Page 1

PEO: Dr. James Blake (SES)


Deputy PEO: Rob Reyenga (SES)

Acquisition Center Director/ PARC: Joe Giunta

Business Operations: Steve Davis

Project Support: Traci Jones

Special Staff

Customer Support: Scott Pulford

PM Training Devices: Col. Vince Malone



PM CATT: Col. Harry Buhl

PM ITTS: Col. Sharlene Donovon

PM ConSim: Col. Wayne Epps

PM Field OPS: Russ McBride


Simulations and Training Omnibus Contract II Multiple $17,500,000,000

Common Army Ranges and Target Systems Multiple $400,000,000

Synthetic Environment Core Science Applications International Corporation $222,000,000

Joint Land Component Constructive Training Capability Lockheed Martin Corporation $146,000,000

Warfighter Field Operations Customer Support Contract Raytheon Technical Services Company $11,200,000,000

Urban Operations Training Systems Lockheed Martin Corporation $287,000,000

Live Training Transformation General Dynamics C4 Systems $200,000,000

Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System – Individual Weapon System Cubic Simulation Systems $134,083,565

Flight School XXI Computer Sciences Corporation $1,410,000,000

Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance Electronic Consulting Services $270,560,046

Range Radar Replacement Program General Dynamics C4 Systems $538,772,054

Operational Test – Tactical Engagement System Argon St Inc. $251,000,000

Instrumented Ranges – Digital Range Training Systems Lockheed Martin Corporation $450,000,000

Constructive Training System General Dynamics Information Technology $227,763,420

20 | MT2 19.1

IT Support Contract NCI Information Systems $169,062,152 U.S. Air Force Wargaming Support General Dynamics Information Technology $160,964,947 Combat Training Center Instrumentation System Northrop Grumman Technical Services $$154,005,017

Close Combat Tactical Trainer – Concurrency Upgrades Lockheed Martin Corporation $123,797,113 Virtual Clearance Training Suites FAAC Inc. $105,480,548 Project Raven General Dynamics $100,000,000

Capability Provider

Q& A

Addressing Training Devices as a Joint Task Force Rob Reyenga Deputy PEO PEO STRI Q: Can you describe the relationship between PEO STRI and its industry partners? A: We maintain a strong and open relationship with our industry partners. In the past several years, we have placed significant emphasis on providing accurate, timely and thorough information to our industry partners. We understand the importance of this information in their efforts to respond to our requirements. In addition to frequent scheduled and ad hoc meetings at all levels of the PEO and industry, we have several routine communications that support our goals of providing information to industry. We believe that these are very well received by the industry participants. Each month we conduct a procurement administrative lead time update that provides information from both our contracts and program management folks to industry on ongoing procurements. This allows industry to inquire and comment on multiple procurements and has provided excellent insight for us on our business decisions. Each year at the Training & Simulation Industry Symposium [TSIS], we provide a synopsis of every new business opportunity we are planning. These briefings are always available on our website: Following up on this, each year at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, we provide updates to our TSIS briefings. Throughout the year we routinely conduct industry days to highlight large business opportunities we are working on. We also have an ombudsman who works with industry on specific issues or concerns. Q: What can industry do in the future that would further enhance the relationship? A: As I addressed in the first question, I believe that good communication is fundamental to an effective relationship. I’ve seen several examples in the recent past where some actions on our part may have impacted industry’s ability to respond effectively and efficiently to our requirements. We received some excellent feedback and ideas from industry on things we could do that would help them be more efficient, and ultimately offer better, more cost-effective solutions to us. They recommended several improvements and ways to work together on solutions that help us to collectively provide better quality products and services to our customers: our Army, our soldiers and others who depend on us to support their mission. Q: Can you explain the importance of PEO STRI’s foreign military sales (FMS) program and how it impacts industry? A: The FMS program is centered on building partner capacity, which is a national security strategy. Besides providing friendly countries

much needed training devices and services, our FMS program affords the residual benefits of improving foreign relations through developing long-term, positive relationships with the foreign government entities and military forces. This comes into play both during the procurement process and when working side-by-side with the foreign nationals while training them on using the end product. Industry plays a big role in FMS because they are actively marketing the products they produce for PEO STRI. Industry’s marketing, along with PEO STRI’s expertise in the FMS process, has led to several FMS benefiting the customer, industry and the U.S. Army over the last several years. FMS at PEO STRI exceeded $400 million in FY13, which represents an increase of 649 percent from FY03. The FMS program is popular with industry as it provides millions of dollars in revenue and continues to build working relationships within the PEO STRI/industry integrated product team. Our FMS programs can also benefit our programs for U.S. forces by sustaining industry capacity, extending product line capabilities and retaining key management personnel. Q: How is the uncertain budget environment impacting what you do at PEO STRI? A: It has certainly consumed a large amount of work hours developing plans and alternatives and assessing the impact of various contingencies. It is causing us to take a very careful look at our portfolio to ensure it is aligned with the training priorities of the future as the Army faces a drastic reduction in troop strength, as well as the Army’s move toward regionally aligned forces. To ensure we are aligned with the Army’s priorities, we work closely with our counterparts at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and the Army’s G-3 to determine the future needs. MT2  19.1 | 21

With the shift to regionally aligned forces, there will be a much more robust need to immerse soldiers during their training cycles into the culture, language and landscape for the particular area of responsibility to which they would be deployed. The new doctrine of regionally aligned forces also includes deploying as a joint task force comprised of other U.S. military services, interagency and coalition partners. Therefore, our training devices need to address training as a joint task force in preparation for deployment. Regardless of the budget environment, PEO STRI will focus our efforts to meet the chief of staff of the Army’s strategic priorities in regards to training our soldiers. That is, to “conduct tough, realistic multi-echelon home station training utilizing our live, virtual and constructive capabilities to efficiently and effectively assure individual, leader and unit competencies.” Q: What is the current status of fielding the live, virtual, constructive capabilities? A: Since introducing the live, virtual, constructive-integrating architecture (LVC-IA) at Fort Hood in 2012, we have been applying the lessons learned with each fielding and LVC-IA is working as advertised. Units are now beginning to conduct training exercises with LVC-IA. The initial exercises focus primarily on the virtual and constructive interoperability in the integrated training environment (ITE). We are confident as experience and expertise develop, these ITE-enable training events will increase in both frequency and complexity. Feedback from the units involved has indicated that they have been very pleased with the level of training provided by LVC-IA. Each unit has indicated that LVC-IA allows them to stress their tactical operation center’s organizational structure and procedures in ways previously only achieved in large field exercises, which are expensive to execute. The field is excited about the upgrades coming with Version II. Expanding the level of integration with mission command systems and adding games for training will increase the number of potential participants and put even more stress on the unit’s mission command execution. Moving forward, we will field one site per quarter in FY14 and then three per fiscal year until the total basis of issue plan is complete with a total of 18 designated sites. Q: What is the integrated threat force (ITF) and is there any relation as far as capabilities with the network integration evaluation (NIE)? A: The ITF is being developed using mission control, visualization and collaboration tools to provide a scalable and reconfigurable representation of opposing force structure and capabilities. The ITF, currently established as an initial operational capability (IOC), accomplishes this through the integration of multiple threat representative information operations assets across all functional areas that are interoperable via a robust mission control backbone. Coupled with scalable visualization and collaboration tools, the ITF enables reconfigurable data fusion functionality for the purposes of managing threat fidelity and establishing complete control of live, virtual and constructive threat assets. We use the ITF extensively in the support that we provide to the NIEs. Our efforts are integrated into the NIE’s opposing forces capabilities and completely coordinated through the OPFOR unit’s tactical operations center. Representing a vigorous threat force using electronic warfare and computer network operations is an essential element for realistic operation testing. Having ITF woven into the NIE provides exactly that. 22 | MT2 19.1

Q: What are some of the training devices or systems PEO STRI will be focusing on fielding or upgrading in the next few years? A: Along with focusing on LVC-IA fielding, one of the major undertakings is in conjunction with meeting General Raymond T. Odierno’s strategic priority of maintaining a ready and modern Army. Upgrading the combat training center (CTC) complexes at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, La., and the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, Calif., falls under that strategic priority umbrella. We will be focusing primarily on modernizing the instrumentation systems at the CTCs and, more specifically, the range communications system (RCS), which currently uses technology from the late 1990s. The modernization of the RCS will include updating and replacing the system’s voice, video and data instrumentation, the live fire communications subsystems and network. Our goal is to have an IOC at the NTC by the third quarter of FY15 and have full operational capability (FOC) in the second quarter of FY18. At the JRTC, we plan on having the IOC by third quarter FY17 and the FOC by third quarter FY18. Q: What is the greatest challenge when acquiring and developing training systems to meet the requirements of the warfighter? A: I think the context of the question should include not just “acquiring and developing training systems,” but encompass “providing an effective training capability to our commanders to train soldiers.” That’s really our purpose here: to enable the training of soldiers. Achieving this greater scope relies on alignment and synchronization of identifying needs, defining requirements, programming resources, developing specifications, awarding contracts, designing solutions, producing devices and fielding capabilities. And vertical capabilities (such as task trainers) are not adequate; we must provide horizontally-interoperable capabilities integrated with operational systems, including the breadth of mission command systems. If aligning and synchronizing these efforts across multiple Army stakeholders is challenge enough in a steady state environment, doing so in a resource constrained and dynamic environment such as currently exists makes the challenge ever greater. I want to place more emphasis on the end result, the capability. Sometimes our systems put more emphasis on the process than the product. At the tactical level, we need to understand the environment in which the training is conducted, and deliver capabilities that are well suited for that environment. Capabilities that are much easier to use take less time to install or prepare for training, require much less support from outside the training unit, and can be quickly updated with changes needed resulting from technology or concurrency. Many practices in the commercial sector provide examples for us to achieve these goals. Q: Is there anything else you would like to add? A: These are challenging times for everyone associated with ensuring our Army remains mission ready through dynamic, realistic training that will ensure they are the most professional yet lethal land force in the world. From all indications, we will continue to face budgetary restraints that will put everything we do under a fiscal microscope. I have no doubt, though, that through the close professional relationships we have formed with industry and our confidence in their capabilities, we can continue to ensure the best, most cost-efficient training devices and systems for our soldiers. O

Mt2 19 1 final ww  
Mt2 19 1 final ww