"Since they're flying overhead, in the theater of operation, it would not be a significant burden for them to have a radio that's providing a relay capability [which] reduces the fuel and maintenance costs of having a separate aircraft in the air just to do comms relay," Army Col. Angel Colon told Inside the Army Nov. 3.

Although the services are only in the "concept discussion and exchanges level," Colon said he does not anticipate a redesign to the comms payload. "It would be just a matter of getting the other services to accept that this is a viable payload that they can carry."

WIN-T, projected to cost about $14.2 billion, is supposed to help the Army tap into enough bandwidth to provide mobile, tactical communications to soldiers and their commanders. WIN-T is key to the Future Combat System because FCS will depend on the network to link its 18 different platforms and all of its associated computer-based applications.

If the Air Force allows WIN-T on its tankers, Colon said there would be two "immediate benefits." First, the Air Force would be off-loading traffic from satellites, which would mean more bandwidth would be available for other services. And second, it would reduce leasing costs associated with using commercial satellites.

"As you can imagine, if we are not consuming as much satellite resources then other users can use that resource," Colon explained.

To date, the Army is expected to integrate WIN-T on its Warrior unmanned aerial vehicles and the FCS class IV UAV. However, the Government Accountability Office has questioned whether the service will have an adequate number of UAVs with the comms payload to successfully execute its strategy.

More specifically, GAO said in a July 2005 report that key difficulties facing the WIN-T program include a lack of mature technologies and a planned reliance on systems that are on shaky ground (ITA, June 27, 2005, p12). For instance, WIN-T plans to use UAVs to help relay connections that will enable sustained, on-the-move communications, but the Warrior is not funded well enough for the communications capability.

"The GAO report gets back to the premise that there are not enough air vehicles -- of this type -- to reach the demand," Lt. Col. Jeff Gabbert, then the Warrior project manager, told ITA Aug. 8, 2005.

Gabbert added that the planned Warrior buy would not allow for enough air vehicles allocated to do all the tasks the service would need done.

Since the GAO report, the Army has moved to rebaseline the WIN-T program to reflect funding cuts and the changing needs of the FCS program (ITA, July 3, p1).

In June, Colon told ITA that as FCS program officials are progressing through reviews and solidifying their plans, the program's needs are becoming clearer. For example, WIN-T officials had been designing a radio for FCS vehicles that is about the same size as a two-channel Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System. However, "FCS allocated space for a smaller radio than we anticipated," Colon said, adding that the program would also require air-cooled radios, liquid-cooled radios, two-channel radios and four-channel radios.

That means WIN-T officials will have to change the network's designs and find smaller electric components. While liquid-cooled radios have been used before on air platforms, "as I understand it, there are no ground platforms with this type of radio," he said this summer.

On the road to the Army receiving the Office of the Secretary of Defense's blessing to proceed with the new WIN-T baseline, the service's financial woes have, in part, postponed a decision.

WIN-T was slated to go before the Defense Acquisition Board on Sept. 21 for a decision on its future. Although the board convened, Colon told ITA Nov. 3, it was turned into an "in-process review" because affordability information was not available.

More specifically, the Army had not crafted its fiscal year 2008 though 2013 program objective memorandum, or six-year spending plan, because it had not received a revised topline budget. Accordingly, OSD opted to hold off on a decision until the affordability data became available, Colon said.

"While the requirements for funding were known, where the program was with respect to the Army's funding had not been determined. . . . We didn't have the information to do the affordability determination which is one of the things you have to do at the DAB," he explained.

In addition to WIN-T affordability questions, the service was also asked to provide the board with some "additional information" on WIN-T technology maturity and synchronization plans as it relates to FCS and the Joint Tactical Radio System, Colon said.

In an Oct. 27 e-mail to ITA, Steven Davis, a spokesman for the JTRS joint program executive office, laid out the link between JTRS and WIN-T.

"JTRS is a software-defined radio that supports tactical wireless networking and selected current force communications capabilities in the 2MHz to 2GHz frequency ranges," Davis wrote. "WIN-T is a tactical networking hub that uses JTRS radios as well as other radios that operate above 2GHz to provide high capacity line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight connectivity. While JTRS will provide the communications links to the mobile forces in theater, WIN-T will provide high bandwidth backbone and reachback capability to the warfighter."

One of the recommendations that came from the September in-process review called for a roadmap to synchronize WIN-T with JTRS and FCS -- as well as a plan for a single, integrated network manager for all three, Maj. Gen. Charles Cartwright, the Army's FCS program manager, said Oct. 11 (ITA, Oct. 16, p3).

One of the most pressing questions -- "How will all three pieces inter-operate?" -- must be answered, he said.

"So, what we are doing between the JTRS program, the FCS program and the WIN-T program is creating one joint integrated network manager so a soldier doesn't know the difference between JTRS or WIN-T," Cartwright said.

The general explained that under current plans, a JTRS radio might be integrated into an FCS vehicle, but this would not amount to "totally" integrating the platform into the network.

"We've done a synchronization, schedule piece of it with the JTRS guys so I know when the hardware piece is showing up. . . . Their schedule of JTRS is in my integrated master schedule. So, that is what we are going though with the WIN-T program -- synchronizing the hardware pieces, the network manager," Cartwright said.

Davis explained that the Army will need a tactical network management capability for both FCS and non-FCS wireless networks. "The former will be a matter of integrating JTRS management components while the latter calls for a complete solution," the spokesman wrote.

Colon expanded on that, noting that the WIN-T and JTRS program offices would provide the FCS program office with "software modules" so Cartwright can develop an overall network manager.

"In the context of synchronizing, what we are trying to make sure is all of the modules delivered do what they have to do," Colon told ITA. Further, the goal is to ensure "that we properly scoped them out and that we delivered them in a timely manner for [Cartwright] to be able to integrate."

Army Systems Acquisition Review Council and OSD overarching product team meetings are scheduled to be held this week to discuss WIN-T, according to Colon; a DAB review will follow.