SUPPORT FOR ARMY DIGITIZATION...

[Random H0Z3R <nobody@c2.org>]

============================================================================
SUBJECT:  SUPPORT FOR ARMY DIGITIZATION EXTENSIVE BUT CONCERNS ARISE
SOURCE:   Phillips Publishing via Fulfillment by INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
DATE:     June 30, 1994
INDEX:    [6]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  DEFENSE DAILY via INDIVIDUAL, Inc. -- Despite widespread support for the
Army's multi-billion dollar digitization effort, concern is beginning to
mount in the Pentagon and Congress about aspects of the program, including
intraservice coordination, requirements, funding and interoperability.
  Officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on Capitol Hill
realize digitization, the buzz word for the Army's plan to pass information
rapidly between disparate platforms, is a complex task and have thrown their
support behind the effort.

  Emmett Paige, Jr., assistant secretary of defense for command, control,
communications and intelligence, says the "Army is off to a good start."

  "I have no real concerns" about the service's plans, Paige told Defense
Daily in a telephone interview.

  While others in OSD also support digitization, some are beginning to focus
on a host of crucial issues they believe the Army must resolve.

  One such concern is that "different components of the Army perceive
[digitization] differently," a senior OSD official believes. Since
digitization involves various Army sectors, ranging from the Training and
Doctrine Command to the Communications-Electronics Command, the perspective
OSD receives "depends on who's doing the talking."

  In response, the Pentagon is counting on the Army Digitization Office to
bring things together.

  Requirements are also a source of concern. OSD believes they must be
developed prior to material solutions or architectures. A congressional
source agrees, saying the service is putting the "cart before the horse" by
developing an acquisition strategy without "definitized requirements."

  The massive digitization requirements process has proven slow-moving and
somewhat contentious, according to service sources (Defense Daily, June 20).

  Interoperability is also a central consideration. "There appears to be no
involvement of the Navy or Air Force at this point," although it may be a
little "early to worry about that," according to the senior OSD source.

  Paige, though, said he has no doubt the Army realizes the "other services
must be included as we digitize the battlefield." Specifically, he says, the
"C4I for the Warrior concept is recognized in everything the services are
doing today." Developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, C4I for the Warrior
stresses interoperability and joint operations.

  Interoperability is also on the minds of lawmakers. This year, they pushed
the Army to focus on interoperability with the Marines; next year they will
emphasize interoperability with the Navy and Air Force, a congressional
source says. Interoperability with the allies will be stressed the following
year.

  A Defense Science Board summer study on the information architecture for
the battlefield is dealing with such interoperability issues, according to
Paige. The board hopes its study, slated for completion in late-September,
will provide the Army with the "processes to evolve interoperability
issues," a source says.

  The task, however, is a difficult one, he concedes. "It's one thing to
have an architecture; another to control the builders."

  Indeed, development of an overall systems architecture is a primary
concern of Congress. The service at this point has "no standards, protocols
or interface requirements" but it is proceeding with billion-dollar digital
upgrades to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and M1A2 tank, the congressional
source says.

  Turning to specific systems, OSD is interested in how the digitization
effort will affect a range of existing C4I equipment, including the Army
Battle Command System, Mobile Subscriber Equipment, the Single Channel
Ground and Airborne Radio System and the Enhanced Position Location
Reporting System, according to the senior OSD official.

  OSD plans to "force the Army to come up here and tell us how [the systems]
fit and not be duplicative," he notes.

  As expected, in tough budget times, money is also a central concern. The
service has probably underestimated the cost of digitization "200-400
percent," the congressional source argues. The Defense Science Board is also
concerned about the amount of funding the Army will need to execute its
strategy.

 The Army has placed the value of the portion of the digitization effort it
will compete to industry at over $1 billion. Army charts show the Army
Digitization Office will oversee over $8 billion in digitization funding
into the next century (Defense Daily, June 23).

  At this point, both OSD and Congress are willing to give the service more
time to work out the problems associated with digitization.

  "We'll give them a chance to get started," the senior OSD source notes,
but "we'll ultimately decide whether the acquisition strategy makes sense."
It "could get changed."

[06-30-94 at 18:00 EDT, Copyright 1994, Phillips Publishing, Inc., File:
d0630009.8sd]