maybe in some cases inform the requirements. We have a very close partnership with the Army capability managers that write all the requirements. In many cases, they\u2019re going back and doing revisions or updates to the requirements. We can coordinate with HQDA and say: \u201cHey, [this might have to change because] this unit gave us feedback.\u201d<\/p>\n
It seems the network is delivering capabilities that provide an incremental upgrade to what forces previously had. There\u2019s a lot of active experimentation throughout this entire integrated tactical network process. How would you rate your progress in terms of capabilities, timeliness, funding and resources?<\/b><\/p>\n
Taylor:<\/b>\u00a0It\u2019s kind of driven by the nature of the network. If you look at what we do for a living, the network in and of itself is going to be iterative, whether we want it to be or not. I think that process that the team applied to this is necessitated by the fact that our kit only lasts so long based on obsolescence and things like near-peer cyber opportunities and things like that. I think it lends itself to this kind of construct to begin with, or else you end up with systems in the field long beyond their effectiveness.<\/p>\n
Winterle:<\/b>\u00a0It\u2019s also just the very nature of technology. We designed CS 21 around a modular concept.<\/p>\n
I have a capability gap. I don\u2019t care when a vendor solution shows up to the table: They\u2019re all going to be evaluated against each other in a competitive fashion, and the best of breed gets plugged in and integrated. In a year from now, a different capability [might] meet that \u2014 it is either cheaper, better, \u201cfill in the blank.\u201d<\/p>\n
Most of these things can be reprogrammed and integrated in a modular fashion fairly quickly, unlike putting a new weapon system on a helicopter or an unmanned vehicle. They\u2019re also a lot less expensive, if you\u2019re talking radios \u2014 they\u2019re a lot less expensive than a weapon system.<\/p>\n