Raytheon: C4ISR Future?
(click to expand)

As video communications is integrated into robots, soldiers, and UAVs, and network-centric warfare becomes the organizing principle of American warfighting, front-line demands for bandwidth are rising sharply. The Transformation Communications Satellite (TSAT) System is part of a larger effort by the US military to address this need.

The final price tag on the entire TSAT program has been quoted at anywhere from $14-25 billion through 2016, which includes the satellites, the ground operations system, the satellite operations center and the cost of operations and maintenance. By mid-2007, the U.S. Air Force was scheduled to make a key decision: build the TSAT system on its current schedule and launch in 2013-2016, or postpone TSAT, take stopgap measures and add Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites 4 & 5 to the three slated for launch from 2009-2012.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing have won a total of $514 million each in risk reduction contracts for the TSAT SS satellite system, in hopes of making that Plan B unnecessary. The bids are in, and both teams await a decision. TSAT’s $2 billion TMOS ground-based network operations contract is already underway.

The TSAT constellation of satellites, receivers, and infrastructure has seen a recent resurgence of news coverage, and its central role in next-generation US military infrastructure makes it worthy of in-depth treatment. Yet its survival is not assured by any means. Outside events and incremental competitors could spell its end just as they spelled the end of Motorola’s infamous Iridium service. This updated DID Special Report looks at the TSAT program, its challenges, and the potential future(s) of U.S. military communications – with new additions highlighted in green for your convenience. The latest item is another $150 million in TSAT-SS development contracts, despite an expected decision date of November 2007. The wording of the accompanying announcements also suggests that some reconsideration of TSAT program options in under way…

• Key Background – Why TSAT Is Thought to be Necessary (i.e. continue reading…)
• Key Background – The Big Picture: TSAT and the Transformational Communications Architecture
• Briefing – What Is TSAT?
• Briefing – TMOS: TSAT’s Ground Component
• Briefing – The AEHF Alternative, and Lessons Learned for TSAT
• Analysis – TSAT Program: Issues & Decisions
• Analysis – TSAT’s Competitors – and Its Fate
• News – TSAT: Timeline and Ongoing Developments [updated]
• Appendix A – Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Science Applications International Corporation recently announced an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity, joint services contract from the U.S. Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)—Installation Protection Program (IPP). The program was initiated in December 2003, and is managed by the Joint Project Manager Guardian (JPMG) for the Joint Program Executive Office (JPEO) for Chemical and Biological Defense, and the goal is to ensure that American military installations can continue operating after being hit with CBRN weapons.

The concept is nothing new. After all, that very motivation is what spurred the creation of the ARPANet – now the Internet. In Europe, NATO’s reliance on nuclear deterrence rather than conventional military parity made military operations in a nuclear environment a certain planning scenario. Meanwhile, Soviet doctrine emphasized heavy front line and second echelon use of chemical weapons in a major war’s opening offensive phases, forcing corresponding bio-chemical preparations. Biological weapon defenses were considered a secondary aspect, but that conceit was shaken after advanced, treaty-breaking Soviet biological weapons programs came to light through the post-Soviet revelations of scientists like Dr. Ken Alibek.

The need for JPMG’s IPP is nothing new, therefore. What has changed is the depth profile of the threat. A Soviet strike on the Pentagon would almost certainly have triggered global thermonuclear war, in a way that chemical or even nuclear strikes across and behind the front lines in West Germany and the Netherlands likely would not. On the other hand, it’s quite possible to launch a strike against the Pentagon in the modern era, using supported organizations that confer deniability. With the notion of restrictions on targets or means destroyed by 9/11’s example, modern planners are faced with a growing threat in the new era that extends to a much wider range of military installations.

SAIC worked with JPMG on the original contract, and the new contract has a one year base period of performance plus 4 one-year options, with a contract ceiling value of $500 million if all options are exercised. SAIC will provide program management and execution of all phases of the IPP’s design, purchases, integration and fielding. They will then support the system’s architecture, training and exercises, and logistics, while providing technical expertise, equipment, and services to meet current program requirements. Work will be performed primarily in Abingdon, MD.

Around 1997/98, the Defense Logistics Agency changed their business practices, and entered into Prime Vendor long term sustainment contracts with various suppliers to provide materials needed to support the maintenance, repair, and operation (MRO) of its facilities. Items such as plumbing, electrical components, heating/ ventilation/ air conditioning (HVAC), lumber, fixtures, other hardware supplies, etc. would be included. The Prime Vendors need not make these items; the idea is to use purchasing power and commercial purchasing practices to consistently get the US Department of Defense the best prices on these civilian items, delivering them quickly and with little overhead.

These contracts are not small; collectively, they represent billions of dollars each year. Unless otherwise stated, the contracts are issued by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) in Philadelphia, PA. Specific purchases then take place via orders under the overarching contracts described below, up to the limits mentioned. The USA is divided into a number of regions, and these contracts also include locations abroad; DID has used the same geographical groupings in describing these contracts over the past couple of years, and the firms receiving them. The latest addition is a pair of general MRO renewals, with backdated items added to give the full history of those contracts, plus a Pacific Region contract…

Continue Reading… »

Air strike… priceless
(click for relevance)

Back in August 2005, we noted that “ENCORE I.T. Contracts Raise Ceiling to $2.5B Until ENCORE II Arrives.” Services under ENCORE II will include high level enterprise IT policy, integration management, communications engineering, and asset management. According to the Encore II RFP, DISA intends to use the contract to support users in the military services and agencies as they transition from legacy systems to Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES), which embodies the new techno-organizational opportunities described above. Encore II will help them effectively use core NCES product lines, including collaboration and discovery tools, and a planned joint services knowledge portal. That’s the vision, anyway. In January 2006, we followed that up with “Pentagon’s $13 Bn “Encore II” RFP Gets Revised, Extended,” explaining the ENCORE vision, its origins, and its likely obstacles.

That wait ended on Jan 31/07, when 6 companies received indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity multiple-awards contracts. They include provisions for Firm, Fixed-Price, Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hour and Cost-Reimbursement (CPFF, CPAF, etc), and will run from March 12/07 through March 11/17. The maximum not-to-exceed value for the ENCORE II contract over a 5-year period, plus its 5 one-year option periods, is $12.225 billion. This is slightly less than the $13 billion projected. Performance will be at various locations within the Continental United States (CONUS), and also outside the CONUS (OCONUS), and each task order issued will be opened to competition among the ENCORE-II winners.

The solicitation was issued as a full and open competitive action with 16 large firm proposals received – but the Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization DITCO) at Scott AFB, IL picked just 6 large firm winners with small business awards to follow. Whereupon, the protests began. Now, the small business roster has been added, and the large business roster has been expanded…

Continue Reading… »

(click to view larger)

As of July 2007, Raytheon Technical Services held the US Army contract for live training support, Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) carries the contract for virtual training (simulators), and General Dynamics the one for constructive training (computer models & game-like simulations). More than 3,400 contractors served more than 150 manned sites and 458 unmanned sites with training devices world-wide.

The U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office, Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI) office has been working for the last couple of years on a new approach that does away with the 3 domains, in order to put the full focus on delivering whatever training support is needed and appropriate, in whatever manner works best. The Warfighter Field Operations Customer Support (Warfighter FOCUS) contract would consolidate operations, maintenance, systems integration and engineering support services for the Army’s live, virtual and constructive training systems into a single 10-year, $11-12 billion package once existing contracts expire on Oct 31/07.

On one side was the Warrior Training Alliance (WTA), led by prime contractor Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC and Computer Sciences Corporation. One the other side was the Warfighter FOCUS Alliance (WFA), led by General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Saab. Each team had a roster that included other major and minor players, and DID details both teams below. The winner was the Raytheon-led WTA, and integration is now proceeding…

Continue Reading… »

(click to view full)

The WGS program is actually a set of 13-kilowatt spacecraft based upon Boeing’s model 702 commercial satellite. These satellites will support the USA’s warfighting information exchange requirements, enabling execution of tactical command and control, communications, and computers; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); battle management; and combat support information. The program name has been changed for some reason to “Wideband Global SATCOM,” presumably to avoid the (correct) suggestion that it fills an emerging gap. Readers should be aware that references to either title in documents, archives, or the media denote the same program.

Upon its first launch into geosynchronous orbit, WGS Flight 1 will become the U.S. Department of Defense’s highest capacity communication satellite. Each satellite can route 2.4 to 3.6 Gbps of data – providing more than 10 times the communications capacity of the predecessor DSCS III satellite. Indeed, One WGS satellite will provide more throughput than the entire Defense Service Communications Satellite (DSCS) constellation currently on station. Using reconfigurable antennas and a digital channelizer, WGS also offers added flexibility to tailor its coverage areas, and to connect X-band and Ka-band users anywhere within the satellite’s field of view. Unlike programs like AEHF or T-SAT, however, WGS offers wideband communications that are “unprotected” against jamming and nuclear effects.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article covering the WGS program. The most recent development is early handover and full operation of the first WGS satellite…

• WGS: Capabilities & Role
• The WGS Program & Schedule
• WGS Program: Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

SBIRS-High
(click to view full)

DID has discussed the ongoing project issues with the USA’s “SBIRS High” missile launch early-warning satellites, which aim to replace the existing DSP fleet. Massive cost overruns, technical challenges that continue to present problems, and uncertain performance all factor into the equation. Yet their mission – to detect ballistic missile launches and so serve as the critical first stage of the USA’s national early warning system – is too critical to abandon. What to do?

While some progress has been made on SBIRS-High, the search for alternative technologies is now well underway in a program called AIRSS the Alternate InfraRed Satellite System. The effort continues to progress, as Raytheon reports early success and additional risk reduction contracts are being issued…

• For Every Action… (SBIRS-High: From $4B to $10+B)
• Reaction: AIRSS & the “Full-Earth Sharing Sensor Assembly”
• AIRSS Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

Class 1 MAV
(click to view full)

DID’s October 2005 article covering various new American Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) designs and contracts tended to focus on the larger Class II company and Class III battalion-level options, while our FOCUS Article covering the RA-8B Fire Scout addressed the Class IV brigade-level UAV for the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The smaller “Class I” platoon-level UAV options were addressed only in passing, largely because that aspect of the program wasn’t yet at the same level of development.

The FCS Class I UAV will be used for reconnaissance, security and target acquisition operations in nearly all terrain, including urban environments. Each system of two vertical take-off and landing air vehicles, a dismounted control device, and associated ground support equipment will be carried by selected platforms and dismounted soldiers, and will use autonomous flight, navigation, and recovery.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the Class I effort, which survived the 2007 reorganization of the FCS program – and may be slated for use soon over… Miami.

• The Class I MAV
• The MAV Program
• Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

FCS Constellation
(click to view full)

The USA’s $160+ billion Future Combat Systems program aims to replace at least 1/3 of the USA’s land forces. The program’s original mandate had its components replacing the USA’s heavy armor, but that plan collided with the reality of front-line experience in Iraq. FCS is now slated to be a set of medium forces that are slightly more deployable than a Heavy Brigade Combat Team, but still cannot fit into the C-130s that are expected to make up the USA’s tactical airlifter fleet. The concept of an integrated set of vehicles, robots, sensors, and UAVs, all backed by a high-performance network, remains.

The US Government Accountability Office has been asked to report on the program every year, and its 2008 report suggests that FCS is reaching a critical stage on 2 fronts: system design and development, and software design and development. Their overall 2008 report says that…

Continue Reading… »

The 72nd Contracting Squadron at Tinker Air Force Base awarded a $60 million multiple-vendor, indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contract for follow-on architect-engineer (A-E) services on their premises. Winning firms will perform Title I, Title II, and other A-E services to the base Civil Engineer’s environmental and real property sustainment, restoration, and construction programs. Primary services include: Title I: all aspects of real property facilities, infrastructure, and environmental design and activities to support those designs including value engineering and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design analysis. Title II: all aspects of construction quality assurance and oversight of environmental, facility, and infrastructure construction projects. Other A-E Services: support for base environmental restoration, conservation and planning, and environmental quality programs including compliance and pollution prevention.

The winners, who will compete for individual task orders, are:

• CH2M Hill, Inc. (FA8101-080D-0002, $81,781.48 committed)
• Cherokee CRC (FA8101-08-D-0003, $55,146.21 committed)
• Science Applications International Corporation (FA8101-08-D-0004, $32,906.06 committed)
• URS Group, Inc. (FA8101-08-D-0005, $24,854.80 committed)