Communications: BGC3: an expensive exercise for bidders

1 July 2007

By Tom Muir

While the marriage of the Battle Management System (BMS) requirements for Land 125 and Land 75 has finally given birth to the long awaited request for tender, there are concerns within industry about the very high costs they may have to incur for the provision of demonstration systems.

The anticipated high cost of bidding for what is now generally termed Project Land 200 arises from a change to the all-important communications requirements under which the evaluation and selection of the combat radio system has been brought across from JP 2072 (Battlespace Communications Land) to the combined BMS requirement.

According to the RFT, the requirement for what is now termed a Battle Group and Below, Command Control and Communications (BGC3) system, comprises:

* BMS-D for Dismounted Operations

* BMS-M for Mounted Operations

* BMS-CP, a Command Post variant suitable for both dismounted and mounted operations and capable of operating Battlefield Command Support System (BCSS) software.

But importantly, the system also includes a terrestrial based Type 1 encrypted Combat Radio System (CRS) to support:

* BMS generated data, and existing voice services within the Battle Group

* Network Management System (NMS) to electronically integrate, configure, monitor and control the BMS CRS

* a support system to sustain the BGC3 capability.

As originally conceived a Tactical Data Voice and Services Network was to be acquired through JP 2072 comprising the hardware and software required to manage the network of BMS nodes, with the BMS variants using its digital voice and data bearer to exchange information on the network. The network would include mounted and dismounted bearer configurations providing access to both voice and data networks.

While the scope of Land 125 had required man-wearable data radios, capable of integration with the voice-only Marconi PRR, to be supplied as part of its BMS-D specification, this was not the case with the Land 75 component.

Instead, JP 2072 was scoped to specify and provide the radios as government furnished equipment (GFE) for the extended range BMS-M for integration into various vehicle variants, the BMS-CP providing the CP variant for use in mounted and dismounted Command Posts, and separately, the BCSS-Vehicle Hardware Suite handling BCSS data. At this stage it may be helpful to revisit JP 2072's role.

When General Dynamics (now GDSA) as Prime Systems Integrator (PSI) was awarded what in effect was part of the Phase 1 contract in late 2005 it had a number of tasks ahead of it, including identifying potential technical solutions for the high priority communications capability shortfalls.

This part of the Phase 1 contract, known as Task 1, and worth some $28 million, was to be followed by a contract amendment to cover Phase 1 Orders, aimed at acquiring and introducing new equipment as well as enhancements to existing capabilities, according to the implementation plan developed by the PSI.

With its acquisition of mostly overseas-sourced radios and communications infrastructure, Phase 1 Orders were going to soak up the balance of the Phase 1 budget of $97 million.

To identify potential equipment solutions the PSI undertook a market survey in mid-2006 so it could make recommendations on its proposals for the evolving JP2072 system architecture, the implementation plan, and finally the equipment and capabilities to be procured under Phase 1 Orders to address the most urgent deficiencies.

The Market Survey involved a number of military communications equipment vendors to provide input into the procurement recommendations. The PSI made it clear to survey respondents that it was up to the Government to determine what was to be procured under Phase 1 based on the recommendations of the PSI's Trade Study and associated Report.

So, based on specifications developed by JP2072 and evaluation and trial of the selected CNRs involving the end users, government approval would be sought to acquire the selected radios from the Phase 1 funding, which, as GFE would then be introduced into service as bearers for the BMS-M and BMS-CP variants.

Since Land 125's dismounted systems required their own radio one assumes that Land 125 would have funds for the selection and purchase of suitable radios, presumably under advice from JP 2072.

But all this has changed. Under the new arrangements contenders for the combined Land 125/Land 75 (= Land 200) PSI role must specify the combat radio system, as part of their proposal for the BGC3 system.

And what seems obvious to this observer, who has not had access to the tender documentation owing to unnecessary confidentiality provisions, is that the CRS will comprise two distinct systems.

The Land 125 component requires a secure highly capable narrowband radio for use by troops at the section level up to company/squadron commanders. Radios proposed for this aspect of the BGC3 requirement will be light, highly reliable, and bring a range of waveforms and sophisticated storage processing and interfacing capabilities. They may also have embedded IP routers each with their own address.

For the upper BGC3 level, ie. the Land 75 component covering squadron/company to brigade communications, wideband networking radios (WNR) are required to provide the long range voice and data networking capacity in support of tactical forces.

Like the more advanced narrowband radios such as JEM, the WNR includes an Internet protocol router in every radio so that each radio manages content in an identical fashion to the Internet. By including this capability directly into individual radio nodes, the amount of fixed infrastructure for network planning and management is greatly reduced.

This means that all WNR can be linked together to provide a mobile netted communications infrastructure across the battlefield.

There is only a limited range of suitable radios from which bidders can select those they plan to offer as part of their BMS solution and it seems that in many cases they will be restricted to specifying, not supplying, since most Type 1 encrypted systems cannot be traded commercially and can only be acquired under government-to-government arrangements.

Despite this hurdle, in order to participate in the very extensive equipment trials that are planned, tenderers have to provide the radio system they are proposing for evaluation with their BMS software.

The trial procedure starts with VMF testing for acceptability in August, field trials of mounted and dismounted equipment at Majura in September or thereabouts, and then early next year, shortlisted contenders will enter the parallel offer definition activity (PODA).

Herein lies a major difficulty. The PODA involves the trial of shortlisted systems and their networks on a field scale, believed equivalent to equipping a mechanised company with dismounted soldier systems, vehicle mounted systems and command posts.

It is understood that this last phase is likely to require some 90 dismounted and vehicle integrated CR systems to be supplied by the shortlisted tenderers at very considerable cost.

Some of the contenders have expressed their misgivings as to whether their outlays in providing very costly equipment for the trials, possibly amounting to $8 million, will be fully reimbursed by Defence.

One radio manufacturer says he couldn't possible supply such a large number of radios in time for the PODA early next year. Also it seems that the US Government would be highly unlikely to approve the release of Type 1 encrypted radios in which they have an interest, in such large numbers for demo purposes.

While JP2072 never reached the stage of providing government with a report on CNR systems tested, evaluated and deemed suitable for future tactical land communications, it was inevitable that the focus would be on only three or four top end radios.

These were the ones that could provide integrated voice and data, secure, multi-band HF, VHF/UHF operation combined with, and connected to, a high capacity voice and data trunk system. They also needed to have GPS capability and an IP-based operation.

In the interests of interoperability - particularly with US forces - the selected radios would need to support the waveforms being developed under the US DoD's Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program.

Interoperability with US and other coalition forces was always going to be a prime consideration. In 2004 then Defence Minister Robert Hill and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed the Australia-US Joint Statement of Principles on Interoperability which had a number of JTRS-related elements.

These included Australian participation in the JTRS program and Australian adoption of the CENTRIX coalition operation network. Combat ID (eg. Blue Force tracking) and Ground Forward Air Control procedures were also included, both particularly relevant to BMS capabilities.

Through the JTRS program, the US DoD moved to adopt the Software Communications Architecture (SCA) - enabling radios developed under the program to support various communications waveforms - as the key to improved interoperability among services and coalition partners.

To encourage adoption of the SCA standard, US DoD policy originally stated that US military services were to purchase only JTRS SCA-compliant radios unless granted a waiver on a case-by-case basis. The DoD originally planned to buy some 700,000 JTRS units to replace the radios used by mounted and dismounted troops, as well as those employed in aircraft and ships.

But delays with the program and preparations for war in Afghanistan and Iraq revealed a dire shortfall in combat radios and waivers were granted en masse.

According to a recent US GAO report, since its initiation in 1997, the program has experienced cost and schedule overruns and performance shortfalls. In an effort to address these problems, the program was restructured in March last year and the scope of the project was reduced substantially.

Instead of aiming for a network that could accommodate all 32 of the military's radio waveforms, the revised JTRS will be limited to just nine.

Plus, due to JTRS' extended development path, DoD has had to continue buying other tactical radios to support its communications needs - mainly legacy systems - at an estimated cost of US$11 billion. The largest purchase of legacy radios has been the single channel ground and airborne radio system, SINCGARS.

The obvious corollary is that the US Army won't be buying large quantities of JTRS radios as originally planned during the next five years. This may mean that at the tactical level (but on a much smaller scale) Australia could be fielding JTRS compliant radios ahead of the US Army. This would not affect interoperability since the new radios will have SINCGARS waveforms.

So far, no radios meet all the mandated criteria but two that are qualified as JTRS radios are the Harris PRC-152 Falcon(R) III handheld tactical radio, which is SCA compliant and is certified for secure voice and data.

The other is the Thales AN/PRC-148 MBITR (JEM) which, developed under JTRS Cluster 2, has received SCA compliance certification and has also been approved for Type 1 encryption. These two Type 1 encrypted radios appear to represent the limited field of choice for the narrowband component of the Combat Radio Systems for the combined Land 200 BMS.

While either of these radios will more than meet the narrowband requirements to handle Company/Squadron and Below communications, at the Squadron/Company and above the need is for a mobile network with sufficient bandwidth to handle additional data inputs beyond those specified for the Land 200 BMS such as BMS-Fires and the Abrams BMS.

The argument here is that relying on 16 kbps narrowband radios at this level leads to congestion and delays in information sharing.

Wideband networking radios that are likely to be proposed are Raytheon's EPLRS (Enhanced Position Locating Reporting System) and ITT's SINCGARS ASIP-E with Side Hat, a small UHF expansion module that offers VHF voice and UHF data communications channels. This allows mounted soldiers to conduct both voice and data communications simultaneously.

Raytheon and ITT collaborated in the development of SINCGARS ASIP-E and the EPLRS derived MicroLight-3G. These products now share common modules, waveform capabilities and operating environments. Raytheon's MicroLight-3G is a wearable, software-defined radio that will improve military communication by linking individual warfighters to the Tactical Internet.

ITT brings its JTRS Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) to MicroLight-3G. The SRW upgrade complements the wearable radio's already available Enhanced Position Locating and Reporting System (EPLRS) waveform.

While the Land 200 tenderers were supposed to develop their BMS software independent of a particular radio - ensuring that it is interoperable with both systems - they still need to decide which radio they will be offering, on the understanding that the winning solution may be based on a different CRS to that originally proposed.

So it seems Defence plans to select the best digital combat radio system for Land 200 BMS, irrespective of the broader battle communications (land) requirements, possibly establishing a CRS stove.

We believe the following are the main contenders for the Land 200 BMS:
Elbit Systems - Elbit has teamed with Boeing Australia, offering its battle management system, which is in service with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). The integrated system comprises command and control software, advanced electro-optical sensors, multi-functional displays, information and communications systems, and advanced mission systems.

Elbit says that its BMS supports every requirement of battalion-and-below tactical units, meeting all their operational needs, including direct fire engagement & manoeuvre, indirect fire support, intelligence and logistics.

Elbit's offering is likely to include high capacity data radios procured from its newly acquired subsidiary Tadiran Communications. Originally, Elbit opted for a derivative of ITT's Mercury High Capacity Data Radio (HCDR) for this role but after the acquisition of Tadiran, the company obtained such technologies in-house.

General Dynamics C4 Systems - with its Land Warrior credentials (as prime contractor), its own battle management software suite (BMSS), integrated Blue Force Tracking and leading the restructured JTRS domains for hand-held, manpack and small radios, GDC4 Systems would appear to be a very strong contender.

Other relevant capabilities include WIN-T, which as a network links weapons with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems to provide uninterrupted communications.

GD was also responsible for battlefield SA developed for the UK Bowman contract and this may provide leads to their proposal. Elements of the Bowman system will be used by individual soldiers and in vehicles, ships and planes linked in a tactical network.

At the heart of this network is ITT's Mercury High Capacity Data Radio (HCDR) capable of distributing large amounts of information between physically separate units and for which JTRS interoperability.

Perhaps GD may be looking at a mini-Bowman CRS solution for Land 200 comprising either Harris 152 or Thales JEM for the narrowband and a derivative of ITT's HCDR or it may offer ITT's ASIP-E for wideband networking. Australia has ordered evaluation quantities of an ITT Mercury HCDR derivative. GD has yet to announce its team for this project.

Saab Systems Australia - another strong contender has to be Saab Systems Australia teamed with Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, Thales and Tenix. Saab has the advantage of incumbency as BCSS developer and has invested much of its own R&D in the development of BMS compatible systems in both mounted and dismounted versions. It has also developed interfaces for NG's FBCB2 Blue Force Tracker C4I system.

Saab says its BMS is optimised to accommodate low bandwidth communications such as Raven CNR but can also take advantage of high bandwidth rates with other communications bearers. Its current implementation provides communication interfaces to CNR, Serial, WAN, GPS and LAN channels. Saab and NG have also modified BCSS for VMF and MTF messaging. Thales of course brings its own expertise in VMF, vehicle integration, and of course the MBITR JEM radio.

Tenix Land Division will doubtless be responsible for much of the vehicle integration task. Although datapacks are being provided to all tenderers for the design and installation of vehicle mounted systems Saab believes there are still advantages in having vehicle OEMs such as Tenix Defence and Thales Australia on its team. We believe Saab will be proposing a composite MBITR/JEM and EPLRS CRS as the backbone of its tactical Internet.

Raytheon Australia - Raytheon has teamed with Cobham Defence Communications and Tenix Defence Electronic Systems for the combined BMS requirement. Cobham has the BattleHawk range of mounted and dismounted battle management systems which include VMF, tracking and display of own and friendly force location with GPS.

The BattleHawk Infantry Soldier (IS) system was selected for the UK's FIST program, and as well as the dismounted soldier role, the BattleHawk system has been installed in a number of wheeled and tracked platforms. If selected, as prime systems integrator, Raytheon Australia would be responsible for integrating the Land 200 BMS into the ADF's broader and evolving tactical C2/C4I network.

In view of Land 75's new found responsibility for provision of the combat radio system based on Type 1 encrypted radios it is interesting to note that EPLRS has received Type 1 certification and that Microlight will also be Type 1 secure shortly. Our understanding is that for Land 200 Raytheon will be bidding a composite CRS of MBITR/JEM and EPLRS/Microlight.