CBM+ IT Bridging Infrastructure 25 Sep 2012

Purpose Provide an information brief on a strategy to field a bridging CBM+ IT infrastructure for Army ground platforms, and solicit guidance on path forward to a decision brief Recommendation out of Log Domain COC was to take this Ms Miller

Agenda BLUF Problem Statement Proposed CBM+ Infrastructure Bridging Strategy CBM+ Store and Forward (SaF) capability Materiel Solutions Recommended programs to manage fielding/sustainment Field Evaluation Approach Estimated costs and impacts if not funded Summary and Path Forward

BLUF CBM+ capability development between ground platforms PMs and the Logistics Enterprise is not aligned Recommend Logistics Enterprise accelerate the fielding of a bridging CBM+ store and forward (SaF) hardware and software capability in 2015 Support ground platform PM’s investments/plans for CBM+ Materiel solutions and program proponents exist to support fielding and sustainment bridging capability Providing CBM+ SaF bridging capability is not a Big Bill, but has a Big Impact if not Funded Issue is that CBM+ capability developments between platform PMs and Log Enterpise is not aligned….some of the lead platforms are getting out in front and are asking what they are supposed to do with tactical data they are producing and storing. Recommendation is the Log Enterprise provide a bridge capability in 2015 timeframe to support Army’s migration to CBM+. Solutions exist, and as we’ll describe in the brief we don’t believe the CBM+ bridge is not a big bill, but would have big impact if not funded.

Problem Statement CBM+ Infrastructure CBM+ Infrastructure CBM+ Data Sources Problem - Ground platform development of CBM+ capability and Logistics Enterprise development of CBM+ Capability is not aligned De-scoping CBM+ requirements from GCSS-Army caused loss of programmatic synchronization with Platform PMs GCSS-Army will not reconsidered CBM+ until post Wave 2 (2017+) PMs such as HBCT and SBCT were expecting Logistics Enterprise to provide CBM+ infrastructure by 2015 – impacts their projected return on investments Other PMs planning for CBM+, but without timeline for when CBM+ IT Infrastructure will be in place are foregoing or delaying investment De-scoping CBM+ from GCSS-Army program caused current mis-alignment with Ground Platform PMs. If you refer to the graphic, previously the “GCSS-Army Tactical Network” was identified to fill in the gaps where we have the red x’s. It would receive CBM+ data from ground platforms, and depending on if it was actionable or non-actionable forward it to the ERP application for transaction processing or to the LOGSA CBM+ DW to support fleet management and identification of predictive maintenance indicators. Now that we programs such as HBCT and Stryker that have invested in platform level enablers and are asking when the network and who will be responsible for it. Other PMs such as GCV, AMPS (follow on to CECOM EOA), PM Bridging HMS are including ability to collect transfer CBM+ data as part of their specifications, but again need a trading partner to come on-line to confirm details of ICD and interface testing. Best we can tell them is that it has been identified as potential future increment after GCSS-A wave 2 is completed…sometime after 2017. That is hard to plan against or to hold contractors accountable to. Highlight following programs: HBCT VHMS (Abrams, Bradley, Palladin); starting to field to Abrams in 2014. To BCTs per year. SBCT (MSD Incorporation) GCV & JLTV Acquisition Programs (need to include CBM+ enterprise interface in specifications and contract documents) PM Bridging HMS TACOM TWV CBM+ Pilot CECOM TQG CBM+ Pilot; follow on AMPS system acquisition; CECOM Husky Mounted Detection System ; WIN-T

Problem Analysis - Background AMC CBM+ Summit in Jan 2012 Army leadership identified CBM+ IT Infrastructure gap as priority issue Tasked CBM+ System Engineering IPT to develop a plan of action for identifying a proponent to accelerate fielding of capability AMC CBM+ SE IPT Members – AMC G-6 (lead), LIA, AMC G-4, CERDEC, TACOM, AMCOM, CECOM; task also worked with CASCOM and HQDA G-44(M)/G-46 Key updates since AMC CBM+ Summit March 12 – Briefed AMC CBM+ Steering Committee April 12 – Briefed G44(M)/Mr Lowman and AMC DG4/Ms Adams May 12 – Briefed Log Domain Council of Colonels, tasked to follow up with Ms. Miller June 12 – Update to the AMC CBM+ Steering Committee Sept 12 – Review with AMC G6/Dr Siomacco - Problem Analysis background This issue was as identified/prioritzed at AMC CBM+ Summit last Jan. CBM+ SE IPT was tasked to identify Plan of action to accelerate fielding of capability. IPT membership incudes AMC G-4/G-6, LIA, CERDEC and LCMCs. This tasked also worked with CASCOM and HQDA G-44(M)/G-46 Key updates since summit include status briefings to AMC CBM+ Steering Committee, Update to Mr Lowman/Ms Adams in April, and update to Log Domain COC in May. Action from that was to follow up with Ms Miller.

Proposed Bridge Capability - CBM+ SaF & Wireless Mesh Wireless mesh network CBM+ SaF CBM+ SaF CBM+ Data Sources CBM Store and Forward (SaF) Definition - data communications procedure in which data is collected and concentrated from originators, stored, and later forwarded to receiver. CBM+ SaF Capability Software Service that runs on dedicated or shared hardware (PC-based) Uses existing network transport (CAISI/VSAT) Business rules to manages data delivery over limited Bandwidth Mesh Network – Automated wireless reporting of platform condition data Complementary capability to SaF, reduces maintainer “touch time” to collect data Proposed bridge is to provide a CBM+ Store and Forward capability SaF is a data communication procedure where data is collected and concentrated from originators (accomplished at platform and BN level in graphic), and then later forwarded to on or more receivers. Sample CBM+ SaF Business Rules Define a priority hierarchy for data transmission Determine if data is actionable or non-actionable & route to appropriate destination Store data until Bandwidth is available or use alternate media For Army CBM+ the capability would be a SW service that can run on dedicated or shared (existing) PC hardware, and would use existing network transport. Review Key business rules for addressing limited/constrained CSS SATCOM BW

Recommended CBM+ SaF Solution NGWC Mesh CBM+ SaF HW CBM+ SaF SW CBM+ SaF HW CBM+ SaF SW CBM+ SaF Hardware Platform Level – Existing PD TMDE Maintenance Support Device (MSD) BN/BDE Level – No existing HW; but requirements are minimal 6 per HBCT/IBCT/SBCT; COTs Laptop with 2 TB Storage CBM+ SaF Software – Logistics Joint Delivery Management Services (JDMS) Log JDMS = Integration of JTDI & CIMS SW MOA signed between LIA and PM JTDI for CIMS technology transfer – single Army solution Wireless Mesh – Next Generation Wireless Communication (NGWC) NGWC currently deployed in Kuwait by AMC (Army Mobility Asset Tracking System) NGWC JCTD program objectives include CBM+ applications HARDWARE DISCUSSION Platform Level - Existing Maintenance Support Device (MSD) can address requirements Managed by PM TMDE MSD BOIP over 40k across Army BN/BDE Level – No existing HW, but requirements are minimal 6 per each HBCT/IBCT/SBCT; 9 per CAB (VSAT location drives S&F HW placement) Laptop PC with 2 TB Storage COTS: COTS can be the low-cost hardware alternative, but has issues with support. Who provides support for h/w failures in the field? SOFTWARE DISCUSSION LIA has developed CBM+ Data broker software called CIMS (Common Information Management Software-Service) that manages data and message exchanges between producers and consumers of CBM+ data JTDI currently used by Army Aviation for CBM+ JTDI and CIMS have established an MOU to pursue transition CIMS into their baseline. Target is to complete transition by 2015…single Army baseline addressing requirements across Army commoditiy commands.

Program Proponent Recommendation CBM+ SaF HW CBM+ SaF SW CBM+ SaF HW CBM+ SaF SW CBM+ SaF Hardware Alternatives PD-TMDE COTS IT Mgt Process CBM+ SaF Software Alternatives PM JTDI PM AESIP / PM GCSS-A PEO C3T Discussion of Preferred Alternative PD-TMDE already manages BOIP of over 40k MSDs for platform level SaF HW BN/BDE SaF HW can be added as additional configuration under PD-TMDE portfolio HARDWARE DISCUSSION PM TMDE – already supporting MSD COTS: -COTS can be the low-cost hardware alternative, but has issues with support. Who provides support for h/w failures in the field? If planning for MSD at Platform level, recommend going with TMDE for BN/BDE level requirement as well. SOFTWARE DISCUSSION Candidates include JTDI, AESIP/GCSS-Army, and C3T. Prefered alternative at this point would be JTDI with CIMS insertion. They have an ORD that covers capability, and Store and Forward is consistent with type of solution they provide to services in support of tactical log data delivery. Would still need to work through how the Army would POM for capability. Currently AMCOM does it for basic JTDI capability. Discussion of Preferred Alternative SaF fits best with a data transmission mission (e.g. JTDI or PEO C3T). CBM+ SaF in scope of JTDI ORD PM JTDI is Navy program w Joint Interest (currently support Army Aviation CBM+ data transmission)

CBM+ Bridge Capability- Field Evaluation Approach Electronic Motor Stables CBM+ Demonstration Automated usage updates Fault reporting and remote triage Align with CECOM CBM+ EOA demonstration timeline Existing Programs CECOM & TACOM CBM+ Pilot Programs AMCOM Network Centric Logistics (JTDI) CLOE (CIMS) NGWC JCTD FY13 FY14 Network Integration Evaluation – System Under Test Coordination among programs on-going to align schedules and identify any outstanding resource requirements

Impact If CBM+ SaF Gap is Not Filled Eliminates rationale for PM Business Case for CBM+ investment HBCT Vehicle Health Mgt System (VHMS) CBA - $45M Avg. Annual Benefit (Base VHMS), $209M Avg. Annual Benefit (Base VHMS plus CBM sensor Investments) 23 HBCTs from 2013-2030 Stryker CLOE CBA - $7.5M Avg Annual Benefit 7 SBCTs over 10 years TACOM and CECOM CBM+ CBA’s in progress Increases Costs of CBM+ Implementation PMs must develop and fund individual data transmission solutions for CBM+ - Initial analysis shows that it would cost 3x less to perform this function with organic SaF support across HBCTs/SBCTs compared to paying Field Support Representatives. Promotes Stove-Piped Solutions for Transmitting CBM+ Data Undermines implementation of the Common Logistics Operating Environment No Army-wide management of limited CSS SATCOM bandwidth for CBM+ Next looks at impact if do not fund bridge capability. Increased cost of CBM+ implementation. PMs must develop their own transission solution (for many PMs this is not an option). For ones that can, initial analysis shows cost 3x less if common solution provided versus FSR supported process Promotes stove pips. Recommend getting CBM+ infrastructure out in front. Also enables centralized management/business rules for transmitting CBM+ data over constrained comms. Lack of sultion eliminates rationale for platform PMs to inverst in CBM+.

Summary and Path Forward CBM+ capability development between ground platforms PMs and the Logistics Enterprise is not aligned Recommend Logistics Enterprise initiate fielding of bridging CBM+ store and forward (SaF) hardware and software capability in 2015 Materiel solutions available - PM TMDE and PM JTDI are recommended programs to field and sustain CBM+ SaF capability Path Forward Recommendation Technology Field Evaluation FY13 Electronic Motor Stables Demonstration (part of CBM+ Pilot Program) FY14 NIE Participation NGWC mesh network integration Define Requirements for POM Wedge Deployment scenarios & cost estimates Identify Army organization to POM for SaF SW costs Bring to Log Domain ESC/BPC for decision

Backup

Objective CLOE/CBM+ Environment CLOE Enabled Platforms End to End automation guided by Army Integrated Logistics Architecture (AILA) & Net-Centric Data Standards (CLOE/CBM+ Processes & Underlying Data Categories) LCOP/C2 Log Transactions RAM CM Pred. Maint Vehicle & Supply Status (fuel, ammo, MC) Maint/Supply transactions; Equipment Master Updates Fault & Maintenance Action Logs Equipment Operating / Usage History Configuration Data Bulk CBM Sensor Data Look at objective CLOE Environment Starts with CLOE enabled platforms (self-monitoring/self-reporting), and the end to end integration of their data with networked logistics systems as guided by the Army Integrated Logistics Architecture (AILA). Three main process depicted on graphic First is LCOP/C2 Processes - color coded red - This is typically time-sensitive/low bandwidth data that would go over mission systems such as BFT for integraiton into Mission Command nets. If you look at legend of data types this would include vehicle and supply data such as fuel status and mission capability.. BCS3 is integration point for logc2 data, which is served back to soldiers in BN/BDE level. Blue lines depict logistics transaction processes that feed log business systems. Looking at legend includes maintenance/supply requests and equipment master updates. For example maintainer uses IETM identifies faulty part and via point and click generates parts request. Based on this data notification is sent GCSS-Army that pre-populates WO request. Minimizes manual intervention and re-entering data. Green line is data that supports support fleet management. Includes RAM, CM, and Predictive Maintenance Processes. Types of data include operating history, fault logs, and bulk sensor data. Data is stored at BN level, and then forwarded to LOGSA CBM+ DW warehouse for storage and analysis as BW is available. AESIP – Army Enterprise System Integration Program CBM+ – Condition Based Maintenance Plus CM – Configuration Management C2 – Command & Control LCOP – Logistics Common Operating Picture LIW – Logistics Information Warehouse MC – Mission Capability NOC – Network Operations Center RAM – Reliability/Availability/Maintainability