Next Generation Command and Control — the state of the Army’s future network and the service’s number one priority for modernization — has been billed as an entirely new way of doing business with a clean-slate approach rather than continuing to either bolt on or work within the confines of existing systems and processes. NGC2 aims to provide commanders and units a new approach to information, data and command and control through agile and software-based architectures.

A prototype of the system was recently tested at Project Convergence at Fort Irwin, California, in March.

As part of that updated network architecture and approach, service leaders are envisioning the elimination of single- and two-channel radios for troops on the ground. In their place will be what the Army calls end user devices, which are Android devices that are strapped to soldiers’ chests and have typically been reserved for team leaders.

These end user devices feature position and location information. They can now also enable communication using emerging voice-over-IP technology.

“The fundamental difference [between the existing network and NGC2] is in that data and transport layer because we are convinced that if we get that part right, there will be a day when our soldiers, instead of carrying … the batteries, the multiple radios that are out there, it’s an end user device at the edge and that is all that they’re going to need for the next fight,” Gen. James Mingus, Army vice chief of staff, said Tuesday at an event hosted by AUSA. “No more radios, no more batteries, because all I’m carrying is an end user device on the edge.”

A separate official clarified that the tactical level, battalion and below, is where the Army envisions eliminating single- and two-channel radios. Higher echelons will still need larger pipes and thus will still require radios.

Mingus explained that while the cloud storage and edge compute and storage is more refined, the terrestrial transport layer for data is something the Army will have to smooth out over the next year.

In the future, instead of using individual radios, forces will move radio frequency signals from point A to point B through “pucks on trucks,” Mingus said.

“Anything that moves, it’s got a puck on it that emits, it’s bringing in the long-haul comms, and then it’s establishing that terrestrial-based mesh through a series of pucks that are on the battlefield that then connects to the end user device,” he said.

The Army has been on a radio journey for many years, trying to determine the right mix, at what echelon certain capabilities are needed and even exploring if an as-a-service model makes sense.

Some in industry have noted that there’s a massive shift going on within the Army from what worked in the recent past to a penchant for something completely new — and it’s not clear to some industry members why that’s the case.

The approach of eliminating radios in favor of voice-over-IP, WiFi or 5G pucks to provide transport is puzzling to some observers. They warn it could put the Army at risk of not having a diverse enough architecture for what officials call PACE, or primary, alternate, contingency and emergency.

In future operating environments against sophisticated adversaries, enemies will seek to jam or deny communications and data access across certain waveforms and parts of the spectrum these systems operate on. Thus, it is important to have a diverse set of transport to where units can fall over to still conduct their missions and pass data if one system fails or is jammed.

“To see such a drastic shift, to say that Next Gen [C2] doesn’t include any forms of radios, I think it puzzles a lot of people … It’s a head scratcher,” an industry source said.

They added that while the networks support the push-to-talk feature that can be enabled through the end user device and voice-over-IP, there needs to be a mix of different capabilities and radios.

“Most of us still believe that you need flexible architectures, which include a mix of radios perhaps,” the industry source said.

The post Army could be moving to eliminate radios at the tactical edge appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“I think that’s what’s coming next … I think the next part of this network journey is really our investment strategy around tactical radios and tactical voice and data, and what does that look like for the Army,” Mark Kitz, program executive officer for command, control, communications and networks, said in an interview at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting. “How do we diversify? I would love to have a really diverse set of tactical infrastructure where I have multiple companies working in a really diverse environment, so a division may implement three different companies’ technologies, because that’s what’s the best network for them. Today, we’re too brittle in our approach to the tactical echelon in order to do that.”

He noted that the Army will likely always be on a journey with regard to who gets what radios, be it single channel, two channel, or sensitive but unclassified-encrypted.

Efforts such as Command and Control Fix — an initiative aimed at bolstering soldiers’ so-called “fight tonight” ability by using commercial and existing Army gear differently as a bridge before Next Generation C2 capabilities come online — taught the service important lessons on who needs what types of radios at what level.

“SBU-E and C2 Fix taught us we need a lot less exquisite radios in certain places. But [other communities], like aviation, needed more exquisite radios,” Kitz said. “We learned a lot about the distribution. I think over the next year, our focus now on the radios is: what is the right investment strategy in radios?”

He acknowledged that the Army in the past has been myopic when it comes to purchasing radios and radios acquired for a specific purpose or platform. But going forward, the service must be more flexible and better forecast its needs to industry to make the investments to stay competitive.

Officials in the program office over the next six months will be undergoing a collaborative effort with industry for the right investment strategy on radios. They’ll also be conducting an as-a-service pilot with 3rd Infantry Division, with the goal of getting two vendors on contract in first quarter of fiscal 2026 — a type of effort the Army has embarked on before.

“Radios-on-demand makes sense for the Army. Having the right radio with the right training when I need it is a whole lot better than a radio sitting in a room for two years,” Kitz said. “It’s absolutely worth us giving it a full go to see if this will work for the Army and working with these radio companies on — they need to make money, we need to be in a positive business relationship — how can they make money? How can we be in that relationship? We’re going to give it a go with the pilot in early FY ’26.”

The service wants to ensure soldiers have modernized radios that also make sense for their job roles.

“More cheaper radios in the end gets a lot more radios and all the best to the guys [who] are using, as opposed to buying really high-end radios that can [do] a whole bunch of things. In [the post-9/11 Global War on Terror] that may have made sense, but in a lot of cases today, it doesn’t,” Maj. Gen. Patrick Ellis, director of the C2 cross-functional team, said in an interview.

It ultimately comes down to radios and capabilities that enable soldiers to effectively communicate, be it via voice or text chat.

“Commanders want options,” Ellis said. “Commanders are looking for options for command and control.”

The post Army turning network attention to radios next appeared first on DefenseScoop.

As-a-service models are growing more attractive to the Army given the flexibility they provide. The department last year issued awards to two companies under a pilot effort for SATCOM-as-a-managed-service to help inform a potential way ahead and possibly broader strategy for as-a-service models. It’s also just beginning to kick off a radio-as-a-service pilot.

The Army is now thinking about the prospect of a compute-as-a-service effort as its next endeavor.

“Where we’re looking next with industry is a compute-as-a-service model,” Mark Kitz, program executive officer for command, control and communications-tactical, told DefenseScoop during an interview at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting in Philadelphia May 29. “Especially when you look at how fast industry moves in terms of size, in terms of compute power, we want to get to when you employ you get the best, smallest, fastest, easiest way to employ compute.”

The Army and industry have to deliver lightweight and decomposed applications that have the agnostic capability to go with that compute, he noted, adding that those go hand-in-hand and officials want to kick things off around the 2025-2026 time frame.

The department is continuing to learn about the as-as-service model as it progresses with various pilot efforts.

“There’s a tradeoff. I think there’s the obvious knee in the curve in terms of cost. If you’re not using, you’re not paying for it, and that that seems to be an obvious business relationship the Army wants to be in,” he said. “The trade then is we’re relying on an industry partner to deliver something. Somebody who’s not wearing a uniform now is delivering it, training it, sometimes even setting it up in theater … There’s trades to be had and lessons to be learned about what is the risk in terms of on demand, how quickly we can deliver on demand and what is the role of that contractor when they deliver.”

The key requirement the Army has when it comes to providing capabilities in an as-a-service manner is when there’s demand, forces must be able to receive the capabilities they need.

“Can you, on demand, surge capability for SATCOM and can we deliver it in a timely way and is it financially viable for the two of us? … Can we do it at scale? What is the scale? Because I don’t think the Army is going to walk away from having organic kit altogether. What is the right balance of what’s on demand versus what is organic capability?” Kitz said. “Trying to find that balance between the G6 and FORSCOM and the enabled units is where we’re going next.”

Officials have seen a lot of success with the SATCOM pilot, Kitz noted, and the two companies involved have proven they can build capacity and deliver on demand.

The Army is still learning when it comes to radio-as-a-service, having just kicked off that pilot effort. Unlike SATCOM, there is less commercial viability for military-specific radios with military-specific waveforms, which presents challenges regarding industry’s return on investment.

But one thing is clear: an on-demand model for radios seems to be the best approach, according to officials.

“I’ve been in a lot of units where there’s a lot of radios that aren’t getting used. An on-demand model for radios just seems to make sense. Now, we have to get to a positive business relationship with industry and understand what the balance is,” Kitz added. “I think there’s certainly a delicate dance happening now and what that would look like.”

The post Edge compute-as-a-service? The Army is curious appeared first on DefenseScoop.

DRS Global Enterprise Solution and Intelsat won contracts under the effort with a scope spanning six months of turnkey, end-to-end managed subscription services. The two companies will support connectivity to commercial teleports and internet services that will enhance Army units’ SATCOM as well as their broader communication pathways, referred to in service parlance as Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency, or PACE.

Officials told DefenseScoop that the SATCOM-as-a-Managed-Service effort will help to augment capability for units that might not have certain systems within their existing kits. Not every capability is fielded to every unit in the Army, resulting in what officials described as haves and have-nots. An as-a-service model could help remedy this, provide a backup and a surge capability for units deploying in a crisis in a hurry.

“If there’s a surge requirement for a unit to push up the door and they don’t have a certain amount of kit, we’re looking … at the option for said unit that says ‘I have this mission, this is what I need to be able to do’ and a particular vendor provides him the kit, they provide them the airtime and then we don’t have to worry about the sustainment tail, if you will, or procuring new systems like we would in a traditional acquisition,” Col. Stu McMillan, project manager for tactical network at program executive office command, control, communications-tactical, told DefenseScoop at Aberdeen Proving Ground on Tuesday. “Maybe there’s a capability that [a unit] needs for a particular mission set. This provides an opportunity for us to use a SATCOM-as-a-Managed-Service to enable that unit that doesn’t have that kit because we only have so many systems that are out there in the Army [to] enable them to be given a certain capability for them to accomplish their mission.”

McMillan said this is a good opportunity to perform analysis, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, to see if the traditional model versus managed service will complement capability in the field now, stressing this is not meant to replace capability.

The pilot could potentially realize real cost savings for the Army.

“It would allow us to invest or reinvest those dollars that we would spend on the development to fielding the training and then sustaining of the system. There could be substantial cost savings,” McMillian said, noting that’s why they’re asking Johns Hopkins University to do the analysis. “Then based upon that analysis, we’ll present that to senior leaders.”

But, they first have to conduct the pilot and test the concept in order to see if “the juice is worth the squeeze,” McMillan said.

The broad promise that as-a-service models portend has the PEO as a whole looking at this paradigm.

Mark Kitz, PEO for C3T, told DefenseScoop that they will be looking at other areas for as-a-service pilots and experiments where they make sense, mentioning cloud as one potential example.

“If we go to that on-demand model – not for everybody, but for parts of the Army – can we get a higher return on investment?” Kitz said.

As-a-service is getting to an on-demand model now, he said, that can have broad application across many portfolios to serve as a backup or surge to existing systems.

The initial creation and fielding of the Security Force Assistance Brigades provided a perfect use case for a potential as-a-service model, Kitz said. These units were created in 2018 and are a specialized group designed solely to advise and assist local, indigenous forces.

“When we stood up the SFABs, we had to move equipment. We had to get them equipment. That meant we were taking from somebody, because we didn’t have a production line that we could just pull things off of,” he said. “The SFABs are a great model of ‘you’re standing up a capability that needs something. OK, industry — can you deliver in 90 days the capacity that’s needed on demand for this unit?’ I think it’s a great way for us to supplement our current capacity or the capacity that we buy.”

In the SATCOM example, Kitz said if operations in a particular part of the world are increasing, they could go to industry, request a number of terminals and in 90 days, have those delivered.

The Army last year began looking at the prospect of a radio-as-a-service model, issuing a request for information to industry.

The RFI asked questions in a broad manner: If the Army were to do an as-a-service model, how would industry do it, Col. Shermoan Daiyaan, project manager for tactical radios at PEO C3T, told DefenseScoop.

The responses included a full network in a box providing everything for a network, including sustainment; a hybrid approach where companies would provide some radios and some support; a management or broker approach for the Army’s process; and only the support work.

Since Kitz took over C3T at the end of June, he’s been prioritizing running a radio-as-a-service pilot in 2024, Daiyaan said. The PEO will be getting a final decision from the acquisition leadership with the next step on issuing another RFI to tighten the question to industry.

Kitz said the Army currently spends a lot of money on radios. But an as-a-service model wouldn’t just realize cost savings — it could also be more efficient for the Army.

“You take the radio portfolio, a typical radio, much like a weapon, you don’t use it for 30, 40 days at a time,” Daiyaan said. “Let’s say we’re going to do a division, three or four brigades, what if we only fielded two brigades, kept a stock, and then the other we rotate. But now that last brigade, we can go forth to the next division. That’s where it’s about efficiency, using the capabilities you have more and potentially being able to allow industry to keep them up to date, service the unit and provide that support.”

Kitz noted that the tradeoff with an as-a-service model broadly is the potential capital investment that must be made with industry in order for them to have the necessary capacity.

“I think we’re going to learn whether that return on investment is really there or not,” he said. “The SFAB example I used is pretty atypical, right? Standing up whole new units is not something the Army does all the time. In this case, we needed to, so we did it. Well, is that OPTEMPO a feasible thing so we can get that return on investment? I think that’s what we want to learn with industry.”

The post Army awards SATCOM-as-a-Service contracts, looks to experiment with as-a-service models across entire network portfolio appeared first on DefenseScoop.