C4ISR FOR FUTURE NAVAL STRIKE GROUPS

Committee on C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups

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
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups C4ISR FOR FUTURE NAVAL STRIKE GROUPS Committee on C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 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
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 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 #22 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 0-309-09600-6 Additional copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and 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 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 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
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups COMMITTEE ON C4ISR FOR FUTURE NAVAL STRIKE GROUPS DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Centreville, Maryland, Co-Chair NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems Advanced Information Technologies, Co-Chair RICHARD E. BLAHUT, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign JOHN M. BORKY, Raytheon Corporation JOSEPH R. CIPRIANO, Lockheed Martin Information Technology ARCHIE R. CLEMINS, Boise, Idaho ANTHONY C. DIRIENZO, COLSA Corporation LEE HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University JAMES A. HENDLER, University of Maryland BARRY M. HOROWITZ, University of Virginia RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Defense Industries JERRY A. KRILL, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia JULIUS LONGSHORE, Northrop Grumman Corporation JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia JOHN J. SHAW, BAE Systems Advanced Information Technologies JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia JOHN F. VESECKY, University of California at Santa Cruz PETER J. WEINBERGER, Google, Inc. DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Study Director SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant (as of June 25, 2005) SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Consultant

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 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 Defense 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 Advanced Information Technologies 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) MR. 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 (from November 8, 2004, through October 13, 2005) RDML DAN W. DAVENPORT, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of October 14, 2005) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 (through January 19, 2006) RADM WILLIAM E. LANDAY III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 (as of January 20, 2006)

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 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) 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 (as of June 25, 2005)

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups Preface Recent conflicts have demonstrated that U.S. military forces need to be ever more responsive in their ability to reconfigure and redirect their global defense activities. Moreover, the Bush administration’s defense planning guidance requires that the U.S. military have the ability to distribute forces more widely than in the past in order to enhance forward deterrence and rapid response. As currently configured, today’s forward-deployed naval forces1 would be hard-pressed to meet these requirements. Therefore, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps recently put forth new organizational constructs and a Global Concept of Operations. The organizational constructs include the carrier strike group and the expeditionary strike group as key components of the global integrated naval force necessary to meet the forward-deterrence and rapid-response requirements of the defense strategy.2,3 1   Today’s forward-deployed naval forces are organized as follows: carrier battle groups (CVBGs), amphibious ready groups (ARGs), and surface action groups (SAGs). Specifically, a CVBG consists of an aircraft carrier, six surface combatants, two attack submarines, and one replenishment ship; an ARG consists of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), consisting of 2,300 Marines, with associated armor, artillery, aircraft, and vehicles embarked on amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport docks, and dock landing ships; and an SAG consists of variable numbers of surface combatants capable of long-range strike with Tomahawk cruise missiles and of augmenting fleet defense against a variety of threats. 2   ADM Vern Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; and Gen Michael W. Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 2003. Naval Operating Concept for Joint Operations, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., September 22. 3   VADM Mike Mullen, USN. 2003. “Global Concept of Operations,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April, pp. 66-69.

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups Under the new organizational constructs, it is envisioned that future naval strike groups will be assembled as follows: Carrier strike groups (CSGs). CSGs, which will remain the core of the Navy’s warfighting capability for dealing with major contingencies, will consist generally of an aircraft carrier, a cruiser (CG), two guided-missile destroyers (DDGs), a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), and a fast combat-support ship (T-AOE). Compared with today’s carrier battle group (CVBG), the CSG will have fewer surface combatants and submarines, although it is intended that the CSG continue in the role of providing air defense capabilities for shore- and sea-based joint and coalition forces, as well as strike capabilities against land and sea targets. Expeditionary strike groups (ESGs). ESGs, which are the major new element of this organizational construct, will consist of a standard three-ship amphibious ready group (ARG) augmented with a CG, two DDGs, an SSN, and a next-generation destroyer (DDX). The ESG is thus intended to be able, in low- to medium-threat environments, to defend itself against air, surface, and subsurface threats; provide a long-range strike capability with Tomahawk missiles; and provide naval surface fire support to its embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).4 While ESGs have been deployed, their status is regarded as somewhat experimental. Strike and missile defense surface action groups (SAGs). SAGs will be capable of operating independently or with CSGs or ESGs. In the near term, three Tomahawk land-attack missile (TLAM)-equipped SAGs will be established to provide additional independent strike capability, although it is envisioned that this capability will evolve to provide the foundation for a sea-based, mobile, ballistic missile defense capability for joint and allied forces ashore.5 4   The Naval Studies Board report entitled Network-Centric Naval Forces: A Transition Strategy for Enhancing Operational Capabilities, published in 2000, concluded that even in carrier battle groups, naval capabilities in strike warfare are limited by inadequate surveillance and targeting (Naval Studies Board, National Research Council. 2000. Network-Centric Naval Forces: A Transition Strategy for Enhancing Operational Capabilities, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.). The present study will identify the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) implications of future naval strike groups, including the Navy’s capabilities to provide reach-back support from the continental United States (CONUS). 5   The Naval Studies Board report entitled Naval Forces’ Capability for Theater Missile Defense, published in 2001, assessed naval force capabilities for self defense and for defense of forces ashore (Naval Studies Board, National Research Council. 2001. Naval Forces’ Capability for Theater Missile Defense, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.). The present study will examine these same missile defense considerations for enabling future naval strike groups. The Naval Studies Board has also conducted a separate workshop to examine Sea Basing (National Research Council. 2005. Sea Basing: Ensuring Joint Force Access from the Sea, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.).

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups Littoral combat ships (LCSs), when available, may be added to these groups as needed for additional protection in littoral areas. In addition to the benefit that each naval strike group brings to many types of operations, an expeditionary strike force (ESF), composed of CSGs, SAGs, ESGs, and the amphibious forces, could be employed for a major combat operation. Moreover, a mix of CSGs, ESGs, in-theater assets (e.g., guided-missile submarines and LCSs), and maritime surface groups (e.g., combat logistics force ships and maritime prepositioned force squadrons) could surge globally to form a large-scale expeditionary strike force in support of the Joint Force Commander (JFC). Whether naval strike groups are deployed independently or collectively as an ESF, however, their composition will vary and evolve in response to surrounding operational and technological developments. The need for ESGs, SAGs, and CSGs, and the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF[F]) to operate independently and to combine to form ESFs will increase the need for flexible, adaptive command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. This need will be further increased by the Fleet Response Plan,6 which increases deployment rates and is reducing the time available for the integration of the C4ISR systems and the training of the various maritime force packages. To be operationally effective, forward-deployed naval forces must be supported by naval and joint C4ISR capabilities. These capabilities are embodied in command-and-control practices, in the information infrastructure, and in sensors, together with the platforms to support them. These and other naval and joint capabilities are being transformed through new operating concepts and systems collected under the rubric of “network-centric warfare.” Network-centric warfare applies the integrating power of modern information technology to naval operations via FORCEnet,7 which will also take advantage of new unmanned vehicles and connections with joint initiatives such as the Global Information Grid (GIG). The different uses, configurations, and concepts of operation of future naval strike groups, as well as their continuing evolution, require a naval and joint C4ISR architecture that is sufficiently adaptable and interoperable to meet the 6   Commander, Fleet Forces Command. 2003. Fleet Response Plan, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., May 7   FORCEnet is the means by which the Department of the Navy seeks to operationalize network-centric warfare as outlined in Naval Operating Concept for Joint Operations (ADM Vern Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; and Gen Michael W. Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 2003. Naval Operating Concept for Joint Operations, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., September 22). The Naval Studies Board report Network-Centric Naval Forces provided the operational, technical, and acquisition-related specifics for the realization of network-centric warfare (Naval Studies Board, National Research Council. 2000. Network-Centric Naval Forces: A Transition Strategy for Enhancing Operational Capabilities, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.).

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups highly variable and changing needs that naval strike groups will be called on to meet, including those of operations with coalition and allied forces. For example, recent operations have shown that the ability to acquire mobile targets and deliver timely fires may depend on the integration of C4ISR capabilities that are supplied by other military forces (U.S. Air Force or Special Operations Forces). In summary, differently configured future naval strike groups enable the Department of the Navy to increase the number of its independent strike forces, and they provide JFCs with a choice of multimission force packages to meet their evolving objectives. Key to the scalability and operational effectiveness of these strike groups, however, is the Department of the Navy’s ability to develop and make effective use of an adaptable C4ISR architecture. This adaptability should also facilitate future upgrades as advances in C4ISR technology mature and are implemented in FORCEnet.8 TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the Department of the Navy, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council conducted a study to examine command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) for future naval strike groups, to include (1) carrier strike groups (CSGs), (2) expeditionary strike groups (ESGs), (3) strike and missile defense surface action groups (SAGs), and (4) an expeditionary strike force (ESF) composed of all three groups with in-theater assets as well as maritime surface groups (MSGs) consisting of combat logistics force ships and maritime prepositioning force squadrons. Specifically, the terms of reference for the study are as follows: Review the Department of Defense’s Operational Availability Campaign Analysis program as part of the overall Analytical Agenda, as well as the Defense Planning Scenario and Multi-Service Force Deployment programs used to provide the necessary insight into CSG, ESG, SAG, and MSG operations during major combat operations. Review the constitution and concepts of operations of each maritime group, as defined by the Department of the Navy, in the context of naval and joint operations these forces are intended to support. Identify C4ISR technology trends that promise to improve operational effectiveness of naval maritime forces in the future and should be considered in designing the C4ISR architecture for future adaptation. Recommend a C4ISR architecture for the entire—not separate—naval maritime force (i.e., CSGs, ESGs, SAGs, MSGs, expected shore-based reach-back 8   The Naval Studies Board conducted a study to assist the Department of the Navy in its approach to implementing FORCEnet (National Research Council. 2005. FORCEnet Implementation Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.).

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups entities) that would be utilized as part of a major combat operation. In particular, the C4ISR architecture should (a) enable appropriate command and control, (b) provide battlespace awareness necessary for force defense, and (c) provide targeting for power projection. The architecture should be sufficiently adaptable to (1) meet the needs of the defined future strike groups and potential evolution of these definitions, (2) interoperate with Joint assets, when available, and (3) facilitate future upgrades as C4ISR technology advances. Assess the C4ISR capabilities for each strike group within the context of the above recommended C4ISR architecture needed to support strategic, operational, and tactical objectives. The assessment should not be limited to systems, but should also examine new concepts of operations and organizational enhancements necessary to enable the recommended C4ISR architecture. THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH The approach of the Committee on C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups is rooted in the first item of its terms of reference: to focus on major combat operations. For the purposes of this report, the committee elected to focus on Sea Strike and Sea Shield missions for clarity of discussion and as a unifying theme. Hence the report focuses more on Navy issues than on Marine Corps issues. C4ISR for future naval srike groups has many aspects. Focusing on major combat operations, the committee emphasized in its considerations the naval missions of strike warfare, theater and air missile defense, and undersea warfare.9 The committee’s earlier discussions had led it to decide to limit the scope of the study to what could be adequately covered in the time available. Thus, other than taking into account issues of time-sensitive fire support, force tracking, and overland air defense, the committee did not consider C4ISR needs in support of maneuver warfare on land. Its considerations also emphasized C4ISR needs and prospects common to all strike groups. The committee also did not consider the issue of command ships. There is considerable overlap in content, but with differences in perspective, between the present study and the recently completed report on FORCEnet imple- 9   The National Research Council, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, is currently conducting a study entitled “The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror” (see <http://webapp/cp/projectview.aspx?key=307>). That study is addressing National Security Presidential Directive 41 (NSPD 41) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13. NSPD 41 sets out a new Maritime Security Policy establishing Maritime Domain Awareness as a key concept and commits the Navy and other agencies to actions in both the national security and homeland security domains. These directives have significant impact on the security context for future naval forces, the C4ISR requirements, and the relationship between naval forces and the Coast Guard.

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups mentation.10 FORCEnet Implementation Strategy complements this study, and it is recommended that both reports be read for the most complete picture. The Committee on C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups (biographies of the committee members are provided in Appendix A) convened in August 2004 and held additional meetings over a period of 6 months, both to gather input from the relevant communities and to discuss the committee’s findings.11 Agendas for these meetings are provided in Appendix B. The months between the committee’s last meeting and the 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. 10   National Research Council. 2005. FORCEnet Implementation Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 11   During the entire course of its study, the committee held meetings in which it received (and discussed) classified materials. However, the information contained in this report has been restricted in order to produce an unclassified report.

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 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: Norman Abramson, San Francisco, California, Frank Fernandez, Del Mar, California, Edward A. Frieman, University of California at San Diego, David E. Frost, USN (Ret.), Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bruce B. Knutson, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Tucson, Arizona, Stewart D. Personick, Bernardsville, New Jersey, and James Saunders, MITRE Corporation. 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 this report was overseen by Bruce Wald, Arlington, Virginia. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was 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
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   THE SECURITY CONTEXT FOR FUTURE NAVAL FORCES   15     1.1  The National Security Environment,   16     1.2  The Technological Environment,   24     1.3  Naval Operations,   31     1.4  Findings and Recommendations,   38 2   PRINCIPAL NAVAL MISSIONS AND C4ISR IMPACT   41     2.1  Purpose of This Chapter,   41     2.2  C4ISR Drivers to Naval Missions,   41     2.3  Sea Strike Missions,   48     2.4  Sea Shield Missions,   55     2.5  Communications and Computers for All Missions,   58     2.6  Implications for the CSG and ESG,   60     2.7  Findings and Recommendations,   65 3   ARCHITECTING AND BUILDING THE NAVAL C4ISR SYSTEM   70     3.1  Perspective,   70     3.2  The Fundamentals of a Network-Centric Information Architecture,   71     3.3  Implications of Network-Centric Architectures for the Department of the Navy,   75     3.4  The State of the Naval C4ISR Architecture,   80     3.5  Findings and Recommendations,   87

OCR for page R1
C4ISR for Future Naval Strike Groups 4   COMMAND-AND-CONTROL SYSTEMS   104     4.1  Introduction,   104     4.2  Current Command-and-Control Systems and Future Developments,   104     4.3  Common Operational Picture,   111     4.4  Command and Control with Service-Oriented Architectures,   114     4.5  Transitioning Legacy Command-and-Control Systems to a Network-Centric Enterprise,   126     4.6  Findings and Recommendations,   130 5   COMPUTERS   132     5.1  Composability and Architecture,   133     5.2  Technological Maturity,   135     5.3  Security for Service-Oriented Architectures,   141     5.4  Data Engineering for Service-Oriented Architectures,   142     5.5  Communications Systems and Service-Oriented Architectures,   143     5.6  Changing the Navy’s Approach for Developing and Supporting C4ISR Systems,   144     5.7  Findings and Recommendations,   148 6   COMMUNICATIONS   151     6.1  Current Naval Communications,   151     6.2  Future Naval Communications,   155     6.3  Major Issues,   156     6.4  Findings and Recommendations,   171 7   INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE   175     7.1  Introduction,   175     7.2  Key Current and Planned ISR Assets,   175     7.3  ISR Shortfalls with Current and Planned Systems,   182     7.4  ISR Architecture Overview,   191     7.5  Future Opportunities for Enhancing ISR,   200     7.6  Findings and Recommendations,   212     APPENDIXES         A  Biographies of Committee Members and Staff   221     B  Agendas for Committee Meetings   230     C  Information Assurance   245     D  Some Key ISR Assets, Current and Planned   250     E  Acronyms and Abbreviations   270