He went on to highlight the development of other SWAP ECPs for Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicles and BFIST.

“We had also looked at doing a standard modernization program for Stryker but we are moving that one to define an ECP,” he said. “It’s a little later in the game than the others, because we got a little bit later start.”

The final “top level” program highlight offered by Davis was the Paladin PIM.

“We have seven prototypes running around today, finishing up technical tests, and we are still looking to get a ‘Milestone C’ [decision] in June of ’13 [approving the system for production and deployment]. And so far, things are going very well with the PIM.”

Davis’ broad combat fleet overview was followed by in-depth briefings from project managers (PMs) for both the HBCT and Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT).

 

HBCT

“Given OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] and the rapidly evolving threat, the vehicles had to adapt quickly, because they were designed for a ‘Fulda Gap’ scenario and they found themselves in an intensely urban environment,” began Col. William Sheehy, PM HBCT. “And we did a lot of good stuff – a lot of good stuff provided to the vehicles for them to be as successful as they were.”

He then highlighted the “penalty” costs of subsystems ranging from counter radio-controlled IED electronic warfare (CREW) jammers to additional radio systems.

“We are beyond our space, weight, and power specifications on the vehicles as they sit today in the motor pools of our Army,” he said. “I will tell you that it was through no malicious intent. It was all for good reason. And the vehicles are still responding well today. However, we have a responsibility to get those vehicle [performance characteristics] back.

“We recognized that situation about three or four years ago,” Sheehy continued. “And we decided that we had to come up with a concept for the operation. It was a two-phased operation. Phase 1 was addressing the vehicles that we have in the motor pool today – at Fort Hood, Texas, or Fort Lewis [Wash.], or wherever they are sitting – and we had to ‘posture’ those vehicles to take on what the United States Army continues to develop. The United States Army doesn’t sit still. And, as you know, the enemy doesn’t sit still. So we continue to evolve capabilities that have to be hosted on our combat platforms. So Phase 1 addressed those vehicles in the motor pool in order to get them to accept those additional capabilities on board and host other new capabilities that we didn’t even know about.”

Phase 1 has been briefed up through the chain of command and approved as an ECP, which should be funded over the next few years.

“Phase 2 was a much more ambitious, more aggressive phase,” he said. “It was to look at the next generation of vehicles; new CDDs [capability development documents]; all new requirements; spanning the capabilities; all that good stuff.”

Sheehy continued, “We were briefing through the chain of command again for the second phase and we hit the vice chief [of staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli] in August [2011], about five days prior to going forward to OSD [Office of Secretary of Defense] for initiation of the programs – and the vice chief said, ‘Stop. I want you to go back and I want you to do as much ECP work as you can do in Phase 2.’ And his rationale is that he sat in that office for an extended period of time and he has seen the problems we have had moving forward with [some] milestone programs. So his intent was to address as much as we possibly could within the ECP framework.”