Army Aviation is the maneuver commander’s principle combat multiplier, but the degree of effectiveness depends in part on air assets staying synchronized with ground maneuver forces operating over the Army’s tactical network. In other words, air-to-ground interoperability is key, especially now.
In today’s combat environment, a lot can change in a very short period of time. For example, a landing zone that was clear when a platoon departed could be teeming with enemy forces and turn into a deadly ambush. There is a risk that air-to-air and air-to-ground communications for real-time battlespace situational awareness will be limited by legacy networks incapable of handling anything beyond voice data.
Despite the importance of air-to-ground interoperability, Army Aviation faces challenges in keeping pace with network communications technology that has developed more quickly for the ground maneuver forces. Airborne radios have continued to be upgraded over the years and more recent efforts, such as Army Aviation’s participation in Network Integration Evaluations, are simply interim solutions. With the advancements made in ground tactical radios, our rotary aircraft face a capability gap for airborne troops, impacting both readiness and modernization.
Current airborne radio capabilities
Today, soldiers rely on a variety of Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) radios which were conceived and produced in the 1980’s for air-to-ground communications. These radios have proven to be an effective mission-enabler and helped to close the gap in Vietnam-era equipment the Army had been using.
Capable and rugged as these SINCGARS radios are, the Army is currently fielding the next generation of networking radios that provides voice, data and imagery to ground forces. The Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio (MNVR) contract was awarded last year and the Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW) network will be operational within two years. This waveform serves as a building block in the fielding of joint tactical wideband communications across Army brigade combat teams (BCT). The handheld Rifleman radio and the two-channel HMS Manpack contracts are progressing and are expected to feature the Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW), one of the primary waveforms to reach individual units in the field.
Despite all this progress, the Army’s airborne assets, including Blackhawk, Apache, Chinook, ARH and UAVs, will still primarily use voice connectivity when communicating with ground troops instead of using the more robust terrestrial network or an airborne network for increased situational awareness. The Small Airborne Networking Radio (SANR) helps close the gap between the ground and air components by providing interoperable networking communications using all available waveforms: SINCGARS, UHF SATCOM, WNW, SRW and the satellite-based waveform, Mobile User Objective System (MUOS).
Budget cuts: The obstacle to modernization
While the Army continues its efforts to modernize and enable greater interoperability and synchronization between air and ground forces, budget cuts are standing in the way of ensuring that our soldiers are ready and equipped with the best technologies in a joint warfighting environment. In this case, I’m speaking of SANR, which was not spared from the budget ax in the fiscal 2015 budget.
I understand all too well the immense budgetary pressures the Army is facing and how tactical radio equipment is racked-and-stacked in terms of priority. Many times, the looming requirement for large weapons systems means smaller ticket items are pushed back. From a short-term perspective, this is an effective cost-saving measure, but in terms of this specific acquisition, the Army costs will increase by missing aircraft reset schedules and more delays may decrease the competitive environment. Industry has already offered suggestions through three requests for information (RFI) and two industry days.
The fielding of the wideband airborne networking radios has already suffered delays as a result of the JTRS program. The proposed budget reductions mean airborne units will have to wait even longer for the newer, more capable radios. Additionally, a shifting acquisition timeline generally results in higher costs as evidenced by countless programs.
Competition drives down cost
Unlike many other programs that fell victim to budget cuts, the SANR competition was in an advanced stage and set to kick-off with a draft request for proposal (DRFP) in December 2014. The restructured program’s acquisition strategy requested a non-developmental item (NDI) solution. Industry answered the call and has invested in building NDIs based on SANR procurement guidelines that minimizes the government’s research, development, test, & evaluation (RDT&E) requirements and could potentially reduce its recurring cost by an estimated 40 percent. This cost savings comes from both industry investment via research and testing, as well as competition.
Right now, there is a base of several competitors, but there is a risk that the continued delays in the program along with the constriction of the market may result in less competition and rising costs. There is no doubt the Army is balancing some of the most challenging budgetary constraints in decades. Regardless, as the budget ax continues to fall, I urge Army leadership to take into account the importance of airborne communications to all war fighters.
MG (retired) Dennis Moran is the vice president of Government Business Development for Harris Corporation.
