Generals discuss battle command improvements at AUSA annual meeting
By Matt McFarland
October 5, 2005
WASHINGTON, DC. (Army News Service, Oct. 5, 2005) – A panel discussed advancements in the battlefield technology Tuesday at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting. Lt. Gen. Steven Boutelle, the Army’s chief information officer/G6, led the panel entitled, “Improved Capabilities for Battle Command.”
Other members of the panel included Brig. Gen. William Rajczak, the deputy director for the Joint Forces Command, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Foley, the director of information operations in the office of the chief information officer/G6, Maj. Gen. Dennis Moron, the vice director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Brig. Gen. Randolph Strong, the commander of the Army Signal School.
Technology and the future
A common theme was Internet protocol, what’s known as IP. The move to communicating over the Internet will allow the Army to become a small and agile force, said Boutelle. Such information technologies have already been used in Iraq and Afghanistan and has received positive reviews. “The everything over IP world is where we need to be,” said Boutelle.
Boutelle discussed the command post of the future, which will allow commanders to visualize the battlefield three dimensionally. Plans are quickly being moved into mainstream development programs. These technological developments allow commanders to take in a wealth of information, the challenge is turning it into usable data.
Moron shared the vision of net-centric operations. Yet reminded those present that if data isn’t protected, the technology is useless. He also stressed the shared interests of all forces in technological developments.
“We’re all interested in the same capabilities, such as where are your buddies.” He closed his remarks by emphasizing that joint interdependence equates to combat power. To ensure systems are compatible, they must be born as joint projects.
Planning is key to success
To make these advancements happen successfully, proper planning is necessary.
Rajczak discussed the roadmap he has worked on for implementing plans to continue to provide battle command with the best technology. The first roadmap has already been completed and approved. Work on a second roadmap are already underway.
“We want to create the best, most meaningful document for the community,” said Rajczak.
Currently there are more than 150 command and control systems. “It is our challenge and opportunity to weed them down, identify the good ones, and good forward with them,” said Rajczak. His office, the Joint Forces Command Center takes the best programs of one service branch and integrating across all forces.
“The bottom line is if we are not developing the interoperability capabilities of today then we are creating the problems of tomorrow,” said Rajczak.
During his remarks Foley underscored the importance of the network for battlefield command. One major improvement in battle commands has been the significant increase in bandwidth. Thanks to the use of the latest technology like L band terminals, “we are communicating in every direction,” said Foley.
Foley also laid out future goals such as extending the AKO and Central Command networks to the Pacific. His mission has been assisted by current combat operations.
“We are taking advantage of what’s going on in Iraq to better prepare the 101st [Airborne Division] and others,” said Foley.
Sustained training essential
Strong commented on the importance of educating our forces to ensure success. He called education a growth business, which provides an exponential return on investments.
The Army has established a cycle to keep Soldiers up to speed with new developments. “When shells are coming in and bullets are flying, they need to know what to do when the network goes down,” said Strong.
He said that no other career field faces the fundamental changes that technological developments cause in the information technology world. Because of this, Strong sees training and education as essential.
Strong also commented on the importance of equipment simulators. They are often cheaper than the equipment itself; however, you can only train so much on simulators. Strong strives to find the right mix between training with simulators and the actual equipment.
The panel’s comments were a pitch to their partners in the commercial sector to help provide the right products.
“We think we know where we’re going but we need the help of our partners,” said Boutelle.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
