U.S. Army News:

the video footage I saw showed an average sized soldier wearing the skeleton with dumbell weights attached. he seemed to be able to walk and move around freely with the exoskeleton taking the weight.

I can imagine in a few years some sort of huge backpack ammo container holding 5,000 rounds of 30 cal ammo with a water cooling system with a linkless belt feed to a bullpup PKP with a water jacket keeping the barrel cool....    

The problem with such, like almost every technology is, the time they find their way into active service of militaries they are already decades old technology.

I mean counter balancing systemes for rifles is how old by now?

Tested in early 1980s and is only now fieldtested for ratnik. RWS (Remote Weapon Stations), since use 1980 on some tanks are coming only now slowly as a "NEW" feature.
Reactive armor first studies were made in USSR late 40s, only entered service 30 years after.

By the time new technologies enter service they are actually already ancient in terms of modern warfare and technologies.

Of course all that is not that easy to bring within a few years into service, also would be often painful outcome when some technologies need to mature more, and lobbyism plays also a role but the biggest problem is, Humans.

We are reactioners not actioners. We tend to wear helmets after we fall from bikes. Young drivers tend to drive slow and safe after they created an incident. We think about technologies that safe human lifes after we lose human lifes and i don't speak about super genius technologies that only an Einstein would be capable to develope such thoughts, i mean such things like a saftey belt in cars, or at least traffic law.

When we see those Exoscelton suites that help people to carry 100kg + in the more usual units, we will already have technologies that actually could come closer to Crysis power armors.

GarryB wrote:
I can imagine in a few years some sort of huge backpack ammo container holding 5,000 rounds of 30 cal ammo with a water cooling system with a linkless belt feed to a bullpup PKP with a water jacket keeping the barrel cool....    

literaly cool   

The trick is not to loose speed and agility. If they somehow accomplish to create something like that plus a good arlound body protection. Most primarly upper body-torso-neck-head area with limb and other areas not that much but also at least some decent level of protection, than it would be more than enough.

With the current state of military version exosuits, those can rather be used to transport ammunition from A to B or even plateau A to height B without any problem. It would slightly reduce the need of supply drops, helicopters and vehicles especialy when fuel will be highly limited in future. Such a suit would allways come in handy for that.

However I think it is too early to have combat suits though. But who knows.

Well... if they currently work with 100kg loads then you have to say what are the current limits.

I think the most important thing about the Russian kit is that it was purely mechanical and did not use a power supply.

If it can be made to support 300kgs and retain mobility in all weathers and conditions then you would have to say that 300kgs is a lot of weapons, armour, food, and water... what else do you need?

Finding useful applications of this technology shouldn't be hard...

GarryB wrote:Well... if they currently work with 100kg loads then you have to say what are the current limits.

I think the most important thing about the Russian kit is that it was purely mechanical and did not use a power supply.

If it can be made to support 300kgs and retain mobility in all weathers and conditions then you would have to say that 300kgs is a lot of weapons, armour, food, and water... what else do you need?

Finding useful applications of this technology shouldn't be hard...

300kgs... A walking Kornet launching soldier with half dozen Kornets and a Gsch-7.62mm.

Werewolf wrote:The problem with such, like almost every technology is, the time they find their way into active service of militaries they are already decades old technology.

I mean counter balancing systemes for rifles is how old by now?

Tested in early 1980s and is only now fieldtested for ratnik. RWS (Remote Weapon Stations), since use 1980 on some tanks are coming only now slowly as a "NEW" feature.
Reactive armor first studies were made in USSR late 40s, only entered service 30 years after.

By the time new technologies enter service they are actually already ancient in terms of modern warfare and technologies.

Of course all that is not that easy to bring within a few years into service, also would be often painful outcome when some technologies need to mature more, and lobbyism plays also a role but the biggest problem is, Humans.

We are reactioners not actioners. We tend to wear helmets after we fall from bikes. Young drivers tend to drive slow and safe after they created an incident. We think about technologies that safe human lifes after we lose human lifes and i don't speak about super genius technologies that only an Einstein would be capable to develope such thoughts, i mean such things like a saftey belt in cars, or at least traffic law.

When we see those Exoscelton suites that help people to carry 100kg + in the more usual units, we will already have technologies that actually could come closer to Crysis power armors.

...Your right, to get an exoskeleton to actually be practical and not cumbersome, we would literally need a quantum leap in quantum computing and nanotechnology! The Crysis suit's true strength lied in it's ability to control the very molecules of the material that made up the suit, if you could program the very molecules that make up the suits material and turn them in to super-computers...then creating a suit that's fluid like liquid to allow maneuverability one second, but on ballistic impact turn in to material more resilient than diamond another second is well quite feasible exoskeleton to create, especially if the suit's main material is carbon based.

Let's not kid ourselves though, in the near future such technology will still be science fiction and would only be feasible 20-30 years from now, and it's still way more likely that such technology revolutionizes tank armor and fighter plane air-frames than it would revolutionize body armor.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
...Your right, to get an exoskeleton to actually be practical and not cumbersome, we would literally need a quantum leap in quantum computing and nanotechnology! The Crysis suit's true strength lied in it's ability to control the very molecules of the material that made up the suit, if you could program the very molecules that make up the suits material and turn them in to super-computers...then creating a suit that's fluid like liquid to allow maneuverability one second, but on ballistic impact turn in to material more resilient than diamond another second is well quite feasible exoskeleton to create, especially if the suit's main material is carbon based.

Let's not kid ourselves though, in the near future such technology will still be science fiction and would only be feasible 20-30 years from now, and it's still way more likely that such technology revolutionizes tank armor and fighter plane air-frames than it would revolutionize body armor.

20-30 years for nanosuit tech? thats too optimistic even if we're only talking about working prototypes. Not to mention a direct hit from an RPG and you are dead(the impact pressure turns both armor even as hard as diamond and jet into liquid mostly flowing towards your innards)

I used Crysis exoskeleton not as an example of actual exoskeleton we could have but as a comperision of todays mechanic/electric exoskeleton that have no other use but giving the carrier ability to carry about 100-150kg, but cripples his maneuverbility. You would not be able to take cover when you got under enemy fire, and going into squad position when your only cover would be even 10 cm lower you would be still exposed.

I mean untill exoskeletons become to what people dream about, a structure that makes you stronger,faster and more robust that will take more like 50 years, something like that we should be prepared for. And this 50 years would only give the timespan to develope such technology, not counting the time we would need until we can see it in military use.

Such technology on the low level we have right now is already so expensive that even Special forces would not won't or be capable to purchase such technology in sufficient number and we will only see that the Technology will become more expensive through a lot more components to comprimise the stiffness of those suites.

I for myself think that if they really want to make exoskeleton that makes you stronger,faster and more robust we will end up having such suites like Space Marines, or we would go with compromises, that boosts only human capabilities by about 25-30% but is still light and not to thick, adding a bullet proof vest or some structure to protect vital parts of the upper torso, but leaving the lower torso less protected but therefor more space for movement. More an exoskeleton like the Xenomorphs have, torso real exoskeleton and the arms and lower torso normal endoskeloton, giving them high agility with good protection of vital organs. I would bet on that kind of exoskeleton that would be able to be enter military service and have a good impact on morality, combat effeciency, ordnance at battle, lower amount of casualities and more firepower, by wielding bigger calibre weapons.

I would like to see such a version of an exoskeleton.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves though, in the near future such technology will still be science fiction and would only be feasible 20-30 years from now, and it's still way more likely that such technology revolutionizes tank armor and fighter plane air-frames than it would revolutionize body armor.

20-30 years for nanosuit tech? thats too optimistic even if we're only talking about working prototypes. Not to mention a direct hit from an RPG and you are dead(the impact pressure turns both armor even as hard as diamond and jet into liquid mostly flowing towards your innards)[/quote]

Diamonds would burn away like coal under temperature above 800° C. Diamonds are very hard against Kinetic Energy but quite poor protection against heat.

I mean counter balancing systemes for rifles is how old by now?

I have see Russian bullpup prototypes from before WWII.

The balanced recoil systems are AK specific because the AK would benefit from them the most.

the bolt carrier is 5-7 times heavier in an AK than the bolt itself so when it is slamming back and forth during firing that is a lot of mass and a lot of energy and when it is not balanced... well think of a helicopter with a single rotor blade sticking out one side of the rotor hub. Of course putting two blades opposite each other will help with balance but there is still vibration.

the most benefit from balanced recoil mechanisms is in full auto fire which makes it rather more accurate.

Remember Kalashnikov also makes balanced recoil weapons... the AK-107 for example which has been shown as part of Ratnik.

Tested in early 1980s and is only now fieldtested for ratnik. RWS (Remote Weapon Stations), since use 1980 on some tanks are coming only now slowly as a "NEW" feature.

Technically RWS are not new either... just off the top of my head the Marder APC had a RWS 30 cal MG mounted on its rear hull either in the 60s or 70s. And bomber aircraft have had them for ages.

You could argue the holographic red dot sights are based on HUDs in fighter aircraft and gunsights used since WWII as well.

By the time new technologies enter service they are actually already ancient in terms of modern warfare and technologies.

I agree many technologies that get into service are not new... drone aircraft are as old as aircraft but never really became very popular till the late 1980s and 1990s.

When they did get into service however and were proved to be useful they were copied and emulated till they were in wide spread service... you could argue the A-10 and Su-25 is just a revival of the Il-2 and Stuka concept of ground support aircraft... it lost favour with jet power, but eventually as aircraft got faster it created a niche for slow and low jet aircraft able to take a bit of damage and still do the job.

20-30 years for nanosuit tech? thats too optimistic even if we're only talking about working prototypes. Not to mention a direct hit from an RPG and you are dead(the impact pressure turns both armor even as hard as diamond and jet into liquid mostly flowing towards your innards)

I would suggest that if the only way to kill one of my soldiers is with an RPG or heavy anti tank weapon then you have your success. You have just made all conventional small arms obsolete and require anti armour level weapons to challenge your troops.

Werewolf wrote:I used Crysis exoskeleton not as an example of actual exoskeleton we could have but as a comperision of todays mechanic/electric exoskeleton that have no other use but giving the carrier ability to carry about 100-150kg, but cripples his maneuverbility. You would not be able to take cover when you got under enemy fire, and going into squad position when your only cover would be even 10 cm lower you would be still exposed.

I mean untill exoskeletons become to what people dream about, a structure that makes you stronger,faster and more robust that will take more like 50 years, something like that we should be prepared for. And this 50 years would only give the timespan to develope such technology, not counting the time we would need until we can see it in military use.

Such technology on the low level we have right now is already so expensive that even Special forces would not won't or be capable to purchase such technology in sufficient number and we will only see that the Technology will become more expensive through a lot more components to comprimise the stiffness of those suites.

I for myself think that if they really want to make exoskeleton that makes you stronger,faster and more robust we will end up having such suites like Space Marines, or we would go with compromises, that boosts only human capabilities by about 25-30% but is still light and not to thick, adding a bullet proof vest or some structure to protect vital parts of the upper torso, but leaving the lower torso less protected but therefor more space for movement. More an exoskeleton like the Xenomorphs have, torso real exoskeleton and the arms and lower torso normal endoskeloton, giving them high agility with good protection of vital organs. I would bet on that kind of exoskeleton that would be able to be enter military service and have a good impact on morality, combat effeciency, ordnance at battle, lower amount of casualities and more firepower, by wielding bigger calibre weapons.

I would like to see such a version of an exoskeleton.

afaik the crysis suit is not mechanical- more like it directly enhances human ability. kinda like it pumps adrenaline into your muscles while the frame supports most of the pressure that without the suit would rupture your muscles from the bones. there is also an onboard cognitive improvement AI.

The U.S. Congress has approved a gigantic defense policy bill.  

The $585 billion National Defense Authorization Act  was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Friday, a week after passing in the House of Representatives.

It now awaits President Barack Obama's signature.

The measure authorizes federal military spending for fiscal year 2015, which began on October 1.  

It includes emergency funding requested by the president for military operations against Islamic jihadists in Iraq and Syria. The measure also authorizes funds for training moderate Syrian rebels and Iraqi Kurdish forces for two years.

The bill includes money for basic U.S. military operations, ranging from a one percent pay raise for the troops to the purchase of ships, aircraft and other war-fighting equipment.

The NDAA also mandates the retention of the fleet of A-10 close-air support aircraft.  The U.S. Air Force had proposed retiring more than 100 A-10s, but the NDAA prohibits that action in 2015.  

Despite opposition from Mr. Obama, the bill extends restrictions on closing the US. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, renewing a ban on transferring detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.  

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-congress-approves-defense-budget/2557635.html

The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill from Congress includes $1.46 billion for 15 Boeing EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft and $1 billion to start work on a 12th San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphibious warship, according to a summary of the bill released late Tuesday.
The compromise bill agreed to by House and Senate appropriators and expected to pass both chambers will extend Boeing’s Super Hornet — the airframe on which the Growler is based — production line into 2017, according to Reuters.

The Navy gave Congress an unfunded wish list that asked for 22 Growlers at a cost of $2.14 billion. With the extra airframes, the Navy intends to expand its EA-18G squadrons from five aircraft up to seven.

The bill also gave the service $1 billion to start procurement on a 12th San Antonio-class amphibious warship — about half the total cost of the ship. The Marine Corps has been lobbying Congress and the Navy for the additional ship it says will act as a bridge to the next generation LX(R) amphibious warship which will be based on the San Antonio-hull.

Line items in the bill also fully fund the planned procurement of the Ohio-class Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine, fully funds the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) research and development efforts — despite restrictions in the parallel authorization bill — and includes $843 million to begin the refueling and complex overhaul of carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73).

http://news.usni.org/2014/12/10/omnibus-spending-bill-includes-money-15-growlers-12th-san-antonio

US Army has made the final selection of the program Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), provides for the replacement of 2897 M113 tracked armored personnel carriers and vehicles based on them in armored brigades (Armored Brigade Combat Teams - ABCT). The choice can not be called a surprise, because it was made in favor of the sole remaining in the program AMPV offers - nominated by BAE Systems Corporation project tracked armored personnel carriers, which is a variant of M2 / M3 Bradley.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1110615.html

US Army Signs Contract to Upgrade Tactical Missiles: Defense Contractor

Lockheed Martin said in a press release that the US Army awarded the defense contractor a $78 million contract to upgrade the surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile System.

WASHINGTON, January 8 (Sputnik) — The US Army awarded Lockheed Martin a $78 million contract to upgrade the surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), the defense contractor announced Wednesday.

“The program will take hardware from early-production ATACMS Block 1 missiles and develop an enhanced and affordable weapon system capable of eliminating targets without the risk of unexploded ordnance, which meets the U.S. Army’s long-range precision strike requirement,” Lockheed Martin said in a press release.

The ATACMS is the US Army’s only tactical long-range precision surface-to-surface weapon with a range of up to 300 kilometers (185 miles). Lockheed Martin has produced more than 3,700 of the missiles over the past 20 years. Nearly 560 have been used in combat, including the Persian Gulf War and Iraq War. The ATACMS destroyed enemy airfields, surface-to-air systems, artillery and command centers.

Lockheed Martin will test the upgrade before beginning production in early 2016, according to the press release.

The Ground Combat Vehicle program was cancelled in February 2014

http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/24/394544/US-Marines-killed-in-helicopter-crash

It seems that an US military helicopter crashed-?- in a supposed Southern California area-?-. This crash would be under investigation. Is it true ? Is it false ? US propaganda used to lie regarding its losses in combat. Nowdays, many US US soldiers seem to be involved in Iraq, including US attack hellicopters. However, Isis, has many efficients -russian- anti aircrafts guns, and missiles. During US occupation of Iraq, US Army lost many AH-64 Apache, this forced US to clear off Iraq.
US propaganda used to attribute its losses in combat operations by mysterious accident occured somewhere in the world, where noone could withness. For example during air war in 1991 against Iraq, iraqi pilot claimed to have damaged a B-52 with air to air missiles, however american's ridiculous statement claimed that a B-52 crashed in indian ocean du to electric problems. In the history of US air force, how much aircrafts losses were disguised into a so-called accidents. In the war, the best US -and their allies, chieffly Israel- weapons stays the lie. For that reason I often beware about US statements concerning an supposed accident in period of intensives combat operations.
Maybe it is right, maybe it is false.

Boeing and US officials start working on AH-64 Apache attack helicopters massive deal

(Reuters) - Officials from Boeing Co and the U.S. Army said on Wednesday they had begun discussions about a multiyear agreement to buy about 240 AH-64 Apache helicopters from fiscal 2017 to 2021, a deal that analysts say could be worth around $4 billion.

U.S. Army acquisition chief Heidi Shyu recently signed a document allowing both sides to begin work on a multiyear agreement, with an eye to securing approval from the defense secretary by March 2016, Colonel Jeff Hager, Apache program manager, told reporters at an event hosted by Boeing.

Mark Ballew, Boeing's head of business development for attack helicopters, told Reuters that the multiyear agreement could include options for about 100 international sales of the attack helicopter, which would add to its overall value.

The U.S. government has already approved Apache sales to Qatar and Indonesia, and those deals are being negotiated now, Ballew said. He said three or four other countries have expressed interest in the helicopter, but declined to name them.

He said such deals could take many years to complete, given the complications often involved in the foreign arms market.

Boeing hosted a separate meeting about the third successive Apache multiyear agreement with government officials and suppliers on Wednesday at its Washington headquarters.

Military services must demonstrate significant savings when asking for approval for multiyear agreements, as compared with the cost of negotiating procurements on a year-by-year basis. There is no specific target, but lawmakers generally look for those savings to amount to around 10 percent

Kim Smith, vice president for Boeing's attack helicopter programs, said the company was "absolutely on track" to work with the Army and its suppliers to identify savings that would help justify a multiyear agreement.

"We at Boeing have been doing our part to leave no stone unturned," Smith told reporters.

Pentagon chief arms buyer Frank Kendall told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that he favored multiyear agreements because they allowed program managers to focus on program performance, and less on yearly contract negotiations.

Earlier on Wednesday, Boeing reported higher-than-expected quarterly profit, sending its shares up 4.6 percent to $138.58.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/28/us-boeing-helicopters-idUSKBN0L11ZG20150128

Damn, hope they made these actually bulletproof .

TR1 wrote:Damn, hope they made these actually bulletproof .

Haha... True too!

It is better to use them properly so they don't have to be bullet proof.

I personally like the Apache... sure, she is high maintainence... but most hot girls are...

The fact is that when used properly she is an effective and deadly machine.

GarryB wrote:It is better to use them properly so they don't have to be bullet proof.

I personally like the Apache... sure, she is high maintainence... but most hot girls are...  

The fact is that when used properly she is an effective and deadly machine.

The problem is for Attack Helicopters is proper Intel, if the AH squadrons don't get proper Intel they will unavoidably run into trouble, since Ambushes are usually prepared to let your enemy not know where you are and be it from Vietnam, Afghanistan in 80's or today the main threat for Attack Helicopters is still ballistical with most common used Anti Aircraft weapons in low to high intensive battlefields of 7,62x51/54mm, 12,7mm and 14.5mm with quite high amount of 20-23mm AA guns around the globe.

There are three major disadvantages that when fixed would boost the Apache in effeciency higher. The outdated doctrine of M230 that it was designed as Aeral Weapon Suppression, inteded for spraying against large Soviet troops, which makes it inaccurate and waste of ammunition and false ammunition.

The lack of bulletproof glass, that would need to reshape the cockpit glass otherwise the weight would be enorm.

The shp/t ratio and kg/cm^2 ratio (which is the worst of all AH's) regarding the NTOW/MTOW weight and the relative small rotor disc that is similiar to lighter attack helicopters, which translates negative on climb ratio and maintenance of entire rotor assembly and rotor blades.

However it is a great Attack Helicopter but fixing such simple problems would boost its effeciency significantly.

US Army’s New Self-Propelled Howitzer Follows 20 Years of Delays

It took two decades and the cancellation of two costly programs, but the United States Army on Thursday will finally unveil the newest self-propelled howitzers from its Paladin Integrated Management program.

While the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program’s M109A7 “is not a truly new vehicle, in that it borrows from others,” according to one Hill staffer who spoke to Breaking Defense, the new artillery vehicle “is still a success.”
U.S. Army 2nd Lt. Chang Ahn, leader of 2nd Platoon, 5th Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, and Maj. David McCulley, battalion operations officer with the 5th Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, update perimeter maps to increase base security at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, on Sept. 11, 2008.

Success of any kind is welcomed by the beleaguered Army acquisition system, which has a track record of canceled programs and wasted billions dating to before 9/11.

The PIM – built by Britain-based contractor BAE Systems – was created by taking the gun turret that was upgraded by previous programs, and installing it on an all-new chassis.

Previous programs “built a new turret and put it on the old chassis,” said Mark Signorelli, head of combat vehicle programs at BAE Systems. “M109A7 put a new chassis under the A6 turret, with a few upgrades to the turret, and effectively in two steps the Army built a new howitzer.”

While the PIM continues to use the same gun as the older artillery piece, it essentially a new weapon system from the bearing ring on down – one that comes with digital displays and a 70 kilowatt, 600-volt on-board power system.

Signorelli is a veteran of the Army’s cancelled Future Combat Systems and Ground Combat Vehicle programs, which attempted to develop entirely new designs.

“When you have one of these big bang programs … it’s hugely expensive, it takes forever and it’s risky,” he told Breaking Defense. “When you do this Lincoln’s axe approach, you can … put the modernization in bite-size packages, so you’ve got a high probability that you can get the work done on schedule, on budget.”

While the PIM’s new automotive and electrical systems make it 25% heavier than its predecessor, the new model generates 50% more horsepower and almost four times as much electrical power.

The Army identified the Paladin Integrated Management program is one of its top 12 critical programs in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150408/1020594764.html#ixzz3WfKHsAev

Army lists top 12 items in fiscal year 2016 budget request

The M109 Paladin Integrated Management program is one of the Army's top 12 critical programs in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget.

WASHINGTON (April 6, 2015) -- Topping the list of things the Army wants in its $127 billion Fiscal Year 2016 budget request are 12 critical programs that support mission command, joint combined arms maneuver, and broad joint mission support.

Experts within the Army's G-8, responsible for matching programs with limited resources, were quick to point out that the list of items are in no prioritized order, but that they are all high-dollar programs that are critical to the Army mission.

"It shows Congress where we are spending taxpayer dollars. These programs also provide critical capability to Soldiers," said. Col. Brian Halloran, Army G-8 force development division chief for plans, strategy and policy. "How we chose these 12 specific programs from the more than 200 we have going on is three-fold: these are programs with high-dollar investment by the nation; and they also provide very increased capability to the Soldier and they nest within our broad priorities within the strategy as well."

Supporting mission command initiatives is the Nett Warrior system, which is an Android-based cell phone that has been modified to work with Army communications systems to bring critical operational information to the dismounted leaders of platoons, squads, and teams.

The 2016 budget request includes funding to allow the system to be fielded at the tactical level in three brigade combat teams, said Col. Richard Price, Army G-8 force development division chief for mission command.

"That will go down to the team-leader level, to allow them to use commercial, off-the-shelf equipment to display maps and position data," Price said. "It's an Android phone, where we take off the proprietary software, and we put Army software on it, so we can display Army applications, which give you maps and location data."

Price said for Nett Warrior, the Army has reached a level of robustness and readiness with the hardware to field the system, but added that the software component will continue to improve for a long time.

"As we continue to develop apps, it will give you the capability to display information from the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, unit data, war plans, operations orders and other things on the screen," he said.

Price said the Nett Warrior supports the Army, and is critical in that it provides the dismounted leader - the Army's most critical "resource" - with the information he or she needs to do their job.

"It allows you to share information down to the lowest tactical level, with the team leaders on the ground, and allows you to understand from a location standpoint where those team leaders are located," Price said.

Price also said the Army wants to field to three brigade combat teams, or BCTs, the communications equipment included in the family of networked tactical radios, including the rifleman radio at the squad and platoon level, the "handheld, manpack and small-form fit" radios at the platoon and company level, and the maneuver radio that connects everything to Army command elements.

Also making the list in support of mission command capabilities is the Warfighter Information Network - Tactical system, the Joint Battle Command - Platform, and the Distributed Common Ground System - Army.

The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV, which is a joint program between the Army and the Marine Corps, makes the list as a contributor to the joint combined arms maneuver mission. Right now there are three commercial contractors competing to win the JLTV program contract. Those contractors include Lockheed Martin, Oshkosh Defense and AM General.

Col. Michel M. Russell Sr., Army G-8 FD division chief for focused logistics, said the Army expects to exit the current engineering and manufacturing development stage of the JLTV competition, and down-select from three contractors to one as part of an acquisition decision in the fourth quarter of FY 2015. That one winning contractor will be awarded the low-rate initial production contract for the JLTV.

The Army plans to eventually purchase 49,099 JLTVs, while the Marine Corps plans to eventually buy 5,500 of the vehicles. For the Army, initial operating capability on the JLTV is expected in the fourth quarter FY 2018.

Russell said in light tactical vehicles, the Army looks for three primary components: payload, performance and protection. Those three characteristics together, he said, are referred to as "the iron triangle."

"What JLTV does is it meets the capability gap that allows us to bring all three of those back into balance," Russell said. "We gain all that back, and it's deployable in all the different environments."

Also included in the 12 critical programs for the Army is the Maneuver Support Vessel - Light, or MSV-L, a watercraft that is intended to replace the existing Vietnam-era Landing Craft Mechanized 8. The MSV-L supports the Joint Combined Arms Maneuver and the Army Operating Concept, Russell said.

"It's a new start program, and is critical because it is the lynchpin to the Army's watercraft strategy," Russell said.

He said the MSV-L will allow commanders to maneuver supplies, sustainment and systems in and around their waterscape. The watercraft can carry a tank, a JLTV, a Stryker, troops, or supplies.

"This is a brand new program and will have to proceed through the acquisition milestone agenda, in terms of requests for production and getting bids back from original equipment manufacturers, doing testing, RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation], procurement, the whole nine yards," Russell said.

Despite this meticulous process the Army must go through to provide Soldiers the best equipment available, Russell said he expects the MSV-L can be fielded in as little as six years. The system is not a "developmental" program, in that it will not be designed from scratch. Instead, he said, it is very likely the MSV-L will be based on an existing "commercial off-the-shelf" watercraft that will be "ruggedized and made to fit the Army's mission profile."

"With the current emphasis on this particular vessel, and how it anchors to the Army Operating Concept for watercraft operations for combatant commanders, there is a lot of emphasis on getting this program moving," Russell said.

Also supporting joint combined arms maneuver within the 12 critical programs is the AH-64 Apache helicopter. The Army resourcing for the Apache is mostly to convert existing D-model aircraft into E model aircraft.

James St. Amour, a civilian working in Army G-8 force development as a staff synchronization officer for AH-64, said the move is, "a huge underpinning of our modernization effort." The modernization effort is possible due to the cost savings and avoidance that the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative provides.

Conversion from D to E models involves "depopulating the airframe and rebuilding the helicopter from the ground up. The aircraft gets a totally new fuselage, a new rotor system and other component parts. It's like a new aircraft coming off the line," St. Amour said. "The E model resets the airframe to zero hours."

Right now there are fewer than 100 E model Apaches in the Army. But the goal is to have all 690 Apaches in the Army modernized to E models.

With the Apache E model, AH-64E, the Army will pair the combat helicopter with the Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle to fill the armed reconnaissance role filled by the OH-58 Kiowa helicopter. The Kiowa is being divested from the Army, and St. Amour said all will be gone from the fleet by 2018.

There are 104 Shadow "systems" in the Army, each of which includes four aircraft, two ground control stations, antennas and data terminals. There are 416 Shadow aircraft in the Army, and as part of paring those aircraft with the Apache E model, the Army plans to upgrade those Shadows to V2 Shadow models. Right now, none have made the transition, but they will eventually have longer wings, better endurance, a different engine, and a different datalink, St. Amour said.

As part of the Aviation Restructure Initiative, the Army plans to have all combat aviation brigades converted to the new structure by 2019. Once fully fielded, the AH-64E provides Army Aviation with a much more lethal and capable force.

Rounding out the Army's Critical Programs that support joint combined arms maneuver are the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, the Patriot Missile, the Paladin Integrated Management program, and the UH-60 Black Hawk. Both the Black Hawk and the MSV-L also add to the Army's broad joint mission support capabilities.