Military and Industry Agree on Goals, But Differ on Course

Signal, Nov 2007 by Ackerman, Robert K

Fast-changing technologies open eyes to possibilities, yet provide no clear path.

The transformed infocentric force can count on a future rich in enabling technologies but short on how to achieve common goals, according to many military and industry experts. New capabilities deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are improving operations for U.S. forces there, but new challenges to interoperability are rising as commercial technologies increase their influence on military systems. And, neither industry nor the military can plot a clear course to achieving a fully network-centric force. Despite agreeing on goals, the two are far apart.

The problem is not that the military is losing sight of its goals, the experts say. It is that all of the new technologies being counted on to achieve network centricity are increasing the military infosphere's complexity and are adding new issues and challenges. These efforts also are complicated by the changing nature of the Global War on Terrorism and the ongoing force transformation.

Discussion of these points was paramount at LandWarNet 2007, held at the Broward County Convention Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on August 20-24. The opening plenary session speaker, secretary of the Army Peter Geren, summed up a key challenge facing the U.S. Army when he said, "We don't want to replace the fog of war with the fog of information overload."

In addition, the United States has entered a period of persistent conflict, stated Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, USA, deputy commanding general/chief of staff for the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Gen. Metz set a tone by asking industry not to push for a 100-percent solution, but instead to move a solution out to the warfighter and let the Army figure out the details.

Maj. Gen. (P.) Jeffrey Sorenson, USA, special assistant to the secretary of the Army, also endorsed the assessment of persistent conflict-at least for the next couple of decades, he said-and called for similar steps to change Army information technology acquisition. Saying "the Army is flat," Gen. Sorenson emphasized that the service no longer could conduct business as usual. Neither could the Army wait for grand requirements to be written. Many technologies today could be put together through interplay between warfighters and industry, he offered.

The industry perspective is that everything is going digital, including the enemy. Brad Boston, senior vice president and chief information officer of Cisco Systems, said that defense is driving technology beyond its capabilities in four areas: massive scalability, mobile ad hoc networking, real-time video and security/information assurance.

Among the challenges to network centricity are budget funding, stovepiped systems, procurement practices and certification. Soldiers tend to have too many end-point devices, he added, and effective security is threatened by a "one size fits all" methodology that is the wrong approach to take.

The Army needs more agile approaches to technology, especially when the enemy can operate inside its acquisition cycle. The enemy is very network-centric, Boston observed, and to remain competitive the Army must focus its acquisition efforts on how to obtain the newest technologies quickly. Existing certification policies and strategies were developed for stovepipe systems and do not reflect current requirements.

A culture of innovation requires an innovation strategy, and innovation sometimes requires standardization, Boston said. Technology may be easy, but business aspects may not.

"The customer doesn't really know what he wants until he sees it," Boston stated, adding that this calls for customer interaction throughout the entire process.

Similar sentiments were echoed in a joint panel headed by Brig. Gen. Jennifer Napper, USA, principal director for Global Information Grid (GIG) operations; commander, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) global operations; and deputy commander, Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations (JTF-GNO) at DISA. In that panel, Brig. Gen. George J. Allen, USMC, director, command, control, communications and computers (C4), U.S. Marine Corps, said that the federal acquisition regulation (FAR) was the biggest obstacle to supplying the force with the best available technology.

Gen. Allen noted that operation Iraqi Freedom saw the largest Marine expeditionary force tactical network ever established. But, the "new equipment" the Marines had was four years old. The Corps had to buy commercial gear and install it on top of this equipment-which already was antiquated.

Slow deployment of up-to-date gear is not the only drawback imposed by FAR. The Marine Corps wanted to use Joint Network Node technology, but was forbidden by FAR, the general reported. In this case, FAR prevented the Marines from buying joint. He told Congress, "Change the rules," adding that he is frustrated by the problems these rules cause.

DISA is trying to work around many of these institutional problems by changing the way it conducts business. Its director, Lt. Gen. Charles E. Croom Jr., USAF, warned that change is inevitable, but growth is not. "Shift happens," he told the audience. To handle that shift, DISA is trying new approaches that include euthanizing important programs that do not measure up, he declared.