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
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.
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
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)
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-
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. |
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.
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
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.