Q&A: Colonel Angel L. Colon
Tactical Networker
Creating a Dynamic, Self-Forming Network for Formations on the Move
Colonel Angel L. Colon
Project Manager
Warfighter Information
Network-Tactical
Colonel Angel L. Colon is project manager, Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). Previously, he served as the military deputy, Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Command. He was product manager, communications management systems, WIN-T, responsible for the Tactical Internet Control System, Integrated Systems Control System, Army Key Management System and Joint Network Management System.
Colon’s other acquisition assignments include HQDA lead systems engineer, DISC4; operations officer, Special Project Office for Battlefield Digitization, CECOM; systems engineer, PMO SINCGARS; and test officer, Army Electronics Proving Ground. He also served as U.S. head of delegation to various international C4/IT forums, and was adjutant and later company commander, 440th Signal Battalion, Germany.
Colon graduated in 1981 as a Distinguished Military Graduate from the University of Puerto Rico with a BSEE, receiving a regular Army commission as a Signal Corps officer. His education also includes a master’s in National Resource Management and a Master of Science in Materiel Acquisition Management.
Colon’s awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit (with one Oak Leaf Cluster), the Meritorious Service Medal (with three Oak Leaf Clusters), the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Airborne Badge and the Department of the Army Staff Badge. He was named the CECOM RDEC Officer of the Year in 1995.
Colon was interviewed by MIT Editor Harrison Donnelly.
Q: What is your role as manager of the WIN-T program?
A: I am the project manager, WIN-T. In that capacity, I have multiple roles. I am the project manager for the program of record, WIN-T. In addition, there are several other programs of record within my office. They include programs such as Secure Mobile Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical-Terminal [SMART-T] and Phoenix. We also do the procurement of commercial satellite terminals via the CSTP and the World Wide Satellite Systems contracts to meet users’ near-term, on-the-spot procurement. Under that effort, we buy the Satellite Transportable Terminal [STT] for the Joint Network Node [JNN], as well as other satellite terminals for tactical units, DoD and other government agencies. We are also responsible for the High Capacity Communications Capability [HC3], which has just been identified by DoD as a pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program [Pre-MDAP].
The program office is also responsible for assisting the Department of the Army in doing trades analysis for future satcom programs. For example, we assist the both the Army and the Transformational Satellite program office in trades analysis such that we can balance trades between the size and capability of the communications payload on the satellite with Army needs for small affordable ground terminals. We need to address the ground tradeoffs early so that we can set the proper conditions for future ground terminal programs of record. We strive to achieve maximum benefit by enabling the smallest antenna aperture for our future ground mobile forces.
Q: What is your current assessment of the state of the WIN-T program of record?
A: The program is meeting my expectations and those of the Army. We completed an ASARC last September and are finalizing coordination with Office of the Secretary of Defense on our DAB in November. The program completed its initial design and demonstrated its ability to meet the needs of the future force. We have demonstrated the maturity of the key technologies and configuration items. We are now focused on some additional requirements needed by the future force. The program is proceeding successfully with its redefined work in two key aspects: continue to mature the technologies necessary to meet the WIN-T requirements, and provide the additional capabilities that the Future Combat System [FCS] program needs, so that we can have a solution set that fits within their allocation for size, weight and power.
Q: What is the overall time schedule for development of WINT, and what are your goals for the next 6 to 12 months?
A: Last November, we concluded a test at the Army Electronic Proving Grounds, Fort Huachuca, Ariz. We demonstrated our technologies tested in a field environment while operated by soldiers. From that, we assessed that the program was on a very successful track from a technology perspective. The Army Test and Evaluation Command [ATEC] assessed the program to have met all the criteria for the test. However, as we were completing these trials, the department had other pressing funding requirements. The net effect was the elimination of the procurement funds from the WIN-T program for FY 2007 through FY 2009.
Concurrent with this elimination of funds, the department came to terms on the size, weight and power [SWAP] allocations for the new FCS platforms. As a result, we have been working over the past year to re-baseline the program’s SDD phase. As the Army is awaiting the allocation of the POM over the next few years, we have been focusing our near-term energies on the design of the smaller form factors for FCS. While we do not see this as a technical challenge, it takes time to add these new form factor designs to our already tested architecture.
In preparation for the re-baseline, a DAB IPR was held in September to inform the Defense Acquisition Executive and OSD on our progress towards the re-baselined program. It’s our intention to complete the re-baseline once the Army’s POM, with the WIN-T program resources, is defined. We know what we need, and the department is well aware, but they’re waiting for the top before final funds allocation and affordability determination can be made.
Q: What are the key challenges facing the program in terms of technology?
A: I believe that the technologies are mature, to the point that can go to the next step. That next step is to demonstrate the system in a larger scale environment with full production representative assemblages. We have completed 45 modeling runs, but many believe we still need to demonstrate the network in a larger scale deployment. I have already addressed the need to convert our prototypes to production representatives, and the need to repackage our FCS points of presence to be compliant with their SWAP requirements. None of these present a significant technical challenge, but they consume time. The program was originally scheduled to complete this task within the LRIP phase. With the absence of OPA funds, it will be done as part of the RDTE program.
We had an original design for our points of presence that was about the size of a dual-stack SINCGARS radio. In the FCS vehicles, they need a radio that is smaller than that. So we’re going to a smaller form factor, one of which will utilize on-board liquid cooling, which was not part of the program’s initial baseline. We don’t see any technical challenges that can’t be overcome, but it does take us some time to redesign these four configuration items out of the 30-plus configuration items that make up WINT. This is not a total network redesign, rather a redesign of a very small subset of the configuration items that make up WIN-T. We know what has to be done; we are confirming fund availability and DAE concurrence on the proposed path forward.
Q: You have described WIN-T technologies as presenting an opportunity to truly revolutionize tactical communications. Can you elaborate?
A: The current system we have in the field, Mobile Subscriber Equipment, was designed for linear formations—units next to each other within a continuum of forces. It had very limited satellite capability. But even before the start of the global war on terror, we knew that we needed to go to asymmetrical warfare. Units would not necessarily be next to each other in a very fluid battle, with units not adjacent to each other and moving not just forward, but in all potential directions. Within that battlespace, we needed not only range extension for non-adjacent units, but also the infrastructure to be able to be able to continuously communicate while on the move. This includes high throughput satcom and line-of-sight systems that are continuously communicating while on the move. The communications capability would be available not only to commanders and selected leaders but also to large formations in a network that is constantly exploiting satcom, aerial and line-of-sight communications assets in a self-forming, self-healing network that is policy based. We call that network that enables the formations on the move WIN-T.
Q: What are some of the other areas you are exploring?
A: We have some additional opportunities that we need to continue to pursue. We use today Extended Range Multipurpose Payload UAV and the FCS Class IV UAVs. We would like to increase that aerial layer by getting some of our communications payloads in the Air Force aircraft that would be already flying over the AOR. That’s my next activity—to coordinate with the Air Force to increase our level of collaboration. With the Marines, we have been in dialogue for them to use some of our more advanced waveforms. While we are interoperable with the other services, these opportunities would not only increase the throughput available for the Army, but also increase the level of interoperability and throughput between services and formations.
Q: The Government Accountability Office has put forward a number of implicit or explicit criticisms of the WIN-T program, including that the technology is not mature. How do you respond?
A: One of the challenges is to demonstrate the maturity of a tactical network that is so large. The program was originally structured to demonstrate the critical technologies’ maturity so as to mitigate program risk, while at the same time being fiscally responsible by ensuring that we do not buy too many prototypes that cannot be left with the forces. The GAO has suggested that you should slow down the rate of development, so that you can mature and demonstrate entire network in sufficient scale before procuring quantities. Unfortunately, a system test for WIN-T demands such large quantities of configuration items for a scaled test that the cost of buying that quantity of throw-away prototypes outweighs the risk of procuring production- representative systems. So we agree that the test should be done, but there are different means to achieve the same goal. We simply propose to achieve the goal by procuring the test items in a manner that allows us to leave the equipment with the units once proven successful. Until then, we test the technologies in small scale to ensure we are on path. At the time of the GAO visit and assessment, we had not completed our model run, which also addresses some of their concerns.
Q: How do you view the relationship between WIN-T and the JNN program? How do you respond criticisms that the programs are duplicative programs?
A: It’s best to start with an understanding of capability. I said earlier that WIN-T is about providing a dynamic, self-forming and self-healing network for formations on the move, as opposed to selected members on the move, in order to support asymmetrical warfare. JNN supports asymmetrical warfare, but it supports it with a small number of selected individuals on the move. JNN is primarily utilizing a satcom communications infrastructure that operates either at the halt or at the quick halt. In addition, the procurement of JNN is based on spot-market commercial technologies available now with no developmental technologies. The WIN-T program is moving to the next generation of communications, not based on spot-market buys but on the development of activities that lead to that formation on the move. The department is expected to continue to meet the near-term needs of the war fighter with JNN until WIN-T becomes available, at which point we will begin buying WIN-T.
Q: In 2004, your office adopted an innovative acquisition involving General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. How has this arrangement worked?
A: The WIN-T program crossed the Milestone B through a full and open competition. General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin were the two winners of that competition—at that time a parallel developmental path by each vendor would lead up to Milestone C, at which point the department would down-select from those two competitors. In discussions within the department and with Michael W. Wynn, then the DAE, it was determined that there was much benefit by moving to a single architecture. Part of that arrangement included General Dynamics becoming the prime, and Lockheed Martin the primary subcontractor to General Dynamics. Through this merger of efforts we selected the best technologies for the program, which we commonly refer to as the “best of breed” architecture. Competition will remain under the new contractual requirement, but that will be done at the subcontractor level. Satcom antennas are one area where we expect continuous competition. General Dynamics is required to deliver a competition in production plan, which will serve as the basis for incentives throughout the life of the program. It will identify which component will be competed and the rate at which competition is expected.
Q: Please describe the results of field tests of WIN-T systems over the past year. How do they validate your comment that “WIN-T works”?
A: The tests were performed in contractor’s facility and independently by ATEC at the Army Electronic Proving Ground at Fort Huachuca. They included prototypes that included all of the technologies that WIN-T will bring to the force. It was a small scale in terms of the number of prototypes, but all communications nodes were loaded with traffic, either real of simulated, to make sure that we were stressing the systems. All 11 exit criteria were met at either the “successfully met” or “marginally met” level. We knew going into the test that we would need to improve the network management software. It was a very successful test, and many have commented that in this environment, few programs go through a test of this rigor and meet all of their exit criteria. It is very satisfying to have our industry partners, the test community and program management team to set out on a developmental path and we achieve all our test goals. This includes some lessons learned along the way to create new opportunities for enhanced network performance.
Q: How do you see the relationship between WIN-T and FCS?
A: WIN-T will provide the transport services for the Army’s tactical force, from the STEP site all the way down to FCS platforms, which will have over 130 points of presence per brigade with high throughput requirements. These networks will have between 40 mbps and 100 mbps of network throughput for line of sight, augmented with satcom operating on the move with small aperture antenna delivering 256 kbps.
Since WIN-T technology is a critical enabler for FCS, the two program offices are engaged in daily synchronization activities, to make sure that the products that we’re going to deliver are delivered in a timely manner and to meet their integration and experimentation needs. In fact, in order to ensure this synchronization is effective, PM WIN-T has embedded personnel within PM FCS (BCT) NSI as well as located personnel within the FCS program’s lead system integrator facilities.
For non-FCS units, we provide points of presence down to battalion. The WIN-T network will be extended all the way down to the dismounted soldier with the Joint Tactical Radio System [JTRS] when it becomes available. From a transport perspective, WIN-T is the tactical portion of the Global Information Grid, up to the point where JTRS picks up and continues forward. FCS is one of systems creating demand for the transport services.
Q: What are some of the other key programs under the PM WIN-T?
A: HC3 is a pre-MDEP program, which we will formally transition to a program of record by the turn of the next fiscal year. TRADOC just delivered the CDD to HQDA to begin formal requirements definition within the department. Over the last year we have been working with OSD, the Communications and Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center, MIT’s Lincoln Lab and industry to set the architectural conditions and to accelerate some of the technologies needed to meet the conditions for a successful Milestone B.
A limited number of Phoenix terminals were fielded as Tri- Band satcom terminals [C, X, and Ku band]. The Phoenix program has completed its design to upgrade the tri-band version to a quad-band version, with the addition of a military Ka-band capability. We are fielding upgrade kits for the currently fielded tri-band Phoenix satcom terminals, and all future terminal fieldings will be the quad-band version of the Phoenix.
The SMART-T program is currently fielding terminals compatible with the Milstar MDR satellite. The SMART-T program is nearing completion of the design for the upgrade to Advanced EHF to be compatible with the future AEHF satellite being developed by the Air Force. Fieldings of the upgrade kits to provide the AEHF capability to the SMART-T will begin in FY 2009.
Finally, we recently awarded the contract to buy the JNN Lot 9 STT for PM-TRCS/PdM-JNN. They are meeting the needs of warfighters today as they get ready to rotate into theater. ♦
