Q&A: Maj. Gen. Kurt J. Stein
Written by Dave Ahearn
GCT 2011 Volume: 2 Issue: 6 (November/December)
SOLDIER EQUIPPER:
Ground Combat Vehicle Critically
Needed as TACOM Aids Warfighters
Major General Kurt J. Stein
Commanding General
U.S. Army TACOM
Life Cycle Management Command
Major General Kurt J. Stein assumed command of the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command on January 29, 2010 following his assignment in Iraq where he served as the deputy chief of staff, MNF-I Combined Joint 1/4/8.
He entered the U.S. Army as an enlisted soldier in October 1976 and achieved the rank of staff sergeant. In 1982, he was commissioned as an ordnance officer from the Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Ga. His military education includes the Ordnance Officer Basic and Advanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College.
His previous assignments include maintenance division chief, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.; maintenance platoon leader and shop officer, C Company, 123rd Main Support Battalion, 1st Armored Division; battalion adjutant, 123rd MSB, 1st AD; Commander, D Co. 123rd MSB, 1st AD; ordnance assignment officer, PERSCOM/HRC, Alexandria, Va.; executive officer, 610th Ordnance Battalion, Fort Belvoir, Va.; support operations officer, 782nd Main Support Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C; executive officer, 407th Forward Support Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division; S-3, 82nd DISCOM; deputy commander, 20th Support Group, Taegu, Korea; executive officer, 82nd DISCOM; commander, 82nd Forward Support Battalion; G-4 82nd Airborne Division; Commander, 2ID DISCOM, deputy director for power projection, Joint Staff, J-4, executive officer to the J-4, Joint Staff, Washington D.C. assistant chief of staff, J4, Headquarters, United States Forces Korea (USFK), deputy assistant chief of staff, C4, Combined Forces Command (CFC), deputy commanding general for support, Eighth United States Army (EUSA), Yongsan, Korea, deputy commanding general of USFK (Advanced Element), Camp Humphreys, Korea and MNF-I CJ 1/4/8, Baghdad, Iraq.
His personal awards and decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Joint Staff Achievement Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Service Medal, the National Defense Service Ribbon, the NCO Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon (5 tours), the Master Parachutist Badge and German Jump Wings.
Q: In January, it will be two years since you assumed command. What changes have you seen occur, and what improvements have you effected in the command?
A: Perhaps the biggest change we’ve seen is the final execution of our base realignment and closure [BRAC] responsibilities and actions this September. The largest and most complex BRAC action involved the relocation of procurement management and materiel management functions from Rock Island Arsenal to the Detroit Arsenal. More than 1,100 positions transferred as a result of this action. Many of these positions provide direct and indirect logistics support for the Army’s ground combat systems. During the past two years, the Detroit Arsenal also experienced major changes in its physical plant with the completion of four major BRAC and non-BRAC construction projects. Our installation [Detroit Arsenal] looks much different than it did two years ago.
In the near future, the Army will face both increased demands for war fighting capabilities and reduced budgetsWe’ll be asked to do more without more. We’re not waiting to see what happens. On multiple fronts, the TACOM LCMC is exploring ways to gain resource efficiencies in our organization. Our goal is to develop and execute a workable plan to maximize our operational efficiencies in order to better position our workforce for the future. Our people, products, processes, and culture enable the TACOM LCMC to provide the best possible support to America’s soldiers. We’re planning and moving forward now to maintain our ability to provide that support for many years to come.
Q: What challenges do you see ahead for the command in the next five years?
A: For the past decade, the Army has been the beneficiary of ample resources. Funding has been there to support the 1.1 million soldiers who have deployed to combat during the past 10 years. Our Army continues to perform full spectrum missions around the world, but changes are underway. Shifting national priorities, new mission requirements, and coming budget decisions will have a pronounced effect on the Army. The fiscal reality is that we will get smaller. How we do it is the hard part. Setting priorities and channeling resources will be a grueling effort. I believe these may be the most challenging times our Army has seen in many years.
Many question marks surround the Army’s combat vehicle programs. This applies to all programs—not just the new ground combat vehicle. It’s extremely difficult for the Army to plan, project, and program its requirements in the face of such uncertainty. In a very real sense, we’re waiting for the budget bus. Money’s going away and there are major decisions to be made. What equipment are we going to keep? What equipment will the Army choose to sustain? What portion of the Army’s future focus will be on developing new systems? What steps will the Army take to upgrade its existing combat vehicle fleet? The national budget deliberations have scrambled the decisionmaking processes the Army typically uses to answer questions like these.
The questions multiply when the subject is the new ground combat vehicle. Questions run the gamut from funding, soldier capacity, and tactical mobility ... to force protection, fuel efficiency, and the expansion potential for future upgrades. What’s the best approach to get what the Army wants? Right now, there’s more mystery than clarity involved in the effort to discern the best path forward.
The years ahead will bring even more tough challenges. The persistent conflict we’ve endured for the past decade will not end in the near future. Although the Army’s combat vehicle programs are currently in flux, the demand for military resources will likely continue to remain strong. The nature and role of the Army’s heavy combat assets will continue to be debated.
Q: What is the status of the ground combat vehicle program, and what are the next milestones?
A: The Ground Combat Vehicle program was approved for the technology development phase in August 2011 and this was followed with the Army awarding two contracts for the technology development phase.
The ground combat vehicle, or GCV, is the Army’s No. 1 vehicle development priority and the No. 2 modernization priority overall. There are some important reasons why the development of the GCV is so critical. Lessons learned from nearly 10 years of conflict show us that we must have the ability to deliver a full infantry squad to a position of decisive advantage on the battlefield in varied terrain types. Our current combat vehicle fleet has served us well, but the battlefield has evolved to include combinations of conventional, irregular, terrorist and criminal elements—often mixed among a civilian population. The use of improvised explosive devices is one strong example of this new and emerging threat from a highly adaptive enemy. To meet this threat we have had to increase force protection on vehicles with additional armor. We have had to increase the force’s effectiveness by adding a host of computing and electronic capabilities. The additional weight and power demands of these added capabilities have maxed out the vehicles in terms of space, weight, power and cooling.
We know the threat will continue to evolve, so developing the GCV as quickly as possible is critical. Additionally, we are all operating in a resource-constrained environment that does not allow for risks in schedule slippage or increase in cost. The GCV effort addresses the critical operational and financial issues as a leader in acquisition through better buying power, where affordability and efficiency are major concerns. In the GCV, the focus is on mature technologies, solid requirements and more competition among vendors.
Overall, there is a critical need for the GCV. Army leadership has been behind the effort and continues to support it. Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli told lawmakers in October that the GCV is absolutely essential and went on to say that not proceeding would cost lives. The Army is serious about affordability and making sure the requirement set is correct. Ms. Heidi Shyu, the Army’s acting acquisition executive, also recently called the ground combat vehicle effort an excellent example of the Army’s improved approach to acquisition.
Q: How is the joint light tactical vehicle program performing?
A: The JLTV technology development phase was highly successful and satisfied its intended purposes. The purposes were to demonstrate the integration of mature technologies as a complete system and provide an assessment of the technical, performance cost and schedule risks relevant to entering the engineering and manufacturing development phase. It gave the Army and Marines exactly the kind of information we needed to make really well-informed decisions about what JLTV can be and what it should cost.
Competitive prototyping during the technology development phase improved the fidelity of the designs, demonstrated mature technologies, increased confidence in operational performance, and increased the confidence in cost estimates for the program life cycle. The engineering and manufacturing development phase will include full and open competition with the selection of multiple offerors. Our aim is to give industry greater latitude to demonstrate what’s achievable on a light platform—the refined acquisition strategy is designed to put a premium on driving down costs, reducing risk and getting vehicles into the hands of warfighters quicker.
The JLTV program followed a disciplined requirements management process with eight knowledge point reviews that used emerging analysis and test data throughout the technology development phase to adjust the requirements primarily to drive down vehicle weight. The idea is to get a vehicle that can be incrementally improved on over time. Within the program’s key performance parameters there is sufficient trade space to give manufacturers latitude to be creative and to demonstrate what’s achievable on a light platform.
Q: What is the purpose of the HMMWV recapitalization program?
A: The competitive HMMWV recapitalization and modernization program will utilize the expanded capability vehicle chassis as a ‘seed’ to recapitalize into a modernized expanded capability vehicle with enhanced capabilities. By opening the HMMWV recap program to competition, we hope to capitalize on the engineering and design expertise of industry to provide a level of protection that makes it a viable choice for combat operations.
The Army intends to focus on improvements to crew survivability and transportability, restoring payload capacity and automotive/mobility performance, and will incorporate lessons learned from recent operational need statements.
By divesting our oldest, least capable HMMWV fleet and replacing the vehicles with the JLTV as it comes into production, those are all key elements of the Army’s approved tactical wheeled vehicle strategy.
Q: Congress is weighing very substantial reductions in defense spending and programs, with a possibility of 5 percent to 10 percent across-the-board cuts DoD-wide. What steps has the command already taken to make itself more cost-efficient? What further steps are envisioned?
A: Recent public statements by the Secretary of Defense [Leon Panetta] highlighted the seriousness of the funding challenges ahead. Shrinking the number of troops, cutting new weapons purchases, dramatically slowing equipment modernization programs, reducing the nuclear arsenal, a potential new round of base closings, and possible changes to military medical and retirement benefits are among the spending categories under consideration for possible reductions. The congressional, DoD, and Army budget deliberations are taking place in a setting of widespread public concern regarding our nation’s financial health.
The BRAC consolidation of positions at the Detroit Arsenal helped us facilitate a realignment of resources that have common and consistent missions to support soldiers and Army combat equipment. Our logistics assistance, training and fielding, and fleet management expanded organizations were consolidated into a single field support organization that shares skills and resources. In anticipation of reduced sustainment budgets in the next few years, we moved very cautiously in filling positions that were vacated in the transfer. This will enable our command to more readily absorb budget reductions while minimizing potential adverse effects on our current workforce.
The TACOM LCMC has embraced numerous recent and ongoing cost savings initiatives. Approximately 47 percent of our workforce includes teammates in one of our six industrial base arsenals and depots. Lean six sigma activities are a particularly important source of real cost savings at these facilities. Commandwide, we’ve achieved validated cost savings of $136 million in FY10 and $150 million in FY11 as a result of our robust lean six sigma programs. The award-winning TACOM LCMC value engineering program is consistently one of the Army’s best. In FY10, the command amassed a record $1.6 billion in savings via 39 implemented value engineering programs. The best part of the value engineering approach is that it frees up funds that can be used for other purposes. The command has also been on board from the beginning regarding [then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and now Deputy Secretary of Defense] Dr. Ashton Carter’s better buying power initiatives. Our local contracting folks have reported excellent early savings resulting from application of the better buying power guidelines. Finally, the TACOM LCMC is an enthusiastic participant in the Army Materiel Command’s new bold ideas initiative that seeks to stimulate many short-term, high impact ideas to save costs and improve performance.
Q: PEO Soldier has moved to provide better gear to personnel. What does the command see as the highest-priority innovations that PEO Soldier is working on to improve the lethality and survivability of the soldier?
A: PEO Soldier’s key innovations for soldier lethality include the XM.25 Individual Semi-Automatic Airburst System and the upgraded M2A1 .50 caliber machine gun.
The developmental XM.25 is designed to address the challenge of defeating enemies behind cover. The XM.25 fires 25 mm ‘smart’ munitions that can be programmed to detonate at precise distances. The system incorporates a full-solution target acquisition/fire control that enhances a soldier’s ability to deliver rounds at ranges and accuracies not seen in today’s small arms. Soldiers who have employed prototype XM.25s in combat report that the systems provided added capability while shortening the length of engagements.
The M2A1 upgrades include a quick change barrel, fixed headspace and timing, and a new flash hider that reduces the weapon’s flash signature by 95 percent. The fixed headspace and timing enhancement resolves the number one safety issue for soldiers operating the weapon system. The quick change barrel speeds target engagement and improves survivability and safety by reducing the time required to change the barrel and eliminating the timely procedure of setting headspace. The result is that unit M2A1s will have near constant firepower and less downtime. PEO Soldier fielded the first M2A1s this summer. The Army’s goal is to upgrade over 45,000 M2s to the new M2A1 standard.
In the realm of survivability, research and development efforts are being conducted in the areas of advanced fiber technologies for lighter weight ballistic materials, improving ceramic hardness and durability, pelvic protection systems to reduce blast injuries to the groin region, and helmet sensors that measure and record trauma to the head. These efforts work to improve soldier survivability by maintaining or increasing current personal protective equipment capabilities while reducing weight, adding ballistic protection to vital areas, and as an outcome of the Helmet Sensor Program, assist in correlating medical data with head trauma for the development of screening tools to identify mild traumatic brain injury.
Q: The System of Systems Integration Directorate is a newer organization in TACOM. Could you describe its work and the advantages it confers upon warfighters?
A: The System of Systems Integration Directorate stood up on October 1. The directorate is headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., which makes sense as the directorate primarily integrates network capability and the Army’s network community is based at Aberdeen. However, the System of Systems Integration Directorate has a significant presence at TACOM. With business offices and operations cells, they team with the TACOM contracting center for acquisition and TARDEC for engineering support.
Their stand up is part of continuing acquisition improvements to streamline procurement practices and requirements, better manage cost and schedules, integrate new technologies before they are sent to theater and work more closely with industry. The System of Systems Integration Directorate will spearhead acquisition management of the network integration evaluations and is a key team manager, bringing together more than 11 PEOs, of what is being termed the agile process. This acquisition process seeks technology improvements from both large and small industry partners to fill hardware and software needs as determined by requirements analysis linked to the ARFORGEN model—the systematic process in which Army brigades equip, train and deploy.
Q: In the Joint PEO for Chemical and Biological Defense, where do you place greater emphasis: on detection, protection, decontamination, avoidance or medical treatment? Or must each area be given equal emphasis?
A: The Joint PEO for Chemical Biological Defense portfolio consists of an evenly balanced mix of non-medical equipment and medical countermeasures that include prophylaxes, therapeutics, bio-surveillance, and diagnostics. This ratio represents a recent strategic shift towards a comprehensive response to the threat of bioterrorism and emerging chemical threats.
President [Obama] and the secretary of defense have provided renewed importance on rapidly and efficiently developing and manufacturing effective medical countermeasures for weapons of mass destruction through executive orders, homeland security presidential directives, and the National Strategy for Countering Biological threats. Our core competencies within bio-surveillance, diagnostics, and the new medical countermeasures initiative support this shift.
The capability to obtain early warning about the deliberate use or natural emergence of dangerous pathogens hinges upon the development of a global bio-surveillance network. Diagnostics is fundamental to bio-surveillance, and it is a key area of our expertise within the Joint PEO for Chemical Biological Defense. We develop and integrate state-of-the-art chemical and biological diagnostic and identification systems to enable both force protection and force health protection.
Detection, protection, decontamination, contamination avoidance, and medical treatment all play key roles in providing world-class capabilities that allow our servicemembers to fight and win decisively in CBRN threat environments. The first step in enabling the Warfighter to operate successfully in such environments is to develop the proper mix of joint capabilities for current military operations, while also preparing against emerging threats. In so doing, it is essential that we maintain a comprehensive portfolio of medical and non-medical CBRN capabilities.
Q: Do you have any closing thoughts on your command, the people who staff it, and the capabilities that you provide to those in uniform?
A: Providing support to the warfighter is the reason the TACOM LCMC exists. It’s our top priority and the basis for everything we do. Placing the warfighter at the center of our mission and vision statements is a must. Placing the warfighter at the center of our daily work effort—in the shop, lab, or office—is better still. Our responsibility is to try to see the link between the work we perform here ... and the soldier in the field. It’s that kind of focus that adds real value and meaning to our daily labor. This is our expectation for every TACOM LCMC teammate.
The work we do requires the assistance of many organizations within our life cycle management command. Effective communication, coordination, and collaboration are essential to achieve success in our work to support soldiers. We seek to master these skills because they help us serve soldiers better. We have a tremendous TACOM LCMC team and I am proud to be part of it.
Finally, if a soldier eats it, wears it, drives it, or shoots it... TACOM LCMC develops, supplies, or sustains it. ♦