discussion of the various trade-offs of each approach.
Participants discussed command- and-control high-level capability requirements, such as handling of the message information, encryption, data resilience and security classification. For example, the Fantastic Data team described its approach of creating an internodal network where data could flow between every munition on the field. Te Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems team discussed its approach to achieving long-haul communications by integrat- ing Iridium satellite connectivity into the munition field. Textron Systems went into detail on its short-haul and long-haul communication concepts. NAL Research described its road map to get to a system- on a-chip solution.
Government and industry panels candidly identified schedule and performance risks for each industry and government approach, which, in any other forum, would be sidelined for private meetings
individually held between each industry member and government representatives. However, with the ground rules agreed upon and the right people in attendance, the opportunity could not be missed to have these discussions in order to get real- time, honest feedback.
Tis was also a forum to present govern- ment solutions, offering opportunities to gain insight into alternate approaches as risk mitigations. Te government team presented key networking concepts and encryption approaches to lead the discus- sion on trade-offs. Industry members benefited by hearing about government advances such as a new, miniaturized encryption chip developed by the Air Force that enables unattended munition systems to handle encrypted informa- tion, a capability that provides a broader look at all potential options for command- and-control approaches. Some of the government solutions were offered up to industry for further analysis and applica- bility to their concepts.
This unusually frank and open forum provided the platform for industry to ask questions of not only government repre- sentatives, but also of other members of industry, both poten- tial collaborators and competitors.
CONCLUSION Overall, the forum was a unique oppor- tunity for information exchange among industry members and the government. Its uniqueness was that it was not just a government-to-industry exchange of information, but also allowed for indus- try-to-industry discussion. Tis exchange provided CCS with an opportunity to hear industry competitors ask questions and critique each other’s approaches, giving the government valuable insight for future decisions and investments.
Armed with the information presented, CCS is narrowing the focus of its efforts for terrain-shaping concepts and directing that aspects of the system be implemented in future phases of the program while ensuring that they are not duplicating work across the various contractors. In one
instance, the deputy project manager for CCS provided candid feedback directly to one of the contractors on modifications to its approach after seeing what others had presented.
Te forum also brought to light other technologies that were not previously known by either the program office or the system contractors, such as the Air Force’s encryption chip. Te insight and knowl- edge gained at this forum will enable the program to drive partnerships among industry partners and narrow down potential solutions for the CTSO capa- bility. Tis type of venue is something the program office will certainly look to pursue again.
For more information, contact the authors at waliul .
mizan.civ@
mail.mil or
sean.r.stevens.civ@
mail.mil.
WALIUL MIZAN is an electronics engi- neer for ARDEC at Picatinny Arsenal and supports the GLMR program. He holds an M.S. from the Stevens Institute of Technol- ogy and a B.S. from the Rutgers School of Engineering, both in electrical and computer engineering. He has more than 15 years of acquisition experience and is Level III certi- fied in systems engineering. He lectures at the Armaments University in the field of applied electromagnetics.
SEAN STEVENS is a GLMR project officer for PM CCS at Picatinny Arsenal. He holds an MBA from the Florida Institute of Tech- nology and a B.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Delaware. He has more than 10 years of acquisition experi- ence and is Level III certified in program management. He is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps and a recipient of the Achievement Medal for Civilian Service.
HTTPS: / /
ASC.ARMY.MIL
29
ACQUISITION
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152
