Base infrastructure contracts are a quietly substantial portion of defense spending in any country, including the USA. Which is why DID covers them on a semi-regular basis, and notes trends in key areas, even though this coverage are only a fraction of the contracts issued. A December 2007 announcement by the US Army has significant implications for base infrastructure projects at a number of locations, however, as the push to grow the US Army by 74,200 troops and 6 brigade combat teams (BCTs)/ 8 support brigades continues, and so does partial relocation of US troops deployed abroad. A June 2009 announcement cut the number of new BCTs in half to 3, and will affect construction and stationing on 3 important Army bases.

The following lists offer updated breakdowns of the associated relocations and new unit stand-ups, first by timeline, and second by location:

On Sept. 22, 2006, a ceremony marked the launch of U.S. Army Sustainment Command at Rock Island Arsenal, IL, under US Army Materiel Command. It will be commanded by Maj. Gen. Jerome Johnson, who said at the ceremony that “Our mission is clear-cut and crucial: improve Soldier support at the tactical level… rapid research solutions, quicker acquisition and faster delivery to the battlefield…. sustaining, maintaining and accounting for materiel, freeing Soldiers to fight with better equipment to protect them and be more lethal to our enemies.”

Technical innovation is present in all militaries, but America’s combination of do-it-yourself types, large defense budgets, and a gadget-happy national character makes it particularly fertile ground. Now add a global war and its challenges, plus a defense sector with a strong small business component made up of ex-military types. The overall innovation transmission belt may not be as tight or as effective as Israel’s or Singapore’s, but the scale of the US defense establishment more than compensates in terms of the sheer number produced.

Adoption, of course, is another matter. One way to improve it is to raise the profile of sucessful innovations through awards. Along those lines, the US Army recently recognized some special innovators by naming its “Top 10 inventions of 2005,” a list that should be of interest to many militaries around the world.

It includes…

The US Army is preparing its FY 2008 – 2013 program objective memorandum (POM), due Aug. 15 to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Inside Defense reports that the Army is considering a number of possibilities, as the April 2006 fiscal guidance handed down by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England directed the Army to eliminate $25 billion across the POM including a total of $17 billion from its FY-12 and FY-13 budgets. Cutting the Army by a division, canceling the Future Combat Systems program, and other options are on the table. Inside Defense reports.

FCS Constellation

DID has covered the USA’s $120+ billion Future Combat Systems program before, and recently noted questions regarding its survivability in urban warfare. Now the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued Report #GAO-06-478T (Defense Acquisitions: Business Case and Business Arrangements Key for Future Combat System’s Success). The key paragraph from the abstract reads:

“There are a number of compelling aspects of the FCS program, and it is hard to argue with the program’s goals. However, the elements of a sound business case for such an acquisition program – firm requirements, mature technologies, a knowledge-based acquisition strategy, a realistic cost estimate and sufficient funding – are not yet present. FCS began product development prematurely in 2003. Since then, the Army has made several changes to improve its approach for acquiring FCS. Yet, today, the program remains a long way from having the level of knowledge it should have had before starting product development. FCS has all the markers for risks that would be difficult to accept for any single system, much less a complex, multi-system effort. These challenges are even more daunting in the case of FCS not only because there are so many of them but because FCS represents a new concept of operations that is predicated on technological breakthroughs. Thus, technical problems, which accompany immaturity, not only pose traditional risks to cost, schedule, and performance; they pose risks to the new fighting concepts envisioned by the Army.

Many decisions can be anticipated that will involve trade-offs the Government will make in the program. Facts of life, like technologies not working out, reductions in available funds, and changes in performance parameters, must be anticipated. It is important, therefore, that the business arrangements for carrying out the FCS program – primarily in the nature of the development contract and in the lead system integrator (LSI) approach – preserve the government’s ability to adjust course as dictated by these facts of life. At this point, the $8 billion to be spent on the program through fiscal year 2006 is a small portion of the $200 billion total. DOD needs to guard against letting the buildup in investment limit its decision making flexibility as essential knowledge regarding FCS becomes available. As the details of the Army’s new FCS contract are worked out and its relationship with the LSI evolves, it will be important to ensure that the basis for making additional funding commitments is transparent. Accordingly, markers for gauging knowledge must be clear, incentives must be aligned with demonstrating such knowledge, and provisions must be made for the Army to change course if the program progresses differently than planned.”

M1A2 Abrams TUSK

Maj. Gen. Roger Nadeau, who heads the US Army’s research and development command, told the U.S. Army Winter Show on February 15th that fighting in Iraq is shaping almost every Army spending decision. One of those lessons is that urban warfare is the new baseline, a point that has been by many observers over the last five years. Nadeau challenged industry to come up with new and more innovative ways of thinking: “This is nose-to-nose street fighting; if you can help me fight in this environment, then we will listen to you.” Items on the wish-list include better night-vision devices for soldiers and vehicles, sensors to allow troops to see through walls and buildings, active protection systems for vehicles that work in short-range urban environments, and even an improved bunker-busting type weapon to allow soldiers to breach walls (q.v. Britain’s recent buy).

FCS Constellation

Nadeau also asked a provocative question about the lightly-armored force being devised as part of the $120+ billion Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, one that this article about Iraq lessons and M1 Abrams tank improvements brings into sharper focus. He asked:

“If [FCS] were here in its entirety today, how would the soldier’s life in that city be better? If we can’t answer that, we’re probably going down the wrong path and we need to make some modifications.”

The US Army’s $120+ billion Future Combat Systems program has been subject to a great deal of criticism over its history. It was always planned as a development process with staged spinoffs, but a combination of pressure on the program and the field needs of the troops on the front lines is pushing that schedule. As FCS hits the 2 1/2 year mark in its System Design and Development (SDD) phase, there are plans to start delivering some of its elements beginning in 2006, for fielding and then upgrading as the program continues.

According to eDefense Online, the spinouts will occur progressively but can be broadly grouped into four main waves for timing purposes:

Hunter

Earlier this month, DID covered changes in the USA military’s organizational structure around UAVs. A Joint UAV Center of Excellence is being established at Creech Air Force Base, NV, concentrating on UAV-systems technology, joint concepts, training, tactics, and procedural solutions to the warfighters’ needs across all services.

The U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, AL has now been designated as the new U.S. Army Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Center of Excellence, to serve an integrating hub for all 12 Army installations which currently have a UAV component. This will also create one Army voice to be able to represent UAVs at headquarters, to the joint centers of excellence, and to the joint structure.

A number of different U.S. military organizations have recently issued recruiting-related contracts, including a $250 million advertising & publicity contract for the U.S. Army, up to $200 million for various National Guard related services, and up to $35.1 million in materials for Navy Recruiting Command.

The U.S. Army and especially the National Guard have recently had issues meeting recruiting goals as the regular force size rises, and the prime cohort for National Guard enlistment sees more of a stark choice between re-enlistment in the regular force and service abroad vs. exit from the service.

Big Iron

The U.S. Army is heeding lessons learned from corporate America by building data centers to consolidate local enterprise application servers now running at hundreds of Army bases nationwide. The plan, announced earlier this month at an Army IT conference, will start later this year with an effort over 12 to 18 months to create two data centers, each hooked up to four bases. Over the next four years, all application servers running at all U.S. bases will be networked together in up to six data centers.