Accounting of the Terms of Reference
The following reproduces in italics the terms of reference of the study with responses and references to specific recommendations in Chapter 7 interpolated.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Naval Studies Board of the National Academies will conduct a study to assist the Department of the Navy in its approach to implementing FORCEnet. In particular, the study will examine:
The completeness and adequacy of the current definition of FORCEnet, particularly as it supports the concepts presented in Sea Power 21.
The CNO’s definition is complete and adequate, but needs to be more widely understood. See recommendations (1) and (2). FORCEnet is the operational construct and architectural framework for the naval forces. It is more than an information infrastructure.
The means for and status of efforts developing and analyzing the operational concepts and associated operational architectures based upon projected FORCEnet capabilities.
Insufficient resources are being applied to developing and analyzing the operational concept. See recommendations (3) through (8). Program assessments should be based on operational architectures, which usually span more than one of the current Naval Capability Packages. See recommendations (9) and (10).
The meaning and mechanisms of “FORCEnet compliance.” This aspect of the study will assess and recommend augmenting, as appropriate, current efforts to determine (1) the technical architecture (including standards and associated rules) for FORCEnet, (2) the meaning of compliance for individual force components (e.g., specific platforms, networks), and (3) the mechanisms (e.g., policy directives) for achieving compliance with the architecture.
FORCEnet compliance is much more than meeting information interoperability specifications. Invariant boundaries must be established along the lines of the NAVSEA open architecture and ASD (NII)’s Net-centric Checklist as the preferable approach to interoperability. See recommendations (18) and (19).
The means for achieving the necessary integration and alignment of the various force components—including the technical approaches for the integration, the feasibility of implementing these approaches, the use of modeling and simulation, testing, and the cost implications of so doing.
ASN(RDA) and PEOs should establish system engineering and integration capabilities (see recommendations (20) and (21)), and, in particular, develop a FORCEnet Distributed Engineering Plant (see recommendation (22)).
The adequacy of current organizational responsibilities and relationships in the Navy and Marine Corps for implementing FORCEnet.
Mechanisms are needed that coordinate activities in three spheres: concept and requirements formulation, resourcing, and acquisition. Fleet representation on the ASN(RDA)’s Executive Committee is needed. Establish either a Board co-chaired by the ASN(RDA) and VCNO or a Director, FORCEnet reporting to CNO and ASN(RDA). See recommendations (11) and (14).
The role and types of experimentation needed in developing operational concepts, assessing technical feasibility, and identifying implementation opportunities related to FORCEnet.
Broaden the role of NETWARCOM beyond that of information infrastructure. See recommendations (5) and (7). Ensure that Sea Trial management processes do not stifle experimentation with emerging technical opportunities. See recommendation (6).
The means for leveraging relevant Joint initiatives and those of other Services and the National community, and likewise for influencing those initiatives. Areas considered will include command and control, interoperability, analysis, modeling and simulation, and experimentation.
Continue to work with JFCOM and regional Combatant Commanders to broaden experimental perspectives and converge naval and joint concept development (see recommendations (23) and (24)) while analyzing the applicability of joint concepts and information infrastructure to naval tactical operations (see recommendations (25) through (28)) and exploiting developments as they become available (see recommendation (29)). Work with the ASD (NII) to understand the capabilities and limitations of the GIG. See recommendation (33).
The opportunities for implementing FORCEnet operational concepts and technical capabilities in both the near and longer terms, and means for establishing priorities among those opportunities. Consideration should be given to how to transition such capabilities quickly to the fleet through existing or alternative acquisition mechanisms.
Seek increased flexibility in resource allocation and streamline internal naval processes. See recommendations (11) through (13). CNO in conjunction with ASN(RDA) should set goals and dates with periodic CFFC progress reviews. See recommendations (15) through (17).
The study should consider the above issues in light of ongoing studies and initiatives related to FORCEnet implementation.
Appendix B lists the studies and initiatives that were formally presented to the committee.