The Air Force has extended the response date for their Tactical Capabilities for Battlefield Airmen and Security Forces Broad Agency Announcement through 30 October of 2012.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term ‘Battlefield Airman,’ they are essentially the USAF’s ground forces.
Certain ground combat capabilities are an Airman’s responsibility and require unique surface operations that are integral to the application of air and space power. To meet this responsibility, the Air Force recognized the need to organize, train, and equip a force of Battlefield Airmen (BA) capable of delivering distinctive expertise in a ground combat environment with unequaled firepower, accuracy, responsiveness, flexibility and persistence. These BA include Combat Control, Pararescue, Tactical Air Control and Battlefield Weather professionals. BA provide skill sets not commonly found across the Air Force and typically operate in combat zones outside the perimeter of Air Force bases, often in the deep battle space.
Naturally, Security Forces are the Air Force’s security troops and the provide air base ground defense as well as law enforcement support. They also happen to be the largest enlisted career field in the Air Force. Additionally, Security Forces in particular holds great influence over how the rest of the Air Force’s personnel are armed and equipped for personal protection and collective air base defense.
For the purposes of the BAA, “Research includes scientific study and experimentation directed at developing technologies, components, and quick reaction capabilities (QRC). This work includes tactical level Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), threat intercept, and force application capabilities for Battlefield Airmen and Security Forces. Potential areas of interest include tactical level targeting applications such as wireless network applications, line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight communication links, remote sensing, remote switching, target tagging, tactical command and control of ground forces, tactical electrical energy, small Unmanned Aerial Systems, and general improvements in situational awareness, targeting, force protection/fractricide prevention, and damage assessment.”
But, having said that, there are 10 research areas of interest and most if not all are within the purview of the companies that read SSD –
RESEARCH AREA 1 – FORCE PROTECTION ENHANCEMENTS
RESEARCH AREA 2 – PERSONAL EQUIPMENT
RESEARCH AREA 3 – C4 SYSTEMS AND RELATED SOFTWARE
RESEARCH AREA 4 – OPTICS AND DISPLAYS
RESEARCH AREA 5 – NAVAIDS AND SENSORS
RESEARCH AREA 6 – TACTICAL ENERGY
RESEARCH AREA 7 – CLANDESTINE MOBILITY
RESEARCH AREA 8 – MEDICAL
RESEARCH AREA 9 – TACTICAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AREA 10 – ALTERNATE MEANS OF INSERTION AND EXTRACTION
To give you an idea of what types of things they are interested in, here is the description of the Personal Equipment research area.
The goal of this work is to perform basic and applied research in the area of personal equipment items to improve the capabilities and effectiveness of the battlefield airman. The objective is to conduct research which could eventually lead to the development of personal garments, body armor, eye protection and mission related personal items. Research in garments that will aid in camouflage, disguise, deception and concealment while preventing contamination and/or injury or exposure to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE) threats may be proposed. In addition, research in the area of enhanced personal performance through improved nutrition, supplements and sustenance may also be proposed.
Full descriptions for all research areas are available at the link.
In all cases, the first step is a white paper. For full details visit www.fbo.gov.
Tags: Battlefield Airman, Security Forces, USAF
Is anything going to actually come of this research because, as I recall, when they Air Force was first developing their ABUs they sent prototypes to various units, including their Battlefield Airmen, for testing and when they sent back their feedback with suggestions for improvement the Air Force brass implemented none of them. Have the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq really changed anything with the Air Force or will the fighter and bomber mafias still ignore feedback from the BAs? This time they even have a built in excuse in form, of the pending budget cuts.
Yes, a lot has changed for the Battlefield Airmen. This is being run by AFRL and they’ve done a lot. Don’t confuse the corporate decision to field a non camouflaged battle uniform with the things that are being done to support the guys at the pointy tip.
I’m a USAF National Guard Security Force member and I completely agree with Riceball. We have made large strides in the gear we are issued, but I don’t think that is because of some AF policy. The Air force is trying to keep up with the Army with our gear. Or more likely we just get what they get, so if it wasn’t for Army improvements we would still be using Web Belts with ALICE Clips! I know the true Battlefield Airmen that are embedded with other units do get top end gear, but they need it also. Like PJ’s and CC’s
The uniform issue really pisses me off! The ABU is nothing more than playing dress up for the brass. Why does every service have to have its own uniform. Find a good one and stick with it. I’m partial to MultiCam, but with new patterns coming out almost daily how are we supposed to keep up. Just pick a GOOD on and stick with it. I’ve been in AF Schools and there are three, four different uniforms sitting in that class and they are all Air Force. It’s stupid. Mix in different services and it looks like a kaleidoscope! When deployed, it’s hard to differentiate US and coalition troops from further than 50 meters.
Your biggest enemy is your career field. They couldn’t write a requirement to save their lives. 10 years of fielding desirements has helped SF out tremendously but it’s criminal when you consider all of the lost opportunity.
Instead of embracing the mission, much of the Air Force has looked at the war as an anomaly and spent more energy trying to avoid it than in building capability to win it.
ive got a great idea, bdu’s for non-deployable ops and multicam for deployments. look i saved a shit ton of money by using common sense and old uniforms that WORKED PERFECTLY FINE. God forbid a new troop might have to learn how to polish his boots with some kiwi and elbow grease.
Get your common sense out of here!
hahaha sounds like the AF Song
Problem is, you can’t get BDUs anymore. How about MultiCam for all?
What is that vehicle? It looks like a fine, off-roading machine!
https://ssdaily.tempurl.host/2011/08/01/srtv-from-bc-customs/