Army to upgrade Land Warrior system with blue-force tracker.

In response to feedback from soldiers in Iraq, the Army intends to add blue-force tracking capabilities to a handheld computer that is being developed for the Land Warrior program.

The battle-management computer, called the Commander's Digital Assistant, was designed to help battalion and company commanders, as well as platoon leaders, maintain "situational awareness" of their troops as they move around the battlefield.

The CDA is the cornerstone piece of technology the Army intends to field in Land Warrior, a system that integrates everything that a soldier wears or carries. Land Warrior also is part of an ambitious long-term plan to connect dismounted troops into tactical networks. Several units in Iraq tested handheld and laptop-size versions of the CDA in recent months. Their observations--many of which were critical of the system--are shaping future upgrades to the technology.

The next step in the evolution of Land Warrior, said program officials, is to combine the CDA technology with the blue-force tracking device widely used in Operation Iraqi Freedom--the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below, or FBCB2. The merging of the two systems makes sense, officials said, because both have overlapping features and, collectively, could become much more useful than in their current form, particularly in helping prevent fratricide. Another key feature that the Army wants in the CDA is L-band satellite connectivity, which is available in FBCB2.

During senior-level meetings at the Pentagon last December, Army officials expressed interest in moving the CDA-FBCB2 to the field as soon as possible.

Lt. Col. David Gallop, Army program manager for Land Warrior, said it would not be unreasonable to expect the L-band upgrade and the blue-force tracking capability in CDA by April. The long-term goal is to provide T-1 encryption, which is the highest level. Current CDAs have T-3 encryption.

The next Land Warrior upgrade--to be fielded in 2006--will have T-1 encryption, as well as satellite connectivity, possibly L-Band and Iridium. The current CDA only is connected to a SINCGARS ASIP radio for extended-range communications. The CDA supports both voice and data, but gives higher priority to voice traffic.

The program managers for Land Warrior and for FBCB2 recently decided to merge the two systems, under a memorandum of agreement. So far, however, the technical requirements of an FBCB2-CDA unit have not been set.

"Combining CDA and FBCB2 is one of our next spirals," Gallop said in an interview. "It's a great technical marriage."

One significant hurdle, however, is making competing contractors work together, Gallop said.

The CDA and the FBCB2 so far have been competing technologies. General Dynamics Decision Systems makes the CDA and the Land Warrior. Northrop Grumman Tactical Systems produces the FBCB2.

Making the two contractors work together will not be easy, Gallop said, not because it's technically complex, but because the companies have different approaches to doing business.

"I'm trying to get the contractors to make it happen," Gallop said. "The technology is not hard to do." The problems are "management and cultures," he said. If the programs are to merge successfully, it will take "a bit of leadership on my part."

Gerrit LeGrande, a Northrop Grumman business development manager, said the company is aware of the Army's intent to combine FBCB2 and CDA, but that not much can be done until the service decides what features and functionality it wants in the new system.

Northrop Grumman officials have had several meetings with General Dynamics representatives, LeGrande said, "to make sure we are on a path to merge the programs."

Exactly how the companies will work together is yet unclear. "The eventual contracting for the software and the hardware is still up in the air. That hasn't been fully resolved yet," he said.

Lee E. Wright, senior director for tactical systems at General Dynamics, said the company views the FBCB2-CDA merger as "technically achievable."

Reviews from the Field

The tablet laptop-size CDA has been better received in the field than the handheld version.

Wright explained that, given the physical constraints of the handheld platform and how it is used, there are some capabilities available on the tablet that are not implemented on the handheld. For instance, the screen of the handheld does not provide the same map view as the tablet. The same maps are used in both, but how they are displayed is different to conform to the size of the screen. Likewise, the processing power and storage capability of the handheld are considerably lower.

The commander of the 3rd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division recently asked the Army to send 50 more tablet-size CDAs to Iraq. Although the larger CDAs have received positive reviews, the feedback mostly has been negative on the handheld versions.

"We expected negative stuff," said Gallop. He said he welcomes the criticism, because it helps improve the product. "That is the only way you are going to get yourself better," he said. "Other wise, you put money on guesswork."

Among the complaints was the battery life. Gallop said power devices often cause frustration, because they don't last long enough. Many of the technologies that the Army takes to war--such as the CDA--are essentially commercial, and not designed for extended use. The CDA consumes battery power fast.

"The commercial sector is providing more power storage," Gallop said. "But the commercial sector is neglecting advances in power management."

Power management, he said, is "a slick way of saying: turn off the device when it's not in use." That sounds simple enough, but in a combat situation, soldiers don't have the time to wait for the computer to boot up after it was turned back on.

Wright said that, in the short term, the only solution is to add extra battery sleeves for the vehicle power adapter kits.

The next spiral of the handheld CDA will include military chargeable and non-rechargeable batteries. Fuel cells could be employed one day, but that technology is not yet mature.

The Land Warrior office has been testing power management technologies, such as a screen cursor that only eats up small amounts of energy as it moves. "We are experimenting with shutting off the cursor as it moves, in increments that are not noticeable to the human eye," said Gallop. "Those are little ways that we are nipping at the power problem."

Any definitive solution still is years away, he said. "There is no silver bullet for power.... Today, we are stuck with your basic D-Cell technology."

The lack of training time sometimes adds to the difficulties of rushing equipment to the field, noted Maj. George Holguin, test integration officer for the Land Warrior program. "Extensive training in the future will temper soldier expectations," he said. "During this go round, training was reduced from five weeks (including a capstone field exercise) to 10 days of classroom instruction, prior to the unit's deployment, which did not meet the desired familiarization and skill level requirement."

Another shortcoming in the CDA technology is the memory, said Col. Arnold Neil Gordon-Bray, head of the Joint Army Experimentation Directorate. From February to July 2003, he was in Iraq, commanding the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division.

His unit pioneered the use of CDA technology, he said in a presentation to the Soldier Tech conference, hosted by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement.

Before deploying to Iraq, the 2nd Brigade, based in Fort Bragg, N.C., became quite technology-savvy, especially after participating in the 2002 Millennium Challenge experiment, sponsored by the U.S. Joint Forces Command. The brigade tested the CDA, as well as other comparable technologies, such as FBCB2 and the Digital Intelligence Situation Mapboard, or DISM.

As a result of the experience in Iraq, Bray said he views the CDA as a must-have technology. "As a commander, going down alleyways in a foreign place, there is no better feeling than knowing where you are," he said.

During the entire time in OIF, Bray only used conventional maps twice, when the computer froze, he said.

The primary shortfalls in CDA, in his view, are the limited memory and data processing capability. The software does not allow for selective downloading, he said, and the onslaught of information clogs up the computer. "We'd like to be able to download only what we need."

RELATED ARTICLE: Army training to shift emphasis to dismounted soldier.

The Army's training programs have been xtoo vehicle-centric and have not focused enough on the dismounted soldier, particularly in urban combat. That will change in the future, said Brig. Gen. Stephen Seay, Army program executive officer for simulation, training and instrumentation.

"We have focused too much on the Bradley and Abrams.... We lost track of the soldiers coming out of the back," he said in a presentation to the Soldier Tech conference, in Arlington, Va., hosted by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement.

Technologies that can track soldiers and their movements are key to improving training, said Seay. "All soldiers will be instrumented, so we can run them through the virtual domain."

In large-scale exercises at the Army National Training Center, for example, commanders track vehicles, but not soldiers.

"As we look at our way in the future, we want to make sure all soldiers are seen. When they go to take over a building, how do they train to do that?"

Other needed upgrades in Army training include better facilities for urban combat rehearsals, said Seay.

Current Army urban training sites (called MOUT, for military operations in urban terrain) are not necessarily representative of current battlefields, he noted. During the 1990s, the Army opened major MOUT sites at Fort Polk, La., and at Fort Knox, Ky.

"The military construction Army MOUT facilities are fairly rigid, European style architecture. That is not where we are fighting. That wasn't in Mogadishu, surely not in Haiti, Iraq or Afghanistan.... We have to give soldiers a better representation of the environment where they enter."

In MOUT training, "you have split seconds to make decisions on friend or foe," said Seay. "The training is what makes soldiers understand whether and when to pull the trigger."

During the past two years, Seay's office has accelerated the construction and delivery of makeshift urban training facilities that soldiers deployed in South Asia and the Middle East could use to hone their skills.

The Army set up facilities in Kuwait and Afghanistan. Most recently, Seay received an order to do the same in Baghdad.

"We are going to put a virtual capability on the ground in the facility in Baghdad," he said.

At the training sites in Afghanistan, robotic cameras and helmet-mounted displays help soldiers prepare to navigate and search caves.

Combat training centers such as the NTC always will continue to be relevant, Seay said. The enhancements he recommends are intended to supplement the current training.

A commander of U.S. Army forces in Iraq noted that the training his unit received was appropriate for the mission, but as the conflict drags on, it will push the Army to reevaluate its priorities.

"We need to figure out the training tools we need," said Col. Arnold Neil Gordon-Bray. "After Iraq, we are going to have to re-tool and grow our leaders."

Bray is the director of the Joint Army Experimentation Directorate at the Training and Doctrine Command. He served as commander of the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division in Operation Iraqi Freedom, between February and July 2005.

In comments to the Soldier Tech conference, Bray said that more training is needed for platoon-level units and below in urban combat, trench operations and rules of engagement.

The Army needs portable training systems to rehearse high and lower-end skills, he said. Current devices, such as the Fire Effects Trainer, the Forward Observer Trainer and the MPRI MOUT trainer, are useful but not portable.

In conflicts like Iraq, he added, it is important for both junior and senior officers to understand the political issues and the impact of the media on policy and military operations.

Leader development programs must focus on helping soldiers get through what Bray called "ROE transition periods," when the rules of engagement change relatively quickly, without warning.

"We need to develop training systems that challenge leaders and teams to think out of the box comfortably," he said.

Training has to adapt to the realities of today's battlefields, Bray said. During exercises at combat training centers, soldiers often complain that the opposing "Red Force" cheats and employs back handed tactics. In fact that is a good thing, he said. "The OPFOR cheats, but so does the enemy." As seen in Iraq, suicide bombers and guerillas disguised as civilians have become commonplace.

Asked whether the Army should consider deploying peacekeeping units exclusively trained for post-combat operations, Bray said that would not make sense.

"We can't afford two armies," he said. A peacekeeping Army is not a good idea. "You'll need the same skills as you do in the high-end force." The key, he said, is to focus on "training agile minds and developing agile minds." --Sandra I. Erwin