Sensor Project Flies Again

MIT 2008 Volume: 12 Issue: 9 (October)

The Army is reviving its previously canceled Aerial Common Sensor program with a new strategy based on greater reliance on commercial technology.

by Peter A. Buxbaum, MIT Correspondent
 

Still seeking an updated airborne surveillance platform, the Army is reviving its previously canceled Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program with a new strategy based on greater reliance on commercial technology and an incremental approach to development.

The new iteration of the program, which is already well into the contract award process, represents a marked change from the status of ACS just a couple of years ago. It was initially an Army-Navy joint effort, but the Navy eventually pulled out. The Army awarded Lockheed Martin an $879 million contract in 2004 to develop the first phase of the ACS project, only to cancel the contract a year and a half later.

The ACS program office blamed the cancellation on the contractor’s failure to understand program requirements. Others faulted the Army for piling on requirements that couldn’t be fit on the chosen platform. In either case, it was clear that ACS could not go forward on Lockheed’s chosen platform, to be provided by Brazil-based Embraer.

ACS is designed to integrate a variety of sensors—such as communications, signal and imagery sensors— onto a single platform. The program also plans on providing data fusion and reachback capabilities, allowing operators to push intelligence to tactical commanders and mission support center personnel.

The Army was able to salvage ACS for a couple of reasons, analysts say, most importantly because it still had the requirement for the updated airborne electronic surveillance capabilities that ACS was intended to provide. In addition, the contract cancellation was precipitated at its early stages, not because of problems with electronic capabilities, but primarily because of the inadequacy of the aircraft chosen to house the system.

The early termination paved the way for a new version of the program, based on the argument that problems were detected and decisively dealt with early on, before too much money had been spent. Equally important, ACS has morphed from a development program to an integration program during its hiatus. Many of the subsystems to be incorporated into ACS have matured in the interim. An emphasis on COTS technologies and an incremental approach to technology introduction have made ACS all the more viable going forward.

“There were many conspiring weight, size, power and cooling issues that led to the termination of the ACS system design and development contract with Lockheed Martin,” said Michael Madden, the deputy program manager for ACS. “The requirement for an ACS capability was not terminated, only the contract was. The ACS requirement has been updated and was approved by the Army Requirements Oversight Council in June 2008, and is currently in staffing for joint approval.

"A draft solicitation was also released for industry comment over the summer.

A request for proposals is expected to be released in November, and a contract awarded by the summer of 2009.

INCREMENTAL STRATEGY

ACS’s former woes were encapsulated in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2006. “Severe weight and design problems discovered during development have stopped work on the program,” the GAO noted. “As a result, program officials are anticipating at least a 45 percent cost increase and a delay of two years in delivering an initial capability to the warfighter.”

The heart of the problem, according to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group consultancy, was the choice of the Embraer 145 aircraft as the ACS platform. “That is a considerably larger aircraft than the Army flies now,” he explained. “But the Army had grand aspirations for the program and the planned roles outgrew the plane as did the cost. They tried to fit all of those capabilities onto the plane, and it was too small.”

ACS’s ballooning requirements may have sprung from the fact that it was designed to replace two Army surveillance platforms dating back to the 1980s. The new system was to combine the functionalities of the Guardrail Common Sensor, a corps-level airborne signal intelligence collection and location system that flies on several Beech Aircraft models, and the Airborne Reconnaissance Low platform, a multifunction, day/night, all-weather reconnaissance intelligence asset fielded by the Army on a DeHavilland DHC-7 four-engine turboprop aircraft.

But the Army has accumulated extensive lessons learned from the original ACS program, Madden said. The ACS program manager “has collated these and addressed each in preparation for the upcoming acquisition. These are closely monitored as we progress forward and we will continue to utilize independent reviews of progress. The Army requirements have also been identified in increments allowing for evolutionary development of ultimate ACS capability.”

In a sense, ACS’s original failure was fortuitous, in that the revived program has allowed the Army to update its requirements, which were originally written in late 1990s, and to take advantage of the greater maturity evident in some subsystem technologies.

“The biggest change is that the requirements for ACS have been crafted into increments,” said Madden, “allowing for mature technologies to be integrated for the first increment and the addition of more capability in following increments. What this means is that when the ACS program reaches a milestone B decision, all the major subcomponents are expected to be at technology readiness level 7 or better. This readiness level means that all of the subsystem prototypes have been flown and tested in an operational environment.”

The first ACS increment will integrate federated sensors and host Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) software. DCGS-A is the Army’s version of a family of programs with common elements that are designed to meet the ISR needs of each of the services.

“The prior approach was more aggressive with a completely integrated solution and did not require DCGS software,” said Madden. “Capabilities requiring further development have been moved off into follow-on increments. In order to accommodate the future increments, space, weight and power, requirements must be reserved on the aircraft for the next increments.”

To reduce risk, the RFP will require any products proposed be at a technology readiness level of 7 or better, said Madden. “The government will also be directing certain subsystems, to reduce risk,” he added. “The RFP will allow for vendors to also propose an alternate solution to the directed subsystems, but will need to be as capable and mature in order to manage risk.”

The current requirements also call for ACS to have an onboard battle command capability that could be utilized by a maneuver commander to direct ground forces. “ACS is required to have level IV unmanned aerial systems control, which allows operators on a manned aircraft to plot courses and direct sensors for unmanned aerial systems,” said Madden.

INTEGRATION CHALLENGE

ACS is considered a transformational program because it combines the capabilities of multiple sensors to create a single system capable of providing actionable intelligence to battlefield commanders. “Today, you have to cross-cue other sensors so that you can positively identify a threat and then hand it off for action,” said Madden. “An intelligence asset like ACS can directly transmit information to warfighters, and allows troops to maintain positive identification to engage the target.”

The new ACS will benefit from the fact that many of its subsystems have matured considerably since the original program was canceled, according to Frank Moore, the lead executive for ACS at Northrop Grumman Mission Systems. “The current program involves the integration of mature subsystems with little development required,” he said. “The original program included much more development risk. The Army is now stipulating that technology must be ready at level 7 for all subsystems.”

The maturation of ACS subsystems also means that integrators will be able to pull commercial technologies into ACS, both in the first and in subsequent increments. “Incorporating COTS technologies will definitely be on our minds as we prepare our proposal,” said Moore. “Pulling COTS will be part of our underlying integration strategy, as will be the emphasis on incorporating COTS as they become available. This is made easier by the fact that many changes in COTS have taken place since the first ACS, particularly in the areas of ACS subsystems.”

Moore pointed to developments in the Guardrail program, DCGS, processing powers and speeds, and radar technologies as examples of subsystem maturation. “Common data links are at a higher level of maturity and viability than back then,” he added. “These technologies are less risky and more developed than they were in the 2003 and 2004 time frames.”

The key challenge for the prime contractor, then, will be integration, not development, and this challenge includes software, hardware, communications applications, and integrative operator displays, according to Moore. “Software available from legacy systems will require modification. All of it has to work together seamlessly, provided in a timely fashion, and presented to intelligence analysts and operationally engaged warfighters in a way that allows them to make timely decisions.”

The change in the nature of the ACS program from development to integration also changes the approach that vendors such as Northrop Grumman will take to developing their proposals and assembling their capabilities. In the case of Northrop Grumman, its Mission Systems unit, which is involved primarily with systems integration, has taken the lead. Moore has assembled a team that includes internal capabilities as well as outside companies, such as L-3 Communications, for its expertise in the modification and configuration of subsystems for aircraft; AAI Corp., which has experience in the interface between manned and unmanned systems; and General Dynamics, which has capabilities in training and in the area of humanmachine interfaces.

PLATFORM DEBATE

Given the history of the ACS program, the choice of the appropriate airframe is seen by many as key to the viability of the enterprise. Northrop Grumman has yet to choose its airframe supplier, but has discussed the matter with several of them, Moore said.

“We are performing tradeoff studies right now, and we are looking at a class of high performance business jets,” he explained. “The choice of platform was one of the main problems associated with the original ACS program, so we want to make sure we choose a platform which will meet the Army’s specified attributes for endurance, time at altitude and the ability to carry sensor payloads.”

Gulfstream Aerospace, a General Dynamics subsidiary, is one company in the running to supply the ACS airframe. “In our mind the platform is a very important piece of the ACS puzzle,” said Buddy Sams, Gulfstream’s senior vice president for government programs. “The electronics for any platform will change every 18 months or so, according to Moore’s law, but the platform will be with the Army for 40 years. It is important that the platform be an airplane that is capable of doing the mission now and going forward.”

The airframe that Gulfstream is suggesting for ACS is its G550 aircraft, a business jet with a 50-foot long cabin, a range of 6,750 nautical miles, and a maximum altitude of 51,000 feet. Gulfstream has sold 1,800 G550s worldwide.

Although Gulfstream is best known for its corporate jets, the company is no stranger to building aircraft as special mission platforms, said Sams. The company sold a number of its G400 aircraft, a slightly smaller version than the G550, for similar missions to the government of Sweden and to the Israeli Air Force. Gulfstream has also sold its G500, the precursor to the G550, to the National Science Foundation for atmospheric testing, to the German space agency, and to the Japanese coast guard.

“We are proud of the fact the Israeli signal intelligence airplane already has combat experience in the Lebanon excursion in 2006,” said Sams. “It flew an incredible number of hours in a short period of time, demonstrating the capability of this platform.”

The G550 is also already in service in all of the U.S. armed forces, Sams also noted. “That means the Army will not have to set up a new logistics infrastructure for the aircraft,” he said.

“We have many years of experience modifying commercial airplanes for suit military platforms,” said Sams. “We have the capability of doubling the power on the airplane to replace the standard cooling system with one that meets mission requirements.

“The Army is taking pains with this program to reduce risk,” he added, “and in that spirit has been very open with industry on the electronic and the aircraft side to make sure that the RFP that they issue in November will be something that industry can meet and meet well. We think that we are well positioned to complete based on our past experience and on the performance of the G550.”

SERVICE SPLIT

One thing that is certain about the current ACS program is that the Navy will not be participating in it. “After thoroughly evaluating each service requirements, it was determined that they would be best met in separate platforms,” said Madden.

“The Army and Navy formally separated from building a system together in December of last year. The Navy requires a much larger platform to meet their needs. The Army will still coordinate to exchange ideas and technology possibilities with the other services. For example, a variation on portions of the Air Force’s airborne signals intelligence payload is being developed for the Guardrail modernization effort,” he said.

“The Navy is going in the opposite direction, and is considering a Boeing 737” variant for its airborne electronic surveillance capabilities modernization program, now known as EPX, said Aboulafia. The Army has an agreement with the Air Force not to fly larger aircraft like the 737, he noted, while the Navy is freer to choose a larger aircraft.

It is also clear that the Army and its industry partners face a challenge to satisfy the needs of eventual ACS users. The ACS program as currently devised must satisfy the needs of two interrelated sets of customers, according to Moore.

“One is the classic intelligence customer, and the second is the community of warfighters, the people who actually engage the enemy,” he said. “Units below the division level require useful and relevant information very quickly. Without good system integration, we will not be able to meet the needs of either of these communities. To do the mission well we will have to pull together data from a multiplicity of sensors and provide analysts and warfighters alike with properly integrated information.”

“There will be a lot of opportunities to provide less than that,” Moore concluded. “We need to focus completely on satisfying the entire customer set and provide them with timely and operationally relevant information.” ♦