Tag: ausa-2024

  • Army secretary: Is it time to cut back on military moves?

    Army secretary: Is it time to cut back on military moves?

    [ad_1]

    The Army needs to take a hard look at ideas for providing greater career flexibility, stability and predictability for soldiers and families — and that could include decreasing the frequency of moves, said Army Secretary Christine Wormuth at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington this week.

    “Our own Army career engagement survey shows that most officers leaving the service today are seeking more stability, predictability and a better family life,” Wormuth said in her Monday address.

    “I am not suggesting that we telework to war. Don’t misunderstand me,” she said. Nor, she said, is she suggesting the British model of the regimental army, where a soldier stays with one unit for the entire career.

    However, Wormuth shared some ideas on what possible changes might look like.

    “Should we restructure the force to reduce [permanent change of station] moves to every five years instead of every three years? Should we modify officer career timelines and promotion criteria to give more flexibility for broadening assignments while ensuring we’re still selecting the right officers for command?” she asked.

    Other ideas Wormuth floated included increasing the options for military occupational specialty transfers within the Army to make it easier to pursue a new career path without leaving the service and finding ways to better match financial compensation with responsibilities, qualifications and job performance rather than strictly basing it on rank and time in grade.

    “Standing here, I don’t have the answers,” Wormuth said, noting many of these changes would be complex and require additional resources and cooperation from Congress. “But if the Army doesn’t seriously explore these questions soon, I worry that in 10 to 15 years, we could see our recruiting challenges deepen and our historically high retention rates start dropping, placing the viability of the all-volunteer force under threat, during a time when our nation can least afford it.”

    The lifestyle the Army offers hasn’t changed much since before the invention of the internet, she said.

    “We still expect our soldiers to move every two to three years, uprooting children from schools and friends and upending the aspirations of spouses who want careers of their own.

    “We continue to rely on our spouses and partners as a de facto, unpaid Army labor force, available to organize PCS moves and lead soldier family readiness groups, but often at the expense of work outside the home and the earnings that come with it,” she said.

    For years, some have questioned if it’s necessary for military families to move so much, as a number of problems they face can be traced to moving. While many military families manage to thrive in the moving process, it often brings difficulties in finding affordable housing, affordable and good-quality child care and jobs for spouses.

    Pentagon officials have discussed the challenges of frequent military moves, which are costly for both the Defense Department and families, at different times over the years.

    The most recent examination of PCS moves was in a June report from the Military Family Advisory Network, in which a 2023 survey found that frequent PCS moves can make families vulnerable to a variety of difficulties.

    The organization’s 109-page report questioned whether changing the frequent shuffle between bases — which military officials argue is necessary to meet operational requirements and fill empty jobs — could affect recurring issues related to financial stability, such as military spouse unemployment, and other concerns such as children’s education.

    During a health care panel at the AUSA conference, a family member asked about the frequency of moves, inquiring about the best way for families to receive continuity of health care when they move every one to three years. Furthermore, military medical providers are also being transferred every few years.

    Lt. Gen. Mary Krueger Izaguirre, the Army surgeon general, said the question is also being raised within the service’s medical workforce about the thought process when making decisions about moving people.

    “Does it make sense for you to move, or does it make sense for us to provide you some stability?” she said.

    Soldiers should have honest conversations with their leaders about whether there’s a way to make a decision that’s appropriate for both the Army mission and their families, she said.

    Izaguirre shared that a few years ago, she had a conversation with the surgeon general at the time about stabilizing her own family because of her oldest son’s health care needs.

    She stayed in that job for a few years, she said, and that’s a reason she is where she is today.

    Karen has covered military families, quality of life and consumer issues for Military Times for more than 30 years, and is co-author of a chapter on media coverage of military families in the book “A Battle Plan for Supporting Military Families.” She previously worked for newspapers in Guam, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fla., and Athens, Ga.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Army secretary: Is it time to cut back on military moves?

    Army secretary: Is it time to cut back on military moves?

    [ad_1]

    The Army needs to take a hard look at ideas for providing greater career flexibility, stability and predictability for soldiers and families — and that could include decreasing the frequency of moves, said Army Secretary Christine Wormuth at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington this week.

    “Our own Army career engagement survey shows that most officers leaving the service today are seeking more stability, predictability and a better family life,” Wormuth said in her Monday address.

    “I am not suggesting that we telework to war. Don’t misunderstand me,” she said. Nor, she said, is she suggesting the British model of the regimental army, where a soldier stays with one unit for the entire career.

    However, Wormuth shared some ideas on what possible changes might look like.

    “Should we restructure the force to reduce [permanent change of station] moves to every five years instead of every three years? Should we modify officer career timelines and promotion criteria to give more flexibility for broadening assignments while ensuring we’re still selecting the right officers for command?” she asked.

    Other ideas Wormuth floated included increasing the options for military occupational specialty transfers within the Army to make it easier to pursue a new career path without leaving the service and finding ways to better match financial compensation with responsibilities, qualifications and job performance rather than strictly basing it on rank and time in grade.

    “Standing here, I don’t have the answers,” Wormuth said, noting many of these changes would be complex and require additional resources and cooperation from Congress. “But if the Army doesn’t seriously explore these questions soon, I worry that in 10 to 15 years, we could see our recruiting challenges deepen and our historically high retention rates start dropping, placing the viability of the all-volunteer force under threat, during a time when our nation can least afford it.”

    The lifestyle the Army offers hasn’t changed much since before the invention of the internet, she said.

    “We still expect our soldiers to move every two to three years, uprooting children from schools and friends and upending the aspirations of spouses who want careers of their own.

    “We continue to rely on our spouses and partners as a de facto, unpaid Army labor force, available to organize PCS moves and lead soldier family readiness groups, but often at the expense of work outside the home and the earnings that come with it,” she said.

    For years, some have questioned if it’s necessary for military families to move so much, as a number of problems they face can be traced to moving. While many military families manage to thrive in the moving process, it often brings difficulties in finding affordable housing, affordable and good-quality child care and jobs for spouses.

    Pentagon officials have discussed the challenges of frequent military moves, which are costly for both the Defense Department and families, at different times over the years.

    The most recent examination of PCS moves was in a June report from the Military Family Advisory Network, in which a 2023 survey found that frequent PCS moves can make families vulnerable to a variety of difficulties.

    The organization’s 109-page report questioned whether changing the frequent shuffle between bases — which military officials argue is necessary to meet operational requirements and fill empty jobs — could affect recurring issues related to financial stability, such as military spouse unemployment, and other concerns such as children’s education.

    During a health care panel at the AUSA conference, a family member asked about the frequency of moves, inquiring about the best way for families to receive continuity of health care when they move every one to three years. Furthermore, military medical providers are also being transferred every few years.

    Lt. Gen. Mary Krueger Izaguirre, the Army surgeon general, said the question is also being raised within the service’s medical workforce about the thought process when making decisions about moving people.

    “Does it make sense for you to move, or does it make sense for us to provide you some stability?” she said.

    Soldiers should have honest conversations with their leaders about whether there’s a way to make a decision that’s appropriate for both the Army mission and their families, she said.

    Izaguirre shared that a few years ago, she had a conversation with the surgeon general at the time about stabilizing her own family because of her oldest son’s health care needs.

    She stayed in that job for a few years, she said, and that’s a reason she is where she is today.

    Karen has covered military families, quality of life and consumer issues for Military Times for more than 30 years, and is co-author of a chapter on media coverage of military families in the book “A Battle Plan for Supporting Military Families.” She previously worked for newspapers in Guam, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fla., and Athens, Ga.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Army moves ahead on plans to replace storied Bradley Fighting Vehicle

    Army moves ahead on plans to replace storied Bradley Fighting Vehicle

    [ad_1]

    DETROIT ARSENAL, Michigan — Two industry teams competing to design a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle replacement have completed preliminary design reviews, clearing a hurdle ahead of the next milestone in 2025, Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, Army program executive officer for ground combat systems, said.

    American Rheinmetall Vehicles and General Dynamics Land Systems were chosen from a pool of bidders in June 2023 to continue into a detailed design phase of the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.

    Both teams are designing a hybrid vehicle featuring a suite of lethal capabilities to include a 50mm cannon, a remote turret, anti-tank guided missiles, machine guns employed through an advanced third-generation, forward-looking infrared sensor, an integrated protection suite, kitted armor, and signature management capabilities as well as intelligent fire control, according to Army officials.

    The total value of both contracts is approximately $1.6 billion; the overall program is expected to be worth about $45 billion, according to the Army.

    The last preliminary design review wrapped up in August, and the service will have a quick turnaround to complete critical design reviews in order to begin building physical prototypes, Dean said in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference this week.

    “At that point [when] the design is final, all of the elements and parts are defined, and at that point the contractor is ordering all their material to build prototypes,” Dean said.

    Prototypes will take 18 to 20 months to construct after the critical design reviews wrap up. Once prototypes are delivered, the Army will move into a test and evaluation phase with both competitors before deciding on a winner in fiscal 2027. The first vehicles are expected to be fielded in fiscal 2029.

    The Army is moving on an aggressive schedule between completion of a preliminary design review and a critical design review, Dean said.

    Such a schedule is possible because of the designs taking place in a digital engineering environment and frequent soldier touch points in physical and virtual mockups, Col. Kevin Bradley, who is in charge of combat vehicle modernization within Army Futures Command, said in the same interview.

    “Having soldiers get in and actually see what the seating in the back looked like, how their evacuation drills would go, definitely was beneficial to both vendors in giving them feedback to help adjust designs to better suit what we were looking for in the requirements,” he said.

    “I would say we’ve had everything from small user interface changes up to, in one case, at least a fairly significant structural change to the base design,” Dean said. “There are some fairly dramatic shifts, and this is the time to do them.”

    American Rheinmetall Defense’s team includes Textron Systems, RTX, L3Harris Technologies and Allison Transmission as well as artificial intelligence-focused company Anduril Technologies.

    GDLS is teamed up with GM Defense; Applied Intuition, a specialist in modeling and simulating autonomy for the automobile industry; and AeroVironment, which is providing its Switchblade loitering munitions for integration into the design. GDLS also continues to work with General Dynamics Mission Systems to incorporate networks, radio gear and cyber capabilities.

    Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • From CamoGPT to life skills, the Army is changing how it trains troops

    From CamoGPT to life skills, the Army is changing how it trains troops

    [ad_1]

    As the Army has adjusted its doctrine and modernized how it prepares soldiers for leadership and combat, the service’s Training and Doctrine Command touches nearly every aspect of those initiatives.

    Over the past year, new programs and updates to existing training have flowed across the force.

    Army Times spoke with Gen. Gary Brito, head of Training and Doctrine Command, about some of these areas and what they mean for new and career soldiers. Brito took over his current command in 2022 after serving as the Army’s deputy chief of staff over personnel.

    The four-star has a deep, personal history within Army training, having served as commander over the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Johnson, Louisiana, and twice serving at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, earlier in his career, according to his official biography.

    This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

    What are some additions or changes to Army training from this past year that readers might not have encountered?

    Gen. Gary Brito: Over the past year, we’ve made significant improvements to our initial entry training and professional military education. Some of the programs include the quick-fire observation portal that was created by the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

    The portal is a web and mobile application that allows users to submit observations. We’ve added foundational skills development to our curriculum. This training promotes skill-specific proficiency, cohesion among soldiers and camaraderie while also aiming to lower harmful behaviors.

    The foundational skills include such areas as life skills, from financial planning and time management to suicide prevention and resilience training.

    We’ve updated how we consider the operational environment in all that we do to plan for potential large-scale combat.

    That document was released earlier this year and explains the current operational environment considerations all soldiers should understand. We’ve also expanded basic combat training, adding more training companies to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

    Senior leaders gauge readiness by how units perform at combat training centers. What’s going on to prepare for and take home lessons from a center rotation?

    Our mission command training program and warfighter exercises give corps and divisions a chance to conduct collective training, at scale, with multinational partners.

    The mission command program specifically focuses on leader development by advising, observing and consulting commanders on how they run their units and how to improve. We also host a quarterly general officer steering committee meeting.

    That Army Lessons Learned Forum captures gaps, issues and lessons learned from commanders in various theaters. That forum generates a list of recommended solutions to tactical and operational level concerns that’s disseminated across Army leadership.

    How is the Army modernizing its force while still training new and experienced soldiers on evolving doctrine, new equipment and fundamental soldiering?

    We are making changes to our program of instruction to accelerate training development. Across our centers of excellence, we incorporate observations and lessons learned to adjust curriculum, training events and cadre and faculty development.

    We’re introducing tools and practices such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and human-machine integration. For example, at the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Moore, Georgia, the center has developed and updated various Army training publications to address the use of small drones, counter-drone and aspects of electromagnetic warfare into our courses.

    An MCOE team, partnered with Army Futures Command, is experimenting with robotic-enabled maneuver, introducing air and ground robots into live, virtual and constructive training across the spectrum of our courses, from basic training to the captain’s career course.

    What are some programs or initiatives you can highlight in Army training for the coming year?

    TRADOC is integrating data literacy into Army professional military education. New data literacy curriculums are being developed for the Basic Officer Leader Course, Warrant Office Candidate Course, Basic Leader Course and Advanced Leader Course.

    The Cyber Center of Excellence initiated a proof of concept for CamoGPT, a generative AI application that improves productivity and operational readiness at all echelons.

    Like ChatGPT, the CamoGPT uses a large language model to incorporate data from joint and Army doctrine, lessons learned, best practices [and] TRADOC content, among other sources.

    The Reconfigurable Virtual Collective Trainer is being delivered to the force. It is a hardware system that connects to the Army’s Synthetic Training Environment.

    Users can access collective, mixed-reality training scenarios. It has a heads-up display, high-resolution monitor and controllers.

    This gives soldiers, squads, platoons and companies the ability to navigate exercises using real and computer-generated movements.

    The trainers, which have been installed at Fort Moore, Georgia, and Fort Cavazos, Texas, will allow for collective training with the Abrams tank, Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, Stryker and dismounted troops.

    We’re also working to add future vehicle variants and their capabilities, such as the M1256/A1 Infantry Carrier Vehicle Stryker and Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense systems.

    Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Army navigation drill to incorporate new sensors in coming years

    Army navigation drill to incorporate new sensors in coming years

    [ad_1]

    The Army’s annual exercise focused on refining its Positioning, Navigation and Timing capabilities, called PNTAX, will widen its aperture in future years, the Army’s new All-Domain Sensing Cross Functional Team lead told Defense News.

    The new All-Domain Sensing CFT is now fully established, following the announcement in March it would become Army Futures Command’s latest office to focus on modernization efforts.

    The team, created to develop capabilities that will allow the service to understand battlespace goings-on, will initially work toward creating an architecture of sensors as well as processing and disseminating the enormous amount of data collected from those sensors.

    The team grew out of the former Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing/Space CFT and took its current staff and director, Michael Monteleone, and expanded the mission to focus on broad deep-sensing capabilities.

    “I think you’re going to see an evolution of PNTAX probably both in name and also in scope,” Monteleone told Defense News ahead of the U.S. Army’s annual conference. PNTAX stands for PNT Assessment Exercise.

    While he said he could not yet divulge details on exactly how the exercise would be evolving, Monteleone said: “It’ll be something different. As we go more and more towards the resilient architectures from space to ground, both in transport and in data, then also as we start augmenting our formations with the human-machine integrated side of it, as we bring more robots, more [unmanned aircraft systems] capability into that architecture, we have to evaluate that in that denied environment.”

    PNTAX will also likely be federated into other experiments and activities across the Army as well, Monteleone noted.

    The Army just wrapped up its sixth PNTAX at the end of last month. The experiment “continues to deliver more and more value,” Monteleone said, because it offers a realistic threat environment that is “unique.”

    There were were over 600 participants in the event, to include joint partners, combatant commands and all of the Five Eyes partners Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Monteleone said. Over 150 technologies were assessed and over 130 organizations total were on the ground over the three-week evaluation.

    While the experimentation effort will evolve to encompass new focus areas within the All-Domain Sensing CFT, the team is not finished working on PNT capabilities even though it has seen successful fielding of a mounted and dismounted PNT system and the CFT has closed up shop.

    “There is still a lot of work to be done in PNT,” Monteleone said.

    “It’s really focused on what’s next in PNT and also focused on how to leverage exquisite PNT as a system of systems enabler to provide advantage,” he said. “Think of it from the perspective of being able to couple that with communications systems, electronic warfare systems, sensing systems and being able to outmaneuver adversaries, essentially, because I now have the ability to trust my timing source.”

    Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How the Army is improving care in the field to keep soldiers alive

    How the Army is improving care in the field to keep soldiers alive

    [ad_1]

    The Army is revamping how it provides lifesaving care in the field, including new hospital setup gear, ways to preserve blood on the front lines and a new combat-ready respirator to keep wounded soldiers breathing.

    Over the past year, Program Executive Office-Soldier added medical devices to its portfolio of all things soldier, which includes clothing, weapons, body armor and a host of other items.

    The 1945th Medical Detachment is slated to stand up in late 2025 and will hold three Prolonged Care Augmentation Detachments, or PCADs, officials said.

    Early work on the PCADs began as all U.S. service branches acknowledged that large-scale combat operations would mean wounded soldiers might have to wait longer for care. The commonly referred to “golden hour” of getting a wounded individual to higher-level medical care now might look more like the “golden day.”

    “We got spoiled in [the Global War on Terror] where nobody was more than an hour away from a surgeon,” said Sgt. 1st Class Andrew Proctor, senior enlisted advisor for Project Manager Soldier Medical Devices.

    That means medical personnel from field surgeons to medics will need to keep soldiers alive longer with what they have on hand as compared to flying them off the battlefield for care at a full-fledged hospital.

    A model of the Army’s Prolonged Care Augmentation Detachments, or PCADs. The PCAD concept allows commanders to expand or shrink the footprint of their field hospitals. (U.S. Army)

    With PCADs, the aim is to push more advanced care options, training and equipment down lower in the chain of care.

    Army medical personnel put care into three main categories: Roles I, II and III.

    Role I care covers treatment between the time a soldier is injured to when the soldier arrives at a forward aid station — combat medics keeping a soldier stable, for example.

    Role II care is typically delivered by an area support medical company — usually part of the soldier’s higher command. This is the first time during the chain of care that a soldier might receive surgery.

    Meanwhile, Role III care is a full field hospital, formerly called a combat support hospital. The PCAD concept allows commanders to expand or shrink the footprint of their field hospitals.

    The “modular” setup of the detachments allows them to start with as few as 32 hospital beds and expand up to 248 beds, said Maj. Felicia Williams, a nurse consultant for the assistant program manager of hospitalization.

    “This allows commanders to make decision on how large of a footprint do I need,” Proctor said.

    Another piece of gear that will ease the strain on critical care is the 2.6-pound Sparrow Respirator. The respirator keeps a patient breathing instead of tying up an individual while manually using a pump to inflate the patient’s lungs. The service plans to field 6,900 respirators beginning in mid-2025.

    “That’s a huge win for us, anybody who’s had to sit there and squeeze a bag for hours will tell you patient care has improved,” Proctor said.

    The service is also working on new blood storage refrigerators for the field. The devices it’s now testing can hold up to 40 standard bags of blood and keep it viable for up to 78 hours, officials said.

    Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senior enlisted leaders to share career lessons in Army writing push

    Senior enlisted leaders to share career lessons in Army writing push

    [ad_1]

    The Army has launched a new way for soldiers at any level to glean valuable lessons from the combat-tested, seasoned enlisted leaders in its ranks.

    The “Muddy Boots” initiative recently launched as a dedicated section of the NCO Journal, with the backing of Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Weimer.

    The section seeks to capture the insights of nominative command sergeants major across the force.

    “We believe that experience gained and not shared is experience lost,” Weimer told Army Times. “The most valuable lessons come from the mud, from the field, and from the boots that have been on the ground.”

    Weimer and other senior leaders want soldiers of all ranks to take note of what their comrades can teach them, but also to offer their own experiences as a guide.

    The writing project seeks input, writing and discussion on key Army topics in the service’s journals and online platforms.

    The contributing sergeants major bring with them upwards of thirty years’ worth of experience, Weimer noted. That “experience is a gift that should be shared, not hoarded,” Weimer said.

    The effort aligns with the Army’s broader Harding Project and a series of efforts to rekindle professional military reading, writing and feedback from troops. The Harding Project, which launched last year, selected a group of fellows for journalism training and assignment at their respective branch journals, such as “Infantry” and “Armor” magazines.

    Weimer, along with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and Training and Doctrine Command head Gen. Gary Brito, co-authored an article published on the Modern War Institute website when they unveiled the Harding Project, noting the Army needs diverse dialogue in the historic interwar period it currently faces.

    The interwar period references the namesake of the project, Maj. Edwin “Forrest” Harding, who assumed the helm of the Infantry Journal in the interwar period leading up to World War II.

    Harding doubled the magazine’s circulation in four years by pushing “critical debates over changing tactics and technology before America joined World War II,” Zachary Griffiths and Theo Lipsky wrote in an article on the Modern War Institute website.

    While the Harding fellowships are reserved for captains, master sergeants and senior warrant officers focused on branch-specific or operational matters, Muddy Boots seeks to share the lived wisdom from senior noncommissioned officers.

    The NCO Journal has long featured career guidance from soldiers. For example, current articles exhort NCOs to analyze their own critical thinking when leading soldiers, monitor behavioral health among troops as a function of readiness and explain the revised enlisted promotion process.

    A featured article published by the journal in May even explained why NCOs should write in the first place.

    The “Regaining Relevance Through Effective Writing” article by Sgt. Maj. David Cyr encourages budding military writers to start by answering the professional journals’ call for submissions on a specific topic. He then advises soldiers to work with a battle buddy on their topic and drafting of the article.

    Above all, and maybe the most difficult, Cyr tells soldiers to “risk rejection.” Not all submissions will be published. But he wants them to keep at it, regardless.

    “Remember, failure is not measured by the number of rejections but by when you give up,” Cyr wrote.

    Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Soldiers exposed to new combat realities with expanded training

    Soldiers exposed to new combat realities with expanded training

    [ad_1]

    A new approach to training brand new recruits in large-scale combat aims to prepare soldiers for future conflicts as the Army readies the force for a potential slugfest against foes like the Russian or Chinese militaries.

    In March, the service launched “Forge 2.5,” another update to “The Forge,” which began as a concept in 2016 with a 96-hour field exercise for week-seven trainees. The Forge has been in place since 2018 as a regular feature of basic training.

    The event closely mirrors “The Crucible,” which the Marine Corps instituted in its recruit training in the 1990s. The field endurance test puts recruits in a patrol base, and they run through a variety of combat and logistical scenarios over the course of the four-day stretch.

    Forge 2.5 ratchets up recruit learning by running large-scale combat operation scenarios, all while involving drill sergeants and company command teams as leaders within the trainee teams.

    This structure gives young soldiers firsthand field experience while keeping drill sergeants sharp on basic soldiering and leadership skills, said Gen. Gary Brito, head of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command.

    “What this is meant to do — part one is now immersing soldiers with threat actors from the moment they arrive in the reception company,” Brito said.

    Part two of Forge 2.5, which rolled out this year, puts drill sergeants in squad leader positions.

    As recently as three years ago, new soldiers conducted events in a fashion resembling a round robin, where individual soldiers would rotate between tasks. Now, every event is collective, and soldiers are always working with and leading small teams, Brito said.

    In doing so, recruits are learning more than marching or basic rifle marksmanship, with many completing tasks they would not have encountered until pinning on an NCO rank.

    From digital tool signature management to mission planning and order development, the drill sergeants are exposing the new soldiers to more complex considerations as they train, Brito said.

    “The trainees are the ones actually executing casualty evaluation, gathering and sending reports, and the drill sergeants are leading them through all those different things they’ve learned so far in the basic combat training portion of [initial training],” said Capt. Julio Sanchez, commander of Company A, 31st Engineer Battalion out of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

    Sanchez’s unit conducted a pilot version of the Forge 2.5 format this year at the home of basic training for most of the Army’s non-combat arms jobs.

    And that, Brito said, is why Army leaders must be at the top of their game for when these new soldiers arrive.

    “You all will be charged in leading cohesive teams,” Brito said. “Privates will be introduced to why we need to be cohesive and the importance of the battle buddy.”

    Brito tied that soldier development back to how the Army is expecting more of lower level tactical leaders, who will have high-level assets such as satellite feeds, drone-based fire support and other tools that soldiers previously never needed to consider.

    The new training structure has been implemented at Fort Moore, Georgia; Fort Jackson, South Carolina and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

    Beyond the Forge 2.5 implementation, another program recently surpassed a milestone. The Future Solder Prep course has seen 25,000 soldiers complete entry-level training and join Army units as of this year, Army Times previously reported.

    The pre-basic training program began in 2022 to take prospective recruits who did not meet minimum physical or academic standards and give them up to 90 days to reach those standards with the help of Army training staff.

    CORRECTION: This article has been corrected to include accurate references to geographic locations for Army installations and the type of training being adjusted.

    Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New microgrid standard aims to rein in expeditionary-power vendors

    New microgrid standard aims to rein in expeditionary-power vendors

    [ad_1]

    The Army is pushing to assert its new standard for connecting battlefield power systems, creating expeditionary microgrids without the constraint of vendor-specific components, according to service officials in the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support.

    “We were seeing a lot of these power systems emerge that were different pieces of a microgrid, but right now, all of the microgrids that are out there use proprietary interfaces to talk,” Cory Goetz, who is the technical management division chief for the Army’s Expeditionary and Sustainment Systems program manager’s office, told Defense News shortly before the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

    In order to develop the capability to get all of these systems to communicate, Goetz said, the Army decided to develop what it calls the Tactical Microgrid Standard, or TMS, in partnership with industry.

    The standard was published officially in 2023, allowing for an open architecture for competitive procurement of power systems that can tie into an expeditionary microgrid architecture, Goetz explained.

    “It allows us not to have to pure-fleet everything in the Department of Defense with tactical power. If someone has a good system, say it’s an energy storage system, if they make it with TMS, we can incorporate it into what we do after, of course, verifying it’s compliant,” he added.

    The standards initiative is the basis of an effort called the Small Tactical Expeditionary Power, or STEP, project, which consists of small systems with hybrid capability that soldiers can operate quietly, toggling between fuel-burning energy production and batteries, Goetz said.

    Then the Army is working on a Universal Power Gateway capability on the TMS basis. Its idea is to tie any power source or power storage capability into the service’s Advanced Medium Mobile Power Source (AMMPS) generator, made by Cummins.

    “The UPG, that’s an emerging requirement that we see pointing to a program of record,” Goetz said. “It allows us to tie into those vehicles that will be exporting power in the future, and then be able to hybridize our generators for resilience and efficiency.”

    As result, hybrid-electric vehicles would become nodes bundling what are now individual power connections to generators.

    The program office is also working to push the microgrid standard to industry “in a more wholesale way, in a more organized way,” Goetz said.

    Officials have created a user group, currently counting 40 companies, that they hope will draw relevant companies into a conversation of adopting and advancing the standard.

    The program office hopes to field the STEP capability in fiscal year 2028, with the UPG initiative following a year later, though early variants of either project could be ready sooner.

    Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Captured Leopard 2 resurfaces at Russia’s main tank factory

    Captured Leopard 2 resurfaces at Russia’s main tank factory

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN — Russia has transported a captured Ukrainian Leopard tank deep into its hinterland to tear it down and analyze its components, an open-source investigation by Defense News shows.

    Satellite imagery, footage released by Russian media and other open-source information pinpoint the location of the captured 2A6 tank. The factory, Uralvagonzavod – Ural Wagon Factory, in English – is known as the world’s largest tank producer, reportedly having churned out over 100,000 since World War 2. It is also involved in the production of the most modern tank variants Russia has to offer.

    The captured tank appeared in good shape once the tarp covering it during its journey was lifted by workers. On the sides of the turret, anti-drone steel screens – colloquially called “cope cages” – were visible. These additions have become standard on the battlefield in Ukraine as a simple defense against explosive-laden kamikaze drones, which can crack armored vehicles when rammed into weak points.

    It’s unclear when and where exactly the Leopard tank was captured by Russian forces. Dutch open-source investigative site Onyx, which keeps track of battlefield losses in the Ukraine war, has identified 13 Leopard 2A6 tanks that the Ukrainian armed forces have lost. Seven have been destroyed, while the rest were damaged.

    Located in Nizhny Tagil behind Russia’s Ural Mountains, which form the boundary between Europe and Asia, the factory where the Leopard 2 resurfaced is far from the front line in Ukraine. The vehicle was seen arriving at the facility under the cover of darkness on a flatbed truck, video footage reviewed by Defense News showed.

    The Ural Wagon Factory, which produces train cars besides armored vehicles, is one of the largest industrial complexes in Russia. It was built in its present location deep inside Russia at Stalin’s behest during World War 2. At the time, the rapid advance of German forces in their surprise “Barbarossa” invasion necessitated the evacuation of vital wartime industries far away from the Western border of Russia, home to most of the country’s population centers.

    The location was likely chosen as the destination for the captured 2A6 Leopard because of its institutional knowledge and role as a high-end tank manufacturer in the Russian military-industrial complex, meaning it houses experienced engineers. Media reports from 2023 showed that the state-owned enterprise was responsible for producing Russia’s modern T-90M and the modernization of T-72B3M main battle tanks.

    Defense News was able to geolocate video footage of this upgrade process to the same building where the captured Ukrainian Leopard tank was dropped off.

    The plant’s importance was underscored by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit in February of this year. Russian government press releases have hinted that new production capabilities are being added to Uralvagonzavod, and the factory has switched to an around-the-clock work schedule to increase its output for the war effort in Ukraine.

    Sensitive technologies?

    Russian media gloated at the capture of the Western tank, citing Western industry publications as panicking about classified technologies falling into Moscow’s hands. Articles further goaded that “the unsuccessful use of German tanks in Ukraine could negatively affect the export potential of armored vehicles,” as RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned news agency, put it.

    Although over 20 years old, the German-made Leopard 2A6 is still regarded as a competent and modern main battle tank. Its advantages over Russian tanks range from higher crew survivability to the advanced gun, fire control system, different armor, type of shells used, and even the powerful and efficient engine.

    Despite some media claims, gladly echoed by Russian state-run outlets, it is unclear whether the tanks delivered to Ukraine from Germany contain more sensitive technologies than those that were built for export to other countries. Some analysts expressed concern that because the tanks came from German Bundeswehr stocks, they may have especially advanced systems on board.

    KNDS, the tank’s manufacturer, told Defense News that the company was not concerned about the capture of its technology by Russia.

    “It won’t be easy to copy, and Russia is likely to have much of the information already anyway,” a company spokesperson said in an interview. The arms manufacturer further clarified that there is no such thing as an “export version” of the tank, but that orders are tailored to their specific customers’ requirements. The spokesperson, who asked to remain unnamed, could not say whether there were particularly sensitive technologies in the tanks coming from the German armed forces or whether they had been modified before being sent to Ukraine.

    “The Russians will likely be able to figure out some things — but what exactly, is hard to say,” the company spokesperson concluded.

    The German armed forces did not return a reply for clarification and comment on the specifics of the Leopard 2A6 tank in time for publication.

    Germany has provided Ukraine with 18 Leopard tanks of the 2A6 variant, while Portugal has contributed three.

    This isn’t the first Leopard 2 that Russia has captured. In April, footage was released of Russian military men analyzing a tank in a field tent that was missing its treads. However, the more recently resurfaced tank appears to be in much better condition, possibly providing insights that Russia was unable to gain previously.

    Dozens of Western countries, including many in NATO, use the Leopard 2 tank in various configurations. Finland operates 200 Leopard 2 tanks, of which 100 are of the 2A6 variant. Analyzing its capabilities and limitations could assist Russia in furthering its own domestic technologies but could also provide Moscow’s armed forces with a better understanding of how to defend against and destroy the vehicle.

    Russian government outlets have repeatedly said that the Western supply to Ukraine amounted to “playing with fire” and directly involved NATO countries in the conflict, a stance that the Euro-American alliance rejects.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be considered legitimate targets by the Russian military.

    Linus Höller is a Europe correspondent for Defense News. He covers international security and military developments across the continent. Linus holds a degree in journalism, political science and international studies, and is currently pursuing a master’s in nonproliferation and terrorism studies.

    [ad_2]

    Source link