Countering Rockets, Artillery and Mortars

In three years, the Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar program has provided more than 1,500 localized warnings of incoming attacks.

by Josh Davidson
 

Since the initiation of the Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) Program Office, Director Michael Van Rassen has focused on using previously procured capabilities to avoid having to develop new systems in cases where similar capabilities have already existed. “If somebody had something that could be modified to provide the capability in a rapid manner, I wanted to take advantage of it,” said Van Rassen. Today, C-RAM remains as an integrated set of capabilities that span the Department of Defense. For example, the Navy’s landbased Phalanx Weapon System, which is used to intercept and destroy enemy RAM, is one C-RAM component. This past spring, C-RAM allowed the Army to achieve its 100th successful intercept of a rocket or mortar round fired at high value Multi-National Corps-Iraq assets. This came just two years after its first intercept, during which it disabled an inbound mortar round to prevent damage to assets on the ground. Since its initial operational capability was declared more than three years ago, C-RAM has provided more than 1,500 localized warnings of incoming attacks, so troops can take protective cover and stay out of harm’s way. In order to create an integrated solution, tailored to meet the operational needs of each unit, the C-RAM project office works with the commander of each forward operating base (FOB) or fixed site. The equipment provided varies by location. Available capabilities can sense and locate sources of incoming fire by connecting and integrating equipment from the DoD inventory, including sensors, command, control and visualization tools, interceptors and warning systems. Using systems already procured by the DoD spares taxpayers billions of dollars normally allocated for the research and development of new capabilities, according to PD C-RAM. “Any time you have to develop, it means time and money,” Van Rassen said. “Some things you do have to develop, when you just can’t meet the threat without developing something. But I recommend you make the systems engineering team tell you why you can’t use something that already exists.”

SEVEN PILLARS

When the program began, the Future Warfare Center, which originally was the program lead from Army TRADOC, requested a holistic approach that based the development of C-RAM on seven pillars. The seven pillars, which are depicted on the C-RAM logo, are shape, sense, warn, intercept, respond, and protect—all tied together by command and control. After the proof of principle in December 2004, Program Director, C-RAM determined that the localized warn capability could be fielded most expediently. A follow-on test for the sense and warn was conducted in February 2005, and the initial capability was fielded later that month. These were followed by a test of the intercept capability in April 2005, after which the initial intercept capability was fielded in July 2005. As time progressed, the C-RAM office continued to focus on the pillars. It continually refined the “sense, warn and intercept” capabilities and worked to enhance response. The office continually attempts to balance the capabilities it offers in the near term with those of the future. “It gets back to a very robust systemsengineering effort to figure out how you can to that,” Van Rassen said. “How you can quickly provide an incremental capability to the warfighter and then continue to improve it and get to a better capability—that may take you longer. That may mean it’s more code to touch or whatever the case may be.” By uniquely managing each of the seven pillars separately, Program Director, C-RAM is able to field capabilities more rapidly. “What we really try to do is manage by capability, than by widget,” Van Rassen said. The C-RAM effort has led the Army Acquisition Corps to retool the manner in which it provides capabilities, so that they are fielded laterally, across multiple program executive offices and even services, Van Rassen said. A new mindset has emerged in which fielding a capability takes precedence over building a program. “Our thought process is, ‘Listen, let’s figure out how to provide the capability and that will be the program,’” Van Rassen said. “Provide the capability as rapidly as possible. The program could be that, plus each aspect that needs to be modified for the future to meet increasing threats.” The system was tested for initial capability only two months after its proof of principle test in November 2004, and was fielded to the battlefield shortly thereafter. Assigned to the Army’s PEO for Command, Control and Communications Tactical (C3T), C-RAM is involved in projects that stretch across the military. Aside from Phalanx, C-RAM includes field artillery and air defense sensors, as well as a warning system produced by commercial industry. It is tied to various response systems through the Air Force, Marine Corps and Army battle command systems. “We have sailors and soldiers in the same unit working in concert to provide the capability,” Van Rassen said. The Phalanx fires a self-destruct bullet to circumvent potential collateral damage caused by artillery fragments. C-RAM’s capabilities include more than 20 safeguards in areas such as the gun, command and control system and individual radars to prevent fratricide. C-RAM has not caused a single case of fratricide. Although use of each of the seven pillars may involve human interaction, many facets of C-RAM are automated. The sense and warn functions, for example, work automatically, although in both cases, soldiers have the capability to override the system and warn other users as necessary. Aspects such as RAM intercept, viewing the air picture and fratricide avoidance require a human end-user to perform the final check using system-provided data. “On the response pillar, a lot of it is automated from the standpoint of digitally providing information to the battle captain in a timely manner,” Van Rassen said. “It’s really designed to help the battle captain make an informed decision on how to respond.” The Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) has played an essential role in the design, development and repeated test of C-RAM, Van Rassen said. Over the last three years, six major demonstrations and 10 smaller test events have been conducted, including one that concluded at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., in September. The Yuma test was performed to improve C-RAM in such areas as operational capability and supportability-related facets such as replacing obsolete parts.

PROGRAM OF RECORD

Efforts are underway to make C-RAM a program of record. The Fires Center of Excellence (FCOE) is presently producing a capability production document for the current capability, and an Army Requirements Oversight Council is scheduled for later this year. The FCOE and the Army G-3 are conducting an analysis of alternatives, and the FCOE is building a capability development document for future iterations of C-RAM. The tests performed by ATEC, Program Director, C-RAM and the FCOE showed commanders which capabilities the system of systems possessed and, just as importantly, the limitations of the system. The tests were conducted with scenarios based on the FCOEdeveloped concept of operations, so the system of systems is tested against the conditions and manner in which it will be used in theater. “ATEC’s role in this effort cannot be understated,” Van Rassen said. “They have done a great job of basically helping us get into a position to rapidly provide the capability and just as important have been continually front and center in rapidly improving the capability. As my office gets feedback from the warfighter and reviews forensics data from events in theater, we figure out how we can improve the SoS in the most rapid manner. ATEC has been with us through that entire process figuring out how the improvements can be tested.” Van Rassen credits the PEO C3T leadership, including the former PEO, Major General Michael R. Mazzucchi, and current PEO, Brigadier General Nick Justice, for recognizing the necessity of crossing PEOs and military services and focusing on an integrated set of capabilities as opposed to individual stand-alone systems. Mazzucchi was PEO C3T, and Justice was deputy PEO C3T, during C-RAM’s initial stages. The stand-alone radar systems that preceded C-RAM falsely detected numerous RAM threats at military FOBs. As a result, field commanders were forced to warn soldiers of incoming mortar after the initial rounds struck the FOB location, Van Rassen said. “There were so many false detects that you couldn’t continually warn [soldiers] needlessly,” Van Rassen said. Commanders would warn soldiers in the entire FOB about RAM threats, thus damaging morale throughout the location. “Our ability to significantly reduce false warnings has a morale impact, and our ability to locally warn in terms of only the location being affected on the FOB, has an impact to the overall operation of that FOB,” Van Rassen said. “If you have 10,000 soldiers on a FOB, maybe only 500 are affected. So the other 9,500 are working, continuing with their mission, as opposed to hitting the ground. If you go back to how preponderant this threat is and how easy it is to get and use, that can have a huge impact.” ♦