FORCEnet

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Committee on the FORCEnet Implementation Strategy

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy FORCEnet IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Committee on the FORCEnet Implementation Strategy Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #17, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-10025-9 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-68385-1 (PDF) Copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904 Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy COMMITTEE ON THE FORCENET IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses, Co-Chair BRUCE WALD, Arlington, Virginia, Co-Chair ROBERT F. BRAMMER, Northrop Grumman Information Technology JOESPH R. CIPRIANO, Lockheed Martin Information Technology ARCHIE R. CLEMINS, Caribou Technologies, Inc. BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies JOEL S. ENGEL, Armonk, New York JUDE E. FRANKLIN, Raytheon Network-Centric Systems JOHN T. HANLEY, JR., Institute for Defense Analyses KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services KENNETH L. JORDAN, JR., Cabin John, Maryland OTTO KESSLER, The MITRE Corporation JERRY A. KRILL, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANN K. MILLER, University of Missouri-Rolla WILLIAM R. MORRIS, Alexandria, Virginia RICHARD J. NIBE, Amelia Island, Florida JOHN E. RHODES, Balboa, California DANIEL P. SIEWIOREK, Carnegie Mellon University EDWARD A. SMITH, JR., The Boeing Company MICHAEL J. ZYDA, University of Southern California Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director, Naval Studies Board MICHAEL L. WILSON, Study Director (through August 27, 2004) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy NAVAL STUDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN D. CHRISTIE, LMI ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Centreville, Maryland ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Exponent DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, National Defense University Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOSEPH A. SESTAK, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through October 1, 2004) GREG MELCHER, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Acting N81 (from October 2, 2004, through November 8, 2004) RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of November 8, 2004) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through September 30, 2004) LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of October 1, 2004)

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy Preface Visionary Navy leaders enunciated the tenets of network-centric operations beginning in the early 1990s, and in 1998 requested the advice of the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council (NRC) about how to achieve such capabilities. The resulting report was entitled Network-Centric Naval Forces: A Transition Strategy for Enhancing Operational Capabilities.1 Although the Navy adopted some of the recommendations from that report—notably the establishment of what became the Naval Network Warfare Command—progress was limited on many fronts until the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Strategic Studies Group described a networked, distributed, combat force as a “FORCEnet.”2 The CNO incorporated the FORCEnet concept into Sea Power 213—the overall vision for transforming the Navy—and adopted the following definition of FORCEnet: [FORCEnet is] the operational construct and architectural framework for naval warfare in the information age that integrates warriors, sensors, networks, com- 1   The report defined network-centric operations as “military operations that exploit state-of-the-art information and networking technology to integrate widely dispersed human decision makers, situational and targeting sensors, and forces and weapons into a highly adaptive, comprehensive system to achieve unprecedented mission effectiveness.” Naval Studies Board, National Research Council. 2000. Network-Centric Naval Forces: A Transition Strategy for Enhancing Operational Capabilities, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 1. 2   ADM James R. Hogg, USN (Ret.), Director, CNO Strategic Studies Group, personal communication, November 9, 2005. 3   ADM Vern Clark, USN. 2002. “Sea Power 21 Series, Part I: Projecting Decisive Joint Capabilities,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, October.  

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy mand and control, platforms, and weapons into a networked, distributed, combat force that is scalable across all levels of conflict from seabed to space and sea to land.4 Although this definition views FORCEnet as the operational construct and the architectural framework for the entire transformed Navy, some have viewed FORCEnet merely as an information network and the associated FORCEnet architecture merely as an information systems architecture. In the first view, the FORCEnet architecture would affect the functional allocation across all naval systems; in the latter view it would only impose a standard data interface on these systems. Furthermore, although FORCEnet is not a system, the Navy’s requirements-formulation and materiel-acquisition organizations have tended to view FORCEnet as a set of individual information systems that can be developed and acquired by traditional methods. To assist the Navy in better defining its approach to FORCEnet, the Department of the Navy asked the NRC’s Naval Studies Board to conduct a study that would provide a recommended FORCEnet implementation strategy. The specific terms of reference for this study are presented in Chapter 8 along with cross-references to the committee’s recommendations. THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH The approach of the Committee on the FORCEnet Implementation Strategy5 was to organize itself around the specific operational, policy, and technical areas necessary to fulfill the tasks laid out in the terms of reference. The committee first convened in September 2003, holding additional meetings over a period of 7 months, both to gather input from the relevant communities and to discuss the committee’s findings.6 The agendas for the meetings from September 2003 through March 2004 are provided in Appendix B. The months between the last meeting and publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additional information, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review necessary to produce an unclassified report. 4   VADM Richard W. Mayo, USN; and VADM John Nathman, USN. 2003. “Sea Power 21 Series, Part V: FORCEnet: Turning Information into Power,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February, p. 42. 5   Brief biographies of all committee members are presented in Appendix A. 6   During the course of its study, the committee held meetings at which it received (and discussed) classified materials. Accordingly, the content of the present report is limited because of restrictions that apply to the use of classified information.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THIS REPORT Chapter 1 of this report presents a scenario to illustrate a FORCEnet vision of fully networked operations, outlines the characteristics required for achieving this vision, discusses the status of network-centric capabilities, and warns of formidable challenges. The next five chapters address these challenges. Chapter 2 deals with the need for common understanding of the meaning of FORCEnet across the naval enterprise and urges acceptance of the CNO’s definition. Chapter 3 describes the context of joint and Department of Defense plans and initiatives within which FORCEnet must be implemented, and recommends strong coupling of the concept to the combatant commanders. Chapter 4, in which it is accepted that FORCEnet has no fixed end state, deals with the challenges of implementing a complex system through the discussed coevolution of operational concepts and materiel. Chapter 5 deals with the challenge of engineering a complex system; notes the importance of controlling interfaces as capabilities evolve; embraces the network-centric checklist of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration and the open architecture developed by the Naval Sea Systems Command and adopted by the Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems; and urges the implementation of a distributed engineering plant for FORCEnet. Chapter 6 discusses potential capability shortfalls in the FORCEnet information infrastructure and recommends science and technology investments to overcome them. Chapter 7 collects the principal recommendations of the report, presenting them together with a concise version of the discussion and the findings that led to them. This chapter builds on the idea of an implementation strategy by incorporating the recommendations within a set of objectives required for such a strategy. Chapter 8 cross-references the committee’s recommendations to the study terms of reference.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Charles F. Bolden, Jr., MajGen, USMC (Ret.), Houston, Texas Herbert A. Browne, VADM, USN (Ret.), Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, Millard S. Firebaugh, RADM, USN (Ret.), General Dynamics, Electric Boat Corporation, Charles M. Herzfeld, Silver Spring, Maryland, Bill B. May, Los Altos Hills, California, Cynthia R. Samuelson, LMI, Fred B. Schneider, Cornell University, and Michael G. Sovereign, Monterey, California. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch, Harvard University, and Robert J. Hermann, Global Technology Partners, LLC. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   TRANSFORMING THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS INTO A NETWORK-CENTRIC FORCE   11     1.1  The Promise of Network-Centric Operations (a Scenario),   12     1.2  Key Characteristics Needed to Achieve the Promise of Network-Centric Operations,   19     1.3  “Engineering the Vision”,   21     1.4  Where Are We Today?,   23     1.5  Addressing the Challenges,   25     1.6  Findings,   30 2   DEFINING FORCEnet   31     2.1  The Origin and Development of the FORCEnet Concept,   31     2.2  Definition of FORCEnet,   37     2.3  Dual-Spiral Coevolution,   41     2.4  Findings and Recommendations,   45 3   JOINT CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NETWORK-CENTRIC PLANS AND INITIATIVES   47     3.1  Introduction,   47     3.2  Requirements Prioritization and Acquisition,   48     3.3  Joint Concept Development and Experimentation,   54     3.4  Joint Testing—The Joint Distributed Engineering Plant,   61     3.5  Joint Training Transformation,   64

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy     3.6  Global Information Grid,   66     3.7  Coalition Operations,   71     3.8  Challenges in Bridging Network-Centric Concepts and Joint Capabilities,   72     3.9  Findings and Recommendations,   73 4   COEVOLUTION OF FORCEnet OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS AND MATERIEL   79     4.1  Introduction,   79     4.2  Coevolution of Operating Concepts and Technology into Warfighting Capabilities,   81     4.3  Concept Development,   83     4.4  The Role of Sea Trial,   97     4.5  Turning Requirements into Programs,   102     4.6  Program Acquisition,   104     4.7  Enabling Timely and Effective Coevolution,   105     4.8  Governance,   107     4.9 Findings and Recommendations,   110 5   FORCEnet ARCHITECTURE AND SYSTEM DESIGN   115     5.1  What It Takes to Achieve the FORCEnet Promise,   115     5.2  Architecture Definition and Process,   119     5.3  Status of Efforts to Realize the FORCEnet Architecture,   121     5.4  System Engineering Considerations,   129     5.5  Management of Operations,   131     5.6  Facilities,   134     5.7  Vulnerabilities and Solutions,   135     5.8  Findings and Recommendations,   138 6   SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT THE FORCEnet INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE   142     6.1  Overview and Background,   142     6.2  Enabling Technologies and Functional Capabilities,   144     6.3  Enabling Technologies Resulting from the Global Information Grid,   170     6.4  Science and Technology Program of the Office of Naval Research,   174     6.5  Summary Technology Findings and Recommendations for the FORCEnet Information Infrastructure,   179 7   IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY   186     7.1  Implementation Strategy Objectives,   186     7.2  Clarity of Purpose,   187

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy     7.3  Continuous Capability Evolution and Innovation,   188     7.4  Forcewide Perspective for Materiel Development,   197     7.5  Integration with Joint Developments,   202 8   ACCOUNTING OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE   210     APPENDIXES         A  Biographies of Committee Members and Staff   215     B  Agendas for Committee Meetings   222     C  Acronyms and Abbreviations   237

OCR for page R1
FORCEnet: Implementation Strategy This page intentionally left blank.