FORT MONMOUTH, N.J. (Army News Service, April 14, 2004) – Military services plan to share unit location data better by installing tens of thousands more of the systems used by the coalition to track forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many of the “knowledge gaps” that have historically contributed to battlefield confusion and fratricide would be eliminated with the new Blue Force Tracking systems, BFT program officials said. They said the systems will be fielded through cooperative efforts between the Army’s logistics community, the Air Force and Marines.

The BFT system consists of a computer, satellite antenna and Global Positioning System receiver. The system displays the location of the host vehicle on the computer’s terrain-map display along with other platforms in their respective locations. BFT can also be used to send and receive text messages.

More than 1,200 BFT systems were installed in combat vehicles, command posts and helicopters for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Lt. Col. John Bullington, BFT product manager.

Users from the Army, Marines and United Kingdom praised the system for the clear “picture” of ground forces it provided, saying it saved lives, simplified coordination of units during maneuvers and provided a means of communications when units extended beyond the range of their radios, said Bullington. However, Soldiers told him many more who needed the system did not receive it.

“When we talked to Soldiers, many said that they needed it installed in higher densities at the company level so that platoon leaders, first sergeants, support units and other key players would have better battlefield awareness,” said Bullington.



The decision to install BFT in units designated to deploy to Iraq was made Oct. 20, 2002. When operations commenced five months later, Bullington’s team of Soldiers, contractors and Department of the Army civilians had installed the systems at 42 different sites in three continents – and provided training.

“Prior to the commencement of operations we delivered everything that the combatant commander expected of us and everything that was possible given our resources,” said Bullington.

Now the BFT office has been tasked to install the system on more vehicles, filling many of the gaps Soldiers had identified, according to Bullington. As a result, more Soldiers will get an opportunity to train with and use the technology.

Work has already begun on plans to reach the level of nearly 40,000 tracking systems in the Army within four years. The systems involved in the plans include BFT, the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below system, which uses the same operating software as BFT but with a ground radio antenna rather than satellite antenna, and a smaller, hand-held version of BFT called the Commander’s Digital Assistant, according to Tom Plavcan, deputy project manager for FBCB2.

Bullington calls the BFT portion of the plan “touch ‘em in two, and fill ‘em out in four.” Under the plan, all active Army units that are currently without BFT or FBCB2 are scheduled to receive BFT at the same densities used during Operation Iraqi Freedom within two years. Within four years, units will be “filled out,” receiving higher densities to include more vehicles within maneuver companies and combat support units.

Another knowledge gap during Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted from logistics and maneuver tracking systems not interfacing.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, supply units and logisticians used the Movement Tracking System, a system similar to BFT that also uses Global Positioning System, satellite communications and digital map display. MTS was designed for tracking the locations of supply and maintenance vehicles, according to Bullington.

Neither of the tracking systems has previously allowed users to view the locations of or communicate with one another, which can complicate linking supplies with the units needing them. The reason is that each system was designed independently, one for logisticians, the other for maneuver forces, according to Plavcan. Until now.

At the Joint BFT Situational Awareness Advanced Concepts Technology Demonstration held in Korea in March, personnel were able to integrate data from both systems so that regardless which system the user viewed, they were able to see the location data from both systems on the display, said Plavcan.

Technicians for both systems are taking the lessons and technical applications developed for the demonstration in Korea and plan to apply them to both systems’ software and communications architectures worldwide within four years, according to Plavcan.

Because of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Plavcan said, “we’ve learned the value of the baseline information to other programs.” Officials from the Air Force’s E-8C Joint Surveillance and Attack Radar System program, for example, have also expressed interest.

The Air Force’s JSTARS product manager invited BFT personnel to fly on a JSTARS aircraft in December when representatives from both programs discussed how to integrate BFT data into JSTARS.

The JSTARS radar is able to pick up and track ground movements, but it is not always able to determine the type of vehicle or whether the movement was created by a friend, foe or bystander, said Plavcan. “Integrating BFT data into JSTARS could help eliminate some confusion about what JSTARS is looking at.”

Aside from reporting friendly forces, the Blue Force Tracking computer has a mechanism for reporting the locations of enemy forces, and other battlefield conditions using its principal software application, also called FBCB2, according to Plavcan.

Experiments have already been conducted to demonstrate that the data integration effort is technically feasible, said Plavcan, who said it was too early to say when the effort would be complete.

Blue Force Tracking personnel are also examining how to feed BFT data directly into Air Force communications systems so that pilots would receive automatic updates on the locations of ground forces.

One such effort focuses on feeding BFT ground location data into the communications system used by the Tactical Air Party, the name for the team of Air Force liaisons embedded into ground combat divisions. Another effort focuses on feeding BFT data into Link-16, a tactical data and communications system that links Air Force command centers and aircraft.

“These efforts with the Air Force may give the fast movers better situational awareness and could be a significant factor in reducing air-to-ground fratricide,” said Plavcan. Air-to-ground fratricide occurs when an aircraft pilot fires on friendly ground troops, mistaking them for the enemy.

Personnel from the Army and Marines are working together to devise tracking systems for tactical units at brigade and below that meets the requirements of both services. The Department of Defense Joint Requirement Oversight Council will be briefed on the plans in May, according to Plavcan.

The goal of the joint effort is to develop a common set of software applications to be used by all the joint services on the ground at the tactical level, said Plavcan. Doing so would improve communications and increase situational awareness.

Marines primarily use the Mobile Data Automated Communications system to provide situational awareness but installed more than 200 BFT systems during Operation Iraqi Freedom so Marine locations would be visible in Army and United Kingdom command centers, according to Bullington.

(Editor’s note: Timothy L. Rider is a member of the Fort Monmouth Public Affairs Office.)