1. CBM+ IT Bridging Infrastructure
25 Sep 2012

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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 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 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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
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+.

12. 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

13. Backup

14. 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