Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

Army integrating FCS, blue-force tracking

The Army is looking at ways to get today’s blue-force tracking equipment to swap data with the next-generation Future Combat Systems networking gear, a decade-long, multibillion-dollar effort the service has dubbed Unified Battle Command.

The Army’s 40,000 vehicles equipped with blue-force tracking — formally called Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below — now can send their locations to FCS-equipped vehicles but receive FCS data only in limited amounts and with difficulty.

FCS gear is expected to start entering the force in 2010, but it would cost billions of dollars to replace all the existing FBCB2 radios, terminals and displays. That means the two systems will serve together for many years.

So the Army wants to see whether it can make FBCB2 gear do a bit more of what FCS gear can do, but without the hefty price tag. That starts with getting the two kinds of devices to talk to each other.

“You look at the capacities of the different networks and identify what information you would like to pass and create architecture to put gateways in place to make those things happen,” said Brig. Gen. Nick Justice, program executive office for Command Control Communications Tactical at Fort Monmouth, N.J.

Unified Battle Command is one of several efforts to improve and extend FBCB2 gear. The FCS effort is likely the one with further-reaching effect.

Among other things, the FBCB2 screens might be made to display some of the larger data sets provided by FCS, such as terrain and locations of unmanned aerial vehicles.

After hosting several summits to address the issue, the Army in recent weeks launched a 120-day study directed by the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for procurement. The study involves FCS computer engineers, and the Army Communication Electronics Research Development Engineering Center, Fort Monmouth, N.J.

Understanding data

“We are looking at how we will structure data and see how we will send unique data items. For instance, if FCS has an unmanned system sending data, we want to understand the data and allow a current force platform to discover it and consume it,” said Col. David Moore, project manager for Army Battle Command Systems, a Fort Monmouth unit that runs the development of several battlefield information-technology systems. “We are taking a very detailed look at each network’s architecture and where the friction points are and where the areas of commonality are. Where it makes sense, we are perfectly willing to bring FCS architecture and software into the current force.”

That may mean importing into FBCB2 chunks of code from the FCS operating system, called System of Systems Common Operating Environment.

“We are looking at the portability of SOSCOE is and what can be decoupled from the FCS suite of applications,” said Eric Goodman, who runs battle-command efforts in the Army’s FCS program.

Some work is to be done to make sure FCS can draw upon current Army databases; in May, Lockheed Martin won a $36 million contract to help.

Several years ago, the Army envisioned moving the entire force to FCS-type networking, which is to be based on the next-generation Joint Tactical Radio Systems. But years of delay in the effort to create the software-programmable JTRS, combined with the wartime necessity for battlefield networking, forced the Army to keep buying thousands of FBCB2 sets — so many that service officials began to wonder whether they should abandon near-term plans to integrate FCS-equipped units in the war zone.

But in field tests earlier this year, JTRS, SOSCOE and other parts of the FCS network showed signs of technical maturity. That led to a renewed urgency in the effort to get the two networks talking to each other. It also led to the realization that the Army would need new tactics, techniques and procedures to help units equipped with different battle-command networks to operate together. Training and Doctrine Command is working on them.

“There are fundamentally different concepts of operations that the Army has defined for the FCS force,” Moore said. “We need TRADOC support to bring current and future force concept of operations together.”

Timeframe

Within two years, the Army wants prototype hardware and software fixes that will allow the two networks to easily share voice and more kinds of data. Within five years, the two should be able to exchange live video from UAVs and other sensors.

“Within 10 years, we hope to have full Unified Battle Command with a common, consistent suite of capability up from the soldier level to the command-post level with a unified architecture which does not exist now,” Goodman said.

Even as the Army works to link FBCB2 to FCS, it is also working to improve the blue-force tracking gear. For example, Northrop Grumman has been working to put other info on FBCB2 displays.

“We did a demonstration where up would come the latest intel of a village where I need a photograph and an information summary. You can’t get video but can access the latest intel report,” said Joe Taylor, Northrop Grumman's vice president of land systems.

The firm also has been working to hook the Boomerang acoustic sniper detection system into FBCB2. When a gunshot rings out, a yellow icon at the calculated location of the shooter appears on the display.

“The engaged element can then react as appropriate, while its headquarters can use the track in further developing the red picture. That is real-time intelligence in action,” Taylor said.

On July 22, the Army ordered 8,131 Boomerangs from BBN Technologies in a $73.8 million deal to outfit FBCB2 vehicle displays with sniper-detection capability.

Moreover, FBCB2 is also hooking up with the Marine Corps’ blue-force tracking system, the Command and Control Personal Computer.

Unlike the FBCB2 gear, which is largely tied to special hardware, the C2PC software runs on Windows PCs. C2PC was designed to help Marine Air-Ground Task Forces coordinate with other air and naval units.

Under the integration plan set out by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Army and Marine brigades and smaller units will use FBCB2, while brigades and larger units will use C2PC, said a senior industry official familiar with FBCB2.

The cost of outfitting vehicles with FCS gear is still being determined, FCS spokesman Paul Mehney said in a statement.

“We are not in a position to speculate or comment on what costs per vehicle may be as we enter negotiation on production costs with our contractor,” Mehney said.

In December, the Army-Marine Corps board established security standards to guide the integration.

By 2010, the two are to become part of the Joint Battle Command Platform and be installed on up to 120,000 Army vehicles and 20,000 Marine Corps vehicles at a cost of roughly $20,000 per vehicle. The Marine Corps is looking to join the Army’s large contract for FBCB2 hardware, an industry executive said.

“The JBCP program is a follow-on to the FBCB2 program, which has been tremendously successful in our war. Having a [blue-force tracking] sensor on vehicles is tremendously valuable to us,” Justice said.

“We are working on doing some of the same things with some of our sister services. We actually have Air Force units that have our equipment.”

The Army already is buying vehicle terminals that can handle FBCB2 and C2PC software. The DRS Technologies Rugged Vehicle System, called JV-5, has faster processors, larger hard drives and better expandability than the current EV4 terminals, said Bill Guyan, DRS vice president of business development.

The Army is looking at whether JV-5 could handle parts of SOSCOE as part of an upgraded FBCB2, Goodman said. In addition, the service is exploring ways elements of JV-5 can be integrated with FCS’ Integrated Computer System.