Tagged: cold

0

Army to Test First Next-Gen Ground Combat Vehicles in 2019

Army[1] maneuver officials on Monday said the service’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle will allow it to team manned and unmanned vehicles and create an unbeatable overmatch against enemy armored forces.

Developing the NGCV to replace the fleet of Cold-War era M1 Abrams tanks[2] and Bradley Fighting Vehicles[3] is the Army’s second modernization priority under a new strategy to reform acquisition and modernization.

The Army intends to stand up a new Futures Command this summer, which will oversee cross-functional teams that focus on each of the of the service’s six modernization priorities: long-range precision fires; next-generation combat vehicle; future vertical lift; a mobile and expeditionary network; air and missile defense capabilities; and soldier lethality.

“The Next Generation Combat Vehicle needs to be revolutionary,” Gen Robert Abrams, commander of Forces Command, told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s Global Force Symposium.

“It’s got to be 10X better than our current fleet and guarantee our overmatch into the future.”

The Army will need such an increase in capability to deal with threats such as Russia’s T14 Armata tank and China’s efforts at improving composite armor and reactive armor combinations on its ground vehicles, said Col. Ryan Janovic, the G2 for Army Forces Command.

Brig. Gen. David Lesperance, deputy commander of the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning[4], Georgia, and leader of the cross-functional team in the effort, said the NGCV will consist initially of three phases of prototyping and experimentation to refine the program’s requirements.

Part of the Army’s intent with its new acquisition and modernization strategy is to develop requirements in two to three years rather than the traditional five-to-seven-year process.

The program will seek to develop the robotic combat vehicle and a manned combat vehicle that can be used in an unmanned role based on the commander’s needs, Lesperance said.

There will be three phases for the “delivery of capability for experimentation” between 2018 and 2024, he said.

By late fiscal 2019, “we will deliver one manned versus two unmanned combat platforms that will initially go through [Army Test and Evaluation Command] testing, then will go through a six-to-nine month, extended experimentation in an operational unit in Forces Command,” Lesperance said.

Army officials will take the results of that effort and use it in the second phase of the program to deliver “a purpose-built robotic combat vehicle and a purpose-built manned fighting vehicle” in 2021 to ATEC and then to operational units at the beginning of second quarter of 2022, he said.

For the third phase, the Army plans to deliver seven manned and 14 unmanned prototypes in late 2023 and into early 2024 “that allow us to look, at a company level, [at] what manned-unmanned teaming could be,” Lesperance said.

“Imagine making contact with the enemy with an unmanned robot, and allowing a decision-maker to understand quicker and then make a better decision out of contact. Then move to a position of advantage to deliver decisive lethality in a way that we do not do now in 100 percent manned platforms,” he said.

“Each phase of the program in 2020, 2022 and 2024 will ultimately allow us to write the best requirement we can come up with based on experimentation, and the analytics to back it up that ultimately allow us to write the right doctrine, develop the right organizations and then deliver the right capability that will be compliant with how we are going to fight differently in the future,” Lesperance said.

— Matthew Cox can be reached at [email protected][5].

Show Full Article[6]

© Copyright 2018 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

References

  1. ^ Army (www.military.com)
  2. ^ M1 Abrams tanks (www.military.com)
  3. ^ Bradley Fighting Vehicles (www.military.com)
  4. ^ Fort Benning (www.military.com)
  5. ^ [email protected] (www.military.com)
  6. ^ Show Full Article (www.military.com)
0

Poisoning of Russian ex-spy puts spotlight on Moscow's secret military labs

During his last run for the presidency, in 2012, Russian leader Vladimir Putin startled U.S. military experts with a mysterious pledge to develop novel kinds of weapons to counter the West’s technological edge. Armies of the future, he said, would need weapons “based on new physical principles” including “genetic” and “psychophysical” science.

“Such high-tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons,” Putin said in an essay published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian government’s newspaper of record, “but will be more ‘acceptable’ in terms of ­political and military ideology.”

Exactly what Putin meant — and how any “genetic” weapon could square with international treaties outlawing chemical and biological warfare — remains uncertain. But what is now clear is that Putin’s words unleashed a wave of activity across a complex of heavily guarded military and civilian laboratories in Russia.

Since the start of Putin’s second term, a construction boom has been underway at more than two dozen institutes that were once part of the Soviet Union’s biological and chemical weapons establishment, according to Russian documents and photos compiled by independent researchers. That expansion, which includes multiple new or refurbished testing facilities, is particularly apparent at secret Defense Ministry laboratories that have long drawn the suspicions of U.S. officials over possible arms-treaty violations.

[Putin: Russia is developing nuclear arms capable of avoiding missile defenses[1]]

Russian officials insist that the research in government-run labs is purely defensive and perfectly legal. But the effort has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of allegations of Moscow’s involvement in the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Britain. Both were sickened by exposure to Novichok[2], a kind of highly lethal nerve agent uniquely developed by Russian military scientists years ago.

“The big question is, why are they doing this?” said Raymond Zilinskas, a chemical and biological weapons expert with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. In a newly released book[3], “Biosecurity in Putin’s Russia[4],” ­Zilinskas and co-author Philippe Mauger analyze hundreds of contract documents and other records that show a surge in Russian research interest in subjects ranging from genetically modified pathogens to nonlethal chemical weapons used for crowd control.

The analysis also tracks a simultaneous rise in sensationalist Russian claims that the United States is itself pursuing offensive biological weapons. Reports posted on state-sponsored news sites and amplified over social media have accused U.S. scientists of being behind recent outbreaks of the Zika virus as well as the Ebola epidemic in West Africa that began in 2014. In each instance, U.S. federal agencies marshaled a sizable response to counter or contain the outbreaks.

Such baseless claims could be viewed as part of a deliberate effort to “explain to their own people why they need to do this research,” Zilinskas said in an interview.

A spokeswoman for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to answer written questions but forwarded a March 13 statement by Vassily A. Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations. Nebenzia denied any involvement by the Kremlin in the March 4 nerve-agent attack and suggested that it was the United States and Britain, not Russia, that were continuing to conduct illegal research to create “new toxic substances.”

[Britain’s top diplomat accuses Putin of being behind nerve-agent attack[5]]

The research by Zilinskas and Mauger appears to bear out long-held concerns by the State Department, which has sharply criticized Russia in recent years over a lack of transparency in its military-related biological and chemical research. Since 2012, State Department officials have issued a series of reports faulting Moscow for refusing to open its military research laboratories to outside inspectors, and for failing to provide proof that it destroyed the highly lethal arsenals created by Red Army scientists in the years before the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Thomas Countryman, an assistant secretary of state for international security and arms control during the Obama administration, said that even before Putin, U.S. officials questioned whether the Kremlin had owned up to its past “fully and transparently.” But over the past six years, official distrust has grown as Moscow has embraced a more aggressive foreign policy that includes intimidation of Russia’s neighbors and an unabashed support for a Syrian dictator who uses nerve agents to kill his own people.

“Moscow’s full-throated defense of Syrian use of chemical weapons[6] — and, especially, its apparent use of chemical agents in targeted assassinations — only add to the concerns,” Countryman said.

Cold War pathogens

When the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991, the Russian Federation became the heir to history’s most dangerous arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

During the Cold War, Soviet leaders spent vast sums to create weaponized versions of 11 different pathogens — including the microbes that cause anthrax, smallpox and the plague — while also experimenting with genetically altered strains. They created new classes of chemical toxins, such as Novichok, reportedly used in the attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England.

[What is Novichok? Russia’s nerve agent has Soviet roots[7]]

A fourth-generation nerve agent more deadly than VX, Novichok is the stuff of legend. Russia denies that it ever researched or manufactured such nerve agents, but it arrested a former Soviet weapons scientist[8] on charges of divulging state secrets after he published details about Soviet Novichok production in newspaper articles and a memoir.

The Soviet program was motivated in part by competition with the United States. Washington maintained its own stockpile of nerve agents during the Cold War and manufactured biological weapons until 1969, when President Richard M. Nixon dismantled the program. But the Kremlin pressed ahead, convinced that the Pentagon was continuing bioweapons research in secret. Finally, in 1992, newly installed Russian President Boris Yeltsin acknowledged the existence of the secret program to U.S. officials and reported that all Soviet bioweapons had been destroyed.

In the years immediately following the Cold War, securing and dismantling Soviet weapons of mass destruction united Americans and Russians in a common cause[9]. The United States helped Russia build incinerators for destroying its chemical weapons, and it sponsored programs that paired former Soviet bioweapons scientists with Western companies to keep them employed during the country’s economic transition.

[Key allies back Britain in blaming Moscow for chemical attack[10]]

Such U.S.-Russian technical cooperation began to wane after Putin’s election as president, and it collapsed after the Russian strongman won a second term in 2012. Yet, even during the Yeltsin years, Russia refused to grant ­access to key weapons sites, including four biodefense laboratories run by the Russian military and perpetually sealed off from outside visitors, former U.S. officials said.

“We were always curious: Were they embarrassed to let us in because of the shape of their labs? Or were they hiding something?” said Laura Holgate, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama on preventing biological, chemical and nuclear terrorism.

Holgate allowed that Russia’s reluctance also may have reflected a “paranoia about what the U.S. might be learning” about the country’s military capabilities. In any case, she said, it became clear over time that Putin intended to preserve some Soviet-era capabilities for use in very specific situations. One of these was assassination — the killing of the Kremlin’s opponents using methods that were dramatic, yet allowed Moscow to plausibly deny culpability. Another was crowd control: the use of controversial “knockout” chemicals to incapacitate individuals involved in hostage standoffs and other mass disturbances.

Officials familiar with Russia’s program said the expanded activity at military labs may be partly aimed at honing those capabilities, giving Putin a variety of tools for dealing with adversaries while seeking to avoid the most flagrant violations of Russia’s treaty obligations.

“That would be in line with behavior that we’ve been seeing for years,” Holgate said.

Satellite evidence

Whatever the explanation, the buildup is striking. Data collected by Zilinskas and Mauger includes contract documents, ­Russian-language reports and aerial imagery that shed light on a dramatic expansion at the four secret Defense Ministry laboratories and numerous government-run civilian research centers across the country.

At one military complex at Yekaterinburg — the scene of an accidental release[11] of anthrax spores in 1979 that is said to have killed 100 workers and townspeople — satellite images show clusters of newly built, warehouse-size industrial buildings dotting a walled campus. Renovations can be observed in older buildings that in Soviet times were factories for mass-producing bacillus anthracis, the bacteria that causes anthrax.

At the 33rd Central Research Test Institute at Shikhany — formerly a “closed” Russian military city on the Volga River in southwest Russia — records point to a recent spending spree for specialized equipment such as freeze-drying machines used in microbial production. Lab officials are shown soliciting bids for repairs to a wind tunnel, the type used in testing aerosolized bacteria and viruses, as well as upgrades to an area of bermed storage pens that the researchers say are probably intended for open-air testing involving explosives.

Wind tunnels and outdoor testing facilities can be used legitimately to develop defenses against biological and chemical attacks. Indeed, the Pentagon employs similar equipment at its biodefense research facilities in Maryland and Utah. But Zilinskas and Mauger say the Russian expansion invites a higher level of scrutiny in light of the explicit calls by Russian leaders for work on novel kinds of weapons, including “genetic” ones.

After Putin’s essay in 2012, several senior military officials, including the defense minister at the time, Anatoly Serdyukov, publicly endorsed Putin’s appeal for new kinds of weapons and promised to start building them, the researchers note. Serdyukov specifically pledged to incorporate “genetic” research in creating Russia’s next-generation arsenals.

“We noted the numerous high-level calls for the development of biotechnology-based weapons in Russia, without further specification,” Zilinskas and Mauger write. At minimum, the vagueness of such statements potentially opens the door for any military official or “ambitious scientist” to lobby for a chance to develop a new kind of weapon — with the implicit blessing of top Russian officials, they write.

“When taken in conjunction with the [military’s] apparent support for the development of ‘genetic’ weapons, these statements erode normative barriers toward biological weapons in Russia,” the authors say.

Anton Troianovski in Moscow contributed to this report.

Read more:

With Putin’s reelection, expect rising tensions with the West[12]

The long, terrifying history of Russian dissidents being poisoned abroad[13]

Putin vows retaliation for British sanctions over poisoning case[14]

References

  1. ^ Putin: Russia is developing nuclear arms capable of avoiding missile defenses (www.washingtonpost.com)
  2. ^ exposure to Novichok (www.washingtonpost.com)
  3. ^ book (www.rienner.com)
  4. ^ Biosecurity in Putin’s Russia (www.amazon.com)
  5. ^ Britain’s top diplomat accuses Putin of being behind nerve-agent attack (www.washingtonpost.com)
  6. ^ Syrian use of chemical weapons (www.washingtonpost.com)
  7. ^ What is Novichok? Russia’s nerve agent has Soviet roots (www.washingtonpost.com)
  8. ^ former Soviet weapons scientist (www.voanews.com)
  9. ^ a common cause (armscontrolcenter.org)
  10. ^ Key allies back Britain in blaming Moscow for chemical attack (www.washingtonpost.com)
  11. ^ accidental release (nsarchive2.gwu.edu)
  12. ^ With Putin’s reelection, expect rising tensions with the West (www.washingtonpost.com)
  13. ^ The long, terrifying history of Russian dissidents being poisoned abroad (www.washingtonpost.com)
  14. ^ Putin vows retaliation for British sanctions over poisoning case (www.washingtonpost.com)
0

Poisoning of Russian ex-spy puts spotlight on Moscow's secret military labs

During his last run for the presidency, in 2012, Russian leader Vladimir Putin startled U.S. military experts with a mysterious pledge to develop novel kinds of weapons to counter the West’s technological edge. Armies of the future, he said, would need weapons “based on new physical principles” including “genetic” and “psychophysical” science.

“Such high-tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons,” Putin said in an essay published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian government’s newspaper of record, “but will be more ‘acceptable’ in terms of ­political and military ideology.”

Exactly what Putin meant — and how any “genetic” weapon could square with international treaties outlawing chemical and biological warfare — remains uncertain. But what is now clear is that Putin’s words unleashed a wave of activity across a complex of heavily guarded military and civilian laboratories in Russia.

Since the start of Putin’s second term, a construction boom has been underway at more than two dozen institutes that were once part of the Soviet Union’s biological and chemical weapons establishment, according to Russian documents and photos compiled by independent researchers. That expansion, which includes multiple new or refurbished testing facilities, is particularly apparent at secret Defense Ministry laboratories that have long drawn the suspicions of U.S. officials over possible arms-treaty violations.

[Putin: Russia is developing nuclear arms capable of avoiding missile defenses[1]]

Russian officials insist that the research in government-run labs is purely defensive and perfectly legal. But the effort has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of allegations of Moscow’s involvement in the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Britain. Both were sickened by exposure to Novichok[2], a kind of highly lethal nerve agent uniquely developed by Russian military scientists years ago.

“The big question is, why are they doing this?” said Raymond Zilinskas, a chemical and biological weapons expert with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. In a newly released book[3], “Biosecurity in Putin’s Russia[4],” ­Zilinskas and co-author Philippe Mauger analyze hundreds of contract documents and other records that show a surge in Russian research interest in subjects ranging from genetically modified pathogens to nonlethal chemical weapons used for crowd control.

The analysis also tracks a simultaneous rise in sensationalist Russian claims that the United States is itself pursuing offensive biological weapons. Reports posted on state-sponsored news sites and amplified over social media have accused U.S. scientists of being behind recent outbreaks of the Zika virus as well as the Ebola epidemic in West Africa that began in 2014. In each instance, U.S. federal agencies marshaled a sizable response to counter or contain the outbreaks.

Such baseless claims could be viewed as part of a deliberate effort to “explain to their own people why they need to do this research,” Zilinskas said in an interview.

A spokeswoman for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to answer written questions but forwarded a March 13 statement by Vassily A. Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations. Nebenzia denied any involvement by the Kremlin in the March 4 nerve-agent attack and suggested that it was the United States and Britain, not Russia, that were continuing to conduct illegal research to create “new toxic substances.”

[Britain’s top diplomat accuses Putin of being behind nerve-agent attack[5]]

The research by Zilinskas and Mauger appears to bear out long-held concerns by the State Department, which has sharply criticized Russia in recent years over a lack of transparency in its military-related biological and chemical research. Since 2012, State Department officials have issued a series of reports faulting Moscow for refusing to open its military research laboratories to outside inspectors, and for failing to provide proof that it destroyed the highly lethal arsenals created by Red Army scientists in the years before the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Thomas Countryman, an assistant secretary of state for international security and arms control during the Obama administration, said that even before Putin, U.S. officials questioned whether the Kremlin had owned up to its past “fully and transparently.” But over the past six years, official distrust has grown as Moscow has embraced a more aggressive foreign policy that includes intimidation of Russia’s neighbors and an unabashed support for a Syrian dictator who uses nerve agents to kill his own people.

“Moscow’s full-throated defense of Syrian use of chemical weapons[6] — and, especially, its apparent use of chemical agents in targeted assassinations — only add to the concerns,” Countryman said.

Cold War pathogens

When the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991, the Russian Federation became the heir to history’s most dangerous arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

During the Cold War, Soviet leaders spent vast sums to create weaponized versions of 11 different pathogens — including the microbes that cause anthrax, smallpox and the plague — while also experimenting with genetically altered strains. They created new classes of chemical toxins, such as Novichok, reportedly used in the attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England.

[What is Novichok? Russia’s nerve agent has Soviet roots[7]]

A fourth-generation nerve agent more deadly than VX, Novichok is the stuff of legend. Russia denies that it ever researched or manufactured such nerve agents, but it arrested a former Soviet weapons scientist[8] on charges of divulging state secrets after he published details about Soviet Novichok production in newspaper articles and a memoir.

The Soviet program was motivated in part by competition with the United States. Washington maintained its own stockpile of nerve agents during the Cold War and manufactured biological weapons until 1969, when President Richard M. Nixon dismantled the program. But the Kremlin pressed ahead, convinced that the Pentagon was continuing bioweapons research in secret. Finally, in 1992, newly installed Russian President Boris Yeltsin acknowledged the existence of the secret program to U.S. officials and reported that all Soviet bioweapons had been destroyed.

In the years immediately following the Cold War, securing and dismantling Soviet weapons of mass destruction united Americans and Russians in a common cause[9]. The United States helped Russia build incinerators for destroying its chemical weapons, and it sponsored programs that paired former Soviet bioweapons scientists with Western companies to keep them employed during the country’s economic transition.

[Key allies back Britain in blaming Moscow for chemical attack[10]]

Such U.S.-Russian technical cooperation began to wane after Putin’s election as president, and it collapsed after the Russian strongman won a second term in 2012. Yet, even during the Yeltsin years, Russia refused to grant ­access to key weapons sites, including four biodefense laboratories run by the Russian military and perpetually sealed off from outside visitors, former U.S. officials said.

“We were always curious: Were they embarrassed to let us in because of the shape of their labs? Or were they hiding something?” said Laura Holgate, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama on preventing biological, chemical and nuclear terrorism.

Holgate allowed that Russia’s reluctance also may have reflected a “paranoia about what the U.S. might be learning” about the country’s military capabilities. In any case, she said, it became clear over time that Putin intended to preserve some Soviet-era capabilities for use in very specific situations. One of these was assassination — the killing of the Kremlin’s opponents using methods that were dramatic, yet allowed Moscow to plausibly deny culpability. Another was crowd control: the use of controversial “knockout” chemicals to incapacitate individuals involved in hostage standoffs and other mass disturbances.

Officials familiar with Russia’s program said the expanded activity at military labs may be partly aimed at honing those capabilities, giving Putin a variety of tools for dealing with adversaries while seeking to avoid the most flagrant violations of Russia’s treaty obligations.

“That would be in line with behavior that we’ve been seeing for years,” Holgate said.

Satellite evidence

Whatever the explanation, the buildup is striking. Data collected by Zilinskas and Mauger includes contract documents, ­Russian-language reports and aerial imagery that shed light on a dramatic expansion at the four secret Defense Ministry laboratories and numerous government-run civilian research centers across the country.

At one military complex at Yekaterinburg — the scene of an accidental release[11] of anthrax spores in 1979 that is said to have killed 100 workers and townspeople — satellite images show clusters of newly built, warehouse-size industrial buildings dotting a walled campus. Renovations can be observed in older buildings that in Soviet times were factories for mass-producing bacillus anthracis, the bacteria that causes anthrax.

At the 33rd Central Research Test Institute at Shikhany — formerly a “closed” Russian military city on the Volga River in southwest Russia — records point to a recent spending spree for specialized equipment such as freeze-drying machines used in microbial production. Lab officials are shown soliciting bids for repairs to a wind tunnel, the type used in testing aerosolized bacteria and viruses, as well as upgrades to an area of bermed storage pens that the researchers say are probably intended for open-air testing involving explosives.

Wind tunnels and outdoor testing facilities can be used legitimately to develop defenses against biological and chemical attacks. Indeed, the Pentagon employs similar equipment at its biodefense research facilities in Maryland and Utah. But Zilinskas and Mauger say the Russian expansion invites a higher level of scrutiny in light of the explicit calls by Russian leaders for work on novel kinds of weapons, including “genetic” ones.

After Putin’s essay in 2012, several senior military officials, including the defense minister at the time, Anatoly Serdyukov, publicly endorsed Putin’s appeal for new kinds of weapons and promised to start building them, the researchers note. Serdyukov specifically pledged to incorporate “genetic” research in creating Russia’s next-generation arsenals.

“We noted the numerous high-level calls for the development of biotechnology-based weapons in Russia, without further specification,” Zilinskas and Mauger write. At minimum, the vagueness of such statements potentially opens the door for any military official or “ambitious scientist” to lobby for a chance to develop a new kind of weapon — with the implicit blessing of top Russian officials, they write.

“When taken in conjunction with the [military’s] apparent support for the development of ‘genetic’ weapons, these statements erode normative barriers toward biological weapons in Russia,” the authors say.

Anton Troianovski in Moscow contributed to this report.

Read more:

With Putin’s reelection, expect rising tensions with the West[12]

The long, terrifying history of Russian dissidents being poisoned abroad[13]

Putin vows retaliation for British sanctions over poisoning case[14]

References

  1. ^ Putin: Russia is developing nuclear arms capable of avoiding missile defenses (www.washingtonpost.com)
  2. ^ exposure to Novichok (www.washingtonpost.com)
  3. ^ book (www.rienner.com)
  4. ^ Biosecurity in Putin’s Russia (www.amazon.com)
  5. ^ Britain’s top diplomat accuses Putin of being behind nerve-agent attack (www.washingtonpost.com)
  6. ^ Syrian use of chemical weapons (www.washingtonpost.com)
  7. ^ What is Novichok? Russia’s nerve agent has Soviet roots (www.washingtonpost.com)
  8. ^ former Soviet weapons scientist (www.voanews.com)
  9. ^ a common cause (armscontrolcenter.org)
  10. ^ Key allies back Britain in blaming Moscow for chemical attack (www.washingtonpost.com)
  11. ^ accidental release (nsarchive2.gwu.edu)
  12. ^ With Putin’s reelection, expect rising tensions with the West (www.washingtonpost.com)
  13. ^ The long, terrifying history of Russian dissidents being poisoned abroad (www.washingtonpost.com)
  14. ^ Putin vows retaliation for British sanctions over poisoning case (www.washingtonpost.com)
0

Army Wants Armed Ground Robot Prototype by 2019

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

BAE’s Armed Robotic Combat Vehicle (ARCV), originally developed for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program

WASHINGTON: After 20 years of cancelled programs, the Army[1] now wants prototypes of all-new robotic[2] and “optionally manned” combat vehicles by 2019 so soldiers can begin field-testing them in 2020. Compared to current vehicles, they’ll be lighter, smaller[3] and optimized for urban combat, said Brig. Gen. David Lesperance[4], head of the armor school at Fort Benning, Ga. and the hand-picked head of the service’s Cross-Functional Team[5] on future ground vehicles.

Army photo

Brig. Gen. David Lesperance

Both established defense contractors and non-traditional companies are currently working on concepts, he told me and two other reporters this afternoon, and there’ll be intense experimentation, modeling, and simulation in the next “six to 12 months.”

Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley[6] created the Cross Functional Teams last fall to advance his Big Six modernization priorities. What’s called Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) is No. 2, second only to long-range artillery and missiles[7]. Until this week, however, the CFTs have kept quiet. But Gen. Milley promised the Army would seek “radical,” ten-fold improvements[8] in technology on a tight timeline. Lesperance’s proposal would definitely deliver on that promise — if it works.

Army slide showing the elements of the (later canceled) Future Combat System

Risk Factors

The problem is the post-Cold War Army’s track record[9] on new armored fighting vehicles is unblemished by success. (The successful Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle[10] is essentially a modified Bradley, not an all new design). While continually upgrading and modernizing[11] the 1980s-vintage M1 Abrams tank and the M2 Bradley, the Pentagon has cancelled the M8 Armored Gun System (1997[12]), the Crusader howitzer (2002[13]), the Future Combat Systems (2009[14]), and the Ground Combat Vehicle (2013[15]). FCS in particular is the dead elephant in the room, because it was the Army’s last attempt at this kind of technological great leap forward, specifically including both manned and robotic vehicles.

Army photo

Gen. Mark Milley

Milley has said specifically his Big Six modernization program won’t repeat the mistakes of FCS, and there are grounds for hope. First, technology is just better. The private sector has made dramatic advances in computing power, artificial intelligenc and ground robots since FCS was cancelled in 2009, when the iPhone was in its infancy and self-driving cars were a fantasy.

The Army, for its part, is taking care to prototype the new technology before it commits to an acquisition program, unlike FCS. It has also abandoned the cumbersome mega-program approach of FCS, which was a single contract for eight manned vehicles, multiple ground robots and drones, and a mobile network to link them all. The Cross Functional Teams, by contrast, are loosely coupled. Lesperance’s combat vehicle team holds weekly video conferences with the others, and it’s working closely with the CFTs for the soldiers[16] who’ll ride in it, the network[17] that’ll connect it, and the simulators everyone will train in. But they are separate efforts that won’t all collapse with the failure of the weakest link.

Mark Esper

Only this week are the CFTs beginning to talk to selected press. They’re opening up in anticipation of the AUSA conference in Huntsville, Ala. March 26th-28, where the Army will formally unveil the org chart for its new Futures Command[18], to which the CFTs will belong, along with other Army entities as yet unspecified.

“Futures Command is a critical component (of modernization), but we are impatient and speed is critical, which is why we have these Cross Functional Teams stood up now,” Army Secretary Mark Esper[19] told the House defense appropriations subcommittee this morning. They’re called cross-functional because each CFT combines combat veterans, military futurists, scientists, technologists, and acquisition professionals — disciplines historically scattered around the Army — in order to short-circuit the bureaucracy and accelerate modernization. The goal, Esper told Congress, is to cut the time to field a new weapon system from 10-15 years down to five to eight.

BAE Systems image

BAE’s design for the cancelled Ground Combat Vehicle

Robots & Humans

Brig. Gen. Lesperance — whose name means “hope” in French — understandably declined to commit himself to a fielding date today. But he wants what he calls “experimental prototypes” in “shakedown testing” in 2019, followed by full-up field tests with an operational combat unit in 2020. (That’s two years ahead of the original Next Generation Ground Vehicle timeline[20], which didn’t even include robotics). The Army will take the troops’ feedback and refine the design, tentatively aiming for a second round of field tests in 2022 and a third in 2024. Only then will the Army decide whether the vehicles are ready to produce.

M2 Bradley in Iraq

Lesperance also declined to discuss the vehicles’ weight, armament, or power plant, saying those all remain to be decided. He’s still waiting for the industry concepts to come back and he doesn’t want to prejudge them or cramp their creativity, he said. He wouldn’t even say whether the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle would replace the M1 Abrams heavy tank or the M2 Bradley troop carrier, two very different roles. (Historically the Army’s prioritized replacing the Bradley[21], which has been upgraded so many times its electrical system and drivetrain are at their limits).

What Lesperance would say, however, was eye-opening enough. Over and over, he emphasized the new combat vehicles must be “optimized for fighting in dense urban terrain,” in contrast to current vehicles optimized for open-field blitzkrieg across Europe. Fighting in narrow streets, in turn, requires smaller vehicles than the massive M1, as does the need to deploy rapidly by air and to keep operating despite frequent disruptions to supply lines[22].

One way to reduce the weight is to take out the humans — not because people weigh a lot, but because the armor to protect them does. A robotic vehicle can be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and expendable, scouting ahead of the human force and springing traps like roadside bombs, landmines, and ambushes. It would be armed, Lesperance said, but a human soldier would always be “in the loop” and make any decision to use lethal force[23]. Initially, the Robotic Combat Vehicle will probably require close human supervision, he said, but as artificial intelligence improves, he envisions the robots acting more and more autonomously.

Army photo

Army M1 Abrams tank with a trial installation of the Israeli-made Trophy Active Protection System (APS)

The Next Generation Combat Vehicle itself, by contrast, will be “optionally manned.” It’ll have the space, seats, and above all the protection to carry human troops, but it’ll also have enough artificial intelligence to navigate the battlefield without them. Depending on the tactical situation, commanders may decide to send in the vehicles unmanned, with few human crew, or with a passenger compartment full of infantry ready to jump out and assault.

Lesperance doesn’t know yet how many soldiers the NGCV troop carrier should fit, a hotly contested question. The tracked M2 Bradley can manage a fire team of four or five, the larger but more lightly armed eight-wheel-drive Stryker[24] can carry a full squad of nine. Trying to combine better-than-Bradley protection with a Stryker-sized passenger compartment drove the cancelled Ground Combat Vehicle[25] north of 60 tons, so the Army is now studying trade-offs among passenger capacity, protection, size, weight, and cost.

The robotic[26] and optionally-manned[27] machines are intended to complement each other, Lesperance said, but they’re “not inextricably linked.” In other words, one program might be delayed or even cancelled without dooming the other. Given the stakes and risks, that’s probably prudent.

References

  1. ^ Army (breakingdefense.com)
  2. ^ robotic (breakingdefense.com)
  3. ^ lighter, smaller (breakingdefense.com)
  4. ^ Brig. Gen. David Lesperance (www.benning.army.mil)
  5. ^ Cross-Functional Team (breakingdefense.com)
  6. ^ Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley (breakingdefense.com)
  7. ^ long-range artillery and missiles (breakingdefense.com)
  8. ^ “radical,” ten-fold improvements (breakingdefense.com)
  9. ^ track record (breakingdefense.com)
  10. ^ Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (breakingdefense.com)
  11. ^ upgrading and modernizing (breakingdefense.com)
  12. ^ 1997 (olive-drab.com)
  13. ^ 2002 (edition.cnn.com)
  14. ^ 2009 (breakingdefense.com)
  15. ^ 2013 (breakingdefense.com)
  16. ^ soldiers (breakingdefense.com)
  17. ^ network (breakingdefense.com)
  18. ^ Futures Command (breakingdefense.com)
  19. ^ Army Secretary Mark Esper (breakingdefense.com)
  20. ^ original Next Generation Ground Vehicle timeline (breakingdefense.com)
  21. ^ replacing the Bradley (breakingdefense.com)
  22. ^ frequent disruptions to supply lines (breakingdefense.com)
  23. ^ decision to use lethal force (breakingdefense.com)
  24. ^ Stryker (breakingdefense.com)
  25. ^ Ground Combat Vehicle (breakingdefense.com)
  26. ^ robotic (breakingdefense.com)
  27. ^ optionally-manned (breakingdefense.com)
0

1ST BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM: 1-32nd CAV demonstrates lethality at gunnery training

Bandits from 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, recently conducted crew gunnery training to confirm mastery of motorized crew fundamentals and maximize lethality.

The two-week gunnery training that ended Friday qualified 49 crews on their assigned machine guns; MK19 grenade launchers; and tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missiles, building crew confidence in the process.

Captain Daniel T. Little, commander, A Troop 1-32nd Cav. Regt., said Bandit troopers need to be proficient in crew tasks and weapons systems so they are able to conduct continuous reconnaissance and surveillance operations in any environment.

“This gunnery exercise tested the Bandits in a variety of harsh weather conditions including periods of daylight and darkness which increased the overall complexity. Crews were forced to transition rapidly between optics and lasers in order to identify and engage multiple targets within the time limit.  Our crews executed their tasks expertly,” Little said.

Specialist Luis Abad, an A Troop gunner, said his favorite part of gunnery was “waking up in the cold” because it built up his character as an individual and Soldier. Not only did gunnery build the grit and resilience of Bandit troopers, but it also reinforced the “deploy and fight now mentality” that is first on the 1st BCT commander’s list of expectations for the Bastogne brigade.

“Anything can happen in combat and gunnery allowed [my] whole crew to move and execute using live rounds, giving everyone a good grasp of what their job is within the truck,” said Spc. Joseph Levato, a B Troop MK19 gunner.

The Bandits recognized the importance of growing as teammates within their crews during gunnery in order to maximize their performance and lethality.

“[Gunnery] helped me develop by giving me a hands on situation for engaging targets while working as a [mounted] team [member], unlike regular ranges that usually focus on individual performance,” said Pfc. Louis Dekany, an A Troop gunner. “It develops everyone’s roles within the team.”

The teamwork of the crews led them to succeed in the competition for the coveted title of “Top Gun,” awarded to the highest-performing crew for each weapon system at gunnery.

Winning crews included Sgt. David Kelly, Spc. Brando Cervantes, and Pvt. James Osburn for the TOW system; Sgt. 1st Class Eric Harder, Sgt. Ayrton Leiser, and Pvt. Brandon Beecher for the MK19; Sgt. Seth Jarrell, Spc. Jonathan Passman, and Pfc. Nickalas Woody for machine gun; and Lt. Col. Adisa King, Spc. Zackery Khan, and Spc. Austin Heiser for the Commander’s Cup on the mine-resistant ambush-protected, all-terrain vehicle. The competition sparked crews to work harder and outperform each other.

Staff Sergeant Anthony Renza, a senior scout in B Troop, said his favorite part of gunnery was “being in the running for Top Gun and seeing [his] crew come alive with motivation and drive to succeed.”

Notably, D Troop successfully qualified nine crews, which is the highest number of qualified crews in any forward support company in Bastogne. D Troop now holds the only qualified crew of food service specialists. This shows the unit’s focus on ensuring every trooper is trained and ready for combat, no matter their military occupational specialty.

The troopers of 1st Squadron developed their fundamental motorized crew skills, contributed to 1-32nd CAV’s readiness, and displayed their proficiency and lethality during gunnery training. The Bandits will continue to train to ensure they have the most lethal crews in the brigade and are ready to fight and conduct reconnaissance whenever called, in any conditions.

0

1ST BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM: 1-32nd CAV demonstrates lethality …

Bandits from 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, recently conducted crew gunnery training to confirm mastery of motorized crew fundamentals and maximize lethality.

The two-week gunnery training that ended Friday qualified 49 crews on their assigned machine guns; MK19 grenade launchers; and tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missiles, building crew confidence in the process.

Captain Daniel T. Little, commander, A Troop 1-32nd Cav. Regt., said Bandit troopers need to be proficient in crew tasks and weapons systems so they are able to conduct continuous reconnaissance and surveillance operations in any environment.

“This gunnery exercise tested the Bandits in a variety of harsh weather conditions including periods of daylight and darkness which increased the overall complexity. Crews were forced to transition rapidly between optics and lasers in order to identify and engage multiple targets within the time limit.  Our crews executed their tasks expertly,” Little said.

Specialist Luis Abad, an A Troop gunner, said his favorite part of gunnery was “waking up in the cold” because it built up his character as an individual and Soldier. Not only did gunnery build the grit and resilience of Bandit troopers, but it also reinforced the “deploy and fight now mentality” that is first on the 1st BCT commander’s list of expectations for the Bastogne brigade.

“Anything can happen in combat and gunnery allowed [my] whole crew to move and execute using live rounds, giving everyone a good grasp of what their job is within the truck,” said Spc. Joseph Levato, a B Troop MK19 gunner.

The Bandits recognized the importance of growing as teammates within their crews during gunnery in order to maximize their performance and lethality.

“[Gunnery] helped me develop by giving me a hands on situation for engaging targets while working as a [mounted] team [member], unlike regular ranges that usually focus on individual performance,” said Pfc. Louis Dekany, an A Troop gunner. “It develops everyone’s roles within the team.”

The teamwork of the crews led them to succeed in the competition for the coveted title of “Top Gun,” awarded to the highest-performing crew for each weapon system at gunnery.

Winning crews included Sgt. David Kelly, Spc. Brando Cervantes, and Pvt. James Osburn for the TOW system; Sgt. 1st Class Eric Harder, Sgt. Ayrton Leiser, and Pvt. Brandon Beecher for the MK19; Sgt. Seth Jarrell, Spc. Jonathan Passman, and Pfc. Nickalas Woody for machine gun; and Lt. Col. Adisa King, Spc. Zackery Khan, and Spc. Austin Heiser for the Commander’s Cup on the mine-resistant ambush-protected, all-terrain vehicle. The competition sparked crews to work harder and outperform each other.

Staff Sergeant Anthony Renza, a senior scout in B Troop, said his favorite part of gunnery was “being in the running for Top Gun and seeing [his] crew come alive with motivation and drive to succeed.”

Notably, D Troop successfully qualified nine crews, which is the highest number of qualified crews in any forward support company in Bastogne. D Troop now holds the only qualified crew of food service specialists. This shows the unit’s focus on ensuring every trooper is trained and ready for combat, no matter their military occupational specialty.

The troopers of 1st Squadron developed their fundamental motorized crew skills, contributed to 1-32nd CAV’s readiness, and displayed their proficiency and lethality during gunnery training. The Bandits will continue to train to ensure they have the most lethal crews in the brigade and are ready to fight and conduct reconnaissance whenever called, in any conditions.

0

1ST BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM: 1-32nd CAV demonstrates lethality …

Bandits from 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, recently conducted crew gunnery training to confirm mastery of motorized crew fundamentals and maximize lethality.

The two-week gunnery training that ended Friday qualified 49 crews on their assigned machine guns; MK19 grenade launchers; and tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missiles, building crew confidence in the process.

Captain Daniel T. Little, commander, A Troop 1-32nd Cav. Regt., said Bandit troopers need to be proficient in crew tasks and weapons systems so they are able to conduct continuous reconnaissance and surveillance operations in any environment.

“This gunnery exercise tested the Bandits in a variety of harsh weather conditions including periods of daylight and darkness which increased the overall complexity. Crews were forced to transition rapidly between optics and lasers in order to identify and engage multiple targets within the time limit.  Our crews executed their tasks expertly,” Little said.

Specialist Luis Abad, an A Troop gunner, said his favorite part of gunnery was “waking up in the cold” because it built up his character as an individual and Soldier. Not only did gunnery build the grit and resilience of Bandit troopers, but it also reinforced the “deploy and fight now mentality” that is first on the 1st BCT commander’s list of expectations for the Bastogne brigade.

“Anything can happen in combat and gunnery allowed [my] whole crew to move and execute using live rounds, giving everyone a good grasp of what their job is within the truck,” said Spc. Joseph Levato, a B Troop MK19 gunner.

The Bandits recognized the importance of growing as teammates within their crews during gunnery in order to maximize their performance and lethality.

“[Gunnery] helped me develop by giving me a hands on situation for engaging targets while working as a [mounted] team [member], unlike regular ranges that usually focus on individual performance,” said Pfc. Louis Dekany, an A Troop gunner. “It develops everyone’s roles within the team.”

The teamwork of the crews led them to succeed in the competition for the coveted title of “Top Gun,” awarded to the highest-performing crew for each weapon system at gunnery.

Winning crews included Sgt. David Kelly, Spc. Brando Cervantes, and Pvt. James Osburn for the TOW system; Sgt. 1st Class Eric Harder, Sgt. Ayrton Leiser, and Pvt. Brandon Beecher for the MK19; Sgt. Seth Jarrell, Spc. Jonathan Passman, and Pfc. Nickalas Woody for machine gun; and Lt. Col. Adisa King, Spc. Zackery Khan, and Spc. Austin Heiser for the Commander’s Cup on the mine-resistant ambush-protected, all-terrain vehicle. The competition sparked crews to work harder and outperform each other.

Staff Sergeant Anthony Renza, a senior scout in B Troop, said his favorite part of gunnery was “being in the running for Top Gun and seeing [his] crew come alive with motivation and drive to succeed.”

Notably, D Troop successfully qualified nine crews, which is the highest number of qualified crews in any forward support company in Bastogne. D Troop now holds the only qualified crew of food service specialists. This shows the unit’s focus on ensuring every trooper is trained and ready for combat, no matter their military occupational specialty.

The troopers of 1st Squadron developed their fundamental motorized crew skills, contributed to 1-32nd CAV’s readiness, and displayed their proficiency and lethality during gunnery training. The Bandits will continue to train to ensure they have the most lethal crews in the brigade and are ready to fight and conduct reconnaissance whenever called, in any conditions.

0

Alaska Troops Hold Annual Winter Games

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, March 6, 2018 —

As temperatures plummeted into the negative ’20s here, 17 teams of 10 soldiers each from across U.S. Army Alaska and the Canadian Army competed in a series of cold weather and mountainous warrior tasks Feb. 27-March 2. [1]

Team 15 from 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, prevailed, scoring the highest point total.[2]

The annual U.S. Army Alaska Winter Games were held this year at the Birch Hill Ski and Snowboard Area here. Events included a biathlon, a written test, ahkio — runnerless sledge towing — shooting on snowshoes, casualty evacuation and treatment, tent setup, downhill skiing, skijoring — which is skiing while pulled, in this case by a vehicle, but a horse or dog team can also be used — and land navigation.[3]

“It’s important because it helps individuals training on these specific events, that they can then take back to their units,” said Army 1st Lt. Michael McKeon, the winning team’s leader and a platoon leader with 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“Like for us, we’re the ski platoon for our troop, and we didn’t get really good at it until we trained for this competition,” he said. “Now, we’re excellent at skiing and can take that back to our unit.”

Building Arctic Skills

The games, as with any other military competition, serves a variety of purposes.

“This process started three-and-a-half to four months ago,” said Army 1st Lt. Christopher Rainsberger, the Arctic Warrior Games officer in charge and a platoon leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“Events like this are extremely important for [U.S. Army Alaska] because one of the main things that the units up here focus on is Arctic mobility and Arctic skills,” Rainsberger said. “These events are an excellent way to train for that and to show how well your squad or your team is proficient at skiing, setting up 10-man tents and shooting in Arctic conditions under stress.”

“All the effort and the heart the teams put into practicing really shows the teams are competing,” he added. “The teams practice weeks and months before the event, and there’s a lot of camaraderie with those teams.”

References

  1. ^ U.S. Army Alaska (www.army.mil)
  2. ^ 25th Infantry Division (www.25idl.army.mil)
  3. ^ here (www.wainwright.army.mil)
0

Alaska Troops Hold Annual Winter Games

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, March 6, 2018 —

As temperatures plummeted into the negative ’20s here, 17 teams of 10 soldiers each from across U.S. Army Alaska and the Canadian Army competed in a series of cold weather and mountainous warrior tasks Feb. 27-March 2. [1]

Team 15 from 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, prevailed, scoring the highest point total.[2]

The annual U.S. Army Alaska Winter Games were held this year at the Birch Hill Ski and Snowboard Area here. Events included a biathlon, a written test, ahkio — runnerless sledge towing — shooting on snowshoes, casualty evacuation and treatment, tent setup, downhill skiing, skijoring — which is skiing while pulled, in this case by a vehicle, but a horse or dog team can also be used — and land navigation.[3]

“It’s important because it helps individuals training on these specific events, that they can then take back to their units,” said Army 1st Lt. Michael McKeon, the winning team’s leader and a platoon leader with 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“Like for us, we’re the ski platoon for our troop, and we didn’t get really good at it until we trained for this competition,” he said. “Now, we’re excellent at skiing and can take that back to our unit.”

Building Arctic Skills

The games, as with any other military competition, serves a variety of purposes.

“This process started three-and-a-half to four months ago,” said Army 1st Lt. Christopher Rainsberger, the Arctic Warrior Games officer in charge and a platoon leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“Events like this are extremely important for [U.S. Army Alaska] because one of the main things that the units up here focus on is Arctic mobility and Arctic skills,” Rainsberger said. “These events are an excellent way to train for that and to show how well your squad or your team is proficient at skiing, setting up 10-man tents and shooting in Arctic conditions under stress.”

“All the effort and the heart the teams put into practicing really shows the teams are competing,” he added. “The teams practice weeks and months before the event, and there’s a lot of camaraderie with those teams.”

References

  1. ^ U.S. Army Alaska (www.army.mil)
  2. ^ 25th Infantry Division (www.25idl.army.mil)
  3. ^ here (www.wainwright.army.mil)
0

Alaska Troops Hold Annual Winter Games > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF …

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, March 6, 2018 —

As temperatures plummeted into the negative ’20s here, 17 teams of 10 soldiers each from across U.S. Army Alaska and the Canadian Army competed in a series of cold weather and mountainous warrior tasks Feb. 27-March 2. [1]

Team 15 from 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, prevailed, scoring the highest point total.[2]

The annual U.S. Army Alaska Winter Games were held this year at the Birch Hill Ski and Snowboard Area here. Events included a biathlon, a written test, ahkio — runnerless sledge towing — shooting on snowshoes, casualty evacuation and treatment, tent setup, downhill skiing, skijoring — which is skiing while pulled, in this case by a vehicle, but a horse or dog team can also be used — and land navigation.[3]

“It’s important because it helps individuals training on these specific events, that they can then take back to their units,” said Army 1st Lt. Michael McKeon, the winning team’s leader and a platoon leader with 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“Like for us, we’re the ski platoon for our troop, and we didn’t get really good at it until we trained for this competition,” he said. “Now, we’re excellent at skiing and can take that back to our unit.”

Building Arctic Skills

The games, as with any other military competition, serves a variety of purposes.

“This process started three-and-a-half to four months ago,” said Army 1st Lt. Christopher Rainsberger, the Arctic Warrior Games officer in charge and a platoon leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“Events like this are extremely important for [U.S. Army Alaska] because one of the main things that the units up here focus on is Arctic mobility and Arctic skills,” Rainsberger said. “These events are an excellent way to train for that and to show how well your squad or your team is proficient at skiing, setting up 10-man tents and shooting in Arctic conditions under stress.”

“All the effort and the heart the teams put into practicing really shows the teams are competing,” he added. “The teams practice weeks and months before the event, and there’s a lot of camaraderie with those teams.”

References

  1. ^ U.S. Army Alaska (www.army.mil)
  2. ^ 25th Infantry Division (www.25idl.army.mil)
  3. ^ here (www.wainwright.army.mil)