After gunnery exercises, DRTS subsystems support training data analysis, preparation, presentation, and immediate feedback in the AAR theater on the range. Com- manders and crews alike benefit from the real-time precise analysis of gunnery tables from individual through platoon levels.
MULTIPLE PRESSURES The RLFC upgrade manifested all the challenges inherent to an acquisition program with regard to cost, schedule, and performance. The requirement to upgrade the RLFC ranges was identified in March 2010, with initial operational capability (IOC) set for no later than May 30, 2011—a small window of opportunity from contract execution to completion, and a radical departure from the three-year military construction and DRTS installation timeframe required for similar digital ranges.
The budgetary latitude to initiate the unprogrammed project was gained through a congressional funding addition and the skillful reprogramming of DRTS funds.
Trade-off analysis was also an integral part of maintaining functionality and reduc- ing costs in key areas. A prime example
INTEGRATED UNITS
An M1A2 Sep v2 tank conducts live fire on the new DMPRC. The tank is instrumented with the Inte- grated Player Unit, which supports the training with wireless data streaming.
was the busbar and rail system for Mov- ing Armor Targets. The Training Support Activity Korea (TSAK) wanted to retain the existing busbar system on the DMPRC, but its unsafe condition and degradation warranted a complete replacement with an unexpected cost of roughly $650,000. The trade-off in this instance came from the installation of docking stations and use of the current rail system, which cost only $150,000. System functionality was maintained, and the solution was accept- able to TSAK and 2ID.
One of the important objectives of the range redesign was to make the range more tactically challenging to tank and Brad- ley crews with “rolling battle positions,” crossing lanes, and low-water crossings. These additional construction activities, begun after initial DRTS installation, introduced performance and schedule challenges. In a traditional range project cycle, USACE completes all range design and construction before instrumentation occurs. Concurrent construction threat- ened to change the range architecture markedly, which in turn would alter the Radio Frequency analysis for network coverage and potentially create conflicts among competing contractors.
All of these conditions would extend the schedule under normal conditions. The logistical issues with a project of this scope were multiplied because the project was conducted in a remote OCONUS location. The time and distance factors imposed by shipping components to Korea from CONUS affected order and ship times for all components, Interna- tional Traffic in Arms Regulations actions for sensitive items, and responsiveness to unanticipated component needs.
Fortunately, the challenges imposed by reg- ulatory constraints, time, and distance were identified early in the acquisition process and were worked intensively by the DRTS Team, system integrators, and TSAK to resolve or mitigate logistical problems.
COORDINATING SUCCESS The 2ID leadership, in concert with TSAK, supporting contractors, and the DRTS Team, worked from a Common Operating Picture (COP) to coordinate all construction, instrumentation, and tactical unit support requirements toward the desired end state. The COP, in con- junction with weekly in-progress reviews, became an invaluable tool to manage the expectations of all stakeholders, to identify and resolve problems immedi- ately, and to adjust rapidly and efficiently to changing environmental conditions that ultimately would affect project completion. The reviews included all stakeholders and initially were conducted biweekly. As the testing phase neared, the frequency increased to weekly in light of the dynamic nature of concurrent efforts.
Achieving the RLFC objectives would not have been possible without a COP that was reviewed and endorsed by the Assis- tant Division Commander (Maneuver), BG Charles L. Taylor, and the command’s willingness to dedicate Soldiers and equip- ment to support the incremental testing
AS
C.ARMY.MI L 59
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
