Land Warrior (LW)
2000s History
The systems integration for the Land Warrior was managed by Program Executive Office Soldier's Project Manager Soldier Systems and the subsystems were developed through the collaborative efforts of PM-Soldier Electronics, PM-Soldier Equipment, and Communication and Electronics Command (CECOM) with a Consortium of development contractors.
The program manager contracted with Exponent, Incorporated, to develop a prototype system. Based on an evaluation of the initial prototyping efforts, the program manager asked Exponent to deliver 70 prototype systems for further demonstrations. As a result of the prototype system's promising performance during warfighting exercises, the program manager established another transactions agreement with a consortium of six contractors (the Consortium), including Exponent, Incorporated (a nontraditional defense company), Computer Sciences Corporation, Omega Training Group, Incorporated, Pacific Consultants LLC, PEMSTAR, Incorporated, and the Wexford Group, International. The roles and responsibilities were as follows:
| Computer Sciences Corporation | Eatontown, NJ | Logistics, Software Application |
| Pacific Consultants | Mountain View, CA | Hardware Design and Integration, Firmware, System Integration |
| PEMSTAR | San Jose, CA | Hardware Fabrication |
| Exponent | Menlo Park, CA | Test, Configuration Management, System Documentation |
| Omega Training Group | Columbus, GA | Training, Test |
| Wexford Group | Vienna, VA | Consortium Administration |
Transactions agreements between the Consortium and the program manager followed. The first transactions agreement required the Consortium to perform a coordinated development program for the design, development, integration, fabrication, test, delivery, and support of the Land Warrior version 1.0 system during the engineering and manufacturing phase of the acquisition process. The other transactions agreement was firm-fixed-price, using payable milestones, for a performance period of 2 years (FY01 through FY03).
To reduce technical risk and to expedite fielding the Land Warrior's capabilities, the program manager effectively planned an evolutionary acquisition strategy to develop and produce the Land Warrior System in three sequential blocks. The Block I development and production effort was to provide Army units with a Land Warrior System that met the threshold performance requirements in the draft operational requirements document, dated 31 October 2001. Block II and Block III were upgrades that were to meet the time-phased objective performance requirements in the draft operational requirements document.
As of mid-2002 the Army had not finalized system requirements in the operational requirements document because the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) System Manager-Soldier was still defining the force structure requirement for the Land Warrior System to accommodate the Army's ongoing transformation to the Objective Force capability. As a result of the uncertainty of the force structure, the program manager had explored many options, ranging from 13,676 systems costing $3.6 billion to 47,245 systems costing $7.6 billion. Multiple options were explored because the Army had also not fully defined the mix of components for the Land Warrior System, which would also affect system costs.
In FY03 the Land Warrior acquisition strategy changed from what was reported earlier. Previously, the Program Office intended to field three versions of the Land Warrior system: Land Warrior-Initial Capability (LW-IC), Land Warrior-Stryker Interoperable, and Land Warrior-Advanced Capability. These versions were designed to meet one of the three blocks of requirements defined in the Land Warrior Operational Requirements Document (ORD). The Block I Land Warrior-Initial Capability acquisition was terminated because of technical and reliability issues. The subsequent acquisition strategy was to acquire Block II Land Warrior-Stryker Interoperable systems that were interoperable with Stryker Medium Armored Vehicles. Block I and II functionality requirements were to be met with this version. The Program Office would add functionality to provide the system with additional capabilities to allow interoperability with the Army’s Future Combat Systems. The Land Warrior-Advanced Capability version will be designed to meet undefined Block III requirements.
The first operational test of the LW system was conducted in September 2000 with a platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. At that time, the target date for fielding the final version of the LW System, an even more advanced model, smaller and more affordable, was 2004. There had been no operational tests of any LW versions prior to 2000 and no tests of Block II or III systems prior to 2003. The DOT&E expected testing to begin in FY06.
The US Army Infantry Center conducted a side-by-side comparison between Land Warrior-equipped Soldiers and currently equipped Soldiers at Fort Benning, Georgia, in late 2004. This squad-level operational assessment demonstrated that Land Warrior capabilities did improve the combat effectiveness of Soldiers and small units engaged in dismounted operations. As a result, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army directed conduct of a battalion-level Land Warrior assessment.
In 2005, the Army terminated a spiral of Land Warrior, the Dismounted Battle Command System, intended to provide a limited, near-term capability to the current force, and it renewed its focus on the full Land Warrior system.
The Land Warrior and Mounted Warrior Soldier Systems were under operational assessment at Fort Lewis, Washington, by the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. The 4th Bn. was equipped with 440 Land Warrior Systems and 147 Mounted Warrior Systems for the assessment, which continued through September 2006. The assessment was expected to provide significant insights about Land Warrior and Mounted Warrior combat effectiveness, tactics, techniques and procedures. Soldiers had been positive concerning benefits from Land Warrior capabilities, and continued to provide valuable feedback to improve the system for the Limited User Test in September 2006. The assessment was sponsored by the Army Infantry Center and Program Executive Office Soldier.These assessments were also to inform the decision-maker regarding Land Warrior's entry into low-rate initial production in March 2007. According to the Army, test results indicated that Land Warrior was generally effective, suitable, and survivable. However, due to significant Army-wide resource challenges, the Army had decided to not pursue further development and production of Land Warrior.
The program office reported to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that Land Warrior's three critical technologies, a navigation module, radio, and power (rechargeable batteries), were mature, and prototypes of these technologies had been tested in a realistic environment, according to information published by the GAO in March 2007. Two backup technologies, disposable batteries and a navigation module with GPS only, were also mature. Between the previous GAO review and the March 2007 assessment, the program had focused on reducing the weight of subsystems and enhancing reliability by better integrating the subsystems and improving connections to the processor.
The Land Warrior system was to have used the JTRS radio, scheduled to be available in FY11. In the meantime, the program was using a radio compatible with Stryker communications to provide voice, position, and command and control information at the team/squad level and higher.
The Stryker vehicle component of Land Warrior allowed for battery recharging in the vehicle, communication between the dismounted soldier and vehicle using the radio, and access to the lower tactical internet through a gateway installed in the vehicle.
The GAO reported that it could not assess the maturity of production processes for Land Warrior because the program did not collect statistical process control data during the system development phase. In the last quarter of FY06, the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) conducted a user representative assessment of the system and the Army Test and Evaluation Command led a Limited User Test, both of which will inform a production decision in March 2007. According to the program office, General Dynamics (by then the primary contractor) planned to take lessons learned from the assessment to mature manufacturing processes.
The GAO also reported that the Land Warrior program had experienced significant challenges and delays in its 12-year history prior to 2007. The program restructured after contractor prototypes failed basic certification tests in 1998. Government testing revealed technical and reliability problems with Block I (Land Warrior-Initial Capability), which was subsequently terminated in 2003. Block II (Land Warrior-Stryker Interoperable) was restructured in 2004 in response to congressional direction to immediately field some Land Warrior capabilities to the current force. The restructured program, the Dismounted Battle Command System (DBCS), was refocused in 2005 following a test event that concluded it had not demonstrated the necessary capabilities and was not mature. Elements of DBCS, such as a friendly force tracking capability, were modified and integrated into the next phase of the system, Land Warrior in support of Stryker.
The program as of 2007 had been focused on developing an integrated Land Warrior capability in support of the Army's Stryker Brigades. Slightly less capable than Block II, this system was used to equip one Stryker battalion in FY06 for assessment purposes. A program official reported that, following the assessment, the battalion decided to take the Land Warrior system with it to Iraq when it deploys in the third quarter of FY07.
The Ground Soldier System, a future iteration of Land Warrior capability, would provide advanced capabilities. This future iteration was intended to provide a dismounted soldier capability to the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) and to units not associated with FCS.
Due to significant Army-wide resource challenges, the Army reported in 2007 that it had decided to not pursue further development and production of Land Warrior.
