Army Backs Battlefield Network Despite Budget Shift

Army Backs Battlefield Network Despite Budget Shift

U.S. Army officials said they support further development of a battlefield communications network even as the service seeks to transfer funding from the program this year to pay for more urgent needs.

The system, known in military parlance as Warfighter Information Network — Tactical, or WIN-T, is a high-speed, high-capacity communications network for the war zone. The next phase of the program, called Increment 2, uses radios, satellites and antennae on blast-resistant trucks to provide troops with mobile voice and data communications.

The General Dynamics Corp.-made product is one of a handful under review this month as part of the Army’s so-called Network Integration Evaluation, an ongoing series of semi-annual exercises at Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The Falls Church, Va.-based manufacturer has lobbied against the service’s request to transfer funding from the program.

“We have a lot of confidence in the system,” Col. Rob Carpenter, director of systems integration for the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said during a May 9 conference call with reporters. “We continue to pursue it.”

The Army wants to transfer $128 million from the program as part of a larger Defense Department request to shift several billion dollars in funding for the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30, mostly to pay for higher-than-expected war costs. The service is facing a potential budget shortfall of more than $15 billion, leaders have said.

“A lot of it was based on obligation rates and where the money was,” Carpenter said of the request. “WIN-T just happens to be a program with a lot of money in it and the money hadn’t gone out to contract yet.

“It’s not a confidence issue at all,” he added. “It’s just [about] available funding.”

The money was available because the Army decreased the number of brigades set to receive the communications gear this year to four brigades and two division headquarters — down from an initial eight brigades. That decision stemmed in part from the evolving mission in Afghanistan.

The White House is pressing for a faster withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. President Obama said in the State of the Union that the number of American troops in the country will be cut by half, to about 34,000, next year. The war “will be over” by late 2014, he said.

The Army requested a total of $1.23 billion for the WIN-T program in fiscal 2013, according to Pentagon budget documents. That figure includes $893 million for procurement, $278 million for research and development and $55 million for spares. It asked for $1.28 billion for the effort in fiscal 2014.

The second installment of the program is estimated to cost $6.2 billion, a 64-percent increase in cost from 2007, according to a Government Accountability Office report from March.

The Army has called upgrading its battlefield network its “foremost investment priority.”

WIN-T is at the heart of those efforts, though in a test last year the second phase of the program was found “not suitable due to poor reliability and maintainability and not survivable,” according to a January report from J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester.

The Army “has aggressively pursued and implemented corrective actions to address the areas identified for improvement during the previous test,” it said in an overview document of the systems under review.

During the conference call with reporters, Col. Dave Wellons of the service’s Operational Test Command said the network is “more stable” and soldiers are better trained on how to use it. “We’ll still in the process of gathering data” on its performance, he said.

Tags: , , , , ,

Join the Conversation

Given the dual high-low threat mix (high from traditional competitors like Russia and China; low from insurgents and non-state players) why isn’t the Army pursuing a dual high-low support strategy? A low-cost, low technology option (lets called it “cell phone world”) addresses immediate communications and intergration needs (like what we’re seeing today in Iraq, Afghanistan and other CENTCOM areas). This option can be fully funded, so reprogrammings aren’t necessary. The current high-cost, high-risk development and acquisition can be slowed down, since we don’t really have a near-competitor out there where we could conceivably use large army presence. That way there’d be enough money to support our troops for what THEY need, not what our defense contractors need.

Over 2 million dollars a handset for 1990s technology. There must be a lot of retirement jobs on the line.

good point taxpayer, but army WIN-T as exp. as it is, will give the ground-pounders & forced entry forces state of the art commo into the next decade +, your point is spot on about the ” traditional competitors”, but rogue theorcracies & proxy states are still a land threat & the norks can turn into a wild card in the most heavily militarized region of the world! The army is always the red-headed step child, until the nation calls upon it.

Wow! A $278 million budget for research and development for FY-2013 seems a little excessive given WIN-T’s claim that it is mostly commercial equipment hardened for the battlefield. How much are they asking for in FY-2014. Moving most of the money to procurement might be a better deal for the taxpayers.

I agree $278 million is a lot for R&D but the system is needed it saves lives. Some of that money should go to procurement


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.