BMS to exploit HNA connectivity

The next stage of Army's journey towards full connectivity and shared Situational Awareness - the search for a Battle Management System - has just got under way.
With all going well, by late 2008 Defence will have reached another milestone on the road to the Hardened and Networked Army (HNA) - this time with the emphasis on the network and enhanced situational awareness - with the introduction into service of a vehicle mounted Battle Management System (BMS) under Project Land 75 - Battlefield Command Support System.

Comprising software and hardware for the ADF's land tactical (combat) environment, BMS will support Land combat identification (blue force tracking) by providing commanders with a real time situational awareness display of friendly force locations.

Of course the ADF is not alone in this drive for greater situational awareness at the tactical level. US and European forces are looking for the tools to provide increased levels of situational awareness for their tactical commanders so that they are better able to identify and target the enemy without being engaged first.

Battle Management Systems sit at the bottom of the C4 hierarchy, comprising vehicle-mounted and man-portable units, connected to higher echelons, over existing Combat Net Radio (CNR) systems. When integrated into armoured fighting vehicles, such as main battle tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, self propelled artillery, reconnaissance vehicles and helicopters, these systems are integrated as part of existing vehicle electronics, including fire control systems, electro-optical equipment, navigation systems, radio and intercom, and countermeasures. These integrated 'vectronics' provide the commander with the ability to locate, identify, track and engage enemy forces at ever-greater distances and to operate their units at night.

In an ITR for Phase 3.4 of Land 75, scheduled to close on 6 March, Defence is seeking an off-the-shelf BMS operational capability for a 1st Brigade battlegroup. Tenderers will need to provide detailed costs of their BMS (covering hardware, software, communications & ILS), their capacity to cost and install up to 180 BMS into 1Bde vehicles, as well as their ability to develop a two-way data and message interface with that other component of Land 75, the BCSS.

Defence's preference is for the BMS supplier to be the Prime System Integrator (PSI) responsible for the fully integrated system's performance. The successful tenderer will also need to provide support infrastructure and ILS. Defence says tenders will be evaluated and assessed against cost, schedule and technical risks.

Following review of the ITR responses it is anticipated that a restricted RFT will be issued to two shortlisted contenders with a contract likely to be signed with the successful tenderer in the second half of 2007.

In Army-speak the aim of the Land 75 Project is to provide a digital command and control support system to enhance combat power through supporting fast, quality decision-making in the land tactical environment. In this context Army has a requirement for two C2 subsystems: the BCSS and the BMS.

As most of our readers will know BCSS has been designed to provide data from sensors, maps of the battlefield showing own and opposition forces and a wide range of tactical battlefield management data. It is a discrete system that interacts with own forces using formatted messages. BCSS has evolved in step with the growing need for battlefield situational awareness and management as the density of information has increased as has the urgency for realtime information.

At present the system provides near realtime situational awareness and messaging across a range of communications bearers including the ageing Raven combat net radio (CNR), satellite links through Parakeet, and cabled and wireless LANs and WANs. BCSS' developer, Saab Systems, says that good basic engineering has enabled the BCSS to accommodate Raven CNR's very restricted bandwidth (data and voice cannot be transmitted simultaneously, which is a serious deficiency) while taking full advantage of higher bandwidths available in local and wide area networks.

In operation BCSS provides a digital command post system from Company HQ to Divisional HQ in regular Army units and enables tactical headquarters to plan, monitor and control operations. The system has been developed to operate on laptop computers configured to the Windows-based Defence Standard Operating Environment.

The BMS that the ADF wants is a computer-based command and control system designed to enhance the tactical commander's situational awareness and his ability to execute operations. The system's software needs to be simple and intuitive in use and the hardware sufficiently rugged to survive in a combat environment. The system should be capable of operating in vehicles while both stationary and on the move. The system should facilitate the exchange and sharing of battlefield information with other BMS and with BCSS. It should provide the vehicle crew commander with real time navigational, blue force location and messaging services.

While the Land 75 Project preference is to acquire a full BMS solution using the services of a PSI, the BMS solution will not include the supporting communications system although it is understood that tenderers are expected to provide information about communication systems that would support their solution.

Tenderers will also need to provide a budget for, and be able to develop prototype BMS vehicle installation kits and/or BCSS vehicle hardware suites for the following vehicles: M113AS4 APC; ASLAV-25; M577 Armoured Command Vehicle; ASLAV-Command; ASLAV-Personnel Carrier; Land Rover 110FWR.

Obviously, installation of the BMS into the selected vehicles will require interaction with the respective vehicle's design authority (DA). The DA for the ASLAV and its variants is GD Canada, while the DA for the M113 and its variants is Tenix Defence.

However there is a problem in that the BCSS command vehicle installations currently do not meet the user's requirements and need to be upgraded. Although the BCSS and BMS have different functional requirements they generically have similar hardware and vehicle installation requirements.

To achieve economy of effort and scale, and reduce the impact of separate installation requirements on the vehicle SPOs and Army, the Land 75 Project intends to incorporate the development of the BCSS Vehicle Hardware Suite (VHS) and installation into a specified range of vehicle types as part of the BMS acquisition. Therefore, the BMS PSI winner will be expected to install their VHS solution enabling one user seated in a defined position in the vehicle to operate BCSS on the move. The VHS solution is to be developed for the following Army vehicle types and variants in the quantities shown:

* Land Rover - Fitted for Radio (LR-FFR) - 112

* M577AS3 Armoured Command Vehicle (ACV) - 26

* M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) - 7

* ASLAV - Command (ASLAV-C) - 10

* ASLAV - Personnel Carrier (ASLAV-PC) - 6

* Bushmaster - Command (B'MAST-C) - 27

The VHS is for the BCSS user (operator and/or staff officer) travelling in the rear of a CP vehicle system. BMS hardware will be for the vehicle crew commander, who is responsible for commanding and fighting his vehicle on the move. Thus the plan is for only command vehicle variants to be equipped with both a BMS and BCSS vehicle hardware suite. The PSI will be required to acquire suitable hardware and design the VHS while the BCSS software, its communication bearer and bearer interfaces will be provided as GFE.

But there is one issue that may be pertinent. According to the ITR the VHS shall support and operate current and future BCSS software. This is not an issue if BCSS V9 is not competed or, if it is competed, Saab is selected to continue its development. But if a new prime contractor were to be selected to develop follow-on versions of BCSS should this not be arranged prior to the upgrade of the VHS to ensure compatibility?

According to the draft FPS, hardware for the requirement will need to be selected from COTS/MOTS products and will need to be fit for use in the Land Rover 110, M113, ASLAV, MBT, BUSHRANGER and future Army A and B Vehicles.

Such hardware must be capable of 'hosting' and integrating BCSS and JCSE applications in commander's vehicles from Company and above and also capable of allowing the user to view and operate the Battlemap and other features while stationary or on the move. The BMS will need to provide the following key situational awareness (SA) functions:

* the positions of friendly forces, enemy forces, neutral forces and unknown forces

* geographical information

* operational information (minefields, airfields, bases etc.)

* vehicle status

The BMS must also enable the soldier to send and receive VMF messages, store & retrieve messages and acquire data from external sensors. It must also assist with navigation including route planning, own position display, measure distance and bearing and estimate travel times. Taken together this functionality will enhance the soldier's capability to conduct operations.

So who are the likely contenders for this requirement? Earlier we noted that BCSS developer Saab Systems was preparing to make an all-out assault on winning this next (and penultimate) phase of Land 75 and had invested considerable R&D of its own in the development of a BMS compatible with current Army Command Support Systems. It has also developed interfaces for Northrop Grumman's FBCB2-BFT C4I system (which comes with the Abrams tanks) and presumably its later evolution Coalition Force Tracker (CFT).

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.

The architecture also allows other external sensors such as Laser Range Finders to be easily integrated into the system. It is built on Windows XP technology, using the existing Saab architecture, to provide battlefield situational awareness and messaging functionality. Another part of this R&D project is the Dismounted Battle Management System (DBMS), designed to be carried by individual soldiers in a lightweight, rugged hand-held computer or 'tablet'.

In Sweden Saab has won an order to develop and deliver the Swedish Army's tactical C2 system. This is a new battle management system for commanding units up to battalion level. In the longer term SLB will form the basis of Sweden's tactical military command and control systems, and will not only be used in the mechanised units but also in amphibian battalions, air base battalions and EU Battle Groups.

If Saab had an exclusive teaming arrangement with Northrop Grumman and its clever C2 capabilities providing interoperability from command centre to dismounted soldier we believe they would be in a very strong position. But Army has developed and tested its own operational concepts with an eye to future capability needs. Such experimentation has included C2 systems under the Army Experimental Framework cloak and these have included the evaluation of a number of Northrop Grumman's C4ISR products which are particularly relevant to battlefield management systems involving such projects as LAND 75 BMS and Land 125 Soldier Combat System.

Such products include:

* C2PC: a Windows application that can act as a client to an internet-linked server in a mixed Linux and Windows environment

* C2PC-CNR-C2PC: providing the tactical
* C2PC-PRR-C2PC: provides the dismounted soldier's position to the Common Operating
* C2CE: provides the operational
In light of the foregoing we doubt that Army would want these sought-after niche capabilities bound up by an exclusive teaming arrangement and it appears that Northrop Grumman is of like mind and is offering its range of C2 capabilities for Land 75 BMS and Land 125 Soldier Combat System to all participants.

General Dynamics Systems Australia, the PSI for JP2072, has to be an important contender for the Land 75 BMS PSI. Perhaps GD will offer an adaptation of the Battlefield Situational Awareness Module (BSAM) developed for its UK Bowman contract, which provides the common relevant operating
Since a BMS is being developed under JP2072 and since that project includes the integration of communications equipment into ADF vehicles is there any point in taking vehicles out of service for this work first for Land 75 and later for JP2072? In addition to GD being design authority for Abrams and ASLAV, its JP2072 team includes ADI and Tenix, respectively DAs for Bushmaster and M113 variants.

Boeing Australia is another certain contender and will likely propose its own PSI capabilities and match these with Elbit Systems' battalion combat teams (BCT) Battle Management System which supports the requirements of battalion-and-below tactical units.

Elbit claims that its BCT BMS is one of the most advanced systems of its kind for main battle tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles. It is a full system solution comprising advanced electro-optical sensors, multifunctional displays, command and control software, information and dissemination systems and advanced mission computers.

The system is designed to enable coordination between armoured fighting vehicles, provide situational awareness to manoeuvering forces and improve the overall operational capabilities of fighting units. Elbit was chosen by the Israel's MOD to serve as prime contractor for the IDF program of Battle Management Systems for Battalion Combat Teams.

ADI Ltd is also expected to raise its hand for the Land 75 BMS task offering its own and Thales capabilities in relevant land systems such as the C4I tools developed by Thales under the UK FIST program. Other contenders are likely to include Raytheon Australia offering both systems and equipment capabilities and BAE Systems Australia, able to elaborate on its C4ISR and NEO capabilities in responding to the ITR.

With various battle management systems available to the military market, Land 75 BMS is shaping up to be a none-to-easy vehicle program, with scheduling and possible deployment adding complications to the task. Aside from the integration and installation risks, it will be stating the obvious to suggest that speedy turnarounds will be all-important to ensure vehicles are not out of service for longer than necessary.

By Tom Muir, Canberra