Written by / Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

The dramatic increases for systems capabilities in tactical vehicles have overwhelmed the original design assumptions and conventional integration methods. Over the past few decades, a “bolt on” integration approach was used to employ Army Team C4ISR/Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment into tactical vehicles.Mp> As more systems are added, there is an increase in complexity: size, weight and power (SWaP) and heat loads on vehicle platforms that are already overtaxed. This approach had very serious operational limitations and was significantly increasing development, production and operational costs.

Imagine being a soldier in a cramped military vehicle where the driver, commander and squad leader each can have their own extensive set of systems and each of those systems having multiple sets of screens. The redundancy becomes gravely apparent.

The Army needs a new paradigm to streamline the Army Team C4ISR/ EW System of Systems (SoS) integration process and tailor the vehicle to various tactical vehicle missions without adversely affecting the overall system or vehicle performance.

A few years ago, members of the Army Team C4ISR community PEO Command, Control and Communications Tactical (C3T); PEO Intelligence and Electronic Warfare & Sensors; and the Communications-Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center joined the vehicle community PEO Ground Combat Systems (GCS), PEO Combat Support and Combat Service Support and Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) to find a way to build better systems for the warfighter.

Initially, the focus was on the interconnection of components, much like the modern consumer vehicles that have an integrated dashboard for the operator. Consequently, the initial approach was named the “in-dash” concept. The first task was to define a basic architecture to support the pending Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) acquisition.

Since then, the in-dash concept has now moved to a more strategic look at systems integration and an initial vehicle demonstration. To mark the milestone, this effort was renamed VICTORY, a loose acronym for vehicular integration for C4ISR/EW interoperability, to show the progression from the operator focus to a holistic vehicle view.

The goal of VICTORY is to transform from the current bolt-on integration methodology toward a network-centric systems oriented methodology. Systems that are bolted on to platforms most often have their own unique displays, computers, input devices and other ancillary mechanisms. The new system integration methodology would eliminate redundant components and reduce SWaP at a significantly lower cost.

“The objective is to ensure that the architecture is open, flexible and adaptable to improve the overall SoS performance, so that it not only works for one type of vehicle, but can be applied to a family of vehicles,” said Grace (Qi Ping) Xiang, chief technical officer, PEO C3T Systems Engineering and Integration Directorate Futures Office (SE&I-F). “This will also enable transition of technologies.”

“The whole point of enabling an open architecture approach is so that you can use plug and play methodology to integrate different systems and sensors, inherent to your mission, and be able to utilize the same architecture and adapt it across several tactical wheeled vehicle architectures,” said Vikas Gumber, VICTORY technical lead, PEO C3T SE&I-F.

The VICTORY architecture promotes interoperability, enhances C4ISR/EW system portability and expandability by leveraging commonality in components, services and interfaces, and enables continuous improvement in capabilities (network and services) while reducing system reset and costs of life cycle upgrade.

Using common components would eliminate a great deal of redundant equipment, Gumber explained, offering the Global Positioning System (GPS) and screen displays as examples. Currently, each piece of a platform’s equipment comes with its own GPS. So, instead of having multiple GPS systems, VICTORY would ensure that there would be just one, distributing the timing signals to all systems.

Security is also another critical system aspect. Vehicles routinely have both classified and unclassified information systems. Additionally, operators will have different clearance levels. So, security was a significant system requirement when developing the VICTORY architecture.

The Multiple Independent Levels of Security implementation was chosen for a recent demonstration to maintain separation of security domains, while providing mission-relevant information to the warfighter. The VICTORY architecture was designed to be adaptable to additional security requirements.

In the near term, the VICTORY team is working with PEO GCS PM Stryker Brigade Combat Team targeting a Stryker vehicle as an initial demonstration platform during the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2010.

For this demonstration, the team has selected five systems to demonstrate the effectiveness of the VICTORY architecture—FBCB2, EPLRS, GPS, SINCGARS and its Internet Controller (INC). These “big five” systems, along with some other key sensors (radio jammers, an acoustical shot detector, a 360-degree optical system for local situational awareness and others) will be the starting point to deliver a common architecture recommendation to the vehicle community.

In addition to the Stryker demonstration, the VICTORY team is also collaborating with TARDEC, the science and technology arm for the vehicle community, to assess the applicability of the VICTORY architecture for future tactical wheeled vehicles and subsystems.

As a long-term strategy, the team will continue to work closely with PM JLTV, exploiting a conceptual framework that will utilize existing open standards and assess the applicability of the VICTORY architecture. ♦