6
Complete List of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation. The Department of the Army, in coordination with the Department of Defense, should carry out the following:
-
Work with the senior leadership in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to put in place and to institutionalize a process for collaboration and sharing between the Army and the DHS;
-
Assist the DHS in establishing the research, development, testing, and evaluation infrastructure (i.e., an acquisition process, systems engineering discipline, modeling and simulation technologies, and testing and evaluation facilities) to support the emergency responder community;
-
Work with the DHS to find common areas of science and technology collaboration, starting with the Future Force technologies identified in this report. Central to this effort will be the development of a framework or architecture to enable the integration of these technologies into an effective system of systems; and
-
Work with the DHS to establish processes for joint1operations, including joint training and exercises, shared standards, and interoperable systems.
FROM CHAPTER 1, “INTRODUCTION”
Finding 1-1. Although a number of informal mechanisms exist, no coherent planning paradigm for the interface between the military and the emergency responders currently exists, and although a national operational concept for emergency response is being developed, it is not yet a comprehensive framework that pulls together the efforts of federal, state, and local responders.
Finding 1-2. The U.S. Army has developed a number of capabilities that could be used by emergency responders:
-
Relevant technologies from the Army science and technology base;
-
C4ISR systems that have been developed and deployed by the Army;
-
An acquisition system, similar to the Army’s spiral development process, that encompasses identifying needs, funding the required technology, and developing fieldable products;
-
A testing and certification process for new equipment;
-
Training programs;
-
A network-centric operations approach;
-
Exercises (and supporting facilities);
-
Modeling and simulation capabilities; and
-
A process for the development and assessment of doctrine.
FROM CHAPTER 2, “CAPABILITIES FOR THE ARMY’S FUTURE FORCE”
Finding 2-1. The network-centric concept is the foundation of the Army’s Future Force.
Conclusion 2-1. The U.S. Army possesses a large and varied number of Future Force science and technology programs that, with proper coordination, could be made available to the Department of Homeland Security; however, there is currently no planning process to identify which could be shared or how to do so.
Recommendation 2-1. The U.S. Army, through the Department of Defense, should work with the Department of Homeland Security to analyze and determine, among other items, appropriate planning processes necessary to determine which Future Force science and technology programs should be shared, and how best to go about doing this.
FROM CHAPTER 3, “CAPABILITIES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS”
Conclusion 3-1. Once fully established, the national requirements for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) technologies to support emergency responders will be substantial and sustainable and could create a significant market.
Conclusion 3-2. Individual emergency responder C4ISR systems need to be linked and integrated into a national operational framework.
Recommendation 3-2. The U.S. Army, through the Department of Defense, should offer to assist the Department of Homeland Security in developing a concept of operations for a national operational framework, to include the appropriate architectures and enabling technologies for C4ISR.
FROM CHAPTER 4, “DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HOMELAND SECURITY”
Conclusion 4-1. The U.S. Army has developed a significant number of C4ISR technologies for the Future Force that appear to have direct applicability to the emergency responder community.
Recommendation 4-1. The U.S. Army and the Department of Homeland Security should evaluate the systems described in Chapter 4 of this report for their potential to support interagency collaboration.
FROM CHAPTER 5, “POTENTIAL FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ARMY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY”
Conclusion 5-1. The U.S. Army’s proven experience in systems engineering can benefit the Department of Homeland Security’s systems engineering efforts.
Recommendation 5-1. In addition to sharing command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) technologies and systems, the U.S. Army should explore collaborative efforts to share pertinent systems engineering expertise with the Department of
Homeland Security. These efforts should include the selection of applicable technologies for integration and systems engineering, such as the following:
-
A systems architecture that provides an effective and efficient path to near-term systems acquisition and future technology insertion, and
-
A technical architecture that ensures operational robustness and economic manufacturability.
Conclusion 5-2. A dedicated forum for the discussion of potential collaboration between the U.S. Army and the Department of Homeland Security could be a solid first step in establishing a mutually beneficial relationship.
Recommendation 5-2. The U.S. Army, working under the aegis of the Department of Defense, should establish a forum at the assistant secretariat level where it can meet with officials from the Department of Homeland Security to discuss how best to work together to encourage interoperability of communications and equipment and to take advantage of the economies of scale that might result.
Conclusion 5-3. The systems that must be put in place to meet the objectives of the Department of Homeland Security will be similar in complexity to those developed by the Department of Defense, and the consequence of failure of those systems will be similarly grave.
Recommendation 5-3. The U.S. Army, through the Department of Defense, should offer to assist the Department of Homeland Security in developing critical capabilities, such as the following:
-
A testing, evaluation, and review process;
-
The spiral development process used by the Army; and
-
Modeling and simulation.
Conclusion 5-4. An immediate requirement exists for the coordination of comprehensive, multidisciplinary, multiechelon, all-hazards training and exercise programs between civilian emergency responders and the military.
Recommendation 5-4. The U.S. Army, through the Department of Defense, should offer to assist the Department of Homeland Security in coordinating all-hazards training and exercise programs for emergency responders and to make relevant Army training facilities available for these exercises.
Conclusion 5-5. Emergency responders lack a standardized means to define the capabilities required to respond to a terrorist attack.
Recommendation 5-5. The U.S. Army, primarily through the local Army National Guard structure, should assist emergency responders by working with the Department of Homeland Security to begin to develop a process for defining a set of tasks similar to the process underlying the Army’s Mission Essential Task List.
Conclusion 5-6. Common product standards and conformity testing are necessary to ensure interoperability between technology materiel of the Department of Defense and equipment used by emergency responders.
Recommendation 5-6. The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security should jointly develop analytical tools for determining common equipment needs based on common group task analysis so as to establish common product standards for emergency responder technology materiel.
