New Military Center at A&M

6,699 Views | 21 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by 74OA
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
$130M complex coming at RELLIS for Army advanced research programs: Combat Tech

"The complex will include a kilometer-long tunnel that will make Texas A&M Engineering "the hypersonics research capital of the country," said M. Katherine Banks, vice chancellor and dean of engineering."
Tango_Mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only tangentially related to A&M's participation, but the whole "Futures Command" thing is such a stupid example of headquarters creep. There was already a DA-level staff proponent for the future (the Gs-3/5/7) and an entire "futures" directorate at Fort Eustis (ARCIC). Adding another stovepiped 4-star HQ is exactly the wrong answer
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I like the idea of separating those responsible for designing the future force out from under those responsible for supporting and employing the current force. Those are two very different and frequently conflicting priorities--particularly when so many senior careers and egos are wedded to current force programs.

Headquarters G-3/5/7 are good examples of staffs with competing priorities to advocate for both the current and future force and a directorate buried in ARCIC doesn't have the horsepower to stand up to the four stars representing the current force and its "right now" needs.

Consolidating the future force guys within their own chain of command is more likely to create a focused effort under bosses who aren't pressured by conflicting priorities. Similarly, matrixing the futures staff in CFTs is a good step to avoid stove piping, and putting them under their own four-star will ensure future issues get an equal hearing when competing for finite resources with those advocating for the current force.

Only time will tell if the execution matches the concept. We'll see.

Worth a try........
yell_on_6th st
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

I like the idea of separating those responsible for designing the future force out from under those responsible for supporting and employing the current force. Those are two very different and frequently conflicting priorities--particularly when so many senior careers and egos are wedded to current force programs.

Headquarters G-3/5/7 are good examples of staffs with competing priorities to advocate for both the current and future force and a directorate buried in ARCIC doesn't have the horsepower to stand up to the four stars representing the current force and its "right now" needs.

Consolidating the future force guys within their own chain of command is more likely to create a focused effort under bosses who aren't pressured by conflicting priorities. Similarly, matrixing the futures staff in CFTs is a good step to avoid stove piping, and putting them under their own four-star will ensure future issues get an equal hearing when competing for finite resources with those advocating for the current force.

Only time will tell if the execution matches the concept. We'll see.

Worth a try........

Peanuts teacher voice. Wa wa, wa wa wah wah, wa wah. Stovepiping
Tango_Mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA said:

I like the idea of separating those responsible for designing the future force out from under those responsible for supporting and employing the current force. Those are two very different and frequently conflicting priorities--particularly when so many senior careers and egos are wedded to current force programs.

Headquarters G-3/5/7 are good examples of staffs with competing priorities to advocate for both the current and future force and a directorate buried in ARCIC doesn't have the horsepower to stand up to the four stars representing the current force and its "right now" needs.

Consolidating the future force guys within their own chain of command is more likely to create a focused effort under bosses who aren't pressured by conflicting priorities. Similarly, matrixing the futures staff in CFTs is a good step to avoid stove piping, and putting them under their own four-star will ensure future issues get an equal hearing when competing for finite resources with those advocating for the current force.

Only time will tell if the execution matches the concept. We'll see.

Worth a try........
Disagree. ARCIC is a 3-star directorate with a unique reporting structure. It's under the most powerful MACOM (TRADOC) and therefore entirely embedded in the actual execution, and aware of the constraints, of implementing whatever future stuff they devise. The future force was not buried in ARCIC, the entire 500-person staff is (or was) the futures. In addition to being under the TRADOC CG, it had a sort of direct reporting unit relationship with the Chief where nothing they ever asked for was denied. They have entire test brigades at Bliss, twice-yearly exercises, which are usually observed by the SECDEF, the UK minister of defense, the Marine Corps commandant, and the Army Materiel Command CG.

Futures Command reeks of JFCOM and STRATCOM. We already had a Joint Staff, so naturally we needed another 4-star HQ to think of joint things. Every 4-star works at the strategic level, and the Navy and AF already own all of the nuclear weapons, so naturally we need another 4-star to think of strategic things.

All this is just academic though. Futures Command exists, and our opinions plus $3.00 will buy a cup of coffee
monarch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
All this is just academic though. Futures Command exists, and our opinions plus $3.00 will buy a cup of coffee.

Remember when that coffee cup was .25?
Joe Schillaci 48
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tango_Mike said:

the whole "Futures Command" thing is such a stupid example of headquarters creep.
They are already cranking out the administrative Bronze Stars.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional sports advice.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
74OA said:

I like the idea of separating those responsible for designing the future force out from under those responsible for supporting and employing the current force. Those are two very different and frequently conflicting priorities--particularly when so many senior careers and egos are wedded to current force programs.

Headquarters G-3/5/7 are good examples of staffs with competing priorities to advocate for both the current and future force and a directorate buried in ARCIC doesn't have the horsepower to stand up to the four stars representing the current force and its "right now" needs.

Consolidating the future force guys within their own chain of command is more likely to create a focused effort under bosses who aren't pressured by conflicting priorities. Similarly, matrixing the futures staff in CFTs is a good step to avoid stove piping, and putting them under their own four-star will ensure future issues get an equal hearing when competing for finite resources with those advocating for the current force.

Only time will tell if the execution matches the concept. We'll see.

Worth a try........
I agree with 74 on this.

ARCIC isn't/wasn't really the issue.

It was, as he describes, the fragmentation of elements focused on new capabilities and modernization among major commands that are decidedly focused on near-term readiness.

I would also challenge the assertion that TRADOC is the most influential MACOM -- I would argue it is FORSCOM. The fact ARCIC required a separate reporting channel is itself a testament that something was amiss in its alignment.

TRADOC is a massive hairball, and the elements of its enterprise that generate requirements have become disconnected and irrelevant from procurement -- which is a big problem that AFC is trying to resolve. First by creating CFTs, and then vesting authority for program requirements with CFT leaders answering directly to the chief, instead of whatever 3-star who thinks the next vehicle/helicopter ought to suit his frame of reference.

See former ARCIC CG McMaster derailing GCV by unilaterally declared it must have a manned turret -- despite that decision already being made, and it being nowhere written except his personal view that a vehicle commander must be able to look out of a turret with binos.

I don't know if AFC will work, but I damn well know that the status quo was failing. The fact that the AFC CG doesn't control the pursestrings (ASA(LT) does) is going to be a problem. But they accepted risk there to move quickly, as the legislation required was probably a bridge too far.

Futures, requirements, R&D, and procurement should all be under one roof -- and none of FORSCOM, AMC, or TRADOC fit that.

HQ creep is a legit concern, but not so much in this case. The actual net growth is about 300 people from what I understand -- the rest is realignment. The 4-star and people will be harvested from ISAF, or maybe USARPAC -- which is a highly dubious 4-star billet in the first place, and a vestige of the "Asia-Pacific Rebalance" that was more a political signal than a functional need.
Tango_Mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good arguments, good discussion.

TRADOC is a giant gaggle, but I'm a Bob Cone disciple so I got to sit in the room when he made strategic-level decisions.

Hopefully I'm wrong, I don't disagree that there needs to be some improvements to the system.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Tango_Mike said:

Good arguments, good discussion.

TRADOC is a giant gaggle, but I'm a Bob Cone disciple so I got to sit in the room when he made strategic-level decisions.

Hopefully I'm wrong, I don't disagree that there needs to be some improvements to the system.
I was in 3ACR with Cone in the mid-90s.

If you had given a guy like him the Futures enterprise, I have no doubt he would have done great things.

Initial Entry Training, Recruiting, and trying to keep doctrine relevant consume TRADOC -- and the work it did with future analysis/wargames always seemed to dead-end because there was no linkage between their findings and actual requirements generation for platform acquisition -- which were easily bent toward current operational needs emanating from FORSCOM and COCOMs -- especially since 2003.

Leaving aside everything else, the AFC effort has moved a lot of high performing officers into the CFTs -- and empowered them. Better human capital in that neglected part of the institution can't hurt.

A guy like Ross Coffman spending 3 years crashing on Next Generation Combat Vehicles will contribute much more to the future Army than spending 2 years as a division CG -- but that has not been the culture of GO assignments, which has been more about checking operational blocks than improving the enterprise.
.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RC is undoubtedly one of the best possible guys for that gig.
CAVGrunt97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Army Acquisition process had become overly complicated and was not at all responsive. Too many people who could say no but couldn't say yes. ARCIC (then in TRADOC) was developing concepts independent and uninformed by resident S&T knowledge and capabilities (then in RDECOM/AMC). Requirements documents would take years to write and would still "hope" that technologies would mature by the Milestone C decision point (many programs were cancelled because they didn't). The extended program lengths made Soldier participation in development OBE due to constant program changes over that time. Army S&T was doing a lot of research for research sake completely separated and uninformed by Army modernization priorities. Finally, for a long time, any requirements we did have were not informed by any synchronized effort to link capability requirements tied to the future threat and extant or required S&T fields of study. No. I am not a fan of more generals and more headquarters. But the Army needed AFC in a bad way. Hell, we really need this initiative to be conveyed forward as a Joint effort. Our greatest adversaries are totalitarian states that can drive modernization at speeds we can currently only dream of. This mere fact demands we make significant change. We Americans are better and smarter... we just have to work together. That's why AFC was created.


We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well, and live!
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CAVGrunt97 said:

The Army Acquisition process had become overly complicated and was not at all responsive. Too many people who could say no but couldn't say yes. ARCIC (then in TRADOC) was developing concepts independent and uninformed by resident S&T knowledge and capabilities (then in RDECOM/AMC). Requirements documents would take years to write and would still "hope" that technologies would mature by the Milestone C decision point (many programs were cancelled because they didn't). The extended program lengths made Soldier participation in development OBE due to constant program changes over that time. Army S&T was doing a lot of research for research sake completely separated and uninformed by Army modernization priorities. Finally, for a long time, any requirements we did have were not informed by any synchronized effort to link capability requirements tied to the future threat and extant or required S&T fields of study. No. I am not a fan of more generals and more headquarters. But the Army needed AFC in a bad way. Hell, we really need this initiative to be conveyed forward as a Joint effort. Our greatest adversaries are totalitarian states that can drive modernization at speeds we can currently only dream of. This mere fact demands we make significant change. We Americans are better and smarter... we just have to work together. That's why AFC was created.
Yep, dictatorships can be very efficient. We either have to produce superior products or hope they're efficiently pursuing the wrong things. But, as we know, hope is not a plan.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
74OA said:

CAVGrunt97 said:

The Army Acquisition process had become overly complicated and was not at all responsive. Too many people who could say no but couldn't say yes. ARCIC (then in TRADOC) was developing concepts independent and uninformed by resident S&T knowledge and capabilities (then in RDECOM/AMC). Requirements documents would take years to write and would still "hope" that technologies would mature by the Milestone C decision point (many programs were cancelled because they didn't). The extended program lengths made Soldier participation in development OBE due to constant program changes over that time. Army S&T was doing a lot of research for research sake completely separated and uninformed by Army modernization priorities. Finally, for a long time, any requirements we did have were not informed by any synchronized effort to link capability requirements tied to the future threat and extant or required S&T fields of study. No. I am not a fan of more generals and more headquarters. But the Army needed AFC in a bad way. Hell, we really need this initiative to be conveyed forward as a Joint effort. Our greatest adversaries are totalitarian states that can drive modernization at speeds we can currently only dream of. This mere fact demands we make significant change. We Americans are better and smarter... we just have to work together. That's why AFC was created.
Yep, dictatorships can be very efficient. We either have to produce superior products or hope they're efficiently pursuing the wrong things. But, as we know, hope is not a plan.
They can definitely be single-minded and directive toward achieving a goal.

They also have their internal inefficiencies that make them less productive than they could be: their capital investment is almost always directed politically rather than by market forces, which yields a crap ton of corruption, and massive waste -- like the building of huge cities and building that no one occupies.

Did you see this story on the Chinese Mayor who had $37 billion in gold & cash in his basement?

https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/cops-in-china-find-13-tons-of-gold-stashed-in-ex-mayors-cellar/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Think about that. Dude is the mayor of a large city, and had the capability to steal $37 BILLION from the state.

They can steal tech, and they can mass produce things at low cost. But they have great difficulty producing complex machining/technology at commercial scale.

Think on this -- China can put a man in space, but can't produce reliable jet engines.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All true, but the Soviet dictatorship--for all its equally vast corruption--was adequately efficient and scientifically advanced enough to be a dangerous peer competitor for a long time, for example. China is well along the same path.

The Chinese don't have to be perfectly efficient, just efficient enough, and for all the holes in their scientific portfolio they are making disturbingly rapid advances to catch up--and, unlike us, have money to burn to compensate for corruption and overcome mistakes.

This is why we can't be complacent and just assume our old structures and processes are still good enough to field an adequate military deterrent.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
74OA said:

All true, but the Soviet dictatorship--for all its equally vast corruption--was adequately efficient and scientifically advanced enough to be a dangerous peer competitor for a long time, for example. China is well along the same path.

The Chinese don't have to be perfectly efficient, just efficient enough, and for all the holes in their scientific portfolio they are making disturbingly rapid advances to catch up--and, unlike us, have money to burn to compensate for corruption and overcome mistakes.

This is why we can't be complacent and just assume our old structures and processes are still good enough to field an adequate military deterrent.
I agree with all that. The Soviets did a lot through espionage as well. They struggled to keep up with technology, but have a knack for engineering simple, rugged solutions to solve engineering problems. They alsohad the advantage of proximity to Europe enabling a "mass" approach.

China is basically attempting to skip a couple of generations of tech -- and leaping straight from 60s to leaping ahead of where we are in a few capability areas -- not across the board. They don't have to cope with projection of land forces. The biggest difference with the Soviets. is sheer scale -- you can generate a lot of military investment with 1.3 billion people, even if you do so inefficiently. They are also heavily investing in human capital in western Universities -- something the Soviets didn't do.



cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trinity Ag said:


I agree with all that. The Soviets did a lot through espionage as well. They struggled to keep up with technology, but have a knack for engineering simple, rugged solutions to solve engineering problems. They alsohad the advantage of proximity to Europe enabling a "mass" approach.

China is basically attempting to skip a couple of generations of tech -- and leaping straight from 60s to leaping ahead of where we are in a few capability areas -- not across the board. They don't have to cope with projection of land forces. The biggest difference with the Soviets. is sheer scale -- you can generate a lot of military investment with 1.3 billion people, even if you do so inefficiently. They are also heavily investing in human capital in western Universities -- something the Soviets didn't do.
= human grocery store......? Actually I guess the horde is commodity, the engineers are capital investments...
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UPDATE

"The BCDC will be a full complement of facilities, equipment and instrumentation consisting of the Innovation Proving Ground (IPG); Research Integration Center (RIC); Ballistic, Aero-optics, and Materials (BAM); and the Technology Innovation and Modernization Catalyst (TIMC).

The IPG will provide a challenging outdoor test site for autonomous aerial, ground and subterranean vehicles. The technological systems involved are highly complex, involving networks and sensors and innovative operating systems.

The RIC will be a state-of-the-art innovation hub where researchers, students, industry, government and the military can collaborate to create emerging technologies that will modernize the Army. The use of high-tech maker spaces will lead to product development that is tested and evaluated by soldiers, allowing for continual and real-time design feedback.

The BAM will be a one-of-a-kind facility in which hypersonics and directed energy research will be conducted. BAM will feature an above-ground tunnel that is 1 kilometer long and 2 meters in diameter with integrated sensors. The BAM will also have laboratories, runways, underground and open-air battlefields, and a resilient network of sensors and systems for data collection, analysis and storage. In addition to BAM's use by the AFC, it will be available to other military branches and defense contractors.

The TIMC will support the management and transfer of intellectual property and technology to industry for commercial applications. The facility will provide space for early stage technology ventures, business services, commercialization training and startup launch support services to inventors and innovators."

74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another update.

"On Thursday, the regents voted to spend $79.3 million of university funds on the project, dubbed the Bush Combat Development Center. The state of Texas already approved $50 million, with the Army kicking in another $65 million."

Security and personnel screening better be tight as the Center will likely be a priority foreign espionage target.
Scruffy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Another update.

"On Thursday, the regents voted to spend $79.3 million of university funds on the project, dubbed the Bush Combat Development Center. The state of Texas already approved $50 million, with the Army kicking in another $65 million."


It costs that much to learn personal grooming?
Southlake
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Russians just used a pencil...
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

$130M complex coming at RELLIS for Army advanced research programs: Combat Tech

"The complex will include a kilometer-long tunnel that will make Texas A&M Engineering "the hypersonics research capital of the country," said M. Katherine Banks, vice chancellor and dean of engineering."
Soooo they are building a new steam tunnel????
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Big new hypersonics contract: CENTER
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.